If Charleston/Savannah were larger, would they be the the South's version of Boston/Philadelphia? (life, people)

[bmd69]

Bless you heart versus go *********rself.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

Do you mean the culture at the "center"/"core"/"heart" of Philly is gritty? Or that Center City is gritty? The former I can see, though it's changing. The latter is completely false.

Center City is gritty...not all over (i.e., Ben Franklin Pkwy) but in enough parts to know you're in a post-industrial city.

[jessemh431]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Center City is gritty...not all over (i.e., Ben Franklin Pkwy) but in enough parts to know you're in a post-industrial city.

Can't that be said for literally every singe major east coast and midwest city? Any densely built older city will have some wear and tear.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

Can't that be said for literally every singe major east coast and midwest city? Any densely built older city will have some wear and tear.

No, not all of them. Certainly not DC, and Boston doesn't come across as particularly gritty in the core to me.

When it comes to the cities under discussion here, Savannah feels grittier in its core than Charleston, and Philadelphia feels grittier in its core than Boston.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by gladhands

This

No, not this. It implies that the Southern planter class was not engaged in any of those activities, when in fact they were...like any man of wealth would be.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by ABQSunseeker

I'm not sure that if driven by commerce and the drive to bigness either Charleston or Savannah would still have a magnificent historical core. I can see them obliterated by a dense population of highrises.

True that in the 1930's Savannah came perilously close to losing their Historic District.

[Newsboy]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

True that in the 1930's Savannah came perilously close to losing their Historic District.

Well, it wasn't considered "historic" then -- it was a ghetto. But yes, the thing that makes Savannah and Charleston the cities they are today, is the fact that they were largely forgotten for most of the 20th Century. And if the example of other cities is a guide, had history been different then absolutely without a doubt, neither Charleston nor Savannah would still exist as the amazing places they are today. "Progress" does not alway beget "progress" ... Which sometimes comes decades later, thankfully.

It is too bad that I-16 wasn't taken further south of the Savannah HD instead of dead-ending right into it. Not only would that have provided a cross-town freeway connection that's sorely lacking to this day, it would have saved the beautiful old Union Station from demolition perhaps.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Well, it wasn't considered "historic" then -- it was a ghetto. But yes, the thing that makes Savannah and Charleston the cities they are today, is the fact that they were largely forgotten for most of the 20th Century. And if the example of other cities is a guide, had history been different then absolutely without a doubt, neither Charleston nor Savannah would still exist as the amazing places they are today. "Progress" does not always beget "progress" ... Which sometimes comes decades later, thankfully.

It is too bad that I-16 wasn't taken further south of the Savannah HD instead of dead-ending right into it. Not only would that have provided a cross-town freeway connection that's sorely lacking to this day, it would have saved the beautiful old Union Station from demolition perhaps.

The difference between Charleston and Savannah during that period is that the Old Guard of Charleston stayed entrenched South of Broad, while Savannah gentry abandoned the old neighborhoods for Ardsley Park, the Islands and beyond. It took some effort and time to bring them back. If I remember right, it was the proposal to raze the Davenport House that finally galvanized the community.

[Serious Conversation]

Probably, simply because they are older cities with a lot of history/culture.

[masonbauknight]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Well, it wasn't considered "historic" then [1930s]-- it was a ghetto..

Say what? Savannah's downtown was thriving until around 1962. That's when white flight began in earnest. Efforts in the mid-1950s to raze squares (paving paradise to put up a parking lot) were in the interest of "progress" -- downtown was where the department stores, jewelry stores, and other retail was. Broughton St. and Bay St. were still beehives of activity, all geared toward the middle class. Candler Hospital was downtown, the train station (mentioned in the film Some Like It Hot, set in the 1930s) was right downtown, the cool Old DeSoto Hotel was there, too. Armstrong "Junior College" was at Forsyth Park till 1966, as were 90% of public and Catholic schools. There was little street crime of any kind. This is where Savannah lived and shopped in those days. Ardsley Park was just being built. Everything north of Victory and east of Montgomery (MLK) was still middle-class or white working-class. Downtown looked just fine in the 1930s -- hotels, lots of foot traffic, lots of kids playing in the squares.

How do I know this? I heard it all from old-timers (born in the 1890s/turn of the 20th century), who told me and showed me pictures of snazzy ladies dressed like Carole Lombard walking down Broughton. Lady Astor did say Savannah was "the pretty lady with the dirty face," but that's because of congested white working-class tenements and lots of unsightly commercial activity within just a few square blocks. Not only the gentry but the working classes lived there. There were as many people walking around downtown as today, though fewer of them were tourists. Savannah had a very vibrant downtown life through the 1950s (as did all GA cities at this time).