• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Planning for Equitable Development in West Powelton

Planning for Equitable Development in West Powelton






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 168

http://manishabewtra.com 148
http://manishabewtra.wordpress.com 20



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Planning for Equitable Development in West Powelton Planning for Equitable Development in West Powelton Presentation Transcript

    • Planning for Equitable Development inWest Powelton and its EnvironsMaster of City Planning Studio, Spring 2005Department of City and Regional PlanningUniversity of Pennsylvania School of DesignPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
    • 3PrefaceThis report was created by eleven second-year Master of CityPlanning candidates from the University of Pennsylvania’sSchool of Design. The students participated in the Planningfor Equitable Development studio led by instructors DanielCampo, Ph.D. and Joyce Ann Pressley, Ph.D. The report hasbeen prepared for the People’s Emergency Center CommunityDevelopment Corporation (PECCDC). Its contents reflect theviews and recommendations of the authors and not those ofthe University of Pennsylvania or its staff. This report shouldbe treated as an internal document of PECCDC and will onlybe made available for public use with the permission of theclient.The following students participated in this studio:• Curtis Adams• Crystal Barnes• Elizabeth Boyd• Brian Duncan• Manisha Gadia• Jerryanne Heath• Jamica Keith• Stephen Singer• Shadja Strickland• Matt Wysong• Cory YemenThe students of this studio have been working with People’sEmergency Center Community Development Corporation(PECCDC) on a plan for equitable development in and aroundthe West Powelton neighborhood of Philadelphia. Created in1992, PECCDC is a strong non-profit organization engaged inrevitalizating West Philadelphia. The organization grew outof the People’s Emergency Center (PEC), which has played avital role in social service provision to West Philadelphia since1972. Founded by the social justice ministry of Asbury UnitedMethodist Church, PEC initially provided emergency shelterand food to homeless families, couples, and single women,on weekends. Since then, PEC’s services have expandedto include job training, affordable housing creation, andeducational and recreational programs for young adults.Our client, PECCDC, has been an integral part of communitydevelopment efforts in West Philadelphia. Over the past 13years, it has transformed 78 blighted properties into 100units of housing, 4 social service facilities, and a recreationalfacility. It also recently initiated a façade improvementproject for homeowners, which has markedly increased “curbappeal,” neighborhood safety, and resident pride. PECCDC’sefforts translate into over $20 million of public and privateinvestment in and around the West Powelton neighborhood.In 2003, PECCDC worked with the Delaware ValleyRegional Planning Commission, Kise Straw & Kolodner, andLamar Wilson Associates on a strategic plan for the WestPowelton/Saunders Park neighborhood. The planningprocess incorporated a community visioning process, andthe final document included several recommendations forthe neighborhood. This recent plan has set the stage forour study, but our studio’s final plan will focus specifically onstrategies for equitable development.This studio is part of a larger program known as theCommunity Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) Program.The program consists of a 3-year grant from the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development for the creation of theCenter for Innovation in Affordable Housing Design (Center).The Center is designed to support and strengthen existingUniversity/community partnerships, create new knowledgeabout affordable housing, and develop demonstration housingto reflect that work. The Center is a partnership between theUniversity of Pennsylvania’s School of Design (PennDesign),the University’s Center for Community Partnerships (CCP),the People’s Emergency Center (PEC) and the PEC CommunityDevelopment Corporation (PECCDC).The COPC program has three main functions: research,outreach, and construction. This studio is one of five new
    • 4courses, created through the COPC grant, in the Departmentsof Architecture and of City and Regional Planning. Our researchwill inform the Fall 2005 architecture studio, which will design6 affordable, energy-efficient housing units. PECCDC will thenconstruct the units at 3800 Brandywine Street, in Mantua.The theme of this studio has been “Planning for EquitableDevelopment in West Powelton and its Environs.” Many sectionsof West Philadelphia, especially University City, Spruce Hill, andPowelton Village, have experienced increased levels of investmentand redevelopment. Redevelopment and a variety of other trendsin our study area have generated concerns about gentrification.The remainder of this study seeks to address those concerns.
    • 5Table of ContentsPreface 3Table of Contents 5Introduction 7Study Area 12History 14Section I: Neighborhood Indicators Report 23Locational Value 24Social Indicators 26Physical Indicators 34Conclusion 46Section II: Road Map to Equitable Development 49Goals 50Community 53Physical 62Implementation 77Conclusion 80Bibliography 81Appendices 89Appendix A: Neighborhood Stakeholders 91Appendix B: Optional Questionnaire 97Appendix C: Literature Review 99Appendix D: Organizations 121
    • 7IntroductionEquitable Development isa process in which existing and incoming stakeholders in anarea create opportunities for mutual gain, while mitigatingthe negative effects of gentrification by sustainablyharnessing physical investment for social empowermentwhile minimizing transition costs.Equitable development is not equality. It is an inclusive andparticipatory process. Because the specific content of theprocess is determined in large part by local residents, theoutcome cannot be defined by a fixed formula.Gentrification isthe social and economic change induced by the movementof external public and private capital into an area with ahistory of disinvestment. Gentrification typically producesincreased housing costs, upgraded housing stock, upwardsocio-economic class shifts of the resident population, andother changes in the flavor and character of the geographicarea.DiscussionAs with any contested and inherently political concept,equitable development means many things to many people.Deciding among those meanings cannot be an entirelytechnical affair. Equitable development demands an activecommitment. Championing equitable development involvesthe decision that a fair distribution of benefits from physical,social, and economic improvements cannot be left as anafterthought. Reduction of inequality requires specific andsustained attention.The current state of inequality among and withinneighborhoods did not evolve solely as a “natural” resultof market processes operating on a level playing fieldin some edenic past. Likewise, mere incentives to inducemarket activity in poor neighborhoods will not level theplaying field on their own. Gentrification results when equityremains a subordinate concern. Neighborhoods susceptibleto gentrification are those left to rise and fall on successivewaves of disinvestment and investment without concern forlocal residents’ ability to participate in their neighborhood’sgood fortune.Too often, individuals are left to segregate, and neighborhoodsare allowed to become exclusive and unaffordable. Yetthe place-based solutions of traditional development andthe people-based solutions of social service work tend totreat the connection between residents and neighborhoodas either unimportant or automatic. Without the anchorof booming industrial employment that many Philadelphianeighborhoods enjoyed in the past, a beneficial connectionbetween community and neighborhhod can only bemaintained by expanding resident investment in and controlof the land and its development.While no community can be granted the right to remainunchanged or the ability to improve its lot without makingdifficult trade-offs, our vision of equitable developmententails the belief that, even as they work to better theirlives, or remain content where they are, all communitieshave a right to a place in the city (Mitchell 2003). While noplace should be defined perpetually as the place for the poor,equitable development at the neighborhood, city, or evenregional level will not eradicate inequality, so the poor mustalways have a place.We believe that, while the city as a whole has specific needsfor its continued survival and prosperity, neighborhoodsare malleable things. They can be bedroom communities ormicrocosms of the city as a whole. They take specific formfrom the history of their use and from their ongoing needsas residents collectively and often conflictually define them.Satisfying the needs of residents, whatever they may be,requires greater capacity for control and choice than theresidents of Mantua and West Powelton currently possess.Equitable development is largely distinct from any onespecific vision of what the community should be or exactlyWhat is Equitable Development?
    • 8what it should contain. As neighborhoods with a historyof disinvestment and neglect, West Powelton and Mantuacould benefit from all types of improvement. While theseareas and their residents have many valuable assets, theyhave no shortage of needs, both for what they entirely lack(adequate supermarkets, quality educational institutions,productive employment at all skill levels…) and for whatthey have in too short or low quality supply (recreationfacilities, greenery, affordable housing…).Equitable development aims for a more equitable resultby means of an equitable process. We have focused onhow to prevent traditional physical development and otherimprovements to the neighborhood from excluding currentresidents from the enjoyment of those improvements.Implicit in this goal is a democratic belief that residentshave a right to choose their abode, a right strengthenedby the sweat equity of daily living– of perseverance underadversity –that a resident has “invested” in their place,their neighbors, and their local institutions. As a result ofthis focus we have not emphasized means to approachequality of living standards between rich and poor inPhiladelphia. We have focused on increasing the ability forresidents to realize some locational choice—whether ornot or whenever such quality of life improvements occur.Along the way, we have included some suggestions andprograms that would help increase residents’ well-beingand wealth pursuant to the needs we have heard expressedby community members, recognizing that such increases inwell-being generally increase the capacity and efficacy ofneighborhood residents.We have constructed a vision of these two neighborhoodsby combining those elements that we believe will bestsupport equitable development with a few of the specificgoals expressed by community members during the longcommunity planning process and recent stakeholdermeetings. Each of the following elements will be developedmorefully in the remainder of this report.
    • 9Full spectrum of usesWe believe that a neighborhood serves its residents best whenit provides for a full spectrum of uses, representing the basicactivities that constitute a well-rounded life. A more or less“locally complete” neighborhood is an attractive and healthyplace to live, one that sustains investment and provides forresident needs. Such a neighborhood includes commercialservices such as a grocery store and pharmacy, some localemployment, eateries, doctors’ offices, community schools,active and passive recreational facilities, a library, socialservice providers, a neighborhood based school, and so on.Mix of residentsJust as a mix of uses beyond mere residences and employershelps keep a neighborhood from becoming a sterile, brittlemonoculture, a diversity of residents helps a communityweather change and attract broad political support. Only afull spectrum of uses will attract and sustain investment bymiddle and upper income residents. An equitably developedneighborhood may not need wealthier residents to be“valid” but its chances at sustainability and employmentopportunities are greater if socioeconomic diversity exists.Economic diversity spreads the burden of community supportacross a broader tax base.Quality affordable housingThe influx of wealthier residents raises the fear thatnewcomers will displace poorer residents and renters,intentionally or not. One of the most important bulwarksagainst displacement is high quality permanently affordablehousing in which residents have a stake, from which theycan build financial wealth, and over which they have control.For better or worse, home ownership in the United States isnot only most households’ largest asset, it often anchors acitizens claim to “legitimate” membership in a community.Poor quality affordable housing segregates the poor fromtheir neighbors. Housing that is affordable only by virtueof it physical deterioration does not build wealth or providesustainable shelter.Diverse, busy, denserThe combination of economically diverse residents andpermanently affordable housing that takes advantage ofexisting vacant land for new construction prepares the wayfor an active neighborhood. A busy neighborhood, with itsvacant gaps filled in, is safer and better able to supportlocal businesses and employment. The current fashion forsuburban style development, larger housing, and yards canbe taken into account in new construction, but low densityrequires the kind of high property values and resident wealththat threaten to displace many current residents.Productive employment, including for the less skilledFar more difficult than the provision of housing, butultimately, perhaps more important is the provision of jobs.Much of Philadelphia’s current malady can be traced to shiftsin production, shipping, and employment away from heavyindustry utilizing a local work force. Employment has lost anintimate connection with residence. Yet West Philadelphia’sabundance of geographically anchored educational andmedical institutions offers tremendous opportunity foremployment and training.Commemorate and acknowledge history, whileworking through historical animosityAlthough this report speaks repeatedly about “community,”we do not imagine “the community” as an abstract, unified,ideal. The neighborhoods around the universities often havedifferent needs and interests than their wealthy neighbors,and than each other. Unilateral and short sighted developmentin the past has left a residue of anger, misunderstanding,and unmet need. Negative feelings coexist with pride, anda genuine desire to reach out and exist as good neighborswith much to share. We suggest ways for the community tocapitalize on and preserve its physical and cultural historywhile using this “social capital” to work through and beyondthe problems of the past.A Vision of Equitable Development in West Powelton and Mantua
    • 10Increased involvement from DrexelWe single out Drexel because our community interactionsindicated that, while the University of Pennsylvania loomslarge in the area’s past and present as a major actor andoccasional villain in the eyes of some residents, Drexel andits students are a major but strangely quiet presence in theneighborhood. Penn’s presence is felt through PresbyterianHospital’s inward facing campus, but also through itsnumerous student volunteer and community outreachprograms, and funding for the University City District cleanand safe programs and support of efforts like this studioand the work of PECCDC. Drexel students live in Mantua,but apart from it. Drexel University has some significantprograms that assist the neighborhood but they are not wellknown in the community and residents do not feel welcomedor wanted by the institution expanding in its midst.Communication, collaboration, cooperation…educationOur focus on various forms of collaboration emphasizeslearning from mistakes and emulation of what works. Already,with its dozens of helping organizations and churches thecommunity is engaged in as many experiments to improveresidents’ lives. The neighborhoods do not need to generatediversity, the diversity is already there. Collaboration that canfocus the diversity to concentrate its energies is, however,sorely needed.Communicationbetweenexistinggroupsintheneighborhoodsallows them to pool resources and coordinate their efforts.Equally impotent is communication between neighborhoodresidents and organizations and major institutions like Pennand Drexel. If past mistakes are to be overcome and astronger future is to be built only communication that createstransparency will lead the way. Education of communityresidents about the nature and hurdles of the confusingdevelopment process is a necessary counterpart to educationof the university, hospital, and nonprofit “communities’” aboutthe neighborhoods’ assets and aspirations. Collaboration willbe built on trust, and trust will be built on practical experienceand knowledge.What is not equitable development?Equitable development is not the same as social justice. Theplanning and community development process does not cureall social ills, even when it strives to be equitable. At its bestequitable development provides a kind of social and physicalinfrastructure for justice.Development in the Mantua and West Powelton neighborhoodscan and should include a myriad of specific programs andobjectives. A community is too complex and subtle a creatureto trust its future to any single panacea. The community’sneed is too great for residents to “wait and see” while asingle cure-all works its magic. Solutions are long term, andsome will fail while others are still underway. Recognizingthe community’s need for both variety and focus, we havedecided that certain topics, however vital are beyond thescope of this report. The following items are not integral to“equitable development” per se though they are requiredfor equality and prosperity in our target neighborhoods— asthey are in many parts of the city.Local School QualityA safe, high quality neighborhood public school canbecome a neighborhood anchor, one more democratic andaccessible than either a university or a hospital. A goodquality school is one of the most powerful attractors thatcould bring wealthier residents into an area. It is one of thekey factors in preparing all residents for civic participationand employment. Without arrangements for long termaffordability and equitably distributed control, a desirableschool can also generate exclusionary property values. Thus,high quality public schools only support equity if access tothem is distributed without regard to income of if they existthroughout the city.
    • 11All neighborhoods in the city need better schools. Thegovernance, curricular, funding, and budgetary reformsrequired by the Philadelphia school system are beyondthe scope of our report. Nonetheless, we find Drexel’spartnership to provide academic, professional development,technological, and business administration assistance toUniversity High School and seven of its feeder schools avery encouraging addition to existing efforts at the PennAlexander School.Health factors and high mortalityWe have not directly addressed the deplorable disparities inmortality and morbidity rates between groups demographicin and around our study area. Some of the programs wesuggest indirectly address health issues by improving thequality of the built environment and its amenities andservices. We recognize that residents cannot fully participatein any development process if their immediate needs suchas health care, emergency food, and adequate nutrition arenot addressed. While these health issues present themselvesas pressing needs, we see them largely as symptoms ofpoverty, disinvestment, and an incomplete environmentwhich equitable development aims to address.Racial inequalitiesWe have not directly addressed racial inequality or racialtension. While it is clearly a real and difficult issue, andone that was raised in our stakeholder meetings, we havenot devised any neighborhood level strategies that directlyaddress racial issues or help ensure racial diversity or racialequity. We hope that well-integrated, quality affordablehousing will help integrate the neighborhood economicallyand racially as well. Likewise programs such as heritagetours and more aggressively neighborhood focused studentorientation and volunteerism at Drexel should help breakdown unfamiliarity and stereotypes between predominantlywhite students living in and next to a predominantly AfricanAmerican neighborhood. As with equitable development,however, indirect measures may happen to mitigate theproblem, but only direct address of the issues will ensurethat progress is made.The arcane land acquisition processFinally we have not proposed specific reforms of theproperty acquisition process managed by the PhiladelphiaRedevelopment Authority (RDA). A process meant to protectthe interests of individual property owners from capricioustakings by the municipal government has itself become aburden to both ordinary citizens and would-be developers ofall types, thanks to its Byzantine complexity.The process is opaque even to those who have successfullynavigated it. Streamlined land acquisition would facilitate allredevelopment efforts at every scale. A clear process wouldallow broad public participation in the revitalization of thecity.Such bureaucratic reform might seem highly technical, butother cities such as Cleveland and Baltimore offer viableexamples of simpler property acquisition processes ready tobe adapted locally. Unfortunately the current city governmentseems to lack the requisite political will to change the process.Acquisition reform has long been a part of the NeighborhoodTransformation Initiative (NTI) agenda, but NTI’s progress isno less obscure than the program it aims to fix.
    • 12Study AreaOur study area is located in West Philadelphia, boundedon the west by 44th Street, the east by 37th Street, tothe south by Market Street, and by Lancaster Avenue andWallace Street to the north. It includes the neighborhoodsof West Powelton, which encompasses Saunders Park, andportions of Mantua. This report will compare neighborhoodindicators in Powelton Village and Spruce Hill, which havehad significant investment in recent years, to West Poweltonand Mantua, which have not.Our study area is located in West Philadelphia, in closeproximity to major highways and some of the city’s majordestinations, including Center City and City Avenue. It is veryclose to a number of institutions, including the University ofPennsylvania (Penn), Drexel University, Presbyterian MedicalCenter, and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.One of the most significant landmarks near our study areais the Philadelphia Zoo. The following map also identifies thesite at 3800 Brandywine, to be developed by PECCDC anddesigned by Penn architecture students through the COPCgrant.The Study AreaThe City of Philadelphia
    • 13Transportation is one of our study area’s best assets. Ourstudy area is serviced by the Market Frankford El along thesouthern boundary, and by trolley and bus routes throughout.Another asset is the area’s proximity to West Philadelphiaretail centers, including Lancaster Avenue, one of WestPhiladelphia’s major commercial corridors, and Girard Avenueand 52nd Street. Additionally, the 40th Street commercialcorridor, which runs between Spruce and Market Streets,has recently received a lot of attention because of renewedinterest in developing the corridor.Mass Transit in West PoweltonArea LandmarksThe University City VicinityShops on Lancaster Ave.
    • 14HistoryOur study area possesses a significant amount of historic capital,which has been undervalued by the marketplace. The history ofWest Powelton and its surrounding neighborhoods predates thefounding of the city of Philadelphia, in 1729. West Philadelphiawas originally known as Blockley, an estate created by WilliamWarner in 1677. Warner built a mansion near what is nowLancaster Avenue and 46th Street, and named his holdings inrecognition of his native parish in England. The name, Blockley,is still reflected in some of the establishments in West Philadelphiatoday. West Philadelphia became the West Philadelphia Districtin 1854 with the consolidation of the City of Philadelphia. Duringconsolidation, our study area became part of the City’s Ward24.Neighborhood HistoryBlockley Township - 1712Source: Philadelphia City ArchivesThe Consolidation of Philadelphia - 1854Source: Philadelphia City Archives
    • 15Between 1690 and 1795, Lancaster Pike (now Lancaster Avenue)was constructed as the country’s first toll road. The pike had13 tollgates, representing the 13 original states. By 1797, theturnpike made it possible to travel from Philadelphia to Lancaster,Pennsylvania in only 12 hours. Lancaster Avenue is presentlythe home of several small, long-standing businesses. However,there is some concern about the lack of variety in the types ofbusinesses on the corridor. Additionally, the avenue now suffersfrom storefront vacancies and poor maintenance. Going forward,we hope to work with the Lancaster Avenue Business Association(LABA) to leverage the avenue’s historical significance andidentify opportunities for development on the corridor.The neighborhoods within our study area were developedprimarily by Philadelphia’s elite. In fact, most of the neighborhoodnames came from wealthy residents’ estates. Powelton wasoriginally the estate of Samuel Powel; mayor of Philadelphiaduring the Revolution. In the late 18th century, his adoptedson, J. Hare Powel, built a mansion at 32nd and Race Streets. Itwas demolished in 1883 and speculative housing was built in itsplace.By the late 19th Century, West Philadelphia was thehome of Philadelpiha’s elite. Many large estates,such as that of J. Hare Powel, have since been de-molished to make way for housing development.Lancaster Turnpike 1795Source: US Dept. of TransportationThe Lancaster Pike of today.
    • 16It is unclear when the distinction between West Powelton andPowelton Village was established, but the name “PoweltonVillage” was used as early as the 1930s. As will be shownin other parts of this report, the two neighborhoods are verydifferent from each other today.The area now known as Mantua remained very rural andundeveloped throughout the 18th century. In 1809 it wasdeveloped as real estate venture by Judge Richard Peters,and named after Mantua, Italy, home of Virgil, whose writingsPeters admired. Haverford road was, and still is, the mainstreet of the neighborhood.The Pennsylvania Rail Road owned much of the land nearMantua and stimulated growth in the area. In 1852, Powelsold large parts of his estate to the Pennsylvania RailRoad. However, the railroad had a disruptive effect on theneighborhood as the yards and junction grew, splitting theneighborhood in half, and displacing residents in the mid1800s. In 1877, the Great Railroad Riots erupted in Mantua,near 35th and Haverford, in opposition to the railroadcompany’s inadequate wages and substandard housing.Mantua - 1846Source: Penn State UniversityRailroad riots erupted in 1877.Source: Penn State University
    • 17Institutional HistoryOur study area is located near some of Philadelphia’s majorinstitutions, which have played a large role in shapingthe area’s character and history. In 1871 The Universityof Pennsylvania laid the first cornerstone of College Hall,beginning its relocation from 9th and Chestnut Streets tothe Blockley estate. In 1891, Anthony J. Drexel, one ofAmerica’s great bankers, founded the Drexel Institute of Art,Science and Industry (now Drexel University) at 32nd andChestnut Streets.The Presbyterian Hospital has been an important medicalcenter in West Philadelphia since the late 19th century.Originally located at 39th and Powelton, the land was ownedby Dr. Courtland Saunders, for whom the Saunders Parkneighborhood is named. Dr. Saunders offered the entireblock for the construction of the hospital, which opened in1872.The Drexel Institute’s Main Building ca. 1900.Source: “An Architectural History ofthe Main Building: 1891 - 2003”University of Pennsylvania’s College Hall.Source: University Archives and Records CenterPresbyterian Hospital ca. 1886.Source: “Philadelphia and NotablePhiladelphians”
    • 18As the following map indicates, this area has changedsignificantly since the hospital first opened. Saunder’s Parkand PEC’s Rowan House, a rehabilitated $4.5 million facilitythat houses transitional housing units, a child care centerand job training classrooms are now located at the formersite of the Old Man’s Home of Philadelphia. Indicated by theblue line, the boundaries of the Presbyterian Medical Centercomplex have expanded to 38th, 40th, and Filbert Streets,and Powelton Avenue. In 1995, the hospital merged withthe University of Pennsylvania Health System. The originalmap, dated 1886, shows that there were still severalresidential buildings located within these boundaries, beforethe institution’s expansion.After 1950, the institutions in West Philadelphia placedincreasing pressure on the surrounding neighborhoods.Urban renewal efforts allowed these institutions to expandsignificantly, often, unfortunately, resulting in residentialdisplacement.In 1959, Penn, Drexel, the Presbyterian Hospital, thePhiladelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, and thePhiladelphia College of Osteopathy chartered the WestPhiladelphia Corporation (WPC), a non-profit corporationdevoted to promoting social development in WestPhiladelphia. WPC was intended to make University City asatisfactory residential environment and to allow it to fulfillits potential as a center of private research.WPC laid the foundation for the University City Science Center,for which development began in 1963. Unfortunately, thescience center resulted in the displacement of many residentsfrom the area, which was previously known as Greenville.The 1967 map shows the conflict over displacement, andwas annotated by hand to show where WPC conceded todemands for low cost housing.The Presbyterian Hospital of 1886 (shown in light blue)has expanded signficantly up tothe present day (shown in dark blue)
    • 19Source: Philadelphia City Planning CommissionThe University City Science CenterUrban Renewal AreaSource: “Come to Where the Knowledge is: A History of theUniversity City Scince Center”
    • 20The study area has witnessed a spate of institutionalinvestment. University City District (UCD) is a specialservices district that has drastically improved the cleanlinessand safety around our study area over the past 8 years.The UCD’s functions and services have expanded since itsinitial formation; however, it is primarily funded by 11 largeinstitutions, ranging from Penn to Amtrak, in the area. Penn’sguaranteed mortgage program, which recently expandedits boundaries, has assisted faculty and staff in financinghome purchases in West Philadelphia. Furthermore, UCGreen, another Penn initiative, created in 1999, has unitedcommunity organizations, city agencies, students, andresidents in local greening efforts.Recent Investment: InstitutionalThe Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) has spearheaded anumber of new developments in and around our study area,including the Lucien E. Blackwell homes, which will bringabout 600 new affordable homes to West Philadelphia. Theproject was funded through HOPE VI, Low Income HousingTax Credit, Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI).PHA also recently renovated the Mt. Olivet 161-unit seniorapartment building at 41st St. and Haverford Avenue.Recent Investment: PublicUniversity City District BoundariesSource: www.universitycitydistrict.orgInterior and Exterior fo the Lucien E. Blackwell Homes.
    • 21Recent Investment: PrivateThere has been increased private investment in and aroundour study area. For example, the 40th Street commercialcorridor has been receiving a lot of attention, attractingnew plans for redevelopment. Fresh Grocer and the BridgeCinema are some examples of recent development on thiscorridor. Within our boundaries, more and more propertiesare being renovated and new construction by private ownersand developers can be seen throughout. And, the new CiraCenter under construction near 30th Street Station will serveas a major landmark for this side of the Schuylkill.Infill development adjacent to vacant buildings. Brandywine Realty Trust’sCira Centre
    • Section INeighborhood Indicators Report
    • 24Locational ValueRegional AdvantagesOur study area has many locational advantages that wouldappeal to potential residents. It is located within walkingdistance of two major universities and Presbyterian Hospital.This would appeal to university and hospital workers seekingto locate close to work. The study area is also within afive-minute drive of Center City Philadelphia, a majorcenter for employment and culture. Furthermore, publictransportation and highway options provide easy access tothe Philadelphia International Airport, Amtrak 30th StreetStation, the 69th Street Shopping Area and the City Avenuebusiness corridor.However, by looking at the average commuting times foremployed residents in the study area, it becomes evidentthat these locational advantages are not fully utilized. Wefind that residents in some block groups are traveling inupwards of 60 minutes to reach their place of employment.As we move forward into the future, this untapped potentialwill grow to the point where the private market will takeadvantage of it. When this happens, neighborhood changeis likely to occur. This phenomenon has already taken placein Powelton Village and Spruce Hill. In terms of geography,our study area is ripe for reinvestment.Median Commuting Time2000Drive Times from the Study AreaData Source: U.S. Census 2000
    • 25ArchitectureOur study area has the potential to become a prime targetfor future investment because of the architectural value ofits housing stock. Many case studies show that gentrifyingneighborhoods are characterized by housing that is rich andvaried in architectural typologies. Much of the housing stockin our study area was constructed in the late 19th centuryand early 20th century for both management and workingclass families. Housing styles range from modest two-storyrowhouses to large three-story Victorian duplexes. Most ofthese styles incorporate ornate architectural details such asspires, window boxes, front porches, cornices and stylishmasonry work.As these architecturally significant buildings furtherdeteriorate, a few opportunities for reinvestment will arise.First, young households with significant disposable incomecould buy a home in study area, significantly rehabilitateit, and occupy it. If this occurs in a critical mass, it willmost certainly create an upward force on property taxassessments. Second, outside investors could be attractedto the size of the spacious three-story Victorians. They maychoose to convert such buildings into rental units. Not onlydoes this impede homeownership opportunities, but it alsofacilitates the movement of equity out of the community.
    • 26Social IndicatorsPercent Change in Population1990-2000If gentrification includes, as the definition used by this studiohas stated, “social and economic change,” and “upward socio-economic class shifts of the resident population,” then it isimportant to look at the trends in relevant data to identifythe effects that gentrification has or will have on the studyarea. One component of this data is the social indicatorsof neighborhood change – those indicators that reflect thedemographic, economic, and other social characteristics ofthe neighborhood and its surroundings over time. Includedin this section is the data analysis that describes the changein population, racial composition, elderly population, non-family households, mobility, labor force participation, andcrime for West Powelton, the surrounding neighborhoods,and Philadelphia as a whole.IntroductionOver the ten-year period 1990-2000, the population in someCensus block groups of the study area decreased while inothers increased. The overall population loss for the studyarea from 1990 to 2000 was 4%, which mirrors the city ofPhiladelphia’s loss over the same period. Upon examiningpopulation loss from 1970-2000, the study area showeda 26% decrease, shrinking from approximately 10,000residents in 1970 to 7,452 in 2000. Over the same thirty-yearperiod, Philadelphia as a whole lost 22% of its population.The population loss of 26% for the study area is greater thanPhiladelphia’s loss of 22%, which suggests that the studyarea experienced an even greater rate of disinvestment thanthe city as a whole. Disinvestment is almost always theprecursor to gentrification and reinvestment in the study areacould result in remarkable changes in the neighborhood’sdemographicmakeup. Thoseblockgroupsshowingpopulationincrease could be experiencing reinvestment today, whileother block groups may experience reinvestment in futureperiods. However, these topics will be addressed in latersections.Population Change20Data Source: U.S. Census 2000
    • 27Percent Change in White Population1990-2000Percent Change in Black Population1990-2000Racial CompositionChange in racial composition is a relatively visible gaugeof change in a neighborhood and is often closely tied tothe neighborhood’s perception of whether disinvestmentor gentrification is occurring. The equitable developmentagenda acknowledges the racial component of neighborhoodchange and aims to help make these changes positive for allneighborhood residents, existing as well as incoming.Currently, the study area is comprised of a majority African-American population, while the city as a whole is more raciallydiverse. An influx of non-African-Americans could rapidlyalter the overall racial composition in the study area.Even though the numbers are very small, the white populationwithin the study area increased from 1990-2000 in certainblock groups. This change is notable because it may indicatefurther investment by the white population now and in thefuture.Increased racial diversity could be an asset for theneighborhood, or it could leave the existing residents feelingthat their voice and ability to guide their destiny has beeneroded. In an equitable development scenario, change inracial composition would ideally result in increased politicalempowerment for all residents.Race as a Percent of Total Population200021Data Source: U.S. Census 2000Data Source: U.S. Census 2000
    • 28Percent of Households ReceivingRetirement Income2000The Elderly PopulationThe elderly are a component of the population that isparticularly vulnerable to housing price changes in theneighborhood.There is a concentration of the elderly in the northern portionof the study area. Furthermore, the elderly in the study areaare more likely to be in poverty than either the city-wideelderly population or even in neighboring Mantua.Gentrification often causes housing costs to rise for bothrenters and homeowners, through increased rent or taxes.Elderly in the study area receiving a fixed income maybe negatively affected by a rise in their housing costs.Additionally, elderly homeowners in gentrifying areas tryingto benefit from the increasing value of their housing are oftentargets for unscrupulous lenders. If equitable developmentis to be the goal, solutions for the elderly poor must be takeninto account.Elderly Residents Living in PopulationNeighborhoods vs. CityData Source: U.S. Census 2000Data Source: U.S. Census 2000
    • 29Because of the study area’s proximity to several universitiesand colleges, it may be expected that students would belikely to settle in this area. To measure whether studentsare augmenting development pressures in the neighborhood,the studio looked at two measures indicative of studenthouseholds.Although the study area has a greater percentage of non-family households than Philadelphia and Mantua, the levelis still below the percentage in Spruce Hill. When this datais matched with the mobility data, an interesting patternemerges. West Powelton exhibits much lower levels ofmobility than Spruce Hill. This is indicative that althoughthere are many non-family households, they are notnecessarily student households. Given that 58% of WestPowelton residents in 2000 lived in the same house five yearspreviously, many of the non-family households may not bemade up of transient students. Rather, these non-familyhouseholds might reflect the part of the elderly populationwho live alone.TransiencyNon-Family Households2000Stable PopulationNeighborhoods vs. CityData Source: U.S. Census 2000Data Source: U.S. Census 2000
    • 30Percent of Residents in the Labor Forcethat are Unemployed2000Percent of Residents Participatingin the Labor Force2000EmploymentData on unemployment and labor force participation wereexamined as well. The unemployment rate as a percentageof those participating in the labor force in 2000 for the studyarea was 20.5%, nearly twice the citywide rate of 10.9%.This percentage has grown drastically over the thirty year-period- in 1970, the unemployment rate in the study areawas only 6.8%.The labor force participation rate ranges drastically amongthe different block groups studied. The participation rateis greatest in the southeastern portion of the study area.Powelton Village and Spruce Hill have dense concentrationsof high labor force participation. The higher labor forceparticipation rate in the southeastern portion of the studyarea may be the beginning of a spillover of Powelton Village’sdevelopment and demographic characteristics. Groups ofincoming residents who are employed labor force participantsmay mean an overall improvement in labor force participationfor the study area, which will be reflected as a positive changein the labor force statistics for the study area. It is importantto keep in mind, however, that labor force participationamong long-term existing residents is not separated fromthe labor force participation of incoming residents. As aresult, positive change in labor force participation may notaccurately reflect the needs of the existing residents.Data Source: U.S. Census 2000 Data Source: U.S. Census 2000
    • 31CrimeThe differences found in the labor force participationstatistics among the various neighborhoods led the studioto look at other possibly related differences. Differences inthe crime data for the Mantua, West Powelton, Spruce Hilland Powelton Village neighborhoods seem to give furtherevidence that there are major socio-economic differencesamong these neighborhoods.First of all, it should be noted that crime in general has beentrending downward in recent years. When the crime data iscompared among the neighborhoods, certain trends comeforward. In Mantua and West Powelton, violent crimes andvice arrests are more common. Vice crimes include drug-related and prostitution offenses. The vice statistic may showthat the neighborhoods that have greater unemployment arerelying more on these illegal income sources. Spruce Hilland Powelton Village, on the other hand, both have higherlevels of property crime than the other two neighborhoods.This may be because the residents’ higher income levels, inthese neighborhoods, translate into more property of highvalue and, thus, more property at risk of theft.Police District 16 BoundariesData Source: Philadelphia Police DepartmentPPDonline.org
    • 32Major Crimes in District 162003Major Crimes in Philadelphia2003Data Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform CrimeReportsData Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform CrimeReports
    • 33Property Crimes by Neighborhood2003Violent Crimes by Neighborhood2003Vice Crimes by Neighborhood2003Data Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform CrimeReportsData Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform CrimeReportsData Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform CrimeReports
    • 34Physical IndicatorsIntroductionAs of 2000, our study area contains over 3,800 housing units.Through the 1970s and 1980s, units continued to be addedto the stock at a high rate. However, by 1990, this numberdropped dramatically and the number of units lost beganto outpace the number of units added. Over the past fiveyears, this trend continued as Philadelphia’s NeighborhoodTransformation Initiative (NTI) began to demolish a largeamount of dwellings in the study area.If the population begins to increase in the study area, therewill be increased competition for housing because of the netloss of units that has been characterized the past fifteenyears. This competition will surely result in the displacementof lower-income residents, who will be outbid by middle- andupper-income residents.Because of the study area’s low homeownership rate,when compared to Philadelphia as a whole, the dangerof displacement to this low-income cohort is substantiallyincreased. This is further compounded by the fact thatHousing Unit Change in the Study AreaHomeownership Ratesin the Study Area28As stated at the outset of this report, gentrification is aprocess partially characterized by the movement of public andprivate capital into an area with a history of disinvestment.During this process, housing costs typically increase andthe stock is upgraded. To examine if this process is in factoccurring, it becomes important to analyze both the staticexisting conditions and the dynamics that preceded them.Included in this section are the data analyses describingthe housing stock, building conditions, sales and rental ratetrends, and a tax assessment analysis. Where appropriate,comparisons are made to surrounding areas, neighborhoods,and Philadelphia as a whole.Housing StockData Source: U.S. Census 2000Data Source: U.S. Census 2000
    • 35Our studio conducted a building survey of the entire studyarea by visually inspecting each parcel. All parcels wereclassified as occupied, vacant, or partially vacant and givena qualitative ranking. The rankings in order were: Good(relatively new construction or renovation, well maintained);Fair (minor repairs necessary); Poor (extensive repairsneeded); and Bad (dangerous or uninhabitable). A two-person team conducted the survey to maintain consistencyamong the classifications.The map of the results shows that certain parts of theneighborhood are healthier than others in terms of physicalquality. The Southeastern section of the study area is mostlyinstitutional, with the Presbyterian Medical Center, DrewSchool and University City High. These are all Good and Fairconditions, indicating strong neighborhood institutions. Thepublic schools are not as well maintained as the hospital, notsurprising, given the budgetary constraints of the PhiladelphiaSchool District. Many of the residential units ranked in goodcondition are also in this Southeastern corner.The majority of the buildings in the study area are in faircondition, including both residential and commercial uses.The ones adjacent to mostly good or fair conditions buildingsare more likely to remain in the same state or improve.Those near poor conditions and vacancies are more likely toeventually deteriorate.Many buildings fall in the Poor category, especially alongparts of Lancaster Avenue corridor. These buildings could beespecially appealing to prospective buyers who want to takeadvantage of sweat equity and buy inexpensive houses foreither investment or personal use.Only a few buildings fall into the Bad category, with more inthe Northwestern triangle of the study area.There are many vacant lots in the study area, mostlyconcentrated in three sections. The NeighborhoodTransformation Initiatives (NTI) is responsible for creatingnumerous vacancies, thereby reducing the number of Badcondition lots. In general, the blocks with vacancies are notthe same blocks with Good condition structures.After conducting the conditions survey, we looked at thebuildings in the Poor category that had renters (using offsiteowners as a proxy for rentals). These units cannot commandhigh rents due to their condition and the tenants would bemost at risk of displacement if refurbishment were to lead tohigher rents.Combining the vacancies, including vacant lots and partiallyvacant buildings with the poor condition rentals, shows thatcertain blocks are suitable for property assemblage and thepossibility of larger development projects. PECCDC or otherdevelopers may look to these blocks first for large-scalechanges.These three areas require further investigation by thestudio into what types of development would be best for theneighborhood and what strategies would be most suitablefor equitable development.Building Conditionshomeownershipratesarethelowestintheareasmostadjacentto University City (the southern and eastern portions). Notsurprisingly, this is the area that is experiencing the mostreinvestment. Increased rents would be the most immediateeffect of reinvestment in the study area, thus placing poorrenters at the highest risk.
    • 36Study Area Building ConditionsData Source: Survey done by studio
    • 37Study Area Building ConditionsData Source: Survey done by studio, Philadelphia BRT
    • 38Study Area Building Conditions and VacanciesData Source: Survey done by studio, Philadelphia BRT
    • 39Percent Change in Price Per Square Foot forResidential Sales1999/2000 - 2003/2004Housing Sale TrendsThe sales data shows that there was an increase in the numberof sales and an increase in sales prices for the southernportion of our study area. The high valued Spruce Hill areahas continued to get stronger. However, as sales volumein this area has begun to stabilize after its rapid increasein value, areas around the periphery of this high value areahave begun to see increased sales volume, including thesouthern portion of our study area. The extension of theUniversity of Pennsylvania’s mortgage program into thissouthern portion of our study area is also likely to have hada stimulating effect on the market.Between 1999 and 2000, 70 residential properties were soldwithin the study area for an average price of $32,431 anda median price of $23,000. During this time period only3 properties were sold above $100,000. Between 2003and 2004, 89 properties were sold with an average price of$49,781 and a median price of $29,000. The larger increasein the average home price in our study area is due to thefact that a small, but larger number of properties are nowselling over $100,000. However, the majority of propertiesin the study area are still selling for very low values. During2003 and 2004, 25 properties sold for under $10,000 while12 sold over $100,000.Change in Number ofResidential Sale Transactions1999/2000 - 2003/2004Data Source: Philadelphia BRT Data Source: Philadelphia BRT
    • 40Percent of Residential Structures Sold1999-2000Percent of Residential Structures Sold2003-2004Data Source: Philadelphia BRT Data Source: Philadelphia BRT
    • 41Average Price per Square Footfor Residential Sales1999-2000Average Price per Square Footfor Residential Sales2003-2004Data Source: Philadelphia BRT Data Source: Philadelphia BRT
    • 42Housing Rental TrendsIn order to assess trends in the rental housing market,our studio collected price points for housing rentals overthe 1994 through 2004 period. Rental data was collectedfrom the classified section of The Philadelphia Inquirerand totaled 214 price points over the studied timeframe.Using multivariate Ordinary Least Squares regression, weexamined the relationships between rental asking prices andvarious collections of possible explanatory variables. Theresults of our study find that there is an upward trend inrental rates over time, across the study area. However, ourstudy also reveals that there are market differentiations withrespect to other factors as well.For the study area as a whole, there was approximately a$12 per month increase in rent each year ($144 increasein yearly rent, per year). Product type variables showingsignificant impacts on rental prices include whether or notthe unit was an apartment or a house and the number ofbedrooms in each dwelling unit. The study found that housescommanded a $256 per month ($3,072 in yearly rent)premium over rental units. In both houses and apartments,each additional bedroom raised the rental asking price by$80 per month ($960 in yearly rent).Our study also examined locational variables within thestudy area. The regression results indicates that the degreewestward and location north or south of Spring Garden Streetimpact rental asking prices. Furthermore, the rate at whichthe degree west impacts the rental asking price is dependentupon whether or not the dwelling unit is located north orsouth of Spring Garden. There was a $26 per month ($312in yearly rent) rental premium commanded for units southof Spring Garden Street, throughout the study area. But forevery block west in the area south of Spring Garden Street,the rental asking prices decreased by $34 per month ($408in yearly rent). For the area north and inclusive of SpringGarden, the rental asking prices decreased at a rate of only$8 per month ($96 in yearly rent) with each block west.As with other indicators, these findings support theidea that the housing market is strongest in the southeasternportion of our study area. The rental rates roughly reflectsales prices; however, the changes in sales prices persquare foot were not readily observable in the rental data.The regression results indicated that the gap between thesoutheastern and the southwestern rentals is closing, butthis difference is not statistically significant. Though thislack of significance could very well be the result of a processin progress, and thus be interpreted as an emerging trend.Rental Trends in the Study Area1994-2004Data Source: Historical rents survey done by studio
    • 43Tax Assessment AnalysisBy comparing Board of Revision of Taxes property taxrecords for April 1999 with those for January 2005 we wereable to determine the actual changes in assessed values andtax liability for all properties in the census tract equivalent“neighborhoods” of West Powelton (tracts 91, 92, and 106),Mantua (108 and 109) , Spruce Hill (87), and Powelton Village(90). For each neighborhood median household tax liabilityincreased between 12% and 81%. The absolute size of thetax increases varied with the initial property values, whichwere lowest in Mantua and West Powelton. An increase of $79in the yearly household tax bill in West Powelton representeda 26% jump, while $222 in Spruce Hill represented only a12% change. Although it is impossible to appreciate fullythe impact of such increases on households without knowingtheir current income and expenses,we can safely say that large relativeincreases in tax bills could rationallyexplain residents’ perceptions of rapidchange in the housing market andfears about affordability.Philadelphia practices fractional taxassessment, meaning that the BRT’srecorded assessed values are meant torepresent 70% of the true market valueof the home. Assessment accuracy canbe measured by calculating how farassessed values stray from 70% of thesales values. This statistic is call thecoefficient of dispersion (COD) and it isindependent of the actual value of theproperty, which allows properties tobe compared across type and market.The IAAO considers ≤15% COD tobe the acceptable range of error forolder residential urban areas likePhiladelphia. Properties with valuesoutside this range are either under- orover-assessed.Median Household TaxLiability Changes1999 - 2005Maximum Household TaxLiability Changes1999 - 2005Data Source: Philadelphia BRT Data Source: Philadelphia BRT
    • 44West Powelton has the most inaccurately assessed propertiesof any of our four neighborhoods, with half as manyaccurate assessments as the other three. The more affluentneighborhoods have a preponderance of underassessmentssuggesting that the market has outpaced Philadelphia’snotoriously out of date assessment system. Although, bylaw, all properties in the city are to be assessed every year,this has never occurred in the city’s history.While homes in the area were on average given a new marketvalue in the last 2 to 2 and a half years, full assessments whichare meant to include inspection of the property conditionsare on average an addition 6 months to 1 year out of date,while some properties have remained unassessed for over15 years. Infrequent assessments tend to overburden thepoor and benefit the rich as the city fails to capture its duetax revenues hot markets and must continue to demandexcessive taxes on depreciated properties in soft markets.In West Powelton and Spruce Hill homeowners and landlordsare capturing an unfairly high proportion of their home equity,simply by virtue of living in rising markets. When ownersof overassessed properties are also poor or cost burdenedthey may be particularly vulnerable to the large rise in taxesthat a reassessment would trigger. Such owners are primecandidates for existing city and state property tax reliefprograms for the elderly, disabled, and poor. Renters mayalso qualify if they can document the inclusion of taxes in theirrent. Underassessed properties also represent a potentialfor investors to capitalize on untapped value, providing anadditional inducement to gentrification pressure. Owners ofover-assessed properties have good cause to appeal theirtax assessments and reduce their housing cost burden.Maximum and Average Age of BRT Activityfor Homes with Arm’s Length SalesPercentage of Households withInaccurate Property AssessmentsData Source: Philadelphia BRTData Source: Philadelphia BRT
    • 45In West Powelton, roughly equal numbers of properties areunder- and over-assessed, but these numbers only tell partof the story. Properties in West Powelton and Mantua arenot only more likely to be mis-assessed and particularlyoverassessed; the errors are also likely to be far moreegregious than in Powelton Village and Spruce Hill. Theaverage assessment error (COD) in West Powelton is overtwice as large as that in the more affluent neighborhoodsand more than six and a half times the acceptable range oferror.To document the inequity of these skewed assessments,we can use another standard tax assessors’ statistic, pricerelated differential (PRD). PRD compares the average ratioof assessed to sales value with the weighted average ofthe same numbers. If the PRD is 1, then high value andlow value properties have the same degree of error oraccuracy in their assessments. IAAO considers s PRD above1.03 “regressive,” meaning that lower value residences arebeing taxed on a larger proportion of their value than aremore expensive homes. Residences in Philadelphia as awhole were (in 2003) 5.3 times as regressive as allowed byinternational standards. West Powelton, the most regressiveof the three neighborhoods was a full 50 times moreregressive than allowed by international standards. Theresult of this extremely regressive of tax structure is that atension between the more and less affluent members of thecommunity is built into the property tax assessment system.Residents with less housing equity carry an unfair share ofthe property tax burden for the entire neighborhood. Whilethis is true throughout Philadelphia, the disparity is at itsmost extreme in West Powelton.Average Magnitude ofAssessment ErrorDegree of Regressivity inProperty Tax AssessmentsData Source: Philadelphia BRTData Source: Philadelphia BRT
    • 46ConclusionAreas Least Adaptable to ChangeAbility of Block Groups to Adapt toNeighborhood ChangeFrom the indicators data collected for the block groupscovering West Powelton, we were able to determine theareas least adaptable to change. These were determinedby conducting a weighted average of indicators such ashousehold income and housing costs on a block group levelbasis. The label “least adaptable to change” means that theresidents in those block group areas are most vulnerable tobeing displaced if gentrification indicators such as housingprices and living expenses were to increase. In other words,the areas whose social demographics would be most affectedif gentrification were to occur.The areas deemed least adaptable change are not necessarilythe areas where gentrification is most likely to occur. Asthe map shows, areas most likely affected would be thearea to the north of Haverford Avenue between 41st and43rd Street, and the area immediatelyto the west and northwest of 39th andPowelton. Powelton Village, in theSoutheast, is very adaptable to change,which can be inferred due to the factthe area has already experiencedreinvestment in the community andthe coming of new residents. Withthe data provided, community groupscan understand where best to focusequitable development efforts devoid ofconsideration of where and when it willoccur. To optimize community effortsto bring about equitable developmentand put this information to betteruse, an understanding of which areasare showing indications of potentialgentrification should be established.Data Source: Analysis done from combination of U.S. Census2000, Philadelphia BRT
    • 47Block Groups Showing Indications of GentrificationAreas Showing Indications of Potential GentrficationFrom the indicators, collected of both block groups insideand outside of our area, and consideration of the naturalspread of housing forces, we were able to determine theareas showing indications of potential gentrification. A blockarea exhibiting indications of potential gentrification meansthat it will most likely see changes such as cost of housingincreases, property tax increases, and private reinvestmentin the community, as well as new residents entering theneighborhood. While not reflecting adaptability to change,it is the residents in these areas thatwill be the first ones to be affected bygentrifying forces if and when they dooccur.The areas exhibiting the strongestindications of potential gentrificationare those to the north of Market Streetand Spruce Hill and the areas to thenorth of Powelton Avenue and PoweltonVillage. Gentrification is not arbitrary, which means that ittakes place in certain locations and not others for specificreasons. Gentrifying pressures will move in a radial fashionfrom areas already experiencing them, rather than happeningin non-contiguous blocks. With this understanding and theinformation provided, community groups can understandwhere to address the issue of equitable development withoutparticular attention to how well suited current residents areto adapting to them.Data Source: Analysis done from combination of U.S. Census2000, Philadelphia BRT
    • 48Based on the evidence presented above we do not seeevidence of displacement. Reinvestment has not yet clearlytransformed the neighborhood for the better or for theworse, but West Powelton is bordered to the south and eastby neighborhoods that have clearly experienced substantialreinvestment, rising property values and demographic shifts.Substantial numbers of vacant buildings and vacant landleave the study area vulnerable to large scale redevelopmentinterspersed with ample opportunities for scattered owner-developer rehabilitation. These physical opportunitiescombined with the locational advantage enjoyed by all ofWest Philadelphia appear to make eventual gentrificationextremely likely— if neighborhood stakeholders do notplan for equitable development. We cannot say how muchinvestment the neighborhood will absorb before existingresidents experience the change negatively. But, we cansay that without opportunities to plan for and learn aboutthe coming changes and to influence their direction, fewresidents are likely to reap the benefits of reinvestment orrealize the dream of a vibrant and healthy neighborhoodwhere newcomers and natives both maintain a stake.At the outset of this report we defined gentrification,essentially, as outside reinvestment that produces socio-economic and cultural change that tends to privilege theneeds and wishes of higher income residents. Such changemay or may not produce clear patterns of displacement.What it does produce is rapid change which prior residents didnot initiate and over which they may feel little control. Froman economic perspective, gentrification in West Poweltonis difficult to document. Taxes have risen precipitously, inrelative terms. The east-west rent disparity has begun todecrease. The percent of elderly poor has begun to increase.Rates of violent crime, narcotics crime, and prostitutionhave declined encouragingly, but remain above those ofsurrounding neighborhoods. By 2000 West Powelton hadfewer housing units than in the 1970s, and new constructionwas falling far behind the rates of loss. Vulnerabilities toeconomic hardship and loss of equity have multiplied whilethe attractiveness of some portions of our study area fordevelopment continues to grow.Our challenge moving forward is to assess the mix of existinghousing (by tenure type and price) and to see what wouldbe needed to match this supply with the residents’ needs.Likewise, we will need to evaluate programmatic optionsthat will allow existing residents to expand their stake andcontrol of their neighborhood’s future without forestallingneeded reinvestment and revitalization. Middle to upper-middle income households and university students willinevitably look to the neighborhood as an opportunity to takeadvantage of its locational attributes, amenities, and relativehousing bargains. Existing residents can share the benefitsaccruing from reinvestment and interest in the community,but effort is required to ensure that outcome.Assessing the Evidence
    • Section IIRoad Map to Equitable Development
    • 50GoalsThe goal of this report is to provide recommendations toassist community organizations in bringing about equitabledevelopment for the future of the neighborhoods comprisingthe planning area. These objectives have been dividedinto two prongs: first, community capacity building andsecond, physical asset control and development. Thecommunity prong’s objectives (discussed in finer detailbelow), are to bring community members and groupstogether to work cohesively towards the goal of bringingequitable development to the community. The physicalprong’s objectives are to provide development and designstandards, and provide recommendations to facilitate newdevelopment while increasing equity for, and investment by,existing neighborhood residents.With the information gathered from the first section ofthis report, examining Neighborhood Indicators, our groupestablished the objectives and recommendations for thecommunity and physical prongs. By defining equitabledevelopment and gentrification, talking and listening tocommunity members, highlighting assets and opportunities,and studying the socio-economic and physical componentsin the planning area, we determined what we believe to be“a road map to equitable development.”The roadmap for equitable development first clarifies rolesand relationships of stakeholders and second, identifiesopportunities for investment and design. We recommendthat the community, having identified its quality of lifeneeds, now work to strengthen common interests and buildpartnerships, increasing capacity through collaboration.On the bricks and mortar side we identify market rate andaffordable housing needs, design a model mixed-incomedevelopment, and propose relevant policies that help tobring greater equity to the development process. Together,the Road Map for Equitable Development attempts thedifficult but crucial process of joining the ongoing work oftrue community development with physical improvement.The ultimate goal is lasting community empowerment thatmaximizes the benefits of neighborhood change.
    • 51Equitable Development DiagramPrevailingThemesRecommendationsResultsCOMMUNITY:Clarify roles &relationships ofstakeholdersPHYSICAL:Identifyopportunities forinvestment & design1. Identify quality of life needs2. Strengthen common interests & build part-nerships3. Increase capacity through collaboration1. Identify future market rate & affordablehousing needs2. Design model mixed income development3. Propose relevant policiesCommunityempowermentMaximizebenefits of change
    • 53CommunityPart of the equitable development agenda is making surethat community members have an opportunity to voice theirneeds and concerns regarding the quality of life and thephysical development of their neighborhood. For the recentlypublished West Powelton/Saunders Park Neighborhood Plan,PECCDC included several community organizations and otherstakeholders in the area as part of the plan’s communityvisioning process. This process was a two-year effort, andthe community groups invited to the meetings for this studiowere the same groups who had participated in PECCDC’searlier planning efforts. A few additional community groupsfrom Mantua who were not part of the initial process wereinvited to participate in the community meetings for thisstudio since the site of the six affordable housing units forthe COPC architecture studio will be built in Mantua.Two community stakeholders’ meetings, held on February 7,2005 and April 6, 2005, as well as a few additional meetingswith individual community stakeholder groups, werearranged by PECCDC for this studio. The participants includedrepresentatives from community groups including the HUBCoalition, Mantua Community Planners, Mantua CommunityImprovement Committee, 39th and Aspen Street CommunityOrganization, West Powelton Concerned Community Council,Powelton Village Civic Association, institutional stakeholdersincluding Drexel University, University of Pennsylvania, andPresbyterian Hospital, the special services district UniversityCity District, representation from the Office of CouncilwomanJannie Blackwell, and a few other community activists.In these meetings, the participants were informed of theplanning efforts of this studio and were asked questionsabout things such as the positive qualities of the communityand the needs of the community. This input was used toformulate a list of the community’s assets as well as a list ofits quality of life needs.Many of the assets mentioned had to do with the peoplewho make up the community. This community has a strongsense of identity and history. There is strong leadershipamong community members, including both male andfemale leaders. The community has a legacy of families, asmany community members and their families have lived inand participated in the community for several generations.Also, the community has many dedicated community-basedorganizations.The location of the community and its development potentialwere other assets that the participating stakeholdersidentified. This community is very close to Fairmount Parkand other amenities, and is only minutes away from CenterCity. The community places a high value in the land not onlyin terms of its convenient location but also in terms of itshistoric value. Finally, the large number of vacancies in thearea can be thought of as an asset as they may allow fordevelopment without resulting in displacement.For summaries of the individual community stakeholderinterviews, please see Appendix A. A sample questionnairewith the questions asked in most of these interviews is inAppendix B.Community EngagementSecond CommunityMeeting April 6, 2005
    • 54There are several roles that stakeholders can play inpromoting equitable development, but these roles vary withsize and capacity. We have identified four categories, anda few possible institutions or organizations that might fulfilleach role:-Anchors: University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University,Presbyterian Hospital-Large: People’s Emergency Center (PECCDC), UniversityCity District (UCD)-Small: HUB Coalition, Lancaster Avenue Business Association(LABA), Greater Belmont Community DevelopmentCorporation-Individuals: Community Leaders and Role ModelsMajor institutions and employers such as the University ofPennsylvania and Drexel University can serve as anchorsfor the community. Anchors can legitimate and determinethe ultimate success of long term ventures. Because of theirsize and capacity, they can contribute in-kind resources,but rarely innovate. The functions associated with anchorsare: sponsoring various community groups, attractinginvestment, providing seed funding, and publicizing throughtheir network. Since these institutions are some of thelargest employers in West Philadelphia, they can provideRolesThe Presbyterian Medical Center is one of the largestemployers in our study area. Presbyterian and otheranchor institutions with high capacity are integral to ourplan for equitable developmentemployment for, and donate labor and expertise to, the WestPowelton/Mantua community. The universities, in particular,can also mobilize their students to increase volunteerism inthe community.Large (non-anchor) organizations such as People’sEmergency Center and University City District have thedemonstrated capacity to be lead managers on development
    • 55projects and to mentor smaller groups. These organizationsdiffer from anchors in their flexibility to innovate variousinitiatives. One of the most important functions of largeorganizations is training smaller groups, particularly through“professional internships.” For example, PECCDC has beenworking with representatives from the HUB Coalition tohelp the organization become a certified housing counselinginstitution. Sharing information and resources is essential toour plan for equitable development.Small groups can be the idiosyncratic voice of their localneighborhoods and constituencies. These organizations canfocus on small-scale development to gradually build capacity,or on single issues to maximize their impact. Because theyare the most immediate point of contact for residents andother individual stakeholders, small groups are uniquelyequipped to articulate concerns that would otherwise beunspoken.Individual stakeholders, at all levels, are the key to anequitable development strategy, because only they can serveas leaders and make a project work. Some of the functionsof individual stakeholders include: civic activism, organizinghome maintenance, and linking community groups. Engagedindividuals, typically well-respected community leaders,serve as bridges between organizations and constituencies.Unaffiliated individuals are the volunteers, employees,and engaged citizens whose hard work and energy makeneighborhood improvement a reality.Recommendations/Strategies1. Identify quality of life needsThere were several quality of life needs identified duringthe community stakeholders’ meetings, including: moreand better employment opportunities, medical serviceswithin closer proximity, additional “Clean & Safe” services,improved recreational activities and youth programs, asupermarket, education and awareness, incentives forhomeownership, increased investment in human capital,and more support for existing community leaders. Perhapsthe most significant quality of life need identified was theneed to improve communication within and among thecommunity, the institutional stakeholders, developers,and others in the area. Within the planning area there areseveral organizations working on a particular sub-area orparticular concern. Communication and collaboration effortscan go beyond these sub-areas, neighborhood boundaries,and special interests in pursuit of positive change. Penn andDrexel, as well as their students, and the community canimprove their working relationship with each other.Individual stakeholders from Mantua, West Powelton, andPowelton Village exchange ideas at our second communityengagement meeting.
    • 562. Strengthen common interests & build partnershipsOne of the strongest assets of the West Powelton and Mantuaneighborhoods is their numerous community organizations.Within the 19104 zip code alone, there are approximately300 social service and community non-profits. Within theboundaries of our planning area, which measures only.46 mi2, there are 54 non-profit organizations. Over 100additional organizations fall in the general West Powelton andMantua area, ranging from civic organizations to religiousinstitutions:-8 development related-8 business development-11 neighborhood /civic organizations-50 churchesThe map on the next page shows where these differentorganizations are located.While these numerous organizations all have a role to playin the plan for equitable development, they must identifyareas of common interest and build partnerships in orderto be effective. Several organizations are already linked byshared board members and staff, suggesting that they haveexisting partnerships. These links are shown with coloredlines on the map the right.These links provide the smaller organizations the opportunityto leverage social capital for knowledge sharing, bestpractices replication, and access to funding. However,the area of interest for UCD, and particularly the area ofimpact for the Penn Mortgage Program, encompasses manymore organizations not included in the existing network.Organizational linkages need to be extended to northward inorder to capitalize on nearby resources.3. Increase capacityA. CollaborationOur plan for equitable development focuses on organizationsand social capital. In an area with high poverty, a history ofdisinvestment, and low property values, value lies primarilyin social capital, the time and dedication of residents, thelocational value of the area, and the availability of land.While individual residents may have little wealth, theirpolitical and financial capital can be significant if they pooltheir resources.Sustainable equitable development requires a specificstructure to maintain it over the long term. Becausecommunity wealth is currently dispersed in and aroundour study area, we recommend that stakeholders increasetheir capacity through collaboration. One strategy forcollaboration is the creation of an umbrella organization inthe West Powelton and Mantua neighborhoods, which wouldhave two major functions:1) Political Representationa. facilitating political navigation, representing commoninterestsb. reactivating or combining existing organizations2) Practical Organizationa. pooling resources, sharing knowledge, increasingcapacityb. bringing all levels of stakeholders to the tableRather than attracting political attention to fragmentedcommunity concerns, a structured umbrella organizationwould help stakeholders to collectively identify sharedinterests and common needs. As will be discussed extensivelyin the physical section of our plan, there must be a well-organized entity to lead and manage our proposed mixedincome development. This umbrella organization could alsomanage our proposed Community Land Trust.
    • 57Map of connections among nearby organizations
    • 58In addition to large scale development projects, the umbrellaorganization could implement small innovative programs,such as a task force to educate homeowners about buildingcodes, a youth advisory board to ensure that neighborhoodyouth have a voice, and a community welcoming committeethat provides new neighbors with information about thearea.B. Education and trainingCommunity entrepreneurs and non profit organizationscan increase their capacity by taking advantage of existingeducational and training opportunities. Penn operates anumber of extensive programs to help entrepreneurs andnonprofits. Currently the University tends to focus itsprogram and policy efforts to the West rather than North ofcampus. West Powelton and Mantua residents can encouragePenn to have a vested interest in their communities bytaking advantage of the university’s education and trainingresources.The Wharton Small Business Development CenterThe Wharton Small Business Development Center (WSBDC),a division of the Sol C. Snider Entrepreneurial ResearchCenter of Wharton Entrepreneurial Programs, is one of 16SBDC’s in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The SBDCprovides free consulting services and educational programsfor a small fee to entrepreneurs looking to start or growa small business (under $10 million in revenue) in theGreater Philadelphia Region. The SBDC does not charge afee for their services but ask that the entrepreneur activelyparticipate in the consulting process, in order to be betterequipped to manage their business.The Center’s business consultants are prepared to helpnearly any type of small company or would-be entrepreneurwith their business challenges and opportunities from high-tech and manufacturing to retail and service companies.Common requests for assistance include:• Reviewing and critiquing business plans• Assisting in the development of marketing plans• Loan proposals• Financial projections• Identifying sources of financing• Developing new markets• Managing cash flowWharton Community ConsultantsWharton Community Consultants (WCC) provides hands-on consulting and advisory services to successful nonprofitorganizations throughout Philadelphia. The WCC’s highvalue-added services include business/strategic planning,marketing and PR, financial analysis and project managementassistance. WCC’s mission has been to make measurableimpact on the success of promising nonprofits, sustainrelationships between Wharton and the nonprofit community,and to provide career and community service experience tovolunteer consultants. WCC has served as an importantvehicle for demonstrating the Wharton School’s long-termcommitment to the Philadelphia community.Penn Law’s Public Service ProgramPenn Law’s Public Service Program sets – and continuesto set – the standard for pro bono service. This PublicService Program is a multi-faceted, co-curricular programwhose primary objective is to place Penn Law students andgraduates with pro bono lawyers, while simultaneously beingable to contribute to the public interest legal community.Students can help clients in bankruptcy proceedings, civilrights and constitutional law issues, environmental justice,family law, governmental practice, health law, immigration,international human rights law, labor law, women’s issuesand youth law – to name just a few.C. Cleanliness and SafetyDuring our community engagement meetings, we discoveredthat cleanliness and safety are two of the biggest concernsto West Powelton and Mantua stakeholders. Our plan for
    • 59equitable development calls for increasing the capacity of“clean and safe” services, while identifying opportunitiesfor new initiatives. The Mantua Community ImprovementCommittee (MCIC) created the Mantua Neighborhood SpecialService District (NSSD) in January 2002 to attract investorsand homebuyers to the neighborhood. MCIC employs youngmen from the community to clean the streets, provideleadership, and add security between 31st St. to the east,40th St. to the west, Spring Garden St. to the north, andMantua Ave. to the south. MCIC has a budget of $1 millionto fund wages, equipment, and materials for one year. MCICmust identify potential partners and sponsors to ensurethe sustainability of the NSSD. (Rick Young. Founder &President, MCIC. “Mantua Community Revitalization Project”.Correspondence to Drexel University, City and CommunityAffairs. October 12, 2004)UCD already maintains $62,000 in sub-contracts with MCIC,which funds the employment of 9 part-time persons inMantua. (Lewis C. Wendell. Executive Director, UCD. Emailcorrespondence. April 14, 2005)We recommend enhancing the existing partnership betweenUCD and MCIC, and increasing the percentage of UCDemployees from Mantua and West Powelton. In order tosimultaneously address concerns about cleanliness, safety,and employment, UCD has suggested creating a partnershipwith PECCDC to develop a service operation internshipprogram. (Lewis C. Wendell. Executive Director, UCD. Emailcorrespondence. April 14, 2005) This program would placeMantua and West Powelton residents in the pipeline for jobs.PECCDC and UCD should strongly pursue the creation of thisinternship program.The painting shows the Spread Eagle Tavern, which provided foodand lodging for pike travelers. The painting depicts the tavernas it appeared in 1795, 14 miles from Philadelphia. By 1797, theturnpike made it possible to travel from Philadelphia to Lancaster,Pennsylvania in only 12 hours.Source: US Dept. of TransportationSource: UCD website http://www.ucityphila.orgThe University City Districtalso offers “clean & safe”services, but on a muchlarger scale than MCIC. Itsbudget of $5.7 million reflectsvoluntary contributions froma variety of institutions,hospitals, businesses, andlocal residents. (UniversityCity District. “University CityReport Card 2005”) Althoughthe UCD boundaries do notencompass Mantua, at least6.5% of UCD employeesare from the Mantua/WestPowelton area. In addition,
    • 60D. Historic CapitalOur planning area has a very strong history that predatesthe founding of the city of Philadelphia, but its historic capitalhas been severely undervalued. One strategy for increasingthe capacity of our planning area is a Heritage TourismInitiative, which would educate residents about, and attractvisitors to, the community.The focus of the proposed Heritage Tourism Initiative would beLancaster Avenue (formerly Lancaster Pike). Between 1690and 1795, Lancaster Pike was constructed as the country’sfirst toll road. (Lawrence J. Biond. “West Philadelphia andAvenue Business Association (LABA), establish a centralizedLancaster Avenue Information Center which would provideinformation about the history of the corridor. The InformationCenter could simply be a small kiosk located near 40th St.and Lancaster Ave., one of the busiest corners in the area.LABA, PECCDC, and UCD have already published informativepackets about the history of Lancaster Avenue. Throughfurther collaboration, they could produce another publicationwith a “Lancaster Pike Wagon Trail” theme, which woulddirect people to businesses and important landmarks onthe corridor. Businesses along Lancaster Ave. could givecontributions for the publications and the staffing of thekiosk. The Lancaster Pike Wagon Trail theme should also bereinforced through public art, paving, and lighting.The Heritage Tourism Initiative would also extend to otherThe Lancaster Avenue of today is a major commercial corridor.Powelton Historic District Development Timeline.” PoweltonVillage Civic Association. September 1996).We recommend that an organization, such as the Lancasterparts of our planning area. LABA and PECCDC should considercollaborating to organize a Youth Tourism Ambassadorprogram during the summer months. These ambassadorscould be high school students who volunteer (or obtain school
    • 61credit) to distribute informational flyers about West Poweltonand Mantua in areas of high activity. We also propose a “DownMemory Lane” project, which could be spearheaded by oneof the smaller organizations, or even individual leaders, suchas Mother Jenkins. The project would bring together theyouth and the elderly to commemorate and celebrate thehistory of the community. Through this project, teenagersand young adults (volunteers, or for academic credit)would interview elderly residents and compile their stories,pictures, and memories for a publication or video historyabout the neighborhood. The final product could be used aspromotional material to highlight the positive aspects of thecommunity and stimulate physical investment.The Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporationoperates the Neighborhood Tourism Network (NTN), whichhighlights the history, culture, and vibrancy of Philadelphia’sneighborhoods. (Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing.Neighborhood Tourism Network. “Philadelphia NeighborhoodTours”. Spring & Fall 2005). NTN is a coalition of organizationswhich promote economic development of their communitiesthrough cultural and heritage tourism. NTN operates Saturdaymorning tours that depart from the Independence VisitorCenter at 6th and Market Streets. Some of the participatingNTN organizations include:University City DistrictThe Enterprise CenterInstitute for Contemporary ArtPennsylvania Horticultural SocietyMural Arts ProgramPECCDC and smaller community groups should seekmembership in this network, as well as dates on the tourschedule. Visitors could be taken to some of the majorhistorical and contemporary points of interest throughoutWest Powelton and Mantua. This would also provide anopportunity to showcase the products of the “Down MemoryLane” project.Philadelphia’s Mother Bethel AME Church was a stopalong in the Underground Railroad. As part of NTN’sneighborhood tours, visitors can experience first personaccounts of the moral and spiritual battles waged in thename of freedom. Similar historical sites and narrativesshould be highlighted in Mantua and West Powelton.Source: http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_bethel.htm
    • 62PhysicalWhile a community plan can go a long way in improving thequality of life for residents in West Powelton, it is necessarythat it be accompanied by a physical plan. Our physical plancapitalizes on recent public investments in the neighborhood,such as the construction of the Lucien E. Blackwell HOPE VIHomes and the infrastructure that was built to support it.The physical plan also helps to enhance the identity of acommunity by building upon its existing assets. To enableequitable development, existing residents must voice theirconcerns during the design and development process so thattheir neighborhood will provide a mix of building typologies,densities, uses, and prices. The overall goal is to haveexisting residents benefit from new investment withoutbeing displaced.There are a number of dynamics serving as the foundationand underlying rationale for the physical component of theplan. Our mid-term analysis revealed the following forcesat work:1) Rising sales prices across the majority of the planningarea.- Evidence of spillover from Spruce Hill.- Sales prices are still below the replacement rate.2) An elevated rental rate increase, particularly in the south-west section of the planning area.3) Low median household income levels compared toPhiladelphia as a whole.4) Concentrations and potential assemblages of vacant lots.5) Affordable housing investment focused primarily in thenorth-east section of the planning area and ringing the studyarea.Subsequent to the mid-term report, a number of rationalesguided the idea for the mixed-income development siteprogramming and equity model proposed below. UsingAmerican Housing Survey data and U.S. decennial Censusdata, we identified an existing need for further affordablehousing investment. Additionally, literature reviewsindicated that mixed income developments are the mostdesirable form of providing affordable housing units (Case& Katz, 1991; Borjas, 1995; Wilson, 1996; HUD 2003).Examinations of landownership patterns and zoning codesfurther informed the process. Finally, through meetings withcommunity members and organizations, we identified thatresidents exhibit a strong tendency towards civic activity,organization, and action.In order to provide a concrete example of the proper wayto develop land in West Powelton, we have developed amodel mixed-income community, targeting the northwestcorner as the most appropriate place to address issues ofequitable development. The area is roughly bounded byHaverford Avenue to the south, 42nd Street to the east,Lancaster Avenue to the north and 44th Street to the west.We chose this area, shown on the next page, due to itslarge amount of vacant land, high number of publicly ownedparcels, proximity to recent public investment, and the highvulnerability of existing residents to neighborhood change.These attributes can be seen in the neighborhood indicatorssection of the report.DesignPlacing a strong emphasis on the design of new improvementsto the West Powelton neighborhood is essential for anequitable development strategy. Good design will help newdevelopment fit in seamlessly with the existing urban fabricto create a cohesive neighborhood unit. This is particularlyimportant in West Powelton where a combination of conflictingbuilding typologies and swaths of vacant land have created alandscape that lacks a distinct identity and is far from cohesive.Moreover, properly integrating new development into theexisting fabric reduces the perception of socio-economicsegregation, thereby creating an integrated community inwhich one will not be able to say “the rich live here and thepoor live over there.” Development that incorporates gooddesign can also provide aesthetic amenities that can enhance
    • 63ProposedDevelopmentArea
    • 64“pride of place” for existing residents.The following design guidelines ensurethat new development contributes to theoverall goal of equitable development.New development should:1. blend in with and repair theexisting urban fabric.2. bridge the gap between conflictingtypologies in the neighborhood.3. provide a mix of uses and buildingtypes for a mix of residents.4. not lead to the concentration orsegregation of households in the sameincome bracket.5. meet the contemporary needs ofnew and existing residents.6. have design and developmentprocess that includes the existingcommunity or their representatives.7. preserve as much of the existingbuildings as possible so as to preventdisplacement.Design ConcernsBefore designing a mixed incomecommunity, there are many locationalconcerns that need to be taken intoconsideration.1. Typology Transition Zone:Currently a void exists on 44th Streetseparating two areas of conflictingbuilding typologies: the new 2-storyLucien E. Blackwell homes on one sideand older rowhomes on the other. Thisarea needs extra attention in terms of thebuilding types and massing to be locatedDesign Concerns
    • 65Site Plan
    • 66here so as to create a natural transition.2. Center of Activity: At the intersection of 43rd andFairmount a center of activity surrounds the Bottom ofthe Sea restaurant. An appropriate combination of usesand densities at this intersection can help to reinforce thiscenter.3. Linkage to Lancaster Ave.: This area is currentlydisconnected from Lancaster Ave. By siting mixed uses and apossible West Powelton Performing Arts Center on LancasterAve and Brooklyn St., the neighborhood will be betterintegrated with the major commercial corridor. Furthermore,such development will help create a northern anchor for theLancaster Ave. commercial corridor that exists between 39thSt. and 42nd St.4. Transit Corridors: 2 bus routes and 1 trolley linerun through the neighborhood. Higher density and activityshould be focused on these corridors.5. Mill Creek: This creek-turned-sewer lies 2 blocksfrom the western extent of the development area. In thepast it has created problems associated with flooding andbuilding subsidence. Construction and water managementtechniques need to address these potential problems.Existing TypologiesThe development area has a wide array of existing buildingtypes ranging from older 2 and 3 story rowhouses andduplexes, large detached homes, HOPE VI-style rows andduplexes, senior housing complexes, and barrack-stylepublic housing. Because of the large tracts of vacant landin the area, potential developers need to find the right mixof typologies and densities so that conflicting typologies canbe bridged.Parcel AcquisitionWe have identified 263 lots for acquisition in the modeldevelopment area. 205 of these parcels, or approx. 11acres, are vacant land. 43 of these lots are occupied byvacant buildings. 10 of these lots are occupied by inhabitedbuildings. These buildings are in very poor condition, areAcquisition - Owners
    • 67unfit for habitation or rehabilitation, and should thus bedemolished. The residents residing here will be given thefirst option on new homes in the development area. Finally,5 of the lots are sideyards of adjacent lots.OwnershipPublic PrivateInstitutional*33% 61% 6%*To be developed in conjunction with their owners intospecial needs housingThe ProgramThe model development has a mix of building types thatrange from 2 and 3 story homes; and 4 and 5 story apartmentbuildings, mixed use buildings, and live-work units. Thesebuildings will be arranged as duplexes, triplexes, and rows,organize so that the new buildings complement the old ones.Structures of differing sizes will be interspersed in order toprevent the concentration of subsidized or non-subsidizedunits.The development has a mix of residential, commercial,institutional, and recreational buildings. There will be 156market rate (non-subsidized) units that vary in size to meetthe needs of households of a variety of incomes. 117 ofthese units will be for sale and 58 will be for rent. There willalso be 163 affordable (subsidized) units, all of which will befor rent.In all there will be 175 newly constructed buildings and 19rehabilitated structures. The two-story buildings will includetwo or three bedrooms and will be single-family units. Thethree-story buildings will either be single family units withfour bedrooms or two family units, one with one bedroomand the other with three bedrooms. Parking for the units willbe provided through secured private driveways and garagesaccessed through rear alleys. There will also be six four-Acquisition - Land Use
    • 68Existing TypologiesApartment buildingBarrack-styleThree-story rowhomesHope VI Housing
    • 69Proposed TypologiesRowhomesTwo-story buildings next to threee-story buildingsUnique rowhomes
    • 70and five-story apartment buildings, some of which will haveground level commercial uses. All of these buildings willinclude a mix of subsidized and non-subsidized units.In addition to extensive street tree planting, the newdevelopment will include a park. This park will be modeledafter Clark Park, Malcolm X Park, and the 39th and AspenPlayground in West Philadelphia; and Girard Park in SouthPhiladelphia. We chose these parks as models because theareas that surround them have densities and uses similar tothat of the proposed development area. These parks alsohave “Friends of” associations that organize volunteer clean-up events, which can be mimicked in the model development.Programs through the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society canalso be utilized to ensure the cleanliness and maintenance ofpublic open space.Irregularly large blocks in the model development area alsoprovide the opportunity to devote interior block space tobioswales. Not only will this help to filter impurities outof rainwater, but it will also help to reduce the amount ofrunoff into the Mill Creek sewer. This will mitigate problemsassociated with overcapacity and building subsidence.PhasingWe devised phases for the model development toaccommodate market constraints. In determining thephasing we made the assumption that the provision ofpublic amenities should occur in the first phase. Locationalso plays an important role, as we want the first phase tobe adjacent to and contiguous with areas of recent of publicinvestment.The first phase of development will be adjacent to the LucienE. Blackwell homes and the St. Ignatius senior housing. Itwill consist of 42 subsidized and 44 non-subsidized units.During this phase amenities such as the park will beconstructed as well.The second phase of development will consist of 48 non-subsidized and 57 subsidized units and will be located directlyto the east of Phase I.The third phase of development will include the mixed-usebuildings on Lancaster Ave. and the West Powelton PerformingArts Center on Brooklyn St. At this time, the previous tworesidential phases will be able to support additional uses.Phase III will help to link the new neighborhood to theLancaster Avenue commercial corridor. It will also help tocreate a new anchor between 42nd and 43rd Streets andexpand the existing commercial corridor to the northwest.The residential component will include 25 non-subsidizedand 15 subsidized units.Clark Park
    • 71Phasing
    • 72The remaining units will be developed as needed inconjunction with local institutions, community groups, anddevelopers.Execution StrategyThe model mixed-income development could easily runthe risk of succumbing to gentrification forces if the areabecomes much more desirable and current residents arepriced out of their homes. Our research found that adevelopment strategy that utilizes Community Land Trustand Lease-Purchase options will allow the subsidized unitsto remain affordable while at the same time building equityin the area. Descriptions of both programs and how they tieinto the community prong of our plan, are detailed below.Community Land TrustWhat is a CLT?A Community Land Trust (CLT) is an organization created tohold land in perpetuity for the benefit of the community ina locally run non-profit. Members include residents livingon the CLT’s land as well as community members at large,governed by a board that is elected by the members. Thereare often different levels of membership as well as someminimum qualifications such as a minimum age and thecompletion of an orientation program. In order to ensurethat that CLT does not move too far in the direction of eithercommunity or individual interests, board members are drawnfrom different constituencies. Members of a CLT in ourstudy area could include residents as well as representativesfrom funding sources, professionals with particular skills, andpotentially a person appointed by the local government.In a CLT, real property ownership is split between title toland and title to housing. The CLT owns the land, and leasesit to the homeowners—who have ownership of all buildingsand improvements. There are approximately 160 CLTSoperating throughout the country.The main provision of the ground lease is that it allows homesto be resold only according to a “limited equity formula.”This formula varies, but typically allows for sale price basedon initial capital outlays, plus any improvements made byowner, plus amortization of mortgage principle, which are allthen typically adjusted for general price inflation. No sellerwill benefit from an unearned increase in market value andthe homes will remain affordable in perpetuity. The groundlease also usually has provisions to ensure that housing issold to lower income occupants. Lenders can declare defaultunder terms of the ground lease, however most CLTs usepreemptive measures by requiring “right of first refusal”when properties are sold.Why is a CLT particularly suited for this community?-Area has large amounts of vacant land (708 buildablelots)-Many vacant lots are owned by City of Philadelphia andRDA—ready for disposition and may be obtained belowmarket value-Area adjacent to stronger markets, yet there is still theopportunity to be proactive and purchase the land nowbefore gentrification takes hold and land prices rise-Existing strong leadership with proven development capacity(PECCDC)-A large number of smaller organizations can buildconstituency and be a source of leadershipThe community will benefit from CLT because it can revitalizethe neighborhood without making it unaffordable. Itprovides long term affordability: an individual who originallyowns the property may not receive a windfall when theysell the property, but the next owner will only pay a smallincrease in price. This helps to promote homeownershipamong individuals who might not otherwise be able to afforda home, which then increases resident equity and helps tokeep money from flowing out of the community to absenteelandlords. The CLT allows the community to take control
    • 73of their land and allocate how it will be used—to developcommunity facilities, preserve open spaces, or promoteeconomic opportunities. It should also provide pre- andpost purchase counseling, helping buyers not only to get amortgage, but also making sure that they can keep up thepayments and maintain their homes.FundingSources of funding for A CLT fall into four different categories:grants, loans, venture capital, and internal revenue. CLTshave been successful in securing grants from foundations,churches, government agencies and individuals.A major source of funding for many CLTs are HUD’s HOMEprogram and Community Development Block Grants.* Inorder to be eligible for HOME funds a CLT must become aCommunity Housing and Development Organization (CHDO).To be a certified CHDO there are a number of legal andorganizational characteristics that a CLT must meet includinghaving a certain level of experience and capacity. (http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/training/chdo/characteristics/index.cfm)Community Land Trust properties are also eligible for FannieMae’s Community Lending mortgages.The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992,explicitly states that CLTs are eligible for assistance throughthe HOME Program. State College Community Land Trust(State College, Pennsylvania) received over $200,000 inHOME funds in 2004.Permanent affordability has been an advantage in competingfor Federal Home Loan Bank funds, Community DevelopmentBlock Grant (CDBG), and federal HOME funds. The Institute forCommunity Economics (ICE) has received several contractswith HUD to provide technical assistance to groups trying tostart CLTs. (www.iceclt.org) ICE also has a revolving loanfund specifically for CLTs.Since 1992 Pennsylvania has received an average of $17.6MMand the Philadelphia an average of $10.6MM per year. 15%of HOME funds are required to be given to CHDOs. Thestate or the local Participating Jurisdiction (PJ) that awardsthe money incurs a 25% matching obligation. Philadelphiahas only dispersed 78% of its funds since 1992 and ranks17th out of 27 PJs in Pennsylvania. 43% of HOME fundingfor Philadelphia has been spent on Tenant Based RentalAssistance which does not provide a long range solution tothe affordable housing problem. Philadelphia can do a betterjob allocating this money.Rochester, Minnesota—Employer Assisted CLT HousingThe First Homes CLT was initiated with financial supportof the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic’s efforts grew out of aconcern that their employees could not continue to securehousing in Rochester’s tight housing market. Mayo decidedthat the CLT model provided the most effective means ofaccomplishing its objectives and of protecting its $7 milliondollar investment.Durham—University Assisted CLT Housing“Durham Community Land Trustees was organized in1987 by residents of Durham’s West End neighborhood, apredominantly African American, low-income communityadjacent to the campus of Duke University. As developmenthas accelerated in recent years, financing has come froma growing number of sources, including the Federal HomeLoan Bank, municipal bonds, and Duke University. Projectsubsidies and operating support have come from the Cityand the North Carolina Community Development Initiative.By focusing its housing rehabilitation efforts on specificblocks, DCLT has had a significant impact on conditions inthe neighborhood, helping to raise community morale andbecoming an important vehicle for community organizing andadvocacy efforts. Through its lease-purchase program, DCLTmakes homeownership possible for families who could nototherwise own homes - and keeps those homes affordable
    • 74for future families.” (http://www.iceclt.org/clt/cltprofiles.html)The CLT model is flexible.The CLT model allows for the development of single-family homes, condominiums, as well as for buildings withcommercial or community economic development uses.CLTs can provide rental housing as well as lease thereland to cooperatives, or mutual and co-housing projects.A number of CLTs including the Durham Community LandTrustees provide a lease to purchase option, which we alsoadvocate.Lease PurchaseOur second recommendation in equitable development is theadoption of a lease-purchase program in the planning area.This program can be implemented with the community landtrust program or incorporated separately with traditionalnon-profit and affordable housing developments. Lease-purchase has been a proven success in some communitiesfor increasing low-income household homeownership andimproving equity and investment in the community. TheCleveland Housing Network, an umbrella organization ofnon-profit housing groups in Cleveland, Ohio has developedover 2,000 units with such a program.What is a lease-purchase?As the name implies it is a rent-to-own structured programwhere the tenant has the opportunity to obtain ownershipafter fifteen (15) years of leasing. The 15-year lease periodis based on federal guidelines for the minimum number ofyears an affordable housing-unit must be designated rentalin order to receive low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs),a method of financing to be discussed in greater detail. Itis important to note that lease-purchases can be for shorterperiods, but would require more grants funds which arelimited in availability thus not part of our recommendation.The primary reason for organization to follow the lease-purchase strategy for homeownership is that it providesgreater opportunity for low-income households to becomehome owners. Purchase prices under lease-purchaseprograms are significantly lower than if the households wereto purchase a housing-unit on the open market, and in mostcases conventional subsidized for-sale housing. Particular tohouseholds targeted for subsidized housing rentals, familiesand persons with poor credit have the opportunity to enrollin the home-purchase program who would not otherwisequalify, as well as households who do not have the savingsreadily available to make a down payment for housingpurchase.The financial structure for leasing tenants is as follows:During the lease-period, a portion of the monthly rent isdeducted for the down-payment to be made at the end ofthe lease period. The cost of rent to the tenant is specificallyset up so that lease payments prior to ownership equal thetotal housing expenses made after the transfer of title; thisis known as the Equivalency Principal. This payment isessential because low-income families typically have limiteddiscretionary income to absorb additional housing costs. Forexample, if rent is equal to $400/month, the mortgage, utility,and housing monthly maintenance allowances together willbe at or below $400/month. Therefore, if a household canafford to pay a certain percentage of its monthly incomeon rental housing then it can afford to pay that samepercentage of monthly income for home ownership. Forthese expenses to be relatively the same, the tenants areprovided a guaranteed maximum price of purchase at thebeginning of the lease period.Low Income Housing Tax CreditsLease-purchase has the advantage of being able to uselow-income housing tax credits which offers a substantial
    • 75financing option that would otherwise be unavailable. LIHTCscan cover between one-half and two-thirds of developmentcosts—which would otherwise have to be covered by grantsand low-interest loans. Conventional subsidized for-salehousing’s reliance on grants makes them in many casesuneconomical or practical for large-scale developmentprojects. For example the Philadelphia Housing Authority(PHA) spends around $200,000 to construct each house(based on final output divided by total cost), with the firstphases selling for just over $50,000 and the second phasefor over $100,000. Such large subsidies per household toprovide low to moderate income home-ownership raisesquestions as to whether it is an efficient use of funds andwhether such tax dollars could be spent more wisely tobenefit neighborhoods and their constituents. With a lease-purchase program through LIHTCs, houses can be sold atlower prices in greater volume with the same amount ofgrant funding, providing a greater return to the communitiesin which they serve.Lease-Purchase FinancingThe financing of a lease-purchase program is similar toconventional affordable housing financing with LIHTCs.The first-step is to take the overall development cost andseparate the expenses which are deductible under federalrules to be subsidized through LIHTCs. The deductionsare known as the eligible basis from which the amount oftax credits awarded for the project are determined. Withthe eligible basis taken from the total development cost,70% of the net present value (based on a 10 year period)is calculated with the applicable HUD interest rate. Theamount calculated is the total amount of tax credits awardedfor the development project. The tax-credits are then soldat a discounted rate through an intermediary to raise equityfor the development project. The equity raised is the portionof the actual development costs covered through LIHTCfinancing. The remaining costs not covered in the eligiblebasis and by the LIHTC raised equity is covered by grants, softsecond mortgages, and secondary finance mortgages. Thesecondary finance mortgage differentiates lease-purchasefrom regular affordable housing financing.An example of financing on a per-unit basis: a house with$200,000 construction cost has an eligible basis (expensesqualifying for federal deductions) of $150,000 (75% oftotal cost) plus a 30% bonus because the planning arearesides in a qualified census tract, for a total eligible basisof $195,000. 70% of its net present value determines theamount of tax credits awarded, which comes to $154,000.These tax credits are sold by an intermediary company atan estimated price of $0.85 for every dollar in tax-creditamount to raise a total of $131,000 for the construction ofthe house. This finances 65.5% of the construction costs.The remaining $69,000, or 34.5% of expenses, is coveredby grants ($39,000) and secondary financing ($30,000),which is first covered by the non-profit sponsor and thenpassed onto the tenant purchasing the house at the end ofthe lease period.Total Development Cost of House $200,000Eligible Basis (75% of Total Development) $150,000Bonus: Qualified Census Track (+30%) $195,000Total Tax Credits Awarded (195,000 * HUD IR) $154,000Total Tax Credit Equity @Est. Price of .85 to the Dollar $131,000Grant Funding$39,000Tenant Mortgage / 2nd Financing ($200/mo on 7%, 30yrs)$30,000Partnership StructureIn the case of Mantua and West Powelton, either PECCDCor a newly created community land trust (CLT) will sponsorthe development. First, a legal framework must establishthe managing parties. If PECCDC is the lead sponsor, itwill act as the general partner (GP) in a limited partnershipagreement where the limited partner is a limited liabilitycorporation (LLC) made up of investors who will collectthe low income housing tax credits and provide equity for
    • 76the development costs. The general partner is responsiblefor managing the development while the limited partneris protected from liability due to its limited managerialinvolvement in the project. If the project is sponsored by aCLT, the CLT will form a joint venture (JV) with either a full-capacity CDC such as PECCDC or another affordable housingdeveloper. The joint venture will act as general partner ina limited partnership where as in the first example, an LLCwill be created to provide ownership to investors who willreceive the tax credits and provide equity financing for thedevelopment of the project.Option 1a) PECCDC - (GP)b) LLC Investor - (LP)Option 2a) Joint Venture (JV):Community Land Trust (GP) w/PECCDC (GP)b) LLC Investor - (LP)Once the legal framework is established the general partnerapplies for tax credits, which are awarded to the LLC anddispersed to its investors. The LLC in return provides equitythat will cover the majority of development costs. Grants orsoft second mortgages cover the remaining costs throughstate or municipal allocations of Federal HOME or CommunityDevelopment Block Grant Funds—the total amount dependingon the household incomes of the tenants.Issues of ConcernInterest rates and unanticipated future housing costsare potential risks for lease-purchase. Home buyers willpurchase the outstanding secondary debt with a market-rate loan. If interest rates rise just half a percentage point,they could offset the equivalency principal of lease paymentsequaling total housing costs and the guaranteed maximumprice. To factor in this market liability, the lease-purchasesponsors must provide a buffer for housing cost increases.The Cleveland Housing Network adds a $3,000 to $5,000contingency buffer on houses for such instances.The second issue of consideration is the threat of the “never-ending lease”. For a number of reasons, households may notfulfill purchase requirements or opt-out of the lease-purchaseprogram. In the case of non-qualifying tenants, sponsoringorganizations are forced to extend the lease or evict thetenants. Having to re-lease units will extend the programand alter the financial assumptions made at the beginningof the project. One way to address this issue is to have amix of affordable rental and lease-purchase units so the lifeof the development project is a substantial period longerthan the 15-year minimum requirement, thereby creating abuffer period to mitigate lease problems.
    • 77The CLT or Lease-Purchase plans will not work withoutfirst establishing an organization to oversee them. Ourphysical plan connects with the community plan by utilizingthe previously proposed umbrella organization to governdevelopment. The following implementation strategyexplains how to set up the organization.1. Currently PECCDC has the most capacity to actas a conduit between the various existing organizations.Therefore we suggest that PECCDC organize a third meetingwith the neighborhood constituents that does not continueto discuss needs and assets of the community, but ratherdevelops an action plan for which groups and individualswill take control of the different aspects of the umbrellaorganization.2. Once roles have been established, the umbrellaorganization must apply for funding so that it can sustainitself. The group must decide if it wants to remain a coalitionof different agencies, under the guise of a fiscal sponsor (suchas PECCDC), or if it should incorporate as its own entity,and seek 501(c)3 tax-exempt status. A coalition wouldallow both community and government agency membersto donate time and resources; a standalone agency wouldrequire a staff and more sophisticated management. Itsstatus will also determine for which funding it is eligible.While there are many funding sources out there, we haveidentified the William Penn, Annie E. Casey and Robert WoodJohnson Foundations as possible donors. In addition, theumbrella organization should consider collecting dues (on asliding scale) from member organizations.3. Once the organizational structure is in place, andpossible funding sources have been identified, the umbrellaorganization can start the search for development partner(s)who will be responsible for the actual construction ofthe plan. The umbrella organization should already beImplementationestablished before finding a development partner so thatthe community will have real input into the plan.
    • 78The physical strategy outlined previously is structurallypredicated upon the development of an umbrella organization,the acquisition of the programmed land, and access tospecialized financial instruments and fiduciary arrangements.As the acquisition of the land is dependent upon thedisposition of land by agencies, such as the PhiladelphiaHousing Authority (PHA) and the Redevelopment Authority(RDA); it is worthwhile to outline alternative approaches.In the event that the umbrella organization fails to materialize,PECCDC should present the development suggestions andguidelines to the PHA. As PHA owns more of the parcelsproposed for redevelopment than any other landowner, itis already well positioned to move forward with the project.The PHA also practices one of the equity models suggestedin the physical prong: lease-purchase financing (Anderson,2003). Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that thePHA is already interested in the proposed development area.As such, if the umbrella organization fails to materialize,The PHA’s interest in the area, however, highlights someof the difficulties that could arise should the umbrellaorganization attain the requisite capacity and solvency. Ifthe PHA decides that it wants to develop affordable housingon the proposed development area, it will not likely relinquishits land holdings to the umbrella organization. Site controlissues could also spill over to the parcels controlled by theRDA. In such an event, the umbrella organization shouldleverage the organization and residents’ relationship withCouncilwoman Blackwell and strategic relationships withstaff within the PHA. If Councilwoman Blackwell is unableto provide relief, the umbrella organization should use publicinput forums to inspire conformance to the developmentplan suggestions and guidelines.The specialized financial instruments and arrangements areas important to the proposed mixed-income development asthe umbrella organization’s capacity and local governmentagency consent. LIHTCs are of vital importance to the lease-Physical Strategy Implementation EvaluationWilliam Penn Foundationworks to improve the quality of life in the PhiladelphiaRegionGrants are available for:Arts & CultureChildren, Youths & FamiliesEnvironments & CommunitiesAnnie E. Casey Foundationworks to build better futures for disadvantaged children andtheir families in the US.It provides grants in a long term effort to strengthen:Support ServicesSocial NetworksEmploymentEconomic VitalityRobert Wood Johnson Foundationprovides grants to improve the health and health care for allAmericans.Grants are available for these interest areas:Addiction Prevention & TreatmentBuilding Human CapitalDisparitiesVulnerable PopulationsFoundations of Interest
    • 79purchase equity model. The recent national political climatecalls into question the continued availability of LIHTCs as theyare typically associated with rental assistance, a directionfrom which the President is trying to move away. Althoughthe umbrella organization’s direct sphere of influence may fallshort of Washington, D.C., the organization still has two readilyavailable avenues for action. The first is to use the Universityof Pennsylvania and relationships with Milton Pratt, of theU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),to demonstrate how LIHTCs under a lease-purchase optioncan serve as a gateway to homeownership. Subsequently,proposals from the Office of the President suggest thatreplacement programs will feature zero down payments and100% loan-to-value ratios (Wooley, 2004), which, providedthe details, could provide opportunities for the cooperativeland trust model. As a result, weaknesses inherent in thelease-purchase option could lead to opportunities for thecommunity land trust option.Finally, the community land trust option requires commercialfinancial institutions to lend without the title as collateral and,as a result, may require some priming before feasible. In theevent that commercial lenders are averse to lending againstthe improvements on the land, the Zero Down PaymentMortgage initiative by the Office of the President may provepivotal in moderating risk perceptions. Another option, andthe one advocated here, is to build upon the momentumof the West Philadelphia Initiatives of the University ofPennsylvania. The financial institutions appear willing tomove into unfamiliar territory provided there is some trackrecord. Under this scenario, the umbrella organizationshould persuade the University of Pennsylvania and DrexelUniversity to—like Duke University did in Durham—seed thecooperative land trust, thereby providing it with a trackrecord.
    • 80ConclusionPlanning for equitable development is a large, multi-faceted project that will bring great rewards and benefitsto the community. For true success, the project requiresthe full participation and cooperation from the communityand implementation of a physical development plan thatbrings increased equity to current residents and protectslow-income residents from potential displacement. Theproposals in this report—bringing together community groupsto build capacity and work as a cohesive whole, and for theimplementation of design and development standards withthe formation and implantation of community land trustsand lease-purchase programs—are our suggestions for suchequitable development to take place.If any items from the community or physical arms in our reportare adopted, it would be a great step forward from currentexisting conditions of community group fragmentation andlack of a plan for community equity in new development.Without individual and organizational support, however, theplan can never come to fruition. The social and physicalelements of a neighborhood are equally important forneighborhood change that benefits all. We hope this reportgives provides a blueprint to bring the two together.
    • 81BibliographyAbu-Lughod, J. (Ed.). (1994). From urban village to eastvillage: The battle for New York’s lower east side. Oxford:Blackwell.Adams, C. T., Bartelt, D., Elesh, D., Goldstein, I., Kleniewski,N., & Yancey, W. (1991). Philadelphia: Neighborhoods,division, and conflict in a postindustrial city.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Agbali, A., Booza, J., Creighton, J., Dudley, A., Fancy, R.,Greene, L., et al. (2001, April 23). Uc-what:University City - Woodbridge historic area together: Acommunity study of the Woodbridge historic district,Detroit, Michigan. Paper presented at the COMM-ORG:The On-Line Conference on Community Organizing andDevelopment, http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers.htm.Anderson, Elijah. Streetwise: Race Class and Change in anUrban Community. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. 1990.Anderson, Bendix. 2003. “Philadelphia Housing Authorityputs time limit on voucher use inHUDdemo.”AffordableHousing Finance. June.Atkinson, R. (2002). Does gentrification help or harm urbanneighbourhoods? An assessment of the evidence-base inthe context of the new urban agenda (No. 5). B r i s t o l ,UK: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centerfor Neighbourhood Research, School for Policy Studies,University of Bristol.Atkinson, R. (2003). Introduction: Misunderstood saviour orvengeful wrecker? The many meanings and problemsof gentrification. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2343- 2350.Berry, B. (1985). Islands of renewal in seas of decay. In P.Peterson (Ed.), The new urban reality. Washington DC:The Brookings Institution.Berry, B. J. L. (1999). Comment on Elvin k. Wyly and Danielj. Hammel’s “islands of decay in seas of renewal: Urbanpolicy and the resurgence of gentrification”. H o u s i n gPolicy Debate, 10(4), 783-788.Bier, T. (2001). Moving up, filtering down: Metropolitanhousing dynamics and public policy: The BrookingsInstitute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.Big Brother/Big Sister of Southeastern Pennsylvania website.http://www.bbbssepa.org.Borjas, George. 1995. “Ethnicity, Neighborhoods, andHuman-Capital Externalities.: American EconomicReview. 85 (June): 365-390.Bostic, R. W., & Martin, R. W. (2003). Black home-ownersas a gentrifying force? Neighbourhood dynamics in thecontext of minority home-ownership. Urban Studies,40(12), 2427-2449.Bright, E. M., & Goodman, M. (2000). Reviving America’sforgotten neighborhoods: An investigation of innercity revitalization efforts. New York: Garland.Buchalter, R. J. (1997). Good neighbors: The socialnegotiation of place. Unpublished PhD, UNIVERSITY OFPENNSYLVANIA.Burlingame, Eric. Powelton Village Civic Association.Responses to Questionnaire.April 6, 2005.Butler, T. (1997). Gentrification and the middle classes.Aldershot: Ashgate.Butler, T. and C. Hamnett (1994). “Gentrification, Class andGender: Some Comments on Warde’s Gentrification asConsumption.” Environment and Planning D: S o c i e t y
    • 82and Space 12: 477-493.Cameron, S. (1992). Housing, gentrification, and urbanregeneration policies. Urban Studies, 29(1), 3-14.Case, Anne & Katz, Lawrence. 1991. “The CompanyYou Keep: The Effects of Family and Neighborhood onDisadvantaged Youths.” Working paper no. 3705, NBER,Cambridge, MA.Cirillo M., Davis J., Eshman R., Geisler C., Jacobs H., LepcioA, Matthei C., Perkins P., White K., The Communityland trust handbook / the Institute for CommunityEconomics., Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA. 1982.Cleveland Housing Network, “The EquivalencyPrincipal”, Accessed April 24th from h t t p : / / w w w.enterprisefoundation.org/resources.Cleveland Housing Network, “The Financial Structure of aLease Purchase Project: An Analysis of the Year 16Sales Component”, Accessed April 24th, 2005 fromhttp://www.enterprisefoundation.org/resources.Coleman-Moore, K. S. (2002). Creating the black Americandream: Race, class and community development.Unpublished PhD, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.Cravatts, R. L. (2004, May 11). Embracing gentrification: Acase study for inner city growth. IntellectualConservative Retrieved January 1, 2005, from h t t p : //www.intellectualconservative.com/article3412.htmlCurran, W. (2004). “Gentrification and the Nature of Work:Exploring the Links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.”Environment and Planning A 36(7): 1243.Cameron, S.(1992). Housing, gentrification, and urban regenerationpolicies. Urban Studies, 29(1), 3-14.Cybriwsky, R. A. (1986). The fashioning of gentrification inPhiladelphia. Urban Resources, 3, 27.Desena, J. N. (1985). The dynamics of neighborhooddefense: A sociological account of greenpoint, Brooklyn(community, race, ethnic relations, New York). UnpublishedPHD, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK.Douchant, C. E. (1994). Incumbent upgrading: A frameworkfor analysis. Towards a new understanding of residentialrevitalization in Winnipeg (Manitoba). UnpublishedMCP, THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA (CANADA).Drain, Richard and Norman Ellis. 39th and Aspen StreetCommunity Organization. Responses to Questionnaire.April 6, 2005.Drain, Richard and Norman Ellis. 39th and Aspen StreetCommunity Organization. Meeting at Albert Hart DixonMemorial Garden. April 23, 2005.Dumas, L. G. (1989). Life on the margin: An intensivecase study of community disruption and its sociomedicalconsequences for the old. Unpublished PHD, B O S TO NUNIVERSITY.Equitable Development Toolkit. Oakland, CA, PolicyLink.2005: website collecting research and step-by-steppolicy proposals and tools for community organizations.Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://policylink.org/EDTK/tools.htmlEquity Trust, Inc., accessed from http://www.equitytrust.org.Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification anddisplacement: New York City in the 1990s. Journal ofthe American Planning Association, 70(1), 39-52.
    • 83Geisler C., Daneker G. Property and Values/ Alternatives toPublic and Private Ownership Island Press, WashingtonD.C., 2000.Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing. NeighborhoodTourism Network. “Philadelphia Neighborhood Tours”.Brochure. Spring & Fall 2005.Green, G. R. (1979). Gentrification and displacement: Astudy of residential change in a portion of the oldLouisville neighborhood. Unpublished MS, UNIVERSITY OFLOUISVILLE.Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state ofgentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en SocialeGeografie, 92(4), 464-477.Hammel, D., & Wyly, E. (1996). A model for identifyinggentrified areas with census data. Urban Geography,17, 248-268.Hamnett, C. (1991). “The Blind Men and the Elephant: TheExplanation of Gentrification.” Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers 16(2): 173- 189.Harding, S. (2000). Urban redevelopment, housing lossand class segregation: A case study of gentrification inSeattle (Washington). Unpublished PhD, UNIVERSITY OFWASHINGTON.Hartman, C. (1982). Displacement: How to fight it: NationalHousing Law Project.Harvey, T. E. A. (1999). Gentrification and west Oakland:Causes, effects and best practices. Unpublishedmanuscript, Berkeley. http://comm- org.utoledo.edu/papers2000/gentrify/gentrify.htmHawkins, Steve. HUB Coalition. Interview. March 15, 2005.Higgins, L. R. (2001). Assessing the economic impact ofcommunity-based homeownership programs on inner-city neighborhoods. Unpublished PhD, GEORGE MASONUNIVERSITY.HUD. 2003. “Mixed-Income Housing and the HOME Program.”Community Planning and Development: Washington, DC.Independence Hall Association. “Philadelphia: PhiladelphiaHistory.” http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/philadelphia.html.Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (1999). Are poor people really excludedfrom jobs located in their own neighborhoods? EconomicDevelopment Quarterly, 12(4), 307-314.Institute for Community Economics, accessed from www.iceclt.org.Jenkins, Mary. Mantua Community Planners Inc. PhoneInterview. April 25, 2005.Jones, J. S. (1983). Neighborhood satisfaction amongdisplaced urban residents. Unpublished PHD, THE OHIOSTATE UNIVERSITY.Kasarda, J. D. (1999). Comment on Elvin k. Wyly and Danielj. Hammel’s “islands of decay in seas of renewal: Urbanpolicy and the resurgence of gentrification”. H o u s i n gPolicy Debate, 10(4), 773-781.Kennedy, M., & Leonard, P. (2001). Dealing with neighborhoodchange: A primer on gentrification and policy choices(discussion paper): The Brookings Institution Center onUrban and Metropolitan Policy.Kennedy, M., & Leonard, P. (2001). Gentrification: Practiceand Politics. LISC Center for Homeownership andLISC Knowledge Sharing Initiative. Kromer, J. (2001,November 2). Gentrification and disinvestment: Policy
    • 84choices. Paper presented at the M a n a g i n gChange in Urban Neighborhoods, Washington, D.C.Kromer, John and Lucy Kerman. “West Philadelphia Initiatives:A Case Study in Urban Revitalization.” 2004.Lancaster Avenue Business Association, People’s EmergencyCenter Community development Corporation, andUniversity City District. “Welcome to Lancaster Avenue!”Brochure.Lang, M. H. (1982). Gentrification amid urban decline:Strategies for America’s older cities. C a m b r i d g e ,Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company.Lang, M. (1986). Measuring economic benefits fromgentrification. Journal of Urban Affairs, 8, 27.Lawrence J. Biond. “West Philadelphia and Powelton HistoricDistrict Development Timeline.” Powelton VillageCivic Association. September 1996. h t t p : / / w w w.swarthmore.edu/Humanities/langlab/powelton/history.html.Lees, L. (2000). A re-appraisal of gentrification: Towards ageography of gentrification. Progress in Human Geography,24(3), 389-408.Levy, P. R. (1978). Queen village, the eclipse of community:A case study of gentrification and displacement in asouth Philadelphia neighborhood. Philadelphia: Institutefor the Study of Civic Values.Ley, D. (1992). Gentrification in recession: Social change insix Canadian inner-cities, 1981-1986. Urban Geography,13(3).230-256.Ley, D. (1996). The new middle class and the remaking ofthe central city. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Mantua primer; toward a program for environmental change.Prepared under the direction of Richard Plunz by JohnCowder, et al. Edward Jakmauh, USPHS project coordinator.University Park: Dept. of Architecture, Pennsylvania StateUniversity. 1970.Marcuse, P. (1999). Comment on Elvin k. Wyly and Daniel j.Hammel’s “islands of decay in seas of renewal: Urban policyand the resurgence of gentrification”. Housing P o l i c yDebate, 10(4), 711-771.Martin, L. E. (2003). Who are the people in your neighborhood?Mobilizing in response to gentrification in Atlanta(Georgia). Unpublished PhD, EMORY UNIVERSITY.Marullo, S. W. (1982). Housing and race: Black-whitedifferences in housing consumption, filtering, andturnover. Unpublished PHD, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.McDonald, S. C. (1983). Human and market dynamics in thegentrification of a Boston neighborhood. UnpublishedPHD, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice andthe Fight for Public Space. New York, Guilford Press.Nelson, K. P. (1988). Gentrification and distressed cities: Anassessment of trends in intrametropolitan migration.Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.Palen, J. and B. London (1984). Gentrification, Displacementand Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany, SUNY Press.Pashup-Graham, J. R. (2003). Coping with changes in theneighborhood: Residential capital, aging and neighborhoodpreferences. Unpublished PhD, THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO.
    • 85PEC website. “32 years of service to the community.” http://www.pec-cares.org/30yrs.html.PEC website. “Community development.” http://www.pec-cares.org/comdev3.html.Peterman, W., & Hannan, S. (1986). Influencing changein gentrifying neighborhoods: Do community-basedorganizations have a role. Urban Resources, 3, 33.Philadelphia City Planning Commission. “The Plan for WestPhiladelphia.” 1994Planning Center of the Municipal Art Society, Fifth AvenueCommittee, & Association for Neighbourhood and HousingDevelopment. (2001). Displacement and what to do aboutit: Strategies for success. USA: New York.Policy Link: Lifting Up What Works, accessed fromhttp://www.policylink.org/EDTK/default.htmlPorter, M. (1997). New strategies for inner city economicdevelopment. Economic Development Quarterly, 11(1),11-27.Rajagopal, D. E. (1999). The psychological link between theperception of neighborhood change and action. UnpublishedPhD, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK.Redfern, P. A. (2003). What makes gentrification‘gentrification’? Urban Studies, 40(12), 2351-2366.Robinson, T. (1995). Gentrification and grassroots resistancein San Francisco’s tenderloin. Urban Affairs Review, 30,483-513.Rohe, W., & Stewart, L. S. (1996). Homeownership andneighborhood stability. Housing Policy Debate, 7(1), 37-81.Ronnow-Bunker, B. L. (1998). Limited-equity housingcooperatives: A multiple-site case study of residentperceptions and patterns of participation. Unpublished PhD,GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.Rose,D.(1996).Economicrestructuringandthediversificationof gentrification in the 1980: A view from a marginalmetropolis. In J. Caulfield & L. Peake (Eds.), City lives andcity forms: Critical research and Canadian urbanism (pp.131-172). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Rose, K. (2001, May/June). Beyond gentrification:Tools for equitable development. Shelterforce Online.http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/117/Rose.html orhttp:// es/117/Rose.html+beyond+gentrification+tools+for+equitable+development&hl= enRosenthal, Leon S. A history of Philadelphia’s UniversityCity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 1963.Schaffer, R., & Smith, N. (1986). The gentrification of Harlem?Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 76,347-365.Slater, T. (2002). Looking at the ‘north American city’ throughthe lens of gentrification discourse. Urban Geography,23(2), 131-153.Slater, T. (2004). “North American Gentrification? Revanchistand Emancipatory Perspectives Explored.” Environmentand Planning A 36(7): 1191.Slater, T., W. Curran and L. Lees (2004). “GentrificationResearch: New Directions and Critical Scholarship.”Environment and Planning A 36(7): 1141.Smith, Beverly. Caring About Sharing. Interview. March 17,2005.
    • 86Smith, N., & Williams, P. (Eds.). (1986). Gentrification of thecity. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Smith, N. (1987). “Gentrification and the Rent-Gap.” Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 77(3): 462-465.Smith,N. (1992).“BlindMan’sBuff,orHamnett’sPhilosophicalIndividualism in Search of Gentrification?” Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers 17(1): 110-115.Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification andthe revanchist city.Statement of vernice miller-travis, executive director,partnership for sustainable brownfields redevelopmentat the hearing on the brownfield revitalization andenvironmental restoration act of 2000, June 29, 2000, UnitedSates Senate, 106-2 Sess. 33-36 (2000).Taylor, M. (1992). Can you go home again? Blackgentrification and the dilemma of difference. BerkeleyJournal of Sociology, 37, 121-138.The Enterprise Foundation. “Alternative Financing Models,Hybrids”, Accessed April 24th, 2005 from http://www.enterprisefoundation.org/resources.University City. “University City Report Card 2005.”University City District website. http://www.ucityphila.org/.U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. “American Housing Survey forthe Philadelphia Metropolitan Area: 2003.” CurrentHousing Reports. Series H170/03-33: Washington, DC.U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “Census 2000 Summary File 3”.US Department of Commerce: Washington, DC.Vigdor, J. L. (2002). Does gentrification harm the poor?Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2002(1),133-182.Warde, A. (1991). “Gentrification as Consumption: Issues ofClass and Gender.” Environment and Planning D: Societyand Space 9: 223-232.Wendell, Lewis C. Executive Director, UCD. Emailcorrespondence. April 14, 2005.Wilson, D., & Mueller, T. (2004). Representing “neighborhood”:Growth coalitions, newspaper reporting, and gentrificationin St. Louis. The Professional Geographer, 5 6 ( 2 ) ,282-294.Wilson, William, J. 1996. When Work Disappears: the Worldof the New Urban Poor. New York, NY: Random House.Wise, Aaron. West Powelton Community Concerned Council.Phone Interview. April 28, 2005.Wooley, Lemar. 2004. “Bush Administration Announces NewHUD ‘Zero Down Payment’ Mortgage Initiative Aimed atRemoving Major Barrier to Homeownership.” HUD NewsRelease. No. 04-006: 19-Jan.WorkReady Philadelphia website. http://workreadyphila.com/what.html.Wong, D. W. S. (1990). An empirical model of gentrification:An operationalization of a modified rent gap theory.Unpublished PHD, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ATBUFFALO.Wyly, E., & Hammel, D. (1999). Islands of decay in seas ofrenewal: Urban policy and the resurgence of gentrification.Housing Policy Debate, 10, 711-771.
    • 87Wyly, E. K. and D. J. Hammel (2004). “Gentrification,Segregation, and Discrimination in the American UrbanSystem.” Environment and Planning A 36(7): 1215.Young, Rick. Founder & President, MCIC. “Mantua CommunityRevitalization Project”. Correspondence to DrexelUniversity, City and Community Affairs. October 12, 2004.Zietz, E. N., & Sirmans, G. S. (2004). An exploration ofinner-city property markets. Journal of Real EstateLiterature, 12(3), 323.Zimmerman, J. A. (2003). Conquering the ‘last frontier’:Gentrification, public housing and the limits of newurbanism in the central city (Illinois). Unpublished PhD,THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON.Zukin, S. (1989). Loft living: Culture and capital in urbanchange (2nd ed.). New Brunswick.: Rutgers UniversityPress.
    • Appendices
    • 91Appendix A: Neighborhood StakeholdersIn addition to the two community stakeholders’ meetings, thisstudio received additional input from individual communitystakeholder groups through interviews with these groups ortheir responses on a questionnaire passed out at the secondcommunity stakeholders’ meeting.HUB CoalitionThe HUB Coalition was formed eight or nine years ago ata reunion party of ex-gang members. At that time, theytalked about the need for more youth programs in theirneighborhood and discussed starting a little league footballteam. There was no funding immediately available for thisventure, but HUB actively sought funding and eventuallyprocured sponsorship for the team from then Mayor WilsonGoode. The HUB (Haverford-Union-Brandywine) Coalition,like other neighborhood organizations in the area, was formedby volunteers who did not have organizational experience ortraining but did have a strong desire to serve and improvethe quality of life in their neighborhood.The HUB Coalition would like to be included in theprocess of development and making improvements to theneighborhood. Coalition Member Steve Hawkins emphasizedthe need to bridge the gap among neighborhood groups andbetween the neighborhood and neighboring instiutions orother stakeholders. HUB Coalition Members such as Hawkinshave demonstrated leadership abilities and a desire to bringpeople together toward common goals. Hawkins said thatlistening to each other is an important part of bridging thegap. HUB Coalition members would like the opportunity togive back to the neighborhood in which they grew up. Theyare natives of this land and intend to stand their ground asthe neighborhood faces change. The HUB Coalition seekstechnical assistance from larger organizations with thecapacity to do so. It would like to be empowered to bringforth positive change, and would like to empower others todo so as well.InterviewsMantua Community Improvement CommitteeThe Mantua Community Improvement Committee (MCIC) isconcerned with the revitalization of the Mantua neighborhood,and includes the Mantua Neighborhood Special ServiceDistrict created in January 2002. According to MCIC Founderand President Rick Young, the organization addresses therevitalization and quality of life needs for all Mantua residents.MCIC creates positive job opportunities within the communityand employs twenty to thirty Mantua area residents. It isinterested in the development of the neighborhood, includingdeveloping residential properties, a supermarket, a daycarecenter, retail businesses, and restaurants.The activities of the Special Service District include removinglitter and cleaning up and maintaining vacant lots. MCIC andits Special Services District would like to extend its efforts toinclude bicycle patrolling, more job opportunities, and moreeducational and training opportunities, among other things– but needs additional financial support in order to providethese services. According to Mr. Young, MCIC’s revitalizationefforts will not only beautify Mantua, but will generatepositive leadership within the community.Mantua Community Planners IncorporatedAccording to Mantua Community Planners President andhead of the Mantua Block Captain Association Mary “Mother”Jenkins, Mantua Community Planners is a planning agencythat was organized in 1968. Only three of the originalfounding members are still living. Mother Jenkins has beeninvolved with the organization for about twenty-five years.The efforts of this planning agency include family planning,education and literacy improvement, planning where theneed is, breaking down barriers, and preventing othersfrom planning for the Mantua community while acceptingsuggestions from others. Mantua Community Planners wouldlike to share in the planning and development efforts in thisarea, and would like to prevent those who plan and developonly for their personal benefit rather than for the communitybenefit.
    • 92The organization has had a significant role in organizing manyfragmented parts of planning for the Mantua neighborhood.It has addressed housing issues including housing thatbenefits the poor. The organization is concerned about landbanking and demolition efforts in the name of beautification.It would like to see organizations make a greater effort toprevent community members from being displaced, such asby helping them find ways pay their back taxes.Mantua Community Planners is run with the help ofvolunteers who commit long, labored hours to neigbhorhoodimprovement efforts. The Mantua Block Captain Associationis under the umbrella of Mantua Community Planners. MantuaCommunity Planners has witnessed much neighborhoodchange since the organization started. One of its successesis its adult learning program, in which many participantsentered the program essentially illiterate and left the programable to read.Some of the positive qualities of the community, according toMother Jenkins, include positive people, those with expertiseincluding lawyers, doctors, educators, and judges, goodMontessori schools, a community library, the proximity tothe art museum, and the fact that Mantua is only a twenty-minute walk from Center City. One thing the community needsis more participation from community members, particularlythose with expertise who have not participated in the past.Other things the community needs include a supermarketand an easily accessible medical center. Mother Jenkins isconcerned about the public schools in the neighborhood, andsuggests they need building and strengthening from within.The schools need to improve their teaching of communityhistory, as students are not being taught about who they areand thus experience a cultural barrier between what is taughtat school and what they see around them. Furthermore, theattitude that certain students cannot learn is a myth andneeds to evolve.Mother Jenkins said that young people are involved withthe organization. She talked about the need for youngpeople to obtain education, including college education, andproductive employment. The young people involved with thisorganization are committed to this community and will notleave, according to Jenkins. Bridging the gap begins withthe children of the community. Mother Jenkins said “we canwork together” because “we are all one in God’s eyesight”and that “as we grow, we can develop” – reiterating the needfor organizations to work collaboratively towards positivechange.39th and Aspen Street Community OrganizationThis summer, on August 20, 2005, the 39th and AspenStreet Community Organization will celebrate its twenty-fourth anniversary as a community-based organization inMantua. According to the organization’s leaders, NormanEllis and Richard Drain, this organization is an “infant stage”community development corporation (CDC) that provideseducational training and mentoring. Some of its recent
    • 93efforts include the refurbishing and ongoing clean-up of theplayground and swimming pool at 39th and Aspen, as well ascreating the Albert Hart Dixon Memorial Garden on a formerlytrash-strewn vacant lot adjacent to the playground. Theorganization is currently rehabilitating a vacant property onBrown Street that will be used as its temporary headquarters,and hopes to obtain ownership of a vacant property closer tothe playground for permanent headquarters.According to Ellis and Drain, some of the positive qualitiesof the community include its rich African history, and itscommunity builders, homeowners, and business owners.Some of the things the area needs include employmentopportunities, job training, decent housing, education, andtechnical skills. The organization has a strong spirit to bringforth change but no finances. It is willing to pool resourceswith other organizations and is committed to getting theproper information out to the public. It expects otherorganizations to get the proper information out to everyoneinvolved, so the community can move forward to bring forthpositive change.Albert Hart Dixon Memorial GardenOne of the 39th and Aspen Street Community Organization’smost recent projects is the Albert Hart Dixon Memorial Garden.Just a year ago, this garden was a trash strewn vacant lot.Now it is a beautiful garden flanked by two exquisite murals.Not only does the garden provide the community with aplace to relax, it is also a place for children to get involved.Children aged two to twelve years old help with the plantingand upkeep of the garden, on Saturdays during the schoolyear and Monday through Saturday during the summer. Theorganization is working to expand the garden program toinclude after-school activities and increased coordinationwith the nearby schools, Belmont and McMichael. This gardenprovides an excellent example of how an organization withfew resources of its own but a great deal of commitmentcan tap into the resources and support of other individualsand organizations, including larger organizations such as theMural Arts Program as well as support from City Council andvarious city agencies.These murals featuringactual community residentssurround the garden. TheMuralArtsProgramsupportedthis garden by creating thesemurals as well as fundingthe garden itself. The MuralArts Program is the garden’sbiggest financial donor.
    • 94Caring About SharingCaring About Sharing is a non-profit food and clothingdistribution agency located at 500 North 39th Street. Althoughits services are open to anyone in need and not focusedspecifically on the planning area, the organization is locatedwithin the planning area and is concerned with equitabledevelopment in the area. Some of its efforts include an afterschool snack program from September-June for children inneed and feeding the homeless at 17th and Parkway everySunday. The organization is currently run by Ms. BeverlySmith, who has been involved with the organization forabout ten years.West Powelton Community Concerned CouncilThe West Powelton Community Concerned Council is anon-profit community-based organization that has been inexistence for over twenty years. It was founded by ElsieWise, who is the organization’s President. The organizationhas a five board members and holds open communitymeetings in an area church up to twice a month. Thesemeetings are generally attended by approximately one-hundred West Powelton area residents. Its efforts addressvarious community concerns, including concerns aboutyouth, jobs, medical services for seniors, and concerns aboutdevelopment in the area.Board Member Aaron Wise said that some of the positivequalities of this community include its family-oriented nature,that many people who live here tend to stay here, the area’saccessible location, its good quality of life, and its racialdiversity. He said some of the things the community needsinclude economic and social services, facilities, meetingplaces, activities for children, educational opportunities, anda market within walking distance because senior citizenscurrently have to walk too far. He also mentioned his concernsabout crime and drugs in the community. He said that theWest Powelton Community Concerned Council and othercommunity-based organizations are struggling, as they relyprimarily on volunteerism and do not have funds.Previous development efforts and other neighborhoodchanges did not help those with moderate, low, or fixedincomes according to Mr. Wise. He would like to see improvedcommunication with the area’s universities, large businesses,and large organizations such as PECCDC. This improvedcommunication means open dialogue that keeps all partiesin mind, less runaround, and a “share share not take take”attitude. It is in everyone’s interest that this area be a safeplace to reside.The fence in front of thegarden and the bencheswere painted by communityvolunteers. The gardenincludes a variety ofplants including flowersand herbs. The bencheswere a donation from theFairmount Park.
    • 95Powelton Village Civic AssociationPowelton Village Civic Association President Eric Burlingameidentified the location, strong identity, group history, andpride as some of the positive qualities of the planning area.Some of the things he believes that the community needsinclude a pharmacy, a grocery store, youth recreationopportunities, jobs, financial resources, job training, andeducation.The Powelton Village Civic Association would like to be a goodneighbor to the neighborhoods that surround it. It aims to aidin the development of this area. The organization’s missionis to make Powelton a nice place to live. Burlingame saidthat neighborhoods such as Powelton Village and Mantuahave porous boundaries, and that “Mantua’s issues are ourissues.”The resources available to the Powelton Village CivicAssociation include architects, lawyers, Penn and Drexelprofessors, and other professionals and experts thatmay be able to offer jobs, skills, or a financial stake inthe improvement of this area. The organization would bewilling to pool resources with other organizations. Theseneighborhoods will be stronger if their organizations worktogether. The Powelton Village Civic Association expectsprofessional courtesy and respect from other organizationsand would like to contribute a shared voice with otherorganizations in order to bring forth equitable change.University City DistrictUniversity City District Executive Director Lewis Wendellidentified the streetcars/trolleys/transit, architecture,affordable housing stock, retail areas, proximity toemployment and proximity to Center City as some of thepositive qualities of the planning area. He said that someof the things the community needs include improvedemployment opportunities, beautification, improved retail,improved housing, improved parks, and improve schools.According to Wendell, the University City District hasimproved the cleanliness, safety, and quality of life inUniversity City. It has a substantial budget based uponvoluntary contributions from institutions, businesses,landlords, and residents. It currently collaborates with manyorganizations, and will continue to increase collaborationwith most if not all organizations in the area. It can offerexpertise and assistance to other organizations, and expectsprofessionalism, dedication, efficiency, reliability, honesty,and commitment from the other organizations it collaborateswith.Many University City District employees live in or nearthe planning area. The University City District has alreadycollaborated with some of the other organizations whoparticipated in the community stakeholders’ meetings forthis studio, including the Mantua Community ImprovementCommittee and the 39th and Aspen Street CommunityOrganization.
    • 97Appendix B: Optional QuestionnaireHow are you involved in the community?How did you hear about this meeting?What are some of the positive qualities of this area? (Pleasefocus on the study area, east of 44th, south of Lancaster andWallace, north of Market, West of 37th.)What are some of the things the community in this areaneeds?What can you contribute? Some of these questions will beaddressed as a group, but please write your answers downhere.a. What role do you and/or your organization play inthe community?b. What has your organization accomplished, and whatwould it like to accomplish?c. What resources do you have?d. In what ways could you collaborate with otherorganizations; would you be willing to pool resources(expertise, hours, $)?e. What can your organization contribute to bring forthequitable change?f. What do you expect of other organizations?Sample
    • 99Appendix C: Literature ReviewFull CitationAgbali, A., J. Booza, et al. (2001). UC-WHAT: University City- Woodbridge Historic Area Together: A Community Study ofthe Woodbridge Historic District, Detroit, Michigan. COMM-ORG: The On-Line Conference on Community Organizingand Development, http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers.htm. http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers2001/ucwhat/ucwhattitle.htmApplicable FieldsCommunity DevelopmentCase StudiesWoodbridge, DetroitCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsWoodbridge is a neighborhood that borders Wayne StateUniversity in Detroit. It has been decimated by riots, urbanrenewal, and white flight. Today, it faces gentrificationpressures because of its historic housing stock andproximity to a major university. The authors suggest thatthe neighborhood draw on it’s history to bring tourists toWoodbridge.Thearticlealsoidentifies“11differentcategoriesofcommunityservices that residents may need: alcoholism and substanceabuse, domestic violence, vocational education, emergencyservices, employment assistance, family counseling, physicalhealth, mental health, shelter/housing assistance, specialprograms and women’s services.”The authors concluded that Woodbridge needs to strengthenties between the neighborhood and its organizations, thecity, and the university so that these entities will take astronger interest in the community, which will encourageresident participation.Woodbridge is in need of businesses such as doctors offices,a coffee shop, a bagel shop, and a restaurant. It could alsouse a community center.ApplicabilityThe neighborhood should strengthen its ties to the city,universities, and hospitals. Cooperation may help stemthe tide of displacement. It should also strive to providethe 11 categories of community service. Finally, it shouldbe determined what kind of businesses and amenities areneeded in the neighborhood.Full CitationAbu-Lughod, J. (Ed.). (1994). From Urban Village to EastWillage: The Battle for New York’s Lower East Side.Oxford:Blackwell.Applicable FieldsSocial Geography, Urban Sociology, Urban Politics, UrbanEconomicsCase StudiesLower East Side, NYCCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsThe continued influx of poor immigrants and a perceived3rd World grittiness has helped to slow gentrification. “Inthe gentrification process, economic shifts long precededemographic changes.” “The gentrification process is unevenand discontinuous in time and space.” Because of the highamount of city-owned property in the East Village it “wasnot likely to succumb easily to a full-scale gentrification ofthe type occurring in other neighborhoods in New York orin other cities…” Government action can have considerablecontrol over the market.The Proposed Memorandum of Understanding: Created azone within which no city-owned property could be sold formarket-rate housing. The affordable units would consistReview of Literature on Equitable Development and Gentrification
    • 100mainly of rehabilitated city-owned buildings. These were tobe interspersed with market-rate units. Proceeds from thesale of the vacant land would be placed in the “cross-subsidyfund” to finance the construction of affordable housing. “Allaffordable units will be developed, owned, and managedby a mutual housing association created by the communityexpressly for this purpose.” (325) The agreement alsoallowed for credit units. This proviso along with developers’unwillingness (because of market factors and vacant landlocation) to build market-rate housing greatly diminishedthe positive effects of the agreement. “The city’s ‘escapehatch’ has been the unit credit system whereby a significantnumber of projects that various government agencies wouldhave undertaken anyway in connection with other goals– i.e., housing for the aged, for the handicapped, for the ill,for prison populations, etc. – are being counted against the1,000 d.u. goal…” (327-328)The book also focuses on the displacement of the homelessand squatters and how they are always overlooked. “Localactions do affect what happens in local areas…humans maketheir own histories, but not as they choose. They operatealways within circumstances given to them from outsideand by others. This is especially true of relatively powerlesssocial groups, classes, and neighborhoods.” (335) Thesecircumstances can be created at the local, state, national,and global levels, but they do not entirely determine whathappens.Puerto Ricans that were displaced from Loisaida ended up inthe projects. “But its street life and its informal exuberancedisappeared in that new setting.ApplicabilityThe most desirable vacant land for new construction shouldbe acquired by the city or community. The proceeds of thesale of the land could go to the construction or rehabilitationof affordable housing, a la the “cross-subsidy fund.” A creditsystem should not be used.The City Government could have a big impact in retardingthe process of displacement in Philadelphia.Full CitationBier, T. (2001). Moving up, filtering down: Metropolitanhousing dynamics and public policy:The Brookings InstituteCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsBiers’ study deals with the larger process of filtering in theUnited States’ housing stock. He argues that disinvestmentin the urban core and “old” suburban periphery is largelydue to the relative ease with which development can occurin Greenfield sites. His recommendations are largely toinstitute growth boundaries and look towards means ofregional government activities. He never actually touchesupon gentrification and is in fact a proponent of activitieswhich may contribute to it.Full CitationBondi, L. (1991). “Gender Divisions and Gentrification: ACritique.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers16(2): 190-198.Applicable FieldsGeography, Gender StudiesCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsHeroic language about gentrification is often articulatedfrom a male perspective in which the city is a place of eroticadventure and physical possibility, ignoring the perspectivethat sees the city as a place of sexual threat and physicaldanger. Exercise of preference by some is necessarily arestriction of preference for others when resources such aslocation and space are scarce.
    • 101Full CitationBourassa, S. (1993). “The Rent-Gap Debunked.” UrbanStudies 30(10): 1731-1734.Applicable FieldsUrban Studies, Economic Theory, Real EstateCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsBourassa questions Smiths grasp on economics because thelatter often misuses the terms (and possibly the concepts) ofcapitalization, contract rent and ground rent. Bourassa takesa neoclassical position and says that, since the “real value”of a location is the present value of its rent stream, it makesno sense to talk about a rent gap between the two, since thevalue of land can rarely if ever be separated from the valueof a structure. Rent paid for a nearly worthless structure ismostly due to the land anyway. Such sites would have a highrent gap even if the locations were not particularly desirable.A rent gap therefore may occur but may rarely be measuredand is likely to do little or nothing to determine the timing orlocation of gentrifying reinvestment.ApplicabilityIf the class dimension and historical patterns of capitalmovement in gentrification are stripped away, gentrificationis hard to detect, explain, or criticize. The rent gap maybe practically difficult or impossible to measure because thevalue of land and structure are difficult to separate (withouta large selection of sales comparable in either location orimprovements; the nature of the space market itself militatesagainst the existence of such comparables).Full CitationBostic, R. W., & Martin, R. W. (2003). Black home-owners asa gentrifying force? Neighbourhood dynamics in the contextof minority home-ownership. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2427-2449.Applicable FieldsRole of black middle class in gentrificationCase StudiesMSAs around the USCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsThis article gives a number of measures that we could useto measure gentrification. It points out that gentrificationis often described as “a racial dynamic associated with theprocess whereby White households replace Black householdsas neighbourhood incomes rise” (2427). The study examineswhether Black middle- and upper- income homeownerswere a gentrifying force in the 1970s and 1980s, andaccording to this analysis the authors found that they werea gentrifying force in the 1970s but not in the 1980s. Theyuse multivariate analysis techniques developed by Hammeland Wyly to measure gentrification. Some of these measureinclude homeowners by race, median family income, medianfamily income as a percentage of the MSA median, populationwith some college, population with a college degree,population aged 30-44, percentage of population employedin professional and managerial occupations, poverty rate,Homeownership rate, black population share, white non-family households, crime rate, median value of owner-occupied housing in the county, property tax per capita,and local government expenditures per capita in the county.They utilize comparisons between the “average blackhome-owner”, the “average metropolitan resident”, and the“average metropolitan home-owner”.This study is an interesting and relatively concise exampleof measuring gentrification, however, it may be the mostuseful to go to Hammel and Wyly’s studies most directly.This study does point out that the black middle class can bea gentrifying force even though they are not the commonlyrecognized as such.
    • 102Full CitationBright, E. M., & Goodman, M. (2000). Reviving America’sforgotten neighborhoods: An investigation of inner cityrevitalization efforts. New York: Garland.Case StudiesSeattle, WA, Boston, MACentral Questions, Arguments, Findings“All of the successful programs addressed the majorsubstantive elements of safety, service, shelter, and socialcapital affecting low income residents’ quality of life. Brightidentifies a number of procedural factors necessary forsuccessful development, including the following:Allow area residents to take chargeProvide adequate local government servicesFully support resident-led initiativesKeep track of temporality obsolete, abandoned, or derelictsites (TOADS) and streamline procedures for their reusePursue regional coordinationInvolve the private sectorInsist on micro planningBe comprehensiveProvide federal support” Page ixSeattle – community-sponsored and led Action Plans– community based rather than city-based – City gaveits designated “urban villages” the chance to plan forthemselves… neighborhood organizations contract with thecity to do the plans with the help of consultants.City “established a Multifamily code enforcement Fund toassist owners in making code-related improvements”Citywide policies should support local/grassrootsneighborhood revitalization effortsAttract the attention of an interested foundationBoston – streamlined process to get the vacant land into thedeal… lobbying to get the govt to be able to use eminentdomain over properties that people were speculating on…did not take property that owners had chosen to develop…used eminent domain, land trusts and restrictive covenants(to pass on low income housing) – community controlApplicabilityo Government support is importanto Communities should be able to plan for themselvesFull CitationButler, T. and C. Hamnett (1994). “Gentrification, Classand Gender: Some Comments on Warde’s Gentrification asConsumption.” Environment and Planning D: Society andSpace 12: 477-493.Applicable FieldsGeographyCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsButler and Hamnett’s comments on Warde are in themselvesunremarkable (they agree with Warde that gentrificationis, at least in part, a solution to domestic and labormarket pressure for some families), but they add severalinteresting points. They ask “What is the neighborhood usedfor by its inhabitants? Who does its infrastructure serve?”suggesting that the overall function of the neighborhoodand of housing will differ by class. They suggest that theexperience of attending college away from home itself helpsprepare gentrifiers for mobility and place detachment in away that fosters gentrification and obscures its down sides.Gentrification also signals commitment to a career duringearly child rearing for the professional classFinally they point to other research showing that mostgentrifiers come from within the same city.Full CitationCameron, S. (1992). Housing, gentrification, and urbanregeneration policies. Urban Studies, 29(1), 3-14.
    • 103Applicable FieldsGentrificationCase StudiesFrom abstract-“The paper examines the role of housing in recent urbanregeneration policies and the question of whether thisinvolves a process of gentrification. The British ConservativeGovernment of the 1980s retained a commitment to innercity and urban regeneration policies. The work of the LondonDocklands Development Corporation (LDDC) representedthe most successful of the Conservative Government’sinner city initiatives in terms of the scale of developmentachieved, and it also posed the question of who benefitsfrom urban regeneration. This paper draws on examplesfrom the contrasting Tyneside area to illustrate a situationquite different from that in London Docklands, where theproximity of the City of London creates enormous potentialfor development and the attraction of highly paid incomers.The paper uses Tyneside to note the emphasis on riversideand city centre locations away from established residentialareas, and on high-cost housing for sale.o “It is suggested, though, that the housing dynamicin Tyneside is not gentrification in the most direct sense,in that it does not displace or reduce housing opportunitiesfor low-income residents. Evaluation must take account ofnon-housing issues, such as the employment effects andthe political and ideological implications of these housingpolicies.” (emphasis added)Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsI. Definition of gentrification:The author uses the term to suggest an outcome of innercity policies that benefit an incoming middle-class populationand disbenefit the existing working-class residents of theinner city. The term gentrification came into use in Britainin the 1960s, and was associated with the rehabilitation ofolder inner housing areas, especially in London, resulting in atransformation of class (from working-class to middleclass),and tenure (from private renting to owner-occupation)(Hamnett, 1984). Smith and Williams’ (1986) study ofgentrification argues that the recent restructuring of citiesis reversing the process of suburbanisation and bringinghigh-income residents back to city centres. It is a spatialreflection of the reorganisation of the labour market in cities,increasingly polarizing high-income, white-collar workersand an underclass of poorly paid, insecure employment inthe service sector.The author believes that the fundamental test for theapplication of the term gentrification is the identificationof some direct, negative effect on the existing low-incomeresidents of a locality.II. Housing and gentrification: Displacement?The variety of locations along the Tyne has produced somevariation in housing. The Tyne and Wear DevelopmentCorporation (TWDC) has given some attention to the questionof social housing, but the scale of social housing provisioncurrently achieved is relatively small. The emphasis is insteadon the development of housing for sale and making theriverside location attractive to high-income groups, whichhas meant that most of the housing provision does not meetthe needs of low-income residents of the inner city. But isthis gentrification?Taking the aforementioned definition, the first question mustbe this: does the creation of new housing opportunitiesin inner city areas for the affluent directly deprive low-income households of housing opportunities? The housingdevelopments are, for the most part, physically separatefrom existing inner residential areas and use land whichwas previously not in housing use. They do not, therefore,directly displace existing inner city residents. To that extent,using the concept of gentrification in its most direct sense,this process is not gentrification.Applicability
    • 104Hard to relate this British case study to West Powelton, but thedefinition of gentrification provided may be helpful. We cantest our area for gentrification in terms of a direct, negativeeffect on low-income residents. Equitable development,after all, should provide for members of all income levels.Full CitationColeman-Moore, K. S. (2002). Creating the black americandream:Race,classandcommunitydevelopment.UnpublishedPhD, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.Applicable FieldsRole of black middle class in gentrificationCase Studies“Chocolateville”, a neighborhood in North Philadelphia.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsMoore evaluates the “Black American Dream” as analternative to gentrification. The “Black American Dream” isan effort to create multi-class and socially diverse but raciallyhomogeneous Black neighborhoods. The proponents of thisDream are generally certain members of the black middleclass, often people who may not self-identify as middle classalthough they have middle or high income levels and arefrequently capable of “codeswitching” depending on whothey are interacting with. One of the primary goals of theBlack American Dream is racial uplift. Moore argues that themiddle class bias of this Dream may make it impossible toachieve. Her study is an ethnography of a North Philadelphianeighborhood she calls “Chocolateville”. It provides an in-depth analysis of race and class dynamics within the Blackcommunity. The empirical work done in this study wasgrounded in a theoretical framework, utilizing the researchof a number of academics and practitioners in the fields ofsociology, city planning, and other fields. The advisor for thisdissertation was Elijah Anderson.ApplicabilityThis study is quite useful for the purposes of this studio.It helps in terms of gaining a better understanding of theBlack community and identity politics in general, whichare certainly at least background issues in our study of theWest Powelton community. Furthermore, it raises a numberof important questions regarding community involvement,biases of community builders and community architects, andwhether it is possible to find an alternative to gentrification.Full CitationCurran, W. (2004). “Gentrification and the Nature of Work:Exploring the Links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.” Environmentand Planning A 36(7): 1243.Applicable FieldsPlanning, Economic Development, GeographyCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsCurran provides an interesting study of the impact ofgentrification (rising rents and conversion to residentialand retail use) on industrial business. Curran highlights acommon habit of planners to focus on a macro-narrative foreconomic trends at the expense of more complex realitieson the ground. She is skeptical of the insistent tales ofindustrial obsolescence, and documents they extent to whichindustrial employment is still a significant portion of NewYork City’s economy. She advocates a more inclusive formof mixed use, with a place for industry where it is viable andespecially for blue collar. Without a concern for economic andclass diversity the often repeated story of industrial declineserves the interests of displacement and the middle class atthe expense of blue collar labor which is increasingly driveninto temporary, lower skilled, and informal (i.e. unregulated,under-compensated, unsafe) work.Full Citation
    • 105Douchant, C. E. (1994). Incumbent upgrading: A frameworkfor analysis. Towards a new understanding of residentialrevitalization in winnipeg (manitoba). Unpublished MCP, THEUNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA (CANADA).Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsDouchant’s thesis is actually quite interesting. He takesit upon himself to state the difference between incumbentupgrading and gentrification, and then look to see if incumbentupgrading is occurring and how so. Incumbent upgradingdiffers from gentrification in that incumbent upgrading isthe process of revitalization without concomitant changes insocioeconomic status. He finds that there is evidence that itmight be occurring in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.There are a couple of important things to take away fromhis thesis. The first is that incumbent upgrading will not becaptured by the use of standard socioeconomic indicators.He himself uses increases in building permits combined withstasis in socioeconomic indicators. The point here is that inorder to take notice of incumbent upgrading we must alsotake look at changes in the building stock and condition.A second important finding to be taken from his researchis the set of conditions under which incumbent upgradingoccurs. He suggests that incumbent upgrading is morelikely to occur in areas that are, largely, not adopting thehigher value added sectors of the economy. In other words,those areas that are not expanding their high end serviceand financial industries are the ones in which incumbentupgrading is more likely to occur. He then finds that ittakes place in areas with housing stock that is not typicallydesired by those reaping the gains of the “new economy.”In the case of prairie Canadians this means depression erahousing. Furthermore, he finds that incumbent upgrading ismore likely to occur in places with strong social organization(areas where residents will not tolerate decay – he specificallystates NIMBYism). Finally, he shows that it is more likelyto occur in areas in which public financing is available tocomplement private financing.Full CitationHackworth, Jason (2002). Postrecession Gentrification inNew York City. Urban Affairs Review, Vol 37, no. 6, pp 815-843Applicable FieldsTheoryCase StudiesClinton, Long Island City, and DUMBO in NewYorkCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsHackworth synthesizes the growing body of literature aboutpost recession gentrification and explores some examplesin New York. The literature review identifies four changesin current gentrification: process is initiated by corporatedevelopers more often, as opposed to small-scale owner-occupiers; local and federal government intervention hasbecome more open and assertive; opposition movementsto urban redevelopment appear to be more marginal thanbefore; gentrification has become more diffused into moreremote neighborhoods which has intensified pressure on landclose to urban core. Hackworth looks at several neighborhoodcase studies (Clinton, Long Island City, and DUMBO) in NewYork to illustrate these changes in gentrification.Full CitationHammel, D. and E. Wyly (1996). “A model for identifyinggentrified areas with census data.” Urban Geography 17:248-268.Applicable FieldsMeasurement, Indicators, Theory
    • 106Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsIn their study, the authors used field surveys in the TwinCities region of Minneapolis to identify neighborhoods thathave undergone gentrification and then compared theseresults with an analysis of nine variables in the censusdata. Their model for analyzing census data proved to bemoderately accurate in identifying the neighborhoods thatshowed physical signs of gentrification.Variables used in discriminate analysis include: 1) medianhousehold income 2) change in median household income3) % of workers in managerial, professional, or technicaloccupations 4) change in % of workers in managerial,professional, or technical occupations 5) % of persons 25+with 4+ years of college 6) change in % of persons with 4+years of college 7) Median Rent 8) change in median rent9) change in median house value 10) Persons 11) Employedpersons 12) Workers employed in managerial professionalor technical occupations 13) workers 25+ with 4+ years ofcollegeIncome consistently contributed the most to their model.Rent and occupation were also found to be important factors.Between 80-90 % with a bachelors degree was the secondmost important factor after income. This will likely be animportant factor for our area as well since as the authorsnote: income “fails to capture the full range of socioeconomicchanges brought about by singles and young professionalwho have not yet reached their peak earning years.”Full CitationHamnett, C. (1991). “The Blind Men and the Elephant: TheExplanation of Gentrification.” Transactions of the Instituteof British Geographers 16(2): 173-189.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsHamnett divides debates over gentrification between those(like Ley) who stress the preferences of gentrifiers and those(like Smith) who stress the production of housing and space.He hopes for synthesis and suggests that an adequate theoryof gentrification must answer four questions: 1 Why doesgentrification occur in some cities and not others? 2 Why atsome times and not others in a particular place? 3 Wherein the city? 4 Who gentrifies? While finding benefit in both“sides,” he leans more towards the preference argument,though he offers no new arguments or evidence for eitherside.Indicators / causes: Among many other factors, summarizingother research Hamnett suggests that gentrification may bepushed by the rise of “knowledge industries” (not his term),the prevalence of middle class leisure-oriented public space,and the concentration of global command and control inurban centers, but requires mortgage finance availability,locational and physical value for the gentry, and a populationready to move in.Full CitationHartman, C. (1982). Displacement: How to fight it:NationalHousing Law Project.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsIn my opinion this book is nearly useless for us. It is anoutdated and anecdotal book whose purpose appears to belittle more than something upon which to base hope. Thebook is clearly meant to be promote grass roots activitiesand show that community organizing can prove effective instaving off nearly any form of displacement.Full CitationHarvey, T. E. A. (1999). Gentrification and West Ooakland:Causes, effects and best practices.Unpublished manuscript,Berkeley. http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers2000/gentrify/gentrify.htm
    • 107Applicable FieldsCommunity Development, Urban and Regional Politics, Urbanand Regional EconomicsCase StudiesWest Oakland, Oakland; Chicago; Bloomington, Indiana;Humboldt Park, Chicago; Harlem; Suffolk County, NY; SanFrancisco; Santa Fe; Lower East Side, NYC.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsGentrification: “the process by which poor and working-class residents, usually communities of color are displacedfrom neighborhoods by rising costs and other forcesdirectly related to an influx of new, wealthier, and oftenwhite residents. This displacement is usually accompaniesby an almost complete shift in the cultural identity of aneighborhood and its residents.”Gentrification is beginning in West Oakland. It is attributedto regional forces: the inability of housing construction tokeep up with job growth, disincentives to zone for and buildhousing, loss of manufacturing jobs, lack of accessibility toemployment, tax incentives given to developers, and thesmart growth movement. Oakland’s push to revitalize andlower crime is also a cause. Local policy focuses on bringingin new people instead of addressing the needs of currentresidents.Recommendations: Despite the regional causes, localthreats and policies must be addressed first. Citizens mustbe educated and coalitions must be formed. Improve rentersrights. Increase opportunities for homeownership (priorityfor the poor). Provide rehab loans. Discourage homeownersfrom selling to speculators. Require developers to set aside25% of units for affordable housing. Prevent displacementinstead of focusing on revitalization.Indicators: “Immediate neighborhood revitalization may beapparent in the restoration of parks, municipal facilities, andhousingprojectswhilelongertermchangesareonesthatoccurin the population demographics. There are five main areaswhere measured changes are indicators of gentrification.These areas include changes in services/businesses,employment, schools, public safety, welfare assistance andpublic housing.” “Public Assistance of residence in the formsof public housing facilities, section eight housing vouchers,cash benefits, food stamps, and health care, will also besignificant indicators of gentrification in West Oakland.”Vulnerabilities: Low incomes that prevent homeownership,land ownership and vacant property (should be in the handsof the community).Potential Strengths: Owner occupancy rates, relationshipsand networks, and the fact that property is still affordable.Best Practices:Chicago - used upcoming elections as a “political lever”, jobtraining w/ local manufacturers, Community organizationsgiven eminent domain powers, allied with local politicians.Bloomington - Affordable Housing Trust Fund. PermanentLeadership is needed.Harlem – Job training for health careers. Fostering economicopportunities for residents.Suffolk County – downpayment assistance program. Public/private partnerships.Santa Fe – Comprehensive, strategic housing plan; housingtrust funds, predevelopment loan fund, community landtrust.Lower East Side – Proposed that all city-owned land be usedfor affordable housing.ApplicabilityFocus on local threats instead of regional trends. Addressimminent displacement before neighborhood revitalization.Strengthen community leadership, solidarity, education, and
    • 108participation. During the election years, the communitymust push their hardest to have their needs addressed. Thecommunity must take control of vacant and delinquent landand not let it be acquired by speculators. Community groupsalso need sustained leadership.At the city level, government must split their efforts betweenattracting new residents and addressing the needs of existingones. Low interest rehab loans, inclusionary zoning, taxincentives for developers to develop affordable housing, jobtraining, grant community groups eminent domain powers,affordable housing trust funds, public/private partnerships,housing plan, predevelopment loan fund, community landtrust, city-owned land for affordable housing.Full CitationIhlanfeldt, Keith R.; Scafidi, Benjamin P. (2002) “Theneighbourhood contact hypothesis: Evidence from theMulticity Study of Urban Inequality.” Urban Studies. 39(4),619 - 641.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsThis paper is based on the same study, the Multi-City Study ofUrban Inequality (MCSUI), as is his other paper. The surveywas administered by a team of interdisciplinary researchersin Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles. This one,however, uses the household survey instead of the employersurvey, and Los Angeles was excluded. Using the results ofthis survey, he tests the neighborhood contact hypothesis,which roughly states that increased contact between groupswill also increase tolerance (and hopefully raise the tippingpoint).He finds that for both blacks and whites, the contact hypothesisyields positive results most acutely when the contact is witha member of the other group who is also of equal or greatersocial status. He finds that while contact yields greateracceptance among blacks, for whites, regardless of thewhites’ social status the same is not true of whites. He doesnot, however, find that whites react negatively to those oflower or equal social status, but that the contact hypothesisonly yields results under the former conditions. Social status,here, is defined by education and also by wealth.Full CitationIhlanfeldt, K. R. (1999). Are poor people really excludedfrom jobs located in their own neighborhoods? EconomicDevelopment Quarterly, 12(4), 307-314.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsIn this article, Ihlanfeldt uses the Multi-city study of urbaninequality to investigate whether or not employers in highpoverty, plurality black neighborhoods (distinguished fromsimple poverty) impose tougher screening standards. Thefirst of which is the hiring methods. He finds that they aremore willing to take on the additional cost of using referralagencies. Furthermore, the applicant screening process ismore likely to require general and specific experience, and ahigh school diploma.Full CitationKennedy, M., & Leonard, P. (2001). Gentrification: Practiceand Politics. LISC Center for Homeownership and LISCKnowledge Sharing Initiative.Applicable FieldsGentrificationCase StudiesBriefly discussed a few cities and the steps they took tooptimize the end result of gentrificationo Get organized, create a unified vision, and developan implementation plan. West Oakland and East Palo Altoof San Francisco developed a community visioning processfunded by local and national foundations. Gentrifying
    • 109communities in Atlanta and Washington also engaged inextensive community planning and visioning processes.o Control public and private assets, such as apartmentbuildings, office space and public facilities, in order to providekey resources such as affordable housing and communityfacilities. Cleveland turns over city land to CDCs and privatecorporations for the development of affordable housingor community services. The City also earmarks land fordevelopments consistent with the city’s downtown housingplan. In the Mission District of San Francisco, the historicRedstone Building may be bought with City and labor unionsupport to house non-profits hard pressed by rent hikes.The Mission Economic Development Association operates acity-owned garage, generating an important revenue streamfor the organization and making further financial resourcesavailable to the community.o Utilize traditional economic development strategies(business assistance programs, loan funds) to helpneighborhood businesses take advantage of new marketspresented by gentrification rather than succumb to itspressures. No case studies revealed the formation of a linkbetween original residents and jobs in either the regionaleconomic engines generating gentrification pressures, norin new small businesses along a neighborhood commercialstrip.o Making landlords and tenants aware of their legalrequirements and home-buying/selling workshops can helpmitigate gentrification pressures, and help lower-incomeresidents buy into the appreciating market or get full valuefor their homes. Atlanta’s community leaders recognizedthat increasing property tax rates for elderly homeownerson fixed incomes could lead to their displacement. However,none of them were aware of the city’s tax defermentregulation. If more community members were educatedabout this and other opportunities, some of the pressurescould be alleviated. Spanish-speaking tenants in MissionDistrict were less likely than most city residents to know theirrights, and less likely to demand those rights even if they areaware of them. This lack of education about landlord/tenantlaw hastens the gentrification process, since developers aredrawn to this more vulnerable population.o Authors’ case studies revealed that old-fashionednegotiation was a productive way to ensure that originalresidents of gentrifying neighborhoods received some ofthe benefits and were protected from some of the costs ofgentrification. The Tenderloin district of SRO housing inSan Francisco has very strong non-profit leadership, whichforestalled redevelopment and gentrification of the areainto an extension of the downtown hotel district throughintense negotiations with city leadership. Oakland’s mayorrecently conceded that his effort to build housing downtownfor 10,000 new residents should include set-aside affordablehousing, after negotiations with anti-gentrification activists.o None of the cities or communities studied hadsuccessfully unified new and old residents around a singlecommunity vision. Some did, however, have conflictmanagement efforts underway. For example, the artscommunity in the South of Market Area of San Francisco isworking closely with the affordable housing community tofind common ground as artists and high-tech firms converthousing and manufacturing buildings into studio space andoffices. But community-building should both honor theneighborhood’s past and create new institutions for thefuture.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsI. Varying definitions of gentrification:1) Process by which public policies and the ownersof capital conspire to allow higher-income people to reapsubstantial profits from reinvestment.2) Equivalent of urban revitalization – any commercial
    • 110or residential improvements in urban neighborhoods.3) Physical upgrading of low-income neighborhoods;renovation and upgrading of the housing stock.4) Class and racial tensions that frequently accompanythe arrival of new residents into a neighborhood.Authors define gentrification as the process by which higher-income households displace lower-income residents of aneighborhood, changing the essential character and flavorof that neighborhood. Gentrification frequently has a racialcomponent, as higher-income white households replacelower-income minority households. This replacement oftenoccurs in the same neighborhoods that experienced “whiteflight” and urban renewal in the 50s and 60s.II. Causes of gentrification:1) Rapid Job Growth: Rapid job no longer must beconcentratedintheheartofdowntowntotriggergentrification.Job growth along a city’s periphery can spur gentrification inthe core.2) Housing Market Dynamics: Various location specificpressures leave metropolitan housing prices high, real estatedevelopment lucrative, and housing in short supply comparedto job growth. Gentrification may reflect that previouslyunrecognized value in a neighborhood—quality housingstock, accessibility and proximity to downtown and/or otherattractive neighborhoods— is now being recognized.3) Preference for City Amenities: Certain demographicgroups (empty nesters, “cultural creatives”) prefer to live inurban neighborhoods with easy access to amenities – vibrantculture and street life, ethnic and racial diversity, distinctiveand often historic architectural styles, and close proximity todowntown entertainment and cultural venues.4) Increased Traffic Congestion and LengtheningCommutes: As metropolitan populations rise and existinginfrastructure ages, commutes lengthen, congestionincreases, and overall quality of life declines. Gentrificationmay reflect the desire to walk or take public transportationto work.5) Targeted Public Sector Policies: Cities use a range ofpolicy levers to revitalize neighborhoods, which may yieldgentrification. Some revitalization policies provide incentivesfor middle- and high-income families to move into distressedcommunities, or inducements for original residents toupgrade their homes.III. Consequences of gentrification:Consequences are very hard to categorize, and data arehard to secure and difficult to interpret. The consequencecan have both positive and negative impacts, depending onthe perspective of the stakeholder, and may include:o involuntary or voluntary displacement of renters,homeowners and local businesses;o increased housing and neighborhood values, whichleads to greater equity for owners and increasing rents forrenters and business owners;o increasing local and state tax revenue;o greater income mix and deconcentration of poverty;o changing street flavor and new commercialactivity;changing community leadership, power structureand institutions;o and conflicts between old and new residents.One promising sign is the fact that the economic growththat frequently undergirds gentrification brings with it thefinancial wherewithal to strike deals, invest in new publicresources and social services, and develop solutions to thestrains brought on by gentrification.ApplicabilityThe causes and consequences of gentrification identified inthis article can greatly assist us in identifying key indicatorsfor West Powelton. The case studies can also help us combinesuccessful strategies into a comprehensive plan for equitabledevelopment.Full CitationKennedy, Maureen and Leonard, Paul, Dealing withNeighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and PolicyChoices. A discussion paper prepared for the Brookings
    • 111Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy andPolicyLink, April 2001.Applicable FieldsPlanning, PolicyCase StudiesSan Francisco Bay area, Atlanta, Washington, D.C.,Cleveland.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsLooks at trends, causes and consequences of gentrification(defined as “the process of neighborhood change that resultsin the replacement of lower income residents with higherincome ones”). Rapid job growth, tight housing markets,and targeted public sector policies (such as tax incentives)are seen as the main causes. Consequences includedisplacement, increased tax revenues, increased incomemix, and changing street flavor and local leadership.ApplicabilityThe paper outlines ten necessary steps to make equitabledevelopment a reality without displacement: 1) Knowing thecontext of the City and Region, 2) Increasing understandingof the dynamics of gentrification, 3) getting organized atcity, regional and community levels, 4) developing a unifiedvision and plan, 5) implementing regulatory and policychanges as appropriate, 6) gaining control of public andprivate property assets to provide affordable housing, 7)improving resident understanding of legal rights and homesale strategies, 8) improving public education, 9) preparingparties to negotiate for more equitable development in themidst of gentrification, 10) creating forums to resolve conflictand re-knit the community.Full CitationLang, M. H. (1982). Gentrification amid urban decline:Strategies for America’s older cities. Cambridge, Mass.:Ballinger Pub. Co.Applicable FieldsGentrificationCase StudiesOne of the most interesting studies was of Philadelphia’s BellaVista, a high density, rowhouse neighborhood comprisedpredominantly of families of Italian decent. Located between6th and 11th Streets, South Street to Washington Avenue,the area is attractive because of the locale of Philadelphia’sopen air market. The neighborhood successfully foughtoff urban renewal designations and therefore has no low-income housing projects. Darlen Street is a small alleywith housing dating back to 1885 (built for artisans in thearea). It formerly housed only Italian families, but manyblack families moved in after WWII. In 1977, the first shellon the corner block was sold to, and rehabilitated by, aschoolteacher. Other white middle class professionals carriedout more rehabilitations, initially on abandoned structures.But by 1979, displacements began and by 1981, only 2 blackfamilies out of the original 7 had not yet been displaced. Overthe course of 5 years, average monthly rents rose 587%,and the selling price for shells increased nearly 700%.Benefits of gentrification:o Improved housing stock from sweat equityo Increased flow of taxable resourceso Displacees often find better living conditionsDrawbacks of gentrification:o Fear and worry of displaceeso Neighborhood resegregationo Displacees may have to move further and furtheraway from the central business districtCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsI. Definition of gentrification:Term was coined to describe the immigration of middle-classpeople to inner city areas that were formerly dominatedby working-class individuals. Studies have shown that
    • 112contrary to popular belief, gentrifiers are urbanites movingfrom other areas within the city, not suburbanites. BruceLondon believes the term carries many false assumptionssince there is no actual urban gentry at work (persons ofaristocratic background). The term has British origins, andLondon argues that we should use a term that is not “culture-specific.”Author defines gentrification as essentially private capitalinduced development in formerly lower income areas thatresults in a pattern of higher rents, and land and housevalues. Secondary displacement occurs when a areas nearpublic spending programs attract the eye of private marketspeculators and gentrifiers with the resultant displacementof the original residents.II. Position on gentrification:The book assesses gentrification’s importance in regardto other inner city trends. It also evaluates whethergentrification’s positive economic aspects are sufficient toencourage widespread urban revitalization. The author’sposition is that gentrification is a process with the potentialto lead many urban areas back to economic health if it ishandled correctly. The harmful effects must be controlledand gentrification’s positive effects must be accentuated.ApplicabilityThe book offered a helpful decision making process regardinggentrification – the Strategic Choice Process: continuous,informed problem solving that responds to and influencesthe circumstances surrounding the problem. This approachlies between rational comprehensive planning and disjointedincrementalism. AIDA (analysis of interconnected decisionareas) is the most important technique in this approach. Itfacilitates the consideration of alternative courses of actionby presenting them as sets of possible choices in the arrayof decisions required to handle a problem. This processmay help us overcome lingering feelings of animosity andcompetition in order to get to the root of the problem in WestPowelton.Full CitationLees, L. (2000). A re-appraisal of gentrification: Towards ageography of gentrification. Progress in Human Geography,24(3), 389-408.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsSurvey of discussion of gentrification in urban geographywritings. Talks about the qualities of and struggles betweengentrifiers rather than anything about the neighborhood theyare moving into.Full CitationLey, D. (1992). “Gentrification in recession: social changein six Canadian inner-cities, 1981-1986.” Urban Geography13(3).230-256.Applicable FieldsIndicators, Social Geography, Spatial Patterning ofGentrificationCase StudiesCanadian Federal and Provincial CapitalsCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsEconomic downturns did not slow the pace of gentrificationin Canadian inner-cities. In fact, this pace increased asreal estate values decreased and public sector employmentincreased. Ley identifies a group of attributes that arecharacteristic of gentrifying neighborhoods and calculatestheir correlation to gentrification in these cities. Finally,he presents three strategies of the spatial patterning ofgentrification, and identifies the type of people that aregenerally associated with each strategy.
    • 113ApplicabilityBased on the findings of this paper, West Powelton stands inthe way of gentrification because of its proximity to the eliteneighborhoods of Powelton Village, Spruce Hill, and GardenCourt; its proximity to major universities and hospitals; andits old housing stock. But on the other hand, the ethniccomposition and significant amount of public housing in theneighborhood can act as a deterrent to gentrification.If the real estate market remains strong, developers willbe more willing to invest in a neighborhood such as WestPowelton. It’s proximity to gentrifying neighborhoodsmakes it a prime candidate for reinvestment (“waves ofreinvestment move sequentially, block by block throughout aneighborhood from an existing entry point, taking advantageof cheaper prices on the reinvestment frontier”). If this isthe case, new residents to the neighborhood are likely to bea part of the upper-middle class.But if the market goes into a downturn, investment will beconsidered more risky and adventurous. This will deterlarge-scale developers from entering the market. Instead,middle-class professionals are more likely to invest in theneighborhood by purchasing a home and fixing it up with“sweat equity.” In such a real estate climate, you are alsomore likely to see a counterculture presence emerge in theneighborhood.Full CitationNelson, K. P. (1988). Gentrification and distressed cities:an assessment of trends in intrametropolitan migration.Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin Press.Applicable FieldsSociology, PolicyCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsReviews literature on migration and revitalization whichdemonstrates the relevance of studying trends in migration.The book than analyzes available data from the 1980 censusto see if it supports the perception that cities have becomemore attractive during the 70s. Whether cities are attractingmore upper-income migrants is the key factor studied.Nelson looks at migration and immigration in and out ofcities as well data from the Annual Housing Survey thatsurveyed residents about desire to move. Nelson’s mainindicator for gentrification is above-average income growthin lower-income tracts.This book is a little outdated and makes use of fairlyunsophisticated analysis. The literature reviews arecomprehensive and two sections (Impact of Gentrification, &Location of Change within Cities, pp128-150) are particularlyrelevant to our studio.Key Findings:o Gentrifying tracts did not have higher rates ofpopulation loss than the cities in which they are locatedo above average relocation of the poor appeared tohave occurred in cities with the most gentrificationbetween 1970 & 1980 in most of 10 cities studied thelocation of poor population shifted more drastically than totalpopulation – most notably in BostonFull CitationPalen, J. and B. London (1984). Gentrification, Displacementand Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany, SUNY Press.Applicable FieldsSociology, Geography, PolicyCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsThe book collects 11 essays by various contributors withintroductory and concluding material by the editors. Thechapters deserve to be evaluated in their own right, however
    • 114superficially: The collection displays the continuing and bynow academically sterile (but popularly unresolved) tensionover defining gentrification as a separate process from urbanrevitalization. Authors wrestle with the limits of the availabledata. In the end one of the few things the editors agree onis that gentrification is not a single monolithic and inevitableprocess.The essays are largely superseded by more recent work.The only significant novelty is chapter six, which providesone of the few longitudinal qualitative survey results in theliterature.Full CitationRobinson, T. (1995). Gentrification and grassroots resistancein San Francisco’s tenderloin. Urban Affairs Review, 30, 483-513.Applicable FieldsCity Planning, ActivismCase StudiesSan Francisco TenderloinCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsActivists caused San Francisco to change from focusingon tourist and commercial development in the tenderloinneighborhood to having a nonprofit housing boom. This isabout a very poor inner city next to a wealthy white collardowntown. A group of activists in the neighborhood createda document The Tenderloin Tomorrow that spoke for how theresidents saw their neighborhood. This document describedthe “social order” of the existing neighborhood. NOMPCwas that political advocacy group. They also publisheda community newspaper The Tenderloin Times. Activistwrote an ordinance to stop turning SRO hotels into touristhotels and lobbied for moratorium on this and educated theagencies in government on why this was important. Ownersof hotels that want to switch have to pay a fee into the city’saffordable-housing fund. If an action is inevitable, then harmmust be mitigated. “These correctives would be financed bythe very developers allegedly most responsible for the harmand most likely to profit by it.” (Robinson, pg. 495) CEQAmade the developers have to do an environmental impactreport EIR “if there is “any substation adverse effects onhuman beings, either direct or indirect”. They educated theresidents on zoning.Applicabilityo Fees that would help to solve the problems that adeveloper creates by a certain type of development can beassessed.o Documents including newspapers created by and forresidents should be encouraged.o Laws should be “massaged” to apply to the currentsituationFull CitationRohe, William, and Stewart, Leslie. “Homeownership andNeighborhood Stability.” Housing Policy Debate 7 (1)Applicable FieldsEconomics, Planning, PolicyCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsLooks at theoretical and empirical literature to see ifthe general held belief that home-ownership leads toneighborhood stability (property maintenance, longertenure, and community participation). The authors createda database on homeownership and neighborhoods using1980 and 1990 Census data to test the literature findings.The literature review showed evidence that homeownershipdoes lead to greater neighborhood stability, and the censusdata backs that up.
    • 115ApplicabilityThe authors note that more research is necessary in thisarea, especially in lower-income neighborhoods. We couldass to this area of study by looking at property maintenanceand tenure in relation to homeownership.Full CitationSchaffer, R., & Smith, N. (1986). The gentrification ofHarlem? Annals of the Association of American Geographers,76, 347-365.Applicable FieldsSocial Geography, Spatial Patterning of GentrficationCase StudiesHarlemCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsGentrification is indeed taking place in Harlem and newwhite residents are displacing existing black residents. Thishas been determined by looking at a number of indicators.There are several potential limitations to the process.Significance of Gentrification: It “is a ‘triumph’ that canpotentially bring higher property tax returns and therebyenhance the ‘economic vigor’ of the city.”Effects of Gentrification: Reverses the economic and socialdecline of the inner cities. Do the benefits of gentrification(higher tax revenues) exceed the costs (displacement)?Evidence suggests that as many 23 percent of departingresidents are displaced. Is the improved housing stockworth the higher rental costs?Causes of Gentrification: A “re-invasion” of the zone oftransition. Causes are explained by changing lifestyles anddemographics. Two indicators emerge from the census:income and rent levels. Housing market data also are a goodindicator. “Statistical indicators are not likely to yield earlyclues to middle-class reinvestment.” But “as gentrificationmatures, indicators are increasingly available.”“Black neighborhoods have been perceived as harder togentrify.” Furthermore, black gentrification rarely occursbecause of a lack of upper-class blacks. If white gentrificationis to occur, their perceptions of Harlem must change. Also,public subsidies will help to accelerate the process.One good way to examine the process is to compare salesdata from Harlem with that of other gentrifying areas ofManhattan.ApplicabilityThe development of vacant land, as opposed to rehabilitationwill ease the threat of displacement. In order to determine ifgentrification is occurring, income levels are the best indicatorto study, followed by rent levels. In order for large-scalereinvestment to occur, the perception that white gentrifiershave of the neighborhood must first change. In addition,a strong real estate market and public subsidies (such asthe 10 year tax abatement) will help to speed gentrification.Trends of gentrification in West Powelton should also becompared to those of already gentrified neighborhoods suchas Powelton Village and Spruce Hill.Full CitationSlater, T. (2004). “North American Gentrification? Revanchistand Emancipatory Perspectives Explored.” Environment andPlanning A 36(7): 1191.Applicable FieldsGeographyCentral Questions, Arguments, Findings
    • 116Slater contrasts the Canadian narrative of liberatory,diversity-enhancing gentrification with Neil Smith’s recentimage of gentrification as the revenge of the middle classin the U.S. He finds both inaccurate. Canadian gentrificationhas not succeeded in sustaining diversity. There is littleevidence of a conscious strategy of revenge by gentrifiersin the US, even in New York, where housing pressure hasclimbed far up the income ladder. Slater suggests that, whilethe negative effects of gentrification are easy to grasp, ifproponents wish to assert positives from gentrification theymust specify exactly what those benefits are and for whomthey exist, without recourse to vague notions of the good ofthe city.ApplicabilitySlater makes the point that terminology and names matter.Control of the neighborhood names (think of the shiftingboundaries of University City) is not merely a trivial real estatemarketing ploy, or a question of ego and territorialism. It isboth a symbol of and part of control over the neighborhoodand the question of for whom that neighborhood exists.Full CitationSlater, T., W. Curran and L. Lees (2004). “GentrificationResearch: New Directions and Critical Scholarship.”Environment and Planning A 36(7): 1141.Applicable FieldsGeography, Urban StudiesCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsThis introduction to a themed issue of Environment andPlanning A seeks to restore an interest in social justice withingentrification scholarship. Slater and Curran suggest thatresearch has moved from its critical and even radical socialjustice roots to a centrist study of middle class preferenceand definitions of the phenomenon. The consequences ofgentrification are more often assumed or defined awayrather than. They define gentrification as “nothing more orless than the class dimensions of neighborhood change;”the production and consumption of space for classes abovethose living in an area. Squeamishness about the negativeconnotations of the term serves to deflect criticism from theprocess.Full CitationSmith, Neil and Williams, Peter, eds. Gentrification andthe City. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986. Cybriwsky, Ley,Western: “The political and social construction of revitalizedneighborhoods”Case StudiesSociety Hill, PhiladelphiaCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsSignificant urban change depends on human agency withina structural context. In 1944 “Young Turks” convince citycouncil to enhance role of city planning commission; GreaterPhiladelphia Movement and City Policy Committee were 2civic groups with powerful and influential members. SocietyHill meant to bring elite (whites) back downtown, succeededwith lots of marketing and political help.Full CitationSmith, Neil and Williams, Peter, eds. Gentrification and theCity. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986. Legates and Hartman:“The Anatomy of Displacement in the U.S.”Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsLooks at several displacement studies from across thecountry, and finds the following trends:Inmovers: prior location= city (not suburb); age: young
    • 117adult, few elderly or children; race: white, high income.Outmovers (harder to track): More diverse age, income, andrace. Tend to move close to previous neighborhood. Thisstudy found majority of outmovers to be white, but the studyis nearly 20 years old, so not reliable for current effects.ApplicabilityThe strategy of looking at several displacement studiesprobably won’t work for us, but it is a good idea. Also, theindicators used could be helpful.Full CitationSmith, N. (1992). “Blind Man’s Buff, or Hamnett’sPhilosophical Individualism in Search of Gentrification?”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17(1):110-115.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsSmith finds Hamnett’s characterization of the gentrificationdebate out dated, overly dichotomized and sensationalistic,and too accepting of a simple additive, liberal individualism.Smith identifies three main types of gentrifiers: professionaldevelopers, landlords, and occupier developers, but suggeststhat everyone involved, from bankers to reporters, shouldbe considered a part of a complex gentrification processrather than treating individual renovators and residents asheroic gentrification pioneers with unique agency. Such anemphasis on preference itself conforms to the middle classself image, and gives weight to visible changes (people andhouses) at the expense of invisible changes in investmentand social relationships.ApplicabilityOver emphasis on preferences and amenities in explaininggentrification obscures factors such as imperfect information,irrational prejudice, and the inelasticity of the housingmarket that all make pure preference models insufficient.The expression and power of preference differs by class.Full CitationSmith, N. (1987). “Gentrification and the Rent-Gap.” Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 77(3): 462-465.Applicable FieldsGeography, Economic TheoryCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsSmith reiterates and refines his theory of the “rent gap” firstadvanced in 1979 as a counterweight to canonical urbanlocation theory and neoclassical economics both of whichwere being used to suggest that property values essentiallyfollowed a distance gradient from the urban core. Smithsuggested that urban areas undergo cycles of investmentand disinvestment that precipitate a mismatch between thevalue that can be realized from deteriorated improvementsand the potential value of a location near the urban center.The rent gap is a temporary mismatch between assets in thespace market (buildings) and in the location market (land),which places much of the responsibility of gentrification onthe inter- and intra-urban investment patterns. Gentrificationis in part made possible by the presence of a rent gap.Smith emphasizes that gentrification is a process thatinvolves social class, changes in physical structures, andeconomic changes in the markets for labor and space. Someof its indicators are much easier to see than others, butshould not lead observers to confuse the indicators with thecomplete process. Income is easier to measure than classbut may mask changes in catalyzed by first wave gentrifierslike artists or students.
    • 118ApplicabilityIndicator: A simultaneous rise in income and rent levelsin previously disinvested areas suggests gentrification orsusceptibility to it and screens out in situ enrichment andsimple speculation.Full CitationTaylor, M. (1992). Can you go home again? Black gentrificationand the dilemma of difference. Berkeley Journal of Sociology,37, 121-138.Applicable FieldsRole of black middle class in gentrificationCase StudiesInterviews with eleven black-middle class professionals livingin Harlem.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsThe author of this article interviewed eleven black middle-class professionals who made the choice to move into Harlemsince 1975. It discusses their dual identity as they strugglewith being different – the race difference in the workplaceand the class difference in the neighborhood they live in– and how they find a life balance through these choices.Many of these professionals feel a responsibility to the blackcommunity and seek a sense of communitas,ApplicabilityThese interviews and the analysis of the author are interestinganecdotes that can be used a to generate ideas about themeaning of equitable development.Full CitationVigdor, J. L. (2002). Does gentrification harm the poor?Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2002(1), 133-182.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsThis article serves a number of purposes, the first of whichis to actually come up with a definition of gentrification,which is as follows: “private sector initiated residential andcommercial investment in urban neighborhoods accompaniedby inflows of households with higher socioeconomic statusthan the neighborhood’s initial evidence” (p. 135).Vigdor goes on to show that displacement is neither necessarynor sufficient to harm the poor. Furthermore, he shows thatthere are potentially offsetting factors (theoretically increasedtax revenues-moving costs-neighborhood quality-accessto employment). He also, shows that most households donot remain in poverty for more than 3 years. Additionally,he shows that macroeconomic business cycles no longernecessarily correspond in magnitude with housing costs.As a result, the poor have had to increasing housing costsrelative to income even during market corrections.Full CitationWarde, A. (1991). “Gentrification as Consumption: Issues ofClass and Gender.” Environment and Planning D: Society andSpace 9: 223-232.Applicable FieldsGeography, Urban StudiesCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsWarde defines gentrification as: 1. displacement by a higherstatus/class group that results in a new spatial segregationby class; 2. investment into housing emphasizing certainaesthetic qualities and supporting new service provision; 3.concentration of a new cluster of members of the higherstatus group, and; 4. extension of private ownership ofdomestic property and rising property values. He identifies
    • 119the cause as: 1. gentrifiers trading space for accessibility;2 demographic shifts such as economic independence andlongevity of empty nesters, socially acceptable gay couples,delayed child bearing, replacement of formerly “female”domestic work by purchased services; 3 aesthetic preferencefor urban over suburban living; 4 rise of a new professionalservice class for whom gentrification is an appropriate culturalexpression; 5 cheap housing supply relative to reducedaffordability elsewhere in the city with good proximity todowntown, and; 6 a rent gap between current and potentialuse of the land.He also suggests that the following attributes belong togentrifiers:constitutionofidentitydistinctfromotherfractionsof the middle class through the pursuit of gentrification;greater proportional expenditure on services than for theworking class or non gentrifying middle class; status and ameasure of security gained from credentials and educationrather than organizational position or simple ownership;residential mobility.Warde’s main contention is that gentrification is not aninevitable, ahistorical, economic process. It is linked tochanges in labor, domestic and gender roles for a portion ofthe middle class.ApplicabilityIndicators: rising local education levels (complicated bystudent renters), dual income households without children,deferred marriage, late childbearingFull CitationWilson,D.,&Mueller,T.(2004).Representing“neighborhood”:Growth coalitions, newspaper reporting, and gentrificationin St. Louis. The Professional Geographer, 56(2), 282-294.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsReporters and how they talk about the neighborhood helpsgentrify certain areas. It only looks at studying what thereporters said. Only might help if you wanted to look intowhat Philly reporters were saying about the neighborhood.ApplicabilityoGentrification can be studied by looking into what reporterssay about the area.Full CitationWyly, E. K. and D. J. Hammel (2004). “Gentrification,Segregation, and Discrimination in the American UrbanSystem.” Environment and Planning A 36(7): 1215.Applicable FieldsGeography, Public PolicyCentral Questions, Arguments, FindingsContinuing their study of home mortgage disclosure act dataWyly and Hammel find that mortgage investment is muchvaster in the suburbs but grew much faster in the urban coreof gentrifying cities even after adjusting for the low baselevels of urban core investment.Gentrification affects a tiny minority of the real estate inthe country and of the population but it is a leading edgeprocess that indicates trends, and lingering biases. In 19931 in 94 mortgage applicants sought loans in gentrifyingneighborhoods, in 2000 1 in 81. They find that land marketcompetition has not and probably does not lead to a rationaldesegregation of neighborhoods based on a desire tomaximize profit.Innovation: The authors use a data set that directly addressesthe differential levels of capital investment by location andput the scale of gentrification (using a conservative definition)into perspective without denying its importance.Indicators: Lending activity is a late indicator. Bank lendersfollow developers, and developers follow developer-owners.
    • 120Full CitationWyly, Elvin and Hammel, David, “Islands of Decay in Seas ofRenewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification”Housing Policy Debate 10 (4).Applicable FieldsPolicy, economics, statistics.Case StudiesBoston, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Minneapolis—St. Paul,Philadelphia, Seattle, Washington DC.Central Questions, Arguments, FindingsThis paper argues that there is a strong connection betweenhousing policy and gentrification. It studies the effects ofgentrification—in this case as related to mortgage lending—in order to better improve the situation. The authors lookedat the number of individuals applying for mortgages ingentrified neighborhoods as evidence of a resurgence ofgentrification, and argue that private-market developmentis necessary to gentrification, but mortgage capitalfacilitates gentrification in ways it has not in the past. Thenew standardization of mortgages have produced powerfulgentrification pressures.ApplicabilityWe may want to look into mortgage programs available inWest Philly and make sure that current residents have equalaccess to them as non-residents.
    • 121Appendix D: Organizations
    • catagory name address phone phone2 fax tty email web founded assets income contactarts District One Community EducationCenter Inc3500 Lancaster Ave 387-1911 cec@libertynet.org http://www.libertynet.org/cec/ $88,965 $200,727arts Ellen Powell Tiberino Memorial Museumof Contemporary Art3819 HAMILTON St 385-2003 Joseph Tiberinoarts Gwendolyn Bye Dance Center /Dancefusion3611 LANCAStER AVE 222-7633 inquiry@gbyedance.com http://www.gbyedance.com/ $2,611 $35,465arts Pennsylvania Pro Musica 225A S 42ND St $6,462 $15,346arts Philadelphia Dance Company 9 N Preston St 387-8200 387-8203 http://www.Philadanco.org $629,746 $983,571arts Philadelphia Dance Projects 10 N Preston St 676-1540 856-697-4364info@philadanceprojects.org http://philadanceprojects.org/index.php $9,104 $59,762business 40th Street Area Business Association(40ABA)4000 Market St. http://www.40thandmarketinphilly.com/history.php 1995 Robert Christianbusiness iPraxis 3701 MARKET St Suite340966-6121 888-726-9052 ipraxix1@aol.com Osiris Group Incbusiness Lancaster Avenue Business Association(Laba)3741 Walnut StreetBox 441386-5619 lancasteraveba@aol.com http://www.thelaba-cdc.orgbusiness Small Business Clinic, University ofPennsylvania Law School3400 Sansom St 898-8044 http://www.smallbusinessclinic.org/business University City District (UCD) 3940-42 Chestnut St 243-0555 243-0557 ucd@ucityphila.org http://www.universitycitydistrict.org/ $ 3,702,959 $ 5,078,271 Paul Steinkebusiness University City Science Center 3701 Market Street,3rd Floor966-6000 info@sciencecenter.org http://www.sciencecenter.org/index.aspbusiness West Philadelphia Enterprise Center 4548 Market St 895-4000 895-4001 info@theenterprisecenter.com http://www.theenterprisecenter.com/business Wharton Small Business DevelopmentCenterVance Hall 3733Spruce Street898-4861 898-1063 mail@sbdc.wharton.upenn.edu http://whartonsbdc.wharton.upenn.edu/index.htmlchild care Baring House 3401 Baring St 386-0251 http://www.ysiphila.org/crisis-care.htmlchild care H.O.P.E. Family Center 766 N. 44th St. 823-5710 823-8297 823-5711 hopefc@cbps.org http://www.hope.cbps.org/child care Little Folks Care Center, Inc. 3901 Market St 662-5210child care Mantua Family Center @ MortonMcMichael School3543 Fairmount AveRoom 109662-9520 662-0336 mantua@cbps.org http://www.mantua.cbps.org/ Iraina Salaamchild care Pleasant House Day Care 651 N 35th St 386-1490child care Resources For Change Inc 3500 LANCAStER AVEsuite 105222-8090 222-8099 resourcesforchange@earthlink.net $81,782 $241,394child care Saint Ignatius Day Care Center 636 N 43rd St 222-2663child care West Philadelphia Child Care Network(WPCCN)4117 LANCAStER AVE 477-2244 267-531-5245 267-531-5249http://pecc.info/content.php?id=3 $460,338 $307,321child care West Philadelphia Community Center/Caring People Alliance3512 Haverford Ave 386-4075 386-5044 http://www.caringpeoplealliance.org/west_phila.html 1932 $20,421,685 $52,138,665 Arlene F. Bell,Esq.church Apostolic Church of the True Yokefellowof Our Lord Jesus Christ4007-11 Lancaster Ave Elder James H.LewisSocial Support, Service, & Development Organizations in and around Mantua and West Powelton
    • catagory name address phone phone2 fax tty email web founded assets income contactchurch Bible School Mission Pentacostal Church 4508 Lancaster Ave 879-2628 Rev. BerthaCockrellchurch Calvary Episcopal Church 814 N 41st St 222-2070 222-5860 office.calvary@verizon.net http://www.calvaryepiscopalnl.org/ D. Antonio Martinchurch Church of Faith 772 N 38th St 386-5139 Pastor Claude R.Barneschurch Church of God of Prophecy 617 N 41st St 382-4550 Rev. DavidHenfieldchurch Church of New Hope & Faith 661-663 N 39th St 222-7672 Bishop JamesMcneal Jr.church Community Baptist Church 428 N. 40th St. 222-1567 Rev. J. RobertMcculloughchurch Fellowship Bible Church 4107 Aspen St 386-4610 Deacon ReginaldFortgonchurch First Episcopal District African MethodistEpiscopal Church / First District Self-Help Inc3801 MARKET St Suite300662-0506 $10,740,512 $1,288,149 Earl R Jeffersonchurch First Resurrection Baptist Church 3820 Lancaster Ave 386-6440 Rev. W. R.Walthallchurch First United Baptist Church 3728-30 HaverfordAve349-9113 Rev. Samuel B.Adkinschurch Gate To Heaven Ministry Inc 3415 HAVERFORD AVE 387-0779church Gates of Heaven Pentecostal Church 869 BELMONT Ave 878-1193church Glory Baptist Church 4128 Aspen St # 44 382-1250 Rev. L.B. TaylorDDchurch Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church 3529 HaverfordAvenue222-3570 Rev. MargaretStinnettechurch Greater Faith Baptist Church 4031 BARING St 243-1080church Highway Church of Christ Day StarCommunity Services Inc3921 POWELTON AVE <$25,000 Fred Grantchurch Lombard Central Presbyterian Church 4201 Powelton Ave 222-3044 Rev. William Yateschurch Metropolitian Baptist Church 3500 BARING St 222-9536 Rev. JeraldLamont Thomaschurch Millcreek Baptist Church of Philadelphia 641 N Preston St 386-2989 Rev. Dr. DoloresE. Lee McCabechurch Mount Ephraim Christian Church 3812 Lancaster Ave 386-8687 Rev. Rachel Mccoychurch Mount Olive Baptist Church & YouthAssociation638 N 37th St 382-5552 222-5992(youthassociation)Catherine Easton /Catherine Hodges
    • catagory name address phone phone2 fax tty email web founded assets income contactchurch Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church 649 N 42nd St 386-5638 Rev. Marshall L.Shepard Jr.church Mount Pisgah A.M.E. Church /GreaterWorks CDC (uncertain status as of 2004)428 N 41st St 386-6181 Rev. Dr. MickarlD. Thomas Sr.church Mount Pleasant Primitive Baptist Churchof Philadelphia435-41 N 38th St 386-4060 Pastor Elder EdwinHawkinschurch Mount Zion Holy Church 4110 Haverford Ave 349-6734 Rev. GregoryStandford Sr.church Mount Zion Pentecostal Faith Church Inc 421 N PREStON St 382-2975 Rev. Edward L.Longchurch New Bethel Apostolic Church 4221 Aspen St 222-1228 Rev. ThelmaBryantchurch New Bethlehem Baptist Church 4036 Aspen St. 222-0164 222-5828 George Jacksonchurch New Hope Primitive Baptist Church 521 N 34th St 382-3911church Pleasant Grove Baptist Church ofPhiladelphia3909 Lancaster Ave 387-7136 Joshua Grove IIchurch Prayer And Faith Temple Church of Godin Christ3959 Lancaster Ave 386-7675 Elder AlbertThompson Jr.church Refuge Deliverance Holiness Church 3419 Haverford Ave 387-3917 Rev. DanielOustenchurch Revelation Baptist Church 3937 Haverford Ave 386-8500 Pastor Bishop C.R.Cummingschurch Robinson Chapel Baptist Church 630 N 44th St 387-8365 Rev. Jacob DevineJrchurch Saint Andrew And Saint Monica EpiscopalChurch3600 Baring St 222-7606 Rev. Samuel Adu-Andohchurch Saint Ignatius of Covenant 644 N. 43rd St. 386-0302 Rev. Frederico A.Brittochurch Saint Joseph Baptist Church 125 S 40th St 382-1886church Saint Jude Baptist Church 632 N 38th St 386-4719 Rev. Cleveland M.Edwards Jrchurch Saint Paul United Holy Church & Daycare 3832 HAVERFORD AVE 386-9319church Second Antioch Baptist Church 912-18 N 41st St 387-4660 Rev. S. ToddTownsend Srchurch Second Mount Zion Baptist Church 3814 PARRISH St 382-1536 Rev. James MooreSrchurch St Johns United Church of God 856 N 40th St 382-2982 Mark A Ings Srchurch Transfiguration Baptist Church 38th St. andFairmount Ave387-5708 Rev. P.H. Smithchurch True Mission Holy Church Philadelphia Inc 3931 Lancaster Ave 382-6140 Edward Gaychurch Tyree A.M.E. Church 3800 Hamilton St 222-5620 Rev. Robert C.Wadechurch United House of Prayer For All People 4033 Haverford Ave 222-3677 Apostle H.L.Grinerchurch Victory Baptist Church 4238-40 Wallace St 387-4973 Rev. William CrossJrchurch Ward A.M.E. Church 728 N 43rd St. 222-7992 Rev. Herman ARhodeschurch West Bethlehem Baptist Church Inc 3500 SPRING GARDENSt382-7155 Rev Ricky Rivera
    • catagory name address phone phone2 fax tty email web founded assets income contactchurch West Philadelphia Assembly For ChristInc3624 Harverford Ave 387-6912 Rev. RobertThorntondevelopment Belmont Improvement Association Inc /Greater Belmont CDC4087 Lancaster Ave 382-6107 387-6104 $32,902 $105,500 Gertrude Weaverdevelopment First District Economic Development AndEnterprise Group3801 MARKET St Suite204$4,947,395 $591,515development Mantua Community ImprovementCommittee Inc (MCIC)3233 SPRING GARDENStRick Youngdevelopment Partnership CDC 4020 Market St Suite100662-1612 662-1703 http://www.thepartnershipcdc.orgdevelopment Peoples Emergency Center 3902 Spring Garden St 382-7523 386-6290 http://www.pec-cares.org $3,997,493 $5,631,025development Peoples Emergency Center CommunityDevelopment Corporation326 N 39th St 382-7523 http://www.pec-cares.org $7,507,171 $1,664,146development Showcase Community Services Inc 4255 Lancaster Ave 386-5619 <$25,000devleopment Haverford Union Brandywine (HUB)Coalition Corporation621 N 39th St front Stephen Hawkinseducational Mantua Library 3321 Haverford ave 823-7436employment Philadelphia Job Corps Center 4601 Market Street 471-9693 747-8552 www.jobcorpsregion2.comemployment SECOND MILE CENTER 214 S 45th St 662-1663 $297,091 $531,595fire Engine 44 / Field Medic Unit 34 3420 HaverfordAvenue911food Caring About Sharing Inc 500 N 39th St 387-6363 387-6655 1993 $0 $0 Beverly Smithgovernment Honorable Hardy Williams (D), District 8,Phila. County / Blacks Networking ForProgress Inc / Organized Anti-CrimeCommunity Network3801 Market St Suite200662-5700 823-4903government Social Security Administration 3901 Market St, 2ndFloor800-772-1213800-325-0778government The Honorable Chaka Fattah (D), Houseof Representatives, 2nd District4104 Walnut St 387-6404 202-225-5392http://www.house.gov/fattahgovernment The Honorable Jannie L. Blackwell, 3rdDistrictRoom 408, City Hall 686-3418 686-1933 jannie.blackwell@phila.gov http://www.phila.gov/citycouncil/blackwell/health Maternity Care Coalition Momobile WestPhiladelphia Resource Center4163 Lancaster Ave 386-3391 esourcecenter@MOMobile.org http://www.momobile.org/programs/west.html
    • catagory name address phone phone2 fax tty email web founded assets income contacthealth Philadelphia College of OsteopathicMedicine (PCOM) Healthcare Center -Lancaster Avenue Division4148 Lancaster Ave 662-0119 215-662-5339http://www.pcom.edu/General_Information/Community_Healthcare_Centers_/Lancaster_Avenue_Center_/Lancaster_Avenue_Cen.htmlhealth Philadelphia Health Care Center #4 4400 Haverford Ave 685-7600 386-4902health Phoenix II Drug And Alcohol Recovery Inc 901 N 43RD St $50,254 $138,924health Presbyterian Medical Center of theUniversity of Penna Health System51 N 39th St 662-8000 $209,282,959 $227,088,934health Re-Enter Inc 3331 POWELTON AVE 222-2770 $110,251 $349,558 VANCE HUDSONhealth Saint Ignatius Nursing Home 4401 Haverford Ave 349-8800 http://www.hospital-data.com/hospitals/SAINT-IGNATIUS-NURSING-HOME-PHILADEL266.html1952housing Pinn Gardens Inc 908 BELMONT AVE 877-2422 $3,185,676 $248,986media West Philadelphia EducationalBroadcasting (WPEB-FM)3901 Market St Suite 7-B386-3800 1978 $181 $54,444neighborhood Coalition of Philadelphia NeighborhoodAssociationsjcohen1642@aol.com Colleen Puckettneighborhood Holly Street Garden & LiteraryAssociation871 N HOLLY ST 1STFLR387-3252 382-5263 HSBGG@PRODIGY.NET http://pages.prodigy.net/bferguson1/index.html 1990 $22 $5,085neighborhood Mantua Community Planners, Inc./Mantua Block Captains Association3320-3350 HaverfordAve387-3398neighborhood Mantua Haverford Community Center /Concerned Citizens of Mantua /oncerned Women of Mantua631-39 N 39TH 382-4591 382-5147 $12,908 $55,114 Danell Steedneighborhood Mantua Scattered Sites Tenant Council 3804 Mt Vernon St 684-4920 Peggy Jonesneighborhood Powelton Village Civic Association PO BOX 7616,Philadelphia, PA19101http://www.swarthmore.edu/Humanities/langlab/powelton/pvca.html<$25,000neighborhood Saunders Park Neighbors Association(SPN)3942 Baring St 386-6541 mitcheljean@aol.com L. Jean Mitchell
    • catagory name address phone phone2 fax tty email web founded assets income contactneighborhood Spruce Hill Community Association 257 S 45th St 349-7825 http://www.sprucehillca.org/ Joe Ruaneneighborhood West Philadelphia Coalition ofNeighborhoods And Businesses (WPCNB)4601 Market St 476-0400 1987 Lee Tolbertneighborhood West Philadelphia Partnership 3901 Market St , POBox 1948386-5757 386-3220 http://www.westphilly.org $531,489 $1,457,996 Joseph P. Blakeneighborhood West Powelton Concerned CommunityCouncil (WPCCC)4061 Filbert St 386-3078 1970 <$25,000neighborhood Westpark Tenants 300 N Busti Ave Andrea Fosterother socialserviceBlack Family Services Incorporated 3801 Market St 662-0533 <$25,000other socialserviceDe La Salle Aftercare 3509 SPRING GARDENSt387-0200 387-8666 ImmaculataDiBenedettoother socialserviceEDITH RUDOLPHY RESIDENCE FOR THEBLIND3827 POWELTON AVE 386-1808 1880 $1,035,667 $221,923other socialserviceElwyn Philadelphia 4040 Market St 895-5500 386-4436 http://www.elwyn.org/contact_phila.htmlother socialserviceElwyn-Nevil Center for the Deaf andHearing Impaired / Deaf And HearingImpaired Senior Citzens of DelawareValley4031 Ludlow St 895-5710 895-5566 895-5567 Zwillingp@aol.com http://www.elwyn.org/contact_phila.html 1969 <$25,000 Tricia Dabrowskiother socialserviceYouth Service, Inc. (runs Baring House) 410 N 34th St 222-3262 http://www.ysiphila.org/other socialservicesPenn State Cooperative Extension inPhiladelphia County, Urban EducationDevelopment Research & Retreat Center4601 Market St 2ndFloor471-2200 471-2231 PhiladelphiaExt@psu.edu http://philadelphia.extension.psu.edu/other socialservicesWest Park Respect Yourself 445 Holden St Bernice Collinspolice 16th Police District 3901 Lancaster Ave 686-3160recreation Clayborn and Lewis Playground 3800 Poplar Ave 685-7689 685-7654 Connie Summerow
    • catagory name address phone phone2 fax tty email web founded assets income contactrecreation James L. Wright (Mantua) RecreationCenter3320-3350 Haverfordave685-7686 685-7437 Donald Solomonrecreation Lee Recreation Center 4328 Haverford Ave 685-7655 AndrewMcLaughlinrecreation McAlpin Playground 732-766 n. 36th St 685-7654 Connie Summerowschool Belmont Charter School (W68) 4030 Brown St 823-8208 823-8209school Drexel University 3201 ARCH St Suite420895-2000school Family Charter School (W08) 907 N 41st St 386-5768 386-5769school Maritime Academy Charter School (W66) 3020 Market St 387-7066school Martha Washington School 766 N. 44th St. 823-8203school Montessori Genesis II, Inc. 3510 Brandywine St 387-2078 387-2122 ecmgii@aol.com http://mgenesis2.org 47,129 $313,387school Morton Mcmichael School 3543 Fairmount Ave 382-8205 http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/schools/mcmichael/school Samuel Powel Elementary School 301 NORTH 36TH ST. 823-8201 http://www.powel.phila.k12.pa.us/main.htmlschool University City High School 3601 Filbert Sts 387-5100school University of Pennsylvania 3451 WALNUT ST RM329$7.47 billion $3.24 billion