"Relational Neighborhoods"

Excerpt from Frank A. Mills, Urban Psychologist

A "relational neighborhood" is a "group of people with which an individual interacts frequently, to whom an individual feels connected, or to whom the individual would go to for help." Relational "neighbors" may include family members, schoolmates, friends, co-workers, and church members, as well as neighbors.

Although "relational neighborhood," by definition, can define "neighborhoods" other than geographical neighborhoods it would serve us well to understand the characteristics of a relational neighborhood as they apply to the geographical neighborhood.

Andrew Crook in his essay on the Relational City ("The Relational City: A New Framework for Tackling Unemployment," Relationship Institute, Cambridge, England, 1997) suggests that there are three characteristics, and five "micro-building blocks" for the Relational City. Applying these to the context of a geographical neighborhood, we find that a relational neighborhood is a neighborhood where residents share a commitment to the neighborhood, to each other, and to joint participation in improving their neighborhood.

To delineate, Crook's three characteristics are ...

• A commitment to place: A relational neighborhood is one to which residents are committed to, and feel pride in belonging to.


• A commitment to people: A relational neighborhood in one characterized by mutual respect and concern among residents.


• A commitment to participation: A relational neighborhood is one which residents know their joint power for change and use it.

For Crook, the five elements, or "micro-level building blocks," necessary to create a Relational City, or for our purposes, a relational neighborhood out of which beneficial characteristics like mutual trust and co-operation can develop are:

• Face-to-face contact (Directness)
  Residents physically meet with each other and mutually interact. In the process, they begin to understand and appreciate other perspectives expressed by neighbors. Simply put, relationships cannot exist if people do not come together.


• Common purpose (Commonality)
  Residents share a joint vision, or at least some elements. If residents do not share a common purpose there will be no opportunity to profitably work together. Common purpose requires residents to be convinced that there are common projects on which they can co-operate to their mutual advantage.


• Contact over time (Continuity)
  Relationships take time to develop. People are highly unlikely to form strong commitment to a neighborhood if they see their stay likely to be short.


• Contact in different contexts (Multiplexity)
  Multiplexity is the idea that a relationship between two (or more) people is strengthened if it takes place in more than one context. In my neighborhood, for example, most of my neighbors attend the same church and we all walk to the same stores.


• Mutual respect (Parity)
  Neighborhood residents are able to interact on roughly the same level with equal power. Neighbors meet on equal footing and contribute equally. When a particular neighbor chooses at times to remain aloof from the neighborhood a relational neighborhood will accept the neighbor back into the process as if he had never left.

Inner City Retail

post from Marvin a.k.a. eMarv

I was just reading the "Welcome to Metropolis" article in Retail Traffic magazine. The article states that "MacFarlane already has 2.2 billion to invest. Meanwhile, DLC Management Corp. Has joined with G.L. Blackstone & Associates to form DLC UrbanCore LLC and is sitting on $100 million in capital." Imagine that! (I wish I had $100M to sit on!) I actually know of a couple of potential infill sites in Baltimore that could be ideal for redevelopment.

BTW, for those that are not convinced about inner city retail, here's an impressive stat from the retail traffic article: "In 2002, ...inner city shoppers went outside their neighborhoods to buy $42 billion in goods, or 25 percent of the total $122 billion retail demand of those consumers, according to a study for the Boston-based Initiative for Competitive Inner City by Boston Consulting Group Analytics with Claritas Inc."

Another benefit (according to executives in the know) is the good returns. G. Lamont Blackstone of UrbanCore states that they are exceeding 13 percent returns and Victor MacFarlane says "the return rate for an initial $50 million (of a total $3 billion) invested by the California Public Employees' Retirement System was 30 percent in 1996."

Still not convinced, here's another extract from the article:
Baldwin Hills-and other inner city successes like Harlem USA, and Gulfgate Center in Houston-are convincing a widening pool of players that investment in minority communities is a good bet. "It will increasingly become mainstream as retailers recognize that there are few other commercial real estate opportunities in this country of the magnitude these present," says Capri CEO and Chairman Quinton Primo, III.

So where are the big inner city players looking next? (I thought you'd never ask... :)
According to Retail Traffic, they are looking in Seattle, Phoenix, Tucson, Dallas, Denver, Fort Worth, Austin, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Miami and Jacksonville. While Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Detroit are flat.

The "Branding" of Your Neighborhood

by Frank A. Mills

For the most part traditional urban planning has failed our urban neighborhoods. Rather than being driven by practical considerations and a real understanding of urban decline, much of what passes for urban planning is driven more by wishful thinking than anything else. Ultimately such planning is destined for failure.

If traditional urban planning is not working, let's get rid of it. It's time for a new approach.I hesitate to mention this word, its full of capitalistic connotations at best, greed, at worse, and in between, blind spin-doctoring.

The word is branding.There, I've said it. Before you shut down the blog let me at least tell you what I am talking about.

Think about what made made our urban neighborhoods a place that people wanted to live in, in the first place. I know that when I was a kid, my parents moved to Baltimore's Windsor Hills neighborhood because it had the reputation of being a nice place to live and raise a family. Now, isn't that a form of branding?

Here in Cleveland, many of the older, and not so old, residents of Glenville remember when that neighborhood was known as Cleveland's "Gold Coast" because of its many upscale boutiques, and before that, "Cleveland's Garden Basket" from its many truck farms. Branding, again.But what makes this particular branding significant, is that most of the current residents who mention this, didn't live in Glenville when it was the Gold Coast, and certainly not when it was "Cleveland's Garden Basket."

Although Glenville is in serious decline, the Brand remains.So much so, that some of Glenville's residents want to revive the "garden" part and have Glenville become known as the "Western Entrance" to the International Gardens and Rockefeller Park.

Okay, so where am I going with this?

Do we not buy a particular brand of car because of what it offers in quality and safety, price, and amenities? Do we not buy into the brand – its quality of life and affordability – of a neighborhood when we make decisions about where we are going to live?When we think about revitalizing urban neighborhoods this is where we need to begin, with the neighborhood's brand, with its negative and positive connotations. I suggest that before any plans are made that we articulate the spirit, the qualitative essence, of place. This is the unarticulated brand.

Just as we take cars for test drives before we purchase, we need to walk the neighborhood, to talk to the people, to eat in the restaurants, and to drink in the pubs. We need to learn to feel what made, and makes, the neighborhood a neighborhood — before we create plans.

We need to think of neighborhoods as a "her" – an ever-evolving living organism – not an "it" devoid of life.

We need to understand why she is in decline (if she is), not from the perspective of urban experts, but by hearing, seeing, and feeling her story. We need to see her through the lenses of the camera. We need to see her inside out, through the windows of her homes, stores, places of work, and cafás and the lives of her residents.We need to become part of her life, just as we must make her part of our life. We need to feel her embedded poetry. And when we do, we will discover her essence, and be able to articulate it, to "brand" it.

The brand is not the neighborhood's essence; rather the brand proclaims her essence. When we realize her essence, we have something we can latch hold of, something that we can "sell"— an urban neighborhood where people that want to visit and to live in. Done correctly, an amazing phenomena will take place: residents will begin to demand all that the brand promises (just like they expect and demand certain qualities from commercial brands): good schools,livable homes, retail amenities; everything that makes a neighborhood home. The seeds to stop decline are sown, and the neighborhood begin to experience, once again, the realization of her vital essence through development that truly builds upon who she really is.

Let's throw away the master plans. Let's start spending our energy in discovering, and experiencing, the embed poetry, the essence, of our urbanneighborhoods. Then, and only then, do we have that hitherto elusive essential quantity necessary for the revitalize our urban neighborhoods

Project "Row Houses"

Exerpt from New Your Times.

ON a strangely balmy late autumn afternoon, while the art world busied itself in Miami with beachfront reservations and limo drivers, Rick Lowe was, as he generally is, on Holman Street in southeast Houston’s predominantly black Third Ward, greeting another out-of-towner.

In the gloaming, decrepit houses and weedy lots dotted some surrounding blocks, on the edges of which were new double-garage brick homes — signs of encroaching gentrification, an unwanted side effect of Mr. Lowe’s work.

Although it’s hard to tell at a glance, this stretch of Holman may be the most impressive and visionary public art project in the country — a project that is miles away, geographically and philosophically, from Chelsea and Art Basel and the whole money-besotted paper-thin art scene.

Mr. Lowe, a lanky, amiable, remarkably youthful-looking 45-year-old artist from Alabama, moved to Houston 21 years ago and lives here in the Third Ward, where he founded Project Row Houses. In 1990, “a group of high school students came over to my studio,” he recalled. “I was doing big, billboard-size paintings and cutout sculptures dealing with social issues, and one of the students told me that, sure, the work reflected what was going on in his community, but it wasn’t what the community needed. If I was an artist, he said, why didn’t I come up with some kind of creative solution to issues instead of just telling people like him what they already knew. That was the defining moment that pushed me out of the studio.”

He tried to think afresh what it meant to be a truly political artist, beyond devising the familiar agitprop, gallery decoration and plop-art-style public sculpture. He considered what the German artist Joseph Beuys once described as “the enlarged conception of Art,” which includes, as Beuys put it, “every human action.” Life itself might be a work of art, Mr. Lowe realized: art can be the way people live.

And the Third Ward could be his canvas. He was inspired by John Biggers, the late African-American muralist who painted black neighborhoods of shotgun houses like the ones on Holman Street and showed them to be places of pride and community, not poverty and crime. “It hit me,” Mr. Lowe recalled, “that we should find an area like the one that Biggers painted that was historically significant and bring it to life.”

Behind him as he spoke, a phalanx of 22 gleaming shotgun houses stretched across two blocks. Built in 1930 as tenant shacks, derelict by the early ’90s, they were bought by Mr. Lowe and a coalition of artists and others. To Mr. Lowe they were like “found objects.”

Seed money came from the National Endowment for the Arts and from the Elizabeth Firestone Graham Foundation. The director of the Menil Collection gave his staff Mondays off to help renovate. Chevron redid the outside of a dozen buildings. Hundreds of volunteers pitched in to clear trash and sweep up used needles, hang wallboard and fortify porches. A local church adopted a house, and so did people and families from the neighborhood.

Bohemian today, high-rent tomorrow

Excerpts from BusinessWeek online By Maya Roney

Want to know where a great place to invest in real estate will be five or 10 years from now? Look at where artists are living now.

Sociologists and policymakers have long been touting art and culture as the cure-all to economically depressed neighborhoods, cities, and regions. The reason? It has been proven that artists—defined as self-employed visual artists, actors, musicians, writers, etc.—can stimulate local economies in a number of ways.

Artists are often an early sign of neighborhood gentrification. "Artists are the advance guard of what's hip and cool," says Bert Sperling, founder and president of Portland (Ore.)-based Sperling's Best Places and compiler of BusinessWeek.com's list of the Best Places for Artists in America.

Creativity Leads to Growth
Artists, because of their typically lower incomes, usually need to seek out less expensive, developing neighborhoods where they can afford the rent. But because of their creativity they are able to fix up these areas, eventually attracting hip boutiques, galleries, and restaurants. Not all artists are starving. While some are able to achieve success writing, acting, painting, or dancing, others get tired of scraping by as waiters or bartenders and sometimes apply their abilities in more entrepreneurial ways.

Anne Markusen, an economist and professor at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and a leading researcher on the effects of the arts on regional economics, once profiled an abstract painter whose work is now displayed on ceilings and in MRI machines in hospitals across the country. In Markusen's research, artists have also been found to stimulate innovation on the part of their suppliers. A painter may need a certain type of frame that is not manufactured, forcing the frame maker to create a new design that happens to also work well for other artists.

But Markusen also maintains that artists bring more than culture to a community. "Businesses don't often understand the extent to which art affects them," Markusen says. "[Artists] are just as important as science and technology companies."

Nonarts businesses also use artist contractors to improve product design, help with marketing, or even use dramatic theory to solve employee relationship issues. Being a cultural center also helps local businesses attract employees who want to be able to regularly go to the ballet or the theater, hear authors read from their latest books, or attend art gallery openings.

Follow the Money
Due to the individual nature and economics of their work, artists are also some of the most itinerant professionals out there. When relocating, they often look for cities and towns that already have high concentrations of artists and a young, racially and ethnically diverse population. The presence of a nurturing art community in the form of art societies and centers is also essential, especially to young artists.

A low cost of living is important, but many artists make financial sacrifices to live near an art-rich urban center or live in a cheaper neighborhood. Few struggling artists can afford to live in neighborhoods like New York's SoHo and Greenwich Village, or even Williamsburg, which once were artistic havens before attracting wealthier residents. Now you are more likely to find New York-based artists in the Bronx, Brooklyn, or even Philadelphia.

In addition to the presence of like-minded individuals, proximity to wealth is also important. The fact of the matter is that artists can seldom earn a living, let alone become rich, selling to other artists. They need wealthy benefactors to buy their paintings or support their local symphony, which explains why each of the places in the U.S. that we found to be the best for artists are in or located near centers of wealth. Los Angeles, No. 1 on our list, is most commonly associated with the film industry. While the city provides great opportunities for actors and directors, there are equally rich prospects for musicians, artists, writers, and dancers. Of course, the majority of these people can't afford to live in Beverly Hills—at least not until they get their big break—and instead opt for more affordable digs in areas like Echo Park.

"Neighborly" Housing

By Kelly Sheehan, Multi Housing News

Chicago residents who buy housing in low-income neighborhoods prefer homes that are designed to be part of their communities and not insolated from them, according to a new report by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a think-tank based in Cambridge, Mass., funded the year-long study.

"I'm interested in neighborhood revitalization and I study the way that the design of housing connects or doesn't connect to surrounding communities," Brent Ryan, UIC assistant professor of urban planning and policy, told MHN. "Since there is so much housing being constructed in Chicago right now, we asked the question, 'Does the design of new urban developments popping up around the city affect the value of housing?' As it turns out, it does."

Ryan and Rachel Weber, a fellow UIC associate professor of urban planning and policy, analyzed assessed values of housing built between 1993 and 2003 in parts of Bronzeville, Bucktown, East Garfield Park, Lawndales, Ukrainian Village and Wicker Park. Every census tract in the analysis had a poverty rate of at least 20 percent in 1990, according to federal standards.

Buyers are willing to pay 33 to 50 percent more for units in small multifamily buildings or single-family homes with entrances that face the street and parking that faces the rear, according to the report. Buyers also favor relatively short setbacks from the street and designs similar to those used for neighboring buildings.

"The value differential implies that buyers of these homes recognize the connections of this housing to the neighborhoods, whether those connections are physical, social or economic," Ryan said. "This might be expected in higher-income neighborhoods, but it’s more surprising in low-income neighborhoods, given that the literature portrays an overriding concern for personal and property security."

Ryan and Weber defined three basic housing design models common to many U.S. cities. They are:


Infill , or housing built on scattered individual lots by multiple developers, which is visually in keeping with surrounding housing. Infill is common in older neighborhoods where houses were demolished one at a time due to deterioration and arson, such as Bronzeville, East Garfield Park, Humboldt Park and North Kenwood.

Traditional neighborhood development, or large planned communities that maintain the neighborhood’s street grid, which face the street and are relatively close to it. They do not have rear parking. An example is North Town Village on the Near North Side.

Enclave or self-contained complexes on large sites, often behind a gate or wall, which are consciously separated from their surroundings.

Many enclaves and traditional neighborhood developments are built on former industrial or institutional sites. Homan Square in Lawndale and Picardy Place in North Center are enclaves. Ryan and Weber determined that infill housing had the highest assessed values. Units in traditional neighborhood developments were assessed only slightly higher than those in enclaves. Values were lowest in enclave or traditional developments with private roadways and entrances facing private spaces. Ryan and Weber suggested that some buyers might associate the size, homogeneity and isolation of these buildings with suburban housing or 20th-century public housing. The study indicated that buyers can be swayed toward enclave or traditional developments by convenient parking in front of or attached to their homes, as well as landscaping that forms a buffer between units and streets.

Ryan told MHN that he lives in a high-rise building in Chicago because he is interested in being a part of the surrounding community. "Our study finds that other people value housing that is integrated into the community as well," he said. "People aren't moving to Chicago to live in a development that could be found in the suburbs--they're moving here to be involved in all that the city has to offer. We were surprised to find that this translated into economic value."

Weber said that the research team found that the cost per unit might be higher to build infill housing, but the cost to build enclaves also can be pushed higher because of the need for private roadways and landscaping. "

The study should be reassuring to urbanists who believe that the best way to revitalize urban neighborhoods is to respect and augment existing places rather than attempt to transform them into another type of neighborhood entirely," Ryan said.

Ryan is currently working to secure funding for a new study that will examine the spillover effects of the design of 800 to 1,200 new urban developments. "We want to look into how the design of these new urban developments affect the housing around them," he said.

5 Sustainable Reuse Principles

by Alan Mallach, Research Director, National Housing Institute

REUSE PRINCIPLE 1: The ultimate goal of all reuse strategies is the reuse of vacant properties in ways that are appropriate and sustainable

• Appropriate for the site and area, taking into account redevelopment plans and long term strategies for the area. It means not only that the land use is appropriate, but that the development or building is designed and sited so that it improves the area or reinforces its positive features, such as architectural or historic character
• Sustainable in that it enhances the long-term social, economic and physical vitality of the community, be it a block, a neighborhood, or the city as a whole.

REUSE PRINCIPLE 2: Sound reuse strategies must be based on an understanding of the market, and must be responsive to the market

• Understand how the market works in the community and region
• Identify market strengths and weaknesses in your neighborhood and city – strengths can be:
  · A major institution, such as a university or medical center
  · A historic district, or an area with attractive and undervalued houses
  · A major park, or water body
  · An ethnic neighborhood, or a cluster of stores and restaurants
  · Proximity to downtown, or to a public transit hub
• Identify target markets and opportunities :
  · People who live elsewhere in the region
  · People who are moving into the region from outside the area
  · People who live in the community – never underestimate the importance of the people who are already in the community to drive future revitalization
• Develop strategies based on target markets and market opportunities
• Design incentives to stimulate – not replace – the market
• The most effective incentives are those that leverage private investment by filling the market gap between the cost of creating the opportunity and its resulting market value.

REUSE PRINCIPLE 3: Sound reuse strategies should be grounded in a vision of the community’s future, and based on well-grounded plans designed to make that future happen.

• Create a vision for the future of the city and each neighborhood
• Take planning seriously
• A plan is more than pretty pictures – design the plan to serve as a guide for implementation and action
• Engage everyone in the planning process, particularly the residents of the area to be redeveloped – not as a pro forma matter, but meaningfully
• Follow the plan – not slavishly, but seriously – treat it as the road map to the future.
• Evaluate the plan regularly – if it’s working, keep going – if not, change it.

REUSE PRINCIPLE 4: Sites should be reused in ways that make the not just the property, but the entire community a better place

• Reuse decisions must be based on sound community design principles
• Respect the past – new development of vacant sites should fit harmoniously with the existing fabric of a community
• Develop and enforce design standards to ensure that new development is compatible and consistent
• Recognize the strengths of urban neighborhoods, and reinforce them through reuse of vacant properties
• Create green neighborhoods – use vacant properties to create open spaces

REUSE PRINCIPLE 5: Within the city and neighborhood framework, specific decisions about reuse of specific sites should be rational ones, based on specific reuse criteria:

• Is the proposed reuse consistent with the long term vision and with the plans that have been adopted to further that vision?
• Does the proposed reuse further specific citywide policy goals, such as creating jobs or increasing the homeownership rate?
• Does the proposed reuse respond to preferences and desires of the residents of the community, such as a need for more affordable – or for move-up – housing, or better neighborhood-scale shopping?
• Does the proposed reuse reflect present or anticipated future market demand?
• Is the proposed reuse responsible, in terms of present and future public sector cost and the availability of resources?

Bodega-Innovative Retail

If you’re starting a new independent clothing store in Boston’s typically fashion-challenged environs, you’d probably take out an ad to promote your grand opening and give away cheap-but-seemingly-generous swag to the first days’ customers. But if you’re opening a high-end-streetwear boutique meant to become a global destination and you have a clue about the Internet-hyped urban market, you’d instead keep your store on the down low, build the environment into something that’s more like a living-art installation than like a straight-product shill, and wait for the customers to come to you.

Bodega’s retail concept is a stroke of genius: one of the birthplaces of hip-hop/graffiti/sneaker/urban culture is the corner store. Even one of Adidas’s most recent marketing stunts for its relaunched early-’80s product line Adicolor was to randomly display seven individual shoe samples in various New York corner stores. So while there are a couple of “magical” secrets about the place that its inventive owners are still trying to keep hush-hush, Bodega is not only designed to convert into an art gallery, but there’s also an awesome fully functional bodega on site, replete with grape sodas, candy necklaces, and ceiling tiles that have had coffee poured on them to mimic water stains. Owner Mak says with a smirk, “We wanted to get flytraps that already had flies in it and mice traps that had mice in it.”

In truth, Bodega is innovative not only for Boston, but for retail. “Will Bostonians really get it? That’s not really our aim,” says Mak. “This is a global market. But we’d like to put a flag in the sand and be like, there’s really good stuff coming out of Boston. SoHo isn’t the only scene on earth.”

Crime Prevention Through Design

By Diane Zahm

Our urban neighborhoods are suffering from years of suburban development, which has destroyed their physical, economic and social fabric, and left it torn and frayed. In some neighborhoods this process has created an urban wasteland of vacant lots, buildings, streets and sidewalks that have become havens for crime. It is these vacancies—or voids—that are now the most problematic. Abandoned buildings serve as residences for drug users and prostitutes. Vacant lots full of trash and weeds attract homeless persons or become the local hangout for gang members. Vacated or unused alleys function as a street network for drug dealers.

In many ways, land-use policies exacerbate the problem. Long ago, in an effort to promote economic development, downtown neighborhoods were rezoned for commercial or industrial uses, eliminating any opportunity for ongoing investment in residential or mixed-use development. Instead, property ownership became highly speculative. Nonresident investors accumulated parcels for profit, all the while renting to tenants who themselves lacked any emotional investment in the neighborhood. Real property tax revenues dried up; so did neighborhood support services. Grocery stores, pharmacies, department stores, banks, doctors and dentists—all moved to the suburbs. But this was not just a loss of residents or taxes or services; the process destroyed the dynamic mix of uses and activities that made urban neighborhoods vibrant and contributed to community safety and security.

Studies show that crime occurs most frequently in those places without observers or guardians; in other words, in the voids. Many years ago Jane Jacobs, in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, offered observations regarding those elements that contribute to a safe and healthy urban neighborhood. Among them are a mix of uses, clearly defined public and private spaces, 24-hour activity, eyes on the street, adequate lighting, uniform setbacks, architectural variety and short blocks. Many planners and designers took Jacobs' insights as a wake-up call, but were undeterred by her disdain for the "doctrine of salvation by bricks." Their new plans called for mixed uses, uniform setbacks and other important physical elements without considering the extent to which residents, property owners, business managers, visitors and others must be engaged in order for a neighborhood to be truly safe. For what good is a mix of uses if the activity they generate never attracts people who care about the neighborhood around them, who pick up litter and scrub off graffiti and report drug dealing? Without them the neighborhood is also without the observers or guardians who are so critical to safety and security, a need that cannot be filled by police or private security.

Traditional neighborhood development represents an important step toward safer, more secure urban neighborhoods. It begins by mending the physical and economic fabric of the neighborhood, by filling the voids left by vacant lots, buildings and alleyways. Open spaces, then, are no longer merely voids, but carefully located and designed streets, walks, yards and parks that knit together the uses and activities that surround them. Traditional neighborhood development has the potential to re-establish the social network of the neighborhood as well. Of course, traditional neighborhood development cannot guarantee "community," but it can provide a dynamic and attractive mix of uses, with lot sizes, building scales and floor plans that reflect contemporary lifestyles. If traditional neighborhood development is successful, no space or place in the neighborhood will be without a guardian or owner, someone who participates in its management and upkeep—and who, therefore, helps to prevent crime.