Mixed income housing policy and public housing residents' `right to the city'

Abstract

Economic integration through various mixed income housing strategies has become the dominant housing policy in many parts of the world. In the United States, this strategy involves a restructuring of space often with conflict. Henri Lefebvre's 'right to the city' is used to conduct a socio-spatial analysis of mixed income housing programmes, including the degree that integration increases public housing residents' access to diverse neighbourhoods, the use value of a city, and participatory space. The paper concludes that mixed income housing has the potential to increase public housing residents' 'right to the city' but that policy implementers need to be proactive in the face of barriers such as community opposition to subsidized housing that can hinder the right. Future research should focus on evaluating the benefits of mixed income housing policy for neediest residents and ways to increase their rights to social, economic and political space.

Housing and the Realignment of Urban Socio-Spatial Contracts

“…In the UK (and the United States), public housing policy acts to reconfigure the spatial, architectural and demographic reality of cities (Goetz, 2012). In doing so it realigns a socio-spatial contract underpinning the 'right to the city': that is the ability of populations to legitimately participate in (access) and appropriate (occupy) urban space (Attoh, 2011;Duke, 2009;Connelly, 2011: Lefebvre, 1968Harvey, 1973Harvey, , 2008. Public housing is increasingly only seen as being 'of' the city when it is conceptualised as a link in a chain of economically valuable neighbourhoods (Goetz, 2013).…”

Mixed-Income Housing: Assumptions and Realities

“…is not yet enough evidence to conclude that mixed-income housing environments are living up to expectations or achieving desired outcomes (Brophy and Smith, 1997;Schwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1997;Joseph, 2006;Joseph et al, 2007;Manzo, 2008;Duke, 2009). The need for empirical research is becoming more necessary as investment in 5 mixed-income based strategies is growing, without solid evidence of effectiveness, at a time when budgets are shrinking and the need for affordable housing is increasing (Joseph, 2006).…”

“…Planners should take care to clarify their meaning when using the term "mixedincome" (Joseph et al, 2007;Joseph, 2006 (Brophy and Smith, 1997;Schwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1997;Joseph, 2006;Joseph et al, 2007;Manzo, 2008;Duke, 2009). …”

The walkable dividend : the impacts of walkability on housing and socio-economic composition in Louisville, Ky.

“…The only significant gains for families who left neighborhoods of concentrated poverty for low poverty high opportunity neighborhoods were increases in perceived safety and mental health (Goetz, 2003;Imbroscio, 2010;Goetz & Chapple, 2010). These findings have led critics to question the neighborhood effect theory (Duke, 2009;Imbroscio, 2010;Chaskin & Joseph, 2012). However, a recent study by Turner et al (2012) found significant gains in health, education, employment and income for families living in low poverty areas, when tenure in low poverty areas is taken into account, Neighborhood effect proponents have proposed that the Gautreaux program and the MTO demonstration did not truly address the neighborhood level, since both relied mainly on deconcentration efforts (Talen & Koschinsky, 2010;Sampson, 2012).…”

“…While the possibility of homogenous enclaves is still present in compact developments, the compactness of the urban area will ultimately increase interaction with other groups (Duany et al, 2001;Putnam, 2001;DeLuca & Rosenbaum, 2010). However, Duke (2009), Imbroscio (2008) and Goetz (2003 argued that different social or economic classes existing in close proximity to one another does not guarantee integration; it is possible for different classes or groups to live with each other and not interact or accept each other, thereby reinvigorating social segregation. Other scholars disagree with this claim, arguing that different classes living in close proximity is an important first step to creating a common identity that will eventually lead to quality interaction and acceptance (Bothwell et al, 1998;Leyden, 2003;Gilderbloom, 2008;DeLuca & Rosenbaum, 2010).…”