Little Italy Branch: Chicago
Following the success of the Mission Bay Library, Chicago started investing in co-location, “from 2011 to 2019, the city made more than $300 million in new investments to renovate or build 30 public libraries in the city’s network of 80 libraries, which serves 10 million visitors annually” (McCormick, 2019, p. 22). This capital investment plan included three new libraries featuring affordable housing. Their approach is more comprehensive and expansive as opposed to the experimental project in San Francisco. Specifically analyzing the Little Italy Branch which, “includes a single-level, open floor plan library and six floors with 73 apartments above, including 37 CHA public housing, 29 affordable, and seven market-rate apartments” (McCormick, 2019, p. 23).
Chicago has a storied past with public housing projects. In the years following WWII, the city vacated numerous “slums” to make room for large-scale housing projects. One of these projects was the Robert Taylor Homes which, “opened in 1962 as the largest single public housing project in the country, housing 27,000 people when fully occupied, more than 20,000 of them children, and nearly all of them African American” (Hunt, 2001, p.96). The neighborhood was poorly designed and maintained. Since all the residents were very low income there was a large, “concentration of intense poverty, while not intended, was difficult to avoid once market filtration made public housing less attractive to the working-class” (Hunt, 2001, p.116). It wasn’t long until these projects were recognized as failures and perpetuated unfair stereotypes surrounding affordable housing, and race placing blame on residents rather than the authorities charged with their construction, and management.
The Little Italy Branch represents a rethink of Chicago’s public housing projects of the past by developing income inclusive projects. As mentioned, the apartments include multiple income levels, which shows promising benefits for low-income residents, “lower-income residents cited housing quality, the overall environment, reduced stress from increased safety, increased self-esteem, and increased motivation to advance their lives” (Levy, McDade, Dumalo, 2010, p.11). Mixed-income public housing however still struggles with providing social cohesion between classes. “Research to date has not provided much evidence that living in a mixed-income environment alone propels people out of poverty and into the workforce or breaks down social barriers” (Fraser, Chaskin, and Bazuin, 2012, p.85). The intentional grouping of different socioeconomic groups does not directly translate into social harmony, groups can still segregate each other. Although improvement in the neighborhood’s physical qualities is beneficial, social cohesion is just as important to build more opportunities for low-income residents that is promised by mixed-income neighborhoods.
Incorporating public services, and community spaces is one method of producing social interaction between residents. The Little Italy Branch in Chicago anchors the neighborhood and provides a service for all residents of the neighborhood. As seen in the Mission Bay Branch low-income residents can utilize the important resources offered at the library, including access to technology, education, and safe spaces for youth. The higher-income residents may still use these resources, but most will view the library as an amenity. Therefore, The Little Italy Branch Library serves as a space that is used by all income levels and can be a solution to the idea that mixed-income developments do not increase social cohesion.