The Address Book: What Street Addresses Reveal About Identity, Race, Wealth, and Power

There is no international standard for addressing house locations. (Though Google plus codes and "three words" mechanisms have tried.) Common addressing is a relatively new innovation first created to facilitate taxation. 

The United States was one of the first places to implement standardize grids in places like Manhattan and Philadelphia. That quickly spread to development in other parts of the country. Chicago rationalized the disparate names from many annexed cities into a common grid. The sizes of grids differs from city to city. Salt Lake City has very wide blocks. Portland has small blocks. However, not all places in the US have grids or even addresses. There are many areas such as rural West Virginia that still do not have street addresses. You need to ask locals for specific directions to find a place.

Other countries have different scheme. In Japan, addresses tend to be block based. (One theory is that this came out of the "blocks" that students use to write Kanji. In some places house numbers are added in the order that houses are built, not necessarily where they are.

Naming of streets can be a huge source of conflict. The United States has many numbered streets, while other countries shun them. Naming streets after important historical figures is common, but often leads to conflict when those figures go out of favor. Streets after Civil War veterans are have come and gone. Martin Luther King streets have popped up after his death. (Though many are in fairly impoverished neighborhoods. Was the street placed in a poor neighborhood or was their disinvestment because of the street name?) The author even mentions that one year 40% of all business by New York City council involved street name changes. People do seem to care a lot.

Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership

The book opens with the story of a black single mother who was unable to find a place to rent. She was encouraged to buy a place instead. This ended up being a dump that should have probably been condemned. The author places the blame on the real estate professionals and the government's complicity. There is a conflict in seeing housing as a place to live and as an investment. Well-meaning intentions to expand access end up backfiring. 

Much of the book focuses on the HUD during the Nixon administration. George Romney was Nixon's in-party rival, so Nixon attempted to relegate him to the backwaters of the housing department. Romney, however, really wanted to help the poor and especially racial minorities. He had worked hard to integrate housing. He ended up working too hard. His attempts to integrate suburbs was leaked and was disbanded for political expediency. Romney ended up having a fall-out with Nixon.

In spite of Romney's intentions, all was not well with the HUD. Black employees tended to earn less than their white counterparts. There were also cases of the government signing off on poor quality housing that it insured. There were many areas of corruption throughout. Some required repairs may not be done. Some appraisers and inspectors may be doing double duty other places and have incentives that were not in the best interest of others.

The narrative of black housing ended up using color-blind rationale to continue segregation. Black homeowners were seen as not being able to maintain their housing. Minority neighborhoods were less desirable than white ones. With free choice, people would still choose to cluster. On top of these arguments, local communities argued that they should have control. Many zoning ordinances made no mention of race, but served to make things difficult for black homeowners. There ended up being a whole "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mentality. Local communities enact restrictive zoning regulations that ended up driving up the cost for everyone while also making neighborhoods more isolated, spread out and car dependent.