A Philosophy for Urbanism

Will Seath, in an excellent article for Fare Forward, lays out the philosophical case for traditional development patterns instead of the furtherance of suburban sprawl. The whole thing was well worth a read, but I particularly liked the conclusion of his history of suburbia:

The suburbs came to represent those habits of materialism and isolation. Middle-class families left urban neigh­borhoods for larger, more secluded homes on the city outskirts, where drive­ways pushed homes away from the street and garages replaced the semi-public realm of front porches. Few suburbs had a clear neighborhood center. For the first time, it was easy and inexpen­sive to live, work, shop, learn, and pray in places that were miles apart. Because of the automobile, communities could now be physically separated from deeply rooted social bonds, places of worship, and civic institutions.

If the car made that divorce in our daily lives possible, the Supreme Court made it inevitable. The 1926 case of Vil­lage of Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co. upheld zoning laws that restricted property development by classes of land use and effectively enshrined suburbia in the law. To explain how zoning dramati­cally changed the way modern towns and cities take shape, the architect Leon Krier uses the analogy of a pizza: In a traditional city, residential, commercial, industrial, and civic buildings are like the toppings on the crust, layered and mixed together evenly. The zoned city, on the other hand, is like a pizza with all the sauce on one slice, all the cheese on another, and all the other top­pings on yet another.

Overall, this was a great introductory piece on why the way we build our communities matters - not just from an aesthetic or functional standpoint but also from a philosophical and social angle.