Conclusions on Ownership

This chapter explored multiple facets of ownership’s influence on the way residents consider engagement with shaping the area in which they live. First, residents defined their sense of ownership over their community in three main ways: investment, social cohesion, and change making abilities. Residents who were also planners, though equipped with a lot of power to make change in the communities they work in, refrained from referring to it as ownership, and more often sought out different words to describe the relationship they had with those work environments such as facilitation or investment. Ownership was referred to in two different spheres: individual and communal. Individual ownership manifested itself in stories about shaping one’s personal property as a means of contributing to the neighborhood, while communal ownership consisted of caring for areas that were held by everyone. The financial investment piece of ownership is complicated by the divide between renters and owners, the former of which are perceived as contributing somewhat less. Qualitative data suggests that this divide has less to do with a matter of financial investment and more to do with the temporal investment of residents. This can be further complicated by the logistical hurdles of connecting with residents in infrastructure like apartment buildings and the social stigma that may prevent renters from participating.

These principles manifest themselves in a myriad of ways throughout the city. In the context of vacant land, the lack of community ownership or visible ownership and maintenance over these spaces further depreciates the sense of ownership among residents who experience it. City initiatives to return this land to the community through the Large Lots Program and/or ChiBlockBuilder can further highlight lack of ownership by highlighting neighbors’ lack of initiative or powerlessness. This can cause residents to turn toward methods of changemaking that do not ask the city’s permission—asserting their ownership over the neighborhood. Graffiti can demonstrate to some residents that people do not have enough ownership to care for the area in which they live—usually in the context of private property, while others find it amusing—usually in the context of spaces that are underutilized and not owned by any particular person. This is distinguished from property that is owned by everyone; in which case, graffiti can be seen as an attempt to overexert one’s level of ownership and is not accepted by the community.