Introduction
There is little question that the goals and policies of mixed-income housing in US cities are fundamentally about the transformation of urban space. And yet, despite the centrality of this goal, there are only a few studies to suggest that the transformation of urban space envisioned by its supporters and decried by its opponents is of any great magnitude (GAO, 2003; Holin et al, 2003; Zielenbach, 2003; Turbov and Piper, 2005; Castells, 2010). While these point towards benefits of the spillover effects of HOPE VI (Home ownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere) mixed-income projects, there is variation even within HOPE VI developments in the same city. Many of these empirical studies, as well as more conceptual accounts of the factors which would support neighbourhood transformation, suggest that development pressure, that is, the existence of neighbourhood desirability in relation to other areas of potential investment, are the strongest correlates to change. Studies have not concluded that mixed-income itself has been the cause of neighbourhood change; the two most recent studies on the effect of HOPE VI mixed-income housing development on neighbourhood change have concluded that other development pressures, market dynamics and a host of other amenities (that is, transportation, commercial retail, employment opportunities) may be necessary to transform low-income areas of cities. These factors tend to come together in economically strong cities (Castells, 2010; Zielenbach and Voith, 2010). Further, Goetz (2010) finds that the degree of neighbourhood change is not correlated with positive changes for individual-level outcomes for low-income families.
Based on these and other studies on the effects of HOPE VI for neighbourhood change and individual-level outcomes including the everyday experiences households have in HOPE VI redevelopments, we suggest a call for modesty regarding the impacts of the actual ‘mixed-income’ component of these revitalisation and poverty amelioration initiatives.