U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2014, 11:03 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,956,746 times
Reputation: 1953

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The linked pages are all from the T-RACES site--there is an interactive page that lets you pull the report from census tracts in selected cities.
I can see that it's coming from UNC, i'm not doubting its authenticity and I've seen docs like those before, but there's nothing on the page to say who wrote it. One could be left with the impression that this is some official, FHA document but it looks much more like a real estate analyst writing a report for a Bay Area bank.

Quote:
At the time, people were allowed to discuss race, ethnicity, income and even religion when talking about real estate. And I'm not trying to say that race was the only factor in redlining--it was a major factor. Sounds like we're trying to argue past each other while not realizing how much we actually agree on, and you obviously know this subject well, drive_caerphilly.
Yes, people back then blamed everything on race and religion. Which is really a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not trying to say race wasn't a factor. Obviously it was in many aspects of life, not just property. I just get tired of people using hyperbole (Coates) to make a point because it's not productive. Just be honest about the nuances - s*** was effed up back then and it's not perfect now. Let's know why and precisely how so we can relate it to what's going on today so we can fix what's still broken.


Also, i'm not Welsh -
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place...9011de8eac8966
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2014, 01:51 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,956,746 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The FHA labeled neighborhoods with an increase of black people as "declining" or an increased credit risk.
Right, I think we've already established that upthread, as well as the fact that they also labeled italian, portuguese, irish, etc neighborhoods as "declining".


Quote:
Check the OP's linked map of San Francisco and Oakland. A large check of the obsolete housing marked in red is still with us today. Much of it was very expensive, some not so much. Apparently what was obselote 70 years ago isn't anymore.
Sure, I know people who have salvaged 200 year old Trinity houses that were falling down. It cost them $100k 20 years ago which is another way of saying that they had to completely rebuild them. It was worth it to them because they bought the houses at sherrif's sale for $5k when no one else wanted anything to do with them, because they had the time and the energy, and because it was cheaper than buying a house they could move right into in the same neighborhood.

If you're back in 1934 and your house is worth $3000 and it's going to cost you $2000 to bring it up to the standards of a new house in 1934 that's another way of saying that the value of your house is pretty much just in the land or, 'just tear it down and start over'.

You can go around Philly and Baltimore and pick houses left and right for $15k but it's gonna cost you $120k to get them up to code and at that point there's no profit left . . . which is why no one does it. It's really nothing to be dubious about - it's just math.


Quote:
Sure there were some slums. Most urban housing didn't lack running water. I downloaded a spreadsheet of housing with running water by county. Most big city counties were high. Some counties:

County / % running water / % shower/bath

Philadelphia, PA / 97.6% / 95.8%
Brooklyn,NY / 97.6% / 95.6%
Alameda, CA / 98.1% / 97.4% [contains Oakland]
San Francisco, CA / 97.2% / 98.%

https://data2.nhgis.org/main [1940]
You realize that 5% of houses in one city not having a bathroom is a big deal, right? And those are just the occupied houses. When you have both of these housing categories making up 30-40% of the housing in a few adjacent neighborhoods it's a big problem. Especially when those houses are also the most crowded in the city.

Most buildings did have running water. It doesn't mean that everyone had access to it at all times (see tenement) Toilets and baths were something different and it only became commonplace for working class housing to have the 3 components together (in what we would call a 'full bath')starting in the 20s. It was still a work in progress through the 1940s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 07:08 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,015 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
Noxious industry predates the industrial revolution and urban ghettoes.

Factories sprang up where land was cheap. Factory workers had to live within walking distance of where they worked.

It's really that simple.
Exactly! I asked my DH if the meat packing houses in Omaha were in/near low-income neighborhoods and he said "pretty much, yes". It's a "chicken and egg" thing. The area near a factory, especially within walking distance, is not the most desirable neighborhood to live in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 09:54 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,959,765 times
Reputation: 5383
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
"Dumps" are in the eye of the beholder--the difference between an "uninhabitable firetrap" and a "priceless landmark" is often just a matter of rehab and repair, but if you can't get a home loan, you can't reinvest and repair a building. Also note that redlining meant that it wasn't just the buildings in poor repair that couldn't get loans, but also well-maintained homes in the same neighborhood. Demolition by association. I live in a 107 year old house in a neighborhood that was once redlined (well, technically, in the "yellow" category in 1938, but thus considered unsuitable for home loans) that was considered "hazardous" from a single-family dwelling standpoint, due to the intrusion of apartments, lack of deed restrictions, and the presence of foreign-born families and blacks (even though they are reported as "few" in the standardized fields on the form for both. Today, my neighborhood is a "historic district" and old firetraps like my house are considered extraordinarily beautiful and rare, selling for as much as suburban homes twice their size on bigger lots. But back then, my house was nothing special--the home of an Italian immigrant blacksmith.
Interesting point of view wburg. I've seen similar phenomenons. When it came time to buy though, my money voted to get twice as much house with better technology. I never really understood the allure of having a very old house, because most of the century old homes I've been in haven't had major restorations done. Of course, at some point with those restorations, it would almost become a new house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 11:11 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,569,036 times
Reputation: 4048
Depends on the restoration. I never really understood the allure of having a brand-new house, and from the experience of friends who have bought them, maintaining a new house can be just as expensive. But this isn't really about individual houses, it's about neighborhoods. My house is 107 years old, and there are houses 120+ years old in my neighborhood, but there are also homes from the 1920s, 1960s and 2000s within a block--and brand new units under construction the next block over. The mindset of the HOLC, or mid-20th century redevelopment, is that the existence of multiple building styles and eras in a neighborhood gives a place "cooties" and the only way to solve the problem of houses that don't look exactly alike (or occupants that don't look exactly alike) is to knock them all down. Today, the pleasant appearance of multiple housing styles and sizes is so popular that developers building new greenfield projects try to mimic it with a regular pattern of multiple designs. But it's just a copy of the real thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 11:15 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,015 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
Interesting point of view wburg. I've seen similar phenomenons. When it came time to buy though, my money voted to get twice as much house with better technology. I never really understood the allure of having a very old house, because most of the century old homes I've been in haven't had major restorations done. Of course, at some point with those restorations, it would almost become a new house.
A. house. with. dirt. floors. is a DUMP! This is not a judgement value. It was located in a SLUM, also not a judgement value if you'd ever been there, which I'm about 99.99% positive wburg has not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 11:27 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,842,524 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The mindset of the HOLC, or mid-20th century redevelopment, is that the existence of multiple building styles and eras in a neighborhood gives a place "cooties" and the only way to solve the problem of houses that don't look exactly alike (or occupants that don't look exactly alike) is to knock them all down. Today, the pleasant appearance of multiple housing styles and sizes is so popular that developers building new greenfield projects try to mimic it with a regular pattern of multiple designs. But it's just a copy of the real thing.
Plenty of mid-20th-century development has multiple housing styles and sizes. Many a development would have 3-5 different models, and their mirror-images.

Not sure how the HOLC fits in, as it didn't make loans for new construction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 11:34 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,015 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Plenty of mid-20th-century development has multiple housing styles and sizes. Many a development would have 3-5 different models, and their mirror-images.

Not sure how the HOLC fits in, as it didn't make loans for new construction.
Yes. Our first house, built 1978, was in a subdivision of 4 models, each with different upgrades available. I don't think any two houses are exactly alike. You can look around here.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+...228d37!6m1!1e1

ETA: What is the purpose of this thread title? Even I was too young to buy a house in 1968, when some of these policies that resulted in racial segregation were abolished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 11:55 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,107,012 times
Reputation: 3117
I guess everything is fine then now right? neighborhoods that were redlined in Baltimore, like the one my family lived in for 3 generations, still suffer lower values and higher segregation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 12:11 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,107,012 times
Reputation: 3117
K, the purpose of this thread is to learn about a policy of the past that contributed to conditions of the present.

Last edited by nei; 05-25-2014 at 09:36 PM.. Reason: unnecessary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top