The City, The Suburb
A day at the zoo. No, worse: they were scared. That’s how David Smiley describes the time he took his Urban Design students to Los Angeles. LA can be chaotic, especially when you are 18 years old and had never left your native Texas before.
I don’t get why some people insist on contrasting city life with suburban life. Is there anything to compare? I mean, if you need a hammer, you probably won’t compare hammers with cement mixers. Rather, you are more likely to analyze different hammer types. You may even consider similar tools, like palm nailers.
The COVID-19 pandemic has revived the question, city or suburbs: which place is better to live in? Although things have changed, both in cities and in suburbs, the confrontation seems to be exactly as it was when it first appeared.
Climate change, the place of vehicles in modern cities, and healthier habits are some of the variables that more and more citizens around the world are aware of. We hear many people move to suburbia worried about violence. That isn’t an attribute extrinsic to cities but to districts that aren’t walkable enough or that are not vibrant at all.
In America, the lives of many white middle-class people have not required them to be in cities. Some people genuinely love suburbs. They just do (or, as a colleague once suggested to me, they like such lifestyle because urban design has shaped their preferences). But what about the rest? I mean, what about the people that have lived in the city until they decided to escape from it? I’ve picked some of the most common complaints about life in the city.
Signs of Not (Very) Walkable Neighborhoods
‘In cities, there are many tall buildings’. Downtowns that are not designed for human beings usually have huge walls, narrow sidewalks, and gigantic building number signs. It feels like being lost in the ‘Honey I shrunk the kids’ set. That mammoth infrastructure might be tailor-made for cars but it can be boring and frightening to people.
‘What I hate about cities are crowds’. There is a key difference between crowds and density. While planned districts are dense and can benefit from sharing services and resources, overcrowded areas sometimes can’t even access basic services.
‘Cities are unsafe’. That’s way too abstract. If you want to unveil what makes a city you must observe its parts. Jane Jacobs wrote: ‘To keep the city safe is a fundamental task of a city’s streets and its sidewalks.’ That means secure streets and secure sidewalks are crucial to creating a sense of safety. This isn’t a duty police officers have. Rather, it depends more on urban planners. Carefully designed streets (and sidewalks), with a substantial quantity of public places, restaurants, and stores have larger numbers of pedestrians who unconsciously watch the street activity. Plus, these people on errands are an attraction to other people, making the sidewalk even safer.
‘Living in the city is unhealthy’. In the 19th century, a healthier lifestyle was associated with living outside the city. The increasing number of manufacturing enterprises resulted in problems related to sanitation and housing. The American ideal way of life was in the suburbs, although only the elite could afford a property there. Our cities today have less active factories (many of which are recycled into public spaces) and are more and more conscious about creating better surroundings and healthier habits. Measures to improve the air quality and Vision Zero projects are some examples. Also, it’s in the cities where we have a higher chance of accessing the best health professionals, including mental health specialists. Finally, contemporary urban planners are working on designs that encourage a more active lifestyle, motivating people to cycle and walk. Planners pursue urban compactness to eliminate long commutes and motorized trips at the city level.
UN-Suburbanizing America?
In the beginning, only the elite was able to live in the suburbs. However, at the turn of the century, new white-collar jobs allowed more people to buy inexpensive homes on the city outskirts. What’s more, government loan programs made it easier for more people to move to the suburbs. These mortgages were often cheaper than the apartment rent in the city. Since then, the suburban population has been growing.
Besides their own homes, a stronger purchasing power allowed people to buy products that were irrelevant in an urban context, like lawnmowers. Near the suburbs, commercial shopping malls were developed to meet the new customers’ needs. The question is: were higher salaries, cheaper homes, mortgages, and malls enough to make life in the suburbs irresistible? I don’t know. In any case, I can’t imagine how the suburbia project would have been possible without cars. Actually, the 1930s-1940s suburban towns were designed for cars. Even today there are highly car-dependent suburban areas. They might have different reasons than in previous decades, but such places are still the choice of many people. I’ve recently found on a news site a reader’s comment mentioning the advantages advantage suburbs have over cities: no roaches, no rats, and more space.
However, in recent years, some people moved (back) to the urban centers. Probably, a paradigm shift in urbanism — that began in the ’70s — explains the trend: from car-centered cities to people-centered ones. Improved public transit and the proximity to work and cultural attractions have captivated new residents.
Redesigning streets — and sidewalks — for pedestrians wasn’t the only innovation in the cityscape. In the past, the separation of functions was perceived as something good. Recreation, shopping, transportation, residences, and work: each took place in different areas (zones). On the contrary, in today’s urban neighborhoods functions are organically arranged to access them fast and easily. The different aspects of citizens’ lives are fused in an efficient and convenient way.
Besides, life in a walkable neighborhood seems to be more stimulating than a bunch of extra square meters for some people. More importantly, the city gives them the possibility to manage without those extra square meters. For example, they aren’t forced to own things like washing and dryer machines because they can go to the laundromat on the corner. The same goes for private vehicles. In the city, a non-motorized life is not only conceivable but also more suitable: parking spots are hard to find and expensive. Also, citizens don’t value space as much as their suburban counterparts do probably because they aren’t as motivated to spend too much time in their apartments. There is too much going on out there: restaurants, coffee shops, stores, parks, museums, theaters, cinemas, anti-cafes…
Our lifestyles influence our home-buying decisions; the environment shapes our lifestyles. In cities, people shop, get around, wash clothes, and have fun in a different way than in the suburbs. Due to the profound differences, comparing downtowns with the outskirts of the city is pointless. Moreover, both are dynamic spaces. Take, for example, the cost of living. Before, a house in the suburbs was accessible only to the elite, whereas today living in a city’s vibrant neighborhood is the new status symbol. The latter is explained by the higher property values in growing districts and the increasing demand from higher-income households. In a way, that’s quite the opposite of what happened in the 19th century, when upper classes moved to the suburbs as the urban population began growing rapidly.
Saying the city and the suburbs are two sides of the same coin is more than just a way of thinking. This perception has at least two undesirable consequences.
First, it reinforces stereotypes like ‘People in the city are always in a rush’ or ‘Air pollution is a dangerous reality for urban residents.’ More and more cities today pursue compactness. By creating mixed-use zoning districts, citizens stay eco-friendly and don’t need to race across town to reach destinations in time.
Second, we aren’t able to fully understand how cities function, look like today, and what do they envision. Some generations may have a mental picture of cities without green areas, vibrant public spaces, or cycling routes. But nowadays, there are programs focused not only on improving the lives of current residents but also on making cities’ future sustainable. If the UN is correct, 68% of the world population will live in urban areas by 2050. To avoid crowded settlements, it’s key that urban planners continue planning for density.
Comurbia
Since the pandemic started, there has been an exodus from the cities. Time will tell whether they are permanent. Given it’s a virus that spreads mainly from person to person, those who left fled from the crowds, not density. Actually, urban density, when properly managed, builds an environment that can meet the needs of all. Moreover, in a pandemic context, it’s convenient to stay close to medical centers, pharmacies, and grocery stores.
I love the compact city concept as much as I love the 1-minute city, which doubles down the 15-minute city proposal. Ideally, all cities would be as compressed as helium. That said, and if statisticians are right, the urban population will keep growing, so I guess we’ll have a less compact compactness. Bringing compactness to suburbs or less urbanized areas might be an option. Actually, some US suburbs are becoming more populated and have to deal with densities that are not unlike urban densities. Therefore, it’s high time we stop the battle between the city and the suburbs. There are qualities of cities that can improve suburban life. For example, there could be a more flexible zoning code that would allow residents to be less car-dependent. Shouldn’t we revise deep-rooted values, like two-car garages and master bedrooms that take up 12% of the house’s overall square footage? Single-family houses with fewer square meters and a bunch of nearby grocery stores may make it possible for residents to grab milk and eggs without getting in the car.
The world’s capitals no longer look like industrial metropolises. And although urban planners are working to create a healthier and more sustainable ecosystem, many people still condemn cities.
There are crucial moments when we stop doing what we are used to and start doing what actually makes sense. Hopefully, COVID-19 will give us the chance to revise certain assumptions, just like what happened in the past with previous pandemics. Think of, for example, the big public parks and municipal garbage services that appeared after yellow fever and cholera. Along with climate change, traffic accidents, and affordable housing, the suburbs-city center connection is one big challenge. They could share one language — one that would prioritize the pedestrian. Such continuity between the two dimensions would be beneficial for all. I imagine something similar to what happens with adjacent metropolitan areas, the so-called ‘megaregions’ or ‘supercities’. I’ve come up with the concept of comurbia. If we can get rid of the geographical and ideological barrier, we’ll start perceiving suburbs and city centers as part of the same system with similar rules. After all, regardless of where we live, we are all humans that can benefit from a people-centered approach.