The End of Suburbia

[Ross]

The city wasn't very big at the time. And also the cost of riding a street car was MUCH less than purchasing an automobile.

 

But those who could afford it, bought an automobile.

[Slick Vik]

But those who could afford it, bought an automobile.

 

A small percentage. The automobile was considered a flop, even GM knew this, and this is why they undertook the plan of action of making a shell company to buy up streetcar lines, rip out the tracks, and replace them with buses.

[august948]

The automobile was considered a flop

The last 90 years of continuous expansion of automobile ownership worldwide belies this in such a way as to make such a statement ridiculous.

[august948]

The city wasn't very big at the time. And also the cost of riding a street car was MUCH less than purchasing an automobile.

That is correct. The population in Texas was overwhelmingly rural in those days and as such only a very small fraction of people were even served by streetcar lines. A somewhat larger percentage were served by passenger railroads for long distance travel but, guess what? For most people in Texas if you wanted to go somewhere you walked or rode a horse. It's no wonder the automobile took off like it did.

[RedScare]

A small percentage. The automobile was considered a flop, even GM knew this, and this is why they undertook the plan of action of making a shell company to buy up streetcar lines, rip out the tracks, and replace them with buses.

 

And the overwhelming majority of us will be eternally grateful. Only you seem upset with how things turned out. Of course, this has nothing to do with Houston streetcars, as the streetcar company itself began converting to buses as the city grew too large to continue laying track. GM had nothing to do with Houston's streetcar demise.

[Slick Vik]

And the overwhelming majority of us will be eternally grateful. Only you seem upset with how things turned out. Of course, this has nothing to do with Houston streetcars, as the streetcar company itself began converting to buses as the city grew too large to continue laying track. GM had nothing to do with Houston's streetcar demise.

 

Who in the end ended up buying the streetcar company? National City Lines, aka GM's shell company. Houston's demise was mostly due to lack of allowance to raise fares to help cover maintenance costs and the stupid rule that required paving of any street track was built on which was and still is a gargantuan cost.

[RedScare]

Actually, the City of Houston purchased Houston Electric's streetcar lines. GM was nowhere to be found.

 

 

While Houston’s population was increasing, streetcar ridership remained stagnant, as more and more people embraced the car. When businesses and other non-residential development began popping up in the suburbs it was clear that people were using the car for more than just their commutes. Houston was already well on its way to becoming the car-dependent city it is today.

 

The official abandonment of the streetcar system occurred in 1940 in a deal between the city and HE. The mayor of Houston had an interest in gaining ownership of the interurban route, most of which was operated by HE. His main motive was a project he had been championing, a proposed multi-lane highway to Galveston (which would eventually become the Gulf Freeway). In exchange for the right-of-way on the Houston-Galveston interurban corridor and $50,000 the city would take on the expensive task of dismantling all of the street rails, making HE’s transition to buses complete. “The death of Houston’s streetcar system was thus, in a very real sense, tied with the birth of Houston’s super-highway system” (Baron).

 

 

 

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

[Slick Vik]

Actually, the City of Houston purchased Houston Electric's streetcar lines. GM was nowhere to be found.

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

Do you know why? GM used banking connections to facilitate the abandonment.

[august948]

Do you know why? GM used banking connections to facilitate the abandonment.

 

Never thought I'd really see so much proof for the old saying, "What's good for GM is good for America".  Thanks for supplying it.

[livincinco]

Do you know why? GM used banking connections to facilitate the abandonment.

 

I'm still failing to see the problem.

 

The nostalgia for the street cars seems to have materialized considerably after the fact.  I really haven't been able to find anything from the time that they were actually being removed complaining about the loss.

[RedScare]

I'm still failing to see the problem.

 

The nostalgia for the street cars seems to have materialized considerably after the fact.  I really haven't been able to find anything from the time that they were actually being removed complaining about the loss.

 

Far from it. People thought buses were actually an improvement in transportation. It is only people who enjoy looking at black and white photos who romanticize the streetcars.

[IHB2]

Far from it. People thought buses were actually an improvement in transportation. It is only people who enjoy looking at black and white photos who romanticize the streetcars.

 

You could say the same about the advent of mass single family housing after WW2. Previous options were CBD tenements or the family farm.

 

Not that the impulse was new. Americans have been drawn to the outer edge of the city since the 1st generation after Winthrop's group settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony & established Boston.

 

It is not really a mystery why affordable, boring, orderly, single family neighborhoods would appeal to working American families, except to Slick & other folks that share his particular vision of what the past must have been like.

[RedScare]

Slick and his fellow new urbanist brothers are so enamored of and so convinced of the perfectness of their vision that they cannot comprehend that anyone ever willingly and knowingly moved from an inner city residence to a suburban one. Because of this, they create numerous conspiracies to make people move to the suburbs, ignoring the main conspiracy...that millions of Americans actually WANTED to move to the suburbs. 

[Slick Vik]

Far from it. People thought buses were actually an improvement in transportation. 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Total revisionist history. Watch the film "Taken For A Ride." I think it was on PBS but you can find it on youtube now. 

[Slick Vik]

Slick and his fellow new urbanist brothers are so enamored of and so convinced of the perfectness of their vision that they cannot comprehend that anyone ever willingly and knowingly moved from an inner city residence to a suburban one. Because of this, they create numerous conspiracies to make people move to the suburbs, ignoring the main conspiracy...that millions of Americans actually WANTED to move to the suburbs. 

 

Because suburbs were affordable, but this was only because of government subsies. If suburbs didn't exist people would remain in cities. It was just an opportunity that made some people and companies very rich. They don't care about the average joe, in fact I'm sure they laugh at the muppets that bought into it and even defend them. 

[RedScare]

It doesn't appear that you care about the average joe, either. You'd rather people have no options for affordable housing just so your fantasy remains intact. I'm no huge fan of the suburbs either. However, I understand that people must live somewhere. Not everyone can afford inner city housing prices as I can. Others do not want inner city crowding like you do. But, rather than allow people the option of choosing where to live, you wish to force then into high density housing.

 

My United States has a Constitution that protects me from your United States.

[Ross]

Because suburbs were affordable, but this was only because of government subsies. If suburbs didn't exist people would remain in cities. It was just an opportunity that made some people and companies very rich. They don't care about the average joe, in fact I'm sure they laugh at the muppets that bought into it and even defend them. 

 

Are you really arguing that without the so-called government subsidies you keep harping about, every last American would have chosen to live in an apartment in the center of every large city in the United States? That's ridiculous. You are implying that Houston probably would not extend past the Loop, and we would all be happy with out cramped quarters and tiny stores that carry very little in the way of useful products.

[Slick Vik]

It doesn't appear that you care about the average joe, either. You'd rather people have no options for affordable housing just so your fantasy remains intact. I'm no huge fan of the suburbs either. However, I understand that people must live somewhere. Not everyone can afford inner city housing prices as I can. Others do not want inner city crowding like you do. But, rather than allow people the option of choosing where to live, you wish to force then into high density housing.

My United States has a Constitution that protects me from your United States.

Affordable? Suburbs are a huge drain on resources as has been stated before.

Are you really arguing that without the so-called government subsidies you keep harping about, every last American would have chosen to live in an apartment in the center of every large city in the United States? That's ridiculous. You are implying that Houston probably would not extend past the Loop, and we would all be happy with out cramped quarters and tiny stores that carry very little in the way of useful products.

Billions around the world live happily in apartments you've been in houston too long to understand that

[RedScare]

Affordable? Suburbs are a huge drain on resources as has been stated before.

 

 

Sure, you say it, but that doesn't make it true. You say lots of things of dubious value.

[IronTiger]

The streetcars are just another facet of romanticization of downtowns. They were often filthy and cramped, and if the 1920s College Station-Bryan interurban is anywhere close to a barometer, streetcars broke down with depressing regularity.

[samagon]

Affordable? Suburbs are a huge drain on resources as has been stated before.

Billions around the world live happily in apartments you've been in houston too long to understand that

It might be a huge drain, but it's a drain the people who live in the burbs choose to make.

Billions also live in apartments cause they don't have any other choice.

You keep mentioning subsidies, to which subsidies do you speak?

Interestingly, on a tangential, but not completely different subject for conspiracy...

The making and selling of alcohol was made illegal soon after the model t was introduced. One of the features of the model t was that it also ran on ethanol. Ford discontinued the 'flex fuel' model t years later, and shortly after prohibition was repealed... Some draw lines between these events and standard oil, which was big oil at the time....

[Slick Vik]

Streetcars broke down with depressing regularity.

So do buses...

Sure, you say it, but that doesn't make it true. You say lots of things of dubious value.

Building sprawling neighborhoods in the middle of nothing doesn't take enormous amounts of resources?

[RedScare]

So do buses...

Building sprawling neighborhoods in the middle of nothing doesn't take enormous amounts of resources?

 

Actually, compared to midrises and highrises, no, it doesn't. You could do a tiny amount of research and come to that conclusion easily. Look at the price of midrise and highrise condos. They are priced at several hundred dollars per square foot. Some of that is land, but since they are multifloor buildings the land cost is divided several times. Houses in the burbs are often built at prices as low as $50 or $60 per square foot.

 

Why is that? Well, multifloor buildings must have thicker foundations. After a few floors, the frames must be constructed of steel or steel reinforced concrete. They must have parking garages constructed out of concrete. They must have elevators. Suburban homes do not need any of these things. Even oversized homes often cost less to build than small condos.

 

So, no, sprawling suburbs are not nearly as wasteful as dense highrise construction.

[livincinco]

You could do a tiny amount of research and come to that conclusion easily.

Generalizations without facts are far better than research.

[mfastx]

I'm not a huge fan of the streetcar.  It's annoying when cities newly construct historic streetcars (Dallas comes to mind).  It seems like a waste.  At least make them modern like the ones in Seattle. 

 

In the 30s/40s, instead of ripping up all the streetcar tracks, they should have ripped up most of them and consolidated a few lines into a tunnel downtown and elevated elsewhere.  That would have provided a great framework for a superior rail technology.   

 

If Boston could tunnel under the Harbor in 1910, then surely we could have made a short tunnel section downtown in the 30s/40s. 

 

Oh and about suburbs vs. apartments, both methods drain resources.  However I'd imagine that building large amounts of suburban neighborhoods would require a bit more government subsidy for the roads, utilities, etc. simply because of the lower density and greater land area of the suburbs.  While apartments and highrises might have a higher initial infrastructure cost, people are literally on top of one another so it's a much larger tax base. 

 

It'd be interesting to see a study on government subsidies for suburban vs. urban living and the rate of taxpayer return. 

[livincinco]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Total revisionist history. Watch the film "Taken For A Ride." I think it was on PBS but you can find it on youtube now.

Ah yes, because if a movie was made about it, then it must be true. Sounds like we're revisiting the peak oil conversation.

[RedScare]

If you read about the demise of Houston streetcars, you'd find that the reason they switched from streetcars to buses is because it got too expensive to build new streetcar lines. If streetcars were already losing money, what makes you think that they could afford to build tunnels and elevated tracks?

 

Now, let's talk about these "government subsidies" that you and Slick keep talking about, but never describe. There are none. Modern subdivisions are built by developers. They create Municipal Utility Districts to finance the building of water and sewer lines. Streets are built by the developer to county specifications and donated to the county. Do subsidies pay for the water and sewer districts? Nope. Homeowners within the MUD districts pay taxes and water bills to pay off the bonds. There are no subsidies. The homeowners pay for everything.

[mfastx]

If you read about the demise of Houston streetcars, you'd find that the reason they switched from streetcars to buses is because it got too expensive to build new streetcar lines. If streetcars were already losing money, what makes you think that they could afford to build tunnels and elevated tracks?

 

I'd imagine that they'd get funds from the federal government.  I don't know if streetcars in cities like Boston, Chicago, etc. lost money or not but I'd imagine they did.  The technology was inefficient. 

 

Now, let's talk about these "government subsidies" that you and Slick keep talking about, but never describe. There are none. Modern subdivisions are built by developers. They create Municipal Utility Districts to finance the building of water and sewer lines. Streets are built by the developer to county specifications and donated to the county. Do subsidies pay for the water and sewer districts? Nope. Homeowners within the MUD districts pay taxes and water bills to pay off the bonds. There are no subsidies. The homeowners pay for everything.

 

First of all, let me start off by saying that I am *not* against suburbs or suburban development.  I think suburbs are a great aspect to any city, the ability to own a house and a yard for cheap is something most people would love to have.  Personally, I prefer a more urban environment, but a well-done suburban community is certainly nice. 

 

However, there are government subsidies to the major highways that serve suburban communities. And then you have the mortgage incentives to move out into the suburbs that went on for many decades.  Tax breaks such as this are similar to the downtown residential tax incentive. 

 

I realize that townships locally fund many street improvements and utilities from their taxpayers, I was just saying that it would be less efficient than a denser community.  Mathematically to me it would seem that suburbs are less efficient in regards to resources such as roads, utilities etc.  It just seems like cramming people into small spaces would increase efficiency.  Much like cramming people onto a bus would increase the bus's efficiency as opposed to only a few people on a bus. 

 

I realize I need to do more research though.  But your comment about dense built up neighborhoods puzzles me because wouldn't the same thing you said about suburbs apply to densely populated areas?  Such as taxpayers and homeowners paying for everything? 

 

I wouldn't say suburbs are more subsidized than inner city areas, but I don't think that they are subsidized any less either. 

[livincinco]

Are you really arguing that without the so-called government subsidies you keep harping about, every last American would have chosen to live in an apartment in the center of every large city in the United States? That's ridiculous. You are implying that Houston probably would not extend past the Loop, and we would all be happy with out cramped quarters and tiny stores that carry very little in the way of useful products.

This is why I brought up the comparison to Melbourne earlier in the thread. Melbourne is, in a lot of ways, a mirror to Houston. Very similar size and density, but Australia is very pro-transit and very concerned about carbon footprint. Melbourne has what I think most people would consider to be a pretty comprehensive public transportation network.

But despite that, Melbourne has developed in a somewhat similar fashion to Houston. There's a lot of sprawl, traffic congestion is a problem, they have found it necessary to build a lot of highways, and they've been plagued by low use of the transit system. So basically, in Melbourne, none of the things that should be "fixed" by public transit have as commonly suggested, have happened. People have still chosen to move to the suburbs and chosen cars, despite a pro-transit, carbon-conscious government.

[Ross]

However, there are government subsidies to the major highways that serve suburban communities. And then you have the mortgage incentives to move out into the suburbs that went on for many decades.  Tax breaks such as this are similar to the downtown residential tax incentive. 

 

I realize that townships locally fund many street improvements and utilities from their taxpayers, I was just saying that it would be less efficient than a denser community.  Mathematically to me it would seem that suburbs are less efficient in regards to resources such as roads, utilities etc.  It just seems like cramming people into small spaces would increase efficiency.  Much like cramming people onto a bus would increase the bus's efficiency as opposed to only a few people on a bus. 

 

The mortgage tax incentives are available to anyone who has a mortgage. They are not restricted to only those folks who live in a suburb - the residents of 2121 Kirby get to deduct their mortgage interest, just like the new home buyer in the Woodlands.. For those people who live in rented accommodation, the mortgage break goes to the landlord, if he has borrowed to build.