Areas from the "urban revival" era that didn't make it or declined?

[edale]

Originally Posted by BigDipper 80

Dayton was home to the "Santa Clara Arts District", which probably lasted for around ten years before completely collapsing. There's virtually nothing left of the gentrification attempt of the early 90s, while many of Dayton's other historic districts renovated around the same time continue to thrive.

https://daytonvistas.com/the-santa-c...-preservation/

Just poked around the W 3rd Wright-Dunbar business district on streetview, and "thrive" seems to be a generous description. The block or two that is standing is nice; doesn't look to have a ton of businesses or even functional upper stories, but a nice, tight intact strip. When you go beyond the little strip in all directions, though, it's totally depressing. Huge swaths of urban prairie to the east, west, and north of the little business district. The historic neighborhood to the south looks pretty nice, but it too is surrounded by prairie. I hate to see how far Dayton has fallen. Is there any momentum coming to this area, or any hope for some new construction? I know the Oregon District and area near the ballpark are doing really well right now and seeing a ton of new investment. I hope west of the river can similarly see some love soon.

Aerial: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Da...!4d-84.1916069

Street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7559...7i16384!8i8192

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yeah, and this happens at a micro scale in almost every gentrifying urban neighborhood in the u.s.

that's certainly the conventional wisdom, but i don't think the evidence always bears that out.

take a look at chicago's lincoln park, it's been gentrifying for 40 years now, and other than a flat decade in the '00s, it's been slowly increasing in population the entire time.

1980 - 57,146

1990 - 61,092

2000 - 64,323

2010 - 64,116

2016 - 67,260 (estimate)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Park,_Chicago

[BigDipper 80]

Originally Posted by edale

Just poked around the W 3rd Wright-Dunbar business district on streetview, and "thrive" seems to be a generous description. The block or two that is standing is nice; doesn't look to have a ton of businesses or even functional upper stories, but a nice, tight intact strip. When you go beyond the little strip in all directions, though, it's totally depressing. Huge swaths of urban prairie to the east, west, and north of the little business district. The historic neighborhood to the south looks pretty nice, but it too is surrounded by prairie. I hate to see how far Dayton has fallen. Is there any momentum coming to this area, or any hope for some new construction? I know the Oregon District and area near the ballpark are doing really well right now and seeing a ton of new investment. I hope west of the river can similarly see some love soon.

Aerial: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Da...!4d-84.1916069

Street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7559...7i16384!8i8192

I can speak to this since I live in the neighborhood in question. A lot of the reason why things look like they do is because three separate neighborhood boundaries that all meet in the business district. Wright-Dunbar (south of Third, east of Broadway) is really the only one with an active neighborhood council. So we're out applying for grants and working on beautification projects and have a better dialogue with City Hall, which our adjacent neighborhoods don't have. In Wright-Dunbar itself, home values have been steadily ticking up over the past few years, and almost every vacant home either has new owners or is in the process of being made habitable. There are a number of new housing projects in the works, both as single-family homes on the greenfields and multi-family units along Third (some of the buildings already have apartments in them, namely those west of Williams). We really only have one restaurant currently, but having a pharmacy and two bank branches is a nice perk, and more commercial space should be coming online in a couple of vacant buildings in the next year or so. People are starting to express more interest in the area as the other inner-ring historic districts get pricier, but things probably won't really start heating up until the Third Street bridge is finished in 2022. But the community is working to plant the seeds now so that once that access point is re-opened, the area will be that much more desirable.

[CaliNative]

The revitalization of the Gaslamp district and the adjacent ballpark/East Village in San Diego has been a success, although nearby Horton Plaza failed like many shopping malls and is being repurposed as a mixed use/office park. Some progress is being made in getting the homeless into shelters and housing, although the numbers are still alarming.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's certainly the conventional wisdom, but i don't think the evidence always bears that out.

take a look at chicago's lincoln park, it's been gentrifying for 40 years now, and other than a flat decade in the '00s, it's been slowly increasing in population the entire time.

1980 - 57,146

1990 - 61,092

2000 - 64,323

2010 - 64,116

2016 - 67,260 (estimate)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Park,_Chicago

When did Lincoln Park start gentrifying? The population was 102k in 1950.

[pip]

It was in the bottom quarter of neighborhoods in per capita income in 1950 and 1960. Median income in Lincoln Park didn’t get higher than median income in the city as a whole until 1980. And the population during those time periods plummeted.

Lincoln Park was probably the first neighborhood outside of the Near North Side to gentrify. I would guess the 1980's was when Lincoln Park started to take off.

[Steely Dan]

Yeah, I think most people would say that Lincoln Park started properly gentrifying in the 80s.

My parents were young adults in the 70s, and while LP was one of the hotter neighborhoods for nightlife at the time, they've both told me that it was fairly seedy in spots back then.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yes, i guess its not as common in the u.s. but its entirely possible for a city to be in economic decline while also growing in population.

It isn't at all uncommon for cities to face migration waves that outstrip their economic capacity; this most frequently happens when their hinterland is being abandoned, regardless of whether or not the city is capable of sustaining the hinterland's population. (This is known as "push factors" in urban studies circles.)

The causes of hinterland abandonment are complex and can range wildly. While agricultural failure is one possible cause, another, more common, cause is restructuring of the agricultural economy -- usually involving large-scale tenant evictions. Perhaps the best-known example of this are the Scottish Highland and Lowland clearances, which drove thousands upon thousands of former crofters to Glasgow in particular, an influx the city was economically unable to cope with. Even to this day, Glasgow remains one of Western Europe's poorer major cities with the region suffering an unusually low life expectancy relative to the UK, Europe, and the developed world a a whole. Similarly, push factors seem to have also controlled urbanization in cities like Dublin or Naples, and are the primary causor of the mushrooming of South Africa's townships and of informal housing all around the world ... Push migration tends to lead to large but poor cities.

It's unusual in the US because the almost-totally-unrestricted immigration that dominated the Victorian and fin-de-siècle eras came to an end in the 1920s, and, even though America's major urban economies had begun to slow down by the end of the period, pull factors also dominated the Great Migration. But for the cities that began to economically slow down first, there was a period when push factors could outweigh pull factors, and St. Louis' unique position made it one of the relatively few cities in the country where this would be indisputably true. (I wonder whether Memphis being another logical push city from Ozark abandonment and Delta land clearances is at root of its stagnancy.)

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

It isn't at all uncommon for cities to face migration waves that outstrip their economic capacity; this most frequently happens when their hinterland is being abandoned, regardless of whether or not the city is capable of sustaining the hinterland's population. (This is known as "push factors" in urban studies circles.)

The causes of hinterland abandonment are complex and can range wildly. While agricultural failure is one possible cause, another, more common, cause is restructuring of the agricultural economy -- usually involving large-scale tenant evictions. Perhaps the best-known example of this are the Scottish Highland and Lowland clearances, which drove thousands upon thousands of former crofters to Glasgow in particular, an influx the city was economically unable to cope with. Even to this day, Glasgow remains one of Western Europe's poorer major cities with the region suffering an unusually low life expectancy relative to the UK, Europe, and the developed world a a whole. Similarly, push factors seem to have also controlled urbanization in cities like Dublin or Naples, and are the primary causor of the mushrooming of South Africa's townships and of informal housing all around the world ... Push migration tends to lead to large but poor cities.

It's unusual in the US because the almost-totally-unrestricted immigration that dominated the Victorian and fin-de-siècle eras came to an end in the 1920s, and, even though America's major urban economies had begun to slow down by the end of the period, pull factors also dominated the Great Migration. But for the cities that began to economically slow down first, there was a period when push factors could outweigh pull factors, and St. Louis' unique position made it one of the relatively few cities in the country where this would be indisputably true. (I wonder whether Memphis being another logical push city from Ozark abandonment and Delta land clearances is at root of its stagnancy.)

re: memphis i imagine this could the the case. my mother first moved to memphis from the “greater” delta (i consider the entire lowlands up into missouri where they still grow cotton and rice the “delta”) but departed for a variety of reasons i imagine on to st. louis.