Suburban Urbanization


“…they are urban nodes within a new polycentric metropolis that simultaneously complement the core city’s downtown and serve a predominantly suburban population. They are hybrids and reflect aspects of both centered-ness and decentralization.”
-       Retrofitting Suburbia, Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson

To me this “polycentric” approach to viewing suburbia felt very familiar, and maybe even shocking that this would seem revolutionary to some. Whenever it comes up whether I consider myself a city person or not my response has always been that I’m most definitely not a city person, I don’t want to be in the middle of that chaos but I want to be connected to the amenities and entertainments of the downtown. Growing up in a suburban neighborhood, about 30 minutes outsides of downtown Cleveland, I thought that was exactly what I had! I had no idea how “modern” of a perspective this was on suburban life. The contrast in readings between John C. Keats and his critiques on traditional outlooks of suburbia and the modern interpretation and development of suburbs today from Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson helped me to realize that the way the suburbs performed in the 1950s and today are what I believe to be two completely different ends of the spectrum. As these neighborhoods continue developing with transportation, infrastructure, and mixed uses this process of “suburb urbanization” really begins to set in. However, this retrofitting idea of “instant architecture”, she describes as being highly repetitive and uninspiring, puts at risk this idea of the modern suburb that I’ve grown to “love”. I’ve watched a number of outdoor shopping plazas, meets apartment living, meets yoga studio, meets micro brew, mixed use “faux urbanism” developments go up in neighborhoods surrounding my home town to recognize that these temporary, short lived developments will have an expiration date, risking the fall of suburban living for good. I think the approach of an adaptive reuse and alterations of existing street blocks are much more successful in terms of longevity and solving this issues of bringing urban life into the suburbs for good.

Comments

  1. There's absolutely a greater risk for really bad outcomes if a large development gets created and fails, but I wonder if it is less likely than the incremental option? If people begin developing a neighborhood slowly, there'll be a long period of time where it is neither a suburb or an urban node. I think that is the moment when residents will be the most uncomfortable and have a potential to argue to stop any new development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like the approach of taking it slow actually makes it more likely to fail simply because of a loss of interest or investment by the developing party or parties. I'm not saying the instant city is great either, but I don't know which has more risk of failure.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts