WHEN GOOD INTENTIONS FAIL: THE FALL AND RISE OF ALLEQUIPPA TERRACE
Madeleine Clare Elish '02
It is October 11, 1940. Throngs of Pittsburghers crowd the streets, waiting to catch a glimpse of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He has come to dedicate Terrace Village, the second public housing complex built in Pittsburgh. He will be presenting a gold key to the Churchfields, the one hundred thousandth family to be re-housed under the new federally-funded public-housing program. Lester Churchfield, husband and father of three, is a steel-mill worker, as are most of the workers in Pittsburgh, the center of the steel industry. President Roosevelt closes the dedication saying, “And so I regard...these housing projects everywhere as a part of a program of defense. You’re doing a grand job. Do more of it, and speed it up.”1
This was a grand beginning for Allequippa Terrace, the largest community of the Terrace Village complex in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Sadly, it changed over the next half century from a place where people with little money had affordable, decent housing, into a notorious slum. From the first auspicious attempts in the 1930s to today, the goal of public housing legislation has been to provide adequate dwellings for all people in need. Still, what appears the right answer on paper is not always so in reality. David Rusk, author of Inside Game, Outside Game, points out, “There is no sadder example of the unintended consequences of a well-motivated social policy than the federal public housing program...”2 From the Depression era of the 1930s until today, the story of Allequippa Terrace is, in microcosm, the unfortunate story of public housing throughout the United States. Despite good intentions, federal housing policies have had profoundly devastating effects, which only lately have begun to be reversed.
In the 1930s Pittsburgh shared a problem with most of the country: a serious shortage of affordable housing. As the center of the country’s industrial economy from the 1880s to the First World War, Pittsburgh was a magnet for thousands of immigrants who poured in to work in its steel, glass, and coal works. From the turn of the century, housing conditions for the poor and working class were substandard. Market-rate housing never met the needs of the
poor.3 By the early 1920s housing deterioration and shortage had reached “crisis proportions.”4 Many poor and working class people ended up living in slums in crowded, unwanted areas of the city. In Pittsburgh, the most famous immigrant neighborhood was the Hill District, a poor but thriving community built on the steep hills of Pittsburgh’s East End. Although the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s sought to relieve the horrible conditions of the working poor, Pittsburgh’s housing problems remained severe as it entered the Depression. With the onset of the Great Depression, the housing problem was only exacerbated. Slums were everywhere, and there was no housing available for over 10,000 families.5
As the Great Depression took its toll on the families of America, it was clear that “the nation was not only ill-fed and ill-clothed, it was ill-housed...the economy of the 1930s forced the government to make low-cost housing for the working class and poor an urgent priority.”6 As part of FDR’s New Deal, the National Housing Act of 1937 mandated that housing be built for low-income and working families and that slums be cleared. The housing was supposed to be transitional—families were intended to live there for only a short period of time. The program itself was never intended to be permanent; it received no additional funding despite requests in 1939. In fact, the main goal of the program was more to stimulate work for builders and construction workers than to provide housing.7
Although there was a clear need for housing, the program was controversial in Pittsburgh. Private builders feared that public housing would compete with and overwhelm market-rate housing. But, in fact, public-housing rents were completely “non competitive;”8 the private market could never provide for the people being publicly housed. In addition, estimates suggest that the projects provided employment for 1,200–3,800 Pittsburgh workers, and money spent on building materials was expected to help the Pittsburgh economy.9 Furthermore, it was argued that the projects would reduce money spent by the police force, fire fighters, juvenile delinquency centers, hospitals, and insurance companies due to the elimination of slums and the overall improvement of Pittsburgh housing conditions.10 The concern over public housing came mostly from the private sector housing developers. There was general public support for the program. There was no stigma attached to living in public housing; it was simply a place where a family could go when its luck had run dry, as was the case for many at this time. As soon as the 1937 Act was passed, work began right away in Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh Housing Authority, HACP,11 which was created by the 1937 Act, chose the sites for two new housing projects, Bedford Dwellings, built first, and Terrace Village. Both projects were in the outskirts of the Hill District, the steep, hilly, poor, immigrant and African-American neighborhood that came to be Pittsburgh’s Harlem. The site for the project, Ruch’s hill, was chosen because the buildings there were in obviously dreadful shape, few people would have to be displaced, and land was cheap.12 The ground-breaking was held on April 18, 1939. Terrace Village was at that time second in size only to the Queens Bridge Project in New York City. It could house 2,653 families (11,000 persons). The Pittsburgh Post Gazette proclaimed it the “apex of public housing in Pennsylvania” and reported that it was “advertised throughout the nation as a specimen for other housing authorities to follow.”13
Terrace Village had everything that had been expected and more. It boasted garden parties, carnivals, libraries, a 14-acre park, Cub Scouts and Brownies, and classes in ceramics and boxing, to name only a few attractions.14 Pamphlets advertised Bedford Dwellings and Terrace Village:
Each home has sunny, cheerful rooms with plenty of windows. Each family will have electric lights, a private, modern, fully-equipped bathroom. Kitchens have cupboards, gas stoves, refrigerators, and sinks with hot and cold running water...Here are complete new neighborhoods with clean, open playgrounds, bright with sunshine, attractive with grass and trees. The projects will have social rooms for parties, group meetings, craftwork, and indoor recreation. They are near schools, streetcars, and shopping centers.15
The advertising pamphlets explained who was eligible and how to apply. An article in the Pittsburgh Press reported, “For about the same rent [in fact, it was often substantially less] they’re paying now for dank rooms with miserable facilities, they’ll get light, airy homes with gleaming bathrooms and efficient kitchens.”16 The housing projects, built in the Bauhaus style of architecture, were certainly not hideous to the eye in the 1930s. Landscaping made Terrace Village very attractive. In fact, most publicly-built houses in the 1930s and 1940s were often better built and more comfortable than those built privately.17
The tenants were very pleased with their new dwellings. Speaking about Terrace Village, a WPA recreation director and tenant commented, “Such comfort is unbelievable... [in his old home] there was no yard, no place to hang clothes to dry and the vermin were terrible.”18 Mildred Turner, a vivacious woman in her 80s, who now lives near Bedford Dwellings in a public housing high rise for the elderly, moved into Allequippa when she was 20, in 1941. Her eyes shine as she says with a smile, “It was beautiful... It meant a lot to be there.”19
Across the country, each local housing authority, as established by the 1937 Act, was meant to be completely self-sufficient. Rents were to be the main source of revenue. In Pittsburgh, at first, the HACP established a rent range from $18-$23 a month, but expanded the range to $15-$26 to encourage more working families to apply.20, 21 To insure a mixed-income community, the HACP limited public assistance recipients to no more than 20 percent of the total. An article in the Pittsburgh Press urged workers to apply for housing, “Hurry!... privately employed persons [urged] to apply...The quota of relief clients has been filled for the time being.”22 Sadly, many applicants were deferred because they were on WPA relief.23 Also, there was a preference or “special interest” for families with children, because they represented “the future.” In Terrace Village, 80 percent of the tenants were two-parent families with at least one child.24 Further, public housing was for low-income families and, at the time, these families were racially diverse. Although there are no available statistics, articles suggest that the projects were racially balanced, “of the city’s lower income families who need housing, we [HACP] have had samples of them all...”25 Ms. Turner points out that while there were both white and black residents, “Things were completely segregated. But we was all poor.”26 These limits and trends demonstrate the early goals and reality of public housing; diversity and housing for all, with an emphasis on the working poor. The projects were not populated only by the black poorest of the poor, as would become the case later.
In the 1940s federal public housing legislation changed to focus on defense-related housing. In 1940, Public Law 671 granted the United States Housing Authority money to build housing for “defense workers,” especially in “prime defense production areas.”27 Pittsburgh, with its steel industry, was central to the coming war economy. Many new housing projects were built, justified as part of the war effort. Terrace Village was already completed when the new law was passed, but it was affected in one important way. Public housing was now viewed as permanent, a change from the original intention. Robert K. Brown, author of Public Housing in Action, argues that public housing would not have continued past the Depression, had the war not intervened.28
The postwar period saw the beginning of the decline in public-housing communities. Federal grants and support
shrank even while the demand for public housing did not; “The unraveling of public housing began in the 1950s.”29 In 1949 public housing was given “a stamp of Congressional approval...a mandate for government participation on a permanent basis”30 by Public Law 171. Yet with the advent of the Korean War and an era of rising prosperity, funding for Public Law 171 was cut back. In 1950 Congress refused to expand the public housing program,31 despite the increased demand for public housing due to the displacement of low-income families by Urban Renewal programs, and the large migration of blacks to the North.32 In Pittsburgh, for example, the massive urban renewal programs in the Hill District displaced thousands of families. Current Pittsburgh City Council member Sala Udin and his family moved into the neighboring Bedford Dwellings when they were displaced by the construction of the Civic Arena under Urban Renewal.33 The situation led news analyst, David Hardy, to comment in 1957 that, “Pittsburgh has perhaps the worst housing problem in the whole country.”34
shrank even while the demand for public housing did not; “The unraveling of public housing began in the 1950s.”29 In 1949 public housing was given “a stamp of Congressional approval...a mandate for government participation on a permanent basis”30 by Public Law 171. Yet with the advent of the Korean War and an era of rising prosperity, funding for Public Law 171 was cut back. In 1950 Congress refused to expand the public housing program,31 despite the increased demand for public housing due to the displacement of low-income families by Urban Renewal programs, and the large migration of blacks to the North.32 In Pittsburgh, for example, the massive urban renewal programs in the Hill District displaced thousands of families. Current Pittsburgh City Council member Sala Udin and his family moved into the neighboring Bedford Dwellings when they were displaced by the construction of the Civic Arena under Urban Renewal.33 The situation led news analyst, David Hardy, to comment in 1957 that, “Pittsburgh has perhaps the worst housing problem in the whole country.”34
On the national level, the 1960s was a particularly damaging decade for public housing. The quality of housing units that were built declined, and the numbers of units could not keep pace with the demand. Due to an “ever present desire to slash costs... HUD [the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development] outlawed, nationally, such ‘amenities’ (HUD’s term) as basements, doors on closets, ceiling fans, and individual entrances.”35 In 1967, Alfred E. Tronzo, of the HACP, said, “We are behind—the whole country is behind... After 28 years of effort, the whole public housing program all over the country is a failure.”36 Tronzo claimed that the federal government was not providing enough money to meet demand.37 In 1968, Tronzo himself came under attack from the NAACP chapter in Pittsburgh for “incompetence and indifference.”38
The final blow to public housing39 was delivered in 1967 by the Brooke Amendments, federal legislation sponsored by Edward Brooke, the only African-American senator in Congress at that time. While Senator Brooke meant to alleviate the housing shortage for the poor, his plan had unfortunate effects that are still being felt today. This federal legislation stipulated that a tenant would have to pay no more than 25 percent of his income for rent; it mandated that priority for housing be given to the poorest applicants. These provisions eliminated any chance to have mixed-income populations in public housing communities. Working families faced with paying 25 percent of their income for public housing units left because they could find private housing for the same cost. Only the poorest of the poor remained. This clearly occurred in Pittsburgh. In 1942, 20 percent of Pittsburgh public housing residents were on public assistance. In 1952, the percentage rose to 23.2 percent.40 By 1972, it was 47 percent41 and finally, by 1996, a staggering 95 percent were on public assistance.42 Public housing communities had lost their diversity.
Since the communities only housed the very poor, housing authorities were no longer self-sufficient. Massive federal subsidies were needed. In 1940, local housing authorities were completely self-sufficient. In 1969, the year that the Brooke Amendments first took effect, there were negligible HUD subsidies for operation expenses. By 1999, HUD subsidies nationwide had increased more than 200 percent to 2.8 billion dollars.43
By the 1970s, the results of inadequate funding and management began to be obvious. “Public housing began to look like public housing.”44 In this decade management problems in the HACP and more federal legislation deepened Allequippa Terrace’s problems. There was serious deterioration because there had been no maintenance program. The apartments were old and uncared for; broken plumbing and crumbling plaster were ubiquitous. Bankruptcy threatened due to the lack of reserve funds and the presence of high delinquency rates in rent payments. The Authority was audited by HUD and was found to have “inefficient and uneconomical operations..[expending] millions of dollars unnecessarily or ineligibly.”45 In 1976, 600 units of public housing were unoccupied because of maintenance problems and faults in the original design of buildings.46
New federal legislation adopted in 1974, intended once again to alleviate problems, created new ones. Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 established a system whereby residents could obtain vouchers for apartments, outside of public housing projects, where the landlords were willing to rent to public housing tenants. This allowed those who had enough money to leave the projects. Both the program and new problems grew quickly. There were (and are) two types of Section 8 subsidies: “tenant-based,” which simply let a family rent a private apartment using the voucher, and “unit-based,” which let local housing authorities take over a block of apartments or an entire building. These latter units effectively became “‘Section 8 ghettos’...little different from housing-authority owned projects.”47 A greater percentages of whites received Section 8 vouchers under the “tenant based” system than did blacks.“For poor blacks, housing assistance typically meant living in a public housing project or ‘Section 8 ghetto’ in a high-poverty city neighborhood. For poor whites, housing assistance usually meant receiving a rent subsidy for a privately-owned apartment or housing in a lower-poverty suburb.”48
This “white flight” out of the projects led the communities in Pittsburgh and throughout the country to become increasingly racially imbalanced. By 1980, the black population in Allequippa Terrace reached 98 percent.49 Thus the modern reality of public housing was completed: poor, decrepit, cul-de-sac, inner-city, black housing.
The situation at Allequippa Terrace went from bad to worse in the 1980s. One has only to listen to the residents. Mildred Turner says solemnly, “It was sad...Things started getting bad...chaos...They [HACP] cut down on the rules...and when people don’t have rules...It used to be you know you’d have your manager, but then, all these young folks coming in...thinking they the boss.”50 Lorraine Campbell takes time out from her work at Housing Opportunities Unlimited, a social service program, to discuss the past. She moved into Allequippa Terrace in the early 1980s. She used to play there in previous years when she was young and adamantly says how beautiful it was, “Families were families, middle-class families, working families...the kids had a community...they played in the street...grass, hedges, I mean, it was beautiful!” Then she says things started to change,
After a while, a lot of young people started moving in, being mothers, a lot of young people not knowing how to be a
mother, or how to take care of where they live...a lot of things were happening, and so therefore a lot of things weren’t being kept like they should have been, you know I’d say they [HACP] let it get lax, yeah, because, when I first moved here you had a manager, and so, when you don’t force people to do things, you know, they are not going to do it...I guess with so many people, they didn’t keep up with it. So I guess that’s how things started going downhill.51
mother, or how to take care of where they live...a lot of things were happening, and so therefore a lot of things weren’t being kept like they should have been, you know I’d say they [HACP] let it get lax, yeah, because, when I first moved here you had a manager, and so, when you don’t force people to do things, you know, they are not going to do it...I guess with so many people, they didn’t keep up with it. So I guess that’s how things started going downhill.51
Ms. Turner speaks of the young mothers as well. Always an active leader in her community, she started a program called “Concerned Mothers.” These women, among other activities, organized a breakfast program because, as Ms. Turner says,”“All these mothers on drugs...the kids got nothing to eat.”52 She says with a mixed tone of sadness and irony, “Used to be we’d play cards at night... now these girls with their boyfriends, boom boxes with all the f-s.”53 She explains how one night, probably in the late 80s, she found kids right in her hallway doing drugs, and that was serious because everyone in her court respected her; “One time I smelled, you know, smoke coming from the hall. I wanted to see who it was, so I jerked open the door and there they was sitting in my hallway smoking...They ran away...The police know that some of this go on...but there’s only so much they can do.”54
“By the 1990s federal public housing had become the biggest poverty trap in America;”55 the future of public housing in the nation and in Pittsburgh did not look bright. Even though the HACP had received a huge grant under a new federal program, HOPE VI, the Authority did nothing with the money.56 In January of 1995 Pittsburgh was placed on HUD’s troubled list due to Authority inefficiencies. The list included the 100 worst authorities in the nation (out of 3,500). A large number of the units in the Pittsburgh public housing projects were vacant. This was not due to any lack of demand, however; there were 2,818 new applicants and 1,026 residents were waiting for transfers. (Transfer requests were submitted in the hope of moving to a better project. However, the apartments offered to transfer applicants were in the worst projects. The transfer applicants declined those units, and an endless cycle of frustration was created.) If the authority didn’t improve conditions in its projects, federal money would be cut and HUD threatened a takeover of the Authority.57
The second half of the decade of the ’90s saw the advent of a new, hopeful era in public housing. The United States Housing Act of 1996 created a new public housing framework. It eliminated the most bureaucratic HUD rules. It allowed federal money to be used to demolish the worst projects, rather than “renovate” the projects at a high cost. Also, it repealed the Brooke Amendments, reducing the preferences for the very poor. And finally, by loosening the connection between income and rent, it encouraged more working families to live in the projects.
Furthermore, the local Authority began to get its act together. After a year of planning, the HACP reapplied for a HOPE VI grant, which HUD called “one of the most exciting developments in public housing since 1937.”58 Nationally, its goals were to provide large redevelopment grants to rebuild declining projects, and to focus more attention on the social issues of public housing; ten percent of the grant was mandated for use in community and supportive services. Chris Shea, HACP Director of Special Projects, explains the Pittsburgh Authority approach,
Like many plans out of Washington it [HOPE VI] focused on people’s ills, instead of focusing on the inherent strengths of people...Our [HACP] goal was to release people from their dependency on public housing...to eliminate the ‘parallel universe’ of public housing to change the whole dynamics of the neighborhood...using the existing fabric of the neighborhood to stabilize it and it has been recognized as the right way to do it.59
In Pittsburgh, the HOPE VI money is being used to revitalize the entire Allequippa Terrace community, not just to provide housing. All of the old buildings are being demolished and new multifamily dwellings and townhouses are taking their place, with a mixed population of public housing and working families. It is hoped that the proximity to the University of Pittsburgh and its medical center, as well as the hoped-for revitalization of the Hill District, will make Allequippa Terrace and the surrounding neighborhood more attractive to new people and private businesses, which would “automatically benefit the public housing residents.”60
The signs of success are clear. Kevin Henry, a Pittsburgh Steeler, bought and now lives in an Allequippa home.61 The goal of a mixed-income neighborhood is certainly on its way to being achieved. Mr. Shea mentions, “I was just thinking the other day that there have been no infant deaths in the past couple of years [in Allequippa Terrace]. It used to be you’d hear about one practically every year, because of the drugs or child abuse—now they have the case management programs [an aspect of the new social services program].”62 It is hard to miss the success revealed by statistics; in 1995, only 5 percent of “able-bodied” persons in Allequippa Terrace were employed.63 In 2001, 65 percent had been employed for at least two years:64 an astronomical increase in employed residents. Ms. Campbell is an outreach worker at Housing Opportunities Unlimited, a social service program that helps residents using HOPE VI money. She says,
The success is that we not only [have]...the buildings, but the people. You know, you can move a person, but you can’t change a person. They take their little ways with them. And through HOPE VI, it developed these social services so we can help ’em to maintain their house, or teach ’em how to make sure their rent’s on time, or we have a thing called Life Skills which teaches ’em different things...HOPE VI did a lot, I mean, it brought in a whole bunch of components...you had to have more than just some houses to do something...we [Housing Opportunities Unlimited] help ’em find employment, self-sufficiency. If we don’t do it, then we find services who will help...with HOPE VI...if you don’t change it, what good is it? It’s still...people standing around, selling drugs—we don’t want that in the new community.65
Also, rules have tightened in Allequippa. With HOPE VI “those who wanted to stay went along with what they needed to do, those who didn’t left,”66 explains Ms. Campbell. Still, she complains that some of the new rules are too strict, “being put out for drug offense, I can see that, but some of them other things...”67 Ms. Turner bluntly explains that if the rules aren’t followed, “they kick your ass out.”68 It is yet to be seen if this new housing legislation will create different problems. So far, things look good. It may be that the end of the long journey is near and adequate housing is in sight.
The desire and perseverance to aid those in need kept and still keeps the dream of equal and adequate housing alive in Pittsburgh despite many obstacles. Federal housing legislation intended to solve problems created new ones at Allequippa Terrace. Still, these good intentions were not in vain; the continuing attempts to improve housing policies will someday lead to a solution. The recent successes of the developments of the late 1990s provide hope that the mistakes of the past can be remedied and that a new and brighter future is at hand.
“It went to pots. But I still stayed here,”69 says Mildred Turner, as she gazes out her window over looking Pittsburgh’s Hill District. She has been at Allequippa Terrace through practically everything. From the day F.D.R. handed Mr. Churchfield his gold key, to this morning when Ms. Campbell went to work, federal housing legislation has had direct and often unitended effects on Allequippa Terrace. Still, from its bright beginning and dark past, Pittsburgh’s Allequippa is emerging as an ever-hopeful, twenty-first century model of public housing.
2 David Rusk, Inside Game, Outside Game (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1999) p. 118
3 Roy Lubove, Twentieth-Century Pittsburgh, Volume 1 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995) p. 63
4 Ibid., p. 64
5 “Work May Begin March 1, Councilmen Evans Says,” Pittsburgh Press (5 June 1938) no page (Pittsburgh-Housing Public-Terrace Village clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
6 Rosalyn Baxandall and Elizabeth Ewen, Picture Windows: How the Suburbs Happened (New York: Basic Books, 2000) p. 51
7 Robert K. Brown, Public Housing in Action: The Record of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1959) pp. 2-4
8 Ellis H. Thompson, Public Housing Comes to Pittsburgh [c. 1940] (Pittsburgh.Housing.Public clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 The housing authority in Pittsburgh changed its acronyms over time, from PHA, to HAP, and finally HACP. This
modern acronym, HACP, will be used throughout the paper to avoid confusion.
12 “Work May Begin”; “Site of 2nd Housing Project on Hill Revealed,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette (4 November 1938) no page (Pittsburgh Housing Public, 1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
13 “City Awaits President’s Visit and Address Today,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette (11 October 1940) no page
14 Wilson Borland, ed., A Report to the People: Public Housing in Pittsburgh, 1938-1953 (Pittsburgh: Housing
Authority, 1953) p. 28
15 “Low-Rent Dwellings for Low-Income Families (Pittsburgh Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, 1940.
Pittsburgh.Housing.Public, 1930-1940-1950-1960 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
16 “Apartment Buildings Will Replace Tenements in Hill,” Pittsburgh Press (12 April 1938) no page (Pittsburgh.Housing.Public clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
17 Rusk, p. 120
18 “Tenants Praise Comfort, Luxury of New Homes,” Pittsburgh Sun-Telegram (18 November 1940) no page (Pittsburgh.Housing.Public 1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
19 Mildred Turner, Personal Interview (5 March 2001)
20 This may seem cheap, but it is important to consider that the average income of a U.S. Steel worker in 1941 was only $36 a week. John P. Hoerr, And the Wolf Finally Came (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988) p. 175
21 “Rent Changes Allow More to Apply at Hill Project,” Pittsburgh Press (30 June 1940) no page (Pittsburgh.Housing.Public 1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
22 “Relief Client Quota Filled in New Houses,” Pittsburgh Press (17 September 1940) no page (Pittsburgh.Housing.Public 1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh)
23 Ibid.
24 Borland, p. 25
25 Ibid., p. 25
26 Turner Interview
27 Brown, pp. 3-4
28 Ibid., p. 4
29 Rusk, p. 119
30 Brown, pp. 5-6
31 Ibid., pp. 5-6
32 Rusk, p. 119
33 Chris Shea, Telephone Interview (4 March 2001)
34 Action-Housing 1957-1992 (Pittsburgh: Action-Housing, Inc., [c. 1993]) p. 5
35 Rusk, p. 120
36 Thomas M. Hirtz, “Public Housing A Failure, Tronzo,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette (10 August 1967) no page
Pittsburgh.Housing.Public 1967 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
37 Ibid., “Demand Tops”
38 “Critics Interrupt City’s Ceremony,” Pittsburgh Press (31 October 1968) no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public 1968
clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
39 Rusk, p. 120
40 Borland, p. 26
41 A Community Profile of Terrace Village (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, City of Pittsburgh: 1974) p. 11, Pittsburgh.Housing.Public 1930-1940-1950-1960 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
42 Interview with Christopher Shea, March 4
43 Rusk, p. 120
44 Ibid., p. 120
45 “Authority Misspent Millions, HUD Says,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette (8 November 1973) no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public 1973-1974 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
46 Shea interview, March 4
47 Rusk, p. 122
48 Ibid., p. 123
49 “A Profile in Change 1970-1980: Terrace Village” Pittsburgh, City of Pittsburgh, Richard Caliguiri, Mayor
50 Turner interview
51 Lorraine Campbell, Personal Interview (2 March 2001)
52 Turner interview
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
55 Rusk, p. 119
56 Shea interview
57 Tom Barnes, “Building Reputation from the Ground Up” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, August 26, 1996
58 United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design (5 March 2001) <http://www.huduser.org:80/publications/ pdf/principles.pdf> p. 1
59 Shea interview
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Campbell interview
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Turner interview
69 Ibid.
WORKS CITED
Action-Housing 1957-1992 Pittsburgh: Action-Housing Inc., [c. 1993.]
“Apartment Buildings Will Replace Tenements in Hill,” Pittsburgh Press 12 April 1938: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public clippings file. Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“A Profile in Change 1970-1980: Terrace Village” Pittsburgh, City of Pittsburgh, Richard Caliguiri, Mayor
The Area Pittsburgh: Health and Welfare Planning Association, 1984, Pittsburgh.Housing.Public.1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“Authority Misspent Millions, HUD Says,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette 8 November 1973: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public.1973-1974 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Barnes, Tom, “Building Reputation from the Ground Up” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, August 26, 1996
Baxandall, Rosalyn, and Elizabeth Ewen, Picture Windows: How the Suburbs Happened (New York: Basic Books, 2000)
Belluck, Pam, “Razing the Slums to Rescue the Residents,” The New York Times September 6, 1998, Rpt. in Urban Society, 10th Edition ed. Fred Siegel and Jan Rosenberg, New Yorkt: McGraw-Hill, 2001, pp. 152-157
Borland Wilson, ed., A Report to the People: Public Housing in Pittsburgh 1938-1953 Pittsburgh: Housing Authority, 1953
Brown, Robert K., Public Housing in Action: The Record of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press, 1959
Campbell, Lorraine, Personal Interview, 2 March 2001
“City Awaits President’s Visit and Address Today,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette 11 October 1940: no page
A Community Profile of Terrace Village Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, City of Pittsburgh: 1974, Pittsburgh.Housing.Public.1930-1940-1950-1960 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“Construction Shows Signs of New Life,” Pittsburgh Press 19 April 1936: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public.1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“Critics Interrupt City’s Ceremony,” Pittsburgh Press 31 October 1968: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public.1968 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
DeLaney, James K., “Enthusiastic Crowds Greet President Here,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette 12 October 1940, front page
Hirtz, Thomas M., “Public Housing A Failure, Tronzo,””Pittsburgh Post Gazette 10 August 1967: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public.1967 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Hoerr, John P., And the Wolf Finally Came Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988
Low-Rent Dwellings for Low-Income Families Pittsburgh: Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, 1940, Pittsburgh.Housing.Public.1930-1940-1950-1960 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Lubove, Roy, Twentieth-Century Pittsburgh, Volume 1 Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995
March 1977–March 1987: 10-Year Report Pittsburgh: City of Pittsburgh Housing Authority, 1987 Pittsburgh.Housing.Public clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.
A Profile of Change: 1970-1980 Terrace Village Pittsburgh: City of Pittsburgh, 1980, Pittsburgh.Housing.Public clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“Relief Client Quota Filled in New Houses,” Pittsburgh Press 17 September 1940: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public. 1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“Rent Changes Allow More to Apply at Hill Project,” Pittsburgh Press 30 June 1940: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public. 1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Rusk, David, Inside Game Outside Game Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1999
Shea, Chris, Telephone Interview, 4 March 2001
“Site of 2nd Housing Project on Hill Revealed,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette 4 November 1938: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public. 1935-1945 clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“Tenants Praise Comfort, Luxury of New Homes,” Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph 18 November 1940: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public. 1935-1945 clippings file, ennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
“Terrace Villages Get New Names,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette 7 August 1942: no page Pittsburgh.Housing.Public. Terrace Village clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Thompson, Ellis H., Public Housing Comes to Pittsburgh [c. 1940.] Pittsburgh.Housing.Public clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Turner, Mildred, Personal Interview, 5 March 2001
United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design 5 March 2001 <http://www.huduser.org:80/publications/pdf/principles.pdf>
“Work May Begin March 1, Councilmen Evans Says,” Pittsburgh Press 5 June 1938: no page Pittsburgh. Housing.Public.Terrace Village clippings file, Pennsylvania Room, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Sitography
Allequippa Terrace, Site visit, February 23, March 2, 2001. Results: I saw both the old buildings and the new buildings and drove around the community.
Becky and Lorraine Campbell, outreach workers at Housing Opportunities Unlimited, 2 March 2001. Results: personal interview at Allequippa Terrace of Ms. Campbell. (Becky was sick.)
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh: Pennsylvania room, Library, February 20, 24, March 3, 11, 2001. Librarian assistance. Results: Clippings Files on Public Housing 1937-2000 and Allequippa Terrace and Terrace Village.
Claudette Lewis, Historical Review Commission, 16 February 2001. Results: paper by Pitt professor on architecture of Allequippa Terrace.
Ed Hearn, head of Housing Opportunities Unlimited, Telephone and Email, 1, 2 March 2001. Results: set up Outreach Worker interviews and provided Ms. McCullum’s contact info.
HUD Library, Telephone Call, 2 March 2001. Archivist assistance from Archivist and Historian, Lisa Casa. Results: statistics for HUD subsidies.
Macy Kislinski, HACP Special Project manager assistant, Telephone and Email, February 27, 28, March 1, 2, 2001. Results: information on HOPE VI.
Michael Polite, private consultant to Housing Opportunities Unlimited, 20 February 2001, Telephone and Email, Feb. Results: HOPE VI proposal and Ed Hearn’s contact info and interview with Mildred Turner.
Mildred Turner, resident since 1941, 5 March 2001. Results: personal interview at Christopher Smith Seniors Building.
© 2001, The Concord Review, Inc. (all rights reserved)
