During the Progressive Era, a coalition of city politicians, educators, social workers, and others enacted reforms aimed at improving city government and the lives of city residents. Urban reform was a reaction to problems brought on by rapid urbanization and the rule of political machines and urban bosses. Political machines that existed as a competing force within government controlled many city governments. Due to the rapid urbanization of the late 19th century, these governments had difficulty responding to the needs of their inhabitants in finding work or getting relief during unemployment. Political machines stepped into the void by providing supporters with help finding a job or perhaps money in hard times. In return, the machines expected recipients’s support at the ballot box. The machines also were able to assist businessmen in gaining franchises for trolley lines and other utilities from the governments. The recipients of the machine’s aid then contributed to the its political fund. In many cities, the leaders of the political machine became wealthy during their rule.
The cities run by these machines were, for many of their residents, dangerous and unhealthy places to live. City governments struggled to keep pace with changing urban environments. It was often difficult, for example, to build schools fast enough to keep up with the growing school-age population. Sewers, water systems, and garbage pick-up were overburdened. Many poorer residents suffered from a lack of hospital space. The massive factories that accompanied city growth polluted the air and water, and few residents had access to clean air and green space in which to escape the city’s environment.
By the late 19th century, reformers began to blame the problems of the city on inefficient city government, and they specifically targeted the political machines for bribery, corruption, and inefficiency. Reformers concentrated their efforts on structural changes to city government and social changes to improve the lives of city residents.
The structural changes in city government centered around three innovations: citywide elections, commission-style government, and city manager government. Because they blamed the power of the political machines on neighborhood and ward-based politics, reformers enacted laws creating citywide elections. In the older ward-based system, each section of the city elected a member to the city council. Reformers argued that this led to corruption because local saloon owners, as the reformers often characterized ward bosses, could buy the votes of their constituents. By electing council members in citywide elections, it was hoped, each candidate would have to appeal to voters in all sections of the city. The reformers believed that it would end the power of the ward bosses and, not coincidentally, lead to the election of the city business elite.
As adherents to the Progressive Era belief in efficiency and expertise, urban reformers attempted to place experts in control of city governments. This tendency gave rise to the city commission mode of government. Commission government consisted of a board of commissioners elected in citywide elections. Each commissioner was elected as head of a particular city department such as the water department or sewer department. The commissioner then met as the legislative body for the city. One of the purposes for the commission was to make city government more accessible to all its residents. If a resident had problems with his water service, for example, he could contact the water commissioner. Galveston, Texas, became the first city to adopt the commission-style of government in 1901. Des Moines, Iowa, followed in 1908, and hundreds of medium and small cities created city commissions in the following years. The city commission model suffered from the lack of a single leader to coordinate its activities. In response to this problem, reformers created the city manager model of government. In the city manager model, an elected city council hired a city manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the city. Although few large cities hired city managers, the system did spread to many smaller cities.
For many reformers, the purpose for making city governments more efficient was to improve the lives of residents. Reformers attacked the problem in a number of ways. Reform mayors such as Detroit’s Hazen Pingree and Cleveland’s Tom Johnson attacked the streetcar companies for charging high fares that many residents could not afford and providing poor service. The streetcar companies operated under a franchise agreement with the city. This meant that the city granted the companies the right to build streetcar lines in return for tax payments. Under the administration of reform mayors, the franchise agreements were renegotiated. The new agreements called for increased tax payments and lower fares. Reformers also attacked the electric and gas companies for making exorbitant profits. Many argued that public utilities should be owned by the cities, which would then charge the customers less for their utilities. Municipal ownership never emerged, but the reform movement did result in greater regulation of utilities by the states.
Other nonelected officials played a significant role in reshaping cities. City planning became a new profession in the early 20th century. City planners attacked the inefficient and wasteful growth of cities. They believed that, if planned properly, cities could grow while remaining pleasant places to live. To this end, they created city plans that included, for example, park spaces and curving roads meant to break up the monotony of gridline streets and large buildings. The urban planning movement gave rise to property zoning. First established in New York City in 1916, zoning put restrictions on the type and structure of buildings that could be built on certain properties. Zoning quickly spread to other cities.
In addition to the efforts of reform mayors, private citizens undertook efforts to improve living conditions in cities. These reformers investigated factories and tenement houses, for example, and publicized their findings in order to force city governments into improving conditions. Many of these reformers, such as Florence Kelley of Chicago, attacked a problem first as a private citizen and then went to work for government agencies. Kelley first investigated working conditions in Chicago’s factories as a resident of Hull-House. Her findings played a key role in the establishment of an Illinois factory inspection law and she was named the state’s first factory inspector.
See also CITIES AND URBAN LIEE; PROGRESSIVISM.
Further reading: Martin J. Schiesl, The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1880-1920 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); Stanley K. Schultz, Constructing Urban Culture: American Cities and City Planning, 1800-1920 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989); Jon C. Teaford, The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870-1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).
—Michael Hartman
World History
