Deterritorializing Detroit
Deterritorializing Detroit: Fragmenting Architecture to Fuse Community
A proposal for reorganizing current community center models by fragmenting and dispersing them to enhance their role in community-building, through a model based on Manuel DeLanda's assemblage theory. This is an ongoing research project begun in 2008.
Note: Diagrams not provided below.
Personal note: Late Spring nights in Detroit are calm, warm and lit until 10pm. The days are muggy and strewn with dandelion seeds. Project thumbnail image from Stefano Corso.
(300 word description)
One of the most significant roles of a community is influencing neighborhood, city and law enforcement legislature to assist in advancing the quality of life. Using assemblage theory as a primary guide, this paper will attempt to re-define architecture to be in the service of community by deterritorializing and reorganizing current centralized and institutional models of Community Centers, and analyzing the various effects through a series of case studies that employ some, but not all the proposed criteria of this paper. The proposed model for new Community Centers will focus on both the exterior functions of the center in the larger urban network, and on exteriorizing the internal functions of the center within the smaller person-to-person network of the community. Beginning August 2010, this model will be explored in a neighborhood of Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan, through the repurposing of abandoned homes. It is critical to pursue this theory at this time that the city is on a path of what activists are calling a “land grab”, further breaking apart communities.
Detroit’s influence on the artistic manifestations of its music-makers from the 1950s until the 1990s had much to do with the socio-economics of the city as well as the existence and interaction of various communities and the ethnic and racial make up of these communities. Lack of community and growing distance and ignorance of remaining communities initially caused by the white-flight, and now the furthering of poverty, violence, lack of social programming, general depopulation, and recently the unhealthy initiatives by the City further breaking apart chances of community, will threaten any future continuation of the city’s cultural history, hastening Detroit’s rusting and eventual loss of a great American city.
Keywords: Assemblage Theory, Urbanism as Community, Emergent Activism, Community as Activist, New but Non-Gentrifying, Children as Agents of Change
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Traditionally, a neighborhood community—one where children are playmates and where parents know other parents—has existed within varying boundaries of the ‘block’, with the distance of the ‘block’ depending on and varying by urban or suburban settings. The nature of community within a neighborhood has had the benefit to thwart off crime with neighborhood crime watches by the convenience of everyone knowing everyone else and knowing who belongs and who does not. The most significant role of a community, however, is influencing neighborhood, city and law enforcement legislature to assist in the quality of life in the community. This paper will look at reorganizing current models for community center into a hybrid model of dispersed units, and analyze their various effects through a series of case studies that employ some, but not all the proposed criteria of this paper.
Community centers attempt to reduce the gap in neighborhood boundaries by creating a space to interact, increasing the reform powers of the community. However, the prevalence of suburban mentality within urban spacing of neighborhoods and the decline of community have increasingly diminished the positive output and reach of neighborhood community centers. I propose that the reach can be increased through a re-organized, rhizomatic model as opposed to the single institutional model. The rhizomatic model for the community center consists of small, self-governed units, each a ‘node’ of the overarching community center ‘idea’. The community center will also act less like a “center” and more like another “neighbor”, one where families most likely already trust their kids to be hanging out at. This rhizomatic model will be explored in (find a neighborhood), Detroit, Michigan, through the repurposing of abandoned and/or foreclosed homes.
Detroit hosts an abundance and range of technical and mechanical skills and trade, which these days are no more disciplinary, but transdisciplinary, meaning that any skill can be adapted to and adopted by a different trade than it was originally meant for. Thus, each node of the rhizome will capitalize on the available skills within the immediate community to service its operational needs, therefore existing as a neighborhood operated system (Case Study A: Urban gardening; Futurefarmers; Hoop Houses). This co-operative method of operation is proven to positively act as an incentive, increasing productivity and effectiveness of employees, patrons and the institution as a whole (Case Study B: Co-operatives; Homeowners’ Associations, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
First point of analysis is to explore if the rhizomatic layout can serve as a more successful model of community building, by primarily creating a network with greater reach among its host neighborhood and second, by creating a network of children from different neighborhoods. Second point of analysis in this model is through identifying distances psychologically referred to as "on the block", as opposed to "down the street". Psychologically reducing distance leads to increased activity by allowing a greater chance of overlap between neighboring communities by nature of proximity and ease of foot and bike travel. However, the urban pattern of the community-building nodes is only one-half the model proposed here. Third point of analysis is the range of activities programmed inherently towards making ‘activists’ of the community’s inhabitants, without labeling them as ‘activists’. Every exteriorized function of an institution has interior workings and the prevalent programmatic flaw of architecture is its power to isolate. To further the rhizomatic network, the activities of each node is in effect further pixilated and dispersed through a series of artist programs specifically designed to interact with the immediate community, utilizing artist visionary where city planning and programming have failed (Case Study C: Artist residencies; MAK Center for Art & Architecture). When all nodes within neighboring communities converge, in effect the interior and exterior functions of these architectures tentatively behave as the greater ‘idea’ of the ‘community center’ but with more flexibility than one building can offer in the limited area of its existence.
In a talk on his upcoming book, leading neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, positioned art as a necessary function of the brain, an evolution that began with the production of mind and consciousness. In slower economic times, art programs suffer first and most, while their existence and growth is necessary to socio-cultural homeostasis, just as the development of the mind and consciousness are necessary to homeostasis in general. Cutting or reducing funding and classes for art does not necessarily equate to better opportunities for learning mathematics and sciences. Many students, even those from well-funded schools, graduate without understanding the possibilities of math and science. For the artistically inclined students, a world of knowledge is out of touch and therefore lost. For the more technically inclined, mathematics and sciences as they are introduced in many schools offer no more beyond a linear mode of thinking and a linear job description of corporate responsibility or academic opportunity. In both cases, for the students to understand what the possibilities are, will take years of experimental courses and colleges, increasing the time productive minds are searching for what to do with their futures.
Given the scientific and economic fact of art’s existence in childhood development and cultural well-being of a society, the internal-external programmatic phases of this project will focus on creating an after-school environment specifically to nurture creativity. Detroit is world renown for a rich cultural history from the Motown of the 1960s and 70s to the Detroit Techno of the 1980s and well into the 1990s. [Randy Fisher: Jazz in early 1900s: detroit was on the route of the black entertainment series (NYC-DT-CHI and CHI-DT-NYC). Black Bottom and Hastings street areas were the musician/arts district then.] Detroit’s influence on the artistic manifestations of its music-makers has much to do with the socio-economics of the city as well as the existence and interaction of various communities and the ethnic and racial make up of these communities. Lack of community and growing distance and ignorance of remaining communities caused by poverty, violence, lack of social programming and general depopulation will threaten any future continuation of the city’s cultural history, hastening Detroit’s rusting and eventual loss of a great American city. One of the goals of rebuilding community through arts is in hopes of preserving culture and allowing for new culture to flourish. This is only possible if space and resources specific to this purpose are allocated and maintained independent of a larger bureaucracy of outsiders.
In order to create continuity between the participating children’s in-school classes, specifically mathematics and sciences, the art program provided by the community center will focus on the roles of these topics in art. By paralleling the level of mathematics and science taught at their school and in their respective grades, the community center’s art program aims to foster interest that will traverse between the school and the community center, extending interest from one to the other, and therefore reducing the possibility of losing interest in school, poor performance in math and science (especially for girls) and maybe even preventing or reducing rates of students dropping out of school.
A point to reinforce is the harvesting of local skill and talent. The stress is on local in terms of occupying and adjacent zip codes at the minimum and county at a maximum. Revitalizations of a neighborhood through arts almost indefinitely lead to gentrification. Though the introduction of artists to low-income neighborhoods is desirable on the onset, in the long run, the ‘native’ community suffers and the culture the city had tried to preserve and or foster ironically disappears. Therefore, this proposal is not meant to be read as a proposal for an artist colony of invading artists that lead to an art-happy neighborhood, which in return leads to hip and new developments and the eventual increase in rent and property value. That model progresses to the point that original pre-arts residents cannot afford to live in their neighborhood, thus dispersing a community. It is very important to focus on the local aspect and the difference between inviting artists to contribute and leave, only leaving behind their artistic and cultural contribution.
Key points:
Urbanism as community
Self-organization and cooperation leading to the emergence of previously non-existent community networks
Introducing new elements from within (non-gentrifying)
Children as teachers and agents of change
Community as activist and agent of change on a greater urban scale
Emergent activism
Answers to be defined:
What is the perceived measure of “a block”?
What are the perceived and accepted activities on a block?
How can the existing model of the "Block Club" be enhanced to fit within the functions of the new model?
(The model of the block in Detroit is three streets: ie. between Plymouth (busy street) and Chicago (busy street). Hard for blocks to connect when facing away from each other.)
How can the notion of the “block” be extended to a larger area, yet psychologically still considered “a block”? One is more likely to go to some place located “on the block” as opposed to “down the street”.
What is “community”?
What is the purpose of the community center?
Why is the community center first built, then activities forced upon it? (programming)
How far can a community center be placed for it to be considered “on the block”?
How can activities shape the community center?
How can the community center build community, starting at its immediate surrounding?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Project goals:
The project is based on the concept of small nodes connecting and influencing other small nodes, increasing the range of the network, yet keeping each node independent, whether the node is a child, an adult, the family, the neighborhood, or the community center. Most importantly, we are utilizing the power a node can have on another node, for example, the power a younger sibling can have on convincing an older sibling, or the persuasive ability children can have on their parents, thus working up the age and control hierarchy. The hope is the family nodes of a community will eventually influence the local government for positive changes they wish to see in their community.
1. Immediate goal: Replacing the negative element of vacant homes with accessible and occupied public space, as well as providing employment among the neighbors for repairs, maintenance, security, administration, etc. to help start the Center (with core staff).
2. Process goal: Grassroots movement towards ‘community as activist’ to care for and improve their neighborhood on their own initiative, and primarily through the influence of the neighborhood children.
3. Projected goal: Better kids, better students, better future adults, better future communities, a better Detroit.
Activation of the Rhizomatic model:
Diagram 1 + 2
Current community centers are located just on the border of residential neighborhoods, on main streets and boulevards with high traffic. Access to these centers in many instances requires adult supervision due to their distance, location and path of travel (crossing main streets) and safety issues (drug corners). The necessity of adult supervision reduces the chances of children having a stable place for growth, especially in lower-income neighborhoods where adults are less likely to take such responsibilities on a regular basis and where crime rates are higher and general safety standards are lower. (need citation)
Additionally, the purposes of community centers, which are community and character building and instilling focus and purpose into children, are not very effective unless activities are sustained over a long period of time.
Diagram 3
Traditionally, a neighborhood community—one where children are playmates and where parents know other parents—has existed within varying boundaries of the ‘block’, the distance of the ‘block’ depending on urban or suburban settings. Here, the block has been outlined at its maximum, as defined by city planning, by the bordering streets of a grouping of residential homes. Overtime, the safety level of the block—and trust levels in society, in general—has reduced the safe and acceptable distance of the block. Therefore, a community center located three blocks away, is less accessible today than it was 40 years ago. How can the block not only be extended back to its original borders, but also slightly extended and even overlap with neighboring blocks? How can there be a shift in perception of the distance of the block and what is considered to be “on the block” versus “down the street” or “next block”?
The importance of increasing block size is to increase activity primarily among children. Children are less judgmental in making and accepting new friendships and alliances. An important goal of community centers and after school activities is just this, creating a base for reducing gang violence, bullying and other childhood troubles associated with lack of friendships and community among children.
Diagram 4
Zip codes 48205, 48206 and 48228 are three of the hardest hit neighborhoods in Wayne County, with respectively 81, 88 and 66 homes listed foreclosed in December of 2009, placing these areas in the country’s top 20 on a national list of foreclosures.
Looking up addresses on listings of foreclosed homes, reveals that many vacant homes are located within close neighboring streets and frequently on the same street. A vacant home in a low-income neighborhood is an invitation for illegal activity, as seen in other areas of Detroit and its suburbs where neighbors are afraid to leave their homes in fear of being shot at, the bad guys terrorize the immediate vicinity of their squats and cops stay away because they are outnumbered (and do not care to get involved with the low-income, black community). All sense of community is dissolved by the nature of empty space occupied by undesirable elements. (find the article citation)
Diagram 5
If these homes are repurposed as community centers, the first undesirable element (a vacant home) is transformed to the first desirable element (potential).
Diagram 6
The potentials of this new center are multi-fold:
• Employing immediately from within the neighborhood for a variety of skills for repair, maintenance and management gives a sense of responsibility to the neighbors involved.
• Employing artists from within the neighborhood to lead workshops, studios and competition for children, giving the children more incentive for participation.
• Providing a positive workforce of immediately local artists and craftsmen.
• Providing a social place for adults and children will create incentive for its upkeep by neighbors, as well as provide incentive for asking for stronger measures across the neighborhood from city and law enforcement officials.
Diagram 7
The means by which the blocks will be shrunk psychologically while increased physically is through programmed activities, which are focused from the inside-out. The goals of activities should not be to bring children in and keep them there to be safe, but to bring them in and prepare to send them back out across the community, to join the next block over.
A proposal for reorganizing current community center models by fragmenting and dispersing them to enhance their role in community-building, through a model based on Manuel DeLanda's assemblage theory. This is an ongoing research project begun in 2008.
Note: Diagrams not provided below.
Personal note: Late Spring nights in Detroit are calm, warm and lit until 10pm. The days are muggy and strewn with dandelion seeds. Project thumbnail image from Stefano Corso.
(300 word description)
One of the most significant roles of a community is influencing neighborhood, city and law enforcement legislature to assist in advancing the quality of life. Using assemblage theory as a primary guide, this paper will attempt to re-define architecture to be in the service of community by deterritorializing and reorganizing current centralized and institutional models of Community Centers, and analyzing the various effects through a series of case studies that employ some, but not all the proposed criteria of this paper. The proposed model for new Community Centers will focus on both the exterior functions of the center in the larger urban network, and on exteriorizing the internal functions of the center within the smaller person-to-person network of the community. Beginning August 2010, this model will be explored in a neighborhood of Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan, through the repurposing of abandoned homes. It is critical to pursue this theory at this time that the city is on a path of what activists are calling a “land grab”, further breaking apart communities.
Detroit’s influence on the artistic manifestations of its music-makers from the 1950s until the 1990s had much to do with the socio-economics of the city as well as the existence and interaction of various communities and the ethnic and racial make up of these communities. Lack of community and growing distance and ignorance of remaining communities initially caused by the white-flight, and now the furthering of poverty, violence, lack of social programming, general depopulation, and recently the unhealthy initiatives by the City further breaking apart chances of community, will threaten any future continuation of the city’s cultural history, hastening Detroit’s rusting and eventual loss of a great American city.
Keywords: Assemblage Theory, Urbanism as Community, Emergent Activism, Community as Activist, New but Non-Gentrifying, Children as Agents of Change
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Traditionally, a neighborhood community—one where children are playmates and where parents know other parents—has existed within varying boundaries of the ‘block’, with the distance of the ‘block’ depending on and varying by urban or suburban settings. The nature of community within a neighborhood has had the benefit to thwart off crime with neighborhood crime watches by the convenience of everyone knowing everyone else and knowing who belongs and who does not. The most significant role of a community, however, is influencing neighborhood, city and law enforcement legislature to assist in the quality of life in the community. This paper will look at reorganizing current models for community center into a hybrid model of dispersed units, and analyze their various effects through a series of case studies that employ some, but not all the proposed criteria of this paper.
Community centers attempt to reduce the gap in neighborhood boundaries by creating a space to interact, increasing the reform powers of the community. However, the prevalence of suburban mentality within urban spacing of neighborhoods and the decline of community have increasingly diminished the positive output and reach of neighborhood community centers. I propose that the reach can be increased through a re-organized, rhizomatic model as opposed to the single institutional model. The rhizomatic model for the community center consists of small, self-governed units, each a ‘node’ of the overarching community center ‘idea’. The community center will also act less like a “center” and more like another “neighbor”, one where families most likely already trust their kids to be hanging out at. This rhizomatic model will be explored in (find a neighborhood), Detroit, Michigan, through the repurposing of abandoned and/or foreclosed homes.
Detroit hosts an abundance and range of technical and mechanical skills and trade, which these days are no more disciplinary, but transdisciplinary, meaning that any skill can be adapted to and adopted by a different trade than it was originally meant for. Thus, each node of the rhizome will capitalize on the available skills within the immediate community to service its operational needs, therefore existing as a neighborhood operated system (Case Study A: Urban gardening; Futurefarmers; Hoop Houses). This co-operative method of operation is proven to positively act as an incentive, increasing productivity and effectiveness of employees, patrons and the institution as a whole (Case Study B: Co-operatives; Homeowners’ Associations, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
First point of analysis is to explore if the rhizomatic layout can serve as a more successful model of community building, by primarily creating a network with greater reach among its host neighborhood and second, by creating a network of children from different neighborhoods. Second point of analysis in this model is through identifying distances psychologically referred to as "on the block", as opposed to "down the street". Psychologically reducing distance leads to increased activity by allowing a greater chance of overlap between neighboring communities by nature of proximity and ease of foot and bike travel. However, the urban pattern of the community-building nodes is only one-half the model proposed here. Third point of analysis is the range of activities programmed inherently towards making ‘activists’ of the community’s inhabitants, without labeling them as ‘activists’. Every exteriorized function of an institution has interior workings and the prevalent programmatic flaw of architecture is its power to isolate. To further the rhizomatic network, the activities of each node is in effect further pixilated and dispersed through a series of artist programs specifically designed to interact with the immediate community, utilizing artist visionary where city planning and programming have failed (Case Study C: Artist residencies; MAK Center for Art & Architecture). When all nodes within neighboring communities converge, in effect the interior and exterior functions of these architectures tentatively behave as the greater ‘idea’ of the ‘community center’ but with more flexibility than one building can offer in the limited area of its existence.
In a talk on his upcoming book, leading neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, positioned art as a necessary function of the brain, an evolution that began with the production of mind and consciousness. In slower economic times, art programs suffer first and most, while their existence and growth is necessary to socio-cultural homeostasis, just as the development of the mind and consciousness are necessary to homeostasis in general. Cutting or reducing funding and classes for art does not necessarily equate to better opportunities for learning mathematics and sciences. Many students, even those from well-funded schools, graduate without understanding the possibilities of math and science. For the artistically inclined students, a world of knowledge is out of touch and therefore lost. For the more technically inclined, mathematics and sciences as they are introduced in many schools offer no more beyond a linear mode of thinking and a linear job description of corporate responsibility or academic opportunity. In both cases, for the students to understand what the possibilities are, will take years of experimental courses and colleges, increasing the time productive minds are searching for what to do with their futures.
Given the scientific and economic fact of art’s existence in childhood development and cultural well-being of a society, the internal-external programmatic phases of this project will focus on creating an after-school environment specifically to nurture creativity. Detroit is world renown for a rich cultural history from the Motown of the 1960s and 70s to the Detroit Techno of the 1980s and well into the 1990s. [Randy Fisher: Jazz in early 1900s: detroit was on the route of the black entertainment series (NYC-DT-CHI and CHI-DT-NYC). Black Bottom and Hastings street areas were the musician/arts district then.] Detroit’s influence on the artistic manifestations of its music-makers has much to do with the socio-economics of the city as well as the existence and interaction of various communities and the ethnic and racial make up of these communities. Lack of community and growing distance and ignorance of remaining communities caused by poverty, violence, lack of social programming and general depopulation will threaten any future continuation of the city’s cultural history, hastening Detroit’s rusting and eventual loss of a great American city. One of the goals of rebuilding community through arts is in hopes of preserving culture and allowing for new culture to flourish. This is only possible if space and resources specific to this purpose are allocated and maintained independent of a larger bureaucracy of outsiders.
In order to create continuity between the participating children’s in-school classes, specifically mathematics and sciences, the art program provided by the community center will focus on the roles of these topics in art. By paralleling the level of mathematics and science taught at their school and in their respective grades, the community center’s art program aims to foster interest that will traverse between the school and the community center, extending interest from one to the other, and therefore reducing the possibility of losing interest in school, poor performance in math and science (especially for girls) and maybe even preventing or reducing rates of students dropping out of school.
A point to reinforce is the harvesting of local skill and talent. The stress is on local in terms of occupying and adjacent zip codes at the minimum and county at a maximum. Revitalizations of a neighborhood through arts almost indefinitely lead to gentrification. Though the introduction of artists to low-income neighborhoods is desirable on the onset, in the long run, the ‘native’ community suffers and the culture the city had tried to preserve and or foster ironically disappears. Therefore, this proposal is not meant to be read as a proposal for an artist colony of invading artists that lead to an art-happy neighborhood, which in return leads to hip and new developments and the eventual increase in rent and property value. That model progresses to the point that original pre-arts residents cannot afford to live in their neighborhood, thus dispersing a community. It is very important to focus on the local aspect and the difference between inviting artists to contribute and leave, only leaving behind their artistic and cultural contribution.
Key points:
Urbanism as community
Self-organization and cooperation leading to the emergence of previously non-existent community networks
Introducing new elements from within (non-gentrifying)
Children as teachers and agents of change
Community as activist and agent of change on a greater urban scale
Emergent activism
Answers to be defined:
What is the perceived measure of “a block”?
What are the perceived and accepted activities on a block?
How can the existing model of the "Block Club" be enhanced to fit within the functions of the new model?
(The model of the block in Detroit is three streets: ie. between Plymouth (busy street) and Chicago (busy street). Hard for blocks to connect when facing away from each other.)
How can the notion of the “block” be extended to a larger area, yet psychologically still considered “a block”? One is more likely to go to some place located “on the block” as opposed to “down the street”.
What is “community”?
What is the purpose of the community center?
Why is the community center first built, then activities forced upon it? (programming)
How far can a community center be placed for it to be considered “on the block”?
How can activities shape the community center?
How can the community center build community, starting at its immediate surrounding?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Project goals:
The project is based on the concept of small nodes connecting and influencing other small nodes, increasing the range of the network, yet keeping each node independent, whether the node is a child, an adult, the family, the neighborhood, or the community center. Most importantly, we are utilizing the power a node can have on another node, for example, the power a younger sibling can have on convincing an older sibling, or the persuasive ability children can have on their parents, thus working up the age and control hierarchy. The hope is the family nodes of a community will eventually influence the local government for positive changes they wish to see in their community.
1. Immediate goal: Replacing the negative element of vacant homes with accessible and occupied public space, as well as providing employment among the neighbors for repairs, maintenance, security, administration, etc. to help start the Center (with core staff).
2. Process goal: Grassroots movement towards ‘community as activist’ to care for and improve their neighborhood on their own initiative, and primarily through the influence of the neighborhood children.
3. Projected goal: Better kids, better students, better future adults, better future communities, a better Detroit.
Activation of the Rhizomatic model:
Diagram 1 + 2
Current community centers are located just on the border of residential neighborhoods, on main streets and boulevards with high traffic. Access to these centers in many instances requires adult supervision due to their distance, location and path of travel (crossing main streets) and safety issues (drug corners). The necessity of adult supervision reduces the chances of children having a stable place for growth, especially in lower-income neighborhoods where adults are less likely to take such responsibilities on a regular basis and where crime rates are higher and general safety standards are lower. (need citation)
Additionally, the purposes of community centers, which are community and character building and instilling focus and purpose into children, are not very effective unless activities are sustained over a long period of time.
Diagram 3
Traditionally, a neighborhood community—one where children are playmates and where parents know other parents—has existed within varying boundaries of the ‘block’, the distance of the ‘block’ depending on urban or suburban settings. Here, the block has been outlined at its maximum, as defined by city planning, by the bordering streets of a grouping of residential homes. Overtime, the safety level of the block—and trust levels in society, in general—has reduced the safe and acceptable distance of the block. Therefore, a community center located three blocks away, is less accessible today than it was 40 years ago. How can the block not only be extended back to its original borders, but also slightly extended and even overlap with neighboring blocks? How can there be a shift in perception of the distance of the block and what is considered to be “on the block” versus “down the street” or “next block”?
The importance of increasing block size is to increase activity primarily among children. Children are less judgmental in making and accepting new friendships and alliances. An important goal of community centers and after school activities is just this, creating a base for reducing gang violence, bullying and other childhood troubles associated with lack of friendships and community among children.
Diagram 4
Zip codes 48205, 48206 and 48228 are three of the hardest hit neighborhoods in Wayne County, with respectively 81, 88 and 66 homes listed foreclosed in December of 2009, placing these areas in the country’s top 20 on a national list of foreclosures.
Looking up addresses on listings of foreclosed homes, reveals that many vacant homes are located within close neighboring streets and frequently on the same street. A vacant home in a low-income neighborhood is an invitation for illegal activity, as seen in other areas of Detroit and its suburbs where neighbors are afraid to leave their homes in fear of being shot at, the bad guys terrorize the immediate vicinity of their squats and cops stay away because they are outnumbered (and do not care to get involved with the low-income, black community). All sense of community is dissolved by the nature of empty space occupied by undesirable elements. (find the article citation)
Diagram 5
If these homes are repurposed as community centers, the first undesirable element (a vacant home) is transformed to the first desirable element (potential).
Diagram 6
The potentials of this new center are multi-fold:
• Employing immediately from within the neighborhood for a variety of skills for repair, maintenance and management gives a sense of responsibility to the neighbors involved.
• Employing artists from within the neighborhood to lead workshops, studios and competition for children, giving the children more incentive for participation.
• Providing a positive workforce of immediately local artists and craftsmen.
• Providing a social place for adults and children will create incentive for its upkeep by neighbors, as well as provide incentive for asking for stronger measures across the neighborhood from city and law enforcement officials.
Diagram 7
The means by which the blocks will be shrunk psychologically while increased physically is through programmed activities, which are focused from the inside-out. The goals of activities should not be to bring children in and keep them there to be safe, but to bring them in and prepare to send them back out across the community, to join the next block over.