Hating "suburbia" is actually a <i>deeply suburban</i> stance. The upper-middle-class, isolationist people who are now crowding into Williamsburg are the same sorts of provincial people that their forebears (the artists who can no longer afford to live there) fled suburbia to escape. That suburbia's biggest haters are (in origin and mindset) quite suburban is <i>actually</i> ironic rather than just sarcastic.<p>All this said, it's somewhat subjective what is a "suburb" versus what is a legitimate (and possibly charming) small town. And while Los Angeles is a large city, it's sprawling and ugly and has no moral high ground over some town adjacent to Philadelphia or Boston that happens to be "suburban" because it has a different city-name on its postal address.<p>All of this said, car culture is objectively bad. Suburbia was supposed to make it possible for middle-class people to save instead of throwing their disposable income away for the benefit of urban landlords, but over time the car (through escalating costs and the catastrophic time loss of traffic) became the new landlord. The clearing and leveling of forests to build tasteless, cookie-cutter houses is also objectively bad. The environment doesn't have a vote, but it should, because I'd rather have a healthy environment than 4600 SF of unneeded housing space for everyone. Suburbia gets such a bad rap in the U.S. because it's done wrong, both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of ecological footprint.
Amazing that with so many words, none were devoted to a major objection towards suburbs - the increased costs of servicing lower-density living is usually not bourne by its inhabitants.<p>I may object to a car-centric lifestyle based on my aesthetics but that's not enough to make me actually <i>do</i> something. OTOH, demanding a subsidy and lowering my quality of life so you can enjoy your lifestyle, that's something which will make me vote/support a politician etc.<p>The extent of this subsidy varies greatly from place to place, but that is the primary cause of urban-suburban tension.
I think a sweet spot are neighborhoods ~10-15 minutes from city centers. You usually get a nice mix between city benefits and suburban ones.<p>Once you get further than that your total transit time starts to grow compared to the average time you'll spend at your destination (i.e shopping, eating, going to a show, whatever). A good ratio for me is about .25 - i.e if I'm going to spend a total of 30 minutes in transit and I have a reason to stay ~> 2 hours then I'm likely to go.<p>The distance 10-15minutes equates to varies by place and I imagine the transportation options can also move the dial as well.
The article and discussion make me wonder about Portland, OR where I live. The city and metro area have become more population dense over time. In fact, the population of Portland <i>per se</i> has doubled since the 1970's while its boundaries haven't changed a bit.<p>Cities in Oregon have been constrained by "urban growth boundaries" since 1973, the idea is preventing sprawl and encroachment on farm land. That guarantees population increases will require "infill" and that's exactly what's happening.<p>This is a polar contrast to Phoenix, AZ, which happens to be the place I grew up in. Even as a kid it was easy to observe the immense sprawl associated with the region's inbred suburban culture.<p>The article's commentary about the sharp edges of development in the Phoenix area points ironically to a similar-appearing phenomenon in the Portland area. There are a number of roads a few miles from the center of the city where one side is jam-packed with dense residential construction, and the other traditional farm land stretching to the horizon.<p>It gives another meaning to the phrase, "keeping Portland weird".
I wonder if the suburbs will see a resurgence when it becomes a haven for those who need a bit more area for agriculture, or more solar to sell or work in micro-manufacturing. Also self-driving cars for travel and package delivery could find a healthy niche.
The article reports, "Mr Angel also finds that almost every city is becoming less dense. In 1920 Chicago squeezed 59 people into each hectare of land; now, by his reckoning, it manages just 16. The urbanised area of Mexico City is about half as densely populated as it was in 1940. Beijing’s population density has collapsed from 425 people per hectare in 1970 to just 65 people per hectare, or about the same as Chicago at its most crowded." That's certainly true where I live. The city that defines my metropolitan area had its peak population during my lifetime the year I was born, and has been losing population each year since until quite recently. Now the city is regaining a bit of population, and some of the inner-ring suburbs where I grew up (but not all of them) have embraced "new urbanism" and are as densely populated as they have ever been, but even many of the inner-ring suburbs are losing population, while the metropolitan area continues to grow as the children who grew up in the inner ring now bring up their children in bigger houses on bigger lots even farther away from the city. This is generally happening everywhere as countries reach a certain level of economic development. The story of Taiwan, the other country where I have lived long-term, was leaving the countryside for cities during my childhood, but there too (in a national context of birthrates below replacement, and thus an eventually declining population) the core cities are beginning to empty out as the surrounding suburban cities grow, and housing development is spreading up hillsides and into other areas where there is more space for yards and larger houses for ever-smaller households.
Suburbs also have specific connotations when it comes to race and class divides. Accurate or not, they are seen as promoting monoculture, relative to cities. I think a lot of discussion of suburbs vs cities, is influenced by these connotations.
the presentation or site engineering that went into the story is really great! it's wonderful to see data design used to enhance rather than distract from the story.<p>as far as intimation/subtext that suburbs are ultimately good, i disagree BUT i'm really appreciative of how the article is laid out in terms of substantive content.<p>glad it was shared.
The article talked a lot about the leftist/statist hatred of suburbs, but never gave the real reason why. Suburbs aren't dense enough and humans are the scourge of the planet.