Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know this can happen organically by way of gentrification but was wondering if there is a school of thought in the planning profession that poor people do not belong in the cities?
I know this can happen organically by way of gentrification but was wondering if there is a school of thought in the planning profession that poor people do not belong in the cities?
There is--it was called "redevelopment" in the 1950s and 60s. The philosophy of the era was that people shouldn't really live downtown at all, except maybe for some high-end condominiums. The original Redevelopment Act of 1949 specified that housing for persons displaced by redevelopment activity had to be provided in the same neighborhoods, but not many projects were actually built because businessmen considered that kind of Communist. In 1954 the act was amended to allow substitute housing to be built in other neighborhoods (or, often, not built at all) and the business community liked this a great deal, because it meant they could shift poor neighborhoods out of downtowns entirely and replace them with expanded business districts, using federal money. Apparently they didn't think that was Communist at all.
There is--it was called "redevelopment" in the 1950s and 60s. The philosophy of the era was that people shouldn't really live downtown at all, except maybe for some high-end condominiums. The original Redevelopment Act of 1949 specified that housing for persons displaced by redevelopment activity had to be provided in the same neighborhoods, but not many projects were actually built because businessmen considered that kind of Communist. In 1954 the act was amended to allow substitute housing to be built in other neighborhoods (or, often, not built at all) and the business community liked this a great deal, because it meant they could shift poor neighborhoods out of downtowns entirely and replace them with expanded business districts, using federal money. Apparently they didn't think that was Communist at all.
Here we go with the communism stuff again. I know the 50s/60s "urban renewal" stuff (called The Renaissance in Pittsburgh) didn't work out well, but a lot of substandard housing was replaced, unfortunately with something equally bad in many cases, huge public housing apartment complexes. Using a city I am familiar with as an example (shocking for CD, I know!), there never was much housing in downtown Pittsburgh. The Civic Arena was an urban renewal project, but it wasn't quite in downtown.
Maybe nothing official or "intentional" but don't think for a minute that planners don't know the consequences of their recommendations or elected officials don't quietly urge them on.
Here we go with the communism stuff again. I know the 50s/60s "urban renewal" stuff (called The Renaissance in Pittsburgh) didn't work out well, but a lot of substandard housing was replaced, unfortunately with something equally bad in many cases, huge public housing apartment complexes. Using a city I am familiar with as an example (shocking for CD, I know!), there never was much housing in downtown Pittsburgh. The Civic Arena was an urban renewal project, but it wasn't quite in downtown.
Besides the Lower Hill being destroyed for the Civic Arena, there were two other major areas which were decimated by the Renaissance
1. There used to be a substantial downtown population at the Point (the intersection of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers for those not in the know). In 1950, 153 structures were demolished in the region to make way for Point State Park and Gateway Center.
2. There was also the incredible destruction visited upon the Northside by urban renewal. Not only was it cut into three parts by highways (with the highways obliterating Beaver Street, the former commercial thoroughfare for several neighborhoods), but all residential towards the river was systematically demolished to make way for expanded industrial usage and large amenities like stadiums. As a result, only 200 people live in the portion of the North Side towards downtown - and this is only because of a relatively recent apartment complex being built.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask planners and city leaders, the answer usually is no. If you ask advocates for the poor, the homeless, and other vulnerable populations, the answer usually is yes.
Maybe nothing official or "intentional" but don't think for a minute that planners don't know the consequences of their recommendations or elected officials don't quietly urge them on.
It gets couched in all sorts of excuses, ranging from "We have to clear out all the bums and criminals" to more apologetic approaches like "We're not prejudiced or anything, it's just that those people are bad for property values!" (nonwhite neighborhoods were redlined, which reduced property value and made home loans and other financing credit impossible to obtain.) And hey, it was the early fifties, rich guys calling things they didn't like Communist was almost as commonplace then as it is now.
And hey, it was the early fifties, rich guys calling things they didn't like Communist was almost as commonplace then as it is now.
Exactly. It doesn't seem far-fetched at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
