Videri - User contributions [en]

Downtown America

2016-02-09T19:44:13Z

Lericson1:

{{Infobox book
| name = Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It
| image = [[File:Downtown America.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]
| image_caption =
| author = Alison Isenberg
| translator =
| country = United States
| language = English
| series =
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 2004
| pages = 441
| isbn = 0226385086
| oclc =
| congress =
}}

Alison Isenberg writes a captivating narrative of urban development in her study ''Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It'' (2004). An award-winning writer and co-director of the Urban Studies program at Princeton University, Isenberg valuably contributes to the existing scholarship on American cities and downtowns.

Isenberg’s book works against an existing framework of urban history which largely ignores direct human manipulation. Rather, previous studies focus on supposedly uncontrollable aspects of development, such as landscape and market conditions. With a focus on how people shape real estate and socioeconomic relationships, Isenberg convincingly describes the important points of downtown transformation. These points of transformation are loosely defined chronologically and ideologically.

Starting with the 1890s through the 1910s, the City Beautiful movement, and particularly women’s role within the movement, shape the beginning developments of a distinct downtown. “Municipal housekeeping” of business streets by white, native-born, middle-class women blended the public and private aspects of urban commercial life, as local and business identity merged on Main Street. In the following decades, stakeholders modified representations of downtown similarly. Moving from the actual place to symbols of it, national consultants helped cities create a desirable, unified retail sector through city plans and through postcards. By adjusting existing infrastructure in downtown and in pictorial representations of downtown, businessmen and civic leaders aimed to create a cooperative relationship and shared interest for businesses.

Consumer studies, marketing, and retail geography boomed in the 1920s. The popular concept of the 100% district, which defined the dense zones of female shopper traffic, enticed speculation and investment in these downtown areas. This shifted the perception of women into rational, economic decision-makers and consumers who deserved the attention of developers. Business zoning reinforced, in theory, the 100% district while also segregating blacks into their own commercial districts. The boom of downtown and suburban investment stalled, however, in the 1930s and 1940s. The Great Depression inspired reuse of vacant, interior properties due to changing appraisal practices. Parking lots sprung up on abandoned lots, while other investors looked to storefront enhancements for individualized modernization and economic survival. World War II, shortages, and rationing recentralized downtown as expansion remained on pause.

In the 1950s, residual problems associated with the thirties and forties created the impression that “Nobody goes downtown anymore.” Suburban retail sales were up in the post-war boom, but downtown sales were lower. Federal legislation and funding attempted to address the problem, while developers looked again to the married, rational, white female shopper. In hopes of creating a relaxing, comforting, beautiful experience for these consumers, urban renewal efforts looked to condemn the past through demolition and rebuilding. In the 1960s, however, the formerly ignored urban black communities asserted their political and economic power. Activity ranging from sit-ins to looting and burning specific, targeted business redefined downtown America. Violence and fear of it caused many whites to avoid downtown. On the other hand, more peacefully integrated areas saw mixed consumer populations. After the tumultuous Riot Renaissance of the sixties, downtown developers hoped to literally build a better future.

Historic preservation efforts of the late twentieth century fundamentally changed downtown. Unlike the demolition of the 1950s and the riots of the 1960s, developers in the 1970s looked to the past for inspiration. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Pilot Project of the seventies and the New Urbanism movement of the eighties and nineties looked to recreate the dense walking cities of the supposed past. This nostalgic attitude also kept longtime customers returning to variety stores such as Woolworth’s, although these downtown institutions were facing considerable decline. Indeed nostalgia as a design principle did not align with nostalgia as an attitude of downtown residents and shoppers. Though in favor of older styles and aesthetics, businesses looked to expanding its consumer group recognition to formerly underrepresented populations. Furthermore, many people rejected nostalgia based on the inherently complicated nature of the past, particularly regarding race relations. Regardless, developers used a recognizable, historic style that was so popular, it was seen as lacking distinction between cities. Isenberg concludes with the meaning of the World Trade Center, its destruction, and the eventual reuse of the site. How will the history of downtown development shape this all-important footprint in an all-important city?

Isenberg uses these significant points of transformation to guide her history of downtown. To illustrate these ideas, the author uses a variety of sources such as maps, advertisements, editorials, planning and zoning guides, postcards, and photographs. This richness of material efficiently substantiates her innovative argument regarding the role of humans in the socioeconomic and physical development of downtowns. However, the reproduction of some of these materials are more helpful than others. For example, the race riot photography of the 1960s and the hand-altered lithograph postcards were particularly illustrative of Isenberg’s concepts. Although the postcard placement could have been more strategic (with before and after comparisons more proximal), other images were not even critical to understanding the author’s argument. For example, the charts representing 1930s efforts to predict economic recovery would have been helpful if they were at least legible. Careful selection and placement of sources would be an improvement to this study.

In addition, the author points to countless examples of how these concepts worked in cities across the United States. Ranging in physical and population size, location, and relative age, these cities represent a diverse yet shared history of downtown. A commendable study in breadth and depth, Isenberg provides a unique perspective into urban history. Her national context efficiently establishes trends, but the reader wonders how these concepts work over time within one downtown location. Is there one example that follows the history that Isenberg outlines? Although not claiming to be a universal history, there is not a consistent example of how this history looked in one twentieth century community. More site-specific research may have enhanced the author’s argument, in the same way that William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis provides comprehensive theory with specific focus on Chicago. This may be outside the scope of this work, but would be a useful framework for future urban historians.

Ultimately, Downtown America contributes a wealth of information to the study of urban history. With clear writing, sound logic, organized format, and helpful examples, Isenberg’s book is a valuable work for students and researchers.

[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:City Planning]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Urban Renewal]]
[[Category:Alison Isenberg]]

Downtown America

2016-02-09T19:43:47Z

Lericson1:

{{Infobox book
| name = Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It
| image = [[File:Downtown America.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]
| image_caption =
| author = Alison Isenberg
| translator =
| country = United States
| language = English
| series =
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 2004
| pages = 441
| isbn = 0226385086
| oclc =
| congress =
}}

Alison Isenberg writes a captivating narrative of urban development in her study Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It (2004). An award-winning writer and co-director of the Urban Studies program at Princeton University, Isenberg valuably contributes to the existing scholarship on American cities and downtowns.

Isenberg’s book works against an existing framework of urban history which largely ignores direct human manipulation. Rather, previous studies focus on supposedly uncontrollable aspects of development, such as landscape and market conditions. With a focus on how people shape real estate and socioeconomic relationships, Isenberg convincingly describes the important points of downtown transformation. These points of transformation are loosely defined chronologically and ideologically.

Starting with the 1890s through the 1910s, the City Beautiful movement, and particularly women’s role within the movement, shape the beginning developments of a distinct downtown. “Municipal housekeeping” of business streets by white, native-born, middle-class women blended the public and private aspects of urban commercial life, as local and business identity merged on Main Street. In the following decades, stakeholders modified representations of downtown similarly. Moving from the actual place to symbols of it, national consultants helped cities create a desirable, unified retail sector through city plans and through postcards. By adjusting existing infrastructure in downtown and in pictorial representations of downtown, businessmen and civic leaders aimed to create a cooperative relationship and shared interest for businesses.

Consumer studies, marketing, and retail geography boomed in the 1920s. The popular concept of the 100% district, which defined the dense zones of female shopper traffic, enticed speculation and investment in these downtown areas. This shifted the perception of women into rational, economic decision-makers and consumers who deserved the attention of developers. Business zoning reinforced, in theory, the 100% district while also segregating blacks into their own commercial districts. The boom of downtown and suburban investment stalled, however, in the 1930s and 1940s. The Great Depression inspired reuse of vacant, interior properties due to changing appraisal practices. Parking lots sprung up on abandoned lots, while other investors looked to storefront enhancements for individualized modernization and economic survival. World War II, shortages, and rationing recentralized downtown as expansion remained on pause.

In the 1950s, residual problems associated with the thirties and forties created the impression that “Nobody goes downtown anymore.” Suburban retail sales were up in the post-war boom, but downtown sales were lower. Federal legislation and funding attempted to address the problem, while developers looked again to the married, rational, white female shopper. In hopes of creating a relaxing, comforting, beautiful experience for these consumers, urban renewal efforts looked to condemn the past through demolition and rebuilding. In the 1960s, however, the formerly ignored urban black communities asserted their political and economic power. Activity ranging from sit-ins to looting and burning specific, targeted business redefined downtown America. Violence and fear of it caused many whites to avoid downtown. On the other hand, more peacefully integrated areas saw mixed consumer populations. After the tumultuous Riot Renaissance of the sixties, downtown developers hoped to literally build a better future.

Historic preservation efforts of the late twentieth century fundamentally changed downtown. Unlike the demolition of the 1950s and the riots of the 1960s, developers in the 1970s looked to the past for inspiration. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Pilot Project of the seventies and the New Urbanism movement of the eighties and nineties looked to recreate the dense walking cities of the supposed past. This nostalgic attitude also kept longtime customers returning to variety stores such as Woolworth’s, although these downtown institutions were facing considerable decline. Indeed nostalgia as a design principle did not align with nostalgia as an attitude of downtown residents and shoppers. Though in favor of older styles and aesthetics, businesses looked to expanding its consumer group recognition to formerly underrepresented populations. Furthermore, many people rejected nostalgia based on the inherently complicated nature of the past, particularly regarding race relations. Regardless, developers used a recognizable, historic style that was so popular, it was seen as lacking distinction between cities. Isenberg concludes with the meaning of the World Trade Center, its destruction, and the eventual reuse of the site. How will the history of downtown development shape this all-important footprint in an all-important city?

Isenberg uses these significant points of transformation to guide her history of downtown. To illustrate these ideas, the author uses a variety of sources such as maps, advertisements, editorials, planning and zoning guides, postcards, and photographs. This richness of material efficiently substantiates her innovative argument regarding the role of humans in the socioeconomic and physical development of downtowns. However, the reproduction of some of these materials are more helpful than others. For example, the race riot photography of the 1960s and the hand-altered lithograph postcards were particularly illustrative of Isenberg’s concepts. Although the postcard placement could have been more strategic (with before and after comparisons more proximal), other images were not even critical to understanding the author’s argument. For example, the charts representing 1930s efforts to predict economic recovery would have been helpful if they were at least legible. Careful selection and placement of sources would be an improvement to this study.

In addition, the author points to countless examples of how these concepts worked in cities across the United States. Ranging in physical and population size, location, and relative age, these cities represent a diverse yet shared history of downtown. A commendable study in breadth and depth, Isenberg provides a unique perspective into urban history. Her national context efficiently establishes trends, but the reader wonders how these concepts work over time within one downtown location. Is there one example that follows the history that Isenberg outlines? Although not claiming to be a universal history, there is not a consistent example of how this history looked in one twentieth century community. More site-specific research may have enhanced the author’s argument, in the same way that William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis provides comprehensive theory with specific focus on Chicago. This may be outside the scope of this work, but would be a useful framework for future urban historians.

Ultimately, Downtown America contributes a wealth of information to the study of urban history. With clear writing, sound logic, organized format, and helpful examples, Isenberg’s book is a valuable work for students and researchers.

[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:City Planning]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Urban Renewal]]
[[Category:Alison Isenberg]]

Downtown America

2016-02-09T19:41:45Z

Lericson1:

{{Infobox book
| name = Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It
| image = [[File:Downtown America.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]
| image_caption =
| author = Alison Isenberg
| translator =
| country = United States
| language = English
| series =
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 2004
| pages = 441
| isbn = 978-0-226-38508-2
| oclc =
| congress =
}}

Alison Isenberg writes a captivating narrative of urban development in her study Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It (2004). An award-winning writer and co-director of the Urban Studies program at Princeton University, Isenberg valuably contributes to the existing scholarship on American cities and downtowns.

Isenberg’s book works against an existing framework of urban history which largely ignores direct human manipulation. Rather, previous studies focus on supposedly uncontrollable aspects of development, such as landscape and market conditions. With a focus on how people shape real estate and socioeconomic relationships, Isenberg convincingly describes the important points of downtown transformation. These points of transformation are loosely defined chronologically and ideologically.

Starting with the 1890s through the 1910s, the City Beautiful movement, and particularly women’s role within the movement, shape the beginning developments of a distinct downtown. “Municipal housekeeping” of business streets by white, native-born, middle-class women blended the public and private aspects of urban commercial life, as local and business identity merged on Main Street. In the following decades, stakeholders modified representations of downtown similarly. Moving from the actual place to symbols of it, national consultants helped cities create a desirable, unified retail sector through city plans and through postcards. By adjusting existing infrastructure in downtown and in pictorial representations of downtown, businessmen and civic leaders aimed to create a cooperative relationship and shared interest for businesses.

Consumer studies, marketing, and retail geography boomed in the 1920s. The popular concept of the 100% district, which defined the dense zones of female shopper traffic, enticed speculation and investment in these downtown areas. This shifted the perception of women into rational, economic decision-makers and consumers who deserved the attention of developers. Business zoning reinforced, in theory, the 100% district while also segregating blacks into their own commercial districts. The boom of downtown and suburban investment stalled, however, in the 1930s and 1940s. The Great Depression inspired reuse of vacant, interior properties due to changing appraisal practices. Parking lots sprung up on abandoned lots, while other investors looked to storefront enhancements for individualized modernization and economic survival. World War II, shortages, and rationing recentralized downtown as expansion remained on pause.

In the 1950s, residual problems associated with the thirties and forties created the impression that “Nobody goes downtown anymore.” Suburban retail sales were up in the post-war boom, but downtown sales were lower. Federal legislation and funding attempted to address the problem, while developers looked again to the married, rational, white female shopper. In hopes of creating a relaxing, comforting, beautiful experience for these consumers, urban renewal efforts looked to condemn the past through demolition and rebuilding. In the 1960s, however, the formerly ignored urban black communities asserted their political and economic power. Activity ranging from sit-ins to looting and burning specific, targeted business redefined downtown America. Violence and fear of it caused many whites to avoid downtown. On the other hand, more peacefully integrated areas saw mixed consumer populations. After the tumultuous Riot Renaissance of the sixties, downtown developers hoped to literally build a better future.

Historic preservation efforts of the late twentieth century fundamentally changed downtown. Unlike the demolition of the 1950s and the riots of the 1960s, developers in the 1970s looked to the past for inspiration. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Pilot Project of the seventies and the New Urbanism movement of the eighties and nineties looked to recreate the dense walking cities of the supposed past. This nostalgic attitude also kept longtime customers returning to variety stores such as Woolworth’s, although these downtown institutions were facing considerable decline. Indeed nostalgia as a design principle did not align with nostalgia as an attitude of downtown residents and shoppers. Though in favor of older styles and aesthetics, businesses looked to expanding its consumer group recognition to formerly underrepresented populations. Furthermore, many people rejected nostalgia based on the inherently complicated nature of the past, particularly regarding race relations. Regardless, developers used a recognizable, historic style that was so popular, it was seen as lacking distinction between cities. Isenberg concludes with the meaning of the World Trade Center, its destruction, and the eventual reuse of the site. How will the history of downtown development shape this all-important footprint in an all-important city?

Isenberg uses these significant points of transformation to guide her history of downtown. To illustrate these ideas, the author uses a variety of sources such as maps, advertisements, editorials, planning and zoning guides, postcards, and photographs. This richness of material efficiently substantiates her innovative argument regarding the role of humans in the socioeconomic and physical development of downtowns. However, the reproduction of some of these materials are more helpful than others. For example, the race riot photography of the 1960s and the hand-altered lithograph postcards were particularly illustrative of Isenberg’s concepts. Although the postcard placement could have been more strategic (with before and after comparisons more proximal), other images were not even critical to understanding the author’s argument. For example, the charts representing 1930s efforts to predict economic recovery would have been helpful if they were at least legible. Careful selection and placement of sources would be an improvement to this study.

In addition, the author points to countless examples of how these concepts worked in cities across the United States. Ranging in physical and population size, location, and relative age, these cities represent a diverse yet shared history of downtown. A commendable study in breadth and depth, Isenberg provides a unique perspective into urban history. Her national context efficiently establishes trends, but the reader wonders how these concepts work over time within one downtown location. Is there one example that follows the history that Isenberg outlines? Although not claiming to be a universal history, there is not a consistent example of how this history looked in one twentieth century community. More site-specific research may have enhanced the author’s argument, in the same way that William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis provides comprehensive theory with specific focus on Chicago. This may be outside the scope of this work, but would be a useful framework for future urban historians.

Ultimately, Downtown America contributes a wealth of information to the study of urban history. With clear writing, sound logic, organized format, and helpful examples, Isenberg’s book is a valuable work for students and researchers.

[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:City Planning]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Urban Renewal]]
[[Category:Alison Isenberg]]

Downtown America

2016-02-09T19:41:02Z

Lericson1:

{{Infobox book
| name = Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It
| image = [[File:Downtown America.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]
| image_caption =
| author = Alison Isenberg
| translator =
| country = United States
| language = English
| series =
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 2004
| pages =
| isbn = 978-0-226-38508-2
| oclc =
| congress =
}}

Alison Isenberg writes a captivating narrative of urban development in her study Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It (2004). An award-winning writer and co-director of the Urban Studies program at Princeton University, Isenberg valuably contributes to the existing scholarship on American cities and downtowns.

Isenberg’s book works against an existing framework of urban history which largely ignores direct human manipulation. Rather, previous studies focus on supposedly uncontrollable aspects of development, such as landscape and market conditions. With a focus on how people shape real estate and socioeconomic relationships, Isenberg convincingly describes the important points of downtown transformation. These points of transformation are loosely defined chronologically and ideologically.

Starting with the 1890s through the 1910s, the City Beautiful movement, and particularly women’s role within the movement, shape the beginning developments of a distinct downtown. “Municipal housekeeping” of business streets by white, native-born, middle-class women blended the public and private aspects of urban commercial life, as local and business identity merged on Main Street. In the following decades, stakeholders modified representations of downtown similarly. Moving from the actual place to symbols of it, national consultants helped cities create a desirable, unified retail sector through city plans and through postcards. By adjusting existing infrastructure in downtown and in pictorial representations of downtown, businessmen and civic leaders aimed to create a cooperative relationship and shared interest for businesses.

Consumer studies, marketing, and retail geography boomed in the 1920s. The popular concept of the 100% district, which defined the dense zones of female shopper traffic, enticed speculation and investment in these downtown areas. This shifted the perception of women into rational, economic decision-makers and consumers who deserved the attention of developers. Business zoning reinforced, in theory, the 100% district while also segregating blacks into their own commercial districts. The boom of downtown and suburban investment stalled, however, in the 1930s and 1940s. The Great Depression inspired reuse of vacant, interior properties due to changing appraisal practices. Parking lots sprung up on abandoned lots, while other investors looked to storefront enhancements for individualized modernization and economic survival. World War II, shortages, and rationing recentralized downtown as expansion remained on pause.

In the 1950s, residual problems associated with the thirties and forties created the impression that “Nobody goes downtown anymore.” Suburban retail sales were up in the post-war boom, but downtown sales were lower. Federal legislation and funding attempted to address the problem, while developers looked again to the married, rational, white female shopper. In hopes of creating a relaxing, comforting, beautiful experience for these consumers, urban renewal efforts looked to condemn the past through demolition and rebuilding. In the 1960s, however, the formerly ignored urban black communities asserted their political and economic power. Activity ranging from sit-ins to looting and burning specific, targeted business redefined downtown America. Violence and fear of it caused many whites to avoid downtown. On the other hand, more peacefully integrated areas saw mixed consumer populations. After the tumultuous Riot Renaissance of the sixties, downtown developers hoped to literally build a better future.

Historic preservation efforts of the late twentieth century fundamentally changed downtown. Unlike the demolition of the 1950s and the riots of the 1960s, developers in the 1970s looked to the past for inspiration. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Pilot Project of the seventies and the New Urbanism movement of the eighties and nineties looked to recreate the dense walking cities of the supposed past. This nostalgic attitude also kept longtime customers returning to variety stores such as Woolworth’s, although these downtown institutions were facing considerable decline. Indeed nostalgia as a design principle did not align with nostalgia as an attitude of downtown residents and shoppers. Though in favor of older styles and aesthetics, businesses looked to expanding its consumer group recognition to formerly underrepresented populations. Furthermore, many people rejected nostalgia based on the inherently complicated nature of the past, particularly regarding race relations. Regardless, developers used a recognizable, historic style that was so popular, it was seen as lacking distinction between cities. Isenberg concludes with the meaning of the World Trade Center, its destruction, and the eventual reuse of the site. How will the history of downtown development shape this all-important footprint in an all-important city?

Isenberg uses these significant points of transformation to guide her history of downtown. To illustrate these ideas, the author uses a variety of sources such as maps, advertisements, editorials, planning and zoning guides, postcards, and photographs. This richness of material efficiently substantiates her innovative argument regarding the role of humans in the socioeconomic and physical development of downtowns. However, the reproduction of some of these materials are more helpful than others. For example, the race riot photography of the 1960s and the hand-altered lithograph postcards were particularly illustrative of Isenberg’s concepts. Although the postcard placement could have been more strategic (with before and after comparisons more proximal), other images were not even critical to understanding the author’s argument. For example, the charts representing 1930s efforts to predict economic recovery would have been helpful if they were at least legible. Careful selection and placement of sources would be an improvement to this study.

In addition, the author points to countless examples of how these concepts worked in cities across the United States. Ranging in physical and population size, location, and relative age, these cities represent a diverse yet shared history of downtown. A commendable study in breadth and depth, Isenberg provides a unique perspective into urban history. Her national context efficiently establishes trends, but the reader wonders how these concepts work over time within one downtown location. Is there one example that follows the history that Isenberg outlines? Although not claiming to be a universal history, there is not a consistent example of how this history looked in one twentieth century community. More site-specific research may have enhanced the author’s argument, in the same way that William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis provides comprehensive theory with specific focus on Chicago. This may be outside the scope of this work, but would be a useful framework for future urban historians.

Ultimately, Downtown America contributes a wealth of information to the study of urban history. With clear writing, sound logic, organized format, and helpful examples, Isenberg’s book is a valuable work for students and researchers.

[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:City Planning]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Urban Renewal]]
[[Category:Alison Isenberg]]

File:Downtown America.jpg

2016-02-09T19:34:45Z

Lericson1:

Downtown America

2016-02-09T19:34:17Z

Lericson1: Created page with "{{Infobox book | name = Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It | image = alt=Cover | image_..."

{{Infobox book
| name = Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It
| image = [[File:Downtown America.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]
| image_caption =
| author = Alison Isenberg
| translator =
| country = United States
| language = English
| series =
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 2004
| pages =
| isbn = 978-0-226-38508-2
| oclc =
| congress =
}}

Alison Isenberg writes a captivating narrative of urban development in her study Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It (2004). An award-winning writer and co-director of the Urban Studies program at Princeton University, Isenberg valuably contributes to the existing scholarship on American cities and downtowns.

Isenberg’s book works against an existing framework of urban history which largely ignores direct human manipulation. Rather, previous studies focus on supposedly uncontrollable aspects of development, such as landscape and market conditions. With a focus on how people shape real estate and socioeconomic relationships, Isenberg convincingly describes the important points of downtown transformation. These points of transformation are loosely defined chronologically and ideologically.

Starting with the 1890s through the 1910s, the City Beautiful movement, and particularly women’s role within the movement, shape the beginning developments of a distinct downtown. “Municipal housekeeping” of business streets by white, native-born, middle-class women blended the public and private aspects of urban commercial life, as local and business identity merged on Main Street. In the following decades, stakeholders modified representations of downtown similarly. Moving from the actual place to symbols of it, national consultants helped cities create a desirable, unified retail sector through city plans and through postcards. By adjusting existing infrastructure in downtown and in pictorial representations of downtown, businessmen and civic leaders aimed to create a cooperative relationship and shared interest for businesses.

Consumer studies, marketing, and retail geography boomed in the 1920s. The popular concept of the 100% district, which defined the dense zones of female shopper traffic, enticed speculation and investment in these downtown areas. This shifted the perception of women into rational, economic decision-makers and consumers who deserved the attention of developers. Business zoning reinforced, in theory, the 100% district while also segregating blacks into their own commercial districts. The boom of downtown and suburban investment stalled, however, in the 1930s and 1940s. The Great Depression inspired reuse of vacant, interior properties due to changing appraisal practices. Parking lots sprung up on abandoned lots, while other investors looked to storefront enhancements for individualized modernization and economic survival. World War II, shortages, and rationing recentralized downtown as expansion remained on pause.

In the 1950s, residual problems associated with the thirties and forties created the impression that “Nobody goes downtown anymore.” Suburban retail sales were up in the post-war boom, but downtown sales were lower. Federal legislation and funding attempted to address the problem, while developers looked again to the married, rational, white female shopper. In hopes of creating a relaxing, comforting, beautiful experience for these consumers, urban renewal efforts looked to condemn the past through demolition and rebuilding. In the 1960s, however, the formerly ignored urban black communities asserted their political and economic power. Activity ranging from sit-ins to looting and burning specific, targeted business redefined downtown America. Violence and fear of it caused many whites to avoid downtown. On the other hand, more peacefully integrated areas saw mixed consumer populations. After the tumultuous Riot Renaissance of the sixties, downtown developers hoped to literally build a better future.

Historic preservation efforts of the late twentieth century fundamentally changed downtown. Unlike the demolition of the 1950s and the riots of the 1960s, developers in the 1970s looked to the past for inspiration. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Pilot Project of the seventies and the New Urbanism movement of the eighties and nineties looked to recreate the dense walking cities of the supposed past. This nostalgic attitude also kept longtime customers returning to variety stores such as Woolworth’s, although these downtown institutions were facing considerable decline. Indeed nostalgia as a design principle did not align with nostalgia as an attitude of downtown residents and shoppers. Though in favor of older styles and aesthetics, businesses looked to expanding its consumer group recognition to formerly underrepresented populations. Furthermore, many people rejected nostalgia based on the inherently complicated nature of the past, particularly regarding race relations. Regardless, developers used a recognizable, historic style that was so popular, it was seen as lacking distinction between cities. Isenberg concludes with the meaning of the World Trade Center, its destruction, and the eventual reuse of the site. How will the history of downtown development shape this all-important footprint in an all-important city?

Isenberg uses these significant points of transformation to guide her history of downtown. To illustrate these ideas, the author uses a variety of sources such as maps, advertisements, editorials, planning and zoning guides, postcards, and photographs. This richness of material efficiently substantiates her innovative argument regarding the role of humans in the socioeconomic and physical development of downtowns. However, the reproduction of some of these materials are more helpful than others. For example, the race riot photography of the 1960s and the hand-altered lithograph postcards were particularly illustrative of Isenberg’s concepts. Although the postcard placement could have been more strategic (with before and after comparisons more proximal), other images were not even critical to understanding the author’s argument. For example, the charts representing 1930s efforts to predict economic recovery would have been helpful if they were at least legible. Careful selection and placement of sources would be an improvement to this study.

In addition, the author points to countless examples of how these concepts worked in cities across the United States. Ranging in physical and population size, location, and relative age, these cities represent a diverse yet shared history of downtown. A commendable study in breadth and depth, Isenberg provides a unique perspective into urban history. Her national context efficiently establishes trends, but the reader wonders how these concepts work over time within one downtown location. Is there one example that follows the history that Isenberg outlines? Although not claiming to be a universal history, there is not a consistent example of how this history looked in one twentieth century community. More site-specific research may have enhanced the author’s argument, in the same way that William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis provides comprehensive theory with specific focus on Chicago. This may be outside the scope of this work, but would be a useful framework for future urban historians.

Ultimately, Downtown America contributes a wealth of information to the study of urban history. With clear writing, sound logic, organized format, and helpful examples, Isenberg’s book is a valuable work for students and researchers.

Urban Studies

2016-02-09T19:27:57Z

Lericson1:

* Paul Boyer. [[Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920]] (1992).
* Amy Bridges. [[A City in the Republic|A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the Origins of Machine Politics]] (2008).
* Charlotte Brooks. [[Alien Neighbors, Foreign Friends|Alien Neighbors, Foreign Friends: Asian Americans, Housing, and the Transformation of Urban California]] (2009).
* Lizabeth Cohen. [[Making a New Deal|Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939]] (2008).
* Francis G. Couvares. [[The Remaking of Pittsburgh|The Remaking of Pittsburgh: Class and Culture in an Industrializing City 1877-1919]] (1984).
* Mike Davis. [[City of Quartz|City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles]] (2006).
* Mike Davis & Michael Sprinker. [[Magical Urbanism|Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the US Big City]] (2001).
* Michael J. Dear. [[The Postmodern Urban Condition]] (2001).
* Robin L. Einhorn. [[Property Rules|Property Rules: Political Economy in Chicago, 1833-1872]] (2001).
* Steven Erie. [[Globalizing L.A.|Globalizing L.A.: Trade, Infrastructure, and Regional Development]] (2004).
* Steven P. Erie. [[Beyond Chinatown|Beyond Chinatown: The Metropolitan Water District, Growth, and the Environment in Southern California]] (2006).
* Philip J. Ethington. [[The Public City|The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850-1900]] (2001).
* Elizabeth Ewen. [[Immigrant Women in the Land of Dollars]] (1985).
* Barbara Ferman. [[Challenging the Growth Machine|Challenging the Growth Machine: Neighborhood Politics in Chicago and Pittsburgh]] (1996).
* John M. Findlay. [[Magic Lands|Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture After 1940]] (1993).
* J. Friedmann. [[The World City Hypothesis]]. ''Development and Change'', 17(1) , 69–83. (2008).
* Steven Gregory. [[Black Corona|Black Corona: Race and the Politics of Place in an Urban Community]] (1999).
* David Harvey. [[Consciousness and the Urban Experience]] (1985).
* Jason Hackworth. [[The Neoliberal City|The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism]] (2006).
* William Ivy Hair. [[Carnival of Fury|Carnival of Fury: Robert Charles and the New Orleans Race Riot of 1900]] (2008).
* Chester W. Hartman. [[Yerba Buena|Yerba Buena: land grab and community resistance in San Francisco,]] (1974).
* Steven Hertzberg. [[Strangers Within the Gate City|Strangers Within the Gate City: The Jews of Atlanta, 1845-1915]] (1978).
* Georgina Hickey. [[Hope and Danger in the New South City|Hope and Danger in the New South City: Working-Class Women and Urban Development in Atlanta, 1890-1940]] (2005).
* John R. Hornady. [[Atlanta, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow]] (1922).
* Jonathan Hughes (Editor)& Simon Sadler (Editor).[[Non-Plan|Non-Plan: Essays on Freedom, Participation and Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism]] (2000).
* Daniel Hurewitz. [[Bohemian Los Angeles|Bohemian Los Angeles: and the Making of Modern Politics]] (2007).
* Alison Isenberg. [[Downtown America|Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It]] (2004).
* Marilynn S. Johnson. [[The Second Gold Rush|The Second Gold Rush: Oakland and the East Bay in World War II]] (1994).
* Michael F. Logan. [[Fighting Sprawl and City Hall|Fighting Sprawl and City Hall: Resistance to Urban Growth in the Southwest]] (1995).
* Peter Marcuse and Ronald Van Kempen, [[Globalizing Cities|Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order?]] (2000).
* Peter Marcuse & Ronald van Kempen. [[Of States and Cities|Of States and Cities: The Partitioning of Urban Space]] (2002).
* John Hull Mollenkopf. [[The Contested City]] (1983).
* Armando Navarro. [[The Cristal Experiment|The Cristal Experiment: A Chicano Struggle for Community Control]] (1998).
* Margaret Pugh O’Mara. [[Cities of Knowledge|Cities of Knowledge: Cold War Science and the Search for the Next Silicon Valley]] (2004).
* N. Dos Santos Oliveira. [[Favelas and Ghettos|Favelas and Ghettos: Race and Class in Rio de Janeiro and New York City]]. ''Latin American Perspectives'', 71–89. (1996).
* Gilbert Osofsky. [[Harlem|Harlem: The Making of a Ghetto?: Negro New York, 1890-1930]] (1996).
* Robert B. Potter. [[Cities and Development in the Third World]] (1990).
* Wallace Putnam Reed. [[History of Atlanta, Georgia|History of Atlanta, Georgia: with illustrations and biographical sketches of some of its prominent men and pioneers]] (2011).
* Peter Henry Rossi & Robert A. Dentler. [[The Politics of Urban Renewal|The Politics of Urban Renewal: The Chicago Findings]] (1981).
* Ananya Roy. [[City Requiem|City Requiem, Calcutta: Gender And The Politics Of Poverty]] (2002).
* Saskia Sassen. [[The Global City|The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo.]] (1991).
* Roger Sanjek. [[The Future of Us All|The Future of Us All: Race and Neighborhood Politics in New York City]] (1998).
* Joel Schwartz. [[The New York Approach|The New York Approach: Robert Moses, Urban Liberals, and Redevelopment of the Inner City]] (1993).
* Allan H. Spear. [[Black Chicago|Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto, 1890-1920]] (1969).
* Christine Stansell. [[City of Women|City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860]] (1987).
* Todd Swanstrom. [[The Crisis of Growth Politics|The Crisis of Growth Politics: Cleveland, Kucinich, and the Challenge of Urban Populism]] (1988).
* Sam Bass Warner Jr. [[The Private City|The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth]] (1987).
* Sean Wilentz. [[Chants Democratic|Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850, 20th Anniversary Edition]] (1984).
* Rhonda Y. Williams. [[The Politics of Public Housing|The Politics of Public Housing: Black Women’s Struggles Against Urban Inequality]] (2004).