The Garden City Revisited? A Commentary to Okulicz-Kozaryn’s Article “Natural Sprawl”

Okulicz-Kozaryn’s (in press) article “Natural Sprawl” is focused on the link between sprawl/suburbanization and residents’ well-being in the United States. Indeed, the author posits that suburbanites are happier than city dwellers because of our human desire to be close to nature and because of well-known problems associated with city life. The pretense is that cities are problematic places to live in terms of safety, education, neighborliness, and so on, and that we desire to be closer to nature. Our desire to live near nature, according to Okulicz-Kozaryn, inspired the contemporary American suburb, notably the planned unit development. But, the “contemporary suburban solution” (i.e., large, single-family dwellings, strip malls, etc.) which is motivated by Americans’ desire for newness has not only contributed to suburban sprawl but also the systematic destruction of nature, so the argument goes. To test the hypothesis that people are happier in contemporary suburbs than in cities despite problems associated with sprawl, the author uses metropolitan statistical area and county-level data, County Health Rankings data set (Ewing, Schmid, Killingsworth, Zlot, & Raudenbush, 2003), data from the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) study, as well as additional control variables such as age, income inequality, and measures of well-being such as racial heterogeneity, crime, and lack of social support between compact and sprawling areas. The analyses suggest that there is indeed an independent effect of sprawl/density on well-being/health, leading to the conclusion that people in lower density (suburbs) are healthier in terms of mental and physical health. In sum, this research promotes suburban living that preserves as much nature as possible and serves as an antidote to the “back to the city” movement as well as uncontrolled suburban sprawl.

The author’s evaluation of the relationship between land use and happiness in the United States has currency for several disciplines, including planning and public policy, public administration, and geography. However, I suggest that the argument about where and how Americans are most happy residing is determined by a host of individual-level factors that the author does not elaborate on, which I will discuss in this commentary.

Comparing city life based on descriptions of Manchester and Philadelphia to define the “problem” with suburban life (modern sprawling suburbs) as the “solution” situates this research in a narrow geographical context. This city/suburb juxtaposition creates a subjective, negative image of city life and advances the author’s previous research that “among all places we are least happy in cities” (Berry & Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2011). Undoubtedly, Manchester exemplifies the problems of rapid, unplanned urbanization that resulted from the industrial revolution. Industrial cities, indeed, were undesirable places to live because of problems of overcrowding, poor air quality, fire hazards, and so on. However, since then, many cities have become much better places to live, none the least through city planning, municipal land use laws, and zoning codes.

The “natural” suburb paradigm is limited through a confluence of individual-level factors. I argue that quality of life as well as happiness in general does not depend upon place, but individual preference, for example, is not the “happiness” gained by living in suburbs related to a particular lifestyle, worldview, and paradigm centered on the American Dream, that is, happy White couples living in single homes on ½ acre, 2.5 children, white picket fence, and so on? Does not a suburban life near nature constitute a different happiness than the happiness offered in a vibrant, culturally dynamic city? The late Jane Jacobs, one of the great urbanists of the 20th century, wrote extensively about the benefits of city living (e.g., Jacobs, 1961). She was compelled by the dynamic, urban environment with an emphasis on diversity in terms of population demographics, land use, infrastructure, and so on. She argued that nothing replaces the beauty and vibrancy of a (functioning) city with its small neighborhoods and sense of community. For Jane and other lovers of city life, “natural sprawl” just will not cut it.

Where people chose to live, whether in cities, suburbs, towns, hamlets, or rural areas depends on many factors. One factor undoubtedly relates to preference and/or lifestyle. Richard Florida’s urban theory of the creative class and indices like “percent gay” or “high-bohemian” suggests that lifestyle affects residential choices as well as creativity and productivity of cities (Florida, 2008). Another factor relates to employment and socioeconomic status. Philadelphia has a high unemployment rate, a high poverty rate, a large percentage of substandard housing, failing public schools, a high crime rate, and other adverse characteristics. Like other post-industrial cities that have not successfully transitioned from industrial to technological/knowledge-based economic centers, Philadelphia lacks a robust tax base and associated critical resources that have contributed to the decline of many of its neighborhoods. However, there are several attractive upscale and/or gentrifying neighborhoods (e.g., Chestnut Hill, Rittenhouse Square, Old City) where residents with higher socioeconomic statuses can enjoy the urban lifestyle and afford to maintain a high quality of life.

Okulicz-Kozaryn argues in favor of the “natural” suburb because it ostensibly makes people happier. He also argues that you cannot bring nature into cities. I beg to differ. Philadelphia has several green squares and pocket parks that were deliberately incorporated into its city plan by William Penn, based on British city planning principles and aimed at bringing nature into city. In addition, Philadelphia is home to Fairmount Park, the largest city park in the United States, which is easily accessible for the city’s urban dwellers. Similarly, New York City has many squares and pocket parks in addition to Central Park, a man-made urban park designed by Olmsted and Vaux in the mid-19th century that serves as a prime example of man-made “nature” in the city.

As Okulicz-Kozaryn suggests, suburbanization (including planned communities such as company towns and railroad suburbs) was the result of the overcrowded, unhealthy environment in cities during the industrial revolution and pre-dating building codes. But the concept of “natural” suburbs is not a new idea. The Garden City movement in England advanced by Ebenezer Howard (1898, 1902) is characterized by an agrarian/romantic approach to living and preserving the “sacredness” of nature. These early garden cities (e.g., Letchworth and Welwyn in the United Kingdom, and Radburn in the United States) are characterized by certain principles, such as low population density, growth boundaries, greenbelts, mixed land use, and woods of public land for agricultural use. Similarly, the smart growth paradigm referred to in this article parallels many of the Garden City principles. In the United States, New Urbanism (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2000) and other smart growth initiatives indicate that planning history has come to full circle. Indeed, we have moved from urbanization to suburbanization (developments with “McMansions” as Okulicz-Kozaryn calls them), back to the more variegated urban form (e.g., mixed land use, emphasis on community, diversity in zoning, and open space preservation). There are several possible explanations for this trajectory. Perhaps people who live in gated suburban developments are unhappy living in isolation, are bored with sameness, and seek the kind of diverse, vibrant, and interesting community Jane Jacobs advocated. Perhaps people have come to understand the diverse array of negative environmental effects associated with single-unit dwellings characteristic of sprawl.

Nevertheless, Okulicz-Kozaryn suggests that most people are happiest in the suburbs and close to nature. However, one size does not fit all. Some people will always find the city a more alluring place to live. Others may prefer to live in the suburbs but are “stuck” in bad inner city neighborhoods because of exclusionary zoning, rental cost, and so on. Both, city and suburban housing should be residential options (within reason) for residents based on individual need, socioeconomic status, and preference. These are just some reasons why regional planning (and planning in general) is of critical importance. The concept of regionalism like “natural” suburbs (Garden City) is also not a new idea. Patrick Geddes’ (1915) seminal book Cities in Evolution advocated for the use of geographic/geological surveys to determine the most natural way for humans to interact with the land. He thought of the region as the appropriate unit of planning, including the interaction between waterways, forests, mountains, and plains. Lewis Mumford who edited the 1922 Regional Planning Association of America’s manifesto in 1925 also stressed that development should occur according to a regional plan (Hall, 1989). Both Geddes and Mumford believed that regional planning was critical, that the region was the basic unit of civilization, and that development should be ecologically balanced. Planning should occur in sync with nature.

Perhaps the time is rife to engender more rigorous comprehensive regional planning processes to provide fair housing opportunities for all residents and living environments suitable for diverse needs, socioeconomic statuses, and preferences of the population. Many European countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands) and some U.S. metropolitan regions, at least to some extent, have ascribed a greater role to city or regional planning activity. In these instances, government planning offices codify land use and impose development controls that monitor growth and preserve nature. Strategic plans are conceived to determine where housing, transportation, green spaces are dispersed across a region. Moving in this direction, of course, would require the entrenched American system of “home rule” to be revised, if not retired.