Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cities such as Toronto, New York, Chicago, Tampa, etc. have been developing mixed income residences (such as condos) in recent years.
The goal is reduce the crime, gang activity, and other negative outcomes typically associated with project housing. Mixed income housing is said to enable low income people the opportunity to live in a safe, clean, and positive environment that they otherwise wouldn't have.
By mixing in the wealthy (some areas are starting to include middle wage earners) the HOAs and taxes help keep the area thriving with restaurants, nice amenities, and positive foot traffic.
So what are your thoughts of this arrangement?
By the way, I have no problems with many people who live in project housing. Most are appreciative of a home. However, there can be some bad apples mostly due to lots of free time (unemployment) and low levels of values in keeping the property nice as no money was invested in it.
How does it affect re-sale value?
What are the incentives for the wealthy to live in mixed income housing?
Just some of my thoughts. Just an interesting concept I have a lot of questions about.
It is probably heavily location dependent. I would never buy a property that was mixed. There are too many properties that are not mixed...there will be definitively be a stigma that comes with mixed income housing...so unless the location is absolutely perfect, I would expect to pay much less for a like quality property.
Personally though I would never live anywhere other than a SFR as I can't stand the thought of sharing walls with other people, and the noise that comes with that. I did it in college and for a few years shortly after graduation...never again.
For years, critics blamed public housing for concentrating poverty, encouraging welfare dependency, increasing crime and violence, and contributing to urban disinvestment and decline.
Today's utopian solution, sometimes referred to as "mixed-income housing" (aka: redevelopment of public housing/ projects), remains ambiguous and ill defined (ie; how long are low income units to be subsidized and what are the incentives for non-subsidized residents, etc). The OP's concept of further mixing-in the wealthy, seems lacking in both method and incentive.
Thus far, the claimed benefits of mixing low-income residents with their higher-earning counterparts – such as role modeling and social networking – have failed to positively impact the lives of low-income families (ie; Chicago projects)..
Interesting idea -- probably harder to implement than one might think. You'd have to have some financially independent people willing to take the risk on the high end side of the project that values would remain elevated and/or rise. Every (planned) neighborhood I've seen that had a mix of lower, median and high-priced homes ended up selling out the lower and median priced homes, but the high-priced homes are always pressed to maintain their value. There seems to also be a concern regarding possible higher crime levels than someone buying a similar-priced house in a less mixed-use neighborhood. Plus, the higher income residents would be more likely to send their kids to private schools instead of the existing public school if the public school appeared to be low income with low parental involvement.
It's not the rich neighbors in the next neighborhood over that are going to inspire a kid in low-income housing to strive to achieve. They can provide support, but it is the kid's immediate family that has the greatest influence as a child, and then it's their friends.
Interesting idea -- probably harder to implement than one might think. You'd have to have some financially independent people willing to take the risk on the high end side of the project that values would remain elevated and/or rise. Every (planned) neighborhood I've seen that had a mix of lower, median and high-priced homes ended up selling out the lower and median priced homes, but the high-priced homes are always pressed to maintain their value. There seems to also be a concern regarding possible higher crime levels than someone buying a similar-priced house in a less mixed-use neighborhood. Plus, the higher income residents would be more likely to send their kids to private schools instead of the existing public school if the public school appeared to be low income with low parental involvement.
It's not the rich neighbors in the next neighborhood over that are going to inspire a kid in low-income housing to strive to achieve. They can provide support, but it is the kid's immediate family that has the greatest influence as a child, and then it's their friends.
This to the max. The wealthier neighbors may inspire only resentment and a sense of entitlement. The immediate family exerts the most influence and they can start the earliest—before the kid is old enough for school.
There are neighborhoods that became mixed over time without quotas or other artificial means.
This to the max. The wealthier neighbors may inspire only resentment and a sense of entitlement.
I agree. Imagine a hard working parent living next to a trust fund baby who is innocently just enjoying life. Hard not to become a little resentful.
Perhaps there are better ways to encourage positive behaviors, like having dedicated social workers, sort of like dorm monitors, living and working among small groups of needy families.
I agree. Imagine a hard working parent living next to a trust fund baby who is innocently just enjoying life. Hard not to become a little resentful.
Those were my thoughts as well. Won't there be resentment?
Are the applicants moving to the subsidized pre-screened? (i.e. they work or do structured volunteer work. People just hanging out all day just spells disaster.
I wish I was in grad school in social work or something and could do some real research on this topic.
It is probably heavily location dependent. I would never buy a property that was mixed. There are too many properties that are not mixed...there will be definitively be a stigma that comes with mixed income housing...so unless the location is absolutely perfect, I would expect to pay much less for a like quality property.
Personally though I would never live anywhere other than a SFR as I can't stand the thought of sharing walls with other people, and the noise that comes with that. I did it in college and for a few years shortly after graduation...never again.
But aren't there some examples in places like NYC where some apartments in a building are rent-controlled and could have various low-income residents/students/self-employed musicians or artists or maybe clerical types and other units are rented for market price and thus have more wealthy residents???
Cities such as Toronto, New York, Chicago, Tampa, etc. have been developing mixed income residences (such as condos) in recent years.
The goal is reduce the crime, gang activity, and other negative outcomes typically associated with project housing. Mixed income housing is said to enable low income people the opportunity to live in a safe, clean, and positive environment that they otherwise wouldn't have.
By mixing in the wealthy (some areas are starting to include middle wage earners) the HOAs and taxes help keep the area thriving with restaurants, nice amenities, and positive foot traffic.
So what are your thoughts of this arrangement?
By the way, I have no problems with many people who live in project housing. Most are appreciative of a home. However, there can be some bad apples mostly due to lots of free time (unemployment) and low levels of values in keeping the property nice as no money was invested in it.
How does it affect re-sale value?
What are the incentives for the wealthy to live in mixed income housing?
Just some of my thoughts. Just an interesting concept I have a lot of questions about.
Where in Tampa is there a mixed income condo with a mix of wealthy and lower income groups? I know the area fairly well.
Wealthy people segregate themselves from the poor by choice. Interesting concept, but I dont see it catching on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
