Planning notes [Number 8, 15 April 1960]

              6
""*<_.
pi
O :
anning
otes
Number   8
For   Greenxburgheftx
Deportment of Planning, City of Greensboro, North Carolina
15   April   i960
GRIENS80R0 PUSUC L\mAU\
URBAN   RENEWAL   IS   PEOPLE
As our society becomes more complex, it
also becomes more and more impersonal. Within most of our life times, we have seen our neighborhoods change from personal, closely knit units
into an impersonal, heterogeneous, clustering of
families with an apparent limited concern for being our "brother's keeper." Perhaps the spread
of blight within cities can be attributed to this
lack of concern about our fellowmen. We show
little interest in how the fellow in the next block
lives, and simply do not care about the living
conditions of the people in the other end of town.
During the past few years much has been said
about urban renewal and its major objective of
improving the environment in which we live.
However, because of the impersonal attitudes
prevalent in our society, many people consider
urban renewal to be maps, ordinances, money,
or Federal Government. These things are important, but it is necessary to re-orient our
thinking to consider urban renewal as being people. Cities cannot be impersonal things; they are
living and dynamic organisms composed of thousands of people.
Whenever a major building is built, ceremonies are held to lay a cornerstone; this stone
being the symbol of the entire structure. Without the cornerstone, the building is considered
to be incomplete. The cornerstone of urban renewal is people, and unless the plans and ideals
are effectively translated to the individual, urban
renewal programs will fail.
If we examine some of the problems that all
major cities face in translating urban renewal
into personal terms, we who are interested in the
future of cities realize that our first task is in
convincing the great majority of the population
that   cities   are   here  to   stay.    It is the   dream of
practically every American family to have a
home in the country on a commodious lot with a
babbling brook meandering across the property.
For most American families, however, this
dream will never become a reality. The rapidly
increasing population is going to place greater
pressures upon both the central cities and suburban areas; therefore, within the next decade
there will be little opportunity to obtain country
living. Instead of the home in the country, the
great majority of the people will continue to live
in the cities. Instead of the large tracts of ground,
we will have to be satisfied with relatively small
lots. Instead of the babbling brook facing our
house, we will probably face a steady stream of
traffic. Somehow it must be transmitted to each
citizen that cities are economic necessities, that
people will continue to live in them, and that only
the citizens have power to make them either drab
or beautiful.
The growth of cities can be compared with
the growth of our nation. During the period of
westward expansion, which has only recently
slipped into the pages of history, acres and acres
of forest were cleared by burning. The soil was
farmed until it was worn-out, then abandoned as
the settlers moved westward. Finally with no
place to go, scientific soil conservation measures
were inagurated to insure the productivity of land.
During the past twenty years many people have
felt the came way about housing as did the early
settlers about tillable soil; property owners were
willing to abandon their city homes in favor of
new homes in surburban developments. Their
former homes were converted into rental units,
and generally were neglected and improperly
maintained. We now realize that cities, like the
tillable soil, must be conserved. We must go
back  and   replenish our existing   housing   supply.