4 May 2024
During the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the United States began developing the Interstate Highway System. This system was created with the intention of creating federal standards for design and maintenance not present in the U.S. Numbered Highway System (i.e. “U.S. Routes”). This system contributed to new ‘urban renewal’ programs seeking to attract the ever-growing suburban populations into the city. These programs primarily targeted “lower-income urban communities–mostly African-American” for removal. Resulting land would then be used for construction of the freeways [1]. Many of these freeways split black communities in half and/or separated them from other financial and cultural urban centers, thus enabling a “long-lasting economic and cultural destruction” of communities in cities across the U.S. [2].
This neighborhood destruction manifests in multiple ways, usually as urban decay. Urban decay refers to the degradation of a neighborhood, such as the closure of businesses and the loss of property owners. In addition to the damage from highways and freeways, other forms of urban decay or decline affect the environment and culture of a particular community and neighborhood. Some cities and grassroots movements have made strides in the effort to mitigate some of the racialized effects of car-dependent infrastructure. In addition to urban decay, the development of this infrastructure contributed to the destruction of black communities. By sectoring these communities, white people moving out to the suburbs had easier transportation between their homes and their jobs in the cities. Some of the proposed policies show how active, bottom-up community involvement is necessary for a solution. The highway systems and their respective infrastructure are the result of automotive lobbying in the mid-20th century. The apathy towards community involvement destroyed them in the first place, but necessary to rebuild them.
There are two examples of these policies worth investigating. The first is a Pittsburgh project and the second, a community movement in New York City. Each example offers glimpses of hope into the future of community building, yet they also show that these projects cannot be one-and-done moments. Instead, they must be a part of a continuous project to resist destruction. They also demonstrate the possible limitations of solely community-based approaches to restorations.
Interstate 579, also known as Crosstown Boulevard, is a small thoroughfare that stretches behind Downtown Pittsburgh. Additionally, it is the primary border between Downtown and the Hill District. Many Pittsburghers are aware that the construction of the former Civic Arena and the highway jungle behind Downtown in the 1950s, of which I-579 is a part, largely contributed to the separation of the Hill District from Downtown. Though not the sole contributor, this separation largely facilitated the economic decline of the culturally rich Hill District in the latter half of the 20th century [3]. However, there is little coverage on the work of communities attempting to rectify this damage. In an attempt to better connect these two parts of the city, a new park was recently built above the Interstate, on the street level where pedestrians walk and buses usually operate.
Opened in 2021, the Frankie Mae Pace Park serves as a more community-focused approach. The park’s planning committee consisted of members of the Hill District in addition to urban developers [4]. So, there was active community involvement in the project, the policy, and the artwork incorporated into the park. However, it is important to note how projects like these are only a part of the larger process of repairing the damage caused by highway infrastructure. For example, there are still only three Pittsburgh Regional Transit bus lines (81 Oak Hill, 82 Lincoln, and 83 Bedford Hill) that run through the five Hill District neighborhoods. Furthermore, there are still severe economic disadvantages faced by Hill District community members. The legacies of urban renewal can still be seen in the many empty lots throughout the Hill.
The second example, QueensLink, is a community project to redevelop unused train tracks in the Queens borough of New York City. Their primary mission is to connect people with “rails and trails” in their communities by incorporating public park spaces with light rail transit lines. Their primary goal is to reuse the Rockaway Beach Branch, a line of abandoned rails in Queens. Reopening the branch would give the borough its only north-south line. QueensLink intends to build four new subway stations along this line [5]. Additionally, the plan includes the creation of 33 acres of parks. The plan actively involves members of the affected communities, ensuring that homes are not razed in the process of building new community infrastructure [6]. There is one primary problem with this plan. QueensLink is a policy proposal currently in limbo because it requires funding from both New York City and the state government. Additionally, some New York politicians, like Mayor Eric Adams, seem uninterested in these kinds of projects [7]. Without that necessary support and funding, the project remains at a standstill. Both of these projects show what material barriers exist for their respective futures. The power dynamics within urban (re-)development are not necessarily complicated, they simply reaffirm that whoever controls the money controls the outcomes of the projects.
In an ideal world, wealth would be redistributed to best fit the needs and reparative projects of communities across the U.S.. However, we do not (yet) live in an ideal world. In a world that prioritizes profit over the needs and welfare of a community, grassroot projects and policies must focus on the needs of community members. It is interesting to note and to consider the power dynamics between governments, neighborhoods, and respective community members. As mentioned earlier, Frankie Pace Park and QueensLink show the possible limitations of solely community-based approaches. Community empowerment strategies may face challenges, if not outright failures, without proper legal and policy approaches. Ultimately, city and state governments have the financial power to control the direction of these projects. If respective politicians are uninterested, they do not need to allocate the appropriate funds. For example, the Greater Hill District Master Plan, of which Frankie Pace Park is a part, lacks “legally enforceable provisions” [8], which can restrict the possibilities of new projects. Without those necessary legal enforcers, there remain many loopholes for governments to ignore the demands of community members and possibly strengthen the cycles of poverty. How can a community overcome these cycles if not given the material resources necessary to do so?
When thinking about repairing the damage of urban renewal projects, we obviously must consider the needs of the community. However, it would benefit future endeavors to consider demands that must be absolute in the legal processes of projects. Although the power dynamics of who controls money and power in our societies are not complicated, the legal processes to change them are. Therefore, we must ask ourselves, what current legal tools can we use to best ensure our demands and goals are met? And if these tools prove insufficient, what must communities do to take the power into their own hands?
Image via Pexels Free Photos.
Works Cited
[1] Joseph Stromberg, “Highways gutted American cities. So why did we build them?”, Vox, May 11, 2016, https://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8605917/highways-interstate-cities- history.
[2] Avichal Mahajan. “Highways and Segregation.” Journal of Urban Economics, 2023, 103574-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2023.103574.
[3] Lower Hill Redevelopment. “Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony Marks the Opening of Frankie Pace Park (Formerly I-579 CAP Park) Connecting Downtown and Hill District,” November 22, 2021. https://www.lowerhillredevelopment.com/events-announcements/ ribbon-cutting-ceremony-marks-the-opening-of-frankie-pace-park-formerly-i-579-cap-park-connecting-downtown-and-hill-district. Accessed April 3, 2024.
[4] Pittsburgh Sports and Exhibition Authority. “Frankie Pace Park (I-579 CAP Urban Connector Project),” 2022. https://www.pgh-sea.com/index.php?path=i5-ucp. Accessed April 3, 2024.
[5] QueensLink. “The Plan” TheQueensLink.org. https://thequeenslink.org/the-plan/. Accessed April 3, 2024.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Andrew Lynch, Noelle Hunter, and Jasper von Seeburg “Opinion: As Congestion Pricing Approaches, QueensLink Must Move Forward,” City Limits, April 2, 2024. https://citylimits.org/2024/04/02/opinion-as-congestion-pricing-approaches-queenslink-must-move-forward/. Accessed April 18, 2024.
[8] Theodoros Papzekos. 2022. “Power Play Goal: Analyzing Zoning Law and Reparations as Remedies to Historic Displacement in Pittsburgh’s Hill District.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy XXIX (3): 407-430. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2022/07/Power-Play-Goal-.pdf
Policy & Political Review 