TITLE:
SLUM CLEARANCE, URBAN RENEWAL AND SOCIAL INEQUITY in the 1950’s – 1970’s
Meghana Dutta May 9th, 2017
Abstract: Slums and Slum Clearance is a global issue that exists across continents in all developing countries. It is estimated by UN that one third of the Urban Population people reside in Slums. Even in developed countries with economic power, implementation of policies to eliminate the formation of slums has been largely unsuccessful. The Study of the 1954 Housing Act, its rise and fall and way forward of ‘Urban Renewal’ is the crux of the paper. The study is to understand Urban Redevelopment and Urban Renewal as two powerful initiatives and why they were controversial. It is about the pains that any country under development undergoes. Could mass displacement of thousands of families to the periphery to make way for urban redevelopment in the heart of the cities have been avoided post World War II? The paper also questions the coming together of Urban Renewal combined with Housing Act for the much needed revival of the Economy of the cities post World War at any cost. Urban Renewal as understood in the 1950’s was to increase value of the property in the core of the cities and to generate more taxes by having more upscale development in place of slums. The Housing Act was about ensuring a home to every American family preferably through Rehabilitation rather than demolition. The paper is also about the study of Racial Discrimination and Social Inequity that occurred at large scale in many states as a result of the Housing Act. The study explores the lessons learned from the controversies of Title 1 Housing Act. Why is Public Housing considered as a Socialist Act and why a citizen’s right is compromised as a result of providing Public Housing? It is also to learn why in the last three decades US has not had any major Urban Renewal program nor has undertaken large scale Public Housing Projects. Lastly the paper also intends to explore how the present policies deal with existence of slums in the centre of the city. The unanswered question which will remain a mystery, is if
there will be ever a solution to address one of the world’s most serious problems, so as to ensure Social Equity to all? Background: "The largest single opportunity for the rapid post war expansion of private investment and employment lies in the field of housing, both urban and rural. ... There is wide agreement that, over the next ten years, there should be built in the United States an average of from a million to a million and a half homes a year. Such a program would prove an opportunity for private capital to invest from $6 to $7 billion annually ... [and] could provide employment for several million workers each year. ... Housing is high on the list of matters calling for decisive Congressional action.", President Truman September 1945 [ quoted in 1949 Housing Act versus ‘urban renewal’, Pg 27, Freeman Richard] Post World War II, it is said that 15 million veterans returned back to the US and there was an urgent demand for housing. With all noble Intentions of providing a house for every American family, the Housing Act was introduced. At this same time, the life in the cities were said to be unsafe, filled with poverty and the centre of the cities were occupied by the slums and ‘blighted’ neighbourhoods. The upper class had slowly moved out of the city to the suburbs which were safe neighbourhoods. The economic value of the centre of the cities, were affected due to the presence of the slums. Colean who was trained as an architect saw, ‘flight from the central city, suburban spread, downtown congestion, slums, and blight as an interrelated set of economic problems.’ [Colean] 1953 Revival of the cities was of main concern. For revival of cities, finding solutions for clearing of the slums as they occupied the most valuable areas in the centre of the city was key.
Businessman, policy makers, officials, reformers all came together to find a solution for Housing and for reviving the cities. It was also accepted by all parties that they needed to do something about the preventing increase of slums in the cities. Rehabilitation along with Comprehensive Development was seen as the need of the hour. The local authorities conducted housing analysis, proposed rehabilitation programs, and comprehensive urban development proposals which included civic amenities, commercial development, and infrastructure requirement. The state authorities worked closely with the federal authorities who were planning the Interstate Highways towards clearing of the city of its blighted areas. Amidst interstate highways planning and construction, Housing Act, Urban Renewal programs, deteriorating cities, and return of lakhs of veterans post World War II, it was challenging times for the Government to address several interlinked and complex urban issues. It was also a time when the minority community veterans were taken aback and disappointed to see that they were not eligible to the same privileges that the White Veterans received post World War. At a time when there was already racial discrimination, Social Inequity and shortage of affordable housing, Public Housing seemed to be the answer to these issues so as to atleast grant each citizen the right to have his own home. However Public Housing in the 1950’s was associated with Socialism by many and it is beyond this paper to analyse why Socialism is deeply rooted in people’s mind when it comes to the thought of Public Housing.
CONTENTS 1. Cities as havens for crime, theft and poverty 2. Urban Sprawl in the early 20th century 3. Title 1 of Housing Act 1949 4. Housing Act 1954 5. Urban Renewal, Housing Act and Interstate Highways 6. Economic Impact of Interstate Highway construction in the city 7. Social Impact of the Housing Act and Construction of Interstate Highways 8. Creation of new blighted areas and racial discrimination 9. Controversies and Public Rising as a Result of the Housing Act 10. Social Inequity and Slums 11. Is there hope for Slum Dwellers? 12. The Fifth Migration and ‘celebration of diversity’ 13. Conclusion
1.0 Cities as haven for crime, theft and poverty Prior to Industrial Revolution majority of the population were dependent on agriculture as their only source of income. Only a small percentage of people lived in the cities. With the advent of Industries, thousands of people moved into the cities in search of a better life and prosperity. There was mass migration of African Americans and other minority communities from the South to the North. However the industries paid minimal wages which only made their lifestyles a little better, than their life in the South. The labourers lived in the cheap housing in the city, which were very low on hygiene and sanitation. With more and more people moving into the cities to work in factories, the cities slowly became haven for crime, theft, poverty and prostitution.
2.0 Urban Sprawl in the 20th Century With good transportation and the idea of ‘the middle landscape’ combined with deterioration of the cities, people who were able to afford, moved to the suburbs for safe and better living and commuted to the city only for work. However with time, many realised the lack of urbanism in the Suburban Area. The vitality and the energy and the importance of diversity and knowledge base that is the life of the city was lost in the suburban culture. ‘One irony of Mumford's fourth migration was that suburbs were able to duplicate almost all the urban functions that once defined the central city, but they were unable to duplicate the urban experience itself.’[Fishman Pg 7] Retail outlets, banks and commercial establishments were losing business as more and more people moved to the suburbs. The city’s mayor and other officials were worried as they were losing tax money that would otherwise help in the maintenance and development of the city. Everyone except the Slum dwellers, wanted to revive the city
mostly for economic reasons, and for this, the crime and poverty had to be eradicated, which meant dislocation of the many slums.
3.0 Title 1 of Housing Act 1949 As per Robert Fairbanks Historian, in the report that shaped the 1949 Housing Act he emphasised “the necessity for lifting our sights from piecemeal thrusts . . . to a broadside integrated campaign that stretches across the whole spread of urban blight from the earliest symptoms to the last stage of urban decay.” [Robert B Fairbanks] The 1949 Housing Act though had good intentions of providing affordable housing and providing of low interest and long term mortgage, with special preference to the people who lost their homes to urban development, was not able to see its vision through. The focus as stated by the Historians, was on creating good neighbourhoods where public spaces, business and housing together foster a sense of belonging and safe communities which consequently raise the economic value of the these neighbourhoods. To summarize, ‘the goals of Title I were broad: to reduce “substandard” housing that was considered a breeding ground for crime and vice; to stem suburban migration; to invigorate central business districts; to increase property values and thereby local tax revenues; and to encourage private investment. (Groberg 1968, Teaford 2000) The Title 1 Housing Act received resistance as it focused on providing of Public Housing and demolition of slums and not much on rehabilitation.
4.0 Housing Act 1954 Title I Housing Act was about Urban Redevelopment and Public Housing. The 1954 Housing Act was about Urban Renewal through Rehabilitation rather than destruction. It gave an option of destruction when the homes were beyond repair, and construction of
new Housing in the same or a new site. The act also allowed for private development in cleared sites. In addition, the act was modified from the 1949 Act to allow 10% of the Federal funds to be used for sites which were commercial. The housing Act was drafted to see how slums could be prevented from forming. It also had in its document, comprehensive urban renewal plans which included parks, roads and structures for civic amenities in the areas that were cleared of the slums. However, ‘for many historians, the Housing Act of 1954 seems to mark a shift from a focus on the slum and its inhabitants to a new emphasis on saving the downtown and allowing the city to better compete with suburbs.’[Arnold R. Hirsch] There was a distinct divide in the committee of the Housing Act, where in, there were people who were, for only Urban Rehabilitation, while the other group largely supported by Businessmen were for clearance of slums and building of new Commercial Buildings. The reformers who were in support for Rehabilitation, found it very difficult to garner support of Home Builders to repair and renovate the slums. Thus ‘the industry’s attempt to stamp out the public housing component of urban redevelopment did not fully succeed either, despite the weak state of the program. Politically, public housing was caught in what one of its creators called ‘‘a dreary deadlock’’ in which it struggled on ‘‘not dead but never more than half alive’’ (Bauer 1957). The Housing Act that was introduced was so slow in implementation of Public Housing. The Act was also more open ended with respect to re-housing the slum dwellers in a different location, rather than in the same location. The Housing Act thus resulted in the cities being developed with better infrastructure, schools, commercial establishments and parks and less focussed on Public Housing. It brought racism to the forefront as white people resisted public housing for the African Americans and minorities to be constructed near their neighbourhood. It is also said that even through late 1960’s many city officials
continued to support slum clearance even without providing for public housing for the slum dwellers. Presently, it has been better remembered as ‘unleashing of the Bulldozer’ as stated by Professor in the lecture. Businessmen and Politicians were said to join hands to demolish slums and plan for new higher income housing and commercial developments under the banner of Urban Renewal Programs. “The clearance of slums occupied largely by Negro residents and their replacement with housing accommodations beyond the means of most Negroes gives rise to the question whether slum clearance is being used for ‘Negro clearance.’ Small areas occupied by Negroes may be selected for urban renewal, forcing them to move into other areas that are predominantly Negro, thereby reinforcing or perhaps establishing for the first time strict patterns of residential segregation” (p. 488, The 1959 Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) The Housing Act 1954, due its mixed opinions between the committee members, resulted in many homeless people. Slums were cleared at a rapid pace in many of the cities core area to allow for development of higher end homes, but due to resistance from several members with regards to Public Housing, Public Housing was never built at the same pace. The hope that the 1954 Act would save dislocation of the slums remained as a myth. It is also interesting to note how the two Acts merged in terms of its end result and the two words that were meant to clearly distinguish the intent ‘Urban Redevelopment’ and ‘Urban Renewal’ became one and the same. Simply put, the Housing Act 1954 was not able to move away from Urban Redevelopment to Urban Renewal. In my opinion the provisions in the 1954 Act allowed for more Private Development in cleared areas, and
allowed taking over of Commercial sites in blighted areas as well for development as Commercial or Residential. The positive legacy that 1954 Housing Act left behind in my opinion, was code reinforcement as way forward to obtain funds for rehabilitation As stated by William J Collins and Katherine Shester in accordance to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] 1974a, p. 15), within the duration of 1949-1974 approximately 51 billion dollars of grants had already been awarded for Urban Renewal Projects in more than 2100 districts. It is said that approximately 300,000 families were forced to relocate to make way for Urban Development. The Housing Act of 1949 ended in 1974 due its controversies with regards to concern for Social Equity and infringement on Personal Rights. 5.0
Urban Renewal, Housing Act and Interstate Highways
Urban Renewal, Housing Act 1954, and planning of Interstate Highways that connected the entire country, the magnanimity of its socio, political and economic impact, can only be comprehended when studied together. ‘In early 1950’s Kansas city manager, LP Cookingham, stated that ‘no large city can hope for a real future without expressways that cleared slums and preserved the central business district.’ [Pg 235. Mohl] The Government had also formed a new board, the Bureau of Public Roads to plan the construction of the highways. Though planning had commenced in early 20th century execution it only commenced under President Eisenhover term. Till that time, the ports were the primary means of transportation of goods. Thomas Mac Donald was appointed as the director of BPR. ‘Mac Donald campaigned tirelessly for inner city expressways that
would clear out low income housing and tenement districts, eliminating the “blighted districts contiguous to the very heart of the city�. [Pg 231 Mohl, Raymond] However he also advocated strongly for building the public housing first for slum dwellers to relocate to and then demolishing the slums. The State Government saw construction of highways as a means to clear the slums in the core of the city. The routing of the interstate highways within the city was carefully planned and decided by the State Authorities. The roads were routed primarily though the slums so as to enable rapid clearance of thousands of houses in the name of infrastructure development. With Federal Money, states were able to clear the slums and provide for housing in the periphery of the cities as compensation. The vast amounts of land that were cleared were used for commercial and higher income housing and other public assets which were based on the planning for urban renewal by the State Authorities to generate taxes. From the Federal perspective, lands where slums were located were valued at a lesser cost and the resistance also would be much lower as they did not have powerful organisations opposing the acquiring of the land for development. In Dallas and Phoenix, though plans for urban renewal and clearance of slums were made, it was never realized as there was huge public outrage both from the White and the NonWhite. They did not Federal Involvement in State Decisions and Development.
6.0 Economic Impact of Interstate Highway construction in the city The value of the lands around the Highway after removal of the slums increased with immediate effect. New developments were planned at the core of the city both commercial and residential. Public parks and other public assets added value to these newly formed central districts of the city which were for long abandoned and neglected. Newer developments saw hope to come back to the city after Urban Redevelopment in the core districts of the city. With parks and public assets, and high end housing, the city
attracted people to come back to the city for purpose other than work. However there are many economists who claim that the cities where Urban Renewal occurred through Rehabilitation also saw economic progress, so positive economic impact could have been achieved even without clearance of the slums. From the economic perspective of the country, the Urban Renewal and Title 1 Housing Act though best remembered as the unleashing of the bulldozer on the slums had far reaching economic impact beyond the state as well, since it opened up transportation and connected the whole country. In my opinion it has had very positive long lasting economic effects. The controversy in routing it through slums for reducing financial impact could have been avoided if public housing was built prior to destruction as originally planned by BPR. If the same interstate highways had to be built now, it would have probably been very unsuccessful due to more resistance from many fronts and garnering public approval for such large scale public projects is a challenge.
As per the UN Habitat as stated earlier more than one third of the urban dwellers live in the slums presently in the world. When analysing with period of 1950’s to present scenario in India, which is a developing country, due to strength of media, density of cities and religious and political organisations, many major public projects fail to receive approval for years. Construction of any highway requires much greater cost per mile and undergoes resistance at all levels, thus escalating the time period for completion of the project and thus the cost of the construction. From this perspective, execution of the interstate highways in the 1950’s prior to population increase and media presence was a beneficial undertaking, from social and economic perspective as today it would have affected a much larger population with more negative impact.
7.0 Social Impact of the Housing Act and Construction of Interstate Highways ‘Atleast 3,30000 urban housing units were destroyed as a direct result and dislocated an average of 32,400 families each year.[Pg 227, Raymond Mohl] However the number of houses that were being constructed was nowhere close to the number of houses that were demolished. This mass destruction resulted in mass migration to the periphery of the cities, just before the suburbs for the white communities began. New slums were formed so as to accommodate this migration as public housing for so many people were not planned for nor provided. The Highway Association had washed their hands of their responsibility to relocate people who were affected. They said only construction of highways falls under their jurisdiction, not the construction of public housing. Mac Donald who had advocated strongly for completion of public housing prior to demolition was not re appointed as Director of BPR.
The state highways in some cases were said to even be kinked so as to enable the highway routing to go through the slum. Vacant areas and abandoned railroad tracks were also overseen in favour of routing the highways through slums. They saw the construction of Interstate highway and clearing of slums at federal cost, to be the easier way of improving the economy of the city and bringing back the wealthier people to inhabit the city. It did matter that it was not socially equitable for the government to take the land from the weaker society and hand it over to the rich for development in the name of urban development.
The Urban Renewal programs were greatly favouring the white and brought about Social Inequity and injustice to the forefront. It was successful in renewing the city centre and in having a positive economic impact. However everything that was planned in place of
slums, was only in favour of the wealthy. There was not much though given to renewal programs for the lesser privileged, and nor did the weaker society benefit economically from the Urban Renewal Programs. It is true that many jobs were created as a result of the construction activities in cities around the country, but whether they received fair wages that helped them afford a better life and relocate their homes from slums to good neighbourhood is questionable.
8.0 Creation of new blighted areas and racial discrimination ‘Official housing and highway policies taken together, helped to produce the much more intensely concentrated and racially segregated landscapes of contemporary urban America.’ [Pg 227, John P Mc Collum, cited in the paper written by Raymond Mohl] Due to the inadequate planning for the dislocated slum dwellers new slums were formed in the periphery of the city and existing slums that remained had to accommodate more people. Problems of Crime, poverty, lack of sanitation and hygiene had only shifted from the centre of the city to the outskirts. It brought about distinct segregation of neighbourhoods based on their race and social background. Economic Value of property around the new slums would be low as no white neighbourhood wanted the African Americans to move near to their communities. It was a common sight to see Suburban Communities with hoardings saying that it was meant only for the white. As said by John Collum the Urban Renewal and construction of highways saw unprecedented racial segregation of neighbourhood which brought to the highlight of how little was studied by the BPR and by the Housing Act, of the Social consequences of large scale destruction of slums.
9.0 Controversies and Public Rising as a Result of the Housing Act
The Housing Act is best remembered as ‘Negro Removal’ and mass demolition of slums. It is remembered less as a Public Housing initiative and more for acts of racial discrimination and cause for social inequity. In the 1960’s there were more organised African American committees which opposed planning of highways through their slums. They had documents that proved that relocating the route would be more economically feasible. However most often they would lose their case at court, and the construction of highways would go as planned. In the late 1960’s and 1970’s public sympathy increased towards the loss of houses of minorities without provision of public housing by the government. In Dallas and Phoenix and some other mid western cities, urban renewal through clearance of slums could not be implemented as there was widespread disapproval from the Public on taking this route for Urban Development. However both the cities experienced tremendous growth during the same period. People around the country had come to slowly realise protection of one’s rights was more important than development of cities through clearance of slums. There was also increasing pressure on the government to be sensitive towards the minorities. There was a a public rising on infringing on citizens rights and prevention of Socialist Act, which was greater than the purpose of Urban Renewal. With pressure, the Government rerouted few of the Highways and also aborted a few of the original plans. In Phoenix an organisation was formed called’ Citizens for the Preservation of Property Rights’. They protested against the use of federal money of urban renewal and did not want Centre to interfere with State’s policy and decisions. However by the 1970’s majority of the destruction and damage had already been done, and had left a very negative impact on the minorities as it was clearly a well planned Racial Act that the Highway Authorities, Public Housing Board and developers had contrived together. It was clear to the public who supported the reformers and the
minorities that the authorities had ‘envisioned the new interstate Highways as a means of cleaning ‘blighted urban areas’. [Mohl Raymond] There was also a fear by both the wealthy and the non wealthy that these Acts can lead to Socialism in the long run. There was a growing mistrust in the general public as well that the Housing Act and Urban Renewal, was really best for the city and not only for the lawyers and businessmen. From growing concern and anti belief of Urban Renewal in select states, it spread to the rest of the country in the 1960’s and in the 1970’s the Housing Act was terminated. ‘The aftermath of federally sponsored urban renewal challenged cavalier attitudes toward history; demolition is no longer seen as a precursor to improvement.’ [Krieger Pg 6]
10.0 Social Inequity and Slums Slums have been existence and will continue to be in existence in all urban centres in varying proportions. The Urban Renewal program under Title 1 Housing Act only displaced the slums rather than provide a solution to prevent formation of new slums. This is where it was very unsuccessful. The act was introduced so as to provide for public housing but instead focussed on increasing economy of the city which mainly benefited the businessman, The eradication of slums is a very sensitive subject to touch upon, as the people who reside feel they also have a right to own their house even if it is illegally. Existence of slums are more often than not, backed politically as they constitute a huge percentage of the total population and consequently the vote bank. Presently it is very rare to see a political party in a democratic country wanting to risk their position by relocate the slums or addressing issues related to slums. It is a subject that everyone is aware of, but chooses
to turn a blind eye to the issue of construction of Public Housing as a replacement to slums. With time social inequity is only increasing as the great divide between the rich and the poor is on the rise. The top 1% in the US is said to own 30-40% of the nations income. With this inequity, may be the slum dwellers are right in their own belief that they also have a right to atleast own a piece of the land illegally if not legally.
11.0 Is there hope for Slum Dwellers? As a result of Social Inequity and disregard at some level to the weaker society we saw the end of the Title 1 Housing Act. In 1974 Housing and Community Development Act was introduced which steered away from demolition and rather emphasised on rehabilitation. It was also in the control of the local authorities to use the funds to rehabilitate the project and revitalize the neighbourhood. Slums have evolved over decades to be more organised and in general cannot be relocated without great resistance. It is accepted that slums are part of the Urban Fabric and co-exist with the developed areas in the city, and the economy of the city survives because of the workforce provided by the slums. However the question is the 1974 Act uplifting the poverty, unhygienic conditions, lack of water and sanitation that still plague many of the slums at a pace that is required? In my opinion more than ever there is hope for the slum dwellers now. There is widespread awareness that we need to protect the environment. We share the air, land and water. The diseases that originate in the slums due to the poor conditions, can spread more rapidly even more so, if they are airborne. The land around the slums and the sewage flow from the slums can contaminate the limited fresh water supplies and affect the entire city.
The ecological impact of slums is much higher than the expense of rehabilitation of slums so as to make it more habitable. As more awareness builds in the general public and acceptance that slums cannot be eradicated, we may see an uprising and movement to pressurise the government to divert more public money to Rehabilitate the slums at any cost, so as to ensure health of the city.
12.0 The Fifth Migration and ‘celebration of diversity’ ‘A recent Bank of America-sponsored policy report on American land use concluded that “ironically unchecked sprawl has shifted from an engine of growth to a force that now threatens to inhibit growth and degrade the quality of our life." [Pg 46, Krieger Alex] Urban Renewal was in some way a response to revive the cities. Sprawl was not of great concern with abundance of oil, the highways and the automobile. Unchecked sprawl is of great concern now from the environmental perspective and with oil as a diminishing resource. As per Lewis Mumford, the first migration, was that of Europeans immigrating to US. The second migration was that of people moving to the Industrial cities. The third migration was of people moving to metropolitan cities. The fourth migration was the move of the people to the periphery. The fifth migration as Fishman rightly says is about people seeking out tradition urbanism which a suburb cannot offer as it has become rare and limited in some sense . So a fifth migration "virtuous cycle" replaces the vicious cycle of the fourth migration exodus from the city.[Pg 359, Fishman 359] People are moving back to the cities not just for jobs but for the other things the city has to offer. The fifth migration thus carries the promise of something never before seen in American urbanism: balance. [Pg 360, Fishman]
Urban Renewal in the 1950’s and 1960’s served as a precursor and made way to the Fifth Migration by making the cities more attractive for investments and safer for people to consider moving back.
13.0 Conclusion If rising population, improving economic conditions, and good planning can foster a new vision of the inner cities, then these might be the sites where our culture's oft-repeated celebration of diversity can finally be implemented on the ground (Freeman & Braconi, 2004). [as cited in the paper ‘Fifth Migration’ authored by Fishman, R, Pg 363] If economic conditions of the slum dwellers can be improved through various State sponsored programs, rehabilitation of the slums would probably become an initiative from the slum dwellers rather than the government. Secondly if relationship between public housing and socialist act can be disconnected, then public housing can be built, not at the cost of existing slums, but as a response to constant influx of migration of weaker society into the cities. Urban Renewal, city beautification, urban redevelopment, movements that have occurred in different decades have all been critical to the economic growth of America. The city cannot support the influx of thousands of people without growing economy. It is clear that there is no one answer or policy that will allow the perfect balance between the economic growth of city and being sensitive to the weaker society. However, the urban redevelopment in this era cannot happen at the cost of the weaker society as the percentage of slum dwellers is growing rapidly. Policies that are made by the government have to take into consideration equally, how it economically benefits and socially uplifts the slum dwellers which are nearly half of the worlds urban population The
Urban Policies have to be socially inclusive even if it means it takes twice over the time to see the same economic impact in the city.
References 1.
Bank of America, Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California [San Francisco: Bank of America, 1996] as cited in Krieger Alex paper, ‘An Urban Revival for a Suburban Culture’
2.
Bauer, C., 1957. ‘The dreary deadlock of public housing’. Architectural Forum, 106, 140–142.
3.
Collins William J. and Shester Katharine L.,‘Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in the United States’, 1949-1974 January 2010 http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/ESWC/2010/613/Collins_Shester_January_2010.pdf
4.
Collins William J, Shester Katharine L, ‘The Economic Effects of Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in the United States’, September 2010 http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic868743.files/Collins_Shester_Aug_2010.pdf
5.
Fairbanks Robert B, ‘The Housing Act of 1954 and the War Against Slums in the Southwestern United States’, 15th International Planning History Society Conference Website: http://www.fau.usp.br/iphs/abstractsAndPapersFiles/Sessions/02/FAIRBANKS.pdf
6.
Fishman Robert, ‘The Fifth Migration’, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol 71, No.4, Autumn 2005, American Planning Association, Chicago.
7.
Freeman Richard, ‘The 1949 Housing Act versus urban renewal’, US Housing Policy, EIR Volume 23, Number 50, December 13, 1996 http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1996/eirv23n50-19961213/eirv23n50-19961213_027us_housing_policy_the_1949_housi.pdf
8.
Groberg, Robert P. 1968. “Evolution of the Federal Urban Renewal Program.” Research Report #20, prepared for the National Commission on Urban Problems. Washington, DC: unpublished.
9.
Hill Philip H, ‘Recent Slum Clearance and Urban Redevelopment Laws’, Article 3, Volume 9, Issue 2, Washington and Lee Law Review, 0-1-1952 http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3896&context=wlulr
10. Hoffman, Alexander von, ‘The lost history of urban renewal’ , Journal of Urbanism Vol1, No.3, November 2008, 281-301 http://www-tandfonline-com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/pdf/10.1080/17549170802532013?needAccess=true 11. Hoffman, Alexander von, ‘ A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949’, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 11, Issue 2, Fannie Mae Foundation 2000 https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/hpd_1102_hoffman.pdf 12. Hirsch, Arnold R, one of those historians, quotes the National Commission on Urban Problems report issued in 1968 to make this point. It concluded that the Housing Act of 1954 was a “broader design to rebuild cities, and not primarily to help the poor.” Arnold R. Hirsch, Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940-1960 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 271. Also see Richard M. Flanagan, "The Housing Act of 1954: The Sea Change in National Urban Policy" Urban Affairs Review 33 (Nov. 1997): 265-286. 13. Jones, Ben, ‘Slum Clearance, Privatization and Residualization: the Practices and Politics of Council Housing in Mid-twentieth-century England, 20th Century Br Hist’, (2010) 21 (4): 510-539, 13th July 2010
https://academic.oup.com/tcbh/article-abstract/21/4/510/1666605/Slum-Clearance-Privatization-andResidualization?rss=1 14. Krieger, Alex, ‘An Urban Revival for a Suburban Culture’ 15. Lang Robert E, Sohmer Rebecca R, ‘ Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949: The Past, Present, and Future of Federal Housing and Urban Policy’, Housing Policy Debate 11 (2): 291-298, January 2000 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238431348_Legacy_of_the_Housing_Act_of_1949_The_Pas t_Present_and_Future_of_Federal_Housing_and_Urban_Policy 16. McCollum John P to Albert M Cole, May 23, 1957, Housing and Home Finance Agency Records (hereafter cited as HHFA Records), RG 207, Subject Correspondence Files, Albert Cole, Administrator, 1953-58, Box 18, National Archives II, College Park, Maryland 17. McDonald John F, ‘Public Housing Construction and the Cities: 1937-1967’, Urban Studies Research, Volume 2011, Article ID 985264. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/usr/2011/985264/ 18. Miles Lanier Colean, ‘Renewing Our Cities’ (New York: Twentieth Century Fund 1953). A good short summary is Gelfand, A Nation of Cities, 171-2. 19. Mohl, Raymond A, ‘Planned Destruction : The Interstates and Central City Housing’, From Tenements to the Taylor Homes, Edited by Jonh F Bauman, Roger Biles and Kristin M Szlvian, The Pennsylvania State University Press,University Park, Pennsylvania, 20. ‘Squatter Cities and Slums where the sidewalks end’, Worldwatch Institute http://www.worldwatch.org/node/526 21. Teaford Jon C, ‘Urban Renewal and its Aftermath’, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 11, Issue 2, Fannie Mae Foundation 2000 http://www.cooscountywatchdog.com/uploads/8/7/3/0/8730508/urban_renewal_and_its_aftermath.pdf