What If Chicago Implemented Different Public Housing Strategies?

The Actual History

Following World War II, Chicago embarked on one of the most ambitious public housing initiatives in American history. Between 1950 and 1970, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) constructed massive high-rise housing projects, creating what would become infamous symbols of failed urban policy. The largest of these developments included the Robert Taylor Homes (completed in 1962), which stretched for two miles along State Street with 28 sixteen-story buildings housing approximately 27,000 residents, and Cabrini-Green (fully completed by 1962), which ultimately contained 23 high-rise buildings housing around 15,000 people.

These developments emerged from a confluence of factors: acute housing shortages following World War II; the Great Migration of African Americans from the South; restrictive housing covenants and redlining that limited where Black residents could live; federal funding through the Housing Act of 1949; and political compromises that concentrated public housing in already-segregated neighborhoods.

The high-rise design reflected modernist architectural principles championed by Le Corbusier and others, promising "towers in the park" that would provide ample light, air, and green space. Initially, these developments were seen as vast improvements over the dilapidated slums they replaced. The first residents often found clean, modern apartments with functioning utilities—amenities that had been scarce in their previous housing.

However, the projects were built with minimal amenities, poor materials, and inadequate maintenance budgets. By the 1970s, elevators frequently malfunctioned, garbage collection was unreliable, and basic infrastructure began to crumble. Economic shifts led to increasing unemployment among residents as manufacturing jobs left the city. Meanwhile, CHA admission policies effectively concentrated extremely low-income families in these developments, creating dense pockets of poverty.

Gang activity and crime rates escalated dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s. Cabrini-Green became nationally notorious following several high-profile incidents, including the 1981 sniper shooting of Mayor Jane Byrne's security guards, which prompted the mayor to temporarily move into the complex to highlight security concerns. The Robert Taylor Homes reported murder rates more than ten times the city average during this period.

By the 1990s, Chicago's high-rise public housing was widely recognized as a catastrophic failure. In 1992, a federal judge ordered the CHA to desegregate its housing in the Gautreaux case. In 1995, the federal government took control of the CHA due to mismanagement. Then, in 1999, Chicago launched the Plan for Transformation, which called for the demolition of all high-rise public housing and its replacement with mixed-income developments.

Cabrini-Green's last high-rise was demolished in 2011, while the Robert Taylor Homes were completely razed by 2007. The Plan for Transformation promised 25,000 units of new or rehabilitated housing, but implementation has been slower than projected and has faced criticism for displacing residents and reducing the total number of units available to the lowest-income residents. Many former residents received housing vouchers and relocated to other low-income neighborhoods, often on the far South and West sides of Chicago, effectively relocating rather than solving problems of poverty concentration.

Chicago's public housing experience has profoundly influenced urban policy nationwide, serving as a cautionary tale about the dangers of concentrating poverty, the limits of architectural determinism, and the complex interplay between housing, racial segregation, and economic opportunity.

The Point of Divergence

What if Chicago had implemented fundamentally different public housing strategies in the post-WWII era? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Chicago rejected the high-rise, high-density model that dominated its actual public housing development and instead pursued alternative approaches that were being advocated by some housing reformers of the era.

Several plausible alternative paths existed at this critical juncture:

First, Chicago might have followed the lead of cities like Philadelphia, which under the direction of Catherine Bauer Wurster and the Philadelphia Housing Authority, initially emphasized low-rise, scattered-site public housing. This approach distributed smaller developments throughout the city rather than concentrating them in massive complexes.

Second, the city might have embraced the recommendations of housing advocate Elizabeth Wood, who served as the CHA's executive director from 1937 until 1954. Wood advocated for integrating public housing in middle-class neighborhoods before being forced out by political pressure from aldermen opposed to racial integration.

Third, Chicago could have prioritized the community-based approach championed by urban sociologist Herbert Gans, who argued that housing policy should preserve existing social networks rather than imposing top-down planning that disrupted communities.

The divergence might have occurred in 1950, when the CHA proposed sites for new public housing throughout the city, including in white neighborhoods. The actual history saw the City Council, led by influential aldermen, reject these scattered locations in favor of concentrating developments in already-Black neighborhoods. In our alternate timeline, perhaps Mayor Martin Kennelly, recognizing the long-term implications of these decisions, used his political capital to push through the original CHA plan, or perhaps a more effective coalition of civil rights advocates, religious leaders, and business interests successfully countered aldermanic resistance.

Alternatively, the divergence might have occurred in 1954, when Elizabeth Wood was forced out of the CHA. In our alternate timeline, perhaps she successfully built enough political support to maintain her position and implement her vision of dispersed, integrated public housing.

Whatever the specific mechanism, this timeline diverges when Chicago commits to a fundamentally different approach to public housing: lower density, more scattered sites, greater integration with middle-class neighborhoods, and stronger emphasis on preserving community ties.

Immediate Aftermath

Architectural and Planning Decisions

In the years immediately following our point of divergence, Chicago's public housing landscape would develop along dramatically different lines. Rather than concentrating resources on massive high-rise complexes, the CHA would construct a network of smaller developments throughout the city:

Scale and Design: Instead of 16-story towers, most developments would be limited to 3-4 stories, with designs emphasizing community spaces and human-scale architecture. Architect Minoru Yamasaki, who designed the Pruitt-Igoe complex in St. Louis (which would later become another failed high-rise project in our timeline), might instead have been commissioned to design low-rise communities that integrated with existing neighborhoods.
Distribution Pattern: Rather than creating isolated "islands" of public housing, developments would be scattered across Chicago's neighborhoods. Each ward might receive several small developments of 50-150 units each, rather than concentrating thousands of units in a few locations.
Mixed-Income Approach: From the beginning, some developments would include both subsidized and market-rate units, creating economically diverse communities—a strategy that our timeline only embraced decades later after the high-rise model failed.

Political Reactions

This divergent approach would have triggered intense political conflicts:

Aldermanic Resistance: Chicago's powerful ward aldermen would mount significant opposition to placing public housing in white, middle-class neighborhoods. In this timeline, however, a coalition of reform-minded politicians, civil rights organizations, and religious institutions successfully counters this resistance.
Community Responses: Some middle-class neighborhoods would organize against the placement of public housing in their communities, potentially leading to protests and legal challenges. However, the smaller scale of individual developments might generate less concentrated opposition than the massive projects of our timeline.
Media Coverage: The Chicago Tribune and other local media would extensively cover these neighborhood conflicts, but might also highlight successful integrations where they occurred, creating momentum for the new approach.

Economic and Social Integration

The immediate social consequences would differ significantly from our timeline:

Preservation of Community Networks: By building smaller developments, often on or near the sites of existing housing, this approach would be less disruptive to established community ties and social networks. Families might be temporarily relocated during construction but could often return to the same neighborhood.
Employment Opportunities: With public housing distributed throughout the city, residents would have better access to diverse employment opportunities compared to the isolated high-rise developments of our timeline, which were often disconnected from job centers.
School Integration: Children in public housing would attend a wider variety of schools, resulting in more economically diverse educational environments. This would likely create tensions but also opportunities for educational advancement absent in the highly segregated schools near large projects in our timeline.

Early Indicators of Success and Challenge

By the early 1960s, the consequences of this approach would become increasingly apparent:

Maintenance and Management: Smaller developments would prove easier to maintain and manage than massive high-rises. Without the concentrated mechanical systems (elevators, centralized heating) that plagued Chicago's actual high-rises, maintenance issues would remain manageable.
Vacancy and Waiting Lists: These developments would likely maintain low vacancy rates and long waiting lists due to their superior livability, creating political pressure to expand the program.
Crime Patterns: Without the defenseless public spaces and anonymous high-rise environments that contributed to crime in our timeline's projects, these developments would experience significantly lower crime rates, avoiding the early stigmatization that accompanied Chicago's actual public housing.
Integration Challenges: Despite the program's integrationist goals, some developments in predominantly white neighborhoods would still experience white flight. However, the smaller scale of individual developments would make this pattern less dramatic and more manageable than in our timeline.

Federal Response and National Influence

Chicago's alternative approach would influence national housing policy:

Housing Act Amendments: The success of Chicago's model might influence amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 and 1956, potentially directing more federal funding toward scattered-site and low-rise developments nationwide.
Case Study Status: Housing policy experts from across the country would study Chicago's approach, potentially making the city a model for public housing rather than the cautionary tale it became in our timeline.

By the mid-1960s, as our timeline's massive high-rises were just being completed and beginning to experience problems, Chicago's alternative approach would already be showing promising results in terms of integration, resident satisfaction, and management efficiency—setting the stage for dramatically different long-term outcomes.

Long-term Impact

Transformation of Urban Space and Demographics

By the 1980s, Chicago's urban landscape would differ markedly from our timeline:

Neighborhood Composition: Without massive concentrated public housing, Chicago's South and West sides would likely maintain more economically diverse populations. The extreme concentration of poverty that characterized areas surrounding the Robert Taylor Homes and other projects would be significantly reduced.
Commercial Development: Neighborhoods that in our timeline became retail deserts might maintain viable commercial corridors, supported by more economically diverse resident populations. Areas like State Street that became dominated by public housing in our timeline might instead develop as mixed commercial and residential corridors.
Infrastructure Investment: Public transportation, schools, and other infrastructure might receive more consistent investment in formerly neglected areas, as these neighborhoods would house politically diverse constituencies rather than politically marginalized public housing residents.

Evolved Housing Models

Chicago's public housing system would continue to evolve over the decades:

Resident Participation: By the 1970s, resident management corporations might emerge earlier and more effectively than in our timeline, giving tenants greater control over their housing. Without the overwhelming maintenance and security challenges of high-rises, these efforts would have greater chances of success.
Ownership Opportunities: By the 1980s, Chicago might pioneer programs allowing long-term public housing residents to purchase their units, creating pathways to wealth building that were largely absent in our timeline's model.
Architectural Evolution: Later developments would incorporate evolving best practices in design, potentially including New Urbanist principles in the 1990s that emphasized walkable communities and traditional neighborhood structures.

Economic and Social Outcomes for Residents

The differing housing strategy would produce substantially different outcomes for residents:

Intergenerational Mobility: Children growing up in scattered-site public housing would have greater exposure to diverse role models, better-resourced schools, and stronger neighborhood institutions. Research studies might show significantly higher rates of economic mobility compared to children from our timeline's concentrated projects.
Health Outcomes: Without the concentrated environmental hazards, isolation, and stress associated with large high-rise developments, residents would likely experience better physical and mental health outcomes. The asthma epidemic that affected many children in Chicago's high-rises might be substantially reduced.
Social Capital Development: Residents of scattered-site housing would have greater opportunities to develop diverse social networks, potentially increasing access to job opportunities, educational resources, and other social assets.

Impact on Racial Segregation

Chicago's housing integration would face ongoing challenges but progress differently:

Gradual Integration: While Chicago would remain significantly segregated, the extreme hypersegregation that characterized our timeline might be moderated. Some neighborhoods that tipped from all-white to all-Black in our timeline might instead stabilize as integrated communities.
Economic Segregation: The intersection of race and economic status would still exist but might be less severe. The concentration of extremely low-income Black residents in specific geographic areas would be reduced.
Legal Challenges: Without the extreme conditions of the high-rise projects, the landmark Gautreaux case might develop differently or not at all, potentially changing the trajectory of fair housing litigation nationwide.

Influence on National Housing Policy

Chicago's alternative approach would reshape national conversations about housing:

Public Housing Perception: Rather than becoming the national symbol of failed housing policy, Chicago might be seen as a model for successful public housing. This could preserve political support for public housing programs that were dramatically cut in the 1980s in our timeline.
Housing and Urban Development Policies: Federal policy might evolve to more strongly emphasize mixed-income, scattered-site approaches decades earlier than in our timeline, potentially avoiding many failed high-rise developments in other cities.
Housing Voucher Programs: The Section 8 voucher program, which expanded in our timeline partly in response to the failures of public housing, might develop differently—perhaps as a complement to rather than a replacement for well-functioning public developments.

Present-Day Chicago (2025)

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, Chicago's housing landscape would differ dramatically from our reality:

Physical Landscape: Instead of the vacant lots that replaced high-rises in our timeline, Chicago would have a more consistent urban fabric with smaller public housing developments integrated throughout the city.
Economic Geography: The extreme north-south economic divide might be less pronounced, with greater economic integration throughout the city. Areas like Bronzeville and North Lawndale might have developed as stably mixed-income neighborhoods rather than experiencing the extreme disinvestment followed by gentrification pressures seen in our timeline.
Political Power: With public housing residents distributed throughout the city, their political power might be more significant, potentially resulting in more responsive city services and greater representation in city government.
Global Reputation: Rather than being notorious for its failed public housing, Chicago might be studied internationally as a model for successful urban housing policy, attracting delegations from cities worldwide seeking to learn from its approach.

This alternate Chicago would still face significant challenges—segregation, economic inequality, and the difficulties of maintaining aging housing stock would persist. However, the absence of the traumatic failure of high-rise public housing would have allowed for more gradual, manageable responses to these challenges, potentially creating a more equitable and integrated city than exists in our timeline.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Xavier Dawson, Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Chicago, offers this perspective: "Chicago's actual public housing history represents a perfect storm of misguided architecture, racial segregation, and economic disinvestment. In an alternate timeline where the city pursued scattered-site, low-rise development, we likely would have avoided the extreme concentration of poverty that devastated communities. The key insight isn't that public housing itself failed—it's that the specific model Chicago implemented was fundamentally flawed. Alternative approaches existed even in that era, as evidenced by more successful models in cities like Boston and Philadelphia. These alternatives weren't perfect, but they avoided creating the 'vertical ghettos' that became Chicago's legacy."

Maria Valdez-Roberts, Executive Director of the Housing Justice Coalition and former resident of Chicago public housing, provides a more nuanced view: "While scattered-site housing would have been preferable to the high-rise model, we shouldn't romanticize what would have happened. Racism and economic exclusion were powerful forces that would have continued to shape outcomes. Even with better physical design, without addressing wider systemic issues—employment discrimination, educational inequity, and political disenfranchisement—public housing residents would still have faced significant barriers. That said, not warehousing people in isolated high-rises would have prevented the most extreme consequences and preserved community wealth and social networks that were destroyed in the actual timeline."

Dr. James Thornton, Historian of American Housing Policy at Northwestern University, notes the broader implications: "The ripple effects of a different Chicago approach would be enormous. Chicago's high-rise failures became the national narrative about public housing, fueling the Reagan-era retreat from government housing solutions. In an alternate timeline where Chicago demonstrated a viable public housing model, we might have seen continued investment rather than divestment from public housing nationwide. The policy pendulum that swung so dramatically against government housing solutions might have instead maintained a more balanced approach, potentially avoiding the affordable housing crisis that now affects virtually every major American city."