Â鶹ÒùÔº

In cities across the U.S., . 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, , and and urban renewal projects 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: .

, 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.

Building a great society

The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson's 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 . Much of this displacement occurred through that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing.

So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. 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 , helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach.

Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what . 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 "," 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, , had called for a ""—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 .

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 "."

These were radical planners—often young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities 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, such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and .

In New York City, the program , which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as 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 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 , 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 . 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, 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 "," 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 "." 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 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 . is deeply connected to other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental injustice and health disparities, . Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety net—whether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programs—.

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.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.