(POLL) Should Suburbs Change or Should Critics Back Off?

An opinion column that had the unusual distinction of appearing in both the Star Tribuneand Pioneer Press over the weekend was written "In Defense of Suburbs," as the Star Tribune's headline put it.

In his op-ed, locally-based city-planning consultant Tom Martinson beat back a range of criticisms frequently leveled against suburbs:

As suburbia expanded coast to coast over the past decades, criticisms only increased. Suburban subdivisions are not "walkable," so people have to drive everywhere. Suburban traffic is terrible ...

As an antidote, suburban neighborhoods should be made as citylike as possible, with very small lots resulting in much higher densities, emphasizing increased walking, bicycling and reliance on public transit.

Martinson went on to say that choosing where to live is a personal decision, and that all areas—including the suburbs—have their pros and cons:

Wherever you decide to live should be exactly right for you. That is the test, period. Pick the heart of a big city. Or any of many kinds of suburbs. Or a small town, or out in the country.

America is a banquet of choices.

So, what do you think? Are suburban areas like Edina fine as they are, or do they need to change? And what do you like or dislike about living in a first-ring community?