Context:
This picture of San Ramon California is making its way round the net. I saw it first on Kottke , on Barlow and finally on Josiah
When several questioned the morality of such sprawl on Barlow's post, I quipped off as shown below
Several other moral issues.
1. Sprawl demands aggressive use of oil - consuming an increasingly precious resource.
2. Sprawl has always been predicated on isolation - separating us from them.
3. The aesthetics of contemporary housing is all about pretension. What does this teach us about identity and character?
4. Sprawl forces those who cannot drive into a completely subservient relationship. Our kids and our granparents can have NO life in the suburbs unless there is a willing and ever present soccer mom / taxi driver.
Just a few thoughts. If you want to get angry - (either at him or with him) read J.H. Kuntzler...
Joseph responded:
Rob,
Let's go point by point:
1. I assume by "aggressive use" you mean "increased consumption" of oil. Either way, how is increased consumption a moral problem? Resource scarcity creates market situations that may be unfavorable to consumers in the short term, but eventually alternative resources will pop up and bring things back to the consumers' favor.
2. Is all sprawl predicated on isolation? Perhaps its predicated on economics. Perhaps the cost of housing diminishes with each mile away from the city. Or perhaps it's predicated on crime rate. Or, perhaps people want the benefits of being close to both the city and more rural areas. Again, not necessarily a moral issue.
3. Is "pretention" the only thing contemporary housing is designed around? Perhaps, it's built around affordability. Perhaps it's built around function. Would you tell someone who is buying a house in Murphreesboro, TN (south of Nashville) that they are doing so out of "pretention"?
4. Does sprawl create subservient relationships? I would venture that if anyone cannot drive, no matter where you live, (rural, urban, suburban, whatever,) you are dependent upon someone who can drive for your basic needs. Even if you live downtown of most cities, you still have to drive a ways to get to a decent Wal-Mart or building supply store. In fact, you are more likely to have a grocery store within walking distance in the suburbs than in most downtown areas.
So, I fail to see how you have established any true moral problems with sprawl. Yes, it's big and ugly, but I remain unconvinced of its immorality.
I respond.
1. Depending on the promise of future alternatives that will enable us to continue our lifestyle of conspicuous consumption seems not only naive, but an attempt to excuse our current greed. This is a choice not to recognize available resources as limited because we HOPE we'll find the unlimited pool of resources sometime in the future. This is not stewardship. So, I reiterate - It is a morally problematic to build a lifestyle that implies the rapid depletion of limited resources.
2. Sprawl may not be exclusively predicated on isolation. I agree that most do not move to the suburbs just to be isolated. But unintended consequences are still moral consequences. A lifestyle that allows me to never see the needs of my brother because I'm in a sprawl allowed bubble is very problematic. I don't think Jesus would give the goats a pass because they had never seen need as they drove from garage to parking deck without ever facing an uncomfortable sight.
3. Pretension may not be the primary aim of contemporary sprawl, but it certainly is a reality of current development. Again, it might not be intended, but the moral aspects of its aesthetic must be considered. Those houses in San Ramon are not built to last more than 30 years. The aesthetic of "faux" permeates this development entirely. I believe we are teaching our culture to pretend to be, rather than cultivating genuine character. Whether architecture is a driver or manifestation of this broader cultural issue is open to debate. But the implications are certainly morally problematic.
4. The fact that subservience of those unable to drive might be ubiquitous in our country (in cities and suburbs) does not make it a-moral. To refuse to consider the implications of our lifestyle on "the least of these" simply because there might not be an alternative in our country is not excusable. I believe this is a matter of justice, and therefore very much a moral issue. ASIDE: I've spent a good portion of my life in a non-auto dependent culture and I absolutely LOVED it. The ability to walk and use public transport to complete everything I needed made for a much healthier and comfortable pace of life. Of course those years were lived in foreign urban settings, but the model is certainly there, and I wish it occurred here!
So there is my response to Joseph's response. Sprawl a moral issue? I still think so.
Recent Comments