Fallout in the Neighborhood

I admit it.

I got sucked into the hype around Amazon's new show "Fallout." When I heard it was based on a video game, it was a hard no for me. But after hearing a lot of non-gamers talk about how much they loved it, I jumped in. (So, if you are up for a nuclear, dystopian, bloody, violent commentary on our society, give it a go. Or if you just love Walter Groggins, watch it. He plays a radioactive Boyd Crowder in this show.)

There is a scene (not a spoiler) where two characters walk up to a city-sized crater in the ground with hundreds of shattered skyscrapers littering the horizon. Time slows. Somber music plays. In sorrow and shock, one of them asks, "What happened?" The answer...

It's the same thing that always happens. Everyone wants to save the world, they just...they disagree on how.

Looking at a metropolis wiped out by a nuclear attack doesn't summon images of a people trying to save the world, does it? In the plot line of the show, though, that is exactly what is going on.

And in the plot line of "revitalizing neighborhoods", this is what is going on - lots of well-intentioned, heavily resourced, power-and-influence wielding groups collaborating to do what is best for the city and what is best for the disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Yet their plans to help may very well be what does profound harm.

My team at FCS is always advocating for "neighborhoods as the unit of change." We believe that the path out of inequity and into prosperity will be through place-based, neighborhood-level work. And we are not alone. The field of place-based community development in growing. Being able to travel and interact with varying groups who all want the "save the neighborhood," it is quite clear that many "disagree on how."

And the HOW is everything.

The HOW I am concerned about is not wether it is transit-oriented development vs a focus on social determinants of health vs a community economic development model vs a housing first model vs any other number of ways that work happens in neighborhoods. Those, important as they are, are the WHAT.

The HOW is bigger. It is about methodology and process, which in neighborhood work matter more than the model or the product. And the HOW has two parts...

1. First, WHO - as in, who decided to do what is being done? Was it the neighborhood or the city or a funder or a nonprofit or an investor? Who is in charge of making the decisions that will shape the neighborhood?
2. Second, WHERE - as in, where is this initiative coming from? Is this from the top down? Or is this from the bottom up? Is this coming from outside the neighborhood or from within it?

I am often asked to weigh in on various strategies for place-based change -- Strong Towns, Blue Zones, Healthy Neighborhoods, Purpose Built Communities, Asset-Based Community Development, HOPE VI, Opportunity Zones, etc. There are lots of different thought leaders, brands, books, and models out there that emerge from a sincere desire to heal the inequities that define too many neighborhoods. And most of these models are impressive...on a website.

It is not that I think they are idealistic or unrealistic or that the websites are overpromising on what will be an under-deliver. Most of the models are worth admiration and should be a part of the field of research and practice. But....whatever "model" is put in place, we need to ask, "HOW is this going to happen?"

Meaning: "Who decided this?" and "Where is it coming from?"

Urban planning and neighborhood expert, Emily Talen, in her book, Neighborhood, offers an overview of the multiple of ways we have historically attempted "urban renewal" and neighborhood planning. She offers this critique:

There seemed little understanding that residents needed to be meaningfully engaged or empowered, that neighborhood would be fashioned or improved over time, that residents' decision-making powers would advance...'Neighborhood' became a word attached to redevelopment schemes...driven by outside interests [and] did not have the interests of neighborhood residents at heart.

If anything has been learned about the methodologies that do and do not support healthy neighborhood change is that top-down, outside-in approaches do more harm than good.

Take a quick survey of the history of "urban revitalization" and one thing will become clear - top down plans fall like a bomb when they hit the neighborhood and cause fallout. Board rooms, zoom rooms, conference rooms, offices, etc. are not the locus of decision. Executives, elected officials, nonprofit professionals, etc. are not the locus of power for change. All of the above have a role in the process, but they are the planets that are to do the orbiting; they are not the sun.

I can't say this often enough or loud enough or clear enough...

The center of the system is the neighbor/hood.

We. Can't. Change. Neighborhoods. Without. Their. Permission.

Well, we can, but it won't go well. No matter the model we pick.

Think: Method over model.

Consider: Process over product.

And...Not only is permission required, so is full participation, shared power, and constant proximity throughout.

If our goal is flourishing places where equity, belonging, access, and opportunity are experienced by all, then our HOW much be center on the power and presence of neighbors.

I know we all want to save the world. Let's enjoy our disagreements on the WHAT. But can we please get aligned on a HOW that centers the neighbors? We do not need any more Neighborhood Fallout.