Quote:
|
How come SF never fall apart the way dtla did? was it cuz of cable cars? but that system was mainly localized. SF didn't have BART til 1972. so did cable cars prevent SF from becoming burbanized the way LA did?
|
There are a couple of reasons. First, geography limited suburbanization in the Bay Area. Southern California is bounded by mountains but in between it has vast flat coastal plains (the "plains of ID" according to Kevin Starr, the official CA state hisotrian) and the vast flat expanse of the San Fernando Valley. The Bay Area is bounded not only by water but mountainous and hilly territory, much of which is protected state park land.
Second, the type of people the respective cities and metro areas attracted can explain some of the development patterns. San Francisco certainly hasn't been immune from its bouts of provincialism and NIMBYism (height restrictions in downtown SF to limit shadows, etc...) but in much of the early 20th century and post WWII era, the Bay Area and Los Angeles/OC attracted vastly different groups of people. San Francisco tended to attract people from the large East Coast cities who were use to denser living and transit. Los Angeles, on the other hand, had a large migration from the Midwest and plains states, especially during and after World War II with the dramatic growth in aerospace manufacturing. For this group of newly-arrived residents that lived through the Great Depression and fought abroad in Europe or Asia during World War II, the detached single family homes with a car in the driveway was a very attractive lifestyle.
I encourage you to read "Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance, 1950-1963" to find out more about this.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/su.../~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE1Mzc3NA==
Threaded Mode