Color Insert
Plate 1. The Diverse Economies Iceberg by Community Economies Collective, modified from original rendering by Maliha Safri. This drawing represents the economy as vast, diverse, and mostly invisible because the formal capitalist economy stands for all economic activities as a result of its hegemonic position. Diverse Economies Iceberg by Community Economies Collective is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Figure Description
A diagram presenting a sideways view of a floating iceberg as a metaphor for the diverse economy. At the top of the iceberg, above water, is written “wage labor, commodity markets, capitalist firms.” This represents the visibility of capitalist institutions within capitalocentric discourse. A much larger portion of the iceberg is located below the water. A diverse list of noncapitalist activities and locations is listed on this part of the iceberg. The list includes: gifts, informal lending, barter, under-the-table, libraries, community gardens, worker cooperatives, unpaid labor, consumer cooperatives, mutual aid, faith-based economies, housing cooperatives, community land trusts, community currencies, participatory budgeting, community supported agriculture, intentional communities, ecovillages, the commons, scavenging, fair trade, potlucks, cooperative nurseries.
Plate 2. U.S. Solidarity Economy Mapping Project and directory (launched in 2015). This interactive mapping platform and database (www.solidarityeconomy.us) enables anyone to search for solidarity economy initiatives by type and location all over the United States and provides a functional tool for practitioners and researchers. The map displays large numbers of initiatives (over twenty-five thousand in total) that cluster in different parts of the United States, indicating the solidarity economy’s large spatial footprint and extensive geographic dispersal. Due to the differences in data-gathering by region and solidarity economy sector, the level of detail varies across locations, scale, and initiative types.
Plate 3. Solidarity economy initiatives by industrial sector. The pie-chart graphs show the breakdown of solidarity economy initiatives by major industrial sectors. The percentages of initiatives in each sector are calculated relative to their total number in each city. The graphs reveal that the solidarity economy is most present in the sectors that provide goods and services that support the most basic needs of people (e.g., food, housing, finance, and care work) in all three cities.
Figure Description
This figure comprises three pie charts (one for each city). The charts break down the composition of solidarity economy initiatives into six sectors where it is most present within these cities’ economies: construction and manufacturing, food and farming, finance/budgeting, housing/real estate, professional services and art, and care work. There is also an “other” category that includes the remaining sectors. The pie chart for New York City shows data for 2,279 initiatives, of which 54 percent are in the housing/real estate sector, 33 percent in food and farming, 5 percent in finance/budgeting, 4 percent in professional services and art, 3 percent in care work, 1 percent in construction and manufacturing, and 1 percent in other. The pie chart for Philadelphia shows data for 559 initiatives, where 80 percent are in food and farming, 8 percent in finance/budgeting, 5 percent in professional services and art, 4 percent in care work, 3 percent in housing/real estate, and less than 1 percent in construction and manufacturing, while other makes up 1 percent. The pie chart for Worcester shows data for 116 initiatives. Here, 78 percent of all initiatives are in food and farming, 11 percent in finance/budgeting, 6 percent in professional services and art, 3 percent in housing/real estate, and 1 percent count as other, while neither care work nor construction and manufacturing are represented. Worcester’s composition in general resembles Philadelphia in that they are both dominated by food and farming, while New York has a distinct structure in which the majority of initiatives are in the housing sector.
Plate 4. Stone Soup in 2014 on the eve of the rededication. Photo taken by Stephen Healy. The Victorian style building with its many divisible spaces has allowed for diverse organizations and initiatives to find homes in this one site. Stone Soup was the name of both the building and the organization that hosted all the individual groups like Earn-a-Bike, EPOCA, a local ACLU chapter, and many others.
Plate 5. Workers in worker cooperatives by race. This figure shows the breakdown of workers by race for all worker cooperatives in New York City in 2015 and the same data excluding the outlier, the largest U.S. worker cooperative CHCA. In both cases, Latina women remain the dominant constituency. CHCA’s employment of Black women increases the percentage of Black worker-owners in the graph on the left. Source: Pavlovskaya, Hudson, and Safri, NYC Worker Cooperative Survey.
Figure Description
Two donut charts show the racial distribution of workers in New York City’s worker co‑ops. The chart on the left shows all workers in all worker co‑ops: 70 percent of workers are Hispanic, 28 percent are Black, 1 percent are white, and 1 percent are other. The pie chart on the right shows the distribution of race for workers excluding the major outlier of Cooperative Home Care Associates. That chart reveals that 71 percent of workers are Hispanic, 17 percent are white, 5 percent are Black, 4 percent are Asian, and 3 percent are other.
Map 1. The spatial footprint of the solidarity economy in Philadelphia, New York City, and Worcester. Color-coded dots show the locations of different types of solidarity economy initiatives within each city. The maps display both the solidarity economy’s diversity and its unique geographic spread within each city.
Figure Description
Dot maps of the solidarity economy distribution in Philadelphia, New York City, and Worcester are displayed side by side. Within the maps, numerous differently colored dots indicate the location of solidarity economy initiatives in each city. The ten dot colors reflect the following categories of the solidarity economy: food co‑ops; artist cooperatives and collectives; worker co‑ops; school and childcare co‑ops; CSA (community-supported agriculture); credit unions; community gardens; housing co‑ops, cohousing, and intentional communities; other collectives; and other co‑ops, solidarity economy, and support organizations. The spread of the dots across each city demonstrates the wide spatial reach of the solidarity economy in general and its unique geographic footprints. The mixing of colors demonstrates the diversity of the solidarity economy in each city. And the appearance of dense clusters in some parts of the cities demonstrates the place-based character of solidarity economy formations.
Map 2. Density of solidarity economy initiatives in Philadelphia, New York City, and Worcester. The solidarity economy density surface for each city was computed using the kernel density estimation from dot locations of the individual initiatives. The variation in density shows areas of low and high concentration of these initiatives.
Figure Description
Maps of density of the solidarity economy in Philadelphia, New York City, and Worcester are displayed side by side. Within each map, different shades of purple convey variation in density, with darker shades indicating more dense concentrations of solidarity economy initiatives and lighter shades indicating less dense concentrations. While in all cities there is a noticeable clustering in downtown areas (owing to centrality of location), the three cities have distinct geographic distributions of the solidarity economy. The map of Philadelphia shows a cluster of high-density areas in and around the center of the city with a smaller high-density cluster in the northwest of the city. The map of New York City shows very dense concentrations throughout much of Manhattan, especially in the northern half and in the Lower East Side (southeast corner of Manhattan). In addition, high-concentration areas are also found in the Bronx (located at the top of the map) and in the northern parts of Brooklyn. The density of solidarity economy initiatives is low in Staten Island and Queens. The map of Worcester shows one area of particularly high density located in the center of the map, with lower-density areas fanning out from there. In the book, we explain those distributions and compare them to each other, when warranted.
Map 3. Three-dimensional visualization of solidarity economy density in Philadelphia, New York City, and Worcester. In this three-dimensional view of solidarity economy density within each city, the highest density concentrations appear as hills and mountains separated by valleys and plains of lower density. The largest clustering occurs in specific neighborhoods in addition to central locations.
Figure Description
This collection of maps replicates Map 2 but with an added three-dimensional element. Maps of Philadelphia, New York City, and Worcester are again displayed side by side, but with a slight tilt. Shades of purple again show different densities of solidarity economy initiatives. In these maps, however, higher densities also appear as higher elevations, resembling hills and mountains on a flat surface. The effect is to reveal greater contrasts among high-density areas and between high-density areas and low-density areas. The maps emphasize the presence and distinct geographic character of the solidarity economy within the three cities. In the Philadelphia map, the high-density areas near the center of the map appear as three distinct rounded peaks significantly larger than the high-density area in the northwest. In the New York City map, the high-density areas in the southeast and north of Manhattan tower above other areas of the city. The high-density areas in Brooklyn are shorter but appear to cover a wider area overall. In the Worcester map, the high-density area in the center of the city rises up very sharply and narrowly as a peak high above the rest of the city.
Map 4. Solidarity economy hot spots and Philadelphia neighborhoods. Hot spots of solidarity economy are areas with the highest density of initiatives. Those areas were isolated from the density surface and matched to specific neighborhoods. Each hot spot is assigned a number (from P1 to P5) and is associated with the corresponding neighborhood names.
Figure Description
A map of Philadelphia divided into eight different regions of the city: Center City, South, Southwest, West, Northwest, North, Northeast, and Kensington. Kensington is a region located along the middle eastern edge of the city. Within the city, the outlines of five solidarity economy hot spots are shown. The hot spots are colored in varying shades of purple to indicate different density levels within the hot spots. Within the map, the hot spots are coded as P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5. Outside of the map, the hot spots are named in bold: “P1 Northwest,” “P2 North,” “P3 West,” “P4 Center City/South,” and “P5 Kensington/North.” Under each hot spot name is a list of key neighborhoods encompassed by the respective hot spot. Under P1: Germantown and Mount Airy. Under P2: Brewerytown, Sharswood, North Central, and Fairmount. Under P3: Cedar Park, West Powelton, Spruce Hill, Belmont, Mill Creek, Haddington, and Haverford North. Under P4: Point Breeze, Newbold, Rittenhouse Square, Washington Square, Graduate Hospital, Passyunk Square, Hawthorne, Bella Vista, and Queen Village. Under P5: Kensington, Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Hartranft, and Norris Square.
Map 5. Solidarity economy hot spots and New York City neighborhoods. Hot spots of solidarity economy are areas with the highest density of initiatives. Those areas were isolated from the density surface and matched to specific neighborhoods. Each hot spot is assigned a number (from N1 to N7) and is associated with the corresponding neighborhood name(s).
Figure Description
A map of New York City divided into the five boroughs: Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and the Bronx. Within the city, the outlines of seven solidarity economy hot spots are shown. The hot spots are colored in varying shades of purple to indicate different density levels within the hot spots. Within the map, the hot spots are coded as N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6, and N7. Outside of the map, the hot spots are named in bold: “N1 The South Bronx,” “N2 Northern Manhattan,” “N3 Midtown/Hell’s Kitchen,” “N4 Downtown Manhattan,” “N5 North Brooklyn,” “N6 North Brooklyn,” and “N7 North Brooklyn.” Under each hot spot name is a list of key neighborhoods encompassed by the respective hot spot. Under N1: Morrisania-Melrose and East Tremont. Under N2: Morningside Heights, Harlem, and Washington Heights. Under N3: Clinton and Midtown West. Under N4: Lower East Side, East Village, and Chinatown. Under N5: Williamsburg. Under N6: Clinton Hill, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, Bushwick South, and Boerum Hill. Under N7: East New York.
Map 6. Solidarity economy hot spots and Worcester neighborhoods. Hot spots of solidarity economy are areas with the highest density of initiatives. Those areas were isolated from the density surface and matched to specific neighborhoods. There is one large hot spot in Worcester (W1) with the attached neighborhood names.
Figure Description
A map of Worcester is divided into six regions: West Side, North Worcester, East Side, South Worcester, Central, and the Central Business District (CBD). The area known as “Main South” is part of the Central region. Within the city, the outline of one solidarity economy hot spot is shown. The hot spot is colored in varying shades of purple to indicate different density levels within it. Within the map, the hot spot is coded as W1. Outside of the map, the hot spot is named in bold and followed by a list of five key neighborhoods it encompasses: Main South, Central Business District (CBD), Main Middle, University Park, and Beacon Brightly.
Map 7. Solidarity economy hot spots and racial and poverty geographies in Philadelphia. These two maps explore spatial coincidence of the solidarity economy hot spots with geographies of poverty and race. On the left, solidarity economy hot spot boundaries overlay median household income shown as multiples of poverty levels for a family of three. The higher the income, the darker the background color. The two lightest shades represent areas at or below twice the poverty line levels. On the right, solidarity economy hot spots overlay the racial composition calculated using a two-third majority threshold. In most cases, the boundaries of the hot spots overlap with neighborhoods that have the highest poverty levels and that have high percentages of people of color. The revealed spatial patterns are explained in the text. The census data are for 2019.
Figure Description
Two maps of Philadelphia overlay the outlines of the solidarity economy hot spots (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) identified in Map 4 on demographic data on income and race. The left map displays median household income divided into four groupings defined in terms of the poverty line: at the poverty line, 2× the poverty line, 3× the poverty line, and over 3× the poverty line. The right map displays racial distribution based on a two-thirds majority threshold. Separate colors are used to represent areas where Black, Latinx, Asian, or white populations constitute 67–100 percent of the overall population. In areas where no single race constitutes a two-thirds majority, separate colors are used to represent areas where people of color in combination constitute 67–100 percent and areas where the white population constitutes 33–67 percent of the population. In most cases, the boundaries of the hot spots overlap with neighborhoods that have the highest poverty levels and that have high percentages of people of color. One exception is the Center City area (P4), which has a higher income level.
Map 8. Solidarity economy hot spots and racial and poverty geographies in New York City. These two maps explore spatial coincidence of the solidarity economy hot spots with geographies of poverty and race. On the left, solidarity economy hot spot boundaries overlay median household income shown as multiples of poverty levels for a family of three. The higher the income, the darker the background color. The two lightest shades represent areas at or below twice the poverty line levels. On the right, solidarity economy hot spots overlay the racial composition calculated using a two-third majority threshold. In most cases, the boundaries of the hot spots overlap with neighborhoods that have the highest poverty levels and that have high percentages of people of color. The revealed spatial patterns are explained in the text. The census data are for 2019.
Figure Description
This collection of two maps overlays the outlines of the solidarity economy hot spots in New York (N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6, N7) identified in Map 5 over color-coded maps showing demographic data on income and race. The left map displays median household income divided into four groupings defined in terms of the poverty line: at the poverty line, 2× the poverty line, 3× the poverty line, and over 3× the poverty line. The right map displays racial distribution based on a two-thirds majority threshold. Separate colors are used to represent areas where Black, Latinx, Asian, or white populations constitute 67–100 percent of the overall population. In areas where no single race constitutes a two-thirds majority, separate colors are used to represent: areas where people of color in combination constitute 67–100 percent and areas where the white population constitutes 33–67 percent of the population. Four of seven hot spots are located in largely poor areas that have high densities of communities of color (either mixed or with Latinx or Black majorities). Significantly, even the remaining three hot spots (N3, N4, N5) contain considerable racial diversity. Two of these (N4, N5) also encompass areas where very affluent neighborhoods butt up against considerably poorer ones.
Map 9. Solidarity economy hot spots and racial and poverty geographies in Worcester, Massachusetts. These two maps explore spatial coincidence of the solidarity economy hot spots with geographies of poverty and race. On the left, solidarity economy hot spot boundaries overlay median household income shown as multiples of poverty levels for a family of three. The higher the income, the darker the background color. The two lightest shades represent areas at or below twice the poverty line levels. On the right, solidarity economy hot spots overlay the racial composition calculated using a two-third majority threshold. In most cases, the boundaries of the hot spots overlap with neighborhoods that have the highest poverty levels and that have high percentages of people of color. The revealed spatial patterns are explained in the text. The census data are for 2019.
Figure Description
This collection of two maps overlays the outlines of the solidarity economy hot spots in Worcester, Massachusetts, (W1) identified in Map 6 on color-coded maps showing demographic data on income and race. The left map displays median household income divided into four groupings defined in terms of the poverty thresholds: at or below the poverty line, 2× the poverty line, 3× the poverty line, and over 3× the poverty line. The right map displays racial distribution based on a two-thirds majority threshold. Separate colors are used to represent areas where Latinx or white populations constitute 67–100 percent of the overall population. In areas where no single race constitutes a two-thirds majority, separate colors are used to represent areas where people of color in combination constitute 67–100 percent and areas where the white population constitutes 33–67 percent of the population. We examine the neighborhood containing the largest hot spot—Main South—in much greater detail in Chapter 3. The hot spot is located in a low-income neighborhood with a sizable Latinx majority and other people of color.
Map 10. Solidarity economy hot spots and Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), “Residential Security” maps of Philadelphia, New York City, and Worcester, 1935–1968. The boundaries of the solidarity economy hot spots are overlaid on the infamous HOLC maps that spearheaded the decades-long disinvestment and abandonment of the redlined neighborhoods. Produced from the 1930s onward, HOLC maps color-coded areas of cities according to their desirability for investment: A–Best (in green), B–Still desirable (in blue), C–Definitely declining (in yellow), and D–Hazardous (in red, hence the term redlined). These maps entrenched and helped reproduce many forms of racialized discrimination and disinvestment in the redlined neighborhoods. In all three cities, solidarity economy hot spots overlap extensively with the formerly redlined neighborhoods. In the book, we explore the reasons for this overlap.
Map 11. Stone Soup is located within the neighborhood of Main South that flanks Main Street and overlaps with the major Worcester solidarity economy hot spot. The background map shows that this historically immigrant neighborhood is today constituted by a majority of people of color and marked by deep poverty.
Figure Description
In this map, areas of Worcester where over 60 percent of the population is nonwhite and also living within 150 percent of the poverty line are colored green. An inset map of the entire city reveals that such poor communities of color are located almost entirely within the Main South neighborhood. The primary map provides a zoomed-in image of this neighborhood and displays the location of Stone Soup within such a green-shaded area.
Map 12. CSAs and percent white population in New York City and Philadelphia. Mapped against the distribution of percent white population, CSA drop-off locations are shown with dots. In both Philadelphia and New York City, CSA drop-off sites are predominantly concentrated within majority white neighborhoods.
Figure Description
CSA drop-off sites are plotted as dots over two color-shaded maps of Philadelphia and New York City depicting percentage of white residents in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent. In both cities, the majority of CSA drop-off locations are shown to be in majority white neighborhoods, while very few are located in areas where the white population is less than or equal to 25 percent of the population.
Map 13. CSAs and percent white population in Worcester. The locations of twelve CSA farms outside the city of Worcester and eleven CSA drop-off locations within the city are mapped against distribution of percent of white population. In a smaller city, home delivery direct from the farm is more possible. But proximity of CSA farms to Worcester also makes it possible for its residents to access produce directly from close-by farms located in white rural areas.
Figure Description
This map plots CSA drop-off sites and CSA farms as black and red dots (respectively) on a color-shaded map depicting the percentage white population in Worcester and its surrounding countryside. The map depicts the percentage white population in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent white. Within the Worcester city limits, eleven drop-off sites are visible, including in areas of the city where the white population is relatively small. In the surrounding countryside, ten CSA farms are visible, all in areas with populations over 75 percent white. In a smaller city such as this, relative proximity to CSA farms makes it possible for Worcester’s residents to access produce directly from close-by farms located in white rural areas.
Map 14. Community gardens and median household income scaled to poverty line levels in Philadelphia and New York City. Community garden locations in Philadelphia and New York City are shown against the distribution of median household income scaled to poverty levels, with the lighter shades indicating areas at or below twice poverty line levels (see Maps 7 and 8). This is where we find the majority of community gardens in both cities.
Figure Description
The distribution of community gardens is plotted on color-shaded maps of Philadelphia and New York City displaying variations in median household income. The income variable is divided into four groupings defined in terms of city-specific poverty thresholds for a family of three: at or below the poverty line, 2× the poverty line, 3× the poverty line, and over 3× the poverty line. In both cities, the majority of community gardens are located in areas where the median income is at or below twice the poverty line levels.
Map 15. Community gardens and percent Black and Latinx populations in Philadelphia. This map shows that community gardens in Philadelphia are concentrated within Latinx and Black communities. Our geographic analysis finds 85 percent of all community gardens within majority people of color neighborhoods.
Figure Description
A set of two maps of Philadelphia show the distribution of the city’s community gardens in relation to demographic data on race. The map on the left overlays community garden locations (represented as dots) on a color-shaded map showing percentage Black population. The map depicts the percentage Black population in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Black. The right map does the same but with the percentage Latinx population. Together, the two maps show high concentrations of gardens in highly concentrated Black and Latinx neighborhoods.
Map 16. Community gardens and percent Black and Latinx populations in New York City. This map shows that community gardens in New York City are concentrated within Latinx and Black communities. Our geographic analysis finds 86 percent of all community gardens within people of color neighborhoods.
Figure Description
This set of two maps of New York City shows the distribution of the city’s community gardens in relation to demographic data on race. The left map overlays garden locations (represented as dots) on a color-shaded map showing percentage Black population. The map depicts the percentage Black population in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Black. The right map does the same but with the percentage Latinx population. Together, the maps show considerable concentrations of gardens in highly concentrated Black and Latinx neighborhoods.
Map 17. Map of community gardens and percent Black and Latinx populations in Worcester. This map shows that community gardens are mainly clustered in the areas surrounding an immigrant neighborhood of Main South but are found in other parts of the city as well. Our geographic analysis finds that approximately 40 percent of community gardens in Worcester are clustered in Latinx neighborhoods. The Black population is currently small.
Figure Description
This set of two maps of Worcester shows the distribution of the city’s community gardens in relation to demographic data on race. The left map overlays community garden locations (represented as dots) on a color-shaded map showing percentage Black population. The map depicts the percentage Black population in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Black. The right map does the same but with the percentage Latinx population. The maps reveals that very few neighborhoods have populations greater than 25 percent Black. Community gardens are shown to cluster in neighborhoods with relatively high percentages of Latinx residents.
Map 18. Cooperatives and collectives and percent Black, Latinx, and white populations in Philadelphia. The distribution of cooperatives in Philadelphia (excluding credit unions) relative to racial groups indicates that few cooperatives are found in majority racial neighborhoods, while many tend to concentrate on the edges of homogeneous neighborhoods where populations are diverse.
Figure Description
A set of three side-by-side maps of Philadelphia plotting the locations of cooperatives and collectives (excluding credit unions) in relation to the distribution of Black, Latinx, and white populations, respectively. Cooperatives and collectives appear as black dots on color-shaded maps displaying the percentages of Black, Latinx, and white populations measured in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent. Together, the maps show sharp lines of racial segregation in the city. They also reveal that cooperatives and collectives are almost entirely absent from predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods. They are also not heavily concentrated in predominantly white neighborhoods. Instead, they appear to cluster in more racially mixed areas of the city.
Map 19. Cooperatives and collectives and percent Black population in Germantown/Mount Airy neighborhoods of Philadelphia. Philadelphia’s neighborhood of Germantown/Mount Airy includes areas of significant transition between predominantly Black and non-Black neighborhoods and is part of solidarity economy hot spot P1 shown in Map 4. Locations of cooperatives gravitate to mixed neighborhoods.
Figure Description
This close-up of Germantown and Mount Airy neighborhoods in northwest Philadelphia plots cooperatives over a color-shaded map displaying the percentage of Black residents in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Black. The majority of co‑ops in this region of the city are found in the racially mixed areas that span the eastern edge of predominantly Black communities.
Map 20. Cooperatives and collectives and percent Black population along Baltimore Avenue in West Philadelphia. The area of West Philadelphia along Baltimore Avenue includes areas of sharp transition between predominantly Black and non-Black neighborhoods and is part of solidarity economy hot spot P3 shown in Map 4. Locations of cooperatives gravitate to mixed neighborhoods.
Figure Description
This close-up of the region of West Philadelphia that encompasses the Cedar Park neighborhood and a major stretch of Baltimore Avenue plots cooperatives over a color-shaded map displaying the percentage of Black residents in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Black. The majority of co‑ops in this region of the city are shown to tightly cluster in the racially mixed areas along the eastern edge of predominantly Black communities.
Map 21. Cooperatives and collectives and percent Latinx population in Kensington, Philadelphia. The historic neighborhood of Kensington includes areas of significant transition between predominantly Latinx and non-Latinx neighborhoods and is part of solidarity economy hot spot P5 shown in Map 4. Locations of cooperatives gravitate to mixed areas.
Figure Description
This close-up of the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia plots cooperatives over a color-shaded map displaying the percentage of Latinx residents in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Latinx. The majority of co‑ops in this region of the city are shown to cluster in racially mixed neighborhoods along the eastern and western edges of the predominantly Latinx communities.
Map 22. Affordable housing co-ops and percent Black and Latinx populations in New York City. Mapping the affordable (limited-equity) housing co-ops together with distribution of combined Black and Latinx populations shows considerable clustering of these cooperatives in these neighborhoods.
Figure Description
This image plots the locations of housing cooperatives as many dots over a color-shaded map of New York City displaying the combined percentage of Black and Latinx residents. The data is organized in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Black and Latinx. The map distinguishes between different types of housing co‑ops. Orange dots represent HDFC co‑ops, yellow dots represent limited-equity Mitchell-Lama, and pink dots represent a few other types. HDFC dots far outnumber Mitchell-Lama and other co‑op types. There is also significant clustering of housing co‑ops in northern Manhattan, parts of Brooklyn, and the Bronx. Few housing co‑ops are shown in Queens or Staten Island.
Map 23. HDFC and Mitchell-Lama housing co-ops in the Bronx. These two maps show location and number of units in affordable housing cooperatives in the Bronx borough of New York City. The much larger Mitchell-Lama housing cooperatives, and especially their largest complexes, tend to be located in the periphery. The smaller but numerous HDFC co-ops are located more within the Bronx neighborhoods that saw the most landlord abandonment in the 1970s and 1980s. Data source: United Homesteading Assistance Board, private correspondence.
Figure Description
A set of two maps showing a close-up of the Bronx borough of New York City. The left map plots the distribution and size of HDFC housing cooperatives. The right map plots the distribution and size of Mitchell-Lama co‑ops. HDFCs are shown to be more numerous and smaller in size, with many co‑ops falling in the 10–99 residential units range. They are spread out in the South Bronx, as opposed to Mitchell-Lama co‑ops, which tend to be pushed out to the edges of the borough. Mitchell-Lama co‑ops tend to be larger, with many falling in the 400–1,999 units range and one reaching the 15,372 residential units range.
Map 24. Black church and other credit union locations and percentage Black population. Mapping credit union main and branch locations in New York City shows that Black church credit unions (collectively owned financial cooperatives) are specifically concentrated within formerly redlined and often Black neighborhoods, where residents were subjected to racial exclusion from private banks. Other credit unions have a considerably more widely distributed geography.
Figure Description
This image plots credit unions as dots over a color-shaded map of New York City displaying the percentage of Black residents in quartiles: from 0 percent up to and including 25 percent; greater than 25 percent but no greater than 50 percent; greater than 50 percent but no greater than 75 percent; and greater than 75 percent Black. Additionally, neighborhoods that had been officially redlined are overlaid to show how credit unions responded to the challenges of credit-starved communities. Credit unions are divided into two main types: Black church credit unions and all other types. While some non-Black-church credit unions also operate in formerly redlined neighborhoods, the majority of Black church credit unions operate in and along the edges of formerly redlined neighborhoods.