data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff4a2/ff4a28d67c0c6e86ef87dd848d2250e414f55634" alt=""
The Richard Allen Homes
A nationally hailed project, where community could only overcome so much
The Richard Allen Homes, once nationally hailed as a model for urban renewal projects, stand today as an example of the destructive nature of urban renewal. Yet, alongside those failures are success stories rooted in community activism and strength. “In and Around The Richard Allen Homes,” a monthly publication in the Philadelphia Tribune highlighted clubs and activities working to bring residents together.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0d42a/0d42a2385a433922f7ae2909579196d0cb9c7de3" alt=""
Title Illustration of "In and Around the Richard Allen Homes" (The Philadelphia Tribune)
These bonds of the community, showcased in the Tribune, helped to preserve the homes following disinvestment by the city and secure residents’ contested placement in the homes. At times, the Allen Homes triumphed as centers of community activism, but even such a strong sense of community could not overcome the lack of ongoing support for urban renewal sites across the country.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/50d28/50d28e4d2f14a51b872882f6596bbabd1a7d9067" alt=""
Aerial view of The Richard Allen Homes (Temple Digital Archives)
In addition to local residents who were excited about new housing in their neighborhood, government officials praised the ongoing project. The homes were “considered a showplace in [the 1940s], a shining example of what government could do with an urban slum”(Cohn). Much of the excitement surrounding the project grew with anticipation leading up to its completion. Yet, merely months before its planned opening, the PHA announced their transfer of the homes to the Coordinator of Housing, for the housing of defense workers (Defense Workers Rebuffed…).
(The Philadelphia Inquirer)
Though the PHA claimed only part of the homes would be used by defense workers, the community understood what that decision would ultimately lead to, more Poplar residents left without housing, and a housing development with a larger percentage of white and upper-class residents. As stated in a Philadelphia Tribune article, “based on available statistics, it was believed that about 85 percent of the occupants would have been colored, with the remaining 15 percent white.” In continuing its argument, the article expressed worries over decreased percentages of colored occupants due to defense workers. The Allen Homes were never intended to change the racial demographics of the Poplar neighborhood or bring in new residents from different parts of Philadelphia. Not only were the changes unwanted by the surrounding community, these changes deviated from the proposed plan for the Richard Allen Project.
Located North of Philadelphia's Center City, the 1940 neighborhood of West Poplar had a black population of 51.5%
In an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Public Ledger one Philadelphian wrote “[The Richard Allen Homes] were to rid the city of a squalid slum district and to give the evicted families and other low-income groups decent living accommodations at a small cost. The latter objective now goes up in smoke. The poor are turned away. Others are to get their promised homes” (January 24). These promised homes were already considerably limited. Of the 4300 families who submitted applications for occupancy, only 1324 would receive housing within the Allen Homes. Of that number, 926 of the families were displaced residents due to the project’s construction. With the addition of hundreds of defense workers now planning to receive housing in the homes, community leaders and activists grew outraged.
Residents of West Poplar took their frustrations to the media and their elected officials. Due to the Allen Homes already receiving national coverage, opinions on this issue gained political value. The Allen Homes were essential to showcase Philadelphia's success in developing high-quality low-income housing. Ensuring satisfaction for West Poplar residents helped to ensure a positive narrative on Philadelphia’s urban renewal endeavors. As such, many city officials did not agree with the transfer of the Allen Homes to the Defense Council.
Additional people working to have the decision rescinded were attorneys and lawyers. The Cooperating Council of Agencies Serving Negro Youth was one group working to speak with government officials on the future impacts of this decision and releasing statements in support of the Allen Homes.
In one statement signed by 2 members of the council, “Not only are the homes for over 1300 families at stake but the whole housing movement for low-income groups in Philadelphia.” As the council suggests, the fight to protect the Allen homes had grown beyond the West Poplar neighborhood, now holding stakes in the future of low-income housing throughout Philadelphia. Given its early national coverage, it is not surprising that the weight of the PHA’s decision quickly grew beyond project bounds. The council’s choice to identify the decision as an attack on future low-income housing proved bountiful for gaining support, especially from those at City Hall. The council essentially connected approval of the PHA’s decision to opposition to public low-income housing. “Some of these individuals, taking advantage of war hysteria, have blinded the eyes of many of our outstanding officials and citizens and in the name of patriotism have persuaded the USHA (US Housing Authority) to request this project as a home for defense workers.” This war hysteria and the question of patriotism is not a new concept by the council. Rather, as PM, a New York newspaper hinted at, “what is happening to the Allen Homes is part of a nation-wide movement” (Allen Homes…).
(Federal Works Agency, HathiTrust)
Pushing this national movement was the Federal Works Agency (FWA), a branch of the federal government responsible for public works projects, which oversaw war service divisions during the years of World War I (Thompson). At that time, the FWA wrote about their work as a necessity for the good of communities, cities, and the United State’s success in the war. Written in their Annual Report of 1941, “as cities across the face of the continent awaken to the menace of slums and municipal housing programs swing into action, it is to the United States Housing Authority, one arm of the Federal Works Agency, that they turn for assistance.” They additionally wrote, “the year saw, too, the inauguration of a series of construction programs intimately related to the national defense emergency and vital to the success of the defense effort. Foremost among these was the defense housing program.” The FWA implied that the success of the war’s defense effort was related to the defense housing program. Though their report never explicitly used ‘patriotism’ in their argument, their report worked to create an idea of the necessity for the FWA’s services. In line with the arguments they formed, if the defense housing program could create patriotism during the World War, then cities needed to build defense housing for workers and support the FWA’s initiatives to increase the availability of defense housing. In concealed wording, the Annual Report of 1941 built reasoning for political support by pushing common public opinions surrounding the war. This support in turn, as PM hinted at, created a movement of war hysteria and general approval for defense-related projects.
(Chicago Defender)
Yet, the council, working with the West Poplar residents, was not willing to give up. Word through the media continued to show effectiveness, especially given the development’s national appeal. In The Chicago Defender, an article titled Housing Fights Rage in Philadelphia, PA: Plan Turning Unit Over to Defense Folk outlined the ongoing fight against the PHA noting, “public opinion seems to be against the housing authority’s act.” In an appeal to President Roosevelt, the Citizens Committee wrote “we urge you to act in the interest of [the intended Richard Allen Homes residents] who cannot obtain decent housing within their capacity to pay” (Allen Homes…). In addition to Philadelphians speaking up, Congressman Michael Bradley, who represented residents of West Poplar, publicly spoke out against the PHA’s decision and arranged meetings with various USHA administrators.
After countless pleas to elected officials and hundreds of articles written in support of the low-income housing in the Allen Homes, the PHA changed its decision, agreeing that the project would retain its originally intended purpose. Written in a Memorandum for the Press release by the FWA, “I am asking that the tenants be selected as far as possible from the lower income defense worker group which is in need of housing now and which at the end of the war might remain as tenants of the typical slum clearance project.” Though the FWA did not fully rescind the availability of defense housing in the Allen Homes, their statement delivered on securing the intended racial and class demographics of the development.
Article clip of Congressman Bradley's statement (Philadelphia Tribune)
In a statement made following the announcement by the FWA, Congressman Bradley commented on the work done by media outlets to share the public’s opinions surrounding the Allen Homes. “I think the [Philadelphia] Tribune and the various groups which did so much to crystallize public opinion in Philadelphia are to be complimented for the work which they did” (Defense Workers Rebuffed…).
Through the strength of community activism, the West Poplar residents managed to build enough public pressure to force the FWA and PHA to back down from their intended changes to the Allen Homes. The next few years of life in the Allen Homes resembled that same strong community presence. Yet, by the late 1940s, the transformed glow of the West Poplar neighborhood began to disappear.
West Poplar Redevelopment Plan, surrounding The Richard Allen Homes (HathiTrust)
Much of the Allen Homes’ fall came due to postwar unemployment and newly passed federal directives that forced out households making over the allowable income of the development (Bauman, Hummon, Muller, 264-292). In the following decade, urban renewal projects in East Poplar and the surrounding West Poplar would greatly transform the surroundings of the Allen Homes. Though they were similarly aimed at improving living conditions and overall neighborhood rehabilitation, they were quickly met with failure. (New Low Rent…). That failure left the Allen Homes faced with deteriorating conditions and growing crime rates. They became known as “one of the toughest of Philadelphia’s projects, a place where drug dealing and its related violence were everyday happenings” (Cohn). Yet, the residents maintained a dedication to their community.
Plumbing room in the Richard Allen Homes (Library of Congress)
Using the minimal resources available, the residents of the Allen Homes have continued to complete repairs and clean-ups by themselves when possible. But even with the most committed group of residents, the Allen Homes have been without necessary federal and municipal government funds needed to provide greater relief to the development. Issues such as a decayed sewage system and decay of infrastructure left residents fighting for survival (Richard Allen Homes). By 1994, the PHA identified the Allen Homes “as the most severely distressed development in the city”(Rosenthal). While the community held enough power to impact the PHA’s decision on housing in the Allen Homes, it was not strong enough to hold off the impacts of disinvestment by the federal government in urban renewal projects.
As a once-hailed example of the power of urban renewal and the power of community activism, the Allen Homes exemplify the short-lived triumphs of urban renewal and the ultimate failure due to government neglect. The Allen Homes stand as an exceptional example of the positive impact that community input could have on a renewal project. Had more projects taken the feedback of neighborhood residents, or had those residents received more support from the government and media, there may have been similar outcomes. Yet, the Allen Homes quickly became another representation of the cycle of urban renewal through its short-lived success and its rapid decline. The want for urban renewal in Philadelphia may have led to a bonded community in West Poplar, but that community remains bonded in the want for community survival.
Children playing in a courtyard within The Richard Allen Homes (Temple Digital Archives)
Bibliography:
"Allen Homes Group Appeals Directly to Pres. Roosevelt." Philadelphia Tribune (1912-), Feb 07, 1942
Bauman, John F., Norman P. Hummon, and Edward K. Muller. “Public Housing, Isolation, and the Urban Underclass: Philadelphia's Richard Allen Homes, 1941-1965.” Journal of Urban History 17, no. 3 (May 1991): 264–292.
Cohn, Roger. “The Art Of Survival In The Richard Allen Homes.” Public Housing in America , 1984.
"Defense Workers Rebuffed: Keyserling Tells Congressman U. S. Will Not use Units." Philadelphia Tribune (1912-), Feb 14, 1942
“First Annual Report, Federal Works Agency, 1940,” : 8-10.
"Housing Fight Rages in Philadelphia, Pa.: Plan Turning Unit Over to Defense Folk See Action As Plot to Transfer Project to White Tenants.”The Chicago Defender (National Edition) (1921-1967), Feb 07, 1942
"January 24, 1942 (Page 10 of 32)." The Philadelphia Inquirer Public Ledger (1934-1969), Jan 24, 1942
“New Low Rent Homes At East Poplar.” The Philadelphia Tribune. September 1, 1953.
Office of Information. “Memorandum for the Press.” Federal Works Agency, January 27, 1942.
“Richard Allen Homes.” PhilaPlace, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
Rosenthal, Gilbert A. "Reviving Distressed Communities." Journal of Housing 51, no. 4 (Jul, 1994): 21
Thompson, Lisa. “Federal Works Agency (FWA) (1939).” The Living New Deal, Nov 18, 2016.
Wolford, Burton. "Richard Allen Homes ‘City Within a City’: 1324 Families Occupying Low Rent Housing Site.”Philadelphia Tribune (1912-), Oct 10, 1942