simulating nature
the life and death of great American suburbs
Part of the allure of the suburbs was that it promised an escape from the city. We wanted to be closer to nature-- we wanted green instead of concrete. But what we aspired for in our car-centric outer rings of cities, was rather some filtered simulation of the real thing. Jane Jacobs writes, that in the suburbs, “Nature is apparently assumed to consist of grass, fresh air, and little else.”
Nature is not the uniform, well-watered lawns and tended flowers of suburbia. Nature is not clean and tidy. It’s messy. Ticks, mosquitoes, mud, earthworms and beetles are all part of nature. And if you’ve ever camped out before, being in nature is not comfortable. It can be beautiful, breathtaking, enjoyable, amazing, but definitely not comfortable.
Jane Jacobs writes on the dangers of trying to recreate nature in the suburbs:
There are dangers in sentimentalizing nature. Most sentimental ideas imply, at bottom, a deep if unacknowledged disrespect. It is no accident that we Americans, probably the world’s champion sentimentalizes about nature, are at one and the same time probably the world’s most voracious and disrespectful destroyers of wild and rural countryside.
It is neither love for nature nor respect for nature that leads to this schizophrenic attitude. Instead, it is a sentimental desire to toy, rather patronizingly, with some insipid, standardized suburbanized shadow of nature—apparently in sheer disbelief that we and our cities, just by virtue of being, are a legitimate part of nature too, and involved with it in much deeper and more inescapable ways than grass trimming, sunbathing and contemplative uplift. And so, each day, several thousand more acres of our countryside are eaten by bulldozers and covered by pavement, dotted with suburbanites who have killed the thing they thought they came to find. Our irreplaceable heritage of Grade I agricultural land (a rare treasure of nature on this earth) is sacrificed for highways or supermarket parking lots as ruthlessly and unthinkingly as the trees in the woodlands are uprooted, the streams and rivers polluted and the air itself filled with the gasoline exhausts (products of eons of nature’s manufacturing) required in this great national effort to cozy up with a fictionalized nature and flee the “unnaturalness” of the city.
Jane Jacobs wrote this in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, which was first published back in the 60s. She saw through the myth of the suburb during a time when the picket fence dream was still live and vibrant.
There are times when the clean lawns, tidy houses, pleasant gardens, and the comfort of car transportation is very appealing to me, but I also know that the suburban landscape is probably not sustainable in light of rising gas prices, and not the type of ideal living arrangement that I would like to see.* I expect to see the decline of the suburb and the rise of the city again. (Though what I fear, is that the rich will come to live in the city, and the poor will be forced out to the suburbs).
*And there are other things about the suburbs that rub me the wrong way—for instance, that the safety of the suburbs seems to rely upon socio-economic segregation and automobile transportation (which ironically enough, kills thousands of people every year).
6 comments:
Suburbs are fallen. But so are cities. I find redemptive beauty in them both.
As a product of a Philly suburb, I disagree considerably with the portrait painted here. Perhaps a response is to follow.
Would be glad to hear your thoughts! I’m not too familiar with Phoenixville, but I feel that may fall more along the continuum with “rural”. I think when I wrote suburbs, I was envisioning a very much 50s style, Edward Scissorhands type suburbs that people were flocking to. And when I think about suburbs today, I think of gated communities on the outskirts of massive cities. So you’re right, there’s probably a much wider spectrum of suburb than what’s described here and it may not decline entirely, but I do think that it’s moving in that direction, atleast here on the east coast of America.
Nature in the suburbs is problematic to the suburbanite--it needs to be mowed, manicured, tamed. Perhaps that's an underlying attraction, but I still think that Americans, deep down, desire a sense of security, a sense of freedom, and good circumstances for their kids. Well-lit streets, cars, and good schools seem, to many, to fulfill those desires. I think suburbs will continue to thrive as long as city schools and city security are perceived to be troublesome.
Personally, I don't feel insecure in the place where I am, and I don't have kids, and I feel more free through SEPTA, which stops a block from my house, than I would with a car (since we've let gas prices get so high).
Phoenixville is a real, bona fide TOWN that has been swallowed by suburban sprawl from Philadelphia. The residential areas that surround it are most accurately termed "exurbs"... where you can see an obvious difference between sprawl-induced developments and the old organic rural housing. Nick, I think in a social science sense of the word "suburbs", you're not really from them. I think you're probably more of a ruritan. Part of the suburban experience is anomie, and the fact that you care enough about your place of origin to post a dissenting opinion signals that you're likely not a product of the true engineered suburban environment.
Hmm...I'm a product of the suburbs, but I think the portrait you paint is somewhat colored through urban lenses. Yes, the suburb is flawed:
-low-density, inefficient use of space
-encroachment on nature
-energy-inefficient thru car dependence
-lack of cohesive community
At the same time, there are some things suburbs are much better at - and even suburbs themselves are quite varied. I actually like the more densely populated suburbs that have good transport/train links into the city.
While I haven't lived in NY (or in the city), my observation is that tall apartment buildings do not foster a sense of community. There is no 'space' that accommodates people - or promotes fellowship. It's true that you can go to a public park - but it's much more difficult and less 'homey'. I actually think that lower density cities (and also higher density suburbs) work best to promote a sense of community.
While it's incumbent upon residents to reach out to others, it's much easier when you can have community BBQs either in the street/sidewalk (I'm thinking of Paterson, a low-income city in NJ), or higher density suburbs when the neighbors aren't so far away.
30-story buildings are terrible at creating community - witness the loneliness of yuppies in NY, or even college students in the high rises at Penn.
Norman, you make a very good point, though I think I'd probably qualify a high density suburb near public transportation more on the city continuum.
In any case, Jane Jacobs actually writes about how cities can become too successful, become too homogeneous, too dense and end up just being 15-storey high rise after another. (New York is also an extremely transitional city, leading to the further sense of lack of community.) In any case, Jane Jacobs writes that ideal city density is actually found in lower densities and mixed residential buildings. Being a bit partial to Philadelphia, I prefer to think 3 storey row homes interspersed with small apartment buildings. :)
Perhaps more indicative of community is whether or not people own their houses, and and whether they plan to stay in the neighborhood for the longer term.
Post a Comment