Since its inception three decades ago, Housing Policy Debate has distinguished itself from other scholarly journals by publishing explicit debates on current topics related to housing, neighborhoods, and community development. This month’s issue offers an exemplar of this forum format: “Beyond Opportunity Hoarding.” David Imbroscio engages deeply with one of the core conventional wisdoms of contemporary housing policy in both the U.S. and Western Europe: We can make substantial gains in socioeconomic opportunity by opening up affluent neighborhoods to less advantaged households and achieving a stable “social mix.” He raises a host of important challenges that advocates of this position (me included) ignore at their peril. Five members of our Editorial Board—Lisa Bates, Casey Dawkins, Ingrid Ellen, Andrew Greenlee, and Mike Lens—offer a tantalizing variety of responses. On behalf of Housing Policy Debate, I thank all the Forum authors for their thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.
From an historical perspective, the arguments and counterarguments raised in this Forum resonate with those first advanced over a half-century ago. In the context of widespread urban civil unrest in the mid-1960s triggered by longstanding race/class injustices, housing and community development scholars, policymakers, and advocates squared off along comparable lines to those drawn here (cf. Downs, Citation1968). On one side were those who argued for desegregation; this view was sometimes labelled “dispersing the ghetto” or “opening up the suburbs” (Downs, Citation1973; Grier & Grier, Citation1966; Kain & Persky, Citation1969; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Citation1968). On the other side were those who advocated economic development of disadvantaged, disproportionately minority-occupied urban neighborhoods (Edel, Citation1972; Harrison, Citation1974; Vietorisz & Harrison, Citation1970), often called by opponents “gilding the ghetto.” Some explicitly framed their community development proposals within a broader, structural critique of capitalism (Harvey, Citation1973; CitationTabb, 1970), as Imbroscio does here. This Forum makes clear that this longstanding debate is far from over, and in doing so offers fresh, fascinating perspectives.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
- Downs, A. (1968). Alternative futures for the American Ghetto. Daedalus, 97, 1331–1338.
- Downs, A. (1973). Opening up the suburbs. Yale University Press.
- Edel, M. (1972). Development versus dispersal. In M. Edel and J. Rothenberg (Eds.), Readings in urban economics (pp. 307–324). Macmillan.
- Grier, G., & Grier, E. (1966). Equality and beyond: Housing segregation and the goals of the great society. Quadrangle Books.
- Harrison, B. (1974). Ghetto economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 12, 1–37.
- Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Kain, J., & Persky, J. (1969). Alternatives to the Gilded Ghetto. The Public Interest, 14, 74–87.
- National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. (1968). Report of the National Advisory Commission on civil disorders. Bantam Books.
- Tabb, W. (1970). Political economy of the Black Ghetto. W.W. Norton.
- Vietorisz, M., & Harrison, B. (1970). Economic development of Harlem. Praeger.