burb nation: a review

I recently read Suburban Nation. It’s a book that lays out what is wrong with Suburbia and how to fix it. The authors are neighborhood planners, so the facts, claims, and evidence for their thesis are fairly concrete. The overall book is great. A must read for anyone - whether they live in sprawl or not. The book bases its ideas on practicality, function, and economics. Although the book does reference racism and sexism as issues in suburban/urban problems, they are not the theme. I think this is an important prospective, as it can convince the average Joe White that the sprawl that is going on is bad without turning average Joe off with harsh language and realities he would rather not face. For example: claiming that much of urban decay began in the 60s (although racism and redlining was a factor), the policies that were in place to build a mass highway system, and housing laws back then (and today) that allow developers and such to cater to the ‘burbs and care less about the urban city.

In the end the book gives excellent reasons to move away from Suburbia the way it currently exists (and even more reason in a recession nine years after the book was written). I am still left with some questions though, and wondering this: is the idea that the authors present actually possible in the United States?

First, let’s address the idea of the neighborhood being less car reliant. In the neighborhoods that are created, it would create towns that depend less upon the car. It would allow people to walk almost everywhere they need to be including work, school, grocery store, and shopping. In an every growing globalized world is walking really the way America is going to go? Kids have travel soccer in the next town. That takes a car. Now, the authors at no point say that cars are bad and should be done away with. They just want less driving, especially since as a nation we are too dependent on cars and oil. But, for example, for a Chicagoian one day to be working in Chicago, the next to be vacationing in Wisconsin, the next to be carpooling a kids’ group to Indiana, public transportation certainly can’t accommodate the demands of American life.

The book builds an idea of more community in neighborhoods in a world that is expanded past its city limits. Although the book addresses many of these issues, it doesn’t fully address the problem of cars verses public transportation. Until there is a full overhaul in public transportation that makes it not only easier, but also faster and cheaper than a car, cars will the mode of transportation. This means when I do need to travel somewhere beyond my community that public trans will actually be a better idea. In today’s world if I travel from Chicago to Elgin it would take about 2 ½ hours compared to 45 minutes in a car. I don’t have to continually wait for a bus or train, or to transfer. Plus, to go to Elgin by train I would have to go south several miles even though Elgin is directly northwest. And in the end when the authors call the car “free-good,” it is actually cheaper for me to drive to Elgin than to spend money on two buses and two train fares one-way.

The authors present the idea that the car is “free-good.” It’s the idea that I can travel places, park places, etc for free. In the end it is more expense overall compared to public transportation. However, as I stated above, until it is made clear to the public’s perception that public transportation is easier, faster, and cheaper the “free-good” will always win.

Secondly, like many Americans, members of a household do not necessarily work in the same town. Many families live in between workplaces or live in one workplace area but the other may be miles away, thus making car travel inevitable for someone in the family. I think many of the ideas for a traditional neighborhood, the type of neighborhood that the authors present, would bring less driving in the community but may never address the practicality of multiple job locations.

Thirdly, American culture loves the one-stop shopping of big box stores. The book doesn’t fully address what to do with big box stores. In such a capitalist country that is driven by low prices, big box stores are not going away anytime soon. And every town can’t provide a Wal-mart, Target, IKEA, etc. within walking distance or even in each town, which will inevitably just create the same traffic and parking problems that the book is trying to disperse.

Burbs verses the traditional neighborhood layout


Finally, can the culture of the suburbs be really tamed? Isn’t the idea of driving run by the spirit of freedom? Don’t people like driving? Don’t people like living in cul-de-sacs? I mean, I pass by thousands of people sitting in traffic everyday trying to get to work in Chicago who would rather sit in traffic and have a big house with a big green lawn than an overpriced smaller house with no lawn in the city. The book again addresses many of the problems of creating better laws for the city to compete against the city, but would it create cheaper housing? Isn’t Chicago about location? The junky house at the end of my block isn’t selling for $700K because it is nice, but because it is in Chicago. Until the city can compete in pricing there may always be traffic jams (either that or like I stated above do an overhaul of public transportation).

The books also states over and over again about a priority for narrow roads over wide roads. I agree with this statement as the authors claim the roads function better for pedestrians. The authors also claim it will slow traffic down. Do people want to slow down? It seems as though everyone is in a rush today to get anywhere and everywhere as fast as they can. Just yesterday standing next to a narrow road a car buzzed by at an alarmingly high speed (for seemly not reason except to speed). Although narrower streets, and especially shorter streets (compared to long streets that are uninterrupted by street lights, stop signs, and speed limits of 55) I am still not convinced that the narrower, shorter streets fully address the safety issue.

At one point in the book it is stated or inferred that there is no end to sprawl. There is no tipping point. An example is that if instead of creating a four lane highway we created a ten lane highway that it wouldn’t exhaust any of the traffic problems. The best example of proof of this is in Atlanta. The idea is that if we create more people will come and use it and fill in the spaces that were created. Therefore requiring more lanes, etc to be created. I’m not sure that the amount of lanes are the problem as much as the problem of diverging and merging traffic of multiple highways. An example where I live is by O’Hare airport where three intersecting highways convene at once, creating traffic jams not because of the amount of lanes, but because people have to merge to a different highway or merge onto the existing highway. In the end the authors are probably right: there is no end to sprawl. And that’s a scary thought.

I loved the book. I am just not convinced and unsure about everything the book addresses. Much of American culture, developer and building laws, and city, state, and regional laws would have to do a complete 180 to make many of these dreams a possibility. In the end, the traditional neighborhood is a direction I would like to move toward rather than the ever growing sprawl that America is moving toward.