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.
San Francisco had a pretty bad reputation in the 19th century, with its "Barbary Coast" (red light) district catering to all the sailors and gold miners, and race riots between whites and Chinese immigrants.
I have read that the towns of the "old west" had murder rates per capita that make modern Detroit look like Beverly Hills. If this is true then its fair to say that these western towns must have had a horrendous reputation.
The point I sought to make in an earlier post is that the resources, and the entrepreneurship which made great cities can also move away when the local thugs and hacks begin to throw their weight around. The nature of what made Detroit, in particular, a success, was the mobility, and interchangeability of the physical inputs, capital, and talent it required. What was provided could also be taken away.
That's a lesson our President's Chicago cronies haven't learned, likely can never master; but the lesson can be repeated, as often as necessary.
Actually, the early 20th century was the heyday of cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Toledo, etc. Industry was thriving with zero competition from foreign countries and little interference from the government (people weren't really all that worried about pollution at the time), and the best paying jobs in the country could be found in these cities. Detroit absolutely exploded in growth between 1910-1940. Henry Ford was paying $5/day in 1914 to assembly line workers in his automotive factories, a wage completely unheard of for the average working man up until then, and he was fine with hiring blacks, which, sadly, was not the case in a lot of places back then. Since there was little or no hope for anything close to this standard of living in many other parts of the country, people flocked to the industrial Upper Midwest.
In the 1920s, Detroit was a thriving, prosperous, beautiful city full of shiny new skyscrapers and mile after mile of new family neighborhoods. It was actually dubbed "The Paris of the Midwest" for its architecture and devotion to the Arts. The Detroit Opera House, the Fox Theater, the Fisher Theater, and the Detroit Institute of the Arts were built during this golden age and are still breathtaking today. Men of great wealth and influence built mansions and invested in Detroit. By the 1920s, Detroit was really "the place to be" in a lot of ways and had a very excellent reputation.
Toledo, Ohio was a smaller version of Detroit in the early 20th century; an industrial boom town filled with men of wealth and influence, the hub of the glass industry, and home to more beautiful mansions, lovely theaters, and a magnificant museum of art that is still ranked as one of the best in the country today.
I don't know much about Cleveland, having never lived in that region, but it seems that its story was much the same as that of Detroit if on a smaller scale because the automotive industry was not based there.
Worst reputations in the early 20th century? Maybe cow towns in the West or secondary cities in the post-war and still poverty stricken South such as Augusta and Chattanooga, considering the times and that industry was king. I know that Southerners moved to northern cities in record numbers during this period, so they obviously saw opportunity there that they didn't see at home.
Not to say that this hasn't change in the past century, obviously, but yeah, for that time period, the "Rust Belt" cities were hot, hot, hot and considered very desirable places to live with a relatively high standard of living.
That's really interesting that Detroit was so sought after back then. "The Paris of the Midwest" is especially fascinating. Compared to the state of inner Detroit today it would be quite the sight to see it back when it was still a world class city, so to speak.
Hartford, CT comes to mind. Very few people (though I am one) seem to be in favor of such a small city having such big skyscrapers while losing some vibrancy
Correct. The Rust Belt has a negative perception today, but prior to the 1950s they were booming.
Pittsburgh didn't have a good reputation even when it was booming. It's why the positive publicity of the last 10 years seems so foreign to most people, including many Pittsburghers themselves. It was a city that'd been **** on for more than 100 years prior.
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.
