7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The city under siege, July 1, 2001
This review is from: America's Undeclared War: What's Killing Our Cities and How We Can Stop It (Hardcover)
First a fair warning to readers. Any author who is called an "iconoclast" by his or her publisher will feel obliged to live up to the billing. So it is here with Daniel Lazare in AMERICA'S UNDECLARED WAR. The title alone should give an indication that he's ready for battle. He uses some heavy caliber firepower, when in ascribing blame for the demise of cities and the concomitant growth in the "culturally impoverished" suburbs, he says the following about the government. "The American system of limited government and fragmented political power allowed suburban communities to turn themselves into middle-class redoubts whose raison d'etre was to screen out blacks, Jews and anyone else deemed harmful to the municipal bottom line, while at the same time rendering cities powerless to fight back."
Criticizing the government though does not make one an iconoclast; it's taken as a duty, whatever your political perspective. Conservatives are critical of the Great Society social welfare programs of the 1960's which they say fostered dependency, bred crime, and raised expenses; liberals blame the same government for massive highway construction, subsidized home mortage loans, and promoting the automobile, all of which spurred suburban growth.
Where Mr Lazare starts to live up to his billing as an iconoclast is in the vehemence with which he slams suburbia and with whom he blames for the origins of what he calls our "anti-urban bias". He says the decline of cities "was not urban decay but a form of urban manslaughter in which a wide array of social policies came together in such a way as to reduce one city after another literally to rubble. A combination of federal tax breaks and direct government outlays fueled suburban development at the expense of the cities." Who was to blame? Try our founding fathers whom Mr Lazare calls "a group of provincial politicians"; specifically Thomas Jefferson who developed a "concept of democracy as something intrinsically anti-urban."
The irony is that it is in the sections of the book where he is blasting away at the historical figures of the past - from Jefferson through to FDR - that he is also most interesting and comes up with a very original thesis. Mr Lazare states that there were two early settlement patters in colonial America that reflected city values. The close knit settlements of New England reflected the Puritan values of "Christianity not as a faith of lonely believers wandering in the desert but as a highly social religion revolving around the congregation and community." Also in Pennsylvania where practical considerations made for crowded waterfront developments. In contrast, Virginia with its irregular shoreline with many small inlets only helped to reinforce the anti-urban political culture characteristic of the "royalist Cavaliers" who settled there in small, scattered settlements dominated by plantations.
Where Mr Lazare sticks to developing on this theme and tying this historical bias to technological developments such as the automobile, his book is original and very readable. When he attacks traditions and institutions simply for the sake of being critical, the book comes across as contrived.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Rise and Fall of the American City, May 23, 2001
This review is from: America's Undeclared War: What's Killing Our Cities and How We Can Stop It (Hardcover)
Daniel Lazare's excellent book "America's Undeclared War" is a book that I heartily recommend. I was particularly impressed by his unique and intriguing approach to American history, from the point of view of the city.
He traces American history back to the notorious conflicts of Jefferson and Hamilton. One aspect of their feud, should the country develop a southern-agrarian or a northern-urban economy? Jefferson, despite his democratic rhetoric, was a southern slave owner. With his election as president in 1800 his party promoted policies that were anti-urban, anti-federal and jingoistic.
The north was intent on developing industry. It needed a strong infrastructure-roads, canals, and an educational system. All this was opposed by the south. As a result the development of cities, which existed almost entirely in the north, was hampered by a hostile political establishment.
With the coming of the railroad, a major social and economic revolution took place. Before the advent of the railroad, land transportation was so onerous that it was rarely attempted. It cost as much to ship goods 30 miles overland as it did across the Atlantic. The northeast was cut off from the interior--most interior traffic was confined to the Ohio and Mississippi rivers--until the Erie and other canals opened a connecting water route.
The railroad was the technological miracle that caused an expansion of the cities. Shipping costs dropped so much that water transportation, rivers and canals, could no longer compete. Cities grew like weeds. Wherever the trains stopped passenger and freight flowed and new towns and cities grew.
The advent of the Civil War broke the strangle hold that the south had on the country's policies. Laws favorable to industry that had been stymied for decades were now enacted.
But the growth of the cities brought slums, reformers, and radicals that worried the industrialists; and sex, gambling, and drinking that upset the moralists. By the late nineteenth century the middle and upper classes were very concerned. How could these problems be overcome? Disburse the troublesome masses!
Many prominent leaders could be counted on. They ran the gamut from industrialist Henry Ford to urban reformer Jacob Riis. But what could cause a reversal in the growth of the cities?
A new technological upstart. The automobile! This new mode of transportation could dilute the effects of the trains. Mass urban transportation of trains, subways and streetcars was no longer necessary for the working man to get to his job.
With the coming of the New Deal--Roosevelt was another advocate of diluting the city masses--government subsidies provided a major impetus. Changes occurred quite rapidly after World War II. The government took built roads throughout the country; and backed a new type of mortgage--low or no down payment, low interest and long (30 year) terms--a major departure from previous mortgage financing. In addition, there were the tax benefits for home ownership, deductions for real estates taxes and mortgage interest. Business increasingly expanded in the suburbs so that opportunities would increasingly be found there. Suburban living became an irresistible bargain. Accordingly, the suburbs grew and grew and grew. A mass exodus of the middle class from the cities ensued.
The threats that the establishment found in the cities were diminished. Homeowners were too busy paying off their mortgage, their car payments, fixing the house, maintaining the lawn to get involved in the civic, labor or community affairs that had occurred when they lived in the city.
The cities in the meantime being deprived of the government subsidies lavished on the suburbs were left with the poor. The tax base for the support of the cities shrank and the demands on their services grew. But in spite of their difficulties no help was afforded to them. Instead the federal and state governments with able assistance of the media placed the blame on the impoverished. Accordingly the poor lost many of their existing benefits and were victimized by a proliferation of crime that brought on harsh penal laws.
The glowing early promise of the suburbs never materialized. The automobile created sprawl, pollution, traffic congestion, and increased taxes without substantial benefits. Compared to a stimulating city with numerous cultural attractions, life in the suburbs was boring.
I was also impressed by the book because Lazare scattered a few gems through it. Complex issues that he analyzed and distilled so expertly that it was a pleasure to read! As an example--his comparison of the efficient city with the inefficient suburbs.
In the city, necessities and conveniences for every day living are short distances away, within walking distance or by mass transportation. In the suburbs, by contrast, a car trip is necessary for every little need, going to a store, the library, school, the doctor, the post office, the movies. Even minor trips are irritating, taking longer and longer as congestion, pollution, wasted fuel and time are all continually increasing.
If you are interested in history or concerned about the difficulties of everyday living in the suburbs, this is a book you should read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Basically well done, but . . ., February 5, 2002
This review is from: America's Undeclared War: What's Killing Our Cities and How We Can Stop It (Hardcover)
Too many weird tangents. As other reviewers have pointed out, Lazare correctly identifies a variety of government policies that have caused urban decay. But most of his points have already been made by other commentators (e.g. James Kunstler, Alex Marshall). Also, Lazare goes off on tangents about things like the life of Henry Ford, labor union policy, etc. which really aren't that relevant to his major point. Like many leftish urbanists, Lazare seems to think that good urbanism leads to a liberal welfare state -- yet that most urban of industrialized nations, Japan, has a government as small as that of America.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
