Suburbs offering larger square footage and a private yard is THE benefit, to the detriment of nearly all else. And the formulation of “city dangerous, suburb safe” remains an operative mechanism of flight, but has been revealed as useless long ago. Many cities have areas much safer than some suburbs and teenagers in suburbs have higher rates of drug use than city kids. Crime isn’t rooted in the (false) supposition that because some place is a city it brings danger, or that another place is safe because is a suburb.
One of my better architecture professors at the GSD (Sanford Kwinter) once told us that television did as much to build the suburbs as cars did. The TV was the first “virtual reality” set that made even a terrible place among the suburbs more palatable.
Office towers are the other side of the coin to detached homes. Paired with the suburbs, office towers created a daily “respiration” of traffic - pumping commuters in and out - like the city was a single celled organism with a pulse. (Wright destroyed this “with facts and logic” as far back the 30s, see “when democracy builds” and “the disappearing city”) The Tower/Suburb organization that people like Robert Moses pushed so hard for, is rigid and fragile. It was eloquently criticized from the pre-automobile beginning of the gridded mass-industry city (see Otto Wagner vs Camillo Sitte) but now in the era of the “long tail of the demand curve” after smartphones, after COVID, after remote work… aside from any applied theory, objectively seeing office towers half to 3/4 empty, the prospect of remote work from home IN A SUBURB makes both men AND women feel stranded like a Stepford Wife.
Urban Courtyards are the best step that I have seen for addressing the shift in work/life balance that has been building since the 90s and hit “no more denial” critical-mass in 2020.
And as is appropriate to the 21st century - this is NOT a monoculture of a solution. Not only does the typology have a huge variability in of itself between sites (already demonstrated in some conceptual models and one site-specific plan) but we don’t need to “convince everyone” to live there. The people who live it (and millions do) can have it while their implementation *benefits* the people who don’t live there get: shops, parks, more-effective property tax utilization - all kinds of things.
Unlike the Monoculture feeling many people have from the late 20th century (Your workplace will ONLY use either a PC or a Mac! People will ONLY live in either skyscrapers or suburban homes. You will ONLY trust news from either Dan Rather or MacNiel/Lehrer. Your daily travel will ONLY be either public transit or a car.)
A big part of the tension is the fear on both sides that comes from assuming these either/or propositions are still the pressure they once actually were in the 80s and 90s. Human expectations sometimes take a LONG time to shift.
The NEW organism of the city unlike the 20th century diurnal heartbeat of the tower-><-car-><-house, 21st century life has become less rigid, more flexible and regains a vigorous health that does in many ways resemble what people love from the past. Why? Because we are always human with human bodies, senses and emotions and some traditional will never stop being good.
The challenge is to express these known-good traditions in a way suited to how people live now. And that’s literally what Urban Courtyards along with
#LivingProcessLLC is building.