3 ms·

I've always suspected that one of the driving forces of the expolsion of the suburbs in post war america was due to atomic weapons. This picture, if true to sca

I've always suspected that one of the driving forces of the expolsion of the suburbs in post war america was due to atomic weapons. This picture, if true to scale, reminds me of that. Older cities could be easily wiped out in ww3. Atlanta, which saw a huge amount of growth in the second half of the twentieth century, would be harder to completely destroy. I've never really seen evidence that there was a real effort to spread out cities due to the cold war. Most histories of suburbia focus on white flight and yhe automobile.

merraksh 10y ago
I would suspect atomic weapons scale much more easily than cities. Even if that wasn't the case, assuming the target is the commercial center of a city you don't even have to use more powerful warheads. I see a much less scary, but still ignoble, incentive behind this: the cementification of cities and the money it brings to all people involved.
eitally 10y ago
No, it was pretty much just cars and building technology that allowed for quick construction of private homes that were much nicer and larger than any housing available in city centers. The trend continues today.
ghaff 10y ago
The notion that people moved to suburbia because of the cold war assumes a level of centralized planning that the US, by and large, did not have. Many people did not want to live in cities, given the choice, for white flight and other reasons and the suburbs/automobile provided an option for more living space. Even today, there's a strong migration to cities meme that the numbers don't really bear out. There's something of a trend for college-educated 20-somethings to live in a handful of specific urban locations but it's not a lot broader than that.
adricnet 10y ago
Speaking vaguely on purpose without sources (apologies), the folks who were concerned about weapons targeting a few decades back had no expectation that any part of the greater metropolitan Atlanta area would survive a nuclear strike. The historical maps are still around and might be FOIA'able from US gov or others. shiver The doctrine and culture around MAD is, even a few decades on, really quite frightening.

merraksh 10y ago

I would suspect atomic weapons scale much more easily than cities. Even if that wasn't the case, assuming the target is the commercial center of a city you don't even have to use more powerful warheads. I see a much less scary, but still ignoble, incentive behind this: the cementification of cities and the money it brings to all people involved.

eitally 10y ago

No, it was pretty much just cars and building technology that allowed for quick construction of private homes that were much nicer and larger than any housing available in city centers. The trend continues today.

ghaff 10y ago

The notion that people moved to suburbia because of the cold war assumes a level of centralized planning that the US, by and large, did not have. Many people did not want to live in cities, given the choice, for white flight and other reasons and the suburbs/automobile provided an option for more living space. Even today, there's a strong migration to cities meme that the numbers don't really bear out. There's something of a trend for college-educated 20-somethings to live in a handful of specific urban locations but it's not a lot broader than that.

adricnet 10y ago

Speaking vaguely on purpose without sources (apologies), the folks who were concerned about weapons targeting a few decades back had no expectation that any part of the greater metropolitan Atlanta area would survive a nuclear strike. The historical maps are still around and might be FOIA'able from US gov or others. shiver The doctrine and culture around MAD is, even a few decades on, really quite frightening.