Neighborhood Diversity

Abstract

The goals and purposes of neighborhood diversity have changed over the past several decades, yielding multiple approaches by municipalities to achieve diversity. This article examines applications of diversity as it has related to neighborhood and land use policies. Specifically, it compares the diversity goals in the municipal housing plans of ten cities in one southwest region to different dimensions of diversity in the literature. Our findings indicate that approaching diversity by planning for physical diversity far outweighs the planning language devoted to social outcomes.

Keywords

diversity housing neighborhoods

Introduction

Socially segregated and fragmented communities can lead to an inequitable distribution of resources, neighborhood amenities, physical conditions, and quality of life (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2004). Beyond the threats posed by segregation, diversity has been lauded as a means to increase the resiliency of neighborhoods to broader city development (Talen 2006). Further, neighborhood diversity based on tolerance toward sexual orientation rather than justice and economic class is one of the factors to improve economic growth advocated by noted economic development scholar Richard Florida (2002). Managing neighborhood diversity is an inevitable task of many cities facing increased immigration due to globalization.

Ambiguity related to the term diversity is problematic. The term is used in formal and informal city plans, academic discussions, and everyday language without critical analysis. With the general appreciation among city officials that encouraging diverse neighborhoods and communities is a “good” outcome, it is imperative to critically examine the long-term plans cities have for managing neighborhood diversity and, perhaps even more importantly, what type of diversity they seek to promote. Cities and administrators need to consider the consequences of having a vague and limited view of neighborhood diversity. Communities that plan for physical diversity, such as having a mix of housing types, fulfill one obligation, but physical diversity will not necessarily lead to socially diverse communities nor will it address the long-term challenges of maintaining socially diverse communities. Ideally, cities will plan for neighborhood diversity along multiple dimensions in order to achieve long-term neighborhood stability that incorporates the housing needs of all residents.

The purpose of this article is to review the development strategies some municipalities use to encourage diversity within neighborhoods. The study examines ten Phoenix Metropolitan area cities, a region that has undergone dynamic growth and demographic changes leading to city planning challenges and immigration tension. The goal of this article is to illustrate the ways in which these ten cities discuss diversity and to consider how looking at diversity on multiple dimensions, might improve neighborhood development. The study examines city strategies through comparable sources of information on local policies: comprehensive plans (also called general plans) that establish long-term housing and land use goals. This article starts with a discussion of the various dimensions of diversity identified in the literature. These dimensions then serve as a framework to examine how the cities discuss diversity in their formal documents. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of the implications for cities.

Dimensions of Neighborhood Diversity

Scholars across a number of disciplines have illuminated why government efforts to create stable, socially integrated neighborhoods have had limited success. In general, they discuss four dimensions along which housing and land use policy play a role in achieving neighborhood diversity: physical integration, social integration, maintaining diversity, and participatory diversity.

Physical Integration

To reduce economic integration barriers, state and local governments have promoted zoning practices collectively called inclusionary zoning. For example, cities can require that developers include a certain percentage of affordable units in new residential development (Mukhija et al. 2010). More often, the programs are voluntary and offer developers financial incentives in exchange for affordable units, such as density bonuses that allow builders to offer larger units to subsidize the cost of smaller more affordable units. Physical diversity in mixed use and density housing strategies is a necessary first step to promote economic and racial diversity; yet, these policies lack a focus on social outcomes that has limited their success in this area (Talen 2006).

Social Integration

Federal housing policy has more directly tried to influence social diversity in two ways. Under federal law, housing discrimination by race, class, or family size, among other factors, is illegal. Twenty years after the Fair Housing Act of 1968, newer interpretations of the law have led to more proactive policies aimed at desegregating low-income residents to increase social diversity at the neighborhood level Yinger 1986. Although available for just a small portion of residents, some recent public housing programs require income diversity. For instance, the HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI program provides local government with resources to replace poor quality public housing units with mixed income developments. Unfortunately, housing programs like this have not proved to be sustainable; most of the public housing residents who are temporarily relocated when a HOPE VI complex is constructed do not return to the redeveloped residence and many end up back in high poverty, minority neighborhoods (Popkin 2006).

Maintaining Diversity

Fifty years of alternative housing policies and reform have yet to produce self-sustaining socially diverse communities (Hartman and Squires 2010). Housing policy incentives alone do not overcome the potential time and comfortability disincentives posed by interactions among residents of diverse social backgrounds. One policy response to this has been to minimize visible differences resulting from social differences. To overcome barriers to economic integration, programs like local inclusionary zoning attempt to eliminate such class identifiers by ensuring that subsidized and market rate units cannot be distinguished. Some scholars have argued that such “seamless” integration is essential for attracting new tenants and making mixed income housing sustainable (Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 1997; Galster et al., 2003)

In contrast with efforts to reduce visible differences are government efforts to decrease the possible time and discomfort costs associated with mixed-income housing by more actively facilitating genuine interaction among different groups. Mixed use developments are meant to promote resident interaction and ensure the sustainability of socially diverse neighborhoods. “Neighborhood level services are thought of as places of shared space, and this collective ownership of facilities and services makes the neighborhood more socially active and stable, providing a better chance for informal, voluntary control” (Talen 2006, 3). In this regard, spaces for informal interaction such as community centers and parks where there are opportunities for engagement are vitally important. Yet, shared endeavors that support a common goal, such as children’s activities have been shown to bridge the gap between different economic groups better than just physical integration (Clampet-Lundquist 2004; Kleit 2005).

Participatory Diversity

Research discussing diversity in participation focuses on the role that government programs play in the exclusion or inclusion of diverse stakeholders during the planning process (Box 1998; King and Zanetti 2005; Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Proponents of inclusion argue that the legitimacy and sustainability of government policies are based on the citizen input that goes into them. There are two main approaches for increasing participation in local governance. The first emphasizes grassroots involvement and collaboration in government at the local level. It aims to increase individual participation in policy decisions particularly from marginalized residents (Box 1998; King and Zanetti 2005). The second emphasizes decentralization of federal decision-making power through granting authority to other institutions. It encourages devolution of decision-making authority to cities and states or to partnerships with the private sector (Osborne and Gaebler 1992).

The Study

To understand how some local governments describe diversity and attempt to encourage it in their neighborhoods, we examined the Comprehensive Plans of the ten largest cities in the Phoenix-Mesa Urban Area (those with 50,000 or more residents) using the different categories of diversity described above.¹ These ten large cities provided a socially diverse population with significant variation on racial and economic diversity. The proportion of white, non-Hispanic residents ranges from 44 percent to 84 percent among the cities studied. Housing affordability also varies significantly with the median housing value ranging from $226,000 to $513,000 among the ten cities.

Data Source: Comprehensive Plans

A comprehensive plan is the central public policy document cities use to specify transportation, economic development, recreation, open space, housing, and other land use goals. Some mix of city administrators, professional consultants, and citizens develop the comprehensive plan and the governing body usually approves it. The plan provides a vision and targets for urban development, with specificity ranging from “ensuring” that the percentage of multifamily housing units is appropriate to community needs to “requiring” that subdivisions include at least three lot sizes. The plans typically cover a long time horizon, five to thirty years, with minor annual updates.

At the time of the analysis, two of the ten study cities had recently readopted their plans in 2008. The other eight include a mix of plans last readopted between 2001 and 2005 and due for updates by 2011–2015. In Arizona, statute §9-461.06K requires that comprehensive plans be updated or readopted within ten years of the last major revision. Arizona statute §9-461.05E also requires that cities with 50,000 persons or more devote a full section of their comprehensive plan to their housing strategy.

Data Analysis: Analytical Framework

Given the exploratory nature of evaluating the diversity intentions of cities, a qualitative approach was the appropriate method to analyze the content of the cities’ comprehensive plans (Hesse-Biber and Levy 2004; Creswell 1994). The authors carefully read through the housing section of each city’s comprehensive plan, along with neighborhood-related sections when available, and evaluated the text according to which of the four dimensions of diversity it encouraged and the specificity with which it used the term diversity.

Specifically, the diversity categories developed in the literature review section were operationalized using the following six codes: diversity definition, social outcome, physical outcome, participation opportunity, infrastructure for interaction, or interaction activity. The policy, objective, and implementation goals (depending on how the plan was written) that pertained to diversity were copied into a spreadsheet. Next, the goals’ accompanying text was classified according to the same six codes. Two researchers read through the files and classified the codes independently. They discussed any discrepancies in coding the text and reached a consensus on how to code all data. When an objective met the criteria for more than one category of the analytical framework, it was assigned multiple codes. Objectives that supported a diversity dimension, but did not have an overarching diversity-focused goal were similarly included in the spreadsheet and classified using the coding system. After all the data were entered, instances of the four diversity dimensions were counted. Finally, conclusions on each of the four were drawn based on how the municipalities conceptualized diversity and the extent to which they included language that reflected the analytical categories.

Findings: Neighborhood Diversity Themes

Every plan contained at least one acknowledgment of its city’s diversity, but generally entailed little description of that diversity. “Diversity” was a goal described vaguely with phrases like “enhance and protect diverse neighborhoods” or “meet the diverse needs of residents.” The following discusses the main themes presented in Table 1 and found in the analysis.

Table 1.

Diversity Dimensions.

	Number of Cities Mentioning (n=10)	Examples
Physical diversity
Mixed use	5	Locate housing near amenities, such as school, transit, and retail
Multiple sizes	10	Density bonuses to increase the different types of housing sizes
Social diversity
Integrating affordable housing	5	Mention of affordable housing within the same neighborhood/development
Affordable housing options	7	Vague mention of affordable housing in the city at large; does not mention integrating housing
Fair housing language	4	Enforcing Fair Housing legislation
Cultural diversity through neighborhood character/identity	5	Preserving or encouraging cultural diversity and identity
Participation
City–citizen interaction through formal mechanisms	5	Formal citizen input/education from development review boards
Citizen input from underrepresented groups	2	Specifically mention increasing participation among minorities through strategies such as bilingual materials
Neighborhood groups	3	Encouraging the development of neighborhood groups or stressing the need to get input from these groups
Public–nongovernmental partnerships	6	Public–private partnerships and public–nonprofit partnerships leading to the development of affordable housing
Maintaining diversity
Infrastructure for interaction	5	Linkages between neighborhoods, pathways; pedestrian-friendly development, parks and community centers
Encouraging interaction	4	Facilitating communication between Homeowner associations (HOAs) and traditional neighborhoods; block watches

Social Diversity Ambiguity

Most cities had some language that included increasing the amount of affordable housing, usually discussing incentives as a tool to increase it. Just two cities went so far as to define affordable housing by (1) linking it to the most current definitions provided by HUD or (2) providing a definition (i.e., “those with adjusted household incomes at 50 percent of the county median income limit or less, and not paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing”). A couple of the plans called for “workforce” housing, which has become a common synonym for “affordability” in Arizona, though even less precise, but usually includes housing for teachers, police, or similar professionals who have what is considered moderate incomes (Gunderson 2007).

our of the ten municipal plans recognized fair housing laws in their diversity visions. However, an additional four expressed their visions for cultural diversity using the phrase “neighborhood character.” These municipalities plan to protect and preserve homogenous pockets of city “diversity” that could be threatened by economic forces. What exactly is neighborhood character? Phoenix defined it as “a complex set of perceptions based on the area’s location, geographic features, landscaping, building types and other unique aspects.” Most cities were even vaguer on their definition of character, but they still made plans to “preserve significant cultural, historical, or natural features,” or “respect the character of traditional neighborhoods or county islands by encouraging them to preserve and improve upon the positive qualities that make each area unique.”

Often it was difficult to determine whether the cities intended for affordable housing to be intermixed at the neighborhood or city level. Some city plans described their integration goals with phrases like “Encourage a variety of housing densities throughout Scottsdale,” “strive to provide affordable housing throughout the community …” or “Establish a community-wide goal of adequate affordable housing… ” Conversely, other plans included diversity strategies within housing developments rather than just affordable housing throughout the community. Some examples are plans to:

Encourage planned residential communities that provide a range of housing unit diversity in the development to promote socio-economic balance…” “promote multi-family residences and multi-family sectors within larger master planned developments… to reduce the isolation of income groups within communities and geographic areas,” and “Encourage mixed-income-level housing developments and neighborhoods…

Physical Diversity

Establishing a variety of housing options—that is, physical outcomes—was by far the most consistent (and specific) diversity discussion in city plans. It was listed as a housing goal in all ten comprehensive plans. In fact, the word diversity was more often used to refer to the mix of physical housing structures than to people. Some of the common verbiage included goals to promote or preserve “diverse housing options,” “a broad range of housing,” “a diversity of housing types, styles, densities, and prices,” or “a variety of housing options.

Several cities plan to diversify their land use with new or renovated mixed use housing developments. Rather than simply colocating housing and commercial centers, one city plans to “Locate housing in close proximity to education, neighborhood commercial centers, parks and recreation amenities, libraries, and public safety facilities.” More typically, mixed use plans are described as follows: “Acquire and assemble smaller parcels to encourage larger scale mixed use projects in targeted redevelopment areas.” One plan indicated a more socially minded diversity vision with its plan to “investigate the feasibility for requiring a percentage of affordable housing within large-scale mixed- use projects.” Just one city noted economic development within its goal to provide diverse housing options. Others were more likely to contain economic development language in a separate section of the plan or in the broader introductory statements of the redevelopment section.

Maintenance Strategies

Some city plans were unique in that they went beyond goals for diverse outcomes and planned for ways they could maintain socially diverse neighborhoods through resident interaction. Half the city plans included infrastructure that is conducive to residents’ interacting. These were stated explicitly through goals such as “Promote opportunities for social interaction through gathering places, non-vehicular circulation facilities, and linkages to parks, schools and public open space.” Even in cities without explicit interaction goals, some stated that one intention of their neighborhood parks is for citizen interaction. The plans focused on providing opportunities for interaction using physical space.

There were also instances of strategies to intentionally promote interaction through shared activities supporting a common goal like health or safety. For example, actions such as park clean-ups and neighborhood watches were mentioned. As they are described in the plans, neither activity is explicitly aimed at interaction among socially diverse groups, but do provide opportunities for interacting in public spaces.

Promoting Participation

Few cities had plans to facilitate direct resident engagement in housing decisions, but half expressed the desire for input on future neighborhood projects, seeing the projects as a team effort with developers, city staff, and citizens. In general, these plans called for encouraging “interested citizens” to get involved and discussed the formal mechanisms in place for citizen input, such as public meetings. Two cities planned to actively target the participation of underserved groups to increase social diversity by using multilingual communication methods. Another strategy cities used for resident involvement was to encourage the development of neighborhood groups that serve as an intermediary between residents and government officials.

Plans to increase inclusion in decision making were more common than plans for resident engagement. Primarily, inclusion in decision making is to be done through public–private or nonprofit partnerships, generally in the context of increasing affordable housing. Institutional diversity was part of six of the ten city plans.

Discussion and Recommendations

The Phoenix-Mesa region has experienced intense growth and demographic changes in the population that are just beginning to be addressed in housing policy. A review of its ten major municipalities’ long-term comprehensive plans provided insight into how these cities are reacting to the changes and planning for neighborhood diversity. While all cities addressed diversity to some extent and most even touched on more than one dimension of neighborhood diversity, few had a comprehensive plan that incorporated all dimensions. In order to achieve sustainably diverse neighborhoods, cities need to pay attention to all dimensions of neighborhood diversity.

The cities in the study most commonly focused on physical housing diversity and creating affordable housing. Some cities even specified that housing should be integrated within a new development rather than in the city at large. This contributes to a more balanced view of diversity. However, it is important to note that research has found that mixed-income diversity goals are used specifically to side-step the potential difficulty involved in race-related dialogue (Berrey 2005). As neighborhood segregation scholar Nancy Denton (2006) has argued, it may be more difficult to garner political support for race-targeted housing goals, but low-income housing efforts that do not consider race expose themselves to the same risks for failure as past housing programs. This is an important lesson for Arizona as it tries to mediate ethnoracial tensions caused by illegal immigration.

In order to promote more neighborhood social diversity, comprehensive plans should be specific about the type of diversity the city hopes to achieve by indicating whether it wants different sizes and types of housing stock throughout the city or within the same neighborhoods. There is an important difference between economic integration at the city and the neighborhood levels, and there are different policies that aim at each.

Cities can also include specific language about encouraging ethnoracial diversity in affordable housing goals. Cities can do this through mentioning their commitment to enforcing Fair Housing laws and through having language in their goals related to the benefit of ethnically diverse neighborhoods.

Having diverse housing stock and encouraging socially diverse neighborhoods are necessary but not sufficient ends for achieving long-term diversity in neighborhoods. Although self-sustaining neighborhood diversity strategies were in short supply in this study’s city plans, they were not completely absent. Pedestrian-friendly paths that bridge neighborhoods and specific community projects, such as block watches and neighborhood beautification programs are some ways the plans encouraged residents to meet in public spaces. Maintaining diversity is a combination of having infrastructure that encourages interaction and promoting interaction through neighborhood-level events. In addition to these activities, cities should think of more informal interactions they can sustain or encourage, such as promoting neighborhood meet and greets and forums for residents to get connected with neighbors.

Perhaps most troubling for achieving self-sustained neighborhood diversity is that only two of the study’s cities sought to encourage participation in planning decisions from minority, low-income, or other underrepresented groups. The process of participation is just as important if not more important than outcomes. Public and nongovernmental partnerships can help achieve diverse outcomes through leveraging resources for developing affordable housing, and fostering engagement with residents can create an environment to sustain diversity. Cities can include specific goals that provide incentives to nonprofits and private organizations that develop affordable housing and provide specific incentives for inclusionary zoning, such as density bonuses. In order to encourage a culture of resident participation, cities can include language in their plans about alternative ways they will increase engagement. For example, they can host public meetings in underserved neighborhoods. Also, they can include strategies for increasing participation among underrepresented groups in the community. One suggestion is outreach toward groups who speak a different language or who are not as likely to attend public meetings.

Conclusion

Local government officials are in a position to support sustainable, diverse communities by facilitating interaction between diverse groups, not just for problem solving, but for nurturing a true appreciation of difference. With the future of the nation’s housing markets uncertain, localities have an opportunity to build policy solutions for affordable and inclusive neighborhood diversity that will lead to stronger, more resilient neighborhoods. Policies that promote the integration of diverse groups are only part of the solution; finding ways to maintain stable neighborhoods and communities through participatory and interaction mechanisms can help cities achieve long-term neighborhood diversity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Berrey

E. C.

2005. Divided over diversity: Political discourse in a Chicago neighborhood. City & Community 4:143–70.

Box

1998. Citizen governance: Leading American cities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clampet-Lundquist

2004. HOPE VI relocation: Moving to new neighborhoods and building new ties. Housing Policy Debate 15:415–47.

Creswell

J. W.

1994. Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denton

N. A.

2006. Segregation and discrimination in housing. In A right to housing: Foundation of a new social agenda, ed. Bratt

Rachel G.

Stone

Michael E.

Hartman

Chester

, 61–81 Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Dreier

Mollenkopf

Swanstrom

. 2004. Place matters: Metropolitics for the twenty-first century. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Florida

2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure and Everyday Life. Basic Books: New York.

Galster

Smith

Santiago

Pettit

. 2003. Why not in my backyard?: Neighborhood impacts of deconcentrating assisted housing. Rutgers University, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Gunderson

R. J.

(2007). Housing affordability and workforce housing initiatives. Economic Development Journal (Spring).

10.

Hartman

Chester

Squires

Gregory D.

(Eds). 2010. The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities. New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Hesse-Biber

S. H.

Leavy

. 2004. Approaches to qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

12.

King

C. K.

Zanetti

L. A.

. 2005. Transformational public service: Portraits of theory in practice. Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.

13.

Kleit

R. G.

2005. HOPE VI new communities: Neighborhood relationships in mixed-income housing. Environment and Planning A 378:1413–41.

14.

Mukhija

Regus

Slovin

Das

. 2010. Can inclusionary zoning be an effective and efficient housing policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Journal of Urban Affairs 32:229–252

15.

Osborne

Gaebler

. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin Books.

16.

Popkin

2006. Hope VI program: What has happened to the residents? In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, ed., Bennett

Smith

J. L.

Wright

P. A.

, 68–90 Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

17.

Schwartz

Tajbakhsh

. 1997. Mixed-income housing: Unanswered questions. Cityscape 32:71–92

18.

Talen

2006. Neighborhood-level social diversity. Journal of the American Planning Association 72:431–46.

19.

Yinger

1986. On the possibility of achieving racial integration through subsidized Housing. In Housing desegregation and federal policy, ed. Goering

John M.

, 290–312 Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.