Now that Hamlin Park has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places I've decided to do a short series of the history of the neighborhood. This information comes directly from the National Register nomination that Preservation Studios completed. Check back for additional installations in the series in the coming weeks. Stay up to date with all things Hamlin Park by liking the Hamlin Park Historic District on Facebook.
In a 1967 article by Ralph Taylor and George A. Williams called “Housing in Model Cities,” the authors summarized the goals of the program as meeting the housing needs of residents by improving existing homes and providing housing for citizens of all income levels. This was meant to alleviate concerns that such a program would be used to gentrify a neighborhood while failing to provide low and moderate-income housing.
If only low-income housing were provided, cities posed the problem of perpetuating conditions of poverty without solving the problems that lead to those conditions in the first place. As such, part of the program stipulated that locating housing projects in areas of high racial segregation would be “prima facie unacceptable,” lest the federal assistance be “used to solidify ghetto housing patterns.” The Model Cities Program’s solution to this problem was to emphasize rehabilitation; not only was this a less expensive option, but it ensured that federal money could be implemented from within the community and not by forced gentrification measures or ghetto entrenchment. The program was directly influenced by principles of the Baltimore plan the decade before, and HUD promoted Model Cities as well as several other programs beginning in 1966.
In a 1967 article by Ralph Taylor and George A. Williams called “Housing in Model Cities,” the authors summarized the goals of the program as meeting the housing needs of residents by improving existing homes and providing housing for citizens of all income levels. This was meant to alleviate concerns that such a program would be used to gentrify a neighborhood while failing to provide low and moderate-income housing.
If only low-income housing were provided, cities posed the problem of perpetuating conditions of poverty without solving the problems that lead to those conditions in the first place. As such, part of the program stipulated that locating housing projects in areas of high racial segregation would be “prima facie unacceptable,” lest the federal assistance be “used to solidify ghetto housing patterns.” The Model Cities Program’s solution to this problem was to emphasize rehabilitation; not only was this a less expensive option, but it ensured that federal money could be implemented from within the community and not by forced gentrification measures or ghetto entrenchment. The program was directly influenced by principles of the Baltimore plan the decade before, and HUD promoted Model Cities as well as several other programs beginning in 1966.
 |
| The incredible dome at St. Francis De Sales Church |
Hamlin Park, nestled between
Main, Jefferson and Humboldt Parkway, managed to avoid many of the problems
that plagued Buffalo’s East Side neighborhoods but not all of them. The
southern and eastern edges in particular
faced many issues resulting from poverty, including the spread of
blight. In the mid-1960s, city officials began a sweeping reform of urban
renewal initiatives, implementing many of the new HUD programs, including Model
Cities.
In 1966 the Buffalo Division
of Rehabilitation and Conservation began a seven-year, citywide, housing
inspection program. For Hamlin Park and several other neighborhoods, the
division’s goal was to qualify them for a program known as “concentrated code
enforcement,” which would trigger federal funds and loans. Areas were chosen for this HUD program
because they did not suffer as strongly from the physical and social problems
ailing other parts of the city: as described in the grant handbook, this
program was “not a vehicle for correcting the diversified problems of so-called
“rock bottom” slums.”
In order to qualify, city officials surveyed an area and noted any houses that were either out of code or in disrepair. In addition to receiving funds for home improvements, the area would also be able to take advantage of money for new parks and infrastructure, such as streetlights. Homeowners who qualified for the program, which was the vast majority of residents, were able to take advantage of federal grants up to $3,000, with the goal being, “to maintain and stabilize the predominantly residential Hamlin Park neighborhood and prevent it from slipping into decay and blight.” The Allentown-Lakeview code enforcement project was the first to occur, followed by Hamlin Park, and then the Broadway-Fillmore neighborhood.
In order to qualify, city officials surveyed an area and noted any houses that were either out of code or in disrepair. In addition to receiving funds for home improvements, the area would also be able to take advantage of money for new parks and infrastructure, such as streetlights. Homeowners who qualified for the program, which was the vast majority of residents, were able to take advantage of federal grants up to $3,000, with the goal being, “to maintain and stabilize the predominantly residential Hamlin Park neighborhood and prevent it from slipping into decay and blight.” The Allentown-Lakeview code enforcement project was the first to occur, followed by Hamlin Park, and then the Broadway-Fillmore neighborhood.
The Hamlin Park Community
and Taxpayers Association formed 1966 to assist the city in these efforts. The
association was the culmination of efforts from several other organizations in
the area, including the Humboldt-Delevan Interest League, the Humboldt Family
Association, the Community Action Organization, and several local block clubs.
The taxpayer’s association was integral in helping the city perform surveys, in
ensuring community involvement and in coordinating the proper dispersal of
funds.
During the Model Cities era, the association was directly involved in helping to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood and community. Indeed, prior to the organization’s formation, “Hamlin Park” had very loose interpretations, sometimes referring to small portions of the area (such as the Driving Park development after 1912), or blending into the adjacent Humboldt Park or Cold Springs neighborhoods. The taxpayer’s association clearly defined Hamlin Park as the area “bordered by Humboldt Parkway on the east, Jefferson Avenue on the west, East Utica on the South, Main-Kensington on the North.” This solidified the identity of the neighborhood that has now been known as Hamlin Park for nearly fifty years.
During the Model Cities era, the association was directly involved in helping to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood and community. Indeed, prior to the organization’s formation, “Hamlin Park” had very loose interpretations, sometimes referring to small portions of the area (such as the Driving Park development after 1912), or blending into the adjacent Humboldt Park or Cold Springs neighborhoods. The taxpayer’s association clearly defined Hamlin Park as the area “bordered by Humboldt Parkway on the east, Jefferson Avenue on the west, East Utica on the South, Main-Kensington on the North.” This solidified the identity of the neighborhood that has now been known as Hamlin Park for nearly fifty years.
During the concentrated code
enforcement surveys, the Division of Rehabilitation and Conservation utilized a
rating system to determine building quality that covered fifteen categories,
eight for the interior and seven for the exterior, and covering most building
features, including foundation, porches, stairs, windows, roof, ceilings,
walls, plumbing and heating. “Building Specialists” performed building by
building surveys, noting key structural and aesthetic issues as well as rating
each of the categories listed.
The use of the word “aesthetics” suggested that the program’s goals were
intended to extend beyond simply code enforcement and improve things that might
suggest blight and neighborhood deterioration. Structures judged deficient in this category might have
missing or mismatched roofing materials, missing or broken window panes, and
missing or rotted porch supports, treads, risers or railings.
After buildings were
surveyed, owners were able to apply for federal funding to complete any
modifications or repairs. Homeowners were qualified for up to a $3,000 grant to
complete repairs on their home, as well as eligible for rehabilitation loans at
reduced interest rates. Members of
the Division of Rehabilitation and Conservation department called “Rehabilitation
Specialists” helped residents complete applications for the funding. Though the $3,000 “Section 115 grant”
was limited to households that made under $3,000 a year ($20,683
inflation-adjusted to 2013), there were caveats that allowed homeowners above
that limit to still get funding. Additionally, the “Section 312 Loan” was
available to all building owners, regardless of income, for up to $10,000 for
residences and $50,000 for commercial spaces. Once code violations and estimates for so-called
“beautification expenses” had been made and loans and grant money had been
secured, financial officers from the department would contact and secure bids
from contractors.
The improvement project for
Hamlin Park advanced significantly in August 1967, when the Buffalo Planning
Board approved $1.2 million for the project. News coverage of the announcement
explained the “the total cost of the Hamlin Park project is estimated at
$1,223,737, of which $815,824 would be the federal government’s two-thirds
share and the $407,913 the city’s share.”
In addition to the home improvements, the entire area would see sewer
improvements, tree trimming, new parks, and new playgrounds. The final cost of
the project was later estimated at $2.3 million, devoted to the effort to
“preserve the value and character of this fine neighborhood.”
After several delays due to
resistant residents and absentee landlords, homeowners began making
improvements in the final months of 1969, by which point the code enforcement
program had been folded into the Federal Model Cities program, becoming
synonymous with the larger program in Buffalo as well. Though the evaluation process, outside
of the code violations, was largely subjective and based on the evaluator’s
opinion of a building’s appearance, many of the improvements cited in local
newspapers included general exterior and interior remodeling, the addition of
aluminum siding, and “modernization.”
More specifically, the majority of these projects included partly or
fully enclosing open porches (usually to create more living space) and the
replacement of deteriorated wood porch elements with wrought iron or steel.
It seems that modernity was associated with contemporary materials, cleanliness, and the elimination of detail that might be difficult to maintain. A number of stained-glass windows were also removed, not because they were undesirable but because they were too damaged to repair. In the years between 1969 and 1975, many houses in the district filed building permits for “general repairs,” of the interior and exterior, “window replacement,” “remodeling,” and replace “existing front porch, [with] new posts and railings.” Sometimes these repairs would be accompanied by “as per the Hamlin Park Project,” though the sheer volume of repairs documented in Buffalo’s Permit Office during that time period suggest more projects than the ones noted were prompted by the code enforcement funding. Approximately 19 percent of the residences in the district (or 292) have enclosed porches today, while 284 (or 18 percent) have replacement porch elements. Fifteen percent have aluminum siding.
It seems that modernity was associated with contemporary materials, cleanliness, and the elimination of detail that might be difficult to maintain. A number of stained-glass windows were also removed, not because they were undesirable but because they were too damaged to repair. In the years between 1969 and 1975, many houses in the district filed building permits for “general repairs,” of the interior and exterior, “window replacement,” “remodeling,” and replace “existing front porch, [with] new posts and railings.” Sometimes these repairs would be accompanied by “as per the Hamlin Park Project,” though the sheer volume of repairs documented in Buffalo’s Permit Office during that time period suggest more projects than the ones noted were prompted by the code enforcement funding. Approximately 19 percent of the residences in the district (or 292) have enclosed porches today, while 284 (or 18 percent) have replacement porch elements. Fifteen percent have aluminum siding.
A publication issued in 1971
by the Buffalo Planning Board served as a guide to understanding why Hamlin
Park was chosen. The brochure explained, “what generally became known as Hamlin
Park was the first large-scale residential development or subdivision in this
part of the country…the great majority of its fine older homes have been well
maintained and preserved by their owners. The community, the City, and the
Federal Government are cooperating in a massive effort to upgrade the
remainder.”
The code enforcement program
utilized in Hamlin Park was consolidated with several other HUD-funded programs
(including sewer and health services) under the Model Cities umbrella in 1968.
In Buffalo, though the initial code enforcement funding, while separate from
Model Cities, came through the same HUD channels, the city made a clear
distinction between Hamlin Park and the rest of the city’s urban renewal
programs:
The early scheduling of this
predominantly nonwhite area was dictated not only because of its position on
the blight index, but also because of its strategic location in relation to the
overall pattern of blight. Early completion of Hamlin is essential if it is to
be maintained a stable area.
In many ways Hamlin Park was
not like the neighborhoods south of it. The middle class nature of the
community not only prevented the area from slipping further into disrepair, but
also meant it was not in as dire condition as the remainder of the model cities
areas. Over 30 percent of the families living in the “Model City” area
designated by Buffalo earned less than $3,000 annually, and 7 percent earned
under $1,000. In an area of 61,000 people, there was 14 percent unemployment,
and 37 percent of the housing stock was substandard.
Jesse Nash became the first
Model Cities Association director in 1967. The association was the governing
institution of the city’s many Model Cities funded programs, or City
Demonstration Agencies (CDAs). Nash’s prerogative was to assist the
neighborhoods experiencing the most problems: the Ellicott District, the
Fruitbelt, and parts of the Masten neighborhood that bordered Hamlin Park. By
engaging communities in smaller neighborhood sections, he hoped to get greater
citizen participation. The first boards were made up of about 30 residents and
10 mayor-appointed members, and while Nash butted heads with the common council
over self-determination, he was eventually able to secure a great deal of
control over Buffalo’s Model City association.
Among the CDAs sponsored
under the Model Cities program that targeted the social ills of these
communities were the ECCO Co-operative Food Mart at 300 William Street, which
offered lower prices for food, and the Langston Hughes Art center, which helped
local artists highlight cultural aspects of the community. Additionally, David
Collins, director of the Employment Information Center, enforced a strict
policy concerning employee education in the Model Cities program. Individuals
who had not obtained a high school diploma were enrolled in an equivalency
program, and those who had not attended or completed college were entered into
a program through the University at Buffalo to obtain college credit for their
work with Model Cities. The 1490 Jefferson Community Service Center opened in
October 1971, providing a base of operations for Model Cities programs in the
city and supplemented the health and wellness programs already offered at the
Clinton Street “Build Academy.”
In all of its forms,
Buffalo’s Model Cities program was active between 1966 and 1975. On June 30,
1975, the Buffalo Courier Express reported that as federal funds for the
program ran out, programs in the city would continue to shut down. By that
point, only four programs remained of the 47 Buffalo boasted at the height of
the Model Cities program, which had contributed $18.5 million to inner city
revitalization. Though it was ending, the Buffalo Model City Agency was renamed
the Division for Demonstration Projects, which was used to oversee programs
that had not become self-sustaining over the course of the previous
half-decade. One program that was temporarily saved was a bus program that
provided free service for the elderly and the handicapped.
Other programs in the city
were not so lucky. The Employment Information Center, responsible for securing
hundreds of jobs for inner city residents, ended the day the article was
released. The article noted a great deal of optimism surrounding the program,
as through community meetings in poor neighborhoods had direct input on the
distribution of $11.7 million of U.S. Community Development funds. David
Echols, acting head of the Division for Demonstration Projects, noted that the
program’s real success lay in helping those on public assistance into good
jobs, as well as fostering a sense of commitment to maintaining the community.
Though many of the programs related to drug prevention, recreation and art, and
health and wellness had been phased out over the previous years, Echols
estimated that 400 of 800 employees whose positions were funded by the Model
City Agency found work in other public agencies or private industries.
You can check out the previous pieces in the series here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII.
You can check out the previous pieces in the series here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment