Conclusions on Trust
This chapter examines the ways in which trust influences the ways residents choose to take action in shaping the physical spaces they inhabit and how trust is then impacted by that participation or the initiatives of the city. First, trust is generally low across the city, but particularly in areas with higher levels of Hardship. Historical experiences of disenfranchisement and the action (or inaction) of aldermen create a mountain of evidence against the city that even positive interactions can’t completely negate. A similar problem persists regarding trust in planners, but planners are well aware of this issue and tend to focus on counteracting it. This focus, however, has created a neglect for the other side of the equation: planners’ trusting residents. Trust is, at its finest, a two-way relationship and this finding highlights a critical hit in the efforts of building trust within the urban planning discipline. Across both these sections and across both planners and residents the need for transparency, genuine communication, and honesty regarding limitations was shared. When considering how these groups envisioned the approach to build trust, residents once again focused on transparency, while planners employed tactics to make themselves more relatable, and both emphasized a need for the expression of tangible results. Next, I look toward trust and relationships within the neighborhood as a means of change making. Strong social networks empower residents to collectively address community issues, contributing to a sense of being heard and effective advocacy, especially in the context of low trust in the local government and planners. This cohesion might mitigate the negative experiences people have with local government and be an avenue for increasing trust, as indicated by the correlation between community belonging and trust in the local government.
Finally, we examine how trust is acted upon and formed within the context of some of Chicago’s initiatives. Poor experiences that people have had with community meetings dissuade them from coming and indicate to them that it is an ineffective way of advocating for the changes they want to see. Conversely, some communities feel that since they aren’t experts, there’s nothing of value for them to add. These are both perspectives that led the city to want to develop We Will Chicago. While there were clear efforts through, We Will to improve trust, and community organizers worked hard to get the contributions of their neighbors, it also highlighted how easily a project that makes promises to the community can lead to further mistrust through poor communication. Community organizers can provide a unique perspective to planners because their roles are almost entirely centered around engagement and feedback, while it is only a part of the planner’s role. Those who worked on We Will Chicago specifically have even more unique insights because many of them are residents in the communities commonly neglecting to take part in engagement efforts due to lack of trust. Community areas that have been divested in, particularly on the South and West sides, don’t trust the city, even with initiatives that directly state they want their input. The persistence of vacant lots in these regions and the city’s inability to keep them clean are a continual, tangible reminder that the city does not care about them and is not effective, keeping the spirit of mistrust alive.