Save American cities from urban renewal

Save American cities from urban renewal that destroyed the downtowns of most Americans cities and replace them will a waste land of useless parking lots.

The best place to start with this TL is likely just after American streetcar scandal in 1949 or 1950. With public outcry from the streetcar scandal Lawmakers become involved in upgrading the steetcar systems across. The second way is to change urban renewal program in a way that would help cities modernize without destroying the heart of American cities. The third way with the passing Federal-Aid Highway Act in 1956 it also authorization money for steetcar systems upgrades and for new Monorails. I can see Monorail begin build in southern and western cities with steetcar in old urban center of the Northeast and Midwest. A fourth is to limit suburbanization to some degree.
 
It sounds good until you realize several issues with the post-WW2 US economy:

  • They wanted full employment, which necessitated full domestic production and consumption of cars, houses, TV's, and so forth

  • America had just found out it could build anything, anywhere pretty darn quick and cheap during WW2.

  • Millions of GIs and others had shuffled all around the country and the world and weren't as tied to their hometowns as before.
  • There was plenty of fairly cheap agricultural land handy for suburban development until maybe 1970 that wasn't too far out to commute easily. After that, congested roads and pollution became bigger issues.
Another thing- they didn't have somebody from 2011 showing them the sorry OTL decay of cities. It happened for several reasons:


  • Housing stock had been at a standstill for almost twenty years due to the Depression and WW2. Why settle for a fourth-floor walkup coldwater flat when for the same rent, you could have a 3BR-two bathroom house in Levittown with plenty of elbow room?
  • Desegregation and the urban riots in Newark, Watts, etc spooked a lot of middle and working-class whites to move to suburbs in the 1960's and 1970's.
  • Shifts from a smokestack industrial economy to an information economy hollowed out the tax base of many Rust Belt cities that really hurt cities from the 1980's on.
  • Complacency in many city governments from NYC on down that people came to them to get things done instead of pimping themselves out with "economic development" programs as they do now. :rolleyes:
As a quasi-Greenie, I'd like cities to be more liveable, economically and ecologically sound habitats for humanity to flourish.
 
Let's say that Britain and France stand up to Hitler at Munich, war breaks out, and Germany is again defeated in a six month war. The U.S. thus remains isolationist (and has no fear of the atom bomb to promote disurbanization) - so a lot of conditions that led to suburbanization don't happen. Eventually, the U.S. comes to terms with its leading economic role and takes the lead in the alt-Cold War as the British and French try to hold on to their massive colonial empires and keep the peace in a still-unstable Eastern Europe. Italian Fascist "Futurism" becomes a major influence on architecture.
 
Save American cities from urban renewal that destroyed the downtowns of most Americans cities and replace them will a waste land of useless parking lots.

The best place to start with this TL is likely just after American streetcar scandal in 1949 or 1950. With public outcry from the streetcar scandal Lawmakers become involved in upgrading the steetcar systems across. The second way is to change urban renewal program in a way that would help cities modernize without destroying the heart of American cities. The third way with the passing Federal-Aid Highway Act in 1956 it also authorization money for steetcar systems upgrades and for new Monorails. I can see Monorail begin build in southern and western cities with steetcar in old urban center of the Northeast and Midwest. A fourth is to limit suburbanization to some degree.

Do you suggest more 'European'-like towns, by which I mean a situation were the historic downtown (city/town-centre) is in a better state, however the state of neighborhoods between downtown and the newest suburbs can be bad too.
Which doesn't have to mean that there isn't urban renewal; and I can see the US develop their own concepts.
 
Do you suggest more 'European'-like towns, by which I mean a situation were the historic downtown (city/town-centre) is in a better state, however the state of neighborhoods between downtown and the newest suburbs can be bad too.
Which doesn't have to mean that there isn't urban renewal; and I can see the US develop their own concepts.

I'm not too familiar with European'-like towns but it does sound like a good idea. Maybe this photo will help kept cities downtown looking close to this. My hometown Schenectady NY's downtown in the late 50's or early 60's(I grew up in the Schenectady suburb of Rotterdam).

Schenctady.jpg
 
Two PoDs I just thought of:

1: Race riots in the inner cities are less intense, prompting slightly less white flight.

2: An earlier, failed coup in Iran against Mossadegh partially succeeds, but ends up with chaos in Iran and eventually a alliance between Mossadegh's nationalists and the communist Tudeh party, which brings the new Iranian Republic into the Soviet sphere. When the British step in and try to get Iraq to invade Iran, Iraq invades, is butchered by Soviet-armed troops at the border, devolving the campaign into trench warfare. Relatively quickly, there is a coup in Iraq, and Iraq also moves out of the Western sphere. With all this chaos, oil prices skyrocket, making those lovely old streetcars seem much cheaper and making the American government more conscious of the dangers of reliance on oil-driven cars.

Makes sense?
 
I think an earlier PoD might be needed to keep the ideas of Urban Renewal as it was practiced from gaining traction-the Plan Vosin of Le Corbusier, which was pretty much "tear down half of central paris and replace it with high-rises", came out in the 20s. Maybe if he doesn't become interested in urban planning or rejects his large-scale plans early on?
 
I think an earlier PoD might be needed to keep the ideas of Urban Renewal as it was practiced from gaining traction-the Plan Vosin of Le Corbusier, which was pretty much "tear down half of central paris and replace it with high-rises", came out in the 20s. Maybe if he doesn't become interested in urban planning or rejects his large-scale plans early on?

Have Le Corbusier and his design theories get discredited. This is relatively easy to do, simply have him design a lot of buildings for Vichy and NAZI Germany. Post war he is blacklisted as a collaborator and his particular style of modernist planning is seen as fascist.
 
Two PoDs I just thought of:

1: Race riots in the inner cities are less intense, prompting slightly less white flight.

2: An earlier, failed coup in Iran against Mossadegh partially succeeds, but ends up with chaos in Iran and eventually a alliance between Mossadegh's nationalists and the communist Tudeh party, which brings the new Iranian Republic into the Soviet sphere. When the British step in and try to get Iraq to invade Iran, Iraq invades, is butchered by Soviet-armed troops at the border, devolving the campaign into trench warfare. Relatively quickly, there is a coup in Iraq, and Iraq also moves out of the Western sphere. With all this chaos, oil prices skyrocket, making those lovely old streetcars seem much cheaper and making the American government more conscious of the dangers of reliance on oil-driven cars.

Makes sense?

Yes, both your points make great sense. By making Race riots less intense would limit white flight. Love your second point on getting Americans to see the dangers of reliance on oil-driven cars.

I think an earlier PoD might be needed to keep the ideas of Urban Renewal as it was practiced from gaining traction-the Plan Vosin of Le Corbusier, which was pretty much "tear down half of central paris and replace it with high-rises", came out in the 20s. Maybe if he doesn't become interested in urban planning or rejects his large-scale plans early on?

Your right about Le Corbusier and his plans "tear down half of central paris and replace it with high-rises".

Here Schenectady today. Not the same view as the first photo but gives people am idea of how the city as change.

Schenctady1.jpg
 
Kill Robert Moses. Or better yet, make him equally or even more powerful but in love with transit and non-racist.

Find a way around the Supreme Court requirement of school bussing (as that caused all whites able to buy a house in the suburb to do so). I worked this one out a while ago with Nicomacheus, but it's surprisingly tough without a racist President.
 
TBH, I think avoiding white flight and suburbanization is very hard to avoid. Even had most old downtown cores been retained, they would likely still have become ghettos.

Another point is that pretty much world-wide, streetcars were seen as inferior to buses in the 1950s. That was true even in Europe - it's just that because Europe retained a more urban landscape, it was fairly easy to put streetcars back in over the past 20 years. (Most present-day streetcar systems in Europe are latter-day revivals, not original.)

That said, even dilapidated downtowns and inner-city neighborhoods would have gone substantial gentrification in the '90s through today. You saw that happen in the neighborhoods that weren't bulldozed. They turned into run-down, low-income, crime-ridden neighborhoods, but the homes were still standing, and today many of these areas are very ritzy, expensive neighborhoods.

Perhaps as others said, earlier, shorter European war without American participation, slower U.S. recovery from the Great Depression, less bipartisan unity, slower U.S. growth post-1945, and less money for highway construction and urban renewal. Suburbanization still takes place, and cities still empty out, but there is somewhat less sprawl, the old neighborhoods remain standing even while they degenerate into ghettos.
 
^ Along those lines, what you could do is make for a much earlier movement against urban redevelopment. That movement was born thanks to Moses and his butchery, but you could have it further. I think what might work here is to have Moses get into public transit as well as the roadways. The Triborough Bridge Authority was a profitable enterprise, and I'm having the idea of Moses trying to keep people in neighborhoods by putting more people in them and using both roadway and transit infrastructure to keep them moving. This means few or no tower in the park schemes and much-expanded public transit. Being that Moses was a bridge-builder and surface transit builder above all else, this could lead to a very wide network of surface rail and streetcars built in New York City in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Moses could also stick to his original visions of parkways rather than freeways, which would massively change the way many projects were built.

Thus, New York becomes a symbol of a new city for post-war America, with the plan being to make transit and parkway systems that merged dozens or even hundreds of smaller communities into a single whole, making it easier for people to move around the city by automobiles and by transit. This planning is followed by many other cities, leading to the streetcar systems prominent in so many places being rebuilt into light-rail transport systems instead of scrapped in favor of buses. This has positive effects for traffic congestion in the cities brave enough to get these things done. Moses does not go down in history as a monster but rather as a master builder and planner who built New York into a stylish metropolis. The NYC of that world doesn't suit cars quite as well, but the transit makes for less traffic in any case, an overall net benefit to the city of New York and one which does not cause the massive problems New York had in the 1970s.

After WWII, sizeable numbers of black war veterans join the police forces of major cities where they are living in large numbers, including very racially-divided ones such as Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta, St. Louis and Washington DC. This both gives an early kick to the civil rights movement and causes far less allegations of police brutality. It does cause racial tensions within the departments, but most policemen keep their bigotry to themselves in order to keep their jobs. White flight still happens, but as fewer highways are there to destroy minority neighborhoods (the most egregious example of this being in Detroit) this is less pronounced. Particularly after the 1960s riots, many long-time white residents ditch, heading for the suburbs, but many white newcomers dig in their heels and say that they will go nowhere because of fear. The problems from this slink away by the 1970s, and the greater numbers of schools with mixed classes leads to desegregation busing being much less of a political hot potato. Urban redevelopment goes much differently than OTL, and very few cities get ripped apart by huge tower complexes or other such actions.
 
Also, one interesting side-effect: I wonder if the earlier, quicker, less-destructive war-POD actually makes Europe MORE suburban than it is today. As I understand it, in Europe, the postwar housing shortage was to a much greater extent addressed by large-scale apartment projects and dense, smaller housing because destruction from the war created a really urgent need for new housing and because the war also left Europe far poorer, meaning there was less money on the part of either governments or individuals to invest in single-family homes.
 
^ Along those lines, what you could do is make for a much earlier movement against urban redevelopment. That movement was born thanks to Moses and his butchery, but you could have it further. I think what might work here is to have Moses get into public transit as well as the roadways. The Triborough Bridge Authority was a profitable enterprise, and I'm having the idea of Moses trying to keep people in neighborhoods by putting more people in them and using both roadway and transit infrastructure to keep them moving. This means few or no tower in the park schemes and much-expanded public transit. Being that Moses was a bridge-builder and surface transit builder above all else, this could lead to a very wide network of surface rail and streetcars built in New York City in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Moses could also stick to his original visions of parkways rather than freeways, which would massively change the way many projects were built.

Thus, New York becomes a symbol of a new city for post-war America, with the plan being to make transit and parkway systems that merged dozens or even hundreds of smaller communities into a single whole, making it easier for people to move around the city by automobiles and by transit. This planning is followed by many other cities, leading to the streetcar systems prominent in so many places being rebuilt into light-rail transport systems instead of scrapped in favor of buses. This has positive effects for traffic congestion in the cities brave enough to get these things done. Moses does not go down in history as a monster but rather as a master builder and planner who built New York into a stylish metropolis. The NYC of that world doesn't suit cars quite as well, but the transit makes for less traffic in any case, an overall net benefit to the city of New York and one which does not cause the massive problems New York had in the 1970s.

After WWII, sizeable numbers of black war veterans join the police forces of major cities where they are living in large numbers, including very racially-divided ones such as Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta, St. Louis and Washington DC. This both gives an early kick to the civil rights movement and causes far less allegations of police brutality. It does cause racial tensions within the departments, but most policemen keep their bigotry to themselves in order to keep their jobs. White flight still happens, but as fewer highways are there to destroy minority neighborhoods (the most egregious example of this being in Detroit) this is less pronounced. Particularly after the 1960s riots, many long-time white residents ditch, heading for the suburbs, but many white newcomers dig in their heels and say that they will go nowhere because of fear. The problems from this slink away by the 1970s, and the greater numbers of schools with mixed classes leads to desegregation busing being much less of a political hot potato. Urban redevelopment goes much differently than OTL, and very few cities get ripped apart by huge tower complexes or other such actions.

Love your idea about Moses and New York City becoming the symbol for a post-war American city. Parkways really do give you best of both worlds they let cars move around fairly well and don't destroy neighborhoods to the same level as freeways. How would streetcars work in Manhattan maybe it's just me I can't see them working in a modern Manhattan but see them working great in other 4 boroughs. Streetcars would be great for Staten Island who is without a subway system. I have never really understand the different between streetcars and light-rail I know streetcars mostly run on streets but at times light-rail does too but some time there coverage over laps.
 
A bus runs in traffic.

A tram (bus) runs in traffic but is powered by overhead wires. (Vancouver, used to be in Toronto.)

A streetcar runs in traffic on rails powered by overhead wires.

A bus rapid transit (BRT) runs in a separate right of way with only emergency vehicles allowed to use that section of the street. Often this is a corridor, with regular streets crossing it.

A light rapid transit (usually just an extended length streetcar, but regular streetcars can be used) runs in a separate right of way with only emergency vehicles allowed to use that section of the street. Alternatively, at the upper limit like Calgary, they can run like subways with some fully exclusive no vehicles allowed sections.

A subway runs on a fully exclusive right-of-way usually underground or on elevated track and has no interference from roads or vehicles.

Graph notes. BRT is not mentioned, but includes that last section of the bus part. SRT is just Scarborough Rapid Transit (or the Skytrain in Vancouver, the two systems are the same).


Transit Density
 
IMO, unless there is an alternative 1930s/40s (no depression or WW2), it's hard to imagine a 1950s/60s without suburbia. Post-war (and probably pre-war as well), people really just wanted a house, a car and lots of roads to travel on.

In contrast, post war Europe was trying to meet a housing shortage and tried to meet these demands on the ruins left from the war.
 
Maybe I am completely wrong here, but I attribute the general problem less to suburbanization of housing, but of business. The growth of cities, as well as the need (and wealth to allow) for more room per capita, in the 20th century needs adequate solutions. So there will be suburbs.

The problem is not Levittown, but rather Levittown Mall which drew businesses to run out of the inner cities and made most frequent contact of the suburbanites with their inner cities superfluous. The subsequent flight of businnesses turned a problematic development into a vicious circle.
 

altamiro

Banned
Maybe I am completely wrong here, but I attribute the general problem less to suburbanization of housing, but of business. The growth of cities, as well as the need (and wealth to allow) for more room per capita, in the 20th century needs adequate solutions. So there will be suburbs.

The problem is not Levittown, but rather Levittown Mall which drew businesses to run out of the inner cities and made most frequent contact of the suburbanites with their inner cities superfluous. The subsequent flight of businnesses turned a problematic development into a vicious circle.

I was just trying to form a coherent explanation along similar lines but you ninja'ed it :(

Basically, suburbization also occurs in most European cities, but a good access to the city center remains a big requirement in urban planning. There are big shopping areas out at the city's edge, but they don't provide "shopping experience", which a city center full of shops does. The influx of well-heeled shoppers into the city center keeps it alive and important, so access to it remains important for next suburb project, etc. You get a virtuous cycle there.
If the cycle is broken as happened in USA, the city center is cut off from money supply and deteriorates.
 
IMO, unless there is an alternative 1930s/40s (no depression or WW2), it's hard to imagine a 1950s/60s without suburbia. Post-war (and probably pre-war as well), people really just wanted a house, a car and lots of roads to travel on.

In contrast, post war Europe was trying to meet a housing shortage and tried to meet these demands on the ruins left from the war.

Don't need to stop suburbanization just cut it back some. Would changing annexation laws help keep cities stronger than OTL by having the suburbs built between 1945-1960 added to the city that would help keep the tax base stronger. Real problem are the later suburbs witch were build far outside the city center.

The problem is not Levittown, but rather Levittown Mall which drew businesses to run out of the inner cities and made most frequent contact of the suburbanites with their inner cities superfluous. The subsequent flight of businnesses turned a problematic development into a vicious circle.

Do agree what finally kill downtown shopping district at last locally was the opening of Rotterdam Square Mall in 1988(The mall was only build after a 10 year battle because the mall was build on Great Flats aquifer witch is the sole source of drinking water for Schenectady and it's suburbs). At time mall was build downtown still had some large shops mainly the Carl Company department(closed in 1992) the last of the cities three large local department stores. Plus the lost of Sears downtown when it moved into the Mall finished off downtown Schenectady.
 
Another factor which contributes to the vitality of inner cities in Europe when compared to the US is the localisation of many universities within the cities as opposed to "campus universities". This again attracts a young and vibrant sector of the population into the inner cities where they learn during the afternoons, party at night (again, in the inner city) and sleep in the morning.
 
Top