The Texas Exception: San Antonio and Urban Renewal, 1949-1965

Abstract

Although considerable scholarship documents the failures of urban renewal, little has been written on the challenges cities faced in implementing programs to address local needs. This article explores the political challenges of San Antonio in creating an urban renewal program. It demonstrates the role of the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954 in stimulating the city’s planning processes in a political atmosphere otherwise hostile to expanded government functions.

Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in the United States

“…State enabling legislation permitted and set legal parameters for the creation of local public agencies (LPAs) that could exercise eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment, a key element of the urban renewal process. This legislation was crucial to the implementation of federally funded urban renewal projects and is often cited in the early social science literature that considers cross-city differences in funding (e.g., Straits 1965, Plott 1968, and Bingham 1975, in historical accounts of urban renewal initiatives (e.g., Teaford 1990, Fairbanks 2002and 2006, Germany 2007, in considerations of the program's legal aspects (e.g., Sogg andWertheimer 1959, Pritchett 2003), and in urban planning publications (e.g., see Greer Given that enabling legislation was a prerequisite to federally funded urban renewal, that political opposition to the program increased with time, that there was learning-by-doing in formulating project proposals, and that new funding halted in 1974, a delay in enabling legislation would narrow a city's window of opportunity for urban renewal efforts. There is historical evidence that state legislative delays constrained the participation of cities that wanted to undertake urban renewal.…”

Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in the United States

“…State enabling legislation permitted and set legal parameters for the creation of local public agencies (LPAs) that could exercise eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment, a key element of the urban renewal process. This legislation was crucial to the implementation of federally funded urban renewal projects and is often cited in the early social science literature that considers cross-city differences in funding (e.g., Straits 1965, Plott 1968, and Bingham 1975, in historical accounts of urban renewal initiatives (e.g., Teaford 1990, Fairbanks 2002and 2006, Germany 2007, in considerations of the program's legal aspects (e.g., Sogg andWertheimer 1959, Pritchett 2003), and in urban planning publications (e.g., see Greer and Hansen 1941 and issues of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials' Journal of Housing). Archival material indicates that HHFA (HUD's predecessor) closely monitored the development of enabling legislation because it determined cities' ability to participate in the program.…”

Evaluation on Site Selection of Urban Renewal Projects from the Perspective of Space Benefit: Macau Special Administrative Region as an Example

“…Upgrading should take into account public opinion and upgrade organically in a step-by-step manner. Fairbanks [2] believes that urban renewal aims to continuously improve the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the areas to be developed and to solve urban problems in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Urban renewal should accept public opinion and update organically in a gradual way.…”