Midwest Cities Eviscerated By Expressways & "Urban Renewal": 1950 vs. Today sliders

[memph]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Imagine how great Detroit would of been if it retained its 1950's population and continued to grow.

Surely would of been the 4th most populated. Chicago I believe had something like 3.5 mil by 1950; probably would of been at 5 million by now assuming it continued to grow.

Detroit was mostly growing horizontally for most of it's history. Had city limits stayed the same, it would probably have 1.3 million due to household size changes, and then you can add about 100,000 from infill (assuming infill continued at the same pace as pre-WWII) for a total of 1.4 million.

BTW the number of housing units in Detroit peaked in 1960 since there were still a few green fields at the outskirts, but household size decreases negated that so the population still decreased in the 50s.

[Obadno]

I think it is important to note that although we can see the problems of urban renewal today the people of that time really thought they were going to make the cities better.

With hindsight it’s easy to say that these areas should not have been cleared but for social, and economic reasons they were and it was largely supported (besides the people being removed of course). And they did not have 60 years to see how these grand designs would play out. If they could see the damage wrought because of the urban renewal and expressway developments they wouldn’t have supported it.

Keep in mind at the time these neighborhoods were seen as dirty, crowded, crime ridden and outdated. People were also white-flighting compounding the issues.

And be happy that we are living in a huge rebirth of density and urban growth all across the country. With cars, lots of land, and American culture suburbs are never going away, but in the last 10 years (20 for places like NYC and Chicago) the downtowns are going through major improvements and first ring suburbs are dense-ifying at a rapid pace.

[strongbad635]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Baltimore of course had freeway construction and demolition of historic stock, but like most of the NE cities it didn't suffer the kind of wholesale, careless destruction that I'm seeing here. It's almost like they set out to vandalize as much as possible. The freeways just barreled through without much regard for the existing grid, with greedy interchanges gobbling up way more blocks than needed, right at the cores. Really sad and a bit infuriating...

Correct. There was a plan to route I-70 right through the Inner Harbor, basically cutting downtown Baltimore off from the water completely, all the way out to I-95. Freeway revolts in the 70s halted this from ever happening, as well as the routing of I-83 all the way down to I-70 and I-95. Baltimore is actually one of the cities that fared best in avoiding violent highway rape.

Someone mentioned Boston as having escaped this fate. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Artery

Boston's history has been interesting. A war between old money Brahmins and working-class Irish over the urban form. In an ironic inversion of the normal order of things, it's the wealthier Bostonites who fought AGAINST highway rape and a more dignified urban form, and they won a lot of victories on the northern and western sides of town. The working-class, mostly Irish and Italian citizens of South Boston (referred to as 'southie') were more in favor of a car-oriented arrangement and facilitated much of the highway rape. To this day southie resists a lot of infill that would repair some of this damage, and don't even talk to most of these folks about the Big Dig. It just enrages them.

[Tom Servo]

Damn. Cincinnati. Wow.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This thread is the most painful on SSP of the past year. I really feel like weeping when I see what was and what is, and when I think about what could have been.

stop being a baby!

[Centropolis]

Cincinnati preceeded St. Louis in it's boom by a decade or more and accumulated all of this absurdly solid Italianate architecture with it's early midwestern wealth. The vernacular and quality of masonry construction of Cincinnati is second to none, and makes most of the rest of the midwest look sloppy in comparison.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Baltimore of course had freeway construction and demolition of historic stock, but like most of the NE cities it didn't suffer the kind of wholesale, careless destruction that I'm seeing here. It's almost like they set out to vandalize as much as possible. The freeways just barreled through without much regard for the existing grid, with greedy interchanges gobbling up way more blocks than needed, right at the cores. Really sad and a bit infuriating...

I'm sure this is similar across much of the urban midwest, but the political case to construct Detroit's freeways was made by selling it as "slum clearing." The construction of freeways into downtown Detroit destroyed both the city's traditional Chinatown and its most prominent black neighborhood (Black Bottom/Paradise Valley), both of which were viewed by the majority as being slums. Detroit lost a ton of architecture in just those two areas alone that would probably be historical landmarks if it had survived demolition for freeways.

Similar arguments were being used to sell freeways around the country, but for whatever reason they were just more successful in the urban midwest. Most of us are probably familiar with Jane Jacobs' legacy of saving Manhattan's West Village from death by preventing construction of the Lower Manhattan Expressway.

[soleri]

I obsess about this subject probably more than any other. This nation used to have wonderful cities, and not just big ones like Philly and Cincinnati. Small cities like Joplin, Muskogee, Little Rock, Knoxville, and Dayton were marvels in their own way. What happened was more than just reckless urban renewal. It was the wanton and brazen destruction of our priceless heritage for really no better reason than being able to drive everywhere. I was in Germany a few years ago walking through rebuilt cities like Nuremberg, which sparkles beautifully. I muttered to myself, who won that fucking war? It's not merely that we destroyed our cities, we salted the earth afterwards with freeways just to make sure nothing wonderful could ever grow there again. We were (are?) a nation of Homer Simpsons, dimbulb philistines who are fat, dumb, and happy with fast food and fast cars. Really, we are the worst terrorists this nation ever experienced.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by soleri

I obsess about this subject probably more than any other. This nation used to have wonderful cities, and not just big ones like Philly and Cincinnati. Small cities like Joplin, Muskogee, Little Rock, Knoxville, and Dayton were marvels in their own way. What happened was more than just reckless urban renewal. It was the wanton and brazen destruction of our priceless heritage for really no better reason than being able to drive everywhere. I was in Germany a few years ago walking through rebuilt cities like Nuremberg, which sparkles beautifully. I muttered to myself, who won that fucking war? It's not merely that we destroyed our cities, we salted the earth afterwards with freeways just to make sure nothing wonderful could ever grow there again. We were (are?) a nation of Homer Simpsons, dimbulb philistines who are fat, dumb, and happy with fast food and fast cars. Really, we are the worst terrorists this nation ever experienced.

amen to that brother

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by soleri

I obsess about this subject probably more than any other. This nation used to have wonderful cities, and not just big ones like Philly and Cincinnati. Small cities like Joplin, Muskogee, Little Rock, Knoxville, and Dayton were marvels in their own way. What happened was more than just reckless urban renewal. It was the wanton and brazen destruction of our priceless heritage for really no better reason than being able to drive everywhere. I was in Germany a few years ago walking through rebuilt cities like Nuremberg, which sparkles beautifully. I muttered to myself, who won that fucking war? It's not merely that we destroyed our cities, we salted the earth afterwards with freeways just to make sure nothing wonderful could ever grow there again. We were (are?) a nation of Homer Simpsons, dimbulb philistines who are fat, dumb, and happy with fast food and fast cars. Really, we are the worst terrorists this nation ever experienced.

I agree with you.
The last couple sentences are a little harshly worded though. I agree that the US though is the land of "the best of the worst".

[memph]

Anyone have good pics of Pittsburgh's Hill District? It seems to have been quite dense, on par with OTR and denser than central St Louis neighbourhoods, at least in terms of population density. The inner North Side seems to have been quite dense too.

Or how about the neighbourhood that was demolished for Empire State Plaza and related auto infrastructure in Albany?

[subterranean]

Heartbreaking.

[dc_denizen]

New York's losses are far more heartbreaking then a couple of square miles of workmen's woodframe cottages and 19th-warehouses that most of these photos show.

Penn Station, hundreds of 19th-century mansions along Park ave and elsewhere, the Singer building, burned apartments in the Bronx, historic row houses galore...torn down for 50-story modernist boxes.

It would have been easy to replace and rebuild most of the midwestern areas (it still would be in the case of St Louis or Detroit) in something like their original form. The $$$ weren't there though, they were going to building places like this:



^^ west Detroit.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

New York's losses are far more heartbreaking then a couple of square miles of workmen's woodframe cottages and 19th-warehouses that most of these photos show.

Penn Station, hundreds of 19th-century mansions along Park ave and elsewhere, the Singer building, burned apartments in the Bronx, historic row houses galore...torn down for 50-story modernist boxes.

It would have been easy to replace and rebuild most of the midwestern areas (it still would be in the case of St Louis or Detroit) in something like their original form. The $$$ weren't there though, they were going to building places like this:

DC, I might be misunderstanding your comment, and I can't speak for other places, but I think you're not giving St. Louis' pre-renewal fabric the credit it deserves. Before it was cleared for the Arch, the St. Louis riverfront, for example, held the largest collection of cast-iron facades in the US outside of NYC. And with the exception of the earliest creole cottages that were quickly replaced by masonry structures as the city grew, wood-frame cottages were all but nonexistent in St. Louis, particularly after the great fire in 1849. We've lost our share of beautiful stone- and marble-faced row houses, in addition to quite a few significant and monumental downtown buildings. Not saying NYC hasn't lost more in terms of shear numbers—obviously it has. But in terms of materials (brick, stone, terra cotta, etc.) St. Louis' losses are absolutely not easily recreated today.

[Steely Dan]

* off-topic posts deleted *

the next person who mentions "europe" or any place in europe in this thread is getting suspended.

please stay on topic.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by strongbad635

Correct. There was a plan to route I-70 right through the Inner Harbor, basically cutting downtown Baltimore off from the water completely, all the way out to I-95. Freeway revolts in the 70s halted this from ever happening, as well as the routing of I-83 all the way down to I-70 and I-95. Baltimore is actually one of the cities that fared best in avoiding violent highway rape.

I never noticed it before but you're right, those freeways just unceremoniously end, and all for the better. The Inner Harbor is a fantastic urban place, and I imagine Baltimore would be in way worse shape today if the freeways went through as planned.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Most of us are probably familiar with Jane Jacobs' legacy of saving Manhattan's West Village from death by preventing construction of the Lower Manhattan Expressway.

Yay for NIMBYs!

[nei]

Originally Posted by strongbad635

Boston's history has been interesting. A war between old money Brahmins and working-class Irish over the urban form. In an ironic inversion of the normal order of things, it's the wealthier Bostonites who fought AGAINST highway rape and a more dignified urban form, and they won a lot of victories on the northern and western sides of town. The working-class, mostly Irish and Italian citizens of South Boston (referred to as 'southie') were more in favor of a car-oriented arrangement and facilitated much of the highway rape. To this day southie resists a lot of infill that would repair some of this damage, and don't even talk to most of these folks about the Big Dig. It just enrages them.

However, the working-class residents of the areas directly affected (West and North End) weren't happy to see their "slums" demolished.

[hipster duck]

What do people think about the trend to replace aging Eisenhower-era downtown highways with freeways that have a better, less destructive alignment but also a significant capacity increase? Providence did this, and so did Oklahoma City. It's sort of a Pyrrhic victory.

Another issue I have is that the right of way left over by the demolished freeway often gets taken up by a rather expansive arterial road, dressed up as a "boulevard", but really just another traffic funnel.

[nei]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Of course, not every city lost out. Among the big cities, New York, San Francisco, and DC's inner cities are all more urban than ever, as are a number of the (historical) second-tier cities like Seattle, Portland, Austin, and Miami. Chicago and Los Angeles have probably lost more than they've gained, but have nonetheless fared well.

Los Angeles is definitely more urban than it was before, at the expense of old building stock. Compare 2005 with 1948 for this neighborhood to the west of downtown Los Angeles:

http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.p...3066072481&lat=34.067167642965&year=2005

[JManc]

On the flipside, how would have all these buildings aged? Demographics and socioeconomics were rapidly changing to where upkeep suffered greatly...look at a lot of the neighborhoods that did remain intact in 2nd tier and smaller cities. Even NYC was in rough shape until the early 90's. Albany NY has wonderful brownstones (though lost a lot to Empire Center) but if you look closely, many of them are in need of a lot of TLC. And Albany is not exactly a thriving area so the buildings are maintained barely enough to meet code and not much else.

With respect to suburbs, I think people (esp. on this forum) forget what they represented back in the late 40's on up. Cities were extremely crowded, very dirty and polluted. It's one thing to look at sepia photos of dense prewar neighborhoods in their prime but cities back then were different animals than they are today to those that lived in them.

With that said, we as a society dealt with all this horribly...urban renewal was a monumental mistake of epic proportions.