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

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)
Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Michigan State University
(THE CONVERSATION) 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.
A revolutionary approach to poverty
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.
Strengthening community ties
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.
What went wrong?
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.
A legacy worth revisiting
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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

22 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Alarm grows after the US inserts itself into Israel's war against Iran. Follow live updates.

UN nuclear agency says significant damage expected at Iranian underground site — 5:09 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog said Monday that 'very significant damage' is expected at Iran's underground facility at Fordo after a U.S. airstrike there this weekend with sophisticated bunker-buster bombs. Advertisement Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made the statement in Vienna. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Given the explosive payload utilized and the extreme vibration sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred,' Grossi said. UK's Lammy says US not going after Iran's 'civilian leadership' — 4:02 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press Britain's foreign minister says he is confident the US is not seeking to overthrow Iran's government despite a social media post from President Trump suggesting it might be a good idea. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Monday that 'it's clear from Israel and the United States that they're not going after the civilian leadership' in Tehran. He said 'that's not what's under consideration at this time.' Lammy said he spoke to Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday, and the UK is pushing to 'get the Iranians back to serious diplomacy.' Advertisement Lammy told the BBC he has 'not seen an assessment yet' of whether the strikes 'seriously degraded Iran's ability to come up with a nuclear program.' He added that 'ultimately this has to be dealt with by diplomacy.' Iran has a 'free hand' to act against US interests, top general says — 3:52 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press Iranian Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, the chief of joint staff of armed forces, warned the US on Monday that its strikes gave a 'free hand' to Iranian armed forces to 'act against US interests and its army.' Mousavi stressed Iran would not hesitate to do so after the US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday. He described the American attack as violating Iran's sovereignty, entering the Israeli war on the country and being tantamount to invading the country. The state-run IRNA news agency reported Mousavi's remarks. North Korea condemns US strikes on Iran — 2:55 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press North Korea says it 'strongly condemns' the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling it an egregious violation of Iran's territorial integrity and security interests. North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday that the United States and Israel were escalating tensions in the Middle East through the use of military force, and called on the 'just-minded international community' to raise a unified voice against their 'confrontational behavior.' During his first term, President Trump met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018 and 2019, but their diplomacy collapsed over disagreements in exchanging the release of US-led sanctions against North Korea and the North's steps to wind down its nuclear and missile program. Kim has since accelerated his arms development while ignoring talk offers by Washington and Seoul. Advertisement He has shifted the priority of his foreign policy to Russia, sending thousands of troops and huge shipments of military equipment to fuel Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize — 1:15 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press Pakistan condemned President Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the US, resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the US for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

CNN

26 minutes ago

• CNN

Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites

From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.

40 minutes ago

Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy

Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table following American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation. U.S. President Donald Trump described the damage as 'monumental' after the U.S. hit three Iranian nuclear sites, though the U.S. assessment was unfinished. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had 'crossed a very big red line,' the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself. Here is a look at the global reaction: U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the United States. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement on the social media platform X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned of escalation beyond the Middle East as he called for all sides to negotiate a diplomatic end to the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region. The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran. Starmer said Iran's nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said. Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons. He didn't specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Russia's Foreign Ministry said it 'strongly condemned' the airstrikes and called them a 'a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.' The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis. 'The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,' government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement. President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi warned of 'grave repercussions' for expanding the Middle East conflict and urged a return to negotiations. Saudi Arabia, which previously condemned Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders, expressed 'deep concern' about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them. 'The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Qatar, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, said it 'regrets' escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war. Its Foreign Ministry in a statement urged all parties to show restraint and 'avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate.' Qatar has served as a key mediator in the Israel-Hamas war. Both the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas condemned the U.S. strikes. The Houthi political bureau in a statement called on Muslim nations to join 'the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Hamas and the Houthis are part of Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance, a collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave the Islamic Republic considerable power across the region. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations. 'Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region,' Aoun said in a statement on X. 'It is unwilling to pay more.' Pakistan blasted the U.S. strikes as a 'deeply disturbing' escalation just days after it nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic intervention with the India-Pakistan crisis. 'These attacks violate all norms of international law,' the government said in a statement. 'Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself under the U.N. Charter.' China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East. In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue. 'China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,' the ministry said. The European Union's top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Iran's nuclear facilities 'represented a danger for the entire area' but hoped the action could lead to de-escalation in the conflict and negotiations. Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris called the U.S. airstrikes 'an extraordinarily dangerous escalation of a conflict that already best be described as a tinderbox.' Ireland, which has been especially critical of Israel's war in Gaza, echoed other European calls for negotiations that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. 'We're now entering a moment of particular danger,' Harris said. 'The chances now of a spiral of escalation are more likely than ever before, and there is a real prospect now of the international community losing all control of this very, very volatile conflict.' Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia's government endorsed the U.S. strikes. 'We support action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon and that is what this is,' she said. Her remarks to Channel Nine news Monday were firmer than an official statement supplied Sunday by her government immediately after the strikes that stopped short of backing them. 'Ultimately we want to see de-escalation and diplomacy,' Wong said. She would not say whether Australian satellite communications or signals intelligence were employed by the United States. Both countries are members of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing partnership. But Wong said the U.S. had been clear that 'this was a unilateral strike.' Left-wing Latin American governments expressed fierce opposition to the U.S. strikes. Iran-allied Venezuela called the attacks 'illegal, unjustifiable and extremely dangerous.' Colombian President Gustavo Petro said they were an insult to the Middle East. Chile's President Gabriel Boric said they violated 'rules we have established as humanity.' Mexico's Foreign Ministry made 'an urgent call for peace.' In contrast, Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei, a loyal ally of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, praised the attacks on social media. 'Terrorism, never again,' his spokesperson said. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented. He declined to comment on whether he supported the U.S. attacks on Iran. Vietnam called on parties to continue negotiation efforts and respect humanitarian law and International Atomic Energy Agency regulations. 'Vietnam is deeply concerned about the escalating and complex conflict in the Middle East, which poses a serious threat to the lives and safety of civilians, as well as to regional and global peace and stability,' Foreign Affairs Ministry spokeswoman Pham Thu Hang said in the statement. Thailand called on all parties to immediately stop all acts of violence and seek a peaceful resolution. 'Thailand expresses its grave concern over the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, particularly in light of the recently intensified attacks and expansion of conflict by other parties, which pose a serious threat to regional peace and stability and risk further escalation, all of which is dangerous and affecting countless civilians," the Foreign Affairs Ministry said in a statement. Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter's square, calling for international diplomacy to 'silence the weapons.' After an open reference to the 'alarming' situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that 'today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.'