<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: To Thrive, Suburbs Might Become More Urban</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/20/to-thrive-suburbs-might-become-more-urban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/20/to-thrive-suburbs-might-become-more-urban/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/20/to-thrive-suburbs-might-become-more-urban/comment-page-1/#comment-160011</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=96901#comment-160011</guid>
		<description>From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-19-suburbs_N.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the &lt;i&gt;USA Today&lt;/i&gt; article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Places that have done the worst are places where basically real estate was the economic engine,&quot; says Ed McMahon, senior research fellow at the Urban Land Institute, a non-profit group that promotes sustainable development.&lt;/blockquote&gt;I interpret this to mean that the &quot;growth&quot; in past years was from new construction, based on the rising-ever-upward housing market. 

So if that kind of growth was sham growth, what does that say about our whole economy&#039;s growth in recent years? Sarah&#039;s right; becoming more urban, with jobs and cheaper housing, is probably the only way forward. Great post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-19-suburbs_N.htm" rel="nofollow">the <i>USA Today</i> article</a>:<br />
<blockquote>&#8220;Places that have done the worst are places where basically real estate was the economic engine,&#8221; says Ed McMahon, senior research fellow at the Urban Land Institute, a non-profit group that promotes sustainable development.</blockquote></p>
<p>I interpret this to mean that the &#8220;growth&#8221; in past years was from new construction, based on the rising-ever-upward housing market. </p>
<p>So if that kind of growth was sham growth, what does that say about our whole economy&#8217;s growth in recent years? Sarah&#8217;s right; becoming more urban, with jobs and cheaper housing, is probably the only way forward. Great post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

