Community Benefits Through an Anchor

Contestations During the Planning of the Obama Presidential Center

Dados Bibliográficos

ID6404450
AutoresMaura Fennelly (0000-0003-2631-6006, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, autor correspondente)
Ano2024
Volume60
Fascículo3
Páginas1024-1061
Data de publicação2024-05-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoUrban Affairs Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1078-0874 • E-ISSN: 1552-8332
EditoraSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/10780874231212897
OpenAlexW4388732780
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências citadas42

With the privatization of urban development, anchor institutions are becoming stakeholders in neighborhood revitalization. Cities are eager for anchors due to their purported benefits, but residents are often wary of negative externalities and push for more accountability. This study uses new urban regime theory and focuses on the contestations during an anchor's planning and analyzes the significance of the contestations’ associated outcomes. I use the case of the Obama Presidential Center and the Obama Foundation's rejection of a community benefits agreement to show how anchors can promote a community vision that supersedes that of residents and local organizations. Interviews with organizational stakeholders and analysis of planning materials reveal competing positions regarding organizational identity, community definitions, and racial legitimacy. Enforcing accountability with anchors will require city governments to critique meanings of neighborhood revitalization, prioritize local voices and consider impacts for all large developments, irrespective of whether they are for-profit or non-profit

Accountability · Economics · Externality · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Presidential system · Public relations · Sociology · Law · Public Administration · Public Policy and Administration Research · Urban Planning and Governance · Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies