Deconcentration by Demolition: Public Housing, Poverty, and Urban Policy

Abstract

During the 1990s, local and federal urban policymakers, neoliberal politicians, and advocates for the poor came to a broad consensus: the geographic concentration of low-income, minority residents in public housing projects located in the inner city constitutes the fundamental problem facing US cities. Accordingly, to solve the problems allegedly associated with the spatial concentration of poverty, public housing, which concentrates low-income people in the inner city, must be demolished and the residents relocated. In this paper I argue that such federal public housing policies are based on a conceptually inadequate understanding of the role of space and of spatial influences on poverty and on the behavior of poor people. The use of spatial metaphors such as the ‘concentration of poverty’ or the ‘deconcentration of the poor’ disguises the social and political processes behind poverty and helps to provide the justification for simplistic spatial solutions to complex social, economic, and political problems.

Same Neighbourhood … Different Views? A Confrontation of Internal and External Neighbourhood Reputations

“…However, it would be far-fetched to expect that regeneration policies aimed at, for example, a change of the social composition of neighbourhoods are suitable to improve the reputation of neighbourhoods (Musterd, 2008). First, policies aimed at creating a social mix are often controversial (social engineering) because they appear to be at odds with ideas of social equity and individual choice (Crump, 2002). Displacement of residents can also result in the break down of important social structures in neighbourhoods because many of the existing residents are not able to return to their neighbourhood (Clampet-Lundquist, 2004).…”

Minority Ethnic Groups in the Dutch Housing Market: Spatial Segregation, Relocation Dynamics and Housing Policy

“…There is a large "risk", therefore, that the idea of creating more socio-economic mixed communities in one area engenders socio-cultural concentrations in another area, because only in those areas unaffected by the policy of urban restructuring affordable housing is still available. (Crump, 2002;Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002). Musterd (2003) adds to that criticism that urban restructuring does not address the causes of segregation.…”

“…Those who can stay run the serious risk of a declining number of social contacts, on the one hand because some neighbours, friends and acquaintances have to move, on the other hand, because the people that are entering are probably "different kinds of people". Seen along this line, urban restructuring is not very helpful for sustaining ethnic communities (Crump, 2002).…”

The financialisation of rental housing: A comparative analysis of New York City and Berlin

“…In this context state-funded affordable housing may not offer strategic significance for advanced capitalist states (Harloe, 1995), leading governments to transfer public loans to private loans; demolish or privatize public or social housing; reduce supply-side subsidies in favor of housing allowances; promote home ownership; and deregulate rents (cf. Aalbers and Holm, 2008;Crump, 2002;Turner and Whitehead, 2002;Wyly et al, 2010).…”