To move or not to move: Relationships to place and relocation choices in HOPE VI

Abstract

As the HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) program redevelops public housing, residents must relocate. Little is known about how they make the choice to stay or to go, if they are given one. Survey interviews with 200 residents of Seattle's High Point HOPE VI project provide the data to address four questions about such moves. First, what factors predict residents' initial choice to stay on site during redevelopment or to move permanently away? Second, how does the initial choice predict actual behavior? Third, what is the role of place attachment and place dependence on residents' relocation choices? Fourth, what is the role of other trade-offs in decision making?Findings suggest that family situations and place-dependent considerations shape initial relocation preferences of public housing residents and that their family situations may be a more important influence on the actual move. Implications for the HOPE VI program are discussed.

“Weathering” HOPE VI: The Importance of Evaluating the Population Health Impact of Public Housing Demolition and Displacement

“…35 Many public housing residents describe their communities as "families," which are not without problems but valued nonetheless. 35,65 For example, one former Chicago public housing resident from our interviews explained, [These are] the people you grow to love. It is like we like a family.…”

“…Additionally, we utilize data from several single-site studies of HOPE VI relocation. 23,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] We also draw insights from in-depth interviews that we conducted with relocated public housing residents in Atlanta, Georgia, and with former Chicago public housing residents who had moved to eastern Iowa in the context of widespread public housing demolition and gentrification. 24,37 DOES HOPE VI SUCCESSFULLY MOVE PEOPLE TO "HEALTHIER" ENVIRONMENTS?…”

Community-Based Support among African American Public Housing Residents

“…[8][9][10][11][12] Public housing residents in these studies describe not only networks of mutual assistance and material exchange, but also a sense of community that is rooted in trust, common goals, and shared challenges. 11,13,14 This community-situated social support may be more accessible to residents of public housing projects than to other low-income families as a result of the greater residential stability that exists in federally owned projects 15 and on account of tenant organizations that provide unique opportunities for collective organizing and social interaction. 9 The important contribution of social integration to health is well-established 16,17 and some research suggests that the health benefits of social integration are significant and may rival in strength the health costs of known risk factors such as cigarette smoking.…”

Rooms for Improvement: A Qualitative Metasynthesis of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

“…Thus, many researchers and policy makers assume that the housing voucher enables low-income households to participate in the mainstream housing market, affording them choices of location similar to those facing middle-income renters. The qualitative studies provide detailed accounts of participants' attempts to choose where to live, illustrating how problems in the housing market limit choices (DeLuca et al, 2013;Kleit & Manzo, 2006;Ross, Shlay, & Picon, 2012). Data from the cases is organized below to address this free market assumption and details how participants, after obtaining a housing voucher, experience constrained location choice.…”