Vacant, abandoned, and contaminated properties in urban areas can provide opportunities for neighborhood transformation- even new jobs. Examples in the Northeast show that sometimes all it takes to get the ball rolling is a group of visionary gardeners.Community development corporations ; Brownfields ; Land use

Rosalind Greenstein

Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz

English

Research Papers in Economics

Spring  2006 18
Recycling
Urban Vacant Land
Inch by inch, row by row&Banking Communities 19
Vacant, abandoned, and contami-
nated properties in urban areas can be
both an eyesore and an opportunity. In
an urban residential neighborhood,
vacant land decreases property values
and scares off development for both the
actual site and the surrounding neigh-
borhood. 
But vacant land can also provide
opportunities for neighborhood trans-
formation. Sometimes scattered parcels,
formerly the site of a corner store or
dilapidated apartment building, can be
magnets for civically engaged dreamers
who, with enormous effort, transform
these plots into urban gardens, new
housing, or businesses. Such redevelop-
ment may transform only a single lot,
and the transformation may be short-
lived. However, under the best circum-
stances, it may bring jobs, tax dollars,
improved infrastructure, and even more
development to the neighborhood –
while reducing health and environmen-
tal risks.  
Over the decades, changes in U.S.
industrial structure have rippled
through the economy. In New England,
as industries have declined and relocat-
ed and then given birth to new indus-
tries, their fortunes have been reflected
in cities, towns, and neighborhoods.
The presence of these vacant, aban-
doned, and contaminated properties is
one of the consequences of such
changes. Some of these parcels may have
been abandoned because of industrial
decline, others because of population
shifts from central cities to suburbs. 
Revitalizing the Northeast
New England has some outstand-
ing examples of reuse. Textile mills in
Maynard, Massachusetts, became the
headquarters of Digital Equipment
Corporation (DEC) and today serve
several other organizations. The former
Boston Insulated Wire and Cable com-
pany in the Dorchester section of
Boston became headquarters for the
marketing firm Spire. 
Yet some cities, towns, and neigh-
borhoods continue to be overlooked by
investment. When both the private for-
profit and public sectors have passed
over opportunities, nonprofit develop-
ers—community-based organizations
including CDCs and other neighbor-
hood planning and development organ-
izations—have stepped in. They have
done so in an effort to mitigate the neg-
ative effects of the abandoned sites as
well as to incorporate the redevelop-
ment into larger plans for reclaiming
their neighborhoods. 
Consider the Boston Insulated Wire
and Cable Company site. In 1994
Dorchester Bay Economic Development
Corporation (DBEDC) bought the
contaminated 4.7-acre parcel, which
had been abandoned for a decade.
DBEDC redeveloped it by assembling
multiple public, private, and communi-
ty stakeholders, eliminating back taxes
and multiple title problems and putting
together a financing package with par-
ticipation from at least 17 public, pri-
vate, and nonprofit organizations.
Having Spire headquarters there has
meant more than 100 jobs, including
some at entry-level. Spire also offers job
training for residents in this lower
income area.1
Another example of creative reuse
of abandoned sites in inner city neigh-
borhoods is Philadelphia’s New
Kensington Community Development
Corporation (NKCDC). Since the
mid-1990s, NKCDC has been convert-
ing abandoned sites into urban parks,
urban gardens, and urban farms. On
some sites, plantings, trees, and park
benches have replaced piles of construc-
tion debris. These parks may serve only
as transitional land uses; in the mean-
time they dissuade illegal dumpers from
using the neighborhood as a solid waste
dump. The conversion has been so suc-
cessful that over time that NKCDC’s
challenge has shifted from dealing with
abandonment to dealing with rising
land values.2
Urban farms are an example of an
even more ambitious nontraditional use
than small parks. Just three miles from
downtown Philadelphia, Greensgrow
Farm sits on the site of a former steel-
galvanizing facility. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) completed demolition of the site
in 1988. Greensgrow began site devel-
opment in 1998. Since then they have
added a greenhouse, a seasonal nursery,
and a farm stand.
Today, instead of steel products,
the site produces agricultural products
—lettuce, tomatoes, herbs, and flow-
ers —grown in greenhouses and pur-
chased directly by local restaurants. In
addition, Greensgrow Farm, like other
such enterprises, provides training and
employment opportunities for neigh-
borhood residents, including young
people. It makes food available for
homeless shelters and food kitchens,
and it beautifies the neighborhood by
planting flowers along the perimeter.
The flowers are later sold to restau-
rants for table decorations. 
Neighbors Reclaim Neighborhoods
by Rosalind Greenstein and Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz
Lincoln Institute of Land PolicySpring  2006 20
This article was first published in the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's Communities & Banking magazine.The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston or the Federal Reserve
System. Information about organizations and upcoming events does not constitute an endorsement. To subscribe, e-mail bostonfed.publications@bos.frb.org.
The community building poten-
tial of recycling urban land is also
apparent at Centro Agrícola in
Holyoke, Massachusetts. Neighbors
whose roots are in rural Puerto Rico
pass on their agricultural skills to young
people. The urban agricultural center
has spawned a bakery, a restaurant,
greenhouses that grow produce such as
peppers and herbs, and a kitchen avail-
able to community entrepreneurs with
catering businesses. 
In the case of urban agriculture,
the community benefit seems to pre-
cede the economic benefit. Neighbors
—often acting through a community-
based nonprofit planning and develop-
ment organization—begin to dedicate
themselves to neighborhood improve-
ment. A spirit of community may be
built around an urban garden, as
Roberto Velázquez of Holyoke’s
Nuestras Raices explains: “Gardens are
of great benefit to the community
because they keep people busy and they
bring people together to beautify the
neighborhood.”3
Beyond Sweat Equity
The investment of such communi-
ty organizations may be strictly “sweat
equity,” but in the most successful cases
sweat equity is supplemented with con-
tributions from the private sector and
from city, local, and national founda-
tions. Both community labor and capi-
tal are needed. The volunteer labor is
what cements neighbors’ commitment
to community revitalization. However,
funds are also needed—to purchase
tools, plants, soil, design services, and
so on.  
A 2004 study examining the direct
impact of so-called greening investment
on Philadelphia’s neighborhoods found
that improvements on vacant land
resulted in increases of as much as 30
percent in surrounding housing values.4
New tree plantings were shown to
increase housing values by approximate-
ly 10 percent. In the New Kensington
area of Philadelphia this translated into
a $4 million gain in property values
through tree plantings and a $12 mil-
lion gain through lot improvements.
Neighborhood improvements, increased
values, and the spirit of community all
appear to contribute to the mix that
attracts newcomers. 
Community-based organizations
(CBOs) interested in redeveloping
brownfield sites must be extremely
skilled. Ideally, a CBO should embody
a combination of sophisticated real
estate developer, skilled community
organizer, resourceful nonprofit agency
director, and visionary strategic plan-
ner. 
Moreover, as Margaret Dewar and
Sabina Deitrick explain in their book
Recycling the City, CBOs should consid-
er how to ensure that their brownfield
redevelopment is successful in a way
that makes sense for their core mission
of providing benefits to their commu-
nity.5 In other words, they need to pur-
sue development in the context of their
“existing community plans or goals—
whether in housing, business develop-
ment, environmental improvement, or
targeted historic preservation.” 
Dewar’s and Deitrick’s evidence is
based on case studies of CBOs in
Pittsburgh and Detroit. In a Pittsburgh
project, after the city proposed using a
former steel site for riverboat gambling,
which was opposed by the neighbor-
hood residents and businesses, the
community development corporation
engaged in a master planning process
with the Urban Redevelopment
Authority of Pittsburgh. 
The master plan guided the cre-
ation of a mixed-use development. The
project helped achieve the goal of revi-
talizing a key area of the neighborhood
and creating new jobs, some of which
went to local residents. The neighbor-
hood’s success in planning for reuse of
the former steel site stemmed from a
neighborhood planning process begun
in 1990 and its ability to connect the
redevelopment project with the neigh-
borhood and its goals. 
But in Detroit, when an old indus-
trial area was redeveloped, the commu-
nity-based organization requested only
part of what the residents wanted.
Although it sought to prevent illegal
dumping and to get trucks rerouted
away from residential areas, it failed to
request help with two of the low-
income residents’ most important
needs: preference in hiring and reloca-
tion aid for neighbors closest to the
project. The CDC was never able to
reconnect the brownfield redevelop-
ment with the neighborhood. 
So although, CBOs may facilitate
redevelopment on brownfield sites by
using community organizing skills and
by building partnerships, the success of
such projects needs to be evaluated
against the goals of the neighborhood
and of the overarching desire for com-
munity betterment.
Rosalind Greenstein is a senior fellow
co-chair of the department of planning
and development at the Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, where Yesim Sungu-
Eryilmaz is a research associate.
Endnotes
1 See Dorchester Bay Economic Development
Corporation,. www.dbedc.com, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.
gov.ne/brownfields. 
2  Sandy Salzman, “Recycling Vacant,
Abandoned, and Contaminated Properties in
New Kensington,”http://www.communitylots.
org/brownfields/courses.html. 
3 See http://www.nuestras-raices.org/new_
page_4.htm. 
4  Susan Wachter, “The Determinants of
Neighborhood Transformations in Philadelphia:
Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington
Pilot Study” (working paper, The Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
2004).
5 Margaret Dewar and Sabina Deitrick, “The
Role of Community Development Corporations
in Brownfield Redevelopment” in Recycling the
City: The Use and Reuse of Urban Land, eds.
Rosalind Greenstein and Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, 2004).

Recycling urban vacant land inch by inch, row by row: neighbors reclaim neighborhoods

http://www.bostonfed.org/commdev/c&b/2006/spring/recycling.pdf

Recycling urban vacant land inch by inch, row by row: neighbors reclaim neighborhoods

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics