Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Under the unstable economy and economy crisis in both national
and global scale, the trend of affordable housing in Boston shifted to
non-profits based, fund by numerous funding sources methods involving tax credit
equity investors and different subsidies and loan products from both the state
and federal level, and most importantly with collaboration with community
members. Boston’s affordable housing development, unlike previous eras, is no
longer solely dependent on government’s assistance. By the late 1970s,
increasing population resulted from foreign immigrations, aging population, an
increase in homelessness, an increase in unemployment rate, a rise in substance
abuse, increasing crime rate, and rising numbers of physically disabled
illuminated that tremendous amount of Boston citizens needed assistance from the
government. Another problem of establishing affordable housing in Boston was
that numerous affordable housing units that owed by the city were facing rental
expiration. [3] Instead of looking at and solving affordable housing solely as a
housing issue, comprehensive community revitalization became modern Boston’s
affordable housing development’s main theme because of the challenges and
problems as mentioned above.
In many cities, HOPE VI public housing revitalization program
and federal funding were the starting incentives for local housing authorities
to develop public housing, but it was not the case in Boston. In Boston, a local
tradition of social activism and community effort were, indeed, the starting
incentives for neighborhood revitalization. [3] For example, in Roxbury and
Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, neighborhood revitalization was organized by
Greater Boston Community Development Inc. and Roxbury Neighborhood Council, and
the Neighborhood Council coordinated by local activists and community members,
later with funding from the city government. [1] [3] From 1969 to 1982, these
community based organization helped the South End and Roxbury neighborhood
developed more than twelve hundred unit of low income housing. [2] Besides the
effort input by community members, public-private partnership also played a
significant role in neighborhood revitalization in term of
funding.
Later in the 90s, the federal government began to have more
influence in Boston’s public housing revitalization. In 1992, the federal
government enacted the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. HOPE VI
involves diverse funding sources from the federal level and private sector, such
as different tax credits, mortgage, and project-based vouchers sectors. [3] The
aim of HOPE VI was not only to provide lower density affordable housing in these
inner cities neighborhoods, but also promote social and class interaction but
creating mix-income communities. In Boston, there were HOPE VI funded programs
mainly in Dorchester and Roxbury. HOPE VI programs in Boston not only
established homeownership for lower income families by providing affordable
housing, they also created positive social impacts. Besides cheaper and more
affordable housings, HOPE VI’s funding, by making communities more diverse in
terms of income and demographics, improved public amenities as well as
employment and education opportunities, making the community a safer and
social-able place to live in. The successful redevelopment projects of Dudley
Square and Roxbury later became models for future neighborhood revitalizations
in Boston. [4]
rederences:
1. Mel King, Chain of Change: Struggles for Black Community Development (Boston: South End Press, 1981)
2. John H. Mollenkopf , The Contested City (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983)
3. Von Hoffman, A. (2003). House by house, block by block: The rebirth of America’s urban neighborhoods. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Lawrence J.Vale, Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century of Struggle in Three Public Neighborhoods Cambridge, Harvard University. Press, 2002
and global scale, the trend of affordable housing in Boston shifted to
non-profits based, fund by numerous funding sources methods involving tax credit
equity investors and different subsidies and loan products from both the state
and federal level, and most importantly with collaboration with community
members. Boston’s affordable housing development, unlike previous eras, is no
longer solely dependent on government’s assistance. By the late 1970s,
increasing population resulted from foreign immigrations, aging population, an
increase in homelessness, an increase in unemployment rate, a rise in substance
abuse, increasing crime rate, and rising numbers of physically disabled
illuminated that tremendous amount of Boston citizens needed assistance from the
government. Another problem of establishing affordable housing in Boston was
that numerous affordable housing units that owed by the city were facing rental
expiration. [3] Instead of looking at and solving affordable housing solely as a
housing issue, comprehensive community revitalization became modern Boston’s
affordable housing development’s main theme because of the challenges and
problems as mentioned above.
In many cities, HOPE VI public housing revitalization program
and federal funding were the starting incentives for local housing authorities
to develop public housing, but it was not the case in Boston. In Boston, a local
tradition of social activism and community effort were, indeed, the starting
incentives for neighborhood revitalization. [3] For example, in Roxbury and
Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, neighborhood revitalization was organized by
Greater Boston Community Development Inc. and Roxbury Neighborhood Council, and
the Neighborhood Council coordinated by local activists and community members,
later with funding from the city government. [1] [3] From 1969 to 1982, these
community based organization helped the South End and Roxbury neighborhood
developed more than twelve hundred unit of low income housing. [2] Besides the
effort input by community members, public-private partnership also played a
significant role in neighborhood revitalization in term of
funding.
Later in the 90s, the federal government began to have more
influence in Boston’s public housing revitalization. In 1992, the federal
government enacted the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. HOPE VI
involves diverse funding sources from the federal level and private sector, such
as different tax credits, mortgage, and project-based vouchers sectors. [3] The
aim of HOPE VI was not only to provide lower density affordable housing in these
inner cities neighborhoods, but also promote social and class interaction but
creating mix-income communities. In Boston, there were HOPE VI funded programs
mainly in Dorchester and Roxbury. HOPE VI programs in Boston not only
established homeownership for lower income families by providing affordable
housing, they also created positive social impacts. Besides cheaper and more
affordable housings, HOPE VI’s funding, by making communities more diverse in
terms of income and demographics, improved public amenities as well as
employment and education opportunities, making the community a safer and
social-able place to live in. The successful redevelopment projects of Dudley
Square and Roxbury later became models for future neighborhood revitalizations
in Boston. [4]
rederences:
1. Mel King, Chain of Change: Struggles for Black Community Development (Boston: South End Press, 1981)
2. John H. Mollenkopf , The Contested City (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983)
3. Von Hoffman, A. (2003). House by house, block by block: The rebirth of America’s urban neighborhoods. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Lawrence J.Vale, Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century of Struggle in Three Public Neighborhoods Cambridge, Harvard University. Press, 2002