Comments on: localism vs neighborhood-ism

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Mike at The Big Stick — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:00:49 +0000

Without a bridge between the two it seems they will just keep talking past one another.

By: Consumatopia

Consumatopia — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:40:07 +0000

You’re on to something here. If I’m traveling for work, I never want any surprises.

I guess it’s a matter of whether we want to optimize our towns for traveling through or for living in. We could evaluate the world through the eyes of a truck driver or salesman high on caffeine at 3AM, just wanting to power through until the reach the comforts and joys of home. But once he reaches home, should his neighborhood in turn be designed for the comfort of those passing through it?

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Mike at The Big Stick — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:17:49 +0000

Settlement patterns in the US have always gone in one direction…out. The best we can hope to do is slow that down and develop sensibly. While cities serve their purposes, the chance of drawing people back in any significant numbers is very, very unlikely.

By: The Librarian

The Librarian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:00:47 +0000

This is a great discussion. I’d like to introduce some history too. The movement to the suburbs accelerated when the big federally financed highways started to be built. People of modest means could not have a city place and a country place, but with the highways, they could commute from their jobs to the cities and have leafy green yards for their families. But I am with E.D. that the time is approaching when we all really should be living close to our jobs, not an hour-long commute away. Or we should be able to use rapid transit to go in both directions, into and out of the city. Cities offer vibrancy, creativity, energy, support for cultural, educational, medical institutions, varied retail, investment, just about anything good we can want. Sadly for many of their residents, the best the city has to offer is not available to them, and corruption, crime, and neglect are far too prevalent. Suburban residents are learning that they are not insulated from those aspects they think of as city problems, and city residents need to be able to travel more readily to jobs in the suburbs. I also think that as a society and for the environment, we have to stop spreading our residences across all the land, or there won’t be rural refuges left for man nor beast. We would be better off with denser concentrations (to a point of course!) of people and jobs and businesses. Redeveloping inner cities and inner suburbs can do some of that and take the pressure of growth and development off the fringe.

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Mike at The Big Stick — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:57:42 +0000

Sam,

I agree with a lot of what you say. When I travel I like to try interesting spots when I have time, but when you’ve got kids or you’re in a hurry sometimes it’s nice to see a familiar menu, or a Borders that has all the same things you can get at home. So there’s definitely something to be said for dependability/predictability.

I was out west a few weeks ago and after having some real hit or miss for a couple of days i have never been so happy to see a Denny’s.

By: Sam M

Sam M — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:02:05 +0000

We often talk about the whole “cookie cutter” aspects of suburbia. But it’s not all that clear to me that there was all that much diversity before. Sure, Joe’s Diner had some quirks, maybe. And was different from Charlie’s Diner in really profound ways. But as far as I can tell, “diners” are really quite similar. Which is why they have come to occupy their own genre.

Are they more interesting than 1000 identical Burger Kings. I guess so. But… people don’t like interesting. Or, huge swaths of people don’t. I mentioned it before, but my wife couldn’t care less about the special way Joe’s Diner makes its fries, or they way Charlie braises his pork chops. She wants consistency. No surprises. Which is what America is really, really good at providing. And which has a lot of merits. Why not celebrate it? Isn’t it as much of an achievment, culturally, as the perfection of prosciutto ham?

I am not like my wife. I like the diners and al lthat. But as for travel at hotels… I want nothing interesting at all. I want to get in and get out. And seriously… how many people travelling to Sacramento for business are really chanping at the bit to see how the oil painters in Modesto are getting along? I suspect it’s a small minority.

I guess this points to a general lack of interest on my part, and is not a pretty picture. But I suspect there are lots like me. Although I feel superior because at least I feel bad about it.

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Mike at The Big Stick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:38:47 +0000

So what are some ways that the rural and the urban could/do interact? What do they offer one another?

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:24:42 +0000

I think rural is, of course, a different ballgame altogether. But I disagree that we need our current suburbia in order to bridge the rural and urban.

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Mike at The Big Stick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:19:10 +0000

What about the rural? They depend on cars just as much, if not more, than the suburban. If you’re suggesting that cars create some kind of barrier that can only be broken down by getting out of them I would agree. But yet even in the most car-heavy places on earth (NYC, LA, etc) culture is flourishing. If you’re talking about polution, then obviously we just need to work harder on the Mr.Fusion.

Another possibility to answer your concern is the planned community movement, which is really pressing the ‘bridge’ between city and country angle with thoughtful construction that creates a town-within-a-town on the edge of the suburbs and providing a link between the urban and rural. I would cite this article for more info.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00685-are-farms-suburban-future

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:57:48 +0000

I see what you mean, Mike. But I have to believe that a better suburnanism can exist – one not reliant on driving. One with mixed zoning so that I can walk to a nearby market or a restaurant down the street. I think we’ve focused too much on cutting off the residential from the places we work. We’ve planned it this way because we think that’s what people want, and because it’s cheap, and because it’s effective in a car culture. But we might be facing the end of the car culture. We might be realizing that culturally we aren’t making bridges so much as fences.

But of course this is my opinion – and we should all be free to choose. I don’t so much advocate the end of suburbia, though – just the end of this kind of suburbia.