F. STUART CHAPIN, JR., and others. In the Shadow of a Defense Plant : A Study of Urbanization in Rural South Carolina. Pp. xvi, 260. Chapel Hill: Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina, 1954. $2.50. THE INSTITUTE FOR URBAN STUDIES, Uni versity of Pennsylvania, with the co operation of the Bureau of Urban Re search, Princeton University. Acceler ated Urban Growth in a Metropolitan Fringe Area: A Study of Urbanization, Suburbanization and the Impact of the U. S. Steel Plant in Lower Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Vol. I, Summary Report, Vol. II, Project Report. Pp. ix, 63, xx; xxv, 262. Vol. I, $2.00; Vol. II, $4.00; Two vols., $5.00

• Author: Charles S. Ascher
• DOI: 10.1177/000271625530000143
• Published date: 01 July 1955
• Date: 01 July 1955
• Subject Matter: Articles

150

velopment

of

a

&dquo;militant

left&dquo;

will

the

West

hold

the

front

in

these

two

areas.

&dquo;For

obvious

reasons,

this

is

not

a

cam-

paign

for

the

United

States

government

to

undertake.

To

inspire

confidence

the

main

leadership

must

come

from

the

peoples

of

these

countries

themselves.

However,

such

a

movement

can

be

sparked,

and

financed,

and

advised

by

the

powerful

free

trade

union

movements

of

the

United

States,

England,

and

the

European

continent.&dquo;

These

challenging

ideas

reflect

only

a

small

part

of

the

solid

research

and

solid

thinking

which

have

gone

into

this

meaty

report.

ELMO

C.

WILSON

International

Research

Associates

F.

STUART

CHAPIN,

JR.,

and

others.

In

the

Shadow

of

a

Defense

Plant :

A

Study

of

Urbanization

in

Rural

South

Carolina.

Pp.

xvi,

260.

Chapel

Hill:

Institute

for

Research

in

Social

Science,

University

of

North

Carolina,

1954.

$2.50.

THE

INSTITUTE

FOR

URBAN

STUDIES,

Uni-

versity

of

Pennsylvania,

with

the

co-

operation

of

the

Bureau

of

Urban

Re-

search,

Princeton

University.

Acceler-

ated

Urban

Growth

in

a

Metropolitan

Fringe

Area:

A

Study

of

Urbanization,

Suburbanization

and

the

Impact

of

the

U.

S.

Steel

Plant

in

Lower

Bucks

County,

Pennsylvania.

Vol.

I,

Summary

Report,

Vol.

II,

Project

Report.

Pp.

ix,

63,

xx;

xxv,

262.

Vol.

I,

$2.00;

Vol.

II,

$4.00;

Two

vols.,

$5.00.

World

War

II’s

boom

towns

fascinated

students

of

urbanization.

Despite

the

diffi-

culties

of

research

in

wartime,

teams

of

social

scientists

were

deployed

as

partici-

pant-observers

in

Willow

Run

(Carr

and

Stermer),

Seneca,

Illinois

(Havighurst

and

Morgan),

Hampton

Roads

(Marsh

and

others),

Charlestown,

Indiana

(Field

and

Stoner),

and

elsewhere.

They

reported

the

dismal

failure

of

rural

local

government

to

respond

to

the

needs

for

new

public

serv-

ices,

lack

of

co-ordination

in

the

actions

of

state

and

federal

agencies,

social

conflicts

between

the

old

settlers

and

the

new

in-

migrants,

and

disruption

of

community

life.

But,

of

course,

this

was

wartime:

what

could

one

expect?

On

November

28,

1950,

The

Atomic

Energy

Commission

announced

that

about

315

square

miles

of

land

along

the

Savan-

nah

River

would

be evacuated

to

become

the

site

of

the

world’s

largest

industrial

plant,

bringing

into

a

predominantly

rural

area

a

construction

force

of

36,000

and

a

permanent

labor

force

of

over

6,000.

In

the

summer

of

1950,

it

became

ap-

parent

that

an

unidentified

agency

was

about

to

undertake

a

major

development

in

lower

Bucks

County,

Pennsylvania,

an-

nounced

by

the

United

States

Steel

Cor-

poration

on

December

27,

1950

as

the

world’s

largest

integrated

steel

works.

Here

was

no

mass

evacuation;

3,800

acres

of

truck

farms

were

acquired

in

an

area

already

in

the throes

of

suburbanization

lying

between

the

expanding

centers

of

Philadelphia

and

Trenton.

Alert

urbanists

at

universities

in

the

two

regions

obtained

the

support

of

the

now

defunct

Division

of

Research

of

the

United

States

Housing

and

Home

Finance

Agency

to

send

well

balanced

teams

of

sociologists,

planners,

political

scientists,

social

workers

and

land

economists

into

the

areas

to

watch

what

would

happen

over

the

next

two

years.

The

stated

purpose

of

research

was

the

de-

velopment

of

guides

for

urbanization

in

metropolitan

areas

affected

by

the

building

of

large

industrial

plants.

The

guides

appear

in

these

able

and

in-

teresting

reports.

The

South

Carolina

re-

port

sets

forth

&dquo;Lessons

for

the

Future,&dquo;

for

the

relocation

of

the

displaced

families

and

for

rapid

urbanization

of

open

areas.

Alas,

the

lessons

of

the

extensive

Tennessee

Valley

Authority

relocation

experience

(in

reservoir

clearances)

were

written

plain

for

AEC

to

see;

but,

in

the

words

of

the

re-

port,

in

the

name

of

security

for

the

na-

tion,

there

resulted

unwarranted

threats

to

individual

security

of

the

displaced

families.

Our

principles

of

compensation

were

and

are

totally

inadequate.

The

Bucks

County

report

lists

sixteen

pazes

of

&dquo;Guides

to

Urbanization&dquo;:

a

check

list

of

steps

that

must

be

taken

to

provide

for

orderly

growth

and

the

provision

of

needed

services.

Yet

the

reports

of

the

1951-53

experi-

ences

read

frighteningly

like

the

wartime