Making public housing in San Francisco: Liberalism, social prejudice, and social activism, 1906--1976 (California).

摘要

Using San Francisco as a case study, this dissertation examines housing reform efforts and public housing in the first seven decades of the twentieth century. The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), the local institution that administered the federal program, has planned, built, and maintained public housing in the county of San Francisco since 1938. As in other cities, the SFHA program was compromised on several fronts: social prejudice marred its policies and its tenant relations; chronic federal underfunding limited the SFHA's capacity to deliver enough units to meet the demand of San Francisco's residents; and residents did not provide consistent, lasting support of public housing. This is the story normally told of public housing. But, as in other cities, the program also provided decent, affordable housing to thousands of individuals and families, created union jobs, and reshaped the city's social and architectural landscape. The program provided a range of social services to residents and it often provided the social and political space to contest discrimination and inequality. The city's residents participated in discussions of SFHA policies, the rights of citizens, and housing in ways not typically seen in private housing.; The story of San Francisco's public housing offers a lens through which we can observe change and continuity in twentieth-century liberalism, social activism, and social prejudice. This story has much in common with those of public housing in the U.S. and other countries, and this study makes those comparisons. But it also emphasizes the distinctive neighborhood, regional, demographic, economic, and cultural patterns of the City by the Bay. The SFHA experience suggests that with more funding and more tenant and citizen participation, with a greater federal commitment to public housing (not rent subsidies and other public/private schemes), public housing authorities could be used not only to improve local and regional housing stock, not only to boost economic and urban development, but also to foster democratic principles and practices in tenants and citizens whose lives and communities are affected by public housing.