1945: A Watershed (map, white flight, projects, streetcar)

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

the point I intended to make was that people don't act rationally, generally, when assessing prices/taxes. In regards to gasoline, people just accept, largely, that it costs X amount to fill up. A rational economic actor would say "Is filling up at X dollars the optimal decision or are there alternatives?"

Nobody reconsiders all their decisions at all times, rationally or otherwise. The burden of doing so is too great. At some point, they probably made a decision which took that "X" into account; if the X does not change significiantly, there is no reason to reconsider the decision.

So, yes, it is "irrational to change your behavior for no reason," but it is equally irrational to make decision A for no reason.

"Decision A" has already been made. Each fill up is merely an implementation of "decision A". Same goes for paying transit fares, or the electric bill, or any number of other things.

[pvande55]

Often the reason people don't carpool is a slight difference in schedules. For example, Joe and Bob live in the same neighborhood and their jobs are only five miles apart, though the distance from home is 25 miles. Bob doesn't want to ride with Joe because he starts and ends 15 minutes earlier. And the gas savings are not perceived as enough to make it worthwhile. But from a public standpoint that is an unnecessary vehicle at a time when road space is at a premium. That is one reason for incentive pricing, perhaps time of day.

[Katarina Witt]

As the OP, I see we have gotten way off topic. Early on, people asked just what my point was with all this (besides amusing myself on a long trip). I've thought about it some more.

Many people on this forum seem to look at the pre-WW II period as some sort of "golden age". One purpose of my post was to point out that this wasn't such a good time for everyone. Only the "top dogs" were living the way a lot of people think everyone lived then: in housing adequate enough to not be considered "substandard", with access via public transportation and/or walking to get them everywhere they needed to go, etc.

As I pointed out early on, a leading cause of death at the time was tuberculosis. A risk factor for TB is living in over-crowded conditions. Polio is a disease of inadequate sanitation. It is spread by the indelicate term "fecal-oral route". Inadequate sanitation combined with no vaccination brought about epidemics. 30% of homes w/o indoor plumbing would certainly lend itself to inadequate sanitation. Try as I did to actually find some definitions, I couldn't. I have read previously, however, that adequate space is considered no more than one person per room of the dwelling. For example, a four room dwelling (not 4 bedrooms) should contain no more than four people. North Beach Person posted some minimum standards in his area on that square footage forum, ie, 200 sf per person, I believe. That is not much.

There is another mistaken notion that the housing destroyed for "urban renewal" in the 50s was wonderful housing that cities just tore down "because", or "to build public works projects". In point of fact, the vast majority of that housing was woefully substandard. Just reading the snippets from the links I posted should illustrate that. I find it shocking that 20% (IIRC) of people within the city of Indianapolis had no indoor plumbing in 1953, mind you, not 1945! It is not surprising that the last cases of natural polio (not imported from another country in other words) in the US occurred in the Amish communities in Pennsylvania and other states. Many do not have indoor plumbing, and many do not immunize their kids.

The point I was trying to make with the Amish was that you can't stop change. Jakob Ammon didn't stop it, he just kept his followers from adopting most changes that occured after the 17th century. No one can stop it. You can't decide that 1945 was the epitome of all things and no changes from then on are any good.

The issue with the building of the suburbs is that there was enormous pent-up demand for housing, not just from WW II, but since the depression. Bascially no housing was built from about 1930 to 1945. Huge numbers of people were wanting to buy homes now that they finally had some money and the war was over. I don't think the demographers of the early 1940s predicted the baby boom, either. People had to live somewhere. The GI Bill made owning one's home affordable to many.

I have said before that the urban planners of 50 years hence may look at some of the things we're doing today and either laugh, or become exasperated. We spend a lot of time blaming the 50s urban planners for ghastly public housing projects and freeways in cities, but they were doing what they thought best.

[darkeconomist]

First, I apologize to Katiana for continuing on this tangent, but I feel that my points my have been misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Malloric

Except that that they don't make decisions for no reason. Which is why demand for gasoline is so much lower, which is why when gasoline was going up so rapidly demand for large SUVs and trucks dipped. Which is why when gasoline prices level-ed off demand for large SUVs and trucks normalized. There's these things called long- and short-run price elasticity, which are measures of how much demand varies with price. Oil has a low elasticity, meaning a change in price leads to very little change in demand. That doesn't mean people aren't behaving rationally. It just means they (a) need to get to work and (b) there aren't a whole lot of good alternatives.

To start with, I am well versed in elasticity. The inference I draw from your word choices suggest a tone of condescension. Obviously, I'm not going to be excited about dealing with anyone who talks to another like an arrogant adult to a child. But, maybe you didn't mean it that way.

Regardless, when you say

Originally Posted by Malloric

Except that that they don't make decisions for no reason.

and follow with

Originally Posted by Malloric

Which is why demand for gasoline is so much lower, which is why when gasoline was going up so rapidly demand for large SUVs and trucks dipped.

You seem to be responding to one part of what I wrote, then another, as if the two were the same.

Here's what I actually said:

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

the point I intended to make was that people don't act rationally, generally, when assessing prices/taxes. In regards to gasoline, people just accept, largely, that it costs X amount to fill up. A rational economic actor would say "Is filling up at X dollars the optimal decision or are there alternatives?"

Instead, people say "It used to be W to fill up, now it's X. I don't know if I can afford to fill up at X." What W or X represents in dollars is less relevant to how people make decisions than the difference between W and X.

So, yes, it is "irrational to change your behavior for no reason," but it is equally irrational to make decision A for no reason.

I believe you read the whole thing, which leaves me puzzled that you responded like you did. I do not understand where you got the idea that I said people don't respond to changes in prices (that is the only conclusion on can draw from the part of your post which I quoted), because I said, quite explicitly, that people do respond to changes in prices.

Instead, what I was saying, and nybbler actually responded to, was that people don't react, generally, to static prices (ie, to the price in a vacuum, cut off from past knowledge of prices) in a rational, holistic way. Without something to make an apples-to-apples comparison to (eg, current vs. past prices), people don't make informed, rational decisions, generally.

Originally Posted by nybbler

Nobody reconsiders all their decisions at all times, rationally or otherwise. The burden of doing so is too great. At some point, they probably made a decision which took that "X" into account; if the X does not change significiantly, there is no reason to reconsider the decision.

I am a strong proponent of taking the limitations of decision making in to account. I think, too often, people are treated as rational calculators instead of, well, human, when policymakers (or employers, etc.) make policies.

When you say "At some point, they probably made a decision which took that 'X' into account," I'd disagree that the original decision actually fully accounted for X. Much of the sub-prime foreclosure problem is proof of that (people bought more house than they could afford, which might have been no house at all).

But, as for "Nobody reconsiders all their decisions at all times, rationally or otherwise," that's beyond the scope of what I wrote. I was talking about the first decision, not reconsiderations of that original decision.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Many people on this forum seem to look at the pre-WW II period as some sort of "golden age". One purpose of my post was to point out that this wasn't such a good time for everyone. Only the "top dogs" were living the way a lot of people think everyone lived then: in housing adequate enough to not be considered "substandard", with access via public transportation and/or walking to get them everywhere they needed to go, etc.

I'm not sure if anyone claims the pre-WWII period as some sort of "golden age". The only common thought is a preference the neighborhood from, layout and density from pre-WWII compared to afterwards. I've seen many old neighborhoods. I live in one; it functions quite well with non-substandard housing. I'm requoting my previous post:

Originally Posted by nei

Either way, reasonable people can argue whether change in neighborhood form since the 1940s was an advance or not. Just because there have been many beneficial changes doesn't mean all changes must be good. It's not an either / or.

And regardless, there are still many, many (though it depends on the region of the country) people living in pre-1945 housing stock, including myself. Most of the people are not experiencing living conditions from 1945. The median age of Massachusetts housing stock is around the mid 1940s. Yet, Massachusetts ranks very highly among states in quality of life indicators (health, education, income, etc.)

I have read previously, however, that adequate space is considered no more than one person per room of the dwelling. For example, a four room dwelling (not 4 bedrooms) should contain no more than four people. North Beach Person posted some minimum standards in his area on that square footage forum, ie, 200 sf per person, I believe. That is not much.

I agree at least roughly with your minimum space standard, though I suspect I lived in something somewhat smaller when I first started posting regularly in this forum (no sympathy needed ). Now, it seems like we've gone to the other extreme. The average space per person in the US is often many times larger than that (see your poll), larger than just about any other developed country. The energy usage to heat and cool our homes is larger than it would be otherwise, and our cities are the most spread out in the world, with high transportation energy usage.

Sure, housing conditions were overcrowded in 1945. More housing needed to built. But what kind? Dense, more transit and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, low density mostly auto-centric neighborhoods? The choice was overwhelming to the latter. Perhaps that was what people wanted, but there was an alternate choice. Could it have been row houses with decent space and shared yards? Garden apartments? High rises? Here are images of two NYC metro developments to house returning veteran's families:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-D...0/DSC_1012.JPG

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...n/subu.650.jpg

I don't really care for either all that much. The first has shared green space you can't see. Both have done nicely, though the first one is now more expensive. Many other developed countries have chosen more dense post-1945. Their health standards are roughly similar, some even better, than the US.

There is another mistaken notion that the housing destroyed for "urban renewal" in the 50s was wonderful housing that cities just tore down "because", or "to build public works projects". In point of fact, the vast majority of that housing was woefully substandard.

Agree that a lot of urban housing was substandard, but the vast majority is hyperbole. I'll use examples from the two cities I'm most familiar with: New York City and Boston.

Manhattan had a large number of extremely cramped tenements with very little light (only an airshaft). The city and state selectively demolished parts to increase the amount of light and airlow. Some tenements were demolished for urban renewal, the first NYC was an example of this. People at the time thought that apartment complex was great and there was a long waiting list for them. Public housing was an improvement over the old tenements, the problem was (and is) they became concentrated with poor people with social problems. The city and state never managed to get rid of all the old tenements, and some are still here. No one really thinks highly of them. A one bedroom smaller than 200 sq ft looking out into a 3 foot airshaft isn't quaint.

Boston's tenement districts were the West End and North End. The conditions weren't as extreme as Manhattan tenements. The city government called the West End a slum and demolished it. The residents in West End didn't think it was a slum. The city governement purposefully reduced services to make it appear more slum-like. The similar North End gets few complaints about housing conditions and is now a desireable place to live. Likely the West End would have been similar, and the city lost a vibrant historic district.

You can't decide that 1945 was the epitome of all things and no changes from then on are any good.

That's a bit of a straw man. I haven't seen anyone saw that every change since 1945 was bad, just one particular change was bad. Just because most changes are good, doesn't mean all changes are good.

The issue with the building of the suburbs is that there was enormous pent-up demand for housing, not just from WW II, but since the depression. Bascially no housing was built from about 1930 to 1945.

Agreed, the issue is what type of development should have been built. As I said earlier for Northeastern cities, population density of new construction (doesn't mean house size decreased, 50s suburban homes were rather small) dropped by at least a factor of 3, often more like 6 compared to previous developments.

[nei]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

First, I apologize to Katiana for continuing on this tangent, but I feel that my points my have been misunderstood.

Since the OP appears to want to the discussion to continue on her original topic, and this is now completely off-topic perhaps it'd best if you start a new thread about this if you want to keep this going? I could move some of the old posts if necessary.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by nei

I'm not sure if anyone claims the pre-WWII period as some sort of "golden age". The only common thought is a preference the neighborhood from, layout and density from pre-WWII compared to afterwards.

I'd agree that it's not so much a yearning for the past, as for a chance to un-do the neighborhood development which led to the over-use of the automobile. You might not have meant that last part, though.

Originally Posted by nei

Since the OP appears to want to the discussion to continue on her original topic, and this is now completely off-topic perhaps it'd best if you start a new thread about this if you want to keep this going? I could move some of the old posts if necessary.

That shouldn't be necessary. I think I was quite explicit in my response and am satisfied that I made myself as clear as I know how to be. If I wasn't, or I was incorrect, then it is what it is.

[wburg]

If the OP's intent is to drive home the point that there was no magical transformation of American society in 1945 that transformed the construction industry from building everything wonderfully to building crud, then there is probably no point on continuing, since nobody believes that, and, so far as I can tell, nobody is even suggesting that. Statements like

You can't decide that 1945 was the epitome of all things and no changes from then on are any good.

are obviously true, but nobody has decided that, so who is the OP addressing?

[Malloric]

I am a strong proponent of taking the limitations of decision making in to account. I think, too often, people are treated as rational calculators instead of, well, human, when policymakers (or employers, etc.) make policies.

I'm a vehement opponent of the nanny state which assumes all people are too stupid to make their own decisions. We appear to be an insurmountable impasse and will have to just agree to disagree. I'm just not a fan of command economies and ivory tower policy makers.

When you say "At some point, they probably made a decision which took that 'X' into account," I'd disagree that the original decision actually fully accounted for X. Much of the sub-prime foreclosure problem is proof of that (people bought more house than they could afford, which might have been no house at all).

Thankfully there are policy makers that have ensured that I to will be paying for the bad decisions of others.

But, as for "Nobody reconsiders all their decisions at all times, rationally or otherwise," that's beyond the scope of what I wrote. I was talking about the first decision, not reconsiderations of that original decision.

Exactly what is the first position? In the first position, man didn't even know about gasoline. He hadn't even figured out fire yet.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Katiana

There is another mistaken notion that the housing destroyed for "urban renewal" in the 50s was wonderful housing that cities just tore down "because", or "to build public works projects". In point of fact, the vast majority of that housing was woefully substandard. Just reading the snippets from the links I posted should illustrate that. I find it shocking that 20% (IIRC) of people within the city of Indianapolis had no indoor plumbing in 1953, mind you, not 1945! It is not surprising that the last cases of natural polio (not imported from another country in other words) in the US occurred in the Amish communities in Pennsylvania and other states. Many do not have indoor plumbing, and many do not immunize their kids.

Stuy-town in NYC, for example.
Renewal wasn't just tearing down neighborhoods to run freeways cities in. The term isn't much used these days, it's usually called Redevelopment now. Different name, different priorities, same concept.

The point I was trying to make with the Amish was that you can't stop change. Jakob Ammon didn't stop it, he just kept his followers from adopting most changes that occured after the 17th century. No one can stop it. You can't decide that 1945 was the epitome of all things and no changes from then on are any good.

Well, one can be a Luddite, just don't expect the world to be. And yet here we are where old neighborhoods are just good and new neighborhoods are just bad because that's the way it is. Everyone should want to live in an old neighborhood or if not then a new neighborhood modeled after an old neighborhood, and if they don't then they're wrong because that's not how things used to be.

I have said before that the urban planners of 50 years hence may look at some of the things we're doing today and either laugh, or become exasperated. We spend a lot of time blaming the 50s urban planners for ghastly public housing projects and freeways in cities, but they were doing what they thought best.

Exactly. My prediction is that in 50 years they'll look back and wonder why on earth we decided to perpetuate autodependent suburbia into the 21st century by running public transit to it. Autotopia is "unsustainable," so we'll make it sustainable by giving people the option of using even more costly and way less effective public transportation to keep on living in unsustainable autopia.