I would hazard a broad assumption that to the people of my generation, Generation Y (or whatever they're calling the generation immediately after Generation X) for those who do not have a background nor an interest in architecture, architectural history, history, anthropology, urban planning, etc., have assumed that the suburbs have always existed. Or at least as long as there have been cities.
And for the generation immediately after Generation Y, the Millennium Generation I know that they think there have always been suburbs. I know, it's unfair to blame it on their young age and lack of experience. But look at it this way. If you tell a little one that there was life before cell phones, ipods, and the Internet they will look at you like you are telling them that the moon is made of green cheese.
Even if someone of my generation was born and raised on a farm and knows nothing but farming, I would venture to say that said person also assume that suburbs have always existed.
I expound on this because the suburbs, in the grand scheme of time, are a relatively new concept. Surprisingly yes.
***Again, may I offer a disclaimer that I am still, at this point, self-taught, so if there are errors, that is why the comment section was created.***
From the time the Pilgrims came over and even before that when the Native Americans were the only ones living in the US, people lived in small, agriculturally-based communities. Official towns were soon erected such as Jamestown and Williamsburg. But industrially-based, true cities didn't come to prominence until the Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution, like the first man on the moon, is so often taken for granted in the history books that we often forget what a huge impact it had on the world. In addition to causing a reaction against it and in celebration of it in the creative world, (I am still a die-hard art historian at heart) and changing the means of production, amongst other things, it also had a huge impact on where people lived!
This was before the time of the automobile and commuters and even mass transit wasn't truly developed yet. If anything mass transit meant masses of people walking from their "apartments" to their jobs at the factories and stores. One didn't have the luxury of living in a nice quiet suburb, driving into work, putting in your 8-10 hours and then going home to barbeque with the neighbors because there was no Ford Focus to take you home! Some people who lived in the country did ride in on horses, etc., But this did not last for long.
It was not until after World War I that the suburbs began in earnest. This occurred for a number of reasons. Among them: 1) people were able to buy houses under cheap Veterans Administration mortgages and low mortgages set forth by the National Housing Act of 1934, which created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), who insured the mortgages
2) for some businesses as cities became more crowded and transportation of goods became more problematic, said businesses moved out to the suburbs and therefore so did jobs,
3) due to America's new prosperity more people could buy a cars and therefore travel with ease, especially to wherever their job site was
4) which was aided by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which created more roads, which both businesses and the new commuters took advantage of due to their ease of use
5) it became the American dream to have a picket fence with one's own lawn- a hard proposition in the city where any green space is at a premium
6) crime became a factor for people to seek safer housing opportunities and low crime location (These are NOT listed in order of sociological importance in case anyone is keeping track.)
Then came the baby boom and people settled down in the suburbs and many of their children also decided to stay in the suburbs and raise their own families. And so the cycle continues.
The implications it had for downtown to be discussed.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Recommended Reading: Last Harvest
I confess that this post is filled with gushing praise, but once you have read the author's work, I am sure that his writing will elicit at least a murmur of approval.
I wasn't sure where to start learning about urban planning other than what I found on wikipedia.org. But one day I was poking around Borders and I came across the book, Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville by Witold Rybczynski. The concept intrigued me. Mr. Rybczynski followed the process of a residential subdivision in rural Pennsylvania (he teaches at UPenn School of Design) and what can happen from the time a developer sets his or her sights on a piece of land to the sign that says "coming soon" until people move into the new houses and beyond.
Mr. Rybczynski's writing is both well-informed and accessible. He paints well-fleshed out (pun intended) portraits of the different people involved in this process, but spares no fools gladly. When one person begins to nitpick decisions and design schemes to the point of simply being obstinate, there is an air of Mr. Rybczynski wryly thinking said person doth protest too much without condemning or humiliating said person. He also shows the human side of the developers, conveying both their desire for a profit and their fear that their unique business vision may not materialize the way that they hoped.
The development in question tries to apply new urbanist principles, with mixed results.
The writing is not plagued with academic jargon nor does it feel like it is dumbed down for non-planning professionals. Mr. Rybczynski writes to inform and his style is descriptive but succinct.
I honestly had no idea about suburban development before I read this book. I had a vague idea that somebody or some nameless corporation bought land, from who, unknown, and then started building houses. Often times I would be driving by an empty field and then a few months later, it felt like, there were houses erected and I thought where did they come from? I was also unclear what roles an architect, a developer, and a contractor played in residential development. Sometimes I thought they were all the same people. This is what you get when you study da Vinci and Damien Hirst instead of something vaguely more practical. I can spot a Corbusier or a Mies van der Rohe at twenty paces. Architects, I know. Construction processes, sometimes fuzzy.
Suburban development shows no signs of stopping (a summary of why so many people live in the suburbs vs. the cities is forthcoming on this blog). But it doesn't mean that we are doomed to a world of cookie-cutter suburbs. New urbanism offers a viable alternative to a Stepford-like community. The question remains though, who is willing to literally buy into the concept?
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is even remotely interested in how residential development decisions are made. Or for anyone who is interested in new urbanism. (I would also recommend checking out wikipedia's site on new urbanism for more on that subject.)
In addition, Mr. Rybczynski is a brilliant critic. I told you there would be gushing. He also writes for slate.com and his work there is equally excellent. I would highly recommend his piece on the suggestion that the rehabiliation of New Orleans follow in the footsteps of Denver's Stapleton development, which is a community that has adopted some new urbanist principles. http://www.slate.com/id/2148311/
Or frankly any of his other pieces on their site or elsewhere. His eulogy for Jane Jacobs is touching. He has also written several other books and for many other publications including the NY Times, Time, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. Unlike some professors whose work you have to read with a can of Red Bull in order to stay awake, Professor Rybczynski's work is enlightening without being demanding.
As I don't want to oversell this, you can also read reviews of this book on amazon.com
I wasn't sure where to start learning about urban planning other than what I found on wikipedia.org. But one day I was poking around Borders and I came across the book, Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville by Witold Rybczynski. The concept intrigued me. Mr. Rybczynski followed the process of a residential subdivision in rural Pennsylvania (he teaches at UPenn School of Design) and what can happen from the time a developer sets his or her sights on a piece of land to the sign that says "coming soon" until people move into the new houses and beyond.
Mr. Rybczynski's writing is both well-informed and accessible. He paints well-fleshed out (pun intended) portraits of the different people involved in this process, but spares no fools gladly. When one person begins to nitpick decisions and design schemes to the point of simply being obstinate, there is an air of Mr. Rybczynski wryly thinking said person doth protest too much without condemning or humiliating said person. He also shows the human side of the developers, conveying both their desire for a profit and their fear that their unique business vision may not materialize the way that they hoped.
The development in question tries to apply new urbanist principles, with mixed results.
The writing is not plagued with academic jargon nor does it feel like it is dumbed down for non-planning professionals. Mr. Rybczynski writes to inform and his style is descriptive but succinct.
I honestly had no idea about suburban development before I read this book. I had a vague idea that somebody or some nameless corporation bought land, from who, unknown, and then started building houses. Often times I would be driving by an empty field and then a few months later, it felt like, there were houses erected and I thought where did they come from? I was also unclear what roles an architect, a developer, and a contractor played in residential development. Sometimes I thought they were all the same people. This is what you get when you study da Vinci and Damien Hirst instead of something vaguely more practical. I can spot a Corbusier or a Mies van der Rohe at twenty paces. Architects, I know. Construction processes, sometimes fuzzy.
Suburban development shows no signs of stopping (a summary of why so many people live in the suburbs vs. the cities is forthcoming on this blog). But it doesn't mean that we are doomed to a world of cookie-cutter suburbs. New urbanism offers a viable alternative to a Stepford-like community. The question remains though, who is willing to literally buy into the concept?
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is even remotely interested in how residential development decisions are made. Or for anyone who is interested in new urbanism. (I would also recommend checking out wikipedia's site on new urbanism for more on that subject.)
In addition, Mr. Rybczynski is a brilliant critic. I told you there would be gushing. He also writes for slate.com and his work there is equally excellent. I would highly recommend his piece on the suggestion that the rehabiliation of New Orleans follow in the footsteps of Denver's Stapleton development, which is a community that has adopted some new urbanist principles. http://www.slate.com/id/2148311/
Or frankly any of his other pieces on their site or elsewhere. His eulogy for Jane Jacobs is touching. He has also written several other books and for many other publications including the NY Times, Time, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. Unlike some professors whose work you have to read with a can of Red Bull in order to stay awake, Professor Rybczynski's work is enlightening without being demanding.
As I don't want to oversell this, you can also read reviews of this book on amazon.com
How It All Began
A little history is in order. I have lived in 11 places in 25 years, all over the country. The majority of the time was spent in the Midwest, specifically Wisconsin, though not exactly in the middle of a cow pasture as some people may think. It's not too bad if family and old-fashioned values are your thing. If you prefer bright lights and fast-paced, well, Chicago still has room for one more. I also lived in CT, near the Mass border, which put NY and Boston about 2 hrs. away as well as central CA, with LA about 3 1/2 hrs. away and San Francisco about 4 hrs. away. (Distance figures are conservative and optimistically based on excellent (i.e. utopian or post-nuclear fallout) traffic conditions)
I spent an eye-opening couple of months in Lawndale, a really tough section of Chicago, yet a five minute drive from the very posh suburb Oak Park, birthplace of Ernest Hemingway and location of Frank Lloyd Wright's first studio. The difference in socio-economics was astounding. Lawndale is also where Kanye West is from when he says he's from Chicago. Unlike the band Fallout Boy who are from Winnetka, IL. Ask any born and bred Chicagoan who doesn't work for the city's PR department, Winnetka is NOT Chicago. More on what constitutes Chicago and what doesn't later.
I also lived in another part of Chicago that was neighborly and quiet and whose location I refuse to disclose as I may move back there someday and would like a moderately priced apartment like I was so fortunate to find then. Thoughts on the flood of genrification in Chicago to come.
I went to school in Savannah, GA where I earned my BFA in art history, but I realized that I would be able to make a more personally meaningful contribution to the world through urban planning. $150K education later, but it's the journey not the destination, right? I got into planning on my first trip to Italy where my professor, Christian Sottile, who is also an urban planner, showed us how a city evolved if we look for clues in its layout, its architecture, etc., Since then I've never been able to look at a city the same way.
Like I mentioned in my profile, at the moment I am self-taught in all things related to urban planning, so there may be discrepancies or thoughts that do not reflect the current trend in academia, etc., Therefore, I humbly request that anyone who knows more than me please correct me where I am in error so that the learning may continue.
I spent an eye-opening couple of months in Lawndale, a really tough section of Chicago, yet a five minute drive from the very posh suburb Oak Park, birthplace of Ernest Hemingway and location of Frank Lloyd Wright's first studio. The difference in socio-economics was astounding. Lawndale is also where Kanye West is from when he says he's from Chicago. Unlike the band Fallout Boy who are from Winnetka, IL. Ask any born and bred Chicagoan who doesn't work for the city's PR department, Winnetka is NOT Chicago. More on what constitutes Chicago and what doesn't later.
I also lived in another part of Chicago that was neighborly and quiet and whose location I refuse to disclose as I may move back there someday and would like a moderately priced apartment like I was so fortunate to find then. Thoughts on the flood of genrification in Chicago to come.
I went to school in Savannah, GA where I earned my BFA in art history, but I realized that I would be able to make a more personally meaningful contribution to the world through urban planning. $150K education later, but it's the journey not the destination, right? I got into planning on my first trip to Italy where my professor, Christian Sottile, who is also an urban planner, showed us how a city evolved if we look for clues in its layout, its architecture, etc., Since then I've never been able to look at a city the same way.
Like I mentioned in my profile, at the moment I am self-taught in all things related to urban planning, so there may be discrepancies or thoughts that do not reflect the current trend in academia, etc., Therefore, I humbly request that anyone who knows more than me please correct me where I am in error so that the learning may continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)