If architects want to be involved in the suburban landscape (my favorite term) in a meaninful way, it has to be as leaders and visionaries. The above comments are on the money - architects are practicing in suburbia but they are simply responding to briefs and giving clients what they want. They are not practicing in a critical way.
To practice in a critical way could mean several things I guess. We need new tools. The NUists realized this and use their form-based codes and public workshops very successfully. Also, it's really important to remember that (as citizen mentioned several posts ago) architects are uniquely qualified to provide visions of what things and places might look like. This is a unique skill.
Here are a couple of proposals for how architects could critically engage the suburban landscape:
1. Vision. NUists have shown that there is a gray area in between the architecture and planning professions. As more cities, towns and counties (many of them located far from urban cores) begin to adopt smart growth principles and even form-based zoning codes, they need people with visualization skills in order to design new policies and describe potential implications of policy changes.
2. Sustainability. Architects should become the 'experts' and team with ecologists, planners and landscape architects to propose innovative solutions for making suburbia more environmentally friendly. This could range from the scale of the parking lot to the enormous in-between spaces leftover between right-of-ways, developable land, etc. Currently, there is a massive struggle between environmental groups (NO-GROWTH!) and developers (GROWTH!). We end up with a landscape of un-developable splotches and un-environmental sprawl. Obviously we know there is a middle road... but nobody else seems to realize this.
3. Research. Most architects aren't acknowledging the enormous changes ocurring in suburbia and described in some of the literature above. What are these changes and which ones are morphological, typological, etc. What policies influenced these changes? For example, I'd like to see an in-depth study of Portland's UGB on urban form. I think that some of the region's 2-story shopping centers are directly related. It would be nice to use research and observation as a basis for design proposals.
Just some random ideas. Anybody have any others? Less hand-wringing over the architect's limited role and the enormous challenges they face; more ideas please!
good post, rpsnino. my next won't add ideas necessarily, but is a quote of something i was remembering yesterday and had to go find. more hand-wringing? maybe:
thomas fisher, in his book in the scheme of things, writes about flw and john dewey as examples of two people early in the 20c who articulated the broad social implications of Americans' pragmatic approach to things.
per fisher, pragmatism "offered a reaction to idealism and utilitarianism that was...more amenable to architecture. rather than dismiss ethics and aesthetics, pragmatism addressed these matters by looking at their consequences. a pragmatist would say that a building was good or beautiful because if its full consequences were in themselves judged to be good or beautiful. There is, in other words, no intrinsic goodness or beauty in a building - no absolute standard against which to judge it - and no way to calculate the greatest good since the process of deciding the good or the beautiful is a never-ending process of interpretation and response. we can only make conditional judgments about ethical or aesthetic matters related to buildings. but judge we must, since buildings have consequences (they affect people), and no pretense of objectivity will change that fact."
fisher traces the threads of pragmatic thought through parallel tracks of philosophers and architects: hh richardson/charles sanders peirce, louis sullivan/william james, to wright/john dewey, tracking its evolution and its crisis during the ww2. though wright "pursued the social and urban implications of pragmatism, his emphasis on the individual and family unit in a world of private life and personal freedom seemed at odds with the collective solidarity needed during wartime." dewey's "emphasis on judging the good in terms of its consequences proved inadequate to deciding what actions to take in a war in which the consequences were unknowable."
so where did we end up? "the ideas of both were co-opted by others. wright's agrarian vision became the model of suburban developers spacing identical houses across the land, while dewey's social pragmatism devolved into a philosophy of the philistine, where ideas that did not have immediate practical utility were dismissed. the notion of judging things according to their consequences got turned around to mean that only things with known consequences would be considered. the good or beautiful became whatever worked, usually either from a functional or economic perspective."
"the so-called pragmatists of our time are generally concerned only with the immediate consequences of their actions: will a building meet market expectations right away or bring in a short-term profit? a true pragmatist [like wright or dewey or the others before] would argue that the meaning and value of an action depends on its consequences over time and that by attending only to immediate effects, we may in fact completely misjudge what we do."
"architecture is ethical because it has real consequences in the lives of people. and the ethics of being an architect involves knowing what those consequences are and taking responsibility for them. that is the promise that pragmatism originally held for architects, and it is the only defense we now have against what pragmatism has become."
Thank you for that sample, Steven. I'm going to find and read that book. It obviously sheds a lot of light on what we're discussing here. If anything, it points up the need for architects to "go forth and multiply" in public service, in activism, and in the development business even more.
I was at a meeting of the local AIA/Urban Design committee recently. Someone pointed to the success of the LEED program in establishing a widely recognized set of standards for environmentally friendly buildings. He suggested something of that sort would be helpful for urban design (including, obviously, suburban landscapes).
"Sustainability" is another slippery term, useful as a general direction, but its best practices need some kind of substantiation, standardization and dissemination to schools and practitioners.
About a year ago, I remember reading a quote from either George Baird or Robert Fishman on the subject of New Urbanism, saying that it was one of the few recent social movements that has been spearheaded by architects.
Also, on the subject of activism, this past October, I went to a conference at Princeton on the subject of The Next American Metropolis ... and when activism came up, people like Mario Gandelsonas and Stan Allen did not know really what to say. Even the mandarins, the "stars" in the constellation of the architecture education elite, are baffled by this issue.
Alex Krieger, chariman of the GSD's Department of Urban Planning and Design and organizer of a conference about the New Urbanism movement on March 4-6, agrees that the principles espoused by the New Urbanists are "unassailable," but he is critical of the movement's propensity to be seen as a panacea, a simple formula for curing the ills of society.
Alex Krieger, chairman of the GSD's Department of Urban Planning and Design and the organizer of the conference, agrees that the principles espoused by the New Urbanists are "unassailable," but he is critical of the movement's propensity to be seen as a panacea, a simple formula for curing the ills of society.
"What concerns me is that New Urbanism is eminently co- optable by developers who will use those ideas to produce a new and slightly better version of the suburbs," Krieger said, adding that there are already examples of subdivisions advertised as "New Urbanist" on the basis of a few superficial architectural details.
Nor is Krieger against building better suburbs. But what he is leery of is the prospect of New Urbanism becoming a media and marketing juggernaut that will take the emphasis off of the much more urgent need to revitalize older urban and first-tier suburban areas that offer little to entice middle-class homebuyers.
"Roxbury, for example, has all the stuff that New Urbanists claim to like -- population density, narrow streets, front porches, etc. -- and, in population, it's the equivalent of about 90 Seasides, but nobody's holding it up as an ideal or clamoring to get in. Americans have always been better at replacing things, or starting anew, than in working hard to improve the places that already exist."
The purpose of the conference, Krieger said, is not to debunk New Urbanism, but to examine the movement and "nudge it toward broader alternatives, possibilities, insights." Krieger said that because of the GSD's past history, it has a special responsibility to take on this role.
"When Walter Gropius was dean of the Design School, we were at the epicenter of a particular view of urbanism that was itself offered as a panacea, a single-minded way to approach planning, which is now largely discredited," he said.
That view, which exalted the stark, unadorned, straight-sided building as the essence of modernism, led directly to the "urban renewal" movement of the 1950s and '60s, producing many of the low-income projects which now, plagued by drugs, crime, and violence, are held up as examples of how not to design urban housing or create neighborhoods.
"At the GSD, we are particularly sensitive to the dangers of jumping on a bandwagon and promoting a universal solution to the problem of making communities," said Krieger. "The problems are very complex. There are many different kinds of settlements, each with its own character and set of needs. What I hope the conference accomplishes is to focus attention not just on a new urbanism, but on urbanisms."
"...rim joist and others argue that architects aren't universally held to be the arbiters of good and bad in the built environment - and they seem to accept this state of affairs.... if not architects, who?..."
1.
"Mission Statement
The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the architecture profession dedicated to:
Serving its members
Advancing their value Improving the quality of the built environment."
2. National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
"Your NCARB Certificate:
Demonstrates your support of NCARB's mission for protecting the public welfare."
3. Kentucky Revised Statutes
"Except as otherwise provided hereinafter, no person shall practice architecture in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky without first obtaining a license under the provisions of this
chapter, it being the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the life, health, property and
welfare of the public."
4. National Architectural Accreditation Board
Among the criteria for assessing an architectural education:
"Human Behavior
Understanding of the theories and methods of inquiry that seek to clarify the relationship between human behavior and the physical environment.
"Design
Understanding of the principles of sustainability in making architecture and urban design decisions that conserve natural and built resources, including culturally important buildings and sites, and in the creation of healthful buildings and communities.
"Client Role in Architecture
Understanding of the responsibility of the architect to elicit, understand, and resolve the needs of the client, owner, and user.
"Comprehensive Design
Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and site that includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating an understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, life-safety provisions, wall sections and building assemblies and the principles of sustainability.
"Architectural Practice
Understanding of the basic principles and legal aspects of practice organization, financial management, business planning, time and project management, risk mitigation, and mediation and arbitration as well as an understanding of trends that affect practice, such as globalization, outsourcing, project delivery, expanding practice settings, diversity, and others.
"Leadership
Understanding of the need for architects to provide leadership in the building design and construction process and on issues of growth, development, and aesthetics in their communities.
"Ethics and Professional Judgment
Understanding of the ethical issues involved in the formation of professional judgment in architectural design and practice."
i'd say we've been asked. by our professional organization, our registration boards, our state governments, and our school accreditation boards at least.
I agree with the comments that the idea of city=good, suburb=bad is a-passe and b-not accurate.
But, I think some people in this thread (Rim, your freedom-vs.-X arguments get more tiring everytime you use them as they are too facile) are burrying their heads on the ground. I personally Im not a huge fan of the city and love the fact that the suburb tried to do something else, a new way of living that is not entirely urban.
The suburb of today is failing people, easy as that. It has us stuck in an unsustainable pattern. It is our jobs, as Steven pointed out, to look into what is not working in the built environment and make it work. Now any architect that would just say DENSITY is wrong. What I personally liek about subrubs is their organic nature, decentralized clusters of a bigger whole. That's how nature works, it can't be wrong and I think thta it is the way we will produce energy and most things in the future, as organic systems.
As most things some people just get stuck in the rhetoric of the issue and not a t the heart of the problem.
Steven, I don't think anyone's suggesting that architecture and its practitioners are not well-suited, even best-suited to shape the built environment. At least I'm not making that claim. On the contrary: yea, architects! On the other hand, if Rim is making that claim, I'll stand aside...
All we need to do is to get larger portions of city councils, planning commissions, development firms, financial institutions, and, finally, end-user consumers on board, to line up behind those august institutions listed above.
True enough, at a disciplinary level, the architecture profession is sought out. Also, of course, at the level of projects undertaken by developers.
My point is that not enough people/clients/agencies are asking us at that all-important, on-the-ground project level. (Or, maybe we are being asked, but those being asked/hired are the wrong ones, doing bad work.) So my proposition is that we get involved at that next layer up: to become a part of that stratum (agencies/clients) that has much more effect on the built environment, those who do the actual asking/hiring/paying.
Complaining about the AIA is not even fun anymore, but... most of what citizen is saying is their responsability in a major way. Now Rim and others will respond with their "self-reliance" sh-tick, but seriously they are our professional organization and shoulkd start acting like it. I don't want one day a year in the hill, I want lobbying in our behalf at all levels of government so that we have a place at the table. The AIA should go and make these people want to ask us how to make the suburb work.
There are a number of alternative - and perhaps more up to date - programs whose research focuses on the suburbs, growth and sprawl. The Brookings Institute has a number of reports, books and lectures on these and other issues you can download or purchase: http://www.brook.edu/data/brookings_taxonomy.xml?taxonomy=Cities%20and%20Suburbs
This discussion is starting to turn into the usual rant about architects not getting: A) invited to the table, and B) to design the table.
Listen, nobody is ever going to invite us to intervene critically in the suburban landscape. And we're not going to get the chance to completely redesign suburbia. What we can do, as creative individuals, problem solvers and leaders is to invent the opportunities themselves to intervene. In order to do this, we have work outside our traditional roles, spend some time in that next "stratum" that citizen mentions, etc. Need to work subversively and tactically within the system.
parallel, where are you quoting krieger's stuff from?
+++
funny that none of this is new. kenneth Jackson (Crabgrass Frontier) has a good quote from Adna Ferrin Weber's book on the suburbs from more than a hundred years ago that still rings true.
"In the 1890's, weber calculated that the population density of fifteen american cities averaged twenty-two people per acre as compared with 157.6 for thirteen German cities, and he speculated about the phenomenon:
It has sometimes been urged that this is largely the result of the electric street railway in America, but the casual connection is not apparent...It should rather be said that the American penchant for dwelling in cottage homes instead of business blocks after the fashion of Europe is the cause, and the trolley car the effect.
For the underlying causes of the increasingly stratified and segregated social geography of great American cities, as well as their relatively low density as compared to Europe, we must look not just to transportation technology and the powerful mechanical forces unleashed by the Industrial Revolution but to the development of new cultural values."
funny that we still haven't worked out the causal relationship to any degree of satisfaction (think how many people blaim suburbia on the existence of cars)...this was before the days of feedback loops, etc, but he still got it right that the suburbs do not exist without CHOICE. Which is the main thing, ennit.
architects come across as such dinks when they advocate new urbanism or old urbanism or density because it looks like we are advocating an enforced lifestyle. cool to be willing to address real issues, but FORCING change on people for their own good is pretty fascist. which is the central argument against new urbanism, in the end. most people dislike their heavy handedness for just this reason but have no idea how else to get things moving...tough problem, but clearly linked to social ambition more than physical structure of the city.
This is why the suburbs are not in themselves good or bad. It is how they are inhabited that is the problem. in much the same way that neither a gridiron plan nor an organic plan for a city is inherently better than the other...what people DO is much more important than what they live in looks like.
the socially responsible architects, the one who would change the suburbs for the lack of a better phrase are a small minority of the profession. most architects live in the suburbs. have suvs or some other large vehicle. and pay lip service to social and environmental issues...oh and they have never heard of archinect. carry on.
I didn't have time to read all of these posts, so this my have already been suggested, but I have just ordered a DVD called The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream. Apparently this is a very good doco, but as yet I'm not sure exactly what it is all about (beside what the title and blurb say). I will post up here when I have watched it. but you can apparently purchase it from Amazon
apologies for not letting thread die quietly, but came across a good interview of jane jacobs by howard kunstler that is very revealing of the difference between a smart man and a REALLY smart woman.
kunstler keeps trying to lead her down paths that might confirm his own ideas and jacobs keeps on answering with subtle and nuanced responses.
and very very cool to see this old lady still has the grey cells in order to keep the young ideologue in line. lovely.
"i'd say we've been asked. by our professional organization, our registration boards, our state governments, and our school accreditation boards at least."
A list of credentials, membership in professional organizations, and a mission statement... and these items will allow you to begin your redesign of exactly which suburb?
The only thing your elaborate list is still missing is a willing client.
"...cool to be willing to address real issues, but FORCING change on people for their own good is pretty fascist..."
"While Americans are unlikely to abandon sprawl solely because they feel bad about chewing up hundreds of acres per hour, they have begun a personal calculus, examining whether the sprawling lifestyle is really the bargain it's cracked up to be. Factoring in transportation and energy costs adds considerably to those low home prices. Higher taxes to pay for all the far-flung infrastructure and services -- water, sewer, police, fire, schools -- further burden the family budget.
"Today, establishing alternative development patterns isn't going to hinge on saving farmland or protecting endangered species or preserving historic sites. It's going to come down to convenience, quality of life, and the pocketbook."
i work in the burbs but still hate them. bad planning, bad architecture, lazy developers with no public interest, too much driving, no POSSIBILITY of walking anywhere - all with bad effects on the environment and my/our personal health.
so, am i biased against myself?
maybe the conversation should distinguish between the residential use in the suburbs and the commercial/business use. 'cause their separated, you know, by single-use zoning. and you can't get from one to the other without getting into your car and back to the main artery.
My main thing, if I remember correctly, was to advocate for the broadbrushing of "suburbs" and "suburbia." That's my beef. Steven, instead of "the burbs," how about "some 'burbs"?
suburbia is so pervasive that talking about fixing it is nearly a non sequitur, but i think when people DO discuss the issue it is on aesthetic/"lifestyle", grounds more often than not, which is a shame as easthetics are the least important part of the entire deal...but the easiest to grab the attention of class groups...
reed kroloff is the best example lately, shaking his head at the new urbanist plans for louisiana mostly becasue he doesn't like the way they look than on intelligent grounds...
its a bit like complaining about wal-mart. i grew up poor as scrub and can understand perfectly well why my parents still shop there, even if it is killing the mom and pop stores (of which my gramma was once an overworked and underpaid owner). but when i talk to my suburb-raised, well-educated friends about it they quickly get quite holier-than-thou on me and claim proudly that they NEVER shop at wal-mart. That is nothing but a non-starter.
debate about suburbs takes a similar tone, and leads nowhere. i know the new urbanists are talking about how to modify existing suburbs to make them more liveable but they really want to just plain remove all of suburbia and replace it with something that suits them better. in that sense it is very paternalistic and class based (big time). an i have yet to meet an architect with a different approach lined up.
seems to me that somewhere along the line social/market forces will play a larger role than design in making american cities better places to live. keep your eye on the "lazy" ignorant developers, they will probably be walking the walk sooner than anyone here...;-)
fair enough. but as soon as you qualify it that way, it's a lot less clear what you're talking about.
there are suburbs which have arrived at a good urban condition and there are cities which feel like sprawl. so maybe we talk about the suburban condition as part of a continuum between an urban condition and a rural condition so that we all know approx the condition we're talking about. that sure muddies the water though, doesn't it?
fact is, we're still building single use house farms on former greenfields, we're still separating them with a hierarchy of thoroughfares instead of interconnected ones, and we're still building 'communities' with no sidewalks and undersized infrastructure. we're still putting 10 stores behind a huge parking lot and flocking to big boxes separated by highways. there is nothing sustainable about these as models and they're not exceptions to the rule.
i am not a big fan of american suburbia, and should admit that i never lived in a real suburb for more than a few years (no money), and haven't owned a car since i was 18 (which makes it nearly 20 years sans automobile believe it or not). so i am not exactly attached to the suburban way of life, for better or worse...
but, my da LOVED his suburban home. he really did. he thought all that stuff connected to it was just wonderful, and i can't quite imagine telling him and others like him to stop living that way. and i gotta give him credit for choosing to live there...
the thing that really gets me though is how architects and planners (especially of the new urbanist persuasion) present ideas as holistic changes that will only work if we ALL do everything they say without question...
which to me sounds like the man telling his subjects to do as he says, love him without question, and HE will be their slave for ever.
i don't think that can work. banning wal-mart won't change a thing. i mean all those big box malls going up seem to be responding to a real demand of some kind...aren't they?
you're right, jump. it's about ease of use, comfort, and habit. the challenge to designers and community leaders is to figure out how to make it easier to live in a smarter way.
no small feat. people (including me) want to do what they do without having to think about it too much, without encountering 'others' who cause them fear - rational or irrational, and the ability to do a lot of it from the driver's seat. a lot of what a suburban condition offers has to do with the control you have in using your own vehicle, the infrequency of encounters that might surprise you, and the ability to do the same thing, following the same paths, every day. drive-through windows are the essence of this approach to suburban living.
i saw the director of the center for disease control speak in 04 about how we have designed exercise out of life - and for that he blamed designers. he proposed putting stairs front and center in buildings and hiding the elevators. he showed pictures of highways which made walking a forbidding prospect. he cited statistics about the relationship between our fast food diets and lack of exercise and obesity, adult-onset diabetes, heart conditions, lung conditions from air pollution etc. he called out designers as enablers of these problems, not just impassive providers of what the people want.
and he's right. a guy in my office walks twice a day - once in the morning and once at lunch. since we moved into the office in december he's been hit twice. both minor, but... sounds stereotyped but, guess what? - both times it was someone in an suv, on a cell phone, didn't see him crossing at the corner. both times the person did not get off of the phone, rolled down the window and asked if he was ok, and drove on without even getting out of the car. if the two situations had been less the same, it might not be so horrifying. not only were they not paying attention, the environment doesn't suggest to them that they should. it's really not a place he should be walking, i guess.
so how to we design the suburban condition in a smarter way? as i've indicated, i work out here. i don't have any answers, but it's becoming more and more of a mission for me. i've made it clear that i think the current patterns of development are untenable - whether people and developers like them or not. we won't answer this here, but it's definitely something that will be more and more impt for all of us to address. that's why i get frustrated with the suburbs are 'not so bad' or 'almost alright' or even 'new model based on shifting ways of living' argument. our job is not to only give people what they already think they want but to give our broader communities what they deserve as well.
"...there are suburbs which have arrived at a good urban condition and there are cities which feel like sprawl. so maybe ... the suburban condition as part of a continuum between an urban condition and a rural condition ... that sure muddies the water though, doesn't it?"
My point EXACTLY, relative to the generic, hence meaningless, employment of "suburbia" to describe an impossibly varied set of conditions and localities. The water, she's muddy, and pretending otherwise doesn't help the debate.
OK, I will now drop my rant on this part of the thread.
History is important here. Scott Bottles' book _Los Angeles and the Automobile_ relieves us of the notion of a "benevolent" public transit system operating and connecting the region in the early twentieth century, dismantled by an "evil" corporate cabal led by GM. (Anyone see "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?)
It's true that automobility did supplant the urban railway system, but this was driven, literally, by ordinary Angelenos fed up with the stinginess and inefficiency of a large transit system allowed to fall into disrepair that had made their lives difficult. Private automobiles were a godsend, most thought, and got them out of the increasingly detested streetcars. Of course, the automobile, rubber, and roadbuilding industries were only too happy to help, but this took place after the major shift was underway.
The simplistic notion of "car (or SUV) bad, streetcar good" is just as slippery and historically incorrect as the broadbrush about city vs. suburb. Single-family housing on private lots, separated from other land uses, was considered "best practice" by urban thinkers to help people get away from congested and polluted cities in the late 19c and early 20c. (If Archinect had been around then, responsible posters would have been arguing FOR large lots and wider streets.)
Values change. Many now feel that providing more choice, such as public transit or compact suburban development, is a very good idea. I agree. But it's important to understand historical context when thinking about something so complicated as making and remaking the built environment, and the resulting social patterns.
Steven, your story about your pedestrian friend is more a cautionary tale about idiot drivers talking on the phone than suburban development. I live in a fairly dense urban area, and see the situation you describe quite often. (However, I do agree that pedestrian-friendly streets are very important.)
historical thinking is valuable for understanding how we got where we are, but that particular history (streetcar to auto) doesn't offer much solution for a future post-petroleum environment. if there's one thing that new urbanists have done successfully, it's that they've latched onto a development model that works: old urbanism. wherever you stand on the potential of modern light rail, the original/'streetcar' suburbs do offer a useful model for future suburban development.
and the reason i keep trying to simplify the discussion is that it's the only way to build any kind of consensus. designers like to talk about the gray area, exceptions to the rule, etc. it gives us a lot to think about and is part of thinking critically - something we do well, presumably. but when you're trying to get buy-in from those who don't have time/inclination to think too much about the built environment, you've got to give them a straight albeit somewhat more black-and-white picture of scenarios for a possible future. the current strategy of market-free-for-all suburban growth isn't one of those possible scenarios, imo.
It's a post petroleum world and everyone sees "it" your way.
What do we do with suburbia? And all the suburbanites?
It's very easy to talk about the few who are moving back into urban settings, old/abandoned- warehouses/department stores/postal buildings/government converted into family living spaces and more recently new buildings- condos/apartments... so it's happening. Now my questions Steven...
Steven, you're exactly right about the need to present coherent and identifiable alternatives (as opposed to nuanced discussion for experts) when making the case to a broad audience. My obsession for nuance is in the context of this thread, participated in by experts and others.
as i said before: so how to we design the suburban condition in a smarter way? as i've indicated, i work out here. i don't have any answers, but it's becoming more and more of a mission for me. i've made it clear that i think the current patterns of development are untenable - whether people and developers like them or not. we won't answer this here, but it's definitely something that will be more and more impt for all of us to address.
but, in the interest of continuing a productive discussion>
brainstorming (ideo's rule #1: no 'NOs allowed) - things to bring to the development of new and for the retrofitting of old suburbs:
-light rail hubs with drive-n-park lots (w/elec connections for charging).
-the hydrogen fuel infrastructure gm wants.
-development boundaries, like that of portland, containing new development.
-scrapping of single-use zoning: allowing a grocery, a post office, and a pharmacy to open in your neighborhood.
-build sidewalks everywhere, achieving full pedestrian interconnectedness, so that everyone CAN walk to anywhere if they choose to do so.
-incentives for use of local/natural materials and counter-incentives against use of long-distance materials, petroleum-based materials, etc.
-strict controls on the amount of asphalt/concrete surface laid relative to the occupancy of an individual product. tearing up old paving which does not meet these requirements.
-allowing/encouraging (not requiring) greater density to occur within existing suburban patterns. (would spur major fight with the nimbys, but...).
-build urban-sized infrastructure to a particular point and don't extend further until the already built is maxed out. no more undersized or single-user infrastructure. roads, sewers, water service, etc should be built to support a desired (tbd) density.
note that none of these abandon suburbs already existing, but they allow for the development of new turning of soil to be curtailed.
i didn't say they were all new ideas. but it's up to someone to implement them. do you think they've been unsuccessful where they've been realized?
i like the dedicated pedestrian lane! might need some level of separation, but -- cool.
not sure we need to 'change the way we view human life' fundamentally. it would be nice to get back to a view of humans being more impt in our built environment than cars.
not sure why energy and conservation issues need to be the primary issues in civilization. would be better if we could get to a point where they were assumed, became background, integrated into the way we do things. there are much more exciting things to think about.
Steven Ward, you've approached this entire topic from a pretty "instructional" standpoint, and your carefully worded response to Jump's post about his Dad's choices in life was just unbelievably condescending. You subtly lumped Jump's father into a category fitting the suburban stereotype of your own invention. So Jump's Dad is basically just another creature of habit, looking for the easiest comforts in life, probably irrationally fearful toward anything new (including this rather obvious subtext: his probable prejudices toward "others"), and his likely out of shape body due to his reliance on his car? And you could, godlike, teach him the "smarter" way to live his currently errant lifestyle?
I'll tell you this, were this an in-person discussion, it's the type of interchange that usually becomes very entertaining as someone like Jump would quite understandably stand up and knock someone like Steven Ward on his pompous ass.
"people (including me) want to do what they do without having to think about it too much, without encountering 'others' who cause them fear - rational or irrational, and the ability to do a lot of it from the driver's seat."
me and jump's dad, rim joist. and not just us; i'm thinking it's universal. that's why i tried to come up with solutions taking this into account.
and i hope not as pompous in person as i am in typing. (usually somewhat unassuming/quiet).
since i probably worn out my welcome on this thread a long time ago...
Rim Joist, as Steven has politely shown that you mis-heard him, this is the point in the conversation where I am going to "quite understandably stand up and knock someone like (Rim Joist) on his pompous ass". And I think my 4" boot heels will help me look intimidating enough to do that (though physically I'm a wimp).
I'm enjoying the hell out of this discussion and would like it if a small contretemps about assumptions will not totally derail it.
A quick comment re: sidewalks. I have been thinking about the suburbs and other forms of development since my undergrad studios with Kirby Lockard and Corky Poster in the late 1980's. The key thing, that I think has been stated by many on this thread, is the idea that people need to have choices in how they utilize their built environment. Most of the suburban neighborhoods in which I work do not offer any form of choice in how one interacts with nearby infrastructure: you have no possibility of getting from point a to b unless you get in a car.
Attempts to navigate the sidewalk-less shoulder of the road are incredibly dangerous. As I recall Oregon has legislation requiring that all new road projects include pedestrian amenities aka sidewalks - the result of a lawsuit by a man who could no longer walk from his house to the beach after an existing road was replaced with a new road having no sidewalk. In a democratic society, access to the routes of mobility - the pieces of our land that are dedicated to movement - need to be functionally accessible to all, not only to the people who choose to own an automobile.
It seems to me this is a pretty basic concept and not one that can really be argued. Maybe I can't godlike teach people a better way of life, but I think this is one point on which we can all agree.
I have no problem with you, Liberty Bell. I wouldn't even mind if you knocked me on my ass, because it'd be your honest assessment unclouded by sophistry. Probably kind of hurt, just the same.
As for my "mis-hearing" Steven Ward, sorry, but I think not. I'm "hearing" loud and clear, and I don't care to elaborate further.
Rim, I was only referring to the fact that Steven lumped himself in with "what people want" and I didn't think you saw that. That's all.
I haven't read the Bruegmann book but heard a review on NPR yesterday. The guy they interviewed said he and his wife apologized to the farmer who had previousy owned the land their housing development was built on?!? It was bizarre.
The solid point that I guess Bruegmann makes is that a lot of former viable towns 40-50 miles outside big cities are on the verge of dying, and suburban development around them makes them actual communities again. This is for the most part valid, though if everyone in those communities is commuting 40-50 miles each way every day into a city to work (they all aren't, of course) I don't think it's really sustainable without light rail or some other mass transit.
I'd say I might have the ideal sub/urban situation right now: 60 blocks outside the city core, built in the 1940-50's, lots are 60'x200' (enormous compared to the 16'x68' rowhouse lot I had in Philly, tiny compared to the Phoenix suburban yard in which I grew up), plenty of sidewalks, and a five block walk takes me into one of the "satellite" mercantile centers that a lot of neighborhoods lack - the former Village of Broad Ripple that sprung up around the canal locks that were once there. And now an organic grocery store just opened there!
As for the terminology discussion above: many would say I live in a suburban environment, many would say I live in an urban environment. To me it feels like both.
Building Suburbia...... by Dolores Hayden - ?
If architects want to be involved in the suburban landscape (my favorite term) in a meaninful way, it has to be as leaders and visionaries. The above comments are on the money - architects are practicing in suburbia but they are simply responding to briefs and giving clients what they want. They are not practicing in a critical way.
To practice in a critical way could mean several things I guess. We need new tools. The NUists realized this and use their form-based codes and public workshops very successfully. Also, it's really important to remember that (as citizen mentioned several posts ago) architects are uniquely qualified to provide visions of what things and places might look like. This is a unique skill.
Here are a couple of proposals for how architects could critically engage the suburban landscape:
1. Vision. NUists have shown that there is a gray area in between the architecture and planning professions. As more cities, towns and counties (many of them located far from urban cores) begin to adopt smart growth principles and even form-based zoning codes, they need people with visualization skills in order to design new policies and describe potential implications of policy changes.
2. Sustainability. Architects should become the 'experts' and team with ecologists, planners and landscape architects to propose innovative solutions for making suburbia more environmentally friendly. This could range from the scale of the parking lot to the enormous in-between spaces leftover between right-of-ways, developable land, etc. Currently, there is a massive struggle between environmental groups (NO-GROWTH!) and developers (GROWTH!). We end up with a landscape of un-developable splotches and un-environmental sprawl. Obviously we know there is a middle road... but nobody else seems to realize this.
3. Research. Most architects aren't acknowledging the enormous changes ocurring in suburbia and described in some of the literature above. What are these changes and which ones are morphological, typological, etc. What policies influenced these changes? For example, I'd like to see an in-depth study of Portland's UGB on urban form. I think that some of the region's 2-story shopping centers are directly related. It would be nice to use research and observation as a basis for design proposals.
Just some random ideas. Anybody have any others? Less hand-wringing over the architect's limited role and the enormous challenges they face; more ideas please!
good post, rpsnino. my next won't add ideas necessarily, but is a quote of something i was remembering yesterday and had to go find. more hand-wringing? maybe:
thomas fisher, in his book in the scheme of things, writes about flw and john dewey as examples of two people early in the 20c who articulated the broad social implications of Americans' pragmatic approach to things.
per fisher, pragmatism "offered a reaction to idealism and utilitarianism that was...more amenable to architecture. rather than dismiss ethics and aesthetics, pragmatism addressed these matters by looking at their consequences. a pragmatist would say that a building was good or beautiful because if its full consequences were in themselves judged to be good or beautiful. There is, in other words, no intrinsic goodness or beauty in a building - no absolute standard against which to judge it - and no way to calculate the greatest good since the process of deciding the good or the beautiful is a never-ending process of interpretation and response. we can only make conditional judgments about ethical or aesthetic matters related to buildings. but judge we must, since buildings have consequences (they affect people), and no pretense of objectivity will change that fact."
fisher traces the threads of pragmatic thought through parallel tracks of philosophers and architects: hh richardson/charles sanders peirce, louis sullivan/william james, to wright/john dewey, tracking its evolution and its crisis during the ww2. though wright "pursued the social and urban implications of pragmatism, his emphasis on the individual and family unit in a world of private life and personal freedom seemed at odds with the collective solidarity needed during wartime." dewey's "emphasis on judging the good in terms of its consequences proved inadequate to deciding what actions to take in a war in which the consequences were unknowable."
so where did we end up? "the ideas of both were co-opted by others. wright's agrarian vision became the model of suburban developers spacing identical houses across the land, while dewey's social pragmatism devolved into a philosophy of the philistine, where ideas that did not have immediate practical utility were dismissed. the notion of judging things according to their consequences got turned around to mean that only things with known consequences would be considered. the good or beautiful became whatever worked, usually either from a functional or economic perspective."
"the so-called pragmatists of our time are generally concerned only with the immediate consequences of their actions: will a building meet market expectations right away or bring in a short-term profit? a true pragmatist [like wright or dewey or the others before] would argue that the meaning and value of an action depends on its consequences over time and that by attending only to immediate effects, we may in fact completely misjudge what we do."
"architecture is ethical because it has real consequences in the lives of people. and the ethics of being an architect involves knowing what those consequences are and taking responsibility for them. that is the promise that pragmatism originally held for architects, and it is the only defense we now have against what pragmatism has become."
good read.
Thank you for that sample, Steven. I'm going to find and read that book. It obviously sheds a lot of light on what we're discussing here. If anything, it points up the need for architects to "go forth and multiply" in public service, in activism, and in the development business even more.
I was at a meeting of the local AIA/Urban Design committee recently. Someone pointed to the success of the LEED program in establishing a widely recognized set of standards for environmentally friendly buildings. He suggested something of that sort would be helpful for urban design (including, obviously, suburban landscapes).
"Sustainability" is another slippery term, useful as a general direction, but its best practices need some kind of substantiation, standardization and dissemination to schools and practitioners.
About a year ago, I remember reading a quote from either George Baird or Robert Fishman on the subject of New Urbanism, saying that it was one of the few recent social movements that has been spearheaded by architects.
Also, on the subject of activism, this past October, I went to a conference at Princeton on the subject of The Next American Metropolis ... and when activism came up, people like Mario Gandelsonas and Stan Allen did not know really what to say. Even the mandarins, the "stars" in the constellation of the architecture education elite, are baffled by this issue.
Smokety
Social Movement.....or Faux Urbanism?
.....
Alex Krieger, chariman of the GSD's Department of Urban Planning and Design and organizer of a conference about the New Urbanism movement on March 4-6, agrees that the principles espoused by the New Urbanists are "unassailable," but he is critical of the movement's propensity to be seen as a panacea, a simple formula for curing the ills of society.
Alex Krieger, chairman of the GSD's Department of Urban Planning and Design and the organizer of the conference, agrees that the principles espoused by the New Urbanists are "unassailable," but he is critical of the movement's propensity to be seen as a panacea, a simple formula for curing the ills of society.
"What concerns me is that New Urbanism is eminently co- optable by developers who will use those ideas to produce a new and slightly better version of the suburbs," Krieger said, adding that there are already examples of subdivisions advertised as "New Urbanist" on the basis of a few superficial architectural details.
Nor is Krieger against building better suburbs. But what he is leery of is the prospect of New Urbanism becoming a media and marketing juggernaut that will take the emphasis off of the much more urgent need to revitalize older urban and first-tier suburban areas that offer little to entice middle-class homebuyers.
"Roxbury, for example, has all the stuff that New Urbanists claim to like -- population density, narrow streets, front porches, etc. -- and, in population, it's the equivalent of about 90 Seasides, but nobody's holding it up as an ideal or clamoring to get in. Americans have always been better at replacing things, or starting anew, than in working hard to improve the places that already exist."
The purpose of the conference, Krieger said, is not to debunk New Urbanism, but to examine the movement and "nudge it toward broader alternatives, possibilities, insights." Krieger said that because of the GSD's past history, it has a special responsibility to take on this role.
"When Walter Gropius was dean of the Design School, we were at the epicenter of a particular view of urbanism that was itself offered as a panacea, a single-minded way to approach planning, which is now largely discredited," he said.
That view, which exalted the stark, unadorned, straight-sided building as the essence of modernism, led directly to the "urban renewal" movement of the 1950s and '60s, producing many of the low-income projects which now, plagued by drugs, crime, and violence, are held up as examples of how not to design urban housing or create neighborhoods.
"At the GSD, we are particularly sensitive to the dangers of jumping on a bandwagon and promoting a universal solution to the problem of making communities," said Krieger. "The problems are very complex. There are many different kinds of settlements, each with its own character and set of needs. What I hope the conference accomplishes is to focus attention not just on a new urbanism, but on urbanisms."
alex krieger is so smart. he wrote one of the best pieces on parking i've ever read.
"...rim joist and others argue that architects aren't universally held to be the arbiters of good and bad in the built environment - and they seem to accept this state of affairs.... if not architects, who?..."
How about someone who has been asked?
1.
"Mission Statement
The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the architecture profession dedicated to:
Serving its members
Advancing their value
Improving the quality of the built environment."
2. National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
"Your NCARB Certificate:
Demonstrates your support of NCARB's mission for protecting the public welfare."
3. Kentucky Revised Statutes
"Except as otherwise provided hereinafter, no person shall practice architecture in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky without first obtaining a license under the provisions of this
chapter, it being the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the life, health, property and
welfare of the public."
4. National Architectural Accreditation Board
Among the criteria for assessing an architectural education:
"Human Behavior
Understanding of the theories and methods of inquiry that seek to clarify the relationship between human behavior and the physical environment.
"Design
Understanding of the principles of sustainability in making architecture and urban design decisions that conserve natural and built resources, including culturally important buildings and sites, and in the creation of healthful buildings and communities.
"Client Role in Architecture
Understanding of the responsibility of the architect to elicit, understand, and resolve the needs of the client, owner, and user.
"Comprehensive Design
Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and site that includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating an understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, life-safety provisions, wall sections and building assemblies and the principles of sustainability.
"Architectural Practice
Understanding of the basic principles and legal aspects of practice organization, financial management, business planning, time and project management, risk mitigation, and mediation and arbitration as well as an understanding of trends that affect practice, such as globalization, outsourcing, project delivery, expanding practice settings, diversity, and others.
"Leadership
Understanding of the need for architects to provide leadership in the building design and construction process and on issues of growth, development, and aesthetics in their communities.
"Ethics and Professional Judgment
Understanding of the ethical issues involved in the formation of professional judgment in architectural design and practice."
i'd say we've been asked. by our professional organization, our registration boards, our state governments, and our school accreditation boards at least.
I agree with the comments that the idea of city=good, suburb=bad is a-passe and b-not accurate.
But, I think some people in this thread (Rim, your freedom-vs.-X arguments get more tiring everytime you use them as they are too facile) are burrying their heads on the ground. I personally Im not a huge fan of the city and love the fact that the suburb tried to do something else, a new way of living that is not entirely urban.
The suburb of today is failing people, easy as that. It has us stuck in an unsustainable pattern. It is our jobs, as Steven pointed out, to look into what is not working in the built environment and make it work. Now any architect that would just say DENSITY is wrong. What I personally liek about subrubs is their organic nature, decentralized clusters of a bigger whole. That's how nature works, it can't be wrong and I think thta it is the way we will produce energy and most things in the future, as organic systems.
As most things some people just get stuck in the rhetoric of the issue and not a t the heart of the problem.
Steven, I don't think anyone's suggesting that architecture and its practitioners are not well-suited, even best-suited to shape the built environment. At least I'm not making that claim. On the contrary: yea, architects! On the other hand, if Rim is making that claim, I'll stand aside...
All we need to do is to get larger portions of city councils, planning commissions, development firms, financial institutions, and, finally, end-user consumers on board, to line up behind those august institutions listed above.
that's how i interpreted his last - to my question of 'if not architects, who?', he answered 'how about someone who has been asked?
i maintain that not only have we been asked, it's our professional obligation.
True enough, at a disciplinary level, the architecture profession is sought out. Also, of course, at the level of projects undertaken by developers.
My point is that not enough people/clients/agencies are asking us at that all-important, on-the-ground project level. (Or, maybe we are being asked, but those being asked/hired are the wrong ones, doing bad work.) So my proposition is that we get involved at that next layer up: to become a part of that stratum (agencies/clients) that has much more effect on the built environment, those who do the actual asking/hiring/paying.
Complaining about the AIA is not even fun anymore, but... most of what citizen is saying is their responsability in a major way. Now Rim and others will respond with their "self-reliance" sh-tick, but seriously they are our professional organization and shoulkd start acting like it. I don't want one day a year in the hill, I want lobbying in our behalf at all levels of government so that we have a place at the table. The AIA should go and make these people want to ask us how to make the suburb work.
There are a number of alternative - and perhaps more up to date - programs whose research focuses on the suburbs, growth and sprawl. The Brookings Institute has a number of reports, books and lectures on these and other issues you can download or purchase: http://www.brook.edu/data/brookings_taxonomy.xml?taxonomy=Cities%20and%20Suburbs
An aside, Mike Davis has just published an excellent new book on world wide urban conditions: http://www.versobooks.com/books/cdef/d-titles/davis_m_planet_of_slums.shtml
This discussion is starting to turn into the usual rant about architects not getting: A) invited to the table, and B) to design the table.
Listen, nobody is ever going to invite us to intervene critically in the suburban landscape. And we're not going to get the chance to completely redesign suburbia. What we can do, as creative individuals, problem solvers and leaders is to invent the opportunities themselves to intervene. In order to do this, we have work outside our traditional roles, spend some time in that next "stratum" that citizen mentions, etc. Need to work subversively and tactically within the system.
parallel, where are you quoting krieger's stuff from?
+++
funny that none of this is new. kenneth Jackson (Crabgrass Frontier) has a good quote from Adna Ferrin Weber's book on the suburbs from more than a hundred years ago that still rings true.
"In the 1890's, weber calculated that the population density of fifteen american cities averaged twenty-two people per acre as compared with 157.6 for thirteen German cities, and he speculated about the phenomenon:
It has sometimes been urged that this is largely the result of the electric street railway in America, but the casual connection is not apparent...It should rather be said that the American penchant for dwelling in cottage homes instead of business blocks after the fashion of Europe is the cause, and the trolley car the effect.
For the underlying causes of the increasingly stratified and segregated social geography of great American cities, as well as their relatively low density as compared to Europe, we must look not just to transportation technology and the powerful mechanical forces unleashed by the Industrial Revolution but to the development of new cultural values."
funny that we still haven't worked out the causal relationship to any degree of satisfaction (think how many people blaim suburbia on the existence of cars)...this was before the days of feedback loops, etc, but he still got it right that the suburbs do not exist without CHOICE. Which is the main thing, ennit.
architects come across as such dinks when they advocate new urbanism or old urbanism or density because it looks like we are advocating an enforced lifestyle. cool to be willing to address real issues, but FORCING change on people for their own good is pretty fascist. which is the central argument against new urbanism, in the end. most people dislike their heavy handedness for just this reason but have no idea how else to get things moving...tough problem, but clearly linked to social ambition more than physical structure of the city.
This is why the suburbs are not in themselves good or bad. It is how they are inhabited that is the problem. in much the same way that neither a gridiron plan nor an organic plan for a city is inherently better than the other...what people DO is much more important than what they live in looks like.
well...maybe. seems that way to me lately anyway.
jump
I ripped that piece from a GSD gazette
the socially responsible architects, the one who would change the suburbs for the lack of a better phrase are a small minority of the profession. most architects live in the suburbs. have suvs or some other large vehicle. and pay lip service to social and environmental issues...oh and they have never heard of archinect. carry on.
hah. probably.
parallel 38, is an online version available?
Hey Domestic,
I didn't have time to read all of these posts, so this my have already been suggested, but I have just ordered a DVD called The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream. Apparently this is a very good doco, but as yet I'm not sure exactly what it is all about (beside what the title and blurb say). I will post up here when I have watched it. but you can apparently purchase it from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009231TG/104-6393202-5459965?v=glance&n=130
I tried and it didn't work, so I brought it from a reseller here in Oz.
cheers
Scotty v
my favorite bits in end of suburbia are the interview clips with kunstler. it confirmed my opinion that he is a true nut (in a good way).
apologies for not letting thread die quietly, but came across a good interview of jane jacobs by howard kunstler that is very revealing of the difference between a smart man and a REALLY smart woman.
kunstler keeps trying to lead her down paths that might confirm his own ideas and jacobs keeps on answering with subtle and nuanced responses.
and very very cool to see this old lady still has the grey cells in order to keep the young ideologue in line. lovely.
"i'd say we've been asked. by our professional organization, our registration boards, our state governments, and our school accreditation boards at least."
A list of credentials, membership in professional organizations, and a mission statement... and these items will allow you to begin your redesign of exactly which suburb?
The only thing your elaborate list is still missing is a willing client.
"...cool to be willing to address real issues, but FORCING change on people for their own good is pretty fascist..."
from today's news: planetizen
"While Americans are unlikely to abandon sprawl solely because they feel bad about chewing up hundreds of acres per hour, they have begun a personal calculus, examining whether the sprawling lifestyle is really the bargain it's cracked up to be. Factoring in transportation and energy costs adds considerably to those low home prices. Higher taxes to pay for all the far-flung infrastructure and services -- water, sewer, police, fire, schools -- further burden the family budget.
"Today, establishing alternative development patterns isn't going to hinge on saving farmland or protecting endangered species or preserving historic sites. It's going to come down to convenience, quality of life, and the pocketbook."
yesterday's suburb, today's urban neighborhood...brooklyn didn't start out as apartment buildings and warehouses
i can't figure out how it's class bias.
i work in the burbs but still hate them. bad planning, bad architecture, lazy developers with no public interest, too much driving, no POSSIBILITY of walking anywhere - all with bad effects on the environment and my/our personal health.
so, am i biased against myself?
maybe the conversation should distinguish between the residential use in the suburbs and the commercial/business use. 'cause their separated, you know, by single-use zoning. and you can't get from one to the other without getting into your car and back to the main artery.
I confess I've forgotten what the argument is.
My main thing, if I remember correctly, was to advocate for the broadbrushing of "suburbs" and "suburbia." That's my beef. Steven, instead of "the burbs," how about "some 'burbs"?
Duh, sorry. ...advocate AGAINST the broadbrushing...
steven,
suburbia is so pervasive that talking about fixing it is nearly a non sequitur, but i think when people DO discuss the issue it is on aesthetic/"lifestyle", grounds more often than not, which is a shame as easthetics are the least important part of the entire deal...but the easiest to grab the attention of class groups...
reed kroloff is the best example lately, shaking his head at the new urbanist plans for louisiana mostly becasue he doesn't like the way they look than on intelligent grounds...
its a bit like complaining about wal-mart. i grew up poor as scrub and can understand perfectly well why my parents still shop there, even if it is killing the mom and pop stores (of which my gramma was once an overworked and underpaid owner). but when i talk to my suburb-raised, well-educated friends about it they quickly get quite holier-than-thou on me and claim proudly that they NEVER shop at wal-mart. That is nothing but a non-starter.
debate about suburbs takes a similar tone, and leads nowhere. i know the new urbanists are talking about how to modify existing suburbs to make them more liveable but they really want to just plain remove all of suburbia and replace it with something that suits them better. in that sense it is very paternalistic and class based (big time). an i have yet to meet an architect with a different approach lined up.
seems to me that somewhere along the line social/market forces will play a larger role than design in making american cities better places to live. keep your eye on the "lazy" ignorant developers, they will probably be walking the walk sooner than anyone here...;-)
fair enough. but as soon as you qualify it that way, it's a lot less clear what you're talking about.
there are suburbs which have arrived at a good urban condition and there are cities which feel like sprawl. so maybe we talk about the suburban condition as part of a continuum between an urban condition and a rural condition so that we all know approx the condition we're talking about. that sure muddies the water though, doesn't it?
fact is, we're still building single use house farms on former greenfields, we're still separating them with a hierarchy of thoroughfares instead of interconnected ones, and we're still building 'communities' with no sidewalks and undersized infrastructure. we're still putting 10 stores behind a huge parking lot and flocking to big boxes separated by highways. there is nothing sustainable about these as models and they're not exceptions to the rule.
yeh, it is complicated alright.
i am not a big fan of american suburbia, and should admit that i never lived in a real suburb for more than a few years (no money), and haven't owned a car since i was 18 (which makes it nearly 20 years sans automobile believe it or not). so i am not exactly attached to the suburban way of life, for better or worse...
but, my da LOVED his suburban home. he really did. he thought all that stuff connected to it was just wonderful, and i can't quite imagine telling him and others like him to stop living that way. and i gotta give him credit for choosing to live there...
the thing that really gets me though is how architects and planners (especially of the new urbanist persuasion) present ideas as holistic changes that will only work if we ALL do everything they say without question...
which to me sounds like the man telling his subjects to do as he says, love him without question, and HE will be their slave for ever.
i don't think that can work. banning wal-mart won't change a thing. i mean all those big box malls going up seem to be responding to a real demand of some kind...aren't they?
you're right, jump. it's about ease of use, comfort, and habit. the challenge to designers and community leaders is to figure out how to make it easier to live in a smarter way.
no small feat. people (including me) want to do what they do without having to think about it too much, without encountering 'others' who cause them fear - rational or irrational, and the ability to do a lot of it from the driver's seat. a lot of what a suburban condition offers has to do with the control you have in using your own vehicle, the infrequency of encounters that might surprise you, and the ability to do the same thing, following the same paths, every day. drive-through windows are the essence of this approach to suburban living.
i saw the director of the center for disease control speak in 04 about how we have designed exercise out of life - and for that he blamed designers. he proposed putting stairs front and center in buildings and hiding the elevators. he showed pictures of highways which made walking a forbidding prospect. he cited statistics about the relationship between our fast food diets and lack of exercise and obesity, adult-onset diabetes, heart conditions, lung conditions from air pollution etc. he called out designers as enablers of these problems, not just impassive providers of what the people want.
and he's right. a guy in my office walks twice a day - once in the morning and once at lunch. since we moved into the office in december he's been hit twice. both minor, but... sounds stereotyped but, guess what? - both times it was someone in an suv, on a cell phone, didn't see him crossing at the corner. both times the person did not get off of the phone, rolled down the window and asked if he was ok, and drove on without even getting out of the car. if the two situations had been less the same, it might not be so horrifying. not only were they not paying attention, the environment doesn't suggest to them that they should. it's really not a place he should be walking, i guess.
so how to we design the suburban condition in a smarter way? as i've indicated, i work out here. i don't have any answers, but it's becoming more and more of a mission for me. i've made it clear that i think the current patterns of development are untenable - whether people and developers like them or not. we won't answer this here, but it's definitely something that will be more and more impt for all of us to address. that's why i get frustrated with the suburbs are 'not so bad' or 'almost alright' or even 'new model based on shifting ways of living' argument. our job is not to only give people what they already think they want but to give our broader communities what they deserve as well.
Steven wrote:
"...there are suburbs which have arrived at a good urban condition and there are cities which feel like sprawl. so maybe ... the suburban condition as part of a continuum between an urban condition and a rural condition ... that sure muddies the water though, doesn't it?"
My point EXACTLY, relative to the generic, hence meaningless, employment of "suburbia" to describe an impossibly varied set of conditions and localities. The water, she's muddy, and pretending otherwise doesn't help the debate.
OK, I will now drop my rant on this part of the thread.
History is important here. Scott Bottles' book _Los Angeles and the Automobile_ relieves us of the notion of a "benevolent" public transit system operating and connecting the region in the early twentieth century, dismantled by an "evil" corporate cabal led by GM. (Anyone see "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?)
It's true that automobility did supplant the urban railway system, but this was driven, literally, by ordinary Angelenos fed up with the stinginess and inefficiency of a large transit system allowed to fall into disrepair that had made their lives difficult. Private automobiles were a godsend, most thought, and got them out of the increasingly detested streetcars. Of course, the automobile, rubber, and roadbuilding industries were only too happy to help, but this took place after the major shift was underway.
The simplistic notion of "car (or SUV) bad, streetcar good" is just as slippery and historically incorrect as the broadbrush about city vs. suburb. Single-family housing on private lots, separated from other land uses, was considered "best practice" by urban thinkers to help people get away from congested and polluted cities in the late 19c and early 20c. (If Archinect had been around then, responsible posters would have been arguing FOR large lots and wider streets.)
Values change. Many now feel that providing more choice, such as public transit or compact suburban development, is a very good idea. I agree. But it's important to understand historical context when thinking about something so complicated as making and remaking the built environment, and the resulting social patterns.
Last point (for now), I promise.
Steven, your story about your pedestrian friend is more a cautionary tale about idiot drivers talking on the phone than suburban development. I live in a fairly dense urban area, and see the situation you describe quite often. (However, I do agree that pedestrian-friendly streets are very important.)
historical thinking is valuable for understanding how we got where we are, but that particular history (streetcar to auto) doesn't offer much solution for a future post-petroleum environment. if there's one thing that new urbanists have done successfully, it's that they've latched onto a development model that works: old urbanism. wherever you stand on the potential of modern light rail, the original/'streetcar' suburbs do offer a useful model for future suburban development.
and the reason i keep trying to simplify the discussion is that it's the only way to build any kind of consensus. designers like to talk about the gray area, exceptions to the rule, etc. it gives us a lot to think about and is part of thinking critically - something we do well, presumably. but when you're trying to get buy-in from those who don't have time/inclination to think too much about the built environment, you've got to give them a straight albeit somewhat more black-and-white picture of scenarios for a possible future. the current strategy of market-free-for-all suburban growth isn't one of those possible scenarios, imo.
OK Steven:
It's a post petroleum world and everyone sees "it" your way.
What do we do with suburbia? And all the suburbanites?
It's very easy to talk about the few who are moving back into urban settings, old/abandoned- warehouses/department stores/postal buildings/government converted into family living spaces and more recently new buildings- condos/apartments... so it's happening. Now my questions Steven...
Steven, you're exactly right about the need to present coherent and identifiable alternatives (as opposed to nuanced discussion for experts) when making the case to a broad audience. My obsession for nuance is in the context of this thread, participated in by experts and others.
as i said before: so how to we design the suburban condition in a smarter way? as i've indicated, i work out here. i don't have any answers, but it's becoming more and more of a mission for me. i've made it clear that i think the current patterns of development are untenable - whether people and developers like them or not. we won't answer this here, but it's definitely something that will be more and more impt for all of us to address.
but, in the interest of continuing a productive discussion>
brainstorming (ideo's rule #1: no 'NOs allowed) - things to bring to the development of new and for the retrofitting of old suburbs:
-light rail hubs with drive-n-park lots (w/elec connections for charging).
-the hydrogen fuel infrastructure gm wants.
-development boundaries, like that of portland, containing new development.
-scrapping of single-use zoning: allowing a grocery, a post office, and a pharmacy to open in your neighborhood.
-build sidewalks everywhere, achieving full pedestrian interconnectedness, so that everyone CAN walk to anywhere if they choose to do so.
-incentives for use of local/natural materials and counter-incentives against use of long-distance materials, petroleum-based materials, etc.
-strict controls on the amount of asphalt/concrete surface laid relative to the occupancy of an individual product. tearing up old paving which does not meet these requirements.
-allowing/encouraging (not requiring) greater density to occur within existing suburban patterns. (would spur major fight with the nimbys, but...).
-build urban-sized infrastructure to a particular point and don't extend further until the already built is maxed out. no more undersized or single-user infrastructure. roads, sewers, water service, etc should be built to support a desired (tbd) density.
note that none of these abandon suburbs already existing, but they allow for the development of new turning of soil to be curtailed.
Steven:
1. Alternative fuels
2. Decentralization with Density
3. Multi-use
4. Greenbelts
These ideas have been discussed since the Hippies were yelling in the late sixties.
Why build sidewalks everywhere. Dedicate one lane of the many multilane roads to pedestrians.
Will the pursuit of energy and materials conservation be the hallmark of our civilization? How will this pursuit change the way we view human life?
i didn't say they were all new ideas. but it's up to someone to implement them. do you think they've been unsuccessful where they've been realized?
i like the dedicated pedestrian lane! might need some level of separation, but -- cool.
not sure we need to 'change the way we view human life' fundamentally. it would be nice to get back to a view of humans being more impt in our built environment than cars.
not sure why energy and conservation issues need to be the primary issues in civilization. would be better if we could get to a point where they were assumed, became background, integrated into the way we do things. there are much more exciting things to think about.
Steven Ward, you've approached this entire topic from a pretty "instructional" standpoint, and your carefully worded response to Jump's post about his Dad's choices in life was just unbelievably condescending. You subtly lumped Jump's father into a category fitting the suburban stereotype of your own invention. So Jump's Dad is basically just another creature of habit, looking for the easiest comforts in life, probably irrationally fearful toward anything new (including this rather obvious subtext: his probable prejudices toward "others"), and his likely out of shape body due to his reliance on his car? And you could, godlike, teach him the "smarter" way to live his currently errant lifestyle?
I'll tell you this, were this an in-person discussion, it's the type of interchange that usually becomes very entertaining as someone like Jump would quite understandably stand up and knock someone like Steven Ward on his pompous ass.
me and jump's dad, rim joist. and not just us; i'm thinking it's universal. that's why i tried to come up with solutions taking this into account.
and i hope not as pompous in person as i am in typing. (usually somewhat unassuming/quiet).
since i probably worn out my welcome on this thread a long time ago...
Rim Joist, as Steven has politely shown that you mis-heard him, this is the point in the conversation where I am going to "quite understandably stand up and knock someone like (Rim Joist) on his pompous ass". And I think my 4" boot heels will help me look intimidating enough to do that (though physically I'm a wimp).
I'm enjoying the hell out of this discussion and would like it if a small contretemps about assumptions will not totally derail it.
A quick comment re: sidewalks. I have been thinking about the suburbs and other forms of development since my undergrad studios with Kirby Lockard and Corky Poster in the late 1980's. The key thing, that I think has been stated by many on this thread, is the idea that people need to have choices in how they utilize their built environment. Most of the suburban neighborhoods in which I work do not offer any form of choice in how one interacts with nearby infrastructure: you have no possibility of getting from point a to b unless you get in a car.
Attempts to navigate the sidewalk-less shoulder of the road are incredibly dangerous. As I recall Oregon has legislation requiring that all new road projects include pedestrian amenities aka sidewalks - the result of a lawsuit by a man who could no longer walk from his house to the beach after an existing road was replaced with a new road having no sidewalk. In a democratic society, access to the routes of mobility - the pieces of our land that are dedicated to movement - need to be functionally accessible to all, not only to the people who choose to own an automobile.
It seems to me this is a pretty basic concept and not one that can really be argued. Maybe I can't godlike teach people a better way of life, but I think this is one point on which we can all agree.
You're just being called on some of your attitude and bullshit. Deal with it.
I have no problem with you, Liberty Bell. I wouldn't even mind if you knocked me on my ass, because it'd be your honest assessment unclouded by sophistry. Probably kind of hurt, just the same.
As for my "mis-hearing" Steven Ward, sorry, but I think not. I'm "hearing" loud and clear, and I don't care to elaborate further.
For the record:
"2. Decentralization with Density
3. Multi-use
4. Greenbelts
These ideas have been discussed since" Ebenezer Howard proposed the Garden City paradigm in the 1890s.
Rim, I was only referring to the fact that Steven lumped himself in with "what people want" and I didn't think you saw that. That's all.
I haven't read the Bruegmann book but heard a review on NPR yesterday. The guy they interviewed said he and his wife apologized to the farmer who had previousy owned the land their housing development was built on?!? It was bizarre.
The solid point that I guess Bruegmann makes is that a lot of former viable towns 40-50 miles outside big cities are on the verge of dying, and suburban development around them makes them actual communities again. This is for the most part valid, though if everyone in those communities is commuting 40-50 miles each way every day into a city to work (they all aren't, of course) I don't think it's really sustainable without light rail or some other mass transit.
I'd say I might have the ideal sub/urban situation right now: 60 blocks outside the city core, built in the 1940-50's, lots are 60'x200' (enormous compared to the 16'x68' rowhouse lot I had in Philly, tiny compared to the Phoenix suburban yard in which I grew up), plenty of sidewalks, and a five block walk takes me into one of the "satellite" mercantile centers that a lot of neighborhoods lack - the former Village of Broad Ripple that sprung up around the canal locks that were once there. And now an organic grocery store just opened there!
As for the terminology discussion above: many would say I live in a suburban environment, many would say I live in an urban environment. To me it feels like both.
i also live in the "grey area" of the fluid, urban/sub-urban landscape.
aka, first tier. I love it. I walk it.
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.