The myth of social capital in community development

Abstract

This article argues that contemporary interest in social capital by community development theorists, funders, and practitioners is misguided and needs to be thoroughly rethought. It argues that social capital, as understood by Robert Putnam and people influenced by his work, is a fundamentally flawed concept because it fails to understand issues of power in the production of communities and because it is divorced from economic capital. Therefore, community development practice based on this understanding of social capital is, and will continue to be, similarly flawed.

The article further argues that instead of Putnam's understanding of social capital, community development practice would be better served by returning to the way the concept was used by Glenn Loury and Pierre Bourdieu and concludes with a discussion of how these alternative theories of social capital can be realized in community development practice.     

The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development

Abstract

Historic preservation contributes greatly to housing and economic development. Historic preservation has produced almost 250,000 housing units through use of the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit. Additionally, heritage tourism is a multibillion‐dollar industry, and preservation projects help further community revitalization.

Historic preservation also has a downside. Preservation's growing popularity may dilute its imperative and market prowess, and some argue it is used to thwart new development. Preservation requirements may impede affordable housing production and displace area residents. These undesirable consequences are not givens, however. Preservationists are working to become more flexible, and we suggest ways to practice historic preservation while mitigating some of its negative consequences—for example, tax credit changes, more flexible building codes, and a “tiered” system of designating historic properties at varying levels of significance.     

Credit and social capital: The community development potential of U.S. microenterprise programs

Abstract

This article looks at the community‐building activities of microenterprise programs. These programs build community primarily by creating networks that build social capital. Microenterprise programs build two types of networks—networks within programs that typically involve borrowers and networks between programs and other institutions. The article examines (1) the ways in which microenterprise programs motivate the creation of both types of networks; (2) the extent to which these networks are embedded within program structures; and (3) the process by which network formation leads to the accumulation of social capital.

The networks of relationships that Women's Initiative and Working Capital have catalyzed, both within and between programs, build social capital in important ways. The trust building that intraprogram relationships accomplish and the alteration of norms that interprogram relationships accomplish motivate the creation of networks that build social capital. These changes are not sufficient to turn poor communities around, but they are important first steps.     

The American metropolis at century's end: Past and future influences

Abstract

The American metropolis at century's end is vastly different than what many expected just 50 years ago. At mid‐century, seers envisioned a clean, rationally planned city of the future, free of long‐standing problems such as traffic and poverty. The reality is more complex. We built a new metropolis that addressed some major problems while simultaneously creating a host of new ones. The next 50 years will undoubtedly contain similar surprises.

In conjunction with the 1999 Annual Housing Conference, which looked at the legacy of the 1949 Housing Act, the Fannie Mae Foundation commissioned a survey that asked urban scholars to rank the key influences shaping the past and future American metropolis. The “top 10” lists that resulted are the focus of this article.     

Comment on Charles C. Bohl's “New urbanism and the city: potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods"—the politics of design: The new urbanists vs. the grass roots

Abstract

This article briefly reviews the origins of New Urbanism and its manifesto as emerging from the social change movements of the 1960s, which evolved out of ideas of a previous generation of American and European designers living through the rise of modern industrialization. Arising from the same turmoil of the 1960s, and parallel to the New Urbanists, evolved a more loosely affiliated network of progressive academic and practicing planners and architects who have aligned themselves with disenfranchised underclasses not benefiting from the wealth of the postwar era and who take direction not from a manifesto but from a body of thinking linked to a broader intellectual and political agenda. This group works primarily with grassroots organizations in lower‐income communities and intentionally stays out of the limelight to better serve its constituents. The article concludes with ideas for possible collaboration between these professional groups serving different ends of the socioeconomic spectrum.     

New urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods

Abstract

New Urbanism has been described as the most influential movement in architecture and planning in the United States since the Modernist movement. In recent years, New Urbanist design principles have been adopted for many housing and neighborhood planning efforts. This article considers the applications and implications of New Urbanism for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods. Claims and criticisms of New Urbanism are examined and the long‐standing debates over the extent to which physical planning and design can affect human behavior are revisited.

The article concludes that New Urbanism is not a panacea, but that its design principles are consistent with broader policies aimed at revitalizing and improving living conditions and opportunities for inner‐city residents. New Urbanism needs to be viewed as one strategy to be integrated within the larger array of economic, social, and community development programs attempting to revitalize and improve the quality of life in inner‐city neighborhoods.     

Brownfield redevelopment and affordable housing: A case study of New Jersey

Abstract

A total of 779 New Jersey residents were surveyed to determine the number of people who during the next five years would be willing to move to housing built on brownfield sites that have been remediated to the extent that they pose no plausible brownfield‐related health risk to residents.

Fourteen percent of the respondents said they would be willing to move to and live in housing built on cleaned‐up brownfields. These respondents were disproportionately relatively poor and young and resided in apartments and cities, especially cities where the city government was actively promoting brownfields. These respondents also did not like their current neighborhoods, did not feel threatened by the idea of living on a cleaned‐up brownfield site, and trusted experts to advise them on the health risks involved.     

Comment on David Listokin,Barbara Listokin,and Michael Lahr's “The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development”: Historic preservation in a neoliberal age

Abstract

Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr argue that historic preservation can function as a community development tool, but there are numerous deficiencies inherent in this method that make it a less‐than‐desirable way to revitalize. Historic preservation generally leads to gentrification that in turn displaces many low‐income households. The historic rehabilitation tax credit also represents a circuitous means of providing affordable housing that would be more effectively delivered through direct subsidy.     

Comment on David Listokin,Barbara Listokin,and Michael Lahr's “The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development”

Abstract

Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr laud the economic benefits of historic preservation but fail to delve deeply enough into the negative impacts and how they might be mitigated. Preservation projects tend to displace lower‐income households and small businesses, and the jobs they generate tend to be low paying. In areas with high potential for displacement, local government and civic leaders should act cautiously and not intervene in ways that overheat these markets. We are unlikely to see new federal policies that substantially mitigate displacement. Nonetheless, the historic rehabilitation tax credit could be revised to encourage more modest and affordable preservation projects.

The extra costs associated with historic rehabilitation standards can be more burdensome than the authors describe. To reduce these costs, the administration of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation could be made more consistent and cost‐sensitive.     

Comment on James R. Cohen's “abandoned housing: Exploring lessons from Baltimore”

Abstract

For most cities, the possibility of transforming unused property into community and city assets is as yet hypothetical. Fiscal constraints limit the amount of land acquisition, relocation, and demolition that cities can undertake. Private investors, unsure of which neighborhoods have a chance of becoming self‐sustaining, are reluctant to take risks in untested markets.

Cities need to create citywide planning strategies for land aggregation and neighborhood stabilization and to develop analyses of the risks and opportunities associated with redevelopment opportunities in specific markets. Research seems sorely needed. Although the policy world cannot and will not stand still waiting for academics to design the perfect study or to collect all the data to model the potential effects of various policy options and investments, analysis that can play a more immediately supportive role can and should be done now.     

Family self‐sufficiency and housing

Abstract

Since the early 1980s, an increasing number of initiatives have been introduced to link housing programs and policies with efforts designed to promote family economic self‐sufficiency. This article reviews a set of programs that have worked to manipulate various components of the housing bundle to improve the economic well‐being of acutely poor families. They include programs that modify the characteristics and services available in the local community, alter families’ residential location, provide incentives and opportunities for homeownership, and link the provision of housing subsidies to increasing local capacity for service delivery.

This article suggests that the centrality of housing in fostering or impeding economic mobility makes it a key element in dealing with acute poverty and part of a creative strategy for intervening in the dynamics of poverty. Several important areas need to be taken into account when evaluating current policy; and multiyear evaluations will be necessary to determine the success of these programs.     

The redevelopment of distressed public housing: Early results from HOPE VI projects in Atlanta,Chicago, and San Antonio

Abstract

The redevelopment of distressed public housing under the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program, or HOPE VI, has laudable social, physical, community, and economic goals. Three public housing projects in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio demonstrate the complexity and trade‐offs of trying to lessen the concentration of low‐income households, leverage private resources, limit project costs, help residents achieve economic self‐sufficiency, design projects that blend into the community, and ensure meaningful resident participation in project planning.

Although worthwhile and ambitious, HOPE VI cannot achieve all these goals. More of them can be achieved by developing strategies related to the strength of the local real estate market. To that end, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and public housing authorities must use the market‐based tools in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Standards for improved physical design and resident participation and further research on critical supportive services for residents are also needed.     

Abandoned housing: Exploring lessons from baltimore

Abstract

Population loss and economic decline have resulted in thousands of abandoned homes in major U.S. cities. Although abandoned homes are symptomatic of other problems, they also contribute to neighborhood decline and frustrate revitalization. This article provides an overview of the national scope of abandoned housing and profiles Baltimore's strategy for addressing this problem.

Challenges in Baltimore's revitalization planning include the necessity of and financial requirements for a comprehensive approach and the difficulty of reaching consensus. Widespread property “flipping” hampers prevention. Efforts to acquire and demolish units are constrained by difficulties in tracking ownership, felons’ ownership of derelict units, and a shortage of staffing to process takings. Challenges in rehabilitating and marketing row houses include the need for subsidies to make units affordable to the most likely buyers, the omnipresence of lead paint, and the lack of foreign immigration. The article proposes a more strategic approach to the city's revitalization planning.     

More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community development corporation capacity

Abstract

Community development researchers, practitioners, and funders have recently begun to emphasize the need for community development corporations (CDCs) to build capacity. However, the practice of using the term capacity without carefully defining it allows for a wide range of meanings to be assigned to the term and hinders efforts to study and measure it. Capacity is often defined narrowly in terms of housing production, oversimplifying a complex concept and process.

To remedy this shortcoming, we create a framework that views capacity more broadly by dividing it into five components: resource, organizational, programmatic, network, and political. We believe that this more concrete way of thinking about capacity will be particularly useful to practitioners, funders, and policy makers. We apply our definitions to CDCs, particularly those that work with local intermediaries called community development partnerships (CDPs), in order to better understand the role of CDPs in the process of building capacity.     

Revitalizing the Parramore heritage renovation area: Florida's state housing initiatives partnership program and Orlando's historic African‐American community

Abstract

Housing programs increasingly contribute to broader community revitalization efforts rather than strictly serving production‐oriented goals. As implementation of this strategy moves beyond the traditional housing leaders in cities such as Boston, Cleveland, and Baltimore, an assessment of other areas is instructive. This article examines how the nation's largest housing trust fund, which Florida directs primarily to local governments through the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), contributed to Orlando's ambitious community revitalization effort in the Parramore neighborhood.

Given the consistency between SHIP goals and those of the Parramore project and Orlando's experience with developing partnerships and affordable housing initiatives, SHIP should have proven an effective tool. The initial findings demonstrate that housing programs need to be sufficiently flexible to permit a comprehensive approach to neighborhood revitalization. Such an approach should seek a balance between product‐based redevelopment and people‐based housing strategies, expand the role of community development corporations, and create housing choice.     

Working together: Building capacity for community development

Abstract

Community development partnerships (CDPs)—local intermediaries that gather support from foundations, corporations, and the public sector—are giving increased attention to building the capacity of community development corporations (CDCs). This article evaluates CDPs’ efforts to help nonprofit CDCs increase their capacity to revitalize low‐income communities. We identified five types of capacity and conducted interviews and focus groups with CDPs and CDCs across the nation. The nature of capacity and capacity building among CDCs, the ways partnerships help increase CDC capacity, what the partnerships and CDCs learn from each other, and how they could better gauge the effectiveness of capacity‐building support were discussed.

We learned that CDCs and CDPs have forged an effective alliance and continue to work together: Community organizations require help in building capacity, and local partnerships provide the requisite funding, technical assistance, and other elements to help them grow and serve their neighborhoods.     

Counting homeless persons with surveys of users of services for the homeless

Abstract

Because of their comparative economy, the most commonly used methods for counting the homeless focus on users of shelters, food lines, health clinics for the homeless, and other services for the homeless. This paper argues that surveys restricted to shelter users are of limited usefulness, but that joint surveys of food‐line, shelter, and clinic users include very substantial proportions of the homeless in many communities. Such comprehensive surveys can provide an accurate basis for research on the homeless in communities with reasonably capacious service systems. The reliability of such surveys has grown as service systems for the homeless have improved. Groups of the homeless that tend to be missed in service user surveys include homeless youths on their own as well as substantial portions of the rural homeless population and of the doubled‐up or institutionalized homeless populations. Surveys of homeless persons sleeping in known places “on the streets” can be used to supplement surveys of service users. Research in Colorado suggests that such supplemental surveys of the street population provide a practical basis for comprehensive estimates of the homeless street population.     

Smart growth: More than a ghost of urban policy past,less than a bold new horizon

Abstract

Proponents of smart growth tout its more compact, less automobile‐dependent development as a superior alternative to the prevailing pattern of sprawl. Admittedly, smart growth is characterized by the ghost of urban policy past, ranging from inner‐area revitalization to growth management. Yet smart growth incorporates leading‐edge, contemporary components (e.g., encouraging multimodal transportation, strategically locating public employment), and its timing is propitious—as aging baby boomers, rising immigration, and other forces support core‐area revitalization and other smart growth themes.

The future of smart growth is promising, but its success is far from assured. Multiple factors, such as the lack of adoption across governments, market support for sprawl, the automobile's clinging dominance, and a paucity of techniques, could impair broad implementation. However, smart growth is sensible, broadly recognized, and fortuitously timed, and its proponents have learned from the miscues of its historical antecedents.     

Revitalizing inner‐city neighborhoods: New York city's Ten‐Year Plan

Abstract

This article examines the impact of New York City's Ten‐Year Plan on the sale prices of homes in surrounding neighborhoods. Beginning in the mid‐1980s, New York City invested $5.1 billion in constructing or rehabilitating over 180,000 units of housing in many of the city's most distressed neighborhoods. One of the main purposes was to spur neighborhood revitalization.

In this article, we describe the origins of the Ten‐Year Plan, as well as the various programs the city used to implement it, and estimate whether housing built or rehabilitated under the Ten‐Year Plan affected the prices of nearby homes. The prices of homes within 500 feet of Ten‐Year Plan units rose relative to those located beyond 500 feet, but still within the same census tract. These findings are consistent with the proposition that well‐planned project‐based housing programs can generate positive spillover effects and contribute to efforts to revitalize inner‐city neighborhoods.