America’s suburbs are becoming more diverse — economically and racially — but they are still just as dependent and just as unsustainable because of car culture.
A new
study just published in the journal Urban Planning reveals that even as the demographics shift, suburbs remain defined by their dependence on driving and low-density development — which then gives suburbanites a distinct political identity.
“Whether supportive of automobility or not, they are locked in an environment and lifestyle that make dependence of the car a necessity,” said study author, Pierre Filion of the University of Waterloo. “Much of the world view of suburban residents is fashioned by what they see through the windshields of their cars.”
Challenges to that dynamic — such as the experience of metro Toronto — have met with backlash, writes Filion. About
175 million Americans live in suburbs. Those areas are key “swing districts” (and,
at least in the 2018 midterms, swung Democratic).
Some scholars have predicted a “post-suburban” political landscape as cities become whiter and suburbs more diverse. But Filion says that notion premature.
Toronto has been more progressive than most North American cities about trying to promote density in the suburbs and reduce dependence on driving. But those efforts have had limited success, and in some cases have backfired.
For example, in 2006, Ontario established 25 “urban growth centers” in suburban areas of Toronto. When Filion examined the four most-advanced of those areas, he found that only one was very successful at offering an alternative to car-based suburbia. The other three — former mall sites — were all redeveloped at mostly suburban densities. The land area in each development was between 25 and 40 percent parking. The single site that was successful at becoming more dense — previously low-rise retail — was served by strong transit, including a subway line.
The study showed that increasing use of automobiles resulted in “the normalization of aspects related to unsustainable living,”
Paul Ratner wrote in the Big Think. “This lifestyle also makes people more resistant to calls for ‘transformative’ changes that would influence their ‘comfort and convenience,’ said Fillion.”
