Nipping urban sprawl in the bud

Question

'The culture of good place-making, like the culture of farming, or agriculture, is a body of knowledge and acquired skills. It is not bred in the bone, and if it is not transmitted from one generation to the next, it is lost.' (James H Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere)

---

Urban sprawl, which is notable in places like the US, is a post-World War 2 phenomenon associated with dirty air and water; mutilated drainage patterns and agricultural land; actual cities' falling into disrepair after residents are seduced by the suburbs; and obviously roads, pavement, utility lines and buildings that span excessive distances.

Suppose we were to tweak history to cut US urban sprawl drastically. How small a societal change could we make and still succeed?

• The suggested change or changes should occur no later than the first half of the 20th century.
• The suggested change or changes aren't allowed to kill urbanisation. Keep forms of urbanisation that are still profitable but frugal (in land, energy, water etc) and human-centred.
• A sufficiently small change is indistinguishable from the effect of chance (things 'could have gone either way'), or at least that's what's preferred.
• Other than the improvement in urbanism, the US should remain as similar as possible to the real US, except where your suggested change(s) necessarily has/have higher-order effects.
• No need for certain prevention of urban sprawl; just make it as likely as possible for urban sprawl by any reasonable definition to remain negligible by the present date.

Bonus: cut urban sprawl worldwide, also according to the specifications above.

Answer 1

Disclaimer before my answer: I'm not American, nor have I lived in the United States. But I have formally studied suburbanisation as part of my work. Therefore, my answer is derived from my second-hand readings of United States history rather than first-hand experience.

The one "small" change I would advocate would be to substitute the automobile boom of the 1920s and highway construction during the New Deal with a railway boom instead (carrying on the older railway boom of the 19th century).

It's not really small, but it's one change with a significant impact and I've explained why I think so below.

From what I know, a significant factor that drove suburbanisation in the US was the cheap availability of capital left over from the second world war which could be put to other uses, thus starting a manufacturing boom in the 1950s. Cars, concrete, household appliances, hardware - all effectively became cheaper to manufacture, distribute, sell, purchase, and replace. This was combined with a sudden boom in consumption, as young soldiers returned from the war, obtained jobs manufacturing and marketing this newly cheap stuff and used their wages to buy the same stuff in the market. Low prices meant a single household could buy a lot - a car, a washing machine, an oven, a refrigerator, furniture and so on. However, land prices in cities were too high to own enough space for such a lifestyle. This is ultimately what drove young households to suburbs - Cheap land and housing that allowed for an expanded lifestyle driven by the manufacturing boom.

However, a crucial factor was the automobile and its associated infrastructure such as freeways and highways, whose development had started taking place in the 20s and 30s, but whose effect took off in the 1950s. The combination of highway+car promised that a household in the suburbs could never be too far away from work or entertainment in the city. The overall effect of this combination had a huge impact on how households lived - not only did it promise freedom to move between suburb and city as and when the household pleased, but it also promised that a household need not bind itself to any particular location for any reason at all. You didn't need to live within walking distance of shops if you could just drive down. You didn't need to live close to a doctor or a hospital if you wanted care. If all these things could be located within a 10-15 minute drive down a motorway (as opposed to a 10-15 minute walk or bus ride), you just needed access to the motorway. What this meant was that households could spread out, more and more. Their homes could get bigger and their neighbourhoods could cut deeper into rural areas with their only limit being the capacities of their cars and their access to the highway.

Therefore, if there is one "small" change I would suggest to cut down on urban sprawl, I would suggest extending the 19th Century Rail Boom to the 1920s and have rail lines replace road laying during the New Deal. Rail creates very different effects from the automobile. Households will still need to cluster and locate themselves closer to railway stations in order to access services. Factories, shops and key centres like hospitals can be located near stations to better access manufactured goods. Suburbanisation will still take place, but it will be of a very different form, consisting of denser, tighter railway towns and the sprawl is more likely to be linear, taking place around major arteries connecting primary cities, as opposed to sprawls that go in every direction. This also allows for more centralised infrastructure in towns, reducing resource wastage and hopefully, more connected communities that participate more actively in town planning processes.

Answer 2

You mention the timeframe and thus the ultimate cause of (sub)urban sprawl in the US, and therein lies also the answer.

Kill most of the soldiers.

Short and sweet and to the point. The reason why we experienced suburban sprawl was because loads of battle experienced soldiers came home with a discharge in one hand and a GI Bill in the other. They came home to a prospering economy, loads of new technology, new opportunities, a need for a place to call home, and the inevitable baby boom to follow. You know, wife, 2.4 kids, a turkey in every pot and a car in every garage.

If you reduce the population of returnees you reduce the need for living space. Traditional cities can continue to handle the reduced population growth.

Answer 3

Simply having higher petrol prices throughout history will drastically alter the way our cities develop

If petrol was not abundant and cheap, and instead harder to extract, process and deliver, then this would drastically affect urban form.

The invention of the Automobile was in 1886, but it was not really until 1910's that it started being mass produced enabling cities to grow and transport between them to be easier - however it wasn't apparent until the post WW2 years, and subsequent 'baby boom' that the car became ubiquitous and the 'every-day' family could afford and use.

This suddenly transformed all growing cities into car orientated, hierarchal road transport networked cities as ordinary middle-class (and also lower-class) families could afford to live further from where they work.

Also this enabled the 3-tiered stratification of cities: Separating industrial from commercial from residential. By using the car, it is possible to separate them (which they did) - now considered a major contributor to urban sprawl.

Higher petrol prices however might push the car into the realm of the unfeasible for ordinary people (not necessarily for wealthy or for industry) and thus the stratification of cities and hierarchal transport network could potentially be unviable too.

This change would still enable most other cultural and scientific (and political) development to occur, on a world-wide basis, and would fulfil your criteria.