. :nbansyh 1J1
y I‘Vvu .g\

.‘A,. ,
.. .. ,7 EA.
Huh: :

wan ‘ .
\ «a: .u ,
aha: .
i. 2. . .
HE. {ersirh fir. ,
:flwfld 6433......)3‘1...

.03)

é

.. u
a}
in? :13.
. ”.1... In:

4 1L. , ,
«notifyghw
.1 fire? .
$2.3,” 6%
i 3% .u.

3‘.

a. .

. . : ‘ .

fight: , amh‘.

V x
III-1e .

in.“ 0.11:9 4a.

liflul’.

4"- 0:
is: [’1‘
{ti-n. n13?! 1.5!.
. at... a, lo .
wit
:2» in»? .
. 431
13)
d

l

(#1..
I.
{‘5

a ,

V ’ I 1 El
iuwwmflykuh
fl. await”?
N “I“: .f‘ Qiiuni~zI
31.4.

4:1

f

..
“ward“: "Hung a p.
, .gwmwrmfi.

i
2

rl
.r ‘ 1.
‘ . .. 3.2.... I“
‘ .2 s. 5.3.. .gfimfiu
. ammtu Lflnwszxranizzl
5rd? 53...). .lfiuééfiyu
3 ..>t.h.¢$t.a§ .
. (fill. $3.5!!! “u
. .2533...

. z...
in”)! . u
10‘. iii-PEH ,

I!“
t!
iynuifiir§.flfl
. .5 l2...

r...

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

SOCIAL UPGRADING AND RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT
IN THE EFFORT TO PHYSICALLY UPGRADE AND
REDEVELOP DETERIORATED INNER-CITY AREAS OF
HOUSTON, TEXAS

presented by
Angelo R. Podagrosi III

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. e7 in Geography
J

'or Profess r’s Signature

 

 

0412305
/ /

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Universuty

 

 

 

 

.-.—--.-¢---a-n-o-.-._.‘.-- 4

SOCIAL UPGRADING AND RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT IN THE EFFORT TO
PHYSICALLY UPGRADE AND REDEVELOP DETERIORATED INNER-CITY
AREAS OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
By

Angelo R. Podagrosi III

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Geography

2006

ABSTRACT
SOCIAL UPGRADING AND RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT IN THE EFFORT TO
PHYSICALLY UPGRADE AND REDEVELOP DETERIORATED INNER-CITY
AREAS OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
By

Angelo R. Podagrosi III

For over fifty years, the public and private sectors have engaged in various
initiatives and programs to physically upgrade deteriorated inner-cities. However, often
the by—product of physical upgrading is social upgrading, the displacement of many of the
original residents of the central city neighborhoods who are ofien low-income and
minority. This thesis explores the various processes of physical and social upgrading—
including locally-driven urban renewal, private-sector ‘block-busting’, and
gentrification—occurring in the latter 20th century in the city of Houston, Texas.

This thesis focuses on the city of Houston because of the extensive resources
recently directed towards the revitalization of its downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods. This thesis examines the occurrence of different forms of physical and
social upgrading, which are taking place simultaneously, but in different combinations, in
different areas of the city. The research also examines the neighborhood characteristics
and demographic patterns that influence the occurrence of specific upgrading processes.
One location of particular interest in this study is Houston’s historic Afiican-American
community of Freedmen’s Town which has experienced decades of conflict over land
and Space. Most recently, Freedmen’s Town has been at the focus of Houston’s urban
revival, where physical upgrading has been accompanied by the displacement of the

community’s traditional population and the destruction of a historic neighborhood.

 

Copyright by
Angelo R. Podagrosi III
2006

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to begin by thanking several people that were important in assisting many
of the technical aspects of this research project. Acquiring specific datasets of US.
Census data is never easy but was made much easier with the help of Kathleen Weessies,
the M.S.U. Maps Librarian, and Hui Hua Chua, the M.S.U. government documents
librarian, with their assistance in using the always-challenging GeoLytics Census CDs.
Dr. Judy Olson provided great assistance regarding the cartographic design aspects of this
project and its proper presentation. Dr Bruce Pi gozzi provided invaluable assistance and
insight into the statistical analyses of this research and helped to ‘make sense of all the
data.’ And lastly I would like to thank Rick Powell who’s ‘basic’ (yet very complex)
VisualBasic Excel code helped in the calculation of ‘change’ in Census data and saved
me hundreds of hours in manual calculations.

Nearly every successful graduate student receives guidance, support, and
encouragement from the other graduate students in their department and I was no
different. The following people were always of great assistance during this graduate
school experience, even if it was only to provide an ear to talk to, or a chance to escape
‘Nat Sci’ for lunch or coffee: Steve Aldrich, Marian Mitchell, Jamie Rudell, Shannon
Smith, and most importantly Juliegh Bookout and Meleia Egger. You all helped to make
my endless hours and weekends working a lot more bearable. I would also like to thank
the M.S.U. Department of Geography for all of the assistance they have provided
including a teaching assistantship position my first year as a graduate student. The
Wonderful ladies in the office (Marilyn Bria, Judy Reginek, Sharon Ruggles) were always
0fincredible help for everything and anything I might need.

iv

My entire committee of Dr. Bruce Pigozzi, Dr. June Thomas, and Dr. Joe Darden
was of incredible assistance to me during this research and writing process. They
provided invaluable critical examinations and critiques of my work that made it better
and more insightful while also providing a ‘sounding board’ for various ideas I had along
the way.

Most important from my committee has been the help of my advisor, Dr. Igor
Vojnovic. Throughout my graduate school experience he added an incredibly insightfiil
and challenging view to my research and work. Words cannot describe how much I have
appreciated his help, guidance, insight, and friendship. He recognized my passion and
potential for studying urban issues and encouraged my further pursuit of these issues and
ideas in graduate school.

And of most importance in my life has been the guidance, help, and
encouragement of my family. First I want to thank my parents who first helped me to
realize the economic and social inequalities that exist in society and that something can
and must be done to alleviate and overcome those inequalities. I hope that this work can
be a tribute to them and can help in the continual battle to raise awareness about poverty
and inequality. Lastly I must recognize my loving and supportive wife who has truly
provided the strength and support that I needed to make it through this graduate school
process. They say that behind every successful man is a strong wife to support him. I was
no different as my wife made even more sacrifices than I to allow me to finish graduate
school. She did everything from working multiple jobs, making my meals, giving up the
free time and weekends of our early years of marriage and much more, all so that I may

be a successful graduate student.

For all of the people that have helped me along this long journey I thank you from

the bottom of my heart. I could not have made it to this point without your help.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xix
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... l
The City of Houston ........................................................................................................ 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 4
Statement of Problem ...................................................................................................... 5
Research Objectives ........................................................................................................ 7
Outline of Thesis ............................................................................................................. 9

2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 12
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 12
Explaining the New Demand for Inner-City Living ..................................................... 13
Urban Renewal/Land Clearance ................................................................................... 20
Displacement ............................................................................................................. 22

Use of Urban Renewal in Ethnic and Racial Areas .................................................. 23
Locally-Driven Urban Renewal Tactics ................................................................... 26
Private-Sector ‘Block-busting’ ..................................................................................... 29
Gentrification ................................................................................................................ 31
Causes of Gentrification ........................................................................................... 32
Characteristics of Neighborhoods Experiencing Gentrification ............................... 35
Displacement ............................................................................................................. 36
Commentary on Physical and Social Upgrading .......................................................... 38

3 HOUSTON ............................................................................................................... 41
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 41
Brief History and Development of Houston ................................................................. 42
Economy .................................................................................................... 46
The Laissez-Faire City .................................................................................................. 49
Growth Coalitions ......................................................................................................... 51
Government Involvement in Business .......................................................................... 53
Postmodern Transition .................................................................................................. 56
Houston’s Modernist Roots ...................................................................................... 57
Houston’s New Postmodern Direction ..................................................................... 59
Local Economic Development Strategies: Focusing on Houston’s Central City ......... 67
The Main Street Management District and TIRZS ................................................... 70
Main Street and Infrastructure Projects .................................................................... 74
Entertainment Venues: Stadiums, Hotels, Conventions, Performing Arts ............... 81

The Role of Subsidies ............................................................................................... 91

Tax Breaks and Subsidies for Residential Developments ........................................ 96
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 97

vii

4 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 98
Variable Selection and Data Preparation ...................................................................... 98
Geographic Limits of Analysis ................................................................................. 99
Data Selection ......................................................................................................... 101
Variables of analysis ............................................................................................... 104
Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 104
Data Aggregation for Comparison .......................................................................... 106
Changes Occurring in Harris County ......... ' ................................................................. 110
Principal Components Analysis & Clustering ............................................................ 147
Areas of Houston Experiencing Redevelopment ........................................................ 153
Independent Municipalities ..................................................................................... 158

The Heights ............................................................................................................. 165
Rice Military/Magnolia Grove ................................................................................ 171
Freedmen’s Town ................................................................................................... 182
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 1 92

5 F REEDMEN’S TOWN .......................................................................................... 193
Brief History of the settlement of Freedmen’s Town area ......................................... 193
Development and Success of F reedmen’s Town ........................................................ 198
Early Conflicts of Space ............................................................................................. 201
Declining State of the Community ............................................................................. 212
Recent Pressures for Development & Conflicts of Space .......................................... 216
Allen Parkway Village ............................................................................................ 217
Historic Structures & Preservation Attempts .......................................................... 219
Issues Regarding Various Land Holdings ............................................................... 233
HISD in the Fourth Ward ........................................................................................ 236
Physical and Social Upgrading of Freedmen’s Town ................................................. 240
Discussion of Data and Trends ............................................................................... 240
Current Upscale Developments .............................................................................. 244
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 250

6 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 252
Reflecting on the Robustness of Urban Revitalization Initiatives .............................. 252
Physical and Social Upgrading ................................................................................... 253
The Houston Context .................................................................................................. 256
The Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 258
Freedmen’s Town ....................................................................................................... 261
Research Contribution and Future Directions ............................................................. 263

7 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 270
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................... 295

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Images in this thesis are presented in color

Figure 2.1 — Rent gap diagram .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.1 —- Union Station as entrance to Minute Maid Park (baseball stadium) (Source:
Author) ...................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 3.2 — Interior of renovated Union Station (Source: Author) ................................. 63
Figure 3.3 -— Hogg Palace (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 64
Figure 3.4 — Rice Hotel (Source: Author) ......................................................................... 64
Figure 3.5 — Rice Hotel (Source: Author) ......................................................................... 65
Figure 3.6 — Orientation map of the Houston area and F reedmen’s Town ....................... 68
Figure 3.7 — Locations of downtown sites and recent redevelopment projects ................ 69

Figure 3.8 — Locations of Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones in the City of Houston 71

Figure 3.9 — Highly-successful Midtown area southwest of downtown redeveloped with a

TIRZ. (Source: Author) ............................................................................................ 73
Figure 3.10 — Remaining land in the Midtown area prepared for development. (Source:
Author) ...................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 3.11 — Improved streetscape designs and street integration with the light-rail line.
(Source: Author) ....................................................................................................... 76
Figure 3.12 — Facade improvements and new streetscape designs along Main Street in
downtown. (Source: Author) .................................................................................... 76
Figure 3.13 — District signage as part of downtown revitalization. (Source: Author) ...... 77
Figure 3.14 — Cotswold Streetscape Improvement Project (Source: Author) .................. 77

Figure 3.15 — Main Street Improvement Project with the construction of the li ght-rail line
along Main Street in downtown. (Source: Author) ................................................... 79

ix

Figure 3.16 - Main Street Improvement Project with construction of light-rail line
(Source: Author) ....................................................................................................... 79

Figure 3.17 — Completed light-rail line integrated with Main Street. (Source: Author) .. 80
Figure 3.18 — Completed light-rail line integrated with Main Street. (Source: Author) .. 80
Figure 3.19 — New 1,200 room Hilton Americas-Houston hotel. (Source: Author) ........ 82

Figure 3.20 — Close proximity of new Hilton hotel and George R. Brown Convention
Center as viewed from Minute Maid Park. (Source: Author) ................................... 82

Figure 3.21 — The redeveloped, historic Lancaster Hotel in the downtown Theatre

District. (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 83
Figure 3.22 — George R. Brown Convention Center (Source: Author) ............................ 84
Figure 3.23 — Minute Maid Park (formerly Enron Field) (Source: Author) ..................... 86

Figure 3.24 — Interior of Minute Maid Park (formerly Enron Field) (Source: Author)... 86
Figure 3.25 —- Toyota Center (Source: Author) ................................................................. 87

Figure 3.26 — Reliant Stadium under construction, October 2001 (Source: Author) ....... 87

Figure 3.27 -— Reliant Stadium (Source: Author) .............................................................. 87
Figure 3.28 — Wortham Center (Source: Author) ............................................................. 89
Figure 3.29 — Jones Hall (Source: Author) ....................................................................... 89
Figure 3.30 — Alley Theatre (Source: Author) .................................................................. 90
Figure 3.31 -— Hobby Center for the Performing Arts. (Source: Author) .......................... 90
Figure 3.32 - Bayou Place entertainment complex. (Source: Author) ............................. 90
Figure 3.33 — Bayou Place entertainment complex. (Source: Author) ............................. 91

Figure 4.1 — 2000 US. Census Tracts of Harris County and Houston City Limits ........ 100
Figure 4.2 — Location of the City of Houston and the counties it occupies .................... 102

Figure 4.3 — Independent Municipalities of the Houston area ........................................ 103

Figure 4.5 — Orientation map of the Houston area .......................................................... 1 1 1
Figure 4.6 — Map of the change in total population - Harris County, 1980-2000 .......... 113

Figure 4.7 —- Map of the change in the White population — Harris County, 1980-2000. 114

Figure 4.8 — Map of the change in the percentage of census tract that is White — Harris
County, 1980-2000 ................................ . ................................................................. 115

Figure 4.9 —- Map of the percentage of census tract that is White — Harris County, 2000
................................................................................................................................. 1 16

Figure 4.10 — Map of the change in the Black population — Harris County, 1980-2000 117

Figure 4.11 — Map of the percentage of census tract that is Black — Harris County, 2000
................................................................................................................................. 119

Figure 4.12 — Map of the change in the Hispanic Population — Harris County, 1980-2000
................................................................................................................................. 120

Figure 4.13 — Map of the change in the percentage of census tract that is Hispanic —
Harris County, 1980-2000 ...................................................................................... 121

Figure 4.14 — Map of the percentage of census tract that is Hispanic — Harris County,
2000 ......................................................................................................................... 122

Figure 4.15 — Map of the change in the percentage of census tract population (age 25+)
that are college graduates —- Harris County, 1980-2000 .......................................... 123

Figure 4.16 — Map of the percentage of census tract population (age 25+) that are college
graduates — Harris County, 2000 ............................................................................ 124

Figure 4.17 — Map of the change in the percentage of census tract families that are below
the poverty level — Harris County, 1980-2000 ........................................................ 125

Figure 4.18 - Map of the percentage of census tract families that are below the poverty
level -— Harris County, 2000 .................................................................................... 126

Figure 4.19 — Map of the change in the percentage of census tract households that are
female-headed - Harris County, 1980-2000 ........................................................... 127

Figure 4.20 — Map of the percentage of census tract households that are female-headed -
Harris County, 2000 ................................................................................................ 129

Figure 4.21 — Map of the change in the percentage of census tract households receiving
public assistance income — Harris County, 1980-2000 ........................................... 130

xi

Figure 4.22 — Map of the percentage change in median gross rent —— Harris County, 1980-
2000 ......................................................................................................................... 131

Figure 4.23 — Map of the percentage change in median value of owner-occupied housing
units - Harris County, 1980-2000 ........................................................................... 132

Figure 4.24 — Map of the median value of oWner-occupied housing units — Harris County,
1980-2000 ............................................................................................................... 133

Figure 4.25 — Map of the percentage change in median household income — Harris
County, 1980-2000 ................................................................................................. 134

Figure 4.26 — Map of the percentage change in per capita income — Harris County, 1980-
2000 ......................................................................................................................... 136

Figure 4.27 — Map of the change in percentage of census tract employed population
whose occupation is considered ‘professional’ — Harris County, 1980-2000 ........ 137

Figure 4.28 — Map of the percentage of census tract employed population whose
occupation is considered ‘professional’ — Harris County, 2000 ............................. 138

Figure 4.29 — Map of the change in total number of households — Harris County, 1980-
2000 ......................................................................................................................... 139

Figure 4.30 — Map of the change in total number of housing units - Harris County, 1980-
2000 ......................................................................................................................... 140

Figure 4.31 — Map of the change in the total number of occupied housing units — Harris
County, 1980-2000 ................................................................................................. 141

Figure 4.32 — Map of the change in the total number of vacant housing units — Harris
County, 1980-2000 ................................................................................................. 142

Figure 4.33 — Map of the change in the total number of owner-occupied housing units —
Harris County, 1980-2000 ...................................................................................... 144

Figure 4.34 — Map of the change in the total number of renter-occupied housing units —
Harris County, 1980-2000 ...................................................................................... 145

Figure 4.35 - Map of the change in the percentage of total housing units lacking complete
plumbing facilities — Harris County, 1980-2000 .................................................... 146

Figure 4.36 — Graph of Change in Incremental F-Values based upon K-Means Clustering
Process .................................................................................................................... 152

xii

Figure 4.37 — Map of the Harris County census tracts that clustered with Freedmen’s
Town in experiencing Similar characteristics of redevelopment from 1980 to 2000
................................................................................................................................. 154

Figure 4.38 - Zoomed-in map of the near-downtown cluster of redevelopment census
tracts. ....................................................................................................................... 159

Figure 4.39 - A ‘teardown’ in progress within the separate municipality of Bunker Hill
Village. Notice the smaller housing next door. (Source: Author) .......................... 161

Figure 4.40 - Example of some of the original housing that occupied these areas. Houses
of this Size and style are often what are being torn down to be replaced by larger
homes. (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 161

Figure 4.41 - A new, larger home being built to replace a smaller home torn down in the
separate municipality of Hunters Creek Village. (Source: Author) ........................ 162

Figure 4.42 - A new, larger home being built to replace a smaller home torn down in the
separate municipality of Hunters Creek Village. (Source: Author) ........................ 162

Figure 4.43 - Older housing stock that has been renovated and gentrified in The Heights.
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 166

Figure 4.44 - Older housing stock that has been renovated and gentrified in The Heights.
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 167

Figure 4.45 - Older housing stock that has been renovated and gentrified in The Heights

(on the right) with new two-story construction on the left. (Source: Igor Vojnovic)
................................................................................................................................. 167

Figure 4.46 - New upscale housing being constructed in The Heights. (Source: Igor
Vojnovic) ................................................................................................................ 168

Figure 4.47 - Architecturally-unique housing being physically upgraded in the gentrifying
area of The Heights. (Source: Author) .................................................................... 169

Figure 4.48 - Architecturally-unique housing being physically upgraded in the gentrifying
area of The Heights. (Source: Igor Vojnovic) ........................................................ 169

Figure 4.49 - New, upscale townhomes being built in the Rice-Military area. The

remaining house next door is typical of original housing of this area that has largely
been replaced. (Source: Author) ............................................................................. 172

xiii

Figure 4.50 - Deteriorated housing in the Rice Military area mostly likely awaiting
demolition to be replaced with upscale housing. (Source: Author) ........................ 172

Figure 4.51 - New, upscale townhomes being built in the Rice-Military area. (Source:
Author) .................................................................................................................... 173

Figure 4.52 — Sign advertising the newly-built townhomes in the Rice-Military area.
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 173

Figure 4.53 - Older housing stock remaining in the redeveloping Rice-Military area.
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 174

Figure 4.54 - Older deteriorated commercial property remaining in Rice-Military. Next
door encroach the construction of new upscale townhomes. (Source: Author) ..... 174

Figure 4.55 — Deteriorated housing, most likely awaiting demolition, in the Rice-Military
area with upscale townhomes in the background. (Source: Author) ...................... 175

Figure 4.56 - Older housing in Cottage Grove area similar to what is being demolished
for newer upscale construction. (Source: Author) .................................................. 178

Figure 4.57 - Older housing awaiting demolition in the Cottage Grove area. (Source:
Author) .................................................................................................................... 178

Figure 4.58 - Older housing and newer construction in the Cottage Grove area
experiencing forces of urban renewal and private-sector ‘blockbusting’. (Source:
Author) .................................................................................................................... 179

Figure 4.59 - Older, deteriorated housing remaining next to a large empty lot awaiting
development. (Source: Author) ............................................................................... 179

Figure 4.60 - Older housing dwarfed in size by new townhome construction in Cottage
Grove. (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 180

Figure 4.61 - Older housing dwarfed in size by new townhome construction in Cottage
Grove. (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 180

Figure 4.62 - New townhome construction next to older trailer-style housing in Cottage
Grove. (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 181

Figure 4.63 — Newly constructed two-story, single-family rowhouses in Cottage Grove.
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 1 81

Figure 4.64 — Boarded homes awaiting demolition in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Igor
Vojnovic) ................................................................................................................ 187

xiv

Figure 4.65 -— Boarded homes awaiting demolition in F reedmen’s Town. (Source: Igor
Vojnovic) ................................................................................................................ 187

Figure 4.66 — Newly-constructed homes across the street from deteriorating ‘shotgun-
style’ homes in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Igor Vojnovic) ................................. 188

Figure 4.67 — Upscale lofts of the ‘Urban Lofls’ development being constructed in
Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 188

Figure 4.68 — Boarded housing awaiting demolition in Freedmen’s Town. (Source:
Author) .................................................................................................................... 189

Figure 4.69 — Boarded housing adjacent to a bumed-out shell of a home and newly-
constructed, upscale townhomes in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author) ............. 189

Figure 4.70 — Early stages of construction of new housing adjacent to deteriorating
housing in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author) .................................................... 190

Figure 4.71 — New housing being constructed across from the historic 1926 Gregory

School building in F reedmen’s Town. (Source: Author) ........................................ 190
Figure 5.1 —- Map of original Houston wards. ................................................................. 195
Figure 5.2 — Freedmen’s Town ‘shotgun-style’ housing (Source: Author) .................... 197
Figure 5.3 — F reedmen’s Town Housing (Source: Author) ............................................ 197

Figure 5.4 — Picture of the Houston Black Chamber of Commerce established in the
Fourth Ward. (Source: http://www.houstonhistory.com/erhnic/history2blacks.htm)
................................................................................................................................. 200

Figure 5.5 — Snapshot of active daily life along W. Dallas Avenue in the Fourth Ward
from around the 19403. (Source: http://houstonhistory.com/decades/historySk.htm)

................................................................................................................................. 200
Figure 5.6 — Map of Fourth Ward and downtown expansion projects ........................... 204
Figure 5.7 - City Hall (Source: Author) ......................................................................... 205
Figure 5.8 — Sam Houston Park, west of City Hall (Source: Author) ............................ 205

Figure 5.9 - Sam Houston Coliseum (site of the current Hobby Center for the Performing
Arts built in 2002) (Source: http://www.houstonhockey.net/page9.htrnl) .............. 206

XV

Figure 5.10 — Conversion of Gulf Freeway into Interstate 45 (Source:
http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/historic/photos/houston_historic_photos.sht
ml) ........................................................................................................................... 206

Figure 5.11 - Un-redeveloped western Section of the former Albert Thomas Convention
Center (Source: Author) .......................................................................................... 208

Figure 5.12 — Antioch Baptist Church in the midst ’of the modern glass skyscrapers of the
Allen Center (Source: Author) ................................................................................ 208

Figure 5.13 — San Felipe Courts public housing project (currently Allen Parkway Village)
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 21 0

Figure 5.14 — Original San Felipe Courts public housing project housing. Currently
named the Historic Oaks of Allen Parkway Village (Source: Author) ................... 210

Figure 5.15 - New public housing construction of the Historic Oaks of Allen Parkway
Village (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 218

Figure 5.16 — Historic cottage moved from the Fourth Ward in 2002 by developer Larry
Davis in preparation for the construction of upscale housing. The cottage was placed
within Sam Houston Park with other historic homes of the area including the home
of the Reverend John Henry ‘Jack’ Yates, pastor of the Antioch Baptist Church,
whose home was also originally in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author) .............. 220

Figure 5.17 - Placard describing the historical importance of the Fourth Ward cottage.
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 221

Figure 5.18 — The home of Rev. John Henry ‘Jack’ Yates also moved to Sam Houston
Park from Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author) ..................................................... 221

Figure 5.19 — Cleared residential site at 1713 Lubbock Street in the historic Sixth Ward.
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 223

Figure 5.20 —- Burned-out shell of the Bethel Baptist Church in Freedmen’s Town
(Source: Author) ..................................................................................................... 225

Figure 5.21 — Construction of upscale lofls surrounding the burnt-out Bethel Baptist
Church (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 226

Figure 5.22 — Construction of upscale lofts surrounding the burnt-out Bethel Baptist
Church (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 227

Figure 5.23 — Construction of upscale lofts surrounding the burnt-out Bethel Baptist
Church (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 227

xvi

Figure 5.24 — Remaining original bricks partially covered by recent concrete and
destroyed by local developers (Source: Author) ..................................................... 229

Figure 5.25 — Remaining original brick street in Freedmen’s Town (Source: Author). 229

Figure 5.26 — Remaining original bricks partially covered by recent concrete and
destroyed by local developers (Source: Author) ..................................................... 230

Figure 5.27 — Remaining original bricks partially covered by recent concrete and
destroyed by local developers (Source: Author) ..................................................... 230

Figure 5.28 — Boarded-up Gregory School set to reopen Houston public library branch
and Afiican-American Archival & Cultural Center (Source: Author) ................... 232

Figure 5.29 — Back of the boarded-up Gregory School set to reopen Houston public
library branch and African-American Archival & Cultural Center (Source: Author)
................................................................................................................................. 232

Figure 5.30 — Land south of the Gregory-Lincoln school acquired for expansion of the
current school and construction of a new high school for the visual and performing
arts. (Source: Author) .............................................................................................. 239

Figure 5.31 — Land south of the Gregory-Lincoln school acquired for expansion of the
current school and construction of a new high school for the visual and performing

arts. (Source: Author) .............................................................................................. 239

Figure 5.32 — Map of the locations of the new Urban Lofts townhome construction
(Source: www.urbanlofts.com) ............................................................................... 246

Figure 5.33 — Construction of new, upscale townhomes of Urban Lofts. (Source: Author)

................................................................................................................................. 246
Figure 5.34 — New townhomes across the street from a few of the remaining original

housing in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author) .................................................... 247
Figure 5.35 — New, upscale townhomes of Urban Lofts. (Source: Author) ................... 247

Figure 5.36 — Land held by Camden Property Trust to be used for a $70 million,

multifamily complex on the far eastern edge of Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)
................................................................................................................................. 248

Figure 5.37 — Informational flyer of a newly constructed Crosby Lofts for sell on the east
side of F reedmen’s Town ........................................................................................ 249

xvii

Figure 5.38 — Newly constructed Crosby Lofts (Source: Author) .................................. 250

Figure 7.1— Map of the total population — Harris County, 2000 .................................... 271
Figure 7.2 - Map of the change in the percentage of census tract that is Black — Harris
County, 1980-2000 ................................................................................................. 272
Figure 7.3 — Map of median gross rent — Harris COunty, 2000 ...................................... 273
Figure 7.4 — Map of median household income — Harris County, 2000 ......................... 274
Figure 7.5 — Map of per capita income — Harris County, 2000 ...................................... 275

xviii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 — Conditions for gentrification schema ............................................................. 34

Table 3.1 — Population growth for the City of Houston (Source: US. Census Bureau) .. 44
Table 3.2 — Facts and Figures — City of Houston 2000 (Source: City of Houston 2003a)45
Table 4.1 — Census Data Variables of Analysis .............................................................. 105
Table 4.2 — Complete List of Variables Used in Principal Components Analysis ......... 148

Table 4.3 — Loadings fiom Principal Components Analysis — Varimax Rotation - 7
Dimensions ............................................................................................................. 1 50

Table 4.4 — Calculations of Incremental F-Values based upon K—Means Clustering
Process .................................................................................................................... 152

Tables 4.5 — Change in US. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts
that make up the Independent Municipalities. (US. Census Bureau 1983, 1993,
2005) ....................................................................................................................... 164

Tables 4.6 - Change in US. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts
that make up The Heights. (US. Census Bureau 1983, 1993, 2005) ..................... 170

Tables 4.7 - Change in US. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts
that make up the Rice-Military/Magnolia Grove area. (US. Census Bureau 1983,
1993,2005) ............................................................................................................. 176

Tables 4.8 - Change in US. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts
that make up the Rice-Military/Magnolia Grove area. (US. Census Bureau 1983,
1993,2005) ............................................................................................................. 185

Tables 4.9 - Change in US. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts
that make up the Rice-Military/Magnolia Grove area. (US. Census Bureau 1983,
1993,2005) ............................................................................................................. 186

Table 5.1 — Early population growth in Houston, TX (US. Census Bureau 1853, 1864,
1872) ....................................................................................................................... 194

Table 5.2 — Population and race data for the Freedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-2000.
(US. Census Bureau 1972, 1983, 1993, 2005) ....................................................... 241

xix

Table 5.3 -— Education and poverty data for the F reedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-
2000. ("Calculated of the population that is age 25+) (US. Census Bureau 1972,
1983, 1993, 2005) ................................................................................................... 241

Table 5.4 — Housing data for the F reedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-2000. (*** Will
not add up to 100% because of the vacant housing units) (US. Census Bureau 1972,
1983, 1993, 2005) ........................................... . ........................................................ 242

Table 5.5 — Income and money data for the Freedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-2000.
(US. Census Bureau 1972, 1983, 1993, 2005) ....................................................... 242

Table 7.1 — Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 1.. 276
Table 7.2 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 2 .. 277
Table 7.3 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 3 .. 278
Table 7.4 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 4.. 279
Table 7.5 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 5 .. 280

Table 7.6 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 1 of 14. .................................. 281

Table 7.7 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 2 of 14. .................................. 282

Table 7.8 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 3 of 14. .................................. 283

Table 7.9 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 4 of 14. .................................. 284

Table 7.10 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 5 of 14. .................................. 285

Table 7.11 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to F reedmen’s Town; Table 6 of 14. .................................. 286

Table 7.12 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 7 of 14. .................................. 287

Table 7.13 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment Similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 8 of 14. .................................. 288

XX

Table 7.14 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 9 of 14. .................................. 289

Table 7.15 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 10 of 14. ................................ 290

Table 7.16 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 11 of 14. ................................ 291

Table 7.17 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 12 of 14. ................................ 292

Table 7.18 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 13 of 14. ................................ 293

Table 7.19 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 14 of 14. ................................ 294

xxi

1 INTRODUCTION

This thesis explores the various types of physical and social upgrading processes
that have been used in the city of Houston, Texas to facilitate the city’s recent local urban
revitalization initiatives. The study focuses particularly on the negative social
consequences of physical upgrading that have been encouraged throughout many US.
cities, including Houston, as local economic and political leaders attempt to improve
downtown urban quality. Such initiatives have generally been evident in cities that have
made a shift from a traditional manufacturing economy to a Specialized service and hi gh-
technology economy. While urban revitalization is generally viewed as positive by
policy-makers, local businesses, and local developers, the physical upgrading involved in
urban redevelopment usually leads to the displacement of low-income, minority residents
that have traditionally occupied the central city neighborhoods. In the context of Houston,
several different processes of physical and social upgrading are evident, including
locally-driven urban renewal programs, private-sector ‘block-busting’, and gentrification.
The focus of this thesis is to explore the complex processes involved in Houston’s urban

revitalization and the role of the public and private sectors in driving these initiatives.

The City of Houston

The city of Houston was established in the spring of 1836 along a swampy,
largely un-navi gable bayou near the Gulf of Mexico. The early economy of the city grew
to include manufacturing, trade, and eventually the processing of resources extracted

from the surrounding region. This included lumber, cotton, and particularly important

within the Houston context, petroleum, which would Shape the growth and development
of the city in the twentieth century. After the city’s recession of the 19803, largely due to
the fall in petroleum prices, the city has attempted to diversity its economy from its
traditional petroleum-based economy, placing a new emphasis on medical research,
health care facilities, specialized services, tourism, and finance.

The city grew at a rapid pace both in terms of its population and spatial area. The
early population of 2,073 in 1839 grew to a size of 44,633 people in 1900, 596,163 in
1950 and just under two million people in 2000 (US. Census Bureau 1901 , 1952,
Johnston 1991, US. Census Bureau 2005). The original settlement of 2,000 acres in 1836
grew to a size of 72 square miles by 1930, 160 square miles by 1950, 447 square miles by
1967 and 633 square miles by 2003 (Federal Works Agency 1942, McComb 1969, City
of Houston 2003b).

The city of Houston, known for its highly conservative nature, has traditionally
been viewed as the archetypical laissez-faire city with minimal government involvement
in various planning issues—although this image has been increasingly challenged
(Vojnovic 2003a). Houston’s traditional laissez-faire philosophy is perhaps best evident
with the city’s continual rejection of citywide zoning, the absence of a formal plan, and
the city’s low-tax/low-services approach to local government. While many city officials
argue that this governing strategy is necessary to maintain a favorable business climate,
this approach to local government has had a history of producing severe social and
environmental injustices disproportionately affecting the city’s lower-income citizens

(Feagin 1988). The low taxes and the resulting minimal provision and maintenance of

urban infrastructure, including the disinterest in social service provision, has particularly
affected the lower-income and marginalized citizens.

In this laissez-faire environment, business leaders have historically maintained an
important role in guiding the development of the city (McComb 1969, Feagin 1988,
Vojnovic 2003b). As argued recently by Joel Warren Bama, in his comments regarding
local planning, “[i]n a manner typical throughout modern Texas, private interests began
to develop the comprehensive vision that public entities had failed to achieve” (Bama
2003, p. 47). This is a sentiment that is widely echoed in Houston. The local business
leaders have been known for ensuring the continuation of local policies that maintain the
city’s ‘favorable business climate’ and for recruiting businesses to Houston. This has
been generally considered successful given the city leaders’ ability to entice companies
with the low tax and minimal government benefits of the city. Historically, Houston’s
business leaders have been a strong influence in shaping the local economic development
strategies and in influencing the growth of the city.

Similar to the experience of many other US. cities in the latter 20th century, the
city of Houston has concentrated considerable efforts and resources towards the
redevelopment of its downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Given Houston’s well-
known history of urban decentralization, this was clearly a new development direction. In
fact, downtown revival has emerged as an important part of Houston’s new local
development strategy, as local leaders placed a new focus on developing the city’s high-
technology and specialized service economy. Recognizing that a high quality urban
environment is necessary to attract ‘white—collar’ professionals, businesses, and tourism

into the central city, extensive public resources have been devoted to increasing the

3

attractiveness of Houston’s downtown. Large-scale public construction projects have
been combined with the encouragement of mixed-use neighborhoods to promote
downtown living. In this revitalization process, local developers have benefited from
heavily subsidized physical improvement projects and direct subsidies for new
developments, while lower-income, minority populations have faced considerable

redevelopment pressures in their traditional communities.

Background

Many U.S. inner-cities faced increasing physical and social decline, especially in
the post-World War 11 period. As the US. economy strengthened after the war, levels of
suburbanization steadily increased. This resulted in large population losses for most US.
central cities. The residents able to leave the city largely consisted of those that could
afford to suburbanize, while those who remained behind in the city centers were
predominately poor, minority, and marginalized populations. This brought increasing
social ills on large segments of the population sub-groups trapped in the city, as levels of
drug use and crime increased, and education quality and employment opportunities
decreased (Wilson 1987).

In an effort to physically revitalize downtowns and surrounding areas, various
forms of physical upgrading have been evident in US. cities over the last fifty years.
Federal programs to fund and stimulate central city redevelopment began with large-scale
urban renewal projects and have more recently followed with renaissance zones and
community development block grants. Throughout the US, various local level initiatives

have been introduced to attract or encourage development in certain, often deteriorated,

areas of a city. Private developers are also involved in this physical and social upgrading
of neighborhoods, with acquisitions of private property in areas holding high potential for
profit from redevelopment.

Another process of physical and social upgrading that has been evident in many
US. cities is gentrification which is the refurbishment of unique, older, deteriorated
housing stock in inner-city areas by middle- and upper-income professionals. This
process is largely predicated upon the theory, known as the rent gap, that certain inner-
city neighborhoods (housing and property) have deteriorated and decreased in value to
such a low point that redevelopment is possible and profitable by developers and

gentrifiers.

Statement of Problem

Literature discussing redevelopment processes have typically focused on the
individual forces observed, such as the literature on gentrification (Smith 1979b, Henig
1980, Beauregard 1990, Betancur 2002, Hackworth 2002) or the literature on urban
renewal (Wilson 1966, Bellush and Hausknecht 1967). This has included studies on
specific cases of gentrification seen in cities such as New York City or Chicago and
federal urban renewal of the 19503 and 19603 in Boston or Detroit. This thesis intends to
provide a broader perspective of the various physical and social upgrading processes that
can simultaneously take place in a city and the multiple actors involved in guiding these
initiatives. The research will also attempt to articulate clearer definitions of the different
typologies of physical and social upgrading. In addition, the thesis intends to contribute

to the existing redevelopment literature with a thorough assessment of when the different

physical upgrading processes are employed, based on the physical characteristics of a
neighborhood and/or the local demographic patterns.

The focus of this research is placed on Houston because of the unique and
complex combination of public and private sector redevelopment programs and initiatives
involved in the upgrading of Houston’s central city neighborhoods. This public and
private sector collaboration has developed a unique synergy that has enabled a rather
efficient—and politically, largely undisputed—demolition of a number of historically
significant ethnic communities. Ironically, this is taking place at the same time that local
officials are devoting considerable resources to the marketing and celebration of
Houston’s historical and ethnic neighborhoods in their attempt to encourage downtown
revival and tourism. One area of particular focus of redevelopment in Houston and this
thesis is the historic Freedmen’s Town area. The original settlement of Houston’s
African-American community dating to the mid-18603, Freedmen’s Town has been one
of the centers of conflict in Houston’s desire to redevelop its downtown area.

This thesis will explore the different urban upgrading processes that have been
utilized throughout Houston, including Freedmen’s Town. This analysis will contribute to
the existing revitalization literature by illustrating how complex and multi-faceted urban
redevelopment strategies can become. The thesis will also examine the continual conflict
of Space and the resulting physical destruction and residential displacement, taking place
in Freedmen’s Town. This will provide yet another case study illustrating the role of

marginalized populations in the new and growing appreciation of central cities in the US.

Research Objectives

The focus of this thesis is to analyze the different combinations of physical and
social upgrading processes that can take place simultaneously in a city pursuing urban
revitalization. Three main objectives will be accomplished in this study. First, an
assessment will be undertaken into the different redevelopment initiatives, projects, and
policies that have facilitated the physical and social upgrading of Houston’s central city.

The second objective is to statistically measure and graphically display the
changes in population, housing, and socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics of residents
in Harris County (of which Houston is a part') from 1980 to 2000, using data from the
US. Census Bureau. This analysis will determine the areas of the city that are
experiencing similar physical and social upgrading processes and will enable a spatial
assessment to be performed into the patterns of neighborhood change. This will include
an examination of how specific areas of Houston have experienced different
combinations of upgrading based on the specific characteristics in the built environment
and the demographic characteristics of the neighborhoods. This review will provide new
insight into the complexity and multi-faceted nature of physical and social upgrading
forces that can occur within a city and the nature of involvement among the various
public and private economic and political agents driving these processes.

The third objective is to examine the changes being experienced in the
traditionally-black community of Freedmen’s Town, west of Houston’s downtown, and
to assess the continual conflicts of space that have occurred between the community,

private developers, and the city. This historic Houston community has experienced

 

' The majority of the city of Houston, some 95 percent, is located within Harris County.

7

extreme redevelopment pressures that have resulted in the displacement of large
segments of its lower-income, minority population.

The data collected and evaluated in this analysis consists largely of census data
from the national Census Bureau. Although weaknesses are inherent in this data source
and its collection, it is one of the most accurate and thorough compilations of data on the
US. population and housing characteristics. The other benefit of using census data is that
it is consistently collected across the nation every ten years, enabling the necessary
demographic assessments in the city of Houston over the two decades of interest.
Analyses of similar datasets have also been completed in other studies on physical and
social upgrading experienced in cities across the US. (Henig 1980, Galster 1985,
Beauregard 1990, Knox 1991, Freeman and Braconi 2004) and Canada (Ley 1986,
Dantas 1988, Filion 1991). This extensive literature provides support for the selected
method of analysis pursued in this thesis.

This thesis is unique in that it will articulate the simultaneous interaction of the
physical and social upgrading forces of locally-driven urban renewal, private sector
‘block-busting’, and gentrification that has lacked in the literature to this point. As stated
before, this thesis will provide an assessment of the different physical and socioeconomic
characteristics of neighborhoods that interact to encourage and facilitate the physical
upgrading processes. The thesis also provides a unique set of variables to study the
change experienced in neighborhoods including the analysis of the turnover in residents
(renter and owner) as well as renter- and owner-occupied housing units. Also important is

the contribution of a comprehensive dataset illustrating the unique physical and social

changes that have taken place in the historically-significant and minority Freedmen’s

Town area of Houston.

Outline of Thesis

Chapter two of the thesis provides an assessment of the existing literature on the
processes of physical and social upgrading experienced in North American central cities
over the last five decades including urban renewal, private-sector ‘block-busting’, and
gentrification. While many urban revitalization programs are presented as beneficial to
the community and residents, these initiatives have a history of producing considerable
negative impacts on large segments of the population that are displaced in the physical
upgrading process. The importance of the rent gap theory and the emergence of new
urbanites, population subgroups that have rediscovered the amenities of the inner-city, on
the three upgrading forces will also be discussed.

The third chapter provides an overview of the city of Houston, its historical
development and the city’s current focus on downtown revitalization. An important part
of Houston’s grth agenda has been based on the city’s Iaissez-faire philosophy, with
minimal government involvement being the cornerstone of its local economic, social, and
planning initiatives. However, while the city maintains this minimal government rhetoric,
historically governments at all levels have been extensively involved in the subsidization
and financial aid programs in a number of key projects and development initiatives in the
city of Houston. The recent focus on the physical upgrading of Houston’s central
business district and surrounding neighborhoods has come at a large price as local

taxpayers have once again been extensively involved in subsidizing local developers and

private businesses, and many of the original residents of these communities experiencing
redevelopment have been displaced in the resulting physical and social upgrading.

The fourth chapter measures the changes in population, socioeconomic, ethnic,
and housing characteristics of Harris County and its residents from 1980 to 2000. A
statistical principal components analysis was performed on the change in data for the
variables from 1980 to 2000. One of the goals of the analysis was to determine areas of
the city experiencing characteristics of physical and social upgrading similar to that being
experienced in Freedmen’s Town. The result was the clustering and identification of
several specific areas in Houston experiencing varying combinations of physical and
social upgrading.

The fifth chapter focuses on the conflict over space that has occurred in
Freedmen’s Town between residents, developers, and the city for over eighty years. With
the increased levels of physical and social upgrading associated with downtown revival in
the early- to mid-19903, the near-downtown location of Freedmen’s Town came under
increased pressure for redevelopment by private developers and local government
officials seeking to physically upgrade this transition area. Spurred by downtown revival,
the physical and social upgrading of F reedmen’s Town has resulted in the large-scale
displacement of many of the original poor, minority residents and the destruction of one
of the most historically and ethnically significant neighborhoods of Houston.

The final chapter summarizes the analysis of physical and social upgrading
processes and the results of these upgrading forces in the Houston context. The
complexity of these forces and their occurrence in combination based upon local physical

and socioeconomic factors is also discussed in the different areas of Houston. This

10

chapter concludes with a discussion of the contributions of this research, possible future
research studies, and various alternatives to the severe displacement of lower-income,
marginalized populations in the process of physical upgrading so encouraged by cities

across the nation.

11

2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Introduction

Beginning largely after World War 11, many US. urban centers and downtowns
began experiencing economic struggles. Over the past sixty years, the economic
downturn in US. inner cities was reflected in the deterioration of their physical
infrastructure, loss of employment, a decreasing tax base, and the abandonment of
neighborhoods, particularly by White and upper-income populations. Many of these
problems faced by US. downtowns were partially a result of, or exacerbated by,
increased levels of suburbanization encouraged and subsidized by the federal government
(powell 1999, Hanchett 2001, powell 2002, Jackson 2003). Although residential and
commercial decentralization had been taking place for several decades prior to World
War 11, during the post-war era decentralization began to take place at an even greater
scale and with more detrimental impacts upon residents remaining in the city. The level
and quality of services provided in the inner-cities decreased as opportunities for
employment became difficult and urban social problems magnified, especially for lower-
income minorities (Kasarda 1985, Grigsby 1987, p. 48-58, Wilson 1987, Galster 1991).

In an effort to physically redevelop downtowns and surrounding areas, various
physical upgrading processes have been evident in the US. context. For some fifty years,
the literature on urban renewal, private-sector ‘block-busting’, and gentrification have
examined the impacts of inner-city redevelopment and urban revival on residential
displacement. It has been evident that in the history of urban revitalization, physical

upgrading processes have also facilitated social upgrading, producing severe detrimental
12

impacts upon the original residents of an area that are forced to leave or are priced out of
their traditional communities.

The large scale physical and social upgrading processes in the US. began in the
late 19403 with the federal urban renewal program, initiated to replace substandard
housing units that occupied inner-cities. Eventually this program led to the removal of
many poor, mostly minority residents, from their traditional neighborhoods. Many of
these residents were also not provided with adequate replacement housing, further
worsening their condition. While urban renewal has ended, in recent years local
governments have become involved in the acquisition of private property for
development with the use of eminent domain. In addition, private sector agents, including
developers and gentrifiers, have also been extensively involved in the physical upgrading
of downtown neighborhoods. Developers have been acquiring and consolidating land
parcels for large-scale development, at times with the use of questionable techniques that
enable them to more easily and cheaply acquire private property. Smaller scale physical
upgrading processes have involved gentrification, in which older, lower-income housing
units with unique architectural characteristics are occupied and physically upgraded by
upper-income earners. All of the above redevelopment and refurbishment processes result

in the displacement of original residents of the area and surrounding neighborhoods.

Explaining the New Demand for Inner-City Living

One explanation of the new demand for the inner-city lifestyle is associated with
cultural and consumption orientations. It is based on the idea that without the growing

demand by population sub-groups for inner-city housing, these physical upgrading

13

processes and inner-city revival would not be taking place. Within this context, it can be
reasonably argued that the study of these new urbanites themselves is key to explaining
this mid- to latter-20th century interest in urban revitalization. Some have paralleled the
changing structure of the worldwide economy towards a service economy with the
increasing incidents of inner-city revitalization (Mullins 1982, Beauregard 1986). This
market shift has created the supply of white-collar professional workers necessary for the
physical upgrading to take place. A part of this market shift included increasing numbers
of employees working in downtown cores. With rising transportation and suburban living
costs, many began seeking residences closer to places of employment, thereby increasing
the demand for inner-city locations (Berry 1985).

An additional attraction of a particular inner-city location are the amenities of an
urban lifestyle. These include such attractions as increased accessibility to public
amenities, cultural activities, as well as historically significant residences and districts.
These attractions create certain pull factors that further increase the demand for inner—city
housing by middle- and upper-income groups (Ley 1986).

While existing literature has focused on gentrification in explaining and exploring
the characteristics of gentrifiers, it is important to recognize that a new demand for
downtown lifestyles is evident throughout US. cities, and that while some of this demand
is met through the gentrification process, other forms of physical upgrading are also
supplying this new housing demand. In particular, private sector block-busting and
locally driven urban renewal programs, as the Houston case will illustrate, are important

physical upgrading processes that are producing new units in the housing market.

14

With regard to the actual population sub-groups that are generating this new
demand for inner-city living, a number of different population groupings can be
identified in driving this new market segment. These population sub-groups are upper-
income earners typically with college degrees or higher. A large percentage are employed
in various ‘professional’ or white-collar occupations and are two-income households.
Many of these families are childless and typically younger in age (25-40 years old)
(Henig 1980, Ley 1986, Vigdor 2002). In many cases, populations seeking alternative
lifestyles initially move into these neighborhoods (artists, musicians, and fashion
designers) and facilitate the transition between the minority lower-income groups and the
middle and upper income professionals that eventually take over the neighborhood. As
baby-boomers age, and become empty nesters, they are also likely contributing to this
demand for smaller residences in the inner city. All of these sub-groups maintain a desire
to live in areas in close proximity to rich urban amenities (social, cultural, entertainment,
and retail). Also, for some there is an appeal for historic buildings, or those with pre-
modem designs, that contain more ‘character’ than the structures offered in typical post-

war suburban communities.

In contrast to the above demand side explanation of the recent interest in inner
city revitalization, a second explanation is based on supply-side factors. According to this
perspective, inner-city revitalization is driven by the availability of dilapidated housing
and land in the inner-city that has become affordable enough to encourage reinvestment
and redevelopment. This explanation is known as the rent- gap theory, and it has been the
framework used for explaining the refurbishment of the older housing stock in inner-city

areas by gentrifiers. Although developed to explain gentrification, the rationale of the
15

rent-gap theory can also provide insight into the two other physical upgrading processes
discussed in this research, locally-driven urban renewal and private sector ‘block-
busting’.

The rent-gap theory is a framework advanced and popularized in the literature by
Neil Smith. The supply-side explanation of physical upgrading and urban revitalization
offered by the rent-gap theory stresses the production of urban space (including the
operation of the housing and land market, and the role of developers and lending
institutions). The characteristics of actual housing are perhaps the most important
variables in this process, since the value of these homes must fall to certain levels in
order to make them attractive enough to upper-income renovators.

This argument begins with the illustration of land values in the nineteenth century
city depicted with the classical conical form with a peak at the urban center and then a
declining gradient towards the periphery. This was first widely discussed by Hoyt (Hoyt
1933) in reference to Chicago in the 19303. With increasing rates of suburbanization of
population and industries, the land values of the inner—city fell relative to the downtown
central business district and the suburbs. This sharp decline in land values in the inner
city then provided the basis for profitable reinvestment. The key in this argument is the
actual difference between land value and property value. With continued disinvestrnent in
inner-city neighborhoods, existing structures will decline in value and depreciate.
Eventually a point in time will be reached at which the ground rent currently being
capitalized on a site is less than the potential ground rent at its ‘highest and best use’
because of its advantageous central location near downtown. This disparity between the

potential ground rent and the actual ground rent currently being capitalized under the

16

present use is termed the rent gap (Figure 2.1). Once this gap is large enough that it
becomes profitable for economic agents to cheaply acquire the structures, pay
refurbishment costs, and sell the end product for a satisfactory profit, inner—city

revitalization, according to the rent gap theory, will occur (Smith 1979b).

Potential

Dollars ground rent

Price
Capitalized
ground rent

 

House Value

 

 

Time from construction date

(Source: http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/~david/AAG200l/2.html, Adapted from (Smith 197%»

 

Figure 2.1 - Rent gap diagram

While the decline of the structures and the eventual reinvestment and
refurbishment in these properties by individual homebuyers specifically applies to
gentrification, it can also be argued that the decline of property values can also reach
levels that accommodate large-scale clearing and redevelopment of sites. This would
facilitate private sector block-busting and locally driven urban renewal programs that will

be discussed in the context of Houston’s recent inner-city revitalization.

l7

One contribution of this research will be to explore how the role of government
and public policy will affect land values and determine the timing and location of
development and redevelopment decisions. The rent gap theory does not acknowledge the
importance of local government financing and investment in affecting property values,
and hence the role of the public realm in redevelopment. However, the role of
govemment—for instance, utilizing public subsidies to entice developers and upper-
income renovators to areas of decline—can play a major role in affecting the timing of
both large scale redevelopment and the piecemeal refurbishment of older structures.

The supply and demand side explanations of physical upgrading—one focusing
on the importance of population sub-groups in the US. that have rediscovered the
attraction of inner-city lifestyles and the other on declining land and property values—
have important implications in all three of the social upgrading urban revitalization
processes discussed in this thesis. Municipalities have long focused on developing inner-
city areas with depressed land and housing values in order to increase their taxable
assessment base. Upper-income professionals and new urbanites are also important as
they seek out housing opportunities near employment centers, cultural attractions, and
areas of rich urban amenities in central city locations. This high demand for upscale
inner-city housing subsequently encourages cities and private developers to acquire land
in these high demand locations as well as providing the basis for the gentrification of
inner-city locations with unique characteristics and housing qualities.

The literature covering the three physical and social upgrading processes—
gentrification, private sector block-busting, and government facilitated urban renewal

(whether federal or local)—has tended to discuss the three forms of upgrading as separate

18

with fairly independent driving forces. The assessment and implications of the different
types of physical upgrading processes occurring synergistically in a city has not been
discussed in the literature. While researchers tend to focus on any one of these physical
upgrading processes independently, the Houston case study illustrates that a number of
these processes can take place simultaneously, as both public and private agents might be
involved in a large-scale revitalization process. Recent revitalization initiatives in
Houston illustrate the importance of synergies between municipally supported urban
renewal, private-sector ‘block-busting’, and gentrification, occurring in a relatively
focused spatial location at one period of time. This research will Show, in fact, that there
are specific patterns to the nature of physical and social upgrading processes selected.
Which processes occur in which areas is influenced by particular variables, including the
condition of the housing stock, the economic characteristics of the current residents,
whether the population is primarily composed of renters or owners, and the political
difficulty in displacing the existing population and acquiring their land.

Also of importance is the fact that in the literature the terms ‘urban renewal’,
‘private sector block-busting’, and ‘gentrification’ are often used interchangeably to
describe any physical and social upgrading process, when in fact there are distinct
characteristics associated with each. The term ‘redevelopment’ is also many times used
inappropriately, both in the academic literature and popular media, to describe any one of
these three phenomena. Additionally, the term redevelopment has the underlying
connotation that all residents are benefiting in this process, which as the Houston
experience will illustrate, is certainly not the case. This literature review and the Houston

case study will help clarify the distinction between the various physical and social

19

upgrading processes and the importance in understanding how each works, both

independently and in combination with the others.

Urban Renewal/Land Clearance

Beginning with Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, the US. federal government
began a program to rebuild dilapidated neighborhoods throughout the nation. It began as
a slum clearance and housing program, but soon included a commercial focus as well.
Urban renewal, as it came to be known, had four main goals: eliminating substandard
housing, revitalizing city economies, constructing good housing, and reducing defacto
segregation (Foard 1966). In an effort to help cities compete with suburban locations,
federal funds were directed to clear large tracts of land to make them more attractive to
developers. The intent was to replace the substandard housing that was being demolished
and thereby provide higher quality housing for all of the original residents. But most of
the time the housing was not replaced on a one-for—one basis, it was not marketed to the
original residents, and it was not affordable enough for them. The displaced residents
faced extreme struggles. They were provided with very little, if any, funds for their
relocation, while their community and social networks were dismantled (Anderson 1964).
Urban renewal exemplified the severe effects of displacement caused by an attempt to
physically upgrade neighborhoods.

Many interested parties and groups rallied behind this 1949 federal legislation,
each with their own vested interests. Mayors saw a tool to increase tax revenues, social
welfare leaders hoped to clear dangerous slums, while low-income housing advocates

hoped the legislation would increase the stock of affordable, decent dwellings in central

20

cities. Although intended to focus on residential slum clearance, the Title I legislation
was fairly ambiguous, and in fact, it did not specifically mandate the construction of low-
or moderate-income housing (Teaford 2000). This lack of specificity relating to low-
income housing (especially relating to the poor residents that were displaced) would
haunt the program throughout its life.

The need for legislation to assist in the redevelopment of deteriorating urban
centers was, however, a real necessity in many large US. cities. The economic difficulty
of redevelopment and revitalization in already built-up areas became one of the largest
rationales for the federal urban renewal program. Builders and developers faced two
difficulties when attempting a construction project. First to build on land that already
contains a structure, the builder must cover the costs of the land itself, the demolition, as
well as any compensation to its previous owners. Also, in urban areas land ownership is
typically highly fragmented, which makes property acquisition for a large project difficult
and expensive (Davis 1966). The Housing Act of 1949 established Local Public Agencies
(LPAs) with the power of eminent domain to acquire the necessary sites for
redevelopment or renewal. Sites could then be cleared and sold or leased to private
developers. This particular aspect of urban renewal drew large amounts of criticism as
developers and builders were subsidized in the purchase and development of residential
and commercial sites (Anderson 1964). The redevelopment by private developers usually
resulted in the new housing being much higher in price and therefore out of the range of
the original residents cleared from the slums (Weaver 1955). Some have argued that
many cities gave low-income housing a low priority and instead used urban renewal

funds to clear land for the expansion of their central business districts, to remove Blacks

21

 

or other minorities from their jurisdiction, and/or to provide middle- and upper-income

housing (Marcuse 1978, Keating 2000).

Displacement

Residents of renewal sites were forcibly displaced without adequate compensation
or replacement housing. Not only did they lose their property and housing (in the case of
owners) but social networks and communities were also destroyed in the displacement
process. Research had estimated that households displaced by federal urban renewal
suffered an average uncompensated loss amounting to 20-30% of one year’s income
(Downs 1970). With little to no compensation or support for relocation, many poor
families and individuals could only settle in other poor areas. Early research concluded
that by 1961, approximately 60% of those displaced by urban renewal simply ended up
living in other slums (Gans 1967). Replacement housing requirements were stipulated in
the original 1949 legislation but these fell far short of the demands of the high numbers of
displaced residents (Keating 2000). In the end, urban renewal made the housing crisis
worse in many cities, as developers were generally not building as many housing units as
they were destroying (Macionis 2001). This created more severe overcrowding
conditions, particularly in the slums, and higher housing costs for the poor (Hartman
1964). Accurate figures of the number of people displaced from urban renewal projects
are difficult to estimate. Through the mid 19603 it was reported that 85,154 families had
been displaced/relocated fiom urban renewal properties (Urban Renewal Administration

1961, Fisher 1962). In 1967 it was estimated that federally funded renewal and highway

22

programs would displace up to 100,000 families and 15,000 businesses per year, most of

which were in urban areas (Frieden 1967).

Use of Urban Renewal in Ethnic and Racial Areas

In addition to the difficulties of relocation, another controversial aspect of federal
urban renewal programs was the fact that most of the clearance zones were located in
ethnic minority neighborhoods (Jones 2004). “We called it ‘urban move-the-brothers’”
said a resident of Charleston in reference to the urban renewal programs that destroyed
many Black communities in Charleston alone. “Black people were forced to move and
they weren’t given anywhere to go. A way of life was destroyed” (Firm 2002, p. 1). This
was seen in numerous examples throughout the US.

In the early 19503, in the process of redevelopment, Detroit focused on new plans
for the Gratiot Park area. This area east of the central business district was largely low-
income, nearly all-Black, and contained poor-quality housing. Similar to other urban
renewal projects, the goal was to clear the slums and replace them with higher quality
housing that would hopefully attract and retain middle- and upper-income residents.
Nearly 1,900 poor, African-American families were displaced in this process of
redevelopment, with over half relocating into surrounding slums with often worse
conditions than the original residences (Thomas 1997). Although considered partially a
success because of its unique architecture, design, and somewhat racially-integrated
housing (although not integrated by class), the project renamed Lafayette Park failed to
provide adequate relocation and replacement housing for the majority of the displaced

residents.

23

In the late 19503, Boston experienced a similar situation with its West End
project, which bordered the city’s central business district. The city eyed this low-rent,
low-rise tenement, Italian community for redevelopment, with many local officials
claiming that it was a downtown eyesore (Teaford 2000). Not feeling their neighborhoods
were slums, local Italians of the West End angrily protested what they felt was an
opportunity for private interests looking for profits to team with public officials to steal
their homes (Teaford 1990). The demolition and leveling of the 41 acre site began in
1958 and continued for five years, displacing 9,000 residents. Land bought and
condemned (with federal assistance) for $7.40 per square foot, was revalued at $1.40 per
square foot and leased to private developers (McQuade 1966). The cleared land was used
for the development of high-rent, hi gh-rise apartments that were largely unaffordable to
the original displaced residents of the area. The problems of displacement associated with
urban renewal received added attention through the late 19503 and early 19603 as projects
such as those in Detroit and Boston were repeated in cities across the nation, including in
Chicago, St. Louis, and New York City.

The focus on some of the poorest, and already marginalized residents made the
issues of relocation even more difficult, as these citizens were already disadvantaged and
largely powerless in their struggle to maintain their communities. With the concentration
of urban renewal projects in areas largely inhabited by non-Whites, this only further
increased the concentration of minorities in other slums and public housing projects.
Legal discrimination and segregation, until Civil Rights legislation of 1964, further
complicated the difficulties of relocation of Blacks as housing options were very limited.

Some supporters of urban renewal felt the housing issues would be solved by the process

24

known as ‘filtering down’ or ‘upgrading’ in which any increase in the supply of housing
would ease the pressure for housing in all segments of the marketz. The difficulty was
that at the time of legal residential segregation, a free competitive market did not exist.
The housing market was not freely open to all citizens, and specifically non—Whites
(Weaver 1955). By the official end of the federal urban renewal program in 1974, many
neighborhoods had been destroyed in the process of slum clearance and redevelopment,
displacing hundreds of thousands of residents and often making their situations even
worse.

The federal government continues to remain highly involved in aspects of housing
across the nation. Legislation has attempted to downsize the role of the federal
government in public housing and shift the responsibility towards the private sector. The
1974 Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) streamlined earlier legislation
to create the Section 8 program, that provides rental subsidies to public housing tenants to
move into private-sector housing (Bratt 1986). This fit with the Nixon Administration’s
intent to “downsize substantially, if not eliminate, public housing” (Hackworth 2003, p.
536). During this period fewer funds were made available for the construction and
maintenance of public housing units while increasing the number of approvals for public
housing demolitions. The Section 8 voucher program, and programs to encourage home
ownership, led to a further decline in federal government involvement in physically
providing public housing (Lowry 1987).

The federal HOPE VI program, established in 1993, sought to reduce the

concentration of low—income families through the redevelopment of sites, and particularly

 

2 For a thorough analysis of the economics of urban housing markets see Rothenberg 1991.

25

troubled projects (Wyly 1999, US. Department of Housing & Urban Development
2005). This important housing legislation also eliminated the previous ‘one-for-one’
housing replacement requirement of public housing units. This meant that local public
housing authorities (PHA) could demolish public housing units without replacing them,
placing an increased emphasis on public housing demolition (Wyly I999, powell 2002).
From 1993 through 2002 over $4.3 billion was allocated to PHAs to demolish the most
devalorized housing units. Research also indicates that of the nearly 70,000 units
demolished by the HOPE VI program, as of 2001 , nearly 68.4% of the units built in their
place were “reserved for tenants making a higher income” (Hackworth 2003, p. 536).
Those displaced by such projects often receive the Section 8 housing vouchers for
relocation, but little to no public relocation assistance. Landlords are also not required to
accept the Section 8 housing vouchers. The vast majority of those displaced end up in
other areas of concentrated poverty facing similar socioeconomic difficulties (powell

2002, Hackworth 2003).

Locally-Driven Urban Renewal Tactics

Houston never had a formal federal urban renewal program because of the city’s
refusal to adopt zoning (Teaford 2000). In spite of this, Houston has engaged, and
continues to engage, in land clearance programs driven by the local government. Several
land clearance programs now operate in the city under the pretense of economic
development through the use of eminent domain. Eminent domain was designed to
support government in the acquisition of the land necessary for public projects (such as

highways) with the provision of compensation for the land owners. The original use of

26

eminent domain had largely been shaped by the Berman v. Parker ruling of 1954, in
which the court ruled that the compulsory transfer of families’ and landlords’ property to
developers in an urban renewal project in Washington was allowable under the
constitution because it represented slum clearance. The fifth amendment of the US.
Constitution protects that compensation must be received for a taking of private property
for ‘public use’. The notion of ‘public use’, however, is what has come into question,
since some communities have expanded the scope of eminent domain to more
questionable applications. ‘Public use’ has been now expanded to include ‘public
purpose’ or even ‘public benefit’, such as local economic development projects (Shlaes
2002).

A well-known example includes the clearing of 465 acres of the working-class,
ethnic neighborhood of Poletown in Detroit for the expansion of a General Motors
manufacturing facility in the early 19803. Causing the displacement of 3,438 residents,
the plant was to bring over 6,000 direct jobs and many other spin-off industries to the
area (Thomas 1997). The area to be cleared was not considered a slum (as the usual use
of eminent domain required), but the project was defended as producing public benefits
such as direct and indirect employment, as upheld in Poletown Neighborhood Council v.
City of Detroit in 1981 (Darden 1987). Numerous smaller-scale examples of land
clearance in the name of economic development can be seen throughout the recent past.
For instance, in December 2002 the city of Riviera Beach, Florida approved the
development of “Harbor Village” by commercial yachting, shipping and tourism

companies, causing the razing of approximately 1,000 homes (Shlaes 2002).

27

Similarly, in the early 19903, the city of Atlanta used federal and city funds to
demolish two historic public housing projects in preparation for the 1996 Summer
Olympics. In a city haunted by the forced removal of 68,000 people during the urban
renewal initiatives of the 19603, residents were once again forced from these public
housing projects with only half of the residents receiving minimal relocation assistance.
Some residents were lucky enough to receive Section 8 vouchers, providing subsidized
rent but for a limited period (Rutheiser 1997). The redeveloped land was used for a
upper-income residential complex with support from elected and business officials
(Keating 2000).

Other cities have more recently been questioned in their use of eminent domain
for economic development and the public benefits that are actually produced. Some
consider this taking of property for economic development as an abuse of eminent
domain. A legal case regarding the taking of private property for redevelopment and its
questionable public benefit in New London, Connecticut reached the Supreme Court in
2005 (Kelo vs. City of New London). Public officials in New London were frank with the
fact that they were attempting to attract hi gher-income professionals with the new
developments in the blighted area (Peterson 2005). The highest court in the nation upheld
the use of eminent domain not only for public projects, such as roads, but also for private
developments that benefit the community economically. Some fear this ruling will leave
the door open for further abuses of eminent domain and result in the disregard and
displacement of original residents in areas considered to have economic potential and an

advantageous location, all in the name of economic development.

28

As the Houston case study will illustrate, cities and state governments interested
in inner city revitalization can and may use similar tactics as those used during the federal
urban renewal programs of the 19503 and 19603. Focusing on economic development, the
projects are often not as large or do not displace as many residents as the large scale
federal urban renewal projects, but these types of physical and social upgrading processes

still continue to impact communities, neighborhoods, and the original residents.

Private-Sector ‘Block-busting’

Prior to the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-19603, racial segregation had made
the process of finding decent affordable housing difficult for most Blacks in the US. In
response to this demand for decent housing, real estate agents during the 19503 and 19603
would prey on the racial fears of Whites by convincing residents of the anticipated arrival
of Blacks to their neighborhood. Whites feared that this would increase crime and lower
property value in their neighborhoods, selling their property prematurely and potentially
at lower than market value prices (Orser 1994). Blockbusting came to describe this, now
illegal, process by which real estate agents induced homeowners to sell their properties
by making representations regarding the entry, or prospective entry, of persons of a
particular race or national origin into the neighborhood (Northwestern University Law
Review 1978, Mehlhom 1999). These real estate speculators would produce large profits
from racial turnover in the real estate market by encouraging the already-prevalent racism
of the era and buying homes from urban Whites at below-market prices only to resell
them at inflated prices to Blacks seeking better housing then the current ghettos in which

many were segregated.

29

In addition to this commonly accepted definition of blockbusting, there are other
examples where the private sector has been involved in breaking up neighborhood blocks
for development. In Toronto, developers have been able to buy up and demolish inner-
city homes thereby “destroying the fabric and social cohesion” of the neighborhoods
(Ryerson Polytechnical Institute 1989, p. 4-4). To acquire pr0perty for private
development, local developers have sometimes used questionable practices in order to
convince owners to sell. Similar to racial blockbusting, many of these practices attempt to
take advantage of the economic, racial, or ethnic position of current residents. Many
homeowners in lower-income areas do not necessarily realize the full potential of their
property and sell at a low price to the first developer who applies pressure. Cases have
also existed where developers have been able to convince landowners that the
government will eventually take their property by eminent domain and thereby encourage
a quick sale at a low price. Developers have also been known to actively try and make an
area appear worse to lower land values and encourage residents of the neighborhood to
sell their properties. Buying up surrounding property and boarding it up, or tearing down
structures and not maintaining vacant land, are just two examples of this type of
blockbusting.

In addition, renters face unique threats since they are vulnerable to the decisions
of their landlord who is often willing to evict residents in order to sell their property once
the potential value of their property is understood. Areas that contain predominately
renters and whose geographic location is attractive because of proximate amenities are
particularly prone to private-sector ‘block-busting’ because of the lack of power of

renters and the desire by landlords to maximize profits on the value of their land. Similar

30

to the racial blockbusting of the 19503 and 19603, this new private sector ‘block-busting’
has torn apart communities, has generated losses to homeowners, and has enabled

developers to realize significant profits.

Gentrification

Beginning in the early- to mid-19703, several US. inner cities that had
experienced economic downturns and large population losses began to realize the revival
and redevelopment of some neighborhoods. One part of this ‘rebirth’ process included
the movement of some residents ‘back’ to the city, often from suburban locations
(Mullins 1982, Palen 1984, Ley 1986, Rothenberg I991, Huu Phe 2000). These residents
were characteristically younger, middle-to-upper income earners, and professionals that
were searching for different amenities than those offered by the suburbs. Some have
argued that the land in these downtowns had become inexpensive and therefore attractive
to investors, while others maintain that these young professionals were, and are,
searching for a certain kind of urban lifestyle, with unique cultural resources that the
suburbs are often lacking (Sumka 1979a, Smith 1979b, Hamnett 1991). A serious
consequence of this movement back to the city by moderate-income earners is the
displacement of many of the original residents that occupied the inexpensive downtown
housing (Atkinson 2000). The process of lower-income, working class properties being
purchased, occupied, and renovated by upper-income professionals, produces substantial
physical and social changes to the affected neighborhoods (powell 2002). This process,
known as gentrification, was originally termed by Ruth Glass in 1964 to describe the

‘invasion’ of working class quarters of London by the middle class (Glass 1964).

31

Gentrification describes the actual physical improvements of an existing (often older)

structure.

Causes of Gentrification

The causes of gentrification are varied and widely debated in the literature, with
an important question being, ‘what actually causes this movement of upper-income
residents to particular lower-income neighborhoods?’ As discussed in the opening of this
chapter, the literature focuses on two main explanations of this gentrification process.
The rent gap theory is based upon the idea that values of inner-city property and housing
must fall to certain low levels to make them appear attractive and economically viable to
upper-income renovators.

This explanation, while offering considerable insight, is an economically
deterministic model that does not account for underlying political, class, and racial issues
within a city. One issue, as the Houston case study will illustrate, is the large level of
local government involvement in the process of redevelopment. The extensive use of
public subsidies and investment by local officials in targeted neighborhoods can in fact
encourage gentrification in these parts of a city. In certain deteriorated areas in which
land values have not quite fallen low enough to encourage redevelopment by private
developers or upper-income gentrifiers, local officials might offer subsidies to provide
the impetus for redevelopment. These subsidies can take the form of cash incentives,
physical infrastructure improvements, and tax breaks on new investments.

The second explanation of gentrification widely discussed in the literature focuses

on the production of gentrifiers themselves and their associated cultural and consumption

32

orientations. The premise behind this explanation of gentrification is that without the high
demand for inner-city locations because of numerous attractive characteristics of the
areas (including close proximity to employment opportunities, cultural and entertainment
areas, and unique housing styles) the process of gentrification would not exist regardless
of the local housing economics associated with the rent gap theory.

It is also argued that the cause of gentrification is a combination of the demand
and supply side explanations, since they complement each other (Hamnett 1991). It has
been realized that production and consumption are both crucial to a comprehensive
explanation of gentrification. Hamnett (1991) discusses several shortcomings of these
two theories. The demand side explanations, as exemplified by Ley (1986), largely take
for granted the existence of potential areas suitable for gentrification while the supply
side explanations, as exemplified by Smith (Smith 1979a, Smith and LeFaivre 1984),
take for granted the existence of a supply of potential gentrifiers. Based upon these two
viewpoints, Hamnett identifies four requirements for gentrification to occur. Three of
them are concerned with the supply side elements of the equation and include the supply
of suitable areas for gentrification, the supply of potential gentrifiers, and the existence of
an attractive central city environment. The fourth requirement deals with the preference
for inner-city living that is desired by a certain group of the service class. Hamnett

provides a table displaying the range of possible outcomes (Table 2.1).

33

 

Rent Gap Exists No Rent Gap Exists
No Potential Gentrifiers No Gentrification No Gentrification

Supply of Potential
Gentrifiers Exists

No Inner City Demand No Gentrification No Gentrification
Inner City Preference by Gentrification Gentrification?

a section of the
‘new class’

 

Source: Hamnett 1991
Table 2.1 — Conditions for gentrification schema

He concludes that with a growth in the service class job opportunities downtown
and increased disposable income by many dual-career childless couples, the demand for
central city living (with various entertainment and cultural activities) becomes key to the
gentrification of an area. Hamnett argues that gentrification would be unlikely to occur
without this demand for central city living, however large the supply of potential
gentrifiers and however large the rent gap. These explanations are all important as they
are all seen to some degree in the context of gentrification in Houston.

The overall metropolitan housing market also plays an important role in
producing gentrification. As demand for inner-city housing increases with the growth of
the world-wide service economy and downtown employment, certain housing markets,
such as San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City, have become very constrained and
experience a rise in housing prices. Experiences such as these of a tight housing market
also force hi gher-income people to seek homes in locations where they formerly would
not have lived (powell 2002). These changes in demand and supply will eventually
constitute changes in demographic and physical attributes of neighborhoods as the

housing market adjusts to new influences. One of the most important results of these
34

changes is the eventual physical displacement of pre-gentrification, often lower-income

residents (Galster 2003).

Characteristics of Neighborhoods Experiencing Gentrification

Neighborhoods that are prone to possible gentrification hold several
characteristics in common. As discussed in relation to Smith’s rent gap theory, these
neighborhoods have experienced severe disinvestment of private, and often public,
capital causing the physical decline of the neighborhood and housing structures. The
value of the structures and their property value have fallen to such lows that reinvestment
by outside developers appears profitable (Smith 1979b). In order to encourage the
demand for refurbishment of these structures, there are generally unique characteristics in
these neighborhoods that make these locations attractive. These characteristics include
such attractions as an advantageous location near downtown, historically significant and
unique housing, cultural areas (including alternative lifestyle areas), and aesthetically
pleasing landscapes (Rose 1984, Ley 1986, Hamnett 1991).

The original (pre-gentrification) residents of these neighborhoods are
predominately lower-income and of working class or ‘blue-collar’ occupations. The
households are fairly large in size (larger than the city’s median) with a large number of
female-headed households. There is a larger share of renters than owners in the
neighborhood, and the landlords may often be characterized as absentee, which often
leads to increased decline in the physical structures and disinvestment. Education levels
of residents are also lower, with high school and college graduation rates often lower than

the city average. As can be expected from the above described characteristics, these

35

residents have per capita and household incomes that are low compared to other
neighborhoods throughout the city (Ley 1986, Atkinson 2000). Also, in some cities these
neighborhoods may have a large percentage of its residents that are of a certain minority
or ethnic group. This race and ethnicity factor is very important in revitalization and
redevelopment initiatives in the US, including in the case of Houston.

The multiple dimensions of gentrification have been analyzed thoroughly in the
literature. Numerous case studies have also been documented in many locations
throughout the world, including Chicago (Betancur 2002, Perez 2002), Portland
(Howsley 2003), Philadelphia (Smith 1979a, Beauregard 1990), Washington DC.
(Williams 2002), New York City (Hackworth 2002, Freeman and Braconi 2004), and
various locations in Canada (Ley 1986, F ilion 1991), New Zealand, Australia (Engels

1999), and Western Europe (Pooley 1985, Bailey and Robertson 1997, Kleinhans 2003).

Displacement

A serious result of gentrification is the displacement of many of the original
residents of these locations that are being occupied by upper-income gentrifiers. This
displacement most often occurs in a complex scenario. As some would theorize, as the
attractiveness of an area increases (either through falling land values, increasing character
and culture of an area, and/or proximity to downtown employment centers) many
landowners and landlords attempt to evict their current renters (who are often lower-
income) as they see a more profitable use for their land in the form of redeveloped
condominiums, town homes, or other uses attracting a much higher land rent (Atkinson

2000). If the original residents are instead owners of their property they face other

36

struggles as both public and private interests might be involved in attempting to acquire
their land. The recent Houston experience will illustrate these cases in detail.

If approached by developers, landowners may sell the property at below market
value, either because they do not realize the full potential of their land or because they do
not understand the sale process and are manipulated to sell prematurely. A similar
situation may also occur when an increase in the quality and character of a neighborhood
causes the taxes of that surrounding area to become too expensive for the current
residents and they again become priced out of the neighborhood (Lang 1982). An equally
devastating situation occurs if local officials want to remove the existing residents from
these locations. All of these situations threaten the livelihood of lower-income, inner city
residents, their neighborhoods, and the community networks that have been developed.
Similar to those affected by urban renewal, those displaced by gentrification often end up
paying more in rent, they do not receive any financial assistance in moving, and they
encounter difficulty connecting with their new neighborhood (Smith and LeFaivre 1984,
Filion 1991).

The issue of displacement was once a crucial focal point of gentrification
research, as seen in the works of Henig (1 980), Lee and Hodge (Lee and Hodge 1984),
and LeGates and Hartman (LeGates and Hartman 1986). The numerous aspects of this
displacement research included studies of how residents became physically displaced, the
effect of public policy on gentrification (including the protection of residents), and where
the displaced would move to, and how successfully they could relocate. In the more
recent research, some feel that studies on gentrification have moved away from more

critical accounts of gentrification to more centrist accounts, including investigations of

37

the practices of middle-class gentrifiers and focuses on the definition and meaning of the
term gentrification (Slater 2004). The call has been reinitiated to critically analyze the
social changes of physical redevelopment and attempt to represent the less powerful

residents of affected areas.

Commentary on Physical and Social Upgrading

Based on the description of the characteristics of areas prone to redevelopment,
and the traits of the area’s current and prospective residents, it is possible to summarize
the physical and socioeconomic changes that these redeveloping neighborhoods will
experience. First, the economic status of the area increases as many of the lower-income
residents are replaced by upper-income earners. The household size and median age of
the residents decrease. The area experiences a rise in educational attainment levels, which
is also related to the increase in income. Lastly there is an increase in the percentage of
residents who are employed in ‘white-collar’, professional occupations. All of these
changes concerning social and economic characteristics result from the replacement of
the original residents with new upper-income residents.

The area of redevelopment also experiences physical changes exemplified by
changes in the housing stock. First, many of the rental units become converted to owner-
occupied housing units. Because of the refurbishment and reinvestment in the dwellings,
the quality of the housing structures increases, as does the value. While gentrification
indicates the refurbishment of older housing and their occupation by upper-income
earners, redevelopment, as indicated by urban renewal and private-sector ‘block-busting’,

has meant the clearing of land for the construction of new upscale housing units.

38

As the Houston experience will show, the differing housing and socioeconomic
characteristics in the neighborhoods being redeveloped interact to produce varied
combinations of physical and social upgrading. For instance, in Freedmen’s Town, a
neighborhood west of downtown that is the focus of this research, the very poor quality
of the housing stock encouraged the active displacement of original residents by private
developers using various private-sector ‘block-busting’ techniques. This is in contrast to
the refirrbishment of the well-maintained housing stock seen in The Heights area,
northwest of downtown. In addition, because of Freedmen’s Town’s large percentage
African—American population, the local government became involved in the acquisition
of property for development likely because of the politically sensitive nature of
displacing such a large minority population.

In the context of Houston, the rent gap theory would speculate that based on the
current depressed land and housing values of inner-city Houston, extensive revitalization
and ‘redevelopment’ would occur around Houston’s downtown. This is also supported by
the increase of white-collar, professional employment opportunities in Houston’s central
business district, producing a strong demand for upscale near-downtown housing.
However, the rent gap theory fails to take into account the influence of local government
involvement in the development process through public investments and subsidies. AS
this research will reveal, in the case of Houston, developers and gentrifiers are heavily
influenced and supported by subsidies and tax incentives that have been facilitating the
redevelopment and revitalization of Houston’s inner city. The Houston downtown

revitalization experience will show the complexities involved in urban revitalization

39

projects and the various public and private redevelopment tools used to achieve physical
and social upgrading.

From the perspective of local public officials, local investors, and developers, 3
central issue associated with urban revitalization is centered on the changes in the
community and city evident with tax revenue increases, increased spending in downtown
neighborhoods, and the improved image of the revitalized core and the city itself (Vigdor
2002). It is for these reasons that many government officials, businesses, and surrounding
residents seek to encourage physical and social upgrading. The often overlooked aspect
of these neighborhood improvements is the threat of displacement of existing residents,
as they may not be able to live in their changing community and may become overlooked

in the rush to improve struggling neighborhoods.

40

3 HOUSTON

Introduction

In the city of Houston, local leaders and residents have been traditionally known
for their support of the laissez-faire approach to local government, with the absence of
formal zoning in the city being an illustration of this local public management style. The
city leaders contend that this management strategy has been successful in guiding the
development of the city from a small settlement on a swampy bayou to the fourth largest
city in the nation and sixth largest port in the world. While the growth and economic
development of Houston over the last century has been strongly dependent on petroleum
and related products, since the recession of the 19803 there has been a recognizable shift
within the city’s development strategy, as local leaders have directed considerable efforts
and resources toward the development of a hi gh-tech and specialized service economy.
Into the 21St century, it is hoped that this new economic direction will bring prestige and
international recognition to the city.

Over the last three decades, many US. cities have experienced similar economic
shifts, to varying degrees of success, in a period of US. history commonly referred to as
‘de-industrialization’. The shift from manufacturing to services, however, has also
involved new requirements in the urban built environment. To attract corporate
headquarters, specialized services, tourism, and ‘white-collar’ professionals that support
this new economy, strong central cities and high-quality urban environments have been

considered a necessary precondition (Vojnovic 2003b). The initiatives to revitalize city

41

centers also have other advantages, such as an improved image of downtown and
increased inner-city land values. However, as chapters four and five will illustrate, the
idea of a ‘successful’ city to many city officials, business leaders, and residents of
Houston often excludes large segments of the population, and more specifically, involves
the removal and the displacement of many original low-income residents from their
traditional central city neighborhoods. This has been especially seen in the physical and
social upgrading of the historic Freedmen’s Town area directly west of the downtown
and the resulting displacement of the area’s largely Afiican-American population.

Houston’s focus on downtown revitalization has included several large-scale
projects, including a new 1i ght-rail line, new sports stadiums, streetscape improvements,
and numerous upscale residential developments. An important component of this
revitalization has been the large-scale public involvement in the planning,
implementation, and financing of many of these downtown projects. This chapter will
provide a brief introduction into the historical development of Houston and also explore
the nature of the recent changes in the city’s economic and urban development directions.
This will provide a wider context to the changes that have been occurring in the city

which have led to the physical and social upgrading of Freedmen’s Town.

Brief History and Development of Houston

John and Augustus Allen set up the town of Houston near the junction of the
White Oak and Buffalo Bayous in April 1836. The brothers had purchased the 2,000 acre

site for about $5,000 and named the newly planned town after the hero of the battle of

42

San Jacinto3, in hopes of persuading the new government of Texas to locate their capital
in their new town (Federal Works Agency 1942, Miller 1982). By the spring of 1837 the
persuasive John Allen had convinced the first Congress of the Republic of Texas to place
their temporary capital at the then-unbuilt city of Houston and thereby helped to insure
the success of the town.

By 1839 Houston had a population of 2,073 people (Johnston 1991). About
twenty years later, in 1860, the population of Houston was 4,845 with 22.1% of the
population consisting of slaves. By 1870, Houston’s population had grown by over fifty
percent, to 9,382 people, and the city’s black population made-up nearly 40%. This rate
of growth continued for several decades (Table 3.1) as the city of Houston increased in
size and prominence in the state and nation.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the seaport of Galveston was the most
successful city in Texas until a devastating hurricane leveled the town killing between
6,000 and 8,000 people in 1900. This tragedy helped Houston to increase its economic
power and size as it became the leader in the Texas economy and one of the largest cities
in the nation. The discovery of oil reserves east of Houston just months after the
Galveston hurricane also facilitated the city’s new prominence.

Into the twentieth century, with increased personal automobile use and a lack of
zoning, developments in Houston began to leapfrog over each other searching for cheaper
land. Fearing it may be ringed by incorporated suburbs blocking future growth, Houston
chose to expand its boundaries from 72 square miles in 1930 to nearly 447 square miles

by 1967 (McComb 1969). This annexation process has continued to the present (although

 

3 It was this battle of San Jacinto that officially won Texas its independence from Mexico.

43

at a very small scale by the late 19903) and has brought a huge price tag to the city as it

expands public services to outlying areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Houston Population Growth
Free Colored Slaves
Total Total Total
Population White Black Md” Females Males Females
1850 2,396 1,863 533 1 5 223 304
1860 4,845 3,768 1 .077 1 7 502 567
1870 9,382 5.691 3,691
181 Ward 738 488 250
2nd Ward 1,638 1,164 474
3rd Ward 2,812 1,737 1,075
4th Ward 3,055 1,741 1,314
51h Ward 1,139 561 578
1880 16,513 10,026 6,479
1890 27,557 17,178 10,370
1 st Ward 1,980 1,203 777
2nd Ward 3.341 2.079 1.260
3rd Ward 7.366 4,705 2.658
4th Ward 8,761 5,079 3.678
5th Ward 6,109 4,112 1.997
1900 44,633 29,979 14,608
1 st Ward 3,475
2nd Ward 3.947
3rd Ward 13,611
4th Ward 9.625
5th Ward 9,577
6th Ward 4,398
1910 78,800 54,832 23,929 '
131 Ward 6.954
2nd Ward 7,572
3rd Ward 24,705
4th Ward 16,772
5th Ward 16,854
6th Ward 5.943
1920 138,276 104,268 33,960
1930 292,352 216,687 63,337
1940 384,514 297,959 86,302
1950 596,1 63 470,503 124,766
1960 938,219 720,547 215,037
1970 1,232,802 904,889 316,551 Hispanic
1980 1,595,138 978.334 440,346 281,331
1990 1,631,766 662,766 448,148 450,556
2000 1,953,631 601,851 487,851 730,865
2004 (estimate) 2,012,626

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.1 - Population growth for the City of Houston (Source: US Census

Bureau)
44

As of 2000, the city of Houston consisted of just under two million people

(1,953,631) and 618 square miles (City of Houston 2003b). In terms of the city’s ethnic
composition, in the 2000 US. Census, Hispanics were the ethnic majority at 37.4% of the

city’s population. In 2000 the white and black populations were 30.8% and 25% of the

city’s total population respectively (Table 3.2) (US. Census Bureau 2005).

 

 

City of Houston - 2000
618 Square Miles
3,161 persons per square miles
% of Total Population
Total Population 1,953,631
White 601,851 30.81%
Black 487,851 24.97%
Hispanic 730,865 37.41%
Asian 106,620 5.46%
Housing
Total Housing Units 782,009
Occupied Units 91.8%
Vacant Units 8.2%
Owner-Occupied Units 45.8%
Renter-Occupied Units 54.2%
Median Housing Value $79,300
Median Household Income $36,616
Median Family Income $40,443
Per Capita Income $20,101
% of Individuals Below Povery Level 19.2
Educaflon
% of Persons 25+ with High School Diploma 70.4%
% of Persons 25+ with College Defie 30.9%

 

Table 3.2 — Facts and Figures — City of Houston 2000 (Source: City of Houston

2003a)

45

 

Economy

As noted by David McComb (1969), a Houston historian, the early economy of
Houston included the businesses associated with the capital (for the few years it occupied
Houston), trade (because of the city’s strategic location), and some manufacturing (such
as saw mills and brick factories). The importance of trade in the area increased over time,
initially linked to increases in cotton production in the Brazos Valley. Cotton traveled
from surrounding plantations, through Houston, en route to the seaport of Galveston.
Even as early as the 18403, leaders of Houston began investing in ways to improve the
movement of ships and goods down the Buffalo Bayou by clearing obstacles and
dredging the bayou. These improvements in water transportation continued over the years
and eventually led to the development of the Houston Shipping Channel, which would in
time make Houston one of the largest ports in the world.

By the 18703, Houston was a well—established commercial town with a rail
network and a useful bayou. In the late 18803, the economy of Houston was still
dependent upon products extracted from the surrounding areas, including cotton and
lumber. At the very beginning of the twentieth century oil began to be discovered in large
quantities in southeast Texas which quickly put Houston on its way to becoming the
center for oil refining and shipments as well as oil field equipment manufacturing (Miller
1982). Within the next several decades, Houston found itself in the middle of a region
with ever-increasing oil discoveries, which forever changed the face of the city. This also
brought about other needs in the city’s infrastructure, such as an increasing need for a

larger port to handle the shipments of oil. Local petroleum-supporting industries,

46

including refineries and petroleum research companies, also quickly developed along the
Houston shipping channel.

With a strong market and some assistance from friends in Washington DC,
Houston was able to survive the Great Depression with slightly less difficulty than other
major US. cities (Federal Works Agency 1942, McComb 1969). By the beginning of
World War H the city’s economy was gearing up for wartime production, which was
especially dependent upon petroleum and petroleum-based products. Large federal
government wartime contracts helped Houston to finish the war with a thriving city
economy whose success carried into the 19503. With an increase in population of 54%
and bank deposits by 282% from 1940 to 1950, Houston was the fastest growing city per
capita in the country in 1948 (McComb 1969).

In the post-World War 11 period, there were a number of other investments that
also played an important role in shaping the development of the city in the latter-20th
century. Two of the most notable are the Texas Medical Center and the Johnson Space
Center. The Texas Medical Center was established in the early 19403 with initial money
from the state legislature for a cancer program. Additional medical facilities were built
after the MD. Anderson foundation donated money and land to expand the Medical
Center. The Texas Medical Center has continued to grow into a world-class healthcare
facility that brings continued attention and prestige to the city.

In mid-1961, Houston was able to acquire the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s (NASA) new $60 million Manned Spacecraft Center. By 1966, not only
was the center employing 4,854 people with a payroll of over $50 million, but it was also

producing nearly 65 jobs externally in supporting industries for every 100 it had created

47

internally (McComb 1969). Renamed the Johnson Space Center, it now employs 18,436
people and has an estimated yearly economic impact of $4 billion (City of Houston
2003b).

In the more current context, although largelyvdominated by energy industries,
Houston’s economy has been diversifying over the last fifteen years. The Texas Medical
Center is one of the largest medical complexes in the world, serving 5.4 million patients
each year, employing over 61,000 people, and producing an indirect economic impact of
over $13 billion annually (City of Houston 2003b). After the implementation of recent
trade liberalization policies both globally and in North America, and given its links to
Mexico, Houston’s role as a trading center has continued to increase. This has been
evident with the expansion of the city’s three airports and the continual improvements to
the shipping port. As of 2003 the port of Houston was the sixth largest port in the world
in total cargo volume (American Association of Port Authorities .2005). Within the US.
in 2003, Houston was the second largest port in the nation in total trade (by cargo
volume) and first in total foreign trade (imports and exports by cargo volume) (American
Association of Port Authorities 2005). The Port of Houston has an impact of $9.6 billon
dollars on the local economy, producing 75,487 jobs directly and 129,033 indirectly (City
of Houston 2003b).

Into the twenty-first century, the city has continued its economic diversification,
with considerable interest in attracting corporate headquarters and developing its
specialized services sector, particularly finance. With the emergence of tourism as one of
the world’s leading industries, and with regional success stories provided by San

Antonio, Houston has also been making extensive investments in promoting local

48

tourism. The spirit of constant growth and diversification has helped the city maintain its
economic advantage as it strives to become a world-class city in the new service

economy.

The Laissez-Faire City

The city of Houston is perhaps best known as the archetypical laissez-faire city,
with minimal government involvement in local economic, social, environmental, and
planning issues. This is seen in the city’s continual rejection of zoning and the fact that
the city maintains the lowest taxes in a comparison of major US. cities (Vojnovic
2003b). While some will argue that this laissez-faire nature has made the region as
successful as it is with many residents prospering, others will argue that this lack of
government involvement has produced increased hardships for many local groups
(Feagin 1988).

Throughout its history, the city has struggled with establishing a strong planning
department and city-wide zoning. The city’s first serious attempts at a comprehensive
plan did not emerge until the late 19803. Attempts at zoning have failed numerous times
in the history of the city, with the largest conflicts occurring in the late 19203 to early
19303, and soundly defeated by voters in 1938, 1947, 1962, late 19803, and the early
19903. The most recent vote in 1993 was narrowly defeated with 52% against and 48%
for the zoning measure. Houston’s real estate interests have proved to be a very powerful
coalition against zoning. They view themselves as protectors of real estate interests in the
city and have continually organized large-scale oppositions to zoning votes. While it may

be argued that this freedom of development has brought economic prosperity to the city,

49

it has also been responsible for extensive social costs to many residents. The lack of
zoning and land use planning have allowed the development of various hazardous and
polluting land uses (such as refineries and sewage treatment plants) disproportionately
located in poor, minority neighborhoods. The noxious facilities have generated severe
social and health costs to these disadvantaged segments of the population, further
marginalizing these Houston residents (Bullard 1987, 1990, Been 1994, Bullard 1996,
Sonoma Technology 1999, Clean Air Task Force 2000, City of Houston 20033).

In an attempt to attract development and maintain a favorable business climate,
city officials argue that the free enterprise environment is maintained by allowing
markets to operate with minimal government involvement, and that this management
approach, in turn, is reflected in low local taxes. This has meant a severe reduction in, or
lack of, services provided to residents, with a particular disinterest maintained for social
services. This low tax environment has also meant a minimal provision of urban
infrastructure to local residents. Some of the worst streets, police services, and oldest
water and sewer lines are located in minority black and Hispanic neighborhoods (Bullard
1987, F eagin 1988). In comparison to other major US. cities, Houston continually spends
less per capita on the provision of services, especially social services, such as housing
and public welfare programs (Thomas 1991, Vojnovic 2003b). For many years the city
has been upheld as a major example of how unrestrained free enterprise works better than
state planning in creating a healthy and prosperous city. What often goes unnoticed and
un-discussed, however, are the high social costs associated with this laissez-faire style of

governance.

50

Growth Coalitions

Since its early years, business leaders have been very active in promoting and
developing Houston. They have looked for ways to make the city more economically
attractive to outside business interests and have maintained close connections with
powerful interests in the state capital and Washington DC. Historically, there have been
many business leaders that have had considerable impact on influencing the development
and growth direction of Houston. Perhaps, one of the most famous and influential of
these leaders was Jesse H. Jones, who would help guide development of the city for
nearly half a century. He amassed his fortune in the late 18803 in the lumber and railroad
economy of east Texas. Jones would eventually find a place in Washington DC.
lobbying for Houston, helping the city survive the Great Depression, collecting funds to
improve the Houston shipping channel, and developing the city’s prominence as a global
center in petroleum production and related petroleum products.

Historically, coalitions of business leaders have worked together and with the
local government to guide the development of Houston, to recruit industries and
businesses into the city, and to ensure the city’s economic success. For instance, during
the early 19303 when several Houston banks appeared headed for bankruptcy, Jones and
leaders of other major banking institutions in Houston teamed together to bail out the
failing Houston banks, and helped to ensure the city’s survival through the Great
Depression (McComb 1969).

Another example of this private and public sector collaboration is evident with the
eventual construction of the city’s newest airport. In 1954, voters turned down a new

airport. City officials then became worried that there would not be a large enough tract of
5 1

land to accommodate the desired airport since developers were buying up large pieces of
vacant land on the Houston periphery. When the Mayor approached business leaders in
that same year regarding this anticipated problem, they formed a syndicate to buy land in
north Harris County without letting anyone know what was being planned. The tacit
nature of this agreement was formed in order to ensure that land prices were not forced
up. When the new airport was finally approved, the city purchased the land from the
syndicate of business leaders at the price that they originally paid for the land, saving the
city considerable money (Miller 1982).

Business leaders and local government also teamed up to entice NASA’s new
Manned Spacecraft Center to the Houston area in 1961. When it became known that
NASA was searching for a location for the new center, local Houston leaders got together
and convinced Humble Oil and Refining Company to donate a small 1,000 acre site of its
30,000 acre holding in Clear Lake (southeast of Houston) to Rice University. The
university, as a public entity, offered the site to NASA for its spacecraft center, and was
accepted (McComb 1969, Miller 1982). Built in 1962, the Johnson Space Center, as it
would be renamed, helped to bring thousands of j obs, billions of dollars, and increased
prestige to the Houston area, largely because of the cooperation of business leaders and
local and state government.

Business leaders have also been actively involved in the politics of the city and
very often are a large force in deciding who becomes mayor (McComb 1969). The city’s
Chamber of Commerce has become especially strong and takes active roles in city issues
traditionally handled solely by the city government and its agencies (Feagin 1988,

Thomas 1991). This has included long-range planning for capital improvement projects

52

that often best serve the interests of local business. As the city and its economy have
adapted to changing times and a changing economy, business interests have continually
worked together to ensure the success of the city, at least when it comes to facilitating the

needs of certain segments of Houston’s population.

Government Involvement in Business

Despite Houston’s claims of laissez-faire and minimal government involvement,
local and state governments are actually heavily involved in ensuring that the economic
interests of local businesses are being effectively addressed. In Houston, the free
enterprise philosophy held by the city’s political and business leaders does not mean a
complete rejection of government. In fact, governments at all levels are extensively
encouraged to facilitate the needs of local businesses, evident with extensive public aid
programs, direct subsidies, and limited private sector regulation (Feagin 1988, Vojnovic
2003a). However, there is a dual nature to this government involvement, which has meant
prosperity for some, while the historical disinterest in social services has generated
considerable disadvantages for large population subgroups—Houston’s marginalized
population.

One of the largest areas of government involvement, often rarely seen by most
citizens, is the high level of subsidization of private development and businesses. This
has been evident since the beginning of the town when the Allen brothers convinced the
new Republic to locate its capital in Houston, and thereby securing government funds to
subsidize the initial development of the city. Public funds have routinely been used to

finance the expansion of infrastructure and services to suit the needs of business interests

53

in Houston. While the use of public funds for these types of projects is not unique to
Houston, the continual focus on meeting the needs of business leaders, routinely at the
expense of the provision of basic public services to Houston’s neighborhoods, is what
sets the laissez—faire city apart from other major US. cities.

One of the largest and most visible projects of subsidization for business interests
has been the continual dredging, widening, and maintenance of the Houston Shipping
Channel (Port of Houston). As early business leaders have looked to capitalize on
Houston’s waterways, they have sought funding from state and federal authorities to
perform the necessary improvements for over the past 150 years. For many years, the
federal government was providing a very large percentage of the funding for these
improvements (greater than 95% between 1900 and 1963) (Rose 1965, Vojnovic 2003a).
With strong lobbying in Congress, Houston was able to secure the necessary federal
funding to ensure the port’s success and the city’s position as an international leader in
petroleum industries and trade.

Private developments also subsidized heavily by taxpayers include the numerous
sports stadiums within the city. In 1958 a bond of $22 million ($147.6 million in 2005
dollars) was passed to provide funding for the Astrodome, a new, fully-enclosed, air-
conditioned, football-baseball park to be built and managed by the newly-established
Houston Sports Authority (H.S.A.). Some argued this large public debt for a private
corporation set a bad precedent, but little was noticed in the hurry to build the ‘eighth
wonder of the world.’ As construction costs doubled to $45 million ($288.5 million in

2005 dollars) because of scale and new technology, the H.S.A. contributed $6 million but

54

was only required to pay $750,000 per year in rent, with the rest of the funds coming
from public bonds (McComb 1969).

The heavy subsidization of public stadiums would become evident once again in
the late 19903. During this period, the H.S.A. was recreated to become the more powerful
Harris County Sports and Convention Corporation, becoming in charge of the financing,
development, and construction of the new stadiums. During the mid- and late-19903,
millions more dollars in public bonds were approved by voters, very typical of the city’s
freewheeling promotion of such large-scale projects. As just over $1 billion was spent on
stadiums in the late 19903 and early 20003, it costs $1.5 million a year just to maintain
the Astrodome for smaller events. Taxpayers also still owe $50 million for renovations
completed on the Astrodome in the late 19803 (Nichols 2005).

As could be expected in a city built across such a large geographic area, the
subsidies from the federal government to maintain the city’s transportation facilities are
also large. Houston often received larger shares of funding, both from the state and
federal governments, for road improvements than other cities in Texas or other cities in
the US. of comparable size (Vojnovic 2003a). The four-lane Gulf Freeway which tore
the historic black Fourth Ward in half, displacing many residents and tearing the
community apart, had 86% of the costs covered by state and federal funds (McComb
1969). Extensive federal funding was also needed to build and maintain Houston’s major
airports.

The local government has also been actively involved in acquiring land for private
development. In many particularly politically sensitive situations, the local government

acquires private land, including prime Houston real estate, and resells or leases the land

55

to private developers. The government also assists in the development of these lands by
directly subsidizing private developers, particularly in the case of upper-income
residential developments. This includes the provision of new infrastructure improvements
in areas experiencing physical and social upgrading, and the use of special tax financing
schemes in upscale Houston districts to facilitate new development and redevelopment.
Several such occurrences in the F reedmen’s Town area will be discussed in chapter five.
Another interesting aspect of government involvement in business, in part related
to a lack of formal zoning, has been the absence of regulations regarding environmental
standards and industrial pollutants. In the continued effort to maintain the pro-business
environment of Houston, government leaders comply with the needs of local industries
by maintaining minimal industrial regulations. The environmental hazards generated
throughout the city, in this political environment that maintains a disinterest in its
marginalized populations, disproportionately affects minority and lower-income residents

of Houston (Bullard 1987, Feagin 1988).

Postmodern Transition

Given that its principal period of expansion occurred throughout the 20th century,
the most significant impact on Houston’s development has been modernism. This is
evident in the city’s sprawling nature of outward expansion, its historical disregard and
disinterest in ethnic groups, and a lack of environmental consciousness. Within the last
fifteen years, however, the city has made a significant shift from its traditional economic
development agenda. The new interest by the city’s political and economic leaders,

driven by the new focus on the development of the specialized services and high-tech

56

economy, has resulted in an increased recognition of ethnic groups and cultures, a new
importance on urban-environmental quality, and increased efforts directed towards
downtown revitalization (Vojnovic 2003b). These initiatives are part of the city’s new
interest in remarketing itself and improving its image as it establishes a new development
and growth agenda. Houston has in large part been influenced by numerous successes of
other US. cities that have pursued, and successfully realized, similar urban and economic

revitalizations, including Seattle, Boston, Portland, and Denver (Ford 2003).

Houston’s Modernist Roots

While there are a number of characteristics in Houston’s urban landscape that
reflect the city’s strong modernist tendencies, there are three that are most relevant to the
nature of physical and social upgrading that the city is experiencing. Houston has long
been recognized as a sprawling metropolitan region. This sprawl was, of course,
exacerbated by the increase in personal automobile ownership in the early decades of the
twentieth century and further exacerbated by increases in federal highway and road
construction during the 19503. Even with a high concentration of businesses and people
employed in the downtown area (currently over 140,000 people), the number of actual
residents living in the downtown is rather minimal for a city of about 2 million people.
Much of the city’s growth in the second half of the twentieth century has been focused on
outward expansion.

Several projects during the 19603 were important contributors to the city’s
decentralization, and these developments have also emerged as anchors to the city’s

suburban expansion. The construction of the Astrodome and NASA’s Manned Space

57

Center took place several miles from the city’s center, with the Astrodome seven miles
south of downtown and the NASA Center over 25 miles southeast of Houston. Another
example of modernist suburban expansion is evident with the Galleria/Post Oak shopping
complex, located 10 miles west of downtown, an area that would eventually develop as
an edge city. The nature of investment patterns throughout Houston, and specifically the
city’s low-density decentralization tendencies for much of the post-World War 11 period,
was a reflection of the city’s modernist tendencies emphasizing single-family housing
construction and suburban growth.

Another example of Houston’s modernist roots has been its reliance on heavy
manufacturing, particularly the petroleum-based industries which, while being critical to
the development of the region, have produced severe stresses on the natural environment.
As noted earlier, Houston has historically maintained a poor environmental record with
regard to the region’s natural environment. This is perhaps best evident with the weak
local and regional regulations on polluting industries, and the high geographic
concentration of noxious facilities near poor, minority neighborhoods on the industrial
east side of the city (Feagin 1988, Bullard 1990). Adding to the industrial emissions, the
expansive system of road networks and the heavy reliance on the personal automobile
have further contributed to pollutant emissions in the city. These severe environmental
stresses in Houston, evident with high levels of particulate matter and ground level
ozone, have generated significant health risks for large segments of Houston’s
population, and particularly the lower-income minority residents.

The disinterest in ethnicity and ethnic communities was another influence of

modernism that played a crucial role in shaping Houston’s urban landscape. During much

58

of the twentieth century, as in other US. cities during this period, the various ethnic
neighborhoods of Houston were largely ignored and ‘invisible’ to the white middle
classes of the city and regularly faced redevelopment pressures from both public and
private interests who were looking to clear land for new development. These
communities originally inhabited undesirable land surrounding the downtown and the
industrial, east side of the city (Lin 1995). Although Houston did not participate in the
federal urban renewal programs, deteriorating neighborhoods were still cleared with the
use of federal funding for the construction of highways and public housing projects. The
discussion of such pressures in the city’s African-American Fourth Ward will be explored
in detail in chapter five. This disregard for ethnicity and ethnic neighborhoods was seen
as an important element of the city’s modernist era.

Within the last fifteen years Houston has experienced a marked shift towards
postmodern characteristics and tendencies, largely as a result of its new interest in
developing a specialized services and high-tech local economy. These shifts have
occurred as the city attempts to remarket itself and improve its image in the changing
world economy. While these new initiatives may appear to contradict the city’s historical
development, they do not in any way challenge the city’s traditional pro-growth

economic agenda (Vojnovic 2003b).

Houston’s New Postmodern Direction

In 1999 Houston’s environmental struggles became well known as the Houston-
Galveston region became the first metropolitan area in the country to surpass Los

Angeles as the ‘smoggiest city’ in the nation, with the most days of ozone violations per

59

year. In the Houston region, however, ground level ozone was only one of many
increasing pollutants and fine particle emissions in the area, which caused an estimated
500 premature deaths annually (Sonoma Technology 1999). This poor level of
environmental quality throughout the region had begun to plague the city and its image,
and was seen as being particularly detrimental in attempting to attract corporate
headquarters and tourism. High ozone levels have also put federal highway funds in
jeopardy. In response to the requirements of the service economy—which is seen as
strongly dependent on urban quality indicators, including environmental quality——
Houston has recently begun to aggressively pursue cleaner air and emission strategies
(Vojnovic 2003b). Local economic and political leaders have been increasingly
recognizing that improving environmental quality will improve the city’s competitiveness
in attracting corporate headquarters, specialized services, hi gh—tech industries, and white-
collar professionals that support the new service economy.

In addition to environmental quality, noticing the successes of other US. cities at
capitalizing on various, but select, ethnic areas and neighborhoods (such as New York
City’s Little Italy and Chinatown, and Miami’s Little Cuba), Houston sought to capitalize
on its ethnically diverse population and resources. Strengthening the city’s various
cultural centers was seen as an initiative that would improve urban quality and encourage
local tourism. As the numbers of Asians and Hispanics rapidly increased during the
19803, the city experienced the emergence of a new economic group, ethnic place
entrepreneurs, who were able to market ethnic places as commodities in postmodern

Houston (Lin 1995).

60

One area of recent focus is the Chinatown area near the new George R. Brown
Convention Center on the eastern Side of downtown. Here ethnic entrepreneurs and city
leaders aim to build a mixed-use development with a variety of ethnic restaurants that
will build Houston’s image as an international city, and perhaps more importantly,
expose this dimension of Houston to the numerous convention participants nearby. The
city is also looking to capitalize on recent developments of the Mexican-American
population along the Buffalo Bayou, east of downtown. Here groups are developing a
Latino festival marketplace along the bayou with sites and markers of historical and
ethnic significance (Lin 1995). In a shift from the city’s modernist tendencies, which
generally ignored ethnic communities, the city now hopes to capitalize on the uniqueness
of the local cultures that exist in the various areas of the city, in pursuit of remarketing
itself as an international city with rich cultural amenities.

What must be recognized is that this embracing of ethnic diversity by the city is a
selective process. A large group excluded from this celebration of ethnicity is Houston’s
African-American population, as evidenced by the displacement of residents from the
city’s Fourth Ward and a lack of recognition of the significance of Afiican-American
history in the city. Also important is that this increased presence and recognition of
ethnicities in Houston has so far not been translated successfully into economic
opportunities, as a substantially higher percentage of blacks and Hispanics live in poverty
in comparison to whites (Vojnovic 2003b).

Another aspect of the city’s postmodern transition is the new emphasis placed on
Houston’s historical buildings, landmarks, and history—as evident in the preservation of

a number of important historic buildings in the downtown and surrounding areas during

61

Houston’s recent redevelopment initiatives. During the development of the new
downtown baseball stadium (currently Minute Maid Park) in 1997, architects and
designers incorporated the city’s abandoned train station as the main entrance to the
stadium (Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2). The Union Station, designed by the architects of
New York City’s Grand Central Station, was completed in 1911 and served as the city’s
main passenger station until its closure in 1974. This project brought acclaim within the
preservation field to a city that had often been known for its disregard of buildings with
historical significance. The project even garnered the Greater Houston Preservation
Alliance’s 2000 Good Brick Award (Greater Houston Preservation Alliance 2004).
Several other older buildings in the downtown have been preserved and renovated into
successful lofts and apartments, including Hogg Palace (built in 1921) and the famed
Rice Hotel (completed in 1913) (Figure 3.3 - Figure 3.5). However, similar to the ethnic
diversity in the city, Houston is selective in its approach to historical preservation, which
will become evident in the review of Houston’s redevelopment of Freedmen’s Town,

discussed later in the thesis.

62

 

Figure 3.1 — Union Station as entrance to Minute Maid Park (baseball stadium)
(Source: Author)

   
   

4a ...-.1. ‘.'.- -'

Figure 3.2 — Interior of renovated Union Station (Source: Author)

63

 

Figure 3.3 — Hogg Palace (Source: Author)

 

Figure 3.4 - Rice Hotel (Source: Author)

64

 

C.

Figure 3.5 — Rice Hotel (Source: Author)

Perhaps the most significant aspects of the city’s postmodern shift have been
evident with its focus on downtown redevelopment and revitalization. With the
commercial sector considered successful and employing over 140,000 people, Houston’s
downtown core struggled with the lack of residential land uses, street activity, and
nightlife. With assistance from city tax credits, one of the first residential construction
projects gamishing attention involved the renovation of the historic Rice Hotel, which
was closed and abandoned since 1977. The city also used the already-thriving theatre
district as an impetus for development of further entertainment venues. The city focused
on the development of street beautification projects, a light-rail line through downtown,

and two major downtown sports stadiums all to be discussed in the next section.

65

An important dimension of the various private sector development and
redevelopment initiatives were the extensive government subsidies provided to facilitate
these projects. These public initiatives were clearly in contrast to the widely accepted
claim of minimal government involvement in this laissez-faire city. In addition, similar to
the discussions of ethnic areas and historic preservation, only a select group of Houston
residents benefited from the downtown redevelopment. Houston’s recent central city
revitalization has placed tremendous pressure on land values in and around downtown. In
addition, the redevelopment of the central city has resulted in the eventual destruction of
several neighborhoods, including Houston’s Afiican-American ‘mother ward’,

Freedmen’s Town.

66

Local Economic Development Strategies: Focusing on Houston’s

Central City

Since the early 19903, the city of Houston has devoted a considerable amount of
resources to encouraging the redevelopment of its downtown and surrounding residential
areas. Although the city’s 1.08-square mile downtown core was once again prospering
with over 140,000 workers in the upswing following the recessions of the mid-19803, the
city continued to lack a residential population living in the downtown. In order to
encourage the construction of residential lofts, the city initially focused on physically
upgrading several deteriorated areas near the downtown, including the Midtown and
Freedmen’s Town areas, located to the south and west of downtown respectively. In
pursuit of downtown revival, the city developed a downtown management district, tax
increment reinvestment zones, built new sports stadiums, hotels, and light-rail, and
improved streetscape designs. (See Figure 3.6 & Figure 3.7 for maps of the Houston area
and the locations of downtown redevelopment projects.) In this “laissez-faire” city, the
local government became extensively involved in the planning and development of
various projects, as well as financially invested with extensive public subsidies granted to

private developers involved in these initiatives.

67

SEEK 8.46: .o 26 . 88¢ ins. 2a 8.5: 8.32.. 3 :6

35.2 E 38.8 ”Emu . 8.28m .22, Ba 82.. 888 88 "858

                     

.IIIJJIJJJ
8:! NF 0 n c

2..
all...

:30; :85.
x . l -

58 £258.“. I
85a: 515 I
£5... case: 8 25 I
as: 388 o8~ fl
88¢ 8a:
venue.—

cofiao: , , .
co on
. \ r ’7

  

V
1

      

       

 

 

I. — .
(I..-
v.11.

 

. /
I. r/ \t

. 2395911.... - ..

no.2 cognac: 2: no mega use annoy. 3?:

Figure 3.6 — Orientation map of the Houston area and Freedmen’s Town.

68

852 .3 8.558

 

:oumso: EsoEBoo $9.50

 

.mmm - 8.28. his ”Spinoza e SEEK
cause... a 26 - 88m 8.32 £952 83. 82:8

£526 .202”. l.
8:86 289: Hilu
2: =3. .5: II.
mecca i

memo: 8.82

 

cacao.—

Awoccoe 0.83:
22859 .20: 8E c
.3: 3.0 a

at 3.52.8
9: .2 5:8 38: 3
82a 88m a.

22 8.58
as .2 .3: 85.. 8
98.: 8.2 a
528 .5553 3
“>3.

lllblli!

Figure 3.7 — Locations of downtown sites and recent redevelopment projects

69

The Main Street Management District and TIRZs

To guide and encourage development during the 19903, the city developed two
specific programs with far-reaching effects. First was the establishment of the Houston
Downtown Management District (1995), which is a nonprofit body, funded by a special
assessment on downtown property, whose board of directors represents property owners,
managers, and tenants in the downtown. Their purpose is to encourage the revitalization
of Houston’s downtown, including the construction of residential and commercial
buildings, and various downtown improvement projects. In order to accelerate the
renewal of the downtown, the district set several important goals with improved quality
of life as the underlying theme. These goals included building a lasting constituency for
downtown; recruiting investors, retailers and tenants while retaining those already
downtown; and making downtown clean, safe and attractive to all (Houston Downtown
Management District 2005). They have been an integral part of several important projects
including the new light-rail system, Main Street improvements, and the Cotswold
streetscape improvement project, all to be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Also designed by the city was a program that implemented the creation of tax
increment reinvestment zones (TIRZs). TIRZs are a type of reinvestment financing tool
designed to redevelop deteriorated areas. TIRZs were created throughout the city for one
of three reasons: to address inner-city deterioration, to develop raw land in suburban
fringe areas, or to proactively address the decline of major activity centers (City of

Houston 2004). (See Figure 3.8 for locations of current TIRZs.)

70

   
       

 

32.3536165'

Nu: I

singing”. in:

5525: he .86
ASE: moaeN Eva—ungumow— «no—=22: nah me .8339—

3025 28:00 .m.: .90 68261.0 E0 ”850w

Figure 3.8 — Locations of Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones in the City of Houston

71

The tax assessment levels are frozen in the reinvestment zones for a determined number
of years. The idea behind the zones is that taxes attributable to new improvements (tax
increment above the frozen level) are set aside in a fund to finance various public
improvements within the zone. As new development in the zone occurs, the resulting
increase in tax revenue (above what would normally be collected without improvements)
is returned to the TIRZ fund to pay for further project costs. The property owners still pay
the normally increasing tax bill, while the cost to the city is the loss of the increment tax
above the normal assessed level, which is instead returned to the TIRZ.

The financing scheme was most successful at redeveloping the Midtown area
south of downtown. This area between I-45 and US. 59 had become blighted with
neglect with the suburbanization of Houston. The area began its revitalization in the mid-
19903 with a plan to restore its pedestrian-fiiendly residential character with sidewalk
cafes and shops. The establishment of a Midtown TIRZ in 1995 has been vital to the
success of the area and in encouraging development. The area is now full of mixed-use
developments and upscale condos, apartments, lofts, and townhomes, with close transit
connections to downtown (Figure 3.9 & Figure 3.10). Since 1997 the area’s list of new
construction projects include 2,500 apartment units, 675 townhomes, 359,000 square feet
of commercial, retail and restaurant space, and 8,000 new residents (Kaplan 2003). A
TIRZ was also implemented in the deteriorated Freedmen’s Town area. This tool has
begun to assist in and encourage the physical upgrading of Freedmen’s Town but not for

the benefit of the original residents most in need of assistance.

72

 

Figure 3.9 — Highly-successful Midtown area southwest of downtown redeveloped
with a TIRZ. (Source: Author)

 

Figure 3.10 — Remaining land in the Midtown area prepared for development.
(Source: Author)

73

The TIRZ financing scheme has recently come under attack when it was
implemented in the upscale shopping area west of the downtown known as the Galleria.
Although still a thriving commercial and retail center, the argument was that the Galleria
would soon lose business to retail outlets farther in the suburbs, because of increasing
costs of business resulting from the congestion experienced in the Galleria area and the
continual loss of city funding to residential areas. The new funds developed through the
Galleria TIRZ were to be used to improve pedestrian areas and parking facilities to
decrease congestion, particularly given the pressures of new improvements and projects
in the area. Opponents of the Galleria-area TIRZ argue this is a case of ‘corporate
welfare’ in which many developments often left up to the private sector are being
financed with public money. “It’s a way for some well-connected people to make their
projects even more money” said a local developer of the use of TIRZs in these types of
thriving upscale areas (Cook 1999a, p. 8). As opposed to being used in deteriorating areas
that are not generating tax dollars, the use of a TIRZ in areas such as the Galleria—which
already maintain some of the highest property values in the city—will redirect money

from the city into already thriving Houston neighborhoods.

Main Street and Infrastructure Projects

Some of the most visible redevelopment initiatives in the downtown have been
the new construction projects along the city’s Main Street. This has included a light-rail
line along Main Street and various infrastructure and streetscape improvements along

most downtown streets. These physical improvements, although largely ‘cosmetic’ in

74

nature, were designed to be a catalyst for further developments, both residential and
commercial, in the area.

In early 2001 the Main Street Coalition, made up of public and private leaders of
Houston’s downtown, published the Main Street Strategic Plan. This document detailed
the physical and streetscape improvements that were to happen to Houston’s Main Street
in hopes of linking the areas of the downtown with sports venues, universities, museums,
and Houston’s hospital complex south of downtown (Main Street Coalition 2001). The
streetscape improvements centered around the construction of a 7.5 mile light-rail line
running along Main Street. The official ‘Main Street Initiative’, as it is known, has
included the construction of fountains, new landscaping and pedestrian-oriented designs
along the light-rail line and Main Street. For such an automobile-dependent city, these
designs were meant to encourage pedestrian activities around the downtown, with the
incorporation of benches, wide sidewalks, new building facades, district signage, and
trees and overhangs to protect pedestrians from hot summer weather (Figure 3.11 - Figure
3.13).

Close to Main Street is a large-scale streetscape improvement project aimed at
improving the aesthetics and pedestrian character of the northern portion of downtown.
The project, known as Cotswold, covers a 90-block area highlighting the historic heart of
Houston by linking the Theatre District, on the west side of downtown, with the new
baseball stadium, on the east side of downtown (Main Street Coalition 2001) (Figure
3.14). In addition to the new pedestrian-fiiendly designs incorporated along Main Street,
the Cotswold project has also included new streetlights, public art, metered on-street
parking, and a courtesy patrol (security force) (Rouffignac 1999a). As with the Main

75

Street projects, the goal is that the Cotswold project will be a catalyst for private

development in the area.

111111,;

\
t

a?

 

Figure 3.11 — Improved streetscape designs and street integration with the light-rail
line. (Source: Author)

    

 

. ..

Figure 3.12 — Facade improvements and new streetscape designs along Main Street
in downtown. (Source: Author)

76

 

Figure 3.13 — District signage as part 01' downtown revitalization. (Source: Author)

 

Figure 3.14 — Cotswold Streetscape Improvement Project (Source: Author)

77

One of the largest projects has been the construction of a 7.5 mile light-rail line, at
a cost of $300 million, running along Main Street. The Metropolitan Transit Authority of
Harris County (METRO) operates the line, which was completed in December 2003.
Design plans and campaigns had been in the works for over twenty years as residents,
transit agencies, and officials debated the construction of a mass transit rail line in the
city. After finally being approved in 1999, the construction process took nearly three
years, as Main Street was completely reconstructed with the integration of the rail line
(Figure 3.15 - Figure 3.18). Although this massive construction effort was highly
disruptive to downtown business, significantly contributing to the closure of over a dozen
small businesses and restaurants, the li ght-rail has proven very popular with over 100,000
people riding on the opening weekend (Hanson 2004).

This relatively short line links many important facilities along the Main Street
Corridor. At the north end is the University of Houston’s downtown campus, and
traveling south the line runs through the central business district, and continues to the
museum district, Rice University, the hospital complex, and the new football stadium.
Although only connecting a few major points in Houston, the new light-rail has already
proven to be very popular, with average daily ridership estimates between 18,000 and
20,000 people. In November 2003, local voters approved a proposal for another 65 miles
of light-rail and 8 miles of commuter rail. The voters also authorized a $640 million bond
as initial funding for the next 22 miles of light-rail, which is expected to be in operation
by 2012 (Wall 2003). This additional light-rail would link downtown with the city’s two
major airports, to the north and south, as well as the city’s upscale Galleria shopping area

to the west.

78

 

Figure 3.15 — Main Street Improvement Project with the construction of the light-
rail line along Main Street in downtown. (Source: Author)

   
 

... ' ‘w’fi‘tg 'I'K‘ » -w ‘ "' . 131..., T...‘ ' ‘i‘f‘rfi'I 1.4 x '

Figure 3.16 — Main Street Improvement Project with construction of light-rail line
(Source: Author)
79

" ‘.:\7\|\,\:‘1\‘
,’ , / ' \ \ x . ‘ ‘ x
. ,, .77, 7/ / l\~, , , t .
Figure 3.17 — Completed light-rail line integrated with Main Street. (Source:
Author)

 

 

Figure 3.18 - Completed light-rail line integrated with Main Street. (Source:
Author)

80

 

Entertainment Venues: Stadiums, Hotels, Conventions, Performing Arts

In the continual desire to redevelop its downtown and increase its presence as an
international city and tourist destination, the city of Houston constructed numerous sports
stadiums, convention center additions, hotels, and performing arts centers in the late
19903 and early 20003. One of the first downtown redevelopment projects that the city
undertook was the renovation of the historic Rice Hotel. In 1997, at a cost of $32 million,
this historic structure was refurbished into a mixed-use complex of upscale condos and
apartments as well as restaurant and retail space. The developer who refurbished the Rice
Hotel, which had been abandoned since 1977, received extensive public funds and tax
breaks to facilitate the completion of this project. This was one of the first large-scale
redevelopment initiatives to take place downtown and would help to stimulate further
residential and commercial projects in Houston’s central city.

Riding the wave of revitalization, increased convention business, and lucrative tax
breaks from the city of Houston, an additional nearly 3,000 hotel rooms have been
constructed in less than seven years in the downtown. This has involved the construction
of three new hotels and renovations of nine older, mostly closed buildings. The largest of
these hotel additions is the new 1,200-room Hilton Americas-Houston convention hotel
built on the east side of downtown adjacent to the newest convention center (George R.
Brown) (Figure 3.19). This luxurious hotel has been a model for new convention hotels
across the country, with its 91,500 square feet of technologically-advanced meeting space
and close proximity to numerous downtown attractions (Figure 3.7 & Figure 3.20). The
city hopes that this hotel will stimulate the redevelopment of the east side of downtown

and will be worth its nearly $300 million investment. In addition to the new construction

81

l mm:

 

of hotels and additions to existing hotels, large-scale hotel renovations have also been
taking place in the downtown area such as the historic Lancaster Hotel in the Theatre

District (Figure 3.21). One of the largest such renovations includes a $30 million project

to update the downtown Hyatt Regency (McCarthy 2000).

 

Figure 3.20 — Close proximity of new Hilton hotel and George R. Brown Convention
Center as viewed from Minute Maid Park. (Source: Author)

82

..-—-A”

m... I

Figure 3.21 — The redeveloped, historic Lancaster Hotel in the downtown Theatre
District. (Source: Author)

 

The city’s third official convention center, the George R. Brown, was built in
1987 on the east side of town (Figure 3.22). A $165 million addition to the convention
center was completed in December 2003, increasing the total space by 38% to 1.85
million square feet. South of downtown, the city maintains the use of the Astrodome and
surrounding facilities providing an additional 1.15 million square feet of exhibit space.
These combined facilities, including the new convention center hotel, have been a major
draw for national and international conventions and in helping the city to rank second in
the nation for meeting space in square footage with a total of over 4 million square feet of

meeting space across the city (City of Houston 2003b).

83

 

Figure 3.22 — George R. Brown Convention Center (Source: Author)

Another set of highly visible economic development projects has been the
construction of three major sports stadiums in the downtown area for a total price of
$1.036 billion (Murphy 2005). All three of these stadiums were completed within three
years of each other, representing the largest and fastest build-up of sports venues in the
nation (Tolson 2004). The construction included a new baseball stadium, new football
stadium, and an indoor arena for basketball and hockey events, as well as concerts and
other indoor activities. In addition to aggressively trying to recruit a National Football
League team back to Houston and the lucrative Super Bowl, the city was also at the time
in the preliminary running for the 2012 Summer Olympics.

The first to begin construction was the baseball stadium, currently named Minute
Maid Park, which broke ground in 1997. In addition to being a state-of—the-art facility
with a firlly retractable roof, the 40,950-seat air-conditioned stadium contains modern

suites and luxury boxes (Figure 3.23 and Figure 3.24). These luxury areas, largely absent
84

 

in the former baseball venue of the Astrodome, account for a large percentage of a
modern stadium’s revenue and were part of the reason many team owners across the
nation have aggressively pursued new stadiums within the last fifteen years. Since
opening in March 2000, at a cost of $265 million, the stadium has stimulated other
projects in this previously undeveloped, northeast part of the downtown—including two
new luxury lofts, several hotels, and numerous restaurants, clubs, and bars.

To replace the city’s old indoor arena located well outside of the downtown
(formerly the Compaq Center), a new arena was built in the central city adjacent to the
new Hilton convention hotel (Figure 3.25). In addition to being home to the city’s
professional men’s and women’s basketball teams, the arena is used for over 300 events
and activities a year, including concerts, hockey, graduations, and related convention
activities. Although only opening in October 2003, city officials hope this $252 million
investment will work in conjunction with the convention center and hotel to continue
further redevelopment on the east side of downtown. As of now, there are few activities
and services in this area of the downtown, and it remains fairly disconnected from the
activities in the city’s central core.

Although not tied directly to the redevelopment of Houston’s inner-city because
of its location five miles south of the downtown, the city’s new football stadium has
served as host to the 2004 NFL Super Bowl and other large-scale events (Figure 3.26 and
Figure 3.27). Completed at a cost of nearly $500 million in August 2002, Reliant Stadium
serves as the home to the city’s new professional football team, the Houston Rodeo, as
well as soccer and concert events. This site is also at the southern end of the city’s new
light-rail line and therefore connects the stadium with downtown. Although the stadium

85

 

has not been very successful in further developing the surrounding area, being at the
southern node along the light-rail corridor and with its connections to downtown, the

stadium provides a southern anchor and will likely help to intensify the light-rail corridor.

 

Figure 3.23 — Minute Maid Park (formerly Enron Field) (Source: Author)

 

Figure 3.24 — Interior of Minute Maid Park (formerly Enron Field) (Source:
Author)

86

- «Pa
. . {1.9.

 

Figure 3.27 - Reliant Stadium (Source: Author)
87

Located in the northwest section of the downtown, the Houston Theatre District
has long been an important part of downtown entertainment (Figure 3.7). In the recent
revitalization initiatives, the Theatre District has been further enhanced and
complemented by other entertainment and eating venues, which have considerably
increased the vibrancy of the downtown outside of normal business hours. The District is
home to eight nationally recognized performing arts organizations and contains nearly
13,000 seats for live performance, making it second behind New York City in number of
theatre seats in a concentrated downtown area (City of Houston 2003b). This district has
also taken part in the downtown redevelopment with the construction and renovations of
numerous venues including: the opening in spring 2002 of the $100 million Hobby
Center (home to Broadway shows and plays), a $7.5 million renovation of the Jones Hall
in 2002 (home to the Houston Symphony), a $30 million renovation of the Alley Theatre
completed in 2005, and a new $12 million underground parking garage for use by those
visiting the entertainment venues and the central city and county offices (Figure 3.28 -
Figure 3.31).

Another redevelopment opportunity in this area existed in the city’s second
convention center, which had largely been abandoned since the opening of the George R.
Brown convention center on the east side of downtown in 1987. This Albert Thomas
Convention Center was retrofitted in 1997 by a private entertainment company into a
successful entertainment venue, known as Bayou Place, with a movie theatre for
independent films, a Hard Rock Café, a 3,000-seat live performance venue, and multiple
restaurants, bars, and dance clubs (Figure 3.32 and Figure 3.33). Overall, this new

concentration of public and private projects in Houston’s downtown clearly represent a

88

new direction for a city that has traditionally emphasized low-density suburban
developments and regional shopping centers. All of these physical upgrading projects
have also brought tremendous increased pressure on upscale near-downtown living
geared towards upper-income professionals of the new service economy. This has
produced new developments in areas such as Midtown as well as Freedmen’s Town and
the Heights to be discussed in the following chapters. Residents of these effected areas

have been severely impacted by this physical upgrading, often including their eventual

displacement.

 

    

Figure 3.29 —- Jones Hall (Source: Author)

89

 

Figure 3.31 — Hobby Center for the Performing Arts. (Source: Author)

    

Figure 3.32 — Bayou Place entertainment complex. (Source: Author)

90

' l A C K
., Fur“; A =¢;w-—l<m‘= .

Yiiilli.

Figure 3.33 — Bayou Place entertainment complex. (Source: Author)

 

The Role of Subsidies

Similar to the complaints leveled against the TIRZ project and the inappropriate
subsidization of developments in general, some residents and city officials have also
challenged the level of government involvement in Houston’s downtown revitalization.
Many say that the use of public money to fund these projects goes beyond the city’s
traditional mission of providing services and infrastructure, such as fire and police
protection, streets and sewers. “The proper role of government is to provide the basic
infrastructure and a good regulatory framework for the private sector” said City
Councilman Rod Todd in 1999 (Rouffignac 1999b, p. 1). Given the local government
rhetoric of minimal public involvement, and the city’s historical disinterest in social
services, many residents did actually believe that the city simply maintained a role in
providing minimal levels of local public services.

In the Cotswold streetscape improvement project, the city went far beyond
providing basic infrastructure improvements, and took charge in the redesign of streets

and pedestrian walkways, with the goal of improving the aesthetics and pedestrian

91

character of this downtown area. The whole 90-block redevelopment has been estimated
to cost between $60 and $65 million. As of early 2000, the City Council had already
approved $21.7 million of public money for the first phase of the 32 blocks (Rouffignac
1999a). Outside of Houston’s traditional role of only providing the ‘framework’ for
private sector development, the city has instead led and funded this highly aesthetic
project in hopes of encouraging private development and redevelopment in the area.

Looking to build a large convention center hotel in the late 1990s, city officials
struggled to locate a private company that would take on the challenge of such a large
project in a struggling convention center market. Instead, the city decided to take on the
risk of such a large investment on its own by creating a city-owned corporation to
actually own the hotel and contracted with a private hotel chain to manage it. To finance
this hotel project (as well as the convention center additions) in 2001 the city borrowed
$626.5 million from Wall Street investors. This amount also included a reserve fund to
help pay off the loans when hotel revenues were down (Buggs 2005). An additional back-
up plan for the city was even further subsidization. If the reserve fund ran out (and hotel
revenues were down), the taxing agencies of the state, county, METRO, and city all
agreed to rebate the majority of the taxes that the Hilton collects, taking further funds
fiom these public groups and thereby placing added costs on taxpayers. Many hotel
analysts fear the hotel’s occupancy rates will start to fall below 50% (currently at around
55% from 2004) until 2007 which would result in a weakened ability of the city to repay
its loans. This would require the use of all of the tax revenues from the hotel being used
to repay the bonds which would take money away from the city and convention and

visitors bureau. “Taxpayers would pay for this in hidden ways” as there would be no

92

money to market Houston and bring in more visitors says hotel industry analyst Bruce
Walker (Buggs 2005, p. D7). Even with an increase in advance convention hotel room
bookings by 45% over the previous year, the majority of this business will not be realized
into the city’s tourism industry until 2007, which leaves the city in a difficult position in
the next couple years.

In connection with downtown revitalization has also been the construction of ten
new hotels in the downtown area. Within less than three years the city has doubled the
number of hotel rooms in the downtown. Most of the new hotels have received 50% tax
rebates from the city during their first seven years of operation. Also city-backed loans
were used to entice boutique hotels, economy chains, and mid-brand lodges to build
downtown (Buggs 2005).

One of the most controversial aspects of public involvement in redevelopment has
been the financing and construction of the city’s three new sports stadiums. In 1997 the
city established the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority to manage the construction
of new sports facilities in the area and recruit sporting events and teams to Houston. In
1996 voters had narrowly approved (51%-49%) bonds for the construction of a football
stadium and downtown baseball stadium (Tolson 2004). This bond money was to be
repaid within 30 years with a 2% hotel and 5% rental-car tax. The idea was that people
from outside the city would receive the additional taxes as opposed to the local residents.

The first stadium to be built was the baseball stadium, currently called Minute
Maid Park and located in northeast downtown, completed at a cost of $265 million in
2000. Approximately 32% of the project was financed privately with $52 million (20%)
from the baseball team’s owners and $33 million (12%) from a no‘interest loan. The

93

remaining $180 million (68%) came from the publicly issued bonds (Minute Maid Park
2005). The massive football stadium (Reliant Stadium) south of downtown was
completed at a cost of $500 million in 2002. Public money spent on the project included
$22.5 million (4.5%) in loans from Harris County and most importantly $367 million
(73.4%) from the bonds approved in the 1996 election. The public money spent on this
project has been financed in the same fashion as the baseball stadium with bonds to be
repaid with a 2% hotel and 5% rental-car tax. While the team that was to occupy the
stadium did provide a $25 million (5%) loan to be repaid, their final investment only
totaled $18 million, or 3.6% of the projects total cost4.

The city had a little more difficulty acquiring the necessary public money for the
construction of the new downtown basketball arena. Frustrated with the amount of public
money being spent on sports stadiums in such a short period of time, voters in 1999
rejected an arena proposal and financing plan. In 2000, after a massive $2.5 million pro-
arena campaign, voters approved the new arena whose projected cost of $175 million was
to be financed with publicly-issued bonds. To fiirther sweeten the deal, the city outright
purchased the land necessary for the arena for $20 million (Berger 2000). With a final
cost of $252 million, this arena had the largest percentage financed with public money at
$212 million in bonds and bank loans, or 84.1% of the total cost (Tolson 2004).

The criticisms leveled against the public subsidization of sports stadiums across

the country are also evident in Houston. Many argue that the economic benefits received

 

4 The remaining funds came from various other sources including $50 million (10%) from fans purchasing
seat licenses, $7.5 million (1.5%) from Aramark, $4 million (80%) from the actual Harris County Sports
and Convention Corporation, and a $4.6 million (.92%) investment from the Houston Rodeo which
occupies the complex for approximately three weeks a year (Tolson 2004).

94

from the stadiums are not worth the public money investment because much of the direct
revenue stays within the sports team and less indirect revenue is produced than is initially
projected. Another problem is that the owners of these sports teams are wealthy to begin
with and continue to amass wealth with their investment in their sports team. Many
consider it unfair to publicly subsidize wealthy team owners, who are only becoming
wealthier with these ventures. In a broader context, it is worth noting again that these
financial arrangements are occurring in a city that does not consider social services
appropriate, since such programs do not promote an individual’s work ethic.

Team owners, however, threaten to leave and take their teams to “more receptive”
cities which include new stadiums with more modern suites (producing increased revenue
for the team owners and not the city). All three of the Houston teams produced these
threats with the football team actually leaving in 1997. In order to keep their sports
teams, cities are forced to pay large amounts of public money to construct new stadiums
and other amenities for their teams. The debate regarding how much economic
development is indirectly produced by the sports teams, such as increased revenue from
bars and restaurants and increased numbers of people simply visiting downtown areas,
continues to be uncertain (Euchner 1993, Bachelor 1998, Sidlow and Henschen 1998).
But the argument will always exist as to whether the public money spent on sports

stadiums and their teams are worth the investment of cities and local taxpayers.

95

Tax Breaks and Subsidies for Residential Developments

As discussed earlier, one of the first downtown redevelopment projects was the
renovation of the Rice Hotel. A large part of this project included the construction of
upscale condominiums, which began to spur further residential developments. To
encourage the Rice Hotel refurbishment, the city offered large tax subsidies and even
arranged to purchase the building slated for demolition in 1996 for $3 million. It was then
leased back to the developers and their partners for renovation into upscale condos and
apartments (Adler 1999). Additionally the developer received a $5 million historic tax
credit and $7 million in incremental tax revenue from the area (Williams 1997).

Residential tax breaks such as these have played a very large part of downtown
redevelopment in Houston. The Rice Hotel renovation has been followed by the
conversion of numerous vacant or abandoned structures in downtown, such as Hogg’s
Palace, Capital Lofts, and Hermann Lofts. It took some time before the downtown
housing market was ready for a new residential construction. Several smaller new
construction projects began around downtown including the ‘Lofis at the Ballpark’, but
construction is soon to begin on the first residential project in the downtown area in
twenty-five years. The massive 32-story Shamrock Tower, located directly on the light-
rail line, has spent several years in the planning and marketing stages and many
downtown experts say it is a sign of the massive growth in residential population that is

projected to reach 10,000 by 2010 (a 367% increase since 1980) (Sichelman 2004).

96

Conclusion
The city of Houston has come a long way from the small bayou settlement

dependent on the production of cotton and timber. However, the historical coalitions
between business and government leaders have continued to guide the development of
the city. Most recently, these coalitions are evident as the city attempts to economically
diversify from its traditional energy base economy. In the new efforts to remarket
Houston and attract hi gh-tech, specialized services, corporate headquarters, and tourism,
as well as the white-collar professions that are the social infrastructure of this new service
economy, a new set of actors and coalitions have emerged in this new growth agenda. In
a city known for its laissez-faire style of governance, Houston government has become
increasingly involved in many aspects of the city’s attempts to improve its image,
particularly in the recent downtown revitalization initiatives. This has come at a high
price to local taxpayers and numerous neighborhoods that have been adversely affected
by these physical improvements and revitalization. While this chapter has provided a
broader focus of the changes taking place in Houston, the next two chapters will analyze
in greater detail the social changes that have occurred as a result of these physical
improvements, with a particular focus placed on the physical changes in Freedmen’s

Town and the resulting impacts on the local disadvantaged and marginalized populations.

97

4 DATA ANALYSIS

Variable Selection and Data Preparation

Houston’s local economic development initiatives have brought extensive
physical and social change to the city’s downtown and a number of surrounding
neighborhoods. This new demand for central city living has been coupled with Houston’s
traditional tendency for low-density, single-family suburban housing. Thus, urban
decentralization has continued to remain an important element of Houston’s expansion,
while at the same time, a new interest in the central city contributed an added dimension
to Houston’s traditional grth and development direction. In the 19905, as new
suburban developments continued to ensure Houston’s outward expansion, there was also
an increasing demand for new developments and refurbished housing within Houston’s
610 Loop, Houston’s central city.

The objectives of this data analysis chapter are to measure and describe the
physical and social changes taking place in Houston’s central city, including Freedmen’s
Town. This data analysis will also explore areas throughout Houston that are
experiencing similar physical and social upgrading processes as seen in Freedmen’s
Town. To accomplish this task a principal components analysis is performed on US.
Census data followed by a K-means clustering process to group together tracts
experiencing similar characteristics of change. This process enables us to determine the
areas within Houston that are experiencing physical and social upgrading. The
assessment of these neighborhoods will also reveal the complexity of physical and social

upgrading processes. The following review will illustrate how different tools can be used
98

concurrently, but in different combinations throughout different areas of a city, to
encourage redevelopment and revitalization depending on the physical and social

characteristics of the original neighborhoods.

Geographic Limits of Analysis
Before the analysis process itself, careful steps were taken in order to select and

prepare the data necessary for an accurate analysis. In order to show the physical and
social upgrading resulting from Houston’s local development and redevelopment
initiatives, U.S. census data was used to examine various changes that have taken place
between 1980 and 2000. This required a careful manipulation of the data in order to
accurately compare various indicators, such as the ethnic mix, household income,
employment status of residents, and value of housing units.

For the spatial analysis of the changes taking place it was necessary to make
several alterations to the available data and important decisions with regard to what
variables were being used for comparison. For instance, because the city of Houston’s
aggressive annexation of surrounding land routinely changing the city’s limits, an
accurate comparison of the changes occurring within the city over two decades was
difficult. The city greatly increased its size through the mid-twentieth century, increasing
in size from 160 square miles in 1950 to 556 square miles in 1980 (Nivola 1999).
Although the rate of annexation has lessened since 1980, the official size of the city has
increased to 581 square miles in 1990, and 618 square miles in 2000 (City of Houston
2003a). Also, the city limits do not accurately align with the boundaries of most of the
census tracts and therefore would make any analysis of change within the city difficult

and likely inaccurate (Figure 4.1). It is for this reason that the county within which the

99

85.2 3 3.2.8 $8 Egan. 9.25: s 3.0 . 52:8 26 .23 . a8: 928 88 ”8.8m

 

.........

                             

J...

v“

‘.

 

1......

       

       

c .. .. ,. .3
Wm...“ Whammy:
in“ 1.. fiawaqt

. - 104m 33‘

an

    

       

d;

 

£55 £0 5.3:: E... 55.5 25: as 325. 2.250 .3. 82

Figure 4.1 — 2000 U.S. Census Tracts of Harris County and Houston City Limits

100

city of Houston lies was selected as the geographic limits of the study. The vast majority
of Houston (>95% of the city’s total area) is within the limits of Harris County, with only
small sections falling within Montgomery and Fort Bend counties to the north and
southwest respectively (Figure 4.2). The analysis of Harris County will adequately show
the changes that have been experienced within much of the city of Houston over the past
twenty-five years, and particularly the central city, which is the focus of this research.

It is also important to recognize the location of several independent municipalities
within the city of Houston (Figure 4.3). These are upper-income areas that have had the
resources necessary to maintain their status as an independent municipality and prevent
annexation by the city of Houston. While not within Houston limits, they experience
similar housing market forces and have experienced changes similar to that seen in other
parts of Houston. Many of the processes of physical and social upgrading are not
restricted to the boundaries of the city meaning these separate municipalities are still

important in the discussion of the physical and social changes in the Houston area.

Data Selection
In order to study the physical and social changes occurring in Houston, it was

necessary to collect data on population, socioeconomic, ethnic, and housing
characteristics of Harris County and its residents using decennial U.S. Census Bureau
data. As already noted, the analysis in this chapter will cover the years 1980 to 2000. A
weakness of this data analysis is its inability to capture the dramatic physical and social
changes that have been experienced in several areas of Houston, including Freedmen’s
Town, since the 2000 census. In fact, it was the observable changes in F reedmen’s Town

between 1999 and 2002 that initiated this study. Since the data will be incapable of

101

 

Location of the City of Houston and the Counties It Occupies

‘-
. \\‘\
I ' \\
~\
\
\ .— - ——. I
i j) l
I 5.x ‘ (j ' x
u u f i
K \ “-3 if» i" 1‘
\‘_ 4- " {Fl ~— '
I ./._.< , s- . \
‘ "\i *}LA.: «‘11 d l\
‘ ' 2335*.3, w, x” . \ .
‘ fl: ‘ 25,—": «}~\\‘i _, ~
' .. hf ‘ , /4
I ‘1. .e .4 )//—— _. ,- ,
- ‘ 1'— f' ‘\ '
y x 1‘ 7: V" v/’\\ ,
~—\ \ .
\ n (V- / .\
x“ 1 J 2 ' u l
a» ‘
Mm ,- ~ _ ‘ I
r\.

     
 

Harris County

r 7 1 Montgomery County
I: Fort Bend County
- City of Houston Limits
0 5

10 20 Miles
##4##
: County Census Tract Limits ~ U.S. Census Bureau website,
Horatio City Limits - City of Houston Flaming

Compiled byAutl'ior

Figure 4.2 — Location of the City of Houston and the counties it occupies

£332.50 ..%o?e§t233135-r§§o..mwm.§#§8088”83w

 

025' N _. o

        

£8... £0 sense: a

88 - weak 82.8 _i. ._
ecumen—

no._< 2230... 9: he
853325.5— acoucoaouc.

Figure 4.3 - Independent Municipalities of the Houston area

103

adequately representing the recent physical and social upgrading observed in many of
Houston’s central city neighborhoods, photographs will be used to allow for a visual
assessment of the more recent changes experienced by Houston’s central city

neighborhoods, including Freedmen’s Town.

Variables of analysis
To study the changes associated with physical and social upgrading of an area,

data on specific variables were collected at the census tract level. With these variables,
the study provides an analysis of changes in population, ethnicity, socioeconomic, and
housing characteristics of an area. The variables initially collected at the census tract
level, and additional variables calculated based upon these data (indicated in parenthesis)

are listed in Table 4.1.

Data Collection
The entire 1980 dataset was collected from the census books (U.S. Census Bureau

1983) and manually entered into a spreadsheet for analysis. The data from the 2000
census was downloaded from the U.S. Census website (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). An
issue with census data collected fi'om 1980 is that tracts existed in which the population
was very small (often times less than 100 people). In situations such as these, certain data
were suppressed or “withheld to avoid disclosure of information for individuals or
housing units” (U.S. Census Bureau 1983). This does not appear to have been done with
the 2000 data based upon the information obtained from the Census website. Therefore
some of the tracts that had information withheld in 1980 showed enormous increases by

2000 because of the lack of suppression in 2000. The tracts where this became an issue

104

Census Data Variables of Analysis

Population Variables

Total population

White population (Percentage of census tract population that is white)
Black population (Percentage of census tract population that is black)
Hispanic population (Percentage of census tract population that is Hispanic)
Median age

Total population age 25 years and older

Socioeconomic Variables

Total number of high school graduates (Percentage of census tract population age 25 and

older that are high school graduates)

Total number of college graduates (Percentage of census tract population age 25 and

older that are college graduates)

Total number of families whose income is below poverty level (Percentage of census

tract families whose income is below poverty level)

Total number of female-headed households (Percentage of census tract households that

are female-headed)

Total number of households receiving public assistance income (Percentage of census

tract households receiving public assistance income)

Median gross rent (converted to 1999 dollars)

Median value of owner-occupied housing units (converted to 1999 dollars)

Median household income (converted to 1999 dollars)

Per capita income (converted to 1999 dollars)

Total number of employed residents (civilian population)

Total number of employed residents whose occupation is considered ‘professional’

(Percentage of employed civilian population whose occupation is considered

‘professional’)
(‘Professional’ occupation for this research is defined in 2000 as “Management,
Professional and related occupations; sales and office occupations.” For 1980 this
includes “Managerial and professional specialty occupations; technical, sales,
and administrative support occupations”)

Housing Variables

Total number of families

Total number of households

Total number of housing units

Total number of occupied housing units

Total number of vacant housing units

Total number of owner-occupied housing units

Total number of renter-occupied housing units

Total number of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (Percentage of census
tract housing units that are lacking complete plumbing facilities)

Total number of housing units that existed in 1980 and still remain in 2000

Total number of owner-occupied housing units whose householder moved in 1980 or
before and remained in the same housing unit in 2000

Total number of renter-occupied housing units whose householder moved in 1980 or
before and remained in the same housing unit in 2000

Table 4.1 — Census Data Variables of Analysis

105

were withheld from the mapping of change and the statistical analyses presented in this

chapter.

Data Aggregation for Comparison

In order to standardize the comparison, and enable an accurate analysis of
changes in data between 1980 and 2000, it was necessary to examine changes in
comparable spatial areas between the two time periods. This would require that the tracts
of the two sets of data correspond geographically. Over a twenty-year period, it can be
expected that the boundaries of some census tracts will be moved to account for changes
in the area—such as new grth due to suburbanization, an expansion of city limits, or a
large new development (commercial, industrial, or residential). Often the case is that
tracts are split or divided into pieces to account for new growth, as opposed to the
‘contraction’ of a tract in which neighboring tracts are combined together to create one
larger tract. This ‘contraction’ of census tracts is typically more rare, especially in a
region experiencing suburbanization such as Houston.

In carrying out a comparative analysis between 1980 and 2000 data, one
possibility is to compare tracts using the 2000 census tract as the ‘base’ level for analysis.
The 2000 tracts would thus be the base to which changes from 1980 are compared.
Unfortunately, in this case there would be numerous tracts from 1980 that had been split
to account for growth. Therefore, in order to accurately compare data across the decades
it would be necessary to divide the 1980 data from the one tract into the respective
number of tracts that had been created by 2000 (Figure 4.4). This is problematic and

would most likely cause for inaccuracies in the data as the exact geographic division in

106

 

2000 Census Tracts
‘ 1980 Census Tract

In order to use 2000 census
tracts as the ‘base’ level, it would
have been necessary to divide
the 1980 data into the respective
parts. This would have had to

. been done at many locations
throughout the county. This
would have been less accurate of

 

 

 

 

 

Note tracts are hypothetical for a method than using the 1980
use in diagram and explanation. tracts as the base level of
analysis.

 

Figure 4.4 - Hypothetical drawing depicting why 2000 census tracts were not used as the
‘base’ level of analysis

 

 

 

the 1980 tract necessary to fit in the 2000 tracts would be too difficult to calculate (See
Figure 4.1).

It is for this reason that the 1980 census tracts were used as the ‘base’ level of
comparison. For tracts that had been divided between the years 1980 and 2000, the
appropriate spatial area and the data for the year 2000 tracts could be combined to create
the respective data for 2000, which would spatially overlap the 1980 tract and enable an
accurate comparison of change in the same spatial boundary. With the boundaries of the
tracts, and the spatial area aligned, this would allow all 2000 tract level data to be
precisely compared to the 1980 tract level data, accurately capturing changes that have
occurred within different areas of Harris County between the years 1980 and 2000.

There are a few issues with this method that must be recognized. A weakness

does exist in the sense that there are some tracts that have done the ‘opposite’ of what

107

was expected and described above from 1980 to 2000. For instance, tracts do exist in
Harris County in which 1980 tracts were combined together to make one tract in 2000
instead of being divided as would usually be expected with 1980 tracts. These could
possibly be areas that had experienced a declinein population and housing and therefore
only required one larger tract now. Also it is possible that the Census Bureau changes
some of its requirements and definitions of what, and how large, a census tract should be.
It might also possibly be a combination of both reasons. In this analysis of change from
1980 to 2000 this phenomena occurred approximately 12 times. Several cases where this
occurred in Harris County were along the shipping channel that most likely did lose
population. But also the boundaries might have been expanded to simply include all of
the industries and small sub-population groupings that existed there. For these few
instances the 2000 data was divided as accurately as possible based upon geographic size
of the 1980 tracts in comparison to the larger 2000 tract.

Also in areas in which the subdivision of tracts has occurred (such as places of
suburban growth), using 1980 tracts as the ‘base’ level with certain variables (such as
growth in number of households or current total population) will appear to overestimate
the condition of that variable because of the year 2000 tracts that have experienced such
tremendous growth and are now combined to equal larger 1980 tracts. Another weakness
to recognize is that there were tracts that did not geographically overlap exactly. In this
case the data was again divided as accurately as possible based upon the geographic size
of the respective tracts. Again these cases were fairly rare as well and largely did not

affect the overall analysis of change in Harris County.

108

Another important issue to recognize is that the data showing change, and the
associated maps, are not always effective in capturing current conditions—for example
the existing ethnic make-up within a census tract. For instance, a map illustrating the
change in the percentage of a census tract that is black is only reflective of an increase or
decrease in the black population in this tract. However, it must be remembered that there
are many census tracts that maintain, and have historically maintained, a high percentage
of Afi'ican-Americans. In these cases, a map showing change in percentage of a tract that
is black cannot capture the actual current ethnic make-up of that tract. For this reason,
many maps of change are also accompanied by maps showing the current condition in the
year 2000.

In order to accurately compare data from the 1980 and 2000 tracts, a series of
steps were taken in data preparation and manipulation in order to enable an analysis that
captured the same spatial areas. Using ESRI ArcMap software, year 2000 census tracts in
Harris County were visually compared to see the extent to which they corresponded to
1980 tracts. These corresponding 1980 and 2000 tracts were then recorded in a “Key”
Excel spreadsheet. The original data prepared for the 1980 and 2000 tracts had tract
identification numbers corresponding to each tract. This “Key” file matched the 2000
tract numbers with its corresponding 1980 tract(s). Within Excel, a Visual Basic program
was written to systematically take the original 2000 data and the “Key” file showing
which 2000 tracts corresponded to which 1980 tracts, and calculate the 2000 data now
corresponding to its respective 1980 tracts. This produced a new spreadsheet with 1980
tract numbers but now it included the 2000 data that corresponded to that tract. This

enabled the calculation of an additional spreadsheet showing changes in the data from

109

1980 to 2000, but all based on the 1980 tracts. The above steps taken to standardize the
spatial area of the census tracts have enabled a precise comparison of 1980 and 2000

data, based upon the 1980 tracts as a base level for comparison.

Changes Occurring in Harris County

Harris County, in which Houston lies, covers an area of 1,729 square miles. The
city of Houston proper is 618 square miles (in year 2000), with the vast majority of the
city located in Harris County (City of Houston 2003b). Before developing on the
discussion of the changes that have occurred in Harris County between 1980 and 2000, a
basic introduction and spatial orientation of Houston will be presented. (See Figure 4.5)
Downtown Houston is located near the middle of the county with the newer George Bush
Intercontinental Airport to the north and the older Hobby Airport to the southeast. The
city is ringed by two major beltways, I-610 and Beltway 8. Two major interstates cut
across the city—with I-10 stretching west to east through downtown and I-45 running
north to south, connecting Dallas and Galveston, via Houston’s downtown. The Port of
Houston lies to the east of downtown flowing east to the Gulf of Mexico. The major
upscale shopping area Galleria is located to the west of downtown, north of the

intersection of I-610 and U.S. 59.

110

5:8 835a 8381 .0 so . 38: in: new at... 87.8: s 26
55.2 .3 8.. imm . means“. .925 8a 98: 32.8 88 8.8a

ii.

 
  

._ ’ .. _Jl_l.ii_l_.l]J
. spy/POW $L¢ .1 8:: up u n o
. . i. .EfiE 392i

   

I . Esoh 9558.".
I: a 8553 .655 “
i . 3.5: 8.25: 5 >5 I
no!» 388 88 L
33¢ 3a: l
2.30..

by

        

I

 

Base 2.8.1.99; .

~2< 53:0: 2: he «35 new muuom 3.52

Figure 4.5 — Orientation map of the Houston area

111

The analysis of the changes that have occurred in Harris County over twenty
years has revealed some interesting pattemss. These are depicted in the next series of
maps—data on population, socioeconomics, ethnic, and housing characteristics—
showing change that have occurred between the years 1980 and 2000, as well as the
demographic compositions for 2000. 6 The largest increases in total population have
occurred in the western section of the county in a semi-circle pattern around downtown
(Figure 4.6). These figures illustrate the direction of suburban growth that has
characterized the development of Houston since the 19605. On the eastern section of this
semi-circle are areas of population loss. As will be realized in the coming discussion,
these have been the predominately Afi'ican-American and Hispanic areas of the city.

Many of the areas of suburban growth are the areas that saw the largest number of
increases in white population. However, tracts to the northeast of downtown also
experienced increases in the white population (Figure 4.7) and fairly large increases in
the percentage of population that is white (Figure 4.8). In addition, as can be seen in
Figure 4.9, the white population of Harris County is still clustered in specific areas
throughout Houston in very high concentrations. The black population also increased in
many places throughout the county (Figure 4.10). Although a small section south of
downtown appears to have experienced a decline in its black population, as seen in
Figure 4.10, an examination reveals that this area—as well as an area northeast and a
smaller area northwest of the downtown—maintain very high percentages in the

population that is black.

 

5 See Figure 7.1 - Figure 7.5 in Appendix (Ch. 7) for additional maps of change not reference in Ch. 4.
6 The maps appear in two different color schemes to more clearly distinguish between the maps showing
change from 1980 to 2000 and those that are mapping data from the year 2000.

112

g flaw—'0 .w.3 ”8.8m

   
           

A353 9.85 3532
”9:28 55:30

23.4.38.“ I
“atoms I
88.28 I
88.. I
9.2.5 a
uagsesaao §

 

occuéaaw
3550 3am... - 5:339". .80... a5 5 vac—EU

Harris County, 1980-2000

Figure 4.6 — Map of the change in total population

113

g g .W.D ”850W

   
          

an._..._ ”Maggie

43.2. . 8N2 I
«3.! 486 I
8N... . «3.. I
83 .. I
992.? E

 

coca-came
3:300 «the: - cows—anon. 223 on. 5 $525

- Map of the change in the White population — Harris County, 1980-2000

Figure 4.7

114

309.5 328 .W.3 ”8:5”

            

Ana—:03 9.5m .8362
6593 5030

3.3 . 3.. I
oas . 8.9 I
8.? 3.2. I
32. . 8.3 I
8.2. . 2.3: g
325.3 58 S
3...; s e. 3:20
.583

 

88-89
5550 «En: - 2.55 a. «a5 «02... 2.250 ho 35:33.". 2: E 3:20

115

— Map of the change in the percentage of census tract that is White -—
1980-2000

Harris County,

Figure 4.8

38.30 03200 .m.3 “OD—g

 

 

. _ a _ . ngvig;

is;
8.853.“ I
3E -88 I
8.8 4.9% I

8.3-8..“ WM.

:5 -9... L
22.52. 98 §
8...; «a

3:03..

coca .
3:300 3:5... - 2...; a. an...“ ~02... 25:00 .0 35:020..

 

Figure 4.9 — Map of the percentage of census tract that is White — Harris County,

2000

116

335m 3250 .m5 ”358

            

.35... 9.85 .2382
6628 8:8...»30

95...; . So... I
So; - $3. I
33 - N I

o . «E. I

an - 23. film...
225.2. 98 §

32m
233..

 

cccuéwav
3:300 mica... - 20.5.2.0; .055 «5 :. omcmso

Map of the change in the Black population — Harris County, 1980-

Figure 4.10
2000

117

The majority of the remaining tracts in Harris County maintain very low percentages of
blacks (Figure 4.11). With regard to the Hispanic population, the most significant
increases occurred to the north, northwest and northeast of downtown (Figure 4.12),
while the area west of the downtown experienced the most significant reductions in the
percentage of the tracts that are Hispanic (Figure 4.13). A look at the current ethnic
composition of Hispanics reveals a distinctive pattern of areas with large percentages of
the population Hispanic to the north and southeast of downtown (Figure 4.13,Figure
4.14).

The percentage of a census tract’s population (age 25 and older) that are college
graduates has increased to the west of downtown (Figure 4.15). The pattern of percentage
of census tract population that are college graduates in 2000 is even more definitive with
clusters of low and high rates of college graduates (Figure 4.16). The change in the
percentage of families below poverty displays a slightly sporadic pattern but still with a
semi-circle pattern on the east side of downtown (Figure 4.17). Places such as downtown
and west of downtown have experienced decreases in the percentage of families below
poverty. The current pattern of percentage of families below poverty in 2000 is evident
with very high rates to the east and northeast of downtown (Figure 4.18). The pattern of
change in female-headed households is more even but with many areas showing an
increase in the percentage of the census tract’s households that are female-headed (Figure

4.19). In 2000 it is observed that areas to the northeast and south of downtown have the

118

323m 3280 .w.: 6238

K). .23 .8: 2.28 82 2. a 8822 .

_ _ a . _ . _ . _ agsaaEEmisfiz
a. o o seatwsan52io

8.8 - 3.8 I

8.8 - 3.8 I

5.8 - 8.8 I

, 3.8- no... I

fix\\\\. “8. \x w . . // 225.? 58 . \
'-

          

 

    

    

\ . x// 300.0 3
\rmw7 ./ A . .. . . . r /
it .«M7 i u... . , .. . y z. 239..

\/l\t\\

 

‘ r z
. J. r .
1.. . .. i
_. . .l .
.i. n x i, .
. . . . . ,, \ ..
i . . . . o a. u}.
r . . . . .
. . 4 .. . .
l..li, \ .i/ . .,
. r
r u .
. \ \ / T \ /r In .
.. x la! /)
/ 1...

,, .83 . m
3:300 Eta... gogm m. an...“ .08... msmcoo *0 3323.9.

Figure 4.11 — Map of the percentage of census tract that is Black — Harris County,

2000

119

235m 328 .0: ”venom

            

Exam... 9390 3552
”9:28 55958.0

$8.: . no; I
cum... . 83 I
an? . 6%.. I

8m.“ - n I
0.94.: i
22:25 38 .\\\

2:32:
ucomog

 

_
3:2 ON 2 m 0

88-32.
3:300 Eta: - :ozflaon 3:235 93 E oacmso

- Map of the change in the Hispanic Population — Harris County, 1980-

Figure 4.12
2000

120

32,3 3980 .m.: 6953

            

33:03 9305 .2302
”9:93 5.82330

8R . 9.". I
3a.. . 2.8 I
3.8 - 2.3 I
8.: - 8... I
8... . 8.3. E
225; 88 §

2:25: $ 5 8:26
283

 

83.82
3:300 «Eu: - £53.: a. «a... 82... 2350 “6 38:020.". 2: :_ 8:20

121

— Map of the change in the percentage of census tract that is Hispanic —
1980-2000

13

Figure 4.
Harris County,

32:0 3950 .m.: 62:8
.23 .8.» «3:8 8m. 2. a 8&2. .

               

\rw.

_ . . u _ . _ q _ ASEOZEEBNZ

8.: a o. m o 2.28 58:88
a 2. B- 2% I

., N... E. 9.8 I

8.8.8.5 I
8.8-8.2 I
2.2 -3... W1!
/ 225.; 58 §
25%.: .x.
cacao...

 

3:300, 8:31-2535 m_ 55 “out. 3230 *0 38:33“.

.83 / R A

Figure 4.14 — Map of the percentage of census tract that is Hispanic — Harris

County, 2000

122

is 898 .03 ”8.58

annuaoflseimussscggsgx

            

8355.38
8.! 8 o. m o «v.3 - 8.8 I
3R . 8.: I
2.2 . 8... I

8...- 8.5. I

8s- - 8.8. ”V...”
22.5; 98 g
8.2.8.6 82.8 $

 

_ . . . _ _ . q _

 

83.32.
8500 «En... . :oouusufiw owe—.00 2a .2: 82... 2.2.00 3 38:33“. 05 c. coca—.0

1 980-2000

- Map of the change in the percentage of census tract population (age

25+) that are college graduates — Harris County,

Figure 4.15

123

.83 8a can 3 .52. mm m .2. c8238.. 2.... 89:88.. .. 2.2.5 328 8.: 52:8
_o>3 «on... 8.8ch o8. 9.. a 39%: .

. . . _ . . . _ .uxcoanxgfiauz
or m o “Eggsuwso

8.8 - 8.8 I
8.5 . :8 I
8.8 - 8.8 I

             

 

_
8:294.

   

 

“\\

3.: - cod , 1
2252, «so N\\k
8.....qu 32.8 .\.

cacao.—

acocu
3:300 Eta: - 3.823620 09:00 0.8 $5 88... £550 ho 33:09.?—

— Map of the percentage of census tract population (age 25+) that are

Figure 4.16

County, 2000

ris

college graduates -— Har

124

38.3 3800 .0: 523m

             

33:03 9.020 3552
650:8 £310

3.8 . «2: I

2.2 . 8.2 I

8.... 2.0 I

8." . nod I

8... - 3.8. m...

225.3 38 g

9.26.. 320m 85E... $
.333

 

83.82
3550 «En: . .33 argon. 32am 02:53 8a.... 2350 3 33:020.... 2: c. 09.20

Figure 4.17 — Map of the change in the percentage of census tract families that are

below the poverty level

Harris County, 1980-2000

125

38.5 «:88 .03 62:8

_c>o._ «out. «350 8a.. 2: 6 tonnes. .

 

5:03 9.85 6.2a:
H3.2.8 5.85320

2.: . 3.8 I
a8 . 3.8 I
S.--3.3 I
8.1- 8... I
8. T 8... f .
92.5.3 38 \\\\
, . E255 30.00 03:55“. 8
/., 6:33

  

.82 ,, . ..
3:300 fits: - _o>o.. >to>om 26.0w moEEmm 52... mam—Bo *0 33:00.3.

Figure 4.18 - Map of the percentage of census tract families that are below the

poverty level — Harris County,

2000

126

 

 

83.82. .
3:300 «Eu: - cacao—+2580". 96 35
3.02330: 89F 25.30 3 «08:00.3... 2: :_ «9.2.0

vet-01.82:... 03080.50: .0 en

venue.—

— Map of the change in the percentage of census tract households that
Harris County, 1980-2000

are female-headed -

Figure 4.19

127

highest percentage of households that are female-headed (Figure 4.20). With regard to
welfare programs, many census tracts appear to have decreasing percentages of
households receiving public assistance income. However, some of the largest decreases
are located in and around downtown (Figure 4.21).

After all dollar figures (rent, income, median value of home) had been adjusted
for inflation a ‘percentage change’ value for these variables was calculated. This was
calculated as the difference of the 1980 value from the 2000 value, this difference divided
by the 1980 value. With the 1980 value as a base this was able to more accurately depict
the changes that had been occurring. Observing the map of percent change in median
gross rent, it is possible to distinguish the area to the west and southwest of downtown
whose median gross rents have increased more so than other areas (Figure 4.22).
Scattered throughout the county are also locations whose median gross rent has
decreased. The percentage change in median value of owner-occupied housing (Figure
4.23) illustrates that there is a cluster to the west of downtown with large increases in
median value, which corresponds to the area experiencing the largest increase in median
gross rent. There are also a large number of the tracts experiencing a decrease in median
value of owner-occupied housing units scattered throughout the county. The map of
median value in 2000 depicts a very clear and small cluster of census tracts with a very
high median value compared to the rest of the county (Figure 4.24).

The map of median household income depicts a similar pattern with the area west
of downtown showing an increase as well as areas in the northwest part of the county
(Figure 4.25). Two tracts in the group of largest percentage increase in median household

income are the Freedmen’s Town and Midtown census tracts both experiencing extensive

128

3023a 3800 .05 ”02300
.93 .8.» 32.8 82 2. a Sagas. .

            

 

A9203 9.09m .2332

8:! on or m 0 “8.20m 8.33.850
3.8 .85.. I
8.8 .89 I
o. a. 8.9 .'

 

/uovuo=.o_anu_ 00.030030... 3 *
3:003

Econ .
3:300 «:32. 000001-208»...
0.6 “05 «0.030030: “00.; 032.00 00 09350.3

Figure 4.20 — Map of the percentage of census tract households that are female-

headed - Harris County, 2000

129

32.6 03:00 ‘md 62:8

        

_ €253 932m .9362
6:528 coaonmmEO
mo

=2 ow 2 m. o :3. one I

 

225$, 98 \\\\
2:8... 3:82.: 2.2.... 9.3.80: 3

. . \ i

/.\.W

83-89
3:300 3:2... 2:02.. 8533»? 233.". @5233.

«20:332.. 32h msocoo ho 33:098.. 05 E macs—.0

   

Map of the change in the percentage of census tract households

Figure 4.21 —

receiving public assistance income — Harris County, 1980-2000

130

 

 

88.89
3530 «En: - ago: 39.0 :33: :_ 3:20 35:33.“.

2.83

131

Figure 4.22 — Map of the percentage change in median gross rent — Harris County,

1980-2000

3.83 3800 .m.: 6958

 

5:53.523!
”235m £30
2.. - 3... I
8.... 8.0 I
86-39 I
Rd. .96. I

      

 

3255) 58 §
3.9.5.3: .935 8

88.32.
3:300 «Ea: - 9:25: 333093.55
no o2a> 5:55. 5 098:0 38:33.".

 

Harris County, 1980-2000

- Map of the percentage change in median value of owner-occupied

Figure 4 23
housing units

132

395m 3930 .m.: 623m

 

 

.93 .8: 2.88 82 2. s 8.52,. .
1

83m? 8?; I
o3.:m-o8.§ I
8&8. -83: I

Sag - Sci I

8185 W;

33> =23:
cacao;

«oocu
5:300 £th - 9.330: 33:30.5..30 ho o:_m> :fluos.

— Map of the median value of owner-occupied housing units — Harris

County, 1980-2000

Figure 4.24

133

is 398° .m.3 ”8:8

               

 

_ a a q _ . . . . A8253 9380 .2352
or m o ”9:65“ sous—=30

83.. $53 I

«83 .83... I

896 $82. I
885.58.? I

38.9 . 32.9 a

225i «.8 §

2.8:. 22.83: 8:20 $

_. ,L... VXV neon...
11.4.“,

V, a W. Jam 1.
“M... ’1 fly -..mw... Bun
WW 1g. J?

iKVJu .8 fig

721.!

ooouéamr
3530 £th - 2:35 22.330: 5:3: E 3:20 38:33..

— Map of the percentage change in median household income — Harris

County, 1980-2000

Figure 4.25

134

revitalization. The mapping of percentage change in per capita income depicts some very
large percentage increases in the cluster to the west of downtown with an outer ring of
tracts around the city with the largest percentage decreases in per capita income (Figure
4.26). One of the largest concentrations of increases in the percentage of the census tract
whose occupation is ‘professional’ is around and west of downtown (Figure 4.27).
Interestingly there are other large sections of increase to the far northwest and east as
well, most likely accounted for by suburban growth. A look at the 2000 map depicts a
grouping of tracts with a very high percentage of employed ‘professional’ to the west of
downtown all the way to the county border (Figure 4.28). This area corresponds to the
location of I-10 and the massive amounts of suburbanization in the western section of
Harris County.

The analysis of change in various housing variables provides a picture of the
change in housing units and their quality experienced in Harris County from 1980 to
2000. Maps of change in the number of households and housing units depict nearly
identical patterns exemplified largely by growth in suburban areas (See Figure 4.29 and
Figure 4.30). The map of change in number of occupied housing units also corresponds in
a similar manner to the pattern of change in total housing units (Figure 4.31). A semi-
circle ring around the eastern side of downtown depicts the largest area of decrease in
number of occupied housing units. Interestingly the areas of largest change in number of
vacant housing units (Figure 4.32) corresponds much to the same areas that exhibited the
largest increases in number of total and occupied housing units. In this case I would argue
this is still depicting the massive growth seen in the suburban areas. Many of these areas

have been right in the middle of their massive growth during this time period which could

135

.5220 3950 .0: ”02:8

           

 

_ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ 05:08
8:: on or m o 650:8 confining—O

EN“ . and I

8... . 8... I

85 -8... I

8... . ad. I

8.9-3.9 Ema

u§£s> 58 §

088:. 8.4.0 ...... cue-:0 i
2.003

83.32.
3.500 nth: - 2:02.. 5:30 3.. E omen—.0 35:33..

 

Map of the percentage change in per capita income - Harris County,

Figure 4.26 —
1980-2000

136

 

: 0:. 3:28:20 3:060:05! Son 30050 wane—00 “.3 “00.58

 

             

x 0:030:38: :03:- 0£E_-.£E0- 0:- .00.03 .3531
5.501; . L n .2! 3033:. LES-82$. :
5.0.3000 0030.35 :030 2:0 0003.05 000E080: .0. 0003 0030.95 .80» 5 0.39m . 33:03 9.005 .2302

”8.28 83853.0
. w _ M. 9.8-8.8-
5.9.. . 2.2 I

3.: . 83 I

/ 83.8.2- I
, 337-8,? MU
325.? 88 §
3:20.280 «o 03:20
0:003

 

008.0an .
3:300 038: - 3.2200035. 00.02200 0_
53003000 000...? .00>0_0Em ~02... 30:00 3 0500:0200 05 :_ 00:0:0

Figure 4.27 — Map of the change in percentage of census tract employed population

whose occupation is considered ‘professional’ — Harris County, 1980-2000

137

33003000 0050 0:: 00.3 55.003000 080.0.

              

 

0:0 360.3220 0:953:05 5003.0... Egg... ... 30230 30:00 .05 N00.300
ggéfiggsfisgigggsgm:
.05.. .080. 039.00 89 05.0 30000.2 . 308.3%
.0628 8385810

.0 o 8.8 - 6.5 I
3.8 - 030 I
5.8 - 8.8 I
8.8 - 8.8 3

can - 8... m, y w w
225.; 28 §
300.3205 .0»
0:000...

.5ch
3:300 0E0: . 32.20.3805. 00:00.0:00 0. :03003000
000...; ..00>0.0Em «00¢ 030:00 00 0000:0200

Figure 4.28 - Map of the percentage of census tract employed population whose

occupation is considered ‘professional’ - Harris County, 2000

138

30230 30:00 .05 “8.300

   
             

 

_ _ . . _ . q . _ 33:03 9.09.0 .502
or m o BEG—Um 00985330

302 0:... I
83 -25 I
80.9 . E... I

08.. -F I
0.08... H
0.2.5.? 28 §
8.288: 0 .83
0:003

83-89
3:300 0.0.0... - 00.2.0030... 00 ..0nE3z .30... 05 :. 00520

Figure 4.29 — Map of the change in total number of households - Harris County,
139

1980-2000

3030 30:00 .05 .858
A9763 9.02m .2302
— fi fl . _ u . . . .2; 5000.0

2 m o 30.: . 30.. I
Sud-08d I
80... -...2 I

«E - ~ I

o - .8..- E
0.2.5.2. 800 §
8...: 00.26: ... .88
0:000.

          

 

   
 

008.83
3:000 0.....0... - 03:: 00.000... *0 30:52 .000..- 05 :. 00525

Figure 4.30 — Map of the change in total number of housing units — Harris County,
140

1 980-2 000

3050 30:00 .05 .8500

             

 

00.! ca or m o 3.003 9.020 .2302
”050:0” :885890

3...: .80.: I

09... .80... I

02.0 . an... I

33 - . I

o .03..- E

325.; 58 §

8...: 2.80: 30:80 0 .38
0:003

sang?
5::00 0.....0... - 03:... 050:0... 00.0300 .0 30:52 .80... 0... :. 00:0...0

 

141

Figure 4.31 - Map of the change in the total number of occupied housing units -
1980-2000

Harris County,

3028 030:8 .w-D “8.58

           

 

00.! on 9 m o .0000... 00.005 .2302
.9028 00.53.0020

8... .08 I
B. .. I
98.. I

08:20. I

0.9-8...- mm
0.9.5.330 \\\\\.

.. 0. . V\ . NR. . 8.0: 00.2.0... 0.8.3 0 .88
.. \\\\\¢\\s [\ . 00000..

008-009
30:00 0.....0... - 0:0... 00.0:0... .0000> 00 30:52 .000... 05 0. 000000

   
 

142

Figure 4.32 — Map of the change in the total number of vacant housing units —
1980-2000

Harris County,

account for a large increase in total housing units. At the same time as many of the new
housing units become occupied, with such a fast and large level of growth, other housing
units may remain vacant temporarily until being sold which could account for the
relatively large number of vacant housing units in these tracts. Maps of change in the
number of renter- and owner-occupied housing units follow similar patterns as seen in the
change in total housing units (See Figure 4.33 and Figure 4.34). Observing the change in
percentage of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities, several areas around
downtown, the new airport, and many other places scattered throughout the county
exhibit the largest decreases (Figure 4.35). At the same time though several scattered
areas to the northeast and south of downtown exhibited the largest increases in
percentage of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities.

Harris County and the city of Houston have experienced interesting and
distinctive changes from 1980 to 2000 based upon the U.S. census data. At the same time
as rates of suburban growth were continuing at very fast rates, the city was attempting to
revitalize areas in and around downtown. Particular changes have been evident within the
I-610 loop west of the downtown. To determine the specific areas experiencing the
characteristics of physical and social upgrading, and the specific types of changes that

had taken place, further statistical analyses were necessary.

143

             

 

83-82.
3530 «En: - 3:5 @525:
33:30.8:25 “—0 .3532 .80... 2: E 3:25

383 g .m.D “826m

Aivatoaixfiz
”9:285:30

23: .5; I

3a.»- 8..“ I

83- 8a.. I

33 .u I

.785. I

926; 88 \\\x
31:89.23 n .88
9:83

Figure 4.33 — Map of the change in the total number of owner-occupied housing

units - Harris County, 1980-2000

g g “.3 ”828

            

 

1 a q u - . . . . Agvugi
ion or m o ”g 8:03.310

58.5.2...” I
an...” - an. I

225? sun «\\\\
vol-690.823”. u .80...
2.83

83.82.
3:300 35... . 3...: 9:28...
33:39.35”. .0 .3532 .80... 2: :. once—.0

Figure 4.34 — Map of the change in the total number of renter-occupied housing

units — Harris County,

145

1980-2000

385m 3300 .m5 ”858

           

 

_ _ _ . _ q _ q . Aux—.03 32m 3532
or n a .8330” 3.8530

8...- 8+ I

E.” . 8... I

8. o- 3.- I

3. F- - 3 o. I

3.9 - 8.2- ... b.
225.5 58 §
9.38:..— uc.xofl i
3&3

 

83.82.
3.500 2.51-3363 2.9.3.3.“. 329.30
95.3.. 8...: 9:28... .80... .0 38:33“. 2: :. «9.2.0

  

Harris County, 1980-2000

Figure 4.35 — Map of the change in the percentage of total housing units lacking

complete plumbing facilities

146

Principal Components Analysis & Clustering

The processes of revitalization have produced important and complex results.
Areas near Houston’s downtown have experienced processes of physical and social
upgrading such as locally-driven urban renewal, private sector ‘block-busting’, and
gentrification. The historic area of F reedmen’s Town has especially experienced large
pressure for physical upgrading and residential redevelopment producing the severe
effect of the displacement of original residents. This analysis section used statistical
analyses to determine other areas in Houston that have experienced similar characteristics
of physical and social upgrading as that experienced in Freedmen’s Town.

To thoroughly account for the changes that had taken place and standardize the
variables of analysis, I converted each variable to its respective ‘percentage change’
value as was done for the dollar figures as discussed above. This ‘percentage change’ was
calculated as the difference of the 1980 value from the 2000 value, and this difference
divided by the 1980 value. This conversion was done for each variable. All of the
‘percentage change’ variables as well as the variables calculated for ‘change in the
percentage of...’ were then entered into a new dataset for statistical analyses. (See Table
4.2 for complete list of variables.)

In order to reduce the massive amounts of data and detect structure in the dataset,
a principal components analysis (PCA) was performed in the statistical program
SYSTAT. To determine the number of significant components to extract I experimented
with several different factors in a PCA with varimax rotation. Based upon these results
seven dimensions were extracted afier examining which variables were loading high on

specific dimensions and at which point ‘noise’ began to be produced in the rotation.
147

Complete List of Variables Used in the Principal Components Analysis

Population Variables

3CP_POP
3CP_WH
3CWH
3CP_BL
3CBLACK
3CP_HISP
3CHISP
3CMDAGE
3CP_250

% Change in Total Population (New)

% Change in White Population (New)

Change in % of Census Tract that is white

% Change in Black Population (New)

Change in % of Census Tract that is black

% Change in Hispanic Population (New)

Change in % of Census Tract that is Hispanic
Median age (years)

% Change in Population 25 years and over (New)

Socioeconomic Variables

3CP_HS % Change in HS Graduate (New)

3CHSGRAD Change in the % of CT that are High School Graduates

3CP_CG % Change in College Graduate (New)

3CCGRAD Change in the % of CT that are College Graduates

3CP_FAMP % Change in Families below poverty (New)

3CPOVFAM Change in % of Families below the poverty level

3CFMHH Change in % of HH that are Female-Headed

3CP_FHH % Change in F emale-Headed Households (New)

3CI-IHPI Change in the % of HH Receiving Public As. Income

3CP_HHPI % Change in Households Receiving Public Assistance Income (New)

3CP_MGR % Change in Median Gross Rent - Adjusted (new)

3CP_MVAL % Change in Median Value of Owner-Occ. - Adj. (new)

3CP_MHHI % Change in Median HH Income - Adjusted (New)

3CP_PCI % Change in Per Capita Income - Adj. (new)

3CPEMP % Change in Employed civilian population 16 years and over: Total (New)

3CP_PRO % Change in Professional (New)

3CPRO Change in the % of CT Professional

Housing Variables

3CP_FAM % Change in the Number of Total Families (New)

3CP_HSLD % Change in Households (New)

3CP_HU % Change in Total Housing Units (New)

3CP_OCC % Change in Occupied HU (New)

3CP_VAC % Change in Vacant HU (New)

3CP_OWN % Change in Owner-Occupied HU (New)

3CP_RENT % Change in Renter-Occupied HU (New)

3CPLM_N Housing units: Lacking complete plumbing facilities (for % use total housing units)

3CPLUMB % of Total Housing Units lacking complete plumbing facilities

3CP80HU % Change in housing units that existed in 1980 and still remain in 2000

3CP8OOMI % Change in total number of owner-occupied housing units whose householder
moved in 1980 or before and remained in the same housing unit in 2000

3CP8ORMI % Change in total number of renter-occupied housing units whose householder

moved in 1980 or before and remained in the same housing unit in 2000

Table 4.2 - Complete List of Variables Used in Principal Components Analysis

148

The results from this PCA with varimax rotation are listed in Table 7.1 - Table

7.5 of the Appendix (Chapter 7). For easier visual interpretation, 3 list of the variables
was also created showing their positive or negative loadings for each dimension (Table
4.3). An interpretation of these dimensions is helpful in further analysis of areas
experiencing redevelopment and influences of specific variables. This interpretation of
dimensions was assisted by the mapping of scores from the PCA. Referencing Table 4.3,
I have interpreted this first dimension as an indicator of change in the stage of the life
cycle or growth in general in the census tract as has been seen in suburbanizing areas of
Houston. The second dimension depicts social upgrading as is often associated with
redevelopment. Instead of a race component within this dimension as I was anticipating,
there is instead a Hispanic ethnicity component loading negatively. The third dimension
depicts the turnover of housing stock and residents as it identifies the owner residents
from 1980 that remain in 2000 as well as the actual housing stock that existed in 1980
and still remained in 2000.

The fourth dimension depicts the racial segregation of Houston and the
correlation of percentage of a census tract that is black and the number of households
receiving public assistance income. The fifth dimension depicts areas experiencing the
largest levels of growth in white and total populations as growth in total population is
highly correlated with growth in the white population (as indicated by the “percentage
change” variable). The sixth dimension I have interpreted as depicting housing change
both grth and decline. The seventh dimension depicts physical upgrading of housing
units as indicated by the change in number of households lacking complete plumbing

facilities.

149

Dimension 1 - (22.8% of total variance)
Negative Positive
3CP_250 - % Change in Population 25 years and over
3CPEMP - % Change in Employed civilian population 16 years and over: Total
3CP_PRO - % Change in Professional
3CP_HS - % Change in HS Graduate
3CP_FHH - % Change in Female-Headed Households
3CP_RENT - % Change in Renter-Occupied HU
3CP_FAM - % Change in the Number ofTotal Families
3CP_CG - % Change in College Graduate
3CP_HSLD - % Change in Households
3CP_OCC - % Change in Occupied Housing Units
3C P_OWN - % Change in Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Dimension 2 - (13.3 % of total variance)
Negative Positive
3CCGRAD - Change in the % of CT that are College Graduates
3CP_MHHI - % Change in Median HH lncome - Adjusted
3CP_MVAL - % Change in Median Value of Owner-Occ. - Adj.
3CHlSP - 94. Change in Hispanic Population (New)
3CHSGRAD - Change in the % ofCT that are High School Graduates
3CPRO - Change in the % of Cl“ Professional
3CP_MGR - % Change in Median Gross Rent - Adjusted
3CPOVFAM - Change in % of Families below poverty
Dimension 3 - (7.4% of total variance)
Negative Positive
CP800Ml3 - % Change in Owner-Occ. HU, which householder moved in 1979 or before
CP_VAC3 - % Change in Vacant HU
CP80HU3 - % Change in 1980 Housing Stock remaining in 2000
Dimension 4 - (8.53% of total variance)
Negative Positive
3C BLACK - Change in % of Census Tract that is black
3CWH - Change in ”/0 ochnsus Tract that is white
3CP_HHPI — Change in % of HH Receiving Public Ass. Income
3CHHPl - % Change in Households Receiving Public Assistance Income
Dimension 5 - (6.94% of total variance)
Negative Positive
3CP_WH - % Change in White Population
3CP_POP - % Change in Total Population
Dimension 6 - (9.02% of total variance)
Negative Positive
3CMDAGE - Change in median age (yrs)
3CP_HSLD - % Change in Households
3CP_OCC - % Change in Occupied HU
3CP_OWN - % Change in Owner-Occupied HU
3CP_HU - "/0 Change in Total Housing Units
Dimension 7 - (4.73% of total variance)
Negative Positive
3CPLM_N - Housing units: Lacking complete plumbing facilities
3CPLUMB - % ofTotal Housing Units lacking complete plumbing facilities

Table 4.3 — Loadings from Principal Components Analysis - Varimax Rotation — 7
Dimensions

150

Using the K-Means clustering process I hoped to group census tracts that were
experiencing similar characteristics of physical and social upgrading as Freedmen’s
Town. But to simplify this process I sought to determine dimensions that were not very
well relating to the Freedmen’s Town censustract. Eliminating the dimensions that were
not related to Freedmen’s Town would simplify the clustering process. With score
information available for each dimension, the score data was examined to see where the
Freedmen’s Town census tract was located along the spectrum of scores for each
dimension. Dimensions in which the Freedmen’s Town census tract was not at either end
of the spectrum were going to be eliminated. Based upon the score information, the first
and sixth dimensions were excluded from the clustering process.

The K-Means clustering process was used to cluster the census tracts based upon
the factor scores from the PCA. To help in determining the number of clusters to be
identified for the K-means clustering method, the K-means cluster process was initially
run with a range of group values. The values from this output were used to calculate the
incremental F-values in hopes of determining the number of clusters to use based upon a
possible ‘peak’ in the incremental F-values. From SYSTAT, the K-means process
produces the ‘between and within sum-of-squares’ and degrees of freedom for each group
number that was processed. From these values the incremental F-value was calculated for
each group. See Table 4.4 and Figure 4.36 for the worksheet with these calculations and
the graph of incremental F-values. Based upon these incremental F-values, nine clusters

were identified.

151

# of Groups Between 88" df Within 88" Degrees of Freedom Total 88" R2 Incremental F

2 358.147 5 2186.853 2540 2545 0.1407

3 725.305 10 1819.695 2535 2545 0.2850 170.9656
4 1016.111 15 1528.89 2530 2545.001 0.3993 120.8291
5 1147.667 20 1397.333 2525 2545 0.4509 47.8273
6 1307.952 25 1237.048 2520 2545 0.5139 54.8299
7 1575.362 30 969.638 2515 2545 0.6190 99.9912
8 1672.958 35 872.042 2510 2545 0.6574 35.4916
9 1779.129 40 765.871 2505 2545 0.6991 39.0622
10 1816.362 45 728.639 2500 2545.001 0.7137 12.9534
1 1 1890.758 50 654.243 2495 2545.001 0.7429 26.1954
12 1939.019 55 605.982 2490 2545.001 0.7619 16.8109
13 1973.543 60 571.457 2485 2545 0.7755 11.7670
14 2006.583 65 538.417 2480 2545 0.7884 11.0939
15 2025.703 70 519.298 2475 2545.001 0.7960 6.2099
16 2041.411 75 503.59 2470 2545.001 0.8021 4.9303
17 2058.345 80 486.656 2465 2545.001 0.8088 5.1745

‘ 88 = Sum of Squares

Table 4.4 — Calculations of Incremental F-Values based upon K-Means Clustering

Process

180

Change in Incremental-F Values

 

 

160

 

140

 

120

 

—e- incF ,

 

Incremental-F Values
8

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I of Groups

Figure 4.36 - Graph of Change in Incremental F-Values based upon K-Means
Clustering Process

152

In the next step, the nine clusters were mapped to see what tracts had clustered
together. Lower and higher cluster values were then used to see how the clusters change
and what new patterns of clusters may have developed. Looking at all of the cluster maps
I noticed a grouping of tracts immediately west of downtown that was consistently
grouping together. Similar to Freedmen’s Town this is an area that has experienced
characteristics of physical and social upgrading. Observing the maps of clusters I was
interested in what tracts were consistently grouping with Freedmen’s Town and these
surrounding downtown areas of physical and social upgrading. Grouping these tracks of
redevelopment together I sought to identify specific areas of the city and county
experiencing the characteristics of physical and social upgrading as in Freedmen’s Town.
Also importantly I hoped to determine the characteristics of these tracts that caused them
to cluster together and what types of physical and social upgrading forces had been taking

place.

Areas of Houston Experiencing Redevelopment

In total, forty six (46) census tracts in Harris County were consistently grouping
together with the Freedmen’s Town census tract and the small cluster of redevelopment
immediately to the west of downtown. See Figure 4.37 for the locations of these tracts.
The data of change experienced by all of these tracts, including the median value of
change, is included in Table 7.6 - Table 7.19 of the Appendix. Many of the tracts
grouping together were located on the west side of downtown, an area that has been
known to have experienced several different forms of physical and social upgrading

within the last fifteen years.

153

.053. .3 3:950 8:330 - 88h 3250 “8500

 

 

:38 95830.“. 5.; 9.3.8.0 n
:38. 9:95.02... 5.; 9.3.8.0 82 z . l_
ace—5.0.6503.

ozone;

 

Eso... eighteen. ma 2683.336”. .0
3.3.5.0220 3......0 0:.ocoteaxm 306.: «3:00 3:300 «.....a...

Figure 4.37 — Map of the Harris County census tracts that clustered with

Freedmen’s Town in experiencing similar characteristics of redevelopment from

1980 to 2000

154

These tracts and the processes of physical and social upgrading occurring there will be
discussed in further detail later in this section. Additionally there were nine tracts located
outside of this cluster that was west of downtown. I was also interested in the
characteristics of these tracts that had caused them to cluster with this area of
redevelopment even though they were not geographically close to the physical and social
upgrading tracts west of downtown.

All of the forty six tracts that had clustered together exhibited many of the
characteristics of physical and social upgrading associated with redevelopment. Issues
such as population increase and racial or ethnicity change were not as consistent or
important as was expected. Although the change in total housing units appears to not be
consistent as many tracts have lost or gained a large number of housing units, the actual
percentage change appears to be fairly consistent with a median value of 3.95%. Overall
these tracts that have clustered together certainly and consistently appear to exhibit the
characteristics of social and physical upgrading. The number of high school and college
graduates and percentage of census tract population (age 25+) that are high school and
college graduates all increased substantially. Families below poverty, female-headed
households, and households receiving public assistance income also saw decreases both
in raw numbers and as percentage of census tract. All monetary indicators have
experienced increases, some very large.7 Median value of owner-occupied housing units
increased a median value of $46,361 (31.5%) while per capita income increased a median
value of $15,139 (55.5%). Another significant component of social upgrading related to

redevelopment is the increase in number and percentage of ‘professional’, or ‘white-

 

7 Recall that all dollar figures have been adjusted for inflation.
l 55

col

of

of

0C

collar’ employees. These tracts have all experienced a numerical increase in the number
of ‘professional’ employees as well as a median value increase of 14.15 in the percentage
of the employed population in the census tract that is employed in ‘professional’
occupations.

As would be expected of census tracts experiencing physical and social
upgrading, the number and percentage of owner-occupied housingunits (as a percentage
of the total housing units) experienced an increase, while the number and percentage of
renter—occupied housing units decreased. The only variable accurately indicating a
change in housing quality, housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities, also saw a
median value decrease of .27 in the percentage of housing units lacking complete
plumbing facilities.

Using census data on housing stock I also observed changes in three variables.
First was the number of total 1980 housing units that existed in 1980 and still remained in
2000. Second I calculated the number of housing units, both owner and renter occupied,
in which the householder moved in 1979 or before. This allowed a calculation of how
many of these housing units with the same householder from 1979 remained in 2000 and
therefore become an indicator of turnover in residents. Based upon these data, this
grouping of tracks experienced large decreases in the number of housing units that
originally existed in 1980 and still remained in 2000. In total this grouping of census
tracts experienced a median percentage decrease in total 1980 housing units remaining in
2000 of -31.95 %. Renter-occupied housing units in which the occupant moved in 1979
or before and remained in the year 2000 saw a very large median value decrease of -

98.5%. The change in owner-occupied housing units in which the householder moved in

156

1979 or before and remained in 2000 also saw a large decrease of -75%. This is an
indication of the large turnover of residents, both renter and owner, experienced in these
neighborhoods.

Of additional interest were the tracts located outside of this downtown area that
had been recognized for their characteristics of redevelopment. After analyzing the
location, recent developments, and the change in data of these tracts it is difficult to
generalize what may have caused them to cluster with the original downtown-area
redevelopment as they are spread geographically across the county. (See Figure 4.3 7)
Tract 250.00, actually outside the city limits, is adjacent to the upscale and newly
annexed area of Kingwood on Lake Houston. Developments have been very recent with
improvements of State Highway 2100 and adjacency to such a wealthy area. Located in
the city of Baytown, tract 262.00 lies along the improved and expanded Interstate-10.
With a new mall built in the early 19805, this area has seen a large increase in housing
units and income. Tracts 341 and 342 are located east of the intersection of State
Highway 288 and Beltway 8. This section of Beltway 8 was completed during the mid
19905 and spurred further development in this area. Interestingly this area saw one of the
largest percentage increases in black population when combined with a percentage
decrease in white population of the 46 tracts. This area, as would be expected because of
the clustering, also experienced a significant social upgrading in increases in income and
percent ‘professional’ although still not as large as many of the other tracts in this group.
Lastly tract 545.01 in the northwest portion of the county is in part of the county which
has experienced large rates of suburbanization. This area known as Cy Fair was already

more established than some communities in this area of the county experiencing

157

suburbanization. I believe it is for this reason that the social upgrading occurring in this
area distinguished this census tract from the other tracts in the western part of the county

also experiencing suburbanization.

Independent Municipalities

Within the near-downtown location there are four particular areas experiencing
characteristics of physical and social upgrading which this chapter will focus upon. Upon
further in-person examination, it appears that not all of these 46 census tracts are
experiencing what would be described as redevelopment. The separate municipalities of
Bellaire (417.01, 417.02, 418.01, and 418.02), West University Place (409.00, 410.00),
Hunters Creek Village (440.02), and Bunker Hill Village (440.04) have all grouped
together within the 46 tracts of physical and social upgrading. (See Figure 4.3, Figure
4.37, and Figure 4.38 for reference.) These areas are known to be well-established,
wealthy enclaves in the Houston area. Within the last ten to fifteen years and continuing
to the present these areas have been experiencing what are known as ‘teardowns.’ This
term has been used to describe the phenomenon when non-deteriorated, decent-sized,
expensive homes in established areas have been torn down to be replaced by even larger,
more expensive homes. Even with available land in the suburbs, some people with the
means still desire to live in these wealthy, established areas and are willing to pay to

build their own new home there (Fischler 1999).

158

853. 3 8:28

 

550.9560

oceogficm .3

63.5
I ownsob

 

            

      
    

 

 

 

FE... reap—.08.... ma 2.25.2325: ..e
8.03.893agu ..a..E.m wig—5.33m—
muoafi. we .8630 :33:.$e:...ao Z

:30 m :2: 8.
.....mBWEQWEW. fl

>6... Mcofiuooi

.... 3 3.9.0.0 .oZ

.coEno.o>ouo~.

ozone;

Figure 4.38 — Zoomed-in map of the near-downtown cluster of redevelopment

census tracts.

159

This was first observed in the Houston area in West University in the early 19805 as
rising land values caused 2- and 3-bedroom bungalows to be demolished to be replaced
with 5- and 6-bedroom mansions. “The days of renovation are over. . .There’s not
anything architecturally distinctive enough to save” said local developer Eric W.
Leibrock (Cronkright 1983, p. 16A). This separate municipality contained unique ‘small
town’ charm that attracted “upwardly mobile professionals” looking to live closer to
downtown and caused demand for property to increase forcing land and housing prices
Skyward.

Recently this has been most pronounced within Hunters Creek Village and
Bunker Hill Village. Often the new built homes are very architecturally different and
larger in size than surrounding homes and therefore stand out in the community (See
Figure 4.39 - Figure 4.42). This occurrence has become very common in these well-
established areas of Houston, and is also evident in other U.S. cities, such as Chicago and

Boston.

160

 

Figure 4.39 - A ‘teardown’ in progress within the separate municipality of Bunker
Hill Village. Notice the smaller housing next door. (Source: Author)

 

 

Figure 4.40 - Example of some of the original housing that occupied these areas.
Houses of this size and style are often what are being torn down to be replaced by
larger homes. (Source: Author)

161

 

Figure 4.41 - A new, larger home being built to replace a smaller home torn down in
the separate municipality of Hunters Creek Village. (Source: Author)

 

. —. f“; Ea? Q"
Figure 4.42 - A new, larger home being built to replace a smaller home torn down in

the separate municipality of Hunters Creek Village. (Source: Author)

162

Observing Tables 4.5 of the median changes in these independent municipality
tracts we are able to put together a picture of the changes that have taken place here.
Overall the population changes have been very small with slight increases in black and
Hispanic populations. The remaining characteristics appear to correspond well with
physical and social upgrading of the areas. Families below poverty and households
receiving public assistance income have decreased while figures such as income,
education and percent ‘professional’ have increased. Being in proximity to the areas
experiencing physical and social upgrading in Houston, there has been an increased
demand for properties in these municipalities, making them even more exclusive than
before. This area is an interesting case in the sense that while this area has experienced
characteristics of physical and social upgrading associated with redevelopment, it was not
considered a place of deterioration prior to this period of upgrading. In these separate
municipalities, the neighborhoods have experienced a different scale of physical and
social upgrading. These upscale areas have become even more upscale and wealthy.
Instead of experiencing redevelopment as it would be commonly considered, these areas
have instead experienced extensive further social upgrading of its citizens in the area of

wealth and education and physical upgrading of its homes.

163

 

 

 

0.65:- mom- $8. 31 mmm- oxo FNNN- no- $.de on «own..- m-
0.0.3 .o
983 .0 coon :. 8cm ...
who." ... 35.2 9...: 9...: 9.5 3...:
2.9 :. egos. .oeficomao... nocfiEmm 859.com. 9:30... 9.39. 9.25: 9:30.. 3...: 3...:
820233... ”mac: 95:0... .2... xoofi .9... ..oofi 83:30 33:30 8.9800 00.9600 9:25... 9:25..
.Mfiwnmwmfi 3.9.80 ”HMO.” ofiflmm... £35”. ... 3.3.81 3.2.30 ... ...oEsO owdm%oc...\ c. ”Mango
o . o .
E 35.5 .x. .955 09.sz ..\o c. 09.20 3:20 axe c. «9.sz 09.9.0 ox. :. 09.9.0
82 s .555

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or $00.9 ficmem- ...;on 38.8 $8. ..v $5.0m
628.2.
..m:o_mm£o.n.. 2:3...
...... ......fi. ...... ...... ...... ......w. ...”...
w. cozmazooo U u. 0.3:... 9.30:. . U . O m.
m. 8.5380 22.330: ....oEsO $0.0
$9.2, $9.3 9.8.0.”. ©5283”. ...an .em 5235. c. .0 e:_u> swims. c.
.08. 26:8 .0 3.0583... :. mmcmco o\o . . . .
o\o m... c. 09.sz E 3:20 .x. c. @9620 o\o mmcmco oxo c. “Mm—MUM... o\ 09.ch o\o
. O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

164

 

 

 

 

axe. fimm- n- mm $8.0» $93 n o\.. 5.... o E
.33 3.2620
>to>oa 3.03.. 32.00 33:09.0 «22.330: 20:230.. 09.2.0
30.2. 32.00 «29.330...
303m 2m 65 .80... .20... cocaine...
«2:83. 5 .80.. c. 5 $9.20 .x.
09.sz o\ «3:55.. ..0 .0 o\o on. 3:20 o\ c. $9.ch c. $9.ch .x. .80...
o c. omcmco c. «.9sz o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tables 4.5 — Change in U.S. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts that

make up the Independent Municipalities. (U .8. Census Bureau 1983, 1993, 2005)

 

 

The Heights

Based upon the data seen in Table 7.6 - Table 7.19 of the Appendix, a group of
eight tracts is identifiable directly to the northwest of downtown—an area known as The
Heightsmthat is experiencing similar forces of redevelopment as Freedmen’s Town.
(Tracts 506.01, 506.02, 507.01, 511.00, 512.00, and 513.00, See Figure 4.38) This area
contains architecturally unique housing largely built in the 19208 and 19305. With overall
rising transportation costs (including increasing levels of congestion), this area of unique
housing styles (contrasting to the suburban housing lacking detail and originality) and
ideal near-downtown location has become attractive to professionals and those searching
for unique housing options (Figure 4.43 - Figure 4.48).

From 1980 to 2000 this area exhibited the characteristics of physical and social
upgrading, but involving a mix of new housing construction and gentrification, as
moderate and upper-income professionals have been refurbishing the traditional working-
class dwellings. Although most of the area lost total population and total housing units,
the area saw high levels of increase in housing unit ownership (in percentage of census
tract occupied housing units that are owner-occupied) as well as very large percentage
increase in median value of owner-occupied housing units and per capita income. (See
Tables 4.6) The area experienced a large decrease in percentage of housing units that are
renter-occupied (-5. 16 median value decrease in percentage) while the percentage of
housing units owner-occupied increased a median value of 5. 1 6. Also importantly this
area experienced an increase in percentage of census tract employed whose occupation is

considered ‘professional’ with a median increase in percentage of 24.62 (343 people).

165

One characteristic of gentrification that is difficult to interpret from the dataset is
the physical improvements that have occurred in the area. Most of the area did experience
a decrease in the percentage of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities. This

physical upgrading process was also observed through the early 20005 and continuing to

the present (Figure 4.43- Figure 4.48).

 

Figure 4.43 - Older housing stock that has been renovated and gentrified in The
Heights. (Source: Author)

166

  

171723;? "‘

. J,“ - ‘
".\ ',';‘..,~f€_'__._. 3.3 ‘ ,I‘

Figure 4.44 - Older housing stock that has been renovated and gentrified in The
Heights. (Source: Author)

Figure 4.45 - Older housing stock that has been renovated and gentrified in The
Heights (on the right) with new two-story construction on the left. (Source: Igor
Vojnovic)

167

 

Figure 4.46 — New upscale housing being constructed in The Heights. (Source: Igor

Vojnovic)

168

—-—- ’1'. .
_- .r“ ..I—.

Figure 4.47 - Architecturally-unique housing being physically upgraded in the
gentrifying area of The Heights. (Source: Author)

 

 

.‘-. .. w

Figure 4.48 - Architecturally-unique housing being physically upgraded in the
gentrifying area of The Heights. (Source: Igor Vojnovic)

169

 

 

 

$00.00- 0.0. $00. .0- 00... $ {.00- 000. $00. T 00- $00.0 T 00.1
22...... .o 928 .o 88 ... 88 ...
00.0. 2. 00>0.2 . . 0:2: 0..2: 0:2:
000. 2. 005.2 00.020030... 002.0200 002.0800 02.030... 02.0:02 02.030: 0..:: 02.0302 02:: 3.23
029.008: . .9: .020 .0... 0.8.0 8.2300 02.2.0: 02.32.
.022: 02.030... .022: 02.030... 02.030... 02.030... 00.03000 00.03000 00.03000 ..0230 0.0 2. 80
H . . 00.03000 . . 9.0.200 2. -.00200 ..0230 2. . .P . _ 0.
0300000230 ..0 000. 2. 000. 002020 $ 2.002020 002020 $ 2. 002020 002020 $ 2.002020
2.002020 $ 000.. 2.502002020 002020 $ 2.002020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00 $00.00 $ 5.00. $00.00 $00.00 $00.0.V $00.0
.8032.
0022000020. 0500:. . . 0
...... ._...........0.. 0...... 00...... ......M... ...... .
0. 202003000 0. 22.0.0380 0.330 0.000 0.020030... ...0230 .200 000.0 1
00022. .00.. 0002.... 0200.00 02.20000 .00 2. 20.005. 2. 00 03.0> 20.00.... 2.
030200 .0 $ 2. 002020 o\ 00.02008... 002020...\ 09.020 ..x. :0. 0 2. 002020 $
02. 2. 002020 . o 2. 002020 $ o a 00......02” ..x.
o
$00.00- 5». 00 $00.00.. $00.0 T 000- $00.0 T EN 7

 

.0>0.. 00.03020

>t0>00
2.0 0 >t0>00 000:00 00.03080 0 0 0030 00.020030... 20.00.3000 002020
_ 2 30.00 0.0 .02. 002.00 .0.0... 0. 2 I .20... .20... 2. 20.00.3000
00.22.00 2. o 0 a 2. 002020 $ 0 0 o
002020$ 00....200 ..0 .0 0 02. 2. 0 2020 \o 2.0 2020 0 2020 0 .0.0._.

2. 002020 2. 002020

Tables 4.6 - Change in U.S. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts that

make up The Heights. (U .8. Census Bureau 1983, 1993, 2005)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rice Military/Magnolia Grove

Another distinctive area experiencing redevelopment lies immediately to the
northeast of the exclusive, upscale River Oaks neighborhood. Consisting of two census
tracts, 515.01 and $15.02, the residential areas of this redevelopment cluster are known as
Rice Military and Magnolia Grove respectively (Figure 4.38). The Rice Military census
tract is largely occupied by Memorial Park and its golf course with the east side of the
tract occupied by residential developments. Within the last ten years this residential area
has experienced some refurbishment of its unique and older, deteriorated housing (similar
to that experienced in The Heights). But also in this area there has been much new
construction of housing units. This new construction is in the form of upscale townhomes
and condominiums and has taken place in areas of prior housing which has meant the
private acquisition and clearing of private land for development.

Observing Tables 4.7 it appears this area is experiencing interesting characteristics
of redevelopment similar to what was seen in The Heights such as a total population
decline. (See Table 7.6 - Table 7.19 of the Appendix for fiill datasets.) But the area has
also seen large decreases in percentage of occupied housing units that are renter and
increases in education levels, income, and percent of employed population whose
occupation are considered ‘professional’. Figure 4.49 - Figure 4.55 depict some of the
physical improvements that have continued through the present. New construction
(replacement of older housing units) has become very apparent in this area and is

increasing quickly simply based upon several subsequent visual inspections.

171

 

Figure 4.49 - New, upscale townhomes being built in the Rice-Military area. The
remaining house next door is typical of original housing of this area that has largely
been replaced. (Source: Author)

.\_\

Figure 4.50 - Deteriorated housing in the Rice Military area mostly likely awaiting
demolition to be replaced with upscale housing. (Source: Author)

172

 

 

 

Figure 4.51 - New, upscale townhomes being built in the Rice-Military area.
(Source: Author)

A. .' ‘ ”Ll
4 . ‘ ,r..
‘ (
,

WM

. “.mc LiLuAI
. ,

 

Figure 4.52 — Sign advertising the newly-built townhomes in the Rice-Military area.
(Source: Author)
173

 

Figure 4.53 - Older housing stock remaining in the redeveloping Rice-Military area.
(Source: Author)

 

‘,..- .9 —W4i—-. 00109.10; 0.0.1:».

Figure 4.54 - Older deteriorated commercial property remaining in Rice-Military.
Next door encroach the construction of new upscale townhomes. (Source: Author)

174

 

Figure 4.55 — Deteriorated housing, most likely awaiting demolition, in the Rice-
Military area with upscale townhomes in the background. (Source: Author)

175

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$00.00- :0- $00.N0- 0.0- $.V0.S.- 00.- $00.00 0.0 $00.0. 000
0.0.0.. .0 0.0.02 0000 0000 2.
0.0. ... 8.6.2 .o 0.0. 2.8.6.2 ... 85050.. 850.80 8...: 02.08.. 0%.“? 0.2: 02.08.. 0...... 00.08.. 3...: 3...:
50.9.9.8: 8.0.9.33: .0... 00.0 .0... .020 8.0080 8......80 8.038 83:80 02.0.6: 02.26..
.0..2: 02.031 .022: 02.0:0... 02.0:0... 02.0:0... 00.200 00.200 ..0230 ..0230 .30... .50..
0800:0230 00.03000..02..>0 000. 000. 2. 00:020$ 2. 00:0 2. 002020 $ 2.002020 2. 002020 $ 2. 002020
2. 002020 $ 000. 2. 002020 2. 002020 $ 2. 002020 . 20
.0 $0.00 $00.00- $00.03 $00.00 $0.2 $00.0
0020.03.20. 02.00:. 00.09.03
.228020. .8030... .8000...
2.00% Eggs .........2 as... as... ......0. fig“...
. .... o ._ 3.3.80 0...... ...... 22...... .... .... ...... ....
.00.. 0:“...s00 0 0002.... 0200.00 . . m .00 2. 20.00.... 2. .50. 0.00.2...
. 2. 002020 o\ 00.02003... 002020.: 002020.: 0:.0> 20.005. 0 2020 0
$02. 2. 002020 . o 2. 002020$ a o 2. 002020$
$003- 0m. 00 $00.00.. $00.0 00. $000.- .00-
05. 00.0:080
5.0.60 00.03020
.00.. 0...... ......0... 5...... 000.
00....200 2. .0.0._. 2. 002020 $ .
0029.0... 8......0. 5.0 .00... 500820.. 5002020 2.00820... 0.8
o 2. 002020 2. 002020 . o

 

 

Tables 4.7 - Change in U.S. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts that

make up the Rice-Military/Magnolia Grove area. (U .8. Census Bureau 1983, 1993, 2005)

176

Of added interest there are also several tracts due north of this area that have also
experienced very recent physical and social upgrading. Tracts 514.02 and 516.02 are
considered the West End/Woodcrest neighborhoods while the eastern section of 516.01 is
considered the Cottage Grove neighborhood. (See Figure 4.38) This upgrading process
has mostly been seen in the construction of new upscale housing. This process is very
recent, largely within the last three years based upon visual survey of the area, research of
construction data, and discussions with neighbors. Prior to this new construction, many
parts of this area were, and still are, considered deteriorated. With housing values low
because of the deteriorated housing stock, and attractive location inside the I-610 Loop
and near upscale neighborhoods and shopping, this area has become attractive to private
developers who purchase and clear out land for development. Figure 4.56 - Figure 4.63
depict some of the current deteriorated housing stock and new upscale construction.
Because of the very recent nature of the physical and social upgrading occurring in these
two neighborhoods, it is not surprising that these areas did not group with the other
redevelopment tracts as the last year of census data analysis was 2000. With the
collection of the 2010 Census I speculate these tracts will show distinctive characteristics

of the physical and social upgrading as depicted in this present analysis.

177

 

 

Figure 4.56 - Older housing in Cottage Grove area similar to what is being
demolished for newer upscale construction. (Source: Author)

 

Figure 4.57 - Older housing awaiting demolition in the Cottage Grove area. (Source:
Author)
178

  

Figure 4.58 - Older housing and newer construction in the Cottage Grove area
experiencing forces of urban renewal and private-sector ‘blockbusting’. (Source:
Author)

{1.- - I
. . (f'

Figure 4.59 - Older, deteriorated housing remaining next to a large empty lot
awaiting development. (Source: Author)

179

 

Figure 4.60 - Older housing dwarfed in size by new townhome construction in
Cottage Grove. (Source: Author)

Figure 4.61 - Older housing dwarfed in size by new townhome construction in
Cottage Grove. (Source: Author)

180

 

Figure 4.62 - New townhome construction next to older trailer-style housing in
Cottage Grove. (Source: Author)
'v ’ .

 

x

 

{:5 _.-- _—é"£i"~ ,_
..> “*1" . . 1

y , , . _ \ ' ,\ 3 ‘
Figure 4.63 - Newly constructed two-story, single-family rowhouses in Cottage
Grove. (Source: Author)

181

F1

and

COHC

Freedmen’s Town

Finally is a discussion of the Freedmen’s Town census tract which, as mentioned,
has been under constant threat of physical and social upgrading. This redevelopment has
slowly been occurring since 1980, but has accelerated during the late 19908. This is seen
not only in the data (Table 7.6 - Table 7.19 of the Appendix) but also in continuing
physical surveys of the area since 2001. Observing the location of the Freedmen’s Town
census tract along the spectrum of scores from the dimensions of the PCA also helps to
explain the scope and magnitude of the changes that have been occurring in this area.

The area exhibited several interesting characteristics that differed from the other
redevelopment tracts. From 1980 to 2000 the tract experienced a 75% decrease in
population which was the largest of the redevelopment tracts. Much of this population
loss was black residents (-3718, 85.4% decrease). (See Tables 4.8) Although the tract
only saw a white population increase of 14 people, this time period has seen the
percentage of census tract that is white increase 30.2% to now represent 40.3% of the
total tract population. Freedmen’s Town is at the very negative end (most negative score)
of the scores for the fourth dimension exhibiting the highest rates of change in black
population, which is correlated to the percent of households receiving public assistance
income. Interestingly this tract has seen a large percentage increase in Hispanic
population (23.8%) although this has only translated into a small total increase of 168
Hispanic people indicating a very small Hispanic population in 1980.

Although the tract did experience a decrease in the number of high school (-468)
and college graduates (-13), the percentages of the census tract that were high school and

college graduates increased modestly because of such a large decrease in population age

182

be

hm
Wh.‘
imp

dcle

25 years and older (-2,393, 69% decrease) which is used as the base in the calculation of
percentage graduates. The tract experienced large increases in median household income
($13,795, 125.9%) and per capita income ($7,568, 126.3%). (See Tables 4.9) Along the
spectrum of scores for the second dimension, Freedmen’s Town is very near the positive
end (32 tracts from the positive end) exhibiting a large level of social upgrading
exemplified by increases in education and income levels.

Interestingly the tract also saw a significant decrease in the median value of
owner-occupied housing units (-$31,003, 36.7% decrease) while also experiencing an
increase in median gross rent ($68.65, 25.5%). (See Tables 4.9) While most of the 46
tracts experienced an increase in median value of owner-occupied housing units as would
be expected with areas experiencing processes of physical and social upgrading, I believe
the Freedmen’s Town tract is in the middle of this upgrading process which is partially
accounted for by this decrease in median value. With the construction of new upscale
developments that have been observed in the area, it would be expected that the 2010
census will show a much larger increase in median value. The increases in education
levels (% of the census tract), combined with income and money increases, and an
increase in percentage of census tract employed ‘professionally’ caused this tract to
become grouped with the tracts of physical and social upgrading.

An important point of change in this tract is exemplified by the decrease in total
housing units (-65%), and owner (-68%) and renter (-69%) occupied housing units all of
which were the largest percentage decreases of the forty six redevelopment tracts. This is
important as the area has experienced a large amount of destruction and demolition of its

deteriorated housing stock and most of which has been replaced by upper-income

183

housing. Other areas of the tract now sit vacant after the clearing of older housing and
await construction of new units. This aspect of redevelopment is difficult to quantify in
the census data but is easily seen upon visual survey of the census tract. This aspect can
slightly be seen in the variable of housing units built 1980 or before that still existed in
2000. Freedmen’s Town lost 2,139 of those housing units, an 83.7% decrease, the largest
decrease of the 46 tracts. Along the spectrum of scores of the third dimension,

F reedmen’s Town is again very near the negative end (second lowest score) depicting the
large turnover in residents who are owners and housing units that had existed in 1980.
This supports the observation of the large level of resident turnover and demolition of
housing units. The city’s land use and demographic profile released in June 2003
revealed this Fourth Ward area to have some of the highest rates of demolition and new
construction permitting in the city indicating intense residential redevelopment (City of
Houston 2003a, p. 4-11).

The tract also saw a substantial decrease in renter-occupied housing units that had
been occupied since 1979 or before (-2105, 99.3% decrease). As part of the physical
upgrading of this area, the Freedmen’s Town census tract is near the negative end of the
spectrum of scores (forty-second from the negative end) for the seventh dimension
depicting the upgrading of housing units by decreases in housing units lacking plumbing
facilities. The recent physical upgrading of F reedmen’s Town (especially since the 2000
census) is depicted in photographs taken over the past four years (Figure 4.64 - Figure

4.71).

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$00.00- 000- 00.0 $00.0- $00.00.- 000 T
.0>0-. 00.00080
3.0.60 >00>00 000200 00.00005 00.020000...
.5200 002.00 00.020020...
30.00 0.0 .02. .0.0...
00.2.20". ... 00.2.20. 8.00 0... 0.0. 2.002020... 2.002020
0 .
002020 $ 2. 002020 2. 002020 2. 002020 $
000.00- $00.00- 0.00. 00000 $00.0 3 $00.00- 030-
00 022.5 0.
0. M .wm. 22.0.0000 002020 ...... .02. .00. .P 22.0.0000 0020200... 22.0.0000 002020
.0...0.....0. 0.. 0.00.0 22.0.0000 0:0200 3.2.5 22.0.0000 .20... 22.0.0000
0 . c. 002020 ... 0.00.0 .0 ... ... 002020 ... 2.2.5 ... 002020 ... 0.8
$ 2. 002020 2. 002020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tables 4.8 - Change in U.S. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts that

make up the Rice-Military/Magnolia Grove area. (U .8. Census Bureau 1983, 1993, 2005)

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$00.00- 00- $00.00- 00 .0. $00.00- 003- $00.00- .0. $00.00- .00.-
0.0.02 .0 00%”0hwmmmo2 0000 2. 0000 2. 0:2: 0:20 0:20 0:20
000. 2. 00>os. 00.02.0000... 002.02.00 002.0200 02.000... 02.0002 02.000... 02.0002 022... 0220
029.008: . .20 0.8.0 .9: 0.8.0 02.0.6: 02.03..
. .0223 02.000... 00.00000 00.00000 00.00000 00.00000
.0..2D 02.000... 02.000... 02.000: .300 2. .0.0...
. 00.00000 -.0.200 2. ..0.200 ..0230 2. -.0230
0080.02.50 -.023 000. 2. 000. 0020 o 2. 0020 0020 o 2. 0020 002020 $ 2. 002020
2. 002020 $ 2. 0%.MWW. 002020 $ 2. 002020 20 \o . 20 20 \o . 20
00.0. $ 00.0- $00.00- $00.00. $00.00. $00.00- $00.00
020.000 o. 0.28... 80.03.03
.. .0 .0noo0. 0022000090. 0020.0.00< 00.00.30 0200.000 02.000: 00.00.03
0.0.“. .000000 00.00.0200 2.200 02.002. 02.002. 00.00000 .200
. 0M0 0 0. 20.000000 02.20000 0.000 0.020000... ..0230 000.0
0. 00“.“... 0 0002.5 0200.00 00.020000... .00 2. 20.00.... 2. .0 00.0> 20.005. 2.
as . 0 . c. 09.9.0 .x. c. 00:20 0.. 09.9.0 .... 20.00.... ... 00:20 ....
0. 02. 2. 0 2020 002020 $ 002020 $

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tables 4.9 - Change in U.S. Census data (median values) from 1980-2000 for the tracts that

make up the Rice-Military/Magnolia Grove area. (U.S. Census Bureau 1983, 1993, 2005)

186

o'
-

7 5:

 

Figure 4.64 — Boarded homes awaiting demolition in Freedmen’s Town. (Source:
Igor Vojnovic)

 

...?

9

‘r
»Q
04.
«a
21'.
00:3
’4‘
I.“

l
-
a
',
|

'J1I80(.'

.«q
0

Figure 4.65 — Boarded homes awaiting demolition in Freedmen’s Town. (Source:
Igor Vojnovic)

187

 

Figure 4.66 — Newly-constructed homes across the street from deteriorating
‘shotgun-style’ homes in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Igor Vojnovic)

 

Figure 4.67 — Upscale lofts of the ‘Urban Lofts’ development being constructed in
Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)

188

       

no m -
,. r» .440

. ,0

,W

Figure 4.68 — Boarded housing awaiting demolition in Freedmen’s Town. (Source:
Author)

Figure 4.69 — Boarded housing adjacent to a burned-out shell of a home and newly-
constructed, upscale townhomes in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)
189

 

Figure 4.70 - Early stages of construction of new housing adjacent to deteriorating
housing in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)

“Hill“

A .
0

-1
—I
”A
_l
—-I-v
...I
fi-k
0&-

-—...
...

 

School building in F reedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)

190

This area is especially significant and deserving of further discussion for several
reasons. The area is important for its historical significance as one of the first settlements
of freed blacks in Houston following the Civil War. After becoming one of the
concentration points of black professionals this area slowly became extremely poor with
a deteriorating housing stock. One of the poorest places in the city of Houston at one
time, this area has continually come into conflict with the city on several specific
occasions. Recently the demand for upscale housing near downtown has increased
causing increased public and private pressure to redevelop this area directly adjacent to
downtown. This pressure has meant the eviction and displacement of many of the poorest
blacks in the city with nearly no resources or compensation for relocation. It is for these
reasons that this F reedmen’s Town area, its land conflicts, and eventual residential

displacement and redevelopment will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

An interesting point to note is that in this city with a population that is 37.4%
Hispanic (in 2000), the Hispanic population group has not appeared to have played a
large part in the upgrading process of these neighborhoods. The change in Hispanic
population only appeared on one dimension (#2) with a low loading. (See Table 4.3 &
Table 7.3) Not only have the areas that have been upgraded not been predominately
Hispanic prior to upgrading, but Hispanics have not appeared to have been a large part of
this upgrading process as of current. As the Hispanic population continues to rise in the
Houston area, this aspect of upgrading would certainly require additional research as to

the very specific groups of people participating in the upgrading processes.

191

Conclusion

Using statistical analyses we have been able to use census data to determine the
amounts and types of population, ethnic, housing, and socioeconomic change that has
occurred in Harris County between 1980 and 2000. This has led to a clustering of tracts
that have experienced physical and social upgrading characteristics associated with
redevelopment. This clustering mainly focused on tracts around and west of downtown.
This analysis corresponds to visual surveys of these areas and the physical and social
changes that have been and are taking place. These areas, while experiencing similar
characteristics of redevelopment as F reedmen’s Town, have experienced slightly
different processes of physical upgrading.

As can be seen from this overview, it is the particular built environment and
housing stock characteristics that encourage specific typologies of physical and social
upgrading. Areas such as The Heights, with its unique and attractive architecture building
styles, have experienced gentrification as well as private housing construction. The Rice
Military area has experienced more characteristics of private-sector ‘block-busting’ but
only in pockets spread throughout the area. While in Freedmen’s Town, poor residents
have been displaced in large scale as the area’s historic near-downtown location has
attracted public and private development interests who have cleared out large tracts of
land for upscale residential developments. This displacement of poor, minority residents
and disregard of the area’s historical significance—particularly in a political environment
in which the city of Houston officials have devoted considerable resources to celebrating
historical and ethnic neighborhoods—merits further investigation into the conflicts and

changes that have taken place in this area of Freedmen’s Town.
192

5 FREEDMEN’S TOWN

Brief History of the settlement of Freedmen’s Town area

The first blacks in Houston arrived as slaves, largely supporting area plantations
producing cotton and sugar cane. In the city of Houston most slaves worked as house
servants, laborers on docks and warehouses, and some even as skilled crafismen such as
blacksmiths and carpenters. These ‘urban’ slaves tended to enjoy a comparable freedom
in the city, for instance some were hired out by their masters who allowed some slaves to
keep a sum of money for their wages. This relative freedom provided blacks with the
opportunity to establish the beginnings of their own communities including churches and
moderate social gatherings (Wintz 1984).

By the census of 1850, blacks represented 22% of the city’s population, with
98.87% of them being slaves (See Table 5.1). The total black population rose from 533 to
1,077 in 1860, although they still represented 22% of the city’s population. Freedom
came to the slaves of Texas on June 19, 1865 with the arrival of the Union troops at
Galveston Island. In the months following emancipation, thousands of former plantation
slaves poured into Houston, with the black population rising from 1,077 in 1860 to 3,691
in 1870 (U .S. Census Bureau 1864, 1872). Searching for inexpensive housing most freed
slaves settled on the outskirts of the city in the third, fourth, and fifih wards in the south,

southwest and northeast sections of early Houston respectively8 (Figure 5.1).

 

8 The ward system had been established in the city charter of 1839 as a political system in which each ward
elected two aldermen and would remain the political division system of the city until 1906.

193

00.02.00 00.05.

0
0

00.05.

00.200 00.0

.00

.00

0.00.0 0..2..>
000.200.00 000.200.00

.020
.800

0
0.....>>
.03...

.03...

 

20.000... .0

Table 5.1 - Early population growth in Houston, TX (U.S. Census Bureau 1853,

1864, 1872)

194

3533.90.00

  
 

]Jll.l]l. .200. .5338821288005508832330
1:3 03 £8 9 202888. 88.25... .535285 .8500

. l. . t .
usual .4. 4: ...1. ... . ... 1 «1.0.1.0632

 

0000.. 0.0. 0020 00.0.5 20.000... .02.0..0

Figure 5.1 — Map of original Houston wards.

195

The area in the Fourth Ward west of Main Street and stretching along San Felipe
Street (currently W. Dallas) attracted the largest number of new black residents and
would become known as Freedmen’s Town. This area attracted the African-American
community for two reasons. First this area was on the San Felipe Road connecting the
city with the plantations of the Brazos River area, and therefore situated the Fourth Ward
on the major route bringing freed slaves into the city. Also, many white farm owners on
the outskirts of the city realized the economic possibilities that existed and began
subdividing their land for housing lots and rental houses to accommodate the rapidly
growing black population (Wintz 2002). Many of these settlers were forced to live along
the Buffalo Bayou where swamp land, stagnant water, and marshes had to be filled with
nearly six feet of dirt to raise the land and produce stable grounds for building homes
(Houston Progressive 2000). Housing consisted of mostly one-story frame residences,
rows of cheap ‘shotgun-style’ houses, and several two-story tenements (Figure 5.2 &
Figure 5.3). The prevalent ‘shotgun-style’ housing became characteristic of this area and
was common along the Gulf Coast where its historical significance could be traced to

blacks in Haiti and to their homelands in Africa (Texas Historical Commission 1985).

196

 

Figure 5.2 — Freedmen’s Town ‘shotgun-style’ housing (Source: Author)

 

Figure 5.3 — Freedmen’s Town Housing (Source: Author)

197

Development and Success of Freedmen’s Town

The black population of the Fourth Ward continued to grow in size, and the
community continued to expand physically during this period in the latter-half of the
nineteenth century. Most developments spread west with the highest concentration of
residences in the eastern part of the ward in what is now the western section of
downtown. This area also housed the first black churches, schools, and political
organizations in the area. Black Methodists began worshipping in their own church in
1851, which erected a permanent building in 1867 and became the Trinity Methodist
Episcopal Church. This church along with Antioch Baptist Church were to become two
of the most important and famous African-American churches in Houston (Wintz 2002).
Antioch Baptist’s first full-time pastor was the Reverend John Henry “Jack” Yates who
arrived in Houston as a slave in 1865. He would become one of the earliest identifiable
and most prominent residents of F reedmen’s Town by strongly encouraging and
promoting education and private home ownership within the Afiican-American
community. Churches were also involved in various civil, social, and political matters
including the organization of the Harris County Republican Club in 1869 and the
purchase of land for a park for blacks in 1872.

Another stabilizing and important factor of the Freedmen’s Town community was
the school system. The first evidence of a school for the African-American community
was a private school operating in the black Methodist church in the late 18505. Freed
slaves had established the first public schools for blacks in the late 18608, and by 1870
the post-Civil War Freedmen’s Bureau schools setup to assist freed slaves consolidated at

the Gregory School located in the Fourth Ward. As a result of the institute, Harris County
198

had the largest number of black students in school in Texas in 1871, with 734 males and
760 females (Wintz 2002). A few years later, the public school system of Houston was in
place with separate schools for blacks and whites in each ward and in September 1876
the Gregory Institute became the black high school in the Fourth Ward. Also Reverend
Yates worked with white missionaries to move the Houston College to its own piece of
land in the Fourth Ward on San Felipe. This college sought to educate African-American
youth and train them for the ministry (Wintz 1990). Over one hundred years later, the
Gregory Institute and Antioch Baptist church are two of several important institutes in the
conflict of redevelopment of Freedmen’s Town and the Fourth Ward.

The Fourth Ward continued in its prosperity throughout the late 19th century and
early 20th century as the economic, cultural, and intellectual center of the African-
American community in Houston. Through the early 19005, the Fourth Ward housed a
disproportionate share of the city’s black professionals, including doctors, dentists,
teachers, and lawyers, and was home to over 80% of the city’s black professional
establishments (Figure 5.4) (Wintz 1990). In 1915, all but one of the city’s black doctors
and dentists, as well as 75% of the black attorneys were clustered in the downtown
section of the Fourth Ward (Red Book 1915). The first medical facilities for African-
Americans opened in the Fourth Ward in 1910, with the opening of the Union Hospital
by black physicians unable to practice at the city’s white hospitals.

In the 19205, this successful community centered on West Dallas Avenue became
known as Houston’s “Harlem”, containing numerous successful nightclubs, bars, jazz
venues, and restaurants that were frequently visited by Houston’s white citizens (Figure

5.5) (House 1998). After originally operating in a high school room for over six years, the

199

 

Figure 5. 4— Picture of the Houston Black Chamber of Commerce established' in the
Fourth Ward. (Source: http: //www. houstonhistory. wuu’c. ' " ‘L' ' MM)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.5 - Snapshot of active daily life along W. Dallas Avenue in the Fourth
Ward from around the 19408. (Source: http://houstonhistory.com/decades/history5k.htm)

200

Carnegie Library for blacks opened on San Felipe in 1913, with building funds donated
by Andrew Carnegie. The Fourth Ward even had its own community facility, the Pilgrim
Temple, which provided office space for Houston’s black population, their social and
cultural events, and the office of the Houston Citizens Chamber of Commerce (Bullard
1987).

Beginning in the 19205, the Fourth Ward began to lose some of its preeminence
as the Third Ward surpassed the Fourth Ward in black population and began to attract
more black institutions. But the Fourth Ward’s dominant position in the early history of
black Houston was not determined by the number of blacks who lived there, as it was
never home to more than one-third of the city’s black population. The Fourth Ward’s
dominant position was due to the fact that until the 19205 it housed many of the city’s
black businesses and professionals, and was the location of the most significant African-
American institutions around which black Houstonians would organize their lives and

confront the economic and social realities of Houston (Wintz 1990).

Early Conflicts of Space

While the community was experiencing considerable success in its growth and
development, the Fourth Ward was beginning to face increasing struggles and conflicts
beginning largely in the 19205. Increased pressures of segregation, downtown expansion,
and the construction of a public housing project, would slowly tear the Fourth Ward and
the Freedmen’s Town community apart. Although Houston never implemented a city
ordinance segregating the residential areas of the city, blacks arriving in the city

following the Civil War tended to congregate in particular areas of the city, leading to the

201

emergence of well-defined black enclaves and neighborhoods (Wintz 1984). When the
City Planning Commission’s recommendation for strict segregation zoning was not
accepted in 1929, it was instead implemented on a defacto basis through deed and
housing restrictions (House 1998). Blacks began to lose ownership of the Freedmen’s
Town in the 19205, which continued into the 19305 with the expansion of Houston’s
downtown.

As the Fourth Ward lost its preeminence to the Third Ward in the 19205, the
Fourth Ward faced the added difficulty that its ability to physically expand was severely
limited by surrounding new developments. In addition, throughout this period, the Fourth
Ward had difficulty attracting new residents and also began to lose its more affluent
residents to new housing developments, further weakening the stability of the community
(Wintz 1990). Basic services provided by the city were also in poor condition, or non-
existent, compared to most other areas of the city. A 1929 report by the National Urban
League indicated that many of the streets of the Fourth Ward were unpaved and/or full of
large holes, making travel difficult. The streets also filled with water because of the lack
of storm sewers, and the city on the whole was not providing basic services to the city’s
black population (Texas Historical Commission 1985, House 1998). A housing study by
the city’s housing authority in the late 19305 revealed this Fourth Ward area to have the
poorest housing conditions in the city as well as the lowest rates of owner-occupancy
(Housing Authority of the City of Houston 1939).

In the 19305 new pressures emerged from downtown businesses and civic
developments, as the Houston urban core expanded outward. From its initial beginnings

near Main and Congress, the downtown expanded southwest, and in the process displaced

202

 

. I
1/_ LL

Fourth Ward families and divided the community (Figure 5.6). One of the major
developments included what would eventually be called the Civic Center, which centered
around the new city hall, completed in 1939 as part of the Works Project Administration
during the Depression. This ten-story neoclassical building has served as the center of the
city government through the present (Figure 5.7). To the west of the city hall lies the
city’s first park, Sam Houston Park, which opened in 1899 (Figure 5.8). Immediately
north of the park was the Sam Houston Coliseum, completed in 1937 (Figure 5.9). It
served as a showhouse, and was used for the famous Houston Rodeo and as a convention
and exhibition hall until its demolition in June 1998. An additional wing of the Colisetun
was the Music Hall, which was home to the various musical groups of the city including
the symphony (Federal Works Agency 1942, Miller 1982). During the current period of
downtown revitalization, the site of the Coliseum would become home to the new Hobby
Center for the Performing Arts, which was completed in 2002.

The 19305 and 19405 were also a period of intense road and highway construction
through Houston’s downtown. The construction of the Gulf Freeway—which divided the
Fourth Ward in half—connected the Houston area to the city of Galveston on the Gulf of
Mexico. This physical division of Freedmen’s Town would have huge repercussions on
the stability of the community. The Gulf Freeway would become part of Interstate 45 in
the 19505, and the elevated portions of the Interstate would further divide the community
and separate it from Houston’s city-center (Figure 5.6 & Figure 5.10). The construction
of this elevated highway meant the destruction of many residences and businesses,

including the Pilgrim Temple community facility.

203

.0222 .5 3.0500 ..200 . 005.00. as; .08. 20...: - 8.00003 .0200 02? 2080.050
0 00200.0 0280.. .0 0.0 - .0002 5.02 20202 0002 ”8.000

 

. 0 . 0 . 0
was: .0... 2.6 mum... o

.2025 .2022 III
80020.0: I
882 Ill
238232....20200 ........
.8808! I
2.002.920.2002“. I
0.035.000.0526-
00000..

.8200
0000.0 80. .0 00.0 .2

 

.0080 282.2 .0

0:00 8.000: £00 .0
0.052 020

..0... 2.0 .8000 .8
0500.00 a ..02

2.0 .0

SD].

allele-ID

20.02030 2302230.. 020 «0.50.0 . _ . . .
0.230.... 230... 0.2020002“. , ...... ......

Figure 5.6 — Map of Fourth Ward and downtown expansion projects

204

 

Figure 5.8 — Sam Houston Park, west of City Hall (Source: Author)

205

r-f-‘r’ If"

I

  
    

Figure 5.9 - Sam Houston Coliseum (site of the current Hobby Center for the
Performing Arts built in 2002) (Source: http://www.houstonhockey.net/page9.html)

 

Figure 5.10 — Conversion of Gulf Freeway into Interstate 45 (Source:

II.

http://www.texasfreeway ...... ‘ 'hlstu.:u’phutw/‘ ‘ _historic_photos.sht
ml)

206

Further land was taken for massive downtown developments during the 19605.
Work on the city’s second official convention center was begun in 1966 just north of the
Civic Center. With the construction of a third convention center in 1987, the Albert
Thomas Convention Center would be redeveloped into a nightlife and entertainment
center in 1997, as discussed in chapter three (Figure 3.32 & Figure 5.11). Also opening in
this area in 1966 was the Jesse H. Jones Hall for the Performing Arts, which served as the
home for the city’s symphony, ballet, and opera (Figure 3.29). In 1970 work also began
on an 18-acre commercial development called the Allen Center, in an area between Smith
Street and I-45 just south of the Civic Center (Figure 5.6). Land immediately south of this
new development was also taken in the 19605 for commercial developments of the Cullen
Center (Miller 1982). This large land area had been part of the Fourth Ward until the
construction of the elevated freeway cut off this portion of the community. The Allen
Center destroyed any remaining residential structures and sense of community that
remained in the downtown part of the Fourth Ward. All that remains as a reminder of the
original community in this area is the Antioch Baptist Church, which sits in the middle of

a large cluster of glass commercial high-rises (Figure 5 .6 & Figure 5.12).

207

 

 

Figure 5.11 - Un-redeveloped western Section of the former Albert Thomas
Convention Center (Source: Author)

 

Figure 5.12 — Antioch Baptist Church in the midst of the modern glass skyscrapers
of the Allen Center (Source: Author)

208

Another devastating impact on Freedmen’s Town was the development of the San
Felipe Courts public housing project in the early 19405 (Figure 5.6, Figure 5.13, and
Figure 5.14). This project cleared nearly 40 acres of the oldest area of Freedmen’s Town
in a slum clearance project that replaced poor black families with white families. The
National Housing Act of 1937 established the U.S. Housing Authority (U SHA), as a
division of the Public Works Administration, to fund up to 90% of the construction costs
of slum clearance type public housing projects. By January 1938 the Housing Authority
of the City of Houston (HACH) had been created. Between 1939 and 1941 , HACH had
built 2,215 public housing units in four main complexes that were segregated racially and
ethnically. San Felipe Courts, the largest USHA housing complex completed in Texas in
the 19405, was the only slum-clearance type development of the original four public
housing projects in Houston (Texas Historical Commission 1988).

This particular area west of downtown had been coming under increasing
development pressures throughout the 19305. In 1926, a park was built along the Buffalo
Bayou, connecting the newly built Civic Center in downtown to the newly planned model
garden suburb of River Oaks to the west of Freedmen’s Town. This caused the low-
income areas of northern F reedmen’s Town to gain increased unwelcome prominence, as
it bordered this park and the west-east corridor road of what would become Allen
Parkway. As noted by the Texas Historical Commission, the San Felipe Courts were
“intended to replace a too-conspicuously located slum neighborhood in order to tie
together architecturally one of Houston’s most important civic corridors” (Texas
Historical Commission 1988, p. 5). In the Housing Authority’s first annual report in
1940, the authority states:

209

 

Figure 5.13 — San Felipe Courts public housing project (currently Allen Parkway
Village) (Source: Author)

., x I V i
"1" '1“ . jllllll'"

'a‘“ '- L--— " ‘2;
.— w-..’—-!egaa

 

Figure 5.14 — Original San Felipe Courts public housing project housing. Currently
named the Historic Oaks of Allen Parkway Village (Source: Author)
210

[i]ts principal goals has been to redesign and reconstruct the old San Felipe
district. This has been for years a section in which hundreds of families have
lived under the worst of substandard conditions. This section lies almost under
the shadow of Houston’s magnificent new two million dollar city hall, and has
heretofore defied all attempts that have been made to beautify or modernize it.
The Authority plans to build one of its major projects for White families in this
old area. In addition to the building of hundreds of new modern residential
structures, it will construct a beautifully landscaped 150 foot parkway along
Buffalo Drive (Allen Parkway) and adjoining Houston’s civic center. This will
replace one of Houston’s undesirable residential sections with one of the finest
beauty spots in the South, and will enhance the beauty of Houston’s principal
scenic drive (Houston Public Housing Program 1940, p. 9).

The thirty-seven acre site that would become the San Felipe public housing
project was acquired by eminent domain and cleared in 1940 displacing the poorest
blacks in the area and destroying nearly seventy years of history in the oldest section of
Freedmen’s Town, settled by the first of the freed slaves.9 Part of this land clearance
project was also the removal of a historic cemetery of over 400 human remains, most of
which were original settlers of Freedmen’s Town, to make way for the construction of the
housing project. All of these actions increased tensions between the black community and
the housing authority. In fact, in the original discussions with the residents, the housing
authority assured Freedmen’s Town residents that they would be provided with housing
opportunities in the new development (Texas Historical Commission 1988).

The project was built in two phases, one of 564 units completed in 1942 and the
second of 436 units completed between 1943 and 1944. Great difficulties arose in 1941
when the U.S. officially entered World War 11. Because of increasing war demands and

limited resources, the San Felipe Courts housing project had to be designated as defense

housing in order to be completed. This status required the housing be reserved for white-

 

9 In addition to the map (Figure 5.6), see also the completed public housing project at the bottom right-hand
corner of Figure 5.10 for reference.

211

only war defense workers and military families (Texas Historical Commission 1988,
Ghirardo 2003). A chain-link and brick fence was erected to separate the white housing
project from the predominantly-black surrounding neighborhoods (Ghirardo 2003).
Although a notorious slum neighborhood was cleared, it did not benefit those who
formerly had lived in that neighborhood because of their forced displacement. The

housing project remained all-white until the end of legal racial segregation in 1964.

Declining State of the Community

The struggles for F reedmen’s Town and San Felipe Courts continued into the
19705 and 19805, as the community physically eroded with declining home ownership
and declining level of services provided by the city. By 1980 the inhabitants of the Fourth
Ward were largely renters, elderly, black, and poor (Bullard 1987). (See Table 5.2 - Table
5.5.) The emerging new demographic patterns, and the rising number of residents that
were renters, impaired the strength and stability of the community and furthered its
decline. It also made the residents of the Fourth Ward increasingly prone to displacement,
at a time when the city and developers began to engage in new efforts to capitalize on the
areas’ ideal near-downtown location.

During the 19705, seeking to legitimize the destruction and demolition of the
Fourth Ward neighborhood, local newspaper editors and city leaders would describe the
area as a ‘blighted neighborhood’ or as a ‘bleak collection of shacks’ (Feagin 1988).
Although many houses had fallen into disrepair, because of absentee landlords and failure

of the city to provide services, a vibrant community held together by various religious

212

and community organizations was desperately attempting to hold on to what was left of
their neighborhood.

As a mid-19705 evaluation by the city’s Planning department revealed, the
provision of public services to the Fourth Ward andits minority population continued to
be below average (City of Houston 1979). As well as containing many old and
inadequate sewer lines, one of the sewer districts serving the area was operating far above
capacity and the area had serious storm drainage and flooding problems (Feagin 1988).
Basic infrastructure facilities in the central city had been inadequately maintained and
were aging rapidly. In a 1978 federal development grant application, city officials even
admitted how deteriorated the central city neighborhoods had become:

The city, in its efforts to keep up with the tremendous grth of population and

land areas away from the inner city, has been unable to maintain and upgrade the

infrastructure of the inner city. These inner-city neighborhoods (lying in the
intermediate zone between the Central Business District and the outlying fi-inge)
are plagued by inadequate infrastructures (including unpaved streets, inadequate
water and sewer capacity, nonexistent street lighting, decaying telephone and
electrical lines) which are not adequately maintained and which negate locational
advantages these areas may have to attract private investment (City of Houston

1978,p.12)

The San Felipe Courts public housing project became predominantly-black,
following desegregation in 1964, and was renamed the Allen Parkway Village (APV).
The condition of the sturdy and well-built units began to deteriorate in the 19605 and
continued to decline through the 19705 and 19805, with decreasing funds available for
repairs. Local government funds were directed away from the housing project allowing
deterioration to progress at an accelerated rate (Cuff 1985). By the late 19705, the land

values in downtown were soaring and the strategic location of the APV public housing

project once again put the area into a new land conflict, as it was now again an attractive

213

potential development site. HACH utilized a strategy used by other housing authorities to
deceptively exaggerate the poor conditions of the housing project. They let recently
vacant housing units remain empty (not replacing outgoing residents even when there
were large numbers of people on public housing waiting lists), letting the units fall prey
to vandalism, and perhaps most importantly, failing to repair the dwellings. In addition,
the housing authority would board up units along major thoroughfares, such as the Allen
Parkway, to create the idea of the housing project as an ‘eyesore’ to citizens of Houston
(Cuff 1985, Ghirardo 2003). As citizens would journey to downtown from Houston’s
most affluent residential areas west of F reedmen’s Town, they would encounter signs of
physical decay and neglect that to them would appear beyond repair. HACH hoped these
actions would create the public pressure they needed to tear down the project and develop
the land at a higher use and rent.

Moreover, beginning largely in the mid-19705, the housing authority actively
selected Orientals, mostly refugees from Vietnam, over blacks in the process of selecting
new residents. It was assumed that in the event that the housing project could be
demolished, destroying a housing project that housed Oriental refiigees would arouse less
opposition and cause less political fallout in Houston, than demolishing a complex
housing Afi'ican-Americans (Bullard 1992).

In 1977 HACH began seeking approval to demolish the Allen Parkway Village
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), thereby making the
units ineligible for federal money for repairs and further compounding the difficulties
experienced in the area. By 1985 over 50% of the units at Allen Parkway Village were
vacant as the city’s housing authority would not fill vacant units (Cuff 1985). Many

214

residents and activists have long maintained that there has been a specific developer or
business leader behind the pressure to clear the APV (Ghirardo 2003). Tremendous
speculation has plagued this area as many developers have seen the Fourth Ward and
Allen Parkway Village as the next big development area in Houston.

In addition, as discussed in the chapter on Houston, despite the city’s claim to
minimal government involvement, the private sector has historically been extensively
subsidized. In the case of Houston’s redevelopment efforts during the late-19705, it was
the developers who did not pay for the full costs associated with the land clearing and
preparation for developments in neighborhoods proximate to the downtown. In the Fourth
Ward area surrounding APV, landlords made deals with the Director of Planning and
Development, Efaim S. Garcia, to have the local and federal government pay large
amounts of money to “clear and improve the land” (Ghirardo 2003, p. 107). The
taxpayers here again have paid a large portion of this land clearance and redevelopment.
However, with the real estate bust of the 19805, pressure for development in the Fourth
Ward and Allen Parkway Village diminished temporarily.

Looking back to the 19805, several researchers have identified various signs and
events that signaled the massive redevelopment of the Fourth Ward was near at hand
(Bullard 1987). The first was the decision by HACH to demolish the Allen Parkway
Village, which originally covered more than thirty-seven acres. Second was the decision
by the Harris County Hospital district to relocate the medical facilities from the Jefferson
Davis Hospital to a new location in northeast Houston in the late 19805. This historic
building, built in 193 8, was the site of the nation’s first trauma center and helped provide

quality healthcare to those in the area, and specifically the African-American community.

215

The building sat vacant until being demolished in the mid-19905 and the site is currently
being used for the construction of a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Another important development was the lifting by the EPA of a sewer moratorium in the
inner-city and the completion of a new city street sewage treatment plant that would
greatly increase the capacity for inner-city development. All of these events, as well as
shifls in the consumer economy and labor markets, once again placed added pressure on

this historic near-downtown community.

Recent Pressures for Development & Conflicts of Space

Beginning largely in the mid—19905, with a whole new intensity, the local
government of Houston began focusing on redeveloping its downtown through a series of
projects and physical improvement initiatives, as discussed in chapter three. With a new
interest in downtown residential living emerging in the 19905, the demand for land in
Houston’s downtown and surrounding areas began to increase. This new interest in
downtown living became evident with a growing number of new construction projects
such as upscale loft and townhouse construction in downtown, and south and west of
downtown. The increased demand for near-downtown housing placed renewed pressured
on historic Freedmen’s Town. Residents were brought into a new round of conflicts over
land with developers and the city government, whose sole interest was the physical and
social upgrading of this ideal near-downtown location. Since this period in the mid-
19905, Freedmen’s Town has experienced private-sector ‘block-busting’ and locally-
driven urban renewal programs, as the original homes were cleared for development and

new, upscale housing projects were initiated in the area.

216

Allen Parkway Village

In 1988 the APV was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the San
Felipe Courts Historic District (Texas Historical Commission 1988). With rising demand
for downtown and surrounding property again in the early to mid—19905, pressure once
again increased upon this historic public housing project. In 1995 a formal request for
demolition was submitted to HUD. In June 1996 the residents of APV were forcibly
evicted from their public housing units with 250 armed officers. By September 1996
demolition was approved for 700 units while 300 were to remain for rehabilitation. In
1993 HACH was granted a $36 million federal HOPE VI grant to be used to complete the
new housing project that would total 500 units—half the number of housing units
available in the original project. The new public housing project would consist of 236
rehabilitated units in the existing residential buildings and 264 newly constructed
residential units (Housing Research Foundation 2001).

During the demolition project nearly 400 human remains were discovered among
burial shafts. The remains are believed to be part of a local African-American cemetery
dating from 1879 to 1908. These were thought to be part of the original removal of buried
remains that occurred during the original construction of the public housing project in the
early 19405. This further angered the African-American community as well as the
decision to remove the remaining bodies in order to continue the projects (Houston
Progressive 2000). The remaining original housing units sat vacant for over two and a
half years before being restored and remodeled. The destruction of this community and
the plight of its residents is a continuing story in the Fourth Ward as development

pressures continue to increase.

217

With HOPE VI funds to provide rent subsidies in other parts of the city and to
further de-concentrate public housing, the story of Allen Parkway Village has come to a
short pause while the new residents wait to see the outcome of the upgrading of the rest
of the Fourth Ward. With the number of units now available at less than half of what the
original housing project totaled, there are still large amounts of land that have not been

developed. Plans for this land are not known specifically but may likely be sold from the

housing authority to the city or developers (Figure 5.15).

 

Figure 5.15 - New public housing construction of the Historic Oaks of Allen
Parkway Village (Source: Author)

218

Historic Structures & Preservation Attempts

Although the city and the local leaders initially gave the impression that they were
supportive of historic preservation, this appears to not have been the case. On the one
hand, the historical significance of various Fourth Ward structures and the cultural and
historic resources of the community are being promoted by the developers and the city in
their redevelopment of the Fourth Ward. This includes the placement of various historical
markers and a historic trail through the Freedmen’s Town area (Stull & Lee 2003). At the
same time however, in order to allow for the new upscale developments, what has been
necessary is the large-scale destruction of the historic structures that originally made up
the Fourth Ward and Freedmen’s Town. In addition, it has also not been only the
buildings that were involved in this physical upgrading process, as the whole community
has been torn apart and its residents displaced. Historic preservation, in this very limited
sense, has only been pursued in the effort of capitalizing on the historical significance of
the neighborhood while in the revitalization process the actual historical fabric of the
community has been destroyed and the original, lower-income minority residents of the
community replaced with new upper—income and white homeowners.

Within this context, four original ‘shotgun-style’ homes from the Fourth Ward are
being moved to different parts of the city to be displayed for their architectural, cultural,
and historical significance (Houston Historic 2003). One of the cottages is on display in
the Sam Houston Park, the location of several other historically significant homes from
early Houston, including the home of Rev. Jack Yates (Figure 5.16 - Figure 5.18). It turns
out that the original four historic ‘shotgun—style’ homes were on pieces of property

acquired by Larry S. and Sherry Davis, the largest developers in the Fourth Ward (Hill
219

2002). Although they were possibly interested in historic preservation itself, it is also
likely that these developers used the preservation of these four homes as a way of
limiting local political backlash and making themselves appear more community-
friendly, while clearing the land of the extensive number of historic structures on the site.
These developers of the Urban Lofts townhomes (www.mbanlofiscom) are the largest in
number of housing units in this section of the Fourth Ward and have been involved in the
destruction of dozens of original housing units. These new units have all been built
within the last five years, and with an average price of approximately $225,000 they are

well out of the range of the original F reedmen’s Town residents.

 

Figure 5.16 — Historic cottage moved from the Fourth Ward in 2002 by developer
Larry Davis in preparation for the construction of upscale housing. The cottage was
placed within Sam Houston Park with other historic homes of the area including the
home of the Reverend John Henry ‘Jack’ Yates, pastor of the Antioch Baptist
Church, whose home was also originally in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)

220

 

59715.5 T
D

$

Fourth Ward Cottage

   

This house was mm ed from its location at 809 Robin Street
in Houston's Fourth Ward (Freedmen's Town) to this site in
the fall 01’2002. It is at least as old as 1866. when records
indicate that it was occupied by Charles Englehard and his
family. who purchased the land on which the house sat in
1858. Parts of the house are likely much older than that.
although archival and architectural research are still taking
place to determine the building's exact age. It is known.
however. that the house is the oldest documented "w orking
man house" in Houston.

.J “EFT“:H;

T! I

By the turn of the century it was part of the thriving African
American neighborhood known as "Freedmen's Town".
which has been a major hub for black education. business
and culture from emancipation until the present day (for
another Freedman's Town house. see the Yates House across
the Park). The house is similar in several ways to Acadian- ‘ .

 

I. style houses in Louisiana. although on Robin Street it w as
surrounded by late 19‘ -century "shotgun houses". which
many scholars believe are based on African and Atro-
Caribbean building styles.

I The Heritage Society intends an exhaustive study of the house

and will use it to demonstrate the changing demographics in
ih -
Houston in the late 19" and early 20 centuries.

h

 

 

Figure 5.17 - Placard describing the historical importance of the Fourth Ward cottage.
(Source: Author)

00.43001

. '. ...!

lillllllllllllis! ..1 ......
""" "mm

    

Figure 5.18 - The home of Rev. John Henry ‘Jack’ Yates also moved to Sam
Houston Park from Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)

221

The city of Houston is well-known for having some of the weakest historical
preservation ordinances in the country. In 1999, then-Mayor Lee Brown called for a
replacement of the weak 1995 preservation ordinance. This has proved difficult as
property rights associations see any stricter guidelines as an infringement on personal
liberty, while local developers want less government involvement in building policies in
general (Allers 2002). Currently, any person planning to alter the exterior of, add on to,
or demolish structures within the city’s historic districts must first apply for a Certificate
of Appropriateness with the city’s Archaeological and Historical Commission prior to
beginning of work. After the Certificate of Appropriateness is either granted or denied,
the property owner has 90 days in which to either comply with or completely disregard
the recommendations of the Commission. After the 90 days the owner may do whatever
they please with the property including its demolition (KPFT News 2002, Bryant 2004).
Given that Houston does not have formal zoning or a plan, the lax preservation
ordinances are not surprising.

In addition, even when the proper paperwork appears to be filled out, errors have
often occurred and caused the inappropriate demolition of historic structures. In July
2004, Sixth Ward residents awoke to find the historic home at 1713 Lubbock Street
demolished and completely removed (Figure 5.19). In this case the owner of the property,
an investment firm, had filled out a permit for demolition and the permit received a hold
because of its location within a historical district. According to the city’s Planning and
Development Department, a “city worker noticed the hold on the permit and called to see
if it could be lifted, and permission was given to issue the [demolition] permit” (Bryant
2004, p. 5). Although the department says it will do its best to correct the current system

222

in place, the damage has already been done for this historic Sixth Ward neighborhood.
Ward resident and officer of the Neighborhood Association, Larissa Lindsay even spends
every Monday studying the pages of approved city permits and never saw anything
regarding this structure. Other similar cases of ‘late-night demolitions’ have been retold

in the Fourth Ward and have continued to weaken the fabric of Houston’s historic

communities.

 

Figure 5.19 - Cleared residential site at 1713 Lubbock Street in the historic Sixth
Ward. (Source: Author)

In this Sixth Ward neighborhood, also recently experiencing intense pressure for
upscale redevelopment (in fact only one block away on Lubbock Street), historic homes
continue to face the threat of demolition. After waiting 90 days since their demolition
request was denied, owners of a historic home constructed in 1885 had the home at 1814

Lubbock Street razed in early September 2005 for the construction of a new upscale

223

home. Similar to F reedmen’s Town, the near-downtown location of the historic Sixth
Ward has also made these homes attractive for redevelopment. As noted by the owner of
the home, Maria Isabel, “People want to move here because of the location, not because
they want to refurbish an old house” (Gray 2005, p. 17). The demolition of historic
homes such as these will certainly continue in this, and other near-downtown
neighborhoods, as the demand for near-downtown locations, particularly by upper-
income residents, continues to increase.

With the constant threat of upscale residential developments encroaching upon
Freedmen’s Town, many residents and community leaders have feared that various
accidental fires of historic structures are in fact not accidents at all, but are possibly set
intentionally by various parties interested in the acquisition of property and construction
of upscale developments in the area. Many residents fear that developers are searching
for many ways to displace residents, including the possible arson of community
structures, in addition to various questionable demolition techniques already discussed. In
late January 2005 a fire broke out nearly destroying the historic Bethel Baptist Church in
Freedmen’s Town. This church structure was built in the early 19005 after being founded
by the Rev. Jack Yates in 1896 after he left the Antioch Missionary Baptist. Although
heavily damaged, the building was not destroyed (Figure 5.20). But within only a few
hours of the fire being under control and nearly extinguished, a bulldozer from the city
had arrived to demolish the structure. Quick acting local community members arrived

just in time to spare the historic structure temporarily (Rodriguez 2005a).

224

 

t- _ ..

Figure 5.20 — Burned-out shell of the Bethel Baptist Church in Freedmen’s Town
(Source: Author)

Once again, the city was prepared to destroy the building without any thought to
its historical significance or to whether an investigation into the cause of the fire should
take place. The city was not intending to miss a more-legal demolition and land clearance
of a site in Freedmen’s Town. The church is considering rebuilding the historic structure
if possible, but upscale lofts now surround the site and the majority of the congregation
members no longer live in the area (Figure 5.21 - Figure 5.23). From the initial
investigation into the cause of the fire, it was speculated that it might have been caused
by arson, and many in the community suggested major developers in the area were
behind the fire (Rodriguez 2005b). It was finally concluded that the fire was most likely

set by accident by a homeless man attempting to stay warm (Hewitt 2005). This most

225

recent case of the destruction of this historic and cultural icon of the once—dominant

African-American community has only renewed memories of the constant threats that

continue to besiege the historic fabric of Freedmen’s Town.

 

Figure 5.21 -— Construction of upscale lofts surrounding the burnt-out Bethel Baptist
Church (Source: Author)

226

 

Figure 5.22 — Construction of upscale lofts surrounding the burnt-out Bethel Baptist
Church (Source: Author)

 

Figure 5.23 — Construction of upscale lofts surrounding the burnt-out Bethel Baptist
Church (Source: Author)

227

In fact, several structures in the area have fallen at the hands of arsonists,
including the historic Good Hope Missionary Church in February 1997 (Bardwell and
Nissimov 1997). Established in 1872 the church had built several wooden frame
structures until the building of its two-story gothic brick structure in 1929. Investigators
eventually determined the cause of the fire was arson but an exact motive or perpetrator
could not be determined (Villafranca 1997). Investigations into these cases of arson have
largely come up empty, but many have speculated that private developers have been
behind these cases in their continual development pressure upon the community as the
land becomes increasingly valuable.

Residents and community activists are also struggling to save pieces of the
Freedmen’s Town Historic District in the form of bricks. Several streets in Freedmen’s
Town still bear the original bricks that made up the original streets of Freedmen’s Town
when it was initially settled by freed slaves. Some streets have been covered with
concrete and cement with only small portions of the underlying bricks visible, but over
one mile of Andrews Street is almost still completely exposed in the original bricks
(Figure 5.24 - Figure 5.27). The brick streets were hand-laid by the original residents in
the late nineteenth century, because city officials refused to provide services to the
district (Harkinson 2004). Andrews is believed to be the only public brick street in
Houston built without any help from the city. Residents now fear the city and developers
have no interest in preserving the brick streets, as the bricks are quickly being dug up for
new residential developments. Community activist Catherine Roberts says “the

developers don’t care” about trying to save the bricks and that the city has constantly

228

worked against her efforts to save the streets and their historical significance (Harkinson

2004, p. 2).

 

=1. ‘\
Figure 5.24 — Remaining original bricks partially covered by recent concrete and
destroyed by local developers (Source: Author)

I l .
N» . .
‘ \
\

 

Figure 5.25 — Remaining original brick street in Freedmen’s Town (Source: Author)
229

l
., ‘~*_L .
I III Ilhfi
. "» ‘ "
V V '" a ‘n‘. _-:‘
~v' 1'

‘fl

. ‘1 P

.

 

Figure 5.27 - Remaining original bricks partially covered by recent concrete and
destroyed by local developers (Source: Author)

230

One hope, in this environment of general disinterest in historic preservation,
might be found with the preservation of the original structure for Gregory School in the
Fourth Ward. Plans have been approved by the city, and funds have been acquired, to
redevelop the Gregory School building into a Houston public library branch and African-
American Archival and Cultural Center (Billingsley 2003). The historic Gregory Schools
first opened in the 18705, providing education for blacks in several different locations
before opening this building at 1300 Victor Street in Freedmen’s Town in 1926. The city
had acquired the property from the school district in 1999, after the structure had been
closed and boarded up since 1983. The structure had physically deteriorated and fallen
victim to vandals (Figure 5.28 & Figure 5.29) (Smith 2003). The Gregory School
building has been designated a State Archaeological Landmark by the State Historical
Commission, which is the highest historical landmark classification that can be placed on
a building. Under this classification, it is stipulated that “the property cannot be removed,
altered, damaged, salvaged or excavated without a permit from the Texas Historical
Commission” (Texas Historical Commission 2004). This extremely high level of
protection for this historic structure has ensured its preservation. Although the deals
regarding the financing of this project were finalized in late 2003, as of July 2005 there

was still no work of any kind occurring at the site, and its future remains in jeopardy.

231

    

Figure 5.28 - Boarded-up Gregory School set to reopen Houston public library branch and
African-American Archival & Cultural Center (Source: Author)

4

b

v E..- 5.. v.
,1

   
     

- “‘MWy-l; , g
-. m: .. 3

 
      

. ~ ‘ ’ ‘ -. . .
‘-"‘7. * I ‘__‘ ' ' av; - .. ‘

Figure 5.29 — Back of the boarded-up Gregory School set to reopen Houston public library
branch and African-American Archival & Cultural Center (Source: Author)

232

Issues Regarding Various Land Holdings

Within the past ten years, Freedmen’s Town has experienced several interesting
situations dealing with various land holdings and their acquisitions. The parties involved
range from commercial businesses, developers, and public organizations, to the city’s
independent school district and private non-profit organizations. As redevelopment
pushes its way into an area, the most susceptible to displacement are renters, as they do
not own their land and their landlords are often looking for higher profits (Sumka 1979a,
London 1984, Atkinson 2000). This causes renters to be in constant danger of eviction
such as what was seen in Freedmen’s Town with such a high percentage of renters, many
of whom have rented the same cottage for nearly fifty years (Verhovek 1998). In an area
now dominated by townhomes built by Perry Homes, in 1998 nearly 100 families, mostly
renters, were moved by the city because of the new developments that were being built
on the site. In addition to losing their community social support network, many of these
residents also moved into dwellings that were considered to be in even worse structural
condition (Snyder 2000).

Homeowners are also susceptible as they may be taken advantage of if they do not
understand the complete value of their land or the process of selling their home. Various
reports of homeowners being approached by developers, or other parties interested in
purchasing their land, were very common in the mid- to late-19905, and it continues to
this day. Living in her small white house for over 45 years, long-time Fourth Ward
resident Lucinda Campbell said that she has personally been approached by developers

interested in her property but that their prices are “insultingly low.” “They have one price

233

for the land if you’re white, and another if you’re black like me” said the 74 year-old
homeowner (Snyder 2000, p. 1) Seeing the type of development that is coming into the
neighborhood, she believes that city officials have purposely neglected this area to make
it more “vulnerable for private development aimed at an affluent market” (Snyder 2000,
p. 1).

In the mid-19905 local developers, with the assistance of city of Houston officials,
established the Houston Renaissance, a private non-profit organization that was created to
facilitate the redevelopment of the Fourth Ward. Its main role was to acquire property for
redevelopment (Snyder 2000, Shmidt 2001). At this time, the city organized a plan to
develop 80 blocks in the Fourth Ward into low-and moderate-income single family
housing and gave the task of purchasing the necessary land with public money to the
Houston Renaissance (Sarnoff 2000). In a form of blockbusting, long-time Fourth Ward
residents such as Joseph Caronna tell the story of being approached by members of the
Houston Renaissance and being told that their property was to be developed into low-
income housing and that the city would take their land by eminent domain if necessary
(Shmidt 2001).

The use of eminent domain by members of the Houston Renaissance may have
scared many landowners into selling very early in the redevelopment process and at a
very low price. For instance, Caronna’s property was valued at $55,000 from 1990 to
1994, but then in 1994, the year before Houston Renaissance began buying property, the
value dropped to $33,000. By the year 2000, now in the hands of Houston Renaissance,
Caronna’s property was valued at $65,000 and by 2001 it was valued at $130,000. If
developed at the same level and value as the adjacent property—townhomes averaging

234

$225,000/unit—Caronna’s property purchased from him at $65,000 in 1999 (at $5 per
square foot) would be worth over $468,000 ($36 per square foot) (Shmidt 2001).

After acquiring extensive amounts of land for redevelopment with public funds,
but unable to secure the funding for low- and moderate-income housing, the Houston
Renaissance was forced to file for bankruptcy in 1999. At this time, the property held by
the Houston Renaissance was transferred to the Houston Housing Finance Corporation,
which began to sell the property for $16 per square foot in order to recoup the financial
losses of the Houston Renaissance. A small portion of the property, approximately 20
properties, was transferred to the Housing Authority of the City of Houston for future use
to build affordable housing, while the remaining property was sold to developers. The
very low prices at which the land was sold, $16 per square foot, especially compared to
downtown and Midtown land values, which often averaged $115-125 per square foot,
made private development in this once-risky part of town now very attractive with
minimal risks.

A small unique success story involving affordable housing did emerge within the
last few years. Upscale, custom-home builder Roke and Wright has teamed up with the
community group and non-profit Avenue CDC in an attempt to provide high-quality low-
income housing in Houston’s inner-city neighborhoods. Admitting that this form of
community reinvestment is not profitable for them, Andy Suman of Roke and Wright
Builders says they do it to “give something back to the community” and to prove that this
type of work of building affordable housing can be done and done well (Kuffner 2004, p.

2).

235

However, the experience of building affordable housing units is a little different
in the Fourth Ward, where builders have encountered difficulty in attempting to initiate
moderate- and lower-income housing projects. Mike Karm of Larus Builders has teamed
up with area CDCs and built 128 affordable homes, but says that the city of Houston is
the biggest obstacle in getting the homes built since the city makes the special permitting
process very difficult and user-unfriendly. In reference to the affordable housing market,
Karm argues that “[i]f the city could get behind the builders, we could easily build 5,000
homes a year in this market” (Kuffner 2004, p. 2). This is not surprising in the context of
Houston, however, where the city has been traditionally disinterested in the lower end,
affordable housing market, with the local officials arguing that market forces should lead
the way in determining the development of housing throughout the city. In this section it
is clear that the upper-end of the housing market in Houston, the market segment that has
a history of receiving extensive public subsidies, is approached very differently by local

public officials.

HISD in the Fourth Ward

Various land conflicts continue in the western edge of the F reedmen’s Town
Historic District between current and past landowners, residents, and the Houston
Independent School District (HISD). The district currently operates the Gregory-Lincoln
Education Center on West Dallas Avenue, which serves as a kindergarten through eighth
grade magnet school and is one of the lowest performing schools in the district. (See
Figure 5.6 for location of school.) Recently the district was looking to expand and

revamp the current Gregory-Lincoln, while also locating a new high school for the

236

performing and visual arts at a nearby location. While Gregory-Lincoln needs significant
structural improvements, and improvements in education quality, the hi ghly-acclaimed
High School for the Performing and Visual Arts (HSPVA) is overcrowded and in need of
new facilities.

Beginning in 2002 the HISD, with the use of eminent domain, began acquiring
property in the western section of the F reemen’s Town Historic District to expand and
build the two new schools. Several difficulties resulted from this situation. First,
homeowners of the condemned properties were quickly frustrated by the lack of
communication between the district and the homeowners, and the lack of a clear and
definite plan of use for the acquired properties. As argued by Anthony Pizzitola, the
owner of a single-family home his family built in 1926, “[m]y protest here is that they’re
taking my property and cannot even tell me what they’re going to do with it; the story
keeps changing” (Sarnoff 2002, p. 1). Related to this issue is the controversy surrounding
the exact goal of building a new facility in this area. The district maintains that it is
necessary to build a modern facility to serve the students of this area in the near future;
however currently a very large majority (nearly 90%) of the students at Gregory-Lincoln
are currently bused there because of the low student-age population of this area. Most
importantly, the newest residents to this Fourth Ward area—many of those moving into
upscale lofls and townhomes—are childless or with smaller families, and therefore the
number of school-aged children in the area is anticipated to decrease.

Secondly, the source of the funds used to acquire the properties for the school
sites is another contentious issue. The acquisitions by eminent domain were being funded
with ‘surplus’ funds from a $698 million bond. When it was put up for a vote in 1998, the

237

funds were marketed as being needed to renovate and repair aging and deteriorating
inner-city schools. Although the funds were half of what independent studies felt would
be needed to accomplish the monumental task outlined for the bond, four years later in
2002, the district had surplus funds for the acquisition of private property to hopefully be
used for new schools (Schadewald 2002). The first $8 million was used to acquire land
directly to the south of the Gregory-Lincoln for the major expansion (Figure 5.30 &
Figure 5.31).

Finally, there are rumors that there is a Civil War-era cemetery underneath the
acquired property. Reports of this cemetery first appeared when the demolition began at
which time a minor archival study determined there was a strong potential that a
cemetery was located on the property. The district was also convinced that several feet of
fill dirt already on top of the cemetery would preserve and protect the remains from the
construction and heavy machines (Plocek 2004)”). To this day, nothing has been done
with the properties acquired by HISD and all of the plots currently sit vacant and fenced

with few plans for any upcoming developments.

 

'0 When the Texas Historical Commission notified the school district in 2002 that many of the buildings it
planned to tear down were eligible to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places, the district
realized that the commission had no power to stop the razing of historical buildings so the demolitions
continued.

238

 

~< ’ . . _ u

Figure 5.30 — Land south of the Gregory-Lincoln school acquired for expansion of
the current school and construction of a new high school for the visual and
performing arts. (Source: Author)

\ .
o: ’1: ~

 

Figure 5.31 —- Land south of the Gregory-Lincoln school acquired for expansion of
the current school and construction of a new high school for the visual and
performing arts. (Source: Author)

239

Physical and Social Upgrading of Freedmen’s Town

The physical upgrading in the Fourth Ward has involved the demolition of older,
historic, working-class residences, which were then replaced with new upper-income
townhomes, lofts, and single—family detached homes. The construction of these upscale
housing units has been at the expense of the original, lower-income, minority residents
whose displacement is the often-ignored side effect of redevelopment. Because of the
recent nature of some of the most significant changes taking place in Freedmen’s Town,
which have occurred after 2000, the U.S. Census data cannot completely capture the full-
scale of the physical and social upgrading that has taken place in this community. With
the majority of the new construction projects in Freedmen’s Town occurring between the
years 1996 to 2005, the 2000 Census is only able to give a partial snapshot of the extent

of the demographic changes.

Discussion of Data and Trends
The U.S. Census data for the F reedmen’s Town census tract portrays many of the

usual characteristics and trends of an area experiencing clearance and redevelopment.
Since 1970, the total population of Freedmen’s Town has declined by 76%. There is an
ethnic and racial composition shift that is evident with the decline in population. The
black representation in the census tract has decreased by 48%. The white population, on
the other hand, which made up about 8% of the population in 1990, now represents 40%
of the census tract (Table 5.2). Corresponding to the process of social upgrading, both
rates of high school and college graduates have increased. Also the percentage of families

below poverty and percentage of households that are female-headed have decreased

dramatically (Table 5.3).
240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$2.2 $3.8 8 3m $2.8 EN EN $9.: a: $2.5. 8m. 83 Sam
$~E~ $39. 8N ME. $3- a! «no $:.. P $9.8 8n 8m: 83
$2.9" $:.8 8s as; $5.2 m; 33 $3” «a. $9.8. 43 m9..." 82
$8.5 $3.? 5. $1... $81 3 3m; $3.5 a $43. 8m. 82” 2.2
3“.on _o>m_ agarwea nuance.“
.925“. €98 FNMA. _mcoaoo.2n_ 58.8805 Amwacomuv 30:8 «2335 .858 «23qu +3 can «out. mama—00
929: 2.328 25.8 8:35“. .$ -flofibu 8.835 as 82.8 :9; an _owcom .2 a E :25...
8.28.51 ”2:58 8 Eu .238» .239» g _1
S $ 8 $ «9:65. 8». .88 «3:00 95:00 New—Bugs“—
.o $ a $
m5 0mm $8.8 wmw $3.9. me. n v .NN- own. F saw
no» 13. $91.0 Ea. F $mm.m map 8.5. mmm.w 3a..
vomfi. new $5.8 ommé $9.9 3o KN- v36 83
gm; Sz $mm<m ommd $8.9 N3; - av: 95'
32......
3.05330... mm< :3an £550 xoflm mamcoo 2.23 0955 0 ..EE. :30...
_o $ .0 $ 8 $ 95,559.“.

 

 

 

Table 5.2 - Population and race data for the Freedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-2000.

(U .8. Census Bureau 1972, 1983, 1993, 2005)

Table 5.3 — Education and poverty data for the Freedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-2000.
(“Calculated of the population that is age 25+) (U.S. Census Bureau 1972, 1983, 1993,

2005)

241

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

em $5.5 «00.9» $3.5 own. .3 $3Ko 81mm» $ 5.0.... nmnw coon
. . Jl . . .
8N $3.3” one o» $5 mm mmw 5 $rm om man on» $5 om. 5N» 3a..
58 $8 mm mom mm $5 mm vow a $3 on vov 3» $9. a». 8mm 82
_| . _l. .|I.._|_|l . il l
5m (2 $2 $3 3” E.” 3» $8 om 5o mm» $9. em RN» char
oEooE 088E Egon o:_m> Ami—on 82
9:09: 35.8 20:832.. 5285. 935 E3“. 320
Began «ES m8. 8.8: £6 82 as .o $ m an 2 Banana. :28: £5 3.2.8 82 «on; mam—Bo
an {.5 2 8.3.63 9:5 8.32.. a 83.38.
233 m o 2 Banana m5 co $ 9:8: 3:5 9.38: 5:8 «5 co $ n. ma 5 $9 :30...
9:2on ...: $ wEooc. m mm 980:. _ 83:80 to. 0 “com 890 a m 0
m an 2:85 2028301 .550 _o :98: 9.59.5609."—
wEocmmgI Samo com «:30 con. 2028301 c.2002 Logo Co o:_m> c9902 :3va
. c982 . m5_m> :33: .
n a fig n umwéw Cm $3.3 mum L .3 we n 0mm.” mm mam
LF. V R 03.3 50;. $9.? 85 ”3.9” mm in; 3 3w.—
” 3..“ no Lmdr vwm $3.3 SNN L .3 n _..m a no. V v9 Smd
n m.” 3.. www.mr mum $9.3 RON n 3.3 v vN a gem.” m9 o—md
$2.6m“. $5.6m;
mEnEEu mEnEau 86:80 85:80 9:5 85:80 2:5 om.— msmcw
BoiEoo . E8w> 9m EED . 2E3 , . , . 2E3 u ... 0
22950 9m :9sz Em @5261 5:30 9m 9:30:
95.03 .9: 2:5 95:01 9:me 95:01 :30...
m_: mcgomn usage 0 Lemon zmczmzcn vmaaoo amz.m=c3 ooaaooo smeamgcs umaaooo was
a. 3 QED , I \o > 9:26: $ . O @5301 -coEmm mEmzoI -6:st _ .r 9:05.009."—
9:30:
95:01 $ $
6.0% .o $

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.4 — Housing data for the Freedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-2000. (***

Will not add up to 100% because of the vacant hous

1972, 1983, 1993, 2005)

ts) (U.S. Census Bureau

mg um

Table 5.5 — Income and money data for the Freedmen’s Town census tract, 1970-

2000. (U.S. Census Bureau 1972, 1983, 1993, 2005)

242

One of the critical drivers of urban revitalization is reflected in the demand for
upscale housing units near the downtown, particularly by a large number of professionals
(‘white-collar’ employees) moving into the area. Freedmen’s Town also reflects this
demographic shift, with an increase in the percentage of professionals living in the area
increasing from less than 2% in 19703, to nearly 40% by the year 2000 (Table 5.3).

As part of the physical upgrading of F reedmen’s Town, many housing units have
been cleared out accounting for a loss in 2,014 total housing units since 1970. The area
also still consists largely of renter-occupied housing units instead of owner-occupied as
would have been expected in the process of redevelopment. The percentage of housing
units lacking plumbing has also decreased attributing to the physical upgrading process
(Table 5.4).

Evidence of social upgrading in Freedmen’s Town is also observed with the
increase in real per capita income and median household income as a percentage in
comparison to the city-wide figures (Table 5.5). What must also be noticed though is that
these income and money values all still fall well below the city value for each respective
variable. For instance, even with recent redevelopment, the 2000 median value of owner-
occupied housing units, median household income, and per capita income in Freedmen’s
Town were 67% of the city-wide values for each respective variable. However, given that
significant changes in the community have taken place since the Census Bureau had
collected this data, these figures under-state the scale of social upgrading that has actually
taken place in this community.

As can be expected of a community in the process of physical and social

upgrading, as of the 2000 Census F reedmen’s Town displays only several, but not all, of

243

the characteristics expected of an area in change. For instance, it would be expected that
more of the housing units would be owner-occupied with a much lower vacancy rate (for
such an ideal near-downtown location). Instead 3.68% of the total housing units are
owner-occupied and the tract has 24% of its housing units vacant. The high percentage of
housing units that are vacant and that are still rental reveals how early in the process this
data has captured the changes taking place in this community. The visual images are in
many fundamental ways more reflective of the physical and social upgrading that has
taken place in this community over the last decade.

Although not true in all cases, racial and ethnic change is often experienced in
areas of urban revitalization. In a city as racially and ethnically segregated as Houston,
the case of Freedmen’s Town is expected to follow similar patterns of segregation. With
a current representation of the census tract at 40% white, up from only 8.4% in 1990, the
growth of the white population in the area is expected to continue increasing. As the pace
of redevelopment increases, data of the 2010 Census will most likely show marked
increases in the white population, income and education levels, and an increase in the

number of owner-occupied housing units.

Current Upscale Developments
The most visible elements of physical upgrading occurring in Freedmen’s Town

are evident in the construction of numerous upscale lofts, townhomes, and
condominiums. Priced well out of the range of the original residents of the area, and
being in close proximity to downtown, ‘white-collar’ professionals who work in
Houston’s central business district are purchasing the majority of these new units. As

discussed earlier, the land for these developments has either been acquired by the city and

244

sold to developers, or purchased by developers themselves directly from previous land
owners, whether landlords or home owners. The rapid grth of the upscale housing
market in this area has placed even more added pressure on surrounding land occupied by
original, pre-redevelopment Freedmen’s Town residents. This will likely result in the
eventual displacement of all the original residents, through either evictions or their
inability to afford to live in this area.

The largest builder in Freedmen’s Town so far has been the Urban Lofts
construction and development firm (www.urbanlofts.com). This loft development is
easily identifiable with its corrugated metal surfaces and various vibrant colors. This
particular developer has also been successful in selling these exact dwelling designs in
the central cities of Dallas, Atlanta, and Las Vegas. With construction starting in the late
19905, the development in Freedmen’s Town has been considered very successful. By
March 2005 approximately 155 units had been built, with only 12 still being unsold.
Another 30 were completed in late summer 2005 and nearly all of which sold. The units
are mostly between 1,800 and 2,000 square feet and are selling in a price range between
$200,000 and $225,000 (roughly $111-112 per square foot) (Urban Lofts 2005). This
development has grown to cover much of the east side of F reedmen’s Town, as well as a
number of small clusters scattered throughout the community. (See Figure 5.32 for map
of property locations.) In some areas, the new lofts surround the original housing units
and structures of the area (See Figure 5.33 - Figure 5.35). With the large scale of
construction of the Urban Lofts, which are likely attracting ‘professionals’ who work
downtown, this development has played an extensive role in the physical as well as social

upgrading of Freedmen’s Town.

245

 
   
  

 

 

Buffalo lam Park
Allan Parkway
9 ., m "I
i " “ 4’
M“ m
Sculn'nr .— C/
5; W, I.II .5 a «.4
Animus u- u
Rul'hvon 9 f L. J O.
i - arrsa ”
vaolond - ; A
g Victor 3 i’ {if ‘63,}..‘0 “”9
Gray... ‘ .0 I)”
1

 

Figure 5.32 — Map of the locations of the new Urban Lofts townhome construction
(Source: www.urbanlofts.com)

’ ‘ .\ ’ ' -. - .‘ - .
. . , {9.5 . my \' 4* , . -- ‘ -..... ‘ i
V ”t » .'_'v N ' ' ...Ib " w‘. * “‘ “ ' . ; ~' I -. “a 4 -. - ...-Am ~ 1 (I

Figure 5.33 - Construction of new, upscale townhomes of Urban Lofts. (Source:
Author)

246

 

  

/~

iii-fly. .11.»),

Figure 5.34 — New townhomes across the street from a few of the remaining original
housing in Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)

 

Figure 5.35 - New, upscale townhomes of Urban Lofts. (Source: Author)
247

In addition, there are several new planned developments in this area. The large
development firm of Camden Property Trust is set to break ground in mid-2005 on a 9.1
acre multifamily complex immediately to the south of the main Urban Lofis development
(Figure 5.36). Constructed in two phases, the 618 apartment, four-story urban complex
will be worth $70 million (Dawson 2004). New, smaller developments are also evident
throughout the area. The smaller Crosby Lofts development has built six units, one of
which remains priced at $289,000 for 2,350 square feet (Figure 5.37 & Figure 5.38). A
76-room Best Western hotel was also built in the fall of 2000 on the north side of
Freedmen’s Town, just west of I-45. While land was selling for $50 or $100 per square

foot in downtown locations, and $25 in Midtown, this 40,000 square foot site in

Freedmen’s Town was purchased for $7.50 per square foot (Cook 1999b).

 

,_ . u .. .‘w. _.

Figure 5.36 — Land held by Camden Property Trust to be used for a $70 million,
multifamily complex on the far eastern edge of Freedmen’s Town. (Source: Author)

248

 

    

Crosby Lofts
Citycenter Construction

I Urban Residences with city-view terraces
I Three bedrooms, Three and a half Baths
l Large Contemporary windows
I Open floor plans. High ceilings. Natural lights

Select your finishes Now!
PIC—Construction Prices
PHASE ONE-SOLD OUT
PHASE TOW only one left

728, 730, 732, 722, 726 RUTHVEN SOLD

For more information contact Re/Max Metro David Boyd @ 713.528.1800
OR MOBILE 713,249,3232
Or David DeLaunay @ 713 528 6900 ext. 1

www.cificenterdevelopmentcom

Figure 5.37 — Informational flyer of a newly constructed Crosby Lofts for sell on the
east side of Freedmen’s Town.

249

 

Figure 5.38 — Newly constructed Crosby Lofts (Source: Author)

Conclusion

The city of Houston’s recent downtown revitalization has increased pressure for
upscale residential living in the city’s core. In this process however, many low-income,
minority neighborhoods are facing considerable redevelopment stresses—as
demonstrated with the case of the traditional African-American Freedmen’s Town. While
generally marketed to the public as positive, downtown revitalization initiatives do not
just involve the physical upgrading of communities. The closer examination of this
Fourth Ward area demonstrates that a critical dimension of these programs is social
upgrading, the displacement of most of the original Afiican-American residents and their
replacement with upper-income professionals.

In Freedmen’s Town, numerous conflicts over land have occurred since the
19305. This conflict has pitted the local residents against private developers and

Houston’s local govemment. A result of these early land acquisitions, and the disregard

250

by the city for this historic community over a period of eighty years, has been a
substantial loss of the original, pre-redevelopment residents (including African-American
professionals). The accompanied demographic shifts and physical changes in the area
have been evident with decreasing home ownership rates, the decreasing overall quality
of the area in service provision and structural character of the homes, and eventually the
displacement of original residents that are replaced with upper-income professionals.
These land conflicts, and the resulting physical and social upgrading, have continued to
the present with the involvement and assistance of such groups as the Houston
Renaissance and the local school district. The displaced residents are lefi with no
relocation funds and ofien relocate to even worse living conditions, with poorer quality
housing, and perhaps more importantly, the loss of the social support network provided to
them in F reedmen’s Town. Despite the city of Houston’s new celebration of its ethnic
and historic communities, and focus on downtown revitalization, the destruction of
Freedmen’s Town and displacement of its residents are the little-discussed by-products of

Houston’s urban renaissance.

251

6 CONCLUSION

Reflecting on the Robustness of Urban Revitalization Initiatives

In attempting to revitalize central cities, various forms of physical upgrading have
been evident in U.S. urban centers over the last five decades. With the aim of removing
‘blight’ and signs of ‘physical decay’, these revitalization projects have included both
public and private initiatives, including infrastructure improvement projects, large-scale
neighborhood redevelopment, private-sector ‘block-busting’, and gentrification. In most
cases, physical upgrading is also coupled with extensive social changes in the make-up of
the neighborhoods experiencing redevelopment, generally involving the replacement of
poor, working-class residents, with wealthy, white-collar, professionals. Perhaps the most
significant negative side-effect of physical upgrading is the exclusion of the lower-
income residents that have originally occupied these neighborhoods in the revitalization
of central city neighborhoods. The case of Houston is no different from other local
initiatives—with Freedmen’s Town providing an example—as generally lower-income,
minority residents have been displaced in the name of physical upgrading and urban
revitalization.

While studies have traditionally focused on one specific physical and social
upgrading process, this thesis has shown the potential robustness of a city’s urban
revitalization program. This has included combined public and private sector
involvement in the physical and social upgrading, as well as the use of multiple tools and
techniques to facilitate the removal of populations and the redevelopment of
neighborhoods. Also important in the Houston case study have been the specific

neighborhood and built environment characteristics (the quality of the neighborhood
252

housing stock and the demographic composition) that have influenced the nature of the
physical upgrading process, or processes. The Houston case study also illustrates the
degree to which local governments can be involved in facilitating urban revitalization and
the associated displacement of lower-income populations. This is especially significant in
the Houston context, given the city’s contention that it maintains a laissez-faire
philosophy in local governance and the organization of local government.

An examination of the rent gap theory and role of ‘new urbanites’ has provided
insight into the new demand for, and supply of, inner-city housing. According to the rent
gap theory, inner-city revitalization is driven by the availability of dilapidated housing
and the fact that inner-city land has become affordable enough to encourage reinvestment
and redevelopment. At the same time so-called ‘new urbanites’ have increased demand
for inner-city housing largely with the increase in white-collar employment opportunities
in city centers with market shifts towards a service-based economy. These theories have
provided insight into the physical and social upgrading processes discussed in this thesis,

including locally-driven urban renewal, private-sector ‘block-busting’, and gentrification.

Physical and Social Upgrading

In this thesis, the examination of different processes of residential displacement in
the U.S. over the last five decades has provided a review of various physical upgrading
programs and the nature of specific displacement pressures associated with each of the
urban revitalization types. The original federal urban renewal program was established to
clear tracts of substandard or slum housing with the hope of providing higher-quality

housing for the original residents. This rarely happened as most original residents were

253

forcibly displaced and provided with minimal, if any, relocation assistance. Most
importantly, many residents were not provided with housing in the new developments as
originally proposed. Given the regularity and the repeated nature of these occurrences,
one can reasonable assume that the federal urban renewal program had a tacit policy of
purposely removing African-Americans to reduce their concentration within various parts
of the city.

Recently, cities have initiated urban renewal policies similar in purpose to the
federal programs that ended in 1974. Municipal governments have used tools such as
eminent domain to acquire private property for questionable uses, which extended
considerably beyond the traditional scope of eminent domain. These locally-driven urban
renewal programs have continued to cause the displacement of residents, to the benefit of
developers, the city, and incoming residents occupying these new, often upscale, housing
developments.

Private developers have also been actively involved in the displacement of
residents in the process of assembling large tracts of land for redevelopment. The
acquisition of developed land has often involved questionable tactics to make areas
appear less attractive in order to acquire property more easily and at lower prices. The
new projects built on the acquired land usually consist of various upscale commercial and
residential developments. In a number of U.S. cities, this process has been recently driven
by the increased demand for housing—largely by white-collar, professionals—in ideal
near-downtown locations. This new housing demand has emerged particularly in cities
that successfully transitioned to a service-based economy, as evident in New York City,

San Francisco, and Boston. Although successful at providing housing for wealthy

254

residents, private-sector ‘block—busting’ and local redevelopment projects have brought
about extensive residential displacement, particularly evident among lower-income and
minority residents.

Also important within the context of physical and social upgrading has been the
phenomenon of gentrification. In this process, comparatively inexpensive housing, in
working class neighborhoods, are occupied and refurbished by upper-income
professionals. An important aspect of this process is the availability of cheap,
architecturally-unique housing located in close proximity to concentrations of
employment or rich cultural amenities. Areas experiencing gentrification are generally in
the downtown, or surrounding neighborhoods, that maintain a rich concentration of
amenities, including museums, fine arts centers, theaters, restaurants, and night-life. This
process occurs when the attractiveness of an area increases (because of specific location
requirements, improvements in nearby amenities, or changes in consumer preferences for
specific housing type) in combination with a decline in housing value to create a new
demand for older and the architecturally-unique housing. This usually results in the
displacement of original residents, either forcibly by landlord evictions, or gradually by
being priced out of the housing market because of increasing rent or property taxes.

These processes of physical upgrading have inadvertently or advertently meant
the displacement of many original residents in the neighborhoods experiencing urban
revitalization. Cities and public officials encourage these physical improvements with a
general disregard for the original residents that will be adversely affected by these urban
revival initiatives. The original residents become displaced in the social upgrading

process that results from the redevelopment encouraged by local officials and commercial

255

interests. To many local residents, the physical upgrading may appear as a positive
indicator of local economic growth and urban vibrancy, but to displaced residents, this
social upgrading generally brings about severe hardship to those in the community that

are already marginalized.

The Houston Context

In the case of Houston, it has been shown that the city’s major redevelopment
focus has been on the downtown and surrounding areas to the west of this urban core.
Specific projects have included new hotels, sports stadiums, light rail, residential
developments, as well as infrastructure and streetscape improvements. These projects
have resulted in large-scale private investment in the commercial and residential sector of
Houston’s central city. From a broader perspective, many of these projects have revolved
around the city’s interest to be a leading urban center in the specialized services
economy. A large component of achieving this status is having a rich concentration of
urban, cultural, and commercial amenities necessary to attract corporate headquarters,
high-technology industries, specialized services, and tourism.

Another area of economic focus has been the city’s ethnic neighborhoods. Here
the city has successfully marketed various ethnic communities that are considered crucial
in developing a vibrant and dynamic city center, as evident in other major U.S. cities such
as New York City, Miami, Los Angeles and San Francisco. In Houston, however, this
marketing of ethnic groups has been a selective process, as some groups have been
excluded from the city’s new celebration of ethnicity (Vojnovic 2003b). This is clearly

evident with Houston’s Afi'ican-American community, despite the fact that this ethnic

256

group possesses some of the most historically and culturally significant resources within
the city. The destruction of F reedmen’s Town, at the same time that ethnicity and history
is being celebrated in the city, is a clear illustration of the selective acceptance of
pluralism.

In addition, for a city known for its traditional laissez-faire philosophy, Houston
has played a large part in the planning, development, and financing of many projects
crucial to downtown revitalization. This is seen in the use of tax increment reinvestment
zones in upscale areas and subsidies and public aid packages provided to local developers
for central city residential and commercial projects. Similar to federal urban renewal
programs, the city has also sold to developers, at bargain prices, private land acquired
using public funds and eminent domain. This has been most evident in Freedmen’s Town
where private land originally acquired with public money by the non-profit Houston
Renaissance was sold at below market prices to developers. These urban renewal
practices also maintain a tacit policy, similar to the federal urban renewal program, of
focusing on the clearance of minority neighborhoods, with the land being sold to private
developers, often for the construction of upscale residential housing. This is yet another
example of Houston’s ongoing contradiction between its claims of minimal local
government involvement and the scale of public intervention, in the form of public aid
and direct government subsidies, to local developers.

In terms of the success of these local policies, over the last decade there has been
considerable evidence, both visually and demographically, that Houston’s urban
revitalization and renewal program has been producing the desired outcome. This is most

clearly evident with the increased production of upscale housing in Houston’s downtown

257

and surrounding neighborhoods, and a new demand by Houston’s upper-income residents
for downtown living. Houston suburbs are now not the only part of the city experiencing
large-scale, upper-income housing construction. Gentrification in Houston has also been
successful in converting lower-income, central city neighborhoods into largely upper-
income enclaves. In addition, local developers have been successful in utilizing
questionable ‘block-busting’ techniques to cheaply acquire land for redevelopment.
However, this has also resulted in the destruction of areas of the city that maintained
ethnically mixed and historically significant neighborhoods. Buying up cheap inner-city
homes and demolishing them destroyed the social cohesion of the neighborhoods and
further lowered surrounding property values, making later rounds of land acquisition

even easier.

The Data Analysis

U.S. Census data describing population, socioeconomic, ethnic, and housing
characteristics were collected for the years 1980 and 2000. The change in these data from
1980 to 2000 was calculated for each census tract in Harris County. A principal
components analysis and K-Means clustering process assisted in grouping together
census tracts within Harris County experiencing similar characteristics of physical and
social upgrading as F reedmen’s Town and the area immediately west of downtown.

This process largely clustered together a large group of tracts west of the
downtown. Further analysis determined specific areas within this grouping that have been
experiencing different forms of physical and social upgrading since 1980. For instance

the upscale independent municipalities surrounded by Houston experienced even greater

258

increases in income while also observing a physical upgrading of their urban built
environment, with the teardown of upscale housing and their replacement with even
larger and more expensive housing. While not considered deteriorated prior to
experiencing redevelopment, these separate municipalities have experienced a very
different process of physical and social upgrading when compared to Freedmen’s Town
and surrounding neighborhoods—as these independent municipalities were originally
upscale neighborhoods that became even more exclusive.

The Heights area northwest of downtown also clustered together in this group.
This area contains older, architecturally-unique housing with attractive characteristics.
These housing characteristics, as well as its near-downtown location, encouraged
gentrification in this area, as upper-income professionals refurbished the housing units,
but in the process displaced many of the original residents. In addition, the Rice Military
area, near the upscale and exclusive River Oaks neighborhood, has also very recently
experienced forces of physical and social upgrading in combination with gentrification
and private-sector ‘block-busting’. Visual surveys of the area indicate the level and pace
of upgrading with large upscale townhomes dwarfing in size the original small,
deteriorated cottages. Many older units have been acquired and cleared, with land
remaining vacant, exerting additional downward pressure on surrounding property
values.

The historic Afi'ican-American community of Freedmen’s Town, a classic
transition zone area adjacent to Houston’s downtown, has experienced severe forces of
physical and social upgrading in the form of private-sector ‘block-busting’ and locally-

driven urban renewal. Over the past ten years, developers have been successful in quickly

259

acquiring large numbers of properties, which now form large tracts of privately held land.
As noted in the thesis, land that was acquired with the use of public money has also been
transferred to developers. These acquisitions have resulted in the construction of upscale
townhomes and lofis with the resulting displacement of many original residents. The
original residents of this area were largely lower-income and minority populations, and
further disadvantaged by being renters. They have been unable to politically organize and
stop the destruction and social upgrading of their historic community.

This research has introduced the potential complexity involved in physical and
social upgrading, which can occur in different forms, and/or in different combinations,
throughout a city at any one point in time. It appears that the most important influences in
determining what physical upgrading type, or what combination of physical upgrading
types, will take place in a community is determined by the nature of the housing stock
and the local demographic factors. While it cannot be reasonably assumed that the
multiple private and public interests involved in Houston’s urban revitalization have
conspired to enable such an effective large-scale redevelopment and displacement
program, a unique synergy has developed with the various public infrastructure
upgrading projects, financial public aid packages, large scale private sector ‘block-
busting’, and the smaller-scale gentrification processes. Within this context, the original
occupants of these downtown, and west of downtown neighborhoods, had little chance to

resist the physical and social changes taking place in Houston’s central city.

260

Freedmen’s Town

The historic Freedmen’s Town, a classic transition zone area, has been in conflict
with the city over space for over eighty years. The first significant disputes began in the
19305, as the city acquired land in the eastern part of the Fourth Ward (of which
Freedmen’s Town is apart of) for the westward expansion of Houston’s downtown. In the
early 19405, the city acquired thirty-seven more acres, by eminent domain, for the
construction of a public housing project reserved for whites. This area made up the
oldest, and historically the most significant, part of F reedmen’s Town. As the area
continued to decline physically and economically through the 19705 and 19803, the city
and private developers continued to maintain a strong interest in Freedmen’s Town
because of its near-downtown location.

Property was soon being acquired by developers, with the use of private-sector
‘block-busting’ tactics, to further lower property values and to make later acquisitions of
property easier. This particular physical upgrading process, large-scale ‘block-busting’,
likely occurred here because of the large amount of deteriorated property in the area and
the large number of renters that occupied these housing units—who were largely
powerless to stop the changes taking place in their community. In addition to the quality
of the housing stock, it was also likely that the high percentage of African-Americans in
this neighborhood discouraged whites from attempting to gentrify this area.

The city was also actively involved in purchasing land, with public money, that
was then sold to private developers at below-market prices. It is likely that the city was
more actively involved in the acquisition of property in this area because of the increased

political sensitive nature of tearing down the historic African-American ‘mother-ward’.
261

The end result has been the construction of upscale townhomes and lofts that are likely
not affordable to any of the original residents. The ongoing redevelopment process in the
neighborhood is also slowly pricing out any of the remaining original residents.
The redevelopment of Freedmen’s Town has also been taking place while the city has
been actively promoting cultural and ethnic neighborhoods as an important dimension of
its economic development strategy, and more generally, in the promotion of local
tourism. Houston’s African-American community is not part of the city’s new celebration
of ethnicity. In fact, one of the private-sector redevelopment plans for Freedmen’s Town
entails a ‘historic walk’ through the area with various historic markers, but without any of
the original residents and minimal remnants of the original housing stock being there.
Historically, F reedmen’s Town has experienced some of the most dramatic and
significant changes in Houston. This has included the loss of this area’s historically
significant neighborhood, and most importantly, the displacement of its original
residents. It is for this reason that F reedmen’s Town was an area of focus for this thesis.
On the one hand, the analysis and the documentation into the loss of this community, and
the resulting residential displacement, is an important record to maintain in the history of
Houston. On the other hand, the understanding of physical and social upgrading
processes is critical, and particularly for lower-income and minority populations, in
understanding that they likely have a minimal role to play in an urban revitalization
process. Calls for urban revitalization and calls for a new appreciation of a city’s
downtown should generally be a signal for lower-income and minority populations
occupying the central city that conflict over space, and more specifically, the land on
which they live, is imminent.

262

 

Research Contribution and Future Directions

This thesis offers a number of contributions to the existing literature on urban
revitalization and to urban policymakers interested in downtown revival. This analysis
into Houston’s urban renaissance illustrates the complexity in physical and social
upgrading that was required in the ‘revival’ of Houston’s central city. And the thesis
shows the resulting social, historic, and cultural losses that result from the razing of
culturally-rich communities and the displacement of their original residents. This analysis
also illustrates the role of Houston’s local government in tearing apart and redeveloping
Freedmen’s Town, in order to accommodate housing for an upper-income, white
clientele.

This thesis is also important because of its contribution in the form of the dataset
of the physical, socioeconomic, and demographic changes that have occurred within
Harris County and the city of Houston since 1980. Of specific importance is the in-depth
quantitative and qualitative analysis of the changes that have taken place in the African-
American Freedmen’s Town area. The loss of this historic community must be recorded
for the unique characteristics and qualities it contained, and to preserve its important
memory as a community and social network of Houston’s African-American population.
Within the dataset of changes that have occurred in Houston, the analysis also utilized a
unique set of census variables to document the turnover in housing stock and residents,
both important indicators of change in a neighborhood.

The real appreciation of Houston’s new interest in pluralism and ethnicity also
emerges once again in this study. At the same time that many city departments are

celebrating pluralism and ethnicity in Houston, city officials are actively involved in
263

 

developing programs that are razing ethnic neighborhoods and displacing their minority
populations. In the Houston context, consulting groups are being called into the city to
provide advice on urban design characteristics and neighborhood qualities that can be
effectively marketed in the newly built ethnic communities, while at the same time, 140-
year old historically significant ethnic neighborhoods are being torn down and the
traditional residents displaced (Vojnovic 2003b). More generally, this leads to a broader
issue regarding the new interest in central cities across the U.S., and the potential impacts
that this new interest in central city lifestyles might have on cultural and historic
resources.

Another issue in Houston is with the business leaders (including developers) and
local officials encouraging physical upgrading as a development process that is beneficial
to the city as a whole, while ignoring the social implications of residential displacement.
The displacement only shifts the ‘problem’, the city’s minority and lower-income
populations, to another part of the city. It does not in any way deal with the local urban
pressures associated with substandard housing, poverty, poor educational infrastructure,
the lack of employment opportunities, and/or the inadequate wages for these populations.
This also leads to the question, ‘do the city officials and local economic leaders even
have an interest in solving local urban stresses?’ Based upon the city’s history, there is
likely little interest in even attempting to resolve these basic urban issues. For instance,
the city has a long history of under-providing services to low-income and minority
neighborhoods, which according to local public officials is a result of Houston’s ‘laissez-
faire’ approach to urban management. At the same time, however, as this thesis has

demonstrated, city officials heavily subsidize local developers. Corporate welfare is

264

 

considered far more acceptable than social welfare. In fact, recently the city has failed to
capitalize on the opportunity to build affordable housing, a suggestion even proposed by
some Houston developers.

In terms of future research, studies on urban revitalization in Houston and on the
full economic and social effects of displacement are still necessary. This includes
questions such as: ‘where exactly did the citizens relocate?’; ‘how successfully were they
in finding affordable and safe housing?’, ‘how extensive were their financial burden
resulting from displacement?’, and ‘how successfully were the displaced residents in
connecting with neighbors in their new community when compared to the social
networks they maintained in their former neighborhoods?’ This after-the-fact research,
however, presents a challenge as researchers encounter difficulty in tracking down
residents after an area has already experienced displacement, and especially when those
displaced were renters.

In this analysis, it should also be recognized that as the research focuses on
numbers of people being displaced, the emotional pain and psychological harm that
occurs to the original residents is not quantifiable. As argued by Jay Harman (2003),
perhaps researchers must find ways to empathize with the groups being studied and not
simply count the numbers of those being mistreated. The next step in approaching
displacement literature might seek to establish new research methods to capture the
emotional and psychological side effects of the displaced populations of urban
revitalization policies and programs, something that has been largely missing over the

last five decades of studies on displacement.

265

Another issue of interest is to research whether there has been evidence in the
U.S. of relocation assistance being incorporated into an urban revitalization initiative, and
if so, how successfiil has this been? In the policy end of research on developing solutions
to residential displacement resulting from local urban revitalization, a study might focus
on the design of a preparation plan that could be considered a necessary part of any urban
redevelopment program that might possibly produce residential displacement. In fact,
such a preparation plan could be required by law as part of planning documents and
legislation. It could be similar to the federal Uniform Relocation Act of 1970, which
defends the legal right to decent affordable relocation housing and assistance for those
affected by the acquisition of property for Federal or federally funded projects, but
expanded to state and local initiatives (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development 2005).

The other possible solution, and direction for further research, might be to explore
the possibilities of incorporating marginalized groups into the central city redevelopment
initiatives. Recent research has pointed to a number of successes with mixed-income
housing projects (Wilson 1987, Quercia 1997, Kleit 2001, Crump 2003). In these cases,
property values were maintained while lower-income housing units and residents were
integrated into middle- to upper-income neighborhoods. In the Canadian context, this has
also been successfully accomplished in the St. Lawrence housing project in the city of
Toronto (Ryerson Polytechnical Institute 1989). In the building of the St. Lawrence,
developers were offered density bonuses to provide attractive lower-income and
affordable housing to be mixed-in with market rate housing. This mixed-income housing

project has provided an adequate setting for the integration of social classes, and yet

266

provides an attractive neighborhood environment for Toronto residents in general. In
addition, the project brings in tourism, as many want to see an example of a large-scale
mixed-income housing project that functions with reasonable success.

Previous research has shown that renters are some of the residents most easily
susceptible to displacement. This has also been supported by the Houston case study.
Renters of property, especially homes, are at the mercy of their landlord who is
continually searching for the highest returns on property. If a higher use exists, they will
often quickly remove their tenants either through ending their lease or through
questionable evictions. Renters are powerless to fight this process as they are forced to
search for new rental housing. Renting is also a continual drain of resources for many of
the lower-income renters that are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and it prevents renters
from building long-term equity in a home. One of the keys to success for fighting forces
of displacement is home-ownership. Home-owners have more power than renters in
claiming their rights against redevelopment pressures. If they do choose to sell, they can
at least attempt to get the highest price possible for their property. It is recognized,
however, that redevelopment pressures are also exerted on home-owners, as evidenced by
private-sector ‘block-busting’ and the expanded recent use of eminent domain.
Nevertheless, home-ownership can provide a stronger starting point for residents to
protect their rights than does renting and provide the stability that many of these lower-
income citizens need to be successful and improve their situation.

Based upon some of these research implications and future research needs, several
important policy recommendations can be introduced. As described above concerning the

perpetual difficulties of renters and the economic and social benefits of homeownership,

267

further policies need to be developed to make the dream of home ownership a reality for
all citizens. These policies must be focused towards lower-income residents who often
simply do not understand the process of home financing and purchasing a home. Savings
for a down payment must also be encouraged and simplified. As various forms of
physical and social upgrading are encouraged by city officials or begin to develop by the
private sector, the effects upon original, especially lower-income, residents must be
anticipated. Policies should provide relocation assistance, if necessary, for citizens that
might end up being displaced because of the forces of physical and social upgrading. This
assistance should be in the form of financial as well as personal assistance from case
workers in identifying adequate areas of relocation and to assist in the entire process of
being displaced. Underlying this issue is the absolute necessity of proper, adequate, and
competent representation of the effected citizens of these areas. This includes legal and
political representation as necessary. And as beneficial as described above, mixed-income
communities should be encouraged through financial and housing policies as well as
issues and policies related to zoning.

This thesis has explored the complex and multi-faceted nature of urban
revitalization and its impact on the social upgrading that can occur within a city. The
research has shown that the physical upgrading processes can be of different types, or in
combinations, depending on the built environment and demographic characteristics of the
particular neighborhoods being upgraded. It has been also shown that even in the model
‘laissez-faire’ city, local public officials have been extensively involved in the physical
and social upgrading process. In addition, while these upgrading processes are

encouraged by city and business leaders as beneficial to the city and its residents, the

268

 

negative social implications likely follow a similar pattern in all cities encouraging
central city revitalization. Despite the predominantly positive claims by local policy-
makers, urban revitalization will generally be coupled with the displacement of often
lower-income, minority populations, who will be pressured out of their traditional
neighborhoods into other parts of the city. Thus, considerable effort and resources are
devoted to simply shifting urban ‘problems’—the marginalized populations—to different

parts of the city, instead of actually attempting to alleviate some of these urban stresses.

269

 

7 APPENDIX

270

3625 32.50 .w.3 ”09300

            

 

_u4.~.___ .nxcoagiaaz
2. m o ”2285.85.30

3.8-84.3 I
.38 - 9nd. I

{y . . . a}. -83 I

n... z . . FAJM . , ., 30.8-83!
....Ct . ..v . I n$.«.v~i
\5'5 ‘4 V uESESao \\\\k

238..
ozone;

Sou
3:300 «Em: - cow—«33¢ =30...

- Harris County, 2000

1011

Figure 7.1— Map of the total populat

271

is 908° .W.D ”8.30m

            

A9303 mien .9552
.6598 692850

8.8-2.8 I
«NS- 8.5 I
8.5 - 3... I
8... - 2.2- I
9.2-. 3.3. E
3923388 g

.\ . . . :83 .x ... 85.8

If
.. ,(4

 

cocwucwar
3:300 eta: . xosm a. 35 59.... mam—80 .0 38:33; 2: 5 3:25

272

Map of the change in the percentage of census tract that is Black —
1980-2000

Harris County,

Figure 7.2 —

30230 3950 0.3 “02300
.26.. .8: 3.80 82 as a 08%: .

                

 

T4 a . . . . . . .ux:0...nx§m_2aaz
8.50.4. or m 0 ”9:200 8382320

.8.“ . 08.. I
55 - 8: I

...: -80 I
80-49 M.

«no . «3 .1 i
22.5.? as: \\\\\
«co: 820 .50.:
0:03..

 

«coca
3:300 «:31 4:01 000.5 52.00....

Harris County, 2000

Map of median gross rent -

Figure 7.3 —

273

30230 30:00 .05 .3500
.05; «OFF @3950 saw 05 «0 Donna} .

....___._ 3:502:35»:
9 m 0 “9:200:38530

50.37.33; I
«3.3. -20.? I
2.92 - 8:8 I
on}..- «3% I

83” - 80.0 .1 _

225.3 58 N\\\
2.00:. 0.2.0030:
0:09..

              

 

.5ch
3:300 0.....0... - 0E00:. 0.2.0030... c.2005.

Harris County, 2000

Map of median household income

Figure 7.4 —

274

sac-am wan—.8 .m.3 .00.qu
.33 .8: 2.280 82 2.. ... 8&2: .

_ . . . _ . . . . .uxceaggaz
o. m 0 “0.020055

09.8. - 2.0:. I
3.8 - «8.3 I
58.8 49.8 I
So...“ -03.... I
«8.9 - :2 .. 3 3.
03:52:33 $3

0800:. 3.000 :0..

0:30..

              

 

«coca
3:300 0.....0... - 0E00:. 8.000 :0....

2000

— Harris County,

Map of per capita income

Figure 7.5--

275

Later

C1

 

 

Latent Roots (Eigenvalues)

1 2 3 4 5
10.906 6.142 3.132 2.305 1.974
6 7 8 9 10
1.765 1.543 1.303 0.988 0.912
11 12 13 14 15
0.831 0.760 0.695 0.555 0.541
16 17 18 19 20
0.468 0.435 0.396 0.355 0.325
21 22 23 24 25
0.270 0.242 0.228 0.188 0.165
26 27 28 29 30
0.133 0.113 0.097 0.086 0.049
31 32 33 34 35
0.043 0.024 0.012 0.009 0.005
36 37 38
0.003 0.002 0.000
Component loadings
l 2 3 4 5
CP HSLD3 0.932 0.036 0.110 0.088 -0.104
CP_FAM3 0.931 0.083 0.041 0.080 -0.122
CP_OCC3 0.900 0.025 0.166 0.123 -0.108
CP_HL'3 0.884 0.009 0.254 0.139 -0.169
CPEMP3 0.883 0.098 -0.366 -0.l33 0.047
CP_2503 0.876 0.135 -0.376 -0.175 0.059
CP_OVNNB 0.868 -0.003 0.150 0.110 -0.l73
CP_PRO3 0.865 -0.016 -0.322 -0.142 -0.030
CP_HS3 0.827 0.038 -0.372 -0.133 0.028
CPgFH H3 0.794 0.166 -0.330 -0.226 0.051
CP_RENT3 0.760 0.071 -0.330 -0.206 0.091
CP_BL3 0.670 0.198 -0.041 0.231 -0.016
CP_CG3 0.652 -0.059 -0.361 -0.065 0.047
CP_HISP3 0.560 0.229 0.073 -0.044 0.272
CP_POP3 0.520 -0.1 17 0.528 0.056 0.612
-' . = ~ 0.190 0.027 0.274 -0.195
0.296 0.250 0.031 0.021
0.246 0.157 0.077 0.037
0.129 -0.242 0.244 -0.099
0.049 -0. 140 0.256 0.018
0.010 -0.028 0.031 -0.365
= . -0.120 -0.027 -0.497 0.049
CPOVFAM3 -0.156 0.626 0.214 -0.044 -0.091
CHISP3 -0.201 0.619 -0.028 -0.021 -0.093
CP_MGR3 0.125 -0.599 —0. 145 0.259 --0.041
CHHPI3 0.102 0.502 0.088 0.339 -0.050
1 WW 3 0.456 -0.023 H516 -0.096 -0.198
(‘P W113 0.331 -0.l67 0.508 -0.031 0.723
CPLUMB3 -0.045 0.178 0.259 -0.504 0.205
CBLACK3 0.230 0.393 0.146 0.50 0.098

Table 7.1 — Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 1

(Variable names/codes are the same as those listed in Table 4.2 on pg. 143 except that the ‘3’ has
been moved to the end of the variable name for the program ‘Systat’ to operate.)

276

CP800M3 0.154 -0.06 0.465 -0.436 -0.558

CPLM_N3 0.078 0.317 0.124 -0.348 0.159

CP80RMI3 0.417 6.1 17 0.294 -0412 0.020

CP_PCI3 0.041 -0431 -0.126 0.158 -0.046

CP_HHPI3 0.154 0.494 -0.048 0.265 0.127

CP_FAMP3 0.182 0.455 -0042 0.200 0.061

CP_VAC3 0.423 -0143 0.499 -0.094 -0477

CMDAGE3 -0243 -0204 -0404 -0471 -0.058
6 7

CP_HSLD3 -0240 0.096

CP_FAM3 -o.243 0.099

CP_OCC3 -0277 0.1 15

CP_HU3 -0.216 0.1 10

CPEMP3 0.091 -0.058

CP_2503 0.057 -0.076

CP_OWN3 -0.286 0.108

CP_PRO3 0.143 41.070

CP_HS3 0.060 6.057

CP_FHH3 0.056 -0.087

CP_RENT3 .0.1 19 6.050

CP_BL3 0.015 0.153

CP_CG3 0.084 -0020

CP_HISP3 0.159 -0. 176

CP_POP3 -0.052 6.131

CCGRAD3 0.039 0.187

CPRO3 0.089 0.008

CHSGRAD3 0.079 0.082

CP_MHHI3 0.167 0.151

CP_MVAL3 0.041 0.161

CFMHH3 0.173 0.014

CWH3 -0215 -0.008

CPOVFAM3 -0.098 -0.046

CHISP3 -0437 6.021

CP_MGR3 0.096 0.040

CHHPI3 0.251 0.020

CP80HU3 0.169 -0123

CP_WH3 0.031 -0190

CPLUMB3 0.035 0.702

CBLACK3 0.513 0.021

CP8OOM3 0.205 6.144

CPLM_N3 0.166 0.771

CP80RMI3 0.363 -0243

CP_PCI3 0.207 0.21 1

CP_HHPI3 0.326 0.138

CP_FAMP3 0.284 0.079

CP_VAC3 0.240 -0.040

CMDAGE3 0.422 -0040

Table 7.2 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 2

(Variable names/codes are the same as those listed in Table 4.2 on pg. 143 except that the ‘3’ has
been moved to the end of the variable name for the program ‘Systat’ to operate.)

277

Variance Explained by Components

1 2 3 4 5
10.906 6.142 3.132 2.305 1.974
6 7
1.765 1.543
Percent of Total Variance Explained
1 2 3 4 5
28.701 16.163 8.242 6.066 5.195
6 7
4.644 4.061
Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions
Rotated Loading Matrix ( VARIMAX, Gamma = 1.0000)
1 2 3 4 5
CP_2503 0.978 -0.007 0.035 0.089 0.054
("PEM P3 0.964 0.053 0.047 0.118 0.052
CP_PRO3 0.920 0.152 0.145 0.082 0.028
(‘P_ H33 0.912 0.087 0.034 0.062 0.027
CP_F H H3 0.902 -0.070 0.063 0.065 0.055
CP _RE.\'T3 0.855 -0.033 -0.036 -0.077 0.071
CP_FAM3 0.740 0.045 0.174 0.073 0.059
CP_CG3 0.732 0.181 -0.025 0.049 0.013
CP_HSLD3 0.703 0.080 0.210 0.059 0.114
(‘P OCC3 0.639 0.084 0.209 0.053 0.124
CP_OWN3 0.618 0.097 0.232 0.018 0.063
CP_HU3 0.579 0.109 0.31 1 0.091 0.120
CP_BL3 0.537 0.062 0.029 0.348 0.033
CP_HISP3 0.500 -0. 134 0.1 19 0.251 0.395
1 ' -0.01 1 - 0.121 -0.165 -0.069
1 ‘ 0.084 -0.050 -0.096 -0.124
-0.030 -0.124 -0.154 -0.010
-0.107 -0.217 0.007 -0.219
0.049 0.183 -0.217 0.219
0.061 0.296 -0.256 0.287
0.052 0042 ~0.082 ~0.019
. - 1 -0.164 0.074 0.216 -0.066
CP_PC13 0.001 0.550 -0.021 0.020 -0.087
1 1“»1 1\‘.f~' 0.009 -0.083 1' 5 ' -0.162 -0.120
1 1' \ \< 3 0.127 0.166 M i 0.074 -0.011
1 1'\: i1 1:. i 0.084 -0.000 1.- 1’=\ 0.105 0.328
CP80RM13 0.333 0.033 0.593 -0.043 0.352
(‘BLACK3 0.058 0.018 0.074 0.845 0.157
(‘\-\'113 -0.035 0.316 0.076 0785 0.087
(‘P 11111’13 0.136 -0.162 -0.098 0.641 0.024
(‘11111’13 0.014 -0.215 0.036 0.624 -0.037
CP_FAMP3 0.170 -0.175 -0.031 0.553 0.000
(‘1’ W113 0.084 0.070 0.069 -0.016 0.963
(‘P P( )1’.3 0.208 0.076 0.1 12 0.039 0.893
CMDAGE3 0.083 0.135 0.065 -0.184 -0.219
CPLM_N3 0.072 -0.135 0.012 0.167 -0.018

Table 7.3 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 3

(Variable names/codes are the same as those listed in Table 4.2 on pg. 143 except that the ‘3’ has
been moved to the end of the variable name for the program ‘Systat’ to operate.)

278

 

CPLUMB3 -0.065 0.163 0.068 -0091 0.091
CFMHH3 0.065 -0.492 0.173 0.460 -0379
6 7
CP_2503 0.050 -0000
CPEMP3 0.058 -0003
CP_PRO3 0.037 -0.026
CP_HS3 0.054 -0.018
CP_FHH3 0.014 0.019
CP_RENT3 0.118 0.019
CP_FAM3 0.613 0.038
CP_CG3 0.008 -0.022
CP_HSID3 0.636 0.040
CP_OC‘C3 0.689 0.044
CP_OW.\'3 0.680 0.024
CP_HL‘3 0.696 0.039
CP_BL3 0.385 0.066
CP_HISP3 0.040 -0017
CCGRAD3 0.223 -0070
CP_MHHI3 -0024 -0091
CP_MVAL3 0.052 -0.063
CHISP3 0.224 -0.006
CHSGRAD3 0.116 -0004
CPRO3 0.128 -0041
CP_MGR3 0.031 -0.163
CPOVFAM3 0.106 0.058
CP_PCI3 -0.056 0.060
CP800M3 -0017 0.039
CP_VAC3 0.236 0.008
CP80HU3 0.312 0.029
CP80RM13 -0.208 0.041
CBLACK3 0.053 -0040
CWH3 -0.l89 0.094
CP_HHPI3 -0.01 1 0.125
CHHPI3 0.107 -0.028
CP_FAMP3 -0.006 0.080
CP_WH3 0.102 0.048
CP_POP3 0.312 0.045
CMDAGE3 -0739 0.104
CPLM_N3 -0003 0.916
CPLUMB3 -0.017 0.916
CFMHH3 0.005 0.031

f

Table 7.4 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 4

(Variable names/codes are the same as those listed in Table 4.2 on pg. 143 except that the ‘3’ has
been moved to the end of the variable name for the program ‘Systat’ to operate.)

279

"Variance" Explained by Rotated Components

 

1 2 3 4 5
8.664 5.059 2.942 3.240 2.638
6 7
3.426 1.798
Percent of Total Variance Explained
l 2 3 4 5
22.800 13.313 7.741 8.526 6.942
6 7
9.017 4.733
Scree Plot
12 r 1 1
10 —
Q) 8 _
2
(U
E 6 ~
.8
LU

 

 

 

0 L - I 4 ' ‘ - -
0 10 20 30 40
Number of Factors

 

Table 7.5 - Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Rotation, 7 Dimensions, Pg. 5

280

 

m.
.05 «on... 5.5.300
25:00
‘0 .x. 09.2.0 .x.
:. 09.9.0

695.0 .3
c2530.".
0:30..

0.003 m.
.00.;
mamcoo
.0 .x. :.
09.2.0

5:22.00 09.0.5 :3
0.02m :. 00:22.00
69.2.0 .\. .62....

3...! u.

«00:. 330.302. 095:0 g co.~a.:noa
25:00 3...; :. 5.5.500 .20... c.
.6 .\. c. 69.2.0 .x. 2...; 69.20 .\.
09.2.0

09.2.0
cocaine...
.80...

«ugh
mam—.00

 

baracteristics of

lar to Freedmen’s Town; Table l of 14.

iencing c

Table 7.6 — Data of individual census tracts exper

redevelopment s

281

.0... 69F 5.3.2.0..
2.2.00
.0 ...

0. 09.2.0

09.2.0 .\.

09.2.0 g
2.0.5.3000
0:30..

0.00.0 m. 0:...s a.

8.3.2.6.. 00:20 ....

5.5.2.0..
0...-.5

2.2.00
.0 .x. ...
09.2.0

2.2.00
.0 .\. ...
09.2.0

.020 :.
09.2.0 .x.

0030.300... 09.2.0 .3 5.3.2.0...
0:55 c. 0030.30... .20h ...
09.2.0 .x. 00...; 09.2.0 .x.

09.2.0
5.3.2.01
.20..

«02h
2.2.00

 

haracteristics of

redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 2 of 14.

iencing c

Table 7.7 - Data of individual census tracts exper

282

002.00 022.020 02.020

0.0

.0... ..0

.0 .\. 2..
09.2.0

002.00
.20.. ...

000:00
.20.. ...

09.2.0 {a 09.2.0

00.00020
.0050
.3...
.2:

.0 ... 0...
0. 09.2.0

0.2.020
m: c.

.850
..0... .80..
... 09.2.0

.0>0 0:0 .0>0 0:0
0.00» mm 0.2... mm
0030300.. 5.00.2.0...

... .20...
09.2.0 6.. ... 09.2.0

09.2.5 .\. ... 09.2.0

.30...

.2003
000 .02...
... 2.2.00
09.2.0

 

haracteristics of

nencmg c

Table 7.8 — Data of individual census tracts expe

redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 3 of 14.

283

002.00
0.0
.0... ..0
.0 .\. 2..
00:2.0

00.03020 0.2.00.0

000:00
.20h :.
00:2.0 .\.

000:00
.20.. :.
00:2.0

022.020
.028
:0.:
.0...

.0 ox. 0:.
:. 00:2.0

0.2.00.0
m: ....

00.03020
.00—.00
=0... .58
:. 00:2.0

.0>0 0:0 .0>0 0:0
200.. mm 200.. mu
500.300.... 500.0000

:_ .20h
00:2.0 ... :. 00:0..0

:.
00:2.0 ax.

.20..
:. 00:25

.2005
000 .00.;
:. 2.0:00
00:2.0

 

ms of

haracterist

redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 4 of 14.

I'ICIICIIIg C

Table 7.9 — Data of individual census tracts expe

284

8.5.

052.0... 05030.. 0

3...:

00:2.0

8...:

.20.. ...

3...:

5030: 05030:

.20h 5
00:2.0

00000...
0.050.. 5
00:20 .\.

00000...
0.2—.0".
0.0
.0... I:
.0 ... 5
00:2.0

.0>0.
3.000

00000...

0.050". 02.000”.

5 00:2.0 .0.\. 5
00:0..0

3.030
30.0..
05:50".
:_

.0>0.
3.05..
30.00
005506.
5
00:2.0

02:50”.

.50... .0 02:50“.

.0053:
2.. :_

.20.. 5
00:2.0

 

haracteristics of

iencing c

lar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 5 of 14.

Table 7.10 — Data of individual census tracts exper

redevelopment s

285

3.:3 0......

05030: 0:.030: 00.5: 0.53

5030: 0:.030: 00000:

.0.0.r 5 .20.. 5 0.050.. 5
00:0:0 00:0:0 .x.

5
00:0:0

00000...
0.050...
0.0
.05 ......
.0 .x. :_
00:2.0

00000... 30.0:
0.050.. 00550..
5 00:0:0 .0 3 5
00:0:0

02:50“.
5

.0>0..
>..0>0..
30.00
00:0:0".
5
00:2.0

00:50".

.02.; .0

.0053:
0... c.

00550”.
.20.. :.
00:0:0

 

Table 7.11 — Data of indmdual census tracts experiencing characteristics of

redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 6 of 14.

286

€83.05
.0.

050:0...
00.0:000
.00—=50
.0 0:.0>
00.005.

5 0052.0

50.005. 5
00:0:0 .\.

000.0
00.005.
00:0:0

3.5.. 00...:
050:0... 050:0:
500.; 5 500.; 5

00:25

0.5: 0.5:
050:0... 050:9.

00.0:000 050:0...

5 5
00:2.0

00.0:000 00.00000
L050". 0.0 0.5: 05::
550:0: 00.000: 05000.. 0059...:

00.0300 050:0...
00.0:000 5 5 00.0300
.0 .x. 00:20 .0 ...

5 00:0:0 5 00:2.0

.00.;
0:0:00

 

ms of

haracterist

lencing c

lar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 7 of 14.

Table 7.12 — Data of individual census tracts exper

redevelopment s

287

.0235...
.0.

050:0...

50.00....
5 0052.0

50:00.2 5
00:2.0 .\.

.0.

50.00s.
00:2.0

0.5: 0.5:
050:0: 050:0:
5000> 5 5000> 5

00:0:0

0:05

050:0... 050:0:

0.

00.0:000
0.5: 9.050: 0.0

020300 050:0:
5 00.0:000
00:2.0 .0 .\.
5 0002.0

0:03

00.0300
05:: 0.0

059.0: 00.000: 05000.. 0500.0:

00.0:000 050:0...
5 00.0:000

00:0:0 .0..\e
5 00:2.0

.00;
0:0000

 

haracteristics of

lencing c

lar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 8 of 14.

Table 7.13 — Data of individual census tracts exper

redevelopment s

288

00... _ .00.

050.00.
0.5:
050:0:

.. .0

00.....00.
0505:...
0.0.0500
050.00:
02::
050:0:
5
00:0:0

05005
00:20.02
0..::0
052000:

0500:. 05005
00:20.00... 00:20.02 200.0303
0.3:... 0.3:0 0500:.

053000: 052000: 0.000
0:.0:00:0: .00 5
c. .0 ... .0 00:0:0 .\.
00:2.0 .\.. 5 00:0:0 0 5 00:0:0

€800.05 €200.05 050:0:
0500:. 3.05005 020300
00:30
:0.:05. .0 0:_0>
5 00:0:0 5.00.... 5

.x.

.0805}:

A». 0500:.
0.0:00:0: 20:00:01

2.000 .00

5 00:0:0 :0.:05. 5

00:0:0 .\.

.00.;
0:0:00

 

ms of

haracterist

lencing c

lar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 9 of 14.

Table 7.14 — Data of individual census tracts exper

lmi

redevelopment s

289

00... :00.

0.0.0500
050.00.
0.5:
050:0:

.. .0

00.5.00.
00.0550
20.0500

050.00..

0:5:
050:0:
5
00:2.0

0500:.
00:20.02
0.3::
053000:

0500:. 0500:.
00:20.02 00:20.00< 30.0300.
0..::0 0.5:: 0500:.
053000: 053000: 0.000
00.2.0050: .00 5
s .0 .\. .0 00:0:0 .x.
00:0:0 ... 5 00:0:0 0 5 00:0:0

€800.03 00.000:
.0. 0500:. 00.0:000
..0550
5.00.2 .0 0:.0>
5 00:0:0 5.00.2 :.

ex.

€200.05
7.0.3. 028:.
0.0:00:0: 0.0:00:o:

.00
.0. 05005
2.000 .00

5 00:0:0 50.002 5

00:0:0 .0

.00....
0:0:00

 

haracteristics of

iencing c
lar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 10 of 14.

Table 7.15 — Data of individual census tracts exper

redevelopment s

290

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in 7' Change Change in # % Change in Change in the
In
Employed Employed of Persons Persons % of census
Census civilian civilian whose whose tract whose
Tract population ulation Occupation is Occupation is Occupation is
16 years pop considered considered considered
16 years . . . . . . . .
and over Professional Professional Professional
and over
3CEMP 3CPEMP 3CPRO_N 3CPQPRO 3CPRO
237.00 303 54.1 1% 367 198.38% 30.93
250.00 1385 296.57% 951 613.55% 26.53
260.00 1428 1830.77% 895 2983.33% 22.96
262.00 1203 253.26% 818 423.83% 19.62
317.02 628 306.34% 633 555.26% 34.07
341.00 131.62 48.93% 86.75 84.22% 9.07
342.00 11.62 2.99% 17.75 10.32% 3.15
400.25 1 157 222.93% 1 173 499.15% 38.73
400.26 -873 -53.23% -18 -5.71% 19.51
401.01 206 12.96% 308 22.55% 7.30
401.02 54 2.82% 660 67.83% 32.1 1
402.01 -17 -0.41% 186 6.33% 4.80
402.02 -91 -3.17% 330 18.39% 13.89
404.02 68 2.89% 298 1 5.56% 10.02
405.01 -416 -16.19% 375 23.98% 29.18
406.00 454.75 16.26% 546.25 22.57% 4.70
407.01 . 2178 69.61% 2273 89.98% 9.70
407.02 595 28.31% 736 41.77% 8.80
409.00 375 22.37% 509 34.86% 8.89
41 0.00 570 20.27% 622 24.49% 3.17
411.00 -65 -8.90% -17 -2.81% 5.54
412.01 -81 -3.93% 65 3.76% 6.71
412.02 601 24.10% 698 32.91% 6.04
413.02 -176 -10.87% 68 5.26% 14.45
417.01 -54 -1.81% 340 14.71% 13.03
417.02 -93 -3.82% 409 24.24% 20.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.16 - Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 11 of 14.

291

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in % Change Change in # % Change in Change in the
in
Employed Employed of Persons Persons % of census
Census civilian civilian whose whose tract whose
Tract population ulation Occupation is Occupation is Occupation is
16 years pop considered considered considered
16 years . . . . . . . .
and over Professional Professional Professional
and over {
418.01 -154 -10.62% 16 1.45% 10.26
418.02 -119 -7.13% 182 15.29% 17.23
419.02 -129 -9.31% 114 10.95% 16.80
419.03 1294 215.67% 1 189 220.19% 1.29
420.01 372 22.36% 505 35.36% 9.12
420.02 452.25 12.87% 621.75 20.79% 5.97
440.02 -147 -8.13% -123 -7.53% 0.59
440.04 -311 -19.00% -255 -17.42% 1.74
505.01 657.55 98.00% 664.64 202.63% 25.83
505.02 -318 -18.38% 419 97.22% 35.29
506.01 -376.5 -21.56% 168.48 21 .77% 24.49
506.02 -51 1.8 -16.58% 382.6 22.47% 25.82
507.01 19 1.01% 297 30.87% 15.1 1
511.00 -196.8 -6.52% 326.8 26.66% 14.41
512.00 -688.25 -18.20% 407.25 22.59% 23.77
513.00 311.05 21.81% 477.95 73.87% 19.39
515.01 507 20.1 1% 1 126 84.41% 28.33
515.02 -105 -6.18% 143 14.62% 12.75
524.00 -307.41 -39.56% 5.67 2.52% 20.16
545.01 6969 460.00% 5912 584.19% 14.81
MEDIAN 36.5000 2.85% 378.8000 24.1 1% 14.43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.17 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 12 of 14.

292

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in Change in % Change in
1980 Owner- % Change in 1980 Renter- Renter-
Change in % Change
1980 in 1980 Occupied Owner-Occup. Occupied Occup.
. Housing Housing Housing Housing
Census Housing Housing
Tract Stock That Stock That Units: Units: Units: Units:
Remain ed Remain ed Householder Householder Householder Householder
in 2000 in 2000 Moved in Moved in 1979 Moved in Moved in
1979 or or before 1979 or 1979 or
before before before
3CP80HU 3CP800MI 3CP80RMI
237.00 ~21 5 ~52.57% ~227 -69.21% ~45 ~83.33%
250.00 8 1 .66% ~135 ~40.42% ~35 -63.64%
260.00 ~3 4.23% ~36 ~67.92% ~15 ~100.00%
262.00 237.5 62.17% ~76 ~27.54% ~86.5 ~98.30%
317.02 ~22 ~14.86% ~63.5 ~72.16% ~30 ~100.00%
341.00 ~26.45 ~15.56% ~99.75 ~70.74% ~21 ~100.00%
342.00 ~202.45 ~58.51% ~188.75 ~82.07% ~77 ~100.00%
400.25 ~444 ~54.61% ~84 ~100.00% ~438 ~100.00%
400.26 ~2139 ~83.69% ~96 ~94.12% ~2105 ~99.29%
401.01 ~750 ~43.94% ~301 ~92.90% ~1081 ~94.41%
401.02 ~531 ~32.36% ~214 ~73.04% ~1121 ~98.94%
402.01 -1 176 ~31 .07% ~1055 ~89.03% ~2242 ~98.68%
402.02 ~805 ~32.24% ~413 ~82.11% ~1659 ~99.52%
404.02 ~637 ~28.21% ~639 ~78.89% ~1 173 ~100.00%
405.01 ~1344 ~47 .93% ~405 ~82.15% ~1796 ~97.08%
406.00 ~530.5 ~19.85% ~1234.25 ~72.05% ~819 ~97.97%
407.01 ~1 1 10 ~32.48% ~632 ~76.05% ~1809 ~98.91%
407.02 ~1 142 -49.65% ~352 ~75.86% ~1481 ~96.86%
409.00 ~797 ~49.17% ~1 109 ~81 .48% ~173 ~93.51%
410.00 ~1 142 ~40.99% ~1741 ~81 .66% ~373 ~100.00%
41 1 .00 ~300 ~41 04% ~305 ~81 55% ~289 ~86.53%
412.01 ~413 ~27.10% -620 ~71.51% ~553 ~97.19%
412.02 -475 ~20.81% ~974 -74.75% ~841 ~97.68%
413.02 -483 ~36.54% ~649 ~71 .48% ~387 ~100.00%
417.01 ~976 ~42.58% ~1420 ~75.45% ~333 ~95.97%
417.02 -505 ~29.38% ~882 ~71 .71 % ~428 ~100.00%

 

Table 7.18 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 13 of 14.

293

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in Change in % Change in
1980 Owner- % Change in 1980 Renter- Renter-
Change in % Change .
1980 in 1980 Occupied Owner-Occup. Occupied Occup.
Housing Housing Housing Housing
Census Housing Housing
Units: Units: Units: Units:
Tract Stock That Stock That
Remain ed Remain ed Householder Householder Householder Householder
in 2000 in 2000 Moved in Moved in 1979 Moved in Moved In
1979 or or before 1979 or 1979 or
before before before
418.01 434 ~41 53% -593 ~75.93% ~216 ~100.00%
418.02 ~572 44.79% ~525 -73.94% -385 ~91 .89%
419.02 ~298 ~24.63% ~503 ~71 .65% -386 ~98.47%
419.03 ~114 ~18.75% ~105 ~100.00% ~368 ~100.00%
420.01 481 ~31 .67% ~823 ~77.64% -371 -1 00.00%
420.02 ~1 141.5 ~30.58% ~921 .75 ~81 .14% ~2194 ~98.96%
440.02 ~270 ~19.61 % ~843 ~63.62% ~28 ~100.00%
440.04 ~375 ~30.94% ~774 ~66.84% ~26 ~100.00%
505.01 418.97 79.35% ~85.82 41.26% -282.43 ~97.73%
505.02 -767 ~54.59% ~221 ~70.38% ~894 ~98.13%
506.01 ~732.06 42.36% ~373.24 ~75.25% ~1006.06 ~99.41%
506.02 -1 121 ~38.43% ~993.8 -80.34% ~1305.6 ~98.91%
507.01 ~343 ~19.23% ~704 ~75.29% ~687 ~96.08%
51 1 .00 ~848 ~30.90% ~993.4 ~75.77% -1 168.2 ~97.27%
512.00 ~1 188.75 -32.29% -1096.75 ~77.73% ~1910 ~98.45%
513.00 72. 75 5.91% ~331 .85 ~64.31% ~548.8 ~96.79%
51 5.01 ~879 ~37.37% ~586 ~67.59% ~1 188 -96.59%
51 5.02 412 ~28.49% ~168 ~69.71% ~1052 -96.34%
524.00 ~291 .19 ~39.40% ~276.22 ~59.66% ~202. 16 ~92.73%
545.01 ~31 1 ~28.61% ~550 ~66.43% ~72 ~90.00%
MEDIAN 482.0000 ~31 .95% ~514.0000 ~75.00% 433.0000 ~98.46%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.19 — Data of individual census tracts experiencing characteristics of
redevelopment similar to Freedmen’s Town; Table 14 of 14.

294

 

LITERATURE CITED

Adler, Jerry. "At Home in the Big City." Newsweek April 12 1999: 60-62.

Allers, Jackson. "Historical Preservation in Houston." January 14, 2005
<http://kpfi.igc.org/news/O906025tory4.html >.

 

American Association of Port Authorities. ""U.S. Port Ranking by Cargo Volume
2003"." May 15, 2005 <http://www.aapa~
Dortscrg/Ddf/2003 US PORT CARGO TONNAGE RANKINGles >.

~~~. ""World Port Ranking - 2003"." May 15, 2005 <http://www.aapa~
ports.org/pdf/WORLD PORT RANKINGS 2003.xls >.

Anderson, Martin. The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1949-
1962. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press, 1964.

Atkinson, Rowland. "The hidden costs of gentrification: Displacement in central
London." Journal of Housingiind the Built Environment 15 (2000): 307-26.

Bachelor, Lynn W. "Stadiums as Solution Sets: Baseball, Football and the Revival of
Downtown Detriot." Policy Studies Review 15.1 (1998): 89-101.

Bailey, Nick, and Douglas Robertson. "Housing Renewal, Urban Policy and
Gentrification." Urban Studies 34.4 (1997): 561-78.

 

Bardwell, S.K., and Ron Nissimov. "F eds help investigate church fire /Blaze at historic
site is called suspicious." Houston Chronicle February 22 1997, see. A: 1.

Bama, Joel Warren. "The Mother of all F reeways" in Ephemeral City: Cite Looks at
Houston. Ed. Barrie Scardino William F. Stern and Bruce C. Webb. Austin, TX:
The University of Texas Press, 2003.

Beauregard, Robert A. "The chaos and complexity of gentrification" in Gentrification of
the City. Ed. Neil Smith and Peter Williams. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin, 1986.
35-55.

~~~. "Trajectories of neighborhood change: the case of gentrification." Environment and
Planning A 22 (1990): 855-74.

Been, V. "Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighborhoods: disproportionate
sitting or market dynamics?" Lale Law Journal 103.6 (1994): 1383-422.

295

Bellush, Jewel, and Murray Hausknecht, eds. Urban Renewal: People, Politics, and
Flaming. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1967.

Berger, Eric. "Arena Scores Big with Area Voters." Houston Chronicle November 8
2000, see. A: 1.

Berry, Brian J. L. "Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay" in The New Urban Really. Ed.
Paul E. Peterson. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1985. 69-96.

Betancur, John J. "The Politics of Gentrification: The Case of West Town in Chicago."
Urban Affairs Review 37.6 (2002): 780-814.

Billingsley, R. "Gregory School Gets New Life." Houston Defender December 7~13
2003.

Bratt, R. "Public housing: the controversy and contribution" in Critical Perspectives on
Housing. Ed. R. Bratt, C. Hartman, A. Meyerson. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press, 1986. 335-61.

Bryant, Salatheia. "Razing of 1885 home raises ire of neighbors." Houston Chronicle July
29 2004, sec. B: 5.

Buggs, Shannon. "City Books Hopes on Hilton." Houston Chronicle June 26 2005, sec.
D: 1, 7.

Bullard, Robert D. Invisible Houston: The Blackaxperience in Boowd Bust. College
Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1987.

~~~. Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, 1990.

~~~. "Housing Problems and Prospects in Contemporary Houston" in BlackLDixie: Afro-
Texan History and Culture in Houston. Ed. Howard Beeth and Cary D. Wintz.
College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1992. 236-52.

~~~. "Environmental justice: its more than waste facility siting." 800311 Science Quarterly
77.3 (1996): 493-99.

City of Houston. "Overall Economic Development Plan for the Economic Development
Target Area." City of Houston, 1978. 12.

~~~. "Montrose/4th Ward: Community Development Area." Ed. Planning Department,
1979. 11~12.

~~~. "Land Use and Demographic Profile 2000." Ed. Planning & Development
Department, 2003a.

296

---. "Houston Almanac." Ed. Planning & Development Department. 4th ed, 2003b.

---. Department of Planning & Development. "Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones." 13
October 2004 <http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/economic dev/tirz.htm >.

Clean Air Task Force. Death, diseasgnd dirty power: Mortality and health damage due
_t_9_air pollution from power plants. Boston, MA: Clean Air Task Force, 2000.

Cook, Lynn J. "Turmoil in the summer of TIRZ." Houston Business Joumgfl August 9
1999a, http://houston.biziournals.com/houston/stories/1999/08/09/story1 .htrnl.

---. "New hotel going up near CBD." Houston Business Journal August 13 1999b,
http://houston.bizioumals.com/houston/stories/1999/08/16/story3.htm1.

Cronkright, Patricia. "West University: Housing hotbed for redevelopers." Houston
Business Journal December 12 1983, see. A: 1, 16.

Crump, Jeff R. "The End of Public Housing as We Know It: Public Housing Policy,
Labor Regulation and the US City. " International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 27.1 (2003): 179-87.

Cuff, Dana. "Beyond the Last Resort: The Case of Public Housing in Houston." Places
2.4 (1985): 28-43.

Dantas, Alison M. "Overspill as an Alternative Style of Gentrification: The Case of
Riverdale, Toronto" in The Changing Canadian Inner City. Ed. Trudi E. and
Pierre Filion Bunting. Waterloo, Ontario: Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Waterloo,
1988. 73-86.

Darden, Joe T., Richard Child Hill, June Thomas, and Richard Thomas. Detroit: Race
and Uneven Development. Comparative American Cities. Ed. Joe T. Darden.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1987.

Davis, Otto A. and Andrew B. Whinston. "The Economics of Urban Renewal" in Urban
Renewal: The Record and the Controversy. Ed. James Q. Wilson. Cambridge,
MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1966. 50-67.

Dawson, Jennifer. "Camden puts planned deals back on front burner." Houston Business

Journal August 27 2004,
http://houston.bizioumals.conflhouston/stories/2004/08/30/newscolumn3.html.

Downs, Anthony. Urban Problems and Prospects. Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing
Company, 1970.

Engels, B. "Property ownership, tenure, and displacement: in search of the process of
gentrification." Environment and PlanningA 31 (1999): 1473-95.

297

Euchner, Charles C. Plamg the Field: Why Sports Teams Move and Cities Fight to Keep
Them. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1993.

F eagin, Joe R. Free Enterprise City: Houston in Political-Economic Perspective. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1988.

Federal Works Agency, Work Projects Administration. Houston: A History and Guide.
American Guide Series. Houston, TX: Anson Jones Press, 1942.

Filion, Pierre. "The Gentrification - Social Structure Dialectic: A Toronto Case Study."
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 15.4 ( 1991): 553-74.

F inn, Scott. "Charleston, W. Va., Urban Renewal Authority Still Controversial after 50
Years." Knight Ridder Tribute Business News December 31, 2002: 1.

Fischler, Marcelle S. "Long Island Journal; To Build a Home, First Tear One Down." T_he
New Y@( Times October 31 1999, Late ed., sec. MM: 1
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDF 1038F932A05 753C 1
A96F 958260.

 

Fisher, Robert Moore. "Public Costs of Urban Renewal." The Journal of Finance 17.2
(1962): 379-86.

Foard, Ashley A. and Hilbert Fefferman. "Federal Urban Renewal Legislation" in Urban
Renewal: The Record and the Controveray. Ed. James Q. Wilson. Cambridge,
MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1966. 71-125.

Ford, Larry R. America's New Downtowns: Revitalization or Reinvention? Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. "Gentrification and Displacement." Journal of the
American Planning Association 70.1 (2004): 39-52.

Frieden, B]. "Environmental Planning and the Elimination of Poverty." Journal of the
American Institute of Planning 33 (1967): 164-66.

Galster, George C. "Housing Discrimination and Urban Poverty of Afiican—Americans."
Journal of Housing Research 2.2 (1991): 87-122.

 

---. "Neighbourhood Dynamics and Housing Markets" in Housing Economics and Public
Policy. Ed. Tony O' Sullivan, and Kenneth Gibb. Oxford, England: Blackwell
Science, 2003. 153-71.

Galster, George C. and Stephen Peacock. "Urban Gentrification: Evaluating Alternative
Indicators." Social Indicators Resegc_h 18 (1985): 321-37.

298

Gans, Herbert J. "The Failure of Urban Renewal: A Critique and Some Proposals" in
Urban Renewal: People, Politics, and Planning. Ed. Jewel Bellush and Murray
Hausknecht. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1967. 465-84.

Ghirardo, Diane Y. "Wielding the HACHet at Allen Parkway Village" in Ephemeral
City: Cite Looks at Houston. Ed. Barrie Scardino William F. Stern and Bruce C.
Webb. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2003. 99-108.

Glass, Ruth. "London: Aspects of Change" Ed. Centre for Urban Studies. London, UK:
MacGibbon and Kee, 1964.

Gray, Lisa. "Old Sixth Ward loses a piece of its history." Houston Chronicle September
18 2005, see. Zest - Entertainment: 17.

Greater Houston Preservation Alliance. "GHPA: Good Brick Awards: Past Winners."
June 9 2005 <http://www.ghpa.org/awards/list.html >.

Grigsby, William, Morton Baratz, George Galster, and Duncan Macleman. "The
Dynamics of Neighborhood Change and Decline." Progress in Flaming 28.1
(1987): 3-76.

Hackworth, Jason. "Postrecession Gentrification in New York City." Urban Affairs
Review 37.6 (2002): 815-43.

---. "Public housing and the rescaling of regulation in the USA." Environment aLd
Planning A 35 (2003): 531-49.

Hamnett, Chris. "The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification."
Transactions of the Institute of British Geoggaphers 16 (1991): 173-89.

Hanchett, Thomas W. "The other "subsidized housing"." Journal of Housing and
Community Development 58.1 (2001): 18-30.

Hanson, Eric. "Rail Traffic a Welcome Relief." Houston Chronicle January 4 2004, sec.
A: 33.

Harkinson, Josh. "Hitting the Bricks: Preservationists try to keep the pavers from a
Fourth Ward legacy -- brick streets." Houston Press August 12 2004,
http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2004-08-12/news/news print.html.

Hartman, Chester. "The Housing of Relocated Families." Journal of the American
Institute of Planning 30 (1964): 266-86.

Heni g, Jeffrey R. "Gentrification and Displacement Within Cities: A Comparative

Analysis." Social Science @arterly University of Texas Press.3, 4 (1980): 63 8-
52.

299

Hewitt, Paige. "Homeless man held in blaze at church." Houston Chronicle February 5
2005, see. B: 1.

Hill, Christine and Thora Qaddumi. "Organizations save, relocate early history homes
(Residential Real Estate Briefs)" Houston Business J ourfll September 23 2002.

House, Gladys Marie. "A Brief History of Freedmen's Town." 5 January 2005
<http://www.houstonprogressive.org/FTAbrief.html >.

Housing Authority of the City of Houston. "Houston Housing 1939." Ed. Texas; Works
Projects Administration Housing Authority of the City of Houston, 1939.

Housing Research Foundation. "Allen Parkway Village HOPE VI Site Profile." February
14, 2005 <http://www.housingresearch.org >.

 

Houston Downtown Management District. "Houston Downtown." May 18
<http://www.houstondowntown.com >. ‘

 

Houston Historic. "Historic Houston Delivers Historic Houses and Initial Funding for
Restoration." January 15, 2005 <http://www.historichouston.org >.

Houston Progressive. "Freedmen's Town Threatened." January 4, 2005
<http://www.houstonprogressive.org/reporter.html >.

Houston Public Housing Program. "Amual Report." Ed. Texas Housing Authority of the
City of Houston, 1940.

Howsley, Kelly. "Uncovering the spatial patterns of Portland's gentrification." 4th
International Space Syntax Symposium. London, 2003.

Hoyt, Homer. One Hundred Years of Land Vaflues in Chicago: The Relafionship of the
Growth of Chicago to the Rise of Its Land Values,1830-1933. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1933.

Huu Phe, Hoang, and Patrick Wakely. "Status, Quality and the Other Trade-off: Towards
a New Theory of Urban Residential Location." UrbaLStudies 37.1 (2000): 7-35.

Jackson, Kemeth T. "The Drive-in Culture of Contemporary America" in The Ciy
Reader. Ed. Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout. 3rd ed. New York, NY:
Routledge, 2003. 67-76.

Johnston, Marguerite. Houston: The Unknown Cim 1836-1946. College Station, TX:
Texas A&M University Press, 1991.

Jones, E. Michael. The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing. South
Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press, 2004.

300

Kaplan, David. "Midtown: Walking Against the Crowd." Houston Chronicle October 26
2003: 1D, 4D.

Kasarda, John D. "Urban Change and Minority Opportunities" in The New Urbaa
Reality. Ed. Paul E. Peterson. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1985.
33-67. .

Keating, Larry. "Redeveloping Public Housing: Relearning Urban Renewal's Immutable
Lessons." Journal of the American Planning Association 66.4 (2000): 384-97.

Kleinhans, Reinout. "Displaced but still Moving Upwards in the Housing Career?
Implications of Forced Residential Relocation in the Netherlands." Housing
Studies 18.4 (2003): 473-99.

Kleit, Rachel Garshick. "Neighborhood Relations in Suburban Scattered-Site and
Clustered Public Housing." J oumal of Urban Affairs 23.3-4 (2001): 409-30.

 

Knox, Paul L. "The Restless Urban Landscape: Economic and Sociocultural Change and
the Transformation of Metropolitan Washington, DC." Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 81.2 (1991): 181-209.

KPFT News. "Historical Preservation in Houston." January 14, 2002
<http://kpfi.igc.org/news/O906025tory4.html >.

Kuffner, Kate M. "Partnerships are making a dent in demand for affordable housing."
Houston Business Journal July 23 2004,
http://houston.bizioumals.com/houston/stories/2004/07/26/focus8.html.

Lang, Michael H. Gentrification Amid Urban Decline: Strategies for America's Older
Cities. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1982.

Lee, Barrett A., and David C. Hodge. "Social Differentials in Metropolitan Residential
Displacement" in Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalizfln.
Ed. J. John Palen and Bruce London. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1984. 140-69.

LeGates, Richard T., and Chester Hartman. "The anatomy of displacement in the United
States" in Gentrification of the City. Ed. Neil Smith and Peter Williams. Boston,
MA: Allen & Unwin, 1986. 178-200.

Ley, David. "Alternative Explanations for Inner-City Gentrification: A Canadian
Assessment." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76.4 (1986):
521-35.

Lin, Jan. "Ethnic Places, Postmodernism, and Urban Change in Houston." Iha
Sociological Quarterly 36.4 (1995): 629-47.

301

London, Bruce and J. John Palen. "Introduction: Some Theoretical and Practical Issues
Regarding Inner-City Revitalization" in Gentrification, Displacement and
Neighborhood Revitalization. Ed. J. John Palen and Bruce London. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press, 1984. 4-26.

Lowry, Ira S. "Where Should the Poor Live?" in Housing America's Poor. Ed. Peter D.
Salins. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1987. 90-110.

Macionis, John J. and Vincent N. Parrillo. Cities and Urban Life. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.

Main Street Coalition. "Main Street Strategic Plan." Ed. Houston Department of Planning
and Development, 2001.

Marcuse, Peter. "Housing policy and the myth of the benevolent state." Social Policy 8
(1978): 21-26.

McCarthy, Liz. "Houston." Successful Meetings December 2000: 20—23.

McComb, David G. Houston: The Bayou City. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press,
1969.

McQuade, Walter. "Urban Renewal in Boston" in Urban Renewal: The Record and the
Controversy. Ed. James Q. Wilson. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, 1966. 259-77.

 

Mehlhom, Dmitri. "A Requiem for Blockbusting: Law, Economics, and Race-Based Real
Estate Speculation." Fordham Law Review 67.1998-1999 (1999): 1145-92.

Miller, Ray. RaLMiller's Houston. Austin, TX: Cordovan Press, 1982.

Minute Maid Park. June 2 2005 <http://www.ballparks.com/basebalVnational/bpkaushtm
>.

Mullins, Patrick. "The 'Middle-Class' and the Inner City." Journal of Australian Political
Economy.1 l.January (1982): 44-58.

Murphy, Bill. "Sides Form Over Sports Authority's F uture." Houston Chronicle April 4
2005, sec. B: 1, 3.

Nichols, Bruce. "Empty Nesters: How to fill Astrodome now that teams are gone." 113
Dallas Morning News January 23 2005, sec. A: ll.

Nivola, Pietro S. "Are Europe's Cities Better." Public Interest.137 (1999): 73-85.

302

Northwestern University Law Review. "For Sale' Signs, Blockbusting, and the First
Amendment: A Tale of Two Cities." Northwestern University School of La 72.5
(1978): 789-810.

Orser, W. Edward. Blockbustipg in Baltimore: The Edmondson Village Story. Lexington,
KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1994.

Palen, J. and Bruce London. Gentrification, Displacement, and Neighborhood
Revitalization. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1984.

Perez, Gina M. "The Other "Real World": Gentrification and the Social Construction of
Place in Chicago." Urban Anthropology 31.1 (2002): 37-68.

Peterson, Iver. "As Land Goes to Revitalization, There Go the Old Neighbors." New
York Times January 30 2005, see. 1: 29, 32.

Plocek, Keith. "On Shaky Grounds: HISD got more than it bargained for when it decided
to develop the Fourth Ward." Houston Press December 30, 2004.

Pooley, Colin G. "Housing for the poorest poor: slum-clearance and rehousing in
Liverpool, 1890-1918." Journal of Historical Geography 11.1 (1985): 70-88.

powell, john a. "Achieving Racial Justice: What's Sprawl Got to Do With It?" Povegy &
Race 8.5 (1999): 3.

---. "Sprawl, Fragmentation, and the Persistence of Racial Inequality" in Urban Sprawl:
Causes, Consequences & Policy Responses. Ed. Gregory D. Squires. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute Press, 2002. 73-117.

Quercia, Roberto G. and George C. Galster. "Threshold Effects and the Expected
Benefits of Attracting Middle-Income Households to the Central City." Housing
Policy Debate 8.2 (1997): 409-35.

Red Book. The Red Bookof Houston: A Compendium of Social, Professional. Religious.
Educational and Industrig Interests of Houston's Colored Population. Houston,
TX: Sotex Publishing Company, 1915.

Rodriguez, Lori. "Leaders unite to back historic black church." Houston Chronicle
January 25 2005a, see. A: l.

---. "Fourth Ward: Road to Renewal?" Houston Chronicle February 13 2005b, sec. B: 1.

Rose, Damaris. "Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of marxist
urban theory." Environment and PlanningQ 1 ( 1984): 47-74.

Rose, W. The Economic Impact of the Port of Houston, 1958-1963. Houston, TX:
University of Houston, Center for Research in Business and Economics, 1965.

303

Rothenberg, Jerome, George C. Galster, Richard V. Butler, and John Pitkin. The Maze of
Urban HousingMarkets: Theory, Evidenceyand Policy. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Rouffignac, Ann de. "Budget soars on Cotswold street project." Houston Business
Journal October 8 1999a: A1
http://www.biziournals.com/houstorb’stories/1999/10/l 1/story2.html.

 

---. "City spends big on downtown beauty: public role in diverse projects stirs up debate."
Houston Business Journal October 8 1999b, see. A: 1
http://www.bizioumals.com/houston/stories/l999/10/1 1/story1.html.

Rutheiser, Charles. "Making Place in the Nonplace Urban Realm: Notes on the
Revitalization of Downtown Atlanta." Urban Anthropology 26.1 (1997): 9-42.

 

Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. "Directions for New Urban Neighbourhoods: Learning
from St. Lawrence." Learning from St. Lawrence. Ed. David L.A. Gordon.
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, 1989.

Sarnoff, Nancy. "Builder bucks odds with new homes in old areas." Houston Business

Journal April 21 2000,
http://houston.bizioumals.com/houston/ stories/ 2000/04/24/story3.htm1.

 

---. "Land Owners Condemn HISD." Houston Business Journal April 5 2002,
http://houston.bizioumals.com/houston/stories/2002/O4/08/storyl .html.

 

Schadewald, Bill. "School district gets an 'F' in Fourth Ward." Houston Business J ourna_l
April 5 2002,
http://houston.bizioumals.com/houston/stories/2002/04/08/editoria1l .html.

Shlaes, Amity. "When a home becomes government property: US law allows private land
to be seized for public use in rare cases. But the definition has been stretched for
commercial gains." Financial Times June 25, 2002: 19.

Shmidt, S.J. "Stealing the Fourth Ward." World News Internet Cooperative, University of
Houston <http://www.worldinternetnews.net> November 1 2001,
http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article 52.5html.

Sichelman, Lew. "Downtown Houston Seen Undergoing Revitalization." National
Mortgage News June 7 2004: 14.

Sidlow, Edward I., and Beth M. Henschen. "Major League Baseball and Public Policy,
or, Take Me Out to the Ballgame, Wherever the Game May Be." Policy Studies
Review 15.1 (1998): 65-88.

304

Slater, Tom, Winifred Curran, and Loretta Lees. "Guest Editorial: Gentrification research

- new directions and critical scholarship." Environment and Planning 36
(2004): 1141-50.

Smith, Neil. "Gentrification and Capital: Practice and Ideology in Society Hill." Antipode
11.3 (1979a): 24-35.

---. "Toward a Theory of Gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital not
people." Journal of the American Plaming Association 45.4 (1979b): 538-48.

Smith, Neil, and Michele LeFaivre. "A Class Analysis of Gentrification" in
Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. Ed. J. John Palen
and Bruce London. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1984. 43-
63.

Smith, Roger. "Freedmen's Town heritage gets new life." City Savy: Online Edition
Summer 2003, .
http://www.houstontx.gov/hr/savvypages/archiyes/summerOB/summer03 gregory
school.htm.

Snyder, Mike. "New plans for historic Fourth Ward face old obstacles." Houston
Chronicle January 9 2000, see. A: 1.

Sonoma Technology. Assessment of the health benefits of improving air mality in
Houston, Texas. Petaluma, CA: Sonoma Technology, 1999.

Stull & Lee, Inc. Freedmen's Town TIRZ Plan, 2003.

Sumka, Howard J. "Neighborhood Revitalization and Displacement." J oufll of the
American Plaming Association 45.4 (1979a): 480-87.

Teaford, Jon C. The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940-
1985. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1990.

---. "Urban Renewal and Its Aftermath." Housipg Policy Debate 11.2 (2000): 443-65.

Texas Historical Commission. "Freedmen's Town Historic District." January 15, 2005
<http://at1as.thc.state.tx.us/ >.

---. "San Felipe Courts Historic District." January 20, 2005 <http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/ >.

---. "State Archeological Landmarks." May 17, 2005
<http://www.thc.state.tx.us/markersdesigs/madsal.html >.

Thomas, June Manning. Redevelopment and Race: Planning a Finer City in Postwa_r
Detroit. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1997.

305

Thomas, Robert D. and Richard W. Murray. Progrth Politics: Change and Governance
in Houston. Berkeley, California: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1991.

Tolson, Mike. "7 Days to Kickoff, Super Bowl XXXVIII: A Sports Renaissance."
Houston Chronicle January 25 2004, see. A: 1.

U.S. Census Bureau. Dept. of the Interior. The Eight Census of the Population of the
United States: 1860. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1864.

---. Dept. of the Interior. Ninth Census: The Statistics of the Population of the United
States. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1872.

---. Dept. of the Interior. Twelfth Census: Population Part. Vol. 1. Washington, DC:
U.S. Census Office, 1901.

---. Census of Population: 1950. Vol. H - Characteristics of the Population, Pt. 43: Texas.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1952.

---. 1970 Census of Population and Housing. Ed. Dept. of Commerce. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1972.

---. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980 Census of Population angd Housing (Census
Tracts) - Houston, Texas SMSA. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1983.

---. "1980 U.S. Census of Population and Housing (Census Tracts): Houston, Texas
SMSA." Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

---. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990 Census of PopulaLion and Housing (Census
Tracts) - Houston, Texas PMSA. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1993.

---. "American F actF inder." 16 January 2004 <http://factfinder.census.gov >.

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. "HOPE VI." Jan. 15, 2006
<http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/pLh/hope6/abot/description.cfin >.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Real Estate Acquisition and
Relocation." August 10 2005
<http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/library/relocation/index.cfin >.

Urban Lofis. "Urban Lofts Townhomes - Properties Available." February 15
<www.urbanlofis.com >.

Urban Renewal Administration. "Relocation from Urban Renewal Project Areas through
June 1960." U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961.

306

Verhovek, Sam Howe. "Historic Houston Neighborhood Falls to Renewal." The New
York Tlmes March 15 1998, Late Edition (East Coast) ed., sec. 1: 18.

Vigdor, Jacob L. "Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?" Brookings-Wharton Papers on
Urban Affairs: 2002 (2002): 133-82.

 

 

Villafranca, Armando. "Race factor discounted in church arson." Houston Chronicle
February 27 1997, sec. A: 29.

Vojnovic, Igor. "Laissez-Faire Governance and the Archetype Laissez-Faire City in the
USA: Exploring Houston." Geografiska Annaler 85 B.1 (2003a): 19-38.

---. "Governance in Houston: Growth Theories and Urban Pressures." Journal of Urban
Affairs 25.5 (2003b): 589-624.

Wall, Lucas. "3 Rail Expansion Corridors Approved by Metro Board." Houston
Chronicle November 21 2003, see. A: 39.

Weaver, Robert C. "Recent Developments in Urban Housing and Their Implications for
Minorities." Phylon Quarterly 16.3 (1955): 275-82.

 

Williams, Brett. "Gentrifying Water and Selling Jim Crow." Urban Anthropology 1
(2002): 93-121.

Williams, John. "Living downtown." Houston Chronicle October 12 1997, see. Texas
Magazine: 26.

Wilson, James Q., ed. Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy. Cambridge,
M.A.: The M.I.T. Press, 1966.

Wilson, William J. The truly disadvangrged: the inner city, the underclasgyand public
policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Wintz, Cary D. "Blacks" in The Ethnic Groups of Houston. Ed. Fred R. von der Mehden.
Houston, TX: Rice University Studies, 1984.

---. "The Emergence of a Black Neighborhood: Houston's Fourth Ward, 1865-1915" in
UrbMexas: Politics and Development. Ed. Char and Heywood T. Sanders
Miller. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1990. 96-109.

---. "Fourth Ward, Houston." 1 February 2005
<http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/FF/hpfl .html >.

Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Harnmel. "Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing

Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification." Housing Policy Debate 10.4 (1999):
711-71.

307