View Full Version : Thoughts on sprawl
imasayer
10-11-2005, 23:17
Interesting article.
Click here (http://www.slate.com/id/2129636/?nav=fo) for the original article.
Suburban Despair
Is urban sprawl really an American menace?
By Witold Rybczynski
We hate sprawl. It's responsible for everything that we don't like about modern American life: strip malls, McMansions, big-box stores, the loss of favorite countryside, the decline of downtowns, traffic congestion, SUVs, high gas consumption, dependence on foreign oil, the Iraq war. No doubt about it, sprawl is bad, American bad. Like expanding waistlines, it's touted around the world as yet another symptom of our profligacy and wastefulness as a nation. Or, as Robert Bruegmann puts it in his new book, "cities that sprawl and, by implication, the citizens living in them, are self indulgent and undisciplined."
Or not. In Sprawl, cheekily subtitled "A Compact History," Bruegmann, a professor of art history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, examines the assumptions that underpin most people's strongly held convictions about sprawl. His conclusions are unexpected. To begin with, he finds that urban sprawl is not a recent phenomenon: It has been a feature of city life since the earliest times. The urban rich have always sought the pleasures of living in low-density residential neighborhoods on the outskirts of cities. As long ago as the Ming dynasty in the 14th century, the Chinese gentry sang the praises of the exurban life, and the rustic villa suburbana was a common feature of ancient Rome. Pliny's maritime villa was 17 miles from the city, and many fashionable Roman villa districts such as Tusculum—where Cicero had a summer house—were much closer. Bruegmann also observes that medieval suburbs—those urbanized areas outside cities' protective walls—had a variety of uses. Manufacturing processes that were too dirty to be located inside the city (such as brick kilns, tanneries, slaughterhouses) were in the suburbs; so were the homes of those who could not afford to reside within the city proper. This pattern continued during the Renaissance. Those compact little cities bounded by bucolic landscapes, portrayed in innumerable idealized paintings, were surrounded by extensive suburbs.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "sprawl" first appeared in print in this context in 1955, in an article in the London Times that contained a disapproving reference to "great sprawl" at the city's periphery. But, as Bruegmann shows, by then London had been spreading into the surrounding countryside for hundreds of years. During the 17th and 18th centuries, while the poor moved increasingly eastward, affluent Londoners built suburban estates in the westerly direction of Westminster and Whitehall, commuting to town by carriage. These areas are today the Central West End; one generation's suburb is the next generation's urban neighborhood. As Bruegmann notes, "Clearly, from the beginning of modern urban history, and contrary to much accepted wisdom, suburban development was very diverse and catered to all kinds of people and activities."
what are your thoughts after reading the article? I'll post more after I read it...I saw this too as I was perusing slate...
primocordara
11-11-2005, 00:54
Well, I can speak from my experience here. Montevideo has had 1.5 million inhabitants since the 60's with very little population growth.
Even in this case, the consecutive census show decline in population in older downtown areas and a Sprawl in new developments, or in existing satellite beach developments originaly done in the 50's for week end houses.
This of course generates an increase in the cost of extending urban infrastructure while leaving underused existing ones.
Several policies are being applied to revert this phenomenon, but there is a tendency by the population for land ownership, the little "piece of land".
The cost of transportation, and in our case a BAD public transport system deter further expansion, more than any real policy.
Read 'Home from Nowhere' by James Kunstler if you really want to get riled up about sprawl and the conditions related to it here in the good ole' US. He's not for everyone, but he makes some very good points about our spiral downward in to the abyss of idiotic zoning, codes and our subsequent reliance on the automobile and in particular SUV's.
The 'density gradient' mentioned in the article is a reality in my town.
His blog.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
His horrifically ugly website
http://www.kunstler.com/
I had a funny experience about 18 years ago where I designed a $6m additions to a poultry processing plant (an interesting project for a vego), within the period of the design / development a large scale residential subdivision was approved on the land surrounding the plant. The plants owners were disappointed that they had originally moved to this location to separate themselves from the public objection they had previously received due to odour, hours of opperation and the resultant noise.
They strongly objected to the rezoning allowing this subdivision yet lost. We then posted fixed notice to the boundary fence every ten metres stating "Notice - This is an offensive industry. Noise and odour are generated from this 24 hour operation". People still bought and moved in and no doubt new complaints were the result. You cant say they weren't informed.
For me I'm in two minds about this issue, firstly I personnally hate it but if it allows easier access to new cliffs well then I seem to build tolerance to it.
Sprawl in the UK is a problem due to the relative small size of the country. It also tends to be the case that most developer led housing is of poor uniform design and big swathes of countryside are eaten up by shitty little box houses. Whilst more people are living in single houses in suburbs if you actually look at the room sizes in those houses they've actually got smaller.
I still feel that in the UK the problem with sprawl is space. In America or Austrailia maybe it's not such an immediate problem because of the vastness of the country. However it does worry me that like the US here in the UK we are becoming more dependant on the car. It's no coincidence that the UK has the highest rate of obesity in Europe - we're fast catching up with the US as a nation of fatties! And if cities are big and decentralised you still need to get around. Whilst I'm not anti-cars I'd like to see better public transport and more people who cycle. If the two are integrated well then you can get around even a large sprawling city.
stephk101
11-11-2005, 11:19
I would agree fully about the UK's fear of sprawl, especially when dealing with mass house builders who have no concern over quality of environment or design in their approach. I deal with them every day and at leats 3 times a week I see garages so small that you could only park a pedal Kart in them and bedroom in which you can get a bed and nothing much else, but still general joe public will buy them as theres nothing else on offer.
I also think there is an argument for opening up some areas of the UK's countryside for redevelopment for well designed, well planned and well managed housing. Britains over protection of its rural environment has only led to agricultural workers being forced to manage, maintain and work land that is no longer profitable due to the cheaper option of imports and frequently require support from the government.... hardly a sustainable approach.
I see no reason why if, properly exceuted that certain areas of the countryside could not be succesfully opened up for development, theres the arguement for satellite sustainable communities, the rebirth of the new towns and similarly the protection of our rural heritage...
But if any of you have tried to get planning permission in the UK to refurb a disused and semi derelict barn/home in the countryside you'll know what protection is, despite PPG3's statements about re-use of underused buildings/vacant land in rural areas being positive, I think it unlikely planning permission will be forthcoming...
Overprotection of our rural areas comes at a cost, where the UK suffers from urban blight, theres a chance that our rural areas will suffer the same fate with a lack of investment and an increasing landscape of crumbling sheds.
franjayo
11-11-2005, 12:00
Interesting article and ideas. Thanks for the Kunstler links Jake, I may not agree with many of his ideas, but they are ceirtainly sharp intellegent and provoking.
Sprawl is natural, trying to stop it can be done by strong government interjection, but at some time it may bloom and explode in ugly ways. The question is if someone can help organize and manage it. We then go back to the real question of urbanization, the economic & political system. Both ttallyopen capitalist systems and totally centralized socialist systems are not the best. I do not know an example but I would think that the best way to manage the development of cities into new land should be a shared effort between private and public sector in a planning group.
The problems of sprawl include management of infrastructure including utilities, roads, public transportation, public recreation, security etc...
imasayer
11-11-2005, 17:35
what are your thoughts after reading the article? I'll post more after I read it...I saw this too as I was perusing slate...
I thought that sprawl was a uniquely a post WWII America problem. I hadn’t given much thought to the history of sprawl until this article, although I should have, because the older I get the more I realize that there is an historical precedent for most of our problems. However, the scale of sprawl in the US is not reflected in history.
The thing that worries me most about sprawl is, while the awareness of the problem has grown, we have barely begun to change our attitudes about building and development. I think that this reflects very badly upon us, the architects. Sure, society has turned its back on us, but we have done very little to adapt to role that we should be playing in society. If you have read many of my posts in PPB1 you know that I am not a fan of the traditional practice of architecture (the last 100-150 yrs, post-architect-as-master-builder). The reason I feel this way is I see the role of the architect in the building industry being continually diminished, (replaced by developer and builder) as well as our status in society. I believe that we need this status in order to affect change in the built environment. What is my proposed solution? More design-build, and architect as developer, return to the role of architect-as-master-builder. (This month’s arch-record has a good article on this subject)
I have written on this subject in this forum several times and have never really gotten much of a response. I would love to hear if you all think that I am a nut-job!
Jake,
I have read the Geography of Nowhere by Kunstler. I thought in the first half of the book he made some great observations and offered some thoughtful solutions. In the last half of the book he goes on a rant that makes him sound paranoid! It was all I could do to make it to the end. Took some good things from it though.
Sure, society has turned its back on us, but we have done very little to adapt to role that we should be playing in society.
Sometimes all that architects are concerned with is buildings. (pretty obvious) But, usually it should go further than that. The whole realm of the built environment should be considered. Streetscape, city layout, public spaces, road layout, town planning, they're all pieces of the same jigsaw. We should take an active interest in all of these (even the not so interesting bits). It's all very well designing fantastic buildings but if the rest isn't up to scratch...well.
We need to take responsibilty and integrate with the other disciplines. Even the best, most exciting buildings can fail if the surrounding nuts and bolts don't work. Streets first, buildings second... not the other way round???
Jake,
I have read the Geography of Nowhere by Kunstler. I thought in the first half of the book he made some great observations and offered some thoughtful solutions. In the last half of the book he goes on a rant that makes him sound paranoid! It was all I could do to make it to the end. Took some good things from it though.
I agree. He does go over the edge at times, but I think his basic ideas are sound. The 'Geography of Nowhere' is a pretty much a history of architecture and how it has evolved. 'Home from Nowhere' deals with the condition of our neighborhoods and the reasons why we are heading for trouble.
For example, the zoning laws that require us to locate each of our daily functions in neat little pockets. We have to get in the car in the morning to go to work because that in a special zone outside our home zone. Then we have to get in a car to go to lunch because that's in a zone. Then we need to go to meet a client who owns a factory, so in the car we go again to get to his zone. Then we get home at night and find we need milk for the kids, so we have to climb in the car to get to the grocery store, because it's in it's on little zone. Wan't to see a movie? You need to go to a zone outside your neatly packaged home zone.
Communities developed differently in our history. People lived and worked in the same general neighborhood. People lived above the store they operated. Now, because the government and local municipalities are 'looking after us' and neatly 'organizing' our lives for the good of all, the communities have disintegrated into isolated islands of functions. Over dependency on the car is a result. Since most municipalities can't get support from a complacent public or get funding from Uncle Sam for mass transit, we build bigger roads and highways to accommodate the traffic flowing from one disconnected zone to the next. Money for this work is plenty because of a short-sighted government. Gas is plenty. Why worry?
Britains over protection of its rural environment has only led to agricultural workers being forced to manage, maintain and work land that is no longer profitable due to the cheaper option of imports and frequently require support from the government.... hardly a sustainable approach.
Wich might turn into a sustainable one in the future. Development of rural areas not only brings infrastructure deterioration, but also heavy soil pollution and destruction of ecosystems. And in the long run this is going to be a much worse than infrastructure and oil dependance.
A solution for this is almost impossible at this point because of the system we live in. There is no way that a profound change in the way cities are built can be done. It would require a major lifestyle change for everybody and I don't think people are willing to change.
It would require a major lifestyle change for everybody and I don't think people are willing to change.
I totally agree. It probably will happen a hundred years or so. Once oil has run out, and all the forests are gone due to growing bio-diesel crops. And by then it'll be too late. Even solar powered cars won't solve things in the UK. There just isn't enough room for so many cars - regardless of what power they use. It will need to get to catastrophe point before people wake up and realise.
Actually, when gas prices got up to $3.50 plus a gallon here in the US about two months ago there was all sorts of talk by the SUV drivers that they were switching to more economical modes of travel. It was all over the news. Hydrogen powered cars were on the news. Propane was the fuel of the future.
Gas has gone down to $2.50 and all that is history. People will not change or want to change until they get a PERMANENT slap in the face. Changes won't happen voluntarily. Hotrats is correct in my opinion. It has to be catastrophic.
Well, it's what I was trying not to say. I was feeling a little bit pessimistic.
Well, it's what I was trying not to say. I was feeling a little bit pessimistic.
I think you mean you were feeling optimistic. Hotrats and I are pessimistic. :)
I wish I could be more optimistic, but it's not in my nature. :(
Hotrats and I are pessimistic.
good to see there's another cynical old git in the world :cheers:
some would say that in this case pessimism is close to realism :(
By the way Hotrats. We have a new employee from Tennessee. A country girl. I was playing a little Zappa in my office the other day and she asked who it was. I said Zappa and she went off on what a drug-crazed hippie he was and she would never listen to anything by Zappa. I asked her who she listens to and she said Johnny Cash.
'Johnny Cash?!', I screamed. First of all Zappa was as anti-drug as they come. Second of all, Johnny Cash was a drinking, amphetamine popping substance abuser. PUULLLEEEASSE!!!
Sorry, not thread related, but avatar related.
Coffee and cigarettes were his staple diet I think.
Perhaps your new employee is a "Valley Girl"?
I'd better stop there before we derail this thread.
http://www.sprawlwatch.org/
Here is another site I look at once in awhile. Seems the general public perception is that sprawl is bad, but nothing gets done. It's somebody else's problem.
imasayer
11-11-2005, 21:41
My fellow cynics (and one naïve optimist),
You have all made some really good comments, but no one has addressed my thoughts on the typical model of architecture practice. Builders/developers currently control the built environment. We are at the whim of clients. How effectively can we force change with the current model. I think that we need to be driving development from an urban design standpoint. We need to fund projects, or work with people who can get behind our vision. We need to be working with (not for) builders as the leader of a team. We can do it better than the typical developer; we have better ideas, educated ideas. We are driven by more than the bottom line. (of course not all architects, but people in this forum) I know that there are inherent problems with this model as well. The big one would be where the money comes from. God knows that we don’t make enough of it. I think if architects shift this way there is more money to be made. (and also bigger risk than taking a percentage)
Jake, the zoning laws are messed up (one thing that I was able to take from the “Geography of Nowhere”). Developers often affect these because a community wants to see a particular project come in, especially if it broadens the tax base. That is one reason that our cities sprawl so much. The city is eager to annex land to broaden its tax base, even though there is no density between the city and a particular development. It is all about the golden rule; he who has the gold makes the rules. My argument is that architects need more of the gold. I am not talking about being rich; I am talking about having the power to make real change. I know of architects that are doing this, and I have seen the changes, in my small community, in just a few short years.
Hotrats, I agree that we should be more involved in the planning of “streets”(urban landscape), and that is really what I am getting at. I love well designed buildings, but we have to think bigger.
Wow, someone needs to knock me off of my soapbox! Now I sound like the naïve one! I just want to see change before the catastrophe.
Going back to the article , I dont see how the author equates sprawl from today with suburban brick kilns . In fact that was absolutely the opposite situation , everyone stayed in the city except what was deemed harmful/ obnoxious was 'zoned' separately . Fast forward to our age and we decided that the people deserve to stay far away from work , schools , commerce , the big stinking city in general . It's ok that sprawl exists now because by some convoluted logic it must be all right because it has always existed :bang head :bang head :bang head .
The only reason that sprawl exists is that everyone makes a buck on it , the developers , the car industry , the road / highway construction industry and some times even the city by increasing its tax base . And what do we get as a result , cities that are dead except during office hours , hours and hours of commute through semi urbanised wastelands , loss of a sense of community, a blighted countryside , pollution due to increased usage of fossil fuels , dependance on the car blah blah blah . I wonder what sort of childhood memories does a kid from the suburbs carry with him and how does it differ from a kid growing up in a rich vibrant city where he knows everyone from the grocery guy to the old lady that lives down the lane and gives him candy.
I agree totally with Hotrats . Public realm in my opinion is more important than 'architecture' . I am very skeptical to the very inward appraoach of our profession where every building is a star and disregards everything around which doesnt fall into its agenda. Designing the interstitial spaces is what makes cities for people and not just a visual experience .The following site might be intersting for you people . www.pps.org
imasayer
11-11-2005, 22:40
Going back to the article , I dont see how the author equates sprawl from today with suburban brick kilns . In fact that was absolutely the opposite situation , everyone stayed in the city except what was deemed harmful/ obnoxious was 'zoned' separately . Fast forward to our age and we decided that the people deserve to stay far away from work , schools , commerce , the big stinking city in general . It's ok that sprawl exists now because by some convoluted logic it must be all right because it has always existed www.pps.org
I don’t think that the article in any way advocates for sprawl, merely attempts to explain that it is not as recent a phenomenon as we typically assume. It explains that the affluent have always sought to separate themselves from the density of the city. It is just an interesting history that I (and perhaps others) had not considered in their fight against sprawl.
Your other comments are spot on though.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.