Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with all of this. I think the real decline of traditional craftsmanship and city planning came after World War II with the advent of GI Bill suburbs. Then in the 1960s white flight, ranch house subdivisions, and urban renewal nearly killed many American cities. Today we are in the McMansions and McDonalds era, where pretty much the only part of the country that is distinguishable is Florida and the Southwest because of the faux-Spanish architecture.
Oh, for Ford's Sake! For starts, "Urban Planning" in itself is a fairly new field. Back in the "Good old days", cities just grew, like Topsy. Secondly, and my points are in no particular order of importance, quit dumping on the GIs who fought in WW II. There had been basically no homebuilding from the Depression (late 1929) until the end of WW II in mid-1945, a period of over 15 years. Population of the US in 1930-123.1 mil. Population in 1950-152.3 mil, an increase of about 30 million people. People had to live somewhere. Next, "urban renewal" is not that new. Have you ever heard of this movement from the 1920s?- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Beautiful_movement
There had been basically no homebuilding from the Depression (late 1929) until the end of WW II in mid-1945, a period of over 15 years. Population of the US in 1930-123.1 mil. Population in 1950-152.3 mil, an increase of about 30 million people. People had to live somewhere. Next, "urban renewal" is not that new. Have you ever heard of this movement from the 1920s?- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Beautiful_movement
Obviously new housing was needed to built; but there are many possibilities the style and layout could have taken. As for urban renewal, the 20s renewals didn't involve large-scale demolition of sections of old city centers.
Obviously new housing was needed to built; but there are many possibilities the style and layout could have taken. As for urban renewal, the 20s renewals didn't involve large-scale demolition of sections of old city centers.
I think it notable that "By 1900, more than 80,000 tenements had been built in New York City. They housed a population of 2.3 million people, a full two-thirds of the city's total population of around 3.4 million." Those who wax rhapsodic over the good old days need to see that.
Plus this: "By the late 1920s, many tenements in Chicago had been demolished and replaced with large, privately subsidized apartment projects. The next decade saw the implementation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which would transform low-income housing in many American cities through programs including slum clearing and the building of public housing."
That's my allowable 3 sentences. This is a great article for everyone languishing about the pre-war days. Everyone posting on this forum should read it.
I was thinking more of commercial distict demolished or torn down for highway construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
I think it notable that "By 1900, more than 80,000 tenements had been built in New York City. They housed a population of 2.3 million people, a full two-thirds of the city's total population of around 3.4 million."Those who wax rhapsodic over the good old days need to see that.
I'm well aware of that, and mentioned them plenty of times; including recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
This is a great article for everyone languishing about the pre-war days. Everyone posting on this forum should read it.
And cities full of old housing stock today don't have the conditions of 100 years, I don't get your focus on 100 year old conditions.
I was thinking more of commercial distict demolished or torn down for highway construction.
I'm well aware of that, and mentioned them plenty of times; including recently.
And cities full of old housing stock today don't have the conditions of 100 years, I don't get your focus on 100 year old conditions.
No, because the worst of the housing was torn down. Several posters have focused on the pre-war era as somehow the "golden ages". It wasn't. These "ticky-tack" houses of the 50s, and I've lived in one, were a big step up for some of their owners, many of whom were from families who had not been homeowners before.
She made the comment late at night, K? But the general layout of all cities is the same-downtown area, with some focal point, e.g. Point (State) Park in Pittsburgh with the fountain, Civic Center Park in front of the capitol building with its gold dome in Denver; stores, skyscrapers, buses, rail lines nowadays, yada, yada. There's only so many ways it can be done. Sort of like my hairdresser told me-there's only one haircut.
I think there are definitely cities which depart from the American norm, even in downtown. Boston lacks a grid. DC lacks a skyline. Philly has relatively few highrises, and residential neighborhoods right next to the CBD.
In general though I would agree that CBDs tend to be the parts of cities which feel most interchangeable. The distinct character is more found in the older residential neighborhoods relatively close to Downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Yea, suburban shopping centers are the same all over. In the same town:
A semi-detached wooden house next to a former brick mill building. Good luck finding that in Texas. Further out in newer suburbs, Boston suburbs are developed differently than Texan ones. Smaller-scale developments, narrower roads; more wooden houses on larger lots. There's nothing like "The Woodlands" in Massachusetts
Neighborhood layouts can vary dramatically for suburbs by region for the reasons you outlined. But actual housing styles really do not differ appreciably.
Urban renewal is even older than that. See Hausmann's renovation of Paris. Much of the old medieval city was demolished to make way for the boulevards in the mid 19th century.
I think it notable that "By 1900, more than 80,000 tenements had been built in New York City. They housed a population of 2.3 million people, a full two-thirds of the city's total population of around 3.4 million." Those who wax rhapsodic over the good old days need to see that.
Plus this: "By the late 1920s, many tenements in Chicago had been demolished and replaced with large, privately subsidized apartment projects. The next decade saw the implementation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which would transform low-income housing in many American cities through programs including slum clearing and the building of public housing."
That's my allowable 3 sentences. This is a great article for everyone languishing about the pre-war days. Everyone posting on this forum should read it.
The key difference between this and later urban renewal is that lower-density apartment buildings were generally being replaced by higher-density ones. Indeed, virtually all of the "prewar" apartment stock in NYC was built between 1900 and 1930, and much of it replaced the 19th century built fabric of tenements and rowhouses.
In contrast, later urban renewal in most cities generally either caused population densities to decline (due to wholesale clearance of areas like the CBD, industrial zones, and highway paths of residents) or it did not substantively raise neighborhood population density.
Pittsburgh lacks a grid, except on the S. Side flats, which is its own grid.
Point taken on urban renewal. In NYC, high density buildings were replaced with other high density buildings. From my link from the history channel. "A typical tenement building had five to seven stories and occupied nearly all of the lot upon which it was built (usually 25 feet wide and 100 feet long, according to existing city regulations). . . . Later, speculators began building new tenements, often using cheap materials and construction shortcuts. Even new, this kind of housing was at best uncomfortable and at worst highly unsafe. . . .The hard facts included in Riis’ book–such as the fact that 12 adults slept in a room some 13 feet across, and that the infant death rate in the tenements was as high as 1 in 10–stunned many in America and around the world and led to a renewed call for reform."
No, because the worst of the housing was torn down.
Often identical housing to what was torn down remains.
Quote:
The key difference between this and later urban renewal is that lower-density apartment buildings were generally being replaced by higher-density ones. Indeed, virtually all of the "prewar" apartment stock in NYC was built between 1900 and 1930, and much of it replaced the 19th century built fabric of tenements and rowhouses.
In contrast, later urban renewal generally either caused population densities to decline (due to wholesale clearance of areas like the CBD, industrial zones, and highway paths of residents) or it did not substantively raise neighborhood population density.
good point, though the NYC changes sometimes invovled lower population density due to less overcrowding. Some of the tenement clearances were just demolishing a couple tenement buildings in a block for more airflow. Eh, I think there's still some 19th century apartment buildings left:
anything that's labelled 1899 or 1900 is 19th century; 1900 or 1899 is a just default "no record" year for the city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
