The Argument to Create Suburbs in 1909
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/History/planningconference1909/1909/790043242_frCWi-O.jpg)
Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch was one of the most passionate attendees of the historic National Conference of City Planning in 1909. Like many, she was a Social Progressive, concerned with the health and morality of the public.
Simkovitch's speech was primarily concerned with the evils of density---perceived as 'overcrowding'. Also like many at the conference, she fervently believed that the answer to many of the ills of the era were to reverse the wheels of city density. Her main contribution to the DNA of the country was to provide a moral component to the planning discussion.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jul-the-argument-to-create-suburbs-in-1909
As a Social Progressive... I am sure she meant well... :)
Before 1909... there were really only two options... rural(farm) life or city life. Henry Ford helped change that. It gave those with the means a way to move out of the city yet still have access to it. Convenient, fast, reliable individual transport. Of course... that brought about its own set of problems...
So lets cut to the chase, are yall saying that suburbs shouldn't have ever been created? Cities should consist of a skyscraper packed downtown, completely bordered by dense tree forest/rural land etc?
Many of the settlers that came to the south did not want to live in attached housing, town houses, etc. They wanted to live surrounded by their own piece of land, for farming, for distance from their neighbors, etc. It was the difference between the scots/irish settlers and the british settlers, but this is only one element and a very simplistic explanation. Why did people go to the burbs? for space for their children, and in Jacksonville, for many years, and almost still true today, certain parts of the county and the beach have, by road, easy access to downtown with few lights. Mathews Bridge opened Arlington as Acosta opened southside years before. But as critical mass develops, more people would like to live downtown or in an urban environment, and appear to be doing so. This does not address African Americans except as you follow their communities and their communities growth patterns, you see the same thing.
Certain demographics of people went to the burbs in mass because of government subsidies like investments in highways and the GI Bill. African Americans did not early on because they weren't allowed to take advantage of the same subsidized privileges.
Quote from: HisBuffPVB on August 16, 2013, 05:46:46 PM
Many of the settlers that came to the south did not want to live in attached housing, town houses, etc. They wanted to live surrounded by their own piece of land, for farming, for distance from their neighbors, etc. It was the difference between the scots/irish settlers and the british settlers, but this is only one element and a very simplistic explanation. Why did people go to the burbs? for space for their children, and in Jacksonville, for many years, and almost still true today, certain parts of the county and the beach have, by road, easy access to downtown with few lights. Mathews Bridge opened Arlington as Acosta opened southside years before. But as critical mass develops, more people would like to live downtown or in an urban environment, and appear to be doing so. This does not address African Americans except as you follow their communities and their communities growth patterns, you see the same thing.
I'd say, it's not largely this cut and dry. Denser cities, no matter the region, tend to be that way because of age (initial pre-auto age urban boom), land constraints (water, mountains, etc.) and taxation policies (some places taxed by width of street frontage). In the South, DC, Richmond, Miami, New Orleans, Savannah, Charleston, Louisville, Norfolk, etc. are all various examples of this. Early 20th century Jax had some of these density characteristics (shotgun housing for example) as well.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 16, 2013, 06:48:49 PM
Certain demographics of people went to the burbs in mass because of government subsidies like investments in highways and the GI Bill. African Americans did not early on because they weren't allowed to take advantage of the same subsidized privileges.
+100.
Of course I'm in no way endorsing segregation being black myself, but desegregation had an adverse effect on the black community. When blacks moved out to the burbs, many left the black community where thriving black owned businesses were; Back then before desegregation, blacks had no choice but to support the black community.
Desegregation did hurt historical black communities. Those communities were stable when blacks of all incomes were forced to live there. However, even during their heyday, their public infrastructure, schools, parks, etc. were substandard to those of neighborhoods "across the tracks" due to the racial political structure at the time. Many of these neighborhoods were further economically damaged by public policies that resulted in them being blasted with neighborhood/connectivity destroying freeways, being forced to live adjacent to public ash incinerators/heavy industry and housing projects. Once desegregation came, it's not hard to see why those who had the means, left neighborhoods that had always been under funded compared to other areas of town.
Btw, here is a picture of COJ's ash incinerator that was located in the middle of Durkeeville and Sugar Hill.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/History/Misc-Black-Neighborhoods-In/i-xgZNPb6/0/M/img_20121204_110942-M.jpg)
This is the thing that has Project New Ground replacing top soil all over the area today.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 16, 2013, 09:38:40 PM
Desegregation did hurt historical black communities. Those communities were stable when blacks of all incomes were forced to live there. However, even during their heyday, their public infrastructure, schools, parks, etc. were substandard to those of neighborhoods "across the tracks" due to the racial political structure at the time. Many of these neighborhoods were further economically damaged by public policies that resulted in them being blasted with neighborhood/connectivity destroying freeways, being forced to live adjacent to public ash incinerators/heavy industry and housing projects. Once desegregation came, it's not hard to see why those who had the means, left neighborhoods that had always been under funded compared to other areas of town.
Well said. That incinerator on the pic was near Payne St right? My mom was born here in Jax, and grew up on 5th St near Payne. She told me about the trucks that used to leak smelly waste in that neighborhood.
QuoteSuburbs were deliberately created at the government level in order to drive demassification. In Jville, Springfield, New Springfield, Riverside, Durkeeville, Panama Park, South Jacksonville were all early suburbinization projects driven by the new zeal to plan the cities.
A few of those neighborhoods date back to the 19th century. Springfield specifically is just as old as LaVilla. South Jacksonville was a completely seperate city with its own industrial base and Durkeeville, New Town, etc. grew as the black population expanded west around Edward Waters and the massive railyards in the area. Much of their early rapid growth came as a result of a population boom in the first decade following the Great Fire of 1901. So all of their original development patterns were not driven by a zeal to plan the city at the time. Much of this development was generated by the same element that drives development today. The private sector's desire to make some cash. However, at the time, the government wasn't subsidizing highways. Instead, these guys were funding private streetcar lines to connect their developments to the city.
QuoteHere in Jax, we were literally the first Southern city to implement zoning, and city planning as well as the only city to implement a zoning plan that wasnt race based.
Are you sure about this? For instance, take a look at the proximity of historical heavy industrial areas to historically black and white neighborhoods. You'll overwhelming find that areas where blacks were forced to live are those adjacent to early heavy industrial areas. There are too many examples of this across the Northside to be simple coincidence. Another thing that stands out is the river itself. No black neighborhood had direct access to the St. Johns riverfront. Damn shame! Also, I've got documents showing some neighborhoods like St. Johns Park had restrictions that kept "negros" from being able to live there.
Quote from: I-10east on August 16, 2013, 10:37:30 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 16, 2013, 09:38:40 PM
Desegregation did hurt historical black communities. Those communities were stable when blacks of all incomes were forced to live there. However, even during their heyday, their public infrastructure, schools, parks, etc. were substandard to those of neighborhoods "across the tracks" due to the racial political structure at the time. Many of these neighborhoods were further economically damaged by public policies that resulted in them being blasted with neighborhood/connectivity destroying freeways, being forced to live adjacent to public ash incinerators/heavy industry and housing projects. Once desegregation came, it's not hard to see why those who had the means, left neighborhoods that had always been under funded compared to other areas of town.
Well said. That incinerator on the pic was near Payne St right? My mom was born here in Jax, and grew up on 5th St near Payne. She told me about the trucks that used to leak smelly waste in that neighborhood.
Yes. Here are some shotgun homes that still remain standing roughly a block from the incinerator site. For those who don't think Jacksonville once had Midwestern style density, this was the primary style of housing for neighborhoods like LaVilla, Hansontown, Eastside, etc. around the turn of the early 20th century.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/479043196_i5Mph-M.jpg)
"They said the homes were built too close together, but those were ways to push us out."
said former resident Olivia Forest to the Times Union - 2/4/96 --- quote from former Sugar Hill resident who remembers being forced out of their homes for being "too dense."
In regards to the transcribed story from 1909 I don't believe what they consider as suburban are what we consider burbs today. Our major cities had serious overcrowding problems during that era. You had places like Chicago, San Francisco and even Jax, burning down to the ground. You had sanitary conditions resulting in massive yellow fever epidemics. Manufacturing plants poisoning entire sections of town.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4d/Man_Lights_Cigarette_in_Daylight_-_Black_Tuesday_1939.jpg/220px-Man_Lights_Cigarette_in_Daylight_-_Black_Tuesday_1939.jpg)
St. Louis - 1939
(http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/photos/images/riis4.gif)
Inside a New York tenement. This is how many of these cities were packing in the density.
(http://boringpittsburgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/pittsburgh-1940s-smog-air-pollution.jpg)
Downtown Pittsburgh
What's described in their long distance programme is essentially something the density and scale of Jacksonville's walkable neighborhoods. In fact, most cities increased in population density until the end of WWII. What we have today is a result of many technology changes, public subsidies, decisions, etc. that were made decades after this conference.
Quote from: stephendare on August 16, 2013, 11:57:17 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 16, 2013, 10:55:49 PM
QuoteSuburbs were deliberately created at the government level in order to drive demassification. In Jville, Springfield, New Springfield, Riverside, Durkeeville, Panama Park, South Jacksonville were all early suburbinization projects driven by the new zeal to plan the cities.
A few of those neighborhoods date back to the 19th century. Springfield specifically is just as old as LaVilla. South Jacksonville was a completely seperate city with its own industrial base and Durkeeville, New Town, etc. grew as the black population expanded west around Edward Waters and the massive railyards in the area. Much of their early rapid growth came as a result of a population boom in the first decade following the Great Fire of 1901. So all of their original development patterns were not driven by a zeal to plan the city at the time. Much of this development was generated by the same element that drives development today. The private sector's desire to make some cash. However, at the time, the government wasn't subsidizing highways. Instead, these guys were funding private streetcar lines to connect their developments to the city.
QuoteHere in Jax, we were literally the first Southern city to implement zoning, and city planning as well as the only city to implement a zoning plan that wasnt race based.
Are you sure about this? For instance, take a look at the proximity of historical heavy industrial areas to historically black and white neighborhoods. You'll overwhelming find that areas where blacks were forced to live are those adjacent to early heavy industrial areas. There are too many examples of this across the Northside to be simple coincidence. Another thing that stands out is the river itself. No black neighborhood had direct access to the St. Johns riverfront. Damn shame! Also, I've got documents showing some neighborhoods like St. Johns Park had restrictions that kept "negros" from being able to live there.
Land covenants on properties are a separate thing altogether from the race based zoning that passed southern state legislatures and sity planning boards.
And they are also more wide spectrumed. They exclude all kinds of people, based on religion, sex, race, ethnicity and in some areas, marital status. We still have a form of this kind of contract in retirement communities where no one is allowed to live there under the age of 55.
But Zoning excluded whole areas by public law to one or another race.
We never instituted this kind of zoning. Our planner came from MIT and worked in Boston before coming here to spread the evangelism of City Planning to the rest of the south. His mentality was for public health.
I think if you do a search of the site for Jacob Riis, you will find a lot of the tenement photos of the overcrowding era have been posted.
I posted the one Jacob Riis tenement shot for readers who aren't familiar with our older threads. I also mixed in a few shots of other large cities at the time to illustrate common conditions at the time that people were reacting to. I think it help frames the perspective of the text. As for race based zoning in Jax, I'm still not sold. How do you explain the relationship of heavy industry and black neighborhoods? To be honest, I'd most likely need to see the actual zoning code for myself.
Hey Lake, by any chance do you know what year was that incinerator town down? My Mom left for New York in 67' (How I was born there) and the incinerator was still there. Thank you so much for posting that pic. I printed it and I will show my aunts and uncles (my Mom saw it) old memories on 5th Street. :)
Quote from: stephendare on August 16, 2013, 11:57:17 PM
But Zoning excluded whole areas by public law to one or another race.
We never instituted this kind of zoning. Our planner came from MIT and worked in Boston before coming here to spread the evangelism of City Planning to the rest of the south. His mentality was for public health.
I went back and read the link you posted on racial zoning, so I now see where you're coming from. However, I'm one who believes in environmental racism, which falls outside of the narrow definition applied to "racial" in the link. Historically, we've certainly implemented exclusionary zoning practices (such as minimum lot-size requirements and land-use segregation) and still do today. Call it race, environmental, exclusionary or whatever but you still end up with the same overall results.
A local example of this is the the minimum lot-size requirements in the Springfield Zoning Overlay. The overlay requires lots of minimum of 75' in width to construct multifamily. Historically, the majority of residential lots in Springfield (including multifamily) are closer to 25'-50' in width. That's a direct exclusionary practice with the intention to reduce the area's accessibility to those deemed socioeconomically or ethnically undesirable. I even remember coming to town and hearing people actually talk about the decreasing population density of the area like it was a good thing.
A historical example would be the zoning of heavy industry in minority neighborhoods as opposed to other areas. In Mixontown, you had kids playing the streets where blood drained into McCoys Creek from slaughterhouses and poultry plants operating next door to residences. Then the air the residents are breathing is filled with ash from the city owned incinerator sitting in the neighborhood. that's something neighborhoods like Riverside, Murray Hill, San Marco, Oretga, Venetia, etc. never had to worry about. Btw, Mr. MIT planner was in town when some of this stuff was taking place.
Quote from: I-10east on August 17, 2013, 12:37:50 AM
Hey Lake, by any chance do you know what year was that incinerator town down? My Mom left for New York in 67' (How I was born there) and the incinerator was still there. Thank you so much for posting that pic. I printed it and I will show my aunts and uncles (my Mom saw it) old memories on 5th Street. :)
I'm not sure but probably in the 1970s. That incinerator closed in 1969.
I'm just saying many of our zoning practices, even in Simons day were race based in that they were implemented to separate groups of people from one another and overwhelming set up in a manner to where one environment for a group of people in town was completely a couple of steps below others. Whether some scholar wants to attempt to separate "racial" zoning from "exclusionary" zoning doesn't mean that the same goals weren't achieved. With that said, I do understand that the mindset of many were different during that era but it doesn't change the fact that a certain population received the short end of the stick. From that perspective, Jacksonville was no different from the rest of the South.
Here is a photo on Dearborn Street in Chicago in 1909, which may help in understanding the issues surrounding congestion and overcrowding being discussed at the National Conference on City Planning that very same year.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-R3MjVZR/0/M/savage_city_gridlock_so2009_1000px-M.jpg)
Which of course gave rise to the 'L' and advertisements like this from 1926:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-qZjBDrM/0/L/PSP02123-L.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on August 17, 2013, 10:21:45 AM
From the perspective of whether or not there was racism present in jville, I think you can even make a case for historic exceptionalism in the way that Jville dealt with the virulent racism of the times.
And I think that has a lot to do with the city being such a multiracial port town. Its hard to be an overt asshole when half of the wealthy men you have to deal with are of a different color.
I suspect that the city has dealt with the race mixing through demolitions rather than through legal codes historically.
Historically, we did it through legal codes as well. We weren't a trend setter or abnormality when it came to early 20th century race relations at the public level. To get a sense of Jacksonville from a black perspective during the early 20th century, the writings of James Weldon Johnson and Zora Neale Hurston are decent reads.
For example, in his autobiography Along This Way, James Weldon Johnson claimed the Great Fire of 1901 got out of hand because of the authority's racism at that time. Plus Hurston claims Jacksonville was the first place she encountered racism, which, in her words, "made me know that I was a little colored girl."
http://chdr.cah.ucf.edu/hurstonarchive/?p=communities
While we certainly had a very enlightened black community during this era, I'm not sure that crossed over into an enlightened local government picking up the cause. Like many in my family throughout the South, Johnson, Hurston and others eventually became a part of the Great Migration by heading north to take advantage of opportunities that were not available for blacks in smaller communities like Jax.
My point is that we did in the form of exclusionary zoning and we continue to do the same today.
QuoteBut you don't disagree with the idea that Jacksonville has approached its racist policies mostly through neglect and demolition do you?
I'm not sure I can agree or disagree on this point, outside of what has happened in Jax has also happened in most cities across the country during the same general time periods.
QuoteWell Jacksonville was also the first large city that Zora Neal Hurston visited. It would have been the first place outside of the black townships that she would have been able to experience it.
I'm not sure. Tampa isn't that far from Eatonville and she also spent time living with another brother in Nashville. During that era, Tampa would have been slightly smaller and Nashville slightly larger than Jax.
Interesting numbers from the Great Migration. Percentage of African-Americans in Jacksonville by decade:
1900 - 57.1%
1910 - 50.8%
1920 - 45.3%
1930 - 37.2%
1940 - 35.7%
1950 - 35.4%
More Southern and Northern cities are included in the link. For the most part, most city's black population percentages have increased since the 1950s, directly corresponding to the growth of GI Bill fueled suburbs after WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)
It doesn't mean they never visited other Central Florida communities before 1904. For example, Sanford would have been large enough at the time for them to experience racism. Anyway, the reason I posted the quote was to suggest that Jax was not an exception to the rule when it comes to southern cities and race. I don't think an effective case can be made for historic exceptionalism in the way that Jacksonville dealt with racism of the era. Our enlightened African-Americans got out of here and headed north just as fast as they did any place else. That's a statistic that suggests opportunities for blacks in the region were limited.
Much of Jacksonville's 19th century African-American population was already here because of the railroads. Nevertheless, Randolph didn't really get involved with community organizing and the railroads until he had already left Jacksonville. By that time, educated blacks were already leaving Jax in droves and heading north.
Btw, another early Jacksonville great. Also more references to a city were African-Americans had little opportunity to succeed, while also enduring racism.
QuoteRandolph was born April 15, 1889, in Crescent City, Florida, the second son of the Rev. James William Randolph, a tailor and minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Elizabeth Robinson Randolph, a skilled seamstress. In 1891 the family moved to Jacksonville, Florida, which had a thriving, well-established African-American community.
From his father, Randolph learned that color was less important than a person's character and conduct. From his mother, he learned the importance of education and of defending oneself physically against those who would seek to hurt one or one's family, if necessary. Randolph remembered vividly the night his mother sat in the front room of their house with a loaded shotgun across her lap, while his father tucked a pistol under his coat and went off to prevent a mob from lynching a man at the local county jail.
Asa and his brother, James, were superior students. They attended the Cookman Institute in East Jacksonville, for years the only academic high school in Florida for African Americans. Public education was segregated. Asa excelled in literature, drama and public speaking; he also starred on the school's baseball team, sang solos with its choir and was valedictorian of the 1907 graduating class.
After graduation, Randolph worked odd jobs and devoted his time to singing, acting and reading. Reading W. E. B. Du Bois' The Souls of Black Folk convinced him that the fight for social equality was most important. Barred by discrimination from all but manual jobs in the South, Randolph moved to New York City in 1911, where he worked at odd jobs and took social sciences courses at City College.
QuoteRandolph's first experience with labor organization came in 1917, when he organized a union of elevator operators in New York City. In 1919 he became president of the National Brotherhood of Workers of America, a union which organised amongst African-American shipyard and dock workers in the Tidewater region of Virginia. The union dissolved in 1921, under pressure from the American Federation of Labor.
His greatest success came with the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, who elected him President in 1925. This was the first serious effort to form a labor institution for employees of the Pullman Company, which was a major employer of African Americans. The railroads had expanded dramatically in the early 20th century, and the jobs offered relatively good employment at a time of widespread racial discrimination. Because porters were not unionized, however, most Pullman porters were exploited and underpaid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Philip_Randolph
Randolph would have only been 18 around 1909, when this conference in the thread title was held. I doubt he had many union connections established before moving to NYC in 1911. Also, there were two distinct migration periods of blacks from the South to the North. This is reflected in the rapid population percentage increase of blacks in industrial Midwestern and Northern cities after the turn of the century. Most of the moves were made because of the opportunity for jobs and to simply get out of the Jim Crow south.
Many of my great uncles and aunts headed north during the migration because it offered a chance to do something different from manual labor and reduced the possibilities of getting lynched. During the second migration after WWII, they tried to convince my dad to move up with them as well. I suspect what was going on in Jax was not significantly different than the rest of the black south. At this point, I'm not seeing how Jax was an exception to the rule.
I didn't post migration numbers after 1950 specifically because of consolidation. Nevertheless, the core principle here is that Jax was not an exception to the rest of the south with the issue of race. We were just as backward. No need to split threads. It's related to the conference of 1909.
Quote from: stephendare on August 18, 2013, 03:50:53 PMIf the point you are making is in response to my post about Jacksonville not having instituted race based zoning codes, then I think you would be wrong in saying that the city which did not institute them was as backwards as the cities that did. Pretty much by definition. ;
There's two specific comments I'll agree to disagree with instead of continuing to go back and forth. They are quoted below with my reasoning below them:
Quote from: stephendare on August 16, 2013, 10:30:06 PM
Here in Jax, we were literally the first Southern city to implement zoning, and city planning as well as the only city to implement a zoning plan that wasnt race based.
You don't get the 20th century development pattern we had without years of zoning with race as a major backdrop. Whether we want to call it specifically raced based zoning, exclusionary zoning or whatever is irrelevant because the same goals are achieved.
Quote from: stephendare on August 17, 2013, 10:21:45 AM
From the perspective of whether or not there was racism present in jville, I think you can even make a case for historic exceptionalism in the way that Jville dealt with the virulent racism of the times.
And I think that has a lot to do with the city being such a multiracial port town. Its hard to be an overt asshole when half of the wealthy men you have to deal with are of a different color.
I suspect that the city has dealt with the race mixing through demolitions rather than through legal codes historically.
Nearly every major american city at the time was a port or railroad junction. How was Jax different from any of the other regional ports? Also, I haven't seen anything presented to suggest that we dealt with racism of the times with historic exceptionalism.
However, we've both presented our cases and I'd like to move on to focusing on some other things, so I'll agree to disagree.
I've already shown examples of race based exclusionary zoning tactics applied in Jax over the years. They can be found around page two of the thread.
Quote from: stephendare on August 18, 2013, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 18, 2013, 04:53:47 PM
I've already shown examples of race based exclusionary zoning tactics applied in Jax over the years. They can be found around page two of the thread.
I think you showed where people had land covenants. But that had nothing to do with Simon's zoning system, implemented as a voluntary system in 25 or 28, and then turned into law in 35.
OK. When you get the chance, scan and upload it, so we all can review.
Quote from: stephendare on August 18, 2013, 05:22:11 PM
Quote from: cline on January 19, 2010, 08:38:03 AM
QuoteHis lifetime work for which he was to become known - as a planning, zoning and municipal consultant - commenced in 1928, when he was hired by the City of Jacksonville to develop a comprehensive city plan and zoning ordinance.
If anyone is interested in reading the original plan (and has some extra time on their hands), it is available from the Florida Heritage Collection:
http://fulltext10.fcla.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=fhp&idno=NF00000041&format=jpg
It is a pretty interesting read.
Unfortunately, nothing really pulls up. I believe there is a copy at the historical society's archives. I'll check it out the next time I'm down there.