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.
To be sure, it was the expansion of highways that allowed them to commute, and by extension allowed the suburbs to exist.
The so-called "urban renewal" that was in vogue in the 1960s only hastened the process of urban decay and, in short, helped further the suburban boom. Who knows, maybe that was the ultimate goal. Developers certainly made a lot of money building both subdivisions in the suburbs and instant-slum housing projects in the city. And this country certainly is not above throwing away a city or an entire region in the name of economic progress.
Make no mistake about it, the shift to the suburbs was a result of the largest social engineering endeavor in American history. While this does not make suburban living inherently a bad thing, it makes it grossly disingenuous for anyone to characterize efforts to cities more livable as social engineering, which seems to be popular in some circles, or at least to do so without taking into account the history of suburbia's rise.
I don't think it was social engineering. The most enlightened "urban planners" of the day supported urban renewal. People were doing what they thought was the right thing. Some of these cities where there was extensive UR were a mess at that time.
I strongly agree with most of jfre81's post. But I agree with katiana that there wasn't some malevolent force behind the rise of suburbia and urban renewal. They were just the unintended consequences of government intervention.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, Katiana.
Right, I kind of covered that. 1960s-style "urban renewal" was the best thing that ever happened to the suburbs.
Well, thank you very much for that little piece of philosophy that I had never heard before, jfre81. "Scuse me for being in a snarky mood, must be this hot weather.
Some day, we may look back at all this "gentrification", TODs, and the like and say "what were they thinking?"
Some day, we may look back at all this "gentrification", TODs, and the like and say "what were they thinking?"
Interesting. I can't say that couldn't happen, but what bad can come out of making something out of a decaying city core?
Katiana, if you don't want your sensibilities hurt, it would be prudent on your part to abandon the idea that you must choose one or the other before engaging further in this debate. Can you give me a compelling reason why everyone must live either in a dense city core or in a sprawling subdivision in the suburbs? This is America. I thought we can choose what we want. How does the existence of one threaten the other? Do you think they cannot form, for lack of a less trite term, a synergy that creates a metropolitan center with something to offer for everyone?
Interesting. I can't say that couldn't happen, but what bad can come out of making something out of a decaying city core?
I think that's what the urban planners of the 60s said about urban renewal.
Quote:
Katiana, if you don't want your sensibilities hurt, it would be prudent on your part to abandon the idea that you must choose one or the other before engaging further in this debate. Can you give me a compelling reason why everyone must live either in a dense city core or in a sprawling subdivision in the suburbs? This is America. I thought we can choose what we want. How does the existence of one threaten the other? Do you think they cannot form, for lack of a less trite term, a synergy that creates a metropolitan center with something to offer for everyone?
Please point out where I ever said that, jfre81. In re: choices, one does have to live somewhere. I guess there are a few, who, as has always been, have a "country estate" and a "pied a terre" in the city, but most of us have one home and it has to be somewhere.
I think that's what the urban planners of the 60s said about urban renewal.
They were really saying something along the lines of "let's see just how fast we can empty the inner city of the middle class." Do you see entire neighborhoods being bulldozed to make way for massive public housing projects for the poorest of the poor? If not, then we're in an apples/oranges comparison exercise and, frankly, it's useless.
Answer my question or ignore it. I'll sleep just as well tonight either way. Like I said, we have choices.
Quote:
Please point out where I ever said that, jfre81.
If your feelings on this are not what I described, then your baseless comparisons between modern urban developments and misguided decisions from 50 years ago would betray that.
Wow. An awful lot of analyzing for something simple.
Some people like living in dense areas with lots of people and traffic, and lots of things close by, so there are urban areas.
Some people like living in less dense areas, with bigger lots, lower crime and a slower pace, so there are suburbs.
It's not rocket science. There's nothing wrong with urban or suburban. It's just a matter of what you like for yourself.
Believe it or not, as much as some people may not like urban or suburban, there are people who feel the complete opposite. No one is wrong for what they like.
They were really saying something along the lines of "let's see just how fast we can empty the inner city of the middle class." Do you see entire neighborhoods being bulldozed to make way for massive public housing projects for the poorest of the poor? If not, then we're in an apples/oranges comparison exercise and, frankly, it's useless.
Answer my question or ignore it. I'll sleep just as well tonight either way. Like I said, we have choices.
If your feelings on this are not what I described, then your baseless comparisons between modern urban developments and misguided decisions from 50 years ago would betray that.
Yes, there were entire neighborhoods of substandard housing that housed the poorest of the poor razed to build public housing projects to house the poorest of the poor.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying I'm lying? Are you saying I"m stupid? Are you saying that somehow the urban planners of today are endowed with greater powers to do what is "right" than those of 50 years ago? Please elaborate and quit being so condescending.
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.
