Could a bold anti-poverty experiment from the 1960s inspire a new era in housing justice?

In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement.
These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago.
In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents.
The federal government decided to try to do something about it.
President Lyndon B. Johnson launched one of the most ambitious experiments in urban policy: the Model Cities Program.
As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, I've studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by empowering communities to shape their own futures.
The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson's Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States.
Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for displacing communities of color. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing.
So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level.
To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing problems.
Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to capital for local small businesses, helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach.
Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson described as 'comprehensive' and 'concentrated' efforts. It wasn't just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing. It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership with the people most affected by poverty and racism.
What made Model Cities unique wasn't just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on 'widespread citizen participation,' which required cities that received funding to include residents in the planning and oversight of local programs.
The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr., had called for a 'Domestic Marshall Plan' – a reference to the federal government's efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II – to redress centuries of racial inequality.
Young's vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta, for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent.
In other words, neighborhood residents weren't just beneficiaries. They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers.
This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of public servant – what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman famously called 'guerrillas in the bureaucracy.'
These were radical planners – often young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments to expand their staff with community workers aligned with the program's goals.
Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for community-driven planning.
Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions but because they reimagined how institutions could function, prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power.
In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public resources toward locally defined priorities.
In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs.
In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances Houses in the South Bronx were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking place – a direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the city's poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods.
The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact.
Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile. While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million, spread across more than 60 cities.
Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from 'people programs' and toward capital investment and physical development. Requirements for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the everyday citizens the program was meant to empower.
In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with bureaucrats over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places, participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance nearly impossible.
Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists, warned that the program risked becoming a new form of 'neocolonialism,' one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators.
Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on.
In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called 'a little noticed revolution.' In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and advocate for community development.
It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood planning initiatives owe a debt to Model Cities' insistence that residents should help shape the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in creating space for democratic experimentation.
Today's housing crisis demands structural solutions to structural problems. The affordable housing crisis is deeply connected to other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental injustice and health disparities, creating compounding risks for the most vulnerable communities. Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety net – whether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programs – has proven ineffective.
Today, as policymakers once again debate how to respond to deepening inequality and a lack of affordable housing, the lost promise of Model Cities offers vital lessons.
Model Cities was far from perfect. But it offered a vision of how democratic, local planning could promote health, security and community.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Michigan State University
Read more:
Detroit's next mayor can do these 3 things to support neighborhoods beyond downtown
How building more backyard homes, granny flats and in-law suites can help alleviate the housing crisis
Should architecturally significant low-income housing be preserved?
Deyanira Nevárez Martínez is a trustee of the Lansing School District Board of Education and is currently a candidate for the Lansing City Council Ward 2.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

21 minutes ago

• Politico

Oz nudges Senate Republicans to ease off on Medicaid cuts

House Republicans are aiming to slash funding for the nonpartisan watchdog for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government by nearly half in the next fiscal year, according to spending bill text released Sunday night. The House Appropriations subcommittee funding Congress and its support agencies, led by chairman David Valadao (R-Calif.), is set to mark up their fiscal 2026 measure Monday evening, with the full committee set to act Thursday. The Legislative Branch bill would provide $6.7 billion — $51 million below the current funding level, which was set in fiscal 2024. Per tradition, the House bill does not touch any Senate funding. 'Chairman Valadao's bill puts the American people first — in strengthening the institutions that represent them, protecting effective governance, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars,' said House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in a statement. The deepest cuts in the bill are to the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress that would see a $396.5 million reduction from current levels to $415.4 million. GAO has served as the nation's chief investigator of wrongdoing at federal agencies for more than a century, but has been fighting for months as Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have attempted to undercut its legal conclusions and independence. Now, they are attempting to shrink the agency into submission as it pursues nearly 40 investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding, or 'impounding,' money Congress had previously approved. Also tucked into the bill is a major policy change that would eliminate the GAO's ability to bring civil action against the executive branch over impoundments of funds. 'GAO's work makes it possible for the legislative branch to hold government accountable,' said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute. 'Congress needs independent expert advice, which is exactly what GAO provides.' Also on the chopping block is the Library of Congress, which is another legislative branch agency also engaged in a power struggle against intrusion by the Trump administration. The bill allocates $767.6 million for the Library of Congress, which is $84.5 million below the current funding level and $133.7 million below the FY26 request. 'This bill does nothing to safeguard against the growing levels of executive overreach into legislative branch agencies,' said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the legislative branch subcommittee. Some other key provisions in the GOP-written bill include: Capitol Police: The Capitol Police would see a $84.4 million boost to their funding under the bill, bringing the total to $891 million. Some lawmakers had asked for an increase in office funding for use for security, but the bill flat-funds the Members Representational Allowance, which can be used for some member security purposes. Member Pay: The bill would continue the member pay freeze that has been in effect since 2013, halting automatic cost of living increases that members of Congress are supposed to get under law. Gay marriage: The bill includes language that prohibits discrimination against any person who 'speaks, or acts' in accordance with a 'sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.'

Black America Web

21 minutes ago

• Black America Web

D.L. Hughley Joins Fort Worth's Juneteenth Walk for Freedom

Source: Michael S. Schwartz / Getty D.L. Hughley joined the annual Opal's Walk for Freedom in Fort Worth, Texas, to commemorate Juneteenth. The event, inspired by the tireless efforts of Dr. Opal Lee, the 'Grandmother of Juneteenth,' celebrates the abolition of slavery and the resilience of the African American community. RELATED: 10 Powerful Speeches on Juneteenth and the Fight for Racial Justice RELATED: Trump Complains About Juneteenth, X Shows Off His Hypocrisy This year's walk saw hundreds of participants, including families, lawmakers, and community leaders, marching the symbolic 2.5 miles. The distance represents the two-and-a-half years it took for enslaved people in Texas to learn of their freedom after the Emancipation Proclamation. Although Dr. Lee, now 98, was unable to attend due to health reasons, her legacy and mission were palpable throughout the event. D.L. Hughley emphasized the importance of preserving and celebrating history, especially in the face of efforts to diminish its significance. 'So much of our history is under attack right now,' Hughley remarked. 'Juneteenth and us celebrating this day nationally is a long time coming. It's about educating people on what it means.' Congressman Marc Veasey echoed these sentiments, highlighting Juneteenth as a cornerstone of American history. 'It's not just Black history; it's Texas history, it's American history,' he stated, underscoring the need for continued education and reflection. Dr. Opal Lee's journey to make Juneteenth a national holiday began at age 89, culminating in 2021 when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act. Her advocacy remains a call to action, urging people to reflect on the question, 'Are we free yet?' Her mantra, 'None of us are free if we're not all free,' continues to inspire. Juneteenth, celebrated on June 19, marks the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Galveston, Texas, learned of their freedom. Today, it stands as a powerful reminder of resilience, progress, and the ongoing pursuit of equality. Events like Opal's Walk for Freedom ensure that this history is honored and shared with future generations. SOURCE | Fox 4 Dallas/Fort Worth SEE ALSO

Business Insider

22 minutes ago

• Business Insider

Iran says it fired on a US base. Qatar says air defenses shot down the missiles.

Iran said it launched missiles at the US military's largest Middle East base, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, just days after American forces struck its nuclear facilities. A US defense official confirmed to Business Insider Monday afternoon that Iran launched short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles at Al Udeid. They said there are no reports of US casualties and that the Pentagon is monitoring the situation closely. Iranian state media said Tehran launched the same number of missiles as the number of bombs that the US used against its nuclear facilities, and called the strikes "a mighty and successful response by the armed forces of Iran to America's aggression." Qatar's foreign ministry also confirmed the attack on Al Udied and described it as a violation of its sovereignty. Doha said its air defenses "successfully thwarted" the strikes, intercepting Iranian missiles. Open-source accounts online shared footage purporting to show air defenses engaging targets over Qatar. Some Iranian media reported the targeting of American forces in Iraq, although there has not been any official confirmation from the Pentagon. The US Air Force and US Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, did not immediately comment on the Iranian attack. Satellite imagery of Al Udeid last week showed dozens of military aircraft missing from the base after around 40 were spotted there earlier in the month. The air base supports a vast array of US aircraft, including B-52 strategic bombers, C-17 Globemaster transports, and RC-135 Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft. It's unclear if any of the aircraft returned. Although the planes may no longer be there, US military personnel would still likely be on base. Tehran had suggested that it could retaliate after US stealth bomber aircraft and a guided-missile submarine launched airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. Its foreign minister said the country "reserves all options" to defend itself. Earlier on Monday, the US Embassy in Qatar warned Americans to shelter in place until further notice, just hours before Doha closed its airspace, suggesting that an attack could be imminent. President Donald Trump had warned Iran that any retaliation against the US would be met with more force than the initial strikes. It's possible that the attack on Al Udeid may have been calibrated to signal Iran's frustration while avoiding escalation. "Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice," Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on Sunday. The US military has a large Middle East presence that is capable of air defense, including ground-based missile interceptors, fighter jets, warships, and aircraft carriers. Those assets can be used for defensive actions, as well as offense.