Not all suburbs are bad, just most of them

Avoiding suburbs is one of my primary interests.  Except for some inner-ring suburbs, which now look high-density compared to normal suburbs and exurbs, I find suburbs’ sprawl cultivates ennui, obesity, communal alienation, and blandness.  I currently live in downtown Minneapolis, and I hope to live in an urban environment as long as I can afford it.

This article in The American Prospect provides an interesting riposte to my knee-jerk suburbia fears.  The piece does not defend suburbia but points out that suburbs, mass transit, and walkability are not mutually exclusive issues.  Indeed, smart planning and infrastructure can allow suburbs to realize their full potential: the offering of a slightly more affordable, less polluted, modestly safer alternative to urban living.  The model he offers requires, however, higher levels of tax and smarter government involvement than that from which we currently benefit.  Both these changes are ones I would like.

(As an aside, I lived in an inner-ring suburb during my senior of college.  The DeMun neighborhood of Clayton, MO is quite idyllic and has a great walkability rating.  It is livable without a car because there is a grocery store nearby.)

The American Prospect article sent me to this website, the Center for Neighborhood Technology.  Though the name is not promising, the site actually has a lot of itneresting material, and its Housing + Transportation index goes a long way towards showing us that suburbs are not as cheap as we think they are.  I know I save a lot of gas and car maintenance money by walking for my groceries, walking to cafes, or driving only a couple of miles for museums or sporting events.