As a member in the group working with the Jeff-Vander-Lou neighborhood this semester, I have been considering the issue of housing for a while now. While researching the history of JVL to better understand the context we will be working in, I was struck by the number of newspaper articles announcing a new housing project for the neighborhood. In almost every piece of news about the area, community developers had found another grant to tear down more buildings and replace them with new complexes, and journalists included another more pictures of buildings that had disintegrated, captioned as the “ghetto” or “slums.” Of course the history of the nearby Pruitt Igoe’s failed housing project adds to this weighty history.
While developers have tried repeatedly to tear down these projects and rebuilt them, new theories have evolved to explain failure and establish new approaches. One of these approaches is to develop mixed-income communities in an effort of poverty deconcentration. The articles I explained below consider whether this new approach is working.
Chaskin and Joseph’s study from 2013 considers interviews of residents and key stakeholders involved in three mixed-income developments in Chicago, reflecting a general movement across Western countries to generate neighborhood revitalization through encouraging higher-income residents to move into previous public-housing areas, with goals to reduce segregation, encourage inclusion, lower crime, and provide better support services. While this movement is considered a “positive gentrification” effort, the article also discusses possible negative effects and motivations that create numerous complications in understanding the potential outcomes of the mixed-income movement. Assumptions include greater access to city benefits and resources for poorer populations as well as an influence in attitudes and behaviors from middle-class residents. Conclusions of this study found that tensions evolve along socioeconomic divisions within these communities in regards to crime, safety, and social order as well as what constitutes as appropriate behavior. Some lower-income residents described an improvement in overall quality and satisfaction with living conditions but also felt continuously at-risk of losing their housing for not complying with “appropriate” behavior standards.
Thompson, Bucerius, and Lugaya’s (2013) article also considers interviews of residents living in recently established mixed-income developments but in Canada. The study found that young males moving into the neighborhood became more likely to commit criminal offenses, to report using marijuana, to develop post-traumatic stress disorder, and to demonstrate negative behaviors such as aggression. Also reported was an increase in vulnerability to crime and violence in the neighborhood overall, argued to be a result of high levels of residential instability. The discussion pointed out the likelihood that these “instability” factors would decrease in neighborhoods able to establish social networks and structures, but that this progression is not guaranteed in every case. The study referenced previous research indicating that these housing projects had successfully improved health, housing satisfaction and feelings of safety in general. While the greater population seems to be benefiting, this report emphasizes from a criminological standpoint the damaging effects on young males.
While these studies point to improvements in health, safety, and quality of housing, some of the results and assumptions behind these developments concern me. Are we increasing the number of youth and young adults who are labeled “at-risk” in our communities? How does the assumption that middle-class attitudes are considered appropriate affect populations from lower socioeconomic backgrounds? Is this approach being used in St. Louis yet? Do you think it could work here?
References
Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (2013, March). 'Positive' gentrification, social control and the 'right to the city' in mixed-income communities: Uses and expectations of space and place. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 480-502. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01158.x
Thompson, S. K., Bucerius, S. M., & Lugaya, M. (2013, June 13). Unintended consequences of neighbourhood restructuring: Uncertainty, disrupted social networks and increased fear of violent victimization among young adults. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 924-941. doi:10.1093/bjc/azt032
It is great to read research on mixed income communities. Long ago in Smyrna, Tennessee, zoning ordinances required this type of neighborhood development. Fifteen years ago the outcome was higher drug use among middle class youth and increase rate of break-ins. You know how children will copy the inappropriate behavior much faster than the nice behavior? Also, parents are usually both at work in the more expensive home leaving latch-key young people 13 and older at home. How many dual working parents really know their neighbors and have time to chat and compare notes? There was a time when young people knew there were numerous eyes watching them and word would definitely get back home.
ReplyDelete