U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,790 posts, read 10,705,766 times
Reputation: 2515

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Yeap. In cities most people could not afford a horse. The 19th century brings public transit (which allows cities to grow larger). First you have horse drawn omnibuses then cable cars which for the most part(SF being the exception) are replaced by electric street cars and by the early 20th century buses(Buses and street cars co-exist till the demise of the street car in the 50ies/60ies).
actually electric street cars replaced horsedrawn streetcars on rails more than cable cars I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2012, 01:39 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post

Also by the 20ies the auto and truck are rapidly replacing the horse in urban areas as well as rural ones.
For American cities, yes though ownership levels were still much lower. The OP mentioned European as well as the American cities. Automobiles weren't common among non-wealthy people in Europe until after the Second World War.

I'd assume trucks gained acceptance in both areas faster than personal vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
For American cities, yes though ownership levels were still much lower. The OP mentioned European as well as the American cities. Automobiles weren't common among non-wealthy people in Europe until after the Second World War.

I'd assume trucks gained acceptance in both areas faster than personal vehicles.
And in the Tokyo area, according to a study someone linked in another thread, auto ownership rates only reached 1930 US levels in the mid 80s. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-cr-tok.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 02:41 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
And in the Tokyo area, according to a study someone linked in another thread, auto ownership rates only reached 1930 US levels in the mid 80s. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-cr-tok.pdf
New York City is at 1930s/early 1940s (car ownership stayed nearly flat to the end of World War II) levels as well (230 per 1000 people). But Tokyo's numbers are for the suburbs as well while New York City's is for just the city proper.

I'd assumer cars got adopted much faster in rural than urban areas in the US, with regional variation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 03:30 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,281 times
Reputation: 746
Just for the record, there were slightly more than .15 vehicles per person in 1925 in the US, or slightly more than 1 for every 7 people. A little different from now. It would have been lower in 1920, but I haven't yet put my hands on those figures.

Certainly, farmers wanted cars, but urban areas led the early growth in automobile ownership. The urban areas were wealthier and had better roads. New York City, with a large population of relatively affluent people, saw early growth in autos. Los Angeles certainly did, with autos coming to dominate the transportation system by the mid-20's, earlier than they did elsewhere. The wide ownership of autos in LA led to a growth pattern that moved away from Downtown more quickly than elsewhere. By 1929, LA had a department store (Bullocks Wilshire) away from downtown where the primary entrance was on the parking lot. LA also gained a now obsolete reputation for "car craziness" that many still hold.

I think some of the New Urbanists are trying to bring the good features of the 1920's city into our time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Um, the timeline was not horse carcass -> Chevy bel air.

You are neglecting lots in your oversimplification
LOL!

I can just see that advertisement campaign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 06:29 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses View Post
The OP asked about a modern/modernized city but preautomobile. To me that just means the city is different than today, but all the modern stuff like medicine has still advanced.

If I had to live in a city, then I could absolutely imagine a city from the pre-automobile era as being quite enticing. I can imagine the architecture of Boston, Philly, Chicago all cleaned up and new. Somewhat narrow city streets, tiny parks all over, little local bakeries, green grocers, and cafe's. Trolley cars and trams. Rickshaws for the infirm or older folks. Lots of umbrellas and galoshes. (Without cars you would need the local services and to do a bit of walking.) Perhaps those cities could have grown up in the automobile age with most of the auto traffic kept to the outskirts of the urban area.
I don't know about Boston and Philly, but Chicago (also Pittsburgh which you didn't mention) were very industrial cities, even in the 20s. The buildings would not have been all cleaned up and new-looking even then. Pittsburgh didn't get its nickname "Hell with the lid off" for nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
Just for the record, there were slightly more than .15 vehicles per person in 1925 in the US, or slightly more than 1 for every 7 people. A little different from now. It would have been lower in 1920, but I haven't yet put my hands on those figures.

Certainly, farmers wanted cars, but urban areas led the early growth in automobile ownership. The urban areas were wealthier and had better roads. New York City, with a large population of relatively affluent people, saw early growth in autos. Los Angeles certainly did, with autos coming to dominate the transportation system by the mid-20's, earlier than they did elsewhere. The wide ownership of autos in LA led to a growth pattern that moved away from Downtown more quickly than elsewhere. By 1929, LA had a department store (Bullocks Wilshire) away from downtown where the primary entrance was on the parking lot. LA also gained a now obsolete reputation for "car craziness" that many still hold.

I think some of the New Urbanists are trying to bring the good features of the 1920's city into our time.
Yes, without thinking about the bad features.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 06:42 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,096,962 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Yes, without thinking about the bad features.
There's little reason for a New Urbanist to think about cholera, polio, and open sewers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 07:03 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
There's little reason for a New Urbanist to think about cholera, polio, and open sewers.
Perhaps so. It is not really clear just what the OP is suggesting. A city today w/o cars? Or the 1920s? Or some other era?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2012, 07:31 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
I'd assume cities built up as in the 20s and similar transportation infrastructure but everything else being the same (just talking about the built environment and transportation).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top