When I was home in Atlanta over
winter break I had the opportunity to go on a tour of a massive urban renewal
project currently underway known as the Emerald Corridor project. It is a
project that will transform an eleven mile stretch of the city using the
preservation and purification of Proctor Creek, a Chattahoochee river
tributary, as the linchpin of the development. One aspect of the Corridor is a
mixed-income and mixed-use community called West Highlands (see article below).
It is beautiful development consisting of retail, homes, rentals and subsidized
apartments, which, from the outside is not what one would traditionally
associate with government subsidized housing. This model that West Highlands
has adopted is the new model for urban renewal in the US and is beginning to
replace the old model which isolates low-income families in uniquely section-8 housing
areas as we have talked about in class.
When reading The Roads Not Taken piece, I was often reminded of the West
Highlands model as well as Brenna’s post on the “creative class” and how these
two models for social change could work hand-in-hand. The mixed-income model is
transformative in that it allows citizens of different socioeconomic
backgrounds to share a community which combats our deeply entrenched system of
economic segregation. Additionally, this seems like a worthwhile investment of
government funds because it allows governments to invest in a public housing
project that has the infrastructure (invested homeowners and renters) surrounding
it to ensure that it thrives and continues to grow as opposed to many section-8
projects which fall into disrepair after a while.
To me, it seems like the
mixed-income model would inherently attract a “creative class” of individuals
who are interested in an organic transformation of their city. Deciding to move
your family to a mixed-income community takes a bottom-up, non-traditional and
proactive approach to city improvement which I would think the creative class
would be drawn to. I’d love to hear what others think about this as well!
I agree that the idea of mixed income housing that integrates a range of creative class and lower income individuals would be extremely positive for a city and a progressive step for public housing. The community aspect of this project, including the retail spaces and public golf course and library could be a very positive feature because it would create an arena for different classes to socialize and create a sense of actual community. Individuals in mixed income communities might feel a sense of solidarity to work on neighborhood problems. Also, lower income individuals might be able to accrue social capital which could lead to employment advancement. Though this particular neighborhood, West Highlands, is ninety five percent African American, creating a mixed income and more racially integrated neighborhood could also have impacts on negative perceptions of race and foster diversity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that the community participation will mainly serve higher income individuals, and that interaction between the groups may be limited. Lower income individuals may work nontraditional hours or multiple jobs and thus be less able to participate in community activities or utilize facilities such as a YMCA or golf course. Thus, the different classes may not actually socialize enough to truly build a community.
Also, although I think that though the creative class tends to be more open minded, there would still be deterrents from living in mixed income housing. For example, parents could have concerns about the quality of the public schools and might be disinclined from moving their family into the area or choose to enroll their kids in private schools, which would decrease their community involvement. Although I think that mixed income housing seems like a good idea, encouraging higher income individuals to move in and engage in the community may be difficult.