Foreword:

All demographics and housing data from 1940 to 2010 and accompanying census boundaries were created from data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and digitized by National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). Citywide housing and population data in 2020 were sourced directly from the U.S. Census Bureau. “Other Races” refers to non-Black people of color the Census did not specify until 1970 at the neighborhood level.

Part 2 Linked Here.

Introduction:

In light of Berkeley’s historic push to eliminate exclusionary zoning, debates have emerged contesting the fundamental cause of gentrification in the city. I’ve compiled census data at Berkeley’s neighborhood level to see if it contained any answers about when gentrification in Berkeley started and how it has impacted the Black population of Berkeley. In order to fully grasp Black Berkeley, and put into full context decisions which today are difficult to understand without it, we need to start in the year 1940, when the Census began taking municipal surveys.

In order to immerse yourself in each decade and visualize the racial makeup and migration of the city, I’ve created Census maps on racial demographics and various relevant topics of the City of Berkeley for Census years: 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1970. Click on this link or the image below. Note when you hover over a tract, the small screen on the top right contains information about each neighborhood.

I hope to illustrate the origins of Berkeley’s housing crisis and highlight what has fueled a longstanding decline of Black residents and working class households from the city.

The War Era: 1940 to 1950

Prior to World War 2, Berkeley was a fairly affluent city of professionals who worked in Oakland and San Francisco. In 1940, the Black population of Berkeley numbered around 5,280. Here’s the earliest Census neighborhood map of Berkeley taken in the year 1940. The federal government-sponsored Homeowners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) alerted lenders and home buyers if non-whites were moving into a neighborhood by highlighting the borders of diversifying areas in red on maps, a practice later known as redlining. These redlining maps referred to the Black enclaves in the Bay Area as “slums under infiltration” but distinguished South Berkeley, nicknaming it “Negro Piedmont”1 and described it as where the Bay Area’s Black professionals lived.

But Black newcomers faced endless hostilities in the housing market, which was heavily sponsored by the federal government. The FHA was subsidizing white people into homeownership while refusing to lend to prospective Black homeowners or in their neighborhoods, viewing their presence as a threat to federally-backed mortgages. Thus Black people often paid more expensive mortgages at higher interest rates than their white counterparts for the same house.

More than 8,000 Black people moved to Berkeley during the 1940s, much to the frustration of incumbent white residents. White people from Central Berkeley (McGee-Spaulding) brought petitions to the city council demanding that racial zoning laws be installed to prohibit Blacks and Asians from being sold property. But the City Council believed that the courts would strike down racial zoning laws and pressured the Realty Board to crack down on any realtor showing houses to Black and Asian buyers in white neighborhoods.2

The Realty Board was Berkeley’s premiere association of real-estate professionals, originating from the early days of Berkeley’s development. In the 1930s, the Realty Board had organized many neighborhoods under a covenant system by appending that the home must only be sold to Caucasians on home deeds for a $5 fee and assuring legal defense in court for any violations.3 This was heralded by real estate magazines at the time as protecting Berkeley against “the invasion of Negroes and Asiatics.”4 Despite this system, the Census illustrates that Asians continued to expand toward Downtown Berkeley, eastward to Telegraph and north to Central Berkeley. Black residents, with very few exceptions such as housekeepers and nannies, were confined exclusively to Southwest Berkeley, bounded by Adeline Street, Dwight Way, San Pablo Avenue and the Oakland border.

Berkeley’s revolutionary zoning laws were written and lobbied for by the city’s earliest real estate developers to protect their properties from “detrimental” influences such as multifamily housing and industry. Berkeley was the first city in America to create single-family-only zoning, which imposed density restrictions of just one family per house, thus prohibiting apartments of any kind. This served to protect the property values of the Claremont, Elmwood and Northbrae neighborhoods in and near the Berkeley Hills from more affordable housing .

In practice this succeeded in excluding apartment housing usually available to lower income people. For example, in 1940 the attorney representing neighborhood opposition to the construction of an ice skating rink in South Berkeley argued that reducing restrictive zoning would see an influx of Black residents into the neighborhood.5 Anti-commercial ordinances were passed in the late 1910s against commercial uses like Asian-owned Laundromats, horse stalls and Black-catering businesses.

When war broke out in 1941, the Bay Area needed to accommodate the in-migration of maritime war workers for shipyards in Richmond, Vallejo and Rodeo. The Federal Government established a major 1,100 unit public housing project for these workers in West Berkeley and Albany called Codornices Village by temporarily confiscating factory owners’ land to build rows of war housing. There was also another but smaller public housing complex called Savo Island, located in South Berkeley.

But a year after the Pearl Harbor attack, Berkeley was undergoing a severe housing shortage amplified by its designation as a “defense rental area” for Navy personnel. The Federal government instituted national rent control, including mandatory landlord registration to county-based public rental agencies. With discrimination against Black residents permitted in the private sector, Alameda County’s rent control authority was of little assistance to Black tenants in Berkeley. Notice in the 1950 Census map of median rent increases in Berkeley neighborhoods during the 1940s, the Black neighborhoods in the southwest endured higher than inflation rental increases while white neighborhoods saw increases that were at or lower than the level of inflation. Note that the only Black area not seeing above-inflation rental increases was the north half of West Berkeley, where the Codornices Village public housing complex was located.

But rent control and Codornices Village weren’t sufficient to address urban population growth. With raw materials prioritized for the war effort, developers couldn’t build much housing. The city of Berkeley thus adopted two major wartime policies to add housing:

Deregulating restrictions on living in trailers in West Berkeley, which is everything west of San Pablo Avenue.6
Deregulating restrictive zoning city-wide by allowing residents to subdivide their homes into multifamily housing at any density—even in single-family-only areas.7

The city and federal government encouraged subdivision in Berkeley through advertisements, even offering lending assistance for homeowners to help construct multifamily housing. For example, a house in the single-family-zoned edge of the Berkeley Hills at 1321 Spruce Street was permitted to be turned into a temporary fiveplex despite being in the single-family zone. It remains a non-zoning-conforming fiveplex to this day.

In the 1940s, Berkeley added a net increase of 7,641 homes for a 26% increase in housing. Note the very dark green color of West Berkeley north in the Census 1950 map’s housing data was the construction of Codornices Village. To put these numbers in comparison to today’s, in the 2010s Berkeley added roughly 2,877 new homes and some consider this to be a building boom.

The 1940s saw 28,258 new residents for a 33% increase in population, including a 16,001 or 20% increase in White people, a 9,894 or 291% increase in Black people, and a 11,404 or 604% increase in non-black People of Color. Despite the huge increase in white residents however, Census 1950 data reveals 2,663 white people fled South Berkeley during the 1940s as Black people moved in.

The White Flight Era: 1950 to 1960

With a massive increase in Black residents during the 1940s, there were many conservatives in Berkeley interested in stopping their expansion. With federal rent control coming to an end, the City Council would end its rent control ordinance as requested by the Realty Board and the Alameda County Apartment House Association in October 1951, despite opposition by an organized front of tenants, Socialists and progressive groups.

By 1954, Codornices Village and its 1,960 families were 88% Black. The village was a tight-knit community, having organized a public housing tenant council and formed mobs to physically beat back police officers serving evictions by Navy officials.8 But the Federal Housing Authority announced that all tenants were to vacate by the mid-1950s because the land had been only temporarily acquired from West Berkeley factory owners and needed to be returned. Most Black tenants dispersed throughout Berkeley or to other cities, finding housing with the help of community groups, churches and the Realty Board9, and by 1956 Berkeley’s largest public housing community was demolished. (The sections of the village on the Albany side of the border were retained and later became University of California student housing). With white districts such as Northwest Berkeley and Westbrae bordering the north section of West Berkeley where Codornices Village was, Census 1960 data reveals these neighborhoods quickly housed Black residents with over 1,500 new arrivals. This marked the successful entry of Black residents into North Berkeley. However, virtually no Black residents were able to breach east of Sacramento Street, making it a significant red line for Black North Berkeleyans.

Berkeley planners in the early 1950s had drawn up radical plans for a bigger city in response to the extensive suburban development of Contra Costa County. The 1950s Master Plan envisioned a Berkeley with two parallel freeways where I-80 is today, another freeway along Ashby Avenue, more West Berkeley factories and tons of bay infill to build a community of high density apartments at the Berkeley Marina.10

White flight in the 1950s reversed much of the white in-migration that occurred in the 1940s in the flatlands. The attempt to stop Black residents from moving into Central Berkeley that McGee-Spaulding neighbors had started in the early 1940s failed, and 1,000 white residents left the area while 500 Black and 400 people of color moved in.

The red line containing Black residents to southwest Berkeley unofficially dissolved and Black residents poured into West Berkeley, Central Berkeley and gradually into the Northwest neighborhoods right up to the Albany border. Census 1960 data reveals the newly-permitted areas for Black residents became everything west of Sacramento Street in North Berkeley and everything west of Shattuck Avenue in South Berkeley, having moved east from Grove Street (now MLK Jr Way).

In contrast to the previous decades, home construction did not follow the Black population. New construction was almost exclusively private single-family homes in the Berkeley Hills and a few dingbat apartments in the white neighborhoods of eastern South Berkeley, Bateman and the west side of Elmwood.

But the primary culprit for the lack of Black residents in new development was discrimination. Landlords in new apartments did not rent to Black tenants if the housing was located outside of Black areas. As the local NAACP president said to East Bay business leaders: “And where in the non-ghetto areas can a Negro buy a house less than 20 years old in metropolitan Oakland?”11 Black residents were confined to new housing only in the redlined areas, or were charged higher rents in older housing than white tenants as a racial surcharge by landlords in white areas. “I don’t rent to Negroes or beatniks,” one Berkeley landlord told the San Francisco Chronicle.12

In 1958, when a Black family moved into a house being rented out by a white school teacher in the exclusive Elmwood neighborhood, Berkeley Police conducted a joint investigation with the FBI on whether the teacher was part of an integration conspiracy. The FHA subsequently blacklisted the white teacher from future federal financial assistance.13 In 1959, when a Black family dared to move into the Cragmont area of the Berkeley Hills, a Ku Klux Klan-style burning cross was placed on their property.14 With endless discrimination against Black home seekers, the first attempt at an anti-discrimination “Fair Housing” ordinance was created by Socialists in 1959, which was widely opposed even by the NAACP for being flawed and was voted down three-to-one by voters.15

Still, Census 1960 shows the Black population grew at a rate of 64% or 8,561 new residents in the 1950s—virtually identical to the war era. The White population, however, along with the city’s overall population, had contracted from 113,805 to 111,268 with whites shrinking by 15% or 14,000 fewer residents as new suburban communities and defacto white schools lured away white Berkeleyans to the east side of the Berkeley Hills. Developers had added 4,098 units to Berkeley’s housing supply in 10 years, or roughly what Berkeley builds today in 20 years.

The most prominent change to come out of the 1950s was the idea to integrate Berkeley’s schools. In 1959, a race relations committee report, referred to by the Board of Education president at the time as “the most important report in Berkeley’s modern history,” highlighted numerous racial discrepancies between Black and White students and suggested moderate integration. With white parents jeering and booing the committee’s findings at Whitter School (now Berkeley Arts Magnet), this signaled the fast-tracking of white flight from Berkeley.

The Radical Era: 1960 to 1970

Radical activists were quite busy at the University of California in the 1960s with the counterculture and Anti-Vietnam War movement taking over Telegraph. But lesser known was the debate occurring in southwest Berkeley in 1963. Despite its obscurity, the decisions made there characterize Berkeley’s attitude towards housing for decades to come.

The 1960s were characterized by developers building more housing than in previous years in the dingbat apartment style and many people in Berkeley hated them, nicknaming them “ticky tackies.” Many thought of the dingbats as shoddily built, cheap boxes and mourned the loss of historic old houses that they replaced.

At this time the zoning for San Pablo Park, a Black middle class neighborhood in southwest Berkeley, was being re-examined as part of the Master Plan and two sides formed: pro- and anti-development. The pro-development side included the Berkeley Realty Board, which while advocating for allowing apartments in Black neighborhoods was simultaneously campaigning against the latest and most monumental Fair Housing ballot measure. This measure, banning race discrimination in all housing, gave rise to a contentious and vicious battle; the large white conservative population in Berkeley successfully defeated it.

The Realty Board argued that the existing R-3 (multi-story apartment) zoning would keep property values up because Black homeowners’ home value reflected both the ability to build multiple homes in addition to their current functions as single houses. This opinion was vocally shared by then California Assemblyman Byron Rumford,16 the first Black person ever elected to state office in Northern California and future author of the state’s landmark ban on housing discrimination.

On the anti-development side, the Planning Commission supported single-family-only zoning, citing polling of San Pablo Park property owners that showed a slight majority favoring single-family only zoning and a slight minority favoring multifamily zoning. The Planning Commission also argued that under multifamily zoning, West Berkeley had declined severely, becoming the “most blighted” neighborhood in the city and that they did not want to see the same for the southwest neighborhoods.17

“It is well known that R-1 areas are the best maintained”, the Planning Commission argued,18 referring to the single-family only zoning of the Berkeley Hills. The Commission’s logic was that the ability of homeowners to build apartments or sell their land to developers allowed neighborhoods to deteriorate because homeowners would neglect their homes if it could be replaced by a new apartment complex. They reasoned that single-family-only zoning would encourage Black homeowners to keep up their homes, since their home value would exclusively reflect the use-value of the actual house, not the potential value of an apartment complex.

Hanging over the heads of Black residents in San Pablo Park was the prospect of the dreaded “urban renewal” campaigns. Federally-funded redevelopment agencies would declare a neighborhood’s homes “blighted” and then demolish neighborhoods wholesale with the stated intent to rebuild them with public housing and infrastructure. In areas subjected to the campaign in Oakland and San Francisco it usually resulted in numerous vacant lots, further depressed home values, massive freeways and displaced Black residents. Already urban renewal had its sights on the viability of Black Berkeley, proposing to significantly expand industrial factories in West Berkeley and to construct a freeway along Ashby Avenue that would split South Berkeley in half. For San Pablo Park, the debate was openly how best to prevent blight and therefore urban renewal in this prideful middle class Black area.

The City Council sided with the Planning Commission and passed single-family only zoning for San Pablo Park, along with a general downzoning of South Berkeley to densities no greater than duplexes and conditional 4-homes/fourplexes, thus partially adopting exclusionary zoning from the white neighborhoods into Black neighborhoods and banning dense apartments.19 The City Council and Planning Commission changed the Master Plan in 1963 and most of the flatlands in North Berkeley was downzoned to duplex and conditional fourplex capacity south of Virginia Street and to duplexes and single-family-only zoning north of Virginia Street in the largely white areas. A few portions of West Berkeley were downzoned to duplexes and conditional fourplexes from high density apartments.20 This mass-downzoning signaled the growing momentum away from a pro-growth philosophy and into the preservationist fervor sweeping urban America during the 1960s amid urban blight.

It also signaled the final triumph of the automobile over mass transit, when Berkeley City Council in 1963 required that every new apartment built must have a parking space for each dwelling built. This was in response to many downzonings and apartment opposition being motivated by traffic complaints.21 As one neighborhood developer complained in 1964, the one-to-one parking requirement would “make the construction of high rise apartment house impossible.” The inflated costs from parking lots were at odds with affordability since "the days of luxury apartments are over and the need is for low cost housing."22

But the downzoning conducted in 1963 wasn’t enough for many, as the construction of apartments still persisted. Four years later, West Berkeley—which at the time was 67% Black—downzoned again and adopted a similar apartment ban ordinance inspired by San Pablo Park. Under the Oakland Tribune headline of “NO APARTMENTS,”23 West Berkeley was downzoned again to R-1A entirely, mandating only single-family housing on every lot as a baseline and conditional duplexes if the lots were larger than 2,500 square feet24. This was a substantial reduction in living space from the multi-story apartments of R-4 and even the duplexes of R-2 that existed before.

The West Berkeley Neighborhood Council pushed for the zoning changes, asserting an overcrowding of people by apartments and a distaste for shoddily constructed apartments causing blight in the neighborhood. As one, likely Black, West Berkeleyan explained at City Council, the apartment zoning had brought “overcrowding, poorly constructed buildings and rundown conditions."A neighborhood survey found that 85% of respondents agreed with the sentiment.25

Meanwhile, construction workers had begun tearing down 517 homes in Berkeley to build the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train system. Flatland activists fought to put BART underground throughout the entire city. For Black people in South Berkeley, the intent was to prevent solidifying segregation with big aerial tracks splitting the city into a Black western half and a White eastern half.26 For the white people in North Berkeley and the mayor at the time, the aerial tracks would’ve been a visual blight on their communities.27

BART had envisioned stations with high rise housing and a mix of affordability levels, but all plans either died in favor of parking lots because BART didn’t have enough money—as happened to North Berkeley station—or didn’t have the nearby rent levels to support private developer interest despite neighborhood support for development, as happened to South Berkeley (Ashby station).28

By the end of the decade, neighborhood groups in the Northwest Berkeley flatlands and Poet’s Corner/Central Berkeley south of the North Berkeley BART station wanted to downzone even further against speculative apartment construction possibly wrought by the new BART station. The new zoning lowered allowable housing from high-density apartments (R-5) near University Avenue and conditional fourplexes in the residential areas (R-2A) to no more than duplexes (R-2); the BART parking lot went from multifamily-zoned to un-zoned in 1969 to discourage any attempted development of the site.29 The rationale given by the City Council when signing off on the downzonings was the belief that the downzoning was needed to “maintain the character” of single-family North Berkeley.30 Other white flatland communities such as Westbrae, Bateman, Panoramic Hill and small blocks downzoned to block apartments in response to traffic, preserving single-family homes and perceived crowding.

The year 1969 is most known for the university students and locals who occupied a temporary UC parking lot and turned it into a park, naming it “People’s Park”, and were subsequently gassed and beaten by police officers.31 At the height of the counterculture movement, the hippies, students and Southside locals were very much in accord with the general sentiment that housing of the dingbat variety was ugly and culture-less. Berkeley artist Malvina Reynolds sung about the ugliness of these style of homes in her famous 1962 song called “Little Boxes.”32

Many hippies viewed the dense apartments as Capitalist conformity while parks, gardens and group living houses was seen as a communal, free spirit, nonconformist virtue. As one Telegraph Avenue activist told the City Council regarding her opinions on the construction of dingbat apartments in Southside, as recorded by the alternative newspaper Berkeley Barb, "rows of ticky tacky boxes with Barbie Dolls and Ken Dolls living in them."

There was a failed attempt to bring urban renewal to Southside and replace derelict houses and shops—many occupied with activists and hippies at the time—with modern facilities. A group of Telegraph merchants, hippies and students, in an unusual alliance with older, anti-government conservative homeowners, convinced the City Council to reject the plan stating it would remove the neighborhood culture for more “ticky tacky” dingbat apartments. As one council member said about the project before his rejection of urban renewal: “Once the entire area has been leveled to the earth, [the urban renewal agency] is going to put in nothing but cheap housing for students."33

The plan to replace the homes destroyed by BART’s subway on Hearst Street in lower North Berkeley, a working class white neighborhood at the time, with dense apartments was killed by activists who occupied the land and called it “People’s Park Annex” in 1969, marking the second counterculture occupation stemming from the energy at People’s Park. These activists succeeded in forcing BART to surrender the land to the City of Berkeley, and turned it into one of the city’s biggest urban parks 10 years later, renamed Ohlone Park.34

With the Summer of Love bringing many white youths to Berkeley, a few hippies had moved into Black neighborhoods which signaled a slowing of white flight. As a result, the white population decline slowed considerably in Berkeley, to just 3,040 fewer white people or a 3.7% decrease during the 1960s. The Black community weren’t all thrilled about the hippies, with many having thought of them as unhygienic white kids who were voluntarily homeless to escape their middle-class lifestyles. The hippies living on the streets of Telegraph sometimes butted heads with the more conservative Black residents in nearby South Berkeley who were trying to keep their neighborhood clean.

In 1969, white youths conducted a now forgotten third People’s Park-styled occupation of a vacant lot in South Berkeley, intending to turn it into a youth hostel and garden called “People’s Pad.” Though the Black Panthers tried to be open minded with the hippies, Black residents and community boards angrily feuded with them during negotiations and eventually forced them to give up, causing the demise of the short lived People’s Pad. Black South Berkeleyans were recorded saying that they didn’t want another “Haight-Ashbury” in their neighborhood.35 But one prominent neighborhood activist, Mable Howard, recognized the larger demographic significance occurring in South Berkeley: “You white kids are in a sense returning to the ghetto to atone for the sins of your parents. When we blacks moved in, years ago, your white folks moved out. Now you're coming back, and some of us blacks are wanting to play the same game your parents played."36

Though People’s Pad disappeared, the growth of white people in that neighborhood was visible from the 1970 Census. For the first time since World War 2, the white population in South Berkeley’s central tract increased by 300 additional white residents. Though insignificant compared to the sea of white flight continuing throughout South Berkeley, the net addition of a few hundred whites is marked as the earliest indicator of white return to South Berkeley.

The housing production in Berkeley was actually higher in the 1960s than it was in the 1950s, adding a net increase of 5,803 homes. Census 1970 reveals new apartments built were almost exclusively in the flatlands of Berkeley where the downzoning had not been in long enough to curtail development yet, while the hills had been immune due to their original single-family only zoning. New apartments were built in proximity to the new BART stations around Northwest Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley and east of Ashby BART station. This would mark as the last time many of these neighborhoods saw housing growth again for decades.

The Black population continued to increase, but growth slowed down to 5,571 new residents. With de jure discrimination by race in housing struck down in California by Byron Rumford’s fair housing law and the Supreme Court, the Black population grew more fully into Northwest Berkeley and Westbrae. Census 1970 reveals that over 100 Black residents gradually extended east towards the middle-class white Upper North Berkeley neighborhood bounded by Shattuck Avenue and Hopkins Street. 420 Black people resided in the white lower-middle class North Berkeley flatland neighborhoods bounded by Shattuck and Cedar—mostly as renters. Over 100 Black residents moved into all-white communities like Northbrae between Solano Avenue and Hopkins Street—mostly as homeowners. The Berkeley Hills were finally in sight and a couple dozen Black homeowners made it there. Black residents had composed half the city geographically and were bound east by 1970.

But this is as far as Black people would go in Berkeley.

History of Gentrification in Berkeley: Part II linked here.

1

HOLC Redlining Maps: https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=5/39.1/-94.58 (Piedmont refers to an affluent white community surrounded by Oakland, California.)

2

Berkeley City Council Meeting Minutes 10/10/1939

3

Berkeley City Council Meeting Minutes 10/17/1939

4

Weiss, M. A. (1986). Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case of Berkeley. Berkeley Planning Journal, 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/BP33113187 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/26b8d8zh Page 18.

5

Berkeley City Council Meeting Minutes 1/10/1940

6

10/6/1942; Berkeley City Council - Ordinance: 2520

7

10/6/1942; Berkeley City Council - Ordinance: 2529

8

“One Hurt in Eviction Row.” Oakland Tribune, 23 August 1950. Page 1.

9

"Codornices Tenants Get Realty Assitance” Oakland Tribune. 09 April 1954. Page 54.

10

The 1950s Master Plan can be seen here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4087021823.

11

"Abdictation By Whites Charged." Oakland Tribune. 04 June 1963. Page 11.

12

“Berkeley Apartheid: Unfair Housing in a University Town.” Douglas Henry Daniels. University of California, Santa Barbara. May 2013.

13

Rothstein, R. “The Color of Law” P. 79

14

Berkeley City Council Meeting Minutes 9/15/1959

15

“Aparthied in a University Town.” https://www.berkeleyside.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Apartheid-in-a-University-Town.pdf

16

“Berkeley Zoning Plan Opposed At Hearing.” Oakland Tribune, 11 Sep 1962. Page 17.

17

Berkeley City Council meeting minutes 5/14/1963

18

Berkeley City Council meeting minutes 1/8/1963

19

6/11/1963; Berkeley City Council - Ordinance: 3944;

20

6/11/1963; Berkeley City Council - Ordinance: 3943;

21

2/26/1963; Berkeley City Council - Ordinance: 3928;

22

Berkeley City Council meeting minutes 4/7/1964;

23

"No Apartments: Berkeleyans Win Fight On Zoning."Oakland Tribune. 14 June 1967. Page 15.

24

6/20/1967; Berkeley City Council - Ordinance: 4272;

25

Berkeley City Council meeting minutes: 6/13/1967

26

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/03/21/welcome-neighborhood-new-film-shines-light-changing-berkeley

27

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2017/03/14/fight-underground-bart-berkeley-one-many-tales-told-new-book

28

"Berkeley Transit Route & Air Space Development Study: A report to the Berkeley City Council." Okamoto/Liskamm Planners & Architects AIA. August 1967.

29

10/28/1969; Berkeley City Council - Ordinance: 4449;

30

Berkeley City Council meetings minutes: 7/8/1969

31

Terry O’Keefe, et al. “Berkeley Barb.” Berkeley Barb, vol. 2, no. 14, Max Scherr, Apr. 1966, pp. 1–8, https://jstor.org/stable/10.2307/community.28033081.

32

Little Boxes Song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes

33

George Kauffman, et al. “Berkeley Barb.” Berkeley Barb, vol. 2, no. 13, Max Scherr, Apr. 1966, pp. 1–8, https://jstor.org/stable/10.2307/community.28033080.

34

History of Ohlone Park: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Parks_Rec_Waterfront/Trees_Parks/PARKS__OHLONE_PARK(1).aspx

35

"Setback Hits People's Pad". Oakland Tribune, 16 June 1969. Page 17.

36

Sgt. Pepper, et al. “Berkeley Barb.” Berkeley Barb, vol. 9, no. 1(203), Max Scherr, July 1969, pp. 1–24, https://jstor.org/stable/10.2307/community.28033229.

The Discourse Lounge

The History of Gentrification in Berkeley…