As I mentioned in the "too small" thread in this forum, I've been reading a lot of a blog called "Granola Shotgun". I don't remember quite who pointed me to it (it wasn't here, I don't think). The writer is based in California but ranges all over the country. He discusses architecture, urbanism, suburbanism, ruralism, and more. The post that suckered me into reading was titled, "Let’s Cut the Crap and Embrace Reality".
His points:
- We have the built environment that we have and very little of it is ever going to change much physically: "Almost everything ever built in North America has been built since World War II. And nearly all of it is suburban in nature [...] There’s so much of it that even if we wanted to radically transform it all into something different it would take decades."
- We aren’t going to alter the rules or procedures that govern what gets built to any meaningful degree in most places: "Once [regulations] are established it’s incredibly hard to change any part of the system. All the interlocking and self reinforcing institutions and cultural norms resist change" (n.b., he's not necessarily anti-gubmint; many of these regulations exist for safety reasons [cf. Grenfell Tower] but others exist to manage population types or uses and those are the regulations he believes needs to change)
- Most local governments don’t have the resources to maintain all the existing infrastructure and public services so winners and losers will emerge as triage sets in: "Winners" won't always be the shiny white suburbs and rural citizens may need to get over the idea of having parity with city-dwellers.
- Change will absolutely occur, but it will take two forms: large expensive official projects, and sub rosa adaptive behavior: "The primary requirement for getting a waiver from the usual constraints is to build something really expensive and make sure the right people get a piece of the pie. Money must be strategically spread around"
- Exogenous forces will be the drivers of change: "There will be new [regional] winners and losers shaped by natural cycles, demographic shifts, geopolitics, financial disruptions, resource constraints, and the unintended vulnerabilities enabled by technology."
The guy doesn't have any letters after his name AFAIK. But he presents an overall premise that has been resonating with me for some time. Constant expansion and consumption does not seem sustainable for the U.S. or the entire world. Not in building/taming open spaces. Not in finances. Not in health care. Not to go all Tea Party on folks, but the stock market does not always go up and even single-payer health care will have to put some limits on care based on the number of people who can/have to pay into the system. I don't believe most Americans are used to thinking there are limits; nor do I believe most of them have the maturity and will to discuss the hard decisions coming up. I also don't believe this is limited to Americans, as we watch a large percentage of Britons figure out that maybe Brexit isn't going to be the "friends-with-benefits" relationship they hoped it would be.
I invite you to spend a couple of hours reading "Johnny's" blog. Even if you don't agree with him fully (or at all), it's thought-provoking reading.