Pictures of southern skylines back in the day.....

[desertpunk]

"Little Chicago" Johnson City TN c.1970


http://www.johnsonsdepot.com/chicago/chicago.htm

[desertpunk]

Tampa c.1960


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...362767&page=11

[desertpunk]

OKC 1960s


http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/


Midtown 1960s


http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

[WeimieLvr]

Winston-Salem 1952

http://www.digitalforsyth.org/photos/4581

Winston-Salem 1965

http://www.digitalforsyth.org/photos/433

[desertpunk]

Welch WV 1940


http://www.topix.com/album/detail/ia...3KICCLDJJKJQ82

[Chadoh25]

Great photos! sometimes I think I was born in the wrong decade. I'd love to see how alive cities and towns were back in the day!

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by Chadoh25

Great photos! sometimes I think I was born in the wrong decade. I'd love to see how alive cities and towns were back in the day!

Yeah...they look great in photos, but they were no fun to live in. Why do you think so many people fled them?

[Chadoh25]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

Yeah...they look great in photos, but they were no fun to live in. Why do you think so many people fled them?

Right, because abandoning them and letting them turn into sprawling ghettos is somehow the answer. Yes, cities have their downsides, but many people left for reasons that had nothing to do with the city itself. But this isn't the thread for that discussion, so go troll elsewhere please!

[spencer114]

I didn't read his comment as "trolling".

While these old photos are lovely, the cities back in the day were kind of shit holes, unless you like pollution and trash. The buildings look nice but the experience was something different.

I'm pretty sure that all of us on this board are better suited for the present. That said I'd love to go back in time and see these places, just not sure that I'd want to live there.

[desertpunk]

This was the battle cry of urban destruction:



Too bad that for many cities, the 'shiny new towers' never materialized and the "6 levels of underground parking" turned out to be an endless sea of surface parking lots. But at least the freeways got built...to better facilitate flight to the suburbs.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by Chadoh25

Right, because abandoning them and letting them turn into sprawling ghettos is somehow the answer. Yes, cities have their downsides, but many people left for reasons that had nothing to do with the city itself. But this isn't the thread for that discussion, so go troll elsewhere please!

It seems you put many words in my mouth...who's trolling now?

I didn't say that any of what you posted was "the answer" and we were talking about what cities WERE like, not what they are like now. My comment wasn't meant to offend you - but judging from your response, it did. It was simply an observation about romanticizing the way of life in cities of the early 1900s.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by spencer114

I didn't read his comment as "trolling".

While these old photos are lovely, the cities back in the day were kind of shit holes, unless you like pollution and trash. The buildings look nice but the experience was something different.

I'm pretty sure that all of us on this board are better suited for the present. That said I'd love to go back in time and see these places, just not sure that I'd want to live there.

Thank you. You said it better than I did.

[Chadoh25]

Originally Posted by spencer114

I didn't read his comment as "trolling".

While these old photos are lovely, the cities back in the day were kind of shit holes, unless you like pollution and trash. The buildings look nice but the experience was something different.

I'm pretty sure that all of us on this board are better suited for the present. That said I'd love to go back in time and see these places, just not sure that I'd want to live there.

That's kind of a rather narrow view of things don't you think? Sure, there were parts of cities that were dirty, overcrowded, and polluted. But to suggest that all cities were like that is false and an over simplification of the issue. Up until the 1960s, parts of the eastside of Cleveland were still pretty nice. I think it's safe to say that just as many people, if not more, left the city because of social problems which had nothing to do with the city itself. Yes, I'm sure the experience of city living was very different than it is now. However, if I had to decide between the Detroit or Cleveland of today or the one of the 1960s, I would happily go with the latter.

[ohpenn]

I think there is also a narrow minded view that romanticizes cities back in the day because they were so dense and lively and the crowded and other aspects have been forgotten.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by Chadoh25

That's kind of a rather narrow view of things don't you think? Sure, there were parts of cities that were dirty, overcrowded, and polluted. But to suggest that all cities were like that is false and an over simplification of the issue. Up until the 1960s, parts of the eastside of Cleveland were still pretty nice. I think it's safe to say that just as many people, if not more, left the city because of social problems which had nothing to do with the city itself. Yes, I'm sure the experience of city living was very different than it is now. However, if I had to decide between the Detroit or Cleveland of today or the one of the 1960s, I would happily go with the latter.

We weren't specifically talking about the 1960s earlier...but considering that was the initial decade of urban renewal, most cities weren't great then either. But if that's your opinion and you think you would like life in U.S. cities then...okay.

[Chadoh25]

Originally Posted by ohpenn

I think there is also a narrow minded view that romanticizes cities back in the day because they were so dense and lively and the crowded and other aspects have been forgotten.

I would agree. However, I think the key is to have a balanced view. To take the good AND THE BAD. Nothing in this world is prefect, even great cities. But they're not all bad either. What I found annoying was what looked like an overly simplistic view that people left the cities because they were nice. It's alitte more complicated than that!

[Durhamite]

Originally Posted by Chadoh25

I would agree. However, I think the key is to have a balanced view. To take the good AND THE BAD. Nothing in this world is prefect, even great cities. But they're not all bad either. What I found annoying was what looked like an overly simplistic view that people left the cities because they were nice. It's alitte more complicated than that!

Quite frankly, I don't think most cities contained the proper infrastructure to support a huge urban expansion during those times. Parking, large retail and other amenities are a natural fit for big box and surburban lifestyles. I lived near downtown DC (capitol hill area) for a year and frequently traveled to Maryland and VA for certain things. For a some things it was just less of a headache (parking, etc) to deal with and overall more cost effective.

I'm all for supporting mom and pop stores, local retail but no way could they properly cater to the masses. Tell ya the truth, I'm not as gung-ho for living in densely populated urban areas since the DC experience many moons ago. If I had been reared in that kind of an environment I'm sure my perspective would differ but give me a little "breathing" room. Basically, I think many city dwellers back-in-the-day longed for the white picket fence lifestyle.

[Chadoh25]

Originally Posted by Durhamite

Quite frankly, I don't think most cities contained the proper infrastructure to support a huge urban expansion during those times. Parking, large retail and other amenities are a natural fit for big box and surburban lifestyles. I lived near downtown DC (capitol hill area) for a year and frequently traveled to Maryland and VA for certain things. For a some things it was just less of a headache (parking, etc) to deal with and overall more cost effective.

I'm all for supporting mom and pop stores, local retail but no way could they properly cater to the masses. Tell ya the truth, I'm not as gung-ho for living in densely populated urban areas since the DC experience many moons ago. If I had been reared in that kind of an environment I'm sure my perspective would differ but give me a little "breathing" room. Basically, I think many city dwellers back-in-the-day longed for the white picket fence lifestyle.

I can see that. I live in Downtown Columbus and I also must travel to Easton for many things. But I like being around people and I like living in a place where I can walk to the park, museum, church, or my bank! It's not prefect, but I enjoy it! Although to be honest, I don't think I could live in a place like NYC or La. That's alittle to much for me. Plus the parking issue would drive me nuts. lol

[krazeeboi]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

We weren't specifically talking about the 1960s earlier...but considering that was the initial decade of urban renewal, most cities weren't great then either.

Even at the initial outset of urban renewal, urban cores were still much more intact than they are now so in terms of physical form, I think they were much better than they are now. But socially? As a Black man, I think the answer is obvious. A "best of all worlds" situation would take the social, technological, and medical progress of today and the physical form of cities mid-century and combine the two.

[SpraysOnBlue]

bad ass 1938 Kansas City Missouri