Shorpy shows Woodward Ave., 1907

[Ray1936]

Great glimpse into the past. Photo is just a tad blurry, but thought I'd pass this link along.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/21676?size=_original#caption

[dtowncitylover]

Who were these people? Their names? Where were they going? What did they do? Where did they live? Do their descendants still live in metro Detroit? What was Detroit to them?

I love these photos because you can really see the detail in just about everything. It's simply amazing.

[SammyS]

Always wondered what the equivalent of not wearing a hat back then would be today. No pants?

[Ray1936]

No baseball hats then either, SammyS. From all the period photos I've seen from the 1800s to about the late 1950s, everyone wore a hat outside. I think about the late 1950s the trend toward hatless began. I remember when one day, about 1963, I was assigned to #2 cruiser [[the Big Four) for a couple of days, the three in civvies had fedoras. I didn't have one, so I went and bought a fishing hat to work those two days. The old timers gave me a dirty eye, and I was never assigned to the cruiser again. [[I didn't much care, all they did was park and drink coffee.)

[EastsideAl]

The view is from the east side of Woodward just south of old Campus Martius. It appears to have been taken from a wagon [[note the horse's ears in the extreme foreground) parked next to the sidewalk. The old Merrill Fountain would have been to the photographer's right. Because of the reconfiguration of Campus Martius in 2003-4 this location would be in the middle of the street today.

The well-remembered B. Siegel building is visible on the left, at the corner of Woodward and State. A few other buildings that are still standing today [[although very altered in some cases) can be seen on the west side of Woodward. Most prominently the Elliott Building in the sunshine at the corner of Grand River [[with the large rounded windows on the top floor). And way back in the distance, just past Grand Circus Park, one of Detroit's then famous "moonlight" lighting towers can be seen looming over the scene.

From the sun and the people's clothing it looks a fall or spring day. I might question the year assigned as a little late, since there appear to be no automobiles at all in the shot [[or is that one parked at the curb on the left, just past the streetcar?). As someone pointed out on the Shorpy site, this may be one of the last shots of a car-less Detroit.

[jiminnm]

No baseball hats then either, SammyS. From all the period photos I've seen from the 1800s to about the late 1950s, everyone wore a hat outside. I think about the late 1950s the trend toward hatless began. I remember when one day, about 1963, I was assigned to #2 cruiser [[the Big Four) for a couple of days, the three in civvies had fedoras. I didn't have one, so I went and bought a fishing hat to work those two days. The old timers gave me a dirty eye, and I was never assigned to the cruiser again. [[I didn't much care, all they did was park and drink coffee.)

JFK was the death knell for mens' hats. When he regularly went hatless, that pretty much ended the style.

[Jimaz]

JFK was the death knell for mens' hats. When he regularly went hatless, that pretty much ended the style.

Snopes disagrees: Hat Trick.

[Calltoaction]

I don't understand why we don't build beautiful buildings anymore, why is our current society so pathetic?

Horrible time to be alive in the US right now.

[carlscomputers]

Who were these people? Their names? Where were they going? What did they do? Where did they live? Do their descendants still live in metro Detroit? What was Detroit to them?

I love these photos because you can really see the detail in just about everything. It's simply amazing.

I wonder the same thing! I could spend hours looking for the elusive "Time Traveler"!

[kathy2trips]

OMG! I love these photos SO MUCH! I wish I lived in Detroit back then...as a man, of course. Couldn't tolerate the whale-bone corsets! Thank you, Ray and thank you Shorpy!

[Detroitnerd]

Happily surprised to see a pre-Great Migration African-American in this view. Just about 1 percent of the population at this time.

[Neilr]

Happily surprised to see a pre-Great Migration African-American in this view. Just about 1 percent of the population at this time.

In 1900 there were 4,111 Black people in Detroit. In 1910, 5,741. As reported in David Katzman's Before the Ghetto, 1973.

[Detroitnerd]

In 1900 there were 4,111 Black people in Detroit. In 1910, 5,741. As reported in David Katzman's Before the Ghetto, 1973.

Yes, that roughly tracks with 1.2 to 1.4 percent. The percentage actually went down during the flood of European immigration and the growth of the nascent auto industry in the '00s. The Great Migration begins in earnest with the First World War.

In any event, I sometimes hear African-Americans disdain these views of old Detroit, because they don't see "anybody who looks like me." So it's kind of nice to see this detail "filling out the picture," so to speak.

[trstar]

I enjoy viewing the old pictures of Detroit. Yes, I do scan the images to see if there any African Americans.

[kathy2trips]

I enjoy viewing the old pictures of Detroit. Yes, I do scan the images to see if there any African Americans.

Of course, you know that there were African-American freemen in Detroit during the British occupation, that is, at the time of the War of 1812. I'm sorry but no photographs survive.

[Király]

Great photo, but I'm not a fan of the SHORPY watermark blasted across it. Did he have to do that, it's not like it's his photo.

[EastsideAl]

Another great Shorpy picture of our town. This time of the Monroe block, old City Hall, and other long-gone buildings. I think the date on this is also a couple of years late, from the evidence of the businesses on Monroe along with the complete lack of cars.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/21699

[Zacha341]

Me too. The mans smart dress suggest he was not poor.

I enjoy viewing the old pictures of Detroit. Yes, I do scan the images to see if there any African Americans.

[Ray1936]

Great photo, but I'm not a fan of the SHORPY watermark blasted across it. Did he have to do that, it's not like it's his photo.

Well, it's his web site, and I'm grateful for his efforts in posting these historic photos. If you want the original, you can always go to the Library of Congress.

[jcole]

Me too. The mans smart dress suggest he was not poor.

And it's not really "blasted" across it. It's small and in the bottom corner

[EGrant]

The watermark is across the entire photo, albeit faint. I hadn't noticed it before and now it's kind of annoying.

[jcole]

The watermark is across the entire photo, albeit faint. I hadn't noticed it before and now it's kind of annoying.

Where? If this were true, wouldn't it be on all Shorpy-marked photos? If so, where is it on this one other than in the corner?http://www.shorpy.com/node/21698?size=_original#caption

[Jimaz]

Here's a large watermark from the Woodward photo. Note the higher contrast indicated by the red arrows on parts of the "O" and "Y" of "SHORPY."

Attachment 32722

It's so faint it's no wonder it's hard to see.

What's curious is when I try to copy & paste just the "O" alone from a screenshot in MSPaint, I consistently get an "Error getting the clipboard data!" error. I can copy & paste other parts of the photo without error. I wonder if this is some kind of copyright protection feature?

I can't find a visible watermark on jcole's photo.

[jcole]

Here's a large watermark from the Woodward photo. Note the higher contrast indicated by the red arrows on parts of the "O" and "Y" of "SHORPY."

Attachment 32722

It's so faint it's no wonder it's hard to see.

What's curious is when I try to copy & paste just the "O" alone from a screenshot in MSPaint, I consistently get an "Error getting the clipboard data!" error. I can copy & paste other parts of the photo without error. I wonder if this is some kind of copyright protection feature?

I can't find a visible watermark on jcole's photo.

Jimaz,I do it now; I still don't see it in the other one though. I wonder if he only does it to ones he posts to Facebook or something.
I don't know why he would have a copyright; these belong to the Library of Congress
Going back to the OP's photo, it's not actually library of Congress so maybe Dave did buy it.

[EGrant]

Here it is on the other photo. I think this is a new thing, as some of the older photos only have the corner watermark.