5 ms·

The tragedy of suburbia

18 points by maurycy 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago
The real tragedy is that a lot of people feel this way. And his insubstantial opinions, spliced with invectives, will persuade many more.
- DTrejo 18y ago
  I'd appreciate it if you elaborated. You seem to say that his take on suburbia is incorrect, but you do not say why.
- scorxn 18y ago
  Though I find this comment a bit trollish, I have to ask, which parts do you disagree with? For my own two cents, I grew up in Metro Detroit, which largely resembles the concrete wasteland Kunstler criticizes. And the most accessible, generally enjoyable place I've inhabited was The Loop in St. Louis -- a well-defined, fairly small example of "a place worth caring about."
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    I didn't really mean that original comment to come off as trollish, though I can see how it was taken as such. My problem with his speech as the same one you probably had with my comment. It's not so much correct or incorrect as it is one-sided and incomplete. He calls suburbia ugly. I call cracked cement as far as the eye can see, decrepit buildings, urine stench, and steam rising from manhole covers far more aesthetically offensive than any Target. (I might take it over some Wal-Marts though.) He totally glosses over the apparent values of suburbia. Our population is shifting to it in huge numbers, people must find it worth it. There's clearly something to suburban living. Maybe people like to own land and drive their own car to work, rather than sit on a smelly bus or subway next to smelly people. Maybe they still like to derive the economies of scale that Target and Wal-Mart afford them (which they cannot in an agrarian society) without either farming their own food or paying $3k a month for a tiny one bedroom apartment in a smog-ridden city. He doesn't mention the fact that with a good environmental policy we could (and I think in 25 years will) have Targets and still coexist peacefully with the Earth. His entire speech is just one-sided opinion with lots of invective and no apparent reasoning or factual basis. He calls the area that a very large portion of Americans choose to live in "not worth defending". That's pretty unusual for a TED talk. I'd consider his entire speech trolling. Maybe that's why his Wikipedia bio makes such conspicuous mention of his total lack of credibility.
    - demallien 18y ago
      "He calls suburbia ugly. I call cracked cement as far as the eye can see, decrepit buildings, urine stench, and steam rising from manhole covers far more aesthetically offensive than any Target. (I might take it over some Wal-Marts though.)" There's no doubt that urbanism can be done badly. But when it is done well, it is an absolute pleasure. For example, I live in Paris, which is a highly urbanised city (obviously). Paris has very few parks, and very few private gardens (frontyards). But it is far and away more pleasurable to walk around Paris than to walk around, say, London. They have put a lot of effort into making tree-lined boulevards the defining feature of the city's streets. The very inner city lacks this, but makes up for it with a rich tapistry of shops, bars, cafés and restaurants. It took me about 3 years of walking around Paris (yes, you do wlk here, which is kind of the point!) before I got blasé about the whole experience. i mean, it's still brilliant,it's just that today it's what I expect of a city, and if I don't get that expeience when walking about another city, I tend to write that city off as an option for where I should live.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Well, Paris is a statistical outlier in that respect. Even still, I still have that primal human urge to look out my window and see trees. I think suburbanism can be done badly too, but is also very pleasurable done well.
      - hugh 18y ago
        I agree, Paris is a great place to walk around. But in practical terms, what's it like to try and raise three children in a place where only the super-rich can afford to have a back yard? If the folks in Clichy-sous-Bois lived in ugly low-density suburbs would they still feel the need to riot every two months?
        demallien 18y ago
        Well, I don't have any kids, but I do have lots of friends that are raising their children whilst living in Paris. The first thing to note is that there is generally a park somewhere nearby where the children can play. Not always, but most of the time. I imagine there aren't many families living in the areas without parks. Secondly, for families with kids under the age of about 10 (when they can start to navigate streets on foot all by themselves), there's always the suburbs. But once kids are old enough to get around by themselves, I would think that they appreciate living in the city as much as I do. Thirdly, places like Clichy Sous Bois are pretty much the exact worst solution to providing living space. It's like they've taken the worst bits of suburbia, and the worst bits of urban living, and mashed them together, taking great care that none of the good parts are included.
- waldrews 18y ago
  Even people who don't happen to like suburbs should be turned off by the speaker's arrogant central-planner community-before-individual attitude.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
ardit33 18y ago
This is an old speach, but a good one. It is crazy on how on every city, the oldest parts (the one build before the 30s) are actually design well, human scale, and apealing.Most things built after the 40ss, is this very ugly strip mall design, that is soul drenching, depressing and plain ugly. You can put as many palm trees as you want, it is still like putting a lipstick on a fat pig. Take example: San Francisco, built mostly before 1920, and then SJ, or most of the peninsula, build mostly after the 50s. Which tourists ever say, I came here to see San Jose? Even when I visited Kansas City, the oldest part has some good charm and apeal, and some character. As soon as you drove out of the oldest parts, you end up with this insane grid of streets and strip malls.
- menloparkbum 18y ago
  soul drenching, again?
  - ardit33 18y ago
    sorry, probably the wrong wording and cultural differences; some phrases' meaning do not translate well.
    - gruseom 18y ago
      Perhaps you meant 'draining'?
menloparkbum 18y ago
His points might be valid, but I don't think his style is going to make much of a difference. He's preaching to the choir. Somehow I've avoided suburbs my entire life, so I'm not sure of their merits or pitfalls. However, I did grow up in a small town that would be considered ugly by his standards. If some douchebag from upstate new york showed up and told everyone our town wasn't worth defending because there wasn't a euro-style plaza surrounded by cafes and pubs, he would have been told to go fuck himself. People get angry when someone says their home sucks... because they live there. I get irrationally mad when people dis the place where I've chosen to live (SF), even though it is hard to argue with their criticisms (too expensive, crazy people everywhere, smells like pee, tons of sanctimonious assholes, etc).
mojonixon 18y ago
He's an awful speaker but I agree with his essential theses. I spent the first 18 years of my life in an awful suburb. Saturday night for the high school kids is getting drunk in a corn field or behind one of the strip mall. 1) Suburbia is a misallocation of resources, fully dependent on cheap energy. 2) Suburbia is a cultural failure, unable to create and nurture community and creativity. Cities have the economic, infrastructure and cultural efficiencies made possible by scale. Now in Ann Arbor (semi-suburbia) by way of DC (kick ass mass transit, great neighborhoods, huge parks).

18 points by maurycy 18y ago

The real tragedy is that a lot of people feel this way. And his insubstantial opinions, spliced with invectives, will persuade many more.

DTrejo 18y ago
I'd appreciate it if you elaborated. You seem to say that his take on suburbia is incorrect, but you do not say why.
scorxn 18y ago
Though I find this comment a bit trollish, I have to ask, which parts do you disagree with? For my own two cents, I grew up in Metro Detroit, which largely resembles the concrete wasteland Kunstler criticizes. And the most accessible, generally enjoyable place I've inhabited was The Loop in St. Louis -- a well-defined, fairly small example of "a place worth caring about."
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  I didn't really mean that original comment to come off as trollish, though I can see how it was taken as such. My problem with his speech as the same one you probably had with my comment. It's not so much correct or incorrect as it is one-sided and incomplete. He calls suburbia ugly. I call cracked cement as far as the eye can see, decrepit buildings, urine stench, and steam rising from manhole covers far more aesthetically offensive than any Target. (I might take it over some Wal-Marts though.) He totally glosses over the apparent values of suburbia. Our population is shifting to it in huge numbers, people must find it worth it. There's clearly something to suburban living. Maybe people like to own land and drive their own car to work, rather than sit on a smelly bus or subway next to smelly people. Maybe they still like to derive the economies of scale that Target and Wal-Mart afford them (which they cannot in an agrarian society) without either farming their own food or paying $3k a month for a tiny one bedroom apartment in a smog-ridden city. He doesn't mention the fact that with a good environmental policy we could (and I think in 25 years will) have Targets and still coexist peacefully with the Earth. His entire speech is just one-sided opinion with lots of invective and no apparent reasoning or factual basis. He calls the area that a very large portion of Americans choose to live in "not worth defending". That's pretty unusual for a TED talk. I'd consider his entire speech trolling. Maybe that's why his Wikipedia bio makes such conspicuous mention of his total lack of credibility.
  - demallien 18y ago
    "He calls suburbia ugly. I call cracked cement as far as the eye can see, decrepit buildings, urine stench, and steam rising from manhole covers far more aesthetically offensive than any Target. (I might take it over some Wal-Marts though.)" There's no doubt that urbanism can be done badly. But when it is done well, it is an absolute pleasure. For example, I live in Paris, which is a highly urbanised city (obviously). Paris has very few parks, and very few private gardens (frontyards). But it is far and away more pleasurable to walk around Paris than to walk around, say, London. They have put a lot of effort into making tree-lined boulevards the defining feature of the city's streets. The very inner city lacks this, but makes up for it with a rich tapistry of shops, bars, cafés and restaurants. It took me about 3 years of walking around Paris (yes, you do wlk here, which is kind of the point!) before I got blasé about the whole experience. i mean, it's still brilliant,it's just that today it's what I expect of a city, and if I don't get that expeience when walking about another city, I tend to write that city off as an option for where I should live.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Well, Paris is a statistical outlier in that respect. Even still, I still have that primal human urge to look out my window and see trees. I think suburbanism can be done badly too, but is also very pleasurable done well.
    - hugh 18y ago
      I agree, Paris is a great place to walk around. But in practical terms, what's it like to try and raise three children in a place where only the super-rich can afford to have a back yard? If the folks in Clichy-sous-Bois lived in ugly low-density suburbs would they still feel the need to riot every two months?
      - demallien 18y ago
        Well, I don't have any kids, but I do have lots of friends that are raising their children whilst living in Paris. The first thing to note is that there is generally a park somewhere nearby where the children can play. Not always, but most of the time. I imagine there aren't many families living in the areas without parks. Secondly, for families with kids under the age of about 10 (when they can start to navigate streets on foot all by themselves), there's always the suburbs. But once kids are old enough to get around by themselves, I would think that they appreciate living in the city as much as I do. Thirdly, places like Clichy Sous Bois are pretty much the exact worst solution to providing living space. It's like they've taken the worst bits of suburbia, and the worst bits of urban living, and mashed them together, taking great care that none of the good parts are included.
waldrews 18y ago
Even people who don't happen to like suburbs should be turned off by the speaker's arrogant central-planner community-before-individual attitude.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

ardit33 18y ago

This is an old speach, but a good one. It is crazy on how on every city, the oldest parts (the one build before the 30s) are actually design well, human scale, and apealing.Most things built after the 40ss, is this very ugly strip mall design, that is soul drenching, depressing and plain ugly. You can put as many palm trees as you want, it is still like putting a lipstick on a fat pig. Take example: San Francisco, built mostly before 1920, and then SJ, or most of the peninsula, build mostly after the 50s. Which tourists ever say, I came here to see San Jose? Even when I visited Kansas City, the oldest part has some good charm and apeal, and some character. As soon as you drove out of the oldest parts, you end up with this insane grid of streets and strip malls.

menloparkbum 18y ago
soul drenching, again?
- ardit33 18y ago
  sorry, probably the wrong wording and cultural differences; some phrases' meaning do not translate well.
  - gruseom 18y ago
    Perhaps you meant 'draining'?

menloparkbum 18y ago

His points might be valid, but I don't think his style is going to make much of a difference. He's preaching to the choir. Somehow I've avoided suburbs my entire life, so I'm not sure of their merits or pitfalls. However, I did grow up in a small town that would be considered ugly by his standards. If some douchebag from upstate new york showed up and told everyone our town wasn't worth defending because there wasn't a euro-style plaza surrounded by cafes and pubs, he would have been told to go fuck himself. People get angry when someone says their home sucks... because they live there. I get irrationally mad when people dis the place where I've chosen to live (SF), even though it is hard to argue with their criticisms (too expensive, crazy people everywhere, smells like pee, tons of sanctimonious assholes, etc).

mojonixon 18y ago

He's an awful speaker but I agree with his essential theses. I spent the first 18 years of my life in an awful suburb. Saturday night for the high school kids is getting drunk in a corn field or behind one of the strip mall. 1) Suburbia is a misallocation of resources, fully dependent on cheap energy. 2) Suburbia is a cultural failure, unable to create and nurture community and creativity. Cities have the economic, infrastructure and cultural efficiencies made possible by scale. Now in Ann Arbor (semi-suburbia) by way of DC (kick ass mass transit, great neighborhoods, huge parks).