COMPETING VOICES : NEGOTIATING POWER AND PLACE IN MIXED- INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Kimberlee S. Guenther Department of Sociology Loyola University Chicago Dissertation Proposal Chair: Dr. Philip Nyden Readers: Dr. Michael Darcy Dr. Christine George Dr. 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  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