JCN and the Rise of City Planning—Part II: Nichols and the National Discourse
Photo taken in the Western Historical Manuscripts Collection at the University of Missouri, Kansas City in 2017 (State Historical Society of Missouri)
This paper rests on the simple thesis that city planning is the public’s business…City planning has failed in the past because the roles of public and private enterprise have been reversed. Private initiative has located cities and determined the direction and character of their growth, leaving to public enterprise the job of following along with streets, utilities and public services as best it might. Just as the modern housing movement has for the first time acknowledged public responsibility toward the provision of adequate shelter…so in city planning there must be acknowledgment of the dominant public interest in the form which the nation’s urban life assumes. Only then can housing and city planning meet on an effective basis.
– Tracy B. Augur, “City Planning and Housing—May They Meet Again,” presented at the National Conference on Planning in Chicago, 1940
The above quote reflects a dissenting opinion among city planners and developers during the first half of the 20th century. Unlike Augur’s words here, most speakers, including J.C. Nichols, spoke fervently about the need to keep city planning and housing within the private sector. While I believe that Augur’s public conception of city planning was only a result of his pragmatic concerns, he points to an important contradiction. If city planning was for the greater good, why did it lie solely in the hands of private businessmen? In this article, I will reflect on this conflict (of interest) and examine the words of Nichols and his contemporaries on the national stage.
As I mentioned in Part I, Nichols frequently delivered speeches about his housing and city planning ideas, and he did so in front of audiences across the country. In examining Nichols’ speeches, I discovered a handful of phrases that he repeated numerous times almost verbatim, and they are listed below in the order they most often appeared in his writing. [1]
Cities are handmade. Whether our American cities are physically bad or physically good is our responsibility.
The enormous losses in human happiness and in money which have resulted from lack of city plans which take into account the conditions of modern life, need little proof.
Every large American city carries an appalling burden in abandoned formerly good residence sections where homes are offered for a mere fraction of their original cost, and in its immense percentage of unproductive, vacant land, with carrying charges far greater than the average increase in value.
I say again civic ugliness and disorder breed contempt not only for the thing itself, but for the conditions which permit it. Civic beauty has a direct relation to city politics. Every human being is influenced by his surroundings.
In the last decade there has developed throughout our country, a group of men known as ‘City Builders’, representing a new profession, devoted not only to improving the living conditions of our cities, but devoted to stabilizing of urban values and the increasing of the industrial, commercial and residential efficiency of our cities.
[City planning] recognizes the economy of preventive measures over corrective costs. It is simply good, practical hard sense.
City planning looks ahead and provides for the future development of the city—it looks beyond the present city limits and foresees the demands of the still greater city.
Greater than all is the well-ordered, beautiful, efficient city, in which every section has its definite part to perform, with the greatest benefits to itself and the least injury to surrounding districts.
Given that the audiences for Nichols’ speeches included developers, city planners, real estate boards, and members of related associations and committees, “our responsibility” in the first quote can be read to apply to those in the profession of planning and developing. This initial comment in his speech orients the audience to their practical responsibility, which is ultimately for private businessmen to deliver on public interest. This is further evidenced in a piece Nichols wrote for The Architectural Record in 1943. He asked,
Shall we look to our federal government to provide housing? Or, shall we build better homes and prove that private industry can do the job satisfactorily?…We know that private industry can provide housing at far less cost than the federal government, and upon the shoulders of the realtors rests the responsibility of building the best houses possible without federal subsidy, and preserving the incentive for better homes for our nation—for greater home ownership—so important in perpetuating the American way of life and our cherished democracy.
While we could hold our breath waiting for private actors to prioritize the public over profit, we know that the execution of providing adequate housing has failed throughout time. Black veterans were denied GI Bill mortgage loans. Black, Jewish, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American individuals and families were written out of communities through deed restrictions. When the private legal approach failed (or even without a preceding nonviolent effort), White neighbors turned to violence, and people of color were threatened and harassed, bombed in their homes, and lynched for daring to live in a White neighborhood.
All of these nonviolent and violent means of disenfranchisement created and perpetuated housing segregation across the cities of the United States, resulting in consequences that still plague communities of color. Those consequences pervade every aspect of civic life, including inequality in education, income, health, environment, and policing. As one of the thousands of examples that could fit here, lower-income neighborhoods, and particularly those in which communities of color have historically lived, tend to have hotter climates than more affluent and White neighborhoods within the same cities due to a lack of green investment. So many of our nation’s most persistent problems are rooted in where one lives (or rather, where one is allowed to live). Indeed, in the time of Nichols (and still today), this notion of “great home ownership” only applied to those of the population that were considered within the ideal of the planned city—namely, White, upper-middle-class families and individuals, the target audience of Nichols and many of his contemporaries.
The second, third, and fourth phrases from the above list of quotes emphasize the state of the city without planning—impractical, ugly, and costly when past wrongs must finally be addressed. It is important to note that even though Nichols referenced blighted urban areas in almost every speech as a preface to the need for city planning, he seldom, if ever, acknowledged the needs of the populations of those areas, which were often inhabited by low-income communities and communities of color who were barred from homeownership, forced into defined areas through violent and legislative tactics, and stripped of civic investment as mentioned above.
Within his speeches, these areas were depicted as places to avoid and places to escape (preferably escaping to one of Nichols’ developments). Even in discussions of zoning, building heights, and street widths, Nichols did not mention how “slum” areas and their inhabitants could benefit from this planning attention. Rather, he simply used them as a non-example for proper urban development. The idealization of city planning—or, in other words, appealing to the common good of the city’s inhabitants without practically acknowledging the need experienced in disadvantaged areas—gives a glimpse into how Nichols’ private practice did, in fact, fail to provide adequate housing, contrary to his faith in the private sector. An appeal to public interest was made, with a privately-oriented focus on White, upper-middle-class families that could afford to live in Nichols’ developments. (If you are reading this and the words “gentrification” and “urban renewal” are coming to mind, they should. More on that in Parts IV and V.)
In a 1936 speech delivered to the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), Nichols concluded,
Will our present form of government succeed? Will it perpetuate itself and endure as no other Republic in history has endured? My answer is—look to our success or failure in the planning and building of our cities!
Here, Nichols shows a direct tie between his idealism and the real-life applications of his rhetoric. He notes that while the success or failure of the country depends on the progress of cities, the success or failure of cities is dependent on their planning. These ideals are pursued through individual action, policy, and zoning and housing practices, all of which are subject to the same elements present in his ideology that gloss over the needs of many while catering to the desires of a few. If an ideology is accepted because it appears to work toward something that benefits everyone, but there is no in-depth investigation or programmatic avenue of achieving that public good, then private actors’ profit-driven decisions will triumph over the socially-minded cause.
In addition to his other practices discussed in Part I that disadvantaged Black Kansas Citians (as well as Hispanic, Native American, Jewish, and Asian communities), Nichols also took advantage of early iterations of White flight. Men known as blockbusters would offer mortgages to Black aspirational homeowners in prosperous White urban neighborhoods. Then, they would turn around and spread fear among a Black family’s White neighbors about the supposedly inevitable fall of property values. This fear-mongering would allow Nichols and others to usher these White homeowners into their newly developed suburban neighborhoods, showing yet again Nichols’ hand in the segregation of Kansas City.
Now, to be clear, my point in this article and in this series is not to convince readers that J.C. Nichols was racist. My focus lies instead on the outcomes of his practices, regardless of intent, and there is a reason for this. When Georgia legislators say, “We’re not racist!” and then unanimously support a bill that inarguably affects communities of color and their right to vote, we can point to their policies and must hold them accountable for those actions. When Governor Kemp claims he wants to protect the integrity of the ballot and then hides behind closed doors to sign his shameful voter suppression bill, we can point to his actions no matter what he claims his motivations to be. Intent certainly plays a role, but it is the actions, the lasting implications of years of rhetoric, and the eventual policy and legislation that we must dismantle and prevent in the future so that rights are protected regardless of any individual’s, organization’s, or party’s malintent.
I seek to examine the possible interpretations and executions of Nichols’ language that led to subjective practice, or in other words, the acceleration of private interests. If we can identify the cloak in Nichols’ speeches, we can identify it in present policy, legislation, and rhetoric to prevent the dagger that inevitably follows. Here, we are not only examining the practice of one developer and the immediate fallout but rather the ripple effect of Nichols’ work and influence. Nichols’ practices were discriminatory against communities of color in Kansas City, but his rhetoric held national sway and informed many other developers’ practices, as well as federal housing legislation.
As one example, Nichols was the co-founder of the Community Builders’ Council, which was formed in 1944 to address the need for direction in the post-war suburban housing boom. He assisted in the editing of the Community Builders Handbook, published in 1947, which delineated many guidelines for proper subdivision practices, including land surveying, choosing a property, development, homebuilding, deed-writing, and the related areas of restrictions and homes associations.
The predilection for private versus public responsibility for housing among Nichols and his contemporaries was reflected early on in the introduction of the handbook. In reference to the Council’s views, the author wrote,
They believe that stable, attractive, and self-supporting home communities can be built for a wide range of incomes by private initiative without government paternalistic help. [2]
Interesting that to justifiably make this claim, the author must consider “a wide range of incomes;” however, the focus of the developers at this time was overwhelmingly on “high-class” residential subdivisions.
Later on, in the section titled “Protecting the Future of the Development,” the popularity of deed restrictions was made clear. The author noted that “protective covenants…have been found from many years of experience to be an essential instrument in maintaining stability, permanence, character, and desirability in community development” [3] by protecting the private interests of both property owners and developers. However, within the discussion of restrictions and throughout the entirety of the handbook, there is no mention of racial divisions or race at all, even in the sample deeds provided in the back of the handbook. Certainly, the developers on the council and most developers broadly speaking used racially restrictive covenants, yet they are rarely discussed. The author does point to the FHA as the model for minimum restrictions, suggesting a connection between the private practices of the Council and the influence of this public organization that is so well-known for perpetuating segregation. The author wrote,
The covenants recommended by the FHA have been used satisfactorily in thousands of subdivisions and have been approved by the title and large mortgage investment institutions. They should be considered as a minimum, particularly in high-priced property where more detailed controls are usually desirable. [4]
This quote also points to the developers’ main audience—“high-class” clientele. Even though racial covenants were not included in the minimum recommendations made by the FHA or the Community Builders’ Council, their use was extensive in practice, suggesting they may be included in the “more detailed controls” mentioned for high-class properties. This furthermore implies that Black homebuyers were not considered to be capable of achieving high-class, let alone dwelling in the same high-class neighborhoods as wealthy White homeowners. The omission of racialized language is not a sign of equitable or inclusive practice, nor a sign of ignorance of racism. Rather, it is an indicator of complete exclusion.
Speeches made at the NAREB’s conferences for their Homebuilding and Subdividing Division and speeches delivered at the annual National Conference on Planning shared a similar focus on class, restrictive covenants, and the idea of private control. The following quotes were taken from the 1938, 1939, and 1940 National Conference on Planning meetings, as well as the 1925, 1926, and 1927 meetings of the NAREB’s Homebuilding and Subdividing Division. Nichols was on the executive board of the Homebuilding and Subdividing Division for these three years and made speeches at a few of the conferences. The rhetoric articulated throughout these conferences aligns with that observed in Nichols’ writings and is additionally linked to early housing legislation. One speaker began,
Every person who desires to develop real property should elect in the beginning to cater to the needs of one class or the other, for as their needs are entirely different, their homes and surroundings will also be different. For the purposes of this article we shall confine ourselves to a development of the better kind.
– B.L. Jenks, “Restrictions for a High-Grade Subdivision,” Annals of Real Estate Practice: Homebuilding and Subdividing, 1925
This quote, similar to the Community Builders Handbook quote regarding a “wide range of incomes,” acknowledges the existence of lower-income individuals and families. However, much like Nichols’ acknowledgment and exclusion of “slums” and blighted areas within the city, the speaker here focuses on the successful development of new high-class residential properties. Quotes like these are scattered throughout, where acknowledgment is made of “lower classes” or insufficient living conditions, and yet, these instances are used almost entirely as examples, again, to juxtapose new rather than reformed development.
Additionally, the speaker’s phrasing seems to place a qualitative judgment on high-class developments, calling them developments of a “better kind,” but better for whom? Likely better for the developers and inherently better for the residents of these developments but neglectful of the wide range of the population that fell outside of this scope. As this was indeed the targeted audience of the majority of developers speaking at these conferences, it is clear that private practice did not meet the standards of public welfare and, therefore, did not complete its job “satisfactorily” as Nichols had stated in his Architectural Record article. In essence, Nichols and his contemporaries fought for city planning and housing to remain exclusively private endeavors, but they catered to only a small portion of individuals affected by city planning and housing practices. Again, this selective focus is most blatantly evident in the use of restrictive covenants.
To be sure, covenants were popular for all classes of development. In fact, a few speeches delivered at these conferences specifically discussed restrictions for “the man of moderate means.” But as mentioned, covenants became increasingly strict with high-class developments to ensure a very particular and specified lifestyle for residents. One speaker devoted their speech to racial covenants, a rare occurrence within these archives, and discussed the overall legality of certain forms of racial covenants, as well as their overall popularity. The speaker wrote,
In most communities public opinion has settled the question of the wisdom of setting aside and preserving part of the community for White people and parts for those of other races; so we may leave aside discussion of its advisability and consider solely the legality of such efforts and the methods of accomplishment.
– Harold L. Reeve, “Deed Restrictions as to Class of Occupancy,” Annals of Real Estate Practice: Homebuilding and Subdividing, 1926
Here, the speaker demonstrated how commonplace this practice was and sought to provide suggestions of how to avoid prosecution when placing or enforcing racially restrictive covenants. In his recommendations, he relied on the premise that restrictive covenants fell within the realm of private contracts and, therefore, could not easily be interfered with by legislation or other public interventions. The speaker referenced a 1926 Supreme Court ruling that stated, “The constitutional right of a negro to acquire, own and occupy property does not carry with it the constitutional power to compel sale and conveyance to him of any particular private property.” [5] Thus, private practice, hiding behind the very institution of privacy and backed by public approval of racism, was able to simultaneously rely on the courts to enforce its private contracts and protect its right to bar governmental interference.
In the introductory speech to the 1938 National Conference on Planning, the speaker asserted “the need to keep our activities well decentralized, and therefore well democratized.” [6] This desire for private control is significant in suggesting the motivation of these housing professionals to be profit-driven first and publicly oriented second (if at all). Many did call out “shyster subdividers,” or those executing unethical practices, but these practices were deemed unethical only in relation to other subdividers or poor planning, infringing upon others’ abilities to profit in the future.
Another speaker further delineated the focus on private control of housing, stating that “successful planning and developing requires the united efforts of the city planner, the landscape architect, the engineer, the building architect, and the realtor,” [7] notably private rather than public actors. This notion was also supported in the creation of the Urban Land Institute in 1936 as “its first president conceived of an organization where the ingredients were businessmen with knowledge, experience, and a philosophy about the problems of the urban growth and decay of the American city,” again, emphasizing the role of businessmen who may provide expertise in understanding value-building and value-sustaining practices but who fail to take into account the experiences of those they considered outside of the ideal and to genuinely and effectively provide for public welfare. Given this motivation and the obscuration of private agendas, the opportunity for inequitable practices pervaded (and pervades) the fields of housing and planning. In Part III, I will further examine this rhetoric and Nichols’ influence on early housing legislation.
Notes
[1] This list of quotes was compiled from the following of Nichols’ speeches:
“City Planning” a
“City Planning” b
Three other speeches titled, “City Planning,” that no longer have working links.
“Responsibilities and Opportunities of a Real Estate Board in Building Cities”
[2] Community Builders’ Council of the Urban Land Institute, The Community Builders Handbook (Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1947), vii.
[3] Community Builders Handbook, 89.
[4] Community Builders Handbook, 179–182.
[5] Reeve, “Deed Restrictions as to Class of Occupancy,” 205.
[6] Ben H. Kizer, “The Need for Planning,” in National Conference on Planning (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1938), 7.
[7] Irenaeus Shuler, “Selecting, Planning, and Developing Subdivisions,” in Annals of Real Estate Practice: Homebuilding and Subdividing (Chicago: National Association of Real Estate Boards, 1927), 103.
