Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo the Dog
I was thinking the other day, how much early American cities were able to accomplish and develop into what they are with much smaller populations in the city and basically no suburbs at such an early time, before technology and the wealth of the common citizen. These early developments have held their own over the centuries and usually are the most desired areas of most metro areas today.
This lead me to think about CS and just how long it takes to get anything done. Even once construction begins, it is a rarity for the original plans to ever get built due to funds. Could anyone envision Phoenix building a Georgetown or a Back Bay today, consisting of blocks upon blocks of dense residential. We have the open land in downtown, but we don't have the means to do it anymore. Just look how long and difficult it was to build Alta Phoenix.
Think about how hard it is for Phoenix to develop and build a modern mass transit system. The extensions are already delayed indefinitely and are even in question due to funding. In 1898 Boston built America's first subway tunnel. The pop. in 1900 was only 560,892. Could any of us imagine Phoenix being able to do this today with a pop well over 1.5 million? How about the city of Mesa, pop over 450k, they can't build anything on their own, and cannot even maintain what they do have (streets, sewer, police etc).
Imagine if New York was not capable of building subways in Manhattan in the early 1900's, where would the city be today had they not been able to construct that? And could they be able to do it today if needed? I think not. Just take a look at lower Manhattan and how long it is taking to rebuild down there.
Just seems that as much as we think we have progressed, cities have actually regressed in these areas. What do you guys think?
|
The difference is the automobile. Suburbs are extremely difficult if not impossible without the automobile, which forces density in the city and makes rail transit (the only real mass transit option before internal combustion) a necessity. Density and mass transit costs do not really go up that much with the invention of the automobile, but the cost of building suburbia plummets, not to mention the appeal of being able to drive yourself around and live on your own land. These great dense accomplisments you refer to were all built in an era when they were much more feasible relative to the alternatives. If you ignore the obvious environmental and social catastrophy that has been modern suburbia and realize that the majority of people vote with their wallet first and their short-term self-interest and sense of entitlement a close second, then suburbia is much more feasible than density in many modern cases.
Not to start a political debate, but the other major differences in cost are minimum-wage, unions, and immigration policy. Say what you will about human rights but tens of thousands of cheap irish immigrants and cheaper ex-slaves get infrastructure built for a nice sounding price. Use cut and cover construction through the ghettos with no thought to environmental or social consequences and the cost starts sounding even better. Minimum wage, unions protecting the human rights of labor, EIR processes, etc. make construction much more expensive.
Perhaps that's the better question. Imagine how much infrastructure the US could get built if we offered illegal aliens citizenship in exchange for X years of free labor living in a government provided tent and eating potato soup.
Prev
Linear Mode
