No, the suburbia is not rural
Before I start, when I mention the word “suburbs”, it can mean two types of settlements.
It can refer to the ones built after the second world war, ones where most houses are single-family detached with cooking-cutter designs and huge lawns, where mixed-use developments are strictly limited or prohibited, where cars are the only mode of transportation. Not exclusively North American, but often associated with the continent.
It can also refer to the ones which have relatively high population density, allow mixed-use developments and a variety of housing, were built before the advent of automobiles and are still in abundance in Europe, but rare in 21st century North America.
Both types are mostly-residential and located on their cities’ peripheries….. and that’s where the similarities end.
Now, to the topic….
Every time people criticise suburbs for their financial, environmental, social and health destructiveness, the suburb lovers accuse them of zealot urbanism that thrives to destroy anything rural.
Of course, that’s stupid.
The suburbia and the rural are clearly two different things. I mean, the fact they use different words should have been obvious enough.
A suburb is either a part of or a place located near a city; in theory, it should still have some characteristics of a city, like scarcity of wide open spaces and high population density, albeit not as high. In this context, the word “village’ refers to a settlement separated from any cities; it has low population density and an abundance of wide open spaces and it is not unusual for houses to be faraway from each other.
Modern North American suburbia is in denial of its urbanist root, pretending to be rural.
Yes, it has an abundance of wide open spaces. But, how many of them are dedicated to agriculture and biologically-diverse natural spaces filled with native plants? Many are dedicated to environmentally destructive lawns that serve no purpose other than projecting an image of prosperity. In fact, that’s been associated with the higher depression risks among suburban dwellers.
Suburban neighbourhoods don’t have strong camaraderie either. When it comes to neighbourly bonding, suburban dwellers only fare slightly better than their urban counterparts. Even with the low population density, the mindset is still urban.
The low population density can be its own financial boon. The lower it is, the lower your tax revenue is. There is nothing wrong with it. But, it is a problem when you insist on having the amenities of dense urban areas with higher tax revenues.
And, most importantly, those North-American style suburbs sprawl. Unlike cities, they have unbelievably inefficient use of the lands, needlessly taking lots of spaces, even ones that should have been dedicated to rural area. Even the biggest countries on earth don’t have infinite amount of lands.
I find it hilarious how some people defend North American-style suburbia because they claim they crave the rural living. Hilarious because it is stupid.
If you truly crave it, why do you settle for the suburbia? Why don’t you choose to live in a village? Is it because of you won’t have the same amenities and job opportunities and you cannot accept that everything in life has trade-offs? Why do you have to delude yourself into thinking your suburban home is rural?
Maybe, you are just virtue signaling; you want to be seen as someone who cares about the welfare of marginalised people, which include rural dwellers. Maybe, you are a chronic trend follower, as there is a section of the internet that romanticises rural living.
If you truly TRULY care about rural living, why would you keep building those space-hungry sprawls that would surely eat up rural spaces? Knowing the space efficiency, shouldn’t you support the densification of cities and their suburbs?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.
