I scoured google maps for urban prarie, but all the urban prairie i could find in Newark turned out to be developed when i got to streetview mode.My guess is that most would be in the Newark and Camden areas.
Hi everyone. I'm the photographer who took the images being discussed here.My guess is that the vast majority of those images were taken in the old St. Cyril's neighborhood.
St. Louis is one of the cities which has lost well over half its peak population. That being so, it's really helped that most of the city was built of brick. Brick cities were built to last, Pittsburgh' another good example. At least they'll be standing in hopes of the next population wave.Maybe only in small pockets, but by no means is the vacant land in Saint Louis nearly as widespread as say, in Detroit. The City of Saint Louis is highly urbanized, even in areas that have suffered decline. Sure, there are some neighborhoods with a lot of vacant lots, but they are peppered into the otherwise built-up landscape. Urban prairies exist in East St. Louis and some inner-ring suburbs moreso than in the City.
On the other hand, there's poor Buffalo, it must rank among the top among US cities when it comes to proportion of housing made out of wood. Its just the opposite of St. Louis in terms of housing stock. Both cities are left with well under half of their population. But I'd guess that Buffalo's chances of retaining or restoring its housing stock are are much less.^^ Some cities like Buffalo have proposed demolishing many of those kinds of stubborn 'block sentinels' and landbanking the parcels for future uses or for a return to a natural state. But the natural state option is the least likely because wooded lots within blighted areas quickly become havens for crime.
That Hartford isn't as depopulated as Buffalo owes mostly to that while its lost a of older residents, its also attracted LOTS more newcomers over the past several decades: Puerto Ricans, Jamaicans, other immigrants from the Caribbean, Latin America etc.I don't think that Hartford has any "urban prairies". Areas with vacant lots scattered abound on the North End, sure, but nothing to the extent like some parts of Buffalo's east side, which I've only been to once and that was through a bus.
you make some interesting, assumptions about wood vs brick.On the other hand, there's poor Buffalo, it must rank among the top among US cities when it comes to proportion of housing made out of wood. Its just the opposite of St. Louis in terms of housing stock. Both cities are left with well under half of their population. But I'd guess that Buffalo's chances of retaining or restoring its housing stock are are much less.
i agree. the modern woodframe crap that seeing built in buffalo as infill(mostly through low income housing programs) is probably just a scam to keep construction moving along.VP, yes, San Francisco has a significant amount of wooden housing. But as you mention that owes to wood having better flexibility in earthquakes, which are not a problem in Buffalo.
I'm not sure why Buffalo ended up becoming such a wooden city. May have to do with a large lumber mill in Tondawana. Or early zoning ordinances meant to discourage apartment & tenment houses of the type that predominates in NYC.
But whats really pitiful is all the recent houses that have been built in Buffalo, nearly all wooden or vinyl, & wearing out quickly. Rather than any effort to upgrade the housing stock to brick, which in predominant in cities like Chicago, with similar weather conditions.
Seems more like a short-sighted program to keep the contracters in business, rather than creating a more sustainable city.