Save American cities from urban renewal

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.

There are plenty of those in North America and always have been, but that hasn't saved some places.
 
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.

Thats an extremely good point. However its missing out on the other half of the same problem.

Most Eastern American cities depended on a central business district for most of their employment and tax base. As you mentioned this was an extremely dense and diverse cluster of small business. The development of malls more or less killed off the great department stores as well as countless specialty retailers and restaurants. The loss of these jobs was a huge blow towards urban life, employment, and financial health.

Yet at the same time, the corporate headquarters and branch offices were also leaving (robing said retail locations of most of their customers) They were drawn by the modern and utopian concept of the suburban office park. Corporations could relocate their business to be closer to their executive's residence, create larger more modern facilitates, and save significantly on taxes (often receiving massive tax breaks in the process) The impact of these relocations was devastating. It removed both the corporation and the workforce from the city's tax base, it left extremely expensive real-estate vacant, and as previously mentioned deprived urban retailers and service industries of much of their client base.

With the development of subdivisions, shopping malls, and office parks the prototypical white collar family had little reason to ever leave or take their money out of Suburbia.
 
Most Eastern American cities depended on a central business district for most of their employment and tax base. As you mentioned this was an extremely dense and diverse cluster of small business. The development of malls more or less killed off the great department stores as well as countless specialty retailers and restaurants. The loss of these jobs was a huge blow towards urban life, employment, and financial health.

Love the point on department stores we've lost so many great department stores over the years. Today every mall and shopping plaza in America basically as the same set stores. Locally in Schenectady there was three big department stores Barney's(1973), Carl Company(1992), and Wallace's(1975).

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.

Having universities in the inner city can help slow or level off the decline but not enough to save the inner city. Because of the type of business college students use.
 
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.

Good point Hörnla.

Wasn't it a Jeffersonian idea to have universities away from the influence of urban centers and put them in the middle of nowhere?

I agree that indoor shopping malls were also a cause.

I wish that Lowe's and Home Depot were not always next to each other as they are in many areas. I guess being close-by is supposed to foster competition.
 
Thinking best POD is in the 1930's under the New Deal. Franklin Roosevelt see the importance of streetcars to a America's urban landscape. Under the New Deal America's streetcar system would see money to keep them afloat during the depression and money for new cars and upgrades to the tracks and electric infrastructure. America's streetcar system would make it thru the depression largely intact. But there would be no expansion of the streetcar lines during depression and war years. With the outbreak of the second world war the streetcar systems would see boost in ridership do to rationing of gasoline during the war. America's streetcar system would come out the depression and war years in far better shape than OTL but still had declining ridership do to the rise of automobile. The future of the inner cities system still look goods in 1945. But future of the interurbans looked bad with the rise of automobile ownership.
 
Having universities in the inner city can help slow or level off the decline but not enough to save the inner city. Because of the type of business college students use.

That's why I used the word "contribute".

---

However, I do not see car ownership as that crucial as well. The beginning of suburbanization predates automobilization thanks to commuter trains. Actually, the car gives you the possibility to get into the city in a reasonable way even when public transport is too badly organized (which is the only reality I know ;-)) . You only need parking space...
 
Last edited:
^ 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.

You are great with this stuff TheMann!
 
That's why I used the word "contribute".

---

However, I do not see car ownership as that crucial as well. The beginning of suburbanization predates automobilization thanks to commuter trains. Actually, the car gives you the possibility to get into the city in a reasonable way even when public transport is too badly organized (which is the only reality I know ;-)) . You only need parking space...

Problem is creating parking space some time makes the problem worst. Here is the link http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/schenectady/shovelready/07.html
 
I like the idea of doing something about Robert Moses. We here in the NY-Metro area are still dealing with what Moses wreaked on the transportation system. Moses did not like public interference with democratic input and designed various quasi-public "Authorities" that basically end-run public control and input.

Preventing the formation of General Motors might help as well. GM used its power and money to crush streetcar companies, barge companies and anything else that interfered with the sales of their vehicles.
 
Ingsoc75 said:
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.
Hörnla said:
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'm seeing false causality, here. The 'burbs weren't driven by highways or Depression as much as by city tax policies, or city planning (or lack of it:rolleyes:). Cities enabled suburbs by not compelling developers to pay for construction of essential services, like sewer & water. There were also frankly stupid tax policies treating farmland adjacent to cities as if it was potentially commercial, effectively pressuring farmers to sell.:confused::rolleyes:

As for transit, there was racism, but there was also pure class issues in play. In Los Angeles, frex (& doubtless elsewhere), the trams served mainly poor neighborhoods; the rich(er...) could afford cars.:rolleyes: Cut public transit, you create economic ghettos (& reduce the exposure of the "rich" to the "poor", since the "poor" can't get to where the "rich" can see them: out of sight, out of mind, so forth). Which has poisonous social policy effects.:eek::rolleyes:
 
Part 1 Robert Moses and Auto Industry

The POD is Moses get into public transit as well as the roadways. During the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's Moses would build an wide network of surface rail and streetcars. Along with the surface rail and streetcars Moses would an wide network of parkways in place for OTL's freeways. 1953 saw the start of construction of the Second Avenue Subway and would be finished by 1964. New York City would become a symbol of the post-war American City with NYC's system of transit and parkway 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 model would but use across America leading to the streetcar systems to reminder prominent. Out side the core city most streetcar systems are rebuilt into light-rail transport systems instead of buses. Bicycle carrier would become an common sight on the front of streetcars and Buses across America. Moses would also build an large network of bikes lanes throughout NYC in the years fter the war. In this TL the use of bikes would take off in the cities do to the post-war shortages and backorders in the auto industry.

The 1950's saw great changes in the American auto industry. In 1953 Kaiser and Willys Overland merge, form Kaiser Willys Corporation which builds Kaiser, Willys, and Jeep. In 1954 American Motors Corporation forms which builds Rambler, Nash, and Hudson. Also in 1954 Packard buys Studebaker, forms Studebaker-Packard Corporation which builds Studebaker, Clipper, and Packard. There three along with OTL's three would become the core of the American auto industry giving America six strong highly competitive companies. Briggs Cunningham would give America 7th auto marker Cunningham. Sales of the C3 would take off in this TL because of this Cunninghams would kept racing with high-performance engines, and ended up as an American Ferrari.

In 2011 American automakers control 75% of United States market share. GM 20% Ford 16% Chrysler 12% Studebaker-Packard 10% American Motors 9% and Kaiser-Willys 8%.
 
I'm not sure I understand all the hatred of Robert Moses. True he was car obsessed but New York City still has in my opinion the best mass transit system in the country. Between the subway, Long Island Railroad, Metro North and New Jersey Transit, there is an efficient and very highly used system that connects 3 states and over 20 million people.

True he was obsessed with cars. But the parkway system is actually also a very good system. It makes the suburbs one large interconnected community and fulfills it's "original" role of providing access to green spaces.

The biggest problem is overconnectivity. Even in the sprawl of the suburbs the ability to get everywhere easily leads to centralization. I can't speak for small cities like Schenectady, but the lack of street cars isn't responsible for the lack of small downtown shopping districts and the like it's the fact that with so many small towns right next to each other there's no real reason to have downtowns.
 
True he was obsessed with cars. But the parkway system is actually also a very good system. It makes the suburbs one large interconnected community and fulfills it's "original" role of providing access to green spaces.

But the suburbs are not part of a large interconnected community; that was part of their initial appeal. Suburbanites were separating themselves from the city, and what it represented and entailed. Subburban flight emptied out traditional neighborhoods and replaced them with new often transitory ones with much weaker social/community ties. Said communities ties towards the metro were minimal, with the city becoming a mere work destination.
Robert Moses’s roads programs subsidized this Suburban lifestyle, because he saw it as the future. However said commuters contributed farless to the local economy than their urban compatriots, and despite making extensive use of city infrastructure, they failed to contribute to the property taxes which paid for much of it. Likewise the construction of said infrastructure had a heavy cost. Entire communities were bulldozed to create the parkways, destroying functioning neighborhoods containing dozens of small business and countless personal ties. The resulting infrastructure served as a barrior separating the urban landscape between its two sides, while making it considerably more difficult to function in NYC life without an automobile.
[FONT=&quot]As for Green Spaces, the modernist conception of a Green Space was a nearly universal failure. I think everyone can agree that the office parks surrounded by an acre of immaculately landscaped grass hasn’t “elevated the spirits” of too many white collar workers. It doesn’t matter if you build a park if said park is difficult to access, and the public has no incentive to ever interact with it. Said park will be disused, and will oftentimes become a haven for unsavory activities. Case in point the “greens” that surrounded nearly every American modernist tenement block. What’s more, suburban sprawl leads to increasingly large amounts of actual wilderness being paved over for subdivisions and retail developments.

[/FONT]
 
The best way to go about this IMO, especially looking at a POD that doesn't go mucking around with the war and the general position of the United States in the world, is to take a look at the TLs we have floating around that turn the interstate program into a more general transportation funding program that rescues the railways and makes money available for urban transit. Bear in mind that it really isn't much of a stretch for Eisenhower to spend a similar amount of money as OTL on a national interurban highway program, leave the urban bits with limited strategic importance (conveniently also by far the most expensive parts of the program) largely to local funds and make loans available to railroads (who really got hit not just with the building of the interstates and air travel but also with a need for massive capital reinvestment at the same time as the competition exploded) and transit systems; if you dig through the various systems a lot of the larger urban streetcar systems had every intention of keeping some rail, and more than a couple of cities wanted to build heavy rail or upgrade their interurbans in the immediate post war years. The problem was, as ever, funds. A program able to inject funds into transit in the immediate post war years is, if anything, going to have a larger effect than New Starts.

Suburbanization is going to happen no matter you do, but as several others have said, Europe shows this doesn't necessarily mean the death of the urban cores. For that matter, the destructiveness of what we would call "urban renewal" doesn't necessarily kill the areas it happens to. The death of the American inner city really wasn't caused by any single factor, but the combination of foolish transportation policies, suburbanization, racial tension and redevelopment that brought about a social and economic collapse. Fixing one or two of these issues is still going to leave the US with major urban problems by the 60s and 70s, but a better balanced national transportation system would go a long way to improving the economic viability and desirability of the inner cities.
 
Top