How Healthy were the Suburbs?

Abstract

In North America almost everyone has assumed that, from the 1860s to the 1960s, suburbs were healthier than cities, but this has not been established as fact by urban or demographic historians. Contemporary evidence is scattered but, especially for the interwar years, significant. The most useful data pertain to infant mortality rates. They indicate that, in terms of population health, suburbs were diverse and so were city neighborhoods. On the average, suburbs were healthier than cities but, partly because of poor sanitation, many unincorporated fringe areas were as unhealthy as the worst city slums. As mortality rates declined, so did the relative advantage of suburbs; in the early postwar period the widespread use of septic tanks caused problems. Future research should utilize neglected, published data and, where possible, supplement these with the analysis of vital records.On March 19, 1911, the young King George V took a short trip into the suburbs of North London. Since he already possessed several homes, including city residences and quiet country retreats, he was not looking to the needs of his own family. Instead, concerned about how poor housing was affecting the health of his people, he was hoping to confirm the favorable reports that he had heard of the new Garden Suburb that was taking shape in Hampstead. In part inspired by Ebenezer Howard's book, Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1902), which was becoming a bible for planners and housing reformers in Britain and beyond, Hampstead Garden Suburb was not the first, but it was already becoming one of the best-known attempts to marry city convenience with healthy country living. 1 It expressed high hopes. Accompanying the king, the Times reporter suggested that the track record of Bournville, an earlier project in the low-density idiom, indicated that Hampstead's new suburb might reduce infant mortality rates by at least a third. 2 King George's visit to Hampstead symbolized the concern long expressed about the unhealthiness of the cities, not just in Britain but across Europe and North America. The rise of commercial and then industrial capitalism had created cities of unprecedented size. The cramming together of so many peoplenot to mention of horses and factories-created all kinds of health hazards. Mortality rates, the simplest indicator of health, rose steadily to exceed by a

The emergence of a suburban penalty during the 1918/19 influenza pandemic in Malta: The role of a marketplace, railway, and measles

“…Further, exactly how the suburban environment factor into infectious disease prevalence is poorly understood. It is generally believed that suburban locations faired better than urban locations in terms of overall health, and that the health status of suburban populations fall somewhere between urban and the ameliorated health levels of rural environs [8]. Infant mortality rates indicate, however, that in terms of population health, suburban locations were diverse.…”

“…Infant mortality rates indicate, however, that in terms of population health, suburban locations were diverse. In some suburbs, because of poor sanitation, many unincorporated outlying areas were as unhealthy as the worst city slums [8].…”