Home » Hoovervilles in the Great Depression

Hoovervilles in the Great Depression

Origins and Naming of Hoovervilles

The term "Hooverville" became a pointed jab at President Hoover, whom many blamed for the economic crisis. By labeling these encampments after Hoover, Americans expressed their dismay over his perceived inaction. This sentiment was shared across various forms of vocabulary at the time. For instance, "Hoover blankets" were newspapers used as bedding, and "Hoover flags" were empty pockets turned inside out.

Hoover's philosophy emphasized self-reliance and a limited government role in providing direct relief. This stance positioned him against the frantic needs of the Depression and growing public desperation. Hoovervilles were a landscape of societal dissatisfaction and government inaction.

In Seattle, one of the largest and most enduring Hoovervilles flourished for a decade. Starting as a cluster of small huts near Elliott Bay, the settlement resisted several attempts by city authorities to dismantle it. By 1934, Seattle's Hooverville housed around 639 residents, with diverse backgrounds.1 This unique diversity included a notable presence of non-white residents, such as Filipinos, African Americans, and Mexicans, living together in what some described as a symbolically egalitarian community.

Other cities like New York and St. Louis also had significant Hooverville populations. In New York, a Hooverville in Central Park stood out due to its location amidst towering, luxurious buildings. It was a stark contrast that emphasized America's economic disparity. Meanwhile, St. Louis's Hooverville was notable for its relative organization and the presence of services like churches and social institutions.

Despite the grim living conditions, Hoovervilles offered a semblance of community and mutual support. People in these makeshift towns banded together to combat their shared adversity. Seattle's Hooverville, for example, had a community government led by an unofficial mayor, Jesse Jackson, who made sure residents adhered to basic rules of order and sanitation.

Public sentiment remained sympathetic to Hooverville residents, and city authorities generally tolerated them due to the lack of viable alternatives. When authorities did try to evict these settlements, it often resulted in immediate rebuilding by the residents, demonstrating their resilience and sheer necessity.

Life in Hoovervilles

Living conditions within Hoovervilles were as diverse as they were challenging. Constructing homes from the detritus of a fallen economy, people used anything they could find—cardboard, scraps of wood, tin, cloth, and other discarded materials. The resulting structures varied widely in their quality and durability. Skilled builders managed to create relatively sturdy shelters, some even incorporating bricks and inlaid tiles left over from urban construction projects. In stark contrast, others had to settle for makeshift structures made of cardboard that barely kept out the elements.

The landscape of these shantytowns often resembled a chaotic assembly of mismatched materials, each structure a testament to human ingenuity under duress. Some of the more resourceful residents gathered salvaged items to embellish their homes with small gardens, makeshift furniture, or little stoves for cooking. Despite their best efforts, many homes remained rudimentary and offered minimal protection against the weather. Regular bathing and laundry facilities were non-existent, leading to poor hygiene and health concerns.

Life in a Hooverville was a daily struggle. Residents lacked basic amenities such as:

  • Clean water
  • Proper sanitation
  • Adequate food supply
  • Medical care

Food was often scavenged or provided via soup kitchens run by charities nearby. The threat of disease was constant, worsened by cramped living conditions and the lack of medical care. Physical safety was another concern, as the slapdash nature of the buildings made them prone to collapse, especially during storms.

However, the stark conditions did not prevent the development of a sense of community among the inhabitants. Sharing the adversity of homelessness, residents banded together to support one another. This communal ethos was significantly evident in Seattle's Hooverville, which had a loosely structured community government to maintain basic order. Led by the unofficial "Mayor" Jesse Jackson, Seattle's Hooverville residents elected a Vigilance Committee, comprised of representatives from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. This body ensured that rules regarding sanitation and behavior were respected, highlighting a level of self-organization seen in many larger Hoovervilles.

Informal governance systems emerged in other significant Hoovervilles as well, such as in St. Louis and New York. These systems were crucial for maintaining a semblance of order and fostering a cooperative environment. For instance, in St. Louis, the blend of private donations and communal self-reliance supported the community. The residents established their own churches and social institutions which became the backbone of a relatively stable community until its dismantling in 1936.

Social gradients and diversity within Hoovervilles mirrored the broader American society. While many residents came from impoverished backgrounds, some were formerly middle-class individuals who had lost everything. This mix created an environment where different races and social standings coexisted out of necessity. Seattle's ethnic diversity, in particular, was noteworthy, with groups that typically did not mingle coming together in "shabby camaraderie," as described by sociologist Donald Roy in 1934.2

Challenges within Hoovervilles extended beyond daily survival. Residents faced persistent threats of eviction, often by city authorities pressing to clean up areas for urban development. Yet, each time authorities intervened, the resilient inhabitants rebuilt, underscoring both their desperation and determination. This cycle continued until broader governmental relief programs, introduced under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, began to alleviate some of the economic hardships.

A black and white photograph of the interior of a small, cramped shack in a Hooverville during the Great Depression. The image shows the meager living conditions and the few personal belongings of the resident.

Impact and Symbolism of Hoovervilles

The existence of Hoovervilles during the Great Depression transcended mere survival; they became intrinsic symbols of economic disparity and governmental neglect. These makeshift communities laid bare the extreme inequalities that had erupted in society as a result of the economic collapse. While the wealthy maintained their opulent lifestyles, the working class and the destitute were left to fend for themselves in dire conditions. This stark contrast played a critical role in shaping public opinion and political discourse of the era.

Hoovervilles epitomized the severe economic divide and the escalating frustration with the federal government, particularly under Herbert Hoover's leadership. As these encampments sprang up in major cities and small towns alike, they visually and physically represented the nation's failing social and economic structures. The mere presence of these shantytowns underscored the inadequacies of existing support systems and highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive national relief efforts. Each cluster of ramshackle homes was a testament to poverty and a powerful, silent protest of governmental inaction.

This perception of neglect and governmental indifference significantly influenced the political landscape. As the Great Depression wore on, the Hoover administration's continued emphasis on self-reliance increasingly appeared insufficient and even callous. This growing discontent culminated in the overwhelming election victory of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who promised a more proactive government intervention to address the economic crisis. Roosevelt's New Deal policy framework was a direct response to the failings perceived in Hoover's approach.

The symbolism of Hoovervilles extended beyond mere politicization; they forced a broader societal reckoning with issues of poverty and economic inequity. These makeshift communities prompted more affluent citizens to confront the gut-wrenching realities of the less fortunate. In several high-profile locations—like New York City's Central Park—Hoovervilles sat juxtaposed against symbols of affluence and luxury, making economic disparities glaringly apparent. The visual and emotional impact of these shantytowns fostered a deeper awareness and sometimes even spurred charitable efforts from those better off.

Hoovervilles amplified the voices of their inhabitants, who otherwise had little influence in the public sphere. These communities became arenas where the unemployed and homeless could collectively express their grievances and demand attention. Although lacking formal political power, the sheer existence of Hoovervilles was a powerful statement that drew media attention and prompted public debate on economic inequality and the limits of government responsibility.

For academics and sociologists, Hoovervilles provided a tangible case study of societal resilience in the face of adversity. The organizational structures within these communities, particularly in more established Hoovervilles like Seattle's, showcased a microcosm of self-governance and mutual aid. These elements revealed that amidst the chaos, there was order and a persistent drive for community and solidarity. This phenomenon offers a nuanced understanding of how communities can adapt and survive under extreme conditions of neglect and hardship.

In effect, Hoovervilles left an indelible mark on American socio-political consciousness. They underscored the urgency for systemic change and expanded the national conversation about poverty, economic security, and the role of government. The lessons learned from this period resonate even today as societies grapple with similar issues of inequality and social justice.3 Hoovervilles stand as a historical reminder of the consequences of economic failure and the necessity for responsive, empathetic governance.

As the nation slowly emerged from the depths of the Depression, the dismantling of Hoovervilles symbolized a cautious optimism and a step toward recovery. However, they also left behind a stark reminder of a period when American society was profoundly challenged and changed. The memory of Hoovervilles continues to serve as a cautionary tale and a testament to the resilience of those who endured one of the most arduous periods in American history.

A black and white photograph showing a Hooverville settlement in the foreground, with the city skyline and tall buildings in the background, creating a stark contrast that highlights the economic inequality during the Great Depression.

Notable Hoovervilles Across the United States

Seattle's Hooverville, with its longevity and detailed documentation, stands out as one of the most renowned examples of these makeshift communities. Established in 1931 on public land near Elliott Bay, it survived until 1941, demonstrating resilience and community solidarity. At its peak, this Hooverville covered nine acres and housed a population that could swell to 1,200 during the harsh winters.4 The settlement's unique self-governance, led by Jesse Jackson, facilitated a level of organization often unseen in such environments. This internal structure, which included an elected Vigilance Committee, helped maintain order and addressed sanitation issues. The diverse demographics of Seattle's Hooverville further highlighted its distinctive character. With a significant portion of the population being non-white, including Filipinos, African Americans, and Mexicans, the settlement symbolized an unexpectedly egalitarian social order amidst the broader segregationist tendencies of the era.

Equally notable was St. Louis's Hooverville, which boasted what could be considered the most structured and socially integrated community among these shantytowns. Established along the Mississippi River, it housed up to 500 residents and functioned with a degree of community support rivaling that of small towns. This particular Hooverville's sustainability was bolstered by private donations, which funded social institutions and churches within its boundaries. The community's unofficial mayor, Gus Smith, played a pivotal role in fostering a cohesive social fabric among the inhabitants. This internally coordinated effort allowed the St. Louis Hooverville to maintain itself as a relatively stable society until it was dismantled in 1936 as part of a slum clearance initiative funded by the Works Progress Administration.

New York City's Central Park Hooverville, commonly referred to as "Hoover Valley," offers another poignant illustration of these Depression-era settlements. Set against the backdrop of some of New York's most luxurious apartments, Hoover Valley provided a stark visual juxtaposition that captivated and unsettled the public. Initially taking shape around a drained reservoir, the settlement grew to include various shacks constructed from scraps of wood, tin, and cardboard. Over time, these makeshift homes developed into a small but persistent community. The Hooverville in Central Park was not the largest, but its location in one of America's most famous urban parks made it a symbol of the economic disparity that had gripped the nation. By 1933, this Hooverville was dismantled to facilitate the development of the Great Lawn, marking another instance where urban development took precedence over the needs of those living on society's margins.

The "Hollywood-on-the-Tideflats" in Tacoma, Washington, provides another illustrative case. This Hooverville sprawled near the city's garbage dump and was known for its relatively well-constructed little houses. Many of these homes were built from scavenged materials, reflecting the residents' resourcefulness. Despite multiple attempts by city officials to eradicate this settlement—mirroring the struggles seen in Seattle and New York—residents continually rebuilt, underlining their desperation and resilience. In 1942, following the destruction of Seattle's Hooverville, Tacoma's settlers faced a similar fate when the fire department razed fifty shacks. Yet, even this drastic measure did not fully eradicate the community, which persisted through the end of World War II.

Hoovervilles were not confined to the urban North and West; the phenomenon was national. From the Hooverville under bridges in cities like Los Angeles to smaller settlements across the Midwest, each shantytown bore unique characteristics reflective of its inhabitants and location. In Los Angeles, for instance, many Hoovervilles were distinguished by their proximity to the railroads, allowing transient workers to move in and out of these makeshift homes. These settlements underscored the mobility of the homeless population during the Great Depression, driven by the desperate search for work.

The end of Hoovervilles came primarily through the efforts of federal relief and development programs under the New Deal, combined with the pressing demands of urban development leading up to and during World War II. The Shack Elimination Program in 1941 marked the concerted governmental effort to clear these settlements, as had commenced in places like Seattle and Tacoma.5 However, the closure of Hoovervilles did not signal an end to homelessness—a critical lesson that continues to resonate in contemporary discussions on urban poverty and housing crises.

A black and white photograph of a group of residents from Tacoma's Hooverville, known as 'Hollywood-on-the-Tideflats', standing outside their makeshift homes. The image captures the resilience and community spirit of the people despite the challenging circumstances.

The legacy of Hoovervilles serves as a stark reminder of the Great Depression's impact on American society, highlighting the resilience and solidarity of those who endured it. These makeshift communities symbolized economic disparity and underscored the urgent need for compassionate governance and systemic change. The lessons from this period continue to resonate, offering valuable insights on poverty, community, and the role of government in times of crisis.

  1. Hoovervilles. History Link. https://www.historylink.org/File/10249. Published August 18, 2013.
  2. Roy D. Hooverville: A study of a community of homeless men in Seattle. Sociology and Social Research. 1935;19:510-519.
  3. Abbott C. The invisible poor: Hoovervilles and homelessness in the 1930s. Social Science History. 1993;17(3):367-396. doi:10.2307/1171432
  4. Berner R. Seattle 1900-1920: From Boomtown, Urban Turbulence, to Restoration. Charles Press; 1991.
  5. Collins C. Tacoma's Hooverville. The Tacoma News Tribune. March 5, 1989.
William Montgomery
Latest posts by William Montgomery (see all)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top