Nice to read a commentary about sprawl that doesn't follow the currently fashionable trend of blaming it all on the government.
Note: The well-to-do were sprawling for 30 years or more before the 1920s. And they do set the trend. This is well documented in the archives of the Olmstead landscape architecture firm that are maintained by the National Park Service at the Frederick Law Olmstead NHS in the inner suburbs of Boston.
Observation I: I understand that its hard to write about sprawl without Levittown or Los Angeles, but it happened everywhere, and in some places is maturing and becoming a more complex and interesting story. Where I live, for example, the wealth generated by sprawl has also resulted in the preservation of substantial tracts of wetlands and farmland, also in an extensive trail system that at least offers the opportunity to get places on a bicycle. And the gaps left by the sprawl of the 1960-80s are now infilling at higher densities.
Observation II: While sprawl continues, the current trend in much of the U.S. is to build walkable villages or even new downtowns. I think it is fair to say that those who are paying attention have learned the lesson. But equally fair to say that it took 30+ years after Levitttown for the current trend to really have an impact and it will take that long, give or take, to be counterbalanced.
Lee, thanks so much for you insightful and well-informed comment. Yes. the wealth were the first to live in estates on the outskirts of cities. They have been doing that since before the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, sprawl happened all over, not just New York and LA. I'll be looking at that some more next week. I'm not holding my breath on 15-minute cities. There is a backlash against the movement, and it, like everything else today, has been stupidly politicized.
People have different preferences and where reasonable regulations assure that there is no harm to others, (others including our wild relatives) should be free to choose. But the backlash has no traction with the folks in our town who have purchased their own shopping carts because they love living within a 10-minute walk of the grocery store and have an easy path to and from. As for privacy, I have more here, living at a pretty well-designed 5 units per acre than when I lived on an open country acre lot where everything that happened on everyone's lot was visible from everyone else's.
The backlash isn't really about community planning and design, anyway. Its about the confusion that comes when people are taught that they're on their own (the rugged individual), but also that they have to conform to have a place in the hierarchy (the company man). Its a wonder things aren't crazier than they are.
The UK is undergoing a housing crisis, with insufficient supply leading to house price increases that prevent young people entering the market. The only solution is to build more houses, often in the middle of the countryside. I'd be interested to know if you have thoughts on that.
I don't know enough about the situation in England to comment. I do know that sprawl has been a concern there since the early sixties, so this is nothing new.
I've been studying these topics since the mid '90s, and am familiar with both the broadstrokes of suburbanization and many of the details, but have not given enough attention to the topic of "advances in machines and technology also led us to the expanses of housing developments" so I found that part very interesting. Looking forward to the next part.
In general, folks point to federal policies as spurring the growth of the burbs after WWII, but there were a lot of other factors, such as broad union membership enabled working class folks to buy homes, that led to vast housing developments encircling our cities.
When folks look at this phenomenon, a lot of them overlook the advances in construction that led to this development. But the difference is huge! 100 years ago carpenters worked with hand drills and manual planers. Craftsmen applied plaster to walls. Bulldozers, power tools, and drywall changed all that. What had taken weeks to build could be accomplished in more cheaply days.
Yeah now that you point it out, it's obviously a significant factor. I hadn't really considered it much though.
It's similar to agriculture, where new technologies led to clearing land faster, and being able to manage larger parcels. And later the chemicals, of course. :(
From what I've read, the population of LA tripled from 1920 to 1940, lending the city a crazed hodgepodge feel in the forties. Getting around was way easier than it is now, although smog was already a problem, and Los Angeles experienced its first great smog attack in 1943.
I lived in the burbs as a teenager, but as an adult preferred living close to city centres. I now live rurally, which has its own challenges.
Living close to city centres is preferable to me to living in the burbs. It's nice to be within walking distance of shopping and work, and living in the burbs requires car ownership.
I'm with you, Diana. I live about three miles from our city center, which I can get to quickly and safely on good bike lanes. The bus comes by every 15 minutes, and it takes about that length of time to get from my home to downtown.
My neighborhood has plenty of shops, bars, restaurants, and cafes. I can get most of what I need with a 15 minute walk or bike ride. I have a car, but I may not drive it for days.
Diana, from what I'm reading lately, people like living in the burbs. Suburban folks tend to be happier than city dwellers. I guess it has a lot to do with the satisfaction of home ownership. Also, some folks like to have gardens. Most folks I know don't think twice about driving four or five miles to pick up that take out dinner.
I understand full well the problem of "sprawl" but what I would be missing if I didn't live in a suburb would be a garden to grow plants in that attract birds and bees and butterflies. A garden, as far as I am concerned, is the very last thing I would give up on having. Could not care less about access to "shops, bars, restaurants, and cafes" ... most shops deliver and the others I have not missed once since covid put them off limits for a while.
if i didn't have yard/garden to tend to, birds to watch, i would have to have houseplants everywhere. i've heard alot of people say the same thing. some choose pets, some choose horticultural therapy.
I am in Canada - outer suburbs of Montreal. Pretty well no houses with gardens (except millionaire Westmount) downtown. Each to their own but I would hate that.
These houses were outside small centres -- Whitehorse and Nelson. I loved the Nelson location, and not just for the big garden space in the back. It was a great place to live!
"In 1980, Ellen Straus, Albert’s mother, co-founded the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), the first of its kind in the country, which protects Marin’s farmland from urban development. Ellen and a cohort of local environmentalists recognized the importance of land stewardship in the farming community and developed an approach that would strengthen rural families’ chances to remain in agriculture by permanently protecting farmland. The green hills of rural Marin County are a direct result of her work."
Nice to read a commentary about sprawl that doesn't follow the currently fashionable trend of blaming it all on the government.
Note: The well-to-do were sprawling for 30 years or more before the 1920s. And they do set the trend. This is well documented in the archives of the Olmstead landscape architecture firm that are maintained by the National Park Service at the Frederick Law Olmstead NHS in the inner suburbs of Boston.
Observation I: I understand that its hard to write about sprawl without Levittown or Los Angeles, but it happened everywhere, and in some places is maturing and becoming a more complex and interesting story. Where I live, for example, the wealth generated by sprawl has also resulted in the preservation of substantial tracts of wetlands and farmland, also in an extensive trail system that at least offers the opportunity to get places on a bicycle. And the gaps left by the sprawl of the 1960-80s are now infilling at higher densities.
Observation II: While sprawl continues, the current trend in much of the U.S. is to build walkable villages or even new downtowns. I think it is fair to say that those who are paying attention have learned the lesson. But equally fair to say that it took 30+ years after Levitttown for the current trend to really have an impact and it will take that long, give or take, to be counterbalanced.
Lee, thanks so much for you insightful and well-informed comment. Yes. the wealth were the first to live in estates on the outskirts of cities. They have been doing that since before the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, sprawl happened all over, not just New York and LA. I'll be looking at that some more next week. I'm not holding my breath on 15-minute cities. There is a backlash against the movement, and it, like everything else today, has been stupidly politicized.
People have different preferences and where reasonable regulations assure that there is no harm to others, (others including our wild relatives) should be free to choose. But the backlash has no traction with the folks in our town who have purchased their own shopping carts because they love living within a 10-minute walk of the grocery store and have an easy path to and from. As for privacy, I have more here, living at a pretty well-designed 5 units per acre than when I lived on an open country acre lot where everything that happened on everyone's lot was visible from everyone else's.
The backlash isn't really about community planning and design, anyway. Its about the confusion that comes when people are taught that they're on their own (the rugged individual), but also that they have to conform to have a place in the hierarchy (the company man). Its a wonder things aren't crazier than they are.
Lack of Privacy is a key reason many people leave Urban Areas to seek more Privacy in Suburban Areas or Rural Areas.
Yup. It can be noisy in a city, too, with traffic and all the noise I hear from my neighbors.
The UK is undergoing a housing crisis, with insufficient supply leading to house price increases that prevent young people entering the market. The only solution is to build more houses, often in the middle of the countryside. I'd be interested to know if you have thoughts on that.
I don't know enough about the situation in England to comment. I do know that sprawl has been a concern there since the early sixties, so this is nothing new.
I've been studying these topics since the mid '90s, and am familiar with both the broadstrokes of suburbanization and many of the details, but have not given enough attention to the topic of "advances in machines and technology also led us to the expanses of housing developments" so I found that part very interesting. Looking forward to the next part.
In general, folks point to federal policies as spurring the growth of the burbs after WWII, but there were a lot of other factors, such as broad union membership enabled working class folks to buy homes, that led to vast housing developments encircling our cities.
When folks look at this phenomenon, a lot of them overlook the advances in construction that led to this development. But the difference is huge! 100 years ago carpenters worked with hand drills and manual planers. Craftsmen applied plaster to walls. Bulldozers, power tools, and drywall changed all that. What had taken weeks to build could be accomplished in more cheaply days.
Yeah now that you point it out, it's obviously a significant factor. I hadn't really considered it much though.
It's similar to agriculture, where new technologies led to clearing land faster, and being able to manage larger parcels. And later the chemicals, of course. :(
I wish I could experience 1940s LA!
From what I've read, the population of LA tripled from 1920 to 1940, lending the city a crazed hodgepodge feel in the forties. Getting around was way easier than it is now, although smog was already a problem, and Los Angeles experienced its first great smog attack in 1943.
I lived in the burbs as a teenager, but as an adult preferred living close to city centres. I now live rurally, which has its own challenges.
Living close to city centres is preferable to me to living in the burbs. It's nice to be within walking distance of shopping and work, and living in the burbs requires car ownership.
I'm with you, Diana. I live about three miles from our city center, which I can get to quickly and safely on good bike lanes. The bus comes by every 15 minutes, and it takes about that length of time to get from my home to downtown.
My neighborhood has plenty of shops, bars, restaurants, and cafes. I can get most of what I need with a 15 minute walk or bike ride. I have a car, but I may not drive it for days.
Good for you, Paul. I wonder if people realize what they're missing living in the burbs?
Diana, from what I'm reading lately, people like living in the burbs. Suburban folks tend to be happier than city dwellers. I guess it has a lot to do with the satisfaction of home ownership. Also, some folks like to have gardens. Most folks I know don't think twice about driving four or five miles to pick up that take out dinner.
I believe you, Paul; it's just not my preference.
I understand full well the problem of "sprawl" but what I would be missing if I didn't live in a suburb would be a garden to grow plants in that attract birds and bees and butterflies. A garden, as far as I am concerned, is the very last thing I would give up on having. Could not care less about access to "shops, bars, restaurants, and cafes" ... most shops deliver and the others I have not missed once since covid put them off limits for a while.
Yes! Most folks like their yards and patios. I had a garden at the last place I lived and I loved it.
if i didn't have yard/garden to tend to, birds to watch, i would have to have houseplants everywhere. i've heard alot of people say the same thing. some choose pets, some choose horticultural therapy.
Yup. Most folks like their houses and yards. The last place we lived, I loved my garden!
I had gardens in two urban homes. This was in Canada that is less dense than a lot of places.
I am in Canada - outer suburbs of Montreal. Pretty well no houses with gardens (except millionaire Westmount) downtown. Each to their own but I would hate that.
These houses were outside small centres -- Whitehorse and Nelson. I loved the Nelson location, and not just for the big garden space in the back. It was a great place to live!
I can't help think of the antithesis of this, which is the land trusts that buy and protect agricultural land from development. Strauss Creamery, which still sells milk in glass bottles, is a perfect example: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/02/07/1712233/0/en/Pioneering-Straus-Family-Creamery-Celebrates-25-Years-of-Commitment-to-the-Planet-Farmers-and-Food.html
"In 1980, Ellen Straus, Albert’s mother, co-founded the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), the first of its kind in the country, which protects Marin’s farmland from urban development. Ellen and a cohort of local environmentalists recognized the importance of land stewardship in the farming community and developed an approach that would strengthen rural families’ chances to remain in agriculture by permanently protecting farmland. The green hills of rural Marin County are a direct result of her work."