Is Tennis Really That Popular?

One of the joys of encountering a new social theory is that it affords one the opportunity to reevaluate stale phenomena from a different perspective. Professor Strahilevitz’s discussion of inclusionary voids launched me on just such an inquiry. His treatment of the manipulation of club goods reminded me of a rumor that I heard and unthinkingly believed when I first came to the University of Chicago. The story goes like this: Long ago, Hyde Park was dotted with outdoor basketball courts. These courts were widely used by the local African-American community, a fact which upset the segregationist aims of the City and the University. The powers-that-be responded by uprooting the basketball courts and replacing them with tennis courts.

This rumor has much to recommend it. It explains the otherwise mystifying concentration of tennis courts in the area. It rests on several seemingly true assumptions: the University actively fought regional integration (we’ve all read Hansberry v Lee); urban basketball is popular among young blacks; tennis is not popular among young blacks.[1] We can easily recast these same intuitions in Strahilevitz’s framework. The basketball courts were an inclusionary amenity that enhanced the value of the surrounding neighborhood for the predominantly African-American population that enjoyed the sport. Conversely, the same courts were an exclusionary remedy for the local white population.[2] By replacing the basketball courts with tennis courts, the authorities furthered their segregationist aims by simultaneously: (1) creating an inclusionary void for the African-American community, (2) creating an exclusionary amenity for that same community, and (3) creating an inclusionary amenity for racists and tennis-lovers. For a segregationist city planner, this seems like a pretty good tactic.[3]

After some research, I have tentatively concluded that the rumor is not true. My curiosity piqued, I spent the late afternoon today poring through old maps in the Map Collection at the Regenstein Library.[4] I’ve determined that there were 3 tennis courts and no outdoor basketball courts in the area in 1936.[5] This trend apparently continued until the urban renewal program of the 1950s, at which point Hyde Park underwent a drastic transformation aimed at reducing urban blight. At that point, several blighted areas were replaced with new city parks. None of these parks featured outdoor basketball courts. Two of the new parks (54^th and Drexel and 54^th and Kimbark) were slated to have tennis courts, and tennis courts were also to be added to an existing park at 49^th and Kenwood. Later, additional tennis courts were constructed at various other locations. As far as I can tell, none of these tennis courts were built in the place of existing basketball courts.

So, what does this tell us? First, the very existence of the rumor supports the proposition that we all have inchoate intuitions about the efficacy of exclusionary amenities and exclusionary vibes. After all, the rumor’s attraction hinges on the plausibility of a city planner adopting these tactic (in Chicago, at least). Second, even with the rumor dispelled, the actual history gives us an important lesson in how urban renewal projects can effect gentrification through the creation of inclusionary voids. While no basketballs courts were destroyed to make way for tennis courts, the City plans for reforming Hyde Park featured no basketball courts. Thus, while Meredith holds up the urban blight of DC as an opportunity for the installation of FiOS as an inclusionary remedy—Hyde Park should be held up as a cautionary tale of how urban renewal can be used to accomplish exclusionary aims.[6]

---

[1] At the risk of ruining the narrative—this is likely not very accurate at all. A handful of Hyde Park Herald articles evidence the popularity of tennis courts among the wider South Side community.

[2] This is a slightly deviant use of the term. Strahilevitz generally uses it to refer to club goods that effectively tax those who don’t use them. By my thinking, in an urban environment with limited space and limited government resources, the decision to allocate land and parks money to a basketball court rather than, say, a swimming pool amounts to the levy of both an effective and actual tax on the local population. This is somewhat equivalent to Strahilivetz’s example of the church in the Catholic town bordering Ave Maria.

[3] This raises an interesting secondary point. While I lack empirical basis to actually reach any conclusions, I wonder if government planners haven’t used exclusionary amenities and exclusionary vibes to establish their exclusionary aims. If so, this would point to an odd disconnect in the government mind. I take Strahilevitz to argue that the regulation of exclusionary amenities is lacking at least in part because government actors are unaware of the phenomenon. But if government actors are actually using exclusionary amenities to achieve their aims in other contexts, then it seems odd that they would be so ignorant.

[4] I scanned some of the maps, but I need to reprocess the images (and shrink them) before I can post them here. I’ll post some in the comments later this evening or tomorrow.

[5] This is hardly surprising given the fact that basketball was significantly less popular in the 1930s than it is now. However, a discussion of the changing popularity of basketball—and the shift in the demographics of basketball enthusiasts—is beyond the scope of the present discussion. Suffice it to say that basketball was less popular and less racially homogenous in the early 20^th century.

[6] A similar argument can be made w/r/t the radical reduction in drinking establishments in the Hyde Park community over the last 80 years. (I have a map showing the amazing number of bars along 55^th Street in the 1930s). I would imagine that the elimination of venues for public drinking creates a highly effective inclusionary void for

Comments

[Noah]

I haven't made it back to the Reg to scan more maps, but here's some of what I collected last Wednesday. As you can see, some of the urban renewal plans weren't realized, or have been changed with time (including the installation of a basketball court in Kenwood Park). As the overall plan map shows, the first three parks listed below constitute the bulk of the community facilities added in the 1950s urban renewal plan for Hyde Park - Kenwood: http://i.imgur.com/J540K.jpg.

Modifications of Kenwood Park:

http://i.imgur.com/az8Ud.jpg [1950 aerial photo]
http://i.imgur.com/mwGHV.jpg [urban renewal plans]
http://g.co/maps/79e9d [current aerial photo]

Unrealized park at 54th and Drexel:

http://i.imgur.com/2yW0X.jpg [1950 aerial photo]
http://i.imgur.com/7RkDJ.jpg [urban renewal plans]
http://g.co/maps/vmqc5 [current aerial photo, lacking the proposed park]

Park at 54th and Kimbark:

http://i.imgur.com/ascvy.jpg [urban renewal plans]
http://g.co/maps/ryqwt [current aerial photo]

Park at 55th and LSD:

http://i.imgur.com/zINSQ.jpg [1950 aerial photo]
http://g.co/maps/vyjxr [current photo]

Sorry that the image quality is a little rough; I didn't want to crush you with 100MB files. As you can see from the pictures, the urban renewal plans apparently included many tennis courts, none of which replaced existing basketball courts. There are some odd rectangular courts in the proposed park at 54th and Drexel, but I think they're too small to be basketball courts.

[Aaron Benson]

Nice. Thanks for putting them up.