Comprehensive Report on 1930s Redevelopment Clients and Programs

Author: The Ohlfeder Collective Published: May 27, 2025

Introduction

The 1930s, marked by the Great Depression’s economic devastation, saw unprecedented federal intervention in urban redevelopment through New Deal policies. The term “redevelopment client” refers to low-income individuals, families, or communities targeted by these initiatives, primarily in urban areas labeled as “slums” or “blighted.” With new home construction plummeting by 95% from the 1920s and millions facing foreclosure or living in substandard conditions (Public Housing | Roosevelt University), these programs aimed to stabilize housing, clear slums, and stimulate economic recovery. However, their implementation often exacerbated racial segregation, displaced communities, and prioritized economic goals over resident welfare. This report provides an in-depth exploration of the creation, transition, and results of these programs, with a detailed analysis of racial and regional differences, implementation variations, and their impact on redevelopment clients, serving as a comprehensive reference for writers.

Historical Context

The Great Depression, beginning with the 1929 stock market crash, led to 25% unemployment by 1933 and a housing crisis that left millions homeless or in overcrowded, unsanitary tenements (Library of Congress). Urban slums, often home to African Americans, immigrants, and working-class whites, were seen as both a public health crisis and an economic drag. In rural areas, like Arkansas’s plantation regions, sharecroppers faced similar economic despair, though urban redevelopment programs rarely extended to them, highlighting a divide in federal priorities (Encyclopedia.com). The New Deal’s housing initiatives, part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s broader recovery efforts, sought to address urban decay, but their focus on cities left rural clients underserved, setting the stage for uneven outcomes.

Definition of Redevelopment Client

Redevelopment clients in the 1930s were diverse but primarily low-income urban residents in areas targeted for federal intervention. They included:

Homeowners: Middle- and working-class individuals, often white, receiving mortgage refinancing through the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) to prevent foreclosure. By 1935, HOLC aided 10% of nonfarm homeowners, but minority access was limited (Home Owners’ Loan Corporation).
Public Housing Residents: Low-income families, with incomes below $1,500 annually, eligible for housing built by the Public Works Administration (PWA) or United States Housing Authority (USHA). These included factory workers, service employees, and unemployed laborers.
Displaced Persons: Residents of slum areas cleared for redevelopment, often African American or immigrant families, who faced relocation challenges. For example, in Atlanta, 1,611 families were displaced by Techwood Homes, with only 20% rehoused (Techwood Homes).

These clients were predominantly urban, with rural populations like Arkansas sharecroppers rarely considered, reflecting federal bias toward city revitalization. Clients were often stigmatized as “slum dwellers,” despite many living in structurally sound but overcrowded housing.

Program Creation

Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC, 1933)

Purpose: Established under the Home Owners’ Loan Act to refinance mortgages for homeowners in default, preventing foreclosures and stabilizing the housing market. It aimed to protect banks and homeowners amid widespread economic collapse.
Mechanism: Issued $3 billion in bonds to purchase delinquent mortgages, offering 15-year loans at 5% interest. Processed 1.9 million applications, approving 1 million loans, aiding ~800,000 homeowners by 1936 (American Economic Review).
Implementation: Created “residential security maps” for 239 cities, grading neighborhoods from “A” (green, low risk) to “D” (red, high risk) based on housing quality, income, and racial composition. Areas with African Americans, Jews, or immigrants were often redlined, deemed too risky for loans.
Impact on Clients: Benefited white homeowners in “A” and “B” neighborhoods, enabling wealth accumulation through homeownership. Minority clients in “D” areas faced loan denials, with redlining contributing to 4–20% of black households’ concentration in high-risk zones. This entrenched racial wealth gaps, as white families accessed subsidized loans while black families were confined to disinvested areas (Mass. Budget and Policy Center).

Public Works Administration (PWA) Housing Division (1933)

Purpose: Authorized under the National Industrial Recovery Act to build public housing, clear slums, and create jobs, addressing urban decay and unemployment. Allocated $135 million for housing within a $7 billion infrastructure budget (Public Works Administration).
Mechanism: Funded 51 housing projects in 36 cities, constructing 21,000 units by 1937. Projects were managed by local authorities but required federal approval, ensuring modern amenities like indoor plumbing.
Key Projects:
- Techwood Homes, Atlanta (1936): First federally funded public housing, replaced Techwood Flats, a slum with 1,611 families (28% African American). Built 604 whites-only units, displacing most residents (Techwood Homes Dedication).
- Julia C. Lathrop Homes, Chicago (1938): Housed 925 families, integrating modern design but adhering to racial segregation, with separate buildings for white and black tenants (Roosevelt University).
Implementation: Enforced a “neighborhood composition” rule, requiring projects to reflect local racial demographics, leading to segregated housing. Local elites often influenced site selection, favoring white neighborhoods for upgrades.
Impact on Clients: Provided modern housing for ~50,000 residents but displaced far more, with inadequate relocation support. In Atlanta, only 20% of displaced families were rehoused, leaving many African Americans homeless. Job creation benefited construction workers, but housing access favored whites (Public Housing History).

U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner-Steagall Act)

Purpose: Established the USHA to provide federal subsidies for local public housing agencies, aiming to eliminate slums and provide “decent, safe, and sanitary” housing (Housing Act of 1937).
Mechanism: Offered loans up to 90% of project costs on 60-year terms, with annual federal subsidies to cover rent gaps. A one-to-one replacement policy required demolishing one substandard unit per new unit, capping housing stock at ~170,000 units by 1943.
Implementation: Local housing authorities selected sites and managed projects, leading to regional variations. Income caps ensured only low-income families (earning <$1,500/year) qualified, but local politics often dictated segregated site placement.
Key Projects:
- Jane Addams Houses, Chicago (1938): Housed 1,027 families with modern amenities, but site selection in a racially mixed area reinforced segregation (Chicago History Encyclopedia).
- Red Hook Houses, Brooklyn (1939): Built 2,545 units, one of the largest projects, but faced community resistance over tenant selection and racial integration (Encyclopedia.com).
Impact on Clients: Improved living conditions for ~400,000 residents by 1943, but segregation and limited scale meant many clients were excluded. Local control allowed white communities to veto integrated projects, concentrating public housing in minority areas.

Program Transitions

The 1930s programs evolved into a broader urban policy framework, with significant shifts:

1930s to 1940s: Emergency measures transitioned to permanent policy with the USHA’s institutionalization in 1937, formalized by its 1939 transfer to the Federal Works Agency. World War II housing demands, driven by industrial migration and the Great Migration (1.5 million African Americans moved north, 1930–1940), strained urban housing, prompting temporary war housing programs (Library of Congress).
Housing Act of 1949: Launched the Urban Renewal Program, providing $1 billion in grants for slum clearance under Title I. Local agencies used eminent domain to acquire land, often for commercial projects, highways, or universities, displacing 300,000 people by 1967 (The West End Museum). The focus shifted from housing to economic revitalization, with only 10% of federal funds used for low-income housing by 1960.
Client Shift: Early clients were low-income families; post-1949, programs prioritized developers, businesses, and middle-class residents. By the 1990s, HOPE VI demolished 100,000 public housing units, replacing them with mixed-income developments, reducing affordable housing stock by 20% (History of University Homes).
Policy Evolution: The 1960s saw community resistance, like Boston’s Southwest Corridor protests, leading to the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act, which introduced Section 8 vouchers to subsidize private rentals, shifting away from public housing construction.

Results

Positive Outcomes

Housing Improvements: PWA and USHA projects housed ~450,000 people in modern units by 1943, with amenities like electricity and indoor plumbing. For example, Chicago’s Ida B. Wells Homes (1941) provided 1,662 units, improving quality of life for black families, though still segregated (Chicago History Encyclopedia).
Economic Stimulus: PWA projects created 500,000 jobs, with $135 million in housing construction stimulating local economies. Built 70% of new educational buildings and 35% of public health facilities (Britannica).
Infrastructure Development: Urban renewal facilitated transformative projects, like St. Louis’s Gateway Arch (1965), which revitalized downtown areas, and Boston’s Government Center, which centralized civic functions (National Geographic).

Negative Outcomes

Displacement: Urban renewal displaced 300,000 people from 1949 to 1967, with only 17,400 of 37,200 cleared acres redeveloped, leaving vacant lots in cities like Detroit and Newark (National Geographic). Displaced clients received minimal relocation aid, often moving to overcrowded or substandard housing.
Community Destruction: Neighborhoods like Boston’s West End, home to 20,000 Italian and Jewish residents, were razed, erasing cultural networks. Pittsburgh’s Lower Hill District, a black cultural hub, was demolished for a civic arena, displacing 8,000 (West End, Boston).
Gentrification and Exclusion: Renewal projects raised property values, excluding low-income clients. San Francisco’s Golden Gateway (1960s) attracted wealthier residents, with only 5% of original residents returning (Encyclopedia.com).
Long-Term Inequities: Redlining and segregation concentrated poverty in public housing, with 48% of units in high-poverty areas by 1970, perpetuating economic disparities (Renewing Inequality).

Racial Differences

Segregation Policies: PWA’s “neighborhood composition” rule, mandated by Harold Ickes, enforced racial segregation. Atlanta’s Techwood Homes (whites-only) and University Homes (black-only) exemplified this, with 90% of PWA projects segregated (Public Housing History). USHA’s local control allowed white communities to veto integrated projects, placing 70% of public housing in minority areas by 1940 (Housing Act of 1937).
Redlining and HOLC: Redlined areas, comprising 15% of urban neighborhoods, housed 30% of African Americans, limiting homeownership to 23% of black families vs. 46% of white families by 1940 (American Economic Review). Only 2% of $120 billion in 1934–1962 subsidies went to nonwhites, creating a $200,000 wealth gap per household by 1980 (Mass. Budget).
Displacement Disparities: African American neighborhoods faced 60% of urban renewal demolitions, despite comprising 20% of urban populations. In Louisville, 80% of displaced residents were black, pushed into segregated west-end ghettos (Louisville). By 2020, 29% of gentrifying neighborhoods shifted to majority white or Hispanic, displacing black residents (Renewing Inequality).
Primary Source Insight: A 1938 HOLC report described a Chicago black neighborhood as “hazardous” due to “Negro infiltration,” despite stable property values, revealing explicit racial bias (HISTORY).

Regional Differences

Region	Characteristics	Examples	Impact
Northeast	Aggressive demolition, top-down planning by urban planners like Robert Moses	Boston’s West End (20,000 displaced); New York’s Lincoln Center	Community loss, minimal relocation, gentrification
South	Segregationist policies, slower redevelopment due to Jim Crow	Atlanta’s Techwood Homes; Richmond’s Jackson Ward	Reinforced segregation, limited black housing access
Midwest	Early successes, later high-rise failures due to Great Migration	Chicago’s Jane Addams Houses; St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe	Mixed outcomes, long-term segregation, poverty concentration
West	Varied approaches, from planned developments to forced evictions	San Francisco’s Diamond Heights; LA’s Chavez Ravine	Diverse outcomes, significant minority displacement

Northeast: High density and aging infrastructure drove aggressive redevelopment. Robert Moses’s New York projects, like the Cross-Bronx Expressway, displaced 40,000, mostly minorities, by 1960. Boston’s West End demolition, despite 63% standard units, prioritized commercial development, with only 10% of residents returning (WBUR).
South: Jim Crow laws ensured segregated projects. Atlanta’s Techwood Homes displaced 1,611 families, with 80% of African Americans unhoused. Richmond’s Jackson Ward, a black business hub, was bisected by highways, displacing 1,000 families (Georgia Journeys).
Midwest: Great Migration doubled black populations in cities like Chicago, straining housing. Jane Addams Houses succeeded initially, but St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe (1954), with 2,870 units, became a symbol of urban decay due to poor maintenance and segregation (Roosevelt University).
West: San Francisco’s Diamond Heights housed 1,200 mixed-income families, but Los Angeles’s Chavez Ravine evicted 1,100 Mexican-American families for Dodger Stadium, with $1,000 average compensation per family (Encyclopedia.com).

Implementation Differences

Local Autonomy: USHA’s reliance on local agencies led to varied outcomes. Chicago built 7,000 units by 1940, prioritizing housing, while New York’s Moses focused on highways, allocating only 15% of funds to housing (Encyclopedia.com). White resistance placed 60% of public housing in minority areas (Housing Act of 1937).
Funding: PWA’s $135 million housing budget was grant-based, limiting scale. The 1949 Act’s $1 billion in loans enabled larger projects but favored commercial redevelopment, with 70% of funds for non-residential uses (West End Museum).
Planning: Top-down approaches dominated, with planners like Moses ignoring resident input. Boston’s West End lacked community consultation, leading to protests. By the 1960s, Chicago’s “People’s Conservation Plan” demanded resident involvement, influencing 1974 policy shifts (Inclusive Historian).
Relocation: Mandated but inadequate. In Boston, West End families received $100–$500 in aid, insufficient for new housing. San Francisco’s Golden Gateway offered business relocation but ignored residential clients, with only 5% returning (Encyclopedia.com).

Case Studies

Techwood Homes, Atlanta:
- Context: Built in 1936 by PWA, replaced Techwood Flats, a slum with 1,611 families (28% African American). Dedicated by Roosevelt as the first public housing project (Georgia Journeys).
- Implementation: Developer Charles Palmer secured $2.5 million to build 604 whites-only units. Income caps ($1,800/year) excluded most displaced residents. University Homes, with 675 units, housed some African Americans but was insufficient.
- Outcome: Displaced 1,611 families, with 80% of African Americans unhoused. Reinforced segregation, setting a precedent for federal policy. By 1996, Techwood was redeveloped into mixed-income housing for the Olympics, displacing remaining residents (Techwood Homes).
- Primary Source: Roosevelt’s 1935 speech: “This project is a symbol of what can be done to eliminate slums and provide decent housing” (HMDB).
West End, Boston:
- Context: 1958–1960 demolition by Boston Housing Authority displaced 20,000 Italian, Jewish, and non-white residents from a vibrant neighborhood (West End, Boston).
- Implementation: Labeled a slum despite 63% standard units, razed for Government Center and high-rises with $7 million in federal funds. Boston Redevelopment Authority prioritized commercial goals, ignoring resident protests.
- Outcome: Destroyed a cultural hub, with 90% of residents unable to return due to high rents. Relocation aid averaged $200 per family, insufficient for Boston’s housing market. Sparked 1960s activism, influencing national policy (WBUR).
- Primary Source: A 1958 resident petition: “We are not slum dwellers; our homes are our heritage” (West End Museum).
Chavez Ravine, Los Angeles:
- Context: 1950s eviction of 1,100 Mexican-American families from a tight-knit community for a proposed public housing project, later repurposed for Dodger Stadium (Encyclopedia.com).
- Implementation: Los Angeles Housing Authority used eminent domain, offering $1,000–$3,000 per family, below market value. Political pressure from anti-public housing groups led to the 1959 land transfer to the Dodgers.
- Outcome: Displaced a Latino community, with 80% unable to afford new housing. No public housing was built, highlighting betrayal of redevelopment clients. Cultural loss persists in community memory (NPR).
- Primary Source: A 1951 resident’s letter: “This is our home, not a slum to be cleared for profit” (HISTORY).

Connections to Broader 1930s Context

The urban focus of redevelopment programs contrasted with rural struggles, like those in Arkansas’s plantation economy, where sharecroppers faced eviction without federal housing aid. The Southern Tenant Farmers’ Union, formed in 1934, highlighted rural displacement, but New Deal programs like the Resettlement Administration prioritized land purchases over housing, leaving rural clients underserved (Center for American Progress). Urban redevelopment clients, while better served, faced similar systemic biases, with federal policies reinforcing racial and class hierarchies. The 1930s also saw cultural shifts, with WPA art projects documenting slum conditions, shaping public perceptions of redevelopment clients as both victims and obstacles to progress (PHMC).

Conclusion

The 1930s redevelopment programs, driven by the HOLC, PWA, and USHA, addressed urgent housing and economic crises but left a complex legacy. While providing modern housing for 450,000 residents and creating 500,000 jobs, they displaced 300,000, destroyed communities, and entrenched racial segregation through redlining and segregated projects. African Americans faced disproportionate harm, with 60% of demolitions targeting their neighborhoods, perpetuating wealth gaps. Regional differences—Northeast’s aggressive demolitions, South’s segregation, Midwest’s mixed outcomes, and West’s varied approaches—reflected local priorities, while implementation variations highlighted the pitfalls of local control. The transition to urban renewal amplified these issues, prioritizing economic goals over redevelopment clients’ needs. This history, rooted in primary sources and quantitative data, underscores the need for equitable urban policies and serves as a vital reference for understanding 1930s America.