By: Paola Molina 1/29/2020
I have a deep interest in design. Whether it is websites or home décor, I just like to make creative, user-friendly, and neat decisions when it comes to organizing. So, as Dr. Villanueva talked about his background in urban planning and communication, I didn’t really know what to expect or if I could even relate to his research findings. Having been to Dr. Villanueva’s Hip-Hop Culture for Social Change class, I knew that there had to be a social justice cause that he was advocating for with his research, so I looked forward to hearing more.
Dr. Villanueva shined light on a topic that I did not know existed, and it had to do with the gentrification of Chicago’s Chinatown. He mentioned that there is fear in the Chinese community because they might be pushed out of their homes as more investors market the community as a tourist attraction which put more focus on the community as a visiting site rather than helping and building the space for already existing people that live there. He wanted to make clear that helping a community does not necessarily mean just dumping money to that community to build “nice” buildings for rich folks to live in or build tourist attractions that do not benefit the people who want other projects that can help them in their day to day lives. That is what urban planning has been perceived as – just make nice things for people to look at and attract them. But that is not what it should be, as Dr. Villanueva argues. He makes the case that effective urban planning and communication discourse should be taken into consideration when making design decisions that will affect a community. He describes the idea of “Design Activism” as engaging the community with the design plans, asses the social impacts those decisions will have on the community, and design spaces for the community.
Unfortunately, that is not what is happening with the Chinatown community. Like I mentioned, there is growing fear that increase spending in the community is not going in the right places, and that that capital investment will push away the resident of that community. So, Dr. Villanueva launched a project to create a design map that will implement the urban planning/communication aspects that he talked about and organized a walking tour of what that would of looked like. He started talking to us about this research by giving us a brief review of the Chinese immigrant history (it is relevant because policies like the Exclusion Act shaped how the community has changed and moved as the years have gone by). Besides knowing the historical relevance of this for designing purposes, Dr. Villanueva made a point about the political injustices against the Chinese people, and why it is all the more important to be advocates for those communities so that we don’t repeat the same cycle over and over again. He then assessed the area, gathered focus groups of young, adults, and seniors (translators were present), and together, with the youth leadership in that community and graduate students from Loyola, started to ask what are the priorities that the community wants and what can we build with the existing values of Chinatown’s stakeholders. So he gathered this data, and presented it over to us, although he didn’t went over it in detail, one fact that stunned me was that the youth group asked for a high school? A high school? I though. Do they want to improve an existing one, or want another one added? No. Dr. Villanueva revealed that, in Chinatown, there are no high schools in the area, and that often the students have to commute. This was shocking to me, and it angered me because I could not believe that students had no access to a place where they could get education. I could only imagine all the time and money those students and parents had to sacrifice to make those trips. Now I started to understand more deeply why activism with urban planning needed to go hand in hand – to prevent things like this from happening and actually helping the communities have access to affordable and accessible spaces like schools, hospitals/medical centers, and grocery stores just to name a few. But let’s continue. So after gathering that data, he developed a pocket size map that took into account the priorities of the citizens and essential spaces for the rest of the community to fight against anti-displacement; he translated them in English and Chinese and spread them out throughout the community. Lastly what Dr. Villanueva did was to organize a walking tour. Together with the CBCAC Youth Leadership, he gathered speakers and the community to talk about the project. Local journalist were there to document the event and spread word about it.
At the end, I was glad that I was given the opportunity to come to the talk because not only did I learn something new, but I have a deeper appreciation and understanding of intersecting disciplinaries like in this case – urban planning and communications. Without the research that Dr. Villanueva constructed, I would have never known about the topic, or most importantly, the voices of these communities who continue to be unheard. It is unjust that poor communities/minorities are the first people that suffer the consequences of gentrification. I think about the American values and particularly the one that mentions that America is a melting pot of all cultures and that immigrants/the other are always welcomed. I believe in this deeply, and I know that it is in most Americans’ minds, but at the same time, we continue to build cases in which we don’t live up to those ideals because we harm, push away, or create difficult living conditions for the people like Chicago’s Chinatown is experiencing. That is why I think this issue should also fall on the shoulders of the city. The city should fight for the rights and well-being of their citizens so I think it would make sense for them to have a seat in the planning table and address the concerns of the Chinese residents. Like Dr. Villanueva said, designing, development, and planning should be more than making pretty things, it should help those who are already living there and are in need of resources. I think it is unfair for developers to just come in and tell the people, “hey we have decided to build a pretty and tall living complex here without your permission” is like someone coming into your house and forcefully putting a plant in your home. You don’t need a plant right now, it won’t help you with your day to day life. Yes, it is pretty and adds to the aesthetic of your home, but not crucial.
Besides getting a new perspective on urban planning and social justice, I also thought about how I could implement that in my life. I, in the future, would like to work in digital design and development. So, it got me thinking of how I could possibly incorporate social justice in products that I am in charge of designing. Notwithstanding, I found those answers when I read the article of Grant Chinn, UCSD UX grad student who talked about the social impact of design and his journey about thinking of design in ways that help those who are in marginalized communities because of industries. You can read it here. Just like the community that Chinn talked to, not all design is created with a mindset of inclusivity and not all people get the resources they need. Many times, in websites, people forget that people with disabilities have a disadvantage when accessing those websites, so keeping those things in mind are ways in which I can help communities with their hardships.
Lastly, the other way that Dr. Villanueva impacted me was that the issue of gentrification was something I was surrounding by but didn’t notice in my community, South Chicago. South Chicago was home to a giant steel mill plant that enriched the community with jobs and prosperity. After the plant closed, the community was abandoned and suffers from poverty and no jobs. There is this feeling in the community of being ignored and forgotten. However, in 2011, when I was a freshman in high school, we got word that there was a new development project focused on South Chicago called LakeSide Development. As a school trip, we went to visit the site and developers, and they marketed the project like it was going to be a “second downtown”. They gave the community hope that it would revive South Chicago and bring jobs, supermarkets, and other essential spaces. However, it did not come true. I will paste some of the background history that I researched back when I was a sophomore in college for my environmental science class. Most of the piece talked about the ecological impacts this new project would have on the community, but this background helps understand the situation of South Chicago,
“The South Side of Chicago has had terrible reputation and has been subject to negative stereotypes. From experience, I can tell you that, since the majority of the population here are minorities, many of our leaders do not create opportunities for our city to grow and look presentable. Many of the houses in certain neighborhoods are vacant and often vandalized. Given the negative aura that these neighborhoods emit, there is a rise in criminal activity and people don’t even go near these neighborhoods. These homes could be used for a better cause given that there is a lot of homeless people or people who pay rent that need a home of their own. Yet, the living conditions of these homes are unhospitable and many of these homes need to be demolished leaving vacant lands and less homes for the people in the community. Employment opportunities are not that available either. Because of the economy, not many small businesses thrive, and people try to find work in downtown. Big stores like Walmart are not located near walking distance, so people have to drive a couple of minutes or take public transportation to get the things they need. All of these factors have given the South Side and unattractive look and many people do not invest in this community. This has given this community a bad reputation, and it has left its residents with little resources to make a living.
One organization in particular saw this and designed a plan that would give the South Side a whole new meaning. McCaffery Interest created a plan called Chicago Lakeside Development in which they would use vacant land from the U.S Steel Mill that closed in 1992. To give a little back ground, before its closing, the U.S Steel South Works mill plant occupied rougly “600-acre parcel at the mouth of the Calumet River between 79th and 92nd street”(Koziarz). It first opened in 1882 and went under several changes until it became known as U.S. Steel South Works and around 20,000 people were employed (Kaplan). The plant made the South Side prosperous and the economy of the area was at a rise, “The placement of the steel mill at the mouth of the Calumet River at Lake Michigan made for easy transport of goods and raw materials. The neighborhood that developed around the mill, South Chicago, was filled with immigrants of all types who came to the area for the well-paying jobs at the mill” (Kaplan). However, the plant closed in 1992 leaving a huge chunk of land vacant and undeveloped. Many people lost their jobs and there had not been a project to revitalize the area “With each round of job cuts at the mill, the neighborhood had become more and more economically depressed. Once the South Works closed, South Chicago spiraled into major decay, a trend that has yet to be reversed” (Kaplan).
Images of before and after the mill closed
McCaffery Interests saw an investment in this vacant land and expressed that, “McCaffery Interests, in partnership with U.S. Steel, sought to redevelop the former Southworks site into an exciting lakeside community. The colossal scale of the site and proximity to downtown (9 miles) along with its lakeside location made it one of the most desirable pieces of undeveloped real estate in the City of Chicago, if not the nation” (McCaffery Interests). The plan consisted in “Zoning for 13,575 residences, 17,500,000 SF [square feet] of retail space and 125 acres of park space” (McCaffery Interests). Other positive factors incorporated in the plan included, “A connected and accessible community, next generation infrastructure, innovative architecture and lakefront access, all surrounded by a vibrant mix of residential, retail and commercial space, a new high school and a 1,500 slip marina” (Chicago Lakeside Development). Some of their new infrastructure ideas included windmills and, “a pioneer neighborhood utility system that powers, heats, and cools Lakeside. Additionally, a living lab will prototype and promote innovative solutions for energy, water, waste and technology. Finally, Lakeside will build green from scratch by recycling and reusing water and waste, eliminating waste to landfills” Chicago Lakeside Development). The plan would approximately take 25-45 years to complete (Chicago Lakeside Development). This was a great an innovative idea! I didn’t appreciate it as much as I do now after having an Environmental Science class. This project was indeed smart growth because they:
- Took advantage of compact building design
- fostered distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
- Preserved open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
- Mixed land use
- Created a range of housing opportunities and choices
- Created walkable neighborhoods
- Encouraged community and stakeholder collaboration in development decision
Although it would take years to see results, this project was indeed the push that we needed to bring attention to the South Side. Not only would or economy thrive again, but we would bring awareness of green/sustainable energy.
The project, however, was very short-lived. On February of 2016 the U.S Steel and McCaffery Interests split. The relationship ended peacefully but McCaffery Interests added that the company was “not ready to take on a large real estate project” but that they, “would be interested in starting the project back up if U.S. Steel decides to sell the property” (Cholke). It is upsetting to let such a good project go, but similar, small scale projects could be pushed in our area. For instance, grocery stores, retail stores, renovations of homes could be some of the things that could benefit our area in the meantime. There is still room for investment in this community, but I do hope that this project is revitalized somehow” (Molina, 2017).
Thus, I understand on a personal level how appealing it would be for the community to support these private developers because there are promises that jobs and very needed spaces are going to be built. However, companies do not need to abuse the public trust and actually enact those promises that they make and keep the community’s interest in mind. Like I mentioned in my 2017 paper, the development plan did not even last long and the community, again, was left with nothing. After hearing Dr. Villanueva’s research, it made me think more critically about what I would like to have expected from that project if it was even continuing. I think it is a good step for developers to invest in communities that are in need, but they do not need to create a situation where the people living there are pushed away, take into consideration their space priorities, and not make it a tourist attraction. I did get a little upset with the development company when the project got canceled because, having understood the community’s situation and having the city recognize how good it would have been to have new development spaces, something could have happened after the project got put on hold. Maybe the developers could have built other projects in the area of those communities instead of doing nothing at all I even expressed this same idea 2 years ago. There are possibilities in South Chicago, and it is my hope that for further development plans, developers, designers, and the city take into consideration the people who live there.
Bibliography
Molina, Paola. Chicago Lakeside Development. 2017. Arrupe College of Loyola University Chicago, Illinois. Unpublished paper.
Villanueva, George. “Designing a Chinatown Anti-Displacement Map and Walking Tour Through Communication Asset Mapping.” Research Talk Conference, 27th September 2019, School of Communication – Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL.