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.
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.
That's exactly it.
We had housing standards established in the WWII era that eased the congested living. In NYC in 1920 it wasn't a shock to see a family of 12 (extended family) living in a 1 bedroom, NO BATH apt the size of many people's living rooms. Housing standards were poor. People would throw their garabge from their 20th story window -IF THEY HAD ONE. Now there are certain standards like adequate plumbing, certain # of windows to allow for natural light, waste management, etc.
That's pretty much why most cities lost population around the 1950s - I know Detroit and St. Louis once teetered around 1 million people
I think the only way we wouldn't have had the modern, stereotypical suburb, is if we never became dependent on the automobile.
Before the car, we had streetcar and railroad suburbs, but their development was different from the auto-centric suburb. They were developed around stops/nodes, like little independent towns.
If we never became dependent on the automobile, I think our cities would still have this hub and spoke design. Instead - since we have become dependent on the car - we have sprawl, which is sort of like a thin layer of development spread all over without much definition.
I think the only way we wouldn't have had the modern, stereotypical suburb, is if we never became dependent on the automobile.
Before the car, we had streetcar and railroad suburbs, but their development was different from the auto-centric suburb. They were developed around stops/nodes, like little independent towns.
If we never became dependent on the automobile, I think our cities would still have this hub and spoke design. Instead - since we have become dependent on the car - we have sprawl, which is sort of like a thin layer of development spread all over without much definition.
The only problem is that a lot of mass transit systems use a hub and spoke design even when cities might not be that way. I also don't see how never becoming dependant on the automobile would of happened since it ties into the idea of 'rugged individualism' which is a big reason why the US and Europe are different.
I think development wise it is going towards a hub and spoke design again, but instead there are multiple hubs in an area in a more galactic sort of design.
Just wondering, what is everybody's problem with suburbanization and why is having an urban city so much better?
Because most of the people on this forum are fans of urbanization; hence "city" data; skyscrapers, light rail, loft-dwellers, starbucks, etc.
I'm not bashing those folks, but you are going to find a huge number of people on this forum that are all about "urbanity" and who hate anything suburban.
I kind of like a little bit of both and understand people that like to live in dense, walkable neighborhoods as well as those that are suburban or even country.
You'll get all types here, but in the "urban" forums you will have a large number of preachers for that type; nothing wrong with that.
The only problem is that a lot of mass transit systems use a hub and spoke design even when cities might not be that way.
I'm no expert on urban design of the past, so I could certainly be wrong. But, I'm under the impression that the old streetcar suburbs sprouted because the RR or streetcar company put a stop there, and not the other way around. Although, I'm sure street cars and RR's were used to connect many existing smaller towns, too. But, this connection probably spurred new growth in that little town when it became connected with the "hub" city. If cities aren't in a hub and spoke form today, I assume it's probably because of the automobile.
Quote:
I also don't see how never becoming dependant on the automobile would of happened since it ties into the idea of 'rugged individualism' which is a big reason why the US and Europe are different.
The original question was: "What would the United States look like today if everybody hadn't flocked to the suburbs in the 1950s?" And, IMO, the car is what allowed people to flock to the suburbs in the 50's. So, if we didn't have the car, or if it never caught on like it did, we probably wouldn't have spread out so much.
The car was around for about 50 years before the modern suburb really started to take off. Until we started living in the suburbs, the car was just a luxury. But now that so many people live in the suburbs, the car has become a necessity.
Quote:
I think development wise it is going towards a hub and spoke design again, but instead there are multiple hubs in an area in a more galactic sort of design.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "galactic" but TOD (transit oriented development) is becoming quite popular again. As far as the modern suburb, too often it's still just some developer buying a farmer's field, putting in some streets, and building some houses. (and then repeat with the field next door...) After a few of these developments happen, you see a few big box stores open to serve this new customer base. There usually isn't much planning involved.
For most of human history since the first permanent settlements were built, towns have been densely populated. There was simply no economical way to live outside of town, especially when considering safety reasons and transportation. This was the case for at least 2000 years. If you look at smaller and older European towns, they are still structured in a way that farmhouses are close to town, with their fields stretching for miles outside of the community. This is in contrast to the American model that began developing from the moment settlers arrived in the New World. We were building homes on the frontier, away from towns. Plantations and homesteads developed in the regions between towns well into the 1900s.
So really, to speculate what would have happened without suburbanization, you would conclude that the US would probably not exist as a nation today. The concept of living outside of dense communities fundamentally shaped our society from the very beginning.. The 1950s was just the same process on a larger scale...
And for the record, even Europe in all its density has highway networks similar to those of the US Interstate system. Also what opened up the Sunbelt to suburbanization beginning in the 50s was not the Interstate system (many Southern Interstates were not completed until the 70s and 80s), but rather the widespread availability of home air conditioning units. As bizarre as that sounds, it is what triggered the movement of Northerners to the South beginning in the late 50s.
For most of human history since the first permanent settlements were built, towns have been densely populated. There was simply no economical way to live outside of town, especially when considering safety reasons and transportation. This was the case for at least 2000 years. If you look at smaller and older European towns, they are still structured in a way that farmhouses are close to town, with their fields stretching for miles outside of the community. This is in contrast to the American model that began developing from the moment settlers arrived in the New World. We were building homes on the frontier, away from towns. Plantations and homesteads developed in the regions between towns well into the 1900s.
So really, to speculate what would have happened without suburbanization, you would conclude that the US would probably not exist as a nation today. The concept of living outside of dense communities fundamentally shaped our society from the very beginning.. The 1950s was just the same process on a larger scale...
European cities were much denser because, when many of them were built, you had to depend on the city for safety, so you never wanted to be too far away from the nearest city gate. Farms in the U.S. developed differently because we didn't have to worry about the neighboring city going to war with our city. But, for much of our history, there were only cities and towns, with farms between. IMO, the modern suburb (groups of 1950's ranches and split-levels with big yards and miles from the nearest store) is something different.
The only problem is that a lot of mass transit systems use a hub and spoke design even when cities might not be that way. I also don't see how never becoming dependant on the automobile would of happened since it ties into the idea of 'rugged individualism' which is a big reason why the US and Europe are different.
I think development wise it is going towards a hub and spoke design again, but instead there are multiple hubs in an area in a more galactic sort of design.
That is the glaring defect of most transit systems: You have to go to the central hub before going anywhere else. The LA Metrolink system has one line that doesn't go to LA Union Station, that is exceptional. And the airlines have adopted the idea.
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.
