UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

May 20, 2004

Date:___________________

Steve Sizemore
I, _________________________________________________________,
hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
in:
College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning
It is entitled:
Urban Eco-villages as an Alternative Model to Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods:
The Eco-village Approach of the Seminary Square/Price Hill Eco-village of Cincinnati, Ohio

This work and its defense approved by:

Chris Auffrey, Ph.D.

Chair: _______________________________
Carla Chifos, Ph.D.
_______________________________
Jim Schenk
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
 Urban Eco-villages as an Alternative Model to
Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods:
The Eco-village Approach of the Seminary Square/ Price Hill Eco-village
of Cincinnati, Ohio

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING

in the School of Planning

of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning

2004

by

Steve Sizemore

B.A., University of Kentucky, 1997

Thesis Committee: Chris Auffrey, PhD, Chair

Carla Chifos, PhD
Jim Schenk
 ABSTRACT

This thesis is a case study designed to analyze the process one urban neighborhood, East

Price Hill in Cincinnati, Ohio has used to revitalize a deteriorating area using the urban

eco-village approach. The Price Hill/Seminary Square Eco-village is a project of the lead

organization Imago and has been one of the pioneer communities of the urban eco-village

movement. An eco-village is a small-scale, full- featured settlement where human activities

are integrated into a supportive social environment with a low- impact way of life. As one

of the first neighborhoods of Cincinnati outside of its downtown, East Price Hill possesses

many civic and environmental assets to develop into a self-reliant community. This setting

provides the context to fulfill the community’s vision of an ecological neighborhood. Their

key objectives were to create a neighborhood that would offer an abundance of parks and

greenspace, clean air and land, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, trees, and renovated

energy-efficient homes. The purpose of this case study is to provide one example of how

models of sustainable development can be applied at the local level and serve as an

alternative approach for neighborhood revitalization.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Chris Auffrey, Dr. Carla Chifos, and Jim

Schenk of Imago, for their great patience, wisdom, and feedback. I would also like to think

the folks at Imago, particularly Kay Clifton, Eileen Schenk, and H.A. Musser for sharing

their experiences with me and providing great insight into the organization’s operations. I

give a special thanks to Henry Jackson for giving me my start in the planning field and

providing me with invaluable wisdom and knowledge I am certain I will always carry in

my career. I am very grateful to my close friends who have been their as an escape from

this maiden voyage of professional work. Finally, and most importantly, I wish to thank

my family for their unlimited encouragement and support.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................3

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................6

Study Purpose.................................................................................................................................................................7

Data and Methodology..................................................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................13

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................13

Declining Urban Neighborhoods ..............................................................................................................................13

A Call for Sustainable Communities........................................................................................................................14

The Response of Eco-villages.....................................................................................................................................15

What is an eco-village?................................................................................................................................................16

What is an urban eco-village? ...................................................................................................................................19

Why urban eco-villages?.............................................................................................................................................21

How are eco-villages planned? ..................................................................................................................................23

How are Eco-villages financed? ................................................................................................................................24

Recommendations on Creating an Ecovillage .......................................................................................................25

The Gilman Guidelines............................................................................................................................................. 26
The Christian Guidelines.......................................................................................................................................... 30
The Barton Guidelines.............................................................................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER 3: THE SEMINARY SQUARE ECO-VILLAGE CASE STUDY ...........38

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................38

Part I: Case Study Background ................................................................................................................................38

Development History of Seminary Square ............................................................................................................ 38
The Ecological Mission of Imago........................................................................................................................... 40

1
Part II: Case Study .......................................................................................................................................................45
Imago’s Vision of the Urban Eco-Village ............................................................................................................. 45
The Development of the Seminary Square Ecological Principles ...................................................................... 48
Imago’s Approaches to Conflict Resolution.......................................................................................................... 52
Mechanisms for Engaging and Building Community.......................................................................................... 53
The Contribution of Outside Agencies (Public, Private. and Non-profit) and Individuals ............................. 57
New Initiative amongst Changing Conditions: The Introduction of Price Hill Will........................................ 60

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................69

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................69

Summary of Research Questions..............................................................................................................................71

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................75
1. Analyze case studies of other urban neighborhood revitalization projects............................................. 75
2. Set indicators in order to measure progress................................................................................................ 77
3. Advocate governmental policy changes undermining development....................................................... 79
4. Plan with action on a small scale.................................................................................................................. 81

Final Thoughts ..............................................................................................................................................................82

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................84

2
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of the Seminary Square Area of East Price Hill (Source: CAGIS) ........5
Figure 2: Locational map of East and West Price Hill Neighborhoods in Cincinnati,
Ohio. (Source: CAGIS). .........................................................................................7
Figure 3: Gilman's Eco-village Challenges framework (Source: Gilman 1991) ..........28
Figure 4: Enright Avenue and the Imago Earth Center (Source: CAGIS). .................46

3
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Guiding questions for the Seminary Square Eco-village Case Study (as
derived from Barton 2003, Gilman 1991, and Christian 2003) ...........................8
Table 2 Guiding question and interviews conducted for this data. ...............................10
Table 3 Cross reference Table of Recommended processes..........................................36
Table 4: Price Hill Will Action Teams and Their Mottos and Goals...........................64
Table 5: Chronology of Important Dates for the Seminary Square Eco-village
Project ...................................................................................................................67
Table 6: Summary of Research Questions and Significant Findings............................74
Table 7: Summary of Recommendations for Future Decision-making of the
Seminary Square Eco-village Project..................................................................82

4
Figure 1: Map of the Seminary Square Area of East Price Hill (Source: CAGIS)

5
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Price Hill/Seminary Square Eco-village of East Price Hill, a neighborhood in

Cincinnati, Ohio, has been one of the pioneer communities of the urban eco-village

movement. Eco-villages are “human-scale, full- featured settlements in which human

activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world in a way that is supportive of

healthy human development, and which can be successfully continued into the indefinite

future” (Gilman 1991, 10). The eco-village demonstration projects have typically occurred

in rural settings. However, in recent years, older cities, particularly in the Midwest United

States, have been adapting the ecological approach to older urban neighborhoods.

Since 1993, the non-profit organization of Imago has been working with local residents

of East Price Hill and Seminary Square to develop their neighborhood into an ecological

neighborhood. Seminary Square is approximately a 50 block area (measuring street faces)

located in the East Price Hill neighborhood 1 only a short commute to downtown Cincinnati

(see Figures 1 and 2). The end objective is to create a greater ecological neighborhood in

all of Price Hill (East and West); however, until recently, their attention has focused on the

core area of Seminary Square.

As one of Cincinnati’s first ring neighborhoods, Price Hill possesses many assets to

develop into a self-reliant community, including schools, a library, parks, churches, and an

established community of households. However, years of disinvestment and deterioration

1
This study refers to the Seminary Square area as located in East Price Hill; however, Cincinnati and neighborhood
residents frequently refer to East and West Price Hill as only Price Hill. This stems from its history as a geographically
unified neighborhood until mid-20th century when the City of Cincinnati divided the two into separate statistical
neighborhoods.

6
Figure 2: Locational map of East and West Price Hill Neighborhoods in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Source:
CAGIS).
have left many challenges to its vitality. In socio-economic terms, today’s Price Hill is a

mere shadow of its affluent community of yesteryears. Nevertheless, the neighborhood

retains much of the essence of its past built and natural environment. This state is the

setting upon which Imago and the residents of East Price Hill aim to fulfill their vision of

an urban eco-village. The neighborhood’s residents have committed themselves to a more

sustainable future by developing a plan that promotes “natural, social and economic growth

in a manner that does not inhibit future generations from enjoying the same resources”

(School of Planning, 1999).

Study Purpose

The objective of this study is to look at the process one urban neighborhood, East Price

Hill in Cincinnati, Ohio, is using to revitalize a deteriorating urban area using the urban

eco-village approach. Most importantly, it asks how neighborhoods such as East Price Hill

can orient their process of re-development with collaborative efforts capitalizing on the

7
existing assets of urban settlements by integrating social, economic, and environmental

elements. The overall objective of this case study is to provide an example for urban

planners, community leaders, and policy makers of the feasibility of models of sustainable

development, such as an urban eco-village, at the local level and serve as an alternative

approach for neighborhood revitalization. Table 1 provides a set of questions derived from

the literature that guided the research.

Table 1 Guiding questions for the Seminary Square Eco-village Case Study (as derived from Gilman
1991; Barton 2003; and Christian 2003)
• What was the vision of the Price Hill Eco-village?
• What are the “whole-systems” or ecological principles of the community?
• How have outside agencies (public, private, or non-profit) and individuals contributed to the
process?
• What methods of conflict resolution and decision-making have been utilized?
• How have project leaders engaged and maintained participation with existing neighborhood
residents and potential members of the community?
• What have been the mechanisms used for building community?

Data and Methodology

As in any attempt at developing a sustainable community, an approach such as an urban

eco-village is a process, not an end state. Therefore, the intention of this study is to

document a period in the process of the East Price Hill neighborhood and their attempt to

revitalize their community using the eco-village approach. I chose this particular project on

which to focus the case study not only to explore the neighborhood level application of

sustainable development, but also to explore how a concept such as an urban eco-village

could work in an existing urban neighborhood.

The research includes qualitative me thods of data collection and presents a single-case

case study. Yin (1994) recognizes three rationales for this method of qualitative research.

First, this method is appropriate when there is a well- formulated theory to study. Second,

it is appropriate when the case is extreme or unique; third whe n a researcher observes and

8
analyzes a case that will be revelatory (38-41). For the purpose of this study, I focused on

the first two reasons to explore the urban eco-village concept in its early stages of

development. To date, there has been little research done on this topic. Therefore, a case

study will help contribute to the knowledge by simply giving descriptive information of

one community’s process.

I gathered the information for the Seminary Square Eco-village project during the winter

and early spring of 2004. Since the Eco-village is a project of Imago, I began the research

by contacting one of the lead organization’s co-founders and co-directors, Jim Schenk.

Using the set of research questions from Table 1 as my guide, the initial conversation with

Mr. Schenk led me to contact individuals within the organization and other agencies who

had played a critical role in the process of planning and implementing the Seminary Square

Eco-village. A series of semi-structured interviews were cond ucted with Imago leaders,

public officials, and funding organizations. I collected additional data via written

documents pertaining to Imago’s activities in the Seminary Square area.

The interviews conducted with seven individuals highly involved in the project’s

process provided the primary data for this project. I conducted most of these interviews at

the Imago headquarters in East Price Hill with Imago co-founders and co-directors, Jim and

Eileen Schenk. The interviews were semi-structured, based on the set of questions

presented in Table 1. Additionally, Table 2 below provides my interviewees and the

question most related to their role in the project. Because of many individuals interviewed

in this case study had interrelated roles in the project, data from the interviews overlapped

in some of the circumstances. However, the individuals’ background and particular

perspective in the project provided unique points of view.

9
Table 2 Guiding question and interviews conducted for this data.
GUIDING QUESTION INTERVIEWEE, ORGANIZATION, ROLE
What was the vision of the Price Hill Eco-village? Eileen Schenk, Imago, Project Director
What are the “whole-systems” or ecological Jim Schenk, Imago, Co-director
principles of the Eco-village project?
How have outside agencies (public, private, or Steve Briggs, City of Cincinnati, Planner
non-profit) and individuals contributed in the Jack Martin, City of Cincinnati, Architect
process? Ellen Gilligan, Greater Cincinnati Foundation
What methods of conflict resolution have been Kay Clifton, Imago, Board of Directors
utilized?
How have they engaged and maintained H.A. Musser, Santa Maria Community Services, Chair
participation with existing neighborhood residents of Price Hill Will
and potential members of the community?
What have been the mechanisms used for building Kay Clifton
community?

Each of the individuals presented in Table 2 were involved in the planning and

implementation phase of the eco-village project. I interviewed Steve Briggs (Planner) and

Jack Martin (Architect) from the City of Cincinnati Government, who were key

participants outside of Imago. Their involvement was important to the project with zoning

and land use issues prior to and during planning stage. The Community Investment

Partners (CIP) was another outside agency critical to initiating the planning phase and first

implementation steps. One of the partners in this organization is The Greater Cincinnati

Foundation of whom I interviewed CIP Vice President, Ellen Gilligan, to understand the

role this entity played and why they supported the project.

Organizational structure was another component of the eco-village project this case

study analyzed. Kay Clifton, a sociologist in the College of Mount Saint Joseph

Behavioral Science Department was interviewed in order to understand the decision-

making tools utilized and conflict resolution measures in the neighborhood. Additionally,

Mrs. Clifton has been involved with Imago from the early years of the Imago’s operation

and served as a key reference for how the organization has engaged neighborhood residents

and created the mechanisms for facilitating community building. Another key component

10
in the development of the project has been the new project of Imago evolving from within

the neighborhood, Price Hill Will. The Seminary Square Eco-village collaborative

recognized by the project’s midpoint of the original five-year grant that the neighborhood

needed a more citizen driven, strategic plan for all of Price Hill. To understand the

development of this part of project, I interviewed H.A. Musser, chair of the Price Hill Will

steering committee. Likewise, Musser’s involvement in the neighborhood as Director for

the Santa Maria Community Services agenc y, a non-profit organization serving the

neighborhoods of East Price Hill, Lower Price Hill and Sadamsville-Riverside.

Additionally, his role as a participating partner with Imago and the Seminary Square

project was a critical source of data for this research.

Once I conducted the interviews, I reviewed the written material Imago provided to seek

additional information and elaboration on ideas discussed in the interviews. This material

existed in the form of a video, pamphlets, flyers, documents, and articles. In addition, I

researched the history of the Imago organization and the Seminary Square neighborhood

utilizing secondary source data provided by Imago. I used U.S. Census Data to analyze the

socio-economic conditions over the past 30 years in the East Price Hill neighborhood.

Utilizing the combination of the primary and secondary source data, I designed the

discussion of my analysis using the questions from Table 1. After reviewing all the data

collected, I concluded that the overall themes of the case study closely reflected the original

questions. Therefore, chapter 3, which presents the case study, is organized to answer these

questions.

In chapter 2, I provide the reader with a background to the global development of eco-

villages and the urban adaptation of the eco-village concept. The predominant literature

11
presented provides the recommended planning process for eco-villages and sustainable

communities. Following a review of the literature, I present the case study of the Seminary

Square Eco-village project. In the concluding chapter, I conclude the research by tying the

ideas together, reflect on the process, and make recommendations for future decisions for

the Eco-village process.

12
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
The literature reviewed for this case study is organized to provide the reader with a

background to the concept of an ecological approach to neighborhood development. The

first part of this chapter provides a brief background on the decline of urban

neighborhoods, particularly in older cities such as in the Midwest United States. There

have been many attempts to curb this decline, but in this case study, I focus on the

developing concept of sustainable communities and one form of their development, urban

eco-villages. After introducing the concept eco-villages, the next sections define what an

eco-village is, how it has evolved to fit the urban context and how communities generally

plan them. Most important to this case study is the work of Hugh Ba rton, Diane Christian,

and Robert Gilman. Their research and knowledge have contributed greatly to process of

planning sustainable communities. The final part of this chapter provides the research

model for this case study as derived from the work of these three authors.

Declining Urban Neighborhoods

Neighborhoods are the localities in which people live and are an appropriate scale of

analyzing local ways of living. They can have an enormous influence on our health, well-

being, and quality of life (Hancock 1997; Barton 2000; Srinivasan, O’Fallon, and Dearry

2003; Barton, Grant and Guise 2003). The ways of living that occur at the neighborhood

scale effect many other aspects of community living including air quality, road safety,

healthy lifestyles and access to basic needs. Each of these components gives potency to the

13
need for planning for economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable

neighborhoods.

The post-industrial age has seen drastic changes in the development form and

population change of many of our metropolitan cities of the United States. In the last

decade, while cities of the West or Southeast have grown, Midwestern cities such as

Detroit, Cleveland, and Cincinnati have witnessed declining central city populations

(-7.5%,-5.4%, and -8.6% respectively) (Kingsley and Pettit 2002, 10). There are a myriad

of influences on this decline, however many are the result of sprawling suburbs and inner

city out migration. Nonetheless, in all central cities, the conditions of urban neighborhoods

remain a challenge to planners and public officials.

The challenges confronted by local communities are a range of conditions such as

concentrated poverty, youth violence, poorly maintained housing, failing business districts,

unemployment, and other social problems. Proponents of sustainable communities express

that we can no longer afford to abandon our older neighborhoods, but rather to take action

in the places we live. Although facing these challenges, often these older ne ighborhoods

offer a large amount of existing assets including educational facilities, public parks,

recreation centers and a variety of social and civic organizations. However, many of these

neighborhoods are not developing in a healthy and sustainable manner.

A Call for Sustainable Communities

In response to the challenge of declining urban settlements has been the emergence of

numerous concepts and discourses aiming to re-orient the modern form of urban

development. The theme amongst many of the m is the need to protect our future

generations, both in rural and urban settings, by providing human settlements that integrate

14
the environment into our social and economic ways of living. This new paradigm is the

need for sustainable communities. What is a sustainable community, anyhow? The 1996

report from the U.S. President’s Council on Sustainable Development described healthy

and sustainable communities as:

“communities where natural and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available,

sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation

and health care are accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the

quality of their lives” (1996, 12).

Beatley and Manning (1997) describe the need to reduce the impact of the ‘urban footprint’

through practices such as efficient use of sustainable and renewable energies, sustainable

building practices, and minimizing waste (1997, 27-28). However, in the process of

putting the theory to practice, many agree that local initiatives to achieve an “eco-place”,

“ecological community” or “sustainable community” may be the most effective means

(Beatley and Manning 1997; Roseland 1997; Girardet 1999; Barton 2000; Chifos 2004).

Inherently, localities are most able to define their fundamental need, desires, resources, and

networks. These parameters for the individuals within these communities often are most

familiar with their surrounding environment and carrying capacity; therefore, it is essential

to strive for sustainability through democratic processes such as consensus building,

neighborhood groups, and collaborative planning efforts.

The Response of Eco-villages

A global response to the need for local action in creating sustainable communities has

been the building of eco-villages. Robert Gilman’s definition in 1991 as offered in the first

chapter provided one of the earliest descriptions of an eco-village. An eco-village can be

15
rural or urban, however, to this date the majority has been developed in rural settings. The

reason stems mainly from the experimental nature of the eco-village movement to provide

working demonstration projects, often easier to implement on new land as opposed to

retrofitting urban neighborhoods. As ideas and knowledge has evolved, the urban setting

has emerged as the grounds for new opportunities and challenges in providing further

examples of sustainable communities. With the success of many of these rural ‘pilot’

projects, there has been a growing interest in applying eco-village practices to redeveloping

older urban neighborhoods.

The aim of urban eco-villages is to address what can be done locally to improve the

places that we already live that nourish our social, mental and physical well-beings while

providing the resources to meet our daily needs. Urban eco-villages are not a quest for

utopian settlements, but rather a practical, modest way of achieving livable and healthy

neighborhoods.

What is an eco-village?

There is no one perfect model of an eco-village. For that matter, there is no one model

of an urban eco-village. Rather, the many existing eco-villages today, both urban and rural,

provide various demonstrations of how to develop a human-scaled place to minimize the

ecological impact while providing the necessary environment that facilitates community.

Building on Gilman’s definition mentioned in the introduction, the Global Eco-village

Network (GEN) defines eco-villages as “communities of people, who strive to integrate a

supportive social environment with a low- impact way of life” (GEN 2003). The size of a

typical community is generally small ranging from 50-2000, though others are more than

10,000. As many writers have contributed, an eco-village integrates social, economic and

16
environmental ways of living into small-scale settlements (Gilman 1991; Jackson and

Svensson 2002; Bates 2003; Chifos 2004).

The concept of eco-villages as practiced today is an amalgamation of ideas developed

through the years in reaction to the global environmental crisis and the need for changing

lifestyles (Bates 2003, 2). Many eco-villages in existence today evolved from previous

communal experiments. Developments such as co-housing (e.g. Ithaca Eco-village), 1960s

hippie communes (such a The Farm in rural Tennessee), service oriented communities

(such as Camphill Communities, Ralph Steiner inspired anthroposophical settlements)

permaculture settlements (such as Crystal Waters in Australia) and various other spiritual,

social, or service-oriented intentional communities of the 60s, 70s, and 80s originally

formed as communes, but later evolved to be “eco-villages”. In addition to the spiritual

and social aspects, Bates (2003, 58) adds that eco-villages integrate the ecological

component to these settlements as a central element in creating community.

Eco-villages define themselves through combining physical design with democratic

processes that adhere to simplified ways of living contrary to the status quo of the new

century. At the core of the eco-village philosophy is a quest to bring human livelihood

closer to the natural environment. The advancement in architectural practices that

incorporate natural building techniques and modern eco-technologies such as renewable

energy sources serve to facilitate the environmental stewardship approach of eco-villages.

Many of these techniques and practices encourage cooperation and participation, therefore

also embodying democratic processes. Svennson (2002, 10) writes “as a new societal

structure, the eco-village goes beyond today’s dichotomy of urban versus rural settlements:

17
it represents a widely applicable model for the planning and reorganization of human

settlements in the 21st Century.”

The objectives of an eco-village differ from place to place. Generally, a large number of

eco-villages are intentional communities that may exist in a rural or urban setting as a

group of people who share a common interest and have collaborated to form a common

vision of how they define their community. Barry Shenker describes an intentional

community as one which has not developed organically but as a “conscious and purposive

act” aimed to create a completely new way of living (1986, 10). One of the more common

objectives of eco-villages is to provide working models of how humans can live in more

environmentally sustainable ways (Barton 2000, 19). To achieve this, they integrate

various principles of ecological design, permaculture, natural building techniques,

environmentally sustainable businesses, alternative energy, community building practices,

alternative modes of transportation, and other appropriate technologies that lessen the

“ecological footprint” of a place. Additionally, principles and methods of collaboration,

consensus building and conflict resolution relate to the economic and social dimension of

the eco-village and sustainable community focus. These communities represent a “leading

edge” in the movement towards developing sustainable human settlements and provide a

testing ground for new ideas, techniques and technologies potentially adaptable to the

mainstream (Gaia Trust 1995, 1).

The global movement of eco-villages provides a wide range of types and locations of

sustainable communities. In the early 1990s, the charitable foundation of Gaia Trust under

the auspices of Ross and Hildur Jackson of Denmark convened individuals from around the

world (including Robert and Diana Gilman) in a series of discussions to promote the

18
concept of eco-villages. Their objective was to form international networks of these

ecological communities in order to promote a more unified philosophy of the concept.

Coinciding with these meetings was the emergence of the Internet. These initial

discussions led to the 1994 creation of a new organization, the Global Eco-village Network

(GEN) (Bates 2003, 26-27). From this point on, GEN would serve as a clearinghouse for

existing ecological communities and newly forming communities. As of 2003, the GEN

database included over 250 eco-villages from all over the globe linked to the web-based

network.

Due to the broad array of approaches for creating environmentally sustainable

communities, the GEN database includes global models that do not directly fit the eco-

village model. Because of their emphasis on environmental stewardship, the database also

includes such projects as co-housing, Camphill Communities, Kibbutz Groups of Israel

among others. As mentioned previously, many are newly formed villages while others are

adaptations of previous traditional or intentional places that have re-defined themselves via

ecological principles. Among the newest addition to the mix of adaptations is the concept

of the urban eco-village.

What is an urban eco-village?

Using the experience and knowledge from rural eco-villages, urban eco-villages are an

evolving form and new addition to the global eco-village movement. How do they differ

from the rural form of eco-villages? Many of the same principles apply such as ecological

design and consensus decision making; however, the dyna mics of forming in urban settings

differs due to the ambiguity of its borders (Cordivae 2003, 37). While not clearly defined

19
yet, one definition offered by pioneers of the urban eco-village movement has described

one as:

“…a process, not an end state;…place-based, small-scaled, and deals with

integrated systems; …different from other eco-villages since it is connected to the

larger community, not isolated. It bridges divisions of race and class. It offers real

alternative ways to live that are convenient and affordable. And it is a real

demonstration of possibilities. In the Midwest, urban eco-villages are envisioning

post-industrial places.” (EcoCity Cleveland 2003)

In the pilot projects of the urban eco-village movement (Los Angeles Eco-village,

Cleveland EcoVillage, Cincinnati’s Price Hill/Seminary Square Eco-village, and Detroit

Eco-village), the key consideration is how these developments can be retrofitted into the

existing urban fabric. What separates them from rural eco-villages is that they are able to

utilize existing housing, infrastructure, transit, local institutions, existing local job

opportunities in the community, and a wealth of potential materials to be recycled

(Cordivae 2003, 38). An urban eco-village may be a cluster of homes, an existing block of

houses or apartment buildings, a co-housing development, or a complete existing

neighborhood.

As the concept of urban eco-villages expands and lessons are learned from the early

project such as Los Angeles and Price Hill, thinkers from within the movement will be

more able to clearly define them. In the meantime, the definition continues to evolve while

the principles and values of the rural eco-village continue to be applied: small-scale,

environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable communities.

20
Why urban eco-villages?

The stresses created by the myriad of existing unsustainable urban conditions present

fertile ground for urban eco-villages to serve as models of sustainable communities.

Contemporary cities depend greatly on external resources for fuel, food, and supplies. The

concept of “ecological footprint”, as suggested by Wackernagel and Rees (1996), depicts

the significant role of a city’s impact of resource demands not only on the regional, but

global scale as well. Arkin’s description of an urban eco-village’s role in reversing the

negative environmental impacts is one response to Wackernagel and Rees’ “ecological

footprint” notion that resource requirements extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries. The

innovative practices of urban agriculture, alternative energy sources, non-profit support,

historic preservation, community-supported businesses, redevelopment of existing places

or brownfields, and many other concepts help to localize more activities and lighten this

impact of cities on external lands. Furthermore, advocates claim that while stressing the

social aspect (i.e. the human) through such practices they are better able to model more

economic and environmental sustainable ways of living.

In 1993, the Los Angeles Eco-village began what is now becoming a new unified effort

to create urban eco-villages in American cities. Since then, at least three others have

followed: Cleveland Eco-village, Price Hill/Seminary Square Eco-village, and Detroit Eco-

village. Each of these is a work in progress and continues to serve as demonstration

projects for the movement. Lois Arkin of the Los Angeles Eco-village became an early

advocate in the urban eco-village movement. The purpose of an urban eco-village, she

described, is to “model low- impact, high-quality life styles appropriate for achieving

sustainable neighborhoods; reduce the burden of government; reverse negative

21
environmental impacts on the city and the planet; and model sustainable patterns of

development for Third World communities and natio ns” (Arkin 1992, 273-74). This

underlying philosophy for urban eco-villages presents a great challenge to each pioneering

community. Yet, the emphasis on the tri- fold goals of sustainability aims to carry

examples of low-impact living beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood into the greater

community in each of the cities.

The scale of eco-villages, especially in an urban context, lends itself to nurturing a

healthier social environment. Svennson suggests that the smallness of an eco-village

provides a place where people have the potential to feel more empowered and more likely

to be civically engaged (2002, 11). Through emphasis on smaller-scaled built

environments, participatory decision- making processes and other forms of collaborative

processes, eco-villages have the potential to increase social interaction and nurture more

intimate relationships counter to the isolating trends of suburban growth. One outcome of

this may increase what social scie ntists term ‘social capital’. One of the leading definitions

of social capital as defined by Robert Putnam is “features of social organization such as

networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual

benefit” (1995, 67). The importance of this notion is that people involved in communities

with high degrees of social capital are more likely to value reciprocity and trust and in turn

act more collectively (Krishna 2002, 15).

Additionally, in contrast to the less often civically engaged suburbs, urban

neighborhoods enriched with tighter social networks have the potential to address other

issues. For one, eco-villages could serve as an example to enhance and perhaps improve

the capacity for cities to create fulfilling environments for such populations as children and

22
elderly to enjoy more (Norberg-Hodge 2002, 38). Furthermore, the urban context of an

eco-village provides the opportunity to involve environmental justice and race issues.

Within the boundaries of these urban neighborhoods, an urban eco-village is critical in

addressing the social consequences related to sprawl, concentrated poverty, and other

negative affects from post- industrial development (Cordivae 2003, 37).

How are eco-villages planned?

At the core of the planning process is the value that forming a community is interactive

and collaborative. It is a balance between public input and planning expertise. In contrast

to many historical intentional communities where an individual is often leading the

planning efforts, the people who intently choose to live in the community plan the eco-

village. They collaboratively define their parameters through agreement on group values

and goals desired for the eco-village.

The concept of collaborative planning was first introduced in the 1960s by David

Godschalk and William Mills as a method “in which there is genuine interchange between

planners and citizens from all walks of life throughout the course of the process” (1966,

86). The authors added that in this role, the planner’s job is to work with the community as

a public counselor and attempt to include the interest of all the community’s members. In

today’s planning environment, collaborative planning is a technique which the planner

educates the public about an issue or scenario and solicits the type of response the group

desires (Brooks 2002, 150). Brooks comments that one of the most difficult challenges is

to assume that a consensus will be formed in this process, especially with larger

constituencies.

23
 Nevertheless, the potential for progress through collaborative efforts may help in

mitigating this complexity. Innes and Booher (1999, 412) argue that “consensus building

has the potential to break logjams created by intransigent position taking, to incorporate

many interests, and to find solutions offering mutual gain”. Furthermore, one of the more

positive consequences of this planning method is the potential to enable community leaders

to work more effectively with new relationships and networks forged along the process. In

the long-term, add Innes and Booher, the potential outcomes of the process could result

include effects such as creating innovative ideas, community empowerment, new

partnerships, and greater degrees of responses able to confront potential conflicts (419).

In the context of a community forming an eco-village, collaborative and participatory

approaches to planning can be a very effective tool for achieving objectives (Christian

2003). Such items as consensus decision- making, conflict resolution, and capacity building

have all found fruit in efforts of collaboration. As Lois Arkin, the founder of the Los

Angeles Eco-village implied that collaborating helps integrate the complexity of group with

individual “needs, desires, resources, and networks” (Arkin 1996, 116).

How are Eco-villages financed?

The alternative approach to developing an eco-village often presents obstacles for

financing the project. Often it is difficult to go through conventional means like banks and

credit unions as in typical real estate markets. Christian (2003, 133) offers two reasons for

this hurdle. First, the development plans of eco-villages fail to meet bank criteria.

Conventional financial lenders may be weary of no n-standard or alternative development

techniques and practices, such as un-subdivided property, natural building techniques and

composting toilets, and so on. Second, usually in the form of a non-profit entity, an eco-

24
village lacks the credibility as a for-profit entity such as a corporation thus losing

preference to these lending agencies. Jackson (2002, 149) adds that a banker’s

unfamiliarity with ecological features comp licates matter often in the process of risk

evaluation on the loan. They are interested in lending to a project that can resell on the

open market in case of the need to repossess the property. This evidence suggests that as

more models are successful, then conventional funding sources will be less reluctant to

finance unconventional projects.

Due to its rejuvenation and revitalization approach in urban areas, urban eco-villages

have found success and broader forms of funding. In Cleveland, under the auspices of

local foundations and city support, the project has been able to take its initial stages without

going through conventional project financing means (EcoCity Cleveland 2003). Los

Angeles Eco-village and their non-profit organization, Cooperative Resources and Services

Project (CRSP), was also able to work with city’s Redevelopment and Agency and

Housing Department to acquire the necessary funds to purchase its first apartment building

(Freifelder, et al 1996). The cost and financial management of a project will vary

depending on the size, location, and circumstances a community forms. Overall, though, as

more evidence of the efficacy of eco-villages grows, so to will the possibilities of funding

opportunities.

Recommendations on Creating an Ecovillage

There are a number of challenges in creating a successful eco-village. Eco-village

planners realize forming a sustainable community is an ongoing process and requires

persistent attention throughout all phases of development: envisioning, planning, and

implementing. To date, there is not a universally accepted methodology of how to create

25
an eco-village since every group forms under different circumstances depending on

geographic location and purpose of forming the community. Yet, there have been attempts

by a few individuals to provide guidelines for creating sustainable communities and eco-

villages. Two important thinkers within the eco-village movement, Diana Christian and

Robert Gilman, have studied intentional communities and eco-villages since the

movement’s early days and have published numerous articles describing process based on

personal observations. Although not directly connected to the eco-village movement,

English town planner Hugh Barton has also been another thinker who has published several

works addressing the application of sustainable development to the neighborhood level.

Each has contributed to the knowledge of process for sustainable communities and their

recommended guidelines are summarized below.

The Gilman Guidelines

After receiving his PhD. in astrophysics from Princeton University in 1969, Robert

Gilman researched and taught astronomy for a few years including time as a research

associate for NASA. In the mid-1970s, he decided to re-orient his career away from the

stars and focus more on this planet’s problems. Since then, he has devoted himself to the

study of global sustainability and to the advocacy of eco-villages. He and his late wife,

Diane Gilman, founded the Context Institute and the journal In Context in 1979. The

Gilman’s purpose was to research and promote sustainable ways of living (Context

Institute 2001). Through the journal’s 13 years of publication, Robert Gilman wrote

several articles specifically oriented to recommending guidelines for creating eco-

villages/sustainable communities.

26
 In the Summer 1991 issue of In Context, Gilman published two articles that could serve

as guides upon which future eco-villages develop, “The Eco-village Challenge” and

“Guidelines for Eco-village Development”. In the first article, “The Eco-village

Challenge”, he develops a framework of “challenges” for eco-village development.

Besides providing a working definition of an eco-village in the article (see Introduction

above), Gilman also described six challenges to their development: the “bio-system”, the

“built-environment”, the “economic system”, the “governance”, the “glue”, and the

“whole-systems cha llenges (see diagram in Figure 3). The first four describe the ecological

practices to consider as well as economic and governing frameworks that would work

towards creating sustainable communities. The ecological practices comprise those that

aim to lighten the ecological footprint of a settlement through habitat preservation, waste

reduction, local food production, using renewable resources, minimizing motorized

transport and other mechanisms that compliment healthy human environments and

development. At the top of the building block diagram as shown in Figure 3, Gilman’s

idea of whole-systems thinking is that these communities must “get an honest sense of the

scope of the undertaking and then develop an approach that allows the community to

develop at a sustainable pace” (Gilman 1991a). Implicit in this idea is that all systems,

economic, environmental, and social must be integrated in order to be sustainable. At the

base of the “building block” framework is his concept of “glue” – the idea of community

building and its shared vision and values. Inherent in this notion of “glue” is the concept of

“social capital” as referred to by Putnam (1995). Without mutual trust and cooperation, the

premise of community as the crux for successful eco-villages and sustainable communities

is null.

27
 Whole system

Bio-system Built-environment

Economic system Governance

Glue

Figure 3: Gilman's Eco-village Challenges framework

(Source: Gilman 1991)

Utilizing the challenges presented above as the philosophy and “building blocks” for

eco-village development, Gilman recommends his “Guidelines for Eco-village

Development” in the same issue of In Context (Gilman 1991b). He emphasized that

although the principles of ecological and sustainable design are important, the crucial part

of eco-village development is the process. Through his guidelines, Gilman described an

eight “step” process including: 1) recognize it will be a journey; 2) develop a vision – and

keep developing it; 3) build relationships and bonding; 4) make the whole-system

challenge explicit; 5) get help – to become more self-reliant; 6) develop clear procedures;

7) maintain balance – sustainably; and 8) be open and honest. This process differs little

from models of good planning as advocated in the urban planning profession. However,

the integration of “whole-system” or ecological thinking adds a dimension to the process

not usually found in typical planning.

First, this process emphasizes the importance to realize that it is a process and not an

end-state to develop an eco-village. Implicit in Gilman’s process is the notion that

although “steps” represent sequential order, a community must continue to develop each of

28
these components along the way. Once that is understood, he adds that the vision “gives

voice to the full essence and deeply-felt purpose of the group” (Gilman 1991b). With a

clear vision and purpose for creating the community, the third step creates the networks and

relationships necessary for participation and collaboration. He recommends that if the

“glue” is formed, these bonds will facilitate the later processes.

Next, the tasks as made explicit in the “whole-systems” challenge provide the basis for

building the eco-village plan. “Whole-system” thinking involves the ecological dimension

of planning that considers the interrelation of all parts within the system and how each can

affect the other. An ecological approach guides the group to consider all factors that can

change the outcome of a project, in spite of good intentions. Gilman warns that this step

could cause potential personality conflicts since “some prefer to begin with planning,

others would rather plunge in and experiment.” According to Gilman, agreement on

whole-system elements is critical to eco-village development and stakeholders must

communicate these throughout the process.

The fifth step suggests that community members may not possess all the skills necessary

to develop a sustainable community. Therefore, in order to be more self-reliant,

communities will need consultation on practices, procedures, and other expertise to manage

the project.2 This step concurs with the sixth step of developing clear procedures. With the

knowledge and participation of the community’s members, Gilman emphasized that “it is

2
From the best of my understanding of the subject, at the time of the article in 1991, the knowledge of
sustainable communities had not evolved to the current state. As more communities have demonstrated eco-
village projects, the understanding of practices has also proliferated. Clearinghouses such as the Global Eco-
village Network and multitudes of publications expanding the theory and practice of building sustainable
communities have been key factors in the spread of eco-village development.

29
wise to develop clear, written procedures for decision making, resolving disputes, handling

finances, and determining membership” (Gilman 1991b).

The final two steps enter the implementation phase of the project and the critical points

of evaluating, assessing and making changes to the processes of the eco-village if

necessary. He stresses that group dynamics require the need for balance between issues

such as private and group needs, needs of today versus tomorrow, and the balance between

the environmental, economic, and social dynamics of the community. One of the key

elements to the whole process, whether in the beginning or in fulfilling the plan according

to Gilman is to always be open and honest. By this, he warns that if such problems as

power struggles interfere with the ideals of the community, the group must be honest and

open to address this by reformulating its initial ideals. As a result, this reinforces the

importance of the earlier steps of how to resolve conflicts and decision- making, and most

importantly, maintaining and developing its vision.

The Christian Guidelines

Since 1993, Diana Christian has been the editor of Communities magazine, another

source of promoting community living and key contributor to the knowledge of eco-village

development (Christian 2003). Apart from her role as editor, she is a resident of

Earthhaven Eco-village in the foothills of western North Carolina. In her time as editor of

Communities, she has visited and researched eco-villages and intentional communities

across the United States. Through her interviews and experiences, she has developed an

understanding of the patterns of what makes eco-villages successful. In 2003, Christia n

consolidated her findings in her book Creating Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow

30
Ecovillages and Intentional Communities. Adding to previous publications (Christian

1999), Christian outlines her recommendations for developing eco-villages.

Differing somewhat from Barton and Gilman, Christian’s recommendations reflect the

empirical patterns of how a lack of clear processes has been at the root of failing projects.

Through her years writing about and visiting various eco-village communities, she has

observed that the majority of eco-village developments fail because of what she calls

“structural conflict”. She describes these as:

“problems that arise when founders don’t explicitly put certain processes in place or

make certain important decisions at the outset, creating one or more omissions in

their organizational structure” (Christian 2003, 7).

On the other hand, the successful communities form by following what she defines as the

critical elements to avoiding this “structural conflict”. These include: 1) identify the vision

and create a Vision Statement; 2) gain the knowledge needed to complete task; 3) decide

decision- making processes; 4) put agreements in writing; 5) decide conflict resolution

methods; 6) select emotionally mature leaders and members (Gilman 1999; 2003, 7-8).

The importance of adhering to steps such as these, Christian notes, will aid in mitigating

the threat of breaking the inertia of community building.

Reflecting on the first element, without a vision and some thing to fall back on, there is

no identification of core community values. This serves the community in much the same

way as a mission statement serves a group or corporation. It defines the philosophy of the

community and is the unifying statement that the consensus of the group agrees to. Often

times, an eco-village is formed in reaction to some crisis or unsustainable way of living,

therefore the vision expresses a shared idea of the future as a solution to the existing

31
problem. An example of a vision statement is the charter of the movement’s principle

organization, GEN, which states: “We envision a planet of diverse cultures of all life

united in creating communities in harmony with each other and the Earth, while meeting

the needs of this and fut ure generations” (GEN 2003). Vision statements such as this are

critical to the course of commitment and action the group will take in the future of the eco-

village’s development.

The next important element is the governing and institutional frameworks which the

community will develop and operate, or what Christian refers to as the “know what you

need to know”. This will include everything from the legal structures for land ownership,

knowledge of the local zoning or land use laws, the financing and real estate dimension of

the project, the budget, site plans, and the development of methods to constructively deal

with conflict (Christian 1999, 187). It is at this step where forming communities work with

local governments and institutions to gain support and to understand what barriers or

opportunities exist in implementing their vision. Frieifelder, Baker, and Lafer (1996)

discovered how certain eco-villages have overcome the barriers of laws and regulations.

Depending on the jurisdiction, they recognized that many communities have found local

planning commissions and councils willing to work with them by allowing “appropriate”

technologies and design techniques by either providing easements or writing them into the

accommodating codes. For example, some eco-villages have been permitted by taking

advantage of such zoning tools as planned unit developments (PUDs) and performance

zoning mechanisms. Often though, many eco-villages with innovative technologies have

been planned in rural settings where almost anything is allowed. Even with a solid vision

32
and a core of motivated people, without these complex and critical elements of the

community realization would otherwise allow the idea of community to remain a discourse.

The final three elements as outlined by Christian can be described as the group

processes and the dynamics involved in the interpersonal relationships within the

community. Decision- making processes, agreements, and membership attraction and

attainment are all functions of strong communication. The history of intentional

communities has proven that in order to sustain one, consensus agreement is critical.

Shenker (1986) refers to as the conflict between communal adherence and individualism.

He adds that the individual needs to see themselves as a “means to an end” in their own

right in order to contribute to the collective effort (247). Oriented on idealism and

ideology, communities such as eco-villages must focus significant attention on conflict

resolution in order to hold the ‘glue’ together and use community as an empowerment tool

for individuals as referred to by Gilman (1991).

The Barton Guidelines

Barton’s contributions to the sustainable communities literature has been through his

research with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Healthy Cities program and

through his co-authorship in publications like Healthy Urban Planning (2000), Sustainable

Communities: the Potential for Eco-Neighborhoods (2000), and Shaping Neighborhoods:

A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality (Barton, Grant, and Guise 2003). In the

latter publication, Barton outlines a seven-stage process for planning neighborhoods based

on an integrated and collaborative planning process. His work and research has been

mainly focused on the European and British context, however, his ideas and principals are

easily transferable to an American context.

33
 The key to creating sustainable neighborhoods, according to Barton and his co-authors,

Marcus Grant and Richard Guise, is the active commitment of local stakeholders (2003,

42). They describe a seven-stage process intending to be rational in process, inclusive in

participation, transparent in information flow, and effective in being actualized. These

seven stages recommended are 1) taking an initiative; 2) defining a shared vision; 3)

understanding the locality; 4) developing ideas; 5) agreeing a coordinated program; 6)

taking action; and 7) learning lessons (44-46). These seven “stages”, similar to Gilman’s

steps, move the project from its inception or visioning phase, to planning, and on into the

implementation phase. Barton, Grant, and Guise advise that once the scope, purpose, and

goals of the project are outlined, it is critical to get the potential partners, i.e. the

neighborhood residents, to ‘buy into’ it.

Once agreeing upon the visioning stages through collaborative efforts, the creation of

the plan requires an understanding of the locality and development of ideas. Under this

process, a neighborhood appraisal facilitates understanding the locality. A neighborhood

appraisal is “a systematic review of the attributes, problems and potential of an area,

undertaken as an essential part of neighborhood plan- making or a major development

proposal” (58). The appraisal encompasses a holistic evaluation for the neighborhood to

know what strengths and weaknesses it has to build upon and to understand what policies,

stakeholders, data, and the social, environmental, and economic dimensions required to

create a sustainable neighborhood. As this appraisal is developed, Barton, Grant, and

Guise infer that the stage of ‘developing ideas’ can occur simultaneously. This will include

choosing the best options for implementation through a collaborative process from which

individuals and involved stakeholders mutually benefit. The key concern here, as the

34
authors suggest, is to create a plan and any accompanying policies that reconciles any

differences in order to fulfill social, environmental, and economic priorities (63). After a

process of due consultation with all partners, the project should be ready for commitments

from within and outside the neighborhood for proceeding with its plan. The final two

stages represent the incremental processes required to sustain the project’s impleme ntation

stage over an extended period. The critical element here is the review and evaluation of the

efficacy of the strategy taken, decision-making processes, and processes to resolve of any

issues hindering the plan (46).

The elements and steps of eco-village and sustainable community development as

identified by Barton, Gilman, and Christian present very complex and challenging items for

community stakeholders to address. Table 3 below gives a cross-reference of their

recommended steps and eleme nts. The challenge to achieve a perfect model has yet to be

reached according to the literature, yet by following these elements such as espoused by

Barton, Gilman, and Christian helps assure a good planning process.

First, common is developing a vision and determining the goals of sustainability for the

community. Second, build capacity through, neighborhood, institutional, and other

supportive means for the community to develop. This will include working with the local

residents, the local government, and any other key institutions that will benefit mutually

through collaborative efforts. Third, it is important to define the governing processes in the

beginning. This will help to avoid potential conflicts in the future, facilitate decision-

making and in turn, create a more sustainable community. These measures alone are not

sufficient and must follow the whole-system thinking as Gilman suggests. This may

require revisiting the processes defined by the community and redeveloping them if

35
necessary. The overall consideration, as the authors discussed above have emphasized, is

the fact that forming sustainable communities is not an end product but a process towards

sustainability.

Table 3: Cross Reference Table of Recomme nded Processes.

Recommended Guidelines to Planning and Developing Eco-villages and Sustainable Communities

Barton’s steps to creating
Gilman’s steps to eco-village development Christian’s elements to avoiding “structural
sustainable neighborhoods
(1991) conflict” (2003)
(2003)
1. Identify the vision and create a Vision
1. Taking the initiative 1. Recognize it will be a journey
Statement
2. Defining a shared vision 2. Develop a vision - and keep developing it 2. Gain the knowledge needed to complete task

3. Understanding locality 3. Build relationships and bonding 3. Decide decision-making process

4. Developing ideas 4. Make the whole-system challenge explicit

4. Put agreements in writing
5. Agreeing on a coordinated
5. Get help - to become more self-reliant 5. Decide conflict resolution methods
program
6. Taking action 6. Develop clear procedures
6. Select emotionally mature leaders and
7. Maintain balance – sustainably members
7.Learning lessons
8. Be open and honest

In summary, the literature on planning sustainable communities and eco-villages is still

evolving. The movement for this model of development is still young. As more

communities continue attempting approaches as discussed in this chapter, a greater

knowledge will certainly emerge. It is important for scholars and practitioners to observe

the evolvement of this practice and to continue researching examples for best practices. On

the community level, leaders of neighborhood organizations and community-based

organizations must learn about the developing resources, tools, and methods used for

envisioning, planning, and implementing sustainable communities. Further, the ecological

element of this approach provides a unique perspective to conventional planning process.

By understanding the interrelation of all factors in complex urban ecosystems, planners can

better address issues that hinder healthy urban settlements.

36
 Lastly, the review of Barton, Gilman, and Christian were critical to my research project.

Their methodology and insight provided me with a model for this thesis. The limitation on

examples of previous case studies on the concept of urban eco-villages provides a

challenge to my work. Therefore, it is my desire to provide at least one example of

analyzing models of sustainable development at the local level. With successful examples,

approaches such as urban eco-villages may be one solution to many of the problems

currently impeding urban neighborhood revitalization.

37
 CHAPTER 3: THE SEMINARY SQUARE ECO-VILLAGE CASE STUDY

Introduction

This chapter documents the process that Imago and Price Hill residents have undergone

in order to create an ecological neighborhood. This chapter is divided into two parts. The

first part provides the historical context and how the Seminary Square area of the East Price

Hill neighborhood and the lead organization for the eco-village, Imago, has evolved to their

current state. The second part includes the final sections that will report findings from

interviews conducted with the founders of Imago and the visionaries behind the Seminary

Square Eco-Village. These final sections describe Imago’s eco-village vision, how they

developed their ecological principles, what approaches to conflict resolution they included,

what mechanisms they used for decision making and building community, and who has

been involved (internally and externally) in the various stages of their project. In the

process of gathering this data, I discovered that evolving neighborhood conditions altered

Imago’s approach. The last section describes the new direction. It is important to know

that this case study does not present a chronology of events. Rather, it represents responses

corresponding to the planning process. Therefore, at the conclusion of this chapter, I have

provided a timeline of key events in the development of the Seminary Square Eco-village.

Part I: Case Study Background

Development History of Seminary Square

Seminary Square includes the area bounded by Glenway, Grand, West Eighth, and

McPherson Avenues in East Price Hill (Figure 1, pg. 5). This sub-area was named as such

because Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary (1848-1901) and Cincinnati Bible Seminary (1924-

1954) once stood prominently within these boundaries (Geiger 1999, 6). Mount Saint

38
Mary’s Seminary, located at what is now the corner of Grand and Warsaw Avenues, was

the first Catholic seminary built west of the Allegheny Mountains. It served to train

Roman Catholic men for the priesthood. After moving the seminary to its current location

in Mount Washington in 1904, a neighborhood on the eastern side of Cincinnati, the

building stood occupied by the Sisters of Good Shepard until 1959. Under the Sisters of

Good Shepard, it operated as a school for young orphaned and delinquent girls. The

structure and site succumbed to real estate interests in 1960 and was razed for the

construction of a new upscale apartment complex.

The Cincinnati Bible College, formally known as the Cincinnati Bible Seminary, was

also originally located in the area located between Grand, Maryland, and Chateau Avenues

from 1924 to 1954. Unlike Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, it contained housing and

meeting spaces in an assemblage of existing mansions along these streets. In 1939, the

seminary purchased its current property at 2700 Glenway and eventually moved its

facilities to that site in the early 1950s. The collection of homes along Grand, Maryland,

and Chateau Avenues was eventually sold during the 1960s and subsequently razed for the

construction of apartment complexes.

After the 1950s, East Price Hill began seeing a shift from its traditional homogeneous

white, Catholic population to a more racially and socio-economically diverse population.

Children of neighborhood families moved away and a growing number of lower-income

residents moved in. Despite pockets of more affluent residents taking advantage of

downtown views from the neighborhood’s eastern hillsides, the neighborhood continued its

decline from the 1960s onward (Giglierano and Overmyer 1988, 140-141). It has sustained

decline throughout the last 30 years and includes a population that has statistically

39
demonstrated populations who “struggle to make ends meet” (Maloney 1997, 9). As of the

1990 U.S. Census, East Price Hill had the largest concentration of poor whites in

Cincinnati. Additionally, the area saw a tremendous 5333% increase in African Americans

population between 1970 and 2000. This large number reflects the change most

dramatically occurring between 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, when African Americans had

jumped from 8% to 21% of East Price Hill residents. At the same time, its overall poverty

rates have remained stable, but there was a shift in trends for poverty rates among whites

and blacks. Between 1990 and 2000, poverty rates for African American families slightly

increased to 9% (previously 6%), while the rates for white families saw a reversal in

poverty, down 8% from 20% in 1990 (U.S. Census 2000). Seminary Square lies at the core

of the neighborhood and encompasses many of the ills that plague the vitality of the area.

These socio-economic trends combined with an aging, deteriorating housing stock, failing

business district, and a rise in petty crime serve as the challenging context for which Imago

initiated their eco-village dream.

The Ecological Mission of Imago

The main function of Imago has been to promote environmental stewardship and

community building centered on this focus. In 1978, a small group of Price Hill residents

concerned about energy consumption patterns and environmental issues of global concern

formed the environmental education organization, Imago, Inc. Their goal was to address

more sustainable ways of living and to help educate the public through civic involvement

and outreach programs. Through the early years, they used the Price Hill neighborhood,

and Enright Avenue, where founding members of the organization lived, as a laboratory to

focus their efforts. The 1994 opening of the Earth Center, also on Enright Avenue, would

40
serve as a center for ecological education through demonstration projects, outdoor

ecological education programs for schoolchildren. In addition, residents on Enright

Avenue hosted Imago workshops and seminars that focused on aspects of sustainable

living.

Members of Imago understood that in order to make an impact on community, they

must become more civically involved. As a result, they quietly organized to participate in

as many civic organizations as possible. They felt that establishing Imago as the sole

organization promoting environmental responsibility would be difficult with civic life and

the turf issues attached. Therefore, by going to the East Price Hill Community Council and

asking them to ‘sign on’ to the ecological concept, they hoped to gain gradual support.

However, tension with business leaders and other community leaders existed early on,

possibly due to a perception of the idea as being too “tree-hugger”. Kay Clifton recalls that

environmental objectives left some of the business people a “little uncomfortable ” (2004).

Imago realized, though, this reaction could be overcome if the aspect of community

building was emphasized.

Out of years of discussions and a desire to improve the neighborhood, individuals such

as Jim and Eileen Schenk and other Imago members began envisioning together what an

ecologically sustainable neighborhood may involve. They recognized that nearly half of

Price Hill’s (East and West) land area was made up of green infrastructure in the form of

woods, street trees, parks, open green space, and cemeteries. In addition to this, as an older

established urban neighborhood, schools, libraries, churches, business districts, and many

other civic institutions were a significant part of the area’s urban fabric. It was here that the

41
idea to build upon these assets would serve as the foundation for the Seminary Square Eco-

Village (J. Schenk 2004).

In 1998 a grant opportunity presented to all city neighborhoods through the ‘Community

Investment Partners’ of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation provided a great opportunity for

Imago to realize their dream of the eco-village. The CIP’s approach focused on aiding

neighborhoods that have experienced rapid social and economic changes. With the

financial support and flexibility of the CIP grant, it was the CIP’s goal to aid committed

neighborhoods in becoming a positive example for other Cincinnati neighborhoods in

renewal and growth. Neighborhoods chosen for this grant money had to demonstrate a

comprehensive approach addressing economic, physical, and social issues collaboratively

amongst neighborhood civic organizations, potential for residential civic engagement, the

ability to make financial and technical connections, and provide the capacity to get things

done. The leaders of Imago felt their previous projects of promoting energy efficiency, tree

planting, and other ecological education programs in the neighborhood, the partnerships

developed, and their future vision would be a solid foundation to apply for the grant (E.

Schenk 2004).

Imago leaders such as Jim and Eileen Schenk and Kay Clifton met with all the

organizations they were involved with and formed a committee to help develop the

proposal for the grant. They understood, though, that many of the people they were

meeting with did not completely share the vision of an eco-neighborhood. They were

heads of civic clubs, historical societies, church leaders, and organizations that had

specialized focuses not particularly oriented to the ecological realm. As Eileen Schenk

42
reflected, “nobody else had a vision of the neighborhood– this is Imago’s vision, how can

we tweak it” (2004). Even more, there was opposition to Imago’s idea. For example, it

was particularly difficult to convince the president of the East Price Hill Community

Council to support the vision, eventually leading to a fall out due to his desire to have high-

end development without the inclusion of eco-development. Although there was not the

complete ‘buy- into’ of greening Price Hill as Imago envisioned. Nevertheless, there was a

general respect from the original committee of partners for Imago’s efforts and energy to

improve the conditions of the neighborhood.

Based on the Imago’s previous demonstration of community building, the Community

Investment Partners (CIP) rewarded Imago as the lead organization of the Community

Partners with a grant in 1998 in the amount of $100,000 each year for 5 years until 2003

(J. Schenk 2004). The fact that the East Price Hill neighborhood had assets of strong

neighborhood organizations including churches, Imago, and Santa Maria Community

Services among others and that Imago had developed partnerships with many of these

organizations, their vision was the type that the CIP was seeking as its recipient. Most

importantly, what Imago demonstrated most poignantly was that it had strength in civic

engagement and a vision for future development.

With the awarded money, Imago launched a plan to capitalize on its assets of an existing

green infrastructure (parks, trees, open space), civic organizations (schools, churches,

service agencies), and built environment (housing, street and pedestrian network, business

district) as the basis for converting Seminary Square into an ecologically sustainable

neighborhood. Imago decided to focus on these assets of the neighborhood, rather than the

conventional community development model of addressing needs, problems, and

43
weaknesses. Additionally, since this section of East Price Hill is an urban neighborhood,

they hoped the progress made there would be readily transferable to other urban

communities.

As they would discover, these efforts proved to be difficult. Conditions in the

neighborhood continued to show signs of decline. Though certain demographic statistics

such as unemployment and poverty rates remained stable or showed no signs of a

significant shift, other statistical indicators show change. Homeownership rates dropped,

school dropout rates rose, and other socio-economic indicators showed that it was a

neighborhood in decline.

The neighborhood decline described previously limited the investment and commitment

Imago had hoped to attract. During the first five years, Imago produced various

demonstrations of improvements throughout the Seminary Square area they hoped would

spurn neighborhood re- investment such as various beautification projects, litter mitigation,

recycling promotion, home renovations, façade improvements along the Warsaw Avenue

business district and tree planting endeavors. Despite these efforts, Imago recognized that

something was missing. Out of evaluating their mid point progress on the CIP grant in

2001, they realized that they needed a new direction in their efforts. Thus, Imago and its

partners moved in the new direction by developing a strategic plan and forming the new

endeavor of Price Hill Will in 2001. This new project is an organizational process for

community participants to envision collectively what they desire for their future and

encompasses all of East and West Price Hill. Imago would continue their efforts in

revitalizing Seminary Square, but also take the lead organizational role through the Price

44
Hill Will by guiding a more comprehensive approach to the greater Price Hill

neighborhood.

Part II: Case Study

In part two, the following sections include the data that comprises the case study. It will

describe the findings from interviews conducted with the project’s leaders including Imago

co-founders Jim and Eileen Schenk, Kay Clifton, and H.A. Musser, director of Santa Maria

Community Services and chair of the Price Hill Will Steering Committee. I derived the

questions from Barton, Gilman, and Christian’s recommendations and sought to answer

questions related to the greater sustainable communities and eco-village movement. The

purpose of these particular questions and the data presented below is to explore the

planning process of the Seminary Square Eco-village project.

Imago’s Vision of the Urban Eco-Village

The vision of the Seminary Square Eco-Village evolved primarily out of neighborhood

dialogue among residents on Enright Avenue, located outside the area of Seminary Square

in the southern section of East Price Hill (Figure 4). Many years prior to the project’s

conception, leaders of Imago were influenced by the environmental literature particularly

following the OPEC oil embargo of the early 1970s. While the organization initiated

workshops around themes such as energy conservation and environmental stewardship,

people started purchasing homes on Enright and became Imago members. They

recognized common elements amongst themselves. According to Eileen Schenk, “we were

growing vegetables and creating an environment. We looked around and saw something

was working” (Eileen Schenk 2004). What they initiated on Enright would later inspire

Imago’s sponsorship of block clubs.

45
 The common element residents

experienced was community, and

particularly community centered on the

values of the natural environment.

Gardening, recycling, tree planting, and

general care for their homes centered on

more ecological practices was the glue

that created this bond. They began

Figure 4: Enright Avenue and the
dreaming together and envisioned making Imago Earth Center (Source:
CAGIS).
their neighborhood more ecologically

sustainable. In the early 1990s, Enright residents began encouraging like-minded people to

move to their street. They developed a flyer listing assets and touted ‘Enright Ridge’ as a

great place to live (E. Schenk 2004). They realized that the dreams they valued were very

practical, modest, and applicable to a neighborhood where housing, infrastructure, public

parks, and other essential elements for creating community already exis ted. Ideas such as

promoting home ownership and community involvement complemented larger ideas of

greenspace preservation, organic gardening, tree cover, and energy efficiency. They even

discussed innovative ideas such as a no-car street during the dream phase. Shortly after in

1993, Thomas Berry, well-known author and eco-theologian, gave Imago a charge for

implementing their dream: despite their efforts giving workshops, what were they doing in

their actual practical lives? Provided with this mission, the original small group of

46
visionaries (around 10-12) took to heart Berry’s charge and began looking to start projects

(J. Schenk 2004).

They carried this original vision for creating a more viable neighborhood. Because of

their common value of ecology, it focused on the greening of Price Hill. They expanded on

their dream of making an ecological neighborhood, not only on Enright Avenue, but to

greater Price Hill. Eileen Schenk pointed out that “the [environmental] literature we knew

convinced us that the thing that made a viable neighborhood was for people to be

connected to one another. To me (us), that said ‘village’” (2004).

Despite calling it an “eco-village”, at the time of defining how they wanted to develop

their neighborhood, the eco-village literature and the Global Eco-village Network was not a

contributing factor. They felt “turned off” by it for several reasons. First, the development

of eco-villages usually occurs in rural settings on undeveloped greenspace, thus following

the same principle used by private developers found in sprawling suburban communities.

Second, Imago leaders felt that this pattern of development eventually would create some

of the same problems of spatial mismatch (i.e. jobs, activities, commuting) urban sprawl

produces. Finally, they were not attracted to the rigid connection to the formulated recipe

of attracting like- minded members for building community espoused in the eco-village

literature. Rebuilding in an existing urban neighborhood would dema nd complex problem

solving situations and the ability to adapt to the neighborhood’s dynamics. Therefore, by

approaching it with a pre-defined method as drawn from the literature, they would create

“bigoted ways of not participating” according to Eileen Schenk. On the contrary, they

wanted it to be flexible and develop in a real place without exclusion.

47
 The key leaders of Imago had professional backgrounds as social workers. Years of

knowledge and experience allowed them to be aware of the challenges and opportunities a

concept like an ecological neighborhood would present in an existing urban community.

They understood the importance of building communities where people shared common

values and strived to benefit mutually from one another through building community. In

addition, the experience of community visioning that had occurred for years on Enright

Avenue led Imago and the street’s residents to bond around commonly held values, strong

interests, and high aspirations for their neighborhood. They recognized through their

dreaming that a common vision resonated for creating a viable neighborhood.

Although the group never drafted a formal vision statement, their years of dreaming and

Thomas Berry’s charge instigated a vision that would lead to the commitment of realizing

the eco-village. As plans were produced following the initial CIP grant, their goals were

clear: be a model of sustainable living, build a new sense of community identity, stabilize

home ownership, increase real estate values, and nurture community pride.

The Development of the Seminary Square Ecological Principles

Beginning in 1993, Price Hill became the center of Imago’s desire to cultivate an

“ecological neighborhood”. They desired to develop a community where residents live

healthy lives that are in harmony with their immediate surroundings. Their key objectives

were to create a neighborhood that would offer an abundance of parks and greenspace,

clean air and land, pedestrian- friendly streetscapes, trees, and renovated energy-efficient

homes. They realized that the Seminary Square section of East Price Hill provided the

grounds for revitalizing a deteriorating neighborhood through capitalizing on its existing

built and natural environment. By implementing these principles, Imago felt that they

48
could continue building upon their early successful projects to establish this neighborhood

as a model sustainable or ecological neighborhood for other neighborhoods to emulate (E.

Schenk 2004).

In 1994, five years prior to developing the work plan for the Seminary Square Eco-

village, Imago, the East Price Hill Improvement Association, Price Hill Civic Club, and the

Price Hill Merchants and Professionals Association formed the Ecological Neighborhood

Coalition in order to promote a more sustainable ecological neighborhood in Price Hill.

Their objective was to initiate projects that would establish the East Price Hill as

Cincinnati’s ‘green’ neighborhood and later serve as the foundation for the Seminary

Square Eco-village. In 1994, approximately 20 volunteers through Imago conducted a

walking survey of every house in East Price Hill. They looked at the housing and

commercial structures, the tree cover, green space and plant diversity. The objective was to

prove housing blight was not as prominent in the neighborhood as it was perceived. They

discovered that this perception of blight was often the cause of one or two houses on the

street. Likewise, they wanted to highlight the existing assets of the built and natural

environment in order to use it as a teaching tool for residents and to determine future

objectives for the neighborhood’s enhancement.

Another important early project was the Price Hill Energy Efficiency Campaign begun

in 1995. Imago had learned through a couple of previous endeavors that a great project of

promoting energy conservation was possible in the greater Price Hill. First, they had been

successful amongst neighbors on Enright Avenue to reduce energy consumption two years

prior. Second, based on results from a phone survey completed in 1994 by Imago and

students from Mt. St. Joseph College, they discovered that the majority of people in Price

49
Hill showed interest in learning about and adopting energy conservation measures. With

this understanding, Imago took advantage of a grant opportunity offered by Cincinnati Gas

& Electric. The awarded two-year $100,000 grant (1995-1997) would complete a pilot

project aimed at helping businesses, churches, non-profit groups, schools, and residents of

Price Hill learn how to reduce gas consumption by 10 percent and electric consumption by

5 percent (Imago 1997). The project focused on zip code 45205, which encompasses parts

of East and West Price Hill, as a way to measure whether or not educational efforts of the

project were effective. The campaign included extensive marketing efforts educating the

benefits of reducing energy consumption on both the pocket book and the environment.

Imago promoted free energy audits, weatherizing assistance for low- income residents, and

the availability of incentives for businesses and homeowners such as rebates for replacing

heat pumps and direct load control allowing customers to have CG&E install gauges that

shut down air conditioners for several minutes during peak consumption times. In addition,

the campaign negotiated with Price Hill businesses to offer discounts on energy efficient

products and services.

In the end, Imago felt that they received support for the project at all levels in the

community. They had hoped to evaluate the cost savings in the end by comparing the cost

savings of the top 100 gas and electric users, both business and residential sectors.

However, due to CG&E’s inability to release this data due to confidentiality policies, they

were unable to gauge fully the success of their efforts since they could not measure energy

use reduction. Nevertheless, they were successful in their own efforts to survey some

businesses and individuals who were willing to volunteer information on the changes they

made. Ultimately, what was important to Imago was to develop an ethic of resource

50
conservation and to network organizations and churches as a way to promote sustainable

lifestyles in an urban neighborhood.

Further ecological principles for the eco-village were outlined in the foundation

documents. The 1999 Seminary Square Eco-Village Work Plan by the University of

Cincinnati School of Planning graduate students provided a design plan for Imago and its

Community Partners. It illustrated proposals for improving Seminary Square’s parks and

recreation areas, open spaces, and the neighborhood business district along Warsaw

Avenue. These concepts were taken further in 2002 with the hiring of Scheer & Scheer,

Inc., an urban design firm, who worked with block groups and residents to gain input and

concerns to create preliminary plan documents. The firm’s Price Hill Eco-Village Urban

Streets Preliminary Design Plan and Recommendations promoted improvements in two

areas of Seminary Square: the Glenway Park area (block bounded by Purcell, Considine,

and Brevier streets north of Warsaw Avenue), and Whittier Gardens area (block bounded

by Woodlawn, Osage, and Elberon streets south of Warsaw Avenue – see Figure 1). Using

these recommendations, block associations from these areas have worked together to

implement the plan.

Imago’s intention of the eco-village was to create a place that promoted an ethic of

environmental responsibility for its residents by encouraging conscious awareness of the ir

natural environment and habits of living. The ecological principals promoted included

such concepts as reducing energy consumption through making homes and businesses

more energy-efficient, planting and caring for trees, promoting natural landscaping,

preserving green areas, developing and enhancing park spaces, promoting home recycling,

promoting using public transportation, and creating a pedestrian- friendly environment for

51
the Warsaw Avenue businesses district. They did not intend to try any revolut ionary or

advanced green technologies, but realized that working within the socio-economic context

and limited resources, they would need to approach the project modestly. Most

importantly, they recognized there would need to be a focused effort on connecting the

social, environmental, and economic components of Price Hill in a synergistic manner in

order to work towards sustainability.

Imago’s Approaches to Conflict Resolution

Seminary Square Eco-village is located in a traditional urban neighborhood,

geographically defined by its infrastructural network and connected by its history of norms

and cultures. Therefore, its everyday activities continue in a fashion much like any other

urban neighborhood. There are the usual civic meetings at the churches, schools, and

designated meeting places throughout the neighborhood. The stakeholders at community

council meetings may be no different from any other neighborhood, whether it is teachers,

lawyers, ministers, or concerned homeowners. Although Imago’s objective to develop

Seminary Square into an ecological neighborhood is intentional, it is not what would be

considered an “intentional” community. Residents living in an “intentional” community

typically control who comes into the community. It is therefore likely these communities

will decide on a form of conflict resolution. In a normal urban neighborhood like Price

Hill, this is not possible since there is no control of who lives there. It is a place of diverse

races, groups, classes, cultures, and fluid boundaries creating an environment where

monitoring conflict among community members is limited.

The Price Hill neighborhood provides an opportune context for a sustainable community

and an urban eco-village since the infrastructure of social institutions already exists. The

52
social institutions such as schools, churches, social services, and various civic organizations

have been established for years. Conflicts within the Price Hill community often arise and

it is difficult for a group like Imago to decide how to deal with such conflict when this

happens.

As a result, Imago has recognized that institutions play a critical role in preventing

conflicts. According to Kay Clifton, a professor of sociology at the nearby Mount St.

Joseph College and an Imago council member, traditional neighborhood institutions fulfill

a degree of accountability that obliges them to assist in improving the quality of life for all

its residents. From Clifton’s perspective, when people do not have these fundamental

socio-cultural institutions and trained people with sets of ethics, it becomes difficult to

build community. Therefore, Imago has paid critical attention to networking and

strengthening these institutions. Clifton cautioned that with a lack of networking and

diversity, the institutions in Price Hill could go downhill quickly. One of the main goals of

Imago’s eco-village was to create an environment where residents become more engaged in

civic activities and participate with the social institutions. The next section discusses the

mechanisms that Imago has built for building community and networking the institutions.

Mechanisms for Engaging and Building Community

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the development of the Eco-Village has been engaging

and maintaining participation with existing neighborhood residents and potential members

of the community. In recent years, East Price Hill has experienced multiple changes as

long-time residents have left for the suburbs. In their shadow has been a neighborhood

struggling to counter declining conditions.

53
 Imago chose Seminary Square area as part of the CIP grant opportunity in 1998. They

desired to use this visible area as a pilot project in order to engage the greater neighborhood

in developing into an ecological neighborhood. However, following a couple of years into

the project, Imago was advised by one outside consultant that this was perhaps the most

difficult part of the neighborhood to attempt the eco-village. The consultant felt tha t it

would be difficult to engage the working poor concentrated in this area of East Price Hill

and should instead focus on areas more socio-economically stable for experimenting.

Nevertheless, they were willing to take this risk since the area contained a collection of

assets for building a sustainable community including schools, churches, a public library

branch, a number of parks, a variety of housing options, and an existing business district

along Warsaw Avenue. They felt that Seminary Square contained all the necessary

ingredients to create a vibrant community. Furthermore, the timing was right – without

taking care of these issues, the neighborhood would continue its decline.

A key focus in harnessing neighborhood participation, particularly with the new

populations, was to take a two dimensional approach – one informal and the other formal.

First, the informal tactic involved creating block clubs, hosting festivals, and facilitating

gatherings. With this approach, Imago targeted residents’ involvement with their parks;

involvement with planting trees; participation by putting the recycling containers out;

circulation of block club newsletters with information and any form of activity that may

facilitate the informal building of community. For example, residents living around

Glenway Park organized to work on the “Tank” park. They used a $300 seed money grant

from Imago to leverage funds from other sources. Eventually, using the collected funds,

the group worked together to renovate this park (Jim Schenk 2004).

54
 Second, the formal dimension involved building a civic infrastructure and connecting

the social institutions. Imago brought nine churches including Cincinnati Bible College,

Salvation Army, four Catholic churches, the United Church of Christ, Christ Community

Church and Price Hill Baptist. Together they formed the Ministerial Association and met

together quarterly to share experiences and coordinate on community events (Imago 2003).

Imago felt that a focus on these two dime nsions would help in building community. They

believed that even if social, political, and economic influences outside the neighborhood

make things harder, an organized community could mobilize and make changes.

One of the original missions of Imago in building community was to sell the concept of

the eco-village to the public. The first thing was to conduct the charrette around the studio

project with University of Cincinnati School of Planning graduate students to develop the

Seminary Square Eco-Village Work Plan in 1998. At the completion of the 10-week

project, neighborhood residents were invited to hear the presentation by the students. Apart

from the presentation, the charrette was designed to make residents aware of the whole eco-

village concept and to gain feedback of residents and interested parties. Following this

initial charrette, Imago attempted to reach even more residents by conducting several more

forums in order to sell the plan’s concept and to gain feedback. This example, along with

outreach programs and projects through the Imago Earth Lab, was Imago’s principal

medium for educating Price Hill residents on the benefits of a more ecologically

sustainable neighborhood.

Perhaps the most difficult task for Imago was gaining the support and input from the

business community. Although they gained significant support in its coalition with other

neighborhood civic organizations and its efforts during the Energy Efficiency Campaign

55
from 1995-97, there was still a degree of reticence from this sector to support the Eco-

Village. As a follow up to the previous efforts, Imago addressed this challenge by forming

a partnership with Home Depot and received a grant of $25,000 in January 2003 in order to

get the businesses to realize the economic benefits of being more environmentally friendly

(Jim Schenk 2004). Jim Schenk recognized that although working on residencies was

important, actions under the grant would focus on businesses as an incentive for them to

participate. Through the Home Depot grant, Imago was able to install energy efficient

bulbs throughout Imago’s main office on Warsaw Avenue, and changed to an energy

efficient furnace and air conditioner. Imago felt that by providing a lead demonstration of

the cost benefits involved, they could influence business owners in the area to upgrade as

well. Despite this model, business owners have still been reluctant to make the investments

in being more energy efficient and participate in more environmentally centered practices.

The drastic demographic change started to influence long-time resident’s decision to

stay in the neighborhood. As a result, many people originally engaged in block clubs

moved. Meanwhile, the new populations were hard to convince to commit to living a more

environmentally conscious lifestyle. Even worse, private investment in housing and the

business district was less than had been hoped. Imago leaders admit they have really

struggled with this issue. Clifton expressed that “People will sit in the meetings and say

they still live in the neighborhood because they want to live where there is a mixed

population. They hear others at parties say they are tired of the changes and are going to

move out. I don’t think we’ve been successful with that” (Clifton 2004).

Most significantly, Imago leaders appreciate the difficulty in engaging the working-class

poor. They have understood that the social capital approach of building social networks

56
and interactions for mutual trust and reciprocity is difficult to apply to this group of people.

In community organizing, issues often bring the people together based on a common

interest. This aspect of building community has not been a strong enough influence for

Imago to gain the participation of the new residents. However, where Imago has been

more successful is in sponsoring informal ‘block parties’ as opposed to more formalized

‘block clubs’. Nevertheless, the challenge of engaging marginalized populations in

committing to their vision of an ecological neighborhood has left Imago with the task of re-

analyzing their approach at building community.

The Contribution of Outside Agencies (Public, Private. and Non-profit) and Individuals

The key to Price Hill and Imago’s continued efforts to gain support for its project, both

financial and non-financial, has been through its strong partnerships and collaborations.

Since the beginning of Imago’s involvement in the neighborhood, they have strongly

demonstrated the capacity for establishing partnerships and collaborations through

successful projects such as establishing the Earth Center, the Price Hill Energy Efficiency

Campaign, Price Hill Will project, The Ecological Neighborhood Coalition and the various

grants awarded to support these endeavors. Through each of these projects, Imago has

taken the lead role in working to link all civic organizations involved in all of Price Hill to

committing to the development of making the neighborhood into an ecological

neighborhood.

The Seminary Square Eco-Village has served as the principal model project for realizing

this vision. The central partnership of the Community Partners represented the

collaborative effort for this project. Included in this partnership are the original members

of the Ecological Neighborhood Coalition including the East Price Hill Improvement

57
Association, Price Hill Civic Club, and Price Hill Merchants and Professional Association,

as well as the Santa Maria Community Center, Women’s Connection, and Price Hill United

Church of Christ, among others. Through the support and participation of the Partners,

Imago has taken the lead role in attracting and developing social and financial capital.

They have gained and maintained the support of this core group of non-profit organizations

active in the Seminary Square area in their shared vision of creating a sustainable

community for all of Price Hill.

Led by Imago, their mission was to create a new vision of building community in the

neighborhood by focusing on ecological approaches. In the mid 1990s, the Community

Partners began with meetings that involved more than fifteen organizations in discussions

about how to define and implement their collective vision. As the vision began to take

shape, the realization set in that the Community Partners needed outside assistance both in

the creation of a feasible comprehensive plan and funding. Funding came via a grant from

the Community Investment Partners (CIP), a funding collaborative amongst Fifth Third

Bank, The Greater Cincinnati Foundatio n, the Proctor and Gamble Fund, and the United

Way and Community Chest of Greater Cincinnati. In the spring of 1999, the Community

Partners invited graduate students from the University of Cincinnati (UC) School of

Planning to design a plan for the fifty-block area of Seminary Square. Out of that effort

came the document Seminary Square Eco-Village Work Plan capturing Imago’s pursuit of

a model of an ecological neighborhood. This plan detailed streetscaping, landscaping, and

greenspace improvements for building a safe and vibrant community. The plan later

earned the Ohio Planning Conference’s Award for Contributing Excellence in 1999 for

58
planning student projects as well as the 2000 AICP National Student Project award best

demonstrating the contribution of planning to contemporary issues.

While this was occurring, City of Cincinnati Planning Division staff members Jack

Martin and Steve Briggs were at the end stages of putting a business district renewal plan

together for Warsaw Avenue. In meetings with Martin and Briggs, Jim Schenk expressed

his desire to insert the eco-village concept developed by the UC School of Planning

students into the plan. This differed greatly from the business district renewal plan that was

strictly physical and did not address land use or socio-cultural factors. As a compromise,

the commission incorporated the eco-village plan into the renewal plan as an appendix

addendum. The eco-village plan was taken to the planning commission, acknowledged for

its existence and idea, but was not officially adopted. However, they did recognize that the

plan was a desire of the neighborhood’s residents and leaders and would support Imago’s

efforts.

Despite no official city policy for the plan’s implementation, the City Planning

Commission would play a significant role in the neighborhood’s progress during 2001. In

response to neighborhood opposition to a proposed low- income development project by the

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) in East Price Hill, the Commission

imposed a moratorium that year to review the proposal. It called for multi- family

subsidized apartments along Grand Avenue, directly in opposition to the neighborhood’s

desire to increase single-family homeownership in an area where the ratio of rental units to

homeownership was 10 to 1 (Jim Schenk 2004). Led by the East Price Hill Improvement

Association, a partner in the Community Partners, neighborhood leaders felt that more

subsidized apartments would only fuel the potential trend of petty crime and neighborhood

59
decline. Because of the City previously supporting the eco-village plan, City Council

members used it as a partial basis for the creation of an Interim Development Control

(IDC) district to oversee and monitor the potential housing that CMHC wanted to build.

The IDC served to temporarily regulate the new construction and give the City Planning

Commission the ability to review the proposal and make a decision. In the end, CMHA

never submitted an application. They did make another pla n, however, they never

implemented it due to cost factors (Briggs and Martin 2004).

While Imago continued to gain momentum with the support of neighborhood

organizations, City officials and funding organizations, they recognized conditions in the

Seminary Square Eco-Village were continuing to change beyond their organizational and

volunteer resources. Imago recognized the greater need of addressing the continued growth

of rental units, frustration among existing homeowners, lack of investment in the Warsaw

Avenue business district, and deteriorating housing stock and streetscapes. Consequently,

in direct response to these issues, they began moving their desire for developing Price Hill

into an ecological neighborhood beyond Seminary Square. In 2001, this would lead to

Imago forming Price Hill Will.

New Initiative amongst Changing Conditions: The Introduction of Price Hill Will

Midway through the grant project of the eco-village plan, the Community Partners

decided to analyze whether they were on the right path. In December of 2000, Imago and

its Community Partners decided to form a committee to look at their impeding issues for

the initiated project. Out of the midpoint assessment of the CIP grant by the Greater

Cincinnati Foundation for Seminary Square in 2001, Imago decided that their attempt at

establishing a model sustainable community would require greater resources. This

60
perspective shift was not an act of recognizing failure for the Seminary Square Eco-Village,

but rather the realization that its surroundings had changed, greater opportunities on which

to capitalize, and deeper issues to address.

The money from the CIP grant had come near an end prompting a close examination by

Imago and its leaders to seek new resources for continuing their momentum. The

committee that formed in late 2000 decided that with the remaining money, it was time to

hire an outside planning consultant to help develop a strategic plan for all of Price Hill,

including the Seminary Square Eco-village. Among their greatest concerns was to address

the need of engaging the new poor black residents.

In April 2001, committee members interviewed five candidates for the strategic plan.

After the interviews, the committee discovered that one candidate in particular connected

with their vision of building upon community assets. They unanimously chose Chet

Bowling of the Ohio State University Extension as their consultant due to the match

between his and the committee’s vision. The other interviewed professionals wanted to

implement a traditional strategic plan utilizing analysis of strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats (SWOT), focus groups, and other typical components of a

strategic business plan. On the contrary, Bowling envisioned building on the

neighborhood’s assets using an organizational building tool called “Appreciative Inquiry.”

According to Kay Clifton, “Appreciate Inquiry was such a perfect fit with our philosophy

[of] building on assets instead of on needs”(Clifton 2004).

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an approach to organizational learning and change. The

basic premise is that organizations grow in the direction of what they repeatedly ask

questions about and focus their attention on. The approach’s assumptions paralleled the

61
Community Partner’s desires in several ways. First, it would allow them to focus more

effectively on what they want more of, not what they want less of. Second, whatever they

desire already exists, even if only in small quantities. Third, it is easier to create change by

amplifying the positive qualities of a group or organization than by trying to fix the

negative qualities. Next, through the act of consistent inquiry, the group or organization

creates the social realities they are trying to understand. Finally, getting people to inquire

together in the best examples of what they want more of creates its own momentum toward

creating more positive organizations (Bushe 2004).

After hiring Bowling, Imago and the Community Partners would begin a new initiative

building upon the work already started, but with the approach of Appreciative Inquiry. In

the fall of 2001, the committee members formed their new coalition, calling themselves the

Price Hill Will. They began promoting their community visioning process by designing a

set of interview questions following the AI methodology, creating a neighborhood

promotional campaign through yard signs, brochures, billboards, and other material placed

throughout East and West Price Hill. They collaborated with block groups, local schools,

and churches to conduct the AI interviews. Between spring 2001 and spring 2002, Imago

and Price Hill Will initiated a participatory community-wide collection of interviews, made

presentations at all the churches, school communities and organizations in the greater Price

Hill seeking what they value about their community, and engaged local elementary school

kids to draw their impressions of Price Hill. Additionally, the committee organized small

interviewing parties at local pubs and churches with steering committee members, friends

and acquaintances engaging each other in the interviews.

62
 The Price Hill Will Steering Committee felt that by conducting the interviews,

community members would build social networks by connecting people based on common

values. Following a year in which community volunteers had collected over 2,000

interviews, the Steering Committee convened to review them. In early February 2001, they

held meetings to read all of them and jot down common themes. In turn, these bold

statements, deemed “provocative propositions”, became the crux for which the steering

committee created action teams. These “provocative propositions” reflected consistent

values expressed by community members and guided the process for which Imago and

Price Hill Will should capitalize upon.

To the satisfaction of Imago, their efforts of creating an ecological neighborhood were

inferred through many residents stating their value for greenspace, walkable areas, and

more verdant streetscapes. Imago realized that opposition to the ecological neighborhood

had existed because some people feared exclusion. However, as discovered in the inquiry

process, the fruit of their initial labor had not completely failed.

The list of themes was then taken to a series of town meetings in early March through

April, 2002 held at local schools where neighborhood residents were introduced to the

themes. In the first public meeting held at Carson Neighborhood School, the “provocative

propositions” were placed on the walls around the room in big bold letters. At one point in

the meeting, Bowling directed attendees to go stand around the banner that they agreed

with most. The excitement created through this activity was the basis for which

community action teams (CATs) was formed (Musser 2004).

One month later, the Price Hill Will Steering Committee held the third community-wide

meeting where the action teams prioritized the statements and began the strategic plan for

63
all of Price Hill. These conversations led to the formation of the Price Hill Will

Community Action Teams including those that focused on Economic Development, Arts,

Housing, Block Clubs, Ecology, Diversity, Beautification, Churches, and Schools and

Libraries. The table below outlines the motto and goals defined by each of the teams.

These eight action teams began meeting regularly in 2003 to develop projects and attempt

to rally community volunteers around their interests. This significant tool has become an

important part of Imago’s efforts to build community and increase civic engagement.

The Price Hill Will action teams were now the key players in carrying out Imago’s

vision. Meanwhile, as Imago’s original seed money from the CIP grant reached an end,

they positioned themselves again for a new funding opportunity through Local Initiatives

Support Corporation (LISC), a national community development intermediary specializing

Table 4: Price Hill Will Action Teams and Their Mottos and Goals.

Theme Motto Goal

Ecology Price Hill is the Most Ecological Neighborhood in To market the neighborhood as a great place to
Cincinnati. live through pointing out its ecological and
natural aspects
Diversity Price Hill is Where Diversity is Valued and Increase awareness and celebrate diversity
Appreciated
Block Clubs People Move to Price Hill Because They Want to Promote and establish block clubs in East and
be Close to Their Neighbors. West Price Hill.
Art s The Arts in Price Hill Provide Meaning and Create regional awareness of creative and
Cultural Fulfillment. performing arts events in Price Hill.
Churches Churches Give Life to Price Hill. Form a large event in which all Price Hill
churches will participate.
Beautification Price Hill is a Clean and Beautification To increase the beauty in Price Hill.
Neighborhood.
Housing Price Hill is a Neighborhood Where Most To develop a comprehensive housing strategy
Residents Own Their Home and Rental Units are for East and West Price Hill.
Well Maintained and Affordable.
Education Schools and libraries give life to Price Hill. NA3

in financing and packaging of affordable housing through community development

corporations. The Alliance for Building Communities (ABC) grant awarded in 2003

through LISC is intended to assist Imago and the Price Hill Will project in carrying on their

momentum of capitalizing on the internal capacities, skills, and assets of the residents of
3
At the time of this research, the Education Action Team was still in the process of defining their goal.

64
the Price Hill neighborhood. Under this new approach, Imago’s new strategy has allowed

them to have a more comprehensive approach to building community and increasing civic

engagement in all of Price Hill.

Imago’s project of developing the Seminary Square Eco-Village did not dissipate in the

process. Rather, it became one of three sub-neighborhoods which the housing action team

addressed, included the Cedar Grove area and the Incline District. This shift in strategy

meant that Imago would continue to promote and develop Price Hill as an ecological

neighborhood, but also include more emphasis on increasing homeownership and

improving the perception of the Price Hill neighborhood as a quality place to live. Their

desire to create an ecological neighborhood in Price Hill would be one component of a

greater spectrum in this new approach.

As Imago has maintained its focus of building community around their assets and

focusing on a comprehensive approach to redeveloping Price Hill, their role has continued

to evolve. The endeavor of putting additional effort into housing development and

improving the perception of Price Hill has become central to Imago’s concerns. However,

the sprit and foundation of creating an ecologically sustainable neighborhood will continue

to be a strong component of the organization’s focus. The Imago Council and the Price

Hill Will Steering Committee have recognized the need for strengthening the housing

market and image of all of Price Hill before the redevelopment of Seminary Square is

feasible.

Nevertheless, in the summer of 2004, the Seminary Square Eco-Village project will take

a new direction. The Green City seminar series intends to utilize the foundation laid by

Imago in this area for promoting ecologically sustainable neighborhoods througho ut

65
Cincinnati. Over four meetings, participants invited from all of Cincinnati will use

Seminary Square as their laboratory for exploring the principals such as outlined in the

Eco-Village plan including housing, the business district, public spaces, and transportation.

In the final session, they will summarize their discussions and analysis by making

recommendations for the steps to create ecologically sustainable neighborhoods throughout

the city.

Whether direct results of the Green City seminar will become the product for the future

of the Seminary Square Eco-Village is yet to be determined. However, the Price Hill

Will’s housing action team has outlined a five-year strategic plan for realizing the eco-

village dream. The first two years of the plan calls for implementing existing plans

including the selling of Imago’s existing rehabilitated homes and the implementation of the

streetscape design plan for the Whittier Gardens and Warsaw Avenue Business District

areas. Next, between 2006 and 2008, Imago will begin to address the larger Seminary

Square Eco-Village sub-neighborhood and evaluate the potential for a mid to large-scale

redevelopment project. If they find it feasible, their goal is to begin planning a

redevelopment project slated for years 2009-2010 (Price Hill Will 2003).

It appears that Seminary Square Eco-Village’s fate will rest on the shoulders of Imago’s

ability to continue their momentum in other parts of Price Hill. Imago co-founder, Jim

Schenk recognizes that the greatest weakness and challenge to their effort to create an eco-

village has been selling the ecological concept. Yet, despite this shortfall, Imago’s effort to

build community and to promote pride in the neighborhood may have been just the right

seeds planted for harvesting their vision of the eco-village.

66
Table 5: Chronology of Important Dates for the Seminary Square Eco-village
Project
Date Event
1978 • Imago, Inc. formed as an ecological education organization in
response to global energy concerns.

1993 • Imago and Enright Avenue residents initiate a small effort on four-
block area of the street to reduce energy consumption.

1994 • Imago, the East Price Hill Improvement Association, Price Hill Civic
Club, and the Price Hill Merchants and Professionals Association
formed the Ecological Neighborhood Coalition in order to promote a
more sustainable ecological neighborhood in Price Hill.

1994 • Earth Center opens on Enright Avenue to serve as Imago’s ecological

educational laboratory.

1995 • Imago awarded $98,813 grant by Cincinnati Gas and Electric (CG&E)
to conduct a two-year campaign to reduce energy consumption in East
Price Hill.

1995-1997 • Imago leads neighborhood-level Price Hill Energy Efficiency

Campaign for residential and business customers of CG&E in East
Price Hill.

1998 • Imago and Community Partners awarded five-year grant, $100,000

allocated each year from Community Investment Partners to plan and
develop Seminary Square Eco-village.

1999 • Imago and Community Partners invite University of Cincinnati School

of Planning graduate students to hold 10-week studio to design a plan
for Seminary Square. Produce the document, Seminary Square Eco-
village Work Plan.

2001 • Imago organizes task force to assess mid-point of CIP grant (Winter)
• Task force decides to hire Chet Bowling of Ohio State University
Extension as consultant to develop strategic plan for Price Hill.
(Spring)
• Price Hill Will created in response to task force’s assessment and
desire to create citizen-driven, strategic plan for all of Price Hill.
(Fall)
• East Price Hill residents oppose Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing
Authority's 47-unit Seminary Ridge public housing project; City

67
 Council imposes moratorium to seek alternative project plans; Plan
never materialized. (Fall)

• Community Investment Partners release mid-term report highlighting

efforts of CIP grantee organizations.
2001-2002 • Neighborhood participants conduct over 2,000 interviews as part of
the Appreciate Inquiry method of citizen-driven participatory process.

2002 • Imago hires Scheer & Scheer, a landscape architecture firm, to design
streetscape improvements. (Spring)
• Imago and Price Hill Will project host workshops to develop
neighborhood action teams. (Spring)

2003 • Imago awarded Alliance for Building Communities (ABC) grant

through Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) to assist
organization and implementation of Price Hill Will projects.

• Price Hill Will Housing Task Force develop housing strategy,

addressing housing needs for the greater Price Hill neighborhood,
including Seminary Square.

2004 • Eco-neighborhood Action Team of Price Hill Will plans Green City
seminar for summer; Seminary Square area to serve as laboratory.

68
 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
This case study was conducted at a time in which Imago had begun to re-focus their

efforts on the future of the Seminary Square Eco-village and the desire to create an

ecological neighborhood. Currently, Imago has taken this experience and is building upon

the foundation laid by their urban eco-village project. This new direction is Price Hill Will,

a more citizen driven, strategic plan for all of Price Hill. However, when the members of

Imago set out to establish Price Hill as Cincinnati’s ecological neighborhood, they saw

great opportunities in Seminary Square that provided the perfect context to create an urban

eco-village. If successful, not only would Imago provide a model for revitalizing

neighborhoods throughout Cincinnati following an ecological approach, but also provide a

working case for the evolution of the urban eco-village movement. As discussed in the

previous section, Imago recognized that the area presented them the right mixture of assets

to experiment with their comprehensive community development model. The existence of

parks, verdant hillsides, unique housing stock, churches, schools, civic organizations,

walkable streets, and many other items Imago identified as assets were the foundation upon

which the Eco-Village needed to grow and develop.

In the first years of the Seminary Square project, it accomplished several successful

ventures. From an ecological standpoint, in partnership with neighborhood organizations it

transformed three former undeveloped parcels into parks as well as redesigned and

improved an existing park, organized more than 20 new block clubs, ran and organized

annual neighborhood clean-up programs, and made façade and streetscape improvements

along the Warsaw Avenue Business District. Additiona lly, Imago proved its strength in

69
developing and strengthening several partnerships with neighborhood civic organizations,

City of Cincinnati officials, as well as attracting the interest of funding agencies and

business entities. However, despite their efforts and support, conditions beyond their

control would determine the fate of their project.

The drastic change in demographics and the increase in Section 8 rental units hindered

the progress for Imago leaders prompting them at the end of their initial funding period

with the CIP grant to evaluate whether they had done the right things.

This concluding section of this case study will reflect on Imago’s process and look at the

issues that presented the greatest challenges in developing their eco-village. The Seminary

Square Eco-Village provides a unique opportunity to analyze the application of sustainable

communities’ principles at the local level. Likewise, it provides a perspective to analyze

what an urban eco-village is and the planning process utilized to slow the deterioration of

one urban neighborhood. As Imago would learn, this great challenge and their attempt to

counter it have provided valuable lessons from which others can learn. It is not the purpose

of this study to state whether the Price Hill/Seminary Square Eco-Village failed or

succeeded. That has yet to be determined.

In the remainder of this concluding chapter, I will review the research questions that

guided the interviews with Imago leaders. Each of these questions highlights important

issues within Imago’s efforts. The results reveal project successes as well as lessons

learned. Based on these lessons, this final chapter explores ways that scholars and

practitioners can learn from the Seminary Square experience. It was one of the first

generations of urban eco-villages as well as an application of sustainable development on a

neighborhood level, and provides a unique opportunity to reflect on the concept’s potential.

70
In doing so, the next generation of sus tainable community development projects, including

the next phase of the Seminary Square Eco-Village, may benefit from this case study.

Summary of Research Questions

I sought in my first research question to understand Imago’s vision for the Seminary

Square Eco-village. I found that they had built upon years of dreaming and the success of

their Enright Avenue projects. This resulted in Imago’s desire to create a project that

demonstrated sustainable living, built a new sense of community identity, stabilized home

ownership, increased real estate value, and nurtured community pride. Their early years

reflected the desire to make an impact on the environmental quality and general quality of

life in their community. By the mid-90s and with the growing sustainable development

movement, Imago had reached a point where the desire had grown to take what they had

learned and apply it on a local level. The common interest and values of Imago leaders

related to ecology, building community, and the desire to improve neighborhood conditions

would serve as the impetus for creating an ecological neighborhood in Price Hill. This

would lead to the creation of the Seminary Square Eco-village concept and the basis of

their dream. The 1999 work plan contained the essence of their vision. However, no

formal vision statement or document was ever produced to guide the plan’s direction.

My second question asked what the ecological principles were that the Seminary Square

Eco-village upheld. Based on the ideas developed from their early projects, Imago desired

to address the decline of the Seminary Square focus area by enhancing the existing

ingredients of this area that would provide a healthier and more sustainable environment.

Their approach was modest, even conventional. The principal goals were oriented toward

beautification projects and education mechanisms that would in the long-run lead to a more

71
environmentally sustainable neighborhood. Likewise at the center of this focus was the

desire to cut energy consumption. However, the plan did not include the green

technologies or the inclusion of practices utilized in other eco-village projects. For more

practical and feasibility purposes, Imago chose to focus on practices they felt most suitably

fit the local context and values of the East Price Hill community.

With my next question, I asked how Imago leaders addressed issues of conflict

resolution. My literature review had led me to pose this question under the presumption

that they had discussed this issue in the planning process. Imago invited members with its

education programs and also actively recruited members and residents to participate (or

live) in the urban eco-village project. Likewise, since they were creating a project within

an area where its boundaries were less defined and the conditions within may be influenced

by exterior conditions they must at least address conflict in ways they could control. In an

evolving urban neighborhood like East Price Hill, Imago had no real control or authority of

who could live in their project area. It is a place of diverse races, groups, classes, cultures,

and fluid boundaries creating an environment where monitoring conflict among community

members is limited. However, they did attempt to address issues of conflict by focusing on

the rebuilding and strengthening of neighborhood civic institutions. Imago was able to link

nine churches into a Ministerial Association as well as coordinating civic activities and

festivals with neighborhood schools. In return, Imago hoped that these would help bolster

the organization’s desire for civic engagement and help mitigate concerning levels of

crime, safety, and other declining conditions in the area. As Imago would discover,

circumstances beyond their control greatly undermined their efforts.

72
 While Imago recognized conflict was inevitable in the neighborhood, they addressed the

institutional building mechanisms. They realized that they must counter these issues with

strengthening the mechanisms for engaging and building community. My fourth question

sought to answer what mechanisms Imago used for this purpose. The considerable shift in

the socio-economic conditions in the East Price Hill neighborhood Imago confronted was

perhaps their greatest challenge to overcome in the first years. Perhaps one of the greatest

indications of Imago’s success in the neighborhood has been their ability to build

community and to build collaborations with neighborhood partners. In turn, this has led to

successful attempts at leveraging funds for their projects. Despite slow progress on

implementing the eco-village plan, perhaps their initial efforts utilizing these funds has

been most effective at building community. In the end, this may be the necessary seeds to

implement the urban eco-village dream.

The final question that I wanted to address in this case study was how outside agencies

(public, private, and non-profit) and individuals contributed to the process. In order to

address the magnitude of issues in which Imago was operating, they have needed the

financial and technical support of outside entities. Imago’s demonstration of collaborating

with organizations from within the neighborhood and the development of its partnerships

has played a significant roll in attracting funding and technical support from outside

agencies. Most importantly, the leveraging of funds and the consistent support has

maintained the momentum that has spiraled into the current project of Price Hill Will. One

of the unique aspects of the process analyzed in this case study is the relatively little

support from the City of Cincinnati. The City’s role, though, was effective in slowing the

proposal of the undesired (by neighborhood residents) subsidized rental units on Grand

73
Avenue in 2001. Unfortunately, while the Seminary Square project evolved, events within

the city may have limited their participation. Events such as those following the April 2001

rioting in the downtown neighborhood of Over-The-Rhine and budgetary issues within

City government may have led to the City’s lack of involvement. Nevertheless, Imago was

able to maintain strong ties from within the neighborhood with businesses, political leaders,

schools, churches and residents. As a result, these collaborations led to significant funding

opportunities and technical support from agencies such as the Community Investment

Partners and the LISC Institute. These relationships will most likely continue to carry the

values and principles of the initial attempts for the revitalization of the East Price Hill

neighborhood.

Table 6: Summary of Research Questions and Significant Findings.

Research Question Significant finding
1. What was the vision of the • Demonstrate sustainable living
Price Hill Eco-village? • Build a new sense of community identity
• Stabilize home ownership
• Increase real estate value
• Nurture community pride

2. What are the “whole-systems” • Reduce energy consumption

or ecological principles of the • Plant and caring for trees; Promote natural landscaping
community? • Preserve, develop, and enhance green spaces and parks
• Promote home recycling
• Promote using public transportation
• Create a pedestrian-friendly environment for the Warsaw
Avenue businesses district.

3. What methods of conflict • None specifically, but a strong focus on the rebuilding and
resolution have been utilized? strengthening of neighborhood civic institutions.

4. What have been the • Two-dimensional approach

mechanisms used for 1. Informal
engaging and building • block clubs, hosting festivals, and
community? facilitating gatherings
2. Formal
• building a civic infrastructure and
connecting the social institution

5. How have outside agencies • Strong internal organization structure and partnerships has
(public, private, or non-profit) led to attracting external financial and technical
and individuals contributed to assistance.
the process?

74
 This summary of the case study’s result s reflected above relates only to the questions

asked in the research process. They sought to answer questions related to the planning

process derived from recommended process guidelines by Barton, Gilman, and Christian.

Table 6 above provides the reader with a summary of these questions as well as a related

significant finding from this question.

Recommendations

How can the process of creating an urban eco-village in East Price Hill be improved?

How can organizations like Imago take on issues like housing and crime that often reach

beyond the control of the organization’s capacity? How can a project like the Seminary

Square Eco-village lead to a greater understanding of what elements are most critical in the

development of sustainable communities? These are global questions addressed in this

section. Some of the recommendations are made to the Imago organization, not only

responding to past efforts, but for those individuals involved in re-addressing the desire for

developing the eco-village in future years. I have also included recommendations geared to

city officials and civic organizations interested in creating sustainable communities in

Cincinnati and beyond. The four recommendations are:

1. Analyze case studies of other urban neighborhood revitalization projects.

The process for creating sustainable communities is never a completed task. This case

study is about one neighborhood desiring to build an ecological neighborhood. However,

in the process, the project leaders have addressed various issues with concepts and tools to

achieve their objective. Similarly, the means other neighborhoods have taken to develop

following a similar approach are diverse and may provide demonstrations worth emulating

or adapting. However, with this said, there is no one perfect model or place from which to

75
draw ideas. Yet, as the knowledge, systems, and technologies have evolved in the last

decade, a diverse set of local level demonstration projects provide an opportunity for the

leaders of the Seminary Square Eco-Village project to revisit or discover new ventures –

particularly those who have included an environmental component to their approach.

Communities originally studied by Imago leaders such as Dudley Street in Boston and the

Cleveland EcoVillage have evolved and have learned lessons. These should be revisited to

see what has worked and what has not since they first explored. Likewise, as an alternative

to seeking neighborhood projects similar to Seminary Square, perhaps they could look at

individual projects that focus on concepts they have attempted previously such as

developing local social capital, ecological demonstrations such as urban agriculture and the

development of concepts such as Community Supported Agriculture or any concept that

provides examples relative to the neighborhood’s interests. Depending on the future focus

for the Eco-Village project, locally based initiatives in other communities provide the

opportunity to reflect on their own.

Whether the examples analyzed are to be local economic development, urban

agriculture ventures, affordable housing programs, community-building mechanisms, or

environmental education programs, the key will be to find the resources that reflect a

concept or issue they want to build upon. In making this recommendation, I could provide

a variety of case study examples for Imago leaders to explore. However, I feel it is more

appropriate for the local community members in East Price Hill to define local goals and

objectives for the development of the ecological neighborhood. Once they express their

desires, then they can explore other communities addressing these issues or concepts. In

the meantime, leaders of Imago should continue a strong role as an education organization

76
and provide opportunities for building capacity. Following lessons from other

communities, residents of East Price Hill can then more easily define a unique set of

objectives adapted specifically to their circumstances.

One of the most important lessons that case studies can provide is the understanding that

there is no single approach or technique of planning that is ideal or workable in all

situations. It is important to see the role of planning in the more successful projects and to

see the common threads running through the case studies. In seeking which to analyze,

Imago leaders should utilize resources provided by natio nal organizations and institutes

that have focused their efforts on locally based initiatives. Organizations such as the

American Planning Association, the Institute for Local Economies, Center for

Neighborhood Technology, and many more resources such as those included in Green and

Haines Asset Building and Community Development (2002) or Roseland’s Toward

Sustainable Communities (1998). Many of the organizations mentioned above have geared

their efforts to provide advice, technical support and materials readily transferable to the

local level. The most critical point of this recommendation is that learning from others is a

necessary step. The lessons can serve as a very useful tool in educating residents in the

East Price Hill neighborhood.

2. Set indicators in order to measure progress.

The dream of creating the Seminary Square Eco-Village and the product of the work

plan created in conjunction with the University of Cincinnati graduate students was an

effort applauded by the greater Cincinnati community. Additionally, their plan received

regional and national attention, recognized for their willingness to create an

environmentally sustainable community in an older, deteriorating neighborhood like East

77
Price Hill. However, dealing with change, whether positive or negative, requires some sort

of indicators for which to measure this.

The set of indicators is entirely up to the community or lead organization for which to

develop. Nevertheless, the inclusion of mechanisms to monitor and review process is

fundamental to the project’s assessment. This case study concludes that one of the

shortfalls of the Seminary Square Eco-Village has been the lack of measurable indicators

for Imago to measure their progress. In interviews with Imago founders, I discovered that

they really did not set any clear targets for which they would measure progress.

Tangible indicators or goals can serve to gain support by local residents. By relating to

these targets, the likelihood of their participation is higher. Otherwise, it is difficult for the

residents, particularly the transient population, to feel they have a stake in the matters and

that their efforts have made a difference. With the assistance of experts, the neighborhood

should define these indicators to measure and can include any variable upon which

residents wish to capitalize. Barton (2003) suggests that these should be broad ranging,

practical and motivating. Imago’s energy efficient campaign in the mid-90s could serve

them as a local example to emulate. Other examples could focus on the dimensions of

economy, environment, or equity. This is a flexible framework, and can be used in

conjunction with the first recommendation as an item to study in other communities.

The use of indicators will be a challenge. It will be important to set measurable targets

around issues that have previously plagued the viability of the neighborhood. It is natural

that neighborhood conditions will continue to evolve. A set of indicators around issues

such as crime and safety, homeownership, job creations as examples will help to monitor

this evolution. Constant monitoring will also help to communicate to local government,

78
outside agencies and neighboring residents that these issues are important to them. Outside

conditions or policies will influence many issues, notwithstanding local efforts to overcome

these. For this reason, it is vital to monitor the change in order to confront the influences

locally addressable or those that reach beyond their boundaries.

3. Advocate governmental policy changes undermining development.

As Imago and East Price Hill residents have discovered in recent years, despite their

concerted efforts to revitalize their neighborhood, external influences have undermined

them. City of Cincinnati policies (or lack thereof) for low- income housing and economic

development have been significant influences on the conditions of inner city

neighborhoods. For example, much of the influx of residents carrying Section 8 vouchers

for rent assistance came via housing policies focused on other areas of the city. The focus

on providing housing needs in the West End area, for example, led to the spillover to

adjacent areas such as East Price Hill and other neighboring hillside communities. This

influence alone merits greater study and understanding, however, as long-time residents in

East Price Hill have learned, these policies have caused a drastic change in the

neighborhood’s environment. If East Price Hill desires to redevelop their neighborhood

into an ecological neighborhood, or any form enhancing the quality of life, it will be

essential to address issues such as City housing policies. Nevertheless, one neighborhood

will not be able to do this alone and may require collaborating with other neighborhoods

experiencing similar conditions. Their collective advocacy may help to induce more

proactive citywide programs where low- income populations have access to better housing,

more local jobs, and a higher quality of life. Therefore, local neighborhood efforts such as

79
the Seminary Square Eco-village can complement these policies more effectively with local

actions.

If it is an ecological neighborhood desired by East Price Hill residents, the option to

focus on green infrastructure could help the City’s efforts in capital improvements. For

example, the City of Cincinnati will continue confronting issues of future stormwater

management as its system continues to age. Instead of focusing on tree planting or

greening neighborhoods for beautification alone, East Price Hill could lead the charge in

demonstrating programs to help mitigate the overflow of stormwater drains in the coming

years. Currently, Cincinnati and other older Eastern United States cities are in a period

where the current systems are reaching critical levels of concern and will require major

investments to upgrade. Through the use of concepts such as catching rainwater, green

roofs, curbing the use of impervious surfaces, and development tools such as the Low

Impact Development (LID) pioneered by Prince George’s County, Maryland in the early

1990’s, can help in cutting cost to capital investments. 4 Likewise, these concepts can also

serve in the beautification and the livability of neighborhoods. These ideas only provide

introductory material for thought, but aim to address conditions that Imago and East Price

Hill residents desire to change. Successful endeavors in areas such as this could also lead

to other goals, such as creating economic opportunities by provid ing transferable skills and

help in the reduction of crime. Additionally, the combination of these tools with proactive

housing policies from the City level will help achieve two goals of Imago: enhance housing

conditions and green the neighborhood. What will be critical is to express these desires to

4
For more information on Low Impact Development, see the Environment Protection Agency’s report
number EPA-841-B-00-005. This report provides a literature review about the tool and how it has been used
in development projects not only in Maryland, but also in other parts of the country.
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html).

80
City officials and to seek their support and input in the process. As a result, Imago can

facilitate its goal of providing a demonstration for other Cincinnati neighborhoods to

follow.

4. Plan with action on a small scale.

The development of sustainable communities is never a finished product. As a long-

term process, it is important to measure progress incrementally. Equally, it is

recommended to demonstrate the ecological neighborhood on a small scale. Urban eco-

village projects such as the Los Angeles Eco-village and the Cleveland EcoVillage have

begun by building on small success projects aimed at gaining momentum. The Los

Angeles Eco-village has focused its efforts on a one to three block area with the intention to

keep its residents under 500 (Arkin 96). Cleveland’s townhouse projects, where the use of

solar panels and other sustainable technologies has occurred, have also followed this path.

Because neighborhood planning can be a long and complex process, citizens looking for

quick action can become frustrated. The key is to keep it within a practical scale such as

Arkin advocates in order to nurture a critical mass. If successful on initial short-term

objectives, residents within the focus area can more easily demonstrate their actions to

adjacent residents. The original intention of the Seminary Square Eco-Village project was

to demonstrate on the 50-block scale and hope that the initial efforts would ripple through

the community. As Imago discovered, this scale stretched resources thin. Despite their

successful initial efforts, it left modest results. A large area such as Seminary Square

provides complex and dynamic issues to address. Therefore, a small-scale project could

facilitate more consensuses on approaches.

81
 Table 7 below summarizes the recommendations for the future development of the

ecological neighborhood. The significance of this case study and the recommendations

made in reflection serve to assist future decision makers in understanding the process for

addressing any alternative approach to neighborhood re-development.

Table 7: Summary of Recommendations for Future Decision-making of the

Seminary Square Eco-village Project.
1. Analyze case studies of other urban neighborhood revitalization projects.

2. Set indicators in order to measure progress.

3. Advocate governmental policy changes undermining development.

4. Plan with action on a small scale.

Final Thoughts

The case study presented here takes the process of the Seminary Square Eco-village up

to a certain point in time. Events in the community are continuing to unfold. Imago, the

lead organization, has not terminated their desire to create a demonstration project for an

ecological neighborhood. Price Hill Will’s Ecological Neighborhood Action Team will

likely address this desire. Nevertheless, this case study does provide an important set of

lessons on which to reflect and for future participants to understand.

As Imago has discovered and many others before them, a good plan takes time to

implement. The original work plan for the Eco-village was created in 1999. If Imago and

East Price Hill residents desire to refocus their approach for the urban eco-village, it will

require patience. It will be necessary to understand the need for long-term commitment

and consistent revision of goals and objectives. They must continue to study the dynamics

of the neighborhood and to understand the socio-economic context in which they will

develop. In an area as big as Seminary Square and East Price Hill, existing conditions will

82
challenge their stamina and will require vast communicative efforts. Perhaps the new

endeavor through Price Hill Will can be the organizational structure needed to address the

issues confronted in the Seminary Square area.

The future of the urban eco-village concept remains unknown. Revitalizing a

neighborhood is a complex and time-demanding endeavor. Revitalizing within new

paradigms like the urban eco-village is even more difficult. In order for Imago and Price

Hill residents to realize the dream of an ecological and vibrant community, as Gilman

expressed, it will require patience and determination. The Seminary Square Eco-village

provides a prime opportunity to prove the vitality of such an approach, especially during an

era when demonstration for healthy urban living is needed. In conclusion, I provide an

anonymous quote that I once heard that I find most appropriate to any local community that

has initiated an ambitious project. “If you tell the bear to dance, you must be willing to

keep dancing until the bear wants to stop”.

83
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arkin, Lois. 1992. The Los Angeles Eco Village: A Sustainable Urban Community.
Sustainable Cities: Concepts and Strategies for Eco-City Development , editors Bob
Walter, Lois Arkin, and Richard Crenshaw, 273-9. Los Angeles: Eco-Home Media.

Barton, Hugh (ed). 2000. Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-neighborhoods.
London: Earthscan.

Barton, Hugh, Marcus Grant and Richard Guise. 2003. Shaping Neighborhoods: A Guide
for Health, Sustainability and Vitality. New York: Spon Press.

Bates, Albert, 2003. Ecovillage Roots (and Branches): When, Where, and How We Re-
invented this Ancient Village Concept. Communities: A Journal for Cooperative
Living. Spring 2003, 25-8, 58-9. .

Beatley, Timothy and Kristy Manning. 1997. The Ecology of Place: Planning for
Environment, Economy, and Community. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago: American Planning
Association .

Bushe, Gervase. 2004. “Appreciate Inquiry”. [www.gervasebushe.ca/apping.htm.] 12 May

2004.

CAGIS (Cincinnati Area Geographical Information Systems). 2004. GIS Data. Cincinnati.

Chifos, Carla. 2004. “Ecovillage.” Encyclopedia of the City. Roger Caves (ed.) London
and New York: Routledge. Forthcoming.

Christian, Diana Leafe. 2003. Creating a Life Together: Practicle Tools to Grow
Ecovillages and Intentional Communities. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society
Publishers.

________. 1999. Six ingredients for forming communities: that help reduce conflict down
the road. Creating Harmony: Conflict Resolution in Community, editor Hildur
Jackson, 185-93. Denmark: Gaia Trust.

Clifton, Kay. 2004. Interview by author. Cincinnati, 29 January.

Corbett, Judy and Michael Corbett. 2000. Designing Sustainable Communities: Learning
from Village Homes. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Community Investment Partners. 2001. Midterm Report. Cincinnati: Community

Investment Partners.

Cordivae, Jacob Stevens,. Why Urban Ecovillages are Crucial. Communities: A Journal for
Cooperative Living. Summer 2003, 117 : 37-8.

84
EcoCity Cleveland. The Cleveland Ecovillage. 2003. [http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/
ecologicaldesign/ecovillage/intro_ecovillage.html]. 17 November 2003.

Freifelder, Rachel, Gina Baker, and Steve Lafer,. “Planning and Zoning for Ecovillages-
Encouraging News.” Communities: A Journal for Cooperative Living. Summer
1996, 91: 62.

Geiger, Robert Michael. 1999. A History of Seminary Square Eco-Village. Cincinnati:

Price Hill Historical Society.

Giglierano, Geoffrey J. and Deborah A. Overmyer. 1988. The Bicentennial Guide to

Greater Cincinnati: A Portrait of Two Hundred Years. Cincinnati: The Cincinnati
Historical Society.

Gilligan, Ellen. 2004. Interview by author. Cincinnati, 9 February.

Gilman, Robert. 1991a. “The Eco-village Challenge.” In Context. Summer 29.

[http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC29/TOC29.htm] 17 November 2003

Gilman, Robert. 1991a. “Guidelines for Eco-village Development” In Context. Summer

29. [http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC29/TOC29.htm] 17 November 2003.

Girardet, Herbert. 1999. Sustainable Cities: A Contradiction in Terms? The Earthscan

Reader in Sustainable Cities, editor David Satterthwaite. 413-25. London:
Earthscan.

Global Eco-village Network. 1996. The Earth is Our Habitat: Proposal for Support
Programme for Eco-Habitats as Living Examples of Agenda 21 Planning.
Denmark: Gaia Trust.

Global Eco-village Network. 2003. “What is an Ecovillage”. [http://gen.ecovillage.org/].

17 November 2003.

Godschalk, David R. and William E. Mills. 1966. “A Collaborative Approach to Planning

through Urban Activities.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners March,
32: 86-95.

Green, Gary Paul and Anna Haines. 2002. Asset Building and Community Development .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hancock, Trevor. 1997. “Healthy Sustainable Communities: Concept, Fledgling Practice,

and Implications for Governance” in Eco-city Dimensions: Healthy Communities,
Healthy Planet, editor Mark Roseland. 42-50. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New
Society Publishers.

Imago. 1997. Price Hill Energy Efficiency Campaign: Final Report. Cincinnati: Imago.

85
Innes, Judith and David Booher. 1999. “Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive
Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning.” APA Journal
Autumn, 65, 4: 412-423.

Institute for Sustainable Communities. 2003. “Definitions of a Sustainable Community.”

[http://www.iscvt.org/FAQscdef.htm]. 9 November 2003.

Jackson, Hildur and Karen Svensson. 2002. Ecovillage Living: Restoring the Earth and
Her People. Denmark: Gaia Trust .

Joseph, Linda and Albert Bates. “What is an "Ecovillage"?” Communities: A Journal for
Cooperative Living. Summer 2003, 117: 22-4.

Krishna, Anirudh. 2002. Active Social Capital: Tracing the Roots of Development and
Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kingsley, G. Thomas and Pettit, Kathryn L. S. 2002. Population Growth and Decline in
City Neighborhoods. [http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310594 ]. 17 November
2003.

Martin, Jack and Steve Briggs. 2004. Interview by author. Cincinnati, 23 January.

Maloney, Michael and Janet R. Buelow. 1997. The Social Areas of Cincinnati: An Analysis
of Needs. 3rd edition. Cincinnati: Michael Maloney.

Musser, H.A. 2004. Interview by author, Cincinnati, 28 January.

Norberg-Hodge, Helena. “Why ecovillages? - The world needs people to set up

sustainable communities.” The Ecologist, February 2002, 38.

Portney, Kent E. 2003. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the
Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The MIT Press.

President's Council on Sustainable Development. 1996. Sustainable America: A New

Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future .
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Price Hill Will. 2003. Price Hill Housing Strategy, 2004-2010. Cincinnati: Imago.

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”. Journal
of Democracy, 6, 1: 65-78.

Roseland, Mark. 1997. Dimensions of the Future: An Eco-city Overview. in Eco-city

Dimensions: Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet, editor Mark Roseland. 1-12.
Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers.

86
________. 1998. Toward Sustainable Communities. Gabriola Island, British Columbia:
New Society Publishers.

Schenk, Eileen. 2004. Interview by author, Cincinnati, 29 January.

Schenk, Jim. 2004. Interview by author, Cincinnati, 3 February.

School of Planning, University of Cincinnati Class of 2000. 1999. Seminary Square Eco-
Village Work Plan. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.

Shenker, Barry. 1986. Intentional Communities: Ideology and Alienation in Communal

Societies. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Srinivasan, Shobha, Liam R. O'Fallon, and Allen Dearry. 2003. Creating healthy
communities, healthy homes, healthy people: initiating a research agenda on the
built environment and public health. American Journal of Public Health. 93, no. 9:
1446-50.

Stake, Robert. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.

United States Census Bureau. 2000. Cincinnati SMSA, 1940-2000. [www.census.gov] 12

May 2004.

Wackerna gel, Mathis, and William Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing
Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

87