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.
St. Louis in third place, right behind NOLA and Memphis?
STL has lost 2/3 of its population since 1950--at last count that was the highest percentage of any city in the country (even more than Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo). Way too many abandoned buildings and neighborhoods that were knocked down to qualify as untouched.
St Louis has had significant change. One example--the infamous Pruitt Igoe--showcases the continuous transformation of neighborhoods. Traditional 'hood knocked down and replaced by towers, towers knocked down to replace it with new development.
Alongside, Boston, Chicago and every sunbelt city.
My answer would be a dead Midwest City
You aren't thinking *street level*
You are thinking "stand back and look at Manhattan's skyline" level. Not the same thing.
Have you been to NYC?
Think beyond the skyscrapers. Go deep into dense neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and many Manhattan areas. Very vintage and very 50s--even earlier in some areas.
St. Louis in third place, right behind NOLA and Memphis?
STL has lost 2/3 of its population since 1950--at last count that was the highest percentage of any city in the country (even more than Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo). Way too many abandoned buildings and neighborhoods that were knocked down to qualify as untouched.
St Louis has had significant change. One example--the infamous Pruitt Igoe--showcases the continuous transformation of neighborhoods. Traditional 'hood knocked down and replaced by towers, towers knocked down to replace it with new development.
I'm surprised so many people have voted for St Louis- even though it hasn't had much new development, it is a city which has been left largely unrecognizable from its 1950 form by the scars left from urban decay and botched urban "renewal" projects.
IDK , Its hard to say any city is relatively untouched from that long ago. for the people saying Pittsburgh, here's a typical street view from the early 50s. not very recognizable. and I think it was typical downtown street. the whole era was just so much different in look and feel, even if some of the buildings remain.
I do not think the thread was about downtowns or limited it to them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster
IDK , Its hard to say any city is relatively untouched from that long ago. for the people saying Pittsburgh, here's a typical street view from the early 50s. not very recognizable. and I think it was typical downtown street. the whole era was just so much different in look and feel, even if some of the buildings remain.
Your street-scene might have been taken in the 1950s. Still them buildings and huge signs are from a decades even before that built. Clearly them big markees would be gone today and street-cars.
I think this is more on neighborhoods and housing on blocks that much easier can be intact. Large city downtowns really few large city ones are fully intact. Certainly, businesses are not the same.
I previously posted some 20s 30s blocks fully intact neighborhood housing blocks and looking great in Chicago 100 yrs later.....
I can choose here 40s 50s neighborhood street-scenes with this one of Gingerbread homes of housing that no one is changing as built. Not saying in any way that this city should win this poll here. Just as EXAMPLES that neighborhoods can be clearly intact. I actually lived in a 50s neighborhood in-city and also a early 60s area of Chicago in the 80s. Majority is intact today. Some blocks might have a few infill examples and that is it.
Here is a 1940s 50s Gingerbread Tudor block I admired and had saved from a street-view.
No one is changing the look of these babies.....
This one on the father Northwest side of Chicago by where my relatives lived and me decades ago.
I assure you it is the same as the late 70s I first saw it and these homes built in the 1950s this block
look the same on a main street here even.... Now go to the intersection there is a newer-type small strip-mall now.
This block of very early 1960s or could be very late 1950s 2-flat homes as they are called in Chicago.
absolutely no change on these blocks. All well built. Down the street peaking though is a 1960s mid-century modern Ukrainian Catholic Church in concrete and gold reflective glass. I remember the area fondly and timeless as it has remained...
The suburb nearby and surrounded by the city of Chicago of Norridge I lived for a couple years and would have loved to own one of these homes. Classic and Timeless form the very early 1960s and well built to last.
None of the above. I think it might have to be a smaller city. Hot Springs, Arkansas, for example, has been preserved more or less. Maybe Mobile or Chattabooga? Cities have two aspects --- residential and the business district. The business district of a 1 million pop. metro would not resemble itself in 1950, generally, but there would be buildings that survive from that era and well before. I think older residential districts might well resemble what they looked like in 1950 in a sense but some will look significantly better if they have been rehabbed or gentrified. Remember that the interstate highway system did not exist as we think of it today and it tore through cities like a tornado. Huge swaths of tenements and empty warehouses or industrial structures were pulled down as urban renewal. A very large city like NYC or Chicago might have a 1950s feel to it in some areas but might not look the same.
There are a good handful of major cities where the core infrastructure hasn't changed a whole lot since 1980, to which I'd say St. Louis would be a good contender.
The two tallest skyscrapers in St. Louis were built in the 80s, and the third tallest was completed in 2000. I'd use 2000 as the cutoff due to that, although there obviously has been development since then. Some new towers, the current iteration of Busch Stadium, a new bridge across the Mississippi, etc, but a skyline shot from 2000 would still probably look the most similar to today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego
St. Louis in third place, right behind NOLA and Memphis?
STL has lost 2/3 of its population since 1950--at last count that was the highest percentage of any city in the country (even more than Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo). Way too many abandoned buildings and neighborhoods that were knocked down to qualify as untouched.
I'd say south city does still look a lot like it did in 1950, but the issue is that we urban renewaled a massive section of the central corridor west of downtown that they're still working on healing to this day. Many north city neighborhoods north of Delmar have also been left to rot due to white flight, disinvestment, and continuing population decline / black flight.
Quote:
St Louis has had significant change. One example--the infamous Pruitt Igoe--showcases the continuous transformation of neighborhoods. Traditional 'hood knocked down and replaced by towers, towers knocked down to replace it with new development.
The Pruitt-Igoe site was never redeveloped. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's new western campus is going in next door to the old site, and they cleared the forest that had grown on the site, but that's it. New development remains to be seen.
I'd say south city does still look a lot like it did in 1950, but the issue is that we urban renewaled a massive section of the central corridor west of downtown that they're still working on healing to this day. Many north city neighborhoods north of Delmar have also been left to rot due to white flight, disinvestment, and continuing population decline / black flight.
I really love the character of STL historic neighborhoods. Too bad so many were lost.
I do think it's odd that people would find STL in the top 3 most intact of this list...
Quote:
The Pruitt-Igoe site was never redeveloped. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's new western campus is going in next door to the old site, and they cleared the forest that had grown on the site, but that's it. New development remains to be seen.
Thanks for clarifying. The tense I used was ambiguous. But to my point, an entire neighborhood being demolished twice in a half century isn't exactly "untouched". Just one example obviously.
St. Paul never builds anything. The downtown looks exactly the same as half a century ago. They dont demolish and build like they do in Minneapolis. I really dont think there is anywhere in the country where cities literally border eachother and yet look and feel so different. Walking around in downtown St. Paul vs downtown Minneapolis they might as well be 1000 miles away from eachother instead of 10. I also think Milwaukee could be thrown into the discussion
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.
I do not think the thread was about downtowns or limited it to them?
