Attracting Middle-Income Families in the Hope vi 
Public Housing Revitalization Program

Abstract

While the growing literature on HOPE VI emphasizes the presumed benefits of income mixing these benefits are most likely to occur if middle-income families with children are drawn to these sites. But is this feasible? Our comparative case study analysis of four HOPE VI sites in Cincinnati, Louisville, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, suggests that it will be difficult to achieve the mixing of lower-and middle-income families with children. None of the four developments explicitly sought middle-income families with children as part of their marketing. Louisville's HOPE VI site was the only one involving close collaboration between the school district, the housing authority, and city government from the beginning of the HOPE VI process. Moreover, the Louisville site was the only one successful in attracting middle-income (and not simply subsidized moderate-income) families with children. Strategies for making inner-city HOPE VI sites more attractive for middle-income families are discussed.In 1992, HOPE VI (originally known as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program) was enacted to transform the physical and social shape of distressed public housing. Under the current program this transformation includes: changing the physical shape of public housing by replacing the worst public housing developments with less dense developments, reducing concentrations of poverty by encouraging a

Mixed‐income schools and housing: advancing the neoliberal urban agenda

“…Bennett, Hudspeth, and Wright (2006) could identify only a 'smattering of evidence' that mixed-income communities improve the life chances of low-income people. Studies of HOPE VI mixed-income developments indicate little social interaction across class, little inter-class or inter-racial 'mixing' with low-income students, and in some cases conflict between public housing residents and homeowners (Raffel et al 2003;Varady et al 2005). In the most extensive study of mixedincome housing, comparing seven mixed-income developments, there were low or very low levels of 'neighboring' and few market-rate tenants attending building activities (J.…”

The Influence of HOPE VI Public Housing on Public Schools

“…Previous case studies of HOPE VI have related to neighborhoods and housing , mixed use (Shwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1997;Varady, Raffel, Sweeney & Denson, 2005) and families and their children (HUD, 2000;HUD, 2003).…”

“…Much of the research related to HOPE VI focuses on three areas: 1) challenges and possibilities of mixed income policy (Fraser and Nelson, 2008; GAO, 1998; HUD, 2003;Varady et al, 2005); 2) the impact of HOPE VI on residents (Popkin, 2007 GAO, 2003) and their children (Gallagher & Beata, 2007;Popkin et al, 2002); and 3) neighborhood and housing conditions as they relate to safety, amenities, and health (Goetz, 2010;Popkin et al, 2002, Rinker 2007.…”

“…Much of the extant research related to HOPE VI focuses overwhelmingly on three areas: 1) challenges and possibilities of mixed income policy (Bohl, 2000;Cousins, 2001;GAO, 1998;and Varady et al, 2005), 2) the impact of HOPE VI policy on residents, (Popkin, 2007GAO, 2003) their children (Gallagher & Beata, 2007;Popkin et al, 2002), and…”

“…In order to create true and balanced mixed income developments, the sites must provide access to quality schools (public and private), be near employment opportunities, and target those interested in downtown or proximate locations (Varady, et al, 2005).…”