What is a city?

[Patrick]

I think you're right, cars work in some places, and there were definitely burbs before cars. However, the suburban blight seems to have, unless I am mistaken, closely tracked the advent and spread of the auto. I don't think suburbs are bad per se, but the blight and congestion that they are usually associated with (especially the blight) is something that I think needs to be addressed.

also, it seems as though yesterday's suburbs are today's 'urban' neighborhoods. Somerville and many towns incorporated into Boston proper were probably at one time considered very suburban. Now I bet most people consider them 'the city.' This is a slippery subject for sure.

Many of the older suburbs, to my knowledge, especially in Europe and the eastern U.S., had to develop very densely so as to enable residents to walk to nearby streetcar lines. In some places you can tell how old a neighborhood is by how far apart the houses are, and whether they are arranged parallel to the streets they face or perpendicular. the one seems to indicate car accessibility and the other seems to indicate rail or trolly dependence.

 

[Patrick]

As an interesting aside, now that the issue of cars and suburbs has come up, I thought you all might think it interesting to know that Kansas City, MO (where the first planned suburban auto-centric shopping center was built) is also one of the best examples of the city beautiful movement still in existence today, and claims to have more fountains than the ancient city of Rome. Odd contrasts.

 

[Ron Newman]

it bugs me that everytime I have to pick up a birthday present for one of my childrens' classmates, I have to get in the car and drive to Inman Square or the 'burbs...

Inman Square is a short walk from the Central Square T station, and is also on a bunch of bus lines. Also, why do you need to go to Inman Square? If the answer is "Stellabella Toys", there's another one in Porter Square (and a Henry Bear's Park, too). I think there are also toy stores in either Coolidge Corner or Brookline Village (maybe both).

That said, it is still pretty ridiculous not to have a toy store in Downtown or Back Bay.

 

[laslonyc]

Inman Square is a short walk from the Central Square T station, and is also on a bunch of bus lines. Also, why do you need to go to Inman Square? If the answer is "Stellabella Toys", there's another one in Porter Square (and a Henry Bear's Park, too). I think there are also toy stores in either Coolidge Corner or Brookline Village (maybe both).

You're right, but what if I also have to pick up my kids from music lessons on Huntington Ave? Or find a watch battery? The point is I guess that I seem to have to block off a huge chunk of time for just one errand/one museum trip/one dinner, especially if I take public transport (since its pretty hard to get from Inman to Huntington Ave). Life is made up of these moments, and it's sometimes death by a thousand cuts...

 

[kennedy]

As an interesting aside, now that the issue of cars and suburbs has come up, I thought you all might think it interesting to know that Kansas City, MO (where the first planned suburban auto-centric shopping center was built) is also one of the best examples of the city beautiful movement still in existence today, and claims to have more fountains than the ancient city of Rome. Odd contrasts.

And they're hard at work transforming the city into a transit oriented, urban oasis with the Power and Light District, which is quite busy but lacks true diversity, and various transit oriented developments in the suburbs. They're looking into light rail similar to the APS tram-train I mentioned in the Silver Line Phase 3 thread.

 

[Ron Newman]

The watch battery I know you can find downtown. If there's anything we have too much of in central Boston, it's jewelers.

 

[Patrick]

I just never would have imagined KC to be anything like that. Sheltered New Englander I guess.

 

[kennedy]

Hey, so was I. Now I'm a sheltered, suburban St. Louisan, but at least I get to see new places and experience a totally different lifestyle. And I got to see KC a few times. I'm not sure that I'd call it a true 'city beautiful' city, but it's definitely making progress, and isn't being timid about it either. It seems the entire population is behind this movement, perhaps due to a higher concentration of the arts and architecture in the area (relative to other medium-sized Midwestern cities, like St. Louis, Omaha, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.)

 

[Patrick]

Yeah it definitely seems 'different'. as for the beautiful issue, I was referring to the urban planning movement from the late nineteenth and early 20th century called the city beautiful movement, which many consider to be most exemplified today in Kansas City (that is, it is one of the best remaining examples of a place that tried to really pursue this idea). This can be seen in its wide avenues and fountains. Of course whether or not it is actually good looking is subjective.

 

[scootie]

It's interesting that this discussion went straight to the car as the root of an urban/suburban bipolarity. I guess that's because this is a design-based crowd?
Certainly there were suburbs before cars... and there are cities where cars are convenient ... and suburbs where cars are inconvenient.
In history and urban studies literature, suburban/urban is defined by function. And there is no bi-polarity.

I disagree. In general the American suburb is about human transportation which in its most extreme form is the car.
check out:

Spiro Kostof Lectures: Architecture 170B, Spring 1991
Pt. 14 - March 12, 1991
Suburbs in America and Europe. Beginning with Glendale, OH (1851) and Llewellyn Park, NJ (1855) suburbanization is examined as land speculation facilitated by new modes of transportation: ferries, street cars, trolleys and, ultimately, the automobile.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/kostof.html


from Marshall McLuhan ideas regarding technology:
One might think of the automobile as an ?extension? of the feet. It allows man to travel places in the same manner as the feet, only faster and with less effort. In addition, this extension enables one to travel in relative comfort in extreme weather conditions. [my addition: and carry children and heavy loads]
The extension of a technology like the automobile "amputates" the need for a highly developed walking culture, which in turn causes cities and countries to develop in different ways.


It is the lost[?] ?need for a highly developed walking culture? that is in large part being discussed, so I think the car is central.

 

[kennedy]

as for the beautiful issue, I was referring to the urban planning movement from the late nineteenth and early 20th century called the city beautiful movement, which many consider to be most exemplified today in Kansas City (that is, it is one of the best remaining examples of a place that tried to really pursue this idea). This can be seen in its wide avenues and fountains. Of course whether or not it is actually good looking is subjective.

Yeah, I've read about the city beautiful movement, I'm just not as aware of it in KC, or perhaps it's just been watered down by other planning theories and I'm not as conscious of the wide avenues when they're flanked by drab modern and post-modern architecture. There are a lot of fountains though...

 

[a630]

Kostof's discussion sounds far more nuanced then what was on here, and even then, his characterization of suburbanization as a departure from walking culture reflects his being an architectural historian. It's only one point of view, and it happens to be the dominant point of view on this board.

 

[scootie]

Kostof's discussion sounds far more nuanced then what was on here, and even then, his characterization of suburbanization as a departure from walking culture reflects his being an architectural historian. It's only one point of view, and it happens to be the dominant point of view on this board.

I realize that it is an opinion but it is grounded in the fact that the permutations of suburbanization in America correlate with the development of transportation technologies.

But if you really want to talk about current citiy making, forget America, look to Shanghai or Dubai; because: 1. We don't have that kind of money anymore, 2. We have built our environment already, 3. We need to make what we have work.

 

[Shepard]

Dubai is anti-urban hypersuburbia on speed. I probably should wait until I've been there to pass that judgment, but from good friends who've lived there, that's what I understand. We're lucky to be inheriting a model (especially in the Northeast) that largely works.

Also, this isn't just America. It's surprising to see how many cities are suburban in layout and auto-dependent. New Delhi, for example: The true urban area is Old Delhi, which some would call a slum (not to use that word pejoratively) surrounding old forts. The rest of New Delhi is traffic roundabouts, gated developments, segregated slums, malls, strip malls, and office parks. Johannesburg is an Orlando with a defunct shell of a city at its center. Many Eastern European cities seem urban when you get off at the central train station, but walk a few blocks in any direction and you end up on a strange concrete-bunkerized version of Route 9 sprawl.

America will need to reverse its emergent inferiority complex if we're going to move forward.

 

[scootie]

Dubai in anti-urban hypersuburbia on speed. I probably should wait until I've been there to pass that judgment, but from good friends who've lived there, that's what I understand. We're lucky to be inheriting a model (especially in the Northeast) that largely works.

I?m not saying that Shanghai or Dubai are good, that is subjective [I personally loath them], I?m saying that these are the areas where Great [as in large] development akin to Boston?s filling in the Back Bay is currently taking place. And they are cities, so by definition [Urban: Of, relating to, or located in a city.] they cannot be ?anti-urban? or suburban.

Just because ?The extension of a technology like the automobile "amputates" the need for a highly developed walking culture, which in turn causes cities and countries to develop in different ways? doesn?t mean that these different ways are bad, just different. Assume we could instantly have ?clean? cars?does the criticism of these places still retain its life-and-death-to-the-planet-peak-oil-urgency or is it subjective and based on romantic notions of the [our] past?

America will need to reverse its emergent inferiority complex if we're going to move forward.

Good article, I agree. But let?s not replace it with a superiority complex again. America needs to make its way of life work. The USA sold its citizens and the world on ?the American Way?. How embarrassing if we cannot deliver.

 

[kennedy]

I?m not saying that Shanghai or Dubai are good, that is subjective [I personally loath them], I?m saying that these are the areas where Great [as in large] development akin to Boston?s filling in the Back Bay is currently taking place. And they are cities, so by definition [Urban: Of, relating to, or located in a city.] they cannot be ?anti-urban? or suburban.

Just because ?The extension of a technology like the automobile "amputates" the need for a highly developed walking culture, which in turn causes cities and countries to develop in different ways? doesn?t mean that these different ways are bad, just different. Assume we could instantly have ?clean? cars?does the criticism of these places still retain its life-and-death-to-the-planet-peak-oil-urgency or is it subjective and based on romantic notions of the [our] past?

1. We already talked about the difference between the dictionary definition of a city and urban, and how they differ from the architect or planner's concept of a city. The name "city" bears little importance on judging whether or not an area is "urban."

2. Things that are different can be bad. Facts are that the innovation in transportation technology has led us to a more auto-centric culture, because the need to walk was largely done away with. That does not mean, however, that it is right-even with clean cars and energy. The social consequences of an auto-centric culture are unhealthy for humans, not just the environment. I'm all for building electric cars and researching alternative energy options, and I don't think total elimination of cars is the right choice, but I do think Americans need to reduce their dependency on cars, because there are times when walking, or taking mass transit, is simply better.

 

[scootie]

1. We already talked about the difference between the dictionary definition of a city and urban, and how they differ from the architect or planner's concept of a city. The name "city" bears little importance on judging whether or not an area is "urban."

I guess I missed that?I was using the terms interchangeably. Sorry. My point is that Shanghai is a current form of how 20 million people live, work and play closely together in a functioning way [ie: not a refugee camp]. I call that a city. It is probably not the walkable city you envision, probably not a collection of Jane Jacobian neighborhoods. If you are making a distinction that ?Urban? is that particular kind of walkable not auto-centric city, I?ll accept that but disagree with the premise that nostalgia for western pre-auto city forms are better or would be recognized as better by a clear majority of the world population that needs to live in cities.

2. Things that are different can be bad. Facts are that the innovation in transportation technology has led us to a more auto-centric culture, because the need to walk was largely done away with. That does not mean, however, that it is right-even with clean cars and energy. The social consequences of an auto-centric culture are unhealthy for humans, not just the environment. I'm all for building electric cars and researching alternative energy options, and I don't think total elimination of cars is the right choice, but I do think Americans need to reduce their dependency on cars, because there are times when walking, or taking mass transit, is simply better.

? more auto-centric culture [not auto-centric, how about auto-enabled or auto-empowered?]



? the need to walk was largely done away with [That is a good thing that liberates time for people. In the Democratic Republic of Congo women spend much of the day hauling water because they need to walk. People are FREE to walk if they want.]



? but I do think Americans need to reduce their dependency on cars, because there are times when walking, or taking mass transit, is simply better. [Totally agree. And I think it is happening. But everyone will still have a car and the places where we live will need to accommodate the car.]