No Cities without Suburbs | xii. suburbia
As someone with a very limited understanding of suburbia (as defined in an Americentric worldview), and otherwise having never lived in suburban conditions like in Clemson (?), I am inclined to think that they are a necessary fuel for (and also consequence of) the emergence and sustenance of big cities, especially in countries with a high land-area-per-capita.
Here's a thought experiment: If you were to plan a future self-sufficient city on Mars, a realistic plan would also account for suburban developments that are first generated as an external consequence of city-living, and then act to provide support for the city. If properly planned, such a development need not be tied to the fatigue of redundancy or lack of diversified density that plague suburbs in their early stages.
The readings point to two ways of re-imagining suburbia: deferring judgement, and retrofitting. I agree with Margaret Crawford's argument that we need to refrain from blaming the suburban typology for entirely causing the problems usually tied to suburban-life. A suburban environment can still have economic strength and social diversity, if supplemented by a culture of rich social networks, information exchange and adaptability.
During the post-recession recovery in the US, areas of greatest suburban retrofitting were also located around central cities with the greatest population growth. This hints at the interdependence of suburbs and urban centers. (Largely ignored during redevelopment are probably the boundary conditions that delineate suburban and urban, but this can be addressed through regulations to prevent sprawl.) We can think of retrofitted suburban centers as hybrid network nodes as part of a polycentric metropolis:
A concern here is to ensure that there are just an optimum number of nodes: it is neither efficient nor sustainable to have too many nodes of smaller size. While the existing suburbs are being 're-centralized' and tranformed to hybrid nodes, there could be regulation to de-incentivize newer developments too removed from any existing node: this will ensure that growth is concentrated around these nodes, making them more diversified and 'urban'.
But since we live in an imperfect world marred by slow bureaucracy, a change-resistant culture and unprincipled showmen masquerading as leaders, none of this is probably going to work easily IRL.
Here's a thought experiment: If you were to plan a future self-sufficient city on Mars, a realistic plan would also account for suburban developments that are first generated as an external consequence of city-living, and then act to provide support for the city. If properly planned, such a development need not be tied to the fatigue of redundancy or lack of diversified density that plague suburbs in their early stages.
The readings point to two ways of re-imagining suburbia: deferring judgement, and retrofitting. I agree with Margaret Crawford's argument that we need to refrain from blaming the suburban typology for entirely causing the problems usually tied to suburban-life. A suburban environment can still have economic strength and social diversity, if supplemented by a culture of rich social networks, information exchange and adaptability.
During the post-recession recovery in the US, areas of greatest suburban retrofitting were also located around central cities with the greatest population growth. This hints at the interdependence of suburbs and urban centers. (Largely ignored during redevelopment are probably the boundary conditions that delineate suburban and urban, but this can be addressed through regulations to prevent sprawl.) We can think of retrofitted suburban centers as hybrid network nodes as part of a polycentric metropolis:
"Hybrid network nodes are neither suburban nor urban [...] But are cities and suburbs really so different in the polycentric metropolis? The old dichotomy of suburb versus city as the separation of home and work was always oversimplified. Today, it is further complicated by continued metropolitan decentralization, new forces of recentralization, the replication of national retailers throughout, and the extended networks afforded by global communications."
— Retrofitting Suburbia, Ellen Dunham-Jones & June Williamson
comic-strip ad campaign about Homewood - a town about
25 miles south of downtown Chicago, Illinois
25 miles south of downtown Chicago, Illinois
"In Homewood, we’re told, people walk to the farmer’s market, keep chickens in their yards, and hang out with friends of different races and sexual orientations [...] "Think Homewood” reveals just how much the old dichotomy of city vs. suburb is blurring. It proves a fact that would have been unthinkable 20 or 30 years ago: Suburbs now have to work to attract the cohort they were built for. As certain cities become more sought-after and lively, suburbs can no longer just sit back and wait for the inevitable stampede of first-time homebuyers and new parents. They have to convince skeptical young folk of their essential urbanity first."
— excerpt from CITYLAB articleIn an ideal world, we can think of the collection of networked nodes as a meta-city, or a networked city of cities. Once we lose the stigma currently associated with suburbia, we will be more free to decentralize by re-centralizing around smaller nodes in currently suburban areas. Adding transit between these hybrid nodes (or, to a lesser extent, retrofitting the corridors) will further pave the way towards improving the quality of life for all. Each of these nodes can be regulated/designed to minimize sprawl and vehicular miles traveled within them.
A concern here is to ensure that there are just an optimum number of nodes: it is neither efficient nor sustainable to have too many nodes of smaller size. While the existing suburbs are being 're-centralized' and tranformed to hybrid nodes, there could be regulation to de-incentivize newer developments too removed from any existing node: this will ensure that growth is concentrated around these nodes, making them more diversified and 'urban'.
But since we live in an imperfect world marred by slow bureaucracy, a change-resistant culture and unprincipled showmen masquerading as leaders, none of this is probably going to work easily IRL.
Comments
Post a Comment