When I first decided to read this book, it surprised me that someone could write 265 pages about sprawl which, while a significant problem, is also a narrow one. That's where I was wrong. Sprawl covers everything from zoning ordinances to size and shape of streets to the way one's house is decorated. In short, I had a lot to learn.
I found it interesting when the author wrote about the American private realm versus the public realm. We spend so much time cooped up inside, closed off from the rest of the world that our public realm has become nothing more than a transportation route. Even then, we are closed off, most of the time in a car; "They enter their cars and embark on a journey of banality and hostility that lasts until they arrive at the interior of their next destination." What causes that hostility? Why do we get so annoyed when someone stops to talk to us on our way to another place? I believe it is the lack of a social friendly public realm and how we have become accustomed to being closed off. Americans have become cold and unwelcoming. I mean, how often to we really take the time to talk to our neighbors and see how they are doing? Or how often do we willingly invite someone we haven't seen for some time inside to stay a while and chat? It's truly dissapointing how cold America is.
The authors' assertion that sprawl was caused largely by the decline of mixed use zoning after World War II as city planners began to view planning as a military exercise does explain people's wish to remain in their private spaces. As public spaces became increasingly less interesting, people desired to spend more time out of them. Unfortunately, people also opposed an invasion into their private worlds which prevented gathering and communication. People quite simply don't want to be reminded of how small their personal areas are, and this reminder is unavoidable when others infringe on them. The largest question is why people thought this militaristic and unattractive method of planning was desirable in the first place?
While I greatly admire this book, I have to question the authors' objectivity. Do they really care about eradicating sprawl as an end in itself, or are they in it for the money? It is true that this book not only points out problems but gives solutions as well; however, the authors are in the business of recreating communities that have been affected by sprawl to improve their traditional natures, and for this they make money. Is this book a way to point out a problem in American society, or a well-thought-out marketing device? I definitely agree that there is a problem, but I think that the book would carry more weight if the authors weren't financially involved with the solution (this is not to say that they shouldn't be involved in the solution, just that money is a source for all sorts of biases.
Comments on the book itself: I would like to do more research on this issue to find more ways that I personally can help (I don't really want to be a lobbyist). I agree with the contents of Appendix B and think that they would probably be fairly easy to adopt on a large scale. It is at least worth considering. In my opinion, the authors do a fine job of delineating a problem and even trace its origins back to World War II.
I would hope that people are willing to make changes, even if they doubt the authors.
I agree with much of what the author is writing about in this book, such as the inconvenient road and housing layouts and congested traffic. However, if the new suburbia is so undesirable, then why do people continue to live in such areas? The author claims that "sprawl is so unsatisfying", yet, for most it is actually better and it is what people want. If it wasn't what they wanted, why would they have moved to the suburbs? Take St. Peters for example; it is safe, balanced, and has a logical layout. I can walk to Shop N Save in around 10 minutes, walk to the gas station in about 8, and walk to school in 5. So, maybe sprawl isn't as bad as Suburban Nation makes it out to be.
One thing that drove me crazy about Suburban Nation was how the author wrote it like some kind of outline. Honestly, I don't want to read an outline; to the point, but boring. I didn't like how the author put titles of each section, such as "The Segregation of Society by Income". Then, I already knew what the section was going to be about and didn't feel the need to read it. Another thing that bothered me was that all the sections were a bunch of rambling. Where are all the facts from other sources to prove the author's points? In my opinion, this book was poorly written and was a boring read for me, but that's just me.
When I first decided to read this book, it surprised me that someone could write 265 pages about sprawl which, while a significant problem, is also a narrow one. That's where I was wrong. Sprawl covers everything from zoning ordinances to size and shape of streets to the way one's house is decorated. In short, I had a lot to learn.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting when the author wrote about the American private realm versus the public realm. We spend so much time cooped up inside, closed off from the rest of the world that our public realm has become nothing more than a transportation route. Even then, we are closed off, most of the time in a car; "They enter their cars and embark on a journey of banality and hostility that lasts until they arrive at the interior of their next destination." What causes that hostility? Why do we get so annoyed when someone stops to talk to us on our way to another place? I believe it is the lack of a social friendly public realm and how we have become accustomed to being closed off. Americans have become cold and unwelcoming. I mean, how often to we really take the time to talk to our neighbors and see how they are doing? Or how often do we willingly invite someone we haven't seen for some time inside to stay a while and chat? It's truly dissapointing how cold America is.
ReplyDeleteThe authors' assertion that sprawl was caused largely by the decline of mixed use zoning after World War II as city planners began to view planning as a military exercise does explain people's wish to remain in their private spaces. As public spaces became increasingly less interesting, people desired to spend more time out of them. Unfortunately, people also opposed an invasion into their private worlds which prevented gathering and communication. People quite simply don't want to be reminded of how small their personal areas are, and this reminder is unavoidable when others infringe on them. The largest question is why people thought this militaristic and unattractive method of planning was desirable in the first place?
ReplyDeleteWhile I greatly admire this book, I have to question the authors' objectivity. Do they really care about eradicating sprawl as an end in itself, or are they in it for the money? It is true that this book not only points out problems but gives solutions as well; however, the authors are in the business of recreating communities that have been affected by sprawl to improve their traditional natures, and for this they make money. Is this book a way to point out a problem in American society, or a well-thought-out marketing device? I definitely agree that there is a problem, but I think that the book would carry more weight if the authors weren't financially involved with the solution (this is not to say that they shouldn't be involved in the solution, just that money is a source for all sorts of biases.
ReplyDeleteComments on the book itself: I would like to do more research on this issue to find more ways that I personally can help (I don't really want to be a lobbyist). I agree with the contents of Appendix B and think that they would probably be fairly easy to adopt on a large scale. It is at least worth considering. In my opinion, the authors do a fine job of delineating a problem and even trace its origins back to World War II.
I would hope that people are willing to make changes, even if they doubt the authors.
I agree with much of what the author is writing about in this book, such as the inconvenient road and housing layouts and congested traffic. However, if the new suburbia is so undesirable, then why do people continue to live in such areas? The author claims that "sprawl is so unsatisfying", yet, for most it is actually better and it is what people want. If it wasn't what they wanted, why would they have moved to the suburbs? Take St. Peters for example; it is safe, balanced, and has a logical layout. I can walk to Shop N Save in around 10 minutes, walk to the gas station in about 8, and walk to school in 5. So, maybe sprawl isn't as bad as Suburban Nation makes it out to be.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that drove me crazy about Suburban Nation was how the author wrote it like some kind of outline. Honestly, I don't want to read an outline; to the point, but boring. I didn't like how the author put titles of each section, such as "The Segregation of Society by Income". Then, I already knew what the section was going to be about and didn't feel the need to read it. Another thing that bothered me was that all the sections were a bunch of rambling. Where are all the facts from other sources to prove the author's points? In my opinion, this book was poorly written and was a boring read for me, but that's just me.
ReplyDelete