In this CDS demonstration we learned how to Georeference and rectify maps to the correct latitudes and longitudes so that multiple maps can be layered together. We learned multiple ways to do this, including with and without having reference points in the layered map. Both ways gave us a semi-reliable way to place maps over each other and relate certain mappings to one another.

I don’t think that we will be using this in our blog, as we don’t have much of a need for map layering or rectifying maps to a specific area, but it could be very interesting to use this to show how areas change over time by georeferencing two maps with shown coordinate points layered together. This would probably only work if both maps could be referenced and rectified using the necessary coordinate points because the way to georeference and rectify the maps without coordinates requires marking landmarks against eachother, and unless these areas look the same, you might not have that chance.

It was very cool to see how accurately you could place a sort of random map on top of a complete up-to-date map and see where things lined up. It was kind of odd doing it with an early 2000s Notre Dame/South Bend map because of how much development had gone on in the time between then and now, especially since we take for granted how much was developed before our classes even got here.

So how does one go about georeferencing and rectifying maps to a common coordinate planes? Well the first step was to download and analyze maps. Its important to see what you’re trying to do with the maps and how you’re trying to say it. Also, it’s important to recognize whether the maps have coordinates you can use to place it on the plane, if not, you’ll need to find landmarks on both planes which you can use to bring the two together.

Once you’re done with the maps for the time, you need to set up ArcGIS. One of the more important steps is letting the system know what coordinate planes you intend on using so that the referencing works easier. coordsysArcGIS.PNG

Next is the referencing of the maps themselves. The first case is using maps with the coordinate planes marked for you. Under the georeferencing tab, you have to set the points you plan on using. This is shown with the blue arrows at the bottom of the set map. These points will tell the map where to set the main image to when layering your new map on the plane. It’s important to get this as precise as possible so you are as close to a real map as possible.


Once you get the points set, you’ll place in the listed longitude and latitude for the point and layer it on top of your main coordinate plane. Apparently it works best with at least 3 points, but because we were pressed for time with our computer malfunctions in the class, it was decided that two points were good enough for work.

As I said, there is another way to place a map that includes using landmarks. Because the map above has set coordinate points, that was the easiest and most correct way to deal with placing it. Some maps don’t have coordinate points, unfortunately, so layering gets a little more difficult. In the map below, you can see the points used to mark our map (see the blue arrows again) as the center of the stadium and the edge of one of the lakes. Once rectified and fit to our basemap, you can see the rest of the map take shape, with the expressway and larger streets lining up between the base and layered maps.georeferencing-rectify-wnocoords

After setting it all up and linking the maps, its up to you with what you do with your new coordinately correct maps, you can show how different maps stack up and differ from one another, or simply how old maps differ from the current base maps we take for granted. Either way, after georeferencing it really becomes your own cartographic adventure.


Economics of Sexual Radicalism

San Francisco, in many ways, has been defined by the vastness and outspokenness of its countercultural communities and movements, especially their sexual revolution and radicalism. For a city greatly defined by the concept of neighborhoods and these sorts of conforming areas, how were these countercultural movements able to spread so freely and easily? It would seem that much of the growth and strength of countercultural movements in San Francisco came in the footsteps of other groups moving around the city, and was in part caused by economic issues which either pushed these countercultural groups from their original neighborhoods and homes into other areas, or struggles which pushed groups away from the “moral” side of life.

One of the best examples of this strain and then cultural pushback and explosion can be found with the plight of the Chinese in San Francisco. At its inception, Chinatown was a place of “filth, disease, and inhuman habitation.” (Shah) It was also known as an area of vice and existed as part of the counter-culture to the creation of the white urban landscape at the time. In these early San Francisco days, poverty and poor public health forced the Chinese to remain in this area, and rather than preventing or fixing the issues within, it seems to have compounded them.


White women at Chinatown Opium Den (I.W. Taber, photographer. Chinese in California, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley)

Regardless of the quarantines and public health risks that Chinatown seemed to pose, the flock of non-Chinese to the vice district strongly aided the spread of gambling, opiate use, etc. Even the white males of “good repute” could be found in Chinatown and these dark opium dens (Berglund), pointing to a deeper city-level vice which needed to be addressed with more than anti-Chinese rhetoric and actions. While the city may have been successful at attempting to limit the spread of the Chinese population in the very early 1900s, as the century went on, ethnic people, and their cultures began to move out and around the city to areas they hadn’t been before. Post WWII, many Chinese-Americans, now mostly native-born, began to move from the city center and Chinatown into the more exurban areas of San Francisco who had previously been reserved for white communities, as shown in this map of the Chinese population’s spread in San Francisco in 1980. (Godfrey p.106) While the main population remained large in the Downtown area, those that were able to moved out to the farther areas of the city into new communities without the same density and crowding issues. While the Chinese at this time were not necessarily counter-cultural, their expansion set the tone and the pace for other groups to begin expanding outwards and spreading their ideas.

Much like Chinatown, other downtown neighborhoods also became hubs of vice and sin, most namely the areas of the Barbary Coast and the Tenderloin. Like Chinatown, much of the reputation of these areas stemmed from during and shortly after the Gold Rush. As Josh Sides wrote in Erotic City,“If early San Francisco’s financial leadership, political culture, and residential arrangements were inheritances from the Gold Rush, so, too, was its culture of disreputable amusement and sexual license, notorious from its very inception.”(Sides) Confined by the business district and the North Beach neighborhood, the Barbary Coast became one of the most profoundly sexually radical places in the country. Even the concept of topless dancing has been attributed to the Barbary Coast.


Carol Doda, “first” “topless” dancer acquitted from wrongdoing by Court (San Francisco Examiner)

Even though they were persecuted and prosecuted by the more “upstanding” parts of society, as the dancing and money began to pick up from these Barbary Coast and Tenderloin businesses (whether legitimate or not), there grew a sort of economic reliance on the bars and sex industries. The city couldn’t seem to get a grip on even the limited industrial side of the countercultural revolutions, let alone get near the cultural root of it all. Much of the issue was with the growth and acceptance of this counterculture, and that the growingly liberal courts wouldn’t take action against the industry and economy of the Barbary Coast and Tenderloin. (Sides)

The economic boom of the sexual revolution went as far as bringing it to the monetarily desperate African-American community in places such as the Fillmore. For many, the sex trade was a better trade than much of what they could’ve been doing given the discrimination and hiring practices of the time. While San Francisco was more progressive than most areas, it wasn’t free of racial issues post WWII, which forced many of the African-Americans in the city into poverty pushed them into more questionable industries, like the sex industry. (Sides) Like with the early 1900s Chinese community, economic constraints didn’t necessarily cause the radical changes in the African-American population, but they most definitely exacerbated the condition of the populations of the poorer communities in San Francisco.


2010 Map of San Francisco racial distribution.(Dustin Cable, University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service)I

The reason that it hit the African-American community as hard as it did, was because it was almost entirely ethnic groups that were struggling and starving and desperate. San Francisco, even in 2010, is still very separated and seemingly segregated to certain neighborhoods. Even though the U.S. was profiting, industrialization in San Francisco was dying, and the urban ethnic populations couldn’t necessarily get or even get to service jobs in the outer edges of the city and suburbs. (Murray) As discussed previously, there was, however, one industry that was booming and accepting of African-American labor. Much like with the “lower class” populations in the Barbary Coast and Tenderloin, there was refuge to be found in the sex industry within the sexual revolution of the city. There was money to be made, and even the people in power (police, politicians, courts) weren’t too quick to make arrests or indictments, regardless of how hard the religious communities pushed. It was almost the perfect escape, minus the seemingly degrading nature of the work, but what else was a person to do?

While economic booming in the Barbary Coast and Tenderloin, and economic suppression in African-American areas, brought the ideas of the sexual revolution into those areas, economic development forced the revolution out of North Beach and into the surrounding communities, specifically into the Haight-Ashbury. According to Sides, Haight-Ashbury was a very liberal area, one of the few willingly racially integrated neighborhoods in the area and resoundingly supported fair housing. (Sides) The residents of the neighborhood, however, were not in support of this new sexual revolution and radicalism. It would seem that they were primarily concerned with human rights, but not tolerance of human preferences or lifestyles. Unfortunately for them, as the city continued to push the Beat and gay populations out of North Beach with building and historical development projects to replace their housing, those North Beach radicals moved into the Haight-Ashbury area and brought their ideals with them.

Sides notes that the Beats sexual practices, compared with other groups and areas of the city, weren’t even necessarily that radical, but that it still began to get to the residents of their new neighborhoods who had effectively avoided the radicalism until then. For a time, Haight-Ashbury was known as a “family neighborhood,” and it held onto many of those values until the Beats began to play a predominant part in the economy of the neighborhood. In the 1960s, “hippie” business began popping up in the area, creating a larger local economy but also digging the roots of the new radical residents even deeper by intertwining their place in the neighborhood with their livelihoods. (Sides) While the sex radicalism didn’t catch on as completely in the Haight-Ashbury as it did in the Tenderloin and Barbary Coast, there was still the notion of the spreading and growth of the revolution in an area that hadn’t quite been touched yet.

While the sexual revolution and radicalism in San Francisco isn’t surprising, it is interesting to follow how economic and oftentimes cultural changes supported to growth of the radical communities and the revolutionary industries in the sexual world. For some groups, the booming economic gains were enough to spread the love throughout entire neighborhoods, and for some, the benefits were alluring enough to sell what little public standing they had left just to survive while being suppressed. And on the other hand, when the city tries to make economic changes against the growing countercultures, it seemed to only prove to increase those communities in other neighborhoods due to the allure and spread of the new ideals. The economics of the sexual revolution allowed for it to be spread in San Francisco at a greater rate than would normally be expected.

Works Cited

Berglund, Barbara. “Opium Dens in Chinatown.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

(Map) Cable, Dustin. University of Virginia, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. FoundSF. Web. 13 Nov. 2016

Godfrey, Brian J. Neighborhoods in Transition: The Making of San Francisco’s Ethnic and Nonconformist Communities. Berkeley: U of California, 1988. Print.

Murray, Roz. “African American Segregation in San Francisco.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Shah, Nayan. Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Berkeley: U of California, 2001. Print.

Sides, Josh. Erotic City: Sexual Revolutions and the Making of Modern San Francisco. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

(Photo 1) Taber, I.W. Chinese in California, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

“Where Topless Dancing Began.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Follow The Money

In these two maps of San Francisco, I chose to clean up and highlight my earlier dataset of San Francisco Brokers. As an Econ major I’m very interested in the developments of markets and business structures in an area, and the physical geography of markets in Early 1900s San Francisco seemed like just the way to bring this blog topic to life for me.

As far as work flow goes, I used the 1907 Croker-Langley phonebook to attain the names and addresses of 60 brokers in the San Francisco area. I figured that because it would take a lot of research and data in order to map the different markets of San Francisco, that it would make sense to simplify those requirements into something that would most likely be connected to the geography of those markets. The brokers for different markets and different goods, I reckoned, would gravitate to areas close to the markets they work in, especially in a time before cars and major transportation projects existed. I took these names and addresses, cleaned up from the phonebook to be up to date on street names, addresses, and to make sure that none of the text was distorted between the phonebook PDF and the text editor and then put it all on the map! The two maps I made were a category map and a density map. The category map is interesting because it can show where individual markets are (i.e. Grain brokers, or House Brokers and how their locations differ and what that says about where the people buying/selling those things were at that time.) I thought the density map was useful because it could show you where the general centers of business were in 1907 San Francisco based on where the most brokers were in general.

Some shortcomings is that a lot of the brokers ended up being clumped together in the category map, not really displaying much difference. I tried to play around with sizes and images in order to make it clearer and drop some of the overlap, but nothing really worked without cutting out other pieces (either making the map so small the outskirt items were lost or changing the pins and rotating which ones were overlapped) Another issue I came across is that a lot of the Brokers are simply “general brokers” which could mean anything and doesn’t really say too much about the individual category but it still helpful on the density map.

The only things I ended up using/needing to use were Carto, GPSVisualizer, and the 1907 phonebook.


Carto. Web 30 Oct. 2016

Crocker-Langley San Francisco Directory 1907. San Francisco: H.S. Crocker, 1907. Internet Archive. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

“GPS Visualizer’s Address Locator.” GPS Visualizer’s Easy Batch Geocoder: Convert Addresses to Coordinates. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

StoryMap: The Viceloin

I’ve been finding the concept of entire neighborhoods being bereft of morality and normalcy very interesting and looking at how those ideas develop and who’s partaking in the vice-filled spaces of the city. The map is mainly just a general background of the early-mid 1900s formation of the Tenderloin and how those ideas kind of clashed with the general populous as well as how it clashed with city officials. There’s really nothing too nuanced about it. I chose the Tenderloin because I felt like it was something that nobody had really covered yet in the class and something that hadn’t really been touched on as an important counter-cultural center.

The workflow was fairly simple. I mostly ran through as many old Tenderloin stories and histories as I could, almost all I believe ended up coming from FoundSF, and piecing the resulting pictures and stories together into a coherent run through of the formation of the Tenderloin neighborhood. I started with the early issues, the dance hall crackdowns around Prohibition, worked through Prohibition into the 30s, 40s, WWII times, then moved on to Post WWII where a lot of the countercultural issues started cropping up, like crackdowns on Beats, Gay, and Black jazz communities.

I think pictures of events and people was a good way to represent the map. I don’t feel that street fronts or views of the bars and clubs from outside really represents what I was trying to touch on with the vibrancy and life of the depraved Tenderloin. It didn’t get that way because of the geography or the architecture, but because of the people that made it that way and I thought it was only fair to pay tribute to the human aspect of the whole things

Some shortcomings is that since I chose such a past time frame, finding useful primary sources and such was kind of iffy because the research and documentation of events is much less full than it is with the modern media today. I’m sure there’s a lot that I could add and bring in with more in depth research with the time or necessity, but I think I was able to get a lot of what I needed fairly easily from FoundSF and a fairly slim range of sources and redactions.


Brent, Bill. “Gays and Beats -.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Carlsson, Chris. “B-Girls in the Tenderloin.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Carlsson, Chris. “Black Jazz Clubs Before WWII” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Carlsson, Chris. “Tenderloin Dance Hall Crackdown -.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Dr. Weirde. “Billie Holliday Busted -.” FoundSF, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
1930 WPA. “Tenderloin Before Prohibition -.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
“”Three Little Pigs” -.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.



For minority groups, social standing, cultural acceptance, and the pace at which these goals are achieved is dependent on the usage and allotment of public spaces in order change the effect of the built and experienced landscapes on the imagined landscapes of urban space and vice versa. This dependency and correlation is especially clear in the the development of racial and gender relations in early San Francisco. While there are extraneous factors, as we can see in the compiled writing of Shah in Contagious Divides and Sewell in Women in the Everyday City, the female and Chinese populations differed greatly in their use of public space and the eventual outcomes of their path to cultural acceptance.

The Troubles

As San Francisco developed as an urban center in California, it continued to reel from the effects of it’s creation as part of the 1800s gold rush craze. As Booth mentioned, and I have previously touched on in other blogs, “Cal. is a world upside down–nothing like home comforts and home joys.” (Booth 1953 31) The environment of the mines and very early San Francisco created a sort of pressure cooker in relations between minority groups and the white male population.

For the women, the issue at hand was that of equality and the fight for the ability to vote. Part of the key of American democracy is the ability to vote, and for many groups in the U.S., the measures of their progress through the gauntlet of minority relations in the United States has been defined by their classification as voters. As the amount of women increased from the tremendously skewed gender ratios of the gold rush period (Johnson), the push for suffrage became more and more necessary for the women, and more and more of an issue for the men in positions of power.


Portraits of suffrage leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton topping SF Chronicle article on their visit to San Francisco. (Silver 2000)

Unfortunately, the beginning of the suffrage movement didn’t seem to have backing from media or the usual power structures in San Francisco. The picture above was criticized by Mae Silver as propaganda against the suffrage movement in the way that the two leaders seem to be represented as criminals in a wanted poster or mugshot style, rather than the champions of a political cause that they were. According to Silver, Stanton only gave on speech on her trip, cancelling the rest due to poor response to the first, and neither were given the respect they seemingly deserved. (Silver 2000) While only one example of the trials the suffrage movement, as a proxy for the female population of San Francisco as a whole, withstood, the treatment of the leaders of the movement early in the suffrage discourse points at a larger issue of respect and social standing for the women of the city.

Much like the women, the Chinese had to face the wrath of the majority in the development of their relations to the landscapes of San Francisco. One of the defining qualities, whether real or imagined, of early Chinatown was the sheer density and unhygienic practices of the people living there. This led to common, and incredibly racially driven (read: racist), notions that Chinatown existed as a literal breeding ground of infectious, and deadly diseases. This seems to have begun, as Shah notes, in the wake of an 1876 outbreak of Smallpox which infected 1600 and killed 450 people. The outbreak eventually was attributed to the existence of “30,000 ‘unscrupulous, lying and treacherous Chinamen.'” by the new city health officer. (Shah 2001) This battle between city health officials and the reality of Chinatown went on for years and only got worse.

chinatownmedical issues.jpg

1882 cartoon promoting racist notion of Chinatown as disease-ridden. (FoundSF)

What really goes down as THE trouble between the Chinese and the (white male) city health officials was the series of quarantines thrown together in order to prevent the spread of a probably non-existent bubonic plague from the fake-disease-epicenter that was Chinatown at the time. In real terms, the Chinese population became a political tool for the Board of Health to use as they needed to increase power and sway in San Francisco. Shah wrote that, “The Board of Health expected that their swift response to a suspected Chinese bubonic plague case would draw enthusiastic support from white politicians and the popular press,” and that “municipal and federal health officials believed they could divide the contaminated from the uncontaminated along racial lines.” (Shah 2001) The Chinese bore the brunt of much of the racial tensions in the late 19th and early 20th century, and ended up being forcibly confined in terms of public space.

Use of Public Space

When the women came together for the second time in 1911 to push for suffrage, they knew what they needed to do. The big difference between their first and second suffrage campaigns ended up being the ability to use public spaces to their advantage. Much of the growth of movement was the growth of women into the usual public spaces once held by the working class. By 1911, the women of the movement had learned that what they were calling there movement was making a difference so they switched their theme from “parlor” to “suffrage” in order to make their message clear. Through their expansion into public space and the public eye, the women of the suffrage movement were finally able to bring to their cause groups of men who otherwise wouldn’t know enough to vote properly. Sewell wrote that “While both the daily lives and the political activities of working-class and ethnic women were constrained by neighborhood affiliation, middle-class suffragists claimed the whole city and everyone within it as their political domain.” (Sewell 2011 166) 

women marching.jpg

The use of public space, as seen in the picture above of women marching under the suffrage banner lent itself well to increasing the spread and acceptance of their message. Even though in the end they were entirely reliant on the voices of voting men, the women of San Francisco didn’t stand by and accept that they had no voice.

The Chinese, on the other hand, weren’t allowed access to public spaces due to the quarantine. While the Chinese did have some members in the public/government sphere as well as an organized opposition, the merchants and many residents of Chinatown were precluded from involvement in these groups. (Shah) In some cases, the residents of Chinatown went against even their own leadership and the merchants in their area. Much like how the women during their push for suffrage had no voice of their own when it came to the actual vote, for much of the time during the “bubonic plague” crisis the Chinese population had almost no representation and minimal availability to public spaces. Some of the more prominent merchants recognized their lack of power and that it seemed that appeasement of the white government officials would be key for bettering relations, but in accepting that concept, they ran against the grain of the popular mindset of the rest of their neighborhood. (Shah) The lack of access to public space seemed to critically undercut any push for more rights and protection for the residents of Chinatown. The glaring lack of pushback and questioning of these racial stereotypes by the rest of the population of San Francisco points to the fact that no counter-propaganda could reach them from the Chinatown lockdown.


Well, the most simple way to state the results for the females is that they won suffrage in the 1911 referendum and were able to vote in 1912, a huge step in gender relations and gender equality in both California and the United States. The movement continued to roll through the US until eventually women’s suffrage was ratified for the entirety of the country through a constitutional amendment. While this didn’t end problems between the genders, it gave women the ability to speak and be represented fully at the governmental level, a huge step for minority groups looking to push changes through in the future.

In Chinatown, the results weren’t as fantastic. Because of the failures of the BoH during the crisis, there existed a fair amount of bad blood between the Chinese and health officials. Even after the 1906 earthquake forced much of Chinatown to be rebuilt, there were some that would have preferred it razed entirely. (Shah) Even after the population began to move out into the suburbs, Chinatown remained incredibly dense, as seen in this map from Godfrey.(pg. 106) The density of Chinatown has caused it to remain overcrowded and has seemed to leave a certain level of racial issues pointing towards it being an unhygienic type of area.

In the end, in the struggle for a safe space and some semblance of power and strength in the San Francisco community, the use and allowance of public space is key for minority groups to reach out and glean support from both other groups as well as from those within the majority who find themselves empathetic to the minority cause. Unfortunately, not every group is allowed the ability to step into those spaces and is refused that cultural growth and acceptance and leads to situations as seen with the Chinatown neighborhood of San Francisco.


Works Cited
Booth, Edmund. Edmund Booth (1810-1905) Forty-Niner; the Life Story of a Deaf Pioneer. Stockton, CA: San Joaquin Pioneer and Historical Society, 1953.American Memory. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.
Godfrey, Brian J. Neighborhoods in Transition: The Making of San Francisco’s Ethnic and Nonconformist Communities. Berkeley: U of California, 1988. Print.
Johnson, Susan Lee. Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California Gold Rush. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000. Print.
Sewell, Jessica Ellen. Women and the Everyday City: Public Space in San Francisco, 1890-1915. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 2011. Amazon Kindle.
Shah, Nayan. Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Berkeley: U of California, 2001. Print.
Silver, Mae, and Sue Cazaly. The Sixth Star: Images and Memorabilia of California Women’s Political History 1868-1915. San Francisco, CA: Ord Street, 2000. Print.
Silver, Mae. “FoundSF.” WOMEN CLAIM THE VOTE IN CALIFORNIA –. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
Trauner, Joan. “Chinese as Medical Scapegoats, 1870-1905.” Chinese as Medical Scapegoats, 1870-1905 –. FoundSF, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

Separation of Person and Community

While it’s easy to look at the events which Shah’s Contagious Divides in a vacuum as unique to San Francisco, the threat of disease amidst failing cultural relations was a very real threat in other parts of the country. One way to look at the events of the outbreaks in the Bay Area is to look similarly at the Irish in New York. This can give a good view of the role race plays in these situations, where there are similar cultural issues and facts in both cases, but the race factor is missing from one.


Mary Mallon in quarantine, 1907

The events with the Irish I’m talking about is the treatment of Mary Mallon, or better known as “Typhoid Mary.” Mary was an Irish houseworker in New York who was attributed with the infection of over 50 people, including 3 deaths, in the early 1900s. (New York Times) She had bounced household to household leaving a trail of the infected behind her. Much like in San Francisco, there was a Board of Public Health investigation done, and she was found to be the cause, although she herself showed no signs of the illness.


North Brother Island, NYC in 2006. Almost entirely uninhabited.

Mary was confined to North Brother Island, as seen above, on the East River, and from which she wrote a fairly scathing letter about the process she was forced to undergo and the conditions on the island. Mary was effectively castaway from society because of her illness and her inability to grasp the scientific knowledge of her situation.

While this may have been worse for Mary than individual treatments of the Chinese in San Francisco in which they were quarantined as a whole, the New York Irish no doubt made out much better than the San Francisco Chinese as far as the community and social relations goes. While the Chinese lost many of their rights and freedoms, there seems to have been almost no backlash against the Irish community as a whole which is very counter to the Chinese experience. (Shah)

What this shows us is that experiences of ethnic groups varied greatly by location and the imagined/experienced landscape of social standing by race. While the factors leading up to the outbreaks may have been different (existence, reputation, health issues of Chinatown) the issue of being marginalized group in a large city remains largely the same, and arguably, Typhoid Mary’s outbreaks in NYC seem to have taken a larger physical toll on the city with a confirmed 51 infected. It really comes down to the perception of racial and ethnic groups as a community or individual people. It would seem that Mary Mallon’s health and hygiene were attributed to her own shortcomings rather than something that needed to be expunged from a specific community.

Works Cited
Burgess, Anika. “See the Abandoned and Inaccessible Island Where Typhoid Mary Died.” Vanity Fair. Conde Nast, n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.
“In Her Own Words.” NOVA. PBS, Aug. 2004. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.
Shah, Nayan. Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Berkeley: U of California, 2001. Print.
“‘TYPHOID MARY’ DIES OF A STROKE AT 68; Carrier of Disease, Blamed for 51 Cases and 3 Deaths, but She Was Held Immune Services This Morning Epidemic Is Traced.” New York Times n.d.: n. pag. New York TImes. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

If It Ain’t Brokered, Don’t Fix It

With this dataset, my aim was to try to pinpoint where the centralized area of certain markets were inside the confines of San Francisco. The thought process is that brokers for a certain type of business would located in a central area for that business, rather than a central area of the city. Splitting it up by groupings of brokers should give us general neighborhoods of where each market took place. This hopefully would answer any questions about where markets were located in the city.

In terms of visualization, I think the best would be a map with colored points based on which type of broker the location is so you can really see where these places were located and it might give you some clues as to where the production or sale of these goods took place.

The beauty, and shortcoming of this data is that there isn’t a ton of it for each. It’s nice because in theory the location of the brokers already aggregates the location of the markets, therefore finding where a handful of brokers are would reduce the work of searching for hundreds of, say, grain suppliers. The issue is that there aren’t many brokers for certain categories and so that might not be an accurate assumption/theory to act on.

For this data set I took it directly out of the 1907 San Francisco phonebook, cleaned up all the information to fit it into a spreadsheet, then plugged it into the GPS Visualizer using Bing Maps. Very easy to work through.


Crocker-Langley San Francisco Directory 1907. San Francisco: H.S. Crocker, 1907. Internet Archive. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

“GPS Visualizer’s Address Locator.” GPS Visualizer’s Easy Batch Geocoder: Convert Addresses to Coordinates. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Link to Dataset

Gender Relations Acceleration In San Francisco and the California Mines

Abstract: San Francisco and California as a whole became a catalyst for launching the Women’s Suffrage movement. Pitting the formation and growth of equality movements against Eastern “New World” settlements and communities, none can quite keep up with the pace at which the Bay Area accepted Gender Equality as the norm.

Two distinct discourses of Gender Relations and Race Relations exist within the United States. As far as the formation of new cultures and cities goes, there seems to be a fairly safe start date and end date of the struggle of women in 18th-20th century America. The start date would be the arrival. Naturally, the creation of new social structure necessitates a reforming of traditional roles which will be seen in the founding of the colonies in places like Roanoke and Plymouth Rock, as well as in the Gold Rush cultures of the Southern Mines.

The end date, for the purpose of keeping this essay manageable and within the time period, can be set as a major milestone for women’s rights and American gender relations as a whole, Women’s Suffrage. The intent of this essay is not to make the argument that women’s victory in earning the right to vote is the logical conclusion of any issues in gender relations, but that it’s a very specific event which was measured in every state to chronicle the changes in the way women and men interacted, and how the social standing of women grew from earlier times.

When settlers came over from England in the colonial era, the crews were mostly men. Looking at the Mayflower original passenger list, commissioned by Gov. William Bradford, only 18 women came, and of those all were married to one of the men aboard. In Roanoke, the numbers came out to be very similar. According to the National Parks service, which did it’s best to compile numbers of settlers from old documents (none of which could be found at the time this was written sadly), only 17 women were included in the original 1587 settler count. For simplicity, we’ll place the aggregate timing of these arrivals at around 1600, give or take a few years. Because it seemed to be exclusively married women in the colonies at this time, it wouldn’t seem that women had much room to maneuver or create their own lives in this built and experience landscapes. It would seem that for a woman to exist in this new world necessitated her to live in the shadow and footsteps of her husband who was surely viewed as a true pioneer and hero.

The breakdown of genders who sped to California to take part in the Gold Rush is very similar to that of the original settlement of the American colonies. In her book Roaring Camp about the southern mines of the Gold Rush, Susan Lee Johnson repeatedly refers back to the “skewed sex ratios in the diggings.” (Johnson 2000 101) Not only were few women around at the time of the diggings, but also the gender roles seemed to be fairly backwards, at least in the eyes of many of the men of the Gold Rush. Edmund Booth wrote to his wife in 1850 that “Cal. is a world upside down–nothing like home comforts and home joys.” (Booth 1953 31) Because of the lack of women in these camps, Johnson notes that men would often take on these roles of cooking and domestic work, but she also alludes to the idea that these female roles were passed off to the men of color living with the white men of the mines. Johnson says, “In everyday events like these, where men of color performed tasks white men associated with white women, Gold Rush race relations became gender relations as well.” (Johnson 113)

By relegating the roles of women to people in the camps who the white men looked down upon as having a much lesser social standing, the men of the southern mines made it very clear where they saw a woman’s place being. While the baffling sex ratio led to the creation of a world upside down, the men of the Gold Rush made it clear where they saw themselves, and women, in this new western world. Through these relationships and the gender breakdown of these new settlements, it can be seen that in 1850, California is starting on a very similar footing to where the original American colonists started off. Women are few and far between to begin with, living in the shadows of husbands and other men while having their traditional roles relegated to what the white men viewed as lower levels of society. The question now, is how do these mini-societies move from this new formation to the “enlightenment” of Suffrage, and how long does it take?

The peak of gender relations in the 19th and 20th centuries was the concept of finally allowing women to vote. That brings us to this, the California Suffrage ballot. In 1911, California passed a constitutional amendment which would allow women the right to vote. This was California’s second attempt to pass the vote for suffrage after a failed attempt in 1896. With the 1911 vote, California still became the sixth state to allow women the right to vote, with the other five also coming from states/territories in the Western United States. In this fun little map found on the website of the National Constitution Center, you can see when each state/territory granted women the right to vote relative to the passing of the 19th amendment as a federal legislation.


State Suffrage Status at 19th Amendment (National Constitution Center)

As can be seen from the map, much of the West Coast had granted women the right to vote before any federal legislation, which was not the case on the East Coast, and the states of the colonies mentioned earlier. Before delving into what may have made California gender relations so beneficial, it’s time to do the math to determine just how much of a breakneck pace California, and San Francisco, really moved at.

In the colonies discussed, the numbers were taken in 1587 and 1651, respectively. For a California start date, we’ll use the year when Edmund Booth found his world upside down, 1850. From formation to suffrage in Virginia and Massachusetts, the people took 333 and 269 years, respectively. In California, on the other hand, suffrage took only 61 years. That is 4-5 times quicker than the pace of the East Coast, plus California held the tie-breaker of “who did it earlier.”

Now how did California come so far so quickly? Well, it might not be fair to say that both groupings started in the same place in gender relations. Johnson notes that coming into the Gold Rush, many of the white men had come from the East Coast areas either by boat or over land. (Johnson 2000) This gives these men the benefit of starting the gender relations discourse with the knowledge of 200 years of men and women living in this country. Also, California at this point was already incredibly diverse, and therefore necessitated many of these racial/gender relations discussions rapidly and often all at once as this western culture developed.


Women using public spaces and marching under the suffrage banner in San Francisco in 1908 (FoundSF)

One thing which almost definitely swayed the tide for California, however, was the use of public spaces by women in their 1911 campaign. In a chapter of Jessica Sewell’s book, Women In the Everyday City, dedicated to the differences between the 1896 and 1911 California Suffrage campaigns, she makes it very clear that the largest difference was that in 1911, the women knew how to and were able to take full advantage of the public areas of San Francisco. From streetcars, to department stores, to lecturing on the street, the status of women in California gave them the ability to finally reach their target audience, which were everyday male voters. (Sewell 2003) According to Sewell, much of the 1896 vote was confined to the homes and parlors of the more elite women, which limited the voters in favor to the families of those elite suffragettes. The expansion of women’s roles in San Francisco led almost directly to these openings in the public spaces where they could get on their soapboxes and bring men into their cause.

In the end, it would seem that California is not only a brilliant incubator for tech startups, but also was a nearly record-breaking quick incubator of women’s rights and gender equality. While it did have some intrinsic benefits of timing, it also had the benefit of a social class which allowed for women to use the public spaces with minimal consequence, as well as a population already more used to a plethora of diversity than most other American populations at the time. Not only did California legalize voting for women 200 years quicker than the original American settlements, but it managed to be on the very forefront of women’s rights by being one of the first states to back the right to vote for women. There is still further to go in terms of gender equality, but if the past is any indicator, California will be one of the quickest to make those changes.

Works Cited
Booth, Edmund. Edmund Booth (1810-1905) Forty-Niner; the Life Story of a Deaf Pioneer. Stockton, CA: San Joaquin Pioneer and Historical Society, 1953. American Memory. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.
Johnson, Susan Lee. Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California Gold Rush. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000. Print.
“Mayflower Passenger List.” N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.
“[Rights of Suffrage (Permitting Women to Vote).].” San Francisco Public Library. SFPL, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.
Sewell, Jessica Ellen. Women and the Everyday City: Public Space in San Francisco, 1890-1915. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 2011. Amazon Kindle.
Silver, Mae. “Women Claim The Vote In California.” FoundSF. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
United States. National Park Service. “A List of Participants in the Roanoke Voyages.”National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.

The American Boulevard System in San Francisco

The built landscape is the built environment and its spaces; in the example of Market Street, it includes the pavement, sidewalks, streetcars, buildings, and store windows as well as the interior and exterior spaces they define.

-Jessica Ellen Sewell, Women and the Everyday City: Public Space in San Francisco 1890-1915

One of the things we talked about heavily in class this week, and something which Sewell remarks upon in the book is the role which built landscapes play in daily life, and how they interact with the imagined and experienced landscapes of the area. One of these landscapes which I’ll be focusing on is that of Market Street, and the wider phenomena of the “Boulevard System” as a whole in 20th century San Francisco.

Within the city of San Francisco there exists a designated boulevard system, an original map of which(pictured below) can be found in The Planning of A Modern City, a Review of the Principals Governing City Planning, by Nelson Peter Lewis. While I haven’t been able to find a primary source’s reasoning for the creation (only conjectures by Lewis), this phenomenon wasn’t reserved to only San Francisco alone. I was able to find inklings of historical “boulevard systems” in both Chicago, IL, and Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, IN amongst others.


(Lewis, The Planning of A Modern City, a Review of the Principals Governing City Planning, p.139, 1916)

Just recently the City of Chicago nominated their boulevards to the National Register of Historic Places. In the nomination “fact form” the author argues that “Chicago’s park boulevard system was the first major comprehensive system in the country, and its design was seminal in the creation of such systems in cities nationwide.” (City of Chicago) Explaining why the boulevard system of the city was important, the author of the page writes that “The system’s boulevards and parks were created in the late 1800s to spur residential real-estate development and to help create healthful, accessible and livable neighborhoods in what was then the largely undeveloped outskirts of Chicago.” ( The suggestion that this boulevard system was designed to form specific parts of Chicago because they were under-developed leads us to question and wonder why these specific areas were part of the boulevard system of San Francisco.

A very interesting thing to note here, looking at the San Francisco map, and something we discussed in class is how Market Street runs on an angle from the other streets and avenues to its Northwest but runs parallel to the streets to its Southeast. Taken in the light of the idea of the Chicago city planning, it seems as though from the very beginning, the centralizing of Market street with the two distinct sets of grids points to strong intervention in planning to make Market Street the main road, rather than situations which allowed Market Street to become this city center. As with Chicago and the other cities know to use these boulevard systems, San Francisco used the planning and layouts of their cities and roads to form and shape the way the city and urban centers developed in the 20th century.

Much like in my last blog, I am fascinated to see the plethora of similarities of how San Francisco developed and grew (as well as how rapidly it did such compared to other major cities) when looking through the lens of a more American view of city building and forming as we see in other urban areas.


“FACT SHEET National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District.” City of Chicago. N.p., 10 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.

Lewis, Nelson Peter. The Planning of the Modern City: A Review of the Principles Governing City Planning. N.p.: John Wiley & Sons, 1916. Print.

“Parks Boulevard Map.” City of Chicago. N.p., 2011. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.

Sewell, Jessica Ellen. Women and the Everyday City: Public Space in San Francisco, 1890-1915. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 2011. Amazon Kindle.

Tatum, Terry. “Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District (cont.).” City of Chicago. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.

Urbanization of the West

A large part of San Francisco’s history, and really America’s history in the mid 1800s was that of urbanization and industrialization. As can be seen in this chart from a report written by the United States Geological Survey, Urban Growth in American Cities, a large percentage of the population moved out of the rural regions of the nation and began conglomerating in larger city centers, such as San Francisco.


(Acevedo, Auch, Taylor, “Urban Growth In American Cities” Figure 2)

As San Francisco became the major port city in California in the early 19th century, much of the Gold Rush began to flow through the city. As is written in the San Francisco Annals 1855, “The mines were continuing to yield large returns, most of which were immediately forwarded to San Francisco, in exchange for new supplies. The bay was filling with shipping from all the ports of the Pacific coast of both Americas.” (Annals 1855)This led to massive growth in the number of citizens in the San Francisco area who now lived and worked, and eventually thrived, in the Bay Area. One of the easiest ways to compare the size of the city and the effect of the timing of the Gold Rush on its population is through artists renditions of the city in 1847 and 1849.



(Annals 1855, San Francisco in 1847 and 1849)

As you can see from these two pictures, in 1847, the harbor looked fairly empty and calm, with only a few building marking the shoreline, but when the same cityscape is drawn in 1849, you can see a rapidly filling harbor, and a city that stretches back into the land with hundreds of buildings. While this isn’t a perfect science, it gives a good general feeling to the size of the San Francisco area. One thing to note is that the difference in size may be slightly misleading due to perspective of the artists view, but it seems a fair assessment that in cataloguing San Francisco in 1847, an artist would attempt to encompass the most forthcoming view of the bay, rather than cutting out more than the one ship shown.

The Journal of Ernest de Massey, a Frenchman sailing into the port in 1849, also categorizes the growth and urbanizing potential of the city. Speaking from aboard his ship on what he sees in the city, de Massey mentions, “The present site could easily hold from three hundred to five hundred thousand inhabitants with ample chance for unlimited expansion southward. No doubt in due season, as wealth and commerce multiply, all the temporary wooden structures will be replaced by stone houses, hotels, palaces and public monuments.” (de Massey, 1849, pg. 14-15) Even from the shoreline, with whispers of what the economy of the city is like and how strong the growth is, the people know that it is following the modern trend of urbanization and isn’t so different from it’s Atlantic port city brethren.

This is very interesting to see from the standpoint of modern thought. As we’ve discussed in class, many times we see the Gold Rush and formation of the West as this sort of wild separate adventure of the white males on the prairie, not following the themes or beliefs of the East Coast. However, as we see in San Francisco, the modern industrial economies still exist almost in lockstep with the rest of the country and the most notable way we see this is in the urbanization of the West Coast through San Francisco.


United States. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. Urban Growth in American Cities: Glimpses of U.S. Urbanization. By Roger Auch, Janis Taylor, and William Acevedo. Vol. 1252. Circular. 2004. 2.

de Massey, Ernest. A Frenchman in the gold rush; the journal of Ernest de Massey, argonaut of 1849, translated Marguerite Eyer Wilbur, Published California Historical Society, San Francisco, 1827,  American Memory: California As I First Saw It.

“FoundSF.” CITY CONDITIONS 1849 –, San Francisco Annals 1855,

“FoundSF.” Population 1849, San Francisco Annals 1855,