dolanbaker wrote:It is that invisible hand that will "guide" them in this direction, along with planning laws and the like that will make suburban loving living increasingly difficult in the longer term future.
Where are these progressive planning laws going to come from? I'm still seeing McManions sprout up all around me.
The invisible hand is only as forceful as the water in the pot that the frog boils in. The negative feedbacks come so late in the game that it's not something I'm relying on to temper my doomerism.
dolanbaker wrote:Governments usually have a way to "encourage" their citizens into doing "the right thing".
What makes you think the government will even know what "the right thing" is? Governments still subscribe to a "growth=good" mentality and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
dolanbaker wrote:After all, we're a long way away from one of the original reasons for having a suburban/dispersed population, that is one that is less likely to be wiped out by a nuclear strike. Don't forget that modern suburbs appeared at the start of the cold war.
I haven't heard that theory before. Not buying the argument, frankly. The white picket fence has been described as a white-flight from the city as well as a way for the middle-class to feel they had their own proverbial castle. Demonize it all you want, but it's what people wanted for their own definition of improved quality of life.
I still think the rhetoric spouted about how awful quality of life is in the suburbs is misguided. To a lot of people, it sure a shell beats a shithole apartment in the city, especially for families with young kids who want yards and a safe neighborhood. So if you are thinking governments would start turning the thumbscrews in order to squeeze out suburbs, I doubt it. It would be political suicide.