ARHU-American Studies

The houses built in Levittown were timely to provide decent accommodation to returning soldiers from WW II. And I quote "The Levitt models were a compromise between extreme economy and the promise of an appropriate living space for an American family." The primary feature of this early Levittown house was its low, low cost--under $8,000 to purchase. This meant that everybody could afford a place to live.
There are critisisms of how small the houses and rooms were, as well as the inconviniences of even where the bathroom was placed in the house, but as stated in the text " the goal wasn't simply to link house to community and family to neighborhood. It was also to make more possible, more efficient, this good life of postwar prosperity.

As to whether the evolution from the 800sq. foot home of early Levittown to the contemporary millennial mini mansion has enhanced the quality of family life and American society in general, I would say it has tremendously done so. The reason being that it gave every member of the family more room to "operate". This is stated in the text " With the picture window and the transformed living spaces that resulted, the Levittown house finally gained a sense of light and air to expand its cramped, 800-square-foot floorplan, This meant that parents could supervise their children from the living room-- they could be inside, at leisure or at housework, while their children could roam the immediate backyard or the larger common area that spilled off the backs of each house in the street plan".

My thoughts on this site parallel with those Richie stated above. I would add that the community "made up of subcommunities" also represented, and continues to represent, a cultural ideal. Hale pinpoints swimming pools, parks, and street design as key factors in promoting social connections. I question whether today this ideal of community overrides location as a primary focus when buying a home.

"In Chicago, real estate agents would enter a neighborhood or a close-in suburb with black actors paid to play the role of families in search of housing. Prominently promenaded up and down the street on a Saturday afternoon, these apparent home-shoppers were the opening phalanx in an assault designed to end with the real estate company in possession of whole blocks of houses purchased at rates far below market value. Then these companies sold the houses at inflated prices to black families looking for integrated housing, safe streets, good schools, the suburban dream exemplified by Levittown. Instead they found themselves in steadily expanding clusters of black suburban housing surrounded by hostile white families."

I can't think of a better example of Capitalism at work. The white home owners created an ineficiency in the market by restricting supply, the market responds by removing the problem, the companies profit, and the black familes got there houses.

In short, they got served.

Peter Hale assembles a variety of materials regarding the cultural history of Levittown to get his points across. The materials of most interest to me are the New Lands Photographs. They reveal “hints, confirmations, and revelations about the nature of the past… and describe rituals, celebrated purchases and declare each stage in the rise of families, in income, status, substance.” The pictures show captions of the yards and backyards of Levittown, streets houses and lawns. The uniformity of the houses is shown through square windows, an olden style and a similarity in the distance and space between them. Shutters are another commonality shown in the pictures. I wouldn’t say that the “quality” of family life has vastly improved because the pictures capture families who truly appreciate one another with candid photos and they seem to value the sacredness and morals home. Even though we may have new advances, doesn’t mean that we place the same value on family ties, and rituals as those shown through these pictures taken in Levittown in 1951.

The Levittowns arose as an alternative to the crowded and dilapidated condition on many inner cities. They also, as the web site indicates, offered affordable housing for veterans, and those benefitting from the affluent times. After years of turmoil with the war and the great depression, people were ready to settle in the quiet and seeming safety of these manufactured neighborhoods. Much of that generation sought and got stability in Levittowns, and that was good enough for most of them, and that is certainly a positive factor. The negative sides that stand out to me are the uniformity of the communities, and overall conformity of the time. But, I suppose it was good for the money. The most glaring negative aspect was the blatant racism and religous segregation. Many banned blacks all together, and some Levittown communities even banned Jews and Catholics. In many ways, it was a sign of the times, but these communities perpetuated these divisions, and for that, they should be condemned.

As to the quality of life increasing with the advent of different, larger homes in the same kind of neighborhoods, I would say not really. Even though there are differences in style and structure of many of the homes, there is still the stench of conformity and in many cases still a level of profiling in terms of what kind of people are welcome in certain communities.The only difference would be a percieved degree of safety that almost all of us agreed was a myth in most cases. While an improvement over the uniformity of the 50's, to me, there is no significant change for the better in these communities or society as a whole.

You can get robbed anywhere, someplaces (Knox Road where i live) are statistialy more dangerous then say King's Contrivance, Columbia (where I work). So I would have to say it isn't a myth that I would be safer living in Columbia (a Leavittown) then on Knox Road. I guess I would be giving in to the 'stench of conformity' but its up to me to personalize the home if I choose. I would rather live in conformity then in squalor.

"The relentless homogeneity, the cramped quarters of its interiors, and the raw, unfinished quality of its landscape" did have its good qualities. It helped the gradual change in homes in the years to come. Levittown homes changed the homes of the pre-war era, but has shaped the homes of today. Most communities, although do not look uniform, are pretty similar and holds alot of Levit's qualities.

The evolution of the Levittown home to the contemporary millennial mini mansion has not enhance the quality of family life. As time goes on, people have much higher expectations, so obviously they will upgrade. However, as time also goes on, so does inflation. I'm willing to bet that families back in the Levittown are living the exact same life as families today.

I think you have to ask what we define as an improvement in the quality of American life. You have to see what life was like for these families before WWII and Levittown. Nowdays, people have the huge mansion houses but are not homes. These families wanted a home to be proud of and own. Adam made a good point about people's expectations. People are never going to be happy with what they have and will always want more, bigger and better.

To say that house size affect American society in general is a stretch. It may make an individual happier, but how does that benefit society? However, 800 sq. feet is really small. I think by giving people A piece of property they can care for themselves will reduce social stresses and reduce crime + give incentive to work hard and more. A really big house is nice because Americans love space and to give every family and every family member more space will create a more stable home environment. Having to share a bedroom/bathroom with multiple people can drive some berserk. However there are diminshing ruturns as size increases tremendously. A larger more comfortable home is more conducive to studying and other activites that will allow a person to expand and reach their full potential. Not to contridict myself I have to say these affects on society arent very easy to measure if they exist at all.

I think in a sense we still live in Levittowns today. At the time of construction, 800 sq. feet wasn't bad. The price was definately right. More importantly, people look for nice communities with activities for their children and good schools. Levittown brought communities together and I think most people house hunting today look for that same strong community atmosphere.

One thing that Leavittown seemed to ensure to its people was conformity, which in some cases, mean comfort and happiness. Judging fromt he pictures and text on the site, Leavittown seemed to enjoy this.
I think that "preimer" or "ideal" housing at a certain time is just that for the people living in that situation. Leavittown was great for people there at that time. Huge houses nowadays for the rich and/or famous now are great for them. Different top notch housing is suitable and good for the people there at that time. That, to me, does not mean that the quality of life is enhanced in a bigger home. That idea kind of boils down to whether money equals happiness and it sure as hell does not.

During these times, Levitt knew what he had to do to make a community a success.."he needed to present it as a new form of ideal American life, one that combinedf the idealized middle-class life of the prewar suburban communities, with the democratzed life of younger, mainly urban-raised GI's and their families." He did this and it worked. It was another chance at a "better life" and the idea of a "community" was also appealing. I personally don't think the "mini-mansion" has improved the quality of American life. Although it brought various families together in a community, I'm not sure that it brought an immediate family together. The life was basically the same, the women had to take care of all of the housework (which was more now) the man still worked and the kids were still kids. The house became the status of wealth and social status instead of the parlor. Along with it Levittown was an community of racism and segregation-so the fact that it did not allow all Americans a chance at a "better life" I agree with johnny in that they should be condemned.

I agree that "improvement" needs to be defined. One thing I think we need to get back to is the open backyards. Let kids play together in a space where they can be watched by adults, either through windows or going out on the porch. Let kids socialize outside with each other so they can stay active and learn socialization skills they will need later in life. I think the mini mansions that are being built take away from the community/neighborhood feel because they focus on emphasizing your own house and keeping it distant from neighbors.

Conformity being accepted in the 1950's is easy to understand. All the soldiers coming home were used to conformity in the army and if they made it home following these rules kept them alive. Now they can live in peace and conformity, after war I would say that is more then they could ever want.

Hale’s, Cultural history of Levittown does a great job discussing the history of Levittown by including photos. I agree with Karen , the location I think to many are more important, as well as safety. I agree many do give into the ‘stench of conformity.” I think life has vastly improved we just take it for granted when it comes to technological advances as for the family life, I do agree it has suffered...

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

ding ding, look at my thing!

Get it up mate, it's fun!

This will get yours up again, dude!

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Muppets love Viagra!

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

I have found a great site for buying:

Generic Viagra
Generic Cialis and
Generic Lipitor .

I don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?

Buy Viagra cheap from online store and save money on:

Viagra prescription

Hire a car to feel higher!

What a cool blog!

news

If chance is defined as an event produced by random motion without any causal nexus, I would say that there is no such thing as chance. by online poker

poker online - poker online, poker games | poker books - world series of poker, empirepoker | poker rooms - poker books, online poker sites | poker stars - texas hold'em, poker rules | poker stars - online poker sites, empirepoker | empire poker - online poker sites, poker supplies | poker rules - pacific poker, empirepoker | party poker - pacific poker, poker chips | poker stars - poker chips, texas hold'em poker | paradise poker - world poker tour, texas holdem poker | texas holdem poker - poker rules, texas hold'em poker | texas hold'em poker - partypoker, free online poker | online poker - world poker tour, world series of poker