Author: marynewsom

We now live in the Century of the City, so called because last year the global human population counter rolled over the 50 percent mark – More than half the world’s people now live in urban areas.

But in the U.S., the 21st century will also have to be the Century of the Suburb – the re-imagined suburb. That’s particularly true in Sun Belt cities such as Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Orlando, etc., where such a large proportion of land is given over to postwar suburban development. In coming years we’ll have to decide how to, as Georgia Tech architect and author Ellen Dunham-Jones puts it, re-inhabit, retrofit and re-green those areas.

The imperatives are economic, environmental and demographic.

1. Carbon and greenhouse gases. If we’re to avoid creating even more damaging and destructive changes in the world’s climate (increasing droughts, floods, snow or burning heat, depending on where you are) for our kids and grandkids to deal with, then an excellent way to shrink U.S. production of greenhouse gases is to reduce how much people drive.

Even for people who insist on believing that all the world’s climate scientists (who compete with one another and back-bite as avidly as any other professionals) have joined to perpetuate a worldwide hoax, there are other excellent reasons to reduce the U.S. driving habits: the cost to households and businesses of higher fuel prices, not to mention driving itself, with transportation taking an average 19 percent of U.S. household income; depending on other countries for our fuel; air pollution; the vast cost of building and maintaining roads and streets to accommodate ever-more driving.

2. Demographics. Population realities are converging to favor urban/multifamily/higher density development. Gen Y (aka the Millennials) have a clear preference, at least at this stage in their lives, for urban environments. Meantime, many aging boomers will be selling their houses and moving into condos or apartments. Many of them will also have to give up driving due to infirmity, illness or eyesight, so they’ll be looking for neighborhoods where they can walk to stores and medical offices.

3. The emerging obesity epidemic. Driving more means exercising less. Human beings haven’t suddenly lost their ability to have will power. We have structural issues that are making us fat. One of them is that we don’t walk much anymore, because we have to drive.

4. Suburbs on the brink. Many of the postwar suburban neighborhoods (and by “suburban” I mean low-density, auto-oriented neighborhoods or towns carved up into single-use zones) are fading. To be sure, many thrive and will continue to, even as the market for single-family houses stagnates through oversupply (see item 2, above). But already, many cities including Charlotte are puzzling over fixes for dead or dying enclosed malls, derelict strip centers and big box stores, and neighborhoods with dwindling property values and rising crime and social problems.

I was privileged to spend Saturday moderating a conference in Raleigh, sponsored by the N.C. State College of Design, looking at the problem of, and opportunities for, inner-ring suburbs – which generally means those built in the late 1940s through the 1960s.

The clear consensus was that cities and metro areas will have to learn how to encourage more development closer to their core, and to build more transit lines. Some tidbits from some of the speakers:

• William Hudnut, former mayor of Indianapolis (he joked about “India-No-Place”) gave a definition of “sustainable” that I liked: “Stuff that endures.” He said the first-tier suburbs are “the place where blight can either be stopped or spread farther out.” He used a term I love: “urban acupuncture,” which he attributed to Brazil’s Jaime Lerner, a former mayor (Curitiba) and state (Parana) governor. The idea is to be strategic with well-placed interventions that help heal the surrounding area.

“Progress is not always new,” he reminded the crowd. Other advice: Eradicate ugliness, and “multiply picnics.” Finally, he offered a pertinent quote from Ernest Hemingway that I intend to repeat often: “making strong the broken places.”

• Patrick Condon of the University of British Columbia, author of “Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities,” showed how, when looked at based on 30-year amortization, streetcars are a cheaper form of mass transit than buses. “The cost of buying buses, this year, is cheaper,” he said. But long-term, building and operating streetcars is cheaper for transit systems. He showed slides of old streetcar rails popping out of the pavement (no, he didn’t have a photo of the one on North Tryon Street) “wanting so much to be used.”

• Ellen Dunham-Jones of Georgia Tech, co-author of “Retrofitting Suburbia,” noted that “nobody is plowing down existing neighborhoods” but instead there are opportunities to build infill, especially on what she called “underperforming asphalt.” It requires creativity and innovative ways of developing, she said.

Wrap-up speaker Patrick Phillips, CEO of the nonprofit Urban Land Institute, made the point that close-in neighborhoods can have a great appeal due to their proximity to employment centers and to transit options – unlike far-flung “exurbs,” he said, many of which are seeing high rates of foreclosures in the recession. And he used some research from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, looking at Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, that showed that when transportation costs are figured in, exurban areas that look most “affordable” are, in fact, the least affordable. (See “Penny Wise, Pound Fuelish.”)

The wrapup? Marvin Malecha, dean of the NCSU College of Design, took aim at today’s use of “the American Dream” to mean a house in the suburbs. Come on, he said, isn’t there in fact a different dream that we all have? “The real American Dream,” he said, “is that our children will be OK.”