East Riverside Urban Renewal Project
The Largest Urban Renewal Project in the South
Throughout the 1950s to the 1970s, the federal government initiated an Urban Renewal program in order to revitalize the landscape of American cities. This program was oftentimes pushed as an act of democratic capitalism in the fight against communism, as it was postured as a fight towards broader technological development and superiority over the USSR and communism. However, the resulting urban renewal programs typically targeted historically Black neighborhoods by deeming them “blighted”, and thus allowing the government to overtake them, despite fervent opposition from residents of the neighborhoods. The first major push of Urban Renewal occurred after the Housing Act of 1949, which was aimed toward improving national housing supply; however, the Housing Act of 1954 reshaped the goals of the program in order to make the projects more enticing for developers. The Housing Act of 1954 granted more leeway for cities to redevelop areas deemed “blighted”, which were areas that housed primarily low-income residents, for higher uses, including middle to high-income housing and commercial use. However, with new commercial ventures, the Housing Act of 1954 also enabled a higher degree of community involvement in the urban renewal process itself, including mandating community oversight agencies (Grim) . In this project, I have explored the history of urban renewal in the East Riverside neighborhood, now known as the River Arts District, and examined the pushback from this once thriving community against the wave of urban renewal.
History of Urban Renewal & East Riverside
To learn more about urban renewal, we must begin with the history of redlining in Asheville. During the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) created residential security maps that defined neighborhoods by their potential risk for real estate investment and monetary lending. The scale was ‘A’ through ‘D’, with ‘A’ being reserved for white, wealthy neighborhoods and ‘D’ classified Black neighborhoods. Although there were varying levels of socioeconomic hierarchy in these neighborhoods, federal lenders would refuse to loan money to anyone in a ‘D’ class neighborhood, barring this population from accessing vital resources like fixed-rate mortgages. Instead, in the late 1960s, these same ‘D’ neighborhoods were selected to undergo urban renewal (Nickollof) .
The East Riverside project was the largest Urban Renewal Project in the Southeast. It covered over 425 acres, 1,250 families, 1,300 structures, and over half of Asheville’s Black population (Nickollof) . The plan also cost over $9.8 million in 1966, around $15.3 million in 2020. Although the majority of urban renewal projects across the country were aimed at creating commercial development, the East Riverside project’s objective was “to significantly upgrade the quality of housing” (Julian Woodcock, Jr.) . In 1966, the Asheville Redevelopment Council (ARC) announced that this process would be pursued through three methods: rehabilitation and conservation, clearance, and redevelopment. Rehabilitation would occur by working with homeowners to determine repairs and fixing them, which the redevelopment team estimated would consist of 40% of the homes in East Riverside (that was not truly the case). Clearance would occur by removing homes deemed substandard and non-rehabilitatable. Finally, the original urban renewal plan promised redevelopment of public and private housing after clearance. For East Riverside specifically, the plan called for the demolition of 698 structures and rehabilitation of 587 buildings. In its place, the ARC proposed 500 units of low rent housing, provided by the Asheville Housing Authority, and another 150 to 200 units for resale (Julian Woodcock, Jr.) .
Redevelopers knew that urban renewal would be shocking to many residents, so they instigated a series of informational pamphlets, newspapers, and reports to ease the community. One of the most popular newsletters was called The Community Improver, and its first issue appeared in April of 1966. This first issue attempted to confront lingering negative rumors about urban renewal and quell the fears of residents:
"In order to save [dilapidated] areas, many houses must be bought and demolished to provide space for modern, well-planned housing. This is not profitable. Even if private builders could afford it they could not make much profit. Urban renewal is not designed to make money, but to use it to improve our city and to help provide better housing for our citizens." (Grim)
However, continued publications of The Community Improver took a more paternalistic tone to address the residents of East Riverside by telling them of the need for greater concern in Urban Renewal areas. For example, the August 1966 issue of The Community Improver included a section entitled “Try Harder” which stated:
"The 'Rehab' office has taken great pains to keep people abreast of what is being done and planned. In spite of this, some of the people still are not taking advantage of the opportunities offered. Some are still prone to accept from people on street corners explanations about such things as methods of appraisal, what to do about fixing up property, who would be eligible for public housing, what sections will undergo demolition. How and when money may become available for repairs, whether or not tenants as well as owners get the same treatment as it relates to relocation." (Grim)
Instead of encouraging discourse on urban renewal within the community, the ARC truly wanted all questions to be answered by the Council themselves, who could manipulate the answer to seem positive, despite the reality that soon people would be forced to leave their homes (Grim) .
The citizens of East Riverside also participated in the talks around Urban Renewal, as required by the Housing Act of 1954, through the East Riverside Project Advisory Committee (PAC). First started under the Model Cities program, the East Riverside PAC “granted [Black] residents political access to the decision making process of urban renewal…”, but it initially seemed like no more than a political ploy to satisfy the Housing Act of 1954 (Nickollof 127) . The original committee consisted of 27, Asheville Housing Authority (AHA), which acted in accordance with the ARC,-selected members of the East Riverside neighborhood and was publicized as a committee that would act as a liaison between community members and the commission but would not have any real say in the urban renewal program. Soon, though, Black residents of East Riverside began noticing the illegitimate council and met with the leaders of the AHA, who then allowed the committee to select its own members. The early days of the PAC were riddled with debate, as members fought over who would be allowed to sit on the committee: could renters make decisions for homeowners? Then, after the Housing and Redevelopment Act of 1974, many Black organizations across the country consolidated as well, urging a shift towards unity within this council. Carl Johnson, a resident of East Riverside, notably attended several PAC meetings and worked with the council to ensure inclusion from all lenses of the community. By uniting the committee, Johnson left a lasting impact on its political influence, which allowed improved cohesion in decision making for all East Riverside constituents (Nickollof) .
The PAC’s largest accomplishment was confronting the AHA on acquisition of elderly residents' homes, all of which called East Riverside home for the majority of their lives. Though many confrontations failed and the AHA seized residents’ homes only after a few months, the PAC worked with two families, the Andersons and the Youngs, to stop AHA’s impending acquisition. Both families had refused to cooperate with the AHA, which led to the City of Asheville exercising eminent domain to acquire their properties.
Eminent domain is a legal principle that grants the government authority to seize private property if there is an overriding public interest with “just compensation” - which was often not just. Marcell Proctor, of the East Riverside neighborhood, said in a gathering for the community that the government gave his father only $600 per house that they acquired and tore down during the East Riverside Urban Renewal Project (Marcell Proctor) .
After a nearly two-year administrative and political battle, the City Council decided to allow the families to remain in their homes - a major victory for the PAC which indicated a fall in the ARC & AHA’s paternalistic power over the neighborhood (Nickollof) . These citizens not only knew what was going on in their neighborhood - they were there to fight for it, too.
Moving Forward
A Comparison of East Riverside from 1970 to 2008 (Tighe & Opelt)
What used to be the East Riverside neighborhood is now known as the River Arts District in Asheville. Home to hipster artists and trendy coffee shops, the area is much different from its roots. In fact, the area seems to neglect the neighborhood that once stood before it - not once mentioning the East Riverside neighborhood on the history page of their website (“History of Asheville’s River Arts District”) . Looking demographically, this area has changed dramatically since 1970. As seen through the StoryMaps - the Black population of this tract of Asheville has dropped by nearly 35% since 1970. This shift is almost certainly the result of the displacement of Black folks due to urban renewal. For my project, I had the chance to visit this area to see for myself what has changed since the 1970s Urban Renewal project.
I started my walk on the northwest side of the neighborhood then walked south in a loop. On my journey, I passed the River Arts District, both public housing projects initiated by the ARC, Asheville Middle School and the YWCA. On my walk, I noticed many liberal markers - including Biden/Harris signs, Black Lives Matter banners and a yarn-bombed fence whose yard was filled with liberal-leaning political slogans. There were also many art galleries, installations and coffee bars.
The most shocking display I saw on my walk was an art installation of two painted freight containers. On it, a sixth grade student had painted “LOVE YOUR COMMUNITY.” Although the sentiment is nice, especially for a child, it felt tone-deaf to put that piece of art in an area where the community had been torn apart in order for the new community to form. In fact, on my walk, the area seemed less like a community and more like a tourist attraction.
During my walk, I pleasantly stumbled upon an African Zion Methodist Episcopal Church that was quite old. It is my belief that this is one of the remaining relics after the Urban Renewal project tore through the East Riverside neighborhood. I am glad that despite continued development and change in the area, the church can still stand as a beacon of the Black community in the region.
Overall, the East Riverside Urban Renewal project greatly altered the history of Asheville’s Black population. It is important to remember this community for their continued verve and action in opposition to the prevailing political motives of the time. In July of 2020, the Asheville City Council recognized the atrocities of urban renewal and unanimously approved a reparations resolution that would reinvest in Black communities. Today, nearly 60% of residents in Asheville public housing are Black, though they only represent 12% of the city’s total population. The hope of this new reparations resolution is to return the city-owned land to former property owners removed from their homes by urban renewal. Nevertheless, this resolution has faced backlash from white supports. Jacqueline Larsen, an Asheville resident, stated, “The reparations document is accusatory, extremist, militant and divisive...City Council represents all of us, not just the Black community” (Phillip) . However, City Councilwoman Julie Mayfield noted, “As white people, we wake up every day and benefit from the systems that exist that keep people of color at an economic and educational and health disadvantage and give us a straighter track in the world” (Phillip) . Urban renewal is just one of the many racist policies that Black people have faced in American history. Now, as we reflect on its cruelness, we must look forward to solutions that will bring us all on equal ground.