Why We Need Suburbia

Some ramblings:

I'm not surprised that survey research has shown that most Americans by and large would prefer to live in suburban, or even rural areas rather than dense urban ones. And yet I still support increasing the compactness and density of our metropoltian regions. Aside from taking issue with the phraseology of such surveys, which are more likely to conjure up dirty, crime-ridden slums than vibrant, desirable urban neighborhoods (e.g., what do _you_ picture at the mere mention of the phrase "inner city?" Probably not Rittenhouse Square or Beacon Hill), I question the assumptions of, and the conclustions drawn from such research.

It's not a black and white choice between a small apartment in a high-rise building in an 'urban area' and a single family house with a lawn. If you ask people what they'd prefer - cramped apartment or spacious house, you know what most of them will say. Reacting to the genuinely obsolete tiny worker houses that grace the landscape of many northern and eastern city neighborhoods, the government set policies that fostered ditching the old in-place to move out to the new, on the fringe. Well and fine. This required massive subsidy in our road network to facilitate private auto travel. Well and fine too, assuming cheap gasoline and little road congestion. By basing policies on that assumption, we've built an environment utterly dependent on cars for virtually all travel outside the home. If more and more Americans are to live the "dream" of single-family detached homeownership in suburbs and rural areas, they'll all need more and more cars to get around. That's the way it works, and is the status quo, as much as sprawl-apologists try to turn the tables and proclaim that urbanism is the obsolete paradigm of the liberal elite. I disagree - the transformation of suburbs into vibrant, diverse, dynamic places *is urbanism,* so then the New Urbanism is urbanism, and "new suburbanism" is urbanism too, right? So then there's really no disagreement?