Introduction
Urban renewal/revitalization projects may seem like improvements for cities or towns, perhaps making them safer, cleaner, and more economically productive. However, consideration of who benefits from such development and who is pushed aside reveals a system of racial oppression which perpetuates segregation in modern day society. Researchers agree that urban renewal projects often displace minority communities lacking the political and financial power for opposition – removing affordable housing, erasing the generational culture, history, and traditions of affected communities, and leaving lasting impacts on the racial makeup of an area. To justify gentrification or revitalization projects, those responsible label minority communities as slums (Archer 1265). There are opposing views, however, on how past harms can be addressed/alleviated and how to ensure urban development is healthy for everyone in future. Debate surrounding solutions is particularly important for College Park’s Lakeland District, as the town has begun exploring potential reparations for the town’s past actions (Bernard).
Boston's West End following urban renewal - a prominent example of harmful renewal which razed a community/neighborhood. Image courtesy of the West End Museum.
Justification - Minority Communities as “Slums”
In many cases, developers justify ignoring the concerns of minority residents by labeling their communities as “slums” in need of revitalization. Archer describes how highway construction was seen as “slum clearance,” with minimal concern for residents displaced in the process. For a time, the Federal Housing Administration used race in determining which residential areas were hazardous “slums” requiring redevelopment – an unabashedly racist system (Hernandez). Federally funded urban renewal projects intentionally cleared these “slums” of their former residents – Robert Moses is again an important example of this, with many of his projects “targeting… Black and Latino neighborhoods” (Hernandez). Policies in place which allow easy seizure of properties in “debilitated” areas, such as the 1949 Housing Act and 1956 Interstate Highway Act, made “slum clearance” commonplace (Bernard). Similarly, College Park branded Lakeland as "dilapidated," and White residents viewed Lakelanders as poor (Bernard).
Prior to renewal, Lakeland was full of community buildings and stores, serving as a social center for Black Americans in Prince George's County. Image courtesy of The Lakeland Community Heritage Project.
After urban renewal destroy 104 out of 150 single-family homes in Lakeland, townhouse and apartments intended for UMD students and faculty were built. Image courtesy of The Lakeland Community Heritage Project.
Images of the Mural "A Path Forward" in a tunnel under Baltimore Avenue. The mural depicts important figures and locations from the Lakeland community. This begs the question, why is the mural in a tunnel? Images courtesy of The Lakeland Community Heritage Project., and myself.
Conclusion
Experts agree that many forms of urban renewal have been and continue to be used to oppress low-income minority groups, displacing them and failing to provide suitable housing afterwards. Harmful development has planted imposing barriers on minority communities and erased the history and tradition of thousands of communities across the country. The sources outline a wide variety of approaches for redressing past harms and avoiding malicious practices in future revitalization efforts, ranging from spreading awareness of the issue to implementing policy change in government. For the Lakeland community, the question of how to rectify its destruction remains unanswered; with a slew of renewal projects on the horizon for College Park, it is imperative the town tread carefully, lest it repeat the harms it caused over half a century ago.
Flooding prompted urban renewal efforts in Lakeland. Image courtesy of The Lakeland Community Heritage Project.
Urban Renewal and Minority Displacement
Various studies confirm that, in most cases, “revitalizing” impoverished areas fails to serve the original residents, instead removing them in favor of new gentry. Davida Robinson et al. conducted a study on the effects of gentrification and urban renewal in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia, revealing rampant displacement of mostly Black and other minority residents. The paper also mentions the actions of Robert Moses, a prominent malefactor who displaced over 250,000 mainly low-income minority residents in New York through infrastructure projects and revitalization efforts (Robinson et al.). Mallory Stermon and Chris Lukinbeal corroborate these results, suggesting that developers acted out of a desire to remove unwanted “others” – minorities in impoverished areas – from their cities. For instance, in a legal analysis of the interstate highway system and its use as a tool for displacement and segregation, Deborah Archer presents several case studies of areas where highway development directly contributed to the “destruction and isolation of Black communities” (namely, Miami, FL, Birmingham, AL, and Atlanta, GA). Separate studies by Jonathan Essoka and Katy Wells analyzing brownfields revitalization and gentrification, respectively, suggest marginalized residents bear the costs of development and seldom occupy the newly-renovated housing. These sources imply that, regardless of the exact form of renewal, developers often intentionally remove impoverished minority residents or fail to acknowledge the harms they face. The same situation occurred in Lakeland: Lakeland’s renovation displaced most of its Black residents (Niel).
Signs posted to indicate the renewal project starting in 1970. The town officially labeled Lakeland as a dilapidated community. Image courtesy of The Lakeland Community Heritage Project.
The Persistent Impacts of Racist Development
The effects of harmful urban renewal persist, shaping racial geographic divides and creating ongoing “physical, economic, and psychological barriers” (Archer). Housing is a major part of this issue: low-income minority residents who have been displaced lack mobility with an inadequate housing supply and no federal relocation assistance (Archer). To corroborate, Stermon and Lukinbeal’s geographic analysis found an increase in segregation and minority isolation following malicious development practices, and Hernandez claims predatory housing practices force minority residents into less healthy locations. In Lakeland, former generational family homes were replaced by less affordable housing and other complexes now generally populated by students of the University of Maryland, making it difficult for previous residents to resettle in the district (Lakeland Community Heritage Project). Without the original community members, history and tradition fades.
​
Harmful developments degrade community character and undermine the self-respect of displaced individuals. By destroying homes, schools, churches, community buildings, and businesses and creating physical barriers between former neighbors, racist developments cut “the heart and soul out of thriving Black communities” (Archer). Indeed, many present and former Lakeland residents describe the camaraderie that existed in the community, where neighbors seemed like family members and everyone helped each other, as past tense (Niel). To many Lakelanders, that cohesive community and culture cannot be restored following the renewal project (Niel). On an individual level, renewal projects degrade the self-respect of former residents: the interests and opportunities of new, richer residents are prioritized over previous residents by the city/town, making original residents feel unwanted and inferior (Wells). In other words, renewal imposes a racial hierarchy with White developers and residents at the top (Archer).
Reparations and Solutions Going Forward
Tension lies within the debate about solutions – different sources focus on tackling different facets of the problem – but there are two main categories: reparations/acknowledgements for past harms and ensuring healthy and equitable development in future. Regarding reparations, Mary Triece argues that developers strategically forget a history of harmful development practices, allowing them to continue reconstructing city spaces without equity concerns; this kind of “color blind urban renewal,” Triece says, can be combated by increasing awareness of past and ongoing injustices, forcing developers to consider the human costs of their work. In agreement with this stance, the Lakeland Community Heritage Project aims to spread awareness of the thriving Lakeland community and its dissolution while preserving the culture and history of the community. For assuaging the harms of displacement, Robinson et al. recommend greater focus on accompanying the housing needs of low-income displaced residents (cities have often been lacking in this support area) and preventing predatory housing practices.
​
In terms of actionable changes for future development, different sources mention different approaches. From a legal perspective, Archer urges tighter civil rights laws and policies, requiring thorough analysis of a situation by policymakers before beginning development in vulnerable areas. Essoka argues that revitalization of “debilitated” areas should focus on providing resources and improvement for current residents; whether this is possible under profit-driven development is unclear. However, Robinson et al. highlight several current policies which encourage developers to support original residents – for instance, giving tax credits to businesses involved in revitalization that employ community residents – though they are not entirely comprehensive.
​
College Park is attempting several approaches: after recently acknowledging the damage done to Lakeland, the local government formed a Restorative Justice Commission to address past harms, preserve the community’s history, and provide “neighborhood stabilization” by funding low-income housing (Bernard). Solutions are more necessary than ever, with rampant development approaching due to the $2 billion Greater College Park Initiative. A year into the formation of the commission, progress is lacking; however, the commission is taking significant input from members of the Lakeland community – an important step which College Park has failed to do in the past. Some, like Diane Bernard, are more hopeful about reparations, while Clara Niel points out apprehension on part of Lakeland residents, who have been hurt by the town before. Finally, with the nearby University of Maryland’s past failures to support the Lakeland community, Maxine Gross demands more action from the University.
1987 poem by Lakelander Shirley Randall Anderson, courtesy of The Lakeland Community Heritage Project.