Showing posts with label suburbs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suburbs. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

You Can't Go Home Again, and Yet You Can

Having spent almost an entire month under my parents' roof, despite being a full-fledged adult- with my health (thank you God) intact, has been surreal at best.

With the exception of a short-term return to the nest after I graduated from undergrad with an oh-so-useful (not) but passionately prized degree in art history I have been living entirely on my own.

But with graduation from graduate school looming on the horizon I decided to take advantage of the opportunity to spend some "quality time," a phrase I've never really understood, with my parents before I plunge back into the work world.

It's been fantastic doing free laundry, not having to scrounge for meals or gas money, and all of the other cliche (but very much appreciated) perks one has staying at Mom and Dad's.

It's also been a time of reflection. Regardless of how famous or how smart or how anything you are today, your past makes up a part of who you are. Even the hypothetical self-made millionaire who went from rags to riches is keenly aware of where s/he is- or isn't- from time to time. The uber-hipster from Missouri who's living the bo-ho glam life in Silverlake may still feel a tug at the holidays as s/he isn't having a white Christmas. And the hard-bitten but non-native New Yorker from Kentucky, who fled the rural countryside, may wish, in fleeting moments, that one didn't have to visit Central Park to see green space.

I'm a self-confessed city snob. But I also love the countryside, especially down South. And every once in a while I feel the tug of the suburbs and its single family houses- the bane of planners' desire for utopia. It's a symbol of my childhood and of my concept of home. As I never lived in an apartment as a child, the Playskool/Fisher-Price house is a part of my memory make-up.

One of my primary interests in planning is seeing where my generation winds up living- even on a semi-permanent basis.

We all know that the cities have been usurped by the safe appeal of the suburbs yadda yadda- territory I've tread many times in my blog and won't rehash for you.

And there have been many attempts to try to "reinvent," "rebrand" the city- to highlight its cultural sophistication, to glamorize the bohemian appeal of it, even to try to turn it into a hipper version of the suburbs. Some attempts have worked in some parts of the country. Others are embarrassing attempts.

Joel Kotkin has an interesting take on this in his article for "the New Geography"-

And Christopher Leinberger has an equally provocative rebuttal-

Here are the Vimeo links-

FYI- if you walk around the halls of my school, USC's School of Policy, Planning, and Development- you'll see the same thing physically. For the most part the urban planning people are the equivalent of the Steve Jobs computer geeks- not unattractive, but a little scruffy around the edges. While the real estate folks look so youthfully preserved you wonder if they bathe in the blood of virgin unicorns. Though if anyone asks, my school has the best looking faculty, period. :) (Except for UPenn's Witold Rybczynski, who I wish taught at my school. But I have Bill Fulton so ehhhhh)

One of the most interesting things about twenty-somethings that I've observed, especially those desperate to throw off the shackles of their bourgeois suburban upbringing, is that they move to a city either during or after college. But once they have kids, they move back to the suburbs. Understandably a child's education is much better in the suburbs where the tax base is higher so the quality of education is proportionate to taxpayer income, an unfortunate but nevertheless true real-life ratio. But it doesn't make it any less amusing for those of us who don't have to get in our SUVs to "return" to the city on the weekend. Cuz we're already there. Observing the hordes of yuppies drive in through our hipper-than-thou oversized sunglasses from the 80s with a barely concealed look of derision and scorn.

Even Arcade Fire wrote their latest (as of this writing) album about the suburbs. They even called it "the Suburbs." You can take a kid out of the suburbs, but you can't take the suburbs out of the kid?

I've noticed that a lot of people in my generation, who I personally count from 1983-1988, have gotten married young and some have even started families young. Many more so than our predecessors, Gen X, who bore more of the brunt of their parents' freedom from the stigma of divorce, but didn't escape the effects divorce has on the children. Some Gen X'ers have gotten married, but others have opted for live-in situations, sometimes proceeding with legal formalities later on.

If pressed, the general consensus between myself and my peers my age (27-28 years old, again, as of this writing) is that there is a new generation every year. iPods and cell phones have a different frame of reference for myself compared to my brother who is four years younger than me and bought both items well before me. Another, more historic example- I vaguely remember the Persian Gulf War, I don't think my brother does at all.

Beloit College puts out its yearly "mindset" list citing pop culture touchstones that the incoming class has always known or has no idea what you are talking about.

In the spirit of democracy, I am also including this link from the WSJ critiquing said list. Though points are subtracted for journalists showing off their smarts and citing "Hecuba" for no good reason at all.


I also thought that this was an interesting complement to the concept-

I officially feel old now, but my closing point is that people will go where they want to go. And I'm curious as to who goes where and for how long. Time will tell. Until then, wristwatch? What's that? ;)

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

The suburbs- save me a spot? Or when pigs fly I'll hire them as my movers

I am curious to know how many of my peers are considering moving to the suburbs, either in the future, are there now, or will never set foot there except to visit friends.

I am also curious as to what influenced their decision.

I have a friend who was born and raised in Chicago, and except for a stint in Mexico and college in Michigan, she has spent her whole life in the Windy City. She said one time that the only way she would ever leave Chicago is in a pine box.

I have another friend who grew up in the rareified air of suburban CT. She didn't mind it as a kid, but finds it stifling now. She is currently in L.A., but the non-stop traffic is getting to her. I think she'd be happiest in San Francsisco, as she is very environmentally-oriented, but as it is so expensive to live up there, one needs an iron-clad job or very flexible outlook toward housing. Four extra roommates anyone? Rent'll only be $3000/month each! Utilties not included.

In a prior post I noted that, I think, that most people of my generation have always assumed that the suburbs have always existed. I would like to take this one step farther and ask, how many people see themselves living in the subrubs in the future?

I don't care if you see yourself in a suburb of the city that you live now, or would like to live in A suburb, just not one of your current city's outlying ones. My question is simply, do you see yourself living in the suburbs? And if so, why?

If it's because the industry in which you work is out there, please note as such. If you want/have kids and want a good education for them, please remark on this.

There is a new ad for State Farm of a late-twenty-something guy, who bears a slight resemblance to Dominic Monaghan's character on the TV show, Lost. He's tattooed and looks vaguely edgy, but he also has a baby on his hip, HIS baby. And looking at that ad I realized, omygoth, all those life insurance ads are now being targeted at my demographic.

I realize that this is the age when people start to settle down- ALL of my friends with whom I have kept in touch from grammar school are married- a few have kids. But my question is, how many people will be trekking it out the suburbs? And how soon?

Downtown revival

There is a great book called Downtown, Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities by Bernard J. Frieden and Lynne B. Sagalyn that I picked up completely by accident at a great bookstore on Haight Street in San Francisco. (Forever After Books, 1475 Haight St.) Although it is a little dated, (original publishing date July 1, 1991) it details how some of the downtown shopping centers and public centers came to be through public entrepreneurship and public-private entrepreneurship.
Again, a little history is in order. During/after the Industrial Revolution people did their shopping downtown, as that is where everyone lived and the suburbs were not even a twinkle in a developer's eye. But once the suburbs came to be, people did their shopping in the suburbs because that's where they lived.

In fact, people began to stay away from the downtowns- for numerous reasons. As more and more prosperous people moved away from the downtowns, people began to see the declining downtowns as dirty, dangerous, stressful to navigate, and parking was non-existent. However characteristics were absent in sunny, sterile suburbia while ample parking abounded.

People used to shop the downtown department stores, but even some of the major department stores packed up for greener pastures. And while some stores stayed, ensconced in their beautiful buildings, some never recovered from the economic blow. Chicago's beautiful Carson Pierre Scott building, designed by Chicago architect, Louis Sullivan (inventor of the skyscraper and mentor to Frank Lloyd Wright) closed its beautiful iron doors last year, February 21, 2007.

My alma mater's library, the Jen Library, in Savannah, GA is housed in a former downtown department store.

And don't get some people started on what they would consider nothing short of a bastardization of their beloved Chicago institution Marshall Field's being turned into another Macy's. The building has not been altered except for cosmetic signage, but the feeling has changed.

Obviously, it need be pointed out that some flagship stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Bloomingdale's in New York never left, they only expanded. But other department stores, some of equal status, others much lower, closed their doors, even in the cities of their birth.

However, some urban planners and intrepid developers thought that they could lure the crowds back to the very places that they had fled. Part of this was due to the fact that many national stores had overextended themselves in suburbia and needed new markets.

Like I said, this book is a little dated and it's weird thinking of shopping areas like Chicago's Water Tower Place as anything but a tourist stop along the Magnificent Mile if you've been there in the past five years. But historically it's fascinating reading learning about the steps needed to be taken to bring to life some of the urban market places that seem so commonplace now, but were innovative for their time. Boston's Quincy Market is cited. As is Seattle's Pike Place Market and many other locations that thanks to these successful efforts.

This is not to say that this movement has not had its critics. (Jeff Ferrell and his work, Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy is one particularly vitrolic example. I had a hard time trying to see his side of the story I was so busy wiping the angry spittle that emanated from the pages. )

This is not to say that a new shopping center is the cure-all, Band-Aid solution for every ailing downtown in America, but say what you will about building downtown shopping centers. If nothing else it points to the enduring spirit of capitalism and its power to wrest many a city back from the edge thanks to America's never-ending quest for stuff and novelty.