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.
It's easy to forget about industrial jobs because so many of them are gone, the mill buildings around here look like they're usually within 1-2 mile from the centers of town rather than right in the center.
What I meant was: before automobiles smaller, local neighborhood stores lined the streetcar lines. Not everything was downtown back then, but the bigger businesses meant to serve most of the metro were usually downtown in a centralized location since the transit lines converged there. Larger department stores and offices were usually concentrated downtown. Many cities today the big shopping areas have moved to malls, suburban "power center" and the offices have moved to suburban office parks. True, centralization can lead to longer commutes. But in a small city, it doesn't make a huge difference. A lot of smaller upstate NY and New England cities have lost of shopping from the downtowns. Springfield, MA's downtown is rather dead but 100 years ago it looked something like this:
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
While you can argue whether the change has been for the better or worse, either way it's a drastic change.
Look at the link I posted and click on Legend. It's from 1943, so yea, it's a long time ago. But even for decades later, Manhattan had the highest crime rate in the city and was parts were known as seedy. There are some high, very high rent districts in Manhattan (as you can see from the map) in 1943. That's probably why it was thought of as the "high end" part of NYC especially for people not from there. But outside there was a lot in the lowest catergory. East Central Park, the immediate section to the east is in the most expensive catergory and then it drops to the cheapest catergory.The other parts of NYC were more middle of the road (though, northern Brooklyn had a large cheap part — some of that is now the more expensive part of Brooklyn). Manhattan used to be attractive to poor artists / bohmeians; now they're mostly priced out. Here are some reasons I can think of:
1) Unlike Pittsburgh, there was a lot of industry (smaller scale, though) in the city center, especially at the waterfront areas. Not too pleasant to live in
2) City may have been less white-collar so there was less highly paid workers to concentrate by the city center
3) Much of the island had old tenements. It wasn't too many decades before that immigrants filled them
Speaking of Manhattan, I think this was an interesting story of a woman who lived on the same city block for 100 years (her grand-daughter is living in the building she owns and used to live in):
That was a neat story. I have heard stories from my mom, who would be 90 if she were still alive, about growing up on a farm in Wisconsin w/o running water, indoor plumbing, central heat or electricity; also from my MIL growing up on a farm in Nebraksa.
Most cities had/have several local shopping areas in addition to downtown. For ex, Pittsburgh has Oakland (where the universities are); Squirrel Hill; Shadyside; East Liberty; the South Side, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34
Even if true, that would not imply that demolition was the only or best solution. Consider the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where much of the housing was substandard as late as the 1980s, but today apartments in the exact same buildings are now among the most valuable rental housing in the country (per sq. ft.)
It was the solution the "urban planners" of the day decided was best, just like they do now. What substandard meant in 1980 was probably quite different than substandard in 1945. You should read some of my links.
Speaking of Manhattan, I think this was an interesting story of a woman who lived on the same city block for 100 years (her grand-daughter is living in the building she owns and used to live in):
One thing that I thought was interesting to read was that the streets were public space, not used by traffic:
Ms. Jacobs recalled helping her father distribute newspapers in the mornings to houses on the block, and playing games in the street, where the only traffic was an occasional horse and wagon.
I wish more city streets are like that today.
Also mentions the family didn't have a toilet in their apartment, it shared and down the hallway. I wonder if that skews the indoor plumbing stats? I thought 30% in the OP sounded too high but maybe rural and poorer parts of the country (South, Applachia) are part of the reason. From what I heard from my grandparents, they didn't really lack modern amneities.
45% for the whole country, 17.3% for Massachusetts, 17.8% for New York. And to count as having plumbing, the bathrooms were required to be exclusive. So shared down the hall bathrooms (NYC tenement style) would count as not having plumbing. I think the divide for not having plumbing in the stats was an urban vs rural thing. Massachusetts was only 12% rural or so by 1900, New York was also one most urban states as well. The only state that had a higher rate of plumbing than Massachusetts was California which was well-off and new.
almost every NYC household had a radio. Only 1 telephone for every 10 residents, though. Housing costs were much cheaper than today. Public schools probably better, and a more sane place for the middle class.
It was the solution the "urban planners" of the day decided was best, just like they do now. What substandard meant in 1980 was probably quite different than substandard in 1945. You should read some of my links.
All that happened was the urban planners" never managed to rehab or demolish all the old tenements. In the 1980s, non-poor people became interested in living in the neighborhoods with tenements, and there was a market incentive to rehab them. Substandard didn't change (there were some apartments with hot water in 1945, those were gone by 1980) just renovating old housing only happens when there's demand. Still, with stuff that bad, there are limits. Construction size and style are more the issues than build quality.
''You can always squeeze another couple of decades of life out of the shell,'' he said, ''but optimally you shouldn't have that quality of housing around this long.''
One thing that I thought was interesting to read was that the streets were public space, not used by traffic:
Ms. Jacobs recalled helping her father distribute newspapers in the mornings to houses on the block, and playing games in the street, where the only traffic was an occasional horse and wagon.
I don't know if the streets were "public space" although there was certainly less vehicular traffic back then. You still see kids playing in Manhattan streets, however, particularly the more quiet, one-way streets up in Harlem and Washington Heights.
One of my parent's friends grew up in this neighborhood. Was working class Jewish at the time, used to literally elect Socialists. Brownsville, Brooklyn 1962:
A lot of people think New York is non-stop automobile and pedestrian traffic. Saturday mornings are generally pretty quiet in the city. Many streets are rather tranquil like this one.
A lot of people think New York is non-stop automobile and pedestrian traffic. Saturday mornings are generally pretty quiet in the city. Many streets are rather tranquil like this one.
All right, it's getting close to July 4, time for an update. I hope all of you have made your plans to go to Omaha. It will take three days (another biblical thing) to drive there from either the east or west coast, two days from Pittsburgh. There are some cheap plane tickets available to Omaha, but you have to get them in advance.
Since this thread focused (if you can call it focused at all) on the definition of substandard housing for a while, I'd like to share with all of you a passage from a book about Omaha that I just finished, The Rhythm Boys of Omaha Central; High School Basketball at the '68 Racial Divide.
p. 96: "In October 1967 Bob Gibson was an All-Star right-hander who led the St. Louis Cardinals into the World Series and won three games en route to Hall of Fame election. Gibson, who grew up fatherless on the Near North Side (of Omaha) and graduated from Tech (High School) in 1955, wrote in his autobiography of a rat-infested house on Hamilton Street. "We nailed tin cans over holes in the floors to keep the rats out, but they ate through the cans and one of them bit me in the ear while I was sleeping, Gibson wrote" ".
This is the kind of sub-standard housing I was talking about, not some kind of place where they didn't have granite countertops or a Jacuzzi in the bathroom. It's certainly not unique to Omaha, either.
So were suburbs the only solution to the problem of substandard housing?
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.
