The Third Blow

How federal Urban Renewal created today's generational poverty in the black South

THE THIRD BLOW

How federal Urban Renewal created today's generational poverty in the black South

Anthony B. Bradley

Why do cycles of poverty persist in so many Black communities across the Deep South, generations after the end of Jim Crow? The conventional answers point to the history of slavery and legal segregation, 1970s welfare policies, and their importance cannot be overstated. However, what if a crucial part of the explanation lies not in the 19th century, but in the middle of the 20th?

This essay argues that the federally funded “Urban Renewal” projects of the 1950s and 1960s were a pivotal, wealth-destroying event. Marketed as “progress,” these programs often functioned to bulldoze thriving Black residential and commercial districts, erasing Black-owned property and shattering the foundations of generational wealth. This creates a challenging paradox, particularly for modern political labels. If government power was used to actively bar Black Americans from free market participation and property ownership—the very institutions credited with stabilizing families and communities—how does that reshape our understanding of the problem?

Photo by Rojan Maharjan on Unsplash

To move from theory to reality, we need to see how these policies were implemented on the ground. Michael Barrett’s master’s thesis, “Racial Segregation: Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in Birmingham, Alabama, 1950-1960,” provides a powerful case study of this destructive history.

Michael Barrett's thesis argues that while Birmingham, Alabama, was notoriously labeled the "most segregated city in America" by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., its use of federal housing programs to enforce racial segregation was not unique but mirrored practices in both southern and northern cities between 1950 and 1970. The work details how local officials in Birmingham leveraged federal funds from programs like the Housing Act of 1949 not for equitable development, but to systematically displace Black communities, clear "slums," and redevelop land in ways that maintained and reinforced racial boundaries.

Early 20th Century: The Foundation of Segregation

Barrett begins by establishing the historical context of racial segregation in Birmingham long before the post-war era. Founded in 1871, the city's industrial growth was built on the foundation of cheap Black labor in its coal mines and steel mills. This influx of Black workers led to a severe housing shortage, which employers addressed by constructing company-owned, segregated housing of substandard quality. These “shot gun”-style houses often lacked basic amenities like indoor plumbing and were poorly maintained.

This physical segregation was legally codified through zoning ordinances. Following the lead of cities like Baltimore, Birmingham implemented racial zoning laws in the early 20th century to prevent Black families from moving into white neighborhoods, with officials openly stating the goal was to protect white property values. Even after the Supreme Court's 1917 ruling in Buchanan v. Warley struck down explicit racial zoning, Birmingham and other cities devised comprehensive planning strategies to achieve the same ends without overt legality. This was compounded by the federal practice of "redlining" initiated by the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) in the 1930s, which designated Black neighborhoods as “high-risk” for mortgage lending, effectively starving them of private investment.

The New Deal and Public Housing

The arrival of New Deal public housing programs in the 1930s did little to alter these patterns. The Public Works Administration (PWA) and later the U.S. Housing Authority (USHA) deferred to local authorities on administrative matters, including the location of housing projects. In Birmingham, this meant that new public housing was built on the sites of former slums, perpetuating residential segregation. The first major public housing project, Smithfield Court, was designated for Black families and built in a predominantly Black area after significant debate and protest from Black homeowners who were displaced. The Housing Authority of the Birmingham District (HABD) was formed to oversee these projects, and it consistently prioritized the interests of the white business and political establishment.

The Housing Act of 1949: “Urban Renewal is Negro Removal”

The crux of Barrett’s thesis focuses on the period following the Housing Act of 1949. This landmark legislation provided substantial federal funding for “slum clearance” and “urban renewal.” Title I of the act empowered local agencies to use eminent domain to acquire and clear large tracts of “blighted” land, which could then be sold to private developers for commercial or upscale residential use.

In Birmingham, this tool was wielded to serve the interests of the expanding medical center and the downtown business community. The “Site A” project, for instance, cleared a 9.5-block area with a majority Black population to make way for the medical center's expansion. While the law stipulated that displaced persons must be relocated to “decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings,” in practice, this was not what happened. Black families were either pushed into already overcrowded Black neighborhoods or into segregated public housing projects. Plans for new private housing for whites were included in the redevelopment, while housing for displaced Black residents was an afterthought.

“Site A” is currently University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) medical center.

The NAACP challenged these plans, arguing that the city and HABD were using federal funds to maintain segregation, but their legal efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Barrett notes that the phrase “urban renewal is negro removal” became a common refrain among Black residents who were displaced by these projects.

When I read this from the 2013 report “Place Matters for Health in Jefferson county, Alabama” about Birmingham, I could hardly believe what I was reading: lawmakers routed new interstates directly through Black neighborhoods in Birmingham.

At the southern end of the county Interstate 65 intersected the city to place the black neighborhoods on the west side and the central business district and white residents on the east side. Further, Interstate 20/59 was diverted from its originally planned straight line path from east to west to a more curvilinear route that bypassed at least two predominately white neighborhoods and served as a buffer between the black neighborhoods in the north and the white neighborhoods in the south. This route again aligned with the 1926 zoning map and ran directly through many black communities. Further, Birmingham’s participation in the federal urban renewal program in the 1950s and 1960s allowed for the relocation of blacks from areas identified as slums or having blighted conditions, but prime for development and employment opportunities. For example, a 60-block predominately black neighborhood was cleared using urban renewal to make way for the expansion of the Southside Medical Center, which later became the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). While UAB, currently the largest employer in the state, certainly contributed to the revitalization of the city’s dying industrial-based economy during the mid-20th century, black residents paid a particularly high price.

The price they paid was being trapped in economic dead and impoverished neighborhoods.

Birmingham in a National Context

A key component of Barrett's argument is that Birmingham's actions were not exceptional. He compares Birmingham to Atlanta and Chicago to demonstrate that the manipulation of federal housing funds to enforce segregation was a national phenomenon.

· Atlanta: Like Birmingham, Atlanta used federal funds for public housing and urban renewal to contain its Black population. The city constructed separate public housing projects for whites and Blacks and used slum clearance to remove Black communities from areas desired for commercial development and civic centers.

· Chicago: In the North, the dynamic was similar, though often characterized as de facto rather than de jure segregation. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), despite the efforts of its integration-minded executive secretary, was ultimately forced by the city council to site public housing almost exclusively in existing Black ghetto areas. This policy was accompanied by violent resistance from white homeowners when Black families attempted to move into their neighborhoods.

Barrett concludes that the legacy of these mid-century policies is the continued confinement of Black populations in deteriorating inner-city areas, cut off from economic opportunities. The federal government's decision to grant local autonomy to housing authorities allowed entrenched local prejudices to shape the urban landscape in ways that perpetuated inequality.

The Lingering Shadow: Historical Segregation and Modern Poverty in Birmingham

Michael Barrett's research provides a crucial historical lens through which to understand the persistent poverty within Birmingham's Black community today. The recent article “As Alabama Struggles to Cut Poverty, Birmingham Shows Hopeful Signs” reports that the poverty rate in the city of Birmingham was 23.5 percent in 2023, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 12.5 percent and Alabama’s statewide rate of 15.6 percent. This stark disparity is not a recent development but a direct consequence of the historical policies of segregation and economic exclusion detailed in Barrett's thesis.

The systematic confinement of Black residents to specific, under-resourced neighborhoods had profound long-term economic consequences:

1. Destruction of Generational Wealth: The “slum clearance” projects of the 1950s and 60s did more than just displace families; they destroyed what little wealth Black homeowners had managed to accumulate. As Barrett documents, Black property owners in areas like the “Site A,” home of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) medical center. were forcibly removed, often with their legal challenges failing in court. Renters, who made up the vast majority of the displaced, were left with nothing. This eradication of property ownership prevented families from passing wealth down to future generations, a cornerstone of economic stability in America.

2. Concentration of Poverty: By demolishing Black neighborhoods and relocating residents primarily to public housing projects situated in other impoverished Black areas, the city created and sustained concentrated pockets of poverty. These neighborhoods, as Barrett’s thesis shows, were historically neglected by the city in terms of infrastructure and services. This geographic concentration of disadvantage creates a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape, marked by underfunded schools, limited job opportunities, and higher crime rates.

3. Economic Isolation: The urban renewal plans were explicitly designed to benefit the white-controlled central business district and institutions like the medical center. The cleared land was redeveloped for commercial use or for white residents, while the displaced Black population was pushed further away from these emerging centers of economic activity. This physical and economic isolation cut Black residents off from the very jobs and opportunities being created in their former neighborhoods.

While the recent news article notes some “hopeful signs,” such as a significant decline in Birmingham’s unemployment rate from 7.1 percent in 2021 to 3.5 percent in 2023, the stubbornly high poverty rate suggests that simply having a job is not enough to overcome the deep-seated economic disparities. The jobs available to residents in these historically segregated neighborhoods may be low-wage, without benefits or opportunities for advancement.

The contrast between the city of Birmingham’s 23.5 percent poverty rate and the much lower rates in surrounding suburban counties like Shelby (9 percent) and St. Clair (8.9 percent) reflects the “white flight” that these mid-century policies accelerated. As Black populations were confined to the inner city, white residents moved to the suburbs, taking their tax base and private investment with them. The result is the metropolitan doughnut effect seen today: a city core with concentrated poverty surrounded by more affluent suburbs.

In conclusion, Michael Barrett’s thesis is not merely a historical account; it is an explanation of the foundational injustices that continue to shape Birmingham's socioeconomic landscape in 2025 . The city’s struggle with a high poverty rate among its Black population cannot be understood without acknowledging the deliberate, government-sponsored policies of segregation, displacement, and economic exclusion that occurred throughout the 20th century. Urban renewal, in the end, was indeed “Negro removal”—not just from physical land, but from the path to economic prosperity.

The official story of Black poverty in the American South is missing its third act. After slavery and Jim Crow, there was a third great economic cataclysm: “Urban Renewal.” In the 1950s and 60s, the federal government handed cities a bulldozer and a blank check to wipe entire Black communities off the map, all in the name of “progress.” These programs need to be central in telling the poverty narrative today.

In Birmingham, through federal, state, and local policy, blacks were landlocked into generational poverty and economic deprivation.

---

Anthony B. Bradley is an expert on family structure and its impact on academic success. He is a Research Fellow at the Acton Institute and a Research Professor of Interdisciplinary and Theological Studies at Kuyper College. His book, God at Work: Loving God and Neighbor through the Book Of Exodus, appeared this July. He was a guest on the Free Black Thought Podcast in an episode titled “Do NOT Get Divorced.” Follow his work on Substack, where this essay first appeared, and X.