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.
I certainly agree that the rise of the war industry on the Pacific Coast mattered for western development.
As for the cities you name, I don't totally agree with your analysis. San Jose in the 1950s was a much more densely developed place: Shaping Downtown San Jose | SPUR
Today, San Jose is surrounded by suburban cities and much of the city of San Jose itself is characterized by suburban development; but in the 1950s it was a dense central city surrounded by orchards. It was probably the late 60s to early 70s before you would really look at San Jose itself developed in a more suburban manner.
I grew up in San Jose. Rapid suburban housing growth in the area began right after WW2 ended!
To understand *how* San Jose grew after WW2, one must understand its city manager from then until 1969, A.P. "Dutch" Hamann:
Under his leadership, San Jose threw out its city limits in just about all directions, increasing its square mile area by nearly 10 times, to annex historic little hamlet communities from Alviso to Almaden and from Westmont to Eastridge/Evergreen and from Cambrian Park to Coyote, and even tried to annex the already incorporated small cities of Santa Clara County, like Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Campbell, and Cupertino, although this was resisted.
City Manager A.P. "Dutch" Hammann and various mayors were vilified for paving over the pretty orchards in the Santa Clara Valley, which became "Silicon Valley". However, as we agreed, the rapid growth of Western cities after Pearl Harbor was inevitable, and Mr. Hammann wisely saw that if there was growth to be had, his city would claim as much of it as it could.
Rather than let the old central city get surrounded--and bled dry--by the newer and more prosperous suburbs, Hamann's solution was to have San Jose aggressively annex as many of those emerging suburbs as it could, turning the city into a giant mega-suburb.
"Hamann then directed an aggressive growth program for the city. Growing up in Orange County, Hamann felt that the development of that area, consisting of several mid-sized cities without a dominant city in the region, was a failure and worked to ensure that San Jose became the major city of the Santa Clara Valley. Central to this project were "strip annexations"—Hamann and his staff would determine where new tax-generating developments such as shopping centers were likely to be built, and would annex small strips of territory around the property to ensure no other city could claim the property so that San Jose would receive the sales tax revenue produced by property when it was finally developed.
When industries decided to move into or expand in the area, Hamann would ensure they found a willing partner in the city. IBM wanted to move its research staff out of downtown to a dedicated facility to be sited on unincorporated land south of San Jose, but were being blocked by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Hamann simply had San Jose annex the proposed site and pushed the project's approval through the city council.
In addition to annexing unincorporated territory, Hamann's staff also annexed existing neighborhoods, including Cambrian Park, and one city. When the city of Alviso attempted to annex the new sewage plant to boost tax revenue, Hamann countered by having San Jose annex Alviso. A special city staff, known as Dutch's Panzer Division, executed 1377 annexations during his time in office—previous to Hamann's administration there had been a total of 42."
Last edited by NickB1967; 01-29-2015 at 05:19 PM..
Under his leadership, San Jose threw out its city limits in just about all directions, increasing its square mile area by nearly 10 times, to annex historic little hamlet communities from Alviso to Almaden and from Westmont to Eastridge/Evergreen and from Cambrian Park to Coyote, and even tried to annex the already incorporated small cities of Santa Clara County, like Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Campbell, and Cupertino, although this was resisted.
City Manager A.P. "Dutch" Hammann and various mayors were vilified for paving over the pretty orchards in the Santa Clara Valley, which became "Silicon Valley". However, as we agreed, the rapid growth of Western cities after Pearl Harbor was inevitable, and Mr. Hammann wisely saw that if there was growth to be had, his city would claim as much of it as it could.
Rather than let the old central city get surrounded--and bled dry--by the newer and more prosperous suburbs, Hamann's solution was to have San Jose aggressively annex as many of those emerging suburbs as it could, turning the city into a giant mega-suburb.
"Hamann then directed an aggressive growth program for the city. Growing up in Orange County, Hamann felt that the development of that area, consisting of several mid-sized cities without a dominant city in the region, was a failure and worked to ensure that San Jose became the major city of the Santa Clara Valley. Central to this project were "strip annexations"—Hamann and his staff would determine where new tax-generating developments such as shopping centers were likely to be built, and would annex small strips of territory around the property to ensure no other city could claim the property so that San Jose would receive the sales tax revenue produced by property when it was finally developed.
When industries decided to move into or expand in the area, Hamann would ensure they found a willing partner in the city. IBM wanted to move its research staff out of downtown to a dedicated facility to be sited on unincorporated land south of San Jose, but were being blocked by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Hamann simply had San Jose annex the proposed site and pushed the project's approval through the city council.
In addition to annexing unincorporated territory, Hamann's staff also annexed existing neighborhoods, including Cambrian Park, and one city. When the city of Alviso attempted to annex the new sewage plant to boost tax revenue, Hamann countered by having San Jose annex Alviso. A special city staff, known as Dutch's Panzer Division, executed 1377 annexations during his time in office—previous to Hamann's administration there had been a total of 42."
This is a great history. And I think that the local politics of annexation and incorporation had a huge impact on coastal Californian development. San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego all swallowed a lot of their suburban developments, spreading out the nominal city and making it less dense. I would put Sacramento in that bucket as well.
San Francisco and Oakland did not really engage in that same postwar annexation. The cities themselves remained fairly dense and transit-oriented. But suburban development occurred, too. Marin and San Mateo counties became lightly populated bedroom communities for commuters to San Francisco. The outer East Bay saw numerous suburban communities spring up.
You see the same thing happening now in 1950s suburbs where the previous owners didn't modernize as often as they should have. No one buying a house in 2015 wants to deal with an electrical panel with a handful of 15 amp breakers, that doesn't have central air, that has a kitchen that needs to be gutted. Not if they can afford better anyway. That's what housing obsolescence is. If you were picking up a rental car would you take the new Camry with bluetooth, dual zone a/c, cruise control, and a good sound system or would you take the 1974 Chevy Nova with vinyl seats, no a/c, and am/fm dial tune radio. It's not a tough decision for most people.
As an aside, since some live without any A/C, they're unlikely to care about having central A/C. Not just here where A/C is less needed, but I have friends living in New York City without A/C which has similar summers to Philadelphia. This twitter post claims that non-central A/C construction is rare outside of NYC:
As an aside, since some live without any A/C, they're unlikely to care about having central A/C. Not just here where A/C is less needed, but I have friends living in New York City without A/C which has similar summers to Philadelphia. This twitter post claims that non-central A/C construction is rare outside of NYC:
Having lived in both places, the summers in NYC can be hot and sticky but are by far more tolerable than those in Philly. While most people in Philly don't have central air - and a lot of people are skipping central air for the split ductless route - nearly everyone has at least one window unit. The summers in Philly just aren't sleepable otherwise.
At 24 Philly has double the days over 90° compared to NYC and the average July high temps + humidity give NYC an average heat index of around 89° compared to 98° in Philly. If you're in Manhattan or most of the hip parts of Brooklyn or Queens it's easy to forget that New York is a coastal city that enjoys the moderating effects of the ocean.
NYC population=8.4M X 55% who take transit = 4.6M
US population=316M. X 5% who take transit = 15M
So almost a third of all transit commuters in the US are in New York! But this mainly reflects the superior level of service in NYC.
Minor quibble...that 55% figure is for the percentage of workers in New York City over the age of 16 who commute by transit. According to the latest ACS five-year estimate, that's 55% of 3,665,397 or 2,039,766 transit commuters. NYC and the NYC metro represent 29.54% and 38.79 of all transit commuters in the U.S. (6,934,867), respectively.
Minor quibble...that 55% figure is for the percentage of workers in New York City over the age of 16 who commute by transit. According to the latest ACS five-year estimate, that's 55% of 3,665,397 or 2,039,766 transit commuters. NYC and the NYC metro represent 29.54% and 38.79 of all transit commuters in the U.S. (6,934,867), respectively.
and wouldn't that 55% just be for journey to work trips?
it disturbs me that theres one person per car and public transportation in the us sucks
Apparently there are some perks for having poor public transportation. A fundraising page was recently set up for a Detroit man who walked 21 miles to work each day. The goal was to raise $5,000 so the man could buy a new car, and the page has currently raised $215,000. The story was featured on CNN today:
and wouldn't that 55% just be for journey to work trips?
Yes. That's how transit share is determined. If you want to focus on all trips, then you'd probably need to consult the National Household Travel Survey.
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.
