The organizational challenges of mixed-income development: privatizing public housing through cross-sector collaboration

2020 ◽  
pp. 125-147
Author(s):  
Mark L. Joseph ◽  
Robert J. Chaskin ◽  
Amy T. Khare ◽  
Jung-Eun Kim
2020 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 523-534
Author(s):  
Melissa J. Hagan ◽  
Adrienne R. Hall ◽  
Laura Mamo ◽  
Jackie Ramos ◽  
Leslie Dubbin

Author(s):  
Robert J. Chaskin

Much contemporary policy seeking to address the problems of urban poverty and the failures of public housing focuses on deconcentrating poverty through the relocation of public housing residents to less-poor neighborhoods or by replacing large public housing complexes with mixed-income developments. Lying behind these efforts is a set of generally integrationist goals, aiming to remove public housing residents from contexts of isolation and concentrated disadvantage and settle them in safer, healthier, and more supportive environments that better connect them to resources, relationships, and opportunities. Although some of the goals of these efforts are being met, the broader integrationist goals are proving elusive. Focusing on the mixed-income component of Chicago’s Plan for Transformation—the most ambitious effort to remake public housing in the country—this article argues that a range of institutional actors (including developers, property management, community-based organizations, and the housing authority) and organizational behaviors (around design, service provision, intervention, deliberation, and representation) shape dynamics that reproduce exclusion and work against the integrationist goals of these policies.


Urban Studies ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (16) ◽  
pp. 3405-3422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine August

This article challenges the presumed benevolence of mixed-income public housing redevelopment, focusing on the first socially-mixed remake of public housing in Canada, at Toronto’s Don Mount Court (now called ‘Rivertowne’). Between 2002 and 2012 the community was demolished and replaced with a re-designed ‘New Urbanist’ landscape, including replacement of public housing (232 units) and 187 new condominium townhouses. While mixed redevelopment is premised on the hope that tenants will benefit from improved design and mixed-income interactions, this research finds that many residents were less satisfied with the quality of their housing, neighbourhood design, and social community post-redevelopment. Drawing on in-depth qualitative interviews and ethnographic participant observation, this article finds that tenant interviewees missed their older, more spacious homes in the former Don Mount, and were upset to find that positive community bonds were dismantled by relocation and redevelopment. Challenging the ‘myth of the benevolent middle class’ at the heart of social mix policy, many residents reported charged social relations in the new Rivertowne. In addition, the neo-traditional redesign of the community – intended to promote safety and inclusivity – had paradoxical impacts. Many tenants felt less safe than in their modernist-style public housing, and the mutual surveillance enabled by New Urbanist redesign fostered tense community relations. These findings serve as a strong caution for cities and public housing authorities considering mixed redevelopment, and call into question the wisdom of funding welfare state provisions with profits from real estate development.


Cities ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 423-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Chaskin ◽  
Florian Sichling ◽  
Mark L. Joseph
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. Tach

Policy initiatives to deconcentrate poverty through mixed–income redevelopment were motivated in part by the desire to reduce social isolation and social disorganization in high–poverty neighborhoods. This article examines whether the presence of higher–income neighbors decreased social isolation or improved social organization in a Boston public housing project that was redeveloped into a HOPE VI mixed–income community. Based on in–depth interviews and neighborhood observation, I find that it was the lower–income former public housing residents who were primarily involved in creating neighborhood–based social ties, providing and receiving social support, and enforcing social control within the neighborhood, rather than the higher–income newcomers. This variation in neighborhood engagement stemmed from the different ways that long–term and newer residents perceived and interpreted their neighborhood surroundings. These differences were generated by residents’ comparisons of current and past neighborhood environments and by neighborhood reputations. Residents’ perceptions of place may thus influence whether mixed–income redevelopment can reduce social isolation and improve social organization in high–poverty neighborhoods and, more generally, whether changes in neighborhood structural characteristics translate into changes in social dynamics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document