Urban Renewal Realistically Reappraised

Abstract

Recent-and often misguided-critical outpourings against urban renewal justify an effort to determine realistically the actual and potential contribution of government to the solution of urban problems. Broadly defined, urban renewal can encompass all public and private efforts to improve city form and life. Realism requires recognition at the outset that there are no panaceas for every problem a city may possess and that some solutions create or emphasize other problems. Equally, realism requires careful consideration of the genesis and purposes of government programs with limited objectives so that criticism of them relates to their efforts and not to the broader notion of urban renewal goals. One recent attempt at major analysis1 has gone astray partly because its author failed to see clearly the historical perspective and the limits of federal aid for slum clearance and redevelopment authorized by Congress under the Housing Act of I949 and its amendments.2 The author of The Federal Bulldozer views this urban redevelopment assistance as though it had been expected by the Congress to solve all national housing problems. He cites the 1949 Declaration of National Housing Policy, preface to a comprehensive housing act with six separate titles, as though that declaration pertained only to title I. He then proceeds to condemn urban renewal for not achieving the aims of titles II, III, IV, V, VI, and other national housing efforts. The Federal Bulldozer is based on the assumption that federal assistance for local slum clearance and redevelopment projects was meant to achieve the housing aims of such other programs as low-rent public housing and FHA mortgage insurance. By incorporating these and other myths in his analysis, he began with unrealistic expectations for urban renewal efforts undertaken with federal assistance.