Why Did America Destroy Its Great Cities? (Commentary)

[Dr Nevergold]

^I'm not about to get into the wars I once did many years ago as I simply don't care about arguing the design of southern cities, but there is nothing remotely urban about Charlotte in my view. The city has a new light rail system, which I applaud and support, but it is like a demonstration project in a city with a few demonstration neighborhoods. The city doesn't have an urban core at all, just a few blocks with urban development and a very tall skyline built by the banking explosion in the past 20 years.

But Charlotte isn't alone, most new development from coast to coast is no different. There are some exceptions, but we live in a society that values office parks being built in the suburbs while downtown is never considered by most businesses.

What I like to argue is that the infrastructure that built old urban cores before WWII is decayed and dying, we need new urban development rather than just living off our past. I'm a big lover of history, and I love historic urban communities (I love places like Pittsburgh, which many people don't think twice about), but we can't just live exclusively off infrastructure from yester-year, we need new urban villages, bona fide urban villages and not new urbanist outposts that act as standalone demonstration projects.

I don't see any kind of shift that shows America is building even a remotely small percentage of exclusively urban office and living space. I would be impressed if we could get it up to something like 25% urban, 75% suburban for all new development in America.

Right now we're stuck in "demo" mode as far as new developments go. Nice to look at, but not significant.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Originally Posted by BillM

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.

From my personal experience I can say that had I not stumbled upon a local group of people promoting urban living, I likely would have never considered it. I would have just gone on doing what my peers had done, what my parents had done and what I was used to. I didn't consider any other option and in this part of the country, you don't see any other option to even choose from in the first place.

I can imagine that if I were still an urbafile "outsider" and occasionally heard about some new development going in downtown, I would have dismissed it and even thought,,, How strange, who would want to live downtown? For I wouldn't know what urban living was like and how, even though Tulsa isn't there yet, if the trend continues and we keep building more living and pedestrian friendly developments, etc. it can be a very nice way to live.

Now that I have learned about how urban living can be and can see the options, now that I understand the nature of the potential choices, I definitely choose the more urban one and couldn't stand the notion of living in the suburbs, though I did at one time and didn't think anything about it because thats all I knew, plain and simple.

I think what got me to change was when I saw a great presentation that showed some really good urban living and gave some of the rules of pedestrian friendly streets and described the how and why of those rules(Form Based Codes in this instance, and there were already some budding pedestrian friendly areas starting to come alive in Tulsa) I could see it, and understand it. I was able to see a whole new picture. When your on the "outside" you only see parts of it (and even then its only in theory here lol which makes it even harder to "get") and from the perspective your used to, unless you get how it all works together, It won't make sense to you.

Example.
"Where do you park?" You walk or use transit.
"Why would you want to walk?" Good, pedestrian friendly streets are actually a joy to walk down. And its good exercise lol. And its good for the environment. etc.
"Transit costs a lot of money and nobody uses it" Roads cost a lot of money, cars cost a lot, insurance, gas, road maintenance, widening, expansion, etc. and if you create good pedestrian/transit friendly areas, people will gladly use transit.
"Urban houses are smaller for the price." For the urban dweller the city becomes an extension of their home. You don't need a mc mansion with a home theater, you can walk to the theater, you dont need a breakfast room, there is a sidewalk cafe or coffee shop nearby, the local pub is your den, the wonderful sidewalks your hallways, the neighborhood park your yard, etc. Instead of everyone building individual big fancy houses with fancy yards,,, together everyone builds beautiful public spaces that they share and enjoy with each other.
and so on....

So to recap.

A. You tend to do what your used to.
B. You may not "get" the other option.
C. You may not even have any really good examples of the urban lifestyle option around to see.

I think knowing the how and why we destroyed the urban lifestyle, in so many of our cities, is important. But thats only part of what we need to consider if we find value in the urban lifestlye and want others to see it too. We are going to have to...

A. Promote it, say "Hey, here is another option."
B. Then educate people about it, how its different but how it works.
C. Show people what good urban living can be like.

[M II A II R II K]

One can still prefer to live in a suburban environment but at the same time have easy access to an urban core to visit and hang out in.

[mhays]

There's a big difference between having access to something and walking out your door and being in the middle of it.

I agree that housing is generally not very urban. But in many cities, the majority of office construction is urban, with parking underground, zero lot lines, etc., or at least the "tower in a plaza next to parking garage" seen in some downtowns.

With offices, land prices are close to a defining factor. In cities with constrained outward growth (regs or topography plus growing population), land costs can make surface parking more expensive than vertical garages, and often even make below-grade parking the cheapest option...low-rise techburbs and suburban downtowns are often like this.

When sprawly forms don't pencil, suddenly the cost difference between suburban and urban development drops, meaning necessary lease rates become more equal. Faced with nearly equal costs, many tenants, and the developers who pursue them, will choose urban locations.

Likewise with housing, when half-acre house sites aren't cheap, you'll get smaller lots. New smaller lots won't be as much of a draw to closer-in residents who already have smaller lots.

There's a spiral effect. If you change a factor like land price today, it won't turn things around overnight. But it the same factor has always been the case, the inner city wouldn't have fallen so much, if at all. What to do going forward is another story...far too complicated to ponder over in this post.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by 10023

That's not 100% true. New York is still crowded and noisy. My apartment is still cramped, even if I have to pay much more for it than it would have cost in the 1960s.

Remember this is all a chicken & egg situation... the decline of American cities was both a cause and a symptom of white flight. If middle and upper middle class white families had stayed in the urban core, the crime rates wouldn't have spiked, the schools wouldn't have deteriorated, the tax base wouldn't have disappeared and the general upkeep and cleanliness of the neighborhoods wouldn't have gone downhill. At least not to the same extent.

Nowadays in Manhattan there's less crime, nicer restaurants and better shopping, and the streets are cleaner and subway cars aren't covered in graffiti. But that's almost all a function of the people that now live in Manhattan, not any change to the place's inherent urban, crowded, noisy character.

For the most part the 1960s may have just been a vicious cycle, in contrast to the virtuous cycle that cities like NYC and Chicago have been enjoying since the 1990s. But there still had to be a spark (or sparks) that set it off, and for those you can look to things like government policy. For instance, the fact that FHA loans to WWII veterans were generally only available to buy new construction suburban homes, not city homes. Or the building of freeways into the urban core, where they should never have gone (American cities should be like Paris, with a ring road around the urban core and interstates to points north, south, east and west radiating from that). I also think that the toll that the Great Depression took on every city and town in the country was a big factor. The "greatest generation" was just too lazy to give everything a good scrub and repair what was already there, and opted instead to start from scratch with suburbs built on farmland.

American media and communication had a lot to do with it to. Even people that did enjoy living in the city centers were convinced (brainwashed) into thinking that cities were unsuitable for raising a decent family. All you had to do was turn on the tv and watch Leave it to Beaver, or (as many of us may have watched this weekend) I Love Lucy. In fact I caught the very episode which discussed their move to the suburbs because it would be "good for Little Ricky". Keep in mind that television wasn't as wide-spread in Europe and other countries as it was in the US. So those images and suggestions got piped into American homes. If a move to the burbs was good enough for Lucy and Ricky, then it was good enough for everyone else too.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

One can still prefer to live in a suburban environment but at the same time have easy access to an urban core to visit and hang out in.

But if too many people think that then the end result is,,, No, you can have that because the urban core won't be able to function properly and will die. You will end up with what happened to Tulsa. Bout a decade ago you could have walked for blocks and blocks downtown in the evening and not see a single sole and rarely even a single parked car. The sound of a lone cricket could actually startle you as it echoed off the skyscraper canyon walls lol.


photo by KellyKerr.net

Thank goodness things are much better now.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheArtist

But if too many people think that then the end result is,,, No, you can have that because the urban core won't be able to function properly and will die. You will end up with what happened to Tulsa. Bout a decade ago you could have walked for blocks and blocks downtown in the evening and not see a single sole and rarely even a single parked car. The sound of a lone cricket could actually startle you as it echoed off the skyscraper canyon walls lol.
Thank goodness things are much better now.

That is not really because people live in the suburbs. It had more to do with the fact that downtown Tulsa lost the very attractions that drew people into downtown from both the suburbs and the surrounding neighbourhoods around downtown.
Downtown Tulsa is again attracting people and I would bet that the majority of the people visiting downtown attractions are suburbanites. And they are coming because there is once again things to do down there. When it is all office towers, of course there will not be anyone down there after 5 pm.

[MolsonExport]

^I recall you getting upset at the explosion of condo towers in downtown Toronto, and the diminishing proportion of office space located downtown.

[MolsonExport]

This is a great photo. My impression of Tulsa has gone up considerably!

[WilliamTheArtist]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

That is not really because people live in the suburbs. It had more to do with the fact that downtown Tulsa lost the very attractions that drew people into downtown from both the suburbs and the surrounding neighbourhoods around downtown.
Downtown Tulsa is again attracting people and I would bet that the majority of the people visiting downtown attractions are suburbanites. And they are coming because there is once again things to do down there. When it is all office towers, of course there will not be anyone down there after 5 pm.

True. The new BOK Arena, and the new ballpark have been big hits and the steady progression of growth in several entertainment districts has done a LOT as well.

But what I like seeing is the old buildings being turned into housing. The one gothic skyscraper to the right, in the above pic was abandoned and is now lofts for instance. The one just past it was also abandoned and was recently turned into a Courtyard Marriott. The one you just see on the far left may be turned into lofts soon. And there are a lot more condos/apartments/hotels that have gone in some old buildings down the street to the left. You always see cars along the street now and people walking even in the evenings. Plus what I have really enjoyed seeing is the sidewalk cafe's going in on that street now with people there morning to night.

Its that evening shopping/dining pedestrian activity in the core, not just the entertainment areas around the periphery, from people living in the area, that has made the core feel more alive, more like a REAL city. And there are hundreds and hundreds of more apartments/condos going in right now wich will really solidify that feeling of a round the clock, steady, not just during events, work hours, and weekends, honest to goodness urban feel.

From the same intersection as the other pic but looking the other direction and down. I would kill for that apartment with that patio balcony lol. by snoweyes

[WilliamTheArtist]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This is a great photo. My impression of Tulsa has gone up considerably!

Thanks, thats Boston Ave, the street going left and Right is 5th. The building at the very end is an approx 1/2 height version of one of the old World Trade center buildings. Same architect and all, even the fixtures inside were the same. I like how those streets are coming alive now. I hear a lot of people say when they visit "Wow, its like a little chunk of NYC somehow landed here in the middle of the country lol".

It is hard to believe from our perspective today, that people abandoned and destroyed the core of so many of our great cities. And Tulsa was a great city at one time, one that faded right off the map. You get it when you look over time at all the twists and turns that led to it, but again, it still baffles me sometimes.

[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.

[M II A II R II K]

At least they weren't the type of sprawly big box stores like suburbs and had decent architecture.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

At least they weren't the type of sprawly big box stores like suburbs and had decent architecture.

You are arguing aesthetics, but they were sprawl in every sense of the word.

[The North One]

edit

[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.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

They had streetcars, but not fast rapid transit.

They certainly had both. By the end of Second World War, the world had 20 subway/elevated systems, of which 6 were in the US.

[Dallas Snob]

I just sold my home in the suburbs and moved into a historic renovated art deco building downtown, Dallas. I like how close it is to my work, not having to care for the house and lawn, nice pool and restaurants, etc. But i am not unique. Professional people are moving into downtown Dallas by the thousands - my building is full - and new apartment highrises and renovated buildings are going up all over along with new city parks taking over old parkling lots, restaurants and shops which are opening up along Main and Commerce Streets. Main Street has become crowded and "happening" late into the night. People are talking about the "new" downtown and with "being Green" so popular, many of us feel it just makes sense to rely less on the automobile and create a sense of family and community within our building. I grew up watching Family Affair and always envied Buffy and Jodie and Siissy getting to live in this hip highrise in the center of their city. Now I'm living the dream! And there are people of all ages doing it. Developers wont build unless they know the market demands it. And Dallas has invested the money and infrastructure to make downtown "in demand" again. I think there are many factors that can kill a city, as well as awaken it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

By the end of Second World War, the world had 20 subway/elevated systems, of which 6 were in the US.

- Boston
- NYC
- philly
- chicago

what were the other two?

[MonkeyRonin]

Newark and Rochester.