Lizzie Spanjer

20^th Century Planning Under Communism

Factors Leading to the Rise of Communism

The political, social and economic circumstances predating the establishment of a socialist state in Russia and China were turbulent, causing unplanned urban growth. A significant increase in industrial development in Russia, during the decades preceding the 1917 October Revolution, caused the migration of rural peasants to cities. According to French (1995) the rapid increase in urban population caused unplanned slum-suburbs to develop, surrounding the workers’ factories. These communities lacked access to amenities and proper sanitation, emphasising a social and economic dislocation between the workers, bourgeois and aristocratic classes within Russia.

Similarly, Wu and Gaubatz (2013) argue that the political unrest predating the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 permitted unbalanced urban development, and unequal distribution of wealth, resources and employment opportunities throughout the districts of China. Diener & Hagen (2012) assert that the increasing urban inequalities within the two totalitarian nations frosted a growth in alternative socialist thinking; which campaigned to provided regulated, serviced and planned urban living environments.

USSR: Planning Under Communism

Socialism under Lenin, beginning in 1917, endeavoured to nationalise living standards amongst rural and urban communities, in order to conform to Marxist ideology. This was achieved by assuming responsibility for the development, planning and control of the urban environment (Diener & Hagen, 2012). The households of the wealthy aristocratic and bourgeois classes were commandeered and subdivided to provide housing relief for within the overpopulated worker slums (French, 1995).  However, political unrest produced by War Communism and the internal conflicts of Civil War did not permit practical development, within the initial decade of Bolshevik socialism (French, 1995).

The establishment of the new socialist state inspired a intense debate on the nature of urban planning, with most soviet architects desiring to separate their ideas and techniques from those practised under the rule of the Tsar (Diener & Hagen, 2012). Further, the availabilities of new building materials, such as concrete and glass allowed for changes in traditional structures, such as the use of curvature (French, 1995).

The concept of the Garden City proposed by Ebenezer Howard 1898, provided great influence to early socialist planning, as it coincided with Marxist ideologies, by eliminating the distinction between urban towns and rural farms (French, 1995).  Governmental organisations were formed to plan new urban areas in accordance with Howard’s philosophies, and as such the International Garden City Society formed in 1922.  These organisations aimed to implement policies for planning and erecting metropolises, one such decree being that one tenth of residential areas must be maintained as green-space, and every residence must be within sixty meters of a park (French, 1995).  The concepts of the garden city were able to influence the planning of several green-space city suburbs, such as Tver’, in 1924. The physical imprint of Howard’s Garden City in Soviet Russia was limited, however it allowed for many new ideas and philosophies of planning to form, affecting the creation of future developments.

Two schools of planning arose during the 1920s, commonly classified as the “Disurbanists” and “Urbanists”, although often the ideals of each would intertwine. French (1995) argues that, Disurbanist ideology focused on marrying the town and country, illuminating densely consolidated urban areas. The town planner Kirillov (1976) stated that the inspiration for a city should be “not greenery in the town, but the town in green plantations”. This statement highlights the fancifulness and romanticism of Disurbanist views. The beliefs of the Urbanists, coincided with that of the Disurbanists’ in some regards, as they agreed that towns should be generously endowed with access to greenery. Despite this, Urbanists’ did not believe in the complete eradication of built metropolises, but rather to transform densely populated cities into properly planned smaller urban towns (Diener & Hagen, 2012).  Further, many key Urbanist architects believed that individuals should reside in communal living quarters, with separate sleeping dorms, and shared fatalities (French, 1995).

(Urbanist suburb in Moscow, 1984, via Friends-partners.org, 2015)

French (1995) states that the decades after the revolution accomplished little significant physical development of buildings and towns, as the arguments and designs of the Disurbanists and Urbanists remained predominantly theoretical. However, these concepts and ideas, influenced by Marxist ideology, allowed the development of the principle structure for future urban town planning (French, 1995).

China: Planning Under Communism

Over the 20^th century, Chinese cities have undergone dramatic physical and geographical changes. According to Wu & Gausutz (2013) before the 1949 establishment of the People’s Republic of China, over 80% of the urban population lived along the east coast, with the remainder of the country being utilised for agricultural land. However, urban development during the period of 1949-79 allowed for a change in the traditional chinse town planning styles.

The turbulent political events faced by the People’s Republic of China in the begging of the 20^th century caused extensive damage to the political, social and economic structure, causing many citizens to live and work in overcrowded, unserviced slums.  Socialism, under the leadership of Mao, encouraged the development of smaller cities in central China and away from coastal areas. This was achieved by expanding in the rain transport, coal and petroleum industries (Wu & Gausutz, 2013). The availability of jobs in these trades encouraged significant growth in rural-urban migration, increasing the presence of small to medium urban municipalities. Further, Wu & Gausutz (2013) argue that the development in a more extensive and efficient national railway allowed the individual access to more expansive areas of China.

The environment of urban planning in China remained fluid over the preceding decades. In the late 1950s, there was reversal in the trend of central urban migration and growth due to the failure of small industry, natural disasters. Eastern cities then returned to supporting the full strain of providing economic prosperity to the remainder of the country (Wu & Gausutz, 2013).

The People’s Republic of China has allowed for the development of hundreds of new urban centres to form, allowing wider China to become more accessible and provide jobs to its ever-increasing population. However, Wu & Gausutz (2013) state that the changing political structure of China will affect the manner in which cities and towns are planned.

References List

Diener, A., & Hagen, J. (2015). From socialist to post-socialist cities. London: Routledge.

French, R. (1995). Plans, pragmatism and people. London: UCL Press.

Friends-partners.org,. (2015). My Russian Adventure, Ostankinskaya Bashnia. Retrieved 20 April 2015, from http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/skipevans/atl/russia/st03.htm

Weiping Wu and Poper Gaubatz. (2013). The Urban System Since 1949’ in The Chinese City. London/ New York Routledge. pp 71-92

Planning Under Fascism

Hayden Noble 641195  

In the first half of the 20th Century the world saw the emergence of a new and dangerous political ideology that would come to be known as Fascism. Fascist regimes rose to power within Italy, Germany and Japan contributing to a long list of mounting tensions which ultimately led to the outbreak of a second world war (Passmore, 2014). These fascist regimes communicated their perceived strength to the rest of the world not only through violence and aggression, but through the careful design of their cities. Perhaps the most notable of which was Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich and its long list of plans for the complete remodelling of many of Germany’s largest cities (Diendorf, 1993). Under Hitler’s regime Architecture and Urban Planning became tools that were used to physically reflect the ideals of the Nazi party. In order to form a clearer understanding of the Nazi’s plans and what would be the future reconstruction of many cities it is important to understand the sentiments of the German people in the years preceding the war.

Between WWI and WWII the popular consensus in Germany was that cities were unpleasant, congested  and sinful places. There was much support for the idea of entirely new and self sufficient garden cities that were isolated from the already established urban centres (Diendorf, 1993).  Many planners attempted to integrate the ideals of the garden city plans into their work throughout the 1920’s, most notable of whom was Fritz Schumacher. Schumacher realised the importance of transportation, industry, social issues and trade rather than simply the aesthetic appeal of the city (Diendorf, 1993). Schumacher’s concerns regarding the unregulated growth of cities and lack of thought into how they function are still incredibly relevant to cities of the 21st century.  After the Nazi’s came to power, however, it became apparent that the anti urban sentiment under their rule was not so much about a dislike of cities themselves, but the conflicting ideologies that were thriving within them at the time -  specifically western materialism (Dietz, 2008). Planners who had little work during the Great Depression now had great opportunities to continue their work  provided that they were willing to co operate with the Nazi Regime.

Figure 1: The People’s Hall, Part of the plan for a redesigned Berlin (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/artunderfascism/architecture)

Decentralisation of the population through garden cities was still a focus of Adolf Hitler’s plans for Germany, but he also began commissioning planners to work on the redesign of many of the countries largest and most important cities (Diendorf, 1993). Hitler envisioned that each of Germany’s great cities would have their own role to play as part of the Nazi Regime. The national capital (Berlin), the party rally grounds (Nuremberg), the world’s largest shipping port (Hamburg), and a capital of art and culture (Linz) were all part of the plan to show the strength and superiority of the Nazi Regime (Diendorf, 1993). In many of these cities plans were drawn up for large boulevards to be used primarily for party marches. Decades earlier, Haussmann successfully redesigned the city of Paris through the use of large boulevards to improve both the functioning of the city and it’s aesthetic appeal (Van Zanten, 1994). Similarities in design can be drawn between the two plans, however the important distinction was that Haussmann’s plans were a product of a desire to make Paris more functional, whereas Hitler’s plans were driven by the sinister motives of the Nazi Regime. Another stark contrast between Fascist/Nazi planning and more democratic approaches lies within the concept of participatory planning. To planners under the Nazi regime it was seen as counterproductive to involve the ‘citizenry’ in the planning process, and as the party had the power to acquire whatever land it needed it was not necessary to garner support from the community (Diendorf, 1993). Today it is well established that involving community consultation in the planning process ensures that the right outcomes are achieved for both the people and the function of the city ( Kil et al, 2014). The Nazi regime allowed planners to treat already well established cities in Germany as blank slates, but it was not until towards the end of the war that planners quite literally had the opportunity to rebuild cities from the rubble.

Figure 2: Hamburg in ruins (http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/03_The-World-since-1900/08_Post-War-Problems/pictures/Hamburg-in-ruins_1945.jpg)

After the allied air raids over Germany, much of the country was in ruins. Official figures show that many cities sustained damage well in excess of 50% of their built up areas. Hamburg, Dresden, Nuremberg and Cologne were all extensively damaged while smaller cities such as Bochum and Mainz were nearly completely levelled (‘Graph to show Devastation of German Cities’, 2014). Konstanty Gutschow, a planner and architect who had been working for Hitler throughout the war began to alter the city redesign plans into city reconstruction plans. The concept of garden cities was again brought back into play, in the form of decentralising large urban areas in order to protect the population from any future air raids (Diendorf, 1993). In areas of the cities that were totally devastated, Gutschow had a blank slate in which to redesign and make improvements that may not have been feasible had the cities still been standing (Diendorf, 1993). No longer was there a need for massive party marching grounds or monumental structures, giving planners an opportunity to focus on issues such as the class divisions in housing that existed in many of the old cities (Diendorf, 1993). By the end of the war it had become clear that much time and many resources had been wasted on Hitler’s grandiose plans for the redesign of cities that would never come to fruition, but it also meant that the planners involved would be well equipped to handle to enormous task that was rebuilding Germany after the war (Diendorf, 1993).

  

References

Dietz, B. (2008). Countryside-versus-City in European Thought: German and British Anti-Urbanism between the Wars. European Legacy-Toward New Paradigms, 13(7), 801-814.

Diendorf, J M. (1993). ‘Town Planning to 1945’ in In the Wake of the War: the Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II. New York, Oxford: Oxford UP 1993 pp. 151 - 180.

Kil, N., Holland, S., & Stein, T. (2014). Place Meanings and Participatory Planning Intentions. Society & Natural Resources, 27(5), 475-491.

Passmore, K. (2014). Fascism : a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Zanten, D. (1994). “Haussmann, Baltard and Municipal Architecture’ in Building Paris: Architectural Institutions and the Transformation of the French Capital, 1830-1870. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 198-213.

‘Graph to show Devastation of German Cities’, National Government Archives UK (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/hamburg/sources/docs/6/

Canberra: the radial city

Urban His
tory Blog

Harriet McKindlay 699058

Figure 1: Parliament House


Introduction

In 1898 it was decided by the Commonwealth, that Australia needed a new capital city. The early planning of Canberra, now know better as our nations capital, can be neatly divided into three phases;

-     “a battle of ideas”

-     “battle of the sites”

-     “battle of the plans”

Each individual had there own image on how the city should look and function, with the one key objecting being to “aspire to a better urban environment than that offered by existing cities” (Freestone, R). It was famously captured by minister Andrew Fisher in 1910 that ‘the Federal Capital should be a beautiful city, occupying a commanding position, with extensive views, and embracing distinctive features which will lend themselves to the evolution of a design worthy of the object, not only for the present, but for all time.’

In May1911, Walter Burley Griffin won the Federal Capital Design competition, launched by King O’Malley, Minister for Home affairs, which saw him become responsible for  establishing a new Australian capital city and of whose plan would revolutionise global planning. It of course came with its own set of backlash with many claiming that Australia had enough cities, to instead utilise an already existing city such as Melbourne or Sydney and that city construction would prove to be costly to society. This blog will investigate the history surrounding the creation of Canberra, as well as looking into the revolutionary Radial planning and its functionality at present day.

History

“Australia’s new capital must be the finest Capital City in the World- The Pride of Time’~ King O’Malley.

In 1898, at an Australian Federal Convention, delegates agreed on the need for a new capital city. There was significant conflict associated with the look, layout and geographical location of the new federal city, with it requested not to be in too close of a proximity to either Sydney or Melbourne. This is where the planning of Canberra is famously broken into three clearly distinguishable categories related to the notion of ‘federal capital’, ‘the site’ and ‘plan for the city’, these factors addressed in a methodical manner over an extended period of time. Famously, a painting by artist Charles Coulter was unveiled that depicted the ideal city of Canberra, based on the shores of Lake George in rural New South Wales and of which adopted landmarks and facades from prestigious European cities, as seen in Figure 2.  Ballarat and Adelaide with their unique parklands and central boulevards were respectively the only cities that were well enough developed to act as models for the planning of new Canberra, mirroring the prominent ideal of a garden city centred plan. Heavy criticism fell upon Melbourne, described as having “the most uninteresting streets and surroundings of any great town in the world- convenient and clean- nothing more” (Freestone, R), as well as Sydney with its “narrow streets, badly laid out” , described as a place “no one can call beautiful”.

It then became time to make a decision about the location for Australia’s new capital. This decision making period prompted extreme lobbying by various interests in New South Wales of whom were eager to obtain the ‘prestige and economic advantages of a new city’. All aspects were required to be taken into consideration including water supply, building materials, accessibility etc. which were judged by a strict panel of professionals in each field. It took until December 1908 for the Commonwealth to settle on the Yass-Canberra District to house the new city. One of the major decisions made was not to follow in the foots of other cities of whom utilised existing buildings, and to instead remove the obstruction of original facades in order to create the perfect design.

Figure 2: Charles Coulter's ideal

Walter Burley Griffin- The Radial-Concentric Structure

The Griffin scheme was chosen as the future plan for Canberra on account of “its own mix unique mix of the city beautiful and garden city movements… brilliant intuitive landscape architecture at a large scale and even tacit references to ancient paradigms” (Freestone, R). At first analysis many believed that Griffins plan was an improper understanding of the Garden City Plan, and that the city would fail to operate in a functional manner. After immense debate regarding counter plans such as those presented by John Sulman, St John David, Lawrence Hargrave , Haydon Cardew etc. it was decided that Canberra’s structure would be built on the ideology presented by Griffin, as seen in Figure 3. The plan was inevitably followed with significant backlash with many claiming it was impractical, creating little triangles that proved to be a challenge to navigate around. One of the major decisions also related to the positioning of Parliament House, on a slight rise and visible from the majority of points in the wider city, depicting an influence of ancient palladiums where prestigious and significant features were points of references and visible from most points in the wider city. The decision was also made to create an artificial lake in the cites centre, named Lake Burley Griffin, after its creator as well as the integration of the ‘city beautiful plan’ to create an aesthetically pleasing experience.

Figure 3: Griffin's plan for Canberra

Canberra in the 21st Century.

As time has passed, Canberra has continued to grow and expand, with the 2012 census identifying that population has reached approximately 379,600 people and an approximate  land size of 814.2 kilometres squared. This is a far cry from the original words of architect George Sydney Jones who stated that Canberra would remain of a ‘moderate’ size. One of the key objectives of the new city of Canberra would be that it would integrate a number of interesting landmarks, so that it is a destination for all to vist. This has been clearly achieved, with flocks of individuals, aged from primary school students to retirees, flocking to Canberra each year to see for themselves the attractions of our capital city such as Parliament House, the Shrine of Remembrance and breath taking public green spaces such as the Canberra Botanical Gardens. Although it is hard to predict how the city of Canberra will function into the future,  it has present itself in a way that is functional and accessible for all of its residents and has continued to attract global attention.

Bibliography

Freestone, R. (1997). The Federal Capital of Australia: A Virtual Planning History

National Archives of Australia. (2015). Walter Burley Griffin and the Planning of Canberra. Cited 14th April 2015 from; http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs95.aspx

Canberra House. Short History. Cited 14th April 2015 from; http://www.canberrahouse.com/2006/11/05/short-history/

CITIES OF TOMORROW: THE ORIGINS OF CITY PLANNING

Sarah Plaatzer

The garden city is a dominate planning model throughout the twentieth century and is evident in cities all over the world. This idea appears in many cities even before it is communicated properly between countries. This is probably due to the aesthetic appeal it brings with it and elements from the idea are considered beautiful. It is generally associated with ‘utopia’, which also suggests a perfect environment. This essay will discuss how planning has been implemented into cities in the 20^th century especially garden cities and how it has modified the idea of town planning overall.

England was the first country to begin adopting the idea of planning especially due to Ebenezer Howard’s idea of the garden city. The garden city is an important element within British planning with Letchworth being the first garden city established in 1903 (Ward, 2002). This idea also led to the creation of garden suburbs such as Hampstead, which also allowed citizens to live in towns and villages incorporated with natural features (Hall, 2014). Letchworth and Hampstead were both planned by Barry Parker and Raymond Unwin who had a large impact on the development of the idea of town planning. During this time their designs of garden suburbs led to John Nettlefold describing the way the land is used as ‘town planning’. This resulted in Britain’s first planning legislation in 1909, which led to further development of garden suburbs and the way they are shaped (Ward, 2002). This legal status created job prospects within the field with Thomas Adams becoming the first planning professional. By creating these extra fields and defining the overall idea it creates an ability to further advance in the area and begin to do more with the urban areas. Not only did England develop their urban areas for the better but they also influenced other countries to establish similar ideologies.

Germany followed England along the lines of the garden city. This way of planning began to lead to other thinking in terms of the health and wellbeing of the German community. Not only this but it began the planning movement within this county. The “German Letchworth” was Hellerau was established in 1908 and although it began with a low population it displayed job prospects for residents along with low-density housing, which exhibited the vision that Howard originally had. Not only was the aesthetic appeal that the city created more traditional than England but it also drew ideas from historic German towns. This would have been important as it adds a unique quality and begins to turn the city in to one of their own rather than conforming to other urban areas in this era. German’s also borrowed a term from the English language, planung. This allowed them to further define the developments they were making in the area of town planning and design.

France was also a country developing their town planning in the early twentieth century. Tony Garnier was a French architect who created the concept of cité industrielle in France, which had a number of similarities to the garden city. His plan was comprised of a main city with smaller areas attached and he also featured the green belts (Wiebenson, 1960). Le credo des Cité-Jardins displays the impact that the idea of garden cities had on the French way of thinking. Not only is the link between nature and humans clearly evident, but it suggests that garden cities perhaps provide a better quality of living overall and how important this design was.

Contrastingly, the United States did not adopt the garden city as much as the previous examples and this is mainly due to their urban area already being developed and lived in by a quarter of the population. At the beginning of the 1900s the city mainly focused on its beauty but this was linked to a large number of limitations within the design and also living conditions. This led to the development of the city’s functionality and in turn established quality transportation through their orderly development.

Ultimately, a range of these ideas and designs impact the way in which cities are planned today. The garden city and suburb’s cul-de-sacs were lined with trees and these are elements that are present within most of our own urban areas today. However, this idea of garden suburbs was a dominant planning feature within Australia in 1914 and has existed since. This planning technique has allowed Australians to escape the typical Banjo Patterson’s portrayal of Australian urban areas: “foetid air and gritty of the dusty, dirty city” (Ward, 2002). This new way of planning displayed nature within low-density areas rather than the typical landscape associated with Australia.

From other examples used in Ward (2002) majority of the urban areas used trees in a aesthetic way however, currently they encompass a wide range of other benefits. These include economic benefits such as consumer behaviour and property value, social benefits such as crime reduction and environmental benefits such as fuel use, noise reduction and hyrodology (Hastie, 2003). This exhibits how 20^th century planning is continuously being developed and used to suit future urban needs.

The developments that occurred within the 20^th century especially of the different types of planning models and the planning profession allowed for more possibilities within the future. These planning elements are still being used today and are assisting the expansion of our cities to ensure they not only survive but also continue to be functional and aesthetically pleasing.

References

Hall, P. (2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. Chichester: John Wiley.

Hastie, C. (2003). The Benefits of Urban Trees. In WarwickDistrictCouncil (Ed.).

Ward, S. (2002). The Emergence of Modern Planning Planning the Twentieth Century (pp. 45-80). Chichester: John Wiley.

Wiebenson, D. (1960). Utopian Aspects of Tony Garnier's Cité Industrielle. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 19(1), 16-24. doi: 10.2307/987962

The Black Metropolis: Race, Segregation and the Urban Environment in Chicago in the Early Twentieth Century

Early twentieth century Chicago was a city of turbulent change.  A shortage of labour supply caused by World War I alongside growing discontent from southern African Americans caused by extreme racial inequity led to a substantial influx in the African American population in the northern areas of the United States, particularly in cities.   This period has now been coined the Great Migration and saw the African American population explode from 30,150 in 1900 to 337,000 in 1944 (Clayton, 1946). The effect of this huge increase of population had a considerable impact on housing, labour and cultural life that can still be felt in Chicago today. 

Unlike the blatantly racist Jim Crowe laws found in Southern states, the Northern states used a more subtle form of discrimination and informal segregation by the early twentieth century.  In Illinois, segregation in public accommodation was first outlawed in 1885, but restrictive covenants between white real estate agents and owners to prevent the renting or sale of housing to nonwhites as well as racial violence limited the areas available to African Americans (Baldwin, 2007).  This caused the formation of the ‘Black Metropolis’ or Black Belt now known as Bronzeville, in the South Side of Chicago. 

The Black Metropolis was a narrow strip of land stretched across 30 blocks along State Street and was rarely more than seven blocks wide (Manning, 2005).  The area contained aging, dilapidated housing and there was a constant shortage of accommodation, forcing African Americans to pay high rents for shoddy housing.  Because of the aforementioned restrictive covenants, the neighbourhood was diverse in terms of class, with poor, middle and upper class blacks living side by side (Reed, 2011).  This gave rise to a city within a city, with a distinctive political, economic and cultural life.  

At the centre of this city, was the Stroll which became the best known street in African America in the early twentieth century (White, 2005.) The Stroll was a meeting place for the community, with infamous jazz clubs and gambling parlours fuelling the nightlife while acting as a meeting place during the day.  Pictured below, is a painting called “The Black Belt” by Archibald Motley, painted in 1934 and giving an indication of the atmosphere present on the stroll.  

Figure 1: Archibald Motley, The Black Belt, 1934

The Stroll had a stigma associated with it, in particular white conservatives pointed at it as an area full of  “vice,” presenting African Americans as a race predisposed to unruly behaviour (Clayton, 1946).  Interestingly enough, even the Vice Commissioner of Chicago made clear that the link between black life and immorality was not a racial characteristic but the result of intentional municipal rezoning to put Chicago’s red light district in the African American community yet the stigma persisted (Baldwin 2007). 

Despite having to deal with these issues,  the Black Metropolis gave rise to a thriving cultural centre. The rise of popular publications such as the Chicago Defender gave the African American community a voice that resonated with African Americans nationwide.  Campaigns such as the “spend your money where you can work” ones were made possible through the publicity and easy coordination granted by the Chicago Defender.  Most newcomers got their first glimpse of life in Chicago in its pages, gaining guidance and support through it (Clayton, 1946).

Figure 2: PBS (n.d.)

The development of the Black Metropolis bears a striking resemblance to the process of western colonisation. Segregation based on sanitary and moral grounds, the attention paid to the organisation of African Americans as workers and the reservation of the best housing for the white population mirrors the actions taken by western colonisers in Africa and Asia.  This is particularly interesting in the American context when compared to how immigrants in general assimilated in large, metropolitan areas. Clayton (1946) points out that as European immigrants arrived they would congregate in colonies based upon commonalities such as language and national origin in a similar way the Black Metropolis involved individuals joining together based on race.  But their experience differed in the longer term, as individuals learned to speak English, acquired an economic stake in and lost their foreign habits and manners, they steadily moved away from these areas they inhabited initially into more desirable areas.  Later their children would merge with the general population causing the colonies to dissolve in the much famed American “melting pot.” The Black experience was different, as white colonies disintegrated, the Black Metropolis grew stronger.

Racially restrictive covenants were deemed unconstitutional in 1948 by the Supreme Court, with surprising consequences for the Black Metropolis.  Bronzeville fell into decline as a result as upper and middle class families moved away.  Policies were put in place by Richard Daley, former Mayor of Chicago, which arguably made the race divide even more prominent.  Under Daley, 28 massive towers that house 27,000 poor, black residents were constructed in the 1950s as well as the Dan Ryan Expressway in the early 1960s, which many have argued, including the Chicago Defender, was strategically placed to act as a physical barrier between white and black neighbourhoods (Smith, 2012).  

Present day Bronzeville is one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in America.  According to the 2000 U.S. census, more than 35% of Bronzeville residents live below the poverty line and roughly 25% are unemployed. Crime is a serious problem with McKinsey & Company reporting that violent crime occurs five times more frequently than in the rest of Illinois.  The tide may be turning – the Chicago Housing Authority under its Plan for Transformation is demolishing all of its galley-style, family-focused high-rise housing developments and is investing roughly a billion dollars in Bronzeville.

Figure 3: Abbot (1934), Figure 4: Frankel (2013)

Though the Black Belt has grown in size, as the comparison of figures 3 and 4 illustrate, it shows no signs of disappearing and is still plagued by considerably more poverty and crime than the surrounding neighbourhoods (McArdle, 2002).  Access to housing and space in the urban environment is imperative to any kind of community within a city.  In the case of Chicago, century old policies have shaped the face of the continually racially divided urban landscape of today.

Reference List:

Abbott, E. (1936) Census Tracts of Chicago 1934: Per Cent Total Population Negro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved on April 02, 2015 from http://dcc.newberry.org/items/census-tracts-of-chicago-1934-per-cent-total-population-negro.

Baldwin, D.L. (2007). “Mapping the black Metropolis” in Chicago’s New Negroes. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 2007 pp. 21-52.

Clayton, H.R. & Drake. S. C. (1946). Black Metropolis. London: Jonathan Cape.

Frankel, S. (2013). African American Population by Census Tract In Chicago. Retrieved on April 01, 2015 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:African_American_Population_by_Census_Tract_in_Chicago,_IL_(2011).svg.

Manning, C. (2005). African American. In Encyclopedia of Chicago. Retrieved April 02, 2015, from http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/encyclopedia.

McArdle, N. (2002). Race, Place and opportunity: Racial Change and Segregation in the Chicago Metropolitain Area, 1990-2000. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Motley, A. (1934). Black Belt [oil on canvas]. Retrived April 01, 2015 from http://nasher.duke.edu/motley/.

PBS (n.d.). The Chicago Defender. Retrieved April 01, 2015 from http://www.pbs.org/blackpress/news_bios/defender.html.

Reed, C. R. (2011). New Black Studies: Rise of Chicago’s Black Metropolis, 1920-1929. University of Illinois Press.

Smith, P. H. (2012). Racial Democracy and the Black Metropolis: Housing Policy in Postwar Chicago. University of Minnesota Press.

Spear, A. H. (1967). Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto, 1890-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

White, S. (2005). The Stroll. In Encycolpedia of Chicago. Retrieved April 02, 2015, from http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1212.html.