A lot of good conversation has been happening in response to Robert Putnam’s recent study (see also: Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, CitizenPost). It’s a fascinating discussion in a broad/philosophical sense—but more practically, I’ve been interested in how recent activity in my own community connects to the questions Putnam raises about diversity and how it relates to the civic health of communities.
For instance, last Sunday, the local paper’s letter from the editor shared differing perspectives of an area of Grand Rapids that is diversifying economically, socially, and culturally. Our downtown area is experiencing a boom right now that will bring new industry and new people to the city. Urban life has become a draw for many who may not have considered living so close to the city’s core (if in the city at all) in the past.
The letter profiled Jim Wilson, who has lived near downtown for 12 years and who questions the consequences of the development… not to mention the intentions of people moving to the city from the suburbs. As he says:
“We love living in the city, and we are living in the city. Not above it… There’s a sense of melancholy about what we’re losing. Pushed out will be the colorful characters, the street people, the restaurants that were tacky, but had real personality, the neighborhood grocery and drug stores. I miss that blend. The Press story, with pictures of a rooftop swimming pool bothered me. Those people live far above the gritty world down below. I hope that these more affluent types, who gladly pay $12 for a bottle of extra virgin olive oil, will also gladly come down from their towers and walk the streets.”
Reading Jim’s thoughts, I couldn’t help but feel a great sense of urgency… as we speak, as the cranes whittle Michigan Avenue into a new “medical mile”, something is changing forever. In one sense, the area is becoming more diverse, but is that potentially at the cost of other, perhaps less-monitored and less-noted diversity? (After all, would the Press really give quirky neighborhood features like those Jim mentions the benefit of the business/economic development coverage the rooftop pool received?)
Let me be clear—I’m very much for progress. But like Jim, and perhaps like others who have responded to Putnam’s study, I think this progress—the diversification of our communities, our people, and our economies—deserves a deeper, more questioning look, so we can understand the ramifications and seek ways for everyone to benefit.
In Grand Rapids, I’ve learned that one of the effects of our changing community is a shift in voting patterns. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m part of a team that’s developing a neighborhood-based voting project called We Vote. A significant portion of our work to date has involved collaborating with the Community Research Institute (CRI) to review voting patterns over time.
As we started the project, CRI produced color-coded maps to demonstrate local voter turnout. We had been told to expect that the city’s core would be void of color, with the colors getting more intense, and in pretty defined rings around the core, as we headed further from downtown and into the neighborhoods where voting activity is much higher. This is how the data had looked for some time.
But when we used more recent numbers, we realized the ring effect had become garbled. The definitive “donut” we had been told to expect could not be spotted. At first glance, some people interpreted this as a really positive indicator that voter turnout is on the rise in Grand Rapids, which some might also positively relate to a rise in civic engagement.
I’ve never been as comfortable with this conclusion, however, and it gets back to this whole idea of communities “diversifying” at a potentially unknown cost. When I looked at the map, I wondered how it might relate to a map of neighborhood transition from the same time period. For instance, we know that some families from suburbs that are more traditionally engaged (i.e., Rockford, Jenison, East Grand Rapids) are moving into the city. As they move in, they bring their sense of civic responsibility with them, and they also bring expectations and savvy about the kind of community and access they need and deserve.
Even from a logistical perspective, their move affects voting and other access points of civic engagement… more residents might mean additional or different polling locations. A different kind of resident (higher income, consistent voter, etc.) might also mean more attention from or access to politicians.
As Jim points out, while this transition occurs in the city, another kind of neighborhood may feel distanced or may even disappear. Perhaps people from different backgrounds, including those more likely to feel disenfranchised, no longer feel at home. Or perhaps their homes are literally transformed for this new set of urban dwellers. For instance, what happens to low-income renters whose landlords want to take advantage of downtown’s economic upswing?
In a sense, there’s diversity in all of this. But it’s diversity displaced. And when that happens, civic confidence and civic engagement are undoubtedly affected. At least from my initial reading of the Putnam conversations, that’s the key point. This isn’t about diversity threatening the civic equilibrium of places like Grand Rapids. This is about making the civic equilibrium one that is collaboratively defined, with equal access to the process, and with shared responsibility for making that process rewarding for all community members.
Excellent site, keep up the good work