What do the indicators tell us about the condition of U.S. cities?

1.

We spent a considerable amount of time reviewing/discussing indicators of city conditions and the general nature of problems of U.S. cities. Why have we done this? What is the relevance to our approach to studying urban revitalization? What do the indicators tell us about the condition of U.S. cities? What do you consider to be the most critical indicators for assessing city conditions and why?

My Answer: City condition indicators and general problems in US cities are important because it allows urban planners, stakeholders, residents, and urban developers a sense of what needs to be done to. Some indicators of city conditions could be social, economic engagement, housing affordability, civic engagement, poverty, cultural perspectives, and demographics. Some US problems could be loss of jobs, housing affordability, low-income displacement, and public housing issues.

Looking at problems in US cities allows for areas that need to be gentrified, areas where public housing could be placed, communities where funding, loans, and grants could be awarded. Everything covered in class thus far has showed us why it is important to address problems. For example, if an area has been revitalized if a wealthier family is moving in and the cost of rent or purchasing a home has gone up that wouldn’t be an issue but for low-income families, they will most likely not live in that area. In Jane Jacobs article, ” Kind of Problem a city is” it mentions urban renewal and the importance of focusing on cities who need to be revitalized. Using city indicators allows us to measure the success of urban revitalization by viewing conditions in cities such as housing affordability, low-income residents. and more importantly shifts in demographics.
When studying urban revitalization, addressing problems mentioned previously helps as a starting people to allow planners to implement policies and to help focus on what could be done to revitalize certain areas. In chapter 7 Judd & Swanstrom: National Policy and City/Suburban Divide mentions how African American families were not allowed to buy real estate properties in areas where it was predominantly whites. They were constantly getting displaced and sometimes forced to move when wealthier white people moved into the communities. I remember one part of the article that stated there was only one African American who was approved to buy a home in a community but later it was mentioned it was never stated when he was trying to buy the home. Homes were never sold to African Americans but the Federal Housing Act of 1968, later stated that there couldn’t be a restriction on who can buy homes. Urban revitalization could be viewed in many ways, either through a positive lens or a negative lens. There are programs that could help revitalize a city such as Enterprise communities and empowerment zones that focus on revitalizing distressed urban areas all of which could be helpful in improving urban areas.
I learned that when assessing a condition in US cities looking at the indicators tells us what needs to be done in order for funds, loans, or grants to be awarded to areas. For example, low-income housing tax incentive, section 8 vouchers, federal highway program, etc. All these programs are aimed to focus on revitalizing cities and urban renewal and the CDBG program. Looking at the indicators like I mentioned before allows for funding to occur in communities.
Moreover, I think civic engagement to be the most critical indicator because if residents are not involved in the urban renewal of communities they could be affected tremendously. For example, on Warren Ave in Detroit I believe it’s the west side. They made Warren Avenue a one lane road moving in both directions and added more parking, a bike lane, and a bigger sidewalk. I came across a post on social media of residents who were not very happy with the decisions being made. One comment read ” those who came up with this decision have never lived in the city” others continue to pose important opinions about traffic, and congestion. If those residents spoke up and brought their opinions to the planners they would consider what the residents felt about this decision. Not being involved in decisions and engaging then becoming upset that certain things are being changed is wrong. Civic involvement should be residents’ priority.
TEACHER FEEDBACK:You covered some important points related to the questions posed. At times, your response meanders making it a bit challenging to understand. You seem to link the rationale for using indicators to funding. That can be an important use, and there are broader reasons to use indicators of city conditions (see below). While you discuss the importance of understanding problems, I don’t understand your explanation. Perhaps I’m just missing something. Your discussion of the inability of African Americans to purchase housing seems to be responding to the portion of the question asking what we know about city conditions. That is an important historical development. I don’t know how much it tells us about current conditions. See below for an explanation of what we might be able to say. You might also consider discussing the relationship of indicators to our different views of the city. Why use indicators and/or determine problems? • Helps us understand the variability in conditions across and within cities • Helps us understand what we might be trying to address when we undertake urban revitalization • Helps us understand the various targets of public policies and whether or not policies are truly designed to address the core problems • Help us understand the need for varying approaches to revitalization based upon the nature of the problem/problems were are attempting to address What do city indicators they tell us about city conditions today? • Conditions vary across and within cities, but there are some basic groupings of cities/problems that we can establish • Older cities of the rustbelt/frostbelt are, generally, faring worse than cities of the south/southwest (sunbelt). • Conditions are worse for minority racial/ethnic groups than for whites • Population continues to stagnate or decline in most rustbelt cities • Economic conditions in rustbelt cities have improved from prior decades of devastation, but they are still much worse than in sunbelt cities or the suburbs of rustbelt cities. • Downtowns have fared pretty well across the board and represent a shining spot in revitalization of rustbelt cities • Immigration is affecting cities significantly, particularly in the sunbelt • Many cities, particularly of the rustbelt, continue to have challenges with education and poverty Here, and in response to the next question, you talk about gentrification as a desirable goal, which is not the way we typically speak of gentrification.

2. Based upon the materials covered in our readings and course discussions thus far, identify the major governmental (federal, state, and local) policies/practices that were adopted related to housing since the 1950s. Describe the important positive and negative effects of these policies with a particular focus on their effects on conditions in legacy cities (i.e., older, industrial cities of Northeast and Midwest) and those cities’ potential for revitalization. How have the structure of these programs (as adopted and amended over time) affected the targets of the policies and who the main participants are in implementing those policies? How has a transition from a predominantly government model to one that places greater emphasis on the market been evident, and what are the implications? Discuss critical ways that politics interacted with policy design to create the policies and effects you have noted.

Note: In covering the policies since the 1950s, I advise you to begin by discussing policies like urban renewal (as it relates to housing) and public housing which were adopted prior to the 1960s but still had significant impacts on housing in the 1960s and beyond. These policies set an important baseline from which subsequent policies evolved.

MY ANSWER :Public housing act of 1949 which allowed low-income families to get loans to help them build homes or renovate their homes. Public housing act of 1968 the act allowed for people to purchase homes without restrictions to color, origin, race, etc. Section 8 voucher is a voucher given to low-income families allowing them to search for home in the private market. Low-income housing tax incentive gave developers money to help revitalize or demolish homes. Those are some of the policies/practices that were adopted related to housing since the 1950s. Many which were mentioned in Orlebeke– The evolution of Low-income Housing Policy. Moreover, in Hinze & Judd Chp 10 it was mentioned there was a restriction on certain races like African Americans, Persianis, Syrians, etc. who were not able to purchase any homes because of a deed restriction which later changed after the 1960s but some deeds from the 1950s and 1960s still have those restrictions on them., No home was to be sold to anyone who was not white. it is important to mention that low-income families particularly African Americans were not wanted. That of course changed years later.
The positive effects of certain policies could be affordable housing to those who can’t live in wealthier areas, gentrification which allows for revitalizing an area moving in wealthier families, with a focus on new business and homes, focus on improving education, while some negative effects would be displacing low-income residents, removing affordable housing and destroying certain building that were used by community members. Cities like Detroit where the downtown area has been revitalized allowing for more tourism, nicer apartments, restaurants, etc.
Urban planners, stakeholders, developers, policy holders to name a few are the participants that implemented those policies and allowed for the structure of the programs to change overtime no longer targeting certain groups of families and allowing a more open approach to revitalizing cities. CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) is a grant given to cities to help revitalize areas in the city. The grant is usually given to cities who need it the most and are able to distribute to housing, improving downtown areas, renovating, and improving neighborhoods. The city must report to HUD what and where the money was used. When researching about CDBG, it seems like a program that gives a lot of money sometimes not all of it will be used to allow the upbringing on the city. It requires careful use and must be reported.
As segregation evolved and it was no longer something that put restrictions on certain groups of people, laws, polices, and political issues allowed us to reach a point in time where some policies needed to be changed. As I mentioned before there were deed restrictions on African Americans not allowing them to buy homes. Today African Americans are able to purchase homes in white areas and in wealthier areas. Laws and policies had to be changed. In many of the articles I read throughout the course the restriction on African Americans was always mentioned making it known to me that it was a big issue back in the days. I also came to realize how the laws and policies have evolved overtime making it easier for families to buy homes. One thing I want to mention that might not have to do with policy that was important is blockbusting, the laws and policies might have changed but certain people views have not. Many people sell their homes because African American families are living next door. Real estate agents use this tactic to convince homeowners to sell because property values are going down, or certain families are moving into the neighborhoods. This is wrong and should be addressed further.
TEACHER FEEDBACK: You covered some important programs and shared some relevant knowledge and insights. You are certainly right about the continuing impact of attitudes, despite changes in laws. Programs that I would anticipate seeing explained—design, politics related to design, & positive/negative effects—Urban renewal (initial housing emphasis), public housing, Section 8, HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods, and LIHTC. The HOME and NSP programs would be a bonus. You mentioned Section 8; a broader description is in order. CDBG can be used for housing, but it is one of many uses, and it doesn’t tend to dominate. I don’t see any of the other programs discussed. I think you’ve confused the names of the acts you mention in your opening paragraph–Housing Act, not Public Housing Act. You spoke of positive and negative impacts in general terms. It would enhance your response to link specific impacts to specific programs. How about local policies (e.g., exclusionary zoning or suburban incorporation to enable them to reject public housing)? Restrictive covenants were important, though they were the result of private actions. it would be good to see more specific discussion of the politics driving program design (e.g., why were public housing units poorly constructed, why did we move to more of a market approach under HOPE VI and Sec 8, why did we move from a grant/direct funding focus to a tax credit focus with LIHTC?) I don’t see where you discussed the movement from a government orientation to a market orientation.

3. What were the major traits of the federal government’s Empowerment Zone & Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) program? In what ways did the program design reflect traits of federal revenue, housing, or poverty-focused programs that preceded it? In what ways did it differ? How did the design relate (or not) to state-run enterprize zone programs? In what ways were these aspects of program design likely to contribute to success? In what ways might they have been likely to create challenges that inhibited success?

MY RESPONSE: Empowerment Zone and Enterprise communities focused on distressed urban and rural areas. The major traits of the programs were to help communities who were struggling. The program was designed to help by providing tax incentives, public-private partnerships, affordable housing and section 8 vouchers that helped developers and families improve communities. Section 8 vouchers were given to low-income families to purchase homes on their own in the private market. The programs like section 8 vouchers would allow for families to find their own homes based on what they prefer whereas the tax incentive would allow for developers to revitalize or improve the community or specific buildings.

PLEASE REWRITE MY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS USING THE TEACHER FEEDBACK HIGHLIGHTED. I ADDED SOURCES FOR REFERENCE
if you need any more sources please let me know

Last Completed Projects