Since the mid-1990s over 200 public housing projects across the United States have been redeveloped through a Department of Housing and Urban Development program called HOPE VI. The objectives of HOPE VI, each of which bears the imprint of neoliberal urban policy, include: promoting ‘mixed-finance’ partnerships between the public, private, and nonprofit sectors; replacing housing projects with ‘mixed-income’ communities; and rebuilding those communities in ways that bear no resemblance to traditional public housing. In this paper I interrogate the means and motives of these objectives through the lens of a ‘successful’ HOPE VI site. My case study is Park DuValle in Louisville, Kentucky, which is widely regarded as one of the program's crowning achievements. This approach allows for a more precise explication of how HOPE VI is intended to work than existing research on the program provides, and in turn affords a clearer perspective on the underlying rationales for, and broader implications of, HOPE VI revitalization. A key component of Park DuValle's apparent success is its embrace of New Urbanism and the stark contrast to the architecture of public housing that this planning and design paradigm presents. The physical transformation effected through HOPE VI, as exemplified by Park DuValle, both enables and legitimates the program's mixed-finance and mixed-income objectives while eliding the costs of pursuing these objectives.
BairEFitzgeraldJ M, 2005, “Hedonistic estimation and policy significance of the impact of HOPE VI on neighborhood property values”Review of Policy Research22771–786.
3.
BennettL, 1998, “Do we really wish to live in a communitarian city: Communitarian thinking and there development of Chicago's Cabrini-Green public housing complex‘”Journal of Urban Affairs2099–116.
4.
BloomN D, 2008Public Housing That Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA).
5.
BlomleyN, 2007, “Legal geographies — Kelo, contradiction, and capitalism”Urban Geography28198–205.
6.
BohlC, 2000, “New Urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner-city neighborhoods”Housing Policy Debate11761–801.
7.
BristolK G, 1991, “The Pruitt-Igoe myth”Journal of Architectural Education44163–171.
8.
BuronLPopkinSLevyDHarrisLKhadduriJ, 2002The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study: A Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original Residents From Eight SitesAbt Associates and the Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
CNU and USDHUD, 2000Principles for Inner City Neighborhood DesignCongress for the New Urbanism, San Francisco and US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.
15.
CrumpJ, 2002, “Deconcentration by demolition: Public housing, poverty, and urban policy”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space20581–596.
16.
CunninghamL E, 2001, “Islands of affordability in a sea of gentrifîcation: Lessons learned from the DC housing authority's HOPE VI projects”Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law10353–371.
17.
DavisA, 2008, “Western Louisville home prices fall”Louisville Courier-Journal 8 August, Section A, page 1.
18.
DayK, 2003, “New Urbanism and the challenges of designing for diversity”Journal of Planning and Education Research2383–95.
19.
ElliotJ RGothamK FMilliganM J, 2004, “Framing the urban: Struggles over HOPE VI and New Urbanism in a historic city”City and Community3373–402.
20.
Al-HindiFalconer KStaddonC, 1997, “The hidden histories and geographies of neotraditional town planning: The case of Seaside, Florida”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space15349–372.
21.
FarnsworthC B, 2000, “The 20th Annual builder's choice: Merit award: Park DuValle”Builder23174.
22.
FraserJNelsonM, 2008, “Can mixed-income housing ameliorate poverty: The significance of a geographically informed sense of community”Geography Compass22127–2144.
23.
FulliloveM, 2004Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do About It (One World/Ballantine Books, New York).
24.
GauseJ A, 2002Great Planned Communities (The Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC).
25.
GilbertM R, 1997, “Identity, space, and politics: A critique of the poverty debates”, in Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, Representation Eds JonesJ PIIINastH JRobertsS M (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD) pp 29–45.
26.
GoetzE G, 2000, “The politics of poverty deconcentration and housing demolition”Journal of Urban Affairs22157–173.
27.
GoetzE G, 2005, “Comment: Public housing demolition and the benefits to low-income families”Journal of the American Planning Association71407–410.
28.
GothamK FShefnerJBrumleyK, 2001, “Abstract space, social space, and the redevelopment of public housing”Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment6313–335.
HackworthJ, 2003, “Public housing and the rescaling of regulation in the USA”Environment and Planning A35531–549.
31.
HackworthJ, 2004, “The neoliberal turn and the restructuring of public housing policy in the United States”Critical Planning1131–50.
32.
HackworthJ, 2005, “Progressive activism in a neoliberal context: The case of efforts to retain public housing in the United States”Studies in Political Economy7529–51.
33.
HackworthJ, 2007The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY).
34.
HAL, 1998Park DuValle Revitalization PlanHousing Authority of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
35.
HarveyD, 1989, “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism”Geografiska Annaler, Series B713–17.
36.
HarveyD, 1997, “The New Urbanism and the communitarian trap”Harvard Design Magazine168–69.
37.
HaysR A, 1995The Federal Government and Urban Housing: Ideology and Change in Public Policy (SUNY Press, Albany, NY).
38.
HelmH, 1986, “The meanest street corner in Louisville”Louisville Courier-Journal 5 October, section A, page 1.
39.
HendersonA S, 1995, “Tarred with the exceptional image: Public housing and popular discourse, 1950–1990”American Studies3631–53.
40.
HirschhornJ SSouzaP, 2001New Community Design to the Rescue: Fulfilling Another American DreamNational Governor's Association, Washington, DC.
41.
JosephM L, 2006, “Is mixed-income development an antidote to urban poverty?”Housing Policy Debate17209–269.
42.
KatzM B, 1989The Undeserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War on Welfare (Pantheon Books, New York).
43.
KeatingL, 2000, “Redeveloping public housing: Relearning urban renewal's immutable lessons”American Planning Association Journal66384–397.
44.
KeatingLFloresC L, 2000, “Sixty and out: Techwood Homes transformed by enemies and friends”Journal of Urban History26275–311.
45.
KennyJ TZimmermanJ A, 2003, “Constructing the ‘genuine American city’: Neo-traditionalism, New Urbanism and neo-liberalism in the remaking of downtown Milwaukee”Cultural Geographies1174–98.
46.
KingsleyG TJohnsonJPettitKLS, 2003, “Patterns of Section 8 relocation in the HOPE VI program”Journal of Urban Affairs25427–447.
47.
KleitR G, 2005, “HOPE VI new communities: Neighborhood relationships in mixed-income housing”Environment and Planning A371413–1441.
48.
LMHA, 2005Moving to Work Annual Report, FY 2005Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Louisville, KY.
McCannE J, 1995, “Neotraditional developments: The anatomy of a new urban form”Urban Geography16210–233.
51.
McCartyM, 2009HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: Background, Funding, and Issues (United States Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC).
52.
MarcuseP, 1986, “Housing policy and the myth of the benevolent state”, in Critical Perspectives on Housing Eds BrattR GHartmanCMeyersonA (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA) pp 248–263.
53.
NCSDPH, 1992The Final Report of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing: A Report to the Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban DevelopmentNational Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, Washington, DC.
54.
NennoM K, 1996Ending the Stalemate: Moving Housing and Urban Development into the Mainstream of America's Future (University Press of America, Lanham, MD).
55.
NewmanKAshtonP, 2004, “Neoliberal urban policy and new paths of neighborhood change in the American inner city”Environment and Planning A361151–1172.
56.
O'ConnorA, 2001Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-century US History (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
PopkinS JLevyD KHarrisL EComeyJCunninghamM K, 2004, “The HOPE VI program: What about the residents?”Housing Policy Debate15385–414.
59.
PopkinS JCunninghamM KBurtM, 2006, “Public housing transformation and the hard-to-house”Housing Policy Debate161–24.
60.
PoynterC, 2004, “The price of progress: Park DuValle development's success leaves some poor residents behind”Louisville Courier-Journal 2 May, section A, page 1.
61.
RaffelJ ADensonL RVaradyD PSweeneyS, 2003, “Linking housing and public schools in the HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: A case study analysis of four developments in four cities”, http://www.udel.edu/ccrs/pdf/LinkingHousing.pdf.
62.
RayM, 2001, “Park DuValle: An urban neighborhood is reborn”Kentucky Banker Magazine issue 893, 20–21.
63.
ReichlA J, 1999, “Learning from St. Thomas: Community, capital, and the redevelopment of public housing in New Orleans”Journal of Urban Affairs21169–187.
64.
SchnareA B, 1991, “The preservation needs of public housing”Housing Policy Debate2289–318.
65.
ShaferS, 2009, “Some home assessments are dropping: Effect of foreclosures hits western Louisville hardest”Louisville Courier-Journal 11 April.
66.
SmithJ L, 1999, “Cleaning up public housing by sweeping out the poor”Habitat International2349–62.
67.
SmithJ L, 2000, “The space of local control in the devolution of US public housing policy”Geografiska Annaler, Series B82221–233.
68.
SmithN, 2002, “New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy”Antipode34427–450.
69.
TalenE, 1999, “Sense of community and neighborhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of New Urbanism”Urban Studies361361–1379.
70.
TeafordJ C, 2000, “Urban renewal and its aftermath”Housing Policy Debate11443–465.
71.
TillK, 1993, “Neotraditional towns and urban villages: The cultural production of a geography of ‘otherness’”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space11709–732.
72.
TurbovMPiperV2005HOPE VI and Mixed-finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Neighborhood RenewalThe Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, DC.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC1995, “A special letter from the secretary: Public housing transformation”.
78.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC1996a, “Public housing that works: The transformation of America's public housing”.
79.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC1996b, “The transformation of America's public housing: A 1996 status report”.
80.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC1998aNationwide Audit, HOPE VI Urban Revitalization Program Office of Inspector General.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC1999a, “HOPE VI: Building communities transforming lives”.
83.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC1999bA New HUD: Opportunity for All, 1997. Consolidated Report.
84.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC2000a, “A promise being fulfilled: The transformation of America's public housing”.
85.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC2000b, “An American challenge: Mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhoods”.
86.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC2001, “HOPE VI guidance: Mixed-finance public housing development”.
87.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC2002, “HOPE VI revitalization grant program: Park DuValle quarterly progress report”.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC1998HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing.
90.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC2002HOPE VI: Leveraging has Increased, but HUD has not Met Annual Reporting Requirement.
91.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC2003aPublic Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites.
92.
USDHUD, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC2003bHUD's Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs to be More Consistent.
93.
VaradyD PRaffelJ ASweeneySDensonL, 2005, “Attracting middle-income families in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program”Journal of Urban Affairs27149–164.
WallaceJ E, 1993Current Status of HUD-insured (Or Held) Multifamily Rental HousingUS Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.
96.
WeberR, 2002, “Extracting value from the city: Neoliberalism and urban redevelopment”Antipode34519–540.
97.
WylyE KHammelD J, 2000, “Capital's metropolis: Chicago and the transformation of American housing policy”Geografiska Annaler, Series B82181–206.
98.
WylyE KHammelD J, 2001, “Gentrification, housing policy, and the new context of urban redevelopment”Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment6211–276.
99.
ZielenbachS, 2003a, “Catalyzing community development: HOPE VI and neighborhood revitalization”Journal of Affordable Housing1340–80.
100.
ZielenbachS, 2003b, “Assessing economic change in HOPE VI neighborhoods”Housing Policy Debate14621–655.
