rethinking sprawl

I'm a city person. I just happen to have lived my whole life (until August) in the suburbs. Since then I have technically taken up residence in a city, but one people (including myself) often scuff at for its suburban leanings. But let me tell you, once you've lived in Los Angeles, there are some clear distinctions between city and suburb out here. That's not to say that there aren't tons of places that blur the line. It isn't so much the density factor, but instead the design and streetscape. As soon as I cross into Glendale from Silver Lake through Atwater Village, I know I'm in the suburbs and it turns my stomach.

Anyway, check out this article from yesterday's Los Angeles Times on Sprawl: A Compact History by Robert Bruegmann which counters anti-sprawl rhetoric with a historical perspective on the origins and purposes of sprawl. I actually know Bruegmann; we were co-panelists at the recent SACRPH conference (the only two papers to show up for our panel).

As a suburban hater, it's definitely something to think about. I restrict my scholarship to urban living and phenomenon but that doesn't mean that I'm not acutely aware of the suburbs. You can't have (or investigate) one without the other. As much as I loathe suburban living, I want people to take on that life so I can have a more pleasant experience in the city. And I don't need no stinking country house! We all know my idea of nature is a manicured city park.