Revitalization How to build better neighborhoods.

The difference between revitalization and gentrification is not always apparent or easy to discern; most people use the words interchangeably. Revitalization should be a wonderful and glorious process by which an area of the city witnesses actions imbibing and imbedding new life and vitality. Gentrification should be a scary, disgusting and dishonest practice where the poor are displaced and disenfranchised by the wealthy as they take over a neighborhood and remake it in their own image and impose their tastes, beliefs and values. The journey of most city neighborhoods is a meandering and winding path that is marked by mountains and valleys of prosperity and decline accompanied and beset by gerrymandering boundaries, overlays, zones and manmade impositions of dividing lines. It is in these moments and actions of division that the true intent is captured, how our highways, streets, train tracks and fences have been used with great power to dictate and decide which neighborhoods thrive and which languish. It’s time that we learn from these past mistakes and remove barriers and strive to make neighborhoods and communities that are inclusive and inviting for all. But how?
A valuable step in the process to establishing the difference between revitalization and gentrification is determining the type of power making the decisions. The type of power we should be striving for is the “Power With” or shared power. It’s in this environment of collaboration and inclusion that we can create vibrant neighborhoods that have affordable, low-income and rent-controlled housing mixed with modest middle-class single-family or multigenerational homes, duplexes, triplexes and apartment buildings and a smattering of more affluent homes. It is in this melting pot that we can attract all sizes and scales of businesses to allow for bustling main streets in our urban areas. The power that we need to steer away from is the “Power Over,” the one that has been controlling the decisions of the downtowns of our state for a long time with domination and coercion. It all goes back to the old saying, “If you are not at the table, you are probably on the menu.” We need to empower our neighborhoods to be diverse, because it is in this diversity we can all grow, learn and flourish.
Another force that we must contend with in our struggles for revitalization is movement. Transportation has been an important factor in how our cities have developed and how they will be redeveloped. For far too long our streets have been widened to help cars go faster or to provide more room for parking, all at the cost of the pedestrian experience. If we want revitalization, we have to consciously treat vehicles differently. We cannot bisect neighborhoods or eradicate business districts with highways. Instead of thinking how we can get a car through our city as quickly as possible, we need to focus on how to restitch our urban fabric to allow pedestrians to walk safely between services, amenities and attractions. In most mid-size to large cities, the goal should be to not need a car to take advantage of and engage our neighborhoods. If our public multimodal transportations and sidewalks were so great that owning a car was actually viewed as a nuisance, it would help us get a better grip on what our density and diversity could and should really be. If we cared half as much about affordable housing as we do parking lots, the problem could be solved quicker, but that will require us to walk more than two blocks from where we park our cars.
Probably the biggest issue we face in the battle between revitalization and gentrification is our current housing shortage. In December 2020, it was estimated nationally that we only have a 1.9-month supply of homes, the lowest on record. Of course, like most things in this world, if there is a limited supply of something, it only causes the prices to rise. This of course further complicates the issue of affordable housing when combined with our gluttonous behavior toward housing size. From 1950 to 2015 we saw the average single-family house continuously grow from 950 square feet to 2,467 square feet on average, up almost 260%. Over that same time the average family size has actually decreased from 3.54 people to 3.15 people per family, 11% smaller. The average home value in 1950 was $7,400 compared to $295,300 in June of 2020. The only way we can combat these massive external forces and get the most out of our existing infrastructure is with density. To achieve this level of density it will require an adjustment in our standard housing product types and lot sizes. To not gentrify neighborhoods we’re going to need smaller housing products that better distribute land costs, generate more tax revenue and locate people closer together. This will mean bringing back housing types that have not as frequently been built, and in some cases zoning has made them difficult, if not impossible, to build. Housing types like mixed-use buildings with both short and long-term rentals and commercial, brownstones, live-works, duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes, apartment buildings, tiny home developments, detached secondary structures on single-family lots, and low-income housing developments all working in unison to create cost-effective options within walking distance of schools, churches, restaurants and other amenities and all with drastically reduced footprints and square footages.
Before you decide if a new urban project is revitalization or gentrification I hope you’ll use these following questions as a litmus test. Is the building located on the sidewalk without a sea of parking in front of the building? Does the sidewalk have benches, planters and outdoor seating for public use? Does the project have more trees than the minimum the city requires? Does the building have smaller residential and commercial spaces in an attempt to keep the cost of spaces lower and more affordable? Does the building offer services, amenities or business that everyone in the neighborhood can afford to use? Does the building fit the context of the neighborhood, is it similar in height, have similar materials, have a similar vibe to the counterpart buildings? Did the project have community meetings, go in front of neighborhood committees and commissions, or get community and neighbor buy-in and support? Was everyone in the neighborhood given the ability to make their voice heard about the project? Did this project renovate an existing building or add more density to a site that was vacant or in disrepair? Does this project add to the walkability and pedestrian experience of the neighborhood?
If the answer is “yes” to most of these questions you’re looking at a revitalization project. If most of the answers were “no,” you’re probably looking at a project that was created with “Power Over” and it will not be the catalyst for growth and change that we need to see.