A Question of Scale
We have an issue defining "suburbia," and it complicates our discussion. The common perception is suburbia, at its worst, are a series of "little boxes" - a monotonous landscape that generates a monotonous society. However, as Spark mentioned in class, there are many different types of suburban configurations. Personally, I imagine Rock Hill, the town where I grew up. Rock Hill is the epitome of "suburbia" because it is located just outside of the city of Charlotte. A large number of the population work in Charlotte, commuting 30-45 minutes each day to large offices in the city. However, Rock Hill isn't full of cookie cutter houses lined up side-by-side. Granted, it does have those types of neighborhoods, and a number of those neighborhood residents probably commute to Charlotte everyday. But there are so many areas that are diverse in culture and architecture. There are rural areas and dense areas, old developments and new construction, upper middle class and poverty. Despite the diversity, Rock Hill is still a suburb.
So my confusion with "suburbia" is the question of scale. The suburban landscape we discuss in class seems to fixate on the neighborhood scale. I think that is because it is easy to visualize. It is easy to accuse, and it is easy to hate... whereas the city scale of suburbia is harder to visualize and more difficult to accuse. Instead it is a complex combination of bad and good. I didn't grow up in a neighborhood of "little boxes," but I did grow up in a neighborhood. We had a defined yard and drove our cars to school and work. But I also had a greenway that connected to my backyard to other neighborhoods and parks. There was a creek that I played in, and I could walk to elementary school. The grocery store was close by, and though we usually drove, there were some occasions that we walked as well. Despite these rural or maybe urban characteristics, I identify with suburbia. So while I completely agree that suburbia has its downfalls (in fact, I am desperate to move to a city after graduation), I think it is narrow minded to accuse suburbia as something inherently bad. I think we need to be specific in what we label suburban.
So my confusion with "suburbia" is the question of scale. The suburban landscape we discuss in class seems to fixate on the neighborhood scale. I think that is because it is easy to visualize. It is easy to accuse, and it is easy to hate... whereas the city scale of suburbia is harder to visualize and more difficult to accuse. Instead it is a complex combination of bad and good. I didn't grow up in a neighborhood of "little boxes," but I did grow up in a neighborhood. We had a defined yard and drove our cars to school and work. But I also had a greenway that connected to my backyard to other neighborhoods and parks. There was a creek that I played in, and I could walk to elementary school. The grocery store was close by, and though we usually drove, there were some occasions that we walked as well. Despite these rural or maybe urban characteristics, I identify with suburbia. So while I completely agree that suburbia has its downfalls (in fact, I am desperate to move to a city after graduation), I think it is narrow minded to accuse suburbia as something inherently bad. I think we need to be specific in what we label suburban.
Comments
Post a Comment