Society Hill: “For whom are we saving the cities?”

Society Hill: “For whom are we saving the cities?”

Laura H. Proctor


UAPP703-010: Urban Society and Public Policy

Professor Leland Brett Ware

December 8, 2011

Abstract

Urban renewal played a pivotal role in the development of

American cities during the post-World War II era of the 1950s-

70s, a period characterized by civil unrest and an increase in

the tension between city, state, and federal government and urban

communities. I will explore governmental usage of urban renewal

as a form of socioeconomic control, employed to steer community

housing patterns (with the financial aid of the Federal Housing

Administration), and its impact on the uneven development of

cities. My research focus is the Society Hill neighborhood in

center city Philadelphia, with a specific emphasis placed on

high-end residential development as well as the displacement of

low-income residents following the widespread rehabilitation of

dilapidated 18th and 19th century residential properties.

Introduction

2


Philadelphia’s modern day Society Hill neighborhood is the

successful result of one of the United States’ first federally

subsidized urban renewal programs. Widely praised as a model for

neighborhood improvement, the redevelopment project featured

ambitious new construction as well as the rehabilitation of

hundreds of historic homes. Under the official title of the

Washington Square East Redevelopment Project, Society Hill’s two-

decade revitalization process was unique in that it focused

largely on historic preservation as opposed to the wholesale slum

clearance that characterized concurrent major urban renewal

projects in other American cities. Society Hill’s renaissance

signaled a renewed civic commitment to center city Philadelphia.

While the project proved to be an enormous economic success for

the city’s businesses leaders and wealthiest citizens, it also

resulted in the eviction and displacement of the neighborhood’s

lower income families, many of whom had resided in the area for

several generations.

A History of Society Hill

3


The earliest development of the Society Hill area coincided

with the founding of Philadelphia by William Penn in 1682. Penn

incorporated the Free Society of Traders, a Quaker joint-stock

company, that year in order to promote the settlement and

development of the fledgling city (Dunn & Dunn, 1982, p. 19).

The Society’s trading house was located on a hill adjacent to

Dock Creek near Front and Pine Streets. Thus, the area came to

be known as “The Society’s hill”. The Society’s intended

projects involved hemp and linen production, fisheries, mining,

and whale bone harvesting, as well as oil and fur trades with

local Native American populations. While its operations quickly

floundered and were eventually abandoned in 1723, the company’s

presence encouraged the settlement of a wealthy, slave-owning

citizenry in the surrounding area. By 1698, there were

approximately 2,000 “Society houses” inhabited by this gentry

class (Pace, 1976, p. 39). This group represented the majority

population in the neighborhood until the mid-19th century.

While the gridded plan of William Penn and Thomas Holme, the

first Surveyor General of Pennsylvania, dictated much of

4


Philadelphia’s earliest development patterns, economic activity

largely affected the city’s growth in the 19th century (Pace,

1976, p. 46). During an era characterized by exponential

population growth, Society Hill experienced rapid commercial and

industrial expansion. Established in the 18th century, the

city’s first wholesale food market was located on Dock Street in

the northeastern sector of the neighborhood. By the mid-19th

century, the Dock Street Market stretched over several blocks of

wharves, wholesale meat and produce market stalls, and commercial

manufacturing warehouses. (Garvin, 2002).

In the earlier decades of the 19th century, there was little

socioeconomic segregation in Philadelphia. The limits of

transportation forced diverse economic and racial groups into

close geographic proximity. However, as transportation improved,

wealthier citizens were able to escape the cacophony of the

neighborhood and its congested, rat-infested market. The vast

majority of Society Hill’s wealthy population migrated westward

to the city’s Rittenhouse Square and Chestnut Hill neighborhoods

as well as West Philadelphia and the “Main Line” suburbs along

5


the Pennsylvania Railroad line. Society Hill’s remaining

residents, mostly working-class African Americans and poor

Eastern European and Latino immigrants, moved into the homes

vacated by the wealthy. (Cybriwsky, Ley, & Western, 1986, p. 94).

When Society Hill’s wealthy residents vacated the

commercialized bustling neighborhood, they severely diminished

the strength of the neighborhood’s tax base. Without financial

security, the physical condition of the area rapidly deteriorated

and little new construction occurred after the turn of the 20th

century (Pace, 1979, p. 60). In “The Philadelphia Negro,” W.E.B.

Du Bois provided a sociological account of the abhorrent living

conditions of impoverished African Americans in the

neighborhood’s Seventh Ward. He wrote that residents lived “in

the midst of an atmosphere of dirt, drunkenness, poverty and

crime” (Du Bois, 1899). By the end of the second World War,

Society Hill was considered a slum. The majority of residential

buildings had been converted into storage facilities,

manufacturing lofts, bars, cheap rooming houses, and cramped,

subdivided tenements for transients and poor residents. A 1957

6


study reported that 82.9% of residential structures were

substandard and less than forty percent of the neighborhood’s

dwellings were owner occupied by 1960 (Pace, 1976, pp. 86-91).

Despite the neighborhood’s dilapidated state, a group of reform-

minded civic leaders incorporated Society Hill as a crucial

aspect of a revolutionary comprehensive redevelopment plan for

center city Philadelphia in 1950s.

The Birth of the Urban Renewal Movement in Philadelphia and

Edmund Bacon’s Vision for Society Hill

The deleterious effects of the Great Depression, World War I

and II, and several decades of an entrenched and corrupt

Republican political system had rendered center city Philadelphia

a shell of its former self by the 1950s. Led by Edmund Bacon,

the Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning

Commission (from 1949-1970), a group of “Young Turks” emerged who

supported the political reform and comprehensive planning

processes advocated by the Greater Philadelphia Movement (founded

in 1948). The Young Turks were predominately young and

7


intellectual, heralded from patrician backgrounds, and were

largely representative of the city’s commercial elite (Cybriwsky

et al., 1986, pp. 96-98). The 35-person Greater Philadelphia

Movement including founding members such as Walter Phillips of

the Public Housing Authority, and Joseph Clark and Richardson

Dilworth, both future Philadelphia mayors. The eventually

coalesced into the Joint Committee on City Planning. In addition

to producing a reformed City Charter in 1951, the Committee

developed a six-year capital improvement program for the city

(Pace, 1976, pp. 95-96).

In 1947, the Planning Commission produced the Better

Philadelphia exhibition. Attracting nearly 400,000 visitors

during its five-week display, the exhibition was the brainchild

of Bacon and Phillips. It prominently featured long-range

comprehensive plans for center city, including the redevelopment

of the historically significant Society Hill neighborhood. Bacon

recognized the extraordinary potential and economic value of

Society Hill, due in large part to its association with America’s

colonial history (Cybriwsky et al., 1986, p. 97). His primary

8


goals for the neighborhood’s revival included the removal of the

unsightly Dock Street Market, the development of a strong

residential tax base, and the preservation of architecturally

significant historic homes (Pace, 1976, p. 109). The Planning

Commission certified Bacon’s proposal for Society Hill in 1948

(Business Week, 1965). Reflecting upon his plan decades later,

Bacon said that he “had a long-range view” for the future of

Society Hill and that he “held in total contempt anyone who

opposed it” (Salisbury, 2004).

Washington Square East Redevelopment Plan

In 1949, Congress passed the National Housing Act, popularly

known as the urban renewal program. Under Title I of the Act,

the federal government would provide two-thirds of the necessary

financing for approved urban renewal projects, while local

government paid the remaining one-third. These subsidies allowed

for property acquisition, demolition, and land clearance of

targeted redevelopment areas. In 1954, Congress amended the

Housing Act, providing Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-

9


backed mortgage insurance for banks that lent money for new or

rehabilitated housing projects in urban renewal areas (Garvin,

2002, p. 19). The 1954 amendment protected local banks, many of

which practiced redlining, refusing to provide loans for

residential development in historically poor areas such as

Society Hill because of high financial risk. In 1957, The

Washington Square East Urban Renewal Project was approved for

federal funding and was distinguished as the first American

redevelopment program to incorporate historic preservation as a

fundamental aspect of its design Garvin, 2002, p. 263).

The Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) administered

the Society Hill redevelopment plan in addition to acting as

steward for the comprehensive plan of center city. Founded in

1945, the authority was the first organization of its kind in the

United States. The Washington Square East Redevelopment area

contained 127 acres and was bounded by Independence National

Historical Park and Walnut Street to the north, Delaware Avenue

to the east, Lombard Street on the south, and Washington Square

and Sixth Street to the west (Rapkin & Grigsby, 1960, p. 31).

10


PRA acquired blighted in properties in the redevelopment area

through eminent domain as dictated by Pennsylvania’s Urban

Redevelopment Law of 1945 (PRA “About Us,” 2011). The Washington

Square East project was the first major redevelopment initiative

undertaken by the authority in Philadelphia. According to the

project’s design, properties acquired by the authority would

either be demolished or rehabilitated, then sold to private

developers at lower price than the original purchasing fee. The

federal government absorbed any financial losses incurred during

the resale process (Clark & Clark, 1982, p. 670).

The PRA worked closely with the Old Philadelphia Development

Corporation (OPDC) during the redevelopment process in Society

Hill. In 1956, sixty local business and banking leaders founded

the OPDC to serve as the private, nonprofit implementation arm of

the project. The OPDC was the brainchild of Albert Greenfield, a

local real estate developer once referred to as the “most

powerful single individual in Philadelphia” (Baltzell, 1958 and

Cybriwsky et al., 1986, p. 102). At the redevelopment project’s

outset, Greenfield owned numerous properties in Society Hill and

11


announced that the revitalization of the neighborhood would

ultimately save the city. As an organizational adviser and

consultant to the PRA, the OPDC served as the general promoter of

the Society Hill project’s goal of single-family, owner-occupied

housing development (Pace, 1976, pp. 126-127).

The PRA subdivided Society Hill’s targeted redevelopment

zone into four units. Unit I, the largest area, totaled 65.6

acres. Unit II encompassed 46 acres located in the southern and

central areas of the redevelopment zone. Unit III totaled 11.6

acres and composed the western boundary of the area, south of

Washington Square. Unit IV, the smallest of the zones at 3.8

acres, became the responsibility of the South Central

Redevelopment Project in 1963 when federal funding for the

Society Hill project was exhausted (Pace, 1976, pp. 119-122).

In 1959, the PRA condemned Unit I in its entirety through

blight declaration and eminent domain. Dominated by industrial,

manufacturing and commercial activities related to the Dock

Street Market, Unit I’s existing land use patterns were deemed

“incompatible” with the PRA’s proposed high density residential

12


development. Twenty-six manufacturing firms were forced to

vacate the neighborhood following its zoning reconstitution as a

residential area. (Cybriwsky et al., 1986, p. 100). Once the

wholesale food market was relocated three miles away at a former

garbage dump site in South Philadelphia, Unit I was cleared of

all existing structures to make way for redevelopment (Pace,

1976, p. 111).

The PRA requested design proposals for a residential

development scheme in Unit I. The winning design, titled Society

Hill Towers, was submitted by architect I.M. Pei on behalf the

firm of Webb & Knapp. The firm’s president, William Zeckendorf

Sr., also served as the project’s original lead developer

(Cybriwsky et al., 1986, pp.100-101). The Society Hill Towers

design consisted of three thirty-one story asymmetrically

arranged towers that collectively included 720 luxury residential

units. The concrete towers featured floor-to-ceiling windows

that offered stunning views of the Delaware River to the east and

center city to the west. Located on the crest of the grassy hill

on which the Free Society’s trade house was located centuries

13


earlier, the tower complex served as a beacon to attract wealthy

residents to Society Hill. The design included a supermarket and

underground parking for approximately 400 cars (Garvin, 2002, p.

263). Pei’s plan also included the construction of fourteen

three-story single-family brick row homes on the site of several

older buildings demolished by the PRA. These structures, as well

as architect Louis Sauer’s low-rise eighty-five unit Penn’s

Landing complex, provided a pleasing aesthetic transition between

the high-rise towers and the neighborhood’s historic homes that

had been selected for rehabilitation (Garvin, 2002, p. 265).

While the majority of 19th century commercial structures

were condemned and demolished in Units II and III, many of the

Units’ 18th and 19th century Georgian, Federal and Greek Revival

homes were deemed historically significant (Pace, 1976, pp. 59-

60). The PRA surveyed every structure and selected nearly 700

homes for rehabilitation. More than 500 of these building were

built prior to 1850 (Garvin, 2002, p. 263). The PRA allowed

owners thirty days to agree to voluntary restoration of their

homes according to specific design standards as dictated by the

14


Philadelphia Historical Commission before it would assume

property stewardship through eminent domain (Tatum, 1961, p.

137). Private owners took advantage of funds provided by

federally insured mortgages to ultimately rehabilitate 34% of the

area’s homes (Pace, 1976, p. 137). According to the National

Park Service’s Historic American Buildings Survey, nearly 800

homes were restored during Society Hill’s revitalization process

(Wolf, 1982, p. 720).

The PRA’s federally-subsidized design overhaul of Society

Hill included the installation of replica 18th century Franklin

streetlamps, brick sidewalks, granite curbs, and cobblestone

streets, as well as the construction of approximately 200

historic reproduction homes to complement the colonial

neighborhood aesthetic (Wolf, 1982, p. 720). In addition, as per

Edmund Bacon’s design, “greenways” linked small public parks

through tree-lined pedestrian lanes in the place of cleared

condemned properties (Garvin, 2002).

A “Designer Neighborhood”

15


Many homeowners could not afford to restore their historic

residences to the exacting architectural standards of use, scale,

and compatibility set forth by the PRA and the Historical

Commission. After employing eminent domain to force out original

owners, many of whom were African American, the PRA resold

properties to new owners capable of financing costly restoration

work. New owners were overwhelmingly wealthy and white, thus

contributing to the renewal project’s goal of affluent,

homogeneous neighborhood development (Levy & Cybriwsky, 1980, p.

141). As a result of the enthusiastic campaigning by Bacon,

prominent members of Philadelphia’s gentry class began to migrate

to Society Hill. Referred to as “pioneer restorationists,”

wealthy locals such as C. Jared Ingersoll, Henry M. Watts, Jr.,

F. Otto Haas, and Mayor Richardson Dilworth moved into the

neighborhood (Cybriwsky et al., 1986, pp. 101-102).

Local media sources enthusiastically reported on the

relocation of members of Philadelphia’s upper class to Society

Hill (Cybriwsky et al., 1986, pp. 101-102). The city’s

government also recognized the economic value of the area’s

16


revitalization. Mayor Dilworth publicly admitted that his

administration’s fervent support of Society Hill’s redevelopment

was directly related to the project’s goal to retain

Philadelphia’s white population and attract the middle class back

to the city from the suburbs (Bartelt, 1989, p. 89).

As per the design of Bacon and his colleagues, the

neighborhood’s reputation experienced a significant shift from

seedy to upscale. The Philadelphia region’s wealthiest began to

settle in Society Hill in growing numbers, facilitating the

development of a socially and racially homogenous community.

According a real estate advertisement in the Philadelphia Inquirer,

Society Hill was “no longer a haven for ferocious misanthropes.”

It had “become a neighborhood in the fullest sense of the word,

and a classy one at that” (Philadelphia Inquirer, 1965 and Cybriwsky

et al., 1986, p. 105). Upwardly mobile suburbanites shared the

enthusiasm of their wealthy urban counterparts. People relocated

to the city, electing to settle in Society Hill because of its

close geographic proximity to center city’s economic and cultural

opportunities.

17


Displacement

By 1967, Society Hill’s real estate values had experienced a

dramatic increase and the Washington Square East Urban

Redevelopment Project was widely considered to be an overwhelming

success (Wolf, 1982, p. 720). However, the neighborhood’s lower-

income residents were largely excluded from the benefits of

Society Hill’s renaissance. Members of this longstanding

community recognized that the renewal plan did not encourage

their continued presence in the locality. At a public unveiling

of the Unit I design, one of the original residents commented

that it was “a plan for an area of wealthy poodled people”

(Evening Bulletin, 1958 and Cybriwsky et al., 1986, p. 106). John P.

Robin, President of the OPDC, said that pre-existing Society Hill

residents “would have to compromise their desires with those of

others and the city” (Evening Bulletin, 1958 and Cybriwsky et al.,

1986, p. 106). It had become apparent that the general wellbeing

of members of the neighborhood’s less affluent community stood in

18


direct conflict with the long-term “top-down” redevelopment plan

for Society Hill.

While many longtime Society Hill homeowners lost their

residences to the PRA through eminent domain, those who leased

apartments in the neighborhood were evicted en masse to make way

for new development. During the area’s rehabilitation, multiple-

family dwellings were strongly discouraged due to their historic

association with transient populations (Pace, 1976, p. 115). The

progression of area reinvestment displaced large swaths of

working-class and poor African Americans, Latinos, and eastern

European immigrants who could no longer afford to rent in their

former neighborhood enclaves. Subsequent to the unveiling of the

Unit I redevelopment plan, renters living in this area were

evicted on short notice and provided with little or no

compensation and relocation assistance by the PRA (Levy &

Cybriwsky, 1980, p. 140). Though displaced residents were often

guaranteed affordable housing in nearby locations, this promise

was rarely honored (Bartelt, 1989, p. 89).

19


Official counts of the total number of displaced residents

vary widely. According to one source, 551 residents were forced

to relocate during the redevelopment of Society Hill (Garvin,

2002, p. 265). However, another source, citing a PRA statistic,

lists the total number of displaced citizens as 6,000 (Smith,

1996, p. 134). While the displacement totals remain subject to

debate, the subject of relocation was widely regarded as a

tremendously troubling issue not fully anticipated by Edmund

Bacon and his fellow social reformers (Pace, 1976, p. 108).

One of the defining struggles between Society Hill’s

original residents and the relentless redevelopment process

involved the Octavia Hill Association. Founded in 1896, the

Quaker-based organization served as landlord for the

neighborhood’s low-income residents, specifically those located

on Lombard Street between Sixth and Seventh Streets (Pace, 1979,

p. 87). During the Society Hill redevelopment process, the

Association agreed to rebuild its lower income residential units

as high-priced rental units. Original residents, most elderly

African Americans, continued to reside in the units until 1971,

20


when the Association informed them that they would need to

vacate. When the organization offered relocation housing in the

Mantua neighborhood of West Philadelphia in 1973 for the

remaining seven families, all refused (Pace, 1979, p. 142).

Dorothy Miller, a member of one of these families, referred to as

“The Octavia Hill Seven,” said of the Association’s relocation

offer: “(They) see nothing in plopping us down in a ghetto

because they say, ‘You’re black, you’ll feel at home there,’ or

something like that. Well I’ll tell you I don’t know how to live

‘black’. I only know how to live period…This is my home and I

intend to stay” (Smith, 1996, p. 135). Miller, who spent her

childhood at 615 Lombard Street and attended the local McCall

School, lamented the loss of close community ties in the name of

neighborhood redevelopment and its ensuing “war” (Salisbury,

2004). The Octavia Hill Association eventually evicted all of

the “Octavia Hill Seven” families.

Members of the evicted families founded the nonprofit

Benezet Court Corporation, an organization that sought to provide

new housing for the displaced within close proximity of their

21


original homes. The organization’s named derived from Anthony

Benezet, a French abolitionist who founded a school for African

American children at 6th and Lombard Streets in the 18th century

(Smith, 1996, p. 134). In 1971, members of the Society Hill

Civic Association (SHCA) appointed a committee to develop a

housing alternative for the evicted families. They proposed the

construction of nineteen low- and moderate-income rental units at

6th and Lombard Streets and 6th and Panama Streets, adjacent to

the historic Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Subsidized with funding from the Pennsylvania Department of

Community Affairs and the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency,

the new units would be built according to PRA-approved standards

on vacant land so as not to impinge upon the Octavia Hill

Association’s redevelopment project (Society Hill Civic

Association Newsletter, 1973). In addition to the “Octavia Hill

Seven,” ten families, most of whom were low-income Jewish

residents, applied to live in the proposed housing. While

approved by a 1972 vote of the SHCA membership, the project was

22


vehemently opposed by members of the newly formed Society Hill

West Civic Association.

The Benezet Court issue polarized Society Hill residents as

class- and race-based hostilities led to threats and property

damage. A young, white bourgeoisie class of lawyers, doctors,

and architects represented the second wave of wealthy migration

to Society Hill following the early patrician “pioneers”.

Members of this population largely stood in firm opposition to

the Benezet Court proposal. They argued that low-income minority

housing would be “public housing by another name” and would

result in a steep decline of area property values (Smith, 1996,

p. 134). A proponent of this viewpoint challenged the claim of

historic ties to the neighborhood held by displaced residents: “…

by what authority do these people have roots? If you don’t own,

you don’t have roots. What have they planted, their feet in the

ground? I’ll tell you this, we’re going to fight this thing to

the end” (Brown, 1973 and Smith, 1996, pp. 134-135). The SHCA

saw its membership grow from 170 to more than 1,000 during this

period. In a June 1973 referendum, SHCA members voted against

23


the Benezet Court project. Due to this defeat, the project was

not brought to the PRA for review (Pace, 1979, p. 145).

The PRA did not have any involvement in the Benezet Court

controversy. However, following the proposal’s defeat, PRA

Executive Director Walter D’Alessio said, “We can no longer

tolerate government by (a community) referendum…There is no

question that we are interested in Benezet or some proposal like

it. In fact, if the sponsors can get it together again, we will

see that it is done. We will give it every kind of support”

(Randall, 1973 and Pace, 1979, p. 146). However, the PRA elected

not to consider the Benezet Court plan when it was revived

through legal aid in 1974 under new Executive Director Augustine

Salvitti (Pace, 1979, pp. 146-147).

Project Completion

Officially completed in 1977, the Society Hill redevelopment

project proved instrumental in Philadelphia’s effort to reverse

the economically devastating population loss of wealthy white

citizens following the end of World War II. Society Hill’s 1980

24


residential population totaled 7,000 compared to 3,378 in 1960.

During this period, the number of white residents increased by

67% while the corresponding percentage of African American

residents decreased by 55% (Pace, 1976, p. 135). The renewal

project heralded a new era in the city defined by large-scale

redevelopment efforts such as the Penn Center office complex and

Independence National Historic Park (Cybriwsky et al., 1986, p.

99). With cobblestone lanes of handsomely restored 18th and 19th

century brick row homes transitioning into the modern elegance of

Society Hill Towers, the reborn neighborhood was referred to as a

“living Williamsburg or Old Sturbridge” that maintained a

distinct 20th century relevance (Business Week, 1965).

Prior to the city’s renewal efforts, Society Hill’s annual

property tax payments totaled $454,000. In 1974, the total

amount had increased by 444% to $2.47 million. Both the

redevelopment area’s property values and its population had

doubled by 1980 compared to 1960 totals (Garvin, 2002, p. 265 and

p. 21). $38.6 million in public funds had been invested in the

Society Hill redevelopment project for property acquisition,

25


demolition, clearance, and resale by 1976. For every public

dollar allocated to the project, seven dollars in private

investment were generated (Smith, 1996, p. 123). The demographic

attributes of Society Hill’s residents also evolved significantly

during the two-decade redevelopment process. While 3.8% of its

adult residents were college educated in 1950, 63.8% held this

distinction in 1980. In addition, by 1980, Society Hill

residents “boasted 253% of the median city income compared with

54% in 1950” (Beauregard, 1990 and Smith, 1996, p. 133).

Conclusion

Upon its completion, the Washington Square East

Redevelopment Project was publicly celebrated as an ideal model

for urban renewal in American cities. The program’s

groundbreaking preservationist approach to redevelopment led to

the neighborhood’s inclusion on the National Register of Historic

Places in 1971 (Wolf, 1982, p. 720). According to the Society

Hill Civic Association’s website, the area’s continued success is

due in large part to the “confluence of four important forces,

26


three national and one local: (i) the city planning movement,

(ii) the historic preservation movement, (iii) the federal

government’s urban renewal and related programs and (iv) what has

been called Philadelphia’s ‘political renaissance,’” (SHCA,

“Society Hill History,” 2011). According to this description and

the overarching goals of Philadelphia’s urban renewal plans, the

Society Hill redevelopment project was an unequivocal success.

Through the coordinated and sustained reinvestment of both public

and private entities, the neighborhood experienced a dramatic

rebirth. Society Hill continues to serve as a powerful economic

engine for the city through money generated by its enhanced tax

base and historic tourism. Moreover, its affluent residents are

able to take advantage of center city jobs and cultural

attractions located within a 15 minute walk of their elegantly

appointed historic homes.

The neighborhood’s highly publicized economic success was

achieved at a devastating cost to many of its community members

whose residency predated the redevelopment project. When the PRA

condemned Society Hill properties through blight declaration, the

27


vast majority of longtime residents could not afford to remain in

the neighborhood. While the displaced were told that they would

receive relocation assistance, the PRA rarely delivered on this

promise. This failure to support the uprooted stood in violation

of the Housing Act of 1949’s guarantee for “a decent home and

suitable living environment” for every American family (Pace,

1976, p. 117). The architects of the Society Hill renewal

project were able to finance the neighborhood’s renaissance with

the Housing Act’s federal subsidies. However, displaced local

residents were denied the adequate housing promised by the

provisions of the Act. In their tireless pursuit of a modern

vision for Philadelphia, Edmund Bacon and his fellow reformers

achieved a largely qualified success in Society Hill.

As was the case with the majority of post-World War II urban

renewal projects in the United States, displacement was an

inevitable consequence of the Washington Square East

Redevelopment Project. Representatives from the PRA, the OPDC,

and the program’s organizational investors may not have intended

to disrupt the lives of Society Hill’s residents who lived in the

28


neighborhood prior to redevelopment. However, because of their

low socioeconomic status, these residents, much like the

dilapidated buildings in which they had lived, were deemed

“incompatible” with proposed neighborhood improvements. Once the

original residents had vacated, new, wealthy “pioneers” settled

in the area. The ultimate eviction of poor and working-class

African American, Latino, and European immigrants, and the

subsequent influx of wealthy citizens, was vital to Society

Hill’s ultimate success. Temple University’s David Bartelt

speaks to this fact: “the revitalization of center city

Philadelphia, as physically and aesthetically pleasing as it is

to many people, raises the question: ‘For whom are we saving the

cities?’” (Levy, 1979, p. 191 and Bartelt, 1989, p. 81). As

evidenced by the urban renewal project that led to Society Hill’s

triumphant renaissance, it was surely not for the poor.

References

Bacon, Edmund N. "Putting the ideas to work - Philadelphia."

Design of Cities. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin, 1976. 264-308.

29


Bartelt, David W. "Renewing Center City Philadelphia: Whose city?

Which public's interests?" Unequal Partnerships: The Political Economy

of Urban Redevelopment in Postwar America. New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press, 1989. 80-102.

Bauman, John F. Public Housing, Race, and Renewal: Urban Planning in

Philadelphia, 1920-1974. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University

Press, 1987.

Clark, Joseph S. Jr., and Clark, Dennis J. “Rally and Relapse:

1946-1968.” Philadelphia: A 300-Year History. New York: W. W.

Norton, 1982.

Cybriwsky, Roman A., Levy, David, and Western, John. "The

Political and Social Construction of Revitalized

Neighborhoods: Society, Hill, Philadelphia, and False Creek,

Vancouver." Gentrification of the City. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin,

1986. 92-120.

DuBois, W.E.B. (1899). The Philadelphia Negro: A social study.

Retrieved from

http://www.archive.org/stream/philadelphianegr001901mbp/phil

adelphianegr001901mbp_djvu.txt.

30


Dunn, Mary Maples and Dunn, Richard S. “The Founding: 1681-1701.”

Philadelphia: A 300-Year History. New York: W. W. Norton, 1982.

"Everything you ever wanted to know about Benezet." Society Hill Civic

Association: The Resident Newsletter (June 1973): 1-4.

Gallery, John Andrew. The Planning of Center City Philadelphia: from William

Penn to the Present. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Architecture,

2007.

Garvin, Alexander. (2002, February). The Architect of Society

Hill. Next American City. Retrieved from

http://americancity.org/magazine/article/last-exit-society-

hill-garvin/.

Garvin, Alexander. The American City: What Works, What Doesn't. 2nd ed.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Kearney, George F., ed. Society Hill News 1 (May 1958): 1-4.

Levy, Paul R., and Roman A. Cybriwsky. "The hidden dimensions of

culture and class: Philadelphia." Back to the City: Issues in

Neighborhood Renovation. New York: Pergamon, 1980. 138-55.

Pace, Valerie Sue Halverson. Society Hill, Philadelphia: Historic Preservation

and Urban Renewal in Washington Square East. Vol. I and II. Ann

31


Arbor, MI: Xerox University Microfilms, 1976.

Petshek, Kirk R. "Rebuilding Center City." The Challenge of Urban

Reform: Policies &

Programs in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

1973. 217-33.

Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. “About Us”. Retrieved

November 22, 2011, from http://www.phila.gov/rda/about.html.

Rapkin, Chester, and William G. Grigsby. Residential Renewal in the

Urban Core: An Analysis of the Demand for Housing in Center City Philadelphia,

1957 to 1970, with Reference to the Washington Square East Redevelopment

Area. Philadelphia, PA.: University of Pennsylvania, 1960.

Salisbury, Stephan. (2004, March 17). Society Hill emerged amid

tumultuous times. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from

http://articles.philly.com/2004-03-17/news/25384466_1_societ

y-hill-redevelopment-window.

Smith, Neil, and Peter Williams, eds. Gentrification of the City. Boston,

MA: Allen & Unwin, 1986.

Smith, Neil. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City.

London, England: Routledge, 1996.

32


Society Hill Civic Association. “Society Hill History”. Retrieved

November 21, 2011, from

http://www.societyhillcivic.org/aboutSH/history.asp.

Tatum, George B. Penn's Great Town: 250 Years of Philadelphia Architecture

Illustrated in Prints and Drawings. Philadelphia, PA: University of

Pennsylvania, 1961.

Where urban renewal brings history to life : Society Hill is

providing homes for affluent and

influential Philadelphians : it's a combination of the old

city revived and towering modern units that help build a

sound tax base. Business Week. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.:

[s.n.]. 1965.

Wolf, Stephanie G. “The Bicentennial City: 1968-1982.” Philadelphia:

A 300-Year History. New York: W. W. Norton, 1982.

33

Society Hill: “For whom are we saving the cities?”

Documents