competing voices : negotiating power and place in mixed- income housing development kimberlee s....
TRANSCRIPT
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