Houston’s Freeways: Who Was Displaced and Why?

Introduction: Analyzing the Impact of Houston’s Freeways

The Interstate Highway System, along with other freeways and highways, has long been regarded as the circulatory system of the American economy. Its efficiency has been credited with contributing to the nation’s overall economic health and enhancing public mobility. Historically, freeways have been viewed positively for their role in promoting development and increasing property values. With few exceptions, the construction and expansion of major highways have been seen as signs of progress.

However, in recent years, there has been a growing movement to balance these positive perspectives with a realistic assessment of the harm done to communities of color and neighborhoods in general. Academics and policymakers are analyzing the impact of the Interstate Highway System and other major highways in terms of social and environmental injustice. In February 2023, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg announced the “Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program,” aimed at reconnecting communities that are cut off from opportunity and burdened by past transportation infrastructure decisions.[1]

Across the United States, numerous examples exist where low-income and minority neighborhoods were impacted by interstate highways and other major road projects. In some instances, researchers have discovered government documents suggesting a clear intent to route freeways through such neighborhoods. However, the motives behind such actions are unclear. What some perceive as urban renewal, others view as the deliberate destruction of vibrant cultural communities. Likewise, freeways built on the edge of minority neighborhoods have sparked debate about whether planners were preserving an existing community or walling it off from the rest of the city. Determining the mindset of highway planners from decades ago is difficult, if not impossible. However, it is possible to identify who was impacted by each major highway and why.

Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, in partnership with Rice’s Center for Research Computing’s Spatial Studies Lab, conducted research to determine exactly who was displaced by Houston area interstate highways and other major freeways to understand the rationale behind targeting certain homes and neighborhoods for removal. A key feature of this research is its integration of census data with historical documents and maps. Another important aspect is the focus on determining the timing of decisions regarding the alignment of rights-of-way for each freeway. The individuals displaced when a freeway was built are not necessarily the same as those who lived in the proposed path of the freeway when its location was decided, nor are they necessarily the same as the current residents near the freeway. For accurate assessments of the intent and impact of these plans, it is critical to focus on the dates of alignment decisions.

This research aims to serve as a model for similar studies in other urban areas. It will provide future policymakers with factual insights into historical highway development decisions, particularly as they contemplate rebuilding or replacing the 70-year-old Interstate Highway System and other highway projects. The findings of this project’s basic demographic research will provide the foundation for exploring further questions about the past, present, and future impacts of the Interstate Highway System and other urban freeways. Key questions include: What would have happened if these highways had not been constructed? Were there less disruptive alternative routes? How do today’s neighborhoods compare to those that existed during the planning and construction of the highways? What, if anything, should be done to repair the damage done to communities of color and other neighborhoods? As we consider the expansion and reconstruction of the interstate highways, how can we avoid repeating past mistakes while still providing an efficient highway system? And lastly, what other factors have affected the location of highways and the displacement of people and businesses?

Methodology: Determining Who Was Displaced by Major Highways

In recent years, the impact of the United States’ first round of freeway construction has become a topic of extensive study.[2] Traditionally, freeways were thought to enhance mobility and drive economic growth. However, more recent research has shifted focus toward the negative impacts of freeways on neighborhoods, particularly where residents and businesses, especially in minority communities, were displaced. Understanding exactly who was displaced and the reasons behind these displacements is essential as our society continues to grapple with the legacy of systemic racism and urban renewal in our cities. This is especially true for policymakers, as some organizations are urging them to address and correct perceived past injustices.

Records detailing the right-of-way clearances and the displacement of people and businesses due to freeway construction are often incomplete or entirely missing from archives. Federal statistics and records on these displacements only date back to 1991, and even these are often inadequately reported by state governments.[3] To study the decades of freeway development in Houston, it is necessary to reconstruct the historical record using a variety of archival sources.

To construct as accurate a historical record as possible, our project has built two interlinked databases: one composed of every building in the highways’ paths and the other composed of people who lived in these buildings. In Houston, neither the city nor the state has complete records of the structures — including homes, garages, stores, and apartments — claimed through eminent domain for highway right-of-way. While we found some maps of freeway right-of-way in the Texas Department of Transportation’s archives, much of the information appears to have been lost or destroyed. As a result, most displaced buildings and people had to be identified through a variety of other historical sources. See Figure 1 for a schematic of the research architecture developed at the start of the project. See Figure 2 for the major highways included in our research.

Because of the incomplete historical record, we began searching through the archives for two main types of data: maps and buildings, and people and demographic data. By merging these two streams of information into a searchable map, we aim to uncover some of the historical realities of highway displacement.

Figure 1 — A Schematic of the Research Architecture Developed at the Start of the Project

 

Figure 2 — Paths of the 209 Linear Miles of Freeways and Adjacent Right-of-Way Clearance in Harris County (1946–80)

 

Finding Cleared Buildings 

To identify buildings that were in the path of highway construction, our team utilized various historical geographic sources, including fire insurance adjustor maps from the Sanborn Fire Insurance company, right-of-way surveys conducted by the Texas Highway Department, Tax Assessor maps from Harris County, and aerial photography from the United States Department of Agriculture. No single set of maps provided a complete picture: Highway department maps only existed for later periods of construction, while fire insurance maps were restricted to older neighborhoods within the city’s core.

To complicate matters further, the Sanborn fire insurance maps — which were the most valuable historical resource for identifying structures claimed by right-of-way — existed in several different editions, each revised and changed up to a particular date. In several cases, our researchers had to use magnification and bright lights to see through paper corrections pasted over buildings that had been cleared (Figure 3). Despite these challenges, by combining and cross-referencing this diverse set of historical sources, the project’s geospatial database successfully documents almost every identifiable structure cleared for highway construction from 1946 through 1980.

Figure 3 — Example of Updated Map With Corrections Pasted Over Buildings of Interest 

 

All of these maps were then georeferenced, i.e., stretched and reshaped so that they accurately overlaid a digital projection of the city (Figure 4). Our team of researchers then individually traced each of the thousands of structures using geographic information system (GIS) software. These digitized building shapes were then linked to a tabular database filled with historical information from the map sources. For each structure, researchers recorded details such as the address, size, number of stories, and any other specific information provided by the source. This included whether the building was a dwelling or a store, any known names of the building, and, in some cases, the owner of the building (Figure 5). We also classified each structure into several broad categories: residences (houses, apartments, and garage apartments), nonhousing residential buildings (garages and sheds), and commercial, industrial, religious, and civic buildings.

Figure 4 — Examples of Fire Insurance Maps (Left) and Texas Highway Department Survey Maps (Right) 

 

Figure 5 — Example of a Partially Traced (in Blue) City Block of Cleared Buildings

 

As each structure cleared by the highways was traced from historical maps, it was assigned a unique identification number, connecting the information in our database to a digital representation of the building as it stood before it was cleared. In total, our project has uncovered 11,007 such structures, ranging from tiny outhouses, sheds, and garages to massive apartment buildings and factories, with all sizes of buildings in between. For a large portion of the buildings, multiple historical sources had to be cross-referenced to uncover these details. For example, on many maps, the historical addresses were missing. To address this, our researchers used microfiche archives of Houston city street directories or telephone company “white pages” to find the corresponding address of each building. Once all the cleared structures were georeferenced, described, and categorized, we focused on identifying residential buildings and other housing units.

Finding Displaced Residents

One of the project’s primary goals was to determine who was displaced by highway construction and the reasons behind their displacement. While the U.S. government has tracked data on displacement over the last three decades, there are no official statistics for the period covered by our study.[6] Almost all of Houston’s urban displacements from freeway construction took place between the late 1940s and early 1970s. Our research team obtained a temporary internship at the City Planning and Development Department and, with the help of city employees, reviewed the department’s entire archives, along with archived materials at the Houston History Research Center. However, detailed records from the City Planning Department and Houston Planning Commission for our research period were destroyed.[7] Even if these records still existed, it is unlikely that they would contain details of each displaced person. Therefore, to create as accurate a count as possible of displaced Houstonians, we had to assemble our database using numerous other sources, each contributing pieces to the overall picture.

Previous studies have examined whole census tract data to analyze the impact of highway construction, but we chose not to rely solely on this data. Many census tracts include a mix of different income levels and demographics, while the residences cleared by highways were typically concentrated in one part of a tract. A survey of historical maps, which we collected for our map of cleared buildings, revealed an unequal density of displacement throughout the city. In some areas, only a few buildings were cleared per mile, while in others, over a thousand buildings were removed in a single highway mile. Additionally, we found that along certain stretches of highways, large apartment complexes, duplexes, or houses often contained dozens of residents. Although our database and map of structures allowed us to make some use of this data, we sought to connect actual residents — not just summary statistics — to each building. To identify who was displaced by highway construction, we needed to determine who resided in each cleared building when the highway alignment was made.

Fortunately, the complete records of the 1950 U.S. census population schedules were released to the public in April 2022.[8] Census schedules include a range of information on residents such as addresses, names, ages, race, gender, occupations, and more. Combined with the previously released 1940 census schedules, this data allowed us to gather the most detailed decennial information for over a quarter of the households displaced in Harris County, as most major right-of-way alignments were completed during the 1940s and 1950s. To transform the thousands of pages of census schedules into usable data, we used optical character recognition to convert the handwritten census schedules of every census enumeration district that overlapped with highway right-of-way.[9] The result was the creation of a dataset containing information on over 720,000 Harris County residents across the two censuses, encompassing a total of 45,168,703 cells of data.

We used house numbers and street names as keys to join the census-based dataset with our dataset on buildings, identifying individuals who lived in the cleared structures. By using a structured query language “join” function to match our tables based on common street address information, we were able to extract the respondents in the census who lived in the houses and buildings within our cleared structures database (Figure 6).

Figure 6 — Graphic Representation of How Cleared Buildings Are Linked With Displaced People

 

Overall, this methodology is highly accurate. The resulting database and map show the names and details of real individuals and where they lived in 1940 or 1950 within areas that would later become highway right-of-way. The project’s website provides links to scans of the original documents from which this information was sourced. This linked dataset not only shows the exact names of people, but it also includes the exact number of people living in each building and the relationships among the occupants (i.e., spouse, child, parent, lodger, etc.). This methodology is also useful for identifying residences in unexpected buildings, as several matches reveal people who lived in stores, garages, or other buildings identified on our mapping sources as nonresidential.

Determining who was displaced by a highway requires careful consideration of the timing of the displacement. In the development of freeways, the clearance of right-of-way and the removal of structures usually occurs years after the decision on the freeway’s route is finalized. The people living in a freeway right-of-way when clearance occurred might not be the same individuals who lived there when the alignment decision was made. Since the information about displacements caused by highways is necessary for analyzing the motives of those who designed the highway system, we decided the most critical date to consider is the date when the final alignment decision was made. The residents living in the affected neighborhoods at that time were the ones who were forced to deal with the reality of losing their homes.

Using that approach, we selected the census data corresponding to when the alignment decision was made. For example, if a highway’s alignment was finalized in the 1940s, as with the Gulf Freeway in 1943, then the 1940 census data is included in the dataset for that section of the city’s urban freeway network. Highway alignments decided after 1950 use data from the 1950 census. These results were then mapped on the project’s website, roadsTaken (Figure 7).

Figure 7 — Example Portion of a Map Showing the Southwest Freeway at Montrose Boulevard

 

While the resulting database is highly detailed, it is important to note that it does not capture the residents living in right-of-way areas at the actual date of alignment by the city or the state. For example, if a freeway was first proposed in 1953, was aligned in 1956, and began clearances around 1957, as was the case for the Southwest Freeway, then the database only displays those who lived in these buildings in 1950. Unfortunately, the detailed records of the 1960 and 1970 censuses will not be released until 2032 and 2042, respectively. As a result, the further we move forward in time from our two available census years — 1940 and 1950 — the less likely it is that the matched census rolls accurately reflect the residents at the time of alignment.[10]

Although this method of linking addresses to census records has accurately identified over 9,000 people from the 1940 census and over 7,000 people from the 1950 census, there are still omissions and gaps. The methodology requires an accurate street address to establish a match, so if a street address is missing or incorrectly recorded, the building remains unpopulated in the dataset. A majority of the residential buildings remain unmatched with any residents. This could be because these buildings were not residences, were unoccupied, or were unfinished during the census. However, many omissions are caused by either errors in the address data in our structures database or errors in our census roll dataset.

These errors often stem from the optical character recognition process, which can misinterpret handwritten house numbers and street names. In some cases, the handwritten information is simply illegible. Other omissions occur when our historical maps lack addresses or when street names or house numbers change. Mistakes may have also occurred when our team of researchers entered the data or when census takers incorrectly or illegibly recorded street names or numbers. The greatest number of errors occurred in areas with unpaved roads or informal street names.

By linking the data and viewing the results on a map, our researchers were able to easily identify structures for which no residents were linked, which was useful for describing the geographic distribution of these errors. The project was able to identify and correct some errors by cross-referencing original sources on the interactive map, but fixing all omissions would require thousands of person-hours. Because of these omissions, the totals generated represent an undercount of the actual number of displaced people. However, considering the housing patterns of the years included, we believe the results are statistically accurate.[11]

Creating an Interactive Map for the Public and Scholars

Both linked databases — cleared buildings and displaced persons — were incorporated into an interactive map using ESRI’s ArcGIS Experience Builder. The map features a moveable timeline slider, allowing users to track when alignments were finalized, buildings were cleared, and highways were completed. We added other historical maps, geospatial data, and documents gathered in the research phase of the project to this temporal framework. Users can replace the default background map with U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial photographic collages, city planning and street maps, and historical freeway plans to observe the evolving built landscape of the city and how highway alignments shifted over time.

Historical photographs of highway construction can be overlayed onto “view cones” on our interactive website, showing the visible landscape depicted in the photographs. The map can also display census data, including data from more recent censuses, along with other historical geographic information such as pre-expressway highway designations, racial population distribution maps, Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) “redlining” maps, routes of historical urban railways, and the city of Houston’s historical industrial districts. Additionally, important historical news articles detailing planning decisions, alignment changes, and public protests are available to view.

By archiving these diverse types of historical sources with temporal and geospatial metadata, we have made a vast amount of information available to scholars and the public in an organized and user-friendly format.

We invite scholars and the public to utilize the datasets we have created on the project’s website, roadsTaken.[12]

Who Was Impacted by the Houston Freeway System?

This research project was designed to answer two questions: Who was displaced by the construction of the Houston area freeway system, and why were the freeways built where they are? In recent years, a variety of articles and books have been written claiming that freeways were designed and built with racist intent.[13] These assertions have sparked new policy discussions on restoring minority neighborhoods negatively impacted by freeways and compensating individuals who may have been unjustly displaced from their homes.

It is crucial that these policy discussions be informed by factual evidence rather than anecdotal accounts. Additionally, the data used to inform these discussions should reflect the demographics of neighborhoods at the time the freeway alignments were planned, not upon what the neighborhoods look like today or even when the rights-of-way were cleared.

Table 1 shows the results from the methodology detailed earlier. For each major Houston freeway or, in some cases, specific freeway sections, the table provides estimates of the number of people displaced, as well as their racial composition. 

Table 1 — Residential Displacements by Highway Segment

 

Despite the fact that we were able to match just under 50% of residential properties with corresponding census records, the impact of freeway development on the Black and white populations is both measurable and explainable. The two major takeaways from this analysis are as follows:

1. Disproportionate Impact on the Black Population: During the freeway alignment and construction process, the Black population of Harris County hovered around 20%. However,using the most recent previous census data (either 1940 or 1950) to the date of highway alignment, it is estimated that 41% of those displaced by freeways were Black, indicating that the Black population was disproportionately affected by freeway development in the Houston area.
    
2. Varied Impacts Based on Location: The impact on Black neighborhoods varied by freeway and freeway section, with neighborhoods near the central business district experiencing the most displacement. Since the neighborhoods close to downtown were predominantly Black and more densely populated, the greatest displacement of the Black population occurred there.

It should be noted that the current demographics of the Houston area differ significantly from those during the period of freeway development. Today, over 40% of Harris County’s population is Hispanic, whereas the 1940 and 1950 censuses only used two primary categories of race: “negro” and “white.” If the Hispanic population had been identified, it likely would have been no more than 10%. Therefore, discussions about the impact of major highways on minority neighborhoods focus on the Black neighborhoods that existed when the highways were aligned.

At the time locational decisions were made for the Houston area freeways, the largest predominantly Black neighborhoods were the Third Ward, Fourth Ward, Fifth Ward, Frenchtown, Independence Heights, and Acres Homes. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Wards had significant numbers of residences in close proximity to downtown Houston. Frenchtown, Independence Heights, and Acres Homes were farther to the northeast and northwest.

The Gulf Freeway and the Gulf Freeway Expansion greatly impacted the northern section of the Third Ward, east and southeast of downtown. Approximately one-fourth of the Black residents identified as displaced by freeways were in the path of the Gulf Freeway or its expansion. The Third Ward was later impacted to a lesser degree by the Southwest Freeway, as it was connected to the downtown loop. The final impact on Black residents of the Third Ward came from the South Freeway, also known as State Highway 288. When the South Freeway was aligned, the affected sections of the Third Ward were predominantly white, but by the time the freeway was constructed, those same sections had become predominantly Black. The change in demographics of those parts of the Third Ward between the time the South Freeway was aligned and when it was actually built has led to some false allegations that the freeway was purposely routed to remove Black residential areas.

Located southwest of downtown Houston, the Fourth Ward saw a significant number of residents displaced due to the alignment of the freeway connecting the Gulf Freeway and the North Freeway. Combined with urban renewal projects such as the San Felipe Courts and city of Houston acquisitions for public buildings and parks, the Fourth Ward was not only impacted in terms of residences, but it also lost many commercial enterprises, churches, and social gathering places.

The Fifth Ward, northeast of downtown Houston, suffered the most significant displacement of Black residents. The Eastex Freeway bisected the western part of the Fifth Ward, and Interstate 10 (East Freeway) cut a swath through the southern part of the Fifth Ward parallel to Lyons Avenue, a major commercial and entertainment district for Houston’s Black community. Lyons Avenue was no longer a through street due to the East Freeway creating a dead end at Harbor Street.

Under the methodology used, the number of census roll matches for residences removed by Loop 610 was significantly lower compared to other freeways. That is particularly true for the section of Loop 610 West that removed 200 residential structures, but only nine could be matched to the 1950 census data. It turns out this lack of matches has a simple explanation. Many of the houses that were cleared for the freeway were not built until after 1950, meaning their occupants were not counted in the 1950 census. To varying degrees, the same explanation applies to other sections of Loop 610, which were farther from downtown and representative of some of the earliest suburbanization of Houston. Adjacent to Loop 610 North were existing neighborhoods such as Sunset Heights and Lindale Park, with predominantly white residents, and Independence Heights, a historically Black community that was an incorporated city at one time. Although the percentage of census matches for Loop 610 is small, the fact that 87% of known displaced residents were white likely reflects the demographic composition at the time the highway was aligned. However, a significant number of unmatched structures in Independence Heights were removed due to a realignment through the southern part of that neighborhood, suggesting a higher number of displaced Black residents than the data indicates.

As previously stated, the most important aspect of this analysis is that it is based on the demographics of neighborhoods and residents at the time of the alignment decisions. Other analyses, which estimate displacement based on right-of-way clearances or actual freeway construction, are less reliable when used to determine the motives behind freeway placement.

Why Were Major Highways Built Where They Are?

This section will attempt to answer the project’s second research question: Why were the Houston sections of freeways built where they are?[14] Additionally, given the freeways’ disproportionate impact on minority neighborhoods, what were the underlying motives behind the decisions of where to locate major highways?

Although the Gulf Freeway, the first freeway in the Houston area, was not designed until the late 1940s, and the Interstate Highway System and other Houston-area freeways were developed in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the foundation for these projects was laid much earlier. The 1929 Houston City Planning Commission introduced the first comprehensive city plan, which proposed major thoroughfares and outlined segregation by “mutual agreement.” In aligning future highways, this plan not only reduced some Black neighborhoods while expanding others, but it also used transportation infrastructure such as railroads as “natural lines of demarcation.”[15] As the Houston freeway system was planned and developed over the next two decades, highways joined bayous and railroads as the main lines separating segregated neighborhoods. Simultaneously, in some neighborhoods, highways were planned to clear city blocks that had “deteriorated into slum areas,” according to Texas Highway Department planners.[16] The original planners of the Houston highway system operated under the assumption that segregation would continue and the racial composition of neighborhoods would not change. While this assumption held true to some extent, there are numerous examples of neighborhoods changing from white to Black and vice versa, particularly after the advent of open housing laws.

By first placing Houston in a national context, this section demonstrates how the decision to bring highways into central business districts inevitably led to significant minority displacement in nearly every major U.S. urban area. Within this context, Texas and Houston planners designed urban freeways with multiple objectives: building an efficient automobile-centered transportation network, accommodating increased freight movement via trucks, and clearing deteriorating neighborhoods at the same time.

National Context: Freeway Planners’ Goals and Influences 

Over 100 years ago, architects and city designers sought to create elegant, efficient, and modern systems, often featuring radial and spoke roadway designs (Figure 8).[17] Houston — with only floodplains and small bayous restricting urban development — provided highway designers with a blank canvas for plotting the city’s expressways.

Figure 8 — Theoretical Diagram of the Plan of Paris (1905) 

 

The interwar federal government saw the twin trends of urbanization and rapid growth of automobile use on the horizon. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal administration outlined a plan for a national highway system in two key documents: “Toll Roads and Free Roads” (1939) and “Interregional Highways” (1944). In addition to presenting statistics on the gridlocked, poorly planned, and dangerous urban road system unequipped to deal with modern automobile traffic, these memorandums urged planners to design and build major off-grade arterial highways.[19] The 1939 report described the “fringe” areas of downtowns as “decadent” and referred to these zones as a city’s “slum — a blight near its very core!”[20] The 1944 follow-up reinforced the idea that urban highways should connect existing rural highways to the “focal point” of central business districts, which were already at risk of depreciation.[21] Surrounding downtowns, was a ring of “rundown buildings” and “slum areas” with a secondary ring of the city in a partial state of “depreciation” that was at risk of becoming “part of the city’s slums.”[22] With encouragement from the federal government, local planners conceptualized freeways as tools to modernize traffic flows and remove buildings, blocks, and neighborhoods deemed “blighted.”

Since Texas and Houston planners were deeply involved in the national community of highway engineers — attending conferences from San Francisco to Detroit throughout the pre-World War II era — it is understandable that they would take these national ideas to heart.[23] Planners were also acutely aware of the consequences, particularly the displacement of residents. By the early 1960s, the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) estimated that “a quarter-million urban families will have been displaced as a result of urban renewal from highway and other public improvement programs.”[24] Engineers viewed highway-construction displacement as similar to displacement from public housing, parks, and other infrastructure projects. The dual push to create urban freeways linking city centers and to conduct urban renewal meant that any neighborhood deemed blighted by city halls was considered for removal. The AASHO, with Texas’ State Highway Engineer Dewitt C. Greer serving on its executive committee, argued this exact point: “Many cities have blighted areas slated for redevelopment. Where they are near general desired lines of travel, arterial routes might be located through them in coordination with slum clearance and redevelopment programs. In other instances, the location of a highway through a blighted district may instigate plans for its redevelopment. In some cities blighted areas adjacent to the central business district are good locations for inner belts.”[25]

This vision of arterial and concentric limited-access highways, combined with the ability to clear or isolate blighted, slum, and “decadent” Houston neighborhoods, led to a clear highway design strategy: Clear large sections of “decay and blight” near the city center, build parking and civic institutions downtown, construct large radial freeways through partially dilapidated residential and light industrial zones, and build a ring road connecting the radials.[26] Houston was not alone in following this pattern. Cities such as Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Pittsburgh, and St. Paul also adopted similar plans. Planners in these cities agreed on the supremacy of single-use urban districts, the benefits of residential neighborhoods primarily composed of single-family homes for social and psychological stability, and the need to solve present and future traffic congestion. They also concurred with local business leaders on the importance of supporting the central business district as a city’s economic focal point.[27]

Once the decisions were made in cities like Houston to build limited-access expressways into the central business district, the displacement of residents near downtown became inevitable. The logic of building freeways into and through the central business districts of major cities quickly gained support from both the public and private sectors. Accordingly, planners sought ways to connect existing rural highways to city cores, either by following rail lines or by clearing inexpensive property in poorer neighborhoods.

Local Context: Pre-War Houston Planning 

It is a common misconception that the federal highway legislation of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s imposed plans on cities against their will. In Houston, local government planners were responsible for designing the map of the urban freeway system, largely unencumbered by federal or state interference. They acquired the right-of-way lines and, along with Harris County, funded the first decade of highway construction before federal aid began.[28] Long before the advent of limited-access freeways, Houston planners were acutely aware of the city’s racial and economic geography, down to the block.

Figure 9 — Plate Depicting Rusk Avenue in Downtown Houston From the 1913 City Plan

 

The photograph in Figure 9 shows a Houston street that is now part of Tranquility Park, with City Hall, a federal courthouse, and a performing arts venue all within a one-block radius. In 1913, city planners marked this street and the Black neighborhood to its south as part of Houston’s earliest attempt at comprehensive city planning. This initial plan included parkways along Houston’s bayous, designed to lead into downtown or connect with existing state roads.

However, the onset of World War I and subsequent political jockeying delayed many of the proposals in the 1913 city plan. It wasn’t until 1929 that Houston’s first fully realized city plan was issued by the Houston Planning Commission. Described as having “unprecedented breadth and scope” for the city, this plan included comprehensive zoning recommendations (Figure 10), improvements to parks and schools, transit planning, street widening, improved parking, and a major street plan.[30] According to the plan’s authors, the major street plan (Figure 11) served as the “framework” upon which the rest of the city’s planning efforts were built.

Figure 10 — Report of the City Planning Commission, Houston, Texas, 1929, ‘Race Distribution’ and ‘Proposed Race Restriction Areas’

 

The 1929 plan also included proposals for increased racial segregation with two accompanying maps. It stated, “The chief racial problem centers about the negroes.”[32] The commission noted that Black Houstonians were “a necessary and useful element in the population,” while also noting that recent population data showed that white Houstonians had grown to be a much larger majority in the city. The plan emphasized that Black Houstonians needed to live near white districts in order to work as domestics.[33] The commission argued that “it is best for both races that living areas be segregated” due to racial tensions. However, since “segregation by zoning has been proven unconstitutional,” the commission suggested that segregation must be accomplished through “mutual agreement.”[34]

Figure 11 — 1929 Major Street Plan

 

The report also discussed the primary areas of Black settlement in Houston, specifically the San Felipe District (also known as the Fourth Ward or Freedman’s Town), the southeast district (Third Ward), and the Fifth Ward. It noted that the Fourth Ward, being “closest to the business center” and made up of “very poor homes,” would be significantly impacted by the street plan. Specifically, it stated that the street plan will “encroach on this district and may tend to reduce it in size.”[36] The report went further, suggesting that the district be truncated and geographically reduced by more than 50%.

Although the comprehensive zoning law, the crowning jewel of the 1929 city plan, was derailed by organized property owners, the city nonetheless enacted the “Proposed Race Restriction” of the Fourth Ward through a variety of targeted public projects.[37] In the 1930s, the construction of the civic center and City Hall led to the demolition of three blocks along the bayou in the northeast. In the late 1930s and 1940s, the whites-only San Felipe Courts housing project removed nine blocks north of West Dallas Street. By 1952, the construction of what would become Interstate 45 removed 17 blocks on either side of the Sabine bridge along Heiner Street.[38] Within 15 years of the highway’s completion, private commercial development, mostly in the form of parking lots, eliminated the rest of the eastern half of the Black Fourth Ward, including its most important commercial and cultural landmarks, such as the Carnegie Colored Library, the Supreme Home of Ancient Order Pilgrims, and the original location of Booker T. Washington High School.[39] The project database shows that almost all of the homes in the highway’s path along the proposed Race Restriction Area line through the Fourth Ward were occupied by Black Houstonians.[40] It is evident that the city of Houston’s efforts to reduce the Fourth Ward were underway before the highway’s construction, but this project stands as an early instance of a highway being used as a tool for urban renewal. Interestingly, while the new freeway clearly destroyed a significant part of the Fourth Ward, it also cut off the Fourth Ward from downtown, thereby limiting potential expansion of downtown Houston in that direction. 

The Local Context: Houston Planners Design the Freeways

The approach of using highways as tools for urban renewal reached its apex when Ralph Ellifrit was appointed city planning engineer in 1940.[41] Ellifrit, who led the city planning department for over two decades, played a crucial role in designing and completing most of the major plans for Houston’s network of urban freeways. According to Ellifrit, Houston “had more influence on the location of its freeways than almost any other city in dealing with the Highway Department,” adding, “We did the original layout of the freeway system ahead of the Highway Department.”[42] Together with Texas Highway Department officials, Ellifrit continued to direct freeway planning and routes through the plan’s final major alignment change in 1963.[43]

Ellifrit was familiar with public projects that caused mass displacement even before his move to Houston in 1939. He described the area of the Fourth Ward cleared for the whites-only San Felipe Courts housing project as follows:

“Yes, it was one of the worst blighted areas that I have ever seen. There were shacks just literally built on dump and I walked through that area, uh, I think one of the main reasons was to try to eliminate that terrible slum area. It was as bad a blighted area as I have ever seen. There is nothing in Houston like it today and and over from it, about where the city’s barn is now, was Addie Sasser’s place which is a house of ill repute, two story, big square house with a big fence around it, kept just perfect condition, just absolute contrast to this terrible slum. I mean they weren’t just run-down dwellings, they were shacks, they were people just living in things like you see pictures of ’em living in uh in Vietnam, parts of Vietnam, places like that, that just unbelievable, around Singapore.”[44]

During the freeway placement process, few citizens made their way to City Hall to protest. This is not surprising since the majority of displaced individuals were renters who were not involved in right-of-way negotiations. Public discourse was mostly limited to debate within City Hall.[45] Other than a petition from businesses along the southern edge of the central business district and a letter signed by residents from the east side of town in the 1950s, there is no record of organized protests against highway construction until 1973.

Reflecting on his career as Houston’s first highway architect, Ellifrit discussed the location of Houston’s downtown ring of highways with Louis Marchiafava, noting that “it was finally realized that in order to build a system, there was no way to get one that would not skirt the downtown district.”[46] The nationwide pressure to build freeways through dense urban areas to reach central business districts seems closely associated with slum clearance in Ellifrit’s mind.

Figure 12 — 1949 Proposed Freeway Plan (Red) Overlaid on the 1929 Race Restriction Areas Map (Black)

 

Ellifrit’s 1942 Major Street Plan, the 1946 Major Thoroughfare Plan, and the 1949 Proposed Freeway map, which introduced modern expressways, were all built upon the foundation laid by the 1929 plan.[47] The new urban freeways mapped in Figure 12 — which included all extant urban highways until the publication of the 1955 Major Thoroughfare and Freeway Plan — followed the ideal design of radial arteries and circumferential roads discussed earlier in this section. Gone from these new maps are the parkway loops along bayous and parks. Instead, wide expressways were routed through residential and light commercial areas, connecting to the city’s loop and extending to highways leading to other major cities.[48]

Right-of-way costs were always a pressing concern to planners, and Houston’s freeway plan intersected with other government programs that had already depreciated property values. The 1949 Proposed Freeways map aligns closely with neighborhoods of low property value if plotted on top of the 1930s HOLC map of Houston, commonly known as a “redline map.” All the structures initially located in the in the path of the proposed highway were in neighborhoods labeled as “Definitely Declining” (C or yellow) or “Hazardous” (D or red).[49] The only exceptions were 33 structures in the “Still Desirable” (B or blue) neighborhood of Park Place. No structures from this initial highway plan were located in neighborhoods deemed “Best” (A or green) (Figure 13).[50] This suggests that Houston’s initial freeways were deliberately planned through less desirable and lower-value neighborhoods.

Figure 13 — 1949 Proposed Freeway Map (Black) Overlaid on the 1930s HOLC (Color)

 

Ellifrit retired from the city planning department in 1963, but before his departure, two more urban expressways were added to Houston’s master plan in 1955: the Southwest and South Freeways. Both of these freeways were aligned to pass through neighborhoods that were predominantly white at the time. The Southwest Freeway was originally planned along the Westpark corridor, but at the urging of developer Frank Sharp, who made right-of-way available outside of the proposed Loop 610, it was rerouted to pass through the new Sharpstown development. Ellifrit’s 1963 freeway plan marked the last major change to urban highway alignments, and by 1968, the government had acquired almost all properties within the right-of-way of Houston’s freeways.

In 1968, J.C. Dingwall, who was previously the director of construction for Houston’s first modern superhighway, the Gulf Freeway, took over as head of the Texas Highway Department. In his new role in Austin, he continued championing the benefits of highways to clear unwanted parts of cities: “Frequently the central business district of a city is surrounded by a belt of land suffering from urban blight. Often such land served as good residential neighborhoods at one time, but later deteriorated into slum areas. It is important to remember that urban highways can be a valuable tool in rehabilitating such slum areas. The clearing away of unsafe and unsanitary buildings makes the adjacent land eligible for better use. The problem arises in finding a place for the residents of these areas to go. Too often they cannot find adequate housing at prices or rents they can afford.”[51]

Given all of the above considerations, there were still decisions to be made regarding where to route new freeways in relation to existing neighborhoods. Recent analyses have suggested that freeways were purposely built through certain neighborhoods to destroy them, a view that is amply supported by the earlier discussion of urban renewal efforts.[52] Other narratives suggest that freeways were built adjacent to minority neighborhoods to isolate those areas from the rest of the city.[53] In hindsight, it seems that either perspective can be deemed negative, but it is important to acknowledge that freeways were necessary to accommodate a thriving central business district, a burgeoning population, and increasing mobility needs for both. In the Houston area, each freeway has its own unique history, making it informative to consider some of the specific impacts of the major alignments.

Gulf Freeway

The Gulf Freeway was Houston and Texas’ first freeway, planned as a direct connection between Houston and Galveston. Rather than expanding the existing U.S. Highway 75 between Houston and Galveston, planners opted to use a corridor largely along the right-of-way of the Houston interurban electric railway. The freeway passed through the predominantly white Park Place neighborhood near Hobby Airport, but the most substantial impact was to the northern section of the Third Ward, a Black neighborhood near downtown. Homes and businesses were removed, and a section of the Third Ward was separated from the rest of the neighborhood. When the Gulf Freeway was expanded in the early 1970s, more of the Third Ward was destroyed. Taken together, the Gulf Freeway and its later expansion removed approximately 1,500 residential structures, displacing a population that was 80% Black. Ironically, after the Gulf Freeway opened, the upscale Glenbrook Valley subdivision was developed adjacent to the new Gulf Freeway at the entrance to Hobby Airport. Glenbrook Valley’s connection to downtown Houston via the new freeway was touted as a key feature.

Eastex Freeway

Prior to the opening of the Eastex Freeway, the main road leaving Houston to Lufkin and the rest of East Texas was Jensen Drive. The Eastex Freeway was originally planned along Carr/Stevens streets, then expanding Jensen Drive was considered, but the final alignment was along a route paralleling Jensen Drive to the east. Outside the city limits of Houston, the route passed through open, undeveloped land, but as it entered the city from the northeast, it skirted the edge of Kashmere Gardens and bisected Frenchtown, both of which are now recognized as historically Black neighborhoods. However, in 1950, just after the Eastex Freeway was aligned, Kashmere Gardens was 81% percent white. By the time of the 1960 census, Kashmere Gardens had become 73% Black, demonstrating a clear demographic shift after the freeway was designed and built. Frenchtown was originally populated by Creoles who had moved to the Houston area from Louisiana.

As the Eastex Freeway moved closer to downtown Houston, it took a slice off the western side of the predominantly Black Fifth Ward. This area was largely a commercial and entertainment district adjacent to a confluence of railroad tracks, but it also included many residences. It is difficult to imagine an alignment of the Eastex Freeway that could have avoided the western edge of the Fifth Ward. Even if the freeway had followed Jensen Drive, the major road toward East Texas, it would have entered downtown through the same area. West of Jensen Drive are several main railroad tracks that would have made highway construction virtually impossible.

North Freeway

The North Freeway, now known as Interstate 45 North, was built along the footprint of U.S. 75 from the northern Harris County line to the intersection of Shepherd Drive and Stuebner Airline. While U.S. 75 continued along Shepherd Drive toward downtown Houston, the new freeway was aligned to the east, passing through largely open areas and avoiding major portions of Acres Homes and Independence Heights, historically Black neighborhoods. Closer to downtown, the freeway was built adjacent to White Oak Bayou, largely avoiding residential areas but impacting flood management. The portion of the North Freeway just north of downtown Houston passed through neighborhoods that have historically been transitional, housing immigrant workers and their families. At the time the new freeway was planned, that area had a mixed racial profile but was predominantly white.

Fourth Ward/Pierce Elevated Freeways

What is now known as Interstate 45 through Houston is the combination of four major projects. The longer Gulf Freeway and the North Freeway are connected by shorter freeway sections, one through the Fourth Ward and another elevated section along Pierce Street.

The Fourth Ward Freeway was aligned and the right-of-way acquired in 1952. The population of the Fourth Ward was predominantly Black at the time and included Freedmen’s Town, a historic area where freed slaves settled and built homes, businesses, and churches following the Civil War. The highway, along with urban renewal efforts undertaken by city planners, not only removed a significant number of houses and businesses, but it also separated the Fourth Ward community from the downtown Houston area where many Black institutions were located.

The Pierce Elevated project, initiated in the early 1960s, primarily impacted apartment buildings and commercial properties. Original plans for the elevated freeway section included parks and potential recreational opportunities underneath the highway lanes, but those plans were never realized. Instead, the property under the freeway became parking areas or remained undeveloped. By elevating the freeway, planners also hoped to improve traffic circulation between nearby neighborhoods and downtown.

Loop 610

The Houston Planning Commission first proposed a loop around the city’s perimeter in 1942, which eventually became the route for Loop 610, part of the Interstate Highway System. Except for a few sections that pass through neighborhoods such as Bellaire, Lindale Park, Kashmere Gardens, Manchester Annex, Golfcrest/Gulfgate, and the edges of Independence Heights and Pleasantville, the Loop was primarily aligned through either sparsely populated areas or light industrial and commercial tracts. After its opening, the area around West Loop 610 became a major commercial area with the development of the Galleria and other shopping and office projects. Other sections of the Loop also saw significant commercial development, although residential neighborhoods remained in some nearby areas.

Southwest Freeway

The Southwest Freeway (U.S. 59) was not part of the original freeway plan but was added and aligned to serve fast-growing suburbs, specifically Sharpstown, in the 1950s. From downtown Houston to what is now Loop 610, the freeway went through old, well-established neighborhoods close to downtown and post-World War II tract housing in the area that is now Greenway Plaza near Wesleyan Street.

In 1966, the Southwest Freeway was connected to the Eastex Freeway on the east side of downtown Houston by an elevated section of freeway. This meant that U.S. 59, now Interstate 69, became a continuous freeway through Harris County.

East Freeway

The section of Interstate 10 between downtown Houston and Baytown was aligned in 1953, with the right-of-way acquisition completed in 1961. Unlike other Houston interstate highways, the East Freeway did not align closely to an existing U.S. highway. U.S. 90, which connected Houston to Beaumont and points east, was not used as a route for the new interstate since it went north to Liberty instead of due east to Baytown. Residents and commercial interests, particularly in Denver Harbor and the Fifth Ward, expressed concerns about the alignment of the new freeway, which removed numerous structures, particularly in the Fifth Ward.

Katy Freeway

The Katy Freeway (Interstate 10) from Katy to downtown Houston, was designed in two distinct sections by two different Texas Department of Highways offices — one responsible for the freeway outside Loop 610 and the other for the freeway between Loop 610 and downtown. Outside Loop 610, the Katy Freeway ran parallel to Old Katy Road and the MKT railroad tracks, minimizing the number of residential displacements. However, inside Loop 610, the alignment decision was more complex. There was a conscious effort to avoid the heart of Memorial Park and the two rail lines that converged in the Eureka railyard before going east to the train stations near downtown and the major freight yards northeast of downtown. Rather than aligning the new interstate along Memorial Drive or Washington Avenue, a route was chosen that would allow Interstate 10 to pass just north of downtown Houston. That route went through several existing neighborhoods, some that were predominantly white and one that was Black.

Interstate 10 Downtown

The section of Interstate 10 just north of downtown Houston connecting the Katy Freeway and the East Freeway was designed in 1955, five years after the Katy and East Freeways were designed and two years after their final alignments. By the time of its alignment and right-of-way acquisition, the area had become almost exclusively light industrial and commercial, though there were still four blocks of residences. The intersection of Interstate 10 and the Eastex Freeway resulted in the elimination of residential areas in the west end of the Fifth Ward that had been separated from the main part of the ward.

South Freeway

The South Freeway, designated State Highway 288, runs from just south of downtown Houston, where it intersects with Interstate 69, to Freeport. It was not included in the original freeway plans and is not on the Interstate Highway System. Initially planned to be placed on the Almeda Road corridor, the route was shifted a few blocks east to avoid major facilities at the intersection of Almeda Road and Holcombe Boulevard, including the VA Medical Center, Nabisco plant, and Dominican College.

Changing demographics in the Third Ward along the South Freeway route have led to many false assumptions about the impact of the freeway. The southern part of the Third Ward was historically home to a large Jewish population, which moved to other neighborhoods during the 1950s. The area then became home to a burgeoning Black population. Likewise, the western part of the Third Ward between Almeda Road and Main Street was predominantly white until the alignment of the South Freeway, after which the area’s residents became largely Black. Since the opening of the South Freeway, the same area, now known as the Museum District, has increasingly become home to affluent white residents in new apartments and condominiums.

La Porte and Harrisburg Freeways

The La Porte Freeway, better known as State Highway 225 since it was really a major upgrade to that highway, parallels the Houston Ship Channel in a heavily industrialized area. Built in 1966, it had minimal effects on residential areas. The western terminus of the La Porte Freeway was at Loop 610 East.

In 1961, plans for Harrisburg Freeway aimed to move traffic from the La Porte Freeway and Loop 610 to downtown Houston along Harrisburg Boulevard. Local residents were divided on the project. Some viewed the freeway as an opportunity for redevelopment of the East End, while others opposed it due to its potential destruction of neighborhoods along the route. In the end, freeway lanes were only built for a short distance inside Loop 610 East to the intersection with Harrisburg Boulevard. That short section of freeway opened in 1976, displacing mainly white residents in the vicinity of Milby High School.

Multiple Factors Contributed to the Location of Houston’s Freeways 

In summary, Houston’s freeway system was originally based on a downtown loop and radial design considered ideal by highway planners. The plan was implemented during a period marked by racial segregation in housing, employment, and education — all recognized and encouraged by public officials. Simultaneously, there was a nationwide push for urban renewal tied to expanding and improving public and private facilities in downtown areas. Combined with the rise of the automobile culture and suburbanization, the freeways were designed to meet the needs of that era.

Highways Were Not the Only Variable

In examining who was displaced by the development of major highways in the Houston area and why the highways were built where they were, it is important to recognize that these highways were only one factor among many that affected neighborhoods. The construction of the Interstate Highway System spanned a period marked by dramatic changes in public policies, societal norms, and lifestyle choices. Evaluating the motives and impacts of highway location decisions made decades ago requires a deep understanding of the political and social environment at the time of those decisions. Considering these other factors is necessary before deciding whether any restorative actions are warranted for neighborhoods damaged by highway construction or whether policymakers should make amends to those who were displaced by highway development.

Segregated Neighborhoods and the End of Segregation

When major highways were being planned, the city of Houston enforced clear policies and practices that mandated racial segregation. At that time, society dictated that people of color live only in neighborhoods designated specifically for them. These neighborhoods often had a higher population density than average, and as a result, any highway right-of-way through these areas would inevitably have a disproportionate impact.

For years after housing segregation policies were abolished, de facto segregation persisted through deed restrictions and other means. Much of the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s focused on allowing people of all races to live where they wanted, with an aim to eliminate mandated neighborhoods based on race. With the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 and the removal of other restrictions, people of color started moving to other neighborhoods in search of a better quality of life. The residents who moved were often higher-income residents, leaving their former neighborhoods economically disadvantaged. This shift occurred during the same period that many of highways were constructed, raising important questions: How many people moved by choice versus those forced out by a highway? How many people would have moved regardless of the highway’s construction?

Another important question revolves around the desirability of maintaining or restoring neighborhoods of color that were the result of earlier racist policies. In considering this fundamental question, we must acknowledge the current reality. Many neighborhoods near downtown, such as the Fourth Ward and the East Downtown neighborhood, which were formerly populated by minorities and those who were economically disadvantaged, are now home to thriving business communities and wealthy residential developments. These neighborhoods no longer bear any resemblance to the communities that were displaced by the highways. This raises the question of whether it is realistic or feasible to put these displaced communities back together. Additionally, the idea of restoring certain neighborhoods of color that were divided by highways assumes that neighborhoods should be defined by race or ethnicity. Should this assumption still stand in today’s society?

Highways Designed to Serve Central Business District and Suburbanization

The Interstate Highway System was originally designed to connect the central business districts of cities. Additionally, local major freeways were designed to serve downtown areas, which were the central hubs of employment and commercial enterprises. In Houston, the downtown area was ringed by designated minority neighborhoods. Therefore, any highway alignment into downtown Houston inevitably impacted these neighborhoods.

The construction of freeways undoubtedly resulted in extensive suburbanization and a decline in urban residential patterns. Much has been written about who moved to the suburbs and why. Throughout the era of major freeway expansion, automobile culture was in full swing, with people choosing to drive their own cars instead of using public transit. This led to widespread public support for highway construction to accommodate this lifestyle.

Urban Renewal

The urban renewal movement was based upon the idea that some urban minority neighborhoods were blighted and should be removed for public health and safety reasons. This viewpoint made the destruction of such neighborhoods appear to be a positive outcome of highway construction. In retrospect, several questions need to be addressed: Were better housing options made available to the people who were displaced from the “blighted” neighborhoods? How many displaced individuals were homeowners, and did they receive fair market compensation for their properties? Were accommodations made for those displaced from rental housing? What happened to the areas adjacent to the highway?

Our research determined that some of Houston’s near-downtown areas were repurposed for government and civic purposes through the city’s use of eminent domain, while others became parking lots or commercial developments. Other neighborhoods farther from the central business district had mixed outcomes. Some neighborhoods adjacent to freeways, such as the Third Ward, remained primarily residential, while other neighborhoods, such as Greenway Plaza, saw residential neighborhoods replaced by shopping and office developments. These considerations are vital for government officials planning future highway projects or weighing options for how to deal with the impact of existing highways on earlier neighborhoods.

Impact of Economic Development

While the acquisition of right-of-way and highway construction clearly displaced homes and businesses, highways also had broader impacts on adjacent areas that are less easily assessed. In some cases, the new highway increased nearby property values for commercial purposes, providing financial benefits to property owners who were then happy to relocate. Conversely, in other instances, property values near new highways declined, leaving property owners uncompensated for the right-of-way while their properties suffered losses and the entire neighborhood declined. Thus, the impact of highways on any given neighborhood depends on factors beyond just the right-of-way clearance and construction of the highway itself.

Employment and Commuter Patterns

The post-World War II rise of automobile culture and suburbanization led to the growth of commuter populations. Since the central business district was the primary office center of Houston and other major cities, there was impetus to build major highways into downtown from the suburbs. In the case of Houston, this approach coincided with the major thoroughfare plan developed decades earlier.

As noted in previous sections, when most of Houston’s major highways were built, the downtown area was ringed by Black neighborhoods, meaning any route into downtown from any direction would inevitably disrupt these neighborhoods. Highways such as Interstate 10, Interstate 45, and U.S. 59 all severely impacted established minority neighborhoods.

Cost of Right-of-Way

In selecting a final route for a highway project, the cost of right-of-way acquisition is often a crucial factor. Typically, the alignment of a new highway aims to maximize tax dollars by avoiding high-value parcels of land, making low-income neighborhoods more vulnerable to highway development.

In some cases, other circumstances dictate highway alignments. For example, the alignment of the Southwest Freeway was altered to accommodate Frank Sharp, the developer of Sharpstown, a mixed residential and commercial development. Additionally, although Grand Parkway is not included in this study, it is noteworthy that much of its right-of-way was donated to the state of Texas using legislation created specifically for that purpose.[54]

Parallel Railroad Tracks

In many instances, highways were purposely planned to parallel existing railroad tracks. This practice helped avoid major neighborhood disruptions but still required the removal of some structures. By the time of highway development, those living adjacent to railroad tracks were often economically disadvantaged.[55]

Changing Demographics

In discussing who was displaced by major highways, we used census data for each address. As neighborhoods changed demographically and homeowners relocated, some homes became rental properties. In neighborhoods such as south Third Ward and Kashmere Gardens, some white homeowners moved and rented their properties to Black families, while others chose to sell their homes. The result was a shift from white to Black residents. By the time a major highway impacted these neighborhoods, the racial makeup had often changed. Therefore, determining when the highway alignment decision was made is critical in analyzing its impact. If a highway was aligned through a neighborhood when the residents were predominantly white, but the neighborhood became majority Black before the highway was constructed, it would be misleading to argue the highway was built with racist intent.

Were Houston’s Freeways Built With Good Intent?

Most of the freeway system in the Houston area was designed before the Interstate Highway System existed. For instance, the Gulf Freeway and North Freeway were originally completed as U.S. Highway 75, while the Eastex Freeway and Southwest Freeway were built as U.S. Highway 59. Even the Katy Freeway and the East Freeway were planned years before the concept of interstate highways was introduced, though they were later designated as Interstate 10 when they opened in the 1960s. Additionally, the general alignment of Loop 610, excluding the East Loop, was determined prior to passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which created the Interstate Highway System.

Consequently, any interpretation of why Houston’s major freeways were built in their current locations should not attribute their placement solely to the creation of the Interstate Highway System. The Federal-Aid Highway Act provided funding for the purchase of right-of-way and construction of freeways that had, for the most part, already been proposed with the general alignments already largely determined. Therefore, understanding who was impacted by Houston area freeways and why requires examining local decisions made years before the freeways were actually built.

The narrative suggesting that Houston’s freeways were purposely designed to destroy or marginalize minority and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods is often an oversimplification of the facts. A common mistake is to assess the impact of a highway based only on who was displaced by the right-of-way acquisition and actual construction of the highway. However, in deciding the intentional impact of a freeway, it is more accurate to assess who was affected when the freeway was finally aligned, as this is when planners decided which communities would be affected. For example, if a freeway was aligned through a neighborhood that underwent a change in its racial profile after the alignment but before construction, it should not be said that the freeway was intentionally designed to displace the residents who moved in after the alignment was determined.

According to the numbers generated by the census-based methodology, approximately 41% of the people living in the path of the freeway alignments were Black, while the Black population of Harris County at the time hovered around 20%. It is my opinion that the impact of the freeways on the Black population was due to factors other than highway planners’ intentional efforts to target these communities. There was, however, a clear intent among urban renewal advocates to displace Black residents living in what were deemed blighted areas, with freeway construction sometimes used as a tool for that purpose.[56]

During the period of freeway planning and development, societal norms and systemic racism — reinforced by government policies — created a segregated residential pattern through the designation of Black-only neighborhoods. Several of these designated Black neighborhoods were densely populated and located near downtown. As a result, the desire to build freeways to serve downtown Houston inevitably displaced residents of these nearby neighborhoods. Of the Black residents identified as living in the path of Houston’s freeways when they were aligned, 89% lived in the Third, Fourth, or Fifth Wards, which are adjacent to downtown.

Other notable Black residential areas that existed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s included Acres Homes, Independence Heights, and Frenchtown. The North Freeway was aligned to avoid Acres Homes and Independence Heights, while the Eastex Freeway bisected Frenchtown, though this was largely unavoidable. Later, for undetermined reasons, a shift in the alignment of the North Loop led to the removal of several blocks on the south side of Independence Heights, leading to significant displacement of Black residents.

There is considerable evidence that city planners viewed highways as a tool for urban renewal, facilitating the removal of neighborhoods considered blighted.[57] In some instances, highways were only one part of a broader urban renewal process. For example, sections of the Fourth Ward were cleared for downtown civic projects and development of the San Felipe Courts public housing project. The section of freeway that connected the North Freeway and the Gulf Freeway removed much of the historic Fourth Ward, but most of the area affected was located between the downtown projects and San Felipe Courts, meaning that this area was likely transitioning regardless.

The debate over the impact of highways on minority and economically disadvantaged residents often fails to consider the changing status of neighborhoods over time. For example, neighborhoods such as Kashmere Gardens, Lindale Park, and Alief were predominantly white when they were developed, but they have since become home to primarily Black and other minority residents. It is also worth noting that defining a neighborhood by race is increasingly inappropriate today. It is ironic that some have suggested recreating neighborhoods that were originally established based on racist policies.

Overall, our analysis indicates that freeway planners generally avoided established residential neighborhoods outside of the downtown area when possible, with some notable exceptions. For instance, the Southwest Freeway cut through the predominantly white Lamar Wesleyan subdivision, and Loop 610 bifurcated the eastern residential area of Bellaire, which was also primarily white. On the north side, Loop 610 was built through the northern edge of Sunset Heights, a white community, before curving a few blocks north and removing several blocks of homes in Independence Heights, a historically Black neighborhood.

Considering all of the evidence presented in this analysis, the routing of Houston’s freeways relative to minority and economically disadvantaged areas was not done with racist intent. However, many of the affected neighborhoods were considered blighted and impoverished, largely due to racist segregation and civic neglect. The disproportionate displacement of Black residents resulted from imposing what was considered at the time the most efficient highway system on segregated housing patterns created by a racist society. Additionally, some urban renewal advocates, rightly or wrongly, viewed highways as a means of improving living conditions for Black Houstonians.

In terms of future highway development or improvement, our study does not suggest that Houston’s freeway system needs to be dismantled or halted in its expansion. A particularly troubling aspect of the criticisms launched at those who planned the existing freeways is the lack of discussion about alternatives. What were the alternatives at the time the highways were planned? What would Houston look like today without the freeways? Could different alignments have produced better outcomes? These are important questions that should be explored by future researchers and scholars, and this project aims to contribute to that discussion.

The historical perspective does point to the need for a more comprehensive approach to building new freeways or restoring existing ones. In planning additions or improvements to the highway system, attention must be given to potential socioeconomic and environmental impacts on affected communities.

However, any attempt to restore or reconnect communities as they existed before freeways ignores reality. In the decades that have passed since the freeways were built, the affected communities have evolved, and working and shopping patterns are completely different. The people who live in those communities now are not the same as the pre-freeway residents, and attempting to recreate segregated neighborhoods that once existed because of racist policies should be rejected by modern society.

Maintaining and improving highways is necessary to our economy and our daily lives. We must, therefore, dispel the notion that highways are inherently harmful. Doing so requires a more inclusive planning process and a transparent record of the decisions made.

Acknowledgment 

I would like to thank Matt Drwenski, research associate at the Center for Energy Studies, for his invaluable support in completing this research.

Notes

---

[1] U.S. Department of Transportation, “Reconnecting Communities FY 2022 Awards,” https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting/rcp-fy22-awards. 

[2] This section was written by Matt Drwenski and is an abridged version of the full methodology provided on the “roadsTaken” website (Drwenski, Uilvim Ettore Gardin Franco, and Bruno Sousa, “roadsTaken,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, October 31, 2024, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/roads-taken). To read the full version, see Drwenski, “roadsTaken: Methodology,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, October 31, 2024, https://doi.org/10.25613/1X6W-P436.

[3] Ben Poston and Liam Dillon, “How We Reported the Story on Highway Displacements,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-11/how-we-reported-the-story-on-freeway-displacements.

[4] Texas Department of Transportation, “Real Property Asset Map,” https://maps.dot.state.tx.us/AGO_Template/TxDOT_Viewer/.

[5] Houston Public Library, “Houston and Texas,” https://houstonlibrary.org/sb.php?subject_id=209042. 

[6] “Annual Right-of-Way Statistics,” Federal Highway Administration, updated October 13, 2022, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/uniform_act/stats/.

[7] Ralph Ellifrit, interviewed by Louis Marchiafava, Houston History Research Center (HHRC) Oral History Collection, Houston Public Library Special Collections, September 26, 1979.

[8] “1950 Census,” U.S. National Archives, accessed November 20, 2023, https://1950census.archives.gov/.

[9] “Questions Asked on the 1950 Census,” U.S. National Archives, October 29, 2020, https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1950/questions-asked.

[10] Demographic or income summaries based on these datasets for blocks or neighborhoods that underwent a demographic or economic change during the period between our data collection and the clearance of buildings for the highway are likely to be inaccurate or misleading.

[11] Please note that other information about the methodology has been omitted. See full methodology at Drwenski, “roadsTaken: Methodology.”

[12] For sources on the displaced buildings layer file and demographic information, see “roadsTaken” website.

[13] See, for example, Ryan Reft, “We Mythologize Highways, But They’ve Damaged Communities of Color,” Washington Post, January 19, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2023/01/19/interstate-highways-black-neighborhoods/; and Noel King, “A Brief History of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways,” NPR, April 7, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways. 

[14] This section was written by Drwenski and is an abridged and edited version of the full history provided on the “roadsTaken” website (“roadsTaken: History,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, October 31, 2024, https://doi.org/10.25613/69BV-ZC67.)

[15] Report of the City Planning Commission, Houston, Texas, 1929, Folder: 41, James R. Sims papers, 1924–2002, MS 0596, Woodson Research Center, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 25, https://archives.library.rice.edu/repositories/2/archival_objects/93652. 

[16] J.C. Dingwall, “Topical Outline (Not a Finished Speech),” 1968 Original Speeches, Texas Highway Department, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, 5.

[17] Joseph F. DiMento and Cliff Ellis, Changing Lanes: Visions and Histories of Urban Freeways (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013), 10–4, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9374.001.0001.

[18] Daniel H. Burnham, “Theoretical Diagram, Paris,” Report on a Plan for San Francisco by Daniel H. Burnham, 1905, David Rumsey Map Collection, David Rumsey Map Center, Stanford Libraries, https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~354997~1120378. 

[19] Toll Roads and Free Roads, Public Roads, vol. 20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, 1939), 93, https://enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/membersOnly-1939-Toll-Roads-and-Free-Roads.compressed.pdf. 

[20] Toll Roads and Free Roads, Public Roads, 94–5.

[21] Interregional Highways, Report of National Interregional Highway Committee, Congressional Document, 1944, 53, https://enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/membersOnly-1944-Interregional-Highways.pdf.

[22] Interregional Highways.

[23] Texas Archival Resources Online, “Texas Department of Transportation Highway Department Historical Records: An Inventory of the Department of Transportation Highway Department Historical Records at the Texas State Archives, 1911–1993, bulk 1927–1960,” American Association of State Highway Officials correspondence, Texas State Library and Archives Commission (boxes 2002/101–1, 2002/101–2, 2002/101–3), https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/19001.xml.

[24] The Sagamore Conference on Highways and Urban Development: Guidelines for Action, (Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1958), 23–4.

[25] American Association of State Highway Officials, 89.

[26] The Sagamore Conference on Highways and Urban Development, 11.

[27] Mark H. Rose and Raymond A. Mohl, Interstate: Highway Politics and Policy Since 1939, (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2012), 55–67.

[28] Ellifrit, interviewed by Louis Marchiafava.

[29] Arthur Coleman Comey, “Houston: Tentative Plans for Its Development,” Report to the Houston Park Commission (United States: Press of Geo. H. Ellis Company, 1913).

[30] Archie Henderson, “City Planning in Houston, 1920-1930,” The Houston Review, 133, https://houstonhistorymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/9.3-City-Planning-In-Houston-1920-1930-Archie-Henderson.pdf.   

[31] The City Plan of Houston(Houston: The City Planning Commission, 1929), City Planning Department, City of Houston, RG A 0004, HHRC, Houston Public Library.

[32] The spelling “about” instead of “around” is as the source material reads (The City Plan of Houston, 25).

[33] The City Plan of Houston, 25–6.

[34] The City Plan of Houston, 25.

[35] The City Plan of Houston.

[36] Report of the City Planning Commission, 25.

[37] Henderson, 134–6.

[38] “Planning the City: An Interview with Ralph Ellifrit,” Houston Magazine, Winter 1981, 215, https://houstonhistorymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Planning-the-City-An-Interview-with-Ralph-Ellifrit.pdf. 

[39] Today, Antioch Mission Baptist Church is the only remaining building of the east Fourth Ward.

[40] Drwenski, Ettore Gardin Franco, and Sousa, “roadsTaken.” 

[41] “Planning the City,” Houston Chronicle, February 23, 1940, 39, 205.

[42] “Planning the City: An Interview with Ralph Ellifrit,” 213, 218.

[43] Ellen Middlebrook, “Ellifritt Urges Shifting of Southwest Freeway,” Houston Post, March 4, 1959, 28.

[44] Ellifrit, interviewed by Louis Marchiafava, transcription by Drwenski, Tape 3.

[45] “Planning the City: An Interview with Ralph Ellifrit,” 213. 

[46] Ellifrit, interviewed by Louis Marchiafava, transcription by Drwenski, Tape 3.

[47] Drwenski, Ettore Gardin Franco, and Sousa, “roadsTaken.” 

[48] DiMento and Ellis, 67–73

[49] Robert K. Nelson et al., “Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America,” American Panorama, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/map#loc=4/41.1787/-95.8008.

[50] Drwenski, Ettore Gardin Franco, and Sousa, “roadsTaken.” 

[51] Dingwall, 5.

[52] See, for example, David Leonhardt, “Fixing What Highways Destroyed,” New York Times, Morning Newsletter, May 28, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/briefing/us-highways-destruction-sugar-hill.html. 

[53] See, for example, Sally Bagshaw, Scott Bonjukian, and John Feit, “Reconnecting What Freeways Severed: Addressing the Historical Toll on Communities Split by Highways,” Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative Social Impact Review, December 15, 2021, https://www.sir.advancedleadership.harvard.edu/articles/reconnecting-what-freeways-severed-addressing-the-historical-toll-on-communities-split-by-highways.

[54] Drwenski, Ettore Gardin Franco, and Sousa, “roadsTaken.” 

[55] Drwenski, Ettore Gardin Franco, and Sousa, “roadsTaken.” 

[56] See sources listed in Drwenski, “roadsTaken: History.”

[57] See sources listed in Drwenski, “roadsTaken: History.”

 

 

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.