Hughes Co. Photo Collection

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

Public Transit in Baltimore

Accession Number P75-54-0063g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore Country

Image Number Neg Z9.395.PP8, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society

Public transit in Baltimore went through a series of highs and lows ending with the eventual upheaval of streetcars for the more modern modes of transit. The initial forms of public transit were horse drawn cars used in the 1850s. By the 1880s, horse drawn cars were replaced by electric streetcars. In 1899, the streetcar companies were consolidated into United Railway and Electric. At this time, United  Railway streetcars serviced all of Baltimore. Automobiles were only used by the upper classes, so streetcars were the only option for moving around the city.

The Streetcar has Competition

Accession Number P75-54-0062g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The streetcar was used widely by the public until companies began developing new ways for passengers to ride around the city. The first invention to take riders from the streetcar was the “jitney,” a truck/car that began operation in 1915. This car was not very profitable, but was the first competitor to expose the vulnerability of the streetcar industry.

The Rise of the Automobile

Image Number Neg 79. 729 PP8, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photography Division, Maryland Historical Society

United was able to withstand competition from the jitney; however, their main competition was the automobile. Automobiles allowed people to move around the city independently, and were very popular in Maryland. From 1920-1940, automobiles in Maryland increased from 100,000 to 300,000. The automobile industry attracted customers around the country by creating less expensive and better quality vehicles. They used clever advertising to attract customers as shown within this Oldsmobile advertisement. Automobile companies capitalized on new technology to create a product that would last, insuring that they would remain in competition with mass transit. Automobiles were viewed by society as a permanent invention unlike the jitney, and people responded by altering aspects of society to accommodate the change.

Traffic Congestion

Accession Number P75-54-0090g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Streetcars were forced to share the road with automobiles changing traffic within the city. As more people purchased automobiles, the road became a battle between private and public transportation. As a result, traffic congestion was a serious problem downtown. It was estimated that 10,000 people would come in 5,000 cars and 50,000 people came in 1, 000 streetcars. While the traffic jam in the picture may be an outlying case, it reflects a time when the many options for getting around Baltimore were too much for the city roads to handle. Even today, we experience traffic jams on roads and think an increase in the number of roads is the best solution. As the number of automobiles on the road increased this was and still is a constant issue.

Public Transit at a Crossroads

Accession Number P75-54-0054g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland ,Baltimore County

Transit severely declined after the 1918 annexation. As major cities like Baltimore increased in size, it was expected that people would rely more on transit; yet, between 1920 and 1930, rider numbers in Baltimore and Cincinnati decreased thirty to forty percent. There were multiple reasons for the decline. Many people were dissatisfied with the service. The equipment used on streetcars was old, the cars were often crowded, and fares expensive. Residents who moved to the newly annexed areas had little access to streetcar lines. Because United could not afford to build lines in majority of those areas, many residents ended up buying automobiles. Lines that were built near the suburbs were many times unprofitable. As a result of the decline, some streetcar routes may have looked like this picture. The line is in an area with few riders perhaps because residents cannot or do not want to take the streetcar. Also note the automobile in the picture which is easily moving from the interior of that area, representing easy mobility.

The Response

Accession Number P75-54-N6169, Hughes Company Glass Negatives,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Image Number Neg Z9.1865.PP30, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society

United was forced to revamp their lines in order to stay in business. The automobile and the introduction of gas powered buses were a sign of the future, so the company had to modernize their cars to attract customers. United changed both the aesthetic and design of their cars. In the twenties, United converted their semi-convertible cars into articulated trains (bottom picture). United introduced the short Birney car (top picture) and had considerable success with the Peter Witt streetcars. United took a step further and created trackless trolleys which did not use tracks and ran on wires. As we can see in the pictures, Baltimore streets were becoming more updated to the times, and United made sure their cars could handle the changes.

Rock Bottom

Image Number Neg 79.531.PP8, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society

But the number streetcar riders continued to decline in the decade. When unemployment increased during the Depression, this further decreased their passengers and United went into bankruptcy in 1933. Despite making changes that Baltimore residents responded to, streetcars were not able to regain their success before the popularity of other forms of transportation.

The Rebound Period

Image Number Neg Z9.1857.PP30, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society

The streetcar industry was not held under permanently. Although United went into bankruptcy, thanks to new leadership, they were debt free by 1935 and became the Baltimore Transit Company. The importance of streetcars was evident during World War II as the company experienced a major increase in passengers and profits. The operating income for the BTC increased thirty-three percent between 1941 and 1942. By 1945, the income of the BTC was around 1.5 million. Wartime production in Baltimore caused many shortages in products like rubber, gas, and steel all needed to produce and run automobiles. As a result people turned to public transit to travel around the city. Public transit was important during the war because a mass of defense workers moved to Baltimore and needed a stable option for travel. During the war, upwards of 50,000 workers in defense plants used streetcars. Streetcars were the only form of transportation not severely affected by the war that could hold enough people.

Back to Normal

Accession Number P75-54-N1013g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Although streetcars were a major success during World War II, they could not maintain this popularity once the war ended. After World War II, it appeared the BTC would be able to sustain its renewed popularity, but this was not the case. The Baltimore Transit Company once again lost customers as their old equipment could not hold up and the cars were once again considered unreliable. The streetcar industry in addition, could not support the increasing number of families moving outside of the city’s interior into suburbs they could not reach, causing automobiles to become a necessity.

Baltimore Neighborhoods

Accession Number P75-54-0908g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The neighborhoods of Baltimore between the Wars went through a change to more modern homes and were a precursor to the suburbs we see today. But these neighborhoods also reflect the history of racism and segregation in Baltimore. Prior to the annexation, Baltimore had a massive population increase in the nineteenth century. The new population arrived during Baltimore’s industrialization. Between 1880 and 1890 the population increased from 332,000 to 509,000, as the manufacturing centers increased forty percent. Many of these newcomers came from rural Maryland and states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania. The influx of people also changed neighborhoods as the number of housing units increased dramatically by seventy-six percent. As Baltimore began to modernize its industry, new residents settled as the parents of the Baltimore residents that changed the neighborhoods after 1918.

Baltimore Diversity

Accession Number P75-54-0905ag, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Baltimore experienced a flow of immigrants to the city yet their experience was not as severe as for example New York. In New York, masses of immigrants from Europe moved into the city causing major overcrowding. The new immigrants were forced to live in deplorable conditions in tenement housing. There were neighborhoods in Baltimore in poor condition, but they did not experience the overcrowding of New York. Many immigrants such as the Polish, Irish, and Germans rented and bought homes in places such as Fells Point and Jones Falls.

Segregation in Baltimore Neighborhoods

Baltimore had an increase in another population, African Americans whose experience reflects the story of segregation in the city. After the Civil War, numerous Blacks moved from other cities to Baltimore creating the largest free black population. These generally poor, less skilled Blacks moved next to native free Black populations of educated homeowners. Black neighborhoods expanded rapidly around Pennsylvania and Druid Hill Avenues. The strong Black middle class moved into homes previously owned by Jewish immigrants and created a solid community.

View Barriers of Segregation Ordinance in a larger map

However, the change in Black neighborhoods was not welcomed by all. Many middle class Blacks moved to Druid Hill to get away from congested neighborhoods. But once Black lawyers, George W. McMechen and W. Ashbie Hawkins purchased homes on Druid Hill Avenue, Whites responded with uproar. Because Blacks were moving closer to Whites and eventually into their neighborhoods, the mayor passed the residential housing Segregation Ordinance in 1910 which stated Blacks were prohibited from moving into neighborhoods that were more than fifty percent white and vice versa. This meant they could not move into properties east of McCulloh Street, north of North Avenue or west of Gilmor Street. This law was eventually removed in 1917, right before the annexation which would open up the boundaries of the city and provide options for new homes. Yet who was actually able to move to the new homes, is an important part of the story.

Parochial Parallels

Accession Number P75-54-0816g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The exponential growth in student populations in Baltimore during the 1920s was not confined solely to the public schools.  The city's Catholic schools experienced similar population explosions.  During his 18-year tenure as the leader of the city’s parochial schools, starting in 1921, Archbishop Michael Curley raised 30 million dollars and led the parochial school system on a similar program of expansion to accommodate Baltimore’s schoolchildren.

Plans Realized

Accession Number P75-54-1300g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The caption associated with this glass plate negative of Clifton Park Junior High in the collection at UMBC includes the phrase "for school board."  I imagine the Hughes Company being given this assignment to provide proof of work completed and plans realized.  The architectural drawings featured earlier in Growing Baltimore look like they have come to life in photos like these.

Campus Concept

The Montebello School, which opened in 1923, overlooks Lake Montebello.  It was designed to include outdoor "play pavilions" and a separate building to house its auditorium/gymnasium.  Today, this site is known as Montebello Elementary Junior Academy, located at 2040 East 32nd Street.  

In the two views below, you can compare the remarkably unchanged facade of the building at the time of its construction and now.  The "street view" from Google Maps will allow you to click, zoom, and pan in order to interact with the environment around the building.  Can you find the outdoor play pavilions?

Image Number PP30.162 [now part of PP8] Hughes Studio Photograph Collection, 

Maryland Historical Society

View Larger Map

Online Resources

There are a number of online collections and web guides that have facilitated our research.  Here is a selection of some of those resources:

Baltimore City Maps 1900 to 1929
Historic Map Collections of the JHU Sheridan Libraries

The Geography of Baltimore City: Sources
Baltimore City Archives

Baltimore: Research Resources
Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University

PP30, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection, 1940-1956
Maryland Historical Society Library
[Please note: MDHS is in the process of redesigning their website, so this URL may change]

PP8, Hughes Collection, 1910-1946
Maryland Historical Society Library
[Please note: MDHS is in the process of redesigning their website, so this URL may change]

Celebrating Clifton Park High

Image Number PP30.152 [now part of PP8] Hughes Studio Photograph Collection, 

Maryland Historical Society

This image of the cornerstone laying at Clifton High School in 1924 is more interesting when one considers the events preceding this ceremony, including a scandal about the substitution of sub-standard construction materials and public outcry over the school's location close to a busy traffic corridor on Harford Road at 25th Street.

Architect's Rendering

Accession Number P75-54-1481g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

An architect's wash drawing shows plans for Forest Park School #69 in the West Arlington area of the city.  On January 18, 1922, the Baltimore Sun reported that 14.5 acres had been purchased between West Forest Park and Arlington for the new school, designed to accommodate 2,000 pupils and to relieve overcrowding at nearby school #64.  This  location actually straddled the boundary between the old city and newly annexed areas.  The building's cornerstone was laid by Mayor Broening at a ceremony on May 7, 1923.

Second Site Added

Accession Number P75-54-A242g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

By 1928, a second water treatment plant was added to the Lake Montebello facilities, which expanded across Hillen Road.  This image documents a filtration building at the Hillen site.

Education by Design

Accession Number P75-54-0005g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This architect's drawing of a school building designed by Clyde S. Adams in 1923 illustrates some of the distinctive changes that took place in new school construction in the 1920s and 1930s.  The buildings themselves were larger and more spacious than previous structures.  Elementary schools were designed to hold 850 students; junior and senior high schools were made for up to 2,500 students.  In her book, Baltimore: The Building of an American City, Sherry Olson describes some of the new features added to schools: park-like campuses, playgrounds, lawns, landscaping, and flagpoles.  Inside, the buildings were equipped with modernized electricity, natural light, central steam heating, and multiple staircases for emergency exit.

Improvements on Hillen

Accession Number P75-54-A254g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

In 1923, a "balancing reservoir" was added to Lake Montebello as part of the Loch Raven dam raising project.

Multi-Purpose Schools

Accession Number P75-54-0249g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Public schools in poor and working class areas of the city performed multiple functions in the lives of the students.  As historical geographer Sherry Olson points out, these schools were designed with "the strategy of processing the great unwashed and Americanizing the foreign-born worker." (Baltimore, 306)

Accession Number P75-54-1513g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The boys in the image above were photographed by the Hughes Company on July 12, 1922 in showers at School #108, located on Caroline Street near Bank Street in Southeast Baltimore.  An excerpt from the Strayer Report describes #108 in the following way:

The playground is totally inadequate for the children housed in this building, since only 7.6 square   feet are available per child. The complete lack of corridors, the unsatisfactory nature of the fire-escapes and the poor toilet provisions are such as to require that this building be given immediate attention. There are structural faults in this building which should be remedied at once if this building is to remain in use. (Strayer, 182)

Packing Room

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Locust Point Railyard

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Gunpowder Falls Park

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

North eastern Baltimore City once included the farm lands along Belair Road.

Metalworks

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The inter-war period was a time of great industrial growth for Baltimore City. The production of steel was one of these growing industries.

Making a Straw Hat

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Among Baltimore City's many industries were the needle trades. At one time, Baltimore City hat makers were the largest producers of straw hats in America.

Woman at Machine

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Assembling Electric Motors

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Baltimore Stream

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Following the annexation of 1918, Baltimore City grew to include once rural parts of Baltimore County. Among these farm and pasture lands were several streams and waterways which the city planned to incorporate into the growing municipal park system.

Gwynn's Falls Park

Courtesy of the Photography Collections,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Rowhouses and the Residential Boom

Accession Number P75-54-0906g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The annexation meant not only an increase in land but also more opportunity for home construction. Many of the areas acquired by the annexation were green, park like areas which house builders saw fit for development. As a result, there was an entrepreneurial boom which changed the look of neighborhoods. Builders capitalized on the daylight rowhouse design similar to the picture above and used the design as a foundation to expand their businesses. Some of the most notable developers were Frank Novak, Edward Gallagher (builder of the houses in photo), and James Keelty. By the mid-twenties, these builders created around 6,000 houses a year. Builders offered well built, low cost homes to middle class families allowing some couples to be first time homeowners.

Modern Transit

Image Number Neg Z9. 1864.pp30, Hughes Studio Photography Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society

The street car was in a sense an end to an era in public transportation. As the city modernized, the streetcar could not sustain as the main mode of transit. The streetcar was surpassed by the automobile and more important the bus. By 1945, Baltimore officially began to switch over to buses. Buses were able to reach areas streetcars could not. Not only was transit modernizing but Baltimore infrastructure as well. If we compare this picture to the first of this theme, it is clear how much the roads transformed and expanded perhaps to accommodate all forms of transportation. During the war, it was clear that public transit is a necessity during times of strain. For those who live in the suburbs today, we may not think about transit but for city dwellers the metro, train, and buses are essential for their commutes. While the design of these vehicles may change, public transit will always be important to Baltimore.

Suburbanization After the Annexation

Accession Number P75-54-0680g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Accession Number, P75-54-0915g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

These builders transformed the new neighborhoods into modern suburban communities. The photos above are a dramatization, but I picture this transformation of the annexed neighborhoods as beginning with simply houses (similar to the top photo) and later transformed into developed communities with paved streets (like the bottom photo). The builders were the first settlers so to speak who initiated the change. Builders such as James Keelty and Edward Gallagher were successful because they offered a “package” (nice location, low cost, house size, style) to buyers. Some locations like Edmonson Avenue also offered new amenities with water supply and sewage systems. Many families moved out of the center away from the old houses to these new suburbs leaving many areas vacant. The suburbs were significant because the newly annexed areas were homogeneous communities of middle class, second and third generation immigrants with white collar professions. The suburbs that we see today began their development at this time.

The “Other Half” Still Suffered

Yet while these upscale neighborhoods developed on the outer skirts of Baltimore, the poor, specifically Black residents suffered within the interior. Even though the Segregation Ordinance was removed, Blacks quickly faced another barrier of neighborhood covenants which put similar racial restrictions on neighborhoods. These restrictions were particularly hard on poor Blacks. The Black population in Baltimore dramatically increased due to the “Great Migration” from 1920-1930 giving the city the fourth largest Black population in the country. With little options of where to move, Blacks were forced into crowded areas with upwards of 50,000-100,000 people per square mile. So while the middle class lived in luxurious and spacious homes with rooms like this:

Accession Number P75-54-N894, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Many poor Blacks had no choice but to live like this:

Accession Number P75-54-0244g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The bottom picture is significant not only because of what is taking place but because the Hughes Collection has very few pictures of people in these houses let alone African Americans. It shows how important and perhaps shocking to the photographers to see living conditions like this.

The Conditions Were Too Much to Hide

Accession Number P75-54-N968g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Accession Number P75-54-0993g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Blacks in poverty suffered through more than overcrowding. These areas were known for their deplorable conditions. One area off of Pennsylvania Avenue was known as “Lung Block” because the death rate from tuberculosis was 958 per 100,000 when the city average was 131.1. The conditions resemble the findings of Jacob Riis in his work, How the Other Half Lives .

Mapping Pavement

Call No: GPML: G3844 .B3P2 1926 .B3,
Historic Map Collections of the Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University

This 1926 map, created by the Department of Public Works' Bureau of Highways, shows the extent of street paving in Baltimore.  The red lines indicate work done between 1923 and 1926.

For a closer look at this image, check out a high-res version directly from the source.  Please note that Growing Baltimore used a detail from this map to create the blog's header.

Slum Areas

Accession Number P75-54-0913g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

“Slums” all over the city gained publicity for their conditions. Many houses in the slums were built in the 1800s, and did not include amenities such as electricity or indoor plumbing. Builders in the twenties and thirties focused on creating homes in the annexed areas for the middle class. The poor moved into their homes afterwards. These homes were most likely passed down to those middle class families from their parents who first moved to Baltimore in the 1800s. The increasing poor population as author Mary Ellen Hayward described became more “visible” in Baltimore especially during the Depression. Perhaps they were also visible because Whites who feared poor Blacks would move closer to them, also realized their White, middle class neighbors were leaving in large numbers while poor Blacks took their places.

Housing Reform

Fearing the poor population would not be contained much longer, White residents decided to fix the problem. This led to a “slum clearance” program created by Baltimore’s Public Works Administration (PWA). The plan was to replace the worst houses in Baltimore with better low cost housing for the poor. A PWA committee surveyed Baltimore and chose five of the worst areas and planned for their rebuilding. These areas had particularly high Black populations and disease rates. The map below diagrams the areas chosen to be cleared.

(Baltimore Housing Authority, "The Geography of Blight, Choosing Sites for Slum Clearance," in Mary Ellen Hayward, Baltimore's Alley Houses: Homes for Working People Since the 1780s (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 2008), 243)

The project began in 1940 and was funded by the federal government, yet, there were numerous issues. A reoccurring problem was the relocation of residents during construction. Some residents misunderstood the program and believed they would be able to move back into the homes once construction was complete. However, many were forced to move to areas just as bad because the housing authority did not provide them new housing in time. The ultimate defeat was during WWII when the federal government prohibited housing production unless the houses were for defense workers. The sudden focus of building for defense workers caused low-cost housing programs to be halted as well. Housing developments such as the Armistead and the Perkins which were meant for both black and white low income residents were instead used for workers who came to Baltimore.

New Demands

Accession Number P75-54-0832g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,

Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The newly annexed territories of 1918 tripled the geography of the city, and the new municipal drinking water system quickly had to adapt to meet these demands.  This photo shows row upon row of filter beds in the north and south galleries of the Filter Building at Lake Montebello.