Abstract

Two Community Development Corporations in Oakland, California, anchor the following analysis. These legally homogenous organizations have implemented similar “low-income” redevelopment projects widely hailed as representing a single successful blueprint for urban revitalization. Despite their similarities, however, these entities have produced starkly different socio-economic outcomes—a phenomenon traced to the CDCs' divergent internal structures and the contrasting external contexts of their development activities. These variations generated competing “logics” of redevelopment. On one hand, we find a CDC dominated by market-oriented interests and the economic logic of exchange-values, while on the other, we find a CDC dominated by community-oriented interests and the social logic of neighborhood use-values.