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's possible that the appeal of the suburbs after 1945 was NOT the house, but the environment that encased the house. You can argue the merits of the Four Square and bungalow vs the Cape and the ranch, but I'm willing to bet that the real appeal was the yard, the SPACE that gave one a sense of open air, privacy, and tranquility that didn't exist in their old city apartments. Prospective homeowners didn't have a great deal of choices of styles to pick from, but they decided to buy, anyway, because they liked the environment..
It's possible that the appeal of the suburbs after 1945 was NOT the house, but the environment that encased the house. You can argue the merits of the Four Square and bungalow vs the Cape and the ranch, but I'm willing to bet that the real appeal was the yard, the SPACE that gave one a sense of open air, privacy, and tranquility that didn't exist in their old city apartments. Prospective homeowners didn't have a great deal of choices of styles to pick from, but they decided to buy, anyway, because they liked the environment..
You said the same as me in reverse, my criticism of postwar suburbs are of urban form or as you said what encased the house.
Though, it seems like many cities outside of the Northeast, the housing stock was already single family with space, though the space varied. If your idea is correct, the older low density cities and neighborhoods should have declined less than higher density ones. Not sure if this is true.
It's possible that the appeal of the suburbs after 1945 was NOT the house, but the environment that encased the house. You can argue the merits of the Four Square and bungalow vs the Cape and the ranch, but I'm willing to bet that the real appeal was the yard, the SPACE that gave one a sense of open air, privacy, and tranquility that didn't exist in their old city apartments. Prospective homeowners didn't have a great deal of choices of styles to pick from, but they decided to buy, anyway, because they liked the environment..
Oh, no, it was the great conspiracy! These people only thought they wanted a suburban house, b/c the government told them they did. They really wanted to live in a tenement.
I agree with nei regarding neighborhood form before and after WWII. But, since I'm an architectural professional, I'm more interested in the house/structure itself.
Initially, the biggest difference was just style. Before WWII, you had the American Foursquare, the bungalow, etc. After WWII, you had the cape style house, the ranch, etc. The quantity, size, and shape of interior wood trim changed. Instead of oak built-ins, colonades, paneled doors, 8"+ baseboards, etc., you had 3-4" maple baseboards, hollow flat doors, etc. (I guess California is an exception WRT doors, as I see lots of 3 panel doors in 50s-60s homes on TV shows like HGTV's House Hunters)
The quality of methods and materials in home construction only fell off slowly starting in the 50s, when the desire for low cost forced the quality to take a back seat. So, if the style factor were eliminated--by comparing colonial revivals, for example--you'd probably find that the colonial built in the 50's was of comparable quality to one built in the 20's. But, if you compared either of those with a colonial built in the 70s or 80s, there would probably be a noticable difference in quality. (and to an even greater extent with the average newly built home)
You are comparing apples to oranges. Pre WW II, the majority were renters. Those that could afford a single family home did have nicely appointed houses, in some cases. However, there are plenty of pre WW II houses that do not have the above either. I've been in a lot of houses as a visiting nurse. I've seen lots of metal cabinets, pine floors, etc.
After WW II, we became a nation of homeowners, and houses became more mass produced.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Pre WW II, the majority were renters. Those that could afford a single family home did have nicely appointed houses, in some cases. However, there are plenty of pre WW II houses that do not have the above either. I've been in a lot of houses as a visiting nurse. I've seen lots of metal cabinets, pine floors, etc.
After WW II, we became a nation of homeowners, and houses became more mass produced.
I lived in a pre-WWII house that was low-end for the time. It had pine floors, (all the woodwork was pine) and no subfloors. But it still had plaster walls, 2 panel doors, and the woodwork was wide. It even still had it's original kitchen cabinets which, IMO, were quite awesome, because they were never painted.
Oh, no, it was the great conspiracy! These people only thought they wanted a suburban house, b/c the government told them they did. They really wanted to live in a tenement.
Because the only housing choices are autocentric single family home neighborhoods and tenements.
You also said earlier that the government helped people moved to the suburbs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Almost any vet could get a VA loan after WW II and move to the burbs. Lots of "oppressed" living in the burbs. The suburbs of Pittsburgh were full of steel workers when I was a kid; many of these people had not even graduated from high school.
Because the only housing choices are autocentric single family home neighborhoods and tenements.
You also said earlier that the government helped people moved to the suburbs:
I said they could get a VA loan and move to the suburbs. They could also get a VA loan and buy a house in the city. My mother-in-law told me that was the case in Omaha right after the war. But Omaha isn't "interesting" enough.
You took my post out of context. My comments that you quoted were in repsonse to another poster who implied suburbanites were all college graduates who "should know better". Since you opened up that can of worms again, by quoting my post, I have done a little google research, and found that in 1950, about 5% of people had college degrees. In fact, in 1950, only 34% of people had graduated from high school. So the burbs were not exactly filled with the intelligentsia.
Oh, no, it was the great conspiracy! These people only thought they wanted a suburban house, b/c the government told them they did. They really wanted to live in a tenement.
did you read what massvt said? he indicated that people WANTED a suburban environment, but that they had little choice of specific architectural styles. Im not sure if thats true, but what you are implying he said is not what he said.
The switch from majority-renter to majority-homeowner was also a gradual shift, not an overnight transformation--a century ago Americans were 40% homeowners, now it's more like 60% (and dropping like a rock due to the mortgage crisis) but the change was fairly gradual, and a 40% homeownership rate meant that it wasn't exactly rare. FHA loans were introduced in the 1930s, VA loans in the 40s and other loan products later in the 20th century...and then adjustale-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, etcetera, leading to our current kerfuffle.
Lot sizes were driven by transportation infrastructure--the skinny lots of row houses were built when most traveled by foot or horse-drawn omnibus or streetcar, the medium-width foursquares and bungalows when electric streetcars ruled, the big wide ranchers, cape cods and split-levels' large lots were made possible by automobiles and their infrastructure, which made such horizontal development possible--and, thus, horizontal development still depends on the presence of public roads and automobiles to drive on them. It's also why modern "transit-oriented" development resembles the proportions of older buildings--small-lot "skinny house" designs look like 19th century row houses if you imagine Queen Anne and Italianate frills on them instead of modern finishes.
I'd agree that specific styles were less important than simply the availability of the house, but style was driven by architectural fashions of the day.
I said they could get a VA loan and move to the suburbs. They could also get a VA loan and buy a house in the city. My mother-in-law told me that was the case in Omaha right after the war. But Omaha isn't "interesting" enough.
but by making buying cheaper, it tended to make it easier to move to the suburbs, since at least at the time there were few rentals in the suburbs, and in at least some cities the older homes in the cities were cheaper, and easier financing made it easier to buy a NEW home. Unlike today, when there are LOTS of aging, cheap homes in the suburbs, there were few older homes in the suburbs in the late 1940s.
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.
