4 ms·

Quiet glimpses of the turn of the century NYC through an amateur’s camera

32 points by prismatic 5y ago

nerdponx 5y ago
In old photos of New York and other American cities, two things always stand out to me: 1) The streets look so bare, there don't seem to be any trees along the sidewalks! Trees lining the streets clearly seems to make a big difference in how the city looks. I can't imagine how unnatural and impersonal the place must have felt before all the trees were put in. 2) How quickly the city seems to taper off into comparative nothingness. Old photos of the NYC outer boroughs and the outer parts of Boston make it seem like the "suburbs" consisted of farmland, with random-seeming pockets of mansions and other urban buildings scattered throughout. I don't know how true that is, but it's a weird thing to imagine. It's amazing to think that anyone had the foresight to run subway lines out into these areas, which at least in photos seem very rural and almost desolate. Nowadays, I am used to the idea that cities generally have large dense "metro areas", which gradually taper off with decreasing density as you move further from the center. Some cities are exceptions to this, e.g. the city of Rochester, NY, which kind of just "ends" at its western border (the Erie Canal), rapidly dissipating into rural suburbs of Gates, Greece, and Chili. But this always seemed like a strange and jarring transition to me. Maybe a lot of places are like this? And maybe more places were like this in the past.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Before railroads and 18 wheelers farmland near the city must have been pretty valuable. I wonder if those mansions were for summering (or wintering? Not sure which would be more desirable) outside of the city, to avoid illnesses.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  I know at least one North American city where nearly every tree within a decent distance was chopped down and used as fuel which certainly contributed to the spartan appearance.
  - mocheeze 5y ago
    Portland, Oregon (of all places) has an old nickname of "Stumptown' because they cut all the trees down for buildings, sidewalks/roads over the mud, ships, etc. Not that you'd be able to tell by looking at it these days. Forest Park is one of the largest urban forests on the planet.
- bbatha 5y ago
  > Some cities are exceptions to this, e.g. the city of Rochester, NY, which kind of just "ends" at its western border (the Erie Canal), rapidly dissipating into rural suburbs of Gates, Greece, and Chili. But this always seemed like a strange and jarring transition to me. Maybe a lot of places are like this? And maybe more places were like this in the past. This is because of the belt road fad of the 50s. While it makes transit from the suburbs to parts of the city convenient it ultimately causes sharp changes in density on the sides of the belt. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-01/burying-rochester-s-inner-loop-a-1950s-era-planning-disaster https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-01/burying-r...
captaincrowbar 5y ago
Proposed: That we are far enough into the 21st century now that “turn of the century“ should default to meaning 2000, not 1900.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  Here is some HD footage of NYC in 1993...close enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4lDU-QLUY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4lDU-QLUY This was way before HD was a common tech (this was during VHS's height right?). This was a demonstration tape of JVC's commercial HD cameras played back on D-VHS which never really took off (Digital HD video on VHS) Some interesting things of note: Clear images of the Twin Towers The guy wearing an SS t-shirt trying to block the camera at 1:42 Did people have differing dental standards back then? Seems like something has changed in the culture(3:58) Camel advertisement at 4:12 And finally....Ponytail guy making a quick peek at 0:58 :)
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Brooklyn bridge isn't crammed with pedestrians.
thingsgoup 5y ago
I thought this would be about the year 2000
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
What a contrast. Skyscrapers, and horses.

32 points by prismatic 5y ago

In old photos of New York and other American cities, two things always stand out to me: 1) The streets look so bare, there don't seem to be any trees along the sidewalks! Trees lining the streets clearly seems to make a big difference in how the city looks. I can't imagine how unnatural and impersonal the place must have felt before all the trees were put in. 2) How quickly the city seems to taper off into comparative nothingness. Old photos of the NYC outer boroughs and the outer parts of Boston make it seem like the "suburbs" consisted of farmland, with random-seeming pockets of mansions and other urban buildings scattered throughout. I don't know how true that is, but it's a weird thing to imagine. It's amazing to think that anyone had the foresight to run subway lines out into these areas, which at least in photos seem very rural and almost desolate. Nowadays, I am used to the idea that cities generally have large dense "metro areas", which gradually taper off with decreasing density as you move further from the center. Some cities are exceptions to this, e.g. the city of Rochester, NY, which kind of just "ends" at its western border (the Erie Canal), rapidly dissipating into rural suburbs of Gates, Greece, and Chili. But this always seemed like a strange and jarring transition to me. Maybe a lot of places are like this? And maybe more places were like this in the past.

bee_rider 5y ago
Before railroads and 18 wheelers farmland near the city must have been pretty valuable. I wonder if those mansions were for summering (or wintering? Not sure which would be more desirable) outside of the city, to avoid illnesses.
monkeybutton 5y ago
I know at least one North American city where nearly every tree within a decent distance was chopped down and used as fuel which certainly contributed to the spartan appearance.
- mocheeze 5y ago
  Portland, Oregon (of all places) has an old nickname of "Stumptown' because they cut all the trees down for buildings, sidewalks/roads over the mud, ships, etc. Not that you'd be able to tell by looking at it these days. Forest Park is one of the largest urban forests on the planet.
bbatha 5y ago
> Some cities are exceptions to this, e.g. the city of Rochester, NY, which kind of just "ends" at its western border (the Erie Canal), rapidly dissipating into rural suburbs of Gates, Greece, and Chili. But this always seemed like a strange and jarring transition to me. Maybe a lot of places are like this? And maybe more places were like this in the past. This is because of the belt road fad of the 50s. While it makes transit from the suburbs to parts of the city convenient it ultimately causes sharp changes in density on the sides of the belt. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-01/burying-rochester-s-inner-loop-a-1950s-era-planning-disaster https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-01/burying-r...

captaincrowbar 5y ago

Proposed: That we are far enough into the 21st century now that “turn of the century“ should default to meaning 2000, not 1900.

nebula8804 5y ago
Here is some HD footage of NYC in 1993...close enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4lDU-QLUY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4lDU-QLUY This was way before HD was a common tech (this was during VHS's height right?). This was a demonstration tape of JVC's commercial HD cameras played back on D-VHS which never really took off (Digital HD video on VHS) Some interesting things of note: Clear images of the Twin Towers The guy wearing an SS t-shirt trying to block the camera at 1:42 Did people have differing dental standards back then? Seems like something has changed in the culture(3:58) Camel advertisement at 4:12 And finally....Ponytail guy making a quick peek at 0:58 :)
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Brooklyn bridge isn't crammed with pedestrians.

thingsgoup 5y ago

I thought this would be about the year 2000

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

What a contrast. Skyscrapers, and horses.