I think this is a wee bit of a stretch. There are two kinds of suburbs - the original suburbs, on the outskirts of cities, that you'd expect to urbanize as the cities grow unless throttled, and the highway suburbs, maybe an hour out from any kind of city. The latter will change over time but they're never going to grow into something much different than what they are, because they have no reason to. Land is not a scarce resource in these places and the demand to live in "the suburbs" is distributed across all suburbs everywhere, not focused on any one in particular. If they need to build more housing they aren't going to densify. There are plenty of struggling shopping centers or disused farms that could be made into more suburban tracts. Sure, that is the type of thing that will make you and anyone who reads your work cringe, but none of those people would ever live there, and for the people who do live there, as the saying goes, people who like that kind of thing will find that the kind of thing they like.
I dunno. Outside of cities are plenty of smaller downtown centers that used to have rail lines supporting the big cities. Mainly industry, mining, and agriculture. Those have traditionally been a few main streets surrounded by SFH housing. Maybe those can develop more densely, especially if we can revitalize the rails.
Otherwise the highway suburbs are limited by the roads. At some point you're too far away from the city and traffic too heavy to make it worthwhile to live there.
I get the argument that lawns are just another insular, suburban relic. But they are also functional. Lawns are for kids and pets to play in. They are for people to gather in and enjoy. Mowing makes yards usable for humans. I keep up my yard (1) for my kids and (2) as a way to love my neighbors.
Maybe my softness on lawns is showing that my urbanist radicalization is incomplete. 😂
There are some plants which are so invasive (and which often involve thorns or toxins) that leaving everything to mature naturally will lead to an overall worse space. The same goes with neighbourhoods. So some “gardening” may always be necessary.
In the long run, sometimes those nasty plants serve as protection for the development of better ones, so the “gardening” needs to be careful and selective.
So don’t mow it all down. Keep an eye on what is happening and encourage the good, discourage the bad. Probably those under -the-wire duplexes are a foretaste of and/or an experiment in something better; but be aware they maybe a warning of something worse.
I agree it's a stretch ... but I also kind of think there's something here! It's buried. Keep digging.
I think this is a wee bit of a stretch. There are two kinds of suburbs - the original suburbs, on the outskirts of cities, that you'd expect to urbanize as the cities grow unless throttled, and the highway suburbs, maybe an hour out from any kind of city. The latter will change over time but they're never going to grow into something much different than what they are, because they have no reason to. Land is not a scarce resource in these places and the demand to live in "the suburbs" is distributed across all suburbs everywhere, not focused on any one in particular. If they need to build more housing they aren't going to densify. There are plenty of struggling shopping centers or disused farms that could be made into more suburban tracts. Sure, that is the type of thing that will make you and anyone who reads your work cringe, but none of those people would ever live there, and for the people who do live there, as the saying goes, people who like that kind of thing will find that the kind of thing they like.
I dunno. Outside of cities are plenty of smaller downtown centers that used to have rail lines supporting the big cities. Mainly industry, mining, and agriculture. Those have traditionally been a few main streets surrounded by SFH housing. Maybe those can develop more densely, especially if we can revitalize the rails.
Otherwise the highway suburbs are limited by the roads. At some point you're too far away from the city and traffic too heavy to make it worthwhile to live there.
I get the argument that lawns are just another insular, suburban relic. But they are also functional. Lawns are for kids and pets to play in. They are for people to gather in and enjoy. Mowing makes yards usable for humans. I keep up my yard (1) for my kids and (2) as a way to love my neighbors.
Maybe my softness on lawns is showing that my urbanist radicalization is incomplete. 😂
A useful analogy.
But perhaps also worth extending.
There are some plants which are so invasive (and which often involve thorns or toxins) that leaving everything to mature naturally will lead to an overall worse space. The same goes with neighbourhoods. So some “gardening” may always be necessary.
In the long run, sometimes those nasty plants serve as protection for the development of better ones, so the “gardening” needs to be careful and selective.
So don’t mow it all down. Keep an eye on what is happening and encourage the good, discourage the bad. Probably those under -the-wire duplexes are a foretaste of and/or an experiment in something better; but be aware they maybe a warning of something worse.
Why is tall grass a health hazard?
Snakes. And other creatures that can peacefully co-exist when it's just a grassy meadow, but don't get along with humans as well.
Snakes. Rodents. Insects. Birds. Some of them eat others of them.
Not saying no lawns. Just leave room for other forms of life.