It’s 1947. You have neither TV nor blogs — how do you evangelize? Posters and pamphlets of course.
Eric Fisher brings us scans from the 1947 campaign to redevelop the Western Addition, aka “raze a neighborhood.”
One method is the strategic use of color. Simply layer green upon black. Problem solved!
Down with fire! And garbage! And bay windows! And cars running into giant oil barrels!
Imagine what these guys could have done with Photoshop
Note: I’m all for public health and children not living in squalor. But the shame of children wearing overalls and the high social cost of dressing like hipsters clearly justify massive urban renewal.
Mr. Stripey Jacket kind of looks like Morrissey, either with a hangover, or about to start a solo.
I did find this copy entertaining:
“Gone are the disreputable joints, the so-called smoke shops, the ‘hotels,’ and pool hall hangouts known to the police. Gone, too, are the alleys in which juvenile gangs plotted mischief that sometimes ended in murder.”
Damn you, 1940s — we could use a couple more pool halls in the Mission. That pool table at Latin American is rarely free of jackets or asses (not that I could get through a game with their margs.) But I digress.
“The rigid street system, with its death-trap intersections, is reorganized, simplified. The indiscriminate mixture of commercial, industrial and residential structures that is the disease of blighted areas is nowhere to be seen.”
Guess they were against mixed-use development. Given that’s a primary reason I live in SF (so I can walk places) I don’t think I would have enjoyed the New City. Sure looks pretty though:
"Honey, here blight was once rife."
While the 40s-era planners’ “build projects and highways” plans may have been flawed, were they onto something in terms of urban renewal, quality of life and safety? Did they see the fundamental changes in society and the jump in crime that would be brought by the 60s?
I found some ridiculously detailed homicide stats that name every person ever murdered in SF from 1849 to 2003 — the very first on the list was Beatty Belden, shot by “Chileans” on Telegraph Hill because of a “misunderstanding” — and crunched some numbers over time. (I took the 10 year census numbers and extrapolated SF population for other years , except for the last 10 years where I found yearly US census estimates.)
SF Homicide Rate, 1860-2008 (per 100K)
The 20s-40s were positively halcyon days in terms of murder in San Francisco — I’m kind of surprised that the rate was so low during the Great Depression and Prohibition.
But murder rates jumped drastically in the 60s. I’m neither a statistician nor a criminolisiticist, so sorry for any miscalculations, but homicide rates approached those of the 1870s.
This jump happened nationally, pointing to greater societal issues, but the SF rate was surprisingly high, even compared to NYC during the 70s. Granted cities like DC/Detroit/Baltimore were much higher, but let’s face it, the 60s-80s (suburban flight, racial discord) was a rough time for America.
SF-NY-Chi-US Homicide Rate, 1870-2007
US and FBI data, NY source data, Chicago data. Lots of extrapolating but the trends are clear.
SF leveled off in the 70s, and the 90s were a turning point for the rest of the nation. Chicago is well on its way down and NYC homicides have plummeted and now at the national average. SF was dropping as well but is now ticking up, WTF?
But I guess Gavin can rest comfortably knowing that none of this matched the epic murder rates of the Barbary Coast days of the 1850s (or New Orleans today).
SF Homicide Rate, 1849-2008 (per 100K)
For all those sociologists out the frantically pounding away in the comments section that I’m doing it wrong, you’re probably right. In fact, the FBI puts out a press release each year warning people not to do a straight comparison of homicide rates. Georgia State University publishes a homicide ranking list adjusting for socioeconomic factors (poverty, median income, male unemployment, race composition, and female-headed families). SF doesn’t come out so well.
| City |
Adjusted Rank |
Net Rank |
| Newark |
1 |
4 |
| Baltimore |
2 |
2 |
| St Louis |
3 |
3 |
| Oakland |
4 |
6 |
| Phoenix |
5 |
22 |
| San Francisco |
6 |
23 |
| Albuquerque |
7 |
38 |
| DC |
8 |
5 |
| Miami |
9 |
11 |
| Tulsa |
10 |
19 |
| LA |
21 |
32 |
| Chicago |
50 |
17 |
| New York |
60 |
47 |
Once again I find myself at the end of a post much longer than I intended to write, struggling to come to some sort of meaningful summary on top of snarky commentary and pretty pictures. (Damn you Eric Fisher!)
As for the idea of grassy fields and apartment buildings calming society, I doubt it would have made a difference in the 60s. Just look at the failure of most if not all American housing projects or the riots in the banlieues of Paris in 2005. You can build all the elevators you want but race and jobs are undeniable factors.
Despite the crime wave in the 70s, New York made such density via elevation work. But how many other any other cities have done so? Tokyo? Vancouver? Singapore? Not many. What makes the difference? Is it possible to build a society that matches density with safety, or are we at the mercy of national socioeconomic trends?
Posted by burritojustice 
