Clearing slums and placing modern, luxury developments in their place seems so poetic by nature but in reality is destructive and is often met with ethical concerns.
“At the outset, urban renewal inspired the imagination of the country, and abroad coalition of industry, labor, and community groups supported the program. As urban renewal unfurled, however, community opposition grew.” (Fullilove 73)
The aforementioned quote from this week’s reading showcases how a plan that begins with a good intent can be met with adversities solely based on how it is brought about. The antiurban renewal movement that ensued after the Urban Renewal Act of 1949 was set into motion illustrates how people can dispel the greater good for their own benefit. If modern buildings were erected in place of slums this action could soon eradicate old buildings and slums altogether. However, due to the nature in which these urban renewal plans were undertaken, the greater good was masked by the problems of poverty and overcrowding in the slum areas. The ghettos housed a majority of African Americans and provided shelter for many poor people who could not afford single family accommodations.
After reading this week’s article, it seems as though the urban renewal projects did more harm than good, but I believe that it is due to the nature in which they were carried out. For example, the author lists three reasons on how urban renewal could affect health: causing trauma, exposing people to illness fostering environments, and taking away basic freedoms by moving people without giving them a choice. I believe that all three problems can be solved if urban renewal plans involved erecting new, modern communities and not just new buildings. If the programs offered people new homes, new jobs, and education for those who were unemployed then this would allow people to choose if they wanted to move and seek better opportunities. The urban renewal plans could also allow for the migration and settlement of a community as a whole. If segregation through forced housing was a problem, the urban renewal plans should provide a choice for people to live in places away from the heavily populated cities and settle further into the mainland. This suggested plan is similar to the Homestead Act of 1862 that accelerated the settlement of the Western United States by providing people with an incentive to move. I believe that if people were given a choice of moving to a new life filled with opportunities for their entire families, more people would be on the bandwagon for the urban renewal projects.
Discussion Question: Can urban renewal continue to be a positive constructive force in the 21st century without being “minority removal”? Is it possible to allow the settlement of people with opportunities for social advancement along with basic housing?
