Gentrification and social capital are loaded terms.
Both promise increasing value through tenure by rehabilitating existing, sustainable communities. Both concepts have failings. Gentrification offers revitalization by relinquishing the existing population as a priority. Social capital, on the other hand, suggests that neighborhood assets such as relationships and vacant space are inherently valuable, though this may develop from exclusion and insularity. The individual failings of gentrification and social capital are supplementary, opening opportunities between separated classes.
Communities’ attitude towards this change can be described as resistive, redemptive, or transformative. These qualitative, subjective adjectives emerged from an analysis of the Price Hill group of neighborhoods in Cincinnati, referenced against successful methods of participatory design work from across the United States. Understanding a community’s attitude positions partnering professionals to empathize with the roots of concern and conflict. Following the precedent of successful practitioners provides a roadmap for engagement, easing the process of coming to understand a community’s needs. When common goals unite the professional and residents, social capital can be built alongside the physical project.