3 ms·

The urban sprawl created by the automobile was not a bad thing in its time. It democratized living. No longer were workers beholdant to landlords owning build

The urban sprawl created by the automobile was not a bad thing in its time. It democratized living. No longer were workers beholdant to landlords owning buildings next to the factory. Now everyone could live basically wherever they wanted. A new job no longer meant moving house and home across the city. Consumers had a far wider choice in where they purchased goods. And when they spotted a good deal they were not limited to what they could carry. In their day, these were very progressive changes. The entertainment industry would be far different if not for automobiles. Look at woodstock. Such iconic american activities and mass gatherings would not have been possible without widespread cheap personal transportation.

opportune 5y ago
Yeah, suburbanization produced a tremendous amount of value allowing people to live in large, SFH homes with yards without having to pay high prices for land. I think we’ll always have suburbs at the urban:rural transition and that the automobile will play an important role in making them work. In a lot of urban areas now the population/demand is such that people have expanded well pass the initial sets of suburbs and now those suburbs are in dire need of urbanization. That’s due to general growth over time. While it looks terrible now, that’s more because people are greatly resisting converting suburban areas to urban, and doesn’t invalidate the initial decisions to create suburban areas.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  As another commenter opined, in retrospect the greatest failure seems to have been missed planning to evolve suburbs into cities of their own. An alternate reality would have seen the US purchase rights of way between traditional urban cores and new suburb centers, then run rail (and upzone density around that rail) once that suburb attained sufficient population to merit. Then build sufficient park-and-ride capacity to handle the suburb's population's last mile needs. So basically, what China does. Except with less upfront heavy construction (because the US doesn't need to drive a demand-based economy) and more emphasis on right of way purchase (because the US has stronger property rights). Instead, we largely grew the first generation of suburbs and then... just didn't invest or plan non-road transit. And so began growing suburbs outside of suburbs, and none of them connected with a high-throughput transit network.
ohples 5y ago
It was only really beneficial for a small and arguably already well off population of largely white, middle and upper middle class people. And in the process of doing that excluded the rest of society from its benefits. Sprawl particularly exasperated inequality by basically requiring everyone who wanted to succeed to own a very expensive (both upfront and overtime) thing.
ohples 5y ago
Mass Suburbanization is bankrupting American cities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
- jacobolus 5y ago
  Thanks, great video!

opportune 5y ago

Yeah, suburbanization produced a tremendous amount of value allowing people to live in large, SFH homes with yards without having to pay high prices for land. I think we’ll always have suburbs at the urban:rural transition and that the automobile will play an important role in making them work. In a lot of urban areas now the population/demand is such that people have expanded well pass the initial sets of suburbs and now those suburbs are in dire need of urbanization. That’s due to general growth over time. While it looks terrible now, that’s more because people are greatly resisting converting suburban areas to urban, and doesn’t invalidate the initial decisions to create suburban areas.

ethbr0 5y ago
As another commenter opined, in retrospect the greatest failure seems to have been missed planning to evolve suburbs into cities of their own. An alternate reality would have seen the US purchase rights of way between traditional urban cores and new suburb centers, then run rail (and upzone density around that rail) once that suburb attained sufficient population to merit. Then build sufficient park-and-ride capacity to handle the suburb's population's last mile needs. So basically, what China does. Except with less upfront heavy construction (because the US doesn't need to drive a demand-based economy) and more emphasis on right of way purchase (because the US has stronger property rights). Instead, we largely grew the first generation of suburbs and then... just didn't invest or plan non-road transit. And so began growing suburbs outside of suburbs, and none of them connected with a high-throughput transit network.

ohples 5y ago

It was only really beneficial for a small and arguably already well off population of largely white, middle and upper middle class people. And in the process of doing that excluded the rest of society from its benefits. Sprawl particularly exasperated inequality by basically requiring everyone who wanted to succeed to own a very expensive (both upfront and overtime) thing.

ohples 5y ago

Mass Suburbanization is bankrupting American cities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

jacobolus 5y ago
Thanks, great video!