The 70s and 80s Historical Destruction Rampage

[photoLith]

I have always wondered what it was about the 70s and 80s that made people not give a damn about historic buildings. In every city in the U.S entire blocks of buildings were town down to just be replaced by very exciting parking lots that look a lot better than historic 19th century buildings! Why did this occur? Did people just not care or was it because of suburban sprawl and the depopulation of downtowns? Where I live now, the historic main street area once had 9 blocks of beautiful 19th and early 20th century buildings. Now it only has 5 1/2 blocks of buildings. In the late 70's a developer came in and destroyed two entire city blocks to have one just be a parking lot and the other to be a terribly bland looking drive through bank. Why would someone do this? The blocks they tore down were the most historic and beautiful. Its disgusting quite frankly what they did and it happened in every single city in the nation. Again, I pose the question, why did cities in America during the 70s and 80s just tear down everything and then become bastions for parking lots?

[SuburbanNation]

I suppose it may be a little different for every city. For the most part in the hoods - half a million people emptied out of central and north St. Louis-so nobody to maintain these buildings meant they collapsed, were demo'd out of serious safety concerns, or fell to brick rustlers so people in sunbelt city x could have a sweet ass patio.

Now - the great urban jungle of downtown St. Louis and the tenement crescent of the near southside, westside (mill creek valley) and near northside (Kerry Patch) fell to the magic bulldozer directed by the hands of the great fathers...and none of these areas would be recognizable to a St. Louisan of 1947 because they are all gone. St. Louis was also seen as so dirty that the only way to clean anything up was to try to tear anything down that came up to the sidewalk. We also thought we had to be a leader in urban renewal to try to catch back up with the big leagues...

http://inlinethumb06.webshots.com/35845/2337983980099985809S500x500Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2337983980099985809VSdzVk)
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2337983980099985809VSdzVk

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/7980/neighorhoodneglect2hf4.jpg
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/7980/neighorhoodneglect2hf4.jpg

st. louis was actually a pioneer in wholesale, catastrophic urban renewal.
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9010/deterioratedhousing2vp2.jpg
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9010/deterioratedhousing2vp2.jpg

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1500/1947slucampusmcv2qz0.jpg
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1500/1947slucampusmcv2qz0.jpg

[CGII]

I have always wondered what it was about the 70s and 80s that made people not give a damn about historic buildings. In every city in the U.S entire blocks of buildings were town down to just be replaced by very exciting parking lots that look a lot better than historic 19th century buildings! Why did this occur? Did people just not care or was it because of suburban sprawl and the depopulation of downtowns? Where I live now, the historic main street area once had 9 blocks of beautiful 19th and early 20th century buildings. Now it only has 5 1/2 blocks of buildings. In the late 70's a developer came in and destroyed two entire city blocks to have one just be a parking lot and the other to be a terribly bland looking drive through bank. Why would someone do this? The blocks they tore down were the most historic and beautiful. Its disgusting quite frankly what they did and it happened in every single city in the nation. Again, I pose the question, why did cities in America during the 70s and 80s just tear down everything and then become bastions for parking lots?

Oh gosh.


The short story is that after World War II the (white) immigrant bloodlines that had come to the US in the late 19th/early 20th century had lots of money and with national productivity at 100% these populations moved out of cities into a new consumer society in the suburbs that required new cars and new houses and new furniture and new appliances and in their flight to the suburbs short sighted decisions were made concerning the future of cities. As it seemed that cars were an ultra-sexy, mega convenient luxury mode of transit of tomorrow, transit was elminated and undesireable neighbourhoods in the inner city were levelled to accomodate the growth of megapolitan areas based on automobile transit. Meanwhile this auto culture left formerly thriving inner city areas behind as impoverished minorities moved in. More short sighted decisions regarding housing these people were made and those neighbourhoods were also devestated, instilling a vicious cycle of perpetuated crime and poverty through poor political and urban planning.

And that's the short story.

[sofresh808]

I hate modernist schlock and all, but cities had to compete with the suburbs in attracting consumers and businesses. A lot of these historic buildings were in bad shape and didnt conform to the needs and likes of the population of the time. Old buildings can be nice to look at, but they are also a pain and major expense to maintain. People also figured creating new developments conforming with modern ideals of comfort and efficiency would solve the problems emanating from older areas of abandonment and deterioration.

[1ajs]

all sorts of variables come to play wth these masive demolitions...


winnipeg saved alot and lost alot in the 70's...

for instance this block was saved from the wrecking ball in the late 70's at the time the owner a bank wanted to demolish it for a parkade (parking garadge) and this caught the attention of so many people in this city that a real effort was put forth to save it. witch also led to the preservation of our historic wherehouse distric witch this block is in the midle of :yes:

buildings left to right
bank of hamilton building now government offices

middle building Canadian imperial bank of comerice CIBC, now known as millennium center, is rented out as a hall for wedding parties, socials, ect

national trust building now offices and has a high end jewerly store on ground floor

the tower behind it is called the richardson building witch replaced a beutfill building in the 60's and filled a surface lot that had been there for probly 50yrs lol

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2619495802_ce07edd058.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanscott/2619495802/http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanscott/2619495802/)
photo by bryanscott (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanscott/)


you mention so much lost in the 70's and 80's what about the 60's?


our movement has alot of its roots going back to the demolition of our old city hall and several blocks around it...

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/features/winnipegthennow/cityhall1.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/2623904992_3cbccf380c.jpg


witch was replaced by this
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2623247599_fef2726c72.jpg?v=0

and this
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2684939848_4f879d752f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/christiansphotos/2684939848/)
photo by mrchristian (http://www.flickr.com/photos/christiansphotos/)

[fflint]

The wholesale destruction of many urban cores began before the 1970s--I'd say in many locations, the worst of it came in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

[Cirrus]

... Because people thought cities were obsolete.

That's really it, in a nutshell.

[BigKidD]

... Because people thought cities were obsolete.

That's really it, in a nutshell.
To a certain extent. Also, many people did not see any value in the older structures since you can replace them with a modern creation or a park, parking garage, etc. For example, Independence Mall in Philadelphia was created by the razing of exquisite 19th century architecture--perhaps outmoded for the 1950s, but they would be quite an attraction today if they still existed.
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=3a8466011e8effa8_large
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=3a8466011e8effa8&q=independence+hall+source:life&usg=__P8ZewNEqLEdIwz4kkG5qOdRia4g=&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dindependence%2Bhall%2Bsource:life%26hl%3Den

[VivaLFuego]

The wholesale destruction of many urban cores began before the 1970s--I'd say in many locations, the worst of it came in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Yes. In Chicago it started as early as 1951 on the Near South Side around IIT and Michael Reese. The most destructive clear-cutting scorched-earth renewal tactics continued in the early years with the Congress Superhighway also in the early 1950s, Hyde Park renewal in the late 1950s, and the destruction of Little Italy to build UIC in the early 1960s. If anything, by the 1970s, 1980s, the renewal programs became smaller and more confined in scope, and the larger force in demolition of existing neighborhoods was simple abandonment such as targeted efforts to demolish and redevelop skid row. The resurgence of development in the 1990s and 2000s have again brought pressure on historic structures from redevelopment pressure (e.g. profit motive) moreso than any particular animus to the "old" city, in general contrast to the demolition that took place in the 1950s - though by the late 1960s the political money-making shenanigans in the urban renewal process were becoming pretty bad, e.g. the condemnation of the Tap Root Inn for no purpose other than to let a local Democratic ward officer assemble a large site for a townhouse development.

[Mr Downtown]

Well, the Near South Side demolition was clearance of the nation's most shameful slums. 100-year-old houses had been neglected for 60 years and then chopped up into kitchenette apartments. It would have taken a massive restoration effort to essentially reconstruct those buildings. And Congress Superhighway clearance was only the buildings absolutely necessary for construction; a decade before federal funding the city and state couldn't afford to buy any additional property.

As to the original question, historic preservation was not always valued the way we do now. Well into the 1970s, new was nearly always thought to be better—and was certainly thought to be inevitable. Chicago's 1960s Hyde Park renewal pioneered the use of conservation of existing salvageable buildings rather than wholesale clearance. The Penn Central case allowing cities to have preservation ordinnces wasn't decided until 1978.

[SuburbanNation]

Our "Hiroshima flats" was created in the 1950s, along with Pruitt-Igoe. 40 square blocks...our antebellum riverfront was actually leveled in the 1930s by the WPA.

[JManc]

the important thing is that (i hope) we realized just how much we destroyed and try to preserve what we have left.

[VivaLFuego]

Well, the Near South Side demolition was clearance of the nation's most shameful slums. 100-year-old houses had been neglected for 60 years and then chopped up into kitchenette apartments. It would have taken a massive restoration effort to essentially reconstruct those buildings. And Congress Superhighway clearance was only the buildings absolutely necessary for construction; a decade before federal funding the city and state couldn't afford to buy any additional property.


I didn't pass judgment on the takings or tactics, merely stated that they happened. Any way you slice it, the Near South clearance was pretty overwhelming, complete ("scorched earth") except for the Gap, and the clearance for the Congress Superhighway was remarkable in its scope in slicing directly through the heart of existing neighborhoods - this contrasted with other local expressways like the Northwest and Southwest, which generally ran in industrial corridors and only skirted residential areas, requiring little demolition of "historic(al)" urban fabric.

It brings up a broader, important point though, which is that, particularly early on, many urban renewal cases made some sense in their historic and geographic contexts.

[Joey D]

To a certain extent. Also, many people did not see any value in the older structures since you can replace them with a modern creation or a park, parking garage, etc. For example, Independence Mall in Philadelphia was created by the razing of exquisite 19th century architecture--perhaps outmoded for the 1950s, but they would be quite an attraction today if they still existed.
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=3a8466011e8effa8_large
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=3a8466011e8effa8&q=independence+hall+source:life&usg=__P8ZewNEqLEdIwz4kkG5qOdRia4g=&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dindependence%2Bhall%2Bsource:life%26hl%3Den

That really pisses me off.. I knew about that.. but only figured the block in front of the hall was razed, and not a whole neighborhood behind it!

[WilliamTheArtist]

What I find interesting now is how much of our mid-century modern architecture is now being demolished and lost. They tore down the older stuff that they often saw as ugly and out dated, to put the modernist in. Now they see that as ugly and out dated, and want to tear it down.

Just some sadly funny notes about Tulsas "urban renewal".
This year the National Trust for Historic Preservation had its annual meeting here. One person from Europe on a tour of downtown said it looked like Potsdam after the war... except we did it to ourselves. It does often look like a bombed out city with huge swaths of the urban fabric ripped out of it. I believe more than 1/3 of our downtown is parking now.

Garrison Keillor was also in town with his Prairie Home Companion show at about the same time. During his show he mentioned something to the effect. "I notice you all have some beautiful architecture in your downtown. Its interesting how you have it set up so that you can enjoy each building individually" lol. Building, sea of parking, building sea of parking, etc. Sad but true.

[Jaroslaw]

I am unable to see America's urban self-destruction in any terms but the apocalyptic. We have almost no way to grasp the connections between physical environment and mental habits. Still, I am instinctively sure that the destruction of urban American was the first symptom of the decline of the American civilization, as well as one the key reasons for that decline. The passions and the interests of the upper middle class in America would be as unrecognizable today to a visitor from the past as its cities. America's cities have been stripped of their human nature, with tremendous implications.

[strongbad635]

The very term "Urban Renewal" was a big a misnomer as the "Clear Skies Initiative." From its inception, the goal of the Urban Renewal movement was to gut our cities and turn them into sprawl.

It all started in 1933, when FDR was elected President. He ushered in a new way of getting us out of the Great Depression, which was a great thing. But his ideas on urban planning were unbelievably misguided. FDR really latched onto Frank Lloyd Wright's vision of creating a landscape where everyone drove an automobile. This vision was named Broadacre City. It involved all single houses on 1-acre lots and complete segregation of retail, offices, and housing. It looked very tidy on paper, but didn't work in reality.

The other (and far more notorious) of FDR's urban proteges was Robert Moses, the so-called "Father of Sprawl." When Moses came to power in 1934, first as the head of the Parks Commissions of New York/Long Island, and eventually as head of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, New York had the best mass transit system in the developed world. When he fell from power in 1968, it was among the worst. He built more than 600 miles of high-speed expressways in and around NYC, and not a single mile of subway or transit. At the same time, he prohibited buses from using his new highways, because the overpasses were constructed so low that buses couldn't drive under them. The gridlock that now haunts most of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx is largely a product of Moses's vision for what NYC was to become: a large city where everyone still needed to own and depend on an automobile.

The flight from the cities was also not a product of demand or market forces. Two days after D-day, Congress passed the GI Bill. this program offered returning vets easy access to credit for education, family support, and housing, all at 4% rates of interest. Unfortunately, the credit for housing had stipulations. The government mandated it could only be used for newly built, detached single-family homes. So if a vet wanted to buy and renovate an existing home in a pedestrian-friendly or transit-accessible city, he couldn't do it with a 4% VA loan. So these returning vets, whether they wanted to or not, had to relocate to suburbs.

Even as these folks left, a lot of people remained in cities, because their cities were still livable pleasant places to live. Most of these folks didn't need cars, a situation the Highway Lobby found unacceptable. So, from the 1950s through the 1960s, a movement called "Urban Renewal" popped up. Sold to the U.S. public as an initiative to "provide a decent home and suitable housing environment for every American family," it was, in reality, a scheme to condemn and raze prime urban residential areas to convert into high-priced commercial real estate. Urban renewal was billed as a way to eradicate "slums," but they often destroyed viable city neighborhoods all over America. Many neighborhoods were designated slums purely on statistics: population density and the age of the buildings, rather then on whether or not they were problematic places to live.

A perfect example of this happened in SW Washington, DC. This part of DC had a thriving village-like community of black, white, Hispanic, Catholic, Jewish, and European peoples. In the 1950s, the entire portion of the city was condemned and over 20,000 residents were forced to relocated to make way for a failed urban experiment called L'Enfant Plaza. To this day it remains a bland office ghetto, a place that for most of the day is utterly devoid of pedestrians and feels literally in a cultural vacuum.

[someone123]

This is a big topic. One thing to consider that hasn't really been mentioned is that these buildings were not perceived back then as they are today - back in the 1950s and 60s they were just "average" city blocks. They look interesting to us today because they are much rarer.

There are also big differences between cities. A lot of the big US industrial metropolises were in decline in the 50s-80s. Some others were growing so quickly that development happening in the 1970s and 80s was hugely out of scale with anything that happened earlier (the Sunbelt and most currently successful cities in Canada are like this). These buildings sometimes did a lot of damage due to poor design, but the replacement itself is not inherently harmful and is something that has always occurred (there was a ton of "carnage" in American cities in the 1910s and 20s!).

[urbanlife]

a reat example of this is the destruction of old town in Portland, the mayor at the time felt that it was worth tearing down any old building if it meant it would bring more jobs to Portland during their decline. Often times it was seen as a progressive move to protect the life of the city.

Actually, this is a massive topic that I have been reading about for years. All I can say is there are tons of great books out there that you should read if you really want to learn more about this topic because no one has the perfect simple answer you may be looking for. Let me know if you are interested in any of those titles and I will look up what sits in my book collection for you.

[ardecila]

This is a big topic. One thing to consider that hasn't really been mentioned is that these buildings were not perceived back then as they are today - back in the 1950s and 60s they were just "average" city blocks. They look interesting to us today because they are much rarer.

There are also big differences between cities. A lot of the big US industrial metropolises were in decline in the 50s-80s. Some others were growing so quickly that development happening in the 1970s and 80s was hugely out of scale with anything that happened earlier (the Sunbelt and most currently successful cities in Canada are like this). These buildings sometimes did a lot of damage due to poor design, but the replacement itself is not inherently harmful and is something that has always occurred (there was a ton of "carnage" in American cities in the 1910s and 20s!).

This is true, and it seems a little weird to think about. However, even before the age of urban renewal, there was no incentive nor public desire to see old buildings preserved. Once a building exceeded its usefulness, or the land was needed for a different purpose, the building would be torn down and replaced, no questions asked. This has been the case in cities since humans started building them. It's only been in the last 30 years or so that a veneration of historic structures has begun, for several reasons - a rise in the ability of communities to control their own development patterns, a desire to maintain variety in cities, and a profound distrust in any sort of newly-constructed building.

[STLgasm]

The systematic removal of streetcar lines in cities also contributed to the obsolescence of pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods and commercial districts. Their disappearance from city streets in this country is probably the single biggest detriment to the American urban lifestyle.

[strongbad635]

The systematic removal of streetcar lines in cities also contributed to the obsolescence of pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods and commercial districts. Their disappearance from city streets in this country is probably the single biggest detriment to the American urban lifestyle.

And (once again), this WAS NOT a decision determined in most cities by the citizens desire or the marketplace. Streetcars were still very popular into the 20s and 30s, even as people were buying cars in record numbers. They enjoyed having the choice "I can go to town in my car or I can hop on the red car for a nickel." They often commuted on transit during the week and used their cars on weekends. The car, tire, and oil companies found this unacceptable.

So a consortium of these companies formed front companies that bought streetcar lines in a dozen American cities for the expressed purpose of tearing them up. Then people had a choice they still exercised taken away from them. These companies basically mandated on the American public that they knew better than the market, and that transportation choice was not a freedom to be had in America.

For their blatant violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, these companies were fined $5,000 each. the biggest slap on the wirst in the history of this country. Probably didn't help that Eisenhower's secretary of transportation was a former executive at General Motors.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Chicago's River North before urban renewal (unknown photographer/source):
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/2147/old136oc.jpg

[dbrenna5]

Is it possible that razing some of these buildings, even for parking lots, was in our best interest economically? Was the more spread out city more efficient?

[strongbad635]

Is it possible that razing some of these buildings, even for parking lots, was in our best interest economically? Was the more spread out city more efficient?

It isn't. Highways and roads can carry about 1/10th the people per hour that transit can. Lower densities create longer distances, which means longer sewer pipes, longer electrical/phone lines. Lower density means people must travel greater distances to events, with less predictability when it comes to traffic, which means people are less punctual to the event itself.

When a city tears up its transit lines and becomes car-dependent, parking in the downtown area is always an issue. The typical pattern (at least in most medium-sized cities) is as follows:

A city finds itself in need of more parking downtown because a lot of people visit there. So it tears down a few historical buildings and builds surface lots, simultaneously making the downtown both friendlier to cars and more unfriendly to pedestrians. This encourages more suburbanites to visit downtown, and the cycle is repeated. Over and over. Tear down buildings, build parking lots and parking garages. Eventually the city reaches a point where the fabric of the street space is so profoundly unpleasant that no one wants to go downtown anymore. At that point, it becomes very easy for the city to satisfy its parking requirements.

This effect is commonly known as Pensacola Parking Syndrome, after one of its early victims.

[Nowhereman1280]

Yeah, spread out is in no way more efficient. It might make the suburbanites feel good about having a green lawn, but guess what, spreading out even increases such maladies such as depression since people get less human interaction.

[mhays]

Spreading out enables a certain lifestyle, and increases how much stuff is bought. If you define prosperity and quality of life by "volume of stuff" and "more bedrooms than people" then yes spreading out aided prosperity and quality of life.

But plenty of European and Asian countries are very prosperous and have high quality of life. By those standards, you don't have to spread out to be successful.

[Via Chicago]

Chicago's River North before urban renewal (unknown photographer/source):


Damn thats depressing to look at, knowing what its like now

[VivaLFuego]

Damn thats depressing to look at, knowing what its like now

North of Chicago Avenue were the wretched slums known as Little Hell, home of the infamous Death Corner. By all means Cabrini-Green and the various parking lots weren't the best replacement, but it's not like the Chicago depicted in that photo was all smiles and sunshine.

[Attrill]

North of Chicago Avenue were the wretched slums known as Little Hell, home of the infamous Death Corner. By all means Cabrini-Green and the various parking lots weren't the best replacement, but it's not like the Chicago depicted in that photo was all smiles and sunshine.

Even 15 years ago River North was the Red Light District and you would be hassled by prostitutes in certain areas.

I'm actually very hopeful for this area. Before the bust many highrises were built in this area, and once the economy picks up again I think it will take about 10 years for most of the parking lots to be replaced by large buildings. There are far fewer parking lots in the south section of River North than there were 10 years ago.

[urbanlife]

Is it possible that razing some of these buildings, even for parking lots, was in our best interest economically? Was the more spread out city more efficient?

at the time of doing this, they really didnt have much to go off of to evaluate if it would be a good idea or not, they just knew there might be a chance it could lead to something good for the city. Plus often times, like in the case of Chicago it was a way to eliminate a bad part of town. Though I am curious about the reason for razing the buildings in Philly.

Streetcars and train systems are starting to make a comeback because they are finally being done right. They are being run by the cities rather than private companies.

The reason for being such a car oriented city is partly to blame because the car companies were a forceful hand at it, but it didnt help that this country had most of the heavy industry in or near their downtown and many wished to get away from that. Then of course you throw in racial tensions that have always plagued this country and add in some corrupt government, it makes sense why this country looks the way it does.

Of course now many of our moves need to be addressed with this information so that we can make better choices on how to deal with our cities in their current state. Also it would be a good idea to start preserving many of our mid century architecture and figuring out ways to better integrate them into a much more responsible urban fabric.

[PHX31]

I think most of the reasons people have been posting all contributed to the destruction of historical buildings. I still severely morn the tremendous losses, but it really is a whole slew of factors that come into play. One, specifically for Phoenix, that must have been a major reason for historic building demolition was the advent of the air conditioner after WWII. Old buildings are definitely more expensive to maintain, but can be very cost ineffective if you have to retrofit a nice old building with air conditioning. I'm happy some older houses and buildings remain and were retrofitted, and I can kind of understand why some were demolished. But it's still very sad. The unacceptable part is when a developer comes in with shiny renderings, gets a demolition permit, demolishes something, then never builds anything waiting to flip (land speculation/entitlements). Dusty lots and/or parking lots remain. That's really pisses me off.

[BigKidD]

at the time of doing this, they really didnt have much to go off of to evaluate if it would be a good idea or not, they just knew there might be a chance it could lead to something good for the city. Plus often times, like in the case of Chicago it was a way to eliminate a bad part of town. Though I am curious about the reason for razing the buildings in Philly.

Streetcars and train systems are starting to make a comeback because they are finally being done right. They are being run by the cities rather than private companies.

The reason for being such a car oriented city is partly to blame because the car companies were a forceful hand at it, but it didnt help that this country had most of the heavy industry in or near their downtown and many wished to get away from that. Then of course you throw in racial tensions that have always plagued this country and add in some corrupt government, it makes sense why this country looks the way it does.

Of course now many of our moves need to be addressed with this information so that we can make better choices on how to deal with our cities in their current state. Also it would be a good idea to start preserving many of our mid century architecture and figuring out ways to better integrate them into a much more responsible urban fabric.
The good thing today is that at least planning is more geared to urbanity, sustainability, and transit. Portland is a great example of intelligent, modern planning, especially in regard to MAX. Additionally, I think many planners, architects, etc. have learned from the disastrous urban renewal projects of the past, and are now capable of renewal projects that take into account the preservation of older structures.

The razing of the buildings in Philly created a pleasant green space in an once "dirty slum," probably the thought of Ed Bacon who came up with the idea for the Independence Mall:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/243/535565783_9ae5701fcf.jpg
http://flickr.com/photos/stevenowens/535565783/

Also, I'm sure Le Corbusier influenced many people on how to redesign cities for a modern time. http://tesugen.com/pictures/plan-voisin.jpg
http://tesugen.com/archives/04/06/corbus-city-of-tomorrow

[dbrenna5]

It seems like there must be some sort of cost benefit to suburbanization. Isn't part of the reason a store like Walmart is so successful and cheap is that it utilizes a suburban model? The benefits of aggregation that Walmart reaps don't seem like they could work in a dense city. What about housing or office space? Do they benefit in some way from suburbanization?

[zilfondel]

A building constructed in 1890 wasn't really considered all that "historic" back in 1950. It was just a 60 year old building then, and there were exciting new frontiers in architecture and materials technology! Plus, how else were you going to clear the slums (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770778,00.html)??


I would like to point out that there are different flavors of Modernism; some of them are anti-urban, especially the modernist planning efforts started by Corbusier (who had a plan to flatten Paris (http://www.volker-goebel.biz/LaDefenseLeCorbusier.html)). However, they succeeded here (but not in Paris; La Defence thankfully did not replace the Medieval core of Paris).

Pure architectural modernism can make good contributions to an urban environment.

But yes, many people believed that cities were obsolete. The development and deployment of the atomic bomb had a large role in this cultural attitude, as well... as was the ending of World War 2, and the desire of many Americans to get the hell out of the cities.

Post-1950s most american cities were modeled after Futurama (1939-40 New York World's Fair). Zoning and large freeways were prominent features of the future city scheme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74cO9X4NMb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7dT2HId-c&feature=related

man continuously strives to replace the old... with the new.


http://davidszondy.com/future/city/Futurama%2007.jpg
photo courtesy of http://davidszondy.com/index.htm

[zilfondel]

It seems like there must be some sort of cost benefit to suburbanization. Isn't part of the reason a store like Walmart is so successful and cheap is that it utilizes a suburban model? The benefits of aggregation that Walmart reaps don't seem like they could work in a dense city. What about housing or office space? Do they benefit in some way from suburbanization?

Err, sort of. It was a land grab - the United States government drew fancy lines on a map of the United States territory, and gave it away for free to anyone who wanted to stake a claim.

American topography is basically 100% artificial, industrial-scale land clearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System

As one example, large scale dredging boats (and snagboats) were used to clear the interior of the West and Midwest from its swampy lands, draining the marshy wetlands and allowing productive farmland over thousands of square miles... practically overnight.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/RiverWeb/harvesting/archives/images/harvesting3/dredge1_450.jpg
http://www.museum.state.il.us/RiverWeb/harvesting/archives/images/index.html?TopicID=dredge
http://montgomery.sam.usace.army.mil/about.html

[llamaorama]

To be frank a lot of what was in those pictures looks terrible, and that it would cost excessive amounts of money and time to preserve and restore them all.

I think maybe the real mistake was the total alteration of the urban landscape, the creation of superblocks and zoning and all that

If newer stuff was simply allowed to replace the old, maybe townhouses replacing tenements for instance, then I wonder how things would of turned out then?

[Gordo]

It seems like there must be some sort of cost benefit to suburbanization. Isn't part of the reason a store like Walmart is so successful and cheap is that it utilizes a suburban model? The benefits of aggregation that Walmart reaps don't seem like they could work in a dense city. What about housing or office space? Do they benefit in some way from suburbanization?

Carrefour and Metro seem to do just fine in urban cities in other parts of the world. They both have stores that are as big or bigger than your average Walmart and have similar product mixes.

[WilliamTheArtist]

It seems like there must be some sort of cost benefit to suburbanization. Isn't part of the reason a store like Walmart is so successful and cheap is that it utilizes a suburban model? The benefits of aggregation that Walmart reaps don't seem like they could work in a dense city. What about housing or office space? Do they benefit in some way from suburbanization?


One can point to certain things that will do better in one environment or another. I personally think that there is good urban and good suburban, bad urban and bad suburban design. Both environments can be better.

One thing that was sad about Tulsas urban renewal/car oriented evolution, was that it was so total. From the 50s-80s, it was practically a complete and utter destruction of the urban, pedestrian friendly environment. Unlike many larger older cities, our city core wasnt that large to begin with so the "redevelopment" phase was able to eradicate almost any trace of what existed before. The city became almost completely suburban, even downtown. A sprinkling of skyscrapers surrounded by emty lots and surface parking in a downtown is no more different that the same thing in the newer office park areas of the city.

That too points out the other notion that destroyed the urban nature of our city. The classic mixed use, main street became illegal. It became illegal to say have an office or retail on the first floor, then living above...even in buildings downtown. A few years ago we got our "first" mixed use highrise. An old 1920s skyscraper that was redeveloped. Though downtown used to have dozens if not hundreds of examples before it was destroyed. Its still illegal in most areas of our city. Areas of the city were segregated. Downtown was an office park, not a place to live or work. Then there were the neighborhood areas where you live and go to school. Then there are the shopping areas of the city. Industrial areas, etc. The areas were not to be mixed and they all became car oriented. You HAD to have a car (we could also talk about the harm of minimum parking requirements, and property taxes,,, costs more to pay them for a large old building, so you tear it down and pay little on an empty lot until you hope to sell that lot or can make money on it for parking.). It got to the point where there was NO real, urban environment. It all became suburban.

The choice we are fighting for here isnt whether or not to have suburban, we just want some urban, period lol. So frankly I dont give a crap about Wal-Mart lol. You cant even choose between living in an urban or suburban environment if one of the choices doesnt exist.

[flar]

Up to 80% of downtown Hamilton was destroyed for urban renewal from the 50s to 70s. We have several superblocks of modern offices, shopping centres, convention centre, arena, art gallery, theatre, etc. Now you never have to go outside to get from place to place. It was believed to be a great advance at the time. There are also many blocks of parking lots where nothing ever got built. Residential was hit too, our skyline is mostly 20 storey commie blocks that replaced Victorian housing in the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Many losses occurred due to road widening. Here is a picture of York St. which was a commercial street radiating outward from downtown. It was made into a six lane boulevard that was supposed to beautify the entrance to downtown Hamilton. Instead, they just killed hundreds of small business, as they did with all the other large scale expropriations (this is very minor compared to what was lost for Jackson Square). Everything in the photos is gone of course.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/york0002.jpg_http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/york.jpg
Pics are from the book "Prints over Hamilton"

[1ajs]

how about pics of now for thouse that don't know hamllton...

[flar]

how about pics of now for thouse that don't know hamllton...

Just imagine a six lane boulevard with a large median, sometimes as wide as ten lanes at intersections. There's nothing much to see other than empty lawns and a couple crappy strip malls along it.

[1ajs]

Just imagine a six lane boulevard with a large median, sometimes as wide as ten lanes at intersections. There's nothing much to see other than empty lawns and a couple crappy strip malls along it.
yea but still...

[flar]

yea but still...

digging through the archives, this is the best I could find:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/strathcona/00017.jpg

At least the trees are mature now, partially hiding the other side of the road.

[urbanlife]

I can see why they did that in Hamilton, the whole notion of giving the downtown a more grand entrance with a boulevard, something that has always been very Paris inspired...its just a shame though what we have lost because of that across the board thinking.

Though I say that knowing full well life might not of been all that great in these historical photos.

[llamaorama]

I wonder how much would have been different if in some of these run-down districts, if after bulldozing the decrepit housing stock, if more modern but still urban/mixed use development was allowed to be constructed instead of the "towers in the park" stuff

That seems to be what they did in Europe, the cities all got bombed out but they replaced the buildings with ones that were similiarly urban, just more modern.

[James Bond Agent 007]

I have always wondered what it was about the 70s and 80s that made people not give a damn about historic buildings. In every city in the U.S entire blocks of buildings were town down to just be replaced by very exciting parking lots that look a lot better than historic 19th century buildings! Why did this occur? Did people just not care or was it because of suburban sprawl and the depopulation of downtowns? Where I live now, the historic main street area once had 9 blocks of beautiful 19th and early 20th century buildings. Now it only has 5 1/2 blocks of buildings. In the late 70's a developer came in and destroyed two entire city blocks to have one just be a parking lot and the other to be a terribly bland looking drive through bank. Why would someone do this? The blocks they tore down were the most historic and beautiful. Its disgusting quite frankly what they did and it happened in every single city in the nation. Again, I pose the question, why did cities in America during the 70s and 80s just tear down everything and then become bastions for parking lots?
It wasn't the 70's and 80's. In fact it was the early 70's when a rebirth in historic preservation first started (thanks in large part to hippies taking over abandoned buildings and fixing them up ;)). The major era of destruction was really from the 30's through the 60's, when urban renewal was in vogue.

[someone123]

The northern end of the downtown area in Halifax was ground zero for 50s slum clearance and then 60s and 70s urban renewal:

1950s, from the NS archives:
http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/nsis/images/00466.jpg
Source (http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/nsis/exhibit.asp?ID=131&Language=English)

2006, from Craig Mosher on PBase:
http://www.pbase.com/mucker/image/68361095.jpg
Source (http://www.pbase.com/mucker/image/68361095)

Many of those buildings would have been over 100 years old even in the 1950s. Some parts were genuinely slums but others were definitely worth preserving, e.g. the Customs House and the original office building of the Royal Bank, which is now the largest in Canada. The Cunard steamship line was founded in Halifax too and none of those buildings remain.

[flar]

Part of this is that any growing city is going to change over time. It doesn't excuse the huge mistakes that were made, but it's inevitable that many buildings will be demolished while they are still usable. Right now, shopping plazas and malls from the 50s-70s are being demolished in favour of newer formats.

[SuburbanNation]

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s29/warwickland/mill.jpg
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s29/warwickland/mill.jpg

i've posted this one on here a bunch of times.

what we got in return was a freeway stub (I-755 was never completed, you can see where it abruptly ends), and a bunch of autocentric garbage.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/11453737.jpg
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/11453737.jpg

nobody likes victorian walking neighborhoods anyway.

[Chase Unperson]

I have always wondered what it was about the 70s and 80s that made people not give a damn about historic buildings. In every city in the U.S entire blocks of buildings were town down to just be replaced by very exciting parking lots that look a lot better than historic 19th century buildings! Why did this occur? Did people just not care or was it because of suburban sprawl and the depopulation of downtowns? Where I live now, the historic main street area once had 9 blocks of beautiful 19th and early 20th century buildings. Now it only has 5 1/2 blocks of buildings. In the late 70's a developer came in and destroyed two entire city blocks to have one just be a parking lot and the other to be a terribly bland looking drive through bank. Why would someone do this? The blocks they tore down were the most historic and beautiful. Its disgusting quite frankly what they did and it happened in every single city in the nation. Again, I pose the question, why did cities in America during the 70s and 80s just tear down everything and then become bastions for parking lots?

On the upside, the decline of cities since the 50s made room for the era of Modern Urban Bohemia, which officially ended around 2000. The hippies, artists, punks, and gays had a profound and permanent affect that changed everything. I'd rather go back to the 80s than the 50s.

[SuburbanNation]

On the upside, the decline of cities since the 50s made room for the era of Modern Urban Bohemia, which officially ended around 2000. The hippies, artists, punks, and gays had a profound and permanent affect that changed everything. I'd rather go back to the 80s than the 50s.

Absolutely, but if I wake up tomorrow and I've gone through some "winter solstice timewarp" and its 1985 in MY neighborhood, I'm getting the F*** out of here. J/K...kind of.

[urbanlife]

Part of this is that any growing city is going to change over time. It doesn't excuse the huge mistakes that were made, but it's inevitable that many buildings will be demolished while they are still usable. Right now, shopping plazas and malls from the 50s-70s are being demolished in favour of newer formats.

actually that has been a conversation that I have had in an architecture theory class a few times now. It started with the whole idea of renovating and reusing old industrial sites...basically the reclaiming of our waterfronts and what we have done with the industrial buildings along the waterfronts...but those locations are disappearing rapidly and by the time I become a practicing architect, it will be the unused shopping centers that will become the targets for redevelopment.

The question that comes up is what are we going to do with those buildings? how will they be reused or even preserved to remember a different era in time? or do we do what we have always done and just whip it clean and start over? It is a difficult question to answer, but I hope that in time I will get to tackle that question and hopefully do something repectable with the outcome.

[LMich]

A great of central Lansing was brought down for massive (in comparison) office blocks and parking:

1937

http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/image/getimage-idx?viewid=43359;cc=vmc;entryid=x-43359;quality=1;view=image
WSU Virtual Motor City Collection (http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=vmc_all;op2=And;rgn2=vmc_all;med=1;c=vmc;back=back1229854633;q1=Lansing;chaperone=S-VMC-X-43359%2043359;evl=full-image;chaperone=S-VMC-X-43359%2043359;quality=1;view=entry;subview=detail;cc=vmc;entryid=x-43359;viewid=43359;start=1;resnum=72)

2006

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/234714470_17ca647a4e_o.jpg
clayton busbey (http://www.flickr.com/photos/claytonbusbey/234714470/sizes/o/)

Particularly along the western end of downtown (top of photos), you can see a massive amount of housing was bulldozed.

Washington Avenue in downtown Lansing, though, has quite a few blocks nearly fully intact. Though, in this comparison photo, you will see that this is not one of them. These two were taken from the roof of the same historic building.

1910's

http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/image/getimage-idx?viewid=64230;cc=vmc;entryid=x-64230;quality=1;view=image
WSU Virtual Motor City Collection (http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=vmc_all;op2=And;rgn2=vmc_all;med=1;c=vmc;back=back1229854633;q1=Lansing;chaperone=S-VMC-X-64230%2064230;evl=full-image;chaperone=S-VMC-X-64230%2064230;quality=1;view=entry;subview=detail;cc=vmc;entryid=x-64230;viewid=64230;start=1;resnum=78)

2007

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/437284836_80245cf7a8_b.jpg
Macdane (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macdane/437284836/sizes/l/in/set-72157594182421808/)

[bnk]

That Halifax Citadel Hill star fort [trace italienne] is awesome.

http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/ns/halifax/index_e.asp

[1ajs]

digging through the archives, this is the best I could find:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/strathcona/00017.jpg

At least the trees are mature now, partially hiding the other side of the road.
that looks quite nice actualy but i relize there emptiness being hidden away? i see lots of potential to correct mistakes of the past and make somthing speacial :cool:

[CentralGrad258]

To a certain extent. Also, many people did not see any value in the older structures since you can replace them with a modern creation or a park, parking garage, etc. For example, Independence Mall in Philadelphia was created by the razing of exquisite 19th century architecture--perhaps outmoded for the 1950s, but they would be quite an attraction today if they still existed.
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=3a8466011e8effa8_large
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=3a8466011e8effa8&q=independence+hall+source:life&usg=__P8ZewNEqLEdIwz4kkG5qOdRia4g=&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dindependence%2Bhall%2Bsource:life%26hl%3Den
Ugh, that picture really hits a nerve with me. I work on a block adjacent to Independence Hall and it's really frustrating to think what the area would've been like had the buildings been left standing. Just as a frame of reference, Old City, the colonial neighborhood directly to the east of Independence Mall is a happening area with restaurants, galleries and various funky shops. And the housing stock in that photo looks more impressive than Old City.

While green space is nice, there is absolutely no need for additional green space in that area. Washington Square is an original city square just a block away. You have 4 square blocks of greenspace going east, parallel to Chestnut Street (the street in the picture). Independence Mall is simply not used by Philadelphians. It's a pure tourist trap, and the only real use is that it give clear site-lines of Independence Hall and National Constitution Center....a complete eyesore that barely registers with locals (though it was the site of Obama's race speech). I understand the city is trying to rev up its tourist trade, but a funky neighborhood with impressively historic housing stock would probably make a more impressive attraction to tourist than a lame rip-off of National Mall in DC. Like I said, that picture hits a raw nerve.

[photoLith]

^^^
Thats just terrible. A lot of those buildings look like they are from the late 18th century to early 19th. The lack of foresight by greedy developers truly destroyed many of our great cities. At least NYC still looks like that in a lot of areas. Take Greenwich Village for example. It looks almost exactly like that photo still to this day and its preserved.

[flar]

What year exactly was that Philly photo taken?

Here is a photo showing the area in Hamilton cleared out for Jackson Square. Everything on the left side of the photo (left of James Street, which runs from upper left to lower right) is completely gone. The Romanesque building with the tower was City Hall and the taller building near the bottom right was the Bank of Hamilton headquarters.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f43/sexexeter/HAMOLDHS.jpg
photo from Westlake945 at SSC: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f43/sexexeter/HAMOLDHS.jpg

[jmecklenborg]

Cincinnati's West End, shown here in the 1930's, was completely demolished in the 1960's. Approximately 50,000 people lived in this area, all of whom were displaced. The West End was a vestige of the mid-1800's, when Cincinnati was the most densely populated city on earth with the exception of New York:
http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/zdalton3.jpg

Current satellite image of the same area:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j231/jmecklenborg/westend.jpg

Luckily due to the shear volume of old buildings (6th biggest in the mid-1800's) there are still tens of thousands of row buildings in Cincinnati:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j231/jmecklenborg/findlaymarket.jpg

Current view -- there are still large areas of Cincinnati with corner stores and untouched by the expressways and auto redevelopment:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j231/jmecklenborg/CincinnatiAerials44.jpg

[CentralGrad258]

What year exactly was that Philly photo taken?


It had to be taken before 1950, when Independence Mall came to fruition. It was the idea of Ed Bacon(father of Kevin), our very own version of Robert Moses. Though to be fair, Philly did do Urban Renewal right with Society Hill. Okay, moving out the working class black residents of the neighborhood wasn't exactly "right", but at least they didn't bulldose the colonial era rowhouses.

[photoLith]

Are those areas protected in Cincinnati like they are in NYC?

[jmecklenborg]

>Are those areas protected in Cincinnati like they are in NYC?

No. There is a lot on the National Historic Register but that doesn't mean anything. Thousands are vacant and upwards of 100 are demo'd every year. I've literally gone to a meeting in the morning and come back in the afternoon and a building is gone. I woke up to the sound of a neighbor's house coming down last Friday.

In the 70's and 80's various liberal groups fought to have historic areas designated as homeless and minority ghettos and the historic areas suffered terrible decline. Now it's the NAACP and other black organizations fighting investment -- just last week the NAACP announced its opposition to current rail transit plans (modern streetcar similar to Portland's), complaining that money is being diverted from speed bumps and the fight against bed bugs. Literally. You can't make this stuff up:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j231/jmecklenborg/3.jpg

[urbanlife]

I can inderstand the demo of buildings now in Cincinnati if they are going beyond the point of no return...I dont like it but I do understand it. The issue nowadays is many of these cities will never be the size they once were, so what do you do with the leftover housing stock? Though it is a great time to plan in green open space and well planned parks and figuring out how these new viods can work with the urban fabric rather than against it.


What I cant figure out is how anyone could of ever made the choice that it would be best for the city to displace over 50,000 of its own citizens. I think that alone is a recipe for disaster and probably one of the key elements with the current downturn in the city's population.

Now history facts like that are what really bother me about our recent ansestry.

[IconRPCV]

the important thing is that (i hope) we realized just how much we destroyed and try to preserve what we have left.

Well it has lead to a great spirit of preservation here in SD. the joke is anything older than 2 years cant be touched. :haha:

I pose a question along those lines. As the 90's and current big box developments get older and rarer do you think that anyone will want to preserve them?

[brickell]

I'm afraid that the suggestion here is that all urban renewal is bad. That density should be retained for densities sake and not for living's sake.

What are the thoughts on the Ben Franklin Parkway or Millennium Park? We can make our cities better.

[urbanlife]

I'm afraid that the suggestion here is that all urban renewal is bad. That density should be retained for densities sake and not for living's sake.

What are the thoughts on the Ben Franklin Parkway or Millennium Park? We can make our cities better.

I think urban renewal is bad, I think urban revitalization is good. Revitalization is about tearing down what is needed for the urban fabric of the neighborhood and renovating as much as possible.


IconRPCV, I hope to be one of those architects someday...I actually think it would be important for us to reuse as much as possible of these dead big box stores. Leaving hints and markings of the footprints of the buildings. Keeping as much of the material waste on site to be reused in other fashions. I am actually hoping to stay in the program I am in now when I go on for my Masters degree cause there is rumor that we will have a studio that would be about this.

[mhays]

Well it has lead to a great spirit of preservation here in SD. the joke is anything older than 2 years cant be touched. :haha:

I pose a question along those lines. As the 90's and current big box developments get older and rarer do you think that anyone will want to preserve them?

We're seeing that in Seattle already. Or close. There's a fringe element that wants to preserve "midcentury modern," specifically including certain examples of roadside crap and some very ho-hum buildings.

I don't think this fringe will get many friends except for architectural theorists who want to "museum" building types. But they get support among nimbys, who use preservation as a straw man for stopping projects.

[VivaLFuego]

We're seeing that in Seattle already. Or close. There's a fringe element that wants to preserve "midcentury modern," specifically including certain examples of roadside crap and some very ho-hum buildings.

I don't think this fringe will get many friends except for architectural theorists who want to "museum" building types. But they get support among nimbys, who use preservation as a straw man for stopping projects.

This sounds like here (Chicago), except there are in fact many mid-century modern gems. The danger is, as you say, when it becomes a dishonest NIMBY rallying cry, as has happened with unremarkable structures standing in the way of high-quality redevelopment while other excellent modern designs are torn down because "no one likes that bland mid-century stuff anyway, plus it's already all over the place."

In 1950, the old Victorian stuff razed for urban renewal was around 50-60 years old, and a dime a dozen - sort of like mid-century is now. Now, original/restored Victorian-era stuff is cherished - even the unimaginative or otherwise poor examples thereof. Just saying.

[SuburbanNation]

its definitely more than a fringe element here to preserve mid century modern - in fact i love the stuff. typically the more urban, the better. and if theres not asbestos hanging out of the central heating duct, score. this stuff is/was under serious assault here before the local push back and the economy.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s29/warwickland/324482lindellb.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x4QbaOSjS5E/SBxt9HTsUSI/AAAAAAAAAzI/WrusZXHRCIY/s1600/32%2B4482%2Blindell%2Bb.jpg

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s29/warwickland/334482lindellc.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x4QbaOSjS5E/SBxtPXTsUJI/AAAAAAAAAyA/P-Tc9Gob9NE/s1600/33%2B4482%2Blindell%2Bc.jpg

Both pictures from/by Toby Weiss of the fantastic St. Louis urbanist blog B.E.L.T. (the Built Environment in Laymans Terms).

[seaJ]

We're seeing that in Seattle already. Or close. There's a fringe element that wants to preserve "midcentury modern," specifically including certain examples of roadside crap and some very ho-hum buildings.

I don't think this fringe will get many friends except for architectural theorists who want to "museum" building types. But they get support among nimbys, who use preservation as a straw man for stopping projects.

I'm a huge fan of mid century modern buildings. I think you were referring to buildings from the eighties though and i agree, if that's the case. I was one of the people who wanted to preserve the Denny's in Ballard since I think it would've been cool to see a great bar or restaurant occupy that space. I also am glad to see the preservation of the Bank of America on Denny and fifth. I know some are tired and old and really do need to make way for something more energy efficient etc.. but I do hope certain elements of world's fair era Seattle remain intact. I'm from the Las Vegas area originally and witnessed the almost complete destruction of LV's mid century architecture, truly sad but understandable since it is Vegas and all.

[mhays]

I was specifically thinking of the Ballard Denny's. A vaguely interesting building that stood in the way of the densification of a neighborhood business district. It had surface parking.

Here's a picture. For non-locals, it went through a year or so of reversed decisions, and was demolished. Meanwhile the economy tanked. But I'd guess it'll break ground as an apartment in the next year or two -- apartments are still breaking ground in Seattle. http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/articles/2007/06/18/news/local_news/news01.txt

The bank at Denny & Fifth is ok too, actually better than the Denny's. But it's now going to be one-story retail with surface parking. It could have been a six-story apartment, like the rest of the block (Phase II of Taylor 21, which is 2/3 the way through construction).

In both cases, preservation means saving a marginal building but skipping a chance at increased density, and keeping surface parking. In other words I'm disgusted about the one.

Preservation is a very different discussion when the issue is stopping something new with higher density. In these cases, preservation was counterproductive.

[flar]

People often get attached to buildings like that Denny's. Some of the mid-century modern buildings have interesting designs. A lot of them are in rough shape. Some have not aged well, not unlike the Victorian buildings that were considered rotten by mid 20th century.

As for densification, I think it's not always good. But it is subjective.

Buildings like these were torn down for mid century apartment buildings. This building narrowly escaped demolition in the 70s. I'd rather have it than the highrise apartment that was to replace it.
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/durand_north/th_00124.jpg (http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/durand_north/00124.jpg)


Two units in this old Second Empire terrace remain, the rest unceremoniously chopped off for a bland brown brick square apartment. The house sits too far back from the street and the big lot tempted developers.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/durand_north/th_00254.jpg (http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/durand_north/00254.jpg)

[mhays]

Those are both excellent buildings, not the case with even the "nice" bank building, and infinitely better than the POS Denny's. Further, they're already higher densities than the buildings I'm talking about demolishing.

With the Denny's, we're talking about an FAR of 0.3 or something, vs. a six-story replacement with an FAR that might have been around 4. In other words, around 12 times the density. The bank site would have been nearly as different in density terms, again with a six-story building.

I googled the bank site, and came up with....my post. Probably because I posted "Taylor 21" instead of Taylor 28. Anyway, here's a little about the bank site: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-08-20/news/walgreens-plans-to-save-denny-s-landmark-seafirst-building/

[Metro-One]

http://davidszondy.com/future/city/Futurama%2007.jpg
:previous: Looks like Dubai!!!



http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/nsis/images/00466.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/mucker/image/68361095.jpg
:previous: Hate to say it but i think Halifax looks much better today than in the past.

[urbanlife]

metro one, to comment on your two statements

that is dubai...seriously, the Corbusier model for Paris is exactly what Dubai is....we covered that one in one of my urban theory classes.

And I half agree with you about the Halifax comment, The city shows signs of progress and growth which is good. While I love the look of all those warehouse piers, the current state of the waterfront there looks much more pedestrian friendly, though it would be nice if some of those piers survived and were converted to new uses (which might of actually happened, I dont know much about this city). Where I disagree (and you might agree with this) is the damage the highway has done to the old downtown. That highway cleared out much of the right side of the picture and took out so much density in the city to make commuting to low density areas easier. But then again, I have always had an issue with that one.

(scratch that about Halifax, it looks like alot of their waterfront is still being used for industrial, it is good that they reclaimed much of it downtown for people. Also it looks like the highway isnt a highway, but just a bad idea for an interchange that could of been handled much better than that, but it is 1000 times better than what most American cities did by running highways through their old towns).

mhays, I have a question for you, can Seattle developers transfer their FAR from a site to another site to help protect a current structure? That is a technique that is often applied here in Portland...though you guys have much higher height limits and much easier height bonuses here...so that might not even be an issue, but it does always seem to be a nice treat for a developer to get them to preserve.

[mhays]

I don't understand our zoning very well, or what we've done. I'm not aware of an FAR transfer to another site, but if the historic building is on the same property it will allow the rest of the site to calculate FAR based on the entire acreage. For example the proposed Fifth & Columbia office tower is on about 15,000 sf, and its FAR is about 40 unless you include the old church being incorporated into it.

[Jaroslaw]

"Worse things happened in the 20th century, but few were more puzzling than the way Americans let their landscape be ravaged by architects and planners, particularly in the years between World War II and the 1980s. Here a neighborhood of elegant storefronts would be demolished "for parking." There a row of century-old trees would be uprooted so that cars could whiz by at 60 rather than 45 miles an hour."

-from a recent article by Christopher Caldwell. He doesn't analyze the reasons, though.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15934&R=13D4A8616

[VivaLFuego]

^ Interesting article, thanks. I've always been partial to Modernist and Brutalist architecture (though definitely not Modernist planning), if only from an aesthetic and functional standpoint in the temporal context of the post-war years... i.e. creatively using new materials and techniques to create literally modern living and working spaces. The philosophical linkage between such architecture/planning and the elevation of "The State" or government on a higher plane is interesting; certainly plausible in the case of projects like Boston's City Hall. Clearly, one can't fully divorce some of the philosophical underpinnings of the entire Modernist movement from the architecture and planning - however, I fear that the current reaction to Modernism is to basically throw the baby out with the bathwater: rather than value the many positive aspects and learn from things that didn't work, the reaction seems to be to completely exorcise this blight from our history. This is to our detriment, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons.

Then again, I've spent much of my life living in late-1950s and early-1960s urban renewal developments, so maybe I'm biased.

[jtown,man]

Omg, Philly and cincinnatti make me sick.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

The flight from the cities was also not a product of demand or market forces. Two days after D-day, Congress passed the GI Bill. this program offered returning vets easy access to credit for education, family support, and housing, all at 4% rates of interest. Unfortunately, the credit for housing had stipulations. The government mandated it could only be used for newly built, detached single-family homes. So if a vet wanted to buy and renovate an existing home in a pedestrian-friendly or transit-accessible city, he couldn't do it with a 4% VA loan. So these returning vets, whether they wanted to or not, had to relocate to suburbs.

Even as these folks left, a lot of people remained in cities, because their cities were still livable pleasant places to live. Most of these folks didn't need cars, a situation the Highway Lobby found unacceptable. So, from the 1950s through the 1960s, a movement called "Urban Renewal" popped up. Sold to the U.S. public as an initiative to "provide a decent home and suitable housing environment for every American family," it was, in reality, a scheme to condemn and raze prime urban residential areas to convert into high-priced commercial real estate. Urban renewal was billed as a way to eradicate "slums," but they often destroyed viable city neighborhoods all over America. Many neighborhoods were designated slums purely on statistics: population density and the age of the buildings, rather then on whether or not they were problematic places to live.

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:

If anyone takes anything away from this thread, it should be the information provided in the above passage. In addition, suburban sprawl was part of a national defense strategy meant to decentralize the population and ease the transport of the war machine in case of attack by atomic bomb, which was a very real threat during the Cold War, especially its early years. (The act was commonly referred to as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act.) It should also be noted that ethnic minorities were often denied access to suburban developments through vicious but insidiously racist policies (redlining, mortgage discrimination, etc.).

The rest is history. :(

[someone123]

(scratch that about Halifax, it looks like alot of their waterfront is still being used for industrial, it is good that they reclaimed much of it downtown for people. Also it looks like the highway isnt a highway, but just a bad idea for an interchange that could of been handled much better than that, but it is 1000 times better than what most American cities did by running highways through their old towns).

The interchange was originally to be part of an elaborate expressway system that would have looped around the waterfront and connected with some other bridges. Once the interchange went up there were protests and legal battles and the plan was shelved. It is good that the highway was not built but the interchange itself is totally useless (and yet we still have the odd councillor arguing that it is needed for its increased capacity, which just connects a bunch of lower capacity surface streets together!).

As for the waterfront, there is a public boardwalk that goes on for maybe 4 km in the downtown area. The rest is mainly industrial, and even the public portion still has moorings for tugboats, etc. Halifax is still a major port and naval base, has a shipyard (mostly kept alive by the offshore oil and gas industry), plus there are two (soon to be three) passenger ferry lines. The harbour is one of the busiest in North America and actually preserving its industrial character is one of the planning goals of the city.

[urbanlife]

The interchange was originally to be part of an elaborate expressway system that would have looped around the waterfront and connected with some other bridges. Once the interchange went up there were protests and legal battles and the plan was shelved. It is good that the highway was not built but the interchange itself is totally useless (and yet we still have the odd councillor arguing that it is needed for its increased capacity, which just connects a bunch of lower capacity surface streets together!).

As for the waterfront, there is a public boardwalk that goes on for maybe 4 km in the downtown area. The rest is mainly industrial, and even the public portion still has moorings for tugboats, etc. Halifax is still a major port and naval base, has a shipyard (mostly kept alive by the offshore oil and gas industry), plus there are two (soon to be three) passenger ferry lines. The harbour is one of the busiest in North America and actually preserving its industrial character is one of the planning goals of the city.

I know :) I have been working the graveyard shift at work and it has been dead slow, so I have been doing alot of reading...I actually think I am now very vested in the history of Halifax, which I am really impressed with.

Thanks for confirming my feeling about the interchange, it looks kind of useless in the maps because it doesnt do anything for traffic. It would be good it there ever went back to reclaimable land, that would be a huge benefit for the city...well actually it isnt an incorporated city, which is odd, seeing that it once was, but I guess that was Nova Scotia's way of combining all the towns in that area into one jurisdiction. I could be wrong about that, but that is the way it looks.



Way to hit the nail on the head Strongbad, I forgot about the details to that bill, it has been a while since I have had a history class that covered that. I have a couple books that go into great detail on the suburbanization of this country.

[srr]

Before:
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=3a8466011e8effa8_large

After:
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3552/parkwo0.jpg

In Jane Jacob's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", Jacobs specifically cites this park as a failure. It's useless to people who live and work in the area, and never sees any visitors except the occasional school group. It's like a gaping wound in the most historic area of the city. And the worst part is the tragedy of seeing some really nice, historic building get destroyed.

[someone123]

It would be good it there ever went back to reclaimable land, that would be a huge benefit for the city...well actually it isnt an incorporated city, which is odd, seeing that it once was, but I guess that was Nova Scotia's way of combining all the towns in that area into one jurisdiction.

Well, it's called the Halifax Regional Municipality and the municipal government has the same powers the old cities did, roughly. Everything in the HRM is either the original core part of the city or suburban, with the exception of the eastern 50% or so of the municipality, where practically nobody lives (odd that it was included). Areas to the north and west of the municipality are much more populated and that probably explains why they were not included - they are viable as separate counties. To some degree they also include suburban areas or what could arguably be viewed as satellite towns.

Something else to be aware of is that a lot of rural looking areas are actually new, large lot subdivisions. The biggest, closest examples of these are Hammonds Plains and Fall River.

[lawsond]

The premise of this thread is utterly bogus.
The modern preservation movement started in the early '60s with Jane Jacobs during/after the old Penn Station was torn down.
The movement really found its stride in the 1970s and deserves great credit as a time when people really began to realize that they .
Hundreds or thousands of historic buildings were preserved in almost every city in North America from Winnipeg to Halifax to New York to San Fransisco.
The destruction happened in from the 1920s and the New York parkway system to the late 1960s when car culture ruled.
Pick up a book and read it before you start a thread out of nowhere.

[flar]

The premise of this thread is utterly bogus.
The modern preservation movement started in the early '60s with Jane Jacobs during/after the old Penn Station was torn down.
The movement really found its stride in the 1970s and deserves great credit as a time when people really began to realize that they .
Hundreds or thousands of historic buildings were preserved in almost every city in North America from Winnipeg to Halifax to New York to San Fransisco.
The destruction happened in from the 1920s and the New York parkway system to the late 1960s when car culture ruled.
Pick up a book and read it before you start a thread out of nowhere.

This was mentioned earlier in the thread. The most damage did occur prior to the 60s, but on the other hand, despite the efforts of preservation groups, large scale destruction of neighourhoods and historic buildings continues to this day. The most damaging urban renewal project in my own city happened between 1972 and 1986. There is a thread in city photos right now about a Detroit neighbourhood destroyed for a factory:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162653

[lawsond]

The most damage did occur prior to the 60s, but on the other hand, despite the efforts of preservation groups, large scale destruction of neighourhoods and historic buildings continues to this day.

fine. then make that the premise: the continuing destruction of north american cities.
the aerial view of halifax is a perfect example of the preservation movement of the 1970s taking action.
the middle right of the picture shows the massive scotia sqaure project along with the cogswell interchange; all planned in the early 60s as part of the urban renewal movement.
at the bottom of the photo, you can see what happened when preservationists rallied in the early '70s.
the historic properties was the result and the walkable swath of downtown to the left as well.
the expressway that was meant to ram through the downtown area was never built.
that's the legacy of the '70s and '80s at least in forward looking cities.
that is all i am trying to point out. it's history and it deserves to be reported accurately.

[SuburbanNation]

Before:
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=3a8466011e8effa8_large

After:
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3552/parkwo0.jpg

In Jane Jacob's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", Jacobs specifically cites this park as a failure. It's useless to people who live and work in the area, and never sees any visitors except the occasional school group. It's like a gaping wound in the most historic area of the city. And the worst part is the tragedy of seeing some really nice, historic building get destroyed.

that reminds me of our memorial plaza-designed as a 17 block long X 1 block wide park to tie into the archgrounds-but in reality is an urban planning disaster. we lost a number of early skyscrapers and mondo amounts of basic urban fabric.

http://www.builtstlouis.net/opos/images/realestaterow.jpg
http://www.builtstlouis.net/opos/images/realestaterow.jpg

those two buildings in the forground, what was in front of them, and everything behind them for a MILE (sadly its more than 2 miles if you include the park in front of those buildings to the river and the clean slate urban renewal and freeway spur behind it).

[Garbageman]

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3552/parkwo0.jpg


Although it is really a pity that all those buildings were destroyed, it looks like they were mimicking the design of the National Mall in DC which is extremely successful.

I know that Philly is undergoing a toursim boom and this area has alot to do with it. I also remember this area being feartured many times during the election and was the site of Obama's speech on race.

Once again, I do not agree with this planning but at the same time, it seems to be serving a vital function to the city and nation in it's current form.

Maybe a Philly forumer can fill in the blanks or correct my assumptions.

[LMich]

The Washington Mall is extremely successful?

[combusean]

The premise of this thread is utterly bogus.
The modern preservation movement started in the early '60s with Jane Jacobs during/after the old Penn Station was torn down.
The movement really found its stride in the 1970s and deserves great credit as a time when people really began to realize that they .
Hundreds or thousands of historic buildings were preserved in almost every city in North America from Winnipeg to Halifax to New York to San Fransisco.
The destruction happened in from the 1920s and the New York parkway system to the late 1960s when car culture ruled.
Pick up a book and read it before you start a thread out of nowhere.

You can't say America was doing this up until the 1960s and doing something different from the 1970s on. The poster is derailing is urban renewal, which every city went through at wildly different times. Historic preservation happened in spite of it, for what its worth.

Urban renewal *started* here in 1971. We didn't get official historic preservation legislation at the local level until 1992. It wasn't until 1994 that our 25 year cycle of urban renewal really showed signs of waning. It still continues here and there in lesser doses, ironically the preservation community is so militant pre-emptive demolitions are an obnoxious law of unintended consequences here.

Tucson is even further behind than us.

[Thundertubs]

The sad/ironic thing is, if there were some sort of "city heaven" where all the demolished buildings from this era went and got rearranged on a grid, it would be one of the most beautiful and urban cities on earth. Imagine the Singer Building, old Penn Station, victorian rowhouses, solid Bronx tenements, Chicago Greystones, warehouses, factories, Hudson's department store, The Polo Grounds, Minneapolis's Gateway District, LA's old Bunker Hill, etc... That would be a hell of a city.

[Jasonhouse]

I pose the question, why did cities in America during the 70s and 80s just tear down everything and then become bastions for parking lots?

Come to Tampa, they're still knocking down historic stuff. It seems like at least one former landmark gets knocked down every couple of years... People here just don't care, unless it's some hellhole house in a gentrified 'white' neighborhood full of yuppy NIMBYs.

[photoLith]

The premise of this thread is utterly bogus.
The modern preservation movement started in the early '60s with Jane Jacobs during/after the old Penn Station was torn down.
The movement really found its stride in the 1970s and deserves great credit as a time when people really began to realize that they .
Hundreds or thousands of historic buildings were preserved in almost every city in North America from Winnipeg to Halifax to New York to San Fransisco.
The destruction happened in from the 1920s and the New York parkway system to the late 1960s when car culture ruled.
Pick up a book and read it before you start a thread out of nowhere.

In the town where I go to college like I stated at the start of this thread had large swaths of our beautiful main street utterly destroyed. 3 full blocks out of 8 got turned into parking lots and a crappy bank in the late 7os. Historic preservation wasnt taken into account until recently; 2006 as a matter of fact. So much has been lost.

[krudmonk]

The sad/ironic thing is, if there were some sort of "city heaven" where all the demolished buildings from this era went and got rearranged on a grid, it would be one of the most beautiful and urban cities on earth. Imagine the Singer Building, old Penn Station, victorian rowhouses, solid Bronx tenements, Chicago Greystones, warehouses, factories, Hudson's department store, The Polo Grounds, Minneapolis's Gateway District, LA's old Bunker Hill, etc... That would be a hell of a city.
Yes, but how is the transit?

[Thundertubs]

Yes, but how is the transit?

Streetcars by the dozen, and a few odd branches of Chicago's L.

[srr]

Although it is really a pity that all those buildings were destroyed, it looks like they were mimicking the design of the National Mall in DC which is extremely successful.

I know that Philly is undergoing a toursim boom and this area has alot to do with it. I also remember this area being feartured many times during the election and was the site of Obama's speech on race.

Once again, I do not agree with this planning but at the same time, it seems to be serving a vital function to the city and nation in it's current form.

Maybe a Philly forumer can fill in the blanks or correct my assumptions.

You're totally right - the area is used for rallies and protests and stuff. However, I take issue with the fact that when it's not in use, it's very empty. It's a big sacrifice to make - destroying all those buildings. In the past the city used Fairmount Park as a rally/protest/fair/exposition area. (Centennial Exposition, 1876) That was fine - I don't see why we needed to create this mall thing, but it does help with the tourism, I suppose.

[photoLith]

a reat example of this is the destruction of old town in Portland, the mayor at the time felt that it was worth tearing down any old building if it meant it would bring more jobs to Portland during their decline. Often times it was seen as a progressive move to protect the life of the city.

Actually, this is a massive topic that I have been reading about for years. All I can say is there are tons of great books out there that you should read if you really want to learn more about this topic because no one has the perfect simple answer you may be looking for. Let me know if you are interested in any of those titles and I will look up what sits in my book collection for you.

I know this thread is really old but I was just wondering if you still had those books, Id love to read them now that I have a little more time on my hands.

[Rizzo]

Before:
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=3a8466011e8effa8_large

After:
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3552/parkwo0.jpg

In Jane Jacob's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", Jacobs specifically cites this park as a failure. It's useless to people who live and work in the area, and never sees any visitors except the occasional school group. It's like a gaping wound in the most historic area of the city. And the worst part is the tragedy of seeing some really nice, historic building get destroyed.

I'm very sorry to Philly folks. I love your city, but I have to say that park is one of the worst parks I've ever set foot in. The southern part is gorgeous. But that long mall to the North felt like a place I wanted to pass through as quickly as possible. The large buildings on either side just didn't feel right. If they were narrow, tall, and ornate it might create a "central park condition" supplemented by a dense perimeter of trees on the park edge.

But indeed it is a failure, and it will take a lot of convincing from someone to tell me otherwise.