2 ms·
Considering that before cars, cities were drowning in horse manure, I would say the quote is off the mark. > The horse was no newcomer on the urban scene. But
by bko 12y ago
Considering that before cars, cities were drowning in horse manure, I would say the quote is off the mark.
> The horse was no newcomer on the urban scene. But by the late 1800s, the problem of horse pollution had reached unprecedented heights. The growth in the horse population was outstripping even the rapid rise in the number of human city dwellers. American cities were drowning in horse manure as well as other unpleasant byproducts of the era’s predominant mode of transportation: urine, flies, congestion, carcasses, and traffic accidents. Widespread cruelty to horses was a form of environmental degradation as well.
The situation seemed dire. In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-storey windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of almost unimaginable dimensions loomed. [0]
[0] http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Hor...
- gonvaled 12y agoSure, we had a problem with horses. But we also had a looming problem with cars, which is what the quote is (correctly in my opinion) forecasting, one which we are now starting to acknowledge (practically unsolvable currently). So the quote is very much on the mark. The horse manure problem was a somewhat related issue, but does not invalidate the quote. Could we have solved the horse manure problem without creating a pedestrian-hostile society? Who knows, we didn't even try.