Housing Demolition during Urban Renewal

Abstract

While there continues to be much assessment of the enduring, largely negative legacy of urban renewal, there has been very little quantified, nationwide analysis at the neighborhood level. This paper contributes to the literature on urban renewal by investigating one dimension of mid-20th century urban change: housing demolition. During the middle decades of the 20th century, government-backed demolition occurred under a variety of housing and transportation programs. Because during those controversial decades no single agency kept track of what was demolished and where, I use a proxy: net loss of housing units by census tract for each decade between 1940 and 1970. I consider three hypotheses: that substandard housing and percent nonwhite in a census tract predicted its likelihood of urban renewal demolition, that the eventual outcome of urban renewal was an increase in higher-density housing, and that there was an improvement in socioeconomic factors. None of the hypotheses are supported. Quantitative, national level analysis of urban renewal has been rare, and much more is needed. Urban planners have not been able to shake off the dramatic repercussions of the mid20th century "urban renewal" period, which Jane Jacobs famously described as "the sacking of cities" (Jacobs 1961:4). Never before-and not since-has urban planning been so consequential. Policies, legislative acts, and government investment in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s elevated the role of urbanism in a national debate on human wellbeing that would seem extraordinary today, not only for its size, but for its stated intent. Renewal policies that included the desire to "lessen density" (Housing Act of 1954, Sec. 311), where mixed uses were believed to result in "inefficiency of operations" (Adde 1969:51), and where demolition was described as "renewal through destruction" (Doxiadis 1966:15), are not descriptions that would be used to characterize public housing today.To their credit, urban planners have not shied away from analyzing this enduring, largely negative legacy, and the literature on urban renewal continues to expand. Recent appraisals have uncovered the existence of more nuance and complexity than previously allowed. Beyond the well-researched story of boosterism, racism, and modernism gone awry (e.g., Hunt 2009), planners have learned that the urban renewal story requires an understanding of the cold war, globalization, and perhaps even an allowance for the cando spirit of the American Century (Zipp 2010). These complex motivations collided to create intractable conflicts, as Mollenkopf's (1983) political analysis revealed.

Waiting for Bobos: Displacement and Impeded Gentrification in a Midwestern City

“…This marks a major departure from conceptions of the role of displacement in urban change that prevailed in the era of large‐scale, state‐driven urban renewal in the mid‐20th century. The clearance of large parcels of land by powerful urban renewal agencies to make way for new government centers, public housing complexes, cultural facilities, and highways resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of residents in the mid‐20th century (Anderson ; Caro ; Gans [] 1982; Talen ). Indeed, the elimination of “slums” and “skid row” areas—and the dislocation of their occupants—was an explicit goal of urban renewal in the United States (Anderson ; Greer ; Hartman ; Miller ; Talen ).…”

“…The clearance of large parcels of land by powerful urban renewal agencies to make way for new government centers, public housing complexes, cultural facilities, and highways resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of residents in the mid‐20th century (Anderson ; Caro ; Gans [] 1982; Talen ). Indeed, the elimination of “slums” and “skid row” areas—and the dislocation of their occupants—was an explicit goal of urban renewal in the United States (Anderson ; Greer ; Hartman ; Miller ; Talen ). Though the Housing Act of 1949 required provisions to relocate displaced families, relatively few housing units were built in the areas where clearance occurred, compared to the number that had existed prior to renewal (Greer ; Mollenkopf ).…”

Introduction to Special Issue on Urban Renewal in Smaller Cities

“…7 The emphasis on demolition and clearance without a similar commitment to new construction is another common theme. 8 Other recent work has drawn attention to the role of urban renewal in increasing local planning and administrative capacity in both large and small cities. 9 While there is less research on smaller cities than larger, recent publications suggest how we might compare these scales in the context of urban renewal.…”

Portland Oregon’s “Right to Return” Policy & its Relation to Urban Renewal: A Community Psychology Approach

“…The primary goals of both acts can be summarized into two categories: financial incentive and removal of unwanted individuals. Those with business interests believed that Urban Renewal would increase land and property value as well as draw in white middle and upper class to the city all while pushing out black middle class residents, increase tax revenue, and it would allow for buildings to become modernized and thus leading to higher foot-traffic and spending (Teaford, 2000;Gibson, 2007;Talen, 2014). What is infrequently discussed is the federally funded clearance of blacks in order to make it all possible.…”

“…Nonetheless, city officials were successful in clearing what they deemed "blight." Both federally funded acts demolished approximately 910,000 units, 100,000 businesses were displaced, and roughly 2,600,000 total net units were lost over a span of three decades (Talen, 2014). It is sufficient to say that the majority of demolished units were of those comprised of racial minorities.…”