A lot of white collar people are choosing to move into poor neighborhoods. It's called gentrification. Gentrification is just as evil as suburbinization, particularly the kind that forces long-time residents out and keeps members of their families from coming back.
Gentricication is not evil if it makes the area better. The people living there already just need a better strategy to navigate it. Respectfully, saying that gentrification is evil is like a rich person saying that it is no fun to be poor. It's true, but they don't know jack. Now maybe if the 'gentrifiers' are all assholes, then that's a different story.
Since I had about a medium understanding of the word 'gentrification', I looked it up & got one definition:
"The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people."
The only part that seems a bit disturbing is the one we both probably got.
Back to my last post: If existing residents can be smarter about their neighborhoods, even if they are lower income, they can navigate gentrification better. Incidentally, the most gentrification that I've ever seen is 'inner city' & not so much suburban - those are usually low-middle income people just looking for affordable places to live.
Not that I like most of them (us), but suburbia is more of a (knee jerk) response to economics, or urban areas failing to become COMMUNITIES. Don't anybody ever misuse that word, or I'll do like Ben Stiller in "MysterMen". I'll get REALLLY MAD.
When we discuss suburbia it seems the discussion is based around suburbs that surround large cities where it IS expensive to live and may be impratical for many folks.
What about the suburbs that surround the 30,000-200,000 or so population cities that don't have the crime, high cost of living, poor schools, etc? This is where most americans live. Many of these cities have affordable beautiful old homes suitable for families, like Steven's real life example. What is the appeal of living in the burbs of THESE towns when you can live in an actual city - with people, services, grocery stores, parks, trees?
Life is just physically arranged the suburban way now, and I think it comes from single points-of-view having too much clout like those of traffic engineers and the fact that city planners don't really design or plan anything, they just follow the rules and play the money game.
So my suggestion, is that people reinhabit smaller cities, occupying original city blocks and utilizing existing infrastructure. Crazy idea?
With the internet and easy communication methods, place doesn't matter so much and business doesn't need to be take place exclusively in large cities anymore. 'Culture' can be prevalent in small cities, and it if it isn't there already it can be created with a few leaders and some vision and effort.
i agree with you m. strawbeary, there is no logical reason for the suburbs to continue as they do, but their birth was never formed in rationality anyway. once a legitimate escape they are now a form of status, and everything is geared now towards their continuation. the inertia involved is enormous and will require as much an effort as it took to make the damn places to begin with. how to get that going i can't say. the alarmism that folks like kunstler use is in the end not very convincing, and new urbanism hasn't done much beyond creating a new marketing tool.
in the end criticising suburbia is criticising a way of life that was earned and hard fought. so people get defensive when it is put down, and when asked to move to the inner parts of small towns can only react with incredulity. the culture is long gone from there and the mood is far from exciting (at least in my home town the 2 old theatres are boarded up, the old mall is feeling very misused, the small shops are bairly hanging on and all the quaint streetights designed to bring back olden golden times look like a scene from the mind of tim burton. it looks alright but feels slightly creepy). there must be a way to turn that round, but how? the tax base is in the suburbs and spending money anywhere else is a hard sell, especially in the small towns you talk about.
not so sure the internet is as important as most make out. for me yeah it means i can work anywhere i want in the city or back on the farm. but the last big job that came to my old town was a hog plant, and things don't get much more physical than that...some of the folks that work there live in the transient housing downtown cuz they don't earn very much. while they are good people the perception of them and their community isn't that good and it perpetuates the white flight type of deal that needs to be stopped.
it is sad to go back to the house i grew up in (very traditional 1950's houses on a tree-lined street, blocks from the ol city centre ) and see all the shops and places i used to walk to gone. just gone. it would be hard to live there now without a car. and in that case i might as well live in the suburbs because at least there i know the school for my kids is good, and the infrastructure is still being maintained. overcoming this kind of problem is incredibly difficult. worth undertaking and maybe even necessary in the near future, but still not an easy thing to do.
straw you are right. the only problem being viable architectural employment in these smaller towns/cities. but you can find great houses and viable walkable neighborhoods in most of them. look for a town with a college and you will get the cultural amenities necessary and find a place within a two to three hour drive from a major city.
what I am talking about is a paradigm shift from living in big cities, their burbs, and small city burbs to small cities. Viva la medium sized city, locate them every 1-3 hours by car and promote them as THE place to live. Generate local economies and strong networking, loyalty, healthy competition, and cohesiveness. Suburbia has been dubbed "the new frontier", I say the inner small city is our next frontier. Let's package it and sell it to the masses!
For me, the worst place to live would be an hour from the city, yet still in the urban fabric of it. That is a big no place no matter who you are.
word strawbeary. we moved from west LA to albuquerque and chose an almost 40 year old house in the center of the city, about 400 yards from the northeast corner of the university. it's the only part of the city i'd want to live in right now.
i could not have moved here without the internet. there isn't a good bookstore in ABQ.
just saw an indie film last week called "the architecture of reassurance" by mike mills at london's resfest...a young girl from 'somewhere else' happens upon a suburb and is awed by how perfect it looks from the outside, the main appeal for her being the family/love type happiness that is presented...but as she goes from door to door talking to people who live there two things happen...all the residents notice immediately that she is not 'one of them' and eventually they ask her to leave, saying she 'thinks too much'...the other thing is that immediately behind the mask of happiness there is so much dissatisfaction and strife, so she realizes the picture is a lie...other young girls feel stifled and are dying to escape...
vado,
i frequented living batch while i attended UNM duing my junior & senior years, before moving to LA.
there's nothing here worth mentioning now....
revolutions don' happen in the built world, only evolutions. only thing we can do as architects is work inside that framework.
i never lived in the suburbs when i was in NA, and have been living abroad in monster cities for most of the last decade so ain't got the hang up aginst the burbs that many of you folks seem to have. seems to me it is a reality that is supported quite happily by those who live there. in spite of its propounded deleterious effects why the urge to tell other people how to live their lives? from my visits to me father's place they aren't for me, and my research here in tokyo is based on an alternative to their very existence, but i still wouldn't tell anyone to move out, nor expect the miracle new urbanisation that many architects /planners are pissing their collective pants over...
Sprawl gives us ''decentralization and democratization," Bruegmann says—an orderly use of land that draws in working-class and middle-class people and allows them to head upward in the economy and society. Homes in new subdivisions in the South and West commonly start at $120,000. To try to curb sprawl is to stand in the way of the flourishing of the American dream.
''It's a way to get things once possessed by only a few," Bruegmann says. "Privacy, mobility—social and physical—and choice."
Bruegman makes certain points here... Sprawl makes certain things affordable to a growing middle class, and encourages this class... On the other hand, he's also missing something...
1. "Privacy" can also mean "not publicity"...
Looked at another way, this not really democratization at work... Encouraging individualist commuting / labor culture doesn't really make people more politically or socially liberated or empowered...
2. "Mobility" can also mean "car-owner priveleged".
Settlement is driven by car owners, so you can't really be a mover if you don't own a car or cannot afford a car...
On the other hand, as Strawbeary says, maybe suburbs are becoming more and more like small cities... Maybe they will become more public, and less car priveleged... With increasing energy and gas consciousness, maybe people will want local places to go.
"It's a way to get things once possessed by only a few," Bruegmann says. "Privacy, mobility—social and physical—and choice."
Does anyone else find it ironic that the access to these private desires is based upon heavily subsidized infrastructure, ie. reliance upon the greater public?
I tried to explain that very thing to a group of people just Friday el jeffe. They all had lightbulbs turn on over their heads. It was great. It is ironic that the people who live on a 40 year old street with established water mains, post offices, fire stations, etc subsidize those lazy suburban winding roads, new firestations, school buses, freeways, and utility services to each 3 acre lot. I don't think this EVER crosses anyone's mind.
And so how are the taxes cheaper in the burbs? Some cities may even provide tax incentives for 'new housing starts' like not having to pay a property tax for a year or something like that on your new house to encourage 'growth'.
I'd like to hear others experiences and knowledge regarding this as it actually seems to hit home with some people who otherwise don't see the issues.
Well here in ABQ, in the last 6 months the city council has passed and begun enforcing impact fees for development. Essentially it is a way to have the 'real' costs of development paid by the developer, which are passed to the home buyer (or other final user). The fees are based upon geographic location in relation to existing infrastructure.
Ok Steven, I haven't been to Louisville, nor can I confirm or deny your claims. That said, Louisville may be a large city, but I wouldn't lump it into the same catogory as the major metro areas that are the worst offenders of sprawl.
My example of core cities having higher crime, higher taxes and underperforming schools was merely an attempt to explain a justification for the people that move to the suburbs. I do not for a minute think it's solely because of racism. Those I know that moved to the suburbs cite those reasons for their moves. What bothers me is the same ignorance urban city dwellers say the suburbanites have they show towards those living in the suburbs.
what's so bad about suburbia...?
id rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city in the world.-steve mcqueen.
raj:
A lot of white collar people are choosing to move into poor neighborhoods. It's called gentrification. Gentrification is just as evil as suburbinization, particularly the kind that forces long-time residents out and keeps members of their families from coming back.
Gentricication is not evil if it makes the area better. The people living there already just need a better strategy to navigate it. Respectfully, saying that gentrification is evil is like a rich person saying that it is no fun to be poor. It's true, but they don't know jack. Now maybe if the 'gentrifiers' are all assholes, then that's a different story.
Since I had about a medium understanding of the word 'gentrification', I looked it up & got one definition:
"The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people."
The only part that seems a bit disturbing is the one we both probably got.
Back to my last post: If existing residents can be smarter about their neighborhoods, even if they are lower income, they can navigate gentrification better. Incidentally, the most gentrification that I've ever seen is 'inner city' & not so much suburban - those are usually low-middle income people just looking for affordable places to live.
Not that I like most of them (us), but suburbia is more of a (knee jerk) response to economics, or urban areas failing to become COMMUNITIES. Don't anybody ever misuse that word, or I'll do like Ben Stiller in "MysterMen". I'll get REALLLY MAD.
When we discuss suburbia it seems the discussion is based around suburbs that surround large cities where it IS expensive to live and may be impratical for many folks.
What about the suburbs that surround the 30,000-200,000 or so population cities that don't have the crime, high cost of living, poor schools, etc? This is where most americans live. Many of these cities have affordable beautiful old homes suitable for families, like Steven's real life example. What is the appeal of living in the burbs of THESE towns when you can live in an actual city - with people, services, grocery stores, parks, trees?
Life is just physically arranged the suburban way now, and I think it comes from single points-of-view having too much clout like those of traffic engineers and the fact that city planners don't really design or plan anything, they just follow the rules and play the money game.
So my suggestion, is that people reinhabit smaller cities, occupying original city blocks and utilizing existing infrastructure. Crazy idea?
With the internet and easy communication methods, place doesn't matter so much and business doesn't need to be take place exclusively in large cities anymore. 'Culture' can be prevalent in small cities, and it if it isn't there already it can be created with a few leaders and some vision and effort.
i agree with you m. strawbeary, there is no logical reason for the suburbs to continue as they do, but their birth was never formed in rationality anyway. once a legitimate escape they are now a form of status, and everything is geared now towards their continuation. the inertia involved is enormous and will require as much an effort as it took to make the damn places to begin with. how to get that going i can't say. the alarmism that folks like kunstler use is in the end not very convincing, and new urbanism hasn't done much beyond creating a new marketing tool.
in the end criticising suburbia is criticising a way of life that was earned and hard fought. so people get defensive when it is put down, and when asked to move to the inner parts of small towns can only react with incredulity. the culture is long gone from there and the mood is far from exciting (at least in my home town the 2 old theatres are boarded up, the old mall is feeling very misused, the small shops are bairly hanging on and all the quaint streetights designed to bring back olden golden times look like a scene from the mind of tim burton. it looks alright but feels slightly creepy). there must be a way to turn that round, but how? the tax base is in the suburbs and spending money anywhere else is a hard sell, especially in the small towns you talk about.
not so sure the internet is as important as most make out. for me yeah it means i can work anywhere i want in the city or back on the farm. but the last big job that came to my old town was a hog plant, and things don't get much more physical than that...some of the folks that work there live in the transient housing downtown cuz they don't earn very much. while they are good people the perception of them and their community isn't that good and it perpetuates the white flight type of deal that needs to be stopped.
it is sad to go back to the house i grew up in (very traditional 1950's houses on a tree-lined street, blocks from the ol city centre ) and see all the shops and places i used to walk to gone. just gone. it would be hard to live there now without a car. and in that case i might as well live in the suburbs because at least there i know the school for my kids is good, and the infrastructure is still being maintained. overcoming this kind of problem is incredibly difficult. worth undertaking and maybe even necessary in the near future, but still not an easy thing to do.
...? or maybe i got it all wrong.
straw you are right. the only problem being viable architectural employment in these smaller towns/cities. but you can find great houses and viable walkable neighborhoods in most of them. look for a town with a college and you will get the cultural amenities necessary and find a place within a two to three hour drive from a major city.
what I am talking about is a paradigm shift from living in big cities, their burbs, and small city burbs to small cities. Viva la medium sized city, locate them every 1-3 hours by car and promote them as THE place to live. Generate local economies and strong networking, loyalty, healthy competition, and cohesiveness. Suburbia has been dubbed "the new frontier", I say the inner small city is our next frontier. Let's package it and sell it to the masses!
For me, the worst place to live would be an hour from the city, yet still in the urban fabric of it. That is a big no place no matter who you are.
word strawbeary. we moved from west LA to albuquerque and chose an almost 40 year old house in the center of the city, about 400 yards from the northeast corner of the university. it's the only part of the city i'd want to live in right now.
i could not have moved here without the internet. there isn't a good bookstore in ABQ.
ah el jeffe you wernet around during the days of "the living batch" a great store now sadly gone. it was right behind the frontier.
just saw an indie film last week called "the architecture of reassurance" by mike mills at london's resfest...a young girl from 'somewhere else' happens upon a suburb and is awed by how perfect it looks from the outside, the main appeal for her being the family/love type happiness that is presented...but as she goes from door to door talking to people who live there two things happen...all the residents notice immediately that she is not 'one of them' and eventually they ask her to leave, saying she 'thinks too much'...the other thing is that immediately behind the mask of happiness there is so much dissatisfaction and strife, so she realizes the picture is a lie...other young girls feel stifled and are dying to escape...
the land of wide lawns and narrow minds.
vado,
i frequented living batch while i attended UNM duing my junior & senior years, before moving to LA.
there's nothing here worth mentioning now....
glory days.
revolutions don' happen in the built world, only evolutions. only thing we can do as architects is work inside that framework.
i never lived in the suburbs when i was in NA, and have been living abroad in monster cities for most of the last decade so ain't got the hang up aginst the burbs that many of you folks seem to have. seems to me it is a reality that is supported quite happily by those who live there. in spite of its propounded deleterious effects why the urge to tell other people how to live their lives? from my visits to me father's place they aren't for me, and my research here in tokyo is based on an alternative to their very existence, but i still wouldn't tell anyone to move out, nor expect the miracle new urbanisation that many architects /planners are pissing their collective pants over...
The article says:
Sprawl gives us ''decentralization and democratization," Bruegmann says—an orderly use of land that draws in working-class and middle-class people and allows them to head upward in the economy and society. Homes in new subdivisions in the South and West commonly start at $120,000. To try to curb sprawl is to stand in the way of the flourishing of the American dream.''It's a way to get things once possessed by only a few," Bruegmann says. "Privacy, mobility—social and physical—and choice." Bruegman makes certain points here... Sprawl makes certain things affordable to a growing middle class, and encourages this class... On the other hand, he's also missing something...
1. "Privacy" can also mean "not publicity"... Looked at another way, this not really democratization at work... Encouraging individualist commuting / labor culture doesn't really make people more politically or socially liberated or empowered...
2. "Mobility" can also mean "car-owner priveleged". Settlement is driven by car owners, so you can't really be a mover if you don't own a car or cannot afford a car...
On the other hand, as Strawbeary says, maybe suburbs are becoming more and more like small cities... Maybe they will become more public, and less car priveleged... With increasing energy and gas consciousness, maybe people will want local places to go.
a recent article in the new york times is slightly related. here
equitable development is difficult even in cities famed for density.
"It's a way to get things once possessed by only a few," Bruegmann says. "Privacy, mobility—social and physical—and choice."
Does anyone else find it ironic that the access to these private desires is based upon heavily subsidized infrastructure, ie. reliance upon the greater public?
I tried to explain that very thing to a group of people just Friday el jeffe. They all had lightbulbs turn on over their heads. It was great. It is ironic that the people who live on a 40 year old street with established water mains, post offices, fire stations, etc subsidize those lazy suburban winding roads, new firestations, school buses, freeways, and utility services to each 3 acre lot. I don't think this EVER crosses anyone's mind.
And so how are the taxes cheaper in the burbs? Some cities may even provide tax incentives for 'new housing starts' like not having to pay a property tax for a year or something like that on your new house to encourage 'growth'.
I'd like to hear others experiences and knowledge regarding this as it actually seems to hit home with some people who otherwise don't see the issues.
Well here in ABQ, in the last 6 months the city council has passed and begun enforcing impact fees for development. Essentially it is a way to have the 'real' costs of development paid by the developer, which are passed to the home buyer (or other final user). The fees are based upon geographic location in relation to existing infrastructure.
Ok Steven, I haven't been to Louisville, nor can I confirm or deny your claims. That said, Louisville may be a large city, but I wouldn't lump it into the same catogory as the major metro areas that are the worst offenders of sprawl.
My example of core cities having higher crime, higher taxes and underperforming schools was merely an attempt to explain a justification for the people that move to the suburbs. I do not for a minute think it's solely because of racism. Those I know that moved to the suburbs cite those reasons for their moves. What bothers me is the same ignorance urban city dwellers say the suburbanites have they show towards those living in the suburbs.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.