Metro Framing, Part 2: The Time Dimension
It's not fair to compare New York with LA, or Chicago with Houston. They come from different eras, serve different purposes and have their own unique challenges. But we need to start somewhere.
In terms of their development patterns, can we truly compare these cities? Should we? Source: gettyimages.com
I think I made a pretty decent argument earlier this week calling for objective definitions of cities, suburbs and exurbs for better urban analysis. I think doing so would allow for much more apples-to-apples comparisons between metro areas and the different development levels from which they’re assembled.
In that last piece I recognize that there are metro areas that are defined by their dominant development patterns. Some are defined by densely-built urban cores, others by less-dense urban-suburban hybrids, and still others are sprawl monsters with the exurbs being the leading edge.
In the previous piece I said, “(w)e would not compare the health of a 24-year-old person with an athletic background with that of a 54-year-old sedentary person, would we? But that’s exactly what we do when comparing some metro areas.” But after some thought I realized that analogy doesn’t work as it relates to development patterns. Perhaps the more appropriate analogy would be between two different types of vehicles – one a comfortable sedan, another a sexy sports car.
However, I do want to bring attention to another factor that influences development patterns and perceptions – time. For some time, I’ve realized that cities are products of their time and evolve from different points. That’s another factor that makes them difficult to compare easily. In that sense the age analogy I offered earlier is valid.
That’s why I’m trotting out something I originally published back in 2013. If you’ve followed me since I started the Corner Side Yard you might be familiar with what I called the Big Theory of American Urban Development. Allow me to plagiarize myself:
My premise is that there have been distinct development periods in American history, producing distinct styles of development shaped by the economics of the time, and with transitional periods that separate larger eras where no development type dominates -- until one does. The premise borrows quite a bit from the generational theory presented in The Fourth Turning, a book published in 1997 by William Strauss and Neil Howe. Their book discusses the cyclical nature of our society, as generations that share certain traits exert their impact on the world as they enter various life stages -- as children, as young adults, in middle age and as the elderly.
You can click the link above to see how I initially organized the different development eras in American history, as I saw it. However, here's a quick summation:
The Early Era (1795-1860)
Revolutionary Period (1795-1815)
Plantation Period (1810-1830)
Mercantile Period (1825-1845)
Frontier Period (1840-1860)
The Industrial Era (1870-1935)
Railroad Period (1870-1890)
Industrial Period (1885-1905)
Streetcar Period (1900-1920)
Recreational/Garden City Period (1915-1935)
The Auto Era (1945-2010)
Levittown Period (1945-1965)
Split-Level Period (1960-1980)
Edge City Period (1975-1995)
McMansion Period (1990-2010)
Each era produced development types that supported the economic foundation of the time. Early Era American development was based on settlement and agriculture; Industrial Era development was supported by the rise of manufacturing and the expansion of the nation's rail network; Auto Era development, obviously, was built on the growth of car use and our road infrastructure. Each era also produced development types that became less dense over time, as transportation improvements expanded our world.
Implied in my earlier piece is that the development patterns of our cities are wedded to the development era from which they emerged, and build on that initial foundation. East Coast cities, for example, clearly emerged as cities in the Early Era and maintain development vestiges from that period (mix of building types, pedestrian-oriented street networks, etc.). Much of the Rust Belt exploded in the Industrial Era and has a built environment that reflects that -- an orientation to rail, strong grid networks, large areas devoted to industrial use, and large areas devoted to residents seeking to avoid industrial area impacts. Much of the Sun Belt, particularly in the Gulf South and the Southwest, developed in the Auto Era and has the characteristic horizontal development pattern and extensive highway network.
You'll also note the interregnum periods, from 1860-1870 and from 1935-1945. Those are the periods when larger economic and social events occur that effectively end one era and kick off another. The Civil War and Reconstruction put an end to agricultural America and ushered in the industrial future; the Great Depression and World War II led to American global economic dominance and policy reforms that supported auto-dominant expansion.
The element of time is important to consider, for two reasons. First, development patterns from different eras vary dramatically. Cities of 250 years ago were smaller, but much denser. Cities of 150 years ago were larger, but slightly less dense. Metro areas of 50 years ago were even larger, and much less dense. Whatever era a city came into being, it’s difficult to transition into something it wasn’t designed for.
Second, I’d say Americans have a strong preference for desiring new development products (not necessarily patterns) over old ones, and that influences living decisions as well. Advances in technology allow us to live more safely, more spaciously, and in places previously unavailable to us. That’s not always a good thing, but it’s part of our selection process.
When I last revisited this in 2018, I envisioned another interregnum period lasting between 2010 and 2020, before the next dominant development period got established. My best guess then was that development patterns for the balance of the 21st century might follow this trajectory, again plagiarizing myself:
Urban Revival Period (2020-2040): The rebirth of cities actually does take hold nationally, as growth filters downward from our superstar coastal cities to other cities. Interior cities will tout their assets and amenities and become cheaper alternatives to the coasts.
Urban Suburbia Period (2035-2055): Suburbs will begin a period of adaptation largely based on their proximity to urban growth areas. Suburbs adjacent to strong urban areas will urbanize (incorporate more mixed use development, a variety of housing types, and more walkable) as a complement to renewed interest in urban areas. My guess is that the older forms of the Auto Era, from the Levittown and Split-Level periods, will lead the way here (after a fairly dark period that they've recently entered into).
Exurban Retrenchment (2050-2070): Not all suburbs will have the benefit of adjacency and proximity to build on. I foresee a period where many revert into a semi-rural form, since we'll discover that their current form is economically unsustainable. They'll become local agriculture producers in the way that market gardens (or truck farms) used to be. These will be the areas that developed during the Edge City and McMansion periods.
Climate Adaptation (2065-2085): Some aspects of climate change adaptation are already underway (indeed, some aspects of everything noted here are already underway), but I'm guessing that by the middle of this century climate adaptation will take center stage. Sea rise, super storms, droughts, fires and excessive heat will make places that were perfectly and enjoyably habitable in the 19th and 20th centuries into places far less habitable in the next few decades. Some cities will adapt to the changing climate. Others will have to adapt to the climate refugees -- domestic and international -- that result.
I may be way off the mark, or onto something. That’s for others to decide. But it’s really just an elaborate way of saying that cities are constantly evolving, getting both better and worse along the way. Cities of one era can never completely compare with cities of another era.
And that’s fine.
I agree with your basic premise on the time factor. But I think it's not necessarily the time that a city originated that's the key, but the periods (often more than one) where it experienced major city and metro area population growth. I personally find the urban areas that developed through the end of the streetcar era to be among the most compelling, in particular in places like Milwaukee that had 457,000 residents packed into 25 square miles in 1920 resulting in a density exceeded only by NYC and Newark among major US cities. This core area formed in the streetcar era has been the focus for 90% or more of the redevelopment over the past 30-40 years.
It seems like extreme growth eras (like Detroit growing from 456K to 1569K from 1910-1930, or LA from 577K to 1504K from 1920-1940, or Phoenix from 107K to 582K 1950-1970 and 790K to 1321K from 1980-2000) never result in a high-quality urban environment. I suspect there's a tipping point for population growth beyond which it does more harm than good.
An interesting analysis would be to look at the population changes for a city in each individual census tract, to identify the decade (or development era) when the initial major development or growth spurt took place, as well as subsequent periods of growth accomplished through densification or redevelopment. Then you might be able to produce detailed maps of the dominant development era characterizing different areas of a city, their relative size, as well as areas that experienced on on-going or multiple periods of development which may bear the characteristics of multiple eras.
This piece also reminded me of a trip to Barcelona a few years ago, when I stayed in the medieval portions of the City and realizing that these had no corollary in any US city. But what surprised was seeing the extent to which redevelopment of industrial areas and former brownfield sites (my specialty) had continued to transform the city over recent decades and add new amenities (such as the Olympic Park area and some of the beachfront areas). So even though much of Barcelona's development doesn't correlate with development eras characterizing US cities, the industrial districts developed in the late 1800s through 1970s have significant similarities to industrial areas in many US cities.
I would agree it's hard to compare Houston to New York, but it's interesting that a recent paper compared major metros in California to Texas and they basically found that TX is a bit behind CA in terms of running up against constraints on single family housing. Your time argument is apt but I imagine many of these cities will start looking similar even with different development regimes if the theory holds. Totally worth taking a look at as this paper has really fascinated me as a new way to think about cities and growth in the US. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.12490?af=R