Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
The tenets of smart growth have ment projects
more in common with those of com- that have taken
*
The Funders’ Network works to munity development than adherents shape in expli-
strengthen and expand funders’ of either movement appreciate. Seen citly “smart”
abilities to support organizations through narrow lenses, the two fields deliberations
working to build more livable appear to involve different economic with regional
communities through smarter
growth policies and practices. For and social dynamics, taking place in authorities and
more information, visit different locations: rampant, helter- planners. None
www.fundersnetwork.org. skelter development in suburbia, vs. of these exam-
concentrated poverty and underin- ples arose as a
**
LISC is a national nonprofit vestment in inner cities. But this result of some
intermediary that works with article begins with the argument that intentional
CDCs and their governmental those two dynamics are related, and good-govern-
and private sector partners to
revitalize distressed communi- in fact are best addressed in tandem, ment exercise
ties. Through its 38 local offices not separately. It describes some rea- aimed at aligning the theories of
and a national rural program, sons why the community develop- urban and suburban development.
LISC has provided to CDCs over ment and smart growth movements On the contrary, all arose because
$4 billion in project financing have tended to diverge, and how they solved a concrete local problem
and grants, as well as business they might come together around a that had regional implications, and
expertise, enabling those groups
to address all aspects of building more effective, common vision. because neighborhood and metro-
stronger, better communities. politan leaders were wise enough to
For more information, visit The bulk of this paper describes recognize those implications and
www.liscnet.org. examples of community develop- come up with common solutions.
© Copyright 2003 by the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Page 2
Introduction
The national movements that we David Rusk calls an “inside game.”2
now associate with community devel- Its first goals were akin to disaster
opment and smart growth got their recovery — to organize and revivify
start in different decades, addressed communities that had been partially
different problems (at least at first), demolished, nearly depopulated, and
and mobilized different groups of economically devastated, and in con-
supporters when they were launched. sequence had grown defensive and
They grew up, for a time, seeming weary. The first challenge for com-
mostly unconnected — except for an munity development was to stanch a
almost coincidental proximity in the hemorrhage of residents, capital, and
same metropolitan regions, with political will. And for that reason it
community developers operating started small and local, focusing
mostly at the core and the anti- inward on the rebuilding of its own
sprawl forces concentrated mainly at back yard.
the city limits and beyond.
Smart growth, by contrast, started as
Community development began as a a reaction to abundance and rapid
reaction to scarcity and market con- expansion. It grew up among rural
traction. It arose as an aftershock of and suburban dwellers, regional and
the massive federal urban programs state planners, and environmentalists
of the 1950s and ’60s, of which city — people who, in Rusk’s phrase, had
dwellers were often the targets but long since learned to play the “out-
too rarely the beneficiaries. It grew as side” game of regional, state, and fed-
inner-city markets failed and invest- eral coalition-building.3 Its galvaniz-
ment fled, leaving neighborhoods ing forces were in some ways the
with only a fraction of the popula- mirror image of those in the inner
tion and capital needed to sustain city. Smart growth concerns had to
them. Community development do not with feelings of powerlessness
therefore began as what historian and disfranchisement, but with
Page 3
A Harmony of Purpose
are now branching into, or being tious in the process. To see in more
created in, suburban communities. detail how community developers
The reason for this confluence of have arrived at the smart growth
interests is not that either side has table, we start by considering some
received some sudden bolt of recent experience in three areas:
enlightenment about modern metro- transportation, business develop-
politan theory. Like most productive ment, and the “new urbanism.” At
coalitions, it has come about because the end, we will knit these experi-
each side has been pursuing its fun- ences into a larger picture that sug-
damental interests and mission, and gests how the movements can be
grown both wiser and more ambi- brought even closer together.
to put flesh on the idea. The com- nity group, called Bethel New Life,
munity organization then Inc., and a private joint-venture
approached potential partners, partner, roughly half the residential
including health care and education- land came from the Chicago
al institutions, as possible developers Housing Authority (the rest was
and tenants at the site. The project is acquired privately). Down-payment
still in development — but it is a assistance comes from a city bond
profoundly different undertaking program, government grants and tax
today from what it would have been benefits are subsidizing portions of
without the influence of Seward the development budget, and most
Redesign and its constituents. of all, the site’s locational appeal
comes from the Transit Authority’s
A similar story took shape around newly renovated station in West
the underused “El” station in the Garfield Park, part of a $300 million
Chicago neighborhood of West modernization of the Green Line.
Garfield Park. When the city pro- One neighborhood’s effort to rescue
posed to shut down the Chicago its transit station ended up strength-
Transit Authority’s Green Line, the ening a whole corridor of city and
plan would have left only a west- suburban neighborhoods, and the
bound commuter line traveling the transportation that unites them.
same route. The commuter line,
however, would not serve West The case of the Fruitvale Transit
Garfield Park or many of the other Village in Oakland, California, may
neglected city neighborhoods along by now be the most famous example
the way. In response, a community of local and regional needs leading to
organization with roots in the local a single, smart solution. In Fruitvale,
Baptist church began trading ideas transportation planners had original-
with other Green Line neighbor- ly imagined a new transit station as
hoods, with Chicago development mostly a giant park-and-ride zone,
and transit officials, and with inner- and their main vision for it was to
ring suburban governments. Not build a parking garage. This was, at
only did they find a far more atten- first, a good example of the kind of
tive audience for their ideas than growth that isn’t “smart.” Viewing
they might have seen ten or 20 years the transit line as mainly a way of
before, but they found themselves getting out of the neighborhood
pursuing a classic “outside game,” all (presumably to get to jobs in the
in the name of rescuing one neigh- suburbs or downtown), planners
borhood’s link to transportation and seemed to be paying more attention
jobs. to their riders’ destination than to
their origins. It was good for the
Today, a 23,000-square-foot Transit suburban periphery and for the cen-
Center is in development at Lake tral business district. But it effective-
and Pulaski, along with an enclave of ly treated the underused middle —
50 new three-bedroom houses a the struggling residential area around
block away. Though these projects the Fruitvale station — as irrelevant.
are being carried out by the commu- Then a community development
Page 7
from the urban core. Alarmed over to new owners. The committee
this loss of greenspace, states such shepherds each of the sites through
as Pennsylvania have passed increas- the remediation and rehab process,
ingly favorable laws and regulations to preserve momentum and to
to lure investors back to the aban- ensure that the end uses measure up
doned industrial zones, often known to their potential.
as brownfields. In 2002, the federal
government followed suit. The point is not simply that these
Recent theories properties now have a team of
clustered under Second, the employment conse- organized, dedicated advocates for
the heading of quences have been devastating for development (though that is, by
“new urbanism” the residents of the abandoned itself, important news in Allegheny
older neighborhoods. West). The more far-reaching point
and “livable Disproportionately unemployed and is that this team is a state-local col-
communities” — poor, many are unable either to relo- laboration; includes representatives
entailing mixed- cate to the remote locations where of government, business, and resi-
use planning and the jobs have gone, or even, in many dents as well as community develop-
development, cases, to commute there. For com- ers; and pursues an agenda of con-
munity developers, it is no longer siderable importance to the whole
more open enough simply to beautify the empty Philadelphia region, not merely to
architecture and factories and industrial property. one neighborhood. That is, to many
public spaces, Success now depends on replacing eyes, the future of regionalism in
traffic calming, not just the architecture, but the southeastern Pennsylvania, economi-
and environments employment potential of those cally, socially, and environmentally.
properties.
that invite walking 3. The regional value of
and provide plenty Chastened by these lessons, leaders mixed-use development and
of access for from both the community and the the ‘new urbanism’
pedestrians — are region now sit on a working com- Recent theories clustered under the
perfectly aligned mittee, convened by the community- heading of “new urbanism” and “liv-
based Allegheny West Foundation, able communities” — entailing
with the purposes to tackle the 15 targeted brownfield mixed-use planning and develop-
of both community parcels. The committee consists of ment, more open architecture and
development and local business associations, the city’s public spaces, traffic calming, and
smart growth. Department of Commerce, the state environments that invite walking and
Environmental Council, staff mem- provide plenty of access for pedestri-
bers from the Pennsylvania Senate ans — are perfectly aligned with the
and the City Council, and residents purposes of both community devel-
and business people from the neigh- opment and smart growth. If both
borhood. Two years into the effort, are concerned with creating stable
the committee has performed envi- residential markets and “communities
ronmental assessments on 12 of the of choice,” retarding flight and
15 sites, identified new uses and encouraging inward development,
even some tenants for several of then both have much to gain from
them, and conveyed two properties the tenets of the “new urbanism.”
Page 11
live. Those positions, whatever their to be sure, have been actively dis-
merits, are unlikely to leave much couraged from such interaction by
room for collaboration with adher- demagogues of both the urban and
ents of smart growth, among whom suburban camps.) If such divisive
mixed communities and diverse local elements exist among metropolitan
economies are bedrock principles. leaders, they tend not to be well rep-
resented in smart growth circles,
But those bedrock principles are by which offer little comfort or oppor-
The actual agenda now also in the mainstream of most tunity for anyone bent on exclusion
of smart growth community development thinking and enforced homogeneity. The
lends itself to both nationwide. Today, the phrases actual agenda of smart growth lends
regional equity “mixed-income” and “mixed-use itself to both regional equity and
communities” are bywords of neigh- diversity — values that require some
and diversity — borhood redevelopment as much as vision, but no particular class per-
values that require of regional planning, though the spective, to embrace and defend.
some vision, but idea is still held back by a lack of
no particular class adequate policy and tax tools. Not The truth is that both community
perspective, to all community development advo- development and smart growth trace
cates have been expert at making the their origins to some degree of
embrace and “mixed” message clear, but the point political divisiveness and class
defend. is eloquently made in the actual resentments, a difficult but
work that community developers inescapable heritage that lingers,
have been doing for the past ten to albeit in shadow form, to this day.
20 years. The caricature of commu- Where those resentments persist,
nity development as a plan for con- one might argue, they tend to reduce
centrating the poor in “gilded ghet- the effectiveness of whatever side
toes” is an impressively durable continues to cling to them. But the
myth, but a myth all the same. mere fact that biases and stereotypes
are counterproductive has rarely
Similarly, there are surely some sub- been enough to make them disap-
urban and regional leaders whose pear. A stronger remedy usually
hope is to confine poverty to the comes from the growth of wiser
inner cities and to preserve the eco- leadership, dedicated to building
nomic homogeneity of outlying alliances rather than stoking distrust,
areas. Likewise there are leaders in and from the rallying of wider and
inner cities and inner suburbs who wider support to that leadership.
view the infill development agenda Such voices are now being heard on
of smart growth only as a Trojan both sides, but not everywhere, and
horse bringing with it gentrification not yet loudly enough to command
and displacement. But the image of the national attention of their
a monolithic suburban elite fixated respective camps.
on containing the poor is likewise a
crude stereotype, held primarily by Two other factors have served to
urban residents who have had too slow what might otherwise have
little opportunity to interact with been a natural joining of forces. The
their surrounding neighbors. (Some, first involves resources: Community
Page 15
Four General
Opportunities for Funders: Accelerating the
Approaches Smart Growth–Community Development Alliance
for Funders
The impediments we have just growth advocates who see one
(1) Leadership described — historical separation, another as political and intellectual
and vision structural differences, and a still- adversaries, a few funders have stark-
(2) Funding emerging network of state and ly chosen one path over the other as
regional community development the best, or most effective, or simply
instruments
coalitions — are all areas in which “right” avenue for neighborhood or
of collaboration funders’ leadership and strategic regional well-being. Regardless of
(3) Supporting grantmaking could be crucial. We which choice they make, the very act
research and offer here four general approaches of seeing the two sides as alternative
development by which funders could encourage rather than complementary goals
on ways of more collaboration and guide the contributes to a pattern of division
blending the two sides toward a clearer vision of that serves neither side well.
their joint opportunities: (1)
two agendas
Leadership and vision; (2) Funding To be sure, most funders have taken
(4) Attracting instruments of collaboration; (3) a more nuanced and constructive
attention and Supporting research and develop- view of the matter, even if they have
discussion to ment on ways of blending the two weighted their grantmaking more
those areas agendas; and (4) Attracting attention heavily in one direction or the other.
where the and discussion to those areas where For those who see past the superficial
alliance is the alliance is working. divisions and false choices, there is an
opportunity for leadership both with-
working 1. Leadership in philanthropy and at the front lines
Funders, it must be said, have them- of neighborhood and regional devel-
selves been affected by some of the opment. It may be helpful, for
barriers and historical divisions we starters, for alert grantmakers to note
referred to earlier. Among some fun- when their colleagues or grantees
ders, no less than among some lead- seem to be clinging to old dicho-
ers in the field, the needs of neigh- tomies, and simply to draw attention
borhoods and of regions have some- and discussion to those instances.
times been treated as an either/or Even within a single foundation,
choice. Just as there are some com- there may be separate programs or
munity developers and some smart grantmaking strategies for communi-
Page 17
ty development and smart growth — take the lead in the whole, slow
partitions that could be breached by bridge-building exercise that a last-
bringing colleagues together for dis- ing alliance would demand in each
cussion and to consider grants that metropolitan area. To support that
span the two objectives. Often, sever- more painstaking kind of work, fun-
al divisions might benefit from such ders might prefer to rely on national
discussions, as when a foundation has and regional intermediaries and on
separate programs in social equity, effective state or regional networks
urban or metropolitan affairs, organ- and coalitions where they exist.
izing, workforce development, and Funding staff and programs specifi-
the environment. cally dedicated to building and refin-
ing partnerships between communty
In the field, funders sometimes have developers and smart growth cham-
more ability to summon unfamiliar pions would be a way of signaling
parties to a common table than any that such partnerships are important
of those parties would have had on to the future of both movements.
their own. In field visits, in confer- Either on their own or through
ences and exploratory meetings, and intermediaries, funders can support
in supporting research or policy ini- replicable projects that combine
tiatives, funders have an ability to both constituencies, and encourag-
draw each side’s attention to the ing other communities to study and
opportunities presented by the other replicate those demonstrations.
side. While a coercive approach
would surely be counterproductive, But apart from supporting particular
funders can readily create low-pres- programs or initiatives, grants for
sure opportunities for the two sides the growth of effective state and
to get acquainted and exchange per- regional community development
spectives — an essential first step networks in general would be a use-
toward any broader collaboration. ful way of overcoming the structural
obstacles we described earlier. In
In any case, philanthropy’s “bully some states (fewer and fewer, as
pulpit” is a still-underused resource time goes on) there is almost no
for spreading the message that the effective vehicle through which
two sides can and should be working community development groups can
more closely together. Quite apart act collectively, or form broad-based
from any funding decisions, grant- alliances with other constituencies.
makers could provide a leadership Helping to start or solidify broadly
nudge, and a well-articulated vision based trade groups in those
of neighborhood-regional alliances, instances could make an important
both of which are still sorely lacking long-term difference. But in most
in many places. places, the state and regional coali-
tions already exist and are doing
2. Funding instruments work of real importance to their
of collaboration members. The issue in these more
Most grantmakers could not — and numerous places is not whether a
would not want to — personally state or regional group would be
Page 18
Endnotes
1. Tony Proscio is a writer and consultant to foundations and nonprofit organizations. He is co-author, with Paul S. Grogan, of
Comeback Cities: A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival (Westview Press, 2000).
2. See David Rusk, Inside Game/Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America, Washington: The Brookings Institution,
2001.
3. Not all rural communities, it must be said, were so adept or so enfranchised. Rural constituencies in some areas enjoyed political
influence out of proportion to their numbers, and in some of these places wealth was growing as well. These tended to be the rural
areas whose residents and leaders were in the vanguard of the anti-sprawl movement. But in many other parts of rural America,
growth has been nonexistent and population and wealth have been falling. There, quite often, community development was the
more influential movement, until the two ideas began to converge in more recent years.
4. “The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island: Executive Summary,” by H.C. Planning Consultants, Inc., and
Planmetrics, LLP, for Grow Smart Rhode Island, December 1999, p. iv.