Which historic US cities experienced the least destruction due to urban renewal? (house, area)

[ski-mann]

I am a native NYer living in metro-Atlanta now for two decades since finishing grad school here. I would say concentrate on a particular section of a great city if you want to stay in NYS and pay taxes taxes and more taxes to support NYC. Another thread but the reason we left!
Ten Broeck Triangle in Albany is HIGHLY intact with several blocks of it fully regentried and people are now moving on down Clinton redoing. We own a home in TBT and you can walk to EVERYTHING! Do not overlook Utica either. It is hugely intact with decadent Guilded-Age houses over around Steuben Park. The area around it shows signs of coming up and oddly in that area some gentry classed people never left. The houses are there (in Utica Stueben Park District) to poise it for a major comeback. Luckily the County is redoing one of the really great ones in the Park now for a tourist attraction. If I did not have a home in Albany THAT is where I would have my NYS home.

[greatblueheron]

I am moving to Charleston SC soon....while not a major reason for the move, the fact that the city is so unchanged and that historical buildings are pointedly kept in pristine condition is a definite draw. The older I get the more important history seems to get for me.....

[Craziaskowboi]

Atlanta doesn't have any buildings left that were built before 1864.

[GRS86]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Atlanta doesn't have any buildings left that were built before 1864.

Heck, it's not a large percentage of buildings here in Metro Atlanta dating back prior to 1964, let alone 1864. The 1890's houses in Grant Park/Inman Park, and the 1920's-30's bungalows scattered throughout the city is about as good as it gets here when it comes to historical architecture.

[recycled]

Santa Fe, the capitol of New Mexico, is loaded with buildings and homes in the historic central district that are several hundred years old. Some buildings date back to the 1600s and 1700s. I know it has become an upscale tourist, art and food destination, but Santa Fe is a good place to wander around as long as you avoid peak tourist season.

[nashvols]

Nashville has a fair amount (not huge) of historic neighborhoods surrounding the CBD, as well as plantation homes scattered throughout the metro and region...but urban renewal was pretty hard on the downtown area. No, it's not hard to find historic buildings, but it's quite obvious that a number of them were destroyed in the name of progress.

Nashville in the 1940s - Nashville, TN : citynoise.org

A lot of the CBD density was replaced by parking lots...and only recently have some of the old buildings been revived by utilization as condos and lofts. I think it will be another 20-30 years before surface parking lots and downtown car dealerships are a thing of the past, and the true density is restored.

[kingchef]

memphis farms, churches, several public buildings, riverside, boating, playing cards, horse riding, fishing, and betting/wagering. and much more, i just am too sleepy to remember the old history areas, besides the annesdale district, central district, the artisian acquifer.

[jeffredo]

Originally Posted by Remisc

Detroit is one of the worst cities for historic preservation. Most of it's grand mansions in the Brush Park district have either crumbled to nothing from prolonged abandonment, or have been torn down to make room for upscale condominium developments, as seen in the photo I have attached.



Just imagine how beautiful that home must've been, 90 years ago.

I had never heard of Brush Park, Detroit. Googled it, looked at the pictures and its just heartbreaking to see what were gorgeous old 19th century mansions crumbling to bits. Such a shame.

[ldpavia]

I grew up in Chicago, and it appears to me Chicago would have to rank at or near the top for a lack of historic preservation. The center of the city burned in a great fire in 1871 save for an historic water tower and pumping station from 1869. There is basically nothing surviving from before the fire. Sadder however, is the wholesale destruction that has taken place throughout Chicago over more recent decades, especially after World War II. Entire neighborhoods of historical structures were wiped off the map for massive public housing blocks in the 1950's and '60's, some of which ran literally for miles in areas on the south side. There was a "gold coast" south of downtown that is gone with the exception of about 5 mansions out of hundreds. Other grand homes, many designed by famous architects and lining the north side lakefront for some nine miles up nearly to Evanston, were routinely demolished for hi-rise apartments and condominiums, many of which mimic the minimalist architecture of the aforementioned inner city public housing. This practice has persisted to the present; today about a dozen or so homes remain in that entire stretch. Upscale areas like Lincoln Park and Lakeview (Cubs/Wrigley Field area) that contained many 19th century structures have been largely replaced by multi-million dollar "Mc Mansions" in recent years. Other vintage neighborhoods, some of them former elegant suburbs and later annexed, have suffered from race riots, economic and physical abandonment, and have lost huge numbers of buildings in recent years under former Mayor Daley's "FastTrack" Demolition program.
Cities like Atlanta, GA (Burned during the Civil War), Dresden, (Germany), Warsaw (Poland), and others were destroyed or virtually bombed off the map during horrific wars. Chicago on the other hand, squandered a rich architectural history on it's own. The focus has always been on the new, the profitable and the politically advantageous. Ironically, the Chicago bungalow (simple, sturdy one-story homes designed for narrow lots), that comprises entire neighborhoods reaching out to the city limits, are beneficiaries of multiple landmark/historical programs and special financing for restoration.
Please don't get me wrong -- Chicago is a spectacular city; it's skyline, lake views, rich cultural attractions, amazing park system, etc., are unequaled. This ranting of mine is not to "trash" it, but simply to state facts pertaining to Chicago's historical preservation.

[sleepless in Bham]

Birmingham did a good job IMO of preservation during the urban renewal area. Its biggest loss was the railway terminal in 1969 to the Red Mtn expressway.