I don't usually jump into these discussions - but as an architect, ex-wife of an architect (twice actually) and a mother I feel compelled to interrupt this debate. Like too many issues, we end up arguing from two sides as if one should be the 'winner' when in fact all have an appropriate place and time. As a mother I have faced these debates on breastfeeding vs. bottles, cloth diapers vs. disposables, staying at home vs. nannies vs. daycare. And like most people, I can check the "all of the above" box. So maybe we can stop debating 'which' and start considering 'why' and 'where' and 'when' and even 'how' we provide appropriate, functional, high quality environments to better accommodate the full range of lifestyles which make up our communities.
When we had our first child we lived in a loft in mid-town Manhattan - let me tell you, NYC looks a lot different when you are pushing a stroller. Manhattan is very walkable, but not so 'rollable' (as groups advocating for wheelchair accessibility can tell you). Much of what I loved about the City was now off-limits or presented a major challenge. Many of our friends were starting families and while a few stayed in Manhattan, most moved to more family-friendly environments.
When we chose to move to Minneapolis rather than the New Jersey suburbs, we debated the merits of a loft downtown or a house further out. Yes, as the mother and wife (and architect) I won that argument and we did not move into another loft. As it turns out, we were able to live two blocks from the bus, in a very traditional house with a backyard and a big front porch and still be in the city - less than 6 miles from the heart of downtown. But not many cities offer high quality housing in safe neighborhoods with good schools, good transit and a network of bike trails and open space that gave our city-life all the benefits traditionally ascribed to the suburbs. Our children grew up with the unique experience of walking across the street to buy a candy bar and a comic book at the small corner market (which actually had no parking lot, just on street parallel parking); they took the bus to get to their summer theater program downtown; and today they still prefer transit over driving (only 1 of the three has gotten a driver's license).
So now with my children out of the nest, did I move back into downtown? Actually, no. When I was laid off I followed job prospects to the Phoenix area, where the mix of urban-suburban-rural is even more of a patchwork quilt than most places. So I live in an old west horse town with three horses and a dog - and I hate the suburban sprawl that has overrun this formerly rural community. I have a very small car and work from home half-time (and I've found other moms with horse trailers and trucks when I need one). Now instead of working on transit-oriented development, I am advocating for preservation of open space and multi-use trails. But I know that denser development downtown, and smarter, more compact and walkable development in suburban neighborhoods will help preserve our agricultural areas, which will make buying local produce (and hay) much easier...... see how it's all connected? I'm guessing that when I'm too old for riding, I'll be looking for a senior apartment in an affordable, walkable community - coming full circle.
Gary, I agree that we need to focus on 'improved' (might not be so new...) cities and suburbs. . But when we design our communities to better meet people's needs - real needs, like getting groceries home, safely getting three kids back and forth to school, access to safe outdoor play space, etc. - then we won't have a problem convincing people to live in these communities. There are good examples everywhere - Portland, Denver, even Minneapolis. We have to keep fighting the good fight to get builders, developers, financiers, city planners and transportation engineers, even politicians on board - it's not easy but nothing worthwhile ever is. So let's not waste energy fueling the angry 'city vs. the suburb' diatribes. It's a red herring, a distraction at best. Let's keep talking about how to make them all better!
-------------------------------------------
Carolyn Krall AIA
Senior Associate
Ayers/Saint/Gross Architects & Planners
Gilbert AZ
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-23-2011 04:49
From: Gary Collins
Subject: Urban Design for All
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Do I hear an argument developing that wives of architects, enlightened pundits of sustainability, don't have a voice in the choice of location of their domicile? That women, professionals and lay folk alike, lack a heightened concern for the nurturing of young children? I would only point out that the stereotypical characterization I used, suburban, single family, garage, SUV, etc., is precisely the one most critics of sprawl use when exhorting the great unwashed to a more enlightened perspective. I hear echos in the discussion suggesting that architects would choose the city as a preferable living environment if only it were nicer, cleaner, cheaper, and generally as amenitized as the suburbs. Nobody wants to fess up to the general preference for cozy, tree lined streets linking nice single family homes with lawns, solid neighbors, and (normally) growing equity.
The reality is that architects and planners talk mainly among themselves, preaching earnestly to the choir, but generally behaving like everybody else. The glaring reality is that Mr. and Mrs. Suburbopolis don't read our tracts, manifestos, and glossies, or pay very much attention to us at all. They simply don't appreciate cities except as business environments or adult playgrounds, because most modern cities are not really that convenient either for those who fear them (or who are stuck in them, as the likes of Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox never fail to point out), and nurture lifestyle conceits built on fantasys of country estates and lebensraum, even when the dingbat tract leaves only 10 feet or less between bathroom and bedroom windows.
We professionals have in America done a generally lousy job of either conceiving or designing cities, even on the rare occasions when we've had the chance. We've been very good at imposing our assumptions on other classes of people, often with disastrous results: Pruitt Igoe stands out glaringly, but there are also many default examples, not the least of which are evident in the commercial strips that link our cozy suburban enclaves with freeways leading to all those great cultural venues residing in dense commercial areas, and the towering trophy erections that surround them.
We are the handmaidens of the development industry, lacking the wealth or connections to be movers and shakers ourselves, and serving their preconclusions and financial models, most of which perpetuate sprawl, now likely to be gussied up with quaint service and entertainment nodes and TND warm fuzzies.
If we are ever to have a dialogue with the Suburbopolis family about the sustainability of dense urban environments, we will need to have in mind a model they can be convinced is superior to the idealized suburban one (you know: lacking crime, drug addiction, adolescent detachment, malaise and depression, poverty, ethnicity, congestion, polution, or political chicanery), an environment which they - and we - can accept in terms of not only issues of identity, privacy, defensibility, convenience, mobility, and security, but one that makes room for rearing children to an ethical adulthood. If we cannot foster a cultural shift by acknowledging and dealing with those concerns, I think the current ongoing trend will not be reversed. The fact is that dense cities are always going to be more expensive to build, at least in the short term, if not to live in and maintain. Flat farmland, Chicago framing, building codes, and the automobile have just about cast that reality in stone.
What the "new and improved" city might look and feel like seems to me to be our challenge.
-------------------------------------------
Gary Collins AIA
Principal
Gary R. Collins, AIA
Jacksonville OR
-------------------------------------------