Sprawl illustrated: 1950 to 2005

[Michele Zone]

Thanks, Dan, that helps. I don't remember all the figures anymore but once saw stats to the effect that 1950's homes were generally around 1200 to 1600 square feet versus 2000+ sq. ft. for homes built in the year 2000 ....and lots of other similar details concerning how much more lavish, fewere occupants, etc.

Yep None of the benefits of true urbanism. They're still monolithic subdivisions, sprawl, with absolutely nothing to make walking pleasant, interesting, or possible.

I am currently staying with relatives while job-hunting and my kids and I sometimes go for walks together in the neighborhood. Absolutely no sidewalks (except on the main road where we can't breathe and won't go), lots of culd-de-sacs so there is only one route we like because it actually goes somewhere and is not merely wandering in and out of dead-ends, huge houses on medium to huge lots with high fences and they all look like Compounds a la David Koresh, etc. ad nauseum.

My wish: a small home for me and my kids that is spare, non-toxic, low-maintenance, and good for our health that will be sparsely furnished.

[jmello]

I think that a theoretically 'good' development pattern would be taking the 1950s sub. (or greater density) and quishing it into a concentrated node and then maintain the rest as active/passive recreation and/or forested trails and/or wild nature corridors connected to other dense nodes.

I completely agree. I would also mix in neighborhood services and different types of residential development (i.e. small apartment buildings, townhomes, duplexes, etc.)

Something like this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...05819,0.013475
(Zoom to where the center is upon opening.)

[mendelman]

I completely agree. I would also mix in neighborhood services and different types of residential development (i.e. small apartment buildings, townhomes, duplexes, etc.)

Yes, of course.

[imaplanner]

I think that a theoretically 'good' development pattern would be taking the 1950s sub. (or greater density) and quishing it into a concentrated node and then maintain the rest as active/passive recreation and/or forested trails and/or wild nature corridors connected to other dense nodes.

Where would the rich people live?

[Michele Zone]

Where would the rich people live?

We will just soak them with taxes until there are no rich people.









MZ, wishing ablarc were here so he could start a proper fight about the general classist hatred of people who -- god forbid! -- Actually Have Money. Not that I approved of his fights but I also don't approve of the general classist hatred of those with money. If you said "Where would all the black people live" I suspect it would be worthy of a Yellow Card.

[BKM]

Where would the rich people live?

Only suburban Americans assume all rich people would automatically prefer low density sprawl. There are a few REAL CITIES where some of the best housing is actually quite tightly packed. Give me Telegraph Hill, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, or Chicago's Near North Side (North State Parkway) absolutely any day over sprawling, low density and boring suburbia. That is, of course, MY opinion and my taste, but it is a taste certainly refelcted in property values and quality of the residences involved. Not everyone wants to live on a cul-de-sac in some faux rural paradise.

[Hceux]

After looking at the 2000 picture, I thought to myself, "I doubt I would see very much of that residential neighbourhoods in Toronto. Most new residential buildings are squished together in a manner more densely than the 1950 photo."

So, I'm wondering if the 2000 picture is way out in the countryside where it's not even closed to any other subdivisions or commercial centres.

[boiker]

After looking at the 2000 picture, I thought to myself, "I doubt I would see very much of that residential neighbourhoods in Toronto. Most new residential buildings are squished together in a manner more densely than the 1950 photo."

So, I'm wondering if the 2000 picture is way out in the countryside where it's not even closed to any other subdivisions or commercial centres.

It is a low density exurban design. there's retail, probably 7-15 minutes away on a retail strip/corridor.

[jordanb]

Only suburban Americans assume all rich people would automatically prefer low density sprawl. There are a few REAL CITIES where some of the best housing is actually quite tightly packed. .

Good point, consider the most exclusive, old-money address in Chicago:

Kenliworth, IL


With some starter-castles in Barrington Hills, IL:



The drainage pond is named "Lake Adalyn."

[PennPlanner]

Of the three examples of sprawl, I would have to admit preferring the third. The open space looks nice, especially the large belts of green woods between the houses. Sure, it'd probably be a pain having to drive everywhere, but then again, I didn't notice many amenities in the highest density 1950s sprawl. Looks like you still have to drive everywhere.

In the Chicago old money suburb (looks like Kenilworth or Winnetka) the lots appear to be half an acre, which is decent for me. What makes the suburb the most appealing place to live are probably the architecture and quality of residences, and if the picture is typical of a 1920s country club suburb, the presence of plenty of amenities nearby such as a commercial corridor with nice stores and restaurants, schools and churches and parks within walking distance (though we have to be honest here, most people will still drive), and a train station for the easy commute to downtown.

[DetroitPlanner]

Good point, consider the most exclusive, old-money address in Chicago:
With some starter-castles in Barrington Hills, IL:

The drainage pond is named "Lake Adalyn."

Are you making fun of the ugly monstrosities found in my Sister's neighborhood? Thats my job! Can I give you her work # and the have you bug her to move back to a city? I've spent a week in a subdivision out there, without access to a car to watch her child, it was tourture!

[UrbaniDesDev]

How much of the type and scale of developments being done are driven by mass commercialism? Mass consumerism? I've always felt that we are driven by what the media tells us we need to be happy. Do we need a big yard and a 2 car garage to be happy or is that what we were told we need? Are we just responding to the influence of the corporate world and mass media? Are we happier now in the post-industrial world than the pre WWII world where few had yards at all and we generally lived in close-knit urban neighborhoods or farming communities? Are we isolating ourselves in our private castles?

[imaplanner]

Only suburban Americans assume all rich people would automatically prefer low density sprawl. There are a few REAL CITIES where some of the best housing is actually quite tightly packed. Give me Telegraph Hill, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, or Chicago's Near North Side (North State Parkway) absolutely any day over sprawling, low density and boring suburbia. That is, of course, MY opinion and my taste, but it is a taste certainly refelcted in property values and quality of the residences involved. Not everyone wants to live on a cul-de-sac in some faux rural paradise.

True. Most of my life experience has been that the wealthy live in large mini-estates in the outskirts of urban areas but you are exactly right that that's not always the case.

But would I be correct in making the statement that where the best/most expensive housing is more tightly packed is in the older cities? And that in the planning and growing of newer communities and communities that specific have come about since the invent of the automobile that the most expensive housing ends up being the low density sprawl?

[PennPlanner]

The desire for a lawn and garden has been with Americans since time immemorable, well, certainly at least since the 17th century. William Penn laid out Philadelphia so that every family would have a plot big enough for a garden. Although Philadelphia didn't turn out the way Penn hoped, the affluent have always escaped to villas and summer houses in rural areas outside the city limits. In the early 19th century, the first suburbs proper began being developed, in part inspired by the romantic landscape movement that emerged around 1800. Llewelyn Park in New Jersey is probably the first planned suburb where every house had a large plot, and Llewelyn dates to the 1840s.

Also, while most Americans today live in urbanized areas (city or suburbs), urbanism in the US is a fairly recent trend. Most Americans lived on farms until the 20th century, and it wasn't until the 1920s that the majority of Americans became urban dwellers (at the time including small town folks), so for a very large portion of the American population, the urban experience is a mystery, one that lasted merely a generation or two, and for many of them, not necessarily a pleasant one.

Furthermore, American cities through the 1950s were very high density, packed, and uncomfortable places. If you think New York is crowded today, the density of parts of New York today has nothing on what it was like during the days of the immigrant neighborhoods in the lower East Side. In the 20s and 30s the social reform movement included proposals for relocating people to the greenery of the suburbs, because in contrast to the hot, dirty, packed, disease-ridden tenements of the city, the open spaces of the suburbs were pure relief. William Mumford and his circle sponsored Radburn in New Jersey, and Greenbelt, MD was a model of what working class suburban housing would be.

So, to answer your question, while Hollywood certainly reinforces the notion of every family having a five bedroom colonial on a half acre, the fact remains that Hollywood is only showing what Americans themselves actually want. Hop in the car, and drive through the urban areas of any large eastern city, and what do you see? Miles after miles of cramped two story working class rowhouses and tiny apartments, with very little greenery or parks to break up the monotony. While there was certainly life in those neighborhoods at one time, imagine what it was like for a family of five, six, or even seven living in a three bedroom rowhouse, imagine all those long, hot summers when the pavement glimmered in the heat and you could fry an egg on the sidewalk, and where the air reeked of pollution from the local factory?

The suburbs became an escape from the monotony and dreariness of the typical urban lifestyle for your average urban dweller up through the 1950s. For many it was a step up from their immigrant days, for others it was a hawkening back to grandmother's days on the farm or the small town. For others it was aping what the more affluent have always done: retreat from the loud, noisy, polluted cities to quiet, green residential neighborhoods.

I'm from Baltimore and recently there was an article in the local paper in which several young residents of one of the city's poorer neighborhood were quoted in saying that their ambition included a move to Owings Mills. Now, to me Owings Mills is a bland, boring, suburban sprawl. But to these young men, the newness and open spaces and fresh greenery of Owings Mills was a far step above their decaying urban neighborhood.

Cultured urbanism, that so many of us on Cyburbia love and appreciate, has always been a luxury. Urbanism for most people means something entirely different from the chi chi boutiques of Manhattan or wonderful ethnic restaurants or great museums. It means crime, poverty, despair, and dreary monotonous landscapes interrupted only by the hulk of a factory building with smoke belching smokestacks.

I'm sorry if I drifted off somewhat here, but perhaps you can understand why so many Americans have instinctively reached for the suburbs, and remain aloof and suspicious of cities and urbanism.

How much of the type and scale of developments being done are driven by mass commercialism? Mass consumerism? I've always felt that we are driven by what the media tells us we need to be happy. Do we need a big yard and a 2 car garage to be happy or is that what we were told we need? Are we just responding to the influence of the corporate world and mass media? Are we happier now in the post-industrial world than the pre WWII world where few had yards at all and we generally lived in close-knit urban neighborhoods or farming communities? Are we isolating ourselves in our private castles?

[BKM]

The desire for a lawn and garden has been with Americans since time immemorable, well, certainly at least since the 17th century. William Penn laid out Philadelphia so that every family would have a plot big enough for a garden. Although Philadelphia didn't turn out the way Penn hoped, the affluent have always escaped to villas and summer houses in rural areas outside the city limits. In the early 19th century, the first suburbs proper began being developed, in part inspired by the romantic landscape movement that emerged around 1800. Llewelyn Park in New Jersey is probably the first planned suburb where every house had a large plot, and Llewelyn dates to the 1840s.

All very good points, PennPlanner. I certainly don't want to deny the general reality (and I've posted similar points in the past).

My response to this, however, is theat suburbia works well as an "escape" ONLY when it is a luxury good FOR A FEW PEOPLE.

When everybody lives in a low density suburban landscape, you get 12-lane arterials, perpetually jammed freeways, fifty mile commute patterns, etc. Most people accept this because it's all they've known, but there is growing malaise that is reflected in the vehement opposition to "growth" which is nothing more than more of the same development pattern that the suburban NIMBYs themselves live in. Thus, cities are stymied. Without paving over more and more farmland and resource lands, the suburban dream becomes more and more expensive. It is a dilemna, no?

[crisp444]

Fantastic post, PennPlanner! I am in 100% agreement. Although many of us like to romanticize urban living, the suburbs really WERE a sigh of relief and a breath of fresh air for millions of people that formerly lived in crowded, dirty, and polluted conditions in the city. I too think that that media only reinforces what the average American THINKS - and that is that having a large house in the suburbs is the #1 indicator of "making it," or, being successful. This very ideal is exemplified in what those two inner city boys said about wanting to move to Owings Mill, MD.

Although I think it is wonderful that American central cities are losing their negative images and that some successful people are choosing to live and even raise their families in them, we have long way to go before the average middle/upper middle class person will choose a 2 bedroom apartment in the city over a McMansion in the suburbs.

I am a proponent of everything most people want on this site: urbanity, densification, walkability, public transportation, less parking lots, more parks and public spaces, more interaction with neighbors. However, as much as I love my life in the city, even I see a faux Mediterranean mini-villa with a fountain in the front and a pool in the back as tempting - VERY tempting. I would be lying if I said that I wouldn't trade a 30 minute commute by subway for a 60 minute commute by car with the added bonus of my own pool and spacious garden.

BKM - you have some good points, but I am still unconvinced that the suburbanization of the US is a problem. Like I've said before, I think this is only a problem in the minds of a handful of academics, planners, and members of the intellectual elite. I know this sounds elite in itself, but does the average person really know or even care about the things we over-educated people discuss on boards such as these? For most, sitting in traffic and living 20 km from the city center is a normal fact of life. How many people really are bothered by the fact that they drive on 8 lane roads to get the grocery store 10 minutes away? My guess is not many. I just recently read the results of the 2000 and 2004 US census and I found that the mean travel time to work for Americans is 25.5 minutes. Not bad at all, in my opinion. Sure, traffic is bad in suburban America - it's also bad in urban and suburban Spain and the rest of the world. The only difference is that here in Europe (and also in Asia), more suburbs are made up of high-rise apartment towers and dense multi-family buildings. Cars seem to be JUST AS POPULAR and JUST AS USED here! But instead of having spread out suburban areas with a car or two at every house, we have very dense suburbs with a car or two at each dwelling as well, that people DO USE to go to work, the grocery stores, etc. We have terrible rush-hour traffic here too - our commutes may be geographically shorter than yours, but they seem to last just as long due to more cars and people within a smaller area.

[BKM]

Not denying anything Crispin or PennPlanner are saying. But, often "the elites" recognize problems before "the masses" do. That doesn;t mean "the elites" are wrong.

Americans use 2-3+ times as much energy as Europeans do. Building those networks of low density roads and endless sewer and water pipes costs a lot of money. Look at the stats, folks. We are no longer, increasingly a wealthy country. Can we afford every man with a two acre parcel? I'm afraid the glory days may be coming to an end.

Plus, again, what are the costs when lower and lower densities are the only solution most people will choose?. Will we be importing all of our food as we pave over the fertile farmland? Every estate adds another SUV to the narrow country road, destroys more habitat connections and farmland, and discourages walking and bicycling.

[jordanb]

^-- By the way, those two google earth images are on the same scale, I'm not sure if everyone got that.

[imaplanner]

Those lot sizes in Kenliworth are still rather large in the context of an urban density discussion. I'm guessing 10,000 sf on average??

[Luca]

Good thread. Thanks again, Dan and good contributions from PennPlanner, BKM et al.

I contribute a few points:

1. One ‘revisionist’ refutation to some of the statements about the nature of urban living pre-1950s burbs. I think the ‘urban hellhole’ image is way overdone. Certainly, some particularly poor people (say the bottom 20%) lived in squalid conditions that were physically ameliorated by housing projects. Few of those people actually escaped to the burbs. Most working-class neighbourhoods were very far from the apocalyptic descriptions above. A great deal of hand-wringing and exaggeration stays with us from the breathless tracts written by bored Victorian high society ladies who could not conceive of living in anything less than a mansion. Many excellent working class neighbourhoods in which people were perfectly happy to live were classed as ‘slums’ unfairly and often torn down.

2. That said, it’s true that a little (or big) house on a piece of land is a sort of common ideal – I thoroughly agree with BKM here that this is a classic case of very finite scalability .

3. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Americans will continue to live in suburbs. The issue is whether they live in reasonably sized homes/lots or just rattle around their isolated barns, only to discover their neighbourhoods are soulless. I personally favour a ‘village’ approach of quite dense suburbs with local amenities, small yards but plenty of green space in between. I think that spatial allocation of housing land has entered a negative/vicious circle in the US and it may require community action/elite leadership/government intervention to reverse this.

4. At the very LEAST, athorities should not effectively PROHIBIT denser / more mixed neighborhoods, which I understand is effectively the case in many US jurisdictions.

[BKM]

3. ...I personally favour a ‘village’ approach of quite dense suburbs with local amenities, small yards but plenty of green space in between. I think that spatial allocation of housing land has entered a negative/vicious circle in the US and it may require community action/elite leadership/government intervention to reverse this.

Sadly, enough, the village concept is probably what people may really want, in many respects (or think they want/are marketed to want). The myth of the small town runs strong. Heck, I kinda like the villagey feeling of my neighborhood (but boy, nothing is more dismal than Californai stucco and sound wall suburbia-a short distance away. The realities of the personal automobile and its scale-destroying land requirements, still centralized employment bases, local planning regulations, and developer profit-seeking (I used this word instead of "greed" ) conspire against it. Do many people really want to live in Modesto, CA, outer Phoenix, Arizona, etc?

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm from Baltimore and recently there was an article in the local paper in which several young residents of one of the city's poorer neighborhood were quoted in saying that their ambition included a move to Owings Mills. Now, to me Owings Mills is a bland, boring, suburban sprawl. But to these young men, the newness and open spaces and fresh greenery of Owings Mills was a far step above their decaying urban neighborhood.

Thats funny on this side of Lake Erie everyone will hear the name of that suburb and think its part of a large Glass/Fiberglass conglometate that changes names all the time.

[crisp444]

Luca (and BKM) - I favor the village approach too, but I too am afraid that it is a thing of the past. Our educated workforce (I refer to the first world here especially) and global economy will probably effectively prohibit people clustering in self-sufficient villages that are spread out in the countryside. Where would people work? Not too many people are tailors, butchers, shoemakers, or bricklayers anymore. Where would all the scientists, high-tech workers, lawyers, or executives work? They'd probably just have to endure a 2-3 hour long commute to the nearest large city. There is just no conceivable way that we can recreate the village where everyone lives and works. Everything is too centralized and globalized for this to ever happen. Sure, we can have residential pedestrian-friendly "villages" with stores, schools, and churches, but for most people, a commute by car or train to a large city for work will be inevitable. For this reason, developers (and I will guess their clients, too) want new neighborhoods directly next to old ones - this does increase sprawl, but it reduces physical distance to the central city, and that is attractive to a lot of people. This is NOT an American dilemma - it is a dilemma all over the world. Will you see new "village style" neighborhoods being built in the country in Spain, Thailand, Argentina, or India? Generally, the answer is NO - the new neighborhoods are built directly next to old ones. Sprawl is now everywhere in the developed world.

BKM - I dare to say that lots of people probably DO want to live in Modesto, CA or outer Phoenix, AZ. To many, a house with a yard is the main focus. So many people aspire to own a plot of their own land. If this is what you want, it is nearly impossible to find in the central city. Although those places may not necessarily be attractive to us, they are to a lot of people - who WANT a lawnmower and SUV. I have actually met people who turn their noses up at San Francisco, saying that it is "too crowded" and that they would prefer to just buy a home over an hour away! One of my own relatives obsesses over the fact that I willingly walk 15 minutes to the grocery store instead of drive (even though I don't have a car) - a lifestyle that is not suburban is unimaginable to lots of people.

[Wulf9]

I grew up in a "1950" subdivision. I had lots of friends in neighboring houses. We biked and walked to school, to the park, to after school activities, and to little league. There was a little convenience store next to the elementary school.

My daughters grew up in an 1975 and 2005-type subdivisions at various times. We drove them to school, to parks, to dance lessons, to friends houses, and to shopping. Their communities of friends and associations were geographically dispersed.

We all came out okay, but I suspect that the 1950's experience is a better way to grow up than the 1975-2005 one.

[Luca]

...There is just no conceivable way that we can recreate the village where everyone lives and works. ...for most people, a commute by car or train to a large city for work will be inevitable...

Yes, I think that is inevitable, beyond some 'company towns' and, of course, telecommuting. Bear in mind, also, that a alrge portion of the woirkforce works on 'sustainment' businesses (i.e. retailing, communications, health, sanitation, domestic services, etc. which are fairly decentralized). But overall, yes, the idea of everyone living/working/etc. in a village is not practical.

What I emant ois taht, insfoar as some/many peoiple want to lvie away from an apartments-based, city-grid lifestyle, they would be better off in relatively dense 'villages' surrounded by coutnryside and linekd to the nearby city by train service or the like. If we postualte that a denser 'village' has three tiems the density of a typcial suburb, you can havbe 2/3 coutnryside and 1/3 habitation and still stick the same number of people in a given area / distance from the city. You then ahve some of the benefits of community/wlakability for older/younger people, the wide open spaces of countryside.

Ultimately, though, if everyone chooses to live like make-believe alnded gentry then yes, sprawl as far as the eye can see. personally, I loathe it but, hey, I don't have to live in it.