The History of Public Housing in the US (and why it isn't being saved!)

Andrew Webb

HIPR 701: Introduction to Historic Preservation

Professor Thomas Taylor

November 14, 2011

The History of Public Housing in the US

[And why it isn’t being saved]  

1 

2 

The American Dream

The unwritten rule in historic preservation is, if it’s

fifty years or older, it’s historic. So why is it that when low-

income housing is deemed unsuccessful, even though some projects

date from the mid-century or older, the solution is to demolish

everything and start over? How come with dilapidated housing

projects the solution for renewal is to tear down rather than

follow “the R’s” of preservation and restore or rehabilitate

housing projects? Do we strive to be hypocritical?

America is clearly in need of low-income housing. The

hundreds of thousands of homeless people wandering the streets

is evidence of that. And in today’s society, where

sustainability is on an evolutionary fast track from idea to

trend to law, do we truly have the freedom, or the right, to be

selective in what we preserve – especially when what we

preserve, or restore or rehabilitate can benefit the masses?

The main goal of preservation is simple, as quoted from the

National Trust for Historic Preservation website, “When historic

buildings and neighborhoods are torn down or allowed to

deteriorate, a part of our past disappears forever… we lose

history that helps us know who we are…”1 Historic housing

projects should be preserved with the same intentions as any

                                                             1 About – The National Trust for Historic Preservation, http://www.preservationnation.org/about‐us/ 

3 

other historic structure needing salvation. They have a past.

They are part of the American history. They are integral to

helping low-income families live better lives.

People are so apt to destroy low-income housing units

because there is a disconnection in judging what structures are

worthy, or reputable, of preserving. Buildings have identities;

labels earned from appearances, inhabitants and the activities

that occur within them. People have a hard time seeing past

labels. We’re taught that low-income housing projects are slums;

places of violence, drugs and poverty; blemishes of American

living.2 And while some housing projects are in fact places of

poverty, drugs and violence, they are also people’s homes.

Perhaps instead of imparting the act of demolition to “improve”

crime prone, historic housing projects, efforts should be

refocused to rehabilitate the social stigma associated with

public housing; better building management and more intensive

educational, awareness and good behavior incentive programs are

ways to improve current project conditions.

Some of us grow up in suburban tract homes, others in

urban townhouses or apartments; similarly, a portion of the

American population is born into, grows up in, or starts their

                                                             2 Sudhir Venkatesh, American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000) pg. 73 

4 

own families in low-income housing projects. Statutes,

limitations, policies and laws often save rows of historic

townhouses and single-family homes all over the United States

from being razed. The same should apply to historic housing

projects. This paper follows the history of infamous American

housing projects, citing reasons for the demise of public

housing, revealing examples of what is happening to public

housing today, and raising the much debated question, “Is

bulldozing and rebuilding really the best option?”

The Start of Public Housing

The United States Housing Authority was first created in

1937 by the United States government, as a government

corporation within the Department of the Interior.3 Several years

later, and after being transferred through various other

agencies, the USHA, together with fifteen other housing

organizations became part of the National Housing Agency. The

two main objectives of the National Housing Agency centered on

the clearance of slums and the creation of low-income housing.

Today, the concerns of housing are overseen by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose goals and

priorities still include the creation low-income housing. During

                                                             3 Ruth Weintraub and Rosalind Tough, The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 18, No. 2 (University of Wisconsin: 1942) pg. 155 

5 

the 1950s, 60s and 70s, HUD helped create hundreds of thousands

of housing units, units being demolished today, to help satisfy

the needs for low-income housing.

The Inspiration of the City of Le Corbusier

The architecture of failed housing projects began with the

mid-century ideas of the International Congress of Modern

Architects and Le Corbusier. Corbusier’s Domino House, and later

his Unité d’Habitation [Figs 1 and 2] at Marseilles, became the

form for most mid-century housing projects. As the International

Movement gained popularity, the United States looked toward the

parti of the Unité as an opportunity to create inexpensive

housing for the thousands of people that couldn’t afford it.

Low-income housing was built taller, creating a higher

concentration of residents with smaller amounts of acquired

land.

6 

Figs 1 (left) and 2 (right). Fig 1 shows Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation from the exterior, and Fig 2 is a drawing of a typical unit within the Habitation.

Corbusier’s grandiose plans called for tall, multi-level

buildings set within expansive green spaces; usable green spaces

and landscapes were crucial to his [Corbusier’s] design,

claiming that the growth of industrial cities resulted in the

declination of the moral landscape. Initially designed as a

large scale takeover project, where Corbusier wanted to demolish

large tracts of Paris slums (sounds all too familiar) to create

a more bountiful supply of well planned, affordable housing, his

dreams for Paris were never realized, but were later executed in

Marseilles as the Unité d’Habitation.

Though Corbusier’s modern plans of a towering city were

well received, and executed, in Europe, the US experienced

7 

different results when implementing high-rise construction in

low-income living. To begin with, there were concerns regarding

the layout almost immediately. Even when housing projects had

already begun construction, the American Institute of Architects

voiced concerns that high-rise structures were not the

appropriate arrangement for families and children to inhabit.

However, in the 1950s and 60s, as major cities like Chicago, New

York City and St. Louis were entangled in the modernist high-

rise fad, planning officials deemed the high-rise the best

option [see Fig 3]. Critics claimed that a structure over seven

stories would begin to isolate the tenant from the rest of the

community. When one lives in an upper apartment of a high rise

you begin to lose the ability to relate and interact with the

environment. The opposition referred to the structures as

“isolation islands” because the buildings were unapproachable as

they were often set back from the streets by grassy plazas,

isolating the residents from the cultural norms of the working

class. In a sense, the buildings locked their residents into

poverty.

In the book Modern Architecture Since 1900, author William

J. R. Curtis describes the story of the reinterpretation of the

Unité as a “dreary and brutal backdrop of endless egg-crate

high-rises… in which minimum functional definitions were allowed

8 

to prevail over the rich elaboration of new communal images in

touch with basic human needs.”4 Curtis continues the stories of

isolation, explaining that the opposition argues that “‘tall

buildings’ (all tall buildings anywhere) caused ‘social

isolation’, destroyed decent urban scale, were a strain for the

very young and the very old, were lacking in domestic feeling,

and represented the imposition of one social class on another.”5

Fig. 3 shows the “bang for your buck” behind large scale, high-rise public housing developments.

Curtis goes on to explain that some reasons why American

mass housing projects were not as successful as Corbusier’s

Unité d’Habitation were due to focuses on high density without

acknowledging crucial communal spaces and the inclusion open

outdoor spaces without including landscaping, which was to then                                                              4 William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900 (New York: Phaidon, 1982) pg. 459 5 Ibid. 

9 

“devalue the idea of the community living in contact with

nature.”6 However, design decisions are often dictated by

bureaucratic concerns of cost, and less so on the social and

psychological effects the designs could render on inhabitants.

It was evident that as time went on, and critics

continually spoke out against the demise of the high-rise

housing project, “the charisma of the Unité, and of large-scale

town planning, was beginning to fade.”7

HOPE VI

On one end of the argument lies the National Trust for

Historic Preservation and the Secretary of the Interior for

Historic Preservation; however on the opposite end lies another

government appointed agency, the Housing for Urban Development.

In the case of New Orleans, the mayor and city council partnered

with HANO (Housing Authority of New Orleans) and HUD to destroy

thousands of housing units.8 HUD is both responsible for both

creating homes for people who need them, and inadvertently,

taking homes away.

                                                             6 William J. R. Curtis, pg. 459 7 Ibid.  8 Richard Moe, OP/ED: Public Housing Can, Should be Rehabbed (Times‐Picayune, March 10, 2008) 

10 

The HOPE VI Program “serves a vital role… to transform

Public Housing.”9 Under the HOPE IV Program, city officials are

allowed to create, transform and destroy Public Housing

Projects, both historic and non-historic. The HOPE VI Program

was originally created as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration

(URD) and was initially developed as a result of recommendations

by the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public

Housing, whose main goal was to which was “eradicate severely

distressed public housing.”10 As written on the HUD government

website, specific elements of public housing transformation that

have proven key under HOPE VI are:

‐ Changing the physical shape of public housing ‐ Establishing positive incentives for resident self-

sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower residents

‐ Lessening concentrations of poverty by placing public housing in non-poverty neighborhoods and promoting mixed-income communities

‐ Forging partnerships with other agencies, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private businesses to leverage support and resources11

The admirable purpose of the HOPE VI Program is to provide

better living situations for people who cannot afford to do so,

and the program’s goals to depart from dilapidated housing

conditions is commendable; however, of the three main focuses of

                                                             9 About HOPE VI – Public and Indian Housing,   http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/hope6/about 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.    

11 

the HOPE VI Program (revitalization of physical conditions;

management improvements; social and community services to

address resident needs) emphasis is placed on “physical

revitalization,” rather demolition, whereas a greater emphasis

on management and community improvements could help certain

housing projects to be successful and deem them worthy to be

revitalized. This excerpt of information from HUD/HOPE VI

website shows the balance between demolitions and

revitalizations:

Demolition: Using funds from FY 1996 through FY 2003, HUD awarded $395 million through 287 HOPE VI Demolition grants for the demolition of more than 57,000 severely distressed public housing units.

Revitalization: Since the inception of the HOPE VI program, there have been a total of 262 revitalization grants awarded between FYs 1993-2010, totaling approximately $6.2 billion.12

Case Study: Chicago Housing Authority

Created through the Federal Housing Act of 1937, the

Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) [Fig 4] was once efficient and

well managed. The CHA was driven to create good apartments in

good neighborhoods for both poor white and black Chicagoans;

however, by the 1970’s, the CHA was rapidly deteriorating form

                                                             12 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/hope6/about 

12 

the inside out, a deterioration that grew worse through the

millennium. 13

Figs 4 (above) and 5 (below) show the public’s approval and disproval of the Chicago Housing Authority.

                                                             13 Danil Nagy, A Mandate for CHAnge (Urban Magazine, 2010) 

13 

A change in management in the 1960’s resulted in the

initial decline of the CHA [Fig 5]. The building of isolated,

monolithic concrete towers separated public housing residents

with the rest of the residents of the surrounding city. Many

public housing projects, like Robert Taylor Homes and Cabrini

Greens, became islands of crime set on the outskirts of Chicago.

Susan J. Popkin, author of The Hidden War: Crime and the

Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago, pinpointed the degradation

of Chicago’s public housing; “problems of Chicago’s public

housing escalated in the 1970s and 1980s under new federal a

policy, which forced the CHA to give preference to the poorest

households as a method of social welfare.”14 According to Urban

Magazine, which published an article in June of 2009 focused on

the history of the CHA, Chicago’s public housing deteriorated

when certain focuses caused a sharp rent increase with the

working poor:

While the projects were initially meant to provide jobs and

housing for the working poor, these new policies decreased

the rents of the poorest tenants, causing a sharp increase

in the rents that working families had to pay for public

housing. The subsequent flight of the working class left

the CHA without a major source of funding, and rendered it

unable to perform regular maintenance on the already-

deteriorating housing stock. Lack of maintenance, combined

                                                             14 Susan J. Popkin, The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000)  

14 

with the projects’ isolation and vulnerable tenants, made

the projects a prime location for the exploding drug trade

of the 1970s and 80s. Without proper policing, urban gangs

quickly appropriated many of Chicago’s public housing

projects as their headquarters, catalyzing further

deterioration and abandonment by anyone who could afford to

get out.15

Figs 6 (left) and 7 (right) are images of the buildings of the Robert Taylor Homes community. Fig 6 is a historic photograph from when the Homes were first built; Fig 7 is a photograph taken of the Homes during demolition.

Today, most, if not all, of these large scale housing

projects have been completely demolished as part of a 10-year

plan implemented by the city of Chicago to change the face of

public housing. As of the year 2000, three of the twenty-eight

buildings compromising the Robert Taylor Homes [Figs 6 and 7]

were razed. Though the Robert Taylor Homes was described as “the

most infamous and troubled community”16, promises of having all

demolished buildings replaced in 10 years (the 10 year mark was

                                                             15 Danil Nagy, A Mandate for CHAnge 16 Sudhir Venkatesh, pg. 10 

15 

passed in 2010) have not been fulfilled. Many people are still

in need of housing in Chicago today.

The Demolition of New Orleans Housing

Richard Moe, writer for the Times-Picayune, expressed his

concerns of preserving public housing during the procession of

demolition of New Orleans’ four largest historic public housing

projects. Moe states that, “While arguments may persist over how

much public housing is needed, it is clear that New Orleans is

experiencing a shortage of affordable living space. Nonetheless,

4,500 units of public housing are slated to be bulldozed…”17 The

reason for the destruction; they [the housing projects] stand as

a symbol of failure within the realm of low-income housing. So

to correct failures we completely eradicate them?

Moe goes on to argue that, “Historic preservation and

housing advocates have never argued that public housing should

be kept as it was. We recognize that most 20th-century

experiments in massive public housing were a resounding

disaster.”18 So instead of taking a step back, examining the

major flaws in previous designs and then changing those

“disasters,” the reaction is to destroy everything, wiping away

the existence of all mistakes, pretending like it never

                                                             17 Richard Moe, OP/ED: Public Housing Can, Should be Rehabbed 18 Ibid.  

16 

happened, “as if destroying the structures themselves would

eliminate the failed social and housing policies they

symbolize.”19

Continuing with Moe’s argument, mistakes can be corrected

without having to completely demolish everything. For example,

when writing a paper, such as the one you, the reader, are

currently reading, grammatical mistakes like misspelled words

and misused commas are common occurrences. These occurrences

require the correction of the singular word or the erasure of

the stray comma, not the deletion of an entire sentence.

Sustainability

One of the largest problems brought on by the destruction

of large scale housing projects is the current issue of

sustainability [Fig 8]. The argument is simple: demolishing

usable buildings is wasteful. The materials composing these

materials end up in landfills, no longer viable. Historic

materials will not only be trashed in landfills, but additional

resources will be expended in getting those materials to a dump,

causing an unnecessary destructive cycle.

                                                             19 Richard Moe, OP/ED: Public Housing Can, Should be Rehabbed 

17 

Fig 8 shows the relationship of sustainability to the field of Historic Preservation. Sustainability is the result of the relationships between the economy, the environment and society.

18 

Bibliography

About HOPE VI – Public and Indian Housing, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/hope6/about

About – The National Trust for Historic Preservation,

http://www.preservationnation.org/about-us/ Danil Nagy, A Mandate for CHAnge (Urban Magazine, 2010) Michael A. Stegman, The Fall and Rise of Public Housing (Regulation, Summer 2002) Richard Moe, OP/ED: Public Housing Can, Should be Rehabbed

(Times-Picayune, March 10, 2008) Ruth Weintraub and Rosalind Tough, The Journal of Land & Public

Utility Economics, Vol. 18, No. 2 (University of Wisconsin: 1942)

Sudhir Venkatesh, American Project: The Rise and Fall of a

Modern Ghetto (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000) Susan J. Popkin, The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public

Housing in Chicago (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000)

William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900 (New York:

Phaidon, 1982)