Neighborhood Revitalization

After neighborhood decline has set in, whether complete or still in process, much of the existing literature defines and refines how the revitalization will take place. Though external factors are to blame for decline, revitalization will not take place without the alignment of a supporting internal environment.

There is a significant role for strong local institutions in mitigating revitalization. The examples of the Chicago neighborhoods of North Lawndale and Englewood show that while both neighborhoods suffered because of increasing competition for residents from suburban neighborhoods with greater amenities, West Lawndale has gained noticeably because as a direct result of various local institutions and influential organizations that remained committed to redeveloping the area (Zielenbach, 2000).

Increasingly, there is consensus around the need for public actors who can improve demand in revitalizing neighborhoods. A series of successful efforts to create Healthy Neighborhoods have relied on resident-led and demand-focused. This approach views the revitalizing challenge as a loss of resident and investor confidence, and demands the involvement of homeowner groups and the creation of a positive image of the community in order to compete for residents (Boehlke, 2010).

Suggesting another set of players that contribute to neighborhood improvements, the series of successful efforts to create Healthy Neighborhoods have relied on resident-led leadership that focuses on the neighborhood’s residential demand, noticeably among homeowners. Under such terms, it would be hard to imagine a successful revitalization effort in Woodlawn that was not fully supported by the residents (Boehlke, 2010). In Woodlawn, there is a practical source of tension between the notion of focusing on residential demand and enhancing supply for low-income residents. Opponents of gentrification make normative claims in favor of using public funds to improve the outcomes of low-income residents as opposed to appealing to higher-income residents, who may eventually price current residents out.

<– Previous Section | Next Section –>

Choice Neighborhoods Background

The Choice Neighborhoods program is a centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative. Conceived as a replacement of the two-decade HOPE VI program, the program focuses is on redeveloping both public and privately-owned affordable housing and has four goals as stipulated by the 2010 Notice of Funding (HUD, 2010):

    1. Neighborhoods. Transforming neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and distressed housing into mixed-income neighborhoods with greater economic opportunity and better public amenities;
    2. People. Resident-focused improvements in education achievements and economic self-sufficiency;
    3. Housing. Providing current residents a choice between (redeveloped) affordable housing in the community as well as the opportunity to move to affordable housing in other neighborhood of opportunity; and
    4. Use of concentration, leverage and coordination of various types of funding for community and metropolitan growth.

The program reflects the all-too-often binary goals of balancing people and placed-based policies, supporting locality-based initiatives while ensuring that outcomes for current residents are just as important. It actively encourages grantees to leverage the public funds with other public funds (notably the Promise Neighborhoods Grants and Byrne Justice Innovation Grants) as well as private and philanthropic sources.

<– Previous Section | Next Section –>

Kromer–Neighborhood recovery: reinvestment policy for the new hometown

Bibliography

Kromer, J. (2000). Neighborhood recovery: reinvestment policy for the new hometown. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Date Published or Accessed: 2000-00-00 2000

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

Miripol–Mercy Portfolio Services, a subsidiary of Mercy Housing

Bibliography

Miripol, A. (2012, April 21). Mercy Portfolio Services, a subsidiary of Mercy Housing. Shelterforce.

Date Published or Accessed: 2012-04-21 April 21, 2012

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

Joseph–The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development

Bibliography

Joseph, M. L., Chaskin, R. J., & Webber, H. S. (2007). The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 369_409. doi:10.1177/1078087406294043

Date Published or Accessed: 2007-01-01 01/01/2007

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

This article examines the theoretical foundations upon which the rationale for mixed-income development as a strategy to confront urban poverty is built. The authors focus on four propositions that draw from theories on social networks, social control, culture and behavior, and the political economy of place. They assess available evidence about the relative importance of the four theoretical propositions. They conclude that the most compelling propositions are those that suggest that some low-income residents may benefit from a higher quality of life through greater informal social control and access to higher quality services. They find less evidence that socioeconomic outcomes for low-income residents may be improved through social interaction, network building, and role modeling.

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

Boehlke–Preserving healthy neighborhoods

Bibliography

#N/A

Date Published or Accessed: 2010-00-00 2010

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

For America’s legacy cities–cities losing population and their economic base–this book puts forth strategies to create smaller, healthier cities. Creative strategies for using vacant land need to be matched with successful efforts to stabilize the local economy and re-engage residents in the workforce, and to reinvigorate the city’s still-viable neighborhoods. This volume offers a broader discussion which recognizes the complex relationships between today’s problems and their solutions.–From publisher.

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

Mallach–Rebuilding America’s legacy cities: new directions for the industrial heartland

Bibliography

Boehlke, D. (2010). Preserving healthy neighborhoods. In A. Mallach (Ed.), Rebuilding America’s legacy cities: new directions for the industrial heartland. New York: American Assembly, Columbia University.

Date Published or Accessed: 2010-00-00 2010

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

For America’s legacy cities–cities losing population and their economic base–this book puts forth strategies to create smaller, healthier cities. Creative strategies for using vacant land need to be matched with successful efforts to stabilize the local economy and re-engage residents in the workforce, and to reinvigorate the city’s still-viable neighborhoods. This volume offers a broader discussion which recognizes the complex relationships between today’s problems and their solutions.–From publisher.

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

Zielenbach–The art of revitalization improving conditions in distressed inner-city neighborhoods

Bibliography

Zielenbach, S. (2000). The art of revitalization improving conditions in distressed inner-city neighborhoods. New York: Garland.

Date Published or Accessed: 2000-00-00 2000

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

Focusing on two Chicago neighbourhoods as case studies, this text examines the regional and national factors that affect urban development as well as the specific local characteristics that impact revitalization.

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

HUD–HUD’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 NOFA for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative _ round 1 NOFA

Bibliography

HUD. (2010). HUD’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 NOFA for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative _ round 1 NOFA (NOFA No. Docket No. FR-5415-N-25).

Date Published or Accessed: 2010-00-00 2010

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes