The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940-1985 (Creating the North American Landscape)

Rating:
Summary: The only thing missing is the ¿why.
Review: Analysis of Jon C. Teaford's The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940-1985

The Rough Road to Renaissance is a chronicle of the urban revitalization efforts of several older central cities in the Northeastern United States from World War II to the mid 1980s. As the author reveals, these efforts were fraught with difficulties from the very beginning, but usually not from a lack of planning or enthusiasm. According to Teaford, "this study charts the treacherous course toward the seemingly elusive goal of urban renaissance" (Teaford, 2).

The body of the work is a discussion of the techniques that city leaders used to stop the "blight" of the urban centers. Teaford divides these strategies into a number of historical stages based on renewal tactics and support for revitalization programs. The first stage in the story of urban renewal occurred during World War II, which was the realization that a problem existed in America's aging cities. Census figures revealed that the population in older urban areas was beginning to decline resulting from the increased migration to suburbia. City planners believed that the best way to combat urban decline and slow migration to the suburbs was by become more like them.

With the war's end came the opportunity for enthusiastic city planners to test their renewal schemes. Because the post-war economy did not fall into the collapse that they had anticipated, plans for massive public works projects and federal support were stalled. Planners were forced to seek support from inside the metropolitan area through the installation of public officials dedicated to the cause, development of a solid fiscal base for redevelopment, and "massing the clout of big business behind renewal efforts" (Teaford, 45).

By the 1950s, most older central cities had joined the urban renewal bandwagon. Because many planners believed that their cities simply needed a facelift, most revitalization efforts concentrated on creating a modern and clean urban image. Sewer and water treatment plants were constructed to clean up the environment and freeway systems and airports were built to bring the city up to the "automobile age." Instead of slowing suburban migration both of these tactics actually encouraged it. But planners were not yet disheartened, for failure had brought valuable lessons. "During the late 1940s and the early 1950s, America's aging cities may not have eradicated their slums or achieved their dreams of renewal, but they had experimented with redevelopment and rehabilitation and prepared the ground for more massive projects of the future" (Teaford, 120).

Unfortunately, urban decline only accelerated in the following decades. Despite attempts at renewal, even more wealthy and middle class whites were washed out to the suburbs as poor minorities flooded in to the central city. Urban sales plummeted and manufacturing jobs disappeared. "By the early 1960s prudent observers perceived that the path to revival was longer and less direct than optimistic boosters had formerly hoped" (Teaford, 145). Almost everyone concerned agreed that something needed to be done to halt this decline, but there was little consensus on the best method of achieving this goal.

The mid to late 1960s brought an increased bitterness to the battlefield as reformers were split between methods of human renewal, physical renewal, or neither. "If harmony and good will were characteristics of the renaissance city, then the goal of rebirth seemed to be receding rather than approaching" (Teaford, 183). By the mid 1970s, the state of urban decay had bottomed out, according to Teaford. Urban property was not only dilapidated but abandoned. Crime rose so high that many people were afraid to venture into the city. Cities faced their worst financial crises in history, as many were forced into bankruptcy.

Not everyone, however, was ready to accept the death of the city without a fight. Some optimists still believed that rebirth was possible, but only along a new line of reform. Instead of becoming a pale imitation to suburbia, they believed that the city should concentrate on what made it great in the beginning: a spirit of community and "animation." To the surprise of many, Boston's Quincy Market proved the potential for success of this philosophy in the early 1980s. As sources of animation, cities had much to offer with which suburbia could not compete. Prophets of this new urban renewal philosophy were the city mayors who claimed each bit of success for themselves. What ever their actual victories, these "messiah mayors" did much to bolster the spirits and hopes of city residents.

Of the older urban areas, Teaford concludes: "They had coped with a different world then that which had spawned them, and they had muddled through four difficult decades. But they had never regained their stellar positions, and boosters never felt so confident that they were willing to permanently shelve plans for renaissance or cease to look for signs of comeback" (Teaford, 313).

In his introduction, the author states that because the study of urban development policy has been led by social scientists who tend to over generalize at the expense of historical reality, there exists no true picture of American revitalization efforts from the 1940s to the 1980s. Teaford's historical analysis is an attempt to fill this gap by recording the events without forcing them into a "theoretical straitjacket" (Teaford, 3). In this objective, the work is excellent. Using a good mix of primary and secondary source material, the author gives an interesting, accurate, and detailed account of the "who," "what," "when," and "where" of urban redevelopment strategy. The only thing missing is the "why."

Throughout the work, the one characterization of renewal efforts that kept running through my head was "pathetic." With all their enthusiasm and planning, city planners seemed to have no idea why their ideas didn't work. The more projects they planned, the faster the decline seemed to accelerate. I would have been very interested in Teaford's assessment of why these attempts failed and why city planners were so slow to foresee failure. I also felt a lack of closure on the work; I would have enjoyed the author's opinion of the future of urban renewal. Perhaps Teaford should have taken a lesson from the social scientists in his historical analysis by concentrating less on the "history" and more on the "analysis."