Not too long ago, I took a course at my undergrad institution (UNC Charlotte) that explored, to some extent, the issues that Bickford addresses in her writing. The course was in urban studies, and one of the central themes concerned the rise of what could be called "Sanitized Urbanism" - i.e., town centers, avenues, and mixed-use developments, created on private land by private developers to imitate iconic urban centers and downtowns. One of the most famous of these is right in my own regional backyard - a place called Birkdale Village that was one of the first successful attempts at this kind of development. While these kinds of centers seem to be widely successful from an economic standpoint, one of the criticisms directed at them by my urban studies course (and seemingly by Bickford) is that they are not a true example of the urban mixing ground they are trying to imitate, with their barriers, unwritten rules for what behavior & people are tolerated, private security firms, and Disney-esque cleanliness.
As I did during the course, and will again here with Bickford's article, I have to generally disagree with the notion that this kind of development (typically in suburban settings) is somehow bad for our culture. Are we not in this nation free to do what we want with what is our's, including land? Do we not have the freedom to live where we want and how we choose? That's the beauty of our country. If people choose to live in gated communities, or be part of CIDs (or both), then that's a conscious decision that they are making and are free to make. Why should that option be taken away from them just because a group of thinkers out there like Bickford don't agree that it's in the best interest of everyone else?
When I read or hear writers like Bickford going on about how bad the suburbs are for America, how awful gated communities are, how regrettable it is to have park benches that are not suitable for sleeping on -- I just want to ask them why I should have to live the way they want me to? If that's the stance that they want to have, then they are completely free to do that. But what grants them the authority to say that everyone else needs to share that stance or the culture will fall apart?
Toward the end of her comments, she actually seems to be arguing for allowing governmental authorities to put even more rules in place as to how we should live. Really? The federal government doesn't have enough power already, that we should all willingly lean back in our collective "whatever" chairs and let them make even more decisions for us? That's going to solve our social and political problems?
Admittedly, for me, it was difficult to make it the entire way through Bickford's article without having strong negative reactions to some of her stances & ideas. But, reading the entirety of her remarks at least helped to give her ideas a fair chance at being fully expressed.
Some questions that came to mind while I was reading the article -- where, exactly, does Susan Bickford live or call home, and what kind of community and residential condition is she surrounded by at her abode? Does her "outside" exposure and her circle of confidantes include a variety of people from different ethno-cultural backgrounds, diverse lifestyles and beliefs, and various living conditions; or is her life primarily dominated by UNC Chapel Hill academic-types (by comparison, a relatively sanitized, high-cost, traditional higher-education & private institution)? When is the last time that she left her front door unlocked through the night, without fear (whether she can define that fear or not)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
We rightly resent governmental intrusion on our lives, and yet rarely consider the effects our own consumer actions also have on those who don't get to participate in our choices. I recently heard a commentator say "I got a $400 tax refund last year because of the tax cuts. But I can't buy myself $400 worth of clean air!" There are some things that only collective action can accomplish.
So let's look at what living in an exclusive suburban community does to others, even though we imagine it to be an entirely private consumer choice. With our own security forces and recreational facilities, we're much less likely to want to support taxes for parks & rec departments or for law enforcement. (Derek Drummond calls this phenomenon "seccession by the successful," and you can see it in debates about school funding as well.) When we move away from an urban center and leave it to the poor, we increase their tax rates (because their property values are so much lower, they have to tax themselves at far higher percentages than suburbanites — sometimes four to six times as much — to support basic services). We take the professional services along with us (because we can afford them), so that the city is deprived of physicians and lawyers and architects. But not only the professionals; there are lots of urban neighborhoods that are miles from the nearest supermarket or full-service bank, because those businesses can make more money more easily selling to successful suburbanites. And because we have collective political clout, the paint factory and recycling yard that could have gone in our neighborhood ends up in poor urban (or rural) areas, giving their kids asthma instead of ours.
I could go on, but my basic point is that we are almost never mere individuals without connection to the lives of others. We may imagine that consumer choice, from SUVs to juice boxes to Birkdale Village, is no one's business but our own. But invisible people bear the weight of our decisions.
Hi Mike-
I agree that 'big brother' is too much in the decisions made about the way we live. I'm sure they started off as looking out for the overall welfare of the public but now all it does is constrain. I agree with you that urban redevelopment is not a bad thing. I was involved in a redevelopment of an area in Albuquerque that the mayor fully endorsed. Albuquerque has been trying for years to revitalize its downtown and after many years is finally making some progress. I don't have anything against suburbs but if we can improve the city, then why not?
I will agree that we all should have our ideas and wants as to where we should live and how we should go about doing it. I would say that society will never have the same idea on how to go about things in general.
What I think would be nice, however, is if we could maybe give people an option to have design and a living experience without PUDs and CIDs. I would be curious to see what would happen if a community was created that tried to remove classes, allowed design, and did not focus on setting standards.
Post a Comment