City Planning as a Social Movement, What it Means to be an Urbanist

Throughout the history of city planning, and except for a brief period in the 1960s, it has never directly entered the public mindset as something that can bring about social justice and lead to better living. 

Cities are the building blocks of nations. They are economic powerhouses which have developed or manufactured each and every technological advance in the history of the human race. Cities are the cornerstone of modern society. But cities are even more than that:

“Cities are for people. A place for their hopes and dreams, their work and play, their homes and homes for their children. Cities are alive and have personalities, each different from all others and each in constant change.”

-Richard Bartlett, AIA.

As I note in the banner of this blog, how we design and use our environments directly relate to the quality of interactions we have with and within them. These interactions can include everything from the mundane, such as buying groceries, to the extreme, such as criminal activity.

Cities are built by people and for people. As residents of cities, or as those who have reaped the benefits of cities, we have a responsibility not only to ensure their continued prosperity, but to ensure that the social, economic, and cultural benefits they bring reach the largest number of people and do the greatest amount of good. It is our responsibility to ensure that cities meet the needs of all social and economic groups, that cities can provide safe places for children as well as homes for the elderly. It is our responsibility to ensure that the penthouse apartments for the wealthy do not detract from the provision of housing for those on the margins of society.

Moreso, it is our responsibility to ensure that the economic and societal collapse of the 1960s and 1970s, mainly due to urban decay, does not repeat itself. We must make sure that our cities are resilient, both economically and environmentally. We must build for the desires of the present, while planning for the future; realizing that while bars and nightclubs may be desirable now, schools and grocery stores will be needed in the years to come. 

To this end, ensuring comprehensive multimodal transportation is the responsibility of every citizen, and we all have something to gain from it. Americans spend almost one third of their income on transportation, only to receive increasing commutes, increased stress levels, increased pollution, and longer work days. This is not sustainable in any way. Our love of the automobile has fractured our social networks, brought our environment to the verge of destruction, and caused our lives to revolve around the price of gasoline, not to mention the 30,000 deaths per year as a result of automobile wrecks.

We also have a responsibility to keep our cities free of crime. This does not have to mean an increase in the police force, however. The design of our cities in and of themselves can deter crime, something which was realized as long ago as the 1960s. This, along with a fundamental rethinking of policing strategies, as brought to the table by David Kennedy, is something that it is our responsibility to advocate for. It is the job of a city to bring people together and foster social, as well as intellectual, collaboration regardless of race, class, or gender. Crime does the opposite of this. It separates communities, often across racial lines, and fosters negative stereotypes.

Finally, and on a more personal level, the design of our environment impacts our health. Perhaps the ultimate solution to our healthcare costs lies not in the halls of congress, but in our methods of development. Our fascination with automobiles and drive-throughs has led to an explosion in the popularity of fast food and a dramatic increase in distance between travel points. A recent article in USA Streetsblog notes that only in three cities in the entire country, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, is it possible for a majority of residents to walk to a grocery store in five minutes or less. If we spent more time walking or riding our bicycles to the store and spent less time eating fast food in our cars, perhaps we could reduce our record rates of obesity and heart disease. If we consolidated our development and devoted more money to inner city economic development, perhaps we could alleviate the food desert issue that plagues so many low income communities.

However, none of these aspects can be looked at in their own field of influence. It is impossible to encourage more people to walk or bike in a community that is rife with crime. Likewise, it is impossible to encourage economic development and business investment without building a vibrant and resilient community. Finally, it is downright negligent to constantly mourn victims of mass shootings without paying attention to the fact that the majority of mass shootings occur in suburban areas. 

This is what the idea of urbanism is. Not just understanding the world around us and how we interact with it, but also realizing that the built environment is one that we all influence, whether we realize it or not. To borrow (and modify) a phrase from Matthew Taylor, the Chief Execuitve of the Royal Society for the Arts, I believe that the use of our urban space can “tell us about who we are as human beings, spark political debates about who we need to be, and lead to philosophical debates about who we aspire to be”. The goal of urbanists is to spark and lead these discussions, turning inclusive thought and deliberation into policy.

This sentiment was expressed over 50 years ago by Jane Jacobs, in her landmark book Death and Life of Great American Cities, which brought planning into the realm of the general public for the first time:

“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.”

Mass Shootings and Suburbanization

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, public opinion focuses on one of three things: guns, video games, or mental illness. Where and how we live, a prominent aspect of our culture, is rarely discussed in relation to increasing violent tendencies.

Most mass shootings have occurred in suburbs or small towns, not in cities. This includes the Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine High School, and most recently, Newtown, CT. A recent study by the Brookings Institute showed that as the crime rate for inner cities is decreasing, the crime rate for suburban areas is increasing.  

Likewise, poverty is shifting from the inner cities to the suburbs. This is due to both the special severity of the financial crisis in account of the pervasiveness of mortgages, and the fact that suburban living is highly decentralized and infrastructure intensive, and thus has higher living costs.

The ways suburbs are planned and built runs contrary to the ways the built environment is intended to work for people. Jane Jacobs notes how shared and varied land uses promote use of outdoor space and socialization with other users of that space. This goes for adults as well as children, as she notes that when children play on sidewalks or in alleys they are indirectly protected by public surveillance of the streets.

This is a process that is not allowed to occur in suburbs chiefly because land is segregated by use. There is no incentive for those who live in residential neighborhoods to survey their streets because nothing of interest is taking place on them. Likewise, residents of suburbs are also less likely to use sidewalks on their streets because of the lack of destinations reachable on foot and the fact that fences have been erected around yards, prohibiting residents from interacting with each other via streets.

In addition to this, a growing amount of research is being done on the mental health effects of pollution and traffic congestion. An article in the Wall Street Journal notes that research has found possible links between air pollution and Altzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Autism, as well as increased levels of stress. Traffic congestion has also been linked to increases in stress.  

This stress, combined with the few opportunities for socialization provided by suburban life and the easy access to weapons in American society no doubt contribute to our high rates of gun violence and mass shootings. If mass shootings are a problem we wish to address responsibly and permanently, we need to look at the way we live and how it shapes us.

An Evaluation of Moving to Opportunity

The subject of this post is a 2001 study by Mark Shroder which explores the results of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program. The program is an experimental implementation of Chicago's Gautreaux Project on a national scale.

The intent of the Gautreaux Project was to allow families living in low income neighborhoods and public housing developments to relocate to higher income neighborhoods in an attempt to better their socioeconomic status. This was initiated after the 1966 court case Dorothy Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority ordered the Chicago Housing Authority to take steps to end segregation in public housing.

This project involved moving participating low income residents from inner-city areas to suburban areas, where neighborhood economic status and school quality were by nature higher because of the presence of higher income individuals and families.

The project found that the group that was relocated had an increased rate of employment and that the children of those that relocated had an increased percentage of high school graduation than those who did not.

MTO has been designed to further explore these findings, and established three classes of participants. A control group that received no housing assistance, a Section 8 comparison group, and a group which received special Section 8 vouchers usable only in areas with a poverty rate of less than 10%. Several cities were included in this experiment, thus eliminating any geographical bias to the results.

In all of these groups, the majority of subjects were African American. Less than 40% of total subjects were employed.

The study noted that most of the applicants had been, or had friends or relatives who had been, victims of crime and that this was their reason for applying to the program. Other reasons included the desire of better schools for children and for larger residences.

Because of these desires, it can be said that the group "self selected", in that those who expressed a desire to leave immediately took advantage of the program, making it difficult to study the effects of MTO on group dynamics and social networks.  

The study also noted that participants were widely dispersed once moved, pointing out that simply re-concentrating poverty in different areas would not solve any problems. It also detailed how not all of the families with the option to move to other areas did so.

Shroder's work then gives summaries of other studies done on the MTO program and attempts to make generalizations from those.

A study by Katz, Kling, and Liebman found that those who relocated felt safer, noticed less neighborhood drug use, had fewer domestic issues, and described themselves as increasingly healthy. This study did not examine poverty or employment.

A study by Ludwig, Duncan, and Pinkston found that those who had relocated were slightly less dependent on welfare than those who did not.

Finally, a study by Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn found that those who relocated had decreased instances of depression and anxiety, and that parenting skills had improved significantly.

Shroder notes that more studies will be needed to determine the effectiveness of the MTO program, but states that the initial research looks promising.

While MTO does seem at least initially to be successful, it comes at the price of disrupting the existing social networks between residents of public housing. Instead of moving low income residents out of a community, higher income residents should be moved in to under-occupied residences. These would allow existing social networks to be strengthened instead of being removed.

Lower income residents also have a stronger attachment to their residences than higher income individuals, as they have fewer options for replacement housing should they be forced to leave.

While Moving to Opportunity was successful at reducing individual poverty, it did little to help poor neighborhoods. This is something that needs to be examined closely, as strong neighborhoods are what allow social networks to develop and for information about job opportunities, educational opportunities, and political organization to be disseminated.

Revitalized Neighborhoods, Social Environments, and Education

A study by Claire Smrekar and Lydia Bentley focuses on the social environments of affordable and public housing as they relate to schools, with both HOPE VI and Section 8 programs being examined.

HOPE VI is the newest generation of public housing policy aimed at meshing public housing with local context. It consists of mixed income housing communities in an attempt to prevent concentrated poverty and to develop community resources, including schools. HOPE VI requires a detailed plan of improvements that will be made to schools adjacent to or within HOPE VI communities, and school performance is directly linked to economic development within a community.

Section 8, on the other hand, focuses only on the housing aspect of a community. The program provides vouchers to residents living in public housing so that they may choose their residence from any number of places with the voucher covering some or all of their rent.

Urban poverty is often seen as a cyclical problem in that poverty and crime are highly correlated, crime discourages investment, which further increases poverty within a neighborhood. The crime created by this can make public space unsafe and preclude the development of social networks, as I noted in my last post, a discussion of David Kennedy's Don't Shoot.

The research notes that the social environment of a community can have a large effect on parenting techniques, which, in turn, can have an extraordinarily large effect on a child's educational motivation. They relate this to the development of social capital within a neighborhood, and note that strong communities with civic organization, youth groups, and churches often contain strong social networks. These social networks serve as couriers of employment or educational opportunities, community news and gatherings, and information about community services.

The study notes that two similar programs, the Gautreaux Project in Chicago, and the Moving to Opportunity Program, on a national level, have tested this theory. The two programs had opposite results. When Gautreaux was implemented, it was shown that the quality of live for residents, especially that of children, improved. However, when Moving to Opportunity was put into place, significantly less quality of live improvement was shown, and almost no educational improvement in children was noticed.

The study examines the Section 8 community first, three out of eight parents who lived in the community noted that they were unemployed, and the average occupancy time was noted to be two years.

Residents noted that the move in process was smooth, but that maintenance services were often unresponsive (sometimes, to the point of enticing residents to move), and that crime was perceived as high. Interestingly, all residents noted that the areas of the community they lived in were safer, and that other parts of the community were the areas with the crime problem. Despite the fact that the physical size of the neighborhood was not excessive, a social gulf was perceived to exist between residents. Many residents thought that the nearby HOPE VI community was safer and quieter.

In the HOPE VI community all residents were employed, and the average occupancy time was noted to be three years. Employment is a condition for living in a HOPE VI community, as the study notes, as are education and a clean criminal record.

Residents of this community noted that there was a set of regulations put in place to prevent dependence and to insure community well being. These involved such things as inspections, removal from the community for nonpayment of utilities, and requiring residents to pay maintenance fees for tasks they could have accomplished themselves. 

The study notes that the HOPE VI community was more personal and empathetic throughout the housing application process and while connecting residents with social services.

The HOPE VI community was perceived by all margins as extremely safe, with all residents allowing children to play outside (some with supervision, however), and several residents being unafraid to go outdoors after dark. Many residents noted that the social network within the community was key to providing most of this safety.

While many residents of the HOPE VI community did not discuss development of close relations with neighbors, it was noted that the level of social interaction was significantly higher than in the Section 8 neighborhood, and community events were organized to promote this.

Overall, the study notes that HOPE VI communities have higher social networking potential over Section 8 communities, and that these social ties generated a stronger community which could work more effectively for the benefit of its residents. However, correlations between this community development and the strength of the nearby school were not directly measured, for undisclosed reasons.

A New Approach to Urban Crime Control

A recent book by David Kennedy titled Don't Shoot, One Man, a Street Fellowship, and The End of Violence in Inner City America puts a new face on the fight against urban drug and gun violence. In the book, Kennedy discusses his new approach for combating such violence, which he notes has been implemented in cities such as Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The approach to violent crime detailed in this book involves identifying a small group of worst offenders, arresting the worst of those, usually with Federal assistance, and then holding community dialogue with the rest and informing them that if they do not stop their acts of violence they will meet a similar fate.

Kennedy notes that when these methods, since given the name “Ceasefire”, were enacted, the type of crime targeted dropped noticeably and swiftly.

In addition, he notes that the presence of so much violent crime for so long has severely damaged urban neighborhoods, both economically and socially. Kennedy points out that none of the economic, social, or racial problems affecting these communities can be addressed until the crime that permeates them is controlled in a lasting manner. However, he does not give any indication of when a community might be ready to move on to those tasks.

The book points out that the structure of violent activity is the same from city to city, regardless of the size, number, or ethnic makeup of gangs. Kennedy details how the majority of violent activity can be directly traced to a small group of core gang members, the most violent of these members can be targeted with policing in cooperation with federal authorities, and the rest can then be targeted with community outreach. Kennedy describes how round-table meetings were held with local, state, and federal police, prosecutors, community activists, and gang members. In these meetings, authorities explained to the gang members the gravity of the charges that could be brought against them if their actions continued, which, he noted, many offenders were unaware of. Community organizers explained the damage that years of criminal activity and accidental killings of children have wrought on communities, and the fear it brings to parents. These meetings also offer support services, such as housing and job opportunities, to replace income from selling drugs or other criminal activities.

Kennedy notes that this approach has been implemented to target various crimes, from shootings to drug markets to domestic violence, in a large number of cities and has been extremely successful.

However, he also discusses the political turbulence associated with such implementation, noting that in some cities, political shifts or changes in police department personnel can cause the program to lapse and be discarded. Other times, city administrators can be hostile to outside ideas, and try to stonewall their progress or simply ignore them. Kennedy notes that this happened in Baltimore, but since the program has developed and become more widely implemented, it was adopted there as well.

Kennedy's book presents an original perspective on the issue of urban crime, and one which has immediate and significant impact. His book should prove to be pivotal in the fight against crime, and a starting point in rebuilding communities and making urban areas more attractive places to live.