«Mixed Messages on Mixed incoMes Volume 15, Number 2 • 2013 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and ...»
———. 2010. “The Structuring of Urban Life in a Mixed-Income Housing ‘Community’,” City and Community 9 (1): 109–131.
Hackworth, Jason. 2005. “Progressive Activism in a Neoliberal Context: The Case of Efforts To Retain Public Housing in the United States,” Studies in Political Economy 75: 29–51.
Heathcott, Joseph. 2012. “The Strange Career of Public Housing,” Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (4): 360–375.
Henderson, A. Scott. 1995. “‘Tarred With the Exceptional Image’: Public Housing and Popular Discourse, 1950–1990,” American Studies 36 (1): 31–52.
Hunt, D. Bradford. 2009. Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Joseph, Mark, and Robert 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.
Joseph, Mark, Robert Chaskin, and Henry Webber. 2007. “The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty Through Mixed-Income Development,” Urban Affairs Review 42 (3): 369–409.
Kasarda, John D. 1990. “City Jobs and Residents on a Collision Course: The Urban Underclass Dilemma,” Economic Development Quarterly 4 (4): 313–319.
Keating, Larry. 2000. “Redeveloping Public Housing: Relearning Urban Renewal’s Immutable Lessons,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (4): 384–397.
Kipfer, Stefan, and Jason Petrunia. 2009. “‘Recolonization’ and Public Housing: A Toronto Case Study,” Studies in Political Economy 83: 111–139.
Kleit, Rachel. 2011. “Integrated or Isolated? The Impact of Public Housing Redevelopment on Social Network Homophily,” Social Networks 33 (2): 152–165.
———. 2005. “HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relationships in Mixed-Income Housing,” Environment and Planning A 37: 1413–1441.
Kleit, Rachel, and Lynne Manzo. 2006. “To Move or Not To Move: Relationships to Place and Relocation Choices in HOPE VI,” Housing Policy Debate 17 (2): 271–308.
Kleit, Rachel, and Stephen Page. 2012. “The Changing Role of Public Housing Authorities in the Affordable Housing Delivery System.” Paper presented at the conference, After the Crisis: Housing Policy and Finance in the US and UK, New York, September 7–8.
Lees, Loretta. 2008. “Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance?” Urban Studies 45 (12): 2449–2470.
Levy, Diane, Zach McDade, and Kassie Bertumen. 2011. Effects From Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Lucio, Joanna, and Wendy Wolfersteig. 2012. “Political and Social Incorporation of Public Housing
Residents: Challenges in HOPE VI Community Development,” Community Development 43 (4):
McCormick, Naomi, Mark Joseph, and Robert Chaskin. 2012. “The New Stigma of Relocated Public Housing Residents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed-Income Developments,” City and Community 11 (3): 285–308.
Nguyen, Mai, William Rohe, and Spencer Cowan. 2012. “Entrenched Hybridity in Public Housing Agencies in the USA,” Housing Studies 27 (4): 457–475.
O’Connor, Alice. 2002. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in TwentiethCentury US History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Parson, Don. 2007. “The Decline of Public Housing and the Politics of the Red Scare: The Significance of the Los Angeles Public Housing War,” Journal of Urban History 33 (3): 400–417.
Pattillo, Mary. 2008. Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popkin, Susan, Diane Levy, and Larry Buron. 2009. “Has HOPE VI Transformed Residents’ Lives?
New Evidence From the HOPE VI Panel Study,” Housing Studies 24 (4): 477–502.
Popkin, Susan, Brett Theodos, Liza Getsinger, and Joe Parilla. 2010. A New Model for Integrating Housing and Services. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Sampson, Robert J., and W. Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing SocialDisorganization Theory,” American Journal of Sociology 94 (4): 774–802.
Sedlak, Wendy C. 2008. ‘Getting To Know Your Neighbor’: The Efficacy of Social Networks in MixedIncome Housing. Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Tach, Laura M. 2009. “More Than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes,
and the Mixed-Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project,” City and Community 8 (3):
Thaden, Emily. 2010. Outperforming the Market: Delinquency and Foreclosure Rates in Community Land Trusts. Lincoln, NE: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Theodos, Brett, Susan Popkin, Joe Parilla, and Liza Getsinger. 2012. “The Challenge of Targeting Services: A Typology of Public-Housing Residents,” Social Service Review 86 (3): 517–544.
Vale, Lawrence. 2000. From the Puritans to the Projects: Public Housing and Public Neighbors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vale, Lawrence, and Yonah Freemark. 2012. “From Public Housing to Public-Private Housing:
75 Years of American Social Experimentation,” Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (4):
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.
Voith, Richard, and Sean Zielenbach. 2010. “Hope VI and Neighborhood Economic Development:
The Importance of Local Market Dynamics,” Cityscape 12 (1): 99–132.
Von Hoffman, Alexander. 2000. “A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949,” Housing Policy Debate 11 (2): 299–326.
Williams, Paulette J. 2003. “Continuing Crisis in Affordable Housing: Systemic Issues Requiring Systemic Solutions,” The Fordham Urban Law Journal 31: 413–480.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yancey, William L. 1974. “Architecture, Interaction, and Social Control: The Case of a Large-Scale Housing Project,” Crowding and Behavior 68: 126–136.
Young, Iris. 2000. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zielenbach, Sean. 2003. “Assessing Economic Change in HOPE VI Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate 14 (4): 621–655.
100 Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes Lessons Learned From the Largest Tenure-Mix Operation in the World: Right to Buy in the United Kingdom Reinout Kleinhans Maarten van Ham Delft University of Technology Abstract In the past few decades, urban regeneration policies have taken firm root in many Western European countries. Underlying these regeneration policies is a strong belief in the negative neighborhood effects of living in areas of concentrated poverty, often neighborhoods with a large share of social housing. In Europe, great importance is attached to creating a more diverse housing stock (in terms of tenure and dwelling types) as a means to establishing a more socially mixed neighborhood population. Mixed-housing strategies are embraced explicitly by governments in Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The idea is that mixing homeowners with social renters will create a more diverse socioeconomic mix in neighborhoods, removing the potential of negative neighborhood effects. By far the largest tenure-mixing operation in Europe is the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme in the United Kingdom. Since the 1970s, more than
2.7 million socially rented houses have sold at large discounts, mainly to sitting tenants.
In this article, we synthesize the outcomes of RTB with regard to neighborhood effects:
residualization, neighborhood stability, tenure and social mix, social interactions, and dwelling maintenance. Although we acknowledge substantial socioeconomic benefits of RTB for many individual residents, we find that the neighborhood outcomes of RTB are by no means solely beneficial.
Introduction Urban regeneration policies have become well established in many Western European countries in recent decades. The aim of these policies is often twofold. On the one hand, they aim to improve the livability and reputation of deprived urban neighborhoods, often neighborhoods dominated by social housing1 constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. On the other hand, these policies aim to improve the lives of residents living in those neighborhoods (Manley et al., 2013). The content and implementation of urban regeneration policies differ greatly among countries, depending on the welfare system, the political forces, and the physical, social, and economic structures of urban areas (Andersson and Musterd, 2005). Similarities also exist, however, among national urban regeneration policies.
Most policies are strongly oriented toward altering the quality and composition of the housing stock of existing urban residential areas dominated by social housing (Kleinhans, 2004). In Europe, great importance is attached to creating a more diverse housing stock as a means to establishing a more socially mixed neighborhood population (Manley et al., 2013). This diversification is established through the demolition, upgrading, or sale of socially rented housing and the construction of new, more costly owner-occupied or privately rented housing. The result is more differentiation in housing sizes, forms, quality, and prices and above all a mix of tenures and therefore a more mixed (higher income) neighborhood population. Creating neighborhoods with a more balanced socioeconomic mix of residents is a common strategy for tackling assumed negative neighborhood effects; that is, the idea that living in deprived neighborhoods has a negative effect on residents’ life chances over and above the effect of their individual characteristics (van Ham and Manley, 2010).
A deliberate mix of homeowners and social renters will create a more diverse socioeconomic mix in neighborhoods, removing the potential of negative neighborhood effects (Musterd and Andersson, 2005). Policymakers have assumed that mixed neighborhoods will provide more positive role models, fewer negative peer group effects, and a better neighborhood reputation (Manley et al., 2013). Although the evidence that neighborhood effects are important and that area-based policies are effective is ambivalent (van Ham and Manley, 2010; van Ham et al., 2012), many Western European governments, including those in Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, explicitly embrace mixed-housing strategies (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2002; Kearns, 2002; Musterd, 2002; Veldboer, Kleinhans, and Duyvendak, 2002).
The Right to Buy (RTB) scheme in the United Kingdom is by far the largest tenure-mixing operation in the world. More than 2.7 million socially rented houses have sold, primarily to sitting tenants at large discounts, since the 1970s (Jones and Murie, 2006). The sale and resale of former socially rented dwellings has created mixed-tenure neighborhoods by introducing homeownership in neighborhoods previously dominated by social housing (Tunstall, 2011). According to Munro (2007), RTB represents one of the most significant housing policy measures in Britain of the past 25 years. “It has achieved almost iconic status, representative of high Thatcherism; a key effort in Social housing is housing that is let for less than market rents to people in housing need. In the United Kingdom, social housing generally is provided by councils (local governments) and not-for-profit landlords, such as housing associations.
In the U.S. context, social housing is often referred to as “public housing” or “state-subsidized housing.”
the general drive for privatization, aimed both at rolling back the frontiers of the state and also in the creation of a ‘property owning democracy.’ It has been instrumental in changing the aggregate tenure structure in Britain” (Munro, 2007: 247; see also King, 2010).
Although creating mixed neighborhoods was not an explicit aim of the RTB policy, we want to emphasize that it was a side effect of the policy that was much welcomed by the government.
In line with the privatization discourse, much research has been devoted to the socioeconomic effects of RTB for tenant buyers. RTB can be qualified as hugely successful in increasing access to homeownership (with sales prices of much less than market values), in transferring wealth from the state to private households (substantial profits could be made through resale by capitalizing on the discount value and general house price increases), and in decreasing the stock of social housing (for example, Jones and Murie, 2006; King, 2010). These outcomes are undeniably good reasons for conservative politicians to celebrate RTB, although critics have also identified many negative (side) effects of RTB (see Jones and Murie, 2006).
Less attention has focused on how neighborhoods were affected by the RTB policy, however (Munro, 2007). We seek to fill this gap with a meta-analysis of existing research findings on various neighborhood outcomes. The main objective of this article is to reveal both the positive and negative lessons learned about neighborhood effects from more than 30 years of RTB policy. We will focus our attention on five types of outcomes on the neighborhood level: residualization, neighborhood stability, tenure and social mix, social interactions, and dwelling maintenance. The article ends with conclusions about the double-edged effect on social mixing, the greatly varying effects on the stability of neighborhoods, and the complexities regarding social interaction and dwelling maintenance. We conclude that the neighborhood outcomes of RTB are by no means solely beneficial, which is an important message for countries considering introducing RTB. In the next section, we further explain RTB policy and give a brief account of its history and policy development.