4 ms·
> So the suburbs were first, who’d a thunk it? They weren't first. Low density agricultural settlements are not suburbs, which are by definition an extension
by danans 6y ago
> So the suburbs were first, who’d a thunk it?
They weren't first. Low density agricultural settlements are not suburbs, which are by definition an extension of the urban area, populated primarily by people not engaged in the agricultural economy, but rather the industrial economy.
To this day, suburbs are frequently built on top what were previously agricultural settlements, with somewhat similar densities but completely different functions.
Agricultural villages were first, not suburbs.
- dawg- 6y agoSuburbs are such a thorny problem. They are so inefficient and often badly designed. But they are there now. They are affordable and lots of people like living in them. It's going to take a lot of work in the coming decades to figure out what to do with all these suburbs now that we have them. Maybe these low-density settlements can be some inspiration to how to solve the problem?
- danans 6y ago> Maybe these low-density settlements can be some inspiration to how to solve the problem? The suburban agriculture movement is one option. It is however hampered by the reality that in in a lot of suburbs, growing food - especially in the front yard - is perceived similarly to hang-drying laundry, which is that it signals poverty, and is often prevented by city councils and HOAs. This is an outcome of the sociological reasons why suburbs formed in the first place.
- dawg- 6y agoThe answer, I guess, is to participate in those city councils and HOA's, organize coalitions of similar-minded people, and push for changes.