Question: How does the planning and management of intentional mixed-income neighborhoods serve to combat displacement of Chicago’s low-income residents? How can the architectural design of buildings and neighborhoods promote equitable access to housing and amenities?
Background: In 1969, U.S. Supreme Court decided Hills v. Gautreaux, a case which awarded vouchers to families in dilapidated Chicago public housing developments to allow them to move to the suburbs. The court ruled that the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) had discriminated against poor black tenants by concentrating them in substandard neighborhoods. With this decision, the supreme court set a new standard for low-income housing in the United States. By “deconcentrating” public housing in Chicago and dispersing residents through existing residential neighborhoods, the Supreme Court set the standard for mixed-income housing as an approach to the problem of low-income displacement.
Today, mixed-income housing is a tool most often used to redevelop dilapidated public housing projects. In doing so, developers ensure that low-income residents will be able to continue living in an area even as it is opened up to settlement by an influx of higher-income professionals. This is accomplished through rent controls, and is a direct-management strategy for preventing low-income residents from being displaced.
Designing new developments that accomplish the goals of mixed-income communities makes use of the principle of compact development. By building more housing in the same area, the supply of housing is increased to allow for new settlement as the city grows, while not depriving current residents of their homes. In this way, it is a potential solution both to the problem of population displacement and to dilapidated public housing.
These communities are costly to develop and maintain, however, and may only be partially effective. Because these communities often replace public housing, but do not necessarily replace low-income units on a one-to-one basis, there is no guarantee that adequate supply of housing will still be available to low-income residents. With this in mind, it is necessary to assess the pros and cons of mixed-income developments compared to other methods of preventing the displacement of low-income residents.
Methodology:
- Select three cities with varying degrees of equitable housing access, and examine mixed-income communities throughout the city. What characterizes the design of these communities? What management strategies are in place?
- Compare the mixed-income communities to highly-segregated areas, and analyze for differences.
- Compare the mixed-income communities before and after redevelopment (in many cases, mixed-income communities are redeveloped from dilapidated areas). Analyze for potentially significant changes.
- Collect data on characteristics of these communities throughout the country, and test for pairwise correlation between the characteristics. Find which architectural or managerial aspects are most highly correlated with aspects of land use and equitable access.
References:
