Since the 1990s, public policy-makers in the US have renewed support for mixed-income housing development as a means towards inner-city neighbourhood revitalisation and poverty amelioration. Yet, research to date finds that, while these mixed-income developments have promoted neighbourhood revitalisation, they have accomplished less for people in these areas who live in poverty. This paper theorises about the conditions that may in principle lead to these alternative outcomes. The approach emphasises the continuity in goal sets and capacities among four sets of urban actors—investors, local government, non-profits and community residents. To examine extant theory and an alternative model, case study evidence is offered from two comparable cities with different mixed-income initiatives and different configurations of goals and capacities among the four stakeholder groups. It is found that place-based outcomes (i.e. neighbourhood revitalisation) from mixed-income efforts hinge on the continuity of goals and effective capacities of investors, government and non-profits, but not community residents. It is also found that, with or without goal consonance and capacity, existing residents are relatively underserved by mixed-income initiatives while other stakeholders realise a variety of benefits.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Associated Press (2000) Durham receives $35 million grant to refurbish public housing, News-wires , 1 August.
2.
Bloom, H.S., Riccio, J.A., Verma, N. with Walter, J. (2005) Promoting Work in Public Housing: The Effectiveness of Jobs-Plus. New York: MDRC Publications .
3.
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) Cities and the geographies of `actually existing neoliberalism', Antipode, 34(3), pp. 349—379.
4.
Brophy, P.C. and Burnett, K. (2003) Building a new framework for community development in weak-market cities. Prepared for the Community Development Partnership Network, Denver, CO (http://www.cdpn.org/files/cdpn_weak_markets.pdf ; accessed 14 October 2005).
5.
Brophy, P.C. and Smith, R.N. (1997) Mixed-income housing: factors for success, Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3(2), pp. 3—31.
6.
Chattanooga Housing Authority, Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprises, Regional Planning Agency and Rivercity Company (1997) Southside redevelopment plan (amendment to the downtown areas improvement plan). Prepared 26 May.
7.
Clark, S.L. (2002) Where the poor live: how federal housing policy shapes residential communities, Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 31(1), pp. 69—79.
8.
Coleman, J. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital , American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), pp. 95—120.
9.
Collins, M.E., Curley, A.M., Clay, C. and Lara, R. (2005) Evaluation of social services in a HOPE VI housing development: resident and staff perceptions of success and barriers, Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, pp. 47—59.
10.
Coulton, C., Chow, J., Wang, E. and Su,M. (1996) Geographic concentration of affluence and poverty in 100 metropolitan areas, Urban Affairs Review , 32, pp. 186—216.
11.
Durham Housing Authority and The Community Builders (2000) Hope VI application. Durham Housing Authority, Durham, NC.
12.
Durham Planning Department (2003) Subsidized housing location policy report. City and County of Durham Planning Department, Durham, NC, 3 May.
13.
Ellen, I.G. and Turner, M.A. (1997) Does neighborhood matter? Assessing resident evidence , Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), pp. 833—866.
14.
Elwood, S. (2002) GIS and collaborative urban governance: understanding their implications for community action and power, Urban Geography , 22(8), pp. 737—759.
Finkel, A., Lennon, K. and Eisenstadt, E. (2000) HOPE VI: a promising vintage, Policy Studies Review, 17(2/3), pp. 104—119.
17.
Fraser, J. (2004) Beyond gentrification: mobilizing communities and claiming space, Urban Geography, 25(5), pp. 437—457.
18.
Fraser, J. and Kick, E. (2005) Understanding community building in urban America: transforming neighborhood identity, The Journal ofPoverty , 9(1), pp. 23—44.
19.
Fraser, J., Lepofsky, J., Kick, E. and Williams, J.P. (2003) The construction of the local and the limits of contemporary community-building in the United States, Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), pp. 417—445.
20.
Fraser, J., Rohe, W. and Warren, C. (2005a) Few Gardens Hope VI evaluation: community and social service provision. Working Paper, TheCenter for Urban and Regional Studies, Chapel Hill, NC.
21.
Fraser, J., Zandt, S. Van, Rohe, W., and Warren, C. (2004) Impacts of relocation on former residents of Few Gardens: neighborhood quality. TheCenter for Urban and Regional Studies, Chapel Hill, NC, October.
22.
Gao (Us General Accounting Office) (2003) Public housing: HOPE VI resident issues and changes in neighborhoods surrounding grant sites. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04109.pdf; accessed 15 October, 2005).
23.
Goetz, E.G. (2005) Comment: public housing demolition and the benefits to low income families, Journal of the American Planning Association , 71(4), pp. 407—410.
24.
Greenbaum, S. (2002) Social capital and deconcentration: theoretical and policy paradoxes of the HOPE VI program, North American Dialogue, 5(1), pp. 9—13.
25.
Harris, L.E. and Kaye, D.R. (2004) How are HOPE VI families faring? Health. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, October.
26.
Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler B, 71, pp. 3—17.
27.
The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) (2004) Durham, NC housing agency owes $8 million more, audit says, 22 December.
28.
Hud (Us Department Of Housing And Urban Development) (2000) Community and supportive services for original residents: general guidance for the HOPE VI program (draft). US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 18 February (http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/css/cssguidance2-18-00c.pdf; accessed 15 October, 2005).
29.
Icon Architecture, New Synergy, Inc. and J. Davis Architects (2002) Durham HOPE VI Neighborhood Revitalization. Durham Housing Authority and The Community Builders, Durham, NC.
30.
Jencks, C. and Mayer, S. (1990) The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood, in L. Lynn and M. Mcgeary (Eds) Inner-city Poverty in the United States, pp. 111—186. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
Jessop, B. (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 453—472.
32.
Joseph, M.L., Chaskin, R.J. and Webber, H.S. (2007) The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development, Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), pp. 369—409.
33.
Kleit, R. (2001) The role of neighborhood social networks in scattered site public housing residents' search for jobs, Housing Policy Debate, 12(3), pp. 541—573.
34.
LAND, K.C., Mccall, P. L. and Cohen , L.E. (1991) Characteristics of US cities with extreme (high or low) crime rates: results of discriminant analyses of 1960, 1970 and 1980 data, Social Indicators Research, 24, pp. 209—231.
35.
Levy, D.K. and Kaye, D.R. (2004) How are HOPE VI families faring? Income and employment . The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. October.
36.
Levy, D.K., Comey, J. and Padilla, S. (2005) In the face of gentrification: local case studies to mitigate displacement . The Urban Institute, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, Washington, DC.
37.
Logan, J. and Molotch, H. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
38.
Macleod, G. (2002) From urban entrepreneurial-ism to a `revanchist city'? On the spatial injustices of Glasgow's renaissance, Antipode, 34(3), 602—624.
39.
Mallach, A. (2001) Comment: a new paradigm—full of pluses and minuses, Bright Ideas, 20(3), pp. 39—41.
40.
Morgen, S. and Maskovsky, J. (2003) The anthropology of welfare `reform': new perspectives on US urban poverty in the post-welfare era, Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, pp. 315—338.
41.
The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) ( 1998) Housing hopes wither, 3 September, p. A1.
42.
The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) ( 2003a) Questions raised about nonprofit, 3 May, p. B3.
43.
The News and Observer (2003b) Hope in Durham , 8 December, p. B1.
44.
The News and Observer (2004) Federal audit rips Durham, NC, housing agency, 5 August.
45.
The News and Observer (2005a) Durham grant study: housing lags spending, 24 May, p. B1.
46.
The News and Observer (2005b) 3 on list for job in Durham, 20 July, p. B1.
47.
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalizing space, Antipode , 34(3), pp. 380—404.
48.
Popkin, S.J., Buron, L., Levy, D.K. and Cunningham, M.K. (2000) The Gautreaux legacy: what might mixed-income and dispersal strategies mean for the poorest public housing tenants, Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), pp. 911—942.
49.
Popkin, S.J., Cunningham, M.K. and Burt, M. (2005) Public housing transformation and the hard-to-house , Housing Policy Debate, 16(1), pp. 1—24.
50.
Popkin, S.J., Katz, B., Cunningham, M.K. ET AL. (2004) A decade of HOPE VI: research findings and policy challenges. The Urban Institute and Brookings Institution , Washington, DC, May.
51.
Popkin, S.J., Levy, D.K., Harris, L.E. ET AL. (2002) HOPE VI panel study: baseline report. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
52.
Porter, M.E. (1990/1998) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
53.
Porter, M.E. (1995) The competitive advantage of the inner city, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 55—71.
54.
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster .
55.
Quercia, R.G. and Galster, G.C. (1997) Threshold effects and the expected benefits of attracting middle-income households to the central city, Housing Policy Debate, 8(2), pp. 409—436.
56.
Rivercity Company (1997) Southside Redevelopment Plan. www.rivercitycompany.com; accessed 29 September 2007.
57.
Salama, J.J. (1999) The redevelopment of distressed public housing: early results from HOPE VI projects in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio, Housing Policy Debate, 10(1), pp. 95—142.
58.
Schubert, M. (2000) Neighborhood revitalization strategy. Lyndhurst Foundation, Chattanooga, TN.
59.
Schubert, M. (2001) Revitalizing the smart growth debate—revisited , Bright Ideas, 20(3), pp. 37—38.
60.
Setnis (2003) Neighborhood analysis . Report prepared for the Lyndhurst Foundation, Chattanooga, TN.
61.
Skalski, G. (2005) Housing agency cuts 27 spots, Durham Herald Sun, 27 April, p. C1.
62.
Slater, T., Curran, W. and Lees, L. (2004) Gentrification research: new directions and critical scholarship, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 1141—1150.
63.
Smith, A. (2002) Mixed-income housing developments: promise and reality. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, Cambridge, MA.
64.
Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 327—350.
65.
Turnham, J. and Bonjorni, J. (2004) Review of neighborhood revitalization initiatives . Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, Washington, DC (http://www.nw.org/network/pubs/studies/documents/revitalizationReview.pdf; accessed 4 October, 2005).
66.
Us Bureau Of The Census (2000) American fact finder data sets, 2000 decennial census: summary file (SF) 4 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U&_program=DEC&_lang=en; accessed 2 November 2005).
67.
Varady, D.P., Raffel, J.A., Sweeney, S. and Denson, L. (2005) Attracting middle-income families in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program, Journal of Urban Affairs , 27(2), pp. 149—164.
68.
Weber, R. (2002) Extracting value from the city: neoliberalism and urban redevelopment, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 519—540.
69.
Wexler, H.J. (2001) HOPE VI: market means/ public ends: the goals, strategies, and midterm lessons of HUD's urban revitalization demonstration program, Journal of Affordable Housing, 10(3), pp. 195—233.
70.
Whitzman, C. and Slater, T. (2006) Village ghetto land, Urban Affairs Review, 41(5), pp. 673—696.
71.
Wilkins, C.S. (2002) Barriers to creating and sustaining mixed income communities... and how to overcome the barriers (discussion draft). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, Washington, DC.
72.
Wilson, W.J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
73.
Wilson, W.J. (1996) When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books.
74.
Zielenbach, S. (2003) The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods . Housing Research Foundation, Washington, DC (http://www.housingresearch.org/hrf/hrfhome.nsf/FSHomeHopeEconomic!OpenFrameset; accessed 15 October, 2005).
