Imagine a 19th-century doctor, convinced that the city was fundamentally unwell, riddled with disease and decay. His cure? Bleeding. Drain the city of its lifeblood, its teeming masses, its bustling workers, its very vitality. Send them to the… suburbs. Gruesome analogy? Perhaps. But think about the 20th-century exodus to the suburbs. Driven by good intentions, perhaps – a desire for fresh air, green space, and a perceived escape from the grit and grime of the industrial city. But in retrospect, wasn't it a kind of urban bloodletting? A draining of the city's core, a scattering of its vital components to the periphery, in the misguided belief that this would somehow “cure” its ills? Instead, we got… sprawl. Vast, car-dependent landscapes, ecologically damaging, socially isolating, and economically unsustainable in the long run. And while “New Urbanism” has emerged as a powerful force for revitalizing urban centers, reclaiming walkability, and promoting urban density, a vast percentage of the population still lives in the suburbs, or, more accurately, the exurbs. And it's these areas, these sprawling exurban landscapes, that are perhaps in the most urgent need of a cure. We need a New Suburbanism – not as an addition to New Urbanism, but as a critical evolution, a reimagining of the exurban model, one that moves beyond the unsustainable sprawl of the 20th century and towards something ecologically, socially, and economically viable for the 21st.
