Can Mixed‐Income Housing Ameliorate Concentrated Poverty? The Significance of a Geographically Informed Sense of Community

Abstract

Since the 1990s, public policymakers have renewed support for mixed‐income housing development in low‐income neighborhoods as a means toward neighborhood revitalization and poverty amelioration. Research to date finds that, while mixed‐income developments in lower‐income neighborhoods have promoted area revitalization, they have accomplished less for people in these areas who live in poverty. This article focuses on mixed‐income projects that seek to de‐concentrate poverty in impoverished, urban neighborhoods. It finds that, because these efforts are largely market‐based approaches, they have paid less direct attention to the needs of lower‐income residents. While this shortcoming may be attributed to structural barriers that prevent developers, housing authorities, and service providers from implementing effective practices, resource limitations can be offset by strong community‐based participation. Drawing on this conclusion, it is suggested that community empowerment strategies should be implemented in tandem with mixed‐income approaches in order to achieve positive outcomes for lower‐income residents, but that reliance on place‐based community will unlikely create the necessary conditions to improve the wealth and everyday quality of life issues that poor people face in a predominantly market‐based economy.

Recipes for neighborhood development: A machine learning approach toward understanding the impact of mixing in neighborhoods

“…A body of research has focused on how mixed income areas can have various positive consequences for the lower income households living in such neighborhoods, including possible improved social networks for job contacts leading to better employment outcomes, mental health benefits, increased self-esteem, and behavioral and health improvements for children (for a review of this literature see Levy, McDade, and Dumlao 2010). There are also proposed advantages for the neighborhood as a whole, including improved social control to address safety issues given that higher income residents might provide particular norms to increase safety (Fraser and Nelson 2008) or economic advantages by increasing market demand for higher-quality goods and services that can then be enjoyed by all residents (Levy, McDade, and Dumlao 2010). Nonetheless, there is also a possible long-term side effect in which income mixing brings about gentrification, which then can lead to increased income segregation over time, as was found in a study of rural settings (Golding 2015).…”

The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation

“…2004a; Salama 1999). But questions remain – in Atlanta and elsewhere – as to how effective such public housing transformation initiatives have been at improving the housing and neighborhood conditions of relocated public housing residents (Fraser and Nelson 2008; Goetz 2009).…”

“…Through these ongoing efforts, the AHA has gained a reputation as a leader in rethinking public housing by addressing its perceived failures and building on national housing-policy initiatives to deconcentrate poverty (Newman 2002;Oakley et al 2008;Popkin et al 2004a;Salama 1999). But questions remain -in Atlanta and elsewhere -as to how effective such public housing transformation initiatives have been at improving the housing and neighborhood conditions of relocated public housing residents (Fraser and Nelson 2008;Goetz 2009).…”

The Influence of HOPE VI Public Housing on Public Schools

“…Fraser and Nelson (2008) found that mixed income housing promoted neighborhood revitalization but did not meet the needs of lowerincome residents. They found that mixed income housing was successful in "lowering crime, improving economic indicators, and producing quality housing for market-rate and subsidized tenants…Yet, very low income residents faced barriers to self-sufficiency, health and general well-being" (p. 2141).…”

“…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.…”