It’s hard to believe that only eight weeks ago, we started the CityLab course. Looking back over the last eight weeks, I find that the way I look at cities has fundamentally changed. This shift has been especially illuminated through my various travels this past eight weeks. I've been to five different cities in China, two cities in Malaysia, cities in Canada, Maine, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. All these places presented different urban challenges ranging from pollution and smog to hunger and food access and anywhere in between. I sat and looked out the window in a number of these cities and thought about how we, as a society, got “here”, with a particular focus on the significant inequality that exists in our world. Even in the US, there is significant over consumption while others go hungry. And I don't think that most people choose to over consume necessarily or that they do to spite those who don't have access to the resources but rather I think that as a society, we have been almost trained to be consumers of goods and resources and when unchecked, we return to our biological past where we want to gather and consume as much as possible because that ensures our survival. However, as we become an increasingly global population, how we manage these resources, especially within cities, will be essential in writing the story of the 21st century. The last module on shared prosperity was the perfect finish. Shared prosperity is the driver for Gateway. It incorporates the business and capitalism system discussed in Module 2, progresses Healthy Habitats from Module 3, addresses many of the social determinants of health from Module 4, increases and expands cohesive communities from Module 5 and serves to better engage citizens from Module 6. To move forwards, Gateway needs to synthesize everything we learned to create shared prosperity that provides benefits for both residents and investors. Broad based ownership in the community, both in an actual business sense but also in a community sense in creating an overarching vision of the community will be key. No ESOPs, credit unions, Co-Ops, socially facing companies, nonprofits, and muni or state-owned companies exist in Gateway but they could provide huge benefits. These business models serve to benefit the community and the corporation. To the community, the these businesses provides economic stability, career education, access to healthy food, community and social interactions, better health outcomes, and more. To the business, they will realize financial gains and generate business from an underserved population and would almost become a monopoly within the greater Gateway resource desert. If successful, there can be a shift in the mindset of other businesses within Gateway from outward focused profit generators that only externalize costs onto Gateway and instead, create wealth for both the community and the corporation. A few pilot businesses could provide the link in convincing businesses that there is a reason and value to invest in Gateway.
0 Comments
The concept of shared prosperity has never been more important, as cities continue to see a growing disparity between the rich and the poor. But these challenges are not unsolvable. Through community engagement, the government can implement programs like sustained public transportation, which aim to improve the lives of many and not just the lives of a few. Community development can also occur outside of the typical government programs and policies. Communities can utilize work cooperatives, community development financial institutions (CDFIs), social enterprises, municipal ownership, emerging hybrid companies, and employee stock ownership plan companies (ESOPs) to improve local neighborhoods. These new models for development can help to create jobs, help small businesses and residents gain access to financing, and lower the cost of utilities.
Many of the ideas that were discussed in this Module’s reading were very applicable to my experiences in Gateway. Basu’s discussion about the danger of income inequality can be felt in and around Gateway and also the neighboring Fort Lincoln. The differences in socioeconomic factors can divide neighborhoods and increase tension among citizens. As inequality rises, crime increases forcing some citizens to leave the area, removing key resources. Moreno further links this idea of inequality to skills or opportunity gaps that develop and I fear that opportunities are being missed in Gateway. Without the community resources or relevant action, residents must leave the community to participate in meaningful experiences that ready and prepare them for opportunities. I believe that this search for experience would be much more participated in, if the experiences were in the community rather than removed. The Ross Center article couldn’t be more pertinent to Gateway. Not only is the community disconnected from effective public transportation, it also is disconnected from meaningful economic development because of this. The influx of people into this community just doesn’t happen because it’s a difficult neighborhood to get to without a car. Transportation then is a means for economic development and paramount to growth and survival. The development of rail for example, enables livability, shopping, and sustainability. Advocacy for the above is needed. The larger community needs to be a voice. This voice is absent in Gateway. Finally, the 20 Cities article and DCF article stress the importance of taking broad based ownership in the community, both in the actual businesses but also in the overarching vision of the community. ESOPs, connected and interested companies, credit unions, Co-Ops, socially facing companies, nonprofits, and muni or state-owned companies do not exist in Gateway. Encouraging the growth of these partnerships not only stirs economic development but also educated and progresses the community towards a brighter future. All of these programs serve to engage the community and include them more. As with anything else, more involvement typically means more interest or at least some “skin in the game”. Continuing to expand and broaden this involvement will be key for Gateway and beyond. This week, the team read about the idea of engagement and both the importance of it in a community, and the disconnect many citizens feel with their ability, or the value, of their engagement. While there is a notable amount of voting and volunteering, the idea of engagement goes beyond this and needs to include a longer term, broader sense of community. Democracy Collaborative works toward this idea by creating opportunities for community and economic development through shared ownership. The Land Trust Alliance also expands on this idea of shared ownership by creating a land trust to help protect collections of privately owned land from urbanization. The critical theme throughout the resources has been the many layers required to have real community engagement and the importance of ownership (as a sense, or literal) in engaging citizens in their community. This helps fulfill the need to make engagement a deeper and more ingrained aspect of being part of a community.
This week’s theme of Engaged citizens, centered around forming genuine and meaningful connections to the community and having “skin in the game” and caring about the happenings across the community. I think something that I found interesting this week was that, Gateway, in general, is disengaged. Rather than stopping there however, a deeper dive begins to shed additional light onto why the community isn’t very engaged. Every community around Gateway – Ivy City, Langdon, Fort Lincoln, etc. are all expanding rapidly and as such have active communities with active participants who are engaged in the community, directing it to a new direction. In Gateway, any new direction isn’t exactly desired. The citizens of Gateway are happy with their community enough to the point to resist outside development because nearby communities that are active, have pushed original citizens out of the community. Reflecting on this module, a simple question became obvious. How do communities balance the expanding activism that happens typically when new citizens come into the community with managing the expansion and development of the community and ensure older citizens don’t get pushed aside? For Gateway, it makes sense that they don’t want to be an active “up-and-coming” neighborhood because it could threaten their existence within the neighborhood. However, it is obvious, given the last 5 modules, that Gateway needs resources, food access, healthy access, and more to fully achieve human flourishing. The problem is, once a community flourishes, it doesn’t stay a secret for long. Newcomers desire to move into the community increases demand, rent or buy new places, and therefore, shorts supply. Basic economics tells us that this property becomes more valuable and those who cannot afford this anymore have a choice to make – either deal with the increased cost or move out. Typically, the later is chosen, ripping communities apart and relocating them. Sure, the community that emerges is a more engaged community but at what cost? |
Details
Mark's blogThe process of urban immersion is exciting, new, and a little bit scary. Read about my experiences. ArchivesCategories |