Taking Bill Levitt and his style of mass development out of the picture somehow, how else could the United States (both the federal government and private developers) have responded to the postwar housing crisis and baby boom?
There really is. For a start, change the tax laws (local or state, IDK which). They encourage farmers at city edges to sell, because their land at the border is taxed as undeveloped commercial land, not agricultural.SThere is not much we can do to stop suburban development.
The desire of people to move out of crowded urban areas goes far back and is documented in many ancient societies. The Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti documented this.
The impact will be marginal.There really is. For a start, change the tax laws (local or state, IDK which). They encourage farmers at city edges to sell, because their land at the border is taxed as undeveloped commercial land, not agricultural.Second, change the way cities tax new developments. Now, they get a free ride on streets & sewers & such, so developers don't have to pay the cost of installing. And 'burbs, generally, have lower tax rates.
There are also federal tax things, like ending the mortgage deduction, which subsidizes building bigger houses by rich people...The lower 'burb taxes encourage, & enable, people with less money to do the same.
Sprawl is not an organic process. It's a created thing.
Since we keep the amount of travel time in our day constant, as the speed of our means of travel increases, we'll travel farther.The Wikipedia article you cite does not support your contention.
Since we keep the amount of travel time in our day constant, as the speed of our means of travel increases, we'll travel farther.
Those electric transit systems were replaced by buses. And they were sold in the first place because of declining ridership. Was GM also responsible for the demise of public transit in Britain?Well, I'll kick things off by pointing out that most American cities built extensive public transportation systems before the war. What if those systems, instead of being dismantled as almost all of them were, followed the suburbs as the development of them began? And what if GM, which ultimately (and rightly) got vilified for its involvement in dismantling electric transit systems, instead has its transit operations taken over by its locomotive division and subsequently expanded streetcars instead of buses?
Given 'burbs are unavoidable (of which I remain skepitcal)... That looks like a good start. I'd add narrow, crooked streets (to discourage cars, & make the areas pedestrian-friendly), & lots of park (green) space. You also need small shops, especially groceries, so tax incentives to bring them in might be needed. I'm picturing them as part of an apartment cluster, with a tram or el (not bus) at (or very near) the door.Lets note that the OP said "Alternate Suburbia" which doesn't necessarily mean shifting away from private homes or area development. One could easily enough build developments as five to seven story buildings, but if those units are bigger apartments with large balconies and lots of amenities, maybe that's a form of alternate suburbs. Maybe you still get suburbs but get them built around rapid transit lines instead of larger arterial roads or highways.
Let's think outside the box a little guys![]()
Have you been reading my mind, laddie?...it is entirely possible to make cars and public transport co-exist, and suburbs could be developed in many other ways. Townhouses, walk-up apartment buildings, even just smaller lots would go far into changing what suburbia looks like.