Why Did America Destroy Its Great Cities? (Commentary)

[M II A II R II K]

Why Did America Destroy Its Great Cities?


8/2/11

By Frank Gruber



Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-..._b_916438.html

.....

What I'm asking is why, not how. There is a vast literature about urban renewal, suburban sprawl, the building of the freeways, the relocation of jobs out of cities into suburbs and exurbs (and out of the country), etc., but that work is about how the cities were destroyed. Little has been written about the causes of the destruction, yet I suspect that in 50 years that will be the question that attracts the interest of historians.

- They will want to know why Americans allowed their cities to become replicas of bombed-out cities in Europe or Japan, why they bulldozed good housing stock or let it burn, why they tore down substantial downtown buildings and replaced them with parking lots, why they ran freeways across and through stable neighborhoods and valuable real estate, why they bankrupted municipal governments and allowed great school systems to fall into disarray, why they drove middle-class residents out and enticed them to leave.

- I don't purport to have definitive answers, but in considering the question, I've identified certain "suspects," certain factors that could have contributed. In no particular order, and without claiming this list is exhaustive or definitive:

Cultural bias against the city.

In Europe during the same period of economic and technological change cities largely retained their primacy for the middle and upper classes, while the suburbs became the home of the working-class and poor. In the U.S., the single-family house in a faux rural setting became the norm for the middle-class, and even in metropolitan areas that remained relatively prosperous the middle-class largely abandoned central cities. To say that suburban sprawl happened because of favorable governmental policies only begs the question why those were the policies. Did they reflect a bias against cities, rooted in Jeffersonian rural populism?

Changing demographics and racial dynamics.

Can urban destruction be separated from the rural revolutions (and federal agricultural policies and practices) that sent black farmers to the cities? Or the changes south of the border that sent Mexican peasants to American cities? Many destructive policies were a direct response to these migrations. Prior to World War II, American cities had absorbed wave after wave of immigrants, going back to the Irish in the early 19th century. Each wave was discriminated against, but the cities, and ultimately the immigrants, flourished. Were our cities destroyed because of racism?

Changes in transportation or other technologies, in particular the impact of the automobile.

Many of the more obvious physical manifestations of the destruction of cities are the freeways and the parking lots that replaced so much of the productive urban fabric. Equally dramatic was the relocation of jobs away from ports and railheads to freeways and airports. Yet although America led the way in "automobilization," there are by now many societies around the world that have accommodated mass ownership of cars without destroying their old cities.

Capitalism.

As argued in the anti-gentrification writings of Neil Smith (The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City), urban decline through disinvestment should be seen as an expected outcome of capitalism. But then the question is why America, unlike other capitalist societies, did not choose to allocate, or failed in allocating, resources to counteract urban disinvestment.

A failure in politics, ideology or management.

..... The long-term lure of the frontier. Instead of particular causes that arose in the 20th century, might the destruction of the cities be the result of the acceleration and culmination of the long-term movement in the U.S. of capital -- in search of cheaper labor and land -- from the East and North to the South and West (and now overseas)? (This would still beg the question why the U.S. has had a "throwaway" economy.) I am sure there are other possible causes worth consideration and study. Whatever the causes, there are more than historical reasons to understand why America destroyed its cities. Many cities have mounted counter-attacks over the past three decades against urban destruction and at times these have been at least somewhat successful. Hopefully these trends are accelerating. But I suspect that it would help understand what needs to be done to revive cities if we understand better the causes of their destruction.

.....

[Steely Dan]

in general, americans are really, really bad at sharing. human beings in general are bad at sharing, but americans take it to a whole other level. then throw racial paranoia into the mix, and the desire to share plummets even further. cities cannot be healthy, functioning places unless the citizenry buys into the notion of a public sphere and the idea that on some level "we're all in this together". once those foundational elements began to crumble, american cities were fucked.

[ametz]

[QUOTE=Steely Dan;5367983]in general, americans are really, really bad at sharing. QUOTE]

+1

The U.S. is probably the most individualistic major society the earth has ever known, and as soon as cars & expressways allowed us to flee to the burbs and not have to share walls, fled we did. And I agree that racial politics accelerated this trend, no doubt.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in general, americans are really, really bad at sharing. human beings in general are bad at sharing, but americans take it to a whole other level. then throw racial paranoia into the mix, and the desire to share plummets even further. cities cannot be healthy, functioning places unless the citizenry buys into the notion of a public sphere and the idea that on some level "we're all in this together". once those foundational elements began to crumble, american cities were fucked.

I really wish there was a "Like" feature on SSP. I think you really do nail it regarding this topic.

[kool maudit]

there is absolutely a cultural and racial element to that that can't be ignored... but perhaps that's also just the fate of a new world country once it hits a certain population.

[pj3000]

Places just get "used up" and the US has always had plenty of room to build new places to "use up".

Manifest Destiny, my friends... in all its different forms. Once we all got cars and highways after WWII, Manifest Destiny was made that much easier.

[M II A II R II K]

Trains first connected the country for transport and commerce, but it didn't prompt suburbs at the time.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Trains first connected the country for transport and commerce, but it didn't prompt suburbs at the time.

nonsense. chicagoland is dotted with dozens upon dozens of prewar commuter rail suburbs that sprang-up in the late 19th/early 20th centuries along the many rail road lines that radiated outwards from the city. post-war "automobilization" merely exacerbated and accelerated a process that was already in full-swing.

[M II A II R II K]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

nonsense. chicagoland is dotted with dozens upon dozens of prewar commuter rail suburbs that sprang-up in the late 19th/early 20th centuries along the many rail road lines that radiated outwards from the city. post-war "automobilization" merely exacerbated and accelerated a process that was already in full-swing.

The time period can also be critical. London used to have many outlying towns that have since been encroached upon and made part of the city and the outlying areas as well. Although that would have mainly taken place during pre-war times so the infill in between them would be mostly a pre-war setup.

I guess NYC metropolitan area would serve as a good comparison when it comes to it's outlying areas but then there was the tendency to decimate city centres with highways like what happened in Hartford, CT.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Trains first connected the country for transport and commerce, but it didn't prompt suburbs at the time.

Are you joking? They most certainly did. Todays inner suburbs were yesterday's quiet, wooded country homes and that was entirely facilitated by train. Riverside, IL was the country's first planned subdivision (designed by Frederick Law Olmstead), and that was just after the Chicago fire. At the time communities like that and Oak Park, Evanston, etc were WAY "out there" and it was still mostly undeveloped swamp and prairie. Even areas within what is now Chicago proper were at one time commuter bedroom communities. The Ravenswood neighborhood for example which is only 8 miles north of downtown was at one time all farmland. It was purchased by a bunch of real estate developers who persuaded the Chicago & North Western Railroad to build a stop there and it was designed as a "resort" type getaway.

Developments didnt just appear in these old midwest/northeast cities magically. People needed a way to get to them, and that was locomotive.

[gtbassett]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The Ravenswood neighborhood for example which is only 8 miles north of downtown was at one time all farmland. It was purchased by a bunch of real estate developers who persuaded the Chicago & North Western Railroad to build a stop there and it was designed as a "resort" type getaway.

Developments didnt just appear in these old midwest/northeast cities magically. People needed a way to get to them, and that was locomotive.

You literally just described my hometown. Sonoma California got it's first major population boom from the rich and powerful taking the trains up from San Francisco and elsewhere to come enjoy the resort hot springs in the valley. The majority of the housing stock in "The Springs" (an unincorporated area of Sonoma Valley directly north of the city of Sonoma) is all 1900s-1920s cottages on tiny narrow winding streets built as summer homes. I don't necessarily consider it sprawl because in comparison to any development that has happened in the valley since WW2, these neighborhoods are dense and extremely pedestrian friendly. The only way to access this area back in the day was via train.

Describing all this makes me realize I should really get back there one of these weekends and take some pictures for a photo tour, the railroad days of the North Bay were a fascinating time, many railtowns even within the tiny Sonoma Valley boomed and busted in a matter of decades, but the remnants remain.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

The fact that we constantly preach about how American's are pessimistic and will never buy into city-living is the exact problem.

If you tell yourself that you're all these bad things, after a while, you'll come to believe them.

Why not talk about the advances toward making city-living more fun, exciting, and healthy? That's the kind of stuff that gets people excited and interested in living in cities.

[Dr Nevergold]

^It isn't that we tell ourselves that, it is that the entire marketing machine relating to housing, transportation, and our centers of job creation have centered life around a suburban model. No urban center seriously grows in an urban direction these days in America. Even "urban growth" darlings like Portland are intensely suburban on the whole. The difference is, in Portland, the entire metro region has transit that reaches the more walkable, planned single family homes that reside out in Hillsboro or Gresham, whereas most cities could care less about transit investments in those outer suburbs... Single family homes are just the thing to have in American society. To admire living in condos or flats is a foreign concept here, or for the less well off.

The 'problem' with America and urbanity is that Americans have identified living in an urban setting without your detached single family home to be of a lesser class of people, to be less established, to be less of a human being. American identity at it's core is not going to change, it is how our society has functioned since the beginning. If you want an urban lifestyle, there are a few choices. We have New York and Chicago and San Francisco (and these are truly grand, world class cities), but the costs are very prohibitive generally speaking.

There are no real "second tier" urban centers in America. I love Portland to death, I even lived there from 2007-2008 before I moved back east to Pittsburgh that fall. But even cities like Portland are largely a sea of suburban single family homes with a small village in the center and a few new urbanist dots along the outside. It isn't what I'd call truly urban, so America really doesn't have many second tier cities that offer the same urban experience you could get even in a city of 300,000 in Europe. We are forced to move to the most expensive cities to get that real, genuine active urban lifestyle.

America is what it is... It isn't pessimism to call a spade a spade, especially when most Americans enjoy this suburban and exurban lifestyle. There is nothing more cool for *most* Americans than buying a hot new car and a new house. We're the misfits in a nation of suburbia on SSP, keep that in mind.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

^It isn't that we tell ourselves that, it is that the entire marketing machine relating to housing, transportation, and our centers of job creation have centered life around a suburban model. No urban center seriously grows in an urban direction these days in America. Even "urban growth" darlings like Portland are intensely suburban on the whole. The difference is, in Portland, the entire metro region has transit that reaches the more walkable, planned single family homes that reside out in Hillsboro or Gresham, whereas most cities could care less about transit investments in those outer suburbs... Single family homes are just the thing to have in American society. To admire living in condos or flats is a foreign concept here, or for the less well off.

The 'problem' with America and urbanity is that Americans have identified living in an urban setting without your detached single family home to be of a lesser class of people, to be less established, to be less of a human being. American identity at it's core is not going to change, it is how our society has functioned since the beginning. If you want an urban lifestyle, there are a few choices. We have New York and Chicago and San Francisco (and these are truly grand, world class cities), but the costs are very prohibitive generally speaking.

There are no real "second tier" urban centers in America. I love Portland to death, I even lived there from 2007-2008 before I moved back east to Pittsburgh that fall. But even cities like Portland are largely a sea of suburban single family homes with a small village in the center and a few new urbanist dots along the outside. It isn't what I'd call truly urban, so America really doesn't have many second tier cities that offer the same urban experience you could get even in a city of 300,000 in Europe. We are forced to move to the most expensive cities to get that real, genuine active urban lifestyle.

America is what it is... It isn't pessimism to call a spade a spade, especially when most Americans enjoy this suburban and exurban lifestyle. There is nothing more cool for *most* Americans than buying a hot new car and a new house. We're the misfits in a nation of suburbia on SSP, keep that in mind.

I dunno, most people I know are getting tired of commuting 20 miles to their workplaces and looking to move to locations closer to cities. While I agree that generally Americans are in love with suburbs, having a yard, and being able to drive around, I simply don't see this overwhelming number of people that are bogged down in their love of the typical commute.

Maybe it's just that Alabama is so far behind on the urban timeline that there's no where to go but up.

Either way, I still don't think it helps the situation to tell Americans that they're urban haters. I mean, I think we all know how gullible Americans are when it comes to what is said on TV or the internet. The average American just wants to be like the average American. So, when they see that "the average American" is a "suburb loving, city hating, gasoline fiend," they're probably gonna end up being the same way.

Other people's opinions have more to do with the average persons beliefs than you think. Even though crime rates are dropping in my area, people are constantly online, commenting on news stories, about how the crime rate is skyrocketing. Saying, "I would never go into downtown, it's so dangerous!" even though downtown is one of the safest parts of town.

Bottom line is people are stupid. If they read online about the virtues of the suburb, cars, and sprawl, they're probably going to think that's the way to go. The best way to counteract that is preach the virtues of city living, not to around, arms flailing in the air say, "Bahhhh! America hates cities, bahhh!" Not that anyone's doing that, it's just a comical image in my head.

Anyways, I say combat all their stupidity with talk about what's good about cities. They're safer, more efficient, less stressful, culturally rich, and offer more recreational opportunities. Most people don't know those things, and it's because most people are senselessly convinced that cities are awful, dirty places.

[BG918]

I think race played the largest role. Whites and blacks did not mix and when they were finally forced to during the desegregation era those with the means (the whites) went to a place without blacks (the suburbs). New expressways, the destruction of inner city transit systems by GM, crumbling infrastructure, the post WWII era ideal for the new and modern, ample land outside American cities, etc. all played supporting roles...

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by tredici

I dunno, most people I know are getting tired of commuting 20 miles to their workplaces and looking to move to locations closer to cities. While I agree that generally Americans are in love with suburbs, having a yard, and being able to drive around, I simply don't see this overwhelming number of people that are bogged down in their love of the typical commute.

Maybe it's just that Alabama is so far behind on the urban timeline that there's no where to go but up.

Either way, I still don't think it helps the situation to tell Americans that they're urban haters. I mean, I think we all know how gullible Americans are when it comes to what is said on TV or the internet. The average American just wants to be like the average American. So, when they see that "the average American" is a "suburb loving, city hating, gasoline fiend," they're probably gonna end up being the same way.

Other people's opinions have more to do with the average persons beliefs than you think. Even though crime rates are dropping in my area, people are constantly online, commenting on news stories, about how the crime rate is skyrocketing. Saying, "I would never go into downtown, it's so dangerous!" even though downtown is one of the safest parts of town.

Bottom line is people are stupid. If they read online about the virtues of the suburb, cars, and sprawl, they're probably going to think that's the way to go. The best way to counteract that is preach the virtues of city living, not to around, arms flailing in the air say, "Bahhhh! America hates cities, bahhh!" Not that anyone's doing that, it's just a comical image in my head.

Anyways, I say combat all their stupidity with talk about what's good about cities. They're safer, more efficient, less stressful, culturally rich, and offer more recreational opportunities. Most people don't know those things, and it's because most people are senselessly convinced that cities are awful, dirty places.

I think you are actually hinting at what I've already said: the American public is hit with a massive multi-industry marketing message that the only real honorable lifestyle is the suburban or exurban lifestyle. Both urban and rural lifestyles are lambasted. Truly rural lifestyles come from making a life off of the land, not buying a far-out ranch and driving 50+ miles to a job every day and using your ranch as a symbol or image to project.

We are in a society that basically says that you are crap and less of a human being for not owning a home and owning a nice car. As much as the car is a utility, in America it is a status symbol. We Americans do this more than any other society. Drive a Prius or Insight like me? You're instantly characterized as a certain type of person. Drive a huge SUV? You're stereotyped as something else. Drive a shitty car? You're less of a person...

We judge people in our society by our cars more than any other on the Earth. I see a strong difference just between Canada and the US, Canadians largely look at car ownership the same way (who isn't impressed if you can afford a brand new, $30k car?), but there isn't nearly as much disdain for someone who uses transit and lives without a car. Right across the board, even down to smaller towns, transit use is many times more acceptable (mid-sized cities like London, Ontario have transit use many times above American metros of well over a million people). And Canada isn't even a "transit nation" in my view, it is largely a car culture just like us.

America just takes this to the extreme on the car thing, then we can get into the single family housing issue. Americans are hyper obsessed and many think it is a God-given right to own a single family house. It is the ideal of most citizens in America. Marketing tells us you're supposed to own a home, from the day we're born to the day we die. You aren't told that it is healthy and good to own a condo or to rent a flat in a city that isn't in a detached environment.

This isn't about being negative, it is about pointing out that the corporate interests for home ownership are huge, the corporate interests for selling cars is huge. They trump the urban lifestyle we on SSP like to promote.

We haven't even began to discuss how corporate America has largely started building office construction in suburban environments, refusing to locate centers of work around transit hubs and urban centers that actually allow you to live car-free. Lots of office space in America is built to avoid the urban lifestyle - not embrace it - so that you're required to drive to lunch or drive to the office and back.

The entire system is against urban living. It is very hard to find employment in an urban setting and live in rental or condo construction along transit lines.

[iheartthed]

One thing he didn't mention is the structure of government typical in most areas of the U.S. In Europe, there are typically fewer layers of government between the cities and the national government. In the largest of European cities, the city is typically the next level of administration after the federal level. In the U.S. it is quite the opposite: there is only one city government directly beneath the federal, and most cities are separated by 3 degrees (state->county->city). What this has done is diluted the power of the central cities to address inefficiencies of suburbanization... And simultaneously, since there is so much abstraction between central cities and their state government, this structure has given outlying communities much more political power than their relative sizes. I don't think it's too much of a coincidence that some of the strongest central cities in America are also contiguous with the county/counties where the city resides (New York, San Francisco), or serve as the capitals of their state (Boston, Washington).

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

I think you are actually hinting at what I've already said: the American public is hit with a massive multi-industry marketing message that the only real honorable lifestyle is the suburban or exurban lifestyle. Both urban and rural lifestyles are lambasted. Truly rural lifestyles come from making a life off of the land, not buying a far-out ranch and driving 50+ miles to a job every day and using your ranch as a symbol or image to project.

We are in a society that basically says that you are crap and less of a human being for not owning a home and owning a nice car. As much as the car is a utility, in America it is a status symbol. We Americans do this more than any other society. Drive a Prius or Insight like me? You're instantly characterized as a certain type of person. Drive a huge SUV? You're stereotyped as something else. Drive a shitty car? You're less of a person...

We judge people in our society by our cars more than any other on the Earth. I see a strong difference just between Canada and the US, Canadians largely look at car ownership the same way (who isn't impressed if you can afford a brand new, $30k car?), but there isn't nearly as much disdain for someone who uses transit and lives without a car. Right across the board, even down to smaller towns, transit use is many times more acceptable (mid-sized cities like London, Ontario have transit use many times above American metros of well over a million people). And Canada isn't even a "transit nation" in my view, it is largely a car culture just like us.

America just takes this to the extreme on the car thing, then we can get into the single family housing issue. Americans are hyper obsessed and many think it is a God-given right to own a single family house. It is the ideal of most citizens in America. Marketing tells us you're supposed to own a home, from the day we're born to the day we die. You aren't told that it is healthy and good to own a condo or to rent a flat in a city that isn't in a detached environment.

This isn't about being negative, it is about pointing out that the corporate interests for home ownership are huge, the corporate interests for selling cars is huge. They trump the urban lifestyle we on SSP like to promote.

We haven't even began to discuss how corporate America has largely started building office construction in suburban environments, refusing to locate centers of work around transit hubs and urban centers that actually allow you to live car-free. Lots of office space in America is built to avoid the urban lifestyle - not embrace it - so that you're required to drive to lunch or drive to the office and back.

The entire system is against urban living. It is very hard to find employment in an urban setting and live in rental or condo construction along transit lines.

Nice, we agree. Sorry, I've been in New Orleans for the past three days and just woke up from a post NOLA 20 hour sleep.

Anyways, I totally agree with that second to last paragraph. It royally pisses me off when developers in Birmingham announce they're building a brand new office building in a suburban county. Usually, they're not even towers, they're just sprawling campuses that don't even take adequate advantage of the land.

It's gonna be interesting to see how we take care of the future of suburban areas. When you look at it, you have some cities like Birmingham, Louisville, or maybe Memphis (that one might be a stretch) which have grown, but not so tremendously that their infrastructure couldn't keep pace (to an extent). THEN, you have cities like Atlanta, Phoenix, and Charlotte that have absolutely exploded, and who's leaders are stuck wonder how they're going to fix this problem that could potentially destroy their city's economy.

Those cities that have grown more slowly in the past decade have a bit of an opportunity to really bring in an "urban growth revival." Their suburbs are a bit more dense, while the explosive growers have suburbs that could potentially have cotton fields in the front yards of the houses.

I remember an article in this forum that had an article that said the Charlotte was proving that America is still capable of building "great cities." I'm not attacking Charlotte or anything, I have family up there. But, I notice that its suburbs are SO spread out. My aunt lives in Concord, which is a relatively big suburb north of downtown. A roughly 20 to 30 minute drive north in light traffic. I found myself thinking how much I would dislike commuting into Charlotte from the suburbs north of town on a daily basis. Then there are suburbs east of downtown that are the same way.

It all leaves you wondering if there's anything that we can do to encourage developers to building their campuses in downtown in the form of a tower. I mean, it's virtually impossible unless you simply make downtowns more user friendly with more parks and residential opportunities. A big reason why developers building their sprawliscious campuses in suburbs is because their employees that work in the future buildings won't have to commute as far, thus perpetuating the problem...

This is all too complicated.

[BillM]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

America is what it is... It isn't pessimism to call a spade a spade, especially when most Americans enjoy this suburban and exurban lifestyle. There is nothing more cool for *most* Americans than buying a hot new car and a new house. We're the misfits in a nation of suburbia on SSP, keep that in mind.

Should we assume that most Americans enjoy the surburban lifestyle simply because they are living it? I wonder how many of us forumers that desire the urban lifestyle are more or less living suburban lifestyles.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by BillM

Should we assume that most Americans enjoy the surburban lifestyle simply because they are living it?

I don't think so. Young move to cities, and enjoy the urban lifestyles, but then move to the burbs when they want to settle down and have kids. I don't think it is a lack of urban experience, but more just what Brandon said.... they are living the life they prefer. And the life most Americans prefer to raise kids in is in the suburbs.

Edit: I think that is likely why Joel Kotkin gets such a huge stage. And why he likely gets paid quite well. Whether or not he is full of crap doesn't matter in that regard, the guy does a damn good job giving people what they want. Telling them what they want to hear, rather than what they should.