I enjoyed that post. None of this responds directly to your post, but I have these thoughts on the topic (sorry for the soapbox, I recently read an interesting book on this subject by Joel Kotkin, called The City: A Global History, so I'm feeling like I know more than I actually do):
Personally, I think the perils of sprawling, suburban culture are overstated. I’m not saying the oft-stated problems aren’t real or that they’re minor. But, in my humble and ignorant opinion, people overly romanticize car-less cultures. A family of 5 making median-income spends a ridiculous percentage of its income on rent in a high-density, car-less culture. Meanwhile, many cities that are criticized for being too car-dependent and sprawling actually give the family of 5 making median income a chance to own a house without having to spend an absurd proportion of its income on housing.
I also don’t understand the oft-stated assumption that car-less cultures are more sociable than car-dependent cultures. I’d venture a guess that a lot more people in burbs get to know their neighbors than in a car-less culture, because car-less cultures in America seem so transient to me. If anything, I think high density, car-less cultures encourage people to move a lot and have fewer kids. But I could be wrong.
I see more self-sustaining burbs as the solution to the standard burban problems of too much time spent in a car and too much disconnect from local community. If we have burbs that can essentially act as their own villages with their own office buildings, local restaurants, museums, etc. outside a larger city than people can have a sense of local community, and they won’t have to spend 90 minutes a day driving to and from work.

Eric: Thanks for your post. I have read your book and am very interested in this topic. I appreciate you bringing this issue to light as something Christians should consider.
That being said, I am concerned about the assumption you are making that equates "greater community" with less driving/New Urbanism/Smart Growth/etc. It is this particular feature of many in the New Urbanist movement that I disagree with.
As someone with a degree in geography and one who has done demographic and behavioral studies for national retailers and restaurants, I can certainly understand the hypothesis that "suburban sprawl" has been the primary cause of the lack of community (gemeinschaft) in America. But correlation does not equal causation, as I am sure you know.
I do think that having community is one of the great issues of our culture that both Christians and non-Christians alike desire. But I think that it is a mistake to look at urban design as the cause.
The neighborhood I grew up in Atlanta was very much the quintessential suburban sprawl neighborhood: cul-de-sacs, large yards with large setbacks, no sidewalks, etc. Yet we had a tremendous amount of community in our neighborhood. There wasn't a single house that I have never been in. I couldn't get in too much trouble growing up because everyone knew me and would tell my parents.
I think that Randy Frazee makes a similar point in his outstanding book, The Connecting Church. He shows how creating community has more to do with purpose and making oneself vulnerable and transparent to ones neighbors has a far greater impact than developing "walkable neighborhoods".
I also lived in a New Urbanist neighborhood in San Diego for a few years. It had all the characteristics that one would expect: sidewalks, community greenspace, easy walking to restaurants and shops. Yet there was a tremendous lack of community. When we finally moved, my neighbor came over and said how much they would miss us and then called me by the wrong name. :)
I hope I haven't been too critical of you Eric. I very much appreciate your perspective and would love to have some dialogue with you on this topic, either here or via email. Your book was actually the impetus for a group of my friends in Atlanta (about 20) to start getting together on a regular basis to discuss issues like this (and drink beer and smoke cigars).
Peace,
Dignan

In reading the above comments on Eric's piece, I am struck by the lack of consideration of issues beyond human community. I am a great believer in the importance of such community--our lives are severly impoverished without it. At the same time, I am concerned that community can become an idol of its own. While some desperately need community, others need to think about how to draw limits--not simply for their own sanity, but also for ecological issues, among other things.
For instance, after my short 25 years, I have good friends all over the nation, and I want to visit them. But on this weekend where 40 million Americans (I think)are traveling, perhaps it is appropriate to wonder when and where to draw the line. Is it appropriate, or even necessary, to sacrifice relationships for ecological issues? Frankly, the churches I have gone to have not given me very good resources for answering this question, but I think the answer is yes.
More related to the above, even if suburbs were actually better at facilitating human community, and even if they do allow people to find affordable homes, nonetheless, if the 'burbs are contributing to pollution on a massive scale, is this reason enough to resist suburban sprawl? I think so. Or what if the most vibrant church in your city can only be reached by car, while the church two blocks away has a bad preacher and a youth group with 3 kids--does spiritual vibrancy trump ecological responsibility here? I don't think it should, but I fear that it usually does. Perhaps a step towards remedying this myopia is to broaden our conception of community to welcome nonhuman creatures into our midst. Human community is certainly important, but I wish we were challenged a little more often to stay out of our cars out of love for "the least of these"--that is,not just poor and sick people, but the animals and plants that suffer from our inability (or unwillingness) to limit ourselves.
To return to Eric's opening question, I think that at the very least we can agree that Jesus would drive as little as possible (and possibly not at all!), because not only is he our Shepherd--He is the Shepherd of all of creation.

Patrick: On what basis do you say that Jesus would drive as little as possible. I wouldn't agree with that assertion and I think you would have a very difficult time proving so. Driving does not equal killing creation.

Patrick,
You have made a strong case. Not against driving automobiles but you have argued that driving the type of cars that we do is “integral to the self image” of the citizens of this country. What needs to be addressed more from the pulpit is that our identity is in a H3 or a Hy-Bird and not in Christ (and it is arguable that spending money on a hy-bird at this point would be in poor stewardship of the money God has given us). We need to begin preaching that our identity is in Christ alone.
As for your point on creation… Flushing out your logic a bit more would mean that the rise of cities – even first century cities - is not the best stewardship of creation, urban centers have always displaced many of God’s creations. And I think the Scriptures show us that humans are moving from the garden (Genesis) to the city (Revelation). One cannot limit a displacement of creations to automobiles. One would have to conclude that Jesus would not live in cities as well as not drive.
The argument about attending a church in one’s neighborhood is not an issue about environment but it is one of ecclesiasiology! Which ought to be addressed every Sunday from the pulpit.

John, I confess I am a bit confused about what you wrote. Are you saying that the real problem is that too many people trust in hybrid ("hy-bird" is what you wrote...is that a particular model?) cars for their salvation rather than in Christ alone? If so, I feel that this is a bit of a conversation stopper. I am attempting to write these thoughts from a Christian perspective to Christians. The issue is not whether we should worship Christ, on the one hand, or the environment on the other; rather, the pressing question is what it actually means to follow Christ in this world. "Trusting in Christ alone" in my view does not mean simply to pray the sinner's prayer, get others to pray it, and then wait for the Rapture. God has called us to be co-laborers in the advancement of his Kingdom here on Earth. And I think part of this work includes stewarding the Creation so that it can give fitting testimony to its Creator. This doesn't mean no cars or no cities, but it certainly means being a bit more mindful of the costs of multitudes of big cars and enormous cities. And unfortunately, one rarely hears such a challenge coming from our churches.
Dignan, regarding your reminder about the benefits of having cars, I completely agree. I need to preface all this by saying that I have a car and I love to travel. So I feel a bit ambivalent. Certainly, cars and electricity have brought many good things into the world--the ability to travel, advanced medical care and access to this care, more economic prosperity and a higher standard of living. These are good things. I just think we need to be aware of the costs, and we need to be willing to sacrifice our American comforts and conveniences when and where they conflict with our responsibilities to care for the Creation. Indeed, this is not a black and white issue. This is a matter of trade offs. Unfortunately, however, most people don't conceive of this as a trade off. The downsides of economic growth and modern transportation are rarely considered by anyone outside the environmentalist camp. I think this is tragic.

John, what I am trying to argue is that those 30 gallons of gas are actually part of God's kingdom and that the way they are used (or not used) is actually an issue that should be considered by those who follow Christ and trust him alone. The purpose of a pulpit, it seems to me, is not simply to repeat "Trust in Christ alone" over and over again; it is also to teach those who so trust to live lives that honor God in this world. A significant aspect of such a Christ-centered life is, as you mention, relationships that honor God--fellowship with other Christians and evangelism to those who do not believe. But in my view, relationships and personal piety are far from the whole of the Christian life; we have a responsibility to honor God in all spheres--in business, art, politics, and in our stewardship of the environment. The natural world is NOT "God's gift to us as Americans"; it is first and foremost, God's creation for himself. He has called us to steward this gift--to care for it, to use it carefully and thoughtfully, and to do it in a way that honors him. Relationships are not more important than this work. To be sure, the Kingdom is more important than 30 gallons of gas, but 30 gallons of gas, in my opinion, are not unimportant in the Kingdom.

Alex,
The "who wins and who loses" effects are certainly present in any economy. For example, my esteemed uncle is a tax and estate attorney and we have talked about how proposed changes in the tax code would hurt his firm.
His industry (and also the IRS) would shrink at least somewhat if our society moved away from income taxes and if it ended estate taxes (as is being debated in Congress now). If the US moves to a flat tax or consumption tax of some sort, lots of attorneys and IRS employees won't be needed.
Someone wins, someone loses...trade-offs. Sometimes technology and social forces bring these changes, but often it's a matter of who is making the laws that determine who wins and loses.
What Eric Jacobsen is proposing (I think) is creating incentives for people to densify in urban areas so that the automobile industry will lose and community will win. Patrick is adding to that (I think), let the automobile industry lose so that creation (the environement) can win.

I'd love to hear as well. The Communal Guy is elusive.

David,
Personally, I think the features of New Urbanism that you mention are appealing. I like the idea of wide sidewalks, houses set somewhat close to the street, houses set relatively close to one another. I like the idea of public spaces where people can congregate, stroll, play, etc. I see how those things would enhance the likelihood of me interacting with my neighbors.
But I've also lived in a part of Boston in which we had no yards and each house was pressed close to the other (is this Old Urbanism?). The bubble problem you mention about the suburbs still pertained in this urban environment. But with all that choreographed proximity to each other, my neighbors and I hardly EVER spoke. Sure, we saw each other, but we didn't make eye contact, kept our heads down and didn't interact. I interpreted the signs of the culture to say, "Everyone keep to themselves. I don't dislike you but let's just keep to ourselves." Maybe New Urbanism has features that specifically trump old urban neighborhoods but as far as I can tell, seeing my neighbors a lot didn't increase our community. We all kept our distance even in very close proximity.