House by House, Block by Block: The Rebirth of America’s Urban Neighborhoods

ALEXANDER VON HOFFMAN

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS BOSTON AND THE POWER OF COLLABORATION

In 1971, Bob Haas, a twenty-seven-year-old engineer and classical piano player, moved to a commune in a large broken-down Victorian house in a section of the Boston Dorchester district known as Upham's Corner. Haas loved the his­ tory and vitality of Dorchester—a streetcar-era place where first the Irish and then other ethnic groups had made their home in “Baahston”—and a few years later bought the old house from his roommates. Upham's Corner, however, was a neighborhood in crisis. M any poor Afri­ can Americans and Puerto Ricans lived there. Houses caught on fire and were abandoned. Stores, including the neighborhood supermarket, closed. During his first ten years in Upham's Corner, Haas's house was burglarized twenty- three times. Children on his street grew up, joined gangs, took crack cocaine, and murdered or were murdered. At first Haas naively thought that if he repaired his house, others would do the same, and the neighborhood would come back. When that did not work, he organized a neighborhood association. That did not stem the tide either, and in 1979 he and members of three neighborhood associations founded the Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation (Dorchester Bay EDC). Excited by its potential, Haas in 1985 gave up his other careers to become a full-time staff member and spent sixteen years as director of planning. It took a few years, but this last effort began to show tangible results. Since its founding Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation has devel­ oped more than 500 dwellings, restored a major commercial building, brought in a new grocery store, coordinated anti-drug and crime watch groups, st arted a children's summer camp, and instituted annual neighborhood meetings and festivals for the Upham's Corner neighborhood.1 Upham's Corner's revival is not unique. All over Boston's inner-city dis­ tricts of Roxbury and Dorchester, neighborhoods are experiencing rebirth. Old apartment buildings sparkle, and newly built houses st and on formerly vacant lots. Businesses are returning to the empty storefronts. The areas of abandoned and graffiti-scarred buildings and vacant lots have shrunk, and crime has dwindled to pre-Vietnam War levels. Landmarks and Significant Places ▲ Dudley Square ★ Upham's Comer ® Cod man Square # Lithgow Building $ 102 Columbia Rd. + Dorchester District Court m Dudley Square Neighborhood Initiative Triangle

Boston Neighborhood Map

(Facing page, top) House in disrepair, Monadnock Street, Upham’s Corner neigh­ borhood. Courtesy of Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation.

(Facing page, bottom) Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation’s Youth Arts and Crafts Summer Camp, August 1995. Courtesy of Dorchester Bay Economic 78 Development Corporation.

BOSTON AND THE POWER OF COLLABORATION * > 80

school busing program, the rising crime rate, and the collapsing estate market.real collapsing rate,the and crime therising program, busing school HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK Yankees, Catholic Irish, and everyone from the well-to-do to the ne'er-do- ne'er-do- the to well-to-do the from everyone and Irish, Catholic Yankees, Decline Long The o 800 n ta o ocetr rpe fo 1800 o 300 Te vast The 83,000^ to 118,000 from dropped Dorchester of that and 58,000 to the especially ethnics, white Protestant mobile upwardly including on, wore century eclectic, the As well. similarly was population el­ Their from else. — houses ranging where and lowlands, the in factories small avenues, the the of parts and Dorchester, and Roxbury of towns former the in boundaries among loyalty of feelings strong neigh­ residents. inspire their these really, topography, by sub-neighborhoods Isolated them. borhoods, around neighborhoods the of ters programs. anti-crime and city. inner the in even prices raised affluent has of that influx an cities, high-market other like And and industries. service Francisco and San like Boston, market. estate real and economy thriving the moving to the suburbs. In the 1970s, many fled to escape the federal court's court's federal the escape to fled many 1970s, the In suburbs. the to moving ethnics middle-class and working- white were city the departing of those majority of city the as 1980, and 1950 122,000 from fell of Roxbury population Between the people, 238,000 than lost more Boston Dorchester. and Roxbury of prosperity synagogues. and churches, shops, small with delicatessens, them pubs, filled and neighborhoods these inherited Jews, and Irish — every­ buildings apartment three-decker working-class along to blocks mansions centu­ egant commercial twentieth brick early solid and sprouted nineteenth Dorchester the and During Roxbury ries, End. South neighboring cen­ institutional and commercial the form are they which converge, roads “squares,” major shaped small, four or is irregularly three Boston Where valleys. and Universe, town's the hills the through itsrolling streets days, wind of colonial Hub from Dating the old. and compact, nickname, grandiose its Despite development countries community their and effective cities other Eventually, spectacularly from pager. Boston's visitors about now learn to that come policeman's obvious a so Roto- of the to became silence calls the success spreadsheet, and financial company, measured Rooter they first bewildering At city. a inner ways: the odd hous­ in in attractive crime progress end develop and to commerce, alliances —revive officers forged ing, police — officials includ­ Sophisticated clever government some daring collaboration. ing and in advocates skills development remarkable community and developed organizations urban agencies nonprofit an city's the shape public error, to and trial times of years good Through economic revival. of age advant took movement ment professionals from the suburbs and elsewhere has created a real est ate boom est boom ate real a created has elsewhere and suburbs the from professionals Seattle, is an American city that has benefited from surging high-technology high-technology surging from benefited has that city American an is Seattle, n h lt teteh etr, rmtc ouain hfs nemnd the undermined shifts population dramatic century, twentieth late the In colonial city's the outside located are neighborhoods inner-city Boston's But in Boston, perhaps more than any other city, the community develop­ community the city, other any than more perhaps Boston, in But Some of the credit for the transformation of Boston's inner city must go to go must city inner Boston's of transformation the for credit the of Some During this three-decade exodus, minority racial groups moved into the industrial belt of northern Roxbury, then into southern Roxbury and Dor­ chester. Roxbury experienced the greatest change in racial composition as its population changed from 80 percent white in 1950 to 10 percent white in 1980. Blacks had been living in Roxbury as early as the 1940s — when Malcolm X stayed there with his aunt—and by 1960 Roxbury became the capital of black Boston. In the 1960s African Americans began moving to western Dorchester. In the 1970s Puerto Ricans, and some Latin American immigrants, followed the blacks to northern sections of Roxbury, Dorchester, and the adja­ cent neighborhood of Jamaica Plain. In 1970, whites comprised almost 90 percent of Dorchester's population; twenty years later their share had dropped to just over half the population.3 Many of the newcomers were significantly poorer than their predecessors. By 1979 the percent age of people below the poverty line had risen to 30 per­ cent in Roxbury and 17 percent in Dorchester. Single-parent households made up over a third of all households in Roxbury and over a quarter of those in Dorchester. Thirty-three percent of Roxbury's households received public as­ sistance, as did 20 percent of the households in Dorchester.4 The transition to a poorer, more racially diverse population did not go smoothly. In the 1970s the school busing program, which required racial inte­ gration of the public schools, exacerbated racial tensions throughout the city. Increasing numbers of crimes in Roxbury and Dorchester contributed to a sense that order was breaking down. As in other cities, where property values collapsed, buildings were liable to burn. For evening entert ainment, people in Roxbury and Dorchester watched the fires from their porches and roofs and hoped that the blowing embers COLLABORATION OF POWER THE AND BOSTON would not set their own houses ablaze.5 Some fires arose from carelessness and even revenge. Others, perhaps most, were set intentionally to collect in­ surance or get rid of a property that was bleeding money. Rapid change was particularly devast ating to the south Dorchester neigh­ borhood of Codman Square. The population west of Codman Square changed from middle-class Jewish to low-income African American during the late 1960s and 1970s, and the surrounding community all but collapsed. Real est ate val­ ues plummeted to zero, vandals stripped the copper and radiators from build­ ings at night, and hundreds of houses burned. In 1969 fires emptied the Lithgow Building, the prominent commercial block of Codman Square. Once Codman Square had boasted 150 stores; by 1977 only thirty remained. Drug dealers shot out the branch library's windows because they suspected the librarian of snitching. One night someone attacked the gift shop with a chain saw. During the blizzard of 1978, which shut down Boston for a week, hundreds of rioters smashed windows and looted the remaining businesses, including the major supermarket, until the National Guard was called in. The supermarket closed soon afterward.6 By then, large stretches of Roxbury and Dorchester resembled the depressed mill towns of the New England countryside. The wooden shingles and clap­ board on aged homes were faded and cracked or covered with cheap t ar paper 81 82

umrwr rga rn yte ak dprmn, rpstr o patron- for repository a department, parks the by run program work summer HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK White years, and when it did, it alternated between indifference and brutality. brutality. and indifference between it alternated did, it when and years, White gots” to refer to youthful thugs, but some applied it to all members of racial racial of members all to it applied some but thugs, youthful to refer to gots” mired tobecome government city the allowed with and machine preoccupied political a became building White soul, city's the at tore that controversy Quincy busing the as such attractions, tourist and concen­ development White downtown mid-1970s, the on by But trated housing. low-income of development the neighborhoods. forlorn these in loan business or mortgage house a build­ many made shades t and attered windows Broken shingles. asphalt and neighborhoods, for example, by establishing Little City Halls and supporting supporting and Halls City Little the of establishing by problems the example, in for interest some shown neighborhoods, had White as Kevin terms early his mayor, In Boston's branches. bank and stores grocery the with along city inner could be found on duty drinking in bars or sleeping in their parked cruisers. cruisers. parked their in sleeping or bars in drinking finest duty city's on the of few found A be violence. tocould provoked easily were and groups “mag­ minority term the used remembers, officers Haas Many Bob here?'”8 live still housebreak,” ‘You say a was would there they “and when police the call “You'd corruption.7 cases, some in and, patronage, bureaucracy, in the solve to Unable Ships. Tall the of procession the and development Market issue would banks any, if neighborhoods' Few, the squares. and desolated apart­ boulevards scarred storefronts commercial windows Empty busy once boarded factories. and and Graffiti blocks houses. ment haunted like look ings bnoe he-ekr advcn lt i te omn qae neighborhood, Square Codman the in lots vacant and three-deckers Abandoned The Boston police department was slow to respond to inner-city calls in the the in calls inner-city to respond to slow was department police Boston The the from withdraw to seemed government Hub's the worse, matters make To il aca eprecd h ieta fte iygvrmn i 17 i a in 1975 in government city the of inertia the experienced Walczak Bill i-90. orey lim Walczak. illiam W f o Courtesy mid-1970s. age jobs. Walczak was a brash kid from New Jersey who dropped out of Boston University when he moved to Dorchester's Codman Square, where he would later become a community leader. Of four people in the program assigned to clean up Hemenway Playground, a badly neglected park in Dorchester, Walczak was the only one who ever showed up for work. One day, in a burst of enthusiasm, Walczak raked the park, filled seven trash barrels with broken glass and litter, and rolled them to the top of the hill. He then walked over to the local park department field office and told his foreman, Mr. Dougherty, that the barrels had to be removed before the local kids rolled them down the hill. There was a big crisis at Ronan Park, another Dorchester park, Dougherty replied. Some locals had complained to the mayor's office, so the parks department sent all available workers to clean it up. Why didn't Walczak go there to ask for help? When Walczak arrived at Ronan Park, he found seven people idling where fifty had been assigned. Walczak approached two men sitting in the cab of an empty dump truck and asked them to pick up the barrels in Hemenway play­ ground. “Naww, we're assigned to Ronan Park,” the men replied, “and we ain't moving outt a Ronan Park.” Walczak, steaming mad, walked into the Town Field Tavern and called the mayor's office. “Hi, this is Jimmy O'Connor, I'm up by Hemenway Park,” he rasped in his best working-class Boston accent. “There's some barrels that gott a be picked up or the kids are gonna make a mess.” Sure enough, when Walczak entered the field office half an hour later, Dougherty yelled at him to tell the guys at Ronan Park that the mayor's office sent orders to get the barrels at Hemenway Park. Walczak returned to the men

in the empty truck. “ Dougherty says, ‘The mayor's office wants you down at COLLABORATION OF POWER THE AND BOSTON Hemenway now to pick up the barrels.'” One man turned to another, shook his head disgustedly, and said, “We ain't gonna get no fuckin' break today.”9

Searching for a Way Out

Boston's government might have slipped into lethargy, but a local tradition of social activism suggested that the citizenry would not succumb without a fight. Throughout the 1960s, residents of the South End and northern Roxbury, led by African American activists such as Mel King and Ted Parrish, had formed community organizations to obtain better education, stop landlords from ex­ ploiting tenants, and prevent urban renewal schemes. In 1964 the United South End Settlements obt ained a grant from the federal government and founded South End Community Development, one of the first community develop­ ment organizations in the country, to rehabilitate deteriorated row houses for low-income families. Under its first executive director, Robert Whittlesey, a World War II veteran with degrees in civil engineering and planning, South End Community Development began building new housing as well as re­ modeling old, expanded its operations to sites across the metropolit an region, and in 1970 was renamed Greater Boston Community Development, Inc. or GBCD. (Renamed the Community Builders in 1988, it is today a national 83 84

to burn had either been sold frequently or had no tenants. The Codman Square Codman The tenants. no or had frequently sold been either had to burn HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK Kahn, for example, was a white photographer who moved to northern Roxbury Roxbury northern to moved who photographer white a was example, for Kahn, successful a and Council Neighborhood Roxbury the lead helped Wade Ken arson around Codman Square. They discovered that the buildings most likely likely most buildings the that discovered They Square. Codman around arson government city way.13 the other when the squatter a looking as was permis­ building the of than rest the over forgiveness took and seek to “better is motto whose Walczak, building. one only was There Square. Codman for done simply be he to had care; health in something that interested felt meetings, particularly not association's was civic Walczak the at director. the questions of lot a Codman asking the by attention founded their residents the When center. health a and , C D C a tion, members. staff underpaid few a and volunteers neighborhood by run of life tions commercial the revive and homes the rebuild to order in s C D C or tions organiza­ citywide a establish togardens.12 helped King, then community of Mel and tion and garden Bailey Augusta neighborhood a leaders, build American African with worked Charlotte and communities. adopted their for struggle to remained and borhoods Committee.11 School Boston the to times three Neighborhood elected the of was and director district England New the become to him lead who Wade, Juanita and Ken as drown such to natives, were threatened that Some undercurrents neighborhoods. the their fought residents Dorchester and sion,” wangled a space for the health center in the basement of the old library library old the of basement the in center health the for space a Lithgow wangled sion,” abandoned the opposite was it building, old its announced from had street library the up public the moving and neighborhood, the in left doctor associa­ neighborhood a organized whites middle-class remaining the of some service and developers Jamaica in estate real Corporation providers. significant Housing become Edge Development to Urban — Plain persevered and Comunidad Roxbury, Nuestra in and Madi­ Corporation Corporation Dorchester, north in Development Corporation Park son Development Economic Bay chester opera­ storefront small were s C D C The neighborhoods. inner-city Boston's neigh­ their to attached grew Some location. prime inner and the to rents low the for city graduates—moved college recent and artists, — musicians, people education in interest an took Juanita, wife, His Corporation. Reinvestment would later years that city—work inner the in loans mortgage get to away. campaign moved Americans African middle-class other as even Roxbury in stayed units northern and hundred twelve End than South more housing.10 develop helped low-income of D organizations C B G community 1982, to Roxbury 1969 From organization.) qae elh etr n 99 te md Bl Wlzk wo a cm to come had who Walczak, Bill made they 1979, in Center Health Square Dor­ as — others such but little, accomplished or failed s C D C the of Some To stop fires from consuming their neighborhood, activists researched the the researched activists neighborhood, their consuming from fires stop To corpora­ development community nonprofit of dozens started activists The In Codman Square, newly arrived urban pioneers, African Americans, and and Americans, African pioneers, urban arrived newly Square, Codman In young Adventurous newcomers. were Haas, Bob like activists, Other Roxbury dedicated 1980s, early and 1970s the of years difficult the During The staff of the Codman Square Health Center (Bill Walczak at left) on the day it opened, November 1979. Courtesy of William Walczak. citizens systematically identified all these buildings and passed the informa­ tion to st ate Attorney General Frank Bellotti who wrote a letter to the owners telling them that if their buildings mysteriously caught fire, his office was ready to investigate. The number of arson fires dropped noticeably, and some own­ ers offered to give the buildings to the Codman Square CD C.14 But there were as many defeats as victories. In 1981 the Codman Square CD C opened a supermarket to replace the one that had closed, but the local people knew little about running a grocery business. The store quickly went bankrupt and took the CD C with it. A new CD C named the Codman Square OTN N TE OE O COLLABORATION OF POWER THE AND BOSTON

William Jones (left) and Bill Walczak in Codman Square. Behind them is the old Second Church of Dorchester (left) and the vacant Girls Latin School building, March 1983. Courtesy of Janet Knott, republished with permission of Globe Newspaper, Inc. 85 6 il—h eetaiinlyssiiu foeaohradterga DCs. CD ragtag the another—and one of suspicious traditionally were cials—who 86 HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK have predicted success for an alliance of downtown business people, city offi- city people, business downtown of would stfew it alliance arted, an for when Yet success predicted development. have community of cause the in tion in Massachu­ result, a As line-item a operations. for and money projects s C D C development gave that budget state the economic and community to tions Dukakis Michael develop­ Governor and sponsored community King which bolster to fasts legislation, —ways came out figure to room in conference meetings breakfast IT M morning an Wednesday at Depart­ the academics in and activists IT together M at t aught also activists King, King Mel The own, st legislature. forms. their of ate the one to various in when elected came was it government state and the from help, pipeline needed a built clearly s C D C The wilderness.16 a still was neighborhood the that else somewhere to way their a in up grown had who American African an Jones, Bill by headed formed; ship (BHP), an early and conspicuous example of Boston's flair for collabora­ for flair Boston's of example conspicuous and early an (BHP), ship development.17 community to hospit able unusually became setts consulta­ and grants, loans, provide to agencies state two created it endorsed; break­ fish-fry the prepared himself assembly—King well-fed the of Out ment. bring to occupations diverse his used and Planning and Studies Urban of ment on Square Codman through sped who those to symbol visible a at Building, tenant; major no but financing.15 no but financing, tenant, a had had he Jones times other Sometimes Lithgow the block. was redevelop to trying years itspent commercial Corporation project, housing public Development Roxbury Neighborhood) to changed (later Housing Setting the Stage for Transformation for Stage the Setting ore-pLtgwcmeca uligadepy trs n omn Square, Codman in stores empty and building commercial Lithgow Boarded-up The C D C s also received a giant boost from the Boston Housing Partner­ Housing Boston the from boost giant a received also s C D C The Meanwhile, a tree had grown through the roof of the boarded-up Lithgow Lithgow boarded-up the of roof the through grown had tree a Meanwhile, c. 1982. Courtesy o f Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corporation. Development Neighborhood Square Codman f o Courtesy 1982. c.

The housing partnership was dreamed up by David Mundell, the head of the city's Neighborhood Development and Employment Agency. Mundell's agency administered federal programs such as job training and community development block grants, which allowed local governments to fund a variety of local improvement projects. The election of Ronald Reagan to the presi­ dency in 1980, however, spelled doom for those federal programs. Reagan was a sworn enemy of big government, and liberal social programs were his favor­ ite target. But the idea of public-private partnerships was in the air, and Mundell looked to the business world to fill the gap created by the Reagan cutbacks. Mundell organized a Private Industry Council, in accordance with recent federal legislation that encouraged business-government collaborations to pro­ vide job training to the unskilled. Then Mundell had the idea to form a simi­ lar public-private partnership to develop low-income housing, and called on banker William Edgerly to organize and chair it.18 Edgerly feels unusually passionate about solving urban problems. He had helped establish Goals for Boston to rally the city's leaders to help different areas of city life. In the area of education, he convinced the Vault, a group of the city's corporate executives, to support the Boston Compact, an agreement that private companies would hire low-income youth if the school depart­ ment gave them an appropriate education. Despite his dignified Boston Yankee manners, Edgerly was a risk taker who had rescued the venerable State Street Bank and Trust Company. The bank had originally managed trust funds for old Boston families but during the 1970s had fallen on hard times. In 1975 State Street's board members con­

ducted a nationwide search for a chief executive officer but turned to Edgerly, COLLABORATION OF POWER THE AND BOSTON a fellow board member and an executive of the Cabot Corporation, even though he was not a banker. Edgerly embarked on what the bank officers called “the bold strategy,” which took State Street Bank away from traditional banking and made it a highly profitable service provider for the mutual fund industry.19 Although the new housing partnership had a leader, troubles at the Neigh­ borhood Development and Employment Agency almost killed the collabora­ tive before it was born. A series of newspaper articles blasted the agency as corrupt, and the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel­ opment (HUD) launched an investigation into the agency's administration of the community development block grants. Relations between the agency and Boston's neighborhood organizations were badly strained because mayor Kevin White and his political operatives disliked any community organization they could not control, and most of the C D C s prized their independence. Adding to the neighborhood development agency's troubles, its director, David Mundell, resigned. His deputy, Paul Grogan, a serious young man who had worked with Edgerly on the Boston Compact, succeeded him. Suddenly placed at the helm of an unpopular agency beset by corruption charges, Grogan decided to st art funding C D C s. Years later as president of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the national nonprofit lender and philanthropic organization, Grogan became a leading champion of CDCs, but at the time 87 88 HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK Agency, to serve on the board of directors; but when he called the first meet­ first the called he when but directors; of board the on serve to Agency, Whittlesey's right-hand man and successor at G B C D , Pat Clancy. Whittlesey Clancy. Pat , D C B G at successor and man right-hand Whittlesey's that were never carried out. Grogan rescinded the funds for the moribund moribund the for funds the programs rescinded numerous Grogan out. funded had carried and that never corrupt, investigation were not that federal but the inept, from was learned had agency his Grogan eanwhile, M housing. Finance Housing Massachusetts the as such companies, departments, col­ insurance the st banks, of arted government Edgerly and representatives ground. enlisting by the 1983 off in laborative Partnership Housing Boston the get again. program development community city's the with fered at work, tantrums throws never who man controlled a Grogan, them. with along the call to likes Grogan what on corrup­ strategy—based agency's this the part, of most the evidence For as tion. interference such inves­ interpret and critics would agency's tigators the that argued Grogan operations. political for funds agency's his solve to time some needed just Grogan them. about little knew he partnership's housing program, and in his search, he consulted with Bob Bob with consulted he search, his in and program, housing partnership's govern­ by solely supported life began funds.21 partnership ment Ironi­ public-private Partnership. this Housing cally, almost Boston the dollars, tobankroll million allocation, $50 to yearly his close of double windfall the of some used and programs develop, alone let plan, to staff or money no had he Partnership, the of ing inter­ never operatives the and word, the sent mayor The White, here.” of warned out angrily he I'm off,” “or fuck the back to go tothem “Tell mayor. appeared the with mayor met the and program, grant block reas­ the to tried of operatives control political their the sert point, one At —worked. trouble” of “utility its use to wanted who lieutenants mayor's the from it protect to had Grogan of the C D C s might win back some of the trust of neighborhood residents.20 neighborhood of trust the of some favor in back win programs might s C controversial D city's C the the of bypassing that hoped and problems Even with funds, Edgerly still needed to find someone to carry out the the out carry to someone find to needed still Edgerly funds, with Even to troubles agency's development neighborhood the used actually Grogan Agency, Employment and Development to right Neighborhood But the listing Patrick Clancy (center) at a meeting with M ary Longley and others and Longley ary M with meeting a at (center) Clancy Patrick rm h Tnns eeomn Croain Bso, . 1974. c. Boston, Corporation, Development Tenants the from Courtesy o f Robert Whittlesey. Robert f o Courtesy

had hired Clancy back in the 1960s to research whether nonprofit low-income housing developers could use tax depreciation laws to syndicate their deals the way commercial real estate firms did. At the time, Clancy was a long­ haired, radical law student working for Legal Services. Before long he became G BCD ’s principal deal maker, helping CDCs finance housing projects not only by garnering government grants but also by syndicating mortgage pools organized by for-profit subsidiaries. Clancy, who had become director of G B C D after Whittlesey stepped down in 1977, persuaded Edgerly that CDCs could develop the housing for the Partnership. Edgerly hired Whittlesey as director of the Boston Elousing Partnership, and Whittlesey brought Clancy and G BCD on board to put the housing deals together.22 They were an unlikely but effective team. The zealous Clancy built the complicated financial deals for the development projects. Whittlesey, a but­ ton-down type, understood Clancy’s financing arrangements and vouched for their soundness. And the persistent Edgerly kept the whole program moving. Lie pushed his board and staff to take care of their assignments —Clancy re­ members meeting Edgerly one afternoon at 3:30 and agreeing to carry out three tasks. When he returned to his G B C D office at4:oo, he received a phone call from the banker asking him how he was getting along with his tasks. The executive used all the resources at his command, including the State Street Bank’s financial analysts, to persuade investors that the Partnership’s program was viable.23

Boston’s First Collaboration The Economic Tide Turns

In the 1980s the conditions for community development in Boston improved dramatically. Boston benefited from an economic boom —known as “the

Massachusetts miracle” —which reversed the city’s long-term population de­ COLLABORATION OF POWER THE AND BOSTON cline and prompted Governor Michael Dukakis to run for the presidency in 1988. Technology, medical care, and the mutual fund industry—Boston is the home of Fidelity Investments —drove the local economy and put serious money in the hands of the professionals in these fields. As in other large cities, it was the era of the free-spending Yuppies, the young urban professionals who helped set off the first big real estate boom the Flub had seen in decades. The city’s foundations, corporations, and government would have money to spend on neighborhoods, if they saw fit. The election in 1983 of a new mayor, Raymond Flynn, also boosted the cause of community development. Flynn, who came from the Irish neighbor­ hood of South Boston, had run on a platform of helping the neighborhoods as well as downtown. Fie supported CDCs —the only official from the Kevin White administration whom Flynn asked to stay on was Paul Grogan—and channeled “linkage” funds from downtown development projects into low- income housing schemes in the inner-city. Initially the economic boom concerned, rather than delighted, the resi­ dents of Boston’s inner city. The boom helped turn the trickle of professionals who had been moving into the South End since the 1960s into a gush during the r98os. As the renovation of nineteenth-century brownstones pressed for­ ward, it pushed out low-income black and Puerto Rican residents, some to Roxbury and Dorchester. Residents of Roxbury looked at what was happening 91 92

houses, parks, and shops by means of neighborhood control, possession of a of possession control, neighborhood of means by shops and parks, houses, HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK vacant lots. The residents devised a plan for developing an “urban village” of of village” “urban an developing for plan a devised residents The lots. vacant The organization succeeded in forcing the city government to tow abandoned abandoned tow to government city the forcing in succeeded organization The director. group's the be to worker, social a community than rather chose board Hartford, I and SN D The white. and area: Verdean, Street Cape Dudley the in Latino, groups black, ethnic three aside set major four and the of neighbor­ directors of each for seats board required the board on by-laws Its majority a hold to multi-ethnic. residents and hood democratic highly was tion president. elected was three, of board, mother I a SN D Madyun, the joined Che them, of immediately one critics and the of organiza­ the number lead A help to themselves. dissidents tion the invited leaders meeting's the however, Foundation.31 Riley philanthropic the of approxi­ (of backing area financial limited a on long-term the focused I SN D churches. and s, service C social D of local C alliance asan agencies, 1984 in founded was (DSNI) Initiative hood and plan area Dudley BRA's the in proposed houses a new and the afford could neighborhood they End West ethnic vibrant the demolished had 1960s and covering lots vacant 840 contained neighborhood Dudley the 1980, By resi­ tion. winding the were inland buildings; district industrial of belt a business lay a Boston Toward once Square, — centers Dudley commercial desolate two (BRA) Authority Redevelopment Boston the when 1984 in panic to turned munity workshops to prepare a master plan to develop the area's abundant abundant area's the develop to plan master a prepare to workshops munity Roxbury of grievances major residents. stboth transfer ations, trash illegal close and cars district. disposal a as area Street Dudley the of use the end to campaign Us On City York New in worked had who native Boston a Medoff, Peter organizer organiza­ The assistance. service social than rather organization community Unexpectedly, Roxbury. of people the for speak to neighborhood lived the who directors outside agency the of right the challenged angrily residents meeting, enjoyed and Street Dudley to contiguous miles) square half a and one mately Neighbor­ Street Dudley The Hub. the in collaboration development onslaught. munity expected the off fend to fright­ organizations The way. in enlisted meaningful any residents in think ened not them did consult would They BRA the lived. that had doubted blacks many where End South the of section acres.30 177 demoli­ subsequent and fires arson by decimated been had that streets dential Dorchester. northern in Corner Upham's and Boston, todowntown only second st train ation. Roxbury's of housing, site and the bus area, hotels, towers, Square principal office Dudley of the in complex anxieties manufacturing light million and parks, The $750 a for gentrification. plan a about prepared nervous became and End South the in To counter the BRA's redevelopment plan, D SN I organized a series of com­ of series a organized I SN D plan, redevelopment BRA's the counter To between Roxbury crossed Street Dudley improvement. need did area The M edoff and D SN I leaders gained local support by waging a Don't Dump Dump Don't a waging by support local gained leaders I SN D and edoff M and participation local emphasized I SN D dissidents, former the by Led public first its At start. rocky a to off got I SN D success, later its all for But com­ innovative most the perhaps became organizations new the of One 1950s the in which projects, renewal urban feared residents Roxbury But critical mass of land, and simultaneous new construction and building reno­ vation. But the vacant lots presented a major roadblock on the way to the urban village. The lots owned by the city, about half the total, were too scat­ tered to develop in any coherent way. The rest of the lots belonged to private owners who were delinquent in paying t axes on the properties; foreclosing on each of them would delay development virtually forever. To help them carry out the urban village plan until they hired a permanent director of development, DSNI's leaders turned to GBCD. Peter Munkenbeck, the GBCD consult ant, suggested that eminent domain, a legal tool used by urban renewal authorities to force owners to sell their land for redevelopment, might solve their dilemma. The lawyers who researched the issue for DSNI then made an intriguing discovery: Massachusetts law allowed the BRA to authorize an “urban redevel­ opment corporation” to exercise the power of eminent domain. Theoretically, DSNI could be that corporation. But would the city allow an upst art commu­ nity group this coveted power? In an unprecedented move, DSNI began to look for support for acquiring eminent domain authority. In March 1988 M edoff brought up the vacant lot problem in a casual conversation with Stephen Coyle, the flamboyant director of the BRA, and was startled when Coyle on his own suggested that D SN I form a separate corporation and apply for eminent domain authority. Convincing Lisa Chapnick, the hard-nosed boss of Flynn's neighborhood development agency, was not as easy. Chapnick was worried that the group had t aken on too large a piece of land, but at the D SN I presentation, Medoff disarmed the agency officials by rolling out a map of the world and declaring this was the area D SN I

proposed to take by eminent domain. After the laughter died down, Medoff, COLLABORATION OF POWER THE AND BOSTON Madyun, and two other DSNI leaders made their case. Chapnick considered some of the D SN I plan completely unrealistic, “but the sincerity and honesty— I bought it. I just bought the people sitting in that room.”32 The campaign to create an urban village in the Dudley Street neighbor­ hood gathered momentum. In August 1988 DSNI organized Dudley Neigh­ bors, Incorporated, to be the nonprofit urban redevelopment corporation that would exercise eminent domain. DSNI turned opposition to support by ask­ ing represent atives of the Minority Developers Association, a group of pre­ dominantly African American real est ate developers opposed to nonprofits, and the Roxbury Neighborhood Council, a district-wide planning body, to serve on the board of the Dudley Neighbors. The next month DSNI beat out the Boston parks department in a competition for a $1 million park develop­ ment grant from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Manage­ ment to create Dudley Commons as a gateway to the district. Meanwhile, Mayor Flynn enthusiastically endorsed DSNI's effort to ac­ quire eminent domain authority. Flynn believed that city government existed to help communities control their destiny, and he thought that despite the obvious risks, D SN I could pull off the project. The city's development agency and DSNI negotiated a contract to work together to develop the Dudley tri­ angle. On November 10, 1988, DSNI officers were invited to City Hall to meet with Chapnick and the mayor prior to attending the BRA board meeting 93 94 HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK A Face Lift for the Inner City Inner the for Lift Face A for Ducklings for time in the history of the country, citizens held the power of eminent domain domain neighborhood. eminent of own power their the held redevelop to citizens country, the of history the I in SN time D the at sign up thumbs a flashed Coyle Chairman entered. they when Peter looked,” “It office. Flynn’s into people I SN D the past file single a in bers moment. historic the for room board eund o hi meig om n a ls gv ter osn. o te first the For consent. their gave last at resign, and shortly room would meeting members their to whose of two returned board, the and representatives, neighborhood. a for best was what decide could planners govern­ the only ment felt who members board at the raged later, out it turned mayor, of the out scene a “like I, SN D of history his in recalled edoff M mem­ board glum recalcitrant, the marched Coyle director BRA board office. BRA his into the called and out stepto visitors his asked Flynn irate BRA An deal. the main at waited crews Roxbury camera proposal. the television of and favor in members, vote I to SN D expected was residents, board the which in D udley Town Common, a centerpiece o f the D udley Street Neighborhood Initiative’s Neighborhood Street udley D the f o centerpiece a Common, Town udley D urban village plan, Dudley Street and Blue H ill Avenue, Roxbury, August 2002. August Roxbury, Avenue, ill H Blue and Street Dudley plan, village urban After an hour, the board members emerged looking even glummer than than glummer even looking emerged members board the hour, an After u a h ls mnt, h BAbad eue t apoe h eiet do­ eminent the approve to refused board BRA the minute, last the at But .”33 Angry shouting could be heard behind the closed doors as the as doors closed the behind heard be could shouting Angry Courtesy o f Glenn a Lang. a Glenn f o Courtesy book Make Way Make book

108

and upr o osn n cmuiydvlpet rjcs n Boston. in projects development community and housing for support tained HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK nul inr s ms-ted oil vn o ayn srosy novd in involved seriously anyone for event social must-attend a is dinner annual or private parties, all for organization umbrella isan Association Planning and have experiences talent. new successful train and their and recruit groups, helped nonprofit the lead to titioners that several are s C D C soactive or itsthirty Among groups. community fective neighborhood Boston’s expand or but start to system, hope who those for development paradigm neigh­ a community improving become of at has sort succeed some that have cities speaking, borhoods neigh­ grassroots its Generally for system efforts. support a borhood created has Boston is, That agencies. all something created years twenty last the over Boston in collaborations The ecutive branches of state government on behalf of C D C s and community community and s C D C of behalf on ex­ programs. and government legislative development state the of lobby Community branches organizations of Both ecutive their Association have Corporations. also Massachusetts s C the D Development C group, local trade The specialized group’s Massachusetts. own in The development development. community community and housing of fields the in Housing public, Citizens’ The organizations. trade influential two in participate can prac­ savvy of cadre a the in cultivate best the helped among activism as citizen regard of tradition field The nation. development ef­ community and the in energetic people size, of its city number a large for and disproportionately a organizations, from grassroots benefits good Boston course, of are, system rebirth.67 funding public and private and semipermanent of groups set a work: neighborhood between development relationships community make to need cities Routine Becomes Collaboration h sae n oa gvrmnshv poie uuulysrn n sus- and strong unusually provided have governments local and state The development community successful a for ingredients essential and first The So vital are community development groups in the Boston area that they they that area Boston the in groups development community are vital So Within the government of Massachusetts, agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Community Economic De­ velopment Assistance Corporation (a quasi-public funding organization), and— as we have seen in the case of the Boston Housing Partnership — the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, not only provide funds but also par­ ticipate in community development projects. Under mayors Raymond Flynn and Thomas Menino, the city of Boston has put money into a variety of com­ munity development programs and — with its share of federal community de­ velopment block grant funds — CDCs themselves. In Boston, the private sector throws its weight behind housing and commu­ nity development groups and projects no less than the public sector. Local philanthropies, such as the Boston Foundation, the Hyams Foundation, and the Riley Foundation—which supported the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative — have contributed money to community development. Representa­ tives of financial institutions, such as FleetBoston and Citizens Bank, and law firms, including the venerable Ropes and Gray, sit on the board of the Metro­ politan Boston Housing Partnership. Sixteen Massachusetts banks in 1990 formed their own nonprofit housing finance institution, the Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation; since then it has pledged or invested more than $500 million in 165 housing projects.68 Financial intermediaries aid the cause in most cities where community development thrives, and Boston is no exception. LISC opened a field office in Boston in 1981 and ever since has played a leading role in financing projects and assisting CDCs. Boston LISC backed the Boston Housing Partnership in the crucial early st ages and helped lesser-known CD Cs to get the recognition and money they needed to expand. With the help of local foundations and COLLABORATION OF POWER THE AND BOSTON Boston-based corporations such as Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes and the John Hancock Insurance Company, LISC put up $13 million in loans and grants for community development projects between 1980 and 1996.69 In addition, the local LISC office worked with Boston philanthropies as well as the United Way to create a new organization that helps C D C s pay for their operating expenses, including hiring or training people with specialized skills. Reflecting the collaborative approach typical of Boston, the organiza­ tion is named the Neighborhood Development Support Collaborative. Boston's support system for community development brings a wide range of important political and business leaders into the field. This means that community groups have many places to turn for support. Just as import ant, when projects or C D C s run into trouble — as some inevitably do — the leaders of the institutions that back them will step in and help set matters aright. Even failures will not stop community development in Boston.

As people from cities across the country look to Boston for lessons to revive their inner-city neighborhoods, it is worth remembering that neither the city's collaborative schemes nor its community development system were planned or inevitable. Years of experiments and setbacks preceded the successes. Down­ town business leaders and government officials had to discover community 109 110 HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK velopment advocates point out that the small size of the city works to their their to works city the of size small the that out point advocates velopment advantage. cover what devices the defenders of the historic African-American ghettos ghettos African-American historic dis­ the neighborhoods. and of their save to Chicago defenders to employed the travel us let devices then, what the take cover To development, metropolis. community of industrial measure mighty a as — such circumstances and size de­ community even And s. C D C with coordinate to learn and development The approach that worked in Boston might not work in a city of different different of city a in work not might Boston in worked that approach The hm’ Cre tetfsia, eoae ire ulig n background. in Building Pierce renovated festival, street Corner ’s pham U oreyofDrhse a Eooi Dvlpet Corporation. Development Economic Bay Dorchester f o Courtesy