ABSTRACT
All the successful projects and programs addressed the major substantive elements of safety, services, shelter and social capital which were identified from the literature (and outlined in Figure 1, Chapter 1) as affecting low income residents’ quality of life; they differ from one another in the specific elements that are emphasized. For example, in Boston DSNI members addressed drug dealing, other crime reduction measures, brownfields, exposure to lead, illegal dumping, lack of parks, dilapidated housing, vacant lots, poor urban design and landscaping, need for a community center, small business development, and many other things which directly affect neighborhood quality of life. Likewise in Cleveland the program addressed many aspects of neighborhood quality of life, with special attention being paid to finding ways to provide decent and affordable housing. Table 7 compares the relative extent to which each of the quality of life indicators listed in Figure 1 was addressed by each revitalization effort. The information stemmed directly from comparative analysis of the interviewees’ evaluations of post-project conditions connected with each effort, along with the author’s observations of post-project conditions during site visits. Interviewees were asked to assess the degree to which the area’s quality of life factors listed in Figure 1 were affected by revitalization efforts. Responses were grouped as follows: “extensive improvement,” “good improvement,” “moderate improvement,” “slight improvement,” and “no change.” These are shown as E, G, M, S, and N in Table 7. Originally a sixth score, W, was included for those factors that had worsened; however, in reality no areas were identified as having worsened after the effort began, so the category was dropped. Since most of the revitalization efforts are still in progress, the assessments should be viewed as “post-project inception” rather than post-completion.
