PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 c1/CIRC/Date0uep65-p. 15 Capra} Cities P Capital Cities: Planning, Politics, and Environmental Protest in Lansing, Michigan and Salt Lake City, Utah, 1920-1945 By Ted D. Moore A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF ARTS AND LETTERS Department of History 2004 CAPITAL Cl LA\ This d gilt-CI? in L3 5531‘ to dci: Laie Cit}. it: and regianst : draslopmt. men, Abstract CAPITAL CITIES: PLANNING, POLITICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEST IN LANSING, MICHIGAN AND SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 1920-1945 By Ted D. Moore This dissertation examines the efforts of reform groups, civic leaders, and city planners in Lansing, Michigan, and Salt Lake City, Utah, from 1920 to 1945 in their efforts to define and create urban spaces. The experiences in Lansing, Michigan and Salt Lake City, Utah demonstrates how, “the physical features and resources of urban sites (and regions) influence and are shaped by natural forces, growth, spatial change and development, and human action.” Americans’ competing definitions about the meanings and values of “nature” and the purpose of cities are ultimately tied to differing ideas about American democracy. These debates have ofien been historically played out and the results manifest in urban settings, while the decisions made have had distinct ramifications on the shape and growth of cities as well as their political, socio/cultural, and economic structures. This on- going dialogue has, in turn, had a reciprocal effect on how people have chosen to reinterpret and relate to the “natural world.” This study illustrates the above ideas through the illumination of four major points. First, it seeks to incorporate notions of the environment and the ideas and efforts of women more centrally into the literature on urban history. Second, it demonstrates that the modern day environmental movement not only began, as early as the 18903, but also continued through World War H. Third, it demonstrates that from the 19208 through the 19403, embedded in this environmental movement was a critique of, and an attempt to is: America's 1.3.6 this cities rec rate ' alter America’s economic and political systems along more democratic lines. Finally it argues that cities’ neglect of serious urban environmental issues contributed to the accelerated rate of post-World War II suburbanization. Copyright by TED D. MOORE 2004 l“ ish It" scared me infra a: firm}. all t r termites; ' it": feedback. c laid. l espeti m; etiorts igniting an: ’33 HIE best 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the support of the Department of History at Michigan State University—those Professors who patiently worked with me, answered my questions, and helped me improve as a scholar and person—and the department secretaries who guided me through all the administrative red tape. I particularly want to thank the members of my committee; Thomas Summerhill, Leslie Page Moch, and Susan Sleeper-Smith for their feedback, comments, support, and ideas that pushed me to think a little deeper and harder. I especially wish to thank my advisor, Maureen Flanagan for her wisdom and untiring efforts to read and re-read my work several times over and for the numerous suggestions and additional literature that she recommended I pursue. Finally I want to thank my best friend and wife, Julie, and our son Theo for their subtle encouragements, patience, and long- suffering as I pursued this endeavor. NRCDTCT Cit. ER 1 RECOVILI? 113% SPA GRPTER 2 L‘ASKG: PI [PAPER 3 L‘x‘x'SiNG. C l Cit-DER 4 SMDKE 0x 1 ESTER 5 ‘MILITAXT V carting; {Rina-FER 6 THIS Show ‘TTE WE; UZACLL’SIQr 3131mm Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 RECONCILING NATURE, CAPITALISM, AND DEMOCRACY IN AN URBAN SPACE .................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 2 LANSING: PLANNING “THE MOST PROGRESSIVE CITY IN THE USA”............55 CHAPTER 3 LANSING: CITY PROF ITABLE ............................................................... 102 CHAPTER 4 SMOKE ON THE HORIZON IN SALT LAKE CITY ....................................... 154 CHAPTER 5 “MILITANT WOMANHOOD EMBARKS UPON A MODERN CRUSADE” ......................................................................................... 186 CHAPTER 6 “THIS SMOKE CONTROL LAW IS THE BIGGEST THING EVER ATTEMPTED IN SALT LAKE CITY” ...................................................... 234 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 279 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 289 vi TIES til: planets in lar £5315 to defin. bison. do so v mete issues it “i131 COUid 1 3w. haxc ta m'ih and w. Introduction Nature, Capitalism, and Democracy This dissertation examines the efforts of reform groups, civic leaders, and city planners in Lansing, Michigan, and Salt Lake City, Utah, from 1920 to 1945 in their efforts to define and create urban spaces. Most scholars who examine environmental history, do so with the belief that city and country, urbanscape and wilderness are separate issues and should be treated accordingly. This is done in part to set boundaries on what could easily become an unwieldy and amorphous subject. A few scholars, though, have taken issue with this arbitrary delineation and have called for those who research and write about the enviromnent and the city to better integrate the two. This study attempts to do just that. The experiences in Lansing, Michigan and Salt Lake City, Utah demonstrates how, “the physical features and resources of urban sites (and regions) influence and are shaped by natural forces, growth, spatial change and development, and human action.”1 Americans’ competing definitions about the meanings and values of “nature” and the purpose of cities are ultimately tied to differing ideas about American democracy. These debates have often been historically played out and the results manifest in urban settings, while the decisions made have had distinct ramifications on the shape and growth of cities as well as their political, socio/cultural, and economic structures. This ' Martin Melosi, Eflluent America: Cities, Industry, Energy, and the Environment, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001), 125-126. gong éiilog . 4m and r: This stat wigs. First II E ofvoncn more in: he modem 6 cal} as the l errant ms nx'ronmemal i men moms: nominated 1h tail em ironm; Tad. ll dfmt‘f' €‘~i’ormeniaf ”J i": “L Nilucai SK mu urban on- going dialogue has, in turn, had a reciprocal effect on how people have chosen to reinterpret and relate to the “natural world.”2 This study illustrates the above ideas through the illumination of four major points. First, it seeks to incorporate notions of the environment and the ideas and efforts of women more centrally into the literature on urban history. Second, it demonstrates that the modern day environmental movement not only began, as David Stradling argues, as early as the 18905, but also continued through World War 11, thus providing an important transition between late 19th century conservationist ideas and contemporary environmental ideologies. As part of this link, activists capitalized on the earlier conservationist ethos of efficiency and the commodification of “nature out there” and incorporated those ideas into a more environmentally friendly philosophy to improve the built environment. I call this infusion of the “natural world” with the city “urban nature.” Third, it demonstrates that from the 19205 through the 19403, embedded in this environmental movement was a critique of, and an attempt to alter America’s economic and political systems along more democratic lines. Finally it argues that cities’ neglect of serious urban environmental issues contributed to the accelerated rate of post-World War II suburbanization.3 Each city has its own unique features, which is what makes urban history so interesting. Those differences can be explained through the examination of each locale’s 2 Christine Meisner Rosen and Joel Tart, “The Importance of an Urban Perspective in Environmental History,” Journal of Urban History 20 (May 1994): 299-307. 3 David Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressive: Environmentalists, Engineers, and Air Quality in America, 1881-1951, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 191. Stradling writes that Victorian-minded women held attitudes similar to post World War II environmentalists, but that as male professionals assumed the role of fighting air pollution, a more conservationist attitude and policies prevailed. pastel setting. place. and the hi m3? anal 3:27}? m: cm lIOI‘JE: timomlities t :z-‘sfill stud} of‘ tic-mat} Vt 9.13. his in 1: 1143.131 Lake ( entrant simi ;. physical setting, its access to natural resources, climate, etc. The demographics of a place, and the historical timing of each community’s founding can also explain communal differences in terms of politics, economics, and a city’s physical shape. Yet, urban/environmental history can also be used to simultaneously help explain commonalities over planning, settlement, and other development patterns through the careful study of peoples’ attitudes about and the role of nature, the environment, and democracy within an urban context. It is in this light that a comparative history can be so valuable. Lansing, Michigan and Salt Lake City, on the surface, are very different places, yet they also share many important similarities. Lansing came into existence by an act of the Michigan State Legislature as the result of an inability to decide on a state capital. From the beginning, the community had to deal with its geographic location. Much of the area was swampy and had to be drained. This problem, combined with the thick growth of vegetation, meant difficulty in building sufficient roads, which resulted in the new town’s relative isolation for a time. Lansing did benefit from the founding of a land- grant college, Michigan Agricultural College, just a few miles away in the new settlement of East Lansing, and by the fact that the city’s relative unirnportance, despite being the capital, meant slow and easily sustainable growth in the beginning. Salt Lake City was founded in the 18408 by Mormon pioneers fleeing repeated instances of religious persecution in places like New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. Under Brigham Young, they hoped to find a place of relative isolation where they could establish a base and build a “city on the hill” from which they could again share their beliefs with the rest of the world. Like Lansing, Salt Lake residents had to deal with a challenging physical environment. Water had to be provided through extensive irrigation canals and, because the community was located in a valley surrounded by high mountains, frequent temperature inversions trapped smoke from wood-burning stoves creating air pollution. People primarily from the American Northeast and England initially settled both cities. “Yankees” from Vermont, Connecticut, and New York traveled to Michigan in search of their own farmlands, while the Latter Day Saint Church was organized in New York State. Missionaries were sent to England in the early 18405 and converts began moving to Ohio and then Utah in large numbers. Lansing saw in- migration a little later, in the 18805 and ‘905, by people from the surrounding countryside, England, and Canada. Both cities then, were composed of primarily white, Anglo- Saxon/American- Yankee stock. Both cities, up until roughly 1890, based their economies primarily on agriculture, state government, and small-scale manufacturing, although Salt Lake did have the benefit of being more of a regional financial center, particularly due to the state’s mineral industry. Salt Lake and Utah, though, tried for a time, to have an autonomous economic system based on communal cooperation and an eye towards a greater public good, while people in Lansing embraced the culture of the individualist, industrial/ capitalist system, but had to deal with people in outlying areas who clung to more traditional ideas for a time. By the early 19005, both Lansing and Salt Lake were cities reliant upon industry, and the municipal leaders in both places saw their cities as machines of economic growth, and, as a result, would face challenges from individuals and groups who held competing definitions of democracy. Pmmmbm :bafi} regs-c pit} Si. En has at er. i ammmsr basically. :1: Mi ‘ “Vwalar e . ‘mous c Whorid n. :5,“ eauenrad ‘L‘ ‘5 ‘ y “.1 “a —. :‘ffi \' ' J‘ r= *4“ "im- , Jib-x ‘ Q, . ‘8‘". ’ 4‘3“)” Qty-‘1 I 0’2 . A‘fl‘ 8"}... $\ ‘z‘; Progressivism in Brief As early as the 18705, many reform-minded groups had attempted to deal with the negative physical effects of industrialization. One of the consistencies of the Progressive Era, however, is that reformers tried to use the Industrial Revolution’s technological innovations, in conjunction with their own efforts, to improve their lives materially, aesthetically, and emotionally and to ensure better infrastructure systems for a greater number of urban dwellers. By so doing they created minimal expectations of comfort and health levels, or in other words, expectations that city governments should be responsible for the prosperity, health, and comfort of all its citizens, rather than cater to an elite few. Their goals, although mixed, usually focused on preserving and enhancing a material lifestyle that technology had introduced. Yet after the First World War, the standard historiography suggests that the Progressive atmosphere and reform movements of the previous two decades were replaced by a more conservative, pro-business mentality and that the environmentalism of the previous decades was replaced with a philosophy of conservation.4 It was not until after World War II, historians such as Samuel P. Hays argue, that “environmentalists . . . challenged the hegemony of scientific or technical expertise and . . . offered an alternative to traditional conceptions of efficiency, one that stressed a different method of accounting for resource use, pollution remediation, and the enjoyment of environmental ‘ Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 5, and Alan Dawley, Struggles for Justice: Social Responsibility and the Liberal State, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991 ), 4-5, and Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efliciency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, [890-1920, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), and Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). n5 . 02"" New“: H3}s n micircnentaf sea}: in prex was this scare? bi}: id Sehu Ha}s b CID ill)? to the e of p03}. PCT-‘PC‘K‘ SUEDE,“ the i113: Adam 1 ar- 1 .- ‘4‘ Material iv . P5X... 1 r . e». ‘ .. .‘-"-,"' "f . , v -> - QIth‘ . y! t‘fi' amenities?” Hays reasons that sometime after World War II, Americans began a search for environmental amenities in their homes, neighborhoods, and communities on a grander scale than previously in the nation’s history in a desire for a higher quality of life, and it was this search that sparked the contemporary environmental movements. As expressed by David Schuyler, Hays believes that four distinct elements contributed to the emergence of environmentalism: a search for amenities, or what he terms an aesthetic response to the environment; concerns over health and well—being manifested in the impact of pollution and the fear of toxins released into the environment; an ecological perspective that sought a greater balance between natural and developed surroundings; and ecologically sound lifestyles that sought to reduce or minimize the human impact of the earth.6 Adam Rome, in a somewhat similar vein to Hays, believes that a post-war environmental movement sprung in part from issues related to suburban homebuilding. For example, builders began constructing homes in environmentally sensitive areas-- like steep hillsides, wetlands, and floodplains. As problems like soil erosion occurred as a result of these building practices, citizens became more involved in pressuring private builders and municipalities to begin considering and implementing more ecologically friendly methods to protect their communities. Additionally, these suburbs typically had few open spaces because builders argued that large yards would replace the parks. Many suburbanites became concerned over the loss of the countryside and began efforts to save “open space” in the 19505. These activists helped force builders to meet new enviromnental obligations. This became a critical stage in the evolution of the modern 5 David Schuyler, “Environmental Politics and the Decline of the Progressive Synthesis,” Journal of Urban History 20 (Feb. 1994): 283, as taken from Hays, Beauty, Health and Permanence, 362. ‘ Schuyler, “Environmental Politics,” 280. : f‘fi'j .1—5‘1'.V-“‘:"W"’d. ,_ In mi'camcntal r $361113 35 1C arts for muni ‘ Minis “he? ‘3 fhtmseh es Rome {Imam [he I ’5" Plagued environmental movement. Those who wanted to have parks and open space made three arguments as to why open spaces needed to be preserved: conservation (loss of farmland, flooding problems etc), amenities (aesthetics- people wanted to enjoy the beauty of nature on a daily basis), and outdoor recreation. Finally, many of the new communities were beyond the reach of sewer systems, and many homebuyers did not want higher taxes for municipal services, so they used septic tanks. Yet, homebuyers faced serious problems when those tanks failed within the first couple of years, creating health issues for themselves as well as others when the groundwater became polluted.7 Rome also argues that suburbanization meant the recognition over two decades, (between the 19505 and ‘605), that problems once identified only with forests and farms also plagued the nation’s metropolitan areas and that the loss of visible open spaces to suburbanites was more important than the loss of someplace like Echo Park. Therefore, the desire by Americans to preserve wilderness was “only the tip of an iceberg.”8 Yet, like Hays, Rome does not push his study far enough back in time, nor does he recognize the fact that many Americans worked for the incorporation of nature and better living conditions within their neighborhoods prior to the Second World War. These activists gained allies as more people achieved financial security and could better afford healthier and more beautiful surroundings after the war, but it is the strategies and reasons for that activism that link the two periods. Environmental issues and an environmentalist attitude had not disappeared after the First World War. In cities like Lansing and Salt Lake, individuals and groups sought 7 Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise ofA merican Environmentalism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), xi, 3, 6, 89, 120, 122, 123, 126, 258. Ibid., 8. esprehensn e foam a pee awe and n: I I gases when: {1 isoms neg l tithe Salt Lai. | home techn. 331% of its . CHEM 0W7. mam; 1h 0.“ hammer-.1. Trile H3.“ 8: “blhsmbe. 5.ng to perform all the environmental activities that occurred after World War II as explained by Hays and Rome. In Lansing, for example, Harland Bartholomew created a comprehensive urban plan that incorporated nature into the city with the hopes of fostering a greater democratic spirit within that locale. He paid particular attention to housing and neighborhoods with the goal of making them more livable, healthier, and places where families and individuals would want to stay. In addition, despite most historians’ neglect of women’s contributions to shaping the built environment, members of the Salt Lake City Women’s Chamber of Commerce took it upon themselves to become technologically literate and force a serious political debate over how best to rid that city of its air pollution problems. Both Bartholomew and the Salt Lake Women’s Chamber operated from a framework that saw nature as a valuable asset to the urban structure; thought nature could affect long-term economic, health, and moral improvements; and thus tried to more fully incorporate nature into urban communities. While Hays and Rome correctly note that people cared about nature and moved to the suburbs to be “closer to it on a daily basis,” they fail to link those desires and the failed efforts in cities with the increased post-war suburbanization and the more wide- spread modem-day environmental movement. Identifying “Progressives” As the massive literature on the period demonstrates, pinpointing which groups were “Progressive” reformers and which were not is a difficult task. Most business people, politicians, citizens, and professionals alike all happily claimed a Progressive mantle. Reformers did disagree among themselves on how best to beautify their cities, make them healthier and safer places to live, and still maintain a sense of community and the metal co: ' | clear. up mic: transmit and ; ice: made. it P he $333651 to “hat 1: cornered deg | 33C the Ne“ [f 503221.113} hail 35d E dcmOCTZ Efiwmmem lr. We“) and 1 the material comfort to which they had grown accustomed. Additionally, beliefs in capitalism and free enterprise conflicted at times with desires to curtail factory emissions, clean up water supplies, and reorganize urban spaces. Because environmental issues often iirvolved a reevaluation of the philosophy behind, and the structure of, the economic and political systems, disagreements arose over how much change should have been made, who would realistically have benefited the most, and who would have borne the greatest costs.9 What these reformers faced was the reality that most Americans commonly connected democracy and capitalism. As Daniel Rodgers demonstrates, between 1900 and the New Deal, reformers who hoped to democratize the American economy continually battled their own, as well as the nation’s, conflicting values of individualism and a democratic collective good. Some groups interpreted democracy to mean limited government intervention in individuals’ lives, particularly regarding economics, private property, and the use of natural resources. Most accepted the idea that free market capitalism and a democratic political system were synonymous. There were limits, therefore, on how much reform each group was willing to accept based on personal economic, political, and social interests. 1° Differences between reform groups often boiled down to differences in their notions of democracy. It is in this context that we can best understand debates over city planning, reform measures, and the role of nature in the 9 Stephen Skowronek, Building A New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 42; Dawley, Struggles for Justice; Robert D. Johnston, The Radical Midtfle Class: Populist Democracy and the Question of Capitalism in Progressive Era Portland Oregon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives; Daniel Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998); Paul Boyer, Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978); Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of {£18 Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920 (New York: Free Press, 2003). Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings, 173, 187, 195, 317. . m m cm irom when form 31‘! notices of dem‘ era mammal} One gfi justice and hei. strait} lat lea should 113W be ENE 3CCUSIL' science couid This s. m’OPmem minimal an, K121 NHL“) [7; T4336 01' {’1‘ '13 fik’flced a t urban environment. Paying serious attention to the power and role of nature in shaping urban forms and the way Americans think about themselves, their economic system, and notions of democracy adds a needed dimension to our understanding of urban environmentalism.l 1 One group of early 20th century reformers were more concerned with social justice and held to the idea that democracy implied a certain degree of fairness and equality (at least for whites), and that the responsibility of governments on all levels should have been to work toward and safeguard those ends. '2 These reformers had also grown accustomed to the benefits derived from new technologies and believed that science could solve most of society’s ills. This social justice group pressed for changes in the ideology about the built environment (unlike other reformers who believed that large corporations were the key to communal and national improvements). The social justice reformers hoped to convince local policy makers to place more emphasis on city beautification and create more urban nature or green spaces. They believed that the physical environment reflected and influenced a commitment to political and economic opportunity, fairness, and greater personal control over the built environment. Because urban beautification represented an outward expression-~a physical manifestationuof personal and communal identity, the infusion of urban nature (that is, Parks, tree-lined boulevards, large landscaped backyards, and an increased emphasis on \ " Mam-een Flanagan, “Women in the City, Women of the City: Where do Women fit in Urban History?” J?urnal of Urban History, (March 1997), see also Maureen Flanagan, “The City Profitable, The City LlVable: Environmental Policy, Gender, and Power in Chicago in the 19105,” Journal of Urban History, (Jan 1996): 164, 167 and Maureen Flanagan, “Environmental Justice in the City: A Theme for Urban Environmental History,” Environmental History, (April 2000): 160-161. Dawley, Struggles for Justice, 98-99. 10 m- heaul} i? magma. it” lleiosi notes. 1. he} could rest”. of trier). a St «3.1m lie“ '1' B} tor. the iiea that e. she-dd happi'é; reformers. cor. equal politicai be: manifest : managing h The reform 1} 50 enriched 11* . H3} 5. SLlQCESSiull) c. terms or to when v. i: W“. 7. 31")” ‘ IZ \hidI 1:12 5. 1““)?- P’E‘i MHDS .. .. I. ‘ ‘ RN .i ‘I g: PT; _ “r '3’" Q", J25.- if“ ' ‘86.; 71‘3" urban beauty in general) signified a tangible gauge not only of the literal health of a city’s inhabitants, but also of its degree of political, economic, and social fairness. As Martin Melosi notes, these social justice reformers perceived the city as an organic entity that they could reshape. He writes, “It was the sense of group responsibility, 3 corporate view of society, a sense that urbanites had common problems to address, that reinforced an organic view of city life and was expressed in the battle against pollution.”l3 By contrast, pro-capitalist reformers tended to subscribe to social Darwinism, or the idea that certain types of people were solely qualified to govern while everyone else should happily follow along. Because of this elitist ideology, many pro-capitalist reformers, consciously or not, helped to successfully construct and fortify barriers to equal political and economic participation. They believed that a healthy democracy was best manifest through personal prosperity, and that the key to prosperity rested on encouraging businesses to thrive within carefully defined and very limited regulations. The reforms they wanted were thus designed to “preserve the industrial system that had so enriched their communities and themselves.”'4 Hays, Stradling, and others have shown that corporations and other elites successfillly controlled environmental issues either as a means of protecting their self- interests or to centralize power in the hands of a “government which would be more consistent with the objectives inherent in those developments” of rationalizing and systematizing modern life.” As environmental issues became professionalized or '3 Martin Melosi, Eflluent America: Cities, Industry, Energy, and the Environment, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001), 218-219. 14 Stradling, Smokestack and Progressives, 2-5. See also, Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings, 186-187, 195. Dawley, Struggles for .htstice, 107. '5 Schuyler, “Environmental Politics,” 278-79. 11 .k'l'J‘J ‘5". WWI-- r—1 -...‘V‘ .‘vu'vy‘. ghost???) 0 does concede magi“. 1003: - "agenai 0 Were goers ' he go ernme decisions. One a 5316 1016 Oil 110%th lIlC 56:; c shape 1 filament“ VI Oi‘li'le mm 3. 130161. DUTIi \A. ‘ 1Y1?” d‘ .1; “(flu 2.. . Kim 11017,"... controlled by federal regulatory agencies (that were often run by heads of corporations), a philosophy of conservation underlay decision-making and policies. '6 By contrast, Hays does concede that, “individuals who first became involved with environmentalism through local issues tended to reject centralized decision-making and an emphasis on managerial or organizational values.”'7 This observation by Hays suggests that there were groups that resented how environmental issues became embedded in the structure of the government and began to lodge protests in an effort to re-democratize environmental decisions. One aspect of urban environmentalism that most of the literature misses, however, is the role of women. Maureen A. Flanagan has challenged urban historians to begin more fully incorporating the efforts of women into urban histories to “reveal how women helped shape the total urban experience.”18 By the 18805, as a major part of the reform movements, women had begun to expand their accepted social roles as moral guardians of the home and of their families’ health and stepped up their efforts to create healthier societies and cities. In the process, they hoped to increase their political and social power. During the Progressive Era, white, middle-class women played an important role in environmental reforms and continued to fight for reforms in the following decades. Yet until women were able to successfully politicize environmental issues and formulate an environmentalist mentality akin to the modern day movement, male politicians were able to ignore them.19 By the turn of the century, however, as these issues became more pOIitically important, men tended to commandeer women’s influence and assume more i: Stradling, Smokestack and Progressives, 191 and Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efliciency m SChuyler, “Environmental Politics,” 278-79, Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efliciency ‘9 Flanagan, “Women in the City, Women of the City,” 251. Stradling, Smokestack and Progressives, 104-105. 12 7'7: misiiilit} 1 this. such as These i meshing de: rein: to effort denser}. 11 \an German 3 831$.“ but mans; “Om Con-ti“ fishermen: . liminn of t: Some responsibility for urban housekeeping through the professionalization of specific male fields, such as sanitary engineering, urban planning and public health.20 These issues of power and control over women are just part of the dialogue concerning democracy. Male professionals’ attempts to usurp these important issues point to efforts by the state to limit and control definitions of gender roles and democracy. Joan Wallach Scott argues that not only do authoritarian regimes (such as Nazi Germany) connect the domination of women as an “assertion of control or strength,” but also 20“1 century democratic States have “constructed their political ideologies with gendered concepts and translated them into policy” too.” Despite this, women continued to spearhead debates over the physical structure of the urban environment and through those debates also gained a measure of control over the direction of the political and economic structures in their communities as well. Some recent work investigating the connections between gender and environmentalism has found that many women reformers wanted to create an urban space where both the city’s residents and its government could work for the betterment of all citizens rather than from the standpoint of making the city profitable for a few. In trying to clean up their cities, women were redefining the objectives of environmental policy away from movements centered on the idea of a “city profitable,” (which was the primary goal of the “city functional” and “city beautiful” movements), and towards a “city livable.” In the process of trying to remake a city’s built environment, women reformers 2° Stradling, Smokestack and Progressives, 5, 105; Angela Gugliotta, “Class, Gender, and Coal Smoke: Gender Ideology and Environmental Injustice in Pittsburgh, 1868-1914,” Journal of Urban History, (January 1996): 165-193; Maureen A. Flanagan, “The City Profitable, The City Livable,” Journal of Urban gistory, (January 1996): p. 164-180. Joan Wallach Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” in Joan Wallach Scott, ed., Feminism and History, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 172. 13 ersted 3-0 Their 1*} tin he; :enethe isa ration of iseased dc: ' :l‘ _ .. I pilnt'hlpnk attempted to broaden government and public responsibility for the city’s welfare by reordering municipal power structures.22 Their actions thus represented a critique of the political and economic systems. Although they did not necessarily want to destroy or radically alter the political economy, they nonetheless transposed and transformed idealistic J effersonian beliefs--that America is a nation of boundless economic opportunity and that land ownership is the key to increased democratic participation and virtuous citizenship-into an urban environmental philosophy. The goals of women’s groups, though, were as mixed as those of reformers in general. Some women felt threatened by the cultural practices of immigrants and wanted to “Americanize” them. Others desired greater equality with men and used their accepted role as “municipal housekeepers” to widen their political power. Still, other women’s groups genuinely cared about the health and welfare of all American citizens and used environmental activism to try to curtail what they perceived as both political and economic excesses and empower themselves in the process: either as moral guardians of the family and society, or as men’s political and social equals. In so doing, they hoped to create a greater sense of fairness and democracy in the political and economic systems in the US, by altering these systems to better facilitate immigrants and the working classes in acquiring the adaptive tools necessary to allow them greater economic opportunity and 22 Flanagan, “The City Profitable, The City Livable,” 164-180; Angela Gugliotta, “How, When, and for Whom Was Smoke a Problem in Pittsburgh?” in Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region, Joel Tarr, ed. (Pittsbtn'gh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003): 1 10-125; and James L. Longhurst, “Don’t Hold YourBreath, Fight For It!’ Women’s Activism and Citizen Standing in PittSmeh and the United States, 1965-1975” (PhD. Diss., Carnegie Mellon University, 2004). 14 reform or w: reform m. 19133120 the eficienq an: hoisting the shifted their 1‘. cleaner filels. STREETS C01 33: C11} bOOS . {a A 1.01m g’UUfi political independence, such as language and other job skills.23 Other studies have shown that when women either refocused their efforts on other reforms or were pushed out of their agenda-setting roles by professional male “experts,” the reform movements tended to take on a more conservative tone. Between roughly 1910 and the late 19305, engineers and municipal leaders emphasized increased efficiency and economy (as a reflection of a conservationist mentality), partially displacing the emphasis on health and beauty. As part of this movement, engineers shifted their focus to improving existing equipment rather than experimenting with cleaner fuels. It seems apparent though, that the ideas of tum-of-the-century women reformers continued to echo into the 19405. New women’s civic groups, professionals, and city boosters from the 19205 on adopted many of the goals these earlier women’s reform groups had advocated.24 Most often, what women reformers wanted did not come to fi'uition in the short term, or in the form that they had hoped. This does not mean, however, that their efforts should be ignored or worse, dismissed. The fact is that they infused a new mentality into the political debate that forced politicians and industry to consider the value and role nature and an improved environment could and should play in the physical city. Historians need to take seriously the efforts and role that women have played in shaping urban environmental issues, in order to gain a more complete understanding of how and why American cities look and firnction the way they do. A Radical Middle- Class? ” Gugliotta, “Class, Gender, and Coal Smoke,” 165-193; see also Harold L. Platt, “Jane Addams and the Ward Boss Revisited: Class, Politics, and Public Health in Chicago, 1890-1930,” Environmental History 5 (April 200): 194-222. u Stradling, Smokestack and Progressives, 5, 105, 181; and Longhurst, “Don’t Hold Your Breath.” 15 . . ' . Vam‘wvnbm—r F" .1. ,1. « 11.3011: ad .4 _ 0;) - dispenser. Were these reform efforts “radical?” The answer depends on one’s perspective. On one hand, reformers wanted to place some reins on industry and were willing to challenge local political powers to do 50. Michael McGerr argues that Progressives in general were radical, “in their conviction that other social classes must be transformed and in their boldness in going about the business of that transformation.”25 Robert D. Johnston also sees middle-class small business owners and well-paid blue-collar workers in Portland, Oregon, as radical elements in their efforts to balance individualism, profit, competition, “moderni ,” a “moral economy,” and a “cooperative vision of community life.”26 On the other hand, Alan Dawley believes that reformers’ efforts to reconcile the contradictions between a liberal heritage and industrial capitalism came to a head during the New Deal, and if “there was a watchword covering the reforms of the time it was ”27 Other historians have also seen reformers’ neither liberty nor equality, but security. actions as conservative in that they looked to ideologies from the past and hoped to reshape them to fit a vastly different world in an effort to conserve traditional values, and/or retain their own social and economic positions of power.28 These competing interpretations point to the fact that white middle-class men and women reformers were not monolithic in their ideas about the urban environment. However, the urban environmental movement from the 19205 through the 19405 was an expression by a segment of society that was primarily middle-class. Robert Johnston 2SMcGerr, A Fierce Discontent, xv. 2° Johnston, The Radical Middle Class, 11. 27 Dawley, Struggles for Justice, 4. See also Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order, 18 77-1920, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967). 28 Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR, (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 14- 15; Wiebe, The Search for Order. 16 is. __.. contends [1'13 with writer session 01? euloftazion. lessons ab and her. 511': sigh :11 an. Piliii'ld C31“. 341111: C 11 Units in R, contends that middle class people in Portland, Oregon, attempted to align themselves with workers in order to “create a middle-class utopia that would, through a vigorous expansion of populist democracy, abolish most class distinctions, eliminate capitalist exploitation, bring women to full political power, allow ordinary families to make decisions about their lives in an age of expert control, overturn American imperialism, ”29 While Johnston looks more at issues such as the and even subvert racial privilege. single tax and anti-vaccination movements, the same motives attributed to those in Portland can be found in the urban environmental protests that took place in Lansing and Salt Lake City between 1920 and 1945. Limits to Reform According to Stephen Skowronek, Progressive Era America’s political structure inhibited the passage of most reform legislation and only a true revolution could have succeeded in changing politics. He contends that the virtue of the people was limited by institutionalized structural restraints. So, in the efforts to transform the state between 1900 and 1920, the state emerged with a powerful administrative arm, yet authoritative controls over this power were locked in a constitutional stalemate.30 The ability of political parties and the courts to control the internal operations of the American government and to define the relations between state and society became obstacles to any new institutional developments. In addition to the political and legal strictures, American reformers hoped for continual urban growth, and they recognized that heavy manufacturing was still the primary source of employment in the nation despite the fact that after World War I 2" Johnston, m Radical Middle Class, 16. 3° Skowronek, Building A New American State, 16. 17 'Vi' .anrica's 6 Eye out h. mimics a wists. A: . 6.1: ' $341.3.in raid in I}: mmaiizw. Its no. until ”32% Must: America’s economy was slowly becoming consumer-based.31 Their challenge was to figure out how to curtail the political and economic dominance of the men who ran these companies and still maintain and improve the jobs and lives of the nation’s blue-collar workers. At the same time, Americans faced an assault on all fronts to alter their overall mentality, including their spending habits, religious beliefs, and general outlook on life. According to Richard H. Robbins, the culture of consumer capitalism that was created in this country between 1880 and 1930 was not an inevitable consequence of industrialization. He writes that industrialization created capitalists and laborers, but it was not until the end of the 19th century that the consumer was consciously created to “save industrial capitalism from its own efficiency.” He points out that in these years a major transition took place in the United States in the rate and level of commodity consumption, due, among other reasons, to increased and more effective marketing and advertising, cooperative efforts of local, state and the federal government with private business, and the transformation of American spiritual and intellectual values that once emphasized frugality, thrifi, and modesty, to those that “sanctioned periodic leisure, compulsive spending, and individual fulfillment.”32 For example, the amount of money invested in advertising by all industries in 1880 was roughly $30 million. By 1910 oil, food, electricity, and rubber industries alone spent $600 million. Department stores developed new methods of displaying and promoting goods through sleeker packaging and better use of window display methods. The federal government also contributed to the rise of a consumer culture. In 1921, 3' Martin Melosi, The Sanitary City: Urban Infiastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 206. 32 Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2002), 4, 14-16, 1 8. 18 1'35} then m 20’. 1"“.7‘6311.‘ par. of "ie pi This the of sin a exemption l wféopmm: under Herbert Hoover, the Department of Commerce began extensive research into the buying habits of Americans, cataloging where and when they purchased specific goods. They then made this information available to businesses. Ellis Hawley describes this governmental emphasis and its accompanying institutionalization at the federal level as part of the process of building an “associative state.”33 This time period also witnessed the rise of “mind cure religions” that rejected ideas of sin and guilt. These new sects also maintained that a person could be healed simply with positive thoughts and happiness could be obtained through commodity consumption and focusing on the “self.”34 Thus when one considers issues of urban development, the environment, and reform, it is also necessary to place the issues within a cultural context of consumerism and to examine how decision makers of the time equated them with definitions of democracy. Local political and business leaders also confionted these same contradictions. They too wanted cleaner and healthier cities and saw some economic advantages to livable city environments and recognized that improved infrastructures would facilitate a more cost effective flow of goods and services. In order to retain businesses and simultaneously appease the middle classes, cities were forced to confiont basic service issues such as sewage treatment, clean water, paved streets, and garbage removal. They were also forced to confront the fact that a growing number of urban dwellers wanted more parks, recreational spaces, and in general, increased opportunities to interact with 33 Ibid., 16, 18. See also Ellis Hawley, The Great War and the Search for a Modern Order: A History of the American People and Their Institutions, 191 7-1933, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), see esp. chs. 5-6. 3‘ Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, 13-20. Hawley, The Great War and the Search for a Modern Order, see esp. chs. 5 and 6. l9 game 50.”: am: a stat the} were ex wrncdiiec ldeclogx to a in reform n Dec«use the} if political '98 Comm} aimed mt. . Uifilclpa Cl 33 it 192:: Meier in Mm??? 'o 1k] l axkl nature. Some businesses agreed to slightly higher taxes to support services in order to attract a stable workforce, improve transportation, and increase business efficiency, and they were even willing to construct more urban nature so long as it could be profitably commodified. They saw the advantages of readily adopting progressive language and ideology to accomplish their economic goals. City leaders generally agreed, however, that reform measures could not be taken too far or businesses would leave for less constricting settings.” Additionally, while most reformers looked for increased fairness in the system, many business leaders and municipal officials felt only limited reforms were necessary because they feared too much democracy would potentially challenge their control over the political system. They recognized that controlling the physical city also meant economic, political, and social control as well. By extension they worried that they would lose control over the direction of the city’s economy and its cultural values if they allowed the populace to wholly dictate how urban spaces would be used. In essence, municipal decision makers believed that their vision of America was the only correct one. By the 19203 they could point to the fact that the United States was the leading industrial producer in the world and that American workers were better paid than their counterparts in Europe as a vindication of their ideals. They had all personally achieved material comfort and relative economic security and pointed to their economic standing as proof of their intellectual and moral superiority. They therefore interpreted any challenge to their philosophies as an affront to their definition of what it meant to be an American and to what had made America, themselves, and their families great. In short, they adhered to 3’ Melosi, The Sanitary City, 205-212. 20 lithosofs As pl tense mug? .. L 1‘ {infill pulls Hitler. its: the enfe If hi! 1 DIN teams: 5 b ":5- ',Y' .4 z. 4 - no r ‘ WWW} a: 131101 ales. . an ethos of Social Darwinian individualism.“ As part of their vision, municipal, state, and the federal governments also began to assume much of the responsibility to Americanize both the city and its inhabitants through policies that encouraged homeownership. The federal government under Hoover, first as the Head of the Department of Commerce and then as president, wanted the US. to be more unified and homogenized, particularly given the labor, ethnic and class strife that had taken place and were only exacerbated due to the nature of World War I. Through his department, Hoover tried to facilitate unity and homogenization by encouraging homeownership and more rational city planning in the hopes of successfully solidifying the connection between cleanliness, democracy, and capitalism with prosperity and Americanism. Urban planners and reformers at times played an important, if not always conscious, role in accomplishing the fusion of these ideas.37 With the Great Depression, the connections between democracy, capitalism, prOSperity, and cleanliness came into question. As people struggled to survive in shantytowns or in the face of environmental disasters like the Dust Bowl, a growing number of Americans once again began to seriously question the nation’s political and economic systems. The policies of the New Deal probably best reflect the contradictions and challenges inherent in a socio- political economic system that valued individualism and democracy. A prime example of this can be found in the motivations behind the Resettlement Administration and some of the other programs such as the CCC and the FERA. Under the Resettlement Administration, the federal government attempted to create farm colonies with “people’s colleges” and “public affairs” classes that were :: Stradling, Smokestack and Progressives, 4. Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings, 454. Rome, Bulldozer in the Countryside, 24, 37. 21 \ 3 v..~ ,g-L'Am . dean. In f. Sheri up If Jimmie! the Russet he'l. enpie would hem Resetell 1‘ E1033} and In h tea: I; malt] mgb‘il‘ucm P’fser mg . Six-AC ale; he. “he? ta 334' -. 1L1 designed to foster more democracy and more cooperative views of the economic system. The same was done in attempts to build more economically democratic urban communities.38 These efforts, though, failed to escape the cultural baggage that weighed them down. In fact, much of the political effort behind the New Deal was also designed to shore up the traditionally held definitions of democracy and capitalism by protecting corporations and monopolies. At the same time, many of the conservation programs that the Roosevelt administration implemented involved placing people in nature as a way to both employ them and to give them a “wilderness” experience in the hopes that they would become more ‘Wirtuous” along the lines that Thomas Jefferson had advocated.39 Roosevelt therefore believed that conserving “nature out there” would uplift people morally and simultaneously fortify economic individualism.40 In this vein, the federal government studied the impact of air pollution caused by coal in many of the major cities around the country, and made monies available for urban infrastructural improvements, such as sewer treatment plants, for the purpose of preserving the industrial order by curtailing, but not eliminating pollution sources. It should also not be too surprising that cities renewed their interest and efforts in environmental issues and urban nature despite facing serious financial challenges in other areas, and that visions of how to improve local environmental issues often differed from k 38 39Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings, 460-461. 39Dawley, Struggles for Justice, 4-5 and Alan Brinkley, The End of Reform New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 269. 40Brinkley, The End of Reform and Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Speech by Roosevelt, Lake Placid, New York, September 14, 1935,” published in Carolyn Merchant ed., Major Problems' tn American Environmental History (T oronto: D.C. Heath and Co., 1993), 487-489. 22 fur .a' IWI'M'QI'JI' the lies 0- Reform in XL. 1..., ' helm 1n CE‘lL’Qlimc‘. gitemcr. . 1. . Waits W; W 3.. “i131 ‘t'atlee the ideas of federal, state and local politicians.4| Reform in Lansing and Salt Lake Christine Meisner Rosen and Joel Tarr, in an article in the Journal of Urban History in 1994, called upon urban historians to begin placing urban histories within an environmental context in order “to illuminate the impact of nature on the evolution of modern urban societies.”42 They offered that, “we must study how the market system, government institutions, politics, technology, and culture shaped the interactions of city dwellers with the natural environment.”43 With these issues in mind, it is possible to move towards a better understanding of what various groups of urban residents believed they would lose and gain materially, politically, and socially through urban environmental reform initiatives. These issues have been explored at length in several excellent studies; however, most of these histories tend to ignore ideas about nature and the role of women in shaping the debates. Additionally, urban historians have tended to focus most of their attention on America’s largest cities from 1880 to 1920, and from post-World War II to the present. They also tend to look primarily at the impact reformers had on the federal government in effecting change. Yet, mid-sized urban communities have historically housed the majority of the US. population and are generally considered to reflect the predominant “American values,” and it is through local efforts by relatively unknown people that federal and state policies are molded into reality. Finally, it was during the overlooked 19203 and ’30’s that modem-day debates over urban environmental policies were shaped, and when the 4‘ Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 159; Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Speech by Roosevelt,” in Merchant ed., Major Problems, 487-489. Martin Melosi, The Sanitary City, 210-212. 4: Rosen and Tarr, “The Importance of an Urban Perspective in Environmental History,” 305. Ibid., 306. 23 2e- ailment Women's C W a profs mg of the hmlafih 5%“ 3‘16 1r @Ore mflfl . 5al‘f‘ied u 1. I an.“ EQVen physical urban characteristics of most US. cities were codified. This dissertation, then, is an examination of the conflicting attitudes over pollution reform and competing ideas over how to deal with air and water pollution in two very different cities: Lansing, Michigan and Salt Lake City, Utah, from the 19203 to the 19403. The groups in each city that I will investigate include the municipal governments and chambers of commerce; community activist groups like the Salt Lake Women’s Chamber of Commerce, and individuals, such as Harland J. Bartholomew, who was a professional city planner hired by the city of Lansing. The responses of different groups of urban residents in each city reflect the ways in which competing ideas about economics, democracy, nature and the built environment influenced decision- making and development of urban environmental policy in both cities. Environmental reform was not just an attack on poor air and water quality for the sake of better health. Some urban residents viewed it as a commentary on industrial capitalism and on the male-dominated, party-controlled, corporate-run political system that many citizens in the 19303 believed had failed dreadfully. The financial and social crisis of the Great Depression forced many Americans to rethink their ideas, at least temporarily. Local decision makers, realizing the challenges to their authority, hoped to soften the impact of industrialization, but at the same time continue to facilitate it and ignore most of its ill effects. Women reformers in Salt Lake City, who had felt mostly satisfied with their successes during the Progressive Era and who had been willing to allow government policies the time to take effect, became painfully aware of the weaknesses and failures of those policies in the early years of the Depression. They wanted to seize upon the opportunity for change and hoped to once again place greater 24 emphasis or green“. and b) restart. Me: abusers u the burdens in 31‘: procc heir comm M . 5‘ " 531mm r._‘ cmmumm M emphasis on aesthetics, health, and urban nature as the primary means to community growth and prosperity. They also hoped to gain greater control over their personal lives by reshaping the political/economic order that had developed. Members of the Women’s Chamber of Commerce, along with likeminded reformers in other parts of the country, believed that by reprioritizing the local economy, the burdens and “blessings” of industrial capitalism would be more fairly distributed, and in the process, more people would become politically involved in shaping the structure of their communities. This would then broaden political debate and force municipal governments to reprioritize their definitions of the “public good” and how best to achieve it. How to efficiently and cheaply improve urban environments became particularly important to communities that aspired to big city greatness, yet had grown at a slower rate and boomed later than had the major urban areas of the East and Midwest. These late-bloomers faced many of the same challenges as larger cities of trying to manage growth while providing basic amenities. Most of these cities, however, contained a much smaller percentage of ethnic diversity (except those in the South), so there was less chance that urban political machines could develop along ethnic lines. Also, these communities had the advantage of looking to the successes and failures of their larger counterparts while developing their own planning strategies. Citizens, professionals, and politicians alike battled over how best to preserve and improve the economic and political structures of their communities, all with an eye toward urban growth and, seemingly, widening political participation and economic prosperity. 25 For Lansing, the major struggle, on the surface, was over planning and how to deal with its wastewater and trash disposal. For Salt Lake, air pollution, caused by the use of cheap and plentiful coal and exacerbated by the city’s geological setting, became the focal point of environmental campaigns. Policy makers and reformers in both cities hoped to encourage physical and economic growth, yet disagreed over the best path to take. Lansing chose to almost completely embrace the needs of industry with only cursory attention to urban nature, until groups outside the city stepped in and forced the issue with the help of the state government. Salt Lake officials faced greater civic activism and pressure, particularly from women, and therefore did a better job of creating a more livable city. However, outside interests would successfully pressure Salt Lake City and the State of Utah to limit the types of sweeping reforms that civic activists desired. The regional, economic, and settlement pattern differences between Lansing and Salt Lake actually provide a good context for comparison. Lansing has historically relied heavily on auto manufacturing and its subsidiary industries for jobs and growth while Salt Lake has had a more diverse economy, but still relied on industry. Lansing was not the economically dominant city of its region, nor is it a place where people generally turn for cultural uplift. Salt Lake, on the other hand, has remained the center of economic and cultural activity for its region. Lansing is also located in a state that has an abundance of rainfall and greenery while Salt Lake is located in the second driest state in the Union (in terms of moisture). Salt Lake, founded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints has a heritage of communal cooperation, but at the same time its inhabitants bear the stigma of a group of followers who meekly submit to the dictates of their church 26 well laid Olfl em 11’( m unii I quite simii; ethfr} an traded to a hilt idealls peter that ‘ ofpeesibll: The umber 01 C ,1 leaders. One might assume then, that Lansing, with its high percentage of auto and other industrial workers, would be a hotbed of protest, while not much activity of the kind would take place in Salt Lake. Yet the opposite is true. Protests and debates in Salt Lake over environmental issues were fierce, while in Lansing they were quietly quelled (at least until 1934). Yet the responses to urban environmental problems in both cities were quite similar. Salt Lake, despite a more diverse economy and a heritage that preached equality and cooperation, and Lansing, despite its large number of factory workers, tended to adopt similar solutions to their problems. Both cities favored corporate individualism rather than a more democratized economy. These experiences point to the power that the broader American culture has in channeling change within a narrow range of possibilities. The battles over urban nature up through World War II also help explain a number of different facets of mid-20m century urbanization in the US. This dissertation will demonstrate, first, how decision makers in both municipalities, with the occasional unwitting help of reformers and New Deal Policies, successfully fused the ideas of democracy, capitalism, and “nature” into a utilitarian whole, thus fully incorporating nature into the urban economic system. Second, the failure of most cities to follow professional city plans, and to listen to opposing voices urging them to create healthier and more aesthetically pleasing urban environments and true communities city-wide, accelerated the pace of post-World War H urban sprawl. The failure of cities to follow the suggestions of reformers helps explain in part, why, when the opportunity became available after World War II, most whites fled central cities (even in communities that 27 J "V“: ‘- " «J’W‘V‘lm . i" Qa' had \Cl‘} 1 petites. Note on S Al of the ill} ‘ Friday ex ii The had very few African- Americans) for what they literally perceived to be greener pastures. Note on Sources A brief explanation of the sources used is in order here. While the dissertation will give prominent attention to the efforts of women in Salt Lake, their voices are almost completely absent in Lansing. In fact, sources for Lansing as a whole are difficult to come by. Many of the documents for the city are housed, uncatalogued, in the basement of the city’s main library, where the “archivist” is budgeted to work two hours every Friday evening at organizing the unlabeled boxes of information. The city’s newspaper, The State Journal, used to include a weekly women’s or society page, but the material consisted primarily of information about weddings, social gatherings, recipes, and dates, times, and places of women’s club meetings, but not much else. The Lansing Woman’s Club, which has existed since 1874, has a few records remaining that discuss the fact that they engaged in intellectual discussions pertinent to national events of the times, like suffrage, the impact of industrialization on the nation, and U.S. imperialism, and it is clear that the club invited several guest speakers from the local college to speak on these subjects, yet there are few records of local community activism and their names and efforts remain mostly absent fi'om the reform records. Perhaps part of the reason is that the club’s members were married to Lansing’s business elite, and the fact that the club deliberately kept its size small and exclusive. These 28 -r a ' 'i' ' ‘twif" an semen “0'4 atelier-ms an. '_ Ll.) 111‘s igi‘k.‘ -_ ' women would have been careful not to jeopardize the city’s peace and their own social positions and material comfort by inciting worker unrest. ‘4 This elitist attitude is reflected in some of the reforms for which we have records. The clubwomen of Lansing did engage in activities such as collecting clothing for the poor, helping Lansing’s female teachers gain some legitimacy in their profession through a more regularized pay-scale, and working with those same teachers to get the school board to enact educational reforms such as woodworking classes for boys and cooking and sewing for girls.45 The efforts by Lansing clubwomen to help professionalize women teachers reflected a desire to increase the role and legitimacy of women in society, but at the same time demonstrated an acceptance of limitations and traditional gender roles. For example, both the female teachers and their club allies were willing to accept much less pay for women instructors as compared to men who had less education and teaching experience. Their effort to create “industrial” classes for male and female students also reveals an elitist mentality. Perhaps another reason that women in Lansing are relatively invisible is that the city was a non-union town until 193 7. Lansing was, for the most part, a non-ethnic, non-union, “American” city, which could also explain why working-class women may have been less willing to get involved in reform efforts.46 Lansing was also, and to an extent still is, a company town. Its heavy reliance on the auto industry meant that the financial well- being of most workers, most small ‘4 Isabel Findlay, “Fleeting Glimpses of Lansing’s Westside Literary Club” (typed manuscript, 1953), 18; Bertha Gardner, “A History of the Lansing Woman’s Club, 1874-1974” (typed manuscript, 1976). ‘5 Gardner, “A History of the Lansing Woman’s Club,” and Traci Culcasi, “Women and Education in Lansing, Michigan, 1904—1925” (MA. thesis, Michigan State University, Dept. of History, 1999). ‘6 Culcasi, “Women and Education.” See also chapter 2 of the dissertation, which discusses Lansing City efforts at Americanization, and reveals the demographics of the city. 29 erzplomer 193335 res e. mechanical 3&3}. “or.“ concrete co business owners, and most people in middle- management and the service sectors were, tied directly to the fortunes of these companies. The auto manufacturers successfully created company loyalty through various programs, and along with the city, helped create a city of homeowners whose abilities to pay their mortgages required continual employment. Too, a study done by a professional city planner beginning in the mid 19303 revealed that in 1930, less than 2,000 women worked in the manufacturing and mechanical industries and trades, and that of the more than 34,000 people noted in the study, women made up less than 8,500 jobs. The data is too inconclusive to draw any concrete conclusions, but it does suggest that perhaps, in conjunction with the large number of people who owned or were buying a home, that Lansing workers were generally paid a decent enough wage to quell any true protests by men or women, particularly given that the middle- class and wealthier women in the city seemed to have taken a paternalistic approach to reform issues for fear of jeopardizing their own positions because of their ties to the auto industry.47 By contrast, Salt Lake has an abundance of sources that are well catalogued in several places, including two universities, a state historical society archive, a city/county archive, a state archive, and an LDS Church archive. The challenge for Salt Lake in some instances has been trying to sift through the mounds of information to decide what is most pertinent. ‘7 Harland Bartholomew, Lansing City Plan, 1938, (St. Louis: Harland Bartholomew and Assoc., 193 8), 15. 30 cit} 10 00 i this conflzc the role the historical?) he silderr. subjugale t etcmemlc g Ohmmml) lni ‘5‘“! . “all if,“ .x~ I“ k) \. Chapter 1 Reconciling Nature, Capitalism, and Democracy in an Urban Space The physical form and make-up of American cities are a direct reflection of its inhabitants’ cultural values. As part of the urban design, professional planners, politicians, business leaders, and regular citizens have haggled over what they want the city to do for them economically, socially, and even spiritually. A key to understanding this conflict of design requires recognition of how different groups interpreted and valued the role that nature should play in the creation of the built environment. Americans have historically had a love-hate relationship with nature. On the one hand, many have feared the wilderness and considered it their duty as Christians and Americans to completely subjugate the earth. Conversely, the notion of unlimited land and its potential for economic gain was thought to contribute to democracy through increased economic opportunity, which translated for most into more personal freedom.l In his study Wilderness and the American Mind, Roderick Nash shows that the Puritans had accepted a dichotomy between nature and a garden—between nature and reformed nature as it were. He writes that the Puritan belief that wilderness impeded the people’s spiritual and temporal progress remained at the forefront of American attitudes until the middle of the 19th century. Puritans felt the Bible associated nature with immorality- Adarn and Eve were cast out of the garden into the wilderness as punishment for their disobedience. Like Adam and Eve, Americans needed to prove their worthiness by conquering the earth. Thus they longed to reduce and control nature and viewed this as a religious duty. This philosophy held that if one could subdue the land ‘ Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), mp. ch. 3. 31 and pros, ' the subset; actions: Alt hhmd Others lei} emit natur Wilderness. the nations. team a it \—‘ o n {"1 n . ‘4 4 r . .I 5 E; x a 5' ( tv I f}?!- ".z'_. ,‘QZR hf ~61». ‘ l ””9” ‘ -. h; ' " in. I Q ,“l’ l- and prosper from it, this served as a witness to God of a willingness to be obedient and the subsequent prosperity was a sign from the heavens that deity had sanctioned those actions.2 Along these lines, Thomas Jefferson linked the preservation of managed nature, in the form of rural farms, to a more individualistic, virtuous and democratic citizenry. Others followed Jefferson’s lead to consider careful management of forests, rivers, and other natural resources as essential to democracy. Instead of trying to conquer wilderness, this philosophy holds that nature has played a pivotal role in the formation of the national character by fostering individualism, and as such, the benefits derived from contact with it should be preserved and extended to every American.3 By the mid 19m century, then, Americans increasingly saw wilderness as a moral and cultural resource- a key factor that contributed to what made America different from Europe. Transcendentalists believed and wrote that nature represented a way of obtaining moral perfection, rather than seeing it as the moral vacuum that the Puritans feared. For example, Thoreau argued that the ideal man was one who could fuse the advantages gleaned fi'om the best of nature (vitality, heroism, toughness, and an appreciation of God) with those of civilization (the necessary refinement to lift man above the “savages”).4 It is in this vein that Stanley K. Schultz argues that the 19th century gave rise to a new urban culture based on "the relationship between the physical 2 Ibid., xii and 15. 3 Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 67-68; Carol Sheriff, The Artificial River: The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress, I81 7-1862 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1996), 176-177; Richard White, The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995); Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efiiciency. ‘ Nash. 92-3. 32 - {wiser Eh: seemed to gm W01") Klan} belie of } eemen team‘s-en mhmei . '1 ‘ Qiell‘e‘d. environment and bodily, mental, and moral health."5 Richard White also notes that Americans were able to adapt moralistic views of nature with a burgeoning capitalist system. He points to Emerson’s ability to reconcile nature and capitalism. “When humans acted on nature they did not defile it, they purified it. Capitalism could easily embrace an Emersonianism in which the machine put nature to work and reduced human labor.”6 It is in this historical context that many of Frederick Jackson Turner’s contemporaries interpreted his now infamous thesis as a warning that the closing of the frontier threatened the American character and way of life. Turner’s proclamation seemed to threaten that the urban ills of industrialization would continue and possibly grow worse because America no longer had the west as an outlet for the discontent. Many believed that with land no longer available, America could not become the nation of yeomen farmers that Jefferson had envisioned. Without land ownership and a connection to wilderness, it would then be difficult to create a population of virtuous citizens who valued individualism and the political, economic, and personal traits that entailed.7 Samuel Hays uses this connection between nature, Americans’ identity and the nation’s political structure to explore the reasons behind America’s Conservation Movement. He argues that the Conservation Movement of the early 20th century was “a scientific movement” motivated by an ethos of efficiency. Therefore, “it is from the vantage point of applied science, rather than of democratic protest, that one must 5Stanley K. Schultz, Constructing Urban Culture: American Cities and City Planning, 1800-1920, ' lphia: Temple University Press, 1989), xiv. 7 RiChard White, The Organic Machine, 35. Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 86 and xii. 33 mierean Rem at then 1dr hie nil-’32- ef ; composed I ' I WM. I - . 134102.53 limb} pit X0] coEther, b understand the historic role of the conservation movement.”8 President Theodore Roosevelt was one who accepted this idea. Additionally, though, added to this expert driven ideology, Hays also argues that Roosevelt was deeply affected by the social unrest of the late 19‘” century. This led him to believe that America was becoming a fractured nation of interest groups and he searched for a way to create a “classless society, composed, not of organized social groups, but of individuals bound together by personal relationships.”9 Roosevelt believed that the desired moral qualities he hoped the government would foster could be found in the rural farming communities. Roosevelt, therefore, stressed the role of expert controlled conservation of resources as the means to ensuring full industrial employment, in helping create a patriotic sentiment that would unify local differences, and make the arid west 3 more appealing and livable place, thereby preserving a rural lifestyle and values.lo Not only did the perception exist that there was less “wilderness out there” to conquer, but there was also recognition that the consequences of the destruction of nature were becoming more noticeable in cities. Peter Gottlieb, in addition to Hays, attributes this recognized loss of nature and the hazards created by industrialization to igniting the Progressive Era environmental movements. That in turn gave rise to conservation and the creation of federal institutions like the national parks system and the Forest Service, which attempted to protect parts of the wilderness for various reasons.11 8 Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efi‘iciency, 2. 9 Ibid, 268. ‘° Ibid., 268-271. See also Richard Hofstadter, The Age ofReform, From Bryan to FDR, (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), in which Hofstadter argues that because American democracy was formed on the farm and in small villages “the American was taught throughout the nineteenth and even in the twentieth ffntmy that rural life and farming as a vocation were something sacred,” 7 and Chapter 1. Peter Gottlieb, Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement, (Washington DC; Island Press, 1993), 7 and 11. Jefferson believed that a ‘Wirtuous citizenry” was an independent group of people who would act in the best interests of the whole. One of the requirements to 34 conquer a Aéde Lee; was done retrealior‘. [122181. A: bit rig a “ SilZCd uptjl EDS as a V Ni. 1mm indu EA?‘ - nbfi‘r‘az By the early 19003, Americans no longer feared nature or felt the necessity to conquer all of it. Instead, many, like ecologist and longtime Forest Service employee Aldo Leopold, began promoting new ideas about wilderness conservation. One way this was done was by connecting wilderness to recreation. Leopold saw both nature and recreation as necessary for developing and improving the character of individuals and the nation. A3 a result of his and others’ efforts, including President Theodore Roosevelt, having a “wildemess experience” became more popular in the early 19003.12 Companies seized upon this trend and began to commodify wilderness tourism. They marketed these trips as a way of shaping both the individual and the nation’s character. Marguerite S. Shaffer, for example, notes the link between the emergence of the urban industrial nation state and the search for an American identity. She points out that transportation and communication networks that began to be built on a national scale allowed for tourism to emerge as a form of geographical consumption that centered on the sights of America.'3 This tourism was connected to the emergence of the United States as a corporate, urban industrial nation-state; just as a brand name good gave it a national market and culture, tourism helped give the nation “form and substance, identity and culture.”'4 She shows that promoters of tourism in the early 19003 made it into a virtuous consumption that they believed could reconcile “nature, democracy, and liberty do that was land ownership so that a landlord for example could not exercise undue influence over another’s political decisions. Jefferson also believed that manufacturing fostered extreme economic differences and that farmers, or those who labored with the earth, were the “chosen people of god.” See for example Carolyn Merchant, Ed, “Thomas Jefferson on the Agrarian Ideal, 1787,” in Major Problems in American Environmental History, (Toronto: D.C. Heath and Co, 1993), 141-42. '2 Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 183. ‘3 Marguerite s. Shaaer, See America First: Tourism and National Identity, (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 2—3. See also Nash, Wilderness, 183-86. 4 Shafler, See America First, 4. 35 5- ." \I"'u.£'l ' with the it. consume 86'. American . '6 '1 :. tillepllz'n malarial pr identified '. 2D liealize “filed: s cm ilOl‘lm: ‘ litre S 50 Grand C J | 'e' is .0 4/1 ix "1 I: ll), f I 1" .‘i t. h" . f} '1 ’. "J with the realities of an urban-industrial nation state, dependent on extraction, consumption, and hierarchy.” 15 Between 1880 and 1940, the tourism industry promoted travel as a ritual of American citizenship. Many groups defined tourism in national terms, offering secular elite pilgrimages to the public as if it were one’s patriotic duty to consume sites like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. By the 19203 promoting visits to America’s national parks, combined with a belief in the need for recreational outlets, became an identified trend in local, state, and federal governments. ‘6 Government policies created an idealized American history with the aim towards transforming tourists into better Americans.l7 Through tourism, Americans reshaped and redefined the built and natural environments and therefore reshaped and redefined themselves.18 The idea of wilderness has also been historically viewed as an opportunity to create a level playing field. Yet it is also in this wilderness arena where a contestation between individualism (viewed by many to be a hallmark of American democracy) and working towards a communal good have clashed, and where this contestation of ideals has seemingly created a dialogue of compromise. For example, Carol Sheriff demonstrates how residents along the Erie Canal were told and believed in the increased democratic possibilities that the canal would help create due in part to increased economic opportunities for individuals and communities along the waterway. She goes on to show, however, that the canal in fact created more conflict and class divisions because fewer people in the area owned their own land or had less access to the ‘5 Ibid., 5-6. 1: Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 189-90. 18 Shaffer, See America First, 4. Ibid., 5-6. 36 transportation network. Additionally, as the local economies were transformed, more wage laborers began to populate the area. Despite this, political leaders attempted to quell resident’s fears by arguing that “the free- labor system, with its promise of upward mobility, could actually help to quell class conflict,” by reasoning that “if protest and reform represented a growing dissatisfaction with affairs as they were, protest and reform also suggested that ordinary men and women still thought the world was theirs to shape.”19 But history has shown that those in control at the municipal, state, and federal levels feared this type of democracy. They wanted a more docile and conforrnist population and as such they set out to control how Americans experienced both the “wildemess out there” and urban nature.20 For example, Donald Worster writes of a union between engineers and federal policymakers to control water, and subsequently land-use and growth, as proof of the very undemocratic nature that exists in western states. His analysis is part of a body of literature that argues that efforts by officials at all levels of government were designed to control and shape democratic tendencies. The challenge of course, was how to foster a sense of economic individualism while at the same time curbing independent political thought. In this vein, political leaders attempted to commodify nature through the creation of national parks, and conscientious efforts were made to manipulate how people would experience those “natural” areas.21 However, when historians speak about the environmental movement and attitudes towards wilderness they most often mean places far removed fi'om the urban setting. The '9 Sheriff, The Artificial River, 176. 2° See for example Alan Taylor, William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995); Boyer, Urban Masses. 2' Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire; Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). 37 general assumption is that nature or wilderness is somehow more “natural” than the man- made urban environment. This idea has slowly begun to change thanks to a group of scholars that includes William Cronon and Richard White. They along with a few other historians have more recently argued that the entire earth has been influenced and altered through human interaction, and that the idea of wilderness (just like cities) is a cultural construct. As such, humans, their cultural ideas about nature, and cities themselves should be included as part of environmental history.22 And just as efforts were being directed towards the “wilderness out there,” municipal leaders were making similar efforts to control how people would experience cities. They did this by trying to make urban nature focal points of tourism and recreation, or in other words, a consumable product, rather than as spaces for personal reflection, political debate, and public protest.23 City Planning American Style Architects and designers played an integral role in how Americans thought about cities. Between 1880 and 1920 these professional planners set out to create physical environments that they believed would foster the necessary domestic atmosphere that would form and reflect a unique American character. As part of this goal, urban planners, 22 See for example William Cronon, Natures Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1991), and White, The Organic Machine. See also Flanagan, “Environmental Justice in the City,” 159-164. 23 There are several excellent studies that explore the connections between commercialized recreation, worker unrest, politics, and the physical construction of cities. See for example; Cathy Peiss, Cheap Amusement: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986); Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992); William Wilson, The City Beautifill Movement, (Baltimore: John’s Hopkins University Press, 1989); Stephen Meyer, The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908- 1921, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1981); Gunther Barth, City People: The Rise of Modern City Culture in Nineteenth-Century America, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980); Alan Trachtenberg, The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982); Alan Brinkley, The End of Reform. 38 politicians, and business leaders attempted to balance urban aesthetics with functionality. Historians have labeled these design movements that took place in these decades as the “city beautifirl” and “city functional.” William H. Wilson, for example, argues that the “city beautiful” movement was a political accommodation among several groups, but that the efforts of architects, city planners, and middle-class reformers to beautify cities along the lines of those in Western Europe, and thereby create an ideal urban space, failed to fully come to fruition for several reasons, including costs, and criticisms that little or no attention was paid to the practical aspects of conducting daily activities.24 The inspiration for more beautiful and organized cities in Europe, England, and America is due in large part to Baron Von Haussmann. He attempted to remake Paris into a living monument for Louis Napoleon while at the same time attempting to unify Parisians and the French people by manipulating how they would experience the built environment. His plans for Paris inspired British and German planners to rethink and remake their cities in a way that would reflect their nations’ cultures and their governments’ ideals.” As Daniel Rodgers demonstrates, the influence of Haussmann’s plan for Paris differed from nation to nation depending on the socio/economic and political culture of the place. Berlin officials, steeped in a Prussian culture of an all- powerful, centralized state, borrowed its monumentality, while Britain focused on slums and sanitation, or in other words, slum demolitions at the city centers. “When Haussmann’s Paris finally came to the United States and cut across the land-office grids,” according to Rodgers, “it was to take on still different meanings.”26 For example, in :Wilson, The City Beautifill Movement, and Flanagan, “The City Profitable, The City Livable,” 164. 2sDavid P. Jordan, Transforming Paris, The Lifie and Labors of Baron Haussmann, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings, 168. 39 I, ‘1'.“"F-I beige. Bmtxn comers pthiifi lllt has that above all control 01 D flmdha misunden Therefore Rfiflwd “ET-Eileen lOr more i Wheels ”Edie Hitch & a baa-Jr} .21 Chicago, which, next to New York, was the most commercial of American cities, Daniel Btn'nham wanted to remake the entire lakefront public space and “turn the eye from commerce to civics” in the hopes of spurring “a renaissance of public consciousness and public life.” But such plans were only partially realized in the U.S. as planners ran into laws that favored the sanctity of property rights in a culture that valued individualism above all else, whereas in Britain and France, the state could more easily condemn, take control of, and resell properties in the name of the public good and civic unity.27 Despite the fact that Haussmann wanted to make Paris a much more efficiently run city as well as a work of art, many American planners and architects tended to misunderstand Haussmann’s intentions, and they chose to focus more on aesthetics. Therefore, the “city functional” ideology in the United States was a direct response to the perceived flaws of the “city beautiful.” As its name implies, municipal architects significantly scaled back many of the more elaborate beautification plans and searched for more practical ways of ordering cities that were in sync with the ever increasing emphasis on a consumer/capitalist culture in the U.S. As the literature on planning reveals, some of the professional planners did not abandon the ideas of beautification so much as adopt the perspective that order and functionality would produce their own beauty.28 Bringing Nature to the City through the Suburb Catherine Beecher, who was one of the more influential early voices in shaping ideas about domesticity and by extension, according to Robert F ishman, urban planning, ’7 Ibid., 171, 172-173. 28 Wilson, The City Beautrfid Movement, R. Bruce Stephenson, Visions of Eden: Environmentalism, Urban Flaming and City Building in St. Petersburg, Florida, [900-1995, (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1997). 40 belict LIZC far if COSECX “There and vie almost believed that “the United States was the hope of the world, but that hope could only be realized through the beneficent influence of women” and “could only take place in the context of a truly spiritualized American home.” Through the influence and work of writers like Beecher, the idea or purpose of the American home began to be transformw and viewed as a haven against the ills of industrialization. At the same time it became almost exclusively the woman’s realm. 29 Additionally, Americans began to associate their nationality with being middleclass, and to a large degree, being white. Owning a clean and orderly home with a well-manicured property also became part of the definition. Dirt, therefore slowly became a very un-American concept. This middle- class conception of dirt was used to differentiate between “races” of people. The majority of immigrants who began to flood into the country in greater numbers after the Civil War were poor, came fi'om rural parts of Ireland, Eastern and Southern Europe, were poorly educated, and most were not accustomed to living in large cities. Most did not measure up to changing American standards of cleanliness and decorum. As a result, immigrants and large cities themselves came to be viewed generally as “dirty” and un-American in several ways.30 In addition to being viewed as personally dirty due to their jobs and lack of clean running water, immigrants tended to live in rented and cramped housing conditions in rundown neighborhoods. Most lacked knowledge of English, and some held to different political and economic ideologies that more resembled socialism. Thus, immigrants were viewed as “polluters” of American culture and the physical environment. By extension, because 2’ Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall ofSuburbia, (New York: Basic Books, 1987), 123. 3° Suellen Hoy, Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness, (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995), and Daphne Spain, How Women Saved the City, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001). 41 a "- "'DI "‘VW-Wi ‘. ‘lfi‘lmlv‘ \ meet in consist: clinic: datgerc 3032611 . maize plate. or context 3W1 If}: 9‘ “Kindred most immigrants have historically settled in large urban areas, cities themselves were considered polluted, not only for the grime, dirt, and smoke, but also for their demographics. Many of the rural native population characterized cities as dirty, immoral, dangerous, and foreign.31 Immigration, changing attitudes towards cleanliness, a renewed emphasis on women as the caretakers of the family and the home, and mass industrialization, and urbanization, combined to persuade many Americans that the home was the primary place, or haven, where the necessary middle- class virtues should be taught. In this context, along with assumptions about women’s role as municipal housekeepers, ideas about the home as the best place to shape a unique and morally superior individual were extended to cities.32 Architects and developers who were influenced by these trends, attempted to combine the “cult of domesticity,” the middle- class fear of the city, and the perceived benefits of nature in many of the earliest planned communities— the upper middle- class suburbs. One of the frrst “garden suburbs” in this country was the product of developer Llewellyn S. Haskell and architect Alexander Jackson Davis. The two men created Llewellyn Park, New Jersey in 1857. In design, they borrowed from the English suburban model, but altered it to conform to American values and beliefs. For example, they attempted to blend the community into the surrounding landscape so as to accentuate the terrain, yet at the same time making the home the center of activity and learning within the community.33 From the early “garden suburbs” some designers attempted to import nature and 3' Ibid. 3: Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias, 123. Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias, 125. 42 is sup; rehab] he i all clampll :1": 11321 hr. his 1 net: of the tree series its supposed benefits into the central city. Along these lines, Frederick Law Olmsted is probably the most influential figure in modern day city planning in the U.S. Believing in the value that nature had and needed to play in shaping the American character, he championed the fusion of wilderness and the built environment as the ultimate step of civilization. The parks he created are not just excellent examples of design and function, but his theories as to their importance influenced other urban designers to begin bringing more of the countryside to the city. He believed that although beneficial, the 19th century city created a “peculiarly hard sort of selfishness” that could lead to the degeneration of society. He thus emphasized the importance of city parks or “urban nature” to help combat the strains of the growing industrial, commercial culture. However, Olmsted gradually grew disillusioned with the effectiveness of parks and resigned himself to the idea that it was only in the suburb where civility could truly thrive. Nevertheless, he remained hopeful that one day nature’s benefits would be available to everyone.34 Paul Boyer places Olrnsted’s motivations, and those of most urban planners who wanted to improve the environment, within a framework of moral and social control.35 Boyer argues that progressive reformers latched on to the “positive-environmentalist initiatives of the 18903” as a means to “a more subtle and complex process of influencing behavior and molding character through a transformed, consciously planned urban environment?”5 While it is true that planners like Olmsted hoped to transform “the masses,” the question remains to what end. Boyer never successfully differentiates between the myriad motivations and definitions of democracy that reformers brought to the table. He sees them primarily wanting to create a citizenry that was committed to a 3‘ Ibid., 127-128. 35 Boyer, Urban Masses and Moral Order, 221, 269. 3‘ lbid., 221. 43 capitalist industrial order and who would follow the lead of their “social betters.” In their analysis of the design and use of New York’s Central Park, however, Roy Rosenzweig and Elizabeth Blackmar document the complexities of urban planning in the U.S. context. They show how Central Park between, 1870 and 1900, became a more democratic space, despite attempts by New York’s wealthy to make it exclusively their own.37 Rosenzweig and Blackmar demonstrate that the creators of Central Park, Calvert Vaux and Olmsted envisioned the park to “be a democratic institution by virtue of the mixing of classes within its boundaries.” The two differed, however, on the definitions of that democracy. Vaux believed in a more participatory republicanism where “democratic citizens” should be “the makers of their own government and their own public art.”38 Olrnstead, on the other hand, believed that “in an orderly democracy gentlemen must lead the way,” and as such he felt it his duty to culturally uplift the 39 poor. With these divergent motivations in mind, by the early 20th century, urban planners began to organize and in 1917 created a professional organization, the American City Planning Institute. Robert Fishman explains that two schools of thought emerged inside this group. The first group recognized that, “In effect the cities took on the responsibility for creating the infiastructure for the emerging industrial society.” At the same time, they hoped to create physical environments that would continue to foster what they considered to be “civilized” communities.40 Fishman notes that this group came to 37 Roy Rosenzweig and Elizabeth Blackmar, The Park and the People: A History of Central Park, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1992), 8-9. 3‘ Ibid., 136-137. ’9 Ibid., 138-139. ‘0 Robert F ishman, The American Planning Tradition: Culture and Policy, (Washington: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2000), 9. 44 stat: for 11116 the .4 112111113. “thine: :1“ “61 Create ur't woman—i_ accept the idea that the downtown area would define the metropolis, regardless of how large its population might become. Additionally, these planners believed that an outer zone needed to be created and safeguarded “as a source of fresh air, fresh water, and open space for the metropolis, to establish parks and other recreational facilities there and to build the transit lines and parkways that would enable urbanites to experience unspoiled nature?“ The ideas of these “metropolitanists,” as F ishman labels them, came into conflict with the second group of professional planers who believed that the crowded, industrial city was simply a passing phenomenon. This group, labeled the “regionalists,” hoped to create urban spaces: That would consist primarily of New Towns located throughout the region and set in an open, green environment, each combining both work and residence. This true ‘regional city’ would occupy the ‘middle ground’ between the old, crowded cities and the old, isolated rural areas. This middle ground could combine all the economic benefits of living in a technologically advanced society with the human scale, local identity, and community of small-town America.42 In the first third of the 20th century, smaller American cities considered both philosophies. Jon Teaford, for example documents the growing trend of urbanites moving outside of cities before World War II, which gave credence to the ideas of these two schools of thought. Teaford shows that these primarily middle- class people wanted to maintain their comfortable life-styles, but still hoped to have more political say in their communities, and also wanted “to preserve the green open space and clear waters of the " Ibid., 14. ‘2 Fishman, American Planning Tradition, 14. For various reasons, it is evident that the philosophy of the “regionalists” tended to win out after World War H, due to several factors, although their ideas about incorporating and preserving large natural tracts were largely ignored until very recently. See for example Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier, (New York: Anchor Books, 1991). See also Margaret Weir, “Planning Environmentalism, and Urban Poverty: The Political Failure of National Land-Use Planning Legislation, 1970-1975,” 193-218, in Fishman, American Flaming Tradition. 45 rural past both sets . professio: the same series of ‘ would be Wilderml \\ ”43 This trend highlights the compromises made by many planners to combine rural past. both sets of ideas. In an attempt to replicate the upper middle class suburbs, many professional planners continued to base their designs around the downtown area, while at the same time trying to create open, green spaces both in the central city and through a series of “natural” or “wildemess” areas that would form a ring around the city that would be easily accessible to all classes of people regardless of where they lived. Wilderness Conservation meets the City While professional planners attempted to blend nature and civility, another group that had formed by the end of the 19th century wanted to preserve America’s “wilderness out there.” As mentioned previously, conservationists, in an attempt to gain more control over the direction and use of the nation’s natural resources, in the early 20th century proclaimed themselves the most qualified group to manage nature. In the process they solicited help from the federal government in the form of Theodore Roosevelt in an attempt to wrestle control of the nation’s natural resources and lands from corporations. Their hopes were short lived as government regulatory agencies like the Forest Bureau and the Bureau of Reclamation had drifted from their original social vision to a role more supportive of private industry. The impetus of scientifically managing nature was geared more towards ensuring a long-term means of making money for a few, and less towards a concern for the general social benefits nature might provide. Government experts appropriated conservationists’ emphasis on efficiency, natural resource management, and the application of science and applied it to industrial organization. 4" ‘3 Jon Teaford, Post-Suburbia: Government and Politics in the Edge Cities, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997) 6. “ Gottlieb, Forcing the Spring, 26. 46 applied :1 municipa 1. ~. :.?.1a312 C? 89.11011 C and Ofmr «1. - . Man-2a.; & A similar process took place regarding city planning. City boosters, municipal politicians, and reform minded citizens’ groups appropriated the language and philosophies of professional urban planners and the conservationist movement and applied them to their urban reform efforts. Everyone framed the issues in terms of municipal growth, but adapted different strategies. Private reform groups tended to emphasize the needs of the larger community, and therefore favored the preservation and creation of more natural areas, not fewer. In the process, some of these groups, including the Salt Lake Women’s Chamber of Commerce, straddled philosophies of conservation and of modern day environmentalism by simultaneously emphasizing economic advantages and aesthetics, health, and personal uplift that urban nature would provide, while municipal governments looked to cater to the needs of industry.45 Thus, earlier this century, most U.S. cities attempted to create a cleaner, healthier, and more aesthetically pleasing built environment in the belief that physical surroundings helped influence the character of individuals. As a result, during the debates over what American cities would look like and what they would do for people, basic amenities such as clean water, clean air, and efficient sanitation systems became important selling points, and expected amenities. Yet, civic activist groups and city boosters faced a dilemma. They believed nature to be an important element in creating the American character, yet at the same time, the American economy and the nation’s military and economic power were still predominantly dependant upon factory production and the exploitation of natural resources. Many municipal leaders therefore attempted to retain the benefits ‘5 Fishman, The American Planning Tradition; see also Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); Andrew Hurley, Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945-1980, (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1995); Roger Biles, Richard J. Daley: Politics, Race, and the Governing of Chicago, (DeKalb: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 1995). 47 derived from both the preservation of nature and the existent economic system. To do this, some sort of middle ground had to be created in order to make their communities better, healthier, more enjoyable, and safer places to live, while at the same time not destroying the primary means of jobs and wealth. Harold Platt’s look at Houston outlines part of the dilemma cities faced. He writes that because of a Progressive ideology, cities that wanted to grow no longer debated how to supply basic services, but had to focus on what kind of urban environment and, by extension, society they wanted to create. He identifies the development of two competing ideologies between 1890 and 1910. The first was the belief that service technologies and the municipal government should cater to the residents-- meaning the white homeowners. This would make Houston more attractive to newcomers and subsequently spur outside investment as smaller businesses relocated to the city. The second strategy that Houston officials weighed was the idea that service technologies should be used as vehicles of investment. In Houston this meant that basic amenities such as paved roads, sewer, and water service would be denied to certain outlying residential areas of the city in order to keep prices and taxes lower for the central business sector, thus attracting industry to the city. This second ideology meant privileging businesses over the majority of the city’s residents. 46 By the early 19203, most cities tended to adopt this second strategy, but reform groups continued to battle over many of these issues." “Harold Platt, City Building in the New South: The Growth of Public Services in Houston, Texas, 1830- 1910, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983), xiv, xix. ‘7 Amy Bridges, Morning Glories: Municipal Reform in the Southwest, (Princeton: Princeton University MS, 1997); 48 Protests A horn-cow | noting '. Technob comm 1930. T: hale are Who mo; Protests Against Municipal Government Structures As cities tended to favor industries over the needs and desires of individual homeowners, they also had to face the growing reality that more and more people were moving to suburbs and creating what historians have labeled, “edge cities,” “technoburbs,” “urban villages,” or as Jon Teaford terms them, “post- suburbs.” These communities, located in counties bordering large cities, began to grow prodigiously after 1920. The reasons people left cities for these outlying communities are varied. Most have argued that this migration was an anti- urban development because, in part, those who moved to them “sought to fashion an idealized village form of government, a small- scale, nonpartisan polity characterized by volunteerism, cooperation, and consensus,” that they did not believe they could fashion in the existing political urban structures.“ Teaford points out that the middle- classes who fled cities in pre World War 11 America also longed for “green open space and clear waters,” although his primary focus and emphasis is on the political desire by these suburbanites for lower taxes, smaller governments, and more democratic communities.49 Despite these goals, however, it is clear that many of their actions were not so much the result of anti-urban sentiment as they were protests and frustration at what their cities had become. Their actions, therefore, were attempts to create modern communities along the lines of a Jefi‘ersonian- type democracy. Becky Nicolaides’ study of a working-class suburb in Los Angeles demonstrates this point. Many of the people who settled in South Gate, tended large gardens, owned poultry, and opposed expensive municipal improvements, yet they would ‘8 Teaford, Post-Suburbia, 15. See also, Sarah s. Elkind, “Building a Better Jungle, Anti-Urban Sentiment, Il’ublic works, and Political Reform in American Cities, 1880-1930,” Journal of Urban History, 24 (Nov. 997): 53-78. ‘9 Teaford, Post- Suburbia, 6. 49 ‘. 1‘. '\-' 5'. -\I make gt outside 1 ‘18 mo 8.5 urban. lit he} didl ncEgihol . edition 23% film an} meal make great efforts and spend much of their disposable income on various entertainments outside the community in Los Angeles.50 If these suburbanites were anti-city, they could have moved to rural farms in Wyoming. The fact is they desired the amenities of modern urban life and the higher paying jobs that allowed them access to those amenities. What they didn’t like was the perceived failure of city governments to give them the types of neighborhoods that better incorporated health, nature and communal bonds. Additionally, those who moved away from the big cities realized that their municipal governments favored industry over the individual, making it almost impossible to have any meaningful political voice. With the crash of the stock market in October of 1929, urban environmental reformers were once again given the ammunition to try and rally those residents who had become disillusioned with some aspects of the political and economic systems and with the political leaders who had promised the nation greater prosperity. Reforrners argued that changes needed to take place, that the political process needed more democracy, and that opportunities for upward mobility should be increased. These protest organizations turned to urban planning and environmental issues as their symbols of discontent. Because city beautification remained an outward expression- a physical manifestation-- of personal and communal identity, urban nature would continue to play an important role in reformers’ plans and be at the center of debates over the physical construction of cities. Between roughly 1930 and the end of World War 11, most municipal governments and business leaders continued to hold to their political and economic ideals despite the 5° Becky M. Nicolaides, My Blue Heaven: Lijk and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, I 920—1965, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 88-91, 120-121. 50 \ dgwfry.‘ .t'fi flu-’7'" . (I in E llorsenlr ville otl piiiosop lrLcdtos (QR? worsening economic crisis. Some leaders blamed individuals rather than the system while others pointed to minor flaws in the system, maintaining all the while that the basic philosophies behind the nation’s economic and political structures were sound. Some tried to seize upon the obvious public discontent by appropriating the New Deal language of reform. In so doing, municipal officials were forced to revisit the city plans from the 1910s and ‘205 and the more egalitarian philosophies upon which those plans were based. They recognized the necessity of trying to replicate many of the amenities and characteristics that had been created by private planners and architects in America’s suburbs and to bring more of those benefits to the middle, lower middle, and working classes. Additionally, urban governments were forced to reexamine their environmental policies. Post- War Urban Crisis These efforts though, were doomed to fail because most decision makers continued to adhere to a type of economic social Darwinism, which linked the idea of prosperity and greatness of the nation to the notion that corporations and business structures represented the pinnacle of political and economic evolution. According to their thinking, great amounts of wealth were signs of personal moral and intellectual superiority and Anglo-Saxon whiteness stood supreme on the ethnic/cultural scale. As a result, business was privileged over everything else, and efforts to force social conformity played heavily in the minds of urban policy makers regarding the physical construction of cities. So while city boosters continued to try and sell urban nature as tourism-- in the form of clean air, water, parks, and other open green spaces- they simultaneously accommodated the demands of business and industry by keeping taxes and service fees 51 ion for ‘ . 71: ‘9' Rib-36L“ - the arm neig'i'ooi compror f3) Oltd com. on milieu lacing v low for that section of the population and only casually enforcing environmental regulations. Ultimately, most cities failed to effectively incorporate nature into their cityscapes because they could not sufficiently balance desires for growth and profit with the amenities that their residents asked for and believed were essential to making their neighborhoods and their cities more livable. In other words, they failed to strike a compromised balance between a democracy based on individualism (that ironically favored business and corporations) with a democracy centered in civic unity and communalism (that privileged the individual over business wants).51 These tensions as manifest in movements such as the city beautiful, city functional, and city livable, and among women’s groups, professional planners, and municipal governments are evident in the experiences of cities like Lansing and Salt Lake City. From roughly 1920 to 1945, both cities juggled competing ideologies of how best to encourage growth and prosperity. Specific infrastructural improvements were in place that created at least minimal expectations of comfort. Yet, what was still contested terrain was who would bear the majority of the costs for municipal growth and prosperity and who would take the lead in pushing for reform. One startling consequence of these prewar failures was that, after the Second World War, when the opportunity presented itself, millions of white, middle-class workers across the country fled to suburban spaces in search of what they felt was the proper balance between a consumer capitalist culture and more control of their personal lives and physical spaces, as manifest through the tree lined streets and large, well- manicured yards of suburbia. Most Americans came to believe that the suburbs mpresented a healthful, liberating, and more equalitarian space than those created by g 5' Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings, 317. 52 l“ 1'" 11:53:. mL‘ P} (A. Lu (J O *1 CUTITJHI p.316: Ct Could 365 prism. ”'I. . ‘. 11.11201) 31 lei. thief ma ~‘-I l- . “.’"\. ‘ Amber; it lies; urban municipal leaders, or in other words a more proper balance between individualism and a communal good.52 In fact, as mentioned, Jon Teaford has documented the attempts of suburban communities to be more democratic. He shows how civic associations tried to foster greater community involvement through volunteer organizations. Additionally, politics could best be described in some of these communities as voluntaristic, consensual, non- partisan, and homogeneous. For example, a number of communities in DuPage County, Illinois adopted open caucuses, or town meetings, where candidates unassociated with either major political party were selected by the village for the various offices. These candidates then became the automatic victors in the elections. Teaford points out though, that despite the ideal, reality suggests that often times entrenched community leaders dominated these proceedings, producing “suburban oligarchies.” “But the suburban dream exercised a powerful influence on those who migrated to the metropolitan fringe.” It is also clear that some of the wealthier communities wanted to erect political and legal barriers in order to protect the homogeneity and economic standards of their neighborhoods.” In addition to visions of more politically democratic communities, many historians have shown that a shift in government firnding for infrastructural improvements to the West and the South allowed corporations based in the East and Midwest the ability to move production to more cost-effective locals as a major reason for population shifts. Additionally it has been shown that federal loan policies to homeowners and the practice of “redlining” and racism also played significant roles in :3 Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside. Teaford, P03" Suburbia, 6‘8' Teaford, Post-Suburbia, 23-24. 53 . are: t 8. “in mi the deterioration places like Salt 1 relidlel} homog will argue in the residents' concer for suburban flig. diheult time fun choices cities ma the desires and er “it: , 5,: ‘ 1 ‘ . ‘G‘lllq gnu l! 0’ W1» the deterioration of cities and in “white flight.”54 This does not explain, however, why places like Salt Lake experienced some of the same problems given its lack of minorities, relatively homogenous religious population, and the federal subsidies it has enjoyed. I will argue in the following chapters that the failure of municipal leaders to address residents’ concerns over the livability of their environments also helped create a climate for suburban flight. A shift in federal funding to cities meant that cities did have a more difficult time funding services and making improvements after World War II. Yet choices cities made in the first three decades of the 20th century to privilege industry over the desires and concerns of many of their residents must be included as part of the cause. 54 SW, Origins of the Urban Crisis; Richard M. Bernard and Bradley R. Rice, eds., Sunbelt Cities: Palltics and Growth Since World War 11, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983). 54 . In x h 3‘ ..- 12"." »}‘vlsn.lm‘lcfll_—Wun ‘L' 9.1 4L L Lansing 12.303. The sn electric street- 1 was the home 0 moderately sizel built and repaire throughout the t the modern indu. 1910 almost dou and reaching 78; B) 1914 1 mimics n im Employees 111 111 e m Lam“8's d1 Dem The mat: Chapter 2 Lansing: Planning “The Most Progressive City in the USA” Lansing, Michigan was still a small place in 1890 with a population of a mere 12,2 02. The small city had no public sewer system or police department, and the 90 electric street- lights that dotted the community were shut-off at 10:00 PM. each night. It was the home of several industrial enterprises including Lansing Iron Works, two moderately sized manufacturers of farm implements, a number of small companies which built and repaired steam engines, and a large lumber industry that supplied companies throughout the region.1 When the Olds Motor Vehicle Company was organized in 1897 the modern industrial life of Lansing was born. The city's population between 1900 and 1910 almost doubled from 16,485 to over 31,000, continuing its climb to 57,327 by 1920, and reaching 78,397 by 1930, when growth slowed during the Depression. 2 By 1 914 Lansing was a full-fledged factory town boasting 180 manufacturing companies with an average of 276 workers in each individually owned plant and 5564 emPIOYees in the corporate owned shops. The lure of jobs, however, did not appreciably alter LanSing’s demographics as it had done to larger industrial cities like Chicago and DetI’OiI- The native born white population was 67 percent in 1920, just slightly down from the Previous decade and the number of African-Americans remained small, COmPfiSing only 1.3 percent of the population. The City’s demographics during the 1920s Were not altered too much either as census reports recorded that only 6630 foreign ‘ 11151?“ L- Kestenbaum, Out of a Wilderness: An Illustrated History of Greater Lansing, (Lansing: Windsor Pubhcations, 1981), 63-66. e state of Michigan’s rate of population growth was only exceeded by California and Florida between 1920 and 1930. Lansing’s rate ofgrowth was 89.4% between 1900 and 1910, 83.6% between 1910-1920, and 36.8% from 1920-1930. The rate of grth for the state of Michigan during these time periods was: 161%, 30.5%, and 32%, and for the United States as a whole it was 21%, 14.9%, and 16.1%. See, Harland lomew, Lansing City Plan: I 938 (St Louis: Harland Bartholomew and Associates, l938),16. 55 born whites and slightly fewer than 1,400 African- Americans lived in the city. Additionally, of the new immigrants, over 50 percent hailed from Canada and England.3 Yet the relatively rapid growth of population and industry between 1900 and 193 0, created other kinds of problems such as the typical infiastructural challenges associated with urbanization. The city needed a clean and reliable water supply to meet the needs of a growing population- raw sewage was still dumped in the Grand River. Streets had to be paved. Garbage collection and disposal methods were also chronically unsettled. Because Lansing’s industrialization and rapid growth occurred later than many larger Midwestern cities and during a time of widespread urban reforms, it had the opportunity to investigate and emulate or improve upon those cities’ urban strategies. Communities in this part of the country potentially benefited from a culture of social reform as Jon Teaford writes, pointing out that people in the Midwest in general believed that democracy could work “by, of, and for the people,” which is why Teaford also classifies these attempts at urban reforms, particularly fi'om women, as legitimate efforts to increase the benefits of democracy rather than categorizing them merely as “municipal housekeeping.”4 In concert with the reform atmosphere, America’s industrial cities were enmeshed in a capitalist culture and Lansing’s business and political leaders envisioned great 3 Compare these number with Detroit, which had about 120,000 African- Americans and 400,000 foreign born Whites out of 1.5 million people and Chicago which had 800,000 foreign born whites and 233,000 Afncm Americans in a city of3.3 million. Additionally, the majority of immigrants to Lansing were from Cm England, and Germany. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce S‘a‘miCal Abstract of the United States 1920, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921) and Untied States Bureau of the Census, United States Census Book 1910, 1920, and 1930, (Washington: Government ‘ an Teaford, Cities ofthe Heartland: The Rise and Fall ofthe Industrial Midwest, (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1993), 112-113. 56 v m ”‘11 t (“jg-ll: '" I” fit. 11' ‘ R." Y~"p" L'I economic and p( lansing lacked a gotemment wen olielonns that 0 example. in 1912 statemandates. ' 1110 served No- la! the council 1 The Pwpose 01 t1 Efficiently nln cit [13.101111 vote. an rtll‘Onsihle for 11 “Th OrEllllzatior The may HMS. bill 111 a 10181 rested in h m a“"11‘21tehe.'t minimal and re: “83‘ “£- His 1 1 W also lemon The State sillllliiedthat thl 50\I lift" OM" C11. 1 him: “$110111 7. . “3.1140 economic and political possibilities for the city. Even though it was the state capital, Lansing lacked any real political or economic clout, and the powers of the municipal government were outlined by the state. Yet, state laws also reflected this dual philosophy of reforms that would generate more democracy, and promote and protect business. For example, in 1912, Lansing adopted a city council form of government in compliance with state mandates. The council was made up of 16 representatives (two from each district) who served two- year terms, and a mayor who also was elected every two years. Each year the council would elect one of its members to preside over its meetings as president. The purpose of this “manager- council” system was to have a “business-oriented” and efficiently run city and municipal government. All resolutions had to pass with a majority vote, and all debates over new laws had to be done publicly. The council was responsible for the “health and comfort” of the city and was granted wide powers to deal with organizations and individuals who threatened either of those mandates. 5 The mayor had to sit on every board and committee and attend all city council meetings, but was not allowed to vote unless the council was deadlocked. The mayor’s power rested in his authority to oversee and enforce the city’s laws and ordinances and act as a “watchdog” when it came to the city council members. The mayor also appointed and removed the heads of the various municipal departments such as parks, sewers, etc. His decisions in this regard were not absolute, however, as the city council could also remove appointed ofiicials with a majority vote.6 The state allowed its cities to own and operate the public utilities and in fact stipulated that they could only lease or sell those rights to private companies with a three- 5 Charter of the City of Lansing, Michigan, 1925 (Amendments from the Charter passed 27 Aug. 1912), (Lansing: Franklin DeKleine Co., 1925), 2,8,17, 23, 108. Ibid, 2,8,17, 40. 57 11111151018 in a 1 to outline a deta exceed the estin rejects. the til) they did not exc. g 1 .5 11 Yet desp ”Willie muni done in ellectite particularly grid, 0‘1 lhflt dCSpite i 71111111611111] gm 8 tell limits and 11 01161111 Corning ‘ “Cation ofm t milling ofthe \ fifths vote in a general election. If the city wanted to make public improvements, it had to outline a detailed financial plan, present it to the residents for a vote, and it could not exceed the estimated construction costs by more than 10 percent. To pay for municipal projects, the city could borrow money against its own value and issue bonds as long as they did not exceed 5 percent interest.7 Yet despite desires for increased democracy, and state laws that attempted to restructure municipal governments, Lansing’s political leaders did what larger cities had done in effectively limiting popular participation. The control of city governments was particularly evident when it came to economic issues. For example, David Beito points out that, despite debt limits placed on municipalities at the end of the 19th century, “municipal governments discovered and utilized a multitude of devices to hurdle or evade debt limits and thus spend in excess of their tax take. Local governments outdid each other in coming up with ingenious methods to escape debt limits. These included the creation of new taxing and assessment districts, the levy of special assessments, and the juggling of the value of the assessments themselves.”8 Municipal leaders justified this financial manipulation by arguing that improvements to the city would mean greater prosperity to homeowners in terms of higher property values. As will be shown, Lansing’s elected officials became adept at using special assessments and diverting funds earmarked for one project to another. Furthermore, decisions concerning the direction and type of infiastructure were often handed over to professional engineers and planners who were not elected to their positions. The city engineer for example, had the authority to propose what parts of the city merited sewer 1 . Ibld, 129-1 3 l . 8 David Beito, Taxpayers in Revolt: Tax Resistance During the Great Depression, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 5. 58 t" “ ‘ 3"! 2‘.“ extensions. Fir council. which 1 general public.9 Despite political corrupt lansing's bUSllll lansing's grout for more livable muting neu ind achieving a certa Wing‘s mayor all had 10 due] stability, Manyt the“ 81111.8 Woulc nitronmem 10 11 Given m, mailers C1105e l0 011 1.1510115 of A mum and aSSOt I II 1a littlerate rt: lite and the u t(\\ 1.1“"th C11 . Hum-,1 extensions. First, he prepared cost analysis, and then submitted his plans to the city council, which generally acceded to his professional opinion, all without the input of the general public.9 Despite some of the unforeseen results of Progressive reforms to limit urban political corruption, and the limitations placed on the city government from the state, Lansing’s business and political leaders also faced pressures from within the city. Lansing’s growth occurred in the decades of municipal reform, thus reformers’ demands for more livable urban spaces forced them to figure out how to strike a balance between courting new industries in order to attract jobs and perpetuate urban growth, and achieving a certain “quality of life” standard for at least a portion of the city’s residents. Lansing’s mayors, City Council members, and its Chamber of Commerce also felt that they had to develop strategies that would retain workers and achieve a degree of social stability. Many experts at the time argued that the most prudent and efficient strategy to these ends would be through offering inexpensive city services and a cleaner urban environment to middle— class neighborhoods at the very minimum.” Given the spectrum of motivations and ideas behind late 19th and early 20th century reform efforts as previously discussed, it is not too surprising that urban decision makers chose to utilize certain elements of progressivism in order to accomplish their own visions of America. Lansing’s decision makers, for example, had observed the growth and associated problems in cities like Detroit and Chicago. They were convinced that moderate reforms would create an orderly and prosperous city where industry would thrive and the working classes would be pacified and content. They believed that an 9 Charter of the City of Lansing, Michigan, 2,8,17, 23, 108. See also Teaford, Cities of the Heartland, 121. '° Platt, City Building in the New South, xiv, xix. 59 efficiently plannt purpose. A mort note to and lint or in other word: violent confront: Lansing C it} Pl Eflons tc mun) attempts l'tlltéd States sin formed land grar Messional plar ““3530 domes chm“. The c Suburb One of t llmlltn 3_ Ha; llen‘ellm Park Suburban model lllttemn‘mhcl m Hasltell an efficiently planned city that incorporated elements of “nature” would serve a dual purpose. A more attractive, cleaner, and healthier city would entice people to want to move to and live in Lansing. They also believed that it would Americanize newcomers, or in other words, serve as a means of social control, so as the city grew, the potential for violent confrontations between workers and management would be avoided.11 Lansing City Planning Efforts to organize large-scale urban areas at the beginning of the twentieth century attempted to replicate the design and planning that had been going on in the United States since the mid 19th century in upscale suburbs and at some of the newly formed land grant universities such as the Michigan Agricultural College. Early on professional planners set out to create urban spaces they believed would foster the necessary domestic atmosphere to forming and perpetuating a unique American character. The canvas initially chosen by these professionals was the middle- class suburb. One of the first “garden suburbs” in this country was the product of developer Llewellyn S. Haskell and architect Alexander Jackson Davis. The two men created Llewellyn Park, New Jersey in 1857. In design, they borrowed from the English suburban model, but altered it to conform to American values and beliefs. For example, they attempted to blend the community into the surrounding landscape so as to accentuate the terrain, rather than make the homes the dominant geographic structures. At the same time, Haskell and Davis wanted to make the home the center of activity and learning ” Boyer, Urban Masses and Moral Order in America; Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias; Kenneth Jackson, Crabgrass Frontiers: The Suburbanization of the United States, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985); Joel Tarr and Gabriel DuPuy, eds., Technology and the Rise of the Networked City in Europe and America, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988); Samuel P. Hays, The Response to Industrialisrn, 1885-1914, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). 60 within the comm The midc‘ [alike in Europe intuit very pu ‘coarse.’ As a g public places the could comfortabi the {troll} parlor Taking a mix?” nature am in Olmsted ch. Whale step of t dim function. Sllbsequent desi; 0i'eflooked. He “was" that “Malice Ole: plump COmn: file 5 I mines of . ll - . tonerlone “ Ewan 8011th . ‘K \ . , r- a" iOrl. -L Bourke. within the ooimmiiiity.12 The middle- class who fled to these suburban utopias did so for various reasons. Unlike in EurOpe, most “public” space in the United States by the mid 19th century was just that, very public. Parks and squares were shared equally by the “refined” and the “coarse.” As a growing number of working class immigrants entered the cities and made public places their own, many in the middle-class retreated to spaces that they felt they could comfortably control such as private clubs, “public” rooms at hotels and ultimately the family parlor. Others left the cities because of the increased dirt, crime, and disease.13 Taking a cue from the early “garden suburbs,” some designers attempted to import nature and its supposed benefits into the central city. In this regard, Frederick Law Olmsted championed the fusion of wilderness and the built environment as the ultimate step of civilization. The parks he created were not just excellent examples of design, function, and beauty, but his theories explaining their importance and the subsequent design trends they sparked of bringing the countryside to the city cannot be overlooked. He believed that the 19th century city created a “peculiarly hard sort of selfishness” that could lead to the degeneration of society. He thus emphasized the importance of city parks or “urban nature” to help combat the strains of the growing industrial, commercial culture. Olmsted, however, soon grew disillusioned with the effectiveness of parks and resigned himself to the idea that it was only in the suburb where civility could truly thrive and he hoped that one day its benefits would be available to everyone. " '2 Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias, 125. '3 Bushman, The Refinement of America; Witold Rybczynski, City Life; Urban Expectations in a New World, (New York: Harpers Collins, 1995), 106-109. " Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias, 127-128. 61 Perhaps De loquet'ille’s to render life ea prefer the usefo ItsehtL' and that means and who abandon the obj. much of the ratie WM pollut As Lansi hit relegated be benefm Were me the “his design W for llnmed lans'mg the mos Perhaps Olrnsted’s philosophies and efforts were meant to counter some of Alexis De Toqueville’s earlier observations that Americans would “cultivate the arts that serve to render life easy in preference to those whose object is to adorn it. They will habitually prefer the useful to the beautiful, and they will require that the beautiful should be usefiil,” and that “there is always a multitude of persons whose wants are above their means and who are very willing to take up with imperfect satisfaction rather than abandon the object of their desires altogether.” These two statements deftly describe much of the rationale behind decisions made in Lansing and Salt Lake over their respective pollution problems in the 19205, 30s, and 405.” As Lansing grew, its leaders opted for a more conservative, pro-industry policy that relegated beauty and health to the fiinges, and only embraced it when its financial benefits were made obvious. While they would attempt to incorporate some ideas into the city’s design that would help make Lansing a more livable city, officials, in their quest for immediate profits, leaned more towards policies they believed would make Lansing the most profitable, and in the process settled for “imperfect satisfaction.”l6 Beginning as early as the 1880s, the city tried to provide basic services at a cheap price to attract new industries. Lansing owned its own water-works, and in 1892 purchased the privately owned Lansing Electric Light and made it a part of the Board of Water. During World War I, however, it became apparent that the city’s bridges, sewers, and streets were in need of major repairs while events nationally alter the war signaled to Lansing’s leaders that the Progressive- Era expectations of a minimum living standard combined with nation-wide worker violence meant that the city had both a need and an opportunity '5 Alexis De Toqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), 48-49. See also Rybczynski, City Life, 101. ‘6 De Toqueville, Democracy, Vol. II, 49. 62 to teautif) the c upheavals and a and people wou the slogan “Lari on a new city pl progressives an. In almos incorporated the consertationist r democracy at the add could increa Merit} for ex l'alues. m5 lite ademocratic spi Commodlfi ing it ”Commie and [h Bummer ethos. to beautify the city and improve its environmental health in order to avoid potential social upheavals and at the same time truly transform the city into a place where both industry and people would want to live.'7 That year, the Lansing Chamber of Commerce adopted the slogan “Lansing- the most progressive city in the U.S.A” and city leaders embarked on a new city planning program that borrowed and transformed the language and ideas of progressives and molded them to fit the interests of business and industry. '8 In almost every decision taken on environmental issues, Lansing’s leaders incorporated the economic utilitarian value of beauty that was pushed by the conservationist movement into the definitions and meanings associated with nature and democracy at the time-- that is nature was good for character building, Americanization, and could increase the democratic spirit, and that an efficient city would mean greater prosperity for everyone through increased commercial transactions and higher property values. Thus they attempted, as many in the U.S. did, to fuse the ideas of democracy and a democratic spirit with industrial capitalism and call them the same thing while commodifying nature in the process. They believed that nature’s primary value should be economic and that a democratic citizenry would be valuable only if it adhered to the consumer ethos. City leaders felt that they could both attract industries and native-bom workers, and at the same time make the city livable enough to retain and pacify a population of consumers. To do this however, they placed greater emphasis on industry and thus, when conflicts arose between creating a more healthful, and aesthetic place and commerce, they were more willing to accede to industries’ demands. '7 Kestenbaum, Out of a Wilderness, 64,66, 89. '8 “The City at 21 Turn of Ways,” Lansing State Journal, 1 January 1921, 1, and Lansing, Michigan; A Progressive American City, published by the Lansing Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the city, (Lansing: Dick Short and Co., 1926), 2, Lansing City Library Archives. 63 water—4:39. This con collection of bu: forenmner to th letters to compa result of their St and people had _ political and ecc With became : dflDOL‘TaC)‘, The and create an int mines.” Nowhere COllcge‘ Where e the beliefs Olen. bud gram Unite like “Vantage c officiak at th e 8‘ moslhere and l“ mail of the 98.31pm is like a t‘, - . r dWon of an “(than a , Hi This commercial spirit was evident by the end of the 19th century. In 1893, a collection of businessmen formed the Lansing Improvement Association, which was the forerunner to the Chamber of Commerce, and proceeded to send out more than 4,000 letters to companies in and around Michigan in the hopes of luring them to the city. As a result of their successes, new factories were being constructed, real estate values were up, and people had jobs. Despite some of the problems that occasion rapid growth, Lansing’s political and economic leaders were optimistic. For them, industrial and commercial growth became synonymous with definitions of progress, reform, and increased democracy. They confidently believed that they could simultaneously stimulate growth and create an inviting community in which to live with all the modern technological amenities.19 Nowhere were these attitudes better reflected than at the nearby state agricultural college, where efficiency, progress, and the fusion of nature and machine best describe the beliefs of engineers and university officials. One of the primary reasons for funding land grant universities was to develop and use science in practical ways that could best take advantage of America’s Industrial Revolution. Simultaneously, the planners and officials at the school have historically attempted to foster a “natural” or “park-like” atmosphere and look on the campus. Their reasons for doing so have changed over time, yet many of the school’s planners have historically worked under the belief that the campus is like a city in miniature. They have therefore attempted to create their definition of an idealized urban space in the hope that it would serve as a model to the ‘9 Kestenbaum, Out of a Wilderness, 66. mdhumc the built eni‘irc MRK nun er Emen Amfl dup the mul 11311.11 E; “he were farmer WWmdn dmmua founded in 1 mmhm mung” mini. but a, From it rest of the state as to how “nature” and technology could be more compatible in making the built environment more uplifting, livable, functional, and profitable.20 As Richard White points out, In thinking of themselves both as children of nature (nature’s nation) and as children of the machine (masters of American know-how) Americans were Emersonians. Emerson reconciled nature with the busy, manipulative world of American capitalism. He reconciled utilitarianism with idealism; he reconciled the practical and the spiritual. When humans acted on nature they did not defile it, they purified it. Emerson could simultaneously rejoice in the ability of the machine to subjugate and control nature and in the spiritual truth and inspiration nature provided.2 When Michigan Agricultural College was founded, most of the people in the state were farmers, and most of them believed that their children would become farmers. At the same time, Americans were also beginning to place more confidence in the abilities of science and technology. Thus the Michigan State Agricultural Society, which was founded in 1849, began a campaign to convince the state of the necessity for a college that could teach and train people to scientifically manage their farms. For this reason it was thought that a large amount of land was needed to create not just a “traditional” campus, but also one with enough space to conduct scientific agricultural experiments.22 From its founding, the campus was designed to have a natural yet idyllic appearance. The hill at what was the center of the campus, where the Beaumont Bell Tower now stands, was chosen as a building site, not just because of its elevation and centrality, but also because there was a clearing in that area with scattered oak trees that 2° Michigan Board ongricuIture, 1920, 59* Annual Report, (East Lansing: Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford State Printers, 1920), 185, Michigan State University Archives. 2' Richard White, The Organic Machine, 35. 22 Madison Kuhn, Michigan State: The First Hundred Years, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1955), 10. 65 | nteitarnanicu pnamuaml As the I searched for n hflmmm then was neer hwmm. thug finaubyl applying it In ll Mwnde c{titer of the wwhmhor but in 1921 kiii'lolln 35E mung, gave it a manicured look. Many early visitors to the campus commented on its pleasant appearance and described it as “one large park.”23 As the nation became more mechanized by the end of the 19‘" century, instructors searched for ways to best incorporate the rapidly changing sciences and technologies into their curriculums. Administrators and professors alike felt that one important element that was needed to accomplish this was a more powerful and reliable means of energy on the campus. In 1884 William K. Kedzie, professor of chemistry and agriculture, utilized an Olds engine to turn a dynamo which began furnishing electricity to the chemistry lab. This act by Kedzie was the first in a series that set a pattern for the university of supplying its own power.” In 1894 the college built its first large-scale boiler house that began furnishing heat and electricity to the entire campus. This facility was deliberately constructed at the center of the campus, next to all the other academic buildings. It quickly became obsolete, however, due to the rapid grth of the school, so a larger power plant was built in 1921 on the same spot as the original structure. The new building, which came to be known as the North Power plant continued operation until 1966 when it was finally torn down to make way for the new administration building on the main campus circle.” University officials believed that the institution should serve as an example to the rest of the state of how scientific planning and management could create an idealized living space and they saw themselves as the ones who were best qualified to bring this 23 Kuhn, Michigan State, 12; and Samuel W. Durant, Histories of Ingham and Eaton Counties, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Their Prominent Men and Pioneers, (Philadelphia: E.W. Ensign and Co, 1880), 79-80, Michigan State University Archives. 2‘ Kuhn, 191. 25 WJ. Bea], History of the Michigan Agricultural College, (East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural College, 1915), 100; and “Power Boost Near for MSU,” Lansing State Journal, 19 July 1966. 66 iision to frui park-like sett potter plant r buildings and electricit} as an important Expression by technologr p] American soc olnature and - in such a way “181 it Was C lindseape Sim; AS met Wilkes need. will Weigm L3“ They be intelligent reg] he SChOo] thug iBillie and in); Department of to, tng residep \ I0 vision to fruition. Thus the decision to build a power plant in the middle of their idyllic park-like setting was not viewed as an incompatible relationship. The location of the power plant can partially be explained through expediency- it was close to the rest of the buildings and school officials and engineers wanted to provide both heating and electricity as efficiently as possible. Additionally, it rested next to the Red Cedar River, an important water supply. The location of the North Plant was also a symbolic expression by engineers and University officials of the central importance that technology played in the school’s curriculum and the role they believed it should play in American society and culture. It also represented a belief in the compatibility and fusion of nature and the machine. The architecture of the North Plant for example was designed in such a way as to blend in with the rest of the buildings and the “natural” surroundings in that it was constructed with the same red brick as the other buildings, and it was landscape similarly with trees, ivy, hedges, and grass.26 As mentioned the State Agricultural Society believed that science and agricultural practices needed to be fused into one discipline, thus the school emphasized a curriculum heavily weighted to these two disciplines rather than traditional subjects like Greek and Latin. They believed that a scientific-agricultural education would make farmers more intelligent, responsible, prosperous, happy, and therefore better citizens. The founders of the school thus subscribed to the idea that the fusion of technology and nature could both inspire and improve Americans’ lives and characters. As an example of this, the school’s Department of Horticulture routinely offered summer classes to Lansing and East Lansing residents on scientific fi'uit growing practices. The school also attempted to 2" “Campus Development Plan,” (Michigan State University: Division of Campus Planning and Maintenance, October 1966), Michigan State University Archives. 67 follow economic trends as the Dean of Horticulture noted in 1920 that floriculture had become more economically important to the state and that “courses, greenhouses, and a new building should be constructed to help that industry grow.”27 The role of the college’s extension services was also focused on transforming the mentality of the state’s people into a more modern, scientific, and even urban outlook. Along these lines the school offered courses to the state’s population through extension services. The Home Economics division traveled extensively throughout the state offering classes on nutrition, household management, and conducting sanitary milk campaigns. In 1919 alone over 26,000 people attended these classes while women in several of the towns organized their own community campaigns to get schools to serve milk to children twice a day as a result of the extension’s efforts. The Home Economics Division as well as the M.A.C.’s experiment station also combined forces with the Michigan Milk Producers Association, several Wayne County creameries, the Detroit Federation of Women’s Clubs, and the Detroit Federation of Labor to exam and improve sanitation, production, marketing, and distribution practices for that industry. It also worked with homebuilders and the construction trades in building several model homes with all the modern conveniences in both urban and rural settings, and then inviting the public to several open houses to witness demonstrations. As a result of this program, several merchants reported that they were having difficulty keeping some of the less expensive labor saving devices in stock.28 The agricultural college, the city of Lansing, and many of the local industries also shared technological information and often cooperated on several projects. For example, 27 Kuhn, Michigan State, 30, Michigan Board of Agriculture, 1913, 47, and Michigan Board of Agriculture, 1 920, 44. 28 Michigan Board of Agriculture, 1920, 185, 541, 192. 68 the I). liif Mr colleg: expert and te. ZCCQTE CORSET the Duplex Truck, REO Motor, and Olds Motor Companies routinely donated vehicles to the Mechanical Engineering Department for classes, and recruited a number of the college’s graduates. The Mechanical Engineering Department also ran several tests and experiments for Lansing’s Board of Water and Light, including having seniors monitor and test boilers at the city’s Moores’ Park power plant and run tests to assure the accuracy of utility meters.29 The school and its professors also assisted the city and the state regarding road construction. In the second decade of the 19003, several state boosters, seeing the economic possibilities connected to the automobile in terms of shipping and tourism, brought together engineers, local, county, and state officials to form the Michigan Good Roads Association. In 1923 the campus hosted a convention sponsored by this group which was an organization funded and staffed jointly by state agencies and private individuals. The college was chosen as the host thanks in large part to J. Edward Roe, who was a trustee from Lansing, serving on the board. Robert Shaw, head of the Engineering Department, “had personally taken a great interest in the coming convention, which is deemed by the college authorities to be of exceptional importance and of educational value to the student body of the college, especially to engineering and agricultural students.” In addition, the Lansing Chamber of Commerce also assisted in the arrangements. Several M.A.C. professors and two students presented papers during the three- day event and the engineering department made its labs and classrooms 2’ Mchigan Board ongricuIture, 1920, 64; Michigan Board ongriculture, 1922, 68-69; Michigan Board of Agriculture, 1924, 7S, and Michigan Board of Agriculture, 1 925, 66. 69 at allabl in truth engineer concern “'35 ion built-in . hf: 3th}. Widtmii the near] 1’83me resulting 5“ Era] ( Lansing mum] available to the convention goers and conducted demonstrations of the work it was doing in conjunction with state efforts to better Michigan’s roads.3o There is also a connection between Lansing, private businesses and the college’s engineers concerning scientific management when it came to water. One of the primary concerns in Lansing in the first third of the 20“I century was over the future availability and healthfulness of its water supply. This issue is somewhat ironic given the relatively abundant annual rainfall and the fact that two rivers run through Lansing. The city however relied upon deep wells as its main source of water for drinking and bathing because the rivers were already too polluted for human consumption by 1900. The city was fortunate that the porous rock deposits upon which the community rested acted as a built-in filtration system, thus ensuring the groundwater to be relatively clean and healthy. In 1908, however, contaminated water at one of the substations caused a cholera epidemic. Apparently one of the casings had begun to leak allowing sewage from one of the nearby trunk sewer lines to seep in. This problem was seemingly corrected, only to reappear in 1919 when sewage overflowed into the city’s water system after heavy rains resulting in the illness of hundreds. The city’s schools and factories were closed for several days and people were warned to boil their water for fear of typhoid.31 Also, with Lansing growing as rapidly as it was, the water supply was believed to be close to its maximum output and the forced closing of one of the city’s main wells due to the earlier 3° “Plans for Big Roads Convention at East Lansing, Nov. 6,7, and 8,” Michigan Roads and Pavements, (Sept. 20, 1923): 4. “College Committee Co-Operating in Road Convention Plans,” Michigan Roads and Pavements, (Sept. 27, 1923): 5, and “Accomplishments of Good Roads Association,” Michigan Roads and Pavements, (Nov. 8, 1923): l. 3' Kestenbaum, Out of a Wilderness, 90. 70 17. W. system. Will] ab system c the first assuan Most be for expel public he i310“ led iii-“1 hate America Wanner}. epidemic signaled potential water shortages and a need to expand and improve the system.32 The city had a few options regarding how it could increase the water supply. By 1900 about 1,100 of 1,500 communities with a population over 3,000 had a sewage system of some type. From the last two decades of the 19‘" century and at least through the first decade of the 20‘“, sanitary engineers had generally operated under the assumption that untreated sewage could be safely disposed of into nearby waterways. Most believed that streams would purify themselves through dilution, negating any need for expensive treatment plants. Debates within the engineering profession and with public health officials did exist though. As the field continued to develop and as a greater knowledge and understanding concerning the origins of disease improved, some argued that water needed to be treated at the source. By 1920 approximately 20 percent of America’s urban population had treated sewage and by 1929 there were 37 sewer treatment plants in Michigan.33 The national attitudes of sanitary engineers were reflected in the opinions of both the engineers at the College and Lansing itself. The Grand River runs through the town, but raw sewage was being dumped in it with the assumption that the streams would purify themselves through dilution. Engineers also pointed to the natural filtration system that existed in the Lansing area. As the city continued to grow, though, concerns 32 BB. Huntley and J .O. Gower, “The Water Supply System of Lansing, Michigan,” (BS thesis, Michigan Agricultural College, 1924), (no page numbers); R.L. Tellrnan, “The Feasibility of Increasing the Water Supply of Lansing, Michigan,” (BS thesis, Michigan Agricultural College, 1926), 16; H.I. Duthies and H.S. Peterson, “An Investigation of the Lansing Water Supply,” (BS thesis, Michigan Agricultural College, 1911), 12-13. All these studies credit Hoad, Decker, Shoecrafi, and Drury Engineering ofAnn Arbor with helping them in these studies. Hoad, Decker, etc. was hired by the city of Lansing to work with the city engineer, a Mr. Pollock, and to make a survey and design a wastewater system for the city. 33 Melosi, The Sanitary City, 172-173. See also, “Introductory speech to 2"" annual meeting of Michigan Sewage Works Association”, 24 January 1929, Records of the Michigan Sewage Works Association, 1925- 1940, State Archives of Michigan. 71 J' t nun?!“ I fl r Ari-it. 85343.0( thought Lansing They be cast of a PTOPOSee arose over the availability of a clean and cheap source of water. If the city wanted or needed to use the Grand River in the future, it would have had to construct both sewage and water treatment plants. The estimated cost to construct the sewage plant alone was $530,000, plus approximately $90,000 a year to run and maintain it.34 The pervasive thought among many of the engineers in the city and at the Agicultural College was that Lansing was too small to warrant the expense of a sewage treatment plant at that time. They believed that if Lansing began approaching the size of Toledo or Detroit, then the cost of a treatment plant would be both needed and justified. In the interim, they proposed digging deeper wells as a reasonable short-terrn solution.35 Thus, to many of Lansing’s engineers and city officials, the economic costs of building a treatment plant in the 19105 and early ‘203 exceeded the benefits. Because Lansing had the advantage of a relatively clean and cheap ground-water supply and a relatively small population, the city’s use of the Grand River as a natural sewer seemed to be a convenient and cheap altemative. These same engineers recommended that the city invest in higher capacity pumps that could simultaneously reach deeper into the earth and produce more water. It was believed, too, that drilling deeper wells gave the added benefit of reducing the risk of contamination to the water supply.”5 Martin Melosi also points out that just as an understanding of sanitary practices slowly evolved, so did knowledge of the repercussions of underground sewer ::Huntley and Gower, “The Water Supply System of Lansing, Michigan.” Ibid. 3" Huntley and Gower, “The Water Supply System of Lansing, Michigan,” Tellman, “The Feasibility of Increasing the Water Supply of Lansing, Michigan,” Duthies and Peterson, “An Investigation of the Lansing Water Supply.” See also, Ofiicial Proceedings of the City Council, City of Lansing, 4 June 1926 and 9 August 1926, (Lansing: Franklin Dekleine Co.), 1927. Letter from D.C. Hoad, Ann Arbor, to Colonel Edward D. Rich, Director, Bureau of Engineering, State Health Department, 6 January 1927, State of Michigan Archives, City of Lansing Documents Collection. 72 from Sta inl9ll. construction. As municipalities and states began litigation against each other, primarily after 1920, over the health of streams, cities were forced to reconsider their wastewater systems. This tended to heighten the debate in municipalities over how best to deal with sewage, using either filtration or treatment. The increased understanding of the inner- connectedness of communities within the region also played an important role in states assuming greater regulatory powers over municipal sanitation issues.37 In the second decade of the 20‘h century, though, Lansing was still relatively free from state oversight and it opted for the cheapest alternative. The city dug six deep wells in 1911, added a pumping substation in 1914 which included an electric deep-well pump, constructed a 3 million gallon reservoir in 1917, and added six new pumping stations beginning in 1923. The city chose not to inform the public of the option to build any sort of treatment plant at that time. Instead they told Lansing residents that deeper wells and prunping stations were the cheapest and most efficient way to go.” The City Council seemed to follow the advice of its engineering department regarding cost analysis and construction of the sewers and waterlines. According to the city charter, public improvements such as sewer extensions or street paving had to be studied by the engineering department to determine costs etc. and then the engineer’s recommendations would be voted on by the council. It is not until 1926 that Mayor Alfred Doughty emphasized to the City Council that “definite steps need to be taken toward elimination of river pollution,” and that a filtration system needed to be studied and built. Despite the warning from the mayor, D.C. Hoad from the engineering firm of Hoad and Decker which advised the city on many issues and held several contracts to 3" Melosi, The Sanitary City, 173-174. 38Huntley and Gower, “The Water Supply System of Lansing, Michigan.” 73 build : well-v thereft from o the Cir. '305. h grout; Bern ft or both Occasio rapid g1 build sewer extensions and do other work, in 1927 continued to insist that as long as safe well-water existed, the lakes and rivers would not be needed for consumption and therefore, cleaning up those bodies of water would be a waste of time and money. The city chose to accept this opinion and, as a result, Lansing would eventually face litigation fiom other downstream communities that bore the brunt of Lansing’s decision to pollute the Grand River, as well as pressure from the state to build a treatment plant.39 Though building a treatment plant was a low priority for the city in the 1910s and ‘20s, how to provide sewer service remained a chronic problem. Lansing’s steady growth challenged the city’s financial resources in a never- ending battle to keep pace. Between] 910 and 1940 newer sections of the city were constantly without water, sewer, or both. A large part of the problem stemmed fiom the fact that new subdivisions and, occasionally, factories, were built before these services had been extended to them. Such rapid growth of the city also belied the desires of some reformers who wanted controlled and planned growth. But limiting growth ran counter to the prevailing ideology among municipal leaders throughout the country that constant expansion was the lifeblood of a city and its economy."0 The pro-growth, capitalist mentality of Lansing’s leaders shaped the way they viewed the city and how they believed it could be improved during the 1920s—including those related to urban nature, parks, homeownership, and the general organization of the city. For example, Mayor Alfred Doughty and the city councihnen felt that the main park, Potter, had become overcrowded, so in 1920 they added three new parks to their 39Ofi'icial Proceedings of the City Council, City of Lansing, 4 June 1926 and 9 August 1926. D.C. Hoad, Ann Arbor, to Colonel Edward D. Rich, Director, Bureau of Engineering, State Health Department, 6 1, nary 1927, State of Michigan Archives, City of Lansing Doctunents Collection. fl, .. Robert Fogelson, The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles 1850-1930, (Berkeley: University of 74 S}Sl€m The} al Atenue resume with the Lansing ”promot continue $138.50: Golf Cou- l930$ to system thanks in part to a generous land donation fi'om a local resident, J. Henry Moores. They also determined that it was important to have a park on the east side along Michigan Avenue due to the fact that many visitors passed through the city using that street. They reasoned that having a park in the area would serve as a positive reflection on the city with the added benefit of providing additional space for public recreation. In 1923 Lansing spent almost $118,000, or 7.9 percent of its municipal revenues on the “promotion of cleanliness and sanitation?“ According to the 1930 census, Lansing continued to appropriate a fair amount of money on such services. It spent about $128,500 on recreation with a little over $75,000 going towards parks and tree plantings. Golf courses counted as parks and the city constructed two public golf courses during the 19208 to complement a private course that had been built in 1919.42 Additionally, Lansing was spending about 45 cents per capita on “conservation of health” progams and a $1.51 per capita on sanitation and or the promotion of cleanliness. These figures are about in the middle of what some other comparably sized cities such as Sioux City, Iowa and Tulsa, Oklahoma spent."3 “ Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population of Over 30, 000, 1923, (Washington: Goverrunent Printing Office, 1925); Oflicial Proceedings of the City Council, City of Lansing, 25 January 1926; “New Parks Are Added To City,” Lansing State Journal, 1 Jan. 1921, 10 ‘2 The amount of money Lansing spent on recreation, parks and tree plantings compared favorably to similar sized and larger cities. For Example, Salt Lake spent $255,019 on recreation with $166,246 of that money going towards parks and trees. Flint, an even larger city, spent $144,660 on recreation with only $69,681 dollars going towards parks and trees. Of course these statistics do not account for the degee of improvements already made in other cities, or the extent of those municipalities’ infrastructures. Ofi'icial Proceedings of the City Council, City of Lansing, 25 January 1926. See also U.S. Department of Commerce- Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population Over 30, 000: 1930, (Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Ofiice, 1932); see also, “New Parks Are Added To City,” Lansing State Journal, 1 Jan. 1921, 10; Art McCafl’erty, “Michigan Golf History 1911-1920,” and “A History of Michigan Golf: 1921-1930” in Michigan Golfer Magazine (June 1999), and (July 1999), at www.webgolfer.com/june99/histm.html and www.webgolfer.com/iulv99/histogy.htmi. ‘3 Lansing ranked #111 in population, Tulsa was #58, Des Moines #56, St Joseph, Missouri #107, Sioux City #110, Pawtucket, Rhode Island #111, Flint, Michigan #51, and Salt Lake City #57. Sioux City spent .39 cents per capita on “conservation of health” and $2.20 per capita on “sanitation and or the promotion of cleanliness,” while St. Joseph spent .48 cents on “conservation of health,” but only .36 cents on “sanitation 75 It also decided to strengthen laws associated with food sanitation. In 1873 the state created a board of health in response to the professionalization of the medical profession and the call by doctors for improved hygienic and sanitary conditions throughout the state. The mission of the department was to educate the public on pr0per cleanliness habits and to secure better sewage and water systems for Michigan’s cities. This group of reformers tied their proposals to economics that were centered on growth by arguing that poor hygienic and sanitary conditions in the state resulted in deaths and illnesses to workers, which equated to slower production rates for industry, and also discouraged new people from moving to the state. Beginning in 1885, the board began a campaign to encouraged cities to conduct sanitary surveys and inspections of the municipalities’ water and food. The State Board of Health urged newspapers and private organizations to assist in educating the rest of the public in this process. One positive result was that in 1903, under pressure from women reformers, the state passed a law regulating meat and dairy processing plants. In this context, Lansing decided in 1921 to strengthen already existing state laws by requiring food inspectors to perform their inspections more frequently and the city forced all food handlers to undergo training for proper and safe handling techniques.44 City and commercial leaders also began to place greater emphasis on home ownership. As part of a public relations campaign and in conjunction with the municipal government, the board of realtors and the construction trades embarked on a series of or promotion of cleanliness.” Flint spent .70 cents per capita on “conservation of health and $2.60 per capita on “sanitation and or promotion of cleanliness” and Salt Lake spent .51 cents per capita on “conservation of health and $1.15 per capita on “sanitation and or promotion of cleanliness.” U.S. Department of Commerce- Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population Over 30,000: 1930, (Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1932). ““City Health Guard Firm,” Lansing State Journal, 1 Jan. 1921, 33. See, Earle E. Kleinschmidt, “The Sanitary Reform Movement in Michigan,” Michigan History Magazine, (summer 1942): 373-401. Keasha Palmer, “Women Who Made a Difference,” Michigan History Magazine, (March/April 2000): 47—53. 76 "2 . an ad dag":- also top mun The seminars that encouraged workers to begin saving to purchase a new home. The lectures also focused on educating the public on how to make the city cleaner and more appealing to potential residents, and boosting the local economy. Eric Monkkonen argues that municipalities were motivated by two connected reasons to encourage home ownership. The first had to do with creating a positive environment for the individual and the family, while the second emphasized communal ties. Monkkonen points out that influential government officials like Herbert Hoover stressed the importance of homeownership because, “control of home quality was thought to have great promise for improving a people.”45 Since Americans have historically enjoyed easier access to property than most modern societies, particularly through homeownership, Americans have “great passion and self- interest to local politics through the tax on real property,” which results in greater ties to the community according to Monkkonen.46 Indeed, attitudes equating the sanctity of homeownership in the United States with Americanism originated in the early 18005 as a defense against immorality and the societal changes that began taking place due to industrialization. In 1853 Reverend William G. Eliot Jr.’s declaration is indicative of such attitudes in America about the importance of the home. He stated, “The foundation of our free institutions is in our love, as a people, of our homes. The strength of our country is found, not in the declaration that all men are free and equal, but in the quiet influence of the fireside, the bonds which unite together in the family circle. The comer-stone of our republic is the hearth-stone.”47 Catherine Beecher, who has been credited as one of the important early ‘5 Eric Monkkonen, America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities and Towns, 1780-1980, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 187. ‘6 Ibid., 186-187. ‘7 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 48. 77 V010 that that atru like thei mofi com voices in shaping American urban planning, expressed similar sentiments. She believed that “the United States was the hope of the world, but that hope could only be realized through the beneficent influence of women,” and “could only take place in the context of a truly spiritualized American home.” In other words, through the influence of writers like Beecher, attempts were made to transform the American home into a haven against the ills of industrialization and at the same time to define it as the exclusive domain of a mother’s influence, where women could “integrate personal and national goals.” This combination meant that the home would be considered the primary place where the necessary middle-class virtues would be taught to create what people believed would be a unique and morally superior nation. Yet, it was argued, this vision could be accomplished only if the home was clean, healthy and safe.48 Beecher’s pronouncements also reveal an attempt to enlarge the value and sphere of women and women’s work. Factories began to depersonalize the workforce, the home, and the traditional family hierarchy. Women, who had been given the role as caretakers of morality and teachers of democratic principles, found themselves less available to teach their children as they were forced into factory work. Beecher called upon society and women to reassert themselves not just for the sake of their own families in the home, but to be more publicly involved for the improvement of society as a whole.49 Beecher’s message was an elaborated view of earlier Americans such as Thomas Jefferson who had made a connection between homeownership, democracy and morality over fifty years earlier. Jefferson argued that the independent landowner was necessary ‘8 Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias, 123. See also Kathryn Kish Sklar, Catharine Beecher: A Stuay in American Domesticity, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), xii-xiii. ‘9 Sklar, Catharine Beecher, xiii. 78 to the maintenance of a virtuous and democratic nation. Jefferson of course was referring to the maintenance of a population of small farmers. Nevertheless his ideas can be refashioned with a more modern application to explain the psyche of the urban, American homeowner. Historically, city planners, politicians, community reformers, and historians have connected Jefferson’s ideas to the urban setting. They have equated Homeownership with an independent citizenry that has a vested interest in the well- being of its community. Robert Macieski has shown in his study of Bridgeport, Connecticut that reformers, business, and political leaders joined forces in an attempt to provide more, and better organized housing to the growing number of ethnic workers in that city due to the demands of World War I. Worker strikes and protests, which were bolstered by support from immigrant neighborhoods, prompted concern and action. Those who pushed for better housing did so as part of a larger plan of reorganizing the built environment with the belief that a better urban structure would solve most of the perceived labor and cultural problems.50 Further, Thomas Sugrue demonstrates that during and after World War II in Detroit homeownership was as much an identity as a financial investment for recent immigrants. Many East European immigrants and their children regarded the home as the repository of family values and the center of community life. Homeownership represented financial success and evidence that these newcomers had become truly American. Additionally, a well kept home and yard served as tangible evidence of hard- work, upward mobility, and middle-class values. Becky Nicolaides also argues that home ownership among working-class suburbanites in post- World War 11 Los Angeles 5° Robert Macieski, “The Home of the Workingmarr is the Balance Wheel of Democracy; Housing Reform in Wartime Bridgeport,” Journal of Urban History, (Sept. 2000): 720, 723. 79 represented “a distinct basis of identity for laboring-class residents that set them apart from other suburban interest groups,” and that they “sought to protect the security they had achieved through owning a home.”“ As Kenneth Jackson also points out, business and political leaders wanted citizens to own their homes because they believed that workers would be much more reluctant to strike for fear of losing their jobs. Companies such as the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Provident Institution for Savings routinely scoffed at the potential for work stoppages, reasoning that their employees, “own their homes, and therefore, cannot afford to strike.”52 Finally, land and' home ownership have also meant the possibility of greater economic gain. In fact much of the history of the settlement of the United States has been fueled by land speculation and the city became the penultimate arena for such an endeavor. As Robert F ishman writes and as William Cronon documents, “The American city was always a kind of double speculation-- the effort to lure a critical mass of capital and skills to a speculative urban center in order to open up the surrounding territory for speculative sale as farmland.” By having more people own their own homes, the fortunes of the factory and the city become tied to those of the working- class homeowner in terms of stable jobs and rising home values. This fact helped municipal elites across the nation limit democratic participation. Urban elites also used this as leverage to discourage the creation of too comprehensive and wide-scale improvements that were suggested by professional urban planners and other reformers by arguing that to effect too many changes would require proportionately raising property taxes over and above the value of 5' Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis, 213, and Nicolaides, My Blue Heaven, 148. 52 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 51. 80 1101 thn hon 353 ml (the its P50; homes.’3 To this end, residents in a working- class suburb of Los Angeles concurred. They often voted against municipal improvements for fear that increased taxes would threaten their precarious hold on homeownership. This working-class group saw homeownership, as well as the ability to grow crops and raise chickens on their property as a means of economic self-protection and a modicum of economic control against a cash economy and industrial capitalism.54 It would appear that the ideas of Lansing officials paralleled the philosophies of others around the country concerning the importance of and reasons for creating housing opportunities. In 1918 Lansing hosted its fust annual “Own-A-Home” exposition to help people develop financial strategies to buy their own houses. World War I had brought several people to the city creating even more pressure on an already tight market. In 1920 the RE. Olds Company announced that it was going to need 2000 new workers, and the Durant Motor Works also began construction on a new factory. To help try and ease the problems of growth, each summer the city began holding weekly seminars throughout the city in churches, private homes, and in municipal buildings to instruct people on ways to save for their own homes. In 1921 the city adopted the slogan “Out of the Jungle, Into 53 Robert Fishman, ed., The American Planning Tradition: Culture and Policy, (Washington D.C.; The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2000), 3-4. William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, (New York: W.W. Norton Co, 1992). As evidence of city governments’ limiting democratic participation, in Los Angeles for example, the city government and the Chamber of Commerce commissioned the planning firms of the Olmsted Brothers and of Harland Bartholomew to create a comprehensive city plan for that community. After three years of work and over $80,000 spent, the plan was quietly shelved. The same thing happened in Lansing. They hired Bartholomew in 1920. His plan was not published in the papers, nor was there any public hearings as to his findings. (The newspaper is not indexed, but I searched several issues of the paper on the key dates key dates surrounding important announcements and did not find anything). However, unlike in L.A., the state insisted on retaining Bartholomew in 1938 and having the city incorporate some of his ideas into the capital building plan. Lansing also neglected to inform its citizens of the possibility of building an incinerator plant as a means to get rid of its garbage. Instead it continued to use a pig farm as will be explained in the next chapter. See Harland Bartholomew, The Lansing City Plan; A Comprehensive City Plan Report for Lansing, Michigan, (St. Louis: Harland Bartholomew and Associates, 1922 and 1938). See also Hise and Deverell, Eden By Design. 5‘ Nicolaides, My Blue Heaven, 137-138. 81 i..- “:1 her COT M; Jon the 1 the 3 11614) citie depe “Hill the Homes” as its motto for that years exposition. The speakers discussed such issues as “A home is more than a house, it makes you part of the community,” and “Don’t wonder how your neighbor was able to buy a home--start saving now and get one.” The comments from a member of the local realty board best capture the motivations and spirit behind these week- long drives, “Right now, I contend, there is nowhere a more important patriotic service than home building?”5 In conjunction with the city’s efforts to promote homeownership, the State Journal devoted a page each Saturday to different aspects of home buying in addition to the daily ads that publicized homes for sale. The section, entitled “Home Building is in the Minds of All the People” generally highlighted new types of construction techniques, news of new housing tracts being built, and articles discussing housing issues in other cities. Homes in Lansing generally cost between two and five thousand dollars depending on size, amenities, and location. Many of the newer homes that had 6 rooms, gas, water, sewer, and electric lights went for $4500 to $5000 and required $500 down and monthly payments of $50- a sum not totally out of reach of Lansing factory workers if they scrimped and saved.’6 By the 1920s, many working class people were able to move out of their cottages into these nicer bungalows due to changes in construction designs, cheaper materials, higher wages and steadier employment compared to previous decades of the industrial era. “Housing, like cars were mass marketed, and represented a confluence, the joining together of a pervasive and disseminating middle-class culture 55 “Own- a- Home Day Is Busy,” State Journal, 20 Jan. 1921, 2, and Lansing City Directory, vol. xxii, (Chilson, McKinley and Co., 1922); Kestenbaum, Out of a Wilderness, 89; “Out of Jungle Into the Homes,” State Journal, 13 Aug. 1921, 9. 5" “Own a Home,” State Journal, 20 Oct. 1920, 16-17; “Finish Half Big Building Program,” State Journal, 6 Aug. 1921,11. Prices and amenities ofhomes come from looking at the ads in the paper. 82 C012 Um: the effo min. ahet b lite: F631? note Sbou mm. min: th a very large and improving low-end market.”57 Lansing’s efforts to help residents purchase their own homes with the idea of nnecting their fortunes to industry and the larger community seemed to work for a me. For example the city saw no major strikes up through 1932 and the newspaper and 3 Chamber of Commerce used this as a selling point to lure new businesses. The city’s forts in conjunction with private organizations also effectively helped integrate some inorities into the community. Lansing had no “Chinatowns,” “Greektowns,” or “Black lettoes.” Immigrants were scattered throughout the city. Most African- Americans 'ed in racially mixed neighborhoods before the 19403 and ‘505 despite a few deed strictions that were in place at the beginning of the century. A report in the newspaper ited that of the 1100 people attending the fi'ee public evening schools, 10 percent were migrants. H.B McKale, who was in charge of the school commented that he was nxious to establish schools in shops and factories throughout the city. Experience ows that the largest number can be reached in this way, for the reason that the migrant feels the strongest tie to the place where he is gainfully employed.” He also tinted out that classes for immigrants had been held at the REO plant for some time and at they had “done a good job? He finished by expressing his belief that, “if instruction English and citizenship were carried on in all shops of the city, Lansing would soon ve no foreign populations except as new people came in.”58 A study solicited by msing and done just a few years later by a professor fi'om the college confirmed that the y’s joint efforts at Americanizing the population were going well. He noted that: .ocal educational, civic, and religious institutions have co-operated in a hearty manner Joseph Bigott, From Cottage to Bungalow: Houses and the Working Class in Metropolitan Chicago, 6 9-1929, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 9-10. “Immigration Spurt Being Shown Here,” State Journal, 23 Oct. 1920, 2. 83 to assist in assirnilating the newcomer. Industrial organizations. . . are always eager to play their part in the community Americanization program?”9 The city’s efforts to encourage homeownership played an important role in its Americanization process and also helped the majority of residents purchase their own homes. Lansing’s homeownership rates increased from roughly 48.5 percent in 1916 to a little over 59 percent by the end of 1926 in a city where 56 percent of the workforce labored in factories. Census figures indicate that home ownership was fairly steady statewide. In 1930 58.1 percent of residents in Ingham County (home of Lansing) owned their own homes. Statewide, 58.3 percent of Michigan residents either owned their homes outright or were paying a mortgage compared to 47.8 percent nationwide. By 1940, even with the Depression, a little over 50 percent of Lansing’s residents still owned their homes while that percentage was 56.6 percent for the “Lansing district” and still much higher than the national average of 43.6 percent.60 It is interesting to note though, that the Lansing Chamber of Commerce reported in 1926 that the bucolic town of East Lansing had become “a preferred suburb of Lansing businessmen” with “not a single factory within its confmes—and not one is desired.” It would seem then, that Lansing’s 59 This is not to suggest in any way that African-Americans were treated as equals in the city. Merely that there were conscious attempts to disperse minorities throughout the city and at least physically integrate them into neighborhoods as part of a concerted “Americanization” program. Allen Bennett Forsberg, “A City of Progressive Industry, Satisfied Workers, and Financial Soundness,” excerpt found in State Journal, 1 January 1927, 8-9. See also Douglas K. Meyer, “The Changing Negro Residential Patterns in Lansing, Michigan, 1850-1969,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970), 94, 98. 60Forsberg, “A City of Progressive Industry, Satisfied Workers, and Financial Soundness,” insert in the State Journal, 1 January 1927, 19. 1930 Census Book and 1940 Census Book, from the 1930 census, Michigan had 488,754 dwellings that were owned outright or mortgaged compared to 349,054 rented units. These figures reflect 1920 statistics. From the census of 1940 Ingham County’s population was 130,616, up fiom 116,587 in 1930. The 58.1% homeownership rate reflects figures from 1930. The percent urban of Ingham County fell between 1930 and 1940 from 73% to 67%. Lansing Chamber of Commerce, Lansing, Michigan: A Progressive American City, (Lansing: Dick Short and Co., 1926). Of the 22,471 homes in Lansing that were occupied in 1940, 11,422, or just over half were owner occupied. Also 71% of homes in Lansing by 1941 were single- family detached buildings. See 16” Census ofthe United States: 1940, Housing Vol. 11, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943). 84 financially better off had no problems helping the working classes physically link their status as homeowners and their precarious positions in the lower-middle classes to the factories and smokestacks they could see outside their windows on a daily basis while simultaneously shielding that connection from their families who lived in healthier and more pleasant surroundings.6| Municipalities and states were not the only ones promoting home ownership as well as more rational, planned, land-use patterns. Well before the Great Depression and the New Deal, the federal government had created incentives to turn America into a nation of homeowners. During World War I government housing planners attempted to create neighborhoods and communities that would foster a more cohesive and democratic society. In order to accomplish this, planners included parks, central squares, and recreation fields where people could meet and socialize. In addition, planners frequently called for community buildings of some sort. Gail Radford insists that while planners subscribed to “the molding power of architecture,” they were not trying to “control” or manipulate, they were simply promoting a non-class-specific local community life.62 Along these lines, Herbert Hoover, as the Secretary of Commerce, had created the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act in 1926. Every state adopted one form or another of the Zoning Act, which was designed in part to protect homeowners from the incursions of industry. The State of Michigan, along with half of the 48 states, also immediately accepted another federal government regulation, the Standard City Planning Enabling Act in 1928, which provided for each municipality within a state to create a city plan commission that would have power to adopt a master city plan and act as an advisory 6' Kestenbaum, Out of a Wilderness, 94. 62 Gail Radford, Modern Housing for America: Policy Struggles in the New Deal Era, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 38, 42. 85 C01 hm “E the bu 411C ha: 3'1“. Chi committee to various city government departments on matters affecting the physical growth of the municipality.63 Cities needed to create more livable spaces and pay attention to issues like housing, planning, and zoning because an increasing number of middle- class Americans were migrating to the suburbs in the first three decades of the 20th century, taking with them an important tax base and leaving cities with the option of levying higher taxes on business and industry and on the working-classes, or developing strategies so that people would want to stay in the city. Jon Teaford points out, for example, that Oakland County, Michigan, which is approximately sixty miles north of Lansing and just west of Detroit, saw its population more than double fiom 90,050 to 211,251 between 1920 and 1930, without having a true “city.” Teaford speculates that this prewar suburbanization was the result of an anti-urban sentiment. He believes that many desired to live in a rural setting characterized by “the small, the intimate, and the homogeneous— characteristics. . .associated with village life.” Additionally, Teaford writes that those who moved forty-five minutes outside of cities, “sought to preserve the green open space and clear waters of the rural past and longed nostalgically for the fields and forests that had first drawn them from the city.” As part of their idyllic visions, these people valued small government and relied on volunteerism and “governmental intimacy,” characteristics not associated with large cities.‘54 Perhaps, as a response to the growing suburban pressures and a fear that the working classes could potentially move into East Lansing, and certamly as a result of the 63 Oflicial Proceedings of the City Council, City of Lansing, 24 Aug. 1937. See also “Standard City Planning Enabling Act,” at www.plcd.com/landuse/SCPEA and “Discriminatory Acts of Zoning,” at www.cnnenedu/pubne/geo/book/e233discinnnum. 5‘ Teaford, Post- Suburbia, 5-7. 86 need for more and better housing, haphazard growth, and poor city services, Lansing, in 1920, decided to create its own city planning commission. In 1916, as filrther evidence of the link between the influence of the Michigan Agricultural College and Lansing, Professor Edward Lindemann proposed a series of inner and outer boulevards for the city with parks and “beauty spots” on the periphery. Using Lindemann’s ideas as a guide, Lansing city leaders came to believe that they needed a comprehensive plan to better guide the city’s growth. In 1920, Mayor Benjamin Kyes appointed a city plan commission, which eventually hired Harland J. Bartholomew, a prominent urban planner from St Louis, to give the city a comprehensive map to both beautify and economize its urban space.“ Mayor Kyes headed the committee and was given authority from the city council to appoint seven other members to the board including future mayor Alfred Doughty along with one woman, Martha S. Barber. Lansing’s decision followed on the heels of other Midwestern municipalities such as Cleveland, St. Louis, Chicago, and Indianapolis, which had attempted to create long-term plans that would yield more organized urban spaces. Cleveland for example, inspired by the Colurnbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, was one of the first municipalities to develop such a comprehensive plan in 1903. The stated goal for Cleveland planners was to promote increased harmony among the city's white inhabitants and to give them a feeling that they were participating in and were an integral part of the success of the city. The center- piece of their vision was a civic center, which, they believed, would offer greater public space and a public forum for all citizens. Other Midwestern cities such as St. Louis, Chicago, Columbus, and Indianapolis were quick to emulate Cleveland’s example.66 ‘5 Kestenbaum, Out of a Wilderness, 90. land Bartholomew, The Lansing City Plan; A Comprehensive City Plan Report for Lansing, 87 found 0811 11101: ”R if I.) ('1 Lansing, then, hoped to keep pace with its larger neighbors and create the foundations for a great city by hiring one of the nation’s preeminent urban planners. While city planning in 1920 was still a relatively new profession, Harland Bartholomew had gotten in on the ground floor. In 1912 at the age of 23 he worked on Newark, New Jersey’s first city plan. St. Louis hired him in 1916 as their planning engineer, where he worked full and part time until 1950. In addition to his job with the city he began his own consulting firm. Between 1920 and 1926 Bartholomew authored twenty city plans, more than anyone else in his field. When Lansing hired him he was on his way to establishing himself as one of the most well regarded and sought after city planners in the nation.” Bartholomew had been influenced by the ideas of earlier suburban designers and landscape architects. Most late 19th century American cities were characterized by the grid pattern. The grid was associated with orderliness and prosperity, particularly in newer, fi'ontier communities. However, architects such as Olmsted and H.W.S. Cleveland criticized the grid because they felt that it was unattractive, contributed to overcrowded tenements, and was overly conducive to disease. In response to the perceived design flaws of the central city, designers of the suburbs chose their inspirations fiom European cities such as Paris and Berlin. Around the beginning of the 20th century, tastes shifted and most planners received their inspiration and modeled their designs based on English cities. Wide, tree lined boulevards and winding roads were created as extensions of park systems while houses were set back fi'om the streets on Michigan, (St. Louis: Harland Bartholomew and Associates, 1922), 3. Teaford, Cities of the Heartland, 139-140. 67Norman J. Johnston, “Harland J. Bartholomew: Precedent for the Profession,” in The American Planner," Biographies and Recollections, Donald A. Krueckeberg, ed. (Methuen: New York, 1983), 280-83. 88 winding lanes to symbolize the “pastoral and bucolic pace of the home rather than the busy and efficient system of the office or factory.”68 The city plan that Bartholomew gave to Lansing in 1922 clearly tried to balance the philosophies generated through suburban design with the realities of the industrial city. In other words, Bartholomew’s plans consolidated utilitarian ideas as reflected in the conservationist movement with an environmentalist ethos. He believed that urban nature had utilitarian value in terms of recreational outlets, but at the same time, he abhorred urban sprawl and the destruction of nature because he believed that nature also provided intangible benefits such as moral and intellectual uplift. Bartholomew valued the fusion of functionality, aesthetics, and order as part of his guiding ideology of trying to make urban spaces tools to enhance the democratic spirit. He argued that, “To make Lansing a better city to live in is to make it a better city to work in.” From this premise he wrote that defects in the physical city would thwart the progress of improving living conditions and by extension, the character of Lansing’s residents.69 Bartholomew seemed to believe in, and value, the American character-building advantages of aesthetics over function, and he accepted that nature, or green spaces would have a p0sitive effect upon people and should be prominent in any built environment. He equated open spaces with greater democracy and social activism, yet he was also a man of science and pragmatism and thus recognized the necessity of creating a very functional place where goods and people could easily flow. Bartholomew attempted to reconcile what was believed to be two opposing viewpoints. He did so by focusing his 6" Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 73-76. ‘9 Bartholomew, The Lansing City Plan, 1922, 13. 89 planned improvements on better transportation routes, more green spaces, and additional open spaces where people could gather to discuss their views, meet socially, and simply relax and enjoy nature. In essence, he wanted the city’s residents to feel connected and a part of a more organic city that would be enmeshed with the surrounding countryside. When Bartholomew presented the results of his two- year study to the city council and the city planning commission, the report was less than kind in its overall assessment. He wrote that Lansing was "quite devoid of interest and charm, overhead utilities and billboards intrude upon the eye," and that "as a capital it is distinctly disappointing."70 Bartholomew’s study began by focusing on practical matters such as a detailed and comprehensive strategy for the expansion and widening of Lansing’s streets. He stressed through streets both north/south and east/west along with a circumferential loop on the outskirts of the city to allow for easy access both in and out of the downtown area. The plan also offered suggestions to eliminate several grade crossings and to consolidate the three train passenger stations into one central and efficient grand edifice.71 Despite such functional elements, the majority of Bartholomew’s plan focused on Lansing’s overall aesthetics. Though his street plan privileged traffic routes to the commercial center, these same roads were also tied to a series of green spaces or “nature” parks that would surround the city. He wanted these spaces to include the “native” flora and fauna in order to give them as much of a “natural” wilderness appearance as possible. He envisioned the peripheral ring of parks as serving two purposes. First, he believed that they would act as a control against urban sprawl, and second, that the green spaces would serve as a refuge or place of inspiration and relaxation for Lansing’s working 7011nd,. 49. 7‘lhid, 34-36, 54. 9O population. He believed that it was one of the primary responsibilities of cities to provide adequate recreational space for the community’s children. In this regard he wrote that, “Provision of facilities for public recreation is an obligation of the modern city. There is a certain minimum of space which should be set aside for the recreation of small children, for whom play is the first form of education; for adolescent youth, for whom out-of-door sports and games are vital necessities.”72 Bartholomew’s emphasis on the value of urban nature and on the important connection between the individual, recreation, and the proximity of the home to “natural” areas is even more pronounced in his subsequent plan for Los Angeles. He wrote: But in great urban areas bitter experience proves that, without adequate parks, the bulk of the people are progressively cut off from many kinds of recreation of the utmost importance to their health, happiness, and moral welfare. Today, almost everybody can, and frequently does without hesitation, get into a car and go five or ten miles through uninteresting streets to get to what he considers a really pleasant route of pleasure travel, perhaps in a park or public forest, but more likely just a region that isn’t yet all built up. But the majority, when they get out of town, want to drive fifty or a hundred miles in pleasant surroundings, coming home by a different route. Considering the numbers of people of the Los Angeles Region who, under increasing difficulties, seek the kind of recreation to be obtained from trips into these wild districts, and considering the price per trip that people show themselves willing to pay for this recreation in terms of automobile mileage alone, it is clear that there is very large and strong demand for such recreation. To people of today, how great would be the value of a home only a few miles fi‘om a parkway of ample road capacity and agreeable scenery, where one might drive through a chain of similar parkways to distant parts and enjoy the open country of Southern California! Contrast this with the far inferior worth of a home shut off from any considerable area of open land by twenty to fifty miles of practically uninterrupted cities and suburbs. Many miles of once pleasant, tree- bordered rural roads are annually added to the already tremendous total of unsightly commercialized streets. Is this good business? It is through increasing lengths of such treeless streets that both citizens and visitors will be forced to travel in search of pleasure—unless the evil results of present highway construction are somehow counteracted and future improvements consider the 72Ibid. 27, 36. 91 good of the whole community.73 Just as he would propose more scenic drives in L.A., Bartholomew had suggested similar strategies for Lansing. To combat the downtown traffic problems and the drab surroundings, he called for the construction of several wide streets, public plazas, squares, monuments and parks throughout the city and that prominent intersections should be reserved for many of these features. He also designed the streets to connect to the outer parks so that they would not only funnel all of the traffic towards the city center, but so that the main thoroughfares would also serve as “pleasure” drives after a hard day of work. Bartholomew is also quick to explain that these “pleasure drives” are not the same as boulevards. “In order to provide for travel amid pleasant surroundings, parkways necessarily should be elongated real parks. Except that they include roadways for automobile travel, they have almost nothing in common with ‘boulevards’ as that term is generally used in America.” These features, though, were not solely for functionality and beautification. He saw these two aspects as a means to creating a greater democratic spirit within the city.74 Bartholomew not only planned for parks on the periphery, he also called for more open spaces in the form of parks, recreational areas, and schools to be built citywide. He organized these open spaces or “breathing spaces” as he called them, to be equally distributed throughout the city with parks and playgrounds situated within a half- mile of every residential neighborhood so that children would be within relatively close walking ’3 Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew and Associates, Parks, Playgrounds, and Beaches for the Los Angeles Region, (published by the authors, 1930), 3, ll, 13, 14, and 114-115. Republished in Hise and Deverell, Eden by Design. 7’ Bartholomew, Lansing City Plan, 1922, 36. See also Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew, Parks, Playgrounds, and Beaches, 13. 92 nei‘ cm 56V 50 58C det exa CCU air; can M" “UL “ht Slit [Die distance and the open spaces could serve as primary gathering points for the surrounding neighborhoods. He additionally wanted to guard against the parks becoming too crowded, which is one reason why he proposed to build so many. Finally, he suggested several other open areas such as squares, small parks, and plazas in the downtown area to "soften and modify the every-day outlook of people who live in the thickly built-up sections" and to add character and dignity to the city.” Bartholomew believed that in addition to the personal inspiration people would derive fi'om these public spaces, they would also develop a greater "social spirit." For example, in his report he referred several times to the parks and squares as "social centers. . .in which community spirit may find expression under public auspices.” He argued that these “social centers,” which also included a civic center and neighborhood community buildings, were necessary to encourage greater community spirit and civic participation. He emphasized that the parks and other open areas were not merely “utopian fancies” but would serve to improve the living conditions for everyone in the city.76 Bartholomew’s concerns over creating a city that emphasized the good of the whole community over the desires of the few are laced throughout his report. His worries stemmed from his observations that Lansing’s residents seemed to lack any real public interest in the city. He criticized Lansingites for accepting a “heritage of commonplaceness which has never been overcome,” and called upon all its citizens to "forsake the petty trifling details of growth" and to “begin viewing the city as a whole.”77 ”Bartholomew, Lansing City Plan, 1922, 27. 76Ibid. 27-28. 771bid. 37 and 48. In his plan for Los Angeles, Bartholomew writes: “those of lower incomes generally live in small-lot, single-family home districts, and have more children and less leisure time in which to go 93 Bartholomew concluded that this predominant attitude in the city derived from the competing agendas of the city. He criticized the city for privileging industry to the detriment of everything and everyone else. He wrote that "mere multiplication of factories and warehouses will not create a perfect city," and "If Lansing wishes to rise above the character which its industries are likely to impress upon it, it will have to exercise a far greater interest in things that appeal to the eye. The effect of industrial growth is almost universally ugliness, lack of character, monotony, and an oppressive uninspiring scene?" In his assessment of the impact that Lansing’s policies were having on the general moral and character of Lansing’s workers he wrote that the labor supply was "becoming a problem. He had observed that many of the workers were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their living and working conditions and he believed that the poor physical appearance of the city contributed to these attitudes. He concluded that, "to make Lansing a better city to live in is to make it a better city to work in." In this regard, Bartholomew advocated that the city begin steps to improve the physical surroundings of the entire city to offset what he saw as a depressing and demeaning environment through the incorporation of urban nature, more open spaces, greater attention to housing and neighborhoods, and a more orderly, better planned urbanscape. He believed that a better physical environment would then inspire an increased democratic spirit, which in turn would inspire the working population to believe that they could have a voice, not just in to distant parks and recreational areas. These families comprise 65 per cent of the population, and they should be given first consideration, not only for their own good but for the welfare of the conununity.” In Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew, Parks, Playgrounds, and Beaches, 22. "Bartholomew, Lansing City Plan, 1922, 48, 50. 94 the direction of their neighborhoods and city, but ultimately regarding their lives. ’9 Bartholomew also spent a great deal of space in his report criticizing the way the city had utilized its two rivers. To this end he wrote that, There was no generous provision of open spaces for state buildings, no placing of streets for impressiveness, no reservations of native woodland, and no appreciation whatever of the value of the river and riversides as public property. As a consequence of this unfortunate lack of vision Lansing is now a most ordinary city. It is less dignified, less impressive, and less attractive than many of its neighbors. . .The abuse of the river in the central section where it is most frequently seen is commonly lamented. . .Property owners on Michigan Avenue and near the capitol have had no appreciation whatever of the value of an impressive view. To combat the abuses of the rivers be emphasized his belief that the river and riverfront properties should be protected because they “belonged to the people” and that the best way to maintain the rivers was through public ownership of the land on either sides of the riverbanks along with a program that encouraged and gave incentives to private homeowners along the river banks to keep their properties maintained at a certain level of beauty and cleanliness. He also suggested that the city create a series of parks that ran along the rivers so that everyone could enjoy them.80 Although critical of the city’s emphasis on industry and commerce, Bartholomew was also pragmatic enough to understand that these institutions and the attitudes about them were deeply imbedded within the culture of not just Lansingites, but within Americans themselves, and that industry was the life-blood of most American cities. Thus he realized that his critiques of the capitalist culture needed to be tempered and paired with an argument that would sell his plan through the language of compromise, persuasion, and an appeal to peoples’ pocket books. As part of this strategy, 791bid,13. 8° Ibid., 49-51. 95 Banholon obsen ed homes 81 another it suicred L stabilize l em ironm residents of industr (lithe urh In W aesth indusm a Whales ‘00. In in huge “Ould {10' beam. 01 Bimini He [00k ll middle-c]; r\ lid. 14. Bartholomew saw zoning as a key ingredient to creating a more livable, ordered city. He observed that, "In its present state Lansing is a strange mixture of factories, stores and homes with certain individual units of each type preempting space properly belonging to another use. Conflict of interests has resulted and incidentally property values have suffered unnecessary derangement." He then pointed out that zoning laws would stabilize property values because they would add an aspect of predictability to the urban environment. In this vein, Lansing officials could then sell the cost of the plan to residents by pointing out that their neighborhoods would be protected from the intrusion of industry, which would cause a rise in property values, thus compensating for the cost of the urban make- over.81 In assessing Bartholomew’s plan, it is clear that he envisioned a public city that was aesthetically pleasing, yet orderly and functional enough to appease proponents of industry and commerce. His equation however, unquestionably favored nature and aesthetics over industry, although it is laced with a utilitarian conservationist ideology too. In its essence, his plan attempted to give Lansing a vision of how it could both grow through courting more industry and commerce, and create an urban space where people would not only want to live, but stay for the long term. Bartholomew’s penchant for beauty, order, and greater social democracy represented an ideological fission of the “City Beautiful” and “City Functional” movements into a more democratic “City Livable.” Bartholomew clearly believed in the potential transforrnative powers of nature. He took the design and planning ideas that were being used throughout the nation in the middle-class suburbs, and fitted them to the central city. He was not motivated solely by 8'Ibid, 14. 96 a desire attempt here to and oer (Remer tommi: popular and the planner Workin a desire to “Americanize” the working classes in order to control them. Nor was he attempting to simply create more livable spaces. Bartholomew recognized that he would have to play politics with his employers at times, telling them what they wanted to hear and occasionally playing on their fears of potential workers’ revolution to sell his ideas. (Remember what happened in 1919 nationwide, just one year before Bartholomew was commissioned). Bartholomew wanted to instill a greater democratic spirit in the entire population of Lansing and he believed that classical architecture, a reordering of space, and the incorporation of urban nature were key. He and other similar- minded urban planners, like the Ohnsteds, attempted to give the American public and specifically the working class a scaled-down version of the middle- class, garden suburban communities in the central city. However, their efforts met with only partial success. As a result, once World War II ended and cheap suburban homes were available for a broader section of the public, Americans would flee the cities in droves. Part of the reason has to do with racial prejudices, but part of the explanation has to do with the fact that city centers failed to give people what they wanted: cleanliness, space, a feeling of security, adequate green spaces, and a sense of personal control and autonomy.82 Some historians have an unfavorable view of city planners in general and of Bartholomew in particular. Eric Sandweiss for example, argues that Bartholomew’s city plan for St. Louis was simply a tool to legitimize the interests of capital in that city. While city leaders, including those in Lansing did attempt this, it points more to their political skills of transforming Bartholomew’s ideas to fit their own goals and visions than to Bartholomew’s plans themselves. Bartholomew, then, like reformers before and after him, inadvertently contributed to the idea that democracy and capitalism were one 82 Teaford, Cities of the Heartland, 210. See also, Teaford, Post-Suburbia, particularly chapters 2 and 3. 97 and thes; taluable Planning meehanis nineteent‘ imperson success It Complex 3311110101 a1396211 to bOWeyer‘ Would up l( “lit SUg lthan Flsl "ElOHal i and the same and that the preservation of nature and the creation of beauty were only valuable if they produced profit. Christine Boyer in Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning uses a postmodern analysis to argue that city planning was a "disciplinary mechanism...regulating urban development," and that planners helped transform the nineteenth-century city from a disordered place with a humane scale into an ordered yet impersonal and alienating environment.83 Another historian has credited Bartholomew’s success to an ability to sell his profession as a “scientific procedure for managing a city’s complex urban infrastructure with machinelike efficiency.” This is in part true, Bartholomew did recognize that given the commercial urban climate, compromise and an appeal to efficiency were necessary. His plan for Lansing and that for Los Angeles, however, clearly reveal a desire to give people physical surroundings, which he believed would uplift and inspire.”4 John L. Thomas and Robert F ishman assess Bartholomew somewhat differently. They suggest that he belonged to a group of professional planners who subscribed to what F ishman calls “the Metropolitan Tradition.” These professionals attempted to make regional plans that encompassed more than a single suburb, or even a single city. They were more interested in preventing urban sprawl with an eye towards preserving “natural” areas outside of cities. Additionally, they were less interested in the 83Eric Sandweiss, "Fenced-Off Comers and Wider Settings," in Planning the Twentieth-Century American City, Mary Corbin Sies and Christopher Silver, eds. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 22, 77; Christine Boyer, Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983). I”Curiously, R. Bruce Stephenson shows that Bartholomew’s firm was commissioned to do a city plan for St. Petersburg, Florida that seems to be slightly contradictory to his motivations and design plans for Lansing and L.A. Perhaps he was not involved personally in the St. Petersburg plan. See R. Bruce Stephenson, Visions of Eden: Environmentalism, Urban Planning, and city Building in St. Petersburg, Florida, 1900-I995, (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1997), 112. See also Hise and Deverell, Eden By Design. 98 COIlllllfll assimila' HH—sr-onm—H Comprel. hating c ldnsing' initially 1 commercial aspects of the city and Americanization of immigrants and more focused on assimilation. As F ishman explains: For assimilation meant not the stripping of one’s former identity but the gradual self-creation within the metropolis. It meant learning the skills for productive employment, but also learning to choose among the many different identities that the metropolis offered. Assimilation meant attaining the fi'eedom of the city. Thus the “human ecology” of the metropolis functions as a great machine not so much for the accumulation of wealth as for the growing assimilation of its population.85 Bartholomew’s plan presented Lansing with a reasonable and thoroughly comprehensive strategy that it could use to plan and direct its future growth. Despite having commissioned Bartholomew’s services, this very comprehensiveness caused Lansing’s elites, led by the members of the City Council and the Chamber of Commerce, initially to reject most of his suggestions because he gave them more than they really wanted. Subsequently, city councils and mayors, under the influence of the Chamber of Commerce, opted to keep some of Bartholomew’s ideas and his plan was implemented on a piece- meal basis for future improvements. Lansing’s leaders chose to accede to the needs of industry and business, however, whenever conflicts of interest occurred between the needs of industry and concerns over fostering urban nature. Such decisions are a commentary on Lansing’s definition and vision of American society and democracy, rather than an indictment of the goals of city planners and reformers such as Bartholomew, who was invited into, and forced to work within, an existing culture. By the 19208 businessmen had become as adept urban reformers as were engineers, women’s clubs, and other community activist groups who had functioned earlier as municipal reformers. Although Lansing’s businessmen were interested in creating a more livable 8SRObert Fishman, ed. The American Planning Tradition, Culture and Policy, (Baltimore; The Johns gifkim University Press, 2000), 72-73. See also chapter 2, John L. Thomas, “Holding the Middle 11nd? 99 citt tho mama pursued than. but thus cums wwhh altemati WMnn tales C0 mane municip additiOr] ehffin Mmm been city, those ends were pursued only if they proved to be cost effective. If better housing meant a more reliable, conservative, and stable workforce, then better housing would be pursued to a point. If parks and more open spaces meant more people wanting to stay in the city, or at least come and visit downtown, then some improvements would be made, but those parks would come in the form of controlled recreational outlets such as golf courses. But, if expensive water and sewage systems could be avoided—even if they would have guaranteed better services and a healthier city—they chose the cheaper alternatives. Moreover, the city’s decision makers told residents that the costs of beautifying urban spaces to the degrees that many wanted meant disproportionately higher property taxes compared to the potential rise in personal property values. They also feared having to place a larger burden on corporations, encouraging them to relocate to other municipalities. Additionally, it was difficult to sell the idea of urban nature and to justify additional expenditures to residents when it was believed that they could easily experience the benefits of wilderness with a short drive out of town. Michigan is blessed With an abundance of trees, rivers, and other “natural” beauties. Urban nature, therefore, became a valuable tool to municipal leaders only as it could be incorporated into the ecOnomic system. Lansing city officials were also concerned that too much of a “democratic spirit” in the city could prove destructive to the local power structures if it could not be ha"blessed and controlled. They therefore successfully convinced working class h<>trheowners that their economic well-being was connected to the fortunes of industry, and that they had a mutual interest in keeping tax rates proportionately lower than 100 mien. challen; property values. The strategy worked temporarily but the city would face other challenges as the 19303 approached. 101 help ".5 justice public to Clea foster l predict econor be wit Chapter 3 Lansing: City Profitable Some advocates of urban nature believed that a softened city environment would help “Americanize” the working population. Others were motivated by genuine social justice and ethical considerations, while still others accepted some open spaces and public recreational outlets as a means to averting public unrest and as an inexpensive tool to create additional economic growth. The type of workforce most city leaders wanted to foster was a loyal, hardworking, and docile population that would act in a homogenously predictable manner and be willing to defer to their “social betters” in political and economic issues. During the 1920s, it was the agenda of this final group that seemed to be winning the day in many parts of the industrial world. Vanessa Schwartz, for example, explains that the attempts to manipulate and mold urban residents had been going on in Paris since at least the 18703. There, city Offic ials were able to use the print-media, wax museums, morgues, and the “O-rama” craze in combination with the physical changes to the city conducted by Haussmann to help turn Parisian mobs into crowds that participated in urban life as unified and momentarily socially equal spectators and voyeurs of the misfortunes of others, rather than as violent masses bent on overthrowing the government. The result, according to schwartz, aided in the process of Parisians gleaning a self-identity as citizens of the city rather than as disparate groups divided along economic lines. Similar processes were taking place in America. Kathy Peiss’ study of working- class women in New York, for exaulple, offers a partial explanation as to why working- class activism diminished in the 19208 and why social reformers, in general, tended to become less radical in their actions. 102 Although Peiss focuses more on gender issues and does not draw a direct link, her study demonstrates how the popularization and commercialization of recreational outlets in American culture served to better homogenize divergent working- class immigrant groups, and divert their time and attention away from more important issues such as working conditions. ' Simultaneously, the construction of urban nature also played an important role in shaping how people would experience and interpret the city and their lives. According to Richard White, people know nature through work. In the Organic Machine he contends that the boundaries between nature and humans have been blurred, often making the “natural unnatural? As an example of this he points out the degree of effort and human manipulation that goes into the salmon farms, (man-made and controlled and therefore by the strictest definition, something very unnatural), where most of the fish are now raised along the Columbia River. Very few “wild” salmon actually navigate the waters of that river anymore, yet all “Sahnon symbolize nature in the Pacific Northwest” to this day.2 Not only can people understand nature through work, they can also experience it through recl‘eation. The “natural” places people want to preserve and the reasons for that Preservation are formed by how they interact with nature. Lansing city officials wanted to control how people experienced the city and “urban nature,” hoping that residents would relate to the city through economics and reel‘eation rather than as a means to independent thought and increased, meaningful politiCal and communal participation. Similar goals can be found in cities like Flint. In 19 l 1 Flint socialists successfully convinced the working population that the lack of and v\ ane88a R. Schwartz, Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture In F in-De-Siecle Paris, (Berkeley: 1 21} niVets- . . . whi lty of Calrfomra Press), 1998. Pets, Cheap Amusements. tea The Organic Machine, 90-91 . 103 inad: a res elect succ refo: rem mor: com “or? no ; “all. CV8} In a leis p13} Corp in. poor quality of city services such as sewer and water and the lack of quality housing and inadequate health care resulted from the weak leadership of the business community. As a result, the socialists briefly took over the city government, only to lose it in the next election due to a coalition of democratic and republican party businessmen who successfully undercut the socialist platform of municipal improvements and social reforms. Prosperity on a wider scale was the key for the established political elites to regain and maintain control. “The aristocracy of labor— the skilled workers who were more conservative and better paid, impeded the development of a unified working class consciousness.” Their material well- being served as a model of success for other workers and they actively supported the conservative leaders. Additionally, the failure of socialism made it possible to create an industrial community in which there was simply no place for any expression of working-class consciousness and independence, which, “allowed businessmen to control civic affairs, establishing a social hierarchy in which every new resident deferred to the wisdom and power of the automotive elite.”3 Lansing officials hoped to create the same type of deference that existed in Flint. In addition to their homeowner drives, Lansing leaders attempted to commercialize leiSl-Ire by offering the city’s residents recreational diversions in the form of parks, play ing fields, and movie theaters. As outlets for recreation became more comIlilercialized and homogenized to fit middle- class definitions of what it meant to be AmeI‘ioan, people became less involved in neighborhood and communal activities of the 3R\ .ona-ld Edsforth, Class Conflict and Cultural Consensus: The Making of a Mass Consumer Society in 1‘7 Int, Michigan, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 56-57, 60, 69,72, 37- 104 9pc (165: shows h. about to actixitie: commen the tum reconsm manager socialize COHSlmc SUPER is “en R0 in how r Ethic d blg COW plaCate ‘- mOguig l0 Clem 30mg, , ‘50:" R05 mm. P 0:33:13] c type described by Roy Rosenzweig in Eight Hours for What We Will.4 Rosenzweig shows how the upper and middle- classes in Worchester, Massachusetts deliberately set about to transform communal forms of recreation such as neighborhood and church activities, drinking, and holidays into commercialized, homogenizing events. In commenting on playgrounds, Rosenzweig writes: “Environmentalist social reformers at the turn of the century saw play facilities as part of the social environment that could be reconstructed as a means of reshaping social behavior. They believed that the correct management of the juvenile life cycle and the proper provision of play facilities would socialize children into the roles, behaviors, and values expected of modern urbanites.” Although more recent work temporizes such categorical statements about the construction of amusement parks, corporate takeovers of local saloons, municipal SUpervision at playgrounds, and movie theaters as only about social manipulation, and, even Rosenzweig concedes that the working and immigrant classes also played a key role in how recreational spaces were defined, the net effect in U.S. cities does suggest that ethnic divisions broke down. Moreover, there were ongoing civil efforts on the part of big corporations to “Americanize” their workers.6 In looking at the automobile industry, Stephen Meyer points out that the efforts to Placate autoworkers were grounded in more than simply humanitarian motivations. Auto moguls like Henry Ford believed that helping employees create a good home life was key to CF eating a more reliable and productive workforce. To this end Ford created a Socio logy Department whose responsibility was to investigate the personal lives of every 4\‘ «12(0), Rosenzweig, Eight Hours for What We Will: Workers and Leisure in an Industrial City, 1870-1920, Pornbfidge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), and Sarah Jo Peterson, “Voting for Play: the Democratic s Rgntlai of Democratic Playgrounds,” JGAPE 3 (April 2004): 145-175. 6 misehzweig, Eight Hours, 143. ' 220-221. 105 employee and judge if they were “worthy” of the Five dollar a day profit sharing plan. If they were not, then the department would attempt to encourage belligerent workers to conform to lifestyles the Ford Company deemed more “American.” Meyers, in speaking of this Americanization program observes: “The issue was not simply different national or ethnic cultures, but also preindustrial and industrial cultures, and even class cultures. Americanization was an important movement for the adjustment of immigrant workers to a new industrial environment and to American urban and industrial society, not just to American society in the abstract.”7 In Lansing, auto manufacturers followed the lead set by Ford and began to construct recreation centers and form various sports leagues. The Olds Company for example built its workers a clubhouse that served among other things, as a bowling alley, cafeteria, cinema, and ballroom. This helped the company enjoy a lower rate of worker turnover. These activities also effectively stole time away from those who chose to Participate, serving as a diversion from many of the serious municipal issues in the town, and further creating a sense of fellowship among groups of workers who participated as tealnrnates, and a sense of loyalty to the company.8 The commercialization of leisure activities, as Peiss, Rosenzweig, and Meyer have noted, further gave the working classes a senSe or feeling that they were at least culturally becoming, if not already, a part of the middle— class.9 Thus, at the same time that Lansing billed itself as the most progressive in the nation, and embarked upon the infrastructural improvements described in the previous chapter, these types of reform efforts allowed municipal leaders to manipulate reform \ Eli?” The Five Dollar Day, 150. 9Pe orliter-s For REO Remember F inn Fondly,” Lansing State Journal, 21 January 2004. “‘38 Cheap Amusements; Rosenzweig, Eight Hours for What We Will; Meyer, The Five Dollar Day. 106 A.‘ {III . a 1. .5. .. a . vlw . .. \ . . language and rationale and appeal to the materialistic desires of the general population in order to pursue a pro-industry agenda for the city. That is, instead of creating more open spaces to foster increased citizen participation, as had been advocated earlier in the century, Lansing officials had before them other examples from which to work to reduce the political involvement of the public by making them passive spectators or consumers of urban images and sensations through the commodification of nature in the city, rather than active participants in the construction of their communities.10 To this end was the decision by the city to build two new public golf courses, rather than set aside and create the amount of park acreage or the neighborhood community centers that Bartholomew suggested in the 19205. The latter would have been non- revenue generating green spaces, but would have allowed people to decide how they wished to experience “nature.” The city chose to add green spaces to the urbanscape but with the goal of selling nature as a utilitarian recreational outlet and at the same time controlling how that Space would be used. By so doing, Lansing officials were able to better impose their definitions of nature, economics, politics, democracy, and in short- Americanism on the general public." These types of decisions offered an illusion that the aesthetics of the city and Well- being of the general public were atop priority. The truth, however, is that the water fen“lined polluted and the city’s garbage disposal problems went unresolved. The public 1\ Sarrachtenberg, The Incorporation of America, p. 11-112, 118, 122, 133, and 139. See also Schwartz, pec’acular Realities; Peiss, Cheap Amusements; and Kevin Mattson, Creating a Democratic Public: the ”Paglia for Urban Participatory Democracy During the Progressive Era, (University Park: Penn State HmVersity Press, 1998). had ing had four golf courses by 1943, three of them public. The state built 89 courses in the 19208 and abo Over a thousand by 1930. Also it is estimated that the number of golfers in the U.S. increased from to “t §,000 in 1905 to roughly 3 million by 1915. This leads one to believe that the “average” man began cipate; McCafferty, “A History of Michigan Golf, 1921-1930,” and “Part 2, Michigan Golfing Histow, 1911-1920,” at www.webgolfer.com/igne99/historyhtml and WWW-Webgolfercom/july99/historyhmrl. 107 em sin “01 tern cha the Set} Ftsi oft his his hat golf courses offered the working and middle classes the opportunity to ignore or even be oblivious to more pressing problems, while simultaneously allowing them to emulate those of the higher classes. Additionally, homeownership offered the hope of some economic independence and social equality. Lansing leaders, thus pursued strategies similar to those examined by historians of leisure mentioned previously, strategies that would help mask the city’s economic inequalities that resulted from the industrial capitalist system through means that gave the illusion of equality. They hoped that this strategy would help subdue some of the potential frustrations and discord in the working classes. The rhetoric in the 1920s to create a more livable and democratic city was thus tempered by other trends. The pro-business and materialistic consumer atmosphere that characterized the 1920S for a large segment of the American public would ultimately win the day as many Lansing residents and the city’s leaders alike lapsed into apathy over real municipal reforms and focused their attention primarily on personal material gains while ignoring the real costs of urban growth. Commenting on the general attitudes that seemed to dominate people’s views, Bartholomew had complained that most of Lansing’s residents lacked any genuine interest in civic refinement and that they, along with many of the merchants, had little desire in improving the appearance of the urban structure. If this assessment is accurate then it is even more understandable why decision makers felt less pressure to alter their belief that the best way for Lansing to grow and the best path “ward individual enrichment lie primarily through industry.” Because many leaders in the community chose to accept the pervasive ideology that the Way towards greatness for the city rested in its ability to attract industries in large \ 12 Bartholomew, Lansing City Plan, 1922, 48, 51-52. 108 numl mid and c three emit. leads: imprc increa they t would that [h Also, ‘ Were g c0me legion inthe] numbers and in the idea of growth, Lansing officials focused their efforts on giving residents a portion of what they wanted in the short-term; that is, cheap power and water and economic opportunities in the form of jobs and inexpensive homes. They did this in three ways: they hid the real costs of economic industrial growth by diverting part of the environmental burden to others downstream and outside the city limits» to people city leaders did not depend for electoral support; quietly placing the burden of infi’astructural improvements primarily on homeowners; and attempting to encourage and facilitate increased homeownership among the working classes. ’3 This last was important because they believed that people would tend to take better care of their property because they would be concerned with protecting the value of their investment. City officials hoped that this would lead to residents voluntarily beautifying the city» one house lot at a time. Also, by offering homeowners the infiastructural advantages of industrialization, people were given the “promise of modern urban living,” which translated into a more comfortable lifestyle that mimicked the middle-classes.” Lansing’s political and business elite pursued their strategy through a local, regional, and national publicity campaign to sell the city. For example, in 1921 an article in the I’m-business and Republican Party newspaper, the State Journal, boasted that Lansing Was finally “leaving behind its past as a small city.” It stated that, “Behind her lie days Of struggle fiom which she has emerged triumphant and taken her place among the sul'ViVOl‘s of the fittest few.” This front-page article asserted the belief that Lansing would bet-‘rome one of the greatest cities in the country and concluded that the best means to accomplish “greatness” was to continue to base growth on economic and industrial \ 13 14 33):: 1940 U.S. Census in which 58 percent of the county’s residents lived in owner occupied homes. F‘shman, ed, The American Planning Tradition, ll. 109 interests. ‘5 For Lansing’s politicians, prioritizing industry meant, however, that they needed to convince city residents, particularly the homeowners, that they had their well- being at heart. Mayor Alfred S. Doughty, for example, was very aware of paying lip service to Lansing’s homeowners. In a public address in January of 1926 he attempted to persuade the City Council to begin writing a zoning law that Bartholomew had recommended four years earlier. Doughty reminded them that the first priority of the municipal government was to “enhance the pleasure and privileges of the homeowners.” He went on to say that public improvements such as paved streets and sewers “enhanced the value and protected and secured the investments of homes.” In his speech, Doughty freely borrowed the language and rational found in Bartholomew’s city plan of 1922 by equating zoning laws and the overall health and utility of the city with a stable and content population. He interpreted this to mean industry and jobs lead to home-ownership, a stable population, and ultimately to increased business for local merchants. '6 In addition to the city newspaper, and the mayor, the Chamber of Commerce also employed the rhetoric of reform. For instance in 1926 it published and nationally distributed a short book entitled, Lansing Michigan; A City of Stable Industry, Satisfied Workers, and Civic Soundness, in which it proclaimed Lansing to be above all else a city or homeowners which, it argued, was “proof number one” of the city’s priorities and prosperity. The short book further boasted that Lansing had never attempted to recruit new industries into the city, nor compete for numerical superiority because it did not need \ 15, . 1, in“ City At A Turn or Ways,” State Journal, 1 Jan. 1921, 1. Mgfijcial Proceedings of the City Council, City of Lansing (Lansing, Michigan), 11 January 1926, see “mic? meSSage to the council. Lansing did pass a zoning law in 1927, although it was criticized for its scope, see Bartholomew’s City Plan, 1938, p. 2. 110 to. In fact it claimed that large influxes of people invited too many problems such as labor unrest and public utility nightmares. Lansing instead, had made the prosperity of its citizens its most important aim and that is how it measured its success as a community. It went on to boast that as a consequence of these policies a spirit of enterprise had been fostered and that all of its business establishments had sprung from the ingenuity and efforts of the native population.” The false claims in the publication poorly masked the real intent of the propaganda in attempting to attract people and additional industry to the city. It did this by trying to demonstrate that Lansing had many basic and desirable amenities such as paved streets, several railway depots, cheap electricity and water, low corporate taxes, and a hard- working, responsible, home- owning population.‘8 The publication also reveals that the city was interested in attracting primarily native-bom, white, Protestants because it believed that they would be less likely to agitate for major changes within the social, cultural, and political structures.19 The fact that the mayor and the Chamber of Commerce used the same language as Bartholomew, but employed it towards a different vision is not too surprising. The Chamber and the municipal government had an ongoing history of cooperation that was only Strengthened as the 1920s came to a close. For example, in 1930 Alton J. Hager whose tern) as president of the Chamber had just expired received a letter from Mayor Troyer eXtending his appreciation and friendship. The letter mentions that the mayor enjoyed Working closely with Hager on many important issues. In a return letter, Hager 17\ Wins Chamber of Commerce, Lansing, Michigan; A City ofStabIe Industry, Satisfied Workers, and ICMC soundness, (Lansing: Dick Short and Co, 1926), 5, Lansing Public Library Archives (uncatalogued). lzlbid, 15. Ibid., 15. 111 wrote, speaking of the relationship between the Chamber and the city: “I trust this may continue in the same way for the good of all concerned.”20 The Chamber continually volunteered information to the mayor and City Council with detailed employment and economic statistics and as a result, it in turn was often asked to conduct various studies for the city. Thus, the mayor and Council members relied on the Chamber for information and appointed members of that organization to key investigatory bodies such as the City Planning Commission. In 1936 the relationship between the two was so close that Mayor Max Templeton invited the Chamber to have a representative attend every council meeting and act as an unofficial member “for the common good of the city.”21 The close relationship between the city, the Chamber, and the local paper was also very evident. The Chamber was often lauded in The State Journal. One article called it a “virile giant,” and “the defender of the city’s welfare.” To the Journal, the city’s future was tied almost exclusively to its success of attracting new industries. The newspaper praised the Chamber in its attempts at “extending one velvet gloved hand to the incoming, honest, and enterprising business, while the other hand, adorned with brass knuckles, is ever raised against any organization or individual having at heart the injury 0f the P60p1e.” 22 AS proof of the Chamber’s ability to filter out undesirable companies, the article \ 20 1 9134:”! Laird J. Troyer, Lansing to A.J. Hager, President- Lansing Chamber of Commerce, 5 February Fe ’ and AJ. Hager, President— Lansing Chamber of Commerce, to Mayor Laird J. Troyer, Lansing, 8 Histobmmricaly 193 0. City of Lansrng Documents Collection, State Archives of Michigan in the Michigan 21 Center, Lansing. Hereafter cited as CLDC. Brain? Max Templeton Lansing, to C.w. Otto, Detroit, 21 February 1936; also F. A. Hutty, “July Councils sBWmeter, Industrial Commission of the Lansing Chamber of Commerce” for the Lansing City 22,,C . August 1930. CLDC, State Archives. hambu- Of Commerce Gain,” State Journal, 1 January 1921, l. 112 claims that city employer- employee relations were so good that no major labor problems had ever occurred in the city and because of this it claimed that several companies chose to relocate to Lansing. Although the Journal acknowledged that the Chamber was a powerful and influential organization, it tried to deflect any criticism by claiming that despite this power, the Chamber had no enemies because it was so concerned for the general welfare of the entire city and personally investigated every company that wished to move to the city in order to assure that no fraud would take place.23 Despite the rhetoric from the Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce, the reality of which segment of society actually bore the heaviest burden of taxation and the subsequent tensions it created is revealed in the Chamber’s efforts to lure new industries to the city. The Bantam Ball Bearing Company from Bantam, Connecticut began receiving bids from cities throughout the Midwest as it contemplated relocating closer to the heart of the nation’s auto manufacturing district. The Lansing Chamber of Commerce had representatives visit Bantam, and believing that the company was financially stable, Promised the company that the city would provide a plant site and a private side railroad track without cost to the ball bearing works. The Lansing banks also agreed to extend a 320,000 line of credit to cover the transition period, advance $10,000 to cover moving expenses of machinery, etc., to be paid back in 5 years, and advance $2500 to cover "1°va ¢Xpenses of families of ten key men, also to be paid back in five years. Despite this generous offer, Bantam decided to move to South Bend, Indiana because that city offered to give Bantam $12,500 as an outright bonus, in addition to matching Lansing’s \ 23,, Chernber of Commerce Gain,” State Journal, 1 January 1921, l. 113 other offers.24 The Chamber courted ten major companies in 1928, in addition to Bantam and while the perks offered to the other companies were not as generous, they were all still presented with lucrative reasons for relocating. The story of the Burton Dixie Corporation is another case in point. In November of 1928 Lansing city officials and Burton Dixie struck a deal to secure that company’s relocation to the city. With the help of the Chamber of Commerce, the mayor and the city engineer assured both Burton Dixie and the head of the Chamber’s industrial committee that, among other tax benefits, if the company moved to Lansing, utilities such as water and sewer would already be constructed and available for immediate hook-up. The city also agreed, as had been its custom, to have the abutting property homeowners subsidize the cost for the construction of these services through higher utility rates, whereby, after the initial outlay had been recovered, the Board of Water and Light would then reimburse the city for the initial outlay.” When the factory was completed in 1929, however, the sewer and water systems were not quite finished and the city assessed Burton Dixie a $210 sewer extension fee to Which the company took exception. F.A. Hutty, who was the head of the Industrial Commission for the Lansing Chamber of Commerce, wrote Mayor Laird Troyer complaining on behalf of Burton Dixie. He informed the Mayor that according to an agreement between his office and the company, the city was responsible for putting in the Sewer and water, and the cost was to be paid “in the regular way, that is by the abutting \ 24 BalLfner fro Lansing Chamber of Commerce, Industrial Commission to W.S. Rogers, President, Bantam Fe Bearing Company, 26 Jan. 1928 and Letter from W.S. Rogers to Lansing Chamber of Commerce, 3 25 F Away 1928, in Collection of the Lansing Chamber of Commerce, State Archives. 17 A ’ , “fly. Lansing Chamber of Commemo- Industrial Commission to Mayor Laird J. Troyer, Lansing, prrl 1930 and Mayor Laird Troyer to F .A. Hutty, 25 Nov. 1929. CLDC, State Archives 114 property owners.” Not only was Hutty upset that Burton Dixie would have to pay for the extension, it rankled him that the service had not been completed before the company began construction on their factory. Mayor Troyer replied to Hutty that there was nothing the city could do at that point because it was now under the jurisdiction of the Board of Electric Light and Water. He reminded Hutty that the city would occasionally pay for the water extensions, and then the board of Electric Light and Water would temporarily charge homeowners a higher rate, and then pay the city the excess so that it could recoup its initial investment. The concern of the city at the time of Hutty’s letter was that if the fee were waived then it would have had to absorb the cost because many of the property owners had become delinquent in their taxes due to the Depression. So not only could homeowners not pay their own fees, they could not even begin to subsidize new industries.26 Hutty did not let the matter rest however, as he visited the office of Max Templeton, city councilman in charge of the sewer committee. Templeton informed him that there was nothing he could do, so with few options, Hutty wrote to the mayor again reminding him that Burton Dixie had invested $200,000 in its factory, and that the crux of his complaint was not about the amount of the assessment, but the principle of the issue. He finished his letter by reminding the mayor that “You know and I know that there are Ways and means of taking care of a matter of this kind if the will to do so is present.” Mayor Troyer ended the issue though, with a short, terse response stating that \ :hiiqayor Laird J. Troyer, Lansing, to F .A. Hutty, Lansing Chamber of Commerce— Industrial Commission, 19300“ 1929; Mayor Laird J. Troyer, Lansing, to F .A. Hutty, [arising Chamber of Commerce, 8 May ’ and F.A. Hutty, Lansing Chamber of Commerce-Industrial Commission, to Mayor Laird J. Troyer, “‘8, 17 April 1930. CLDC, State Archives. 115 the city would not absorb the assessment, and that the matter was closed.27 This incident gives several insights into the workings of the municipal government. First, it is clear that city officials were willing to allow existing property homeowners to subsidize infrastructure improvements for new industries. Throughout the early decades of the 19003 the city, in most cases, waived service fees to industries as a means of luring new businesses to the city. A two hundred dollar service fee divided among several homeowners over a year would not be too noticeable nor a major financial burden. In fact, the city publicly defended the practice of charging homeowners higher electricity rates in 1921 as it attempted to have a $1.65 million bond passed in order to build a new power plant. It argued that the administrative charges alone, such as bookkeeping, billing, meter reading, and office expenses cost more for 5000 small consumers than for one large customer, in addition to the cost for equipment. The spokesperson for the city then admitted that the industrial sector would have two direct power lines built to it, but that if it wasn’t for industry, the people would somehow pay even more for the services. The article finishes by stating that, “the records of the plants are an open book in the office at the city hall. But all the people cannot come there to look into them, so how are the people to be informed of the facts unless through allthorized publicity? The electric plants are theirs and they are entitled to know all about them. ”23 Another important point revealed by the Burton Dixie controversy, is that the municipal government had saddled itself with an ideology of fiscal conservatism that was only exacerbated with the collapse of the stock market. Troyer, as well as the rest of the \ 27 23% to Mayor, 17 Apri11930, and Mayor to Hutty, 8 May 1930. CLDC, State Archives. Explain Rate, Lansing Power,” State Journal, 25 Aug. 1921, 1. 116 city council, was concerned how the economic downturn would affect him politically and he did not want to inflame voters’ wrath. With the economy in decline, Mayor Troyer was also unwilling to allow the city to neither absorb the sewer fee nor increase the burden on the voting base of property owners. Additionally, Since the factory was already built, he obviously believed he had some leverage over the Burton Dixie Company. Troyer’s concerns are not without merit. Available records Show that tax delinquency was already a problem by 1930. In that year 407 businesses and shops were grossly behind in their tax commitments. A study conducted by the Chamber of Commerce in that year revealed that the number of unemployed was 14,943 out of a total workforce of roughly 34,000. These figures were almost double the number of unemployed one year earlier and are almost the identical number of workers who had been employed in manufacturing and mechanical industries in 1930.29 It is also important to note that Michigan cities had the power to tax and set tax rates on property owners. In 1923, Lansing derived 46.6 percent of its municipal revenue from direct property taxes or $35.11 of the annual $75.27 that each homeowner had to pay on average for the municipal government to meet the majority of its expenses. By 1930 this percentage had dropped slightly to 44.7 percent.30 It is revealing to note, thOugh, that between 1923 and 1930 the amount of revenue Lansing received from all taXes increased from 4.8 million dollars to 7.5 million even though the population only 29\ Nellie Tallmadge, City Treasurer, Lansing to Mayor Troyer and members of the Ways and Means Cominjttee, no date, and July Business Barometer, prepared by F .A. Hutty, Lansing Chamber of gmnlherce, 8 Aug. 1930. CLDC, State Archives. See also 15‘” Census of the United States: 1930, mopf‘lation, Vol. IV, (Washington: U.S Government Printing Office, 1932). B F’ "ancial Statistics of Cities Having a Population of Over 30, 000, I 923, Department of Commerce, Hurfau of the Census, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1925), and Financial Statistics of Cities “W"g a Population ovaer 30,000, 1930, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington: G°Vernment printing Office, 1932). 117 increased by 21,000 from roughly 57,000 to 78,000. While an increased population partially accounts for some of the money, the city Simply raised its utility rates and gained additional monies from special assessment taxes rather than increase property taxes - It seems though, that the additional revenues from the city did not proportionally go towards improving the basic infrastructure. In 1923 the city spent $14,404 on the sewers and $80,066 on other refuse collection and disposal. In 1930 it spent $14,347 on the sewers and only $53,307 on other refuse collection and disposal despite the fact that, as mentioned, parts of the city remained chronically underserved into the 1960s. Interestingly though, its street cleaning budget went up slightly fi'om $21,000 to $36,000 and, the amount of money the city spent on parks (including golf courses) and tree plantings rose from $43,405 to $75,444.3| In 1923, it cost Lansing $90.51 per capita to run the government, while its reVenues averaged $75.27. Its per capita debt was $68.30. By 1930 the per capita debt had dropped to $55.83, suggesting that the city decided to invest more money in paying down its municipal bonds. These figures also suggest that Lansing continued to invest in “ViSible” improvements such as clean streets, tree plantings, and well-maintained parks, and golf courses. These types of urban nature exemplify how the city expropriated the mefillings behind wilderness. Trees, clean streets, and organized recreation, as mentioned PreVioust, were believed to be ways of controlling the meanings of nature and the supposed social behavior associated there fiom. The city’s choices in how it invested in nature reflected the values of local politicians and their definitions regarding the \ 31 ,1? _1 923 Lansing received $1.9 million from its public service enterprises, or the municipally owned ‘mlltles and $253,597 from special assessments. In 1930 the city earned $3,351,346 from direct property We?“ $3,299,000 from the utilities, and a little over $600,000 from special assessments, Financial S‘G‘IStics ofCities Having a Population Over 30,000, 1923 and 1930. 118 relationship between nature, Americanism, democracy, and economics. These choices were simultaneously embedded in the psyche of the public.32 It is easy to understand why the municipal government focused on visible or cosmetic improvements. Unlike many cities along the east coast where most people paid rent and did not see a direct link between higher taxes and increased rent, Lansing needed to give its residents some visible evidence that the city was working for its residents. Lansing also made sure to provide basic services such as sewer, trash pick-up, and street cleaning to its “well established” neighborhoods. These services are key elements to the success of any city government in that they function as daily reminders to residents (even if false) that the municipal government is running things efficiently and competently. when the water stops running, or the garbage is not picked up or if the lights no longer go On at the flip of a switch, then homeowners are provided with tangible daily evidence that their elected representatives are not doing their jobs and need to be replaced. A good example of municipalities seeming to fail in their basic responsibilities happened during the early years of the Depression in cities like Chicago, Detroit, and New York. Decade- long increases in property taxes and arbitrary means of assessing the Value of those taxes, coupled with an economic downturn and financial mismanagement on the part of those cities, prompted residents to organize tax protests. ThoInsands of Americans in large numbers simply refilsed to continue funding municipal SOVernments they considered wasteful, corrupt, and incompetent.33 —\ 32 - It 18 interesting to note that it cost Salt Lake only $43.89 per capita to run its government in 1923 29mm to the $90.51 in Lansing, Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population Over 30,000, 1923. I?a\"i