"Dirty Old Boston"

Man, that dusk shot of the Back Bay and the Longfellow looks so empty. I was born in '85, so many of those photos have an Uncanny Valley vibe to me, it looks sort of like the Boston I grew up knowing, but not quite. That's especially true for those photos at the Tea Party with the Traveler's building.

I also love the cover photo were you can see the Fens and Longwood beyond the Pru. The MassArt tower must have been brand new at that point.
 
1727725357510.png

 
chrisbrat said:
What a bleak, deep-in-the-throes-of-decay/urban-flight view of Boston. I love the shot, don't get me wrong, but dag... It's really amazing how much the city has rebounded.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it took some jarring electroshock therapy to bring 1950s post-war Boston back to life. The elevated Central artery in the 1950s and the massive urban renewal projects in the 60s were intended to jolt Boston back from the dead, but those extreme measures certainly took their toll.
 
chrisbrat said:
What a bleak, deep-in-the-throes-of-decay/urban-flight view of Boston. I love the shot, don't get me wrong, but dag... It's really amazing how much the city has rebounded.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. What part of this looks like decay and urban flight? The city looks pretty intact to me. The West End and Scollay Square are still there. Actually, you can see a train on the Atlantic Avenue El, just above the Northern Avenue Bridge, so this must be before 1938. Squinting at the cars, I'd guess this is Boston in the relatively prosperous 1920s.
 
ritchiew said:
I'm confused. What part of this looks like decay and urban flight? The city looks pretty intact to me. The West End and Scollay Square are still there. Actually, you can see a train on the Atlantic Avenue El, just above the Northern Avenue Bridge, so this must be before 1938. Squinting at the cars, I'd guess this is Boston in the relatively prosperous 1920s.
Click to expand...
If it “confuses” you how that photo looks somewhat bleak and suggestive of economic and societal decline in Boston, then I guess I’m here to bafffle you with my takes. And if that image suggests to you a gleaming metropolis on the rise, I applaud your sunny optimism. As for “the relatively prosperous 1920s,” I refer you to literally all documented analysis of Boston’s fiscal health, which uniformly cites the decline as being roughly 1920-1980.
 
chrisbrat said:
If it “confuses” you how that photo looks somewhat bleak and suggestive of economic and societal decline in Boston, then I guess I’m here to bafffle you with my takes. And if that image suggests to you a gleaming metropolis on the rise, I applaud your sunny optimism. As for “the relatively prosperous 1920s,” I refer you to literally all documented analysis of Boston’s fiscal health, which uniformly cites the decline as being roughly 1920-1980.
Click to expand...
If the decline started in the 1920's, then a picture from that time would show the city basically in its prime. Right?

What specifically about that photo looks like urban decline?
 
Nothing. It looks bustling and shiny and bursting with activity and prosperity. You win.
 
DZH22 said:
Here is a city that is unrecognizable to today, from 1970.

Boston Edison power station, Boston, MA aerial by Dave MacKenzie, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Almost completely unrecognizable if it wasn't for the Esplanade in the foreground! The big spire to the right must be the Church of the Covenant on Newbury and Berkley, then 31 St. James is visible behind it, with the Park Plaza overlapping to the right. The Ritz-Carlton would be the taller building to the right of the trees (the Public Garden). I like how you can see clear into Southie from this, Gate of Heaven is the big church out in the distance to the right.

Feels like a deliberate framing to exclude the bigger, more modern towers that must have existed by this point. If it wasn't for the apartment complex in the foreground or the cars on Storrow, you'd think this was from the 1930s.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I agree, but it took some jarring electroshock therapy to bring 1950s post-war Boston back to life. The elevated Central artery in the 1950s and the massive urban renewal projects in the 60s were intended to jolt Boston back from the dead, but those extreme measures certainly took their toll.
Click to expand...

Yup. Electric shock, chemotherapy and amputations can save lives. Boston's gangrene could've slipped into Newarkhood. Those jarring things saved the city overall. I fully empathize, however, the terrible personal losses that occurred. The tragedy is that it got to that point where terrible actions were needed. Too many urban historians blame the doctor.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Yup. Electric shock, chemotherapy and amputations can save lives. Boston's gangrene could've slipped into Newarkhood. Those jarring things saved the city overall. I fully empathize, however, the terrible personal losses that occurred. The tragedy is that it got to that point where terrible actions were needed. Too many urban historians blame the doctor.
Click to expand...
A couple of factors came into play. Massachusetts Senator JFK became President, and of course that meant Boston had better access to federal funding. Another factor was the Federal funding was set up to perform massive scale neighborhood leveling urban renewal mega-projects instead of more targeted surgical rehab and replacement of individual buildings.
The task which lays ahead for Boston is to correct the excesses of 60s urban renewal through infill and replacement with urban city blocks of small streets, density,, and mixed use.
 
I really like the look of Boston without all the skyscrapers.. It would have been a very unique city had it never built above the Custom House tower.
 
393b40 said:
I really like the look of Boston without all the skyscrapers.. It would have been a very unique city had it never built above the Custom House tower.
Click to expand...
I like the idea, but I think Boston would have turned into landscraper city, with a lot of sprawling low-rise blobs.
 
I think it would only work if there were a maximum lot size and some regulation around building height, to ensure variation within and across blocks.

For the height it would be something along the lines of “building may be between X-Y heights, with no two adjacent buildings being the same height.” Possibly with a Chicago-style infinite height for a segment of the block.
 
St. Petersburg, Russia is a low rise city that, I assume, was kept that way to preserve the historical, beautiful look of the city. The buildings are of somewhat uniform height, but are of such high architectural quality and beauty that the uniform height works. It"a just about my favorite city for appearance and style.
I suppose Boston could have gone that route, but the dynamic of America versus Russia centuries ago were so different. I don't think the rough and ready US at that time, exploding in growth and dynamism, could have produced a city of Boston anywhere near as classy and stately as St. Petersburg.
 
393b40 said:
I really like the look of Boston without all the skyscrapers.. It would have been a very unique city had it never built above the Custom House tower.
Click to expand...
It *is* a unique city. And I'm glad I don't live in some weird terrarium or historical re-enactment backwater nothing-town. I really like the look of real, today, present-tense Boston.
 
Last edited:
chrisbrat said:
It *is* a unique city. And I'm glad I don't live in some weird terrarium or historical re-enactment backwater nothing-town. I really like the look of real, today, present-tense Boston.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Boston/Cambridge/Somerville look great, have a lot of fantastic new buildings, are loaded with wonderful vibrant neighborhoods, are prosperous, are much cleaner, and have less crime than several other metro areas of comparable size. such as Portland OR, Frisco, Philly, Baltimore,. and Detroit.
 
Charlie_mta said:
St. Petersburg, Russia is a low rise city that, I assume, was kept that way to preserve the historical, beautiful look of the city. The buildings are of somewhat uniform height, but are of such high architectural quality and beauty that the uniform height works. It"a just about my favorite city for appearance and style.
I suppose Boston could have gone that route, but the dynamic of America versus Russia centuries ago were so different. I don't think the rough and ready US at that time, exploding in growth and dynamism, could have produced a city of Boston anywhere near as classy and stately as St. Petersburg.
Click to expand...

Old st petersburg is an extremely beautiful city. That being said the beautiful historic part of st petersburg is only probably about a quarter of the city. The vast majority of the city is endless sprawling residential high rises that are essentially commie blocks on steroids. There is actually a famous apartmennt block in the suburbs that is so huge it holds 10-20,000 people in 1 building. Its called Novy Okkervil and its absolutely massive.

Novy Okkervil
1728438206517.jpeg


St petersburg also has europes tallest skyscraper, lakhta center.
1728438281785.jpeg


Its essentially located all the way on the outskirts of the city in the middle of nowhere.

The suburbs are not really promoted and the tourists dont go out there, so not many ppl outside of russia hear about them, but thats where most avg russians live around st petersburg.

This is what the vast majority of the city looks like outside of the historic core.

1728438450416.jpeg

1728438655044.jpeg

1728438674813.jpeg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top