Liberal Ends Through Illiberal Means (Pdf)

Journal of Urban History http://juh.sagepub.com

Liberal Ends Through Illiberal Means: Race, Urban Renewal, and Community in the Eastwick Section of Philadelphia, 1949-1990 Guian A. Mckee Journal of Urban History 2001; 27; 547 DOI: 10.1177/009614420102700501

The online version of this article can be found at: http://juh.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Urban History Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Urban History can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://juh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://juh.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS

LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS Race, Urban Renewal, and Community in the Eastwick Section of Philadelphia, 1949-1990

GUIAN A. MCKEE University of California at Berkeley

The Eastwick section of Philadelphia is a three-thousand-acre tract of low-lying land that stretches along the city’s southwestern boundary. To the east, Eastwick is separated from downtown Philadelphia by the Schuylkill River and by a large installment of oil refineries. To the south, it is bounded by Interstate 95 and Philadelphia International Airport (see Figure 1). Prior to the 1950s, Eastwick was a sparsely populated, semirural area featuring small farms, trailers, scattered housing developments, and, by the mid-twentieth century, an assortment of auto junkyards and burning garbage dumps. During the 1950s and 1960s, however, the reform Democrats who gained control of Philadelphia’s city government conceived of a plan that would make Eastwick the largest urban renewal area in the United States, the subject of a $78 million effort to build an unprecedented “city-within-a-city.” This plan projected the creation of a new Eastwick that would be far more than a typical urban renewal project: not only would it provide twenty-thousand jobs and homes for as many as sixty-thousand people, but it would also be racially integrated.1 Through the reorganization of urban space in Eastwick, Philadelphia’s reform liberals thus attempted to promote racial integration while attacking decentral- ization and deindustrialization, the two dominant patterns of American political-economic development following World War II.2 The pursuit of these goals brought an attendant element of tragic irony, as the project required the destruction of the area’s unique existing community, which, unlike most of Philadelphia during this period, was already racially integrated. Constrained by the limits of local finance and the regulations of federal urban policy, as well as by their own presumptions about Eastwick, Philadelphia’s postwar urban liberals found no way to balance the interests of the existing community with their otherwise innovative effort to address the

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank those who offered suggestions on earlier versions of this paper, and in particular Robin Einhorn, Mary Ryan, Joanna Vondrasek, the two anonymous reviewers for the JUH, and the participants in a conference panel at the 1999 Organization of American Historians annual meeting in Toronto, Ontario. JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY, Vol. 27 No. 5, July 2001 547-583 © 2001 Sage Publications 547

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 548 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

Figure 1: Location of Eastwick Urban Renewal Area SOURCE: Portions of the map of the city of Philadelphia are the intellectual property of ESRI and are used herein with permission. Copyright 1992 ESRI. All rights reserved. social and economic problems facing the postwar city. In contrast to most accounts of postwar urban history, the ensuing clash between the community and the city demonstrated that working-class urban residents could engage in interracial political action. Although the opposition effort in Eastwick ultimately failed, its existence provides evidence that working-class communities in postwar American cities possessed the capacity for racial cooperation as well as conflict. Despite the brutality inherent to the renewal process, the long-term outcome of urban renewal in Eastwick suggests a second conclusion regarding the nature and potential of liberalism in the postwar city. Although plagued by both lengthy delays in its development and reductions in its final scale, the Eastwick project eventually attained many of its original goals. The project’s provision of thousands of units of lower middle-income housing and its creation of the infrastructure for a significant employment base provided the physical and economic foundation for the eventual emergence of a stable and largely integrated community in the new Eastwick.3 The actual achievement of this end, however, also required the initial implementation of an illiberal policy of racial quotas in housing sales and, later, the emergence of a community organization that emphasized the common interests of all residents over the particular divisions of race and neighborhood. Despite the project planners’ insensitivity to the human costs of such a dramatic reorganization of urban physical space, the Eastwick project indicates that racial integration could

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 549 succeed when linked to the creation of both affordable housing and blue-collar jobs, when monitored through policies of racial management, and when supported by concerted, community-based action.4

THE EASTWICK COMMUNITY BEFORE URBAN RENEWAL

In 1950, Eastwick constituted less than an ideal site for housing thousands of people. In addition to the nearby airport, refineries, auto junkyards, and burning dumps, much of the area also lay as much as twelve feet below the level of the Delaware River, making it marshy and prone to flooding.5 In addition, much of Eastwick had an aging and dilapidated housing stock, and few neighborhoods had paved streets or sidewalks. As most of the area also lacked sewers, sewage and rainwater flowed into stagnant, open ditches that often overflowed after heavy storms. Even in good weather, these ditches attracted large populations of rats.6 Perhaps of greatest importance to city policy mak- ers, however, Eastwick’s numerous vacant lots had a tax delinquency rate of 84 percent (see Figure 2).7 In spite of Eastwick’s problems, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Author- ity’s (RA) 1951 description of the area as “predominantly open land” represented a significant exaggeration.8 Although 60 percent of Eastwick was uninhabited, the occupied area contained a population of 19,300 low- and middle-income residents. A total of 72 percent of this population owned their own homes, but this high rate of home ownership belied the relatively low income of area residents, 67 percent of whom were eligible for public housing. Many residents worked in Eastwick’s 11 factories, most of which stood in the northeastern section of the area and varied in both character and size, “ranging from nationally operated, large-scale enterprise [sic] to smaller, locally owned industries.” In combination with Eastwick’s 278 commercial businesses, these industrial facilities constituted a primary source of local employment. City planners, however, placed little value on this relationship between community and work, as a preliminary RA plan simply noted that land use in Eastwick consisted of “a confusion of residential, commercial and industrial uses mixed with vacant land.”9 Eastwick’s physical and environmental deficiencies had not prevented the development of a strong community, as many residents felt a deep sense of loy- alty to their neighbors and a powerful personal identification with the area.10 The inhabitants of Eastwick also relished the semirural character of Eastwick’s large lots, gardens, open fields, and nearby marshes. Residents often referred to the area as “the Meadows,” identifying their community with its natural surroundings.11 While residents acknowledged that Eastwick had numerous physical problems, they attributed them to the city’s failure to install sewers and enforce building and housing codes.12

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 550 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

Figure 2: Three views of Eastwick in 1950-1951 that illustrate the wide range of housing and environmental conditions in the area. SOURCE: Urban Archives, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 551

In its existing form, Eastwick possessed one other notable characteristic. Unlike most of Philadelphia during the 1940s and 1950s, the area included both whites and blacks who lived in relative, if not total, integration. In 1953, 1,700 dwellings in Eastwick’s northwest section were nearly all white. In the remainder of the redevelopment area, however, 2,188 white families resided alongside 1,127 nonwhite families in what a federal housing official described as “considerable racial interspersion of residence.”13 Throughout much of Eastwick, racial interaction constituted a commonplace element of daily life; Eastwick’s public elementary schools, for example, served children in the surrounding neighborhoods without regard to race.14 This racial coexistence extended in some cases to even the most intimate areas of life, as a black Eastwick obstetrician served a clientele composed of “more white patients than Negro.”15 When viewed within the context of the often explosive interaction of race, gender, and sexuality in American history, the presence of a black, male professional in such a role is extraordinary. Eastwick’s racial accommodation struck both residents and outside observ- ers as noteworthy. In 1959, a member of the Philadelphia Housing Association commented that “most remarkable of all, Eastwick is an integrated community, with Negro and white living together without friction, but as neighbors and friends—and without the stimulus imposed by an outside social agency.”16 In 1974, Eastwick native Ida Scheer recalled that before urban renewal,

this was a wonderful community for generations. Blacks, whites, Indians, Chi- nese, you name it. We were integrated before they even made up the word. ...I got to laugh at all this talk about race trouble these days....Blacks and whites have been neighbors here, living together and helping each other, before any of us were born. When somebody gets sick or somebody dies in the meadows, your neighbors are always there with you, and it don’t count what color they are.17

Such patterns of racial cooperation may well have been easier to maintain in the spread-out neighborhoods of Eastwick than in the densely populated row-house neighborhoods more typical of Philadelphia, but it is nonetheless significant that they existed at all in a working-class area of the post–World War II urban north. During the middle and late 1950s, this tradition of racial interaction and accommodation would provide the basis for a sustained, interracial campaign to oppose the city’s plans for urban renewal in Eastwick.

URBAN LIBERALISM AND THE VISION OF A CITY-WITHIN-A-CITY

In recent years, political historians have argued that the late New Deal and the Second World War marked the “end of reform” in American liberalism. With few exceptions, such accounts address only national level politics while paying little attention to locally based policy initiatives.18 This national focus, however, is premised on a narrow conception of postwar liberalism that

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 552 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001 drastically underestimates its capacity to influence multiple levels of the American state. Evidence for the postwar persistence of a local variant of reform liberalism is provided by the emergence of a vibrant, urban-based liberalism in Philadelphia during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Coming to power in 1951 with the support of an often-tenuous coalition of civic and political organizations, business groups, labor unions, African Americans, and Demo- cratic ward organizations, Philadelphia’s postwar urban liberals pursued public policy goals that are often thought to have disappeared from American politics during this period. Premised on the belief that pragmatic policy experi- mentation, social-scientific expertise, and physical and economic planning could serve the interests of all citizens without regard to race or class, the postwar liberal agenda in Philadelphia included racial integration, construction of public housing, expansion of health care services, implementation of civil service standards, revitalization of the city’s physical infrastructure, and inter- vention in the local economy to preserve jobs and secure the tax base.19 The broad social and economic transformation of American cities during this period, along with the naiveté of the reformers’ assumptions about the univer- sal nature of the public interest, ultimately undercut much of this agenda. Nonetheless, Philadelphia’s postwar pattern of local governmental activism raises the possibility that the liberal reform impulse survived the demise of the New Deal and reemerged after the Second World War as a new form of locally based urban liberalism. Although this liberal ideological framework provided the context for urban renewal in Eastwick, the project itself was actually a partial inheritance from the reformers’ Republican predecessors. During the late 1940s, city planners began to view Eastwick’s vast and relatively open spaces as a potential solution to the problem of residential displacement from redevelopment projects in largely black sections of North and West Philadelphia.20 In 1949, the RA argued that low-income blacks in these areas could be relocated to a new, planned community in Eastwick that, in the words of one commentator, “would not only siphon off the black overflow but would be a low visibility cul-de-sac into which the burgeoning Negro population could be stuffed.”21 In the aftermath of the reform Democrats’ victory, this conception of Eastwick’s future underwent a dramatic transformation. The culmination of this change came in December 1953 with the release of a preliminary redevelopment plan prepared by the Eastwick Planners, a group of consultants directed by noted city planner Henry Churchill. Instead of a planned ghetto, the new Churchill Plan called for the creation of a “balanced community which will demonstrate that good living can be provided within a big city.”22 Influ- enced by the “Garden City” principles of the British theorist Ebenezer Howard, as well as by Churchill’s experience during the 1930s as an architect for the New Deal’s Greenbelt town program, the Eastwick Planners projected a self-contained community with a carefully planned and closely interrelated mixture of housing, industrial and commercial areas, and community and

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 553 recreational facilities. According to this vision, the new Eastwick would be nothing less than a city-within-a-city that would allow Philadelphia to compete with suburban areas for both population and jobs.23 The Churchill Plan’s specific characteristics left little doubt that such a goal drove the Eastwick planning process. Attempting to incorporate elements of suburban design while still maintaining “the characteristics of the city of Phil- adelphia,” the Eastwick Planners projected a development of 45,000 people living in 4,100 apartments, 670 detached and semidetached houses, and 7,800 units derived from the traditional Philadelphia row house.24 Public housing would be included in the new Eastwick, but in a striking contrast to the typical, isolated housing projects of the era, the plan recommended that it “be dispersed in small units throughout the redevelopment area, related in scale and type to other housing.”25 A system of parks, pedestrian greenways, schools, churches, and community facilities would be linked to one another, as well as to commercial areas. The latter would include one of the largest shopping centers in the city, as well as smaller shopping facilities within each of Eastwick’s four residential districts. Traffic would be shunted away from each of these neighborhood blocks and onto a series of “collector” roadways surrounding each neighborhood.26 Also included, in the southwest corner of Eastwick, would be a bird sanctuary, the first of its kind in any major American city.27 In one of the plan’s most important features, 1,263 acres would be devoted to industrial uses, two-thirds of which would be integrated into a planned industrial “estate” on the east side of Eastwick. Although residential areas would be shielded from factories by greenways, they would be close enough to allow residents to work within walking distance of their homes.28 The Eastwick industrial districts provided the first indication of a new concern with industrial renewal that within a few years would become a central feature of local public policy in Philadelphia. By creating suburban-style industrial parks such as the one in Eastwick, Philadelphia attempted to provide open land that would allow the city to compete with suburban areas for the manufacturing firms and jobs that had already begun to disappear from the city in significant numbers.29 The recognition of a relationship between housing and work constituted a central principle of Garden City planning theory, and it would play a crucial part in the eventual outcome of urban renewal in Eastwick. More important than any aspect of the physical plan, however, was the city’s decision that the new development should be racially integrated rather than exclusively African American.30 Multiple motives guided this change. In part, the decision can be traced to the racial liberalism of the new Democratic administration, which adopted housing integration as a goal of city policy. Mayor Joseph S. Clark spoke publicly on the issue and backed up his rhetoric by supporting the investigative efforts of the city’s new Commission on Human Relations (CHR), which had been created by the Home Rule Charter to investigate and defuse racial conflicts.31 Within this context of racial liberalism, Eastwick’s existing multiracial character and its physical separation from

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 554 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

Philadelphia’s endemic racial conflict seemed to offer the possibility of achieving, in the words of a 1954 federal assessment, a “landmark” racial success.32 Purely pragmatic considerations also pushed the city toward a policy of integration in the new Eastwick. Faced with a serious decline in the tax base, the reform Democrats initiated a series of programs designed to slow the flight of whites out of Philadelphia. In the Society Hill area, the quasi-public Old Philadelphia Development Corporation restored eighteenth-century town- houses and built new luxury homes and apartment towers to attract affluent white residents.33 Eastwick, with its progressive planning, modern amenities, and job opportunities, provided a working-class parallel to Society Hill, designed to induce blue-collar whites to remain in the city.34 The final and most important reason for the change, however, lay in the nature of the Philadelphia housing market. Early plans for Eastwick forecast that prices for new housing in the project would range from $10,000, a price close to the minimum possi- ble for new, privately built housing in the Philadelphia area, up to $13,999. A study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania indicated that at these prices, housing demands from blacks alone would not be sufficient to support a development of Eastwick’s size.35 The decision to develop Eastwick as an integrated project thus emerged from a set of mixed yet mutually reinforcing motives, ranging from racial liberalism to the constraints of the local housing market. That Philadelphia’s reform Democrats undertook such a massive integration project at all is significant in itself, given the troubled history of urban race relations during this period. Nonetheless, the necessity of relying on white housing demand to ensure the project’s financial viability exacted a serious cost. From this point forward, city officials and project developers performed a delicate and emo- tionally charged act of racial balancing, as the University of Pennsylvania study also concluded that white demand would decline rapidly if African Americans occupied a significant percentage of Eastwick’s homes. This inter- twining of the imperatives of white racism with the reform Democrats’ desire to create an idealized city-within-a-city thus produced a strange contradiction: to achieve integration in the new Eastwick, African American access to the housing would have to be limited.36 Concerns about the level of white housing demand also led to the elimination of Henry Churchill’s innovative plan for dispersed public housing.37

INTERRACIAL COOPERATION AND RESISTANCE TO URBAN RENEWAL IN EASTWICK

As the project’s racial contradictions indicate, the planning of Eastwick occurred in neither a social nor political vacuum. In the year following the release of the Churchill Plan, area residents began to recognize exactly what

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 555 the nation’s largest urban redevelopment project would mean for them. Accompanying its progressive planning features, the Eastwick project required one additional and less attractive element: the displacement of 8,636 people.38 As a result, Eastwick residents soon began to organize in resistance to the plan. The first indication of widespread opposition in Eastwick came in the spring of 1955 when residents refused to allow RA real estate assessors to enter their homes. Within weeks, residents organized protest groups, circulated peti- tions opposing the project, staged meetings and rallies, and spread rumors about the city’s plans.39 From the beginning of the protest movement, Eastwick residents developed an alternative portrayal of both urban renewal and the relationship between urban space and community identity. Resident William Hillier questioned even the city’s basic definition of the area, pointing out that in his opinion he lived in Clearview but that “the good folks up in the city call it all Eastwick now. We didn’t know that.”40 Hillier’s comment reflects a basic conflict between the city’s homogenizing definition of urban space and the more particular community identities developed by residents. In October 1955, one community group presented more than four thousand signatures on a petition that questioned even the basic premise of urban renewal: Eastwick, they declared, was not a blighted area. Instead, it simply needed basic services such as sewers, paved streets, improved lighting, shopping facilities, and better schools, all of which the city had neglected for decades and could provide without the demolition of their community.41 These challenges delineated the point at which the nature of federal urban policy produced a fundamental divergence between the views of residents and city officials. While Eastwick residents desired the improvement of the area’s inadequate infrastructure and would even accept new residential and industrial development on open land, they objected to the wholesale destruction of the existing community.42 City officials argued that such improvements would be prohibitively expensive without federal assistance. During the 1950s, such aid was available only in the form of urban renewal, which required slum clearance. Thoroughly schooled in the principles of midcentury urban planning, such officials also looked at Eastwick’s mixed land uses, dilapidated housing, and propensity to flood and saw little reason to pass up millions of federal dol- lars simply to preserve such a community.43 To residents, such explanations appeared both penurious and cruel. To city officials, in contrast, the residents’ objections betrayed a narrowness of vision and a failure to understand the interests of Philadelphia as a whole. Each group’s logic seemed unassailable when seen from its own perspective, and, as a result, accommodation of the two positions proved impossible. Such complete differences in perspective made continued conflict inevitable. After an interlude of relative inactivity in 1956, protests flared again after the Housing and Home Finance Administration (HHFA) approved the city’s preliminary loan and grant application in March 1957. In July, residents turned

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 556 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001 a public hearing on Eastwick into a mass protest against the project, as a crowd of fifteen hundred jammed into Philadelphia’s Convention Hall and, according to one newspaper account, “hooted, shouted and screamed its protest amid tears, accusations and charges of collusion.”44 In the weeks that followed, opponents of renewal held protest meetings, marched on City Hall, and mailed twenty thousand postcards to City Council President James Tate.45 In an act that demonstrated the emotional intensity of the conflict, one woman wrote to Tate threatening “to bomb and bomb and bomb again until somebody is killed” unless council “got some sense” regarding Eastwick. The FBI matched her handwriting to one of the protest postcards and hauled her away to the psychi- atric ward of Philadelphia General Hospital.46 Significantly, these protests took place on a racially integrated basis. As early as July 1955, a member of the Citizens’ Council on City Planning, a local planning advocacy and watchdog organization, observed that “the protest groups have good leadership and a mixture of racial, national and religious groups not present heretofore in community organizations.” Not only did such groups have both black and white members, but in at least one case, an African American woman became the leader of a protest organization.47 The city’s African American newspaper, the Philadelphia Tribune, emerged as a leading opponent of urban renewal in Eastwick, but its coverage addressed issues that affected all residents without direct regard to race. Along with regular reports on the city’s planning efforts and the activities of the protest groups, the Tri- bune focused on such problems as the high housing costs projected for the new Eastwick, the difficulties that elderly Eastwick home owners would face in qualifying for new mortgages, and the future of local churches displaced by redevelopment.48 In 1958, Tribune columnist Art Peters emphasized racial cooperation as a defining characteristic of the Eastwick protest effort:

Negro and white residents of Eastwick are fighting together for what they call the “common cause.” The common cause, as they see it, is to prevent at any cost the planned redevelopment of Eastwick. Almost to a man, the Eastwick residents agree that the planned redevelopment of their community will cause segregated housing in Eastwick, which for years has been thoroughly integrated and which its citizens wish to remain integrated.49

Such evidence of racial cooperation among the Eastwick protestors demon- strates that viable, interracial political activity and collaboration did take place in working-class communities in the postwar urban north (see Figure 3).50 Interracial cooperation also provided a crucial context for one of the protest movement’s most interesting and historically significant strands of dissent. In August 1957, protest leader Dolores Rubillo charged that the Eastwick project reflected communist influence in Philadelphia’s city planning process, claim- ing that “this could be a socialistic move which could go a lot farther than Phil- adelphia in its implications.” Rubillo soon gained the support of South Philadelphia City Councilman Gaetano P. Giordano, who supported her request

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 557

Figure 3: Racially mixed group of Eastwick residents at the final public hearing on the Eastwick Urban Renewal Project,Convention Hall,Philadelphia,March 19,1958. SOURCE: Urban Archives, Temple University, Philadelphia. that the FBI investigate her findings. Richardson H. Dilworth, who had become mayor in 1956 when Joseph Clark entered the U.S. Senate, immediately rebuffed Rubillo’s charges, which in fact had little factual basis.51 Undaunted, Rubillo again linked her opponents to communism in October when she testified before an unsympathetic Senate Subcommittee on Housing, which happened to be chaired by Senator Clark. This time, Rubillo broadened her strategy by equating opposition to urban renewal with patriotism and Americanism, noting that the residents of Eastwick

call this urban-renewal program as used in Philadelphia a socialistic move against the many for the capitalistic gain of the few. We revolt against it. We call for justice and truth to come to the fore. The strong city forces have called us “flag wavers.” We are proud of that title. Even the flag of our country is a symbol of ridicule and to be sneered at by these pseudointellectuals. We ask for the things that our ancestors fought for, and we fought for. We will fight again to protect our homes. It is indeed a sad situation that now exists in this proud democracy.52

Despite the weakness of Rubillo’s specific, factual charge, her underlying ideological position managed to link a populist critique of business interest in urban renewal with the dominant political discourse of the period. Defining the protests as the revolt of hard-working Americans against a suspected, if perhaps contradictory, alliance between business and leftist intellectuals, Rubillo

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 558 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001 justified the legitimacy of her cause through a conception of citizenship grounded in patriotism and property ownership.53 Rather than a transformative demand, Rubillo thus presented a claim for inclusion: not only did the Eastwick protestors accept the principles of patriotism, anticommunism, and property ownership, but they also demanded that these principles be applied in defense of their rights and their interests. By the time of Rubillo’s appearance before the Senate Committee, a variant on this strategy had also appeared in the African American press. On Septem- ber 28, a full-page advertisement in the Pittsburgh Courier linked the Eastwick protests to patriotism and democracy as well as to religion and the New Deal. While it avoided the specific charge of communist influence, the ad decried the Eastwick project as an attempt to deploy the RA’s eminent domain power for the benefit of real estate and construction interests and asked “if this is not conspiracy, tell us what is conspiracy?” Featuring pictures of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and George Washington Carver, the ad stated that “redevelopment of Eastwick will be the worst attack on the American people since the attack on Pearl Harbor” and argued that the project would destroy “1. Our Democratic Way of Life 2. The Constitution of the United States 3. Our Churches and Homes.” The ad also juxtaposed quotations from Roosevelt’s four freedoms and day of infamy speeches with the Gettysburg Address and passages from the Bible and declared that “God sent Franklin D. Roosevelt to us. He was born again. God hears his children when they cry and he answers their prayers.” Finally, the ad concluded with a statement of the Eastwick residents’ desire for improvements without complete clearance.54 In combination, Dolores Rubillo’s statements and the Courier advertisement present a striking contrast to events in other northern cities during this period, in which working- class whites employed both anticommunist rhetoric and home-ownership- centered “rights talk” to defend racial segregation.55 In Eastwick, black and white protestors used similar rhetorical strategies in a cooperative, multiracial effort to block an unwanted urban renewal project. The existence of such cooperation provides evidence that race relations in urban, working-class communities could follow a range of patterns far wider than existing historiography has acknowledged.

RATIONALIZING THE BULLDOZER: THE LOGIC OF CITY POLICY IN EASTWICK

During the late summer and early fall of 1957, it seemed that the Eastwick protests might be sufficient to force a political victory. In August, the staid Evening Bulletin chided the city for failing “to sell the idea gracefully to those who do not want to be redeveloped,” and a number of city council members expressed misgivings about the project. Commenting on Eastwick’s size and

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 559 cost, Councilman Giordano described the project as “too big a bite,” while Councilman Victor Moore suggested that it be built only in stages, “testing out each stage as we go along.”56 The Philadelphia Daily News reported that out of twelve councilmen available for survey, only three supported the project; while only one would go on record against it, eight stated that they were unde- cided and might vote either way. Eastwick’s “shouts, screams, and tears,” it appeared, had at last become audible in City Hall.57 In addition, the Eastwick protest movement coincided with the completion of a major internal reevaluation of Philadelphia’s entire urban renewal program. In early 1956, the RA released its Central Urban Renewal Area (CURA) study, the product of a two-year review of urban renewal’s progress and future goals. The CURA study estimated that the total cost of clearing and rebuilding the city’s existing blighted areas could run as high as $1 billion and concluded that at such costs, the city could not possibly keep pace with the formation of new slums. As a result, it established a new approach: rather than attacking the worst areas with aggressive clearance programs, the city would focus on the conservation of declining residential areas. Concurrently, it would pursue a vigorous program of economic development. The study drew a boundary around the central part of the city and proposed that no new renewal work should be undertaken outside of that line.58 Looming along the city’s edge, far outside this boundary, the massive and costly Eastwick project now became a source of frustration for many within the city’s urban renewal hierarchy. As one planner quipped in 1960, the city might have done better simply to turn the area into a racetrack.59 Amidst this context of community opposition, massive costs, and a reori- ented urban renewal program, two policy considerations saved the Eastwick project from termination. First, had Eastwick been cancelled, the city would have lost approximately $54 million in federal urban renewal grants. In addition to the outright urban renewal grant of $22 million for the project itself, Eastwick had the potential to generate more than $32 million in future federal matching grants, which could be applied to projects in other areas of the city. This situation arose as a direct result of the incentive structure created by the Federal Housing Act of 1949, which allowed the city to claim all expenses for schools, streets, sewers, and community facilities within the project area as noncash credits toward the required local contribution of one-third of the overall project costs. Because the new Eastwick would effectively be built from the ground up, these items constituted an investment of more than $32.5 million. This allowed the city to exceed its required contribution by $16 million, and upon completion of the Eastwick project, the federal government would match such excess contributions on a 2-1 basis with grants for future urban renewal projects. Philadelphia’s entire urban renewal program had been predicated on the availability of the resulting funds, and the city had no plans to do anything that might jeopardize this money.60

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 560 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

The second window of continued relevance for the Eastwick project lay in the CURA program’s emphasis on economic development. Most existing accounts of postwar urban economic development emphasize the dominance of business-controlled, “pro-growth” coalitions that rebuilt downtown business districts, even as they destroyed existing communities that made up the organic urban fabric of American cities.61 Philadelphia’s economic plans included a heavy dose of such downtown rebuilding, but they also involved an extensive industrial renewal program designed to retain, and even expand, the city’s manufacturing base. Recognizing that the preservation of blue-collar manufacturing jobs constituted a central goal of local policy makes the concept of postwar urban liberalism far more meaningful. In the city of brotherly love in the 1950s and 1960s, it was indicative of a far-broader vision of the role of the local state in guiding economic development than has been previously acknowledged. Industrial renewal became a key part of the CURA program, and Eastwick’s place in this new industrial strategy provided a crucial reason to continue the project.62 Such factors overwhelmed any doubts that city officials may have enter- tained about the project’s viability, and as a result, the protest movement in Eastwick ended in failure. After a series of delays, the HHFA announced final approval of the city’s loan and grant contract for Eastwick on November 13, and with the Planning Commission’s approval, Mayor Dilworth submitted the plan to city council in January 1958.63 The final public hearing on Eastwick, held on March 19, represented primarily an opportunity for residents to vent their rage as they faced a now seemingly inevitable defeat. One thousand residents attended, deriding the Eastwick plan as a “dream city with its monstrosi- ties and ghettos” and as a “college boy’s idea of a dream city.”64 Dolores Rubillo delivered a petition with 4,500 signatures urging the city council to consider “the hand gnarled with labor extended for your consideration.” Even more than earlier protests, such comments delineated the distinct class differences that separated Eastwick residents from the planners and city officials who would determine the community’s future. In response, city council members expressed concern about rehousing residents, especially the elderly, who would be unable to afford homes in the new development. The lone African American city councilman, Raymond Pace Alexander, questioned the wisdom of destroying “this great and almost only integrated community in Philadel- phia. ...Idonotwantabeautiful Eastwick and an expanded pattern of segregation elsewhere.”65 Otherwise, council members seemed ready to give their approval, and on May 15, the Eastwick ordinance passed by a margin of four- teen to two. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that only “a score of residents attended” this final meeting, some of them weeping as the city council approved the plan.66

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 561

BUILDING THE NEW EASTWICK

In the years that followed the city council’s approval of the project, the implementation of urban renewal in Eastwick moved gradually and often halt- ingly forward. In many respects, the Eastwick project ultimately proved to be surprisingly successful but over a longer time period than expected and on a scale less grand than the city-within-a-city imagined by the project’s planners. Although Eastwick itself constituted a new community, its location within Philadelphia ensured that it could not escape such central dilemmas of twentieth-century American urbanism as racial conflict and rapid economic change. The area’s unique, if sometimes partial, success in addressing such issues rested on three crucial elements. First, the developers and the city relied on a system of racial quotas in the sale of the area’s new housing. Despite its blatant illegality, this policy succeeded in establishing an initial multiracial population. Second, the development process eventually provided both an expanding supply of affordable new housing and, in a feature nearly unique among postwar urban renewal projects, the physical infrastructure for a significant number of nearby jobs. In combination, these policies not only created a context of de facto integration but also supplied social and economic resources that made Eastwick a desirable place to live. Third, residents of the new Eastwick built on these basic resources by developing strong community insti- tutions that allowed them to address divisive issues of race and establish a stable, integrated community. Attainment of the official goals for Eastwick depended on the ability of the city to find a workable program for completing the huge project within the constraints imposed by a rapidly changing, and increasingly unstable, social and economic environment. In May 1960, the RA selected a joint development proposal from the Reynolds Aluminum Corporation and the small Philadel- phia building firm of Samuel and Henry Berger. Reynolds and the Bergers organized a subsidiary known as the New Eastwick Corporation (NEC) and signed a ten-year contract that committed them to developing Eastwick on an integrated basis.67 At the September 1961 groundbreaking for Towne Gardens, Eastwick’s first new housing development, the developers promised to complete more than 2,000 homes by the end of their third year of work in Eastwick. NEC quickly fell behind this schedule, however, and by early 1966, only 503 new houses had been sold in Eastwick.68 Although cost overruns, environmental problems, and construction defects plagued the early stages of the project, the most important cause of Eastwick’s slow residential development lay in the difficulties inherent to creating an interracial community.69 When housing went on sale in Towne Gardens in 1962, it quickly became apparent that the city had overestimated the feasibility of such a project. On the basis of the University of Pennsylvania housing study,

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 562 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

NEC feared that if a large number of blacks bought homes in Eastwick, white demand would fall off and cause the project to fail financially. To prevent this, they raised the price of new homes above $12,000, thus reducing the number of low-income families, and especially blacks, who could afford to live in the new Eastwick.70 Still, NEC sales agent Frank McClatchy reported that during this early stage of marketing, as many as two-thirds of white customers lost interest on learning that Eastwick would be integrated at all. The situation appeared even bleaker when the first black family moved into Towne Gardens in January 1963, as three recent white purchasers immediately withdrew their deposits.71 NEC and the city thus found themselves caught between their commitment to an integrated project and their fear that if too many blacks bought homes in Eastwick, they might be left with thousands of acres of unmarketable land.72 With the approval of the CHR, NEC developed techniques of racial management to prevent such an outcome. Adopted in April 1962, the new approach had three elements: first, blacks would be encouraged to “window-shop” at other new housing developments in the Philadelphia area in an attempt to make the situation in Eastwick appear less unique; second, CHR staff would counsel NEC’s sales agents on how to handle the fears of white buyers; third, the city would “acquiesce to slightly dilatory tactics in the acceptance of Negro buyers.”73 Initially, NEC’s “slightly dilatory tactics” took the form of an appeal to African American customers to delay moving into Eastwick for a year. This, the salesmen told them, would allow the establishment of a white population large enough to assure racial stability in Towne Gardens. At that point, African American buyers could be safely placed throughout a “truly integrated Eastwick.” In contrast, salesmen told black customers that if they moved in immediately, they would “be living in an all-Negro neighborhood. Not only now, but forever.”74 Such tactics placed the burden of overcoming white racism almost solely on African American home buyers. Not surprisingly, this produced an angry reac- tion in Philadelphia’s African American community. Stating that it sought “to place the Negro buyers in the same position as are white buyers,” the local branch of the NAACP filed a complaint in April 1962 with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) on behalf of four black families who had been denied their choice of housing in Eastwick. Under pressure from the PHRC, NEC agreed to give the plaintiffs their choice of houses and abandon the restrictive practices immediately.75 The racial dynamics of the Eastwick housing market had not changed, however, and once NEC’s “slightly dilatory tactics” had been disallowed, the company adopted more subtle measures. When the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) sent black and white “testers” into Eastwick in late 1962, the civil rights group found that

Negro prospects were not being accorded the same treatment as white prospects by sales personnel at Towne Gardens. ...Ineverysingle instance where Negro

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 563

CORE testers had visited Towne Gardens, they had been advised that no homes would be available before Spring of next year. In addition, these Negro testers found it necessary to seek out sales persons to secure information and were only given terse answers to specific questions. On the other hand, white testers were actively pursued by sales personnel and were informed that homes were available for almost immediate occupancy. White testers also received follow-up telephone calls urging them to buy houses at Towne Gardens.76

Faced with CORE’s threat to organize demonstrations in Eastwick, the CHR launched its own investigation and concluded in April 1963 that NEC “may be in technical violation of its contract in the handling of Negro applicants who want to purchase homes.”77 In September 1963, NEC agreed to the immediate move in of twenty-four black families who had purchased Eastwick homes, and company officials made strong statements to the newspapers about their continuing dedication to the goal of an integrated community. The developer also offered bonuses to salesmen who convinced white customers to buy houses on integrated blocks.78 A little more than a year later, however, an NEC official admitted that the developers still hoped to apply a quota controlling the black presence in the new Eastwick: “we’ve got to keep it under twenty percent if we are to make this thing a go.”79 Throughout the remainder of the development process, civil rights groups and the CHR filed repeated discrimination complaints against the developers. In 1970 alone, the CHR identified nineteen cases of housing discrimination in Eastwick, prompting CHR Director Clarence Farmer to characterize the situation as “just bad.”80 Despite these continuing difficulties, the pace of construction gradually increased during the late 1960s, and by 1970 Eastwick had 1,654 new housing units.81 In the early 1970s, the selection of southern Eastwick as the route for Interstate-95 eliminated additional industrial and residential land, but construction in other sections of the project continued throughout that decade. By 1982, 4,022 new housing units, three shopping centers, two schools, a library, and a pedestrian greenway had been completed, and Eastwick’s population had risen to more than 18,000.82 Residential development in Eastwick moved far slower than city officials expected, and it ultimately fell far short of the projected fifty-thousand person city-within-a-city. Nonetheless, the Eastwick project eventually produced a significant amount of lower-middle-income housing, and the area as a whole constituted one of only three sections of Phila- delphia that experienced population growth between 1970 and 1990.83 Construction of the industrial sections of Eastwick followed a trajectory similar to that of the residential areas. The industrial parks developed slowly and never completely met the expectations that had been raised by efforts to justify the overall project. Nonetheless, their presence ultimately provided an important source of local jobs that helped to stabilize the new Eastwick and preserve the community’s delicate racial balance. In early 1961, the RA selected the Philadelphia Builders Eastwick Corporation (PBEC), a consortium

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 564 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001 of local builders, as the developer of Eastwick’s first industrial areas.84 PBEC focused its initial efforts on developing a 604-acre tract known as the Delaware Valley Industrial Park. Although high land and construction costs made it diffi- cult for PBEC to compete with industrial parks in suburban Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the developer attracted a major industrial corporation as the park’s first occupant when International Harvester established a truck sales and service facility in 1964.85 Other companies soon followed and built a series of warehouses, distribution centers, truck terminals, and light manufacturing facilities in Eastwick.86 Each of these companies relied on the area’s nearby transportation facilities, and this established a pattern that persisted throughout the remainder of the industrial development process.87 In 1972, responsibility for developing Eastwick’s industrial land passed from PBEC to the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), a quasi-public authority charged with managing the city’s industrial renewal program.88 Under PIDC’s management, the development of the industrial park accelerated, and during the 1970s, southwest Philadelphia constituted one of only two city industrial districts in which the number of manufacturing jobs increased.89 PIDC made an explicit effort to take advantage of the nearby airport, highways, and port by encouraging the concentration of additional warehouses, distribution centers, and specialized manufacturing companies in Eastwick’s industrial park.90 Although such businesses did not always generate the density of employment that Eastwick’s planners had forecast or that Eastwick’s residents desired, the strategy quickened the pace of development by focusing on firms that could take advantage of a location near major compo- nents of the regional transportation infrastructure.91 By the mid-1980s, the industrial areas of Eastwick contained approximately forty firms that employed nearly two thousand people, while the airport and PIDC’s nearby Penrose industrial tracts offered more than 2,600 additional jobs. PIDC estimated that Eastwick residents held approximately one-eighth of these jobs, and in 1989, a community newsletter commented on the relationship between work and housing in Eastwick:

When Eastern Airlines first went on strike, there was [sic] a number of Airline related workers who came to the PAC [Project Area Committee] Office in search of work. This could attribute to the fact that many Airport employees live in and around the Eastwick Area. This also indicated the importance of having decent, affordable, housing in close proximity to one’s employment.92

More than thirty years before, the original Churchill Plan had emphasized the need to link the creation of affordable housing in Eastwick to the establishment of a local employment base. The eventual achievement of this goal served the simple but critical function of increasing both the desirability and the stability of the new community.

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 565

INTEGRATION AND COMMUNITY IN THE NEW EASTWICK

As the physical development of Eastwick proceeded, race relations in the area gradually improved. Although NEC’s housing quotas were illegal, and without question illiberal, they ultimately served their intended purpose of establishing an interracial population.93 By 1975, African Americans constituted 20.8 percent of Eastwick’s total population, and this initial interracial population provided a starting point for the slow improvement of race relations.94 The growing supply of affordable housing and nearby blue-collar jobs made Eastwick an increasingly desirable community, and most residents found that the fact of integration proved to be at least a tolerable condition. For some in the new community, integration even became a point of pride. For many of Eastwick’s new white residents, the actual experience of living with African American neighbors forced them to reconsider, if not completely reject, their racially based preconceptions. Faced with the character and responsibility exhibited by their new black neighbors, some whites displayed a capacity to accept specific blacks whom they actually knew, even if they maintained their prejudices about the group as a whole. In 1976, a white Eastwick resident’s response to a reporter’s question about race relations illustrated this pattern: “As to integration, no problems. Eastwick is a perfect mix of ethnic and religious groups. There are no welfare types. A black family lives right behind me. They’re very nice.”95 This observation indicates that along with the positive associations created by everyday interactions across racial lines, the relative similarity of incomes and social status among Eastwick’s black and white residents contributed to overcoming racial divisions (see Figure 4). The interracial makeup of Eastwick’s population also affected the manner in which the new community dealt with problems. Originally organized during the early 1970s to take advantage of a federal loan and grant program for housing rehabilitation, the Eastwick Project Area Committee (EPAC) quickly broadened its activities and served an important function in the slow attainment of racial stability in Eastwick. Drawing participants from all of Eastwick’s neighborhoods, EPAC operated on an interracial basis and provided a venue in which residents could raise concerns and work collectively toward the solution of common problems.96 During the 1970s and 1980s, the organization published a community newsletter, secured improved public transportation, established a job referral service, and monitored development progress. In the face of city budget cuts, it lobbied for the repair of older streets, the improvement of conditions in the remaining prerenewal areas, and the enforcement of laws against illegal dumping.97 EPAC also actively addressed crisis situations in the community. In 1980, it responded to the racially tinged murder of a teenager by organizing summer programs and day camps for local children, programs that also employed Eastwick teenagers as counselors. Dur- ing the same summer, the Penrose Park West section of Eastwick became the

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 566 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

Figure 4: Children in a racially integrated Eastwick neighborhood, October 1976. The girls pictured lived two houses away from one another. SOURCE: Urban Archives, Temple University, Philadelphia. target of block-busting efforts by real estate agents, and EPAC worked with the CHR and the Philadelphia Board of Realtors to impose a ban on real estate solicitations.98 Most important, EPAC’s wide range of activities helped to link residents of Eastwick’s disparate neighborhoods into a common community. As Lois Shaub, EPAC’s first president, explained at a 1973 EPAC board meeting,

the most important and significant accomplishment of the Eastwick PAC is that seven distinct neighborhoods have come together and formed an organization committed to the principal that we share in common a desire for the general improvement and well-being of the greater Eastwick community, above all individual and neighborhood interests. Residents of different backgrounds, from different religious, racial and ethnic heritages, have begun to work together and to learn to trust and respect each other....Onething we have learned, is that we can only succeed if we are united. There will always be differences and conflicts between individuals and different neighborhoods, but the PAC can provide a framework or mechanism through which we can arrive at constructive solutions with respect for all points of view.99

Shaub’s statement indicates that, despite its high costs in both human suffering and public investment, the original liberal vision of an integrated community had been partially fulfilled in Eastwick. By 1994, the Philadelphia Daily News portrayed Eastwick as a significant exception to the patterns of racial segregation that prevailed elsewhere in Philadelphia and described the area, with

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 567 perhaps some journalistic exaggeration, as “color-blind, and happy.”100 Urban renewal had provided the physical infrastructure for the new Eastwick, but the successful development of an integrated community ultimately depended on the emergence of a sense of collective agency and common interest among the area’s residents. An examination of block-level census data provides statistical evidence regarding the extent, as well as the limitations, of Eastwick’s long-term racial integration. Although variations existed between different sections of Eastwick, such analysis reveals that many of the new neighborhoods eventually attained a relatively high and surprisingly stable level of integration (see Table 1). Among the new neighborhoods, only the relatively small Blue Bell Manor East development, which stood immediately adjacent to the perpetu- ally all-white area along Eastwick’s northwestern edge, remained entirely segregated. In Towne Gardens, the object of the NAACP and CORE protests in 1962 and 1963, African Americans constituted 35 percent of the population in 1970. By 1980, the African American proportion had risen to 52 percent. Ten years later, however, the African American population remained stable at 54 percent, indicating that Towne Gardens avoided the process of “racial tipping” that occurred in many American urban neighborhoods during this period.101 Integration levels in Penrose Park South and North (completed prior to 1970) remained significantly lower than in Towne Gardens, but the African Ameri- can percentage increased gradually, and the area avoided rapid turnover. In the newer Penrose Park West area, the block-busting efforts of real estate agents in the early 1980s produced a higher rate of racial turnover than that experienced in other Eastwick neighborhoods, but the area still retained a multiracial population in 1990. Developments in the remainder of Eastwick’s western sections (stages II and IV), built primarily in the 1970s, had a higher African American percentage than the first renewal neighborhoods and some developed pockets with very little integration. Nonetheless, the area experienced only slow changes in racial composition between 1980 and 1990.102 Although overall fig- ures for an area as large as Eastwick inevitably elide important nuances in racial housing patterns, it is worth noting that in 1990, 35 percent of Eastwick’s population was African American; in 1950, prior to urban renewal, only 24 percent of the population had been African American (see Table 2).103

EASTWICK AND POSTWAR URBAN HISTORY

As it had prior to urban renewal, Eastwick by the 1980s constituted a partial but important exception to the prevailing economic, demographic, and racial patterns of both Philadelphia and the urban United States. This observation yields two insights, including one about the nature of postwar urban liberalism and a second about the capacity for interracial cooperation in urban, working- class communities. First, the experience of urban renewal in Eastwick suggests

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 568 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

TABLE 1 African American Percentage of Population, by Neighborhood Units, New and Existing Housing, Eastwick Urban Renewal Area, 1970 to 1990 (total population of unit in parentheses)

Urban Renewal Development Tract Stage 1970 1980 1990

Conservation area (existing) 67 I 0.2 (1,944) 0 (1,607) 0 (1,413) Conservation area (existing) 61 I 0 (1,784) 0.3 (1,489) 0.4 (1,350) Conservation area (existing) 60 I 0.2 (1,620) 0.8 (1,941) 1.0 (1,820) Conservation area (existing) 55 II 1 (2,540) 2 (1,883) 5 (1,715) Blue Bell Manor (east) 61 I 0 (700) 0 (751) 0.3 (708) Towne Gardens 61 I 35 (1,281) 52 (1,308) 54 (1,088) Blue Bell Manor (west) 60 I No data 65 (251) 76 (218) Penrose Park (south) 60 I No data 10 (1,553) 17 (1,390) Unico Villagea 60 I 4 (68) 13 (270) 2 (438) Penrose Park (north) 60 I 5 (236) 11 (774) 13 (754) Penrose Park Apts. 55 II N.A. 44 (1,437) 73 (1,544) Penrose Park (west) 55 II N.A. 47 (2,954) 68 (3,034) Nonacquired housing 56 II 76 (452) 78 (719) 88 (718) Lindbergh Park 56 II N.A. 77 (540) 84 (499) Nonacquired housing 54 IV 49 (35) 81 (62) 79 (56) Cobblestone Village 54 IV N.A. 72 (873) 68 (1,215)

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970; Block Statistics; Final Report HC(3)-204: Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. Urbanized Area (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, September 1971); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1980; Block Statistics; PHC 80-1-283: Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. SMSA (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, November 1981); Census of Population and Housing: 1990; Summary Tape File 1B Extract on CD-Rom; Block Statistics (Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County) [machine-readable data files] (Washington, DC: prepared by the Bureau of the Census, 1991). Neighborhoods are defined on the basis of maps and boundary descriptions in James T. Gilson, “To Build 1000th Home in Year; 8000 to Go,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 22, 1966, clipping in PBMC, Eastwick (section) Redevel- opment Project, 1964-66, Urban Archives; CPC, Review of the Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, April 1982), 13-4, maps C, D, E. The conservation area in- cludes sections exempted from clearance under the original urban renewal plan.The conservation areas consisted of the all-white sections in northwest Eastwick. Nonacquired housing refers to older housing in sections outside the formal conservation area.RA, Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan Eastwick Redevelopment Project, August 26, 1957, as revised (Philadelphia:The Authority, 1957), map 2. The latter source is used in conjunction with map D in the 1982 Review to differentiate between old and new development, especially in census tracts 54, 55, and 56. a. Unico Village is a senior citizen apartment complex. that, from a policy standpoint, the key to achieving integration in a working-class urban area lay in linking affordable housing to the creation of a neighborhood employment base while also controlling the area’s racial composition through an illicit quota system. This combination of liberal planning provisions and illiberal development practices ultimately defined both the process and the outcome of urban renewal in Eastwick. Its cumulative effect demonstrated not only that an interracial, working-class population could be established in an urban area but also that local public policy could play an important and at least partially successful role in defining the spatial and economic structure of the postindustrial city. The sad irony of this process was that

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 569

TABLE 2 Percentage African American and Total Population (in parentheses), Eastwick Census Tracts, 1970 to 1990

Census Tract 1970 1980 1990

52 N.A. 45 (29) 60 (5) 53 45 (276) N.A. N.A 54 72 (222) 72 (935) 68 (1,271) 55 3 (338) 33 (6,274) 52 (6,293) 56 77 (904) 78 (1,259) 86 (1,217) 57 44 (253) 4 (81) 0 (3) 58 2 (242) (0) 25 (32) 59 (0) (0) (0) 60 8 (4,348) 9 (4,832) 11 (4,620) 61 12 (3,765) 19 (3,548) 19 (3,146) 67 0.2 (1,944) 0 (1,607) 0 (1,576) 68 (0) (0) (0) Total: 13 (15,492) 26 (18,565) 35 (18,163)

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing; Vol. 1: Census Tracts; No. PHC(1)-159: Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. SMSA (Washington, DC: Government Printing Of- fice, May 1972), 57-8; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing; Vol.1: Census Tracts; No. PHC(1)-159: Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. SMSA (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, May 1972), 57-8; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing; Census Tracts; Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. SMSA, PHC80-2-283 (Washington, DC: Govern- ment Printing Office, August 1983), 207-8; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1980; Block Statistics; PHC 80-1-283: Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. SMSA (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, November 1981); U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Popu- lation and Housing; Population and Housing Characteristics for Census Tracts and Block Num- bering Areas; Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. SMSA, Section 1, 1990 CPH-3-259A (Washington, DC: Gov- ernment Printing Office, August 1993), 360-1;Census of Population and Housing:1990;Summary Tape File 1B Extract on CD-Rom; Block Statistics (Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County) [machine-readable data files] (Washington, DC: prepared by the Bureau of the Census, 1991). NOTE: Tract level totals are used where an entire census tract is contained within the urban renewal area. Tracts 60, 61, and 67 are not completely contained within the urban renewal area; totals for these tracts are calculated using block data.Areas included are the following:for tract 60, all blocks to the south of Passyunk and Dicks Avenues; for tract 61, all blocks south of Dicks Avenue; for tract 67, all blocks to the south of Dicks Avenue and Lindbergh Boulevard. the combined effect of the limitations of municipal finance and the constraints of federal urban renewal requirements meant that such liberal ends as racial integration and the preservation of the city’s industrial base were pursued through the illiberal means of destroying Eastwick’s existing interracial community. Second, the actions of Eastwick residents both before and after urban renewal demonstrated that, to an extent far greater than the existing historical literature would suggest, interracial working-class cooperation and political action did take place in the postwar urban north. In the old Eastwick, the ability of residents to act on an interracial basis when faced with the threat of urban renewal suggests that post-World War II urban race relations did not always operate according to predetermined patterns of inevitable conflict. In the new Eastwick, the construction of housing and nearby factories provided crucial resources but ultimately constituted only the starting point for a successful,

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 570 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001 integrated community. Such a community actually emerged when residents recognized that their common interests transcended the divisions of race and neighborhood. Existing historical accounts emphasize only the seemingly insoluble elements of the postwar urban racial crisis, while the extent and the implications of working-class capacities for interracial alliance building remain largely unexplored. As the largest urban renewal project anywhere in the United States, Eastwick’s legacy suggests elements of complexity and ambiguity that have not yet been addressed by scholarship in postwar Ameri- can urban history.

1. Projections of Eastwick’s eventual population ranged from 45,000 to 60,000. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (RA), 1958 Annual Report (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1959), 48; RA, “Eastwick Fact Sheet,” November 14, 1956, Department of Commerce—City Representative Files (DC-CR), RG 64.6, Box A-4813, Folder 28, City of Philadelphia, Department of Records, City Archives. The RA eventually reduced the project area to approximately 2,300 acres. Philadelphia City Planning Com- mission (CPC), Review of the Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, April 1982), 1. Gross project costs for Eastwick rose to $124 million; the $77 million figure used here is the net project cost, equal to gross project cost minus resale value. RA, “Eastwick Fact Sheet,” 3; Robert J. Eisler, “Eastwick Project to Be Started Next Summer; Cost Up $23 Million,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Octo- ber 26, 1960, clipping in Philadelphia Bulletin, Mounted Clippings Collection (PBMC), Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1960, Temple University Urban Archives; Eisler, “U.S. Adds $16 Million to its Grant for Eastwick to Correct an Error,” Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 13, 1960, ibid. For Eastwick’s semirural character, see Helen Moak to Mr. Russell Lynes, April 3, 1959, Housing Association of the Delaware Valley, Office Files (HADV-OF),1951-70, URB 3, Series V,Box 118, Folder 579: Eastwick 1959, Urban Archives, 1-3; Morley Cassidy, “ ‘Eastwick as It Was,’ ” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, November 18, 1957, clipping in Eastwick Project Area Committee Records (EPAC Records), Accession 870, Box 20: Newspaper Clippings, Urban Archives. 2. For overviews of social and economic change in Philadelphia after World War II, see Carolyn Adams, David Bartelt, David Elesh, Ira Goldstein, Nancy Kleniewski, and William Yancey, Philadelphia: Neighborhoods, Division, and Conflict in a Postindustrial City (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991); Philip Scranton, “Large Firms and Industrial Restructuring: The Philadelphia Region, 1900-1980,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 116, no. 4 (October 1992): 419-65. 3. The few existing accounts of the Eastwick urban renewal project are brief and incomplete. See Jon C. Teaford, The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940-1985 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 150, 154, 215; Kirk R. Petshek, The Challenge of Urban Reform: Policies and Programs in Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973), 165-6. 4. For overviews of urban policy and its consequences during this period, see Mark Gelfand, A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America, 1933-1965 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975); Arnold R. Hirsch, Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago 1940-1960 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York:Oxford University Press, 1985); Richard M. Bernard, ed., Snowbelt Cities: Metro- politan Politics in the Northeast and Midwest since World War II (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990); Teaford, The Rough Road to Renaissance; Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). 5. Although large earthen dikes held back the Darby and Cobbs Creeks, recurring breaches limited their effectiveness. Between 1944 and 1952, seven children drowned in pits left behind when building con- tractors failed to close holes that had been excavated for construction fill. “Another Eastwick Tragedy,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, October 22, 1947, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Misc. Prior to 1970, Urban Archives; “Eastwick Will Go to City Hall in Fight against Water-Pits,” Philadelphia Evening

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 571

Bulletin, December 5, 1947, ibid.; David E. Triester, “Triester Lists Eastwick Needs; Says Improvements Would Boost Growth,” Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, April 8, 1951, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Misc. 1950 to 1959, Urban Archives; Robert J. Eisler, “Uprooting a Community: The People and Problems of Eastwick,” Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, March 15, 1959, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Redevel- opment Project, 1961, Urban Archives, 1-2. 6. The 1950 census reported that in the area’s southern census tracts, 24 percent of dwellings lacked a private bath or were dilapidated, 15 percent lacked running water or were dilapidated, and 16 percent met the census definition of overcrowding. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1950. VolumeIII, Census Tract Statistics: Philadelphia and Adjacent Area, chapter 42, Table 3: Characteristics of Dwelling Units: 1950 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1952), 171. Eastwick census tracts included in these calculations were 40-Q, 40-R, 40-U, 40-V, 40-W, 40-X, 40-Y, 4O-Z. Similar calculations for the remaining northern tracts (40-M, 40-N, 40-P, containing 2,856 dwelling units) indicate that 2.42 percent lacked a private bath or were dilapidated, 1.02 percent lacked running water or were dilapidated, and 6.13 percent met the standard for overcrowding. For discussions of specific conditions in Eastwick, including rats and lack of sewers, see Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report; Report to the Phila- delphia City Planning Commission on Recommendations to the Redevelopment Authority to the City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, October 1953), 1-3; RA annual report for 1950, 24-7; RA, “Application for Preliminary Advance, Eastwick Redevelopment Area,” March 15, 1951, Housing Associ- ation of the Delaware Valley, Neighborhood and Urban Renewal Areas Files (HADV NURA), Box 2, Folder 18, Urban Archives, 3-4; CPC, “Eastwick Redevelopment Area Designation of Area,” December 13, 1950, HADV NURA, Box 2, Folder 19, Urban Archives, 1-2. 7. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 3, 24. 8. Eastwick qualified for federal urban redevelopment funds because it met the 1949 U.S. Housing Act’s standards as an area of “predominantly open land.” RA, “Application for Preliminary Advance,” 1; Francis J. Lammer to Nathaniel S. Keith, September 21, 1951, HADV NURA, Box 2, Folder 2-22, Urban Archives, 2. For a summary of the “predominantly open land” standard, see Alfred P. Van Huyck and Jack Hornung, The Citizen’s Guide to Urban Renewal (West Trenton, NJ: Chandler-Davis, 1962), 30-1. 9. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 1, 9, 13-6; CPC, “Eastwick Redevelop- ment Area Designation of Area,” I, 2; Nathaniel S. Keith to Francis J. Lammer, November 23, 1951, HADV NURA, Box 2, Folder 2-22, Urban Archives, 2-3. 10. Eisler, “Uprooting a Community,” 2; Moak to Lynes, 1. 11. Seventeen-year-old Eastwick resident Joanna Bazis detailed these attractions in a 1953 essay published in The Gleam, the student newspaper of West Philadelphia Catholic Girls High School: as far as the eye can reach there are patches of bullrushes looking like displays of giant ci- gars....Walkthrough the sour grasses, sweet to taste, to the lush green that banks Bow Creek....Great areas near the river are covered with dainty, slender elderberry bushes. . . . Meadow people pick them from the high tangled brambles. It is impossible to cover the natural beauties of and oddities of our Meadows in one day. Cassidy, “Eastwick as It Was,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, November 18, 1957. 12. City officials maintained that the area’s low elevation made sewer installation prohibitively expensive. Eisler, “Uprooting a Community,” 2; Triester, “Triester Lists Eastwick Needs”; Kirk R. Petshek, “Eco- nomic Feasibility of Eastwick,” August 20, 1957, Petshek Papers, Acc. 202, Box 2, Folder: Urban Renewal Problems, Urban Archives, 2. 13. Houses in the all-white northwest section were newer and in better condition than other sections of Eastwick, and the RA scheduled most of them for conservation rather than clearance. The total population of the remaining area of Eastwick, which would undergo urban renewal, included 8,175 whites and 4,638 non- whites. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 1, 12. For the quoted passage, see George B. Nesbitt, special assistant to the director (racial relations), to Howard Wharton, Area I supervisor, Housing and Home Finance Administration Division of Slum Clearance and Urban Redevelopment, “Field Trip, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Eastwick) 5-6 August 1954,” August 19, 1954, Citizens’ Council on City Planning (CCCP) Records, Box 11, URB 10/IV/1, Urban Archives, 3. The index of dissimilarity is a mea- sure that indicates the percentage of a population that would have to move to achieve an even dispersion of two groups through a population. For Eastwick as a whole (including the all-white northwestern section), calculation of the index using 1950 census block data yields a value of 75.8; the index number for the city of Philadelphia as a whole is 89.0. The Eastwick index is the result of the author’s calculations, using block data from the 1950 U.S. Census and following the procedure outlined in Douglas S. Massey and Nancy

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 572 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

Denton, “The Dimensions of Residential Segregation,” Social Forces 67 (1988): 282-4. The Philadelphia index is from the multicity series calculated in Karl E. Taeuber and Alma F. Taeuber, Negroes in Cities: Resi- dential Segregation and Neighborhood Change (Chicago: Aldine, 1965), 39. For census block data, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Housing: 1950. VolumeV,Block Statistics, Part 143: Philadelphia, PA., Table 3: Characteristics of Housing for Census Tracts, by Blocks: 1950 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1952), 127-34. 14. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 16-8, details the location of Eastwick schools. Only the smallest of Eastwick’s four public schools served the all-white northwestern section. Eastwick also had one parochial school, located in a multiracial area and serving 325 students. Ibid., 17. For an examination of the role of Catholic parishes in urban race relations, see James T. McGreevy, Parish Boundaries: The Catholic Encounter with Race in the Twentieth-Century Urban North (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1996). Religious worship constituted an exception to the pattern of integration, as three of the fifteen churches in Eastwick served entirely African American congregations. The three African American churches included two African Methodist Episcopal churches and one Baptist church. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 16-8. 15. Moak to Lynes, April 3, 1959, 1. 16. Ibid. 17. John Corr, “Eastwick: Battle of Two Dreams,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 19, 1974, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1972—[and later], Urban Archives. 18. Alan Brinkley, The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War (New York:Knopf, 1995); Ira Katznelson, “Was the Great Society a Lost Opportunity?” in Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle, eds., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930-1980 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 185-211. 19. The Republican Party had controlled Philadelphia city government, with only brief interruptions, since the Civil War. The origins of the reform movement can be traced to a failed 1939 effort to pass a new City Charter and to a successful 1942 campaign to reorganize the CPC. Reform activities resumed during the postwar years, when they received new impetus from revelations of extensive corruption in city government. In April 1951, voters passed the new City Charter and in November 1951 elected the reform Democrat Joseph S. Clark, Jr., as mayor. For summaries of the reform movement, its composition, and its priorities, see Carolyn T. Adams, The Politics of Capital Investment: The Case of Philadelphia (Albany: State University of New YorkPress, 1988), 28-36; John F. Bauman, Public Housing, Race, and Renewal: Urban Planning in Philadelphia, 1920-1974 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987), 97-103 and esp. 118-23; Matthew J. Countryman, “Civil Rights and Black Power in Philadelphia, 1940-1971” (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke Uni- versity, 1998), 73-128; Jeanne R. Lowe, Cities in a Race with Time: Progress and Poverty in America’s Renewing Cities (New York: Random House, 1967), 320-32; Petshek, The Challenge of Urban Reform, 8-40, 286-99; David Wallace, “Renaissancemanship,” Architectural Forum, 26, no. 3 (August 1960): 157-76; Conrad Weiler, Philadelphia: Neighborhood, Authority, and the Urban Crisis (New York: Praeger, 1974). 20. David M. Walker to Edmund N. Bacon, August 5, 1949, CPC Records, Folder: Eastwick Corre- spondence 1948-1952, Record Group 145.2, Box A-2898, City Archives; Walker to Bacon, August 6, 1949, CPC Records, ibid. 21. Sidney Hopkins, “Requiem for a Renaissance,” Greater Philadelphia Magazine, November 1964, 34. Continuing, Hopkins argues that “ ‘Eastwick,’ in the words of one of the early planners, ‘was conceived in sin.’ ” Hopkins also quotes a former RA planner who states that “[Eastwick] is a place nobody should live in....Itwould never have been considered suitable for white middle class people but since it was originally to have been a ghetto for displaced Negroes, its obvious physical disadvantages were overlooked.” Ibid., 34, 54. See also Wallace, “Renaissancemanship,” 160. 22. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 37. For background to the Churchill Plan, see Keith to Lammer, November 23, 1951, 2-3; W. Wilson Horst, “Misc on Eastwick Planners,” CPC Records, Eastwick Correspondence 1948-1952, RG 145.2, Box A-2416, City Archives; Herman E. Lowe, “Eastwick Area Envisioned as Home District: Section is Largest Slated for Clearance with Federal Funds,” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 3, 1952, Housing Association of the Delaware Valley, Clipping Files (HADV-CF), Reel 12, Urban Archives; Frank Posen, “Pipeline is Ready to Move Silt Tract to Eastwick Pro- ject,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 28, 1954, HADV-CF, Reel 13, Urban Archives. 23. For a discussion of the relationship between the Eastwick plan (as revised in 1960 by the Greek city planner Constantine Doxiadis) and the Garden City ideal, see CPC, Review of the Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan, 6. For a summary of Ebenezer Howard’s ideas and his influence on both American and European

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 573 planning, see Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996), 87-173. See also Edward K. Spann, Designing Modern America: The Regional Planning Association of America and Its Members (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996), 38, 103-17, 189; Joseph L. Arnold, The New Deal in the Suburbs: A His- tory of the Greenbelt Town Program 1935-1954 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1971). During the New Deal, Henry Churchill worked as an architect for the Resettlement Administration’s Greenbelt town project in Greenbrook, New Jersey, which was never built. Clarence S. Stein, Toward New Towns for Amer- ica (New York: Reinhold, 1957), 7-8, 119-21, 182; Mel Scott, American City Planning since 1890 (Berke- ley: University of California Press, 1969), 338-40. Despite its reliance on Garden City principles, the Eastwick plan did not include all elements of the concept. The plan lacked a formal greenbelt separating it from other communities (although the nearby rivers, creeks, and wetlands implicitly served this function to the east, west, and south), projected higher densities than the Garden City ideal, and made no attempt to implement Howard’s communitarian ownership principles. 24. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 5-9, 37-9, 49-52; “Inside Philadelphia: A New Kind of New Town,” Architectural Forum: The Magazine of Building, September 1954, 140-3. For Churchill’s “characteristics of the city of Philadelphia” comment, see “Eastwick Plan Developed for Housing 45,000: ‘City within a city’ Would Be Built on 3,000 Acres,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, December 13, 1953, HADV-CF, Reel 13, Urban Archives, 18. See also C. Allen Keith, “Face Lifting Out- lined for Eastwick,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 13, 1953, HADV-CF, Reel 13, Urban Archives, pp. 5, 15. 25. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 52. For a contemporary critique of public housing practices during this period, see Catherine Bauer, “Clients for Housing: The Low-Income Ten- ant—Does He Want Supertenements?” Progressive Architecture 33, no. 5 (May 1952): 61-4. 26. These roadways would connect Eastwick to downtown Philadelphia, as would local streetcar and bus lines. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 5, 32, 37-49, 55; “Inside Philadelphia,” 143; Lowe, “Eastwick Area Envisioned as Home District.” For Churchill’s appreciation of Henry Wright’s use of the “superblock” concept of neighborhood planning in the Greenbrook plan, see Scott, American City Planning, 340. 27. Ornithological clubs from all over the East Coast lobbied the city to include the bird sanctuary. Francis H. Eaton M.D. to Walter M. Phillips, November 12, 1952, DC-CR, RG 64.6, Box A-4813, Folder 28, City Archives; Phillips to Eaton, December 8, 1952, DC-CR, ibid.; Allston Jenkins to “Fellow-Conserva- tionist,” November 20, 1952, DC-CR, ibid., and additional correspondence in this file. 28. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 37-9, 42-3, 66; “Inside Philadelphia,” 140, 143. 29. For early discussions of planned industrial development in Eastwick, see J. Victor Dallin, “Memo to Walter M. Phillips; Subject: Airport Industrial Sites,” December 2, 1952, DC-CR, RG 64.6, Box A-4813, Folder 28, City Archives; Walter M. Phillips, “Memo to Edmund N. Bacon; Subject: Industrial Land in Eastwick Area,” December 12, 1952, ibid.; James Buckley to Walter M. Phillips, December 15, 1952, ibid. For later discussions of Eastwick’s role in the industrial renewal program, see Petshek, “Economic Feasibil- ity of Eastwick,” 1-5; Paul Wilhelm, “Memo to Files; Subject: Eastwick Spine Street and Land Use,” Octo- ber 19, 1955, DC-CR, RG 64.6, Box A-4813, Folder 28, City Archives; Institute for Urban Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Industrial Land and Facilities for Philadelphia: A Report to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1956), 80-1, 95-9; Mayor Richardson H. Dilworth, “Statement on the ‘Use of Industrial Land in the Eastwick Redevelopment Area,’ ” March 13, 1958, DC-CR, RG 64.6, Box A-4813, Folder 29, City Archives; William F. Kelly, “Statement to City Coun- cil Committee on Municipal Development and Zoning Concerning the Eastwick Redevelopment Proposal,” March 17, 1958, ibid. The Eastwick industrial estates would also help raise the area’s annual tax return to the City from $342,000 to $6.5 million. RA, “Eastwick Fact Sheet,” 3; Petshek, “Economic Feasibility of Eastwick,” 5. 30. The first official public comment on the integration issue identified by the author occurred on April 27, 1954, when RA Planning Director David Wallace informed a multiracial group of Eastwick residents that “we have every intention of maintaining the bi-racial character of Eastwick and seeing to it that it remains the happy place that it is.” “Eastwick Council Group Expresses Views on Redevelopment Pro- posal,” Philadelphia Tribune, May 1, 1954, “misc clippings and charts, Comm. of 30,” CCCP Records, Box 11, URB 10/IV/7, Urban Archives, 1. Both Nesbitt’s report on Eastwick (see note 13) and the Housing Mar- ket Survey described below indicate that the decision predated not only this statement but also the release of the Churchill Plan.

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 574 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

31. In a May 1955 speech in Chicago, Joseph Clark outlined his position on integration: Discrimination exists without any regard to economic status. Private housing, finance and real estate practices, as well as continued prejudices, severely limit areas where Negro families may live. Un- less we can beak through some of these barriers at a much more rapid rate than heretofore, the un- solved minority shelter problem will remain an ominous cloud over the whole urban renewal concept. Joseph S. Clark, Jr., “The Future of Urban Shelter; Speech at Luncheon Meeting of Metropolitan Housing and Planning Council of Chicago,” May 6, 1955, Mayor’s Correspondence 1955 (Joseph S. Clark), RG 60-2.3, Box A-473, Folder 18d, City Archives. Clark later repeated this speech in Philadelphia: Citi- zens’ Council on City Planning (CCCP), “Report # 53: Mayor Clark Speaks on Housing and Planning,” October 6, 1955, ibid., Folder 18d: Citizens’ Council on C.P. 1955, City Archives. Clark appointed George Schermer as the head of the CHR, which subsequently focused much of its attention on housing integration. Schermer had previously been director of the Mayor’s Interracial Committee in Detroit during World War II, where opponents of integration had forced him out of office. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, 224-5; Bauman, Public Housing, Race, and Renewal, 118-25. For the limitations of the CHR, see Countryman, “Civil Rights and Black Power in Philadelphia, 1940-1971,” 87-117. 32. Nesbitt, “Field Trip, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Eastwick),” 1. Nesbitt also commented that in Eastwick, “the city does seem intent on providing housing which is in fact neither ‘Negro housing’ marketed as ‘unrestricted’ nor housing subject to Negro occupancy but beyond reach of substantial numbers of such families.” 33. For Eastwick’s anticipated effect on city tax revenues, see RA, “Eastwick Fact Sheet,” 3; Petshek, “Economic Feasibility of Eastwick,” 5. For a critical perspective on the Society Hill project as an early case of gentrification, see Neil Smith, The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City (New York: Routledge, 1996), 119-39. A more positive view is presented in Lowe, Cities in a Race with Time, 337-51. 34. Testifying before a U.S. Senate subcommittee on housing, RA Executive Director Francis Lammer referred to the Eastwick project as “a workingman’s town.” Congress, House, Committee on Banking and Currency, Investigation of Housing, 1955: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing. Part 1: New York, N.Y., Philadelphia, P.A., 84th Congress, 1st Session, October 12, 14, 1955. See also the comments of Devel- opment Coordinator William L. Rafsky in Office of the City Representative, Division of Public Information (OCR-DPI), “News Release,” March 18, 1958, DC-CR, RG 64.6, Box A-4813, Folder 29, City Archives, 2. Petshek, “Economic Feasibility of Eastwick,” 1-3, discusses Eastwick’s role as a potential center of population and industry. 35. The study projected that in the city of Philadelphia, the total supply of houses in the $10,000 range would exceed demand by 31,000. Chester Rapkin and William G. Grigsby, The Demand for Housing in Eastwick (Philadelphia: Institute for Urban Studies, 1960), 7, 54-5, 60-78. This volume summarizes the study and its conclusions. Commissioned to undertake the project in 1954, the institute released the study’s first report, The Demand for Housing in the Eastwick Redevelopment Area: An Interim Report, in June 1956. For a detailed discussion of the University of Pennsylvania study, see RA, “Conference on Eastwick Rede- velopment,” April 26, 1957, General Pamphlet Collection (GPC), Box 70-17, Folder: Eastwick, Urban Archives, 20-4. The final report projected an African American demand of 2,000 units. Rapkin and Grigsby, The Demand for Housing in Eastwick, 65. 36. The Eastwick housing market study suggested that integration could be sustained if blacks made up no more than 11 percent of the new Eastwick’s population (it assumed that this would cause a 30 percent decline in white demand). It also suggested that the first new houses should be in the upper half of the price range to avoid a public perception that Eastwick would be a black area. Rapkin and Grigsby, The Demand for Housing in Eastwick, 5-8, 60-78; see also Joseph M. Guess, “Integration of Families in Eastwick Is Biggest Problem, Report Says,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, March 19, 1958, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21: Newspaper Clippings, Urban Archives. For a controversy arising from the implications of the city’s para- doxical position, see “Philadelphia’s New Problem,” Time, February 24, 1958, 18-9; “Segregation: Inside Story of Philadelphia’s Racial Housing Problem, as Told by the Mayor,” House and Home, March 1958, 67-8; “Time Magazine Says Mayor Favors Housing Segregation; Not True, Says Dilworth,” Philadelphia Tribune, February 25, 1958, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 20: Newspaper Clippings, Urban Archives; “Mayor Dilworth Claims Price Range Will Bar Negroes from Buying Property in Eastwick,” Philadelphia Tribune, March 1958, ibid.

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 575

37. “Eastwick Advisory Committee Minutes,” November 26, 1956, CCCP Records, URB 10/IV/4, Box 11, Urban Archives, 2-3; RA, “Eastwick Fact Sheet,” 4. 38. RA, “Eastwick Fact Sheet,” 1. 39. “Eastwick Advisory Committee Minutes,” May 2, 1955, 2; June 6, 1955, 1; July 8, 1955; 2; Sep- tember 19, 1955 (1); and October 17, 1955, 1-3, CCCP Records, URB 10/IV/2, Box 11, Urban Archives; “Owners Fight Eastwick Plan for Dream City: Court Plea Looms on Evictions for 500 Million Project,” Philadelphia Inquirer, June 12, 1955, HADV-CF, Reel 16, Urban Archives. 40. Robert C. Lowry, Jr., “Clearview Fights to Protect Homes in Eastwick Project,” Philadelphia Eve- ning Bulletin, July 15, 1955, HADV-CF, Reel 16, Urban Archives; Triester, “Triester Lists Eastwick Needs,” and “First of the Eastwicks,” Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, April 8, 1951, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Misc. 1950 to 1959, Urban Archives; Federal Writer’s Project, The WPA Guide to Philadelphia (Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, reprinted 1989), 498; “Eastwick Named after Train Builder,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, May 23, 1968, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) History. The Philadelphia Tribune used the names Eastwick and Elmwood interchangeably, but it employed the latter name more frequently. 41. “Redevelopment is Blasted by Residents of Eastwick,” Philadelphia Tribune, October 4, 1955, HADV-CF, Reel 17, Urban Archives. 42. A self-described “average housewife” made this point in a letter to the Evening Bulletin in 1957: “It was said that the people out here do not want improvements. I, as a taxpayer, would enjoy improvements. Give us pavements, sewerage, playgrounds and schools, but don’t demolish. There is plenty of open ground for building.” Mrs. Alexander J. Young, “ ‘Average Housewife’s’ View of Eastwick [letter to editor],” Phil- adelphia Evening Bulletin, August 29, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 19, Urban Archives. See also Art Peters, “Elmwood Is My Beat,” Philadelphia Tribune, August 17, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 19, Urban Archives, 8. 43. William L. Rafsky, “Eastwick—Total Rebuilding” (paper presented to the Fels Institute of Local Government Community Leadership Seminar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, December 4, 1962), Kirk R. Petshek Papers, Acc. 202, Box 2, Folder: Urban Redevelopment, Urban Archives, 1-6; Petshek, “Economic Feasibility of Eastwick,” 1-5. 44. William F. Feist, “$100,687,700 Eastwick Plan Finally Introduced in Council (clipping),” Phila- delphia Inquirer, January 24, 1958, Albert M. Greenfield (AMG) Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, Historical Soci- ety of Pennsylvania (HSP); “Tears, Boos Mark Stormy Meeting on Eastwick (clipping),” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 1, 1957, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21, Urban Archives; Art Peters, “Threaten ‘Sit-Down’ Strike to Bar Redevelopment of Eastwick Area,” Philadelphia Tribune, August 3, 1957, 1. 45. “Red Influence in Eastwick Plan Charges by Foes,” Philadelphia Inquirer (clipping), August 13, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP, 5; Bert Wilson, “The Why of Eastwick: Individual Objections vs. Overall Progress,” Philadelphia Daily News (clipping), August 28, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP; “Eastwick Redevelopment Will Displace Residents; Opponents Charge Promises to Residents Were Not Kept,” Philadelphia Tribune, August 31, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21, Urban Archives. 46. “Red Influence in Eastwick Plan Charges by Foes,” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 13, 1957, 5. Although the woman was released from Philadelphia General a week later, she also lost her job at the Phila- delphia Navy Yard. The Tribune reported that “her friends say that she was NOT mentally unbalanced, only frustrated and angered because so many of her friends and relatives were losing their homes as a result of the Redevelopment Authority’s plan.” Peters, “Elmwood Is My Beat,” Philadelphia Tribune, August 31, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21, Urban Archives; Peters, “Elmwood Is My Beat,” Philadelphia Tribune, September 10, 1957, 8. 47. “Eastwick Advisory Committee Minutes,” July 8, 1955, CCCP Records, URB 10/IV/2, Box 11, Urban Archives, 2. Luetta Johnson, an African American woman, assumed a leadership role with the Eastwick Community Council in 1954 and continued to play a key role in the protest movement throughout 1954 and 1955. After 1955, the Eastwick Community Council was replaced by other groups, and Johnson disappears from the records examined for this paper. “Eastwick Council Group Expresses Views on Rede- velopment Proposal,” Philadelphia Tribune (clipping), May 1, 1954, CCCP Records, URB 10/IV/7, Box 11, Folder: “misc clippings and charts, Comm. of 30,” Urban Archives; “Eastwick Redevelopment Commit- tee of 30 Minutes,” February 21, 1955, CCCP Records, URB 10/IV/5, Box 11, Urban Archives, 1-2. See also “Tears, Boos Mark Stormy Meeting on Eastwick,” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 1, 1957, 13; Peters, “Negroes, Whites Fighting Together: Blast Eastwick Redevelopment; Angry Homeowners Charge Program Will Result in Segregated Housing,” Philadelphia Tribune, March 22, 1958, 1, 14; and especially “Eastwick

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 576 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

Organization Vows Intent to Hold Out against Redevelopment,” Pittsburgh Courier (Philadelphia section), June 14, 1958, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 20: Newspaper Clippings, Urban Archives, 1, which features comments from members of the multiracial group Eastwick Residents against Redevelopment. A photo- graph shows a black man (D. Carver Clinkscale) and white woman (Mrs. Rose Sharkey) holding a sign that reads, “Only Americans Live in Eastwick.” 48. Art Peters, “Half of Elmwood’s Churches Doomed to Destruction by City; Citizens Fight against Plan to Destroy Houses of Worship,” Philadelphia Tribune, August 6, 1957, clipping in PAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21, Urban Archives; Peters, “Proposed New Eastwick Homes Not for Low Salaried Workers; $80 to $100 Salary Is Needed, Housing Coordinator Intimates,” Philadelphia Tribune, September 24, 1957, 8; Peters, “Angry Elmwood Citizens Blast ‘For Rich Only Housing’; Countless Aged Workers, Low Income Earners to Lose Homes,” Philadelphia Tribune, September 28, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 20, Urban Archives; Peters, “Elmwoodites Doubt Being Fully Paid For Home Improvements; Majority of 2500 Families Skeptical of Redevelopment,” Philadelphia Tribune, November 19, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21, Urban Archives, 8. 49. Art Peters, “Negroes, Whites Fighting Together,” Philadelphia Tribune, March 22, 1958, 1, 14. 50. Certain issues had greater salience for African Americans than for other groups. In 1957, rumors circulated that the RA would select William Levitt as the exclusive developer for Eastwick. The all-white composition of the existing Levittown developments sparked fears among Philadelphia blacks that if Levitt took over the project, the new Eastwick would have a similar character. Despite denials by city officials, the Tribune maintained that “there was serious reason to believe...that Levitt is being given every consideration as a prospective builder” and reported that most Eastwick residents “expected the new housing project to be rigidly segregated once it is completed.” Art Peters, “Levittown Builder Reportedly Trying to Take Over; Residents Furious as Levitt Seeks City Contract to Build,” Philadelphia Tribune, September 17, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21: Newspaper Clippings, Urban Archives. In fact, the RA’s Board rejected Levitt’s proposal in part because its members questioned the sincerity of the developer’s claim that he saw Eastwick as an opportunity “to redeem his position and make a name for himself” as an advocate of housing integration. CHR Director George Schermer summarized these doubts about the seri- ousness of Levitt’s interest in integration: I heard [RA Executive Director] Frank Lammer say that Mr. Levitt was hoping to find redemption. I don’t carry a union card in the soul-saving business, but I will risk that if it is salvation [he wants], it is to be found in Levittown, and not in Eastwick. RA, “Conference on Eastwick Redevelopment,” 6-9, 19, 28, 33-6. 51. Rubillo based her charges on the rather tenuous observation that Lewis Mumford, who during the Senate McCarthy hearings had been falsely accused of being a Communist, had held a visiting appointment in the University of Pennsylvania’s City Planning Department during the time that Eastwick had been planned. “Red Influence in Eastwick Plan Charged by Foes,” Philadelphia Inquirer (clipping), August 13, 1957; “Mayor Rips Tale of ‘Red’ Eastwick,” Philadelphia Daily News (clipping), August 14, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP. 52. “Testimony of Dolores Rubillo,” Congress, United States Senate, Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Currency, Urban Renewal and Other Housing Problems in Selected Cities, 85th Cong., 1st sess., December 18, 1957 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1957), 1140. 53. As noted earlier, 72 percent of Eastwick residents owned their homes. Eastwick Planners, Eastwick Redevelopment Area Report, 9. See also Young, “ ‘Average Housewife’s’ View of Eastwick,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, August 29, 1957. 54. “Eastwick—Philadelphia, Penna., U.S.A.,” Reprinted from Pittsburgh Courier (Philadelphia section), September 28, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 271, Folder 15, HSP. The ad was placed by a Mr. Clinkscale, who may be the same man mentioned in note 47 above. “Memorandum,” Anthony DeAngelo to John J. O’Shea, January 14, 1958, AMG Papers, Box 271, Folder 15, HSP. 55. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis, 218-29. 56. Richard P. Brown, Jr., “Redevelopment Runs into Problems at Eastwick [letter to editor],” Phila- delphia Evening Bulletin, August 15, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP; “The Eastwick Redevel- opment Project,” Philadelphia Inquirer (clipping), August 26, 1957, AMG Papers, ibid. 57. “Mayor States: U.S. Aid Hinges on Eastwick,” Philadelphia Daily News (clipping), August 15, 1957, AMG Papers, ibid.; Art Peters, “Council May Kill Proposed Eastwick Redevelopment; 7,000 Write Cards to Council Urging ‘Save Our Homes,’ ” Philadelphia Tribune, September 3, 1957, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 20, Urban Archives; Wilson, “The Why of Eastwick: Suburbia or Squalor?”

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 577

Philadelphia Daily News (clipping), August 26, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP; Wilson, “The Why of Eastwick: $124 Million to Spend—And What It’ll Buy,” Philadelphia Daily News (clipping), August 29, 1957, ibid. 58. The Central Urban Renewal Area (CURA) report recognized that slum clearance was not only prohibitively expensive but that it also led to overcrowding and accelerated decline in adjoining neighborhoods because of the resulting residential displacement. The new policy did not completely abandon clearance but called for its use on a “spot” basis within declining but conservable areas. It should be noted that the boundary for new renewal work included an area far larger than the central business district alone. For the CURA report itself, see RA, Summary Report on the Central Urban Renewal Area (C.U.R.A.) (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, March 1956); for its announcement, see Office of the Development Coordinator, “A New Approach to Urban Renewal for Philadelphia,” March 1957, Petshek Papers, Acc. 202, Box 2, Folder: Urban Renewal, Urban Archives. 59. Wallace, “Renaissancemanship,” 163. 60. Of Philadelphia’s projected $35,401,500 contribution to the Eastwick project, $32,583,500 took the form of such noncash grants in aid. With an anticipated net project cost (as of 1957) of $57,401,500, Phil- adelphia’s required one-third contribution was only $19,133,833. Petshek, “Economic Feasibility of Eastwick,” 1; William L. Rafsky, “Memo to Mayor Joseph S. Clark; Subject: The City’s Capital Program for Redevelopment,” November 14, 1955, Mayor’s Correspondence 1955, RG 60-2.3, Box A-478, Folder 41D: Housing Coordinator, City Archives; RA, “Eastwick Fact Sheet,” 4; “Mayor States: U.S. Aid Hinges on Eastwick,” Philadelphia Daily News (clipping), August 16, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP; Wilson, “The Why of Eastwick: $124 Million to Spend,” Philadelphia Daily News, August 29, 1957. For a summary of federal policy on noncash credits and local contributions, see VanHuyck and Hornung, The Cit- izen’s Guide to Urban Renewal, 120-5, 157-8. Eastwick residents recognized, and resented, that the city hoped to use their community as a tool to raise funds for its broader urban renewal program. Art Peters, “Eastwick Is My Beat,” Philadelphia Tribune, September 24, 1957, 8. 61. John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch, Urban Fortunes:The Political Economy of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); John H. Mollenkopf, The Contested City (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983). For critical views of economic development in Philadelphia, see Adams et al., Phil- adelphia: Neighborhoods, Division, and Conflict, 39-43; Nancy Kleniewski, “From Industrial to Corporate City: The Role of Urban Renewal,” in William K. Tabb and Larry Sawers, eds. Marxism and the Metropolis: New Perspectives in Urban Political Economy, Second Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984). For a different perspective on this issue, see Adams, The Politics of Capital Investment. 62. Between 1958 and 1971, Philadelphia’s industrial renewal program leveraged approximately $24.1 million in public investment into $362 million in private investments for new and renovated factories within the city. City of Philadelphia and School District of Philadelphia, 1972-1977 Capital Budget (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1971); Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), 1971: New Direc- tions for PIDC in Philadelphia [annual report] (Philadelphia: PIDC, 1972), 5. As the first project to include a large industrial component, Eastwick can be seen as the harbinger of a growing emphasis in the late 1950s on halting Philadelphia’s economic decline by maintaining a manufacturing presence. CPC Comprehensive Planning Division, “Summary Report on the Central Urban Renewal Area (Preliminary Draft),” February 1956, HADV NURA, Box 1, Folder 12, Urban Archives, 4; Community Renewal Committee, City of Phila- delphia Community Renewal Program: Major Policies and Proposals (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, February 1967), 42, 79. Other cities during this period, including Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, and Trenton, attempted similar, if far more limited, programs of industrial renewal. As Thomas J. Sugrue has pointed out, however, “the history of industrial renewal in postwar American cities is still largely unwritten.” Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis, 164-5, and esp. 327, n. 42. 63. RA, Renewal Patterns 1957: Annual Report (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1958), 2-3,16; CPC, “Executive Session Minutes,” December 17, 1957, AMG Papers, Box 271, Folder 15, HSP. 64. Saul Schraga, “1000 Residents Defy Eastwick Plan at Hearing,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 20, 1958, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP. 65. “Hundreds Protest Plan at Hearing on Eastwick,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, March 19, 1958, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 21 (Newspaper Clippings); OCR-DPI, “News Release,” March 18, 1958. 66. “Council Approves Eastwick Redevelopment Project,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 16, 1958, AMG Papers, Box 414, Folder 5, HSP; OCR-DPI, “News Release: Mayor’s Statement—Eastwick,” May 22, 1958, DC-CR, RG 64.6, Box A-4813, Folder 29, City Archives. Residents displaced by urban renewal in Eastwick moved to new homes throughout the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Young, “ ‘Average House- wife’s’ View of Eastwick,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, August 29, 1957; Hyatt to Fraley, January 12,

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 578 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

1959, 1; Art Peters, “Countless Aged Workers”; Dick Bowman, “Too Old to Start Over—Where, from Eastwick?” Philadelphia Daily News, December 30, 1958, 5, clipping in GPC, Box 70-17, Folder: Eastwick, Urban Archives; Peters, “Eastwick Site for Expo Stirs Bitter Memories,” Philadelphia Inquirer, January 21, 1972, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) History, Urban Archives. For a report on the quality of housing occupied by former Eastwick residents after relocations, see Eastwick Redevelopment Area, “Report on Relocation of Families and Individuals: Eastwick Redevelopment Area as of Month Ended Sep- tember 30, 1963,” October 8, 1963, DMD Housing Files, RG 61.5.2, Box A-3156, Folder Relocation-1963, City Archives. 67. OCR-DPI, “News Release,” September 17, 1959, GPC, Box 70-17, Urban Archives, 1-2; “Three Eastwick Bids Rejected,” Eastwick Press, January 1960, clipping in CCCP Records, Box 23, URB 10/VIII/201, Folder: “Urban Renewal,” 1951-1969, Urban Archives, 1, 7; William A. Forsythe, “Redevel- opers for Eastwick Are Chosen; Reynolds-Berger Combine Approved In $250 Million Job,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, May 28, 1960, PBMC, Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1960, Urban Archives, 3; “The Berger Boys Land a Whopper: The Contract for Developing $450 Million Community from Marsh- lands Went to a Pair of Go-Getters,” Greater Philadelphia Magazine 51, no. 7 (July 1960): 68-71; “Philadel- phia Developers Push Their ‘City within a City,’ ” Business Week (August 13, 1960), 126-30; Rafsky, “Eastwick—Total Rebuilding,” 5. Reynolds was interested in using urban renewal as a tool for promoting the use of aluminum in home building, while the Bergers had developed a reputation as a leading builder of low-cost private housing through their work on an urban renewal project in North Philadelphia. Hubert Kay, “The Industrial Corporation in Urban Renewal,” in James Q. Wilson, ed., Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966), 278-90. One estimate indicated that Reynolds expected to sell as much as six hundred pounds of aluminum in each Eastwick home. Joseph C. Goulden, “Eastwick: More Promises Than Progress in First Years,” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 27, 1963, clipping in PBMC, Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1963, Urban Archives, 1, 6. Reynolds’s lack of interest in developing the industrial sections of Eastwick led the RA to add Philadelphia Builders Eastwick Corporation (PBEC) to the development team in 1961. “Reynolds Aluminum vs. Home Builders,” October 12, 1961. 68. “Airport Noise Not a Threat to Eastwick, Rafsky Says,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, September 19, 1961, PBMC, Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1961, Urban Archives, Box 18; “Meeting Minutes,” January 17, 1963, Deputy Managing Director for Housing Files, RG 61.5.2, Box A-3158, Folder Minutes of the Full Inter-Agency Committee, City Archives; Frederick A. McCord, “The New Eastwick: Growth Slow; Integration Hurts Sales,” Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, October 20, 1963, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Towne Gardens, Urban Archives, 6; Gilson, “To Build 1000th Home in Year; 8000 to Go,” 1, 28; Eastwick Community Organization, “Minutes,” April 19, 1967, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECO Correspondence, Urban Archives, 1. Greek planner Constantine Doxiadis revised the Eastwick plan for NEC. Doxiadis Associates, Inc., “Eastwick Redevelopment Project,” n.d. [1960?], GPC, Box 68-25, Urban Archives, 1-7; RA, “Eastwick Urban Renewal Area: Philadelphia’s Area of Great Growth Potential,” 1966, GPC, Box 552-11, Urban Archives; RA, “Eastwick:...APlace for People...APlace with Potential,” n.d. [prob. 1968], GPC, Box 444-23, Urban Archives. 69. Eisler, “Eastwick Project to Be Started Next Summer; Cost Up $23 Million”; Nicholas Bozzi, “Planes No Joke to Eastwick Residents [letter to editor],” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, September 20, 1961, PBMC, Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1961, Urban Archives, Box 18; John S. Morrison, “Memo to Joseph Turchi—Subject: Eastwick Redevelopment Area—Gas,” September 9, 1963, Managing Director—Files and Correspondence, RG 61.2, Box A-823, Folder: Eastwick, City Archives; Walter E. Jackson, Air Pollution Control Section, to Tina Weintraub, Deputy Managing Director, September 9, 1963, ibid.; “McDermott Listens to Complaints, Calls New Eastwick Homes Shoddy,” Philadelphia Evening Bul- letin, October 11, 1963, 5; Commission on Human Relations (CHR), “Weekly Report to Mayor James H. J. Tate,” October 18, 1963, Mayor’s Files (Tate), RG 60-2.5, Box A-6378, Folder Weekly Reports—Human Relations, City Archives; Michael Morrison, “Odors Fill 2 Eastwick Homes Built on Gas-Emitting Dump,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, December 22, 1966, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1964-66, Urban Archives; Joseph Warren to Samuel Baxter, November 2, 1970, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, F: ECO Correspondence, Urban Archives, 1; Katrina Dyke, “Oversold and Underbuilt: Whatever Happened to Eastwick?” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, December 20, 1970, clipping in PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Towne Gardens Misc., Urban Archives; Eastwick Community Organization, “Environmental Committee Report,” n.d. [prob. 1970], EPAC Records, ibid., 1-2; Mayor’s Bicentennial Site Committee, “A Preliminary Announcement,” January 22, 1972, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECO File, Urban Archives, 3; Eastwick Project Area Committee (EPAC), “Minutes of the Special

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 579

PAC Board Meeting Regarding Heller’s Dump,” March 15, 1972, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives. 70. Office of Development Coordinator (ODC), “Summary of Activities,” March 22, 1962, Mayor Files—1962, RG 60-2.5, Box A-6350, Folder Weekly Reports—Development Coordinator, City of Phila- delphia, Department of Records, City Archives, 2; CHR, “Weekly Report to the Mayor,” March 23, 1962, Mayor’s Files—1962 (James H. J. Tate), RG 60-2.5, Box A-6350, Folder Weekly Reports—Comm. Human Relations, City Archives, 2. The housing market study estimated that prices in this range would limit the level of black occupancy to 11 percent of the new homes. Rapkin and Grigsby, The Demand for Housing in Eastwick, 78. 71. Advisory Committee to the Redevelopment Authority on Eastwick, “Minutes,” January 10, Febru- ary 7, and March 7, 1963, HADV-OF, 1951-70, URB 3, Series V, Box 118, Folder 584: February 1963 to May 1963, Urban Archives. McCord, “The New Eastwick,” 6. McClatchy’s comments may have been based on a 1963 survey of prospective homebuyers in Towne Gardens. National Analysts, Inc., Attitudes toward Purchase of a Towne Gardens Home: Report #1, February 1963, HADV NURA, Box 20, Folder 2-18, pp. iii-iv, Urban Archives, 20-5. 72. Rapkin and Grigsby, The Demand for Housing in Eastwick, 65; Goulden, “Eastwick: More Prom- ises Than Progress in First Years,” 6. 73. The CHR’s acceptance of the tactic was premised on “the understanding that this will be an integrated community.” “Memo to File: Notes on Meeting Called by Commission on Human Relations Regard- ing the Sale of Houses in Eastwick,” April 10, 1962, HADV-OF, 1951-70, URB 3, Series V,Box 118, Folder 580: September 1961 to June 1962, 1-2. In the same week, the CHR’s report to the mayor provided further details about the window-shopping initiative: It is evident that the brokers and salesmen in competing developments are telling their prospects that Towne Gardens is likely to be an all Negro development while their own projects will end up being restricted to whites. The important antidote to such sales tactics is to encourage Negroes to shop around for houses at new developments so that white buyers will be impressed with the fact that Ne- groes are shopping around everywhere. Several groups will seek to recruit white buyers who will volunteer to purchase “the house next door” to Negro occupied dwellers in Eastwick so as to give en- couragement to other more cautious buyers. CHR, “Weekly Report to the Mayor,” April 13, 1962, Mayor Files—1962, RG 60-2.5, Box A-6350, Folder Weekly Reports—Comm. Human Relations, City of Philadelphia, Department of Records, City Archives. 74. Goulden, “Eastwick: More Promises Than Progress in First Years,” 6. The quotations are from an unnamed source “close to the Eastwick project.” 75. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Philadelphia, “Memorandum to: Mr. and Mrs. William C. Morris—Re: Lot No. 46; Mr. and Mrs. Earl Williams—Re: Lot No. 48; Mr. and Mrs. George C. Draper—Re: Lot No. 45; Mr. and Mrs. Hamlin Parks—Re Lot No. 62,” June 6, 1962, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Towne Gardens Misc., Urban Archives, 1; CHR, “Weekly Report to the Mayor,” May 11 and 25, 1962, Mayor’s Files—1962 (James H. J. Tate), RG 60-2.5, Box A-6350, Folder Weekly Reports—Comm. Human Relations, City Archives; ODC, “Summary of Activities,” May 3, 18, and 24, 1962, Mayor Files—1962, RG 60-2.5, Box A-6350, Folder Weekly Reports—Development Coordinator, City Archives. 76. CHR, “Weekly Report to the Mayor,” December 28, 1962, Mayor’s Files—1962 (James H. J. Tate), RG 60-2.5, Box A-6350, Folder Weekly Reports—Comm. Human Relations, City Archives, 1; Advisory Committee to the Redevelopment Authority on Eastwick, “Minutes,” January 10, 1963, 2. 77. ODC, “Summary of Activities,” April 10 and 24, 1963, Mayor Tate Files, RG 60-2.5, Box A-6378, Folder Weekly Reports—Development Coordinator, City Archives. 78. CHR, “Weekly Report to Mayor James H. J. Tate,” September 20, 1963, Mayor Tate Files, RG 60-2.5, Box A-6378, Folder Weekly Reports—Human Relations, City Archives, 1-2; Dyke, “Oversold and Underbuilt.” In October 1963, NEC President Albert Cole told the Bulletin that “we knew what we were get- ting into in New Eastwick. We knew it would take a lot of courage to do. We are doing it. We shall continue to do it.” Sales agent Frank McClatchy added that “he took the job...because he thought ‘a sincere job of building an integrated community had to be done, and the developers were out to do it. I won’t quit. I’m that bullheaded. They may fire me but I won’t quit.” McCord, “The New Eastwick,” 6. 79. Hopkins, “Requiem for a Renaissance,” 54.

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 580 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

80. Dyke, “Oversold and Underbuilt.” Initially, such problems carried over into daily life in the new Eastwick. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a series of racially based incidents and disputes shook the new community, including a cross burning in 1966, a racially charged controversy over the location of a new elementary school in 1970, and a bid for “community control” to replace the “paternalism” of a local Meth- odist church’s management of a community center in 1972. “Cross Is Burned In Negro Area,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 6, 1966, clipping in PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Blue Bell Manor, Urban Archives; Dot Picozzi, on behalf of Penrose Park Civic Association, untitled document [Statement before school board on proposed six-year capital budget], n.d. [prob. April 27, 1970], EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECO File, Urban Archives; Penrose Park Civic Association, untitled document [Statement on lower school for area], May 11, 1970, EPAC Records, ibid.; Joseph Warren and Dorothy Johnson to School District of Philadelphia, September 23, 1970, EPAC Records, ibid.; Don M. Cosentino to Joseph Warren, October 9, 1970, EPAC Records, ibid.; Glen I. Earthman to Joseph Warren, October 26, 1970, EPAC Records, ibid.; George Wolf School Advisory Committee, Dorothy Johnson, Chairman, untitled document [statement of Joseph Warren to the Board of Education], October 26, 1970, EPAC Records, ibid.; Joseph Warren and Dorothy Johnson to Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, November 23, 1970, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECO Correspondence, Urban Archives; Joseph Warren and Dorothy Johnson to Lu Walker, Executive Director, I.F.C.O., October 22, 1970, EPAC Records, ibid., 1; Joe Adcock, “Protestors Ask ‘Community Control’ of Eastwick Center,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, December 28, 1971, clipping in PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Misc 1970 and later, Urban Archives; Adcock, “Methodist Unit Balks on Eastwick Center Plan,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, January 5, 1972, ibid.; Adcock, “Eastwick Residents Agree to Work with Methodists,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, January 12, 1972, ibid. 81. Dyke, “Oversold and Underbuilt.” 82. In 1982, 270 acres of Eastwick residential land remained undeveloped. After a period of inactivity during the 1980s, private residential construction resumed during the early 1990s in western sections of Eastwick that had previously been cleared but not redeveloped. David Wilk, “Future of Stage III Is Pondered By PAC,” Southwest Globe-Times, clipping in EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Scrapbook: PAC Press Clippings 1980/1981, Urban Archives; CPC, Review of the Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan, i-ii, 2, 12-4; Eastwick Coordinating Committee, “Meeting—Minutes,” November 28, 1989, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECC, Urban Archives, 1; EPAC, “Eastwick Coordinating Committee Meeting—Minutes from January 30, 1990,” February 23, 1990, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECC, Urban Archives, 1; Korman Residential Properties, Inc., “Welcome Home [promotional brochure for KormanSuites at Inter- national City, Eastwick],” 1999, in possession of the author. 83. Leon Taylor, “A History of Development: From Farmland to Urban Sprawl, SW Philly is Used to Change,” Philadelphia Daily News, July 3, 1997. See also Table 2. 84. Rafsky, “Eastwick—Total Rebuilding,” 5; “Reynolds Aluminum vs. Home Builders,” October 12, 1961, HADV-OF, 1951-70, URB 3, Series V, Box 118, Folder 580: September 1961 to June 1962, Urban Archives; James T. Gilson, “To Build 1000th Home in Year; 8000 to Go,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 22, 1966, clipping in PBMC, Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1964-66, Urban Archives, 1. 85. Andrew Young,interview by Walter M. Phillips, October 12, 1978, transcript, Phillips Oral History Project, Box 9, Folder: Andrew Young, Urban Archives, 3; “The Eastwick Mystery [editorial],” Philadel- phia Evening Bulletin, December 13, 1966; “In Defense of Eastwick,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, December 20, 1966, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1964-1966; Joseph T. Lowry, “DA Flies over Eastwick ‘Wasteland,’ Asks Development,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Septem- ber 22, 1967, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1967-1968; Kos Semonski, “High Eastwick Costs Cited in Move to N.J.,” Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, April 28, 1968, PBMC, Folder Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1967-1968. 86. “AAA-1 Tenant Found for Industrial Park,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, October 11, 1964, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Misc. Prior to 1970; Oscar B. Teller, “Simmons Co. Plans Building in Eastwick,” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 15, 1965, PBMC, Folder: Delaware Valley Industrial Park; RA, “Eastwick Urban Renewal Area: Philadelphia’s Area of Great Growth Potential,” 4-7; RA, “Eastwick: ...A Place for People...APlace with Potential,” 2-3, 7; Albert M. Greenfield & Co., Inc., “Delaware Valley Industrial Park, Eastwick, Philadelphia,” n.d. [approx. 1970], EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 5, Folder: Industrial; RA, Annual Report, 1968 (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1969), 36; RA, Annual Report, 1969 (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1970), 36; RA, 1970 Annual Report (Philadelphia: City of Phila- delphia, 1971), 36. PBEC also sold land to a number of customers whose activities did not technically fit the area’s industrial zoning. These included Steamfitter’s Union Local #420, which built an office and meeting

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 581 hall, and the South Philadelphia Auto Mall, which established a concentration of auto dealerships along a forty-five acre tract on Essington Avenue. 87. For an analysis of the spatial and economic interrelationship between airports and urban decentral- ization and deindustrialization, see Douglas Karsner, “Aviation and Airports: The Impact on the Economic and geographic Structure of American Cities, 1940s-1980s,” Journal of Urban History 23, no. 4 (May 1997): 406-36. 88. PBEC’s involvement in the project came to an end after a series of scandals revealed that the consortium had illegally enhanced its profits by manipulating the terms of land sales. Kos Semonski, “$164,000 Profit on Eastwick Site Cancelled,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, April 21, 1968, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Redevelopment Project, 1967 to 1968, Urban Archives; Semonski, “Eastwick Terms Revised to Keep Profits Down,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, May 27, 1968, ibid.; “Land Firm Chief, Lawyer Tried in Eastwick Case,” Philadelphia Inquirer [?], April 26, 1972, PBMC, Folder: Eastwick (section) Misc 1970 and later, Urban Archives; Henry W. Messaros, “Court Hears Site Buyer in Eastwick Land Deal,” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, May 2, 1972, ibid.; “Agreement among Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation-Financing Corporation and Philadel- phia Authority for Industrial Development for the Development of Eastwick Redevelopment Area, Eastwick Urban Renewal Area, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Industrial Stage A, Parcels A, B, C, D, E, F, I, J & K,” 1974, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 4, Folder: Eastwick: White Paper, Urban Archives; RA, 1973 Annual Report (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1974), 9. 89. CPC, Issue Paper—Industrial Philadelphia: A Study of Industrial Land Use (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1990), 16-7. The southwest industrial district, consisting of Eastwick, the airport, and the Penrose Industrial Park, experienced an increase of 153 percent, from 902 jobs to 2,278 jobs. South Phila- delphia was the only other industrial district in which manufacturing employment increased. 90. CPC, Industrial Area Profiles, technical paper prepared under the Air Quality Technical Assistance Demonstration Grant (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, November 1981), 4-11. In early 1973, PIDC Executive Vice President Walter D’Allesio explained this strategy to a group of Eastwick residents: “the proposed kinds of businesses . . . center mostly around distribution types such as warehouses, bread manu- facturers, trucking, etc.” EPAC, “Minutes of the PAC Planning Committee,” January 25, 1973, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives, 1; EPAC Planning Committee, “Minutes,” June 17, 1981, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: Minutes, 2; PIDC, Annual Report 1975, 4, 8-9; RA, Annual Report 1972 (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1973), 19; James Lang Wooton International Real Estate Consultants, “Philadelphia Free Zone Industrial Park” [promotional brochure], n.d., GPC, Box 874-12, Urban Archives. Between 1979 and the end of the first quarter of 1981 alone, investments in new Eastwick industrial buildings totaled more than $7.8 million. CPC, Industrial Area Profiles, 11; PIDC, “Philadelphia Interport Business Complex; PIDC Transactions,” August 13, 1982; “PAC Hears Industrial, Commercial, Residential Plans,” Southwest Globe Times, February 27, 1980, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Folder: PAC Press Clippings 1980/1981. 91. For community concerns about employment density, see EPAC, “Minutes of the PAC Planning Committee,” January 25, 1973, 1; Richard J. Currie to Walter D’Allessio, January 7, 1981 EPAC Records Acc. 870, Box 5, Folder: Industrial; CPC, Industrial Area Profiles, 8, 11. 92. “Jobs and Training,” Pacwick Papers XIX:IX (1989), EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives, 1. Data on Eastwick employment and number of firms is compiled from CPC, Review of the Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan, 14; “Joseph M. Egan, Jr. to Chip Bassett,” August 13, 1982, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 5, Folder: Industrial; EPAC, “New Industrial Development,” n.d. [prob. 1983-1984], EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 6, Folder: Area Industry Contributors. In cases in which the completion of a land transaction could not be confirmed, the firm involved was not included in this count; as a result, the estimate may understate the actual total by as much as five firms. The estimate of employment at the airport and in the Penrose Industrial Park is based on a list of company addresses and employment compiled from 1980 Dalton’s Directory; Business and Industry (Haverford, PA: Dalton’s Directory, 1980), and 1990 Dalton’s Philadelphia Metropolitan Directory; Business/Industry; Philadelphia/Suburbs; South Jer- sey Delaware (Haverford, PA: Dalton’s Directory, 1990), cross checked against EPAC, untitled list of area industry contributors, n.d. [prob. 1983-1984], EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 6, Folder: Area Industry Con- tributors, 1-10, and PIDC, Annual Report 1975, 4. For the share of total employment held by Eastwick residents, see PIDC, “Philadelphia Interport Business Complex; PIDC Transactions,” August 13, 1982; Charles Andrews, “Memo to Eastwick Coordinating Committee; Subject: Record of Discussion Eastwick URA (D.13),” September 13, 1982, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 10, Folder: E.C.C., 2.

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 582 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / July 2001

93. Both state and federal law banned racial discrimination in housing built under the auspices of the urban renewal program. For a summary of Pennsylvania law, see Industrial Race Relations Commission, Civil Rights Laws in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, n.d.), GPC, Box 555-4, Urban Archives, 3. 94. RA, Annual Report 1974 (Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 1975), 45. For more detailed population statistics, see Tables 1 and 2. 95. Joseph T. Lowry, “Eastwick: A $200-Million Renewal Dream; Cooperation Brings Project ‘A Long Way,’ ” Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, October 11, 1976, 11, 15. See also McCord, “The New Eastwick,” 6. 96. For the struggle to organize the Eastwick PAC, see Joseph Warren, Regina Eichenger, and Dorothy Johnson to Senator Hugh Scott, November 12, 1970, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECO Corre- spondence, Urban Archives; Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, to Senator Hugh Scott, November 19, 1970, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives; Warren and Johnson to Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, November 23, 1970, 1; Francis J. Myers Jr. to Joseph Warren, December 8, 1970, EPAC Records, ibid.; Walter D’Alessio to Joseph Warren, January 12, 1971, EPAC Records, ibid.; William L. Holmes, Sr. to Donald Cosentino, President, Penrose Park Civic Association, January 19, 1971, EPAC Records, ibid.; Betsey Remage to Betty Murphy, February 5, 1971, EPAC Records, ibid.; Walter D’Allessio to Douglas E. Chaffin, February 8, 1971, EPAC Records, ibid.; Betsey Remage to Joseph Warren, March 3, 1971, EPAC Records, ibid.; Lois Shaub, “Eastwick Project Area Committee President’s Annual Address 3/71-3/72” [April, 6], 1972, EPAC Records, ibid.; EPAC, “Minutes of the Education Committee Meeting,” November 15, 1972, EPAC Records, ibid. 97. Charles Andrews, “Memo to Eastwick Coordinating Committee,” September 13, 1982, 2; Ray DiBuonaventura and Lorraine Iannello, “Septa System: You Can’t Find It in Eastwick,” Southwest Globe-Times, October 25, 1978, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Scrapbook: PAC Community Press Clip- pings; “Eastwick CDC Forms to Develop A Neighborhood Bus Services,” Pacwick Papers XI:VIII (fall 1983), EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives, 3 (Pacwick Papers is the EPAC newsletter). “PAC Job Bank Finds Employment for Area Jobless,” Pacwick Papers XI:VIII (fall 1983), EPAC Records, ibid., 3; “Jobs and Training,” Pacwick Papers XIX:IX (1989), 1; EPAC Planning Commit- tee, “Minutes,” August 26, 1971, April 27, 1972, November 16, 1972, and January 25, 1973, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives; EPAC Board Meeting, “Minutes,” January 6, 1972, EPAC Records, ibid.; EPAC, “Eastwick Coordinating Committee Meeting—Minutes,” November 28, 1989, and January 21, 1983, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECC, Urban Archives; Charles R. Andrews, “Memo to Members of the Eastwick Coordinating Committee; Subject: Eastwick URA (D.12) Record of Meeting—1/23/84,” January 25, 1984, EPAC Records, ibid.; “Eastwick Project Area Commit- tee’s Tour of Area Highlighting Planning Priorities and Problems,” January 8, 1973, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives; “CD Director Tours Area: Eastwick Needs, Resources Shown,” Pacwick Papers, X:III (August 1980) EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Scrapbook: PAC Press Clippings 1980/1981, Urban Archives; “PAC to the City: Remember Your Commitments,” and “Finally! Old Eastwick Streets & Sewers Planned,” Pacwick Papers, X:IV (fall 1980), EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives, 1, 6; Murray Dubin, “Unserved: No Curbs, No Sidewalks, No Sewers,” Philadelphia Inquirer, September 4, 1980, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Scrapbook: PAC Press Clippings 1980/1981, Urban Archives; Richard Currie and David T. Wilk, “Civic Truth [letter to editor],” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 12, 1980, EPAC Records, ibid.; Murray Dubin, “5 City Areas to Receive $596,000; In Eastwick, Sewers, Paving,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 10, 1980, EPAC Records, ibid.; Lois Shaub to Greg Coleman, December 11, 1981, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECC, Urban Archives; EPAC Board Meeting, “Minutes,” December 2, 1971, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives; EPAC Executive Committee Meeting, “Minutes,” February 17, 1972, EPAC Records, ibid.; EPAC, “Minutes of the Special PAC Board Meeting Regarding Heller’s Dump,” March 15, 1972, EPAC Records, ibid.; Lois Shaub to Alvin Zion, December 11, 1981, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: ECC, Urban Archives. 98. “Youth Tragedy Sparks PAC Response, Action,” Pacwick Papers, X:III (August 1980) EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Scrapbook: PAC Press Clippings 1980/1981, Urban Archives. Although only partially successful, the solicitation ban prevented complete racial turnover in Penrose Park West. “South- west Phila. Residents” [notice regarding real estate solicitation], Southwest Globe-Times, May 21, 1980, ibid.; Murray Dubin, “Not for Sale: Real Estate Solicitation Raising Fears in 2 Neighborhoods,” Philadel- phia Inquirer, July 31, 1980, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Scrapbook: PAC Press Clippings

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009 McKee / LIBERAL ENDS THROUGH ILLIBERAL MEANS 583

1980/1981, Urban Archives. For problems of block busting in 1971, see [Eastwick PAC] Board Meeting, “Minutes,” September 9, 1971, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives. 99. Shaub, “Eastwick Project Area Committee President’s Annual Address 3/71-3/72” [April 6], 1972. See also “PAC Further Strengthened with Addition of MISCO,” Pacwick Papers, X:I (February 1980) EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 18, Scrapbook: PAC Press Clippings 1980/1981, Urban Archives. Common frustra- tions with the city also played a key role in drawing Eastwick neighborhoods together; see Lois Shaub to Bruce Baldwin, January 6, 1972, EPAC Records, Acc. 870, Box 1, Folder: PAC Info, Urban Archives. 100. Yvonne Latty, “Color-Blind, and Happy: In Eastwick, Black, White Amity Rules,” Philadelphia Daily News, April 1, 1994, 8, 86. 101. For the “racial tipping” model, see Thomas C. Schelling, “Dynamic Models of Segregation,” Jour- nal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (1971): 143-86; Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior (New York: Norton, 1978); Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 95-7. Massey and Denton suggest that if the black population of a neighborhood rose to 50 percent, 64 percent of whites would attempt to leave, while few or none would move in; Towne Gardens’ stability between 1980 and 1990 is thus quite notable. Ibid., 96. See Table 1 for an explanation of the derivation of these statistics. 102. Despite a 1980 population that was 72 percent African American, the number of whites in the Cob- blestone Village area (the fastest growing section of western Eastwick during this period) increased from 248 in 1980 to 390 in 1990. 103. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970; Block Statistics; Final Report HC(3)-204: Philadelphia, PA.-N.J. Urbanized Area (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, September 1971); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1980; Block Statistics; PHC 80-1-283: Phil- adelphia, PA.-N.J. SMSA (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, November 1981); Census of Pop- ulation and Housing: 1990; Summary Tape File 1B Extract on CD-Rom; Block Statistics (Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County) [machine-readable data files] (Washington, DC: prepared by the Bureau of the Cen- sus, 1991).

Downloaded from http://juh.sagepub.com at DREXEL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 2, 2009