A big part of why rock and roll was a lifestyle as much as a musical genre was the number of garage bands that never did more than manage a few gigs, if even that.  They were called "garage bands" because that's where they practiced, talented or not.  "Sprawl" put a little distance between them and their neighbors.

 

That didn't really last that long though, in the grand scheme of things. In the '70s and '80s it was easy to find like minded-musicians in the 'burbs since the U.S. was much more of a monoculture at that time (not that the U.S. has ever had a really strong monoculture). It was no problem finding other Van Halen, Iron Maiden, Zeppelin, Alice Cooper and Bowie fans just down the street. But then the genres started splitting up rapidly and by the grunge days finding musical soulmates became much tougher in a small geographic area. Thrash metal guys don't want to play death metal (myself included). Then, video games, 500 channel cable and 'net surfing came to dominate the suburbs rather than vinyl LPs and guitars. These days, sprawl has become dominated by strip mall bars featuring Nickelback and Five Finger Death Punch cover bands full of people who grew up on the '70s and '80s rock but still want to play out -- but have no choice but to play The Blitz playlist circa 2006 live in an old Rite Aid. I oughta know, there's a million of bands full of those kinda guys and they are always trying to get me to join 'em. I just can't do the Nickelback; They get pissed off and call me closed-minded. That's the only sound that passes for mainstream today; obscure is the real mainstream in the internet age.

 

LOL on the old Rite Aid, one of the places my brother used to play became a Rite Aid (IIRC).  It closed because Walgreen's bought them and the location was in direct opposition to their "easy in easy out" business model.  They moved about 1,000 feet.  That was my gratuitous on-topic comment.  :)

 

You're right.....during that era almost everyone listened to 'MMS and there was more of a monoculture.  Just like TV.  It was forced though.  Original bands would mix in a poppier song or two in hopes of getting airplay. 

 

Playing out is big to that era because it was pretty much the only way to break out.  That's not true any more.  It used to be you played out and played out to build a following, and people would go to shows because that was the only way to hear really new music.  Somewhat of a crap shoot on each end.  These days, bands play out because they want to.  Fewer people go, particularly to see unfamiliar bands.  It's not profitable for smaller clubs to have live music anymore.

Think about what there was to do for a single 23-year-old at home at night in 1984. Sit around and watch Family Ties and Gimme A Break? They weren't going to do that. Might as well go out and see a band. They were too old for the mall, the drinking age was 18 and the cops wouldn't lock you up for drinking half a beer and driving home.

Op-Ed

 

The bankruptcy-sprawl connection

The pension blame game masks another, deeper problem for the state's taxpayers: the hidden but crushing cost of sprawl.

October 1, 2012

 

 

The recent bankruptcies of Stockton and San Bernardino have again highlighted the fragility of many California cities' finances. In each case, the burden of public pensions has been blamed for the financial problems. However true that may be in the short run, the pension blame game masks another, deeper problem for the state's taxpayers: the hidden but crushing cost of sprawl.

 

It's true that pensions are an increasingly visible strain on city budgets. As a former mayor of Ventura — a city that is not going bankrupt — I can attest that rapidly rising pension costs are a huge problem that must be dealt with aggressively. But there are other, more fundamental factors driving cities to bankruptcy: namely, whether those cities grow smartly or sprawl.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-fulton-california-bankruptcies-sprawl-20121001,0,2800342.story

Think about what there was to do for a single 23-year-old at home at night in 1984. Sit around and watch Family Ties and Gimme A Break? They weren't going to do that. Might as well go out and see a band. They were too old for the mall, the drinking age was 18 and the cops wouldn't lock you up for drinking half a beer and driving home.

 

Oh, I don't have to think it, I lived that LOL.  But IIRC, the drinking age was 19 by then.

 

Even then, a lot of clubs had DJs instead of live music. 

 

People had a lot more parties then too.  Especially on college campii.  I recently saw that SAE at Case lost their charter for having an off campus keg party a few years back.  BITD, that would have been unheard of.  They had on campus keg parties.  And usually had bands.

 

Another change.....drive through the Metroparks on a nice weekend day between April and October.  During that era, you'd have a hard time finding a parking spot. 

I hear the parties have really dried up at a lot of schools (certainly not all). I graduated a year or two before a lot of my friends, and they said that by the end that they were the only ones having parties; this was the mid-2000s. A buddy of mine went back to school for a second degree in 2009 and he and our one friend who worked for Student Activities said that it's impossible to get most kids to do anything because they're all gamers or Neflix junkies. Also, they can't believe how fat the kids have gotten.

 

 

Annnnnnnyyywayyyyyy...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-fulton-california-bankruptcies-sprawl-20121001,0,2800342.story

 

Just more evidence LA "gets it." It's great to see that city changing for the better.

I hear the parties have really dried up at a lot of schools (certainly not all). I graduated a year or two before a lot of my friends, and they said that by the end that they were the only ones having parties; this was the mid-2000s. A buddy of mine went back to school for a second degree in 2009 and he and our one friend who worked for Student Activities said that it's impossible to get most kids to do anything because they're all gamers or Neflix junkies. Also, they can't believe how fat the kids have gotten.

 

 

Annnnnnnyyywayyyyyy...

 

Actually, it’s the boys getting fatter.  Not so much the girls.

 

Everyone says that this is due to video games, and they probably play a role.

 

But, I’m going to say that, especially in the suburbs, there’s been a definite de-emphasis on phys ed and a major de-emphasis on the competitive aspects of same.  This results in them being less adept at team sports when they get older, where phys ed is also de-emphasized.

 

Then there’s soccer.  Suburban moms love soccer because no one gets hurt.  The problem is half the team can wander around the grass “being on the team”, without really harming the team.  It’s like playing catcher or right field, minus the stigma.  Everyone makes a team, too.

 

While the public sector does this, the private sector is giving boys an opportunity to work out the competiveness and even aggression that young males display in just about every culture in history….without getting any exercise.

 

Sprawl plays a role in this too, when there’s not enough kids in walking distance to get up a decent game.

I hear the parties have really dried up at a lot of schools (certainly not all). I graduated a year or two before a lot of my friends, and they said that by the end that they were the only ones having parties; this was the mid-2000s. A buddy of mine went back to school for a second degree in 2009 and he and our one friend who worked for Student Activities said that it's impossible to get most kids to do anything because they're all gamers or Neflix junkies. Also, they can't believe how fat the kids have gotten.

 

Annnnnnnyyywayyyyyy...

 

They need to go to OU!

I hear the parties have really dried up at a lot of schools (certainly not all). I graduated a year or two before a lot of my friends, and they said that by the end that they were the only ones having parties; this was the mid-2000s. A buddy of mine went back to school for a second degree in 2009 and he and our one friend who worked for Student Activities said that it's impossible to get most kids to do anything because they're all gamers or Neflix junkies. Also, they can't believe how fat the kids have gotten.

 

 

Annnnnnnyyywayyyyyy...

 

Actually, it’s the boys getting fatter.  Not so much the girls.

 

Everyone says that this is due to video games, and they probably play a role.

 

But, I’m going to say that, especially in the suburbs, there’s been a definite de-emphasis on phys ed and a major de-emphasis on the competitive aspects of same.  This results in them being less adept at team sports when they get older, where phys ed is also de-emphasized.

 

Then there’s soccer.  Suburban moms love soccer because no one gets hurt.  The problem is half the team can wander around the grass “being on the team”, without really harming the team.  It’s like playing catcher or right field, minus the stigma.  Everyone makes a team, too.

 

While the public sector does this, the private sector is giving boys an opportunity to work out the competiveness and even aggression that young males display in just about every culture in history….without getting any exercise.

 

Sprawl plays a role in this too, when there’s not enough kids in walking distance to get up a decent game.

 

That's hilarious that you mention soccer, as I would say that it is true of most youth athletics.  All you need is one star on any team and the rest can just wander around.  Same with Youth Football, defenders are usually where you can hide players.  The bigger problem with youth soccer is that they make a jump to a bigger field at a younger age than they should.  This is what leads to the impression of kids wandering around.  Really, a full field shouldn't be used until 13. 

 

edit: it looks like ASYO is doing this now.  I recall when I was younger that at 12 you moved to the big field and played with 11.  Now it looks like they keeping a smaller field with only 9 players.  Although their max of 100yrd by 50yrd is the smallest FIFA approved regulation pitch.

 

And don't get started on the "no one gets hurt" argument.  Soccer has just as many if not more injuries. 

Half the kids on any youth sports team don't care who wins.  At least half.  Typically you get that one ringer kid who makes "competing" pointless for everyone else.  It's his world and you just run around in it.  He's not going to pass to you, and frankly, if he does, he'll probably regret it.  Focusing youth sports on winning makes everyone sick of these ringer kids, and by extension sick of the games they dominate.  Then everyone seeks out different competitions where they can hold their own, which often turn out to be video games. 

 

So if you want kids to be interested in sports, you can't just ascertain which one kicks ass and give him the ball.  The trick is finding a way to get everyone involved, and in some cases, teaching them the game.  That last step is often skipped, making broad skill differentials a foregone conclusion.  Some kids have Sports Dad and others don't.

I hear the parties have really dried up at a lot of schools (certainly not all). I graduated a year or two before a lot of my friends, and they said that by the end that they were the only ones having parties; this was the mid-2000s. A buddy of mine went back to school for a second degree in 2009 and he and our one friend who worked for Student Activities said that it's impossible to get most kids to do anything because they're all gamers or Neflix junkies. Also, they can't believe how fat the kids have gotten.

 

Annnnnnnyyywayyyyyy...

 

 

 

 

 

They need to go to OU!

 

They're going to need to gulp some serious Xanny bars first or else they won't be able to handle all the social interaction of an OU party.

The trick is finding a way to get everyone involved, and in some cases, teaching them the game.  That last step is often skipped, making broad skill differentials a foregone conclusion.  Some kids have Sports Dad and others don't.

 

That's why the team sports lost a lot of kids to stuff like golf and motocross starting about 10-15 years ago. In those individual sports you get to select your class and you can feel yourself get better at your own pace. Though, when the economy started to slow down those got a bit expensive for people. Motocross switched to four-stroke engines at a really bad time because they're essentially Ferraris now and people don't have the money for that crap. And most people can't fix 'em themselves any more.

Yeah those activities were both well above my station, growing up.  And that was with 2-strokes.  Even baseball suffers nowadays, as kids can't afford the equipment you're expected to own.  That's why basketball has become so widespread, less individual investment and less kids required to constitute a real game. Unfortunately basketball's a game that really favors one body-type over others.

Yeah those activities were both well above my station, growing up.  And that was with 2-strokes.  Even baseball suffers nowadays, as kids can't afford the equipment you're expected to own.  That's why basketball has become so widespread, less individual investment and less kids required to constitute a real game. Unfortunately basketball's a game that really favors one body-type over others.

 

True, which is why I think soccer is probably the better less-expensive sport.  It's not completely free, especially to play competitively, but for pick-up games, it's about as cheap as you can ask for.  Though I'm sure some people have some economically impractical soccer equipment.

 

Sidenote: I used to play table tennis at a competitive table tennis club.  I was amazed at how much some people would spend not just buying their table tennis paddle, but tricking it out.

 

As for the fattening effects of sprawl: I'm not convinced that there is much causation involved in that correlation.  In fact, I'm not even sure it's much of a correlation.  Obesity is a widespread problem in inner-city neighborhoods as well.  Not all urban children and young adults are scrawny hipsters or active cyclists or {insert other ectomorphic archetype here}.

Bombed out, poorly maintained "ghetto" parts of town might as well be sprawl with regard to making kids fat. There's nothing to walk or bike to. And the easy-to-access food is crap. They're also so poor that they're too bummed-out to play sports and often have little parental involvement. You want to meet some gamers? Go to the 'hood. It doesn't take much money at all to keep yourself in a system and games, especially something like a PS2 where most of the games are under $7 used these days.

Great point-- dysfunctional city is as bad as no city at all.  Nothing to walk to either way, and that's what we uphold as making city living better.  That's why I think retail development is so desparately needed in Ohio's cities and worth any cost.

I'm sure that's true, but I still think the suburbs are worse.  Go to a basketball court in an urban neighborhood on a nice day.  There will be 15-20 people per court there playing pickup games.  Go to a suburban court.  If you're lucky, there might be two people shooting around.

Bombed out, poorly maintained "ghetto" parts of town might as well be sprawl with regard to making kids fat. There's nothing to walk or bike to. And the easy-to-access food is crap. They're also so poor that they're too bummed-out to play sports and often have little parental involvement. You want to meet some gamers? Go to the 'hood. It doesn't take much money at all to keep yourself in a system and games, especially something like a PS2 where most of the games are under $7 used these days.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but even if there was anything to walk or bike to, there's predators on the path.  That's a factor.

 

Kids during the pre-suburban era were poor as well, but had enough self esteem to play street or playground support.  What they didn't have is the crime and the drug trade.

I hear the parties have really dried up at a lot of schools (certainly not all). I graduated a year or two before a lot of my friends, and they said that by the end that they were the only ones having parties; this was the mid-2000s. A buddy of mine went back to school for a second degree in 2009 and he and our one friend who worked for Student Activities said that it's impossible to get most kids to do anything because they're all gamers or Neflix junkies. Also, they can't believe how fat the kids have gotten.

 

 

Annnnnnnyyywayyyyyy...

 

Actually, it’s the boys getting fatter.  Not so much the girls.

 

Everyone says that this is due to video games, and they probably play a role.

 

But, I’m going to say that, especially in the suburbs, there’s been a definite de-emphasis on phys ed and a major de-emphasis on the competitive aspects of same.  This results in them being less adept at team sports when they get older, where phys ed is also de-emphasized.

 

Then there’s soccer.  Suburban moms love soccer because no one gets hurt.  The problem is half the team can wander around the grass “being on the team”, without really harming the team.  It’s like playing catcher or right field, minus the stigma.  Everyone makes a team, too.

 

While the public sector does this, the private sector is giving boys an opportunity to work out the competiveness and even aggression that young males display in just about every culture in history….without getting any exercise.

 

Sprawl plays a role in this too, when there’s not enough kids in walking distance to get up a decent game.

 

That's hilarious that you mention soccer, as I would say that it is true of most youth athletics.  All you need is one star on any team and the rest can just wander around.  Same with Youth Football, defenders are usually where you can hide players.  The bigger problem with youth soccer is that they make a jump to a bigger field at a younger age than they should.  This is what leads to the impression of kids wandering around.  Really, a full field shouldn't be used until 13. 

 

edit: it looks like ASYO is doing this now.  I recall when I was younger that at 12 you moved to the big field and played with 11.  Now it looks like they keeping a smaller field with only 9 players.  Although their max of 100yrd by 50yrd is the smallest FIFA approved regulation pitch.

 

And don't get started on the "no one gets hurt" argument.  Soccer has just as many if not more injuries. 

 

Those injuries are on the "active" part of the team.

 

Having played football and softball competively, and watched my niece play CYO football for two years (yeah, you read that right), I'm going to disagree on both those sports.  You can "hide" two kids in softball/baseball, the catcher and the right fielder.  Plus, if everyone bats you end up with a situation like National League baseball, the "pitcher" always seems to come up at the most inopportune time.  Football, at least tackle.....well kids and coaches will find that weak point and pick on it.  The strategy of the game dictates a certain territoriality.

 

In basketball, with five people on a team it's almost self evident that the weakest player can be exploited. 

Governments subsidize sprawl at a cost of $450 billion per year, according to new report by Smart Growth America....

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal-subsidies-tilt-u-s-real-estate-market-toward-sprawl/

Governments subsidize sprawl at a cost of $450 billion per year, according to new report by Smart Growth America....

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal-subsidies-tilt-u-s-real-estate-market-toward-sprawl/

 

Who's demanding "walkable urbanism"?  Where's the objective evidence for that demand?

 

Does this number deduct the gasoline taxes commuters pay? 

 

For that matter, does it include government spending on "Section 8" subsidies, which definitely induce people to move outward.

Governments subsidize sprawl at a cost of $450 billion per year, according to new report by Smart Growth America....

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal-subsidies-tilt-u-s-real-estate-market-toward-sprawl/

 

Who's demanding "walkable urbanism"?  Where's the objective evidence for that demand?

 

Does this number deduct the gasoline taxes commuters pay? 

 

For that matter, does it include government spending on "Section 8" subsidies, which definitely induce people to move outward.

 

It sounds like that $450B has to do with housing subsidies that are coming from other, more general budget sources.  Gasoline taxes go to fund roads/freeways and I'm not sure you can assume that there is anything left over to subsidize sprawl like that.

 

Good question on Section 8.  It's definitely a program that needs to be allowed to die.

There are a lot of problems with that article and that graph.

 

The graph shows "guarantees" of loans for various types of real estate, yet the caption says "support."  That is misleading; the caption should simply have said "guarantees" as well.  That matters because there is no actual data captured in that graph tending to show that it is government policy providing impetus to single family development.  Phrased differently, nothing in that graph disproves the counter-hypothesis that the federal government guarantees more single-family homes simply because people really do want more single-family homes.

 

This paragraph also either speaks against itself or implies a lot of undisclosed hairsplitting:

 

For starters, according to SGA, not a single federal program is primarily focused on support for existing neighborhoods. Government priorities are often contradictory on this front, with subsidies operating at cross-purposes. One program may subsidize new housing in undeveloped locations, for instance, while another attempts to shore up the city neighborhoods left behind.

 

Well, what are these programs attempting to shore up the city neighborhoods left behind if there is not a single federal program primarily focused on support for existing neighborhoods?

 

There are certainly potentially effective attacks on the government's fiscal policies when it comes to our residential real estate stock.  This was a fairly weak, bureaucratic one, however.

a simple google search will show you there is clear demand for walkable urbanism, as showcased in people's desires when asked and the fact that homes in walkable areas have fared far better than those in non-walkable areas during the recession.

 

http://blog.walkscore.com/2012/11/new-urbanism-if-you-build-walkability-they-will-thrive/

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/09/next-major-real-estate-cycle-walkable-urbanism/3161/

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/11/09/in-philly-housing-in-walkable-places-held-up-better-than-suburban-housing/

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/18/study-resilient-walkables-lead-the-housing-recovery/

 

http://www.njfuture.org/2012/03/05/new-jersey-walkable-places/

 

Just a few quick ones I found.

a simple google search will show you there is clear demand for walkable urbanism, as showcased in people's desires when asked and the fact that homes in walkable areas have fared far better than those in non-walkable areas during the recession.

 

E Rocc spends enough time on this site to know that. He one of those people that just denies that there's been a shift in thinking happen over the years because they don't want to acknowledge that it happened and insist that everyone "wants" sprawl on public forums in hopes that the post will somehow make the change go away. A constant beating of the crime and poverty drum regarding urbanism is also typical in an effort to make it seem like suburbs, exurbs and rural areas have little crime and poverty when the reverse is actually true. I suppose driving really fast past the trailer parks helps.

 

Fact is, a lot of time, effort and money went into creating sprawl, and for it to be denounced by a large portion of the population has negative financial repercussions for those who have invested in it. They will go to great lengths to protect their financial position -- much further than merely refusing to acknowledge a societal change.

Governments subsidize sprawl at a cost of $450 billion per year, according to new report by Smart Growth America....

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal-subsidies-tilt-u-s-real-estate-market-toward-sprawl/

 

Who subsudizes the government?

City looks to eliminate residential tax abatements in 2014

Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:00 am | Updated: 10:46 pm, Tue Jan 15, 2013.

By MELISSA MARTIN Brunswick Post editor

 

http://www.thepostnewspapers.com/brunswick/local_news/article_5b6bc721-5911-5e71-aa3b-6e5c366a2dbd.html

 

Members of City Council’s Planning and Zoning Committee have indicated that they will pursue the elimination of the city’s Community Reinvestment Area tax abatement program in 2014 after receiving backlash from several city residents over the past year.

Ward 1 Councilman Mike Abella said that since taking office in 2012, he’s received several complaints from residents who perceive the incentive as inequitable, particularly for residents who have lived in the community for several years.

“We may have had the best of intentions when council approved this back in 2009, but it has caused lots of animosity. This is a real sore spot for residents,” he said. “After all, people can come and build a brand new $300,000 home and get a 25 percent break in their property taxes when those struggling just to make their payments on a $100,000 home don’t get anything.”

 

I didnt realize these exurbs did tax abatements for new construction too. from an urbanist point of view i think this is good news, and a step in the right direction. Though im sure stopping sprawl wasnt on the mind of these people in Brunswick, we need more people out there who have the brains to stop the subsidies

a simple google search will show you there is clear demand for walkable urbanism, as showcased in people's desires when asked and the fact that homes in walkable areas have fared far better than those in non-walkable areas during the recession.

 

E Rocc spends enough time on this site to know that. He one of those people that just denies that there's been a shift in thinking happen over the years because they don't want to acknowledge that it happened and insist that everyone "wants" sprawl on public forums in hopes that the post will somehow make the change go away. A constant beating of the crime and poverty drum regarding urbanism is also typical in an effort to make it seem like suburbs, exurbs and rural areas have little crime and poverty when the reverse is actually true. I suppose driving really fast past the trailer parks helps.

 

Fact is, a lot of time, effort and money went into creating sprawl, and for it to be denounced by a large portion of the population has negative financial repercussions for those who have invested in it. They will go to great lengths to protect their financial position -- much further than merely refusing to acknowledge a societal change.

 

LOL of course there's some demand, but I suspect it's not as strong as some here would like, it's not neccesarily for new areas, and it will draw people from existing "walkable" areas and not the sprawlburbs.

 

It's not necesarily "urbanist" in the old sense, either.  My brother and his daughter's mom both live in the city, I live in Northfield Village.  Except for in the winter, my neighborhood is way more "walkable" than either of theirs.  Downtown Bedford is even more so and if you could get a Dave's or something to locate in the old Rite Aid, you'd have a neighborhood you could definitely push as walkable/TOD.

You're getting a bit too hyperlocal there E Rocc; I don't know that town.

You're getting a bit too hyperlocal there E Rocc; I don't know that town.

 

Bedford's an inner ring Cleveland suburb with a historic downtown district that's done a little bit better of a job resisting the problems of such than its neighbors, but those issues are catching up to it.

 

Northfield Village is about halfway between Cleveland and Akron.  It's the part of the "Nordonia" area that's closest to Cleveland.  It's the densest part of that area, the rest is pretty much what most of you would call "sprawl".  Northfield Park, where the Hard Rock casino is going in, is there. 

You're getting a bit too hyperlocal there E Rocc; I don't know that town.

 

Bedford's an inner ring Cleveland suburb with a historic downtown district that's done a little bit better of a job resisting the problems of such than its neighbors, but those issues are catching up to it.

 

What are the natures of these problems?

Governments subsidize sprawl at a cost of $450 billion per year, according to new report by Smart Growth America....

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal-subsidies-tilt-u-s-real-estate-market-toward-sprawl/

 

Who subsudizes the government?

 

Upper income renters :(

Governments subsidize sprawl at a cost of $450 billion per year, according to new report by Smart Growth America....

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal-subsidies-tilt-u-s-real-estate-market-toward-sprawl/

 

Who subsudizes the government?

 

Upper income renters :(

 

Truth.

You're getting a bit too hyperlocal there E Rocc; I don't know that town.

 

Bedford's an inner ring Cleveland suburb with a historic downtown district that's done a little bit better of a job resisting the problems of such than its neighbors, but those issues are catching up to it.

 

What are the natures of these problems?

 

To start:  Commercial/industrial property closure and the associated decline of the tax base.  Increasingly transient population, including a portion of same that brings crime and property degradation.  Increasing residential vacancies, leading to a decline in collectible taxes and property values. 

I found this looking for something else.  I sometimes write my longer rants offline. The file date indicates I wrote it in April, so it vanished:

 

 

If there ever was a “perfect storm” in American culture, it’s the emergence of suburbia,  Some of the things going on included:

 

-The declining need for manpower in agriculture and the emerging need in urban industry.

 

-The departure of many urban men for the military during World War II, as industry was booming to supply them.  Rural men flocked to the cities, usually without their families, to work in factories.  (One was my paternal grandfather).

 

-The frustrations of those rural men heading home for visits on the roads of the era.

 

-The fact that many immigrants from Europe came from rural backgrounds themselves (among them, my maternal grandfather).

 

-The unsuitability of draft animal drawn transport in dense cities as it was realized that horse exhaust was unhealthier than motor exhaust. 

 

-The mechanization of the American armed forces (a conscious decision that probably did more than anything else to win the war) and the accompanying familiarity with driving, riding, and fixing vehicles.

 

-The exposure to the German “autobahn” system, built by a command economy to tighten its control of a fractious nation.

 

-The threat of atomic attack.

 

-The hours that factory workers put in during the war, with little to spend the money on.

 

-The fact that after the war, the GIs came home and the formerly rural war workers showed no great inclination to go back home.

 

-The fact that the former were sick of close quarters in barracks and ships, and had no desire to replace it  with parents’ or in-laws’ basements.

 

-The fact that the rural war workers missed certain aspects of rural life, but certainly not all of them.  They wanted to stay in the urban areas, and wanted their families back with them…but not in tenements.

 

-Innovations in construction developed for and during the war, and their applicability to roads and houses.

 

-America’s continuing role as the manufactory for a war ravaged world, keeping the demand for labor high. 

 

-The unionization of the American work force keeping wages high and hours low.

 

There were other factors, but all of these meant that the only way to stop the growth of suburbia would have been with massive government intervention to prevent it.  There was nothing like the consensus that would have been needed to make that happen.  If anything, the consensus was in the opposite direction and the foes of suburban development would have been de-elected rather expeditiously.

Postal Service looks to end at-your-door mail

 

I've been wondering for a few years when the postal service would start to notice that sprawl is killing them. There's been a few hints that they've noticed, like in the article I linked to, but they seem to be very cautious about calling out developers.

^ Of course even though sprawl is killing them they want to do away with urban door-to-door delivery too.  That's one of the things that few people notice but which makes a real difference in the visual quality of the public realm, the lack of curbside mailboxes in cities.  This is even more true now with the spread of those molded green plastic affairs that look like something made by Fisher Price.

^ Of course even though sprawl is killing them they want to do away with urban door-to-door delivery too.  That's one of the things that few people notice but which makes a real difference in the visual quality of the public realm, the lack of curbside mailboxes in cities.  This is even more true now with the spread of those molded green plastic affairs that look like something made by Fisher Price.

 

This is why in "suburban gated communities" you don't have a house mailbox, there is a mail center when a bunch of mailboxes.

 

Example.

 

I wouldn't find this acceptable.

^ Of course even though sprawl is killing them they want to do away with urban door-to-door delivery too.  That's one of the things that few people notice but which makes a real difference in the visual quality of the public realm, the lack of curbside mailboxes in cities.  This is even more true now with the spread of those molded green plastic affairs that look like something made by Fisher Price.

 

Made by Step2, in NE Ohio.....

That would also cut back on several of the most fun things about life in sprawl: having your mail stolen and bored teens smashing your mailbox.

 

We have to have a PO Box down at the farm because that crap was happening way too often. So that means Mom's got to drive five miles each way to the post office. Such a worthwhile use of time and resources.

That would also cut back on several of the most fun things about life in sprawl: having your mail stolen and bored teens smashing your mailbox.

 

We have to have a PO Box down at the farm because that crap was happening way too often. So that means Mom's got to drive five miles each way to the post office. Such a worthwhile use of time and resources.

 

That is hardly the case in any suburb.

Maybe not in Bay Village, Upper Arlington or Glandale, but it the melting down ones it sure is. Read the police blotters of those little suburban shopper papers.

That would also cut back on several of the most fun things about life in sprawl: having your mail stolen and bored teens smashing your mailbox.

 

We have to have a PO Box down at the farm because that crap was happening way too often. So that means Mom's got to drive five miles each way to the post office. Such a worthwhile use of time and resources.

That never happened in my section of Shaker, but then again, look how far the houses are from one another and the street.  I can't speak for other parts of the Heights, but I find it hard to believe it would happen.

 

Also I thought, how do you smash a mailbox that is attached to your home?  Then I thought in "new" 'burbs I guess they have mailboxes on poles near the street. IMO that is tacky, so the teens are doing those people a service! :o )  I kid...i kid, but I cant believe people do that.

We had that as a problem in rural upstate NY as well. I told my parents it was the price of moving me to the boondocks, but would they listen? Nooo.

 

When a rash of these would occur, a couple of enlightened neighbors would replace the existing mailbox with one filled with concrete. It wasn't legal, but yee hah!

 

 

We had that as a problem in rural upstate NY as well. I told my parents it was the price of moving me to the boondocks, but would they listen? Nooo.

 

When a rash of these would occur, a couple of enlightened neighbors would replace the existing mailbox with one filled with concrete. It wasn't legal, but yee hah!

 

 

 

Concrete in a mailbox?  I don't get it.

I've seen that before. And ones on springs, ones made of 1/8 steel, you name it.

We had that as a problem in rural upstate NY as well. I told my parents it was the price of moving me to the boondocks, but would they listen? Nooo.

 

When a rash of these would occur, a couple of enlightened neighbors would replace the existing mailbox with one filled with concrete. It wasn't legal, but yee hah!

 

 

 

Concrete in a mailbox?  I don't get it.

 

mailbox no longer gives, and the bat comes back at the wielder. At best ruins the bat and jams up his hands, but could potentiall come back and harm the car, hit the person holding it, etc. Git R Dun!

Maybe it happens in rural areas but I have lived and know several people who live in suburbs and I have never seen or experienced people breaking mailboxes.

Definitely a rural pastime.  Wasn't there a scene of that in Dazed and Confused?

Yeah, it was one of the plots. I'm trying to think of that other movie where the teens stick out a bat of an old pickup truck and mow down a bunch of 'em at once. Pretty sure it was an '80s movie.

 

But it did happen to us when we lived in the 'burbs too. We started getting really cheap mailboxes after a while before we moved down to the farm where Grandma had already gotten the PO Box.