In the wake of the civil rights movement, President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the Model Cities Program in 1966 as one of the most ambitious urban policy experiments in American history. The program was designed to meet the pressing needs of segregated and inadequate housing. These realities make it even more painful that highway construction and urban renewal projects have directly displaced hundreds of thousands of low-income and Black residents. By proposing targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment, and civic leadership, Model Cities sought to empower marginalized communities.
The Model Cities Program was further evidence of a deepening federal commitment to an aggressive form of urban revitalization. It injected an unprecedented $500-$600 million directly into the hands of entrepreneurs across over 60 different cities. Some city and county leaders had been counting on as much as $2 billion a year in new funding. This investment went further and made a bold step toward recalibrating historical inequities. Civil rights leader Whitney M. Young Jr. was another important architect of the program. In that blueprint, he trumpeted its structure for calling for “comprehensive” and “concentrated” efforts – a significant departure from past undertakings.
The Framework of Change
The Model Cities Program was supposed to increase citizen engagement. More importantly, it gave local low-income residents a direct voice in deciding how to spend millions of city dollars. To achieve this, the new administration took a collaborative approach that was a dramatic shift from long established top-down governance models. In forming these leadership councils, the program created and empowered a new generation of Black and brown civic leaders committed to their communities’ development.
“We have given these communities the power to decide what they need,” said Young Jr., emphasizing the unique framework of the WHBP that brought grassroots advocates into the decision-making fold. The emphasis on local voices helped ensure that the initiatives were responsive and tailored to the specific needs of each community.
In Kansas City, Missouri, the Model Cities Program got voters all fired up. In response, it launched a targeted loan initiative that significantly improved capital access for small businesses in their locality. This concerted effort had the dual benefit of strengthening economic development and encouraged self-sufficiency within the neighborhoods.
Innovative Housing Solutions
The Model Cities Program didn’t just pay for groundbreaking, multimodal initiatives. Included among these were creative housing solutions, especially the shortsightedly famous “vest-pocket developments” of New York City. These midsize buildings or complexes were constructed on vacant lots or underutilized land, providing affordable housing options while revitalizing urban spaces.
Their use of vest-pocket developments was a departure from the standard practice of the day. These lesser local/applied projects worked a great deal in bridging new housing into communities of color. Instead, they concentrated on smaller-scale demolitions and developments that were less likely to uproot an established community. Urban planners and rezoning advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley dubbed this rare state-local collaboration as “a little noticed revolution” in urban policy. It had deep, lasting effects on housing equity.
Farther from the Big Apple, the farm to institution program’s effects were felt throughout the state and beyond. In Baltimore, it helped pay for street-based mobile health services. It sponsored youth sports programs, ensuring underserved populations benefited from access to important health care and recreational activities. At the same time, Atlanta-based programs funded local community health clinics and workforce development programs designed to improve local residents’ employment opportunities.
Lessons for Today
Though the Model Cities Program came to an end in 1974, its legacy continues. Then, it offers important lessons for today’s policymakers who are addressing our ongoing housing crisis. The program’s focus on participatory governance and strategic systemic investments is a model for today’s housing justice movement.
In Seattle, for instance, Model Cities paid to upgrade existing apartment stock. This project really turned heads by demonstrating the ability to protect existing neighborhood character while providing affordable homes to live, work, or play. This approach could not be more different than some of today’s top-down, pro-development-at-all-costs approaches that ignore the needs of the communities.
Tucson’s focus on education initiatives—such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships—demonstrates how holistic community development can enhance resilience and opportunity among marginalized populations.
Yet, today’s cities are wrestling with the complications of gentrification, displacement, and economic inequality. Returning to the lessons of the original Model Cities Program could provide the wisdom we need to address these challenges.
“The ongoing struggle for housing justice reflects the lessons learned from a little noticed revolution in the 1960s.” – John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley