5 ms·

I'm not sure I buy it; it sounds like a 'just-so' story. Sprawl is popular because it allows for larger properties at lower prices relative to dense urban devel

I'm not sure I buy it; it sounds like a 'just-so' story. Sprawl is popular because it allows for larger properties at lower prices relative to dense urban development. The vast majority of real estate developers have likely never seriously considered factors like probability of a nuclear strike as a criteria for selecting land for development.

vidanay 6y ago
I don't buy it at all. Population centers are secondary targets after military targets. Besides, the USSR and USA had (have) enough nukes that a spread out city is irrelevant.
tikhonj 6y ago
I'm not sure whether the story is true, but it's worth noticing that developers are not the only drivers here—changes zoning laws and federal funding both played a major role, and it seems plausible for the government to take nuclear strikes into account when charting a high-level policy for the country as a whole.
Const-me 6y ago
They considered transportation infrastructure. See National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_195... They also considered jobs availability. I wasn’t able to find good enough sources on the policies of the era, but many articles on the Internets say the sprawl of industries was caused in part by federal policies: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44250919 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44250919
- ghaff 6y ago
  That's true although the history I've read suggests that Eisenhower wanted to do the Interstate Highway system anyway and framing it as being at least partly about defense made it easier to get the funding approved.
ashtonkem 6y ago
The timing doesn’t really work out either. Automobile suburbs, the beginning of what we’d call sprawl, started in the early 1920s, and really picked up speed in the 1940s and 1950s in Detroit. Detroit really hurts the narrative of nuclear strike resistance, as it’s buried pretty deep inside US air space; it wouldn’t be until the proliferation of ICBMs that Detroit would face significant nuclear strike risk. If sprawl provides any protection against nuclear weapons (which I doubt), then that is clearly a post-hoc rationalization.
guyzero 6y ago
I'm sure someone discussed it once, but Pentagon war planners don't set urban planning policy. People like single family homes, people like yards, people want racist neighbourhood segregation, people really hated urban centers for a long time in the US. All much better explanations.
- jandrese 6y ago
  Also people wanted to start building equity in their home and you largely can't do that in the city because all available properties are rentals.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    The notion of equity as an investment or savings is a pretty modern invention alongside the 30 year mortgage.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      What? Passing down property has been the primary form of inter-generational wealth transfer since antiquity. But the bigger issue is that you can't live inside of a 401k. Since housing is a requirement you might as well build wealth while you live in it. Assuming no massive disparity in monthly payments it doesn't make much sense to rent.

vidanay 6y ago

I don't buy it at all. Population centers are secondary targets after military targets. Besides, the USSR and USA had (have) enough nukes that a spread out city is irrelevant.

tikhonj 6y ago

I'm not sure whether the story is true, but it's worth noticing that developers are not the only drivers here—changes zoning laws and federal funding both played a major role, and it seems plausible for the government to take nuclear strikes into account when charting a high-level policy for the country as a whole.

Const-me 6y ago

They considered transportation infrastructure. See National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_195... They also considered jobs availability. I wasn’t able to find good enough sources on the policies of the era, but many articles on the Internets say the sprawl of industries was caused in part by federal policies: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44250919 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44250919

ghaff 6y ago
That's true although the history I've read suggests that Eisenhower wanted to do the Interstate Highway system anyway and framing it as being at least partly about defense made it easier to get the funding approved.

ashtonkem 6y ago

The timing doesn’t really work out either. Automobile suburbs, the beginning of what we’d call sprawl, started in the early 1920s, and really picked up speed in the 1940s and 1950s in Detroit. Detroit really hurts the narrative of nuclear strike resistance, as it’s buried pretty deep inside US air space; it wouldn’t be until the proliferation of ICBMs that Detroit would face significant nuclear strike risk. If sprawl provides any protection against nuclear weapons (which I doubt), then that is clearly a post-hoc rationalization.

guyzero 6y ago

I'm sure someone discussed it once, but Pentagon war planners don't set urban planning policy. People like single family homes, people like yards, people want racist neighbourhood segregation, people really hated urban centers for a long time in the US. All much better explanations.

jandrese 6y ago
Also people wanted to start building equity in their home and you largely can't do that in the city because all available properties are rentals.
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  The notion of equity as an investment or savings is a pretty modern invention alongside the 30 year mortgage.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    What? Passing down property has been the primary form of inter-generational wealth transfer since antiquity. But the bigger issue is that you can't live inside of a 401k. Since housing is a requirement you might as well build wealth while you live in it. Assuming no massive disparity in monthly payments it doesn't make much sense to rent.