[[link removed]]

COULD A BOLD ANTI-POVERTY EXPERIMENT FROM THE 1960S INSPIRE A NEW ERA
IN HOUSING JUSTICE?  
[[link removed]]


 

Deyanira Nevárez Martínez
May 27, 2025
The Conversation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson’s
Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce
racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United
States. _

Model Cities staff in front of a Baltimore field office in 1971.,
Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library Special
Collections, University of Baltimore

 

In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking
point
[[link removed]].
Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class
neighborhoods are threatened by displacement.

These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more
than half a century ago.

In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the
center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid
urban decline, segregated and substandard housing
[[link removed]],
and the fallout of highway construction
[[link removed]]
and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands
[[link removed]]
of disproportionately low-income and Black residents.

The federal government decided to try to do something about it.

President Lyndon B. Johnson launched one of the most ambitious
experiments in urban policy: the Model Cities Program
[[link removed].].

As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning
[[link removed]], I’ve
studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork
fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by
empowering communities to shape their own futures.

Building a great society

The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson’s Great
Society
[[link removed]]
agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial
injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States.

Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for
displacing communities of color
[[link removed]].
Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway
and slum clearance projects
[[link removed]]
that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without
decent options for new housing.

So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act
[[link removed]]
established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing,
education, employment, health care and social services at the
neighborhood level.

[Map of New York City.]
[[link removed]]

 
New York City neighborhoods designated for revitalization with funding
from the Model Cities Program. The City of New York, Community
Development Program: A Progress Report, December 1968.
[[link removed]]

To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by
submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of
neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing
problems.

Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then
distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through
contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to
locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model
Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to
capital for local small businesses
[[link removed]], helping them secure
financing that might otherwise have been out of reach.

Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson
described as “comprehensive” and “concentrated” efforts
[[link removed]?].
It wasn’t just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing.
It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership
with the people most affected by poverty and racism.

A revolutionary approach to poverty

What made Model Cities unique wasn’t just its scale but its
philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on
“widespread citizen participation
[[link removed]],”
which required cities that received funding to include residents in
the planning and oversight of local programs.

The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of
its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr.
[[link removed].],
had called for a “Domestic Marshall Plan
[[link removed].]”
– a reference to the federal government’s efforts to rebuild
Europe after World War II – to redress centuries of racial
inequality.

[Black man wearing suit stands before microphones.]
Civil rights activist Whitney M. Young Jr. helped shape the vision of
the Model Cities Program. Bettmann/Getty Images
[[link removed]]

Young’s vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which
proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education,
employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta,
for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health
clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded
leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income
residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent
[[link removed]?].

In other words, neighborhood residents weren’t just beneficiaries.
They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers.

This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of
public servant – what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman
famously called “guerrillas in the bureaucracy
[[link removed]].”

[Young Black man wearing a cowboy hat speaks to a group while holding
a poster with voting information.]
A Model Cities staffer discusses the program to a group of students
gathered at Denver’s Metropolitan Youth Education Center in 1970.
Bill Wunsch/The Denver Post via Getty Images
[[link removed]]

These were radical planners – often young, idealistic and deeply
embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and
hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments
to expand their staff
[[link removed]]
with community workers aligned with the program’s goals.

Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their
positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for
community-driven planning.

Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions
but because they reimagined how institutions could function,
prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power.

Strengthening community ties

In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public
resources toward locally defined priorities.

[Six people pose next to a mobile facility.]
[[link removed]]

 
A mobile dentist office in Baltimore. Robert Breck Chapman Collection,
Langsdale Library Special Collections, University of Baltimore
[[link removed]],
CC BY-NC-ND [[link removed]]

In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education
initiatives [[link removed]] such as
bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local
students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth
sports programs
[[link removed]].

In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects
called vest-pocket developments
[[link removed]], which got their name
from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on
vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances
Houses in the South Bronx
[[link removed]]
were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking place
– a direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had
destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the city’s
poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to
renovate older apartment buildings
[[link removed]] instead of tearing them
down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods.

The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities
intact.

[Black and white photo of old, one-story homes along a dirt road.]
An Atlanta neighborhood identified as a candidate for street paving
and home rehabilitation as part of the Model Cities Program. Georgia
State University Special Collections
[[link removed]]

What went wrong?

Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost
from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile.
While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the
actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million
[[link removed]],
spread across more than 60 cities.

Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism
of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under
President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from
“people programs” and toward capital investment and physical
development [[link removed]]. Requirements
for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often
maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the
everyday citizens the program was meant to empower.

In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with
bureaucrats
[[link removed]]
over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places,
participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal
conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance
nearly impossible.

Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists,
warned that the program risked becoming a new form of
“neocolonialism [[link removed]],”
one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control
in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators.

A legacy worth revisiting

Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on.

In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of
Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders
and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called “a
little noticed revolution
[[link removed]].”
In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in
the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and
advocate for community development.

It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as
participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood
planning initiatives
[[link removed]] owe a
debt to Model Cities’ insistence that residents should help shape
the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the
program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in
creating space for democratic experimentation.

[Young man with afro speaks to local residents.]
A housing meeting takes place at a local Model Cities field office in
Baltimore in 1972. Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library
Special Collections, University of Baltimore
[[link removed]],
CC BY-NC-ND [[link removed]]

Today’s housing crisis demands structural solutions to structural
problems
[[link removed]].
The affordable housing crisis
[[link removed]] is deeply connected to
other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental
injustice and health disparities, creating compounding risks for the
most vulnerable communities
[[link removed].].
Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety net –
whether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programs
– has proven ineffective
[[link removed]].

Today, as policymakers once again debate how to respond to deepening
inequality and a lack of affordable housing, the lost promise of Model
Cities offers vital lessons.

Model Cities was far from perfect. But it offered a vision of how
democratic, local planning could promote health, security and
community.

===

Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional
Planning, Michigan State University

* Housing; Lyndon Johnson; Anti-Poverty Programs; Racial
Disparities;
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]