To what extent are people of different incomes and housing tenures engaged in social relationships in new mixed-income, New Urbanist HOPE VI communities? In Seattle's NewHolly Phase I, neighboring relationships are generally more frequent than in other mixed-income situations. Yet systematic differences among housing tenures by language, family composition, and patterns of local facility use and community involvement curtail social interactions. Most important, lack of proximity curtails relations among public housing residents and others on site, implying that the level of physical integration of housing units for the various tenures and incomes in a mixed-income development has repercussions for social interactions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlbrandtR S, 1984Neighborhoods, People, and Community (Plenum Press, New York).
2.
AllportG J, 1979The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).
3.
AndersonG, 1988, “From tents to town houses”Architectural Record176(11) 90–93.
4.
BriggsX d S, 1997, “Moving up versus moving out: Researching and interpreting neighborhood effects in housing mobility programs”Housing Policy Debate8(1) 195–234.
5.
BriggsX d S, 1998, “Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces of social capital”Housing Policy Debate9(1) 177–221.
6.
BrophyP CSmithR N, 1997, “Mixed-income housing: Factors for success”Cityscape3(2) 3–31.
7.
BurbyR JRoheW M, 1989, “Deconcentration of public housing: Effects on residents' satisfaction with their living environments and their fear of crime”Urban Affairs Quarterly25(1) 115–141.
8.
BuronLPopkinSLevyDHarrisLKhadduriJ, 2002The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study: A Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original Residents from Eight Sites (Urban Institute, Washington, DC) http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410591_HOPEVI_ResTrack.pdf.
9.
CampbellK ELeeB A, 1992, “Sources of personal neighbor networks: Social integration, need, or time?”Social Forces701077–1100.
10.
City of Toronto, 1991, “Cityhome 40/40/20 targeting evaluation: study of tenant satisfaction and effects of social mix”, RR 91-001, Housing Department, Policy and Research Section, City of Toronto, 1000 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2.
11.
Congress for the New Urbanism, undated Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design: HOPE VI and the New Urbanism a collaboration of the Congress for the New Urbanism and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Congress for the New Urbanism, 140 S, Dearborn Avenue, Suite 310, Chicago, IL 60603, http://www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/principle.html.
CorcoranJ E, 1980, “King's Lynne: Public housing becomes private housing”Urban Land39(2) 6–12.
14.
DoerrTSiegelJ, 1990, “Mixing incomes at Timberlawn Crescent”Urban Land49(4) 8–11.
15.
FischerC S, 1982To Dwell Among Friends (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
16.
FischerC SJacksonR MStueveC AGersonKMcCallisterLBaldassareM, 1977Networks and Places: Social Relations in the Urban Setting (The Free Press, New York).
17.
GansH J, 1967The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community (Random House, New York).
18.
GansH J, 1968, “Planning as social life: Friendship and neighbor relations in suburban communities”, in People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions Ed. GansH J (Basic Books, New York) pp 152–165.
19.
GarshickR F, 1993Mixed-income Housing at Harbor Point: The 180-degree Turnabout (Tufts University, Medford, MA).
20.
GoeringJFeinsJ D, 2003Choosing a Better Life: Evaluating the Moving to Opportunity Social Experiment (Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC).
21.
GoodyJ E, 1993, “From project to community: The redesign of Columbia Point”Places8(4) 20–33.
22.
HanrattyMMcLanahanSPettitB, 2003, “Los Angeles site findings”, in Choosing a Better Life: Evaluating the Moving to Opportunity Social Experiment Eds GoeringJFeinsJ D (Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC) pp 245–274.
23.
HoganJ B, 1996, “Scattered-site housing: characteristics and consequences”, HUD-7470, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 451 7th Street S W, Washington, DC 20410; http://www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/scatter.html.
24.
KleitR G, 2001a, “The role of neighborhood social networks in scattered-site public housing residents' search for jobs”Housing Policy Debate12541–574.
25.
KleitR G, 2001b, “Neighborhood relations in scattered-site and clustered public housing”Journal of Urban Affairs23409–430.
26.
KleitR G, 2002, “Job search networks and strategies in scattered-site public housing”Housing Studies17(1) 83–100.
LeeB ACampbellK E, 1999, “Neighbor networks of black and white Americans”, in Networks in the Global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities Ed. WellmanB (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 119–146.
30.
LinN, 2000Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
31.
LordD JRentG S, 1987, “Residential satisfaction in scattered-site public housing projects”The Social Science Journal24287–302.
32.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJ M, 2001, “Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks”Annual Review of Sociology27415–444.
33.
MarsdenP V, 1987, “Core discussion networks of Americans”American Sociological Review52122–131.
34.
MichelsonW, 1976Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological Approach, With Revisions (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).
35.
OliverM L, 1988, “The urban black community as network: Toward a social network perspective”Sociological Quarterly29623–645.
36.
PettigrewT F, 1998, “Intergroup contact theory”Annual Review of Psychology4965–85.
RosenbaumJ EPopkinS JKaufmanJ ERusinJ, 1991, “Social integration of low-income black adults in middle-class white suburbs”Social Problems38448–461.
39.
RosenbaumJ EStrohL KFlynnC, 1998, “Lake Park Place: A Study of mixed-income housing”Housing Policy Debate9703–740.
40.
RosenbaumJ EHarrisLDentonN A, 2003, “New places, new faces: An analysis of neighborhoods and social ties among MTO movers in Chicago”, in Choosing a Better Life: Evaluating the Moving to Opportunity Social Experiment Eds GoeringJFeinsJ D (Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC) pp 275–310.
41.
RubinowitzL SRosenbaumJ E, 2000Crossing the Class and Color Lines: From Public Housing to White Suburbia (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
SmithA, 2002Mixed-Income Housing Development: Promise and RealityJoint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 1033 Massachusetts Avenue, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/W02-10_Smith.pdf.
44.
TalenE, 2002, “The social goals of new urbanism”Housing Policy Debate13(1) 165–188.
45.
WellmanB, 1979, “The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers”American Journal of Sociology851201–1231.
46.
WellmanBLeightonB, 1979, “Networks, neighborhoods and communities”Urban Affairs Quarterly14363–390.
47.
WellmanBPotterS, 1999, “The elements of personal communities”, in Networks in the Global Village Ed. WellmanB (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 49–92.
48.
YoungMWillmottP, 1962Family and Kinship in East London (Penguin Books, Baltimore, MD).
