Post on 14-May-2023
Rethinking Standard Narratives: A Documentary Archaeology ofDetroit’s Roosevelt Park in the Early 20th Century
by
Katherine Korth
AN ESSAY
Submitted to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan,in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
May 2015
MAJOR: Anthropology
APPROVED BY:
____________________________________Adviser Date
____________________________________2nd Reader Date
Table of Contents page
Introduction...................................................1Historical Background and Prior Research.......................5Methods and Scholarship.......................................10Detroit, City Beautiful.......................................16Clearing Land for the Station.................................18The Approach to the Station...................................21The Plans.....................................................28Condemnation Proceedings......................................33Interpretations...............................................38Conclusions...................................................42Bibliography..................................................45Appendix......................................................53
Figures page
Figure 1: Michigan Central Station towering over Roosevelt Park,
in red area (date unknown, in Burton Historical Collection). 1
Figure 2: Sanborn map overlaid on aerial image of Roosevelt Park
(Graham Sheckels, 2012).....................................2
ii
Figure 3: Duration of residency on 17th Street..................4
Figure 4: Map of land annexation in Detroit (Manual, County of
Wayne, Michigan, 1926)......................................6
Figure 5: Wood framed houses in Roosevelt Park site area with new
station in background c. 1913-1918 (source unknown).........8
Figure 6: 1906 Baist Real Estate Map showing west
area.........................................................
..................12
Figure 7: 1897 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing west........12
Figure 8: The 200-foot boulevard approach plan (Detroit Free Press,
1913)......................................................23
Figure 9: 1911 Baist Map, no brick building
present.............................. 37....................
Figure 10: 1915 Sanborn Map, brick building
appears........................ 37
Figure 11: Photograph of neighborhood in 1915, looking from 15th
and Dalzelle to the northwest (Burton Historical Collection)
...........................................................43
iii
Introduction
Roosevelt Park is a wide expanse spanning three blocks in
the Corktown neighborhood of Detroit (Figure 1). It is a popular
destination for Detroit “ruin porn” tourists to drive in, snap a
quick photograph of the massive empty train station that the park
leads up to, and drive away just as quickly, probably never
realizing they were in a city park. This park was the location
of a long property struggle between residents and the city of
Detroit in the early 20th century during and after the
construction of Michigan Central Station. Recent archaeological
excavations at the site have been fruitful, but there is much
about the historical and cultural context of the site that is
unknown or misremembered (Figure 2). This paper employs
documentary archaeology to consider the reputation of the
neighborhood over time before and during the land struggle in
order to determine if this reputation is accurate. Maps,
photographs, newspapers and other written records, as well as a
relational concept of class suggest that the standard narrative
of the site is flawed. These documents reveal a more complicated
and nuanced background.
1
Figure 1: Michigan Central Station towering over Roosevelt Park, in red area(date unknown, in Burton Historical Collection).
Figure 2: Sanborn map overlaid on aerial image of Roosevelt Park (Graham Sheckels,2012).
2
In contrast with other subsets of archaeology,
archaeologists working with urban historical sites can focus
closely on one or two household lots associated with one or a few
families. This close focus is helpful for developing theories
about how assemblages associated with families of certain class
statuses might be composed. Considering the larger historical
context can reveal information unobtainable by material remains,
as well as patterns of forced displacement that repeat on a
larger scale over time.
Archaeology can be an outlet for previously unheard voices
among the larger historical context. Marginalized individuals
and groups are often unrepresented in the written record, but
they usually leave traces in the material record. In the case of
Roosevelt Park, the residents are found in directories and other
city records, but their personal points-of-view do not exist in
public written format. Their stories must be understood through
what they physically left behind as well as through primary
sources written about them. At first glance, the written sources
seem to indicate that these residents lived in disreputable
squalor, but a little digging in the archives reveals this to be
3
untrue. More analysis is needed on the artifacts from the 2012
and 2014 excavations at the Roosevelt Park site, especially
faunal and soil analysis, but primary written sources (especially
newspaper articles, city records, and committee reports) as well
as some special finds from the excavations reveal this area was
home to working and lower middle class individuals and families,
and that is was completely unremarkable until after the city
revealed plans to condemn it.
Generally, Detroiters and people interested in Detroit’s
history are familiar with Michigan Central Station, and some
might be aware of the way in which the city changed the area in
front of it into Roosevelt Park. The standard narrative,
however, is incomplete and inaccurate. A cursory look at select
historical photographs and newspaper articles1 might suggest the
area was rundown, and it would logically follow that the city
targeted the neighborhood because of its poor reputation. This
is the standard narrative that permeates the lore,2 but a closer 1Roosevelt Park Neighborhood, Photography, January 30, 1915, The Detroit Saturday Night; “Why Not Begin It This Year?,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), April 23, 1914,http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565672475/abstract/432B98AC671D402CPQ/2?accountid=14925.2 Preliminary reports from the archaeological excavations include brief discussions of historical information on the displacement years using articlesand photographs such as the above cited, which suggest the neighborhood was
4
reading reveals that this was not the case. Documentary evidence
reveals that as the city condemned the neighborhood over five
long years from 1913-1918, its reputation declined. Before and
even while the station was being constructed, parts of the
neighborhood housed long-term residents, many of them families
with children (Figure 3). The area was ordinary and usually only
ever mentioned when an individual resident was in the news
because they were struck by a vehicle or selling their house, not
because of its embarrassing squalor.3
When the Michigan Central Railroad (MCRR) began construction
on their new station in 1911, the neighborhood transitioned from
a working and lower middle class family neighborhood to a working
and lower middle class neighborhood of more transient people.
This was partially the result of the condemnation proceedings.
As the city continued to slowly clear out the neighborhood, some
homes fell into disrepair or were abandoned as a direct result.
“dilapidated” during the 1910s. As will be discussed, this is not inaccurate for the neighborhood towards the end of the decade, but the area did not fit this description in earlier years. See Krysta Ryzewski, Roosevelt Park Archaeological Excavation Report (Detroit: Wayne State University, 2012).3 “His Right Leg and Arm Were Broken: Patrick H. Moran Was Struck By Street Car. Suspected of Stealing Copper Wire. Mrs. H. L. Innes, of Sandwich, Dead,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), June 1, 1903, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563482346/citation/A8DA5E49BD5F4E67PQ/1?accountid=14925.
5
Also, it is important to recognize that opinions about the
neighborhood written in the early 20th century were written in
the context of the City Beautiful Movement. A notoriously
rundown neighborhood in Detroit today likely looks completely
different from a similarly described neighborhood in 1914,
especially when directly adjacent to a magnificent brand new
building.
Figure 3: Duration of residency on 17th Street
1869
1871
1873
1875
1877
1879
1881
1883
1885
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
344
346
348
350
352
354
356
358
360
362
n=6 houses Year
Address number on 17th St.
This chart illustrates the length of occupation for longer-term residents on 17th Street over time. No houses were ever built at 354 and 350 17th. Information from 360 and 358 17th is provided from Amanda Roach and begins in 1897, so occupation patterns before 1897 are currently unknown. See Appendix I for greater detail.
6
This study traces the reputation of the neighborhood over
time, mostly using newspaper sources, in order to question the
standard narrative and provide a basis for future archaeological
study. Roosevelt Park’s story is important to the history of
Detroit because it was one of the first urban renewal projects.
Like other urban renewal projects in Detroit (Brewster-Douglass
homes, Lafayette Park, etc), the city condemned privately owned
land to build an empty space, and that empty space is all too
familiar in Detroit today. In the context of national history,
Roosevelt Park is important because its planners at least
attempted to realize the City Beautiful Movement, popular across
the nation in the first decades of the 20th century. While the
City Beautiful made its mark with many beautiful buildings and
landscapes that still stand today, it also encouraged cities to
remove the old to replace with the new, and in the process much
has been lost.
This paper will touch on the City Beautiful movement, but
focus most closely on the story of Roosevelt Park using both etic
and emic approaches. An analysis of the class relations between
the multiple parties involved with the construction of the
7
Michigan Central Station (MCS) and demolition of the approach
area reveals that contrary to popular belief, this neighborhood
was ordinary and not rundown, and that the city was desperate to
control the land but their hold was very tenuous. The Detroit Free
Press thoroughly covered the property struggle, including voices
from the community and from the various committees involved in
its planning. These articles reveal the change in perceptions of
the neighborhood, and the arguments and controversy surrounding
the plans and condemnation of the neighborhood. This paper uses
an emic approach by closely analyzing these articles in order to
correct longstanding pervasive misunderstandings about the
demolished neighborhood.
Historical Background and Prior Research
The history of the Roosevelt Park site extends back about
four decades before the station was built in the 1910s. As
Detroit’s boundaries expanded in the 19th century, land that had
been organized as French ribbon farms since the 18th century
turned into residential neighborhoods often associated with
specific nationalities (Figure 4). This area, today known as
8
Corktown, transitioned from the Stanton and LaFontaine Farms into
mostly small residential lots in the mid 19th century.4 The
Roosevelt Park site consisted of homes, churches, and some
factories and businesses along Michigan Street and in the
neighborhood displaced by the station. The west side of the site
was home to two brick German churches and a number of German
residents, while people of other nationalities, especially Irish
immigrants and descendants, lived throughout the rest of the
neighborhood. As time went on, the breakdown of nationalities in
certain areas was not as specific. Determining the demographics
of people living in this area is a large undertaking and ongoing.
4 C. Stephan Demeter, An Archeological Evaluation of the Corktown Study Area Submitted To City of Detroit, Community and Economic Development Department, Detroit, Michigan (Jackson, MI: Commonwealth Associates, 1981).
9
Figure 4: Map of land annexation in Detroit (Manual, County of Wayne,Michigan, 1926).
Research on Irish immigrants in the United States often
focuses on marginalization and the gradual cultural change from
an Irish identity to an Irish American identity.5 It is
important to contextualize this research when working in Detroit,
because Irish immigrants had a very different experience in
Detroit. In early 19th century Detroit, jobs were relatively 5 Stephen A. Brighton, “Middle-Class Ideologies and American Respectability: Archaeology and the Irish Immigrant Experience,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15, no. 1 (November 9, 2010): 30–50, doi:10.1007/s10761-010-0128-4;Diana Dizerega Wall, “Examining Gender, Class, and Ethnicity in Nineteenth-Century New York City,” Historical Archaeology 33, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 102–17;Elizabeth S. Peña and Jacqueline Denmon, “The Social Organization of a Boardinghouse: Archaeological Evidence from the Buffalo Waterfront,” Historical Archaeology 34, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 79–96.
10
easy to come by for Irish immigrants at all levels depending on
skills.6 This changed after the post-famine mass immigration,
but Irish in Detroit still found respectable and powerful
occupations. As Detroit finally organized a police force in
1865, English literacy requirements gave Irish immigrants an
advantage over other immigrants, and their ratio in the
department greatly exceeded their ratio in the general
population.7 In addition, the mayors of Detroit in 1897-1904,
1907-1908, and 1911-1912 (years encompassing the displacement for
the MCS station and approach) were first generation Americans
born of Irish parents.
Though many Irish immigrants flocked to Corktown throughout
the 19th century, the majority of Irish Detroiters lived in other
neighborhoods.8 Like other neighborhoods associated with a
single ethnicity or nationality, Corktown was segregated; often,
micro-neighborhoods of a handful of families of the same
6 Jo Ellen Vinyard, The Irish on the Urban Frontier: Nineteenth Century Detroit, 1850-1880 (New York: Arno Press, 1976), 48.7 John C. Schneider, “Public Order and the Geography of the City: ‘Crime, Violence, and the Police in Detroit, 1845-1875,’” Journal of Urban History 4, no. 2(February 1978): 183 – 208, 194.8 Vinyard, The Irish on the Urban Frontier, 175.
11
nationality lived near each other.9 Corktown was historically
situated in the eastern portion of the eighth ward between 3rd
and 11th Streets, so when Roosevelt Park was still residential,
it was not part of Corktown proper but on the western
outskirts.10 Further out towards the west of the site, these
micro-neighborhoods existed on 17th Street where pockets of
German families lived especially during the mid to late 19th
century. The families in the area usually lived in single or one
and a half story wooden frame dwelling houses, but some brick
structures were sprinkled throughout and Michigan Avenue was
mostly lined with brick buildings (Figure 5). The Free Press notes
that the homes that stood where the station is today were built
of high quality materials, and homes in both the station and park
area were either moved or harvested for building materials.11
9 Ibid, 181.10 Ibid, 197.11 “How New Location of Michigan Central Was Purchased: Credit For Big Deal Due Largely to Untiring Efforts of M. Scanlon What Others Say About the Big Deal,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), December 31, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565641249/abstract/9336952E3FD94A52PQ/1?accountid=14925; “Display Ad 2 -- No Title,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), September 17, 1917, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/566173991/citation/BF08B0B25A174A93PQ/2?accountid=14925; “45 of 100 Houses Sold to Clear Station Site,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), September 20, 1917, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/566007276/citation/928B486A54FC4BB7PQ/1?accountid=14925.
12
Some of the buildings may have been in poor condition by 1918,
but they were of good quality when built. There were already
train tracks in the neighborhood when people started buying lots
to build homes in the mid 19th century, but the property owners
never could have foreseen how this would affect them.
Figure 5: Wood framed houses in Roosevelt Park site area with new station inbackground c. 1913-1918 (source unknown).
In the late 19th century as Detroit was thriving, the train
companies realized they needed a better way to transport train
carts across the Detroit River. They built a tunnel under the
river that emerged at Sixteenth Street, so they eventually
decided that the immediate area would be a good place for a new
station. During construction of the massive and elegant station,
13
the city realized that most of the visitors to Detroit would
enter into the middle of a residential neighborhood, so they
began planning an approach to match the magnificence of the
station.
Several parties were involved with planning the approach,
drawing up at least four plans. The two plans with the most
supporters consisted of a 200-foot wide diagonal approach from
Michigan Avenue to the station that would disrupt dozens
properties, and a park encompassing three blocks that would
require the removal of 170 buildings. The city council voted for
the park approach but it took five years to condemn and demolish
all of the houses on the park property because many of the
homeowners fought back against the condemnation proceedings in
court. The city demolished the final homes in 1918 and covered
the lots in soil for the park in the 1920s. This process ensured
the material culture underneath would remain undisturbed, making
the site a priceless source for archaeologists researching early
late 18th and early 19th century Detroit.
Detroit has a rich history of urban historical archaeology.
Starting around the 1890s, historians salvaged artifacts during
14
construction projects downtown, but these faux-excavations
tapered off during the early 20th century.12 As Drs. Arnold
Pilling and Gordon Grosscup joined Wayne State University’s
anthropology department in the 1950s, they made it a priority to
conduct salvage excavations whenever possible during major
construction projects. Most of these projects took place
downtown, but Wayne State MA student C. Stephan Demeter also
worked with local CRM firm Commonwealth Associates to conduct
archaeological surveys more broadly across the city. Demeter
recommended further archaeological study of the west Corktown
area in a 1981 report.13 Wayne State archaeologist Dr. Thomas W.
Killion and several students completed a systematic survey of the
eastern portion of Roosevelt Park in 2011, and Dr. Krysta
Ryzewski led excavations in 2012 and 2014. These excavations
will be ongoing as part of the Wayne State field methods class in
future years. Several students have researched the historical
background of individual lots, but the social and cultural
context of the area as a whole has been largely unstudied.
12 Arnold R. Pilling, “Skyscraper Archaeologist: The Urban Archaeologist in Detroit,” Detroit Historical Society Bulletin 23, no. 8 (May 1967): 6.13 Demeter, An Archeological Evaluation of the Corktown Study Area Submitted To City of Detroit, Community and Economic Development Department, Detroit, Michigan.
15
Methods and Scholarship
This study draws on the previous historical and
archaeological research on Roosevelt Park mentioned above, and
uses documentary archaeology to reconstruct the social historical
context of the neighborhood before it was demolished. Laurie
Wilkie succinctly summarizes why archaeologists use documents in
three points: to determine who lived or is otherwise associated
with the site, to understand the social and cultural context
around the site, and to understand the use life and social
significance of the artifacts recovered.14 Here, I focus
especially on the second point in order to test the standard
historical narrative of the Roosevelt Park site and tease out
complexities that are forgotten or ignored.
Mary Beaudry’s edited volume Documenting Archaeology in the
New World thoroughly illustrates the myriad uses of documentary
records, especially probate records, in historical archaeological
14 Laurie Wilkie, “Documentary Archaeology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, ed. Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2006), 13–33.
16
research.15 Probate records often include detailed inventories
of a deceased person’s possessions, which can be helpful for
archaeologists. Gary Wheeler Stone notes that they can be useful
for studying culture, and they often help with dating and
classifying artifacts.16 Marley R. Brown III discusses how
probate inventories can be compared with an assemblage of
artifacts to judge how complete or representative the assemblage
is.17 It is difficult to say how representative an assemblage is
without these records. Of course, probate inventories are not
without issue. Their accuracy must always be questioned; they
might have errors, some objects may have been too plain or
obvious for the record keeper to notice and then quantify, and
they only represent a very brief period of a household’s
materials. Still, they are useful for comparing against the
archaeological evidence. As they were usually recorded as the
inventory taker walked through the house, they can indicate where
15 Mary C. Beaudry, ed., Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Reprint edition (Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993).16 Garry Wheeler Stone, “Artifacts Are Not Enough,” in Documentary Archaeology in the New World, ed. Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 68–78.17 Marley R. Brown III, “The Behavioral Context of Probate Inventories: An Example from Plymouth County,” in Documentary Archaeology in the New World, ed. Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 79–82.
17
items were placed in the house. Unfortunately, probate
inventories do not exist for the families from the Roosevelt Park
site.
Maps are another valuable documentary source, and maps from
this period of Detroit’s history are plentiful. Historical maps
are often inaccurate (or completely wrong when unfulfilled plans
are accidentally understood as maps) but they can still be useful
when carefully studied. In her study of Boston using historical
maps, Nancy S. Seasholes notes that it is imperative to question
maps like any other historical document: Who made it? Why? Who
is the intended audience?18 Baist Real Estate and Sanborn Fire
Insurance maps are helpful for studies of early 20th century
Detroit because they focus on specific individual buildings for
real estate and insurance purposes, thus noting building
materials and scale, fairly good accuracy, and change over time
as they were created and updated periodically between 1884 and
the 1920s. Using the two types of maps together is especially
18 Nancy S Seasholes, “On the Use of Historical Maps,” in Documentary Archaeology in the New World, ed. Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 93.
18
helpful because they cover more years and can be checked against
each other for accuracy (Figure 6 and 7).
Figure 6: 1906 Baist Real Estate Map showing west area Figure 7: 1897 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing west of Roosevelt Park site. Helpful information includes lot area of Roosevelt Park site. Helpful information includesnumbers and coloring indicating building material. accurate building dimensions and layouts.
Stephen A. Mrozowski demonstrates how colonial newspapers
can be useful for dating ceramics, but also for getting an emic
understanding from historical individuals in order to understand
the cultural context around an archaeological site.19 Mrozowski
specifically examines an anecdote published in the 1733 Rhode
Island Gazette as a case study for understanding gender and how it
19 Stephen A. Mrozowski, “For Gentlemen of Capacity and Leisure: The Archaeology of Colonial Newspapers,” in Documentary Archaeology in the New World, ed.Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 184–91.
19
structured the “material world.”20 Even though the anecdote
reads as an allegory, it still provides insight into the culture
of the time and the opinions, if exaggerated, of the writer.
In this study of early 20th century west Corktown through
Detroit Free Press newspaper articles, I trace the opinions of
journalists over time relating to west Corktown and the park
project. Articles like the above might be heavily biased or
hyperbolic, but if the sentiments are repeated in many articles,
it is clear that these sentiments are worth recognizing because
the readership of the Free Press would be reading them over and
over and might be influenced by them. Likewise, if such
hyperbole is uncommon, it might indicate the sentiment is not as
popular and is not being promoted to the reader.
In the Free Press, editorials do not have a byline naming the
author of the piece, meaning that the editorials are
representative of the views of the Free Press staff. These
articles were likely very widely read. The Free Press’s coverage
of the Civil War gave the newspaper a good reputation nationally,
and the paper even expanded to London in 1881, making for a large
20 Ibid, 187.
20
readership base.21 Whether or not the residents living in west
Corktown read the newspaper, the articles indicate the change in
the reputation of the site over time from before the park was
conceptualized to the final demolition.
Today, the site is remembered as a working-class
neighborhood, but research on the demographics of the residents
indicates this is not quite accurate, especially up to about
1910. When determining class, archaeologists can use many
theories with differing definitions of class. This paper uses a
relational concept of class as described by Louann Wurst.22 For
Wurst, class is based on relationships that differ depending upon
scale and social context. She employs this definition in her
study on an industrial rural community in upstate New York, Upper
Lisle. Looking at the community as a whole reveals the extent to
which class structured the community. Her study revealed a
complex interplay of two main class relationships that also
interplay with each other: wealthy farmers and those who worked
21 “Detroit Free Press,” Encycolpedia of Detroit (Detroit: Detroit Historical Society, 2015), http://detroithistorical.org/learn/encyclopedia-of-detroit/detroit-free-press.22 Louann Wurst, “Internalizing Class in Historical Archaeology,” Historical Archaeology 33, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 7–21.
21
for wages on the farms, and the tannery owner and those who
worked for wages at the factory. This case study is interesting
because it complicates typical simplistic understandings of rural
life, and it shows how complex social relations interplay with
each other.
This paper focuses on the relationship between several
parties. The MCRR, the city council, the City Plan and
Improvement Commission, and the area of west Corktown under study
all relate to each other in different ways. The city council had
the most power, and the neighborhood had the least. The
Commission and MCRR cared about the project to differing degrees,
but both tried to influence the city council in its final
decision. In relation to the brand new state-of-the-art station,
the neighborhood in front of it was clearly lower class and some
in the neighborhood actually worked for the MCRR. Before 1918,
residents held various occupations from janitor to business owner
to post office clerk, making the neighborhood hard to classify in
terms of a classic Marxist definition of class. Documentary
evidence suggests that most residents were working-class (working
for wages and producing materials) and some may have been lower
22
middle class (owning small businesses and possibly employing
others), but clear Marxist class distinctions between neighbors
are not readily apparent, and the relational model provides a
better avenue for studying this site.
Randall McGuire’s chapter “Marxism and capitalism” in The
Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology discusses the ways that
Marxist archaeologists have interpreted archaeology through a
Marxist lens.23 When studying class struggles, instead of
accepting that the dominant ideology dominates subordinate
classes, Marxist archaeologists look at how ideologies
perpetuated by the dominant classes shape class-consciousness and
how subordinate classes respond to and use these ideologies as
they struggle against dominant power. In the case of Roosevelt
Park, the lower classes operated within the bounds of the
dominant ideology in their struggle to keep their properties, but
they were unsuccessful.
The site saw various levels of conflict over time from about
1905 to 1918. Instead of one homogenous working class group
23 Randall H. McGuire, “Marxism and Capitalism in Historical Archaeology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, ed. Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 123–42.
23
against one homogenous land owning bourgeois group, members that
would mostly fit into either of the groups sometimes pitted
themselves against each other. This site was not quite a part of
Corktown proper, and so families of many different nationalities
and different income levels lived on the same block. Some
families stayed in their houses for decades, while some stayed
anywhere from only a year to five or ten years. This was not a
unified group of people from similar backgrounds. It is
important to keep this in mind when looking at the residents’
relationship with the city, the MCRR, and the various parties
interested in the park project. It is easy to mistake this site
as a neighborhood, because it is all one piece of property today
and it is in clear contrast with the station, but it is likely
the residents identified closely with some of their neighbors
that lived adjacent to them and not at all with people a street
or two away.
This context is important when analyzing artifacts from the
2012 and 2014 excavations. An expensive piece of German
religious iconography in a slum neighborhood may possibly
indicate its owner was aspiring to a higher class, an outlier in
24
the neighborhood, or someone recently down on their luck. The
same piece in a working and lower middle class mixed ethnicity
neighborhood might indicate the individual strongly identified
with their micro-neighborhood and it might suggest the individual
that owned it had some disposable income. Before a large-scale
analysis of the artifacts can take place, the cultural and
historical context must be understood.
As analysis from the 2012 and 2014 archaeological
excavations of the site is in early stages, this paper is heavily
dependent on primary sources from the Detroit Free Press, City Plan
and Improvement Commission, and council reports. Preliminary
archaeological analysis supports that the neighborhood was home
to families and single occupants from the working and lower
middle classes. Primary written documents, though always having
bias, provide more insight into people’s opinions, even if those
opinions are not based in fact. Historical Detroit Free Press
journalists often convey pride in the city. They might not
encompass the thoughts of the average citizen, but they likely
influenced their readers. They are also helpful because they
describe events as they unfold, providing a helpful timeline.
25
Tracing the timeline from before the station was built to after
the condemnation proceedings began, these articles give insights
into the way the neighborhood was portrayed in a widespread form
of media, and the reasoning behind plans for the approach to the
station.
Detroit, City Beautiful
To people outside of Detroit, Michigan Central Station is an
iconic representation of Detroit’s economic decline. To
Detroiters it is just another empty building behind a large and
empty park. People interested in Detroit’s history and historic
preservation know the general story of Roosevelt Park’s contested
construction. The standard narrative that Detroit and the MCS
condemned the Roosevelt Park area because the station was the new
grand entry point for visitors to Detroit, and that the
surrounding houses were run down and unsightly is pervasive in
Detroit’s lore. There is a tiny grain of truth in the narrative
in that the city was obsessed with its image in light of the City
Beautiful movement, but the rest is inaccurate at best.
26
As the City Beautiful movement swept the nation in the
1800s, growing cities like Chicago and Detroit as well as smaller
towns like Middletown, New York embraced the idea of beautifying
their cities.24 In one of hundreds of articles about the
movement, the Free Press reports on a case in Middletown where
after two failed attempts, a person burned down a block of wood
framed commercial buildings. Instead of painting this person as
a criminal, the article describes the block as “an eyesore,” and
the person as someone “imbued with the ‘city beautiful’ idea.”25
The article does not commend the offender, but legitimizes the
arson because it was done to make the city more beautiful.
Cities often prioritized aesthetic improvements over
improvements relating to the well-being of its citizens because
of City Beautiful. In June of 1906, a Detroit Free Press reporter
comments on articles in the Chicago Chronicle warning about this
practice. The Free Press reporter agrees with the Chronicle in
that cities should be “clean, well-paved, well-built, well-
24 “Wanted Beautiful City: Incendiary, After Two Attempt. Burns Unsightly Buildings.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), November 10, 1907, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564136511/citation/379D062A1D34610PQ/21?accountid=14925.25 Ibid.
27
governed and well protected against all dangers,” because “there
really is nothing that is romantic, poetic or aesthetic about
busy streets, thronged markets, hurrying crowds, high buildings
and street railways.”26 The writer only agrees with the first
point because a city cannot be beautiful without those things.
The reporter is most concerned about “architectural
impressiveness” and “greenery,” and writes, “the work of the city
itself must be expended in the larger field of parks and
boulevards.”27 This is just one of dozens of similar articles in
the Free Press arguing for the beautification of Detroit in the
first two decades of the 20th century.
In 1907, the Free Press published an article praising the
“Makers of New Detroit.” It praises six businessmen for being
great business owners and managers. One of them was the water
commissioner for a time and is credited for giving Detroiters “a
source of water supply that will, to all appearances, remain free
from contamination through all time.”28 He was also a banker and
26 “‘The City Beautiful’ Controversy.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), June 3, 1906, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563884885/abstract/5D776744D72F4999PQ/1?accountid=14925.27 Ibid.28 “Active Workers for the Betterment of the City Beautiful.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), November 17, 1907,
28
businessmen. Interestingly, this feature is titled “Active
Workers for the Betterment of the City Beautiful.”29 There is no
mention in the article of how these men contributed to the
beautification of the city. They are praised simply for their
hard work and business prowess, and somehow this fits into the
City Beautiful mindset. This article hints at the biases of the
Free Press and foreshadows Detroit’s relationship with the
residents of the Roosevelt Park area and the MCRR. It did not
matter that the residents were hardworking and that some were
businessmen. The city and Free Press were much more interested in
big capitalist ventures and they believed by making their city
beautiful, they could attract such business.
The City Beautiful movement was complex and meant different
things in different cities, but in Detroit, it pitted people in
lower classes against the idea of the city as a whole. No matter
how clean and well-kept their homes, their neighborhoods did not
fit the ideal of a City Beautiful. Their achievements in their
working class jobs or small businesses could not compete with the
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563979568/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/3?accountid=14925.29 Ibid.
29
“Makers of New Detroit.” These relationships would later play a
role in the condemnation and legacy of the neighborhood.
Clearing Land for the Station
In the early 20th century, the MCRR decided to build a
tunnel under the Detroit River to move their trains more
efficiently and to capitalize on cross river transportation by
making contracts with other railroad companies to use their
tunnel. Up to that point, freight ships carried train cars
across the river. This was slow and nearly impossible during the
winter. Since the tunnel opened on the Detroit side at Sixteenth
Street, the MCRR chose land near Sixteenth and Michigan to build
a new station that could service a number of railroad companies
and have easy access to a road that would take people into
town.30 30 “We’ll Have a Tunnel: Detroit Is Going to Follow the Example of Port Huron,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), April 25, 1891, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/562190030/abstract/53665E9B3FE49C4PQ/30?accountid=14925; “Union Station: Will Probably Be Built in Neighborhood of Twentieth St. and Michigan Ave,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), October 25, 1905, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563790251/abstract/1E847340611248E0PQ/5?accountid=14925; “Will Spend $16,000,000: New York-Chicago To Be 16 Hours Now Cost of Improvements by Michigan Central,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), May 7, 1909, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564614230/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/3?accountid=14925.
30
In order to acquire the land needed for a station in this
area, the MCRR hired Matthew Scanlon, a real estate agent, to buy
the properties they needed to go through with their plan. The
neighborhood encompassed about 50 acres and 200 buildings. The
MCRR gave Scanlon credentials to show the property owners and
told him to “get the property with the least trouble, in the
shortest time and at fair prices.”31 Scanlon had a trouble with
a few residents who were attached to their homes and with
properties owned by more than two people, but the process was
fairly quick and easy. The MCRR gave the property owners time to
find new lodgings before selling the houses and let them live
rent-free in their houses for up to six months.32
The MCRR almost avoided condemnation proceedings, but one
property owner, Elizabeth Ferguson, refused to sell her
properties on Seventeenth. The houses were appraised at $3,000
(though the Free Press claims it was $6,000)33 and Scanlon upped the31 “How New Location of Michigan Central Was Purchased.”32 Ibid.33 “Score Price Boosters: Judges Sustain Verdict in Condemnation Case; Cut Fees.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), September 26, 1909, sec. PART ONE, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564651143/citation/732F3DB4F89E458DPQ/3?accountid=14925; “City in Brief,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), September 15, 1909, sec. PART ONE, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564666172/abstract/732F3DB4F89E458DPQ/6?accountid=14925; “Railroad’s Right to
31
offer to $8,000. Ferguson believed the property had more worth,
and apparently she was correct, as she sold it to Burr Lobdell
for $11,500. Lobdell then sold it to Edwin Miller, a Birmingham
farmer, for $25,000. Miller planned to use the site to build a
manufacturing company and then sell it for $35,000, but the MCRR
opened a condemnation suit on the land.34 Ferguson, Lobdell, and
Miller fought back, with the argument that the land was adjacent
to the proposed station site and not required for a public
approach, so the station would have no right to it.
Ferguson, Lobdell, and Miller lost the case. In the end,
the jury awarded $8,000 to Lobdell, $1 to Miller, and nothing to
Ferguson. Since Lobdell still owned the house and Miller owed
him a mortgage, the bulk was awarded to Lobdell. Though $1 seems
an unfair award, Miller admitted at the court proceedings that
“he did not know land values in Detroit and had not been in the
Land Upheld: Question of Public Use Not Material, Court Holds in M. C. Terminal Case,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), July 27, 1909, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564644108/citation/732F3DB4F89E458DPQ/2?accountid=14925.34 “Property Value Soars Skyward: Curious Gyrations Revealed in Michigan Central’s Condemnation Proceedings,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), September 18, 1909, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564653489/abstract/4B56E2D4CC6B4587PQ/10?accountid=14925; Michigan Supreme Court, Michigan Reports Advance Sheets (Callaghan, 1913) 205-211.
32
habit of coming here more than once a month.”35 Miller was “used
merely as a dummy purchaser, to raise the value,”36 but if that
was truly Ferguson and Lobdell’s plan, it did not work.
According to the Free Press, the MCRR won the case because “any
property required for a railroad is subject to condemnation.”37
The Free Press was not quite correct. Ferguson, Lobdell, and
Miller argued that the “petitioner has no power or right to
condemn land for the purpose of dedicating it to the public as a
public highway for general public travel.”38 The Supreme Court
of Michigan agreed that the “petitioner has no power to condemn
land solely for a public street.”39 This is important because
Ferguson is arguing against the idea of the city condemning land
for a street before the city started planning the esplanade
approach to the station. If the courts sided with the MCRR, it
would give greater legitimacy to the city’s condemnation of the
Roosevelt Park area years later.
35 “‘Mamma, Can’t You Get Us Out?’: Two Burt Tots Cry Vainly for Help as They Burn to Death in Barn,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), September 11, 1909, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564676762/abstract/F638EC482ADF4555PQ/3?accountid=14925.36 Ibid.37 “Railroad’s Right to Land Upheld.”38 Court, Michigan Reports Advance Sheets, 206.39 Ibid, 207.
33
Considering class relations in this context reveals the
extent to which big business in Detroit was privileged. Ferguson
and Lobdell were accused of artificially inflating the value of
the land, but Miller planned to open a business on it and the
MCRR clearly also thought it was valuable or they would not be
fighting for it in court. The courts ruled against Ferguson,
Lobdell, and Miller because “where such land is necessary for
railroad purposes, the incidental use thereof as a street by the
public does not destroy that power [to condemn land for a
street].”40 The MCRR needed the land for access to the station,
but it would still be a public city street. The courts further
pointed out that according to the Detroit Charter of 1904, in
addition to condemning privately owned lots, “the right of the
municipality to vacate a street or alley by proper proceedings,
when deemed necessary in the public interest, is clear.”41 This
essentially gives the city power to condemn privately owned land
for a street if they can argue it is an approach to something
else, setting up the city to win future condemnation suits during
40 Ibid.41 Ibid, 208.
34
urban renewal building projects, specifically in this case, the
approach to the new MCRR station.
The ruling centered on the notion that the street leading to
the new station would be in the public’s interest. The MCRR was
not a city service, but a corporation. It was not a city-funded
project with intent to transport Detroiters, but a corporate
project intended to capitalize on major traffic at an
international border. The MCRR had agreements with the other
major railroad companies to use their new tunnel and station.
The courts very widely defined a “public interest” to somehow
include a street next to a railroad station. This ruling
demonstrates how the wishes of large corporations trumped the
rights of individual property owners in Detroit.
The Approach to the Station
The Free Press interviewed the City Plan and Improvement
Commission’s president, Charles Moore, in September of 1911
regarding the new train station. Moore believed that the
“attractiveness of the city will speak for itself when it is well
looked over,” but since all of the visitors to Detroit via train
35
would arrive at the new station, many would only see that small
portion of the city.42 For that reason, Moore wanted the city to
get control of the land surrounding the approach to the building,
as the land could potentially be “gobbled up by private parties”
and the approach would be “lined with just such buildings and
places of business as many of those that now surround other
passenger stations.”43 This suggests that the neighborhood in
front of the station was ordinary, and not an eyesore. It was
not impressive in beauty, but also not so bad as to be completely
demolished. The commission was mostly concerned with controlling
the land.
In addition, the commission recognized that taking the land
would probably be difficult. Moore described it as “land that it
[Detroit] does not actually need for public improvements.”44 The
approach, then, was not originally thought of as a public good,
giving the city no legal basis to gain control. About a year
42 “Make Entry Beautiful: City Plan and Improvement Commission Proposes to Take Up at Once Movement for Approaches to New M. C. Station,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), September 6, 1911, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564995650/abstract/2C8C77AC42AF4E83PQ/2?accountid=14925.43 Ibid.44 Ibid.
36
later, the city would learn that it could only claim the land in
order to improve it for the public in the form of a highway,
street, or park.
The commission began planning for the new approach straight
away, but it would take the city at least two years to make an
official decision on how to connect the station with Michigan
Avenue. The MCRR was mostly concerned with getting passengers to
and from the station because the streets between it and Michigan
Avenue would not stand up to all the new traffic. A May 26, 1912
article in the Free Press outlines the commission’s original plan.
They wanted to “buy a 200-foot diagonal approach from Michigan
and Fourteenth avenues to the front of the station,”45 (Figure
8). Many homes would have to be demolished for this boulevard,
but not three blocks full. The Free Press article points out that
any plan would be paid for in city property taxes and would
involve the city condemning property. If the city went with this
plan, the article suggests that the “improvements” would be
considered a benefit only to the surrounding properties so they
45 “Want Park At New M. C. Depot: Central Michigan Avenue Improvement Association Will Advocate Plan.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), May 26, 1912, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565084241/abstract/432B98AC671D402CPQ/4?accountid=14925.
37
would bear the tax burden while a park would benefit the whole
city and the whole city would pay for it.46 The park would cost
twice as much, but more taxpayers would foot the bill.
Figure 8: The 200-foot boulevard approach plan (Detroit Free Press, 1913).
The MCRR began construction on the station in 1910 after
removing the final 140 houses on their new property. The Detroit
Free Press reports that there was difficulty removing these final
properties because they had “stood on the premises for years.”47
It is unclear whether the process was held up because of 46 Ibid.47 “Begins Work On Its New Station: Michigan Central Takes Out First Permit For Proposed New Depot,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), May 16, 1910, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564754135/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/4?accountid=14925.
38
homeowners’ attachments or for other reasons, but most of the
homes must have been in good condition, even if most were made of
wood, because 110 of them were moved to new locations to be sold
instead of demolished for parts.48 It is likely that the homes
in the Roosevelt Park area were of similar quality to the homes
removed for the station because they were in the same
neighborhood and sometimes even on the same block. Forthcoming
artifact analysis on building material collected from and
recorded during the 2012 and 2014 excavations will test and
further clarify this assertion.
In late 1911 as construction on the station was well
underway, the City Plan and Improvement Association started
thinking about how to make the station easily accessible to
Michigan Avenue, a major road connecting downtown Detroit to west
Michigan. The association hired Edward H. Bennett, a landscape
architect from Chicago, to design a “broad and attractive
thoroughfare leading from Michigan avenue to the depot.”49 The
48 Ibid.49 “Broad Avenue for New Depot: Attractive Setting to Be Planned by E. H. Bennett, Chicago Landscape Artist,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), October 17, 1911,http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565032527/abstract/B340F8668950492EPQ/1?accountid=14925.
39
street would be “at once sensible and attractive [and] will do
much to make people forget what they see along Michigan avenue
where improvement has not been rapid.”50 This suggests that
Michigan Avenue was not the most attractive part of the city, but
not that it or the neighborhood between it and the station was
run down. It also hints at the motive behind connecting the
station with Michigan Avenue: to improve and develop this area of
the city.
In July of 1912, the City Plan and Improvement Commission
and the city council still agreed that the city should tear down
“all of the houses which now crowd this 200-foot strip” to put in
a boulevard.51 The Free Press reports that this would be an
“addition to the park system,” and that the plan is “one of the
most elaborate schemes proposed by those interested in a ‘city
beautiful.’”52 The commission and council recognize the
magnificence of the station and they want the surroundings to
50 Ibid.51 “City Plan and Improvement Association Plans Beautiful Approach to New Station: Station Will Be Fine Structure,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), July 14, 1912, sec. Part One, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565132977/abstract/D156F01AB974E8EPQ/2?accountid=14925.52 Ibid.
40
match, because “In too many stations in the country passengers
are dumped down into the very worst section…. We have had quite
enough of this in Detroit in the past.”53 Though the Free Press
writes that the homes “crowd” the area needed for a boulevard,
neither the commission or council suggest anything negative about
the neighborhood other than that it will not match the grandeur
of the station. They believe adding a park in the middle of the
neighborhood will improve the view. If they saw the neighborhood
as an eyesore, why lay down the traffic esplanade in the middle
of it and leave the surrounding homes standing?
The first suggestion that the neighborhood was unsightly
appears in the Free Press only a month after the article mentioned
above, but the characterization is likely the result of a
stressful situation for the parties involved with planning the
approach to the station. At this time in the proceedings, the
council was still waiting on advice about how to legally obtain
the land they needed for the approach. The previous article notes
that the MCRR had no intentions of helping pay for the approach,
53 Ibid.
41
but an article from August of 1912 suggests that the city was
hoping the MCRR would change their minds. The title reads:
Lock Horns on New Station PlanCity Beautifiers and Michigan Central Interests Cannot Agree
on IdeasQuestion of Approach Seems InsurmountableRailroad Officials Think if City Wants Beautiful Plaza It
Should Pay the Price54
The article itself does not quite follow the title, as the city
already knew the MCRR was not interested in paying for a special
approach and did not care much about the plans. They were,
however, “willing to co-operate with the city in beautifying or
improving the surroundings.”55 This article is not really about
an argument between the MCRR and the city, but about the
pressures of solving the problem of approach.
The article is more about the opinions of the City Plan and
Improvement Commission and the Real Estate Board after the
commission invited the Real Estate Board to their planning
meetings for the MCRR approach. Though the commission and city
54 “Lock Horns on New Station Plan: City Beautifiers and Michigan Central Interests Cannot Agree on Ideas. Question of Approach Seems Insurmountable. Railroad Officials Think If City Wants Beautiful Plaza It Should Pay the Price.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), August 8, 1912, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565117579/abstract/E1FF5B5AE3634FC2PQ/5?accountid=14925.55 Ibid.
42
council were optimistic about their plans in July of 1912,
President Judson Bradway of the Real Estate Board suggests in
August that “the city should not have consented to the location
of the station there until the railroad company had agreed to buy
the property through to Michigan avenue.”56 He is very concerned
that “there is no portion of the city which would give newcomers
into the city a worse impression” than the neighborhood in front
of the station.57 It is likely Bradway was being hyperbolic
because there is no previous mention of this neighborhood being
in such a state, but his characterization of the neighborhood
here starts to stick.
It is important to recognize the historical context when
dealing with such vague descriptions of an early 20th century
neighborhood as described by a contemporary. Today, describing a
neighborhood as a place that would give visitors to Detroit the
worst impression, one can unfortunately think of dozens of
locations, and they are likely all dangerous, at least somewhat
abandoned, and dilapidated. In the early 20th century, Detroit
was growing rapidly and had a reputation as a beautiful city. 56 Ibid.57 Ibid.
43
Detroit city officials were proud of this and clearly wanted to
keep this reputation in tact and improve it where possible.
Bradway’s description of the neighborhood above should be taken
in the context of the City Beautiful movement. Some of Detroit’s
mansion districts would probably serve the City Beautiful
movement, but neighborhoods like the one in question filled with
mostly simple wood framed houses would not give the impression of
a grand city, no matter how clean and well-kept.
By the end of 1912, Free Press reporters still reported on the
esplanade’s progress, but they were skeptical that it would ever
happen. The plan was originally estimated to cost $1,000,000,
but a reporter writes that the “buildings that will have to be
razed or removed are of a very modest nature” and that they will
not cost anything near the estimate. The reporter notes that “if
the esplanade ever becomes a reality,” the city would have to
remove 30 brick buildings, 72 wood framed one story houses, 67
wood framed one and a half story houses, and one brick church,
totaling 170 buildings. The writer valued most of the houses at
less than $1,000. As momentum built up for a magnificent
esplanade during 1912, the neighborhood’s reputation dropped, but
44
as the planning continued slowly over the course of several
months, the Free Press started to lose interest and even faith that
the plan would ever be completed. The neighborhood went from
being described as the most embarrassing entry point possible to
a neighborhood of modest buildings.
The reporter noted that the City Plan and Improvement
Commission would have their design plan for the esplanade ready
within a week. Four days later, the commission learned that the
only way to claim the property was through condemnation
proceedings. Any land condemned by the city would be owned by
the city and “always subject to change or modification by the
common council.”58 It is easy to understand why the MCRR would
not want to spend money on anything more than a simple approach
since they would not own the land or have any control over it.
After condemnation, the city could either use the land for a
highway, street, or park. They believed that if they chose to
build a park, “the park commissioner might bargain with the
58 “Plan Would Give City Control of Esplanade: Condemnation of Property New Michigan Central Station Will Give Power to Council,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922),December 5, 1912, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565209448/abstract/1DE5AA9AE91747B7PQ/1?accountid=14925.
45
property owners and thus avoid litigation.”59 This is when the
city council first revealed its plans to condemn the whole
neighborhood, and not just a 200-foot strip, for a park.
Over these two years as the MCRR completed their new
station, the city council realized that the MCRR was not
concerned with the approach, and that the council should have
considered the approach question earlier. The city wanted to
gain control of this land to guide development to fit the City
Beautiful ideal. The current neighborhood certainly did not meet
requirements, but as the process was drawn out, the Free Press lost
interest and began describing the neighborhood more charitably.
When the city learned they could demolish the whole area fronting
the station, they fully embraced the idea. This was not a class
struggle in the usual sense of the phrase. It was not about the
working class fighting for rights from an employer, or even from
a corporation. This was a struggle of city against citizen.
59 Ibid.
46
The Plans
By 1913, the city council endorsed a plan that would use the
three blocks between the station and Michigan Avenue for a park.
At this point the station was still under construction and the
MCRR was not interested in financing the approach; however, city
officials were convinced that the MCRR should help pay. The City
Plan and Improvement Association, led by Frederick Barcroft, had
been working on their boulevard plan with Chicago landscape
architect E. H. Bennett since early 1912 and they were fully in
favor of the boulevard over the park idea. The MCRR was also in
favor of the boulevard, as their main concern was moving
passengers. In opposition to the MCRR and City Plan and
Improvement Association, the city alderman, residents that lived
around the station, the Federation of Civic Organizations, and
possibly Mayor Oscar Marx were convinced that razing the whole
neighborhood for a park would be a better idea. Ultimately, the
park idea was successful, but only after several years of arguing
about at least four plans.
There were at least four approach proposals but only two
main contenders: the 200-foot boulevard, and the park. In
47
January 1913, a committee from the Federation of Civic
Organizations took Mayor Marx to Frederick Barcroft’s office to
show him “Plan no. 4,” or the park plan.60 It called for the
complete demolition of the properties between Seventeenth and
Fourteenth Streets and the station and Michigan Avenue. The
mayor was “much impressed with the desirability of the project,”
but he wanted to make sure the city would be able to obtain the
land before making any recommendations.61 This is the first
mention of Plan 4 in the Free Press and the article does not
mention any of the other plans. The mayor’s tentative approval
and the lack of any mention for the other plans somewhat
legitimizes Plan 4 over the other plans.
Ten days after Mayor Marx visited Barcroft’s office to see
the plan, the Free Press reported that the city assessed the value
of the properties in the area needed to complete Plan 4. The
reporter writes that the neighborhood is “thickly populated,” but
makes no judgment on the quality of the neighborhood. By this
60 “Civic Workers Ask Esplanade: Tell Mayor-Elect Marx They Have Approved Commission’s Traffic Arrangement Plan.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), January 9, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565148140/citation/2C093F7E46D543B3PQ/7?accountid=14925.61 Ibid.
48
time, plan 4 was “the one that was adopted by the old council
committee and which has been approved by practically every
improvement organization interested in this section of the
city.”62 This illustrates how keen the Free Press, the city, and
various organizations and committees were to approve a plan and
start work in 1913. The City Plan and Improvement Commission
only finished their plan proposals in late 1912 but by late
January the Free Press reports it as the favorite.
Even though there was a lot of excitement about Plan 4,
there was still confusion as to how the land would be used. In
February, the Free Press reports that the aldermen still believed
the MCRR should help pay for the esplanade and that they were
still working out the legality of condemning the neighborhood.
Meanwhile, a man named David Lewis was planning to “erect a
seven-story hotel at Sixteenth street and Michigan avenue to care
for passengers who desire accommodations close to the station.”63
62 “Esplanade Cost Is Fixed At $500,000: Assessor Nagel Estimates Expense of Acquiring Michigan Ave. New Depot Zone,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), January 19, 1913, sec. PART ONE, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565133203/abstract/1DE5AA9AE91747B7PQ/8?accountid=14925.63 “Want Railroad to Pay Part for Esplanade: Aldermen Oppose Michigan Central Plan to Let City Give All for Traffic Park,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), February7, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565241876/abstract/2C093F7E46D543B3PQ/4?accountid=14925.
49
This corner was clearly in the footprint for the park plan. Did
Lewis know this and plan to capitalize on the short amount of
time he might have before the city claimed the land? Did he
think the city would never go through with the plans, or at least
Plan 4? Lewis was a successful real estate agent64 but perhaps
this was the sort of establishment city officials were worried
about.
In mid-February, less than a month after the Free Press
reported Plan 4 as the favorite, the 200-feet wide boulevard plan
returned to the forefront. The City Plan and Improvement
Commission along with the Detroit Council Committee on Street
Openings preferred this plan. It “provides an adequate approach”
to the station while not being “so wide as to make it a barrier
to development of business along Michigan avenue.”65 It would 64 “Classified Ad 6 -- No Title,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), December 27, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565613568/citation/B20F8DEF890A47D5PQ/22?accountid=14925; “Classified Ad 2 -- No Title,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), March 19, 1915, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565825295/citation/B20F8DEF890A47D5PQ/18?accountid=14925; “Property Sales ComeTo $92,500: Deals Closed by David Lewis Include Brick Terrace of Six Houses.,”Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), December 27, 1914, sec. Part Five, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565835280/abstract/B20F8DEF890A47D5PQ/2?accountid=14925.65 “Approved Plans for Approach to the New Michigan Central Depot,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), February 16, 1913, sec. PART ONE, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565203219/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/7?accountid=14925.
50
also leave enough room for parking and aesthetic improvements
like fountains. If this plan had succeeded, David Lewis might
have had a chance for a successful hotel business at Sixteenth
and Michigan.
Again, a month later, the preferred plan switched back to
the park. In a meeting in early March, the committee on street
openings “threw the boulevard plan into the discard” in favor of
the park.66 Interestingly, residents “living in the vicinity of
the new station” were at the meeting, and they agreed that the
park was the better plan.67 The article is not more specific on
whether these residents lived in the footprint of the park plan
or not. It is possible the residents were under the impression
they and their neighbors would be the only people taxed to pay
for the boulevard plan, and they would rather the whole city bear
the burden, even if it meant losing their home. By the early
19th century, many homeowners on the west side of the park area
rented out their houses and lived elsewhere, so perhaps they were
66 “Committee Again Flops on Esplanade Plan: Aldermen Discard New Boulevard Idea; Now Favor Park.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), March 14, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565262811/citation/3FAA46BC722D4E4DPQ/8?accountid=14925.67 Ibid.
51
willing to take a buyout. Maybe the residents thought about how
inconvenient and noisy it would be to live next to such a major
train station. Either way, it is clear that by March of 1913,
the boulevard plan was no longer quite as viable as it was in
December.
This article also reveals how tired people were of the
approval process. The council did not just change their minds;
they “turned another ‘flip-flap.’”68 Tensions ran high as the
kaleidoscopic changes in the plans ‘peeved’ some of the aldermen
and numerous ‘run-ins’ resulted.”69 The construction of the
station was moving along and completion was in sight, but city
officials were still arguing about plans for the approach, and
people from all interested parties wanted to see a quick
solution.
Throughout this long process, the rationale behind the
boulevard approach was clearly expressed, while the reasons for
building a large park are somewhat vague. This is clearly
illustrated in two letters written to the Free Press and published
two days apart, about a week after the council “flip-flapped” on 68 Ibid.69 Ibid.
52
the plans. The first writer, signed by “Reader,” is against the
park plan. Reader sees the large esplanade as “too useless and
costly to the citizens of Detroit.”70 The park would make for a
good first impression, but over time would become a “loafing
place.”71 The article argues against the park because it would
back up traffic on Michigan and then Michigan would have to be
widened. Reader felt strong enough about this to get quite
sarcastic:
Is this passenger going to walk around and enjoy the sceneryfor an hour before he leaves Detroit? Or will one on their arrival do the same? Or follow the natural American instinct to hurry and transact business?72
Still, Reader makes a good point in saying that the esplanade
would be “beautiful for a block or two and then show off the
defects [of the city].”73 The park would be expansive and grand
while one stands in the middle of it, but it would be obviously
out of place as one exits. A boulevard and small park might fit
70 Reader, “Opposes Plan for Depot Esplanade: Writer to The Free Press Suggests Wide Street Should Lead to M. C. Terminal,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), March 23, 1913, sec. Part Two, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565205386/abstract/760FA34344294A1DPQ/1?accountid=14925.71 Ibid.72 Ibid.73 Ibid.
53
easily into the current surroundings, and the expansion of the
boulevard towards what today is Midtown might divert some traffic
from Michigan Avenue.
Owen McCabe wrote the Free Press two days later, disagreeing
with Reader. McCabe is heartily in favor of Plan 4 and is
“surprised” to read that someone would have a different
opinion.74 He notes that Reader should have taken advantage of
the public meeting held by the aldermen (the meeting described
above with residents in attendance) if he wanted to express his
opinion. McCabe was in attendance, and he is sure that if Reader
was present, “he would agree that the majority of persons present
voiced their sentiments heartily in favor of improvements
according to plan Number 4, and objected to all over plans.”75
McCabe clearly prefers Plan 4, but his reasoning is difficult to
understand. He sees it as a “public improvement and a
necessity,” and that it is “for all the people, and not for a
74 Owen McCabe, “Disagrees with ‘Mr. Reader’ on Esplanade: Writer to The Free Press Wants to Know Why Critic Did Not Attend Council Hearing.,” Detroit Free Press(1858-1922), March 25, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565195656/abstract/2C3A814A138345F5PQ/1?accountid=14925.75 Ibid.
54
few.”76 Though McCabe is vague on the particulars, he seems to
believe the boulevard plan would only benefit a few people, maybe
visitors to Detroit, while the park would be for the whole city.
This is certainly how officials supporting the park plan tried to
sell their argument, and it seems it worked on McCabe and most of
the people at the meeting.
The debate about the approach continued through April of
1913. The Free Press reports that the “park and boulevard
committee adopted plan No. 4 at its meeting Tuesday.”77 Even
though the City Plan and Improvement Commission still was still
in favor of the boulevard plan, the aldermen wanted the park. At
the meeting, Alderman O’Brien and the council approved a
resolution to start condemning the neighborhood. Despite this,
the City Plan and Improvement Commission continued to release
reports recommending the adoption of their boulevard plan.
These articles illustrate how out of touch the MCRR was with
the process. This was about the city council getting what they
76 Ibid.77 “Aldermen Want Esplanade Plan: Favor 200-Foot Boulevard Approach to New Michigan Central Depot,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), April 9, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565290680/abstract/1DE5AA9AE91747B7PQ/6?accountid=14925.
55
wanted: control of the whole area fronting the station. Even the
residents in the area were swayed by the council’s arguments,
demonstrating once again that the contested condemnation
proceedings were not the work of a unified group. By mid-1913,
everyone was ready for the meetings and arguments over proposals
to end so the approach could be built.
Condemnation Proceedings
The city began the process to condemn the neighborhood in
mid-1913, but it would take five years before all of the houses
were cleared. In July of 1913, the aldermen asked the city
council to approve a $975,955 budget to condemn the homes. This
figure is the sum of prices named by 77 out of 87 property owners
affected by the condemnation. Ten would not cooperate and did
not name a sum. The city council immediately denied this because
“the jury awards will be far under the price asked.”78 This was
only the beginning of a drawn out legal battle between the city
and property owners.
78 “Council Refuses Price Asked for Esplanade Land: Turns Down Offers Totaling$975,955 for M. C. Approach,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), July 23, 1913, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565354935/abstract/D516F4D2A61945FDPQ/1?accountid=14925.
56
Even though the park approach was approved and the city
started the condemnation proceedings in mid-1913, the City Plan
and Improvement Commission published a report in October of the
same year promoting the boulevard approach. The commission was
planning the Center of Arts and Letters (what today is the
Detroit Institute of Arts and Detroit Public Library in Midtown),
and they wanted to make a cohesive plan to tie together all of
the splendors of Detroit. This included Belle Isle and the new
train station. The commission had plans to lay wide diagonal
roads between these major hubs, and the 200-foot wide boulevard
approach was part of this plan.79 They still promoted the plan
even though the city was taking steps to begin construction on a
park.
As in 1913 when reports about planning progress changed
daily and citizens wrote in to the Free Press advocating for their
favorite plan, the Free Press offers a wealth of opinions on
progress in the condemnation proceedings in 1914. On April 23, a
Free Press journalist argues that the requested $600,000 bond is
still too much to be taken at once from the taxpayers. The 79 Detroit (Mich.)., Reports, 1913-14. (Det., 1913), http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100337068.
57
journalist is conflicted because the “idea of Beautiful Detroit”
will “jar harshly upon the nerves of those of them who have heard
so much about the attractiveness of this city of ours,” when they
arrive to a working and lower middle class residential
neighborhood.80 Yet the journalist understands why the MCRR is
not eager to back the project financially because “it would not
matter a dollar to the company if the exterior surroundings were
beautified by the best landscape gardener in the world or if they
should be forever left to be the eyesore they are now.”81 The
real problem with the approach is that “it is Detroit, not the
Michigan Central, that stands to gain or lose by the approach.”82
Interestingly, the journalist describes the neighborhood as
an “eyesore.” This is the first mention of the station as an
“eyesore.” In 1914, the station was complete and passengers were
coming and going frequently. It is possible the neighborhood was
changing for the worse as the condemnation proceedings were
underway, but it is also clear that this journalist is passionate
about the appearance of the city. Anything that did not match
80 “Why Not Begin It This Year?”.81 Ibid.82 Ibid.
58
the grandeur of the station would probably be an eyesore. Also,
the journalist puts forth the opinion that the city should start
with a much smaller budget and make minor improvements over a
long stretch of time to appease the taxpayers. The appearance of
the neighborhood is a problem, but one that can be put off with
some small improvements.
The next day, the Free Press reports again on the condemnation
proceedings and $600,000 bond issue, though this time the article
describes the differing points-of-view of two city officials.
Edmund Atkinson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, worries that the
condemnation proceedings are at stake if the bond is not approved
because “it is difficult to make condemnation proceedings stick
without having the aldermen and the estimators divided on their
advisability.”83 Richard Kramer is one of the estimators against
the bond. He argues, “despite all Henry Ford has done for the
city, the people would not vote to buy a park for his factory, if
it were in Detroit.”84 Kramer has an interesting point, but he
83 “Board May Kill Depot Approach Despite Council: Plan to Get Land Already Under Way; Issue of Bonds Fought,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), April 24, 1914, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565620583/abstract/432B98AC671D402CPQ/5?accountid=14925.84 Ibid.
59
is in the minority. The article notes that the estimators living
in the west side “will fight almost to a man to have the approach
approved.”85 His wording is significant because the approach
already was approved by 1914 and the city had begun the
condemnation proceedings. These two back-to-back articles show
that Detroiters are really interested in the proceedings, if
skeptical that they will ever be fulfilled.
The City Plan and Improvement Commission continued promoting
their boulevard plan as late as 1915, illustrating a lack of
faith in the city’s park plan. In a booklet outlining their plan
of Detroit for 1915, the commission introduces their
architectural plans with a brief introduction explaining their
reasoning for certain changes and improvements, but they get
passionate when describing the approach, calling it the “Michigan
Central Station problem.”86 Even though they point out that the
council began condemnation proceedings, they argue that their
plan would only cost $160,000 ($60,000 paid for by the MCRR),
while the park plan was estimated at $600,000, all paid for with
85 Ibid.86 Edward H. (Edward Herbert) Bennett, Preliminary Plan of Detroit (Detroit : City Plan and Improvement Commission, reprinted by City Plan Commission, 1921), http://archive.org/details/cu31924024414900.
60
taxes. They note that the MCRR does not want a park, and also
that the “business property beyond the Michigan Central certainly
should not want a park at that point because it will depreciate
the value of property for a considerable distance beyond it.”87
Not only did the condemnation usurp all the land between the
station and Michigan Avenue, it also appropriated land on
Michigan Avenue, destroying existing businesses and arresting
business development.
The property owners under threat of condemnation also lacked
faith in the city’s plan. Maps from 1911 and 1915 show
differences in the neighborhood from before and after the park
plan and condemnation are announced (Figures 9 and 10). A brick
building labeled “hotel” appears between 1911 and 1915 on
Fifteenth Street near the station. It seems curious that someone
would go through the trouble of building a brick building when
they knew it would be condemned in a matter of years. It is
possible it was built before 1913 and the announcement of the
park and condemnation, but it is also possible that whoever built
87 Ibid.
61
it did not take the city seriously and decided to capitalize on
the opportunities presented by the new station.
Figure 9: 1911 Baist Map, no brick building present Figure10: 1915 Sanborn Map, brick building appears
Another brick building appears in or by 1909 on the west
side of the park area near Rose and Seventeenth Streets. This
was before the city planned to condemn the neighborhood, but
after the houses in the footprint of the station were demolished
and during the station’s construction. Reports from the 2014
excavations indicate that the building was a duplex. According
to Detroit city directories, the western half was occupied from
1911 to 1917, and the eastern half from 1914 to 1917. 88 Since it
was a residence built before the condemnation announcement, it is
88 Athena Zissis, Lot 10 Excavation Report (Detroit: Wayne State University, 2014); Amanda Roach, Historical Background (Detroit: Wayne State University, 2014).
62
probable that the owner never thought that he would have to part
with it so soon.
The city eventually demolished the last buildings at 311,
315, and 317 15th Street in 1918.89 It took five years for them
to carry out the condemnation part of their plans. Further
historical and archaeological research on the Hoffman
Boardinghouse (also referred to as a “rooming house” or “rooms”)
on Fifteenth Street and the outbuildings that appear between the
1911 and 1915 maps would give more insight into the building
owners’ thoughts on the condemnation proceedings as well as the
residents’ lived experience during this tumultuous time.
Clearly, the city wanted complete control over this area.
The houses may have been eyesores, especially by 1915 as the
condemnation proceedings were underway and the neighborhood
became more transient, but they were still occupied by families
contributing to Detroit’s work force and tax base. The only way
for the city to ensure the land between the MCS and Michigan
89 “Britannia Crashes Through 3 Houses: 35,000 See Land Boat Demolish Structures on M. G. Esplanade. Detroiters Visualize Consternation of Kaiser’s Hordes on Flanders Fields.,” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922), June 24, 1918, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/566137169/abstract/E8EBF43D8F4A4D18PQ/1?accountid=14925.
63
Avenue would not develop differently than they wanted would be to
condemn the whole area and make a park out of it so no one could
ever buy it. A boulevard, though beautiful, useful, and one-
sixth the cost of the park would not get rid of the surrounding
homes and business, and would only encourage more station related
business. Unfortunately for the diverse group of people who did
not want to sell their homes, there was no legal recourse to
fight the city and unlike a relationship between a worker and a
company, they had no bargaining chip to make the city reconsider.
The MCRR was the catalyst in this struggle and it restructured
part of the neighborhood, but it kept its distance from this
condemnation struggle. The MCRR’s lack of involvement as
illustrated in the written sources clearly demonstrates how this
struggle was solely the cause of the city and its obsession with
control over this area.
Interpretations
Urban archaeology of modern cities is a relatively recent
phenomenon, and though Wayne State archaeologists working on
Detroit like Arnold Pilling were pioneers in the subfield,
64
Detroit is left out of the literature.90 Wayne State has dozens
of urban collections, but much of the research on these
collections is preliminary and unpublished, as the archaeologists
had so many salvage excavations to attend to before they would be
lost because of construction. As a result, there is a backlog of
material that could greatly contribute to studies of urban
archaeology.
Detroit is different from other major modern cities
frequently studied by archaeologists such as Boston and New York
City for many reasons, including its enormous physical size
compared to its population size, and its accelerated abandonment
in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Using case studies
from New York City and Philadelphia, Tadhg O’Keeffe and Rebecca
Yamin note that doing archaeology in an urban setting can give
the archaeologist a visceral feeling of the lived experience of
the site that documents alone cannot match. They note that
“landscape revealed through excavation in the midst of the
contemporary suggests the dynamic nature of urban life,” using
sites in the middle of dense urban areas consisting of highly 90 Nan A. Rothschild and Diana diZerega Wall, The Archaeology of American Cities (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2014).
65
populated high-rises. Unfortunately for much of Detroit
including Roosevelt Park, the contemporary location is different
from early 20th century Detroit, and the immediate surroundings
are not indicative of urban life as described by O’Keeffe and
Yamin.
Today, Roosevelt Park is considered part of Corktown, one of
the more popular and populated neighborhoods in Detroit.
Restaurants, shops, and organizations line Michigan Avenue at the
northeast corner of the park to downtown, but the atmosphere of
the park itself is completely dissimilar from how the residents
would have experienced daily life in the 19th and late 20th
century. Though areas of Detroit are still urban, the city is
unlike other modern cities where historical urban archaeology
takes place and it provides a different prospective on urban
archaeology.
In the case of Roosevelt Park, maps, written documents, and
photographs help recreate the feeling of urban life more fully
than just being present at the site. The Detroit Baist and
Sanborn maps exemplify the sort of map that archaeologists find
most useful. At the Roosevelt Park site, they add a level of
66
detail difficult to obtain from other documents or materials and
they also convey a sense of the long passage of time during
building and displacement. We are aware that it took about a
decade for the process to be complete, but seeing changes in the
maps as buildings appear and disappear every few years gives a
sense of the anticipation and frustration the residents must have
felt as they slowly lost their neighborhood.
Newspaper articles vividly recreate this sense. In
documentary archaeology, newspapers are often used to find
economic or dating information about specific artifacts.
Mrozowski’s chapter about the allegory from the Rhode Island Gazette
demonstrates how newspaper articles can also be helpful for
getting an emic understanding of culture, but he uses just one
article. This study demonstrates how using dozens of articles
covering a decade can illustrate various opinions, their nuances,
and how they change over time. This also contributes to the
feeling produced by using detailed maps over time. Roosevelt
Park has been empty and basically unchanged for decades, hiding
any evidence that would betray its contentious development, but
67
contemporary newspaper articles recreate the feelings of unease
and impatience during the prolonged and indirect process.
Even when Roosevelt Park was populated, there was plenty of
open space. It was not as dense as other big cities like Chicago
and New York City, where multiple families lived in the same
house or in tenement buildings. The Roosevelt Park site
consisted mostly of single-family homes housing single families
or couples, sometimes with a boarder. Every lot had room for a
small yard and an out building or a stable. In 1897, just a
decade before the MRCC started looking for a place to build their
new station, there were whole blocks of empty lots less than 10
blocks west of Roosevelt Park. Urban renewal projects in United
States cities often target working class neighborhoods or
neighborhoods primarily composed of ethnic or racial minorities
in their urban renewal projects,91 and this is especially obvious
in Detroit because there is so much empty space. The MCRR’s
placement of the station brought the city’s interest to this
91 A. J. C. Mayne and Tim Murray, eds., The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Explorationsin Slumland, New Directions in Archaeology (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Paul R. Mullins, “Racializing the Commonplace Landscape: An Archaeology of Urban Renewal along the Color Line,” World Archaeology 38, no. 1 (March 1, 2006): 60–71.
68
area, but there were excellent solutions avoiding mass demolition
(such as moving the station down a few blocks to an undeveloped
area or renovating their original site) that the city chose not
to implement.
The city’s obsession with the City Beautiful movement and
coverage of the movement in the Free Press spread this ideal as the
dominant ideology when it came to the city’s visual reputation.
When the MCRR began construction on the new station, the city
immediately realized the entry point to the station would not fit
the ideal. City committees, the Free Press, readers of the Free
Press, and neighborhood residents all agreed. No one suggested
the city leave the neighborhood as-is, but the multiple solutions
would affect the area in different ways. A wide boulevard with
some greenery seemed like a good plan until the city learned they
could take the whole neighborhood in late 1912. The City
Planning and Improvement Commission stayed the most committed to
the City Beautiful ideal, incorporating the boulevard plan into
their Center for Arts and Letters and connected all of the most
beautiful points of the city, but the city council firmly
campaigned for the park, even swaying neighborhood residents.
69
Up to and during the early years of proposal negotiations,
the Roosevelt Park site was home to people of various national,
ethnic, and economic backgrounds. Micro-neighborhoods of people
with similar ethnic backgrounds existed within the area.
Residents may have been friendly with each other, especially in
the micro-neighborhoods, but the Roosevelt Park site was not a
unified neighborhood. When the park proposal succeeded, the
residents did not band together to fight for the interests of
their class, but for themselves and their homes. The struggles
over this area were less about class and more about ideology as
the city attempted to realize the City Beautiful ideal by
removing an entire working and lower class section of the city to
lay down a park.
Though the condemnation and demolition struggle was more
about ideology than class, Wurst’s relational concept of class
still helps to identify the acting parties and situate their
goals among each other. Judging by what is left on the site
today, it seems the two opposing forces would be the neighborhood
and the MCRR, both eventually losing. In reality, the city
displaced and demolished the area, leaving the residents no
70
option but to move, and ruining any business potential
immediately in front of the station. Free Press articles provide
nuance to this understanding of the park’s history. They show
the transformation of this area’s reputation over time from a
commonplace residential neighborhood to an eyesore as the city
became more desperate to gain control.
These articles also give an emic understanding of
contemporary thought about the conflict. Like Mrozowski’s
example of the allegorical newspaper article from the Rhode Island
Gazette, the “Reader” writing to the Free Press to argue against the
park plan uses exaggeration and sarcasm in his opinion piece
discussed above, but it reinforces his point-of-view and we get
an emic understanding of a resident’s thoughts on this divisive
issue. He cared enough to write the paper a lengthy response
that lays out his opinion on various parts of the plan. He
thinks the American business people who this park is supposed to
attract will not even notice it, and that it will only become
another empty place for loitering. It was also not worth the
expensive price.
71
Conclusions
Michigan Central Station is an icon in Detroit, a grand ruin
symbolic of the rise and fall of the city. The history of the
station and the park in front of it is poorly understood, but
careful study of historical documents clarifies common
misconceptions. As Roosevelt Park is today considered to be part
of Corktown, it is often assumed that this area was predominantly
Irish. Since Irish immigrants to the United States in the mid to
late 19th century often found working-class jobs, it is also
assumed the neighborhood was working-class. In the late 19th and
early 20th century, Corktown’s western border ended about three
blocks from the eastern edge of the park, and six blocks from the
western edge. There were still a great deal of Irish immigrants
and Irish Americans in the park area, especially in the eastern
portion, but there were also Germans, Scottish, British, Maltese,
and other immigrants, as well as Americans in the area.
Many Irish that immigrated to Detroit found employment at
many levels, so the assumption that the Irish in the park area
were working-class is suspect. In fact, the area was home to
people from diverse occupations such as laborer, police officer,
72
business owner, and post office clerk. What is often assumed to
be a crowded run-down neighborhood shifts with this demographic
information. Historical newspaper articles further dispel this
myth. Very few articles reporting on this neighborhood describe
it in derogatory terms, and those that do often suggest a
stressful urgency regarding the city’s difficulties in carrying
out their plans. Out of the 20 articles covering the area during
the approach-planning phase (1912-1913) discussed in-depth above,
only two give negative descriptions. If it really was in poor
enough condition to deserve complete demolition, it seems likely
the Free Press would mention that in its reports.
In 1913, the Free Press and city officials began perpetuating
the idea that the area was an eyesore, and that characteristic
stood the test of time, no matter that it was likely greatly
exaggerated. Photographs showing the neighborhood during and
shortly after the station’s construction are not common, but some
that do exist show an ordinary neighborhood of single-family
wooden homes (Figure 11). It is difficult to tell how well they
were kept, but even if they were in pristine condition, they
could not match the splendor and magnitude of the new station.
73
This makes the occasional bad characterization of the
neighborhood questionable and possibly unreliable.
Figure 11: Photograph of neighborhood in 1915, looking from 15th and Dalzelleto the northwest (Burton Historical Collection).
Considering the bad characterizations of the neighborhood in
historical context adds nuance to these descriptions. Today, a
building in Detroit described as an eyesore might conjure images
of a vacant, partially burned, boarded up building with prairie
grass and other greenery obscuring the view. In early 20th
century Detroit at the height of the City Beautiful movement and
a period of growth in Detroit, a neighborhood of wood framed one-
story plain house might be an eyesore, especially as compared to
the magnificent new train station.
74
It is difficult to imagine the neighborhood as it was when
standing in the park today. During excavations, the park is
largely empty except for archaeologists. Tourists drive up and
snap pictures of the station, never even looking at the park.
People ride bikes or walk through on their way to work.
Neighbors wander over to ask the archaeologists what they are
doing. Some people still partially live in the park, but they
sleep under bushes. Some of these people are fascinated to learn
about the history of the park, but some quickly lose interest and
walk on. It is hard to remember that the area was once full of
buildings: single-family homes with families and domesticated
animals, churches, and small businesses. Archaeologists in
Detroit have to carefully use all of the evidence to piece back
together a history so unlike the present.
The neighborhood’s condemnation was drawn out and difficult,
but it solidified Detroit’s power to repossess any land it wanted
for urban renewal projects as long as it planned to use the land
for a street or park. Some of these projects were planned well
and work today (e.g., at least in favor of the middle and upper
classes, see Lafayette Park), but many are responsible for large
75
portions of Detroit’s current urban blight problem (e.g.,
Michigan Avenue widening, the recently demolished Brewster-
Douglass projects). These urban renewal projects tended to use
the same rhetoric as descriptions of the Roosevelt Park area
during the later 1910s. Perhaps these new parks and streets were
not really public goods, but they did take care of what some
perceived as eyesores, and that gave weight to their perceived
legitimacy.
This pattern continues to today, and is especially apparent
with the construction of the new hockey arena in Cass Corridor.
The development plan calls for the demolition of the vacant Park
Avenue Hotel, a historic hotel on the National Register of
Historic Places. Its neighbor, the Eddystone, will be converted
to apartments, but the Park Avenue is slated to become a park.
If the city council approves yet another plan to demolish a
building for a park, they would not only be removing another
piece of Detroit’s history, but they might be contributing to the
oft repeated cycle of demolition, building, and abandonment.
76
Bibliography
“45 of 100 Houses Sold to Clear Station Site.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 20, 1917. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/566007276/citation/928B486A54FC4BB7PQ/1?accountid=14925.
“70 Houses Will Be Offered at Auction: To Clear Away the Territory to Be Used for the Michigan Central’s Terminal.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April 2, 1910. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/324989574/citation/43767AD613C64A0EPQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Active Workers for the Betterment of the City Beautiful.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). November 17, 1907. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563979568/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/3?accountid=14925.
“Aldermen Want Esplanade Plan: Favor 200-Foot Boulevard Approach to New Michigan Central Depot.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April9, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565290680/abstract/1DE5AA9AE91747B7PQ/6?accountid=14925.
“Approved Plans for Approach to the New Michigan Central Depot.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). February 16, 1913, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565203219/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/7?accountid=14925.
77
“Army of Workers Excavating for New Michigan Central Terminal.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). November 21, 1909, sec. PART FOUR. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564681151/abstract/53665E9B3FE49C4PQ/8?accountid=14925.
Auditors, Wayne Co, Mich Board of County. Manual, County of Wayne, Michigan, 1926. Detroit, Mich, 1926.
Baist, George William. “Baist’s Real Estate Atlas of Surveys of Detroit, Mich.” Philadelphia: G. W. Baist, 1906.
———. “Real Estate Atlas of Surveys of Detroit and Highland Park, Mich.” Philadelphia, 1911.
Beaudry, Mary C., ed. Documentary Archaeology in the New World. Reprint edition. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
“Begins Work On Its New Station: Michigan Central Takes Out FirstPermit For Proposed New Depot.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 16, 1910. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564754135/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/4?accountid=14925.
Bennett, Edward H. (Edward Herbert). Preliminary Plan of Detroit. Detroit : City Plan and Improvement Commission, reprinted by City Plan Commission, 1921. http://archive.org/details/cu31924024414900.
Bluestone, Daniel M. “Detroit’s City Beautiful and the Problem ofCommerce.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 47, no. 3 (September 1988): 245–62.
“Board May Kill Depot Approach Despite Council: Plan to Get Land Already Under Way; Issue of Bonds Fought.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April 24, 1914. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565620583/abstract/432B98AC671D402CPQ/5?accountid=14925.
Brighton, Stephen A. “Middle-Class Ideologies and American Respectability: Archaeology and the Irish Immigrant Experience.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15, no. 1 (November 9, 2010): 30–50. doi:10.1007/s10761-010-0128-4.
“Britannia Crashes Through 3 Houses: 35,000 See Land Boat Demolish Structures on M. G. Esplanade. Detroiters Visualize Consternation of Kaiser’s Hordes on Flanders Fields.” Detroit
78
Free Press (1858-1922). June 24, 1918. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/566137169/abstract/E8EBF43D8F4A4D18PQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Broad Avenue for New Depot: Attractive Setting to Be Planned by E. H. Bennett, Chicago Landscape Artist.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). October 17, 1911. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565032527/abstract/B340F8668950492EPQ/1?accountid=14925.
Brown III, Marley R. “The Behavioral Context of Probate Inventories: An Example from Plymouth County.” In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, 79–82. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Burton, Clarence Monroe, William Stocking, and Gordon K. Miller. The City of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922. S. J. Clarke publishing Company, 1922.
Cangany, Catherine. Frontier Seaport: Detroit’s Transformation into an Atlantic Entrepôt. American Beginnings, 1500-1900. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2014.
“‘Checker Board’ and ‘Cart Wheel’ Street Plans for Cities.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April 15, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564598731/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/6?accountid=14925.
“City Dust and Disease.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). January 21, 1907. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563981942/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/50?accountid=14925.
“City in Brief.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 15, 1909, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564666172/abstract/732F3DB4F89E458DPQ/6?accountid=14925.
“City Plan and Improvement Association Plans Beautiful Approach to New Station: Station Will Be Fine Structure.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). July 14, 1912, sec. Part One. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfree
79
press/docview/565132977/abstract/D156F01AB974E8EPQ/2?accountid=14925.
“City Will Raze Site Buildings: Michigan Central Depot ‘Good Thing’ to Terminate, Officials Assert. Up to City Treasurer Koch to Demolish Structures, Associates Agree.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 27, 1918. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/566199802/abstract/1016B03310304520PQ/4?accountid=14925.
“Civic Workers Ask Esplanade: Tell Mayor-Elect Marx They Have Approved Commission’s Traffic Arrangement Plan.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). January 9, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565148140/citation/2C093F7E46D543B3PQ/7?accountid=14925.
“Classified Ad 2 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). March 19,1915. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565825295/citation/B20F8DEF890A47D5PQ/18?accountid=14925.
“Classified Ad 3 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 7, 1905, sec. Part Two. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563659068/citation/2C5F381AD7C4F9FPQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Classified Ad 3 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). August 20, 1905, sec. PART TWO. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563651142/citation/C572851C49B9439CPQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Classified Ad 6 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). December 27, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565613568/citation/B20F8DEF890A47D5PQ/22?accountid=14925.
“Clubs.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 8, 1898, sec. PART TWO. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/562888510/abstract/520BBA09A9CE4ED2PQ/1?accountid=14925.
80
“Committee Again Flops on Esplanade Plan: Aldermen Discard New Boulevard Idea; Now Favor Park.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). March 14, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565262811/citation/3FAA46BC722D4E4DPQ/8?accountid=14925.
“Condemnation Begun for M. C. Depot Approach: 300 Property OwnersNamed Suit; Council Adopts Plan Opposed by Railroad.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). June 11, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565219783/citation/AE0609B7AEB0402BPQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Condemnation Begun for M.C. Depot Approach: 300 Property Owners Named Suit; Council Adopts Plan Opposed by Railroad.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). June 11, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565219783/citation/576BBBA7FDCF4A50PQ/1?accountid=14925.
Council, Detroit (Mich ) Common. Journal of the Common Council of the City of Detroit: From the Time of Its First Organization, 1905.
———. Journal of the Common Council of the City of Detroit: From the Time of Its First Organization, 1913.
“Council Refuses Price Asked for Esplanade Land: Turns Down Offers Totaling $975,955 for M. C. Approach.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). July 23, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565354935/abstract/D516F4D2A61945FDPQ/1?accountid=14925.
Demeter, C. Stephan. An Archeological Evaluation of the Corktown Study Area Submitted To City of Detroit, Community and Economic Development Department, Detroit, Michigan. Jackson, MI: Commonwealth Associates, 1981.
Detroit (Mich.). Reports, 1913-14. Det., 1913. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100337068.
Detroit City Directories., [n.d.]. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015071406170.
“Detroit Free Press.” Encycolpedia of Detroit. Detroit: Detroit Historical Society, 2015. http://detroithistorical.org/learn/encyclopedia-of-detroit/detroit-free-press.
81
“Display Ad 2 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 17, 1917. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/566173991/citation/BF08B0B25A174A93PQ/2?accountid=14925.
“Display Ad 7 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). October 27, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564669907/citation/8EECF812E6F14D60PQ/14?accountid=14925.
“Esplanade Cost Is Fixed At $500,000: Assessor Nagel Estimates Expense of Acquiring Michigan Ave. New Depot Zone.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). January 19, 1913, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565133203/abstract/1DE5AA9AE91747B7PQ/8?accountid=14925.
“Esplanade Cost Under Estimate: Engineer Barcroft Things City Could Acquire Michigan Central Approach for $1,000,000.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). December 1, 1912, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565169068/abstract/2C093F7E46D543B3PQ/9?accountid=14925.
Farmer, Silas. The History of Detroit and Michigan: Or, the Metropolis Illustrated ; a Chronological Cyclopaedia of the Past and Present, Including a Full Record of Territorial Days in Michigan, and the Annals of Wayne County. S. Farmer & Company, 1884.
“Flowers in the City: People of Portland, On., Will Plant Rose Bushes Everywhere.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 10, 1903, sec. Part Four. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563529918/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/26?accountid=14925.
Hicks, Dan, and Mary C. Beaudry, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
“His Right Leg and Arm Were Broken: Patrick H. Moran Was Struck By Street Car. Suspected of Stealing Copper Wire. Mrs. H. L. Innes, of Sandwich, Dead.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). June 1, 1903.
82
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563482346/citation/A8DA5E49BD5F4E67PQ/1?accountid=14925.
Hodge, Christina J. Consumerism and the Emergence of the Middle Class in Colonial America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
“How New Location of Michigan Central Was Purchased: Credit For Big Deal Due Largely to Untiring Efforts of M. Scanlon What Others Say About the Big Deal.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). December 31, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565641249/abstract/9336952E3FD94A52PQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Insurance Maps of Detroit Michigan.” Volume 4. New York: Sanborn-Perris Map Co., 1897. sanborn.umi.com.
“Is The Gem Of American Cities: So Says Whiting Allen, Who Has Traveled All Over the Country--Texans Amuse Themselves With Dominoes Because Card Playing Is Forbidden.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). March 10, 1907. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564012257/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/11?accountid=14925.
Jones, Irma. “Comment and Opinion on Topics of Today.: The City Beautiful.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 9, 1909, sec. PART FOUR. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564612596/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/15?accountid=14925.
“Jury Finds Land for New M. C. Approach Is Valued at $680,519.97:Figure but Little More Than That of Original Appraisal.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). August 7, 1915. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565849149/abstract/F6953B0040824E86PQ/1?accountid=14925.
Kavanaugh, Kelli B. Detroit’s Michigan Central Station. Images of America.Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2001. http://proxy.lib.wayne.edu/login?url=http://www.aspresolver.com/aspresolver.asp?LRHO;73851881.
Leake, Paul. “Local Interests Purchase Woodward-Piquette Block for a Site for the New Union Station.” Detroit Free Press (1858-
83
1922). September 22, 1907. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563958133/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/10?accountid=14925.
“Legal Notice 1 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). August 7, 1868. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/560515542/citation/E726842B44084ABBPQ/2?accountid=14925.
Leone, Mark, and Parker B Potter, eds. Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, 1999.
“Lock Horns on New Station Plan: City Beautifiers and Michigan Central Interests Cannot Agree on Ideas. Question of ApproachSeems Insurmountable. Railroad Officials Think If City Wants Beautiful Plaza It Should Pay the Price.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). August 8, 1912. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565117579/abstract/E1FF5B5AE3634FC2PQ/5?accountid=14925.
“Make Entry Beautiful: City Plan and Improvement Commission Proposes to Take Up at Once Movement for Approaches to New M.C. Station.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 6, 1911. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564995650/abstract/2C8C77AC42AF4E83PQ/2?accountid=14925.
“Make Two Parks of Railway Land: If New Union Station Is Built, Use Third and Brush Street Sites as Beauty Spots.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 8, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564628278/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/5?accountid=14925.
Malette, Samantha. “Contextualizing Quackery and Medicine in 19th-Century Detroit.” Detroit: Wayne State University, 2015.
“‘Mamma, Can’t You Get Us Out?’: Two Burt Tots Cry Vainly for Help as They Burn to Death in Barn.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 11, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564676762/abstract/F638EC482ADF4555PQ/3?accountid=14925.
84
Marshall, Dexter. “The City Beautiful: American Palities Awakening to the Desirability If Artistic Public Buildings inAttractive Surroundings.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). January 6, 1907. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563987996/citation/379D062A1D34610PQ/16?accountid=14925.
McCabe, Owen. “Disagrees with ‘Mr. Reader’ on Esplanade: Writer to The Free Press Wants to Know Why Critic Did Not Attend Council Hearing.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). March 25, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565195656/abstract/2C3A814A138345F5PQ/1?accountid=14925.
McGuire, Randall H. “Marxism and Capitalism in Historical Archaeology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, edited by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry, 123–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Michigan Central Railroad Station. Photography, unknown. Burton Historical Collection.
Michigan Supreme Court. Michigan Reports Advance Sheets. Callaghan, 1913.
Mrozowski, Stephen A. “For Gentlemen of Capacity and Leisure: TheArchaeology of Colonial Newspapers.” In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, 184–91. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
———. The Archaeology of Class in Urban America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
O’Keeffe, Tadhg, and Rebecca Yamin. “Urban Historical Archaeology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, edited by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry, 87–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Olmsted, Frederick Law, Detroit (Mich. ). Board of Commerce, and Charles Mulford Robinson. Improvement of the City of Detroit : Reports. [Detroit] : Detroit Board of Commerce, 1905. http://archive.org/details/improvementofcit00olmsrich.
“‘One More Unfortunate: A Woman Named Annie Bradley Poisons Herself ANTE-MORTEM PREPARATIONS FOR THE FUNERAL.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). July 17, 1869. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfree
85
press/docview/560568131/abstract/D242487DB7A845E3PQ/3?accountid=14925.
“Other 12 -- No Title.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 8, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564677003/citation/732F3DB4F89E458DPQ/4?accountid=14925.
“Passenger Station of Michigan Central Credit to Detroit: New Building Is Combination of Features of Best.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). December 31, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565619763/abstract/53665E9B3FE49C4PQ/4?accountid=14925.
Peña, Elizabeth S., and Jacqueline Denmon. “The Social Organization of a Boardinghouse: Archaeological Evidence fromthe Buffalo Waterfront.” Historical Archaeology 34, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 79–96.
Pilling, Arnold R. “Skyscraper Archaeologist: The Urban Archaeologist in Detroit.” Detroit Historical Society Bulletin 23, no. 8(May 1967): 4–9.
“Plan Would Give City Control of Esplanade: Condemnation of Property New Michigan Central Station Will Give Power to Council.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). December 5, 1912. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565209448/abstract/1DE5AA9AE91747B7PQ/1?accountid=14925.
Polk’s Detroit City Directory. R. L. Polk., 1877.“Property Sales Come To $92,500: Deals Closed by David Lewis
Include Brick Terrace of Six Houses.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922).December 27, 1914, sec. Part Five. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565835280/abstract/B20F8DEF890A47D5PQ/2?accountid=14925.
“Property Value Soars Skyward: Curious Gyrations Revealed in Michigan Central’s Condemnation Proceedings.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 18, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564653489/abstract/4B56E2D4CC6B4587PQ/10?accountid=14925.
86
“Railroad Now Large Landlord: Some 200 Families on Site of Proposed Depot Tenants of Michigan Central.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 2, 1909, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564621553/abstract/A3DF3D0C1229488EPQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Railroad’s Right to Land Upheld: Question of Public Use Not Material, Court Holds in M. C. Terminal Case.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). July 27, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564644108/citation/732F3DB4F89E458DPQ/2?accountid=14925.
Reader. “Opposes Plan for Depot Esplanade: Writer to The Free Press Suggests Wide Street Should Lead to M. C. Terminal.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). March 23, 1913, sec. Part Two. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565205386/abstract/760FA34344294A1DPQ/1?accountid=14925.
“Real Estate Budget: Analysis of the Local Situation. Rates for Selling Real Estate. The Grade Separation Nightmare. Active Rental Demand for Houses. Coming Auction Sales. Local Notes and Sales.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April 12, 1903, sec. PARTTWO. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563483222/abstract/50F5FFF50D5B40E7PQ/2?accountid=14925.
“Real Estate Budget: Analysis of the Local Situation. Rates for Selling Real Estate. The Grade Separation Nightmare. Active Rental Demand for Houses. Coming Auction Sales. Local Notes and Sales.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April 12, 1903, sec. PARTTWO. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563483222/abstract/128D304449EF4E64PQ/2?accountid=14925.
Roach, Amanda. Historical Background. Detroit: Wayne State University, 2014.
Roosevelt Park Neighborhood. Photography, January 30, 1915. The Detroit Saturday Night.
87
Rothschild, Nan A., and Diana diZerega Wall. The Archaeology of American Cities. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2014.
Row of Automobiles Parked at Michigan Central Railroad Station for Chalmers Motor Company Convention. Photography, 1915. Dealerships--Chalmers #1.Burton Historical Collection. http://digitalcollections.detroitpubliclibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A173777.
Ryzewski, Krysta. Roosevelt Park Archaeological Excavation Report. Detroit: Wayne State University, 2012.
“Sayings and Doings.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). July 5, 1905. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563655884/abstract/1DE5B9E78F34396PQ/4?accountid=14925.
Schneider, John C. “Public Order and the Geography of the City: ‘Crime, Violence, and the Police in Detroit, 1845-1875.’” Journal of Urban History 4, no. 2 (February 1978): 183 – 208.
“Score Price Boosters: Judges Sustain Verdict in Condemnation Case; Cut Fees.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). September 26, 1909, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564651143/citation/732F3DB4F89E458DPQ/3?accountid=14925.
Seasholes, Nancy S. “On the Use of Historical Maps.” In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, 92–118. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Sixteenth Street Bridge. Photography, 1876. Burton Historical Collection.
Smith, Laurajane, Paul Shackel, and Gary Campbell. Heritage, Labour and the Working Classes. 1st ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012.
“Society.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). October 27, 1908. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564149269/abstract/29F9BB72D28C496CPQ/1?accountid=14925.
Stone, Garry Wheeler. “Artifacts Are Not Enough.” In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, 68–78. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
88
The Charter of the City of Detroit, with Amendments Thereto, and the Acts of the Legislature Relating to or Affecting the City of Detroit. Detroit :, 1904. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t54f1tv0d.
“‘The City Beautiful’ Controversy.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). June3, 1906. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563884885/abstract/5D776744D72F4999PQ/1?accountid=14925.
The Government of the City of Detroit and Wayne County, Michigan: 1701 to 1907, Historical and Biographical, Illustrated, 1907.
“Tunnel Planned Many Years Ago: Article in Old Newspaper Shows How City Contemplated the Building of One.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). November 1, 1908, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564240413/abstract/53665E9B3FE49C4PQ/11?accountid=14925.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Tenth Census of the United States,” 1880.———. “Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year
1910,” 1910.———. “Twelfth Census of the United States,” 1900.“Union Station: Will Probably Be Built in Neighborhood of
Twentieth St. and Michigan Ave.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). October 25, 1905. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563790251/abstract/1E847340611248E0PQ/5?accountid=14925.
Vinyard, Jo Ellen. The Irish on the Urban Frontier: Nineteenth Century Detroit, 1850-1880. New York: Arno Press, 1976.
Wall, Diana Dizerega. “Examining Gender, Class, and Ethnicity in Nineteenth-Century New York City.” Historical Archaeology 33, no. 1(January 1, 1999): 102–17.
“Want Park At New M. C. Depot: Central Michigan Avenue Improvement Association Will Advocate Plan.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). May 26, 1912. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565084241/abstract/432B98AC671D402CPQ/4?accountid=14925.
“Want Railroad to Pay Part for Esplanade: Aldermen Oppose Michigan Central Plan to Let City Give All for Traffic Park.”
89
Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). February 7, 1913. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565241876/abstract/2C093F7E46D543B3PQ/4?accountid=14925.
“Wanted Beautiful City: Incendiary, After Two Attempt. Burns Unsightly Buildings.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). November 10, 1907. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564136511/citation/379D062A1D34610PQ/21?accountid=14925.
“We’ll Have a Tunnel: Detroit Is Going to Follow the Example of Port Huron.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April 25, 1891. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/562190030/abstract/53665E9B3FE49C4PQ/30?accountid=14925.
“What They Are Talking About.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). June 13, 1909, sec. PART ONE. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564632971/abstract/379D062A1D34610PQ/29?accountid=14925.
“Where Detroit’s New Union Depot May Be Erected.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). October 26, 1905. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/563755174/citation/CDC622F1448B478APQ/2?accountid=14925.
“Why Not Begin It This Year?” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922). April 23, 1914. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/565672475/abstract/432B98AC671D402CPQ/2?accountid=14925.
Wilkie, Laurie. “Documentary Archaeology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, edited by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry, 13–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
“Will Spend $16,000,000: New York-Chicago To Be 16 Hours Now Costof Improvements by Michigan Central.” Detroit Free Press (1858-1922).May 7, 1909. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hnpdetroitfreepress/docview/564614230/abstract/3F7E07A06E1D4750PQ/3?accountid=14925.
90
Wurst, Louann. “Internalizing Class in Historical Archaeology.” Historical Archaeology 33, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 7–21.
Zissis, Athena. Lot 10 Excavation Report. Detroit: Wayne State University, 2014.
91
Appendix
Occupation for households living in the same house for 3+ years
346 17th 348 17th 352 17th 356 17th 358 17th 360 17th186918701871187218731874 Occupation
1875 begins c. 1875
1876 Schlorff1877 Family187818791880 Bruckner1881 Family1882188318841885188618871888 Occupation
1889 begins c. 1889
18901891
1892 Baxter Family
1893
1894 Nokes Family
1895 Withey Family
1896
1897 Data Begins
Data Begins
92
18981899 Lindsay1900 Family Neuman19011902 Clay Family19031904 Brennan1905 Enszer1906 Family Brown
1907 Huntington
1908 Family
1909 Deveney Family
1910
1911 McIntosh Family
1912
1913 Moran Family
1914 Fitzgerald
1915
1916 Scherer Family
1917Data from 358 and 360 17th is from Amanda Roach, and her data begins in 1897. Beginning occupation dates for those houses are unknown, and it is unclear whether these men lived at their houses alone or with families. Couples, couples with children/grandchildren, or widows with children lived in the other four houses. The beginning occupation date at 356 17th is unknown, and it is possible the Schlorffs or another family livedthere earlier. Occupation at 348 17th begins around 1889. This house saw the most transience, as most residents only lived in itfor less than 2 years. Frederick Bruckner (the spelling of his last name varies in historical records) bought the land at 352 17th in 1869. Occupation at 346 17th begins around 1875 and is spotty until 1887 when the Witheys move in. The Schlorffs lived in the area the longest, at 31 years, followed by the Bruckners
93