«Mixed Messages on Mixed incoMes Volume 15, Number 2 • 2013 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and ...»
A Journal of Policy
Development and Research
Mixed Messages on Mixed incoMes
Volume 15, Number 2 • 2013
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Managing Editor: Mark D. Shroder
Associate Editor: Michelle P. Matuga
Richard K. Green
University of Southern California
Keith R. Ihlanfeldt
The Florida State University
Annette M. Kim
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Carlos E. Martín Abt Associates Inc.
Douglas S. Massey Princeton University Sandra J. Newman Johns Hopkins University Marybeth Shinn Vanderbilt University Raymond J. Struyk Paul Waddell University of California, Berkeley John C. Weicher Hudson Institute, Inc.
Cityscape A Journal of Policy Development and Research Mixed Messages on Mixed incoMes VoluMe 15, nuMber 2 • 2013 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research The goal of Cityscape is to bring high-quality original research on housing and community development issues to scholars, government officials, and practitioners. Cityscape is open to all relevant disciplines, including architecture, consumer research, demography, economics, engineering, ethnography, finance, geography, law, planning, political science, public policy, regional science, sociology, statistics, and urban studies.
Cityscape is published three times a year by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Subscriptions are available at no charge and single copies at a nominal fee. The journal is also available on line at http://www.
PD&R welcomes submissions to the Refereed Papers section of the journal. Our referee process is double blind and timely, and our referees are highly qualified. The managing editor will also respond to authors who submit outlines of proposed papers regarding the suitability of those proposals for inclusion in Cityscape. Send manuscripts or outlines to Cityscape@hud.gov.
Opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of HUD or the U.S. government.
Visit PD&R’s websites, www.hud.gov/policy or www.huduser.org, to find this report and others sponsored by PD&R. Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s Research and Information Service, include listservs, special interest and bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (1–800–245–2691) for help with accessing the information you need.
Contents Symposium Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes Guest Editors: James C. Fraser, Deirdre Oakley, and Diane K. Levy Guest Editors’ Introduction: Policy Assumptions and Lived Realities of Mixed-Income Housing on Both Sides of the Atlantic
Mixed-Income Living: Anticipated and Realized Benefits for Low-Income Households....... 15 by Diane K. Levy, Zach McDade, and Kassie Bertumen Ethnically Diverse HOPE VI Redevelopments: A Community Case Study From the Pacific Northwest
by JoDee Keller, Janice Laakso, Christine Stevens, and Cathy Tashiro Mixed-Tenure Orthodoxy: Practitioner Reflections on Policy Effects
by Ade Kearns, Martin McKee, Elena Sautkina, George Weeks, and Lyndal Bond Commentaries On Spatial Solutions to Social Problems
by James DeFilippis Mixing Policies: Expectations and Achievements
by Hilary Silver Making Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Work for Low-Income Households
by James C. Fraser, Robert J. Chaskin, and Joshua Theodore Bazuin Lessons Learned From the Largest Tenure-Mix Operation in the World: Right to Buy in the United Kingdom
by Reinout Kleinhans and Maarten van Ham Commentaries Housing Policy Possibilities in the Prison of Property Relations: A Commentary....... 119 by Katherine Hankins Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?..... 123 by Derek Hyra
Examining Mobility Outcomes in the Housing Choice Voucher Program:
Neighborhood Poverty, Employment, and Public School Quality
by Victoria Basolo Mobility Decisions of Very Low-Income Households
by Kimberly Skobba and Edward G. Goetz “It was really hard.... It was alright.... It was easy.” Public Housing Relocation Experiences and Destination Satisfaction in Atlanta
by Deirdre Oakley, Erin Ruel, and Lesley Reid Commentaries Market-Driven Public Housing Reforms: Inadequacy for Poverty Alleviation.............. 193 by Amy T. Khare iii Cityscape Contents False Assumptions About Poverty Dispersal Policies
by Rachel Garshick Kleit Acknowledging the Structural Features of Choice
by Sudhir Venkatesh Cityscape Mixed-Income Symposium Summary and Response: Implications for Antipoverty Policy
by Mark L. Joseph Point of Contention: Homeownership and Child Well-Being Do Kids of Homeowners Do Better Than Kids of Renters?
by Richard K. Green The Relationship of Homeownership, House Prices, and Child Well-Being
by Donald Haurin The Evidence Does Not Show That Homeownership Benefits Children
by David R. Barker Looking Back To Move Forward in Homeownership Research
by Sandra J. Newman and C. Scott Holupka Departments Policy Briefs The Federal Housing Administration and Long-Term Affordable Homeownership Programs
by Edwin Stromberg and Brian Stromberg Data Shop New Data on Local Vacant Property Registration Ordinances
by Yun Sang Lee, Patrick Terranova, and Dan Immergluck Graphic Detail Visualizing Same-Sex Couple Household Data With Linked Micromaps
by Brent D. Mast Impact Refinancing Hospital Loans
by Alastair McFarlane Industrial Revolution Smart-Grid Technologies in Housing
by M.G. Matt Syal and Kweku Ofei-Amoh SpAM Changing Geographic Units and the Analytical Consequences: An Example of Simpson’s Paradox
by Ron Wilson Calls for Papers
iv Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes
Guest Editors’ Introduction:
Policy Assumptions and Lived Realities of MixedIncome Housing on Both Sides of the Atlantic James C. Fraser Vanderbilt University Deirdre Oakley Georgia State University Diane K. Levy Urban Institute Introduction During the past several decades, a number of housing programs sought to create mixed-income housing and neighborhoods in the United States and Europe to negate the effects of concentrated poverty. In the United States, such initiatives have included the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Moving to Opportunity housing experiment, whereby low-income residents volunteered for relocation to low-poverty areas; the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) Program for public housing transformation; and Choice Neighborhoods, a program broadly based on the HOPE VI model but expanded to revitalize entire neighborhoods (Fraser, Oakley, and Bazuin, 2012).
In Europe, such initiatives fall under the rubric of neighborhood restructuring or urban renewal.
These efforts often include mixed-housing strategies and have been implemented in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Finland, and Sweden. European strategies focus more on mixing homeowners with social renters—the equivalent of public housing renters in the United States—with the similar assumption that a more diverse socioeconomic mix of residents will remove the negative neighborhood effects of poverty. By far the largest European mixed-housing initiative is the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme in the United Kingdom. Since the 1970s, more than 2.7 million socially rented houses have been sold with large discounts, mainly to existing tenants and other more affluent households (see Reinout Kleinhans and Maarten van Ham’s article in this symposium).
This Cityscape symposium showcases a series of refereed articles in which authors critically examine mixed-income housing initiatives in the United States, the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands through both empirical and theoretical lenses, paying particular attention to whether benefits outweigh limitations in terms of resident, neighborhood, and sustainability outcomes. The overall goal of the symposium is to provide a nuanced critique of mixed-income housing by situating these initiatives within the broader context of affordable housing and diverse, healthy communities. In addition, the symposium addresses the question of whose responsibility it is to house the poor and which strategies are most effective.
The genesis of this symposium was the 41st annual conference, in 2011, of the Urban Affairs Association. During a session, “The Future in and of HOPE VI Developments,” many of the authors in this issue, including Diane K. Levy, James C. Fraser, Robert J. Chaskin, Mark L. Joseph, and JoDee Keller, presented articles. During that same conference, Edward Goetz moderated a session entitled “Public Housing Transformation and the Right to the City” and also presented his own work on poverty deconcentration and HOPE VI. During the 42nd annual conference of the Urban Affairs Association, many of the participants and presenters continued a broader discussion of the ways in which mixed-income housing was affecting low-income and public housing residents. In a session moderated by James C. Fraser, “The Onset and Aftermath of HOPE VI,” Deirdre Oakley, Katherine Hankins, Rachel Garshick Kleit, and Edward G. Goetz presented additional work on HOPE VI and resident experiences. These two conferences solidified our intention to produce a set of articles that would broaden our understanding of mixed-income housing as a policy and in implementation.
Mixed-Income Housing Mixed-income housing and neighborhood development efforts go beyond the transformation of public housing. Their history extends back to Ebenezer Howard’s “garden city” movement at the turn of the 20th century. Emerging out of the ideology that social mix—having a variety of income levels live in the same area—was necessary for moral order, mixed-income towns were planned to integrate the lower and middle socioeconomic classes with the wealthy, yet building types that housed different income groups were distinct and sited in separate areas of these developments in many cases (Rose et al., 2013). Likewise, people with utopian visions for better cities (for example, Patrick Geddes and Lewis Mumford) and people involved in efforts to improve the cities we already had (for example, Jane Addams and Jane Jacobs) had long touted the benefits of social mix for strengthening democracy and promoting empathy on the part of wealthier classes. An alternative ideology, similar to the emergence of company towns during the 19th century, suggested that deconcentrating the working class would minimize labor organizing and class conflict. As capitalists were made painfully aware by the Pullman strike of 1894, these social-harmonizing experiments did not produce the desired results (Crawford, 1995). The hopes for mixed-income communities, by and large, were not realized as the 20th century saw segregation by race and class increase over time. Urban demographers have vividly illustrated the emergence of hypersegregated poverty, a topic about which Douglass Massey and Nancy Denton (1993) wrote.
Partially in response to these conditions that scholars (for example, Massey and Denton, 1993;
Wilson, 1987) wrote about, mixing strategies reemerged in the early 1990s. Policymakers,
government officials, and even private-sector developers have supported mixed-income housing, yet for different reasons. The ideology behind this resurgence of mixed-income housing has largely centered on the notion of healthy cities and poverty reduction. In the case of public housing and low-income neighborhoods, the general belief has been that concentrated poverty produces additional negative outcomes for the poor (Wilson, 1987). This theoretical scaffolding has supported the razing of many public housing developments and the relocation of residents, some of whom move to neighborhoods with less poverty, others of whom move to areas with similar rates of poverty, and a relative few who make temporary moves before returning to HOPE VI developments, living alongside market-rate households (Abravanel, Levy, and McFarland, 2011a; Fraser, Oakley, and Bazuin, 2012; Popkin et al., 2000).
Mixed-income policies, however, have gone well beyond public housing redevelopment. City officials, seeking ways to revitalize low-income, inner-city neighborhoods have turned toward an ever-increasing set of organizations and their consultants espousing the virtues of mixed-income housing to legitimate public-private ventures that oftentimes seek to gentrify neighborhoods (Dutton, 2007; Fraser et al., 2003; Lees, 2008; Rose et al., 2013; Skirtz, 2012). Although this outcome may be the case in some mixed-income housing initiatives, it would be premature and suspect to write off mixed-income housing as simply a way to displace lower income people from neighborhoods cities want to redevelop.
Mixed-income policies and programs have become dominant urban planning strategies even as hypotheses about what mixed-income housing can achieve continue to change and questions remain about the model’s purpose and actual effect. Core questions debated since the reemergence of the mixed-income model in the 1990s have evolved and broadened as empirical studies have shed light on the models in practice. Early on, questions tended to focus on the effect on lower income residents of living in mixed-income housing developments or neighborhoods. These questions were based on assumptions that the effect was unidirectional and likely beneficial. Hypotheses pointed to the expected positive effect on poorer residents’ access to employment, improved quality of life, and overall self-sufficiency.