- Email: [email protected]
Coming home: Resident satisfaction regarding return to a revitalized HOPE VI community
Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Coming home: Resident satisfaction regarding return to a revitalized HOPE VI community Dawn Jourdan a,⇑, Shannon Van Zandt b, Edward Tarlton b a b
Division of Regional and City Planning, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 18 April 2013
a b s t r a c t Over the past 50 years, housing advocates have aggressively lobbied for the deconcentration of pockets of poverty in urban areas. These efforts have been welcomed by those who seek to bring new life to these areas through the implementation of urban revitalization strategies, such as the introduction of new mixed use and income developments. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOPE VI program is based on these principles. Federal funds have been used to demolish public housing in areas of concentrated poverty to make way for mixed use development. While much is known about the effect of displacement on the original occupants of the demolished housing, little is known about the experiences of the residents who are able to move back to these revitalized areas. Employing a case study approach, this research seeks to understand the attitudes of the original residents of a public housing community in Beaumont, Texas, as they return to new housing opportunities on and in the vicinity of the redeveloped site. The findings of this five year study reveal a sense of optimism by the residents who have returned about the future of the slowly transitioning neighborhood. Specifically, they cite great satisfaction with the new developments and a strong belief that, because of the HOPE VI redevelopment, the neighborhood will eventually become more prosperous. The degree to which this optimism will be supported by actual neighborhood change is presently undetermined. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Since the 1950s housing policy in the US and abroad has focused, at least in part, on deconcentrating pockets of urban poverty in an effort to provide the urban poor with access to better living conditions. Concentrations of poverty are associated with a myriad of social problems, including crime, unemployment, teenage pregnancies, and poor school performance, to name a few (BrooksGunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Seland, 1993; Coulton, Korbin, & Su, 1996; Galster, Metzger, & Waite, 1999; Goetz, 2003; Wilson, 1987). In seeking to solve the social and economic problems associated with concentrated poverty, governments have implemented a host of strategies to revitalize these places, many of which have resulted in the displacement of existing poor populations (Bolt & van Kempen, 2011). The goal of many of these initiatives, particularly those that seek to demolish housing occupied by the poor, is to redistribute the negative externalities associated with poverty across metropolitan areas. Some housing advocates herald such efforts as an opportunity for both neighborhood revitalization and for displaced residents to move to far less segregated areas of the city. As part of these efforts, demolished low income housing is re⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Jourdan), [email protected] (S. Van Zandt), [email protected] (E. Tarlton). 0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.006
placed with new communities that are diverse in terms of housing types, economic functions and population. Fundamental to this practice is a hope that such efforts will improve the quality of life for those relocated as a result of efforts to revitalize these areas. However, these urban revitalization strategies often fail to take into account the possibility that neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty can be a ‘‘. . . haven for integration and adaptation’’ (Dunn, 1998). Further, they often do not take account of the relocation grief experienced by some residents, particularly the elderly and disabled, who must find new lodging, even if such relocations are only temporary (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). The HOPE VI program, the primary public housing policy in the US during the 1990s and 2000s, seeks to mitigate the grief effects experienced by some displaced residents by promising the opportunity to return to the revitalized community (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). While the waiting lists for these communities can be long, the reoccupancy rates for previous inhabitants are typically very low, hovering between 10% and 13%. Why do so few people return home? Federal law mandates that the new communities be mixed income. As such, only 1/3 of the new units are dedicated for public housing tenants. In addition, the federal government does not mandate a 1–1 replacement of demolished public housing units. This may mean that there are even fewer available public housing units on site than before. In addition, developers who own and manage these mixed income communities are allowed to place
440
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
restrictions on tenants. These restrictions may require new inhabitants to be drug-free, felony-free, and have good credit, among other exclusionary requirements. Little is currently known about the experiences of those displaced tenants who return to the revitalized HOPE VI communities. Some early evidence suggests that increases in neighboring behaviors may be higher among families that moved within these newly revitalized mixed communities (Kleit, 2005). This study seeks to understand the conditions that greet residents who return to these communities that have been reengineered for housing diversification. Employing a single case study approach, this longitudinal study seeks to understand the attitudes of residents of Magnolia Gardens in Beaumont, Texas who were displaced as a result of the award of a HOPE VI revitalization grant and subsequently allowed to return to the new mixed income housing communities that replaced the public housing complex.
Literature review Plans to deconcentrate poverty often necessitate the demolition of low income housing, including well-established public housing communities that are often home to a city’s poorest residents. For some residents, the relocation is welcome. They embrace these revitalization efforts as an opportunity to move to better housing in more prosperous neighborhoods through the use of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs. For others, the move means more of the same: another unit in a public housing community not too dissimilar from the one they have just been forced to vacate. The move can be particularly traumatic for children, the elderly and disabled, who may manifest symptoms of grief for the rest of their lives (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). Policymakers have seemingly failed to understand that a sense of community may exist even in these places that so desperately seem to require intervention (Bolt & van Kempen, 2011). In policy circles, aggressive demolition and relocation practices are deemed acceptable because of the anticipated positive effects of creating mixed use communities (Arthurson, 2002; Bolt & van Kempen, 2011; Tunstall, 2003). The HOPE VI program seeks to present a design solution to many of the problems associated with the concentration of poverty. At the heart of the program is a mandate for the creation of new communities that provide a variety of housing types that will draw people of varying incomes to previously poor neighborhoods. As Talen hypothesizes, ‘‘when this diversity happens in a place such as a neighborhood, it is possible that diverse populations can find something they share in common, since they occupy a shared world’’ (2002, p. 178). It is in this shared world where the poor and the affluent interact that policymakers believe the negative behaviors associated with concentrations of poverty disappear (Kleit, 2001). According to some scholars, such transformations have the power to enhance the lives of those who previously lived in public housing (Briggs, 1997; Brophy & Smith, 1997; Kleit, 2001). However, these findings with respect to the newly developed HOPE VI communities are not yet supported by empirical evidence (Kleit, 2005). Critics of mixed-income developments suggest, among other issues, that this revitalization strategy is insufficient because it fails to address the structural conditions that continue to perpetuate the concentration of poverty, including racial dynamics (Joseph & Chaskin, 2010, p. 2349). Housing choice vouchers offer the promise of better performing neighborhoods in other parts of the city. Yet the majority of those displaced typically find that they are moved to other substandard public housing located in similarly segregated neighborhoods. Even those with vouchers find their options limited by a dearth of landlords willing to accept vouchers and restrictions on acceptable rents set by HUD’s fair market rental
values (Bacon, 2006). The few that have the opportunity to move back to the new mixed-income community that replaced the substandard public housing may not find their new middle-class neighbors particularly welcoming either (Briggs, 1997; Kearns & Mason, 2007; Lees, 2008; Posthumus, 2013). Beyond replacing distressed public housing, the HOPE VI program seeks to improve the surrounding neighborhoods. This, in theory, is accomplished through the deconcentration of poverty and by demonstrating that physical redevelopment can be successful, which entices market forces into previously undesirable areas. There is some evidence that this model of revitalization has been successful. In some cases, the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI communities appear to be performing better after the onslaught of revitalization efforts than they did prior to the redevelopment of the public housing communities. The magnitude of the spillover effects caused by a HOPE VI revitalization project is a function of both the location and market dynamics of the neighborhood (Zielenbach & Voith, 2010). Zielenbach and Voith (2010, p. 124) contend that federal dollars are best spent to redevelop public housing in areas ‘‘. . . near a job center, transportation infrastructure, and local retail . . .’’ Further, such redevelopment efforts are most successful at triggering neighborhood revitalization if the neighborhood already has institutional anchors and, of course, if development is already in process (Zielenbach & Voith, 2010, p. 124). Based on this knowledge, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) who have competed for HOPE VI funds capitalize on the presence of these amenities in their grant applications. Presumably, HUD takes these factors, among others, into account when trying to decide how to spend the limited funds available to them as a part of this grant program. Not all distressed public housing sites are appropriate candidates for HOPE VI revitalization projects. Many of the public housing communities most in need of revitalization are located in neighborhoods that are plagued by social issues which would limit the overall responsiveness of such areas to redevelopment efforts. Castells (2010) has demonstrated that those places plagued with problems such as drugs and crime may not be quick to respond to such stimuli. This has led some to question: . . . whether investment should target the neediest, most distressed neighborhoods or those neighborhoods that show some sign of stability or social organization and therefore may have a greater capacity to take advantage of additional resources (Castells, 2010, p. 85). HOPE VI grants are awarded by HUD as a part of a competitive grant cycle. Revitalization grants are typically given to PHAs who demonstrate the need for redevelopment as well as the likelihood of success of the project. In some instances, need outweighs the probability of success. In these cases, particularly, the likelihood that the new mixed neighborhood will be successful is diminished given the absence of market demand. Sometimes, displaced residents find their way back to the neighborhoods from which they have been relocated. Little is known about what residents that seek to reinhabit these communities may expect upon returning to their new homes in these familiar neighborhoods. Early evidence suggests that public housing residents may expect to return to high quality units that are well integrated with market rate units and mixed or within close proximity to newly built single family units. The expectation is that the new inhabitants of the revitalized communities will be welcomed into affordable housing that has been designed to foster neighboring relationships (Curley, 2010). However, the development of mixed neighborhoods alone may not produce high levels of social interaction and neighboring behavior (Brophy & Smith, 1997); instead, active efforts to foster social relationship may be
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
required (Curley, 2010). This case study seeks to begin to fill this existing gap in knowledge.
441
renamed Pointe North and replaced with 158 units of rental housing (79 public housing and 79 market-rate).
Methodology Context for the study Magnolia Gardens, built in 1953, was a 195 unit public housing project located in the North End neighborhood of Beaumont, Texas. This neighborhood is located in close proximity to the City’s historic downtown. Like many of the neighborhoods in Beaumont, the area surrounding Magnolia Gardens is economically and racially segregated. In the early 2000s, the Beaumont Housing Authority began making plans to demolish Magnolia Gardens. These plans were further necessitated as a result of Hurricane Rita on September 24, 2005.
Newly-redeveloped fairgrounds site, now called Regent I. Photo by Shannon Van Zandt. Both sites (Regent I and Pointe North) were designed to be mixed-income communities, with a mixture of one- and two-story townhouses, garden, and walk-up homes. In total, 380 new units were built, of which 195 are public housing replacement units. A third area, Regent II is currently under construction and will result in the development of 87 single-family residences on the periphery of the Regent I site. The viability of this phase of the project has been slowed as a result of the declining housing market. Study parameters
The original Magnolia Gardens public housing complex experienced moderate damage from 2005s Hurricane Rita. Photo by Shannon Van Zandt. Magnolia Gardens suffered substantial additional physical damage – roofs and siding blew away, trees fell through units, and mold began to proliferate throughout the units – making total demolition of the development the most viable option for dealing with the decaying property. The Beaumont Housing Authority (BHA) received a HOPE VI Revitalization Grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2007, at least in part as a result of the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the City’s public housing stock, including Magnolia Gardens. The City met the BHA’s plans to demolish Magnolia Gardens enthusiastically, perceiving this as an opportunity to help curb suburban sprawl by providing high-quality affordable housing choices close to the area targeted by the City’s Downtown Master Plan. In an effort to leverage federal HOPE VI funds, the City donated a 28 acre site (hereinafter referred to as Regent I) less than a mile from Magnolia Gardens for the construction of 222 units: 139 rental (70 public housing and 69 market-rate) and 83 for-sale (46 affordable and 37 market-rate). Construction began on the fairgrounds site simultaneous to the relocation of residents from Magnolia Gardens. Relocated residents who wished to do so were able to relocate to Regent I during the summer of 2009. Three years after the award of the grant, relocated residents were given priority in moving into Regent I. A year later, the BHA opened the new mixed income residential community located on the site of the original Magnolia Gardens. Magnolia Gardens was
A qualitative, case study approach was employed to study the attitudes of those public housing residents who were displaced as a result of the award of a HOPE VI Revitalization grant to the BHA in 2007 and have since had the opportunity to return to the revitalizing neighborhood. This case study provides a look into relocation practices as it sheds light on efforts by the BHA to return displaced residents to the revitalized area in an expedited fashion. The BHA was able to accomplish an expedited reentry into the neighborhood for those who sought it as a result of its purchase of a second parcel of property in the neighborhood for redevelopment. Three years after the award of the HOPE VI Revitalization Grant, relocated residents were given priority in moving into Regent I. A year later, the BHA opened the doors at Pointe North, the new residential community located on the site of the original Magnolia Gardens. As part of its HOPE VI Revitalization Grant, BHA contracted with researchers at the Center for Housing and Urban Development at Texas A&M University in 2007 to study the effects on the relocated residents, neighborhood business, and the community as a whole. This paper focuses specifically on the effects of the redevelopment on 12 families from Magnolia Gardens who later returned to the neighborhood to living in the new communities. Seven families returned to Regent I and five to Point North. The data from the in-depth interviews was further supplemented by additional interviews with BHA staff, city employees, and other project stakeholders, as well as focus groups with new residents to both housing communities, and questionnaires completed annually by the 12 displaced residents between 2007 and 2011. The responses from the general and in-depth interviews, as well as the focus groups, were selectively coded and triangulated with both field observations and the survey responses. While the sample size for this study is small, the data are instructive in helping
442
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
illuminate the issues faced by the residents of one newly revitalized mixed use and mixed income community. Analysis Resident satisfaction with the newly developed mixed communities of Regent I and Pointe North is very high, in spite of any evidence of real neighborhood change, as more fully described below. To better understand the high levels of optimism about the future of neighborhood, attention must be paid to the experiences and feelings of those who were displaced from Magnolia Gardens as a result of the award of the HOPE VI Revitalization grant. Concerns regarding relocation Very little of the relocation literature focuses on the unique opportunity for displaced residents to make an expedited return to their old neighborhoods. Residents from Magnolia Gardens were relocated in May and June 2007. They greeted the relocation with mixed reactions, which is consistent with the majority of studies related to relocation grief (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). Nearly half of those participating in the in-depth interviews (12 families) expressed some degree of excitement about having the opportunity to relocate to single family residences as a result of the housing choice vouchers made available to them. These residents characterized the public housing and surrounding neighborhood as, ‘‘wretched,’’ ‘‘gross and messy,’’ and the ‘‘Wild, wild, west.’’ One resident described the public housing as ‘‘a home, because I had to be there.’’ Another said, ‘‘There was not much to like, except that it was home.’’ The majority of those interviewed particularly the elderly and disabled, expressed anxieties about moving. More than half of those participating in the in-depth interviews indicated that they were interested in relocating to the new developments upon completion. The primary motivations of those seeking the opportunity to return included a strong attachment to the North End neighborhood and the opportunity to live in a new unit. One returning resident expressed her excitement about moving to the new community: ‘‘I’ve always wanted to be the first person to live in a new place. This is like a dream.’’ Promises by BHA of the opportunity to return to the North End neighborhood so quickly appear to have reduced the level of anxiety experienced by some of those who were temporarily relocated. One young mother said, ‘‘I am really happy to be going home. I’ve missed the neighborhood.’’ Yet, the majority of residents indicated that they would have been satisfied with renovations of the Magnolia Gardens public housing community. As one resident stated, ‘‘I had a nice place [at Magnolia Gardens.] A new roof and a little paint was all we needed.’’ Three suggested that living in the new communities was ‘‘about the same’’ as living in Magnolia Gardens. These comments should be qualified by noting that these residents had been satisfied with living in Magnolia Gardens previously. Still others embraced the opportunity to move away from the neighborhood with the aid of housing choice vouchers. These residents did not express a desire to return. In general, residents spoke very little about the new fact that these new communities were to be mixed use and income, and what this would mean for their new lives. Perhaps this fact serves as some evidence of the disconnect between housing policy and its intended users, where residents are not made to understand the social intervention associated with HOPE VI revitalization efforts. Experiences during relocation During the relocation period, the 12 families participating in the in-depth interviews remained progressively positive about the
relocation process. In the first two waves of the study, only about half of the families interviewed stated that they felt that their new home was as good as or better than when they lived at Magnolia Gardens. However, three years out from relocation, the number of satisfied families rose to three-quarters of those interviewed. Those expressing some level of dissatisfaction identified space issues or conflicts with new neighbors, but were quick to note that their caseworkers were helping them to address those problems. The majority of the residents expressed equal satisfaction with treatment by case managers throughout the relocation period. It is important to note that case management efforts are heightened as a result of the award of HOPE VI revitalization grants. Continued feelings of optimism may have remained high during the relocation period as a result of the added care and attention that relocated residents received during their period of displacement. Coming back ‘‘Home’’ Seven of the 12 families participating in the in-depth interviews moved into Regent I beginning in 2009. One year later, the remaining five families moved into Pointe North, the development that sits on the original site. These families have been included in this study because they have returned to their old neighborhood with many of the same neighbors who occupied Magnolia Gardens. In both sites, the residents indicated a high level of satisfaction with their new units and communities. Most returning residents expressed great enthusiasm to be the first person living in a new unit – an experience that they had not collectively had prior to reoccupancy. As one resident explained, ‘‘My kids feel proud when they tell their friends where they live. That makes me feel good as a parent.’’ These same feelings were expressed by families paying market rate rents for the units in these communities who participated in the focus groups and surveys. Connections within the new mixed-income communities have also grown over time. In surveys of new residents (some of which are original residents, and some of which are not), many indicated that they now have friends living in their development in previous years, these numbers have been extremely low, during the last year of evaluation, we saw a marked increase. The majority of Regent I and Pointe North residents stated that they have gotten to know their neighbors. All felt that, while they might not grow closer to everyone, they could see having more personal and intimate relationships with more people than they do now. In the Pointe North neighborhood, one of the residents stated that ‘‘we might not get along with everyone, but we are all we have!’’ While generally satisfied with their units and immediate development, the original residents of Magnolia Gardens were quick to point out that not much had changed in the neighborhood. Many of the businesses that supported the North End neighborhood closed subsequent to the demolition of Magnolia Gardens, including the Lucky Strike grocery store. Economic activity has been stymied in the area, partly attributable to recent shifts in the national economy. The residents are sympathetic to these constraints. Many have become accustomed to using public transportation or relying on friends with private automobiles to carry them to other commercial areas where goods and services are better. Residents are optimistic that the neighborhood will change over time and greet new businesses like the Dollar General, a discount chain that frequently locates in areas with an absence of a strong commercial presence. Safety concerns have not been alleviated by the redevelopment. The original residents of Magnolia Gardens continue to cite safety as a concern. Magnolia Gardens was a gated community. While the gate did not prevent crimes from occurring within the community, residents reported that it provided them with a sense of security. When asked to help identify design features for the replacement
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
communities, the residents requested additional security, including gates. HUD strongly advised against the gating of the new communities, in part, because of the importance of integrating HOPE VI communities into existing neighborhoods. Compromise was later reached as the developer secured the entrances and exits of both communities with gates. Yet residents reported that these gates were operable for less than a month and never repaired. Residents believe that this lack of security has led to an increase in crime within the communities. Nearly all the interviewed residents at Regent I reported concerns about crime in their new community. A number of residents mentioned instances of theft perpetrated by those who were not residents of Regent I. In addition, a shooting in the first year of operations at Pointe North colored the residents’ first impressions. The residents’ perceptions are substantiated by crime data for the area. Crime rates in the neighborhood remain high. Property crime rates are up significantly: burglary; theft; and auto theft. Violent crime rates are declining, except in the instance of assault, which rose 207% in the period 2007–2011. Given the continued elevated levels of criminal activity in the area, residents at Pointe North have formed a neighborhood watch group. The Beaumont Police Department has appointed a liaison to advise and assist the neighborhood watch. This relationship has led to increased responsiveness by the Beaumont Police Department. As one social worker explained: At first, if we called 911, it would take ten, fifteen to twenty minutes, but now if we call them, they will dispatch someone right away. It’s nice to have developed a relationship, for us, our residents, and the police. One of the aspirations of the HOPE VI program has been the regeneration of the neighborhoods where distressed public housing communities once sat. In theory, revitalization occurs when poverty is deconcentrated and a new and diverse set of residents take hold in the area. With these new residents, economic opportunities in the area expand and crime rates decrease. Whether this result follows is a product of a number of factors, including the market demand which accompanies these economic shifts. Even in the best circumstances, the guarantee that all of these factors will align is small. Evidence that such a transition is occurring in this Beaumont community is limited, in large part because of the national recession which has had a particularly dramatic impact on low income people in eastern Texas. Still, some signs are positive. An assessment of census data suggests that incomes in the revitalization area have risen, while incomes in the city and county have actually declined. Poverty rates have also declined somewhat, and housing quality has improved modestly during the period of assessment. Lending in the revitalization area has been stagnant, a reflection of a tight credit and a depressed housing market (Van Zandt, Tarlton, Martin, Jourdan, & Giusti, 2012). Unilaterally, the returning residents expressed optimism that the neighborhood would begin to revitalize as the national economy begins to improve. This hope is more a product of faith and patience than of any evidence of economic potential for the area. City officials will be left to continue promoting economic development opportunities in the area. Without aggressive and continued efforts to continue the transformation, the likelihood of creating a truly mixed income and mixed use community is limited. Despite limited improvements in economic and social conditions, the physical redevelopment of the area has made a marked change. According to Robert Reyna, Director of the Beaumont Housing Authority, The removal of [Magnolia Gardens] and replacement with Pointe North has had a major impact on just the curb appeal alone. . . They are eye catching. What we’ve done here. It’s something to
443
look at. I mean when you ride by you can see what we have done and you see what is there now... you say to yourself. . .I wouldn’t mind living there. . .and you see what is there now. . .you may say to yourself. . .I wouldn’t mind living there. It’s that kind of thing. . .people start to have a sense of upward mobility, thinks become possible. That’s where I think we sparked a little hope in the community. Passersby also perceive the community more positively as a result of the new construction. One city planner reiterated this point: The perception of the community has changed with the HOPE VI development. The neighborhood is cleaner, there are less [sic] people hanging out on the streets, and the two developments have curb appeal. . .It’s a long process to get things completely changed, but what we have now is a big difference from the past. The planner attributed this change in perception, at least in part, to the requirement that the residents of these communities must be working, going to school, or participating in job training. Similar sentiments were expressed by representatives from the Beaumont Transit Authority who expressed positive perceptions regarding the new neighborhood as well as enhanced views of the housing authority and its leadership. The change in perception was also clear in comments offered by a representative of Habitat for Humanity, a charitable organization who was previously reluctant to build homes in the neighborhood. This informant stated a new belief that the redevelopment of Magnolia Gardens ‘‘. . .improves the image of affordable housing and housing assistance’’ in the neighborhood. Representatives from this organization hope that this positive image will remain as developers begin to discuss the possibility of mixed income developments in other parts of the City. A positive image alone is not sufficient to ensure that these new developments will lead to a the development of a successful mixed community, particularly since The PHA has not been able to fully realize the promises made in its HOPE VI application. The PHA promised to build out an 83 unit subdivision comprised of single family homes alongside the Regent I development. However, the collapse of the real estate market in 2008 has been a major barrier to these plans. As aptly described by the project’s construction manager, Sometimes you can do everything in your power, but it’s not meant to be because there are other factors. If we had hit that in 2005 we would have had people throwing money at us to build homes, but 2008 put an end to that.
Conclusions HOPE VI communities typically offer the promise of a new way of living for residents who have lived in neighborhoods with high degrees of concentrated poverty. It is not unexpected that those displaced as part of HOPE VI revitalizations might want to come home to the new mixed use communities that occupy the sites of the demolished public housing. The redevelopment of Magnolia Gardens provided interested residents the ability to return to the neighborhood even before the redevelopment of the original site was completed. When they returned, the new occupants were greeted with new, high quality housing stock. Some relocation grief they may have experienced was likely mitigated, in part, by the opportunity to return quickly coupled with high quality case management throughout the period of displacement. However, the neighborhood conditions that greeted them upon their quick return were only slightly improved. The current recession has undoubtedly impeded redevelopment in the area. Only time will
444
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
tell if these new housing complexes will lead to the regeneration of the surrounding neighborhood. In spite of this uncertainty, the returning residents are happy to be home and optimistic about the opportunities that the revitalization process has given them. It is too early to tell whether this optimism will translate into long term neighborhood transformation. However, there is some evidence that perceptions of the neighborhood have shifted. As Director Reyna explains, ‘‘Developers want to see homes, people and the ability for value creation, and we are preparing the canvas for that.’’ As previously discussed, the timing of this study is inopportune given national decline in the housing market. Beaumont, Texas, like many places, has been hard hit by the economic recession. Beaumont has long been a more depressed economy than most of metropolitan Texas, and this is reflected in many economic indicators, including residential lending, income levels, and unemployment (Van Zandt et al., 2012). The recession has affected the overall success of this redevelopment process in two primary ways. First, the decline in the housing market has made it impossible for the PHA to live up to its promise to develop single family homes at Regent II. Access to loans for the acquisition of affordable housing is much more difficult to secure given the present economic downturn. Commercial growth has also been slow in the area. This may also be explained, in part, by the lack of growth in the national and local economy. While the results of this study are limited due to sample size, among other factors, there is some evidence that an early return to a revitalizing mixed use neighborhood may lessen the impacts traditionally associated with relocation grief. The ability to return home quickly to brand new units engendered a high degree of optimism in those who were displaced by the HOPE VI revitalization of Magnolia Gardens. Further, the excitement of returning to a new unit was enough, at least in the short run, to temper concerns that the neighborhood had not yet transitioned to a place of higher economic prosperity. It is unclear, at this point, how long those positive feelings will hold if the neighborhood does not begin to transition after the recession ends. What is clear from reviewing the HOPE VI literature is the uniqueness of each project. While federal policy provides an opportunity to remove distressed public housing from areas where concentrations of poverty are present, the BHA did not seek to limit the number of residents returning to the neighborhood. In fact, efforts were made to relocate residents within the neighborhood during the revitalization period. BHA was responsive to the desire of the displaced residents, placing less emphasis on using the available housing choice vouchers to move all families to more affluent neighborhoods, as often expected as a part of similar revitalization efforts. The special attention paid to relocation and expedited return went a long way in reducing the relocation grief often experienced as a result of displacement. However, it is possible that such decisions may interfere with the overall success of the revitalization as the effort may not yield much progress in the overall goal of deconcentrating poverty. Future studies of similar redevelopment strategies should consider the balance between honoring
the desires of residents to remain in the neighborhood versus efforts that focus more directly on creating communities with economically diverse residents. This information will be useful to future policymakers as they attempt to measure the success of the HOPE VI initiative in producing viable mixed income communities. References Arthurson, K. (2002). Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: A critical relationship or tenuous link? Urban Policy and Research, 20(3), 1–29. Bacon, L. (2006). Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey: Creating a meaningful choice for housing choice voucher holders. DePaul Law Review, 55, 1273. Bolt, G., & van Kempen, R. (2011). Succesful mixing? Effects of urban restructuring policies in Dutch neighbourhoods. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102(3), 361–368. Briggs, X. (1997). Moving up versus moving out: Researching and interpreting neighborhood effects in housing mobility programs. Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), 195–234. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Seland, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 353–395. Brophy, P. C., & Smith, R. N. (1997). Mixed-income housing: Factors for success. Cityscape, 3(2), 3–31. Castells, N. (2010). HOPE VI neighborhood spillover effects in Baltimore. Cityscape, 12(1), 65–97. Coulton, C., Korbin, J., & Su, M. (1996). Measuring neighborhood context for young children in urban areas. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 5–32. Curley, A. (2010). Neighborhood institutions, facilities, and public space: A missing link for HOPE VI residents’ development of social capital? Cityscape, 12(1), 33–64. Dunn, K. M. (1998). Rethinking ethnic concentration: The case of Cambramatta, Sydney. Urban Studies, 35, 503–525. Galster, G., Metzger, K., & Waite, R. (1999). Neighborhood opportunity structures and immigrants’ socioeconomic advancement. Journal of Housing Research, 10, 95–127. Goetz, E. (2003). Clearing the way: Deconcentration the poor in urban America. Washington: The Urban Institute. Joseph, M., & Chaskin, R. (2010). Living in a mixed-income development: Resident perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of two developments in Chicago. Urban Studies, 47(11), 2347–2366. Jourdan, D. (2008a). Enhancing HOPE VI revitalization processes with participation. Journal of the Community Development Society, 39(2), 75–90. Jourdan, D. (2008b). Reducing pre-relocation grief with participation in a HOPE VI grant application process. International Journal of Public Participation, 39(3), 75–92. Kearns, A., & Mason, P. (2007). Mixed tenure communities and neighborhood quality. Housing Studies, 22(5), 661–691. Kleit, R. (2001). The role of neighborhood social networks in scattered-site public housing residents’ search for jobs. Housing Policy Debate, 2, 541–574. Kleit, R. (2005). HOPE VI new communities: Neighborhood relationships in mixedincome housing. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1413–1441. Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies, 45(12), 2449–2470. Posthumus, H., (2013). When displaced tenants move in. A Rotterdam case study on the role of the inflow of displaced tenants in perceived neighborhood decline. Cities (this issue). Tunstall, R. (2003). Mixed tenure policy in the UK: Privatization, pluralism or euphemism? Housing, Theory and Society, 20, 153–159. Van Zandt, S., Tarlton, E., Martin, J., Jourdan, D., & Giusti, C. (2012). Magnolia Gardens HOPE VI final evaluation. College Station, TX: Center for Housing and Urban Development, Texas A&M University. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Zielenbach, S., & Voith, R. (2010). HOPE VI neighborhood economic development: The importance of local market dynamics. Cityscape, 12(1), 99–132.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Coming home: Resident satisfaction regarding return to a revitalized HOPE VI community Dawn Jourdan a,⇑, Shannon Van Zandt b, Edward Tarlton b a b
Division of Regional and City Planning, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 18 April 2013
a b s t r a c t Over the past 50 years, housing advocates have aggressively lobbied for the deconcentration of pockets of poverty in urban areas. These efforts have been welcomed by those who seek to bring new life to these areas through the implementation of urban revitalization strategies, such as the introduction of new mixed use and income developments. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOPE VI program is based on these principles. Federal funds have been used to demolish public housing in areas of concentrated poverty to make way for mixed use development. While much is known about the effect of displacement on the original occupants of the demolished housing, little is known about the experiences of the residents who are able to move back to these revitalized areas. Employing a case study approach, this research seeks to understand the attitudes of the original residents of a public housing community in Beaumont, Texas, as they return to new housing opportunities on and in the vicinity of the redeveloped site. The findings of this five year study reveal a sense of optimism by the residents who have returned about the future of the slowly transitioning neighborhood. Specifically, they cite great satisfaction with the new developments and a strong belief that, because of the HOPE VI redevelopment, the neighborhood will eventually become more prosperous. The degree to which this optimism will be supported by actual neighborhood change is presently undetermined. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Since the 1950s housing policy in the US and abroad has focused, at least in part, on deconcentrating pockets of urban poverty in an effort to provide the urban poor with access to better living conditions. Concentrations of poverty are associated with a myriad of social problems, including crime, unemployment, teenage pregnancies, and poor school performance, to name a few (BrooksGunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Seland, 1993; Coulton, Korbin, & Su, 1996; Galster, Metzger, & Waite, 1999; Goetz, 2003; Wilson, 1987). In seeking to solve the social and economic problems associated with concentrated poverty, governments have implemented a host of strategies to revitalize these places, many of which have resulted in the displacement of existing poor populations (Bolt & van Kempen, 2011). The goal of many of these initiatives, particularly those that seek to demolish housing occupied by the poor, is to redistribute the negative externalities associated with poverty across metropolitan areas. Some housing advocates herald such efforts as an opportunity for both neighborhood revitalization and for displaced residents to move to far less segregated areas of the city. As part of these efforts, demolished low income housing is re⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Jourdan), [email protected] (S. Van Zandt), [email protected] (E. Tarlton). 0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.006
placed with new communities that are diverse in terms of housing types, economic functions and population. Fundamental to this practice is a hope that such efforts will improve the quality of life for those relocated as a result of efforts to revitalize these areas. However, these urban revitalization strategies often fail to take into account the possibility that neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty can be a ‘‘. . . haven for integration and adaptation’’ (Dunn, 1998). Further, they often do not take account of the relocation grief experienced by some residents, particularly the elderly and disabled, who must find new lodging, even if such relocations are only temporary (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). The HOPE VI program, the primary public housing policy in the US during the 1990s and 2000s, seeks to mitigate the grief effects experienced by some displaced residents by promising the opportunity to return to the revitalized community (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). While the waiting lists for these communities can be long, the reoccupancy rates for previous inhabitants are typically very low, hovering between 10% and 13%. Why do so few people return home? Federal law mandates that the new communities be mixed income. As such, only 1/3 of the new units are dedicated for public housing tenants. In addition, the federal government does not mandate a 1–1 replacement of demolished public housing units. This may mean that there are even fewer available public housing units on site than before. In addition, developers who own and manage these mixed income communities are allowed to place
440
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
restrictions on tenants. These restrictions may require new inhabitants to be drug-free, felony-free, and have good credit, among other exclusionary requirements. Little is currently known about the experiences of those displaced tenants who return to the revitalized HOPE VI communities. Some early evidence suggests that increases in neighboring behaviors may be higher among families that moved within these newly revitalized mixed communities (Kleit, 2005). This study seeks to understand the conditions that greet residents who return to these communities that have been reengineered for housing diversification. Employing a single case study approach, this longitudinal study seeks to understand the attitudes of residents of Magnolia Gardens in Beaumont, Texas who were displaced as a result of the award of a HOPE VI revitalization grant and subsequently allowed to return to the new mixed income housing communities that replaced the public housing complex.
Literature review Plans to deconcentrate poverty often necessitate the demolition of low income housing, including well-established public housing communities that are often home to a city’s poorest residents. For some residents, the relocation is welcome. They embrace these revitalization efforts as an opportunity to move to better housing in more prosperous neighborhoods through the use of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs. For others, the move means more of the same: another unit in a public housing community not too dissimilar from the one they have just been forced to vacate. The move can be particularly traumatic for children, the elderly and disabled, who may manifest symptoms of grief for the rest of their lives (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). Policymakers have seemingly failed to understand that a sense of community may exist even in these places that so desperately seem to require intervention (Bolt & van Kempen, 2011). In policy circles, aggressive demolition and relocation practices are deemed acceptable because of the anticipated positive effects of creating mixed use communities (Arthurson, 2002; Bolt & van Kempen, 2011; Tunstall, 2003). The HOPE VI program seeks to present a design solution to many of the problems associated with the concentration of poverty. At the heart of the program is a mandate for the creation of new communities that provide a variety of housing types that will draw people of varying incomes to previously poor neighborhoods. As Talen hypothesizes, ‘‘when this diversity happens in a place such as a neighborhood, it is possible that diverse populations can find something they share in common, since they occupy a shared world’’ (2002, p. 178). It is in this shared world where the poor and the affluent interact that policymakers believe the negative behaviors associated with concentrations of poverty disappear (Kleit, 2001). According to some scholars, such transformations have the power to enhance the lives of those who previously lived in public housing (Briggs, 1997; Brophy & Smith, 1997; Kleit, 2001). However, these findings with respect to the newly developed HOPE VI communities are not yet supported by empirical evidence (Kleit, 2005). Critics of mixed-income developments suggest, among other issues, that this revitalization strategy is insufficient because it fails to address the structural conditions that continue to perpetuate the concentration of poverty, including racial dynamics (Joseph & Chaskin, 2010, p. 2349). Housing choice vouchers offer the promise of better performing neighborhoods in other parts of the city. Yet the majority of those displaced typically find that they are moved to other substandard public housing located in similarly segregated neighborhoods. Even those with vouchers find their options limited by a dearth of landlords willing to accept vouchers and restrictions on acceptable rents set by HUD’s fair market rental
values (Bacon, 2006). The few that have the opportunity to move back to the new mixed-income community that replaced the substandard public housing may not find their new middle-class neighbors particularly welcoming either (Briggs, 1997; Kearns & Mason, 2007; Lees, 2008; Posthumus, 2013). Beyond replacing distressed public housing, the HOPE VI program seeks to improve the surrounding neighborhoods. This, in theory, is accomplished through the deconcentration of poverty and by demonstrating that physical redevelopment can be successful, which entices market forces into previously undesirable areas. There is some evidence that this model of revitalization has been successful. In some cases, the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI communities appear to be performing better after the onslaught of revitalization efforts than they did prior to the redevelopment of the public housing communities. The magnitude of the spillover effects caused by a HOPE VI revitalization project is a function of both the location and market dynamics of the neighborhood (Zielenbach & Voith, 2010). Zielenbach and Voith (2010, p. 124) contend that federal dollars are best spent to redevelop public housing in areas ‘‘. . . near a job center, transportation infrastructure, and local retail . . .’’ Further, such redevelopment efforts are most successful at triggering neighborhood revitalization if the neighborhood already has institutional anchors and, of course, if development is already in process (Zielenbach & Voith, 2010, p. 124). Based on this knowledge, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) who have competed for HOPE VI funds capitalize on the presence of these amenities in their grant applications. Presumably, HUD takes these factors, among others, into account when trying to decide how to spend the limited funds available to them as a part of this grant program. Not all distressed public housing sites are appropriate candidates for HOPE VI revitalization projects. Many of the public housing communities most in need of revitalization are located in neighborhoods that are plagued by social issues which would limit the overall responsiveness of such areas to redevelopment efforts. Castells (2010) has demonstrated that those places plagued with problems such as drugs and crime may not be quick to respond to such stimuli. This has led some to question: . . . whether investment should target the neediest, most distressed neighborhoods or those neighborhoods that show some sign of stability or social organization and therefore may have a greater capacity to take advantage of additional resources (Castells, 2010, p. 85). HOPE VI grants are awarded by HUD as a part of a competitive grant cycle. Revitalization grants are typically given to PHAs who demonstrate the need for redevelopment as well as the likelihood of success of the project. In some instances, need outweighs the probability of success. In these cases, particularly, the likelihood that the new mixed neighborhood will be successful is diminished given the absence of market demand. Sometimes, displaced residents find their way back to the neighborhoods from which they have been relocated. Little is known about what residents that seek to reinhabit these communities may expect upon returning to their new homes in these familiar neighborhoods. Early evidence suggests that public housing residents may expect to return to high quality units that are well integrated with market rate units and mixed or within close proximity to newly built single family units. The expectation is that the new inhabitants of the revitalized communities will be welcomed into affordable housing that has been designed to foster neighboring relationships (Curley, 2010). However, the development of mixed neighborhoods alone may not produce high levels of social interaction and neighboring behavior (Brophy & Smith, 1997); instead, active efforts to foster social relationship may be
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
required (Curley, 2010). This case study seeks to begin to fill this existing gap in knowledge.
441
renamed Pointe North and replaced with 158 units of rental housing (79 public housing and 79 market-rate).
Methodology Context for the study Magnolia Gardens, built in 1953, was a 195 unit public housing project located in the North End neighborhood of Beaumont, Texas. This neighborhood is located in close proximity to the City’s historic downtown. Like many of the neighborhoods in Beaumont, the area surrounding Magnolia Gardens is economically and racially segregated. In the early 2000s, the Beaumont Housing Authority began making plans to demolish Magnolia Gardens. These plans were further necessitated as a result of Hurricane Rita on September 24, 2005.
Newly-redeveloped fairgrounds site, now called Regent I. Photo by Shannon Van Zandt. Both sites (Regent I and Pointe North) were designed to be mixed-income communities, with a mixture of one- and two-story townhouses, garden, and walk-up homes. In total, 380 new units were built, of which 195 are public housing replacement units. A third area, Regent II is currently under construction and will result in the development of 87 single-family residences on the periphery of the Regent I site. The viability of this phase of the project has been slowed as a result of the declining housing market. Study parameters
The original Magnolia Gardens public housing complex experienced moderate damage from 2005s Hurricane Rita. Photo by Shannon Van Zandt. Magnolia Gardens suffered substantial additional physical damage – roofs and siding blew away, trees fell through units, and mold began to proliferate throughout the units – making total demolition of the development the most viable option for dealing with the decaying property. The Beaumont Housing Authority (BHA) received a HOPE VI Revitalization Grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2007, at least in part as a result of the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the City’s public housing stock, including Magnolia Gardens. The City met the BHA’s plans to demolish Magnolia Gardens enthusiastically, perceiving this as an opportunity to help curb suburban sprawl by providing high-quality affordable housing choices close to the area targeted by the City’s Downtown Master Plan. In an effort to leverage federal HOPE VI funds, the City donated a 28 acre site (hereinafter referred to as Regent I) less than a mile from Magnolia Gardens for the construction of 222 units: 139 rental (70 public housing and 69 market-rate) and 83 for-sale (46 affordable and 37 market-rate). Construction began on the fairgrounds site simultaneous to the relocation of residents from Magnolia Gardens. Relocated residents who wished to do so were able to relocate to Regent I during the summer of 2009. Three years after the award of the grant, relocated residents were given priority in moving into Regent I. A year later, the BHA opened the new mixed income residential community located on the site of the original Magnolia Gardens. Magnolia Gardens was
A qualitative, case study approach was employed to study the attitudes of those public housing residents who were displaced as a result of the award of a HOPE VI Revitalization grant to the BHA in 2007 and have since had the opportunity to return to the revitalizing neighborhood. This case study provides a look into relocation practices as it sheds light on efforts by the BHA to return displaced residents to the revitalized area in an expedited fashion. The BHA was able to accomplish an expedited reentry into the neighborhood for those who sought it as a result of its purchase of a second parcel of property in the neighborhood for redevelopment. Three years after the award of the HOPE VI Revitalization Grant, relocated residents were given priority in moving into Regent I. A year later, the BHA opened the doors at Pointe North, the new residential community located on the site of the original Magnolia Gardens. As part of its HOPE VI Revitalization Grant, BHA contracted with researchers at the Center for Housing and Urban Development at Texas A&M University in 2007 to study the effects on the relocated residents, neighborhood business, and the community as a whole. This paper focuses specifically on the effects of the redevelopment on 12 families from Magnolia Gardens who later returned to the neighborhood to living in the new communities. Seven families returned to Regent I and five to Point North. The data from the in-depth interviews was further supplemented by additional interviews with BHA staff, city employees, and other project stakeholders, as well as focus groups with new residents to both housing communities, and questionnaires completed annually by the 12 displaced residents between 2007 and 2011. The responses from the general and in-depth interviews, as well as the focus groups, were selectively coded and triangulated with both field observations and the survey responses. While the sample size for this study is small, the data are instructive in helping
442
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
illuminate the issues faced by the residents of one newly revitalized mixed use and mixed income community. Analysis Resident satisfaction with the newly developed mixed communities of Regent I and Pointe North is very high, in spite of any evidence of real neighborhood change, as more fully described below. To better understand the high levels of optimism about the future of neighborhood, attention must be paid to the experiences and feelings of those who were displaced from Magnolia Gardens as a result of the award of the HOPE VI Revitalization grant. Concerns regarding relocation Very little of the relocation literature focuses on the unique opportunity for displaced residents to make an expedited return to their old neighborhoods. Residents from Magnolia Gardens were relocated in May and June 2007. They greeted the relocation with mixed reactions, which is consistent with the majority of studies related to relocation grief (Jourdan, 2008a, 2008b). Nearly half of those participating in the in-depth interviews (12 families) expressed some degree of excitement about having the opportunity to relocate to single family residences as a result of the housing choice vouchers made available to them. These residents characterized the public housing and surrounding neighborhood as, ‘‘wretched,’’ ‘‘gross and messy,’’ and the ‘‘Wild, wild, west.’’ One resident described the public housing as ‘‘a home, because I had to be there.’’ Another said, ‘‘There was not much to like, except that it was home.’’ The majority of those interviewed particularly the elderly and disabled, expressed anxieties about moving. More than half of those participating in the in-depth interviews indicated that they were interested in relocating to the new developments upon completion. The primary motivations of those seeking the opportunity to return included a strong attachment to the North End neighborhood and the opportunity to live in a new unit. One returning resident expressed her excitement about moving to the new community: ‘‘I’ve always wanted to be the first person to live in a new place. This is like a dream.’’ Promises by BHA of the opportunity to return to the North End neighborhood so quickly appear to have reduced the level of anxiety experienced by some of those who were temporarily relocated. One young mother said, ‘‘I am really happy to be going home. I’ve missed the neighborhood.’’ Yet, the majority of residents indicated that they would have been satisfied with renovations of the Magnolia Gardens public housing community. As one resident stated, ‘‘I had a nice place [at Magnolia Gardens.] A new roof and a little paint was all we needed.’’ Three suggested that living in the new communities was ‘‘about the same’’ as living in Magnolia Gardens. These comments should be qualified by noting that these residents had been satisfied with living in Magnolia Gardens previously. Still others embraced the opportunity to move away from the neighborhood with the aid of housing choice vouchers. These residents did not express a desire to return. In general, residents spoke very little about the new fact that these new communities were to be mixed use and income, and what this would mean for their new lives. Perhaps this fact serves as some evidence of the disconnect between housing policy and its intended users, where residents are not made to understand the social intervention associated with HOPE VI revitalization efforts. Experiences during relocation During the relocation period, the 12 families participating in the in-depth interviews remained progressively positive about the
relocation process. In the first two waves of the study, only about half of the families interviewed stated that they felt that their new home was as good as or better than when they lived at Magnolia Gardens. However, three years out from relocation, the number of satisfied families rose to three-quarters of those interviewed. Those expressing some level of dissatisfaction identified space issues or conflicts with new neighbors, but were quick to note that their caseworkers were helping them to address those problems. The majority of the residents expressed equal satisfaction with treatment by case managers throughout the relocation period. It is important to note that case management efforts are heightened as a result of the award of HOPE VI revitalization grants. Continued feelings of optimism may have remained high during the relocation period as a result of the added care and attention that relocated residents received during their period of displacement. Coming back ‘‘Home’’ Seven of the 12 families participating in the in-depth interviews moved into Regent I beginning in 2009. One year later, the remaining five families moved into Pointe North, the development that sits on the original site. These families have been included in this study because they have returned to their old neighborhood with many of the same neighbors who occupied Magnolia Gardens. In both sites, the residents indicated a high level of satisfaction with their new units and communities. Most returning residents expressed great enthusiasm to be the first person living in a new unit – an experience that they had not collectively had prior to reoccupancy. As one resident explained, ‘‘My kids feel proud when they tell their friends where they live. That makes me feel good as a parent.’’ These same feelings were expressed by families paying market rate rents for the units in these communities who participated in the focus groups and surveys. Connections within the new mixed-income communities have also grown over time. In surveys of new residents (some of which are original residents, and some of which are not), many indicated that they now have friends living in their development in previous years, these numbers have been extremely low, during the last year of evaluation, we saw a marked increase. The majority of Regent I and Pointe North residents stated that they have gotten to know their neighbors. All felt that, while they might not grow closer to everyone, they could see having more personal and intimate relationships with more people than they do now. In the Pointe North neighborhood, one of the residents stated that ‘‘we might not get along with everyone, but we are all we have!’’ While generally satisfied with their units and immediate development, the original residents of Magnolia Gardens were quick to point out that not much had changed in the neighborhood. Many of the businesses that supported the North End neighborhood closed subsequent to the demolition of Magnolia Gardens, including the Lucky Strike grocery store. Economic activity has been stymied in the area, partly attributable to recent shifts in the national economy. The residents are sympathetic to these constraints. Many have become accustomed to using public transportation or relying on friends with private automobiles to carry them to other commercial areas where goods and services are better. Residents are optimistic that the neighborhood will change over time and greet new businesses like the Dollar General, a discount chain that frequently locates in areas with an absence of a strong commercial presence. Safety concerns have not been alleviated by the redevelopment. The original residents of Magnolia Gardens continue to cite safety as a concern. Magnolia Gardens was a gated community. While the gate did not prevent crimes from occurring within the community, residents reported that it provided them with a sense of security. When asked to help identify design features for the replacement
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
communities, the residents requested additional security, including gates. HUD strongly advised against the gating of the new communities, in part, because of the importance of integrating HOPE VI communities into existing neighborhoods. Compromise was later reached as the developer secured the entrances and exits of both communities with gates. Yet residents reported that these gates were operable for less than a month and never repaired. Residents believe that this lack of security has led to an increase in crime within the communities. Nearly all the interviewed residents at Regent I reported concerns about crime in their new community. A number of residents mentioned instances of theft perpetrated by those who were not residents of Regent I. In addition, a shooting in the first year of operations at Pointe North colored the residents’ first impressions. The residents’ perceptions are substantiated by crime data for the area. Crime rates in the neighborhood remain high. Property crime rates are up significantly: burglary; theft; and auto theft. Violent crime rates are declining, except in the instance of assault, which rose 207% in the period 2007–2011. Given the continued elevated levels of criminal activity in the area, residents at Pointe North have formed a neighborhood watch group. The Beaumont Police Department has appointed a liaison to advise and assist the neighborhood watch. This relationship has led to increased responsiveness by the Beaumont Police Department. As one social worker explained: At first, if we called 911, it would take ten, fifteen to twenty minutes, but now if we call them, they will dispatch someone right away. It’s nice to have developed a relationship, for us, our residents, and the police. One of the aspirations of the HOPE VI program has been the regeneration of the neighborhoods where distressed public housing communities once sat. In theory, revitalization occurs when poverty is deconcentrated and a new and diverse set of residents take hold in the area. With these new residents, economic opportunities in the area expand and crime rates decrease. Whether this result follows is a product of a number of factors, including the market demand which accompanies these economic shifts. Even in the best circumstances, the guarantee that all of these factors will align is small. Evidence that such a transition is occurring in this Beaumont community is limited, in large part because of the national recession which has had a particularly dramatic impact on low income people in eastern Texas. Still, some signs are positive. An assessment of census data suggests that incomes in the revitalization area have risen, while incomes in the city and county have actually declined. Poverty rates have also declined somewhat, and housing quality has improved modestly during the period of assessment. Lending in the revitalization area has been stagnant, a reflection of a tight credit and a depressed housing market (Van Zandt, Tarlton, Martin, Jourdan, & Giusti, 2012). Unilaterally, the returning residents expressed optimism that the neighborhood would begin to revitalize as the national economy begins to improve. This hope is more a product of faith and patience than of any evidence of economic potential for the area. City officials will be left to continue promoting economic development opportunities in the area. Without aggressive and continued efforts to continue the transformation, the likelihood of creating a truly mixed income and mixed use community is limited. Despite limited improvements in economic and social conditions, the physical redevelopment of the area has made a marked change. According to Robert Reyna, Director of the Beaumont Housing Authority, The removal of [Magnolia Gardens] and replacement with Pointe North has had a major impact on just the curb appeal alone. . . They are eye catching. What we’ve done here. It’s something to
443
look at. I mean when you ride by you can see what we have done and you see what is there now... you say to yourself. . .I wouldn’t mind living there. . .and you see what is there now. . .you may say to yourself. . .I wouldn’t mind living there. It’s that kind of thing. . .people start to have a sense of upward mobility, thinks become possible. That’s where I think we sparked a little hope in the community. Passersby also perceive the community more positively as a result of the new construction. One city planner reiterated this point: The perception of the community has changed with the HOPE VI development. The neighborhood is cleaner, there are less [sic] people hanging out on the streets, and the two developments have curb appeal. . .It’s a long process to get things completely changed, but what we have now is a big difference from the past. The planner attributed this change in perception, at least in part, to the requirement that the residents of these communities must be working, going to school, or participating in job training. Similar sentiments were expressed by representatives from the Beaumont Transit Authority who expressed positive perceptions regarding the new neighborhood as well as enhanced views of the housing authority and its leadership. The change in perception was also clear in comments offered by a representative of Habitat for Humanity, a charitable organization who was previously reluctant to build homes in the neighborhood. This informant stated a new belief that the redevelopment of Magnolia Gardens ‘‘. . .improves the image of affordable housing and housing assistance’’ in the neighborhood. Representatives from this organization hope that this positive image will remain as developers begin to discuss the possibility of mixed income developments in other parts of the City. A positive image alone is not sufficient to ensure that these new developments will lead to a the development of a successful mixed community, particularly since The PHA has not been able to fully realize the promises made in its HOPE VI application. The PHA promised to build out an 83 unit subdivision comprised of single family homes alongside the Regent I development. However, the collapse of the real estate market in 2008 has been a major barrier to these plans. As aptly described by the project’s construction manager, Sometimes you can do everything in your power, but it’s not meant to be because there are other factors. If we had hit that in 2005 we would have had people throwing money at us to build homes, but 2008 put an end to that.
Conclusions HOPE VI communities typically offer the promise of a new way of living for residents who have lived in neighborhoods with high degrees of concentrated poverty. It is not unexpected that those displaced as part of HOPE VI revitalizations might want to come home to the new mixed use communities that occupy the sites of the demolished public housing. The redevelopment of Magnolia Gardens provided interested residents the ability to return to the neighborhood even before the redevelopment of the original site was completed. When they returned, the new occupants were greeted with new, high quality housing stock. Some relocation grief they may have experienced was likely mitigated, in part, by the opportunity to return quickly coupled with high quality case management throughout the period of displacement. However, the neighborhood conditions that greeted them upon their quick return were only slightly improved. The current recession has undoubtedly impeded redevelopment in the area. Only time will
444
D. Jourdan et al. / Cities 35 (2013) 439–444
tell if these new housing complexes will lead to the regeneration of the surrounding neighborhood. In spite of this uncertainty, the returning residents are happy to be home and optimistic about the opportunities that the revitalization process has given them. It is too early to tell whether this optimism will translate into long term neighborhood transformation. However, there is some evidence that perceptions of the neighborhood have shifted. As Director Reyna explains, ‘‘Developers want to see homes, people and the ability for value creation, and we are preparing the canvas for that.’’ As previously discussed, the timing of this study is inopportune given national decline in the housing market. Beaumont, Texas, like many places, has been hard hit by the economic recession. Beaumont has long been a more depressed economy than most of metropolitan Texas, and this is reflected in many economic indicators, including residential lending, income levels, and unemployment (Van Zandt et al., 2012). The recession has affected the overall success of this redevelopment process in two primary ways. First, the decline in the housing market has made it impossible for the PHA to live up to its promise to develop single family homes at Regent II. Access to loans for the acquisition of affordable housing is much more difficult to secure given the present economic downturn. Commercial growth has also been slow in the area. This may also be explained, in part, by the lack of growth in the national and local economy. While the results of this study are limited due to sample size, among other factors, there is some evidence that an early return to a revitalizing mixed use neighborhood may lessen the impacts traditionally associated with relocation grief. The ability to return home quickly to brand new units engendered a high degree of optimism in those who were displaced by the HOPE VI revitalization of Magnolia Gardens. Further, the excitement of returning to a new unit was enough, at least in the short run, to temper concerns that the neighborhood had not yet transitioned to a place of higher economic prosperity. It is unclear, at this point, how long those positive feelings will hold if the neighborhood does not begin to transition after the recession ends. What is clear from reviewing the HOPE VI literature is the uniqueness of each project. While federal policy provides an opportunity to remove distressed public housing from areas where concentrations of poverty are present, the BHA did not seek to limit the number of residents returning to the neighborhood. In fact, efforts were made to relocate residents within the neighborhood during the revitalization period. BHA was responsive to the desire of the displaced residents, placing less emphasis on using the available housing choice vouchers to move all families to more affluent neighborhoods, as often expected as a part of similar revitalization efforts. The special attention paid to relocation and expedited return went a long way in reducing the relocation grief often experienced as a result of displacement. However, it is possible that such decisions may interfere with the overall success of the revitalization as the effort may not yield much progress in the overall goal of deconcentrating poverty. Future studies of similar redevelopment strategies should consider the balance between honoring
the desires of residents to remain in the neighborhood versus efforts that focus more directly on creating communities with economically diverse residents. This information will be useful to future policymakers as they attempt to measure the success of the HOPE VI initiative in producing viable mixed income communities. References Arthurson, K. (2002). Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: A critical relationship or tenuous link? Urban Policy and Research, 20(3), 1–29. Bacon, L. (2006). Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey: Creating a meaningful choice for housing choice voucher holders. DePaul Law Review, 55, 1273. Bolt, G., & van Kempen, R. (2011). Succesful mixing? Effects of urban restructuring policies in Dutch neighbourhoods. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102(3), 361–368. Briggs, X. (1997). Moving up versus moving out: Researching and interpreting neighborhood effects in housing mobility programs. Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), 195–234. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Seland, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 353–395. Brophy, P. C., & Smith, R. N. (1997). Mixed-income housing: Factors for success. Cityscape, 3(2), 3–31. Castells, N. (2010). HOPE VI neighborhood spillover effects in Baltimore. Cityscape, 12(1), 65–97. Coulton, C., Korbin, J., & Su, M. (1996). Measuring neighborhood context for young children in urban areas. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 5–32. Curley, A. (2010). Neighborhood institutions, facilities, and public space: A missing link for HOPE VI residents’ development of social capital? Cityscape, 12(1), 33–64. Dunn, K. M. (1998). Rethinking ethnic concentration: The case of Cambramatta, Sydney. Urban Studies, 35, 503–525. Galster, G., Metzger, K., & Waite, R. (1999). Neighborhood opportunity structures and immigrants’ socioeconomic advancement. Journal of Housing Research, 10, 95–127. Goetz, E. (2003). Clearing the way: Deconcentration the poor in urban America. Washington: The Urban Institute. Joseph, M., & Chaskin, R. (2010). Living in a mixed-income development: Resident perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of two developments in Chicago. Urban Studies, 47(11), 2347–2366. Jourdan, D. (2008a). Enhancing HOPE VI revitalization processes with participation. Journal of the Community Development Society, 39(2), 75–90. Jourdan, D. (2008b). Reducing pre-relocation grief with participation in a HOPE VI grant application process. International Journal of Public Participation, 39(3), 75–92. Kearns, A., & Mason, P. (2007). Mixed tenure communities and neighborhood quality. Housing Studies, 22(5), 661–691. Kleit, R. (2001). The role of neighborhood social networks in scattered-site public housing residents’ search for jobs. Housing Policy Debate, 2, 541–574. Kleit, R. (2005). HOPE VI new communities: Neighborhood relationships in mixedincome housing. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1413–1441. Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies, 45(12), 2449–2470. Posthumus, H., (2013). When displaced tenants move in. A Rotterdam case study on the role of the inflow of displaced tenants in perceived neighborhood decline. Cities (this issue). Tunstall, R. (2003). Mixed tenure policy in the UK: Privatization, pluralism or euphemism? Housing, Theory and Society, 20, 153–159. Van Zandt, S., Tarlton, E., Martin, J., Jourdan, D., & Giusti, C. (2012). Magnolia Gardens HOPE VI final evaluation. College Station, TX: Center for Housing and Urban Development, Texas A&M University. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Zielenbach, S., & Voith, R. (2010). HOPE VI neighborhood economic development: The importance of local market dynamics. Cityscape, 12(1), 99–132.