I've read several times that the immense sprawl of many North American cities began after World War 2, when the average family got richer and could afford a house in the suburbs. According to Wikipedia, Phoenix, AZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona), a city now known for its sprawl, was a pretty large town (65,000) in 1940. So does this mean that Phoenix mostly consisted of dense quarters, like many such European towns, in 1940? Were these areas replaced with a highrise/skyscraper downtown while most people moved into the suburbs as the population grew?

In 1940, Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles) had a population of more than 1,5 million people within the city limits. Today, the Los Angeles area is pretty much only sprawl. How was this city built prior to World War 2?

Similarly, most cities in Canada seem very sprawling. One exception would be Montreal, which seems to be denser in its central parts.

Mind you, I've never been to North America - so maybe I'm wrong...

EDIT: Sorry, I meant to post this in the Citytalk and Urban Issues section - could a mod move it there (or to another appropriate location), please? Thanks.

^^ Well, most Southwest cities were rather small because the entire Southwest was sparsely populated. Before water diversion schemes and air-conditioning, it was not easy to live in Albuquerque or Las Vegas, for instance, and bear 40 oC+ temps 4 months per year..

The Southwest gets so hot so it was AC being mainstream from the 1950s onwards that meant more people would live there...

And it was in the 1950s that suburbs became the fashion, so both factors combined meant there was a lot of sprawling suburbs built...

For the most part either inner city New Orleans, Chicago, and Minneapolis would be a good example since you had more walkable areas linked together by streetcars.

Also back then since A/C was not as widespread as it is now since many buildings (shotgun homes are one example) were designed to take advantage of the airflow to cool the inside so it would be more comfortable inside.

Yes.

Here is a thread on another forum full of pictures of Cincinnatti before and after
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=187656

However for small towns and less important cities west of the Mississippi, they would be more likely to have had mostly wood tenements, houses for multiple families, and slums of tiny shacks rather than many substantial buildings like in Europe or New York. I suspect this is how it would have been for Phoenix.

they were usually dense, built on grids and connected by streetcars or heavy rail.

The area I grew up in was in the state of Iowa. My city had around 30,000 people, and the larger city 30KM to the north had around 60,000 people. Even with small populations both places had streetcars and were connected by inter-urban trains running from city to city. They cities were laid on out grids with a center and then commercial/residential and industrial areas.

The countries cities and many small towns were connected by railroads, and the cities were much more dense and had transit in the form of inter-urbans, streetcars and early buses. They were still not as dense as European cities though, as they were mostly fairly new cities, hadn't had time to fully develop, and there was just SO much land.

There were hundreds of electric streetcar lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_streetcar_systems_in_the_United_States

New York had roughly the exact same density it does today at 43,000/KM.
Chicago-Boston-San Fran-Philly-St. Louis-Detroit-Washington DC-Cleveland (in order of density) all had levels of between 20,000 and 30,000 people/KM.

The country as a whole though before WWII had far less than half the people it does today, and it was a MUCH MUCH more rural society. People didn't travel long distances, and the states were much more isoldated and independant in nature than today when things seem to really be based around the federal government.

Until WWI and WWII the federal government only had a fraction of the power and influence it does today.

Around what year did the typical towns that you see in western movies start to develop and start to build houses in stone?

New York had roughly the exact same density it does today at 43,000/KM.
Chicago-Boston-San Fran-Philly-St. Louis-Detroit-Washington DC-Cleveland (in order of density) all had levels of between 20,000 and 30,000 people/KM.



New York is about 9,000/km right now or probably within 10% of that. The others are much lower.

Basically how it looks now, minus the sprawl.

Around what year did the typical towns that you see in western movies start to develop and start to build houses in stown?

It depends on the area. Occupation of the areas between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi basin started in early 19th Century, and most towns were first built with wooden buildings for haste and availability of materials. But it was not an uniform process, some indian land took a bit longer to be cleared up.

Areas far west on the slopes of the Rockies and the Great Basin, were only effective occupied from late 19th Century onwards. Hostile indians were still a problem in 1885. Then, on the Southwest, you needed irrigation and/or water diversion to make cities viable, and that was just on the beginning around that time.

Remember: Arizona and New Mexico were still federal territories up to 1912, and Oklahoma, originally meant to be a giant indian reservation, was admitted to the Union in 1905 (not entirely sure about the date).

Similarly, most cities in Canada seem very sprawling. One exception would be Montreal, which seems to be denser in its central parts.


Montreal was Canada's largest city for a good 2 centuries so it's got the largest expanse of high density. You're correct that sprawl began after WW2 throughout north America. There's a perception that Montreal doesn't fit that north American pattern of sprawl due to that dense core. If you go beyond the core, it's a completely different story. Montreal actually has more km of roadway per capita than any other city in Canada due to the immense amount of sprawl there. Tourists just see the older bits: pre WW2.

Here's a brief sketch of American cities:

Cities before 1870 were mainly dense warrens of housing, mills, and commercial blocks within a two mile walkable distance of the town center. In the later half of the 19th Century, the horsecar trolleys and then the electric trolleys extended dense urbanity, especially along trolley routes due to land speculators, farther out and away from congested old walking city districts. At this time, factories which outgrew their original mill locations were able to move to industrial areas further away from the core and with them, the working neighborhoods that were still connected to the core by trolleys.

By 1920 the car emerged as a popular mode and those who could afford cars began to leave the city and live in inner suburbs characterized by detached houses with garages and somewhat dense urban villages where they could shop and conduct business. The post war suburb's explosive growth came from a combination of the wartime housing crunch which unleashed pent-up demand on areas newly opened to development by road and highway projects, and by the movement of modern single-floor factories and commercial development away from the cities altogether. Trolleys, which were decrepit from years of disinvestment due to the Depression and the war, gave way to buses which allowed more cars onto city streets and could change their routes nimbly and cheaply. The demise of trolleys led to the deterioration and abandonment of city center retail and commercial zones and in a desperate bid to compete with modern suburbs for investment, cities demolished many old buildings for freeway access, parking capacity and modern redevelopment.

Remember: Arizona and New Mexico were still federal territories up to 1912, and Oklahoma, originally meant to be a giant indian reservation, was admitted to the Union in 1905 (not entirely sure about the date).

oklahoma was admitted to the union in 1907 you were close enough though

Here's a brief sketch of American cities:

Cities before 1870 were mainly dense warrens of housing, mills, and commercial blocks within a two mile walkable distance of the town center. In the later half of the 19th Century, the horsecar trolleys and then the electric trolleys extended dense urbanity, especially along trolley routes due to land speculators, farther out and away from congested old walking city districts. At this time, factories which outgrew their original mill locations were able to move to industrial areas further away from the core and with them, the working neighborhoods that were still connected to the core by trolleys.

By 1920 the car emerged as a popular mode and those who could afford cars began to leave the city and live in inner suburbs characterized by detached houses with garages and somewhat dense urban villages where they could shop and conduct business. The post war suburb's explosive growth came from a combination of the wartime housing crunch which unleashed pent-up demand on areas newly opened to development by road and highway projects, and by the movement of modern single-floor factories and commercial development away from the cities altogether. Trolleys, which were decrepit from years of disinvestment due to the Depression and the war, gave way to buses which allowed more cars onto city streets and could change their routes nimbly and cheaply. The demise of trolleys led to the deterioration and abandonment of city center retail and commercial zones and in a desperate bid to compete with modern suburbs for investment, cities demolished many old buildings for freeway access, parking capacity and modern redevelopment.

Add to that changes in zoning laws that only allowed strict segregation of land uses, and catered to the automobile.

Add to that changes in zoning laws that only allowed strict segregation of land uses, and catered to the automobile.

I'd frame it otherwise: segregation of land uses, long sought as a mean to sanitize cities and avoid the chaos of large population influx from rural areas to cities that accelerated - vastly - from 1935 up to the end of WW2, first driven by widespread farm bankruptcies and later by labor hot demand for war production, had become viable due to the increasing popularity of cars.

The willingness to keep commerce and, especially, industry out of residential blocks already existed. The car allowed it to be implemented.

Basically how it looks now, minus the sprawl.

I think that is wrong for many American cities. These pictures of Cincinnati illustrate why. Before the 50's it looked like American towns used to look like. the villages in Manhattan still retain that style to a large extend.

The centre of Cincinnati today is almost like an entirely different place, not only strangled by highways but with barely anything left from "old" days. Not every place is as bad as Cincinnati probably, Others have retained more of their old neighborhoods, if not the buildings at least the basic design but few have managed to look not like swiss cheese with lots of holes in the street view.

This is what Toronto's downtown looked like, lots of stone and brick buildings:

http://toronto.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/10/1940%20600x397-scan10153.jpg

The inner city looked much like it does now. Just go into google streetview and look at the neighbourhoods between High Park and the Beaches, and South of St Clair, most of that was built before 1940.

This is an older neighbourhood, built in the 19th century.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=toronto&hl=en&ll=43.66568,-79.365257&spn=0.015181,0.038581&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.538611,79.013672&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=43.66568,-79.365257&panoid=ugJfgoaZ8FpnPxfLpmaujQ&cbp=12,236.01,,0,-2.4

This is a neighbourhood that was close to the city limits at the time (1940).
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=toronto&hl=en&ll=43.664581,-79.429307&spn=0.015057,0.038581&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.538611,79.013672&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=43.664699,-79.429374&panoid=tdeuFWuR8mSp_8c0q9oYLw&cbp=12,59.51,,0,-8.11

This is a streetcar suburb, built mostly in the earlier 20th century.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=toronto&hl=en&ll=43.596461,-79.505267&spn=0.015198,0.038581&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.538611,79.013672&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=43.597147,-79.505037&panoid=52MnMOgruEcMCFoOlAo0rw&cbp=12,86.17,,0,4

Toronto was founded in the late 18th century. Most towns in Ontario were founded around that time, with the arrival of loyalists following the American War of Independence. In 1940, Toronto had a population of around 650,000.

PS: Is there any way of putting google streetview in a post as an image with a link without using paint?

I think that is wrong for many American cities. These pictures of Cincinnati illustrate why. Before the 50's it looked like American towns used to look like. the villages in Manhattan still retain that style to a large extend.

The centre of Cincinnati today is almost like an entirely different place, not only strangled by highways but with barely anything left from "old" days. Not every place is as bad as Cincinnati probably, Others have retained more of their old neighborhoods, if not the buildings at least the basic design but few have managed to look not like swiss cheese with lots of holes in the street view.

Yeah I forgot, minus the "urban renewal" too.

Streetcar suburbia of the sort built in the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is a very pleasant enviornment to live in IMO. You have detatched houses and apartment buildings so you can have green and leafy neighborhoods but there is still enough density for walkable business districts. It has the best features of both suburbia and city, you don't need a car but you still have a yard. It is an urban pacing that lends itself well to biking and bus/streetcar transit, if you do have a car everything you need is two minutes away and parking on the steet isn't that hard. It is probably the best all around urban form we have had, we were stupid to stop building cities this way. Some examples from Minneapolis:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/4968678288_22771e6d21_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/4968678288/)
mplssept201007 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/4968678288/) by afsmps (http://www.flickr.com/people/40863599@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5027995634_5523e28a52_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5027995634/)
mplssept2010104 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5027995634/) by afsmps (http://www.flickr.com/people/40863599@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/5027381177_8a1da84205_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5027381177/)
mplssept2010107 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5027381177/) by afsmps (http://www.flickr.com/people/40863599@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5233733138_eba16c21d3_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5233733138/)
mplsdec201001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5233733138/) by afsmps (http://www.flickr.com/people/40863599@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5233142123_c4fb6c35b3_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5233142123/)
mplsdec201003 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5233142123/) by afsmps (http://www.flickr.com/people/40863599@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5255538963_d1e1f2d670_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5255538963/)
mplsdec201058 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5255538963/) by afsmps (http://www.flickr.com/people/40863599@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5006/5364814367_2d9dcaf71b_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5364814367/)
mplsjan201159 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863599@N05/5364814367/) by afsmps (http://www.flickr.com/people/40863599@N05/), on Flickr

^^ Some of the units you showed are multi-family. I think multi-family units do not belong in the same street/block as single-detached houses or even row houses.

^^ Some of the units you showed are multi-family. I think multi-family units do not belong in the same street/block as single-detached houses or even row houses.

That's ridiculous.

That's ridiculous.

The immediate interests of single-detached and multi-family dwellers in respect of planning are different. Therefore, it is better if each type of residence has its own neighborhood. I'm not proposing keeping them 5 miles apart, just avoid mixing them in the same micro-neighborhood (100/200 buildings).

The immediate interests of single-detached and multi-family dwellers in respect of planning are different. Therefore, it is better if each type of residence has its own neighborhood. I'm not proposing keeping them 5 miles apart, just avoid mixing them in the same micro-neighborhood (100/200 buildings).

My neighborhood is full of that (mix of apartments, condos, single family dwelling, row homes, you name it), and it's one of the most desirable places to own in the city...

That just makes no sense. It's like back in the day when suburbanites didn't want apartments in the 'burbs because apartments = coloreds = crime. It's a lame proxy argument. What interests? There's nothing wrong with heterogeneity.

That just makes no sense. It's like back in the day when suburbanites didn't want apartments in the 'burbs because apartments = coloreds = crime. It's a lame proxy argument. What interests? There's nothing wrong with heterogeneity.

It has nothing to do with demographics, but with interests like whether to adopt district reserved parking, and also to keep the private backyards out of spot of peepers living in higher buildings nearby, and also adopting more uniform building codes.

^^ Wow, if you have problems like these, you don't have any problems. I would say if thats an issue for you, you have to move to those pure suburban sprawl quarters and evade those multi-family house invaded quarters. Simple as that. I doubt most people would care about this aspect however.

I think you'd get a pretty good idea about pre WW2/early 50s American cities when playing Mafia II. The game has a really nice atmosphere to it.

I found this website... here's (most of) one page, http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209.html . This one (http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/052310.html) gives a wider overview of the thesis.

This is not written by me, though I consider it highly worthwhile and very much relevant to the topic at hand.

Let's Take a Trip to an American Village



July 12, 2009



We continue our tour of villages with a visit to an American village.

March 3, 2009: Let's Visit Some More Villages
February 15, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to the French Village
February 1, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to the English Village

This is, actually, the village I live in: New Berlin, NY 13411. Population about 1000. It is in one of deepest economic backwaters of upstate New York. Not much has been built here since 1915 -- so it has been left in something close to its original 19th century state, or at least has not been overrun with 20th century suburban crap. It was, as we will see, a rather prosperous spot in the late 19th century, with five hotels! The main industry was agricultural, primarily eggs and cheese to be shipped to New York City. There is a factory that, during World War II, was the largest powdered egg factory in the world. Borden's Condensed Milk also had a large factory, and there was a textile mill.

The town was formed from Norwich in 1807, so the layout represents early 19th century thinking. This was about 120 years before the automobile. However, as we will see, the American village does not look like the English, French, German or Italian village, let alone the Chinese of Japanese village. Those are all clearly urban places, while the American village ... looks just the same as the idealized American suburb. Let's take a trip along Main Street, from the south end of town to the main intersection. (There is only one stoplight in town.) This is about a quarter mile.

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/CIMG4215.jpg


Here's South Main Street. Your basic two-laner with room to park at the curb on both sides.

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/CIMG4216.jpg


We're walking along the sidewalk. But, there is not just a sidewalk, but also a strip of greenery on both sides of the sidewalk. So, the actual width of the "sidewalk" is quite wide. I would say there's about fifteen feet here. Plus fifteen feet on the other side of the street. Plus two lanes of traffic, plus room for parking at the curb. So, this is plainly NOT a Really Narrow Street, or even a Narrow Street. It is pretty darn wide. There is probably at least 100 feet from building to building. While there should be a few larger streets for transportation, we will see that there aren't really any streets in this town that are any narrower than this. Why were they so big? This was laid out around 1800. It wasn't for cars. And, the European precedent is clearly for narrower, urban streets. I've heard that streets were made wide enough that you could make a U-turn with a horse-drawn wagon. So, right from the start, we have a somewhat irrational focus on transportation, which, as we will see, is a theme throughout even though this is 120 years before cars.


http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/nb1.gif

This is a vintage photo of Main Street from a little north of the intersection, looking south. Look at the distance between the buildings. Isn't that a little excessive? There's enough room for about six to eight parallel lanes of wagon traffic -- although the wagon traffic that actually exists in this picture is One Wagon. Admittedly, this is Main Street, but there aren't any smaller streets in this town. Note the difference between Main Street and this street in a French village:

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/nb2.jpg


We see that the street in the American village is not just "a little wider," it is about ten times wider. However, the size of humans hasn't increased. There are consequences when you make your city ten times bigger but the size of humans remains the same. Also, note that Main Street is dirt in the above photo. Normally, in the European model, a street in the center of town would be paved with stones. Like the paving stones on this French street. But, when you make the street ten times wider, that becomes a mammoth job.

Let's keep walking along Main Street:

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/CIMG4218.jpg


After a few steps we come to a house. This is a rather nice house for the village, although it is suffering from deferred maintenance. I'd guess it was built around 1840. We see that people weren't poor in those days. This is a serious house. It looks to be about 4000 square feet, and the construction quality is better than anything built today, including stuff in the $1m+ range. You might laugh, but what is YOUR house going to look like in 169 years?

So, along from our somewhat irrational focus on Really Wide Streets and transportation, we also have Really Huge Houses. It is not just Really Huge. Wealthy people have always had big residences. A floor-through penthouse on the 60th floor in Manhattan can also be 4000 sf. Some of those old brownstones are seriously huge as well. And, in those days, there were seven family members and two servants living there. However, we see that this is NOT an urban mode of construction. It is not an apartment or townhouse. It is a rural mode. This is not just an "imitation" or "ersatz" farmhouse, it is a farmhouse, totally indistinguishable from the farmhouses dating from the same era, in the surrounding countryside. So, also from an early time, we see in the American village a failure to adopt traditional urban modes of design in urban areas. This is totally different than, for example, the Florentine mode of construction:

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/nb3.gif

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/nb4.gif


To some degree, this decision is an aesthetic consequence of the original decision, to make the streets Really Wide. Once you start spacing things out, they tend to get even more spaced out.

Not only is this house a freestanding, detached "farmhouse-style" building, it sits on its own micro-farm. Most houses in the village of New Berlin are on lots of 0.25 to 0.5 acres. That, you will recognize, is the same as suburban homes today, and vastly larger than typical urban townhouse lots. Some are larger: my house has a four-acre yard, but is still inside the village, if you can believe that.

What else is on this 0.25 acres? Well, out back behind our enormous 4000sf farmhouse is:

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/CIMG4219.jpg


This building. What is it? Obviously it is not a garage, because this predates automobiles by 80 years. We can also see that it is quite enormous, and obviously built with great care and pride -- not just a utility building.

It's a carriage house.

The thing to do in the mid-19th century was to maintain a carriage. This was no joke: you had to have at least one horse and maybe several, which you had to feed all winter. (The small door over the main door leads to the hayloft.) What was the carriage for? I said before that, in the tradtional village, you didn't need all this stuff, because you could walk around town and lead an urban lifestyle, even if your village was very small and out in the country. How many carriage houses do you see in this French village?

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/nb5.jpg

Close to zero. Most people would say: "Well, in the days before cars, if you wanted to get anywhere you needed a carriage. Duh!" Like it was that obvious. Have you ever tried to maintain two horses, and yoke them to a carriage? (I suppose that's what servants are for.) In a small town, you should be able to walk around the town, and then if you wanted to go to another town, you could take a "bus" (shared carriage). Actually, despite the Really Wide Streets, you can walk around New Berlin. So, a carriage was not at all necessary to get around the town. And, as we will see, there was also a train which connected the villages. The point is, our weird American fascination with personal transportation dates from FAR before the automobile.

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/CIMG4221.jpg

This shows the distance between houses. You can see the white house and carriage house on the right. That is a BIG distance between houses. You could fit a couple nice townhouses right in there.

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071209_files/nb6.jpg


Here are some townhouses from about the same mid-19th century period. This is San Francisco. Townhouses are an example of an urban format, which we clearly do not have in our American village. (These townhouses even have garages.)

I suppose people are starting to whine now: "But .... grass is nice! We need GREEN SPACE." I'll talk about "green space" at some future point. My point today is: if you make your roads 10x larger, and your houses on 4x-10x larger plots of land, but people are the same size, there are consequences. For one thing, you have to walk 10x farther to do anything. I imagine that would make you start to fantasize about carriages before too long.

The American village was dysfunctional from the start.

Let's continue our walk along Main Street...

I guess my reason why we should allow small multi-family housing in traditionally single family neighborhoods is to make the housing supply in a city flexible to changes in demand and demographics. It works in cities that are experiencing the pressure of growth in the central city. Like Vancouver, which is now allowing alley-facing garage apartments. Constricting the amount of possible infill would only push demand and inflated housing costs to marginal areas, resulting in gentrification.

I don't totally disagree that sometimes mixing apartments and single family homes results in conflict. But it does work in some places, in fact the most interesting neighborhoods can have a mix of housing types and businesses. Capitol Hill in Denver, Hyde Park in Austin, Montrose in Houston, etc. Besides, its not fair to lump all multi-family together. Garage apartments, alley houses, flag lots, and attached townhomes are probably going to be compatible in a single-family neighborhood that has an urban character.

In some cases, land along trolley routes that was slated for multifamily dwellings was later replatted for single homes after the depression and the demise of trolley lines reduced their value. So in some cases, it was single homes intruding upon an area originally zoned for denser development. Going into the 1920s there was enormous land speculation that drove up the prices of transit-convenient lots. 1929 saw the bursting of that bubble. Anything built on those lots thereafter was likely to be low-density residential or commercial, such as gas stations and drive-in eateries. Larger lots often became strip shopping centers. The first incarnation of suburbia can often be found within a city's outer perimeter.

I guess my reason why we should allow small multi-family housing in traditionally single family neighborhoods is to make the housing supply in a city flexible to changes in demand and demographics. It works in cities that are experiencing the pressure of growth in the central city. Like Vancouver, which is now allowing alley-facing garage apartments. Constricting the amount of possible infill would only push demand and inflated housing costs to marginal areas, resulting in gentrification.

Garage apartments are sub-housing IMO. The first step on a downhill staircase to the hell of ghetto vertical slums, followed by alley houses. Next comes basement apartments with limited area of windows and air circulation. They are appendages to the main building, sometimes they precede the slicing of the main housing unit into tenements. It happens a lot in university towns where students have a low bar and a limited budget and will stick to any sub-par house if the location is right.

Gentrification is better than both, people who are priced out can cash in (if they own a house) or just move out to more affordable areas, which will help to revitalize them.

^^ Some of the units you showed are multi-family. I think multi-family units do not belong in the same street/block as single-detached houses or even row houses.The advantage of this is that you have less economic segregation, in many of these neighborhoods you have poor, middle class and rich living side by side. This allows for a more cohesive society and community because they know each other as people rather than just as stereotypes. In modern american suburbia this rarely happens. Also it means that even in upscale parts of the city low paid workers who work in stores and restaurants in the neighborhood can still afford to live in the neighborhood they work in. This is more efficient in terms of transit/transportation and makes it easier for businesses in those neighborhoods to hire people.

My neighborhood is full of that (mix of apartments, condos, single family dwelling, row homes, you name it), and it's one of the most desirable places to own in the city...

That just makes no sense. It's like back in the day when suburbanites didn't want apartments in the 'burbs because apartments = coloreds = crime. It's a lame proxy argument. What interests? There's nothing wrong with heterogeneity.Yeah, the pictures I showed are from one of the most desirable parts of the city. In general the streetcar neighborhoods in Minneapolis and St Paul proper have held their value better than most suburban neighborhoods in the last 5 years. People are voting with their dollars, this is the sort of neighborhood they want to live in.

The advantage of this is that you have less economic segregation, in many of these neighborhoods you have poor, middle class and rich living side by side.

This is negative IMHO. While racial segregation is outrageous, self-chosen economic segregation within a city is very positive. You have richer areas, where only upscale business set shop (without the usual whine about "this place has no affordable grocery shop) nearby, and then you also have the poor neighborhoods, that can be built high-density and with low-cost units, where government can concentrate police and social services. Moreover, you create a sense of "I ought to get out of this place" that incentives poor people to work harder as they see the place they live in as "unacceptable in the long term" or at least "I better get a second job so my children grow up elsewhere".

Those places usually have, also, a higher share of children attending private school, because the upper earners in the region feel that the education provided by their district is not as good as they wanted to and, at the same time in this day and age, they are not willing to fork more property taxes in an unusual high amount while many poor people pay little. At least under the US basic model for educational funding (real estate property taxes + help from state budget), there is an incentive for more income-homogeneous neighborhoods and areas.

Also it means that even in upscale parts of the city low paid workers who work in stores and restaurants in the neighborhood can still afford to live in the neighborhood they work in. This is more efficient in terms of transit/transportation and makes it easier for businesses in those neighborhoods to hire people.

Poor people will travel 1h in a cramped train/bus if they need to in order to get a minimum wage job. Just look at NYC, Los Angeles etc. There is nothing inherently good or bad in having low-skilled people necessarily living near their workplaces.

On the contrary, the massive application of this concept might render business having to pay higher wages to low-skilled functions because transportation becomes less organized to suit commuter traffic.

I honestly don't see the point, unless under a massive communist plot, for which the manager, the CEO, the technician and the janitor of a given office-based business should all live in the same place.

In any case, your whole argument resounds about the idea that multi-family units cater necessarily for the poorer ones. That might not be the case, some people would just prefer not to have a whole lot to maintain, clear snow and mow grass, even if they have enough income. So I guess the issues of housing typology separation and family income segregation are not exactly related. Income-segregated areas also mean that even poor people can afford single-detached houses, as richer people will not outbid them for the same houses, whilst mixed-income neighborhoods automatically imply the only way the low earners can live there is giving away expectations of space.

Poor people probably will travel for an hour to get to their minimum wage job if they have to but I'm sure most wouldn't choose that if they had the option.

Why can't or shouldn't multi-family units belong on the same block? If you've been to the most dense cities here in North America you see them on the same block all the time. There is a reason most suburbs depend almost exclusively on the car, because they aren't dense enough to have strips of walkable blocks of businesses. Personally I like the combination of both, plus you get to have that cool neighborhood corner market, or store, or cafe, or bar and you don't have to drive somewhere all the time. However in the only single family neighborhoods you do get to have nice water retention ponds, cool to look at on a hot summer day.

It has nothing to do with demographics, but with interests like whether to adopt district reserved parking, and also to keep the private backyards out of spot of peepers living in higher buildings nearby, and also adopting more uniform building codes.

Let's just say this isn't the first time you've had a completely asinine argument (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=76986615&postcount=3).

You are just all about separating people who aren't like you and sweeping them away someplace where you never have to look at them. Your arguments have no substance other than discriminatory rabble rousing.

What you say here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=80263910&postcount=30) is EXACTLY what racist white suburbanites said back in the '50s when the suburbs began to explode. There's now plenty of apartment and multiunit dwellings in the suburbs, and a lot of them ARE near single family residences.

Let's just say this isn't the first time you've had a completely asinine argument (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=76986615&postcount=3).

That was written in a thread about infrastructure to keep illegal immigrants from crossing into US territory via desert. Another completely different topic. Unless you are an universalist who believes in some inherent global right to roam and migrate. Which is completely out of the scope of this thread we're in.

======================


What you say here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=80263910&postcount=30) is EXACTLY what racist white suburbanites said back in the '50s when the suburbs began to explode. There's now plenty of apartment and multiunit dwellings in the suburbs, and a lot of them ARE near single family residences.

No problem having multi-family units NEAR single-detached houses, as far as they don't share the same streets and are confined to mutually exclusive zonal areas, such as that the land space reserved for single-detached houses do not carry a premium price in terms of potential to be developed in something higher/larger, like bundling 4 quarter-acre lots into one acre devoted to build a 30-unity condo. Geez, I'm talking about 500-700 yards of separation, not miles and miles.

As for rich people leaving the district because they don't like the newcomers, for whatever reason, it is their right, isn't it? I mean, to move somewhere else because people have more or less melanin in their skin is stupid and non-sense, and to keep people out based on that factor only is discriminatory. However, there is no such thing as "obligation not to move out", unless you are in the military and deployed to some front. I make a huge difference between insidious racist laws like mandated race segregation on housing or sunset laws to keep certain people off-town, but you can't, ever, compel someone to keep living in any place if he/she wants to move out and have the financial means to do so.

^^ Some of the units you showed are multi-family. I think multi-family units do not belong in the same street/block as single-detached houses or even row houses.

Obviously many cities built themselves without the benefit of your unique wisdom.

For some reason though, cities like Chicago & Minneapolis have turned out OK.

Obviously many cities built themselves without the benefit of your unique wisdom.

For some reason though, cities like Chicago & Minneapolis have turned out OK.

Have they? I'm pretty sure both have some pretty bad areas.

Have they? I'm pretty sure both have some pretty bad areas.

What city doesn't have its bad areas? There isn't a city on Earth that doesn't have questionable or objectively bad neighborhoods. Whether or not there is an apartment building on the same block as a two story single family home plays no part in that.

Have they? I'm pretty sure both have some pretty bad areas.Almost all of Minneapolis proper is streetcar suburb and it is one of the least "ghetto" big cities in the US. The worst parts of the city are still pretty nice. Mixing multi-unit housing with single family houses doesn't seem to have hurt it.

blah blah blah

I'd call you a racist, discriminant, etc, but you're worse than that. With racists, you can ignore them, tune them out, call them on their ridiculous behavior. You are worse than that because you disguise your racism with subtle rhetoric that is actually believable to the less informed. You are more dangerous than racists because you believe that you aren't. People like you are able to change people's minds with strawmen arguments and hyberbole. People like you are able to turn others' knee jerk reactions into reality and force (and indeed foster) a hostile environment to live in. It's sad.

That was written in a thread about infrastructure to keep illegal immigrants from crossing into US territory via desert. Another completely different topic. Unless you are an universalist who believes in some inherent global right to roam and migrate. Which is completely out of the scope of this thread we're in.
It's relevant because you use the same racist rhetoric in both threads, acting as if you actually care about our immigration problem. You clearly DO care, but not for the reasons that matter. You're too blind to see the reality.

Have they? I'm pretty sure both have some pretty bad areas.

Every city in the WORLD has bad areas, ghettos, slums.

I have been increasingly souring on the 'strict separation of uses' tenet of 20th century zoning and development control in most of the USA in recent years, and it has absolutely *zero* to do with anything relating to the 'r-word'.

In many areas, these legal controls have led to severe housing shortages and resulting 'black markets' for residential (see eastern Long Island, among many other places, for glaring examples of this), major real estate market distortions, lack of cohesive 'communities' in many areas, unnecessarily inducing traffic and so forth. Also, IMHO, some of the very BEST urban and even 'tiny-town' village neighborhood areas were all developed before zoning. It is that kind of random-mixed use, low-impact spontaneity of market-based development that often means the difference between a true community and an anonymous 'Beigeville'.

Mike

That was written in a thread about infrastructure to keep illegal immigrants from crossing into US territory via desert. Another completely different topic. Unless you are an universalist who believes in some inherent global right to roam and migrate.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are an immigrant in the Netherlands, aren't you?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are an immigrant in the Netherlands, aren't you?

Yes, I am. Legal immigrant. I'm not anti-immigration, indeed I'm a beneficiary of it. I just oppose illegality, be it under-the-table employment, unlicensed music pubs, illegal immigration, parking on moving lanes, smoking where it is forbidden etc..

I'd call you a racist, discriminant, etc, but you're worse than that. With racists, you can ignore them, tune them out, call them on their ridiculous behavior. You are worse than that because you disguise your racism with subtle rhetoric that is actually believable to the less informed. You are more dangerous than racists because you believe that you aren't. People like you are able to change people's minds with strawmen arguments and hyberbole. People like you are able to turn others' knee jerk reactions into reality and force (and indeed foster) a hostile environment to live in. It's sad.

I'll give a credit that your argument is just not paranoia and answer this for the last time: I am NOT a racist. I do not believe in inherently good or evil coming from one's phenotype. It is just a medieval, backward idea.

This being said, I'm also inconsequential in the sense that I don't care if the ideas I support "in thesis" will have unintended consequences that would foster hardship in people grouped by this lame criteria of "race". The concept of race is pretty much irrelevant, so that I like the position of countries like France where public authorities and employers are forbidden by law of asking or classifying people according to "race" unless it it a relevant information, and so far the only "relevant information" situations are things like medical research, DNA profiling, disappearance notices etc.

What I am, usually, is inconsequential in the sense that if an idea is workable and fair on the paper, I'll not care much if a particular subset of people are disadvantaged by that by chance or correlation. It's statistics, mate. Every people should have the same rights. And they should also have the same prerogatives of transportation or housing -provided they can pay, of course -. I see most of "racial" issues as mere poverty issues. There are more "African-Americans" living in sub-standard housing not because of the color of their skin, but because, by statistical chance, they are over-represented among the poor. So give every kid a fair chance through education and protection, and theoretically you eliminate the problem of "substandard housing" being higher among "African-Americans" (or any other group for that matteR).

If you want to think that I'm racist, there is nothing I can do about it.

I have been increasingly souring on the 'strict separation of uses' tenet of 20th century zoning and development control in most of the USA in recent years, and it has absolutely *zero* to do with anything relating to the 'r-word'

In many areas, these legal controls have led to severe housing shortages and resulting 'black markets' for residential (see eastern Long Island, among many other places, for glaring examples of this), major real estate market distortions, lack of cohesive 'communities' in many areas, unnecessarily inducing traffic and so forth. Also, IMHO, some of the very BEST urban and even 'tiny-town' village neighborhood areas were all developed before zoning. It is that kind of random-mixed use, low-impact spontaneity of market-based development that often means the difference between a true community and an anonymous 'Beigeville'.


I agree with you. However, in Subbys posts there's clearly some underlying issues that he won't outright say.

P.S. Threads are so much nicer with Ignore Lists. :cheers:

Every city in the WORLD has bad areas, ghettos, slums.

yep even Dubai has slums and ghettos parts I agree

Every city in the WORLD has bad areas, ghettos, slums.

Do Havana, Pyongyang or Beijing?

Of course they do!

Every city in the WORLD has bad areas, ghettos, slums.

You have to have a very flexible definition of slums then. In my understanding, your claim is wrong. While almost every city has poorer areas, some don't have slums. A slum is for me an area with insufficient infrastructure (water, waste water, electricity etc).

You have to have a very flexible definition of slums then.(water, waste water, electricity etc).

Yes, I do have a very flexible definition. But it's irrelevant. Whether you call it a favela, a slum, a shanty, a ghetto, whatever...you wouldn't send a tourist there. Obviously a slum in North America will differ greatly than that of Central/South America, and likewise with Asia, etc. All the general characteristics are there though: poverty, crime, and poor infrastructure. I've seen the slums from USA to Brazil to Indonesia to Philippines to Argentina...they are all basically the same.

It seems that Singapore might be one of the few cities in the world without slums/ghettos or any bad area.

Every city does not have an slum. 'Poorer' areas maybe. Even that is debatable.

I define "slum" in their strict sense as areas of illegally occupied housing, where essential public services like garbage collection or paved streets are lacking, crime is rampant as disregard for any urban ordinance is widespread. I think we need a narrowly defined terminology, better than shantytown, for areas that are "just" extremely run-down, dangerous and crumbling, but not still/yet in complete disarray.

In that sense, many cities don't have "slums". For instance, I don't think Dutch cities have slums, though some have poor areas that are crime-ridden (for the standards of the country) and relatively run-down.

Many Italian cities, though, have slums, mainly Gypsy precarious camps lacking sanitation, full of trash etc. There are also some cities with small pockets of precarious housing taken by poor illegal immigrants, cut-off from any state assistance, in former industrial grounds. They are a sad human tragedy and an urban eyesore.

I define "slum" in their strict sense as areas of illegally occupied housing,
There are plenty of countries where there is no such thing as illegally occupied housing simply because nobody gets away with illegal occupation for long and attempted illegal occupants of housing quickly become legal occupants of prison camps.

What services the legal occupants get is another matter.

where essential public services like garbage collection or paved streets are lacking,
That depends on where they are essential.

Obviously, even in rich countries, not every legally occupied lonely farmstead is connected to a paved road hundreds of kilometres long.

So, what makes a village or a suburb which, by its population density, might have some public services it does not have, a slum?

crime is rampant as disregard for any urban ordinance is widespread.
Crime as such exists in all countries, and it is not quite equally distributed in any country. But this does not mean it is "rampant", nor that disregard of urban ordinances, or rural ordinances, is particularly rewarding kind of crime.

Sparsely settled countryside and lonely villages that do not receive many public services are often occupied by law abiding people where crime of any kind is rare.

I think we need a narrowly defined terminology, better than shantytown, for areas that are "just" extremely run-down, dangerous and crumbling, but not still/yet in complete disarray.

"Run-down"? "Crumbling"? These imply that the place was previously in better condition, and built up.

How about slums that are new built, on land that was previously wild or rural?

That depends on where they are essential.

Obviously, even in rich countries, not every legally occupied lonely farmstead is connected to a paved road hundreds of kilometres long.

So, what makes a village or a suburb which, by its population density, might have some public services it does not have, a slum?

I was thinking of services deemed appropriated for the given pattern/density. Unpaved road in a farmsteads may be reasonable, in a 5000 inhabitants/km², it is certainly not.

"Run-down"? "Crumbling"? These imply that the place was previously in better condition, and built up.

How about slums that are new built, on land that was previously wild or rural?

That situation is quite rare. Even in mid-range income brackets, I can't think of many countries where slums can LEGALLY be built as so on greenfield. Countries have building codes and minimum standards. If they are respected when housing is build, the new areas are usually acceptable upon completion, but they can be let root soon afterwards.

Yes, I do have a very flexible definition. But it's irrelevant. Whether you call it a favela, a slum, a shanty, a ghetto, whatever...you wouldn't send a tourist there. Obviously a slum in North America will differ greatly than that of Central/South America, and likewise with Asia, etc. All the general characteristics are there though: poverty, crime, and poor infrastructure. I've seen the slums from USA to Brazil to Indonesia to Philippines to Argentina...they are all basically the same.

Belfast sends its tourists to its poorest neighbourhoods. Are they slums?

PS: The definition of a term is never irrelevant it often makes the difference between correct and incorrect.

Belfast sends its tourists to its poorest neighbourhoods. Are they slums?
So does Rio de Janeiro. Yes, they most definitely slums.

PS: The definition of a term is never irrelevant it often makes the difference between correct and incorrect.
You have to use a loose definition because every country is different. The history of slums in the United States is very different than Brazil for example. In brazil, the slums are caused by the rural exodus and building of illegal settlements. In the USA, it's a result of a dynamic city: one ethnic group moving out and another in and land value decreasing. In the USA poor neighborhoods are made up of very old housing stock, in a neighborhood that was once middle class. In Brazil, it always was a slum (generally). You can't use one catch all definition. That's like defining "urban" for every city in the world. LA's "urban" is very different than Hong Kong.

So does Rio de Janeiro. Yes, they most definitely slums.

I know and it contradicts your own statement above where you said you wouldn't show tourists around in slums.


You have to use a loose definition because every country is different. The history of slums in the United States is very different than Brazil for example. In brazil, the slums are caused by the rural exodus and building of illegal settlements. In the USA, it's a result of a dynamic city: one ethnic group moving out and another in and land value decreasing. In the USA poor neighborhoods are made up of very old housing stock, in a neighborhood that was once middle class. In Brazil, it always was a slum (generally). You can't use one catch all definition. That's like defining "urban" for every city in the world. LA's "urban" is very different than Hong Kong.

No you don't have to keep it excessively loose in order to include almost anything which is working class. You could simply be precise instead and call different types of settlements differently.

Not every city is completely different even though you can find unique aspects probably in every city. You can group them into different categories. Cities of developed countries are certainly different in various aspects from cities in poorer countries.

I wouldn't describe those Belfast areas as slums. Every home there has access to drinkable tapwater, mains sewage disposal, municipal refuse/recycling collection, paved roads, 24/7 electricity, official telecoms connections, public transport links, formal legal title to land, buildings constructed legally according to local building codes etc etc.

Slums to me are places lacking many of these features. You could maybe describe some of those worst areas in Belfast as 'ghetto' in the general modern sense rather than the original sense as they can be low income, high unemployment, high crime, socially deprived and alienated districts.

Hello :) I live Vietnamese

I know and it contradicts your own statement above where you said you wouldn't show tourists around in slums.
I feel like I'm talking to 5 years olds sometimes...I hate how I have to spell out EVERY single word on this forum. Rather than argue ad naseum some minute definition or clarification of what I meant, please take my original comment (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=80340506&postcount=43) IN CONTEXT. I stand by it: EVERY major city in the world has bad areas, ghettos, slums...

I drive these bad areas for work regularly, trust me, they're there.

You have to use a loose definition because every country is different. The history of slums in the United States is very different than Brazil for example. In brazil, the slums are caused by the rural exodus and building of illegal settlements. In the USA, it's a result of a dynamic city: one ethnic group moving out and another in and land value decreasing. In the USA poor neighborhoods are made up of very old housing stock, in a neighborhood that was once middle class. In Brazil, it always was a slum (generally). You can't use one catch all definition. That's like defining "urban" for every city in the world. LA's "urban" is very different than Hong Kong.


Pretty much. Some cities did have vast areas of tenements and really bad quality housing from the industrial age when there was a rural to migration. But a lot of these were cleared out during urban renewal. What's interesting to me is now we are reaching the point where some housing and neighborhoods from the 1950s-70s is now in bad shape and becoming low-income areas.

I feel like I'm talking to 5 years olds sometimes...I hate how I have to spell out EVERY single word on this forum. Rather than argue ad naseum some minute definition or clarification of what I meant, please take my original comment (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=80340506&postcount=43) IN CONTEXT. I stand by it: EVERY major city in the world has bad areas, ghettos, slums...


Every city has "bad areas"? Sure, unless a city is 100% homogeneous in terms of wealth it is going to have "bad areas". Isn't that a trivial statement?

The big question is what "bad areas" actually means. And there are huge differences especially between the developing and the developed world.

^^ I do indeed make a difference between some "rough" area in Madrid, where the buildings might be rundown and burglary is a rampant problem, and some "rough" area in Rio de Janeiro where the police has to mount military-style operations with armored trucks and helicopters to merely enter the place, where occupation was illegal in first place (geological hazard), floods wash away makeshift houses killing dozens and murder is a rampant problem.