What happened to Brush Park in 50s/60s?

[VIktor77]

Hello, I've done a lot of research on Brush Park, particularily in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, on the various houses that used to populate the neighborhood [[and those few that still do). But something has always bothered me about Brush Park in my research. What happened to Brush Park in the 1960s [[or it could've been the 1950s)? The two aerials below dated 1951 and 1966 show in 1951, Brush Park was densely filled with Victorian houses, many converted to apartments, and a few apartment buildings built on the sites of former houses. But by 1966 most of them are gone. Was there a tear down campaign in the 60s [[or 50s) to rid Brush Park of blight? It can't have been the race riots as those didn't happen til 67. Does anyone who lived during this era know what happened to all of Brush Park's houses in the 60s or 50s? Even more are gone by 1969, but then I wonder if those were because of the race riots. Thank you.

1951


1966

[DetroitPlanner]

In the 1930's and 1940's Detroit experienced unprecedented population growth. Many of the families that had lived here were moving to places such as Palmer Woods, or Grosse Pointe and wanting to unload their old estates. You are correct in saying that these homes were converted. These mansions were bought up by slumlords who subdivided many of the mansions into rooming houses for factory workers. You may be shocked by this but many slumlords only care about getting money and maintaining property is something they see as costing money! [[Shocking I know). After 30 or 40 years of doing bare maintenance homes turn to crap, even big mansions.

1967 Riots did not really impact this area too much. Yes I am sure the people that lived there were concerned, but the center of the destruction was along 12th Street [[Now Rosa Parks), N of W Grand Blvd; several miles and several neighborhoods away.

[EastsideAl]

The riots didn't really touch Brush Park [[well, the 1943 riot did, but that's before the period you're talking about).

What happened in Brush Park is a mixture of things.

The main thing that happened, as DetroitPlanner says above, is just that those buildings became no longer profitable. A big cause of that was a social change that resulted in a change in population dynamics. Brush Park, then known primarily as Paradise Valley, was once the most densely populated part of the city. Beginning around the 1920s it was increasingly filled with African-Americans who lived in small cut-up apartments in the otherwise unwanted old houses there. They were effectively restricted from living anywhere else other than the neighborhoods immediately east of Woodward and downtown.

But by the 1960s blacks could live in any number of neighborhoods around the city - including the nearby 'modern' public housing projects. As their economic conditions improved, and they faced less discrimination in housing, there was no reason for African-American families to remain in the cramped, congested, and deteriorating conditions of Brush Park/Paradise Valley.

As the old houses became valueless as structures and too expensive to maintain, many were torn down to make way for parking lots for the other old houses and buildings in the area [[look at the later photo closely and you'll see a lot of cars parked on those lots), which were being used as businesses, hospitals, union offices, and offices for civic organizations. During that period, due to the growth in car usage for commuting, there was increased demand for parking everyplace in the central city. Lots of downtown and central city buildings that were no longer very profitable, particularly on the periphery, were torn down between the '50s and '70s to make way for more profitable surface parking lots.

Anyway, by the '60s it was clear that Brush Park was going to be gone soon. Like the rest of the black neighborhoods and "outmoded housing" east and northeast of downtown, it would be torn down for urban renewal. The eastern portion of Brush Park had already been replaced by public housing in the '50s, the heart of Paradise Valley - the Hastings St. business strip - was being torn down to build the Chrysler Fwy, and the northern part of the neighborhood was scheduled to disappear soon for the Detroit Medical Center.

So, the embarrassingly ugly and old Victorian houses of Brush Park were a goner, and everybody but a few "crazy" people called preservationists knew it. Because planners and developers were certain that 'everyone' wanted clean-lined, undecorated new houses, apartments, office buildings, and street-free "super-blocks" in that era of 'progress'. In the '50s and '60s Detroit was leading the country in tearing down the old and ugly and replacing it with the new and shiny. Detroit was a city on the move!

Only they didn't move fast enough on Brush Park. After the urban renewal craze of the '50s and '60s had passed, the federal money dried up, and the urban economic realities of the '70s had begun to set in, there Brush Park still sat, unmodern, unloved, marooned, and increasingly empty. Then began the sad saga of the Woodward East project debacle, and the road towards the desolation we see today.

[VIktor77]

Was there some government grant allowing for the destruction of the blighted properties in the 60s? I've never heard anything about it. Who was tearing down these properties? So many were lost during this period I find it hard to believe they were not interconnected somehow.

[renf]

As noted above, the decline of Brush Park began before the 1930s as other neighborhoods became attractive. Even in the 1920s, some of the elegant homes were subdivided into apartments. In the 1930s, there was no money
available to invest in housing. In the 1940s, there was a great demand for housing so there was a further subdivision of some homes into apartments.
The neighborhood had little appeal after World War II as the federal government's housing policy encouraged the invasion of the crab grass
front. I seem to remember that during the Coleman Young years, some
federal monies were obtained to stabalize or improve the area but little
came of that endeavor.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

It is a shame, but at some point, regarding one's own finances, when your property has become worthless, you need to walk away to protect yourself. I don't think that the million residents who left the city, many abandoning their homes, were evil. Were there better options for the city? Probably. But if you have to provide for your family, and your house is eating all your money without gaining any value, the responsible thing for your kids was to get out. The slumlords are a different story. The city would be a very different place today had building code enforcement been taken seriously from the 50's onward.

[DetroitPlanner]

Was there some government grant allowing for the destruction of the blighted properties in the 60s? I've never heard anything about it. Who was tearing down these properties? So many were lost during this period I find it hard to believe they were not interconnected somehow.

Yes the 1960's began the urban renewal movement that was part of President Johnson's vision of a Great Society. It would not surprise me of some of the funds were used in Brush Park, but the areas hardest hit by the urban removal bulldozer were the areas known for working class Blacks, Irish, and Maltese: what is now known as Lafayette Park and Corktown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Cities_Program

[VIktor77]

The answers provided by those on this thread have been absolutely wonderful and enlightening! I have researched greatly how Detroit tore down its old houses along Woodward, Jefferson, Fort, etc. in the beginning of the 20th century to make way for growing industry and the automobile. However, I am not well researched on the later decades. I know that the earliest documentation I have of a Brush Park house cut up into apartments is 1910, that's early! By the 1920s census there were only a handful of single family dwellings left on the street.

Do you know if the city ever kept records as they tore down these houses? I assume it was the city who did it during Urban Renewal. Could I find record of when and why a house was torn down?

This quote from Wikipedia might also point to Brush Park. I'll have to research it further.

"Detroit was one of the largest Model Cities projects. Mayor Jerome P Cavanaugh [[Mayor 1962—69) was the only elected official to serve on Johnson's task force. Detroit received widespread acclaim for its leadership in the program, which used $490 million to try to turn a nine-square-mile section of the city [[with 134,000 inhabitants) into a model city."

[EastsideAl]

Was there some government grant allowing for the destruction of the blighted properties in the 60s? I've never heard anything about it. Who was tearing down these properties? So many were lost during this period I find it hard to believe they were not interconnected somehow.

Most of the buildings that were demolished in Brush Park in the '60s were just torn down by their owners. Often, one of the organizations there would buy an adjacent building or two for a song [[again, they were very cheap because they were no longer profitable as residential buildings) and tear them down in order to expand or to gain more parking.

But there wasn't really much 'blight' though yet, at least not in terms of the mass abandonment we've seen in more recent decades. The buildings were mostly still occupied, just with the increasingly poor residents left behind as more well-off African Americans left. That, combined with the decaying condition of the buildings and potentially increasing maintenance costs, made sale and/or demolition an attractive economic prospect.

There was a role of government in the background though. As I said, everyone assumed that sometime soon the government was going to come through and take all of the property there through eminent domain with minimal payouts, as they had in all of the surrounding neighborhoods [[on the grounds that they were "blighted" under the 1950's and 60s definition of having mostly older structures and a primarily black or poor population). So, there was no compelling reason to keep a decaying and costly structure on your property, since the government was going to give you bottom dollar for it under any circumstances.

I really doubt that beyond the demolition permits there is much record of the destruction of the homes there. Although it may be hard to understand today, there was really no feeling at all for houses like those as historic structures until the preservation movement really got rolling in the 1970s. 19th century houses were generally viewed as hideous and outmoded relics of a pre-modern past that needed to be replaced, and that area was seen as a long-time "colored" neighborhood unfit for 'decent' people that needed to be 'fixed' by 'urban renewal.'

But mass evictions, mass abandonment, and government-funded demolitions didn't really start there until the late 1970s. And much of that was part of an ill-fated bicentennial "preservation" boondoggle known as Woodward East [[which also closed several of the streets and built "pedestrian plazas" in their place at exorbitant cost). Once Woodward East failed though, the neighborhood was in complete free fall and the real storm of abandonment and demolition began.

Some, including me, would say that despite changes in thinking about urbanism and historic preservation around the country and around the world, little has changed in Detroit's city "planning." We just keep neglecting our beautiful older buildings, and then tearing them down when they're "too far gone" or "in the way of [[potential, always potential) development."

[Neilr]

I'd like to add a little to the discussion. I agree with the comments about many landlords milking the mansions; but I'd add that as long as they were being lived in by tenants, the roofs were sealed and the houses were not being stripped by scrappers. Once a house became vacant, it had little chance.

An additional factor in the late 60s and early 70s, there was an effort to gentrify the neighborhood and the area was called Woodward East. It did not go well. There was an ongoing, unresolved culture clash between the mostly poorer and black long-time residents and the new mostly relatively richer and mostly white. This lack of a unified front made it easier for the neighborhood to slip away.

[DetroitPlanner]

An additional factor in the late 60s and early 70s, there was an effort to gentrify the neighborhood and the area was called Woodward East. It did not go well. There was an ongoing, unresolved culture clash between the mostly poorer and black long-time residents and the new mostly relatively richer and mostly white. This lack of a unified front made it easier for the neighborhood to slip away.

Good point however,

Keep in mind that the 1970's had a couple of energy crises. People were not looking for enormous homes to renovate as heating them was becoming prohibitively expensive. Remember this was the era before high efficient furnaces and Energy Star. It is ironic though that people were beginning to flee the cities and chasing the jobs to the burbs, so they built new houses out there.

It does not make sense when comparing things to today's world, but many were making what were considered rational decisions based upon the time-space continuum. Today? Not so much.

[VIktor77]

Most of the buildings that were demolished in Brush Park in the '60s were just torn down by their owners. Often, one of the organizations there would buy an adjacent building or two for a song [[again, they were very cheap because they were no longer profitable as residential buildings) and tear them down in order to expand or to gain more parking.

But there wasn't really much 'blight' though yet, at least not in terms of the mass abandonment we've seen in more recent decades. The buildings were mostly still occupied, just with the increasingly poor residents left behind as more well-off African Americans left. That, combined with the decaying condition of the buildings and potentially increasing maintenance costs, made sale and/or demolition an attractive economic prospect.

There was a role of government in the background though. As I said, everyone assumed that sometime soon the government was going to come through and take all of the property there through eminent domain with minimal payouts, as they had in all of the surrounding neighborhoods [[on the grounds that they were "blighted" under the 1950's and 60s definition of having mostly older structures and a primarily black or poor population). So, there was no compelling reason to keep a decaying and costly structure on your property, since the government was going to give you bottom dollar for it under any circumstances.

I really doubt that beyond the demolition permits there is much record of the destruction of the homes there. Although it may be hard to understand today, there was really no feeling at all for houses like those as historic structures until the preservation movement really got rolling in the 1970s. 19th century houses were generally viewed as hideous and outmoded relics of a pre-modern past that needed to be replaced, and that area was seen as a long-time "colored" neighborhood unfit for 'decent' people that needed to be 'fixed' by 'urban renewal.'

But mass evictions, mass abandonment, and government-funded demolitions didn't really start there until the late 1970s. And much of that was part of an ill-fated bicentennial "preservation" boondoggle known as Woodward East [[which also closed several of the streets and built "pedestrian plazas" in their place at exorbitant cost). Once Woodward East failed though, the neighborhood was in complete free fall and the real storm of abandonment and demolition began.

Some, including me, would say that despite changes in thinking about urbanism and historic preservation around the country and around the world, little has changed in Detroit's city "planning." We just keep neglecting our beautiful older buildings, and then tearing them down when they're "too far gone" or "in the way of [[potential, always potential) development."

Thanks again for the enlightening read. I will have to save these posts to refer back to throughout my research.

I am aware of the anti-victorian sentiment that persisted throughout the beginning half of the 20th century. That's what helped lead to so many of Woodward and Fort/etc. Streets' mansions being torn down in the teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. That and the automobile industry grew the city, and big old houses built near the city center for a time when horse and buggy and trolley was the mode of travel were useless, no one wanted them. They were just relics of a greedy, ostentatious, and immoral era. Alas, preservation just wasn't a thing then.

Does anyone know where photos might be lurking of Brush Park in the 60s? Surely, cameras were popular then but I've never seen a single photo of Brush Park from that era, and it could be very useful to our research. We are cataloging and architecturally rendering many of the houses in the neighborhood. But photographic records are hard to come by.

Here's our work thus far:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17295206@N02/

[EastsideAl]

I don't know about the '60s, but have you seen the Place Promo survey photos from 1976?

They can be found here:
http://www.placepromo.com/search.php
Just enter the street name of any street in the neighborhood on the search page. The photos are low quality black-and-white, but do provide a view of how pretty much every standing structure looked soon after the beginning of the great decline in 1976.

[VIktor77]

I don't know about the '60s, but have you seen the Place Promo survey photos from 1976?

They can be found here:
http://www.placepromo.com/search.php
Just enter the street name of any street in the neighborhood on the search page. The photos are low quality black-and-white, but do provide a view of how pretty much every standing structure looked soon after the beginning of the great decline in 1976.

Yes, I have. We've been pondering these photos a lot. Some of them show houses in what looks like a state of renovation. And then there's this whole mystery of all of these solid looking inhabited houses cataloged here that by the 1980s are completely gone. Meanwhile, some of the less stable houses on that list like the Lucien Moore house, kept standing. Was this part of Woodward East? Did their budget include demolition? I know they caused a lot of damage and they stripped the interior of at least the Ransom Gillis house.

[kathy2trips]

Thank you, that link was very interesting! Glad people had the presence of mind to photograph all those buildings and homes.

I don't know about the '60s, but have you seen the Place Promo survey photos from 1976?

They can be found here:
http://www.placepromo.com/search.php
Just enter the street name of any street.....

[EastsideAl]

Yes, I have. We've been pondering these photos a lot. Some of them show houses in what looks like a state of renovation. And then there's this whole mystery of all of these solid looking inhabited houses cataloged here that by the 1980s are completely gone. Meanwhile, some of the less stable houses on that list like the Lucien Moore house, kept standing. Was this part of Woodward East? Did their budget include demolition? I know they caused a lot of damage and they stripped the interior of at least the Ransom Gillis house.

I should be careful when talking about Woodward East, because there were really 2 different phases under that name.

The first was a community-based organization run by local residents that started in the late '60s. It operated on a shoestring with local volunteer labor. They were not really concerned with historical preservation per se [[although they wanted to keep the buildings) but with improved housing for the residents. They were the ones who gutted the Gillis house, with their eye firmly towards updating it for continued use as a multi-unit dwelling. They were well-intentioned, but mostly failed due to a lack of funds and construction experience, leaving some houses empty and in a half-finished or gutted state.

Later, in the '70s, the city was due to receive several million dollars in federal bicentennial historic preservation funds, and the decision was taken to use it for the Brush Park area. The old Woodward East organization was essentially co-opted and replaced by a new one under the same name with Joyce Garrett [[a long time public official and community activist who was then the mayor's girlfriend) in charge in her role as head of the city's Bicentennial Commission. Urban planners, architects, and consultants were brought in and a big plan was put forth that showed a few blocks of preserved older houses in a park-like setting facing pedestrian plazas that were to replace the streets, interspersed with new 'infill' townhouses with parking areas.

The city soon gained title to many of the old houses through eminent domain, tax arrears, or outright purchase. Some of the remaining landlords received renovation grants. Many residents were evicted from their apartments so that their former homes could be "renovated". Some of the houses were subsequently sold to 'urban pioneers,' who were promised grants and loans to help stabilize and renovate their homes. And some houses that were in the worst shape, or were to be replaced by new construction, were demolished. The most visible thing that happened was that several streets were closed and replaced with brick walkways and landscaped "plazas" with benches.

I would guess that many of the 1976 PlacePromo photos you see with houses seemingly in the middle of renovation were part of this project. However, as Neilr points out in his earlier posting here, the '70s Woodward East project was in service of two goals and two populations that were uncomfortably incompatible: the then-current residents, mostly poor and African-American, who wanted updated low-cost apartments, and 'pioneers' from elsewhere who were mostly white and from middle-class or better backgrounds and wanted historically renovated and preserved homes for themselves and their families, or at least for a better class of tenants. Disagreements and conflict quickly began to appear between these groups.

Soon enough though the money ran out anyway. The claim was that it had been spent on the walkways, which somehow went way over budget [[and were shoddily built, with uneven bricks, non-working fountains and lighting fixtures, and gardens of weeds bordered by mouldering old railroad ties). But there were little or no records available and millions of dollars could not be accounted for.

[EastsideAl]

So, with the background above, it shouldn't be much of a mystery as to why so many Brush Park houses disappeared during the following decade.

After the Woodward East debacle, we were left with a lot of empty partially renovated old houses, many of which were missing vital systems like heat and plumbing and important structural elements like roofs. These were mixed in with several houses in varying states of decay and restoration that were occupied and/or under 'renovation' by now-isolated 'pioneers,' who were never to receive any of the renovation funding they'd been promised. All of this now surrounding pedestrian plazas that quickly became gathering places for a population of homeless people, drug addicts, and drunks, many of whom were former residents of those same houses. Areas which were now cut off from auto traffic and essentially unpoliceable.

And there was another additional factor: changing city priorities. The Young administration decided that Brush Park and the Cass Corridor were lost causes and could be better used as site for something new or a land bank for future development. By the '80s city became hostile to the renovators and started harassing them for permit and construction violations of all sorts, taxes, inspections, etc., while doing very little policing of the neighborhood. The many empty houses were left abandoned and open to trespass, increasingly squatted in, stripped, burned, and largely "demolished by neglect" [[as the old Detroit phrase goes). And, as the area quickly declined, many more buildings were subsequently abandoned and left to decay.

After the passing of the so-called "nuisance abatement" ordinance in the mid '80s that made it easier to do, the city began tearing down a lot of the empty houses. Several waves of demolition [[the Young wave, the Archer wave, the Kilpatrick wave), several stalled plans, some semi-completed condo projects, and a few lovely renovations later, here we are today.

[kklemmer]

Read "63 Alfred st: where capitalism failed". It will give you a pretty good idea of what befell this once amazing neighborhood. Very interesting book for anyone interested in architecture and sociology. Summary:

63 Alfred Street: Where Capitalism Failed: The Life and Times of a Venetian Gothic Mansion in Downtown Detroit is more than the tragic history of a grand residence built 130 years ago that has fallen into virtual ruin today, used by crack dealers and the local homeless for the past 40 years. 63 Alfred Street is an extremely critical examination of the urban decay that has plagued Detroit's inner city, and the factors that cause it. Author John Kossik, a former resident of Detroit, compares the inner city's social ills to a Hydra - just like the mythical monster of legend, it has many heads [[causes), which must be tackled as a whole and dealt with properly or else they will regrow. Kossik names many culprits in Detroit's degredation, from the demolishing of vibrant neighborhoods to create road systems that encouraged white flight, to a tax burden that drives out young families and keeps them from returning, to a culture of entitlement amid union auto workers that cripples Detroit's auto industry, to Detroit's unhealthy dependence on the auto manufacturing industry in the first place, and more. Kossik doesn't have all the answers, but through his judiciously researched blend of history and sociology, he hopes to spread greater awareness of the problem and aid the search for solutions. A thoughtful and invaluable study of seemingly intractable social problems, 63 Alfred Street is highly recommended.

[kklemmer]

Another that I haven't read yet is simply titled "Alfred Street" by Russell Jachne McLauchlin. Originally published in 1946. I found what must be a reprint on amazon for $35. Not sure I would pay that for what may be simply a memoir.

[VIktor77]

Another that I haven't read yet is simply titled "Alfred Street" by Russell Jachne McLauchlin. Originally published in 1946. I found what must be a reprint on amazon for $35. Not sure I would pay that for what may be simply a memoir.

Kklemmer, I have read both books. I know John Kossik, but his coverage of the Woodward East Project, while good, didn't answer all of my questions.

BTW I would recommend greatly the Alfred Street book. It is among my favourite books of its type. It is a unique look into what Brush Park was like in its heyday. Mclauchlin taught me so much of that era that I had never known and never would've found through research. Stories about the families, the workers in the neighborhood, etc. He mentions, for example, how an old German man cut the grass, stocked the furnaces, and shoveled the streets for all of Alfred Street [[who would've known they had that hired out!). It talks of a senile old Elisha Taylor, and one of Alfred Street's most charming residents, Thomas McGraw, whose home stood until the 90s and whose name to me would've just been an entry in a census page if not for Mclauchlin's book. And there's so much more. Plus Mclauchlin writes very elegantly. His decedents are among those I've written in search of photos of Brush Park [[along with the decedents of Ransom Gillis). Alas, nothing really came of it. We are in search of photos in order to finish our renderings of the houses of Alfred Street from John R to Brush. We've completed 6/13 houses.

Thank you for your continued help EastsideAl. May I ask how you came to possess all of this knowledge on Brush Park?

[EastsideAl]

Members of my family worked on the bicentennial commission [[and were highly skeptical of how the funds were being spent). A few later, when I was working at City Council, we were trying to figure out what was going on in that area, and what the plans were for it. We were often receiving complaints about city enforcement actions, lack of policing, and lack of response from the city to any community initiatives. One of my jobs was to research the history of what had gone on there. I also have some other personal ties to the neighborhood [[I lived just north of there as a small child), and was always interested in the place. I spent a fair amount of time just driving around there and observing back in the late '70s and early to mid '80s.

[Lombaowski]

I didn't know any of this, tremendous info...especially from Eastside Al. Thanks.

[detroitbob]

Father O'Hara from St. Patrick's organized the neighborhood and helped with the establishment of what ended up being WoodWard East. I believe there was a thread on this forum years back that detailed the mismanagement by a neighborhood activist [[not O'Hara) that ended with the money drying up without a trace after the houses and buildings were acquired for the redevelopment, the residents displaced and contracts signed for improvements that began with replacing the roofs of the vacated structures. Old roofs were removed and suddenly the money was gone, leaving the structures exposed to the elements. O'Hara was quietly transferred to a remote out county parish. As far as I remember there was talk of prosecution but I don't think it really was investigated with any gusto. The houses that you see in Brush Park today were lucky...they were not acquired as part of this failed project. The three houses on Alfred [[exluding the Gillis House) north side between John R and Brush were part of the project and managed to survive now with temp. roofs put on a couple of years ago. The fact that anything survived is a miracle.

[EastsideAl]

Father O'Hara from St. Patrick's organized the neighborhood and helped with the establishment of what ended up being WoodWard East. I believe there was a thread on this forum years back that detailed the mismanagement by a neighborhood activist [[not O'Hara) that ended with the money drying up without a trace after the houses and buildings were acquired for the redevelopment, the residents displaced and contracts signed for improvements that began with replacing the roofs of the vacated structures. Old roofs were removed and suddenly the money was gone, leaving the structures exposed to the elements. O'Hara was quietly transferred to a remote out county parish. As far as I remember there was talk of prosecution but I don't think it really was investigated with any gusto. The houses that you see in Brush Park today were lucky...they were not acquired as part of this failed project. The three houses on Alfred [[exluding the Gillis House) north side between John R and Brush were part of the project and managed to survive now with temp. roofs put on a couple of years ago. The fact that anything survived is a miracle.

And, sadly, one of the victims of the Woodward East mess was St. Patrick's itself. The 1862 church on Adelaide, that had once served as Detroit's R.C. cathedral for 48 years, was given to the Woodward East folks to be converted into a community center. It never happened, of course, and the church eventually fell into the city's hands and sat abandoned, moldering, and open to trespass and vandalism until it burned down in 1993.



http://historicdetroit.org/building/...tholic-church/

[detroitbob]

One of the tragic losses at St. Pat's was the great Cassavant pipe organ...one of their early Detroit sales and one of their magnificant instruments It was sold by the Archdiocese wen the parish moved over to the chapelo Parsons St. and scheduled for removal but [[yes, even back in those days) the scrappers broke in and stripped most of the metal pipes out for scrap. The sad end of a great pipe organ.