seek to foster neighborhood participation and engagement through diverse and integrated contexts, we focus on two distinct programs: first, state and/or federally-funded mixed-income housing developments (such as HOPE VI); and second, grassroots faith-based initiatives for mixed-income neighborhoods, by relocating higher-income residents to lower-income neighborhoods (such as the Christian Community Development Association). These two cases help us to see how participatory logics play out at different scales, enabling us to identify the ways the racial and economic structures are maintained in, different, yet similar ways. * * * CASE STUDY 1: MIXED-INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS The advent of mixed-income housing—residential housing that is explicitly designed to include residents with varied economic means—came into full force in the U.S. with the federally-funded Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) program (Thurber, Bohmann, & Heflinger, 2017). The purpose of the HOPE VI policy, which ran from 1993-2009, was to redevelop highly distressed and concentrated public housing projects into new models of mixed-income housing, in which both market-rate and publically-assisted units were available. Accomplishing the goals of HOPE VI required the destruction of current public housing projects, the forced relocation of the current residents, the rebuilding of new housing projects to include both market-rate units for purchase and affordable units for rent, private-public partnership to fund and organize the rebuilding, and the re-relocating of public-housing residents as well as market-rate residents into the housing project (Fraser et al. 2012). Several scholars have shown that HOPE VI actually reduced the amount of affordable housing units available to low-income households (Thurber et al, 2017; Lees, 2008). Moreover, Thurber also shows that mixed-income housing neighborhoods are rarely socially integrated—that is, although people of diverse economic backgrounds live in spatial proximity to each other, they rarely interact and thus do not achieve social integration (Thurber et al., 2017). HOPE VI was followed by the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative and the Rental Assistance Demonstration Project (RAD), which similarly seek to develop mixed-income neighborhoods. Mixed-income housing projects are also prominent outside of the U.S., including Canada and the United Kingdom (Lees, 2008; Kipfer & Petrunia, 2009).
seek to foster neighborhood participation and engagement through diverse and integrated contexts, we focus on two distinct programs: first, state and/or federally-funded mixed-income housing developments (such as HOPE VI); and second, grassroots faith-based initiatives for mixed-income neighborhoods, by relocating higher-income residents to lower-income neighborhoods (such as the Christian Community Development Association). These two cases help us to see how participatory logics play out at different scales, enabling us to identify the ways the racial and economic structures are maintained in, different, yet similar ways. * * * CASE STUDY 1: MIXED-INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS The advent of mixed-income housing—residential housing that is explicitly designed to include residents with varied economic means—came into full force in the U.S. with the federally-funded Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) program (Thurber, Bohmann, & Heflinger, 2017). The purpose of the HOPE VI policy, which ran from 1993-2009, was to redevelop highly distressed and concentrated public housing projects into new models of mixed-income housing, in which both market-rate and publically-assisted units were available. Accomplishing the goals of HOPE VI required the destruction of current public housing projects, the forced relocation of the current residents, the rebuilding of new housing projects to include both market-rate units for purchase and affordable units for rent, private-public partnership to fund and organize the rebuilding, and the re-relocating of public-housing residents as well as market-rate residents into the housing project (Fraser et al. 2012). Several scholars have shown that HOPE VI actually reduced the amount of affordable housing units available to low-income households (Thurber et al, 2017; Lees, 2008). Moreover, Thurber also shows that mixed-income housing neighborhoods are rarely socially integrated—that is, although people of diverse economic backgrounds live in spatial proximity to each other, they rarely interact and thus do not achieve social integration (Thurber et al., 2017). HOPE VI was followed by the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative and the Rental Assistance Demonstration Project (RAD), which similarly seek to develop mixed-income neighborhoods. Mixed-income housing projects are also prominent outside of the U.S., including Canada and the United Kingdom (Lees, 2008; Kipfer & Petrunia, 2009).
Eccleston_GuptaPerkins.2018.Critical-Perspectives-on-Nbrd.EngagementParticipatory-Development.docx