Priced Out

The history of urban renewal in the United States, as seen through these sources from the late 19th century to the early 1970s, reveals a consistent narrative of tension between modernization and community identity. While the term "gentrification" is rarely used in these 1970s documents, the mechanics—displacement of low-income populations, the demolition of "blighted" structures, and the push for higher-value commercial and residential use—form its foundational story.

A major point of conflict in these stories across the U.S. is the struggle to define what is "historic" and worth saving.

Map of affected area in Pauahi, HI

The elderly were a primary target for relocation across all documented sites, often facing significant psychological and financial stress.

Honolulu, Hawaii: The Pauahi project area was home to a large population of elderly Filipino men, many of whom were retired plantation workers. Advocates argued that moving these men from their familiar neighborhood into high-rise towers would "totally destroy their lifestyle," forcing them into an "alien and impersonal setting".
Milton, Pennsylvania: Planners identified the "plight of elderly widows" as one of the most critical needs in the Milton South area. These residents suffered from a "great deal of anxiety" over leaving their family homes and lacked the funds or physical ability to maintain their properties after the flood.
St. Joseph, Missouri: This project area was characterized by a "high percentage of elderly residents" and very few younger families.

Honolulu. Courtesy of the Historic Hawai'i Foundation.

While some of these project areas were predominantly white, the impact on minority communities was often profound due to the loss of specialized cultural hubs. Advocates in Honolulu argued that the planners displayed a "class or cultural bias," failing to recognize that for many residents, Chinatown was a place of "friendliness and mutual help" that they preferred over modernized, middle-class housing. The Pauahi area was ethnically diverse, consisting of 56% Filipino, 12% Chinese, and 12% Hawaiian residents. Community groups pointed out a "wide gap in communication," noting that while the neighborhood was over 50% Chinese-speaking, the agency failed to provide translators or materials in their language.

The San Francisco Chronicle writes, in July 1977, “the city finally agreed to pass a resolution to stop all Chinatown evictions; work out with PACE a low-cost housing and store-front plan...; and provide acceptable relocation in Chinatown.”

In the Hawai’i People’s Fund’s article “Remembering Chinatown,” the group writes: “The Chinatown residents and activists fighting eviction, through their statements and actions, showed they understood the importance of what they were fighting for and their character, enthusiasm, diligence and adaptability all guided them to a success in unearthing the improper actions and attitudes of Governmental representatives, and in achieving proper relocation provisions and situations for the displaced persons of Hawaiiʻs Chinatown. We thank them for their sincerity, dedication and hard work for Hawaiiʻs people.”