At the beginning of the twentieth century, many African Americans looked to Los Angeles as a city of great possibility—“a haven for Black progress.”¹ The city’s African American community experienced conditions unlike most other major cities of the North and the South; businesses owned and operated by members of the Black community thrived in enclaves spread throughout the city, particularly along Central Avenue, and by 1900 Los Angeles supplanted San Francisco as the economic and cultural center of African American life on the West Coast.² Black Angelenos also faced relatively little hostility from White residents than African American residents of cities like Chicago and New York, due in part to the diversity of ethnic groups already present in L.A. There were even anti-discrimination laws on the books, although they were not often enforced.³

One of Los Angeles’ most alluring promises was the opportunity to own a home. W.E.B. Du Bois, a leading figure in the African American community, wrote glowing descriptions of California, calling it a place where “hospitality of all its races lingers long.”⁴ African American homeownership in Los Angeles exceeded that of any other minority group in the city, as well as the rates of African-American homeownership in comparable Northeastern cities like New York.⁵ In a 1913 publication, Du Bois included photographs of African American families in front of their “beautiful homes.”⁶ Although he concedes that “Los Angeles is not Paradise… The color line is there and sharply drawn” when describing discrimination in shops and restaurants, Du Bois ultimately paints an enticing picture of Los Angeles:

“These colored people are pushing and energetic. They are without doubt the most beautifully housed group of colored people in the United States. They are full of push and energy and are used to working together.”⁷

Yet, these descriptions do not account for the whole picture of housing in Los Angeles in the early twentieth century, as evidenced by the experiences of the Mexican American community. The development of Los Angeles saw the Mexican-American community redlined into a small number of neighborhoods, like Chavez Ravine, in the hills just north of downtown, and “Sonoratown,” which once occupied the downtown area now known as Chinatown. Sonoratown in particular was, in the words of White observers like writer and California Commission of Immigration and Housing member Amanda Mathews Chase, “detested by the citizens of Los Angeles as the last outpost against progress.”⁸ Another writer in 1907 described the neighborhood as “a Mexican pueblo, dirty, peaceful, unprogressive,” where “the low life of Mexico is duplicated.”⁹

A number of such neighborhoods could be found in central and eastern Los Angeles. In these neighborhoods, shacks and shoddy buildings made with crude materials were built on unimproved land where tenants were crowded together. A 1916 Housing Commission report found that 16,000 working-class people were packed into 1,202 such housing courts: “The more Mexicans to the lot, the more money for the owner.”¹⁰ Dubbed “cholo courts,” these neighborhoods were as harsh and slum-like as the infamous tenement conditions in Midwestern cities like Chicago. These conditions only worsened as incoming ethnic working class immigrants were similarly relegated to these neighborhoods.

For most of the early history of Los Angeles, the African-American community resisted this degree of fragmentation, remaining economically stable and politically organized.¹¹ This was due, in large part, to the relatively small size of the community. Around 1880, there were approximately 200 Black Angelenos. By the beginning of the 1900s, this population had still only grown to just over 2,000.¹² Meanwhile, housing restrictions focused on the larger Mexican and Asian communities¹³

However, the rise of Jim Crow in the South and the promise of opportunity drew a wave of Black migrants to Los Angeles, drastically altering the housing situation for the Black community. In just a few decades, the African-American population increased by over seven times, jumping to 15,579 by 1920.¹⁴ Until 1910, most of the African Americans who relocated to Los Angeles were skilled workers and relatively well-educated because of the cost of the move. Du Bois mentioned this in his 1913 article, when he stated that in Los Angeles, “The better class of people, colored and white, can and do meet each other.”¹⁵

The first “Great Migration” did not go unnoticed by White Angelenos. In fact, maps tracking the population’s locations demonstrate how agitated white residents were about this development. This map from the 1920s tracks the spread of “the Negro race” and deems “proper restrictions” to be “the only safeguard.”¹⁶

Indeed, these “safeguards” would come in the form of housing covenants and deed restrictions. These agreements dictated that White property owners would not sell their property to people of color. Breaching these agreements would lead to eviction for the buyer and a fine for the white seller.¹⁷

Housing segregation intensified to such an extent that by 1920, three-fourths of Black Angelenos lived in three of the city’s dozen assembly districts. There would be no help from the California courts, which upheld the legality of deed restrictions.¹⁸ Such rulings forced African-American families to abandon restricted properties in West L.A., and soon about 95% of the city’s housing was inaccessible to them. Physical violence was also used to enforce this segregationist housing regime, and the Klu Klux Klan, headquartered downtown, was particularly active in areas like Inglewood.¹⁹

Thus, Du Bois’ optimistic portrayal of the promises of Los Angeles painted an incomplete picture of housing conditions. As the century progressed, urban renewal plans would present additional barriers to housing for marginalized communities. However, the story of housing in Los Angeles was not just one of discrimination, but also one of resistance. Some families like the Laws were able to keep their homes after long struggles against the forces of segregation. Many more, like the Aréchiga family, would be unjustly forced from their property and the places they called home.

Notes