Hope for Cities or Hope for People: Neighborhood Development and Demographic Change

Abstract

This study, recognizing the longstanding criticisms of HOPE VI as a vehicle for gentrification, compares the goals of local officials with the stated goals of HOPE VI in order to investigate the extent to which local officials are using or misusing HOPE VI to achieve local development and revitalization goals. HOPE VI positioned itself as a program intended to deconcentrate poverty, however, in the case of Liberty Green, the focus on neighborhood development embedded within the federal policy results in HOPE VI developments being described as successful based on physical changes at the site rather than outcomes for public housing residents, who largely do not benefit from these changes. Evidence from this study suggests that most of the emphasis for the Liberty Green HOPE VI development revolves around neighborhood and community development goals. And self‐sufficiency, while a goal of the HOPE VI program, remains secondary.

The Creeping Conformity—and Potential Risks—of Contemporary Urbanism

“…The Congress for the New Urbanism (2020) proclaims that "New Urbanism has transformed deteriorating public housing into livable mixed-income neighborhoods," yet critics note that programs employing new urbanism practices removed thousands of affordable units (Goetz, 2013;Vale & Shamsuddin, 2018) and stimulated gentrification (Clark & Negrey, 2017). Places built according to new urbanism principles are beautiful and walkable, but far from affordable, diverse, or accessible (Grant, 2006).…”

Affirmatively furthering fair housing at the local level : a critical discourse analysis of practices in Louisville, Kentucky.

“…Like similar projects nationwide, following redevelopment of the public housing sites, only limited numbers of Louisville's displaced public housing residents from the original project returned to live in the new mixed-income neighborhood(Clark and Negrey 2017).…”