Beyond People Versus Place: A Place-Conscious Framework for Investing in Housing and Neighborhoods

Abstract

This article argues for a next generation of place-conscious strategies that recognize the importance of neighborhoods in the lives of families, but look beyond narrowly defined neighborhood boundaries to address market-wide opportunities and barriers, capitalize on demographic and market trends underway at the regional scale, and envision alternative models of how neighborhoods can function for their residents. It offers five principles for ongoing experimentation and knowledge building: (a) develop citywide strategies that promote both inclusion and redevelopment; (b) anticipate and plan for residential mobility and neighborhood change; (c) connect residents of poor neighborhoods to city and regional opportunities; (d) capitalize on the coming rental housing boom; and (e) use data for continuous learning and accountability. Advancing this agenda will require enhanced capacity for collaboration and governance at the local levels.

Keywords:

• Housing
• community development
• fair housing
• place-based

Notes

1. See Ellen and Turner (1997) and Turner and Rawlings (2009) for reviews of the research literature on neighborhood effects. This literature yields compelling evidence that neighborhood conditions contribute to an individual’s long-term life chances, even after controlling for individual and family characteristics. Also see Coulton, Chan, and Mikelbank (2010) for an exploration of the complexities of defining neighborhoods and neighborhood boundaries as they are experienced by residents, and the implications of this complexity for neighborhood change initiatives.

2. The term neighborhood distress encompasses an interconnected set of problems, including crime and violence; physical and environmental blight; private-sector disinvestment; weak (or absent) institutions and services; high rates of joblessness, dropping out of school, and teen births; and low levels of social capital and collective efficacy. Many researchers use the poverty rate of a census tract as a proxy for neighborhood distress, with tract-level poverty rates above 30 or 40% serving as indicators of severe distress. See Jargowsky (1998) for the seminal research on concentrated neighborhood poverty.

3. Some cities have taken steps to broaden the scope of their neighborhood revitalization initiatives from a (myopic) focus on one neighborhood at a time to citywide strategies working in multiple neighborhoods and applying lessons learned at the neighborhood level to achieve policy and system reforms that apply across all neighborhoods. See Turner et al. (2014) for descriptions of Chicago’s New Communities Program and San Francisco’s HOPE SF.

4. For an excellent exploration of the question of scale in income-mixing initiatives, see Tach, Pendall, and Derian (2014).

5. See for example Pendall and Turner (2014), which presents analysis that groups metro areas into clusters based on regional economic, demographic, and equity indicators.

6. The new rule also encourages localities to work together to develop regional fair housing assessments, even when regions cross state boundaries. And it creates explicit opportunities for public review and input.