Design has played a complicated role in affordable housing in both the U.S. and the UK. These two countries have had fairly different approaches towards their affordable housing policy in the past, but now have both converged to using mixed income housing as a primary method of delivering affordable housing. This report will investigate the role that design plays in the ways that each of these countries administers its mixed income housing programs. Specifically, it will look at how design is used to achieve the goals behind mixed income housing, as well as specific decisions regarding exterior treatment and siting of the units in a mixed income housing development. I will use a case study approach in my research process, focusing on two case studies in the UK, and two case studies in the U.S. In order to obtain my findings, I used key informant interviews, key policy and program documents, and on-site observations. Ultimately, I found that design factors need to be carefully balanced between social equity goals and financial feasibility, and it is important to recognize the limitations of what mixed income housing can achieve for social goals. / text

With the concentration of poverty increasing throughout the United States (Kneebone, 2014) there has been a recent emphasis on mixed-income housing as a means to alleviate this issue. By creating housing in one area with pricing for different income levels it is assumed that the burden imposed by concentrated poverty will be lowered. Many years and many dollars later however, the results of mixed-income housing projects on low-income residents seem to be mixed – while some projects have found success, others seem to suggest that it has little to no effect. The federal program HOPE VI is one example of efforts to increase the availability of mixed-income housing. It is the purpose of this study to decipher whether the administration of HOPE VI federal grant money has had an effect on certain economic outcomes within the selected metropolitan areas.

"Looked into the streets - the glaring lights and the tall buildings - and there I conceived Metropolis" exclaimed the Austrian filmmaker Fritz Lang at the sight of New York. This visit inspired him while creating the sets and background for the radical movie Metropolis released in 1927. Taken right after World War I, the movie set in 2026 was heavily symbolic with German expressionism and it captured a projected socio-economic condition which was a direct result of the fears of the people at that time. The working class lived in subterranean spaces distraught with mundane labor while the affluent lived in skyscrapers and exotic terraced gardens and drove around in elevated highways. The city seemed to be this well-oiled machine existing only to cater to the needs of the upper class. The poor eventually try to overthrow the rich. The movie finally ends with the message of hope, that the mediator would create harmony among the classes and create peaceful coexistence. The city of Mumbai in 2018 is in many ways - the Metropolis. When a city develops, it does not seem to cater to all sects of people. In fact, there seems to be a parallel relationship between the size of the city and its level of socio-economic disparity: the larger the city the less equal it tends to be. More often than not, the true soul of the city lies within that lower stratum of society who often live in slum-like settlements. Can architecture play the Mediator and bring about a connect? / Master of Architecture / At the time of Indian Independence in 1947, Gandhi said that “India is to be found not in its few cities but in its 700,000 villages. Villages were self-sustaining units which were rich in culture and tradition. He believed that the revival of the villages and all its cottage industries, handicrafts and agriculture was India’s answer to development. However in 2018, there are only about 597,464 census villages . At this rate, within a few centuries, India would loose its identity and will look like every other country in the world. Anybody who could afford to travel. moved to the cities. Villages are constantly abandoned and some get engulfed or morphed into cities. Cities grow at such rapid rates with the latest building technologies usually ignoring the needs of the people its supposed to serve. Is the city developed only for the rich and affluent? Can architecture support social inclusion and break down spatial segregation within a megacity? Can we capitalize on a city’s history and rich traditions without destroying them? Can a village survive a city? My thesis attempts to answer some of these questions through case studies, research and finally applying some of these theories and concepts on to a project that involves the redevelopment of a fishing village in the heart of Mumbai, India.

Thesis (M.Dev.) --University of Limpopo, 2015 / One of the fundamental challenges facing post-apartheid South Africa’s urban settlement planning has been the requirement for social cohesion. For this reason, urban transformation interventions involved the construction of mixed-income housing, wherein social cohesion among low- and middle-income households could be enforced. Far from rhetoric and the drift of middle-income households into cities that were previously the preserves for white people, urban South Africa remains deeply segregated. It is against this background that the study assessed the determinants of the manifestation of social cohesion in the Serala View residential area, which consists of diverse races and different socio-economic classes. The study is in a form of a case study, and has adopted the normative together with the historical research design. The study used both primary and secondary data to complement each other. These data is both qualitative and quantitative. A questionnaire was used to collect data from the purposively sampled respondents, and an interview schedule was used to solicit data from the key informants. The International Business Machine-Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM-SPSS) version 22 software was use for analysis, with which a non-parametric t-test was conducted to determine the intensity of the respondents on the different dimensions of social cohesion. Analysis results reveal there are three typologies of mixed-income housing, which are generally recognized in urban areas of many countries, and that the Serala View is a Gated Townhouse Complex typology. Importantly, this typology is mainly identified by six physical characteristics, which are central in determining the manifestations of social cohesion in the gated townhouse complex typology. Importantly, target hardening, which refers to security measures, is considered to be the most important aspect in Serala View residential development. From the analyses and interpretation of the theoretical and empirical evidence, the dissertation concludes that the contributions of mixed-income housing towards social cohesion are mixed and non-straightforward. However, there is theoretical validity of the notion that such an approach could cultivate social cohesion among different socio-economic classes. Results from Serala View Residential area largely confirm this theoretical positioning. This dissertation concedes that implementation discrepancies could be the real elephant in the room, rather than the fault of the idea itself. / National Research Foundation (NRF)

The goal of this thesis is to identify strategies that promote resident empowerment, involvement and cooperation in housing co-operatives that can be applied to mixed-income developments in order to bridge social capital. Numerous American policy makers, housing professionals and planners support the development of mixed-income housing to address the social and economic isolation of low-income, urban citizens living in public housing. Social capital, or social relationships developed from social networks, is an anticipated result of physically integrating individuals of varying income levels in the same housing environment. Despite efforts for integration, numerous studies have found that limited interaction occurs across class in many mixed-income housing developments, which hinders the development of social capital. Some literature points to empowerment, involvement and cooperation as methods of helping bridge social capital in mixed-income housing. Bridging social capital refers to building relationships among people who are demographically dissimilar to one another, such as in age, race or socioeconomic status. In an effort to learn how to bridge social capital through empowerment, involvement and cooperation, the housing co-operative model is analyzed. This research analyses six housing co-operative case studies. The data collected is from websites, published documents, newsletters and other literary sources provided by the co-ops and informal telephone conversations with co-op management staff. The findings indicate that housing management plays a vital role in promoting empowerment, involvement and cooperation. Recommendations include mixed-income housing management encouraging residents to develop and contribute personal skills to accomplish housing goals; housing management soliciting ideas from residents regarding projects or activities that they desire to be involved in; and housing management facilitating group tasks where residents can collectively achieve a goal such as creating a community garden or creating a mural that reflects various cultures or values of residents.

The Village Market is a nonprofit Healthy Corner Store that has been open since May of 2011 in the mixed-use, mixed-income New Columbia housing development in Portland, Oregon's Portsmouth neighborhood. The venture began as a "community-led" effort in partnership with Janus Youth Programs and Home Forward. The project was conceived after a private enterprise in the small grocery space designed into the development failed, leaving the neighborhood without easy access to healthy foods. This dissertation is a case study of the development process, the operation of the market, and the degree to which it addresses food justice and health equity concerns, among others, of residents. It is a case study of the Healthy Corner Store movement that uses food regime theory and political economy perspectives to critically examine the translation of Healthy Corner Store movement theory into practice, highlighting the perspectives of New Columbia residents on the endeavor. It explores the transition of the store from a community-led project to a management-led social enterprise, and the impacts of that approach on local autonomy, food justice, health equity as well as its successes and shortcomings. The store's situation in a mixed-income community meant that it had a particularly diverse set of expectations to navigate, and the changes to the store over time reflect Village Market's growing understanding of the implications of that situation but also a limited capacity to accommodate residents' differing tastes and the price sensitivity that many of them exhibit in their shopping habits.

Housing approximately half a million residents, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has long been cast as the exception to the rule of ‘demolish and replace’ models of public housing in the United States. Yet as NYCHA faces a dire fiscal and administrative crisis, it has proposed a suite of privatization efforts that threaten its successful reputation. With a focus on NYCHA’s effort to allow private developers to construct mixed-income ‘infill’ projects on existing ‘underutilized’ public housing land through the NextGeneration NYCHA and NYCHA 2.0 plans, in this dissertation, I ask: how do various stakeholders, including residents, the housing authority, private developers, elected officials, and non-profit and advocacy stakeholders justify, react to, and resist NYCHA’s plans for redevelopment? While most studies consider the impacts of mixed-income housing on residents after lease up of a development, interpreting it as either a de facto beneficial policy or as a tool for state-led gentrification, this work differs in its focus on the range of viewpoints about the plan prior to construction. In so doing, it straddles the literature on mixed-income housing and urban planning processes through the lens of pragmatism. A pragmatic approach centers those most impacted in planmaking and considers how diverse stakeholder experiences co-exist and contrast in public deliberation processes. In other words, this dissertation considers how the housing authority’s various publics have reacted differently to the plans for its transformation with the goal of informing how to craft more restorative, equitable, and deliberative planning processes. Using data from over a year and a half of participant observation, interviews, and media and policy sources, I craft a qualitative narrative case of the deliberations surrounding NYCHA’s first five years of redevelopment from a variety of stakeholder perspectives. Using narrative and framework analysis, I organize this dissertation around three empirical chapters: 1) an anatomy of the formal and dialogical channels of engagement between speakers and NYCHA officials at 10 public meetings following the NextGeneration NYCHA plan’s release; 2) an account of the housing authority’s stop-and-start approach to pursuing infill set amidst its various crises, including an analysis of the viewpoints of public officials and a private developer selected for a pilot infill site; and 3) a description of residents’ opposition to the plan, which includes descriptions of spaces of contestation citywide and at a specific pilot infill development on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. I find that while multiple stakeholders agree on the end goal of repairing existing public housing, actors promote a series of contradictions in their means to fix it, shaping a hotly contested landscape that has eroded public trust and further delayed action. Despite critiquing the housing authority for their management practices, residents launched a campaign to keep their homes publicly-operated that extended beyond the walls of their developments to citywide and even national progressive issues. This dissertation contributes to the housing policy and urban planning literature in three ways. First, it proposes an understanding of mixed-income housing that eschews past binary approaches and shows its perceived benefits and risks as highly dependent on the values and goals of the stakeholder. Second, it looks at conflicting attitudes to planmaking outside of a traditional consensus-based models, inviting a contextual understanding of power dynamics while also placing value on the experiences and actions of the majority Black and Latinx public housing residents who are the most impacted by the infill plans. Lastly, this dissertation also serves to profile pragmatism’s power–and limits– for theorizing more equitable redevelopment processes in planning.

Housing in prosperous American cities is becoming increasingly expensive, forcing many municipal governments to re-evaluate how they will continue to serve lower-income residents and ensure equitable access to housing and resources. In the City of Alexandria, the Alexandria Re-Development and Housing Authority (ARHA) has worked in recent years to partner with private developers to convert its existing stock of low-density, designated-affordable housing into more dense, mixed-income communities. This is possible because many of its existing communities sit on land in now-prime locations where the City currently allows the most density, as well as bonus density through a variety of mechanisms. While these projects have succeeded to some extent, the City is unfortunately still seeing a rapid rise in rents accompanied by a rapid decrease in available affordable housing of all types, in both privately-developed and publicly-subsidized communities. Increasing income disparity is also simultaneously driving lower-income to middle-class residents to suburban and exurban sites where limited access to municipal resources and public transportation can be highly detrimental to quality of life. While additional density is the knee-jerk response to many of affordability's challenges, often the resulting built solutions seem incomplete – achieving the basic goal of housing more residents, but failing to build thriving and diverse communities that connect people the way previous communities may have. After all, the pragmatics of building generally point towards maximizing square footage, monetary return, and speed of delivery by using conventional and commonly-accepted solutions, with less energy given to resident outcomes, and how people might be affected by the change to their living environments and communities. As Jan Gehl and Jane Jacobs examined in Cities for People and The Death and Life of Great American Cities respectively, simple pragmatics do not make for livable environments. A truly humanist approach to design for living in cities requires not only good policy, practice, and engagement, but also architectural strategies that respond to how humans relate to each other and their surroundings. Convergence explores how designers can contribute to making urban housing better for everyone by addressing housing affordability, person-to-person interaction, and community engagement in increasingly-dense environments. Its primary objectives are: • Encouraging neighborliness by increasing chance encounters as well as reducing the sharp threshold between private and public space often found in apartment-style buildings. • Increasing the visibility of human activity to the street in a multi-floor, multi-family project. • Using new mass timber methods and modularity to improve initial building construction and cost while also incorporating sustainable practices to reduce resource use and operating cost. • Anticipating that modification and reconfiguration will be required in the future, and offering defined parameters to simplify that process. • Creating a variety of unit sizes while also offering future flexibility to respond to changing community needs. • Combining the familiar with the novel to connect the new community to its surroundings, bridge experiences, and manage change. / Master of Architecture / In the City of Alexandria, the Alexandria Re-Development and Housing Authority (ARHA) owns several affordable housing sites in desirable locations that it has been working to convert into more dense, mixed-income housing in partnership with private developers. While these projects have succeeded to some extent, housing in the City continues to become increasingly expensive, and wages for low-income and lower-middle class residents are not keeping pace with the increase in cost of living. This phenomenon is pushing many long-time and/or lower-wage residents to the suburbs and exurbs, limiting access to municipal resources and public transportation, and reducing quality of life. As a result, communities and families with long histories in the City are breaking apart and dispersing. Many advocates, policymakers, designers, and developers have turned to additional density as the most immediate response to these concerns. However, additional density isn’t enough; new buildings may house more people, but fail to address the other aspects of building thriving and diverse communities that connect people the way previous communities may have. Good housing and good communities need more than square footage, so it is time to look beyond conventional solutions. New approaches are needed to respond to how people are affected by changes to their living environments and communities, and create the kinds of positive outcomes that should be part of any new housing project. Therefore, if we want to design for living in cities, we have to have good policies, practices, and engagement, but we also need architectural strategies that respond to how humans relate to each other and their surroundings. Convergence explores how designers can contribute to making urban housing better for everyone by addressing housing affordability, person-to-person interaction, and community engagement in increasingly-dense environments. Its primary objectives are: • Encouraging neighborliness by increasing chance encounters as well as reducing the sharp threshold between private and public space often found in apartment-style buildings. • Increasing the visibility of human activity to the street in a multi-floor, multi-family project. • Using new mass timber methods and modularity to improve initial building construction and cost while also incorporating sustainable practices to reduce resource use and operating cost. • Anticipating that modification and reconfiguration will be required in the future, and offering defined parameters to simplify that process. • Creating a variety of unit sizes while also offering future flexibility to respond to changing community needs. • Combining the familiar with the novel to connect the new community to its surroundings, bridge experiences, and manage change.