Meghan McCarthy
The Federal Urban Renewal program was supposed to deliver a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American. However, the biggest critique of urban renewal is how it actually displaced millions of people nationwide and failed to rehouse them. In Cities of Tomorrow, Peter Hall documents several instances: in New York City, projects in Manhattan and the Bronx displaced one hundred thousand low-income people, 40 percent of them black and Hispanic, and displaced fi ve thousand businesses, mainly mom-and-pop stores; in New Haven, Connecticut, a major, increasingly black slum area was demolished to build downtown offi ces, partially funded by federal highway dollars to build a distributor; in Pittsburgh, 5,400 low-income, principally black families were displaced by offi ces; and the director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Justin Herman, “stood for the sanitation of these areas, meaning the removal of their inhabitants” (Hall, 2002, 250–252). According to Hall, by “the end of 1965 renewal would evict one million people, most of whom paid very low rents” (253).
Very little is documented on urban renewal in Texas. In most major Texas cities, including Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston, there was a “fear of creeping socialism along with protecting the rights of individuals,” and urban renewal was rejected, seen as a tool of an expanding federal government to take away individual property rights (Fairbanks, 2002, 187). The conservative reluctance to give the government power was predominant in the Lone Star State. San Antonio, however, which was deeply aware of its slum problem and how it threatened the city’s health and social welfare, was an exception to the Texas standard. The city embraced urban renewal immediately after national legislation was passed and encouraged state-enabling legislation for urban renewal in Texas. And, like in other parts of the country, urban renewal in San Antonio suffered an abundance of criticism for focusing on economic development more than attaining its goal of a decent home and suitable living environment. It illustrates a classic example of urban renewal, resulting in displaced poor residents for new office buildings and commercial establishments while failing to rehouse those displaced. However, urban renewal was not a complete failure in San Antonio, as the reaction to urban renewal resulted in a political reform of San Antonio to be more inclusive of the low-income and minority population. Response to urban renewal by the San Antonio Conservation Society also resulted in a shift from renewal to commercial and residential revitalization, leading to an architecturally and culturally preserved society. This report examines the urban renewal experience in San Antonio, how it broke away from the Texas norm, paralleled that of the national experience, evolved into a useful historic preservation tool in San Antonio, and ultimately brought about a society more inclusive of minorities and low-income residents.
History of Urban Renewal From Slum Clearance to Housing Acts
While the urban renewal program began with the 1949 Housing Act, the history of urban renewal extends prior to that. Prior to and during the Great Depression, many slums were built: areas that were predominantly dilapidated housing lacking basic utilities such as plumbing and electricity. Following the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration passed a number of housing acts to assist the low-income population in obtaining a home, either through low-income mortgage programs or federal assistance to public housing authorities to provide low-income housing.
The Wagner-Steagall Act was passed in 1937 to address public housing and initiate slum clearance. The primary factor of this act was that it required that for every slum dwelling that was demolished, a low-income housing unit would be provided. In addition, it set incomes to very low levels to assure that this housing would be reserved for the lowest-income families and provided fi nancial assistance for housing. However, powerful interest groups who were against public housing, such as the National Association of Real Estate Boards and the Urban Land Institute, lobbied against public housing and for commercial redevelopment of blighted areas, resulting in the 1949 and 1954 Housing Acts.
The Housing Act of 1949 actually created the Urban Renewal Program, which promised a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American. According to Robert Lang and Rebecca Sohmer of the Fannie Mae Foundation, the 1949 Housing Act specified three titles that would help achieve this goal: “Title I financed slum clearance under urban redevelopment (later renewal) programs. Title II increased authorization for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance. Title III committed the federal government to building 810,000 new public housing units” (Lang and Sohmer, 2000, 291). Title I also granted the power of eminent domain to cities for slum clearance.
The subsequent Housing Act of 1954 established certain requirements that cities had to meet in order to qualify for funds for urban renewal, called a “workable program.” The workable program required:
- evidence of building codes and ordinances to prevent future blight;
- a comprehensive plan that could integrate urban renewal into the master plan;
- evidence of neighborhood analyses that located and determined seriousness of the slums; (4) formation of an administrative organization for urban renewal;
- proof of financial capacity to bear its share of the net project cost;
- plans and administrative machinery to relocate families from project areas in decent and safe dwellings at prices they could afford to pay; (7) evidence that urban renewal would be supported by groups and individuals and that the program would involve active citizen participation (Flack, 1964, 14–15).
In addition to ensuring the prevention of future slum and blight, the workable program criteria were “designed to assure sound city planning and prevention of future blight and deterioration” (Flack, 1964, 14).
Urban renewal in TexasTexas did not immediately embrace urban renewal after national legislation passed in 1949. In fact, it was not until 1957 that Texas fi nally passed enabling legislation to allow cities to receive federal assistance for urban renewal. Three attempts were made between 1951 and 1955 to pass enabling legislation, and three times it was blocked, most likely due to the “conservative nature of rural legislatures (who often chaired important committees) along with powerful infl uence of wealthy lobby groups” (Fairbanks, 2006). The fi rst effort was thwarted by the Lumberman’s Association of Texas, then in 1953 by the Texas Real Estate Board, and in 1955 by the Texas Association of Home Builders. Despite enactment, the state enabling act included barriers that could further hinder or even prevent urban renewal in Texas cities, including a requirement of a public hearing on proposals, citywide referendum before embarking on urban renewal, and forbiddance of public housing in the urban renewal area (Fairbanks, 2002, 189).
Despite early interests in urban renewal across the state, there was a growing opposition to urban renewal “due in part to a changing political discourse that emphasized the rights of the individual over the needs of the city” (Fairbanks, 2006).
The delay would have dire consequences for many Texas cities since it halted implementation of the program in the state and allowed opponents of urban renewal to organize an effective lobby” (Fairbanks, 2002, 186).
In Dallas, Congressman Bruce Alger, who led the assault on urban renewal, “assailed the growing power of the federal government” and “targeted the . . . urban redevelopment program as an example of encroaching big government” (Fairbanks, 2006, 3). Houston failed to meet the Workable Program requirements since voters rejected zoning and housing code ordinances. Citizens in other cities, such as Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, and Wichita Falls, defeated urban renewal in referenda (Fairbanks, 2002, 182). Generally, across the state there was a “perceived threat of the federal government’s assault on individual freedoms” and, therefore, a reluctance to empower the local government (Fairbanks, 2006).
Texas law created further frustrations to urban renewal in the state and its ability to replace destroyed housing in urban renewal areas. In addition to prohibiting public housing in urban renewal project areas, the Texas Urban Renewal Law mandated that “all reconstruction resulting from the program of Urban Renewal will be done by private enterprise” (Flack, 12). Moreover, Texas law allowed “opponents of public housing to demand a referendum on public housing if they secured enough signatures on their petitions” (Fairbanks, 2002, 192).
In spite of opposition across the state of Texas and legislation that frustrated efforts to ensure affordable housing for those displaced by urban renewal, San Antonio embraced urban renewal and implemented several projects under the urban renewal program.
San Antonio’s fight for urban renewal San Antonio was quite aware of its slum problem well before the Housing Act of 1949. The city had a significant amount of slum and blighted area, predominantly black and Hispanic. In 1937, the Texas Planning Board conducted a survey of low-income housing in San Antonio and found “extremely insanitary conditions prevailing in respect to the housing of Mexican and Negro families” (Wyatt and Terrell, 1937). Moreover, according to Heywood Sanders in Urban Texas, “of the 725 miles of city streets in 1933, only 298 miles were paved. The residential areas west of the downtown housed a largely Hispanic population in some of the worst physical conditions to be found in the United States. . . . The housing conditions of the Hispanic west side were paralleled in the predominantly black east side, although (at least, by 1939) that area possessed a much higher level of infrastructure and public facilities” (Sanders, 1990, 156).
Under the Wagner-Steagall Act, San Antonio completed fi ve public housing projects: Alazan Courts, Apache Courts, Victoria Courts, Wheatley Courts, and Lincoln Height Courts. In all fi ve endeavors, large slum areas were demolished and replaced with new low-income housing, which replaced all, if not more, than the slums that were removed. Table 1 shows the number of slum units removed and the number of new public housing units added for each of the public housing projects.
Unlike other Texas cities, San Antonio embraced urban renewal. Immediately following the passage of the Housing Act of 1949, “the city requested that the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HFFA) reserve federal funds of $2.25 million for urban redevelopment” (Fairbanks, 2002, 183). Prior to state enabling legislation, San Antonians were busy preparing for urban renewal in the city, starting with an update of the master plan to meet the requirement of the 1949 Housing Act that it incorporates urban renewal into the comprehensive plan. The 1951 Master Plan, completed by Walter Lilly, included a “fifty-one-page chapter on slum clearance and urban redevelopment [that] identified nineteen suggested projects to be funded by federal urban development money” (Fairbanks, 2002, 185). The plan also prompted the city commission to authorize its first official planning commission. Additionally, in 1957 the City of San Antonio’s Department of City Planning published a report on
slums and blighted areas to gain support for urban renewal. The report was based on a housing survey conducted in 1956 that found that a majority of a city’s “ills” (i.e., tuberculosis cases and deaths,
fires, police calls, assaults, homicide, and venereal deaths) occurred in slum and blighted areas. It created the analogy that blight and slum were like a disease in the city, spreading and costing the taxpayers money: “our slum and blighted areas cost $500,000 a year more to service than standard areas even though the substandard areas have fewer dwellings” (City of San Antonio Department of City Planning, 1957, 29). By 1956, San Antonio met all the federal requirements for urban renewal and was waiting for state legislation to allow the city to proceed. Following many years of effort to secure federal funds for slum clearance and seven months after state-enabling legislation permitted urban renewal to happen, the citizens of San Antonio approved the city’s participation in the urban renewal program by a margin of 2,645 to 663 (Fairbanks, 2002, 183).
RIGHT: Alazan courts public housing. San Antonio Light Collection; Institute of Texan Cultures at UTSA
Much of the success in passing urban renewal in San Antonio is owed to political reform. After the Wagner-Steagall Act, the city’s leaders were eager to secure federal dollars for urban renewal projects; however, they had a local opponent to urban renewal: the white middle class and business elite residing on the urban fringe. Prior to 1954, the local government was controlled by “a succession of politicos who arranged individual support with segments of the black and Hispanic communities” and “notably excluded the more affl uent Anglo areas to the north of the core” (Sanders, 156). Between 1930 and 1935, several bond packages that sought to improve the street and drainage system in the urban core were thwarted by the white middle class residing north of the city core who did not want their tax dollars spent on improving conditions in the city center. Proponents of urban renewal realized it was this group’s vote that was necessary to approve urban renewal in San Antonio.
Frustrated with the city’s inability to implement the much-needed infrastructure and services, the Good Government League (GGL) was formed in 1954 and established control of the City Council in 1955. This group, headed up by local businesses and supported by the white, middle-class residents, eventually won urban renewal for San Antonio. The GGL, who “saw urban renewal as an important tool in its quest for a bigger and better San Antonio” rallied a wealth of support for urban renewal, emphasizing the needs of the city and the social and economic costs of the slums (Fairbanks, 2002, 188). Support eventually came from all directions, including the city’s newspapers; civic, religious, and business organizations; chamber of commerce; home building industry; and real estate board (Fairbanks, 2002, 183). While other Texas cities experienced triumphant opposition to urban renewal, the election in San Antonio was characterized by the San Antonio Express (as reported by Fairbanks) as an “‘extremely quiet election’ with ‘the apparent lack of any significant opposition’” (2002, 183).
Citizens Duped: Urban Renewal and Public Housing
The perceived understanding of urban renewal was that housing for low-income families (which was slums) would be improved through urban renewal. Citizens did not expect urban renewal to displace low-income families. Nonetheless, urban renewal became the tool by which city governments could wipe out slums and blighted areas and replace those areas with whatever the city saw fit, usually commercial development since it improved the economy of the city.
The 1949 Housing Act did not provide the necessary housing tools to replace housing for those who were displaced by slum clearance. Still, public housing proponents “went along with the idea of urban renewal in the hope that it too could achieve its objectives”; however, when urban renewal was put in the hands of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, “they promptly worked to discourage low-rent housing and to encourage commercial redevelopment” (Hall, 248). In urban renewal project areas across the nation, the alternative housing for those displaced never materialized. This trend carried into the local defi nition of urban renewal as the Texas Urban Renewal Law prohibits the government from constructing public housing in the urban renewal project areas.
Additionally, a series of amendments and laws was passed over the years that changed the focus of urban renewal. In 2002, Mark Yessian gave a speech to the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods on the life of the Federal Urban Renewal Program. Yessian is the regional inspector general for evaluation and inspections in the Office of Inspector General’s Boston office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. According to Yessian, two more goals were added: “one for uplifting the economic position of cities, and the other of assembling land for public and semipublic uses”
(Yessian, 2002). He also said that as the program evolved, there was great pressure to accommodate institutional expansion of hospitals and universities, museums, new city halls, etc., and renewal became a vehicle for accommodating those interests. . . . [T]here was a series of laws that incrementally changed the focus from housing to this kind of development. The proportion of expenditure required for housing, for example, dropped from 90 percent to 65 percent. There were changes in the rules by which localities had to meet their local noncash contribution requirements, changes that facilitated more nonresidential uses. (Yessian, 2002)
Texas lawmakers did not make things any easier. As mentioned earlier, Texas law allowed opponents of public housing to demand a referendum on public housing. In 1959 opponents to public housing forced a referendum to block fi fteen thousand proposed public housing units. The passage of the referendum “frustrated efforts to move those slum dwellers scheduled for clearance to better quarters and resulted in patterns associated with other cities—new problems of overcrowding and new slums engendered, in part, by urban renewal” (Fairbanks, 2002, 193). Urban renewal continued in San Antonio; however, efforts became more focused on rehabilitation and preservation, as discussed later.
Moreover, the GGL seemed to have aided this trend. The organization has been praised for being a “more coherent and focused civic leadership . . . that emphasized the importance of supporting urban improvement programs for the benefi t of the city as a whole (Fairbanks, 2002, 185). However, it has also been criticized for “mobilizing the Anglo middle-class voters in election after election, effectively limiting the voting power of Hispanics and African Americans” (Wilson, Wong, and Sanders, 28). Because many of the supporters of the GGL did not support public housing, the issue was mute among the political leaders.
Through implementation of urban renewal projects, urban renewal’s true colors began to show, and it became apparent that all levels of government set the stage for the reality of urban renewal: “the aim was not cheap housing, but commercial redevelopment of blighted areas at the edge of downtown” (Hall, 248). These realities did not bode well for public housing supporters, minority and low-income groups that supported urban renewal.
Evolution of urban renewal in San Antonio What was originally called the Urban Renewal Agency in San Antonio is now called the San Antonio Development Agency (SADA). The role of SADA is to coordinate urban renewal projects in San Antonio. According to their Web site, there have been ten major urban renewal projects and studies, including the Civic Center Project, HemisFair ’68, San Antonio River extension, South
Alamo Street and Durango Boulevard reconstruction, La Villita reconstruction, Market Square, and Neighborhood Development Program. Over time, urban renewal in San Antonio captured the attention of historic preservationists, and today historic preservation is an important tool utilized by SADA in its redevelopment efforts.
Discussed below are two of the early urban renewal projects undertaken by San Antonio: the Central West Area and HemisFair ’68. These illustrate how urban renewal focused its efforts on commercial and economic redevelopment and failed to rehouse those displaced in the process. Additionally, the HemisFair ’68 plan was extremely controversial on the historic preservation front, and it represents a transition in San Antonio urban renewal to incorporate historic preservation.
Central West Area 1 & 2The Central West Area Project 1 was the first urban renewal project the city undertook. The sixty-eight-acre site is located immediately west of the central business district of downtown San Antonio. According to the Urban Renewal Agency, approximately 92 percent of the structures were substandard and not rehabitable; the project relocated 274 families, 223 individuals, and 131 businesses, and all but four structures were demolished. Redevelopment plans called for infrastructure improvements, and because the project was located at the edge of the business district and had access to a highway, development was restricted to commercial and light industrial (City of San Antonio Urban Renewal Agency, 1970,
1). Buildings erected in the Government Center Project, as it became known, included a city-county jail, police department building, and corporation court building. Immediately northwest and adjacent to Project Area 1 are the Rosa Verde and Vista Verde project areas (Project Area 2). Rosa Verde is an eighty-two-acre site that was home to Santa Rosa Hospital, Market Square, and seventy acres of slum area. The project relocated 230 families, 114 individuals, and 281 businesses, and original plans called for reconstruction and expansion of Market Square, expansion of the hospital, construction of medical office buildings and care facilities, construction of high-rise housing and housing for the elderly, and rehabilitation of older commercial districts.
This urban renewal project exemplifies what Mark Yessian accuses urban renewal of doing: accommodating interests of institutional expansion. The plans called for housing, which was successfully built, but neither apartment complex, Towne Center and Soap Works Apartments, offer affordable or elderly housing. The 158 acres that make up Vista Verde are located on the west side of U.S. Interstate 35/10, immediately west of Rosa Verde. The project relocated 488 families, 343 individuals, and 154 businesses. Redevelopment plans included complete redevelopment of the residential areas, rehabilitation of commercial areas, expansion of industrial areas, expansion of a school and construction of another, and expansion of medical facilities. In Vista Verde, several rental complexes were constructed, two of which were affordable, of which one was elderly housing.
HemisFair ’68 World’s Fair One of the most commonly known urban renewal projects in San Antonio is the HemisFair ’68 World’s Fair urban renewal project. It introduced another challenge to the program other than the issue of public housing: that of historic preservation. Often local governments used urban renewal to remove “blighted” communities that often included buildings of historic value. Not only did neither the housing acts nor the urban renewal program address historic preservation, but the National Historic Preservation Act was not passed until 1966, nearly twenty years after urban renewal’s launch.
In San Antonio, the preservation watchdog is the San Antonio Conservation Society (SACS). Formed in 1924 when flooding and the city’s government threatened to cover up the San Antonio River, the Conservation Society has been very active in urban renewal and how it affects historic preservation. San Antonio’s first urban renewal projects concerned the Conservation Society very little. However, consistent failure to salvage historic buildings eventually captured the attention of SACS; things came to a head between the city and the Conservation Society with the urban renewal project of HemisFair. Their involvement has influenced the way San Antonio’s urban renewal focuses on revitalization rather than slum clearance.
Even before the HemisFair site was picked, SACS “stressed the importance of having the fair’s buildings reflect San Antonio’s traditions” (Fisher, 298). Discussions of the fair began in 1959 by “local business leaders to celebrate the cultural heritage shared by San Antonio and its neighbor nations of Latin America” (COSA Planning Dept., 2004, 11). The theme was “The Confl uence of Civilizations in the Americas” and was to be held in 1968 for the 250th anniversary of the founding of San Antonio. It would be the fi rst fair to be held in the southern United States (Fisher, 1996, 297).
The appeal of this 147-acre site was its location immediately south of downtown and in proximity to the Riverwalk. It also had the potential of acquiring urban renewal funds, with which the city could build its “badly needed modern convention center” (Fisher, 1996, 297). Talk of the project created a ripple effect of discussions among neighboring areas regarding revitalization and “renewal” of their area. The prospect of the project gave the Chamber of Commerce reason to revitalize the Riverwalk, which had not been as successful as they anticipated since its completion in 1941, and they hired a consultant, Marco Engineering Co., to study the Riverwalk as a potential tourist attraction. In addition, the HemisFair urban renewal area abutted the La Villita area, and would “enable La Villita to expand and fi ll the remainder of the block south to Nueva Street after the fair” (Fisher, 1996, 298). Of the whole 147-acre site, only 92 acres were for the fair itself.
The project qualified for the Urban Renewal Program, and funds were secured. According to the HemisFair Park Area Master Plan 2004, the area, like most areas around the urban core, had deteriorated over time. During the mid-to-late nineteenth century, the area was predominantly German, yet was also inhabited by people of Polish, Mexican, and African American ethnicities. When the site was selected, the Conservation Society was “quick to declare that incorporating historic structures into the fairgrounds would give HemisFair uniqueness heretofore unmatched among world’s fairs” (Fisher, 299). According to Fisher, the urban renewal project of the whole site (147 acres) would
. . . force some 1,600 people to move away. Also affected would be manufacturing plants, shops, stores, warehouses, two schools, two parks, the Rodfei Sholom synagogue and four churches. Those included . . . the 1933 Gothic-style St. Michael’s Catholic Church, its congregation established in 1866 by Polish immigrants. (298)
As a result of increased historic preservation awareness, several buildings in and surrounding the HemisFair urban renewal area were restored. On the HemisFair World’s Fair site itself, twenty-four historical structures survived (although the architect O’Neil Ford suggested preservation of 129), which included several houses and a few “commercial-style” buildings that were housed by various expositions during the World’s Fair. Nearby historical structures preserved included the German-English School and St. Mary’s University School of Law building.
Many buildings that were added to the site were built with the intention of creating a civic center and were oriented toward institutional uses, including the convention center, Tower of Americas, UTSA Institute of Texan Cultures building, and a federal courthouse. The HemisFair urban renewal project also saw the construction of a monorail for transportation of visitors to the fair.
It is questionable whether HemisFair can be deemed a success. The project actually lost money and cost the taxpayers $7.5 million (Duane, 2001). While it did attract 6.3 million visitors from around the world, that number was 800,000 below projections. However, the fair brought national and even international attention to San Antonio, and it was reported that “HemisFair was ‘the most important travel stimulant’ in the nation in 1968” by the National Association of Travel Organizations (Fisher, 1996, 314). It encouraged revitalization and renewal of the downtown area and stimulated the tourism that San Antonio’s economy thrives off of today.
Response to Urban Renewal:
The death and legacy of urban renewal
While urban renewal developments continued to ignore housing needs among the people the program was displacing, attempts were made to put the focus back on housing. In 1965, under President Johnson, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was formed. The goals of HUD focused on housing, including increasing home ownership, supporting community development, and increasing access to affordable housing (HUD, 2003). Moreover, several acts were passed under Johnson to improve living standards among low-income families: 1966 saw the creation of the Model Cities program that tried to encourage public participation in community development, as well as emphasized low-income and minority communities in cities; in 1968 a new housing act called for twenty-six million subsidized housing units, hoping that oversaturating the housing market would drive prices down (Yessian, 2002); Ginnie Mae was established in 1968 to expand mortgage funds for moderate-income families.
Ultimately, President Nixon, with a movement toward a decentralized government, did away with the Urban Renewal Program by putting a moratorium on funds for urban renewal projects in 1973. However, the 1974 Housing Act established the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) under President Ford, a more fl exible federal program that had the broad goal of “provid(ing) communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs” (HUD). It allowed local governments the freedom of “choosing projects, spending priorities, and geographic distribution” that were limited under earlier federal renewal project grant programs.
San Antonio communities react In San Antonio, the most blatant and strongest response among communities against urban renewal and to have their needs addressed by the local government was by Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS). In 1973 COPS was established initially to “organize and mobilize San Antonio’s West Side community” (Sanders, 1997, 40). The community-based organization has been successful in obtaining federal community development aid for low-income and minority communities in San Antonio. The GGL, as discussed earlier, “limited Hispanic participation and skewed public investment to non-minority neighborhoods” (Wilson, 4). COPS, however, captured public attention by “confronting public offi cials with unmet promises, packing city council meetings, and mobilizing community residents” (Wilson, 4). COPS is the success story of an organization advocating for minority groups and organizing low-income, minority neighborhoods to effectuate equal representation in the local government.
The organization has also had a particularly strong impact on the success of CDBG spending in San Antonio. While the rest of the country witnessed an abuse by local governments of this money, the city of San Antonio was held accountable for the distribution of CDBG funds. Early planning efforts of the CDBG program in San Antonio showed very little public involvement by COPS or any other community groups. Although the 1974 Housing Act required public involvement, the city was unclear how involved the public should be. To make things more complicated, a community development committee was formed to decide how to allocate the funds. The committee was made up of various department heads, each of whom had their own interests and agenda. The fi rst proposed program included a botanical garden, nature trails, three new parks, a historic preservation project, and a parking garage downtown (Sanders, 1997, 43). COPS brought a different budget to the table: “a list of projects totaling some $125 million dominated by almost $75 million in drainage projects” (Sanders, 1997, 43). This is just one example of many instances where COPS pressured the local government in order to have their needs addressed. In addition, COPS was successful in getting voters to the polls. Table 2 shows how the number of votes increased in predominantly Hispanic precincts to eventually trump predominantly Anglo precincts. Eventually, minority precincts/districts were represented by council members in the local government, giving them a stronger voice. This translated over time to more federal community development funds allocated to COPS districts in order to improve low-income neighborhoods.
In addition to COPS, many community development corporations (CDCs) were formed in San Antonio in the 1960s and 1970s to address the needs of those crowded into central city minority neighborhoods, whose conditions were ignored by urban renewal.
Conclusion
Urban renewal has certainly influenced planning in the city of San Antonio, primarily in terms of public participation. The rise and fall of urban renewal opened the public’s eyes to planning. Urban renewal not only threatened the property rights of some (particularly those who suffered displacement because of slum clearance), it also made apparent issues of equality in planning among minority and low-income populations. It is an unfortunate truth that dilapidated and blighted areas are usually inhabited by minorities and low-income families. Urban renewal therefore ended up targeting and affecting this demographic in a negative way. A few projects in San Antonio exemplified this inequality; in both the Central West Area Project and HemisFair, blighted areas inhabited by low-income families were cleared and “renewed” with economically enhancing developments, all without the clear tools of replacement housing for those displaced. Matters were further complicated by the large degree of resistance toward public housing and the fact that Texas law prohibited public housing in urban renewal project areas.
Many problems with urban renewal arose because of a lack of representation among minorities and low-income families. COPS successfully mobilized these groups and is continuing to work toward improved opportunities for low-income housing, public housing, and equal representation in the local government. Moreover, preservationists have influenced urban renewal practices in San Antonio to include more revitalization of existing structures rather than slum clearance. The fight against urban renewal by preservationists has succeeded in that CDBG considers revitalization an appropriate activity for federal community development aid, which has helped alleviate slum clearance issues in low-income neighborhoods. Together these groups have shaped urban renewal practices in a way that preserves the history of the city and the Hispanic culture of its citizens.
MEGHAN MCCARTHY is a student at the University of Texas at Austin working toward a master’s degree in Community and Regional Planning. She also obtained a B.A. in English from the University of Texas at Austin. For three years Meghan worked as a market analyst and GIS specialist for a real estate development consulting firm in Austin, where her interest in planning grew. She is currently interning with the city of Georgetown Texas Planning and Development Department, and aspires for a career in land use planning (2007).
Works Cited
Alamo Area Mutual Housing Association. AAMHA. 2006. <http://www.alamomha.com/> (29 October 2006).
City of San Antonio. 1940 Annual Report of the Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio, Texas: City of San Antonio, 1940.
City of San Antonio Department of City Planning. Our Slums and Blighted Areas: A Report to the People of San Antonio on Urban Renewal. San Antonio, Texas: City of San Antonio, 1957.
City of San Antonio Housing and Community Development. Department of Grants Monitoring and Administration. <http:// www.ci.sat.tx.us/hcd/> (29 November 2006).
City of San Antonio Parks and Recreational Department. History of San Antonio’s Market Square. <http://www.sanantonio. gov/sapar/market square/history.asp?res=1280&ver=true> (20 November 2006).
City of San Antonio Planning Department. Hemisfair Park Area: Master Plan 2004. 2004. <http://www.sanantonio.gov/planning/hemisfair_plan.asp> (3 October 2006).
City of San Antonio Urban Renewal Agency. Cities Are Dynamic. San Antonio, Texas: The Agency, 2002. Central West Area, Project 1, Fact Sheet. San Antonio, Texas: The Agency, 1970.
Communities Organized for Public Services. Communities Organized for Public Services. <http://www.iisd.org/50comm/ commdb/desc/d19.htm> (21 November 2006).
Duane, F. Hemisfair ’68. In Handbook of Texas Online. 6 June 2001. <http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/lkh1.html> (3 October 2006).
Fairbanks, R.B. The Texas Exception: San Antonio and Urban Renewal, 1949-1965. Journal of Planning History 1(2) (2002): 181-196. The Failure of Urban Renewal in the Southwest: From City Needs to Individual Rights. The Western Historical Quarterly 37(3) (2006). <http://www.historycooperative.org.content.lib.utexas.edu:2048/journals/whq/37.3/fairbanks.html> (18 November 2006).
Fisher, L.F. Saving San Antonio: The Precarious Preservation of a Heritage. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press, 1996.
Flack, G. An Analysis of the Economic Effects of Urban Renewal and Its Projected Infl uence on San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio, Texas: Trinity University Press, 1968.
Hall, P.G. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub, 2002.
Lang, R.E., and R. R. Sohmer. Editor’s Introduction: Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949: The Past, Present, and Future of Federal Housing and Urban Policy. Housing Policy Debate 11(2) (2000). <http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/ hpd_1102_edintro.pdf> (20 November 2006).
Mexican American Unity Council. Mexican American Unity Council. 2006. <http://www.mauc.org/> (29 October 2006).
Neighborhood Housing Services of San Antonio. Neighborhood Housing Services of San Antonio. <http://www.nhsofsa.org/> (29 October 2006).
San Antonio Development Agency. Historical Perspective: San Antonio Development Agency. 2002. <http://www.sada.net/history.html> (20 November 2006).
San Antonio Light Collection, Institute of Texan Cultures UTSA, L-1866-A. Gift of the Hearst Corporation. General Cos house. [Photograph]. 25 June 1938. <http://uitclib.utsa.edu> (20 November 2006). Institute of Texan Cultures UTSA,L-1866-A. Gift of the Hearst Corporation. Exterior view of Alazan Courts apartments. [Photograph].15 February 1942. <http://uitclib.utsa.edu> (20 November 2006).
Sanders, H. T. Building a New Urban Infrastructure: The Creation of Postwar San Antonio. In Urban Texas: Politics and Development. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 1990: 154–173. Communities Organized for Public Service and Neighborhood Revitalization in San Antonio. In Public Policy and Community: Activisim and Governance in Texas. Austin Texas: University of Texas Press, 1997: 36–68.
Texas Low Income Housing Information Services. Texas Low Income Housing Information Services. 2006. <http://www.texashousing.org/> (29 October 2006).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homes & Communities: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2003. <http://www.hud.gov/> (18 November 2006).
Wilson, R.H. Community Participation in State and Local Policymaking. In Public Policy and Community: Activisim and Governance in Texas. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1997: 1–13.
Wilson, R. H., P. Wong, and H. T. Sanders. The Place of Community in Public Policy. In Public Policy and Community: Activisim and Governance in Texas.Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1997: 14–32.
Wyatt, B. and T. Bartlett, T. Low-Income Housing for Southern Texas Cities. Austin, Texas: The Texas Planning Board, 1937.
Yessian, M. The Birth, Transformation, Death, and Afterlife of theFederal Urban Renewal Program. Speech at Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods meeting. 10 October 2002. <http://www.abnboston.org/publications/2002/1010-urbanrenewal.html> (19 November 2006).
