Why could similar redevelopment projects have different socio-economic outcomes?
不同的社区发展逻辑会导致怎样的不同结果？

In Oakland, California, several sizable community development corporations (CDC) are leading a number of redevelopment projects that highlight the prospects of urban revitalisation. Among these various projects, the potential of community development strategies is particularly typified by two examples: the Fruitvale Transit Village which is principally managed by the “Unity Council” CDC, and the Mandela Transit Village which is controlled by the “Alliance for West Oakland Development” CDC.
在美国加利福尼亚州的奥克兰市，几个规模较大的社区发展公司正在进行一些城市更新项目。例如主要由“Unity Council”社区发展公司管理的Fruitvale Transit Village和由 “Alliance for West Oakland Development”控制的Mandela Transit Village。

Initially, these two homogeneous community-based organisations have implemented similar projects to revitalise “low-income” communities. Both organisations share identical legal structures and the same organisational characteristics, which are non-profit and public benefit-oriented. Moreover, both organisations have implemented quite similar redevelopment projects: visually, aesthetically, and thematically. Indeed, the Fruitvale and the Mandela projects are hailed as a successful blueprint for inner-city redevelopment by commentators from the political spectrum. Despite the shared similarities from their organisational structures to the characteristics of their respective projects, the socio-economic outcomes produced in the two communities are found to be divergent.
最初，这两家公司的法律架构、组织特征均相同，也都是非营利和公益性的。所实施的重建项目在外观、美学和主题上都相当相似。事实上，它们各自的Fruitvale和Mandela项目都被评论家誉为城市更新的典范。尽管两家公司实在当地实施了相似的项目以振兴低收入社区，但这Fruitvale Transit Village和Mandela Transit Village这两个社区却有着不一样的社会经济结果。

First, CDC has adopted different asset construction methods in their respective communities. While the Unity Council promotes the social assets, the Alliance instead develop market-oriented assets. Second, while the Unity Council seeks to protect the Fruitvale community from the adverse effects of urban renewal and gentrification, the Alliance appears to be aimed at achieving widespread, class-based displacement that systematically threatens the poorest and most vulnerable residents in West Oakland.
首先，这两家公司在各自社区采取了不同的资产建设方式。Unity Council提倡社会资产，而Alliance则是开发市场化的资产。其次，Unity Council会试图保护Fruitvale社区免受城市更新和绅士化的不利影响，而Alliance似乎旨在实现广泛的、基于阶级的迁移，而这使得西奥克兰最贫穷和最弱势的居民受到威胁。

To answer the question of how to account for the divergence in the outcomes of similar redevelopment projects, we must refocus on the internal organisational structures of the Unity Council and the Alliance, and the precise external contexts in which their development activities unfold. To begin with, the internal divergence lies in the different funding strategies and the different levels of community engagement fostered by them. As for the various social outcomes of the Fruitvale and Mandela Village projects, the community development within shifting historical, political, and socio-spatial contexts must be recognised. Even though these two projects are only a few miles away, the relative conditions of urban development were significantly changed by the structural processes of economic globalisation, political retrenchment, and urban entrepreneurialism.
什么原因使得两家公司采取了不同的策略？第一，Unity Council 与Alliance两家公司具有不同的内部组织架构，对待资助策略和社区参与的态度也不相同。第二，两家公司面临不同的外部环境。社区发展是在不断变化的历史、政治和社会空间背景下进行的。尽管这两个项目只有几英里的距离，但城市发展的相对条件却因经济全球化、政治紧缩和城市创业的结构性过程而发生了重大变化。这两方面因素产生了社区发展的不同模式或逻辑，不同的逻辑又产生了不同的社会经济结果。

To summarise, internal organisational divergences designed by restive economic and social agents, combined with ever-changing external structures, have produced competitive models or “logics” for community development. The first model embodied in Mandela Village is a market-oriented process, mainly controlled by economic agents seeking to maximise exchange value. At the same time, other reconstruction work, such as the Fruitvale Village, may prove the logic of community agency and the maximisation of use-values. These competing redevelopment “logics” have produced different organisational forms and produced completely different social results. Therefore, the local conditions and external contexts should be considered seriously in community planning. Even identical planning could achieve different output effects because of the respective contexts in the local areas.
总而言之，由积极变动的经济与社会主体所造成的组织内部差异，再加上不断变化的外部结构，共同产生了不同的社区发展竞争模式或“逻辑”。第一种模式体现在Mandela Village之中，是一种以市场为导向的过程，主要由追求交换价值最大化的经济主体所控制。与此同时，其他重建项目，例如Fruitvale Village，则可能体现出社区能动性的逻辑以及使用价值最大化的逻辑。这些相互竞争的再开发“逻辑”形成了不同的组织形式，并带来了截然不同的社会结果。因此，在社区规划中，应当认真考虑地方条件与外部环境。即使是相同的规划，也可能由于各地方情境的不同而产生不同的实施效果。