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 can agree with 1945 as a watershed. At the end of World War II, a quiet conspiracy involving our own government and the automobile industry resulted in streetcar systems all around the country being shut down and demolished...so that they could be replaced with the modern highway system. This, in turn, facilitated the growth of suburbs. And the rest was, as they say, history.
You could set whatever date you want. I chose 1945, because houses built before 1945 seem to be the "gold standard" on this forum for what acceptable housing is. Everything else, for the last 68 years, is "post-war" housing, which supposedly sucks. In actuality, pre-1945 really means pre-1929, especially in the midwest and the east, which were hit hard by the Depression.
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)
It wasn't a radical shift of any sort--World War II is just a convenient breakpoint for an ongoing set of social processes. Fred314x's assumption about replacing streetcars with freeways after World War II is not correct--the company most associated with this process, National City Lines, started a decade before World War II, and the lobbying interests promoting highways got their start around 1910--the Lincoln Highway opened in 1913. The first modern highways appeared in the late 1930s. Public policy that promoted a preference for single-family housing on new development over multi-family housing in existing neighborhoods was part and parcel of Great Depression era programs like the FHA from the mid-1930s. And for the most part, new highways didn't run to places streetcars already ran, they ran to new suburbs that never had streetcar service. Los Angeles' Pacific Electric (aka the "Red Car") was an electric interurban, not a local streetcar line, and most interurban passenger companies (except ones in the biggest cities like PE) had stopped passenger service before World War II, due to the Depression's effects on passenger traffic and the growing network of intercity highways.
About house design--that, too, was a gradual shift, from very vertically oriented, dense styles (Gothic Revival, Italianate, Queen Anne) intended for narrow lots or row houses to gradually broader but still boxy styles (Colonial/Classical Revival foursquares and Craftsman bungalows) intended for streetcar suburbs, to very broad and flat designs intended for broader lots (California bungalows and Spanish Colonial Revival on the west coast, Prairie Style on the east and midwest) culminating in ranch houses, with very broad lots and more accommodation for driveways and garages which started gaining traction as a "high style" design in the late 1930s. The difference in materials was the starkest difference, as JR_C points out--the massive demand for housing in the postwar years (not immediately in 1945, but gradually over the next decade) necessitated cheaper, simpler forms of mass construction to provide a supply of adequate, if lower quality, housing in quick order.
Well, I've mutiquoted just about everything that was posted since I last posted yesterday, a little less than 24 hours ago. Since that would make a very unwieldly post, I'll break it up a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
No, but I see nothing wrong I saying I dislike much of what was built post-1945, both from the style and (more so) layout. As well as the decline in city neighborhoods that I like (or at least would if they hadn't declined).
Actually, not much was built between 1929 and 1945, so you are limiting yourself to homes that are 83 years old or older at this point in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
I understand. But some people have an attitude of superiority, like they have finer character. That's what bugs me. You know, like the people who call LPs "vinyl".
Regards
Well, yes! I brought this up a couple days ago. It got the thread closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Well it's an internet forum. If I don't care for those houses, I don't see why I shouldn't be free to complain about them. And more importantly, why on earth couldn't they have more pedestrian-friendly and less autocentric?
(and also see the two posts I made on the subject that linked a few posts up — no one has really acknowledged my points).
Dunno much about Chicago, but I do know in many older cities, postwar suburbs that were initially built to accomodate a growing population of the metro then instead started to replace parts of the city as white flight starte.
Don't get so worked up about people not responding to your stuff. It happens to all of us. I would have thought there were more people interested in some of my comments about Omaha from earlier in this thread, but no one really seems to care. Anyway, regarding "white flight", again, nothing is as simple as it seems. Remember, it was Boston city in the 70s that had riots against integration of the city schools. Boston busing crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The suburbs are an attractive option to many. They were especially attractive to those in the situations you describe back then.
Just because I don't want to live in one doesn't mean I begrudge my purple-heart earning grandfather for leaving a small apartment in the city for a suburb.
You see the difference right? We can examine the effects of suburbanization without being offensive to our elders, can't we?
It doesn't seem like it's the "elders" who get bashed for living in the burbs. It's the "Boomers", and also Gen X who are raising kids in the burbs now who seem to get all the crap. This anti-suburb thing that I sense on this forum has nothing to do with the elderly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
No, there are not. Nobody is trying to kick the Greatest Generation out of the suburbs (except Death--the youngest World War II veterans are in their 80s now, so there aren't that many still around.) Nobody is even saying they are bad people for having lived there. But many adults seeking homes in the present day have little interest in living in a neighborhood exactly like their grandfather's house, just as the World War II veterans weren't as interested in living in the same neighborhoods as their parents or grandparents. They are looking at neighborhoods that physically resemble ones more like the World War II generation's parents called home--but with a lot of improvements since their time, from cleaner air to Internet access.
Ha! I said quite some time ago (maybe it was on that gawd-awful Pittsburgh forum, come to think of it) that a lot of this "back to the city" movement was a rebellion against one's parents. EVERY generation does it. Pete Seeger (mentioned below) was a guru for a lot of Boomers. WE were all going to live in urban or rural communes; certainly not in "the suburbs" like our parents. WE weren't going to be so materialistic, so racist, so this, so that, yada, yada. Some joker over there tried to deny that, but I remember it well. We Boomers abhorred the burbs. . . .till a lot of us ended up moving there ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Of course we can. But some folks here seem to think that advocating for alternatives is tantamount to throwing Grandpa bodily out of his split-level onto the street.
Again, I get no sense of an age thing regarding the anti-suburb sentiments on this board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
the ticky tack phrase was popularised by Pete Seeger Little Boxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia who WAS a revolutionary, and disliked the social and political mores of suburbia more than the architecture. I don't know, but I bet by now he has come out against gentrification.
Anyway, its now 2012. People born after WW2 are facing retirement. While as historians its worthy to know the motivations for the suburban migration, I don't think we need to worry too much about insulting the 'greatest generation" - just as we can critique late 19th century urban developments without worrying about insulting veterans of the Army of the Potomac.
I can agree with 1945 as a watershed. At the end of World War II, a quiet conspiracy involving our own government and the automobile industry resulted in streetcar systems all around the country being shut down and demolished...so that they could be replaced with the modern highway system. This, in turn, facilitated the growth of suburbs. And the rest was, as they say, history.
Oh, for G*d's sake! Elvis lives! Bush blew up the levees during Hurricane Katrina! Obama was born in Kenya!
Anyway, regarding "white flight", again, nothing is as simple as it seems. Remember, it was Boston city in the 70s that had riots against integration of the city schools. Boston busing crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
well yeah, seeing as they were working class folks who had not fled to the suburbs, and they felt put upon by white liberals (including judge Garrity and the editorialists at the Globe) who lived in white suburbs. And the schools were centers of their insular communities.
well yeah, seeing as they were working class folks who had not fled to the suburbs, and they felt put upon by white liberals (including judge Garrity and the editorialists at the Globe) who lived in white suburbs. And the schools were centers of their insular communities.
Excuses, excuses, excuses! The ones who moved to the suburbs suposedly to avoid the same thing (school desegregation) are considered by many on this board as total racists. No excuses for them!
Actually, not much was built between 1929 and 1945, so you are limiting yourself to homes that are 83 years old or older at this point in time.
Yes, I realize that. Though more areas built by then rather than homes. Some older areas have had new infill built since then. While I assume you're right that little was built in the 30s, I'd be curious who much building was done and in what regions. I've seen Zillow claim some houses were built in the 30s, but I'm dubious of its accuracy.
Quote:
Well, yes! I brought this up a couple days ago. It got the thread closed.
It was going to get closed anyway. I should have closed it earlier. I didn't see much content there. Talking about the attitudes of groups of people, especially stereotypes I don't feel belongs here.
Quote:
Don't get so worked up about people not responding to your stuff. It happens to all of us. I would have thought there were more people interested in some of my comments about Omaha from earlier in this thread, but no one really seems to care. Anyway, regarding "white flight", again, nothing is as simple as it seems. Remember, it was Boston city in the 70s that had riots against integration of the city schools. Boston busing crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I read your Omaha comments, but I didn't have anything to say. The two quoted links I mentioned repeatedly because I felt was what was missing for the OP and much of the thread — the change in urban form. I agree white flight was complicated, I need to read more and think about before writing about it in any detail.
Excuses, excuses, excuses! The ones who moved to the suburbs suposedly to avoid the same thing (school desegregation) are considered by many on this board as total racists. No excuses for them!
I don't really get your argument there. What is being excused in the quoted post?
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.
I brought this up a couple days ago. It got the thread closed.
