In a discussion of urban cores, you're not clear why we're focusing on prewar development? Is this a serious statement?
There's nothing else to look at. It's like asking why are we talking about trees when the discussion is forests.
There's nothing to the inherent structure of U.S. urban cores outside of what existed prior to the auto age. The die was cast by the 1930's. Absolutely nothing has changed [[or will change) re. the relative size of urban cores, because that's when the pre-auto fabric ends.
It's why Royal Oak is different from Sterling Heights - RO had a pre-auto legacy. It's why Philly's core is still vastly larger/better than that of LA even though LA is gigantic and twice the size of Chicago by CSA. It's why NYC's core will never be remotely challenged, ever.
Bookmarks