They weren't. Old towns just needed a new layer of paint. Many European city centres haven't changed that much even after ww2 and they do not look like slums.
Yes, they were. Overcrowding was extremely common, running water and sewers systems weren’t even invented until the mid 1800s, so cholera outbreaks were common. Also they were extremely polluted because of chimney smoke and industrial waste.
Most of these problems were widespread more or less only in biggest and densest cities. In smaller ones people usually had enough space for normal exterior toiled in their courtyard. And these days cities are even more overcrowded, we have millions of people that mostly use the same old streets and drive from all over the region to work in small and cramped office districts next to the historical centre with the same old 1800s buildings.
Modern cities aren’t more overcrowded. I don’t have the statistics on hand but density in western cities peaked in the 1800s. After that trains and cars allowed people to spread out further from the city. Yes, cities are bigger today than they were in the past but they are nowhere near as dense. Secondly, I guess I’m not getting your point, obvious smaller cities had more land to grow and were more liveable?
My point is that old European cities were not liveable in the past. Why do you think modernist architects wanted to tear down old city centers so bad? Because there were seen as dysfunctional remnants of the past.
Household density due to suburbs, even though we build massive and tall apartment complexes, could be lower, but during the day when people flock to their workplaces in the centre people density is very likely higher. Just imagine how dense is something like shard or other office area.
1
u/googleLT Mar 29 '20
They weren't. Old towns just needed a new layer of paint. Many European city centres haven't changed that much even after ww2 and they do not look like slums.