"Urban Renewal"....was it the "Right Thing to Do"?

[slimwhitman]

We often look at the misery we made for ourselves when we look at the un-inhabitable places that were built as a result of "urban renewal" in the '50s & '60s.  Nearly all areas of 'UR' were done to remove neighborhoods under the generic term: "blight", but the real reasons were many....from relocating blacks, to "economic development" to, well....removing badly blighted areas.  If we didn't tear down those badly blighted areas during the post WWII era, what do you think those neighborhoods would be like now?  Still viable?  Crumbled wastelands?  Hip and revitalized?  Would they be neighborhoods that would still be tough, but good neighborhoods for the low-income to live?

Be realistic.

Here is one map that shows where the city thought "blight" occurred in 1958.  These areas got razed for housing projects or other uses....none of which are very "livable", today.

[voltopt]

An interesting post.  As a footnote to the map above, here is an aerial from 1955 of the East Side / North Paseo redevelopment area.  I have labeled the streets - it shows the area from Columbus Park south to 12th street, and from Holmes on the west to the Paseo on the east.

[zonk]

wow...it's amazing what the interstate system destroyed in terms of urban fabric.

[kcmetro]

This thread reminded me...what ever happened to that weird dude who would always post threads about what KC used to look like?  He would dig up obscure (worthless) tidbits of information about downtown KC, and then post volumes and volumes of this stuff on kcrag.  It was the kind of stuff only an anal history professor could admire.  I forgot his name on here.

[lock+load]

This thread reminded me...what ever happened to that weird dude who would always post threads about what KC used to look like?  He would dig up obscure (worthless) tidbits of information about downtown KC, and then post volumes and volumes of this stuff on kcrag.  It was the kind of stuff only an anal history professor could admire.  I forgot his name on here.

FangKC.  Where are you Fang?  Your posts were very interesting.

[chrizow]

An interesting post.  As a footnote to the map above, here is an aerial from 1955 of the East Side / North Paseo redevelopment area.  I have labeled the streets - it shows the area from Columbus Park south to 12th street, and from Holmes on the west to the Paseo on the east.

[loftguy]

This thread reminded me...what ever happened to that weird dude who would always post threads about what KC used to look like?  He would dig up obscure (worthless) tidbits of information about downtown KC, and then post volumes and volumes of this stuff on kcrag.  It was the kind of stuff only an anal history professor could admire.  I forgot his name on here.

Feeling like a prick, I guess?  Or maybe I'm an anal history professor.  I miss FangKC's posts.

[loftguy]

Back to Slim's question. 

Our uniquely american habit of tearing down that which we have built is tragic.

We could have another Quality Hill in the East Village neighborhood had it not been demolished to create a sea of parking lots.  Think of what the Paseo West neighborhood could be now had it not been converted into a low end industrial park.

[schugg]

YOU DON'T LIKE DENSITY?

[schugg]

Feeling like a prick, I guess?  Or maybe I'm an anal history professor.  I miss FangKC's posts.

Yeah. some people are actually interested in that stuff such as myself.  kcmetro can't comprehend as he is used to strip malls, lagoons of parking and never has observed a sidewalk being used.

[kcdcchef]

YOU DON'T LIKE DENSITY?

probably thinks every single spot should sport street level retail, or it is a failure.

[chrizow]

it is so horrible to see such great architecture torn down for absolutely nothing.  look at 12th street!  it looks like, gasp, a real city.  now it is just light industrial, broken down shit. 

what the hell were our city leaders thinking?! 

[loftguy]

it is so horrible to see such great architecture torn down for absolutely nothing.  look at 12th street!  it looks like, gasp, a real city.  now it is just light industrial, broken down shit. 

what the hell were our city leaders thinking?! 

Yeah, and they tore down John Agnos' Restaurant, too!  Brain sandwiches, with mustard and onion.  It was patronized like Bryants is today.

Edit:  Sorry Chriz, forgot you're sans meat.

[rxlexi]

  great pic Voltopt.  Look at 12th Street indeed!  Viewing this pic has been by far the most depressing activity I have in engaged in all week.  I don't think there is any meaningful way to defend 'urban renewal' as occured in the U.S. circa 1945-1975.  I mean, even given the problems of the day, and the perceived solutions to those problems (overcrowding, slums, the need for public housing and an interstate hwy system, etc.), there was and is a better, more sustainable and less utterly destructive way to deal the issues at hand.

  At the very least, maintaining the areas of greatest density within the urban fabric for future uses would have been preferable to a simple clean-sweep demolition of targeted areas regardless of land use or occupancy.  If 12th St, even in fragments, still existed in anything near the capacity that it once had, the possibility for adaptive reuse and renewal would still exist.  Not to mention that one of the great streets in Kansas City history from a cultural perspective (haha, note the 12th St Rag mural on P&L) would still be around in some physical shape or form.  As it is, this area has seen nothing but disinvestment, eroding property values, and steady decline, even from a manufacturing-light industry standpoint (Zahner Metal excepted), which doesn't seem like a positive in an any way to me. 

 

[kcmetro]

Yeah. some people actually was interested in that stuff such as myself.  kcmetro can't comprehend as he is used to strip malls, lagoons of parking and never has observed a sidewalk being used.

No.  What I can't comprehend are your bad grammar habits. 

[voltopt]

By the way - I meant 11th street when I labeled "111th street"

[aknowledgeableperson]

Urban renewal as practiced after the war was not a successful program the way it was practiced not only in the cities but also small cities or towns either nearby a larger city or in the rural areas.

But much like with any other program there was something good and something bad but since the bad outweighed the good it was not a good use of government resources.

[warwickland]

You know I don't know if I ever have seen these pictures, but I always guessed that the area just to the east of downtown was the result of defacto urban renewal. I still think that it could have been worse - while the crossroads is far from the zenith of its density, it could have been clean slated like so many CBD adjacent neighborhoods in the midwest. Everytime I'm in Kansas City I marvel that there arent superblocks and local "expressway" style interchanges on main and broadway spanning the area from highway 71 to I-35. Like MPLS, I believe KC has the ability to move forward without some permanent "psychic" damage.

[FangKC]

I appear to be the "weird" dude.   :lol:

I guess KCMetro is one of those people that thinks history is of no value, and that anyone interested in the past is useless.

Harry Truman used to say that (to paraphrase) "the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know."

I posted all those historical threads for a couple of reasons.  One was that a lot of people on this forum were completely ignorant of what Kansas City used to be like; and what had been done as the result of urban renewal to the dense fabric of the city.

Secondly, many of those posts were the results of specific questions people had asked on the forum, and I used my reply posts to visually illustrate the answer--since many people respond better to visual images that just me writing text in reply.  In addition, I was encouraged by several people on this forum to keep doing that sort of thing as I did research, since many found that interesting.

KCMetro, I'm sorry you find that sort of activity "weird."  However, some people find our past history of interest, and like seeing those old photographs and the illustrations I used to do to make a point about something. Just because it's not of interest to you doesn't mean that it isn't to someone else.

You can always choose to ignore my posts, instead of making negative comments about them.

I always tried to flesh out my posts with solid research and interesting information. This, instead of, just arguing with people and making non-sensical posts that didn't result in any type of coherent rebuttal. I tried to make a positive contribution that makes this forum worthwhile for some.

I have always been much more interested in adding content and history to this forum than just commenting on minor things, or using it to argue with people whom I disagree with.

Questions we have about things going on in Kansas City today often have roots in the past. Understanding that past helps us see how we got here, and what we might do to avoid the mistakes we see now.

[FangKC]

Overall, I think the urban renewal philosophy of the past was a big mistake.  It hurt many cities in many ways more than it helped.

I think the lesson we can learn from it though is that often we don't need to destroy, demolish, and clear everything to make things better.

I never understood the whole attitude of leveling entire blocks and neighborhoods and starting over. Why not just clean up and renovate those old buildings?  Sure, clear the dangerous ones, but save the physical environment that already exists when you can.  They don't level entire neighborhoods in European cities. They just restore what is there.  This is a good sustainable approach.  Buildings is Europe are used over and over again -- many for what they were not originally built to do.

The problem with urban renewal, and many other types of demolition plans, is that there is no concrete plan for what is to replace those structures.  The lots become parking lots for decades, and much of the vibrancy of the city is lost for commerce and living. It just creates a dead zone.

I generally don't support demolition of historic structures unless there is a signed off, and financed, plan for a building to replace it.

It's been demonstrated that just clearing land in the inner city generally doesn't produce a redevelopment plan.  It just produces a vacant lot where little commerce and tax revenue can be collected.

More organic renewals of neighborhoods have happened in areas where property became cheap, and private citizens took it on their own to fix up old buildings and houses.  Then the city comes in and fixes the infastructure like curbs, sidewalks, and streets. Replants trees and plans rebuilding on vacant lots that exist already around older structures.

In many ways, old buildings provide a resource.  Many small businesses cannot afford high rents in newer buildings, and take over older buildings.  Some of these small businesses are incubator businesses that some day will grow into something bigger and more profitable.

The River Market came back because there was something historic to work with there.  Those old buildings became lofts and offices.  Now there is slow rebuilding of new structures.

Of course, there are always exceptions. I think demolishing the residential towers in the Wayne Minor project was necessary.  That situation just didn't work.