Main Findings

I will review the findings discussed in the past three chapters. Hardship was found to vary significantly by race, and negatively impact trust that residents had in the city’s ability to work in their best interests. Interviews further identified that low trust in the city tends to be shaped by negative historical experiences, especially along racial or ethnic lines, and personal experiences. Upon further investigation, it became clear that how many different wards a community area is divided into does not necessarily impact the level of trust in that community area, nor does racial hegemony within a community area impact the levels of trust or sense of community belonging reported. People generally expect things to go wrong when it comes to working with the city, and projects like We Will Chicago that are aimed at improving trust can also have further negative effects due to existing skepticism. This can also happen at community meetings, where people may either assume because of their lack of expertise that they have nothing to add or have bad experiences that indicate it is an ineffective way for them to make the changes they want to see. This inefficiency can turn residents toward methods of changemaking that cut out the city altogether, like DIY planning. This is a means for people who feel a sense of ownership over their neighborhood and have the social networks in their neighborhood necessary to act on it.

Residents defined that sense of ownership based on investment (financial and temporal), social cohesion, and change making ability. I found that strong social networks empowered residents to collectively address community issues. While change making ability was a large part of what led residents to describe themselves as having a sense of ownership over their neighborhood, planners (who have the most change making ability) refrained from referring to their feelings about their role in planning as ones related to “ownership,” instead indicating that they felt a sense of responsibility or investment instead. Beyond the mere presence or absence of ownership, there were also two kinds of ownership referenced: communal ownership and individual ownership. communal ownership came from access to and care for public spaces, while individual ownership involved shaping personal property.

One issue that highlighted the difference between property types is graffiti. Interviewees reported that they considered it inappropriate on private property, sometimes wrong on communal property—due to an overextension of personal ownership on the space, and generally okay or even amusing in areas owned by “no one.” Observations made about renters contributing less to efforts to improve the community was found to be less rooted in the lack of permanent financial investment, and more tied to the lack of temporal investment. Renters who lived in their neighborhoods for long periods of time seemed to be perceived similarly to those who were homeowners in their participation. There were also more logistical and infrastructural hurdles to integrating renters recently moving to the neighborhood into the fabric of collective efficacy.

Vacant land highlights for residents the lack of ownership and historical wrongdoings that make up their perception of mistrust in a very physical and visible way. Programs that try to heal these issues can end up reinforcing those negative feelings if applications are denied or residents’ idea for how things should go doesn’t work out.