Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It takes a bit of research to find this, but some of the 1900-era railroad suburbs even advertised that you could grow crops there and save money on food, which was obviously more expensive then. In some, even the keeping of livestock was allowed. By the 1950's, of course, such use was zoned out.
From what my parents said from them growing up in the 1950's in suburbs of St. Louis, they had neighbors who raised chickens. Actually I heard of a few places starting to allow that again.
I always thought that interstate highways were built to ease travel between major cities...maybe they wouldn't exist in the same size they are today, but I'm pretty sure they would still exist.
They were definitely built for ease of travel. "Real" roads were paved to replace the muddy commuting messes that people often endured. And people travelled across country even in the 19th century. So as the automobile became more and more common, so did road improvements. Route 66 is a very old arterial highway.
Anyway, back to the original posting. . . No "burbs" would have simply been replaced by more urban sprawl direct from the cities, and I don't think that would have been an improvement. It likely would have resulted in more dense living, something that many Americans do not like (including, and especially, myself). Me, when I retire I'll be moving into the family farm.
Look around. Once you realize that every piece of clothing you're wearing, the keyboard you're typing on, the accessories on your desk... the carpet, the bricks/block/wood/concrete that your dwelling is made of... it all had to be transported by a truck or other motor vehicle.
Infrastructure had to be created to transport manufactured goods from one city to the next. Even though most workers could live inside the city close to their local jobs, the infrastructure required to support a growing national economy would eventually "pave" the way for new routes in and out of each city. New roads and railroads for people in the city to commute in from less dense, more spacious suburban neighborhoods.
From what my parents said from them growing up in the 1950's in suburbs of St. Louis, they had neighbors who raised chickens. Actually I heard of a few places starting to allow that again.
In that case I stand corrected. But let us not forget that in many cases the railroads owned the land a mile wide. The best way to develop the land was to create suburbs. Not only did they sell the land, but also shipped coal, the heating fuel of the time, and building materials. The subject of this thread seems to be what happened after 1950. One would expect commercial/industrial adjacent to the freeway and residential some distance away, but in fact some residential was built right next to the freeway. At the time of construction, there wasn't much traffic except at rush hour, so it wasn't a problem. But now the traffic is nonstop.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,490 posts, read 15,036,688 times
Reputation: 7359
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
Manhattan had a population of 2,331,542 in 1910 and only 1,428,285 in 1980. Despite adding tens of thousands of apartments in the last 100 years, we've only inched back up to 1,600,000+ today. Why? Because in 1910 people lived in Calcutta-like density (and in some cases, squalor). We'll never go back to that in this country.
What was "solved" was the density issue. People are moving back into the city to live in a loft, not 5 people in a 2-room tenement. It's also why it's become so expensive. People expect much more space in the city than they had before.
For most of human history cities were extraordinarily fetid and polluted places. The vast majority of those people in 1910 had no indoor plumbing. The city really was something worth escaping. Due to lower pollution and increased safety, it is more pleasant to live in a large city now than at any time in history. I don't see that changing.
I agree with you totally. Many people on C-D look lustfully at the "good old days" when cities were overcrowded and dense. They'll go to Manhattan and gaze in wonderment at all the people, and think that it's the pinnacle of a "dense" city whilst casting a nasty stare at any other city might have taken a different path.
But as you alluded to, go to a city like Calcutta or Mumbai that is similar to the pre-1950s conditions in most cities in this country. There is just a mass of people every where at all times. More than you would think is possible, living in places you wouldn't even think people would dare touch. Mumbai for example has half the land area of all of New York City, yet has 4 more million people than NYC. That is only an estimate since there are literally millions of people living in the slums that go uncounted. There is a reason the suburbs were built. Living in places like that suck big time for most people.
Edit:
I should add that personally I don't want to live in a suburb and I am exicted about the resurgence of urban living in this country. However, there needs to be a gentle balance of the two. Modeling our cities after Europe wouldn't work to well since we have too many people, and modeling our cites after Asian cities just wouldn't work at all.
Last edited by waronxmas; 05-12-2010 at 02:58 PM..
I don't know if it not occuring is possible, it seems like it was inevitable to happen at some point and precursors existed with the rise of railroads. Also aspects of American culture from its founding would make it near inevitable as well.
I think the last decade or so there is a shift in pattens due to demographic shift and cultural reasons. Mainly that infill development and suburbs starting to urbanize themselves and go denser. I am also thinking what started the post WWII process anyway? Was it the cities had some issues at the time that people left from and got solved in the last 10 or so years? If that is the case if the same or new problems return to the cities would suburbanization restart?
Probably a combination of returning GIs, who were being offered subsidies for college and/or home mortgages, and who were also of an age to start families fairly soon, and the urban centers who probably couldn't handle the subsequent explosion in population. As I recall reading, the year 1947 set new records in births, and the 1950s certainly reinforced this, aka the "baby boom"...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
