national register nomination for boulevard park historic

mud, and appealing to the modern buyer who valued these extra amenities. Varied
pricing and lot sizes allowed sales to both the middle-class Progressive householder and
the working-class families whose uplift and Americanization was the focus of
Progressive settlement houses and social reform efforts. While the neighborhood design
did feature elements of class exclusivity, like the private mid-block “pocket parks” and
limited transit access, Boulevard Park’s homes maintained class proximity, without being
uncomfortably close. Compared to older urban housing models, Boulevard Park
represented a low-density model with clear separation of classes, a high priority of urban
social reformers. 58
However, those of the lowest social classes, and nonwhites, were not
initially part of Boulevard Park. Racial covenants were not part of the district’s covenants
and restrictions, perhaps because developers did not consider cross-racial neighborhoods
a possibility. The unrestricted status of the neighborhood, and resulting redlining, may
have promoted later white flight.
Despite the social aims of the developers of Boulevard Park, this was a capitalistic
and for-profit enterprise. As a model for future development, it provided an opportunity
to demonstrate that these social principles could be profitably integrated into a real estate
development plan. The district’s early history, and the prodigious development of the
neighborhood prior to 1915, demonstrates that both the middle-class and working class
elements of Boulevard Park were successful sales models, and many elements of the
Boulevard Park development were repeated in subsequent Wright & Kimbrough districts
and other Sacramento suburbs. Changes in population through the 1940s reflect the
58 Living Downtown, p. 213-216
42