Too long of a video to watch….

Your loss. It’s equal to about a third of an episode of “Survivor” or “The Apprentice.” Those who watch it, and part 2 which will be posted tomorrow will have a much better understanding of what was influencing city fathers when they decided to demolish half of downtown in the 1960s and 1970s and how we ended up with much of what we have today.

Very interesting, Steve. It was like watching the urban development version of “Mad Men” complete with cool, organization man-style analysis, ala Robert McNamara.

The “dynamism” is definitely referring to the mobility of people within the city and outside to the suburbs. What is surprising is that it places little judgment on suburbanization, saying only that is appealing to people. It is careful to say that cities (downtowns) are still actively building with their skyscrapers, and reminded viewers that narrow lot development housed people of all classes.

I particularly enjoyed the tidbit about narrow lots being designed for horse-driven vehicles.

Thanks, Steve! I’m looking forward to the next installment!

Don’t get me wrong, I watched it, but for a blog, it’s too long of a video for the average reader. Especially when most are at work reading. Also, I don’t really watch much TV and don’t follow any shows. Occasionally I watch the news, you should already know I get my news and information online!

If it’s not too long, then why is the video no longer up?

The video is up. The original copy, however, proved to have some unstable coding that caused it to crash. I have found an alternate stable copy that is broken into three segments.

But really, if a reader is curious as to what made city leaders decide that tearing down the Criterion Theater and the Baum building was a good idea, this video shows what was influencing them. Yes, maybe we’re in a world of twittering where everything is shortened so it’s friendly for the deficit disorder crowd. I’m sorry, but not everything can be learned in 2-minute bits or 140-word texts. And while this video, when all three segments are viewed, runs about 25 minutes, I offer no apologies for offering it up with the hope of giving people a better understanding of their community.

“The only thing new in this world is the history that you don’t know” – Harry S. Truman

Watch this and then go listen to people say that the suburbs were created purely by market forces. I love the simplicity of the logic:

horse & buggy = narrow lots!

That is pretty much it. If you want to live on a narrow lot then you are as outdated as the horse & buggy – period. Interesting that they decided to completely ignore subways and streetcars, but at this point in time buses were all the rage anyway, so it makes sense.

When you combine propaganda like this, with massive investments in the federal interstate system, and the adoption of single-use zoning regulating the separation of uses; it is easy to see why suburbia has dominated development ever since.

Thanks for sharing Steve!

I don’t know what Steven’s problem is. I suspect that most of your readers are looking for content with a little meat to it. The blog world was built around a call for in-depth analysis, not a showcase of sound bites.

Everyone is a critic. He caught me on a day where I’m being a bit feisty and more likely to respond.

He’s actually a big downtown advocate and someone who invest a lot of time promoting it and I respect that. Just didn’t want his comment to discourage others from viewing the film.

Thanks Steve- At first, I thought it was going to be pro-urban, with its statement that narrow lots and density shouldn’t be associated with poverty- but then it basically associated it with the old way of doing things.

It’s fascinating to see what the logic behind urban renewal was and this definitely provides clues to how people felt about urbanity at the time.

Great line: “Open space is such a competitive power.” (from the video)

It seems the urban planners were searching for a way to confront this competitive power, probably motivated in large part by fear and in the belief that top-down planning works well. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but the belief in top-down planning seems to continue to some extent. Not to be too contentious, but does anyone else see potential parallels between the assumptions behind the Pei plan and some of the assumptions behind C2S? IMHO, the issue isn’t so much urban vs. suburban as much as it is trust in a top-down Urban Renewal Authority approach vs. a Jane Jacobs approach. Great clip – thanks for posting.

Don’t be thanking me yet. The next two clips will likely upset some of you quite a bit.

Well, it’s still valuable even if it’s upsetting.

If they only knew at the time the fallout of their ideas on city life. I’m sure Robert Moses was a big influence too at the time.

Michael, funny you should mention Robert Moses … he’s coming up as this discussion evolves into a much more ambitious blog series that will continue through the weekend.