Product Details

Author Information

Corresponding Author
Janni Sorensen
UNC Charlotte
9210 University City blvd
charlotte, NC 28223
United States
p: 7043801838
jsorens2@uncc.edu

Authors (listed in order of authorship):
Jose Gamez
UNC Charlotte

Elizabeth Shockey
UNC Charlotte

Keihly Moore
UNC Charlotte

Aleksandra Borisenko
UNC Charlotte

Wigena Tirado
Windy Ridge Neighborhood Association

Product Description and Application Narrative Submitted by Corresponding Author

What general topics does your product address?

Arts & Design, Social & Behavioral Sciences

What specific topics does your product address?

Advocacy, Built environment, Community development, Community engagement, Community organizing, Environmental justice, Housing, Partnership building , Policy development, Community-based participatory research

Does your product focus on a specific population(s)?

Black or African-American, Latino/Hispanic, Urban

What methodological approaches were used in the development of your product, or are discussed in your product?

Case study , Community needs assessment, Community-academic partnership, Community-based participatory research , Focus group , Quantitative research, Service-learning , Survey, mapping, document analysis, Interview, Participant observation

What resource type(s) best describe(s) your product?

Case study, Problem-based case

Application Narrative

1. Please provide a 1600 character abstract describing your product, its intended use and the audiences for which it would be appropriate.*

This report was written as part of an ongoing project directed by Dr. Janni Sorensen (Geography and Earth Sciences) and Dr. Jose Gamez (Architecture) at UNC Charlotte. Primarily, we document the work that went into the development of organizational and social capital in the suburban Charlotte, North Carolina neighborhood of Windy Ridge. Secondly, we share the results of our research regarding the development process of the subdivision and the implications of this process for Windy Ridge and similar communities. Windy Ridge is representative of the particular hardship experienced by starter home subdivisions—neighborhoods built within the past decade and with average home prices of less than $150,000. Such communities proliferated during the housing boom of the early 2000s. In Charlotte, as in other Sunbelt cities, the neighborhoods hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis were newly built, suburban communities without necessary levels of social capital to fight back. In this report, we explore the many factors contributing to the foreclosure crisis as it manifest in Windy Ridge. Such factors include public policy, civic culture, development and land-use regulations, and the clustering of low-income neighborhoods in increasingly peripheral locations. The document is representative of the community’s voice, as neighborhood residents have worked side by side with faculty and students throughout the project’s duration in activities ranging from neighborhood clean-ups and celebrations, to grant writing and efforts to secure viable street lighting. Together, we have worked to solve pressing problems facing the community, and, in the process, partnered through action research to learn more about the unique challenges of suburban concentrated poverty in starter home subdivisions.

2. What are the goals of the product?

The major goal of the product is to serve as a model for other university-based entities who may wish to partner with neighborhoods similar to Windy Ridge. Toward this aim, the product provides insight into the implications of allowing neighborhoods to be built without sufficient consideration of quality of life outcomes for future residents. Specifically, the product will communicate our strategies for accomplishing the following objectives:
• Balancing between organizing a neighborhood association, solving pressing problems impacting quality of life in the neighborhood, and action research regarding the development approval process through local government;
• Partnering with residents to document the lived experiences of people in this new type of challenged neighborhood—suburban, proximate to industrial activity, disconnected from services, and segregated by race and income;
• Using community- and action-based mixed methods to address the immediate needs of a neighborhood. Residents played a key role in determining the research agenda and in implementing the research itself.
Although we have shared some of our work in Windy Ridge through traditional academic outlets, communicating the core processes of neighborhood organizing, analyzing opportunities, and strategizing to overcome obstacles to achieving tangible improvements is better achieved through a forum such as this, without the limitations of space required by traditional outlets. The report was written in part to document the work completed for the Z. Smith Reynolds foundation, which generously provided $25,000 to support our work in 2010.

3. Who are the intended audiences or expected users of the product?

The target audience for this report includes students, faculty and residents involved in community-based research projects. Particularly, it is intended for those interested in asset-based neighborhood revitalization and neighborhood organizing in struggling communities. It is our hope that the report will also impact local planners and elected officials as they reflect on how public policy and civic culture in Charlotte (as well as other cities) has facilitated the development of places like Windy Ridge which are, essentially, built to fail. Finally, because the product was originally written as a report to a funder, we hope that our findings might also inform the funding community regarding the dire need for support for communities like Windy Ridge.

4. Please provide any special instructions for successful use of the product, if necessary. If your product has been previously published, please provide the appropriate citation below.

None.

5. Please describe how your product or the project that resulted in the product builds on a relevant field, discipline or prior work. You may cite the literature and provide a bibliography in the next question if appropriate.

The work described here fits within the field of public participation in neighborhood planning (1) and asset based community development (2). The broader project is also concerned with revitalization strategies for resource-poor neighborhoods that are rooted in utilizing a community’s assets for organizing. We explore how the needs and priorities of fragile neighborhoods might be met by neighborhood planning and organizational capacity building. Because neighborhoods are important focal points for social policy and urban revitalization (3), localized planning is often the standard response from government entities to addressing problems of decline. Using our experiences of active engagement, we analyze issues including community-based organizations’ capacity; power dynamics between stakeholders; varying experiences and outcomes in different types of resource-poor neighborhoods; and processes for making recommendations to local government officials and others who facilitate planning processes.
Charlotte, North Carolina, the geographic context of our research, is a city rich in potential with a variety of strengths and weaknesses related to its rapid and recent growth, its importance to the banking industry, and its dramatic influx of foreign-born individuals over the past several decades (4). It is in this unique context that we work, in partnership with neighborhood organizations, to research the impact of public policies and processes and their compatibility with the needs and aspirations of residents in struggling neighborhoods.
Another component of our core set of research interests involves the dynamics of university-community partnerships. UNC Charlotte is, with its urban campus and strong institutional prioritization of community engagement, an ideal university at which to conduct this research. The authors’ service learning courses provide opportunities for innovative pedagogy, and this product, in part, consists of work generated in these courses, offered at both graduate and undergraduate levels. The courses are taught with a strong focus on the impact of projects that originate in the needs of our partner communities, as such projects lead to strong developmental opportunities for students (5). The work we do in partnership with neighborhoods also contributes new knowledge to scholarly understanding of the relationship between anchor institutions and neighborhoods in community development research (6).

6. Please provide a bibliography for work cited above or in other parts of this application. Provide full references, in the order sited in the text (i.e. according to number order). .

1-Reardon, K.M. (1998). Enhancing the capacity of community-based organizations in East St. Louis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(4), 323–333.
2-Krentzman J. and John L. McKnight. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets (Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research)
3-Halpern, Robert (1995). Rebuilding the Inner City. Columbia University press.
4-Graves, W. and H. Smith (2012) Charlotte, NC: The Global Evolution of New South City. University of Georgia Press.
5-Dorgan, K.A. (2008). Principles of Engagement: (mis)Understanding the Community-Design Studio. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 10 (3).
6-Benson, L., and I. Harkavy (2000). Higher education’s third revolution: The emergence of the democratic cosmopolitan university. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. 5(1), 47–58.

7. Please describe the project or body of work from which the submitted product developed. Describe the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise contributed to the project. Pay particular attention to demonstrating the quality or rigor of the work:

• For research-related work, describe (if relevant) study aims, design, sample, measurement instruments, and analysis and interpretation. Discuss how you verified the accuracy of your data.
• For education-related work, describe (if relevant) any needs assessment conducted, learning objectives, educational strategies incorporated, and evaluation of learning.
• For other types of work, discuss how the project was developed and reasons for the methodological choices made.

The Charlotte Action Research Project (CHARP) was funded in 2009 by a small grant from the City of Charlotte’s Neighborhood and Business Services (NBS) division. Part of the city funding was used to hire a Master’s student in Geography as a Community Liaison (Liz Shockey, a coauthor on this paper). Pressing issues verbalized by Windy Ridge residents led us to go beyond the basic activities prescribed by the city to the community based research reported in this product.
For the first six months of the partnership, most of our time was spent in conversation with residents, learning about why they decided to relocate to the community after its construction in 2003 and about their experiences since moving in. This learning was accomplished through repeated site visits, extended phone conversations and facilitation of monthly meetings. Meetings were hosted at a local church with food and childcare provided, and invitations were distributed to each household in the community. Students and residents worked together to distribute flyers and plan meetings.
Two different graduate level courses conducted research about the neighborhood. An interdisciplinary group of graduate students conducted an assessment of existing conditions and recommended improvements as part of their coursework for Dr. Sorensen and Dr. Gamez’s Community Planning Workshop in the fall of 2009. That spring, Dr. Sorensen’s seminar class in Planning Theory engaged in background research about the development process of the subdivision. All student findings were shared with residents, and all research students conducted was catalyzed by resident concerns.
The second year of the partnership, funding from Z. Smith Reynolds allowed for the hire of two additional Master’s students from UNC Charlotte’s Urban Design Program, to help address pressing landscaping needs identified by residents. Aleksandra Borisenko and Keihly Moore, also coauthors, worked with residents to implement a variety of tangible improvements to the built environment of the neighborhood; such efforts culminated in the holly bush planting event outlined in the report.
This research has been informed by a mixed methods suite of tools, as outlined below.
• Archival and document analysis techniques. Our document analysis began with a survey of press coverage focused on Windy Ridge. Additionally, we searched the City of Charlotte’s public records for material documenting the neighborhood development process (including the original development proposal and minutes from public meetings).
• Windshield surveys. Existing conditions of the neighborhood were documented through windshield surveys of each parcel. This allowed us to evaluate the neighborhood’s built environment, including evidence of decline as well as proximity to amenities and/or undesirable conditions such as shopping, recreation, or industrial land uses.
• Mapping. A series of mapping exercises were conducted in order to document and further analyze surrounding land uses, zoning, proximity to hazards, access to resources, foreclosure data, and ownership patterns.
While this process of data collection yielded many insights, they prompted the development of a variety of new questions that could only be addressed through a qualitative assessment aimed at capturing the experiences of residents living in the community. Therefore, we conducted the following additional qualitative research tasks:
• Focus Group. Residents (3 homeowners and 3 tenants) and a property owner/landlord were engaged in a focus group transcribed for analysis.
• Door-to-door survey.
• Monthly meetings. While these meetings have focused upon the organizational capacity building of the neighborhood and its residents, they also provided a venue in which to interact, observe and participate with key residents whose expressed thoughts, comments and experiences have helped to shape the direction of this ongoing research.

8. Please describe the process of developing the product, including the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise were integrated in the development of this product.

The development process for this product spanned four years, from 2009 to the present. The bulk of the information outlined in the product itself covers the time period from 2009-2011; however, we have included a postscript as well, which details the community’s trajectory since the expiration of the Z. Smith Reynolds funding in 2012.
Our approach to research in Windy Ridge is distinctive for three reasons: its emphasis on partnership, its action focus and its reflective nature.
• Partnership: Over the entire course of the project, university representatives have engaged in consistent communication with residents. As noted above, many of our research questions have originated with resident concerns. For example, resident interest in the reasons behind the extensive foreclosure activity in the community catalyzed our work regarding ownership patterns in the neighborhood. After university representatives conducted research, residents were able to confirm the findings and residents add details about what the findings implied for lived experiences in the neighborhood—for example, foreclosures often led to loss of revenue for the HOA and the eventual disconnection of power for street lights. In this way, the research moved dialectially between the two parties—university and community.
• Action Focus. An additional and critical component of the project is its action focus. Whenever possible, students, faculty and residents have worked together to implement tangible and action-based solutions to the problems and issues identified through research. A detailed example of this action-oriented apporach is described in the product in our discussion of addressing the lack of public space in the community by applying for a grant to address the issue.
• Reflective. Finally, our approach to research is not only action-based and partnership-oriented, but it is reflective. After the identification of pressing issues in the community, and the collection of data mostly by university partners, we always followed up with an engaged analysis and reflection process with residents.

9. Please discuss the significance and impact of your product. In your response, discuss ways your product has added to existing knowledge and benefited the community; ways others may have utilized your product; and any relevant evaluation data about impact, if available. If the impact of the product is not yet known, discuss its potential significance.

This report provides a unique perspective on the impact of concentrated poverty in the suburban context and, in particular, for neighborhoods hit by the foreclosure crisis. Our project adds an additional layer to other academic work conducted on the topic of suburban poverty and the subprime crisis—that of the impact of these factors on the lived experiences and daily lives of the people who live in these communities. Because its ability to highlight this otherwise hidden reality, our work has drawn significant media attention. Through our efforts, we have made small-scale physical improvements to the neighborhood, and we have and will continue to work to improve living conditions while learning from this case study. An important part of our work is connected to holding the government entities that allowed the developer to move forward with this poorly planned development accountable by advocating for residents—present and potential—whenever possible.

10. Please describe why you chose the presentation format you did.

The format chosen for this report allows for lengthy explanation of our research process as well as the outcomes. A traditional journal article, on the other hand, would have required a much shorter format. Furthermore, because this product serves multiple stakeholders, it is written to be accessible to a broad audience of academics, practitioners and community partners. It is written in straightforward prose, and includes many illustrations, graphs, maps and charts that can be easily adapted for use by others.

11. Please reflect on the strengths and limitations of your product. In what ways did community and academic/institutional collaborators provide feedback and how was such feedback used? Include relevant evaluation data about strengths and limitations if available.

The major strength of this product is its attention to the voices of those most impacted by suburbanized poverty and the subprime crisis. In this sense, it elucidates a different side of these issues than what is typically adressed in other research projects about similar topics. Another strength is its accessibility to a wide audience, as outlined above.
Potential challenge in applying the findings of this research are the barriers involved in transferring the knowledge generated here to a different setting in Charlotte, or in another city. Furthermore, the high turnover of residents in Windy Ridge has impacted the potential for local use of the project. We address this potential shortcoming by emphasizing our commitment to addressing new and pressing needs in the community frequently.

12. Please describe ways that the project resulting in the product involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. If different, describe ways that the product itself involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. Have all collaborators on the product been notified of and approved submission of the product to CES4Health.info? If not, why not? Please indicate whether the project resulting in the product was approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and/or community-based review mechanism, if applicable, and provide the name(s) of the IRB/mechanism.

As described above, the process behind this product was very collaborative and has engaged a wide variety of stakeholders. For this reason, some partners who engaged at various stages of the partnership have since moved away and have not stayed involved; thus, they have not been notified of or seen the product. Additionally, there are students who were part of the process at some point that have not been notified of the final product. They do, however, know that the project is ongoing and that they are invited to reengage through other classes, volunteer opportunities or by contacting core faculty. Approval for focus groups and surveys was obtained through the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Institutional Review Board in the summer of 2010.