Question about the burbs...sorta

[Hermod]

Take my grandpappy, for instance. He moved to Detroit in 1914 to work at U.S. Rubber. And lived in Detroit about 10 years. Bought a lot in a new sub out along the Michigan interurban and built his own house by the late 1920s. Came for the money, stopped living in the city when he could afford it, right? This is the profile I'm thinking of.

First the horse drawn streetcar.

Then the electric streetcar.

Then the electric interurban.

Then the automobile.

Each has allowed urban areas to expand and for people to live further and further from their jobs.

People came to Detroit and lived where they could find or afford a place. After they got established, they looked for a home where they wanted to live.

My grandfather moved to Detroit in 1919. He had told his boss in Rockford, IL to see if he couldn't get his final paycheck written as fast as he could pack up his tools. My grandparents lived several places in the city te last being near St Clair and Warren on the east side.

In 1950, my grandmother prevailed on him to move to Rochester [[they had both grown up on farms in Sweden and she longed for the farm life). They bought a chunk of a farm being sold by an estate. My uncle and my father also bought land from that estate and my uncle moved from Detroit to Rochester in 1952 and my father in 1954.

[Detroitnerd]

Crime, schools, deteriorating neighborhoods, substandard city services, myriad issues already discussed ad nauseum on this forum. Been going on since the 1910s when the wealthy started building out in Grosse Pointe to escape the crowded city conditions and to have larger estate sized lots on the water. It really kicked into high gear in the sixties due to the aforementioned problems.

Yes, but the "escape" wouldn't have been possible without two words -- "home rule" -- being enshrined in Michigan's constitution.

[Hermod]

Yes, but the "escape" wouldn't have been possible without two words -- "home rule" -- being enshrined in Michigan's constitution.

Even under home rule, two localities can vote to merge.

The Grosse Pointes can vote to merge with Detroit and Detroit can vote whether or not to accept them.

[Detroitnerd]

First the horse drawn streetcar.

Allowing the upper classes to travel smoothly without the clatter of wheels on road.

Then the electric streetcar.

Allowing the average person to travel longer distances, promoting dense development along main roads.

Then the electric interurban.

Allowing the average person to travel much longer distances along main roads, allowing truck farmers to dodge exorbitant short-haul railroad rates, and promoting linkages between mid-sized towns.

Then the automobile.

IF governments were willing to sink money into building road after road after road.

IF people had enough disposable income to buy cars for their household.

IF gasoline is cheap enough to power all these cars.

IF we are willing to re-engineer the way cities have worked for thousands of years to accommodate thousands of cars streaming in and around our cities.

IF we are willing to sacrifice density and lots and lots of buildings, tearing through urban fabric in a mostly vain effort to let more cars in.

THEN

We can ensure that streetcars are no longer solvent, and throw some loser bus systems at poor people.

We can destroy our inner city.

We can get rid of our density.

And we can promote development that sprawls all over in every direction.

It has worked out so well, hasn't it?

[Detroitnerd]

Even under home rule, two localities can vote to merge.

The Grosse Pointes can vote to merge with Detroit and Detroit can vote whether or not to accept them.

Oh, yes. It's politically possible, just not politically feasible. That way smug people who enjoy things the way they are can pose vain possibilities and chuckle over morning coffee.

[Hermod]

The advantage of the horse drawn street car over the horse drawn omnibus was that a single horse could pull quite a load with steel wheels on steel rails versus dragging a large wagon through the mud or over cobblestones. It wasn't just the rich that patronized the early horse cars. Of course, the Detroit politicians and news media made things as difficult as possible for the transit companies beginning back in the horse car era.

[Detroitnerd]

The advantage of the horse drawn street car over the horse drawn omnibus was that a single horse could pull quite a load with steel wheels on steel rails versus dragging a large wagon through the mud or over cobblestones. It wasn't just the rich that patronized the early horse cars. Of course, the Detroit politicians and news media made things as difficult as possible for the transit companies beginning back in the horse car era.

Yes, the rails meant less friction, but they were for the relatively small 19th century middle class, not the hoi polloi.

I kinda like arguing with you, Hermod. I think a lot of it comes from you being ever the engineer and me always looking at things from a social-historical perspective.

[Hermod]

Yes, the rails meant less friction, but they were for the relatively small 19th century middle class, not the hoi polloi.

I kinda like arguing with you, Hermod. I think a lot of it comes from you being ever the engineer and me always looking at things from a social-historical perspective.

The early single-truck electrics [[toonerville trolleys) were the same size as the horse cars.

Horse cars varied from 22 passenger seats up to 50 seats [[plus standees and platform riders). The smaller cars were single horse and the larger cars were two horse. On level ground, once the car got started, the horse[[s) had little difficulty keeping it moving. Sometimes the standing passengers would get off until the horse overcame inertia, then climb on once the car was moving.

Fares were light enough that a workingman could ride [[just like the streetcars).

[Detroitnerd]

Fares were light enough that a workingman could ride [[just like the streetcars).

Then why do depictions of horse-cars always show middle-class people riding on them? Why did they travel outside the city to pre-electric streetcar suburbs where you had to be wealthier to live? Why is the omnibus almost completely associated with middle-class commuters? I know you know your stuff, but it's my understanding that with electrification cars became accessible and affordable to the working classes.

[Hermod]

Then why do depictions of horse-cars always show middle-class people riding on them? Why did they travel outside the city to pre-electric streetcar suburbs where you had to be wealthier to live? Why is the omnibus almost completely associated with middle-class commuters? I know you know your stuff, but it's my understanding that with electrification cars became accessible and affordable to the working classes.

I have picture of the interior of the Naval Gun Factory in Anacostia back in the horse car time frame. The workers are wearing ties with vests and derby hats. People used to 'dress up" when they went out. Look at what the people are wearing in Shorpy pictures of downtown Detroit in the 19th century.

The same with railroad passengers. Look at a period picture of people getting ready to ride the train. Are they all middle class? No, but they dressed up to travel. In the 19th century, women didn't go shopping with their hair in curlers and wearing a mu-mu or a jogging suit.

[Detroitnerd]

I have picture of the interior of the Naval Gun Factory in Anacostia back in the horse car time frame. The workers are wearing ties with vests and derby hats. People used to 'dress up" when they went out. Look at what the people are wearing in Shorpy pictures of downtown Detroit in the 19th century.

The same with railroad passengers. Look at a period picture of people getting ready to ride the train. Are they all middle class? No, but they dressed up to travel. In the 19th century, women didn't go shopping with their hair in curlers and wearing a mu-mu or a jogging suit.

Haha. Funny. Well, check out "Electrifying America: Social meanings of a new technology, 1880-1940." According to the book, even as late as the 1900s, the high cost of streetcar fares often meant the working class walked and the middle class rode. The book quotes Clay McShane's study of Milwaukee, where skilled workers and the middle class could afford to move out of the congested area but the unskilled had to remain behind. In 1902, five of the 13 largest industrial plants had no streetcar service to their doors, while every middle-class neighborhood did. Or "the same pattern can be observed in Muncie's distribution of factories and suburbs.

Anyway, when a horsecar is going slightly faster than walking speed, who's going to take it? Somebody who's shopping, with money to spend and parcels they'd rather not carry. Does this sound like the working class to you?

[iheartthed]

First the horse drawn streetcar.

Then the electric streetcar.

Then the electric interurban.

Then the automobile.

Each has allowed urban areas to expand and for people to live further and further from their jobs.

People came to Detroit and lived where they could find or afford a place. After they got established, they looked for a home where they wanted to live.

Actually, the function of those modes preceding the automobile was to expand the capacity of the city. Cities could grow larger in population by being able to move a lot of people over a larger geographic area. The personal automobile was not the logical extension of that.

Also, an ironic point is that all those modes of transportation, with the exception of the roads that automobiles require, were largely developed and built by the private sector...

[Hermod]

Also, an ironic point is that all those modes of transportation, with the exception of the roads that automobiles require, were largely developed and built by the private sector...

And preyed on by the public sector who held the franchise authorizations. Many of the private lines were forced into bankruptcy and abandonment by unreasonable municipal demands when franchise renewal came up.

[Detroitnerd]

And preyed on by the public sector who held the franchise authorizations. Many of the private lines were forced into bankruptcy and abandonment by unreasonable municipal demands when franchise renewal came up.

This is part of the story -- the part Hermod loves to retell. Don't forget that the city governments gave them leases for trackage rights in the first place, leases that were in some cases pretty lavish, and that lots of streetcar companies made quite a bit of money -- thank you very much -- when they were the only game in town. Were the municipal demands unreasonable? Ask Hermod and he will say they were. But don't forget Hazen Pingree. Ping fought the traction interests and is regarded as one of the greatest mayors in U.S. history. Could 100 historians be wrong? Or is this an ideological can of worms we're getting into, where private enterprise is always right and the public sector is always "unreasonable"? But Hermod, if the public sector was so horrible to the traction monopolies, why do you avert your view from how public roads put traction monopolies out of business in the first decades of the 20th century? Without the competition from roads and autos and bicycles, they would have remained profitable, yes? Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along folks...

[ghettopalmetto]

IIRC, the transit companies [[including such outfits as the famed Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) suffered because they became subject to command economics. Local political leadership would require that service levels in certain geographic areas be maintained, but prohibited fare increases, all while the age of publicly-funded asphalt was taking root. It's no mistake that most urban rail transit systems all came under public ownership by the end of the 1950s; the economical paradigm had forced their death.

It's not just that transit had to compete with publicly-subsidized roads, as much as they were legislatively restricted from competing with other means of transportation. The result, of course, is the self-fulfilling prophecy we have today.

[Stosh]

This is part of the story -- the part Hermod loves to retell. Don't forget that the city governments gave them leases for trackage rights in the first place, leases that were in some cases pretty lavish, and that lots of streetcar companies made quite a bit of money -- thank you very much -- when they were the only game in town. Were the municipal demands unreasonable? Ask Hermod and he will say they were. But don't forget Hazen Pingree. Ping fought the traction interests and is regarded as one of the greatest mayors in U.S. history. Could 100 historians be wrong? Or is this an ideological can of worms we're getting into, where private enterprise is always right and the public sector is always "unreasonable"? But Hermod, if the public sector was so horrible to the traction monopolies, why do you avert your view from how public roads put traction monopolies out of business in the first decades of the 20th century? Without the competition from roads and autos and bicycles, they would have remained profitable, yes? Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along folks...

Of course, one can see that the bus lines are so profitable now, right?

[Detroitnerd]

Of course, one can see that the bus lines are so profitable now, right?

Like Megabus? Sure...

[Hermod]

IIRC, the transit companies [[including such outfits as the famed Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) suffered because they became subject to command economics. Local political leadership would require that service levels in certain geographic areas be maintained, but prohibited fare increases, all while the age of publicly-funded asphalt was taking root. It's no mistake that most urban rail transit systems all came under public ownership by the end of the 1950s; the economical paradigm had forced their death.

It's not just that transit had to compete with publicly-subsidized roads, as much as they were legislatively restricted from competing with other means of transportation. The result, of course, is the self-fulfilling prophecy we have today.

The City of Detroit turned back every attempt by the Detroit United Railway for streetcar fare increases. DUR finally sold out to the city [[DSR) at a significant loss. The city-run DSR immediately put through fare increases.

[Detroitnerd]

The City of Detroit turned back every attempt by the Detroit United Railway for streetcar fare increases. DUR finally sold out to the city [[DSR) at a significant loss. The city-run DSR immediately put through fare increases.

Oh, yes, that's true. But context is everything. The traction trusts of those days were no joke, and the stranglehold they had on movement was resented by pretty much every interest other than the traction trust. Some of their leases were for very long periods of time, and the public wanted ownership of these important routes. [[Think of today's grumbling about bankers.) By the time they actually sold out to the city, there was plenty of competition from buses and private automobiles thanks to decades of work laying down good roads. And you know what businesses do when they think they're going out of business? They defer maintenance and do not replace rolling stock. Did the city raise fares when they finally owned it? Yes. Did they need to? Yes. Was it because of all the competition that was publicly subsidized by government from top to bottom? Yes. Did buying the Detroit portion of the DUR serve a public purpose? Yes it did.

[reddog289]

This is turning into a thread about the DUR and the DSR. Which I love to read about and will admit that they both contributed to the Urban Sprawl. Yet such cities as Garden City did not have service from the interurban, and the formally most hated burb " Livonia" was serviced on the west side of the township to get the farm goods to market in Wayne or Plymouth.
I remember reading a book about the history of Garden City. Garden City was marketed towards the people of Detroit as a place to leave the hustle and bustle of the city. When I think of it, If my Grandfather had the means he too could have enjoyed living in the "Sun Parlor of Detroit", Minus the coal, chemicals, and the Big Sandy and Ohio rivers.That was back in the 20,s
Seems as Detroit started to grow, There were people ready to get out.