our old suburban home
This place of ours was once in the "suburbs." Our house was built in 1946, which makes it older than us. Most of the houses around here were built a little later than that, a few earlier. North of here virtually all of the houses are newer. From that I conclude that at the time it was built our house was near the edge of town. By my thinking that means it was in the suburbs, even though it might have been within the city limits at the time.
The man who built this house operated a restaurant in Highland Park Village, one of the country's first shopping centers, a few miles closer to downtown. He had children who attended the local school. In fact I suspect that most of the people who lived around here were young families with children. When we moved here though it was primarily empty nesters or childless households.
If you take suburban to simply mean the new housing at the edge of the metropolis then almost every place around here either has been suburban at some time or will be in the future. Now most people would call our place "inner-city" or even "downtown." Once it was part of a farm and before that it is said to have been an Indian campsite. I can travel 20 miles to the north today and see farms that I know will very soon be subdivided into housing developments or shopping centers.
Age has given the neighborhood character and, in my eye, added value. People have lived here and made their mark on it. That is what makes the difference between a neighborhood like this one and a new one. I think most people though prefer the new.
This is part of the Ecotone discussion on "suburbs."
Posted by Bill Hopkins on July 15, 2003 10:18 PMI like it that you are able to trace the history of the house you live in with such specificity. I wonder about the "most people prefer the new" and then look at old houses here in Davis from the 1920s which were just north of the town center, and built for workers (but beautifully, in the Arts & Crafts style). They are tiny, usually two-bedroom, one bath, but they sell for fortunes now, because of their age and unique style. Davis has since expanded way north of that area. Will the housing developments of today--ugly, monotonous, overbearing, where the garage is about 1/3 of the footprint--ever be looked at in this way? It's hard to imagine...
Posted by: Pica at July 16, 2003 08:29 AMDespite its age our house had only one previous owner. I learned a little of the history when I met their son at the time I bought the house and subsequently a little more from neighbors who had known them.
Posted by: bill at July 16, 2003 10:48 AMYou wonder sometimes about the constinuous story we all hear... of the ever growing city. I don't think I have ever heard a story of a modern city turning back and shrinking. It is as if the city is chasing after an older brother or sister who has gone off into the horizon, and the city is dragging everything after himself. Perhaps it is like the rings of a tree, where the core withers and dies and creates a donut effect. Hopefully cities grow stronger this way. It is nice to hear of an "old" suburb that has matured and honed a warm patina of wisdom and richness.
Posted by: Miguel at July 16, 2003 12:16 PMIt's a relief to see a piece about suburbs that doesn't wail about their ugliness, etc. Just telling it like it is is what I like to see, Mr. Bill.
Posted by: Joel at July 19, 2003 12:06 AMI don't disagree with those writers who think modern suburbs are ugly and inhospitable. I just did not choose to write about that myself.
Posted by: bill at July 20, 2003 07:38 AMWhich is still refreshing to see....
Posted by: Joel at July 22, 2003 01:22 AM