"Urban Renewal"....was it the "Right Thing to Do"?

[nilsson1941]

To answer the question posed, which is also the title of this thread, no. In my historical understanding it seems as though the Johnson Administration as well as other GReat Society Democratics had good ideas, but because of having to cut down spending due to an increasingly libertarian Republican part, a lot of their plans were half-assed and shortchanged. This lead to to the horrible atrocities brought to our cities.

[mlind]

It destroyed many, many minority neighborhoods.  From a 2008 article

"In 1948, city officials [San Francisco] declared the Fillmore, an ethnically diverse but largely African American neighborhood, to be “blighted” under the California Redevelopment Act of 1945. Over the next few decades, and with the help of eminent domain and federal funding, 4,729 businesses were forced to close, 2,500 households were pushed out of the neighborhood, and 883 Victorian houses were demolished. What the Fillmore got in return for its troubles—a high-rise residential project, some fast-food restaurants, and, late last year, a posh jazz nightclub—was too little, too late.

What went wrong? Several things. First, the urban planners of the day got it wrong: Rather than being “blighted,” the Fillmore was the center of the city’s vibrant, black commercial district, providing goods and services, gainful employment, and upward mobility for thousands. If it wasn’t broken (and in the eyes of many of the Fillmore’s residents and shopkeepers at the time, it wasn’t), it didn’t need fixing. Second, the economic opportunities and complex social networks that fostered economic empowerment and community spirit were fragile things: Hoping that they would boldly spring forth years after they had been dramatically disrupted was no more realistic than trying to unscramble an omelet. Third, the powerful politicians, bureaucrats, and contractors who profited from “redevelopment” had different short-term interests than those displaced by program."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27630914/ns/us_news-life/

The areas of this neighborhood that were finally 'redeveloped' often priced the original residents out.  And by the time it happened, people had moved on with their lives. 

At the time urban renewal was at it's height, the joke was it meant 'negro removal'.

[FangKC]

The biggest problem with urban renewal policy, I think, is that it emphasized clearance and demolition without replacement. I believe a policy towards renovation and rehabilitation of the existing building stock would have been more effective--like is done in European cities.

In many of the downtown business districts that were affected by urban renewal plans, the buildings were demolished before there was any real plan to replace them with something.

In Kansas City for example, the east side of downtown, and the north and south loops were cleared and nothing significant was built in their place--except those parcels became surface parking lots. Some parcels took years to redevelop--if ever.

Yes, some new buildings went up: the Bolling Federal Building, Mo State Office Building, the new jail, and the Board of Education/Public Library, but those were government buildings that didn't replace retail and housing.

Many of the buildings demolished were old residential hotels, so the population of downtown was also diminished. This in turn affected many of the retail establishments and restaurants, since residential hotels often didn't have kitchens and those tenants ate out at every meal.

Those older buildings provided cheap rents for many local businesses. Losing them meant many upstart enterprises couldn't afford to operate downtown, and downtown began to lose its' dynamism, because the former businesses weren't replaced with new ones.

By the time Quality Hill was rebuilt, too many years had passed and downtown had already lost many jobs and businesses.

By the time that we learned our lessons, and the rehabiliation of old buildings began, we had waited too long and downtown had lost its' density, so we were basically starting from scratch.

A city can't afford to have buildings sit empty and deteriorating for 20 years or more--like the President Hotel, Professional Building, Law Building, and Empire Theater.

The City and downtown business interests (like the Downtown Council) must be more proactive. When a large old building shuts down, those interests must get involved right away coming up with a plan to do something to prevent the building from sitting empty and falling into a blighted condition.

The City can't afford to rehabilitate an entire building and resell it. A redevelopment authority can buy the parcel, but often they have to find a developer.

Thus, it would seem to be that a long-range solution would be for the Downtown Council to establish some sort of building trust fund. This fund would be used to renovate old buildings in addition to what state and federal historic tax credits might be available, and then resell the finished, improved building.

This solution would benefit downtown businesses and companies in that it would prevent the neighborhood from being blighted and going downhill because of an empty building.

[mean]

Third, the powerful politicians, bureaucrats, and contractors who profited from “redevelopment” had different short-term interests than those displaced by program.

This is at the heart of my powerful skepticism about most taxpayer-backed municipal development projects.

[FangKC]

Third, the powerful politicians, bureaucrats, and contractors who profited from “redevelopment” had different short-term interests than those displaced by program.

This is at the heart of my powerful skepticism about most taxpayer-backed municipal development projects.

Yeah, that is true.

For example, the Kemper-controlled banks (Commerce and UMB) benefitted because they got more parking, and demolished some of the former bank buildings where a new, competing bank could have opened.

[mlind]

And many of the wonderful old building that were torn down were replaced with sterile modern ones. Is there anything being done with facade preservation - gut the inside of the building and leave the front alone? 

There are non-profits in San Francisco that are taking old residential hotels and rehabbing them for low-income housing.  Again the building is preserved and continues to provide housing.

[LenexatoKCMO]

NPR had a piece this morning about the last residents finally being moved out of Cabrini Green this week.  It was interesting in that they talked about doubts over the current policy (talked about much on this board) of dispersing the low income housing accross a city in mixed income situations.  The gent they interviewed indicated that while tracking the relocated folks, it was indeed clear that while many had moved into much better situations, there were quite a few who wound up in neighborhoods just as bad as what they left - only after moving they didn't know anyone in the community and lost their support network.

Not necessarily a total indictment, but interesting food for thought. 

[FangKC]

I think the policy of spreading low-income populations among other groups in subsidized rental housing is better than the previous one of congregating them in projects.

Perhaps more emphasis should be made on maintaining support networks; however, it should ultimately be the responsibility of the individuals in subsidized housing to do that.

I think though that older residents do need more help doing that, since they rely on each other more in many respects. That said, senior residents in project settings seem to be okay when grouped together because it's not the older people causing the problems in shared housing facilities.

[mlind]

I think the policy of spreading low-income populations among other groups in subsidized rental housing is better than the previous one of congregating them in projects.

Watch for NIMBY outrage!

[FangKC]

The Wastelands of Urban Renewal

Through large-scale demolition and clearance, American urban renewal waged a war on perceived waste—and created a new tide of it.

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2017/02/ ... nk3_021317