Throughout the history of the United States, a long time dream and ambition of the American people has been to own a home. Immigrants from around the world have traveled to the United States with the hopes that they too would attain this dream and that they would one day own a home as well. In his book, “Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States,” Kenneth Jackson discusses the progression of government interference in respect to the housing of the people of the United States. He also talks about how the housing policies of the government affect the the locations that certain groups of people choose to live.

In the article, Jackson mentions that before 1933 the government did not regard the housing and shelter of the American people to be one of its responsibilities. Although they had certain restrictions on how an individual may construct his home and the materials that he may use in doing so, they believed that the “selection, construction, and purchase of a place to live was everywhere regarded as an essentially individual problem.” They believed that it was not their place to get involved and that it was up to the individual to decide where or how he/she chooses to live. When it came to shelter, each person had to fend for himself.

I believed that housing programs were always focused with the intentions of assisting the poor and I was extremely astonished to learn that the first effort to provide housing for individuals came not as a result of poverty but in reaction to World War I. In June 1918, Congress appropriated $110 million to start two separate programs aimed at providing housing for war workers, one of which was the United States Housing Corporation. These programs were focused on providing homes for people who had to move to industrial areas in order to produce weapons for war. The fact that these programs began shortly after the beginning of the war made me realize a very important observation that shapes the behavior of many people. It is human nature to react only once a crisis comes about. Intervention in Housing policy was considered to be an “individual problem” until World War I came about and before this the government was not focused on providing houses to Americans. In fact, even these programs were hampered by opposition who called them socialistic and an “insidious concerted effort to socialize this government.”

This notion that intervention and reaction is mostly brought about due to crisis is further exemplified by the advent of the Great Depression. The book mentions that during the 1920’s the federal government once again adopted a” hands-off policy” when it came to housing the American people. The federal government was looked at as a body or organization whose primary task was to govern, while the task of building houses should be left in the hands of the contractors and builders. However, as the Great Depression began the housing market began to collapse and the American people looked towards the government for assistance. During the time of the Great Depression residential construction fell by 95 percent and in 1932 there were 250,000 foreclosures on homes, compared to a typical year of 68,000. President Hoover understood that he had to do something about this and proposed a federal housing policy aimed at providing housing assistance to the poor.

Another point that Jackson mentions that came as a surprise to me was when he mentions that certain residential areas were discriminated against. For instance cities were given lower ratings than suburban areas and were declared to be ineligible for loan guarantees. This further segregated certain areas as middle and high class residents secured loans and moved to suburban areas, while lower-class residents were forced to remain in the cities. One question I had was how could the government allow that to happen for so long and continue as segregation in the United States strengthened and played a larger role?

Homeownership has long been part of the American dream. Once regarded as taboo, federal influence in this sector has grown over the years. Today, over 400,000 New Yorkers reside in 344 public housing developments around the five boroughs. However, the history of our public housing policies was variable, to say the least.

Prior to 1933, the provision of shelter by the government was nonexistent—this was solely an individual’s business. In fact, the idea of subsidizing housing units was regarded as socialistic and the United States government preferred a hands-off policy. The closest the United States had ever come to public housing was in 1918 when Congress allocated $110 million to two programs for housing war workers. But with intentions far from helping the poor, the houses were soon sold to private developers and the government was, once again, out of the housing business. The Great Depression in 1929, however, fundamentally shifted the American Government’s attitude towards intervention in the housing market.

The Great Depression had an immense impact on the housing industry and the homeowner. With astronomical declines in construction of residential property, expenditures on home repairs and a never-before-seen rate of foreclosure, the housing market was headed towards complete collapse. It was evident that a safety net was necessary as other sectors of the economy were subsequently suffering. In 1931, President Hoover proposed a federal housing policy that centered around amortized mortgages, low interest rates and reduced costs. Although the government realized it had to intervene, Hoover’s policy proved to be inconsequential because the government still relied on private capital initiative.

Real changes were beginning to take form when Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office in 1933. Both the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) had lasting impacts on public housing. Their negative attitudes towards city living and subjective “systematize” rating methods did little more than measure ethnic and racial worth.  As housing was back on the rise in 1936 and it became cheaper to buy than to rent, the HOLC and FHA gave suburban areas higher grades and urban life deteriorated as middle-class constituents moved out of cities. Homogeneous, suburban neighborhoods were given higher ratings and were given loans more easily, even though “residents of poorer sections generally maintained a better pay-back record than did their more affluent cousins.”

It was not until the civil rights movement that people began to see the redlining practices of the FHA. Jackson makes it clear that lasting damage was done to the housing market and, more specifically, urban life, calling it “the supreme indignity.” While the history of public housing in America may have been far from effective, public housing is now a very important part of society. During an internship last semester, a majority of my work was related to low-income public housing for New York City residents. As a life-long Staten Island resident surrounded by one-family homes, I never knew just how many people rely on public housing. There is definitely room for improvement in certain policies, but public housing in urban neighborhoods has come a long way.

Jackson piece on suburbanization and the impact of the American government’s related policies is an interesting one, and hits close to home to. The phenomena of “suburbanization” was an extremely potent force in American history. It shaped the way America was structured, physically and demographically. Indeed, the story of suburbanization in sown with much of the underlining themes featured in American history including economic advancement, greater civil freedoms, and even racism.

Growing up in suburban Long Island I can very much relate to trend of suburbanization. In fact, moving to an urban environment (New York City) to study for college, open my eyes to the wide divide between an urban and suburban lifestyle. There are good amount of differences between the two environments which effect everything from transportation needs to cultural life. The transition of America from a largely urban society at the beginning of twentieth century to a suburban one by the second half of that same century, was indeed a transformative event which must have changed the very fabric of the American way of life.

Jackson’s detailed analysis in the role of government and its legislative policies in the precipitation of suburbanization was indeed an interesting account. Through, a sociological perspective it is easy to see why both Americans and government prefer a suburban environment. By twentieth century, cities had begun to swell past what many thought was beyond the carrying capacity. Aggressive immigration only accelerated this process. Americans had always fantasized and romanticized the great frontiers of America, and its expansive landscapes. While suburbs did not encompass the same aspects of America’s most far flung reaches, it did provide a welcomed reprieve to the congestion of the cities.

While I do not want to sound conspiratorial in my next assessment for why government prefers suburbs, I do believe there is some validity to it. Cities are breeding grounds for progressive ideologies (think Occupy Wall Street). In truth, suburbs bring out the conformity in most people. With their perfectly manicured lawns and nicely assembled tv dinners, Americans flocked to suburbs in droves. The result was a generally more conservative America, one which did not question the action of the government. Conservatism and mass conformity were two major themes which dominated the 1950s. In fact, the next generation of Americans (baby boomers), would soon question this way of life, and launch the greatest counter-culture movement America would ever know.

While suburbanization did generally bring about a greater quality of life for more Americans, characteristically there were a great number of Americans left out of this revolution. Not surprisingly, many of them were minorities such as African Americans. Jackson’s piece mentions some tactics used by banks and government to limit mortgages to African Americans such as red lining. Indeed, suburbanization accelerated the strong divide between African Americans and Whites. While there were was always an economic, social, and civil disparity between blacks and whites, now they were also separated geographically. Suburbanization goes hand in hand with the phenomena known as “white flight.” As the suburbs were becoming increasingly white, the cities were left increasingly black. This new form of segregation took on a new face to that of de jure segregation. Legally blacks and whites were not separated. But practices such as red lining and codes amongst landowners made it nearly impossible for blacks to move into white neighborhood. Thus, suburbanization was another propellant leading to the fire that was burning in American. The fire which would spark the civil rights movement.