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.
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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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