Mixed-income Housing Developments Research Articles

Value Determinants in Mixed-Income Housing Developments

Value Determinants in Mixed-Income Housing Developments

The Use of Mixed-Income Housing Development to Address Poverty and Inequality, Based on Delphi Empirical Approach: A Case of South Africa

Since the dawn of democracy in 1994, the Republic of South Africa (RSA) has been trying to address the aftermath and consequences of the apartheid regime. This comprises of the socio-economic, spatial, and political challenges that have persisted over the decades. These have had far reaching repercussions in the society to the extent that 25 years later after apartheid, the country finds itself with alarming rates of poverty, social exclusion, unemployment, and inequality. Literature has revealed that there is a direct relationship between poverty and inequality as well as access to socio-economic services / opportunities. Poor access to these services perpetuates exclusivity and thus inequality and marginalisation in all form and character. The purpose of this study is to investigate how housing developments have been used in South Africa to address poverty and inequality. The aim is to understand how to plan for better and more socially and economically thriving communities through housing development, focusing specifically on aspects of development that contributes to addressing poverty and inequality.
 Using a Delphi three round method of Inquiry of 20 experts, perceptions from a diverse panel of experts about mixed-income housing development were uncovered. In comparison to previous housing models, the study uncovered a significant paradigm shift in housing development and what a housing intervention should achieve. Since 2004 after the introduction of the Breaking New Ground Policy (BNG), the housing development approaches, and interventions have shifted away from just providing roof over once head to providing social asset to the poor and a whole range economic opportunities. The conclusion is that housing development by virtue of location, diverse housing typologies and tenure options is now part and parcel of integrated planning and the pro poor development agenda.

Do high income households reduce driving more when living near rail transit?

Transportation planning today requires an understanding of how income and near-rail residence jointly influence household travel behavior. This article fills a gap in the literature by showing how vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transit trips taken (TT) vary with income and rail transit access by neighborhood type. Results indicate that, when comparing households with similar incomes and examining how the “near-rail” versus “far from rail” VMT and TT gap varies by income, the cross-sectional reduction in nominal VMT and the increase in TT on a percentage basis is generally larger for higher-income households (>$50,000), and particularly so in neighborhoods dense with both jobs and population. These findings offer support for the notion that near-transit housing targeting higher-income households can have both sustainability and transit use benefits. We note, though, that equity considerations are a strong reason to include low-income housing near rail transit, and argue that policies focusing overly singly on either low-income or high-income housing near rail transit will not be as impactful as a robust focus on mixed-income housing developments in rail transit-oriented developments (TODs).

Mixed-income green housing in St George, Staten Island

This proposal sets out to find which policy measure pertaining to affordable housing would be most successful in revitalizing the St George neighborhood on Staten Island. St George has dealt with issues such as a lagging commercial district, difficulty drawing people to the neighborhood, homelessness, and a stagnant housing market. The emergence of affordable green housing units, mixed-income housing developments, and community-based initiatives focused on urban neighborhoods have become increasingly successful pieces in economic and infrastructural development throughout major urban areas. This paper will use scholarly research focusing on the role sustainably built affordable housing, mixed-income housing units, and community-based housing initiatives have in revitalizing urban neighborhoods. Findings from this study reveal that the introduction of mixed-income green housing units in urban areas can be successful in raising the socioeconomic standard of living within designated neighborhoods. It is suggested that a community-based housing initiative be established to introduce affordable mixed-income green housing units to the St George neighborhood of Staten Island.

Making places and making tradeoffs: mixed-income housing development in practice

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the development of the Brightwalk community in Charlotte, North Carolina, to explore some of the tradeoffs municipalities make when engaging in public–private partnerships designed to support the production of mixed-income housing in urban neighborhoods.Design/methodology/approachThe results of a gray literature review and a series of in-depth interviews conducted with real estate practitioners familiar with the transaction are presented to evaluate the impact of market forces on key investment decisions and project outcomes.FindingsPublic–private partnerships formed to support mixed-income housing development can serve as an effective means of revitalizing economically stagnant urban areas and improving the quality of the affordable housing stock, but they do not always provide members of the development team with an equally strong incentive to satisfy the unique demands of low-income populations or ensure they have a seat at the table when development decisions are made.Originality/valueThe originality of the research lies in its focus on a public–private partnership led by a non-profit organization to facilitate the redevelopment of a dilapidated market-rate apartment complex into a revitalized mixed-income community, which may help municipalities evaluate the pros and cons of participating in similar development transactions.

Privatization in an Era of Economic Crisis: Using Market-Based Policies to Remedy Market Failures

Prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, Chicago’s agenda to privatize public housing had begun its ascent. As over 20,000 residents relocated, 10 mixed-income housing developments started to replace the areas where high-rise buildings once stood. In the postrecession context, however, the promised transformation proved financially difficult—if not impossible in certain geographic areas—to complete at the scale intended or with the continuum of socioeconomic diversity expected. That shift in the economic context, along with subsequent political responses, thoroughly altered the policy strategy. Sixteen years into Chicago’s public housing reforms, the former public housing sites remained underdeveloped. Chicago’s reforms provide a worthwhile case for empirical observation and theoretical extension about the nature of privatization within a city considered America’s testing ground for neoliberal urbanism. Drawing from nearly 2 years of ethnographic research, this article contributes to the literature by explaining how, in the context of extreme volatility, the mixed-income development strategy premised on market logics became untenable. When the tools and rationales for privatization no longer held up, Chicago’s reforms had to be reconstituted. It is shown that whereas the financial crisis resulted in disastrous impacts that called into question the reliance on private-sector actors and finance capital, local political actors nonetheless continued to seek new strategies dependent on the private market for the provision of affordable housing. The mixed-income strategy needs to be restructured so that it more equitably generates a mix of housing tenures, rather than subsidizing private development in gentrifying neighborhoods where market-rate populations are already attracted to move. Alternative policy options are needed, especially during inevitable periods of economic downturn and in more distressed, racially segregated neighborhoods.

All Mixed Up: Making Sense of Mixed-Income Housing Developments

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Mixed-income housing is a popular strategy used by planners, ­developers, and government agencies to simultaneously revitalize blighted urban neighborhoods and preserve affordable housing for low-income residents. Yet the term “mixed income” is not consistently defined, so there is no clear understanding of what mixed-income housing is, what characterizes it, and how mixed-income projects differ from one another. Planners and policymakers are making important decisions about whether and how to pursue this urban redevelopment strategy without knowing the kinds of housing mixes available. We construct a data set of all 260 HOPE VI mixed-income redevelopment projects, analyze grant announcements, and obtain internal records from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Using the data, we conduct a descriptive analysis of income mixes across projects. Based on this analysis and previous studies of income mixing, we develop a framework for categorizing key aspects of mixed-income housing. We identify four key dimensions for ­distinguishing current and future ­approaches to mixed-income housing: allocation, the proportion and range of incomes included in projects; proximity, the spatial scale at which income mixing is intended; tenure, the balance between rental housing and homeownership units; and duration, the amount of time projects remain mixed income based on funding restrictions. Planners can influence the nature of mixed-income housing projects by making choices about the range of options offered within these dimensions. We show that HOPE VI developments vary ­dramatically across all of them. We also highlight additional characteristics that may affect the broader community: rate of resident return, development size, building type, neighborhood characteristics, and race and ethnicity.Takeaway for practice: Planners need to understand the four dimensions to clarify the tradeoffs involved in decisions about mixed-income housing projects. Ultimately, this can help planners better design and plan projects that balance social goals and local conditions.

Examining Five Common Criticisms of Mixed-Income Housing Development Found in the Real Estate, Public Policy, and Urban Planning Literatures

Where the federal government has increasingly relinquished control of affordable housing creation, local governments have frequently turned to public-private partnerships to fund mixed-income housing projects. We describe the primary rationales for implementing mixed-income housing development strategies. We also identify distinct types of criticism from the real estate, public policy, and urban planning literatures. In addition, we describe the best practices that have emerged to help these projects promote neighborhood revitalization and serve the interests of low-to-moderate income families. We provide new insights about the factors to consider when evaluating the merits of proposed mixed-income housing policies and developments.

Mixed-Income Housing, Urban Transformation and Social Cohesion in Post-apartheid South Africa

One of the fundamental challenges facing the post-apartheid South Africa’s urban settlement planning has been the requirement for social cohesion. One of the urban transformation interventions involved the construction of mixed-income housing, wherein social cohesion among low- and middle-income households could be enforced. Far from rhetoric and the drift of middle-income households into cities that were previously the preserves for white people, urban South Africa remains deeply segregated. Negligible progress has been made in transforming the apartheid spatial fragmentation and segregation. Mixed-income housing development is considered to be an innovative approach to housing delivery that could provide a mixture of housing products to suit a range of income groups in the cities. To this extent, this approach is assumed to hold social integrative properties, relevant to post-apartheid urban transformation. The paper maintains that the establishment of the mixed-income housing can lead to social cohesion whilst simultaneously correcting for the perception that the poor cannot cohabit with the middle-income households. There is a realistic potential that new culture, values and norms could manifest to create conditions for coexistence between the different income groups in the urban landscape. The race divide in South Africa appears to create an added complexity to urban social cohesion, though. This paper will use evidence from some cities in South Africa to affirm the argument that mixed-income housing has a potential to redress the socio-spatial divisions in the country. The paper concludes by arguing that mixed-income housing can foster the notion of inclusive compact city and socially integrated community where the low-income and middle-income households can live in harmony and mutually enjoying common sets of facilities and services. However, the race factor could render urban social cohesion in a democratic South Africa an unachievable dream. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n25p36

Mixed Outcome Developments

Problem: Policymakers and planners have broadly conceptualized and widely adopted the mixed-income approach to provision of low-income housing. Yet, few case studies examine the relationship between theoretical propositions about how mixed-income tenancy can help lift families out of poverty and the actual dynamics of a mixed-income housing development. Purpose: I address this gap by examining the social dynamics within a mixed-income housing development in Boston, MA, and compare the dynamics observed there to those assumed in the theoretical literature. Methods: I use qualitative data, including ethnographic methods, such as participant observation and resident interviews from a mixed-income housing development to analyze the relationship between the case presented and four theoretical propositions about how mixed-income tenancy can aid low-income families. Results and conclusions: The evidence from the field research site provides mixed support for the theoretical propositions regarding the potential benefits to low-income residents from living in mixed-income developments. First, some evidence supports the idea that residents influence one another's behavior, although such influence was not exclusively cross-class. Second, contrary to expectations in the literature, higher-income households rarely worked to improve neighborhood services, except in the cases of policing and security. Third, as expected, higher resourced individuals did promote greater informal social control, yet subsidized residents did as well. Finally, theoretically, higher-income residents can enhance low-income residents’ social capital, including increasing their access to employment opportunities. Market-rate residents did provide some useful interpersonal resources, although there was no evidence that they directed their disadvantaged neighbors toward jobs. Finally, the property management company had an important influence on the outcomes for each of these propositions, suggesting that the role of management in promoting theoretical ideals needs further theoretical scrutiny and practical consideration. Takeaway for practice: Practitioners should be aware that mixed-income developments can be used to achieve the social goals of reducing negative behavior, improving local services, enhancing social control, and developing social capital, although all of these will likely be limited. Most importantly, the role of onsite management and service providers is pivotal in assuring that mixed-income developments maximize the likelihood that developments achieve the theoretical ideals. Research support: This research was partially funded by the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Role of Public, Private, Non-profit and Community Sectors in Shaping Mixed-income Housing Outcomes in the US

Since the 1990s, public policy-makers in the US have renewed support for mixed-income housing development as a means towards inner-city neighbourhood revitalisation and poverty amelioration. Yet, research to date finds that, while these mixed-income developments have promoted neighbourhood revitalisation, they have accomplished less for people in these areas who live in poverty. This paper theorises about the conditions that may in principle lead to these alternative outcomes. The approach emphasises the continuity in goal sets and capacities among four sets of urban actors—investors, local government, non-profits and community residents. To examine extant theory and an alternative model, case study evidence is offered from two comparable cities with different mixed-income initiatives and different configurations of goals and capacities among the four stakeholder groups. It is found that place-based outcomes (i.e. neighbourhood revitalisation) from mixed-income efforts hinge on the continuity of goals and effective capacities of investors, government and non-profits, but not community residents. It is also found that, with or without goal consonance and capacity, existing residents are relatively underserved by mixed-income initiatives while other stakeholders realise a variety of benefits.

Providing affordable family housing and reducing residential segregation by income: A systematic review

Overview The inadequate supply of affordable housing for low-income families and the increasing spatial segregation of some households by income, race, ethnicity, or social class into unsafe neighborhoods are among the most prevalent community health concerns related to family housing. When affordable housing is not available to low-income households, family resources needed for food, medical or dental care, and other necessities are diverted to housing costs. Two housing programs intended to provide affordable housing and, concurrently, reduce the residential segregation of low-income families into unsafe neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, are reviewed: the creation of mixed-income housing developments and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Rental Voucher Program. The effectiveness of mixed-income housing developments could not be ascertained by this systematic review because of a lack of comparative research. Scientific evidence was sufficient to conclude that rental voucher programs improve household safety as measured by reduced exposure to crimes against person and property and decreased neighborhood social disorder. Effectiveness of rental voucher programs on youth health risk behaviors, mental health status, and physical health status could not be determined because too few studies of adequate design and execution reported these outcomes.