Does anyone have anymore of pictures like these? I did this one today after stumbling across a picture of Main Street, Springfield, Massachusetts. Makes me a little sad that the romance of American cities has been dead for a long time.
Both pictures are looking westward down Main Street at approx. 1505 Main St.
NYC has photos of every block and lot in the boroughs - offhand I forget which libraries and departments have them. You could always check the nypl digital online archive.
The picture on the top portrays a very European modern metropolis. I don't know what the hell the bottom picture is suppose to portray. Are we going backwards as a nation when it comes to urbanization? It looks like a comparison between New York and Detroit. Jeez who's the genius in charge of urban planning in Springfield?!
From what I can tell so far, Springfield, Mass. was essentially at one point the New York of Mass.
And this supposedly wasn't one of the cherry picked views of the city. There was quite a bit of development like this duplicated throughout Springfield.
Up until the 1950s, Springfield was an epicenter of activity in the US.... especially during the colonial era.
However, in 1936 and 1938, Springfield was beset with disaster. Two enormous floods had destroyed much of the town. Coming off a depression and right into a war, there'd be little hope for a federal intervention. And because of the time, there was little architectural movement going on.
Because of post-war suburbanization and the increasing use of modernism in architecture, most of downtown Springfield was demolished instead of gutted and replaced. There was probably some sound non-culture bashing reasoning for this-- increased cost in manufacturing bricks and steel, shortages of zinc (used primarily in faking stone ornamentation) and disruptions in supply chains. Probably else worth mentioning that the Northeast was heavily hit by war casualties.
However, there seems to have been a trend between the 1920s and the 1960s where many 'traditional' cities in the US were left to slide into total disrepair forcing their demolition.
I'm a little peeved that no one thought it was worth fixing up 30-40 blocks worth of 6-8 story development. I mean the economic power this city had could have been baffling.
My friend, do you not live your life to the above 'catchphrases'? If not your may well be deemed to a tough life of self development and independant thought. The masses will hate you.
Zoolander... technically speaking, the 1905 version of Springfield is actually the more "advanced" and "forward" cityscape versus the 2009.
Just because a place has a veneer (in this case actuality) of history does not necessarily mean is not "modern." The 2009 is pretty regressed in terms of complexity and economic stability.
The building in the foreground left of the present day image is one of spflds few tall buildings (+/- 50 stories) the base tower overhangs the sidewalk and there is a row of storefront which unfortunately opens up to a failed mall located in the lower two levels of the building. of course, the part of the overhang which you can see is the parking garage between the mall and the office tower. (uggh)
The building in the back left of the current image is the former federal building, one of the worst in the city. The city recently took control of that building and moved the entire school department offices into there, so hopefully that will add to pedestrian density during the daytime.
To the right of the current image is a very small pocket park, which is decently landscaped and gets some decent use. (usually homeless people)
and to the back right of the current image (behind the building with the curved masonry and the pocket park) is spfld's most lively nightlife districts. (at least it was 10 years ago)
Although not shown in the current image, this area does see a good amount of pedestrian traffic - however, you fear for your life as you walk down the street.
I just applied for a community designer position there. I like to thoroughly research the cities I apply for jobs before I apply to them. I have sworn off places that are less than 40,000 in population.
I may of heard of Springfield but I had no idea that it actually existed and how it actually exists.
I do know the Feds took over the city because of budgeting conflicts and that most business activity in the city takes place in the Northeast? of it where there's your typical mega suburbs.
From the historical photographs, it just seems like such a sad place... ya know? Like one of the few places in the US where when you Grandparents say "it use to be a better time and a better place," this is actually one of those places.
I mean, this place had an effing Rolls Royce factory.
The 2009 picture I got from Google Streetview and tried my best to get the lens distortion to match the top picture. Unfortunately, Googles mobile camera has a shitty depth-of-field quality to it. But I suppose panoramic images have to be taken with a fisheye lens.
What has happened to Holyoke and Springfield is really sad, great neighborhoods, buildings and homes have been abandoned, neglected and destroyed.
There have been several great adaptive reuse projects going on in the area though, (sadly not in downtown Springfield). The place has great potential for the future.
If you do end up in Springfield, consider the Eastworks studios in Easthampton.
There is a whole series of Then and Now books for just about every major city in the western world. Pretty depressing...even for the European cities that we often celebrate over here in N. America.
I also was given a book years ago from a family member called Lost Twin Cities. Written by a journalist/historian and it documents all the great buildings in Mpls/St. Paul that were torn down in the name of things like Urban Renewal and "progress." What I found most amazing is the ornate mansions that were torn down sometimes only 10-20 years after being built. Often the industrialist who built it died and then it was just left to rot. Such a shame. Everything was made of brick and stone...today we have EIFS.
Orochi - The current group of individuals in the planning department are excellent to work with and that they are actively considering ways to improve the city.
I have been involved with 5 or so design charrettes with them over the past few years. They have your typical bureaucratic standards and expectations, but are also open to some progressive ideas.
Gad -- a "Springfield Rolls". . . I'd forgotten. Have to look that up. 'Twenties and early 'thirties, I'd guess. . .
On another site there's discussion of what sex is (i.e., "sexy") in architecture and design. When I saw a photo of a c 1930 Rolls Royce chassis without body, in a book in my hight school library, I saw one of my first "sexy" design images.
and don't forget Indian Motorcycles and Smith & Wesson.
Also a few H.H. Richardson buildings (2 churches and a juvenile court house next to the federal court mentioned above)
And almost worse that the crime and violence is the Gwathmey basketball hall of fame.
Richardson's buildings mean more to me as architecture than Wright's [gasp !]
They should be considered sacred ground. Marshall Field Warehouse still makes me moan -- and I'm not a "moaner" ! Library in Quincy. . . Sever Hall . . .
When I look at the old picture I see lots of people on the street,vendors,interaction,there is some activity going on. The tramway reminds me of Istanbul,where they are still present.Actually they started re-operating tramways over there a few years ago because they are pleasing to the eye,functional on narrow streets,provide a good transportation between short distances but more importantly they got them back because people enjoy riding on them. Anyway,back to the picture the buildings reflect a sense of style.Sure these are not very functional buildings which can solve the problems of their habitants but psychologically they evoke pleasantness.
They would certainly wouldn't be suitable for people of today to live in so of course they would have to be renovated or torn down completely. Buildings are ephemeral and transient,monumental architecture doesn't exist anymore but when replacing these buildings shouldn't we think about how they will affect the character of the place? Take the Borneo Sporenburg Houses for example:
I think they did a good job keeping the tradition and the character of urban settlement in Amsterdam while being modern and progressive.
What I see in the new picture are a couple of buildings on the left designed mainly to please lawyers and a huge empty street because apparently people don't walk over there. It is very cold and unwelcoming.
I love Manhattan! Although I'm not very fond of tall buildings I love the harmony and style of the place. Manhattan is beautiful in it's own way and Amsterdam is beautiful in it's own way but Orochi's above picture? Functional? Sure! Modern? Sure! But what do they tell us and how do they make us feel?
By the way,I recently graduated with an architectural technology degree liberty.Why did you ask?
SDR, as in landfill. in this case a botched expressway project later turned into a park. like all the green here used to be sea. it now functions as popular gathering place for anything from political rallies to open air concerts.
Paradoxx, you seemed to think it was odd to prefer the older, far more visually rich, denser image to the one that shows some clearly architect-designed buildings set on empty plinths. Your comment confused me that you might be a student who thought architecture was all about big monuments who was having an "aha" moment when you saw that the older denser shot actually looked more appealing.
In my own experience, architecture school was heavily weighted towards making great urban environments (1st pic), not objects in a field (2nd pic). So it's odd to me that anyone would think ANYone would prefer the second pic - but I fear that most people think most architects would.
there is actually a book called detroit then and now by cheri gay. it's kind of a lightweight coffee table picture book...but i think it's good enough that i've easily given away a dozen copies to friends.
i would image that there are books with a similar concept for just about every city in the usa.
Okay so the realities of 21st century urban decay are not as romantic and glamourous and sexy as what BLADERUNNER foretold...but hey, at least the ghetto's societal contribution of Hip Hop makes up for the burgeoning third world decay in all the big cities!
Perhaps this Great Depression II will awaken the sleeping consciences of many. That is, if there is any conscience left to wake up...
What makes your example a very interesting example was the people behind the master planning, West 8, wanted exactly what you're talking about to happen.
And part of the concept they present was that they wanted to have that generic house type repeated indefinitely throughout the project.
So, in a sense, it's a weird twist on historic revivalism with it being over type and not necessarily visual style.
I really have no problem with contemporary architectural reinventing "type" but things like that basketball museum really grind my gears.
The scale of the basketball museum in Springfield is very childish and dehumanizing in person...oh wait! It is perfectly suited to the clientelle it serves then. Never mind.
Well.. I don't know where I saw it, but there was one of Mission Valley in San Diego during the last 100 year flood in the 1920s showing the valley as wall-to-wall water and other showing all the condos they've built recently in the flood plain, from the same perspective vantage. I'd do a three image-montage (then, now, tomorrow). Then and tomorrow are submerged.
the world has definitely moved on though. even if we forced the property owners to rebuild their land just as it was doesn't mean life would be better for anyone...probably just mean lots of empty buildings downtown.
not being a big fan of back to the future scenarios i wonder where we go from here?
Springfield...got its sexiness.....by the manufacture of "Buggy Whips"
aka "Whip City".....and then then they had those bars where you could sit in a booth and call another booth and hit on the babes there.....I just can't recall the name of the bars ...Maybe "Dial Tone". Oh ya and Diners...who could ever forget diners in New England. My first experience with Springfield was back in 1972, and urban renewal was in full swing.. TAC was the Architecture firm of the moment....and they single handed destroyed the backbone of Springfield. TAC was Walter G old firm.
"In my own experience, architecture school was heavily weighted towards making great urban environments (1st pic), not objects in a field (2nd pic). So it's odd to me that anyone would think ANYone would prefer the second pic - but I fear that most people think most architects would."
You're right though in some of my classes we just concentrated on the design of one mammoth of a building and didn't pay much attention to the surroundings..wrong!
"but I fear that most people think most architects would.""
I don't know..some of them would really choose the second one I guess. I've been living on Long Island for 5 years now and it's architecture and planning is very reason I hate it..
I've got the book "Chicago, then and Now" I wouldn't reccomend it, simply because it seems like cheeply put together junk. The old time "then" photographs are mostly pretty nice, well framed shots, while the "now" shots are mostly terrible. The authors don't even try to get the shots from the same angle/location or take any time to set up a decent photograph. This series could be done so much better.
i post them because it's a relatively unknown example, and with the exception of the last two photos, is a small city that has done a fantastic job of preserving the scale and intimacy and architecture of it's downtown, without faking it and without any new urbanist crap. of course, there are exceptions, but all in all most of it's still intact. sort of like detroit, but smaller and without all the abandoned buildings.
Then and Now
Full Size
Does anyone have anymore of pictures like these? I did this one today after stumbling across a picture of Main Street, Springfield, Massachusetts. Makes me a little sad that the romance of American cities has been dead for a long time.
Both pictures are looking westward down Main Street at approx. 1505 Main St.
Mouse over the image.
NYC has photos of every block and lot in the boroughs - offhand I forget which libraries and departments have them. You could always check the nypl digital online archive.
I like the 104 years before version better.Is there something wrong with me?
Nothing wrong. Reliving your youth. lol
not a single person outside in your recent photo orochi..
Where is that, liberty ?
No, I don't think it's crazy to prefer a built environment a century old. . .
there is one person walking across the street in the middle.
wow...
public transportation
street vendors
legible signage
lively facade
but the bus stop that nods to the wonderful street that used to be seems more like a bitchslap upside the head... i bet that crap is legislated...
The picture on the top portrays a very European modern metropolis. I don't know what the hell the bottom picture is suppose to portray. Are we going backwards as a nation when it comes to urbanization? It looks like a comparison between New York and Detroit. Jeez who's the genius in charge of urban planning in Springfield?!
I know the guy gets some flack on this site, but this reminds me of some of James Howard Kunstler's Eyesores of the Month feature:
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore.html
Check out the old station in the bottom image.....
From what I can tell so far, Springfield, Mass. was essentially at one point the New York of Mass.
And this supposedly wasn't one of the cherry picked views of the city. There was quite a bit of development like this duplicated throughout Springfield.
Up until the 1950s, Springfield was an epicenter of activity in the US.... especially during the colonial era.
However, in 1936 and 1938, Springfield was beset with disaster. Two enormous floods had destroyed much of the town. Coming off a depression and right into a war, there'd be little hope for a federal intervention. And because of the time, there was little architectural movement going on.
Because of post-war suburbanization and the increasing use of modernism in architecture, most of downtown Springfield was demolished instead of gutted and replaced. There was probably some sound non-culture bashing reasoning for this-- increased cost in manufacturing bricks and steel, shortages of zinc (used primarily in faking stone ornamentation) and disruptions in supply chains. Probably else worth mentioning that the Northeast was heavily hit by war casualties.
However, there seems to have been a trend between the 1920s and the 1960s where many 'traditional' cities in the US were left to slide into total disrepair forcing their demolition.
I'm a little peeved that no one thought it was worth fixing up 30-40 blocks worth of 6-8 story development. I mean the economic power this city had could have been baffling.
That's Detroit, SDR.
Paradoxx are you an architecture student?
my neighborhood:
Not working here stevie.
Paradox,
Are you a bloody luddite?
'Change is good'
'Darwins Evolution'
'Science and technology are great'
My friend, do you not live your life to the above 'catchphrases'? If not your may well be deemed to a tough life of self development and independant thought. The masses will hate you.
Derek
Zoolander... technically speaking, the 1905 version of Springfield is actually the more "advanced" and "forward" cityscape versus the 2009.
Just because a place has a veneer (in this case actuality) of history does not necessarily mean is not "modern." The 2009 is pretty regressed in terms of complexity and economic stability.
third try, just the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deatonstreet/4247301656/
Orochi - are you from the 413?
The building in the foreground left of the present day image is one of spflds few tall buildings (+/- 50 stories) the base tower overhangs the sidewalk and there is a row of storefront which unfortunately opens up to a failed mall located in the lower two levels of the building. of course, the part of the overhang which you can see is the parking garage between the mall and the office tower. (uggh)
The building in the back left of the current image is the former federal building, one of the worst in the city. The city recently took control of that building and moved the entire school department offices into there, so hopefully that will add to pedestrian density during the daytime.
To the right of the current image is a very small pocket park, which is decently landscaped and gets some decent use. (usually homeless people)
and to the back right of the current image (behind the building with the curved masonry and the pocket park) is spfld's most lively nightlife districts. (at least it was 10 years ago)
Although not shown in the current image, this area does see a good amount of pedestrian traffic - however, you fear for your life as you walk down the street.
It is amazing to see what was lost
No, I'm not.
I just applied for a community designer position there. I like to thoroughly research the cities I apply for jobs before I apply to them. I have sworn off places that are less than 40,000 in population.
I may of heard of Springfield but I had no idea that it actually existed and how it actually exists.
I do know the Feds took over the city because of budgeting conflicts and that most business activity in the city takes place in the Northeast? of it where there's your typical mega suburbs.
From the historical photographs, it just seems like such a sad place... ya know? Like one of the few places in the US where when you Grandparents say "it use to be a better time and a better place," this is actually one of those places.
I mean, this place had an effing Rolls Royce factory.
The 2009 picture I got from Google Streetview and tried my best to get the lens distortion to match the top picture. Unfortunately, Googles mobile camera has a shitty depth-of-field quality to it. But I suppose panoramic images have to be taken with a fisheye lens.
I was a 413 student.
What has happened to Holyoke and Springfield is really sad, great neighborhoods, buildings and homes have been abandoned, neglected and destroyed.
There have been several great adaptive reuse projects going on in the area though, (sadly not in downtown Springfield). The place has great potential for the future.
If you do end up in Springfield, consider the Eastworks studios in Easthampton.
http://eastworks.com/
There is a whole series of Then and Now books for just about every major city in the western world. Pretty depressing...even for the European cities that we often celebrate over here in N. America.
I also was given a book years ago from a family member called Lost Twin Cities. Written by a journalist/historian and it documents all the great buildings in Mpls/St. Paul that were torn down in the name of things like Urban Renewal and "progress." What I found most amazing is the ornate mansions that were torn down sometimes only 10-20 years after being built. Often the industrialist who built it died and then it was just left to rot. Such a shame. Everything was made of brick and stone...today we have EIFS.
Orochi - The current group of individuals in the planning department are excellent to work with and that they are actively considering ways to improve the city.
I have been involved with 5 or so design charrettes with them over the past few years. They have your typical bureaucratic standards and expectations, but are also open to some progressive ideas.
Gad -- a "Springfield Rolls". . . I'd forgotten. Have to look that up. 'Twenties and early 'thirties, I'd guess. . .
On another site there's discussion of what sex is (i.e., "sexy") in architecture and design. When I saw a photo of a c 1930 Rolls Royce chassis without body, in a book in my hight school library, I saw one of my first "sexy" design images.
Sorry. . .where were we ?
and don't forget Indian Motorcycles and Smith & Wesson.
Also a few H.H. Richardson buildings (2 churches and a juvenile court house next to the federal court mentioned above)
And almost worse that the crime and violence is the Gwathmey basketball hall of fame.
Richardson's buildings mean more to me as architecture than Wright's [gasp !]
They should be considered sacred ground. Marshall Field Warehouse still makes me moan -- and I'm not a "moaner" ! Library in Quincy. . . Sever Hall . . .
When I look at the old picture I see lots of people on the street,vendors,interaction,there is some activity going on. The tramway reminds me of Istanbul,where they are still present.Actually they started re-operating tramways over there a few years ago because they are pleasing to the eye,functional on narrow streets,provide a good transportation between short distances but more importantly they got them back because people enjoy riding on them. Anyway,back to the picture the buildings reflect a sense of style.Sure these are not very functional buildings which can solve the problems of their habitants but psychologically they evoke pleasantness.
They would certainly wouldn't be suitable for people of today to live in so of course they would have to be renovated or torn down completely. Buildings are ephemeral and transient,monumental architecture doesn't exist anymore but when replacing these buildings shouldn't we think about how they will affect the character of the place? Take the Borneo Sporenburg Houses for example:
I think they did a good job keeping the tradition and the character of urban settlement in Amsterdam while being modern and progressive.
What I see in the new picture are a couple of buildings on the left designed mainly to please lawyers and a huge empty street because apparently people don't walk over there. It is very cold and unwelcoming.
I love Manhattan! Although I'm not very fond of tall buildings I love the harmony and style of the place. Manhattan is beautiful in it's own way and Amsterdam is beautiful in it's own way but Orochi's above picture? Functional? Sure! Modern? Sure! But what do they tell us and how do they make us feel?
By the way,I recently graduated with an architectural technology degree liberty.Why did you ask?
Errm the test link above is not my doing! Sorry about that lol.
note the seafill. in my childhood it was still like the old picture up until i was 10-12 y.o.
Nice comparisons, ParadOxx.
Seafill, Orhan ? What happened -- deposits of soil or sand from tidal action ?
SDR, as in landfill. in this case a botched expressway project later turned into a park. like all the green here used to be sea. it now functions as popular gathering place for anything from political rallies to open air concerts.
Ah. Which way do you prefer it ? I suppose each version has (had) its advantages ?
Oorchi,
I was taking the piss mate.
Of course the older picture is more developed.
I was having a dig at the way politicians such as NObama tell us that 'change' is good, while things continually get worse.
The recent picture shows the general decline of America.
Derek
Paradoxx, you seemed to think it was odd to prefer the older, far more visually rich, denser image to the one that shows some clearly architect-designed buildings set on empty plinths. Your comment confused me that you might be a student who thought architecture was all about big monuments who was having an "aha" moment when you saw that the older denser shot actually looked more appealing.
In my own experience, architecture school was heavily weighted towards making great urban environments (1st pic), not objects in a field (2nd pic). So it's odd to me that anyone would think ANYone would prefer the second pic - but I fear that most people think most architects would.
there is actually a book called detroit then and now by cheri gay. it's kind of a lightweight coffee table picture book...but i think it's good enough that i've easily given away a dozen copies to friends.
i would image that there are books with a similar concept for just about every city in the usa.
One reviewer's take on the book detroit then and now
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/09/david-frum-on-detroit-then-and-now.aspx
Okay so the realities of 21st century urban decay are not as romantic and glamourous and sexy as what BLADERUNNER foretold...but hey, at least the ghetto's societal contribution of Hip Hop makes up for the burgeoning third world decay in all the big cities!
Perhaps this Great Depression II will awaken the sleeping consciences of many. That is, if there is any conscience left to wake up...
Time: The Remains of Detroit
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1864272_1810098,00.html
The Business Insider: Amazing Before & After Pictures Of Detroit
http://www.businessinsider.com/amazing-before-and-after-pictures-of-detroit-2009-10
A youtube tour of the one big 21st century ghetto named Detroit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6WKMNmFsxM
Paradoxx,
What makes your example a very interesting example was the people behind the master planning, West 8, wanted exactly what you're talking about to happen.
And part of the concept they present was that they wanted to have that generic house type repeated indefinitely throughout the project.
So, in a sense, it's a weird twist on historic revivalism with it being over type and not necessarily visual style.
I really have no problem with contemporary architectural reinventing "type" but things like that basketball museum really grind my gears.
The scale of the basketball museum in Springfield is very childish and dehumanizing in person...oh wait! It is perfectly suited to the clientelle it serves then. Never mind.
Well.. I don't know where I saw it, but there was one of Mission Valley in San Diego during the last 100 year flood in the 1920s showing the valley as wall-to-wall water and other showing all the condos they've built recently in the flood plain, from the same perspective vantage. I'd do a three image-montage (then, now, tomorrow). Then and tomorrow are submerged.
I posted last week in Archinect. Los Angeles from the 6th. floor of the City Hall and from exact same angles. Then and now.
Wow -- that is the before-and-after (no, wait, that's a Wheel category) then-and-now capture of all time. . .
i like the old version of the city street.
the world has definitely moved on though. even if we forced the property owners to rebuild their land just as it was doesn't mean life would be better for anyone...probably just mean lots of empty buildings downtown.
not being a big fan of back to the future scenarios i wonder where we go from here?
Springfield...got its sexiness.....by the manufacture of "Buggy Whips"
aka "Whip City".....and then then they had those bars where you could sit in a booth and call another booth and hit on the babes there.....I just can't recall the name of the bars ...Maybe "Dial Tone". Oh ya and Diners...who could ever forget diners in New England. My first experience with Springfield was back in 1972, and urban renewal was in full swing.. TAC was the Architecture firm of the moment....and they single handed destroyed the backbone of Springfield. TAC was Walter G old firm.
The Architects' Collaborative. You bet. Ben Thompson ?
The Florence Diner ?
"In my own experience, architecture school was heavily weighted towards making great urban environments (1st pic), not objects in a field (2nd pic). So it's odd to me that anyone would think ANYone would prefer the second pic - but I fear that most people think most architects would."
You're right though in some of my classes we just concentrated on the design of one mammoth of a building and didn't pay much attention to the surroundings..wrong!
"but I fear that most people think most architects would.""
I don't know..some of them would really choose the second one I guess. I've been living on Long Island for 5 years now and it's architecture and planning is very reason I hate it..
I've got the book "Chicago, then and Now" I wouldn't reccomend it, simply because it seems like cheeply put together junk. The old time "then" photographs are mostly pretty nice, well framed shots, while the "now" shots are mostly terrible. The authors don't even try to get the shots from the same angle/location or take any time to set up a decent photograph. This series could be done so much better.
hmmm...
these are downtown grand rapids, michigan
i post them because it's a relatively unknown example, and with the exception of the last two photos, is a small city that has done a fantastic job of preserving the scale and intimacy and architecture of it's downtown, without faking it and without any new urbanist crap. of course, there are exceptions, but all in all most of it's still intact. sort of like detroit, but smaller and without all the abandoned buildings.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.