Planning in Neighborhoods with Multiple Publics: Opportunities and Challenges for Community-Based Nonprofit Organizations

Abstract

New York City is the quintessential immigrant gateway, and its transformation to a majority “minority” city is evident in the complex demography of its numerous neighborhoods. Based on detailed case studies of two neighborhoods undergoing significant development pressures that pose a dramatic reshaping of community life, this article examines whether New York City community boards serve as a “pivotal” public arena to mitigate racial tensions and meaningfully engage diverse stakeholders including immigrants in neighborhood planning. The case studies of Sunset Park, Brooklyn and Flushing, Queens demonstrate that community boards do not necessarily engage all stakeholders in meaningful or sustained ways and are limited in advancing race relations in a challenging socioeconomic context. This article substantiates how community-based nonprofit organizations are essential to the institutional landscape of immigrant neighborhoods by engaging multiple publics in community planning.

Immigrant businesses, place-making, and community development: a case from an emerging immigrant gateway

“…While the role of community-based organizations (CBOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has drawn much attention and been widely discussed in the process of urban revitalization and economic development (e.g., Harrison and Glasmeler 1997;Porter 1997;Hum 2010), there is almost no consideration of the role of immigrant businesses. Based on our results, we call for the integration of place-based and people-based revitalization planning strategies which incorporate inputs from immigrants, their owned businesses and their communities.…”

“There Is Abuse Everywhere”

“…Many nonprofit organizations are on the frontlines of responding to these concerns, providing services and programs targeted to the particular needs of migrant populations (see CorderoGuzmán 2005;Hung 2007;Hum 2010;Marwell 2007;Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad 2008;Wong 2006). For some organizations, this is a familiar role.…”

Limits of Localism

“…While some argued for representing the voices of the disadvantaged groups in the planning process, others argued for facilitating the participation of these groups in the process through a dialogue, in the hope of eventually building a harmonious consensus (Davidoff, 1965;Innes and Booher, 2004). Harmony and consensus, however, were beyond reach in an increasingly diverse and unequal society; the dialogue was often held between the public and private sector stakeholders in partnerships for development projects, and the unheard voices remained outside the dialogue (Hum, 2010;Akintoye et al, 2015;Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000;Harvey, 2003).…”

“…On the other hand, its distinctiveness is thought of as the opposite of the open-ended space, rootless capitalism, heightened mobility, and alienating globalisation (Castells, 1997;Stevenson and Blanche, 2015). Place and region are used as indications of scale, in which geographical space and governance institutions are organised in a hierarchy of levels and roles, elements around which the governance of diverse urban areas is built (Poppe and Young, 2015;Hum, 2010). The change of jurisdictional scales is critically assessed to be a manifestation of neoliberal globalisation, but the change of natural scales is seen to have potentially positive implications for ecological processes (Hobson et al, 2016;Cohen and McCarthy, 2015).…”