Tenement Collapse

In front of us here is a parking lot. The portion of this lot from Naudain to Rodman has remained vacant (or parking lot) for the last 90 years. The remaining area in the parking lot was cleared sometime after 1960, possibly as a part of urban renewal projects in Philadelphia. The first clearing, in 1930s, occurred shortly after a tenement collapse on the location. Tenements had been a widespread feature in the neighborhood for a long time, including during Du Bois’ fieldwork. He wrote about the conditions in them, stating that:

“The back tenements thus formed rent usually for from $7-$9 a month, and sometimes for more. They consist of three rooms one above the other, small, poorly lighted and poorly ventilated. The inhabitants of the alley are at the mercy of its worst tenants; here policy shops abound, prostitutes ply their trade, and criminals hide…these tenement abominations of Philadelphia are perhaps better than the vast tenement houses of New York, but they are bad enough, and cry for reform in housing”

These apartments were dangerous and run-down, as Du Bois’ points out. However, many had to live in them, as even the $7-9 they paid might have been a significant portion of their income. Du Bois describes significant pressure from rent, with people paying far more than would be normally expected on their rent. He says:

“The rents paid by the Negros are without doubt far above their means and often from one-fourth to three-fourths of the total income of a family goes in rent. This leads to much non-payment of rent both intentional and unintentional, to frequent shifting of homes, and above all to stinting the families in many necessities of life in order to live in respectable dwellings. Many a Negro family eats less than it ought for the sake of living in a decent house.”

But as is the case throughout the book, he doesn’t just stop at observing the conditions present, but seeks to explain them thoroughly. However, this is also where he tends to lean into certain stereotypes that have earned him critics. The first reason he gives is “sheer ignorance and carelessness,” playing into common stereotypes of the day. However, he follows this up by saying that “there are three causes of even greater importance: these are the limited localities where Negroes may rent, the peculiar connection of dwelling and occupation among Negroes and the social organization of the Negro.” By limited localities, Du Bois is referencing the segregation based on race by white property owners. The peculiar connection is that Black workers frequently worked in wealthy people’s homes, and because of this had to live close to the wealthy. And lastly by social organization he meant that the social centers of Black life in Philadelphia were located in the Seventh ward, and thus made it difficult for people to move away while maintaining the social fabric of their life. Du Bois writes that:

“The life of the Negroes of the city has for years centered in the Seventh Ward; here are the old churches, St. Thomas, Bethel, Central, Shiloh, and Wesley; here are the halls of the secret societies; here are the homesteads of old families. To a race socially ostracized it means far more to move to remote parts of a city, than to those who will in any part of the city easily form congenial acquaintances and new ties.”

In this way, Du Bois makes a clear argument for social change, but at the same time individualizes the problems that Black people face to be their fault. It is possible that given the audience that he was writing for academics, he felt that had to make certain concessions to retain readers and make people open to his more radical arguments. However, it is also possible that he did harbor certain frustrations with the actions, or perceived actions, of some Black people in Philadelphia.

The final quote, about movement in the city, is particularly important to this site, as, when you look around, you see that the housing that was here, even if it was substandard, was not replaced with new housing. Instead, many of the displaced people had to move elsewhere in the city, often to West or North Philadelphia. The disruption of these institutions, some of which survived, many of which didn’t, and the communities they served likely had a significant effect on people’s experiences in other parts of the city. How did this former tenement become a parking lot? Why did it remain that way? How could the city have replaced the tenement in a more productive manner? These are all questions to think about. Of course tenements are an inappropriate way to house people, but removing housing in certain neighborhoods all together is likely not the right answer.