This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Harris, R. Articles by Mercier, M. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How Healthy were the Suburbs?

Michael E. Mercier

McMaster University

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.

Key Words: Canada • cities • mortality • population health • sanitation • septic tanks • suburbs

Journal of Urban History, Vol. 31, No. 6, 767-798 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0096144205276249


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?