Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm too busy to look for stats, but I'm pretty sure there are far more suburban Americans than urbanites. Nothing is 100%, but the majority clearly embraced the plan of those evil suburban social engineers.
We live where we live. Some people live in suburbia because they "love it" but most just live there because the schools are good, crime is low, and people of similar demographics surround them. The built form, whether suburban or urban, is a product of government, and our government's policies created suburbia. It wasn't consumer choice.
I just finished reading James Kunstler's book "The Geography of Nowhere" and agree with many of his points. However, I think he and many others have an overly romanticised view of the past and gloss over the bad things like squalid tenements, filthy streets full of horse droppings, massive pollution (those "dark satanic mills" of William Blake), and non-descript commercial establishments.
Another thing to keep in mind, most of that beautiful architecture and town planning in older European cities was the result of feudalism and royal and ecclesiastical absolutism. The absolute monarch, or the church, tore down buildings or whole sections of cities as they saw fit in order to build their palaces, churches, and government buildings. Lucky for us, they had a level of taste and refinement light years ahead of any of our government officials or town planning authorities.
One thing I definately agree with Kunstler is the abysmal architecture of our public buildings. City halls, churches, libraries, schools, etc are all dreary interchangeable generic boxes. At least these types of buildings ought to have some thought and care put into their design and placement.
I keep hearing about how horrible 19th century cities were, and trust me, I have studied them enough to know they weren't pleasant, and were powerful motivators for the early moves to suburbs. But I also know (as Kunstler does) that there is no reason whatsoever why a return to many 19th century building principles would require a return to 19th century filth and squalor. In the intervening century we figured out things like sewers, clean water systems, air conditioning and heating, transportation methods that don't poo on the streets, etcetera. So what we do is take the best of the 19th century (walkability, mixed use, street-facing retail etc.) with the best of the 20th century (sewers, electricity, education etc.) to build 21st century cities that combine the best of both.
As far as architecture goes, that's a question for the architects. Nowadays, it seems like the private sector is no better suited to produce anything to inspire the public imagination--how much design thought goes into the construction of the typical Wal-Mart or suburban tract home? Very little--because they are built to be disposable. Building for permanence gives more opportunity for good design.
Despite how much tourists are obsessed with it, Times square isn't really a very big area, and is more of an anomaly than the norm even in Manhattan.
A few blocks away from it you have blocks of 3-story brownstones, for example.
I went to a McDonald's in Rome, near the Pantheon, and was amazed at the interior: marble floors and walls, fountains, etc.
Most of the McDonald's experienced by Americans abroad are so fancy because they are located in high-volume, wealthy, tourist visited areas.
Visit one located next to a council-estate and it will remind you of the lovely chipped-plastic, vandalized, slop-troughs we so cherish here at home :-)
Most of the McDonald's experienced by Americans abroad are so fancy because they are located in high-volume, wealthy, tourist visited areas.
Visit one located next to a council-estate and it will remind you of the lovely chipped-plastic, vandalized, slop-troughs we so cherish here at home :-)
Oh, I've seen those too. I ate at McDonald's more often than I'd like to admit while in Europe.
I definitely think its time to start collapsing cities towards the urban centers again. It used to be that living in a dense urban core put you into a mire of filth and decay but with todays technological changes and standards, this wouldnt be the case at all. Its really amazing how some simple zoning law changes would enable walkable neighborhoods that can also accommodate auto traffic. As it is now, the geometries of roads and the inability to create a memorable street vista has pretty much led to a stagnant auto dominated culture. It used to be affordable to live in these ultra-segregated communities, where commercial and residential zones were placed away from each other, but it doesnt make much sense now. A lot of pro-suburban people claim that a move to new urbanism would mean living in soviet style tract housing. This couldnt be further from the truth as even in traditional us cities, you can see the individual family homes with a yard and a fence in urban neighborhoods. City design used to account for that. There was never a time when p[eople did not have the choice to live in a separate home in a traditional neighborhood. Those places used to be much more inviting as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
