The Era of Revitalization - Public Housing
Figure 4: Boston Housing Authority of Tremont Street
Comprised of uproar and racial tension in this era, affordable housing became an issue to be questioned and addressed in the city of Boston. Proposed solutions in the housing segment included accommodations for veterans and low-income immigrants, stabilization in urban neighborhoods, prevention in population loss due to suburbanization, creation of racial integration, and focus on social issues – such as homelessness, drug abuse, and family deterioration.[1] The creation of new alternatives to construct homes and give back power to local communities and jurisdictions, advocates were able to push forward the solution for affordable housing.
Nearly all of the family public housings in Boston were completed in two waves. Due to World War II, the housing projects came to a halt and resumed steadily from 1949 to 1954 – initially beginning in 1938.[1] During this second wave, the focus for public housing shifted from accommodating specific families to the most needy among the poor – to clear the homelessness and prevent the formation of slums on vacant lots to bolster value of communities and neighborhoods. With the placement of public housing, an unintended side effect led to the reduction in many private properties since public housing became a prime settlement for patronage employment.[2]
As glorifying and problem solving public housing may seem on the surface, this was a project far from perfect. Many public housing properties quickly suffered due to the poor designs, shoddy structures, inattentive supervisions, growing crimes, and rapid turnovers. In response to the rising problems of previous public housing projects, housing authorities and governmental jurisdictions mostly ceased further construction by the 1960s due to lack of funding and steady growth rate.[3] Before many other cities, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) became the first to stop development in family projects in 1954. Instead, BHA along with other agencies continued a few developments for single buildings predominantly to serve the elderly.[1]
Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts initiated the Brooke Amendment in 1969, which created a cap for housing authorities to acquire rents only at a certain percentage of tenants’ income.[1] This established amendment intended to provide protection for the tenants; consequently, housing authorities were under funded, which led to poor maintenance of facilities and properties. Further depreciation in public housing continued to increase due to the lack of financial support and service maintenance.
During this era, tenant population in public housing witnessed a dramatically fast racial extreme of demography. By 1964, six major public housing developments in Boston comprised of eighty percent white and by 1970, seventy percent of those were black.[1, 3] Encouragement for tenants led to an idea in using public housing as a vehicle to empower the marginalized residents living in Boston. In 1968, the federal government agreed to formulate the availability of funding for projects involving tenant management.
Among the most significant innovation during this era in regards to public housing was the result of extensive community activism. Across the city, local groups and organizations devised against the promotion in extensive highway systems and urban renewal projects, instead worked together aiming to create a community-based alternative for development. Defying the odds, many dedicated community and local groups prevailed over the potential destruction from projects and urban renewal proposals in neighborhood developments. For example, Puerto Ricans in the South End prevented an urban renewal project during 1968 and gained the right to develop Villa Victoria – a very successful and renowned mixed-income neighborhood.[1, 2] The local groups and organizations that successfully gained the right over community control in the neighborhood development projects eventually evolved into the Community Development Corporations (CDCs).[1] Today, CDCs continue to provide affordable housings, economic developments, public schools and education, and other local community services in promoting the well being of low-income households.
Public housing brought a great impact upon the concept of affordable housing. To bring people back to the city, local communities must provide a pull factor for residents to return back into the heart of Boston. Affordable housings with improved public protections and civil services were among the few traits that helped contribute to the rise in civil life.
References:
1. Affordable housing. (2013). Retrieved from http://planningboston.org/planning/affordable-housing/
2. Bluestone, B., Billingham, C., White, E., Siflinger, M., Davis, T., & Reardon, T. (2012, November). The greater Boston housing report card 2012 a new paradigm for housing in greater Boston. Retrieved from http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/wp-content/uploads/2012_Housing_Report_Card.pdf
3. Boston’s people and economy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/TridionImages/10 Boston's People and Economy_tcm1-3886.pdf
Nearly all of the family public housings in Boston were completed in two waves. Due to World War II, the housing projects came to a halt and resumed steadily from 1949 to 1954 – initially beginning in 1938.[1] During this second wave, the focus for public housing shifted from accommodating specific families to the most needy among the poor – to clear the homelessness and prevent the formation of slums on vacant lots to bolster value of communities and neighborhoods. With the placement of public housing, an unintended side effect led to the reduction in many private properties since public housing became a prime settlement for patronage employment.[2]
As glorifying and problem solving public housing may seem on the surface, this was a project far from perfect. Many public housing properties quickly suffered due to the poor designs, shoddy structures, inattentive supervisions, growing crimes, and rapid turnovers. In response to the rising problems of previous public housing projects, housing authorities and governmental jurisdictions mostly ceased further construction by the 1960s due to lack of funding and steady growth rate.[3] Before many other cities, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) became the first to stop development in family projects in 1954. Instead, BHA along with other agencies continued a few developments for single buildings predominantly to serve the elderly.[1]
Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts initiated the Brooke Amendment in 1969, which created a cap for housing authorities to acquire rents only at a certain percentage of tenants’ income.[1] This established amendment intended to provide protection for the tenants; consequently, housing authorities were under funded, which led to poor maintenance of facilities and properties. Further depreciation in public housing continued to increase due to the lack of financial support and service maintenance.
During this era, tenant population in public housing witnessed a dramatically fast racial extreme of demography. By 1964, six major public housing developments in Boston comprised of eighty percent white and by 1970, seventy percent of those were black.[1, 3] Encouragement for tenants led to an idea in using public housing as a vehicle to empower the marginalized residents living in Boston. In 1968, the federal government agreed to formulate the availability of funding for projects involving tenant management.
Among the most significant innovation during this era in regards to public housing was the result of extensive community activism. Across the city, local groups and organizations devised against the promotion in extensive highway systems and urban renewal projects, instead worked together aiming to create a community-based alternative for development. Defying the odds, many dedicated community and local groups prevailed over the potential destruction from projects and urban renewal proposals in neighborhood developments. For example, Puerto Ricans in the South End prevented an urban renewal project during 1968 and gained the right to develop Villa Victoria – a very successful and renowned mixed-income neighborhood.[1, 2] The local groups and organizations that successfully gained the right over community control in the neighborhood development projects eventually evolved into the Community Development Corporations (CDCs).[1] Today, CDCs continue to provide affordable housings, economic developments, public schools and education, and other local community services in promoting the well being of low-income households.
Public housing brought a great impact upon the concept of affordable housing. To bring people back to the city, local communities must provide a pull factor for residents to return back into the heart of Boston. Affordable housings with improved public protections and civil services were among the few traits that helped contribute to the rise in civil life.
References:
1. Affordable housing. (2013). Retrieved from http://planningboston.org/planning/affordable-housing/
2. Bluestone, B., Billingham, C., White, E., Siflinger, M., Davis, T., & Reardon, T. (2012, November). The greater Boston housing report card 2012 a new paradigm for housing in greater Boston. Retrieved from http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/wp-content/uploads/2012_Housing_Report_Card.pdf
3. Boston’s people and economy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/TridionImages/10 Boston's People and Economy_tcm1-3886.pdf