Great Lakes Cities

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

you could certainly slap an R on all of those addresses that are on the other side of the block. i was adressing the fact that its NOT impossible to not name alleys. used to be plenty of full alley streets in st. louis...still are plenty of residences and even businesses that ONLY front the alley...thats my point. density is immaterial in theory...you can do it either way.

Well, I guess you could... but it wouldn't make much sense since, as I was saying, those "alley" houses aren't "R" to to the addresses on the wider street.

They weren't built as alleys for the houses on the wider street, with houses on the wider street not having access to the "alley" because the "alley" houses formed continuous street walls. Below displays how using an "R" wouldn't work in Pittsburgh's older neighborhoods like this. As can be seen here, Larkins Way houses in no way are "rear" to those houses on Jane or Sarah streets. This type of built density precludes that "R".

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Well, I guess you could... but it wouldn't make much sense since, as I was saying, those "alley" houses aren't "R" to to the addresses on the wider street.

They weren't built as alleys for the houses on the wider street, with houses on the wider street not having access to the "alley" because the "alley" houses formed continuous street walls. Below displays how using an "R" wouldn't work in Pittsburgh's older neighborhoods like this. As can be seen here, Larkins Way houses in no way are "rear" to those houses on Jane or Sarah streets. This type of built density precludes that "R".

While I agree with this in general, if you look at the historic block/lot maps of Pittsburgh from the late 19th century, these streets were called "____ Alley" before being called "____ Way" Thus the "ways" are indeed alleys, and these are alley houses. The suffix seems to have changed some time between 1910 and 1920.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Well, I guess you could... but it wouldn't make much sense since, as I was saying, those "alley" houses aren't "R" to to the addresses on the wider street.

They weren't built as alleys for the houses on the wider street, with houses on the wider street not having access to the "alley" because the "alley" houses formed continuous street walls. Below displays how using an "R" wouldn't work in Pittsburgh's older neighborhoods like this. As can be seen here, Larkins Way houses in no way are "rear" to those houses on Jane or Sarah streets. This type of built density precludes that "R".

you say that they could then you say no. i will say that the lot lines don’t always align so the pittsburgh model there is pretty much at the philadelphia model on the continuum. not sure how it worked in st. louis but the rear properties seem to sometimes be on the same parcel as the “front” and sometimes not. sometimes the rear access is through the gangway or a mousehole, sometimes from the alley. the densest neighborhoods around downtown were demolished so i’m not sure how the equivalent neighborhoods worked in st. louis...though many of the alleys ARE named heading west out of downtown into the urban renewal zone as if they functioned like streets.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

While I agree with this in general, if you look at the historic block/lot maps of Pittsburgh from the late 19th century, these streets were called "____ Alley" before being called "____ Way" Thus the "ways" are indeed alleys, and these are alley houses. The suffix seems to have changed some time between 1910 and 1920.

Yes... right, they were called alleys, but were not built as alleys in the "back" or "behind" alley definition, but more in the "narrow lane" definition.

Their purpose wasn't to serve the "main" houses at all. And by nature of the built density, they couldn't anyway, without demolition (as obviously occurred later in spots).

Cool map, btw. Thanks for giving me yet another reason to waste time today...

[Centropolis]

nextstl.com

at some point, “pittsburghian” neighborhoods became unnaceptable to the city fathers in st. louis.

[pj3000]

^ Progress, my boy, progress!

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yes... right, they were called alleys, but were not built as alleys in the "back" or "behind" alley definition, but more in the "narrow lane" definition.


Their purpose wasn't to serve the "main" houses at all. And by nature of the built density, they couldn't anyway, without demolition (as obviously occurred later in spots).

This is true in some cases, like South Side or Bloomfield. But in some cases (like a lot of Lawrenceville) the alley houses were indeed built a few decades later, as the owner on the front side decided to construct a second house (or two, if the property was wide enough) to rent out in the rear of their lot.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Cool map, btw. Thanks for giving me yet another reason to waste time today...

Note that the 1882 overlay is the default, but you can look at maps from many different historic eras. The really detailed ones are only from 1872 to 1920/23 however.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

nextstl.com

at some point, “pittsburghian” neighborhoods became unnaceptable to the city fathers in st. louis.

Pittsburgh has probably lost well over half its rowhouse stock as well. It's just that the city had so damn much of it to begin with that we still have have a dozen or more (depending upon how you split them up) "old urban" neighborhoods surviving.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is true in some cases, like South Side or Bloomfield. But in some cases (like a lot of Lawrenceville) the alley houses were indeed built a few decades later, as the owner on the front side decided to construct a second house (or two, if the property was wide enough) to rent out in the rear of their lot.



Note that the 1882 overlay is the default, but you can look at maps from many different historic eras. The really detailed ones are only from 1872 to 1920/23 however.

Right, I didn't mean to make a blanket statement for all of Pittsburgh neighborhoods. I think you can probably find examples of later construction on the South and North Sides as well. By the later decades of the 1800s, many alley rental houses were built, housing multiple working men per bed in the alley houses... much to the dismay of the gentry of the time.

Great... so basically I should budget 3 hours to looking at old maps of Pittsburgh today...

[shappy]

Originally Posted by Segun

Chicago is very planned, you won't find power lines anywhere on the sidewalk for example.

I haven’t been to Chicago but that is one thing that I’ve noticed street viewing. Actually, that seems to be the case for most (all?) of the US Great Lakes / Midwestern cities. The downtowns and your average central neighbourhoods look quite neat and tidy - squared and aligned.

Toronto not so much. It would be nice to have like one central hood where there are several blocks with a very cohesive look and feel. On the other hand, the ramshackle aesthetic has its own urban charms.

Originally Posted by Segun

Toronto is the only other Great Lakes city where the urbanity envelops the environment, giving it that big crowded city feel, but for different reasons. I think had Detroit continued to grow, it would have been similar in spots, but while Chicago streets are wide compared to the East Coast, Detroit streets are even wider.

I’ve heard this sentiment before but don’t really understand how Detroit is/would be similar. Detroit’s decline was post war when most of its inner hoods would have already been built out. So not sure further growth would have made an impact. Or are you talking downtown buzz?

Detroit has a lot of very handsome Victorian brick mansions.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by shappy

I’ve heard this sentiment before but don’t really understand how Detroit is/would be similar. Detroit’s decline was post war when most of its inner hoods would have already been built out. So not sure further growth would have made an impact. Or are you talking downtown buzz?

Detroit's inner core built form, if it had survived, would have been sufficient for large-scale urbanity, not that dissimilar from modern-day Chicago or Toronto.

Detroit was many times larger than Toronto in the prewar era. The same historic home types you see 2 miles from Toronto's core are like 8 miles from Detroit's core.

Obviously today, with most of the buildings gone, and the major arterials all massively widened, it's too late.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by shappy

I haven’t been to Chicago but that is one thing that I’ve noticed street viewing. Actually, that seems to be the case for most (all?) of the US Great Lakes / Midwestern cities. The downtowns and your average central neighbourhoods look quite neat and tidy - squared and aligned.

Toronto not so much. It would be nice to have like one central hood where there are several blocks with a very cohesive look and feel. On the other hand, the ramshackle aesthetic has its own urban charms.

Chicago is not really that cohesive also. That picture that LouisVanDerRight posted is found across the city, but its not that common in the urban core.

I'd say the typical Chicago block consists of a bunch of buildings of different heights, styles, materials, eras, and setbacks from the street, some with entrances below the street. Its really hard to choose one. Its like all the buildings were arranged at one time on a board and someone knocked it over and just put them anywhere.

Try finding some rhyme and reason on these blocks.

https://goo.gl/maps/FasjmgFQR2U2
https://goo.gl/maps/58iuykr4uBE2
https://goo.gl/maps/FW5oNK2UNXp

I’ve heard this sentiment before but don’t really understand how Detroit is/would be similar. Detroit’s decline was post war when most of its inner hoods would have already been built out. So not sure further growth would have made an impact. Or are you talking downtown buzz?

Detroit has a lot of very handsome Victorian brick mansions.

Someone posted a historical picture that showed a significant number of courtyard apartment buildings in Detroit, similar to Chicago neighborhoods. Some are surviving today, but not that many.

https://goo.gl/maps/TLc6Y3uZAQJ2

Detroit would have had a similar "look" to Chicago, but with different development patterns had it kept growing IMO. I think it would have been more nodal development, with major intersections of high density, tapering off into single family homes, connected by busy streetcar routes. I picture the major streets being very LA like.

Chicago's development follows the Lakefront and the EL

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Great... so basically I should budget 3 hours to looking at old maps of Pittsburgh today...

My favorite is the 1910 map, because it not only indicates via color coding what the buildings are made out of (yellow=frame, pink=brick, brown=stone, gray=metal) it also shows the number of stories for every structure, and even puts a little "S" on buildings which had a storefront.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit's inner core built form, if it had survived, would have been sufficient for large-scale urbanity, not that dissimilar from modern-day Chicago or Toronto.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Even prior to its decline, Detroit had a lower population density than other rust belt cities. It boomed a bit later, and had (for obvious reasons) greater early uptake of automobiles. Its housing stock was a bit more SFH-dominated, and the lots were slightly more generous as well. Thus an intact Detroit, while it would be expansive in scope, would probably something more like the Midwestern version of LA than Chicago.

[The North One]

Detroit and Chicago literally have the same exact grid/streets and mile road system, these LA comparisons don't hold up, maybe the Detroit region is more centralized along the Woodward corridor instead of the waterfront but it doesn't have big random nodes all over the place like in LA. Earlier uptake of the automobile? where exactly do you see this in planning other than Chicago being larger at an earlier time? Pretty sure all cities dedicated themselves to the highway after cars were mass produced and the government pushed that sort of planning. There wasn't some timeline gap between Detroit and the rest of the country having cars because of the auto industry, that doesn't make any sense.

Chicago is also very SFH dominated, densely packed SFH detached neighborhoods exist very close to the downtown core, Chicago isn't very rowhousey which is obviously because of the great fire. Any difference in past density was probably negligible to the similar overall form although Detroit does have more old spacy mansion districts closer to the center of the city.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Chicago is also very SFH dominated

That is false. Only 25% of chicago's housing units are detached SFH's, and the VAST bulk of those are miles out of the city center in the bungalow belt. Central chicago is primarily a "flat" city.

For the sake of comparison, detroit is 65% detached SFH's.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Segun

Someone posted a historical picture that showed a significant number of courtyard apartment buildings in Detroit, similar to Chicago neighborhoods. Some are surviving today, but not that many.

https://goo.gl/maps/TLc6Y3uZAQJ2

There are more than you might think, Palmer Park is basically nothing but courtyard apartments, many of them newly renovated: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4201...7i13312!8i6656

There are still quite a bit of them surviving, you can find them in various neighborhoods:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3742...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3556...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3732...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3879...7i13312!8i6656

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

That is false. Only 25% of chicago's housing units are detached SFH's, and the VAST bulk of those are miles out of the city center in the bungalow belt. Central chicago is primarily a "flat" city.

For the sake of comparison, detroit is 65% detached SFH's.

Bungalow belt? huh? then what do you call these? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9370...7i13312!8i6656

Most of everything away from the waterfront is detached and most of them look like single family, Chicago doesn't have miles of wall to wall rowhomes you see in the northeast. And he wasn't comparing Detroit today, old aerial photos show Detroit with miles of the exact same neighborhoods.

[Steely Dan]

I never said chicago had miles of wall to wall rowhouses. It clearly does not have a ton of that typology. What I said is that central chicago is primarily a "flat" city, as in 2-flats, 3-flats, and 6-flats.

As I said before, only 25% of chicago's housing units are detached SFH's, and yes, the vast majority of those are found out in the bungalow belt. This does not mean that you can't find any detached SFH's in central chicago, they absolutely exist, they are just nowhere close to being the dominant housing typology. In the core urban hoods of the city, the "flats" rule, along with other types of apartment buildings - courtyard buildings, 4+1's, highrises along the lakefront, etc.

I don't really care about what anyone else said about anything else, I was merely correcting your erroneous statement that chicago is dominated by detached SFH's. The facts say otherwise, but it's not like facts have ever gotten in your way before.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I don't think that's quite accurate. Even prior to its decline, Detroit had a lower population density than other rust belt cities.

Detroit had probably the second highest density among Rust Belt cities at the eve of WW2. 2 million residents in 140 square miles. That's comparable to peak Philly.

Originally Posted by eschaton

It boomed a bit later, and had (for obvious reasons) greater early uptake of automobiles. Its housing stock was a bit more SFH-dominated, and the lots were slightly more generous as well. Thus an intact Detroit, while it would be expansive in scope, would probably something more like the Midwestern version of LA than Chicago.

It wouldn't have been exactly the same, but the prewar densities were pretty similar. I have no idea what the SFH ratios were in 1940-era Chicago and Detroit, but I would wager they weren't radically different. The prewar apartment districts of Detroit, which were extensive, have basically been eviscerated (like wiped off the earth).

And I wasn't comparing to Chicago specifically, but rather the contention that Chicago and Toronto are the only Great Lakes cities with large-scale intact urbanism. Detroit had it, but lost it. There's a huge geography of north/northwest Detroit that was dominated by 3-7 floor apartment blocks, now 98% gone.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by The North One

There are more than you might think, Palmer Park is basically nothing but courtyard apartments, many of them newly renovated: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4201...7i13312!8i6656

There are still quite a bit of them surviving, you can find them in various neighborhoods:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3742...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3556...7i13312!8i6656


https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3732...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3879...7i13312!8i6656

Windsor also has a few of these courtyard apartments in its DT and surrounding older urban areas, very similar to the Detroit ones shown!

http://www.metcap.com/apartments-for...9#.WpgB0MpyahA