eassay about examination of the Yesler Terrace Development Plan

Commentary: Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?

Author(s): Derek Hyra

Source: Cityscape , 2013, Vol. 15, No. 2, Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes (2013), pp. 123-133

Published by: US Department of Housing and Urban Development

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41959115

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41959115?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

US Department of Housing and Urban Development is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cityscape

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Commentary These comments relate to the articles in this Cityscape symposium by Fraser, Chaskin,

and Bazuin and by Kleinhans and van Ham.

Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here? Derek Hyra

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Introduction

For at least the past 20 years, the urban development field has put forth a substantial effort on

investigating the merits (and shortfalls) of mixed-income housing. A key assumption that the field

makes is that low-income people somehow benefit when high-, middle-, and low-income people

live within the same neighborhood, census tract, or building (Joseph, 2006; Wilson, 1996). Scholars

struggle with demonstrating whether this assumption and components of it are correct, however

(Bacqué et al., 2011; DeFilippis and Fraser, 2010; Fraser and Kick, 2007; Graves, 2011; Joseph

and Chaskin, 2010; Kleinhans, 2004; Tach, 2009). This timely symposium and, specifically, the

two preceding articles, attempt to unpack, both domestically and abroad, some of the mechanisms

by which mixed-income housing potentially produces favorable outcomes for neighborhoods and,

in particular, low-income residents.

My brief remarks present a mixed-income housing background and glean what we have learned

from the current mixed-income research. I discuss some of the potential mechanisms that might

facilitate mixed-income housing benefits for low-income people. I conclude with a discussion of

the likely locations of future mixed-income developments. My hope is to contribute to and broaden

the mixed-income housing policy conversation so future policies have a greater potential to facilitate

the emergence of more inclusive, sustainable, and equitable living environments (Been et al., 2010).

Background The late-20th century focus on U.S. mixed-income communities grew, in part, out of the desire to

ameliorate concentrated inner-city poverty (Jargowsky, 1997; Massey and Denton, 1993; Turner,

Popkin, and Rawlings, 2009; Wilson, 1996). Scholars and policymakers were troubled that the

number of high-poverty neighborhoods in metropolitan America doubled from 1970 to 1990

Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research • Volume 15, Number 2 • 2013 Cityscape 123 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Hyra

(Jargowsky, 1997). They were also reacting to neighborhood-effects studies suggesting that con-

centrated poverty limited, beyond personal and family characteristics, the individual life chances

of people who lived in these dire circumstances (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, and Aber, 1997; Galster,

2010; Jencks and Mayer, 1990). Parallel circumstances, with the rise of socially excluded and

impoverished areas, were also occurring in Western Europe (Castañeda, 2012; Hargreaves, 2007; Musterd, Muire, and Kesteloot, 2006).

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development deployed the main domestic policy

attempts to address concentrated poverty in the 1990s and 2000s. These policies included the

Empowerment Zone initiative (Hyra, 2008), the Moving to Opportunity demonstration project

(Briggs, Popkin, and Goering, 2010), and the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere

(HOPE VI) program (Cisneros and Engdahl, 2009; Goetz, 2011a, 2003; Hyra, 2012a; Vale, 2002).

In addition, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)

program was also associated, to a lesser extent, with the production of mixed-income housing

(Erickson, 2009; Schwartz, 2010). Collectively, but by different policy mechanisms, these U.S.

programs have been associated throughout the country with the production of mixed-income

neighborhoods where poverty once concentrated (Goetz, 2011b; Hyra, 2012a).

As Reinout Kleinhans and Maarten van Ham point out in this symposium, the mixed-income hous-

ing phenomenon has also been experienced and promoted by national policies in many parts of

Western Europe. Homeownership strategies, such as the United Kingdom's Right to Buy program,

and other public housing and neighborhood redevelopment policies, including France's Zones

Franches Urbaines (Free Zones), Solidarité et Renouvellement Urban (Solidarity and Urban Renewal),

and the Borloo laws, have been associated with mixed-income neighborhood formation (Blanc,

2010; Bridge, Butler, and Lees, 2012; Davidson, 2010; Dikeç, 2007; Gilbert, 2011).

What Have We Learned About Mixed-Income Housing? As noted throughout this symposium, the current outcomes related to mixed-income housing

have been controversial and heavily scrutinized (for example, Imbroscio, 2008; Smith, 2006). The

outcomes have been mainly in two categories thus far: neighborhood-level and people-focused

outcomes (Hyra, 2012a). At the neighborhood level, investments associated with the creation of

mixed-income communities have been correlated with neighborhood revitalization in some areas

(Turbov and Piper, 2005; Zielenbach, 2003; Zienlenbach and Voith, 2010). Some have viewed

this pattern of redevelopment as a positive force (for example, Ehrenhalt, 2012; Freeman, 2006;

Vigdor, 2002), whereas others have seen it as related to gentrification and displacement (for ex-

ample, Bennett, Smith, and Wright, 2006; Goetz, 2011b). At the individual level, perceptions of

neighborhood safety seemed to increase for people living in areas that economically transformed

from low- to mixed-income neighborhoods (Joseph and Chaskin, 2010) and when individuals

move from high-poverty communities to more mixed-income environments (Popkin, Leventhal,

and Weismann, 2010). Living next to more affluent people, on average, does not seem to be

related to increased employment levels among low-income individuals, however, and meaningful

social interactions across race and class are minimal (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011; Chaskin, Khare,

and Joseph, 2012; Tach, 2009).

124 Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?

How Can We Make Mixed-Income Living Situations Better? Although mixed-income communities have not produced many of the anticipated outcomes in the

short run, several potential enhancements can be made to the standard mixed-income community

policies that we have witnessed in the past 20 years in North America and Western Europe. By

standard , 1 refer primarily to policies that attempt to deconcentrate poverty from particular places

by razing subsidized housing and building replacement mixed-income housing developments

serving people with a range of incomes. Although this approach has some merits, it is often imple-

mented in a way that is not very beneficial to low-income tenants and often reproduces, if not

exacerbates, existing social and economic inequalities. The following suggestions, some of which

parallel and underscore points made by James C. Fraser, Robert J. Chaskin, and Joshua Theodore

Bazuin in their article in this symposium, are intended to stimulate community revitalization that

maximizes benefits to low-income individuals. These recommendations are based on the scholarly

research and my practical experience as a chair of a public housing authority engaged in producing

mixed-income developments.

Minimizing Residential Displacement

New mixed-income developments rarely replace the number of subsidized units available before

redevelopment (Joseph and Chaskin, 2012; Marquis and Ghosh, 2008), and many low-income

tenants are displaced when mixed-income development policies are implemented (Fullilove and

Wallace, 2011; Goetz, 2011b). Mixed-income development policies should be altered to ensure that,

when financially feasible, every affordable unit that is razed to produce mixed-income develop-

ments is replaced within or near the new development sites. Replacing razed subsidized units will

minimize residential displacement associated with mixed-income development, giving low-income

residents the potential to benefit from the regenerating of the community within which they live.

Minimizing Political Displacement

Although preventing residential displacement is extremely important within the context of gentri-

fying mixed-income communities, it is not sufficient for cultivating a social environment in which

low-income people can ultimately benefit from urban regeneration and mixed-income housing

(Hyra, 2012b). When upper-income people move into low-income areas, the newcomers often,

sometimes unintentionally, wrest political power from long-term residents by joining existing

or starting new civic associations (Hyra, 2008). The loss of political power among longstanding

residents can lead to increased mistrust and civic withdrawal by low-income people, further ex-

acerbating preexisting social inequalities and isolation (Chaskin, Khare, and Joseph, 2012; Knotts

and Haspel, 2006; Martin, 2007).

Policies aimed at minimizing political displacement are critical when more affluent people move to

a low-rent district to create a mixed-income living environment. Mechanisms include setting aside

certain political positions for longstanding residents or creating organizations that have a shared

leadership structure between new and existing residents. If low-income people are able to maintain

some political power, they will be able to guide the development in a way that recognizes the

neighborhood's multiple tastes, preferences, and perspectives.

Cityscape 125

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Hyra

One clear policy to help ensure greater political equity in mixed-income living environments is to

establish inclusive resident associations that incorporate the views of low-, middle-, and high-income

residents. Many mixed-income developments supported with HOPE VI funds have separate resident

associations for subsidized renters and market-rate homeowners, even within the same building or

development. Market-rate homeowners typically control common areas and spend the homeowners'

association assessments on priorities that match their preferences, whereas the subsidized residents

are often unable to vote in the distribution of resources that affect their immediate living environ-

ment. This political segregation and inequality within mixed-income developments can exacerbate

preexisting inequalities and stimulate conflict rather than cooperation among residents of various

income levels. Creating equitable resident power structures that promote mutual interest and in-

clusivity may be vital to having stable and just mixed-income environments. Such a structure might

stimulate more meaningful social interactions across race and class.

Minimizing Cultural Displacement

If political equity is not maintained, the built and social environments in a transitioning mixed-

income community might develop in a way that favors and reflects the preferences of the more af-

fluent group (Hyra, 2012b). If the emerging built and social environments represent the preferences

of only newcomers, longstanding residents may lose their attachment to place and be more inclined

to move out of the community. The exodus of low-income people might result in a homogenous

community that is not economically or culturally diverse. In transitioning mixed-income commu-

nities, steps are necessary to preserve community symbols important to low-income residents.

Furthermore, representatives of lower income groups should, for the most part, spearhead the

cultural preservation effort (Lin, 2011). If external community interests head the preservation

effort, some community residents might not embrace it, particularly if the preservation initiative

is perceived as stimulating displacement (Inwood, 2010).

Facilitating Meaningful Social Interactions

Many studies indicate that low- and high-income residents who live in close proximity will not

interact much without facilitation (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011; Chaskin, Khare, and Joseph, 2012;

Tach, 2009). In mixed-income communities, it is important to have events that bring people

together around a common purpose so they begin to learn about one another and build trusting

relationships. These events can be community gardening, as noted by Fraser, Chaskin, and Bazuin,

or beautification initiatives, cultural festivals, or other events important to both new and longtime

residents. Organizing these events might be facilitated by the creation of an inclusive resident

association of the kind I described previously, in which all tenants have an equal say in setting the

social agenda of the mixed-income living environment.

Public and private community common spaces are often branded and associated with certain in-

come or other demographic differences, and it is important that "third spaces" are developed within

mixed-income communities (Oldenburg, 1999). In transitioning mixed-income communities, it

is important to develop new, neutral third spaces where all people feel safe and take ownership of

the space, such as new libraries, community centers, or coffee shops. These places can be breeding

grounds for the development of what Elijah Anderson has identified as the "cosmopolitan canopy,"

wherein tolerance for racial, income, or other differences seems to proliferate (Anderson, 2011).

126 Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?

Ensuring Income Diversity

Sometimes, the built environment dictates the income mix within a community. In mixed-income

communities, it is important to have housing that serves an array of income types. Occasionally,

the income mix is too polarized, with extremely affluent people living next to very impoverished

folks. For instance, in a HOPE VI site in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Alexandria, Virginia,

households that make more than $150,000 a year live next to those that earn less than $15,000

a year. In these situations, the social class difference might be too great to foster common under-

standing and interests on a range of topics. A housing stock that serves middle-income folks and

bridges the two extreme income levels might be important (Chaskin, Khare, and Joseph, 2012;

Pattillo, 2007). Mixed-income policies should ensure that high-, middle-, and low-income people

are served by the existing and newly built housing stock in mixed-income communities.

Tackling and Addressing Ethnic, Racial, Religious, and Other Differences

Mixed-income policies often do not directly address ethnic and racial differences, although income

diversity often signals racial diversity because of preexisting inequalities (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995).

Beyond class differences, mixed-income community policies must tackle challenges stemming from

racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation differences (Brown-Saracino, 2009; Maly, 2005;

Modan, 2007). Mixed-income policies should consider ways to address disputes that arise from

distinctions associated with income but that are not solved through promoting income equality.

One approach is to create or bolster existing civic organizations in and around mixed-income

developments that help to educate and promote tolerance for difference and celebrate diversity.

Where Is the Future of Mixed-Income Development in the United States and Abroad?

During the past 20 years, the mixed-income neighborhood focus has been mainly in the inner-city

areas where poverty once concentrated. In the past decade, many of these inner-city areas have

been redeveloped and gentrified through a process I labeled the "new urban renewal" (Hyra, 2012a,

2008) and others have called the "great inversion" (Ehrenhalt, 2012). While development of the

inner city has occurred, poverty has become more heavily concentrated in certain inner suburbs

(Allard, 2009; Allard and Roth, 2010; Kneebone and Garr, 2010; Orfield, 2002). In Western Eu-

rope, some inner suburbs have dense concentrations of public housing (Gilbert, 2011; Wacquant,

2008). In the coming decades, the new pioneering, emerging housing market areas will be in low-

and moderate-income inner suburbs (Charles, 2011; Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2011).

The future of mixed-income development will be in inner suburbs, where the housing stock is out-

dated and there are concentrations of poverty and people of color. For instance, one of the largest

U.S. suburban mixed-income projects is occurring in Alexandria, Virginia. In one city section known

as the Beauregard area, more than 2,500 units of low- and moderate-income, private-market rental

housing will be razed to make room for higher income market-rate housing. In the Beauregard

area, people of color comprise approximately 70 percent of the population. Of the 2,500 housing

units to be razed, 800 will be preserved and incorporated as mixed-income housing. Most of the

Cityscape 127

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Hyra

affordable housing will be financed through city and developer contributions, but some will likely

entail LIHTC financing. Because HOPE VI is, for the most part, no longer operating, mixed-income

developments will most likely be accomplished with LIHTCs and New Markets Tax Credits.

In the United Kingdom and France, much of the public housing is in the urban periphery and inner

suburbs. Through a combination of razing some subsidized buildings and upgrading others, certain

fringe urban areas are beginning to gentrify and achieve greater income mixes (Bacqué et al., 2011).

Examples of this pattern of periphery redevelopment can be witnessed in Hackney on the outskirts

of London, England (Wessendorf, 201 1), and in Vénissieux on the outer edge of Lyon, France

(Gilbert, 2009). It seems likely that mixed-income housing in both North America and Western

Europe will increasingly occur in the outer urban periphery and inner suburban areas as opposed to the urban core.

Summing Up Mixed-income housing policies have been associated with residential displacement. Although

preventing residential displacement is an important step, it is insufficient for ensuring that low-

income people benefit from income mixing. The promise of mixed-income communities assumes

that people of various backgrounds will cooperatively interact to provide greater opportunities for

economic and social advancement. Policymakers, scholars, practitioners, activists, and residents

should consider several mixed-income policy alternatives to better ensure that people interact in

meaningful and constructive ways. Preventing residential, political, and cultural displacement

and developing neutral spaces of civic engagement are good places to start to ensure that people

of diverse incomes, backgrounds, and experiences prosper in inclusive and equitable urban and

suburban living environments.

Acknowledgments The author thanks Jim Fraser, Deirdre Oakley, and Diane Levy for organizing this important

symposium and acknowledges the City scape staff for their helpful editorial assistance.

Author

Derek Hyra is an associate professor of urban affairs and planning at the Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

References

Allard, Scott W. 2009. Out of Reach : Place , Poverty and the New American Welfare State. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Allard, Scott W., and Benjamin Roth. 2010. Strained Suburbs: The Social Service Challenges of Rising

Suburban Poverty. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

128 Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?

Anderson, Elijah. 2011. The Cosmopolitan Canopy : Race and Civility in Everyday Life. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company.

Bacqué, Marie-Hélène, Yankel Fijalkow, Lydie Launay, and Stéphanie Vermeersch. 2011. "Social

Mix Policies in Paris: Discourses, Policies and Social Effects," International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research 35 (2): 256-273.

Been, Vicki, Mary Cunningham, Ingrid G. Ellen, Adam Gordon, Joe Parilla, Margery A. Turner,

Sheryl V. Whitney, Aaron Yowell, and Ken Zimmerman. 2010. Building Environmentally Sustainable

Communities: A Framework for Inclusivity. New York; Washington, DC: The Furman Center; Urban Institute.

Bennett, Larry, Janet L. Smith, and Patricia A. Wright, eds. 2006. Where Are Poor People To Live?

Transforming Public Housing Communities. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Blanc, Maurice. 2010. "The Impact of Social Mix Policies in France," Housing Studies 25 (2): 257-272.

Bridge, Gary, Tim Butler, and Loretta Lees. 2012. Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth?

Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press.

Briggs, Xavier de Souza, Susan J. Popkin, and John Goering. 2010. Moving to Opportunity : The Story

of an American Experiment To Fight Ghetto Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Greg J. Duncan, and Lawrence Aber. 1997. Neighborhood Poverty : Context

and Consequences for Children. Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brown-Saracino, Japónica. 2009. A Neighborhood That Never Changes: Gentrification, Social Preserva-

tion , and the Search for Authenticity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Castañeda, Ernesto. 2012. "Place of Stigma: Ghettos, Barrios, and Banlieues." In The Ghetto : Con-

temporary Global Issues and Controversies , edited by Ray Hutchison and Bruce D. Haynes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 159-190.

Charles, Suzanne L. 2011. "There Goes the (Suburban) Neighborhood: Gentrification in the Inner-

Ring Suburbs of Chicago, 2000-2010." Paper presented at The Suburbs and the 2010 Census

Conference, Arlington, VA.

Chaskin, Robert J., and Mark L. Joseph. 2011. "Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality:

The Nature of Social Interaction in Mixed-Income Developments," Journal of Urban Affairs 32 (2): 209-237.

Chaskin, Robert J., Amy Khare, and Mark L. Joseph. 2012. "Participation, Deliberation, and

Decision-Making: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Mixed-Income Developments," Urban Affairs Review 48 (6): 863-906.

Cisneros, Henry G., and Lora Engdahl. 2009. From Despair to Hope: Hope VI and the Promise of

Public Housing in America's Cities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Davidson, Mark. 2010. "Love Thy Neighbour? Social Mixing in London's Gentrification Frontiers,"

Environment and Planning A 42: 524-544.

Cityscape 129

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Hyra

DeFilippis, James, and Jim Fraser. 2010. "Why Do We Want Mixed-Income Housing and Neigh-

borhoods?" In Critical Urban Studies: New Directions , edited by Jonathan S. Davies and David L.

Imbroscio. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press: 135-147.

Dikeç, Mustafa. 2007. Badlands of the Republic : Space , Politics and Urban Policy. Oxford, United

Kingdom: Blackwell.

Dunham-Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. 2011. Retrofitting Suburbia. Updated edition, Urban

Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ehrenhalt, Alan. 2012. The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City. New York: Knopf.

Erickson, David J. 2009. The Housing Policy Revolution : Networks and Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Fraser, James C, and Edward L. Kick. 2007. "The Role of Public, Private, Non-Profit and Com-

munity Sectors in Shaping Mixed-Income Housing Outcomes in the U.S.," Urban Studies 44 (12): 2357-2377.

Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the Hood. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Fullilove, Mindy T., and Rodrick Wallace. 2011. "Serial Forced Displacement in American Cities,

1916-2010," Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 88 (3): 381-389.

Galster, George C. 2010. "The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects Theory, Evidence, and

Policy Implications." Paper presented at the ESRC Seminar: "Neighbourhood Effects: Theory &

Evidence," St. Andrews, United Kingdom.

Gilbert, Pierre. 2011. "'Ghetto,' 'Banishment,' 'Neighborhood Effects.' A Critique of the 'Ghetto'

Image of French Housing Projects," M etropolitics 23: 1-7.

& Information 37 (5-6): 638-648.

Goetz, Edward G. 2011a. "Where Have All the Towers Gone? The Dismantling of Public Housing

in U.S. Cities," Journal of Urban Affairs 33 (3): 267-287.

in American Cities," Urban Studies 48 (8): 1581-1604.

Urban Institute Press.

Graves, Erin M. 2011. "Mixed Outcome Developments: Comparing Policy Goals to Resident Out-

comes in Mixed-Income Housing," Journal of the American Planning Association 77 (2): 143-153.

Hargreaves, Alec G. 2007. Multi-Ethnic France: Immigration, Politics, Culture and Society. New York:

Routledge.

Hyra, Derek S. 2012a. "Conceptualizing the New Urban Renewal: Comparing the Past to the Present,"

Urban Affairs Review 48 (4): 498-527.

130 Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Mixed-Income Housing : Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?

placement." Paper presented the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Imbroscio, David. 2008. "'[U]nited and Actuated by Some Common Impulse of Passion': Challeng-

ing the Dispersal Consensus in American Housing Policy Research," Journal of Urban Affairs 30 (2): 111-130.

Inwood, Joshua F. 2010. "Sweet Auburn: Constructing Atlanta's Auburn Avenue as a Heritage

Tourist Destination," Urban Geography 31 (5): 573-594.

Jargowsky, Paul. 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos , Barrios , and the American City. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation Press.

Jencks, Christopher, and Susan Mayer. 1990. "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor

Neighborhood." In Inner-City Poverty in the United States , edited by Laurence Lynn and Michael

McGeary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press: 111-186.

Joseph, Mark L. 2006. "Is Mixed-Income Development an Antidote to Urban Poverty?" Housing

Policy Debate 17 (2): 209-234.

Joseph, Mark L., and Robert Chaskin. 2012. "Mixed-Income Developments and Low Rates of

Return: Insights From Relocated Public Housing Residents in Chicago," Housing Policy Debate 22 (3): 377-405.

Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago," Urban Studies 47 (11): 2347-2366.

Kleinhans, Reinout. 2004. "Social Implications of Housing Diversification in Urban Renewal:

A Review of Recent Literature," Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 19 (4): 367-390.

Kneebone, Elizabeth, and Emily Garr. 2010. The State of Metropolitan America: Income and Poverty.

Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Knotts, H. Gibbs, and Moshe Haspel. 2006. "The Impact of Gentrification on Voter Turnout,"

Social Science Quarterly 87 (1): 110-121.

Lin, Jan. 2011. The Power of Urban Ethnic Places: Cultural Heritage and Community Life. New York:

Routledge.

Maly, Michael T. 2005. Beyond Segregation: Multiracial and Multiethnic Neighborhoods in the United

States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Marquis, Gerald P., and Soumen Ghosh. 2008. "Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI): Who Gets Back In?" The Social Science Journal 45 (3): 401-418.

Martin, Leslie. 2007. "Fighting for Control: Political Displacement in Atlanta's Gentrifying Neigh-

borhoods," Urban Affairs Review 42 (5): 603-628.

Cityscape 131

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Hyra

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Modan, Gabriella G. 2007. Turf Wars: Discourse, Diversity , and the Politics of Place. Maiden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Musterd, Sako, Alan Muire, and Christian Kesteloot, eds. 2006. Neighbourhoods of Poverty : Urban

Social Exclusion and Integration in Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Oldenburg, Ray. 1999. The Great Good Place : Cafes , Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and

Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Washington, DC: Marlowe & Company.

Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on

Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.

Orfield, Myron. 2002. American M etropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Pattillo, Mary. 2007. Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Popkin, Susan, Tama Leventhal, and Gretchen Weismann. 2010. "Girls in the 'Hood: How Safety

Affects the Life Chances of Low-Income Girls," Urban Affairs Review 45 (6): 715-744.

Schwartz, Alex F. 2010. Housing Policy in the United States. New York: Routledge.

Smith, Janet L. 2006. "Mixed-Income Communities: Designing Out Poverty or Pushing Out the

Poor?" In Where Are Poor People To Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities , edited by Larry

Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and Patricia A. Wright. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe: 259-281.

Tach, Laura M. 2009. "More Than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes, and

the Mixed-Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project," City & Community 8 (3): 269-299.

Turbov, Mindy, and Valerie Piper. 2005. "HOPE VI and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst

for Neighborhood Renewal." Discussion paper prepared for The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan

Policy Program. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Turner, Margery A., Susan J. Popkin, and Lynette Rawlings. 2009. Public Housing and the Legacy of

Segregation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Vale, Lawrence J. 2002. Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century of Struggle in Three Public Neigh-

borhoods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vigdor, Jacob L. 2002. "Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?" Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban

Affairs: 134-173.

Wacquant, Loïc. 2008. Urban Outcasts : A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge,

United Kingdom: Polity.

132 Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?

Wessendorf, Susanne. 2011. Commonplace Diversity and the "Ethos of Mixing": Perceptions of

Difference in a London Neighbourhood. Working paper number 91. Oxford, United Kingdom:

University of Oxford, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.

Wilson, William J. 1996. W hen Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf.

Zielenbach, Sean. 2003. "Assessing Economic Change in HOPE VI Neighborhoods," Housing Policy Debate 14 (4): 621-655.

Zielenbach, Sean, and Richard Voith. 2010. "HOPE VI and Neighborhood Economic Development:

The Importance of Local Market Dynamics," Cityscape 12 (1): 99-132.

Cityscape 133

This content downloaded from �������������24.17.230.55 on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:00:09 UTC��������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms