I mentioned in class last week how the Cleveland, OH neighborhood I've lived in the past three summers follows many of the design standards advocated by New Urbanism. One of the areas this is true is housing: there is a mix of housing types (large, single-family; duplexes; and apartment buildings) dispersed and intermixed throughout the neighborhood. This type of housing mix (in addition to the fact that this is a city neighborhood and not a suburb) facilitates an organic mixed income neighborhood (as opposed to mixed income developments, built as an answer to traditional public housing projects, that most people think of when talking about mixed income housing).
In his blog on Detroit last week, Graham suggested that maybe we all should buy a home and restore it and "go work 'on the farm.'" Turns out that's what my boyfriend did, although maybe not to the extent Graham imagined. Cleveland has been facing the same economic downturn as Detroit, although not to the same degree: population loss, foreclosures, swaths of vacant land throughout the city, crumbling infrastructure. And so, it has some of the same cheap housing stock that Detroit has--provided that you are willing to put in a little work to rehab.
So, as I said, I've spent the last couple of summers playing 'on the farm,' experimenting with all sorts of sustainable projects.
I like living here, not only because I get to try out cool things 'on the farm', but also because the neighborhood is great. There are restaurants, bars, a library branch, a movie theatre, and a pharmacy all within a 5 to 10 minute walk of the house. It is diverse--there are people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, income levels, and physical and mental abilities. There is a community orchard right behind the house, with peaches, pears, apples, grapes... And there is an active block club and a strong social network. It pretty much meets all of Roseland's "Small Steps to Creating Good Neighborhoods."
There's just one problem. There have always been petty theft problems, breakins, etc. It is a city neighborhood after all. But the past two weeks on the block club listserv, a disturbing number of crimes have been shared, from stolen phones to catalytic converters cut out of cars in the driveway to violent assaults on neighborhood proprietors. A few of the emails have ended with comments like: "With all the trouble lately in the area and now this, we're talking about renting out the house and moving away." And: "I am just going to make sure we leave the city before our unborn child is old enough to form memories."
Aside from the fact that this sort of action puts a neighborhood teetering on the edge of vitality in risk of going downhill, I believe this type of experience is important to address when talking about mixed-income neighborhoods. I don't know for sure that the mixed income characteristics of the neighborhood are what cause higher crime rates. I also don't know if suburbia is much better--my mom got her bicycle stolen out of our suburban metro-Atlanta garage just like my neighbors in Cleveland. Maybe the block club list, facilitating excellent communication, is cultivating a paranoia about increased crime when the only change is that we can now share more effectively what has always been happening. But there is certainly the perception, and perhaps reality, that living in a mixed income community comes with certain risks that more homogeneous communities do not share.
This "us" and "them" mentality that springs up especially around crime is perpetuated because, while I mentioned the active block club earlier, the "strong social network," at least the one I know about, is by-and-large comprised only of the middle to upper income, single-family home owners. Although it is a mixed income neighborhood, it is not a mixed income or mixed class community. If all our neighbors came to block club meetings, would those thinking of leaving be more likely to stay? If the community were more socially integrated across economic and racial lines, would our network be stronger and our community anti-crime efforts be more effective. I believe the answer is a resounding yes. But how do we achieve this?
When researching for this post, I discovered the majority of literature on mixed income housing is on mixed income developments, like I talked about at the beginning of the post. Most researchers focus on the effects of mixed income housing on people with lower incomes, many of whom have been relocated from traditional public housing projects. This focus is probably warranted, but I believe that it is also important to understand the dynamics of mixed income neighborhoods from the perspective of middle- to upper income residents who otherwise enjoy the type of New Urbanist living and diverse communities that we advocate. Literature also focuses on mixed income housing developments, rather than the more organic neighborhoods like I am talking about here. But, there are important insights from this literature about the creation of community among very heterogeneous groups of people. Until we can make mixed income communities (not just individual housing developments) comfortable and healthy (including mental health and piece of mind from security) for all residents, it isn't really a viable solution. People won't want to live in places like my neighborhood in Cleveland when a safer, easier life is just 20 minutes down the freeway.
Mark Joseph, a researcher at Case-Western Reserve University, studies social interaction and community building in mixed income housing developments. I may be naive, but I believe this is an important component to making a mixed income community enjoyable and safe for all. The social network should encompass everyone in the neighborhood if it is to be a tool to deal with neighborhood challenges. Social interactions between income groups in mixed income housing tend to be casual and somewhat superficial, with the most significant barrier to deeper interaction being perceptions of differences. Joseph's research identifies the main tools for building a more inclusive community as 1) promoting resident interactions, 2) shaping physical design, and 3) providing formal services and supports. However, these tools face challenges as well, including uneven participation among groups. (This is one problem of the block club--invitations have been made to everyone on the block, but only certain types of residents decide to participate.) Other potential problems are perceived differences among groups, resulting in the tendency to congregate with those most like you, and practical limitations such as work schedules and transportation needs.
What do you think? Would you be willing to live in a walkable, mixed income, mixed use neighborhood even if that comes with higher crime? How can we work to combat the barrier of "difference" to build an integrated, socially supportive, inclusive community?
In his blog on Detroit last week, Graham suggested that maybe we all should buy a home and restore it and "go work 'on the farm.'" Turns out that's what my boyfriend did, although maybe not to the extent Graham imagined. Cleveland has been facing the same economic downturn as Detroit, although not to the same degree: population loss, foreclosures, swaths of vacant land throughout the city, crumbling infrastructure. And so, it has some of the same cheap housing stock that Detroit has--provided that you are willing to put in a little work to rehab.
So, as I said, I've spent the last couple of summers playing 'on the farm,' experimenting with all sorts of sustainable projects.
 |
| My little garden--planned to be majorly expanded when I can be in town for the entire growing season! |
 |
| Shed/rain barrel tower-- 15 feet elevation gets you enough pressure to run a sprinkler. |
 |
| Planter I built from recycled bottles and 'rubble' found onsite. |
 |
| Insulation made from recycled blue jeans--available at your local Menard's. The best part is no fiberglass. |
There's just one problem. There have always been petty theft problems, breakins, etc. It is a city neighborhood after all. But the past two weeks on the block club listserv, a disturbing number of crimes have been shared, from stolen phones to catalytic converters cut out of cars in the driveway to violent assaults on neighborhood proprietors. A few of the emails have ended with comments like: "With all the trouble lately in the area and now this, we're talking about renting out the house and moving away." And: "I am just going to make sure we leave the city before our unborn child is old enough to form memories."
Aside from the fact that this sort of action puts a neighborhood teetering on the edge of vitality in risk of going downhill, I believe this type of experience is important to address when talking about mixed-income neighborhoods. I don't know for sure that the mixed income characteristics of the neighborhood are what cause higher crime rates. I also don't know if suburbia is much better--my mom got her bicycle stolen out of our suburban metro-Atlanta garage just like my neighbors in Cleveland. Maybe the block club list, facilitating excellent communication, is cultivating a paranoia about increased crime when the only change is that we can now share more effectively what has always been happening. But there is certainly the perception, and perhaps reality, that living in a mixed income community comes with certain risks that more homogeneous communities do not share.
This "us" and "them" mentality that springs up especially around crime is perpetuated because, while I mentioned the active block club earlier, the "strong social network," at least the one I know about, is by-and-large comprised only of the middle to upper income, single-family home owners. Although it is a mixed income neighborhood, it is not a mixed income or mixed class community. If all our neighbors came to block club meetings, would those thinking of leaving be more likely to stay? If the community were more socially integrated across economic and racial lines, would our network be stronger and our community anti-crime efforts be more effective. I believe the answer is a resounding yes. But how do we achieve this?
When researching for this post, I discovered the majority of literature on mixed income housing is on mixed income developments, like I talked about at the beginning of the post. Most researchers focus on the effects of mixed income housing on people with lower incomes, many of whom have been relocated from traditional public housing projects. This focus is probably warranted, but I believe that it is also important to understand the dynamics of mixed income neighborhoods from the perspective of middle- to upper income residents who otherwise enjoy the type of New Urbanist living and diverse communities that we advocate. Literature also focuses on mixed income housing developments, rather than the more organic neighborhoods like I am talking about here. But, there are important insights from this literature about the creation of community among very heterogeneous groups of people. Until we can make mixed income communities (not just individual housing developments) comfortable and healthy (including mental health and piece of mind from security) for all residents, it isn't really a viable solution. People won't want to live in places like my neighborhood in Cleveland when a safer, easier life is just 20 minutes down the freeway.
Mark Joseph, a researcher at Case-Western Reserve University, studies social interaction and community building in mixed income housing developments. I may be naive, but I believe this is an important component to making a mixed income community enjoyable and safe for all. The social network should encompass everyone in the neighborhood if it is to be a tool to deal with neighborhood challenges. Social interactions between income groups in mixed income housing tend to be casual and somewhat superficial, with the most significant barrier to deeper interaction being perceptions of differences. Joseph's research identifies the main tools for building a more inclusive community as 1) promoting resident interactions, 2) shaping physical design, and 3) providing formal services and supports. However, these tools face challenges as well, including uneven participation among groups. (This is one problem of the block club--invitations have been made to everyone on the block, but only certain types of residents decide to participate.) Other potential problems are perceived differences among groups, resulting in the tendency to congregate with those most like you, and practical limitations such as work schedules and transportation needs.
What do you think? Would you be willing to live in a walkable, mixed income, mixed use neighborhood even if that comes with higher crime? How can we work to combat the barrier of "difference" to build an integrated, socially supportive, inclusive community?
Cleveland and St Louis (where I lived for a few years before SPEA) have a lot of parallels in the neighborhood dynamics you’ve discussed in your blog. A young generation of renovators has purchased historic brick homes within some of the struggling neighborhoods, taking years to remodel them, all the while becoming active citizens in their neighborhood groups. This makes sense because investing time, labor and money into a project means these renovators want to ensure their new home is worth it and their surrounding community is the place they want to stay and attract other residents to also revitalize the area.
ReplyDeleteA historic neighborhood, Old North St Louis offers some great community building activities like movie nights in the park, a home tour (gotta show off those renovations) and a community garden. Investment in other physical aspects of the neighborhood—particularly the 14th Street Mall ―creates a downtown-feel focal point and commercial hub which speaks to Joseph’s point of “shaping physical design.” This was an expensive renovation made possible by public/private partnerships.
The neighborhood is in a not-so-great part of town and does suffer from crime issues. However, the residents, many native to the area, are very committed to the efforts. Personally, I would absolutely live in the area, assuming crime is not outrageous. The benefits of living in such a real community with diverse SECs and active community building is exciting and outweighs some of the crime concerns. The toughest issue would be sustaining the commitment and energy to revitalize the area when setbacks such as personal assaults occur.
Thanks, Amber. I always appreciate your insights. Do you know if the community-building activities in Old North St. Louis were well attended by a spectrum of people, crossing economic and social lines, or was it mostly the more well-off people attending? How do you get EVERYONE to come?
DeleteCheck this out (from the Old North St Louis website):
DeleteQuality of Life Meetings
No community is perfect, and that includes Old North (although we’re getting there!). So, how do we keep the neighborhood moving closer and closer to the ideal community the residents know the neighborhood can become? Every other month or so, new and long-time neighbors, homeowners and renters come together to discuss ways they can work together to address common concerns. These meetings are open to all and also provide opportunities to bring issues to the attention of representatives from the 4th and 5th police districts and city agencies.
I think I would live in a city neighborhood despite the higher crime rate in order to live in a mixed use area. Maybe everyone should just get a dog! People who have dogs are less likely to be robbed because burglars don't want to deal with a loud, potentially dangerous barking dogs that will draw attention to the home.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a more realistic solution may be a neighborhood crime watch group. There are several communities around Indianapolis that have also had spikes in crime rates and have combated this by forming a Neighborhood Crime Watch in which neighbors help monitor their specific block. Since there is already a sense of community and communication amongst some residents in your neighborhood, perhaps this would be a relatively easy addition to the active block club. Also, if everyone is facing increased crime rates, this could be a common ground for low, middle, and high income residents to come together on. An active watch group could create an increased feeling of safety and deter burglars from the area. Although, I'm not sure on any specific statistics on the effectiveness of neighborhood crime watch groups. Just an idea.
I lived in a mixed income neighborhood in downtown Indianapolis for about a year, before we moved to Bloomington when I was 6 years old. My mother rented the Indy house out to tenants for 20 years and will soon move back when she retires. I remember a few scary moments of violence and crime in that neighborhood in the short time I was there. It was actually a police training ground because they were called out there so often. Since then, the area has gentrified and there have been a lot of renovations. I think communities have to build a culture of integrity over time through the tools Joseph mentions 1) promoting resident interactions, 2) shaping physical design, and 3) providing formal services and supports. This all hopefully encourages a culture of education, integrity, and success instead of violence, helplessness, and unlawfulness.
ReplyDeleteCalley, thanks for the shout out and link to my blog! And I still want to restore a giant home and go to work on the farm. I adore your set up there in Cleveland and the elevated rain barrel is genius to get gravity fed water pressure!
ReplyDeleteI would certainly live in a neighborhood that you described unless it was frequent major violent crimes. But improving those areas is certainly a challenge. Yes there are some ways to address it as the other comments have mentioned but I don't think there is necessarily a silver bullet here. It has to be a multi-faceted approach like the implementation of neighborhood watch, empowering the community with some accountability, and to integrate principles that John referenced above from Joseph. The more that neighbors are forced to interact with each other the more inclined they will be to not steal and will actually look out for one another.
Calley - great post. Really thought provoking. First: yes, I would live in a mixed community as you mentioned, but under the guise that it's petty crime, not serious crime (e.g., homicide). This was a 'social' shift I was taught to deal with in Europe. Petty crime is unfortunately, a part of living there, but fortunately, their serious crime rate is much lower than ours. Haven't looked at their comparison of mixed-communities compared to us, but if that's trade off to segregated communities, might be worth it? Yes, it takes some psychological shifts. As for the thoughts provoked: what stood out to me were 3 things: 1) the notion of time, 2) the line between "gentrification" vs. mixed and 3) the definition of community. I wholeheartedly agree that community is a social construct more than a physical but it's also psychological. If our needs states are different (our expectations for education, safety, etc.)then how do you align a heterogeneous group for a physical community as well. Re: gentrification -- it now has a negative connotation in that it "forces" people out of areas that they can no longer afford. The growing pains are similar to your neighborhood in Cleveland but rather than addressing these issues and trying to integrate, folks remain priced-out of apartments they used to be able to afford. Lastly, time: building a community, a garden, etc. takes time. I LOVE your place. But for the folks in mixed-communities who have to work more than one job, can we expect them to be as engaged socially as others? Or - what are ways that we can encourage symmetric participation if time is asymmetrical for residents? And yes. I think the bad news is what gets reported. We report crimes in the local news, but rarely all of the weddings, births that happened that week. Let's change the conversation :).
ReplyDelete