st. louis - before the arch

[STLgasm]

Here's a nice article about St. Louis' Chinatown (Hop Alley):

http://www.umsl.edu/virtualstl/phase...atownnode.html

[JackStraw]

I love old photos of cities. It is even better when you know the city, so you know the areas of the photographs, and how much it changed, or stayed the same.

[ethereal_reality]

STLgasm. The article about Chinatown was great. THX for directing me there.

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by LSyd

whoa, wierd...i've had a repeating dream that i'm in a denser, flooded st. louis without an arch...and it looks like this, but i've never really seen such detailed photos of this area before.

-

Oddly enough, I have too -- I'm not Jungian, but that's a little weird.

As for our lamentations about the loss of these buildings, it's important to realize they would have been destroyed with or without the development of the Arch. St. Louis had long-past turned its back on the riverfront before the memorial was planned, and these buildings would have fallen into decay on their own. It truly is sad commentary about America's predilection for "chasing the new" (and disdaining the old), though, to see what was lost.

Although in a way I guess that same compulsion -- commemorated by the Gateway Arch, as it happens -- is what brought St. Louis into existence in the first place...

[Xing]

St. Louis has(d) a disease called, "bulldoze and start over," one that is similar to people who run away from their problems, rather than working with them. I can't imagine St. Louis without the Arch. I guess it's fair to call it one of the few exceptions.

[palermodude]

Wonderful thread.

Is there a one-stop website that archives/documents all of the historical photos of demolished neighborhoods, or once dense neighborhoods in STL?

We need to keep adding to this thread.
More photos please.

I am sure there are more photos, drawings, etc of the destroyed riverfront neighborhood, as well as other destroyed once vibrant neighborhoods.

Any comments?

[ady26]

Strange and vibrant!

Originally Posted by palermodude

Wonderful thread.

Is there a one-stop website that archives/documents all of the historical photos of demolished neighborhoods, or once dense neighborhoods in STL?

We need to keep adding to this thread.
More photos please.

I am sure there are more photos, drawings, etc of the destroyed riverfront neighborhood, as well as other destroyed once vibrant neighborhoods.

Any comments?

here's a good one:

http://www.builtstlouis.net/

[palermodude]

Could anyone estimate the following:
How much of STL pre-1930 architecture has been destroyed/demolished?
How many entire historical neighborhoods have been destroyed/demolished?
Is it possible that 70-80% of that which was standing in 1930/40 is still there?
Or am I a naive dreamer?

I love the Arch, but they destroyed what could have been a great tourist attraction, by demolishing 80 SQUARE BLOCKS of dense, historical structures. That was the oldest part of the city.

Has anyone seen Old Montreal? They built the "new city" just west of the original settlement, and they did not destroy it. Now it's a huge tourist attraction.

[STLgasm]

A lot of our historic architecture has been lost over the years, but overall St. Louis has an amazing wealth of dense historic neighborhoods. Most cities would be love to have one block of what St. Louis has miles and miles of. The city oozes history from practically every corner. It was, after all, the 4th biggest city 100 years ago.

[palermodude]

Originally Posted by STLgasm

A lot of our historic architecture has been lost over the years, but overall St. Louis has an amazing wealth of dense historic neighborhoods. Most cities would be love to have one block of what St. Louis has miles and miles of. The city oozes history from practically every corner. It was, after all, the 4th biggest city 100 years ago.

Thanks for your response ... but in your estimation, how much is "a lot"?

I'm just trying to get an idea of what % has been demolished.

For example, a very weak comparison indeed, but take Paris 100 years ago (1910), I would say that 90% of the architecture that was there in 1910 is still standing.

What would STL be? I know it was one of the largest US cities 100 years ago, I guess I'm trying to figure out how much of the city was "ruined".

[Suburban Lou]

A surreal color image of Pruitt-Igoe and it's surroundings in the late 50s.

link

[palermodude]

Originally Posted by Suburban Lou

A surreal color image of Pruitt-Igoe and it's surroundings in the late 50s.

link

Wow... incredible picture.
Such destruction of a seemingly full-of-potential European-type historical neighborhood.
Saint Louis... WHY WHY WHY WHY????????????

[STLgasm]

That picture of Pruitt-Igoe is heartbreaking indeed. Palermodude, I really can't estimate what percentage of building stock has been lost-- large swaths of Midtown and the North Side have been decimated over the last half-century, but most of the South Side and West End are intact and thriving. Here are some contemporary shots that show off the present-day density (Photos courtesy of KCgridlock):

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by theWatusi

Wow tragic. Similar destruction was done in Philly for the construction of I95 along Penn's landing.

They did the same thing for the creation of Independence Mall.

[palermodude]

Here's a telling passage regarding Pruitt-Igoe:

"...During the 1940s and '50s, the city of St. Louis, constrained by its 1876 boundaries, was "a very crowded place"; "in almost a classic sense it looked and felt like a 'real' big city ... like something out of a Charles Dickens novel".[7] Its housing stock deteriorated through the interbellum decades and World War II. More than 85 thousand families lived in 19th century tenements; a 1947 official survey found out that 33 thousand homes had communal toilets.[7] Middle-class, predominantly white, residents were leaving the city, their former residences were occupied by low-income families. Black (north) and white (south) slums of the old city were segregated and expanding, threatening to engulf the city center.[8] To save central properties from an imminent loss of value, city authorities settled on redevelopment of the "inner ring" around the central business district.[8] Decay was so profound there that gentrification of existing real estate was considered impractical.[7]

In 1947, Saint Louis planners proposed replacement of DeSoto-Carr, a run-down black neighborhood, with new two- and three-story residential blocks and a public park.[9] The plan did not materialize; instead, Democratic mayor Joseph Darst, elected in 1949, and Republican state leaders favored total clearing of the slums and replacing them with high-rise, high-density public housing. They reasoned that the new projects would create a net positive result to the city through increased revenues, new parks, playgrounds and shopping space.[7]

We must rebuild, open up and clean up the hearts of our cities. The fact that slums were created with all the intrinsic evils was everybody's fault. Now it is everybody's responsibility to repair the damage.
Joseph Darst, 1951[10]..."

-source, Wikipedia

It's a very strange passage. I'm sure there was more to it than what meets the eye. If one reads between the lines a little, one might conclude that the explanations for destroying the city sound like a veiled attempt to manage the racial tensions.

Gentrification was impractical? Gee, how did they conclude that? Maybe people were actually living in those neighborhoods. Better to sell the public on modernization and kick those low-income minorities out.

[ethereal_reality]

Below: St. Louis levee 1860s

[SuburbanNation]

This may sound harsh, but my estimation is that around 50% of what made St. Louis a "big city" on a continental scale is gone - not in land area but in quality and density. The most problematic issue is that the great crescent of pre streetcar walking rowhouse/tenement neighborhoods surrounding downtown is for all practical purposes, gone - neighborhoods like Soulard were more suburban (though anything but today...). Again, these areas are not large in square mileage, but they were much of the old, deep soul of St. Louis City. The entire region seemed to effectively suffer a sort of stroke at the same time these neighborhoods were being cleared 1930s-1960s...how this might have been connected, i don't know. In any case, its almost like St. Louis declared total war on the row house. Its taken 50 years + to begin a real recovery.

Yes there were strong racial undertones, but my guess is that unlike Chicago and coastal cities, people stopped coming to St. Louis. Why come here anymore when there were much better paying jobs in Detroit and Los Angeles. There was no "backflow" of people to fill the voids that were created as the middle class moved outward (as they did everywhere). While St. Louis went way, way too far in demolition, the deterioration of the inner housing stock probably far exceeded anything on the coasts (other than parts of NYC). Not to mention, it looked just like the old places many immigrants had just left...with no better job prospects.

Here is the pruitt igoe area, 1.5 to 2 miles from the downtown riverfront, surrounded by blocks of attached housing with corner commercial, near the time it was built. The cleared area on the upper right is pruitt-igoe. Classic robust Northside with tons of commercial, alley houses, and contiguous density extending further than the old Southside ever did. Just too much squirrely mixed use for the "new" urban midwest. It was also still very dirty, too many years of cheap as dirt southern illinois coal. If they had only powerwashed everything in St. Louis first, before doing anything else...


http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s.../northside.jpg



1972 - coming down on television...


http://rjdent.files.wordpress.com/20...ion-color1.jpg

something far, far beyond st. louis was happening at this point, however. and st. louis has had to disproportionately work, buckling, breaking, but somehow surviving under that tremendous weight ever since.

[Samthelima]

The arch is a magnificent structure, but destruction on such a monumental scale was totally unnecessary. Most of the park is so barren and lifeless. The arch worked with an existing urban axis, why couldn't it have worked with the existing fabric? The shear and massive scale of the arch would have been enhanced by it being incorporated in the city, or in a much smaller park.

What a waste!

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by palermodude

Here's a telling passage regarding Pruitt-Igoe:

"...During the 1940s and '50s, the city of St. Louis, constrained by its 1876 boundaries, was "a very crowded place"; "in almost a classic sense it looked and felt like a 'real' big city ... like something out of a Charles Dickens novel".[7] Its housing stock deteriorated through the interbellum decades and World War II. More than 85 thousand families lived in 19th century tenements; a 1947 official survey found out that 33 thousand homes had communal toilets.[7] Middle-class, predominantly white, residents were leaving the city, their former residences were occupied by low-income families. Black (north) and white (south) slums of the old city were segregated and expanding, threatening to engulf the city center.[8] To save central properties from an imminent loss of value, city authorities settled on redevelopment of the "inner ring" around the central business district.[8] Decay was so profound there that gentrification of existing real estate was considered impractical.[7]

In 1947, Saint Louis planners proposed replacement of DeSoto-Carr, a run-down black neighborhood, with new two- and three-story residential blocks and a public park.[9] The plan did not materialize; instead, Democratic mayor Joseph Darst, elected in 1949, and Republican state leaders favored total clearing of the slums and replacing them with high-rise, high-density public housing. They reasoned that the new projects would create a net positive result to the city through increased revenues, new parks, playgrounds and shopping space.[7]

We must rebuild, open up and clean up the hearts of our cities. The fact that slums were created with all the intrinsic evils was everybody's fault. Now it is everybody's responsibility to repair the damage.
Joseph Darst, 1951[10]..."

-source, Wikipedia

It's a very strange passage. I'm sure there was more to it than what meets the eye. If one reads between the lines a little, one might conclude that the explanations for destroying the city sound like a veiled attempt to manage the racial tensions.

Gentrification was impractical? Gee, how did they conclude that? Maybe people were actually living in those neighborhoods. Better to sell the public on modernization and kick those low-income minorities out.

Interesting passage. I think it just highlights how different the perspective was circa 1950 - remember that 1950 was before gentrification had entered the popular lexicon and was basically not even considered in the universe of possible outcomes for an older decayed neighborhood. 1950 was also before the effects of urban renewal (slum clearance, etc.) could be fully comprehended. Heck, it was a decade before Jane Jacobs even wrote Death and Life..., which itself was ahead of its time. The past 60 years of experience give us a much different perspective on what politicians and planners confronted at that time.

The lesson to me is the importance of humility - what are planners and politicians missing now that will seem so obvious in 50 years? Confronted with the same knowledge they had (and nothing more), would we have acted differently?