Hoping for more: redeveloping U.S. public housing without marginalizing low-income residents?

Abstract

a department of urban and environmental Policy and Planning, tufts university, Medford, MA, usA; b department of urban studies and Planning, Massachusetts institute of technology, Cambridge, MA, usA ABSTRACT Urban restructuring policies have uprooted residents and dismantled communities.Previous studies focus on housing redevelopment that minimizes the fraction of housing units left for poor residents and on interviewing residents only once the redevelopment has been announced. By contrast, this paper examines how residents over time experienced the HOPE VI redevelopment of the Orchard Park public housing project in Boston, which sought to preserve a low-income community. Using official records and a unique set of interviews with residents before and after redevelopment, we find marked declines in crime and increased residential satisfaction, which are attributed to changes in tenant composition. The redevelopment process reduced the total number of public housing units yet maintained the vast majority of housing for poor families while creating a new social mix. The findings suggest that to more fully capture the impacts of restructuring, existing theory must be expanded to consider who is displaced and how poverty is deconcentrated.

Developing an integrated indoor built environment–quality of life model for the elderly in public and subsidized housing

“…Public and subsidized housing in cities P&S housing is a mass housing program providing affordable living areas for low-income households of a population (Drews, 1983;Shamsuddin and Vale, 2017). To ensure the lowincome residents live in comfortably in their living environment, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development launched the HOPE VI program in 1992 so as to demolish poor-quality housing units and replace them with lower density developments (Erickson, 2009), the Housing Authority began the development of low-cost housing with improvement in housing design and quality of facilities for HK residents (Hung, 1977), and the Ministry of Construction in Japan set up minimum quality standards for housing units in its fourth five-year plan of 1981 (Ito, 1994).…”

Analisis perkembangan pembangunan perumahan awam di Selangor

“…Lejeune et al (2016) dalam kajian mengenai kualiti perumahan di Belgium mendapati bahawa orang miskin hidup dalam perumahan yang berkualiti rendah di kawasan kejiranan yang padat penduduknya dan isi rumah menanggung beban degradasi alam sekitar di luar rumah. Shamsuddin & Vale (2017) menjelaskan bahawa dasar penstrukturan semula bandar Orchard Park di Boston menyebabkan kemerosotan yang ketara dalam jenayah dan peningkatan kepuasan kediaman yang disebabkan oleh perubahan dalam komposisi penyewa. Xun (2017) dalam kajian dinamik ekuiti perumahan dan peningkatan taraf rumah menjelaskan bahawa kebarangkalian penambahbaikan rumah bergantung pada perubahan kedudukan ekuiti perumahan yang terbaru dan mengenai sebab-sebab perubahan tersebut.…”

U.S. Public–Housing Transformations and the Housing Publics Lost in Transition

“…; Kleit and Manzo ; Oakley and Burchfield ; Oakley et al. ; Popkin ; Shamsuddin and Vale ; Vale ; Varady and Walker ; Venkatesh , ; Wang et al. , among others.).…”

“…Ironically, this box-office blockbuster was released around the same time the federal government initiated HOPE VI. But mixed-income programs like HOPE VI did not necessarily lead to better economic conditions for very low-income families: Only a small percentage of former publichousing residents can move back to the redevelopments; and to work, most publichousing residents must be forced into private-market housing with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs); they do not necessarily end up in mixed-income neighborhoods but in those with somewhat less poverty; depending on the geography with improved housing quality; perceived in some cases as being safer, but in many cases just as racially segregated (see, for example, Clampet-Lundquist 2004Crump 2002;Fischer 2001Fischer , 2002Fraser 2004;Goetz 2003Goetz , 2010Goetz , 2013Greenbaum 2002Greenbaum , 2008Johnson-Hart, 2007;Keller 2011;Kingsley et al 2003;Kleit and Manzo 2006;Oakley and Burchfield 2009;Oakley et al 2013;Popkin 2010;Shamsuddin and Vale 2016;Vale 2013;Varady and Walker 2000;Venkatesh 2000Venkatesh , 2002Wang et al 2008, among others.). It is important to qualify here that findings about HCV destination individual and neighborhood-level outcomes of former public-housing residents vary by the specific geographic context in terms of how tight rental housing is in the private market.…”