Andrew Potter, who recently wrote a delightful book on what is “authentic,” has now come out in defense of the suburbs. Potter challenges James Kunstler’s view of the suburbs as having no “sense of place.”
“This is the sort of thing that could only be argued by someone who has either never visited a suburb, or is so enthralled by his own prejudices that black looks white, up looks down, and a thriving community appears to be nothing more than a barren wasteland,” says Potter. In fact, suburbs have “vibrant sociability on every street,” while the cities have devolved “into social and psychological wastelands, full of apartment buildings where people barely acknowledge one another in the elevator.” New Urbanists see cities as “a version of the ‘Sesame Street’ fantasy spun by Jane Jacobs,” but in fact Jacobs’ Greenwich Village “already disappearing by the time she turned it into an urban planner’s fetish dream.”
“The entire case against the suburbs,” says Potter, “is little more than lifestyle snobbery . . . revealing itself as a thinly veiled form of contempt for middle-class tastes and preferences.” While cities like Portland are “increasingly populated by the hip, the young, and the childless,” the reality is that these people are bringing “frankly suburban practices,” such as critical mass bike rides, into the city cores. This “importation of the habits and values of the suburban lifestyle” has actually helped revitalize the cities and is turning even New York City “into one giant homogeneous suburb.” While some may quarrel with that conclusion, Potter’s point is that too much of the debate about the suburbs has been based on phony esthetic ideals.
There are more homeowners in suburbs.
People stay in one home longer in the suburbs, which has many advantages.
Overall, the suburbs have more benefits, although not for all. There are trade-offs.
It seems absurd that some ideologies argue for high density, when the urbanized land occupies <3% of the continuous states. That absurdity leads to density by coercion & many negatives, such as increased congestion.
I have to say that the conventional wisdom that suburbs have no sense of community does strike me as a “Sesame Street” fantasy. Sure the neighbors might not hang out in the street in the suburbs because their houses are more than a few feet apart and they have a backyard, but the people are hanging out in their suburban churches, soccer fields, golf courses, and even online with a community around the country.
Perhaps the Sesame Street ideal was never real anyways. I grew up watching Sesame Street, but I could never understand why no one had front yards, and why no cars ever drove down Sesame Street. I felt very sorry for those kids that never saw grass or trees.
Yet Mr.O’Toole, you attack suburban trains.
I prefer the privacy and quiet of my backyard and picking fresh fruit and vegetables out of my yard in the summer.
It is more rewarding than sitting on steps along a street.
“The entire case against the suburbs,†says Potter, “is little more than lifestyle snobbery…
I was eating at a restaurant on East Burnside not far from downtown Portland during Gay Pride. I overheard someone at the next table talk about how dangerous it was for gays downtown during the event because of all the “suburbanites” coming into town.
Really?
Both the person I was with and I live in the suburbs and have gay brothers who also live in the suburbs.
Urban elitism. Snobbery. It goes against the mythical tolerance one is supposed to be able to find in the concrete jungle.
Recently I’ve seen comments here about the condition of the cities they refuse to live in. Suburban elitism. Snobbery.
One would think that folks would want to provide as many choices as possible – something that the elite snobbism of Euclidean zoning doesn’t allow.
DS
That is a good point, Dan. The stereotype is that the suburbs are middle America, and the urban areas are the elite and the poor. Not only do people like to criticize people who live differently than them, but they also like to criticize different classes.
It would be interesting to hear about examples counter to the stereotype — i.e. urban middle class, suburban poor and suburban elite, and rural elite.
Recently I’ve seen comments here about the condition of the cities they refuse to live in.
I think making a statement like “urban cores tend to have more crime than suburbs” is not elitism; it is a statement of fact. There is usually more crime per square mile in urban cores. Look at Portland* and Seattle** for examples.
*Zoom out.
**Change the Seattle map from homicide to total major crime.
Suburban poor: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6598999
Urban middle class: http://www.monu.org/monu2/Editorial.pdf
Elitism is too easy. Let’s just say there are plenty of elitist in every community (but particularly in gated ones).
Frank:
Crime per square mile would not be an effective normalizer for comparing crime in suburban and urban areas. Urban areas have less land and suburban areas have more land. Using rate, in terms of total population, is most accurate. Although you’re trying to determine a specific area (such as core) for crime. I don’t feel that’s a fair comparison as intensity for land in core areas is high (whereas you have more going on in a given slice of land compared to suburban areas). As an example, a suburban area might have three bars in a square mile, where a downtown section could have many more comparatively.
Old Town / China Town is actually not a very dense part of Portland, just for a tidbit. It has a lot of bars and homeless people, so obviously it’s going to get more crime, which make it an outlier.
Regarding Seattle area, look no further than Tacoma and Federal Way. They are two suburban cities that have the same if not more crime than the city of Seattle. I know Tacoma does.
Let’s be honest, there’s a lot of snobbery coming from both groups of people. Suburban people are guilty of it too, don’t play the victim on this one!
ws,
Not playing a victim at all. Having lived in urban, suburban, rural, and even national parks, I’ve seen it all. My students this year in the suburbs were quite sheltered and some of their parents were rather narrow minded.
That said, you’ve proved my point. Places with higher density have more crime.
Tacoma is not a suburb. It’s urban. It has a central core. Where is crime highest there? Hmm. In the center.
Listen. I have lived in downtown areas. I am not against them. But to argue that there is not more crime in higher density areas is to hand flap and wave and whatever Dan aphorisms I can think of. And when you look at crime in the suburbs, it is clustered around transit areas, as it is in Gresham.
Crime is clustered around where people are. Simple enough to comprehend.
And those whose choice to live in a bland suburb made their choice. That does not mean that others should make that choice too, no matter how badly you want to validate your purchase decision or self-identity. To insist that people who don’t like McBurbs be forced to purchase a SFD is elitist. Simple enough to comprehend.
DS
Whoa, Frank, I’m not sure how I proved your point in regards to crime and density. Density is pertaining to people living there (a commercial skyscraper has no density). I showed you Old Town / Burnside isn’t very dense to other parts of Portland, however, it has decent amount of crime. Same with Lloyd Center. It’s a mall, no one lives there (these places have intensity, which in terms of per square mile will make its crime look higher than it is).
http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/pap508/p508.htm
Density and crime are not corollary. Otherwise NYC proper would be the most crime ridden hell-hole. Its crime rate is way lower than Seattle’s and Portland’s, two cities that do not even compare to NYC in terms of density (or even intensity).
Other issues:
1) Central cities attract all kinds of people for events, bars, etc. that may not necessarily live there. Central city folks aren’t going out into the suburbs in droves for anything and thus aren’t contributing to their crime rates. It would be erroneous to assume if we got rid of all central cores and all of density that crime would magically disappear. Hence, central cores and density have nothing to do with contributing towards crime.
2) It’s easier to get away with crimes in low dense areas, which may contribute to lower than actual numbers. It’s a perception. Remember, these are reported crimes. Point in case, the individual in Antioch, CA who held a sex-slave in his backyard for years. And most people wouldn’t dare start a meth lab in a dense apartment building. When you’re in a city, things are out in the open and much more likely to be spotted.
For the record, Antioch with no discernible central core and limited density has a higher crime rate than San Francisco.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_4al-ca.html
If you want to say that dense areas have more crime, then I need an explanation as to why the densest city in the US has one of the lowest crime rates around?
People have been looking for correlations and propensity towards crime for years now. It’s not even true that the economy has anything real to do with crime. Crime has been dropping now that we’ve been in a recession. Crime also dropped after the Great Depression.
Frank,
I think the missing link you’re looking for is income. Dense and low-income parts of central cities may be crime havens, while parts that are dense but higher-income typically are not. Likewise, in the case of Gresham that you cite, a previous post here mentioned that the transit stations, especially those near Rockwood, have large low-income populations. This is probably a better explanation for the observed outcomes, especially if many of the transit users happen to be low-income.
To ws’ point, we are rebunking the same false fear-driven panic attack that comes up about once a year here. IIRC we pointed out that some suburban Wal-Mart had much more crime thansome PDX neighborhood, but a quick search of my hard drive isn’t pulling it up at the moment.
DS
@DS, good point on suburban elitism. I’m still a bit baffeled even today when someone doesn’t want to go downtown because it’s “dangerous” or it’s hard to find parking (apparently those huge ramps that are all over so many downtowns are hard to find for some).
“One would think that folks would want to provide as many choices as possible – something that the elite snobbism of Euclidean zoning doesn’t allow.”-DS
Not to be trite but in this case there’s an important difference between allowing for choices and providing choices. Strip down a lot of commentary and that’s the crux of the issue most of time around here. Some believe that the choices should be provided. Others believe the choices should be allowed for (but not provided).