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.
Suburbanization took off during the 1950's for several reasons. For one, a lot of suburban developments started in the 1920's that failed during the Great Depression restarted. The infrastructure was already in place, so building was easy. And in places like Long Island, where land held off the market was suddenly available, builders like Bill Levitt used their military training to efficiently build lots of units.
True. I was making a world where suburbanization (as we know it) wouldn't occur, but cities would grow.
Maybe we do see new cores grow out along the small towns. The difference is that these new cores are walkable.
The boats idea really applies to New York City and how it would be cheaper to run ferries from CT and NJ instead of spending so much money on expanding the capacity of bridges over the East River to Long Island.
Suburbanization took off during the 1950's for several reasons. For one, a lot of suburban developments started in the 1920's that failed during the Great Depression restarted. The infrastructure was already in place, so building was easy. And in places like Long Island, where land held off the market was suddenly available, builders like Bill Levitt used their military training to efficiently build lots of units.
The infrastructure you speak of was not really put in place by 1920s development--it was greatly supplemented by New Deal era government programs that funded lots of highway development, and postwar highway projects continued the same model. Other New Deal programs like the FHA dictated the form that these future developments would take: the new suburban developments that were eligible for FHA and VA loans had to be in car-centric, detached subdivisions like the ones the Levitts built.
The infrastructure you speak of was not really put in place by 1920s development--it was greatly supplemented by New Deal era government programs that funded lots of highway development, and postwar highway projects continued the same model. Other New Deal programs like the FHA dictated the form that these future developments would take: the new suburban developments that were eligible for FHA and VA loans had to be in car-centric, detached subdivisions like the ones the Levitts built.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I do my research using books and primary sources, not Internet sites. There are some academic journal articles I could cite, but unless you have access to JSTOR or other online journal archive that wouldn't do you much good. But here are a few books on suburbanization I recommend:
Houses in older central-city neighborhoods were generally redlined, and thus finding a bank to cover the loan was pretty much impossible. Also, in the postwar era there was a huge housing shortage, and finding a place to buy in existing neighborhoods was difficult due to market demand. All the new housing was in the new auto-centric suburbs, built along highways--in the decades after World War II, nobody was building streetcars or new passenger rail networks.
Enough with the redlining. You don't seem to understand what it really meant. I do recall my mother-in-law saying that back in the late 40s the lenders only wanted people who were buying with VA loans, and that was in reference to buying a home in the city.
None of those links you provided are to scholarly books; if I tried to back up some of my health care knowledge with books written by journalists, I'd be laughed off. Here is a line from one of them that almost made me spit my tea at the screen:
These practices, they contend, have not only destroyed the traditional concept of the neighborhood, but eroded such vital social values as equality, citizenship and personal safety. Further, they charge that current suburban developments are not only economically and environmentally "unsustainable," but "not functional" because they isolate and place undue burdens on at-home mothers, children, teens and the elderly.
Jeez, you read stuff like that, no wonder you think the burbs are going to hell in a handbasket! Regarding citizenship, to give just one example, it's actually easier in the suburbs, with their smaller populations, to participate in government and even run for office.
Most 'suburbs' of the early days (ie before the 50's) were classified as 'Industrial Towns' or Satellite Cities. These were the early days of Urban Planning. Industrial cities/towns were established for workers of plants. These towns were typically seperate entities from a municipality and often times had their own post office and schools, but were considered a 'neighborhood' of the city.
Satellite communties were established with the idea of centering around the core of a major city. The first ring would be homes, the second ring something else, etc. Often times there were buffers of agriculture that was there to provide food to the center of the city, like a nucleaus. These satellite towns were often designed as 'A place to live close to the city, but not in the country' as this time was the era where 25% of the population owned a farm
None of those links you provided are to scholarly books; if I tried to back up some of my health care knowledge with books written by journalists, I'd be laughed off. Here is a line from one of them that almost made me spit my tea at the screen:
These practices, they contend, have not only destroyed the traditional concept of the neighborhood, but eroded such vital social values as equality, citizenship and personal safety. Further, they charge that current suburban developments are not only economically and environmentally "unsustainable," but "not functional" because they isolate and place undue burdens on at-home mothers, children, teens and the elderly.
Jeez, you read stuff like that, no wonder you think the burbs are going to hell in a handbasket! Regarding citizenship, to give just one example, it's actually easier in the suburbs, with their smaller populations, to participate in government and even run for office.
Three of the books I linked were written by college professors, all are heavily footnoted and referenced, and all are used in college history, geography and planning departments (graduate and undergraduate.) So yes, they are scholarly works, at least in the opinion of, you know, scholars.
01-12-2020, 03:36 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 13 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,926,035 times
Reputation: 4052
Realistic rather than impossible. There are cities on this World that already have this in real life. And they prove that to be a successful and thriving occurrence of fortunes: Bucharest Romania, Astana Nur Sultan Kazakhstan, and Calgary Alberta Canada
I recently visited Bucharest very often July to December 2019 while living not far away, and the rural Farms are seen immediately when leaving the city when on the train ride, especially. Not even one sign of a suburb. Only villages, and agriculture outside of the megalopolis of 1.1 to 1.9 million people. Quite too overly rare for a Planet Earth standard.
Is anyone having experiences with Astana, and Calgary? Quite rustic outlying territories.
For this country in mind, El Paso Texas USA is one of the best for a large enough city without much if any suburbs past the urban limits boundaries. Judging from the evidence.
How about what-if the GI Bill incentives after WW2 also were applicable to be used to purchase existing homes and duplexes, and also to be used to allow double and triple occupancy homes (as long as it was owner occupied)?
Would that have reduced urban sprawl, and helped to maintain the density of cities?
We can also throw in another what-if: what-if local redlining policies were ignored, and local segregation laws and discriminatory policies were overruled by federal lending - or is that too much to suggest?
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.
