The goals and purposes of neighborhood diversity have changed over the past several decades, yielding multiple approaches by municipalities to achieve diversity. This article examines applications of diversity as it has related to neighborhood and land use policies. Specifically, it compares the diversity goals in the municipal housing plans of ten cities in one southwest region to different dimensions of diversity in the literature. Our findings indicate that approaching diversity by planning for physical diversity far outweighs the planning language devoted to social outcomes.
BerreyE. C.2005. Divided over diversity: Political discourse in a Chicago neighborhood. City & Community4:143–70.
2.
BoxR.1998. Citizen governance: Leading American cities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Clampet-LundquistS.2004. HOPE VI relocation: Moving to new neighborhoods and building new ties. Housing Policy Debate15:415–47.
4.
CreswellJ. W.1994. Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
DentonN. A.2006. Segregation and discrimination in housing. In A right to housing: Foundation of a new social agenda, ed. BrattRachel G.StoneMichael E.HartmanChester, 61–81Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
6.
DreierP.MollenkopfJ.SwanstromT.. 2004. Place matters: Metropolitics for the twenty-first century. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
7.
FloridaR.2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure and Everyday Life. Basic Books: New York.
8.
GalsterG.SmithR.SantiagoA.PettitK.. 2003. Why not in my backyard?: Neighborhood impacts of deconcentrating assisted housing. Rutgers University, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
9.
GundersonR. J. (2007). Housing affordability and workforce housing initiatives. Economic Development Journal(Spring).
10.
HartmanChesterSquiresGregory D. (Eds). 2010. The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
Hesse-BiberS. H.LeavyP.. 2004. Approaches to qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
KingC. K.ZanettiL. A.. 2005. Transformational public service: Portraits of theory in practice. Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.
13.
KleitR. G.2005. HOPE VI new communities: Neighborhood relationships in mixed-income housing. Environment and Planning A378:1413–41.
14.
MukhijaV.Regus L.SlovinS.DasA.. 2010. Can inclusionary zoning be an effective and efficient housing policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Journal of Urban Affairs32:229–252
15.
OsborneD.GaeblerI.. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin Books.
16.
PopkinS.2006. Hope VI program: What has happened to the residents? In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, ed., BennettL.SmithJ. L.WrightP. A., 68–90Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
TalenE.2006. Neighborhood-level social diversity. Journal of the American Planning Association72:431–46.
19.
YingerJ.1986. On the possibility of achieving racial integration through subsidized Housing. In Housing desegregation and federal policy, ed. GoeringJohn M., 290–312Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
