I have a few thoughts (well, an essay, really) regarding some of the comments people made regarding my last post, which I was originally going to post as a comment on my blog. But posting on one’s own blog comments is kind of tacky, don’t you think? And anyway, a few themes that were touched on deserve a little more space… ok, make that a lot more.
First of all, regarding living downtown being a “choice”: yes, I chose to live here nearly ten years ago (if you count Wheat Ridge as downtown – which it is, as far as you guys might be concerned). Then I moved to Jefferson Park (in Denver) for about 4 years, a neighborhood overlooking downtown, and finally Capitol Hill, 3 years ago.
But it’s not as much of a choice as you might think. In Wheat Ridge, the area in which I lived bordered Denver and Edgewater, another, itty bitty ‘burb of Denver only about 8 blocks wide. While not a ghetto, the area is definitely of lower middle-class character with tiny, aging houses. Jefferson Park is now a mostly Hispanic area where you will hear more Spanish than English spoken at the local Safeway. The houses have more character but most are older and crumbling. What do these areas have in common? Cheap rent.
My “choice” was whether I wanted to live in older, poorer but lively neighborhoods with some character versus living in newer, poorer neighborhoods thrown up by some big corporation without regard to the future. I would’ve had to commute twice as far to my job, and probably lived in run-down 1970s era apartment complexes nestled amongst sun-blasted asphalt parking lots and dying retail businesses. So yes, it was a choice. A real no-brainer for me.
Then Wendi and I moved to Capitol Hill. We’ve always loved this area of town. The housing is more expensive, yes. That was also a choice, but there was also added value. You can walk anywhere you need to go in Capitol Hill, and there are bus lines that run every few blocks. You guys may remember that I was without a car for more than two years, starting when Wendi and I separated in 2005. I couldn't have made it in the suburbs that way. I work downtown and commuting by bus would’ve been prohibitive – but that’s would’ve been the least of my problems. Just getting groceries would’ve consumed entire evenings, to say nothing of doing the laundry.
Plus, Wendi and I separated but we stayed in the same neighborhood – her apartment was a 10 minute walk away, so we never really lost touch. This was a major factor in saving our marriage, I think. Had she moved to Westminster or out to Lakewood or Littleton, I think we would’ve seldom seen each other, and there would be no Simon in her belly today :-)
In Capitol Hill, everything is within walking distance – heck, I can even walk to work. This factor is important in understanding why housing is so much cheaper in the 'burbs... these days – fewer people want to commute two hours a day just so they can have another flimsy, poorly built box with a patch of chemically treated, water sucking grass.
Ask anybody who works in housing construction – anymore, big development companies come in and throw as many houses up as they can – shoddy, cheap, chipboard boxes that will fall apart within 30 years. Most housing today is not built to stand the test of time. To house people is not even its primary purpose. It is built to extract maximum profit in the shortest possible amount of time, often for a large corporation based out of state that does not concern itself with trivialities like building sustainable, affordable communities for the future.
This trend has particularly accelerated in the last 15 years or so, with few people seeming to notice, but it’s becoming harder and harder to ignore. Don’t get me wrong – construction of the past was also built for profit, but they also built stuff to last, as a lasting legacy to posterity. Do you think Wal-Mart cares what the areas around their giant, thrown-up, warehouse-style boxes surrounded by acres and acres of parking lots will look like in 30 years, or even 5 years? Of course not.
This philosophy can be seen in old neighborhoods in Denver, most of which have nice parks, great architecture and thoughtful urban design. Civic Center Park downtown, or Cheeseman Park near our apartment are great examples of this, and are big reasons why so many people want to live here. These are public works of lasting value that are cared for down through the generations.
Everyone who lives in this area is reaping the benefits of decisions made more than 100 years ago, just like people who live in the decaying “inner suburbs” of Denver are now suffering the consequences of bad decisions in decades past. Even the bad parts of Denver often have character, they are victims of forces beyond their control. I'm thinking of Globeville, a North Denver neighborhood that has managed to retain some character despite being surrounded by heavy industry, bisected by railroad tracks and I-70, and chronic poverty.
You guys all make the 'burbs sound like such a paradise. Sure, the wealthier ones where you can just wall off yourself from the poor people (except when they come to clean) are great! But things are not so rosy all over -- many older suburbs of Denver are borderline ghettos today.
I'm thinking specifically of parts of Aurora, Northglenn and Westminster. When was the last time one of you guys drove up Federal Boulevard north of I-70? There you can see the results of bad planning from 40 years ago. And the lovely stretch of sprawling asphalt parking lots lined with big box stores just down the road from your neighborhood, surrounded by “luxury” apartment complexes? It’s next in line. Just give it time.
I am hoping that our new apartment works out, but you should know that the area is far from being some suburban paradise. There are parks, just not very nice ones. We will live right next to several major thoroughfares, and crime is by no means unknown there. I'm just hoping for the best. It's not a nicer area than Capitol Hill, it's just farther from downtown and cheaper.
I suppose some people will say that most of these problems are simply examples of free markets at work; that if people didn’t want to live in these places, they wouldn’t. My response is this: while there are markets involved, they are certainly not free!
Retailers such as Wal-Mart are notorious for extracting fat tax incentives from municipalities by threatening to simply build their store the next suburb over. Consolidation in the housing industry means that public works such as parks, roads and infrastructure are now designed and built by private corporations, while being effectively financed by public dollars. When one of these big housing developments gets thrown up, often at a net tax loss to the municipality, the municipality has to provide things like traffic signals, schools, police and fire protection, water and sewer, and so on. Guess who foots the bill?
It’s more than a local issue too. Not to slag on AZ, Jeff, but you guys in Phoenix are basically living off Colorado water. All that sprawl in Phoenix is possible because of an archaic legal framework between CO, AZ, UT, NV and CA called the Colorado River Compact. This was drawn up in the early 20th century as a way for the states to share water, but the hydrological science was poorly understood at the time. It effectively says that Colorado must deliver a certain amount of water to the states downstream no matter what. All is fine and dandy as long as water consumption stays the same and there is plenty of water.
So what happened? Water consumption has spiked due to sprawling development in all the states affected by the Compact, and there is a severe drought in CO, where all that water comes from. Colorado has to tighten its water consumption to water the golf courses and the swimming pools in seemingly every back yard in Phoenix. Colorado water is fueling the development that big corporations use to make a profit. That is not free enterprise. That is exploitation of a public, limited resource for private gain. And his doesn't even consider the vast environmental impacts.
There are other examples, not just retail and water. Returning to housing for a moment: for the past 15 years, the housing bubble (oh man… haven’t even gotten started on the bubble… some other time) has been fueled by cheap money provided by the policies of the Federal Bank, and quasi-government, corruption plagued entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two years ago an audit discovered that Freddie Mac improperly booked billions in revenue over the past 5 or so years). Real estate has always been a shady industry, but never more so in the past ten to 15 years. Effectively, big companies have been skimming the cream off the top of a deep well of public resources. Your tax dollars at work… for big business!
Tyler said something with which I agree (wow!): this is not sustainable. The peace, quiet and serenity that are so prized in the suburbs is similar to the peace, quiet and serenity of an ostrich with its head in the sand. Our kids will be paying the price for the sprawling suburbs of today, which will eventually be where all the poor people, crime and drugs are. Why do we as a society allow ourselves to pass all our problems on to our children because of short-term "wants"?
I suppose it would be best if everyone could move to a small town, “Anurbia” like Worland, WY with no crime, drugs, traffic, etc… except that by doing so, Worland wouldn’t be small anymore and all those problems would suddenly pop up. Not every place can be a rural paradise like Worland apparently is. In fact, many older neighborhoods in big cities have characters much like that of a small town like Worland. Would Worland be so nice with miles of strip malls and cheap, mass produced housing? Probably not.
And it’s not simply a matter of “choice” either. Americans’ delusions and ignorance about the true costs of their “choices” are what got us into this mess in the first place.
It’s a big picture and a long story. To understand it requires a lot of explanation, so I'm sorry if I’ve been a little long winded about this. But this is why I simply can’t get with the idea that suburbs are the fulfillment of the “American Dream”.
7 comments:
American dream. I'll tell you my American Dream...Sitting on a nice comfy couch, sipping a cold pop with a freshly popped bag of popcorn watching "Hoosiers". All the while snuggling with my beautiful wife. Anywhere, anytime. (Except when AFV-America's Funniest Home Videos is on). Got it, good!
You paint a pretty gloomy picture. So what is the answer? Less population? Better community planning? Sturdier buildings? I think the future of American communities will continue to be shaped by both greedy, money grubbing types and thoughtful, resourceful people who find solutions to the problems that exist and will continue to arise.
People shop at Walmart because it's cheap, sit in traffic jams because they have to get from point A to B and use other people's water because it's available. As problems arise, needs change and disasters strike, we will continue to either correct course of reverse it as the circumstances dictate. Rome was not built in a day and Capital Hill is nice because of a hundred year of planning, changes and course corrections.
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this subject and you make some good points. I really do respect and agree with a lot of what you have to say on the evils of "suburbia." (You make it sound like in your blog entry that you and I have opposing views on just about everything...I think you would be suprised...how well do you know me?:-))
The world is screwed up, for a lot of reasons. There certainly are a lot of careless, ignorant Americans (and every other nationality and race...ignorance knows no border) out there who don't give a damn about the future of the environment or the city landscape...they just want to consume, consume, consume and they want to do it now...
But I would argue that people on the whole are more thoughtful and conscientious than you give them credit for. Many of us feel helpless in a lot of ways. I know we are not, but the real solutions to our problems are anything but clear and we tend to settle into a comfort zone of unawareness and laziness. Progress and change happen so slowly and so incrementally in any society or culture.
As you said, our children and grandchildren will have to live with the future we create for them just as the world we live in now is largely not of our making.
I don't think that any of us would argue that suburban life is a "paradise" or my "slice of the american dream." It is part of the world that we have been handed and people gotta live somewhere. I wouldn't argue that my house is a real quality piece of construction. But it does the job, more or less...except for the flooding crawl space...and the slugs...
I am very frustrated by the sprawl and disconnectedness and unsustainability of most major american cities and their suburbs. Why no decent public transit? Why no good community centers and public parks, etc. in a lot of places? Why so little character and distinction? Why so much deference to greedy and irresponsible developers (not all)?Why no forethought and planning and wise use of limited resources that are becoming scarcer and scarcer by the minute? Why so much anonymity and loneliness and self-centered-ness and ambivalence and ignorance, etc. among neighbors and fellow citizens? I have no good answers, but I am frustrated. I think that people and governments are slowly becoming aware of these issues. Hopefully, we can fix some things before it is too late!
I do take exception to your picture of americans as somehow "uglier" and more ignorant than people in the rest of the world. People are people everywhere, and americans on average are as good or better in that arena than any other people in the world in my opinion. Granted, I haven't traveled the world that much, but I have spent significant time in a foriegn culture and I was struck that people at the core really aren't all that much different. Losers abound everywhere. Fortunately, so do winners!
The Japanese have a very good public transit system. In any of the cities I lived in there was a train station within a 15 to 20 minute walk or a 5 minute bike ride, and train could take you anywhere into town within 15 to 20 minute walk, most of the time much closer than that. (all except for one and it was a really small farming town that didn't have a train) It is common place to see a fifty year old business man in his brand new suit riding his bicycle into town to work. They also had a decent bus system but that seemed slightly expensive, but I didn't pay much attention to that as a missionary. These Japanese cities were built around these railroads which allows for them to be everywhere. Without being well planned there is no way to go back and create an infrastructure like that. I wish we had something similar to that here. The lightrail is good but just not the same.
However, if we lived in Japan we would live in an apartment or house the size of our basement, instead of a backyard full of grass and roses we would have a 1 to 2 foot band around our house full of rocks and some really cool trees. The idea of a public park would have to change to a patch of grass the size of our backyard and maybe a small jungle gym. The roads they drive on allow for about six inches of clearance on either side of the car. And also, of course, any extra room that there might be is filled up by rice fields. Lots and lots of rice fields.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree that we have a spreading suburbia that is certainly far from perfect and has many negative impacts on our environment and society, but at the same time if there was no such thing as suburbia we would have some serious problems (more than we have now)in our urbia. Homelessness would increase with the rising house prices, Jobs would be much fewer without the big businesses that you hate so much, everything would be super expensive. (I once saw a canteloupe in Japan that cost over forty bucks) I think you will also find that there are some pretty good things that you enjoy about living in a suburban area.
I don't think we can put the blame solely on the back of the "big businesses" that are doing the majority of the developing. (Certainly some blame but not all. Our society is run by making money, and when that is the case there will always be some form of corruption and lack of concern for environment and people) I don't know anything about the different neighborhoods you mentioned but can't some reponsibility be put on the shoulders of those who live in these places and are allowing them to fall apart structurally and socially? instead of the developing company that built them 30 years ago.
We should definitely expect and put effort into improving what is wrong so that in the future we can solve some of the problems we have now. I just don't know what those solutions are. At least practical ones.
I’m glad you guys listened to what I had to say. I’m going to break my own rules of blog etiquette and post responses to you in comments. This is so I don’t have to keep writing blog post after blog post about this. I’m sure you understand.
Ty – I’m surprised you seem to agree with so much of what I said. I’m flattered and impressed by your obvious wisdom. But I don’t recall saying anywhere that Americans are so much uglier and stupid than people in the rest of the world, and if I did imply that, it was probably only because I get so angry at the complacency I sense in so many people about these important issues. So give me a break there.
In fact, I think that many, many more people in America sense that something is seriously wrong with our cities and “exurbs” than is commonly thought. I mean, how many Chili’s and Applebees do we need? Are gated communities and big-box stores really going to make us a better country? How do you explain the popular backlash against Wal-Mart in the past few years? Are all these people crazy Marxists or might they have a point? Discuss.
Adam – you have a point about big businesses creating jobs. But what kind of jobs are they, and how many jobs do they take a way from the community when the corporations come in and grab away the market share from all the local businesses? In many cases, the effect is net negative. Profits generated by big, out of state corporations generally do not benefit the local economy much – they all go back to the shareholders or the headquarters. Consumer choice and free markets have little to do with it. There’s a fantastic book I just read called “Big Box Swindle” by Stacy Mitchell that illuminates this.
I know what you mean about tiny Japanese houses too. I certainly don’t want to live in towns so tiny. But it’s not an either/or choice. Surely there is some middle ground. I only know that I’ve lived in an urban area, with spacious parks and tree-canopied streets, and manicured lawns. No, they aren’t as big as the McMansion populated suburbs. But I question the need to gobble so much land so everyone can enjoy their alien, chemically treated lawn next to the vast, chemically treated private golf course.
I will repeat – current land-use patterns of the suburbs are not sustainable at the present rate of growth into the indefinite future. It doesn’t matter if people want it or not – our grandchildren will have to make do with less.
Finally Jeff, I’m trying to understand your point. I know you were being rhetorical but I’ll bite:
--Is one answer to the problem less population? Yes.
--Is another partial solution better community planning? Yes.
--Sturdier buildings? Yes.
To these I might add: communities designed for less environmental impact, greater density, affordability and public transportation. None of these things are impossible, preclude business making a profit, or are even that difficult to achieve – they are simply not the way American developers and local governments think right now.
I reiterate: maximum profit, minimum time, get in, get out – that is their general philosophy.
And yes, Capitol Hill is great today because of decisions 100 years ago. Who in the suburbs is thinking of the future? In most cases they aren’t, and I repeat: the ‘burbs will NOT be nice places to live years from now if steps aren’t taken to prevent their ghettoization – it’s already happening, as I mentioned.
No, Rome wasn’t built in a single day. But it didn’t decline and fall in a single day, either.
You've done a good job of identifying the hypocrisies and problems of our frenetic, fragmented,and hyperindustrialized society, but like Jeff questioned, what are the solutions?
Bigger government to reign in the ruthless irresponsible capitalists? Mandatory limits on child-bearing? Tight micro-regulations on the permissible size and design of landscaping and what types of grass you can plant?
I pose these questions in earnest because I don't know what the solutions are, and I would guess that any trend toward bigger, more intrusive government would trouble a libertarian-leaning citizen like yourself.
But consider your own situation: you work for a large corporation in a high rise tower in a lush metropolitan area built unnaturally in the desert terrain. You enjoy your electricity, car, music, and food like the rest of us. And, in spite of the multiplicity of problems you have so well elucidated, I would venture to guess that you rather enjoy being alive in such a dynamic, if flawed, city and culture.
You might find a more egalitarian, socialized, conservation-friendly nation elsewhere, but then you'd have to live in Norway. And you would name your child Bjorn.
I honestly admire your critique of modern American, suburban life. However, you will soon find out that you can buy twice as many baby diapers at your local Super Walmart for half the price of elsewhere, and then you'll likely join the rest of us short-sighted parasites who are feeding the beast.
It's okay to rage against the machine, but in the end, the machine is still your Daddy.
I don't think it's all that bad, though. The fact that we can spend time discussing these higher-order social problems speaks to our society's relative stability and affluence. At any previous time in the world's history, you could find a similar (or dramatically worse) subset of major encroaching social ills. But we're still here, still kicking, still seeking to self-correct.
Props to you, though. The first step to finding solutions in identifing problems, which is what you're doing. Just don't despair that we haven't realized Utopia yet. It's a work in progress.
Urbtopia, anyone?
Touche, Mark – thank you for listening to me.
And now – my rebuttal, again violating my own rule. It's just so fun!
If you asked those questions in earnest, why do they sound so rhetorical? I usually find that rhetorical questions that are asked of me to make my opinions seem extreme or flawed are best answered bluntly. It’s kind of disarming.
Q: Should there be bigger, more intrusive government to rein in the ruthless, irresponsible capitalists?
A: The government, in my opinion (please read my blog again), is already intrusive – on behalf of big businesses! This happens all over and a cursory reading of the business section on any given day will turn up a story or two will confirm this. Big box retailers and developers could not exploit one municipality against another without government collusion. Whether it’s applying monetary or political pressure to governments to get zoning laws changed or steamrolling over citizen opposition in order to get needless stores built, many of these big businesses have the government in their pockets.
To the extent I would advocate intrusive government, I am saying that the government should advocate for people who live in these areas – the constituents – and not in favor of some deep pocketed, faceless, unaccountable company as local governments in particular are so prone to. In otherwords, your question was framed using a view of governments that I do not accept, i.e. that these companies do not ALREADY OPERATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROVIDING THEM WITH COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES. Next question.
Q: Should there be mandatory limits on child-bearing?
A: Unequivocally, no – but then no one on this blog ever suggested such a thing. What Jeff asked was whether having a smaller population would be help solve some of the problems I described in my post, and to that I say: unequivocally yes!
Let me clarify that. Population will eventually reach equilibrium if we just attain zero growth somehow. Access to birth control and better sex education, as well as a realistic acknowledgement of the problem would probably go a long way, in my humble opinion.
But limits on child-bearing are a red herring in this discussion – impractical to enforce at best, tyrannical at worst, and nobody seriously proposes them anyway. Particularly in the arid West, the issue is really a business model based upon immigration from other places, be it from California or Mexico. The land simply can’t support unchecked population growth, from whatever sources, with current development patterns, without dire environmental consequences – which are already occurring in many ways.
Q: Should there be tight micro-regulations on the permissible size and design of landscaping and what types of grass you want?
I don’t like the way you frame this question – most housing these days is not built by individuals, but large companies – but I’ll bite anyway. YES.
Residential development now almost always involves the mass turfing of large areas with water-sucking grass. Sure, that tiny 1/3 acre of lawn may not seem like a big deal, but 10,000 or more other residents in a single subdivision might have the same idea. That is manifestly wasteful.
“Intrusive government”: in many parts of the country homeowners are required by HOA covenants and government regulations to keep their lawns lush and green. On a mass scale, it means gigantic amounts of water in semi-arid areas are allocated for this purpose alone. So, once again, “government micro-regulations” already dictate water usage.
Thankfully, HOA tyranny has been weakened in CO by a recent law that forbids HOA associations from taking punitive action against homeowners that choose to use less water-consumptive landscaping not involving wall-to-fence bluegrass. How’s that for intrusive government? Personally, if I had a lawn I would just xeriscape the whole shebang. Hydrological reality dictates that something’s got to give.
But this misses the point – call me a lawn-fascist, but I don’t believe anybody has an inalienable right to their Kentucky bluegrass. Water has to come from somewhere, and if you live in an arid or semi-arid area, deal with the climate and get on with your life. As mentioned in my post, I don’t think that CO water should be sent down the river to provide golf courses for wealthy retirees in Phoenix – or CO for that matter.
Water is too scarce and precious. Big, intrusive government, along with developers, has actively encouraged reckless development and water consumption. I simply would like to see that paradigm turned on its head.
Please don’t take my critique of big-box retailers personally, Mark. I don’t think you’re a parasite for shopping at WalMart – maybe a little short sighted, but that’s beside the point. The point is that you’ve been sucked in.
Did you know that WalMart, despite their slogans, does not always (or even most of the time) carry the lowest prices over smaller retailers? Many studies have shown this; you can credit clever marketing campaigns for this perception. Space prevents me from going into this in detail, though many books and literature have been written on the subject. Let me say it bluntly: WalMart lies, threatens and intimidates to get its way, and drives out the competition. Marketing… thank you! Precisely why WalMart needs to be challenged on its hegemony.
Finally. regarding my own lifestyle/career etc., and how it relates to the above: it’s hard to be totally consistent with all this stuff, especially in this American life. I am well aware of it. But consider this: I work downtown in a walkable, dense area and utilize public transit almost every day. Wendi and I might drive our car three days per week. I chose to live in a lovely neighborhood near to where I work. Our building has a lush lawn that we share with at least thirty other people. All in all, I think I’m doing OK at living these principles. Feel free to disagree, if you wish.
My worst “sin” is that I work in the petroleum industry; in my own defense, I can say that I have learned about and understand the petroleum business better than many people, and have managed to make a fledgling career out of it. I’m just milking them for the knowledge and livelihood while I can… I don’t intend to remain there forever, and firmly believe in what I’ve said. I guess some would say I’m a hypocrite. Oh well, I guess you can’t please everyone ;-)
If I am ever in the position to use my knowledge/experience to advance the ideas I’ve suggested, you can bet your sweet bippy I will. Until then, I think I’m doing all I can, with what I have, in the environment in which I live. That doesn’t mean I’m satisfied with the status quo.
Man, I really have to learn to not be so long-winded. But this is so stimulating!
Post a Comment