Catch Eduardo
December 30, 2007, 10:15 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Catch Eduardo in Sunday’s Washpost: optimistic fellow sees “End of Sprawl” in the concurrent housing crisis and fuel price increase. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122802449.html
In New Orleans the hurricane has left both destruction and opportunity for change for the better. Hopefully, the energy crunch can do the same for the rest of the country. Many people moved to the suburbs because they wanted to be close to nature, and they wanted big yards for their many children. But as Mr. Penalver points out suburbs have proven disastrous for many reasons.
We now realize that large families are cannot be sustained, so the pressure to build houses with large yards has lessened greatly. But must we give up nature too? I think not. The old sections of New Orleans have an abundance of trees, both large and small, lining most of the streets , and the typical house in the old sections of the city often have beautiful little yards in the backs of the houses. Further, the density of the trees helps with the carbon dioxide problem. Furtjer. there are studies which show that the more vegetation in an area the less crime. (Sorry I don’t have citations for tha, but apparently the evidence is strong from what I’ve read.) Sadly, I grant you that watering the vegetation becomes a big problem in the areas where desertification is in process.
At any rate, it seems to me that when considering how to change the suburbs, the continuing presence of nature must be considered a necessity.
Great article, Eduardo. I agree wholeheartedly.
Until this country builds and subsidizes mass transit on a grand scale, this is wishful thinking. Here in California there is no way car use can be minimized, even if there was a pressing desire to do so. Public transportation is a laughing stock out here.