Going all the way back to the beginning of the semester, I want each of you to come up with SIX short-answer questions and answers on anything we've covered over the course of the semester, including our last book, "The Geography of Nowhere" (see outline below of the material we've covered). Please submit your questions and answers to me in writing (or via email, but NOT on this blog) NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, DEC. 10TH BY NOON. I will, then, consider your submissions and try to accept at least THREE questions from each of you. For each additional question I accept, you will earn a bonus point for this exercise and have the benefit of knowing more of the questions on the final exxam. I will post the questions and answers I accepted by MONDAY, DEC. 13TH, which is the first day of final exam week. This exercise is worth 20 activity points (which is more than I usually give for such an exercise because you have only had one other activity for 5 points and in the course outline I stipulated that you would have a chance to earn 25 activity points, not counting extra credit points).
OUTLINE OF MATERIAL COVERED:
(1) Opening couple of lectures on 4 major themes on the city and an overview of the origin, development, and significance of the city in human history.
(2) Comments on two classic essays in urban sociology: "Metropolis and Mental Life," by Georg Simmel and "Urbanism as a Way of Life," by Louis Wirth (comments on Wirth's essay, including critical analysis, posted on the blog).
(3) Summary Comments on the book, "City" (Preface thru Chap. 12) -- all posted on the blog.
(4) Lecture/commentary on the book, "Heat Wave."
(5) Notes on video presentation, "Understanding Urban Sprawl," -- posted on the blog.
(6) Notes on video presentation, "Taken for a Ride," -- posted on the blog.
(7) Lecture/commentary on book, "The Geography of Nowhere."
(8) Notes on relevance of final video presentation, "The End of Suburbia," (Tues. 12/7) for argument in "The Geography of Nowhere."
________________________
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Notes on "Taken for a Ride"
You are introduced early on to Bradford Snell who has been working on a history of GM for over 16 years (and if he is still working on that project, it would be 26 years). He wrote the original article "American Ground Transport" (50pp), which detailed the role of GM and several other corporations in buying up and then dismantling electric trolleys in cities across the country.
He noted that in 1922 only 1 in 10 Americans owned a car. Alfred P. Sloan of GM recognized the obvious -- that there was a huge potential market for cars. But that meant you needed roads and access to them, and you'd have to get rid of the street cars. So, GM launched a motorization campaign, which at first involved replacing street cars with diesel buses, and eventually cars. National City Lines Bus Co. (which was financed by GM) bought up these electric trolley systems across the U.S. and started to cut back service and did not maintain tracks and cars, raised fares, made them less attractive. Eventually, they were simply dismantled. And remember that GM, among some other major corporations, was convicted in federal court in the late 1940s of criminal conspiracy in buying up and dismantling these trolley systems. GM was fined a neglible $5,000.
1. Despite some of these moves, people overwhelmingly supported trolleys -- in L.A. 88% wanted rail service retained and improved. But that was not enough.
Perhaps what clinched the deal for the car was building sprawling suburbs which could only be served by private automobiles
That scene of burning street cars is a graphic illustration of the forces of creative destruction.
Note the occasional propaganda film clips, such as "Diesel and Dollars," and that nice school teacher talking about building more roads for the sake of the children (which in my humble opinion is enough to make you gag because of the adverse consequences of those roads and cars for the health and well-being of those children).
Charles Wilson, who had been GM CEO, was the Secretary of Defense in 1953, and was a moving force behind the Eisenhower Adm.'s decision to build the Interstate Highway system. DuPont family was also behind it. This was the largest public works project in American history.
"Trouble in Paradise" Shows scenes of growing traffic congestion. Roads that did not work such as I-93 thru Boston (which has been put underground at a cost of some $12 billion!!). Mayor Alioto of San Francisco opposing a downtown expressway.
1. Early 1970s hearings in Congress over how to divide up the highway trust funds. Senator clearly voicing interest of the auto companies. But Alioto says, at one point, that: "What was good for GM was not good for American cities."
2. Lewis Mumford poses an intersting question about transportation and cities -- does the city exist for people or cars? By the 1960s the answer was clear -- for cars.
"Back to the Future" -- some efforts to restore light rail systems have been successful (such as Baltimore, Portland, Oregon). But the big bucks are still behind the automobile and raod system, as in the Intelligent Highway Vehicle System (or IHVS) -- futuristic computer operated roadways.
(A final note about what happened to those bus systems -- many went bankrupt and are now managed by cities, often at a loss and inadequately.)
____________________________________
That's it. Please incorporate these comments in your notes. If I ask anything on the final exam about this video, it will come from these posted comments. Next Tuesday I'll be talking about The Geography of Nowhere, hopefully get through Chapter 8. AND DON'T FORGET ABOUT ESSAY II, WHICH IS DUE THEN.
He noted that in 1922 only 1 in 10 Americans owned a car. Alfred P. Sloan of GM recognized the obvious -- that there was a huge potential market for cars. But that meant you needed roads and access to them, and you'd have to get rid of the street cars. So, GM launched a motorization campaign, which at first involved replacing street cars with diesel buses, and eventually cars. National City Lines Bus Co. (which was financed by GM) bought up these electric trolley systems across the U.S. and started to cut back service and did not maintain tracks and cars, raised fares, made them less attractive. Eventually, they were simply dismantled. And remember that GM, among some other major corporations, was convicted in federal court in the late 1940s of criminal conspiracy in buying up and dismantling these trolley systems. GM was fined a neglible $5,000.
1. Despite some of these moves, people overwhelmingly supported trolleys -- in L.A. 88% wanted rail service retained and improved. But that was not enough.
Perhaps what clinched the deal for the car was building sprawling suburbs which could only be served by private automobiles
That scene of burning street cars is a graphic illustration of the forces of creative destruction.
Note the occasional propaganda film clips, such as "Diesel and Dollars," and that nice school teacher talking about building more roads for the sake of the children (which in my humble opinion is enough to make you gag because of the adverse consequences of those roads and cars for the health and well-being of those children).
Charles Wilson, who had been GM CEO, was the Secretary of Defense in 1953, and was a moving force behind the Eisenhower Adm.'s decision to build the Interstate Highway system. DuPont family was also behind it. This was the largest public works project in American history.
"Trouble in Paradise" Shows scenes of growing traffic congestion. Roads that did not work such as I-93 thru Boston (which has been put underground at a cost of some $12 billion!!). Mayor Alioto of San Francisco opposing a downtown expressway.
1. Early 1970s hearings in Congress over how to divide up the highway trust funds. Senator clearly voicing interest of the auto companies. But Alioto says, at one point, that: "What was good for GM was not good for American cities."
2. Lewis Mumford poses an intersting question about transportation and cities -- does the city exist for people or cars? By the 1960s the answer was clear -- for cars.
"Back to the Future" -- some efforts to restore light rail systems have been successful (such as Baltimore, Portland, Oregon). But the big bucks are still behind the automobile and raod system, as in the Intelligent Highway Vehicle System (or IHVS) -- futuristic computer operated roadways.
(A final note about what happened to those bus systems -- many went bankrupt and are now managed by cities, often at a loss and inadequately.)
____________________________________
That's it. Please incorporate these comments in your notes. If I ask anything on the final exam about this video, it will come from these posted comments. Next Tuesday I'll be talking about The Geography of Nowhere, hopefully get through Chapter 8. AND DON'T FORGET ABOUT ESSAY II, WHICH IS DUE THEN.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Notes on "Understanding Urban Sprawl"
The opening interviews with young couples moving to suburban Toronto captures well the dreams and aspirations of many people. No doubt such desires have been a big factor fueling the suburban housing boom of the latter half of the 20th century.
BUT IT IS A DREAM BUILT UPON AN ILLUSION
Sprawling suburbs cost a lot more than just the price of the homes, however high they may be these days. Billions are spent in public subsidies for infrastructure development -- roads, water, sewers, etc. The market is a bit "squiffy" in that it does not reflect the actual costs. That Toronto economist suggested $700 million to $1 billion a year could be saved if housing did not expand outward in the typical sprawling fashion. The savings would be in infrastructure costs.
Surburban sprawl's pressure on rich farmland in the Central Valley of California.
L.A. county, which is now the "ultimate suburban wasteland" of asphalt and concrete used to be a highly productive agricultural area. Now cities like Fresno and Modesto are growing and eating up arable land where over 200 different crops are grown, some of the richest soil anywhere in the world. Perhaps the federal government should do more to protect its multi-billion dollar investment in irrigation which basically created that highly productive farmland.
In reality, cars drive sprawl. Car especially suited to low-density sprawl. Of course, the government builds and maintains roads which is a huge subsidy favoring this mode of transportation. One economist estimated govt. subsidizes the car to the tune of $2,700 per vehicle. It is hard for government to keep up with the number of cars the auto makers can sell. In Vancouver, 84 cars a day are sold, 30,000 a year, yet over the last decade only a few more kilometers of roads have been built. Increasing traffic congestion is the obvious result.
Sprawl in Mexico City is different -- people flooding into the city tend to reside in shantytowns on the outskirts. Tremendous stress on natural systems, such as water. Have to use 10% of the entire country's electrical output to bring water into the city! And yet they continue to exhaust the acquifer that lies underneath and the city continues to sink.
Portland, Oregon is a kind of poster child for a city which has resisted these trends (but not entirely, of course). The state of Oregon decided in the early 1970s to impose "growth boundaries" (or greenbelts) around cities, which did not stop growth but re-directed it back into the downtown area. City official noted criticism of some of their efforts in transportation as a "crazy socialist conspiracy to get people out of their cars", but as he went on to note, no one talks about the "crazy (capitalist) conspiracy to get them into cars" (which we will be focusing on next Tuesday). Portland is different basically because they have spent 25 years working on this. And I would say, clearly, most other cities have not devoted such time and effort to this issue.
___________________________________
That's it. Remember, next week Tuesday (11/16) we'll be seeing a video on the conspiracy to take over and dismantle the trolley systems throughout the country (a la Judge Doom). WE'll meet in Main 122 again. Please read through at least Chapter 6 in the Geography of Nowhere.
BUT IT IS A DREAM BUILT UPON AN ILLUSION
Sprawling suburbs cost a lot more than just the price of the homes, however high they may be these days. Billions are spent in public subsidies for infrastructure development -- roads, water, sewers, etc. The market is a bit "squiffy" in that it does not reflect the actual costs. That Toronto economist suggested $700 million to $1 billion a year could be saved if housing did not expand outward in the typical sprawling fashion. The savings would be in infrastructure costs.
Surburban sprawl's pressure on rich farmland in the Central Valley of California.
L.A. county, which is now the "ultimate suburban wasteland" of asphalt and concrete used to be a highly productive agricultural area. Now cities like Fresno and Modesto are growing and eating up arable land where over 200 different crops are grown, some of the richest soil anywhere in the world. Perhaps the federal government should do more to protect its multi-billion dollar investment in irrigation which basically created that highly productive farmland.
In reality, cars drive sprawl. Car especially suited to low-density sprawl. Of course, the government builds and maintains roads which is a huge subsidy favoring this mode of transportation. One economist estimated govt. subsidizes the car to the tune of $2,700 per vehicle. It is hard for government to keep up with the number of cars the auto makers can sell. In Vancouver, 84 cars a day are sold, 30,000 a year, yet over the last decade only a few more kilometers of roads have been built. Increasing traffic congestion is the obvious result.
Sprawl in Mexico City is different -- people flooding into the city tend to reside in shantytowns on the outskirts. Tremendous stress on natural systems, such as water. Have to use 10% of the entire country's electrical output to bring water into the city! And yet they continue to exhaust the acquifer that lies underneath and the city continues to sink.
Portland, Oregon is a kind of poster child for a city which has resisted these trends (but not entirely, of course). The state of Oregon decided in the early 1970s to impose "growth boundaries" (or greenbelts) around cities, which did not stop growth but re-directed it back into the downtown area. City official noted criticism of some of their efforts in transportation as a "crazy socialist conspiracy to get people out of their cars", but as he went on to note, no one talks about the "crazy (capitalist) conspiracy to get them into cars" (which we will be focusing on next Tuesday). Portland is different basically because they have spent 25 years working on this. And I would say, clearly, most other cities have not devoted such time and effort to this issue.
___________________________________
That's it. Remember, next week Tuesday (11/16) we'll be seeing a video on the conspiracy to take over and dismantle the trolley systems throughout the country (a la Judge Doom). WE'll meet in Main 122 again. Please read through at least Chapter 6 in the Geography of Nowhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)