Kotkin on suburban development

I rarely agree with Joel Kotkin.

I most certainly do not agree with his latest opinion piece in OpinionJournal. A longer version can be read here.

The gist of the article seems to be "Hooray!" for suburbs and "Boo!" for the naysayers who prefer more urban development styles.

I have several gripes with his piece:

* He still uses Levittown as a template for "suburbia", though development like that doesn't take place so much anymore. There is a rebirth of city living, and even most suburban developers are at least making making attempts (usally poorly executed) at more urban-based site designs.

* He reasons that anti-suburban arguments haven't gotten any better over time, even though the claims he cites remain as true today as they were for Lewis Mumford or Jane Jacobs.

* Because there are ethnic restaurants in some strip malls, suburbs are no longer "boring and featureless".

* He cites these as major factors for the success of Levitt's experiment: affordable homes, good schools, nice parks and public safety. Only one of these is actually provided by a developer these days. Is he aware of suburban communities' difficulties with budgets strained by trying to provide these services for unplanned populations?

As a Libertarian, it certainly seems that he overlooks a lot of factors that helped make Levitt's experiment possible.