Mixed Outcome Developments

Graves, Erin

doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.567921

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, as numerous studies have demonstrated, this is simply not the case for the HOPE VI program (ibid.). Thus, there is broad consensus among those who have studied social networks in HOPE VI developments that improving the life opportunities of low-income residents cannot hinge upon social mixing 6 Urban Affairs Review XX(X) (Chaskin and Joseph 2010;Graves 2011). Yet, even if social contact and social networks appear to be nonexistent between socioeconomic groups, this cannot be read as these groups having nothing to do with each other.…”

Section: Community and The Production Of Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, empirical studies to date suggest that these proposed routes for increasing life opportunities for low-income residents have proven to be illusive, and it is unclear how these residents benefit from the political and economic resources that higherincome households may bring to an area (Fraser and Nelson 2008;see Levy, McDade, and Dumlao 2010 for an excellent review). 1 Parallel to these findings, case studies focusing on the everyday realities of residents living in HOPE VI developments find that there are multiple obstacles to building cross-class ties and social networks based upon a sense of community Joseph 2010, 2011;Goetz 2003Goetz , 2011Graves 2011;Sedlak 2009). These empirical findings are not surprising given that HOPE VI, as a federal policy, and actual HOPE VI developments, tend to neglect any specification on why or how cross-class alliances would emerge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

HOPE VI, Colonization, and the Production of Difference

Fraser

Burns

Bazuin

et al. 2012

Urban Affairs Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 1993 and 2010, the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) Program sought to transform public housing by demolishing large spatially concentrated developments and replacing them with mixed-income housing. Drawing on postcolonial geographical thought, this article interrogates HOPE VI as a colonial project. Through the displacement of public housing residents, the razing of the development in which they lived, and the rebuilding of mixed-income housing, including new public housing units, HOPE VI projects seek to revitalize neighborhoods by attracting higher-income homeowners to relocate in these areas. Proponents of HOPE VI and other mixed-income housing strategies contend that socioeconomic mixing will provide a range of benefits for low-income residents in these environments. Yet, there is a growing body of research suggesting that income mixing itself can be a problem for public housing residents because the neighborhood social relations operate to marginalize them. Using a case study conducted in a midsized southern city, we build on this prior work by examining the sociospatial narratives that neighbors surrounding the HOPE VI site use to identify themselves. The article focuses on how new homeowners, residing at VANDERBILT UNIV LIBRARY on November 29, 2012 uar.sagepub.com Downloaded from 2 Urban Affairs Review XX(X) in a self-contained development right across the street from a HOPE VI site, construct themselves as a community by situating public housing residents as their other. We conclude that these sociospatial distinctions are integral to the broader, state-led effort to colonize and transform this low-income neighborhood situated next to the downtown business district.

show abstract

Section: Community and The Production Of Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

HOPE VI, Colonization, and the Production of Difference

Fraser

Burns

Bazuin

et al. 2012

Urban Affairs Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous studies have demonstrated that the spatial concentration of very low-income households within public housing communities can exacerbate crime and other social problems (Briggs, Popkin, & Goering, 2010;lewis, 1959;Massey & Denton, 1993;Reingold, Van Ryzin, & Ronda, 2001;Wilson, 1987). Further, many believe that individuals will be more likely to engage in work and other socially responsible behaviors if they are living in a community that exhibits and values these behaviors (Graves, 2011;Joseph, Chaskin, & Webber, 2007;Kleit, 2005). If successful, work requirements could increase employment in public housing, thus reducing concentrations of poverty and creating a social milieu of work.…”

Section: Increase Economic Diversity and Create A Culture Of Workmentioning

confidence: 97%

Work Requirements in Public Housing: Impacts on Tenant Employment and Evictions

Rohe

Webb

Frescoln

2016

Housing Policy Debate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A basic assumption of social mix is that poor groups living in deprived neighbourhoods lack of positive role models, mainly defined in terms of social classes. Thus, the presence of middle-classes should help to activate mechanisms of distant or proximal role modelling, meaning stimulating marginalized people to emulate desirable behaviors of higher-class neighbours either by observing them from distance or by having direct social interaction (Graves, 2011). 2 Yet, research show that despite residential propinquity, middle-classes tend to avoid mixing with lower-class neighbours in public spaces and in other domains of everyday life (Pinkster, 2014;Watt, 2009).…”

Section: Towards a Reframing Of The Concept 'Social Mix'?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing social mix in affordable housing initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands. Closing the gap between discourses and practices?

Costarelli

Kleinhans

Mugnano

2019

Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TEuropean countries are facing rising demand for affordable housing by a widespread and differentiated audience. Both in Italy and in the Netherlands policy-makers and practitioners address this emerging need by implementing new social housing projects targeting diverse social groups -such as students, young households, welfare dependents, and refugees -which results in a fine-grained social mix. This paper discusses the development of these initiatives within wider trends in housing policies and in relation to the domestic debate on social mix in the two countries. Drawing on Magic Mix and Housing Sociale projects as case studies, respectively in the Netherlands and in Italy, we aim to explore and unfold the contemporary meanings and the practices attached to the idea of social mix. In so doing, this paper paves the way for a new conceptualization of social mix in the current post-crisis and hyper-diversified European scenario. We discuss traces of continuity and discontinuity between these forms of social mix and the mainstream idea of tenure mix, which has been a cornerstone of area-based urban renewal policy in many European countries. This paper contributes to the existing literature by offering insights into new practices of social mix in housing sphere.

show abstract

Mixed Outcome Developments

Cited by 21 publications

References 16 publications

HOPE VI, Colonization, and the Production of Difference

HOPE VI, Colonization, and the Production of Difference

Work Requirements in Public Housing: Impacts on Tenant Employment and Evictions

Reframing social mix in affordable housing initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands. Closing the gap between discourses and practices?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About