James Howard Kunstler frequently likes to refer to this term in his interviews and publications as the reason why people refuse to give up the vision of suburban sprawl in society. He argues that people feel as though we’ve invested so much in suburbia that they are unlikely to give it up.

I passionately disagree.

The entire notion of suburbia is demolish and build a new, without consideration of existing resources or their benefit. Suburbia is concerned largely about how profits can be maximized in the now, and does not care about the historical value of buildings. If we can better value out of a piece of land by building a high rise or a freeway on it, the suburban answer is, built it.

There is no value to old buildings or structures; if it can be shown that the new is more valuable then what we have invested in the past. Suburbia says that the past must be demolished for the future. Sunk costs don’t count in suburbia, as they are considered relics of the past. The future is what is seen as key in suburbia.

As energy costs continue to increase, and there is a desire for more social cohesion, downtowns will start to boom. We call that gentrification, and it's happening across our country. The farthest out suburbs, not serviced by mass transit, will be the first to see a decline in value. Eventually, distant suburban developments will succumb to other more profitable developments, such as agricultural land.

People can build houses and other structures. They can also demolish them. In the name of progress, large sections of our urban cores where demolished in second half the 20th century, to build superhighways and massive office buildings. There is no reason the same can’t happen to sprawling suburbs if energy prices increase in the 21st century.

Current economics drives development. Cheap energy makes suburban sprawl an economical prospect in the short run. More expensive energy will bring development more towards our urban cores and other places where work is done and profitable activities. It will force farms closer to the city, and make small scale farming that uses less energy more profitable.

People say that development is irrevocable. They say one a shopping center or house is built it will forever remain on that land. Yet, that is an incredibly short sided view of history. Already, many of the shopping centers from the 1950s have been demolished and replaced with other uses. There is no reason why a shopping center could not be demolished to create pasture land for cattle or for growing other crops, if economics demand it.

Development may compact soils, leave them nutrient weak, and leach toxins into the soil. Yet, a site left undisturbed over time will rectify those problems. Humans know how to clean up many messes, and make soils more desirable in accelerated time period. If man can destroy a site, he can with the help of nature, restore back to a state that is close to natural or desirable.

Man once farmed and lived on much more land then he does now. Small scale farms sprawled over many acres of land, which have since revered back to forests. Houses where built, only to be abandoned or demolished, and only leaving the smallest traces of their existence. Mankind will change as economics change.