Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would the development "disappear?" Again, buses are the functional equivalent of streetcars. It's not like dense, thriving walkable neighborhoods would all of a sudden dry up because cars came on the scene. Dense walkable areas didn't dry up in Philadelphia, Boston, Brooklyn, or Washington, DC when streetcars were replaced by buses? Why would that happen in Atlanta or anywhere else?
Although it might seem as though I'm implying it, I'm not saying that buses/cars replacing streetcars is the cause of the loss of urban development in those neighborhoods. However, there is a correlation as that is the same time as urban renewal was taking place and entire neighborhoods, in Atlanta and elsewhere, were razed to make way for new highways. It was simply a symptom of this phenomenon. I'm pretty sure the same happened in the cities you mentioned, but they also had a lot more to work with in the first place. That's why the effects of urban renewal are more palpably felt in the cores of Sunbelt cities, although in terms of raw numbers, Northern cities experienced more loss of historic structures in their downtowns.
What you've read from me are appropriate responses to somebody with no foundation to offer any nuance
So "Not true!" and "Un-uh!" are appropriate responses to my assertions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
only appeals to authority
Actually, I would say that about you. The only thing you've said so far is "Listen to the LA boosters in this thread." You guys are far from impartial and have completely ignored all of the comments I've posted from LA forumers confirming what Shoup and Eidlin wrote in their articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
which are actually selected quotes ripped out of context.
Let's put your analytical powers to the test (which we already know are limited). Tell me why you think the quotes are "ripped out of context." "Because they are!" or "I don't have to answer that!" or "You're cherrypicking" are not "appropriate" responses.
Although it might seem as though I'm implying it, I'm not saying that buses/cars replacing streetcars is the cause of the loss of urban development in those neighborhoods. However, there is a correlation as that is the same time as urban renewal was taking place and entire neighborhoods, in Atlanta and elsewhere, were razed to make way for new highways. It was simply a symptom of this phenomenon. I'm pretty sure the same happened in the cities you mentioned, but they also had a lot more to work with in the first place. That's why the effects of urban renewal are more palpably felt in the cores of Sunbelt cities, although in terms of raw numbers, Northern cities experienced more loss of historic structures in their downtowns.
That's a pretty big assumption to make. Philadelphia essentially built three highways: the Schuykill Expressway, 1-95 and Roosevelt Boulevard. Yet walkable development did not disappear. New York City built the Cross-Bronx, the Bruckner, the BQE, the Van Wyck, the FDR, the LIE, the Belt Parkway and the West Side Highway. Yet it managed to keep its urban neighborhoods. The notion that Atlanta's interstates somehow managed to wipe out nearly all of its urban, walkable development is highly speculative. And it still doesn't explain how areas such as Little Five Points--which is a good distance from the interstate and was also served by a streetcar line at one point--has such little walkable development.
I'm also not sure if urban renewal efforts in sunbelt cities were any more palpably felt. What were they renewing? By the time urban renewal efforts were in full swing in the U.S. in the 1950s, Philadelphia, Boston and New York were nearly 300 years old and had more than their fair share of slums. Much of Atlanta was still wooded (and still remains wooded today).
That's a pretty big assumption to make. Philadelphia essentially built three highways: the Schuykill Expressway, 1-95 and Roosevelt Boulevard. Yet walkable development did not disappear. New York City built the Cross-Bronx, the Bruckner, the BQE, the Van Wyck, the FDR, the LIE, the Belt Parkway and the West Side Highway. Yet it managed to keep its urban neighborhoods. The notion that Atlanta's interstates somehow managed to wipe out nearly all of its urban, walkable development is highly speculative. And it still doesn't explain how areas such as Little Five Points--which is a good distance from the interstate and was also served by a streetcar line at one point--has such little walkable development.
I can't speak for other cities, but it's not an assumption in Atlanta; this actually happened in a few instances (e.g., Morningside). And again, I'm saying that as cars/buses became the dominant form of transportation, some urban development was lost; I thought that was fairly well-known fact around these parts. Historic urban buildings were demolished for parking lots in way too many cases. And because Atlanta wasn't nearly as big as its current Northern peer cities, the urban development along streetcar lines wasn't as extensive as that found in those cities, but the development that existed was walkable. As far as Little Five Points in particular, some development was razed in the 60's when a freeway (that obviously never got built) was proposed to run through the neighborhood.
Quote:
I'm also not sure if urban renewal efforts in sunbelt cities were any more palpably felt. What were they renewing? By the time urban renewal efforts were in full swing in the U.S. in the 1950s, Philadelphia, Boston and New York were nearly 300 years old and had more than their fair share of slums. Much of Atlanta was still wooded (and still remains wooded today).
Of course they were; there wasn't as much to work with to begin with within the cores of Sunbelt cities. Historic structures were razed for parking lots or non-urban development, and there was also "slum" clearance of predominantly African American neighborhoods. To this day some of those "holes" are left in the urban cores of Southern cities.
I can't speak for other cities, but it's not an assumption in Atlanta; this actually happened in a few instances (e.g., Morningside). And again, I'm saying that as cars/buses became the dominant form of transportation, some urban development was lost; I thought that was fairly well-known fact around these parts. Historic urban buildings were demolished for parking lots in way too many cases. And because Atlanta wasn't nearly as big as its current Northern peer cities, the urban development along streetcar lines wasn't as extensive as that found in those cities, but the development that existed was walkable. As far as Little Five Points in particular, some development was razed in the 60's when a freeway (that obviously never got built) was proposed to run through the neighborhood.
Oh no. I don't doubt that neighborhoods were razed. I'm saying that it's a stretch to assume that the neighborhoods that were destroyed were dense, walkable neighborhoods, leaving Atlanta only with the sprawled out, low-density, auto-centric neighborhoods we see today.
And if you look at the streetcar map I posted upthread, the old streetcar routes were converted into bus routes. If that's the case, then how do you explain the total absence of walkable development along former streetcar routes that were in no way affected by interstate construction?
Of course they were; there wasn't as much to work with to begin with within the cores of Sunbelt cities. Historic structures were razed for parking lots or non-urban development, and there was also "slum" clearance of predominantly African American neighborhoods. To this day some of those "holes" are left in the urban cores of Southern cities.
Well, perhaps you could provide a link for that. A quick web search on the topic yielded disappointing results.
Oh no. I don't doubt that neighborhoods were razed. I'm saying that it's a stretch to assume that the neighborhoods that were destroyed were dense, walkable neighborhoods, leaving Atlanta only with the sprawled out, low-density, auto-centric neighborhoods we see today.
And if you look at the streetcar map I posted upthread, the old streetcar routes were converted into bus routes. If that's the case, then how do you explain the total absence of walkable development along former streetcar routes that were in no way affected by interstate construction?
Several factors: white flight/racial residential segregation patterns, population loss, urban renewal, etc. For instance, this is what happened in the Mechanicsville neighborhood:
By the mid 1920s though, Atlanta's residential and business expansion to the North and East led many of Mechanicsville's business leaders to move north as well. Middle income African Americans also moved from Mechanicsville to the west side where historically black colleges and universities were established.
This relocation, followed by the Great Depression, caused negative changes in the neighborhood. Many homes became rental properties and fell into great disrepair. After World War II, home ownership and ethnic diversity fell rapidly and, by 1945, Mechanicsville was predominantly a working class, African-American community. A number of public redevelopment policies subjected Mechanicsville to harm in the name of redevelopment. In 1964, the Atlanta Fulton County Stadium was built just outside of the neighborhood while highway construction on the north and east furthered destruction to the neighborhood's physical resources.
Again, I'm not saying these neighborhoods were on par with Northern ones in terms of building and population density, but most did have walkable urban development.
Of course there's MORE there, but I'm saying I don't know how much of the urban development disappeared as cars replaced streetcars. The streetcar suburbs probably weren't very extensive, but I'm pretty sure they were walkable and they could have had more urban development in place then than they do now.
That's sort of interesting--it's obvious in vintage pictures of most at least mid-level major cities had their cores and nearby neighborhoods looking pretty packed and bustling. All cities across the board lost a good lot of activity and the old pictures of every major city had simply a lot more people walking about (one particularly good example is the Lower East Side in Manhattan which is considered fairly urban now, but if you visit the LES Tenement Museum you'll find pictures of the neighborhood from many decades past that showed a far more active street life than anything today).
One explanation for why it hit smaller cities (at least smaller during the time of suburbanization and then urban decay and then ill-thought out urban renewal plans) much harder is that there was simply less to destroy and so getting rid of a a certain amount of those walkable areas would end up delivering a far stronger blow to the area as a whole whereas doing so with a city with a large walkable area meant that there would still be enough to sustain some kind of community and not completely disrupt the place. This then feeds into a cycle where that initial blow then fuels much further abandonment which then causes the whole area to be devalued and then even further abandoned until it becomes fit for urban renewal plans which considered the density of years past to be unhealthful or for the area to be more profitable as parking lots, empty lots, or newer more suburban/automobile oriented forms. All cities had to deal with these, but older, larger cities had enough critical mass to take these blows and to sustain themselves in some form while smaller cities did not.
LA was sort of on the cusp in between these where it had grown fairly large when these developments started happening, but not quite so large.
Several factors: white flight/racial residential segregation patterns, population loss, urban renewal, etc.
That happened in Philadelphia, too. Nicetown/Tioga, Hunting Park, Overbrook, and Cobbs Creek were at one time all majority white (Jewish, Italian, or Irish) neighborhoods. And then those groups all left. And the neighborhoods fell into disrepair. However, there are still storefronts and dense urban development. It just didn't disappear because all of the whites moved away. Besides, Philadelphia has WAY more emptied out neighborhoods than Atlanta. We've lost more people since 1950 than the city of Atlanta has ever had. But you still see the urban infrastructure in those emptied out neighborhoods. It didn't all just disappear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Again, I'm not saying these neighborhoods were on par with Northern ones in terms of building and population density, but most did have walkable urban development.
And that's still a major assumption. What makes you believe that the neighborhoods they destroyed were any more walkable than the ones still in existence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
