Center for Social Design at Maryland Institute College of Art(MICA)
With: the Neighborhood Design Center (NDC)
Skills: Human Centered Design, Design Research, Data Synthesis
2017, Baltimore
Summary
“Whose neighborhood is it?” is the title of my thesis focusing on the displacement of low-income communities in Baltimore. I worked with community members and the Neighborhood Design Center to understand the root causes of this phenomenon:
Gentrification displaces the low-income Residents In Baltimore.
Displacement is an involuntary dislocation that disrupts a cultural legacy and it is hard to calculate its costs. People are removed from their homes, their neighbors, and the community they know, and most are forced to move to less desirable areas. Their pattern of life will change leading to some new financial and mental challenges.
And here in Baltimore:
Different causes that are directly or indirectly leading to the phenomenon of dislocation these three categories.
- Political causes: In most cases, the City or Government decides to relocate the low-incomes or remove the subsidized housing to create a space for investment. For example, the large-scale displacement policy in the middle east of Baltimore City for John Hopkins medical development by the city resulted in a relocation of 700 families.
- Economic Causes: The low-income population needs to leave the area because it is not affordable anymore. The higher demand, higher standards of building codes, improved amenities, and higher property tax increase the property value and also rents. The existing housing policies like public housing, section 8, and inclusionary housing are not effectively supporting residents to stay in their neighborhoods.
- Cultural Causes: The last cause leading people to displacement is cultural changes. The local resident faces cultural change dominated by newcomers.
Problem
From one side, Baltimore is trying to recover from the population loss and this requires investments and developments and from the other side, local residents are getting displaced as they are not benefiting from these new developments.
So we need to ask:
Process
I narrowed down my research on Reservoir Hill, a neighborhood in the south of Druid Hill Park where one-third of residents are living below the poverty line, 30% live in income-restricted residential units, and multiple efforts are happening to redevelop Reservoir Hill.
To understand how these developments can benefit the local residents, I did qualitative research by:
- Identifying different stakeholders including homeowners, residents on rent, community organizers, local business owners and interviewing them.
- Tracking the development process and its impact on a community.
- Doing observations by exploring around the neighborhood.
- Attending community meetings.
- Collaborating with the Neighborhood Design Center.
Multiple plans and programs are engaged to develop Reservoir Hill in three main categories: public spaces, housing projects, and initiatives.
Research on ongoing developments
I had a closer look at projects with both bottom-up and top-down approaches.
Top-bottom approach
Madison Park North: Madison Park North, initially funded by State, is a mixed-use development replacing a subsidized housing complex with 202 units. The former residents received vouchers for one or two bedroom units, while half of the existing apartments had more rooms and were home to multi-generational families. Also, the adjacent health care, daycare center, and small retail shops, which are serving the low-income people, are going to be replaced as a part of new developments.
Lake Drive Development: Three Lake Drive vacant lots development has a similar story by removing another subsidized housing complex in 1999, waiting for new developments. Now, these properties are going to be sold to the private sector. (privatization of public housing)
The privatization of these houses is pushing these second-generation legacy residents out of the neighborhood, opening the way for new developments. The excuse for this policy is poor qualities of these buildings while the main cause is the tight federal budget and the policies like inclusionary housing cannot recover even a small portion of the lost units.
A resident of Reservoir Hill’s Madison Park North Apartment complex for five years, with four of her seven children, 2010. (Barbara Haddock Taylor / Baltimore Sun)
Cho Benn Holback Courtesy: Richard May Madison Park North
Bottom-up approach
Recent planning strategies have switched from intricate zoning regulations, strict building codes and grand schemes, to a more community-based approach that focuses on policies aimed to improve community life. So, I tracked two of the community-initiated developments to see how they are benefiting existing low-income residents.
Callow Avenue Houses Renovation: To eliminate the concentration of vacancy in Callow Avenue, nine large vacant properties got funded for renovation. The renovation costs around $400,000 while the market price is between $280,000 to $320,000. As a result, each house and its future owner receives around $150,000 subsidy. However, only people who earn more than 20% above the Area Median Income can afford them and benefit from that subsidy. People who are making 40,000 to 60,000 are priced out. Some housing experts believe that this project could be beneficial for local residents if:
- Instead of single-family houses with 3000 sq ft area, they were made into two units making them more affordable.
- Instead of Callow Avenue large buildings, smaller ones along the McCulloh Street with high vacancy rate were renovated.
West North Avenue Conceptual Master Plan: Multiple stakeholders have collaborated in a community-based design process to redesign the West North Avenue Streetscape. NDC facilitated the participatory design process and now is concerned about the consistency of the development process with the community goals.
Insights
In the diagram below, I have summarized the two approaches for developing a neighborhood. In each step, the “pain points” that act as barriers in the community-initiated projects are marked.
In the bottom-up approach, first, a community organization starts seeking solutions to existing challenges. But most neighborhoods have multiple groups who are competing rather than collaborating. They make efforts at fundraising, but some fund’s criteria do not align with the community’s needs. The community-based design mostly take place in community meetings. Only a small portion of residents participate in these meetings because:
- The project is not their priority.
- They do not trust in the process.
- There is no intention for engaging a broader community.
- Renters do not have any long-term investment.
- Some people are not comfortable with formal meetings.
Sometimes, in the design development phase, community goals that have been set earlier are forgotten. During implementation, developers update the community about new decisions. Because of the complexity and time frame of the projects, there is no room for feedback. As a result, newcomers are the primary users rather than local residents, because new developments are not economically or culturally responsive.
As we see, these two approaches are leading to similar outcome: New developments are not beneficial to local residents.
Theory of change
Vision
The high quality of life for all the long-term residents living in the neglected neighborhoods.
Ultimate Goals
All the neglected neighborhoods get revitalized while benefiting the local residents.
Mid-term Goals
- Policy: Existing policies and budget for housing subsidies get revised in order to provide a guarantee that people not only can afford to stay in their developing neighborhoods but also benefit from the opportunities coming along the new developments. Each community has a voice in defining the new policies. The new policies still provide incentives for funders and developers while advocating the culture and economy of the context.
- Developers define the projects with the community and based on their needs. They facilitate community participation through entire process up to the implementation phase. Developers build relationships between newcomers and local residents.
- Planners and architects should learn about community engagement during the design process and co-design with future tenants.
- Funders define their funds’ criteria locally and with the community.
- Nonprofits learn about the communities’ priorities and existing challenges and invent new ways to engage them. Nonprofits ensure that the community will meet their goal until the end of the process. Neighborhoods organizations work together.
- All stakeholders work together to build trust between residents and other role players.
Near-term Actions (my interventions)
- Build trust between all role players and encourage community participation: I have implemented this by doing a workshop for storytelling in NDC.
- Make sure the community goals will be met during development: I worked with NDC to create a booklet for the West North Avenue Conceptual Master Plan that includes the essential elements like community goals and is easily available as a reference.
To see an in-depth explanation of my process, view my thesis publication:
