> It seems like there was a ton of exuberance and pride post-WWII, but terrible investment strategizing. All these “developments of the future” saddle so much cost over time that it makes the financial balancing act to stay long-term sustainable very precarious. (Of course, this is all retrospective looking after the fact).
Do note that it was not just "exuberance and pride", it was also a way to get white families out of inner-city mixed-race neighbourhoods, and to enforce segregation.
This was not a secret either e.g. William Levitt refused to sell levittown homes to racial minorities, and deeds came with a racial covenant.
I was specifically replying to a segment about the reasoning behind the creation of those places, to indicate that financial viability far from the only input into their design.
If these cities were not created with financial viability at the forefront, it’s unlikely you can magically make them financially viable.
But I guess you’re more of the “ignoring inconvenient history” persuasion. I’ve had bosses like that, always asking for solutions to the problems they’d created (against advice) and oddly enough never interested in riot cause analysis when there was any chance it would not be favorable to them.
Do note that it was not just "exuberance and pride", it was also a way to get white families out of inner-city mixed-race neighbourhoods, and to enforce segregation.
This was not a secret either e.g. William Levitt refused to sell levittown homes to racial minorities, and deeds came with a racial covenant.