COMPETING VOICES: NEGOTIATING POWER AND PLACE IN MIXED-INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Kimberlee S. GuentherDepartment of

SociologyLoyola University

Chicago

Dissertation ProposalChair: Dr. Philip Nyden

Readers: Dr. Michael Darcy

Dr. Christine GeorgeDr. Marilyn Krogh

June 18, 2012

Overview

Chicago and Sydney Mixed-Income Housing Policy & Practice Situating the Study Research Questions Data, Methods & Sites Contributions & Policy Implications

Chicago & Sydney

Chicago Housing Authority Housing New South Wales Similar Policies, Different Contexts

Mixed-Income Housing Policy & Practice

“Solution” to Concentrated Poverty Place-Based Strategy Built Environment Public-Private Partnerships Density Introduction of Higher-Income Residents Criteria

Mixed-Income Housing Policy & Practice

Rationale (Joseph, Chaskin & Webber 2007)

Social Networks Social Control Behavioral Modeling Political Economy of Place

Flaws in the Logic Assumes Relationships Assumes No Additional Hurdles Assumes Reliance on Others

Why Study This?

Prevalence of Mixed-Income Redevelopment Policies

Importance and Reach of Housing Providers

Outcomes vs. Process (Nelson & Fraser 2008)

Key Theoretical Issues

Growth Machine (Logan & Molotch 1987) Use and Exchange Value Commodification of Place

Place (Anderson 2004, Lofland 1998, Lefebvre 1991) New Places & Spatial Reorganization of Cities

(DeFilippis & Fraser 2010) Social and Economic Position & Claims to Space Emotional Toll of Redevelopment (Fullilove 2004)

Participatory Planning (Hopkins 2010, Manzo & Perkins 2006, Davidoff 1965)

Competing Voices

Residents’ Voices* (CURL & UWS)

* Research supported by The Australian Research Council, University of Western Sydney, Center for Urban Research and Learning, and The Graduate School at Loyola University Chicago

Competing Voices

Comparative Study of Chicago & Sydney Resident Leaders Community Based Participatory

Research

Research Questions

1. How do residents experience the performance of power during and in the aftermath of redevelopment?

a. How do residents respond to performances of power?b. How do residents create spaces and opportunities for

resistance?

2. How is power embedded in the relevant housing policies, and what forms of agency, if any, are built into these documents for residents?

a. Are public housing residents discussed as a homogenous population?

b. What provisions exist for supportive services that would help low-income residents thrive in mixed-income communities?

Data & Methods

Semi-structured interviews Elected or Self-Selected Resident Leaders (10-12 per

site) Central Advisory Council – Chicago Housing Authority Uptown/ONE – HUD Section 236 Buildings REDWatch – Redfern-Waterloo

60-120 minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed, with on-going coding and analysis

Interview topics Experience with planning, redevelopment, and relocation Experience as tenant leaders addressing broader

resident issues Experience with other stakeholders

Data & Methods

Ethnographic Observation of Meetings CAC Common Ground Advocacy Committee (CHA) Resident Services Meeting (CHA) CAC Resident Trainings and Workshops (CHA) Mixed-Income Working Groups (CHA) Chicago Housing Initiative Teach-Ins and Actions (CHA

& Uptown) GroundSwell Meeting (Redfern-Waterloo) REDWatch Monthly Meeting (Redfern-Waterloo)

Fieldnotes during or immediately after meetings Ongoing coding and analysis

Data & Methods

Content Analysis Policy Documents

Federal Policy Federal Grant Local Housing Authority

Materials produced by housing authorities Materials produced by resident groups

Contributions & Implications

Housing Policy Place Negotiation Participatory Planning Research Practice