Community Idea?

Here's some food for thought:

The deductive approach to community revitalization begins with what caused the community to fall in such deplorable conditions. Literature reveals the reasons for low-income neighborhood problems are far different. Many works suggest a wide range of possible causes for the present conditions of very low-income neighborhoods, ranging from globalization of the economy to a lack of “marriageable men.” The roots of the deterioration found in so many of America’s big cities reach back to the slowing of European immigration in the early 1900s, and the ripple effect of successive waves or poorer people moving into the aging housing stock. The massive migration of African-Americans from the south in the ensuing decades (Keating, Krumholz, & Perry, 1995) coupled with housing discrimination when they arrived initiated the formation of racially segregated neighborhoods, replacing the ethnically segregated ones that had previously housed European immigrants (Whyte, 1966). There is no doubt that the quality of life in these segregated neighborhoods was far from ideal; minority neighborhoods suffered from lower levels of city service provision, school quality, and so on, than were found in their nonminority counterpart areas. But there is also no doubt that the quality of life in these minority neighborhoods then was much better than it is today, largely because, these neighborhoods contained the full spectrum of economic and social groups. Until the federal government stepped in after World War II, America’s big cities still housed large numbers of middle class and wealthy residents. These people not only had the political clout necessary to demand adequate schools, roads, police protection, and other city services, they also provided the tax base to fund provision of these services (Bright, 2000). Even the racially segregated neighborhoods were, at least, economically integrated (Byrum, 1992; Jacobs, 1969; Whyte, 1966).

It is clear a deductive model based on current literature is well beyond the scope of this research effort. The problem is so complex that it seems beyond capable studies to solve. However, the deductive investigation still used in the data analysis, not to build a comprehensive model revitalization program, but as a check on the conclusions derived from the descriptive studies (Bright, 2000). The inductive approach focused on successful instances of commercial revitalization in low-income areas. In the 1970s, some of these were of major importance in spreading the concept of the community development corporation, while others are now receiving attention as models for downtown redevelopment or new urban approaches (Bright, 2000). At present, the city of Chicago is following a different path from the programs implemented in Seattle, and Boston, which focused more on community involvement to reach success. City officials in Chicago are under the impression that “big box” retailers like Wal Mart and Target stores will assist in revitalizing certain target neighborhoods by bringing employment opportunities to these areas. This is fine but the issue of improving education (higher graduation rates and reducing dropout percentages), developing affordable housing, and combating crime are not part of the objective of overall community revitalization.

The city officials of Chicago must address the issue of dropouts, lack of social services, and the impact they have on delinquency rates. When any area does not offer any alternatives such as employment, or skills training to disadvantage youth, crime rates rise. Community revitalization must begin at the grassroots level through community leaders, activist, and organizer to let government officials know that just ignoring the problem will never make it just go away. If a successful project or program becomes a reality, they must address the issues of safety, services, shelter, drug dealing, and other crime reduction measures. They must also include the need for community centers and encourage small business development enhance the quality of life for residents. Chicago on the other hand focusing on relocating the poor to suburban locations, (with the promise of returning them when the housing is finished) as the “projects” from the 1960s, torn down, and replaced with housing that is not affordable to even the middle class. The hope here is that once in a better neighborhood the inclination to return to the city diminishes with improved educational opportunities, and employment prospects. The community of Logan Square in Chicago’s northwest side as an example, properties worth millions of dollars on the western side, and low rent, drug dealing, gang infested, declining property values on the eastern side of this one community. The best program researched that tackles the problems facing communities today, a report from Comprehensive and integrative planning for community development (Shiffman, 1989). This report lays down the groundwork for any successful community development program by placing emphasis on building human capital, by improving outcomes for individuals and families, which traditionally been carried out by social service agencies and schools. They emphasize building neighborhood capital by improving the physical and economic infrastructure of the neighborhood, which traditionally been carried out by Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and other local development organizations. And finally, the report emphasizes building social capital by strengthening civic life, social fabric, sense of community and the like, which traditionally been accomplished by local religious, cultural, civic, and recreational organizations or by community organizers. For example, the human services field began addressing the “ecological” dimensions of the lives of individuals in impoverished communities: no matter how effective a service for a troubled child, it might not be enough to counteract the deleterious effects of living daily in a family with unemployed adults, in run-down housing, and in a crime-ridden neighborhood offering few opportunities. Those in the human capital arena began to incorporate principles of the social capital field into their work, as seen in the increase in community-based efforts with a preventive or developmental orientation, such as family resource centers, or community meetings held after hours in local schools. Service providers also began interacting more with the neighborhood capital sector by, for example, linking youth groups to CDCs’ housing construction activities or collaborating more with other Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) on comprehensive neighborhood planning. CDCs also began reaching out to other neighborhood institutions. CDCs encouraged the human capital sector to locate services such as job training or childcare in their properties. Recognizing that they could do more in the social capital arena, CDCs also began developing arts, cultural programs, and adding community planners/organizers to their staffs. Finally, many organizations starting from a social capital base were adding to their work, as seen in efforts by churches to become more involved in “secular” services and housing construction, and in the new “consensus” approach to community organizing which emphasizes building partnerships for community development (Kubisch, 1996).

Although this may seem a daunting task, with grassroots involvement from the public and private sector, along with local, state, and federal assistance, community redevelopment programs can and will become successful for all involved.

References

Bright, E. M. (2000). Reviving America's Forgotten Neighborhoods: An investigation of Inner City Revitalization Efforts. New York: Garland Publishing.

Byrum, O. (1992). Old Problems in New Times: Urban Strategies for the 1990s. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Dennis W. Keating, N. K. (1995). Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader. Kent: Kent State University Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Economy of Cities. New York: Vintage Books.

Kubisch, A. C. (1996). Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Lessons in Neighborhood Transformation. Aspen: National Housing Institute.

Shiffman, R. S. (1989). Comprehensive and Integrative Planning for Community Development. Aspen: Pratt Institute for Community and Environmental Development.

Whyte, W. F. (1966). Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.