Investigating the Social Outcomes of Community Infrastructure: A Case Study of Philadelphia Community Infrastructure Investments and Linear Reuse Parks
Date
2019
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Haverford users only
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
This thesis explores the social outcomes of investment in community infrastructure, such as parks, playgrounds, libraries and community centers, by closely examining seven case studies—four in Philadelphia neighborhoods and three linear infrastructure reuse parks. In this abstract I will provide a brief overview of the literature, explain my methods, and share my findings Two central research questions guide this project; the first is: What are the social outcomes of community infrastructure, such as parks, playgrounds, libraries, and community centers? And the second: How do they address inequities and/or contribute to gentrification in US cities? Scholars tend to agree that community infrastructure is a critical feature of strong neighborhoods. The social benefits of high quality community infrastructure include: improved public safety (Branas 2011), improved public health (South et al 2015), resilient communities, and generally healthier more connected neighborhoods (Klinenberg 2018). While these benefits are numerous and deep, investment in community infrastructure has historically been disproportionately concentrated in wealthy white neighborhoods (Checker 2011). However, when this environmental equity issue is addressed, investment in community infrastructure, especially in parks, sometimes leads to what scholars call “green gentrification,” “when parks or gardens [...] become catalysts for neighbourhood revitalisation that produce changes in demographic, real estate and consumption patterns such that the area becomes accessible only for people from more privileged social and ethnic backgrounds” (Cole et al 2017). Responding to this challenge, my thesis attempts to find the best way to invest in community infrastructure to yield the most equitable results. I developed three hypotheses: 1) A large community infrastructure project, both in terms of geography and funding, is more likely to have inequitable results than a small project; 2) A community infrastructure project that is proximate to a gentrifying neighborhood is more likely to have inequitable results than a project that is remote from gentrifying areas; and 3) A planning process that is democratic and inclusive will lead to higher levels of equitable development. Most of my case studies are located in Philadelphia as there has been recent excitement around and investment in community infrastructure. For example, in 2015 Philadelphia became the first city to receive grants from the Reimagining the Civic Commons initiative, a foundation-led project which provided funds for five public space projects across the city. Hoping to continue this momentum, Mayor Jim Kenney introduced the Rebuild Initiative in 2016. Drawing on money from a newly instated soda tax, Rebuild will invest millions of dollars in neighborhood community infrastructure (Rebuild). To test my first two hypotheses about size and proximity to gentrifying areas, I selected cases by creating a 2x2 table with proximity on one axis and size on the other. For small and remote, I chose Olney Recreation center; for small and proximate, I chose Mander Recreation Center; for large and remote, I chose Hunting Park; and for large and proximate, I chose the Discovery Center. In order to examine the effect of inclusive and democratic planning processes on equitable outcomes, I focused on three linear infrastructure reuse projects—the High Line in New York, the Rail Park in Philadelphia, and the 11th Street Bridge Park in Washington DC. I conducted my research primarily through interviews with project and community leaders as well as through field visits, official project plans and secondary sources. I found that my hypotheses about size and proximity were supported. There was much higher concern and attention to the projects' role in gentrification in the cases of proximity. Similarly, when comparing the case studies for size, the large investments triggered more concern about gentrification than the smaller ones. Further, I found that community engagement in the planning process was very important in all cases and especially so in cases proximate to gentrifying areas. This was important because in these cases, the level of community voice in the planning process affected residents’ sense of ownership over the changes and assurance that the investment was for them and not for future residents. Both the High Line and the Rail Park had relatively low levels of community engagement and inclusivity in their planning processes while the 11th Street Bridge Park had a very high level. For the 11th Street Bridge Park, this resulted in a detailed equitable development plan whereas neither the High Line nor the Rail Park had mitigations for displacement in their plans. Because of this, my hypothesis is somewhat supported as the rigorous planning processes resulted in the rigorous equitable development plan. However, my hypothesis is only somewhat supported because there are other factors present that help explain this, such as differences in the goals of project leaders.