It Takes A Suburban Village to Make America All Better
by Mike Plunkett
People of America, rejoice! David Brooks knows the dawning is Nigh!
In a good post-Easter proclamation, the NYT columnist provides a “luscious orgy of optimism” (his words) why, despite evidence in his own paper to the contrary, America is on the right path and will maintain its glory for decades to come.
Brooks lists numerous reasons: higher fertility rates in the United States versus Europe and Asia, the continued ease of immigrant assimilation here versus Europe and Asia, educational and wage growth and the ability for Americans to create morally-centered “emotional experiences.” Examples include cable shows “The Wire” and “Mad Men” and of course, Apple. (Looks like somebody wrote their column on their new iPad ...)
But there’s one trait that struck me. Citing geographer Joel Kotkin, Brooks mentions the growth of new suburban villages as a key factor in the growth of American dynamism.
Huh?
As Brooks writes:
Over the next 40 years, Kotkin argues, urban downtowns will continue their modest (and perpetually overhyped) revival, but the real action will be out in the compact, self-sufficient suburban villages. Many of these places will be in the Sunbelt—the drive to move there remains strong—but Kotkin also points to surging low-cost hubs on the Plains, like Fargo, Dubuque, Iowa City, Sioux Falls, and Boise.
I get that the Dakotas would be a good place to move as the two states survived the current economic recession relatively unscathed. And I have many friends who have lived in Boise and extol its greatness. But suburban villages? What exactly does that mean? More Old Town Pasadenas? Cloning the city of Brea?
The only way I can see this occurring is if suburban villages become more, you know, urban. If these regions can replicate the vitality of a town such as Charlottesville, VA or some parts of Long Beach, then an argument could be made. Maybe.
Anyone up for meeting in Dubuque in 2050 and seeing if we like it?
Comments
No comments.
