Geography
History of North Philadelphia
During the early part of the twentieth century, rapid population growth spurred by industrialization significantly altered land usage in North Philadelphia. The once spacious gridiron layout of this section of the city was subdivided into smaller and smaller parcels for working class families. In other words, “rather than settlement based on a philosophy of community, the growth of North Central Philadelphia was driven by a rapidly expanding industrial economy, seeking to fuel its production by housing workers, immigrating in waves from Europe” (www.temple.edu/architecture/research/urban). In the decades immediately preceding WWII, migration of black families from rural southern states to northern industrial centers was also dramatic, lending to the already overcrowded conditions in the region.
Expansion of the regional rail system spurred the development of “streetcar suburbs” that began to attract middle class and other upwardly mobile families. As a result, the economic profile of those families who remained in close proximity to the industrial core became much less diverse. In fact, “between 1910 and 1930, the black population in Philadelphia nearly tripled, increasing from 84,000 to 220,000 persons” (Philadelphia City Planning Commission). Throughout the depression, “the distinction grew between those who could and could not afford to move or live in the suburbs. And increasingly this was defined by race” (www.temple.edu/architecture/research/urban).
Background History of Temple University
Russel H. Conwell, a lawyer and writer, founded Temple University in 1884. Conwell began his years of service when he was called to consult on the disposal of a dilapidated church in Lexington, MA. Conwell advised that the church should be rebuilt. In 1881, Conwell became an ordained minister and was the pastor of the church in Lexington. A deacon from Philadelphia came to hear him preach, and Conwell was then invited by the deacon to become the pastor of the newly built Grace Baptist Church at Berks and Mervine St. Conwell accepted and began in 1882.
In 1884 a young man approached Conwell to teach for the Christian ministry. Conwell agreed to teach the ministry youth once a week. The group of students grew from one to seven in a week. Conwell’s classes at the church grew rapidly in number and with this growth, a school called “Temple” was founded. As time went on, the services of other teachers were enlisted and the group expanded to different buildings. Within a few years, the group had grown from the initial seven students to several hundred. A charter for The Temple College was issued in 1888.
The neighborhood surrounding the University at the time was fairly rural. In 1891, when the first University building was erected, the area was considered the outskirts of the city. At the time of Temple’s founding, most of the city’s African-American population (over 8,800 people) was concentrated in South Philadelphia’s 7th ward. Temple University was established in the 32nd ward that had an African-American population of 382 (U.S. Census, 1890). Montgomery Ave on the South end, Susquehanna Ave on the North, the Schukyill River on the East, and 11th St. bordered the 32nd ward on the West. The 29th ward, which bordered the 32nd ward to the South, had an African-American population of almost 1,500. Census documents state that the number of African-Americans in the Philadelphia area increased by about twenty-four percent between 1880 and 1890. In 1880 the number of African-Americans in Philadelphia was 31,699 out of a city population of 847,170. In 1890 that number grew to 39,371 African-Americans out of a city population of 1,046,964 (U.S. census, 1890).
The Community and Temple University
In 1945, “following federal enabling legislation, Pennsylvania became the first state to adopt an urban redevelopment act. This was given substance with the Federal Housing Act of 1949 when the federal government began funding local redevelopment programs through local redevelopment agencies” (Philadelphia City Planning Commission). In Philadelphia, the availability of these funds allowed for entire blocks to be condemned and cleared by the Redevelopment Authority, many for the purpose of making way for Temple University’s expansion.
Residential areas that bordered the university’s campus were most vulnerable as city, state, and federal authorities participated in a process that resulted in hundreds of families being displaced with limited relocation options. By Temple University’s own admission, “the proposed reuse of the area [was] for institutional uses and, therefore, it [was] not anticipated that any of these families would relocate in the project area” (Report on Minority Group Considerations, Temple University).
As a result of demolition during this period, Temple University “expanded from some four acres at the main campus in 1955, to…more than 70 acres under University development” in 1979 (Conwellana-Templana Collection, Samuel Paley Library, Temple University). Clearly, Temple University was actively looking to acquire and “redevelop” land both east and west of Broad Street for the continued expansion of its main campus at Broad Street and Montgomery Avenue. Perhaps less clear is the subtle connection between seemingly independent efforts occurring in the region at the same time.
For example, in 1959, a housing survey of North Central Philadelphia was conducted by Licenses and Inspections to assess living conditions in the area. In a newspaper article, a Licenses and Inspections spokesman said “the door-to-door checkup of living conditions was aimed at improving blighted areas” and “assuring compliance with the standard of the Housing Code as to maintenance, occupation, and condition of the dwelling” (The Evening Bulletin, 8/19/59). In reality, the survey turned out to be a veiled attempt for the City Planning Commission to move redevelopment plans forward that directly benefited Temple University in their expansion into the North Central Philadelphia community. In a 1961 article, a link between the earlier survey and the university’s redevelopment plans was made, specifically noting that the survey “turned up a high percentage of housing code violation and a high proportion of rooming houses” (The Evening Bulletin, 9/9/61). In this example, the City Planning Commission had unscrupulously gathered information from area residents to be used against them with regard to the calculated demolition of their homes.
In related efforts, the city’s financial institutions had been blasted for “hav[ing] drawn an ‘iron curtain’ around North Philadelphia,” resulting in “the inability of residents to obtain loans or mortgages to improve their properties…keeping much of the community in a blighted state” (The Evening Bulletin, 8/26/60). The North Philadelphia Housing Committee, a United Fund agency, worked diligently throughout this period to bring the housing concerns of the area to the forefront. Also of concern to the committee was the fact that “only three out of ten families displaced by public activities moved to satisfactory housing” (The Evening Bulletin, 8/26/60). Public acknowledgement of these issues enraged local residents, who were frustrated by circumstances contributing to the “elimination” of their neighborhood. Thus, the relationship between Temple University and the surrounding community became emotionally charged and significantly strained.
Throughout the early to mid 1960s, further city action enabled numerous efforts in North Central Philadelphia to clear or rehabilitate large residential sections. In 1963, the Philadelphia Housing Authority was authorized “to acquire and rehabilitate 500 privately owned homes in the vicinity of Girard College” (The Evening Bulletin, 12/19/63). City Council also “approve[d] a bill to set aside a five block area for expansion of Temple University” (The Evening Bulletin, 2/10/65). The area contained 175 buildings that were razed, including 504 dwelling units, housing 200 families and 140 additional individuals and forty-six businesses (The Evening Bulletin, 2/10/65). In most cases, residents were given extremely short notice and often displaced to other areas of the city.
There was pressure from within in addition to the outside pressure Temple was experiencing. Several student groups had formed to back up and support the community and its residents. They called for Temple to stop encroaching upon the community. One of these groups was the Steering Committee for Black Students (SCBS). This committee utilized the turbulent climate of the ’60s to not only advocate for the community, but for African-Americans who did and would attend Temple. In 1969, the SCBS presented the President, Dr. Paul Anderson, with a proposal that asked for “verbal and written assurance that Temple University has no intention of expanding anymore…unless approved by the black community” (Temple University New Release, 1969). The Temple University Student Senate also proposed a moratorium on University expansion and concurred with the principal demands of SCBS.
The influence Temple University had in the realm of housing concerns was clear as City Council continued to rubber stamp Temple University’s expansion plans, which funneled millions of dollars worth of federal redevelopment grants through the city to be used for any redevelopment purpose. In 1966, City Council passed ordinances that “rezone[d] the entire district [North Central Philadelphia] to permit institutional construction and…authorize[d] the Redevelopment Authority to condemn and acquire the property” (The Evening Bulletin, 9/15/66). This act alone added thirty-five acres to Temple University’s campus.
Suspicion in North Central Philadelphia grew as residents saw more of their community decimated by their long time neighbor. Unfortunately, revitalization, redevelopment, and renewal plans for North Central Philadelphia became synonymous with area residents being forced from the homes where they were born and raised. As Temple University advanced its 1970 Development Plan, the time had come for community members to fight back. Reverend Paul Washington, of the Church of the Advocate, became a leader of the effort charging the university with “fitting into a white pattern of exclusion, the ‘we have it while you do not have it’ attitude” (The Evening Bulletin, 3/10/67). Clearly, university-community relations were seriously strained and action to find common ground was required.
In tandem with community efforts across the city in West Philadelphia, as residents fought for their survival against the University of Pennsylvania, North Central Philadelphia representatives agreed to sit down at the table with Temple University officials to discuss a resolution to the university’s expansion plans. The Charrette, as it was called, convened for nearly a year in order to reach a consensus in the matter. Eventually, community representatives agreed to allow Temple University’s expansion plan in exchange for various concessions by the university, including land for a community approved purpose and scholarships for neighborhood youth. The trifecta agreement involved the City of Philadelphia, the General State Authority, and the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. This was a critical juncture in community-university relations and has allowed for the community’s collective voice to be heard in disputes since.
However, the relationship between the two parties is still shrouded in animosity and distrust. The issue of redevelopment at Temple seems to be keep residents wondering who we are developing for. The struggle continues as Temple begins its New Strategic Initiative. This plan seeks the continued growth of the University as a “Residential Community of Scholars.” This leaves the residents of the community wondering where they will fit in with Temple’s plans.
Examples of Community Involvement
North Philadelphia residents have fought to keep their community strong in a number of creative, collaborative ways. These four examples highlight some of the diverse approaches used, and the range in years from the late 1960s to the present day demonstrates that these processes are long-term.
Example #1
In 1967, the Model Cities Program allowed for programs to be planned in the North Philadelphia area involving agencies, institutions, and residents within the community. In fact, in two areas of North Philadelphia residents formed corporations responsible for the policy, management, and direction of multi-purpose social service centers. Major concerns were housing issues, job training and placement and other community services, including the construction of a library, high school, and community center. Community involvement in the project was a critical element and one replicated in future efforts.
Example #2
In 1969, community representatives, including residents of the Norris Homes housing project, local clergy, community leaders, and activists came together to challenge the proposed expansion plans of Temple University. As a result, a Charrette was formed to help each party understand the others’ positions and reach an amicable resolution to the identified problem. Residents were steadfast in their opposition to expansion efforts and demanded the community have a more substantive role in future discussions. This event paved the way for future university-community initiatives in the area.
Example #3
In 1971, the North Central Community Organization began approaching residents in an effort to improve living conditions in their immediate neighborhood, on their very own street. With the help of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, community organizers initiated the rebuilding of five homes on the street to be occupied by those working to improve their condition. This effort to “rehab” homes by neighbors empowered them as stakeholders in the process. Grassroots organization can be a very powerful tool to effect change in a community, albeit on a smaller scale than other initiatives mentioned in this section.
Example #4
In 1992, the “Urban Initiatives Project” was funded by the U.S. Department of Education to help build the North Philadelphia community through a variety of initiatives including family literacy training, architectural and landscape design and construction, small business development, community leadership training, and recreation and mentoring services. The Center for Public Policy coordinated the effort, which involved academic departments and interested North Philadelphia community residents and leaders. The university-community partnership exhibited in this three-year project has helped to strengthen relationships between the two groups.
More recently, North Philadelphia became an Empowerment Zone, a strategy that also relied heavily on community representation and participation in community development efforts. Throughout the years, such projects have been federal funded and spearheaded by larger organizations and institutions in the community with provisions for residents to become involved. Although these top-down collaborative efforts have been fruitful in many ways, grassroots community organization is critical to the sustained success of an area’s rejuvenation efforts. Residents of a community must be the ones to identify problems and take appropriate action to rectify them. Empowerment is a critical element of the change process in communities.
Current Demographic Outlook
The above map from the PCPC shows that, as recent as the year 2000, most North Philadelphia neighborhoods have a Black population that exceeds 75%. In particular, Lower North Philadelphia (where Temple University is located) is largely comprised of such neighborhoods.
The above graphic from the PCPC illustrates the continuing trend of population loss from Lower North Philadelphia. Most neighborhoods exhibit a loss of 5%-15% or higher.
