Creating mixed-income developments in Chicago: developer and service provider perspectives

Abstract

Mixed-income development has been embraced by policymakers across the country as a promising means of deconcentrating poverty and revitalizing inner-city neighborhoods. The unprecedented scale of Chicago's effort at mixed-income development provides an important opportunity to learn about the possibilities and challenges of this approach. Most of the new developments have completed at least one pre-occupancy phase of construction, marketing, and resident outreach. This paper explores the perspectives of two key actors in the mixed-income development process: private developers and social service providers. In-depth interviews were conducted with 26 individuals working on nine of Chicago's major new mixed-income developments. This qualitative analysis uses the perspectives of these key actors to identify some of the major early challenges of the mixed-income development process in Chicago. Implications for the future of mixed-income development and public housing transformation in Chicago and across the country are considered.

Keywords:

• mixed-income housing
• HOPE VI
• public housing
• development/revitalization

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and a post-doctoral scholarship at the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. Ranada Harrison helped coordinate and conduct data collection and analysis and was assisted by Rachel Boyle, Jessica Feldman, and Tchad Roberts. I thank Cathy Haggerty, Margery Austin Turner, Joseph Hoereth, Roberto Requejo, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts. I am grateful for the time and cooperation of members of the development and social service provider teams who were interviewed and provided information for this study.

Notes

¹This article was finalised in late 2007. While some of the facts on the ground have evolved since that time, the findings and conclusions remain accurate and relevant.

²“Mixed-income development” has been defined as broadly as any development project where the inclusion of tenants of various income levels is a “fundamental part of (the) financial and operating plans” (Brophy and Smith 1997, 5). In the context of the transformation of public housing, mixed-income development includes units reserved for residents of public housing.

³The HOPE VI initiative, originally funded for 10 years was extended in 2002, but received decreased funding in recent years and is currently not included in the federal FY2007 budget. The loss of this major source of large-scale funding has serious implications for the future funding of public housing transformation nationwide (for an overview of HOPE VI see Popkin et al. 2004).

⁴We were not able to interview any representatives at one of the 10 developments.

⁵Area median income is based on the standard metropolitan statistical area. For the Chicago area, 60% of area median income is approximately $45,000 for a household of four and 120% is approximately $90,000.

⁶The Westhaven Park requirements are governed by a 1995 federal consent decree at that site.

⁷972 of the units for public housing residents were completed prior to the official launch of the Plan for Transformation in 2000.

⁸A lawsuit, Wallace versus. CHA, filed in January 2003 on behalf of residents claiming to have been involuntarily displaced and segregated by the CHA was settled in the spring of 2005. A lawsuit filed in 2004 on behalf of residents at the Cabrini-Green development in June 2004, which aimed to delay the pace of eviction and demolition, was also recently settled.

⁹Interviewees explained that, initially, CHA was generating lists that had three times as many households as available units. More recently, to increase the chances of finding eligible and interested residents, the caseloads have been generated at a five to one ratio.

¹⁰Families who do not meet the criteria can be accepted into the developments if they are determined to be “working to meet” the criteria. They can then be given one year to meet the criteria (Metropolitan Planning Council 2005a).