RELOCATING THE POOR: SOCIAL CAPITAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES

ABSTRACT:  This article examines the social capital available to low-income households which were relocated to different types of neighborhoods with the HOPE VI program, an initiative aimed at redeveloping U.S. public housing developments into mixed-income communities. Along with improving the living environment, HOPE VI is thought to improve residents' access to social capital by changing the economic mix of their neighborhoods. This article contributes evidence from multivariate analyses of survey data of Boston HOPE VI residents in their post-HOPE VI neighborhoods. Findings indicate that rather than neighborhood socioeconomic mix, neighborhood resources, such as libraries, recreation facilities, parks, grocery stores, and social services, followed by place attachment and feelings of safety, were the strongest predictors of social capital. A discussion of why neighborhood resources may be so important for social capital is presented, and implications for policies aimed at improving poverty neighborhoods and low-income people's access to social capital are considered .     

What should housing vouchers do? A review of the recent literature

This paper challenges the assumption that housing vouchers help recipients move from crime-ridden inner-city areas to ‘good’ lower-poverty neighborhoods and, in turn, to achieve self-sufficiency. A review of the American and European literature on housing mobility programs and on mixed-income communities fails to support this belief. Efforts to maintain, and expand, the voucher program should be based on the program’s proven ability to provide decent and affordable housing rather than on unproven claims that it promotes poverty deconcentration and family self-sufficiency. I find considerable evidence that voucher recipients cluster spatially and that this promotes social decline in neighborhoods already vulnerable to change. Policymakers need to monitor voucher settlement patterns and to address programmatic weaknesses that cause negative neighborhood effects and voucher controversies.     

Lessons for LEED® for Neighborhood Development,Social Equity,and Affordable Housing

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design® for Neighborhood Development (LEED®ND) is a rating system designed to encourage sustainable development. I explore why and how most LEED®ND projects ultimately fail to meet the equity goals inherent in sustainability. I survey 114 LEED®ND accredited professionals (APs) and conduct 20 interviews with LEED®ND APs to illuminate the role of the rating system in developer decisions to include affordable housing in their projects. I also explore why nonprofit developers see value in seeking LEED®ND certification for their projects. Although a limited sample, it provides insights into how the certification process affects developer decisions. I find that the LEED®ND rating system does a poor job of encouraging developers to provide affordable housing: Only 40% of LEED®ND-certified projects include affordable housing. LEED®ND APs do not feel that the system offers sufficient incentives to overcome the risks and costs of providing affordable housing. Nonprofit developers might pursue LEED®ND to create savings for residents, but may be deterred by the cost of certification. Most respondents feel that the affordable housing credit should be increased and improved to provide adequate incentives to developers.

Takeaway for practice: Planners cannot count on LEED®ND certification to ensure the provision of affordable and mixed housing in sustainable neighborhoods. The LEED®ND system could be improved by weighting the affordable housing credit more heavily; developers could also be incentivized to build a greater mix of housing. The certification costs could be lowered or subsidized for projects with affordable housing and assessed on a per unit basis. Additional credits could be given to projects that significantly reduce utility costs for low-income residents.     

Beyond HOPE VI: Demolition/Disposition and the uncertain future of public housing in the U.S.

Public housing redevelopment in the United States is virtually synonymous with the HOPE VI program, through which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has transformed over 250 housing projects into mixed-income communities. However, the overall the extent of public housing redevelopment has far exceeded the original mandate of HOPE VI due to the expansion of Demolition/Disposition activities facilitated by the program. The permissiveness of such activities has resulted in the replacement of housing projects with luxury condominiums, shopping and convention centers, and other land uses unrelated to affordable housing. In the process, over 210,000 housing units guaranteed to be affordable to low-income households have been removed from the country??s public housing inventory. This article investigates the foundations, the overall scope, and the characteristics of Demolition/Disposition activities beyond the purview of HOPE VI, and discusses their implications for the uncertain future of public housing in the U.S.     

One step ahead of the bulldozer: historic preservation in Houston,Texas

Community development corporations (CDCs) are often at the forefront of providing affordable housing and social services, restoring disinvested communities, and rebuilding neighborhoods. Most CDCs work in older, inner-city communities that, given their age and location, likely contain older and historic buildings. Thus, there is a seemingly logical overlap between community developers’ target neighborhoods and the tools, strategies, and resources associated with historic preservation. This article uses a qualitative case study of Houston’s Avenue CDC to explore how and why community developers use preservation within the context of a high-growth city. For more than two decades, Avenue has worked in three core neighborhoods in an effort to stave off gentrification via teardowns and townhome redevelopment. The findings show that, for community developers in growing cities, carefully crafted preservation strategies may be a way to challenge the forces of gentrification, displacement, and wholesale physical destruction.     

The contribution of Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) to improving accessibility of low-income earners to housing in southern Nigeria

Public–Private Partnership is a relatively new approach to housing provision and was introduced in Nigeria to address the burgeoning housing challenges. To date, little is known about the contribution of this approach to improving the chances of low-income earners in gaining access to decent and affordable housing in urban areas in this country. Based on data obtained from a survey of selected government housing agencies in six cities in southern Nigeria, this study found that the Public–Private-Partnership approach, like most previous public housing delivery strategies, has not made any significant contribution to housing low-income earners; rather it is skewed towards providing housing for high- and middle-income earners. This paper identifies the state-market structure of the Public–Private Partnerships and the absence of a National Policy on Public–Private Partnership in housing in Nigeria as being responsible for this development. It therefore suggests that the development and adoption of a uniform National Policy on Public–Private Partnership in housing, government provision of land at no cost to private developers, lowering of the high building standards, and incorporation of assisted-self-help and incremental housing into the Public–Private-Partnership housing delivery system will ensure better results.     

Examining spatial patterns in affordable housing: the case of California density bonus implementation

California State Density Bonus Law §65915–18 financially incentivizes housing developers to produce affordable housing by granting density bonuses to those who designate a percentage of the total units for residence by low or moderate income households. By incorporating affordable housing units alongside market-rate units, state density bonus law fosters opportunities to enhance neighborhood level socio-economic diversity. This paper investigates the effectiveness of density bonus policy at promoting socio-economic diversity within the City of San Diego by examining locational patterns of density bonus implementation and neighborhood demographic characteristics. This study utilizes spatial and non-spatial statistical analyses to identify trends and correlations in density bonus usage, housing stock, and racial and economic characteristics. The results indicate that density bonus usage in San Diego has not fostered socio-economic integration; rather its usage is clustered in neighborhoods characterized by high concentrations of Hispanics, Blacks, and multi-family housing units. The findings underscore the need to refine supply-side affordable housing tools so that they are effective in a range of land markets, and not only in the traditionally lower value land markets where minority households tend to reside.     

Residents' preferences for private amenities and trade-offs associated with various spatial densities and patterns

ABSTRACT

Northwest Arkansas planning policies, like a number of communities across the country, have identified goals working toward more sustainable, livable, and subsequently denser development patterns. However, the understanding of residents’ perceptions of such living arrangements is limited. This study provides a more nuanced understanding of Northwest Arkansas residents’ spatial preferences through a survey of residents’ preferences for private amenities and their trade-off with various spatial densities and patterns in support of sustainability. Results of the survey indicate a preference for, and experience with, single-family residential living arrangements and amenities, with the preponderance (80%) of survey respondents currently living in single-family housing. There is a preference for low-density neighborhoods even if it means sacrificing other amenities. This study is in alignment with previous research suggesting that people may learn to prefer where they live. Additionally, while the majority of survey respondents indicated a preference for communal greenspaces, renters are more likely to prefer communal greenspaces when compared to homeowners. This study indicates that attached, multi-family development and renter development in Northwest Arkansas should consider the provision of communal green spaces, walkable access to transit, and walkable access to services as desired amenities for those residents.     

基于住房分市场理论的城市住房规划研究——上海城市住房分市场动态变化驱动力研究的启示

随着社会经济体制改革的不断推进和深化,我国城市发展的动力机制、城市住房系统的运作机制也发生了深刻变化,要求我国城市规划、住房规划理论和方法与时俱进。本文构建了我国住房分市场动态变化研究的理论框架,对上海市两个案例住宅区1994至2005年住房分市场动态变化驱动力的实证研究表明:影响不同区位、不同层级城市住房分市场动态变化的供、需因素复杂多样,在不同层面上广泛地与社会、经济、环境变化、区域甚至国际发展变化的趋势、城市规划控制和土地供应等因素联系在一起。住房分市场动态变化的研究对我国市场化体制下的城市住房规划理论和方法的重构具有重要意义,也可为住房需求的评估和住房调控政策的制定提供依据。     

Inventing what Millennials want downtown: housing the urban generation in low-density metropolitan regions

ABSTRACT

Evidence is growing that a large subset of U.S. Millennials prefers to live in walkable communities near amenities. Yet, we know relatively little about how developers are translating Millennial preferences into “sticks and bricks.” This research helps fill the gap by exploring how real estate developers are cementing Millennial preferences into housing developments located downtown in the low-density metropolitan regions of Phoenix and Houston. Using data from the U.S. Census, regional media, and expert interviews, we find that developers perceive Millennials as needing housing that is authentic, flexible, socially conscious, and provides an inside/out, constantly connected lifestyle. These developers have incorporated these perceptions into new downtown projects through innovative building design and site selection, which has generated more urban housing options in the Phoenix and Houston regions, while also raising concerns about regulatory threats, Millennials’ ability (and desire) to age in place, and social equity.     

The Effects of Revitalization on Public Housing Residents: A Case Study of the Atlanta Housing Authority

This research uses administrative data to examine the long-term socioeconomic status of households that relocated from public housing projects in Atlanta as a result of mixed-income revitalization. The research spans 7 years, covering the period before relocation and demolition had begun and ending after mixed-income redevelopment was completed. Residents who lived in three public housing projects that were revitalized are compared to a control group of residents who lived in three projects that were not revitalized, showing that mixed-income revitalization greatly accelerated the residential mobility of public housing residents and that households displaced by revitalization did not experience a statistically significant loss of housing assistance. Households that relocated by using vouchers or by moving to mixed-income revitalized communities experienced significant improvements in their socioeconomic status, and they moved to higher quality neighborhoods. Additionally, their long-run socioeconomic status was similar to the status of households who moved from housing projects voluntarily, i.e., not in response to a planned demolition. This is one of few empirical studies of the effects of HOPE VI revitalization on public housing residents, and its conclusions argue against the elimination of funding for HOPE VI as called for in the president's budget for 2006.     

The Limits of Housing Investment as a Neighborhood Revitalization Tool: Crime in New York City

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Local residents often oppose place-based affordable housing on the grounds that such housing will increase crime and decrease property values. New York City has actually used affordable housing investment as a neighborhood revitalization tool, leading to a positive impact on neighborhood property values. Households in distressed neighborhoods consistently cite crime as a problem, but we know little about the impact of housing investments on crime. Using a unique set of point-specific data on affordable housing and crime locations between 2002 and 2008 in New York City, I estimate a set of regression models to identify the effect that affordable housing investments have on crime on the block where they are situated. I find little evidence that affordable housing investments either reduce or increase crime on New York City blocks, suggesting there are limits to the revitalization effects of these subsidies and that crime fears about subsidized housing are unwarranted.

Takeaway for practice: Cities with tight rental markets such as New York should continue to invest in affordable housing construction. However, these cities need to find ways to expand housing options in higher-income, less-distressed neighborhoods, or they risk exacerbating concentrated poverty and further subjecting low-income households to unsafe living environments.     

“混合型”经济适用房在美国大城市的实践和启示

首先以美国加州地区为背景分析了住房成本对所在地劳动力成本、城市长期繁荣、环境和其他社会领域的影响。然后试图通过波士顿和波特兰两个混合型经适房项目的实践,初步探究美国此类项目的运作策略,通过对相关案例的解读为中国的实践提供借鉴和参考。     

Achieving Regional Housing Planning Objectives: Directing Affordable Housing to Jobs-Rich Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Low-income households face affordability issues and are often forced to live in areas with limited job access and inadequate transportation. Local communities exacerbate these problems through exclusionary zoning. We study the impact of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) change in allocation formula under California’s affordable housing mandate. The old policy followed a fair share strategy, whereas the new policy requires local jurisdictions to locate mandated affordable housing units in jobs-rich areas. We compare affordable housing produced in the region before and after ABAG adopted the jobs-housing policy; we also compare the new patterns to the location of market-rate housing and to the experiences of San Diego (CA) and Los Angeles (CA), both of which retain fair share allocation. We do not control for variables that may have affected affordable housing location. ABAG’s policy shift is associated with a 104% improvement in the balance of housing and jobs at the local level; affordable housing units are more likely than market-rate housing to locate in jobs-rich areas, which may indicate that localities prioritize affordable housing. We also find that more affordable housing locates in such areas in the San Francisco Bay Area (CA) than in San Diego or Los Angeles.

Takeaway for practice: A voluntary regional government in a state with mandatory affordable housing requirements can affect the production and distribution of affordable housing. A total of 25 U.S. states require localities to include affordable housing elements in their comprehensive plans; we suggest that regional and local planners use these opportunities to meet multiple policy goals by directing affordable housing to jobs-rich neighborhoods.     

CONTESTING THE FINANCIALIZATION OF URBAN SPACE: COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND THE STRUGGLE TO PRESERVE AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING IN NEW YORK CITY

As cities have become both site and object of capital accumulation in a neoliberal political economy, the challenges to community practice aimed at creating, preserving, and improving affordable housing and neighborhoods have grown. Financial markets and actors are increasingly central to the workings of capitalism, transforming the meaning and significance of mortgage capital in local communities and redrawing the relationship between housing and urban inequality. This article addresses the integration of housing and financial markets through the case of “predatory equity,” a wave of aggressive private equity investment in New York City's affordable rental sector during the mid‐2000s real estate boom. I consider the potential for community organizations to develop innovative, effective, and progressive practices to contest the impact of predatory equity on affordable housing. Highlighting how organizations employed discursive and empirical tactics as well as tactics that reworked the sites, spaces, and structures of finance, this research speaks to the political possibility of contemporary community practice.     

How Race and Class Stereotyping Shapes Attitudes Toward Affordable Housing

The development of affordable housing often involves a contentious siting process. Proposed housing developments frequently trigger concern among neighbors and community groups about potential negative impacts on neighborhood quality of life and property values. Advocates, developers, and researchers have long suspected that these concerns stem in part from racial or class prejudice. Yet, to date, empirical evidence supporting these assumptions is lacking. This study seeks to examine roles that perceptions of race and class play in shaping opinions that underlie public opposition to affordable housing. This study applies a public opinion survey to determine the extent to which stereotypes and perceptions of the poor and minorities relate to attitudes toward affordable housing. The results demonstrate that such perceptions are particularly strong determinants of negative attitudes about affordable housing. These findings provide advocates, planners, developers, and researchers with a more accurate portrayal of affordable housing opposition, thereby allowing the response to be shaped in a more appropriate manner.     

Preservation from the bottom-up: affordable housing,redevelopment, and negotiation in Washington,DC

Previous iterations of large-scale redevelopment were been marked by displacement of the residents whose homes stood in the way of perceived progress. Now these neighborhoods face a new kind of urban renewal. A city with significant vacancy and city government ownership, Washington, DC, is in the process of rapid infill redevelopment. As property values surrounding city-backed developments that were once affordable increase, residents struggle to afford housing. DC has developed significant tools for the preservation of affordable housing, including an existing stock of subsidized housing, legal and financial resources, and a network of organizers and advocates that have given many residents in changing neighborhoods the opportunity to remain. This paper uses the example of Columbia Heights neighborhood of Washington, DC to examine potential strategies to preserve affordable housing in rapidly changing housing markets.     

Implicit Land Taxation and Affordable Housing Provision in England

The paper considers the proposal in England that a continuing requirement for residential developers to contribute directly to the supply of affordable housing in return for planning permission should operate alongside a new tax on land value increases due to planning permission. The paper asks whether it is right in principle for affordable housing to be supported by the implicit taxation of development. It is argued that in terms of transparency, clarity, and certainty explicit taxation is to be preferred to implicit taxation. It is thus suggested that once the new explicit tax is in place developers should no longer be routinely required to pay an additional implicit affordable housing tax. Affordable housing should, it is argued, be supported on the basis of need, not the resources available from the development process. The link between the provision of affordable housing and planning obligations should be broken.     

Residential Density,Planning Objectives and Life in Planned Communities

In the context of a trend toward increasing moderate density townhouse construction in suburban areas, ths report makes use of survey research data to explore differences in the quality of residents' lives in new town townhouse areas compared to more conventional neighborhoods of lower density single family detached housing. Results indicate that while town-house neighborhoods were associated with relatively less expensive housing (at a ratio of housing cost to income) and better access to selected facilities and services, they were also perceived as less attractive, less well maintained, more noisy, and less well provided with play areas for children. Overall, however, the ratings of new-town townhouse neighborhoods were as high or higher as those of traditional single family neighborhoods in the less planned control communities.