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 is no "return to the city". For two years (2011 & 2012) we saw a slightly (and within the margin of error so statistically insignificant) faster growth rate in cities relative to suburbs.
Of the 51 largest metropolitan regions in the U.S. in 2013, just 18 of them saw faster growth in cities than suburbs in 2013, compared with 25 in 2012. However, suburbs grew three times as fast as cities from 2000 to 2010.
I have tried to find that information in the past and couldn't. However, I know people who bought existing homes with a VA loan back in the 70s, and my mother-in-law (a world class kvetcher) said right after WW II, realtors only wanted to work with veterans (which neither she nor my FIL were).
Another thing is that there was a housing shortage after the war. There had been little housing built since the start of the Great Depression in 1929.
Yeah, I haven't been able to come across that information either, just present day stuff. Obviously there were a lot of factors then that played into the housing boom after WW2.
There is no "return to the city". For two years (2011 & 2012) we saw a slightly (and within the margin of error so statistically insignificant) faster growth rate in cities relative to suburbs.
Of the 51 largest metropolitan regions in the U.S. in 2013, just 18 of them saw faster growth in cities than suburbs in 2013, compared with 25 in 2012. However, suburbs grew three times as fast as cities from 2000 to 2010.
The suburban dream was partly manufactured by the VA Loan for all the military returning home because it could only be used on new housing and not renovating of old housing stock.
There are several problems with the old housing stock. The first of which is availability, in short home ownership before the 1950ies was not really a part of the middle class. Without the 20 and 30 year loan most people could not own an house. Many people rented and thus there was very little old stuff for sell.
Cities of the 1950ies are full of nasty factories spewing all kinds of odors and nasty stuff. An loan can't fix that problem. Nor could they adjust for the fact that you could get an newer house with more space and modern features cheaply vs. rehab something old.
I grew up in an urban house that was 100 year old and while it wasn't an horrific experience I would think that house would have had an hard time competing with an 50ies or even worse an 60ies house. It may have only been 50-60 years old back then but compared to an typical 60ies house: Small bedrooms, one over-sized bathroom for 3 bedrooms(most houses then have 2 baths). The bathroom lack an shower. The kitchen lacked electrical outlets on the counter top and had an total of 3 badly placed outlets for everything. The kitchen lacked an dishwasher and the cabinets were too low to install one without changing them. You would have saved an lot of time grief and aggravation just by getting an newer house.
There are several problems with the old housing stock. The first of which is availability, in short home ownership before the 1950ies was not really a part of the middle class. Without the 20 and 30 year loan most people could not own an house. Many people rented and thus there was very little old stuff for sell.
Cities of the 1950ies are full of nasty factories spewing all kinds of odors and nasty stuff. An loan can't fix that problem. Nor could they adjust for the fact that you could get an newer house with more space and modern features cheaply vs. rehab something old.
I grew up in an urban house that was 100 year old and while it wasn't an horrific experience I would think that house would have had an hard time competing with an 50ies or even worse an 60ies house. It may have only been 50-60 years old back then but compared to an typical 60ies house: Small bedrooms, one over-sized bathroom for 3 bedrooms(most houses then have 2 baths). The bathroom lack an shower. The kitchen lacked electrical outlets on the counter top and had an total of 3 badly placed outlets for everything. The kitchen lacked an dishwasher and the cabinets were too low to install one without changing them. You would have saved an lot of time grief and aggravation just by getting an newer house.
Also there were homes still without things like running water or basic amenities for home owning that would have cost home owners even more. A number of those neighborhoods were torn down in the 50s for urban renewal.
Shame that never happened for Detroit, I think the city might be better off today if it had constructed a subway system.
Maybe. It was never that centered around downtown job-wise (shopping-wise, it had lots — the second biggest department store was in downtown Detroit), however so it wouldn't have been as useful. Perhaps a subway would have strengthened downtown. It's also likely that the decline would have happened similarly, and the city would be left with a poorly used subway system. The wide roads and ample parking would have led to low subway usage anyway. Cleveland has a rapid transit line and a mostly grade separated light rail line with very low ridership.
The BQE through Brooklyn is an example of how to build a needed urban freeway because it doesn't really cut through too many neighborhoods and mostly runs through industrial areas. Though there are some residential areas that could be capped, but on the other side having a noisy freeway outside someone's door is one of the few ways to find a reasonably priced apartment in Brooklyn.
Living near the BQE is rather nasty and the additional air pollution must be unpleasant:
In Brooklyn Heights, residents in homes overlooking the highway can be awakened by trucks during the only hours they are not slowed by traffic, between 2 and 5 a.m. If a truck going 50 miles an hour hits a single pothole, or one raised seam in the road, sleep might be finished.
“When they hit these bumps, it sounds like a bomb going off,” said Bo Rodgers, who has lived in an apartment overlooking the B.Q.E. since 1975.
Yes, I know elevated trains also are noisemakers but elevated highways are larger structures and take up more room. It's rather unsightly. But still, I agree it's got at not consuming too much room. I used to as an example to contrast with the larger Detroit and Cinncinati highways:
The downside is that the BQE isn't a very good interstate. It occasionally goes down to two lanes, exits and entrances randomly alternate between left and right, lanes are shorter than the usual (10.5 feet vs 12 feet — though I haven't found it a difficulty) with short on-ramps (but who cares? you're not going to accelerate to high speed anyway). There's no shoulder in most spots, so any accident or disabled vehicle immediately jams the road. And I'm unaware of any other interstate that has a 45 mph speed limit, but you're lucky if you can make the speed limit. The random curves, merging traffic combined with the high volume make much faster speeds not that safe.
Still, it's my favorite highway in the sense of most entertaining to drive.
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.
