IN-PROGRESS: "Iway" 195 Relocation/Wash. Bridge

[roblewis819]

Hi everyone, this is my first post, although I'm a frequent reader of the threads...

I also enjoyed seeing the old pictures of Providence. This is a little off-topic, but I read that Providence's population in 1950 was much higher than it is now - about 250,000. Do you think that population decrease is related to the fact that these highways displaced so many people? Or, was this part of a larger trend of people moving from cities to suburbs? And where did all of those people live? That's at least 70K more than we have now.

(I got that info on population trends here: http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm)

[ruchele]

Do you think that population decrease is related to the fact that these highways displaced so many people? Or, was this part of a larger trend of people moving from cities to suburbs? And where did all of those people live? That's at least 70K more than we have now.

Providence was a big industrial center until the 1950's. The decline of the population was caused by the end of many of the industries that gave Providence residents employment, and by the general American move to the 'burbs (immigrant populations moving "up" and out, white flight, etc.)

As for where people lived, a LOT of properties were burned down between the 60's and 80's, causing the huge vacant areas you see in South Providence and elsewhere- also, there were probably houses on most of the vacant lots that are now used for surface parking. Also, people used to live in much tighter quarters. Imagine the difference in population in Federal Hill, where, in 1950, a three-decker would have been occupied by three families of five or more people, but now might be occupied by three couples with no children.

I have wondered this myself. What else has changed in Providence housing in the last 50 years that makes the city so much less dense?

[gregw]

Providence was a big industrial center until the 1950's. The decline of the population was caused by the end of many of the industries that gave Providence residents employment, and by the general American move to the 'burbs (immigrant populations moving "up" and out, white flight, etc.)

There were many factors that drove the de-industrialization of Providence in the 1950s-70s. There were labor and energy cost considerations, which led many textile firms to relocate to the South.

But one of the reasons that the industries moved out of Providence and other manufacturing cities was because of modern highways like 95.

Highway construction made open land outside the city more accessible. Manufacturing businesses could assemble enough land in those undeveloped areas to put up sprawling single-story plants which were considered more efficient than the traditional multistory factory buildings in the city. It used to be essential for factories to be near railroads but with the highway boom they could move out of the dense confines of the city and take up lots of acreage near an interstate. They could now rely on trucking to get raw material delived to the factory floor and to ship finished goods to customers.

So the highway construction boom in the 1950s definitely played a role in the de-industrialization of cities like Providence at the same time that it led to shopping malls replacing traditional downtowns.

[gregw]

I have wondered this myself. What else has changed in Providence housing in the last 50 years that makes the city so much less dense?

In addition to the causes you mention, urban renewals programs. I'm sure that Lippitt Hill was much more populated before they razed it to build University Heights. Similarly, the area where the Main PO is located replaced a very dense neighborhood. Same thing with Randall Square where the Marriott is now.

[Garris]

Welcome Roblewis819!

Everyone's comments above are astute and correct. Certainly, we were far from alone in all of those trends and, looking at this in a somewhat pyrric way, we've actually lost less than many other "old-line" cities. I believe places like St. Louis and Buffalo have lost well in excess of 50% of their populations. Buffalo in particular I think had a population of 600,000 in about 1950, and now is at about 250,000 and their shinkage is actually accelerating now, not reversing!

Boston I believe is shrinking too, but I think that's considered to be more due to a decline in the number of people per housing unit than anything else (I leave that to statistics mavens here to confirm).

One element of that, the "white flight" element, is interesting. My parents, in their 60's now, talk about how when they were graduated from college and were newly married, that locating anywhere else but the "utopian" suburbs, the post-WWII key to our futures and to raising perfect children, was unimaginable for them. They talk about how that acre, white picket fence, front lawn, and two car family driving to work was really the unquestioned American dream. It was that largess, prowess, and success that made us better than the Soviets. It was an American duty...

So there was a real ideological bent in addition to the factors everyone else mentions that only very, very recently is starting to result in suburban-alternative living patterns considered to be mainstream and normative.

- Garris

[gregw]

So there was a real ideological bent in addition to the factors everyone else mentions that only very, very recently is starting to result in suburban-alternative living patterns considered to be mainstream and normative.

- Garris

Absolutely true and this ideological preference for suburbia was reflected in--and fostered by--US government programs and policies after World War II including the GI Bill, the home mortgage interest deduction, the federal highway subsidy, as well as redlining in older urban areas.

[ruchele]

Welcome Roblewis819!

My parents, in their 60's now, talk about how when they were graduated from college and were newly married, that locating anywhere else but the "utopian" suburbs, the post-WWII key to our futures and to raising perfect children, was unimaginable for them. They talk about how that acre, white picket fence, front lawn, and two car family driving to work was really the unquestioned American dream. It was that largess, prowess, and success that made us better than the Soviets. It was an American duty...

The move to the suburbs was happening before the 60's though.

An anecdote: In the mid-90's my cousin, who grew up in the 'burbs in New Jersey, bought a coop on the Upper West Side/Harlem border for somthing over $600,000. Turns out his new apartment was on the same block as the tenament his grandfather lived in when he first came to this country in 1910 or so. When his grandfather heard where the new apartment was, he said, "Do you have any idea how hard I worked to get the hell out of that neighborhood!?" Yes, in 1910, people were working thier butts off to get out of the Upper West Side. New Jersey was heaven to him.

I'm sure there are parallels to this story on Federal Hill.

[roblewis819]

Thanks for all of your replies. Very interesting stuff. Garris, regarding population loss of other cities around the country, we're clearly not alone -- I found this site informative:

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland all lost more than half of their populations...Wow.

Baltimore, Boston and DC had huge drops as well.

[Cotuit]

roblewis819, I'm just curious, what prompted you to post after registering in October of 2005? Have you been reading silently all along, or did you register and forget about the site, then come back. I know there are lots of 'lurkers' out there, I'm always curious as to what prompts people to start posting.

[Garris]

When his grandfather heard where the new apartment was, he said, "Do you have any idea how hard I worked to get the hell out of that neighborhood!?" Yes, in 1910, people were working thier butts off to get out of the Upper West Side. New Jersey was heaven to him.

Ruchele,

Great story! I've heard near duplicates of this story many times over in my own family in reference to: Brooklyn, Queens, the Lower East Side, etc and many, many times here from people in reference to Providence, East Providence, and Pawtucket!

Especially your last line of "New Jersey was heaven to him." I've heard that exact same line in reference to NJ and many, many different suburbs of LI or Florida as well!

Garris, regarding population loss of other cities around the country, we're clearly not alone -- I found this site informative:

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland all lost more than half of their populations...Wow.

Baltimore, Boston and DC had huge drops as well.

Interesting website! Thanks for the link. I just bookmarked that website, which I've never seen before. I'll need to look at it in more depth to see where they are pulling their figures from.

Looking over their data, there are several cities that, despite being considered "on the rebound and upswing" are still losing population: Baltimore, Cinncinati, Pittsburgh, etc...

Minneapolis' numbers look off. They lost over half a million people between 1970 and 1980? That doesn't sound right with what I remember of the city's history, and the downtown boomed during that period construction-wise, so I'll need to look into that.

Some cites on that list are just cursed, though: Detroit, Newark, and a few others...

Interesting that, despite oodles of development and a soaring "built-yesterday" skyline, Jersey city has lost substantial population, but that's almost certainly due to a demographic switch from bursting immigrant households in old neighborhoods many decades ago to larger units occupied by fewer people today (like Boston)...

Anyway, this is all off-topic, so I'll stop now before I turn this into a demographics thread.

- Garris

[Cotuit]

Interesting website! Thanks for the link. I just bookmarked that website, which I've never seen before. I'll need to look at it in more depth to see where they are pulling their figures from.

Looking over their data, there are several cities that, despite being considered "on the rebound and upswing" are still losing population: Baltimore, Cinncinati, Pittsburgh, etc...

Minneapolis' numbers look off. They lost over half a million people between 1970 and 1980? That doesn't sound right with what I remember of the city's history, and the downtown boomed during that period construction-wise, so I'll need to look into that.

Wendall Cox is a well known suburbanist, he will skew and downright make up numbers to paint urban environments in a negative light. I'm not outright disputing his numbers, but I certainly dispute his conclusions.

[Frankie811]

roblewis819, I'm just curious, what prompted you to post after registering in October of 2005? Have you been reading silently all along, or did you register and forget about the site, then come back. I know there are lots of 'lurkers' out there, I'm always curious as to what prompts people to start posting.

Yeah really. Thanks for asking that question. For me it was just being to lazy to register.

[ruchele]

Do you think that population decrease is related to the fact that these highways displaced so many people? Or, was this part of a larger trend of people moving from cities to suburbs?

Well according to a couple of the participants in the Providence Tomorrow Transportation charrette last night, the population of the city declined because the population grew. I'll leave you to ponder the logic of THAT argument. (I feel like maybe they neglected to mention which people they were talking about leaving and which people they were talking about arriving. But that's gotta be just my bias, right?)

Oh, yeah, also, people left because trees got too expensive.

[Garris]

Wendall Cox is a well known suburbanist, he will skew and downright make up numbers to paint urban environments in a negative light.

Aaahh, now it all makes sense. That's his site. Ok, it's now un-bookmarked...

Well according to a couple of the participants in the Providence Tomorrow Transportation charrette last night, the population of the city declined because the population grew. I'll leave you to ponder the logic of THAT argument. (I feel like maybe they negelected to mention which people they were talking about leaving and which people they were talking about arriving. But that's gotta be just my bias, right?)

Oh, yeah, also, people left because trees got too expensive.

Yes, those comments were two of the many most stupifying of the evening. The gentleman's comment was not that people left due to population growth, it was that the city because too dense. How did he put it? The lawns became too small and you couldn't raise children?

Someone asked afterwards why Pawtucket's population has fallen so much, and I joked, "Well, you know, it sadly just became too dense, and everyone fled."

- Garris

[abdiorio]

Is it true that they will be relocating or extending the financial district once 195 is relocated? I heard this, but it makes more sense that they would use that land to build and extend the city.

[Lone Ranger]

Is it true that they will be relocating or extending the financial district once 195 is relocated? I heard this, but it makes more sense that they would use that land to build and extend the city.

We could do that right now, if we wanted to, if only we could get rid of some of those #^%@* surface parking lots.

[mental757]

We could do that right now, if we wanted to, if only we could get rid of some of those #^%@* surface parking lots.

I tend to refer to that area as 'the wasteland'

[Bil]

Well according to a couple of the participants in the Providence Tomorrow Transportation charrette last night, the population of the city declined because the population grew. I'll leave you to ponder the logic of THAT argument.

It's so crowded that no one ever goes there nowadays?

[Lone Ranger]

It's so crowded that no one ever goes there nowadays?

There's a famous Yogi Berra quote to the same effect:

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

[roblewis819]

roblewis819, I'm just curious, what prompted you to post after registering in October of 2005? Have you been reading silently all along, or did you register and forget about the site, then come back. I know there are lots of 'lurkers' out there, I'm always curious as to what prompts people to start posting.

Cotuit,

I am a frequent "lurker" of UP, but I've never really had anything interesting to contribute. I don't have much of a background in urban planning/development (I'm a PhD student in Organizational Psychology), but I find the stuff on this website really interesting -- I've gotten into the habit of checking the posts on the site almost daily.

In any case, my apologies for getting off-topic on the demographic/population shift issue. That's just an interest of mine.

[Cotuit]

I tend to refer to that area as 'the wasteland'

"The Parking Lot District" just north of the "Jewelry District" and just south of the "Financial District."

I am a frequent "lurker" of UP, but I've never really had anything interesting to contribute. I don't have much of a background in urban planning/development (I'm a PhD student in Organizational Psychology), but I find the stuff on this website really interesting

Shh, don't tell anyone else I told you this, but a lot of the people who post here don't have anything interesting to contribute.

Many of us are 'hobbist' that shouldn't keep people out of the discussion. Happy de-lurking!

[Garris]

I tend to refer to that area as 'the wasteland'

I laughed at this... Images from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome passed through my head when I read the sentence...

- Garris

[mental757]

I laughed at this... Images from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome passed through my head when I read the sentence...

- Garris

and on some days, you might even see Max's 'car'

[EPBOY]

"The Parking Lot District" just north of the "Jewelry District" and just south of the "Financial District."

Interestingly.... that Parking Lot zone was part of the plan when designing the 95 to 195 ramps. The plan was that cars coming off the highway would use the parking lots nearby and then WALK or take a shuttle bus into the center of downtown.

"The route would turn north before reaching Allens Avenue and parallel that street to the crosstown expressway (I-195). At that point, limited access connections would be provided for traffic turning either east or west. Ramps to the surface street system would serve vehicles with destinations in the easterly portion of the business district. Large parking lots made available by the double use of the right-of-way needed for the interchange facilities, would intercept much of this traffic before it reached the crowded downtown streets. Motorists would complete their trips by short walks or by shuttle bus"

[Frankie811]

Ch 12 did a story today on the Iway project along with a little tour and an ariel view. The project is on schedule and the east bound lanes will be open by the end of next year. From the air it looked like the steel work on the east bound lanes are only months from completion.