4.2 Article

Marshall Plan or neocolonization? The Model Cities Program and Black planning criticism

Journal

PLANNING PERSPECTIVES
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2023.2288263

Keywords

Model Cities Program; Marshall Plan; neo-colonialism; Black studies; participatory planning; planning criticism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper analyzes the critical commentary of Black activists, planners, and critics towards the Model Cities Program, highlighting its transformation from a revolutionary vision to a program of representation, while also examining the potential for a revolutionary program within the plans produced under the Model Cities Program.
This paper analyses the writing of Black activists, planners, and critics to reconcile two opposing perceptions of the Model Cities Program: an initiative known for its elevation of Black elected officials and a program that used the guise of citizen participation to stifle more radical forms of dissent. In 1966, Model Cities emerged in part from the call for a domestic Marshall Plan for Black Americans. Yet as the program began making incremental changes to the country's neighbourhoods from 1967 to the early 1970s, participants and critics instead began to see Model Cities' relationship to Black Americans as a new form of colonialism. To determine how this shift occurred, this paper analyses this critical commentary against the archival evidence of Model Cities implementation in the cities in which it appeared. Situating these authors' arguments within the parallel emergence of Black studies and participatory planning as well as within larger Cold War diplomatic history, planning history, and African American intellectual history reveals how visions of revolution turned into a program of representation. Meanwhile, the plans these figures produced as part of Model Cities point to what a revolutionary program might yet be.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available