Can the suburbs be saved?
“No man who owns his own home and lot can be a communist.”
-Richard Nixon
I think it’s really interesting to read Ellen Dunham-Jones and to see the innovative ways to redevelop suburbia. I kinda find the same enjoyment as watching “recycling” tv shows and the creative possibilities. Watch us turn this car into a coffee table. Or turn old Tupperware into a lamp. Put that on Pinterest - am I right? I am waiting for the tv show for the “suburban redo.” Turn streets into parks, but we need more parks - so let’s turn golf courses and cemeteries into parks. Switch tract homes into agrihoods. Let’s redevelop brownfields, old strip malls, any box-like building from the 80’s, and sprinkle the magic ingredient of “mixed-use” to make some hot development gold. Part of me really loves this.
Part of me wonders if suburbia can be saved? Soviet-style apartment blocks, monoliths of communal concrete living and control, will always be just that- a symbol of a type of politics, a way of life, and a past era. We choose to not build that typology. Similarly, Cape Cods and bungalows might always carry with them- the symbolism and political implications of a system that we have shown has failed in so many ways. The suburbs are a manifestation of the historical escape from the city, and a wall between peoples, separating by distance as much as wealth. As the roles swap and cities gentrify, the same barriers remain, but for less privileged users. The suburbs, as shown by the need to retrofit them, provide a worse quality of life to their inhabitants- isolation, geographical or social, high energy use, poor infrastructure are inherent to their form - and as these reveal themselves are easily traded downwards.
We aren’t pressed with housing millions of returning veterans, yet still are pressed with a housing crisis that is forcing the hand of development. I just wonder if after iteration after iteration of retrofits and redevelopments, we’ll find that we still have what we’ve been trying to escape - a suburb?
Josiah,
ReplyDeleteThis is a brilliant synopsis of the issue at hand. Through any attempt at retrofitting the suburbs, we are also attempting to tear down a cultural icon. And if we pay attention to that cultural icon, especially in election years, we will find that it has deep political power. If we attempt to retrofit the suburbs, we must prepare for the resistance from those in power. It is unlikely the Great Retrofit will be penetrate the gated communities of the wealthy. They will resist and they will resist for several miles outside their enclave. This mission to adapt suburbia for a changing world will require unyielding motivation, influential capital, and diligent planning.
Josiah,
ReplyDeleteThat just about sums it up. I feel like, historically, by attempting to solve one problem, we create a new one. When we finally wipe out suburbia as we know it, we will have created something else that the next generation of architecture students debates about.
It is so hard to break down the institution of a suburb. The point of the suburb in the first place was to be a secondary community to the city, the commuter's dream. The idea that the concrete and developed sprawls need to be retrofitted and densified is just the idea that we are stretching the city.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of retrofitting suburbia is optimistically possible. Let's take your example of the Soviet-Style apartment block. Those structures were built to last. Taking something of that size down would generate a ton of waste that realistically speaking we don't have the means to dispose of. I think redesign them can alleviate the stigmas and recreate a completely new environment.
ReplyDelete