Why did we stop building through-streets?

[Charlie_mta]

I would rather live in a world where thieves had a better chance, to be honest. The rise of “security“ and “safety” in dictating policy is another worrisome trend of modernity, and nearly all the measures end up leading to suppression of human freedom, Including freedom of movement, as a byproduct.

Yes, isolationism and tribalism seems to be increasing. Post WW-II suburban planning and zoning of vast residential-only subdivisions fostered it, which then influenced urban areas to mimic that single-use exclusionary model. I also have my own theory that the end of the military draft helped foster separation of the country into isolated groups. When I was in the Navy in the late 60s/early 70s, I saw that the universal draft had the positive effect of drawing people together of every class, education level, race, and type, forcing us to live and work together, and to learn about each other. That's pretty much absent today from what I can tell.

 

[FK4]

Yes, isolationism and tribalism seems to be increasing. Post WW-II suburban planning and zoning of vast residential-only subdivisions fostered it, which then influenced urban areas to mimic that single-use exclusionary model. I also have my own theory that the end of the military draft helped foster separation of the country into isolated groups. When I was in the Navy in the late 60s/early 70s, I saw that the universal draft had the positive effect of drawing people together of every class, education level, race, and type, forcing us to live and work together, and to learn about each other. That's pretty much absent today from what I can tell.

Oh, I’m with you on that. Not to totally derail this (tho this is — finally! — a thread that is actually about something sociocultural, so it IS relevant), but one of two linchpin of the entire class divide that is front and center today originated in the 1960s with Vietnam (the other being civil rights). Vietnam was where society fractured over the privileged elites who were anti-war and able to get away with draft avoidance and the working class counter-protesters, best summarized musically in Merl Haggard’s “Fightin Side of Me” which could’ve been written during the last election and not half a century ago. It was at that point that the military itself came to be reviled by more privileged classes, rather than an institution that all Americans found their way to. The removal of the draft only solidified this tension. And here we are today, with a schism in America between those who are pro cop and pro military and who generally (now) feel under siege by coastal middle class professionals, who likewise look down at what they see as reactionary authoritarianism of those who support war and law and order. And this of course keeps feeding itself, driving further polarization.

Were you around any the Boston anti- or counter-anti war protests? I’ve seen some pretty impressive pictures and it looks tense. One other thing those pics made me realize is that the State House wasn’t always completely off limits to protesters. I find it sad and scary that the state govt, probably under the auspices of “security” due to being freaked out by hippies on the front steps, fenced off literally the entire property. If you think of it, it’s an astounding lack of freedom that the only space to protest is a tiny sidewalk in front of the state house. Pretty antidemocratic, if you ask me.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Oh, I’m with you on that. Not to totally derail this (tho this is — finally! — a thread that is actually about something sociocultural, so it IS relevant), but one of two linchpin of the entire class divide that is front and center today originated in the 1960s with Vietnam (the other being civil rights). Vietnam was where society fractured over the privileged elites who were anti-war and able to get away with draft avoidance and the working class counter-protesters, best summarized musically in Merl Haggard’s “Fightin Side of Me” which could’ve been written during the last election and not half a century ago. It was at that point that the military itself came to be reviled by more privileged classes, rather than an institution that all Americans found their way to. The removal of the draft only solidified this tension. And here we are today, with a schism in America between those who are pro cop and pro military and who generally (now) feel under siege by coastal middle class professionals, who likewise look down at what they see as reactionary authoritarianism of those who support war and law and order. And this of course keeps feeding itself, driving further polarization.

Were you around any the Boston anti- or counter-anti war protests? I’ve seen some pretty impressive pictures and it looks tense. One other thing those pics made me realize is that the State House wasn’t always completely off limits to protesters. I find it sad and scary that the state govt, probably under the auspices of “security” due to being freaked out by hippies on the front steps, fenced off literally the entire property. If you think of it, it’s an astounding lack of freedom that the only space to protest is a tiny sidewalk in front of the state house. Pretty antidemocratic, if you ask me.

Having lived through both eras, my observation is that the present socio-political environment is far, far more divided now than it ever was in the late 1960s/early 70s. I'm friends with a few Vietnam vets around my age (mid-70s) and they all see now, and saw back then, how the Vietnam War was a disaster and a mistake, as did pretty much everyone else. There was not really a great divide in the country during that time. And as I said, in the military were college educated people, as well as the underclass. There were people of all types and backgrounds. It was not like today at all wherein the military is made up mostly of the so-called underclass. So, in my view today, we have become a much more divided and balkanized country, and the whole feeling is way more of a chaotic shit-show than it ever was in the 60s.
So, getting back to how this relates to city planning and development, I'd say the way to help mitigate this current divide is to continue developing mixed-use residential/retail/commercial, with a portion of the residential units designated as subsidized rents for low-income people. Build these types of developments not only in the inner cities but also as TOD in the historically affluent suburbs. And yes, build these on a street grid of through streets to serve as a platform for walkability, diversity, inter-cultural communication, and openness.

 

[FK4]

Having lived through both eras, my observation is that the present socio-political environment is far, far more divided now than it ever was in the late 1960s/early 70s. I'm friends with a few Vietnam vets around my age (mid-70s) and they all see now, and saw back then, how the Vietnam War was a disaster and a mistake, as did pretty much everyone else. There was not really a great divide in the country during that time. And as I said, in the military were college educated people, as well as the underclass. There were people of all types and backgrounds. It was not like today at all wherein the military is made up mostly of the so-called underclass. So, in my view today, we have become a much more divided and balkanized country, and the whole feeling is way more of a chaotic shit-show than it ever was in the 60s.
So, getting back to how this relates to city planning and development, I'd say the way to help mitigate this current divide is to continue developing mixed-use residential/retail/commercial, with a portion of the residential units designated as subsidized rents for low-income people. Build these types of developments not only in the inner cities but also as TOD in the historically affluent suburbs. And yes, build these on a street grid of through streets to serve as a platform for walkability, diversity, inter-cultural communication, and openness.

I think beyond just social mixing, the important theme here is participation, and more specifically, *collective participation*. When you live above a shop that’s on the street that connects two different neighborhoods, the car that stops to pick up groceries or the lady taking the streetcar to your local laundromat isn’t just mixing with you and you’re environment, they’re participants in the same milieu as you. I think the same is true of the pre schism military issues: collective participation was the way things were. When you have collective participation, you have a “we” mentality. It’s more than simply a group of individuals who all are working in a group form to achieve individual goals, but there’s an additional shared identity and intention. It’s the lack of that that is so damaging.

 

[stick n move]

 

[Blackbird]

Haven’t been able to circle back to this in a while, but I do think I’ve found a good case study for how one-way-in/one-way-out development is strangling the commonwealth:

English Commons is such a development in Topsfield right after the split between route 1 and I-95 as it heads up to Newburyport. Here is a nice view from above.

I look at this on Google Maps and wonder to myself “what’s the plan to fill all the rest of that area [I shaded it in yellow] with housing”. It can’t be conservation land, and this is literally at the junction of two major highways for the North Shore. Phenomenal transit-access from a driver’s perspective. No reason the whole area shouldn’t be chock-full of houses.

And this is why it bugs me that the governor’s housing report focuses so much on upzoning MA towns rather than expanding their buildable footprint. The state would get way more bang for their buck housing-wise (imo) and it would probably be an easier sell for towns that want to “preserve character” to build new SFH homes in places like Topsfield along a bunch of new streets rather than trying to stuff some 2-family or 4-family units along the sparse, pre-existing streets.

 

[KCasiglio]

AxisGIS - TopsfieldMA

www.axisgis.com

The undeveloped land northwest of the development is owned by Essex County Greenbelt Association, and all that land north of it is owned by the water utility. It can in fact be conservation land.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Haven’t been able to circle back to this in a while, but I do think I’ve found a good case study for how one-way-in/one-way-out development is strangling the commonwealth:

View attachment 60559

English Commons is such a development in Topsfield right after the split between route 1 and I-95 as it heads up to Newburyport. Here is a nice view from above.

I look at this on Google Maps and wonder to myself “what’s the plan to fill all the rest of that area [I shaded it in yellow] with housing”. It can’t be conservation land, and this is literally at the junction of two major highways for the North Shore. Phenomenal transit-access from a driver’s perspective. No reason the whole area shouldn’t be chock-full of houses.

And this is why it bugs me that the governor’s housing report focuses so much on upzoning MA towns rather than expanding their buildable footprint. The state would get way more bang for their buck housing-wise (imo) and it would probably be an easier sell for towns that want to “preserve character” to build new SFH homes in places like Topsfield along a bunch of new streets rather than trying to stuff some 2-family or 4-family units along the sparse, pre-existing streets.

Hot-take, no. We don't need to, and I would argue shouldn't, keep sprawling out when we have so much cleared but lightly developed land around.

 

[Blackbird]

Hot-take, no. We don't need to, and I would argue shouldn't, keep sprawling out when we have so much cleared but lightly developed land around.

It’s not “sprawling out” if it’s filling-in gaps.

This is a form of densification, just a different kind from the “what if we put a 20-unit apt building on the old superfund site” way that were used to in MA.

Edit: I feel like I should add some more context to this since (a) I feel pretty strongly about it and (b) I feel like we’re using different definitions of “sprawl”.

I’ve got a buddy from college who commutes daily from Rochester, NH to his job in Billerica. He had the job before he bought the house and a big part of why he accepted a 1.5hr commute was price/availability of SFHs in Rochester over MA. That is my own personal definition of what it means to “sprawl”. And conversely, trying to cram as many houses as possible (even SFH on 0.5 acre lots with no sidewalks) into places like Tewksbury and Wilmington so that it’s not wildly cheaper for someone working in Billerica or Burlington to commute from far-flung parts of NH is the antithesis of creating or adding to sprawl.

 

[kdmc]

And conversely, trying to cram as many houses as possible (even SFH on 0.5 acre lots with no sidewalks)

This is where you lose me. Other than lowering housing costs, everything else about this makes life worse in the town. More cars, more need for parking lots and big box stores, less green, fewer preserved wildlife corridors, fewer trees drinking up CO2. Why raze forests to build SFHs when we could be building MFHs on parking lots in town centers instead?

Maybe I just have a soft spot for pockets of woods. The CT town I grew up in had a lot of them, and they really contributed to the joy and character of the town and my parent's house. What sucked about growing up there was the lack of sidewalks to get to school or the town center, which was (and still is) filled with parking lots that could be condos.