The American Scene; Development Living

Good morning, Mr. Jules Anger for the American Scene. Our subject this morning is public housing as part of the Urban Redevelopment Program. Specifically, we're going to talk this morning about those high risers. You've seen them, these great apartment buildings, on the sites of some of the city's most noxious slums. The effect of these high risers upon the life of the city, upon the lives of the people who live there, and upon the people who lived in those slums and have been displaced will be discussed this morning by two of our guests. Our first guest is Mr. Claren Slipschitz, who is the director of the Emerson House of the Chicago Commons Association, and also Vice President of the Chicago Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers. Our other guest, Mr. Kenneth Kesson, is a member of the political and social science department of the Illinois Institute of Technology and a urban sociologist by interest. I wonder if we might start this morning, gentlemen, by a kind of generalized question. These public houses have been erected in the major cities of the United States, I guess, since the middle

30s. Originally, what was their function? What were they conceived of as accomplishing? I want to start with this simply because of late these houses have been rather serious and criticized. On one hand, they've been accused of being simple cuddling devices for the undeserving poor. On the other, they've been accused of being completely inadequate slums built upon slums. What were they originally designed to do? I think if we understand this, we might be able to understand what they've achieved. Mr. Kesson, would you? Well, I would first like to say this that, regardless, what you have with accusations is that I think many people attach some value or some significance to public housing and hope that it is going to achieve some end which public housing was never designed to achieve. I think we will certainly discuss this matter, but public housing, as written in the law in 1937, its

major function was to provide employment, this was written in the provision of the law, to provide employment to stimulate the economy during a depression period, as well as slum clearance to alleviate social problems and social costs to the city in terms of tuberculosis rates, possibly crime rates, certainly fire health sanitation. Public housing was seen as accomplishing this end, and in that period of the 30s, this was the purpose of public housing. Well, this is really two different kinds of ends here describing, certainly work, the making of work. This is a kind of almost mechanical and even mathematical proposition. If we build a building we require so many men to put in so many hours, even fire prevention, we can say that one kind of building is safer than another, but crime rates, this is something else again, this is, and I think possibly this is the area where most of the criticism has been leveled, that it has not achieved certain social

benefits, while it may have in rather specific terms achieved the more countable ends, employment, fire prevention. Well, I think what we need to say also though is that though the original intent may have been primarily a work program, as well as a slum clearance, that in the process here, although the numbers may have been limited in terms of the entire country, in the process there are considerable amounts, I think, of good and of worth, has come out of the idea of providing adequate housing for families who might not otherwise be able to afford such housing, and that the expectation though, that by automatically putting up a piece of real estate, however desirable, however cleaner, more adequate, more hygienic, more beautiful, that may be than the previous depressed slum, which was very real and very difficult in terms of

urban living, that automatically this is going to then eradicate all the social evils and the social disorganization that the slums bred. This takes, I think, about more planning. Will you say automatically, is this merely a question of time that we haven't given them enough time? Will these ultimately bring these answers back? No, I don't think it's just a question of time. It's really a question of some basic planning and some basic principles and ideas being put into practice in regards to public housing, in regards to urban development and renewal in general. Even within the law, I think it's a fairly recent in the 1954 law, that the concept of urban renewal and development with the idea of rehabilitation and re -novation in housing and public housing along with this, yes, that this idea has even come into the idea of the law itself, so that the whole

approach of planning for human beings who are going to be living in this kind of a situation has been, I think, unfortunately rather slow in developing, and even within the law at the present time there are tremendous inadequacies, I think, in terms of building in the adequate safeguards and needs that are going to, on the one hand, help promote self -respect, dignity of people, and on the other hand, are also going to help to develop and to integrate this housing into a, into some kind of a community. What specifically do these establishments as they exist today lack? Do they fail to promote dignity, self -respect? They're certainly cleaner, they're lighter, I imagine. I would like to speak to that point. In terms of decent adequate housing by comparison to slum conditions, they provide everything that a slum does not provide, except

perhaps a very important thing. It has been, for instance, in New York City, the policy of the administrators of local projects to remove tenants if they had gotten into any trouble with the law or with any officials, and moreover the economic policy that is rent related to wage was such that after they reached the certain wage level, the tenants were required to move. Now, what you get then is in this segmented area, and also, I think, a very easily identifiable area in the public eye, it stands there compared to an amorphous slum. It's automatically almost legally defined a kind of poor house. This is one thing, but you see what you get there is a tremendous mobility of your population, and we believe in sociological theory that mobility is one of the characteristics of disorganization. It sets up a situation where community ties cannot be developed, where personal friendships cannot be developed, where consideration of others just disappears because people are moving in and out at a very rapid

rate. The housing developments never have vacancies, you see. There's a hue, a cry, and a demand for them, although there are large portions of the slum population who do not want to live in public housing, but still public housing remains full. Is there any loss, automatic loss, and you speak of these people who don't want to live in public housing? Is this a recognition of the fact that public housing is a kind of dull charity? There is an attitude, I think, about public housing as it exists now, and this is something separate and away from the community, and it's for those other people. It's for the poverty stricken, for the helpless, for those who can't get along, and this kind of attitude, of course, is reflected in the people who live in the housing projects, and you have obviously among these people, those who feel this very keenly and very strongly when you talk

about the income level. If you automatically eliminate a group of people who have been able to, through various means, to build themselves up to a point where they are economically better off, perhaps in terms of social problems, they are better off, and in terms of their ability to function in the community as contributing citizens better off, and you then automatically siphon these people off, away from the housing project, and leave the housing project in effect, a containment of a large number of multi -problem families who see very difficult times for themselves who don't see their way of getting out of a feeling of depression on the part of families of an adequacy of either saying I'm never going to be able to really make an income to adequate housing in today's market outside of this. I think it moreover who wants to since we are now housed, than if we have to move out, we are usually going to go into an area which is at

least as bad as the one we came from. So why try? Why try even? Even providing there was some opportunities. It is better to stay within this income, this very, very low income. What is the income? Do you happen to know of hand what the legal requirements for income are? Well, since I'm not a native Chicago, and really, unless you are a professional public housing official, you must keep taps on what's going on throughout the country. I know in New York City that it ranged considerably depending upon the size of the family. So that a family could have, it could be a family of five, six or seven and have an income of six or seven thousand dollars, and the low ranged, I think, for a single individual about two thousand or twenty five hundred or perhaps three thousand. There is a bottom line. There is a minimum that must be earned at all times. There must be a minimum. No, there is no minimum that must be earned. There is a maximum of how much you may

earn. I'm not sure of the Chicago scene, but it would be roughly equivalent, I think it's a bit less than in New York. But there is this, if you were nothing at all, can you live in a public housing? There would have to, you know, you would have to provide adequate means of meeting your rental commitment and being able to provide a, you know, somewhat, as public living provides. Enough money to live in a public housing. Well, the welfare department does, in effect, subsidize the rents of some of the people who live in public housing projects. And it's also been estimated, I know in grant projects, the grant houses in New York, that upwards of 80 % of the occupants were on some sort of public relief, either ADC or old age assistance, social security. It's this very real problem of having, you know, fantastically large amount of people concentrated within a, you know, pardon me, if I even use the expression almost a vertical,

instead of having a horizontal kind of slum where you had a very, you know, the press situation, where at least, you know, there was a corner drug store, corner grocery store, where there was other kinds of facilities, you know, whether it was in the pool room or something else like that, where at least people were almost literally closer to the ground. And there was some kind of neighborhood and street life, no matter how much we might want to be critical of the nature and the quality of this life. And then we take, we eradicate this, and we say this is desirable, and I would say it's desirable, and we set these people up into these large areas. This is another part. I think I'd like to just make it clear that this is, the first point you made, which is detrimental to the, in public housing, is the fact of constant turnover as a result of increasing income. But now you're talking about the actual physical structure of the high riser. Well, there's certainly no relationship, that is a direct causal relationship between the architectural type and the social behavior that you might find, of course. You say there is

no relation? No, of course not, because we don't have a crime rate at prairie shores or in any of the metropolitan developments, stivocentown in New York. There is certainly no relationship between this. I think your point is, is that what we do is completely isolate the population from any potential ties in the community, hoping that just the mere presence of this beautiful, decent looking building is somehow going to inspire with a great deal of awe, the tenants who live in these buildings and say, oh, isn't it wonderful and marvelous that now we can live here, whereas the establishment of neighborhood connections is completely prevented or not completely, but almost totally prevented. For many reasons. I'd like to go back to one point. Would you go so far as to say that the physical type of building has no relation to the behavior within it? I could not agree that this is a, you know, a totally irrelevant issue.

It's building in a different kind, let's say neighborhood, you mentioned prairie shores, where there's a different level of population, where there are different kinds of people, where there are people who have more education, who are more sophisticated in the ways of urban living, who are better able to cope and with the urban problems of daily life, that this probably is not so relevant and issue, although I would also have feeling that even in any high rise building there's a question of families with children, whether this is the most desirable kind of living arrangements, but putting that aside in the housing projects that we have seen, we talked about this high concentration of multi -problem families, and I think we also need to remind ourselves that many of these families over the past decade have been families that have been the result of in migration from the South, from the West Indies, have been people who have been totally unable and are

incapable often of using these kind of facilities, of even being aware of some of the rudiments, of urban living, and so that the placing of these people in these large high rise apartments, I think, tends to compound the difficulty of making an adjustment to a large urban community because of what you talked about, of isolation in terms of something completely alien to them, and so that, on top of which, these are generally families with children, and often large numbers of Right, well my observation was that I would not be willing to make the generalization that there is a relationship between the structure, the actual physical structure, and behavior. My point is that, as you very adequately point out, when the structure itself is somehow or other transmitted through a distinct culture, the effect of - Let's try that again, a culture transmitted - When the structure, the structure,

the structure, the effect of the structure, the physical effect of the structure. That means, as you point out, families, areas where children cannot play, in effect, what we have here is an urban structure as opposed to even residential, local, urban, residential structure, or rural structure. We have here, perhaps, the epitome of the modern city, regardless of the facilities provided in public housing. We have here something that is completely detached, and the urban population, or you might characterize prairie shores, and the higher economic level developments as an urban population, they have learned to live in an urban society, in an urban society, in an urban society. Right, quite right. So it's just the nature of the generalization, that is architecture, then behavior, on some single line of development, or some single causal - Well, there is a relationship between the ability of people to communicate with one another, to learn

to live with one another, to be able to develop some insight, and a standing through some kinds of community neighborhoods, types of organization, communication, and a variety of ways that this can take place, and people being closer to the ground. You take a project in Chicago like LeClaire Courts, which is on Cicero Avenue, South Cicero. This is a row house development. Here you can go, and although there are families with problems, and there are many problems within this. Are they representative? Yes, they would be. But here you go, and you see lawns planted, you see people having flowers, you see there are two -story, three -story buildings, a mother can look out the window and see children playing, there's a feeling of some pride in maintaining this kind of property. It's the tenants who take care of the lawns here, it's the people who are out there tending bushes and flowers, and who have a chance to see each other,

who have some of the possibilities that are inherent in this kind of a situation, of having some closer contact with one another, and thereby being able to then also possibly be able to do something about improving their own situation, and becoming part of some kind of a community, and even the community outside of the housing project itself, which is of course another element. I think that what we have to strongly urge is something that you have been leading to, then we may ask the question, why is it that the urbane population and high -rise structures, and structures that represent a high economic level, why is it we don't have problems, quote problems in these buildings as opposed to the high -rise public housing, and I think we can explain it possibly on these grounds. They are, perhaps it's a bit circumferential, but they are urbane.

They have been socialized in city life. We don't have to do more than is being done in the normal socialization of an individual to grow up in his society, to seek for goals that we all approve of, and to do it in ways that we approve of, and in these other buildings we have the same sort of dissociation of persons, but they are not socialized to urban life, and we must provide, we must go overboard in presenting a community to them, so that they can once developing this feeling of community, perhaps then become more urbane. I think it is disturbing for a rural person to come to an urban society where previously social contacts were close, ties were close, it was a family relationship, and to come to a society where we as urbane people can accept the fact that we perhaps we don't have to know our next door neighbors, or anyone in the building, but for them I think this is disturbing, that the old social

organization, the ties, the normal familial ties, and social ties do not exist, and we must go overboard to present some program for them. I would add to that and say that just on the side that the problem of urban living is also a problem which the other which said is before, I think needs to be underscored, it's also a problem that people who live in large apart from buildings and other parts of the city, it's particularly acute of course in these projects, which leads me to say that we need to take a new look I think at public housing in terms of how it is organized, in terms of how it is put up, and of course be aware of some of the real problems and limitations that are built into the present situation. Well we have at least two possibilities here, we have on one hand that ideal public housing unit, which would at least not have two of the

failings that public housing has today, one the rapid turnover and the other the physical fact of the high riser. Surely this is meaningful for the future, but right now we're stuck with a kind of tremendous real estate investment, and whether we like it or not we're going to have to learn to work with what we have. What can be done here? Some of the answer to that is to build in to the to the public housing funds, the the money that will be but the housing projects will be able to use that for example Chicago Housing Authority will be able to use to build in the needed kinds of social and city services that are going to help to alleviate and are going to help people to help themselves in these situations. For example the Chicago Housing Authority I think has taken a positive and a very good step in this direction through the development of a community tenant relations aid program in which now they have approximately 17 full -time people hired to work on the very problems that some of the very problems that we were talking about and how are attempting

to help people and not to do it for them, but to help people to through their own strengths and through their own abilities to develop some sense of organization, some sense of purpose in their living situation. How many people are doing this work? There are about 17 and this is of course an inadequate. I want to just to get an idea of it's inadequacy. How many people live would you guess in public housing projects? I would offer a yes. This is something where Roa Estimate thousand five thousand. I would not be willing at all. I mean this is a matter of fact either you know it or you don't know and I would not be willing to get if you want to know the population of Chicago. There are about well for example the one unit on the south side there are about 800 family units and another project the right next to it there are 1200 units so you can begin to see what it is. Now let me add another dimension here. Some of this can be even done in planning the housing project itself. I would of course hold for another approach which would be the centralization of

public housing and I'm aware of all the problems that are connected with that. But even within this you have a situation of block after block on the south side of public housing. You haven't any services that were built in into this project physically which would an organizationally which would even provide such things as grocery stores as cleaning establishments as a drug store if a mother wants to get you know a a pin that you know she you know the child or somebody has to go down 18 stories and take a bus over some place through a shopping center to yeah and often often into a slum area where you have also have you have not been built in any health services. Well why? Certainly one of the buildings put up in the well I would just just just before we approach that because I think in in public housing philosophy there is a change that may be reflected in the kind of structure that we do see. But there is another problem. It is not only a question of providing community services

for these people. If this were the most ideal society we wouldn't have to of course. Public housing has been at least in Chicago which has been defined as the most segregated city in the north. Public housing is isolated and island is created of primarily non -white immigrants to the area to the city of Chicago and there is not the least possibility for any contact with what we would consider normal community relations. There has been put forward for years the idea that what we ought to have is a small project in a good area and therefore establishing normal contacts that children would attend schools with lower middle class or middle class population. There is a strength in the stable community there to help do exactly this kind of project into a community. Moreover stable communities are known for their organizational interests. But we know

very well well this has been attempted that the existing communities will violently have fought against precisely this kind of well this is my point let us not go around shaking fingers there is an error in our own thinking. These people do not want to be poor there is not a question of choice we are not in the times of Jeremy Bentham. They do not want to be poor they have no choice and along with poverty goes all the other social problems which we consider undesirable so that even location of these buildings aside from their physical planter aside from the physical just the mere location establishes them as islands the children go to school with children from other public housing projects there are just no community contact whatsoever except that which is artificially introduced and I think you can speak certainly more to the problems of the difficulty of introducing of bringing people to a community center and bringing the community center to them how difficult this is. Well here we have then certainly three rather

serious charges level against public housing at first they weed out automatically and mechanically any members of the group who show anything like ability who might offer leadership who might offer example then again you point out the public housing by its physical nature tends to break down what if a possibility of community might exist even within this group and then I suggest that the very physical location of the public housing situation is one which stands to cut off from the the healthy community this group to create a kind of ghetto and isolation. Certainly we have a very little time now I wonder is there nothing positive to be said for public housing has it done any or to put another way we know we know there's a great body of need could this need have been could the things we need the things we have to teach these people been intrigued if we left them in the slum this is the question I don't think

that there's any question about the fact first of all that there is a need for public housing and a percentage of our population and secondly that with some planning and with some insight into the human conditions that are necessary for healthy living that it is not inevitable that they have to go on and you know in the same way as a matter of fact I think public housing officials now have taken a totally different point of view although they're often caught up in a present situation I'd like to excuse me our time is up I'd like to thank you Mr. Lipschitz Mr. Kesson for this morning's conversation good morning for the American saying Mr. Jill Zanger thank you