The great migration

In the mid-1940s, America’s urban areas swelled with Blacks fleeing the oppressive South. Labor agents canvassed the deep south to bring back cheap labor in order to break the picket lines (Lawerence, Jacob 1993). Chicago, Pittsburg, and New York,  became the promised lands, as many Blacks saw cities as an opportunity for social mobility. Yet, they were intentionally met again with discrimination, unsanitary housing conditions, and poor working conditions. The Great Migration of the 1940s is a perfect illustration of the cycle of urbanization and the politics of urban development.

Prior to the 1950s the development of American cities did not require significant disruption of the existing urban fabric, as development was primarily a private matter.  Likewise prior to the 1950s the state sanctioned violence and oppression of Black lives was an American norm, both in rural and urban areas. Wealthy barons negotiated large land grants or funding from municipalities to pave roads or build factories (Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003)). Urban development began in cooperation with leading business interests and little care for humanity for most of the 19th century. 

Urban Investment was either a reaction to a dire crisis, ie: water and sewage investments following (add year) outbreaks;  or at the bequest of leading local businessmen taking the increase spending on street and roads following World War II from the automobile industry (Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003)). As race riots erupted amongst the poor immigrants  to address overcrowded tenements, and stop  as there was little regulation of housing or work conditions. The intentional subjugation of the Black population would lay a precarious foundation for American society moving forward.

Within a generation people move from outhouses and iceboxes, to indoor plumbing and refrigeration. Following WWII throughout the 1960s, American economy is booming and  the social movements led to a number of new laws it seems to be a second reconstruction period. The passing of the Civil Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act, opened the possibility for systemic inequities to be addressed on a national level. Researchers argue that [cities] are wealthy and democratic because their citizens are trusting, cooperative and engaged (Putnam,1995; Fullilove (2004))]. However, at the same time urban planners* also are restructuring American society. Beginning in the 1980s, American cities became depleted of economic resources, transforming into  poor, unsafe, leaving a residue until today, planning struggles to cultivate the conditions that influence health and well-being for all.

This poses the following question: what can strategies of civic engagement tell us about the role of  public participation in building social capital to strengthen American cities?