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 am living in Pittsburgh, and I am constantly saddened by the loss of historic buildings and neighborhoods this city suffered in the 1950s-1970s, due to urban renewal, "slum clearance," etc. Much of the city, including the central North Side, Hill District, a large section of downtown, and part of the Uptown area, was decimated. A highway was also put through the Deutschtown and Manchester neighborhoods. So many historic buildings were destroyed, many from the mid 19th century and earlier.
Is there a major, historic city in America that has not seen its historic urban fabric severely compromised by urban renewal efforts of the 1950s-1970s? I would like to live in that city.
It seems like Natchez, Mississippi preserved a great deal, but it might be too small for what you mean. Boston, Massachusetts and Savannah, Georgia look to have a fair amount of historical landmarks.
Boston still has a wonderful amount of historic architecture, although it wasn't immune to urban renewal (see: the West End and Government Center). Some of the most well-preserved historic towns lie on the outskirts of the city, like Concord, Marblehead, Ipswich, Newburyport, etc.
As for smaller cities, Newport RI, Portsmouth NH, and Annapolis MD all come to mind.
Didn't Boston get just wrecked by destruction in the 50's and 60's? I remember pictures where half the central area was leveled to the ground to make way for the interstate and areas to the west/south of there.
San Fran might be one that didn't get really destroyed, or Seattle.
Aside from the large highrises, a huge part of central Chicago has been torn down and replaced. I've seen pictures of Minneapolis too and was in shock. The city looked absolutely beautiful back in the day, and they went on a rampage just tearing down everything.
One of the worst might be Houston as well - I remember pictures from the 1970's and almost the ENTIRE downtown area was a sea of parking lots.
Minneapolis was gutted by urban renewal but St Paul escaped it for the most part and is still largely intact, most of what it lost was due to the construction of the interstates.
Didn't Boston get just wrecked by destruction in the 50's and 60's? I remember pictures where half the central area was leveled to the ground to make way for the interstate and areas to the west/south of there.
Yes, much of the downtown and the entire West End were completely demolished; on the other hand, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, most of the North End, the South End, Charlestown and many other neighborhoods have been very well-preserved.
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.
