Just what is a suburb?

[Cardinal]

I frequently read posts that criticize the "suburb" as the ultimate evil. As a person who grew up in a suburb, I can't seem to understand why.

My childhood suburb (Glenview, IL) was started in the 1830's and grew along the rail line north from Chicago to Milwaukee. My father would take that train into work every morning. It was already a good-sized village when the post WWII growth spurt began. The house I grew up in was built in 1955 on about a third of an acre, with apple and plum trees and a large vegetable garden. My school was three-quarters of a mile away along a quiet street. There were parks in a five minute walk north or south. The grocery store and the drug store where I bought candy as a kid were a mile away. The streets were tree-lined. All-in-all, I don't think that was all so bad.

I could name dozens of suburban places of a similar character. Then there are others, like Riverside, Illinois (designed by Olmstead) which have a park-like feel. Boston's streetcar suburbs (read the book by Warner) are completely opposite.

It all makes me think that we may use the term "suburb" too indiscriminately.

[iamme]

"Suburb" is too broad a word for the specific meanings it is usually meant to convey. This is probably related to relatively new terms such as "exurb" or "inner ring suburb". My experience has been most use of the word "suburb" is to describe post 50's development generally not posited around the CBD or central city in general, while also being a seperate political entity. However, "suburban" can be easily applied to appropriately styled areas in the city proper. I'm sure everyone that reads this has had the same experience, but it would be interesting to hear of unconventional applications of the word "suburb".

[maarten]

What you think of a suburb depends on your point of view, I think. For families, and children, suburbs are perfect places to live.
For visitors, most suburbs are terribly boring to see. I mean, it's hard to find anything surprising in a suburb.
And for urban planners, suburbs are often linked to urban sprawl.

[Wanigas?]

Originally posted by Cardinal

It all makes me think that we may use the term "suburb" too indiscriminately.

Like, as if it ain't urban, then it must be suburban?

[Breed]

Suburbs can be decent... suburbs can be evil. With the appropriate design standards (requiring connectivity, preserving open space, making developers pay for extended infrastructure costs) they can be decent.

The problem is when places lack sufficient design standards to limit the negative effects of poorly designed suburban areas. I've seen suburbs where the only access is via an arterial. I've seen a "cluster" subdivision where preserved open space is only accessible to one or two homes. I've seen cities pay through the nose to entice developers to build something in their communities. All of these are not good practices.

I'm guessing that much of the animosity about suburbs comes from the fact that it "forces" us to rely on vehicles. Personally, I believe suburbs are the way they are because vehicles are an important part of American culture. I don't believe suburbs are the cause... merely the effect.

[Glasshouse]

I grew up in central park before pampers. A suburb to say the least. My moma and daddy I'll never know. I drank Richards wine to tame the beast. I fought the local wildlife for half eaten crow. Before I was 6 I was hooked on crack. Met a nice hooker with a wonderful rack. Before I hit 7 she up and left. I focused my attention on auto theft. At the age of 9 I was thrown in jail. Spent some time with no chance for bail. I got a job by the time I hit 10. Made a good burger at the place I was in. On my face grew a terrible boil. From bobbing for mcnuggets in a pan of hot oil. Arrested again on some old womans land. For making her dog lick me on an exterior gland.

Yes suburbs are great.

Bob

[pete-rock]

Originally posted by Cardinal

I frequently read posts that criticize the "suburb" as the ultimate evil. As a person who grew up in a suburb, I can't seem to understand why.

My childhood suburb (Glenview, IL) was started in the 1830's and grew along the rail line north from Chicago to Milwaukee. My father would take that train into work every morning. It was already a good-sized village when the post WWII growth spurt began. The house I grew up in was built in 1955 on about a third of an acre, with apple and plum trees and a large vegetable garden. My school was three-quarters of a mile away along a quiet street. There were parks in a five minute walk north or south. The grocery store and the drug store where I bought candy as a kid were a mile away. The streets were tree-lined. All-in-all, I don't think that was all so bad.

I could name dozens of suburban places of a similar character. Then there are others, like Riverside, Illinois (designed by Olmstead) which have a park-like feel. Boston's streetcar suburbs (read the book by Warner) are completely opposite.

It all makes me think that we may use the term "suburb" too indiscriminately.

I agree the term "suburb" is very subjective. Not only does it mean different things to different people, it means different things in different places across the country.

Generally, when I hear someone decry the evils of "suburbia", the image I have depends on the context of the comment. If the comment talks about homogeneity and "Leave it to Beaver"-type conformity, for example, I think of places like the Glenview, IL that Cardinal grew up in -- usually built up between 1945-1970 (but established long before), with not much to distinguish it from not-too-distant city neighborhoods. If the comment is about sprawl, traffic congestion, the lack of "place", I think of post-1970 subdivisions with winding roads and cul-de-sacs, shopping malls and office parks, just off the highway interchange.

The problem is, both development types can and do exist both within and beyond the "typical" central city boundaries, depending on where you're from. In the Chicago metro area, where both Cardinal and I are from, both of the examples listed above generally are beyond Chicago's city limits, although there are plenty of the first type in Chicago proper. In many cities in the South and West, the 1945-1970 type IS the city; in other places, the post-1970 version is the city. There are "suburbs" within cities, and cities/towns/villages within "suburbs".

I think we need to drop the term "suburb" altogether, and focus on development type by age. In the US, you could say there are three types -- 1)pre-WWII; 2)post-WWII, until 1970; and 3) post 1970.

I might be willing to admit that another development type has recently emerged in the last 10-15 years -- the far-out "exurbs" -- but I don't know if they're just newer versions of the same post-1970 development, or something completely different.

[JNL]

This discussion on defining suburbia was interesting:
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1355

and shows me how much I have learnt since posting in this 2 years ago!

[Kovanovich]

Originally posted by pete-rock

I think we need to drop the term "suburb" altogether, and focus on development type by age. In the US, you could say there are three types -- 1)pre-WWII; 2)post-WWII, until 1970; and 3) post 1970.

I might be willing to admit that another development type has recently emerged in the last 10-15 years -- the far-out "exurbs" -- but I don't know if they're just newer versions of the same post-1970 development, or something completely different.

Keeping in mind that I don't like suburbia, I think that each progressive stage of its development has seen a more extreme version of it...I definitely think that suburbs built in the last 10-15 years (roughly since the Gulf War) have been more extreme. When I drive around them (of course, it is absolutely impossible to walk around them), it is difficult even to see human habitat. Even major shopping centers and regional malls are typically so far from the 10 lane highway that you could actually drive right by them without seeing them. Conventionally, these areas are referred to the exurbs, in part because they are suburbs of the suburbs, but also because they do represent a new stage in the development of the suburb.

Dolores Hayden, in Building Suburbia, claims that the suburb's origins in this country can be traced to roughly 1820. But the term suburbs appears in the first census (taken in 1790), where there is a listing for the population of the Philadelphia suburbs. There's a piece of really useful trivia for you!

The term "suburban" of course goes back to the Latin. "Sub" typically carries the connotation "less" or "inferior," both in Latin as well as English, a curious historical accident! Suburban in Latin was sometimes derogatory, but often it was used in a more positive sense (in the context of a retreat from crowded Rome). Most Americans -- the type who don't spend their time on Cyburbia -- associate "suburban" with "good." It's possible that attitudes have at last begun to shift (we've heard that plenty of times over the years), but if so it is only gradual. The American dream is still unapologetically suburban.

As far as the earlier thead is concerned, the paraphrase of Potter Stewart (roughly, I know suburbia when I see it) captures it well, ignoring the jurisdictional issues involved (e.g. whether the "suburb" is within the borders of the central city or not).

[Kobayashi]

This is the suburban sprawl that scares people the most.

This is your typical sun belt suburb.

[The One]

The suburbs of the Northeast are much more appealing than those of the West/Mid-West to me.....the above photo really says it all.....Also, those parts of the country that have trees and are "green" with plants are able to hide their junky (commercial) suburbs much better. This is only part of it....architecture and design plays a significant role in our "perception" of places. Strip centers are strip centers everywhere, its just a lot easier to make them look good in a climate that allows for plant growth.....Yes, many residential suburbs lack "character" or "charm" but they make up for it in monotony and banality
Food for thought:
Ever notice how the best suburbs have their own downtowns?

[teshadoh]

I hate sprawling automobile era suburbs, but I love compact streetcar suburbs. Simple enough?

In Atlanta there are numerous Victorian & Bungalow era suburbs built in the late 1800's & through the 1940's. Today - due to Atlanta's minimal urban history - these are considered 'urban' neighborhoods. Most of their own neighborhood commercial districts & range in density due to apartment building infill in the 1930's. The suburbs of the 1940's & 1950's are a departure from those that I love. Though they do have a compactness to them & are walkable - they were built for the automobile. Most of these declined in the 1970's & 1980's but due to cost of living are seeing a resurgence, particularly in the Decatur & North Druid Hills area just outside of Atlanta. Post 1950's - you can just forget about it.

So I do catch myself saying how much I dislike the 'suburbs', because I love Inman Park & Virginia Highlands in Atlanta. Plus the plain concept of a suburb is to provide an affordable home to middle class families. What is the crime with that concept? But there is a crime with the manner they have been constructed since WWII.

[Trinity Moses]

[QUOTE=pete-rock] If the comment talks about homogeneity and "Leave it to Beaver"-type conformity, for example, I think of places like the Glenview, IL that Cardinal grew up in -- usually built up between 1945-1970 (but established long before), with not much to distinguish it from not-too-distant city neighborhoods. If the comment is about sprawl, traffic congestion, the lack of "place", I think of post-1970 subdivisions with winding roads and cul-de-sacs, shopping malls and office parks, just off the highway interchange.[/QUOTE}

Are you talking about postwar Chicago suburbia?

I can think of plenty pre 1970s examples in Chicagoland...

Winding roads and cul-de-sacs? Hoffman Estates, Elk Grove Villiage, Glendale Heights, Butterfield, Streamwood...all built after WWII but before 1970.

Shopping malls and office parks?....Oakbrook, Yorktown, Randhurst, the office areas around Harlem and the Kennedy and Ohare, all before 1970.

Sprawly suburbia was well on its way in Chicagoland (at least the parts I'm familiar with) before 1970, sometimes well before 1970.

Chicago does have some nice older suburbs, though, built up around railroad stations, that predate WWII. Glen Ellyn, Elmhurst, Lombard, Downers Grove are just a few nicer older suburbs. Usually with a little downtown near the station, and tree lined neighborhoods of victorians and bungalows built prior to WWII, and infill postwar housing from the 1940s, 50s, and early 60s...

[BKM]

Originally posted by The One

The suburbs of the Northeast are much more appealing than those of the West/Mid-West to me.....the above photo really says it all.....Also, those parts of the country that have trees and are "green" with plants are able to hide their junky (commercial) suburbs much better. This is only part of it....architecture and design plays a significant role in our "perception" of places. Strip centers are strip centers everywhere, its just a lot easier to make them look good in a climate that allows for plant growth.....Yes, many residential suburbs lack "character" or "charm" but they make up for it in monotony and banality
Food for thought:
Ever notice how the best suburbs have their own downtowns?

I'm not sure I 100% agree, there. I found Route 1 in Lynn, Mass as awful or more awful than any Sunbelt suburb. Or, frankly, most of the Highway 1 strip in Connecticut. Especially the older, economically depressed northeastern cities like Reading, PA, Springfield, MA, and the like-they have horrible strips because they went through a long period of relative economic stagnation and snow removal puts the kibosh on parking lot landscape bandaids.

I can't speak for Texas or Arizona, but most California suburbs have much more rigid sign regulations than eastern cities (although we seem to be seeing plenty of freeway crap)

[louisville]

It is hard to define many things consistently through decades of change. The area in which I currently live is technically a "suburb", but it is not a solely single-family development with only one access point to an arterial road upon which I have direct access to my choosing of big box retailers in strip development. Essentialized, I just gave my modern definition of a suburb. The new terms that I am working with:

Described Above = Suburb

Pre-WWII type developments and streetcar "suburbs" = Neighborhood.

Maybe I'm generalizing a complex issue of symantics.

[BKM]

Originally posted by Cardinal

I frequently read posts that criticize the "suburb" as the ultimate evil. As a person who grew up in a suburb, I can't seem to understand why.

My childhood suburb (Glenview, IL) was started in the 1830's and grew along the rail line north from Chicago to Milwaukee. My father would take that train into work every morning. It was already a good-sized village when the post WWII growth spurt began. The house I grew up in was built in 1955 on about a third of an acre, with apple and plum trees and a large vegetable garden. My school was three-quarters of a mile away along a quiet street. There were parks in a five minute walk north or south. The grocery store and the drug store where I bought candy as a kid were a mile away. The streets were tree-lined. All-in-all, I don't think that was all so bad.

I could name dozens of suburban places of a similar character. Then there are others, like Riverside, Illinois (designed by Olmstead) which have a park-like feel. Boston's streetcar suburbs (read the book by Warner) are completely opposite.

It all makes me think that we may use the term "suburb" too indiscriminately.

Returning to your original post, there is a term in economic theory that refers to "goods" that have value only when a few people/a relatively small population accesses them. I think suburbanization is a classic example of this reality.

It could be argued that the "best" suburbs from a design and even community character-perspective were the early "streetcar suburbs" like the North Shore of Chicago, early development along Long Island Sound in Connecticut, and the like. These suburbs were for the elite, of course.

With populaiton pressures and the private automobile, the suburban majority nation came about. We are now running into the limitations caused by growth and spread. When combined with the conolidation of retail and business into fewer hands, the idyllic small shops within walking distance are disappearing due to market forces.

[SkeLeton]

Suburbs of course, as cities, are quality dependant (which depends on Quality planning)... Older 1930's-1950's suburbs aren't that bad, because there was a different mentality back then, now suburbs are huge houses in huge lots in a cul-de-sac where you have to drive though a maze of cul-de-sacs to merge to a highway to go anywhere and do anything.

I echo others that say that suburbs aren't evil, but sprawl on the other hand, is what is to worry; I guess that sometimes people start using them as synonyms, when forgetting that there are older suburbs that are nicer and better built without all the connectivity problems of the newer ones.

You can find me whinning and bitching about chilean sprawl, which of course comes in the form of bad planned cul-de-sac filled suburbs for the rich; and suburbs that are a maze of little streets filled with little houses in little lots or bad built buildings built on the floodplain or other bad quality land; but of course if you saw these suburbs, you'd be bitching about it too... Sure, we also have "suburbs" from the '30s and '50s that are now part of the city core so to say, and nobody would classify them as suburbs, since they've become completely urban; and example is Providencia, and western Las Condes in Santiago; in Valdivia due to the small size and the earthquake of 1960, you can't find such old suburbs.

[The One]

Originally posted by BKM

I'm not sure I 100% agree, there. I found Route 1 in Lynn, Mass as awful or more awful than any Sunbelt suburb. Or, frankly, most of the Highway 1 strip in Connecticut. Especially the older, economically depressed northeastern cities like Reading, PA, Springfield, MA, and the like-they have horrible strips because they went through a long period of relative economic stagnation and snow removal puts the kibosh on parking lot landscape bandaids.

I can't speak for Texas or Arizona, but most California suburbs have much more rigid sign regulations than eastern cities (although we seem to be seeing plenty of freeway crap)

Places out west need decent architecture to make up for the lack of plants but don't get it (and by don't get it....they really don't get any of it...).....the places from Virginia North have better architecture and natural rainfall for plants and as such seem to at least be some measure better or more appealing from that standpoint....even though they may still have strip centers, they tend to look a little better in general and have more green stuff around them..... Springfield MA is an interesting example....I would compare Springfiled to Colorado Springs Colorado for size and sprawl purposes.....that would be very interesting to know which City covers a greater area, has more parks/trails and in general is more sprawl oriented.....anyone out there able to help with the numbers? But I would say without hesitation that Springfields architecture is somewhat better than Colorado Springs (very general statement obviously)......

[nuovorecord]

It seems, broadly speaking, that what we're really talking about here is the predominant transportation system defining a "good" suburb as opposed to a "bad" one. Let me attempt to give an example.

I grew up in Portland, just off 60th Avenue in the Mt. Tabor neighborhood. This neighborhood is typical of many in inner Portland, developed in the late 1800s to early 1900s. At one time, being about 5 miles from downtown, it was considered a suburb, although that term may not have been around at the time. Anyway, Mt. Tabor and other similar outlying neighborhoods/towns were connected by streetcars. A streetcar line ran two blocks from my house at one time, but was long gone by the time I was around, having been replaced with bus service. But the amenities that had been built as a result of the streetcar stop were still there...a small grocery store, a pharmacy, a doctor's office, etc. This smattering of commercial activity was repeated every 6-10 blocks or so. What this did, along with a grid street layout, was to create a "walkable" community, where one's daily needs were typically accessable within a few blocks and an easy stroll from home. Having the streetcar line in place made this possible.

Postwar development was not oriented around streetcars, but rather private automobiles. Cheap land and government policy made this possible. The focus was on moving cars, rather than people. Cars are bigger than people so they need more room and infrastructure. Streets got wider, big parking lots became necessary, distances to cover increased so speed became more of a factor, etc. All of these factors led to a greater segregation of housing and commercial activity. I think that when commercial buildings cease to be part of the community (something that's just two blocks away that you see everyday) and are just a place you go to when you need something, they take on a more utilitarian function and become less of a part of a person's interaction with the world. So, less thought and care go into their design, leading to cheap, "crappy" development.

[BKM]

Originally posted by The One

Places out west need decent architecture to make up for the lack of plants but don't get it (and by don't get it....they really don't get any of it...).....the places from Virginia North have better architecture and natural rainfall for plants and as such seem to at least be some measure better or more appealing from that standpoint....even though they may still have strip centers, they tend to look a little better in general and have more green stuff around them..... Springfield MA is an interesting example....I would compare Springfiled to Colorado Springs Colorado for size and sprawl purposes.....that would be very interesting to know which City covers a greater area, has more parks/trails and in general is more sprawl oriented.....anyone out there able to help with the numbers? But I would say without hesitation that Springfields architecture is somewhat better than Colorado Springs (very general statement obviously)......

As a CITY overall, Springfield would certainly have better architecture than Colorado Springs (albeit in a crumbling, decrepit way). But, if we are talking the SUBURBAN sections of the metropolitan area-I still disagree. I've never seen a parking lot landscaped in any but the poshest midwestern suburb. That's standard practice out here-even if we have to irrigate it. And again, my example: Lynn's Route 1 is as bleak as anything in California (and California beats the newer stuf hands down)

But, this is a pointless argument in that we all agree that we 1. shop at strips and big box clusters for their convenience; and 2. complain mightily about how ugly modern suburbia is-no matter what the location.

[ablarc]

Landscaped parking lots: Ugh.

Lipstick on a pig and even more sprawl.

[BKM]

Originally posted by ablarc

Landscaped parking lots: Ugh.

Lipstick on a pig and even more sprawl.

Well, true re: lip[stick on a parking lot. It's typically pretty pathetic unless done very elaborately and expensively.

Is your position the Trotskyite one: don't even try to "ameliorate" or "mitigate" the horrors of suburban sprawl in the hope that there will be a revolution of revulsion? Not sure that will happen.

Not sure I understand how a thin screen o0f landscaping per se "leads to more sprawl" though.