[vox_mundi]

The American Dream: Designed by War Planners

"It is wrong to believe that postwar American suburbanization prevailed because the public chose it… Suburbanization prevailed because of the decisions of large operators and powerful economic institutions supported by federal government programmes… ordinary consumers had little real choice in the basic pattern that resulted… Essentially city planners saw the atomic threat as a means to accelerate the trend of suburbanization. Plans to circle American cities with open spaces, highways and circumferential life belts was long overdue…The federal government played a more effective role in reducing urban vulnerability [to atomic attack] in future residential development by working through the Federal Housing Administration [FHA], The Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Federal National Mortgage Association [FNMA]. As the FHA and the FNMA annually guaranteed federal liability for hundreds of thousands of dwelling units, the federal government could mandate that in the future they all be subject to urban defense standards."
— The Reduction of Urban Vulnerability: Revisiting 1950s American Suburbanization as Civil Defence, Kathleen A. Tobin

Turns out the “American Dream” of owning a couple of automobiles and a home with cable television in the greener pastures of the suburbs was/is, in good measure, a national security matter. The homes beyond the city center that Americans live in and the highways they cruise are all the result, directly or indirectly, of a national defense program that planers hoped would ensure the existential survivability of America.

Making it tougher for the “Reds”, or these days’ terrorists, to figure out how to vaporize the critical functional elements of America’s national power by dispersing centralized populations/industries to the suburbs was deemed critical to US Cold-War federal, state and local planners, and their counterparts in industry.

The United States government actively promoted the long term urban dispersal of its populations and industries because of the threat of nuclear annihilation by the, then, USSR. Immediately following World War II and throughout the 1950’s, publications like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists carried the views of prominent officials/academicians who vigorously argued for the dispersal of populations and industries located in major cities throughout the United States. The idea was not to eliminate the urban center but to expand and stretch its radius to such an extent that it would make it more difficult for the “Godless Commies” to pick and choose targets that mattered. In short, city limits would become meaningless.

[ROCKMAN]

Maybe Houston was the exception to the proposed dynamic. When I moved here in the late 70's the rush to the suburbs had one single and EXTREMELY POWERFUL motivation: costs. A home within 10 miles of the city center were priced several time high then homes in the burgs 30 miles out. IOW a 1,600 sq ft home in the popular Gallaria area might run $200,000. Same floor plan in the planned Woodlands community 25 miles north = $70,000.

[Sixstrings]

Maybe Houston was the exception to the proposed dynamic. When I moved here in the late 70's the rush to the suburbs had one single and EXTREMELY POWERFUL motivation: costs. A home within 10 miles of the city center were priced several time high then homes in the burgs 30 miles out. IOW a 1,600 sq ft home in the popular Gallaria area might run $200,000. Same floor plan in the planned Woodlands community 25 miles north = $70,000.

I agree, the move to the suburbs wasn't about war planning per se. Although Eisenhower did build the interstates as military infrastructure, because he saw how in Germany they could move things around so fast on the autobahns.

Move to the suburbs actually began even before cars. Very early 1900s / late 1800s. Some would take the train, out to the first suburbs. It was envisioned as having the best of both worlds, city life and a bit of country life too.

Then much later, was the "white flight" and escaping crime and problems of the cities.

People used to be either just city people or rural people, and then transportation advances gave them an option to work in the city but sort of live in the country.

Overall, these things are more about market forces and what people want, given the options available to them.

[eugene]

One thing about it, Americans are never, never responsible for anything. They are the ultimate in powerless victims. I think it was Linda Ronstadt who had a line "poor, poor pitiful me".

[Timo]

Pretty much everything west of the Mississippi was built after the onset of the automobile. Thus, cities were built specifically to accommodate cars, instead of cities built pre-auto, where walking was still an imparative. Now, our streets and culdesacs are engineered to accommodate the largest firetruck available on the market. That's actually true. Block lengths cannot be any longer than a firehose, or access point to a hydrant. City planners and civil engineers f'd this country up. If we want to escape our self-built modern abyss, we seek places that were built where people mattered more than cars. I hadn't thought about the nuclear variable in the suburban equation before. I just assumed it was all due to the cheap price of land out west, and the abilities for endless growth enabled by our beloved automobiles. The cold war probably did play a factor, though. Still, i'd say that profits played a larger role in creating suburbia.

[vox_mundi]

... Move to the suburbs actually began even before cars. Very early 1900s / late 1800s. Some would take the train, out to the first suburbs. It was envisioned as having the best of both worlds, city life and a bit of country life too.

Suburb of the late 1890/early 1900 ...




They were called mansions

Then much later, was the "white flight money flight" and escaping crime and problems of the cities. (... post-1965 - 10-15 years after the suburb boom began)

People used to be either just city people or rural people, and then transportation advances gave them an option to work in the city but sort of live in the country. (... again, post-interstate - a DoD directive)

Overall, these things are more about market forces and what people want, given the options available to them.

It seems that the statement "what people want, given the options available to them" is a bit of "doublethink" - i.e. the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

What we want is a personal choice

Options given to us is a choice determined by an outside party.

For example:

Probably 99 out of a 100 people would personally choose peace; yet our options are war in the Middle East or War in the Ukraine (or war just about anywhere else).

Choice is an illusion.

[ennui2]

Once you embrace fatalism, the only opiate you have left is the shaking fist of your moral indignation. I find this martyrdom complex tiresome. If you don't think you have a solution, then maybe stop whining.

[vox_mundi]

Once you embrace fatalism, the only opiate you have left is the shaking fist of your moral indignation. I find this martyrdom complex tiresome. If you don't think you have a solution, then maybe stop whining.

Whose whining?

There is always revolution.

[kanon]

I think you need to include a few more major actions of the puppetmasters. I agree that the Eisenhower administration time frame is crucial for your concept. So, for what it is worth, I would add this.

After WW II the American public remained very influenced by the military and many political choices were justified by military considerations. But the military (or military industrial complex) does not operate as a sole or separate entity. There was the "problem" or "opportunity" of how to use the manufacturing and industrial capability created for the war effort, instead of retiring it or returning to the pre-war arrangements.

The financial, automobile, fossil fuel, and other industries promoted the idea of consumerism and its companion, planned obsolescence, and the suburbs were ideal for putting these ideas into practice. Auto related corporations actively dismantled public transportation in the streetcar_conspiracy and, of course, cultivated public support for highway and roads designed for automobiles. Supposedly, Eisenhower was against interstate highways going through cities, but obviously they did. At this time oil supply totally overwhelmed demand and the issues were controlling supply and increasing demand. The suburbs really helped increase demand. Much or most of the American economy is based on suburban homes and auto transportation. The consumerism influence is really obvious.

The "American Dream" has been a very successful campaign in terms of its goals, similar to the huge American Flag seen at all car dealerships -- combine consumption with patriotism and get a winning sales pitch. Now, in the era of peak oil and environmental collapse, these ideas come into increasing disrepute since they are no longer solutions and have become problems.

[vox_mundi]

I think you need to include a few more major actions of the puppetmasters. I agree that the Eisenhower administration time frame is crucial for your concept. So, for what it is worth, I would add this.

After WW II the American public remained very influenced by the military and many political choices were justified by military considerations. But the military (or military industrial complex) does not operate as a sole or separate entity. There was the "problem" or "opportunity" of how to use the manufacturing and industrial capability created for the war effort, instead of retiring it or returning to the pre-war arrangements.

The financial, automobile, fossil fuel, and other industries promoted the idea of consumerism and its companion, planned obsolescence, and the suburbs were ideal for putting these ideas into practice. Auto related corporations actively dismantled public transportation in the streetcar_conspiracy and, of course, cultivated public support for highway and roads designed for automobiles. Supposedly, Eisenhower was against interstate highways going through cities, but obviously they did. At this time oil supply totally overwhelmed demand and the issues were controlling supply and increasing demand. The suburbs really helped increase demand. Much or most of the American economy is based on suburban homes and auto transportation. The consumerism influence is really obvious.

The "American Dream" has been a very successful campaign in terms of its goals, similar to the huge American Flag seen at all car dealerships -- combine consumption with patriotism and get a winning sales pitch. Now, in the era of peak oil and environmental collapse, these ideas come into increasing disrepute since they are no longer solutions and have become problems.

+1 Excellent points

We could also add ...

Robert Moses' power increased after World War II after Mayor LaGuardia retired and a series of successors consented to almost all of his proposals. Named city "construction coordinator" in 1946 by Mayor William O'Dwyer, Moses became New York City's de facto representative in Washington, D.C.

Moses had influence outside the New York area as well. City planners in many smaller American cities hired him to design freeway networks in the 1940s and early 1950s.

Moses' showed lack of sensitivity in the construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway... He is blamed for having destroyed more than a score of neighborhoods, displaced hundreds of thousands of residents, by building 13 expressways across New York City and by building large urban renewal projects with little regard for the urban fabric or for human scale. It destroyed vibrant neighborhoods and set the seed for urban decay.

By 1959, he had overseen construction of 28,000 apartment units on hundreds of acres of land. In clearing the land for high-rises in accordance with the tower in a park project, which at that time was seen as innovative and beneficial, he sometimes destroyed almost as many housing units as he built.

[Sixstrings]

Suburb of the late 1890/early 1900 ...

I'm talking more about Frank Lloyd Wright, born in 1867, the origins of the American "ranch style" home and some of the first developments in the US. Suburbs, people working in the city and catching the train home to the outskirts at night, actually predates cars.

[vox_mundi]

Suburb of the late 1890/early 1900 ...

I'm talking more about Frank Lloyd Wright, born in 1867, the origins of the American "ranch style" home and some of the first developments in the US. Suburbs, people working in the city and catching the train home to the outskirts at night, actually predates cars.

Most of those 'suburbs' (1880-1930) were farming communities supplying the cities with fresh produce.

i.e. Hickville, Long Island - 1925 - 30 miles from Manhattan - population 3,400 (current pop = 41,547)



Returning World War II veterans and immigrants from Europe created a postwar economic boom. Demands for new housing were aided by the GI Bill for veterans, stimulating the development of huge suburban tracts in eastern Queens and Nassau County.

[ennui2]

There is always revolution.

Pretty stupid to be advocating revolution on a public forum.

[Sixstrings]

At worst, we have riots. We never have rebellion.

That's right, because of our Constitution, which is better than less democratic forms of government.

We've got a perfect balance between democracy and republicanism.

Our system has pressure release valves, checks and balances, and was designed to be strong but flexible. We can bend if it gets down to it -- people really can just elect a FDR if things get bad enough -- we always bend, rather than break.

This is why it's important to stick to the Constitution and not drift too far from it.

[ennui2]

It's never clear what pstarr really stands for because his posts are so laced with sarcasm. Nothing and nobody ever seems to measure-up to his high standards. The government is corrupt and the sheeple don't have the balls to storm the bastille. So the thing to do is just stand off to the side and mock everyone?

There's a lot of paper-tigers on the internet who drop a lot of keystrokes but they don't put their money where their mouth is. Whining is the greater opiate for the masses, greater than even religion. It allows you to feel superior and not have to lift a finger to practice what you preach.

So easy to envision some panacea in which the black hats of the world have been wiped clean and we'll all live happily ever after. History proves that never happens, though.

Politics is the art of compromise and revolutionaries are ultimately fanatics who don't understand what compromise means.

[vox_mundi]

There is always revolution.

Pretty stupid to be advocating revolution on a public forum.

Why? Did the First Amendment get repealed while I was out?

And why is it OK for Fox News to advocate revolution in Ukraine, or Syria, or Russia, or Libya but a citizen cannot? Is it because I'm not a corporation?

Or maybe it was repealed but it's controlled unclassified information or a secret law

A Growing Body of Secret Intelligence Law

Classified legislative language has been generated by Congress and used to shape intelligence policy each year since the congressional intelligence committees prepared the first stand-alone intelligence authorization act in 1977 (for Fiscal Year 1978).

Though unpublished, those classified provisions have the force of law, the Senate Intelligence Committee declared in the FY 1978 intelligence authorization report (S.Rpt. 95-214, May 16, 1977):“It is the intent of the committee that the classified report, although not available to the public, will nonetheless have the force of a Senate authorization bill; further that the Intelligence Community shall comply fully with the guidelines and limitations contained therein,” the intelligence authorization report said.

What were those guidelines and limitations that the Intelligence Community was obliged to comply with? That remains a secret almost four decades later, because that first classified committee report has never been made public. Neither has a single one of the subsequent classified annexes to the annual committee authorization bills. Though they may have the legal force of other authorizing legislation, their classified contents remain almost entirely inaccessible to the public.

“The idea of secret laws is repugnant,” a federal appeals court memorably said (Torres v. INS, 7th circuit, 1998). The court’s concern at the time was that “People cannot comply with laws the existence of which is concealed.” But compliance aside, secret laws are also problematic because people cannot challenge them or seek to amend them.

“Controlled Unclassified Information” Is Coming

After years of preparation, the executive branch is poised to adopt a government-wide system for designating and safeguarding unclassified information that is to be withheld from public disclosure.

A proposed rule on CUI was published for public comment on May 8 in the Federal Register.

[ennui2]

And why is it OK for Fox News to advocate revolution in Ukraine, or Syria, or Russia, or Libya but a citizen cannot? Is it because I'm not a corporation?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but to answer your question, your free speech is a conspiracy to commit treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

If you think your free speech is so great, print out your postings and send it to the department of homeland security. Make a real martyr of yourself by taking this issue to court. You feel comfortable because this site is (in your mind) far from prying eyes and the internet is known for useless hyperbole that never amounts to anything but words on keyboards.

[vox_mundi]

And why is it OK for Fox News to advocate revolution in Ukraine, or Syria, or Russia, or Libya but a citizen cannot? Is it because I'm not a corporation?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but to answer your question, your free speech is a conspiracy to commit treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

If you think your free speech is so great, print out your postings and send it to the department of homeland security. Make a real martyr of yourself by taking this issue to court. You feel comfortable because this site is (in your mind) far from prying eyes and the internet is known for useless hyperbole that never amounts to anything but words on keyboards.

That is the most jaw-droppingly paranoid statement I've heard in a long while.

Could you tell me; Which government was I allegedly conspiring against? Who was I conspiring with?

And as for prying eyes on the internet; I'm already on their watch list - so what?



You want to know about Treason listen to this ...

"This is Treason!" Lyndon Johnson/Everett Dirksen Phone Call November 2 1968

Lyndon Johnson discusses with Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen the shocking discovery that candidate Richard Nixon is sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks through his own backchannel negotiations (conspiring with a foreign government against the actions of the U.S. government), offering the South Vietnamese a better deal if he becomes president. A supplement to the long essay on the subject of Richard Nixon's sabotage of these peace talks:

Johnson: “I don’t want to get this in the campaign,” Johnson said, adding: “They oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”

Dirksen responded, “I know.”