samantha brockfield bup senior problem synthesis august 2010

ONE BLOCK AT A TIME:THE ROLE OF ORGANIZING IN SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Samantha Brockfield BUP Senior Problem SynthesisAugust 2010

“This is the lesson the planning community now needs to learn: it must take responsibility for its acts in a historical, unpredictable society rather than in a dream world of harmony and predetermined order. To make modern cities meet human needs, we shall have to change the way in which city planners work. Instead of planning for some abstract urban whole, planners are going to have to work for the concrete parts of the city, the different classes, ethnic groups and races it contains. And the work they do for these people cannot be laying out their future; the people will have no chance to mature unless they do that for themselves, unless they are actively involved in shaping their social lives.”

- Richard Sennett, The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. 1970

SYNTHESIS STRUCTURE• Introduction  • Site Description: Avondale’s Avenue District

• Problem: Planning and Control

• History

• Urban and Regional Context  Literature Review and Case Studies  • Existing Conditions • Analysis and Forecasting

Goals and Objectives

Alternatives

Recommendations

Implementation

Summary•

INTRODUCTION

To succeed and be sustainable, neighborhood revitalization must start at the ground level with local people making the decisions that matter for their families and their community.

Local residents and stakeholders should create and drive plans for developing their communities.

Today’s cities need a new type of planner.

SITE DESCRIPTION: AVONDALE’S AVENUE DISTRICT

This area is bounded by the following Avenues: Erkenbrecher Forest Dury Burnet

Because all eight streets in the district are Avenues, it is named “The Avenue District”.

SITE DESCRIPTION: AVONDALE’S AVENUE DISTRICT

49 % homeownership rate, long-term owner occupancy, historic housing stock, central location.

Proximity to regional destinations and Burnet Avenue revitalization.

Deteriorating housing stock, absentee landlords, litter, congested on-street parking

High crime perception, mistrust from history of institutional expansion, economic downturn, foreclosures.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The traditional approach to community development aims to revitalize neighborhoods using a top-down planning process. Planning should not manipulate and control communities but rather lay foundations for vibrant and abundant community life. Today’s economic and political environment presents an opportunity for an entirely new approach to city planning.

HISTORY

Community Development Corporations (CDCs)

Originally formed, driven and controlled by membership made up of local residents

Focused on rebuilding localized economies and improving public services

Today most have lost touch with original mission and membership

HISTORY

1980: Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)

Corporate and foundation dollars to CDCs

Large-scale projects 1986: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LITC)

Incentive for private investment in affordable housing narrowed CDC focus and concentrated decision making

HISTORY

Foreclosure crisis: vacancy and unemployment are swiftly accompanied by a downward spiral of blight, crime and urban decay.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)

The model post-real estate boom: Comprehensive Community development

URBAN AND REGIONAL CONTEXT

• Avondale:

• Low income African American community

• Surrounded by growing institutions

• Population 16,300

• 4th largest in Cincinnati

• Negative public perception

Priorities:• Safety

• Health

• Economic Development

• Education

• Housing

URBAN AND REGIONAL CONTEXT

URBAN AND REGIONAL CONTEXT

LISC Sustainable Communities Program Uptown Consortium Place matters funding collaborative Obstacles to progress:

Concentrated power and resources Damaged organizational relationships Unclear goals and values Lack of willingness to change

LITERATURE REVIEW

Traditional Methods and Alternate Approaches Validation planning Relational organizing and social capital Sustainable community development

VALIDATION PLANNING

Professionals as experts who generate plans

Site visits to define problems Community “forums” Efforts to minimize transparency and

participation for various reasons Find local representatives to

demonstrate buy-in for proposed developments

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social Capital: Extent to which members of a community can work together effectively

(Community Building Institute, 2010)

Engaging residents in creative problem solving

Creating strong social networks to help them further their objectives

Bonding (internal) Bridging (external)

COMMUNITY BUILDING

Necessary components of community: Commonality: Shared needs and interests Interdependence: Shared community

ownership and responsibility Collective capacity: Support is generated

locally through relationships

ASSET BASED COMMUNITY BUILDINGSource: Neighborworks Place Based Training

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING MODELS

Rejects the notion of poverty as pathology

“The Golden Rule”: never do anything for someone that they can do for themselves.

Rallies people around specific issues or problems, targets people in power develops strategy, demands and tactics for winning.

Originally confrontational in style

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING MODELS

Relational approach aims to build sustainable community networks

The term consensus organizing is more popular with funders

Focuses on both bonding and bridging capital

Basis of Sustainable Communities model

GRASSROOTS REVITALIZATION

Leaders committed to participation as top priority

Intensive organizing efforts Urban planners who create common

spaces as community victories Courageous funders who understand

value and commit to connective strategies (Putnam, 2003)

CASE STUDIES

S. Bronx Banana Kelly Development Corporation Comprehensive Community Revitalization

Program

Chicago LISC New Communities Program Quality of Life Planning Englewood

S. BRONX 1970 - 1990 Devastated by

urban renewal, disinvestment, arson

Community organizing fueled revitalization

1990’s affordable housing boom

Photo: Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Visit to South Bronx (Teresa Zabala / NYT)

CASE STUDY: LESSONS FROM THE BRONX

Banana Kelly Corporation Economic decline as catalyst Efforts led by residents, fueled from

resources inside the neighborhood Membership organization for the

curved section of Kelly Street Self help / sweat equity

CASE STUDY: LESSONS FROM THE BRONX Johnson’s War on Poverty programs

resulted in affordable housing boom Power grab attempts Members became staff, leadership

narrowed Eventually surpassed by newly formed

CDCs due to competition for resources Author disapproves of CCRP’s

approach, believing it treated poverty as pathology

LESSONS FROM BANANA KELLY

Neighborhood success as function of resident control

Residents of urban neighborhoods are the solution, not the problem.

To prescribe solutions for urban neighborhoods is to manipulate and enslave

To see an outcome accomplished without the requisite participation further debilitates those without power

CASE STUDY: LESSONS FROM THE BRONX

Comprehensive Community Development

By the 1990’s CDCs had produced 22,000 units of affordable housing

Funders concerned about the limits of housing revitalization

CCRP focused on developing CDC capacity

Incorporated community organizing to decrease dependency

CCRP VISIONING & PLANNING

• Collaborative planning process• Community, implementers and outside

experts• Develop shared vision and strategies • Task forces, workshops early action

projects• 1996 APA Presidential Award• Basis for new LISC Comprehensive

Community Building Institute

CASE STUDY: CHICAGO LISC NEW COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

CCRP - inspired 14

neighborhoods MacArthur

Foundation 10 year $47 million

Six to nine month process Led by a task force of 20 -

30 people Five or six major meetings Subcommittee structure Outreach effort to the

community. Respond to physical

development, transportation, education, health and jobs.

CASE STUDY: CHICAGO LISC NEW COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

Published Plan:

Community history

Issues Work

program Renderings

of proposed projects

Photos Maps Vision Strategies Projects Programs

CASE STUDY: CHICAGO LISC NEW COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

State a clear vision for the future Address the neighborhood’s key

problems Describe projects and programs that

can be implemented Are achievable within five years Have widespread support in the

community Assign responsibilities Timeframes for implementation

CASE STUDY: CHICAGO LISC NEW COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

Early action important

Intensive LISC involvement

10 week process

Upheld by city depts.

CASE STUDY: CHICAGO LISC NEW COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

ENGLEWOOD 2 African

American communities

85,000 residents

Vacant land UnemploymentPoor schoolsAccess to transportation Lack of retail

“Englewood Seeks turnaround After Long Slide” Source: www.teamenglewood.org

CASE STUDY: CHICAGO LISC NEW COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

Englewood: 2004 Quality of Life Plan

500 individuals 100 organizations 10 strategies, 48

projects

• Public spaces• Retail• Recreation• Health • Education• Youth employmentwww.teamenglewood.org

ENGLEWOOD’S PLAN

CASE STUDY: CHICAGO LISC NEW COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

Plan progress: Crime reduction Block clubs Youth

employment New retail Agricultural

districtYouth Job Training Program

Source: www.teamenglewood.org

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Avenue District as a pilot

Target area defined by neighborhood character:

Land use, housing stock conditions, tenancy, history and demographics.

EXISTING STAKEHOLDERS :

Avondale Community CouncilCenter for Closing the Health Gap, Avondale do

right! Greater Cincinnati Urban League Cincinnati Children’s HospitalAvondale Redevelopment Corporation The Model GroupUptown Consortium – Burnet Avenue

Revitalization Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical GardenRockdale Academy / Community Learning Center

2009 LANDSCAPE PROJECT

Chase Bank LISC ARC Zoo 100 volunteers 40 yard trees Improved

streetscape New relationships

basis for block club

AVENUE DISTRICT BLOCK CLUB

• Residents working together to improve their neighborhood

• Begun November 2009

• Monthly meetings

• Quarterly report to council

• Average attendance: 15 homeowners

• Accomplishments

• Current projects

EXISTING CONDITIONS: 232-238 NORTHERN AVE

• 0.5 acre vacant land

• Formerly housing

• 2 parcels

• Litter and weeds

• Overgrown vegetation

• Retaining wall, graffiti

SITE BACKGROUND

VISIONING: PUBLIC SPACE

NORTHERN LARONA COMMUNITY PARKILLUSTRATED VISION

NORTHERN LARONA COMMUNITY PARKENTRANCE (PERSPECTIVE VIEW)

Institutional expansion has created severe competition for on-street parking.

There are also underutilized off-street parking facilities.

ANALYSIS AND FORECAST

Sustainability applied to communities: The fields of urban planning and community development have traditionally aimed to improve quality of life for all people yet poverty, segregation and disenfranchisement remain prevalent. Clearly the traditional model is not sustainable.

ANALYSIS AND FORECAST

CDCs are locally based yet externally controlled, working in specific communities yet ultimately accountable to outsiders

In order to begin building the platform for sustainable community development, we must achieve a basic level of social capital using relational organizing as a tool.

However public policy, banks and foundations are barely warming up to the importance of this approach to ensuring the sustainability of community development. While resident driven neighborhood revitalization is generally appreciated, there is not sufficient support for the organizing required to build social capital.

ANALYSIS AND FORECAST

The district block club shows that neighborhood improvements can be achieved by bringing local residents and stakeholders together and also connecting them to outside resources. While the physical change may seem insignificant to some, each improvement represents a new or strengthened relationship

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING

Block club concept gaining approval with Avondale community council

The Avenue District as a pilot for sustainable community development in Avondale. Other potential districts that share neighborhood character: land use, housing stock conditions, tenancy, history and demographics : Harvey bounded by Glenwood, Vine and Forest Neighborhood bounded by Harvey, Reading, Ridgeway

and Forest Glenwood from Reading to Greenwood Challenges involved

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING

Foreclosure Property speculation and abandonment Strategic and accountability questions Challenge for relational organizing

approach ACDC – opportunity for new approach

to community development in Avondale.

GOALS AND OBJECIVES

Goal: Outline recommendations for the role of organizing in the comprehensive community development model to create meaningful leadership roles for residents and become more sustainable.

Objectives a. Define implications for urban planners: new

roles, responsibilities and relationships with communities.

b. Describe a workable social capital strategy for Avondale based in relational organizing.

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

1. Traditional model of community planning will remain dominant in Avondale. Business as usual, no emphasis on social capital development.

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

2. Efforts are made to compromise the two approaches in Avondale. The sustainable communities model is touted as a way to build new institutional capacity without any meaningful community organizing component.

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

3. The sustainable communities model is used to develop support for a consensus organizing approach to sustainable community development. An entirely new type of community planning emerges.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

1. Top-down, controlling process prevails. No new leadership or local control in low income communities and thus no sustainable change will be achieved. Improvements that are made will be those created from the top-down and maintained at the will of disconnected outside forces. This is a frightening proposition considering the prospect of deepening market failure because poverty and powerlessness breeds violence.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

2. Funder efforts to develop institutional capacity without valuing the consensus organizing approach will not achieve the desired long-term impacts. Simply giving more power and resources to the same people does not improve communities if they do not share it. Similarly, new programs and policies in and of themselves do not engage people in their neighborhood.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

3. Relational organizing methods are used to increase citizen leadership and build institutional capacity in select target neighborhoods to demonstrate the efficacy of the model. Once a strong task force is built in this way, the community begins developing a quality of life plan. These plans connect communities with resources for implementation and early action. Planners work with communities to develop their vision into plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The sustainable community development model is used to develop support for a consensus organizing approach to neighborhood revitalization in Avondale.

The appropriate adaptation of LISC’s Building Sustainable Communities program in Avondale is imperative to demonstrate the efficacy of the organizing approach in the region.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A planning process beginning at the local level requires systematic change in the traditional approach to urban planning and community development.

This requires a highly participatory process in which residents and local stakeholders drive planning efforts including required benchmarks for participation and local leadership.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Rally a task force of residents and stakeholders. Organizing staff will perform widespread mailings, phone-banks, door-knocking campaigns and community meetings to engage as many people as possible in the upcoming planning process. During the first two meetings the task force identifies community issues and creates committee for each.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2. Urban planners are initially a form of technical assistance. During visioning sessions (charettes) planners provide necessary data, maps and visuals and help the task force develop strategies for implementation.

Planners communicate goals and strategies to local officials, identifying potential project overlap and outside resources for projects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

3. The community task force then implements an early action project to build momentum for the plan’s success. LISC and planners have helped build partnerships and resources for implementation. Planners draft the resulting plan but do not publish it until the community approves it and determines roles for action.

IMPLEMENTATION

Avenue District Greenspace Schedule and budget Current project status

Avenue District Streetscape Parking campaign

AVENUE DISTRICT GREENSPACE

Phase 1 (2010) Water access, clearing, paths, signage, service drive and maintenance shed

Phase 2 (2011) Landscaping, garden, gazebo

Phase 3 - Benches, tables, trash cans, lighting

Phase 4 – Fitness track, playground Phase 5 - Performance area / stage

AVENUE DISTRICT GREENSPACE

Plan approved by city and county Leased to ARC Phase one began August, 2010 Long term maintenance and liability unknown Possible transfer to Zoo with deed restrictions Budget: $50,000 LISC/Chase and In-kind

$10,000 Phase 1 $20,000 Phase 2

BLOCK CLUB PARKING CAMPAIGN

PROJECT STATUS

Survey results showed consensus on section of Wilson Avenue.

City has worked with block club to address the issues of parking and lighting on this block.

Potential partnership with ArtWorks in 2011 for youth mural along the retaining wall to highlight block club success.

SUMMARY

At face value the comprehensive approach is more sustainable because it diversifies investment in the midst of housing market failure. However a relational organizing approach is what makes the model truly sustainable regardless of market forces.

When people are empowered to lead planning efforts in their own communities, synergistic relationships are formed which spur unexpected positive change in urban neighborhoods.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION

Making the case for consensus organizing to foundations, banks and the public sector by demonstrating the efficacy and sustainability of an organizing approach to community development.

Hiring and training sufficient numbers of community organizing staff.

Developing relationships with local government officials who will adopt and support the new community plans developed at the local level.

MAIN SOURCES MDRC, (2010). Creating a Platform for Sustained Neighborood Improvement: Interim Findings from Chicago’s New Communities

Program.   Von Hoffman, A. (2003). House by House, Block by Block: The Rebirth of America's Urban Neighborhoods. Oxford University Press   Putnam, R. (2004). Better Together: Restoring the American Community. Simon & Schuster   Block, P. (2009). The Structure of Community Belonging. Berrett-Koehler Publishers DeRienzo, H. (2008). The concept of community: Lessons from the bronx. Milano: Ipoc.

Kretzmann, J. (1997). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. ACTA Publications

  Local initiatives Support Corporation. (2006-2010). Building Sustainable Communities Strategic Plan. Mooney, A. (2010, February 16). Director, Chicago LISC. (S. Brockfield, Interviewer)   Brockfield, S. (2009-2010). Avondale's Avenue District. Cincinnati: Avondale Redevelopment Corporation.   LISC Chicago New Communities Program. (2010). Planning Handbook. Chicago: LISC.   Civic Action Institute. (1981). Neighborhood Planning: A Citizen Participation Guide. Washington DC: Civic Action Institute.   Partners for Livable Communities. (1994). The State of the American Cofmmunfity: Empowerment for Local Action. Washington DC:

Partners for Livable Communities.    Ronald Thomas, M. M. (1988). Taking Charge: How Communities Are Planning Their Futures. Washington DC: International City

Management Association.

Twelvetrees, A. (1989). Organizing for Neighbourhood Development. Brookfield: Avebury.