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.
There are several problems with the old housing stock. The first of which is availability, in short home ownership before the 1950ies was not really a part of the middle class. Without the 20 and 30 year loan most people could not own an house. Many people rented and thus there was very little old stuff for sell.
Cities of the 1950ies are full of nasty factories spewing all kinds of odors and nasty stuff. An loan can't fix that problem. Nor could they adjust for the fact that you could get an newer house with more space and modern features cheaply vs. rehab something old.
I grew up in an urban house that was 100 year old and while it wasn't an horrific experience I would think that house would have had an hard time competing with an 50ies or even worse an 60ies house. It may have only been 50-60 years old back then but compared to an typical 60ies house: Small bedrooms, one over-sized bathroom for 3 bedrooms(most houses then have 2 baths). The bathroom lack an shower. The kitchen lacked electrical outlets on the counter top and had an total of 3 badly placed outlets for everything. The kitchen lacked an dishwasher and the cabinets were too low to install one without changing them. You would have saved an lot of time grief and aggravation just by getting an newer house.
This is all true, but this was compounded by insurance maps, which dictated where loans could/could not be insured under FHA and VA loans at that time. Ratings were A to D. Areas that were black got a D almost universally, regardless of housing quality. Areas that had issues like like of sewer connections got Ds. Greenfield fringe or extremely wealthy urban areas got As. A working/middle class area of older housing stock in the city with no notable issues such as sanitation, proximity to factories, etc. might have still only received a "C" rating.
This was all started under HOLC, which as an institution went away, but the same principles continued to be applied. Take a look at the 1940 HOLC ratings map for St. Louis here:
Red areas were D with some combination of factory proximity, sanitation, or race playing a factor in their ratings. Most of the yellow areas (Cs) were very solid and comfortable neighborhoods that would have appealed to many...had they been able to get a loan in them. Many of these areas contained SFHs with decent lot sizes (up to maybe 0.3 acres, which was pretty much what working class suburban neighborhoods built in the late 40s/early 50s were offering up).
This was a self-fulfilling prophesy. Declare the area too risky and capital goes elsewhere, then the area becomes "blighted" and "renewal" and highway construction comes through neighborhoods. A lot of cities (STL included) declared everything in vast areas "blighted" in hopes of making it very easy for new development to occur. There were piecemeal projects popping up here or there that were done under renewal policies that really didn't take into account the greater community and how things were connected: tear commercial buildings down to create a green ribbon "mall". Rip out of working class African American community that wasn't wealthy, but had a functioning economy and put people in highrise projects like Pruitt-Igoe, put a highway through the middle of a neighborhood and kill commercial in the middle of the neighborhood..and so on.
There is no doubt that if loans were issued in a more equitable manner, then the degree of sprawl, renewal, and highway construction we experienced from 1945-1975 would never have occurred.
I personally find freeways very convenient when cutting across town. They are a fast way to get into the burbs or across the city. In Detroit they provide easy access to downtown neighborhoods, metro airport, and tourist attractions. I don't understand why people want them removed. The damage from it (cutting off neighborhoods and all that) has been long done and although we can learn the consequences of destructively creating freeways I don't believe removing them is the answer.
I personally find freeways very convenient when cutting across town. They are a fast way to get into the burbs or across the city. In Detroit they provide easy access to downtown neighborhoods, metro airport, and tourist attractions. I don't understand why people want them removed. The damage from it (cutting off neighborhoods and all that) has been long done and although we can learn the consequences of destructively creating freeways I don't believe removing them is the answer.
1) They think cars and drivers are evil. If you want to get across the city, they think you should use a bus or a subway.
2) They don't want suburbanites getting into the city. If you want to enjoy the benefits of the city you should live there, because again, suburbs are evil.
1) They think cars and drivers are evil. If you want to get across the city, they think you should use a bus or a subway.
2) They don't want suburbanites getting into the city. If you want to enjoy the benefits of the city you should live there, because again, suburbs are evil.
Who is "they?" A city shouldn't have to sacrifice itself for the conveniences of the suburbs.
Who is "they?" A city shouldn't have to sacrifice itself for the conveniences of the suburbs.
It's convenient for getting across the city too. The idea of just tearing up freeways in the city to integrate poor half decayed neighborhoods is absurd. The problem is way more complicated then that.
The idea of just tearing up freeways in the city to integrate poor half decayed neighborhoods is absurd.
I should also add it doesn't really work. These two neighborhoods in Oklahoma City are still quite visibly divided despite the Crosstown Blvd freeway being rerouted nearly a decade ago. Riverside has not been revitalized because it is more connected to the CBD.
The fact is back when most of intra-urban expressways were built it was at the pleading of mayors / business leaders that were trying to do something to reverse the flow of jobs to more accessible sites.
The way to get more workers in cities is not to make it harder for employers to get folks to job centers.
If the car haters were ever to rationally think of what would make cities more capable of supporting increased employment they would have to conclude that better access is a positive.
It's convenient for getting across the city too. The idea of just tearing up freeways in the city to integrate poor half decayed neighborhoods is absurd. The problem is way more complicated then that.
Depends on the freeway, often times those half decayed neighborhoods are the result of that freeway cutting through them.
The fact is back when most of intra-urban expressways were built it was at the pleading of mayors / business leaders that were trying to do something to reverse the flow of jobs to more accessible sites.
The way to get more workers in cities is not to make it harder for employers to get folks to job centers.
If the car haters were ever to rationally think of what would make cities more capable of supporting increased employment they would have to conclude that better access is a positive.
And in the process many of those cities destroyed their own cores for something that didn't work.
And in the process many of those cities destroyed their own cores for something that didn't work.
Depends on what you mean by "didn't work".
America's Freeways really prompted the growth of the Middle Class by making their habitat, Suburbia, more habitable- Middle Class people were able to get in and out of the city a lot more seamlessly because of the new highway system, which really enabled the lifestyle.
Lots of Americans, probably a majority, like the lifestyle that the interstate system helps to make possible.
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.
