Suburbia: Who Wore it Better? Martha or Rem?
First of all, Martha Stewart interviewed by Rem Koolhaas? Hilarious.
Throughout all of the readings, I found myself highlighting phrases such as "demise of individualism", "mass conformity as a threat to society", "regimented and homogeneous population", and other such phrases of the same vein. Some argue that suburbia is not "bad" but just a different lifestyle from the city: while farther away from the city center, you get more space for a lower price, however that is quickly offset by the cost of transportation to the city. However, companies are moving to the 'burbs to be closer to their workforce and market buyers. Thus the population is moving from the cities to be closer to the jobs in the suburbs. But a possible solution is to build better transit to connect the outlier communities to the city center, which allows suburbanites better access to the city, thus moving the workforce back to the city with the idea that the companies will follow...
And it goes round and round and round and round... It's a constant oscillating movement from the city to the suburbs and back and forth again. It's not about figuring out ways to move populations from one extreme to the other. There will always be an area inside the city and an area on the perimeter, just like there will always be people who prefer to live outside rather than inside the city proper. It's about finding a homeostasis between the two extremes; a cohesion between both systems.
A criticism of suburbia has been the controlled sameness of the environment, which differs so greatly from the organic formulation of a long developed city. While it can be off-putting, especially for those with architectural appreciation, there are apparent benefits to a sea of sameness; lower building costs, quicker construction time, (and for those with communist tendencies) petty things such as pride fade to the background when it is so easy to see that your neighbor has the same house and possessions as you.
However, the root of the problem goes deeper than simple construction time-tables. The human condition shapes our society in confusing and unpredictable ways, even more so with the introduction of technologies. We as the human race have a strong desire to fit in, which has been ingrained in our species as a method of survival; strength in numbers and less likely to be picked off if you look like everybody else. On the other side of the coin, there is an increasing desire for individuality; to distinguish yourself from the herd and assert your dominance as your own person.
This has manifested itself in strong ways in suburbia. Margaret Crawford utilized a suburban case study in "Little Boxes", stating that the Filipinos moved into the community because they wanted the "typical American lifestyle". So all these different families and communities moved into the same houses in order to achieve the same outward experience as everyone else, but over time, they customized their dwellings on the interior to fit their needs, which separated their house from the others. While there was a desire for outward sameness, individuality still arose on the interior.
What is less criticized is that the same "suburban effect" happens in reverse for those who inhabit units of an individual outward appearance. They desire to set themselves apart, however, on the interior they occupy their spaces with Martha Stewart Sameness; the same accessories and furniture and layouts from the same catalog that their neighbor uses. She states herself that there is nothing she doesn't want to export to other countries; to spread her sameness across the globe. On the exterior is the facade of individuality, while the interior becomes more true to the status quo. It eventually becomes a mix and mash of accessories, and a "who wore it best?" contest regarding cookie-cutter catalog products, influenced by moguls like Martha.
So who really wears the "suburban effect" best? Those who move into a cookie-cutter shell, and modify the interior (which is the part you live in anyways), or those who falsely assert their individuality on the exterior, only to have a cookie-cutter filling on the inside?
Throughout all of the readings, I found myself highlighting phrases such as "demise of individualism", "mass conformity as a threat to society", "regimented and homogeneous population", and other such phrases of the same vein. Some argue that suburbia is not "bad" but just a different lifestyle from the city: while farther away from the city center, you get more space for a lower price, however that is quickly offset by the cost of transportation to the city. However, companies are moving to the 'burbs to be closer to their workforce and market buyers. Thus the population is moving from the cities to be closer to the jobs in the suburbs. But a possible solution is to build better transit to connect the outlier communities to the city center, which allows suburbanites better access to the city, thus moving the workforce back to the city with the idea that the companies will follow...
And it goes round and round and round and round... It's a constant oscillating movement from the city to the suburbs and back and forth again. It's not about figuring out ways to move populations from one extreme to the other. There will always be an area inside the city and an area on the perimeter, just like there will always be people who prefer to live outside rather than inside the city proper. It's about finding a homeostasis between the two extremes; a cohesion between both systems.
A criticism of suburbia has been the controlled sameness of the environment, which differs so greatly from the organic formulation of a long developed city. While it can be off-putting, especially for those with architectural appreciation, there are apparent benefits to a sea of sameness; lower building costs, quicker construction time, (and for those with communist tendencies) petty things such as pride fade to the background when it is so easy to see that your neighbor has the same house and possessions as you.
However, the root of the problem goes deeper than simple construction time-tables. The human condition shapes our society in confusing and unpredictable ways, even more so with the introduction of technologies. We as the human race have a strong desire to fit in, which has been ingrained in our species as a method of survival; strength in numbers and less likely to be picked off if you look like everybody else. On the other side of the coin, there is an increasing desire for individuality; to distinguish yourself from the herd and assert your dominance as your own person.
This has manifested itself in strong ways in suburbia. Margaret Crawford utilized a suburban case study in "Little Boxes", stating that the Filipinos moved into the community because they wanted the "typical American lifestyle". So all these different families and communities moved into the same houses in order to achieve the same outward experience as everyone else, but over time, they customized their dwellings on the interior to fit their needs, which separated their house from the others. While there was a desire for outward sameness, individuality still arose on the interior.
What is less criticized is that the same "suburban effect" happens in reverse for those who inhabit units of an individual outward appearance. They desire to set themselves apart, however, on the interior they occupy their spaces with Martha Stewart Sameness; the same accessories and furniture and layouts from the same catalog that their neighbor uses. She states herself that there is nothing she doesn't want to export to other countries; to spread her sameness across the globe. On the exterior is the facade of individuality, while the interior becomes more true to the status quo. It eventually becomes a mix and mash of accessories, and a "who wore it best?" contest regarding cookie-cutter catalog products, influenced by moguls like Martha.
So who really wears the "suburban effect" best? Those who move into a cookie-cutter shell, and modify the interior (which is the part you live in anyways), or those who falsely assert their individuality on the exterior, only to have a cookie-cutter filling on the inside?
With an overwhelmingly negative attitude about suburbia on the part of our profession, I appreciate your attempt to highlight some of the positive aspects that come from the condition.
ReplyDeleteAs to the question of sameness vs individuality, I wonder if the former has led to a desire for the latter. At the advent of suburbia and mass production sameness was praised as an innovation that allowed for affordable mass production. Now we have turned 180 degrees and renounced sameness as inhuman, preferring instead to shop at "boutiques" for "artisan," "local," or "hand-crafted" goods. I wonder if even in this pursuit we end up all the same, simply replacing the Sears catalog with a Pintrest board or a hipster filled Saturday morning "farmer's market."
Kate Beckinsale.
ReplyDelete