The human settlements financing tools

and best practices series

Asset-based Approaches to
Community Development
 An Asset-based Approach to
Community Development and
Capacity-Building

Nairobi, 2008

Sec1:i
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

The Human Settlements Financing Tools and Best Practices Series

An Asset-based Approach to Community Development and Capacity Building

First published in Nairobi in 2008 by UN-HABITAT.

Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2008

All rights reserved

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)
P. O. Box 30030, 00100 Nairobi GPO KENYA
Tel: 254-020-7623120 (Central Office)
www.unhabitat.org

HS/1020/08E
ISBN: 978-92-1-132027-5 (series)
ISBN: 978-92-132000-8

Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United
Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers of boundaries.

Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United
Nations Human Settlements Programme, the United Nations, or its Member States.

Excerpts may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated.

Cover photo: Shanghai ©Xing Zhang/UN-HABITAT

Acknowledgements:
Principal Editor and Manager: Xing Quan Zhang

English Editor: Thierry Naudin

Principal Author: Mahyar Arefi

Design and Layout: Andrew Ondoo

ii
FOREWORD

The global housing And for this, we need innovative governance,

crisis, especially in and local thinking and reporting if we are
the developing world, to bring hope to the urban poor. Equally
is getting worse by importantly, we need to support our towns
the day making the and cities, indeed our countries, to adopt pro-
right to adequate poor policies and strategies that will obviate
shelter a quest that the need for further slum creation.
is becoming more
and more difficult It is against this background, that the Human
to meet, despite the Settlements Financing Tools and Best Practices
targets set by the Millennium Development series focuses on the development of know-how,
Goals. knowledge and tools in human settlements
financing, from which Member States can learn
Such is the rate of urbanization – the influx of in delivering affordable housing to the poor.
people into towns and cities, and their natural
growth – that the world has now reached a
point where for the first time now, half the
global population lives in towns and cities.

By the year 2050, six billion people – two-

thirds of humanity – will be living in towns
and cities. And as urban centres grow, the locus
of global poverty is moving into towns and
cities, especially into the burgeoning informal
settlements and slums, of the developing world.
In the developing world, this is happening so
fast that slums are mushrooming in what is
termed the urbanization of poverty.

This makes it imperative that we use every

means at our disposal to ensure that we at UN- Anna Tibaijuka,
HABITAT, and our partners, keep applying Executive Director, UN-HABITAT
ourselves to Target 11 of the Goals – to achieve Under-Secretary-General of
significant improvement in the lives of at least the United Nations
100 million slum dwellers, by 2020.

iii
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. THE PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS OF AN ASSET-BASED
APPROACH TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6
Poverty and government policies 6
The need-based approach 6
Shifting from needs to assets 7

CHAPTER 2. ELEMENTS OF AN ASSET-BASED APPROACH TO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10

The community development process 10

Asset-based community development 11
Empowerment 12
Partnerships 14

CHAPTER 3. BARRIERS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND

CAPACITY BUILDING 17

Three types of barriers 17

Individual, associational, institutional 18
Marginality 19
Expert vs. local knowledge 22

CHAPTER 4. CASE STUDIES 24

Research method and data sources 24

A brief history of community development in Boston 25
Columbia Point 26
Tent City 27
Analysis and emergent themes 28
Identifying assets 28
Leveraging assets 29
Managing assets 33

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 38

Discussion and lessons learned 39

Emphases 39
Outcomes 40
Relationships 41
Evolutionary stages 44

REFERENCES 45

iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

1.1 ‘People vs. place-prosperity’ and ‘need vs. asset-based’public policyoptions

2.1 Community development: Categories and approaches
2.2 Empowerment and its components
3.1 Relationships between marginality and capacity-building
5.1 Major issues associated with need- and asset-based methods

Figures

4.1 Locations of Harbor Point and Tent City, Boston

4.2 The layout of public housing at Columbia Point
4.3 An aerial view of Harbor Point, Boston
4.4 A view of mid-rise apartment blocks at Harbor Point
4.5 A view of mid-rise apartment blocks at Harbor Point
4.6 A view of Harbor Point
4.7 A view of Harbor Point
4.8 High-rise apartment block, Tent City
4.9 Tent City, Boston
4.10 An aerial view of Tent City, Boston
4.11 A view of an interior courtyard, Tent City

v
1
THE PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS OF
AN ASSET-BASED APPROACH TO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Poverty and Government Criticisms of need-based community

Policies development practices include:
Governments invest in the welfare of ‘people’ • Equity and efficiency issues; and,
and ‘places’ by redistributing public resources
• Perpetuating a culture of poverty,
through selective policies (Winnick, 1966;
dependency, and patience
Arefi, 2003). As they conduct these policies
they target people’s needs either directly Regardless of efficiency (i.e., effective
through subsidies, or indirectly through improvement in the well-being of needy
improved physical conditions for the places individuals) or equity (i.e., only targeting those
where they live. who need assistance most) goals, these policies
mainly highlight communities’ deficiencies,
To date, these selective policies have had i.e., what they lack rather than what they
mixed results. Direct, ‘people’ policies that have.
target needy individuals regardless of where
they live are generally more efficient than
(indirect) ‘place’ policies. Over time, however, The Need-based Approach
people-oriented policies institutionalize and
spread welfare ‘entitlements’ and a culture Need-based government policies typically focus
of dependency (Mead, 1986). On the other on what communities lack as opposed to what
hand, place-oriented policies, which target they have. For decades, governments—both
poor places, are less efficient than ‘people’ in developed and developing countries—have
policies because they often end up displacing used “a standard deficits calculations approach”
the people for whom the policies were (Peattie, 1983: 229) to quantify community
developed in the first place. Yet, compared needs (such as an x number of housing units
to direct welfare policies, ‘place’ policies have to be built, or a certain amount of retail space,
favorable longer-term effects since they tend to schools, parks, public spaces, etc.). Urban
reduce dependency on government resources. planners, for example, calculate housing
deficit as the difference between the necessary
Allocating public funds under a so-called number of dwelling units and the number
need-based approach to community of units produced. “Calculations of ‘deficit’
development requires standards to define and based on bad data relating to poor categories
assess community needs. Governments have may be joined with ‘programs’ constituting
developed various mechanisms and institutions at best very partial solutions to the existing
to identify, prioritize and quantify local needs problems and at worst exacerbating them via
such as housing, healthcare, education or slum clearance” (Peattie, 1983: 227).
employment.

1
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Similarly, experts quantify the needs for local a need-based paradigm) are to be resolved
services, schools, businesses, etc. Since poor should they arise. As the effectiveness of top-
communities are defined by these deficits, down, need-based procedures was queried
experts assess their needs and shortcomings and government subsidies reduced against a
as a first step towards breaking their cycle of background of mistrust between people and
poverty, dependency and despair and achieving government, local communities have been
self-sufficiency. In many countries (including forced to find innovative ways of building
the United States) in the 1960s and 1970s, their own capacities.
urban renewal, slum clearance projects and
‘gentrification’ (replacing lower- with middle- This report draws from writings from the
income people) exemplified the various paths two opposing schools of thought about
which declining communities could take community development; or, to put it in a
toward prosperity. To ensure success, technical nutshell, investing in a community’s needs, or
assistance is transferred through top-down assets? Those who criticize need-based policies
policies, under the auspices and authority of on efficiency and equity grounds suggest
so-called ‘expert knowledge’. To date, the exploring worthier alternatives. Those calling
master planning approach, whereby needs for better policy options also seek policies that
are mapped and quantified, remains a useful focus not so much on needs alone, but on assets
method of quantifying the needs of distressed as well. Like need-based policies, a growing
communities. body of literature represents the diverse roots
of asset-based community development
initiatives. Much of this diversity draws from
Shifting from Needs to Assets two debates:

Over the last three decades and in a bid to • The critique of the culture of poverty
join the bandwagon of innovative solutions to (Lewis, 1966) and marginality (Perlman,
urban problems, policy-makers and residents 1976), which aimed to generalize the
have explored alternatives to the conventional behavioral-cultural traits of the poor; and
need-based approaches to community
• The virtues of viewing the “ghetto
development. Inefficiencies in government
as a resource” (Goldsmith, 1979),
policies have been a reflection of continuing
empowerment (Friedmann, 1996),
debates about ‘people–’ and ‘place-targeting’
capacity building (Glickman and Servon,
on the one hand, and ongoing research on
1998), social capital (Putnam, et al.,
community development, capacity-building,
1993; Woolcock, 1998), and knowledge
empowerment, and knowledge partnerships
partnerships (Hordijk and Baud, 2006).
on the other.
Community assets include physical capital
Along these lines, a wide range of community- and infrastructure (buildings, roads, open
based practices have come to complement and public spaces such as parks and plazas);
conventional expert-based, top-down financial and economic capital; and the
government intervention for the purposes of political and social capital inherent to local
assessing local needs. As a result, conflicts arise leadership and informal social networks.
between the experts’ ways of assessing needs Buildings can be considered assets because
on the one hand, and the way local people investing in them yields future returns on
(or ‘local knowledge’) address and define capital, just like investing money in a bank.
their needs on the other hand. Government Risk and uncertainty are associated with asset
regulations determine the ways conflicts ownership because financial or land-based
between the communities and experts (within properties are subject to loss. Community

2
assets go beyond bricks and mortar or money, As stated above, need-based anti-poverty
including less tangible phenomena such as policies are premised on quantifying ‘deficits’
social networks and people’s attachment to and ‘targeting’. People-targeting focuses on
place, or a sense of place, too. This aspect of the redistribution of resources among the
local assets characterizes them as ‘public goods’, poor, whereas place-targeting concentrates
which should theoretically benefit everyone in on local regeneration and slum upgrading.
a community. UN-HABITAT’s slum upgrading initiatives
focus on combined place-targeting and asset-
Contrasting the typical need-based “deficit building. People-targeting policies involve
model” (Wynne, 1991; Petts, 2003), an asset- entitlements (i.e., food stamps, vouchers,
based approach does not seek to quantify handouts or medical insurance), with taxes
needs. Instead, it aims to encourage an attitude playing an important role in the redistribution
favorable to change and capacity-building by of wealth. Place-targeting or area regeneration
cutting across professional boundaries. Some require different mechanisms, ranging from
consider this to be a community-design slum clearance and upgrading to urban renewal
process, based on which “the environment and public housing, along with creating
works better if people affected by its changes vibrant Business Improvement Districts as well
are actively involved in its creation and as Enterprise and Empowerment Zones. The
management instead of being treated as passive downside of place-targeting is that it largely
consumers” (Sanoff, 2000: p. x). happens at the expense of other localities,
This asset-based approach seeks to identify, which have not received the resources
and capitalize on, the tangible and intangible earmarked for possible improvements. This
assets available to a community, rather than characterizes ‘place prosperity’ policies as an
on what it lacks (Kretzmann and McKnight, overall zero-sum game.
1993; Sanoff; 2000; Green and Haines, 2002;
Mathie and Cunningham, 2003; Arefi, 2004 a;
2004 b). To policy-makers and neighborhood
activists, community assets matter because, as
public goods, they benefit residents in different
ways (e.g., housing and service delivery).
Vibrant communities promote and signal a
strong sense of belonging and attachment
to place, and in the process re-energize
housing markets; whereas weak and depressed
communities suffer from weak markets, failed
government policies, giving an impression or
sense of despair and hopelessness to residents
and outsiders alike.

3
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Table 1.1 ‘People vs. place-prosperity’ and ‘need- vs. asset-based’

public policy options

People Place

Need Redistribution Revitalization

(TARGETING) • Welfarism • Public Housing
• Entitlements (taxes, • “Ghetto as colony”
handouts, housing vouchers, • Urban Renewal
food stamps…) • Slum Upgrading
• Enterprise Zones

Asset Empowerment Partnership

(CAPACITY BUILDING/ • Social Capital (networking, • Historic preservation and a sense
ASSET BUILDING) trust, and reciprocity) of place
• Co-production and • “Ghetto as a resource”
development of knowledge • Community-University and
and skills (between ‘expert Public-Private Partnerships
knowledge’ and ‘local • CDCs
knowledge’)
• Social, political, psychological
access to resources

Table 1.1 highlights the philosophical roots of However, place-oriented policies target the
the need-asset distinction. It also provides a poor not solely out of benevolence, but on
conceptual framework for comparing the two the realization that revitalizing and improving
schools of thought in public policy against urban blight would enhance market efficiency,
the broader ‘people vs. place-prosperity’ which, in turn, helps the poor as it improves
split. As shown in Table 1.1, four types of their living conditions. Examples of such
policies are conceivable: need-based, people- policies abound, such as the public housing,
oriented; need-based, place-oriented; asset- urban renewal, and slum clearance projects of
based, people-oriented; and asset-based, place- the 1950s and 1960s and the Enterprise Zones
oriented. Each of these public policy categories of the 1990s. However, end-results show that
or government initiatives seeks to achieve policy-makers’ worthy intentions to alleviate
certain moral, social, economic, or physical poverty have not been enough to achieve long-
outcomes. For example, need-based, people- term capacity-building among communities.
oriented policies typically tend to increase As a result, place-oriented policies have
social equity through wealth redistribution produced mixed outcomes
among needy individuals. Since these types
of policies redistribute wealth among the poor
through taxes on the more affluent segments of
society, they gain merit on efficiency grounds.

4
2
ELEMENTS OF AN ASSET-BASED
APPROACH TO COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT

The Community Development in the concept of self-help is the fundamental

Process drive for self-preservation and survival, as
community leverages, and capitalizes on,
Focusing on needs only exposes communities’ individual talents and skills as well as collective
shortcomings, while paying attention to assets and resources.
assets (including human, physical, social, and
political capital) highlights their less tangible Therefore, self-help:
dimensions. But why is this point important?
Needy communities are expected to exhibit • Enables residents to mobilize and manage
lower stocks of those social networks of trust assets
and reciprocity known as ‘social capital’. They • Capitalizes on individual talents and skills
are also expected to have limited access to
political and financial resources. • Leverages collective assets and resources
Technical assistance shapes the way government
As a result, people in distressed communities and non-governmental resources help people
are perceived as lacking the expertise and find solutions to their problems. Such
skills required to help themselves. They are assistance includes items such as consulting,
also perceived as unorganized, entangled in housing design, construction, loans and credit
intense internal conflicts, and dependent to start-up businesses. In addition to gaining
on government (financial and technical) access to a wide range of financial or technical
resources. These assumptions represent the resources through consultation and direct
elements of need-based policies based on the transfer of funds, non-monetary measures are
communities’ individual, associational, and also required in distressed communities to
institutional deficits. To help local residents enhance self-confidence, reduce the number
address these shortcomings, community of conflicts and put an end to the ‘blaming-
development efforts include three separate the-victim’ mentality’ (Will, 1983).
tasks:
Technical assistance helps in two major ways:
• Self-help (or self-sufficiency)
• Technical assistance; and • Transferring financial, organizational and
political assistance from external sources
• Conflict resolution (Kretzmann and to needy communities;
McKnight, 1993)
• Boosting self-confidence in marginalized
Self-help emerges from a long-standing communities.
tradition which enables residents to mobilize
and manage assets to materialize their visions The experience with conflict resolution
(e.g., building adequate decent housing, suggests that it takes more than participative
creating decent jobs, providing education, identification of a community’s future
enhancing human capital and promoting civic objectives to succeed; it also takes an open
participation and empowerment). Implicit mind as well as forethought and even a

5
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

degree of sacrifice. It often happens that Conflict resolution has two major purposes:
decisions are about various issues are debated,
conflicts arise within various segments of a • Exploring avenues for conflict resolution
community. Resolving potential conflicts within communities, and
through consensus-building is one of the three • Encouraging consensus on shared interests
missions assigned to community development and visions.
efforts.

Table 2.1 Community development: Categories and approaches

COMMUNITY SELF-SUFFICIENCY TECHNICAL CONFLICT

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE RESOLUTION
APPROACH
NEED-BASED • Need assessment • Expert • Regulation
(Deficit Model) • Urban renewal/slum knowledge • Professional
clearance • Scientific support
• Gentrification rationality • Government
• Top-down based • Co-optation
on universal,
standardized
needs
• Master/
Comprehensive
Planning
• Problem-Solving
with Universal
Principles
ASSET-BASED • Asset Identification • Local Knowledge • Interpretation
(Dynamic Model) • Mobilization of and Expert • Participation
Resources Knowledge • Organization
• Social Capital • Bottom-up/ • Community
• Capacity-Building Grassroots Design
• Social Empowerment • Partnership • Mutual Learning
• Co-production of • Governance
Knowledge • Political
• Technical Empowerment
Empowerment

Asset-based Community first major difference between a need-based

Development and an asset-based approach to community
development, as illustrated in Table 2.1.
While poor communities may feature lower Local networks essentially serve two major
educational achievement and technical skills purposes:
compared with the more affluent segments
of a population, they generally form stronger • ‘bonding social capital’: linking
informal social support networks. This is the individuals who know each other or; and

6
• ‘bridging social capital’: linking subsequently eliminated or transformed into
individuals or organizations to those strengths and assets. The first type of action is
outside the local community who may often known as “setting aggravations”, whereas
not know each other, but may share the second type of action is called “setting
common interests, or be willing to share deprivations.” Of course, further in the
economic opportunities. future, a community might even have to look
for political connections in order to muster the
In a need-based approach to community
support, since local political leadership often is
development self-sufficiency results from a
a condition for local projects to materialize. All
top-down process; by contrast, an asset-based
these efforts are part of the asset-identification
approach is bottom-up and grassroots-based.
period—be they social, physical, or political.
In a way, ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ social capitals
bind residents to other individuals within and
outside their respective communities. In the
Empowerment
process, informal social networks become
stronger, denser, and thicker through “use” The second row in Table 2.2 shows that
(unlike other forms of capital, which erode asset-based policies emphasize empowerment
through use rather than disuse) and, therefore, and capacity building, as opposed to merely
reduce the risk of erosion or depletion by targeting local needs. Compared to need-based
“disuse” (Ostrom, 1997). policies, which intervene in communities for a
limited period of time, asset-building efforts
Identifying assets is a major opportunity to promote long-term relationships under the
assess a community’s potentials, capabilities, form of partnerships. Long-term partnerships
and talents. Only in a next step will capitalizing stimulate self-help and self-organization,
on these assets become possible. For example, easing a community’s access to various local
identifying informal local networks such as and government resources. Conversely, need-
small business groups, neighborhood watch based policies result in long-term dependency
groups, clubs, etc., could play a critical role on government resources. Friedmann (1996:
in building consensus or resolving conflicts 164) defines empowerment as:
on neighborhood-related matters. Bonding
social capital, too, can help mobilize and rally “the self-organization of the poor for
communities around major local decisions collective survival. The goal is to gain
(e.g., turning an existing vacant lot into a greater access to resources essential for
soccer field or a very small park). This example livelihood. Although self-organization is
illustrates two points: fundamental to the achievement of this
goal, outside help, especially by the state,
• bonding social capital can help mobilize is needed in other to obtain satisfactory
people behind a shared cause or common results on a scale commensurate with the
concern; size of the problem.”
• this process is also an opportunity for
Therefore, empowerment has three major
a community to identify and take stock
components:
of its potential physical resources, such
as good locations for attracting specific • organizing [collectively]
businesses or services serving not just the
• access to resources
community but also a larger area.
• seeking external help
Communities could also identify their
weaknesses and eyesores, which could be

7
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Table 2.2 Empowerment and its components

Organizing Access to External Help

Resources

People Social Capital Personal Technical

• Local social networks • Talents, skills Assistance
• Establishing contacts • Local/ • Human capital
with external sources of Community • Political
funding • Neighborhood • Partnerships
groups
• Banks, faith-
based, social,
regional
• Government/
State
Place • CDCs • Financial • Government
• Neighborhood or • Political • Private
Local Groups • NGOs

Table 2.2 details the elements of empowerment For example, a poor community can have
typically found in asset- or capacity-building an adequate stock of bonding social capital.
strategies. Concepts and theories such This should not necessarily come as a surprise,
as social capital, capacity-building and since this particular type of social capital
knowledge partnerships pursue these goals of helps residents to “get by” (i.e., to take care
empowerment by focusing on communities’ of their day-to-day, immediate family, and
less tangible yet important attributes. Social personal needs) rather than to “get ahead”
capital by itself has a proven capacity to reveal (i.e., long-term goals, such as completing
a community’s untapped resources. Policy- college education to find better jobs) (Briggs,
making can take advantage of the flexibility 1998). However, such communities find
and diversity of social capital, keeping in that ‘bridging’ and ‘linking’ capital is more
mind that this type of ‘capital’ is more difficult difficult to generate, because establishing
to generate in practice than theory would economic or political linkages and contacts
suggest. with resources outside the community requires
good leadership, among other things. That is
Compared with vibrant communities why research on capacity-building plays an
with strong social networks, distressed important role, as it shows communities how
neighborhoods seem to hold lower amounts to leverage assets or form partnerships with
of social capital. Poor communities are external resources.
physically run-down, socially dysfunctional,
and economically and geographically In order to mobilize its resources, a community
isolated—much along the lines of the typical must first take stock of its talents and skills—
‘deficit model’. However, this deficit model of no matter how modest. In this respect,
low-income neighborhoods is as obfuscating asset-based and need-based approaches to
as it is revealing. community development differ in many ways.
Need-based schemes look to identify the
people or places in need; asset-based strategies

8
aim to empower residents through collective because of a growing awareness of the
organization, political access, and control over drawbacks and flaws associated with each
local resources. Asset-based approaches also type of knowledge when taken in isolation.
foster a sense of place based on the unique For instance, in its adherence to universal
features of the locality. The important first scientific principles, expert knowledge
step in capacity-building is to recognize a tends to overlook local cultural and social
community’s talents and capacities, whereas conditions which, together with local practice
need-based targeting does not require intimate are in the process stereotyped as unreliable,
familiarity with local physical, social and unscientific and obsolete, among other things.
political resources. Compared with need-
based, targeted approaches to community
development, capacity-building requires deeper
familiarity with a community’s social, political Partnerships
and physical conditions. Governments have Partnership is another avenue for poor
often prescribed top-down targeting methods communities to attract external resources.
over the site-specific nature of asset-based Developing partnerships highlights the political
approaches that reflect the strengths of unique nature of capacity- and asset-building. Local
local conditions. politics involves forming new relationships with
In order to identify community assets, one capable partners whose economic resources lie
must do the following: outside the local community. Universities and
their surrounding communities, for example,
• Identify any locations with the potential develop partnerships for local revitalization
to attract businesses or services purposes. The public and private sectors
can develop partnerships, too. Regardless of
• Identify local liabilities that could be
the type, partnerships promote sustainable,
eliminated or transformed
mutually beneficial relationships between two
• Identify political connections and support or more parties. For example, local university-
Unlike the need-based approach to community partnership projects aim to
community development (in which technical enhance the strengths of both.. Universities
assistance becomes a top-down process typically have long-term vested interests in
through government fiat and regulation), an their communities. A committed university
asset-based approach combines two seemingly can tremendously improve the general
divergent perspectives on knowledge: conditions of the surrounding community.
They can participate in place-based projects
• expert knowledge including housing for their own staff, students
and local residents.
• local knowledge
Expert knowledge typically handles the Knowledge partnerships represent one way
community development process in various of investing in community assets. These
ways. Through the principles of scientific partnerships recognize the drawbacks and
rationality, experts view community issues limitations of each type of knowledge, and the
as a series of problems in need of solutions. benefits of combining different types. This is
Therefore, they resort to a variety of top- best illustrated by efforts to leverage existing
down regulatory policies and plans to solve stocks of social and physical capital at the
such problems. Exploring relationships early stages of community development while
between local and expert knowledge may be seeking external funding and establishing
becoming more commonplace nowadays, linkages to public officials (‘linking’ social

9
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

capital). The U.S. Department of Housing and local politics combine efforts to integrate
and Urban Development’s HOPE VI housing expert and local knowledge. In most cases
and community development program in though, forging partnerships between these
the United States contains elements of these two requires mutual trust, a sound sense of
knowledge partnerships. The program involves purpose and strong leadership.
forging partnerships with external agencies,
local government, non-profit organizations, Due to physical and social isolation from
and private businesses, and creating incentives mainstream society, access to government
for engaging residents in the community institutions is more restricted for distressed
development process. communities than for those better off. An asset-
based approach to community development
Incentives for developing knowledge promotes access to existing resources through
partnerships and enhancing the organizational mutual learning (or co-production of
structure of an asset-based community arise knowledge), or partnerships between local and
from the forces that launch, influence and expert knowledge. Citizen participation and
mediate the process. At times, local knowledge community organizing form the essence of
helps rally different constituencies around mutual learning, co-production of knowledge
shared community concerns, such as resisting and empowerment, while providing grounds
the displacement of those whose houses will be for the proper exercise of democratic rights
demolished for new constructions. However, (Friedmann, 1996; Sanoff, 2000).
in other cases expert knowledge might take
a leadership role for developing partnerships As discussed previously, the three components
with local knowledge. Either way, pursuing of empowerment are the following: organizing;
asset-based interventions is worthwhile so long access to resources; and external assistance.
as the shared benefits of a new partnership These components are all required for long-term
between local and expert knowledge outweigh capacity building. To survive, disempowered
any social costs. Such shared benefits include or poor communities need to organize
participation in the planning process as well as themselves as groups. They must have “access
a recognized right to react to the direction and to resources essential for their livelihood”
details of such a process; social costs include (Friedmann, 1996: 164). Furthermore, they
any tensions between fractious groups with should seek external assistance. Empowerment
multiple agendas who fail to reach collective captures the three components of community
decisions about shared community issues. development as well. That is, self-help captures
the ability to self-organize, while technical
No simple model exists for developing assistance and developing partnerships are
knowledge partnerships. Success stories show opportunities for support from outside. On
that long-term partnerships between the two the other hand, conflict resolution facilitates
types of knowledge depend on local knowledge access to resources through local political
willingness to benefit from the experts and vice leaders or funding sources. Among these three
versa. Therefore, it is important to explore components, technical or external assistance
new ways of capitalizing on community assets is a reminder that poor communities and
through partnerships between the two types experts can find common grounds through
of knowledge. In such efforts, knowing how mutual learning and interaction. As mutual
to identify, leverage and manage local assets trust develops with interaction, communities
is crucial to success. As will be shown later, welcome external assistance, as long as experts
identifying and leveraging existing stocks of are not condescending or imposing. Technical
social and physical capital in an area could assistance can become a basis for equal
take a long time, even where local leadership participation, inducing partnerships between

10
experts and local knowledge. expert knowledge they could trust. In the
process, they ultimately demonstrated that
Equal partnership and cooperation highlight theirs was a credible, consistent case, rather
the true nature of participation between than just a string of isolated incidents.
experts and non-experts. While expert
knowledge subscribes to the principles of Persistent distrust between experts (be it
scientific rationality and formal training, local government agencies or the private sector) and
knowledge has a complementary role to play as local constituencies has created a gap which has
it brings in experience, culture, and contextual only kept widening over time. Evidence shows
rather than universal knowledge. In many that expert knowledge increasingly dominates
countries, whereas experts rely on universal the decision-making process at the expense of
and common principles of rationality, local local knowledge. Increasing disregard of expert
knowledge heavily depends on interpretation knowledge for local practice and playing down
rather than (scientific) analysis, and on specific governance to the benefit of government have
local practice rather than universal formulas combined to promote domination and co-
for conflict resolution. Such practice depends optation as widely accepted ways of eschewing
not on a reductionist approach to science, conflict.
but on generations and possibly centuries of
experience. For example, in many countries
elder, more experienced individuals have the
responsibility to resolve conflicts when and if
they arise. The wisdom and respect attached
to age and experience endow older residents
with the authority to settle disputes or conflicts
should they crop up.

Short of recognizing and reinforcing such

informal cultural and social practice (or
what some call the ‘cultural grammars of
solidarity’), establishing an effective dialogue
between experts and non-experts will remain a
challenge. Moreover, since capitalizing on local
social and political capital calls for partnerships
between local and expert knowledge, special
mechanisms are required to resolve conflicts
between these two types of knowledge.

At Williamsburg, a community in Brooklyn,

New York, discrepancies between local and
expert knowledge on the possible exposure
of residents to pollutants highlighted two
different interpretations of one and the same
phenomenon (Corburn, 2005). The experts’
interpretation ruled out residents’ exposure
to hazardous substances, while the residents’
experience and interpretation proved otherwise.
Interaction and mutual learning enabled local
knowledge to integrate its experience with

11
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

3 BARRIERS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

AND CAPACITY-BUILDING

Three Types of Barriers The first type of barriers to long-term

community development includes the
Theories and concepts, such as the ‘culture
following:
of poverty’ (Lewis, 1966) and ‘marginality’
(Perlman, 1976), highlight the popular • Preventing individuals from experiencing
misconceptions, stereotypes, and assumed personal growth
weaknesses associated with poor communities.
However, other concepts including social • Weakened associational linkages among
capital, community capacity-building, and individuals
knowledge partnerships emphasize the strengths • Redlining on an institutional level, in
and opportunities for asset-building that exist the process intensifying physical, social
in poor communities. Focusing on strengths and political isolation from mainstream
and opportunities per se, however, does not society, which in turn
automatically put distressed communities in a
o Perpetuates economic dependency on
position to build capacity. Research in the last
external sources of funding
three decades or so highlighted the problems
needy communities face when capitalizing on o Prevents communities from tapping
their assets for sustained growth and capacity- their own resources and assets
building. Differentiating between community The second type of barriers emerges from
needs and assets goes to the heart of the theory misconceptions about distressed communities,
and practice of community development. as highlighted by theories like ‘marginality’.
What can prevent a community from The third type of barriers arises from a failure to
identifying its assets and capitalizing on them combine expert and local knowledge into the
to build capacity in the long term? If they are asset-building process. Helping communities
to overcome barriers to long-term capacity to help themselves is only possible when they
building, community development projects are given the opportunities they deserve, rather
ought to combine the three types of efforts than being viewed as a group of ignorant,
(self-help, technical assistance, and conflict ineffective individuals. At times, achieving
resolution) outlined in the previous chapter. self-help may seem too much to expect from
The history of community development and disenfranchised communities because, at first
its extensive literature have documented some glance, their stocks of social capital, individual
of the factors that can undermine community talents and skills seem to be lower than those
building efforts. The road to community found in affluent communities. Let us explore
revitalization and capacity-building appears three major types of barriers that typically
to be far from smooth, and therefore it is stand in the way of community development
important to recognize the preconceived and capacity-building:
notions, or ‘fixes’, that are typically associated • Individual, associational, and
with these efforts. institutional (Kretzmann and McKnight,
1993);

12
• Marginality (Perlman, 1976); and, into expert-based programming often widens
the gap between the way experts rationalize a
• Knowledge partnership (Schneekloth and
community’s future needs and the way local
Shibley, 1995 and Zanetell et al. 2002)
residents view them. Ultimately, paying
lip service to local community values and
Individual, Associational practice seems to have only compounded the
and Institutional Barriers rift between experts’ prescriptions and the
communities’ visions. This tension between
Poor communities suffer from low individual expert and local knowledge is reflected in the
(human capital), associational (i.e., bonding ability and likelihood of a community toward
and bridging social capital), and institutional self-help as the basic component of community
or physical (political and physical capital) development; the lower a community’s stock
capacities. Now, its individual members are of human capital, the less likelihood it will
the basic assets of any community. Without have of achieving self-help.
individuals there is no community. The
first type of barrier acts at individual level as At another level, individuals establish both
it denies self-help; the second type increases formal and informal associations and linkages
dependency on external sources of funding, as within and outside the community. The
well as technical assistance from government literature on social capital pinpoints the
or non-government organizations. benefits, drawbacks and limitations of such
Dependency on technical assistance in turn networks for community building. The
suggests associational barriers in a community. two distinctive forms of associations include
Finally, unresolved conflicts and a lack of bonding capital (social) and bridging capital
consensus-building over shared concerns (economic). Interestingly, the theory of
highlight institutional problems in distressed “marginality”, which was in vogue in the
communities. 1960s and 1970s, has addressed both these
dimensions (the individual and associational
At an individual level, community investments barriers to community development).
in human capital reflect residents’ educational
attainment; the higher a community’s Poor communities often feature lower amounts
educational attainment and specialized set of of bridging social capital (linking with
skills, the higher the likelihood of achieving external institutions) whereas they fare better
short- and long-term economic goals. A in establishing community-wide linkages, or
significant body of literature addresses the bonding social capital. One reason behind
growing tension between expert and local this situation is economic marginality, as
knowledge. The problem is that the so- geographical, social, and economic isolation
called expert knowledge rarely considers local prevents a community from forming bridging
knowledge (which embodies local traditions, capital. These communities produce higher
cultural, ethnic, and vernacular practice) stocks of bonding capital because it allows them
as a viable, reliable source of inspiration, to ‘get by’ rather than to ‘get ahead’. However,
information and eventually equal partnership. as discussed before, both bonding and bridging
social capital are necessary for long-term
Those communities with low stocks of human capacity building. Those communities that
or individual capital largely depend on expert are weaker in attracting bridging social capital
knowledge for human capital. Tension between depend more on external technical assistance.
these two types of knowledge generally creates Technical assistance enables communities to
problems in the capacity building process. establish contacts with external experts and
That is, failure to incorporate local knowledge sources of funding and capital. Depending on

13
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

the local leadership’s ties with external sources, • Social marginality

technical assistance varies widely, such as
• Cultural marginality
attracting external experts who can help the
community with grant applications, finding ‘Marginality’ obscures realities about needy
project managers, or securing cash or in-kind communities. As a result, any transition
donations. This is why bonding capital alone to long-term capacity building for these
is not enough for capacity building. communities becomes a challenge. Needy
communities must overcome these myths and
The third type of impediment to community institutionalize capacity building. Two decades
development and capacity-building reflects after Perlman published a book on ‘the Myth
the institutional challenges facing poor of Marginality’, Glickman and Servon (1998)
communities. Institutions broadly represent identified the five components of community
local religious, cultural, social, financial, capacity building:
educational, and political organizations.
In depressed communities, these types of • Resource capacity
organizations are isolated and detached from • Networking capacity
those of mainstream society, and generally less
willing or capable of reaching consensus on • Programmatic capacity
how to operate, or resolve local ethnic, racial, • Political capacity
social, or political conflicts. Stronger local
institutions with proper leadership and better • Organizational capacity
external ties would seem to be more effective Why is the distinction between ‘marginality’
in conflict resolution. Local institutions and and ‘capacity-building’ important, and have
leadership as represented in bonding social these two divergent perspectives toward
capital play a critical role in establishing such distressed communities and capacity-
links between the community and external building anything in common? Their shared
political, economic, and financial sources of philosophical roots help us trace the lineage
capital. of an asset-based paradigm and differentiate
it from its need-based predecessor. The
so-called ‘myths of marginality’ reflect the
Marginality conventional need-based ‘fixes’ about poor
Earlier writings on community development communities, while the elements of capacity-
examine prevalent misconceptions about so- building highlight an asset-based approach to
called marginalized communities. Marginality community development.
highlights how needy communities become
Let us examine and trace the linkages between
socially, culturally, economically, politically,
the five elements of marginality and the five
and geographically isolated. While to date,
components of capacity building against
the common perception is that marginalized
the broader backdrop of the individual,
communities are isolated on all those
associational, and institutional (and physical)
accounts, research carried out in the 1970s
assets listed in Table 3.1. These three types
proved otherwise. The five prominent ‘myths’
of assets (individual, associational, and
(Perlman, 1976) associated with marginalized
institutional) not only capture the dimensions
communities are the following:
of capacity building (Glickman and Servon,
• Architectural and ecological marginality 1998), but also represent the pervasive ‘myths’
associated with needy communities, including
• Political marginality those of an architectural and ecological,
• Economic marginality social, cultural, political or economic nature

14
(Perlman, 1976). housing typically reflect visual decline and
disinvestment. However, if blessed with good
Individuals are assets (or talents). These location, these same negative attributes of
individuals matter during the planning or blight and neglect can carry the seeds of long-
programmatic stage of capacity building. term revival. A good location signals an ability
As previously discussed, communities to attract external investment. For example,
with low individual or human capital need a location along a major thoroughfare has
external technical assistance for (economic) potential to grow as it can provide access or
programming purposes. Associational and other services for that location. Resource
organizational assets are also important for capacity, therefore, involves a community’s
networking or organizational reasons. The potential for fostering long-term development.
long-term vitality of a community depends on Resource capacity-building broadly involves
both the bonding and bridging types of social both identifying and capitalizing on what a
capital. Finally, the institutional and physical community has to offer.
assets of a community reflect the potential
for resource and political capacity-building. Identifying community resources is a
Within this broad framework with three types collaborative process, which needs patience
of community assets, we can now examine because it is easier to highlight shortcomings
the categories of marginality and capacity- and liabilities than identify potentials and
building one by one. opportunities. Outsiders who, for the first
time, navigate through a blighted area can
Architectural (and Ecological) Isolation remember those negative features such as
is a prevalent stereotype about distressed vacant parcels, substandard housing, unsafe
communities. Substandard housing and and unattractive public spaces, and struggling
deficient infrastructure typically characterize businesses. Local residents, though, are in
disinvested communities. However, an a better position to detect pockets of hope,
often neglected but related fact about these social networks of friendship and trust, strong
communities is the role good location or local leadership, and even a strong though not
quality housing stock with unique architectural necessarily visible sense of place. Detecting
styles can play in the capacity-building this type of information calls for collaboration,
process. Indeed, housing and building stock social and political will as well as leadership.
are a major “resource” in any community. Short of these, communities will not necessarily
A blighted building stock and run-down

Table 3.1 Relationships between marginality and capacity-building

Marginality Category Capacity-Building Category

(Need-based) (Asset-based)

Architectural and ecological Resource

Social Networking
Cultural Organizational
Political Political
Economic Programmatic

15
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

come to terms with their problems, at least The relationship between culture in general
based on their potential strengths and assets. and organizational characteristics arises
Some authors have discussed how to take from a simple fact, namely, that culture, at
an inventory of the local physical and social its most basic, reflects the degree to which a
assets (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993). It community can organize according to its social
is important to recognize that asset-mapping values and visions. Culture reflects prevalent
and other similar techniques will not yield practice, including the acceptable norms and
any results if not backed by a community’s networks that connect people at various levels.
residents and political leadership. Through their organizational and associational
networks, people practice and enforce what
Architectural/ecological isolation and they consider as collectively and culturally
identifying (physical) resources in a acceptable. Therefore, enhanced organizational
community are the two sides of the same coin. potential becomes a high priority for capacity-
However, beyond assets or shortcomings, building in a poor community. Along with
what can be said about the social conditions this come fresh opportunities to identify and
of languishing communities? Marginalized reinforce business, financial, religious, and
communities are perceived as socially isolated organizational capacities at the local level
and “disorganized.” Local organizations play as well as to capitalize on the community’s
important roles with respect to long-term unique cultural legacy.
capacity-building. As they identify, detect
and enhance social capital, communities pave By the same token, poor communities are
the way for capacity-building, which in turn characterized by weak political leadership
calls for improved networking. Networking and low citizen participation. They are also
involves identifying a community’s capabilities detached from, and maybe even reluctant to
to generate informal social ties among people engage in, political debate. That is why they
who already know each other (bonding capital), generally rank low on political capacity or—
and also between the community and external ‘linking’ social capital—are less able to connect
organizations (bridging capital). Therefore, to people in positions of authority at the local,
bonding social capital in poor communities state, or national government levels. Political
is crucial to residents’ daily needs, including marginality addresses the very elements
lending funds to neighbors, or taking care of required for political capacity-building.
their children when parents are at work.
Disinvested communities are often
A poor community’s existing stock of bonding characterized as parasites and drains on the
capital will not attract external funding if urban economy, as they tend to draw on public
its members are perceived as unable to plan. resources to improve substandard infrastructure
In other words, if they are to build bridging and service delivery. Changing this perception
social capital, low-income communities must requires programmatic capacity and talents,
improve their ‘associational’ and ‘organizational’ not just to allocate government resources
skills. Cultural marginality, which implies but also to explore the potential for grants to
systematic exclusion from opportunities secure resources from outside the community.
(especially educational) among other things, Programming broadly reflects a community’s
suggests a pervasive organizational problem in capability to plan for its future and to muster
marginalized communities. the financial and economic resources required
to articulate and materialize its collective
vision. Obviously, ability to plan is based on
the knowledge required to invest in the existing
physical, social and institutional resources at

16
a community’s disposal, as well as to identify A different version of this philosophical divide
any untapped potential. Again, conventional questions ‘authority’. Who has the authority
wisdom in a need-based perspective is that to identify and articulate good community
distressed communities are unable to identify development practice: experts or laypersons?
their own resources, let alone plan their A body of literature investigates the divide
future. That is why they ostensibly depend between expert knowledge and local or lay
on external experts who, by the virtue of their knowledge. Is this a task for experts (i.e.,
expertise, can articulate future visions based architects, planners, developers, and city or
on an assessment of needs and the availability public officials) with the professional capacity
of resources (physical capital). to regulate the built environment, or for the
lay-people (i.e., local residents and laypersons
in general) whose lived experience puts them
Expert vs. Local Knowledge in a good position to launch the capacity
A critical divide can be found between the building process? The answer is not an easy
professional and intellectual dimensions of one.
community development. Splitting between a Experts use standards and criteria (e.g.,
number of specialized functions (e.g., housing, the number of houses built, the number of
employment and services) with different jobs created, or funds leveraged from local
schools of thought have professionalized and or external sources) to assess community
compartmentalized community development development needs. With regard to pressing
efforts. This can restrict collaboration, for issues, non-experts’ reactions vary widely from
example, among planners and sociologists or those of the experts, who typically resort to
political scientists over in-depth research into scientific measures and methods. For example,
the nexus between communities’ physical bonding social capital—as discussed—reflects
capital and collective action. local alliances and shared visions among
The divide is not just functional, but also people who know each other. This type of
of an intellectual or philosophical nature. social network may not seem significant,
While some have explored the direct impact adequate, or even relevant when it comes to
of space on social behavior, others argue measuring effective community development
that space has indirect or secondary effects practice. But when it reflects consensus over,
(Gans, 2002). Calling for “a use-centered” or opposition to, top-down intervention (e.g.,
view of space, Gans questions the extent to urban renewal, or building a new car park for
which ‘neighborhood effects studies’ tend to a new retail store in the neighborhood) design
correlate the delimited area of a community and implementation for a common cause, then
and its (positive or negative) effects on a social network is a measure of community
residents (especially the poor). He views cohesion or citizen participation—an
these effects more in terms of the choices indicator of effective community building or
users make than the direct impacts of space on organizing.
social behavior. These debates show that the As our urban areas become more ubiquitous,
linkages between space and community, and concerns are raised about the extent to
the ways in which social relations mediate the which experts should control community
community development process, have not development efforts. A cursory glance at the
been adequately explored—particularly from relevant literature helps in two ways. The
an interdisciplinary perspective. first one has to do with a general purpose,
whereas the second one relates more to the
way experts and non-experts view community

17
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

development. Research in the physical aspects analytical rigor over emotional attachment to
of community development (e.g., building place; and science over experience.
new housing) has substantially increased
in recent years. Much of it has focused, for Tension between expert and local, vernacular
example, on the way certain physical or visual knowledge is one of the major challenges facing
attributes (i.e., public space, the figure-ground asset-building efforts today. The universal,
relationship, and land use) contribute to replicable and standardizing attributes of
vibrant environments. expert knowledge stand in sharp contrast
to the context-specific, experience-driven,
For example, experts such as Gordon Cullen subjective, informal, even poetic nature of
have significantly affected urban design local knowledge. Therefore, it is crucial to
education, while others like Amos Rapoport understand the significance of each type of
have explored the impact of cultural and knowledge, and the extent to which each
community values on the built environment. can contribute to community development
Other interesting and certainly controversial in general, especially with regard to land-
research in the community development process use decisions and community-building.
has familiarized scholars and researchers with Research in community development has not
newer concepts. Research on social capital in adequately addressed these distinctions and,
Italy has triggered a new debate on the linkage at least among academics, expert and local
between social capital, regional development knowledge are mutually exclusive. An asset-
and governance (Putnam et al. 1993). While based approach to community development
this particular study gave planners a fresh should explore this issue further. Chapter 2
opportunity to think about the intangible or has discussed the potential for partnership
less tangible aspects of the physical setting in between expert and local knowledge as a
general, and community building in particular, reasonable middle ground in an asset-based
research that links the two concepts of physical approach to community development
and social capital remains scarce.

Apart from general studies on capacity-building,

experts and non-experts pursue community
development efforts from different angles.
Experts, for example, use a set of universal
social, environmental, public health and safety
criteria to evaluate community needs. They
develop and enforce zoning ordinances; enact
review guidelines; and standardize the physical
aspects of the community (Ben-Joseph, 2005).
Non-experts, on the other hand, celebrate
community-building and organizing through
practical experience and common sense. What
some refer to “Everyday Urbanism” (Crawford,
2005) celebrates and captures the importance
of everyday practice, idiosyncrasies and
interactions between man and environment,
which while important, still remains largely
unappreciated by experts. Expert-driven
community development represents the
supremacy of rationality over common sense;

18
4 CASE STUDIES

Research Method and Data Focus groups helped identify appropriate

Sources projects that met the following selection
criteria:
This chapter draws from data collected during
the summer of 2005 in Boston, Massachusetts, 1. Urban scale (comprising at least one city
USA. The primary data consist of 13 in- block)
depth, semi-structured interviews and focus
2. Developed through public-private
groups. Secondary data and field observation
partnership
supplement the primary data. All interviews
were conducted by the author from June to 3. Implemented at least 10 years ago
August 2005 in Boston, as part of a Summer 4. Recognized for design or planning
Faculty Fellowship granted by Goody Clancy excellence
Architects and Planners. Boston was an
appropriate research choice, as the city features 5. Integrated into surroundings contexts
some of the largest public housing projects in 6. Combined “local” and “expert
the country built in the 1940s and 1950s, and knowledge” (through ‘charrettes’,
conducts pioneering community development community hearings, etc.).
initiatives with a fair degree of success.
Unlike typical architectural projects, completion
Interviews and focus groups were held with of community development efforts takes a
major informants, including Goody Clancy long time, for financial and political reasons.
staff (architects and planners), property The above-mentioned selection criteria proved
managers, developers, social activists, planning challenging and too restrictive at first because,
and community development educators, as as with other architectural and planning firms,
well as local residents with intimate familiarity Goody Clancy’s non-implemented projects
with the selected case studies. Snowball- outnumbered those that had been effectively
sampling was used to identify the informants delivered. These restrictions eliminated a large
whose input was crosschecked by various number of potentially interesting projects
other sources, including monographs and within and outside Boston right away. They
field observation. Secondary data include ranged from those other than housing (e.g.,
archives, reports, drawings and graphics made educational and academic institutions) to
available to the author by Goody Clancy. those that had been completed within the last
These documents supplemented the points five years. Focusing on projects completed
raised by interviewees. Understanding these at least 10 years earlier aimed to ensure that
factors sheds some light on how and why enough time had elapsed for post-occupancy
local and expert knowledge collaborated in evaluation.
asset-building efforts in Boston, rather than
compete in pursuit of self-interest. Evaluating the capacity-building process based
on new projects seemed rather pointless, while
examining those completed within the previous

19
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

two decades or so made more research sense. A Brief History of Community

Furthermore, while professional recognition of Development in Boston
a project is a common measure of excellence in
design (if only in the ‘expert knowledge’ world), Mel King (1981) chronicles the three stages
it remains to be seen whether it is considered of community development in Boston
just as valuable by those who use it, or any from the 1950s through the 1980s: the
specific community. Indeed, dual recognition ‘service stage’, the ‘organizing stage’, and
by residents (local knowledge) and experts of the ‘institution building’ stage. The “service
a particular project could represent the best of stage” of the 1950s and 1960s portrays the
both worlds from an asset-based standpoint. dependency—or, as Mead (1986) would call
Public-private partnerships were thrown in as it, the “permissiveness” period of the Black
an additional factor in the selection criteria, as community in Boston. The persistence of
they signaled collaborative efforts between the ghettos and displacement of the Black urban
government and the private sector. poor created a sense of complacency toward
the culture of deficiency and negative self-
This chapter provides detailed information image. Long-time residents—especially in
about these separate yet complementary asset- the South End of Boston—were forced to
based aspects of community development. move out of their neighborhoods and had no
Based on the above-mentioned selection control over where they ended up. Getting the
criteria, two projects emerged from the focus tenants involved in the decision-making and
group and face-to-face interviews with Goody community development process, in addition
Clancy staff: to homeowners’ own preferences, constituted
another dilemma facing the grassroots
1. Harbor Point (formerly known as organizations serving the urban poor. To gain
Columbia Point) showcases how expert more self-control, tenant organizations helped
knowledge can affect local knowledge residents to get involved.
when launching into community
development; As the “organizing” period of the 1970s
succeeded the “service” stage of the previous
2. Tent City illustrates how local knowledge
decades, the populations reacted to a number
can affect and influence expert knowledge;
of issues. These included demolition, land
Both case studies exemplify effective acquisition, and relocation, a sequence that
transformations of low-income housing had become all-too familiar as it characterized
projects into mixed-income communities (see many urban renewal projects in Boston
Figure 4.1). The case studies provide an asset- (e.g., New York Streets and the South End).
based framework of collaboration between the Finally, institution-building in the 1970s and
community and external experts. Tent City 1980s enabled residents to institutionalize the
and Harbor Point showcase not just the power integration of local and expert knowledge, as
of collaboration between expert and local shown in this research. King’s findings aptly
knowledge, but also the conditions required illustrate the evolution of this transformation,
for such initiatives to take place. As stated highlighting the importance of residents’
previously, in an era characterized by the involvement—especially the underrepresented
supremacy of expert over local knowledge, it category of tenants—in the decision-making
is important to view community development process. King (1981) shows, for example, that
as a comprehensive process. The breadth such active grassroots leadership played a major role
comprehensiveness provides will help better in both organizing the people and serving as
recognize and appreciate individual participant role models for urban youths.
contributions.

20
Columbia Point hazards. This situation caused massive
displacement of long-time residents away from
Harbor Point (formerly known as Columbia
the area. According to a former professor of
Point) stands as one of the largest-ever
community development at the University
public housing projects in New England (see
of Massachusetts at Boston (UMass Boston),
Figure 4.2). As for Columbia Point, it had
“the market was literally closed down and the
come to encapsulate everything that could
only place people could buy food nearby was
possibly go wrong with a decent place. It was
a bread truck which also openly sold drugs”
physically, socially, and politically isolated
[personal interview, 7 July 2005, Forest Hills,
from the mainstream community, and steadily
MA]. The academic had also witnessed that
deteriorated for a couple of decades when it
after a boy severed his finger slamming a door,
became a dumping site for hazardous materials
his parents could not find an ambulance; so
and pollutants. As an unsafe neighborhood,
they “grabbed the finger; put it on ice took
Columbia Point also became notorious for
the kid and ran all the way to the hospital”
a high concentration of criminals and low-
[ibid.].
income households, and a bad place for raising
families. Of its original 1,500 households, As a construction site, Columbia Point was also
1,100 were forced to move out (Roessner, extremely unhealthy and unsafe. According to
2000). Having experienced a downward the former professor:
spiral of disinvestment and economic, social,
and political marginality, Columbia Point The first major demolition they did was right
was home to a large number of people with next to an elderly people’s home and they did
modest resources. not hose it down. There was incredible dust,
and an excavation next to the site. There were
Similarly, Tent City housed a number of low- big gaps in the chain-link fence around this
income residents before many row houses were huge excavation. This was an extremely unsafe
torn down to make room for a new parking lot. construction site and during my brief career as
Local knowledge reflected multiple stories and an architect (I was a construction supervisor at
‘narratives’ about residents’ struggles against one point) I had never seen anything like this.
social segregation and for an improved school A lot of the elderly were finding it very difficult
district, and more generally their quest for to breathe and were complaining about it;
social justice, decent housing and community the Housing Authority told them that they
building. However, for all the desire to create could be placed in another home but then
stable neighborhood conditions, other social could never return to Harbor Point. These are
and political-economic forces exacerbated the people who had hung on through all this crap
situation, particularly in Boston’s South End. for years and years—no ambulance, no police,
no fire-station, awful, awful conditions—who
The neglected and underserved residents
had been promised this great place to live
of Columbia Point had been living in a
and now even during the construction there
deteriorating neighborhood since the late
is basically an attempt to get them out of
1950s and early 1960s. The social and
there. We lost 1,100 units of public housing
physical isolation of Harbor Point from the
at Columbia Point… [ibid.]
rest of Boston, coupled with the government’s
reluctance to improve people’s general living Regardless of the problems at Columbia Point,
conditions, manifested itself in the deferred most residents—even those who were forced
maintenance of the existing public housing to leave—considered it their home and place
stock, lack of social services, inadequate police (Roessner, 2000). Displacement at Columbia
presence, and the prevalence of environmental Point occurred both as a result of ‘benign

21
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

neglect’ and other policies. networks in the South End. Erecting tents
and holding sit-ins together solidified people’s
The displacement of the majority of Columbia visions of the future of the site, regardless
Point’s residents created new opportunities to of the attempts BRA and city officials made
engage the population and experts such as to tap into the commercial value of the site
developers. This period marked the beginning with a parking lot. Over the course of the
of the transformation of Columbia Point, next few months, city and BRA officials took
during which developers and contractors this group of residents as a social force to be
sought to change the image of the area reckoned with—first through co-optation
from one of despair, dependency, violence, and then negotiation. King considers a
poverty, and crime to a stable, gentrified $10,000 grant from the Episcopal Diocese to
neighborhood. Through this social and the Tent City community to vacate the site
physical transformation, expert knowledge, “one of [the community’s] biggest mistakes”
as represented by developers, sought to tap (p. 113). Having accepted the donation, the
into the significant real estate market the area demonstrators realized that they had given the
offered. Today, new, high-end, market-rate impression that this was why they had left the
housing with various social amenities return a site. For a while, conflicts regarding how to
significant profit margin for the developers. spend the money drove a wedge among the
people. Once they regained control, they
prepared similar protests for other sites from
Tent City which residents had been evicted. As King
The proposed, profitable development of a discussed, this period marked the beginning
parking lot in a unique location in Boston of the organizing stage. But it took more than
(where Tent City is located) would have been a decade to capitalize on the initial impetus
beneficial for those who supported the prior for capacity-building which Tent City had
demolition of row housing in the South End. created. Today, Tent City is a stable, mixed-
In the late 1960s, the Boston Redevelopment income housing complex with a great deal of
Authority (BRA) bulldozed a site that promise in a busy part of Boston.
consisted of a number of decent, livable row
houses in order to build a parking structure for
adjacent Copley Place. As a result, more than Analysis and Emergent
100 families were forced to move out (King, Themes
1981). A chain of events shortly thereafter led
An analysis of the case studies highlighted
to major social upheaval in the community.
the three successive stages of any asset-based
Protesters erected tents on the site of the
approach to community development:
parking lot overnight and refused to vacate
it until their voices were heard by Boston • Identifying local assets
officials. Erecting tents symbolized people’s
• Leveraging local assets
revolt and angst toward the parking project.
Today and like Harbor Point, Tent City has • Managing local assets
come to represent a place which manages not
just to materialize residents’ aspirations to
decent housing, but also to meet the client’s Identifying Assets
initial requirements even after redesign. Identifying local assets (i.e., physical, social,
and political) is the first stage of any asset-
These events brought Tent City residents closer
based community development process. These
together and helped form and extend social
assets typically comprise the community’s

22
unique physical characteristics such as ocean (see Figure 4.3). ‘Setting aggravation’
infrastructure (e.g., roads), natural and man- was similarly addressed during the redesign of
made features (e.g., parks and public spaces Columbia Point. Removing or eliminating
as well as “setting deprivations” and “setting the elements that added to the hostility and
aggravations”), social and economic linkages unfriendliness of the area included dumping
within and outside the community, as well as sites for hazardous materials and public safety.
political leadership. Setting deprivation and In their deliberations, both expert and local
aggravation (Banerjee and Baer, 1984) capture knowledge carefully discussed these issues,
the elements or things residents generally making sure that the redevelopment plan
want to see but are deprived of, as well as addressed them effectively.
those they prefer to see removed from their
neighborhood, respectively. Identifying social Furthermore, both localities were endowed
and political assets is every bit as important as with abundant stocks of bonding social
identifying those of a physical nature. Unlike capital. This in turn created incentives to
physical assets and infrastructure, local social entice external funding sources and technical
assets consist predominantly of the ways in expertise into prospective partnerships. Any
which neighborhood residents think about sustainable community development effort
themselves, their strengths, potentials and requires taking stock of such assets early on
shared future. Therefore, the second stage in the process. Interaction between residents
of any asset-based community development and external experts played an important
process focuses on how such identified local role in identifying not just these assets
assets can best be leveraged. The third stage but also the ways in which future capital
focuses on controlling and managing resources investments were made. Success at that stage
over time. also highly depended on the ways in which
the experts and local residents shared their
Physical, social and political circumstances views and knowledge during the community
have contributed to the ways in which Harbor development process. The importance of
Point and Tent City were redeveloped. This (knowledge) partnerships—especially during
chapter discusses these conditions. Tent City’s the initial phases of the process—is not just an
excellent location at the heart of Boston and academic view, but also an important practical
Harbor Point’s unique geography, access to consideration. The following quote supports
the transportation network (freeways, trains this view:
and buses), breathtaking views of Boston
Harbor and proximity to an array of socio- Tenants are a real asset, particularly in the early
cultural amenities (including UMass Boston days of these developments. There were so many
and the Kennedy Library) illustrate the rich skeptics, particularly in the bureaucracies, the
stocks of physical assets identified in both finance agencies, government. “This thing
locations. Exceptional views of Boston can’t work.” They had a hard time believing
Harbor exemplified ‘setting deprivations’ the mixed income [development] with the
when Columbia Point was around in the minority people—but you would pick your
1950s. The redevelopment project reflected low-income [people]. Now you are telling us
residents’ desire to take advantage of good that mixed-income and low-income [people]
views toward the ocean, as opposed to keeping are going to be your partners! So, they were
the original, depressing views of high-rise afraid of it—leery of it. But the fact that they
towers blocking such views. The redesign of were our partners made it happen because
the entire complex corrected this deficiency they could get the political forces to support,
and opened up the streets leading to the where we as private developers could not. All
of a sudden, these tenants were going to see

23
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Governor Mike Dukakis to plead the case and for Harbor Point. At the same time, the
say, “Look, we want this.” Then it becomes a developer and tenants sought external funding
different element that this development wants for the project. Following a series of lengthy
to make some money. All of a sudden, there’s negotiations, the tenants consulted their own
a completely new dimension and one where architect regarding the developer’s proposed
they can very easily say ‘no’ to developers. It’s plan. The developer touted the idea of a mixed-
very hard for them politically to say ‘no’ to income neighborhood where low-income and
residents. So they became a real asset and they market-rate people could live side by side.
still are all the time [Personal interview with Even though negotiations about the diverse
Harbor Point developer, July 2005, Boston]. nature of the proposed plan lasted a long time,
external agencies (including the Massachusetts
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), Urban
Leveraging Assets Development Action Grant (UDAG) and
During the second stage, experts and local Urban Initiatives) finally granted funds.
residents explored ways of capitalizing on the Two separate events, or sets of activities, marked
existing stocks of physical and social capital the second stage of the asset-based process at
identified in the previous stage. Once physical Harbor Point. First, the developer played a
and social assets are identified, then comes the catalytic role in engaging the local residents
time for leveraging them. As discussed earlier, throughout the asset-building process. He
bonding social capital alone is not enough to also took a leadership role in identifying
help residents ‘get ahead’. For this it is crucial and capitalizing on the resources, talents,
to explore options for bridging capital, or and knowledge which local residents could
to find ways of securing funds from sources offer. Thanks to his efforts, local knowledge
outside the community. influenced the street layout, internal planning
However, in both Harbor Point and Tent City and design of building types, the position of
bonding capital (or ‘getting by’) facilitated the building entrances, and also the distribution
process of bridging social capital and eventually of building density on the site (i.e., which
helped them toward linking social capital areas of the site better fit low-, medium- or
(Woolcock, 1998). In both cases, linkages high-rise buildings). See Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6,
between bonding and bridging capital played 4.7. Second, when Goody Clancy architects
a crucial role in understanding the success of proposed to extend the new roads in order
an asset-based approach. Throughout the asset better to integrate the site into the surrounding
identification period, expert knowledge (the context, residents expressed concerns about
developer, architects, planners, city and state security and requested design change. Even
officials) and local knowledge (residents and though the architect in charge of the project
tenants) continued to communicate with each disagreed with this idea, eventually, the
other. In order to achieve equal partnership in required changes were made and the project
this joint venture, they set up priorities, values area became fenced off from the street for the
and goals, and identified what each party sake of security.
could bring to the table. The interior layout of the residential units is
In Harbor Point, the project developer another example of the way local knowledge
consulted with the tenants on design matters affected the design process. Site planning and
and accompanied them to the King’s Lynne the architectural design of Harbor Point were
housing project, which he had completed influenced by the fact that if two single people
earlier, to muster support for his plans had to share a unit, their bedrooms were
laid out at either ends of the unit instead of

24
being clustered in the same zone. This factor power to build new dormitories in 2001
brought Goody Clancy architects to redesign without consulting the local community is a
their original unit plans. For example: case in point. When the community expressed
outrage at the decision, the plan was put on
A lot of apartments were shared by two hold. Apart from the University, other sources
single people who just pooled their resources. of expert knowledge sought to dominate local
Instead of standard apartments with living knowledge at Harbor Point, most of all when
room, dining room, and kitchen here and it came to turn Harbor Point into a marketable
bedrooms down the hall, maybe we wanted development.
a living room, not the kitchen in the middle
and bedroom and bath on either side, so that The former UMass Boston professor remembers
unrelated people can live somewhat separately that at some point, the developer CMJ decided
and meet in the middle [personal interview that “the tenants needed to be trained in order
with Goody Clancy, 28 June 2005, Boston]. to live with market-rate people.” A long-time
Harbor Point resident objected, saying: “I don’t
Harbor Point’s chief architect remembers need to be trained to live. I can live next door
another example of residents’ influence over to anybody” [personal interview, 7 July 2005,
townhouse design: Forest Hills]. Many residents found the idea
One of the things that made public housing so of adjusting their behavior to that of market-
terrible was that you had apartment buildings rate people insulting. Aside from the question
with children and the shared entry halls were of differing life styles and cultural practices,
hard to maintain. But you also couldn’t keep an important question for all parties involved
the shared entry door blocked because kids in a community is: What would make this a
were running in and out all day. They had vibrant community? Bringing retail shops,
no keys so they propped the door open and creating ways that the ‘peninsula’ would not
unsavory types would get in and do deals be so isolated, and really meet the needs of the
and things… Any family with kids needs a ordinary people living there? According to an
three-bedroom apartment and a front door associate professor at UMass, Boston:
that leads directly outside Every building at That hasn’t really happened, and so we thought
Harbor Point—even a seven-story building— that for a charrette really to work we need to
has the biggest apartments and they all have equalize the knowledge and power, and that
direct doors outside, so that no family had to one of the things the University could do is
live above the first floors and every family had to provide workshops and training so that
private direct entry to the outside [ibid.]. regular people can learn what they need to
Second, UMass Boston has been working on do to write up a report that can allow them
a HUD -sponsored Community Outreach to dialogue with the people who make the
Partnerships Centers (COPC) grant to decisions [personal interview, 4 August 2005,
promote partnerships between Harbor Point Boston].
and the University. Despite an ongoing This clearly shows how challenging it can be
effort for more than a decade or so, a sense of to combine the visions of both expert and
mistrust persists between the community and local knowledge with a view to making joint
the University. This distrust has precedent, decisions. The main goal for the University
when expert knowledge dominated local was to help community members understand
knowledge and therefore the decisions made their needs and be able to identify their assets.
in the community. The decision of the new According to the UMass Boston associate
University Chancellor and other people in professor:

25
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Whether it is a land-use report or a needs with the community. So it got to a point where
assessment of a certain type, or how to carry people in the organizations started to feel that
out a certain type of research, if we could the University wasn’t committed, while at
hold workshops that allowed people to get the University they thought the community/
those skills then they could come to the University partnership wasn’t committed to it.
table as partners. We need to train people to So we had to take a few steps back [ibid.].
make their own decisions but there is certain
knowledge that they may not have and that The UMass Boston College of Public and
we can share. It is not like we’re going to do Community Service launched a service learning
it for you. We’re going to give you the tool project at Harbor Point in 1996-1997. The
so that you can do it yourself and you can University and Harbor Point held focus groups
identify; you can take any of the areas that you of different constituencies including parents of
identify that we all identified were important, young children, the elderly and the disabled,
and really put forth a plan that will enable you tenants, market-rate residents and youths
to advocate for what you want and be listened at Harbor Point. From these focus groups
to, because you can understand the other side a laundry list of needs and wishes emerged.
and you are putting it in ways that are very Tenants were specifically suspicious of the
viable. And we are hoping that some of this University. Strategy workshops followed focus
would be a mixed group, too, so that we find groups. The community was divided along
that people from different institutions have age, race, class, ethnic and income lines.
common themes [Personal interview, 4 August Two items emerged from these meetings: (i) a
2005, Boston]. directory of all services that were available at
However, good intentions are not always the University and Harbor Point; (ii) a report
enough, nor are efforts to level the playing called ‘Building Community’. The report
field and share knowledge for the purposes of acknowledged that providing services was not
building a genuine community. For example, enough for the University. The University saw
two months after the University and the its role as helping the community build capacity
community received the above-mentioned and advocate for itself. One of the outcomes
COPC grant in 2003, the Columbia Point of this report was an organization known as
Community Partnership was disbanded and the Columbia Point Community Partnerships
did not survive financially. According to the (CPCP, which received contributions from
same interviewee: almost all local organizations. One of its
first missions was to find ways of building
They just didn’t have a great model for a community and what would bring local
fundraising. The director was working for her residents and experts together. According
PhD and looking at these types of organizations to the same faculty member at UMass who
and the way they raise funds; she also looked was involved in the service learning project,
at the group around the medical center area “they had a beautification committee, and the
and what they were doing, and looked at the garden and artwork came out of that.” An
model in [nearby.] Fenway, too. At the time, academic even offered a course called “The
the chancellor of the University was not really Healthy Initiative Collaborative Community
supportive of this organization, and felt that University Partnership.” This associate
we [the University] were giving so much to the professor acknowledges that the CPCP:
community with what all the faculty and staff
did. Why should we also give money? That really created a meaningful place and started
attitude doesn’t win friends. It doesn’t inspire to share knowledge; they began to recognize
confidence and it is not a good way to deal that there are not two types of knowledge

26
and that they are both valuable, and we all floors” [ibid.]. The decision was to have a mix
could learn from each other and we can also of incomes throughout the development for
create something bigger than either of us can all sizes of units in all parts of the building.
do alone, and we need each other and that
this would be a much better place together These interactions between experts and local
[ibid.].. people eventually improved the original design
of the interior, as well as the exterior spaces
In Tent City too, local social activists and of buildings and public spaces around them
experts, along with many South End residents, (see Figures 4.9 and 4.10). The distribution of
made concerted efforts to interact with each housing types in different floors, the layout and
other for the benefit of the community. A plan of the public spaces, exits and entrances
local social activist participating in the Tent to buildings, children’s playgrounds (see Figure
City project stressed the importance of a set of 4.11), and even the way certain construction
“fundamental principles” [personal interview, materials and details were eventually used, all
19, July 2005, Boston] in the formation of illustrate how knowledge partnership produced
Tent City. These 20-25 principles indicate favorable results, as opposed to conventional
that not only the residents recognized and top-down, expert knowledge approaches to
capitalized on their social assets at the time, community development. The demand for
but they also used them to other ends. These blending in with the South End and the Back
principles ensured the physical and social Bay architecture stands as another example of
compatibility of the redevelopment plan this, resulting in the spatial clustering of high-
with the existing fabric of the community. rise units along Dartmouth Avenue and the
Physically, the fundamental principles based low-rise units along the South End.
on which Tent City was planned prescribed
four-story row housing, to maintain the These design improvements largely reflected
rhythm and a sense of belonging with the rest the practical experience of the original
of the neighborhood. Higher densities were tenants and residents, which positively
also considered in keeping with neighborhood affected the decisions expert knowledge made.
and transportation facilities that faced a major Current dominant practice typically ignores
road (see Figure 4.8). such positive and meaningful knowledge
partnerships in the community development
The social compatibility components process. To the contrary, Goody Clancy
derived from the principle that the new architects acknowledged that local residents and
development “shall reflect the income mix of their cultural and social practice significantly
the neighborhood at the time, which of course and positively affected and humanized
was much more mixed than it is today where the site planning and building layouts at
there are more higher-income people than Tent City and Harbor Point. As a result, in
there used to be in the South End of Boston” both locations local and expert knowledge
[personal interview, 19 July 2005, Boston]. played a pivotal role in leveraging domestic
The social compatibility principles ensured and external resources, and energizing the
that the neighborhood maintains its fair mix community development process. Had it not
of income groups (25 per cent low, 50 per been for the partnership between expert and
cent moderate and 25 per cent market-rate). local knowledge, plans would not have been
On top of this, both sets of physical and social executed the way they were in both projects.
compatibility principles sought to safeguard Having said this, incorporating expert and
the residents against “market plans which put local knowledge into the capacity building
all the high-income units on the top floors process does not end with identifying and
and all the low- income units on the bottom

27
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

leveraging local assets. As an important part To summarize:

of this approach, expert and local knowledge
launched into a dialogue which in turn, paved • Financial management: marketing
the way for long-term capacity-building. affordable housing and allocating 25
per cent or more of the housing stock to
market-rate housing
Managing Assest
• Political management: examining residents’
Once expert and local knowledge identified connections to people or agencies in
local assets and leveraged them with those positions of authority
available from outside, they examined
various management strategies to ensure Property management: hiring professionals
ongoing and long-term revival. The planning who manage properties, and overseeing
and implementation of a mixed-income enforcement of regulations approved by the
community, which later became a model for task force
Urban Renewal projects during the 1970s Property management plays an important role
and 1980s, was not easy. Particularly, as an in the financial success of both Harbor Point
area with a history of public housing failure, and Tent City. “The biggest issue surrounding
Harbor Point was not an ideal place for a new the day-to-day operation of a property like Tent
community development experiment. The City is the balance of market-rate units with
institutional memories of Columbia Point low-income units” [personal interview with
and the social-political stigma associated Tent City property manager, 2005 Boston].
with its negative image loomed large from The premise is that market-rate residents
the beginning. That is why the effective would subsidize those with lower incomes,
management of a new project with a new name since the basic rationale was to prevent another
had much to do with its subsequent success. “low-income ghetto” [personal interview with
Management encompasses three components: Goody Clancy staff, 2005]. Tent City’s chief
financial, political, and property. Financial architect argues that the initial idea behind
management focuses on marketing affordable the design was “trying to duplicate what one
housing and allocating at least 25 per cent of time the South End was” [personal interview
the housing stock to market-rate residents. with Goody Clancy architects, 14 July 2005,
Political management refers to residents’ Boston]:
connections to people or agencies in positions It was a mix of income types. They wanted
of authority, such as the local housing authority, to mix race and income. It was always viewed
the City Council, members of Congress, etc. as being a healthier neighborhood if we could
Finally, property management handles the bring together upper- and lower-income
hiring of professional companies who manage people. Just talk about some of the problems.
properties, and oversees enforcement of the Lower-income people suffered from drug
regulations approved by the task force or the problems: drug dealing, drug habits. There was
board. none of that at Tent City. The management
would have to throw them out. Upper-income
people aren’t going to stand for drug dealers
around them and won’t put up with them. So
this mix really helped to defuse the problem.
Of the things that really made this work, one
is location—prime location, because you had
no difficulty attracting market-rate people

28
[ibid.]. financial relationships that the market segment
has in terms of supporting the property. But
As discussed earlier, Tent City’s prime location we need to keep the property up to a certain
in the City of Boston is a major physical and level of marketability—although the aesthetics
economic asset for its residents. Because of of the property are less important to the
this, Tent City “draws high desirability in low- and moderate-income folks than social
terms of market potential,” according to its programming would be. So there is a common
property manager. The second element of plague here, that there is not enough social
success at Tent City, according to a Goody programming and that comes at the expense of
Clancy architect, is good management. But keeping the property looking so nice [personal
what does good management consist of at Tent interview with Tent City property manager,
City? According to Goody Clancy architects: 29 June 2005, Boston].
They have the sort of management that can Similar marketing concerns were noticed in
crack down on any potential problems right the financial management of Harbor Point
away, and it’s been so successful. We’ve been as well. For example, as the former UMass
working on upgrading some things in the Boston professor recalls:
buildings. They wanted to make them even
nicer to continue to attract high market rates. A single mother who moved back to Harbor
They have changed the mix now. They have Point said: I had the same housing unit as my
enough money. They are going to fix things next-door neighbor, but I couldn’t afford ballet
up. We did the whole front patio entrance lessons, the bicycle, the roller skate. When
there, put more lights and plants, nicer the tenant organization changed its class
materials; and we went and redid the whole composition, they [the Tenants’ Task Force]
play area and now they are going to work on voted in all these rules that you can’t have a
the lighting in the street [ibid.]. barbecue out in the public spaces, you can’t
hang your clothes outside, you cannot sit on
The Tent City property manager believes that the steps, you can’t fix your car on the street.
since the market-rate element at Tent City She [the single mother] said these are basically
is in a minority, it becomes an issue because the ways we socialize: we can’t afford to go out
the development “relies dramatically on the to fancy restaurants, so we have a barbecue.
income generated from the market segment in Fixing cars on the streets is a way people
order to sustain itself.” The Tent City property socialize. Also, you know everybody is out. I
manager goes on to say that don’t own a dryer, so I need to hang my clothes
Since the market rate [segment of residents] outside, etc. As a result, she moved out into
is only 25 per cent of the property and the a very much inferior unit, in a development
affordable aspects are 75 per cent, it is an with a higher crime rate [personal interview, 7
enormous strain to keep those market units July 2005, Forest Hills].
marketable. The only thing that keeps These statements clearly show that creating
them successfully marketable is the location mixed-income communities transcends
[personal interview with property manager, concerns about pleading for certain types of
Tent City, 29 June 2005, Boston]. architecture for people with different visual
tastes and preferences. People’s lifestyles and
Due to -socio-economic disparities:
cultural practices vary widely—especially
There is resentment among the low- and along ethnic and socio-economic lines.
moderate-income folks towards the ‘market; Therefore, standardizing a certain type of social
element. They frequently don’t understand the behavior or norm might backfire if handled

29
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

inappropriately. It could also intensify social Consequently, “a disproportionate amount of

gaps and divisions among different income the burden of utility costs is borne by the low-
groups. According to the developer of Harbor and moderate-income folks because they are
Point: the ones that occupy the larger units, and there
is a constant complaint about that. “They
One of the amazing things is, the people who can’t afford the heat bills in winter” [Personal
we rented to initially were not people from interview, 2005]. Furthermore, according to
Boston because these knew about Columbia the Tent City property manager, “there is not
Point and didn’t want any part of it as it was a lot of interaction between the 25 per cent
a notoriously bad place. So we were renting of market-rate and the low- and moderate-
mainly to newcomers to the city; some were income population.” Due to the resentment
just out of graduate school, one had just taken between these groups of residents, issues are
a bio-medical job there, and all they knew constantly brought to the attention of the
was: the ocean’s there, right down the street, property manager, who is sometimes accused
and with great looking buildings this must be of “favoring the ‘market’ residents” [personal
a nice place to live. Probably 95 per cent of our interview with Tent City property manager,
other residents were minorities—Black and 29 June 2005, Boston]. The property manager
Hispanic—part of the original public housing categorically denies any favoritism, arguing
residents. We’ve made a concerted effort to get that
market-rate minorities and we were successful
at that. We would go up and recruit from large The low- and moderate-income residents have
companies. We were interested in market-rate leases that protect them better than ‘market’
people and particularly minorities. We wanted residents. We tolerate less from ‘market’
to mix the income levels with minorities… residents in terms of lease violations, because
We were very successful at attracting a lot of their leases are much stricter; they protect
market-rate and minority tenants through the landlord and are much easier to work
special outreach for that market… [This] through housing courts. By contrast, we must
almost became a marketing asset, whereas up be much more careful when preparing and
in Lynne it was negative when people would moving forward with a housing case against
find out it was mixed-income housing. But low- and moderate-income tenants because
all of a sudden, these people thought it was they are much harder to prosecute [Personal
kind of neat that they were in a mixed-income interview with Tent City property manager,
development and it was the first one in the 29 June 2005, Boston].
nation. Depending on who you were showing
around there, the marketing people would Consequently, managing assets helps capacity-
sometimes bring that up and use it as a selling building to sustain over time. During this
point. But you’d always have those who just stage, the stakeholders at Tent City and
couldn’t handle it [Personal interview with Harbor Point specifically focused on three
Harbor Point developer, July 2005, Boston]. types of management: financial, political,
and property. Besides securing funding from
If community assets are not identified, shared, the MHFA, BRA, UDAG, etc., they set up
and respected by residents, other issues might governing boards to monitor possible eviction
arise as well. For example, according to the cases and administer the codes of decorum
Tent City property manager, due to financial for the low-, moderate-income and market-
constraints, town houses (3-4 bedroom units) rate residents. As they did so, they established
do not pay their own heat and hot water, and enhanced relationships with people in
whereas low- and moderate-income residents positions of power and authority, or what has
have to pay their own heat and hot water. been referred to as the ‘linking social capital’

30
earlier in this report.

Managing resources captures the mechanisms

Harbor Point and Tent City developed to
safeguard against the uncertainty that is
typically associated with most redevelopment
projects. Uncertainties affect various
decisions, including the types of people who
opt to live there as well as the idiosyncrasies
of the marketplace, property management and
maintenance costs, and even the breakdown
of low-, middle-income and market rate units.
An effective aspect of property management
at Tent City and Harbor Point was the
establishment of specific guidelines for various
purposes by both local knowledge (i.e.,
selected local residents) and expert knowledge
(i.e., developers, the housing authority and
other professionals). These local task forces
still operate in both places as the only official
entities, making various decisions with regard
to social, economic, operational and financial
matters on behalf of residents. This integration
between local and expert knowledge shows how
they can be reconciled, short of which an asset-
based approach to community development
would probably seem quite illusive and
vague. Interviews with property managers,
developers and architects/planners clarified the
important role property management played
in community development in both Tent City
and Harbor Point.

31
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

5 CONCLUSION

The discourse on asset-based practices is rooted of the neighborhood. In both cases, one of
in concepts such as empowerment, community two things could eventually happen: benign
capacity-building, partnerships, and public neglect, or government intervention. In the
goods. The first part of this report discussed former case, government tends to pursue
the relationships between empowerment and a hands-off policy and wait to see whether
partnerships with capacity-building and asset- residents do something about their houses or
building. The importance of public goods in the lackluster business district, through changes
these debates, however, derives from the role of in their collective attitude. Residents could, for
assets in the promotion of community identity example, decide collectively to clean up and
and shared vision. A community’s awareness spruce up the area, improve its dilapidated
of its assets matters because the collective condition and enhance its external appeal.
management and benefits of those assets affect If conditions improve, then the government
residents’ welfare one way or another. Unlike may step in with subsidies or fresh capital
public goods with positive externalities, a investment in housing, or allocations of other
community’s liabilities, or ‘public bads’, types of resources. Government intervention
adversely affect residents’ well-being. in a local housing market, either single-
handedly or in collaboration with the private
From an economic perspective, the point is sector, could help improve the situation with a
to explore ways of internalizing the positive proper assessment of needs and related capital
externalities or the public goods available to investment.
a community in order to capitalize on those.
For example, a community’s well-organized, If a government opts for benign neglect,
busy downtown or business district can be then relying on asset-based approaches to
considered a public good on account of its community development becomes crucial
safe, vibrant businesses. Therefore, if that for residents—indeed, this may be one of the
downtown or business district has a good few options they have to change conditions
reputation, locally, in the region, or across the in their neighborhood. Asset-based capacity
entire city for that matter, it will have positive building owes some of its preponderance
effects on local residents and businesses. to the fact that it motivates members of a
A well-functioning housing market in a community to identify, leverage, and manage
neighborhood can also be viewed as a public their assets. The positive aspect of benign
good, as it positively affects homeowners neglect is that it enables the government to
in that area. Conversely, a deteriorating, observe communities and see whether they
declining neighborhood adversely affects act to identify, and build on, their own assets
homeowners. without waiting for public authorities to step
in. The conventional SWOT (strengths,
Steady decline eventually causes homeowners weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis
not only to lose money when their properties popularized by planners and policy-makers
continue to devalue, but also, at least for does not entirely capture asset-building.
some, to choose, or be forced, to move out

32
External experts (e.g., planners and architects) Had it not been for the difficulties residents
typically carry out such analyses without initially faced, social capital might have been
much consultation with local residents. wiped out and the asset identification and
However, as this report shows, residents and leveraging stages would probably not have
external experts launched a collaborative asset- happened the way they did. During the
identification exercise in both Harbor Point third, asset-management, stage, residents
and Tent City. and experts institutionalized and managed
their achievements under the form of task
This is an important point for two reasons. forces, in the process gaining control over
As they launched into asset identification their resources and talents. This corresponds
and management, residents realized what to Mel King’s third, “institution building”
their localities meant to them. In the case of stage of community development in Boston
Harbor Point, the entire “Island” transformed . Therefore, it is critical for local residents to
from a public ‘bad’ to a public good when have the determination, will and connections
the residents finally took control of their to external sources of assistance if they are
assets and destinies. In the words of Mel properly to identify, leverage and manage
King, the people who erected tents at Tent their assets as part of the community capacity-
City and the 400 families who remained at building process.
Harbor Point did not let outsiders “define”
them. Instead, they broke out of the cycle
of poverty as they decided to organize with Discussion and Lessons
the help of sympathetic external (‘expert’) Learned
developers. This is an important point to
keep in mind in the debates surrounding The conclusion so far points to a number of
asset-based approaches to capacity-building major issues that deserve attention when it
and community development. This stage comes to reflecting over asset-based practices.
also transcends the first, “service stage” in the Perhaps the best way to illustrate these major
community development process in Boston issues is to compare and contrast them with
(King, 1981). conventional, need-based approaches. We
need to know, for example: 1) the differences
Direct government intervention may not of emphasis on the various issues between
manage to eliminate or redress housing need-based and asset-based approaches; 2)
market failures, or protect local residents from the different outcomes each paradigm is likely
forced displacement. Furthermore, direct to produce; 3) the types of relationships each
government intervention can have unintended school-of-thought brings about; 4) finally, we
negative consequences, including disruption need to have some ideas about the evolutionary
of existing community assets (e.g., bonding stages or stages of completion for each type of
social capital). Fortunately, in both Harbor approach.
Point and Tent City, the existing bonding
social capital was neither depleted nor eroded.
The residents were able to identify and then
tap into their assets with help from external
experts. This corresponds to Mel King’s
second, or “organizing”, stage of community
development in Boston,

33
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Emphases removing the physical or visual elements that

gave rise to negative perceptions about both
This report illustrates the major differences
communities on the one hand, and adding
in emphasis between need- and asset-based
elements that made them inviting and safe on
paradigms. Need-based approaches are
the other.
mainly top-down. The idea is that one
party or entity—such as the government— Reducing hostility and the uninviting nature
undertakes the task of assessing or quantifying of the area took a number of simple but
people’s needs. Experts typically quantify profoundly steps in both Harbor Point and
such broadly-defined needs (e.g., housing and Tent City. At Harbor Point, residents insisted
healthcare facilities). Conversely, asset-based on the removal of the depressing building
approaches emphasize relationships (e.g., forms and street pattern, which entirely
partnerships). These relationships vary widely ignored proximity to and views of Boston
in scope. Some communities enjoy abundant Harbor. Emphasis on positive items took the
stocks of bonding social capital. This type of form of a new design, where streets opened
relationship tells us something about the kinds up perspectives on the ocean, together with
of ties people maintain with each other within more extensive public spaces and more green
a community, and how realistic or unrealistic areas. Similarly, at Tent City, discussions
it would be for them to reach consensus on between local and expert knowledge included
their vision for the future. In cases where the spatial distribution of the low-, moderate-
communities are split along racial, ethnic or income, and market-rate units as well as
economic lines, the amount of bonding social landscaping, and even the public perception
capital might not suffice to elicit shared future of using certain types of construction materials
visions. It is critical that before anything else, such as brick. Bricks reminded residents of
communities that want to build new assets or the profound social stigma associated with
capacities resolve conflicts over future scenarios public housing. These are some of the issues
and reach consensus. If, on the other hand, that residents emphasized or de-emphasized in
communities feature strong local bonds or their interactions with experts.
social ties, they can articulate their goals more
clearly and with the least degree of conflict.
Outcomes
Forming partnerships between local and expert
knowledge, for example, runs certain risks due Another major distinction between need- and
to lack of trust and uncertainties. In both asset-based methods involves their expected
Tent City and Harbor Point, an atmosphere outcomes. To the extent that need-based
of mistrust and conflict between experts and approaches rely on allocation of government
local residents hampered efforts to initiate resources among needy communities, they
dialogue. Ultimately, the two communities create long-term dependencies. This is a
forged partnerships for different purposes. general observation and does not imply that
At Harbor Point, local and expert knowledge all need-based systems inherently carry such
discussed how to address issues such as safety, negative effects. But more often than not,
public spaces, building entrances and even this is the case. While broadly speaking,
the design and layout of each building type. need-based approaches create dependencies
These and other issues emerged from long on government resources, asset-based
deliberations between residents and experts, methods focus on capacity-building and
shows how asset-building can address topics self-help. Such approaches help identify
that were important for both experts and locals. communities’ strengths rather than their
This process included, among other things, needs or weaknesses. Once these strengths are

34
identified, communities find ways to capitalize capital) are not enough to “shift the rules of the
on them in order to build new capacities. game in their (residents’) favor”—especially in
poor and low-income communities (Narayan,
In Harbor Point, a developer who had 1999). In this particular case, it took a
intimate familiarity with the locality took a developer’s resources to transform bonding
leadership role in order to secure a number of social capital into the bridging capital that
outcomes. At Tent City, however, residents played a catalytic role in the achievement of a
formed grassroots alliances against their range of desired outcomes.
forced displacement and the construction of
a parking lot near a shopping center. Local
social leaders and social activists played a Relationships
major role, channeling opposition for the
sake of a common cause. In both cases, the Short of establishing relationships between
alliances effectively generated bridging and people and institutions, narrowing social gaps
linking capital. In the next step both explored and achieving economic objectives will be
financial, economic, and political management impossible (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000).
mechanisms. Each of these outcomes derived Indeed, these relationships are those that
from the previous stage and paved the way for connect needy communities to the economic
the next step. mainstream—something that for years,
Harbor Point was largely deprived of. The
No planned outcome will happen automatically; history of Columbia Point clearly chronicles
nor will it happen in a vacuum. Each outcome its physical and social exclusion in the past half
along the way needs careful programming and century (Roessner, 2000). Now, to establish
certain internal or external conditions. The relationships, we need to rethink the logic
fact that about 400 households at Harbor behind the need- and asset-based approaches.
Point refused to relocate attests to the types of
conditions they faced in the first place. Similar Need-based approaches form vertical linkages
conditions prevailed at Tent City, where or relationships between the parties involved.
residents erected tents and camped out on the For example, the relationship between the
site of the proposed parking lot. Ultimately, government and a typical needy community
solidarity paid off and forced city officials to is vertical or top-down. That is, all financial
rescind that plan. Within each project area, resources are funneled down to the needy
the presence of, access to, or capitalizing on, community through proper national, state,
certain assets (e.g., physical capital) served as a or local channels, or government fiat. Of
catalyst for achieving other outcomes. course, the bureaucratic and administrative
systems in place facilitate different means
The difference between the two cases lies in the of communications between government
fact that at Harbor Point, “external influence” agencies and the target communities. But
served as the catalyst for leveraging local and within this hierarchical administrative
external resources, whereas at Tent City the system and through proper channels, public
internal struggle became the mobilizing force resources are allocated and directed to needy
responsible for community development. The communities based on their ‘share of the pie’.
external influence at Harbor Point emerged For example, the funding required to build x
from the political and financial clout of a local number of housing units is first estimated and
developer, who convinced residents of the then channeled to the target communities.
viability of a mixed-income community. Short
of securing access to resources and power,
high degrees of social solidarity (i.e., bonding

35
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

The relationship between the elements of Because what you need is the political battle,
an asset-based approach to community organizing the battles that need to be fought
development is horizontal. Asset-based [personal interview 7 July 2005, Forest Hills].
approaches enhance and replicate network
relationships. As illustrated in this report,
network relationships vary widely. Bonding Evolutionary Stages
capital, bridging capital and linking capital The fourth major distinction between need-
exemplify three types of network relationships based and asset-based approaches stems
in an asset-based regime. Each of these types from their respective stages of evolution or
of network signals something very specific completion. While the former approach
about a community. For example, the assesses and quantifies needs, the latter starts
presence of bridging capital is an indication with identifying communities’ strengths. Need
that a particular community has the potential assessment stems from a deficit model. Once
to establish relationships with external quantified, necessary resources (i.e., funding
funding sources. This can be construed as a or technical assistance) can be calculated.
sign that such a community is not as isolated Planning, programming and allocation of
as low-income groups typically can be. The economic and technical resources ends with
presence of linking social capital, on the other implementation, which itself can last a long
hand, suggests the existence of strong or time depending on project scale.
active leadership in a community. Networks
matter if a community is to be in a position to Asset-based practices are different from the
capitalize on its existing political leadership, or need-based approaches in that they place
can help build capacity. more emphasis on identifying and harnessing
local resources. Identifying local resources
The effort to build fresh trust between (physical, social, and political) becomes more
experts and local knowledge at Tent City and prominent and critical where residents are
Harbor Point is a case in point. This effort keener to rely on their own resources than
resulted in mutual learning in both places. to depend on external help. The next step
Mutual learning refers to the efforts made by is for a community to leverage the resources
community residents and external experts to it has identified. At this stage, bridging and
set realistic expectations, relying on each other’s linking capital will help combine these with
strengths and based on equal partnership those that might be available outside the
rather than dominance.. As the case studies community. Successful bridging and linking
showed, building a mixed-income community capital operations often require some sort of
from the ground up is not easy and requires catalyst.
time, energy and effort. With regard to Harbor
Point, for example, an emeritus professor from Since capitalizing on identified assets is a
UMass Boston believes that: bottom-up and grassroots process, in many
cases it can take longer than comparable, need-
Given all that history and given what had based projects to evolve. Asset-based projects
happened in people’s living memories, I think are not linear, and unlike need-based projects
the idea that somehow you can then create with government support and backing, they
this wonderful mixed-income community require nurturing and networking. In order
between people who have been damaged and for network relationships to survive and grow,
people who just want a nice place to live by they need continuous attention, support and
the water—that is really a tough one. I think active involvement—no matter how small or
that is very difficult to do. I wonder what modest.
an architect can do in the middle of all this.

36
What matters is that the parties involved trust Therefore, it falls on management to ensure
each other and remain active in pursuit of proper allocation of resources and make the
their goals, in the process strengthening rather decisions required to reach the set goals. As
than weakening or depleting their networks. illustrated in this report, both Harbor Point
Staying involved would allow individuals to and Tent City developed task forces comprised
reciprocate with mutual trust. This is a major of local knowledge as well as well as external
distinction between the two approaches. expertise. Management has broad legal,
Leveraging resources provides a context for all financial, economic, technical, and social/
parties involved—both inside as well as outside cultural dimensions. Each of these has a
the community—to do their best to secure crucial impact on effective asset-building.
funding, achieve small but feasible goals toward Had it not been for appropriate management
asset-building. Admittedly, building trust, practices, Harbor Point and Tent City would
reciprocating, and developing partnerships probably have lost or squandered the new
(between local and expert knowledge) for capacities they had developed over time. For
the sake of diversified funding sources would example, Tent City formed a task force which
require strong management. not only oversees the selection of tenants, but
also ensures the percentage of different types
of income groups who make up the mixed-
income community the development aspires
to be. Table 5.1 illustrates the points discussed
above.

Table 5.1 Major issues associated with need- and asset-based methods

Assets Needs

Emphasis Partnerships Quantifying needs

Outcome Capacity building Dependency
Relationship Horizontal (Networking) Vertical (Hierarchical)
Evolutionary Stages Identify, Leverage, Manage Plan, Transfer funds,

37
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

References

Arefi, Mahyar. (2003) “Revisiting the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI):
Lessons for Planners,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 (4), 384-399.

(a) (2004) Neighborhood Jump-Starting: Los Angeles

Neighborhood Initiative, Cityscape 7 (1), 5-22.

(b) (2004) An Asset-based Approach to Policymaking: Revisiting the History of Urban

Planning and Neighborhood Change in Cincinnati’s West End, Cities 21 (6): 491-500.

Banerjee, T. and Baer, W. (1984) Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential

Environments and Public Policy. New York, Plenum Press.

Ben-Joseph, E. (2005) On Standards, In Ben-Joseph and T. Szold (Eds), Regulating

Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America. New York: Routledge.

Briggs, X. (1998) Brown Kids in white suburbs. Housing mobility and the
many faces of social capital. Housing Policy Debate 9 (1): 177-221.

Caminos, H., Turner, J. F. C., and Steffian, J. (1969) Urban dwelling environments: an
elementary survey of settlements for the study of design determinants. Cambridge, MIT Press.

Corburn, J. (2005) Street Science: Community Knowledge and

Environmental Health Science. Cambridge, MIT Press.

Crawford, M. (2005) Everyday Urbanism: Margaret Crawford vs. Michael Speaks. Rahul
Mehrotra (Ed), Ann Arbor, Michigan, A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture.

Friedmann, J. (1996) Rethinking Poverty: Empowerment and Citizen

Rights. International Social Science Journal 2 (48): 161-172.

Gans, H. (2002) The Sociology of Space: A Use-centered

View. City and Community 1 (4): 329-339.

Glickman, N. and Servon, L. (1998) More than bricks and sticks: five components of
community development corporation capacity, Housing Policy Debate 9: 497-539.

Goldsmith, W. (1979) The Ghetto as a Resource for Black America.

Journal of the American Institute of Planners 40, 1.

Green, P. G. and Haynes, A. (2002) Asset Building and Community

Development. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

38
Hordijk, M. and Baud, I. (2006) The role of research and knowledge
generation in collective action and urban governance: How can
researchers act as catalysts? Habitat International 30: 668-689.

King, M. (1981) Chain of Change: Struggles for black

community development. Boston: South End Press.

Kretzmann, J. P. and McKnight, J. (1993) Building Communities from the Inside Out: A
path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Center for Urban Affairs and Policy
Research, Neighborhood Innovations Network, Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University.

Lewis, O. (1966) The Culture of Poverty. New York: New York University Press.

Mathie, A. and Cunningham, G. (2003) From Clients to Citizens: Asset-

based Community Development as a Strategy for Community-Driven
Development, Development in Practice 13 (5): 474-486.

Mead, L. M. (1986) Beyond Entitlement: The Social

Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Free Press.

Narayan, D. (1999) Bonds and Bridges: Social capital and Poverty.

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2167.

Ostrom, E. (1997) Investigating in capital, institutions and incentives. In Clague, C.

(Ed), Institutions and economic development: Growth and governance in less-developed
and post-Socialist countries. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Peattie, L. (1983) Realistic Planning and Qualitative Research.

Habitat International 7 (5/6): 227-234.

Perlman, J. (1976) The Myth of Marginality: Urban poverty and politics

in Rio de Janeiro. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Petts, J. (2003) Barriers to Deliberative Participation in EIA: Learning

from Waste Policies, Plans, and Projects. Journal of Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management 5 (3): 269-293.

Putnam, R., Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. (1993) Making democracy work: Civic
traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Roessner, J. (2000) A Decent Place to Live: From Columbia Point to Harbor

Point; A Community History. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

39
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Sanoff, H. (2000) Community Participation Methods in Design

and Planning. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Schneekloth, L. and Shibley, R. (1995) Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building
Communities. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

________________________. (2000) Implacing Architecture into the Practice

of Placemaking. Journal of Architectural Education 35 (3): 130-140.

Will, G. (1983) Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government

Does. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Winnick, L. (1966) Place Prosperity vs. People Prosperity: Welfare considerations

in the geographic redistributions of economic activity. In Real Estate
Research Program, Essays in urban land economics in honor of the sixty-
fifth birthday of Leo Grebler, Los Angeles: University of California.

Woolcock, M. (1998) Social capital and economic development: Toward a

theoretical synthesis and policy framework, Theory and Society 27: 151-208.

Woolcock , M. and Narayan, D. (2000) Social Capital: Implications for Development

Theory, Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15 (2): 225-249.

World Habitat Awards. (1996) Building and Social Housing Foundation, Leicestershire: UK.

Wynne, B. (1991) Knowledge in Context. Science,

Technology, and Human Values, 16: 111-121.

Zanetell, B. and Knuth, B. (2002) Knowledge Partnerships: Rapid

Rural Appraisal’s Role in Catalyzing Community-Based Management
in Venezuela. Society and Natural Resources 15: 805-825.

40
FIGURES

Figure 4.1. Locations of Harbor Point and Tent City, Boston

Source: Author

41
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Figure 4.2. The layout of public housing at Columbia Point

Source: Caminos et al.

42
Figure 4.3. An aerial view of Harbor Point, Boston
Source: Goody Clancy Associates

43
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Figure 4.4. A view of mid-rise apartment blocks at Harbor Point

Source: Author

44
Figure 4.5. A view of mid-rise apartment blocks at Harbor Point
Source: Author

45
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Figure 4.6. A view of Harbor Point

Source: Author

46
Figure 4.7. A view of Harbor Point
Source: Author

47
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Figure 4.8. High-rise apartment block, Tent City

Source: Author

48
Figure 4.9. Location of Tent City, Boston
Source: Author

49
Asset-based Approach to Community Development

Figure 4.10. An aerial view of Tent City, Boston

Source: Author

50
Figure 4.11. A view of an interior courtyard, Tent City
Source: Author

51
This report explores the roots, merits, and applications of an
asset-based approach to community development. Over the last
decade or so, debates have developed around the importance
of asset-building in community development and organizing, as
well as over grassroots public policies that emphasize capacity-
building, social capital, and empowerment.

This report consists of five parts. Part one traces the origins of the
debates surrounding conventional and alternative approaches to
community development, against the broader backdrops of ‘need
vs. asset’ and ‘people vs. place’ distinctions. Part two outlines the
distinct perspectives of these two schools of thought on commu-
nity development. Part three explores the barriers to asset-based
approaches to community development. Part four examines two
case studies in Boston, USA, which illustrate the application of an
asset-based approach to community development and hous-
ing development. Part five discusses the conclusion and lessons
learned.

HS/1020/08E
ISBN: 978-92-1-132027-5 (series)
ISBN: 978-92-132000-8

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME

P.O.Box 30030,Nairobi 00100,Kenya;
Tel: +254-20-7623120;
Fax: +254-20-76234266/7 (Central office)
[email protected]
www.unhabitat.org