Confronting Concentrated Poverty with a Mixed-Income Strategy

Transforming Knowledge Into Housing and Community Evidence Matters Development Policy

SPRINGFALL 2010 2013

Residents of Highlands’ Garden Village, a mixed-income, mixed-use development in Denver, Colorado, choose from for-sale, for-rent, Photo by Dressel-Martin Photography market rate, and affordable units in a pedestrian-friendly community with nearby retail, transit, health, and outdoor recreation facilities. In This Issue Confronting Concentrated Poverty

Confronting Concentrated With a Mixed-Income Strategy 1 Poverty With a Mixed-Income confluence of socioeconomic face, and the strategy’s implications for Strategy A trends and significant historical research and policy. events has led policymakers to develop Mixed-Income Community a mixed-income housing strategy to sup- Mixed-income residential develop- 12 Dynamics: Five Insights port diverse communities and eliminate ment is a deliberate strategy of mixing From Ethnography the effects of concentrated poverty. This housing units with rents and prices at a article discusses these factors and policy variety of levels, including market-rate responses, as well as the assumptions and subsidized units. Mixed-income Inclusionary Zoning and and expectations for mixed-income communities can be as small as a single Mixed-Income Communities 17 housing, the strategy’s outcomes and building or as large as master planned effectiveness in addressing the barriers communities and neighborhood revi- to opportunity that low-income families talization projects. The mixed-income

CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 Message from the Deputy Assistant Secretary Two and a half years ago, we published the first issue of Evidence Matters on the topic of neighborhood revitalization, featuring a discussion of the Choice Neighborhoods program. Our goal was to shed light on how research on housing and community development issues has informed policymaking at federal, state, and local levels. Six issues later, we have covered topics ranging from the next generation of rental housing policy to low-income homeownership at a pivot point, explored what sustain- ability means and how to measure it, examined why some cities and regions are more resilient than others, and shared how HUD is using real-time data to improve its strategies to address homelessness.

Evidence Matters emerged in the midst of a growing call for evidence-based policymaking from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and nonprofits like the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. These organizations often cite random controlled trials (RCTs) as the best (and sometimes the only) research upon which policy should be made or programs scaled up. The Office of Policy Development and Research has supported, and will continue to support, RCTs to inform policymaking; however, the mission of this publication is to share how we and others have wrestled with research findings using a variety of methodologies that may challenge existing or proposed policies. Evidence-based policymaking is also about the process of confronting the evidence and applying it to improve the quality of programs and the implementation of policies.

All the more reason why we are focusing this issue of Evidence Matters on what a mixed-methods approach contributes to our understanding of mixed-income communities. Mixed-methods research combines insights from qualitative, ethnographic research with more quantitative research. As the articles in this issue demonstrate, by combining findings on quantifiable outcomes such as employment, health, and safety with nuanced research on the development of community norms, resident interactions, and property management, we can reach a more comprehensive understanding that leads to better policy.

As a result of such research, current programs, particularly Choice Neighborhoods, expand the emphasis on meaningful resident engagement, linking with the entire range of a community’s assets, and more comprehensive neighborhood revitalization. In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama committed to expanding Choice Neighborhoods as well as similar initiatives around the government in the form of Promise Zones, which target high-poverty neighborhoods with investments to transform them into places of opportunity that can attract private investment, improve education, and create jobs.

This is the last issue of Evidence Matters for which I will provide editorial direction. My tenure at HUD and in the Obama administration is complete, and I leave this publication in the excellent hands of a fabulous career team led by Todd Richardson, Rachelle Levitt, and Keith Fudge. I know that you will enjoy this issue and the issues to come. It has been a privilege to serve in this role. Thank you for your enthusiastic support of our work.

— Erika C. Poethig, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development

2 Encouraging mixed-income developments is a key step toward building stronger, more inclusive communities. As some of our previous issues of Evidence Matters have discussed, these communities will also become resilient as they embrace mixed-use development strategies that allow residents to invest in their neighborhoods, access community amenities, and create safer streets. And when these mixed-income, mixed-use developments are also located near transit, residents have better access to employment opportunities, yielding a more effective, comprehensive approach to mixed-income community development.

Each of the articles in this issue of Evidence Matters touch on a different aspect of the work being done by policymakers, practitioners, and academics to create and understand mixed-income developments and communities. The lead article, “Confronting Concentrated Poverty With a Mixed-Income Strategy,” summarizes the evolution of mixed-income strategies by HUD, local governments, and developers as well as the growing importance of these efforts in an era of increasing income stratification. In “Mixed-Income Community Dynamics: Five Insights From Ethnography,” Cornell professor Laura Tach explains the important contributions ethnographic research has made toward understanding the community norms and policies that affect the lives of residents in mixed-income developments. “Inclusionary Zoning and Mixed-Income Communities” examines the inclusionary zoning strategies that New York City and Chicago have used to promote mixed- income communities.

I hope you find this issue of Evidence Matters enlightening. Our next issue will focus on the preservation of affordable housing. Please provide any feedback at www.huduser.org/forums.

— Rachelle Levitt, Director of Research Utilization Division

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Highlights strategy has been used in four different contexts: special federal housing n Mixed-income strategies have become increasingly important as the United programs, state and local housing States confronts growing income inequality and residential segregation by income. programs, density bonuses and other n Various factors, including income and tenure mix, design, location, amenities, land-use regulation, and nonprogram- access to services, and property management, are critical to building 1 matic private investment. The strategy successful mixed-income developments. Mixed-income developers face the gained nationwide momentum in the challenge of combining multiple funding sources while complying with the early 1990s with the authorization of conditions of each source. HUD’s HOPE VI program, and since then it has increasingly been used as a n Relocated low-income residents living in mixed-income communities praise tool to reduce concentrations of public their new living spaces and environments; higher-income residents tend to housing in high-poverty neighbor- cite their communities’ locations. hoods and combat the effects of poverty on families.2 A recent Brookings strategy to improve the economic viability where at least 80 percent of residents Institution analysis concludes that con- of multifamily housing — particularly were also black dropped from 50 to 20 centrated poverty has five wide-ranging former public housing developments — percent.5 This decline in residential impacts: it limits educational oppor- and strengthen neighborhoods.4 segregation by race coincides with a tunity for children, leads to increased rise in income inequality and residen- crime rates and poor health outcomes, Background tial segregation by income. William hinders wealth building, reduces The convergence of several social Julius Wilson first called attention to a private-sector investment and increases and economic trends has intensified dynamic relationship between race and prices for goods and services, and the nation’s focus on mixed-income income in The Declining Significance of raises costs for local governments.3 housing as a pathway toward upward Race.6 Wilson’s analysis of the widening To the extent that intentional mixing mobility. U.S. cities have become more gap between higher- and lower-income of incomes can counter these effects racially integrated; between 1960 and black families revealed that higher- and enhance residents’ quality of life, 2010, the percentage of the U.S. black income blacks had increasing access HUD aims to use the mixed-income population living in neighborhoods to racially and economically diverse

3 neighborhoods over time, whereas away from low-income neighborhoods broad rationales for the mixed-income the economic situation for blacks in the as well as declining income among strategy.11 A fundamental question lowest income quintile, who were un- poor and middle-income families.9 confronting housing policymakers is able to be upwardly mobile, deteriorated The recession of the late 2000s exac- whether poor people can be helped after 1975.7 The divergent experiences erbated this trend. Kneebone et al. more through dispersal to better neigh- of black households are part of a larger recently reported that the population borhoods or by improving their current trend in income inequality in the United in extreme-poverty neighborhoods — housing and neighborhoods.12 MIRDG States. From the end of World War II those in which 40 percent of residents reasoned that although relocating poor until the 1970s, household incomes live below the federal poverty level — families from public housing to lower- grew rapidly and at about the same rate rose by one-third between 2000 and poverty neighborhoods has shown for all income groups. After this point, 2005-09 to 10.5 percent of the U.S. some positive results, as in the Moving income growth for middle- and lower- population.10 to Opportunity (MTO) program, the income groups slowed significantly neighborhoods to which these families while incomes at the top continued In addition to these socioeconomic moved were also isolating. They tended growing strongly (fig. 1). trends, a succession of public housing to be income-segregated neighbor- law and policies, court decisions, and hoods with poor and middle-class This trend has coincided with greater local regulatory practices led poli- families living in separate buildings, segregation by income. A Pew Re- cymakers to consider mixed-income restricting the kind of social exchange search Center analysis found that housing as an effective way to decon- that could lead to greater opportunity. between 1980 and 2010, upper-income centrate poverty, revitalize struggling Families in mixed-income communities, households living in majority upper- neighborhoods, mitigate the negative however, live closer to economically income census tracts doubled from 9 effects of gentrification, and alleviate diverse neighbors who own or rent.13 to 18 percent while the percentage of affordable housing shortages in high- lower-income households in majority demand areas (see “Emergence of One of MIRDG’s expectations for low-income census tracts grew from 23 the Mixed-Income Strategy,” p. 5). mixed-income housing was that lower- to 28 percent.8 Researchers found in income residents who had lived in longitudinal studies (1970–2000) that Why Mixed-Income? poverty with limited access to opportu- income segregation increased with the In 2007, the Social Science Research nities would benefit from proximity to growth of income inequality, largely Council coordinated a Mixed-Income higher-income, employed neighbors due to upper-income households Research Design Group (MIRDG) who would model opportunity path- practicing self-segregation by moving comprised of scholars who identified ways. MIRDG also noted that dispersal strategies such as MTO remove poor families from neighborhoods where their social ties and support systems are Figure 1. Change in After Tax Income, 1979--2009 strongest, whereas mixed-income strategies enable families to “remain in familiar 200% neighborhoods where they have long- 155% time kin and friendship ties as well as 150% access to public transportation.” A third rationale in favor of a mixed-income strategy, MIRDG decided, is the effort 100% the mixed-income development team and its local partners make toward 58% “creating a stable, high-quality com- 50% 45% 37% munity that is home to residents of very diverse backgrounds.” Because this team is composed of stakeholders 0% responsible for all phases of a devel- Bottom 20 Middle 60 Next 19 Top 1 percent opment from design to operation, it percent percent percent is able to facilitate neighboring, ensure equal access to services and amenities, Income Group and encourage residents to become involved in their community.14 Source: Chad Stone, Danilo Trisi, and Arloc Sherman. 2012. “A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. CONTINUED ON PAGE 6

4 Emergence of the Mixed-Income Strategy

The strategy of mixing incomes to counter residential segregation and concentrated poverty gained momentum with significant developments in housing law and policies, court decisions, dispersal strategies, and local regulatory practices. Highlights of this history include: n 1940s and 1950s: The large subdivisions built during the housing boom mostly excluded minorities. n 1968: The Fair Housing Act prohibited racially restrictive covenants and lender redlining practices. n 1969: The Brooke Amendments prohibited public housing agencies (PHAs) from setting minimum rents and capped rent payments for public housing residents at 25 percent of household income, making public housing more affordable for extremely poor households but reducing PHAs’ operating revenues. n 1970s: Inclusionary zoning (IZ) increasingly became a local tool for controlling and managing growth and affordable housing, resulting in mixed-income development (See “Inclusionary Zoning and Mixed-Income Communities,” p.17).1 As federal funding for housing declined in the 1980s and the shortage of affordable housing grew more acute, IZ programs became more widespread.2 n 1974: An amendment to the Housing Act of 1937 required PHAs to house low-income families with a wider range of incomes to increase revenues and lower federal subsidies. n 1975: South Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel Township (Mount Laurel II) forbade the use of local zoning regulations to prevent construction of affordable housing units in affluent areas.3 n 1976: Gautreaux et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) prohibited CHA from building new public housing in mostly black areas of the city unless an equal number of units were built in racially diverse neighborhoods. Dense concentrations of public housing, including high-rises, were also prohibited.4 n 1980s: Dispersal strategies for deconcentrating poverty began when Section 8 tenant-based rental vouchers enabled assisted households to secure housing in their neighborhood of choice. An outgrowth of the Gautreaux ruling, the voucher program also provided supportive services that helped public housing residents move to better neighborhoods. n 1981: An amendment to the Housing Act of 1937 limited participation in Section 8 and public housing programs to households earning less than 50 percent of the area median income, once again reinforcing the concentration of poverty.5 n 1993: The HOPE VI program began demolishing the nation’s most distressed public housing and replacing it with mixed-income housing.6 n 1994: The Moving to Opportunity program provided vouchers, counseling, and assistance to public housing residents who chose to relocate to neighborhoods with lower levels of poverty. n 2000: HUD’s Rule to Deconcentrate Poverty and Promote Integration in Public Housing required PHAs to bring higher-income tenants into lower-income developments and lower-income tenants into higher-income developments.7

1 Innovative Housing Initiative. 2010. “Inclusionary Housing Survey: Measures of Effectiveness.” 2 Alan Mallach and Nico Calavita. 2010. “United States: From Radical Innovation to Mainstream Housing Policy,” in Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective, Nico Calavia and Alan Mallach, eds., Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 15–77. 3 New Jersey Digital Legal Library. n.d. “History of the Mount Laurel Decisions.” Accessed 7 January 2013. 4 Stanford University Archives. n.d. “The Gautreaux Legacy.” Accessed 11 January 2013. 5 Alistair Smith. 2002. “Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality,” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. 6 Alex Schwartz and Kian Tajbakhsh. 1997. “Mixed-Income Housing: Unanswered Questions,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 3:2, 71–92; Susan J. Popkin, Larry F. Buron, Diane K. Levy, and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. “The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?” Housing Policy Debate 11:4, 911–42. 7 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. “Rule to Deconcentrate Poverty and Promote Integration in Public Housing,” Federal Register 65:247, 22 December, 81214–29.

5 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4 Mixed-Income Strategy successful, according to Brophy and balconies, and amenity packages Developers planning a mixed-income Smith’s research.16 all encourage potential residents to community must first decide what want to live there.17 Paul Freitag, manag- income and tenure mix, location, ameni- Design elements are important for ing director of Rose Development for ties, access to services, and design are marketing, for the integration of units Jonathan Rose Companies, suggests that consistent with market demand. Cur- (affordable, market, rental, home- to be competitive, these features “have rent research does not identify an ideal ownership), and for facilitating social to be what you provide to market-rate configuration of these elements. interaction and community building projects in that particular market. Factors that shape these initial deci- among a diverse resident population. Once you have a sizeable market-rate sions about a planned development Affordable and market-rate units are element in a building, it has to function include policy interests, financial generally indistinguishable from the like a market-rate building.” Freitag resources, location and land costs, exterior, but developers may or may also stresses that amenities accessible market conditions, and construction not choose to use different materials in to everyone; identical units for all; schedules.15 Adhering to the basic unit interiors. Good interior and exte- and shared features such as elevator tenets of real estate development and rior design features that are visually banks, a unique green building, and management that attend to these appealing and able to attract market- community gardens provide common factors increases the chances that a rate residents are essential; landscaping, bonds among residents.18 Proximity to mixed-income housing project will be soundproofing, common area decor, public transit, retail businesses and Photo by David Sunberg/Esto Well-designed and attractive common areas, such as this garden, provide opportunities to relax, enjoy the outdoors, and socialize at Via Verde, a mixed-income development in the South Bronx.

6 services, and recreation areas also make a development attractive to potential renters and competitive with other housing options.19 Mark Joseph, associate professor at Case Western Reserve University and director of the National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities, emphasizes that “whatever configuration you choose entails pros and cons. [These decisions] require being as savvy and cognizant as possible about the benefits and challenges of particular designs and configurations for attracting and sustaining residents in a mixed-income community.”20

A mixed-income developer must also successfully combine multiple funding sources while complying with the conditions of each funding 21 Photo by Ruggero Vanni source. As the HOPE VI program An interior view of a unit in Tapestry, Harlem’s first mixed-income residential building with LEED Gold began redeveloping and revitalizing certification. Units feature low-flow fixtures, Energy Star-rated appliances, and other amenities with market appeal to a wide range of incomes. distressed and aging public housing stock, policymakers soon realized that even very large federal grants in the complexity of layering together lower-income residential community could not cover the full costs of such the necessary funding,” according to with a large student population. Mis- projects and that they needed the Freitag.24 Among the useful funding sion Main has 120 one-bedroom units participation of private investors. tools in this complex layering are state in a 7-story building, and the remaining In 1998, the Quality Housing and Work and local linkage fees and incentives 415 units consist of a combination of Responsibility Act officially codified such as low-interest financing, cash rowhouses and walkups; 83 percent of the units are affordable and 17 percent are market rate. The project Property managers need to be skilled at was financed with a combination of city capital funds for infrastructure, building bridges between people with a HOPE VI grant of $50 million, $28 differences. million in local grant funds, and private funds obtained through the use of 4 percent and 9 percent LIHTCs. mixed, or public/private, financing subsidies and grants, land use policies, The first phase was completed using for HOPE VI mixed-income projects. finance and tax incentives, density 4 percent tax credits and tax-exempt As Turbov and Piper explained, this bonuses, and expedited permitting. bond financing through the state’s action effectively “changed the role Developers have also combined local housing finance agency. The bonds of Housing Authorities from producers, tax abatements, tax-increment financing, were collateralized by HOPE VI funds managers, and owners of low-income government funds, and low-income used for that phase. Phases 2 and 3 housing to that of lenders, partners, housing tax credits (LIHTCs).25, 26 were financed with 9 percent tax credits and regulators.”22 Thus, developers allocated by the state’s Department were allowed to use HUD funds to One example of what leveraging makes of Housing and Community Develop- leverage private-sector debt and equity, possible is Boston’s Mission Main ment.27 other federal grants, capital financing, development. Here, HOPE VI funds and contributions from philanthropic accounted for only about 31 percent of Despite the potentially broad range organizations to cover costs and build the project’s total cost of approximately of funding sources and requirements, larger numbers of units.23 $159 million. The mixed-financing “the challenge is similar to that of any approach allowed developers to build affordable housing project,” Freitag The greatest challenge for developers 535 public housing, tax-credit, and says, “except that it increases the com- of mixed-income housing is “inherent market-rate rental units in a stable, plexity at least times two, and maybe

7 deliberate strategies for achieving positive outcomes, and Joseph underscores the importance of “having a strategy for promoting a successful mix that includes strong supports for building community and positive neighbor relationships. It’s not the case that social dynamics will take care of themselves naturally, that once you get people there, they will organically figure it out. Real intentional thought and action in how to help people to navigate a mixed-income community is necessary.”33 Joseph also stresses the importance of the property manager’s role as a “mediator, connector, convener, and networker” with the most regular, ongoing contact with residents. Consequently, property managers need to have support, training, resources, and insight into how to build community.34

Outcomes for Residents of Photo by Perry Rose A natural foods grocery store within walking distance of Highlands’ Garden Village appeals to residents of this Mixed-Income Communities mixed-income community in Denver. Relocated low-income residents living in mixed-income communities more.” Developers with expertise and Finally, the mixed-income developer report benefits that mostly concern templates that help them through must secure sound property manage- improvements in their living spaces the planning and decision process for ment to safeguard the attractiveness and environments; by contrast, higher- affordable housing need to modify and marketability of the project — income residents tend to praise the their models to develop mixed-income and to take care of security, resident communities’ locations.35 In interviews, housing. “For instance, one of the relations, trash collection, tenant Chicago residents who had moved most powerful tools for developing selection, and lease enforcement.29 from public housing to a mixed-income affordable housing is the LIHTC, Mixed-income properties are managed development described the physical which is strictly income-capped,” Freitag in various ways: onsite or offsite, by the quality of their housing units and the explains. “People who earn over 60 developer’s staff or a property manage- immediate environment as markedly percent of AMI cannot live in LIHTC ment company. The property manager is better than that of their previous housing. So if you want to do a project in a key, day-to-day position to shape the residences. Most felt more secure that combines LIHTC and market rate expectations of potential residents, facili- and less stressed in their new or housing, by nature you have to create tate constructive relationships among improved housing, reported psychologi- a building that has essentially two proj- residents, and manage social interac- cal benefits, and appreciated the ects so that credits can flow into just tion in a way that builds community.30 peace and quiet. Such benefits have the affordable units.” Mixed-income Managers often create formal and positive implications for physical development also entails other demands informal opportunities for residents and mental health. Other stressors, that developers must anticipate, says to meet and interact around shared however, have also emerged.36 Many Freitag, including “checks by people interests, recreation, governance, and interviewees from three mixed-income making sure that the dollars are going activities for youth, and they need to sites told McCormick et al. that to the units for which they were ap- be skilled at building bridges between their relief in shedding the stigma propriated, closings that require much people with differences.31 Research of living in disreputable public housing more complex legal structures, bring- confirms that management practices projects was replaced with the sense ing along all of the private and public constitute a significant influence on of being stigmatized by their higher- investors and other stakeholders so residents and suggests that the prop- income neighbors and by property that they can understand a complex erty manager’s role must be clearly management’s “intrusive screening project, and risks of delay due to the articulated.32 Lazar and Wilkins empha- and vigilant monitoring.” Whereas added complexity.”28 size that a good property manager has former public housing residents feel

8 excluded and unwelcome, higher-income part.”39 To prevent social cleavages, low-income job seekers will be able to residents tend to be disappointed in their Joseph stresses that it is important to access them or that the jobs will be of neighbors and in the social atmosphere.37 “anticipate the realities of ‘us vs. them’ the type that will help families become dynamics that emerge quite quickly and more self-sufficient. The evidence of The mixed-income strategy is about readily in these new environments. sustained educational gains for children housing, but it is also about the dynam- For people coming in, it’s almost who have moved into a mixed-income ics of building community. Although readymade that they will identify who community is also slight.42 However, the some hypothesized that mixed-income is part of ‘our’ group or who is in ‘that’ role-modeling hypothesis may hold settings would improve socioeconomic group. We are primed, unfortunately, for children who have formerly lived opportunities for the poor through in American society to have a sense of in public housing in that they see a social and cross-income interaction our group affiliation and a sense of broader range of adults in their commu- and behavioral modeling, research stigmatization about the other, whoever nity. “I think if you’d talk to the parents in finds that most resident interaction is that other might be.”40 a mixed-income community, they’d say casual, instrumental, and more likely to they like the fact their kids see lawyers occur among those who share common Research shows that low-income and doctors and a range of people and socioeconomic backgrounds and hous- residents who formerly lived in public races,” says Joseph.43 ing tenures.38 Joseph explains that “what housing have realized little or no we’re looking for is a standard of effec- economic or educational benefit from Without evidence that mixed-income tive neighboring, in which residents living in a new mixed-income setting.41 housing significantly improves know their neighbors well enough to If more job opportunities exist due economic well-being or stimulates work together constructively to solve to the mixed-income strategy, Briggs social ties and behavioral modeling, problems. We’re not there yet, in large has noted there is no certainty that Goetz suggests that the assumptions Photo by Dressel-Martin Photography Property managers are key to facilitating constructive social interactions and community building experiences, as shown in this outdoor movie event on the commons of Highlands’ Garden Village.

9 underlying the mixed-income model fail to recognize the complexity of Mixed-income housing provides a stable the sought-after social and economic objectives. “Changes in employment, platform from which low-income families may be income, health, and social interactions able to improve their opportunity trajectories. involve systems that are complex and not fully determined by environment,” notes Goetz.44 Stakeholders, policy- neighborhoods where poverty rates were To what extent social cohesion and a makers, and researchers continue to generally at their highest. Thus far, sense of community may occur across suggest, however, that mixed-income market demand for units in mixed- different types of residents who rent or approaches have potential for promot- income developments has continued, own, have low or high incomes, live in ing effective neighboring relationships and there is optimism that these subsidized or nonsubsidized units, and and creating new opportunity trajectories communities will remain viable and represent a variety of races and ethnici- for low-income residents.45 The mixed- marketable.48 Low-income residents ties is uncertain. To what degree this income housing strategy is successful who have relocated to these neigh- sense of community is necessary for in providing a safe environment with borhoods enjoy affordable housing, low-income families to gain the oppor- good quality, affordable housing in better living spaces and environments, tunity for economic self-sufficiency and lower-poverty neighborhoods near improved health, and markedly increased a better life is also unclear.51 desired resources, amenities, and feelings of safety and security. Although services. In this sense, the strategy the mixed-income housing approach After a thorough review of the available provides a stable platform from which may not resolve all the barriers to research on the effects of the mixed- low-income families may be able to self-sufficiency, it appears to be an income strategy, Levy et al. concluded improve their life chances.46 Research- important component of the response that more and better research is badly ers tend to agree that these families to concentrated poverty and to have needed. Many unanswered questions will need additional support to be able potential for positively affecting the persist about the strategy, along with a to change their economic and social affordable housing supply, in addition lack of data on all the mixed-income trajectories — deep supports and services to local economies and revenue bases.49 developments and redevelopments that will help equip these families with As Alan Mallach suggests, “While the that would make the pursuit of a the necessary tools to enhance their advantages of integration are uncertain, cross-site, comparative research agenda self-sufficiency.47 the disadvantages of residualization possible. These data would allow rigor- and poverty concentration, which ous comparisons, for example, of the Moving Forward are the inevitable by-product of the effects of different income and tenure The mixed-income approach has absence of spatial integration in a mar- mixes, resident governance structures, deconcentrated poverty at sites and in ket-oriented polity, are compelling.”50 educational outcomes for children, and design impacts on resident interaction.52 This agenda could also inform housing policy by testing and refining The National Initiative on Mixed-Income assumptions about combating severe Communities poverty and clarifying how mixed- income strategies can be most effective Case Western Reserve University is launching a new resource for research in that battle. Efforts to expand this and information about mixed-income communities. The National Initiative on knowledge are ongoing. The National Mixed-Income Communities (NIMC) will promote more effective policy and Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities, practice for building successful mixed-income communities by conducting for example, is collecting data on social and supporting research and evaluation; providing technical assistance and dynamics in 30 mixed-income devel- consultation; convening a national research network, seminars, and other opments nationwide and planning a workshops; and centralizing information on mixed-income developments in centralized database of information an online data repository. on mixed-income communities.53 In another research initiative, the Urban Find links to research findings and other information at nimc.case.edu. Institute is conducting a multisite NIMC is directed by Mark Joseph, Ph.D., associate professor at the Mandel Housing Opportunity and Services School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, and Together demonstration designed to supported with startup funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. test models for improving the life chances of low-income residents of public and mixed-income housing communities.54

10 While policymakers and researchers are able Housing Dilemma: The Preservation vs. Mobility 31 Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph. 2010. “Build- Debate,” National Low Income Housing Coalition. ing “Community” in Mixed-Income Developments: evaluating outcomes and underlying 13 Briggs et al. Assumptions, Approaches, and Early Experiences,” Urban Affairs Review 45:3, 299–335. assumptions of the mixed-income model, 14 Ibid. 32 Graves; McCormick et al.; U.S. Department of Hous- HUD is taking lessons learned from 15 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ing and Urban Development, 2003. ment. 2003, 55–7; Diane K. Levy, Zach McDade, and HOPE VI beyond the focus on mixed- 33 Kassie Dumlao. 2010. “Effects From Living in Mixed- Ellen Lazar and Charles S. Wilkins. 2003. “Framing income housing to HUD’s Choice Income Communities for Low-Income Families,” Mixed-Income Housing’s Greatest Challenges,” The Neighborhoods Initiative, a holistic Urban Institute. NeighborWorks Journal, edited proceedings of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Sympo- 16 Paul C. Brophy and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. “Mixed- strategy that enhances housing and sium, Chicago, Illinois, 4 April; Interview with Mark Income Housing: Factors for Success,” Cityscape: A Joseph. neighborhoods and coordinates positive Journal of Policy Development and Research 3:2, 3–31. 34 Interview with Mark Joseph. outcomes for the people who live there. 17 Levy et al. 35 McCormick et al.; Brophy and Smith. 18 Paul Freitag. 2013. Seminar presentation for “Dynam- Choice Neighborhoods is the logical 36 ics of Mixed-Income Communities,” U.S. Department Mark Joseph and Robert Chaskin. 2010. “Living in a next step in transforming distressed of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, Mixed-Income Development: Resident Perceptions of public and assisted housing projects into 20 March. the Benefits and Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago,” Urban Studies 47:11, 2347–66. 19 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- viable and sustainable mixed-income 37 ment, 2003. McCormick et al. neighborhoods. Within this broader 38 20 Interview with Mark Joseph, February 2013. Ibid.; Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph. 2011. “Social Interaction in Mixed-Income Developments: approach to concentrated poverty, local 21 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality,” Jour- ment, 2003. governments, nonprofits, and for-profit nal of Urban Affairs 33:2, 209–37. 22 Mindy Turbov and Valerie Piper. 2005. “HOPE VI and developers are joining public housing 39 Mark Joseph. 2013. Seminar presentation for “Dynam- Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Neigh- ics of Mixed-Income Communities,” U.S. Department agencies to link housing improvements borhood Renewal — A Discussion Paper Prepared for of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Program,” with appropriate services, schools, public 20 March. Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Develop- 40 assets, transportation, and access to ment Law 15:1, 27–103. Interview with Mark Joseph. 41 jobs. 23 Susan J. Popkin, Bruce Katz, Mary K. Cunningham, Levy et al.; Edward G. Goetz. 2010. “Better Neigh- Karen D. Brown, Jeremy Gustafson, and Margery borhoods, Better Outcomes? Explaining Relocation A. Turner. 2004. “A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Outcomes in HOPE VI,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy 1 Alex Schwartz and Kian Tajbakhsh. 1997. “Mixed- Findings and Policy Challenges,” Urban Institute and Development and Research 12:1, 5–32. Income Housing: Unanswered Questions,” Cityscape: A Brookings Institution. 42 Levy et al.; Chaskin and Joseph. 2011. Journal of Policy Development and Research 3:2, 71–92. 24 Interview with Paul Freitag, February 2013. 43 Interview with Mark Joseph. 2 Comptroller General of the United States. 1979. “Serving a Broader Economic Range of Families in 25 Schwartz and Tajbakhsh; U.S. Department of Housing 44 Goetz. Public Housing Could Reduce Operating Subsidies,” and Urban Development, 2003. 45 “ Dynamics of Mixed-Income Communities.” 2013. U.S. General Accounting Office; U.S. Department 26 Available federal resources include Community Seminar hosted by U.S. Department of Housing and of Housing and Urban Development. 2003. “Mixed- Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Urban Development, Washington DC, 20 March; Income Housing and the HOME Program,” Office of Investment Partnerships (HOME) program dollars, Graves. Community Planning and Development. both of which local communities use in implement- 46 Alistair Smith. 2002. “Mixed-Income Housing Devel- 3 Elizabeth Kneebone, Carey Nadeau, and Alan Berube. ing their local affordable housing plans. HOME and opments: Promise and Reality,” Joint Center for Hous- 2011. “The Re-Emergence of Concentrated Poverty: CDBG, as with all funding sources, have their unique ing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s,” Metropolitan administrative requirements that effect planning for a Reinvestment Corporation. development. HOME dollars, for example, only apply Policy Program at Brookings Institution. 47 Ibid.; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh; Mark Joseph seminar to affordable units for low- or very low-income house- 4 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. presentation. holds that retain their identity as HOME-assisted units 1997. “FHA’s Mixed-Income Housing Underwriting 48 and remain affordable over time. If CDBG funds are Joseph and Chaskin. 2010. Guidelines,” Notice H 97–12 (HUD). layered into a financing package, a development’s 49 Mark Joseph. 2006. “Is Mixed-Income Development 5 Edward Glaeser and Jacob Vigdor. 2012. “The End income mix also has to be such that 51 percent of an Antidote to Urban Poverty?” Housing Policy Debate of the Segregated Century: Racial Separation in CDBG-rehabilitated rental units are reserved for low- 17:2, 209–34. America’s Neighborhoods, 1890–2010,” Civic Report 66, or moderate-income households with incomes at or 50 Alan Mallach. 2010. “Inclusionary Housing and the Center for State and Local Leadership at the Manhat- below 80 percent of area median income. In newly goal of social inclusion: policy choices in cross-nation- tan Institute. constructed rentals, the mix of incomes can be set al perspective.” Presentation at Comparative Housing 6 William Julius Wilson. 2011. “The Declining Signifi- according to the proportion of the total project cost Research - Approaches and Policy Challenges in a cance of Race: Revisited & Revised,” The American borne by CDBG funds, as long as 20 percent of the New International Era,” TU Delft, the Netherlands, Academy of Arts & Sciences. new units are affordable. U.S. Department of Housing 24–25 March. 7 and Urban Development, 2003. Ibid.; U.S. Census Bureau CPS Annual Social and 51 Lynne C. Manzo and Douglas D. Perkins. 2006. “Find- 27 Economic Supplement, Table F-2, “Share of Aggregate Mary Joel Holin, Larry Buron, Gretchen Locke, and ing Common Ground: The Importance of Place At- Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Alvaro Cortes. 2003. “Interim Assessment of the tachment to Community Participation and Planning,” Black Families: 1966 to 2010.” HOPE VI Program Cross-Site Report,” Abt Associates; Journal of Planning Literature 20:4, 335–50. 8 Boston Housing Authority, “Mission Main” website Richard Fry and Paul Taylor. 2012. “The Rise of Resi- 52 Levy et al. dential Segregation by Income,” Pew Research Center. (http://www.bostonhousing.org/detpages/dept- 53 National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities. 9 info154.html). Accessed 26 February 2013. Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff. 2011. “Income 2013. “Overview,” Case Western Reserve University, 28 Interview with Paul Freitag. Inequality and Income Segregation,” American Journal Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences. Accessed 29 of Sociology 116:4, 1092–1153; Tara Watson. 2009. “In- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 21 March 2013. equality and the Measurement of Residential Segrega- ment, 2003. 54 Urban Institute. 2013. “HUD Partner Reports: The tion by Income in American Neighborhoods,” Review 30 Erin M. Graves. 2011. “Mixed Outcome Develop- Housing Opportunity and Services Together (HOST) of Income and Wealth 55:3, 820–44. ments: Comparing Policy Goals to Resident Outcomes Demonstration,” PD&R Edge. Accessed 20 March 10 Kneebone et al. in Mixed-Income Housing,” Journal of the American 2013; Susan J. Popkin. 2012. “Testimony for Hearing 11 Xavier de Souza Briggs, Greg Duncan, Katherin Edin, Planning Association 77:2, 143–53; Naomi J. McCor- on the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative: A New Com- et al. 2009. “Research Designs for the Study of Mixed- mick, Mark L. Joseph, and Robert J. Chaskin. 2012. munity Development Model,” U.S. Senate Committee Income Housing,” California Center for Population “The New Stigma of Relocated Public Housing Resi- on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcom- Research, University of California-Los Angeles, 14. dents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed-Income mittee on Housing Transportation, and Community 12 Sheila Crowley and Danilo Pelletiere. 2012. “Afford- Developments,” City & Community 11:3, 285–308. Development.

11 Research Spotlight Highlights

n The ideal of inclusive, cross-class interaction in mixed-income communities Mixed-Income is often undermined by the enforcement of social order, including management actions that restrict social gatherings in public spaces and rules Community relating to housekeeping and noise levels. Dynamics: Five n Residents of mixed-income neighborhoods share a desire for high-quality Insights From neighborhood institutions and amenities, but they do not always agree on what “high quality” means.

Ethnography n Attentive design of affordable housing can reduce class-based stigma Laura Tach, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, and promote resident engagement. Cornell University and meaning of written or visual Qualitative research is also interpre- ixed-income neighborhoods secondary materials such as newspapers, tive, asking “how” and “why” rather M have become objects of policy television shows, and advertisements. than “how many.” For example, instead and research attention, and a number of asking how common a behavior is, of research initiatives have used sur- The objectives of these qualitative re- qualitative researchers ask about the vey and administrative data to assess search methods are different from, but meaning of that behavior. In particular, the effects of mixed-income policies complementary to, the objectives of ethnographers discern meaning by on resident and neighborhood well- quantitative research. Most quantitative observing the interactions, reactions, being. Ethnographic methods, a form research is deductive, beginning with and interpretations of behaviors as of qualitative research defined by in- a specific predetermined hypothesis they unfold in social settings. Because depth observations of social settings, that dictates what data are collected this process requires intensive and offer an important complement to and analyzed. Data are collected using extended observation, ethnographers this quantitative research. An emerging body of ethnographic research on mixed-income neighborhoods uncov- Ethnographers discern meaning by observing ers how residents make sense of their economically diverse surroundings the interactions, reactions, and interpretations and how they interact with neighbors of behaviors as they unfold in social settings. and institutions in ways that influence personal and community well-being. a standardized method, with the same typically focus on observation quality Ethnographic Methods questions asked of a large, repre- rather than quantity and aim for a rich, Ethnography is a form of qualitative re- sentative sample of a population. The detailed understanding of a small num- search defined by in-depth observations data are then quantified to reveal the ber of social settings. of people in their natural surroundings frequency of behaviors or attitudes. over an extended period of time. The The quantitative approach is best for Insights From Ethnography primary form of ethnographic data answering “how many” or “how com- A small but growing number of collection is participant observation, mon” research questions. researchers have conducted ethno- in which researchers observe people graphic studies of mixed-income interacting in particular social settings Qualitative research, by contrast, is communities. Some studies have and keep written, oral, and visual inductive. Rather than determining examined mixed-income housing develop- records of their observations. Although all hypotheses in advance, qualitative ments, whereas others have examined participant observation is ethnography’s researchers allow for discovery dur- larger mixed-income neighborhoods. defining feature, ethnographers often ing the research process — one does Development-level ethnographies have supplement their observations with not always know what is meaningful or focused primarily on mixed-income other forms of qualitative data collection. important before starting the research. developments funded by HOPE VI to These forms include in-depth interviews, Qualitative data analysis is an iterative redevelop public housing, although the in which researchers ask open-ended process in which researchers analyze developments studied have different questions designed to uncover the moti- the data as they are collected and adapt sizes, racial compositions, and income vations and meanings behind the their data collection methods as they distributions. Neighborhood-level eth- behaviors they observe, and content analysis, discover the meaningful and important nographies have examined a broader in which researchers analyze the substance aspects of a particular social setting. array of mixed-income neighborhoods,

12 including both gentrifying and stable For example, Mary Pattillo conducted housing developments have also found mixed-income areas and areas created a nine-year ethnography of North that housing type and tenure length through a range of project-based and Kenwood–Oakland (NKO), an African are means by which residents create scattered-site subsidized housing; these American neighborhood on Chicago’s shared identities and organize to address neighborhoods also varied in their South Side undergoing widespread their needs.2 demographic and economic com- African American gentrification; since position. These ethnographies focus the 1990s, new construction and reha- Housing type, length of residence, on different places and ask different bilitation have flourished and public and race/ethnicity are not mutually research questions, but taken together housing has been redeveloped through exclusive categories, however, and they they reveal several common themes the HOPE VI program. Pattillo pur- do not completely determine residents’ about the dynamics of mixed-income chased a home in NKO in 1998, and behavior. Interactions among these communities. since then she has conducted more groups can be friendly and even sup- than 100 interviews with residents and portive, especially when an identity, 1) Residents of mixed-income neighbor- community stakeholders, participated such as parenthood or race, is held in hoods organize around social identities in public meetings and neighborhood common. Despite conflicts between other than income. gatherings, and collected secondary African-American homeowners and materials such as newspaper articles public housing residents in Pattillo’s By definition, mixed-income neighbor- and flyers.1 Pattillo found that relation- NKO neighborhood, a sense of shared hoods contain residents with a range ships among residents of different fate based on common racial identity of incomes. Residents cannot “see” incomes in NKO were structured by led homeowners to advocate on behalf the incomes of their neighbors; tenure length and housing type. of their public housing neighbors in instead, they recognize that they live Echoing themes found in many eth- meetings with city officials. Ethnogra- in a mixed-income area through more nographies of mixed-income and phers have also observed examples of visible social categories that are cor- gentrifying neighborhoods, Patillo neighboring behaviors and tentative related with income, such as housing found that tensions between homeowners social bonds forming between home- type (homeowner, renter, or subsidized and public housing residents — and owners and public housing residents renter), length of residence, and race/ between more affluent newcomers and when living side by side in new HOPE ethnicity. Ethnographers have found long-term working class residents — VI developments.3 that residents of mixed-income neigh- emerged over the role of schools, the borhoods view their neighborhoods siting of affordable housing, and 2) The ideal of inclusive, cross-class through these more visible social the appropriate uses of public space. interaction is often undermined by the categories and organize around them. Ethnographies of individual mixed-income enforcement of social order.

Surveys of residents of mixed-income neighborhoods reveal that they value living in a diverse area, but ethnographers who observe residents in their daily lives have found that these stated values are sometimes overshadowed by the enforcement of social order. This is what Erin Graves found in her ethnography of Maverick Landing, a racially diverse HOPE VI development in Boston in which she lived for a year, attended meetings, conducted interviews, and observed informal interactions. The 230-unit rental development was constructed in 2005; about three-quarters of the units were subsidized and the rest were market rate. Graves found that management actions dissuaded resident interaction, including rules prohibiting social gatherings in public spaces that were deemed loitering, Mixed-income developments integrated among other housing and a park in South Boston. housekeeping checks applied to

13 subsidized but not market-rate tenants, socialize in their backyards or inside.5 be undermined by differences in what and rules requiring quietness and order- The police were called if residents higher- and lower-income residents liness that restricted bike-riding or music congregated on front stoops or in the consider “high quality.” For example, in common spaces.4 Graves found streets. Lower-income residents reported Pattillo found that residents of the that managers instituted these rules feeling constrained by, and resentful of, mixed-income neighborhood of NKO and policies to appease market-rate these policies, whereas market-rate resi- shared a desire to improve school residents’ complaints and concerns, and dents did not. Ethnographies of larger quality, but class-based tensions subsidized residents felt constrained mixed-income neighborhoods have emerged over the best solution.7 Lower- by these rules and policies. also identified policies and ordinances, income residents wanted officials to enacted for reasons of safety and quality restore existing neighborhood schools, Similar dynamics were observed in of life, that restrict activities in public whereas higher-income residents wanted an ethnography of another Boston spaces and disproportionately affect options for selective enrollment schools; HOPE VI development called Orchard lower-income residents.6 the higher-income residents ultimately Gardens, a 331-unit development prevailed. completed in 2000; 15 percent of the 3) Residents of mixed-income neighborhoods development’s units were market rate have a common desire for high-quality Tach observed similar conflicts in and 85 percent were subsidized, with neighborhood institutions and amenities, her ethnographic study of South subsidized units reserved for house- but they do not always agree on what “high End, a mixed-income, mixed-race holds with incomes ranging from 10 quality” means. neighborhood in Boston that contains to 80 percent of area median income. public housing and properties built In her 1-year ethnography of Orchard Residents of mixed-income neighbor- with low-income housing tax credits Gardens, in which she conducted in- hoods share a common desire for nestled between million-dollar brown- depth interviews and observed public high-quality neighborhood institutions stones and condominiums. Tach found spaces, Laura Tach found that man- and amenities such as schools, busi- that both lower- and higher-income agement, citing the need for resident nesses, and parks, offering the possibility residents wanted retail establishments safety, enacted policies prohibiting resi- of cross-class coalitions around these in their neighborhood, but they had dents from sitting on their front stoops; goals. But ethnographers have found different preferences and financial residents were encouraged instead to that the ability to work together can means that shaped the types of retail

In Martin Luther King Plaza in Philadelphia, police mobile unit surveillance led to reduced use of outdoor spaces.

14 establishments they utilized, resulting sometimes competing — visions of to their buildings, and many sub- in tensions over the use of existing and their community’s identity. Examples of sidized tenants also appreciate the proposed commercial spaces for high- identity “rebranding” abound: HOPE status and convenience that come with end and discount grocery stores, coffee VI developments give former public high-end amenities. However, eth- shops, dollar stores, and sit-down and housing projects new names, and nographic data also reveal that these carryout restaurants.8 Michael Maly’s business districts are renamed as part methods project a subtle message ethnographies of the racially diverse of revitalization efforts. Many private about who “belongs” in the develop- communities of Uptown in Chicago investors and newcomers believe that ment — whose voice is heard and and Jackson Heights in Queens identi- such changes promote investment and whose needs are valued — and these fied similar conflicts and found that growth. Although some long-term subtle forms of exclusion dampen the successful compromises were possible residents of these rebranded communi- efficacy and engagement of subsidized when local leaders formed inclusive ties appreciate the reduced stigma that residents. In rarer cases, these marketing strategies backfire when market-rate residents express anger and flee after Residents of mixed-income neighborhoods discovering the subsidized units. These methods clearly serve the short- share a common desire for high-quality term goal of leasing units, but they neighborhood institutions and amenities. may also undermine longer-term goals of effective neighboring and community cohesion. community organizations that repre- accompanies rebranding, others resent sented the diverse business interests the erasure of their community’s former 5) The design of affordable housing can in the neighborhood.9 identity. In her ethnography of the Or- reduce class-based stigma and promote chard Gardens HOPE VI development resident engagement. Neighborhood organizations and in Boston, for example, Tach found that resident associations offer outlets for residents who resented their neighbor- Project-based subsidized housing residents to network and take collective hood’s transformation continued to developments in mixed-income action, but ethnographers have found refer to the neighborhood by its public neighborhoods are easily visible be- that residents of mixed-income com- housing moniker, whereas residents cause of their size and architectural munities have struggled to find the ideal who supported the transformation used style, and both higher- and lower- composition and actions for these the new HOPE VI development name.11 income residents attribute a host of organizations. Some neighborhoods and These neighborhood identities remain neighborhood ills to them — crime, developments have separate associations contested, but less so, in more estab- noise, drugs, and gangs — even for homeowners and public housing lished, stably mixed communities.12 without specific evidence that this residents whereas others have adopted is true. Ethnographers have found communitywide membership, although Pamphlets, billboards, and websites that these characteristics render the activities of the latter organizations that advertise mixed-income develop- residents of both project-based Section are frequently dominated by either home- ments are often designed to appeal to 8 developments and public hous- owners or public housing residents.10 market-rate residents, offering little ing developments more visible and Although collaborative cross-class and mention of the subsidized units avail- stigmatized than similar low-income cross-tenure organizations can be dif- able or amenities that would appeal residents living in scattered-site af- ficult to maintain, they can be effective to subsidized renters. Ethnographers fordable housing within mixed-income when founded and managed by trusted have found that promotional materi- neighborhoods. In her ethnography local neighborhood leaders who publi- als often highlight amenities such as of South End, for example, Tach cally support equal representation. gym facilities and granite countertops found that both higher- and lower- rather than units with many bedrooms, income residents of mixed-income 4) Neighborhood identity is malleable social service coordinators, or onsite neighborhoods described fear and and contested in mixed-income childcare. The developments rarely discomfort travelling near public communities. mention the presence of subsidized housing projects in their community units in their promotional materials, and took elaborate daily routes Quantitative research shows that mixed- and examples abound of market-rate to avoid passing them, although income neighborhoods have dynamic, residents learning of the presence of they did not report this reaction to changing populations. Ethnographers subsidized units only after moving in.13 other buildings in the neighbor- have found that this fluidity results Developers say that these marketing hood containing subsidized in stakeholders with different — and strategies attract market-rate tenants housing.14

15 Ethnographers of mixed-income adds a new dimension to these find- Physical integration of subsidized and developments that replaced public hous- ings by revealing how improvements market-rate housing reduces stigma, ing find that former public housing in physical design reduce stigma and the formation of community organiza- residents report liberation from some generate resident pride and investment. tions by trusted local leaders around forms of stigma when given subsidized shared identities and goals may bridge units fully integrated into the sur- Second, the inductive nature of eth- class differences and promote neighbor- rounding community. Higher quality nography leads to new hypotheses hood stability, and management practices construction and physical upkeep yield that can be tested with representative could foster rather than dissuade resident a sense of pride, and, in sharp contrast surveys. For example, ethnographic interaction in common spaces. In time, with how they felt in public housing, research reveals how questions about such efforts may help bridge racial, cul- former public housing residents report cross-class dynamics could be asked in tural, and class differences and support stable mixed-income communities.

1 Mary Pattillo. 2007. Black on the Block: The Politics of Race Ethnographic insights suggest practices and Class in the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. that could promote cohesion within mixed- 2 Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph. 2010. “Building “Community” in Mixed-Income Developments: As- income neighborhoods. sumptions, Approaches, and Early Experiences,” Urban Affairs Review 45:3, 299–335; Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph. 2011. “Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality: The Nature of Social Interaction in feeling inspired to invest in their com- ways respondents understand, such Mixed-Income Developments,” Journal of Urban Affairs munity.15 In their ethnographies of as asking about neighbors of different 32:2, 209–37; Laura Tach. 2010. Beyond Concentrated three Chicago HOPE VI developments tenure lengths, housing types, and Poverty: The Social and Temporal Dynamics of Mixed- Income Neighborhoods, Doctoral dissertation, Harvard with units divided among public housing, races. Ethnographies also highlight University; Laura Tach. 2009. “More Than Bricks and affordable, and market-rate tenants — the institutions and amenities around Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes, and the Mixed-Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Oakwood Shores, Park Boulevard, and which cross-class bonding and conflict Project,” City & Community 8:3, 273–303. Westhaven Park — Mark Joseph and may occur, such as schools, policing, 3 Naomi J. McCormick, Mark L. Joseph, and Robert his colleagues found that the predomi- the use of common spaces, and retail J. Chaskin. 2012. “The New Stigma of Public Housing Residents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed-In- nantly African-American former public investment; these subjects can be ad- come Developments,” City & Community 11:3, 285–308; housing residents in Chicago felt less dressed directly in surveys. Chaskin and Joseph, 2010; Chaskin and Joseph, 2011. external stigma after the physical trans- 4 Erin Graves. 2010. “The Structuring of Urban Life in a Mixed-Income Housing Community,” City & Com- formation of their areas; outsiders were Finally, ethnography can elucidate munity 9:1, 109–31. more willing to visit them, and some visitors mechanisms and explanations not 5 Laura Tach. 2011. “Imagined Communities, Contested were unaware that the development observable in surveys. For example, Realities: How Stakeholders Understand and Negotiate Space in Mixed-Income Developments,” Paper presented 16 was subsidized housing. Subsidized surveys reveal little cross-class interaction. at the Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, residents still felt some stigma from the Ethnographies show how and why this New Orleans, Louisiana, March, 16–9. more racially diverse market-rate renters phenomenon occurs; residents avoid 6 Andrew Deener. 2012. Venice: A Contested Bohemia in Los Angeles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Lance and homeowners in their develop- neighbors of different incomes because Freeman. 2006. There Goes the ‘Hood’: Views of Gentrification ments, who routinely discussed the their interests and preferences do not From the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; Pattillo; Deirdre Pfeiffer. 2004. “Before the need to fix or alter their behaviors and align. Cross-class interactions are damp- Barbecue: Community Building and the Arts in a values, but this new stigma was con- ened further through the actions Mixed-Income Chicago Neighborhood,” Perspectives on Civic Activism and City Life 3, 14–24; Sylvie Tissot. 2011. siderably weaker than what they had of management, the stigma of public “Of Dogs and Men: The Making of Spatial Boundaries experienced in the old projects. housing, and competing visions of com- in a Gentrifying Neighborhood,” City & Community munity identity and quality institutions 10:3, 265–84. 7 and amenities. Pattillo. Contributions of 8 Tach, 2011. Ethnographic Methods 9 Michael Maly. 2005. Beyond Segregation: Multiracial and Ethnography complements quantitative Ethnographic research on mixed-income Multiethnic Neighborhoods in the United States. Philadel- research on mixed-income neighborhoods developments and neighborhoods phia: Temple University Press. 10 in a number of ways. First, ethnography reveal different, and sometimes conflict- McCormick, Joseph, and Chaskin; Chaskin and Joseph, 2010; Chaskin and Joseph, 2011; Pattillo; offers an opportunity for triangulation; ing, values among stakeholders over Tach, 2011. identifying the same result with a different how community space should be used; it 11 Tach, 2009. type of data strengthens confidence in also reveals unequal power in the ability 12 Maly. 13 that result. For example, surveys report to realize these values. Still, the ethno- McCormick, Joseph, and Chaskin, 2012; Graves, 2010; Pattillo. high levels of resident satisfaction with graphic insights described here suggest 14 Tach, 2010. physical amenities in mixed-income practices that could promote cohesion 15 Tach, 2009. developments, and ethnographic work within mixed-income neighborhoods. 16 McCormick, Joseph, and Chaskin.

16 In Practice Highlights n Inclusionary zoning programs vary in their structure; they can be mandatory or voluntary and have different set-aside requirements, affordability levels, Inclusionary and control periods. Most inclusionary zoning programs offer developers Zoning and incentives, such as density bonuses, expedited approval, and fee waivers. n New York’s program offers developers density bonuses in exchange for Mixed-Income providing permanently affordable housing for low- and moderate-income Communities families, to help preserve mixed-income neighborhoods in a city of high rent burdens and low vacancy. dvocates have long promoted A inclusionary zoning (IZ) as a n Chicago’s Affordable Requirements Ordinance requires developments viable, market-based strategy for that meet certain criteria and have at least 10 residential units to set increasing affordable housing and aside at least 10 percent of the units for lower-income households. creating mixed-income communities. IZ policies require or encourage develop- jurisdictions nationwide shows that IZ developers incentives such as density ers to set aside a certain percentage of provides low-income families with ac- bonuses, expedited approval, and fee housing units in new or rehabilitated cess to low-poverty neighborhoods and waivers to offset some of the costs as- projects for low- and moderate-income better performing schools. Study au- sociated with providing the affordable residents.1 This integration of affordable thors Schwartz et al. find that IZ homes units. Many programs also include units into market-rate projects creates are widely dispersed throughout each of developer opt-outs or alternatives, such opportunities for households with the 11 jurisdictions, with 76 percent of as requiring developers to pay fees or diverse socioeconomic backgrounds the units located in low-poverty neigh- donate land in lieu of building afford- to live in the same developments and borhoods. Schwartz et al. also note that able units or providing the units offsite.4 have access to same types of community the various design components of IZ Studies show that mandatory programs services and amenities (see “Confronting programs affect their potential for cre- produce more affordable housing than Concentrated Poverty With a Mixed- ating affordable housing and promoting voluntary programs, and developer Income Strategy,” p. 1). And because it social inclusion.3 opt-outs can reduce opportunities for leverages private-sector development, creating mixed-income housing.5 At IZ requires fewer direct public subsidies IZ programs vary in their structure; the same time, IZ’s reliance on the than do many other state and federal they can be mandatory or voluntary private sector means that its effective- programs that promote mixed-income and have different set-aside require- ness also depends on the strength of a communities. For local governments ments, affordability levels, and control locality’s housing market, and research- facing shrinking federal and state aid, periods. Most IZ programs offer ers acknowledge that a certain degree IZ offers a path to boost affordable housing supply and meet federal fair housing obligations. In neighborhoods undergoing gentrification, IZ can mitigate the displacement of existing low-income households and allow essential public-sector employees such as police officers, teachers, and firefighters to live in the communities they serve. Since the nation’s first IZ ordinance was enacted 40 years ago, more than 400 jurisdictions have adopted the strategy in some form or another.2

Research evaluating how effectively IZ fosters mixed-income communities is limited, as are studies focusing on the effects of inclusionary developments New York City Department of Planning on low-income families. However, a Palmer’s Dock and Edge Community Apartments are the affordable housing component of the larger Northside recently released RAND Corporation Piers and Edge developments along the Brooklyn waterfront. Both projects, located within the Greenpoint- Williamsburg inclusionary housing designated area, received density bonuses and tax abatements from the city study of inclusionary programs in 11 in exchange for providing affordable housing.

17 instead, it allows developers to provide the affordable units on- or offsite through new construction, rehabilitation, or preservation of existing housing.9 Any offsite units, however, must be located in the same community district as the market-rate portion of the development or within a half-mile of the site. Extend- ing the distance beyond a half-mile, stated the commission, “would dilute [the program’s] objective of neighborhood socio-economic heterogeneity.” The commission also observed that making the R10 program voluntary rather than mandatory would encourage developer participation and give the city the opportunity to monitor the program and make changes as needed over time.10 Still in effect, the R10 program has produced more than 1,700 affordable units, mostly in Manhattan.11

Program Expansion In 2005, the city expanded its inclusionary housing program to include certain medium- and high-density areas being rezoned as part of Mayor

Jonathan Rose Companies Michael Bloomberg’s New Housing The Tapestry is a mixed-income rental housing development that was facilitated by the 125th Street rezoning and is the first inclusionary housing development in Harlem. Marketplace Plan (Marketplace Plan). Initiated in 2002 and expanded in of flexibility is essential to ensuring New York City’s Inclusionary subsequent years, the Marketplace Plan the success of IZ programs. In fact, Housing Program details strategies to tackle an acute according to a new Center for Housing New York City approved its IZ program, shortage of housing affordable to low- Policy report that examines how inclu- known as the R10 program, in 1987 in and moderate-income families in New sionary policies fared through the response to rising housing costs and the York City. From 1990 to 2000, the city’s recent economic crisis, IZ policies that resulting displacement of working-class population rose from 7.3 to 8 million, combined flexibility with cost offsets families in high-density, high-demand increasing pressure on an already tight were better able to “endure through areas such as Manhattan and downtown housing market. A projected addition the housing downturn.”6 Brooklyn. At the time, the New York of one million residents by 2030 will in- City Planning Commission noted that tensify the demand for housing.12 More This article looks at inclusionary pro- the goal of the R10 program was “to than two-thirds (67.4%) of New York grams adopted by two of the largest U.S. link market-rate housing with lower- City’s housing stock is renter-occupied, cities with high housing costs — New York income housing in order to provide for and close to 30 percent of all renter City and Chicago — and existing research socio-economic heterogeneity.”7 The households pay more than 50 percent on the efficacy of these programs. New program offers floor area increases of their income toward housing costs.13 York City’s inclusionary housing program of up to 20 percent to developers in Despite an overall increase in the is voluntary and depends on aggressive exchange for providing permanently number of housing starts, overcrowding density bonuses to encourage devel- affordable housing for families earning continues to be a problem amidst ex- oper participation, whereas Chicago’s no more than 80 percent of the area ceedingly low vacancy rates. The rental citywide program is mandatory for median income (AMI) in high-density vacancy rate citywide is well under 5 all developments that meet certain areas zoned R10 and commercial zones percent (3.12%), and it is lowest (1.1%) thresholds. Both cities offer alternatives with equivalent densities.8 To ensure for units with rents under $800. The to onsite provision of affordable units that developers actually create the current $8.5 billion Marketplace Plan in the form of offsite construction and affordable units, the R10 program aims to create and preserve 165,000 in-lieu fees. does not permit in-lieu cash payments; affordable homes for city residents by

18 the end of fiscal year 2014. The plan far, 42 percent of the city’s inclusionary approximately 2,760 units have been calls for rezoning underutilized industrial units have been developed onsite. This developed since the expanded program areas within the city to facilitate resi- percentage is much higher (71%) for began in 2005. “A majority of these,” dential or mixed-use development and units developed since July 2010.16 says Colón, “were produced before the identifies IZ as a key tool to harness the economic recession weakened housing private market to produce affordable In July 2009, the city adopted further markets in the city. However, of the housing.14 amendments to the inclusionary hous- total number of units, over 24 percent ing program to boost participation and were developed in the last couple of The expanded program, also called increase the production of affordable years — an indication that the market is the Designated Areas Program, offers a units. Before these changes, density recovering.”18 density bonus of up to 33 percent above bonuses were available only for rental the base floor area ratio.15 To take ad- units, and developers participating in Social Impacts vantage of the maximum density bonus the R10 program were not allowed to Housing generated through New York offered, developers must set aside 20 use public subsidies to build the afford- City’s inclusionary housing program percent of a building’s residential floor able units. The amendments added a must be affordable for the life of the area to house low-income families earn- homeownership option to encourage development, and the set-aside units ing no more than 80 percent of AMI. condo and housing cooperative devel- must be distributed throughout a build- In certain designated areas, developers opers to participate and authorized the ing. IZ units have to be located on 65 may target households earning up to use of government subsidies as part of percent of floors and in such a way that 125 or 175 percent of AMI so long as a the R10 program. The ownership units no more than a third of the units on larger percentage of units are set aside must initially be affordable to house- each floor are IZ units. Inclusionary as affordable housing. The program holds earning at or below 80 percent programs that include such long-term allows developers to use various public of AMI, and their resale price is calcu- affordability requirements “have the financing programs — such as city and lated based on the rate of inflation as potential to provide low-income recipients state loan programs, tax-exempt bonds, defined by the Consumer Price Index with extended exposure to low-poverty and low-income tax credits — and tax (CPI). The resale prices are capped, settings,” note Schwartz et al.19 For all incentives in conjunction with floor however, to keep the units affordable to inclusionary units, applicants who meet income eligibility requirements are chosen by lottery. Half of affordable Housing generated through New York City’s units in a development, however, are set aside for households from within inclusionary housing program must be the project neighborhood, allowing affordable for the life of the development. longtime residents with lower incomes to remain in their neighborhoods. area increases to build affordable units. households earning no more than 125 A comprehensive analysis of the social However, affordable housing units in percent of AMI.17 impacts of New York City’s inclusionary developments using these public funding housing program has not yet been sources must be located onsite. Certain The program is jointly implemented undertaken, but Jeanne Brooks-Gunn tax exemption programs also require by the Department of City Planning and Elyzabeth Gaumer are conducting onsite provision of affordable units. For and the Department of Housing Pres- an ongoing study to quantify the effects example, the city’s 421-a tax incentive ervation and Development (Housing of affordable housing produced as program provides partial real estate tax Department). The Housing Department part of the city’s Marketplace Plan. exemption for new multifamily rental requires developers participating in The NYC Housing and Neighborhood housing. In locations designated as the inclusionary housing program to Demonstration Project follows 3,000 Geographic Exclusion Areas (such as enter into a regulatory agreement that households that applied for newly Manhattan), developers must provide will ensure affordability. Developers constructed affordable rental housing affordable units onsite to receive 421-a must designate an administering agent, at 15 sites in New York City, 4 of which tax benefits. “This approach of using a usually a nonprofit, who will be respon- are mixed-income housing develop- voluntary program that permits the use sible for ensuring compliance with the ments with inclusionary units. Half of of tax incentives and public subsidies,” regulatory agreement. the households in the study are offered says Miriam Colón, assistant com- affordable housing (treatment group), missioner of the Division of Housing To date, the city’s inclusionary housing and the other half are eligible for Incentives, “allows greater flexibility program has created more than 4,500 affordable housing but do not receive it without straining city resources.” So units of affordable housing; of these, (control group). Fewer than 5 percent

19 of the applicants, representing a wide and behavior that result from moving In 2003, Chicago adopted its inclu- range of household types with incomes to mixed-income housing at an inclusionary ordinance, also known as the between 40 and 80 percent of AMI, sionary housing site in the city. Findings Affordable Requirements Ordinance apply with a voucher or any type of from the HUD-funded study will be (ARO). The original ARO applied housing assistance before moving into released later this year, with the final only to developments of 10 or more affordable housing. “We are trying to findings from the broader study slated units that received land or financial understand how moving to subsidized for release in early 2015.20 assistance from the city.24 Following an housing influences physical and mental intense campaign by advocacy groups, health, educational, and child develop- City of Chicago’s Affordable including the Chicago Rehab Network ment outcomes,” says Gaumer, director Requirements Ordinance and Business and Professional People of research at the Housing Department. With 2.7 million residents, Chicago is for the Public Interest (BPI), the city the nation’s third-largest city. The city expanded the ARO near the height The researchers have completed a pilot lost nearly 7 percent of its population of the housing market in 2007. “We study of an inclusionary housing site from 2000 to 2010 as residents moved were losing affordability rapidly due to in Williamsburg (one of the rezoned to outer suburbs or migrated to other the heightened pace of the market and areas), where they followed a cohort of parts of the country; in particular, the wanted to use the market momentum to households from time of application African-American population declined generate affordable housing,” explains through a two-year period. “We saw very by almost 17 percent.21 Some of this Kara Breems, project manager with strong, positive differences between population loss has been attributed the city’s Department of Housing and individuals who were offered housing at to a lack of affordable housing, espe- Economic Development.25 this site relative to the matched control cially in central city areas undergoing group,” says Gaumer. “In addition to gentrification. In a 2010 report detail- The ARO currently applies to all rental direct outcomes, such as significantly ing housing affordability in Chicago, and for-sale projects with at least 10 lower rent burden and higher housing the Chicago Rehab Network notes that residential units that require certain quality, we saw lower rates of asthma “traditionally middle- and working-class zoning changes, include land pur- symptoms, marginally lower rates of neighborhoods are showing growing chased from the city, receive financial depression and anxiety, and significantly indications of housing stress,” with assistance from the city, or are within a greater perception of safety as well as significant increases in the number planned development in a downtown lower rates of neighborhood disorder,” of cost-burdened households.22 City- zoning district. At least 10 percent of she adds. A smaller study within the wide, roughly 54 percent of renter units in these developments must be much broader setting of this random- households and 49 percent of owner set aside for lower-income households; ized control trial, funded by HUD, will households pay more than 30 percent the requirement jumps to 20 percent look at the changes in social networks of their income toward housing costs.23 if a development receives financial assistance from the city.26 The ARO does not offer cost offsets, but the requirements that trigger the ordinance, such as zoning changes that increase density and financial assistance from the city, are regarded as compensations built into the program.27

Unlike New York City, Chicago does not allow offsite provision; however, developers have the option to pay fees ($100,000 per unit, adjusted for inflation based on the CPI) in lieu of building the affordable units. The collected fees are applied to the City of Chicago Afford- able Housing Opportunity Fund. Sixty percent of the housing fund’s revenues are used for construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing, and the rest go to the Chicago Low-Income Hous- ing Trust Fund, a city-supported rental 28 Condo developments in Chicago’s Loop area include affordable ownership units produced under the ARO. assistance program. “The in-lieu fees

20 the land trust and receive the initial purchase price plus a percentage of appreciation on resale. Property taxes for land trust homes are assessed based on the affordable price, keeping housing costs low for buyers. Affordability of units not monitored by the land trust is ensured through a junior mortgage or second 30-year lien.33

In addition to the ARO, the city admin- isters a voluntary density bonus program that provides floor area increases in certain downtown zoning districts to developers who provide onsite affordable units or make in-lieu payments to the housing opportunity fund; the nearly decade-old program has gener- City of Chicago Department Housing and Economic Development For-sale ARO units in this development are under the stewardship of the Chicago Community Land Trust. ated more than $25 million in fees as of June 2012. Another voluntary program provide a flexible pool of money that integration goal of IZ policies. Calavita that was created in 2001 and is currently the city uses to develop multifamily and Mallach write that “while a strategy inactive, the Chicago Partnership for rental housing for low-income families, of collecting in lieu fees from down- Affordable Neighborhoods (CPAN), among other things,” says Breems. town developers may result in more offered developers incentives, such housing units [at alternative sites], it as fee waivers and reimbursement for In 2011 and 2012, the ARO generated could also perpetuate the concentration certain expenses, in exchange for set- more than $3.5 million of in-lieu fees of affordable housing in lower-income ting aside at least 10 percent of units in because most developers opted out of areas with sizable minority populations.”31 a for-sale development for households building actual units. “There was very earning no more than 100 percent little development happening during Affordability and Integration of AMI. The city council eliminated this time and what was happening was Rental units created under the ARO are fee waivers in 2012, essentially ending geared toward the higher-income seg- required to be affordable to households CPAN.34 ment of the population in downtown earning no more than 60 percent of locations. Given the high cost of con- AMI, whereas the for-sale units are tar- Chicago’s expanded ARO went into struction in these areas, it makes sense geted to households with incomes at or effect shortly before the collapse of the that developers chose to pay in-lieu below 100 percent of AMI. The afford- housing market, which makes assessing fees,” notes Breems. She expects this ability levels are calculated based on the the program’s effectiveness difficult.35 will start to change as the market picks median income of the Chicago metro- At the time of adoption, the ordinance up across the entire city.29 politan area, which is much higher than was expected to generate an estimated that of the city itself. Program critics 1,000 affordable units or a matching Although an option to pay in-lieu argue that to adequately serve Chicago’s amount of in-lieu fees per year.36 To fees provides developers and locali- lower-income households, the afford- date, the ARO has created 568 af- ties with more flexibility, critics argue ability thresholds should be either set as fordable units with hundreds more that these fees do not always reflect a lower percentage of the metropolitan under development.37 According to the true cost of creating affordable area AMI or based on the city AMI.32 the RAND report, 39 percent of the housing, particularly in areas with Currently, both rental and for-sale units city’s IZ units produced through the high land prices. “If the goal of an must remain affordable for a minimum ARO and CPAN programs are located inclusionary program is to create afford- of 30 years. Most of the for-sale ARO in low-poverty neighborhoods (as of able housing in areas of opportunity units are placed under the stewardship 2005–2009), defined as “a census block and most developers are choosing the of the Chicago Community Land Trust, group with up to 10 percent of house- in-lieu fee option,” says Adam Gross, which the city established in 2006 to holds in poverty.” By comparison, 93 director of BPI’s Affordable Housing “preserve the long-term affordability percent of IZ units in Irvine, California, Program, “this suggests that the fee of homes” created through various and 89 percent of IZ units in Montgom- is set too low.”30 Such an alternative city programs. Buyers are required to ery County, Maryland were found to also undermines the economic enter into a 99-year deed covenant with be in low-poverty neighborhoods.

21 14 New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. 2011. “Selected Initial Findings Developer opt-outs included in New York and of the 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey,” 3–4; New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. 2010. “New Housing Chicago programs highlight the tradeoffs be- Marketplace Plan,” 3. 15 In the areas designated for inclusionary housing, tween increasing the affordable housing supply developers receive 1.25 square feet of bonus floor area, up to the maximum allowable FAR, for every and creating mixed-income developments. square foot of affordable housing provided. 16 Interview with Miriam Colón, February 2013; Email correspondence with Miriam Colón. 17 Maximum resale price for inclusionary homeowner- The inclusionary units are also located to encourage developer participation ship units is the appreciation cap or appreciated in only four percent of the city’s neigh- but also highlight the tradeoffs between price, whichever is lowest. The appreciation cap is based on a mortgage amount that is affordable to borhoods, but these neighborhoods increasing the affordable housing families earning 125 percent of AMI at the time of are more affluent, have a higher percent- supply and creating mixed-income resale. The appreciated price is the product of original sale or resale price of a home and the change in the age of adults with a college degree, and developments. appreciation index as defined in Section 23-913 of the Zoning Resolution. “Inclusionary Housing Program: are more racially diverse than neigh- 1 The term “inclusionary zoning” is sometimes used Overview.” New York City Department of Housing borhoods without inclusionary units. interchangeably with “inclusionary housing,” but Preservation and Development website (www.nyc. Of the 11 jurisdictions studied in the experts distinguish inclusionary zoning as one (albeit gov/html/hpd/html/developers/inclusionary.shtml). principal) form of inclusionary housing. Inclusion- Accessed 6 February 2013. RAND report, Chicago was the only ary housing refers to a wide range of strategies that 18 one in which “IZ neighborhoods had localities implement to increase housing opportunities Email correspondence with Miriam Colón. for low- and moderate-income residents. Alan Mallach. 19 Schwartz et al., 28. more markers of advantage than non-IZ 1984. Inclusionary Housing Programs: Policies and 20 Interview with Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Elyzabeth neighborhoods — an indication that Practices, New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Gaumer, January 2013. new residential development within Research, 2. 21 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Community 2 Innovative Housing Institute. 2010. “Inclusionary Survey. the city (of which IZ units were a small Housing Survey: Measures of Effectiveness,” 7. 22 The report notes that “housing stress exists due to the share) was typically marketed to attract 3 Heather L. Schwartz, Liisa Ecola, Kristin J. Leuschner, lack of affordable housing and the resulting housing new households with higher incomes.” and Aaron Kofner. 2012. Is Inclusionary Zoning Inclu- and income mismatch.” Chicago Rehab Network. sionary? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 13–21. 2010. “Building Our Future Chicago: A Toolkit for The average income of residents moving 4 Nico Calavita and Alan Mallach, eds. 2010. Inclusionary Residents and Community Leaders,” 21. into the inclusionary units was about Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, 23 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Commu- 57 percent of AMI.38 Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Cambridge, nity Survey. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 36–8. 24 Nicholas Brunick. 2007. “Case Studies in Inclusionary 5 Nicholas Brunick, Lauren Goldberg, and Susannah Housing,” Zoning Practice 3: 2. Conclusion Levine. 2004. “Voluntary or Mandatory Inclusionary 25 Interview with Kara Breems, February 2013. Housing? Production, Predictability, and Enforce- Inclusionary zoning has emerged as a 26 “Affordable Requirements Ordinance.” City of Chicago ment,” Business and Professional People for the Public website (www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/ proven strategy to address the shortage Interest, 2–9. supp_info/affordable_housingrequirementsordi- 6 of affordable housing with the potential Robert Hickey. 2013. “After the Downturn: New Chal- nance.html). Accessed 5 March 2013. lenges and Opportunities for Inclusionary Housing,” 27 Interview with Kara Breems. for creating socially and economically Policy Brief, Center for Housing Policy, 4. 28 “Affordable Requirements Ordinance.” integrated communities. Hundreds of 7 New York City Planning Commission. 1987. “Inclusionary jurisdictions have adopted IZ poli- Housing Alternative,” 2. 29 Email correspondence with Kara Breems, March 2013. 8 The base allowable floor area ratio (FAR) in an R10 cies that vary broadly in how they are 30 district is 10 and can be increased to a maximum of Email correspondence with Adam Gross, March 2013. structured, and these differences can 12 FAR. FAR is the ratio of total square footage of a 31 Calavita and Mallach, 39. influence outcomes related to housing building to the site area. Depending on a project’s 32 Email correspondence with Adam Gross. The 2011 construction type and financing structure, the R10 production and integration. The ex- median household income for the Chicago metro- program provides 1.25 to 3.5 square feet of bonus politan area was $57,267 and the 2011 median house- amples discussed in this article, while not floor area for every square foot of affordable floor hold income for the city of Chicago was $43,628. U.S. representative of most localities with IZ area provided. “Inclusionary Housing Program,” City Census Bureau. 2011 American Community Survey of New York website (www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ 1-Year Estimates. zone/zh_inclu_housing.shtml). Accessed 2 February policies, show that inclusionary zoning is 33 The city records a 30-year lien for an amount that 2013. more effective in markets where housing equals the difference between the market price of 9 A range of floor area bonus ratios are offered depend- demand is high. An incentive-based the unit at the time of purchase and the affordable ing on whether the units are provided through new price. In the event of noncompliance the owner or approach combined with strong public construction, rehabilitation, or the preservation of seller is required to repay the lien amount to the city. subsidies is creating and preserving existing housing. Interview with Kara Breems. 10 New York City Planning Commission, 13. 34 affordable housing in New York City, Email correspondence with Peter Strazzabosco, 11 Email correspondence with Miriam Colón, March deputy commissioner, City of Chicago Department whereas Chicago’s mandatory citywide 2013. of Housing and Economic Development, February program is resulting in long-term hous- 12 New York City Department of City Planning. 2006. 2013. 35 ing opportunities for lower-income “New York City Population Projections by Age/Sex & Email correspondence with Adam Gross. Borough 2000–2030,” 5. 36 Chicago Rehab Network. 2007. “Analysis of the DOH residents. Developer opt-outs included 13 Median household income is $51,270 for the city of Quarterly Report: 1st Quarter, 2007,” 1. in both programs — offsite construction New York. U.S. Census Bureau. American Community 37 Email correspondence with Peter Strazzabosco. Survey, 2007-2011; Median household income for renter 38 Schwartz et al., 12–7. in New York City and in-lieu fees in Chi- households in 2010 was $38,447. U.S. Census Bureau, cago — provide the flexibility needed 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey.

22 Additional Resources

n “Finding Common Ground: The Impor- n “Creating Defensible Space” (1996), n “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on tance of Place Attachment to Community by Oscar Newman, uses case studies Local Housing Markets: Lessons from Participation and Planning” (2006), by to illustrate how the physical layout of the San Francisco, Washington DC and Lynne C. Manzo and Douglas D. Perkins, communities can help people control Suburban Boston Areas” (2007), by develops a framework for understanding areas around their homes and preserve Jenny Schuetz et al., looks at the char- the psychological dimensions of people’s the areas in which residents can realize acteristics of jurisdictions that adopted interaction with community that empha- commonly held values and lifestyles. inclusionary zoning policies, subse- sizes place attachments and meaning, www.huduser.org/portal/publications/ quent affordable housing production, and along with social and political aspects of pubasst/defensib.html. the effect on the housing markets of the community participation. jpl.sagepub. study areas. n com/content/20/4/335.abstract. “Inequality Rising and Permanent Over www.nhc.org/iz-supplements.html. Past Two Decades” (2013), by Jason n “Seven Strategies for Successfully Mar- DeBacker et al., investigates the perma- n “Expanding Housing Opportunities keting and Stabilizing the Occupancy of nent-versus-transitory nature of rising through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties” household income inequality in the U.S. from Two Counties” (2012), by the Urban (2006), by NeighborWorks America, uses www.brookings.edu/about/projects/ Institute, presents case studies of inclu- eight case studies to identify successful bpea/latest-conference/2013-spring- sionary zoning programs in Montgomery management and marketing practices for permanent-inequality-panousi. County, Maryland and Fairfax County, properties serving mixed- to low-income Virginia to evaluate their effectiveness n families. www.nw.org/network/aboutUs/ “Housing Policy is School Policy: Eco- in increasing the supply of affordable pubs/applied.asp. nomically Integrative Housing Promotes housing units. www.huduser.org/portal/ Academic Success in Montgomery publications/affhsg/HUD_496.html. n “Neighborhood Effects on the Long- County, Maryland” (2010), by Heather Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults” Schwartz, looks into the impact of n Mixed-Income Development Study (2012), by Jens Ludwig et al., uses data economic integration, achieved through Research Briefs (nos. 1–8), School from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) inclusionary zoning and other housing of Social Service Administration at demonstration to assess the long-term programs, on school performance The University of Chicago, summarize impacts on low-income adults that move outcomes for disadvantaged children major results of a multiyear, two-phased to less distressed areas. www.sci- in Montgomery County, Maryland. study that investigated the early imple- encemag.org/content/337/6101/1505. old.tcf.org/publications/2010/10/hous- mentation and community-building abstract. ing-policy-is-school-policy. processes at three, new mixed-income developments in Chicago and is now n “Social Seams in Mixed-Income Neigh- n “Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective exploring the ideas and assumptions borhoods: A Case Study of Garfield and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence behind mixed-income development policy Square Park” (2009), by Tessa Munekiyo from Los Angeles and Orange Counties” and how the strategy affects communi- and Karen Chapple, explores how social (2010), by Vinit Mukhija et al., examines ties and their residents. ssascholars. interaction occurs within a diverse inclusionary zoning programs’ structure, uchicago.edu/mixed-income-develop- mixed-income neighborhood with an ability to deliver affordable housing, and ment-study. analysis of informal socializing and other effect on housing markets in Los Angeles uses made of a nearby park. and Orange Counties. www.onlineli- For additional resources archive, go to www.communityinnovation.berkeley. brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467- www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/ edu/publications.html. 9906.2010.00495.x/abstract. additional_resources_2013.html.

Evidence Matters Discuss this issue on the Evidence Matters Forum at Rachelle Levitt: Editor www.huduser.org/forums. Keith Fudge: Managing Editor You can subscribe to Authors: Evidence Matters at Laura Tach, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, www.huduser.org/ Cornell University portal/evidence.html. Sage Computing staff

23 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development PRESORTED HUD USER FIRST-CLASS MAIL P.O. Box 23268 POSTAGE & FEES PAID Washington, DC 20026—3268 HUD PERMIT NO. G—795 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Return Service Requested

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research www.hud.gov/policy n 800.245.2691