Fishman's article changed the way I look at suburbs, I can't say I appreciate them anymore than I did before, but I understand them in a whole new way. It was a relief to learn that they weren't an American invention even if the US franchised them (so to speak).
The article did make me wonder, however, what drove the British bourgeois to shift to nuclear family style living. Did wealth accumulation require one to lop-off connections to extended family? Was it an attempt to look more like the landed aristocracy? What does it mean to family, community, and society when the ideal is that you're physically close only too your immediate family? Do suburbs exist in places where extended families are just as important as the nuclear family...when you're rich does that culture hold anywhere?
Parkers article was a nice refresher for Intro to Planning, not really mind blowing, but reasonably interesting. I think it raises question about the dangers of thinking on a utopic scale; planning can become religion rather than a professional and rational endeavor. However, if you're not striving for the ideal, what exactly are you working towards? Imagine if a planner was hired by a community and the came at them with this: "Hello community A...I'm here to help you plan your community, I don't know what a good community looks like, so let's just try some things a see what works, ok?" I doubt that would go well. Given that, how do you balance the reality that there can be no perfect plans, just better than other options plans, with real human needs like shelter, clean water, community, safety, etc?
