Neighborhoods are a strong determinant of the quality of American life. Families live and rear their children in a neigh-borhood setting. Youth are affected by the opportunities and influences they find in their neighborhoods. Older people treasure their neighborhood and look to it for the support they need for independent living. Persons of all ages, income groups, races and ethnicity want to live in neighborhoods that are safe and clean, contain decent, affordable housing and suitable community facilities, and offer opportunities for civic participation and self-determination.

A variety of public programs can contribute to achieving better neighborhoods, including community development, housing, youth employment, job training, education, economic development, crime prevention, health and social services. They should be carefully targeted according to relative need. Programs should be adminis-tered in a manner that fosters active and productive partnerships between public agencies and neighborhood organizations. Residents should be fully involved in planning, implementation and monitoring; appropriate neighborhood organizations should have opportunities to contract for direct operation of program components.

The private sector, both for profit and nonprofit, can make significant contributions to neighborhood life. It is particularly important that sufficient private capital flow to lower income neighborhoods to permit home ownership, housing rehabilitation, development of new enterprises and support of existing ones. This should be facilitated through a combination of regulations assuring fair treatment of all neighborhoods and selective tax measures offering extra incentives to invest in neighborhoods with the greatest needs. Strong private sector/neighborhood partnerships should also be encouraged.

Neighborhood residents need organizational capacity and sufficient resources in order to initiate self-help activities and participate as full partners with the public and private sectors. The experience of the past 20 years has shown that small amounts of federal funds have served as a fruitful catalyst in helping neighbor-hoods organize and carry out projects in response to unmet needs. Within their program spheres federal agencies should provide funding and technical assistance to neighborhood organizations. In addition, a new vehicle—such as a National Endowment for Neigh-borhoods—should be established to target federal funds to innovative activities initiated by neighborhood organizations.

In 1904 G.K. Chesterton published his first novel, The Napoleon of Notting Hill. It was a curious and prophetic book set in 1984 about a young man of the Notting Hill neighborhood of London who leads his people in defense of the neighborhood against a proposed highway that would cut it apart. Chesterton had a great love for particular places and, though a man of universal vision, his art and essay proclaimed that, "Empires wax and wane and never provide the kind of local democratic loyalty that men need."

Chesterton loved those particular places. "There stood a row of shops. At one end was a public house . . . somewhere a church . . . there was a grocer’s . . . a second hand bookstore . . . an old curiosity shop . . . shops supplying all the spiritual and bodily needs of men." By the turn of the century he came to understand that his "progressive" friends wanted to destroy the Notting Hills of the world in the name of modernity and human advancement. At that point Chesterton discovered that he opposed these planners and idealists, and, as he said, "I drew my sword in defense of Notting Hill."

In the 80 years since Chesterton drew his rhetorical sword, the warning bells his art and insight sounded now resonate in the life end experience of neighborhood people. The neighborhood has not fared well in the United States or Britain. In fact, at the very time he was writing, the Progressive movement was readying its attack on ward government and neighborhood representation in city government in many American cities. As a result by 1920, in cities such us Detroit and Pittsburgh, the ward organization and the patronage system that supported it were replaced by city councils elected at large and by an extended civil service. The local political machine associated with bosses and immigrant and working-class politics disappeared in favor of a new, citywide, middle-class machine based on educational qualifications, civic clubs, trade associations, men’s groups associ-ated with prestigious mainline Protestant churches and blue ribbon commissions. Even in cities that were not "reformed," the increasing centralization and professionalization of city administration and services diminished the role of local and ethnic institutions.

After World War II, the infusion into the cities of state and federal monies with their accompanying guidelines covering high-way building, welfare and educational policy, industrial development and urban renewal destroyed local autonomy and initiative and completed the ruin of many neighborhoods. The growth of new suburban areas, fostered by some of the same politics, lured away many of the younger and more upwardly mobile of the neighborhood people. With the decline of the neighborhoods came the decline of the churches, schools, ethnic organizations, political clubs, shopping strips and entertainment centers that had tied them together and given them distinct identities. As a result, by the 60s many urban areas had been neglected, bulldozed, redlined and paved over into highways.

In addition to growing powerlessness and deterioration, neighborhoods faced demographic changes that altered their ethnic and racial composition, culture and social cohesion. This sometimes brought on and exacerbated conflict and competition for control of housing and local institutions. Moreover, racial and ethnic succession in urban neighborhoods was often poorly understood, misinterpreted and exaggerated by media and national leaders. Though neighborhood weakness still abounds, the struggle in defense of neighborhoods foreshadowed by Chesterton has begun.

There is a definable process of urban decay in American neighborhoods, and commercial disinvestment is a crucial com-ponent of this decay. The damage done to local, national and urban economies is severe. However, neighborhood revitalization which began as an art is now emerging as a science in America. Because commercial disinvestment is a key feature of decay, commercial revitalization is an indispensable part of general revitalization. Neighborhood commercial revitalization can succeed under the right conditions and if the appropriate development experiences are transferred to, and applied by, the private, public and community sectors of America.

The pattern of urban decline is well-known and documented. Something like the following happens. When an older residential neighborhood begins to experience signs of distress, its commercial strip, a combination of retail and light manufacturing, although affected, still functions and provides jobs and services to the residents. However, a crucial stage is soon reached as the older population begins to die off or move out. Signs of decay occur.

The commercial strip, which is one, in some cases the only, source of capital accumulation for the neighborhood economy, begins to deteriorate as businesses begin to close or move out. Urban renewal may occur, destroying residential and commercial buildings without replacing them. A local employer may move out due to the structural differences in taxes created by our federal system. Banks and insurance companies begin to reassess their risk in the area, perhaps denying insurance and access to capital at any price. The municipal government may begin to limit city services due to the decreased political clout of the area. The most affluent move out, commercial and residential closings accelerate, the area becomes less and less attractive and the speed of decay accelerates.

This cycle of decay usually does not limit its effect to the initial neighborhood. If left unchecked, the negative conditions begin to spill into adjoining neighborhoods, and severe dislocations and distortions are introduced into the economy as jobs move out and workers follow. Many of the newly unemployed, especially those from lower income families, simply cannot move. Valuable existing facilities (commercial, industrial and residential) are abandoned or underutilized, and replaced with costly new facilities in a more desirable location. The classic liberal responses of government subsidies usually do little for the neighborhoods affected and further compound inflation. Government is forced into the political position of allocating a greater share of economic resources, and the ability of the market to achieve efficiencies and productivity is hampered.

The process continues until the city and ultimately the nation find themselves in the now too frequent predicament of having unlivable neighborhoods with a large unemployed population: a population without any agencies for internal capital formation, dependent upon outside sources for permanent subsidies to maintain even subsistence levels. Usually the main government assistance comes in the form of costly ongoing subsidies such as welfare, food stamps, public health and temporary job programs. To the extent that government tries to create permanent jobs, it has tended to concentrate on large-scale industrial projects through the Economic Development Administration or highly visible showcases in central business districts through HUD’s Urban Development Action Grants. These have only marginal impact on the neighborhoods. It is well known that over 80 percent of net jobs created in this country in the last ten years came from the small business sector which is the keystone to neighborhood commerce. This fact suggests that neighborhood commercial revitalization is a prime development arena as well as a key to the salvage of neighborhood.

The success or failure of community and economic develop-ment activities throughout the cities and communities of this nation depends largely upon very localized characteristics, dynamics and developments. Federal agencies, state and local governments can provide various incentives and supportive programs, but they cannot directly supply the most critical need, nor can they solely implement community and economic development ventures and processes. These public sector actors can, however, recognize needs and design programs which eliminate bottlenecks and promote the development of those factors which produce successful develop-ment.

The factors which ensure the steady increase in potential production and consumption, as well as participation and ownership in a given community form a complex equation. Community and economic development depend on a host of interacting processes: entrepreneurial activity; the actual basis of all production; availa-bility of productive processes and resources; an accessible level of technique, social institutions and attitudes; capital; and sufficient population and level of consumption. The saliency of these various contextual factors shifts from time to time, and their relationships to each other change. Some of the factors are, of course, external and beyond the influence of a community. But, experienced neighbor-hood analysts and proven practitioners of neighborhood revitaliza-tion have fashioned an understanding of this complex process, and can help discern what is meaningful, effective and needed to develop a community and to promote its full economic potential.

In addition to a correct analysis of economic and market factors, it is now more than obvious that the full use of community resources, in all their variety, are important to any particular local economic development endeavor. The non-participation of any sector—public, private or community—puts a venture at extreme risk. Citizens groups, private businesses and other institutions can either oppose change and stifle development or be the primary impetus for development and improvement. Frequently, the differ-ence between the adoption of one or another posture is determined by a group’s self-interest and its understanding of its ability to share in the development.

So, it is clear that the process by which a neighborhood economic development program is carried out requires this process of cooperative interaction. The public sector, primarily municipal government, must create the proper environment for business to operate effectively. The private sector, principally business people and financial institutions who indicate a desire to remain and invest in the neighborhood, must take a central position in the actual process of business development. Organized community groups must actively participate in the planning and implementation of the revitalization program, provide broad-based citizen support, relate the economic development program to the overall neighborhood revitalization process, and mediate between conflicting interests when and if the occasion arises. The three sectors should be jointly involved from the outset. The following provides a description of each of the three sectors, and the role each must play in an effective economic revitalization program.

In the following pages, we present a Manual—a "how to" report. It is directed toward persons and community-based organizations interested in devising a community process of neighborhood revitalization. This manual is not intended to serve as an analysis of the process and/or a discussion of its advantages and disadvantages. Rather, it consists of a description of a step-by-step process leading to a revitalization strategy. It is intended to help communities to think through their own action plans and, hopefully, to refine them in useful and productive ways.

The Manual as a whole and its steps are presented as hints or suggestions. To be useful, they need to be reworked to meet the unique conditions and goals of the particular community. Their most appropriate usage is as raw resource materials to help with thinking and planning.

As a collection of raw resource materials, the information in the Manual is presented in several ways. First, there is background discussion of revitalization strategies so that all can be talking the same language. Second, the preconditions are discussed, including the identification of certain basic issues which must be considered at every stage of the process. Third, there is a step-by-step frame-work of the elements of the whole process. Finally, come a number of hints, warnings and suggestions which should serve as checks and balances for the process itself.

The Manual is not an alternative to work by the members, staff and technical assistants of a community organization. It is a mistake to look to manuals for detailed knowledge precisely because details must change to meet particular conditions and realities. Manuals are useful for providing guideposts or directional signals; therefore we hope to err on the side of brevity and clarity.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE CYCLE

Residents and neighborhood activists know the facts of how their neighborhood has declined. They know what role the local, state and federal governments played through their neglect, their abuse of urban renewal, and their construction of highways. The private financial institutions redlined houses, stores and families. Investors and owners—perhaps even yourselves—cut back on investments, reduced maintenance and let the properties slip. Some suffered through cycles of reinvestment and of displacement. The next few pages repeat the story of this decline, but this is followed by a story of rebirth. Unlike the natural cycles of the moon, this cycle—the bad and the good—resulted from a series of human actions. It is a valuable lesson to remember: the actions of all the actors, including the residents, are the major determinants of what happens to a neighborhood. The next few pages are an overall summary of the Manual itself.

A casual walk through many of our older neighborhoods can provide a glimpse of the vitality and cohesiveness of life which once existed. For a moment, eliminate from eye and mind the effects of neglect, or of demolition in the name of progress. What emerges is an impression of a strong, viable, self-contained neighborhood. Its original strength can be imagined in the enduring nature of the buildings built as churches, synagogues, schools and other institutions. The myriad architectural details found on individual houses attest to pride of both craftsman and owner. Diversity and vitality can be imagined in the remnants of markets and storefronts with their faded names suggesting proprietors from a dozen different cultures. The juxtaposition of home, store, place of work and church brings to mind an image of a self-contained environment with strong ties of community.

The rise of the automobile and the growth of suburbia changed all this. Although the process of out-migration had begun prior to World War II, postwar affluence sped the process along and a variety of government programs aided and abetted this change. Community ties had already weakened as neighborhood institutions such as churches and local benefit societies reduced their day-to-day involvement with residents. They had been superseded by the New Deal—social security, unemployment insurance and welfare benefits. These new programs gave families an assured minimum survival and were crucial in resolving serious human misery. In the process of creating these mechanisms, however, community ties played no role. In fact, the reverse was often the primary motivation of the program’s design: a citizen would no longer have to rely on the local political club for a job. While the gain was substantial, there was also a loss—decisions affecting the neighborhood were assumed by persons outside of the neighborhood; community institutions began to weaken.

Governments further contributed to the decline of neighbor-hoods through economic and physical programs launched to catch up with the pent-up demand for goods and services resulting from four years of constriction during world War II. The demand for housing was met by financing new housing through FHA mortgages. Roads and sewers were required to service the new housing areas. Couples forming families found it much easier to buy a house in a new subdivision than to make a large down payment on a house which was in need of repairs in their own neighborhood.

This disparity in ability to buy a house in the city or suburbs resulted from actions taken in the private as well as public sector. At the first signs of decline or instability, private lenders had begun to withdraw conventional financing for home purchase or repair. Speculators and investors who had their own access to financing started to buy up property in the neighborhood. They maximized their financial return by subdividing properties into more housing units while keeping repairs to an absolute minimum. This encouraged more homeowners to sell. City services declined. An unexpected fire, vandalism or complete lack of maintenance may have caused a first property in the neighborhood to be boarded up: the owners found that it was not worth repairing. Other properties soon followed and the neighborhood reached the point where the decline in all of those components necessary to the psychological sense of community had begun to manifest themselves in physical blight. But the physical condition was the symptom, rather than the cause of neighborhood decline.

New federal programs were begun in the late 1950s to reverse neighborhood decline, but their emphasis was physical—treating the symptoms. The prevailing philosophy of urban renewal was that blight was a cancer which had to be removed to save the rest of the community. That meant physical demolition and relocation of more residents and, consequently, destruction of some of the fragile community ties that had survived everything else. Often, no new housing or commercial use could be developed. Cleared sites were left as monuments to unrealistic plans.

Where new construction did occur, it was often alien to the sense of scale to which humans had been accustomed for centuries. The block, which served to define one’s place in the neighborhood, gave way to the superblock with its large open areas. These "common areas" meant for everyone became no one’s responsi-bility. The house with its stoop or porch gave way to the apartment complex, and anonymity increased. The total affect of much urban renewal was sterility, which sometimes led to alienation.

In yet other communities nothing so dramatic occurred. Decline was gradual as city services decreased, neglect increased and the old residents gradually died or moved away. The old ties declined and residents found that suspicion of outsiders formed one of their principal common interests.

At some point a new attitude and spirit begins to take over. Some residents reach the point of determining that something has to be done and that they have to become personally involved in order for that something to happen. The catalyst may be something dramatic such as a road proposal or the demolition of a building important to the neighborhood. Or it may be an accumulation of minor incidents culminating in a "last straw." Whatever the cause, the result is the assumption of responsibility on the part of residents. People begin to talk to each other about common problems. They share anger and frustration, but also the glimmer of dreams. They begin to work together to improve things. The process of neighbor-hood revitalization has begun.

The next stage is the formation of an organization to work for more improvements. Battles are fought and some victories are achieved—a new street light appears or the garbage actually is picked up. Speaking through the organization, the residents begin to expand their experience, concern and recommendations for action. Conflict with speculators and the banks might occur. Neighbors who contribute to the chaos by their own destructive acts are spoken to. A sense of collective accountability grows.

No longer waiting for others to act, the residents begin to establish their own plans, agendas and priorities. They communicate these to others both within and outside the neighborhood. They make it clear that they plan to help decide what is going to happen. New structures and organizations may be established to address specific problems such as housing rehabilitation or commercial revitalization. A planning committee may be created to develop proposals to the city and federal governments. Neighborhood people are considering and deciding how investment should occur; they are shaping the design of their neighborhood.

Public and private sectors recognize the new neighborhood assertiveness. In some cases partnerships are formed, such as Neighborhood Housing Services; sometimes the city contracts with the organization to provide certain services. In others, major planning authority is, in effect, delegated to the community itself.

Although the foregoing is a simplified scenario, it is also an essentially accurate synopsis of what is happening in hundreds of neighborhoods. Through this citizen participation, neighborhoods are revitalizing in a steady, sure way.

What is neighborhood revitalization? The people must ask themselves what they want to achieve: When will the area be revitalized? What are they really looking for? Some people say they want the area to be like it was "years ago"; others see the goals in the light of the television view of the suburbs. Both are unlikely because times and conditions change. Moreover, exclusion of others of different race, religion, ethnicity or class is no longer permissible. Revitalization means life, and that means growth and change. One needs goals or visions to channel the life forces toward a good result. The following set of goals is presented for consideration. Though general and vague, they have been the guiding principle for many successful revitalization experiences. Therefore, they are phrased as "measures of success."

Revival of Spirit. The key measures of a successful revitalization process are whether the neighborhood spirit, its sense of vitality and hope, has been revived. Is there a feeling in the community that this neighborhood can be saved from decay and turned into a decent and supportive living environment? One can walk the streets, attend meetings, talk with the people and get a fairly good sense of the mood. Comparing the present mood with the conditions a few months or years earlier provides a touchstone for success, failure or stagnancy.

Another sign of uplifted spirit is the way residents treat the neighborhood—the reduction of abuse. People are less likely to litter or vandalize. Verbal abuse lessens. People begin to talk of their neighborhood as "not such a bad area"—"a pretty good neighbor-hood."

Building Community. The sense of community results from bonds of mutual interest, concern and support. The old neighborhood ties were ethnic, religious, political, familial and societal. They became weak in declining neighborhoods. However, in neighbor-hoods experiencing revitalization, it is common to notice an increase in the feelings of community among the residents and institutions.

The sense of community may be expressed in a variety of ways. Some of the old ties may be strengthened, such as through a reawakening of ethnicity. Street fairs and festivals may appear in new or revived forms and with widespread participation. Children receive attention and even supervision from adults in the neighborhood other than their parents. Individual family joys and sorrows are recognized in informal ways by their neighbors. The context of human relations deepens and softens; the sense of community is all the more real.

Assertion of Human Dignity and Responsibility. Certainly one of the most satisfying proofs of success is the increase in the assertion of human dignity. Neighborhood people who were raised to have a low opinion of themselves, their cultures and their lives begin to feel pride and to possess a positive self identity. They feel self-confident enough to initiate their own ideas about policies and programs which affect them in their neighborhood. The self-confidence and new awareness expand the residents’ receptivity to creative ideas and actions, and often bring forth these ideas from their own minds.

Possibly the most important way in which personal dignity is expressed is the assumption of individual and collective responsibili-ty; where people feel a sense of pride in themselves as human beings and as responsible creative persons. The spread of responsibility—and its corollary, accountability—becomes evident in every component of the revitalization process. It provides the glue and the energy to hold the parts together and to go forward in spite of setbacks. A community of responsible people is one that can make revitalization a continuous process and is one of the most enduring measures of success.

Neighborhood Power. One aspect of the assumption of responsibility is the rejection of conditions wherein people are subjected to controls and to the arbitrary actions of others. This includes not only a response to the actions of other persons and institutions, but also a rejection of the belief in uncontrollable forces, an unwillingness to believe that "that is just the way it is."

The positive attitude of respect for one’s own capabilities is expressed in the ability of the neighborhood to make itself heard in the arenas of public decision-making. No longer the passive victims of plans and projects directed by others, the neighborhood develops and promotes its own plans. Neighborhood power means that the residents of the area are taken seriously, not only as citizens, but as decision-makers—as people whose opinion counts. As they become increasingly active and assertive, their power grows and their ability to direct events becomes stronger.

Reinvestment and Economic Benefits to the Residents. The flow of monies into a neighborhood is, of course, one of the clearest signs of revitalization. The reinvestment is frequently a combination from both the public and private sectors, with the public sector usually leading as a stimulus. Additional public capital expenditures and improved maintenance provide the signs of physical improve-ment that encourage private reinvestment—individual property owners putting funds into the improvement of their buildings and local businessmen refurbishing and expanding their establishments. Other measures of private sector reinvestment are the increased willingness of financial institutions to make loans to residents, businessmen, and investors, and, of course, the expansion of employment opportunities

The total amount of spending is not in itself an accurate measure of success. The questions are rather whether the spending responds to community needs and desires, supports the overall revitalization effort, and provides benefits to the existing residents. The exact mix of public/private dollars cannot be predetermined for each neighborhood. Some will require massive public dollars; others a relatively small amount. The key is whether they help get the neighborhood out of cycles of disinvestment and dependence. In many cases, the answer will not be known for years.

Successful revitalization programs are those where the benefits of reinvestment are shared by the existing residents. In some neighborhoods, the process of reinvestment results in actual or effective displacement of many of the residents, especially those of lower income. While some displacement may be inevitable, a measure of success of any revitalization program is the number of existing residents who remain to share in the economic benefits and accept the responsibilities of membership in the community.

Physical Signs of Revival. The most observable evidence of success is the actual physical development that takes place in the neighborhood. Rehabilitated houses, renovated stores, recycled public buildings put to new uses—these are clear signs of revitalization. If they result from a consideration of, and response to, community needs and desires, physical developments are of major symbolic and practical significance. Of course, if undertaken by the community itself, they will also result in direct economic benefits to the area and possibly to the organization. Quite often, they mark the actualization of dreams long delayed and often frustrated.

These components are successive stages through which a neighborhood passes in achieving revitalization. Central to all is the first: unless there is a revival of spirit, all else will fail. That is the fundamental lesson of urban renewal areas where massive physical improvements preceded a change in residents’ attitudes. Much of urban renewal was merely reinvestment and development. Revitalization, on the other hand, requires widespread resident participation in decision-making. That participation does not happen overnight. The process begins with a few people and, through their efforts, spreads to others until a neighborhood is slowly brought together.

THE PROCESS BEGINS—COMMUNITY ORGANIZING

With the consideration of goals and measures of success as a background, let us consider the next stages of revitalization. We begin with community organizing because a conscious expression of unity and cooperation in the neighborhood is absolutely essential to the design and implementation of revitalization strategies. The stages of organizational development are presented as examples and guideposts which should be used as suggestions or hints.

Most neighborhood and community organizations start as ad hoc groups of concerned citizens who coalesce around a particular issue which immediately confronts them. In Southeast Baltimore it was a threatened road proposal which brought together the persons who ultimately founded the Southeast Community Organization (SECO).

If the issue which immediately confronts them is decided in their favor, it gives them the courage and motivation to try to resolve other common problems. Even if the initial issue is lost, the very act of coming together initiates an interaction and communication of ideas and other concerns which lead to further joint effort.

Most new organizations respond to issues of immediate concern; they are specific and relate to realizable ends. The Southeast Baltimore residents who came together to fight the road realized that this issue was complex and would take years to solve. They could not sustain broad community interest and support on that issue alone. After years of frustrating inactivity, people who begin to express an interest in neighborhood issues have to see some progress and short-term results from their efforts. Therefore, in Southeast Baltimore, issues which could be resolved in short time spans were chosen—the closing of a library, placing stop signs, etc. Each issue could be easily understood and acted upon.

The SECO leaders were using a method of building strength for their new organization by convincing neighborhood people that their decisions were important, that someone with power and authority was listening and responding. Two things were being accomplished: (1) people began to believe that they did count and could make a difference; and (2) they began to communicate this to other people and institutions whose decisions impacted upon their lives.

In forming the organization, a major operating principle must be the maximum feasible participation of the neighborhood’s residents. While the form of participation can vary and should attempt to reflect the history and cultural characteristics of the area, it must always be remembered that revitalization is not something done "for" or "to", but rather "by and with" people.

This need for widespread resident participation in the revitalization process has both practical and psychological aspects. From a practical standpoint, people living or working in the neighborhood often have both a more detailed and a more com-prehensive knowledge of local conditions. People committed on a long-term basis to the neighborhood are more likely to search for longer lasting, more effective and less disruptive solutions than those who are not. For these reasons, their active participation should produce better results than if they were excluded from a meaningful role in the decision making. The role of experts should be limited to technical assistance in helping neighborhood residents refine and rephrase in more useful terms their knowledge of the community, which is based on participatory observation and experience.

The residents are in the best position to provide a com-prehensive or unified view of the neighborhood. All experts view situations from their own particular vantage point. So do the residents, but their perspective is that of the neighborhood as a living environment, for that is what it is to them. They must, and do, see the interconnections between housing, transportation, shopping, jobs, crime, cultural institutions, social services, etc., because they live with and are affected by them all. Experts and consultants can help once again in expressing their unified views in ways more helpful to undertaking developmental activities.

Probably a more important justification for participation is the fact that the neighborhood people tend to live with the results of the decisions made. No matter how well-intentioned public sector individuals may be, the truth is that they will not be burdened with the longterm results or consequences on a personal, accountable basis. In the government, an unsuccessful land use scheme will result only in papers in some file drawer; in the neighborhood, it might be the cause of rats, fires, speculation or simply new levels of apathy. Lack of personal accountability often leads to bad decisions. The accountability of residents, people who live with the conditions, can help to assure better decisions.

From a psychological perspective, the process of revitalization of the ties of community participation include building or rebuilding the ties of community. As people begin to meet around common issues, neighbors begin to renew or establish contacts, and areas of interaction expand. Awareness of common needs, commitment to work together, expressions of mutual caring—all of these take place. Slowly, out of the fact of widespread participation grows a sense of collective responsibility. Even slower and more hesitant, but still present and growing, the feelings of collectivity have also flourished through the feeling of community. Sharing of cultural celebrations and commemorations, together with the efforts of organizing, planning and development result in the presence of "community." Through these processes, revitalization is furthered and helps to sustain the rebirth of community life. All this can be achieved through a viable community organization. But to get to this point requires a great amount of work on the part of the residents. It can, and has, been done in hundreds of neighborhoods. The residents of these neighborhoods have achieved results by structuring themselves in a logical approach to achieving their dreams.

Probably the most difficult problem is finding or training professionals who are able to perform two vital tasks: One, they must provide the technical expertise needed to respond to development opportunities. Two, they need to assist residents to become more involved and to come forward with creative solutions of their own to neighborhood problems. In effect, they have to be human develop-ment professionals as well as experts in physical and economic development.

The possibilities of finding open-ended funding and the ultimately desirable staffing resources are extremely limited. In most cases, significant restrictions are imposed on the potential for revitalization which affect the shape and direction of the local revitalization strategies. Neighborhood strategists are almost always confronted with the problem of presenting their needs and goals with the forms and directions which funding sources require. Sometimes they have to be able to say no to funding, because the direction it would require them to pursue would be wrong for them. Other times, they need to be creatively flexible. In every case, they must know that there are implications and costs in accepting external resources.

The life of a community in all of its complexities is a vitally significant variable in any revitalization project. The ways in which the complexities interact will greatly determine the shape, direction, and likely success of any projected strategy. Therefore, they must be identified and considered in the design and evaluation of revitaliza-tion strategies.

The local culture affects a variety of factors related to the revitalization strategies. It impacts upon the willingness of residents to identify problems and to commit themselves to struggle. It helps determine the ability of residents to desire and work for a greater assumption of personal and collective responsibility. It helps define the methods and style of organizing and developmental action. It influences the shape and direction of the structures, the role of leaders and the style of participation. Since it touches upon all aspects of human life, the impact of a community’s culture on revitalization is nearly all-pervasive.

Because of the complexity of both cultures and revitalization processes, it is impossible to state firmly that certain cultures cannot support revitalization strategies, while others do. However, it is clear that those which promote the following are most likely to be supportive:

(1) The assumption of personal and collective responsibility.

(2) The desire for a better life.

(3) A sense of community.

(4) Respect for individual creativity.

(5) Support of widespread participation and active leadership.

(6) Receptivity to change and compromise.

Just as the internal conditions of a community are vital for the design and direction of a revitalization effort, so are the conditions of the larger political environment. City government and political systems which are reasonably competent and open to involvement create the most supportive environment. Those beset by corruption, incompetence, obsolescence, etc., are least likely to be able to deal effectively with community groups, especially on development issues.

Again, we reiterate that the community must know itself and the context within which it intends to pursue revitalization in order for a strategy to be successful.

A successful neighborhood revitalization strategy requires a response to and intervention in the various systems simultaneously operating in the neighborhood. Years of neighborhood decline usually result in an enveloping pathology which erodes the physical, social and economic infrastructure of a neighborhood. A neighbor-hood revitalization strategy must, therefore, attack the root cause of these problems and in so doing recognize the relationships between problems and the interdependency that each system has with another. To improve the neighborhood and its livability, the organization must provide, or ensure the provision of, decent housing, adequate shopping facilities, jobs, etc.

Housing On the surface, a successful housing strategy usually is one of the most important elements of the neighborhood revitalization strategy. Success in this area will restore the confidence of residents in the neighborhood market, improve the credibility of the organization and facilitate or catalyze the restoration of conventional market forces and mechanisms in the neighborhood.

The following characteristics should be reflected in the development of an effective housing strategy:

1. A housing strategy must be based on a clear and accurate picture of the neighborhood, housing infrastructure and market. Such a strategy will require:

a. an accurate description/assessment of the various sub-markets operating within the neighborhood;

b. an analysis of populations and households: for the most part, the organization will be attempting to retain the indigenous population and capture the families with those same characteristics in the market;

c. an analysis of the economic base of the neighborhood;

e. Finally, and based on the above data, an analysis of demand potential.

2. The community organization, with its finite resources and limited public mandate, must ensure that its housing activities are well-targeted for optimal effect. This usually means concentrating initial activities in transitional areas to further improve adjoining stable neighborhoods and to begin to effect the marketability and potentials of proximate declining neighborhoods.

3. In targeting activities in transitional neighborhoods, the organizational strategy should isolate and address only those problem areas which initially begin to "tip the scale." If this kind of "interventionist" or "spot development" has been chosen carefully, it should begin to unleash healthy market forces and catalyze reinvestment by the private sector.

4. A successful strategy also rests upon a clear and distinct selection of roles (or role) that the community organization will play. Depending on the organizational context and the problems identified, the organization can assume the role of facilitator (usually a nondevelopment role where the organization’s actions are directed toward an external entity that provides the needed development capacity), enabler-broker (usually the provision of a service to strengthen the housing market, e.g., housing information and referral, NHS, community owned real estate brokerage, etc.), or developer (which requires the greatest degree of sophistication by the organization and usually involves ownership of property).

Commercial Revitalization. A provider of jobs, incomes, and goods and services, the commercial core of the neighborhood, can often be a cornerstone of revitalization. In some cases, it is one of the first victims of decline, and in many cases its revival is one of the last acts of renewal. The reason in both cases is competition from other shopping areas where shopping may be easier and the locale more attractive. The best example of this is the suburban shopping mall. However, in a few neighborhoods, the commercial area retains some vitality in the midst of overall decline and can be a focal point for neighborhood revitalization. In all neighborhoods, the issue of commercial revitalization must be faced.

Applying the tools of organizing and planning, SECO’s Highlandtown Revitalization project in Southeast Baltimore followed a similar process. First, the community activists, together with technical assistance from National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs (NCUEA) analyzed the problems. Where were the commercial sectors? How were they doing, especially compared with the "golden days" of the past? How were the businesses serving or not serving the neighborhood in terms of jobs, income and types of stores? What were the evidences of decline? From these questions they knew if and where they wanted to undertake a commercial revitalization project as a component of the comprehensive revitalization strategy.

The second stage was that of organizing. Initial attention was directed toward starting or reviving a businessmen’s association for the commercial area being addressed (not necessarily for the whole neighborhood, as each business area has different problems and opportunities). The purpose was to involve those persons most directly affected in defining the issues and the strategy of response. This stage was often difficult, since small businessmen tend to be very independent and suspicious of their neighbors/competitors. Usually it was accomplished by a direct and clear appeal to self-interest: increased business, the possibility of government loans, etc.

The third stage was relating the businesses to the community as a whole. Often, residents and businesspersons view each other with a degree of hostility and distance, especially if the business-person never lived in the neighborhood. In order to promote a sense of unity, the leadership had to point out the mutuality of interests and the values of cooperation. This stage was also a very difficult one.

Fourth, the sense of unity was strengthened by the formation of the commercial revitalization project under the direction of a new organization. The organization was composed of representatives from the residents and the businessperson. The revitalization corporation then became the key actors. The businessmen’s association and the community organization were involved through their representatives.

Fifth, the corporation was ready to devise a plan. The plans included developing a partnership between the residents, the businessmen, and the public sector. A Local Development Company (LDC) was established to facilitate the use of the Federal Small Business Administration Section 502 Loan Program which aids the rehabilitation and expansion of businesses. Major physical redesign of the street and of the store fronts were planned and public dollars (local CDBG, EDA, etc.) were secured for the financing of such projects. In both cases, active promotion campaigns including the revival of festivals and fairs were undertaken.

In the sixth and continuing phase, the revitalization organiza-tion oversees the implementation of the plans and the promotion campaign.

To review, the key components are:

1. placing the issue of commercial revitalization in the overall neighborhood context;

2. organizing the businessmen;

3. forming a unified resident-businessmen’s revitalization organization;

4. working for a tripartite partnership of these two with the public sector; and

5. designing and implementating a strategy which makes use of local resources as well as public programs and private investment.

This has not been a very specific manual. The steps seem more like space, time and focus for questioning, than definite positioning. Having finished reading the manual, you are not able to fashion a revitalization strategy. All this is true and in fact intentional. It would have been dishonest to present a more detailed, traditional manual because the fact is that all the variables and options presented in the text require choices based on your value and experience.

As the measures of success demonstrate, designing and implementing a revitalization strategy requires "artistic skill" and moral commitment. No manual can capture the essence of those factors; yet they are at the heart of the effort required. Revitalization is above all a human undertaking. Spirit, commitment, will, responsi-bility, creativity, community and participation—these are the key characteristics of the story. All of them can be described only poorly in words, especially those appropriate to a manual. Their power lies in their emotive force, in the truth of the human spirit which lies behind them.

So, how should one use the manual? Hopefully, it will help one to think through the issues that must be considered at the various stages of designing the strategies. We also believe that communities should look toward professional assistance to help in the design of appropriate strategies. The issues involved are quite complex and often "technical" in nature. There are no design strategies with "mail order catalog" assistance.

Neighborhood revitalization is a process with numerous aspects, the most important of which is a change in attitudes and commitment on the part of existing residents. Their participation in the revitalization process can insure its success, because success can only be measured by the residents themselves. The public and private sectors are important partners in the revitalization effort, but should remain in supporting roles.

The residents of a neighborhood cannot hope to accomplish the complex goal of revitalization without organizing themselves. A variety of factors have been suggested which neighborhood and community organizations should consider in determining the types of organization which will best suit their needs.

Unlike the simplified plans of a generation ago, successful neighborhood revitalization requires strategies, of which plans are only one part. The components of strategies have been outlined, emphasizing that strategies are dynamic and subject to constant changes in the light of new elements which will constantly emerge.

The extent to which an organization will become involved in economic and physical development can be decided only at the local level. It is not the purpose here to suggest that thousands of community development corporations with staffs and consultants should be created. Rather, it is the supporting processes that result in responsible projects. Projects which are economically reasonable and efficient, while also serving community needs, ought to be the goal. They can be produced only when those who are forced to act responsibly are in control. Community-based organizations should be assisted to structure relationships—from advocate, to monitor, to point venture—with those in the public and private sectors. These relationships should ensure a measure of control to those responsible for profit, for general societal values, and for the interests of the specific neighborhood.

In fashioning strategies, one must be willing to challenge and question every aspect of the process. All structures once created must be viewed with suspicion because they will seek a life of their own unrelated to the creative spark which caused them to come into being. Strategies are ways to intervene in ongoing process processes and change them—as they change so must the components of the strategy. You are the ones who must design, implement and change the strategy as events unfold.

An unstated assumption of this report is that cities are the repositories of our culture and heritage as well as being economic and political entities essential to the survival and well-being of our society. As the people who inhabit cities live primarily in neighbor-hoods, the health and vitality of our cities depends upon the well-being of our neighborhoods.

The disinvestment, decay and apathy which have charac-terized too many neighborhoods over the past generation can be reversed. The process is slow, complex and frequently frustrating. The process of neighborhood revitalization begins with people, as we have outlined. But it ends not with bricks and mortar but with opportunities for a diverse, warm and vital living experience: it ends with people creating new visions of an ever more beautiful life.

The model of neighborhood renewal developed in the chapter has strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is that in conjunction with the chapters by R. Khuri and P. Peachey it builds upon the deep resources of society in the very makeup of the human being. Human beings are in need of social community. This is not an artificial ideology, something foreign which needs to be imposed; it is a dynamism at the root of human beings as sharing in the absolute source and as directed outward in love for fulfillment.

This is reflected exteriorly in the churches and synagogues, temples and mosques which dot the various landscapes and constitute special points of reunion—a social glue as it were. These are points of reference for the community; they reflect its history from the distent past and mark its local realization in this place and time. Further, they point the community toward the deeper conver-gent truth about itself, realized at other levels by schools and other centers of learning. In this the emerging sense of economical interrelations between churches is of great importance in building the broad sense of unity needed to bring together all in the community.

It was noted also that the model, which gives great attention to the economic sphere, the revitalization of businesses and the strengthening of a weakening real estate market, is in the end more political than economic in the sense of being focused upon bringing people together. Yet, this is not really the level of the dynamism involved. As noted elsewhere, there was a time when the political structure served as a broad-based community organization which reflected the makeup of the community and took account of the needs of its general needs. These days have passed, however, and the parties have become less personal and more distant from neighborhood needs and desires.

Hence, today’s neighborhood association, while being political in the sense of being constituted of personal interaction, is not part of the political structure which looks to and at least periodically converts into state power. Rather, such neighborhood organizations are a dimension of civil society which is neither the political nor economic, but interacts with both in order to promote the welfare of the people. Here, its character is specified above all by the locale as a human habitat and vital community whose welfare it is concerned to promote.

It was suggested that the model is corperatist, rather than pluralist. That is it does not begin from an individualist ideology in which all are in principle different and which is concerned with how that difference can be recognized and promoted. Instead, it sees people as basically social in character and looks to the ways in which this sociality is shaped in terms of the locale in which people live. The neighborhood consists of people grouped by language and ethnicity, religion and occupation and the like. It looks for ways to bring these together in order to protect and promote their neighborhood—which at the present time tends most often to be in decline. This might then be considered more corperatist than pluralist, but with a strong pluralist concern.

The model is not easily applied at the present time due not only to the focus of decay cited in the paper, but to the growing anonymity which tends to characterize life in our times. Whereas in the past one always knew one’s neighbors and indeed engaged somewhat intimately in their life, today one may very well not know one’s next door neighbor or even be welcome to introduce oneself.

Another question regarded the degree to which this model is able to be applied in other cultures. In many countries there is not the social mobility which enables and encourages people to move out of an area. Indeed these may have been lived in for hundreds or even thousands of years. Further, the basic attitude generally is much less individualist and much more communitarian. Thus, the problems of urban renewal differ, and indeed may prove to be less difficult. On the other hand, ethnic divisions remain strong and efforts at community-building are more needed than ever.