 |
|
|
|||||
In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. 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, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands 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. As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, Ive 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 Johnsons Great Society 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. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects 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 established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level. 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. New York City neighborhoods designated for revitalization with funding from the Model Cities Program. [Map: The City of New York, Community Development Program: A Progress Report, December 1968] 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, 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. It wasnt 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 wasnt just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on widespread citizen participation, 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., had called for a Domestic Marshall Plan a reference to the federal governments efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II to redress centuries of racial inequality. Civil rights activist Whitney M. Young Jr. helped shape the vision of the Model Cities Pogram. [Photo: Bettmann/Getty Images] Youngs 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. In other words, neighborhood residents werent 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. A Model Cities staffer discusses the program to a group of students gathered at Denvers Metropolitan Youth Education Center in 1970. [Photo: Bill Wunsch/The Denver Post via Getty Images] These were radical plannersoften 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 with community workers aligned with the programs 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. In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs. A mobile dentist office in Baltimore. [Photo: Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library Special Collections, University of Baltimore] In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, 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 were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking placea direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the citys poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods. The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact. An Atlanta neighborhood identified as a candidate for street paving and home rehabilitation as part of the Model Cities Program. [Photo: Georgia State University Special Collections] 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, 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. 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 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, 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. 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 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. A housing meeting takes place at a local Model Cities field office in Baltimore in 1972. [Photo: Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library Special Collections, University of Baltimore] Todays housing crisis demands structural solutions to structural problems. The affordable housing crisis is deeply connected to other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental injustice and health disparities, creating compounding risks for the most vulnerable communities. Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety netwhether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programshas proven ineffective. 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 is an assistant professor of urban and regional planning at Michigan State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
The days are getting longer, sunnier, and warmer in the western hemisphere. Those bright summer days have a bigger impact on the workforce and the physical office than you may think. The obvious ones are longer lunches and fewer people in the office due to vacations. Yet when everybody is in the office, there is one common human habit happening during the summer that is often overlooked. One that undermines employee productivity and increases a buildings carbon emissions. The productivity killer? Sunshine. Not that anybody is against it, but when the sun is at its highest and hottest, sun glare and heat penetrating the glass panes in office buildings prompts employees to leave their desks. They either spill over into another area of the office, disrupting colleagues, or they leave. Meanwhile, the air conditioning continues to blast, cooling unoccupied areas, wasting energy, increasing operational costs, and elevating the buildings CO2 emissions. Office insight reduces carbon emissions Since buildings account for almost 40% of the worlds carbon emissions, with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems being among the largest contributors, having insight into human behavior in the office can help reduce those emissions. This issue is not new, but the data to prove its impact on the workforce and planet has only been recently uncovered. For example, a global, well known Silicon Valley tech company took a closer look at how their workforce is using the office. Their goals were to improve collaboration, productivity, and energy efficiency. The company installed sensors that combine AI and body heat sensing technology to understand anonymous human movements in the office. At the large tech company, they aggregated 3-months worth of office data and identified human occupancy patterns. The analysis led to specific recommendations to improve the companys office energy efficiency. Below are actual recommendations from the report: Weekday early mornings and evenings: Reduce HVAC setpoints before 8:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m., when saturation rates are consistently low. Midweek daytime control: Reduce airflow to 50% capacity outside of the following high-demand periods: Monday at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday and Wednesday between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., and Thursday between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. This data can also be used to make decisions about window shades, insulation, and lighting. Office layout impacts productivity Going beyond an understanding of how employees move around the office, the tech company was also able to infer actions and interactions among employees. Being able to visually depict human movements without identifying individuals provides genuine data into corporate culture and employee engagement. The actions are far more insightful than any feedback an employee survey could offer. For example, the frequency of impromptu meetings based on chair rollbacks. Also, seeing a cluster of humans congregating in the hallway for a short period of time, especially when the gathering is not held at the top of the hour or at the half hour. From a workforce perspective, office layouts also impact productivity and energy efficiency. This reality is not lost on employers and property managers as the latest JLL Global Office Fit Out Cost Guide 2025 reveals. The report cites an increased focus on in-office attendance, employee experience, and sustainability performance on investing in high quality workspaces. This explains why the average global office fit-out cost is increasing. Understand the workforce needs However, the latest design trends may not align with the workforce needs and/or reflect the corporate culture. For example, another insight the tech company gained from the sensors was that individuals were reserving conference rooms for themselves. This ties up meeting space for others and puts unnecessary demands on the HVAC system that is set to accommodate large groups. It is also an indicator that the open office layout increases noise levels and is not conducive to supporting focused work. You can gain a better understanding of how the workforce uses the office without compromising privacy. Aggregated data on occupancy, foot traffic, human interactions, and their impact on energy consumption can lead to more comfortable, productive, and energy-efficient offices. And having that knowledge before undertaking a costly office renovation can make a big difference in ensuring the building aligns with the needs of the workforce as opposed to making employees adjust to the confines of the office. Honghao Deng is CEO and cofounder of Butlr.
Category:
E-Commerce
Over the years, Ive observed how the approach to housing in the U.S. has shifted. And while affordable housing has faced challenges in how its understood and accurately represented, there is increasing awareness of the need for more accessible, safe, and stable housing options for all. It is time to recalibrate our approach to housingone that not only addresses economic disparities but also fosters community and enhances the quality of life for all residents. Affordable housing is essential for providing a foundation that allows people to contribute meaningfully to their communities. It is one of the reasons my architecture firm recently acquired a firm that specializes in affordable housing projectsto underscore our belief that affordable housing means access and opportunity, and to galvanize our commitment to building resilient, connected communities. As a company, we are writing a new chapter for affordable housing by thinking beyond monolithic categories like low-income. We are also recalibrating how we design, build, and allocate housing for our citizens across all income levels. Rethink the new norm Housing trends in the U.S. have been dominated for decades by the idea of “more and bigger.” This trend has pushed housing prices ever higher, particularly for single-family homes. In contrast, look back 80 years. Neighborhoods were filled with small, modest homeshouses that were attainable for a much wider range of people. The new norm is out of scale with the financial reality for most Americans today. We need housing for all income levels. Were currently facing a housing challenge, not just in terms of cost, but also in how we approach scale and accessibility. While housing prices remain high, there is growing recognition of the need to create solutions that ensure more people can find safe and stable homes, particularly in urban centers where demand is strong. The gap between wages and housing costs has highlighted the need for creative approaches to housing that support diverse communities and offer better access to opportunities like jobs, education, and services. The call for housing has never been more urgent, but its clear that simply building more homes isnt enough. We need to rethink how and where we build, as well as who we build for. Affordable housinghousing thats affordableshould be designed to foster diversity, sustainability, and integration into vibrant communities. This means focusing on smaller homes, multi-family units, and mixed-use developments that can accommodate people from different income levels and contribute to the energy of neighborhoods. Ultimately, we need to shift our thinking about the built environmentnot as a commodity, but as a shared resource that serves the broader public good. Mitch Smith AIA, LEED AP is the CEO and chairman of MG2, an affiliate of Colliers Engineering & Design.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||