Changes

Robert Fishman argues that the city of Los Angeles sacrificed both its mass transit system and the central business district in the 1920s to preserve the city’s suburban ideal. He believes that as congestion intensified, Los Angeles “was forced to adopt a new strategy to preserve” its suburban model. Fishman minimized the problems PE faced and claims that PE was “still strong” in 1924 and had reached “its all-time peak in passenger miles.” In an attempt to solve the congestion crisis, <ref>Fishman claims that the Los Angeles was presented with two competing proposals for solving the city’s transportation problems. PE lobbied the city and a group of influential civic leaders to finance the construction of an above and below ground electric train system. PE’s plan was designed to preserve the downtown’s preeminence and solve the city’s traffic problems by moving the trains off the streets. The Automobile Club of Southern California alternately advocated for a plan that fundamentally redesigned the city’s streets to create thoroughfares and speed automobile traffic. The traffic plan described by Fishman is the Major Traffic Street Plan (MTSP) which was designed in part by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.161, Harland Bartholomew and Charles H. Cheney. The MTSP asked the city council “to place a $5,000,000 bond issue on the ballot” to pay for “10 to 20 percent” of the plan to alter Los Angeles streets. Fishman claims that Los Angeles did not have the money to carry out both of these plans and it was forced to decide which transportation system to promote62. </ref>

According In an attempt to solve the congestion crisis, Fishman, the proponents of claims that Los Angeles central business district faced off against rural land owners and suburban advocateswas presented with two competing proposals for addressing the city’s transportation problems. While both PE lobbied the mass transit city and roads bond issues were put to a vote, group of influential civic leaders strongly advocated on behalf to finance the construction of the MTSP because it furthered the suburban ideals embodied by Los Angeles. If Los Angeles fixed its mass transit an above and below ground electric train system, development would be focused around the train lines. Land prices would rise and it would become increasingly expensive to build single family homes along these lines and this would complicate further expansion by the city. Los Angeles had grown dependent on single family developers PE’s plan was designed to build houses for recent arrivals. Single family developments were ideal for preserve the city of Los Angeles because they could be financed cheaply downtown’s preeminence and it reduced solve the city’s infrastructure costs. Most single family home developments could be started with minimal financing. Developers would buy rural land from farmers and finance traffic problems by moving the construction trains off the subdivision’s infrastructure, including “roads, lighting and drainage.” The developer could then sell mortgages for the first phase of homes to pay off their initial loansstreets. After the initial set of homes was built, the builder would then finance any future home construction in the subdivision with these early mortgage sales. The developers could earn large profits and the city could cheaply expand because developers paid all of its infrastructure costs.

While retail businesses and downtown developers favored the mass transit plan, far more people benefited from the MTSP. Roads, unlike mass transit, could not only connect people to downtown, but it would also connect the growing suburbs to each other. Civic organizers railed on behalf The Automobile Club of the MTSP and started a well-organized campaign to get the bond issues approved. While civic leaders vigorously Southern California alternately advocated for the MTSP, a small section of the PE plan was “decisively defeated.” Fishman claims that it only then did fundamentally redesigned the PE “began its rapid deteriorationcity’s streets to create thoroughfares and speed automobile traffic.”While Fishman’s conclusions are compelling<ref>Fishman, they undermined by his lack of evidence164-65. </ref> His entire argument The traffic plan described by Fishman is based on the assumption that Angelinos wanted to preserve the suburban character of Los AngelesMajor Traffic Street Plan (MTSP) which was designed in part by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., but he fails to identify voices within the city that portrayed the debate over the bond issues in these termsHarland Bartholomew and Charles H. Cheney. He has not sufficiently demonstrated that Angelinos saw The MTSP asked the city council “to place a $5,000,000 bond issue as either an affirmation or rejection of the suburban growth model. He has elevated the vote on the bond issues as a vote on the concept ballot” to pay for “10 to 20 percent” of suburbia. He has deemphasized the local concerns that citizens had about the election plan to strengthen his broader points on suburbiaalter Los Angeles streets. The bond plan proposed by PE was expensive and Angelinos undoubtedly realized Fishman claims that only benefit some suburban residents while Los Angeles did not have the MTSP potentially benefited all money to carry out both of the cities motorists. The passage of the MTSP could be just as easily attributed these plans and it was forced to decide which transportation system to the fact that the MTSP had a broader coalition of supporterspromote.

According the Fishman, the proponents of Los Angeles central business district faced off against rural land owners and suburban advocates. While both the mass transit and roads bond issues were put to a vote, civic leaders strongly advocated on behalf of the MTSP because it furthered the suburban ideals embodied by Los Angeles. If Los Angeles fixed its mass transit system, development would be focused around the train lines. Land prices would rise and it would become increasingly expensive to build single-family homes along these lines and this would complicate further expansion by the city. Los Angeles had grown dependent on single-family developers to build houses for recent arrivals.  Single-family developments were ideal for the city of Los Angeles because they could be financed cheaply and it reduced the city’s infrastructure costs. Most single family home developments could be started with minimal financing. Developers would buy rural land from farmers and finance the construction the subdivision’s infrastructure, including “roads, lighting and drainage.” The developer could then sell mortgages for the first phase of homes to pay off their initial loans. After the initial set of homes was built, the builder would then finance any future home construction in the subdivision with these early mortgage sales.<ref>Fishman, 164.</ref> The developers could earn large profits and the city could cheaply expand because developers paid all of its infrastructure costs. While retail businesses and downtown developers favored the mass transit plan, far more people benefited from the MTSP. Roads, unlike mass transit, could not only connect people to downtown, but it would also join the growing suburbs. Civic organizers railed on behalf of the MTSP and started a well-organized campaign to get the bond issues approved. While civic leaders vigorously advocated for the MTSP, a small section of the PE plan was “decisively defeated.” Fishman claims that it only then did the PE “began its rapid deterioration.”<ref>Fishman, 166.</ref> While Fishman’s conclusions are compelling, they undermined by insufficient evidence. His entire argument is based on the assumption that Angelinos wanted to preserve the suburban character of Los Angeles, but he fails to identify voices within the city that portrayed the debate over the bond issues in these terms. He has not sufficiently demonstrated that Angelinos saw the bond issue as either an affirmation or rejection of the suburban growth model. He has elevated the vote on the bond issues as a vote on the concept of suburbia. He has deemphasized the local concerns that citizens had about the election to strengthen his broader points on suburbia. The bond plan proposed by PE was expensive, and Angelinos undoubtedly realized that only benefit some suburban residents while the MTSP potentially benefited all of the cities motorists. The passage of the MTSP could be just as easily attributed to the fact that the MTSP had a broader coalition of supporters. What Fishman successfully explains is why Los Angeles adopted a suburban model for growth. He demonstrates that suburban development was an incredibly cost-effective way for the city to quickly develop enough homes for the massive influx of people between 1870 and 1940. It is clear why city planners would prefer a growth plan that limited the capital outlays by the city of Los Angeles. The city was effectively able to subcontract both the financing and the construction of its neighborhoods to private land developers.