have traded distance from the central urban core where they work in exchange for cheaper housing in the suburbs. This bargain will become increasingly untenable as the cheaper suburban housing becomes more expensive driven by rising commuting costs. "The proliferation of smaller manufacturing firms will make smaller metros more economically viable." If, in fact, this tension arises, there are two ways that it could be resolved: investing in cheaper mass transit systems that link far-flung suburbs to the employment centers. Or, by a gradual dispersion of firms to suburban and exurban communities around the core metro and to small- and mid-sized cities outside the large metro sphere. I'd be delighted if the former occurred but I'm betting that the planning and investments required to make it happen will prove to be too daunting and that, ultimately, people will prefer defined communities in which they both work and live, and in which they can feel more in control of the community's destiny. I'm also betting that the economy and the proliferation of smaller manufacturing firms (many of which will be "on-shored" back from foreign countries) will make smaller metros more economically viable. Whether right or wrong about rising energy costs (many have been wrong before me,) I'd continue to bet on suburbs and exurbs. Although I suspect we'll see these communities develop more defined walkable environments and become more than mere bedroom communities. But if energy costs do rise, I'd definitely bet on the increased dispersion of firms to suburbs and