Assignment #2
The 1920s was the apex of the American planning movement. Cities were well designed and well managed meaning there was harmony between the architecture and streetscape and buildings were mixed-use. There were easily discernible characteristics of a traditionally planned city such as a center for commerce, culture, and governance; a walkable city was built with narrow, versatile streets and a grid that allowed different routes to connect to several locations; mixed-use zoning made memorable place instead of parking lots and there were unique sites that established an identity for communities. After WWII, the idea of developing environments built on historical precedence and for social purposes was thrown out the window. The paradigm …show more content…
It has five general components present: subdivided homes, shopping centers for big-box retail, office parks alongside highways, civic institutions such as churches and schools sporadically spread, and all these locations connected by vast roads; everything in suburbia is isolated due to single-use zoning. In the early 1900s, the City Beautiful Movement was endogenous to the best and worst of America’s planners as they were praised for increased life expectancies as harsh smog-producing factories had been separated from residential areas. Yet, the design of partitioning everything began to be applied to all types of land uses when it is superfluous to do so. The issue of modern suburbia is an issue of sustainability as it is impossible to maintain perpetual growth at a practical level especially for low-density populations; infrastructure across wider, disjointed areas needs greater public investment to properly allocate services at a satisfactory taxable rate. There is not only greater financial strain on government, but also on suburban residents to own a car. It is mandatory to own a car in the suburbs because nothing is within walking …show more content…
The manner in which the model for planning reversed follows the three phases of cultural change—social marketing, removal of existing barriers to change, and the enactment of new regulations.
1. Marketed as a nationalistic campaign, it was American to own a single-family home, while it was communist to advocate for mixed-use neighborhoods.
2. Government programs incentivizing moving to the suburbs for white-families and programs subsidizing single-use homebuilding as an industry to revitalize the
The 1920s was the apex of the American planning movement. Cities were well designed and well managed meaning there was harmony between the architecture and streetscape and buildings were mixed-use. There were easily discernible characteristics of a traditionally planned city such as a center for commerce, culture, and governance; a walkable city was built with narrow, versatile streets and a grid that allowed different routes to connect to several locations; mixed-use zoning made memorable place instead of parking lots and there were unique sites that established an identity for communities. After WWII, the idea of developing environments built on historical precedence and for social purposes was thrown out the window. The paradigm …show more content…
It has five general components present: subdivided homes, shopping centers for big-box retail, office parks alongside highways, civic institutions such as churches and schools sporadically spread, and all these locations connected by vast roads; everything in suburbia is isolated due to single-use zoning. In the early 1900s, the City Beautiful Movement was endogenous to the best and worst of America’s planners as they were praised for increased life expectancies as harsh smog-producing factories had been separated from residential areas. Yet, the design of partitioning everything began to be applied to all types of land uses when it is superfluous to do so. The issue of modern suburbia is an issue of sustainability as it is impossible to maintain perpetual growth at a practical level especially for low-density populations; infrastructure across wider, disjointed areas needs greater public investment to properly allocate services at a satisfactory taxable rate. There is not only greater financial strain on government, but also on suburban residents to own a car. It is mandatory to own a car in the suburbs because nothing is within walking …show more content…
The manner in which the model for planning reversed follows the three phases of cultural change—social marketing, removal of existing barriers to change, and the enactment of new regulations.
1. Marketed as a nationalistic campaign, it was American to own a single-family home, while it was communist to advocate for mixed-use neighborhoods.
2. Government programs incentivizing moving to the suburbs for white-families and programs subsidizing single-use homebuilding as an industry to revitalize the