In recent decades, there has arisen a conscious urbanism that seeks to make intentional decisions about what new towns will look like.
Before conscious urbanism, the placement and shapes of towns were 100 percent dictated by the available forms of transportation.
London and Paris are located at the first place that a major river can be crossed by the bridging techniques available at that time. Before 1840 towns were almost always located at the junction between roads or between a road and a river. These towns took on a roughly circular shape because that was best adapted for foot transportation within the town.
When steam railroads came in, they had to take on water and fuel (wood or coal) very frequently. Hence the phenomenon of railroad towns, which tended to be grid-shaped, because of the influence of enlightenment thought as well as a compact shape fairly well adapted to foot transportation.
Dwight D Eisenhower pushed the Interstate bill through Congress and so became the true father of suburbia. Now, in the densely populated portions of America, the true Main Street is the local interstate, and suburbs and commercial areas are blobs huddling close to interstate exits. While 1930s designers may have thought up the suburban pattern, the interstate system made it the most efficient use of automobile transportation. Since you needed a car to travel the interstate Main Street, you also needed a car to navigate the blobs that surrounded interstate exits.
How can we change this dominant pattern? Perhaps we can draw a line around city centers and ban or heavily tax conventional automobiles within that line, while giving financial incentives to city vehicles, such as improved golf carts and electric bicycles. Best of both worlds? Cars and walkability?
I think it's true that settlements basically follow the dominant mode of transportation, but I also think there is something qualitatively different about car-oriented town planning.
Before the automobile, the dominant form of in-town transportation was on foot or collective (streetcars). The qualitative difference is that the in-town form of transportation now is the automobile. That changes absolutely everything.
Canal towns were stringy because canal boats could stop anywhere, unlike railroads. River towns were also often stringy.
Rebuilding after a dam is a productive pattern. I'm familiar with two later examples. Randolph, Kansas and Kaw City, Oklahoma were relocated before dams covered their townsites. Randolph is more like an old-fashioned townsite, while Kaw City seems to have a more suburbanish street pattern. Randolph was relocated in the mid 50s, while Kaw City was around 1970.
I went to Google Maps to look at New Town. Sadly noticed a dialysis center. Our First Nations are not adapted to our sugar diet or our alcohol. Also was noticeable was the number of oil wells around the town.
The race track for loading railroad oil tank cars caught the attention of this old engineer.
If they actually did it right (ie China or Korea style, with rapid transit built out prior to development), greenfield cities are a wonderful idea. But it’s unlikely there will be the vision and the execution to do this right.
Another thought is, that pretty much every single good location for a town in the USA was already developed by 1950. I think the case of moving a community because of flooding is one of the only reasons that Americans build a new settlement that is not either a suburb of an existing settlement, one either created for commercial purposes, as an intentional community.
What about the Rio Grande Valley? That might be the place of traditional urban development, especially in a much more organic fashion than elsewhere in the US? My thought is that the "last town" in the US are the colonies of the southwest border region.
Most colonias lack cohesive main streets though, with more of an almost dense rural form instead. The Colonias are typically more chaotic in form then traditional small US towns. Similar exurban developments (though not called colonias) can actually be found in many other part's of the Southern and Western United States. In Arizona some are predominantly Anglo and are sometimes called wildcat subdivisions.
I also feel like it's worth noting that Disneyland opened in 1955 with Main Street USA as its gateway. By 1955 in Southern California at least, there was a market for the nostalgia of a small town, even with the "last one" being built within that same decade.
Interesting. Timescales are always screwy with this sort of thing - it's a little bit like how the U.S. had already begun to deindustrialize by the time the very last rural electrification had taken place.
To continue your video game analogy, it’s like Mario All Stars for SNES, which was just the NES Mario games bundled. They were very recent history at the time but were still considered “nostalgic”
I'm not sure how you'd classify it, but California City was plotted in '58 which puts it just ahead of the New Towns Movement. Of course, it's a story unto itself.
California City has a small downtown of sorts, but it's basically a proto new town that is mostly suburban in form. It's also one of the largest failed developments in the United States, having only a small fraction of the population that was originally intended. The story behind that town is quite interesting!
A co-worker and his wife pitched California City me. I didn't have two extra nickels to spare at the time. Another remembrance was that LA was proposing a new airport out in the Lancaster area with high speed rail connection to the basin. It never happened of course. LA just built the north runway.
I offer The Woodlands, Texas, as an additional consideration. This year will be the 50th anniversary of its existence. Imagined as a place where people could live, work, and play, its founder, George Mitchell, it grew in a deliberate manner. I remember cars with license plate holders that stated "The Woodlands/A real hometown."
And, until two years ago, it really held to that premise. We arrived near there in 1979, my interactions were intermittent over the years, but it was my homebase for the last dozen years. Until two years ago, it truly did feel like a home town. Something changed after Covid. When I left this summer, it had become just another suburb of Houston. Made me very sad.
I can't wait to read more of your work. Thinking about towns, cities, and how they operate with respect to infrastructure and community is one of my strongest interests. So glad to have found your work.
In recent decades, there has arisen a conscious urbanism that seeks to make intentional decisions about what new towns will look like.
Before conscious urbanism, the placement and shapes of towns were 100 percent dictated by the available forms of transportation.
London and Paris are located at the first place that a major river can be crossed by the bridging techniques available at that time. Before 1840 towns were almost always located at the junction between roads or between a road and a river. These towns took on a roughly circular shape because that was best adapted for foot transportation within the town.
When steam railroads came in, they had to take on water and fuel (wood or coal) very frequently. Hence the phenomenon of railroad towns, which tended to be grid-shaped, because of the influence of enlightenment thought as well as a compact shape fairly well adapted to foot transportation.
Dwight D Eisenhower pushed the Interstate bill through Congress and so became the true father of suburbia. Now, in the densely populated portions of America, the true Main Street is the local interstate, and suburbs and commercial areas are blobs huddling close to interstate exits. While 1930s designers may have thought up the suburban pattern, the interstate system made it the most efficient use of automobile transportation. Since you needed a car to travel the interstate Main Street, you also needed a car to navigate the blobs that surrounded interstate exits.
How can we change this dominant pattern? Perhaps we can draw a line around city centers and ban or heavily tax conventional automobiles within that line, while giving financial incentives to city vehicles, such as improved golf carts and electric bicycles. Best of both worlds? Cars and walkability?
Great comment. I wrote about canal towns a long time ago, and how they sprawl out along the canal. https://thedeletedscenes.substack.com/p/canal-sprawl
I think it's true that settlements basically follow the dominant mode of transportation, but I also think there is something qualitatively different about car-oriented town planning.
Before the automobile, the dominant form of in-town transportation was on foot or collective (streetcars). The qualitative difference is that the in-town form of transportation now is the automobile. That changes absolutely everything.
Canal towns were stringy because canal boats could stop anywhere, unlike railroads. River towns were also often stringy.
Rebuilding after a dam is a productive pattern. I'm familiar with two later examples. Randolph, Kansas and Kaw City, Oklahoma were relocated before dams covered their townsites. Randolph is more like an old-fashioned townsite, while Kaw City seems to have a more suburbanish street pattern. Randolph was relocated in the mid 50s, while Kaw City was around 1970.
Oh cool - I'll have to take a look at both of those!
I went to Google Maps to look at New Town. Sadly noticed a dialysis center. Our First Nations are not adapted to our sugar diet or our alcohol. Also was noticeable was the number of oil wells around the town.
The race track for loading railroad oil tank cars caught the attention of this old engineer.
Forgot to post this proposed new town near where I grew up: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/map-utopian-california-city-solano-county-18612996.php
It can get a bit windy there. Might be a better location for a wind farm.
I was thinking that this could be one of the last too.
If they actually did it right (ie China or Korea style, with rapid transit built out prior to development), greenfield cities are a wonderful idea. But it’s unlikely there will be the vision and the execution to do this right.
Another thought is, that pretty much every single good location for a town in the USA was already developed by 1950. I think the case of moving a community because of flooding is one of the only reasons that Americans build a new settlement that is not either a suburb of an existing settlement, one either created for commercial purposes, as an intentional community.
Interesting. Heh, so what's the "last town" that *isn't* a relocation?
What about the Rio Grande Valley? That might be the place of traditional urban development, especially in a much more organic fashion than elsewhere in the US? My thought is that the "last town" in the US are the colonies of the southwest border region.
Most colonias lack cohesive main streets though, with more of an almost dense rural form instead. The Colonias are typically more chaotic in form then traditional small US towns. Similar exurban developments (though not called colonias) can actually be found in many other part's of the Southern and Western United States. In Arizona some are predominantly Anglo and are sometimes called wildcat subdivisions.
That's a good point, that's a good counter argument.
Interesting premise!
I also feel like it's worth noting that Disneyland opened in 1955 with Main Street USA as its gateway. By 1955 in Southern California at least, there was a market for the nostalgia of a small town, even with the "last one" being built within that same decade.
Interesting. Timescales are always screwy with this sort of thing - it's a little bit like how the U.S. had already begun to deindustrialize by the time the very last rural electrification had taken place.
To continue your video game analogy, it’s like Mario All Stars for SNES, which was just the NES Mario games bundled. They were very recent history at the time but were still considered “nostalgic”
I'm not sure how you'd classify it, but California City was plotted in '58 which puts it just ahead of the New Towns Movement. Of course, it's a story unto itself.
California City has a small downtown of sorts, but it's basically a proto new town that is mostly suburban in form. It's also one of the largest failed developments in the United States, having only a small fraction of the population that was originally intended. The story behind that town is quite interesting!
A co-worker and his wife pitched California City me. I didn't have two extra nickels to spare at the time. Another remembrance was that LA was proposing a new airport out in the Lancaster area with high speed rail connection to the basin. It never happened of course. LA just built the north runway.
I offer The Woodlands, Texas, as an additional consideration. This year will be the 50th anniversary of its existence. Imagined as a place where people could live, work, and play, its founder, George Mitchell, it grew in a deliberate manner. I remember cars with license plate holders that stated "The Woodlands/A real hometown."
And, until two years ago, it really held to that premise. We arrived near there in 1979, my interactions were intermittent over the years, but it was my homebase for the last dozen years. Until two years ago, it truly did feel like a home town. Something changed after Covid. When I left this summer, it had become just another suburb of Houston. Made me very sad.
I can't wait to read more of your work. Thinking about towns, cities, and how they operate with respect to infrastructure and community is one of my strongest interests. So glad to have found your work.