do you have any resources on the ‘misremembered’ suburban timeline? would love to learn more about how they developed before the car-centric model & their previous relationship to cities at large
"Cities and towns that cling to the suburban pattern will struggle and fall behind, but cities that look forward and adapt will emerge healthier and happier." I am not convinced by the first half of your statement; I am inspired by the second half. Why should a suburban area with good access to public transporation and pathways to get into the towns and cities not thrive?
Thanks for your comment! I'll try to reply with words, if this isn't clear let me know, maybe I can expand this to a post so I can include pictures...
The "suburban development pattern" means car-only transportation, fragmented and disconnected land use, not walkable. It's not possible for that pattern to also have good access to public transportation and pathways to get into towns and cities.
The "urban development pattern" means connected streets and contiguous development, even if it's very low density. Because it's connected and contiguous it's car-optional. You could drive but you could also practically walk and bike etc.
A small town with a little Main Street and a grid of safe, walkable streets connected to it is on the "urban" pattern, not the "suburban" pattern, even though most people would never think of it that way (they'd think "small town" or "maybe suburb.")
The terminology is admittedly confusing. Most people don't think about the street network and land use patterns at all, they just think about the size of buildings and the overall population level. So unfortunately we don't have widely understood words that distinguish the fragmented car-only pattern of development from the connected car-optional pattern of development.
This is very helpful and makes a lot more sense the way you describe it. A “town” can follow either pattern — and it may even shift over time as traffic patterns and road development start to blur the original character of the place. In the past, many country roads were safe and pleasant for walking or biking — especially in the Midwest, where you could see for miles. But suburban development has changed that reality in too many places. Even when cosmetic walking paths are added, pedestrians still have to share the paths with bikes and navigate busy intersections. I hope I’m understanding your core idea correctly.
do you have any resources on the ‘misremembered’ suburban timeline? would love to learn more about how they developed before the car-centric model & their previous relationship to cities at large
I'm not aware of a single book or essay that gives a really comprehensive treatment, but I think this article gives at least a good high level overview: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/6/7/the-earliest-roots-of-the-suburban-experiment
"Cities and towns that cling to the suburban pattern will struggle and fall behind, but cities that look forward and adapt will emerge healthier and happier." I am not convinced by the first half of your statement; I am inspired by the second half. Why should a suburban area with good access to public transporation and pathways to get into the towns and cities not thrive?
Thanks for your comment! I'll try to reply with words, if this isn't clear let me know, maybe I can expand this to a post so I can include pictures...
The "suburban development pattern" means car-only transportation, fragmented and disconnected land use, not walkable. It's not possible for that pattern to also have good access to public transportation and pathways to get into towns and cities.
The "urban development pattern" means connected streets and contiguous development, even if it's very low density. Because it's connected and contiguous it's car-optional. You could drive but you could also practically walk and bike etc.
A small town with a little Main Street and a grid of safe, walkable streets connected to it is on the "urban" pattern, not the "suburban" pattern, even though most people would never think of it that way (they'd think "small town" or "maybe suburb.")
The terminology is admittedly confusing. Most people don't think about the street network and land use patterns at all, they just think about the size of buildings and the overall population level. So unfortunately we don't have widely understood words that distinguish the fragmented car-only pattern of development from the connected car-optional pattern of development.
This is very helpful and makes a lot more sense the way you describe it. A “town” can follow either pattern — and it may even shift over time as traffic patterns and road development start to blur the original character of the place. In the past, many country roads were safe and pleasant for walking or biking — especially in the Midwest, where you could see for miles. But suburban development has changed that reality in too many places. Even when cosmetic walking paths are added, pedestrians still have to share the paths with bikes and navigate busy intersections. I hope I’m understanding your core idea correctly.
Yep, that’s exactly right!