The following paper will argue that the
downfall of public housing is due to the misguided attempts by the United
States government to fix the problem of concentrated poverty they helped to
form in the first place. Rather than attempting to disperse poverty, the change
to neoliberal governance in the latter half of the twentieth century has
enabled a new public housing policy that is systematically removing the poor
from the city. This occurs under the guise of ‘mixed-income’ rhetoric, and
ultimately means to free up the valuable inner-city land for investment
opportunities to bolster waning municipal budgets.
This paper will explore and connect the
various underlying circumstances that have come to shape the discussion and
subsequent policy enacted by the United States government in its implementation
of public housing over the past century. These underlying circumstances are
numerous. The first section of this paper will explore the early history of
public housing projects and the concentration of poverty that developed in them
over time. The second section will examine the Pruitt – Igoe housing project
and the implications that would be made from its example. The third section
will shed light on the various housing mobility schemes initiated by the US and
the results found from their deployment. The fourth section will explore the social
mixing arguments espoused and promoted in the latter half of the twentieth
century and connect this dialog with the mixed-income housing projects that
have come to replace public housing projects. The fifth section will reveal the
experiences of a sample of public housing residents as they adjust to
mixed-income housing projects. The sixth section will examine the connections
of neoliberal governance and gentrification in the latter half of the twentieth
century to the public housing debate and its change to mixed-income housing
developments. Lastly, the seventh section will present one American city’s
experiences with public housing as an example of what is possible for the denounced
high-rise project form of public housing.
Introduction
The
beginning of large scale public housing initiatives emerged in the years of The
Great Depression, from various New Deal legislated projects, that were to both
provide employment as well as affordable housing for the temporarily submerged
middle-classes (Goetz, 2011). At first the public housing projects built were
filled with households that, while still being low-income, typically had at
least one member who was employed (Goetz, 2011). This began to change with time
and around the 1960’s new regulations were put forward that gave preference to
the absolute neediest, and so non-working welfare recipients began to become an
increasing share of the make-up of tenants (Goetz, 2011). As well, between the
1950’s and 1970’s, black Americans became the majority of public housing residents
in many major cities due in large part because residential segregation was a
widespread phenomenon that excluded black Americans from all but the least
attractive areas of cities (Goetz, 2011).
And so by
the 1980’s, with this shift in the make-up of residents that inhabited public
housing, consisting of mainly black Americans, many dependent on welfare, the
support for these types of housing projects dissipated (Goetz, 2011). With
little funding now going into the public housing projects, high-rise buildings
became the norm, using cheap materials to achieve maximum cost savings (Goetz,
2011). These buildings would begin to steadily deteriorate physically, and
since the locations chosen and designs of projects typically isolated residents
from either social or economic opportunities, public housing began to resemble
slums from the past (Goetz, 2011). This set in motion a change in policy
regarding public housing, and began a movement beginning in the 1980’s for the
removal of public housing projects (Goetz, 2011).
Public Housing
Public
housing in the US, as of 2006, was made up of a very small portion of all
housing throughout the country, consisting of less than 1%, and constitutes 2.9%
of total rental units (Hanlon, 2012). Further, according to statistics from 2006,
public housing was largely made up of very low-income residents, with median
household incomes at $8,788, 15% of the national average (Hanlon, 2012). This has changed dramatically since
1950, when the median income was 57% of the nationwide average, and then it
plummeted to 41% in 1960, followed by another drop to 29% in 1970 (Vale & Freemark, 2012).
US public housing
initiatives have always paled in comparison to Europe. In the Netherlands
upwards of 60% of citizens are housed in some form of social housing, Sweden
has 20%, and England 18%. At its peak the US managed to provide only 2% of
their housing stock as publicly funded, and that was more than 50 years ago (Vale & Freemark, 2012).
In the 1950’s and 1960’s
Civil Rights activists and other proponents of marginalized populations such as
visible minorities, the disabled, and the poor, made ground as they
successfully convinced legislators that even those whose majority of wages came
from welfare deserved a place to live (Vale & Freemark, 2012). This
advocacy helped to alter the screening processes once held by public housing
authorities, which had originally given priority to two parent working
households (Vale & Freemark, 2012).
This change in public
housing admissions was coupled with housing opportunities opening up for black
Americans. This group had been confined largely to segregated inner city
neighborhoods (Heathcott, 2012b), made up the majority of public
housing tenants (Goetz, 2011) and were typically resettled in the public
housing projects that were built upon their razed neighborhoods (Massey & Kanaiaupuni, 1993). Through various legislation, areas once
dominated by white Americans were opened up, and through succession black
Americans who could afford to move out of public housing did, leaving behind
increasingly vacant public housing projects (Heathcott, 2012b).
With less tenants there were less rents collected that could maintain the buildings,
which began a cycle of deterioration, followed by more vacancies which
initiated even further decline (Heathcott, 2012b).
It is important to note
that public housing and the black community in America have historical ties to
each other, that has both shaped US public housing policy as well as the tragic
outcomes for many black Americans.
Urban renewal legislation
following the end of WW2 enabled elites to direct the public housing projects
to be built in predominantly black neighborhoods, razing their neighborhoods to
make room for the new buildings (Massey &
Kanaiaupuni, 1993).
This helped to
concentrate poverty in these areas as public housing had mandates to house
mainly the very poor (Massey & Kanaiaupuni, 1993). The 1970’s brought on the
deindustrialization of cities and sent much employment to the suburbs, leaving
behind mainly low-paying service jobs for the minorities who were unable to
leave the inner city (Wilson, 1987). With the middle-class blacks able to find
employment and housing outside the inner city ghetto’s, those living in public
housing were now further placed into poverty; they now had increasingly less
decent paying work able to sustain them, if they could find work at all, and
many inner city neighborhoods were being deserted by the mixed income
households that helped these areas of poverty absorb the shocks caused by
economic downturns (Massey & Denton, 1993). Even when Civil Rights battles
brought about changes to many discriminatory policies and practices, blacks
were still treated differently than whites when it came to public housing. It
has been argued that black tenants of public housing have been segregated from
whites, primarily those deemed to be elderly, and, further, that blacks have been
directed towards the older deteriorated buildings in the collections of public housing stock
throughout the US (Goering & Coulibably,
1989).
Public housing policy in
the US consistently enacted new changes to admissions policies, reaching their
nexus in the 1970’s and 1980’s, which resulted in making spaces prioritized for
the absolute poorest, concentrating the poverty levels of the residents living
in public housing (Vale & Freemark, 2012). Both politicians and academics voiced
great concern that this would lead to a dangerous situation for public housing
(Vale & Freemark, 2012).
By the 1970’s public
housing projects had garnered many critics, from citizens and politicians to
architects and academics. The nail in the coffin for public housing projects
came in the form of a highly documented and media covered public housing project
in St. Louis, Missouri, known as Pruitt-Igoe.
Pruitt-Igoe
The Pruitt-Igoe public
housing project has been often used as the prime example of why public housing
in the form of large tower blocks is bound to fail (Heathcott, 2012a). Some criticized the design of the buildings, that it inhibited eyes on
the ground with its high-rise structure, which prevented the proper
surveillance necessary to curb crime (Heathcott, 2012a). Others blamed the poor selection of
tenants that made the projects unmanageable (Heathcott, 2012a).
These conclusions were added to with Jane Jacobs’s criticism of high-rise tower
blocks with her conclusions that these types of housing were doomed to spawn
dangerous, fearful landscapes of anguish and poverty (Heathcott, 2012a).
To begin with, Pruit-Igoe had lower crime rates than low-rise neighborhoods
elsewhere in St. Louis (Heathcott, 2012a).
The stage was already set
for the failure of Pruitt-Igoe when the economic conditions of the 1950’s set
in motion the ‘white flight’ that left the city’s for the suburbs (Heathcott, 2012a). This opened up more housing options for
black residents, leaving many vacancies in the Pruitt-Igoe buildings not long
after they were constructed (Heathcott, 2012a). The loss of many low-skilled jobs due
to firms relocating to cheaper suburban areas, left many residents with little
wages able to help pay for the subsidized housing (Freidrichs et al., 2011). With the increasing vacancies came
the loss of rents to pay for the maintenance of the buildings, which quickly
deteriorated, creating an environment where crime and drugs could easily roam
and hide amongst the vacant apartments, eluding the efforts of police as the
drug dealers and other criminals saw them coming long before they reached the
projects (Freidrichs
et al., 2011).
And thus, public housing was regarded largely as the failed method to house the
poor, and dispersing the concentrated poverty was increasingly viewed and
forwarded as the correct solution.
The market-based approach
After a lawsuit against HUD (The United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development) arguing that public housing creation was racially
segregated and constructed in only areas of poverty, the Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program
along with Section 8 housing vouchers were instituted (Gill, 2012). This
program was borne after the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act was
enacted by Congress, which brought new legislation that promoted rent subsidies
for public housing tenants to use in the private housing market (Gill, 2012).
The receivers of the housing vouchers in the Gautreaux program were to be
assisted in choosing the suburban communities they would move into (Gill,
2012). In all, 7,100
families were distributed over 115 communities, over a twenty-year period (Gill, 2012).
Amongst the many different
experiences of the participants, many cited that the move to the suburbs, which
was part of the program’s design – to move the poor closer to the wealth of
suburban employment opportunities – made it difficult to commute to jobs, as
public transit was poorly established in their new communities (Gill, 2012). Further many participants even gave up
trying to look for work because of the long journeys it involved (Gill, 2012). As well, many participants found it
challenging to visit friends, shop, or seek medical care, and affordable childcare
facilities were found to be greatly lacking in their existence (Gill, 2012). Even when they could reach hospitals, many
would present obstacles to accepting the Medicaid provided to the poor
families, which caused some participants to make long commutes back to the city
to be treated (Gill,
2012). Others faced
discrimination in their job hunts, with some observing that they could only
find employment in department stores (Gill, 2012).
The Gautreaux program inspired the creation
of the Moving To Opportunity (MTO) program, instituted in 1993 (Gill, 2012).
The MTO program was to be a pilot program, based on five cities within the US,
that would simultaneously explore the mixing of different socioeconomic classes
as it tried to disperse poor families into higher income neighborhoods (Lees, 2008). The program
was flawed from the beginning however, as participants were not selected
randomly but rather from residents with the highest educational achievement and
highest chances of employability (Lees, 2008). The program was deemed a failure by some academics, as it was found
that it did not enhance the economic or social opportunities for its
participants (Lees, 2008).
Overall, public housing
mobility programs have been linked to higher educational achievements for
children, increased perceptions of safety and overall mental health, and
reduced the rates of delinquency for many children, particularly girls (Gay,
2012). Boys on the other hand faired worse, and in some cases actually became
more likely to participate in delinquent activities (Gay, 2012).
Other studies have
concluded that mobility programs have failed to realize their goals of
providing enhanced opportunities by dispersing public housing residents amongst
higher socioeconomic neighborhoods (Imbroscio, 2012)
citing that while educational achievements may have been found to occur,
increased employment opportunities were largely not found to be associated with
either MTO or HOPE VI mobility programs (Gay, 2012). Yet some academics feel the programs simply
did not go far enough, or rather the residents did not go far enough, that the
problem lied with residents not being situated with groups and neighborhoods
far enough above the socioeconomic class of their old neighborhoods (Imbroscio, 2012).
Gill (2012) points out the
flawed assumptions surrounding mobility programs, with their emphasis on
individual behavior and its attachment to cultural attributes. Focusing
narrowly on only the educational or employment achievements of people, and
placing immense value on the need for social integration amongst the poor and
the middle-class, neglecting to consider the larger narrative surrounding pubic
housing’s history, with the institutionally structured barriers brought about
by government policy, that have blocked access to education, housing, and
employment (Gill, 2012).
Mixing of the classes
The liberal urban policy of
dispersing poverty through dispersal programs has been inspired and pushed
forward with the great help of Julius Wilson’s highly acclaimed work in The Truly Disadvantaged (1987), in which
he builds a strong case for the creation of an urban underclass. Wilson’s
theories set the “underclass” as forming from the concentration of poverty that
decades of segregation, institutional disinvestment, and government targeted
public housing construction that bulldozed over many black neighborhoods in the
post-WW2 period (Wilson, 1987). This concentration of poverty was also due to
the working and middle classes leaving the areas, removing the once
mixed-income neighborhoods to dissolve into uncontrollable poverty and crime
(Wilson, 1987).
This historical period of
concentrating poverty amongst certain inner city areas was mentioned earlier as
contributing to the downfall of some public housing structures, only now the
history is being used to support the radical remixing of socioeconomic classes,
as the majority of these new mixed-income buildings have only a minority of
affordable housing.
Various arguments have been
put forward to defend the rationale of social mixing. There is the ‘defending
the neighborhood’ claim which argues that higher income households will make
neighborhoods in which they live better supported by public resources, because
middle-class’ are known to be fierce advocates in these areas (Lees, 2008).
Mixed-income schemes are also put forward as better able to support local
economies compared with the poverty that can be concentrated in ghettos (Lees, 2008).
Yet another way
espoused by theorists is that social mixing will bring economic opportunities
and bridge the gap between social classes, enabling social networks to form and
bonding to take place among neighbors from varying socioeconomic backgrounds (Lees, 2008). These arguments have been argued to be merely a Trojan horse to allow
gentrification to take root and purge the area of its prior socioeconomic roots
(Lees, 2008).
Socially segregated groups
are known to form very strong communal bonds and support networks, from their
shared socioeconomic backgrounds and from their shared experiences inhabiting a
neighborhood (Lees, 2008). These same segregated neighborhoods
can also provide shelter for disadvantaged minorities in efforts to fend off or
deal with the political agendas beyond their control (Lees, 2008).
Further, social mix
policies can stigmatize and create the effect of ‘othering’ socioeconomic
groups below that of the middle-classes, by making people feel that their
behaviour or lifestyles are inferior and need to be adapted, that ownership
entails respect (Lees, 2008).
The mobility programs that
are often used to mix socioeconomic classes also pose the danger of causing
children to form psychological problems and social instability from having to
readjust to not only new social groups but also their integration into new
schools (Imbroscio, 2012). Studies have found that moving children, whether once or more,
contributes to lowered academic achievement, increased disconnection with
family members, decreased social circles, and heightened rates of delinquent
activity (Imbroscio, 2012).
Mixed-Income Experiences
Chicago’s Plan for
Transformation instituted in 1999, was the largest redevelopment plan for a
public housing in the country (Chaskin, 2013).
When Chicago instituted its Plan for Transformation designs of
redeveloping targeted public housing buildings and in their place building
mixed-income apartments and condominiums, it was met with mixed feelings for
returning public housing residents (Chaskin, 2013). The new buildings and adjacent
grounds were found to be much cleaner and safer, and an increased sense of
regard for the maintenance of the buildings was noticed, all of which provided
some with increased peace of mind and lifted aspirations for what they could do
with their lives (Chaskin, 2013). However, many felt that with the new
middle-class condominium owners came an increased feeling of stigmatization and
segregation from the inspection and lifestyle judgments they felt from their
new neighbors (Chaskin, 2013).
Some mixed-income housing
projects in Chicago as well as other cities have attempted to mitigate the
concerns of the various socioeconomic groups within them, by establishing
forums or events for neighbors to meet and discuss their thoughts and concerns
(Chaskin, 2013). Though it appears these efforts are mainly
attended by the public housing inhabitants, as these types of meetings come
with an attached stigma of social services and further that these meetings are
meant for a certain group of people only (Chaskin, 2013).
One example of this is the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), which
began in 1993 (Chaskin, 2013). The intent of the forum was to allow
for a wide range of residents to work together in coming up with solutions and
proposals for the policing and securing of the areas in which the residents
shared (Chaskin, 2013). The outcome often was that blame was cast
on the public housing residents, so rather than acting as mechanism for
community cohesion, the forum amplified differences felt within the two groups
(Chaskin, 2013).
Dwindling allocations for the poor: HOPE VI
In 1996, the historic policy of housing authorities to replace every
unit destroyed with a new one was overturned (Hanlon, 2010). This has allowed more units to be built at market prices (Hanlon, 2010). This was added to by relaxing the income requirements set forth by
public housing authorities to allow for a wider range in the HOPE VI buildings
(Hanlon, 2010). These two provisions have promoted a
greater mix of incomes within the new buildings, but have also meant that there
are fewer units as a result for the low-income residents who once lived in the
old buildings (Hanlon, 2010). Those who are displaced are given
vouchers to find housing and to disperse from the area, hopefully integrating
with a new community that is less stricken with poverty and crime, as all such
mobility programs put forward as part of their mission (Hanlon, 2010). The Hope VI
program had destroyed 63,000 housing units, rehabilitating a further 20,300 by
the end of 2004 (Lees, 2008).
Studies on the HOPE VI
program have found that only half the funding has gone into creating affordable
housing, and further that only half of the residents displaced from the
destruction of public housing due to HOPE VI projects have been provided for
with replacement units (Hackworth, 2007).
Critics argue that instead
of bringing rehabilitation to the dilapidated neighborhoods, the Hope VI
program slashed the number of affordable units available, and also caused the
swift rise in all other units (Lees, 2008). These same critics state that public
housing redevelopment policy in the US is structured to relocate the
downtrodden away from the valuable inner city land that is in demand by
affluent groups who wish to live there (Lees, 2008).
The demolishing of public
housing and vouchering out the residents has caused not only a decreasing
amount of options for the poor, but also increased risk of homelessness, as they
now are forced to compete in the market place for housing (Gill, 2012). The turn to the
constructing of mixed-income housing has also been shown to spur on
gentrification in the areas surrounding them (Fraser & Kick, 2007).
Neoliberal gentrification
The late
1990’s saw much more direct government involvement with real estate developers,
in efforts to facilitate growth within cities to generate increased tax
revenues (Hackworth, 2007).
Gentrification is often put forward as
a way for cities to reduce their concentrations of poverty within areas of the
inner city, and further represents fiscal responsibility for municipalities
(Lees, 2008) who have been pressured to increase their revenues from the loss
of federal funding over the past few decades, leaving them to rely increasingly
on property taxes (FCM, 2012). Municipalities have also turned increasing to generating
revenues collected from sales taxes and fees derived from various development
schemes, which have pushed for the replacing of public housing projects with
sports arenas, recreational and entertainment venues, besides the typical
mixed-income housing projects and commercial developments (Kamel, 2012). Neoliberal urban policies have intertwined and gained
momentum alongside gentrification, cleansing and securing cities for the
capital investments of both developers and the middle-classes they target (Lehrer & Wieditz, 2009).
Mixed-income housing
projects, together with the gentrifying forces they help to promote, pose
possible challenges for the communities they inject themselves into by altering
the political needs of the low-income residents (Lehrer & Wieditz, 2009). While social services may be a concern for the old low-income
residents, new condo owners may see their needs better met with increased
funding for policing of their new neighborhoods (Lehrer & Wieditz, 2009). The commercial needs of the low-income residents similarly is
challenged when middle-class budgets and tastes stimulate the erection of
stores catering to their needs, driving out the older stores that supported the
now dwindling population of less wealthy shoppers (Lehrer & Wieditz, 2009).
Before concluding this
exploration of the United States’ experience with public housing, it seems
poignant to shed light on how one city in the US has dealt with its less
fortunate citizens in their housing needs.
New York City
New York City’s experience
with public housing shows that high-rise structures are not in themselves
doomed to fail, or that public housing itself need be thought of as outdated or
the wrong redress for the less fortunate of means. To begin with, the New York
City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which manages and operates the public housing
within the city, contains the largest amount of public housing in the US at 10%
(Bloom, 2012).
The extensive, low cost,
subway system of New York City has helped public housing residents reach
employment, even as many low-skilled jobs left the inner city, which helped to
also keep the projects attractive to those who might otherwise have vacated
them when poverty was enhanced in the inner city in the decades following WW2 (Bloom, 2012).
New York City faced the same debilitating circumstances of other major
cities, with escalating crime rates, white flight, deindustrialization, and
withering subsidies from the federal government, all leading to enhanced
concentrations of poverty (Bloom, 2012). New York City also built a majority
of the same high-rise, superblock projects that other cities had constructed (Bloom, 2012).
New York City differed from other cities in that it effectively lobbied
to have their public housing program open to a wider range of incomes (Bloom, 2012). This has enabled it to have a mix of residents containing 47% of
apartments with at least one working adult, with 41% receiving veteran’s
benefits, pensions, disability, or social security (Bloom, 2012).
Only 11% of public housing residents are on welfare (Bloom, 2012).
The mass exodus of white residents had reduced the white majority of
tenants, and by 1962 their numbers fell to 42.7%, which was reduced again by
1969 to only 27.9% (Bloom, 2012). This left the majority of tenants to
now be represented by black Americans at 46.2% (Bloom, 2012).
Over the decades political pressure has forced the NYCHA to take in more
welfare dependent tenants, they countered this by actively seeking out working
families to balance the social classes within their buildings (Bloom, 2012).
The NYCHA from the outset had been committed to building and maintaining
its public housing to a high standard (Bloom, 2012).
Even with the prevalent vandalism and high crime rate experienced by New York
City in the later half of the twentieth century, the massive staff, recruited
often from the projects themselves, kept up repairs and maintained the grounds
from becoming deteriorated (Bloom, 2012). The constant work done on the
buildings also contributed to more eyes on the housing projects (Bloom, 2012). The security of the housing projects was of utmost concern to the
NYCHA as it formed the largest public housing policing force, with over 1500
officers at its peak, performing vertical patrols of the buildings (Bloom, 2012).
The sites surrounding the public housing projects have been added to
over the years and now contain community facilities, recreation zones, and
playground equipment that have been regarded as being of an even higher level
than those of private apartment buildings (Bloom, 2012).
In the 1990’s the NYCHA created the Working Family Preference
initiative, which allocated half of all newly vacant apartments to families
with at least one working member (Bloom, 2012). This policy went hand in hand with
resurrected eviction processes that did not lead to many vacancies, but did
help to reinforce the message that failing to pay rent and social disregard for
the inhabitants of the buildings were not going to be tolerated (Bloom, 2012).
To combat the reduced funding allocated by federal budgets, the NYCHA
has raised rents on higher income residents, rather than cut back maintenance
or security (Bloom, 2012). With the wider range of income
classes in their buildings this was made possible (Bloom, 2012).
Currently the maximum income eligibility for a family of four is $68,700
(NYCHA, 2013). Despite the Working Family Preference and
relatively low amount of tenants on welfare, the NYCHA buildings still act as
housing to aid the poor, which is represented by the average family income of
households being $23,000, which is below the New York City poverty line at
$26,138 (Bloom, 2012).
New York City has shown
that as well as providing an example of what public housing can be, it has
further demonstrated that the Neoliberal policy changes to public housing can
be challenged, as the NYCHA has largely resisted the destruction of its public
housing projects, shedding less than 1% as of 2010 (Goetz, 2011).
New York City’s example of
public housing may show that public housing projects of old are worth fighting
for, however it has become increasingly challenging for movements to get a
foothold. Though
there has been progress made by protesting the policies surrounding the
destruction of public housing projects, particularly in New York City, efforts
have often been stymied through the creation of multiple barriers for the soon
to be displaced residents (Hackworth, 2007). Many have been given
housing vouchers, which often move them great distances from the areas of
protest as well as separates them from any group efforts (Hackworth, 2007). Further, many residents who have been allocated a
unit in the new mixed-income housing projects choose to not join protest
movements for fear of losing their new apartments (Hackworth, 2007).
Conclusion
In conclusion, public housing has faced
many challenges since its inception. There is little doubt that the dwindling
funds allocated by the federal government to public housing over the years has had
a major impact on its outcome. This paper has tried to bring to light and
connect the other circumstances faced by public housing over its life that have
been misunderstood or hidden from plain view. The concentration of poverty that
has accumulated over the decades through changing admissions policies has
brought a few public housing projects into extreme decay. The media brought
this segment of the public housing projects’ stock onto center stage and
provided the cover for the federal government to change the form of public
housing; thus, these few crumbling projects of poverty were made by the media
and planners into the archetype of a failed methodology to house the poor.
Mobility programs were put forth as the
solution to dilute the poverty that had been concentrated in the public housing
projects. The mobility programs received mix results, but this was enough to
push further for the destruction of public housing projects through the
mixed-income housing projects that would raze the prior public housing
projects. The razing of the public housing projects was a sad reminder of what
had been done to the poor neighborhoods that had stood before them.
The move to a market based approach
coincided with a similar shift in government, as neoliberal policies began to
dominate cities and guide their restructuring process in opening up valuable
real estate within the city. These new housing developments would generate fees
for the cash starved municipalities and provide a larger tax base from which to
secure revenues from their dwindling budgets.
New York City’s example of public
housing projects has brought to light what could be the solution for public
housing. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) did at least two key
things that likely enabled their success. The first was rigorously championing
the mixed incomes of its residents, which provided higher rents to help pay the
costs from lower income families in the public housing projects, and as many academics
have proposed, provided role-models for upward social mobility. The difference
here is that the degree of mixture does not appear to be that severe, compared
with typical mixed-income housing projects attempting to bring together
socioeconomic groups that are vastly different, compounded by establishing the
vulnerable public housing residents as a minority within the tenant structure
of housing projects.
The second thing the NYCHA did was to
stay vigilante in the maintenance and policing of its public housing projects.
The NYCHA was also fortunate to have access to one of the best public transit
systems in the world, which has helped to make employment more accessible for
public housing residents.
New York City’s experiences with public
housing would suggest that moderation of socioeconomic class mixing, access to
good public transit, and the maintenance and securing of living spaces should
all be key considerations when determining how best to deal with society’s less
fortunate. Moreover, high-rise public housing projects may again be the answer
for public housing, as cities are becoming increasingly difficult to find
affordable housing in, with current land values reaching exorbitant new heights.
Individuals and families experiencing poverty need to be in cities to enable
social and economic connections - not stranded and isolated in the suburbs with
limited opportunity for connections.
No comments:
Post a Comment