I hope those who are interested in the topic (urbanism, Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses, etc.) will visit that thread, which is dated September 5, 2009 and entitled, “Edward Glaesner on Jacobs and Moses.” Although in the past I’ve agreed with Glaesner on a number of issues, I believe this particular essay of his contains a number of very substantial errors (e.g., on urban density, on Jacobs’ criticisms of Moses, etc.) which I discuss in my review.

Here’s a link:

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2009/09/edward-glaeser-on-jacobs-and-moses.html#comments

If the link doesn’t work, the “City Comforts” website and blog can easily be found by entering “City Comforts” into a search engine.

I think you missed the point. Cox et al’s basic argument is that suburbanization would have most likely have happened even without the highways. Highways didn’t cause the suburbanization of American cities; they are simply the dominant type of link between suburbs and central cities in the U.S. In Europe, as you say, rail links are more common. But rampant suburbanization is a feature of both continents.

You claim that “Highway Penetration of Central Cities: Not a Major Cause of Suburbanization” provides “good evidence” that Nathaniel Baum-Snow’s conclusions are flawed. However, a close read of the study shows it has considerable shortcomings of its own. First, European cities tend to be supremely well-served by rail networks, and these can be the means to core-city population loss without the brutal effects of highway insertion. Second, even if some European cities don’t have “rays” that Baum-Snow centers on, center-to-suburb highways are plentiful — for example, in Paris limited-access roads were built along large sections of the Seine, routed under preexisting bridges. On a final note, look at the other publications of one of the study’s authors, Wendell Cox. They include such stellar works as “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life” and “The Wal-Mart Revolution.”

Whatever questions might be raised about Nathaniel Baum-Snow’s analysis, he at least doesn’t come at his subject with readymade conclusions.

I’d argue that any strategy for accommodating the automobile was wrong, by definition. Automobiles should not have ever been tolerated anywhere, especially near dense populations. And, of course, we should not tolerate them now just because they exist in such great numbers — we should treat automobiles like we treated smallpox — aim for complete eradication.

The idea that New York City would have somehow suffered due to a lack of cars or car infrastructure seems pretty zany to me, but I’m no transportation historian/economist/whatever. It just seems to me that if you substitute modes of transportation/culture/etc. that are fundamentally compatible with human life (walking, biking, trains, subways, ferries, etc.) to replace those that are fundamentally incompatible with human life (automobiles) — you get a boon in quality of life and productivity with a natural ‘exponential multiplying effect’ (healthier, happier, more productive people, diversity, year-over-year, etc.) that would more than make up for any positive effects that could be generated by auto motorization. Not to mention, you probably stay a lot closer to ‘sustainable’ than you ever could with automobiles. This is the direction I see New York City going right now, and other cities to a lesser extent/less quickly.

All the talk of Moses seems to be aimed at getting us to say, “Yes – some of what Moses did was good.” And that will allow city-wreckers to build support for the notion that ‘we need some Jacobs _and_ some Moses to be successful’. And while that might be technically true on some academic level, it’s not worth conceding that Moses was anything other than a criminal who, in a just world, would have died behind bars for his many crimes against humanity. Sure, I love the fact that he hated driving. I’m sure he was a lovely person on an individual level who loved his family, took care of his kids, never beat the dog, etc. But even if all this were true, does that mean I’d have to admit that ‘we need a little bit of Moses, too’ when we’re talking about how our cities and towns should be built? Heck no.

p.s. I wonder if the Pittsburgh Steelers have valet bicycle parking? http://bike-pgh.org/

And if that works, we would need a pic plus a few lines of background that will allow our readers to understand where this is coming from.

Yes. The “better transportation options,” of course, are private automobiles. Buses and trains running fixed routes on fixed schedules will never be able to compete effectively against cars on speed, comfort, convenience and flexibility. Once a democratic society becomes rich enough for mass ownership of private automobiles, suburbanization and sprawl seem to be the inevitable result, unless they’re precluded by geographic barriers.

In other words, even if Moses’s Greenwich Village and Midtown highways had been built, New York as a whole probably wouldn’t have looked that much different. It would have become a primarily-suburban metro area with a dense historic core either way. Midtown might be a little denser, or it might be a little less dense, but the number of residents and corporations would probably be the same.

But on the other hand, if Moses had been able to spearhead numerous new subway and rail lines throughout Westchester and New Jersey, we might have ended up with a more transit-friendly region, like Tokyo.

I think that’s why you need a combination of Jacobs and Moses – without their combined skill sets, you’re left up a creek.

BTW I agree that “suburbanization” has been just as rapid, if not more rapid, in and around European capital cities (which have no highways penetrating their cores) as it has been in the U.S., though in some cases it’s true that development patterns have been more energy-efficient and dense in Europe. However, this is probably due primarily to development and land use policies, not just the slightly larger amount of investment in transit and lower affordability of private cars in Europe.

Overall, suburbanization has been inevitable throughout the world because of the desirability and affordability of land outside the center, and the better transportation options there. Suburbanization has been more rapid over the past 10 years than any other period of history. Unfortunately for many city lovers and environmentalists, most predict that this trend will continue for many decades to come.

To make the most of this inevitable situation, we need both Jacobs and Moses to come to our rescue. Who will step up to the plate?

Actually, Nathaniel Baum-Snow being wrong doesn’t make Glaeser and Moses right. Moses’s strategy for accommodating the automobile was still wrong. And in Europe, for example, the strategy for accommodating the automobile was right. It doesn’t matter if suburbs exist; what matters is whether they suck life out of cities by demanding that cities adjust to the suburbs’ demand of auto-centric transportation planning.

There is also the question of whether it’s appropriate to apply the US definition of “urban area” or “central city” to European cities, since it’s quite plausible that European suburbs have city-like density, which makes the central city vs. suburb distinction irrelevant. A family migrating from a flat in London to a flat in Greenwich is very different from a family migrating from an apartment in a 10-story building in New York to a single family home in Greenwich, CT.

We have good evidence that Glaeser, and Moses, are wrong. To cite just one example, a 2006 paper by Nathaniel Baum-Snow reads:

We have good evidence that Nathaniel Baum-Snow’s conclusion in that paper is false and that Glaeser and Moses are right. See Highway Penetration of Central Cities:
Not a Major Cause of Suburbanization. Quote:

Our look at Western Europe confirms that suburbanization is the norm, in line with our simple dynamics of growth discussion. Suburbanization abroad occurred without the highway penetration story that Baum-Snow elaborates. There are, then, strong reasons to doubt the conclusion that highway penetration of central cities was a major cause of suburbanization in the United States.

1) The Bronx housing boom is benefiting enormously from the concerted effort (money and policy incentives) on the part of the public sector affordable housing apparatus. The great New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the great New York City Housing Development Corporation, the great New York State Housing Finance Agency, and others public and private housing organizations are rebuilding the lots that burned in the 1970s and 1980s at the same scale as what existed before the crisis period. In the area lumped together under the term “South Bronx” in the 1970s-1980s, i.e., south of Fordham Road from the Bronx River to the Harlem River, I have never observed any significant, well-organized nimbyism to the kind of developments these agencies finance, which is to say, big apartment buildings restricted to low-income and in some cases moderate-income households. I am not sure whether Westchester County has similar conditions favorable to development, but generally the phrase “low-income housing” sends shivers up the spines of suburban officials.

2) Speaking of Jacobs and Moses, everyone who is not yet reading Wrestling With Moses” by Anthony Flint, published a month ago, needs to start now. It is nothing short of tremendous.