The American style of cities and towns is a modern tragedy. Not only is it an eyesore and insulting to human dignity, but it’s a massive obstruction to economic and social progress. Rows and rows of bloated suburban, single-family housing and large malls with dead corridors define American towns. Looking at a map, highways appear to be choking cities and sad clusters of fast food chains dot the remaining open spaces.
This is how I see the United States: a large, substandard city. In an era where everyone can benefit from high-density housing complete with good public transport, the United States continues to fall short.
The United States is missing two things that go hand in hand — affordable housing and public transportation. This is the consequence of a decades-old city planning culture that defines the stereotype of the American city.
There is an entrenched and unchanging cultural norm that people must, by all means, own a car and a large house and drive from that house to their jobs and every other place in that car. This issue is worsened by the fact that cars are also becoming larger, wasting more space and resources.
This is less of an issue in urban areas due to the increased accessibility of public transportation. However, these places are few and far between in the United States.
The sprawling suburban housing is unsustainable, inefficient and cruelly unethical. When car ownership becomes a societal expectation, being unable to afford one becomes a barrier in life. Without being able to walk, cycle or take the bus to a place from home, people without cars are less likely to find jobs, less likely to find opportunities for advancing themselves. They are essentially left out of recreation and socializing opportunities.
Root causes of psychological issues, such as the decline of third spaces and increased social media addiction, are directly linked to the way in which city planning isolates people to their houses and commutes.
Perhaps the saddest aspect of this entire issue — that being a car-dependent society has created phantom barriers against growth and development — is that the United States wasn’t always like this. The old metropolises, like Chicago, New York City, Boston and Philadelphia, were the last vestiges of the time before cars, when people had an incentive to use public transportation because of its availability, accessibility and scope.
To me, the solution for city planning is clear: cities must be organized not around a small center and sprawling suburbs, but blocks that can concentrate people efficiently while leaving more space for recreation.
There is clear proof that cities that blend businesses and housing generate more wealth and more vibrant communities. Both Europe and Asia provide plenty of examples that the United States can adopt, like London, Paris, Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City.
The cheap excuse that the United States is so large that it can only afford to have large suburbs is only that — an excuse, not a logical belief. Planning and organizing cities is not about how much space there is to occupy, but about how effectively and wisely it is used for the benefit of its residents.
On this subject, I have a suggestion that is borderline heretical for the United States, but at the same time, a perspective that is necessary to consider. Countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have all, in one way or another, adopted the idea of the “microdistrict,” a form of city planning that makes walkability a priority.
In a typical microdistrict with a radius of 30 to 200 acres, a person can live in their apartment and have access to a school, hospital, kindergarten, parks, cafes and other such services. Multiple microdistricts are then connected with avenues supporting bus and light rail networks, and clusters of such districts form cities that are, in principle, easy to travel through and live in.
Space-efficient neighborhoods like these are necessary for the rapid development of affordable housing. Microdistricts can solve the United States’ fundamental problem of single-family homes disconnected from opportunities for employment and recreation.
With the right changes to the principle, the idea of high-density housing and accessible amenities can just be what America needs — cities that are for humans, not vehicles.
Adopting a microdistrict style of housing means increased access to employment and recreation and less dependence on car ownership. Developing high-density housing and public transport decreases the costs of home ownership and daily commutes, making life more affordable for those who don’t have the means for detached housing. Designing space-efficient communities is a tested city planning method that can mitigate the primary issue of home ownership becoming less and less accessible to people in this country.
Because of this, a fundamental cultural shift in city planning and an emphasis on lessening car dependence are vital for social and economic development in the United States. Housing developments must emphasize the idea of grouping people and creating space for jobs, amenities, green areas, education and welfare.
Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.