What does a burned out and looted CVS have to do with upward mobility?

The Baltimore riots came to be exemplified by a looted CVS 

I have been fascinated by the recent coverage of upward mobility in the New York Times ["In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters"]. This topic is of interest to me because our firm is often engaged in improving retail environments in under served urban communities. Consider the CVS that was looted during the recent Baltimore riots. Did you ever stop to wonder how long it took to attract a CVS pharmacy to that neighborhood? And do you think that CVS or any other retailer will be eager to return as things settle down, regardless of how much demand and need there might be? In the end, the politics of place matters quite a bit when it comes to improving the retail environment for local residents.

Neighborhood Environments Impact Outcomes
This is why I found the research that the NYTimes covered quite riveting. Two Harvard economists conducted a time series analysis on the impact of neighborhood environment on the outcomes of poor children. In short, they found that the neighborhood environment in which a child is raised is one of the most important determinants of income (by age 26). From the standpoint of a low-income family living in a low-income community and looking to meet the needs of their children TODAY, not tomorrow, the news is not good. Basically, the research suggests that mobility is the answer. Get the hell out, basically. But the authors acknowledge that this solution is not scalable, and I agree. Moving every family out of poverty stricken neighborhoods is not a long term solution. It’s a band aid fix for an intractable problem. The real problem is the quality of the neighborhood in which they live. Addressing that problem is where the future of public policy SHOULD be if we are truly interested in improving the outcomes of poor children over time.

So what kinds of neighborhoods produce better outcomes? If we can answer that question, we can begin to craft policy solutions that will support these conditions in low-income communities. The study found the following, places that had higher rates of upward mobility demonstrated five key characteristics:

- less segregation by income and race
- lower levels of income inequality
- better schools
- lower rates of violent crime, and
- a larger share of two-parent households

Policy Solutions?
According to the authors, “our findings provide support for policies that reduce segregation and concentrated poverty in cities (e.g., affordable housing subsidies or changes in zoning laws) as well as efforts to improve public schools.”

In the short term, we must, must, must find ways to do the following:

• REDUCE the concentration of poverty and INCREASE racial diversity. This means encouraging economically integrated neighborhoods by combining efforts to attract higher-income families WITHOUT involuntarily displacing existing residents. That means building – yes, building – NEW housing. This in turn means that some communities will need to be rezoned for density. But while that happens, we must ensure that existing families have the opportunity to remain as a neighborhood improves. Some potential policies include strengthening landlord-tenant laws that prevent harassment of tenants, helping tenants with the right of first refusal and provide financing to enable them to buy their properties and stay in place, and providing incentives or loans to landlords that allow them to rehab their buildings in return for maintaining affordability. These are just some interesting ideas advanced by The Center for Community Progress.
• Make these neighborhoods “communities of choice” by addressing the quality of schools, the quality of the physical environment, access and transportation to jobs, and the retail offerings and cultural amenities that make a neighborhood a compelling place to live. By doing that, we create an environment that is not only better for the people who live there, but is also attractive to people of all incomes and races who are necessary to ensure diversity.
• Reduce violent crime. The impact of crime over time on the lives of children living in a community is significant. The study found that 20 years of exposure to high violent crime rates causes a reduction in average income. Not only that, but children get caught up in crime, paying a steep price through incarceration and shortened life span. Addressing crime is critical not just for people living in a community, but its common sense that crime has a strong negative impact on people’s residential decision making. Residential sorting – where people CHOOSE to live – is directly impacted by the crime rates in a particular neighborhood. So if we are trying to reduce poverty and encourage economic integration, we have to address crime too, otherwise those with a choice to move somewhere else will do so. 

While this is only the beginning of a conversation, I am extremely hopeful that this research will drive fact-based decision making and help change the dialogue public policy dialogue. 

Why is gentrification a bad word?

We hear alot about gentrification - but what does that term really mean? Not even the New York Times has a firm definition, sometimes wielding the term recklessly and inflaming passions in the process. Over the years, I have come to define it as residential and commercial displacement as a result of an increase in prices that eventually make a community less affordable for the people who were there "first". Like most people, I agree that displacement is a problem that we would like to avoid.

By that definition, however, new, higher-income residents in a community don't always result in gentrification. In fact, if new, wealthier residents do NOT displace existing residents and instead reside in newly constructed residential units, then is there really a problem? If existing residents benefit from the new services and offerings that result from the influx of new residents, and their quality of life improves as a result, isn't this a good thing? If we could find a way to keep poorer residents in these improving neighborhoods, by guaranteeing affordable housing so they can remain as the environment improves, wouldn't we want that? And in communities dotted by abandoned lots and vacant retail space, isn't new development a welcome thing that results in less trash strewn vacant lots and a safer environment for children? Pockets of concentrated poverty are no good for people who live in them, so why are we demonizing efforts to create a healthier balance? What we are left with if you take this argument to its logical conclusion is the suggestion that the urban poor should live in communities marked by disinvestment and physical decay, because the moment you start improving things, you are setting the stage for their eventual displacement. It is a sad commentary for those of us who have dedicated our lives to improving urban neighborhoods.

I recently came across the Dynamic Neighborhood Taxonomy (DNT) project, a research project funded by Living Cities - a partnership of financial institutions, national foundations and the federal government in an effort to advance urban communities. The analysis, led by Bob Weissbourd of RW Ventures, considered four cities in an effort to understand what makes neighborhoods change over time and how to use this information to guide improvements and neighborhood stabilization in the most effective way possible. So, what does the DNT project have to do with gentrification? Well, if we can identify the kinds of neighborhoods most prone to displacement, we can design targeted interventions that maintain neighborhood stability and prevent displacement overtime.

In reviewing the research, the piece of information that I found most interesting was the finding that regional economic trends account for 35% of neighborhood change. That means a little over 1/3 of neighborhood change has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything that any of us do to improve neighborhoods. This is a powerful thing to absorb (and a bit depressing, honestly). But it also suggests that one of the most significant things we can do to improve the lives of people living in lower income communities is to connect them to the local economy, rather than maintain their isolation.

The good news is that the flip side of that data point means that 65% of neighborhood change is related to other factors. The DNT project found that additional drivers of change include neighborhood characteristics that include access to transit and the ability to more easily get to and from jobs easily, the presence of existing services and offerings, including police stations, supermarkets, and cultural amenities like art galleries. Communities that offer these amenities are next in line for rapid neighborhood change. If we can identify these places, we can design policy that creates a win-win - a great neighborhood for new and old residents alike.

In the end, I think we have to stop making judgement calls about "gentrification". Neighborhoods thrive when they have a mix of incomes, and those at the bottom rung of the ladder benefit substantially too.

Urban Priorities Survey

Attention downtown and district practitioners and advocates! 

There is an opportunity to inform the industry's agenda. The International Downtown Association (IDA) invites you to communicate your top priorities to the IDA Board by completing a short survey (less than 10 mins). 

What matters to your urban area? 

What are your personal perspectives on the future of your downtown? 

What are the priorities in your own work? 

IDA is trying to understand the key issues affecting urban revitalization in the years ahead and wants to hear from urban practitioners at all levels. The results will help IDA as it shifts priorities toward research, advocacy and cultivating downtown leadership. 

It is encouraged to share the survey anyone who shares a passion for downtowns whether it be downtown management organizations, developers, local government, consultants, economic development, etc. 

The survey deadline is April 15^th and can be found here.