Mixed Outcome Developments

Problem: Policymakers and planners have broadly conceptualized and widely adopted the mixed-income approach to provision of low-income housing. Yet, few case studies examine the relationship between theoretical propositions about how mixed-income tenancy can help lift families out of poverty and the actual dynamics of a mixed-income housing development. Purpose: I address this gap by examining the social dynamics within a mixed-income housing development in Boston, MA, and compare the dynamics observed there to those assumed in the theoretical literature. Methods: I use qualitative data, including ethnographic methods, such as participant observation and resident interviews from a mixed-income housing development to analyze the relationship between the case presented and four theoretical propositions about how mixed-income tenancy can aid low-income families. Results and conclusions: The evidence from the field research site provides mixed support for the theoretical propositions regarding the potential benefits to low-income residents from living in mixed-income developments. First, some evidence supports the idea that residents influence one another's behavior, although such influence was not exclusively cross-class. Second, contrary to expectations in the literature, higher-income households rarely worked to improve neighborhood services, except in the cases of policing and security. Third, as expected, higher resourced individuals did promote greater informal social control, yet subsidized residents did as well. Finally, theoretically, higher-income residents can enhance low-income residents' social capital, including increasing their access to employment opportunities. Market-rate residents did provide some useful interpersonal resources, although there was no evidence that they directed their disadvantaged neighbors toward jobs. Finally, the property management company had an important influence on the outcomes for each of these propositions, suggesting that the role of management in promoting theoretical ideals needs further theoretical scrutiny and practical consideration. Takeaway for practice: Practitioners should be aware that mixed-income developments can be used to achieve the social goals of reducing negative behavior, improving local services, enhancing social control, and developing social capital, although all of these will likely be limited. Most importantly, the role of onsite management and service providers is pivotal in assuring that mixed-income developments maximize the likelihood that developments achieve the theoretical ideals. Research support: This research was partially funded by the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.