首页> 外文学位 >FORBIDDEN HOUSING: THE EVOLUTION AND EXCLUSION OF HOTELS, BOARDING HOUSES, ROOMING HOUSES, AND LODGING HOUSES IN AMERICAN CITIES, 1880-1930 (CALIFORNIA)
【24h】

FORBIDDEN HOUSING: THE EVOLUTION AND EXCLUSION OF HOTELS, BOARDING HOUSES, ROOMING HOUSES, AND LODGING HOUSES IN AMERICAN CITIES, 1880-1930 (CALIFORNIA)

机译:禁止的住房:1880-1930年(美国),美国城市中旅馆,寄宿房,单间房和寄宿房的演变和排除

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The growing Single Room Occupancy crisis in American cities has catapulted into consciousness the practice of living permanently in hotels. More people live in hotels than in all of America's public housing. What were the forms, locations, and the historical roles of hotel housing, why did their numbers peak in about 1900 and begin decline in the 1920s, and why were they virtually unstudied from 1920 to 1970? Answers to these questions require examination of Progressive Era housing reform, which defined hotel homes not as public resources but as public nuisances.;Morphological samples based on the commercial lodgings listed in the 1880, 1910, and 1930 city directories show that entrepreneurs rapidly specialized four distinct ranks of hotel building types and clusters of neighborhood services for permanent as well as transient guests. In 1930, two-thirds of San Francisco's 60,000 hotel rooms were residential (occupied a month or more). Of the residential rooms, one-sixth were in palace or good hotels for social insiders (high-status families and professional people with mobile careers); one-third were in rooming houses for largely single and poorly-paid clerks, skilled workers, and "dejected families"; and one-half were in cheap lodging houses for unmarried social outsiders (casual and migrant laborers, the elderly poor, and social outcasts).;Hotels offered "kitchenless" household life--totally commercialized, cosmopolitan, convenient, highly individualized, and requiring few personal possessions. All of these qualities threatened the middle-class model of single-family houses in single-use districts. Social critics castigated all hotel living as biologically unhealthy, culturally abnormal, personally immoral, socially irresponsible, politically dangerous, and inimical to family life. Efficiency apartments and apartment hotels, like flats and larger apartments, offered high-density household life with kitchens yet caused nearly equal concern.;By 1930, housing reformers had transformed the social criticisms into ideological processes--most importantly, doctrinaire idealism favoring private houses and apartments, and deliberate ignorance which removed hotels from positive housing agendas. These processes fueled physical exclusion and eradication strategies such as building codes, zoning, shifting investment, non-building, and eventually, outright demolition. All were attempts at eliminating hotel life from urban morphogenesis.
机译:美国城市中日益严重的“单人房占用”危机已使人们意识到永久居住在旅馆中的做法。住在酒店的人数超过了美国所有公共住房的人数。酒店住房的形式,位置和历史角色是什么,为什么它们的数量在1900年左右达到顶峰,而在1920年代开始下降,为什么从1920年到1970年几乎没有研究它们?要回答这些问题,就需要研究渐进时代的住房改革,该改革将酒店房屋定义为不是公共资源,而是公共滋扰。基于1880年,1910年和1930年城市名录中列出的商业住宿的形态样本显示,企业家迅速专门化了四个适用于永久性和临时性客人的酒店建筑类型和邻里服务群的不同等级。 1930年,旧金山的60,000间酒店客房中有三分之二是住宅(占用一个月或更长时间)。在住宅房间中,有六分之一是在宫殿或高级旅馆中供社会内部人士(地位高的家庭和从事流动职业的专业人士使用);三分之一的人住在寄宿房中,这些人主要是单身且收入不高的文员,技术工人和“沮丧的家庭”;一半的人住在便宜的寄宿房中,供未婚的社会局外人(临时工和民工,老年人和社会流离失所者使用。);旅馆提供“无厨房”的家庭生活-完全商业化,国际化,便捷,高度个性化,并且要求个人财产很少。所有这些特质都威胁着一次性使用地区的中产阶级单户住宅模式。社会批评家指责所有旅馆生活在生物学上不健康,在文化上不正常,个人不道德,对社会不负责任,在政治上危险并且对家庭生活不利。效率公寓和公寓式酒店,如公寓和较大的公寓,提供了带厨房的高密度家庭生活,却引起了几乎同等的关注。到1930年,住房改革者已将社会批评转变为意识形态过程-最重要的是,教条主义理想主义偏向私人住房和公寓,以及故意的无知使酒店从积极的住房计划中删除。这些过程助长了物理排斥和根除策略,例如建筑法规,分区,投资转移,非建筑以及最终彻底拆除。所有的尝试都是为了消除城市形态发生中的旅馆生活。

著录项

  • 作者

    GROTH, PAUL ERLING.;

  • 作者单位

    University of California, Berkeley.;

  • 授予单位 University of California, Berkeley.;
  • 学科 Geography.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1983
  • 页码 655 p.
  • 总页数 655
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:51:26

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号