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.
There are public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, magnate school, home schooling - all to choose from in most major metropolitan areas and at different price points from free to very expensive - again, its a matter of choice.
Actually, it was exactly government subsidies that made the burbs boom in the 1950s. It was a massive investment by the municipal, state and federal governments that made the feasible in the first place.
However most people opted for a larger house in the burbs and public schools out in the burbs and it isn't surprising.
The cost of private school is high enough that you could afford a bigger place out in the burbs for the tuition. Magnate high schools in my area are selective admission meaning your kid might not qualify despite the fact that the schools are good. Home schooling is something very few people would choose to do and I rather doubt that it is an popular option in cities(and you need to have enough income to allow one parent to stay at home to do it.)
...more like the lack of feasibility (financial and otherwise) of providing a transit pipeline to locations convenient to all residents.
A car offers considerably greater flexibility than transit. The flexibility includes time of trip, time of return, route, capacity for passengers, certainty of departure, ergonomic/environmental conditions about the traveler, insulation from other travelers, ability to make changes to schedule, plus you don't have to go to a lot of places you don't want to be before getting to your destination. In addition, in many cases transit is a faux solution since folks often have to drive to get to the transit depot. Bottom line is that transit fails to serve or offer any benefit to the vast majority of the populace.
Had our cities focused on renovating themselves and expanding rail in the 50s rather than expanding outward and destroying urban fabrics of the inner cities it would have been much more feasible.
Unfortunately we did the opposite of that and are left with sprawling suburbs surrounding our cities making it much harder to provide adequate transit to everywhere when most suburban areas lack the density and connection to anything to make transit work, thus forcing us to live with being an auto-centric society.
On the other hand, transit can provide a benefit for cities that did protect their urban fabric and rail can be used in a commuter fashion for those that do work in employment centers that have high workforces.
Also having to drive to get to a commuter station isn't a faux solution if it gets you off the limited number of highways and roadways leading into a downtown, that is a real solution for light density suburbs, and in many cases, it is the only alternative solution.
The building boom of the 50s was not a conspiracy. There had been little home building since the beginning of the depression twenty years earlier. There was a lot of pent-up demand. The population of the US increased from 123,000,000 to 151,000,000. The baby boom was underway. People had to live somewhere.
^ US population has doubled since 1950 so there was no way we weren't going to have any expansion of the urban/suburban footprint.
OTOH, by the 1930s most large, US cities already went through a period of suburban development from 1880-1929. The flaw was that in 1949 we completely abandoned that model of suburban development in favor of something a lot more expensive (socially, economically and environmentally).
*I was responding to urbanlife but you beat me to it.
It's probably also important to note that while the population has increased rapidly the number of households has grown even faster.
In the 1950s a family of 6 was not uncommon - nor were multi-generational families. These days a lot of people live alone. It says a lot about our wealth as a society but yeah, we probably could've planned better for it.
Actually, in Lafayette LA, the way the traffic lights are co-ordinated or synched has nothing to do with whether I am in my car or on my bike or on my feet. The traffic here is awful and between the ridiculous way the lights are synched along with the way most people here delay so long before responding to the green light, there is no way to get around it.
Most red lights give way to a green or green arrow with just barely enough time for 3 cars to get through before going red. And the other side usually gets a good minute to 90 seconds for their green.
Depending on the location of course. Going towards the Mall, you get the 90 seconds. Leaving the Mall, you get the 15 seconds.
So I don't accept total responsibility for this, at least where I live.
^ US population has doubled since 1950 so there was no way we weren't going to have any expansion of the urban/suburban footprint.
OTOH, by the 1930s most large, US cities already went through a period of suburban development from 1880-1929. The flaw was that in 1949 we completely abandoned that model of suburban development in favor of something a lot more expensive (socially, economically and environmentally).
*I was responding to urbanlife but you beat me to it.
Of course cities were going to expand in size, but your point about the flaw is what went wrong for the US. Had we focused on suburban development like town with dense centers surrounding an even more dense city, it would have been much easier running effective rail transportation to feed to those suburban centers.
^^What the @*!%^^ is so great about rail? Who wants all these tracks and the noise that comes with trains all over the place? In reality, something often in short supply here on CD, most of the 50s suburbs (of Denver anyway) are simply an extension of residential neighborhoods in the city. Take a look at this map. Follow say, 26th Avenue west. Tell me where the city line is. Tell me when it's obvious you're in the burbs. https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...&ved=0CLcBEPwS
^^What the @*!%^^ is so great about rail? Who wants all these tracks and the noise that comes with trains all over the place?
How is that any worse than busy roads and the rumble of traffic? Train noise is less constant than highway noise.
Quote:
In reality, something often in short supply here on CD, most of the 50s suburbs (of Denver anyway) are simply an extension of residential neighborhoods in the city. Take a look at this map. Follow say, 26th Avenue west. Tell me where the city line is. Tell me when it's obvious you're in the burbs. https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...&ved=0CLcBEPwS
That's Denver (and much of the west and perhaps parts of the midwest). Here, the difference between 50s era development and previous development is rather large, whether in "the city" or not. The older development was often much denser (see some of the maps I posted)
From that view, it looks some of Denver by 26th avenue was also built in the 50s, so you can't see much difference with in development age crossing the city limits.
You still have to account for the capitol costs of buying the car. And older cars have a lot more maintenance.
Not always. A relative gave me their old car. Insurance is pretty cheap for an older vehicle and my son is my mechanic. Win ... and win.
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.
Train noise is less constant than highway noise. 
