Continued...

Changing the Equation

Shrinking cities challenge the basic equation that most CDCs have followed from their inception. That equation had two features. The first was that the neighborhood where the CDC was working—and by inference all neighborhoods—could be “saved,” revitalized, and turned into a thriving community. The second was that development, particularly new housing, was a central part of the process of revitalization.

In a city that has and will have for the foreseeable future a far smaller population than it once had, not every neighborhood is a candidate for revitalization. Neighborhoods that may have been vital communities 30 or 40 years ago, but which have lost 70 or 80 percent of their population, and where occupied houses are fewer than vacant ones and both are rarer than vacant lots, are not likely to come back as vibrant urban neighborhoods. Given the limited demand for housing in such cities as a whole, any new homes built in such an area would at best draw demand from somewhere else, undermining some other part of the city. More likely, they would sit vacant.

This goes directly to the second part of the equation. Many, perhaps most, CDCs identify themselves with what they build—after all, that’s why they’re called community development corporations. What does a CDC do if there’s no need to build any more houses or apartments in their neighborhood, and where decent quality private housing is available at the same or lower rent than a tax-credit project? That’s not just a question of mission; for many CDCs it may be a question of survival, since many have come to rely on developer fees as a major source of funds to cover their operating budgets.

The fact is, however, that there are many ways a CDC can add value and strengthen a neighborhood without building any new housing. Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corporation’s flagship project in the Idora neighborhood is a program they call Lots of Green. Idora is a viable neighborhood with many nice houses, but with too much scattered vacant land. So, Gillespie says, “we decided to take over about 150 vacant lots, and clean, repurpose, and reactivate those lots into neighborhood assets. We turn lots into urban agriculture, pocket parks, green space, and a side lot program for adjacent homeowners. Our urban ag site has community gardens, fruit orchards, rain gardens, green space.” YNDC is working with Ohio State to use vacant land in the area to reduce stormwater runoff.

At the same time, YNDC is focusing on strengthening Idora’s housing market by helping people make home repairs, providing incentives for people to buy homes in the neighborhood, and using NSP funds for selective rehab of key vacant structures that are important to the neighborhood’s fabric.

One of the most valuable features of the CDAD strategic framework is that, after identifying the 11 different types of area, it goes on to offer a menu of suggestions for CDCs working in each type of area. Some of the things it suggests CDCs could take on in traditional residential sectors include:

• Code enforcement and blight reduction
• Strategies to catalyze private market housing activity
• Weatherization and greening assistance
• Planning for use of vacant lots
• Fostering community engagement for land use planning and resident cohesion

In naturescapes, on the other hand, the framework suggests that CDCs could help create a land conservancy, facilitate resident relocation, partner with others to encourage deconstruction (taking buildings down in such a way as to be able to reuse building materials and fixtures, as opposed to demolition) of existing vacant buildings, and support community policing.

Many CDCs, and not only those in shrinking cities, have begun to reevaluate their mission and think about neighborhood revitalization more comprehensively, often in ways more sensitive to market constraints and opportunities. Some have always had a comprehensive approach, such as Detroit’s Warren/Conner Development Coalition, which is now playing a leading role in the lower East Side pilot project.

Many other CDCs are still grappling with these issues, as did Detroit’s CDCs as they went through a nearly yearlong process of rethinking; as the CDAD report notes, “We must also hold up a mirror to ourselves. We must be willing to restructure, realign and even merge when necessary.”