Problem Statement
The problem with the Family Commons at Cabrillo is whether it adheres to the 2030 vision of Long Beach City. It is important to establish if the Family Commons at Cabrillo is in sync with Long Beach City because there had been several instances when changes much affect the lives of people that the Family Commons try to help, in this instance, the homeless. It is to be understood that the homeless have less opportunity at finding ways to pay their rent at Cabrillo and poses the risk of being ejected or thrown away, which in the end compromises the 2030 vision.
The problem has been identified through careful analysis of the social and economic situation, both of land use and city planners as well as the recipients of the program, which are marginalized.
History
Long Beach was incorporated as a city in 1888 believed to have prospered due to ranches established by a Yankee Jonathan Temple further worked on by Flint, Bixby and Co (McCawley, 1996). It is now considered one of the biggest cities in the US.
The City of Long Beach launched a campaign to residents and business owners encouraging them to become active in the city planning, as de facto city planners. They use markers and stickers on a city map to show where they would like to see improvements, new infrastructure as well as desired activities in the future. This activity allows them to share their vision of the city by 2030 as the city government updates the City’s General Plan (Garrow, 2009).
The Emerging Themes called “imagined cities” are reported at www.longbeach2030.org (Garrow, 2009). It consolidates and summarizes the contributions of the citizens to make a foundation for the General Plan with sections that include: neighborhoods, transportations, the waterfront, environment, culture, economy and safety. A series of opportunities await in every section with the goal to improve air and water quality, support for public libraries and encouraging wholesome and safe activities on streets and parks.
Public concerns are generated through community events in neighborhood and business association gatherings, as well as through the Community Planning festivals as they voice out opinions and concerns about the physical form and needed developments in the City (Garrow, 2009).
The City of Long Beach surveyed residents and businesses about:
- Where new development should occur in the City
- What should new developments look like
- How to integrate cars, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians into people movements in the City
- How to preserve and protect the environment in view of future generations
- How to encourage jobs within the City and what types of jobs are needed
- How to balance new development with the historic assets of the past (US Fed News Service, 2007)
Cabrillo is a residential community previously a 26-acre US Naval housing site established to give a chance for the homeless. It is a partnership of private and public entities transferred from the Department of Defense to Century Villages at Cabrillo through the McKinney Act to serve the homeless and those at risk of being homeless (Century Villages, 2009).
The Family Commons at Cabrillo “aims to provide families in need with a sense of independence and responsibility, while supported by an experienced service provider that will provide a host of supportive services to these families (Century Villages, 2009).
Its components are: The Common Areas – clubhouse, administration offices, counseling offices, library and television room, meeting
Background
Century Housing, a private non-profit homes lender at affordable rates teamed up with the City of Long Beach to help families in transition while seeking permanent homes. They broke ground on a development project with the aim to provide long-term and affordable housing for about 81 formerly homeless families (Ure, 2009).
Its project is called the Family Commons at Cabrillo project, the third phase of development at Cabrillo. It is by far the largest and considered the most comprehensive residential social service complex in the nation serving an estimated 4,000 homeless veterans, men, women, and children yearly. The city mayor Bob Foster is said to have commented that “These 81 units for formerly homeless families are a spark of hope and provide a glimpse of the opportunities that their futures can hold. The City of Long Beach is contributing nearly $10 million to this development, and we are excited to be partnering with Century Housing and the Villages at Cabrillo on this project to increase housing opportunities for lower-income households.” (Ure, 2009).
The groundbreaking was attended by Seventh District Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga; Billie Greer, Director of Governor Schwarzenegger’s Los Angeles office; and Monsignor Gregory Cox, Executive Director of Catholic Charities. It promised to offer residents comprehensive services through the People Assisting The Homeless (PATH). Other amenities include a clubhouse, counseling offices, library or TV room, conference room, laundry room, clothing store or storage, and administrative offices. As such, the development was funded by tax credits, through City of Long Beach Community Development loan via the Long Beach Housing Development Company, the First Federal Bank AHP loan, and through Century Housing loan (Ure, 2009).
The 81 units target very low and low income formerly homeless families whose income ranges from $16,860 to $33,720 for a family of four considered 30 to 60% of the Area Median Income. $10 million in financial assistance to the developer has been provided by the City of Long Beach and the Long Beach Housing Development Company to leverage $20 million in Tax Credits as well as other funds for the project (Ure 2009). The project is expected to cost around $30 million.
Inclusions in the development from Phase I is the provision of transitional housing for 182 individuals. Phase II, provided 200 rooms for single veterans. Other provisions are health services, childcare, youth and adult education, recreation, substance abuse prevention, and job training, in a comprehensive continuum of care (Ure, 2009).
Urban Redevelopment
Urban redevelopment in the United States came about in the 1950s to 1960s launched through Title I of the Housing Act of 1949. It aimed at revitalizing the declining cities of the US through large-scale slum clearance as supported by various interest groups. Keyes (1969) suggested that the program aimed to “provide more and better housing through the spot removal of residential slums” (p 2-3). People and homes are replaced with comprehensively planned structures of commercial complexes, office buildings and luxury housing.
Old city neighborhoods were considered obsolete, viewed by planners and politicians as blighted areas that require “major surgery” (Halpern, 1995, p 67). US redesigned its cities according to the “Radiant Garden City Beautiful” (Jacobs 1961, p 25) using Le Corbusier’s modernist concept buildings. Moderate-income housing was produced substantially (Teaford, 2000) as local governments rejuvenate downtown business district and build luxury housing with the side aim to boost tax bases and lift the image of the city. This seen twist was fuelled by the provision of the 1949 Housing Act Title I stating that urban renewal sites be “predominately residential” leaving a wide interpretation for builders, developers and authorities (Teaford, 2000). By 1954, urban renewal had two directions: revive central business districts and rehabilitate existing housing stock (Keyes, 1969). 10% was allotted by the federal government for non-residential construction, increased to 20% by 1959 and 30 % by 1961 (von Hoffman, 2000).
Challenges
While it is the aim of the redevelopment program to improve the declining portions of cities into a more vibrant environment, the program failed and brought only empty tracks as noted by Gans (1962). Marginalized and slum dwellers mostly from minority groups are pushed to the other parts of the city or to suburban areas further exacerbating the problem. By 1960s, both Conservatives and Liberals attacked the program as costly failure of the government and social engineering (Anderson, 1964). By 1974, urban renewal declined.
It has been seen as a tool by local elites to acquire real properties to accumulate wealth to the detriment of communities (Logan and Molotch, 1987). The original aim of building more housing for the poor aimed at urban renewal became a myth (Weiss, 1990).
Friedman (1968) noted that in the US by 1967, the “federal bulldozer” had demolished about 404,000 housing units inhabited mostly by low-income tenants but only about 41, 850 replacement units for the same type of tenants were built in about two decades.
Land Use Element for the Cabrillo Commons
The Family Commons at Cabrillo is an 81-dwelling unit that accommodates “families in need with a sense of independence and responsibility, while supported by an experienced service provider that will provide a host of supportive services to these families,” (CVC, 2009).
Its two main programs are:
- The Common areas are composed of 3 buildings that include the clubhouse, administration offices, counseling offices, the library and TV room, meeting rooms, and the laundry facilities at around 8000 SF. It aims to build a sense of community among the residents. It will also be used for counseling sessions, after-school tutoring programs, and various classes geared around the needs of residents such as parenting, nutrition, life skills, or financial management, among others.
- The Residential Dwellings compose of 6 buildings with 1, 2, 3 and 4-bedroom units and townhouses rented out from $400 to $1,300 aimed at serving the homeless and those at risk of homelessness (CVC, 2009).
In a study conducted by Landis (2006) about the local growth control and management (LGC&M) programs, it was observed that smart growth and sprawl slowly replaced LGCM concepts. Smart growth concept has a softer localized approach to contain urban sprawl, promote infill development and encourage higher density. It emphasizes regional coordination as it promotes housing and transportation flexibility.
In California, LGC&M programs remain popular California with activities correlated with state and regional growth rates (Fulton, Shigley, Harrison and Sezzi, 2001). Landis (2006) further estimated that three-quarters of California cities and two-thirds of California countries adopted some form of LGC&M program although efficacy and effects remained unsure.
Landis (2006) further observed that, “No other U.S. state manages growth as tightly at the local level as does California. Nor does any other state exhibit such a diversity of local growth management approaches and experiences. Because California lacks a statewide growth management framework, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of growth management can be traced back to its local implementation,” (p 412).
Glickfeld and Levine (1992) found that the main reasons why LGC&M measures were adopted are that state and regional population growth adversely affected local quality of life, and it was up to residents to control growth and development locally. Baldassare (2001) noted that upper-income communities adopted LGC&M measures as organized and purposeful rent-seeking, for zoning, as best opportunity to protect rising property and home equity values from the destabilizing effects of neighborhood change. It was also noted that local growth management policies in California cities are linked with higher levels of homeownership, higher population of Hispanics, less transient populations, and the availability of sewer service (Lewis and Neiman, 2002).
Landis (2006) also found that the main effect of local controls includes evened out rates of development over time, reduction of building activity in boom years and redistribution of activity on lean years.
In a case study of waterfront redevelopment, it was noted that the Battery Park City of the State of New York underwent challenges that even if it was supposed to be implemented by 1968, political conflicts have kept the site vacant for decades (Gordon, 1997). It became a success when finally built, however, and “Battery Park City’s urban design guidelines and public spaces have been acclaimed as among the most influential American planning and design achievements of the 1980s,” (Gordon, 1987, p 63).
Another project, the London Docklands was considered as the world’s largest regeneration project of 5500 acres stretching from the City to the East End where the poorest residents. It also hurdled political problems especially when the massive enclosed docks closed due to technological changes. It was criticized for a quarter of a century for poor planning and implementation (Gordon, 1987).
Impact in the City’s General Plan for 2030
As it is the aim of every urban renewal program to improve the condition of the marginalized in the society and within the community, the Century Villages at Cabrillo provides support to the 2030 plan of Long Beach City towards a sustainable, as well as ideal urban place where there is a greater chance for the poor to improve their lives and condition.
It may be possible that as the CVC have posted in their website, the Family Commons at Cabrillo is finished by December 2009, but it should also be noted that there is limited number of families and resident that stand to benefit in the area. There are also more problems that need to be answered such as how the tenants would be able to afford to pay rent, sustain residence, as well as the need to consider the families’ futures, of which they definitely might multiply and grow. What kind of neighborhood it would breed as well as its nearby areas is also a question.
As such, the current development plan should include timeline for land use and development that already addresses future problems. As noted by Logan and Molotch (1987), the space in a market economy inhabited by people and used every day is not limited to human necessity and value but there is a great consideration of its revenue generated or exchange value.
Urban waterfront redevelopments are very prominent projects on physical planning and urban renewal and take years to develop so that management in itself is a challenge. For Long Beach City, there would be a lot of changes in the span of decades that it targets to address its current 2030 vision. Economic, former uses, political and financial problems are assessed from time to time in a span of decades and changes of administration must be addressed by the management with tenacity and resolve that would not sway plans and ongoing developments.
The public and private partnership, however, in the Family Commons at Cabrillo makes it stand to the test of time and political tide. The involvement of private entities adds strength and conviction to the project and development and that it should take advantage of the situation.
Alternatives
Certain environmental, economic and cultural considerations are needed in order for the House of Commons in Cabrillo as well as City of Long Beach to emerge sustainable and environmentally sound. Population expansion, job availability and employment or forms of income for residents, as well as cultural sustenance to improve quality of life should be adopted to counter possible or emerging challenges. It is therefore important that Long Beach City government and the management immediately address the provision of a stable income for the previously homeless recipients.
The better choice is to include income provision both accessible and long-term for all if not most of the recipients of the project. This means that within the housing complex, a means of employment should be included.
Analysis and Evaluation
It is noted that the Land Use of the Family Commons at Cabrillo as may be glimpsed on the already finished built projects and the plan (Appendix), shows a strong advocacy to environmental preservation and ecological considerations. Its inclusion of developing a sense of village or community within the Family Commons makes it socially conducive and supportive of growth, health, well-being and safety of its tenants.
It is not clear how sustainability could be addressed as it was only clear that the tenants are homeless and at risk of being homeless, but with the Family Commons at Cabrillo, not anymore. Almost all their needs are addressed in an efficient manner but again, the impact on the environment, growth of population and future seem to have been overlooked.
It is therefore important that the Family Commons at Cabrillo explore other ways it could strengthen its ties on the Long Beach City 2030 project so that it will not be left behind in most aspects of sustainability and growth. Land use and urban renewal proved to have been considered failures in most instances, leaving “urban sprawl” and defeating its purpose of addressing sustainability for the marginalized within one city or locality. It will be a big disappointment if these things will not be prevented with seemingly comprehensive and humanist process of integrating all needs in a given community such as Long Beach City and the Family Commons at Cabrillo.
The Stakeholders
- Consumers are the recipients of the program for the Family Commons at Cabrillo, the “previously” homeless. On their part, the question and challenge are to immediately find ways to pay for their rent. Most homeless are already challenged with their source of income, it is therefore important that the program include sustainable ways to provide regular and stable income opportunities for these beneficiaries.
- Developers are the builders, planners and those who manage the Family Commons at Cabrillo who need to cooperate and help figure out with the rest of the stakeholders how to address the problem posted above.
- Community – The whole citizenry of Long Beach City is possibly at risk of demoralization where failure in the neighborhood or city planning would tarnish a community they have helped plan and build. The failure of the whole city to address sustenance for the Family Commons at Cabrillo reflects a negative planning process and a bleak future for all of them.
- Government – The Government is at the bottom of the pit in this problem with Family Commons at Cabrillo. It is important that planning for land use and the city’s built environment incorporate realistically and shared responsibility in all stages of the project. The main challenge is sustenance on the part of the recipients who are generally marginalized and without regular incomes.
Recommendations
Previous urban renewal projects have created vast spaces that supposedly address the needs of the marginalized. Instead, the poor are displaced, their ways of employment and income opportunities disrupted, causing a bigger problem than when they were in their “problematic” slum dwelling.
It is therefore important that the Family Commons at Cabrillo provide income and employment opportunities within the vicinity for its program recipients.
In my opinion, they have provided a very noble goal and project, but lack substance due to the fact that it was not able to establish first how the recipients would produce money to pay for their low monthly rent.
Reference
Anderson, Martin (1964). The federal bulldozer: A critical analysis of urban renewal, 1949-1962. MIT Press.
Baldassare, M. (2001). PPIC statewide survey: Special survey on growth. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Century Villages at Cabrillo (CVC) (2009). “Our Community.” Web.
Friedman, Lawrence (1968). Government and slum housing: A century of frustration. Rand McNally.
Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M., & Harrison, A. (2001). Who sprawls most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Gans, Herbert (1962). The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. Free Press.
Garrow, Pat (2009). “LONG BEACH 2030 PLAN EMERGING THEMES REPORT, NEWSLETTER AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.” 2007, HT Media Ltd.
Glickfeld, M., & Levine, N. (1992). Regional growth, local reaction: The enactment and effects of local growth control and management measures in California. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Gordon, David L.A. (1997). “Managing the Changing Political Environment in Urban Waterfront Redevelopment.” Urban Studies; vol. 34: pp. 61 – 83.
Halpern, Robert (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in the United States. Columbia University Press.
Jacobs, Jane (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
Keyes, Langley (1969) The rehabilitation planning game: A study in the diversity of the neighborhood. MIT Press.
Landis, John D. (2006). Growth Management Revisited. American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 411-430.
Lewis, P. G., & Nieman, M. (2002). Cities underpressure: Local growth controls and residential development policy. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Logan, John and Molotch, Harvey (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McCawley, William (1996) [1952]. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles (Paperback ed.). Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press
Teaford, jon (2000). “Urban renewal and its aftermath.” Housing Policy Debate 11 (2), pp 443-465.
Ure, Patrick (2009). “Affordable Housing Project will help families transition toward permanent homes.” US Fed News Service.
US Fed News Service (2007). “Residents have wonderful opportunity to help determine what Long Beach will be like in 2030.” Washington, D.C.
Von Hoffman, Alexander (2000). “A study in contradictions: The origins and legacy of the Housing Act of 1949: Housing Policy Debate 11 (2): pp 299-326.
Weiss, Marc (1990). “The origins and legacy of urban renewal.” In Federal Housing policy and programs, past and present, edited by Paul Mitchell, Rutgers University Press, pp 253-257.
Appendix
