I rarely agree with Joel Kotkin.
I most certainly do not agree with his latest opinion piece in OpinionJournal. A longer version can be read here.
The gist of the article seems to be "Hooray!" for suburbs and "Boo!" for the naysayers who prefer more urban development styles.
I have several gripes with his piece:
* He still uses Levittown as a template for "suburbia", though development like that doesn't take place so much anymore. There is a rebirth of city living, and even most suburban developers are at least making making attempts (usally poorly executed) at more urban-based site designs.
* He reasons that anti-suburban arguments haven't gotten any better over time, even though the claims he cites remain as true today as they were for Lewis Mumford or Jane Jacobs.
* Because there are ethnic restaurants in some strip malls, suburbs are no longer "boring and featureless".
* He cites these as major factors for the success of Levitt's experiment: affordable homes, good schools, nice parks and public safety. Only one of these is actually provided by a developer these days. Is he aware of suburban communities' difficulties with budgets strained by trying to provide these services for unplanned populations?
As a Libertarian, it certainly seems that he overlooks a lot of factors that helped make Levitt's experiment possible.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Kotkin on suburban development
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
Recent Comments
3 comments:
This piece also showed up in the Wall Street Journal unfortunately. Like it or not, he reflects the view of the majority of the upper middle class in America. The suburban life has been so ingrained into the psyche of our nation that its the only way some people can think.
The good schools and public safety are the result exclusive zoning and exclusive price ranges of homes. He somehow keeps overlooking that fact.
people confuse the demographic benefits with suburbanization (everyone is generally affluent) and the intrinsic benefits (1/4 or half acre lots).
Post a Comment