Prewar,Interwar, and Postwar Urbanism

[craigs]

An interesting, data-driven essay that is older but relates to the thread topic:

Long Dead Streetcars Still Shape L.A. Neighborhoods

Why Millions of Angelenos Live According to the Plan of an Extinct Transit System

Leah Brooks, Byron Lutz
Zocalo Public Square/UCLA
September 23, 2014

In the early 1900s, streetcars were the dominant mode of transit in the Los Angeles area. They ran from Pomona to the ocean, and from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach. The addition of a streetcar route to any area immediately made that land more accessible to downtown and therefore more valuable.
. . . .
Today, we think of the streetcar’s impact on Los Angeles as a matter purely for the past. As early as the late 1910s, Angelenos began abandoning streetcars for increasingly affordable cars. The very last streetcar tracks were pulled out of the ground in 1963. But in a very profound way, the streetcar retains a hold over Los Angeles. In recent research, we found that places near now-extinct streetcar stops remain notably denser today.

As economists who study cities and local governments, we wanted to understand how cities evolve over the long run. The project was sparked in part by a conversation we had walking down Hollywood Boulevard with an architect friend who pointed out some still-visible influences of the streetcar. How much of a city’s development can be explained by market forces? And how much is due to the long reach of the past?
. . . .

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If you de-select everything after 1940, you get a good idea of the footprint of prewar LA (it only shows the surviving buildings, not the actual size of the city at the time). What is unique about LA is that even most of the prewar stuff is car-centric.

I'd argue that the bulk of the pre-war fabric in DC, SF, Chicago, and Boston reflect car-centric design to varying degrees — whether they were intentionally built that way or evolved as such (e.g. back alleys originally designed for horse and carriage). Rowhouse-style urbanism generally lends itself to car-lite living today, unless you're talking about districts that are integrated with or adjacent to the core (e.g. the prime areas of Manhattan and central London).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I'd argue that the bulk of the pre-war fabric in DC, SF, Chicago, and Boston reflect car-centric design to varying degrees —

You and I clearly have VERY different ideas of what "car-centric" means.

When I think of "car-centric" places, I get the mental image of places like Schaumburg, IL.

ie. places where you can't easily get anywhere by any means other than personal automobile.

The vast bulk of pre-war fabric in DC, SF, Chicago, and Boston does not reflect that reality at all.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You and I clearly have VERY different ideas of what "car-centric" means.

When I think of "car-centric" places, I get the mental image of places like Schaumburg, IL.

ie. places where you can't get anywhere by any means other than personal automobile.

Yeah same here. For me, car-centric isn't just a place where one can use a car, it's a place where one is discouraged from using a mode other than a car by making it difficult (dangerous and/or inconvenient) not to. Any place that developed before cars were common cannot fit that category unless it was heavily modified later because it was - by definition - built for other modes. So how could people have built a place that makes it difficult to get around without a car when it was built by and for people who didn't - and couldn't - get around by car.

But yes there are places that were later modified to be auto-friendly which could qualify. Buildings torn down to make parking, inconvenient light cycles installed, urban fabric destroyed to make highways or widen arterials, two-way streets made single directional to facilitate car flow, etc.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yeah same here. For me, car-centric isn't just a place where one can use a car, it's a place where one is discouraged from using a mode other than a car by making it difficult (dangerous and/or inconvenient) not to. Any place that developed before cars were common cannot fit that category unless it was heavily modified later because it was - by definition - built for other modes. So how could people have built a place that makes it difficult to get around without a car when it was built by and for people who didn't - and couldn't - get around by car.

But yes there are places that were later modified to be auto-friendly which could qualify. Buildings torn down to make parking, inconvenient light cycles installed, urban fabric destroyed to make highways or widen arterials, two-way streets made single directional to facilitate car flow, etc.

This is exactly what it means.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The vast bulk of pre-war fabric in DC, SF, Chicago, and Boston does not reflect that reality at all.

But that wasn't what I was saying.

A place can have car-centric features while also being navigable by other means of transport. For me, the cities I mentioned fall into the category of "neither car friendly nor car unfriendly," hence why 2/3 households own a car.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yeah same here. For me, car-centric isn't just a place where one can use a car, it's a place where one is discouraged from using a mode other than a car by making it difficult (dangerous and/or inconvenient) not to. Any place that developed before cars were common cannot fit that category unless it was heavily modified later because it was - by definition - built for other modes. So how could people have built a place that makes it difficult to get around without a car when it was built by and for people who didn't - and couldn't - get around by car.

Car-centric doesn't necessarily mean car orientation. Conversely, "not car-centric" doesn't necessarily mean "car unfriendly."

An example of how a pre-war environment can have car-centric features is, say, a place with extra wide roads originally built to accommodate streetcars and/or horse and buggies. Here is NYC's Fifth Avenue in 1908. This is probably why the NYC Subway underperforms relative to the Paris Metro and even the London Underground. The combination of wide roads laid out on a grid is very conduce to taking taxis, Ubers, and Lyfts.


Wikipedia

But yes there are places that were later modified to be auto-friendly which could qualify. Buildings torn down to make parking, inconvenient light cycles installed, urban fabric destroyed to make highways or widen arterials, two-way streets made single directional to facilitate car flow, etc.

Well, that's essentially my assertion, only I didn't say "auto-friendly." I opt for "not car unfriendly."

Story behind SF's front-facing garages:

https://www.kqed.org/news/11939133/w...s-have-garages

While car popularity among big cities has been waning in the past few years, the presence of a garage adds at least $100,000 in value to a San Francisco home, said Ian Berke, a real estate broker who specializes in older buildings. “It's still a must for buyers,” he said. “If you don’t have a garage you’ve lost 75% of potential buyers.”

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article...s-16217530.php


Chicago, DC, and Boston all adapted to provide parking as well, albeit tucked in the back.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

A place can have car-centric features while also being navigable by other means of transport.

That just dilutes the meaning of the term way too much, in my opinion.

I mean, take that to its logical conclusion and we could even argue that Manhattan, with its wide avenues with multiple lanes exclusively dedicated to cars, has "car-centric features while also being navigable by other means of transport."

Using your overly broad definition, 99.9% of places in America "reflect car-centric design to varying degrees". After that we're only left with a few truly oddball outlier places like Mackinac Island, MI where cars are 100% prohibited by law.


I will continue reserving the term "car-centric" to refer to places that were very intentionally and specifically planned, designed, and built from the outset to be easily and conveniently navigated exclusively by automobile. That does not describe the vast bulk of pre-war urban fabric in DC, SF, Chicago, and Boston.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Car-centric doesn't necessarily mean car orientation. Conversely, "not car-centric" doesn't necessarily mean "car unfriendly."

Car-centric means the car is centered in design and/or central to everyday life. What you are talking about is not the meaning of car-centric.

centric

1. : located in or at a center : central. a centric point. 2. : concentrated about or directed to a center.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centric

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Quixote

A place can have car-centric features while also being navigable by other means of transport. For me, the cities I mentioned fall into the category of "neither car friendly nor car unfriendly," hence why 2/3 households own a car.

I don't know about this...

In my experience, of the cities you listed, pre-war Boston is certainly more "car unfriendly" than it is "car friendly". It's certainly not car centric.

[Crawford]

Yeah, Boston is not remotely car-centric. It's arguably the most car-unfriendly geography among those cities. I would MUCH rather drive in core DC, Chi or SF than core Bos.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Here is NYC's Fifth Avenue in 1908. This is probably why the NYC Subway underperforms relative to the Paris Metro and even the London Underground. The combination of wide roads laid out on a grid is very conduce to taking taxis, Ubers, and Lyfts.

Eh, the NYC subway, for much of its history, had the highest ridership on earth. And it has basically always had higher ridership than Paris and London.

Fifth Ave. on the UES has two lanes, 20 mph speed limit and a light every 260 ft. Not exactly a medieval lane, but not particularly conducive to private vehicle travel either. Fifth Ave. in Midtown will only have one lane shortly, and is always a mess.

Many of the north-south Manhattan arterials are wide, but this is largely a postwar thing, and almost all have been reconfigured so there are only one or two vehicle lanes, and the remaining space is for bus lanes, bike lanes, or expanded sidewalks (really restored sidewalks, as roadways were widened in the 1950's).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

pre-war Boston is certainly more "car unfriendly" than it is "car friendly". It's certainly not car centric.

But even then, there are plenty of places in pre-war Boston, like back bay, where the blocks are bisected by service alleys that provide access to thousands of rear yard garages/parking pads to accommodate private car storage. And out in triple-decker land, lots of side yard driveways, curb cuts, and such.

Afterall, most households in Boston own a car, so it's really best understood as a colonial Schaumburg. Fundamentally, they are no different from each other, they just have varying degrees of reflecting car-centric design features.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But even then, there are plenty of places in pre-war Boston, like back bay, where the blocks are bisected by service alleys that provide access to thousands of rear yard garages/parking pads to accommodate private car storage. And out in triple-decker land, lots of side yard driveways and such.

Afterall, most households in Boston own a car, so it's really better understood as a colonial Schaumburg. Fundamentally, they are no different from each other, they just have different degrees of reflecting car-centric design features.

THeY aRe tHe sAmE!!!!1!!

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Eh, the NYC subway, for much of its history, had the highest ridership on earth. And it has basically always had higher ridership than Paris and London.

Yeah, I don't get the basis of his claim. The NYC subway has had roughly the same ridership as the London Underground throughout the 21st century. And the NYC subway has typically had more riders than the Paris Metro.

Also, I don't get what Manhattan's grid has to do with anything. Commutes by subway in Manhattan are often faster than traveling by car, which pushes far more people onto the subway than the other way around. If anything, people have speculated that the layout of Manhattan's grid creates more congestion (hence the term "gridlock") than London's cow path grid.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But even then, there are plenty of places in pre-war Boston, like back bay, where the blocks are bisected by service alleys that provide access to thousands of rear yard garages/parking pads to accommodate private car storage. And out in triple-decker land, lots of side yard driveways, curb cuts, and such.

Afterall, most households in Boston own a car, so it's really best understood as a colonial Schaumburg. Fundamentally, they are no different from each other, they just have varying degrees of reflecting car-centric design features.

We are all car-centric - even you urbanist bike boy!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

We are all car-centric - even you urbanist bike boy!

it's true, it's true!

i do love urbanism.

and i do love bikes.

BUT...........


my family does own a car.


OH NO! I'M A CAR-CENTRIC MONSTER!!

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, Boston is not remotely car-centric. It's arguably the most car-unfriendly geography among those cities. I would MUCH rather drive in core DC, Chi or SF than core Bos.

I was gonna say . . . anyone who thinks Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Malden, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Winthrop etc. are even "car tolerable" has clearly never driven in Boston's inner ring. It's excruciating.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I was gonna say . . . anyone who thinks Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Malden, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Winthrop etc. are even "car tolerable" has clearly never driven in Boston's inner ring. It's excruciating.

Brookline, Newton, Watertown . . . .

This former resident can confirm: there is no parking in East Somerville or West Somerville.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by craigs

Brookline, Newton, Watertown . . . .

This former resident can confirm: there is no parking in East Somerville or West Somerville.

I left Brookline out because I low-key love driving on the VFW Parkway and all through the country-club-estate western half of town. Driving from Foxboro to Boston only using back roads and a little bit of Rt 1 through Walpole, Norwood, Westwood, Dedham, and Brookline is fun for me, but only because I do it as an activity itself; it would be a horrible choice if I had to actually be somewhere on time.