This study, recognizing the longstanding criticisms of HOPE VI as a vehicle for gentrification, compares the goals of local officials with the stated goals of HOPE VI in order to investigate the extent to which local officials are using or misusing HOPE VI to achieve local development and revitalization goals. HOPE VI positioned itself as a program intended to deconcentrate poverty, however, in the case of Liberty Green, the focus on neighborhood development embedded within the federal policy results in HOPE VI developments being described as successful based on physical changes at the site rather than outcomes for public housing residents, who largely do not benefit from these changes. Evidence from this study suggests that most of the emphasis for the Liberty Green HOPE VI development revolves around neighborhood and community development goals. And self–sufficiency, while a goal of the HOPE VI program, remains secondary.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BostonThomas D.2005. “The Effects of Revitalization on Public Housing Residents—A Case Study.” Journal of the American Planning Association71(4): 393–407.
2.
BrooksFred, ZugazagaCarole, WolkJames, and AdamsMary Ann. 2005. “Resident Perceptions of Housing, Neighborhood, and Economic Conditions after Relocation from Public Housing Undergoing HOPE VI Redevelopment.” Research on Social Work Practice15(6): 481–90.
3.
BuronLarry, HayesChristopher, and HaileyChantal. 2013. “An Improved Living Environment, but…” Brief No. 3. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
4.
BuronLarry, LevyDiane K., and GallagherMegan. 2007. “Housing Choice Vouchers: How HOPE VI Families Fared in the Private Market.” Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center3:1–12.
5.
BuronLarry, PopkinSusan, LevyDiane, HarrisLaura, and KhadduriJill. 2002. The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
6.
CharmazKathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
7.
ChaskinRobert, and JosephMark L.. 2013. “‘Positive’ Gentrification, Social Control, and ‘Right to the City’ in Mixed–Income Communities: Uses and Expectations of Space and Place.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(2):480–502.
8.
ChaskinRobert J., and JosephMark L.. 2015. Integrating the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed–Income Public Housing Transformation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9.
CheshirePaul. 2012. “Why Do Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Social Mix and Social Welfare: A Quantitative Appraisal.” In BridgeGary, ButlerTim, and LeesLoretta (eds.), Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth?, pp. 17–24. Chicago: The Policy Press.
10.
ChettyRaj, HendrenNathaniel, and KatzLawrence F.. 2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” The American Economic Review106 (4): 855–902.
11.
ClarkWilliam A.V.2008. “Reexamining the Moving to Opportunity Study and Its Contribution to Changing the Distribution of Poverty and Ethnic Concentration.” Demography45(3):515–35.
12.
ComeyJennifer. 2007. HOPE VI'd and on the Move. Brief No. 1. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center.
13.
CrumpJeff. 2002. “Deconcentration by Demolition: Public Housing, Poverty, and Urban Policy.” Environment and Planning D–Society & Space20(5): 581–96.
14.
CunninghamLynn E.2001. “Islands of Affordability in a Sea of Gentrification: Lessons Learned from the D.C. Housing Authority's HOPE VI Projects.” Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 10(4): 353–71.
15.
CurleyAlexandra M.2009. “Draining or Gaining? The Social Networks of Public Housing Movers in Boston.” Journal of Social & Personal Relationships26(2–3): 227–47.
DuryeaDanielle Pelfrey. 2006. “Gendering the Gentrification of Public Housing: HOPE VI's Disparate Impact on Lowest–Income African American Women.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy13(3): 567–93.
FraserJames, BurnsAshley, and OakleyDeirdre. 2013. “HOPE VI, Colonization, and the Production of Difference.” Urban Affairs Review49(4): 525–56.
20.
FraserJames, RoheWilliam, Van ZandtShannon, and WarrenChris. 2004. Report for the Durham Housing Authority. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The Center for Urban and Regional Studies.
21.
GalsterGeorge, and BoozaJason. 2007. “The Rise of the Bipolar Neighborhood.” Journal of the American Planning Association73(4): 421–35.
22.
GoetzEdward G.2003. Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America. Washington, DC.: Urban Institute Press.
23.
GoetzEdward G.2005. “Comment: Public Housing Demolition and the Benefits to Low–Income Families.” Journal of the American Planning Association71(4): 407–10.
GoetzEdward G.2011. “Gentrification in Black and White: The Racial Impact of Public Housing Demolition in American Cities.” Urban Studies48(8): 1581–604.
26.
GoetzEdward G.2013. New Deal Ruins: Race, Economic Justice, and Public Housing Policy. New York: Cornell University Press.
27.
ReviewHarvard Law. 2003. “When Hope Falls Short: HOPE VI, Accountability, and the Privatization of Public Housing.” Harvard Law Review116(5): 1477–98.
28.
Housing Authority of Louisville. 2002. Clarksdale HOPE VI Revitilization Plan. Louisville, KY: Housing Authority of Louisville.
29.
JacobBrian A.2004. “Public Housing, Housing Vouchers, and Student Achievement: Evidence from Public Housing Demolitions in Chicago.” The American Economic Review94(1): 233–28.
30.
JosephMark L., ChaskinRobert J., and WebberHenry S.. 2007. “The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty through Mixed–Income Development.” Urban Affairs Review42(3): 369–409.
KatzBruce. 2009. The Origins of HOPE VI. In CisnerosHenry G. and EngdahlLora (eds.), From Despair to Hope: Hope VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in American Cities, pp. 15–29. Washington, DC.: Brookings Institute Press.
34.
KeeneDanya, and GeronimusArline. 2011. “‘Weathering’ HOPE VI: The Importance of Evaluating the Population Health Impact of Public Housing Demolition and Displacement.” Journal of Urban Health88(3): 417–35.
35.
KhareAmy T., JosephMark L., and ChaskinRobert J.. 2015. “The Enduring Significance of Race in Mixed–Income Developments.” Urban Affairs Review51(4):474–503.
36.
KingsleyG. Thomas, JohnsonJennifer, and PettitKathryn L.S.. 2003. “Patterns of Section 8 Relocation in the HOPE VI Program.” Journal of Urban Affairs25(4): 427–47.
37.
KurwaRahim. 2015. “Deconcentration without Integration: Examining the Social Outcomes of Housing Choice Voucher Movement in Los Angeles.” City & Community14(4):364–91.
38.
LaaksoJanice. 2013. “Flawed Policy Assumptions and HOPE VI.” Journal of Poverty17(1):29–46.
LucioJoanna, HandLaura, and MarsigliaFlavio. 2014. “Designing Hope: Rationales of Mixed Income Housing Policy.” Journal of Urban Affairs36(5): 891–904.
43.
LudwigJens, DuncanGreg J., GennetianLisa A., KatzLawrence F., KesslerRonald C., KlingJeffrey R., and SanbonmatsuLisa. 2013. “Long–Term Neighborhood Effects on Low–Income Families: Evidence from Moving to Opportunity.” American Economic Review103(3): 226–31.
44.
ManleyDavid, van HamMaarteen, and DohertyJoe. 2012. “Social Mixing as a Cure for Negative Neighbourhood Effects: Evidence–based Policy or Urban Myth?” In BridgeGary, ButlerTim, and LeesLoretta (eds.), Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth?, pp. 151–68. Chicago: The Policy Press.
45.
ManzoLynne C., KleitRachel G., and CouchDawn. 2008. “‘Moving Three Times Is Like Having Your House on Fire Once’: The Experience of Place and Impending Displacement among Public Housing Residents.” Urban Studies45(9): 1855–78.
46.
OakleyDeidre, FraserJames, and BazuinJoshua. 2015. “The Imagined Self–Sufficient Communities of HOPE VI: Examining the Community and Social Support Component.” Urban Affairs Review51: 726–46
47.
OakleyDeirdre, WardChandra, ReidLesley, and RuelErin. 2011. “The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation.” Sociology Compass5(9): 824–33.
48.
PardeeJessica W., and GothamKevin Fox. 2005. “HOPE VI, Section 8, and the Contraditions of Low–Income Housing Policy.” Journal of Poverty9(2): 1–21.
49.
PendallRolf, and HendyLeah. 2013. A Brief Look at the Early Implementation of Choice Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
50.
SampsonRobert J., and RaudenbushStephen W.. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology105(3): 603–51.
51.
SharkeyPatrick. 2012. “Residential Mobility and the Reproduction of Unequal Neighborhoods.” Cityscape14(3):1–24.
52.
SmithJanet L.1999. “Cleaning up Public Housing by Sweeping Out the Poor.” Habitat International23(1): 49–62.
53.
StalGeorgina Y., and ZuberiDaniyal M.. 2010. “Ending the Cycle of Poverty Through Socio–Economic Integration: A Comparison of Moving to Opportunity (MTO) in the United States and the Bijlmermeer Revival Project in the Netherlands.” Cities27: 3–12.
TachLaura M.2009. “More than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes, and the Mixed–Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project.” City & Community8(3): 269–99.
ValeLawrence. 2013. Purging the Poorest: Public Housing and the Design Politics of Twice–Cleared Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
WalkerMargath A., and HanchetteCarol. 2015. “Residents' Experiences in the Aftermath of a HOPE VI Revitalization Project: A Three–Pronged, Grounded Visualization Approach.” Applied Geography57: 71–79
60.
WilsonWilliam J.1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
