This is episode 11 in our continuing series on the history of Oak Park housing as it relates to diversity and equity:
In 1946 the housing crisis caused by the Great Depression and the economic demands of World War II overwhelmed 550 veterans with families returning to Oak Park. The personal impact of the problem was visible in the free ad space in the Oak Leaves where dozens of veterans weekly pleaded for housing opportunity.
Early in 1946, the Non-Partisan Civic League of Oak Park, made up of veterans of World War I and II, stepped forward and boldly proposed that the village build affordable housing for Oak Park veterans and their young families. Shortly after, the village created the still existing Oak Park Housing Authority to assist veterans and build the housing.
The village board then made an unprecedented large-scale exemption to the single-family zoning ordinance and approved construction of 74 temporary duplexes on vacant school property and village-owned land like Longfellow and Lindberg parks.
A patriotic but divisive housing project
The trustees’ action providing affordable and accessible housing for veterans was immensely popular. It was funded with $1/2 million from the state and prefabricated two bedroom duplexes were supplied by the Federal Housing Authority. Nonetheless, allowing the large-scale exception to single-family zoning brought out strident opposition from the NIMBYs of that era. Their resistance was vitriolic and significant — even seeking, but not winning, a court injunction.
As with today’s proposed zoning changes, fear of a decline in property values was a major concern. Providing housing for families rankled many building owners who regularly refused to rent to families with children. Landlords also opposed the rent controls in the proposal. Other opponents abrasively warned that the homes would be occupied by “trash from outside Oak Park” and bring a wave of crime and violence (1).
Knowledgeable adversaries likely knew that the U.S. Supreme Court approved zoning laws in 1926 as a legitimate police power of the states that could be used to bar the “undesirables” and “parasites” that jurists claimed often came with multi-unit housing (2). In the end, civic and patriotic pride prevailed and the veterans’ homes were built. Still, the prevailing foundations of exclusionary zoning remained in play. They included existing village and federal housing policy, financing practices and standard realtor protocols. Despite increasing local and national support for racial justice, the housing project unfairly proceeded with the unspoken, but always operative caveat that it was for whites only (3).
Shaping an even more exclusionary future
Just as construction was started in Longfellow Park in November of ’46, Harland Bartholomew and Associates (HB&A) consultants, the leading designers of comprehensive zoning reform in the nation, presented the preliminary report on re-writing the village’s 1921 zoning ordinance. Their findings and recommendations provided a rationale that would be integral to dominant white housing interests and offer a framework for development that shaped village decisions moving forward. The report gave traction to residents trying to maintain their sense of Oak Park’s traditional character and charm. It included new comprehensive building specifications that strengthened separation of residential, commercial and industrial land use and solidified restrictive single-family zoning for most of the village. While HB&A accepted the temporary housing for veterans, their preliminary report chastised the village for multiple zoning failures that needed immediate correction. Their criticisms and proposed direction for future development were stunning (4).
Consultants pointed to scores of zoning exceptions and outright violations in neighborhoods south of South Boulevard. The report noted that the zoning appeals board had approved 65 non-conforming developments and there were 245 developments constructed outright illegally. Consultants stressed the village had a pattern that “breaks down the zoning law and is not the way to protect your neighborhoods” (5). The cure HB&A proposed bordered on revolutionary.
They asserted that the village had reached the limit of its physical development and needed little if any new retail or commercial development. They stressed that Oak Park had the least undeveloped land of any municipality they had encountered. Boldly, they claimed the future for the village was “conservation, not new development.” The 1947 Zoning Ordinance that trustees finally approved aimed to restrict population growth, minimize new economic development, severely limit new multi-unit housing development and boost property values. It was a formula designed to preserve the socio-economic status quo in most parts of town and maintain racial exclusion everywhere. It looked to preserve an idyllic but morally flawed village character that zoning had always prioritized (6).
Two steps forward …
In the first years of racial integration, 25 years after HB&A modernized zoning in Oak Park, village leaders crafted the 1973 Comprehensive Plan and trustees adopted the Oak Park Diversity Pledge. Together both asserted that an ideal future in the managed integration era required the achievement of two goals essential for a diverse and stable community — dispersing Black residents across the entire village to avoid the white perception that a particular neighborhood and its schools were “too Black” and at the same time ensuring that affordable and accessible housing was available for all income levels, ages and racial groups.
Village housing aspirations had clearly and radically changed since the late ’40s, but the limiting constraints of village zoning remained in place — creating persisting tensions over housing and economic development right through today. In 1975, villagers would seize an opportunity to realize the affordable-housing aspirations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Diversity Pledge. The project was unprecedented in size and as unique as the 1946 veterans’ undertaking, yet virtually free of opposition.
Sources:
1. Kurt Etchingham. “Housing Crisis Brings Out the Best and Worst in Oak Park.” Oak Park River Forest History Museum. (2021).
2. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926).
3. Oak Leaves, Nov. 10, 1946.
4. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926).
5. John Duffy. The 1930s: New exclusion and resistance. https://www.oakpark.com/2026/03/24/the-1930s-new-exclusion-and-resistance
6. Richard Rothstein. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. 2017.
7. Oak Leaves, Trustees get report on zoning problems. October17, 1946.
8. Richard D. Kahlenberg. “An Economic Fair Housing Act” (2017). http://tcf.org