Southwest DC: A Cycle of Urban Renewal and ‘Revitalization’

The first project of Urban Renewal in the United States took place in the District of Columbia (DC), in an area of the city known as Southwest DC. Congressional approval for the project, which took over 20 years to complete, created a new precedent for Urban Renewal projects around the country. Similarly, the DC project was initially considered an impressive economic and architectural success, spurring greater development and urban renewal projects in the rest of Washington DC as well as the rest of the United States. However, despite its initial economic successes, the project created a mixed legacy of results, and ironically, the region became home to a second round of ‘revitalization’ in the 2000s and early 2010s. While the project successfully created luxury apartment buildings, townhomes, and condominiums in an effort to bring wealthy white residents to the cities, it also drove low income and minority residents out of their well-established communities, ultimately even being coined as a “negro removal” project. Similarly, while the project was successful in developing these residential buildings, it was unsuccessful in creating a lasting community, ultimately forcing the area to go through another round of revitalization, which once again would force current residents out of the region. Ultimately, the urban renewal experience of Southwest DC highlights the trends urban renewal would have in the rest of the United States.

The new revitalization project in the Southwest region of Washington DC, has many similarities to the urban renewal project which had only been completed around 30-40 years earlier. Interestingly, many of the old buildings constructed during the first set of urban renewal were completely demolished and replaced with new structures. This new ‘revitalization project’, transformed the Southwest area, even changing the name of the region to ‘The Wharf’, which to date is the largest Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Washington DC, required 2.5 billion dollars in public and private funding, and required many acts congressional approvals, exemptions, and land transfers (Levin, Hyra). In this paper, I will discuss the long term impacts of the first urban renewal project, how the failures of the first urban renewal impact contributed to the new revitalization project, and examine the social, political, and economic similarities and differences between the two projects. 

The aftermath of the Urban Renewal project (which spanned from the 1950s-1970s), and its lack of community development, greatly impacted the longevity and prosperity of the region. While the Urban Renewal program initially created substantial economic growth, it also contributed to growing urban inequality, the displacement of thousands, and ultimately failed to create a long-lasting economically prosperous community.

While the program was successful in bringing many new wealthy and white families into the DC region, it failed to help the initial community. In fact, the initial project displaced an estimated 1,500 businesses, 23,000 residents, and 6,000 families, disproportionately of color, and low-income (Russello). After demolishing all but one percent of the existing area (Gillete), developers created new housing, commercial buildings, and government offices, ultimately costing 500 million dollars (D.C. RLA), and only accommodating the needs of an affluent white population (Russello). In fact, before the first urban renewal project began, 70 percent of the residents were black while after the project ended in 1970, 70 percent of the residents were white. At the same time, Washington D.C. was becoming less white. Similarly, initially, 80 per 60 percent of residents had not completed high school while after renewal 60% of residents had a college degree. The region also lost many families and children. In 1950, 29% of the area was under 15 while only 9% were under 15 in 1970 (Russello). These demographic changes were similarly seen in urban renewal projects across the country.

Besides generating massive demographic changes, the project also failed to re-establish a sense of community in the region, ultimately leading to the revitalization of the area in the early 2000s. In the aftermath of urban renewal, new residents of Southwest DC often complained and expressed their concerns related to the area's lack of commercial, entertainment, and restaurant institutions, which are vital to an economically and socially prosperous community (Russello). In 1967, one resident told a Washington Post Reported, “Place to eat? Well, there’s the bowling alley or the drug store. That’s the great Southwest for you—nowhere for people to do anything or buy anything. The people are here but the town isn’t.”, emphasizing the lack of community in the area (Conroy). Similarly, Wisconsin Congressman Henry Reuss similarly lamented at the lack of community by criticizing the current restaurant and nightlife options, even calling the region ‘sterile’ (Russello). However, this lack of community did not improve with time. In 1984, another resident told an interviewer that in Southwest DC, “You can’t just get a cup of coffee. That’s one of our problems along the waterfront. There’s no place that you can just...go.”, once again demonstrating the area even lacked basic community services such as an ability to buy a cup of coffee (Brannan). The area never turned into the bustling cultural and community center it was expected to be, nor did it welcome vast amounts of tourists or visitors DC leaders had once predicted. 

In fact, many project and city leaders recognized this lack of community and aimed to address this problem. However, they continually struggled to bring commercial and cultural establishments into the region. Planners tried to entice the National Children’s Museum, the Washington Nationals Baseball team and stadium, and the African American History museum with no success. The lack of community can also be attributed to business politics. Washington department stores lobbied for the ban of new department stores in Southwest DC and the Safeway grocery store in the area “premised its leasing of the space on the absence of any additional grocers” ultimately causing other retailers to shy away due to the lack of “critical mass of complementary retail neighbors”, causing an area devoid of any shops (Scharfenberg). In the end, the number of retail shops in the entire Southwest region only peaked at 26 shops. Ultimately, the neighborhood after urban renewal was described as barren and void of the shops and community life typically present in urban communities, leading to the need for the ‘revitalization’ witnessed in the early 2000s. 

The Southwest Urban Renewal project and the Wharf Revitalization project were framed and supported in two very different political ways, largely in part due to the different time periods in which they were implemented. The first urban renewal project was framed from a public health perspective, as city officials argued the alleyway homes and slums needed to be demolished to promote the health of the community and the city (Swope). In a 1946 Washington Post opinion editorial article, entitled “Slums vs Health”, the author argued “We cannot have a really healthy city until the slum dwellers are moved out of their hatcheries of contagion and decently housed”, demonstrating the argument that slums needed to be demolished to support the health of the cities. (Slums v. Health). Now, with the revitalization project, DC officials argue the aim of the project is to undo the previous legacy of urban renewal. In a recent NYTimes article, DC’s acting planning director stated, “[The Wharf is a] magnificent opportunity to undo the urban renewal legacy of the past and recreate the Southwest Waterfront as a great world-class destination,” (Meyer, 2014). However, it is interesting to note that many of the businesses demolished were unable to reestablish themselves in the community, and only 10% of the new housing was classified as “affordable” (Boivie), replicating many of the consequences of the first urban renewal project, a legacy of which DC officials argued to be repairing. 

Despite the different local political rationale justifying the two projects, global and domestic politics both played a role in justifying the Urban Renewal and ‘Revitalization’ of Southwest DC. In the first round of urban renewal, city officials argued DC could not have any slums because it was the nation’s capital and they needed to set a good example for the rest of the country and world. In an 1896 Washington Post opinion editorial article, at the beginning of discussions about slums, the author argued, “Washington is threatened, morally and physically, by [slums] existence,” arguing that the character and reputation of DC are tarnished by the existence of slums (Clear out the Alleys). Similarly, in 1950, President Harry S. Truman announced, "Washington DC should be the best-planned city in the world and a Capital befitting the dignity and ideals of a great nation in a family of nations,” and the National Capital Parks Planning Commission argued “A condition wherein people are ill-housed is not fitting to the character of the city that is this Nation's Capital,” continuing to demonstrate the argument that slums should be removed in an effort to appear like a strong and capable nation to the rest of the world (U.S. NCPPC). 

On a similar note, DC officials justified revitalization by arguing that the region needed to be a tourist destination, for visitors from around the world to see. In 2003, Washington DC officials and local business leaders urged the city to “complement and extend Washington’s tourist and city beautiful amenities,” in a proposal to use eminent domain to seize urban renewal era buildings and sell them to developers (Asch, Meyers, and Musgrove). Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington D.C.’s Congressional delegate argued “[The Southwest Waterfront is] incredibly valuable because of its proximity to the [National] Mall...There you have upwards of 20 million visitors a year, and there was not much happening should they stroll down here” ultimately claiming that the revitalized [Wharf] is going to become a destination,” demonstrating the District's desire to entice tourists (Meyer, 2014). 

Congress played an important role in the implementation of both the Urban Renewal project and the Revitalization project. Both projects needed immense Congressional approval to move forward. In 1945, Congress passed the Area Redevelopment Act which created the DC Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) which allowed them to start using eminent domain in the District of Columbia. In 1949, Congress passed the first Housing Act, which similarly ignited urban renewal programs. In order for the early 2000s revitalization process to occur, the city also needed Congressional approval as the land was all federally owned. In fact, it took three separate acts of Congress in order for the revitalization process to move forward (Levin, Hyra). The project also required a Congressional exemption from the Coastal Zone Management Act, which aims to protect coastal lands from development (Meyer, 2017). Similarly, it required Congressional approval through the passage of the Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2006, to sell 200 acres of Federally owned land to developers in the form of a 99-year lease (Levin, Hyra). The Revitalization project also received 300 million dollars worth of subsidies from the District of Columbia government, with much more of the project being financed through bonds, which would ultimately be repaid through tax revenue (Boivie). Both projects required immense lobbying and Congressional policies.  

Both projects had similar economic justifications, as they both projects aimed to increase economic development and tax revenue for the district. The Urban Renewal Project developers aimed to utilize “more intensive land uses that would generate higher property tax revenues,” which they ultimately did achieve (Beveridge). The developers focused on bringing wealthier people from outside of the city, back into the city in an effort to increase tax revenues. In 1970, after urban renewal, 15 percent of those who moved into Southwest DC came from the DC metropolitan area and 44 percent came from the rest of the United States, outside of the DC metropolitan area. Almost none of the prior residents relocated back into the region as they were priced out of the housing market (Russello). Similarly, the Revitalization program aimed to entice economic development. In fact, the new revitalization project features over 675 hotel keys, 1375 residential units (only 10 percent low income/affordable housing), three concert venues (including a 6,000 seat indoor concert venue), 335,000 square feet of retail space, 945,000 square feet of office space, and over 2,600 parking spots (O'Connell). DC officials made it clear they aimed to increase the city’s tax revenue by enticing higher-income residents and tourists to the Southwest DC waterfront, now known as the Wharf (Levin, Hyra). It is estimated that the Wharf will bring in 70 million dollars per year to the District. In the end, both projects were implemented in an effort to generate tax revenues for the cities, however, this meant that DC needed to cater to high-income residents and tourists.

The resulting communities created by both projects were incredibly unaffordable and lacked racial diversity. While the community following the revitalization project was more racially diverse than the area after the first urban renewal project, both areas featured high housing and rental prices. While the area was 70 percent black in 1950, it was only two percent black in 1960, and only 20 percent black in 1970 (U.S. Bureau of the Census). While the black population rebounded to around 60% in the region in 2000, once urban renewal began the number began to drop. In 2015, less than 50% of the population was black, and this downward trend is expected to continue (Russello). Ultimately, both projects resulted in racial homogeneity. 

Many argue Urban Renewal’s initial failure to create a diverse neighborhood, in one of the country's most racially diverse cities, is due to the failure to create affordable housing. In fact, initial developers argued it would not be economically possible to offer affordable housing as “cost increases had made the rent limit impractical” (Russello). Rents became astronomically high, in fact, the average rent per room was now $54, which was the same average rent charged for an entire home prior to urban renewal. To further emphasize this point, public housing in the city rented for $12 dollars a room and the average rent in the entire District was 24 dollars per room (Russello). Only one building was created to accommodate low-cost housing (Gillete) and less than 20 percent of the new housing created was considered moderate-income housing (Farrar). Ultimately, over 1,500 businesses and 23,000 residents were priced out of the area and forced to relocate, which reflected a common theme in urban renewal sites across the country (Farrar). 

This failure continued with the revitalization project. In 2017, prices at the Wharf averaged $1,000 dollars per square foot (O'Connell). While ten percent of the new housing is considered affordable, one-third of this housing is apartments with only 330 square feet of space, meaning they are unsuitable for families (Afro). While it is important to recognize Washington DC has one of the most expensive housing markets in the country with median home values at $617,900 compared to the national median home value of $229,700, the Wharf is still costly(US Census Bureau, 2018). In fact, property values in southwest DC rose from $600,000 dollars to $990,000 dollars in less than three years after the revitalization process began (Levin, Hyra). Both the Urban Renewal Project and the new revitalization project have created incredibly unaffordable housing developments, contributing to the inequality in the region. Ultimately, while the initial Urban Renewal project was economically successful, it failed to create a community, address the displacement of thousands, and create a diverse and representative neighborhood. Similarly, while the Revitalization project aimed to address these problems, the project failed to do so.