the urban shift? 13:11

People supporting suburban sprawls use recent figures of the declining population of most major cities as proof that suburbanization of America continues. Unfortunately, figures do not tell the entire story. With governments turning towards austerity and refocusing on sustainable development, it is curious that one study shows, on the contrary, the downtowns of american cities actually growing. Yes, this does mean that cities are shrinking but more people are turning towards denser areas. Areas where people can walk or take public transportation to work, to the grocery store, to wherever they are headed.

This isn't anything new. The cities that we know of today all began as dense settlements and slowly became centers of commerce, education, and the arts. Cities in Western Europe or Eastern Asia have always been the heartbeat of the country. It was during the baby-boomer generation that America saw people moving away from the city and creating large suburban sprawls. (especially in places like southern California) This led to the decay of cities (New York and Los Angeles during the 70's and 80's were thought of as very dangerous places, ridden with crime and gangs) and a flourishing of small towns and a car-centered life. But before I offer my criticism of such a lifestyle, I will say that the suburban life is indeed nice and comfortable. Suburbs offer much more space and are safer and cleaner than cities. One could actually own property and a home for much less.

There will always be suburbs and even rural areas, and I do believe that there is a place for them. My only qualm is that the suburbanization of America was not a sustainable lifestyle for such a large group and now my generation will have to deal with its consequences. Because of voracious appetites for houses, developers built and people bought even if they couldn't afford it and the housing market crashed. Because the baby-boomers worked hard (which is a good thing), they thought they deserved generous retirement benefits and pensions (a bad thing and perhaps has nothing with urban or suburban life but I still want to include it), governments are bankrupt. Because of the car-centered life, we've become dependent on gas and the price continues to climb. This doesn't seem sustainable.

One allure of the suburbs was the ability to own a home and actually make money. It seems that many (here, here, here, here) (though arguable) are saying that what we saw in the last half of 20th century will never happen again. They say many in this generation will not be able to ever own a home. Some critics are optimistic that the housing market will come back up. People will always need a place to live they say. The one thing they don't take into consideration is that housing markets do go up when the job market in that particular area goes up as well. And unfortunately, that most likely will not be ameliorated anytime soon.

Many educated people of the post-baby-boomer generation are choosing to stay in cities because it offers many things that they did not experience as kids. They see the cities as an exciting place, where one can meet people, try new foods, and go to art shows and concerts. They do not need to drive as often. Thus, we are seeing a revitalization of cities. Go to New York and see how exciting of a place it is.

Washington recently opened up the Office of Urban Affairs in order to address sustainable urban living. They want to see more public transportation and better school systems in the cities. (here, here) Cities in return are investing heavily in railway. Inner city school problems are constantly being addressed. (Though we still have to wait and see whether anything happens at this time) Perhaps we will lose our individual space and landscaped yards but in the long run, I believe that our government is focusing on the right things. I do hope that people can see that we need to sacrifice our personal desires for the greater good of the society.

detroit 16:06

A hopeful but slow rebirth of Detroit.

conservation 13:52

Most people look at the facade of a building and walk away with a superficial understanding of its history and symbol. It appears that much of what people deem significant is how beautiful and clean the exterior of a building is. And for many people, that beauty is synonymous with something built in a pre-modern style: Classical European, Moorish, Historical East Asian. If one walks around the most popular shopping spaces in Los Angeles for instance, buildings are built in a hodge podge, pseudo-European style (of which I firmly detest). On the flip side, people look at a building erected after the sixties and judge its simplicity and patterns with the intricacies of pre-modern architecture and conclude that it is ugly. There is a longing for the old and a subtle hatred for the new.

One possible explanation is that it is a response to the blind destruction of historical buildings for the sake of development. In 1963 in New York City, when Penn Station was demolished to make way for a modern station with a skyscraper, people lamented their loss and a conservationist group was formed to prevent such things from happening again. Countries in Europe have gone the extreme and governments have banned development in any historic core area of their city. Most skyscrapers are located on the outer limits. We Americans then go to these European cities and are in awe of the historic value of the buildings. And of course, we become agitated by the unfortunate lack of history and the 'persistent' destruction of the old in America. 

Interior of Penn Station

A postcard of the waiting room

Penn Station Before

Penn Station Now

Personally, I am for development as new buildings bring about innovations and progress in architecture. The Romans expanded on Greek ideas and created the arch and discovered cement. During the Industrial Revolution, the British began to build with steel. America took these ideas and created the skyscraper. Progress is not a bad thing. I do not think that developers and city planners deliberately want to destroy every beautiful building in their city. They are utilitarian. They are looking for the most efficient and cheapest way to serve people. I am sure that the old Penn Station could no longer serve the citizens of New York and in addition to the cost of maintenance, it was more logical to build a larger and newer structure. Still, the loss of such a structure affected people.

These days, conservationists want to protect every building ever built and are strongly opposed to development. They elicit people's emotions and band together to stop development. Entire communities have become what we call NIMBYs. Yes, some developers do make mistakes and occasionally destroy buildings that should not have been razed but the good things they do are largely ignored and they are hounded by the one thing they do wrong. In my opinion, the biggest problem about this is that people begin to think more emotionally and ego-centrically than pragmatically and thus limit our progress. When building a new skyscraper could provide more jobs and cheaper housing, the fierce opposition of a small but very strong NIMBY group prevents progress for the majority.

I like to take the middle ground and wish we would only conserve historically important buildings and let developers create new things. Of course everything they build will not be historically important and that would eventually be torn down to make way for future buildings. I do not think we need to protect every single building. That way, we can still enjoy history but also make way for advancement. It seems like a logical compromise but I guess for the urban planner, architect, and policy maker, it is an extremely difficult task to balance.