«Mixed Messages on Mixed incoMes Volume 15, Number 2 • 2013 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and ...»
Gibson, Karen J. 2007. “The Relocation of the Columbia Villa Community: Views From Residents,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (1): 5–19.
Goetz, Edward G. 2010. “Better Neighborhoods, Better Outcomes? Explaining Relocation Outcomes in HOPE VI,” Cityscape 12 (1): 5–31.
———. 2002. “Forced Relocation vs. Voluntary Mobility: The Effects of Dispersal Programmes on Households,” Housing Studies 17 (1): 107–132.
Guest, Avery M., Charis E. Kubrin, and Jane K. Cover. 2008. “Heterogeneity and Harmony:
Neighbouring Relationships Among Whites in Ethnically Diverse Neighborhoods in Seattle,” Urban Studies 45 (3): 501–526.
Hanlon, James. 2010. “Success by Design: HOPE VI, New Urbanism, and the Neoliberal Transformation of Public Housing in the United States,” Environment and Planning A 42 (1): 80–98.
Holin, Mary J., Larry Buron, Gretchen Locke, and Alvero Cortes. 2003. Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program Cross-Site Report. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates. Also available at http://www.
huduser.org/Publications/pdf/HOPE_VI_Cross_Site.pdf (accessed July 20, 2011).
Joseph, Mark L. 2008. “Early Resident Experiences at a New Mixed-Income Development in Chicago,” Journal of Urban Affairs 30 (3): 229–257.
———. 2006. “Is Mixed-Income Development an Antidote to Urban Poverty?” Housing Policy Debate 17 (2): 209–234.
Joseph, Mark L., and Robert J. Chaskin. 2010. “Living in a Mixed-Income Development: Resident Perceptions of the Benefits and Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago,” Urban Studies 47 (11): 2347–2366.
Keller, JoDee G. 2012. “Confronting Stereotypes: Children and Families in Public Housing.” In Advances in Education in Diverse Communities: Research, Policy and Praxis, Vol. 8, Living on the Boundaries: Urban Marginality in National and International Contexts, edited by Carol Camp Yeakey.
Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 291–312.
———. 2011. “Experiences of Public Housing Residents Following Relocation: Explorations of Ambiguous Loss, Resiliency, and Cross-Generational Perspectives,” Journal of Poverty 15 (2): 141–163.
Kleit, Rachel G. 2010. “Draining Ties: Tie Quality Versus Content in Low-Income Women’s Social
Networks When Displaced by Redevelopment,” Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 27 (4):
———. 2005. “HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relationships in Mixed-Income Housing,” Environment and Planning 37: 1413–1441.
Kleit, Rachel G., and Nicole B. Carnegie. 2011. “Integrated or Isolated? The Impact of Public Housing Redevelopment on Social Network Homophily,” Social Networks 33 (2): 152–165.
Kleit, Rachel G., and Martha Galvez. 2011. “The Location Choices of Public Housing Residents Displaced by Redevelopment: Market Constraints, Personal Preferences, or Social Information?” Journal of Urban Affairs 33 (4): 375–407.
Kleit, Rachel G., and Lynne C. Manzo. 2006. “To Move or Not To Move: Relationships to Place and Relocation Choices in HOPE VI,” Housing Policy Debate 17 (2): 271–308.
Laakso, Janice. 2013. “Flawed Policy Assumptions and HOPE VI,” Journal of Poverty 17: 29–46.
Manzo, Lynne C., Rachel G. Kleit, and Dawn Couch. 2008. “‘Moving Three Times Is Like Having Your House on Fire Once’: The Experience of Place and Impending Displacement Among Public Housing Residents,” Urban Studies 45 (9): 1855–1878.
Northwest Institute for Children and Families (NICF), Evaluation Services. 2007. The Community HOPE VI Redevelopment Midpoint Evaluation. Seattle: University of Washington School of Social Work.
Popkin, Susan J., Larry F. Buron, Diane K. Levy, and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. “The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?” Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 911–942.
Popkin, Susan J., Michael Eiseman, and Elizabeth Cove. 2004. “How Are HOPE VI Families Faring?
Children.” In Urban Institute Brief No. 6, October. Washington, DC: Urban Institute: 1–7.
Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, and Larry F. Buron. 2009. “Has HOPE VI Transformed Residents’ Lives? New Evidence From the HOPE VI Panel Study,” Housing Studies 24 (4): 477–502.
Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, Laura E. Harris, Jennifer Comey, Mary K. Cunningham, and Larry
F. Buron. 2004. “The HOPE VI Program: What About the Residents?” Housing Policy Debate 15 (2):
Putnam, Robert. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century.
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture,” Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2): 137–174.
Salama, Jerry J. 1999. “The Redevelopment of Distressed Public Housing: Early Results From HOPE VI Projects in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio,” Housing Policy Debate 10 (1): 95–142.
Tacoma Housing Authority (THA). 2009a. “History of Salishan and New Salishan.” Available at http://www.tacomahousing.org/Salishan (accessed July 27, 2011).
———. 2009b. “Salishan Overall Unit Mix.” Available at http://www.tacomahousing.org/Salishan (accessed July 27, 2011).
Turbov, Mindy, and Valerie Piper. 2005. HOPE VI and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Neighborhood Renewal. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau). 2011. “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin.” Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf (accessed July 27, 2011).
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2012. “Refugees and Asylees: 2011.” Available at http://www.dhs.gov/refugees-and-asylees-2011 (accessed February 7, 2013).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2011. “Choice Neighborhoods.” Available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ programs/ph/cn (accessed July 27, 2011).
Varady, David P., Jeffrey A. Raffel, Stephanie Sweeney, and Latina Denson. 2005. “Attracting Middle-Income Families in the HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program,” Journal of Urban Affairs 27 (2): 149–164.
Wexler, Harry J. 2001. “HOPE VI: Market Means/Public Ends—The Goals, Strategies, and MidTerm Lessons of HUD’s Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program,” Journal of Affordable Housing 10 (3): 195–233.
46 Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes
Practitioner Reflections on Policy Effects Ade Kearns University of Glasgow Martin McKee UK Medical Research Council Elena Sautkina London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine George Weeks Transport for London Lyndal Bond Centre for Excellence in Intervention and Prevention Science Abstract This article examines mixed tenure as a policy orthodoxy. It first sets out how mixed tenure may be considered to constitute an orthodoxy within planning, being generally accepted as a theory and practice even in the absence of supporting evidence. Five elements of this orthodoxy are identified, relating to (1) housing and the environment, (2) social change, (3) economic impacts, (4) sustainable communities, (5) and sociospatial integration. Interviews with practitioners involved with three social housing estates that have experienced mixed-tenure policy interventions are reported to consider why the implementation and effects of mixed tenure might not correspond with the orthodox understanding. It is argued that policy ambiguity and weaknesses in policy theory and specification, alongside practical constraints, lie behind incomplete and counterproductive policy implementation, but a belief in pursuing the policy orthodoxy persists nevertheless.
Introduction Planning has been described as, or in some cases accused of, from time to time having orthodox approaches to creativity and problem solving. The most famous critic in this regard was Jane Jacobs, who railed against the “saints and sages of modern orthodox planning” (emphasis added) and what they had to say “about how cities ought to work and what ought to be good for people and business in them” (Jacobs, 1961: 8). Planning orthodoxies are not unchanging however; as Dudley (2012: 1) said, “one generation’s orthodoxies … may be subject to condemnation in the next.” Thus, although in urban planning we can find critical commentary on the orthodoxy in favor of “fast and efficient freeways” for U.S. cities in the 1950s (Dudley, 2012) and the negative consequences of associated “urban renewal” (Anderson, 1964), more recently we can observe the opposite in the form of resistance to what has been called the “planning orthodoxy” of compact cities and higher density redevelopment (Randolph, 2006).
Orthodoxy can be defined as an “authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com) or “the generally accepted beliefs of society at a particular time” (http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org). Professions like to operate with orthodoxies because doing so gives the impression of authority, expertise, and coherence within the body of practitioners, in that a marshaling of the evidence and their professional experience leads them to adhere to the general approach. The orthodox approach may eventually achieve the status of unassailable conventional wisdom, something that is hard to shift and where appropriate evidence is often not collected to enable a challenge to be made from within or outside the profession. When the orthodox approach is perpetuated without any evidence of effectiveness or successful outcomes, or even in the face of evidence of negative effects, then it may be all the stronger for surviving as belief as much as on authority.
We would argue that the promotion and development of mixed-tenure communities have constituted an orthodoxy within housing, urban, and planning policies during the past two decades, at least within the United Kingdom if not also in a number of other Western European countries.
Accounts of the rise and persistence of mixed-tenure policies have been given in several reviews:
see Kleinhans (2004); Bond et al. (2011); and Sautkina, Bond, and Kearns (2012). Having pursued mixed-tenure policies since at least the early 1990s (Tunstall, 2003), governments in both England and Scotland recently commissioned evidence reviews on the subject. Tunstall and Lupton (2010) concluded that mixed tenure has a limited role and is unlikely (alone) to improve individuals’ life chances, thus questioning its function as an antidote to concentrated poverty or multiple disadvantage (see Berube, 2005). In relation to council estates, Tunstall and Lupton said that the evidence of mixed-tenure benefits is not strong enough to justify the financial and social costs of restructuring social housing areas. Monk, Clarke, and Tang (2011) also concluded that, although the evidence is supportive of mixed tenure in new developments, the evidence is less clear that mixed tenure is effective in existing social housing estates, over and above traditional renewal (in physical, environmental, and service terms). Lastly, Tunstall and Lupton (2010) highlighted that the evidence is too weak to offer guidance about the levels of mixing required to produce benefits.
These reviews highlight the weakness of the evidence base for mixed-tenure policy, and thus help confirm its position as orthodoxy.
Mixed-Tenure Orthodoxy This section reviews some of the main tenets of mixed-tenure housing policy, in terms of both how policy intends or expects them to operate and what is known about their functioning and effects.
The most immediate effects of mixed tenure on existing social housing areas are expected to be on housing and environmental quality within neighborhoods, possibly due to the provision of a greater variety of house types and designs by private developers, because of associated physical improvements made as part of mixed-tenure developments, or as a result of the care and maintenance behaviors of owner occupiers. Several U.K. studies have reported greater resident satisfaction with the surrounding physical environment in mixed-tenure neighborhoods, although its attribution to mixed tenure rather than to other planning policies has been questioned (Atkinson and Kintrea, 1998; Beekman, Lyons, and Scott, 2001; Pawson, Kirk, and McIntosh, 2000). Whether or not the expected caring behaviors of homeowners—as might be observed in mono-tenure, suburban situations—can be translated to mixed-tenure, inner-city neighborhoods is also uncertain. Evidence on the extent of owner occupier reinvestment in their properties shows that owners’ attitudes to their neighborhoods are very influential on their maintenance behaviors, particularly their feelings of solidarity with their neighbors and their short- or long-term plans to move (Galster, 1987), both of which might be expected to reduce maintenance behaviors in mixed-tenure neighborhoods.
Tenure mix is also intended to have significant social effects within communities, partly through the increased responsibility that comes with home owning rather than renting, and partly through altering the social composition of neighborhoods through the introduction of higher income groups.
Two difficulties emerge in this regard. First, tenure mixing is not guaranteed to deliver substantial income mix; one of the few empirical studies of this issue in Europe concluded that “the association between housing mix and social mix is not very strong” (Musterd and Andersson, 2005: 26).
Second, it has been argued that if the income or social-class gap between co-resident groups is too great, then the transmission of social changes from one group to another may not happen.