Berkeley Planning Journal

Recent work in planning and political science has shown the dura­ bility of liberal hopes for •progressive cities• (Clave! 1986, Clave! and Wiewel 1991, Deleon 1992, Goldsmith and Blakely 1992). In Chi­cago, New York, and San Francisco, long-dominant •pro-growth coali­tions• have fallen to alternative coalitions who tried to ensure that more resources reached or remained in the hands of "the community" (Mollenkopf 1983 and 1993, Elkin 1987, Stone 1989, Deleon 1992, Clave! and Wiewel 1991). In practice, this diversion of resources tended to mean more power for resident-controlled neighborhood groups (Castells 1983), more resources for non-profit economic and housing development corporations (Mier and Moe 1991), more oppor­ tunities for public participation in local decision-making (Keating and Krumholz 1991 ), and constraints on large-scale real estate developers (Deleon 1992).