How do we define the "suburbs"? Sociologists and urbanists have been modifying that definition for almost a century now, sometimes tacking on pre-fixes like ex-urbs or hyper suburbs. There is some general agreement that it is a sprawling pattern of development which leaks out of and away from traditional urban centers, and that suburbs tend to be less dense and more fragmented than their urban neighborhood counterparts.
The question is, does the sprawl pattern of development still hold value to us the way that it did in the 1950s and 1960s? Are we losing anything by promoting the retrofitting of suburbia into smaller, yet still very compact urban nodes which are outside of larger urban centers?
I would argue that the most meaningful forms of development tend to be either relatively dense and walkable places (whether they are big cities, or small villages), or rural and natural environments in which development is constructed to create the least possible impact on the natural surroundings. What do you think? Will we need suburbs in 2031?
No comments:
Post a Comment