Innovation destination

I understand the disapproval of suburbia among intellectuals. It encourages overconsumption, it’s an inefficient way to live, they’re homogenous in terms of people and buildings (most of which I would NOT consider architecture, but that’s a discussion for another time), and simply less cool than cities.

So when Margaret Crawford quoted lyrics from “Little Boxes” by Malvina Reynolds,  I anticipated that the article would continue to criticize Silicon Valley as another place saddened by suburbanization. But instead of an opinion piece, Crawford continued with a delightful narrative describing the growth of Silicon Valley.

It turns out that the area outside of San Francisco was a diverse and affordable option, enticing people from a range of income levels and ethnicities. But most notably, the area gradually became a hotbed for technological innovation. Computer pioneers – Bob Hewlett and David Packard, Steve Wozniak, Steve jobs – all got their start in creating what we now know as the computer this seemingly banal suburban area. To say their impact changed the world would be an understatement.

Now I’m sure there were several factors at play that made Silicon Valley a desirable place for all of this innovation to begin with. It’s close to tech-savvy institutions like Stanford and Berkeley, and is the US’s most accessible location to East Asia. And I don’t think it’d be fair to not mention the obvious: the insanely beautiful landscape with an exceptional year-round climate.  

Aside from that, what made the suburbs a preferable place to live for these men were an asset that cities could not offer – a garage. As written by Crawford, these empty, nondescript places  “occupied a central role in the development of the electronic industry in the area.” Garages, being large, unfinished, unoccupied, and most of the time probably free, provided tech entrepreneurs with an essentially no-maintenance – and powered – spaces for experimenting and building and fostering ideas. It poses the question that if these inventors were living in a dense urban area, would they still have been successful?

So does that mean we’ve been wrong about our strong beliefs about the superiority of cities? That only do dense environments are the best for innovation, creativity, and diversity? Does this discredit our beliefs that and our arguments for smaller housing units?

I don’t think so, nor do I think that the intent of “Little Boxes” is to be a counterargument for urbanism. I think that our supporting arguments for cities are still valid and will remain true for a while. What I concluded “Little Boxes” is instead of having a urban vs. suburban mindset, we should understand there are advantages to both.