Monthly Archives: February 2013

Caro “The Power Broker” Response

Leave a reply

In “Robert Moses and the Rise of New York,” Kenneth T. Jackson talks about the fall of former populated industrial cities after World War II, such as Detroit and Pittsburg and the eventual rise of other cities such as New York. I found it interesting that New York was not always the bustling city that it is today. For example, between 1970 and 1975, New York’s population declined by almost a million people, its factory employment plummeted drastically, its public schools deteriorated, its infrastructure sagged, its parks fell victim to vandals, and its public transit system lost half its riders. Compared to today’s city life, this image of New York is hard to picture. Specifically, the condition of the Bronx during the time compared to today is probably the most drastic difference. Reading this, it is not difficult to see why Robert A. Caro’s “Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York” was such a success.

Caro states that “The Power Broker” exaggerates Moses’s influence on American life and makes him sound like an evil genius. I think that there is some justification to his opinion since the book did not mention the other cities that developed transit systems before Moses developed the New York transit system. I also feel like it was very inhumane for Moses to clear slums for urban renewal. I find the thought of clearing slums to replace them with new buildings to be insensitive. I find it more surprising that the city’s liberal establishment supported the clearance of the slums and was equally willing to sacrifice working-class neighborhoods to luxury apartments, fancy medical centers and cultural centers, and expanding college campuses. This ideology reminds me of the accusations made toward the Republican Party for not caring about middle-class Americans while they keep trying to further the goals of the rich.

One thing that sounds very impressive about Robert Moses is his ability to marshal the resources necessary to see a project through from conception to completion. The fact that he was able to build the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge under budget and early is definitely impressive since today’s city-planners tend to take longer than they estimate. Another astonishing thing is that he was not satisfied with building a swimming pool or park, but he wanted to build unique structures that could withstand both the test of time and the test of excited children.

Caro describes Robert Moses as being a dedicated public servant who did not care about tangible wealth, but rather he just wanted to have power, influence, and importance. I find it interesting that Moses was not rich nor married since he did achieve success as a builder. He gave his full focus and time to his structures and left no spare time for other past-times. This sort of mentality is not as common today since people feel that they need to have time for non-work related activities. People today are not as devoted to their work as Moses was.

Moses was not racist in his building mentality even though racism was present at the time. This was shown in his structures since he designed his bridges not too low in order to accomodate buses so that black families would stay away from Jones Beach, nor did he control the water temperature so as to discourage black patronage. However Caro does make a good point that if Moses was as concerned about equality for African Americans as he was about the importance of open spaces and beaches, there could have been great advances for African Americans at an earlier time. Moses was certainly a big reason for why New York is the most popular city in the world.

Museum of New York City fieldtrip

Leave a reply

The field trip to the Museum of New York City was interesting and entertaining. Although I do not have an interest in housing, yet as a psychology major, it was gratifying for me that I got to observe the effect that the housing pattern in New York City has on New Yorkers. Therefore, I was especially attracted to the statistics of of people living in the Greater Area of New York.

I was shocked, yet not surprised, when I glanced through the different numbers presented to us as we approached the third floor of the museum. I knew instantly that Manhattan and New York City in general foster the kind of living that only single people can afford. Henceforth, New York City is not an ideal place to raise a child since the majority of families in New York City does not follow the traditional nuclear family model; it was shocking to see that the city has A LOT of single parents. I can remember that about 30-ish percent of New York City residents live alone, including senior citizens. Assuming that seniors are not compatible with the fast and hectic lifestyle here, I think that the enormous number of single senior citizens here would have dwelled upon something else more attractive that the city may have to offer, maybe superior healthcare, rich individuals retiring on massive amount of wealth, or affordable senior housing.

When we came across the number in Washington D.C., I was surprised that it topped the ranking for the city with the most single people. Rationally, one would think that as superior civic servants who represent the image of the country where family values are put on top, politicians and judges must have resided here with their family. Especially since D.C. is such a quiet city with no taxes and low crime rate, one would think that families would have found a perfect place to build a home. But the fact is not so.

Then we visited the more artistic and creative part of the exhibit, the Future of New York exhibit. Due to the limited space that New York has to offer, architects and urban planners have come up with creative ways to maximize comfort for massive amount of dwellers. The exhibit showed how much space could be saved with the right kind of thought. The space and furniture were efficiently utilized. The queen-size bed was hidden and fused as one with the spacious couch; the wooden chair was turned into a sturdy ladder; Concealed behind the huge flat-screen TV was the glass cabinet and a fridge. Even though the space was extremely limited, it turned out to be so much more comfortable and convenient for a single person to live in.

The more interesting part of the exhibit was the adAPT NYC project, a bold step into the future of New York City landscape. The winner was offered a piece of land to execute their building design. Given the statistics, the generous implementation of adAPT NYC by Michael Bloomberg may be able to fix the housing overcrowdedness in New York while fostering creativity among urban planners. Conclusively, I really like most parts of the exhibit while attainting some insights into the situation of New York City urban dwellers.

“The Power Broker” Response

Leave a reply

Everything I’ve ever read about Robert Moses gives me conflicting views of him. He’s often described as a power-hungry man with no regard for community, yet he’s also praised for all the revolutionary contributions he made to New York City. In my opinion, Robert Moses was not a bad man in regards to his work across the city. His primary goal was to serve the public, which he successfully did. People might argue that he had absolutely no regard for the cultural hubs and small neighborhoods that make New York so unique, but he had visions of urban planning for maximum efficiency. In the grand scheme of things, that seems much more important. The culture will emerge regardless, so it’s better to focus on bringing the city to its full potential.

I can see that Moses may have abused his power, but all anyone really cares about is the outcome. The bottom line is that he was able to get these projects done. As most New Yorkers know, public projects can take years discuss and plan, let alone to complete. Moses came up with an idea and effectively executed it. That alone is impressive. The simple fact that he made progress is enough to make me overlook any sketchy deals he may have made, which were probably nothing compared to any little plot our politicians might pull today.

On the other hand, no project could ever fully justify evicting people from their homes. There’s probably an argument about the greater good, but all of Moses’s creations were doing absolutely no good to the thousands of people who had nowhere to live. This is probably why Moses has such a wobbly reputation; the cons outweighed the pros, which eventually led to people forgetting about the good things and only remembering the bad. His work was undoubtedly great for New York City, but it might not have been worth sacrificing the homes of thousands of people. Although, everything worked out in the end, so I still think relatively high of him.

Moses is especially known for his highways, but another one of his ideas caught my attention: “little shelters, for instance, in Central Park, so that mothers could change their babies’ diapers without having to go all the way home,” (4). I think that would be a great initiative, and it made me think about restrooms in general. I have always wondered why there are no public restrooms in New York City. This is a place full of commuters, tourists, and people who are constantly away from home, but there are no facilities for them to utilize while in transit. When I visited Hong Kong—another large city—almost ten years ago, there were public bathrooms that proved to be extremely useful for pedestrians. At the very least, some portable bathrooms would be nice.

The closing of the “The Power Broker” introduction brings up an interesting point about Moses. I can’t even imagine what New York City would look like now had he never lived. Would somebody else have come up with the idea for highways and public parks? If yes, how would theirs have differed from Moses’s? Would Jane Jacobs’s tight-knit communities have prevailed? It’s difficult to think of a New York City that’s different from the one I know. As far as I can tell, it’s working out pretty well the way it is. I can’t think of ways to make it more efficient, so I wonder if we’d have ever gotten this far without Moses. Moreover, where would we be without him?

The Museum of the City of New York Response

Leave a reply

Our visit to the Museum of the City of New York was very interesting and informative in terms of the future housing in New York City. The museum had a very good representation of the past, present, and future of the city. I found it interesting to see the population density around the boroughs depending on the lifestyle of the occupants, such as married or single. Although most of the statistics for the neighborhoods in the city were predictable, there were some that were surprising. For example, I did not know that there were as many singles living in Queens as shown at the museum.

For the present, I feel like the museum did a good job showing the regulations and condition that people live in. Many of the regulations that were described during the tour seemed very strange and unheard of, such as the one about the square footage requirement for apartments to follow. I know that many of these regulations were passed because of the transformation that took place in the 20th century led by journalist Jacob Riis. By showing the poor living conditions that many New Yorkers lived in, he and others exposed the necessity for having certain living condition requirements for safe and healthy measures.

The part of the museum that I found most interesting was of the future for New York City living spaces. The fact that people can be living in more aesthetically pleasing spaces while still maintaining the same costs and efficiency seems like a great idea. Rather than having all the apartments in a line look the same, having differences in them makes them unique and allows for more creativity on the part of the occupant. The models of the buildings helped in visualizing the buildings and the apartments inside.

I also found it very interesting to hear about the plan that Bloomberg is trying to push for the building near Baruch to be built. The fact that the apartments will be build elsewhere and brought to the site of the building seems like a very smart idea to me since it would increase efficiency and save time and energy. The competition that this idea was brought about from was certainly helping since it gave the idea to separate the apartments while making them affordable. This affordable housing will definitely make the building’s apartment availability very competitive and hard to find. During the tour of the museum, I recognized that many of the ideas that people had for future New York City living units were similar to those I’ve seen in pictures of Japan. Since the Japanese make many things compact and try to save space by building things around other things, we can certainly learn and implement some of their design ideas. I was surprised by the fact that a third of New York City’s occupants are single. However the more surprising thing for me was that there were many other major cities that had a higher percentage of singles. I think this is because I live in a family-oriented neighborhood so I tend to see more families, while there are many more people living alone in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

The part of the exhibit that I liked best was the sample room that they had showing the future of New York CIty living. The ingenuity that the designers used to design that space was remarkable. The chair that turns into a ladder, bed that comes down from the wall, ottomans that go inside one another to save space, working station that folds down and becomes functional, refrigerator behind the television, expandable eating table, and even the foldable chairs. These are all some of the brilliant things that I found were very useful and saved a lot of space. In the future, as the population in New York City grows, I feel that we will need to become more compact and learn to live in closer living spaces. This sample apartment showed that a small space can be just as functional as a regular sized space. By hiding things in other things, we save space by making things multifunctional so that they can come in use for more than one purpose. For example, the chair can also fold over and become a ladder.

Caro – Power Broker || Response

Leave a reply

Considering how much Robert Moses did for New York, I have personally never heard of his name until last summer. During that time, many of my friends went to Robert Moses State Park, which is a very clean beach (compared to Jones Beach or Long Beach). I thought Robert Moses was probably another politician who did something remarkable for the city. Little did I know, he physically shaped New York in a way no one thought was possible during his time. In fact, he shaped the nation with the highway system and recreational parks. I was shocked at the amount of projects he was able to accomplish and put under his belt.

When I read about all the highways, parkways, bridges, and parks Robert Moses built, my jaw literally dropped. As a native New Yorker, I have been on most of them – the Long Island Expressway, the Van Wyck Expressway, the Clearview Expressway, the Throgs Neck Expressway, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, the West-Side Highway, the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, and so many more. I never knew that he was the brainchild of all of this. I cannot imagine how New York would survive or function without any of these projects. Without a doubt, society would be very different. Robert Moses certainly looked way beyond the future during his time.

Not only did these projects incur a high monetary cost, they also affected a great number of people. Where Robert Moses wanted to construct a park or highway, residents of that area would become displaced. This certainly brought about disputes as to whether or not he was doing the right thing. Nonetheless, I agree with what he did. By displacing these people, he made it possible for these major works to become reality. He did it for the better of society. Displaced residents would be able to have a better quality of life with the availability of these efficient projects.

This reading also reflected a lot about Robert Moses’s personality. He is a go-getter and very ambitious. Going for whatever he wants, he makes sure that nothing gets in his way. An example would be when the newly elected Mayor did not give Moses his position. Moses threatened to resign, which was a method he used in many instances during his life. He certainly came off as an adamant and persistent person in my opinion, certainly in a good way.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this reading because it informed me a great deal about Robert Moses and what he accomplished. Today, we take for granted all these highways and bridges to get from Point A to Point B. This reading certainly made me realize how different life would be if we lacked these things. If I could ask him a few questions, I would ask, “What inspired you to do so much for society and look way into the future?” and “Did your personality bring about a lot of enemies?”.

Museum of the City of New York || Response

Leave a reply

The relatively short walk from the 103rd Street subway station was a bit frightening for me, but I thoroughly enjoyed our trip to the Museum of the City of New York. Our tour guide was welcoming and very informative. I learned a lot from the Making Room exhibit, especially from the statistics. The numbers were surprising – more than a third of New York City’s population consists of single households. I am sure the number would be greater because many people don’t report to the Census Bureau. Statistics on the population growth was particularly shocking for me. The Bloomberg administration predicted that the population of our city would reach nine million by 2030! I cannot imagine how New York city would be like with that amount of people. There will definitely be many, many dense housing complexes. “Making room” would be vital.

An interesting part of the exhibit was the comparison of housing across our five boroughs. As I expected, all the boroughs, with the exception of Manhattan, would have more plots of land and houses. There are more nuclear families in these boroughs. Manhattan on the other hand, has a lot of single households and there are many apartments. It is cramped and densely populated. However, I have personally observed that Queens (particularly Long Island City and Flushing) transforming to that as well. There are a lot more high-rise apartment buildings built to accomodate the increasing population. The costs of living in these areas are also becoming increasingly more expensive.

With the need to build more efficient residences to accomodate a greater amount of people, the demand for engineers and interior designers is high. They will build the future of New York City. When I saw the models in the exhibit, I was amazed at all the structures, both inside and out. Unconventional curving architecture not allowed gave an aesthetic appeal, it also made space more efficient in apartments. High ceilings can be taken advantage of. I find that these models are so futuristic because they depart completely from what we are used to.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the exhibit was the micro apartment. I actually saw Mayor Bloomberg reveal the concept on the news a couple of days ago. But seeing it in person, I was completely blown out of my mind knowing how a small space can become so efficient. At the same time, it was so aesthetically pleasing. I thought it was better than how IKEA can make a small space efficient. It was better than any picture in the IKEA catalogue! I thought it was amazing how the chair can be transformed into a ladder, how the couch can become a queen-sized bed in an instant, and how a wall cabinet can become a work station. Going through this micro apartment made me think about how I can make my own room just as amazing.

I am certainly looking forward to the future of housing, especially with these micro apartments. When the experiment in Kips Bay is completed next year, I will definitely look into it and consider renting. I find that is much better than a dormitory… and it is super close to Baruch. I also hope that concept will become accepted by the public, especially for singles. With the predicted population of nine million by 2030, these new housing structures will definitely play an important part in the future of New York City.

Museum of the City of New York

Leave a reply

I was pleasantly surprised by the tour we received of the museum. I thought the exhibit would be a storyline of history, but I’m really glad that I got to learn about the housing situations around the city. I also thought that our tour guide was great. Especially when we were looking at the miniature replicas of various buildings, she did much more than just spit out facts she’d memorized about each one. It was rather engaging and made me more curious about architecture and urban planning. It definitely made me think of my own home and imagine all the possible layouts that could be implemented in the space. It had never crossed my mind that you could design your home an infinite number of ways to make the most of it.

I’d already known that the greatest portion of the city’s population consists of people living alone, and the statistic offered by the museum’s collected data is 33%. As much as this reflects the nature of New York City, where people come by themselves from all around the world to chase their dreams, I think it might be a waste of space. The 400 square feet that are mandated by housing regulations can easily hold more than one person, but it appears that many of them contain only one occupant. As the city’s population continues to grow, more housing must be created. Perhaps regulations will soon have to be amended in order to accommodate this inevitable change; units may have to be smaller or more than three unrelated people may have to be allowed to live together.

Along with an increase in the number of residents comes the issue of parking. We discussed briefly that it’s not that important because many people who live in the city don’t own cars, but I feel that the matter requires some more attention. My family owns more than one car, and parking is an absolute nightmare. It might not be that serious now, but who’s to say that city dwellers may not one day choose driving over public transportation? What will we do then? We can’t just build more and more housing without even considering parking options. At the very least, each housing complex should have some sort of parking garage (underground or elsewhere) for its tenants. There isn’t much that can be done about parking in commercial areas, but this must be addressed in residential places.

The new micro-unit that is to be tested is, in my opinion, a fantastic idea. As I said before, a single person does not need 400 square feet to live comfortably. The model apartment was amazing to see. Every method of adding storage or making things compact was so clever and creative. It was fascinating to see what people come up with and how much more efficiently we could all be using our space. Nonetheless, I don’t think I could live in one of those apartments. It looks really cool that everything can be tucked away somewhere, but in all honesty I’d probably be too lazy to put my table and bed away every time I finish using them. The price might also be an issue as well. The cost of living continues to rise in New York City, and I don’t foresee any cuts on the price due to the smaller space. As modern and chic as the micro-units are, I would feel like I’m not getting my money’s worth.

Something that piqued my interest, despite the fact that I’ve seen it with my own eyes, is the difference between housing across the boroughs. For example, everything in Manhattan is so cramped, yet there are spacious lots all over Queens. I’d like to learn why this is so. When was it decided that these certain types of living arrangements would be built in their respective boroughs? I understand that there are probably socioeconomic factors that play into this difference, but that wouldn’t be the case if it weren’t set up that way. That’s also a lot of space that could be used much more efficiently. I don’t exactly know whether or not we need it at this moment, but I can almost guarantee that we’ll eventually need it sometime in the future.

The Power Broker- Response

Leave a reply

There always seems to be a conflicting view of Robert Moses and his legacy of building New York City. Although he evicted hundreds of thousands of people and displaced them, he did build over 600 playgrounds, and numerous of new apartments, parks, beaches, highways, and bridges. No matter what people think of Moses, there is no doubt that he is a ruthless, power-driven, accomplished man. Personally, I am just quite shocked how much power Moses was able to obtain. I feel in present day, there is no one like him, or anyone who can become him. For instance, Moses was able to threaten Mayor Wagner that he would resign his position, which made Wagner oblige to Moses’ wishes. In a way, I admire his ability to control and influence.

What I wonder is, what will New York and the rest of America be like without Robert Moses? By building highways/expressways and bridges, Moses did connect cities and states together. Furthermore, expansion was able to occur (i.e. expansion of different living opportunities to suburbs). In addition, although people like Jane Jacobs do not think Moses beautified New York in any way, the parks and beaches that he developed can be argued to add aesthetics to places. At least he did not only focus on buildings and infrastructures.

In Caro’s reading, it is mentioned that Moses was able to keep the public from finding out what he was doing. People did not know about his personal life nor did they always know what he was doing in his job (what his plans were). Today, this would almost be impossible. Because Moses was able to “hide” from public eye, he was able to get away with his projects. However, nowadays, there would be much scrutiny and what Moses was doing would be categorized as “off-the-books.” This can also explain why there is no other “Robert Moses” in present day.

Also, Moses did not let anyone influence him and did not make any compromises. This is important in affecting his projects as well because it means one decision, one thought, one idea. Moses’ projects will be accomplished because he only has himself to listen to rather than waiting to get approvals from other people. If Moses had to ask others for acceptance, and if they were not satisfied, he would have to change his plans. With Moses being the only one who made decisions and actions, he was able to work on and complete his projects quickly. Similarly to the previous paragraph, nowadays, this would not like happen. There are more people/committees one has to go through in order to carry out a project. In my opinion, in present day, because of that, it takes longer to complete anything.

Overall, it is fascinating how one business-architect can have as much power as a politician, and even more at times. He was even able to win against President Franklin Roosevelt. Moses was the very few, or possibly the only one, who was able to “get away” with negatively affecting those who are in the lower social class (i.e. people he evicted). This shows that with power, one can do anything. Moses is the only one who is the best at what he dose, which puts him at an advantage as well. Can another Robert Moses rise? Probably not under today’s circumstances–that are full of stricter and harsher regulations.

Museum of City of New York

Leave a reply

At the visit to the museum, I found the statistics that we went through very interesting, yet some of them not too shocking. First, it came to me no surprise about the distribution of types of living groups in specific locations of the city. The nuclear families, which consisted of 18% of the population, mostly stayed in parts of Queens and Brooklyn. This is not surprising because that is the location of suburbs. It is usually stated that families live in suburbs because there are more houses there, which gives more living room for growing families, especially for kids. Another non-shocker is that singles consist of 33% of the population, and most of them stay in Manhattan. Since families make up suburbs, singles make up the city. Also, they have more money to spend on themselves (rather than on a family), so they can afford to live in the city. Furthermore, being in the Manhattan makes commuting to work easier. In addition, the living space in the city is smaller, which fits single people better. And finally, the night life that the city offers attracts many young single people to want to live here.

What was interesting was how in 1800, the population in New York City was 60,515 people and in 2011, the population was 8,244,900. The curve that was displayed was exponentially growing, with it leveling at the top. I think the reason there was rapid growth could be sanitary/health improvements, immigration, and the baby boom generation. I wonder if there are other factors involved to explain the rapid growth.

One of the interesting and surprising facts I learned today was that the government regulated that no more than three unrelated adults are allowed to live together. I want to know when and why was this regulation implemented, and how come the maximum number is three rather than four. What if the living space is big enough for four people? Relating to that, it was shocking to me when the curator said rent postings on Craigslist are sometimes illegal because they do not follow housing regulations. If this is the case, then are housing authorities doing anything to stop it?

The last shocking information that I discovered today was New York only came in number 17 as the top single-person household city in America. Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Boston are large cities, but they are not larger than New York. That is why I am shocked New York ranked that low. When I think of singles, I think New York is a great place because of the vast amount of opportunities here. However, there is the counterargument that New York has one of the highest standard of living, so it may be expensive for many people.

With the statistics of types of people living in New York, it shows that more single people are here rather than nuclear families. It does make sense that the new buildings that are built in the city are in the idea of non-nuclear families. I see so many apartments in not only the city, but also in places like Long Island City, Roosevelt Island, etc. But the problem is still the cost. I am constantly trying to find apartments to rent in the city, but the prices is always the obstacle for me. When I drive on the Queensboro Bridge, I always see apartment complexes but many of the rooms are empty. This shows that places to live are available, but I think the costs is what prevents people from living there.

The most eventful part of the museum visit for me was Bloomberg’s adAPT NYC to build micro-units. I found the model apartment quite fascinating, and it really makes me want to live there. It really does conserve space because everything seems to be foldable/convertible. Compared to my dorm room, this micro unit is larger, and it would be great that I would not have to share the bathroom, kitchen, and living space with someone else. I am excited for when this project is complete, but again, I think the price of it will be the issue at hand. But, there do seem to be some downsides for this micro-unit. First, it looks like people will be living in really close-knit within the building, based on what the video displayed. It is great there they are planning to build a rock-climbing area, a pool on the roof, etc. However, it just looks really cramped and crowded. Second, the fact that many things have to be folded/pulled/pushed out can be daunting. Also, the portable chair and dinner table looks small, low, and uncomfortable. But overall, if the price is not too expensive, I would rather live here than in a dormitory.

The Suburbanization of the US response

Leave a reply

Suburbanization movement was one of the greatest movements that change the housing market of the United States. As more and more families move outside of the city, downtown concentration started to decline and the city was left with old and run down buildings. Although the movement of suburbanization was not completely caused by government actions, many government actions did facilitates the movement of decentralization.

At the beginning, U.S government didn’t want to interfere with the housing market, as the depression worsen, and with the huge foreclosure rate; U.S. government started several housing project that try to influence housing market. Two unsuccessful actions taken by government were Public Law 304 and the Greenbelt Town Program. Public Law 304 failed to provide loans to homeowners, and it made the housing condition even worse.  While the Greenbelt Town Program also failed because of the huge construction cost. Two of the most influential innovations were the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration.

The Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) encouraged people to buy houses instead of renting or improving their current house. However it also indirectly causes the movement of the suburbanization. The HOLC successfully provided long-term mortgage to a lot of homeowners. The HOLC developed its own system of evaluating neighborhoods. “Socioeconomic characteristics of a neighborhood determined the value of housing to a much greater extent than did structural characteristics,” this concept is related to our last reading about the Great Migration. A neighborhood that’s occupied by colored people would decrease its housing value. Also when an African American family moved into a white neighborhood, this neighborhood would soon be completely occupied by African Americans. Most of the African Americans rented an apartment in the city, and I believe that part of the reason White people tend to move outward was that they wanted to be separate from those black people. The HOLC also tend to discriminate against those African American neighborhoods. They rated those neighborhoods as the “D” regions, which were viewed as hazardous and least desirable neighborhoods.

The Federal Housing Administration also shared the similar practices that discriminated against minority. “If a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes”. Because of their effort trying to keep segregation between black and white populations, the FHA declined any loan request for neighborhoods with mixed ethnicity. It actually became harder for people to buy houses in the cities because more and more blacks were living in the cities.

It became much more easier for people to move outward. Cheap fuels, mass production of automobiles, and advanced interstate highway allowed people to escape their urban life and enjoy their own space in suburban area. People who lived in city for a long time tend to look for a life in the suburban because city had little room for development; it was crowded by all different kind of people. Therefore, rich families would want to move out of the city and enjoy their own land. I think that suburbanization still happens today but for many different reasons? Such as air population in the city, and desire of being with nature?