Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Retrogressive Streetcar Suburbs

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    
   

Posted by  Paul Malo on January 09, 2002 at 08:05:25:

In Reply to:  Re: Urbanism....pro-sprawl 'science' posted by Amanda on January 09, 2002 at 02:05:12:

I remember as a youngster the last trolleys operating in our city. Electric mass transit provided efficient, non-poluting movement of people. The system was even "inter-urban," as they called it, allowing users to travel to other communities of the region and to rural recreation facilities. Ideal? Why was it abandoned?

The streetcars largely served people who could not afford to maintain their own horse and carriage in a barn, providing feed throughout the year. Vast tracts of "streetcar suburbs" were built here, and in many American cities, over the opening of the twentieth century. There were no barns behind houses, or even room for driveways to the rear, because houses were built on small lots in order to allow as many residents as possible to be withing walking distance of the trolly line. This is the "old" New Urbanism. The houses all had front porches, in fact.

Now these huges tracts of houses are largely vacant, with many gaping holes where buildings have been demolished, and most of the remaining buildings have been converted to poorly maintained multi-family rental use. The buildings themselves are generally far superior in size and quality of construction that what is available at far greater cost in newer suburbs. What happened?

Mobility. When Henry Ford provided the option of an affordable automobile, people did not have to house a horse in a barn to be mobile. They bought a Model T and moved out to a house with a driveway and garage. They moved to houses on larger lots, where windows did not look ten feet into the windows of neighbors, and where there was more space for children to play, for gardens, and where (very critically) schools were new and genrally better, while taxes were lower. But above all, the automobile gave them freedom of movement, far beyond what even the elaborate network of electric trolley lines provided.

Yes, all sorts of statistics can be present to document the high cost of "urban sprawl." But will the statistics change individual preference of life style? Will people voluntarily go back to the streetcar suburbs?

If New Urbanism purports to have it both ways, retaining the mobility of the private automobile, while attaining the density of the streetcar suburb, what will it have accomplished, except to compress the modern suburb? This may combined the worst of both models.

 
 
ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search GreatBuildings.com by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.



 

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/12069.html