Will anything redeem suburban ’sprawl’?
June 30th, 2009Came across a great article over at Huffington Post. Mark Oppenheimer asks some interesting questions about the ongoing debate between New Urbanist and proponents of suburan “sprawl” (not sure they have a collective name). Mark writes:
I don’t know. On the one hand, I don’t want to underestimate children’s capacity for self-mystification. I suspect that most children, at least most of those who grow up middle-class, and sheltered from anything too abysmal in the family’s home life, look back at their early years with a certain sense of awe and wonder. Those lookalike houses in Del Boca Vista Estates are not lookalike to the children inside them, who know which house has the best video-game system, which kid has the dad who makes the best forts with the dining room table and some blankets, whose parents go out late and don’t hire a babysitter (all the better for watching verboten TV channels).
On the other hand, there is empirical evidence that suburban life of this kind can lead to bad things: obesity, too much time in the car, fewer friends, less play. And teenagers — forget about it. If they can, they flee to the city. Or at least the curious ones do.
But what I don’t have are good sympathetic non-fiction books about life in suburban sprawl. For every book critical of that way of life — Langdon’s book, Duany et al.’s Suburban Nation, Ray Oldenburg’s The Great Good Place — there seem to be exactly zero books about why it can be pleasurable to grow up in spaces that are, after all, safe, predictable, and quiet, which are all good things.
I want the other side of the story. Ideas, anyone?
It seems like a fair question to me. There surely is another side to the story and there must be people that like to live on the outer edge of suburbia. I mean, they choose to live there, right? One of the commenters – Steve Mouzon – says that yes, there are some who like to live there, but many suburbanites are simply there because they lack options. He use some rough estimates to make a point, but the point is still interesting to consider:
grew up in suburbia, and could go on for pages about its deficiencies, but that would just be anecdotal, wouldn’t it? If you discount the “sprawl lobby” that is funded by the asphalt companies or the road-builders, then you’re right: you find precious little sympathy for sprawl. ESPECIALLY concerning its lovability. Maybe that’s a clue.
The bottom line is that sprawl proliferated not because it was well-loved, but because it was the only choice of an industrial-grade land development system that actually outlawed everything else. When the New Urbanism began, all of its proposals were either illegal or otherwise impossible, even though its principles were based on the places in each region that people loved the most.
In the end, we’ve built so much sprawl that it now constitutes half of American buildings. Let’s assume for a moment that 1/3 of Americans loved sprawl. That’s dubious, given your noted lack of evidence of sympathy for sprawl. But just being generous, let’s assume that 100 million of 300 million Americans love sprawl. But if half (150 million) live in sprawl, then we have huge oversupply of sprawl. To eat up the oversupply, America would have to grow from 300 million to 450 million so that the 1/3 (150 million) who possibly love sprawl could match the sprawl units. That means we’d need to build 150 million units of New Urbanism and not a single new unit of sprawl to meet the market preferences.
Interesting food for thought.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I think there are a few other forces behind the lovability of sprawl: White flight, a psychological need for space, and the proliferation of the suburban lifestyle as the American ideal. Suburbia made sense at one time (and still does for millions of Americans). Before our inner cities became gentrified, would most of us have wanted to live there? My take is that 20-somethings are flocking to the cities for the novelty. The pendulum is swinging in Hegelian fashion. After a decade or two we will return to wanting a balance between rush and retreat.
I say all of these things as one who is thrilled with New Urbanism and generally bored with suburbia, stylistically. The reality is that real life happens no matter what your neighborhood looks like.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I’ve always wondered how many people fled to the ‘burbs specifically because they didn’t want to wind up in some inner-city school district.
And I wonder, given today’s OMG OUR CHILDREN ARE UNDER ATTACK! atmosphere, where everyone and everything is perceived as a threat, if it’s even possible to lure families back to the middle of town.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
One more thought: urbanism is attractive these days because it validates the need for living in community. However, at its extreme, big cities become enemies of community by promoting a cold insularity that ironically discourages human connection. We may be talking about architecture and engineering designs on the surface, but this discussion is really about people and how environments shape us psychologically.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:32 am
Kris, I would strongly argue with your point about big cities becoming enemies of community. (To set the ‘extreme,’ at least here in the US it doesn’t get bigger than New York.) Having spent just over 20 years of my life in Oklahoma City, and the most recent five in New York City I would have to say that that both offer “community.” They are just different types of communities.
Suburban developments are wonderful for the protection they offer in the larger ideas of ‘tribal’ or ‘herd’ like notions of social organization. The problem is that if you don’t mesh with the established norm of that particular community, one is marginalized, or at worst ostracized. (For most of us, our “community” is decided for us, either by birth or by relocation?) In a larger city, you can find your community and a place more readily. But the larger city is about proximity/density, not just pure numbers. A true physical community doesn’t mean much if time and proximity are stretched to its limits.
The pro about suburban communities would be it provides a personally attainable solution to our needs for space. Cities like New York provide it thorough public amenities like Central Park, Riverside Park, etc. but they are not “mine,” only “ours.” (which I would argue reinforces the community aspects of cities vs the individual aspect of suburban development)
But all of those issues are not the root of the problem. There is downside of suburban development that is rarely addressed directly. The problem is about EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES – including people, material, land, and time – and where we are placing our importance regarding that efficiency.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:32 am
“The reality is that real life happens no matter what your neighborhood looks like.”
Kris — While this is true, the layout and make-up of your neighborhood does affect whether people actually *see* real life happening around them every day (outside of their own life). Urbanism puts people in closer touch with reality. Do you see people from other cultural backgrounds? Do you pass your city councilman on his way to work on the sidewalk in the morning? Do you see store owners opening their shops and delivering people unloading stock? Do you see people who don’t make as much money as you or people with no homes? Do you commute to work sitting next to people you’d otherwise have absolutely no connection to? (I’m just describing my neighborhood.) That’s real life and it’s hidden from view if you live in a residential subdivision surrounded only by other $500k homes where you have to drive to get to a store or even the next income level.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:35 am
Kris nailed it. As much as design / development are factors in this conversation, it is the social that drives location. The burbs exploded because they became affordable as incomes increased, portrayed an upgrade in lifestyle, and offered a degree of homogeneity that was being lost as urban neighborhoods became more integrated. These same elements have led to the “right” neighborhoods being pushed further and further out from the center. I wonder to what extent these same elements are drawing people back to the center.
Thanks for the link Blair – interesting stuff.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:20 am
These are all very good points..and I appreciate this discussion very much. I want to reaffirm that I am pro-urbanism and urban design. I just don’t want us to set up suburbia as the straw man that we can so easily beat up. There are respectable reasons why the suburbs are/were attractive. I always get nervous when we start pitting philosophies against one another.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am
[...] good things from around the network: imagineNATIVEamerica writes about the debate between New Urbanists and the proponents of sprawl; the Hard Drive reports [...]
July 1st, 2009 at 10:31 am
Great discussion. This discussion was like a present in my inbox this morning. Excited to contribute some of my own thoughts.
I think Kris’s comment frames the discussion nicely: “but this discussion is really about people and how environments shape us psychologically.”
I agree. We have to stay focused on the absolute objective which is to improve people’s quality of life. Of course, given that people have different tastes, a varied mix of possible lifestyles available across a variety of physical environments is in order. The debate tends to set itself up along the lines of pro-urban vs. pro-suburban. But in reality I think the debate is more one of ‘good design and efficiency’ vs. ‘independence and free markets’. Pro-urban people are typically willing to sacrifice some indpendence for increased quality of life and efficiency. Ryecroft hits on this, referencing the collective psyche of NYC parks: “they are not ‘mine,’ only ‘ours.’”
Typically, a pro-urban person would be happy to push suburbs designed to provide for efficient transport and walkable communities – of course, so few suburbs actually hit the mark. And pro-suburban people are rarely actually fans of any particular aspect of suburbs with the exception of the other people they have as neighbors. Safety and schools, two commonly referenced benefits of the suburbs have more to do with the people that occupy the suburban houses and attend the PTA meetings, not the design (a distinction that I am sure will become lucid as the suburbs, and the suburban school systems, are increasingly repopulated with new demographics ). Pro-suburb people are arguing that despite any perceived flaws with their choice of environment, they should be able to live where, and in proximity to whom, they desire.
Ultimately, the problem, one pro-urban people consistently lament, is that the suburbs were not chosen purely through independent taste and free markets; but were forced on the public by federal policies that heavily subsidized the development of suburbia (this echos Mouzon’s point). Plus, the emerging field of behavioral economics sheds new light on the irrational trends that develop in free markets. In the end, I think you see the absolution of profit for suburban developers and road builders, but not the absolution of quality of life for the people that should remain our primary objective.
In order to offer high-quality environments that meet the needs of people from urbanites to farmers, we need city designers to address issues across the density gradient. I think the transect based SmartCode is a nice example of this approach, but we also need individuals to step-up locally. In the case of Oklahoma City, so little good design has been carried out anywhere since the 1930’s that it is difficult to say where to begin. For now, the focus on downtown and Core 2 Shore is probably appropriate, as it will provide models that can be employed in many areas of the city within the more dense urban districts. Still, suburbs are being built in Oklahoma City at a pace far greater than all other types of development and will continue to be built. Are there any forces of “design and efficiency” weighing in on how these developments can be improved? Has the pro-urban community of Oklahoma City forfeited the battle to have a holistic city of good design and efficiency?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am
I really appreciate reading all the comments above, but I would break it down even more simply than urban/suburban choices. Sprawl is the way that American society has satisfied its constituents’ desire for a higher standard of living at low cost. Larger living spaces, more bathrooms, more bedrooms, larger private open spaces, bigger garages to park more vehicles: these are all elements of a higher standard of living. If you have a bigger house than your parents, you’re living better than they are.
Cities regain their attraction when you factor in commute times, access to public parks and open space, and access to cultural institutions to the standard-of-living equation.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:13 am
[...] good things from around the network: imagineNATIVEamerica writes about the debate between New Urbanists and the proponents of sprawl; the Hard Drive reports [...]
July 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Jonathan, What is the matrix that we are using for “higher standard of living?”
You describe the suburban and city options as coming down between and either/or proposition…ie cities provide better commute times, public amenity access, etc. From your comment, whether you’ve intended it or not, I believe it re-shapes Kris’s initial comment that the “discussion is really about people and how environments shape us psychologically.”
Could it be the other way around. Maybe based on your observation, the ‘constituents’ desires’ and psychology have shaped the environment. (Could this topic of suburban life be related to a larger issue of “America” as a collective vs individual society? Is suburbia a manifestation of individual liberty, run afoul by business interests?) If that is the case, are pro-urban forces, nation wide and in Oklahoma City at a disadvantage not out of desire, but due to momentum of time, economics and the generational habits of decades of suburban growth?
Blair, to your questions of “design and efficiency” being addressed in developments in OKC…do you think this is maybe part of the bigger issues being addressed in Jeff Speck’s proposal?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
It seems to me that sprawl prevailed because planners and zoners essentially required all new construction to be sprawl for most of the 20th century. Thus, Americans were forced to choose between dangerous urban cores and sprawl- and not surprisingly, they chose the latter in large numbers.
The popularity of both greenfield new urbanist developments and of older suburbs like Clayton (near St. Louis) and Shaker Heights (near Cleveland) suggests to me that if where it is possible to have the social homogenity of sprawl and the walkability of more urban areas, that combination has been and will continue to be a popular one.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Not that I disagree with much above, but I have to add that there is another reason for suburbs — FEAR and CONTROL. As a parent of young children with lots of friends in similar situation, the #1 reasons for the suburbs is to have a backyard where the kids can play in a controlled and non-threatening space. Parents worry about their kids being snatched on the streets of the city.
Sure this is mostly ridiculous, and the danger from car travel is much higher, but that is hard to get past.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Oh, yes, definitely! That’s the crux of my argument, that “suburb” or “sprawl” is simply the delivery system to provide affordable larger houses and bigger lawns to all Americans. Why do Americans want larger houses and bigger lawns? Whether you call it “the generational habits of decades of suburban growth” or “upward mobility” or “an higher standard of living,” it comes down to larger houses and bigger lawns than our parents.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the radius of metropolitan areas eventually gets so large (proportional to population and lot size), that commuting from the perimeter is uneconomical, which causes prices to rise within the built-up area, and leads to gentrification, as values of previously scorned closer-in lots rise.
Generational habits have a lot to answer for.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
This is a very thoughtful discussion–I’m glad I bumped into it earlier today. It’s indeed easy to beat up on the ‘burbs but, as someone says above, they must offer something or else they would not have thrived for as long as they have.
It also strikes me that most of the advantages listed above–upward mobility (bigger house means “better off”), safety for kids, community homogeneity–are in some sense illusory . . . except for the homogeneity part. Not that illusion is a bad thing, necessarily; the question is whether the illusion counters reality enough to make it worth hanging on to the illusion.
City planners have certainly also encouraged sprawl, I suspect, for tax-revenue purposes: get all those renters in the urban core out there owning homes. It’d be interesting to know who, and for what purpose, first equated home ownership with the American Dream. Obviously, that’s not to imply that it’s really evil to want to own a home . . .
Re Jonathan @3:43 p.m.: here in Wichita, a discussion has just begun about a new downtown master plan, and someone posted on the official blog for this discussion that downtown needs a couple of grocery stores to service people the city hopes to attract there. Someone replied with something to the effect of, “Who’s going to walk back to his apartment once a week carrying ten bags of groceries?” He couldn’t imagine any other way to do things. I replied to him that the big once-a-week grocery trip is a phenomenon created by suburban living, that in cities with corner grocery stores (which still exist in large urban areas and in places like New Orleans’ French Quarter), people make more frequent, much smaller trips–precisely because they can easily walk or bike there. Before World War II, that was the experience of everyone who lived in cities. So, it’s not as though such things are completely alien to us–just that they’re not in our collective memory anymore.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“I just don’t want us to set up suburbia as the straw man that we can so easily beat up.”
Kris — I know you’re pro-urbanism, and I totally agree that there’s need for rigorous discussion to ensure that blind reactions to past mistakes don’t result in us actually repeating the same mistakes all over again. (The mistakes I’m most wary of us repeating are the refusal to accept messiness and poverty as facts of life and the belief that social engineering can “fix” the messiness and poverty.)
“The debate tends to set itself up along the lines of pro-urban vs. pro-suburban. But in reality I think the debate is more one of ‘good design and efficiency’ vs. ‘independence and free markets’.”
Blair — I disagree for a reason you point out, which is that sprawl is not the result of free markets. I think the debate boils down to ‘public and collectivism’ vs. ‘private and individualism’. Good design and efficiency are results of a public approach. It’s also consistent with America’s reputation for individualism that we’re the world’s king of sprawl. Urbanism emphasizes and even celebrates public space and the commons and emphasizes decision-making based on the common good. Whereas I think sprawl emphasizes private space, offers little when it comes to the commons and emphasizes decision-making based on the individual.
“Sprawl is the way that American society has satisfied its constituents’ desire for a higher standard of living at low cost.”
Jonathan — This is a perfect example of why I think the debate centers on public/collectivism vs. private/individualism. Cities factor the commons into the quality of life equation, whereas in suburban sprawl it’s all about what you own and your private space. And you point out lower cost — it’s lower cost for the individual, but for the public, the infrastructure for that lifestyle actually costs more per person. And there are many external costs to the public simply not accounted for with sprawl (chiefly pollution and loss of land and water resources). Because the decision-making is focused on fulfilling the desires of the individual without as much regard for the public cost. Whereas in the city, the model is about lower costs to the public per person. And people are willing to pay more for their housing to take advantage of the efficiencies of the commons — the economic activity enabled by density, the lower transportation costs because of proximity and transit, and the infrastructure savings from more people sharing the same roads and utilities.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:21 am
This is an excellent conversation, and perhaps as someone who taught English for ten years, I can offer another perspective.
I see what happened to our cities after WWII in a larger historical and cultural context, one that is formed by my understanding of American literature. As I’ve gone about studying and teaching texts from the American canon, I’ve noticed a debate that’s been raging among Americans since long before we called ourselves “Americans,” a debate that goes back even to 1620 and the landing at Plymouth Rock. John Winthrop, governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, said that “we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill”–yet William Bradford’s “Of Plymouth Plantation,” published some 27 years after the founding of the colony, shows how splintered the colonists had become–how, even back then, the promise of free land and a new life compelled some citizens of the young Massachusetts Bay Colony to found new colonies.
So, the debate as I see it is, “Do I stay or do I go?” This handy little question sums up the debate we’re having here, on behalf of the new urbanists and the proponents of sprawl. Do I stay and improve this city and make it a beacon to the world, or do I go and found a new city, one where it will be easier and better and cheaper and where I’ll be more free to do what I want?
This debate plays itself out over and over again in the works of American literature. Look at a pair of classics from the 1850s: Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Hester Prynne returns to live in Boston, the place where she was ostracized and shamed, after her daughter Pearl grows up and marries an Englishman; Huck, on the other hand, by the end of his adventures, would rather “light out for the Territory ahead of the rest” than be “sivilized” by Aunt Sally.
In this debate Huck will always capture our imagination because he represents the restless wanderer, the pilgrim, the frontiersman. He represents individuality and mobility. He is Rousseau’s noble savage who resists being corrupted by the city and its moralizing citizens. Huck powerfully reinforces our most potent national myth.
Writers in the 20th century start to challenge this notion. Fitzgerald compares Gatsby to the original Dutch settlers of Manhattan, but we know that Gatsby’s quest to win Daisy ends with him shot and drowned in a pool. Frost in his poem “Once by the Pacific” imagines what will happen when we run out of room to sprawl, and he declares that “someone had better be prepared for rage.” And Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five names his protagonist Billy Pilgrim, but sends Billy on an eternal pilgrimmage by having him become unstuck in time. He drifts forever around time and space and never finds what he’s looking for. Sadly, none of these cautionary tales managed to check our sprawl into “the territory ahead of the rest.”
My point is that new urbanism is up against some pretty powerful stuff, and so it is no wonder that people push back against it or misunderstand it. It asks us to fix our attention when our attention has historically wandered from place to place. Much of our national literature suggests we’re a nation of nomads, and the hollowing out of our cities in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s suggests that we as Americans are always looking over the horizon, always looking for greener pastures.
Maybe we’ve reached the point culturally where our restlessness can take a rest. Maybe now we can finally settle down in our cities and stop building new ones. I certainly hope so.