Examining the social consequences of the built environment...

Around sixty years ago, an extremely present thinking America began its prolonged consumption of the American landscape. Fueled by cheap oil, we began carving low density "communities" into the raw material of the country side. In a sort of perverse irony, a mass desire for "country living" was satisfied only by destroying the country and living where it once was. It's no wonder so many suburbanites continue to go unsatisfied, unsure of why big screen tv's, home theater surround sound systems, video game consoles and algea filled above ground swimming pools continously leave them in want of something more.

Much of America now lives in a sort of pergatory between city and country. Rows of garage doors and streets that mindlessly wind like the kind of bad graffiti you see on bathroom stalls or dumpsters in the loop... reminding the hills and trees that we were here and that we have overcome them. A vast number of citizens left their cities behind in the heat of desegregation, rising crime rates, and the highway boom that made for their escape. These highways, like the tunnels of light people claim to see before they die, entranced a nation and began to drain our densly populated urban cores into the swampland of suburbia. And like that light, it seems more often than not to lead where people go to die... certainly not to live. Along with the citizens, the highways (or freeways) took with them our efficient systems of public transit, many of our walkable communities, a good number of convenient corner stores, local services, and in many cases our common sense. I've seen evidence that most suburbanites have no idea what we mean when we say "mom and pop shops." Much of the current generation has grown up on Wal-Mart and Shop 'n' Save and have never experienced a traditional neighborhood with real small businesses. And thus they fail to appreciate its beauty.

Yet for those of us who grew up in suburbia, we know how much we wanted to be anywhere but there. Kids will turn their streets and cultisacs into imaginary urban spaces, places to congregate and socialize. If you lived in a post-war suburb, you would have been fortunate to live in a neighborhood that had anything to do within walking distance, or even a sidewalk to get there on. And because of the way the suburbs have been constructed, many Americans associate having a car with "freedom". And for one living in suburbia, it is freedom. It's a way to escape the banality of living at the dead end of a neighborhood with only one way out. It's not until you learn the joys of driving 80 miles a day to work in rush hour traffic and filling your gas tank up three times a week with the ever more costly "cheap oil" we based our lives around that you start to question the kind of "freedom" having a car brings...

The reality is, you later learn, that the automobile is just the first step into a self-imposed captivity and isolation. And not on a monetary scale, but on a social scale. By the time you are a career man or woman, you discover that you are held captive by the suburbanization of America. Your life is lived entirely inside a glass and steel bubble with complete with vinyl siding... your home, your car, your office. The typical American adult living in the suburbs becomes undersocialized, bored, and discontent. They strive to get expensive new "things" to alieviate their boredom and justify their 40 a week plus driving time. But just like a spoiled child at Christmas who got the latest talking doll, the excitement doesn't last more than a few hours or days. Soon you have the famous American "junk room"... the natural extension of the "junk drawer"... that room in the basement or the garage that collects most of the things you purchased in attempt to cure an undiagnosed lack of socialization but will never again use... that is outside of those Sundays with a couple of "the guys" spent sitting around the big screen TV that will soon be replaced with a bigger screen TV watching burly men in tight pants throw a ball around a giant field only half the size of the one infront of Wal-Mart.

It seems to me undeniable that this way of living must have an effect on the human psyche. But such has become the model for American development: Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. It is my premise that it is this way of living that fosters what I've called, for lack of a better term, the SUBURBAN MENTALITY.

It's been quite some time since I've been able to post on this blog. My time has been rather sparse. Hopefully now, however, I'll be able to begin the series of posts on the Urban and suburban mentalitity that initially spawned the creation of this site. Look for more coming soon.

Can contrived societies have culture?

I think I might be the last St. Louis blogger to touch on this subject, but after having been through New Town a few times now I felt compelled to talk a bit about it.

I don't think there is any question in anyone's mind as to whether or not New Town is urban. It is very plainly the most urban neighborhood built in the greater St. Louis area within the last few decades. It follows nearly all of the principles set forth by the Congress for the New Urbanism and in terms of pure construction and design it is highly urban. It's the first "traditional neighborhood" we've seen built in a half century.

But I've noticed a lot of debate between city and county people about whether or not contrived communities (as opposed to those that spring up spontaneously in response to growing commerce and population) can have culture. Many proud city dwellers claim that a contrived urban community can have no diversity or culture. Many suburbanites (I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of county dwellers) don't argue the opposite but typically state that they have decided that the perceived (note: perceived) risk of living in the city combined with a perceived (and in many cases real) difference in the quality of public education outweighs any interest in "diversity and culture." The detail they often fail to see is that dependency on the automobile can be an equal if not greater danger to their families, as auto accidents are the leading cause of death among those under the age of 30, but that's another entry.

To begin, culture, outside of the anthropological meaning, is described by the Oxford American Dictionary's as: The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement. The anthropological meaning of "culture" might be more accurately described as the customs, arts, social institutions of a particular nation, people, or other social group which to some degree will exist and evolve from the very inception of New Town. I will refer to them as Culture A (the arts) and Culture B (anthropological) respectively.

I think when most people say "culture" within the context of their own society they refer to a combination of the two (Culture A-B). They mean the kind of "culture (a)" that results from a body of individuals with diverse ethnic, religious, and cultural (b) backgrounds. But this is primarily an "American melting pot" definition of culture, which I would cumulatively define as Culture and Cultural Diversity (culture ab).

So can contrived communities develop culture? Well... my guess is maybe. I think it depends on a number of factors. These factors would include (but not be limited to) the ratio of actual community to perceived community, the willingness of the residents to accept art in their communities, the type of nightlife that develops (if any), which could depend heavily on the diversity of ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds and the presence or absence of highly puritanical values. I think it has less to do with the initial "diversity" of the residents as much as a diversity of interests, while I do suspect that a greater diversity of ethnic and economic backgrounds would foster "culture" with a greater degree of certainty.

There are plenty of instances of what we'd refer to as historical culture (a) that did not arise from diverse ethnic, religious and cultural (b) backgrounds, it often arose out of group of progressive thinkers within a relatively homogenous society. While these societies may not have had the type of ethno-cultural diversity we are accustomed to in modern American and European cities, what they did typically have was a dense and vibrant community and a sense of social or national pride.

On a psychological/social and cultural level I'd describe New Town as the greatest social experiment (to my knowledge) that Missouri has seen since the creation of the suburbs in the mid 1900's or the disastrous Pruitt-Igoe public housing project. This could really go either way.

In my first entry I mentioned what I called the "suburban mentality", which I would describe roughly as a sort of social/psychological disposition that arises as a natural reaction to the built environment... as does the "urban mentality". Without getting too heavily into the differences between those right now, I think there is a certain sort of unidentified frustration inherent in the suburban mentality (that state of mind that develops from the suburban built-environment). This, I think, is primarily that there is often a desire for a sense of community that conflicts with an (often stronger) mild to extreme irrational sense of fear, nervousness or panic that results in an exaggerated desire for privacy. As much as they lure people in with the false promise of "community", that sense of community is virtually impossible for most people due to the sparse, low-density nature of the 'burbs combined with the dependency on the automobile, which furthers the sense of isolation and frustration.

I think what New Town presents for most people is a compromise. It is alluring to those suburbanites and geo-urbanites who's desire for community is stronger than the need for privacy. And while, of course, I'd rather see 4000 people move into the city, I think New Town is an important step toward a greater sense well-being for St. Louis county. As much as we as urbanists may dream about greater density and well-being for the city... until it's economically impossible to live in the suburbs (and even after) there will always be people living in the county.

I sincerely do not intend this to offend anyone, however one of the major roadblocks I see towards "culture ab" in New Town is that it currently has only one religious organization. Maybe this will change, but the current Church is of the "Disciples of Christ" denomination which, while generally accepting of other denominations, still maintains a fairly protestant leaning. For anyone else who feels their religious tradition to be a serious part of their daily lives, be they Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or anything other than one of the multitude of denominations that sprang from the Protestant reformation... New Town lacks an important element. On the upside, it is likely that being in a religious minority already (Catholics aside), they are accustomed to driving a fair distance to their place of communion as it is and so long as the community seems welcoming it would not be too great a deterance. But depending on the level of conservatism of the Disciples of Christ members, it is very possible that a singular religious mindset could foster a NIMBY-like (not in my backyard) reaction to any mildly controversial form of art (as almost all art is) be it visual, literary, or performance art. It has historically been that many of the more unincorporated denominations have tended to have a highly conservative leaning. But this is only speculative and it's effect on the community could very well be the exact opposite or none at all.

What New Town does have is the type of density and walkability required to create a real community. And from that community can spring "culture". The make-up of the residents and their reaction to the introduction of "culture (a)" is what will determine whether or not New Town will be a diverse cultural community. As I haven't interviewed a good number of residents, I can't really make a judgement on that at this point, but I certainly won't rule out New Town's potential for "culture (ab)". But culture and city-vs-county aside I think New Town should serve as a model for all future suburban developments. I have little doubt that the buzz and success of New Town will get developers thinking. But sadly what it ultimately comes down to (even in the face of the impending global oil peak) is the ratio of cost to gain.

My personal feeling is that it will be difficult for New Town to develop "culture (ab)", but that's not to say it won't overcome that difficulty. However, people moving to New Town should not be moving there for "Culture" anyway, as it's impossible for a city less than a year old to have that. They should be moving there because they want the kind of community they can't get in the rest of the suburbs as well as to become less dependent on the car for daily needs (and because they haven't yet overcome the fear of the city). If you want "Culture" to be a part of your daily life, you'll have to live in the city. I ultimately think whether or not New Town has or will develop "culture" is irrelevant other than for the pure sake of argument. While I personally wouldn't want to live there for a number of reasons (that do include "culture"), there will always be counties of St. Louis and what matters is that this is the way they should be. Now they just need good local jobs.

Establishing a Groundwork for the Urban Reason

Before I push further into this site I’d like to begin by establishing a groundwork for future entries. I do not claim to be an expert, but my observations have led me to develop a premise for further sociological research on what I’ve begun to classify as the “urban” and “sub-urban” mentality.

The urban or suburban mentality (to my observation) are the result of the combined effect of the built environment and the personal, historical, psychological or sociological conditions that resulted in ones initial location or re-location in the respective urban or suburban environment.

In future entries I will make use of several terms, some of which are not found in any dictionary or encyclopedia. The Oxford American Dictionary has similar (though simpler) definitions to my own. Meanings, however, change in the context of social evolution and these are the terms as I define them.

Urbanist: One who advocates the preservation or progress of the built environment and/or actively seeks an ‘urban’ lifestyle through personal habits and hobbies, dialogue, community involvement, activism or profession.

Urbanite: One who takes advantage of the amenities of an urban lifestyle with a less acute interest in the preservation or progress of the built environment.

Geo-urbanite: One who lives in an urban environment.

Urban-preservationist: An urbanist who actively seeks the preservation of the built environment but in many cases discourages or is hostile towards modern additions.

Urban-progressive: An urbanist who respectfully acknowledges the structure of the built environment but advocates modern additions and/or changes that enhance or update the urban environment.

Suburbanite: One who willfully or ignorantly follows or conforms to the norms of the common American suburb. Typically characterized by an exaggerated appreciation for an overabundance of space and material goods and a fear of or hostility toward urban environments.

Geo-suburbanite: One who lives in a suburban environment.

These definitions are open to discussion, so please present any additions or changes you would make and I will consider revisions (though most likely not without debate!).

What is Urban Reason?

Welcome to Urban Reason.

Struggling for ways to classify this blog without writing a ten page entry, I settled on "Urban Reason" for a number of... reasons.

This blog is dedicated to discussion and debate about what I will call, for lack of a better term, urban philosophy. Whether or not you've formally sat down and thought about it, where and HOW you live is the result of your own or your ancestor’s urban philosophy (or lack thereof).

Urban Reason is, in short, speculation on the judgments people make about city life and how the resulting choices affect art, community, psychology, culture, diversity, economics, quality of life and much more. The judgments you make about city life constitute your personal "urban philosophy". An urban philosophy goes deeper than just your city and affects who you are as an individual as well your view of politics, art, culture, religion, diversity and much more.

While this blog is for everyone and not just people in my current place of residence, St. Louis, much of the inspiration for my theories and for this blog comes from the successes and failures I see here in St. Louis... once the fourth largest city in the United States. As a result, a good number of my posts for the time being will deal with the local urban environment in St. Louis and how that environment is negatively or positively affected by both individual and macro urban philosophy.

I consider myself to be what many people have come to call an "urbanist". I plan to use this blog as a forum for the exploration of my own ideas about urbanism but I am also eager to incorporate your ideas into the blog as impetus for discussion. If and when readership of this blog grows, I will have guest entries as well as ask for information about your "urban philosophy". I expect that my urban philosophy will continue to grow and change from these posts and discussions as I hope yours does too.

So welcome, I hope you enjoy and contribute to Urban Reason...