Alternate postwar suburbia

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?
 

kernals12

Banned
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. When New York City built its first subways, the population of the Lower East Side plummeted as the immigrants living there because they had to walk to their jobs in the textile factories decided to move out to Brooklyn, the Bronx, and even Yonkers. London saw massive suburban growth in the interwar years thanks to buses and the tube.
Even in the Soviet Union, there was a great trend towards sprawl.

There is not much we can do to stop suburban development.
 
There is not much we can do to stop suburban development.
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.S:confounded:econd, 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...:confounded: The lower 'burb taxes encourage, & enable, people with less money to do the same.:confounded:

Sprawl is not an organic process. It's a created thing.
 
Pretty much every country in the Western world saw some variety of this, suburbia isn't a uniquely American thing, go to Britain, Australia, Germany, Canada, Spain, South Africa or New Zealand. You can make it slightly denser, slightly less car dependent etc. by fiddling around the edges but unless you outright forbid new development people will suburbanise.
 

kernals12

Banned
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.S:confounded:econd, 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...:confounded: The lower 'burb taxes encourage, & enable, people with less money to do the same.:confounded:

Sprawl is not an organic process. It's a created thing.
The impact will be marginal.
 
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.

Which says nothing about transhistorical desires for deurbanisation. Nor does it necessitate low density suburbs.

Your claim about the necessity of suburbs does not follow from your single point of wikipedia evidence.
 
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 :)
 
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?
 

kernals12

Banned
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?
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?
1024px-Transport_modal_share_from_1952-2014.png

UK Transit Mode Share

The decline of public transit is not any sort of conspiracy. Cars are a much more pleasant and convenient way to get around than anything else.
 
A number of those systems were indeed replaced by buses, but not all of them, and the decision to replace them with buses was by no means the only way to go. And GM did indeed ultimately go to court and get called before Congress over its involvement in such actions in the 1960s. It's history, not a conspiracy. Yes, the building of highways (in the US and UK) did male for more car use and that growth in many ways is unavoidable, but it doesn't mean it has to be that way.

Beyond that, 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.
 
Even London terrace housing out on the edge of the greenbelts is denser than Levittowns, and of a different character in terms of zoning (or default land use decisions, I honestly dont know if zoning was deployed as such) in terms of shops and infrastructure.
 
Reducing the number of cars on the road (increased registration costs??) would restrict more people to public transport which would result in higher density smaller land area cities.
 
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 :)
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.

This doesn't address the desire for ownership, tho. If we're going to grant that, we either need houses or condos. If houses, I suggest small lots (about half the width of the modern usual, & shorter), clustered around a park, with houses akin the OTL postwar design, but maybe in two stories (or with finished basements): more space, but smaller footprint.

For the cars that are owned in this 'burb design, I'd suggest a collective carpark, under the greenspace. (That has some issues with car theft, however.)
...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.
Have you been reading my mind, laddie?;)
 
Last edited:
Top