In Pursuit of a Twenty-first Century Just City

Abstract

A reexamination of the role of equity in planning is critical at this contentious period in US history. Racism and anti-immigrant sentiments have arisen in our public policy debates, cities have again experienced riots, and inequality has grown. Equity has long been a center of tension throughout planning history, and the field has struggled to balance activism and technocratic expertise. This article provides a literature review to inform and explore how planners can engage equity in this current contentious time period.

Keywords

discrimination gender/race/ethnicity planning history planning theory poverty urban history politics and society Just City equity planning advocacy planning

Twenty years ago, the Journal of Planning Literature published an annotated bibliography focused on the practice and experiences of equity (or advocacy) planning (Metzger 1996). While terminology for discussing equity concerns in planning has changed in the two decades since that publication, understanding how the planner can function as an advocate for a “Just City” is still of critical importance. The following literature review provides a historical overview of the profession’s engagement with social equity, spanning the “Social Progressive Era” of urban planning to the contemporary concept of the Just City. The literature review also assesses the relevance and utility of equity planning theory in contemporary planning practice.

The planning profession has a conflicted history with engaging social and racial equity. Urban planning throughout the twentieth century has served the needs of marginalized groups and communities. The planning profession has also been complicit in racial, ethnic, and class discrimination through both the planning practices used and the policies established (Manning-Thomas and Ritzdorf 1997; Cashin 2004; Heathcott 2015). Social equity has been a point of debate and, consequently, tension throughout the profession’s history, as it struggled to balance a need for social activism against that for professionalization and technical proficiency, while dealing with inherent bureaucracy at the local, state, and federal levels. From a historical perspective, this ongoing tension has largely mirrored overall social trends in US history, specifically patterns in immigration, migration, and economic cycles, all of which have contributed to conflict and anxiety regarding issues of equity with respect to race, economic class, and citizenship status. This legacy is important in both understanding and addressing the social equity challenges of the twenty-first century.

Urban planning practices and policies continue to influence issues of social and racial equity in cities across the United States and have been responsible for negative, as well as positive, impacts. An extensive amount of literature addresses the importance of “place” in influencing a number of life outcomes such as health, education, economic well-being, and social mobility (Sharkey 2013). As the principal discipline serving community development needs, urban planning is naturally inclined to be at the forefront of addressing place-based challenges. Planning and community development are essential in addressing such community challenges as vacant property, community safety, community health and health services, the presence of appropriate infrastructure, and other community building/empowerment issues.

The profession is also at the forefront of issues surrounding neighborhood redevelopment and can directly diminish the impact of displacement from gentrification. Planning’s impact on transportation infrastructure also directly influences issues related to a population’s mobility and ease of access to employment. The planning profession further has a role in land use control, one which can contribute to housing stability and fair housing goals or, conversely, toward exclusionary housing and economic and racial segregation. Finally, the profession’s policies and practices can influence regional development patterns, affecting the geographies of spatial inequality and opportunity in our metropolitan areas (Pastor, Benner, and Matsouka 2009).

The issue of social and economic equity in US urban planning has probably never been more important than at the current time. Racial tensions and those related to immigration are reflected not only in political debate but in civil disorder within various cities as well. Just as the nation’s demography has grown more diverse, so has a reaction against it, fueled by social and economic inequalities. Successful urban planning, however, can enhance social and racial equity when this is made a priority in establishing policies and practices.

The Evolution of Equity Planning in Theory and Practice

The Social Progressive Era: Equity in Planning’s Infancy (The Tenements and Social Reformers)

As documented in detail in Foglesong’s (1986) Planning the Capitalist City: The Colonial Era to the 1920’s, the profession emerged during the progressive period in response to the nineteenth-century free market/capitalist-dominated city. Activism surrounding urban social problems has existed since the latter half of the nineteenth century as the first US city (New York) reached a population of one million. Socially progressive activism initially developed as a response to the unsanitary and unsafe conditions, which came to characterize crowded urban tenements. One of the earliest social reformers, Jacob Riis ([1890] 1997), published and lectured on the appalling conditions in lurid detail so as to promote awareness and potential change. Riis and his contemporaries challenged the principles of Social Darwinism, then espoused by intellectual elites, citing the negative impacts of overcrowded and dysfunctional living spaces on the behavior, morals, and health of the affected inhabitants.

Riis’s efforts were accompanied by those of members of a larger social progressive movement addressing a number of social issues developing in the United States following the civil war (Fogelson 1986; Hall, Pérez, and Levy 2014). Prior to the publication of his How the Other Half Lives, the first settlement house in the United States (Neighborhood Guild) was founded on New York’s Lower East Side in 1886, followed by that of Hull House in Chicago by Jane Adams and Ellen Gates Star in 1889 (Trolander 1987).

It was during this period that quantitative “advocacy journalism” first made its appearance, journalism characterized by social surveys which were “explicitly normative and reformist in aim” (Anderson 2017, 86). Efforts on the part of public health advocates to institute reforms in public sanitation and to control the spread of infectious diseases also predate Riis’s seminal work (Foglesong, 1986). Such advocates have been described as the “first urban planners in America” (Perdue, Gostin, and Stone 2003, 557). The Progressive Era would also see the introduction of housing reform tied to city planning, as early housing reformers sought to achieve “safe, sanitary, and uncrowded housing” through the introduction of building codes and land use controls (von Hoffman 2009, 232). Recreational spaces for children were created during this period as well, not simply as an urban amenity but as a means of controlling the nature of children’s play activities (Cavallo 1981; Howell 2008).

The efforts of progressive social reformers on behalf of (often largely immigrant) urban tenement populations contributed to improved housing standards, to radical improvements in water and sewage services, and to the establishment of the first social resource centers (settlement houses), the precursors to contemporary community development organizations. From a contemporary perspective, the accomplishments of the social reformers represent place-based (infrastructure and housing) and people-based (settlement houses, educational facilities, and labor unions) approaches toward realizing an equitable city (Peterson 2003). The progressive movement emerging in early twentieth century urban America would have long-term ramifications with respect to policy as well as politics (Dreir 2005).

City Beautiful: The Moral Power of Beautiful Civic Space

City planning came to be regarded as a legitimate discipline with the emergence of the “City Beautiful” movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Peterson 2003). This movement, which would dramatically change cityscapes, not only addressed aesthetics but also the social ills and general dysfunctional level of urban space at the time. However, its main thrust was not combatting social ills but rather incorporated the principles of physical determinism: that through ordered design, the disorder of the city could be tamed and that this taming of disorder would consequently be reflected in the improved moral character of the inhabitants.

The City Beautiful movement sought to eradicate all urban problems through an imposition of order and exemplary design, enlightening the masses through the architectural genius of its designers. While several other important and prominent theoretical movements would follow in the planning field, the concepts and principles of the City Beautiful movement were particularly influential in the decades following the movement’s inception. Through the movement’s rigid place-based approach to urban planning, many positive changes in the urban landscape can be attributed. Aesthetically pleasing recreational, public, and civic spaces that demonstrably improved the quality of urban life were the hallmark of this movement (Peterson 2003).

The rigid physical determinism of the City Beautiful concept, however, was one of its drawbacks. The social evils afflicting tenement and slum dwellers were never fully addressed, and the City Beautiful-inspired development often physically displaced these residents. City Beautiful was a well-intentioned but largely undemocratic process. It constituted a top-down approach that, when implemented often led to inequitable outcomes in which a few were enriched, but those already economically challenged, were often further marginalized (Foglesong 1986).

Conflict in Urban Planning: The City Beautiful versus Social Progressives

As American cities continued to grow, so did the gulf in philosophy between the two leading schools of thought in city planning: that of the proponents of the City Beautiful, on the one hand; and that of the social progressives, on the other (Peterson 2003, 2009). The tension would also place social activists against those seeking to professionalize and impose order on field. Whereas both groups sought to improve the quality and character of urban life, social progressives emphasized the need for social equity and consequently political activism, while those of the City Beautiful school stressed a culture based on “civic virtues and shared aesthetics.” Notes Peterson (2003) in The Birth of City Planning in the United States:

Social progressives challenged the root assumptions of City Beautiful planning head-on. Coming from the same segment of the American society as the City Beautiful advocates did, they readily grasped the cultural bias of the beautifiers toward the well-to-do and its preoccupation with public improvements to the neglect of urban slums and their inhabitants. (p. 228)

The conflict in philosophy came to a head during the 1909–1910 National Conferences on City Planning, during which the popular social progressive, Benjamin C. Marsh, was replaced as Chair of the Planning Committee for the 2nd National Planning Conference by the well-known City Beautiful proponent, Frederick Olmsted. Thereafter, urban planning in the United States came to be influenced less by social activism and particularly less so by the voices of women, who had more representation among social progressives (Szczygiel 2003). The approach toward urban planning became more unified as it developed into an administrative function of the public sector (Peterson 2009).

The decline of the population congestion movement was not the only “path not taken” in planning’s early development (Fogelsong 1986). Many of the planning tools envisioned as supporting social reform by progressives lost their social equity elements in implementation (von Hoffman 2009). First established in Great Britain, the Garden City movement, whose socially progressive elements were embraced by social reformers, would see those elements stripped in its implementation in the US “garden suburb” context (von Hoffman 2009). The implementation of zoning in the US context would see a similar transformation, as described by housing historian von Hoffman (2009) in Housing and Planning: A Century of Social Reform and Local Power:

…crossing the Atlantic transformed European zoning from a progressive measure to a naked weapon of local property, class and race interests. (p. 233)

Segregation in the Early Zoning Era: “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”

One of the most important land use tools, which has empowered urban planners over the past century, is that of zoning, a legal concept for regulating land use within designated areas. When exercised meticulously, however, zoning can also be used not only to influence the character of physical space but to support social objectives, not all of them necessarily positive (Richards 1982).

It has been argued that during the early part of the twentieth century, zoning was used in many northern American cities to promote the segregation and social marginalization of specific groups that had migrated there in large numbers: African Americans from the Southern US, Asian immigrants, and Jewish and Catholic immigrants from Europe. The practice was also employed by colonial governments outside the United States, where it was used as a means of social control over groups whose labor was needed, but whose presence was not particularly welcomed by authorities (Nightingale 2012).

There is little doubt that racial isolation and segregation were an explicit goal of early zoning policy (Silver 1997; Foglesong 1986). Zoning was intended not only to regulate unwanted land uses but also the presence of specific “undesirable” racial or ethnic groups. Baltimore passed the first “racial zoning” statutes in 1910, followed quickly by a number of other municipalities. The ordinances, however, were ruled unconstitutional in a 1917 US Supreme Court decision (Silver 1997).

While specific racial zoning may have been outlawed, the technique of “expulsive zoning” was employed to concentrate less attractive forms of land use within marginalized communities, while barring these same forms of land use in affluent white communities (Rabin 1989). In collaboration with vested real estate interests, city administrators also aggressively supported the implementation of restrictive covenants with respect to land use, all in the same spirit as racial zoning (Gotham 2002). In many cases (and particularly in the American South), these activities were coordinated with comprehensive urban planning efforts (Silver 1997).

The New Deal Era: The Search for Equity during the Great Depression

The 1929 stock market collapse and consequent Great Depression meant that for millions of Americans, equity was less reasonable a goal than was mere survival (Katznelson 2014). In response to a wave of corporate and personal bankruptcies, the highest unemployment rate (25 percent) in the nation’s history, untold home foreclosures, and the blight of “Hooverville” camps for the homeless, the administration of Franklin Roosevelt launched the “New Deal”: the most massive intervention in the US economy on the part of a federal government to date (Leuchtenburg 2009). An emphasis was placed on infrastructure investments of an unprecedented magnitude, characterized by such regional planning efforts as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA along with the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Civil Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration all provided desperately needed employment for millions of Americans while authorizing capital investments that would benefit the economy once recovery was underway (Leuchtenburg 2009).

It was New Deal interventions with respect to the housing sector, however, which would most influence the field of urban planning. The Federal Housing Act of the 1934 led to the creation of the Federal Housing Administration, and the Federal Housing Act of 1937 created the US Housing Authority. These new bureaucracies, coupled with government influence on mortgage lending, supported a significant expansion in home ownership across the country (von Hoffman 2009). Moreover, in 1936, the Housing Division of the Public Works Administration was responsible for the construction of the nation’s first public housing development, Techwood Homes, in Atlanta (Rothstein 2017). A year later, the Wagner-Steagall Housing Act gave the federal government a more or less permanent role in the nation’s housing sector when it created the US Housing Authority. In 1939 alone, the Housing Authority constructed 50,000 affordable housing units (Nathanial 1973).

The era of the New Deal would stimulate considerable innovation with respect to urban planning policies designed to best attain social and economic equity. In practice, however, the expansions in housing and employment opportunities did not benefit all groups equally. As noted by Katznelson (2005) in When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-century America, the benefits of many New Deal economic policies were not extended to the employment sectors most heavily represented by African Americans. Nor did federal housing policies provide significant mortgage assistance for communities of color. The Home Owners Loan Corporation, while it would help many families escape foreclosure in the early 1930s, introduced the practice of “redlining,” whereby mortgage loans would be refused to someone living in an area (generally one where the majority of residents were people of color) deemed to be a poor financial risk (Rothstein 2017). Moreover, public housing was racially segregated, and sites were often geographically isolated, further reinforcing metropolitan patterns of racial segregation (Myerson and Banfield 1955; Bristol 2015).

The Second World War would bring about new opportunities to support equity, new challenges, and once again changing demographics in US cities. The “Great Migration” of African Americans escaping deplorable conditions in the Jim Crow South would bring millions of black families to northern and western urban centers (Wilkerson 2010). Although the migration of African Americans would begin in 1915, the need for labor in northern industrial cities would accelerate movement from the south, bringing more than one million African Americans north during the war (Gregory 2005). Movement north and west would benefit from federal efforts to support antidiscrimination in defense labor practices, presenting expanded economic opportunity in the war industries.

Although expanded economic opportunities for African Americans presented promise, this was also a time period of racial violence directed toward African Americans and the internment of 120,000 in the Japanese community (Reeves 2015). African Americans would move into highly segregated urban communities, which were also struggling with housing shortages (Rucker and Upton 2006). The shortage of housing would accelerate racial tensions in northern cities, with the most explosive incident occurring in Detroit’s 1943 race riot, where white Detroit residents attacked African Americans, resulting in more than 400 injuries, US$30 million in property damage, and 30 fatalities (Capeci and Wilkerson 1990).

Rational Planning and Equity: From Redlining to Urban Renewal

In post–World War II urban America, the physical determinism of the City Beautiful concept combined with an exclusive top-down approach to planning in what would become the dominant urban planning model: rational planning theory (Fainstein 2005). Also known as the rational comprehensive model, the concept was supported by considerable organizational theory and by the modernist design movement in architecture, which characterized this period (Myerson and Banfield 1955).

Supporters of the rational planning model argued it would add the architectural benefits of modernism to planning (reflecting the vision of the Swiss pioneer in this field, LeCorbusier) while employing such quantitative techniques as cost–benefit analysis. The Housing Act of 1949 (the first official program for American urban renewal) fostered the rational planning model’s application in cities throughout the United States (Teaford 2000). Federally sponsored urban renewal, accompanied by the recently legislated Federal Highway Program, it was argued, would provide the financial incentives and infrastructure necessary to reshape and enhance the character of American cities (Teaford 2000). However, one of the priorities of the rational planning model with respect to urban renewal became slum clearance, leading to disproportionate displacement of African Americans and of other economically marginalized groups (Shester and Williams 2009). In those cases where alternative housing was offered, it often took the form of public housing towers that were as racially segregated as the neighborhoods they replaced (Teaford 2000).

The Advocacy Planning Era: A Radical Disruption

In 1959, a robust critique on the rational planning model came from the political scientist Charles Lindblom (1959) in his classic article, “The Science of ‘Muddling Through”. Lindblom questioned the rational planning model’s effectiveness within a complex sociopolitical context. Rather, he and his followers advocated incrementalism, or smaller, step-by-step approaches to urban development.

Incrementalists were joined by a host of other critics of rational planning in the 1960s. Jacobs (1961) in The Death and Life of Great American Cities charged rational planners and planning professionals in general with destroying what she regarded as the essence and spirit of individual urban neighborhoods. Jacobs did not mince words: urban planning was called a “pseudoscience,” and one with “neurotic” tendencies. Jacobs and her protégés formed the nucleus of a nascent resistance movement in the 1960s, which rejected the physically deterministic, undemocratic, and socially inequitable aspects of rational planning. While Jacobs is referenced here in the context of social advocacy, recently scholars have critiqued Jacobs as an elitist whose ideas also contributed to NIMBY disputes and gentrification (Hirt and Zahm 2012).

Advocacy planning would directly challenge the rational model and promote more “people-focused” practices and policies, with particular emphasis on serving the economically and socially marginalized (Fainstein 2005). As noted by Fainstein (2005) in Planning Theory and the City, the reaction to the rational planning model constituted a new sort of reform movement, a movement that was in the tradition of the late nineteenth-century urban reformists but distinct in its political critique of rational planning:

The reform movement was attacking the prevailing rational or quasi-rational model on two grounds: first, it was a misguided process; and second, it produced a city that no one wanted. The demands of reformers on the ground expressed themselves within planning theory through political economic analysis of the roots of urban inequality and through calls for democratic participation in planning. (p. 124)

What Jacob Riis was to the social progressive movement of the late 1800s, Paul Davidoff would become for the advocacy planning movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Davidoff recognized the failure of the rational planning model in respecting pluralism and supporting equitable outcomes for the residents of impoverished and segregated communities. Davidoff (1965) writes in his seminal article, “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning”:

The prospect for future planning is that of a practice which openly invites political and social values to be examined and debated. Acceptance of this position means rejection of prescriptions for planning which would have the planner act solely as a technician. (p. 331)

Davidoff questioned the premise of rational decision-making. “Rationality,” in fact, he argued, was a product of both the values held by individual planning professionals and those of the urban power structures that often employed them. The important questions to be raised were as follows: for whom are the planning decisions considered “rational?” and by what standards or metrics can “rationality” be measured? In Davidoff’s (1965) own words:

Appropriate planning action cannot be prescribed from a position of value neutrality, for prescriptions are based on desired outcomes. One conclusion drawn from this assertion is that “values are the inescapable elements of any rational decision-making process.” (p. 331)

Davidoff rejected the concept of “technical neutrality” and argued, rather, that planners should actively advocate for the socially and economically marginalized, particularly those who had been systematically excluded from the traditional political process. Davidoff (1965) anticipated future agonistic and communicative planning theories when he proposed an urban planning process in which the decision-making structure would exist parallel to the American legal system, and in which competing interests would be granted a due process in which evidence would be weighed for “reasoned decisions” based on “a relative truth”. To Davidoff, effective urban planning required the inclusion and engagement of the community affected. Specifically:

Inclusion means not only permitting the citizen to be heard. It also means that he be able to become well informed about the underlying reasons for planning proposals, and be able to respond to them in the technical language of professional planners. (p. 332)

The emergence and growth of advocacy planning was not coincidental to the time frame in which it developed. The post–World War II Era of development policy had dramatically reshaped the metropolitan landscape, whereas massive investment took place in residential suburban communities, characterized by extremes of economic and racial exclusion, inner-city neighborhoods deteriorated at a similar exponential rate, when they were not bulldozed altogether (Teaford 2000). The decline of American cities was accompanied by racial isolation and, consequently, racial tension. The Civil Rights Movement under the leadership of the Nobel laureate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., developed during this period, demanding an end to segregation and racial discrimination. Whereas Dr. King was a disciple of nonviolent protest, starting with the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, over 700 civil disturbances gripped American urban centers over the next three years, leading to hundreds of deaths, hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage, and to a white population exodus (Rucker and Upton 2006). After languishing in Congress for most of the decade, the Fair Housing Act was finally enacted several weeks after the April 1968 assassination of Dr. King (Powell and Reece 2009). It was clear that cities had failed in achieving American urban renewal, as advocacy planners moved to the forefront.

Advocacy Planning in the 1970s

As the urban violence of the 1960s gave way to the quieter 1970s, advocacy planning, nonetheless, continued to develop under such theorists and practitioners as Norman Krumholtz and John Forester (Krumholtz and Forester 1990). While Davidoff is the theorist most often identified as the face of the Advocacy Planning Era, it is important to recognize the contributions of the many other scholars, practitioners, social activists, and nonprofit and community-based organizations in the advancement and application of advocacy planning (Corey 1972). Corey’s (1972) article, “Advocacy in Planning: A Reflective Analysis,” notes that during the 1960s, “…hundreds of organizations and agencies have been engaged in planning advocacy as well as advocacy activities…” p. 47).

Organizations such as the Urban Field Service at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, Community Human and Resources Training in the Cincinnati region, and the Architect’s Renewal Committee in Harlem are just a few of those across the country working to empower marginalized residents and better align planning practice with the needs of neglected and/or impoverished communities (Corey 1972). Advocacy planning has been a means of introducing humanism into the highly technical and bureaucratic structures which characterize local, state, and federal government (Peattie 1968; Corey 1972).

Like any planning theory, the advocacy planning movement did not escape criticism on multiple levels from both practitioners and theorists. Notes Corey (1972):

On the one hand advocacy planning has been taken to task for employing confrontation tactics, and on the other hand advocacy planning has been criticized because it is not radical enough. (p. 53)

The practices of advocacy planners were often criticized for being self-serving and manipulative (Brooks 1970; Peattie 1968). Such planners were further characterized as not sufficiently technical in approach, too focused on processes, and too confrontational in practice (Brooks 1970; Piven 1970b; Starr 1968). Advocacy planning has further been criticized as too incremental in approach and for obscuring (if not complicit in enabling) larger systemic and structural challenges that inhibit social change (Piven 1970a).

Applying the principles of advocacy planning in practice proved difficult, and many political conflicts accompanied attempts at its implementation. Advocating on behalf of the residents of economically marginalized or racially segregated communities can be challenging. Moreover, advocacy planners often come from socioeconomic backgrounds far different from that of the residents they purport to represent, creating problems with respect to communication. In many cases, advocacy planners have been accused of unreasonably raising the expectations in the communities they aimed to improve (Corey 1972).

Critics of advocacy planning also questioned the applicability of “pluralism” in supporting justice, given the inherent imbalances in power between socially and economically marginalized groups, on the one hand, and political, economic, and corporate elites, on the other (Mazziotti 1974). Mazziotti (1974) writes: “…political pluralism is a well-constructed social myth which provides the rationale for instituting social programs designed to placate the politically and economically disenfranchised” (p. 209). This criticism was employed by proponents of the radical planning model, a model that questioned the potential for the incremental approach utilized by advocacy planners to effect structural change (Grabow and Heskin 1973). Radical planners, on the other hand, felt that urban planning should be more oriented toward achieving social and economic equity (Friedmann 1987). They disparaged pluralism in favor of equitable resource distribution and a model of class-based marginalization, which would address inequities attributed to place, race/ethnicity, or gender.

The Legacy and Impact of the Advocacy Movement

The era of advocacy planning would coincide with several promising but short-lived federal efforts to address issues of urban inequality. The Demonstration and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 would produce the “Model Cities” program (Klemons 2007). Model Cities would meld community organizing, program service delivery, and community planning by funding coordinated five-year planning efforts. Although the unique structure of Model Cities was promising, the program would end in 1974 and had mixed impacts on cities pursuing Model Cities plans. The Model Cities program suffered from external challenges such as limited funding and shifts in urban policy during the first term of President Nixon’s administration (Weber and Wallace 2012).

Following the riots of 1967, the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (the Kerner Commission) directly identified the nation’s segregation as the primary reason for the lack of economic opportunity for the urban African American community. The federal commission directly implicated planning concerns such as fair housing and reforming public housing as solutions. Despite the Kerner Commission report being widely heralded by civil rights leaders, President Johnson ignored the report’s recommendations, and the shift to conservatism during the Nixon administration would further limit its influence (Risen 2009).

Efforts by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be proactive in addressing fair housing during the Nixon administration would also be short-lived. In the early 1970s, Governor George Romney, HUD secretary during the Nixon administration, sought for the agency to have a strong role in fair housing regulation, particularly for communities receiving funds from the federal government (Reston 2012). The HUD Secretary proposed the “Open Communities” program that made receipt of HUD funding contingent upon communities allowing subsidized housing. The secretary’s early activist stance would not last long, as the Nixon administration pressured Secretary Romney to back down from this aggressive interpretation of the Fair Housing Act. Nixon’s displeasure with Romney’s affirmative stance of pushing for regional desegregation would lead to Secretary Romney’s early resignation from HUD.

Some have questioned whether advocacy planning has actually had any material impact on the field of urban planning. Scholars have suggested that a commitment to social equity in planning may have existed in theory, but in practice, it has been difficult to balance goals of equity and economic growth. States Campbell (1996) of the University of Michigan:

…though planners often see themselves as the defenders of the poor and of socio-economic equality, their actions over the profession’s history have often belied that self-image…At best, the planner has taken an ambivalent stance between the goals of economic growth and economic justice. (p. 297)

Campbell’s critique is valid, although it is clear, that the contributions of the Advocacy Planning Era have influenced practice. In spite of the challenges faced by the advocacy planning model, such as the federal shift away from civil rights measures during the Nixon administration, its influence upon the direction and development of urban planning in both theory and practice is difficult to deny.

In the decades following the inception of advocacy planning, urban planning practices would change, as a new set of tools promoting advocacy and equity were adopted in cities across the United States. For example, in 1974, inclusionary zoning was first introduced in Montgomery County, Maryland (Montgomery County 2004). The first regional fair share housing programs would be enacted by the end of the 1970s as well (Chapple 2015). And, perhaps most significantly, the practice of contemporary community development would emerge as indicated by the growth in community development corporations (CDCs). Starting with the establishment of the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration in Brooklyn, the number of CDCs nationwide has risen from 100 in 1966 to more than 4,600 in 2006 (Clay and Jones 2009). Whereas there have been no surveys documenting the number of CDCs since that time, an industry survey in 2010 estimated that such organizations are now annually responsible for the creation of 96,000 units of affordable housing and 7.4 million square feet of commercial space (Community Wealth 2017). Equity challenges would continue in cities after the Advocacy Era, but the advocacy planning movement would have some long-term influence on practice, particularly with respect to community engagement and community development (Chapple 2015).

The Just City Era: Equity in the Context of Contemporary Urban Planning Theory and Models

Although advocacy planning theory was eventually supplanted by other theories, more contemporary theories and practices with respect to urban planning continue to address the issue of social equity. One theory that would gain particularly wide acceptance was communicative planning theory. This theory evolved from pluralistic planning models used in the early stages of the advocacy movement (Sager 2013). Communicative planning theorists question the validity of “expert knowledge.” Dialogue and discourse are the source of finding “truth,” and this can be achieved through communicative rationality (Habermas 1981). The work of Cornell professor John Forester (1989) grounded communicative planning theory on the principle that communicative action could empower marginalized and disenfranchised communities by providing access to public decision-making processes and appropriate technical information. Planners are essential to this process both as educators, furnishing access to information, and as consensus builders, bridging diverse and sometimes competing interests (Forester 1989).

Fainstein’s (2010) Just City theory represents a new theory for promoting equity in the age of globalization and neoliberal policy. This theory focuses on diversity, democracy, and equity, attempting to integrate the three concepts to foster just and equitable processes and outcomes. The Just City theory emerged from Fainstein’s case studies in Amsterdam, London, and New York, studies which added an international perspective to equity planning theory.

The Just City theory has attempted to address what have been perceived as deficiencies in other contemporary planning theories or movements. Fainstein (2000), for example, questions the communicative planning model’s adequacy in dealing with structural conflict and challenges: “There is the assumption that if only people were reasonable, deep structural conflict would melt away” (p. 455). She argues that more than mere consensus building is necessary to address deep structural inequities. Rather, other forms of community engagement, mobilization, and organization are advocated to empower communities to combat such inequities.

The Just City theory is grounded in addressing social and geographic inequities through processes that foster participation, empowerment, and decision-making by marginalized groups, leading to more equitable outcomes. Moral neutrality (or the absence of clear moral values in framing discourse) is not a valid perspective for equitable communicative discourse; rather, the Just City requires equity in process as well as adherence to any equitable outcomes prescribed.

Fainstein also challenges the contemporary design theory of New Urbanism, speculating that it might represent merely a new form of physical determinism, which characterized both the City Beautiful movement and the architectural modernism of the rational planning theory. Fainstein views the “charrettes,” or stakeholder meetings, which characterize the community participation aspect of New Urbanism, less as an attempt to gain community input than as a means of selling the public on the New Urbanists’ own visions.

Research on the part of University of Chicago professor Emily Talen in the Mississippi Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina supports Fainstein’s contentions. Talen found that the use of New Urbanist planning charrettes in the region and the theorists’ design-oriented approach did not adequately address the deep structural and institutional challenges to social equity which were posed, particularly with respect to the issue of providing affordable housing in the reconstruction period following the disaster. Jennifer Evans-Cowley and Andrew Canter in their investigation of the construction of “Katrina Cottages” and other rebuilding efforts in the wake of the disaster further noted a variety of local and state regulatory barriers to affordable housing construction, barriers which frustrated social equity and fair housing goals in coastal Mississippi redevelopment (Evans-Cowley and Canter, 2011).

In her more recent work, Fainstein expands upon her Just City model and examines the role of diversity (both in the physical and social context) in planning practice and theory. In “Cities and Diversity: Should We Want It? Can We Plan for It?” Fainstein (2005) notes that diversity in land uses and physical structures in the urban environment—a goal of New Urbanism—does not necessarily equate with social diversity. Fainstein introduces a model for stimulating social justice with local urban policy, while also emphasizing the critical need for a progressive political consciousness to make the Just City possible. Fainstein further questions the social equity benefits implied by the type of mixed-use development routinely advocated by New Urbanism proponents, although she concedes that New Urbanist policy, when coupled with a progressive political consciousness, can help successfully support the concept of the Just City.

Another theoretical model that carries similar foundational elements of Fainstein’s The Just City is progressive regionalism. Similar to Fainstein’s acknowledgment that space is critical to equity and justice, progressive regionalists focus on regionalism as the correct geographic scale to remedy spatial inequities and build collective action for social justice. As described in a 2009 symposium in the Journal of Planning Education and Research:

Progressive regionalists strive to eradicate root causes of poverty, social injustice, and environmental degradation in ways that take into account the complex and multi-scalar flows of material, energy, and knowledge resources constituting our increasingly globalized world. (Pizzoli et al. 2009, 337)

Progressive regionalism emphasizes collaboration and interdisciplinary collective action as the primary activities to drive progressive regional change, with much of this advocacy centered on clearly communicating interregional dependencies between all communities and populations within the hypercompetitive global economy (Pastor, Benner, and Matsouka 2009). Even the emergence of “mega regions” provides opportunities for broad social justice collaboration and movement building to impact planning policy (Benner and Pastor 2011). Where Fainstein emphasizes the role of planners and local planning policy, progressive regionalists identify diverse, multidisciplinary, multiracial regional coalitions as the principal drivers to address regional change (PolicyLink 2002).

The Future of Equity Planning Theory: Crisis and Opportunity

Riots have reemerged in US cities in the twenty-first century. Replicating the civil disorders of the 1960s, rioting occurred in Ferguson, Missouri (outside St. Louis) in 2014 and in Baltimore, Maryland, the following year. Smaller but, nonetheless, significant protests and disorders occurred in other cities across the United States as well, largely in response to what were perceived as racially motivated police shootings. Racial discrimination, neighborhood distress, economic inequality, and police brutality were other factors cited as triggering these recent disturbances. Neighborhoods in Baltimore and Ferguson were looted and burned, precipitating the deployment of the National Guard as was done during the riots of the 1960s. These contemporary crises reflect the pervasive social injustices that characterize American urban areas and the persistent influence of structural and institutional racism, as well as that of both social and economic inequality.

A 2015 essay by Flint in The Atlantic’s CityLab blog suggested planning was experiencing an “identity crisis” . Flint stated that planners had not sufficiently recognized the complexity of the urban environment nor given enough attention to the concepts of “systems approaches” or “tactical planning” in their work, adding that the “revolt against traditional approaches to planning is being conducted by planners themselves” (Flint 2015). He further stated that not only complex systemic challenges in the urban environment but a general sense of social injustice has fueled the desire for change. Flint also reminded the reader that this was not the first time that there has been a call for change in the field of urban planning, citing the efforts of Jane Jacobs a half century earlier.

Flint’s historical reference could be expanded to identify not only Jane Jacob’s work in the 1960s but also Davidoff’s advocacy movement and the environmental movement of the 1970s, as an entire period of transformational thought in planning. As it needs to do so today (and as was needed in the late nineteenth century when faced with the pressures of rapid industrialization), the urban planning field needed to respond to the dramatic macroeconomic forces, policies, and challenges facing our cities and society at the time. Planning theory and practice must remain dynamic in order to effectively respond to a complex and ever-changing society (now largely global in nature) or it will quickly lose its relevance.

As summarized in Figure 1, the evolution of equity planning efforts has been tied historically to that of larger societal and economic factors. Influenced by large-scale immigration, industrialization, social and economic inequalities, and the spread of overcrowded and unsanitary tenements, the Progressive Era would lead to a period of social activism characterized by the settlement house movement, public health initiatives, housing and building code reforms, and early land use control efforts. In response to the Great Depression, the New Deal Era would lead to innovative financing methods to expand home ownership, to jobs programs, and to the first large-scale public housing developments. The Advocacy Era, in response to the social and racial upheaval of the 1960s, and to the failure of urban renewal, would introduce contemporary models of community development, which encouraged greater public participation and promoted fair housing reforms. In our contemporary era of the Just City concept, concerns such as globalization and immigration, growing social and economic inequalities, racial and social conflict, and the displacement caused by gentrification will likely shape the nature of urban planning theory and practices designed with an equitable society in mind.

Figure 1.

Equity planning’s evolution and the influence of societal factors.

Conclusion: Moving toward Equity and the Just City

I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight, I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.” (Theodore Parker, Abolitionist, in a speech at the Massachusetts State House, January 1858)

As does our broader society, the field of urban planning has formidable challenges to overcome if it is to support the concept of an equitable and Just City. It can be argued, however, that the field historically has followed the “long arc” which Theodore Parker noted 150 years ago that “bends toward justice.” Over time, planning practice has become more inclusive and more responsive to the need for social and economic equity. Of course, the movement toward equity has not been a linear one, but rather one that has been both promoted and constrained by stronger societal, political, and economic forces. Whereas the social activism of the 1960s and 1970s led to reforms for community development efforts, these efforts would be stymied by federal budget cuts as well as by mass incarceration in urban communities of color during the “War on Drugs,” which characterized the Reagan administration of the 1980s. Similarly, efforts to revitalize many urban communities of color in the early years of the new millennium were undermined by destabilization in the housing market following the 2008 housing crisis and consequent Great Recession. Regardless of the uneven progress, such concepts and objectives as environmental justice, inclusive models of community engagement, fair housing, inclusionary housing, asset-based community development, community benefit agreements, and support for greater diversity in the field remain a part of contemporary urban planning.

The challenges urban planners face in the twenty-first century are at least as daunting as those encountered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Social and economic inequalities are growing, cities are changing in character and complexion, and the nation is in the midst of another significant demographic transition. New models for urban redevelopment (such as New Urbanism) continue to fail to fully address the issues of displacement and economic marginalization. Some neglected suburbs are becoming zones of distress and isolation for marginalized people, while some urban areas are still reeling from the aftershocks of the 2008 housing crisis and a decline in housing support and subsidies. Declining federal support for traditional urban community development has created an environment in which equity planners must learn to collaborate with other stakeholders and activists. It is noteworthy that one of the most well-documented, place-oriented, and people-oriented interventions of the past two decades has been the Harlem Children’s Zone, an initiative led by educational advocates rather than city planners (Erickson 2012; Dobbie, Fryer, and Fryer 2011).

As is the case currently, our society underwent monumental demographic and economic upheavals in the past; and as in the past, these upheavals will generate negative outcomes for the “other” population, whomever the politically disenfranchised “other” population may be. Our cities have “sorted” these populations into isolated areas lacking opportunity, and this has been accomplished in some instances with almost mathematical precision.

Planning must also be cognizant of the complex process of “othering” (specifically more contemporary marginalization of immigrants) and incorporate aspects of intersectionality. Intersectionality places emphasis on how multiple individual identities can impact marginalization, in essence compounding the effects of race, class, and gender on the lived experience (Crenshaw 1995). Our changing demographics and changing society must be reflected in the changes to conceptualizations of equity planning theory.

Despite the challenges, I argue that the planning discipline has unique attributes to support the twenty-first-century Just City. At a time where collaboration skills and a multidisciplinary lens are critical to address systemic challenges, the planning discipline brings both of these tools to the table. The traditional domains of planning, such as transportation, housing, land use, and community development, are still preeminent factors in shaping access to opportunity in our cities. The twenty-first-century Just City requires more than good practice and requires deliberate effort to assure marginalized communities sit at the forefront of envisioning the Just City (Mattila 2002). Planning brings a history of communicative practice, which enables the profession to support robust equitable community engagement. To maximize these assets in supporting the Just City, the profession must bring intentionality toward its social justice agenda; this requires bringing a strong equity lens, a lens that is informed by the field’s long history of equity planning, to theory, practice, public discourse, and the professional development pipeline.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

C. W.

2017. “Social Survey Reportage: Context, Narrative, and Information Visualization in Early 20th Century American Journalism.” Journalism 18 (1): 81–100.

Benner

Chris

Pastor

Manuel

. 2011. “Moving On Up? Regions, Megaregions, and the Changing Geography of Social Equity Organizing.” Urban Affairs Review 47:315.

Bristol

Katharine

. 2015. “The Pruitt-igoe Myth.” Journal of Architectural Education 44 (3): 163–71.

Brooks

Michael

. 1970. “Social Planning and City Planning.” Planning Advisory Service Report No. 261. American Society of Planning Officials: 1–61. Accessed June 10, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=Eq5NAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions.

Campbell

Scott

. 1996. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 62:3.

Capeci

Dominic

Wilkerson

Martha

. 1990. “The Detroit Rioters of 1943: A Reinterpretation.” Michigan Historical Review 16 (1): 49–72.

Cashin

Sheryl

. 2004. The Failures of Integration. New York: Public Affairs.

Cavallo

Dominick

. 1981. Muscles and Morals: Organized Playgrounds and Urban Reform: 1880-1920. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Chapple

2015. Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions: Towards More Equitable Development. New York: Routledge.

10.

Clay

Roger

Jones

Susan

, eds. 2009. Building Healthy Communities: A Guide to Community Economic Development for Advocates, Lawyers and Policymakers. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association Forum on Affordable Housing and Community Development Law.

11.

Community Wealth. 2017. “Community Development Corporations (CDC’s).” Accessed June 15, 2017. http://community-wealth.org/strategies/panel/cdcs/index.html.

12.

Corey

Kenneth

. 1972. “Advocacy in Planning: A Reflective Analysis.” Antipode 4 (2): 46–63.

13.

Crenshaw

Kimberle

. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press.

14.

Davidoff

Paul

. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31:331–38.

15.

Dobbie

Will

Fryer

Roland

Fryer

, Jr. 2011. “Are High-quality Schools Enough to Increase Achievement among the Poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3 (3): 158–87.

16.

Erickson

Amanda

. 2012, 8 16. “Why hasn’t the Harlem Children’s Zone Been Replicated Even without Obama’s Help?” Atlantic. www.citylab.com.

17.

Evans-Cowley Jennifer

Andrew

Canter

. 2011. “Hurricanes, Oil Spills, and Discrimination, Oh my: The Story of the Mississippi Cottage.” Environmental Law Reporter, 41(2): 101–136. Reprinted in Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, 20:1, 35-37.

18.

Fainstein

Susan

. 2000. “New Directions in Planning Theory.” Urban Affairs Review 35 (4): 451–78.

19.

Fainstein

Susan

. 2005. “Planning Theory and the City.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25:121–30.

20.

Fainstein

Susan

. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

21.

Flint

Anthony

. 2015, 7 17. “Is Urban Planning Having An Identity Crisis?” Atlantic. www.citylab.com.

22.

Fogelson

Richard

. 1986. Planning the Capitalist City: The Colonial Era to the 1920’s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

23.

Forester

John

. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkley: University of California Press.

24.

Friedmann

1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Gotham

K. F.

2002. Race, Real Estate, and Uneven Development: The Kansas City Experience, 1900-2000. Albany: State University of New York Press.

26.

Grabow

Heskin

1973. “Foundations for a Radical Concept of Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 39 (2): 106–14.

27.

Gregory

James N.

2005. The Southern Diaspora: How the Great Migrations of Black and White Southerners Transformed America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

28.

Habermas

Jurgen

. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Hall

Pérez

Levy

2014. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

30.

Heathcott

Joseph

. 2015, 3. “Race, Class & American City Planning.” The Aggregate. Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.we-aggregate.org/piece/race-planning-and-the-american-city.

31.

Hirt

Sonia

Zahm

Diane

. 2012. The Urban Wisdom of Jane Jacobs. New York: Routledge.

32.

Howell

2008. “Play Pays—Urban Land Politics and Playgrounds in the United States, 1900-1930.” Journal of Urban History 34 (6): 961–94.

33.

Jacobs

Jane

. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

34.

Katznelson

Ira

. 2005. When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-century America. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

35.

Katznelson

Ira

. 2014. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Liveright.

36.

Keith

Nathaniel

. 1973. Politics and the Housing Crisis Since 1930. New York: Universe Books.

37.

Klemens

Christopher

. 2007. “Model Cities.” In Encyclopedia of American Urban History, edited by Goldfield

David R.

, 484–86. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Krumholz

Norman

Forester

John

. 1990. Making Equity Planning Work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

39.

Leuchtenburg

William

. 2009. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal: 1932-1940. New York: Harper Perennial.

40.

Lindblom

Charles

. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through.’” Public Administration Review 19:79–88.

41.

Manning-Thomas

Ritzdort

1997. Urban Planning and the African American Community: In The Shadows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Mattila

Hanna

. 2002. “Aesthetic Justice and Urban Planning: Who Ought to have the Right to Design Cities?” GeoJournal 58:131–38.

43.

Mazziotti

Donald

. 1974. “The Underlying Assumptions of Planning: Pluralism and Reform.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 40 (1): 38–48.

44.

Metzger

J. T.

1996. “The Theory and Practice of Equity Planning: An Annotated Bibliography.” Journal of Planning Literature 11:1.

45.

Montgomery County. 2004, 2. “Strengthening the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit Program: A 30-year Review.” Report to the Montgomery County Council. Accessed October 15, 2017. https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/Resources/Files/housing/singlefamily/mpdu/report_mpdu30yearreview.pdf.

46.

Myerson

Martin

Banfield

Edward

. 1955. Politics, Planning, and the Public Interest. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

47.

Nightingale

C. H.

2012. Segregation: A Global History of Divided Cities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

48.

Pastor

Manuel

Benner

Chris

Matsuoka

Martha

. 2009. This Could Be the Start of Something Big: How Social Movements for Regional Equity Are Reshaping Metropolitan America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

49.

Peattie

Lisa

. 1968. “Reflections on Advocacy Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 34:80–88.

50.

Perdue

Gostin

Stone

2003. “Public Health and the Built Environment: Historical, Empirical, and Theoretical Foundations for an Expanded Role.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31:557–66.

51.

Peterson

J. A.

2003. The Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840-1917. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

52.

Peterson

J. A.

2009, 12 1. “The Birth of Organized City Planning in the United States, 1909-1910.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (2): 123–33.

53.

Pezzoli

Keith

Hibbard

Michael

Huntoon

Laura

. 2009. “Introduction to Symposium: Is Progressive Regionalism an Actionable Framework for Critical Planning Theory and Practice?” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28:336.

54.

Piven

Frances

. 1970a. “Whom Does He Advocate Planner Serve?” Social Policy May/June: 40–41.

55.

Piven

Frances

. 1970b. “Disruption is Still the Decisive Way.” Social Policy July/August: 40–41.

56.

PolicyLink. 2002, 11. “Promoting Regional Equity: A Framing Paper.” Accessed October 15, 2017. https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/report-robinson-et-al.pdf.

57.

Powell

john

Reece

Jason

. 2009. “The Future of Fair Housing and Fair Credit: From Crisis to Opportunity.” Cleveland State Law Review 57 (2): 209–44.

58.

Rabin

Yale

. 1989. “Expulsive Zoning: The Inequitable Legacy of Euclid.” In Zoning and the American Dream: Promises Still to Keep, edited by Harr

Charles

Kayden

Jerold

, 101–21.Washington, DC: American Planning Association Press.

59.

Reston

Maeve

. 2012. “Mitt Romney Low-key on Civil Rights, in Contrast to His Father.” The Los Angeles Times, July 8.

60.

Reeves

Richard

. 2015. Infamy: The Shocking Story of the Japanese-American Internment during World War II. New York: Henry Holt & Company.

61.

Richards

J. Gregory

. 1982. “Zoning for Direct Social Control.” Duke Law Journal 31 (5): 761–845.

62.

Riis

Jacob

. (1890) 1997. How the Other Half Lives: Studies among the Tenements of New York. New York: Penguin Books.

63.

Risen

2009. A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

64.

Rothstein

Richard

. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright.

65.

Rucker

Walter

Upton

James

. 2006. Encyclopedia of American Race Riots. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

66.

Sager

Tore

. 2013. Reviving Critical Planning Theory. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

67.

Sharkey

Patrick

. 2013. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

68.

Shester

K. l.

William

J. C.

2009. “Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in the United States, 1949-1974.” University of Arizona Seminar Papers. Accessed October 15, 2017. http://econ.arizona.edu/docs/Seminar_Papers/Paper_Archives/Fall%2009_Collins.pdf.

69.

Silver

Christopher

. 1997. “The Racial Origins of Zoning in American Cities.” In Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows, edited by Thomas

June Manning

Ritzdorf

Marsha

, 23–42. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

70.

Starr

Roger

. 1968. “Advocates and Adversaries.” Planning: American Society of Planning 34: 33–38.

71.

Szczygiel

Bonj

. 2003. “‘City Beautiful’ Revisited: An Analysis of Nineteenth Century Civic Improvement Efforts.” Journal of Urban History 29 (2): 107–32.

72.

Teaford

J. C.

2000. “Urban Renewal and Its Aftermath.” Housing Policy Debate 11 (2): 443–65.

73.

Trolander

Judith A.

1987. Professionalism and Social Change: From the Settlement House Movement to Neighborhood Centers: 1886 to the Present. New York: Columbia University Press.

74.

von Hoffman

2009. “Housing and Planning: A Century of Social Reform and Local Power.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (2): 231–44.

75.

Weber

Bret

Wallace

Amanda

. 2012. “Revealing the Empowerment Revolution: A Literature Review of the Model Cities Program.” Journal of Urban History 38 (1): 173.

76.

Wilkerson

Isabel

. 2010. The Warmth of Other Suns: the Epic Story of America’s Great Migration. New York: Random House.