Most projects associated with the concept of “community development” engage in activities like clearing abandoned and condemned properties, cleaning up weed-covered and rubbish-strewn lots, planting trees and establishing green spaces, promoting home ownership, remodeling or building new homes and/or apartments, and establishing programs to keep streets safe and free of ill-intentioned persons. Most people would consider many or all of these activities as having positive impacts and being of overall benefit to a particular neighborhood. These actions are the physical manifestations of the concept, “if we improve the appearance of a neighborhood, the neighborhood will continue to improve in other ways.” Sounds good, right?
Well, no. I posit that these actions undertaken on their own can overall be detrimental to the health and vitality a town, city, or cluster of neighborhoods. My reasoning is this: physical deterioration and visible blight are themselves not the problem, they are merely symptoms of much deeper social ills. I strongly believe that healthy neighborhoods can and will take care of the physical appearance on their own without outside intervention. What determines a neighborhood’s level of health is the well-being of its residents. If residents are mired with problems like substance abuse, lack of education, absence of or inability to keep jobs, broken families, physical and emotional abuse, or institutional discrimination, these scourges will bubble to the surface in many ways, including in the appearance of their surroundings. As described by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, economically disadvantaged people must first address their core needs of food, shelter, and safety before they can truly concern themselves with the needs of the community.
Here’s the rub: in mixed and “edgy” neighborhoods, improving the appearance of a place has the effect of serving the “haves” and not the “have nots.” Improved appearance causes the neighborhood to be more desirable, which is reflected through increased property values, which itself is a reflection of consumer preferences and demand in the marketplace. This increased property value has the power to displace the “have nots” in three ways: 1) by low-income homeowners being priced out a neighborhood because of increased property taxes; 2) by increased rents to non-homeowners, again due to increased taxes, but also to changes in consumer preferences that attract higher-income renters; and 3) by direct real estate speculation of renter-occupied homes shifting to owner-occupied homes. Without having dealt with any of the core problems of the have-nots as described above (lack of education, mental health problems, substance abuse, etc.), these displaced residents are forced to move to more affordable places, which are frequently already-low-income areas (in Pittsburgh, think Homewood, Larimer, Beltzhoover). This increased density of disadvantaged people exacerbates the social problems that already exist in poor neighborhoods by concentrating poverty, whilst the gentrifying neighborhood sees an influx of more middle-class homebuyers (the “haves”).
This phenomenon can happen very slowly and often goes unnoticed. In fact, the traditional physical improvement efforts generally have great outcomes on the surface, which gives the appearance of success when looked out through a narrow aperture. What happens is that most of the undesireables have moved out of the neighborhood, and in turn the physical degradation has abated, while the “upstanding” residents are busy planting trees, setting up community watches, and establishing community parks. But what has really happened on the larger view is that the neighborhood’s problems have been moved, not solved. This is a very troubling trend, especially since the aforementioned actions are often initiated by non-profit “community development” corporations (CDCs).
In Pittsburgh, some specific examples of this can be found in the East End. Both East Liberty Development Incorporated (ELDI) and Friendship Development Associates (FDA) have engaged in programs to acquire, broker, improve, or construct new property in their respective target areas. ELDI has cleared and re-built nearly an entire block on North St. Clair Street, with new “green” homes that appear to be marketed to my demographic (young, middle class, concerned about environmental issues) based on style and pricing. The infill approach to development is admirable, but the long-term outlook is worrisome. Similarly, FDA has brokered redevelopment of numerous properties through its Penn Avenue Arts Initiative, with the goal of fostering the burgeoning arts district by attracting more artists. They have also directly purchased and developed several properties, including the Quiet Storm, new residences at the corner of Penn & Gross, the Glass Lofts, and the forthcoming Bride’s Row redevelopment. The common thread between these two organizations is their exclusive focus on building-based programs for community development, without implementing social programs to complement. The Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation has taken a mixed approach, initially focusing on social programs, but recently expanding into building-based programs by partnering with the URA on the demolition of public housing blocks in Garfield Heights and their replacement with modern-style public housing and alleged mixed-income developments.
It is unclear to me why social programs have not gained traction in the CDC world. Perhaps it is because of socioeconomic discrimination, where lower-income residents are considered a blight on the community and not a part of it. Perhaps it is because it is a more difficult sell to government agencies and grantmakers, with outcomes that are less measurable and can take much longer to show results. Physical improvements are visible and provide instant gratification, and therefore may also be a favorite of politicians as a faster way of proving their commitment and value to the community. Whatever the origin of the dysfunction, community development agencies that focus exclusively on physical appearances are doing a disservice to their community and the communities around them. In fact, the term “community” directly implies people, but often gets mistaken for the streets and buildings that people occupy. To focus on the well-being of buildings is essentially real estate development, and should be disassociated with the word community. So why don’t we call it what it is, and instead of dumping so much public money into these so-called “community improvement projects”, let’s redirect all of that public money into real programs that can make real changes in the lives of the people that need it, not the stable middle-class homeowners.
Coming soon: Part 2, Disrupting the Conventional Model, a New Paradigm
