Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia | Hacker News Reader

Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia

marketurbanism.com

1 pointMz4 comments

Re: But none of these conclusions were inevitable. Government intervention influenced our expectations about home ownership, tax treatment, car infrastructure, and even what our neighborhoods should look like. In the course of the next few posts, we’ll dive into each of these four topics to understand how American communities came to be what they are today."

Perhaps I missed it but it does look like they're going to discuss why. That is why the gov went in this direction. Who benefitted. Who didn't. What sociopolitical norms did it encourge/discourage. Etc.

The whats will certainly be interesting. But the arc of why would be a greater discussion.

One aspect is racism and xenophobia. Remember that Levittown was a whites-only suburb.

Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabgrass_Frontier : Jackson examined the New Deal's contributions to public housing and concludes that "the result, if not the intent, of the public housing program of the United States was to segregate the races, to concentrate the disadvantaged in inner cities, and to reinforce the image of suburbia as a place of refuge for the problems of race, crime, and poverty."

Or https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-rac... .

For a more diverse treatment of some other aspects of suburbanization, see http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/schrag/wiki/index.php?title=Subu... .

The first essay in the series links to other references like http://web.mit.edu/ebj/www/doc/JAPAv61n1.pdf which describe some of the reasons for, for example, car-oriented roads and the reason for building cul-de-sacs[1]. (In short: it was cheaper.)

The 1950s urban planning policy was based on single-use zones, magnified by its incorporation into federal standards. "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" is the classic critique of that approach.

[1] I deliberate treat it as an English word and make it a plural with English rules, rather than use the French plural

Interesting. But why were the whites "forced out" of the cities when the European tradition was minorites out and wealthy (whites) stay?

This is where I get back to I wish this series was going to explore The Why as well. That doesn't seem to be the case based on this first in the series.

This series is specifically discussing "an even more important factor that shaped patterns of American development since the Great Depression." It is not discussing the roots of suburbanization, which is what you appear to want. For that you must consult the sources.

The series linked to http://web.mit.edu/ebj/www/doc/JAPAv61n1.pdf , and I suggested it as well in my earlier comment.

On page 2 it says "To avoid the harsh physical and social conditions of the industrial city, affluent citizens of that era chose to live in new developments at the rural-urban edge. ... the suburban notion trickled down from the elite to the middle class ..."

On page 3 "During the late nineteenth century the environmental chaos of the city was seen as linked to its social problems. Overcrowding and deteriorating sanitary conditions were believed to cause social and moral degeneration. Social and health reformers argued that the inevitable social disorder would be controlled best by improving the environment. Then as reformers discovered the difficulty of improving the inner city, many began advocating multi-centered growth patterns. Suburbanization was seen as a vital force not only in urbanizing the countryside, but also in revitalizing the city. ... "

Reply on news.ycombinator.com