Suburbs Aren’t the Problem — It’s Bad 20th Century Design

It’s easy to take shots at “the suburbs,” a catchall term that evokes big box stores, fields of parking lots, and social exclusion. But suburbs don’t have to be designed around driving, writes David Levinson at Streets.mn. Many of these places just had the misfortune to be developed at a time when awful planning practices were ascendant:

Hampstead Garden Suburb, a late-Victorian development in London that doesn't resemble suburbs from the second half of the 20th century. Image: ##http://www.streets.mn/2013/09/09/its-not-the-suburbs-its-mid-late-20th-century-urban-design-and-architecture/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Streetsmn+%28streets.mn%29##Streets.mn##

The problem with the suburbs isn’t that they are not the city. The problem with the suburbs is the same problem as the city: they had a bad 5 or 6 decades of urban design. Cities in the same period saw urban renewal, mostly mediocre architecture, replacement of buildings with surface parking lots, and a general hollowing out. It’s not because it’s the city that this is a problem, it’s because there were some terrible design (planning, engineering) memes out there which got implemented as policy, while operating in a market that just had no taste. It is worse with the suburbs, as for many, those six decades of urban design were the only six decades of development they had, while for the city, at least the older street network remained mostly intact, as did some of the older commercial buildings and much of the housing stock.

It’s not the now-assimilated suburbs built before the big cities reached out to envelop them within the daily metropolitan system. It’s not the older suburbs within the core cities, or the first ring suburbs adhering to the grid. It is a particular design of a particular era which enlarges distances between places in order to offer larger parcels of land on which to spend time and store cars.

To reverse this, people will need to want to spend more time off-their property, bear more affinity for their neighbors, and promote changes to land use rules to enable such things (which will follow from consumer preferences). Technologies, policies, land uses, and transportation networks which reduce the demand for car ownership and car storage will facilitate this.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Biking Toronto reports that the city is adding a new protected bike lane. Getting Around Sacramento shares some thoughts on the pros and cons of making sidewalk maintenance the responsibility of property owners. And Systemic Failure says Caltrain could help solve its “bumping” problem — keeping passengers from boarding trains that are deemed full — simply by removing some seats.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

The Suburbs Aren’t Dying — They’re Growing Differently

|
Cross-posted from the Frontier Group. Sommer Mathis said much of what needed to be said about the recent round of “the suburbs are back, baby!” stories on housing trends, including this analysis from Jed Kolko, housing economist at Trulia.com, and the related commentary from Matt Yglesias at Vox. Mathis argues that the concept of a battle for supremacy between cities and […]

Will Second-Ring Suburbs Choose Evolution or Decline?

|
Second-ring suburbs are at a crossroads, says Nathaniel Hood at Streets.mn. These aren’t streetcar suburbs, but those that came after, where every home had a garage, the product of an era when driving was considered a symbol of American prosperity. With infrastructure maintenance costs rising with age, and no room for more sprawl, these areas must either “build up” […]

Is Jersey City a Suburb? Joel Kotkin Thinks So

|
Now that the 2010 Census results are filtering in, get ready for a variety of hasty, dubious interpretations. Sprawl apologist Joel Kotkin wasted no time deciding that the trends show not an urban renaissance, but continued preference for suburbia. According to an analysis Kotkin published in Forbes, suburbs accounted for an astounding 80 to 100 […]