Why Did America Destroy Its Great Cities? (Commentary)

[brickell]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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".

Originally Posted by pj3000

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.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Add another variable: mobility. Due to historical circumstances (e.g., immigration, migration, "go West", etc.), and relative lack of stickiness, American society is perhaps the most mobile on earth

Stew these 3 (racism and rugged individuality, mobility, manifest destiny) together, throw in the post war prosperity of the US, urban renewal, the back to earth movement, desegregation, Ronald Reagan, the bit by bit changes in laws and zoning that basically outlawed building cities the right way...

let simmer for 50 years and you'll get an answer

[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).

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by brickell

Stew these 3 (racism and rugged individuality, mobility, manifest destiny) together, throw in the post war prosperity of the US, urban renewal, the back to earth movement, desegregation, Ronald Reagan, the bit by bit changes in laws and zoning that basically outlawed building cities the right way...

let simmer for 50 years and you'll get an answer

I think the answer is a little different: our ideal has become the suburban model because it makes money. So much of American economic growth has come from building and selling/marketing the automobile based lifestyle. Our economy nearly collapsed when the house-trading went crazy and came to a head in 2008, afterall. So much of American economic power resides in two areas: the amount of mass immigration we get, which expands our economy, and the vast and fast growth of rapid suburbanization. No nation on Earth has built so much needless suburban development than has occurred here (although what is happening in China today is technically exceeding it). It is bigger than the tech boom, it is what fueled much of American growth throughout the 1900's and into the first decade of the 2000's.

It is all about money and marketing. You can get a zoning law change, but you have to have developers get behind it. Developers in America love selling the single family home concept. It makes lots and lots of money for them. Most people don't realize it doesn't take amazing jobs to fuel such growth. How many two-income households do you think there are for people where one is a server and the other is a Walmart worker who buy a home? It has fueled most of American growth, not amazing IT or advanced science jobs.

People forget there are two Americas. You have Boston and San Francisco 'elite' economies, but for most people in America they buy a home working as a waitress/waiter or cashier with two incomes. This has added to American growth exponentially more than what you get in Europe. Although it will be interesting to see how the post-2008 bubble burst will treat our economy.

[llamaorama]

We can't really have this conversation without making the observation that suburban sprawl in some form has happened in virtually every developed country, in Europe and Asia.

What happened in the US where suburbs grew at the expense of central cities in the mid-20th century could be attributed to intentional government policies that favored suburban planning.

[Dr Nevergold]

The difference in America is that it was so tilted in one direction and so detracted from urban development that America essentially ended mass urban development in the 1940's. We haven't had mass urban development since that period, just a few projects here and there that mimic it.

This isn't to say it hasn't worked, economic development over the past century has relatively been good for Americans. Keep in mind suburbanization actually caused mass GDP growth.

But you can't say all cities are destroyed. I used Buffalo as an example with the videos earlier. Buffalo isn't destroyed, it just isn't seriously growing anymore. Although in this new economic paradigm I am wondering if we aren't going to continue to do better than average.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

I think the answer is a little different: our ideal has become the suburban model because it makes money. So much of American economic growth has come from building and selling/marketing the automobile based lifestyle.

It makes money, because people want it. I don't buy into this great "marketing scheme" idea at all. If people wanted to live in condo's they'd be building those too. In fact, much of the suburban housing in Miami isn't even single family anymore. It's townhouses and cheap apartments.

[Symz]

I live next to Detroit, but in Canada, Windsor. Anyways, I think Detroit is the poster child for urban blight. It is a city rich in north american history and yet it is a crumbling sh!thole with staggeringly high unemployment and illiteracy. Racial tension is still prevalent and the city metro is falling apart, in danger of losing it's city status and being handed over to the state, yet the suburbs of Detroit are in healthy shape (with the exception of Flint (which is another sh!thole)). Recent articles in the Detroit Free press make statements like 'Detroit had a bigger population in 1950 than it does now', 'Detroit once had over 2 million people in it's metro and now is down to ~ 713,000'.

The city is talking about tearing down entire neighbourhoods or swaths of city land that are vacant, cutting off electricity and water services to large parts of the city. Also the city was exploring the idea of clearing abandoned neighbourhoods and making urban farmland.

I really do think that Detroit IS the prime example of urban decay in the U.S. , this city is in some serious trouble.

It's been tough to watch this once great city struggle.

[ametz]

I think Detroit is atypical- it’s an example of a single industry town that required a ton of manpower to perform relatively menial labor. Its economy wasn’t nearly diversified enough for a city of its (former) size. Once the bottom began to fall out, there just wasn’t enough other industry to pick up the slack, and assembly line skills don't mean much these days.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by brickell

It makes money, because people want it. I don't buy into this great "marketing scheme" idea at all. If people wanted to live in condo's they'd be building those too. In fact, much of the suburban housing in Miami isn't even single family anymore. It's townhouses and cheap apartments.

But in order to create demand, it also requires marketing. Marketing is key to any phenomenon, ask anyone looking to sell a product. Marketing is key to creating the feeling behind a product, it puts the emotion into buying a product. If you don't agree that single family housing has a huge marketing component, okay, that's fine... But I don't see how you can deny it given that everything in America is geared toward supporting single family homes in a suburban environment.

Mind you I have no sway in this greater phenomenon as you know, I just have my preference. I love condos and highrises. Why do you think I love Toronto so much, I'd love to see condos from Hamilton to Oshawa someday, just a solid wall of condos for 80 miles.

[Reverberation]

America destroyed its cities for several reasons;

Cars - I can promise you that when cars were a new thing, everyone wanted them. It was a lifestyle enhancer (like cellphones or ipods). If you lived in a big city in the 30's or 40's your commute involved wooden seats and cramming into a streetcar with a bunch of people who just spent the day in buildings with no central air.

Land - People who grew up in cities suddenly had access to cars and yards. These (or their parents) are people who grew up in times when good hygene and deoderant weren't nearly universal, central A/C wasn't that common, and it wasn't uncommon for your neighbors stove fire to turn into your apartment building fire. Hell yeah they wanted that sh*t. And let's not forget that new suburbs didn't start out being 30+ miles from the city.

Before cars, urban traffic consisted of streetcars, trains, and horses that poo'd on the street. It wasn't until this generation that suburbs began to envelop so much land that a new neighborhoods were 30-40 miles from downtown, and technology, building codes, etc. made living downtown just as good if not better as an alternative.

As for Europe, we have to factor in the fact that WWII gutted many big cities. If I was rich and in Europe at the time, I would live in the city too. Think about it, you just spent lots of money rebuilding it, many former residents are dead now, why not move there?

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Symz

I live next to Detroit, but in Canada, Windsor. Anyways, I think Detroit is the poster child for urban blight. It is a city rich in north american history and yet it is a crumbling sh!thole with staggeringly high unemployment and illiteracy. Racial tension is still prevalent and the city metro is falling apart, in danger of losing it's city status and being handed over to the state, yet the suburbs of Detroit are in healthy shape (with the exception of Flint (which is another sh!thole)). Recent articles in the Detroit Free press make statements like 'Detroit had a bigger population in 1950 than it does now', 'Detroit once had over 2 million people in it's metro and now is down to ~ 713,000'.

The city is talking about tearing down entire neighbourhoods or swaths of city land that are vacant, cutting off electricity and water services to large parts of the city. Also the city was exploring the idea of clearing abandoned neighbourhoods and making urban farmland.

I really do think that Detroit IS the prime example of urban decay in the U.S. , this city is in some serious trouble.

It's been tough to watch this once great city struggle.

I've been all over the United States, and I think no city in the country can compare to Detroit. Detroit truly is America's lost city, it is almost entirely destroyed. But the irony is that it is almost exclusively just the city proper, the northern suburbs (where the vast majority of Detroiters live, despite their refusal to call themselves Detroiters) are fairly normal and well to do.

But no, there isn't another single major city in America with the amount of total distress as Detroit for the central city. The south metro Chicago region is pretty bad off as well, but at least it isn't the core.

Actually I think it is unfair to lump the rust belt together, Detroit is so different from the situations in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc. Detroit is the only city up here I can think of with no viable urban center. Well, besides the downtown core and Greektown. I think even native Detroiters acknowledge the issues the city has, yet the region as a whole still has above average incomes outside the city limits... Such an interesting place.

[WilliamTheArtist]

I don't think the current situation is all that dismal. Right now there are probably more "homes" going in our downtown than any other area of the city. One development of 70 plus units is getting close to wrapping up, and another one of 70 plus units is well on its way to being started, plus there are several smaller residential developments underway and some large ones planned. I dont see any new suburban neighborhoods in the area with 70 plus homes going in. And imo, our downtown is just starting to get rolling. Got a new tower announced, another new office building, several new hotels, new restaurants and retail, new museums and parks, etc. etc. If the economy weren't in such a mess, I know even little ol, behind the times, car centric Tulsa would be seeing even more new residences and other development downtown.

Despite the tragedy of the past, I think most cities cores are on solid footing or on their way back.

[Wizened Variations]

The most important reason, IMO, HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED.

My deceased uncles, my grandfathers, and, my parents all cursed the Depression. They often mentioned how dirty living near major trains stations was due to ash and soot. They remembered when noboby could afford to paint their homes (linseed oil based). One of my grandfathers was a construction foreman who, a few times, had to fist fight a worker that had been fired. They were sick of the hard times, and, still into their 80s talked about why so many people had to die in war to get us out of that no repair state.

I think that people were just sick of how things were, and, wanted to share in the promise hinted by the Cord, by the DC 3, and, the like.

Consequently, too many jumped on Mr. Moses' NYC school of urban renewal and took 10s of thousands of urban core acres and either bull dozed or blew existing buildings up, replacing the old with the visions shown so beautifully by GM at the 1939 World's Fair.

And they thought, "GOOD RIDDANCE!", while driving on a pleasant spring day with the top down on their Belaire convertible.

[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.

[BevoLJ]

Just another one of the many many reason as to "Why" that I was thinking about today... Friction

A couple months ago it was announced someone has plans for a new 500 foot condo + other stuff tower downtown. But then last week someone pointed out that there was a tree right in the middle of the lot that they want to build this tower downtown. Now I highly doubt that before this article came out that 99.5% of those in Austin know that a tree exist on that property. It is a big 70 year old pecan tree and quite healthy. That is a fairly old tree but nothing like all the other 100+ year old oaks we have all over the city. So now this 500' building has this massive battle to fight and in a city like Austin the tree is more like to win.

Point being that if that project was to be planned for the suburbs no one would care at all if they cut down a tree. Cities just have to many loops to jump and all kinds of stuff you must deal with. It makes the cost of building and living in cities skyrocket. Where as in the burbs you can avoid much of all the extra stuff you have to deal with in city centers. Which makes the cost cheaper and the planning, approving, and build time much faster.

Only bringing it up as one of the many other great reason in the op and other post. Just something I was thinking on before I read this just now.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Just another one of the many many reason as to "Why" that I was thinking about today... Friction

A couple months ago it was announced someone has plans for a new 500 foot condo + other stuff tower downtown. But then last week someone pointed out that there was a tree right in the middle of the lot that they want to build this tower downtown. Now I highly doubt that before this article came out that 99.5% of those in Austin know that a tree exist on that property. It is a big 70 year old pecan tree and quite healthy. That is a fairly old tree but nothing like all the other 100+ year old oaks we have all over the city. So now this 500' building has this massive battle to fight and in a city like Austin the tree is more like to win.

Point being that if that project was to be planned for the suburbs no one would care at all if they cut down a tree. Cities just have to many loops to jump and all kinds of stuff you must deal with. It makes the cost of building and living in cities skyrocket. Where as in the burbs you can avoid much of all the extra stuff you have to deal with in city centers. Which makes the cost cheaper and the planning, approving, and build time much faster.

Only bringing it up as one of the many other great reason in the op and other post. Just something I was thinking on before I read this just now.

Precisely... People who can afford to do so move into a desirable city and develop this bizarre, gnawing need to preserve everything around them exactly as it is. They reject the dynamism that drew them in the first place, because the energy is like everything else. It must be stopped in its tracks, not to increase or change.

Something similar happened here when a developer wanted to build a 9-story condo building next to city hall. The project would have involved tearing down an historic building and cutting down a 150-year old magnolia tree. This galvanized the populace of Asheville, particularly all the area witches. They descended on the tree to dance around it, pray about (or to) it, tie written prayers to it with ribbons, cast spells on it, and -- in the end -- form a 24/7 guard for it. At least one witch was on duty at all hours of the day or night.

And eventually they won. The developer renovated the historic building and opened what has become a very popular pub and restaurant in it. The magnolia tree now shades the outdoor dining area in back.

This sort of thing has happened all over town. Down in the most blighted segment of downtown Asheville, an historic black business district called The Block, the owners of a restaurant sued to stop a project that would have allowed a residential tower to be built on a parking lot next door. Why? They were concerned about gentrification and the loss of "light and fresh air" if the parking lot were to be developed. The project was not built, the parking lot is still there (the restaurant is not), and the neighborhood is still largely abandoned.

Elsewhere in downtown, residents of a senior living complex that occupies one of the historic hotel buildings raised a huge fuss when the city wanted to build a parking deck behind their building. They won, and as a result, the city will instead tear down a short row of old, but abandoned, buildings nearby for a parking lot.

Meanwhile, a developer proposed to resurrect a 1920's era plan for a tower that never got built because the Great Depression decided to butt in. Asheville's enormous and vocal NIMBY-American community launched an attack and got the project killed. In turning down the project, the City Council called it "too large" and "too urban," conveniently forgetting that the council chambers are in a building located next door to the tallest courthouse in the state, and that the first skyscraper in this part of the state is located on the other side of the public square outside. Basically, we as a city were a lot bolder almost 90 years ago when the majority of downtown as it looks today got built, when nobody thought it horrifying when a dozen buildings in the 10-20 story range went up.

I could go on. In the end, it's just easier for a developer to squat and grunt out a subdivision or a strip mall out in the suburbs rather than put up with the relentless, grinding pain in the ass that comes with trying to build anything in town.

[miketoronto]

Read the book "Downtown". It goes into detail how American cities actually started the decline of the inner city back in the late 1800's and early 1900's. In fact according to the author, the full path to inner city decline was set by the 1920's.

Many reasons are cited including

-Rampant decentralization of commerce from the downtown cores of American cities
-The lack of rapid transit construction in American cities, and the constant fight even in the early 1900's to build subways in American cities.
-Rampant suburban growth even in the early 1900's. Americans were escaping the city for decades before the "auto suburbs" started.
-Business leaders who wrote off the inner city and moved business to the streetcar suburbs and then into the auto suburbs of the 1950's and decades following that.
-Racial tension

Anyway it is a good read and has interesting facts on how much value American cities lost in dollar amounts. Shocking how much property value Chicago's loop for example lost in the 40's. Or how many people stopped going into Central LA on a daily basis, etc. For example despite record population growth, central LA lost 200,000 daily visitors in a 6 year span in the late 40's.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

But in order to create demand, it also requires marketing. Marketing is key to any phenomenon, ask anyone looking to sell a product.

Sure marketing is everywhere, but that doesn't mean there's some big marketing conspiracy for the suburbs. Condo marketing was just as bad the last decade.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

I've been all over the United States, and I think no city in the country can compare to Detroit. Detroit truly is America's lost city, it is almost entirely destroyed. But the irony is that it is almost exclusively just the city proper, the northern suburbs (where the vast majority of Detroiters live, despite their refusal to call themselves Detroiters) are fairly normal and well to do.

But no, there isn't another single major city in America with the amount of total distress as Detroit for the central city. The south metro Chicago region is pretty bad off as well, but at least it isn't the core.

Actually I think it is unfair to lump the rust belt together, Detroit is so different from the situations in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc. Detroit is the only city up here I can think of with no viable urban center. Well, besides the downtown core and Greektown. I think even native Detroiters acknowledge the issues the city has, yet the region as a whole still has above average incomes outside the city limits... Such an interesting place.

Detroit's problems didn't stem from loss of industry like other Rust Belt cities. Unlike the metros of Pittsburgh and Buffalo, Metro Detroit hasn't been consistently in population decline since the steel bust of the 1960s. Chicago had a steel focused economy in common with Pittsburgh and Buffalo (and even places like Newark), but Chi's economy was clearly more diversified, which is why it recovered more easily. Detroit's economy was never dependent on steel production, which is why the economic fluctuations didn't occur in tandem with those cities.

Until post 9/11, Detroit City's number one problem has been sprawl friendly regional policies that drained both commerce and population from the city center. The past decade has been an exceptionally rough period of time for Metro Detroit though. But still, Detroit is not in unique territory by rate of population decline. Pittsburgh is off of peak population by 55%; Buffalo is off peak population by 55%; St. Louis is off by 63%; Cleveland is off by 57%; Detroit is off by 62%.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by brickell

Condo marketing was just as bad the last decade.

If you say so.... We're talking about America at large, not Miami.