04589oam 22007814a 450 991052470490332120240829213641.00-8018-5450-4(CKB)4100000010460962(OCoLC)1128018027(MdBmJHUP)muse82066(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/88938(MiAaPQ)EBC29139035(Au-PeEL)EBL29139035(oapen)doab88938(OCoLC)1229674596(EXLCZ)99410000001046096220100407d1997 uy 0engur|||||||nn|ntxtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierPost-SuburbiaGovernment and Politics in the Edge Cities /Jon C. Teaford1st ed.Johns Hopkins University Press1996Baltimore :Johns Hopkins University Press,1997.©1997.1 online resource (1 online resource (v, 249 pages) :)maps1-4214-3482-2 1-4214-3483-0 New government for a new metropolis --The age of the suburban haven --The emerging post-suburban pattern, 1945-1960 --Maintaining the balance of power --Post-suburban imperialists --Recognition and rebellion --The pragmatic compromise.The years shortly after the end of World War II saw the beginnings of a new kind of community that blended the characteristics of suburbia with those of the central city. Over the decades these "edge cities" have become permanent features of the regional landscape. In Post-Suburbia, historian Jon Teaford charts the emergence of these areas and explains why and how they developed. Teaford begins by describing the adaptation of traditional units of government to the ideals and demands of the changing world along the metropolitan fringe. He shows how these post-suburban municipalities had to fashion a government that perpetuated the ideals of small-scale village life and yet, at the same time, provided for a large tax base to pay for needed municipal services. To tell this story, Teaford follows six counties that were among the pioneers of the post-suburban world: Suffolk and Nassau counties in New York; Oakland County, Michigan; DuPage County, Illinois; Saint Louis County, Missouri; and Orange County, California. Although county governments took on new coordinating functions, Teaford concludes, the many municipalities along the metropolitan fringe continued to retain their independence and authority. Underlying this balance of power was the persistent adherence to the long-standing suburban tradition of grassroots rule. Despite changes in the economy and appearance of the metropolitan fringe, this ideology retained its appeal among post-suburban voters, who rebelled at the prospect of thorough centralization of authority. Thus the fringe may have appeared post-suburban, but traditional suburban attitudes continued to influence the course of governmental development.Administration localeEtats-UnisramComtesÉtats-UnisCas, Études deramBanlieuesAdministrationÉtats-UnisCas, Études deramRelations gouvernement central-collectivités localesÉtats-UnisramPolitique urbaineÉtats-UnisramSuburbanisatiegttLokaal beleidgttSuburbsfast(OCoLC)fst01136941County governmentfast(OCoLC)fst00881490BanlieuesÉtats-UnisCas, Études deAdministration de comteÉtats-UnisCas, Études deSuburbsUnited StatesCase studiesCounty governmentUnited StatesCase studiesUnited StatesfastAdministration localeComtesCas, Études de.BanlieuesAdministrationCas, Études de.Relations gouvernement central-collectivités localesPolitique urbaineSuburbanisatie.Lokaal beleid.Suburbs.County government.BanlieuesCas, Études de.Administration de comteSuburbsCounty government320.8/0973Teaford Jon C1095409MdBmJHUPMdBmJHUPBOOK9910524704903321Post-Suburbia2784178UNINA