Interim Assessment 

of the 

HOPE VI
 

Program
 Cross-Site Report 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 
Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI 

Program Cross-Site Report 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

Washington, DC 

Prepared by: 

Mary Joel Holin 

Larry Buron 

Gretchen Locke 

Alvaro Cortes 

Abt Associates Inc. 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

September 19, 2003 
The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the 

views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. 

Government. 

Visit PD&R’s website, www.huduser.org, to find this publication and others sponsored by 

PD&R. Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include 

listservs, special interest and bimonthly publications (best practices and significant studies 

from other sources), access to public databases, and a hotline (800–245–2691) for help with 

accessing the information you need. 
Acknowledgments 

The authors of this report gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided to this study by 

HUD staff. First, we appreciate the guidance and support of the contract’s Government 

Technical Monitor, Marina Myhre, in HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research 

(PD&R). We would also like to recognize the involvement of Robert Leonard of PD&R who 

previously served as Government Technical Monitor on this project. In addition, we wish to 

acknowledge the staff from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing as well as PD&R 

who provided thoughtful comments on early drafts of the cross-site report. 

At Abt Associates, a number of staff members played important roles on this project. Jill 

Khadduri provided thoughtful and constructive technical review of this report. Ty Hardaway 

provided administrative oversight to the project and served as a site visitor. Other site visitors 

included Michael Baker, Jean Amendolia, Kristin Winkel, Caryn Nagler, and Jennifer 

Turnham. Diane Stoner and Ramona Olvera supervised the resident surveys at HOPE VI 

sites and in surroundings neighborhoods. Saty Patrabansch was responsible for preparing the 

survey data for analysis and developing the data documentation report. Jeff Smith assisted 

with the production of this report. 

Amy Jones of Amy Jones and Associates, Inc., a consultant on the Abt team, deserves special 

thanks for guiding the development and implementation of a process study of HOPE VI at 

five sites. 

Finally, the authors thank the many individuals who assisted in the development of this 

report by providing their insights and opinions about the HOPE VI program. These 

individuals include housing agency staff from the 15 study sites, residents at HOPE VI sites 

and in neighborhoods surrounding those sites, developers, supportive service providers, small 

business owners, and community group representatives. 

Foreword 

This is the second study that examines 15 of the HOPE VI developments selected for 

long-term tracking, shortly after the HOPE VI program began in 1993. The initial report, 

“An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI,” documented the history of these 

15 developments and their condition at the time they received HOPE VI funding. 

This study was designed to examine sites soon after construction was completed and the 

units were initially occupied. HUD anticipated that construction for all sites would be 

completed at the time the data collection for this study was scheduled to begin. By the 

time data collection was complete, however, some 10 years after the HOPE VI grants 

were made, 4 of the 15 sites still had not completed their reconstruction (see Figure F-1). 

Thus, this report focuses only on the 11 completed sites of the original 15. 

For each HOPE VI site, the study documents changes––for the characteristics of residents 

of the developments, physical condition of the sites, management of the developments, 

supportive services for residents, crime, and neighborhood conditions. Across the sites, 

the researchers found that, relative to preconstruction conditions, the HOPE VI 

transformation of the neighborhood was associated with the following: 

• Significant physical improvement in the quality of the housing. 

• Lower crime rates. 

• Higher resident incomes. 

• Increased resident employment. 

• Higher resident education. 

• Increased resident racial diversity. 

• Improved property management. 

• Improved neighborhood conditions at most of the sites. 

It was beyond the scope of this report to determine whether these improvements could be 

sustained over time. The study therefore does not address issues such as whether the 

projects would succeed financially, whether maintenance funds would be adequate, or 

whether continued local investment in the neighborhoods would be forthcoming. 

It is important to note that the focus of HOPE VI changed during the study period from 

mainly redeveloping distressed public housing developments to creating mixed-income 

communities and creating greater neighborhood revitalization through the leveraging of 

HOPE VI funds. As a result of this change in program focus, 6 of the 11 sites that are the 

subject of this report were redeveloped as 100-percent public housing and 5 were 

redeveloped as mixed-income developments. Thus, going forward, researchers have an 

opportunity to compare interim outcomes of the two different redevelopment models. 

There was also a difference in redevelopment approaches––four of the six 100-percent 

public housing sites substantially rehabilitated existing structures, while the remaining 

sites pursued full demolition and new construction. This represents another dimension 

along which researchers can generate valuable insights regarding urban and 

neighborhood development. 
 

 

 

 

Table F-1. HOPE VI Study Developments and Completion Status, October 2002 

City Development Status in Report 

Milwaukee Hillside Terrace Completed and reoccupied 

Baltimore Lafayette Homes Completed and reoccupied 

Washington, DC Ellen Wilson Completed and reoccupied 

Charlotte Earle Village Completed and reoccupied 

Camden McGuire Gardens Completed and reoccupied 

San Francisco Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East Completed and reoccupied 

Cleveland Outhwaite and King Kennedy Partially reoccupied 

Atlanta Clarke Howell/Techwood Partially reoccupied 

Boston Mission Main Partially reoccupied 

New Haven Elm Haven Partially reoccupied 

Oakland Lockwood Gardens Partially reoccupied 

San Antonio Spring View Gardens Construction underway 

Chicago Cabrini Green Construction not underway 

Detroit Jeffries Homes Construction not underway 

New Orleans Desire Homes Construction not underway 

Raphael W. Bostic 

Assistant Secretary for Policy 

Development and Research 
Contents 

Contents 

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................i

I. Introduction................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background on the HOPE VI Program ...........................................................................................2 

1.1.1 The Evolution of the HOPE VI Program ..........................................................................3 

1.1.2 The HOPE VI Program in 2003 ........................................................................................3 

1.2 Findings from the HOPE VI Baseline Study....................................................................................5 

1.2.1 The Developments ............................................................................................................5 

1.2.2 Original Residents of HOPE VI Developments................................................................7 

1.2.3 The Surrounding Neighborhoods......................................................................................8 

1.2.4 HOPE VI Plans ...............................................................................................................10

1.3 Goals and Challenges for the HOPE VI Interim Assessment ........................................................10

1.3.1 Redevelopment Delays....................................................................................................11

1.3.2 HOPE VI Program Changes............................................................................................12

1.4 Report Contents..............................................................................................................................13

2. Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts .......................................................................................15

2.1 The 100-Percent Public Housing Developments............................................................................15

2.2 New Mixed-Income Developments................................................................................................18

2.3 Progress of HOPE VI Programs as of 2003 ...................................................................................21

2.4 Project Costs and Sources of Funding............................................................................................24

3. Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites.......................................................................29

3.1 Who Lives at HOPE VI Sites? .......................................................................................................30

3.2 How Do Current HOPE VI Public Housing Residents Compare With 

 Former Residents? ..........................................................................................................................34

3.3 How do Returning Public Housing Residents Compare With New Public 

 Housing Residents? ........................................................................................................................38

3.4 How Mixed are the Mixed-Income Sites?......................................................................................40

3.5 Is there a Sense of Community in the Revitalized Developments?................................................47

3.6 What Factors Explain the Share of Original Residents Now Living in 

Revitalized Developments? ............................................................................................................49

3.7 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................53

4. Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites ......................................................55

4.1 Physical Conditions Before HOPE VI and Revitalization Goals...................................................55

4.2 Physical Change at HOPE VI Sites................................................................................................58

4.2.1 Change at Rehabilitated Sites—Camden, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Oakland...................59

4.2.2 Change at New Construction Sites—Baltimore, San Francisco, Boston, New Haven, 

Charlotte, Atlanta, and Washington, DC ........................................................................63

4.3 Incorporating New Urbanism and Defensible Space Principles in HOPE VI Projects..................65

4.3.1 Achieving New Urbanism Objectives.............................................................................67

4.3.2 Achieving Defensible Space Objectives.........................................................................68

4.4 Physical Difference Between Mixed-Income and 100-Percent Public Housing Sites...................71

4.4.1 Market Appeal and Amenities ........................................................................................71

4.4.2 Unit Sizes........................................................................................................................72

4.4.3 Resident Views of HOPE VI Units.................................................................................73

4.5 Loss of Affordable Rental Units.....................................................................................................75

4.6 Update on Physical Conditions at the HOPE VI Sites...................................................................77

5. Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites..........................................................80

5.1 Management of HOPE VI Sites ....................................................................................................80

5.1.1 Management Models After Redevelopment ...................................................................81

5.1.2 Management Experience.................................................................................................83
Contents 

5.1.3 Maintenance Experience .................................................................................................87

5.1.4 Future Challenges............................................................................................................87

5.2 Supportive Services at HOPE VI Sites...........................................................................................88

5.2.1 Pre-HOPE VI Supportive Services .................................................................................89

5.2.2 Goals for Community and Supportive Services at HOPE VI Sites ................................89

5.2.3 HOPE VI Funding for Supportive Services....................................................................90

5.2.4 Approaches to Supportive Services Provision After Reoccupacy ..................................92

5.2.5 Use of Services................................................................................................................95

5.2.6 Future Challenges............................................................................................................97

5.3 Security and Safety at HOPE VI Sites ...........................................................................................99

5.3.1 HOPE VI-supported Security Measures .........................................................................99

5.3.2 How Have Crime Levels Changed?..............................................................................102

5.3.3 Resident Perceptions of Safety......................................................................................104

5.3.4 Resident Perceptions of Drug Trafficking and Violence ..............................................106

5.3.5 Future Challenges..........................................................................................................108

6. The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhoods and Residents........................................110

6.1 Pre-HOPE VI: Neighborhood Conditions and Redevelopment Goals.........................................110

6.2 HOPE VI Redevelopments and Neighborhood Change...............................................................112

6.2.1 Appreciably Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods.......................................................115

6.2.2 Moderately Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods........................................................120

6.2.3 Slightly Improving or Unchanged HOPE VI Neighborhoods ......................................124

6.2.4 Conclusions...................................................................................................................130

6.3 The Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhood Property Values.......................................................130

6.4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................131

6.4.2 Data ...............................................................................................................................134

6.4.3 Results...........................................................................................................................135

6.4 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................141

7. Conclusions and Future Challenges.....................................................................................................143

7.1 A Summary of HOPE VI Program Outcomes..............................................................................143

7.2 Future Challenges.........................................................................................................................146

7.3 HOPE VI Solutions Considered ...................................................................................................148

References ..........................................................................................................................................................150

Appendix A—Site Summaries 

Appendix B—Data Collection Methodology 

Appendix C—Resident Survey 

Appendix D—Census Data 

Appendix E—Quantitative Methodology 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1-1: Characteristics of HOPE VI Case Study Sites At Baseline................................................................ 6
 

Exhibit 1-2: Characteristics of Neighborhoods Surrounding HOPE VI Sites at Baseline ..................................... 9
 

Exhibit 1-3: Timing of Data Collection at 15 HOPE VI Sites for the Interim Assessment ................................. 13
 

Exhibit 2-1: Characteristics of HOPE VI Developments that Remained 100-Percent Public Housing ............... 16
 

Exhibit 2-2: Characteristics of Mixed-Income HOPE VI Developments............................................................. 19
 

Exhibit 2-3: Overall Project Costs by Source of Funding for HOPE VI Sites ..................................................... 26
 

Exhibit 2-4: Total Project Costs and Development Costs for HOPE VI Sites ..................................................... 28
 

Exhibit 3-1: Demographic Characteristics of HOPE VI Residents After Reoccupancy ...................................... 31
 

Exhibit 3-2: Income and Employment of HOPE VI Residents After Reoccupancy ............................................ 33
 

Exhibit 3-3: Comparison of Resident Characteristics Pre-and Post-HOPE VI .................................................... 37
 

Exhibit 3-4: Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Returning vs. New Public Housing Residents
 

(Excludes Non-Public Housing Households) .............................................................................................. 39
 

Exhibit 3-5: Characteristics of Mixed-Income Sites............................................................................................. 41
 

Exhibit 3-6: Comparison of Incomes of Public Housing and Non-Public Housing Households
 

at Mixed-Income Sites ................................................................................................................................. 44
 

Exhibit 3-7: Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Public Housing and Non-Public Housing
 

Households at Mixed-Income Sites ............................................................................................................. 46
 

Exhibit 3-8: Social Cohesion of Residents ........................................................................................................... 48
 

Exhibit 3-9: Share of Current Residents who Lived in the Development Before Revitalization ......................... 51
 

Exhibit 4-1: Physical Characteristics of HOPE VI Sites, Pre- and Post-Revitalization ....................................... 57
 

Exhibit 4-2: Goals for and Physical Improvements at HOPE VI Developments ................................................. 60
 

Exhibit 4-3: Implementing New Urbanism Principles at HOPE VI Site.............................................................. 67
 

Exhibit 4-4: Implementing Defensible Space Principles at HOPE VI Sites......................................................... 71
 

Exhibit 4-5: Unit Availability at HOPE VI Sites.................................................................................................. 73
 

Exhibit 4-6: Resident Satisfaction with Housing at HOPE VI Sites .................................................................... 75
 

Exhibit 4-7: Supply of Affordable Rental Units at HOPE VI Sites Pre- and Post- Revitalization....................... 76
 

Exhibit 5-1: Satisfaction with Management and Maintenance at the Revitalized Developments........................ 83
 

Exhibit 5-2: Admissions Requirements at HOPE VI Sites................................................................................... 86
 

List of Exhibits 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Exhibit 5-3: Community and Supportive Services Funds Budgeted and Spent ................................................... 92
 

Exhibit 5-4: Models for Delivering Supportive Services ..................................................................................... 93
 

Exhibit 5-5: Awareness and Utilization of Supportive Services .......................................................................... 96
 

Exhibit 5-6: Selected Strategies Used to Enhance Security at HOPE VI Sites .................................................. 100
 

Exhibit 5-7: Changes in Crime Rates at HOPE VI Sites .................................................................................... 103
 

Exhibit 5-8: Pre- and Post-HOPE VI Resident Perceptions of Safety Outside their Building at Night..................... 105
 

Exhibit 5-9: Changes in Percent of Residents Reporting “Big Problems” with Drugs and Violence ...................... 107
 

Exhibit 5-10: Percent of Residents Reporting “Big Problems” with Drugs and Violence in
 

their Neighborhood .................................................................................................................................... 107
 

Exhibit 5-11: Percent of Residents Reporting “Big Problems” with Drugs and Violence in their
 

Neighborhood, by Site ............................................................................................................................... 108
 

Exhibit 6-1: Desirable Types of Change within HOPE VI Neighborhoods, 1990 to 2000 ................................ 113
 

Exhibit 6-2: Neighborhood Change Among HOPE VI Neighborhoods, 1990 to 2000...................................... 114
 

Exhibit 6-3: Appreciably Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods: Percentage Point Change in Selected
 

Demographic and Housing Characteristics, 1990 to 2000......................................................................... 115
 

Exhibit 6-4: Moderately Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods: Percentage Point Change in Selected
 

Demographic and Housing Characteristics, 1990 to 2000......................................................................... 120
 

Exhibit 6-5: Slightly Improving or Unchanged HOPE VI Neighborhoods: Percentage Point Change
 

in Selected Demographic and Housing Characteristics, 1990-2000.......................................................... 125
 

Exhibit 6-6: Pre/Post Dates for Bernal Dwellings and Monterey Place ............................................................. 133
 

Exhibit 6-7: Number of Home Sales Near Bernal Dwellings and Monterey Place in the Stratified Sample,
 

Before and After Major Redevelopment Milestones, 1990 to 2000 .......................................................... 135
 

Exhibit 6-8: Estimated Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors for HOPE VI Impact Variables ............. 139
 

List of Exhibits 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

In 1989, Congress established the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public 

Housing to explore the problems of troubled public housing developments and to establish a 

plan to address those problems by the year 2000. Following several years of research and 

public hearings, the Commission’s 1992 final report identified the key factors that defined 

severely distressed housing: extensive physical deterioration of the property; a considerable 

proportion of residents living below the poverty level; a high incidence of serious crime; and 

management problems as evidenced by a large number of vacancies, high unit turnover, and 

low-rent collection rates. The report estimated that 6 percent, or 86,000, of the nation’s 1.4 

million public housing units were severely distressed based on these factors. 

The Commission members agreed that existing approaches for improving public housing 

were inadequate to address the needs of severely distressed developments. Instead, they 

proposed the creation of a new program to address comprehensively the social and physical 

problems of distressed public housing communities. Congress first provided funding for such 

a program through the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 

Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993. Originally called the 

Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program, this public housing revitalization program 

soon became known by the acronym HOPE VI (Homeownership and Opportunity for People 

Everywhere). Congressional appropriations have been provided for HOPE VI every year 

since 1993. 

In 1998, Abt Associates Inc., under contract to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), began a 5-year evaluation of the HOPE VI program. The Interim 

Assessment of the HOPE VI Program was designed to study program outcomes by 

collecting and analyzing data about 15 HOPE VI sites once redevelopment was completed 

and units were reoccupied. This report presents the study findings. 

HOPE VI Program Background 

The HOPE VI program is aimed, overall, at accomplishing the complete revitalization of 

severely distressed developments by investing in people, buildings, and neighborhoods. As 

originally envisioned, the HOPE VI program differed in several ways from previous efforts to 

address the problems of these developments. First, public housing agencies (PHAs) were 

required to focus on the supportive service needs of residents as well as the physical conditions 

of the developments. Second, HOPE VI was intended to offer PHAs a greater degree of 

flexibility in determining an approach to revitalization. HUD urged PHAs receiving HOPE VI 

funding to “incorporate boldness and creativity in their plans.”1 

An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI. Volume 1, Cross-site Report. Prepared by Abt 

Associates, August 1996, p. 1-8. 

Executive Summary i 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

The first HOPE VI Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was issued in January 1993. By 

law, eligible applicants were limited to PHAs operating in one of the 40 most populous cities 

and PHAs that were on HUD’s Troubled Housing Authority list. Revitalization grants were 

capped at $50 million. Between 1993 and 1995, 34 revitalization grants were provided to 32 

housing authorities, based on applications received in fiscal year (FY) 1993. 

Over time, grant amounts have become smaller, leveraging of other funding sources has 

increased, and the program has been opened up to include a broader group of PHAs and smaller 

developments. In FY 2001, the maximum grant amount was $35 million; it was reduced to $20 

million in FY 2002. Between 1993 and 2002, HUD funded 193 HOPE VI revitalization grants, 

totaling slightly more than $5 billion. During this period, 115,000 public housing units were 

demolished, 19,000 units (both public housing and non-public housing units) were constructed or 

rehabilitated, and more than 85,000 additional units were planned using HOPE VI funds.2 As of 

September 2002, $2 billion, or 44 percent of all HOPE VI funds available up to that time, had 

been expended.3 

As this report is being written, the future of the HOPE VI program is being considered. HUD 

has proposed to end funding for the HOPE VI program in FY 2004. Congress is considering 

future appropriation levels as well as the reauthorization of the program through 2005. 

Study Objectives and Design 

The Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program is designed to explore the impact of HOPE 

VI on residents, developments, and neighborhoods. As originally envisioned, the study 

involved an examination of 15 HOPE VI developments shortly after reoccupancy to 

determine the changes that had occurred since the time of the grant award and to provide a 

mid-term assessment that would set the stage for a final evaluation of the program. Specific 

areas of change to be assessed included the following: 

•	 Resident characteristics and attitudes; 

•	 Physical conditions at the site; 

•	 Neighborhoods and characteristics and attitudes of neighborhood residents; 

•	 Management and operations; 

•	 Supportive services; and 

•	 Crime. 

2	 HOPE VI: Best Practices and Lessons Learned 1992-2002. Submitted to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, June 14, 2002, p. i. 

3	 HOPE VI Revitalization Grant Program: Financial Summary Report (4QFY 2002). This reporting period 

includes 165 grants and represented $4.54 billion in HOPE VI funds. It does not include information on 

HUD’s 2002 grantees. 

Executive Summary ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 15 study sites were identified through an earlier HUD study that reported on the 

developments at baseline; that is, before being redeveloped through HOPE VI. All 15 study 

sites received their HOPE VI grants in 1993 and 1994. HUD anticipated that the sites would 

be redeveloped and reoccupied by 2000, when data collection for the Interim Assessment was 

to begin. In fact, only 6 of the 15 sites were substantially reoccupied at the time of data 

collection. As a result, the study design was modified to include the five sites that were 

partially reoccupied. Four sites were not at all reoccupied at the time of data collection— 

three sites had not even started construction—and thus were excluded from this report, which 

focuses on HOPE VI outcomes. 

The table below presents the original 15 sites and their completion status at the time of the 

data collection for this study.4

 The four sites excluded from the present report are in italics. 

Because two sites (Cleveland and San Francisco) used their HOPE VI grants to revitalize two 

distinct developments, the study focuses on 11 sites but 13 developments. 

HOPE VI Interim Evaluation Study Sites 

Data Collection Project Status at Data 

City/Site Development Completed Collection 

Milwaukee, WI Hillside Terrace January 2000 Completed and Reoccupied 

Baltimore, MD Lafayette Homes (now Pleasant View January 2000 Completed and Reoccupied 

Gardens) 

Washington, DC Ellen Wilson Dwellings (now The September 2000 Completed and Reoccupied 

Townhomes on Capitol Hill) 

Charlotte, NC Earle Village (now First Ward Place) September 2000 Completed and Reoccupied 

Camden, NJ McGuire Gardens September 2002 Completed and Reoccupied 

San Francisco, CA Bernal Dwellings September 2002 Completed and Reoccupied 

Plaza East 

Cleveland, OH King Kennedy Estates January 2000 Partially Reoccupied 

Outhwaite Homes 

Atlanta, GA Clarke Howell/Techwood in Atlanta December 2000 Partially Reoccupied 

(now Centennial Place) 

Boston, MA Mission Main September 2001 Partially Reoccupied 

New Haven, CT Elm Haven (now Monterey Place) September 2001 Partially Reoccupied 

Oakland, CA Lockwood Gardens September 2001 Partially Reoccupied 

San Antonio, TX Spring View Gardens October 2001 Construction Underway 

Chicago, IL Cabrini-Green North Extension October 2002 Construction Not Underway 

Detroit, MI Jeffries Homes October 2002 Construction Not Underway 

New Orleans, LA Desire Homes October 2002 Construction Not Underway 

While the report relies primarily on data collected shortly after reoccupancy, we collected updated 

information from six sites where the initial data collection took place in 1999 and 2000 to identify trends 

that have occurred since that time. The sites that were revisited in early 2003 include Milwaukee, 

Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Charlotte, Cleveland, and Atlanta. 

Executive Summary iii 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the 11 sites were at different stages of redevelopment at the time of data collection, 

we have been careful in drawing conclusions about the effects of HOPE VI investments at 

sites that are not yet completed. We have also had to accommodate the fact that the HOPE VI 

program has markedly changed since its inception. Since 1996—after the awards were made 

to the 11 study sites—HUD has placed increased emphasis on creating mixed-income 

communities, using HOPE VI dollars to leverage other funding sources, and addressing the 

redevelopment needs of the surrounding community. Some of the study sites were able to 

revise their plans to incorporate these objectives, but others were not. Thus, among the 11 

sites that are the focus of this study, 6 were redeveloped as 100-percent public housing and 

five contain a mix of public housing and non-public housing units. Non-public housing units 

include both market-rate units and units subsidized by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. 

By contrast, most of the HOPE VI projects that have received awards in recent years are 

mixed-income and mixed-finance. Although not typical of today’s HOPE VI projects, the 

inclusion in the study of sites developed as100-percent public housing allows us to compare 

the changes that can result from creating revitalized public housing communities with 

changes that result from creating new mixed-income developments. The changes that have 

occurred at the study sites are discussed below. 

HOPE VI Physical Revitalization Efforts 

At the start of the HOPE VI program, the 11 study sites represented some of the most 

troubled public housing developments in the country, characterized by high vacancy rates, 

poor physical conditions, and high percentages of households receiving public assistance. 

The surrounding neighborhoods were typically in poor physical condition with significant 

crime and high poverty rates. 

There have been significant changes at all of the study sites over the past 10 years. Four of 

the six 100-percent public housing sites—Cleveland, Milwaukee, Camden, and Oakland— 

relied primarily on substantial rehabilitation to improve physical conditions. While the physical 

changes are not as dramatic at the rehabilitated sites as they are at sites where full demolition and 

new construction occurred, significant improvements were made. First, there was a reduction in 

density through the selective demolition of units at all but Oakland’s Lockwood Gardens. 

Second, at two sites (Camden and Milwaukee), efforts were made to connect the properties to 

the surrounding area through the introduction of new through streets. Third, all sites worked 

to increase safety. Finally, all four sites improved the exterior appearance of the properties. For 

example, in Camden the flat façade of the townhouses was improved with the addition of 

second story bay windows and varied roofs. In Milwaukee, gabled roofs were added to the 

front porches. 

The remaining seven sites relied primarily on demolition of existing units and new construction 

to achieve their revitalization goals. All of the five mixed-income sites are new construction. 

The remaining two sites (Baltimore and San Francisco) are public housing. Full demolition of 

existing units gave the PHAs and developers at these sites substantial flexibility to address the 

needs of each property in a comprehensive manner. 

Executive Summary iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

As at the rehabilitated sites, the designers of several of the new construction projects sought 

to reduce density. The number of units per acre was reduced from 24 to 15 in New Haven 

and from 32 to 16 in Atlanta. The number of units per acre did not change significantly in 

Charlotte and Washington, D.C. In Charlotte, the density was quite low to begin with, 

whereas in Washington, the original density was consistent with residential density in the 

surrounding neighborhood. 

Integrating the sites into the surrounding neighborhoods and ensuring a safe environment 

were also important goals for the newly constructed developments. Thus, all of these 

developments include the following features: 

•	 construction of primarily two- and three-story buildings that mimic traditional 

residential architecture in the area and offer a mix of apartment and townhouse units; 

•	 a new network of streets to link the site to the surrounding neighborhood; 

•	 buildings and unit entrances facing the street with minimal setbacks; 

•	 parking primarily on the streets; 

•	 clearly defined public and private open space; and 

•	 a system of pedestrian walkways. 

Overall, there are a number of physical differences between the 100-percent public housing 

sites and the mixed-income sites. First, unit sizes vary somewhat between some mixedincome and public housing developments. With one exception, the mixed-income sites tend 

to have more square footage than the public housing sites. At the same time, the mixedincome sites are less likely to have many three- or four-bedroom units. It is also worth noting 

that there are many more elderly units overall—but especially at the mixed-income sites— 

after revitalization. Three of the mixed-income sites, including Boston, New Haven, and 

Charlotte, added elderly buildings as part of the revitalization, even though they had not 

existed previously. In addition, an elderly building was constructed at one 100-percent public 

housing site, Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore. It represents about a third of the total units 

at that site. 

The three mixed-income sites that had the most market-rate residents—Atlanta, Charlotte, 

and Washington, D.C.—offer more physical amenities that do other sites (including the 100-

percent public housing sites as well as the mixed-income sites that had only a modest number 

of market-rate units). Based on the observations of site visitors, these sites paid more 

attention to finishes and details in the unit interiors and exteriors. In addition, Charlotte and 

Atlanta are the only two sites in the study to offer community amenities such as a swimming 

pool and a fitness room. 

Despite differences between the public housing and mixed-income sites, it appears that 

residents of each type of development are very satisfied with their units. In the course of 

surveys of HOPE VI residents, 58 percent of residents across all sites said they were very 

satisfied with their units and another 34 percent said they were somewhat satisfied. Residents 

Executive Summary v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the mixed-income sites showed slightly higher levels of satisfaction. This difference may 

have less to do with the mix of neighbors at a site than it does with whether the unit was newly 

built or rehabilitated. By and large, occupants of newly constructed units (in both 100-percent 

public housing and mixed-income sites) reported higher satisfaction levels than did residents 

who occupied rehabilitated units. 

Changes in Resident Characteristics 

The residents of the revitalized HOPE VI developments have substantially different 

characteristics from the pre-HOPE VI residents on most dimensions. The current residents 

have higher incomes on average, are more likely to be working, have more education, are 

more likely to be elderly, have smaller households, and are slightly more racially diverse. 

Nevertheless, two-thirds of current households (including 77 percent of public housing 

households) have extremely low incomes, and 93 percent are headed by a minority. Single 

female-headed households with children are the most common household type (39 percent), 

followed by single-person households (26 percent). Elderly persons head 19 percent of all 

households at the study sites. 

The presence of non-public housing households is an important reason for the differences 

between pre- and post-HOPE VI resident characteristics. Thus, the change in resident 

characteristics tends to be greater at the five mixed-income sites. When the comparison of 

pre- and post-HOPE VI resident characteristics is limited to public housing households, the 

differences are reduced. However, there are some important differences even for public 

housing households. Current public housing residents have substantially higher incomes 

(although the overwhelming majority still have extremely low incomes), are more likely to 

be working, and are more likely to be elderly than pre-HOPE VI residents. 

Of the current HOPE VI residents, 41 percent reported they lived in the development before 

HOPE VI.5

 This explains, in part, why the pre- and post- HOPE VI characteristics of public 

housing residents are so similar on characteristics such as race. The share of returning 

residents ranged from 9 to 75 percent across the sites. Our exploratory analysis of factors that 

might explain the cross-site differences in the share of returning residents suggests that three 

factors are associated with a higher return rate: relocation within the site during 

redevelopment, minimal “new” screening for returning residents, and a tighter rental housing 

market in the city. 

The characteristics of public housing residents were similar at 100-percent public housing 

sites and mixed-income sites, but the non-public housing households were very different 

from the public housing households at the mixed-income sites. The mixed-income 

developments were able to attract non-public housing households with much greater 

economic means than the public housing households. In addition to having higher incomes, 

Including non-public housing households, an average of 41 percent of current HOPE VI residents lived in 

the developments prior to revitalization. 

Executive Summary vi 

5 
 

 

non-public housing households were more likely to be White and more likely to be headed 

by a person with a college degree, but much less likely to be headed by an elderly person and 

much less likely to have children in their household. Market-rate households drive the large 

differences between public and non-public housing households. The characteristics of 

households subsidized by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit were in-between those of 

public housing and market-rate households, although somewhat more similar to the public 

housing than to the market-rate households. 

All five sites with non-public housing units are classified as mixed-income in this report. 

However, the share of non-public housing units at these sites ranges from 17 to 60 percent. In 

fact, only three sites (Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and Charlotte) met various definitions of 

mixed-income that have been developed as part of other research studies. These sites have 

substantial shares of both extremely low-income households (income less than 30 percent of 

area median) and relatively higher income households (income above 50 percent of area 

median). 

Management Changes at HOPE VI Sites 

A few of the HOPE VI awards examined in this study were made to housing agencies, such 

as Charlotte and Milwaukee, that, although they had at least one severely distressed 

development in their inventory, were otherwise considered to be well managed. Many of the 

early HOPE VI awards, however, were made to agencies with histories of management 

problems. Within the developments, distress was manifested in high vacancy rates, lax lease 

enforcement, poor rent collections, and neglected maintenance and upkeep. HOPE VI grants 

offered agencies the opportunity to try new management strategies, such as private 

management, decentralized management procedures, and modified resident selection and 

occupancy policies. 

Today, private firms manage the developments at 8 of the 11 study sites. In part, this 

occurred in response to the demands of Tax Credit investors, who usually insist on private 

management even if the development is entirely or predominantly public housing. All five 

study sites with Tax Credit financing are privately managed. In fact, only in Cleveland, 

Milwaukee, and Oakland does the public housing agency continue to have full responsibility 

for managing the revitalized development. 

Overall, the PHAs that have opted for private management have been very pleased with the 

results. For example, Boston PHA staff said that resident complaints about the agency’s poor 

management at Mission Main contributed to the decision to hire a private manager soon after 

the HOPE VI grant award, even though the revitalization plan at that time did not involve 

Tax Credit financing. A private firm took over the day-to-day management of the 

development, including coordination of resident relocation. The new firm dramatically 

improved living conditions for residents and helped the PHA begin to regain residents’ trust. 

Executive Summary vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

According to survey results, residents in most of the revitalized developments are satisfied 

with the management of their developments, whether publicly or privately managed and 

whether in 100-percent public housing or mixed-income sites. Across all sites, an average of 

84 percent of respondents said they were “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with the 

management of their development. 

Information on standard, quantifiable management indicators for both PHA managed and 

privately managed developments indicates that the HOPE VI developments were well 

managed in the early years after reoccupancy. Rent collections were generally greater than 90 

percent. Turnover was typically reported to be around 10 percent.6 At the same time, 

property managers at some sites raised concerns that could potentially affect the future of 

these developments. These concerns include deterring crime, keeping up the property’s curb 

appeal, especially where the surrounding neighborhood remains distressed, maintaining the 

targeted income mix, and ensuring the financial sustainability of the development. 

Changes in Supportive Services 

Before the start of the HOPE VI program, five PHAs (Cleveland, Baltimore, New Haven, 

Charlotte, and Milwaukee) offered supportive services to original residents at the study sites. 

The services offered by the five PHAs typically included childcare, recreational programs for 

youth, and some self-sufficiency programs such as job readiness or job skills training. The 

remaining HOPE VI sites offered very limited services before HOPE VI. The PHAs at these 

sites had limited capacity to provide services directly, and many did not have relationships 

with local providers that would ensure public housing residents’ access to services. 

With the coming of HOPE VI, PHAs at the study sites had the resources to provide 

comprehensive services to residents at the targeted developments. PHAs allocated varying 

levels of HOPE VI funding to supportive services. The proportion of HOPE VI funds 

budgeted for services ranged from just 2 percent in Baltimore to the full 15 percent allowed 

in Cleveland and Charlotte. In dollar terms, the amounts allocated ranged from $1.1 million 

in Baltimore to $7.7 million in Cleveland and $6.1 million in Charlotte. Several sites relied 

entirely on the HOPE VI funds for their supportive service initiatives (Camden, Cleveland, 

San Francisco, and New Haven). The remaining sites leveraged at least some funds from 

other sources. In addition to the funds allocated for staffing and service provision, most of 

the study sites included plans to use some of their construction funds to build or renovate 

community facilities. 

Community and Supportive Services funds could be used for different categories of people 

including: original residents who stayed on site during the redevelopment; original residents 

who moved away permanently; original residents who moved away and returned; new 

Based on discussions with staff from the National Multi Housing Council, the average yearly turnover 

among market-rate rental properties is between 40 and 50 percent. Turnover for 100-percent public and 

assisted housing properties is thought to average 15 percent. 

Executive Summary viii 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

development residents; and residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the HOPE VI sites.7 

Because this report focuses on changes at the HOPE VI sites after revitalization, the 

discussion below is limited to the supportive services provided to residents of the revitalized 

developments after reoccupancy. 

Based on responses to a resident survey, the most commonly used supportive services 

included youth/after school programs, adult education, and childcare. Both awareness and 

use of HOPE VI services was much higher at the 100-percent public housing sites than at the 

mixed-income sites. Nearly two-thirds of residents at 100-percent public housing 

developments were aware that services were available through the HOPE VI program, and 

about one-half of those respondents had a household member who had used at least one 

service. By contrast, slightly more than one-third of respondents at mixed-income 

developments were aware services were available, and just under a third of them had a 

household member who used any service. 

More than one-half of the study sites provided supportive services on site, typically at newly 

completed community centers or in buildings that have been temporarily set aside for use by 

supportive service providers. At Baltimore’s Pleasant View Gardens, for example, new 

facilities house a day care center, a Boys and Girls Club, a community health center, and 

offices for a variety of supportive service providers. Cleveland’s Carl B. Stokes Social 

Services Mall, formerly an eight-story elderly housing building, has been renovated to house a 

full-service medical clinic, a large transitional housing program, a probation center, a childcare 

center, and a variety of services for families. 

At all of the sites, the HOPE VI grants allowed PHAs to offer a richer array of services 

shortly after reoccupancy than had been possible in the past. However, supportive services 

program staff at virtually all sites expressed concern about sustaining these services once HOPE 

VI funds are exhausted. In late 2002, only two sites (New Haven and Boston) had substantial 

funds remaining in their supportive services budgets. 

Changes in Security and Safety 

The HOPE VI program was designed to address problems at some of the most physically and 

socially distressed housing developments in the country. The developments selected for 

funding had serious crime problems and most were located in neighborhoods with high crime 

rates. For example, Baltimore’s Pleasant View Gardens was considered a haven for 

criminals, and Boston’s Mission Main and New Haven’s Monterey Place as locations of 

large open-air drug markets. Developments in Oakland, Cleveland, and San Francisco were 

located in neighborhoods with high crime rates compared with citywide rates. 

Neighborhood residents are eligible for some CSS services as long as the housing agency primarily serves 

original residents and new public housing residents of the revitalized site. 

Executive Summary ix 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PHAs used several methods to increase security at the HOPE VI developments. In Boston, 

Atlanta, New Haven, and San Francisco, management hired private security firms to patrol the 

HOPE VI developments. Surveillance cameras were installed throughout Baltimore’s Pleasant 

View Gardens, and a Housing Authority police substation was set up in the new community 

center. In Cleveland, the housing agency police department relocated from downtown to a 

building next to Outhwaite Homes and King Kennedy, providing a more visible police 

presence near the developments. In Atlanta and Charlotte, “courtesy officer” programs offer 

city police officers free or reduced rent at the HOPE VI developments to encourage officers to 

live there. 

Program staff at several sites said that the housing agencies worked with city governments to 

improve police services in HOPE VI communities. In a few sites, residents of HOPE VI 

developments have been encouraged to get involved in improving safety and security. 

In communities where the HOPE VI site is located in a larger neighborhood with high rates 

of crime, addressing security at the site is not enough. In addition to site-based strategies, the 

San Francisco, Charlotte, Cleveland, and Camden housing agencies tried to persuade local 

and state officials to extend their anti-crime efforts to dangerous areas near the HOPE VI 

developments. For example, San Francisco staff worked (and are still working) with city 

police to increase patrols at nearby parks and shut down adjacent drug houses, both of which 

were problematic sources of crime. 

Crime rates were lower at all sites after revitalization than before revitalization. It is not possible 

to attribute definitely the changes to the revitalization as crime rates were declining in most areas 

during the 1990s. However, if declines in the crime rates for these sites exceed citywide declines 

or declines in other parts of the city, it is possible to suggest that such a linkage might exist. 

Comparable pre- and post- crime data were available at only six sites. 

Crime data for Charlotte, Milwaukee, New Haven, and Boston document that crime rates 

decreased much faster in the HOPE VI developments than in either the city or in other public 

housing developments. The change in Charlotte is particularly dramatic, where the crime rate 

was very high to begin with, but then dropped by 67 percent compared with a 9-percent drop in 

other public housing developments. At two other sites the trends were not as significant. At 

Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore, crime dropped by 13 percent compared with 17 percent 

citywide, while in Oakland it dropped by 27 percent at the development compared with 41 

percent citywide. 

Although comparable statistics were not available, PHA staff in Cleveland, Camden, 

Washington, D.C., and San Francisco reported modest changes compared with other citywide 

or public housing measures of crime. Crime decreased at Washington, D.C.’s Townhomes on 

Capitol Hill at about the same rate as the citywide average. San Francisco’s two HOPE VI 

developments saw crime drop relative to citywide averages, but crime rates in the HOPE VI 

neighborhoods still remained higher than at least 80 percent of the city’s neighborhoods. No 

Executive Summary x 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

data were available in Camden, but local administrators believe that, although crime is down 

at the development, drug activity is still a considerable concern. 

Resident perceptions of crime provide another indicator of the level and trends in crime. 

Perceptions are in part what determine the overall desirability of living in a neighborhood. 

Even if there is a high level of criminal activity, if it is limited to small areas in the 

neighborhood, residents may not perceive it as an issue directly affecting their safety. Across 

all sites, an average of 74 percent of the HOPE VI residents reported feeling safe outside their 

building compared with 58 percent of the pre-HOPE VI residents. 

Local respondents in several sites acknowledge that sustaining the reductions in crime will be 

challenging in the face of a weaker economy and more limited resources for crime prevention 

and law enforcement. Already in Boston, the development’s private manager and PHA staff 

suggested that many of the people imprisoned as a result of a 1995 drug sweep are now getting 

out of prison and may be returning to their old neighborhood. During a return visit to Baltimore 

in early 2003, it was learned that surveillance cameras installed at Pleasant View Gardens are 

not working and are too expensive to repair or replace. Also, the police substations built near 

Pleasant View Gardens and Atlanta’s Centennial Place are rarely staffed. 

Changes in HOPE VI Neighborhoods 

Before redevelopment, most of the HOPE VI neighborhoods in the study were seriously 

distressed communities confronting an array of social and economic challenges. The 

neighborhoods were highly segregated, poor areas characterized by large concentrations of 

poorly educated, unemployed, minority residents. As the HOPE VI redevelopment plans 

evolved, some HOPE VI sites located within these struggling communities incorporated 

neighborhood revitalization goals into their redevelopment plans, believing that the long term 

success and viability of the redevelopment was linked to the overall health of the surrounding 

community. 

Over 10 years, some HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced considerable improvement and 

others changed only slightly. The confluence of a strong national economy, local economic 

development initiatives, and a variety of government programs clearly contributed to the 

changes observed at many sites. Yet, many local observers also indicated that the HOPE VI 

redevelopment projects contributed to positive change in their communities. 

The Charlotte and Atlanta neighborhoods have witnessed the most change since the HOPE 

VI grants were awarded in the early 1990s, having been strongly influenced by the 

demographic changes that occurred at the HOPE VI site itself. Both neighborhoods 

experienced a large reduction in poverty: 72 to 44 percent in Atlanta, and 54 to 38 percent in 

Charlotte. Changes in other characteristics—unemployment rate, proportion of persons without a 

high school diploma, and persons employed in professional occupations—suggest a lessening of 

the neighborhoods’ social isolation. These neighborhoods also became less racially segregated 

Executive Summary xi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

between 1990 and 2000, although minorities still comprise a large proportion of the 2000 

population.8 

In early 2003, when researchers returned to Atlanta for a followup visit, there was extensive 

evidence of neighborhood change in the area around Centennial Place that local observers 

attribute to the HOPE VI redevelopment. In an underutilized section between Centennial 

Place and downtown that had previously been known as “The Void,” new construction was 

underway. A new aquarium was being built. Two large market-rate condominium projects 

were under construction, and another was planned. Retail and commercial development had 

not yet followed, although the Centennial development team was working to attract retail at a 

parcel adjacent to the HOPE VI site. The aquarium is expected to attract other tourist-related 

establishments and once the condominiums begin to sell, other retail services may locate in 

the neighborhood. 

The First Ward Place/Autumn Place neighborhood in Charlotte has also continued to 

experience improvements, particularly in the development of new market-rate rental and 

homeownership units. As part of the city’s broader revitalization strategy, approximately 250 

market-rate units were built in the neighborhood, and an additional 83 units were under 

construction in early 2003. The new units are townhomes and condominiums available for 

rent and ownership, and built in a variety of architectural styles. 

Most of the HOPE VI neighborhoods have not fared as well as Atlanta and Charlotte. For 

example, little has changed in the McGuire Gardens neighborhood in Camden since 1990. It 

remains one of the poorest neighborhoods in a city that has struggled with the devastating 

impacts of social and economic distress. Approximately 94 percent of residents are African 

American or Hispanic, nearly 20 percent are unemployed, 54 percent do not have a high 

school diploma, and only 16 percent are working in professional or managerial occupations. 

In addition, nearly one-quarter of the neighborhood’s housing stock lies vacant. 

Except for the HOPE VI redevelopment, there has been little economic or housing 

development in the McGuire neighborhood in recent years. There are a few locally based 

organizations attempting to revitalize the neighborhood, but their efforts are piecemeal— 

literally one house at a time. The area’s commercial strip boasts a new gas station and a roller 

skating rink built adjacent to McGuire Gardens. Beyond that, little has changed in the mix of 

struggling commercial businesses—a Laundromat, a liquor store, a grocery store, and several 

convenience stores and fast food establishments. It is unlikely that the McGuire Gardens 

redevelopment alone will spur serious revitalization in this community. 

A neighborhood with stronger assets than McGuire Gardens, the Bernal Dwellings 

neighborhood in San Francisco has experienced modest improvements since 1990. The 

In Atlanta’s Centennial Place neighborhood, the proportion of households headed by a minority declined 

from 87 percent in 1990 to 73 percent in 2000. In Charlotte’s First Ward Place neighborhood, the 

proportion declined from 83 percent in 1990 to 64 percent in 2000. 

Executive Summary xii 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

neighborhood is a residential area in the southernmost portion of the Mission District—the 

cultural, commercial, and residential heart of San Francisco’s Hispanic population. The most 

noteworthy improvements include a 7.7-percentage-point decline in the unemployment rate and 

the 12-percentage-point increase in the share of residents employed in professional or 

management occupations. These trends, particularly in the share of professional employment, are 

likely due to the information technology boom of the 1990s.9 Bernal, with its historic townhomes 

and vibrant street life, was an attractive location for people working in these businesses and for 

other “urban pioneers” seeking a relatively affordable area in the extremely expensive San 

Francisco market. Both PHA staff and other local observers reported that the positive trends for 

the neighborhood were primarily a result of the city’s economic boom. Local observers also 

acknowledged that the development eliminated a major eyesore in the neighborhood and 

opened the door for future economic growth to encompass the entire neighborhood rather 

than just the fringes. 

Today, most of the HOPE VI neighborhoods in the study are at a critical moment in their 

path toward revitalization. There are many uncertainties that may, if events go well, further 

stimulate neighborhood improvement or, if events turn sour, send neighborhoods into 

decline. The health of the national economy and the ability of HOPE VI sites to maintain 

their economic viability are perhaps the most important of the unknowns. The long-term 

fortunes of many HOPE VI neighborhoods and developments remain uncertain. 

This information is based on 2000 Census data. It is possible that these gains have been eroded with the 

economic downturn since that time. 

Executive Summary xiii 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

I. Introduction 

In 1989, Congress established the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public 

Housing to explore the problems of troubled public housing developments and to establish a 

plan to address those problems by the year 2000. Following several years of research and 

public hearings, the Commission’s 1992 final report identified the key factors that defined 

severely distressed housing: extensive physical deterioration of the property; a considerable 

proportion of residents living below the poverty level; a high incidence of serious crime; and 

management problems as evidenced by a large number of vacancies, high unit turnover, and 

low rent collection rates.10 The report estimated that 6 percent, or 86,000, of the nation’s 1.4 

million public housing units were severely distressed based on these factors.11 

The Commission members agreed that existing approaches for improving public housing were 

inadequate to address the needs of severely distressed developments. Instead, they proposed the 

creation of a new program to address comprehensively the social and physical problems of 

distressed public housing communities. Congress first provided funding for such a program 

through the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and 

Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993. Originally called the Urban Revitalization 

Demonstration Program, this public housing revitalization program soon became known by the 

acronym HOPE VI (Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere). Congressional 

appropriations have been provided for HOPE VI every year since 1993.12 

This report presents the results of the Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program, 

initiated by Abt Associates Inc. in 1998 under contract to the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD). Abt Associates previously completed a Baseline Study that 

documented conditions before revitalization at 15 HOPE VI sites that received awards in 

1993 and 1994. The Interim Assessment was designed to study program impacts by 

collecting and analyzing data about the original 15 HOPE VI sites once redevelopment was 

completed and units were reoccupied. 

This chapter reviews the background of the HOPE VI program, including a discussion of its 

original goals and how they evolved over time. The findings of the HOPE VI Baseline Study 

are then summarized. The last section of the chapter introduces the Interim Assessment by 

10	 An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI. Volume 1, Cross-site Report. Prepared by Abt 

Associates, August 1996, p. 1-6. 

11	 The Final Report of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing: A Report to 

Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC, August 1992. 

12	 While the HOPE VI program received Congressional appropriations each year beginning in 1993, the 

program did not receive Congressional authorization until the passage of the Quality Housing and Work 

Responsibility Act of 1998. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

discussing the challenges that arose in this second phase of the research and outlining the 

contents of the remaining chapters. 

1.1 Background on the HOPE VI Program 

The HOPE VI program is aimed, overall, at accomplishing the complete revitalization of 

severely distressed developments by investing in people, buildings, and neighborhoods. As 

originally envisioned, the HOPE VI program differed in several ways from previous efforts 

to address the problems of these developments. First, public housing agencies (PHAs) were 

required to focus on the supportive services needs of residents as well as the physical 

conditions of the developments. Second, HOPE VI was intended to offer PHAs a greater 

degree of flexibility in determining an approach to revitalization. HUD urged the PHAs to 

“incorporate boldness and creativity in their plans.”13 

The first HOPE VI Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was issued in January 1993. A 

total of $300 million was available. By law, eligible applicants were limited to housing 

agencies operating in one of the 40 most populous cities or agencies that were on HUD’s 

Troubled Housing Authority list as of March 31, 1992.14 Implementation grants were capped 

at $50 million. Housing agencies could propose a revitalization plan that covered up to 500 

units in three locations. 

The NOFA stipulated that at least 80 percent of funds were to be devoted to capital costs, 

which included major reconstruction, rehabilitation, demolition with replacement of units on 

or off site, management improvements, and planning and technical assistance activities. No 

more than 20 percent of implementation grant funds could be used for community and 

supportive service activities, such as job training, youth, or drug use and prevention 

programs. 

In September 1993, HUD awarded 13 implementation grants (6 fully funded, 7 partially 

funded) and 2 planning grants for the first round of HOPE VI funding.15 An additional 

appropriation of $755 million for FY 1994 enabled HUD to increase the total number of 

implementation grants to 26 (and total planning grants to 8). The appropriations legislation 

mandated that HUD select the FY 1994 grantees from the partially funded and unfunded 

applications received in the FY 1993 competition.16 Then in 1995, Congress required that 

HUD provide implementation grants to the 8 planning grant winners from 1993 and 1994. 

13	 An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, p. 1-8. 

14	 Harry J. Wexler, “HOPE VI Market Means/Public Ends—The Goals, Strategies, and Midterm Lessons of 

HUD’s Urban Revitalization Demonstration,” in Journal of Affordable Housing, Volume 10, No. 3, Spring 

2001, pp. 195-233. According to Wexler, if the housing authority was troubled, it had to be making 

substantial progress to change its status. 

15	 In addition to implementation grants, PHAs could apply for smaller planning grants (up to $500,000) to be used 

for studies, plan development, and organizational support to involve residents in a HOPE VI planning process. 

16	 An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, p. 1-13. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

Overall, between 1993 and 1995, 34 implementation grants were provided to 32 housing 

agencies based on applications received from FY 1993.17 

1.1.1 The Evolution of the HOPE VI Program 

In successive Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) and grant years, the HOPE VI program 

changed significantly. In response to the first two NOFAs, many early HOPE VI plans involved 

replacing existing public housing with new public housing units and creating a broader range of 

incomes by increasing the share of working public housing residents. Beginning in 1996, HUD 

began to encourage PHA applicants to consider mixed-financing approaches and the 

development of mixed-income communities that blended public housing units with market-rate 

units and units financed by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Other themes also emerged. 

For example, in 1996 HUD began emphasizing “new urbanism” and broader neighborhood-wide 

redevelopment strategies, as well as partnerships, leveraging, and homeownership. Some early 

grantees revised their plans to incorporate income mixing and broader neighborhood goals. Over 

time, grant amounts have become smaller, leveraging has increased, and the program has been 

opened up to include a broader group of PHAs and smaller developments. In FY 2001, the 

maximum grant amount was $35 million; it was reduced to $20 million in FY 2002. After 1993, 

applicants were not required to propose the development of a minimum or maximum number of 

units. 

On the community and supportive services side, program changes have included an increased 

recognition of the need to manage relocation carefully, an increased focus on implementation 

planning, and coordination of case management and self-sufficiency programs with welfare 

reform, involving the entire family instead of just the household head. The scope of service 

provision expanded to require that supportive services be available to original residents 

wherever they move and to encourage sustainability of supportive services beyond the life of 

the grant. Finally, the maximum amount allowable for community and supportive services 

decreased from 20 to 15 percent, consistent with an increased emphasis on leveraging funds 

and partnerships. 

1.1.2 The HOPE VI Program in 2003 

Between 1993 and 2002, HUD funded 193 HOPE VI revitalization grants, totaling slightly more 

than $5 billion. An additional $308 million funded 35 planning grants and 177 demolition 

grants.18 According to a 2002 HUD report to Congress, these funds will be used to demolish 

17	 Two housing agencies, Detroit and San Antonio, each received two implementation grants. According to 

the Baseline Study, the requirement that HOPE VI awards be made to nearly all original applicants resulted 

in the funding of some poorly prepared applications. However, a number of PHAs changed their plans after 

the grants were awarded. 

18	 www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about/index.cfm. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

almost 72,000 units over a 10-year period. 19 As of September 2002, 21,022 units (both public 

housing and non-public housing units) were constructed or rehabilitated, while another 65,700 

units were planned.20 Also as of September 2002, $2 billion, or 44 percent of all HOPE VI funds 

available at that time had been expended.21 HUD has reported that despite “ significant strides in 

meeting the original goals set forth in the Commission’s action plan,” only 15 revitalization 

grants have been completed.22 

In recent NOFAs, HUD has attempted to address some problems that have resulted in slow 

progress. The FY 2002 NOFA emphasized the capacity of the redevelopment team (PHA and 

developer), as well as the project’s readiness. Factors that determined readiness included 

whether the public housing development was vacant, whether the site was cleared, if a 

preliminary site design had been completed, and if five or more public planning sessions had 

been held. In addition, applicants were required to provide certification that they had already 

procured a developer or intended to act as their own developer. 

As this report is written, the future of the HOPE VI program is being considered. HUD has 

proposed to end funding for the HOPE VI program in FY 2004. In Congressional testimony, 

HUD Secretary Mel Martinez suggested that the program served an important purpose over the 

past decade but that the per-unit redevelopment costs are too high compared with other HUD 

programs and the pace of development is too slow. He also suggested that there are now other 

ways to leverage private capital for public housing rehabilitation.23 

Federal lawmakers are unlikely to end the HOPE VI program in the near term. The Senate 

has passed an appropriations bill that would extend HOPE VI through September 30, 2004 

and recommends continued funding at $574 million per year, while the House of 

Representatives has proposed only $50 million for HOPE VI in 2004. It is also considering 

HR1614, or the HOPE VI Program Reauthorization and Small Community Main Street 

Rejuvenation and Housing Act of 2003. The bill would reauthorize the program through 

fiscal 2005 and make it available to smaller communities. 

19	 HOPE VI: Best Practices and Lessons Learned 1992-2002. Submitted to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the U.S. Housing of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, June 14, 2002. Also see errata 

insert (1), corrections for pages 23-24, February 28, 2003. 

20	 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HOPE VI Quarterly Report. National Aggregate 

Summary. Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2002, p. 8. 

21	 HOPE VI Revitalization Grant Program: Financial Summary Report (4QFY 2002). This reporting period 

included 165 grants and represented $4.54 billion in HOPE VI funds. It does not include information on 

HUD’s 2002 grantees. 

22	 Ibid. 

23	 Testimony of the Honorable Mel Martinez before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, March 

5, 2003. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 Findings from the HOPE VI Baseline Study 

The impact of the HOPE VI program on residents, housing, and neighborhoods is the focus 

of a long-term study initiated by HUD in 1994. The first phase of this study, the Historical 

and Baseline Assessment of the HOPE VI Program, was undertaken by Abt Associates 

between 1994 and 1996. Through the Baseline Study, case studies of 15 HOPE VI sites were 

developed by local researchers working in each of these communities, producing a 

comprehensive picture of existing conditions and revitalization plans shortly after the grants 

were awarded.24 In addition, Abt Associates prepared a cross-site report that documented the 

challenges that many PHAs faced in the early implementation of the HOPE VI program. This 

section briefly summarizes the findings of the Baseline Study along four dimensions: the 

developments, the original residents, the surrounding neighborhoods, and HOPE VI plans 

and early implementation. 

1.2.1 The Developments 

The 15 HOPE VI sites that make up the baseline study received grants in 1993 and 1994. 

Exhibit 1-1 lists the targeted developments, along with some selected characteristics of these 

developments and the amount of HOPE VI funding each received. In four cases (Cleveland, 

Oakland, San Francisco, and Atlanta), the grant was to be applied to more than one housing 

development within the city. 

Overall, the 15 sites represent some of the most troubled public housing developments—and 

agencies—selected for the HOPE VI program. They originally included more than 13,500 

housing units, mostly family units built during the 1940s and 1950s. According to the Baseline 

Study, many of these developments had “. . . some or all of the design flaws associated with 

unsuccessful public housing: construction on (superblocks), poorly designed buildings for 

housing families, small units, and a high number of units per acre.”25 The local researchers 

typically rated the physical conditions of the properties as “poor” or “very poor.” Only two 

developments (King Kennedy in Cleveland and Earle Village in Charlotte) were considered by 

local researchers to be in “good” condition. 

While one might expect that these developments would contain a significant percentage of 

family highrise units, this was not the case. Only the Cabrini Extension in Chicago was 

entirely a family highrise development. Two other sites (Lafayette in Baltimore and the two 

San Francisco developments) consisted of a mix of family highrise and lowrise buildings.26 

24 As HUD’s prime contractor for the Baseline Study, Abt Associates Inc. recruited and managed the 15 local 

research affiliates (LRAs) and designed the baseline data collection protocols. The LRAs completed the data 

collection forms and prepared the case study reports. The LRAs also conducted interviews with a sample of 

original residents at each site. Abt developed a list of survey questions; however, the LRA determined which 

questions would be asked of residents at each site. 

25 An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, p. iii. 

26 Ibid., p. 3-7. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 5 
+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

Exhibit 1-1 

Characteristics of HOPE VI Case Study Sites At Baseline 

HOPE VI Site Total Year 

Percent 

Vacant 

Overall 

Baseline 

% Household Receipt 

of Public Assistance 

And Award Amount1 Units Opened (1992) Conditions2 (1993) 

Camden ($42.1 M) 

McGuire Gardens 368 1954 34% Poor 75% 

Cleveland ($50 M) 

King Kennedy 

Outhwaite 

1152 

1,024 

1971 

1937 

66% 

51% 

Good 

Poor 

77% 

77% 

Milwaukee ($45.7 M) 

Hillside Terrace 596 1950 9% Fair 83% 

Oakland ($26.5 M) 

Lockwood Gardens 372 1942 2% Fair 78% 

Scattered Sites 54 1969 4% Very Poor to Fair 75% 

San Francisco ($49.9 M) 

Bernal Dwellings 

Plaza East 

208 

276 

1953 

1956 

1% 

0% 

Poor 

Poor 

89% 

84% 

Baltimore/Pleasant View ($49.6M) 

Lafayette Homes 807 1955 2% Poor 81% 

Boston ($49.9M) 

Mission Main 8223 1940 12% Very Poor 73% 

New Haven/Monterey ($45.3M) 

Elm Haven 4624 1941 6% Poor 67% 

Charlotte/First Ward ($41.7M) 

Earle Village 409 1967 5% Good 60% 

Washington/Townhomes ($25 M) 

Ellen Wilson 134 1941 100% Very Poor Vacant 

Atlanta/Centennial ($42.5 M) 

Clark Howell 624 1941 25% Poor 62% 

Techwood 457 1937 9% Very Poor 51% 

San Antonio ($48.8 M) 

Spring View 421 1953 13% Poor 62% 

Chicago ($50 M) 

Cabrini Homes Ext. 1,921 1943 33% Very Poor 90% 

Detroit ($39.8 M) 

Jeffries Homes 2,170 1952 NA Poor 43% 

New Orleans ($44.2 M) 

Desire 1,832 1956 51% Very Poor 78% 

Source: An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Volume 1, Cross Site Report. Exhibits 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 3-1, and 3-7. 

1	 In all, there are 15 HOPE VI sites that include a total of 19 developments. One of these developments (in Oakland) consists of several scattered 

site properties. Except where noted, the sites are listed in the report tables according to their project type post-revitalization. All public housing 

sites are listed first, followed by mixed-income sites. The four sites that are not included in the cross-site analysis are shown last in this exhibit. 

2	 Conditions were rated by Local Research Affiliates (LRAs) for the HOPE VI Baseline Study. These ratings are based on the LRAs’ subjective 

assessments of how the developments compared with the surrounding communities. LRAs rated conditions from “very poor” to “excellent.” See 

Exhibit 3-7 of An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, p. 3-13. 

3 The development originally contained more than 1,000 units; 822 units remained at the time of the Baseline Study. 

4	 In addition, there were 99 units in two nearby elderly disabled developments that became part of the HOPE VI project. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The family units at the remaining 12 sites were located in lowrise apartment buildings, row 

houses, and some midrise buildings.27 Unit density varied greatly from one site to the next. In 

Earle Village in Charlotte the density was just 11 units per acre. By contrast, in San 

Francisco’s Plaza East, the density was 76.1 units per acre. The average number of units per 

acre across all sites was 29.1.28 

Vacancy rates also varied significantly and were not necessarily correlated with physical 

conditions. For example, the development with the highest vacancy rate—King Kennedy in 

Cleveland (66 percent vacant)—was rated in good condition. At Lafayette Homes in 

Baltimore and in Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East in San Francisco, the vacancy rates were 

just 2 percent or less despite poor physical conditions. Overall, of the 19 developments 

included in the Baseline Study, 6 had vacancy rates of less than 5 percent while 7 had 

vacancy rates of 20 percent or more.29 

1.2.2 Original Residents of HOPE VI Developments 

The residents who lived in the targeted developments were largely poor, minority 

households.30 As shown in Exhibit 1-1, the percentage of households relying on public 

assistance ranged from a high of 90 percent at Cabrini Extension in Chicago to a low of 43 

percent at Jeffries Homes in Detroit. A majority of households received public assistance at 

every development except Jeffries.31 Across all sites, an average of 16 percent of households 

had some earned income.32 

Females headed 83 percent of all households at the 15 study sites. Of all households, 12 percent 

were headed by an elderly person. Except in two sites, most residents in the targeted 

developments were Black or African American.33 The exceptions were Camden’s McGuire 

Gardens and Boston’s Mission Main, where more than one-half of the residents were Hispanic or 

Latino. San Antonio’s Spring View Apartments and San Francisco’s Bernal Dwellings also 

showed substantial numbers (roughly 25 percent) of Hispanic or Latino households or 

27 Two of these 12 sites, Jeffries Homes in Detroit and Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee, had highrise buildings 

that were occupied by elderly and/or disabled persons. Lowrise buildings (walkups and rowhouses) were 

the predominant structure type among all 34 HOPE VI sites that received grants in 1993 and 1994. 

28 An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, p. 3-3. 

29 Ibid., p.1-21. One of the 19 developments, Ellen Wilson Dwellings in Washington, D.C., was completely 

vacant when the grant was awarded. 

30 Ibid., p. iv. 

31 Ibid., p. 3-10. 

32 Ibid., p. 1-24 to 1-25. 

33 Based on Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, HUD requires that a person having origins in 

any of the Black racial group of Africa be referred to as “Black or African American.” These terms are used in 

tables throughout this report. However, for readability the term “African American” is used in the text. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

households of “other” races.34 The characteristics of original residents will be discussed in detail 

in Chapter 3 of this report. 

1.2.3 The Surrounding Neighborhoods 

The targeted developments were located in a variety of neighborhood settings. (See Exhibit 1-2.) 

At only four sites (San Francisco, Camden, Oakland, and New Haven) were the surrounding 

neighborhoods primarily residential. In contrast, the public housing developments in Atlanta and 

Charlotte represented the only residential property in their areas. In the case of Atlanta, the 

“neighbors” included Georgia Institute of Technology and Coca Cola headquarters. More 

commonly, the neighborhoods surrounding the targeted developments contained a mix of 

residential, industrial, commercial, and sometimes institutional uses. 

For example, the area surrounding Baltimore’s Lafayette Homes was about 30 percent residential 

(mostly public housing) and 70 percent industrial and institutional (including a university hospital, 

a correctional facility, and several schools). A number of the HOPE VI neighborhoods also 

contained an extensive amount of vacant land. Physical conditions were described by local 

researchers as “satisfactory” for most of the HOPE VI neighborhoods, especially when compared 

with conditions within the HOPE VI developments themselves. At the same time, most 

neighborhoods had major crime problems. The most extreme examples were Detroit and Oakland. 

The area around Jeffries Homes had the highest violent crime rate in the city of Detroit. The area 

around Lockwood Gardens had the highest overall crime rate in Oakland, and in Baltimore high 

levels of personal and property crime were reported around Lafayette Homes. Other neighborhoods 

reported high levels of prostitution (Camden), gang-related violence (San Francisco and New 

Haven), and drug selling and use (Cleveland, San Francisco, and New Orleans).35 

For neighborhoods that were partly or mostly residential, neighborhood residents were generally 

better off than nearby public housing residents. Even so, many of these neighborhoods contained 

concentrations of very low-income people. For example, in and around the Desire development 

in New Orleans, 44 percent of residents had incomes below the poverty level. The poverty rate 

was 75 percent in the vicinity of Baltimore’s Lafayette Homes, while the neighborhood that 

includes San Antonio’s Spring View development had a 44-percent poverty rate. The Capitol 

Hill neighborhood where Ellen Wilson Dwellings was located was an exception, with only 9 

percent of residents living below the poverty level.36 

Most of the targeted public housing developments were not well integrated with their 

surroundings. Atlanta’s Clark Howell/Techwood project stands out as a development that did not 

fit with the surrounding land uses. Yet even developments located in more traditional 

neighborhoods were physically isolated. This isolation was frequently created by a lack of 

34 An Historical Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, p. 3-11. 

35 Ibid., p. 4-7 to 4-11. 

36 Ibid., p. 4-13 to 4-18. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

through streets connecting the developments and the neighborhoods. Poor physical conditions 

and unappealing architecture were often contributing factors. In addition, neighborhood residents 

avoided these developments because they viewed them as a major source of crime in their 

communities.37 

Exhibit 1-2 

Characteristics of Neighborhoods Surrounding HOPE VI Sites at Baseline 

1990 Poverty 

HOPE VI Site Primary Land Uses Crime Levels Rate 

Camden More than 75% residential	 High level of prostitution; limited police 38% 

presence 

Cleveland	 16% residential; other mixed uses; High property, narcotic and violent crime 82% 

extensive vacant land 

Milwaukee Mixed; 16% residential; 40% industrial	 Low crime area but this may be related to 72% 

relatively small number of residential units. 

Oakland 65% residential Highest crime area in Oakland 39% 

(Lockwood only) 

San Francisco 

Bernal Dwellings	 70% residential Gang-related violence a problem 25% 

Plaza East 70% residential Drug dealing and use are problems 24% 

Baltimore Mixed—50% residential High levels of violent personal and 75% 

property crime 

Boston 50% institutional; 40% residential High rate of property crime 32% 

New Haven 81% residential High homicide rate and gang activity 30% 

Charlotte Residential is all public housing; Crime rates are high compared with rest of 54% 

extensive vacant land city 

Washington Mixed use; 38% residential; also In 1993, crime was 165 percent of the city 9% 

commercial and government buildings average 

Atlanta Institutional; residential is all public Some crime in the surrounding 72% 

housing; extensive vacant land neighborhood 

San Antonio 63% residential; extensive vacant land High crime area 44% 

Chicago 50% residential; 40% commercial; Limited information; neighborhood is thought 45% 

extensive vacant land to have a lower crime rate than development 

Detroit Mixed use; 30% residential; extensive Highest violent crime rate in the city 51% 

vacant land 

New Orleans Mixed; 60% residential High homicide rate; drug dealing a 44% 

problem 

Sources: An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Exhibit 4-2, pp. 4-7—4-11; 1990 poverty rates are from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

37 Ibid., p. 4-19. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.4 HOPE VI Plans 

HOPE VI grants to the 15 sites ranged from $25 to $50 million; the average grant award 

was $43.2 million. At most sites the plans that were proposed as part of the original 

application underwent changes by the time the baseline case studies were completed in 

1995. The Baseline Study states that the original applications were limited by the time 

allowed to respond to the NOFA and so applicants “did not have the luxury of conducting a 

thorough planning process. With HUD’s encouragement, and often in response to local 

political pressure, the PHAs have continued to refine their plans.”38 Local redevelopment 

efforts were also responding to newly emerging HUD priorities for the program, including 

an increased emphasis on leveraging outside resources, on developing mixed-income 

housing, and on broadening revitalization strategies to encompass the surrounding 

neighborhoods. Finally, changes in PHA leadership also stimulated new thinking about the 

HOPE VI plans. The Baseline Study noted that more than one-half of the 15 PHAs changed 

executive directors between the submission of the HOPE VI application (1993 to 1994) and 

the completion of the baseline case studies (1995).39 

1.3 Goals and Challenges for the HOPE VI Interim Assessment 

In 1998, HUD initiated an Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program in order to explore 

the impacts of HOPE VI on residents, developments, and neighborhoods. As originally 

envisioned, the study involved an examination of the same 15 study sites shortly after 

occupancy to determine the changes that had occurred since baseline and to provide a midterm assessment that would set the stage for a final evaluation of the program. The study 

was intended to examine changes that have occurred within and across these sites with 

regard to: 

• Resident characteristics and attitudes; 

• Physical conditions at the site; 

• Neighborhoods and neighborhood residents; 

• Management and operations; 

• Supportive services; and 

• Crime. 

As the HOPE VI program has matured, questions have been raised about its implementation 

that are outside the scope of this research. Perhaps the most significant question is what has 

happened to the original residents of HOPE VI projects. HUD is sponsoring separate studies 

38 An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, p. v. 

39 Ibid., p. v to vii. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

of this question.40 Questions have also been raised about the costs of developing HOPE VI 

projects. While this is a very important issue, it was not part of the HUD research design for 

the Interim Assessment, and this study collected only limited data on project costs. 

Since 1998, two key issues have complicated the research design. First, redevelopment 

activities were delayed considerably at a number of sites. As a result, we have made several 

modifications to our data collection and analysis plan. Second, the goals and requirements for 

the HOPE VI program have changed considerably since the first NOFA was issued in 1993. 

As a result, some of the redevelopment efforts that we have researched may not be fully 

representative of typical HOPE VI projects today. Each of these issues is discussed below. 

1.3.1 Redevelopment Delays 

Given implementation delays for many of the HOPE VI sites, we altered the original plan to 

conduct onsite data collection only after the redevelopment work was completed. As shown in 

Exhibit 1-3, only six sites were largely completed when data collection occurred. Data collection 

began at another five sites after the development was partially reoccupied. In addition, at one 

site—San Antonio—data collection was undertaken even though construction was not complete 

and no units were occupied.41 

As of May 2003, the three remaining sites—Detroit, Chicago, and New Orleans—had yet to 

begin unit construction. For these three sites, the onsite data collection focused on 

understanding the reasons why these redevelopment efforts had stalled and documenting 

conditions at the sites and in the surrounding neighborhoods.42 

These changes to the data collection plan have affected the cross-site analysis. Most 

important, we have excluded four sites from our analysis: the three sites that were not 

reoccupied as of May 2003 (Chicago, Detroit, and New Orleans) and the San Antonio site, 

where no onsite units were occupied at the time the case study was developed. Thus, this 

report focuses on 11 of the original 15 sites: 

40	 See The HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report, by Susan J. Popkin, Diane K. Levy, Laura E. Harris, Jennifer 

Comey, Mary K. Cunningham, Larry Buron with William Woodley, The Urban Institute, September 2002. Also 

see: The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study, by Larry Buron, Susan Popkin, Diane Levy, Laura Harris, and Jill 

Khadduri, Abt Associates and The Urban Institute, November 2002; HOPE VI and Section 8: Spatial Patterns in 

Relocation, by G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathryn L.S. Pettit, The Urban Institute, January 

2001; and Housing Choices for HOPE VI Relocatees, by Robin E. Smith, The Urban Institute, 2002. 

41	 A decision was made to begin data collection in San Antonio prior to reoccupancy based on information 

from local informants that the redevelopment work was already spurring changes in the surrounding 

neighborhood. A total of 80 units had been occupied off-site by the time of the site visit. In fact, the visit 

revealed that there was less activity than had been reported. Because no units had been built or occupied at 

the time of the visit, we were unable to include San Antonio in this report that focuses on changes postoccupancy. 

42	 A memorandum summarizing the findings of this research study was submitted to HUD in July 2003. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

•	 McGuire Gardens in Camden, New Jersey; 

•	 King Kennedy/Outhwaite in Cleveland; 

•	 Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee; 

•	 Lockwood Gardens in Oakland; 

•	 Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East in San Francisco; 

•	 Lafayette Homes in Baltimore (now called Pleasant View Gardens); 

•	 Mission Main in Boston; 

•	 Elm Haven in New Haven (now called Monterey Place); 

•	 Earle Village in Charlotte (now called First Ward Place); 

•	 Ellen Wilson Dwellings in Washington, D.C. (now called The Townhomes on Capitol 

Hill); and 

•	 Clarke Howell/Techwood in Atlanta (now called Centennial Place).43 

We have also had to accommodate the fact that we are comparing outcomes for 11 sites that 

were at different stages of redevelopment at the time of data collection. We have been careful 

in drawing conclusions about the effects of HOPE VI investments at sites that are not yet 

completed. 

Because data collection occurred over a 3-year period, we made one further adjustment to 

our data collection plan. One-day followup site visits were conducted in early 2003 at six 

sites where initial case studies had been completed in 2000 and 2001 (Baltimore, Milwaukee, 

Cleveland, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Washington, D.C.). The purpose of these visits was to 

describe further changes that occurred since the original site visits and to identify additional 

issues that would merit attention in the cross-site report. While the report relies primarily on 

data collected shortly after reoccupancy to make cross-site comparisons, we have used the 

updated information to identify trends that have occurred since that time. 

1.3.2 HOPE VI Program Changes 

A second issue for the Interim Assessment is that the HOPE VI program has changed 

markedly since its inception. Despite the call for creativity and boldness in planning for 

redevelopment, many PHAs that received early HOPE VI grants initially saw the program as 

another source of public housing modernization funds rather than a program that would 

enable them to address comprehensively the needs of severely distressed communities. Many 

of the early grants were quite large—averaging $43 million—and there was little effort 

initially to use these funds to leverage other resources. Most grantees planned to concentrate 

on the targeted development, with less attention paid to the surrounding neighborhood. 

As discussed in Section 1.1, HUD’s vision of the HOPE VI program evolved, and increased 

emphasis was placed on creating mixed-income communities, using HOPE VI dollars to 

leverage other funding sources, and addressing the redevelopment needs of the surrounding 

community. While some of the case study sites revised their plans to incorporate these objectives, 

43	 These 11 sites include 4,609 on- and off-site units or 20 percent of the 23,015 units that were planned 

through 34 HOPE VI grants awarded between 1993 and 1995. See HOPE VI Quarterly Report, National 

Aggregate Summary, 4QFY 2002, p. 9. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

others were committed to another vision or were too far along in the process to make such 

changes. Thus, among the 15 sites, 6 are 100-percent public housing, while the remainder are (or 

will be) sites with a mix of public housing and non-public housing units referred to as mixedincome sites.44 By contrast, most of the HOPE VI projects that have received awards in recent 

years are mixed-income. 45 

Exhibit 1-3 

Timing of Data Collection at 15 HOPE VI Sites for the Interim Assessment 

Project Largely 

Completion of Completed and Partially Construction Construction Not 

Case Study Re-occupied at Data Re-Occupied at Underway at Data Underway as of 

Collection Data Collection Collection May 2003 

March 2000 Baltimore Cleveland 

Milwaukee 

March 2001 Washington, DC Atlanta 

Boston 

January 2002 Charlotte New Haven San Antonio 

Oakland 

March 2003 Camden Chicago 

San Francisco Detroit 

New Orleans 

Source: Case studies from the Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program (1999 to 2002). 

Clearly, the drawback in studying these early sites is that they do not represent the vision of 

the “typical” HOPE VI project today. On the other hand, the inclusion of 100-percent public 

housing developments and mixed-income developments in the study has allowed the 

exploration of changes that can result from creating revitalized public housing communities 

as well as new mixed-income developments. 

1.4 Report Contents 

The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the 

11 HOPE VI projects included in the cross-site report. The characteristics of these projects 

and their costs and sources of funding are discussed. 

Chapter 3 begins with an analysis of HOPE VI residents to explore the impact of the HOPE VI 

intervention on resident characteristics at the HOPE VI sites. The first section explores who lives 

at the HOPE VI site now, then compares the characteristics of these residents with those who 

lived at the site before revitalization. Subsequent sections of the chapter investigate differences in 

44 Mixed-income housing includes market-rate, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and public housing units. 

45 According to HUD reports, over 77 percent of the housing planned for HOPE VI developments is for 

public housing eligible families. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 13 
 

 

 

 

the characteristics of public and non-public housing residents, the distribution of household 

incomes at mixed-income sites, resident perceptions of the sense of community at all the sites, 

and factors associated with cross-site differences in the share of current residents who lived in the 

development before revitalization. 

Chapter 4 describes the physical changes that have taken place at the study sites. The 

physical conditions that existed before revitalization are explored and the goals that were 

developed to address physical problems are discussed. The second section of the chapter 

describes the physical changes that have occurred as a result of HOPE VI, comparing sites 

that relied primarily on new construction with sites that were rehabilitated and comparing 

100-percent public housing and mixed-income sites. The chapter also discusses resident 

satisfaction with their units, comparing the responses of residents at 100-percent public 

housing sites with those at mixed-income sites. The chapter ends with a discussion of the loss 

of affordable housing units across all study sites. 

Chapter 5 looks at other ingredients of change at the study sites. The first section examines 

management changes that have occurred at the sites and compares management models and 

management experience between mixed-income and 100-percent public housing sites. The 

second section looks at community and supportive services available to residents now living 

at the site and compares this with what existed before revitalization. The chapter concludes 

with a discussion of the safety improvements at the sites and compares current crime levels 

with levels in the early 1990s. 

Chapter 6 focuses on the neighborhoods surrounding the HOPE VI developments. The 

chapter begins with a description of what these neighborhoods were like in 1990 and then 

describes the neighborhood goals that were established as part of the revitalization efforts. 

The chapter then describes the types and levels of changes that have occurred over the past 

10 years. The last section of the chapter reports the results of a quantitative analysis of the 

effects of HOPE VI on property sales in the neighborhoods surrounding the New Haven and 

San Francisco HOPE VI sites. 

The last chapter of the report summarizes the changes that occurred at HOPE VI sites and 

explores future challenges for the developments. 

Finally, the report has five appendixes. Appendix A contains brief descriptions of each of the 

11 study sites. Appendix B presents the data collection methodology for this study, while 

Appendix C contains data tables based on a resident survey at the HOPE VI study sites. 

Appendixes D and E provides additional information on the HOPE VI neighborhoods, 

including data from the 1990 and 2000 census for each study site neighborhood. Finally, 

Appendix E presents the methodology for the quantitative analysis of neighborhood property 

values in New Haven and San Francisco. 

Chapter 1—Introduction 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts
 

This chapter provides an overview of the 11 HOPE VI revitalization efforts that are the 

focus of this report. They are divided into two categories. The first group covers 6 HOPE 

VI grants used to revitalize eight developments as 100-percent public housing.46 While 

some PHAs instituted resident selection criteria to encourage a range of incomes within the 

new public housing community, all units in these developments are under public housing 

Annual Contributions Contracts (ACC). These projects are different from more recent 

HOPE VI developments that have an explicit objective of creating mixed-income housing 

through a combination of ACC and non-ACC units. 

The remaining five HOPE VI grants were used to develop mixed-income housing and are 

more typical of HOPE VI projects that received funding after 1995. All include a mix of 

affordable and market-rate rental units, although the proportion of affordable units varies 

from one site to the next. All of these sites involved demolition of most or all of the existing 

buildings and construction of new units. In addition to HOPE VI funding, some units at these 

sites were funded through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, a federal program 

that provides tax credits to corporations who invest in the development of housing affordable 

to people with incomes below 60 percent of area median income. 

The first two sections of this chapter review the characteristics of the 11 grants and 13 

developments according to these two groupings. This is followed by a discussion of the 

status of the projects, project costs, and sources of funding. 

2.1 The 100-Percent Public Housing Developments 

The eight revitalized 100-percent public housing developments are located in a range of 

inner city settings, from Baltimore and Camden in the East, to the Midwest cities of 

Cleveland and Milwaukee, to the large West Coast cities of Oakland and San Francisco. 

(See Exhibit 2-1.) Even with this geographic spread, the developments are primarily found 

in poor, isolated neighborhoods where subsidized housing, vacant land, and nonresidential 

uses are commonplace. Exceptions include the communities that surround Bernal 

Dwellings and Plaza East in San Francisco. These were relatively stable residential areas in 

1990, especially when compared with other HOPE VI neighborhoods in this study. 

46 In San Francisco and Cleveland, the HOPE VI grant covered two developments. 

Chapter 2—Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 


 


 

Exhibit 2-1 

Characteristics of HOPE VI Developments that Remained 100-Percent Public Housing 

HOPE VI Total Rehab/New Management 

Development Location Onsite Units Construction Unit Mix Type1 Project Status Notes 

Camden	 Very low income 253 70% rehab All public Private May 2002—all units available for 

McGuire Gardens mixed use area near housing occupancy; completed except for 30% new 

downtown construction of a community construction 

center. 

Cleveland Very low income 168 Rehab All public PHA Feb 1997—units completed The grant covers parts of two developments in the Central 

King Kennedy 

Estates 

mixed use area; 

housing is mostly 

housing and occupied. Neighborhood. At King Kennedy, 168 units were renovated 

including 42 units operated by the YMCA as transitional 

subsidized housing. Before 1997, 80 units were renovated with other 

funds. As of 2003, a separate project is underway to build 

98 public housing townhouses on the site. 

Cleveland Very low income 335 Rehab All public PHA Mar 2003—335 units completed 200 other units remain in poor condition on this site. No 

Outhwaite Homes mixed use area; housing and occupied. Additional funds identified as yet to revitalize these units. 

housing is mostly demolition and community center 

subsidized renovations to occur using grant 

funds. 

Milwaukee Isolated low income 470 Rehab All public PHA June 1998—project completed Before HOPE VI, 44 of the family units and 49 

Hillside Terrace residential area housing and occupied. elderly/disabled units were rehabilitated using HUD 

adjacent to downtown modernization funds. Also built 79 scattered site units. 

Oakland Very poor residential 372 Rehab All public PHA Sept 2002—Phase 1 (72 units) Grant covers Lockwood Gardens plus three scattered 

Lockwood Gardens area; dominated by 

subsidized housing planned housing reoccupied and Phase 2 (158 units) in midst of reoccupancy. 

site projects (54 units). The scattered site units were 

renovated and reoccupied in 1999. This report focuses 

Planned project completion for on the Lockwood Gardens site. 

Phase 3 (142 units) in 2005. 

San Francisco In fairly dense 160 New All public Private September 2001—occupancy The grant covers Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East. 

Bernal Dwellings residential area; 

near up and coming 

construction housing completed. 

neighborhoods 

San Francisco In area of dense 193 New All public Private December 2002—occupancy 

Plaza East multifamily housing construction housing completed. 

near downtown 

Baltimore Isolated mixed use 338 New 92% public Private Jan 1998—occupancy This site includes 27 affordable homeownership units. 

Pleasant View area near downtown construction housing competed. However, because the percentage of these units is small 

8% affordable and because they are not integrated throughout the 

homeowner development, we have classified Pleasant View Gardens 

as a 100-percent public housing development. 

Source: Case studies from the Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program (1999 to 2002).
 

1All 100-percent public housing developments are PHA-owned except in San Francisco where the developments are owned by the tax credit investor and a nonprofit arm of the PHA.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

A total of $261.7 million in HOPE VI funds was available to revitalize part or all of the eight 

developments as 100-percent public housing. In all, 2,343 units were or are being developed 

using these as well as other leveraged funds. 47 Most of these units are for families. However, 

Hillside Terrace and Baltimore’s Pleasant View Gardens each has a multifamily building for 

elderly or disabled persons.48 Overall, the units designated for elderly and disabled persons 

represent just 7 percent of total units across all 100-percent public housing sites. 

There is considerable variation in the size of the 100-percent public housing projects after 

revitalization. Bernal Dwellings is the smallest of the eight developments with just 160 units. 

Milwaukee’s Hillside Terrace is the largest with 470 units. 

The pictures of the revitalized developments (Figures 2-1 through 2-6) suggest the scale of 

each development today. At most developments, the completed family units are typically 

two- or three-story attached townhouses, with three-story units often consisting of a twolevel townhouse over a ground floor apartment. There are also three-story walkup apartment 

buildings with apartments on each level (for example, at Cleveland’s Outhwaite Homes) and 

one-story bungalows (at Oakland’s Lockwood Gardens). 

The Cleveland (Outhwaite and King Kennedy) and Milwaukee (Hillside Terrace) 

developments involved demolition of some units and substantial rehabilitation of all or a 

portion of the remaining units. Because of Outhwaite’s designation as a historically significant 

property, the Cleveland PHA could do only rehabilitation of that site. Furthermore, the 

Cleveland HOPE VI grant was not able to address fully the revitalization needs of two large 

developments, so the HOPE VI grant covers only part of each development. 

Camden’s McGuire Gardens was largely a rehabilitation effort, although about one-third of 

the units involved new construction (in some cases new units were built on existing 

foundations). Complete demolition and new construction occurred at three developments: 

Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East in San Francisco and Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore. 

In all three cases, the new buildings and the overall layout of the sites were designed to blend 

in with the surrounding areas. 

47	 The HOPE VI revitalization plan at King Kennedy Estates and Outhwaite Homes (Cleveland) targeted only part 

of the developments. In Milwaukee, 93 of 470 units had been rehabilitated prior to the HOPE VI grant award. 

Finally, in Oakland the grant covered Lockwood Gardens plus three scattered site developments that included 54 

units. This report focuses on the Lockwood Gardens site. 

48	 Milwaukee’s elderly/disabled building was not part of the HOPE VI project but was revitalized with funds from 

HUD’s Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP), a program that provided funds to each PHA by formula for the 

modernization of public housing. 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures 2-1 to 2-4 clockwise from top left. Revitalized units at McGuire Gardens in Camden; Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee; 

Outhwaite Homes in Cleveland; and Lockwood Gardens in Oakland. 

In all sites but San Francisco, the PHAs retained ownership of the properties after 

revitalization. However, four of eight developments (Camden, Baltimore, and the two 

developments in San Francisco) are privately managed. Private management practices and 

attitudes towards management are discussed in Chapter 5. 

2.2 New Mixed-Income Developments 

The mixed-income developments in our study are found in Boston, New Haven, Washington, 

D.C., Atlanta, and Charlotte. (See Exhibit 2-2.) The neighborhoods surrounding these mixedincome projects are more diverse than those surrounding the 100-percent public housing 

developments. 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 2-2 

Characteristics of Mixed-Income HOPE VI Developments 

HOPE VI 

Development Locations 

Onsite 

Units 

Rehab/New 

Construction Unit Mix 

Management 

Type Ownership Project Status Notes 

Boston 

Mission Main 

Stable lower income 

residential community; 

large student 

population 

535 

planned 

New construction 83% affordable rental (all 

public housing) 

17% market rental 

Private Private: 

developer, Tax 

Credit investor 

and residents 

June 2002—504 of 535 

rental units completed and 

occupied. 

18 additional planned 

homeownership units on hold as of 

Sept 2002. 

New Haven Low income 392 New construction of 83% affordable rental Private Private Sept 2002—323 units As part of this redevelopment, two 

Monterey Place residential area 

adjacent to Yale U. planned family units; rehab of two elderly buildings 

(71% public housing; 

12% Tax Credit) 

completed and occupied; 

planned completion in 

elderly/disabled buildings (99 units) 

adjacent to the site were 

and downtown 3% market rental 2004. rehabilitated. 

14% affordable 

homeowner 

Charlotte Near downtown; new 351 93% new 71% affordable rental Private Private (First March 2000—occupancy In addition, the following has 

First Ward Place neighborhood is construction (57% public housing; Ward Place): completed. occurred with HOPE VI grant funds: 

Autumn Place developing 7% rehab 14% Tax Credit) 

29% market rental 

Developer, Tax 

Credit investors 

55 homeownership units built (20 for 

public housing residents), 94 

and PHA scattered-site rental units off site, 

PHA (Autumn 

Place, an elderly 

building) 

and 20 soft second mortgages for 

public housing residents to 

purchase homes off site. 

Washington, DC Stable residential and 147 New construction 91% affordable co-op units Private Private March 2003—all units 14 market-rate homeownership 

Townhomes historic area (50% of co-op units cooperative completed; community units were privately financed. 

affordable to households ownership center to be constructed. 

with incomes <50% of AMI) 

9% market-rate homeowner 

Atlanta Downtown; near 841 New construction 53% affordable rental (35% Private Private: developer Jan 2000—738 rental units 103 homeowner units to be built with 

Centennial 

Place 

university and Coca 

Cola headquarters planned public housing; 18% Tax Credit) 

and Tax Credit 

investor 

completed and occupied. non-HOPE VI funds 

35% market rental 

2% affordable homeowner 

10% market-rate 

homeowner 

Source: Case studies from the Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program (1999 to 2002). 
 

 

 

 

The historic Capitol Hill neighborhood in 

Washington, D.C., where The Townhomes 

on Capitol Hill is located, is a stable 

middle- to upper middle-income 

community with pockets of distress. The 

neighborhood surrounding Boston’s 

Mission Main development is a stable 

neighborhood, although residents 

generally are low income and there is a 

sizeable student population. By contrast, 

New Haven’s Monterey Place is located in 

the Dixwell neighborhood, an historic 

African American neighborhood that is 

severely distressed despite its close 

proximity to Yale University and 

downtown. 

The remaining two developments are not in residential neighborhoods. Centennial Place is 

not far from downtown Atlanta. Its closest neighbors are the Coca Cola headquarters and 

Georgia Institute of Technology. Similarly, Charlotte’s First Ward Place is about one-half 

mile from the central business district, but at the time the HOPE VI grant was awarded it was 

surrounded by surface parking lots and vacant land. 

The five mixed-income developments include a total of 2,266 units, and there is a significant 

range in the number of units per development.49 The Townhomes on Capitol Hill consists of 

just 147 units, whereas Boston’s Mission Main includes 535 units and Centennial Place will 

ultimately contain 841 units. The mixed-income developments contain on average 

significantly more units than the 100-percent public housing developments in the study. The 

average number of units per mixed-income development is 453, compared with an average of 

286 for the public housing developments. The size and density of public housing compared 

with mixed-income developments is discussed further in Chapter 4. 

The developments are mixed-income to different degrees. Four developments (Boston, New 

Haven, Charlotte, and Atlanta) include a mix of public housing, Tax Credit, market-rate 

rental, or homeownership units, although the presence and proportions of each type vary 

from one site to the next. For example, in Boston’s Mission Main, 83 percent of the units are 

public housing while 17 percent are market-rate rentals. More than 80 percent of units at 

New Haven’s Monterey Place are affordable rentals while 14 percent are affordable 

homeownership units and just 3 percent are for market-rate homeowners. In Charlotte, 71 

percent are affordable rental units (including public housing and Tax Credit units) while 29 

percent are market-rate rentals. Finally, in Atlanta, 53 percent of units are affordable rentals, 

49 This number includes units that are still being developed in Atlanta and New Haven. 

Figure 2-5. New units at Bernal Dwellings in San Francisco 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2-6. New units at Pleasant View Garden in Baltimore 

35 percent are market-rate rentals, and 12 

percent are homeownership units.50 

Because all four projects have received 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, they 

are privately owned and managed.51 

The Townhomes on Capitol Hill is unique 

in that most of the units are part of a 

housing cooperative, with 50 percent of the 

co-op units set aside for households with 

less than 50 percent of area median income. 

An analysis of resident incomes at all 

developments is presented in Chapter 3. 

Figures 2-7 through 2-10 and 2-12 present photographs of each of the mixed-income sites. The 

vast majority of these developments involved new construction although a small number of units 

at First Ward Place in Charlotte were rehabilitated, as were two elderly-only buildings in New 

Haven. As in the 100-percent public housing developments, two- and three-story townhouse 

buildings are common at mixed-income sites. Three sites (Boston, New Haven, and Charlotte) 

also include multifamily buildings that house elderly or disabled persons. Overall, elderly and 

disabled units represent 12 percent of all units at the mixed-income developments in our study, 

compared with 7 percent at the public housing developments. 

2.3 Progress of HOPE VI Programs as of 2003 

Over the past few years, it has become increasingly clear that implementing a HOPE VI grant 

can be challenging. According to a recent HUD report, PHAs that received early grants have 

had particular difficulty with implementation. However, they are not alone. For all grants 

awarded between 1993 and 1997, fewer than one-half (43 percent) of all planned units have 

been completed.52 

An analysis of the HOPE VI process was not intended to be part of the Interim Assessment 

and is not a focus of this report. However, an understanding of the progress that has been 

made and the timing of redevelopment efforts is important to subsequent discussion about 

program outcomes. Therefore, this section briefly explores the progress of HOPE VI 

programs at the 13 developments. 

50 Twenty percent of 103 planned homeownership units will be affordable to households with incomes up to 

60 percent of area median income. The remaining homeownership units will be market-rate. 

51 In Boston, there are no Tax Credit units per se. The Tax Credit funds were used to support the development 

of public housing. 

52 HOPE VI Quarterly Report, National Aggregate Summary, 4QFY 2002, page 16. 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures 2-7 to 2-10. Clockwise from top left. New units at: Centennial Place in Atlanta; the Townhomes on Capitol Hill in 

Washington, D.C.; Monterey Place in New Haven; and Mission Main in Boston. 

Nine of the thirteen developments were fully reoccupied as of early 2003. (See Figure 2-11.) 

Three developments (all 100-percent public housing) were completed by 1998—far in advance 

of the other sites. Two of the first three to finish were straightforward rehabilitation projects. The 

King Kennedy portion of the Cleveland grant involved the rehabilitation of just 168 units and 

was the first development to be reoccupied, in early 1997. Milwaukee’s Hillside Terrace was also 

a rehabilitation project and was completed in June of 1998.53 Baltimore’s Pleasant View 

Gardens, reoccupied in 1998, involved complete demolition and new construction. However, 

project planning had commenced before the HOPE VI grant was awarded. 

53 See HOPE VI: Best Practices and Lessons Learned 1992–2000. Submitted to the Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate. U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. June 14, 2002. This report suggests that HOPE VI projects involving 

rehabilitation are completed more quickly than those that involve new construction. 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 22 
Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 23

1

Sites are listed based on when they were completed.

HOPE VI Sites 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Cleveland, OH

King Kennedy

Baltimore, MD

Plesant View Gardens

Milwaukee, WI

Hillside Terrace

Charlotte, NC

First Ward Place/ 

Autumn Place

San Francisco, CA

Bernal Dwellings

Camden, NJ

McGuire Gardens

San Francisco, CA

Plaza East

Washington, DC

Townhomes

Cleveland, OH

Outhwaite Homes

Oakland, CA

Lockwood Gardens

Boston, MA

Mission Main

New Haven, CT

Monterey Place

Atlanta, GA

Centennial Place

Legend

Date of Grant Execution

Date First Unit Available for Occupancy

Date All Units Available for Occupancy

Site Work Ongoing or Planned

Figure 2-11

Timeline for HOPE VI Redevelopment at Study Sites

1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

Figure 2-12. New units at First Ward Place in Charlotte 

Charlotte’s First Ward Place/Autumn Place54 and San Francisco’s Bernal Dwellings were 

reoccupied in 2000 and 2001. First Ward Place was a complex redevelopment project that 

involved mixed financing and the coordination of many partners. The Charlotte Housing 

Authority completed an early phase of the project and began to reoccupy units in July 1997. 

Reoccupancy was completed in early 2000. Bernal Dwellings, a 100-percent public housing 

development that received some funding through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, was 

completed in September 2001. 

Of the remaining eight sites, three were 

largely completed and reoccupied by the end 

of 2002 (McGuire Gardens, Plaza East, and 

The Townhomes on Capitol Hill). 

Construction is still underway or scheduled 

at the other five sites (Outhwaite Homes, 

Lockwood Gardens, Mission Main, 

Monterey Place, and Centennial Place). 

However, at these final five sites—two 

public housing rehabilitation projects and 

three mixed-income, new construction 

projects—a significant portion of planned 

units have been built and reoccupied. Only 

the final phases of these projects are not 

complete.55 For example, in Atlanta, 738 

rental units have been built and occupied. A final phase of the project involves the construction 

of 103 homeownership units, and this was delayed while the city completed a large infrastructure 

project near the site.56 All existing funds have been spent and a new financing source must be 

identified before this phase can proceed. A similar situation exists in Boston, where 18 

homeownership units are on hold pending the identification of additional financing. In Oakland, 

two phases of rehabilitation work, involving 230 units, are completed. The remaining 142 units 

will be rehabilitated under a third phase by 2005. 

2.4 Project Costs and Sources of Funding 

The HOPE VI revitalization efforts included in this study represent an investment of more than 

$821 million. Of that total, approximately $450 million (55 percent) is from HOPE VI grants. 

The remaining funds represent a variety of other public and private sources. 

54	 First Ward Place is the family rental development. Autumn Place is a 68-unit elderly building. 

55	 As discussed in Chapter 1, there were four additional sites in the study that were excluded from the final 

report because they had not yet begun construction. 

56	 Knowledgeable observers in Atlanta also noted that it was appropriate to wait to build the homeownership units 

until it had been demonstrated that Centennial Place could successfully sustain a mixed-income rental market. 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

The level and types of non-HOPE VI funding obtained by each of the study sites are shown 

in Exhibit 2-3. Overall, the 11 PHAs secured $371 million in other public and private funds, 

representing approximately 45 percent of total project costs across all sites. This average is 

less than current nationwide figures but consistent with the percent of leveraged funds 

reported by HOPE VI grantees that received awards in 1993 and 1994.57 

The extent of required additional funding varied considerably. Two 100-percent public housing 

sites (Camden and Milwaukee) relied almost entirely on HOPE VI funds, with less than 10 percent 

of total costs coming from non-HOPE VI sources. On the other hand, at four sites, more than onehalf of total funds came from non-HOPE VI sources. These four sites represent both mixed-income 

(Boston and Atlanta) and 100-percent public housing sites (Baltimore and Oakland). 

While HUD’s guidance has been to leverage both public and private funding sources, public 

money provided a significant portion of non-HOPE VI funding at the study sites. In 8 of the 11 

sites, the PHA contributed public housing Capital Funds or Modernization money awarded by 

HUD under other public housing funding programs. In several cases, this represented a 

significant portion of total project funds. For example, the Oakland PHA provided $28 million 

in other public housing funds (45 percent of all budgeted funds) to the Lockwood Gardens 

revitalization. Other public sources included the Community Development Block Grant 

Program, the HOME program, and city or state programs. A major funding source for five 

developments in the study is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. While Tax Credit 

equity is provided by private investors, they make the investment in return for credits on their 

federal income taxes. Hence, the ultimate source of Tax Credit funds is the Federal 

government, paid in the form of reduced tax revenue.58 

Exhibit 2-4 shows total project costs per site, excluding the funds spent for community and 

supportive services and demolition costs for units that were not replaced. Total costs 

include planning and professional services, demolition (other than for units not replaced), 

site improvements, dwelling unit construction, construction of community facilities, 

relocation, and administration.59 Overall, the per site costs range from $28.9 million at The 

Townhomes on Capitol Hill to $146.4 million at Mission Main in Boston. 

57	 HOPE VI Quarterly Report, National Aggregate Summary, Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2002, p.17. For 

2001 grantees, 78 percent of all project funds were from non-HOPE VI sources. However, for 1993 

grantees, the figure was 45 percent and for 1994 grantees, it was 54 percent. 

58	 In a GAO analysis of 85 HOPE VI projects with Tax Credit or private funding, 79 percent of the funds 

were from Federal sources (including 27 percent from Tax Credits), 12 percent were from private sources, 

and 9 percent were from state and local revenue sources. Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has 

Increased, but HUD Has Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement, GAO-03-91, November 2002. 

59	 In identifying costs to be included, we looked to what is included under HUD’s Public Housing Development 

Costs (TDC) Limits. Notice PIH 2003-8, issued March 27, 2003, states that “In order to determine whether a 

public housing project satisfies the TDC limit, HUD will consider all HUD approved costs related to planning, 

administration, site acquisition, relocation, demolition, site remediation, site development, the dwelling unit hard 

costs, including construction and equipment, interest and carrying charges, builder’s overhead and profit, on-site 

streets and utilities from the street, off-site facilities including community buildings, finish landscaping, a 

contingency allowance, insurance premiums and any initial operating deficit.” 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Exhibit 2-3 

Overall Project Costs by Source of Funding for HOPE VI Sites 

Percent Total Project Costs HOPE VI Site1 (HOPE VI and All Total HOPE VI HOPE VI 

Other Sources) Funds Funds Types of Other Funding Sources 

Camden Public housing capital funds $43,667,368 $42,177.229 96.6% McGuire Gardens Federal Home Loan Bank 

Cleveland Public housing $73,282,789 $50,000,000 68.2% Kennedy/Outhwaite 

Milwaukee Public housing capital funds $50,011,924 $45,689,446 91.4% Hillside Terrace 

Oakland Public housing capital funds $62,750,179 $26,510,020 42.2% Lockwood Gardens In-kind donations 

San Francisco Tax Credit equity 

Bernal Dwellings/Plaza $90,754,530 $49,992,377 55.1% In-kind donations 

East 

Baltimore Public housing capital funds 

Pleasant View $72,082,347 $31,015,6002 43.0% CDBG 

State and local programs 

Boston Public housing capital funds 

$159,350,340 $49,992,350 31.3% Mission Main Tax Credit equity 

New Haven Public housing capital funds $83,022,988 $45,331,593 54.6% Monterey Place Tax Credit equity 

Charlotte Tax Credit equity 

First Ward Place3 City and County 

$60,887,959 $41,740,155 68.5% In-kind donations 

Washington, DC Public housing capital funds $30,839,953 $25,075,956 81.3% Townhomes Private mortgage financing 

Atlanta Tax Credit equity 

Centennial Place $94,378,100 $42,562,635 45.1% City 

FHA financing 

Total—All sites $821 million $450 million 55% 

Source: HOPE VI Quarterly Reports, fourth quarter FY 2002.
 

1Sites are listed by type with 100-percent public housing sites listed first. Mixed-income units are listed in order from fewest market-rate
 

units to largest number of market-rate units.
 

2The original HOPE VI grant for Baltimore was $49 million. The Housing Authority did not use the full grant amount.
 

3Total project costs for Charlotte include approximately $3.9 million in HOPE VI funding remaining at the completion of the planned
 

revitalization.
 

Exhibit 2-4 also shows tremendous variation in costs per unit (in 2003 dollars). For example, 

the 100-percent public housing developments range from $101,653 per unit in Milwaukee to 

$248,056 in San Francisco. Some of this variation may be explained by the fact that some 

projects involved only rehabilitation while others were all new construction. The per-unit 

costs of 100-percent public housing developments that involved only rehabilitation 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Oakland) are less than the per-unit costs at sites that had some 

or all new construction (Camden, San Francisco, and Baltimore).60 

All of the mixed-income sites were primarily new construction, with large variations in perunit cost. The average per-unit cost of $116,372 at Charlotte’s First Ward Place was the 

lowest among the mixed-income sites (and among the sites overall). The highest per-unit cost 

(average of $288,453) was at Boston’s Mission Main. 

Part of this variation in per-unit costs is a reflection of the differential costs of construction in 

the different study cities. Construction costs vary by region, with the lowest construction 

costs in the study sites found in the southern cities of Charlotte and Atlanta and the highest 

found in the Northeast (Boston) and the West Coast (Oakland and San Francisco).61 This is 

consistent with the differences in per-unit costs reported in Exhibit 2-4. Charlotte and Atlanta 

are among the five projects with the lowest per-unit costs (the other three are 100-percent 

rehabilitation of existing units). The most expensive projects to build were in Boston 

($288,453) and San Francisco ($248,056). 

A complete analysis of the development costs of these HOPE VI sites is not within the scope 

of this study. However, information available through HUD’s reporting systems and 

administrative interviews suggests that high costs at some sites may be explained partially by 

multiple changes in the HOPE VI plans, a protracted revitalization period (during which time 

construction and other costs rose), and inefficiencies in managing the HOPE VI 

redevelopment effort. 

Faced with rising costs, all 11 PHAs in the study secured additional funding for their revitalization 

efforts. These sites are typical of post-1995 HOPE VI sites in making use of outside funding 

sources, since by 1995 HUD was encouraging new HOPE VI grantees to leverage other money in 

support of public housing redevelopment.62 A 1995 HUD program notice stated that “PHAs are 

strongly encouraged to utilize HOPE VI grant funds to leverage other private or government 

funds.”63 Subsequent regulations enabled PHAs to more readily utilize Low-Income Housing Tax 

60 For the per-unit cost calculations, the number of units includes all on- and off-site units that were listed as part of 

the revitalization in each project’s HOPE VI Quarterly Report from the fourth quarter of 2002. Hence, the unit 

total includes both rental units (public housing and non-public housing) and homeownership units that were part 

of the revitalization effort under the assumption that the full development costs of those units are incorporated in 

the budgeted costs. This assumption may not be accurate for homeownership units, because the revenue from the 

sale of the unit offsets some of the development costs. 

61 See HUD’s Public Housing Development Cost Limits, Notice PIH 2003-8, March 27, 2003. 

62 HOPE VI Quarterly Report, National Aggregate Summary, Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2002, p. 17. 

63 Notice PIH 95-10, issued February 22, 1995. 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Credit funds and to use public housing capital funds to “credit enhance or collateralize tax-exempt 

bonds for public housing development or modernization activities.”64 

Exhibit 2-4 

Total Project Costs and Development Costs for HOPE VI Sites 

HOPE VI Site 

Total Project Costs 

(excluding CSS and 

some demolition) 1 

Average Project Costs per Unit 

(excluding 

CSS and some demolition) 2 

Average Project Costs Per 

Unit in 2003 dollars 

(excluding CSS and some 

demolition) 3 

Camden 

McGuire Gardens $40,533,292 $158,891 $179,547 

Cleveland 

Kennedy/Outhwaite 65,509,398 130,237 147,168 

Milwaukee 

Hillside Terrace 43,428,207 89,958 101,653 

Oakland 

Lockwood Gardens 59,324,177 131,277 148,343 

San Francisco 

Bernal Dwellings/Plaza East 88,193,367 219,519 248,056 

Baltimore 

Pleasant View 70,929,575 194,289 219,547 

Boston 

Mission Main 146,439,310 255,2694 288,453 

New Haven 

Monterey Place 78,900,307 191,905 216,853 

Charlotte 

First Ward Place 55,373,594 102,9845 116,372 

Washington, DC 

Townhomes 28,956,495 194,410 219,683 

Atlanta 

Centennial Place 90,326,129 120,9106 136,626 

Source: HOPE VI Quarterly Reports, fourth quarter FY 2002. 1	 Total Project Costs is the total planned budget, less community and supportive services, the value of budgeted in-kind services, and estimated 

demolition costs for units that were not rebuilt on sites according to the site’s HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report from the fourth quarter of 2002. 

The value of in-kind services was excluded because a substantial proportion of in-kind services are community and supportive services. In-kind 

services are not disaggregated on the Quarterly Progress Report, so we could not exclude only the supportive service proportion of these costs. 

Demolition costs were excluded in the same proportion as the number of units not replaced on site as a proportion of all units demolished. 2	 For the per-unit cost calculations, the number of units includes all onsite and offsite units that were listed as part of the revitalization in each project’s 

HOPE VI Quarterly Report from the fourth quarter of 2002. Hence, the unit totals include both rental units (public housing and non-public housing) 

and homeownership units that were part of the revitalization effort, under the assumption that the full development costs of those units are 

incorporated in the budgeted costs. This assumption may not be accurate for homeownership units if any of the development costs are not reflected 

in the budget or if the revenue from the sale of the unit are reflected in the budget and offset some of the development costs. 3	 Project costs per unit in the year the dollars were spent were adjusted to 2003 dollars based on CPI-U inflation rate to make them comparable 

to HUD’s 2003 total development cost limits. Given that costs were incurred at these projects over a long period of time, we selected a midpoint 

year between when sites started incurring costs (typically 1994) and when construction was completed (typically 2002) to use as base for 

inflating the costs. For example, the per-unit development costs in Camden were inflated from “1998” to 2003 figures by multiplying $158,891 X 

1.13 (the 2003/1998 CPI-U ratio) to arrive at the $179,547 figure. 4 In Boston, the 18 planned homeownership units are not included in the per-unit costs because they may not be constructed. 5 In Charlotte, the redevelopment was completed under budget, however this estimate reflects the full budgeted amount of funds. 

6 In Atlanta, 162 planned units (59 offsite public housing units and 103 homeownership units) are not included in the per-unit cost 

calculations because they have not yet been constructed, but all of the project funds have been expended. 

64	 HOPE VI: Best Practices and Lessons Learned 1992–2000. Submitted to the Committee on 

Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations, United States 

Senate. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. June 14, 2002, p. 18. 

Chapter 2 - Overview of HOPE VI Revitalization Efforts 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

3. Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI 

Sites 

There are a number of reasons why the characteristics of the resident population at HOPE VI 

sites may be different after revitalization. First, several of the developments now contain a 

mixture of public housing, Tax Credit, and market-rate units, whereas before revitalization all 

the developments contained only public housing units. Second, the revitalized developments 

are more attractive than the original developments and so may draw higher- income residents, 

even among the public housing residents. Third, it is possible that new onsite supportive 

services draw people interested in receiving services. They may have low incomes and 

employment rates initially, but the supportive services may ultimately lead to higher rates of 

employment. Finally, eligibility criteria for living in the revitalized development, such as 

mandatory participation in the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program, may affect the 

characteristics of the resident population. 

This analysis of HOPE VI residents begins by addressing the question: What is the impact of 

the HOPE VI intervention on resident characteristics at the HOPE VI sites? This question is 

answered by first discussing who lives at the HOPE VI site now and then comparing their 

characteristics with those who lived at the site before revitalization.65 To understand the 

many changes in resident characteristics, separate comparisons of changes at mixed-income 

and 100-percent public housing sites are examined as well as differences between new and 

returning public housing residents. 

Subsequent sections of the chapter investigate: 

•	 Differences in the characteristics of public housing and non-public housing residents 

and the distribution of household incomes at mixed-income sites; 

•	 Resident perceptions of the sense of community at all the sites; and 

•	 Factors associated with cross-site differences in the share of current residents who 

lived in the development before redevelopment.66 

65	 This study focuses on changes at the HOPE VI site. No current information was collected on residents who 

lived in the development prior to revitalization, but did not return to the revitalized development. However, 

the non-returnees are included in the characteristics of pre-HOPE VI residents for the aggregate 

comparisons of pre- and post-HOPE VI characteristics of residents. Information on pre-HOPE VI residents 

cannot be matched at the person or household level to information on current residents to investigate 

changes in an individual person or household’s characteristics over time. However, we can and do examine 

the difference between new and returning public housing residents during the period after revitalization. 

66	 The share of current HOPE VI residents who lived in the development prior to revitalization is higher than 

the share of pre-HOPE VI residents who returned to the development because most revitalized sites contain 

fewer units than the original development. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

Data on the characteristics of current residents come from an in-person survey of 

approximately 150 residents per site. The surveys were conducted 6 months after the HOPE 

VI development was substantially reoccupied. The timing of the survey ranged from 1999 to 

2002, depending on the redevelopment schedule of the site. See Appendix B for a description 

of the survey and data collection methodology. 

3.1 Who Lives at HOPE VI Sites? 

The residents of the revitalized HOPE VI developments are predominately African American 

and in households with incomes less than 50 percent of the metropolitan-area median. The 

most common household types are single female-headed families with children and one-person 

households. Overall, the populations are evenly split between households with and without 

children, and household heads span the full age spectrum. There are distinct differences 

between the characteristics of residents of the six 100-percent public housing sites and the 

residents of the five sites with a mix of public housing and non-public housing units (referred 

to as mixed-income sites). The characteristics of residents at all sites and differences between 

residents of 100-percent public housing and mixed-income sites are described below. 

3.1.1 Race/Ethnicity 

Across the 11 HOPE VI sites, an average of 93 percent of the household heads are minorities, 

including 74 percent who are African American and 12 percent who are Hispanic.67 (See 

Exhibit 3-1.) African Americans comprise at least two-thirds of the resident population at all 

but 2 of the 11 sites. In the other 2 sites (Camden and Boston) Hispanics are the largest 

racial/ethnic group.68 

The mixed-income sites have an average of 15 percent White, non-Hispanic headed 

households compared with only 1 percent at the 100-percent public housing sites. The higher 

share of White households in the mixed-income sites is driven by Washington, D.C. (30 

percent White) and Atlanta (19 percent White), the two study sites with the largest shares of 

non-public housing units.69 

3.1.2 Household Composition 

An average of 55 percent of the households at each site have children, including 39 percent 

that are headed by a single female. (See Exhibit 3-1.) Households with children headed by a 

single woman are the most common household type at the HOPE VI sites. Single-person 

67	 Hispanics can be of any race, but are counted only as Hispanic in these percentages. 

68	 See Appendix C-1 and C-10 for race/ethnicity, household composition, and other demographic 

characteristics for each site. 

69	 The Townhomes on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., does not have any public housing units, but we have 

categorized units reserved for households with income below 50 percent of the area median as public 

housing or “public housing eligible” units. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 

households are the second most common household type (26 percent). The single-person 

households are evenly split between the elderly (age 62 and older) and younger people. The 

other households without children contain either two or more unmarried adults (15 percent) 

or a married couple (4 percent). 

Exhibit 3-1: Demographic Characteristics of HOPE VI Residents After Reoccupancy 

Average at the 6 

Average at 100-Percent Public Average at the 5 MixedCharacteristics All 11 Sites Housing Sites Income Sites 

Race/Ethnicity of Household Head 

Black or African American 74% 78% 69% 

Hispanic or Latino (any race) 12% 14% 10% 

White 7% 1% 15% 

Asian 3% 4% 3% 

Other 3% 2% 3% 

Household Composition 

Households with Children 55% 71% 36% 

Single female 39% 51% 26% 

Single male 2% 2% 1% 

Married couple 5% 5% 3% 

Unmarried adults 10% 13% 5% 

Households with no Children 45% 29% 64% 

One elderly person 13% 9% 19% 

One nonelderly person 13% 7% 20% 

Married couple 4% 2% 7% 

Unmarried adults 15% 11% 19% 

Households with Three or More 

Children 

Overall 14% 21% 7% 

In households with children 24% 30% 17% 

Age of Head of Household 

18 to 24 13% 12% 14% 

25 to 34 30% 30% 29% 

35 to 49 25% 28% 21% 

50 to 62 12% 15% 14% 

62 or older 19% 13% 20% 

Education Level of Head of Household 

High school dropout 35% 42% 28% 

High school graduate 32% 37% 25% 

Some college 20% 18% 23% 

College graduate 13% 3% 24% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

Notes: Hispanics and Latinos of any race are included only in the Hispanic and Latino category. Other race includes American Indian or
 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and people reporting two or more races. An elderly person is defined as
 

someone age 62 or older.
 

There are large differences in household composition between the 100-percent public housing 

and mixed-income sites. The 100-percent public housing sites have twice the share of households 

with children as the mixed-income sites (71 percent versus 36 percent), and their families to tend 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

to be larger. In the 100-percent public housing sites, 30 percent of the families with children have 

three or more children compared with 17 percent at the mixed-income sites. Conversely, mixedincome sites have more than twice the share of one-person households compared with the 100-

percent public housing sites (39 percent versus 16 percent). Mixed-income sites also have 

slightly more elderly-headed households (20 percent versus 13 percent). The larger share of 

childless and one-person households at mixed-income sites is consistent with the smaller number 

of large units (three bedrooms or more) available at these sites. (See Chapter 4.) 

Among the 100-percent public housing sites, Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore stands out 

because of the high share of elderly households (49 percent), most of whom are one-person 

households. The other 100-percent public housing sites have no more than 15 percent elderly 

or one-person households. At Pleasant View Gardens, an elderly/disabled-only building 

contains approximately one-third of the revitalized units. 

Likewise, among the mixed-income sites, Monterey Place in New Haven stands out because an 

elderly person heads 54 percent of the households, and 66 percent of the households have only 

one person. Only 21 percent of the New Haven households have children, the lowest of any of 

the study sites. The share of elderly households will likely decrease when the redevelopment is 

complete and the site is fully reoccupied. The two elderly/disabled-only buildings at the New 

Haven site contain slightly more than one-third of the development’s planned rental and 

homeownership units. However, at the time of the New Haven resident survey (the summer of 

2001), half of the completed and reoccupied units were in the elderly buildings.70 

3.1.3 Educational Attainment 

The education level of the head of household is also distinctly different between the 100-

percent public housing and mixed-income sites. (See Exhibit 3-1.) Across the 11 sites, an 

average of 65 percent of household heads have a high school diploma or equivalent, 

including 13 percent who obtained a college degree. However, an average of 24 percent of 

household heads have a college degree at the mixed-income sites compared with only 3 

percent of households at the 100-percent public housing sites. The higher educational 

attainment at mixed-income sites suggests greater earnings potential for the residents at those 

sites. 

70	 Although several of the developments were not completely reoccupied at the time of the Baseline Study, 

Monterey Place in Elm Haven is the only development where the characteristics of the residents in rental 

units are expected to be different when reoccupied. At full occupancy, Monterey Place will likely contain 

substantially more households with heads under age 62 than it did at the time of the survey. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 

	 

	 

3.1.4 Income 

Across all 11 sites, an average of 65 percent of the households have incomes below 30 

percent of the area median.71 (See Exhibit 3-2.) Despite the preponderance of extremely low 

incomes, two-thirds of the households have at least one working person. Only 5 percent of 

households reported receiving welfare income. 

As would be expected given the presence of non-public housing households, the mixed-income 

sites have substantially higher incomes and shares of working adults. The average median 

income across the mixed-income sites is $18,527, approximately 75 percent higher than the 

$10,915 average median at 100-percent public housing sites.72 The difference between the 

types of developments is epitomized by the difference in the share of households with incomes 

above 50 percent of the median: 26 percent at the mixed-income sites, compared with 3 percent 

at the 100-percent public housing sites. Despite the presence of relatively higher income 

households, a majority (56 percent) of the households in the mixed-income sites have 

extremely low incomes (less than 30 percent of the area median). 

Exhibit 3-2: Income and Employment of HOPE VI Residents After Reoccupancy 

Average at the 6 100-

Average at All Percent Public Housing Average at the 5 

Characteristics 11 Sites Sites Mixed-Income Sites 

Mean Household Income ($2002) $18,691 $12,746 $23,202 

Median Household Income ($2002) $15,323 $10,915 $18,527 

Household Income as Percent of FamilySize Adjusted HUD Median 

<30 percent 65% 77% 56% 

30 to 49 percent 18% 19% 17% 

50 to 80 percent 9% 3% 14% 

> 80 percent 7% 0% 12% 

Sources of Income or Benefits 

Earned Income 59% 55% 60% 

Welfare (TANF) 14% 22% 5% 

SSI 25% 30% 27% 

Disability or Workmen’s Comp 10% 11% 10% 

Food Stamps 29% 39% 19% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

Notes: Earned income was identified as a source of income if the respondent answered that she or another household member was
 

currently working for pay. All dollar figures are in 2002 dollars.
 

71	 Despite the inclusion of non-public housing households, this is only a little less than the national figure of 73 

percent of public housing households that were categorized as extremely low income in 2001. (HUD,2002. 

“Fourth Annual Report to Congress on the Effects of the Quality and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.”) 

72	 Exhibit 3-2 presents both mean and median incomes. Median income, the income level at which half the 

households have higher income and half have a lower income, is discussed in the text because it is not as 

sensitive to a few extremely high incomes as the mean. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Despite the income differences, there is only a small difference in the share of households with 

earned income: 60 percent on average at mixed-income developments versus 55 percent at 

100-percent public housing developments. However, because of the presence of non-public 

housing households and the focus on self-sufficiency in the mixed-income sites, households at 

those sites are much less likely to receive welfare income than the households in 100-percent 

public housing sites. 

The Townhomes development in Washington, D.C., has by far the highest median income 

($36,565), more than $10,000 higher than the second highest site.73 The high median income at 

the Townhomes is attributable to the large share of units reserved for households with income 

above 50 percent of the area median and the high average incomes in the Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan area. At the other extreme are three sites with median incomes below $8,100: 

McGuire Gardens in Camden, Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore, and Monterey Place in 

New Haven. New Haven is a mixed-income site, but a disproportionate share of the occupied 

units was in the elderly/disabled buildings at the time of the resident survey. Section 3.4 will 

examine the distribution of incomes in mixed-income sites in more detail. 

We returned to six of the early study sites 2 to 3 years after the initial case study to obtain an 

update on changes since the initial reoccupancy period. According to information provided by 

PHA and property management staff, resident characteristics have not changed in the 2 to 3 years 

since initial reoccupancy. Thus, the data on resident characteristics at reoccupancy provided in 

this report also reflect the situation a few years later for the early sites. Three of the revisited sites 

were mixed-income sites. For the mixed-income sites, the fact that resident characteristics have 

not changed suggests that these sites are still able to attract higher income households—that is, 

households who would not qualify for housing assistance. 

3.2	 How Do Current HOPE VI Public Housing Residents Compare 

with Former Residents? 

Nearly one-half (46 percent) of the current public housing residents lived in the development 

before HOPE VI.74,75 Nonetheless, many characteristics of current HOPE VI public housing 

73	 Appendix Exhibit C-2 presents household income information by site. 

74	 Including non-public housing households, an average of 41 percent of the current HOPE VI residents lived 

in the developments prior to revitalization. Section 3.6 discusses the cross-site differences in the share of 

current residents who lived in the developments prior to revitalization. 

75	 The share of current public housing residents who lived in the development prior to revitalization is smaller than 

the share of original residents who lived in the revitalized development, because most developments have fewer 

units than in the original development. A rough estimate of the share of original residents who returned can be 

calculated by estimating the total number of returning residents at the current development and then dividing that 

number by the number of occupied units in each development in 1994. Excluding the Washington, D.C. site 

because it was vacated in 1988, approximately 35 percent of the original residents at the other 10 study sites 

returned to live in the revitalized development. This figure assumes the same share of original residents will 

return to the rental units that were not reoccupied at the time of the survey and does not exclude original residents 

who are deceased or no longer eligible for housing assistance (e.g., evicted, or income-ineligible). 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

residents are quite different from those of the pre-HOPE VI residents. In particular, income and 

sources of income have changed significantly. As discussed in the next section, resident 

characteristics at a site can change either because the subset of residents returning has different 

characteristics than the entire group of original residents or because new residents have different 

characteristics. Returning residents may have different characteristics because they are not typical 

of pre-HOPE VI residents or because their characteristics (e.g., income or marital status) changed 

over time. Resident characteristics before and after revitalization were compared at 10 of the 11 

study sites. Information was not available on the pre-HOPE VI characteristics of residents in 

Washington, D.C., because the site was vacated 5 years before the HOPE VI award. 

The share of public housing households headed by an African American person stayed about the 

same at 6 of the 10 sites and decreased between 5 and 12 percentage points at four sites. At the 

sites where the race/ethnic composition changed, the share of other minority groups, usually 

Hispanics, increased while the share of White public housing residents remained negligible.76 

The share of public housing households headed by an elderly person increased at both types 

of sites, but much more dramatically at the mixed-income sites. The share of elderly 

households living in public housing increased at the three mixed-income sites for which preand post-HOPE VI data on the age of the household head is available: by 9 percentage points 

in Boston, 30 percentage points in Charlotte, and 41 percentage points in New Haven. Before 

revitalization, two of these sites (Boston and Charlotte) were family public housing 

developments, but elderly/disabled-only buildings were added as part of the revitalization.77 

In New Haven, two existing elderly/disabled-only buildings were rehabilitated. 

Among the 100-percent public housing sites, the share of elderly households changed 

substantially only at the Baltimore site, where it increased by 40 percentage points. The 

Baltimore site also added an elderly/disabled building as part of the revitalization. 

The share of female-headed households in the public housing units changed substantially at 

two sites. It increased by 22 percentage points at the Charlotte site and by 14 percentage 

points in the Cleveland site. The increase in Charlotte is likely related to the addition of the 

elderly-only building. It is not clear why the share of female-headed households increased in 

the Cleveland site. 

Median household income increased more than 33 percent (or approximately $3,000 in 2002 

dollars) among public housing households in both the 100-percent public housing and mixedincome sites. (See Exhibit 3-3.) This growth in incomes at the HOPE VI sites does not mirror 

the national trend for public housing residents. HUD administrative data for a similar time 

period indicate stagnant household incomes for the national population of public housing 

76	 See Appendix Exhibit C-1 for a detailed race/ethnic breakdown of each site after the HOPE VI 

revitalization. 

77	 In Boston, 76 units of a 120-unit building are reserved for elderly residents and the other 44 units are available 

to public housing families. Charlotte and New Haven have separate elderly/disabled-only buildings. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 35 
Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 36

residents.78 Examining the sites individually indicates that the median income of public 

housing residents grew by at least $2,000 at eight sites, while median incomes were stagnant 

at the Camden site and declined at the New Haven site. The finding for New Haven is at least 

in part driven by the disproportionate share of elderly households in the development at the 

time of the survey.79 Even with the increased median incomes, 77 percent of the public 

housing households at the HOPE VI sites still have incomes below 30 percent of the area 

median. This is slightly higher than the share of extremely low-income residents served by 

the public housing program nationally.80

The sources of income also changed drastically for the pre- and post-HOPE VI public 

housing households. After revitalization, a majority of public housing households at both the 

100-percent public housing (55 percent) and mixed-income sites (50 percent) had income 

from employment, compared with the pre-HOPE VI shares of 14 and 21 percent, 

respectively. Likewise, the share receiving welfare income declined drastically: from 80 to 

23 percent at the public housing sites and from 64 to 6 percent at the mixed-income sites. The 

comparison of the pre- and post-HOPE VI resident characteristics covers a period when 

national unemployment rates were declining and welfare reform was reducing the number of 

recipients.81 However, while the changes for HOPE VI public housing residents are 

consistent with what was happening in the economy as a whole, the extent of the change is 

far more dramatic. Furthermore, the pattern of increasing employment rates and decreasing 

welfare receipts was much more pronounced for public housing residents at the HOPE VI 

sites than for public housing residents nationally.82 

A factor that may be contributing to the increased share of working households at the 

redeveloped sites is screening and occupancy criteria that emphasize self-sufficiency 

activities. For example, at the Atlanta and Charlotte sites, new public housing residents who 

are not elderly or disabled are required to be working or involved in educational activities to 

be eligible to live in the revitalized development, and assisted residents are required to 

 

78 According to HUD administrative data, median income grew from $7,765 to $7,923 between 1995 and 

2001 (in 2002 dollars) for the national population of public housing residents. (See HUD, 2002. “Fourth 

Annual Report to Congress on the Effects of the Quality and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.”) 

79 The median income of households in the elderly/disabled units in New Haven is approximately $3,500 

lower than the median for households in the family public housing units. 

80 In 2001 (mid-point of survey years for study sites), 73 percent of public housing households in the nation 

were categorized as extremely low income. (HUD, 2002. “Fourth Annual Report to Congress on the Effects 

of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.”) 

81 Between 1993 and 2000, the national unemployment rate declined from 6.9 to 4.0 percent (see 

www.bls.gov) and the number of welfare recipients declined from 13.5 million to 5.9 million people (or 

from 5.4 to 2.1 percent of the population). (See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002. 

“Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to the Congress.”) 

82 Between 1995 and 2001, the share of public housing households with earned income increased from 23 to 32 

percent (and from 33 to 51 percent for households with children). The share of public housing households with 

welfare income as their major source of income decreased from 29 to 11 percent. (See HUD, 2002. “Fourth 

Annual Report to Congress on the Effects of the Quality and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.”) 
Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 37

participate in self-sufficiency programs while living there.83 The Milwaukee and Oakland 

sites require residents to sign lease addenda that have both community service and selfsufficiency goals. Although these lease addenda are reportedly not strictly enforced, they 

may discourage residents who do not want to follow the stated requirements from moving in. 

Exhibit 3-3: Comparison of Resident Characteristics Pre-and Post-HOPE VI

Average at Six 

100-Percent Public

Housing Sites

Average at Four Mixed-Income Sites

Characteristics

PreHOPE VIPostHOPE VIPreHOPE VI

Post-HOPE VI 

Public Housing 

Residents

Post-HOPE VI NonPublic Housing 

Residents

Returning Residents -- 46% -- 46%1 6%1

New Residents -- 54% -- 54% 94%

Race

 Black or African American

 Hispanic or Latino (any race)

 Other

85%

9%

6%

78%

15%

8%

82%

15%

2%

79%

15%

6%

55%

4%

41%

Female-Headed Households 85% 86% 79% 85% 76%

Elderly Households 10% 17% 16% 43% 3%

Average Household Size 2.9 2.2 2.6 1.8 2.2

Median Income ($2002) $7,799 $10,915 $7,017 $10,071 $41,282

Household Income Less than 

30 Percent of Area Median 89% 77% 82% 77% 8%

Sources of Income

 Earned income

 Welfare

14%

80%

55%

23%

21%

64%

50%

6%

92%

4%

Sources: Pre-HOPE VI figures from 1993 MTCS, 1995 MTCS, or HOPE VI Application. Post-HOPE VI figures are from the HOPE VI 

Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 

1Of current residents of mixed-income sites (both public and non-public housing), 35 percent are returning residents.

Notes: Ellen Wilson in Washington, D.C., was vacant at the time of the HOPE VI award and is not included in this exhibit. Pre-HOPE VI 

race/ethnicity, median income, and sources of income are from the HOPE VI Baseline Study (1996, p.3-11) and are based on HUD’s MTCS 

database from December 1993. Median income was inflated from 1993 to 2002 dollars by multiplying income by 1.24 (from www.bls.gov

inflation calculator). The categories shown are those reported in the Baseline Study and cannot be further disaggregated. 

The pre-HOPE VI share of elderly households, female-headed households and average household size are from the Interim Assessment case 

studies and are based on either MTCS or PHA-provided data. Sites with missing pre-HOPE VI data for any these variables were also excluded 

from the post-HOPE VI calculations for the same variable. Centennial Homes in Atlanta was missing all three of these variables. The Camden and 

Boston sites were also missing data on two of these variables. Post-HOPE VI figures included people reporting two or more races in the “other” 

category. Reporting multiple races was not an option in pre-HOPE VI data. 

The last column of Exhibit 3-3 shows the characteristics of residents of non-public housing units in 

HOPE VI developments. Not surprisingly, compared with both pre- and post-HOPE VI residents, 

the non-public housing households have substantially higher incomes. They are also more likely to 

be White and less likely to be headed by an elderly person. Characteristics of different types of 

renters at the mixed-income sites will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.

 

83 See Chapter 5 for a full discussion of screening and occupancy criteria at the 11 study sites. 
 

 

 

 

 

3.3	 	 How Do Returning Public Housing Residents Compare With 

New Public Housing Residents? 

The findings reported in the previous section indicated that the demographic characteristics 

of the post-HOPE VI public housing residents were somewhat different and the income 

characteristics were substantially different than those of pre-HOPE VI residents. In this 

section, we compare the characteristics of current residents of the public housing units who 

returned from the pre-HOPE VI development with those of the new residents of the public 

housing units. We compare both groups with pre-HOPE VI residents. 

Returning residents may not be typical of pre-HOPE VI residents if residents with certain 

types of characteristics chose to return, or if screening or occupancy policies made some 

original residents ineligible to return. In addition, characteristics of returning residents may 

have changed over time (e.g., income and age), whereas we report the characteristics of preHOPE VI residents as they were before HOPE VI. 

Similarly, new residents can have different characteristics from the pre-HOPE VI residents if 

screening or occupancy policies affect the characteristics of new residents who are eligible to 

live in the development, or if households with different characteristics are coming to the top 

of public housing waiting lists now compared with the period before HOPE VI. 

As it turns out, it is a combination of both the new and returning residents’ characteristics that are 

driving the changes in pre- and post-HOPE VI characteristics of the public housing residents. 

The returning and new public housing residents at the 100-percent public housing sites have 

similar median incomes, both approximately 40 percent higher than those of the pre-HOPE 

VI residents (adjusted to 2002 dollars). (See Exhibit 3-4.) At the mixed-income sites, both 

new and returning public housing residents also have higher median incomes than the preHOPE VI residents, but there is a significant difference between the incomes of returning and 

new residents at mixed-income sites. The returning residents’ median income of $9,616 is 

approximately $2,600 higher than the average before revitalization, but the new public 

housing residents’ median of $12,758 is more than $3,000 higher than the returning 

residents’ median income. The same pattern can be seen when looking at the share of 

extremely low-income residents (those with incomes below 30 percent of the area median). 

One reason for the income differences between returning and new public housing households 

at the mixed-income sites may be the age differences of the household heads. More than onehalf of the returning residents at the mixed-income sites are 50 years of age or older (56 

percent), compared with more than one-third (36 percent) of the new residents. The older 

residents in public housing tend to have lower incomes than the younger household heads. 

Another part of the explanation is that the eligibility criteria for returning and new residents 

were different at some sites. For example, in Charlotte, all public housing residents are 

required to participate in the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program as a condition of 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n 

 

 

 

occupancy. However, new residents also have to meet work history or employability 

requirements to be eligible to live in the development, but returning residents do not. 

Exhibit 3-4 

Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Returning vs. New Public Housing 

Residents (Excludes Non-Public Housing Households) 

Average at the Six 100-Percent 

Public Housing Sites Average at the Five Mixed-Income Sites 

Characteristics Pre-HOPE VI Returning New Pre-HOPE VI Returning New 

Race/Ethnicity of Household 

Head 

Black or African American 85% 74% 80% 82% 78% 84% 

Hispanic or Latino (any race) 9% 16% 14% 15% 13% 8% 

White -- 1% 2% -- 6% 5% 

Asian -- 5% 3% -- 1% 1% 

Other 6% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 

Age of Head of Household 

18 to 24 -- 5% 18% -- 8% 12% 

25 to 34 -- 29% 33% -- 11% 28% 

35 to 49 -- 34% 23% -- 25% 21% 

50 to 62 -- 18% 10% -- 26% 11% 

62 or older 10% 12% 15% 16% 30% 25% 

Households with Children -- 70% 75% -- 32% 49% 

Single Female-Headed 

Households with Children -- 43% 58% -- 22% 38% 

High School Dropout (Head of 

Household) -- 45% 37% -- 47% 27% 

Median Household Income 

($2002) $7,799 $10,984 $11,151 $7,017 $9,616 $12,758 

Household Income as Percent 

of Family-Size Adjusted HUD 

Median 

<30 percent 89% 79% 77% 82% 79% 59% 

30 to 49 percent -- 18% 19% -- 11% 33% 

50 to 80 percent -- 3% 4% -- 8% 5% 

> 80 percent -- 1% 0% -- 0% 1% 

Sources of Income or Benefits 

Earned Income 14% 55% 53% 21% 39% 58% 

Welfare (TANF) 80% 22% 23% 64% 5% 4% 

Sources: Pre-HOPE VI figures from 1993 MTCS, 1995 MTCS, or HOPE VI Application. Post-HOPE VI figures from HOPE VI Interim 

Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 

Notes: “- -” indicates data are not available. Residents of the Washington, D.C. site are not included in the pre-HOPE VI estimates (because site 

was vacant at time MTCS data was available), but they are included in post-HOPE VI estimates. Hispanics and Latinos of any race are included 

only in the Hispanic and Latino category. Other race includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 

people reporting two or more races for post-HOPE VI public housing residents, but includes all non-Black/non-Hispanic residents for pre-HOPE VI 

estimates. An elderly person is defined as someone age 62 or older. All dollar figures are in 2002 dollars. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

The share of households with earned income shows the same pattern as for average incomes at 

the mixed-income sites. Before HOPE VI, an average of 21 percent of the residents of mixedincome sites had earned income, compared with 39 percent of the returning residents and 58 

percent of the new residents. Welfare receipt rates decreased dramatically after revitalization, but 

are similar for both returning and new residents at both mixed-income and 100-percent public 

housing developments. 

Returning and new residents differ on several other important dimensions for which we do not 

have pre-HOPE VI data for comparison. For instance, the new residents are more likely than 

returning residents to be in single, female-headed households with children: 58 percent compared 

with 43 percent in 100-percent public housing sites and 38 percent compared with 22 percent in 

mixed-income sites. New households are also more likely to be headed by a high school graduate 

than the returning households, suggesting that they have higher earnings potential than the 

returning households. 

3.4 How Mixed are the Mixed-Income Sites? 

For this report, all five sites with non-public housing units are classified as mixed-income. 

However, the share and characteristics of households occupying non-public housing units 

varies substantially across these sites. In this section, the characteristics of these sites are 

examined individually to understand just how wide the distributions of incomes are at mixedincome sites. The differences in demographic characteristics between public housing and 

non-public housing households at these sites are then explored. 

Both the share and type of non-public housing units varies across the five mixed-income 

sites. At the Boston site, 17 percent of the rental units are at market rate and the rest are 

public housing. (See Exhibit 3-5.) On the other extreme, 60 percent of Atlanta’s units are 

non-public housing, including 20 percent that are Tax Credit units and 40 percent that are 

market-rate units.84 Across the sites, an average of 28 percent of the units are non-public 

housing units.85 All five sites have market-rate units and three have both Tax Credit and 

market-rate units.86 None of the sites has specific units designated only for market-rate, 

Tax Credit, or public housing residents. Instead, the units are “floating.” This means that 

each of the units can be rented to any type of renter as long as the overall share of each 

type of renter remains constant. 

84	 Homeownership units are not included because most were not built at the time of the study. See note in 

Exhibit 3-5 for the number of on-site homeownership units planned for each site. 

85	 Ellen Wilson in Washington, D.C., does not have any public housing units. For this report, units reserved 

for households with income below 50 percent of the area median are defined as public housing or “public 

housing eligible” units. 

86	 New Haven is not counted in the number of sites with Tax Credit units here. The New Haven units that 

benefited from Tax Credit financing are public housing units, so they are counted as public housing units. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 3-5 

Characteristics of Mixed-Income Sites 

Boston New Haven Charlotte Washington, DC Atlanta 

Number of Rental Units 535 339 351 134 738 

Rental Unit Types 

Public Housing 

Tax Credit 

Market Rate 

83% 

0% 

17% 

82% 

14% 

4% 

57% 

14% 

29% 

50%1 

0% 

50% 

40% 

20% 

40% 

Rental Units Designated for Public 

Housing Elderly/Disabled Residents only 14% 42% 19% 0% 0% 

HH Income as Percent of Family-Size 

Adjusted HUD Median 

<30 percent 

30 to 49 percent 

50 to 80 percent 

> 80 percent 

63% 

19% 

5% 

13% 

74% 

17% 

7% 

2% 

49% 

28% 

13% 

10% 

35% 

12% 

34% 

19% 

36% 

13% 

24% 

18% 

Share with Earned Income 

All 

nonelderly 

61% 

68% 

28% 

57% 

73% 

94% 

77% 

86% 

84% 

84% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 1 None of the units at Ellen Wilson in Washington, D.C., are public housing, but we have categorized the units reserved for households 

with income below 50 percent of the area median as public housing or public housing eligible. 

Notes: Homeownership units excluded from this table. Most homeownership units were not built at the time of the case studies (and survey). At 

completion, the number of homeownership units will be 103 in Atlanta, 55 in New Haven, 27 in Baltimore, and 13 in Washington, D.C.. Charlotte 

built 20 affordable homeownership units in the immediate neighborhood and funded a soft second-loan program for approximately 40 affordable 

homeownership units in other neighborhoods. Some of the rental units in Boston and New Haven were not complete at the time of the case study, 

but the distribution of public and non-public housing units was the same as final ratios. However, a higher share of the New Haven elderly public 

housing rental units were completed than family public housing units. 

As discussed earlier, the mixed-income sites have, on average, much smaller shares of 

extremely low-income households (income less than 30 percent of the area median) than 

the 100-percent public housing sites in the study. However, Exhibit 3-5 shows that the 

share of extremely low-income households varies considerably at the mixed-income sites, 

ranging from 35 percent in the Washington, D.C. site to 74 percent in the New Haven site. 

The share of extremely low-income households in New Haven is closer to the 79-percent 

average in 100-percent public housing developments than to the 46-percent average in the 

other four mixed-income sites. In addition to having the second smallest share of nonpublic housing households among the mixed-income sites, New Haven also has the highest 

share of units designated for elderly or disabled people, households that generally have 

lower incomes than other households. 

3.4.1 Which Sites Are Truly Mixed-Income? 

Compared with 100-percent public housing, mixed-income housing is presumed to have 

numerous potential advantages for low-income renters. These potential advantages 

include the presence of employed people to provide role models for children and job 

networks for adults; better maintenance and management of the property (because higher 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

income tenants have more options for where to live so the property manager will need to 

keep up the property to attract and retain non-public housing households); better public 

services because higher income residents have more clout and will demand quality 

services; and better access to retail stores, which are more likely to locate near 

communities with higher income households.87 However, there is no standard definition 

in the research literature for what constitutes “mixed-income” housing. In order to 

understand to what extent the study sites are truly mixed-income, several different 

definitions were applied. 

First, following a study of the prevalence of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties that 

are mixed-income,88 a “broad range of incomes” definition was used to classify sites as 

mixed-income. A site meeting this definition of mixed-income housing is one where: 

•	 At least 20 percent of the households have incomes below 30 percent of the median, and 

•	 At least 20 percent of the households have incomes above 50 percent of the area median. 

Setting a threshold of 20 percent in each group ensures that a substantial number of the 

property’s residents fall in both the lower and higher income category before the property is 

defined as mixed-income. Setting the lower income ceiling at 30 percent of the metropolitanarea median and the higher income floor at 50 percent of the median ensures that two groups 

with substantially different economic means live at the site.89 For the same size household, 

income at 50 percent of the median is at least 66 percent higher than the income of a 

household at or below 30 percent of the median. In dollar terms, the income difference 

between a family of three at exactly 30 percent and exactly 50 percent of the median ranges 

from $11,550 in Charlotte to $15,650 in Washington, D.C.90 

87	 For a description and analysis of the presumed benefits of mixed-income housing, see Popkin, Buron, 

Levy, and Cunningham (2000). “The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal 

Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?” Housing Policy Debate, 11(4): 911-942. 

88	 Buron et al. 2000. “Assessment of the Economic and Social Characteristics of LIHTC Residents and 

Neighborhoods.” A report produced for HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research. 

89	 Buron et al. (2000) justified the 20 percent threshold based on the fact that several states use that cutoff for 

programs designed to promote mixed-income development and on previous HUD research on the prevalence 

of mixed-income projects in privately owned rental housing projects subsidized by HUD. (See Khadduri and 

Martin, 1997. “Mixed-Income Housing in the HUD Multifamily Stock.” Cityscape 3(2), pp.33-69.) Buron et 

al. justify the below 30 percent and above 50 percent of median categories based on preferences for housing 

assistance. The 30 percent of the median ceiling for low-income families was selected because it is the cutoff 

for housing programs targeting extremely low-income families (e.g., the 1998 housing law established set 

asides in both the Public Housing and Voucher program for families below 30 percent of the median). The 50 

percent of the median income floor for high-income families was chosen because it was the cutoff for very 

low-income families that were given federal preferences for public housing through the mid 1990s. 

90	 At the other three sites, the difference between 30 and 50 percent of the median income for a family of 

three in 2003 is $12,800 in New Haven, $12,850 in Atlanta, and $14,550 in Boston. (HUD family-size 

adjusted median incomes are from www.huduser.org/datasets/il/fmr03/index.html.) 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As can be seen in Exhibit 3-5, three of the five HOPE VI sites with a mix of public and nonpublic housing units meet the broad range of income definition of a mixed-income property: 

Charlotte (49 percent below 30 percent of the median and 23 percent above 50 percent of the 

median), Atlanta (36 and 42 percent), and Washington, D.C. (35 and 53 percent). Boston is close 

but has too few households above 50 percent of the median (18 percent) to meet the broad range 

of income definition of mixed-income housing, and New Haven does not have nearly enough 

households with incomes above 50 percent of the median (9 percent). 

One of the presumed benefits of mixed-income public housing is that by integrating public 

housing residents with renters who have more options in the market place, the property 

manager will be pressured to maintain the units and property to attract non-public housing 

renters. The higher the share of non-public housing renters, the more market pressures will 

influence the property manager. Thus, a site with a substantial share of non-public housing 

units could potentially obtain some of the presumed benefits of mixed-income housing even 

if the residents do not have a broad range of incomes. However, the three sites meeting the 

broad range of income definition of a mixed-income property are also the three sites where at 

least 20 percent of the units are for non-public housing households. 

An alternative definition of mixed-income developments suggested by Khadduri and Martin 

(1997) for subsidized developments is that 75 percent of the households have a member 

working for pay. Again, the same three sites that meet the broad range of income definition 

meet this definition as well. 

In summary, three of the HOPE VI sites—First Ward Place in Charlotte, Centennial Homes 

in Atlanta, and the Townhomes in Washington, D.C.—meet the various definitions of mixedincome developments. The residents have a range of incomes, there is a substantial share of 

non-public housing units, and most nonelderly households have earned income. Two other 

sites, Mission Main in Boston and Monterey Place in New Haven, which are classified as 

mixed-income sites for this report because of the presence of some non-public housing 

households do not meet the definitions of mixed-income properties examined in this chapter. 

Neither property has a large enough share of non-public housing households or households 

with income above 50 percent of the area median. Furthermore, although theoretically 

possible, none of the sites with 100-percent public housing households meets the broad range 

of income definition of a mixed-income development.91 

3.4.2 Characteristics of Public Housing versus Non-Public Housing Households 

While non-public housing households might be expected to have higher average incomes than 

the public housing households in the same development, the size of the difference is remarkable. 

The median income of market-rate renters ranges from more than three times higher than public 

housing residents in Atlanta to six times higher in Charlotte. Tax Credit and public housing 

households have more modest differences, with median incomes of Tax Credit households two to 

91 See Appendix Exhibit C-2 for the distribution of income at the 100-percent public housing sites. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

	 

three times higher than public housing households. (See Exhibit 3-6.) These results suggest that 

the new mixed-income HOPE VI developments have been able to attract renters with substantial 

economic resources who are willing to live in the same development as public housing residents. 

Nevertheless, even at the five sites with non-public housing households, most of the rental units 

are affordable to people with income less than 80 percent of the area median. An average of 72 

percent of the rental units at these five sites are either public housing or Tax Credit units, ranging 

from 50 percent in Washington, D.C., to 96 percent in New Haven. 

Exhibit 3-6 

Comparison of Incomes of Public Housing and Non-Public Housing Households at 

Mixed-Income Sites 

Boston New Haven Charlotte Washington, DC Atlanta 

Median Income ($2002) 

Public Housing $12,190 $7,619 $10,029 $12,171 $10,447 

Tax Credit -- $25,395 $23,820 -- $26,118 

Market Rate $63,488 -- $64,772 $47,012 $35,565 

Share with Income Above 50% of 

Area Median 

Public Housing 5% 1% 7% 14% 6% 

Tax Credit -- 44% 43% -- 76% 

Market Rate 78% -- 94% 86% 66% 

Share with Earned Income 

Public Housing 51% 19% 58% 54% 70% 

Tax Credit -- 78% 97% -- 93% 

Market Rate 94% -- 100% 96% 94% 

Share with Welfare Income 

Public Housing 10% 5% 2% 5% 8% 

Tax Credit -- 13% 0% -- 6% 

Market Rate 0% -- 0% 0% 0% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

Notes: All dollar figures are in 2002 dollars. “--” indicates not applicable, because no such units exist at the development.
 

Non-public housing and public housing households have somewhat smaller differences in the 

sources of income. Overall, a majority of the HOPE VI households of each type have earned 

income and few receive welfare. In four of the five sites, more than 90 percent of the marketrate units and Tax Credit households reported having earned income, as do 51 to 70 percent 

of the public housing households. New Haven, in part because of the large number of 

elderly-headed households, is an exception: 78 percent of the Tax Credit residents and 19 

percent of the public housing households reported earned income.92 Across all five sites, 

92	 As can be seen in Appendix Exhibit C-2, 53 percent of the households in family public housing units have 

earned income, however, an elderly person heads 9 percent of those households. Only 4 percent of the Tax 

Credit households are headed by an elderly person. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

none of the households in the market-rate units and 13 percent or fewer of the Tax Credit and 

public housing households reported receiving welfare income. 

In addition to higher incomes, non-public housing households have substantially different 

demographic characteristics than public housing households living in the same development. The 

plan to mix households of different economic means also resulted in increased racial diversity of 

the developments. In the market-rate units, the share of households headed by a White, nonHispanic person ranges from 34 percent in Boston to 60 percent in Charlotte. (See Exhibit 3-7.) 

By contrast, the share of White public housing households ranges from 1 percent in Charlotte and 

Atlanta to 10 percent in Washington, D.C.93 The share of Tax Credit households headed by a 

White person is similar to the public housing households, ranging from 5 to 13 percent. Because 

of the small share of market-rate units at several of the developments and the predominance of 

public housing and Tax Credit households headed by a minority, Washington, D.C., is the only 

site where more than 20 percent of all the household heads are White, non-Hispanic.94 

The household composition of public housing and non-public housing households also varies 

considerably at the mixed-income sites. Washington, D.C., is the only site where there are 

any elderly household heads in market-rate units (4 percent). By contrast, the public housing 

units in four of five mixed-income sites have a substantial share of elderly headed 

households. Consistent with the relatively high shares of elderly public housing households 

before revitalization, New Haven rehabilitated two existing elderly public housing buildings 

and, along with Boston and Charlotte, added an elderly building to what were, before HOPE 

VI, purely family public housing developments. Despite the much larger share of elderlyheaded households in the public housing units, the share of one-person households in the 

non-public housing units is similar or larger to the share in public housing units at three of 

the five sites. One-person households in the non-public housing units tend to be nonelderly 

whereas the one-person households in the public housing units tend to be elderly.95 

Public housing households are substantially more likely than market-rate households to have 

children. In the most extreme case, 45 percent of the Charlotte public housing households, 

but none of the market-rate households, have children. In Atlanta, 80 percent of the public 

housing households have children, compared with 9 percent of the market-rate households. 

The striking differences in the presence of children between market-rate and public housing 

households could limit the interaction between these types of renters. Households with 

children (primarily public housing and Tax Credit households) may have different interests 

and participate in different activities than households without children (most market-rate 

households). The lack of children in market-rate households may also limit these households’ 

interest and involvement in neighborhood schools. If so, this could reduce some of the 

93 As can be seen in Appendix Exhibit C-1, the heads of public housing households at four of the five mixedincome sites are predominately African American. In Boston, the race of the household head in public 

housing units is primarily either Hispanic (55 percent) or African American (39 percent). 

94 See Appendix Exhibit C-1. 

95 See Appendix Exhibit C-10. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

potential benefits of a mixed-income community, because role modeling, job networking, 

and improving public services (such as schools) are less likely to occur if the different groups 

of renters are not interacting or sharing the same interests. 

Exhibit 3-7 

Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Public Housing and Non-Public 

Housing Households at Mixed-Income Sites 

Boston New Haven Charlotte Washington, DC Atlanta 

White Head of Household 

Public Housing 3% 5% 1% 10% 1% 

Tax Credit -- 13% 5% -- 5% 

Market Rate 34% -- 60% 47% 45% 

Elderly Head of Household 

Public Housing 19% 63% 46% 27% 1% 

Tax Credit -- 4% 5% -- 5% 

Market Rate 0% -- 0% 4% 0% 

One-Person Household 

Public Housing 31% 74% 49% 37% 15% 

Tax Credit -- 22% 19% -- 51% 

Market Rate 3% -- 40% 31% 29% 

Households with Children 

Public Housing 47% 15% 45% 41% 80% 

Tax Credit -- 57% 73% -- 34% 

Market Rate 28% -- 0% 12% 9% 

Head is College Graduate 

Public Housing 9% 2% 7% 15% 6% 

Tax Credit -- 17% 32% -- 54% 

Market Rate 48% -- 65% 73% 57% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 

Notes: “--” indicates not applicable, because no such units exist at the development. 

The final demographic difference of note is the education level of the household head. 

From 48 to 73 percent of the market-rate household heads reported having a college degree, 

whereas no more than 15 percent of the public housing heads reported this level of 

education. Within each of the mixed-income sites, market-rate heads are between 5 and 10 

times more likely than public housing heads to have a college degree. The share of Tax 

Credit household heads with a college degree falls in-between the shares of public housing 

and market-rate household heads with a college degree, ranging from 17 to 54 percent. 

In summary, the market-rate households not only have substantially higher incomes than 

public housing households in the same development but also are also more likely to be 

headed by a person who is White, nonelderly, college educated, and has no children. The 

characteristics of Tax Credit households tend to fall in-between, but they are more similar 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

to public housing than to market-rate households. While the non-public housing households 

clearly add economic and demographic diversity to the sites, the differences in 

characteristics also suggests they may have different interests and concerns than the public 

housing households, raising the question of how much the different household types will 

interact. The next section explores the social cohesiveness of the sites, examining the 

perceptions of public housing and non-public housing households separately. 

3.5	 Is there a Sense of Community in the Revitalized 

Developments? 

The HOPE VI revitalization efforts were not just attempting to address the distressed 

physical conditions of the developments. They were also trying to address the distressed 

social conditions by redesigning the sites to be less conducive to crime, improving 

management and maintenance of the sites, and increasing access to self-sufficiency services. 

In addressing the distressed physical conditions, the revitalization efforts temporarily broke 

up whatever level of community existed at the site. When the site was reoccupied, some of 

the original residents returned, but there were also many new residents. At the mixed-income 

sites, the new residents often had quite different characteristics from those of returning 

residents. This section examines the degree of social cohesiveness at these “new 

communities” shortly after reoccupancy. 

The share of residents who attempt to keep informed about issues and events in their 

neighborhood and the involvement of residents in making community decisions are among 

the possible indicators of the level of social cohesiveness. In the survey of HOPE VI 

residents, respondents were asked how frequently they attended resident council meetings. 

One site, Atlanta, did not have a resident council, so is excluded from these estimates. 

Two-thirds of the residents at the 10 sites with resident councils reported that they always 

(19 percent) or sometimes (47 percent) attend the meetings. (See Exhibit 3-8.) These 

attendance levels suggest a fairly high degree of resident involvement in their community, 

particularly by the nearly one-fifth of residents who reported they always attend the 

meetings.96 

Attendance at council meetings is slightly higher for public housing residents at the mixedincome sites than at the 100-percent public housing sites. However, the non-public housing 

households are substantially less likely to attend. Slightly more than one-half of the nonpublic housing respondents reported they never attended the council meetings compared with 

23 percent of the public housing households at mixed-income sites and 36 percent at 100-

96 Residents of at least two sites are required to sign lease addendums that stipulate regular attendance at 

council meetings as a condition of occupancy. However, the share of residents regularly attending council 

meetings at these sites (76 percent in Milwaukee and 65 percent in Oakland) does not stand out as 

extraordinarily high. From interviews with PHA staff at these sites, it appears the lease addendum is used to 

encourage meeting attendance, but they do not start eviction procedures solely for failure to attend these 

meetings. See Appendix Exhibit C-4 for reports of resident council attendance by site and type of renter. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 47 
Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 48

percent public housing sites. This suggests that the non-public housing households are less 

actively involved in their development. At most sites, the resident councils were dissolved 

before the start of revitalization. However, the new councils that are formed after 

reoccupancy tend to be dominated by the pre-HOPE VI resident leaders. This may, in part, 

explain why public housing households are more active than non-public housing households 

in the councils. 

Exhibit 3-8

Social Cohesion of Residents

Average at Five Mixed-Income Sites

Average at 

All 11 

Sites

Average at Six 

100-Percent 

Public Housing 

Sites Public Housing 

Households

Non-Public 

Housing 

Households

Percent who attend resident council meetings

Always

Sometimes

Never

19%

47%

34%

16%

47%

36%

25%

51%

23%

19%

30%

52%

Percent who somewhat or strongly agree that:

People generally get along with each other 78% 78% 80% 75%

People willing to help neighbors 68% 68% 71% 54%

The neighborhood is close knit 63% 67% 64% 51%

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 

Notes: The Atlanta site (mixed-income) does not have a resident council and is excluded from analysis of attendance at resident council 

meetings. Respondents from other sites who reported they did not have a resident council (1 percent) were combined with respondents 

who reported never attending resident council meetings. 

Residents were also asked three questions designed to elicit the degree of social cohesion at 

the site.97 They were asked to rate their level of agreement with statements about their 

neighborhood such as “People around here are willing to help their neighbors.” There were 

five possible responses, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” A majority of 

residents either strongly or somewhat strongly agreed to each statement, ranging from 63 

percent for “This is a close-knit neighborhood” to 78 percent for “People generally get along 

well with each other.” These levels of social cohesion compare favorably to the results from 

a survey of residents of five public housing developments that were slated for, but had not 

yet started, HOPE VI revitalization. In that study, for example, only 56 percent of the 

residents agreed with the statement on neighbors willing to help each other out, compared 

 

97 The three questions on social cohesion are part of a collective efficacy scale (a combination of social 

cohesion and social control variables) that has been correlated with lower crime rates and better health 

outcomes for residents. (See Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: 

A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277: 918-24. and Morenoff, 2001. Place, Race, and 

Health: Neighborhood Sources of Group Disparities in Birthweight. Report No. 01-482. Ann Arbor: 

Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

with 68 percent in this study.98 This suggests that social cohesion might be higher in the 

revitalized development than in the pre-HOPE VI development, although this is speculative 

because the pre-HOPE VI residents were not from the same developments as the post-HOPE 

VI residents surveyed for this study. 

Nearly identical shares of public housing residents at both the public housing and mixed-income 

sites agreed with the statements on social cohesion, whereas the non-public housing households’ 

responses were substantially less positive. For example, only 54 percent of the non-public 

housing households agreed with the statement, “People are willing to help their neighbors,” 

compared with 71 percent of public housing residents in the same developments. This suggests 

that the non-public housing households perceive a less cohesive community than the public 

housing residents. This could be problematic for maintaining the mixed-income nature of the 

sites if it led to higher turnover among non-public housing households and more difficulty in 

attracting new non-public housing households. However, followup visits with three of the mixedincome sites (Charlotte, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C.) did not indicate that any such problems 

had developed by February 2003. Furthermore, these results probably also reflected the fact that 

compared with the public housing residents, very few of the non-public housing households (4 

percent) had lived in the development before the revitalization. It was not as familiar a 

neighborhood for them, and they were less likely to have pre-existing friends or acquaintances in 

the development. The lack of children in the non-public housing households may also lead to less 

interaction with neighbors and less participation in activities on site (which tend to be geared to 

children) than for public housing households with children. 

3.6	 What Factors Explain the Share of Original Residents Now 

Living in Revitalized Developments? 

Across the 11 sites, an average of 41 percent of the household heads had lived in the 

development before the revitalization and thus are returning residents.99 At five sites, onehalf or more of all the post-HOPE VI residents were returning residents, and overall the share 

ranged from 9 percent in Atlanta to 75 percent in New Haven. (See Exhibit 3-9.) 

98	 See Popkin et al., 2002. “HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report.” A report produced for the MacArthur 

Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and HUD. In that study, an average of 39 percent of the residents 

agreed with the statement, “The neighborhood is close knit,” 49 percent with the statement “People 

generally get along well with each other,” and 56 percent with the statement “People are willing to help 

their neighbors.” 

99	 A returning resident was defined as a respondent who answered “Yes” to the survey question: “Did you 

live at the (HOPE VI DEVELOPMENT NAME) just before the redevelopment started? [IF 

DEVELOPMENT NAME CHANGED, ADD] “That is, when it was still called (OLD HOPE VI 

DEVELOPMENT NAME).” Since nine of the 11 revitalized developments have fewer units than the 

original development, the share of current residents who lived in the development prior to the revitalization 

(the estimates in this report) is likely larger than the share of residents of the pre-HOPE VI development 

who returned to the revitalized development. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

The share of returning residents at a HOPE VI site is likely affected by many factors, 

including the housing preferences of households, the characteristics of the revitalization 

effort, screening and occupancy requirements for returning residents, and other available 

housing options. All of these factors are multi-dimensional and affect the return rate 

simultaneously, so there is no single factor or even set of factors that obviously explains 

the entire variation. Furthermore, information is not available on all the factors that might 

affect return shares. Of the factors we could explore, three appeared to be associated with a 

higher share of returning residents: residents were relocated within the site during the 

redevelopment; the eligibility requirements for returning residents were minimal; and the 

housing market was relatively tight. 

At the five sites in which a majority of the residents lived in the development before HOPE 

VI, only one site (San Francisco) did not conduct any relocation within the site. By 

contrast, the other six sites had not relocated residents within the site during the 

redevelopment. Relocating residents within the site probably increases the share of 

returning residents because these households can move to the revitalized unit without 

having to leave their current neighborhood and their familiar support network, stores, 

schools, and transportation routes. Moreover, a person who relocates to an unrevitalized 

unit within a site will have to move again, whether he or she moves to a HOPE VI unit or 

an offsite unit. In contrast, a person who relocates off site does not have to incur the burden 

of moving if he or she chooses to stay in the relocation unit. 

The average share of returning residents was somewhat higher in the 100-percent public 

housing sites (46 percent) than in the mixed-income sites (35 percent). Furthermore, the three 

sites with the highest shares of non-public housing units also have the lowest shares of 

returning residents. (See Exhibit 3-9.) While this may, in part, reflect the preferences of the 

pre-HOPE VI residents at these sites, it appears that stricter screening criteria contributed to a 

lower share of returning residents.100 

Sites were classified into three categories, based on their screening criteria for returning 

residents: strict, which includes sites that rescreened original residents on criminal and credit 

background and had work history or training requirements as a condition of eligibility or 

occupancy; modest, which included sites that rescreened original residents on criminal and 

credit background; and loose, which includes the sites that basically “grandfathered” in 

returning residents, requiring only that a returning resident be current on rent payments and 

100	 This section examines the share of all HOPE VI residents that are returning residents. If the share of public 

housing units that housed returning residents were examined instead, the return share would be 46 percent rather 

than 41 percent. At the development level, the return rate would not change at the 100-percent public housing 

sites, but would be higher at the mixed-income sites. However, as can be seen in Appendix Exhibit C-1, the 

return rates at Washington, D.C., Charlotte, and Atlanta would still be the three lowest among the study sites. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

not have been evicted from an assisted housing unit.101 In order to allow more of the original 

residents to return, PHA staff at seven sites reported that the screening criteria were less 

stringent for returning than for new public housing residents, but the continued occupancy 

criteria were the same. At the other four sites, the screening and occupancy criteria were the 

same for returning and new public housing residents. 

Exhibit 3-9 

Share of Current Residents who Lived in the Development Before Revitalization 

Screening or Citywide 

Share of Non- At least Some Occupancy Criteria Rental Share of 

Returning Public Housing Relocation for Returning Vacancy Rate 

Site Residents Rental Units within Site? Residents1 in 2000 

New Haven 75% 18% Yes Loose 11.0%
 

San Francisco 66% 0 No Modest 4.9%
 

Boston 63% 17% Yes Modest 4.9%
 

Cleveland 53% 0 Yes Loose 11.7%
 

Milwaukee 50% 0 Yes Loose 6.8%
 

Baltimore 45% 0 No Loose 14.1%
 

Camden 36% 0 No Loose 18.8%
 

Oakland 35% 0 No Modest 4.3%
 

Washington, DC 14% 50% No Modest 9.6%
 

Charlotte 13% 43% No Strict 6.5%
 

Atlanta 9% 60% No Strict 10.0%
 

Average 41% 17% -- -- 9.3% 

Sources: 2000 Census (vacancy rate) and Interim Assessment Case Studies (1999 to 2002). 

1 The screening criteria for public housing residents who had not lived in the development before redevelopment was stricter than for 

returning residents at about one-half the sites. See Chapter 5 for more information on screening criteria. 

Notes: The share of returning residents is based on post-HOPE VI residents, including Tax Credit and market-rate residents. A returning 

resident was defined as a respondent who answered “Yes” to the survey question: “Did you live at the (HOPE VI DEVELOPMENT NAME) 

just before the redevelopment started? [IF DEVELOPMENT NAME CHANGED, ADD] “That is, when it was still called (OLD HOPE VI 

DEVELOPMENT NAME).” Since 9 of the 11 revitalized developments have fewer units than the original development, the share of current 

residents who lived in the development before the revitalization (the estimates in this report) is likely larger than the share of pre-HOPE VI 

residents who returned to the revitalized development. 

101	 According to the HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Reports (for the period ending September 30, 2002), 5.9 

percent (198 out of 3,352) of the residents living in the 11 study sites were evicted from their assisted 

housing during the relocation period. These residents would not be eligible to live in a revitalized 

development even when the screening criteria were “loose” for returning residents. No information is 

available on the number of other residents who are ineligible because they are not current on their rent (but 

were not evicted) or because they would not meet any of the other screening criteria. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Of the four sites with the lowest return rates, two were classified as having strict screening and 

eligibility criteria (background check and required self-sufficiency activities) and two were 

classified as having modest screening criteria (standard background check). By contrast, five of 

the seven remaining sites did not rescreen the returning residents, and the other two had modest 

screening criteria.102 Stricter screening criteria can directly affect the share of returning 

residents because some original residents are not eligible to move back. It may also indirectly 

affect the return share by making residents feel unwelcome or fearful that they would lose their 

housing assistance altogether if they tried to return and were then evicted. 

The tightness of the housing market is a third factor that could help explain differences in the 

share of returning residents. Housing vacancy rates are a proxy for the availability of other 

affordable housing options. It appears to be an important factor in explaining why some sites 

have unexpectedly high or low shares of returning residents. For example, San Francisco has 

the second highest return rate, yet did not conduct any within-site relocation, has moderate 

screening criteria, and residents had to relocate for the longest time period before they could 

move back to the revitalized development (approximately 4.75 years between the start of 

relocation and reoccupancy).103 According to the 2000 Census, the city of San Francisco’s 4.9-

percent vacancy rate was the second lowest among the study sites. San Francisco also had, by 

far, the highest average rents.104 In contrast, Camden and Baltimore had relatively low shares 

of returning residents given that they did not rescreen returning residents. The city of Camden’s 

18.8-percent vacancy rate is the highest of any study site and Baltimore’s 14.1-percent vacancy 

rate is second highest.105 The apparent relationship between the share of returning residents and 

the tightness of the market suggests that resident choice plays an important role in the share of 

returning residents. In looser markets, where residents appear to have the same opportunity to 

move back as residents in tighter markets but have more housing options, a smaller share of 

residents return to the development. 

Other factors that we thought would be correlated with a higher share of returning residents 

did not appear to be important by themselves at these study sites. These factors included the 

ratio between the number of public housing units in the post-HOPE VI redevelopment and 

102	 The five sites that did not rescreen returning residents did screen new public housing residents. See Chapter 

5 for information on screening procedures for new residents. 

103	 In Washington, D.C., the returning residents had not lived in the development for 10 years by the time postHOPE VI reoccupancy was started. This extended relocation period occurred because the site was vacated in 

1988, five years before the award of the HOPE VI grant Despite this long time period, 14 percent of the postHOPE VI residents had lived in the development prior to HOPE VI. Many of those who returned had moved to a 

nearby public housing development. Therefore moving to the revitalized development was only a short move. 

104	 Average rental rates are not shown in the exhibit because they are highly correlated with vacancy rates. 

According to the 2000 Census, the average rent for any size unit was $928 in San Francisco. Boston was 

second highest at $803, and Oakland was third at $696. 

105	 Cleveland ($465), Baltimore ($498), and Camden ($522) had the lowest average rental rates according to 

the 2000 Census. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

the number in the original public housing development,106 the addition of an elderly/disabledonly building, rehabilitation rather than new construction,107 and the number of years 

between the start of relocation and the start of reoccupancy.108 

3.7 Conclusion 

The residents of the revitalized HOPE VI developments have substantially different 

characteristics from the pre-HOPE VI residents on most dimensions. The current residents 

have higher incomes on average, are more likely to be working, have more education, are 

more likely to be elderly, have smaller households, and are slightly more racially diverse. 

Nevertheless, two-thirds of current households (including 77 percent of public housing 

households) have extremely low incomes, and 93 percent are headed by a minority. Single 

female-headed households with children are the most common household type (39 percent), 

followed by single-person households (26 percent). One-half of the single-person households 

are headed by an elderly person, who in total head 19 percent of the HOPE VI households. 

The presence of non-public housing households is an important reason for the differences 

between pre- and post-HOPE VI resident characteristics. Thus, the change in resident 

characteristics tends to be greater at the five sites with non-public housing households. When 

the comparison of pre- and post-HOPE VI resident characteristics is limited to public 

housing households, the differences are reduced. However, there are some important 

differences even for public housing households: current public housing residents have 

substantially higher incomes (although the overwhelming majority still have extremely low 

incomes), are more likely to be working, and are more likely to be elderly than pre-HOPE VI 

residents. 

Of the current HOPE VI residents, 41 percent reported they lived in the development before 

HOPE VI. This explains, in part, why the pre- and post- HOPE VI characteristics of public 

housing residents are so similar on time-invariant characteristics such as race. The share of 

106	 There was no obvious pattern between the share of returning residents at the site and either the total number of 

units or the total number of public housing units as a percentage of the number of pre-HOPE VI units. In 

addition, none of the sites had a high enough share of returning residents that a returning resident, who had the 

highest priority to live at the site, would have been turned away because of a lack of an available unit. 

107	 Rehabilitation rather than new construction is highly correlated with conducting relocation within site 

during the redevelopment. However, relocation within a site was determined to be the more important 

factor because the one site that relocated residents within the site but built all new units (Boston) had a high 

return rate, while the two sites that rehabilitated at least some of their units, but did not relocate residents 

within the site (Camden and Oakland), had relatively low return rates. 

108	 Both the relocation and the reoccupancy period were spread over multiple years in many sites, so the time 

estimate we used may not be a good proxy for “time resident had to assimilate to a new living situation 

before having the option to return to the development.” This is the “time factor” we expected to be 

correlated with the share of returning residents. While our proxy for this time factor did not appear 

correlated with the return rate, it is possible that the actual measure of time each person was relocated 

would be correlated with return rates. Such data were not available for the study sites. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

returning residents ranged from 9 to 75 percent across the sites. Our exploratory analysis of 

factors that might explain the cross-site differences in the share of returning residents 

suggests that three factors are associated with a higher return rate: relocation within the site 

during redevelopment, minimal “new” screening for returning residents, and a tighter rental 

housing market in the city. 

The share of non-public housing units at the five sites with non-public housing units ranged from 

17 to 60 percent. Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and Charlotte were the only three sites to meet 

various definitions of mixed-income we examined for this report, indicating they had substantial 

shares of both extremely low-income households and relatively higher income households.109 

The characteristics of public housing residents were similar at 100-percent public housing 

sites and mixed-income sites, but the non-public housing households were very different 

from the public housing households at the mixed-income sites. The mixed-income 

developments were able to attract non-public housing households with much greater 

economic means than the public housing households. In addition to having higher incomes, 

non-public housing households were more racially diverse and more likely to be headed by a 

person with a college degree, but much less likely to be headed by an elderly person, and 

much less likely to have children in their household. Market-rate households drive the large 

differences between public and non-public housing households. The characteristics of Tax 

Credit households were in-between those of public housing and market-rate households, 

although somewhat more similar to the public housing than to the market-rate households. 

109 Outside of this analysis, we refer to all five sites with non-public housing units as mixed-income (to 

distinguish them from the 100-percent public housing sites) in this report. 

Chapter 3—Changes in Resident Characteristics at HOPE VI Sites 54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

4. Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of 

HOPE VI Sites 

Sealed up but right across the hall from me there are three apartments that [are] 

empty. Me and my daughter had to come out of our apartment and several times. . . 

someone was across the hall. They broke all the windows out. We are afraid that 

someone is going to come out there one night and. . . get us. We don’t know what 

their intentions are. I’m afraid of that. 

Resident of Lafayette Homes in Baltimore, before revitalization in 1995.110 

The people who live here. . . like the development. . .and because they like [the 

housing] they’ve got. . it encourages them to do things. . .to get a job. . . 

Pleasant View Gardens Tenant Council President, after revitalization in 2003. 

All of the study sites have undergone substantial physical change in the past 10 years. In order 

to understand the extent of this change, this chapter begins by reviewing the physical 

conditions that existed at the time the HOPE VI grants were awarded and the goals that were 

established for redevelopment of the sites. The chapter then describes the transformation that 

has taken place at the study sites along several dimensions. Section 4.2 discusses the changes 

that occurred at sites that relied primarily on rehabilitation to improve the properties and 

compares these sites to those that relied on demolition and new construction. Section 4.3 

discusses the extent to which the sites incorporated features of new urbanism and defensible 

space—design principles promoted by HUD in conjunction with HOPE VIinto the 

revitalized developments. Section 4.4 discusses the differences in physical outcomes between 

100-percent public housing and mixed-income sites, including differences in development 

appearance and amenities, and differences in unit type and size. The chapter concludes with a 

discussion of changes in the number of affordable housing units that are available at the sites. 

4.1	 Physical Conditions Before HOPE VI and Revitalization Goals 

Lafayette Homes in Baltimore was one of the most distressed of the 11 study sites in the 

early 1990s. Built in 1955, it was the largest highrise public housing project ever constructed 

in Baltimore, consisting of 807 units in six 11-story highrise towers and 17 lowrise buildings. 

The development was originally constructed to provide housing for a growing population of 

African American households who moved to Baltimore in increasing numbers during and 

after World War II. 

110	 Tony L. Whitehead and Linda M. Kaljee, “HOPE VI Baseline Case Study of Lafayette Court, Baltimore 

Maryland.” An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI. Volume 2, Case Studies, August 1996, p. 13. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Conditions had deteriorated at Lafayette Homes by the early 1970s. The buildings had aged 

and the housing authority had difficulty maintaining the electrical and plumbing systems. 

Crime was rampant. While the housing agency invested increasing amounts into the 

development in order to address its physical problems, conditions did not improve. By 1991, 

20 percent of the housing agency’s maintenance budget was devoted to Lafayette, even 

though it represented just 4 percent of Baltimore’s public housing stock.111 

While Lafayette Homes was extremely distressed and epitomized the public image of public 

housing in the early 1990s, it was not representative of all the study sites. As discussed in 

Chapter 1, two-thirds of the sites were rated in poor or very poor physical condition shortly 

after the HOPE VI grant was awarded. Two (Milwaukee and Oakland) were in fair condition, 

and two (Earle Village and the King Kennedy part of the Cleveland site) were rated in good 

condition. However, as noted in the Baseline Study, the sites that received relatively positive 

ratings for physical condition still represented the worst of the public housing stock in their 

respective cities.112 

Lafayette Homes also did not typify the predominant building type at the study sites. (See 

Exhibit 4-1.) Only one other site (Bernal Plaza and Plaza East in San Francisco) contained 

any highrise family public housing. Three sites contained highrise elderly buildings. By and 

large, the study sites consisted of two- and three-story garden apartment buildings or 

townhouse units. The buildings were drab in appearance, many with flat roofs and common 

entrances. The developments ranged in size from as few as 134 units at Ellen Wilson 

Dwellings in Washington, D.C., to more than 1,152 units at King Kennedy Estates. The 

average number of units per site was 596. 

As part of the application process and following the award of HOPE VI funding, housing 

agency officials, residents, local government leaders and other interested parties developed 

HOPE VI revitalization plans that articulated redevelopment goals for each site. As shown in 

Exhibit 4-2, these plans reveal some common themes on the types of physical improvements 

that were desired at the sites. Particularly important were: 

•	 integrating the development into the surrounding neighborhood; 

•	 reducing density at the site; and 

•	 re-designing buildings and open spaces to improve security. 

111	 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Lafayette Courts in Baltimore, Maryland, 

March 31, 2000. 

112	 Baseline conditions at the developments were based on the subjective assessments of Local Research 

Affiliates hired to prepare case studies at each of the HOPE VI sites. See An Historical and Baseline 

Assessment of HOPE VI, p. 3-1. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Exhibit 4-1 

Physical Characteristics of HOPE VI Sites, Pre- and Post-Revitalization 

HOPE VI 

Site Pre HOPE VI Post HOPE VI 

Density Density 

No. of (units No. of (units per 

Building Types Units per acre) Building Types Units acre) 

Camden Two-story townhouse units 368 20 Mostly two-story townhouse units; some 253 14 

one-story units 

Cleveland 

Outhwaite Two-story garden apartment 1024 35 Two-story garden apartment units 5351 18 

units 

King Kennedy Three-story walkups; two 1152 65 Townhouses and two-story apartments 346 19 

elderly highrises over ground floor apartments 

Milwaukee Three-story walkup buildings; Three-story walkup buildings; two-story 

two-story townhouses and 596 24 townhouses and apartments; eight-story 470 19 

apartments; eight-story elderly highrise for elderly 

highrise building 

Oakland Two-story townhouses and Two-story townhouses and one-story 372 17 372 17 (Lockwood one-story detached detached bungalows 

only) bungalows. 

San Francisco 

Bernal Three-story walkup apartment 208 54 160 40 Two- and three-story townhouses, some buildings and a highrise with ground floor apartments 

Low, mid and highrise Plaza E. apartment buildings 276 77 193 53 

Baltimore Six highrise buildings and Family townhouse units; midrise elderly 

lowrise apartment buildings 807 38 building 338 16 

Boston Three-story apartment Three-story buildings; some walkups with 

buildings 822 42 apartments on each level; also two-story 535 27 

townhouse over apartments 

New Haven Two- and three-story garden Highrise elderly building; four-unit building for 

apartment buildings 4622 24 disabled persons; three-story elderly apt 2932 15 

building; mix of duplex and semidetached 

and attached townhouses 

Charlotte Two-story apartment buildings 409 11 68-unit elderly midrise building; three-story 351 10 

walkup apt building and townhouses 

Washington Two-story apartment buildings 134 25 Four unit types including three-story two- 147 28 

family townhouses; four-story two-family 

townhouses; two-story two-family 

townhouses; semidetached carriage houses 

Atlanta Three-story apartment 1705 32 Three-story buildings; some walkup 841 16 

buildings and townhouse units apartments and two-story townhouses 

over ground level flats. 

Sources: An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI. Volume 2, Case Studies prepared by Abt Associates, August 1996. Interim
 

Assessment of the HOPE VI Program. Case study reports for all 11 sites (1999 to 2002).
 

1Outhwaite includes 200 units that have not been rehabilitated; King Kennedy includes 80 units rehabilitated under a previous grant and 98 units
 

that are planned for the site.
 

2The pre-HOPE VI number does not include the 99 elderly units for elderly and disabled persons that were not part of the original development site. The
 

number has been added to the post-HOPE VI number as these units were renovated as part of the HOPE VI revitalization.
 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

Other themes that were noted include enhancing the properties through site redesign and 

landscaping, developing housing more suitable for families, and creating housing to attract a 

mixed-income group of residents. With the exception of income-mixing, the goals of the 

100-percent public housing sites did not differ significantly from those of the mixed-income 

sites. The next section describes the changes that have occurred and the extent to which local 

goals have been met. 

4.2 Physical Change at HOPE VI Sites 

Figures 4-1 to 4-4 present photographs that demonstrate the transformation that has taken 

place at several HOPE VI sites. In Baltimore, all 807 units were demolished in August 1995. 

Within 2 1/2 years, the site had been redesigned and 228 townhouses were constructed, along 

with a 110-unit midrise elderly building.113 The buildings were designed to imitate the 

traditional brick row houses for which Baltimore is famous. Each townhouse unit has its own 

private back yard, and there is shared open space at the center of the development. Overall, 

the development—now called Pleasant View Gardens—looks like a modest, new townhouse 

community found in any American suburb. 

The most radical transformations have occurred at sites like Baltimore where all of the original 

units were demolished and new units built. However, Baltimore and San Francisco were the only 

two 100-percent public housing sites to demolish all original units.114 The remaining four allpublic housing sites—Cleveland, Milwaukee, Camden, and Oakland—were primarily 

rehabilitation projects. While several other study sites, including Atlanta, Charlotte, and Boston, 

initially proposed rehabilitation, they changed their plans as HUD’s concept of what constituted a 

HOPE VI revitalization effort crystallized in the mid-1990s. Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Oakland 

Figure 4-1. Plaza East in San Francisco prior to demolition. Figure 4-2. Redeveloped units at Plaza East. 

113	 As noted in Chapter 2, the Baltimore PHA had begun planning for the redevelopment of Lafayette Courts 

prior to the receipt of the HOPE VI grant. 

114	 Baltimore and San Francisco were the only two sites that contained family highrises, now considered 

unsuitable for low-income families with children. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 58 
Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 59

adhered to their original plan of 100-percent rehabilitation, while Camden eventually modified its 

plan and replaced one-third of the existing McGuire Gardens units with new units. 

4.2.1 Change at Rehabilitated Sites—Camden, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Oakland

While the physical changes are not as dramatic at the rehabilitated sites, efforts were made to 

improve their livability and desirability.115 First, there was a reduction in density through the 

selective demolition of units at all but Oakland’s Lockwood Gardens. As indicated in Exhibit 

4-1, the number of units per acre dropped from 20 to 14 at Camden’s McGuire Gardens, from 

35 to 18 at Cleveland’s Outhwaite Homes, and from 24 to 19 at Milwaukee’s Hillside 

Terrace. 

Second, at two sites (Camden and Milwaukee), an attempt was made to connect the 

properties to the surrounding area through the introduction of new through streets. In 

Milwaukee, this meant restoring a street grid that had existed before the construction of 

Hillside Terrace.

Third, several sites worked to increase safety. Milwaukee and Cleveland reconfigured 

existing units so that most units now have their own private entrance from the outside rather 

than an entry from a common interior hallway. Also with security in mind, all units at 

McGuire Gardens in Camden now face the street. This required a combination of selected 

unit demolition, some construction of replacement units, and introduction of through streets. 

 

115 The principal exterior changes are discussed here. Changes in unit types and sizes are discussed in Section 4.4.

Figure 4-3. Unrehabilitated unit at Lockwood Gardens in 

Oakland.

Figure 4-4. Rehabilitated unit at Lockwood Gardens.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 4-2 

Goals for and Physical Improvements at HOPE VI Developments 

HOPE VI Site Redevelopment Goals Site Improvements Building Improvements 

Open Space 

Improvements Community Facilities 

Camden Integrate public housing into 

surrounding neighborhood; 

stimulate neighborhood 

reinvestment; encourage 

neighbors use of community 

facilities; improve security. 

Several new streets added to 

blend street pattern with 

surrounding neighborhood; 

parking lots removed; street 

parking only; demolished some 

units. 

New units built near edge of development for 

impact and to erase hard development edge. All 

units now face street. 

Effort to improve and vary building appearance; 

punched out second story windows. 

Open courtyards behind units 

but no private outdoor space; 

fencing surrounds 

courtyards; meager 

landscaping. 

Small community center 

planned but not built as of 1/03. 

New units blend in with rehabilitated units. 

Cleveland 

Outhwaite 

Improve security; reduce density; 

make shared space more secure 

and attractive; upgrade obsolete 

community facilities; reconfigure 

unit sizes to better match 

demand. 

Courtyards surrounded with 

wrought iron fencing; demolished 

some units. 

Historic designation meant that little could be done to 

building exteriors, although added decorative mosaic 

pattern. Renovated interiors. Reconfigured walkups so 

that each unit has a private entryway. Created large 

family units and increased square footage of some 

units; added washer dryer hookups. The work at this 

site is not complete—there are 200 unrehabilitated 

units remaining. All of the HOPE VI funds have been 

expended. 

Each courtyard has small 

playground. 

City refurbished community 

center on site. 

King Kennedy New fencing and signage limits 

access to the site; demolished 

some units. 

Renovated interiors; each unit has own private entry 

way; unit size increased, using common hallway 

space; washer and dryer hookups. This site is also not 

completed. The housing authority plans to build 98 

townhouses with other funds. 

New playground, landscaped 

green space, walkways, 

decorative fencing, barbecue 

and picnic area. 

Social service mall on site. 

Milwaukee Create 12 microneighborhoods; enhance the 

streetscape, reduce density; 

improve drainage by increasing 

landscaping. 

Reintroduced the street grid; 

developed 12 mini-neighborhoods 

defined by landscaping and 

“monument” in each courtyard; 

new sidewalks; historic street 

lighting; street parking; 

demolished some units. 

Renovated interiors; improved appearance of 

building exteriors; created individual entrances to 

3- story walkups; repaired roofs and replaced 

boilers. 

Public, semipublic, and 

private spaces better defined 

Rehabilitated and enlarged 

family resource center that 

includes a health center. Boys 

and Girls club and day care 

serve neighborhood, also. 

Oakland 

(Lockwood only) 

Upgrade site and improve 

security. 

No change to layout of streets or 

buildings; no demolition; open 

spaces and parking lots 

reconfigured to remove access 

from external street. 

Renovated interiors; new pop-out entryways have 

been added to increase privacy at entry and add 

interior space. Security bars added. Rehabilitation 

was partially completed as of end of 2002. 

Renovated internal courtyards; 

benches, fencing; barbecues; 

low growing and sparse 

landscaping; several tot lots. 

New community center houses 

management office, community 

policing office, Boys and Girls 

club. 

Source: Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program. Case study reports for all 11 sites (1999 to 2002). 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Exhibit 4-2 

Goals for and Physical Improvements at HOPE VI Developments (continued) 

Open Space 

HOPE VI Site Redevelopment Goals Site Improvements Building Improvements Improvements Community Facilities 

San Francisco 

Bernal Restore the fundamental Full demolition; eliminated All new buildings face the streets; designed to All units have a back yard or Three community buildings for 

manner in which most people superblocks that provided unsafe imitate Victorian townhouses. Varied roof lines and balcony accessible only management, childcare, computer 

live by connecting front door, open areas and parking lots; building materials; bay windows. through the units. lab; also outdoor playground for 

sidewalk, parking space and created private through streets childcare center; tenant office and 

street. integrated sites with surrounding community rooms. 

Plaza East neighborhoods; street parking. Playground at both sites. 

Bernal’s playground available One-story bldg houses mgt office, 

only to those using the day maintenance, tenant assoc office; 

care center. multipurpose resource center and 

play yard attached. 

Baltimore Reduce density; promote a safe Complete demolition and redesign All new townhouses plus elderly building; designed Private fenced back yards; Community bldg, Boys and Girls 

environment; provide suitable of the site; new streets and to mimic traditional Baltimore architecture; units open space at center of club, and a medical center. 

housing and open space for sidewalks; most parking on the face the streets. development is called New 

families. street; limited access into the Hope Circle. 

development (controlled but not 

restricted access); community 

facilities located at development 

edge. 

Boston 

New Haven 

Integrate development into 

surrounding neighborhood; 

reduce density; build housing 

that will attract a mix of 

incomes. 

Reduce density; integrate site 

into surrounding neighborhood. 

Complete demolition and redesign 

of the site; new streets and 

sidewalks; street parking and 

parking behind buildings. 

Complete demolition and redesign 

of the site; restored 1940s grid 

street pattern; connects to Dixwell 

neighborhood; new sidewalks, 

granite curbs, historic street 

lighting. 

All new two- and three-story townhouses and 

apartments plus a midrise building. 

All new mix of duplex, semidetached and attached 

houses along with new three-story apartment elderly 

apartment building; mimics traditional architectural 

styles—both Victorian and colonial. In addition, 

renovation of two existing buildings for elderly/disabled 

adjacent to the original development. 

Tot lots; landscaped open 

space throughout. 

Family units have private 

back yards with picket 

fencing open into courtyards 

in the back minimally 

landscaped; Courtyards are 

enclosed by picket fencing. 

New community center houses 

the management office, day 

care, and supportive services. 

Plans for large community 

center scrapped; current plan to 

use former PHA administration 

building for community center. 

Charlotte Build units to attract a mix of 

incomes; the design should 

reflect the development’s urban 

context and incorporate the 

qualities of Charlotte’s best 

traditional neighborhoods. 

Almost full demolition of existing 

units and redesign of site; new 

sidewalks with green strips and 

trees to protect pedestrians from 

cars; parking on street or in rear of 

buildings; new through streets. 

Rehab of just 23 units; all new construction of 

remaining units; varied architecture; row house 

style with varied heights and roof pitches; buildings 

face streets with minimal set back. 

Lots of landscaping along the 

streets—creation of 

boulevards; playgrounds and 

swimming pool. 

Full community center with gym, 

fitness room, indoor play area, 

childcare center, computer lab 

and offices; a pool. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 4-2 

Goals for and Physical Improvements at HOPE VI Developments (continued) 

HOPE VI Site Redevelopment Goals Site Improvements Building Improvements 

Open Space 

Improvements Community Facilities 

Washington Create a development that 

blends naturally into the Capitol 

Hill area. 

Full demolition and redesign of the 

site; historic lighting; new streets 

and sidewalks 

All new construction units with varied architecture 

reflecting neighborhood styles. Use of varied bldg 

materials but unified as a whole; buildings face streets. 

Landscaped front yards; 

many units with back yards. 

Small community center 

planned but not built as of 1/03. 

Atlanta Develop a market-rate 

community where people of all 

income levels would choose to 

live. 

Full demolition and new 

construction. Clusters of threestory buildings each with its own 

gated parking behind; new grid 

street pattern; sidewalks and 

minimal setbacks in front to 

promote pedestrian-friendly 

environment. 

All new construction of apartment and townhouse 

units; varied building styles; units face the street. 

Housing authority will build 103 additional units on 

site. 

Meticulous landscaping; 

pool; tot lots. 

No community center. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 62 
Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 63

Finally, all four sites improved the exterior 

appearance of the properties. For example, 

in Camden the flat façade of the 

townhouses has been improved with the 

addition of second story bay windows. In 

Milwaukee, gabled roofs were added to 

the front porches. At Oakland’s Lockwood 

Gardens, several internal courtyards have 

been renovated and now include benches, 

barbecues, and tot lots. Low-growing 

landscaping was installed to enhance the 

site without creating a safety problem. 

Of the four rehabilitated sites, 

Milwaukee’s Hillside Terrace stands out 

for its success in improving the overall livability of the site. (See Figure 4-5.) According to 

the redevelopment’s construction manager, before HOPE VI Hillside was “undefined 

space...a no man’s land because no one knew where their [individual] space started or 

ended.”116 The new plan for the Hillside property relied on creating a neighborhood hierarchy 

of space: public (streets and sidewalks); semipublic (front porches and yards); and private 

(apartments, back yards, and private courtyards). At the same time, the plan sought to open 

up the neighborhood to the surrounding community. 

Today, Hillside Terrace consists of 12 micro-neighborhoods (averaging fewer than 40 units each) 

that contain residential buildings grouped in a U-shape around a shared courtyard. By means of 

landscaping and a unique neighborhood “monument” at each courtyard entry, the designers 

delineated the shared common space in each courtyard. Changes to the internal street network 

also helped to open up the site to the surrounding neighborhood while maintaining courtyard 

boundaries. The new street network also encourages the natural surveillance of common areas 

and generates more activity in the core of the development. A new network of sidewalks (with 

historic street lighting) has improved the environment for pedestrians.117 

4.2.2 Change at New Construction Sites—Baltimore, San Francisco, Boston, New Haven, 

Charlotte, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C. 

Seven sites relied primarily on demolition of existing units and new construction to achieve 

their revitalization goals. Two of these sites (Baltimore and San Francisco) were revitalized as 

100-percent public housing, while the majority (Boston, New Haven, Charlotte, Washington, 

D.C., and Atlanta) is mixed-income to some degree. Full demolition of existing units gave the 

 

116 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

March 31, 2000, p. 8. 

117 Ibid., pp. 9-13.

Figure 4-5. Rehabilitated units and courtyard at Hillside 

Terrace in Milwaukee.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

PHAs and developers of these sites substantially greater flexibility to address the needs of each 

property in a comprehensive manner. 

Like the rehabilitated sites, the designers of several of the new construction projects viewed 

reducing density as an important goal of redevelopment. Thus, the number of units per acre 

dropped from 24 to 15 in New Haven and from 32 to 16 in Atlanta. The number of units per 

acre did not change significantly in Charlotte and Washington, D.C. In Charlotte, the density 

was quite low to begin with, whereas in Washington, the original density was consistent with 

residential density in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. 

Integrating the sites into the surrounding neighborhoods and ensuring a safe environment 

were also important goals for these newly constructed developments. Thus, all of these 

developments include the following features: 

•	 construction of primarily two- and three-story buildings that mimic traditional 

residential architecture in the area and offer a mix of apartment and townhouse units; 

•	 a new network of streets to link the site to the surrounding neighborhood; 

•	 buildings and unit entrances facing the street with minimal setbacks; 

•	 parking primarily on the streets; 

•	 clearly defined public and private open space; and 

•	 a system of attractive walkways for pedestrians. 

In addition, PHAs or developers at several of the mixed-income sites wanted to ensure that 

the new community could attract middle-income households. This goal led them to pay 

special attention to creating an attractive exterior environment and to providing amenities 

that would attract market rate households. 

The Townhomes on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., provides a good example of this mixedincome focus. The Community Development Corporation that was largely responsible for the 

redevelopment effort wanted to create a 

development that “blends naturally into 

the Capitol Hill area,” a largely middle 

class neighborhood with a significant 

number of historic residential structures. 

To achieve this goal, a well-regarded local 

architect was hired to design the new 

development, and local neighborhood 

groups were actively involved in 

reviewing the initial designs. The end 

result is a development that has the look of 

market-rate housing. The townhouse 

buildings are quite varied architecturally Figure 4-6. Townhomes on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. 

and draw on the range of building styles in 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Capitol Hill. A variety of building materials (including decorative brick, brownstone, stucco, 

and siding) and paint colors are used, leaving the desired impression that these buildings are an 

extension of the Capitol Hill neighborhood rather than a separately constructed development.118 

(See Figure 4-6.) 

4.3	 Incorporating New Urbanism and Defensible Space Principles 

in HOPE VI Projects 

A number of design features of the redeveloped study sites reflect elements of two related urban 

design philosophies—new urbanism and defensible space. New urbanism is based on the belief 

that a return to traditional neighborhood patterns is essential to restoring functional and 

sustainable communities. These patterns include the following: 

•	 Houses facing the streets, with front porches as a predominant feature; 

•	 A mix of housing types, prices, and sizes to attract a mix of people; 

•	 Shopping and parks accessible via footpaths and sidewalks; 

•	 A grid of streets.119 

The fact that these design principles influenced planners at the 11 study sites is no accident. 

The use of new urbanism for HOPE VI projects was promoted by HUD beginning in 1996.120 

More recently, a HUD report to Congress on the HOPE VI program in 2002, suggested that 

the HOPE VI program has “. . . set new public housing design standards” that are based on 

traditional neighborhood design principles and lead to the creation of developments that are 

“. . . safe, compact, walkable, and integrated into the community.”121 

Defensible space principles overlap in many ways with principles of new urbanism. The 

notion of using defensible space design in public housing dates back to 1972 and Oscar 

Newman’s study of the public housing in New York City.122 Newman found that the physical 

design of different types of public housing developments influenced resident behavior and 

118	 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Ellen Wilson Dwellings in Washington DC. 

March 23, 2001, pp. 8-10. 

119	 Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, “The Second Coming of the American Small Town,” in The 

Wilson Quarterly, Volume XVI, No. 1, Winter 1992. 

120	 Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design: HOPE VI and The New Urbanism. U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development and Congress for New Urbanism, 1999. Also see The Timeline of New 

Urbanism online, Andres Duany, Lead Editor: www.nutimeline.net. 

121	 HOPE VI: Best Practices and Lessons Learned 1992-2002. Submitted to the Committee on Appropriations, 

United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, June 

14, 2002. 

122	 Oscar Newman. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan Press, 

1972. Also see Creating Defensible Space. Prepared by Oscar Newman for the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. April 1996. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

the incidence of crime. Based on this work, Newman promoted four principles of physical 

design that foster the development of secure residential environments: 

•	 The territorial definition of space in development reflecting the areas of influence of 

the inhabitants—in practice this means dividing large portions of public space into 

smaller areas, and relating the smaller areas to specific housing units in order to put 

the space under the control of the residents. 

•	 The positioning of apartment windows to allow residents to naturally survey the 

exterior and interior public areas of their living environment. 

•	 The adoption of building forms and idioms that avoid the stigma of peculiarity that 

allows others to perceive the vulnerability and isolation of the inhabitants—in other 

words, using building design that does not allow outsiders to recognize that the 

residents of a development are different in any way from their neighbors in the 

surrounding community. 

•	 The enhancement of safety by locating residential developments in functionally 

sympathetic urban areas immediately adjacent to activities that do not provide 

continued threat.123 

Given the importance that has been placed on using new urbanism and defensible space 

principles in the design of HOPE VI developments, it is worth exploring the extent to 

which the study sites have implemented these principles. As a starting point, the 

developers, designers, and PHAs at most sites appeared to have embraced the philosophy 

of new urbanism and defensible space. In Milwaukee, for example, housing authority 

staff noted that the design solution for Hillside Terrace relied heavily on the new urbanist 

concept of “neighborhood hierarchy,” in which public, semipublic, and private spaces are 

clearly delineated.124 In San Francisco, the Director of the PHA’s Housing Development 

Division noted that the housing authority had become increasingly interested in ways that 

the physical environment influences social behavior. The design of Bernal Plaza and 

Plaza East focused on promoting “. . . individual responsibility by reducing common 

areas and introducing more private space and private entrances,” according to the 

Director.125 The degree to which these principles were implemented at the study sites is 

discussed below. 

123	 Ibid., p. 9. 

124	 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. March 

31, 2000. 

125	 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East in San Francisco. 

March 2003, pp. 27-28. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

4.3.1 Achieving New Urbanism Objectives 

Exhibit 4-3 presents the authors’ qualitative assessment of the extent to which each site has been 

able to implement new urbanism principles.126 The exhibit identifies a number of objectives of 

new urbanism by which the sites were measure.127 Each is discussed below. 

•	 Walkability is defined as pedestrian-friendly street design that includes: buildings 

close to the street; porches, windows and doors facing the street; tree-lined streets; 

on-street parking; hidden parking lots; and narrow, slow speed streets. Nine of eleven 

sites succeeded in achieving walkability to some degree, most by siting units directly 

on the street and creating on-street parking. The only two sites that did not were 

Cleveland and Oakland, both rehabilitation-only sites with less flexibility than the 

new construction sites to make significant site changes. 

Exhibit 4-3 

Implementing New Urbanism Principles at HOPE VI Site 

HOPE VI Site Walkability Connectivity 

Mixed 

Use 

Mixed 

Housing/Diversity 

Quality 

Architecture & 

Urban Design 

Traditional 

Neighborhood 

Structure 

Camden  

Cleveland 

Outhwaite 

King Kennedy 

Milwaukee   

Oakland 

(Lockwood only) 

San Francisco 

Bernal    NA 

Plaza East    NA 

Baltimore   

Boston   

New Haven     

Charlotte     

Washington     NA 

Atlanta    

Source: Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program. Case study reports for all 11 sites (1999 to 2002). 

NA = Traditional neighborhood structure implies that there is a discernable center and edge to the site and that there are public spaces throughout. 

The San Francisco and Washington, D.C. sites were too small to implement this new urbanism principle. 

126	 In attempting to gauge how various sites conform to new urbanism principles, the authors are confronted by 

a lack of quantitative data. Thus, the authors’ conclusions are invariably guided by judgments based only 

on interviews and observation. 

127	 These objectives of new urbanism principles are from New Urbanism.org, a clearinghouse on new 

urbanism information. Additional objectives could not be measured at the study sites, given the relatively 

small scale of these developments. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

•	 Connectivity means that an interconnected street grid network exists to disperse 

traffic and ease walking. Most sites were able to achieve this objective by introducing 

through streets into the site. Again, Cleveland and Oakland were the only two sites 

that did not achieve this. 

•	 Mixed use means that a site provides a mix of shops, offices, and apartments. None of 

the sites achieved a mix of uses on the site, although for some these uses are nearby. 

•	 Mixed housing/diversity implies that there is a range of housing types, sizes, and 

prices in close proximity that can attract a diverse group of people, of all ages, classes, 

cultures, and races. All five mixed-income sites achieved this objective. 

•	 Quality architecture and urban design suggests that the site designers have placed an 

emphasis on beauty, aesthetics, human comfort, and creating a sense of place. Six of 

the sites—all mixed-income except for San Francisco—achieved this objective in the 

authors’ view. The best example of quality architecture is at the Townhomes on 

Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. 

•	 Traditional neighborhood structure implies that there is a discernable center and 

edge to the site and that there are public spaces throughout. This objective was not 

appropriate for several sites because of their small scale. However, it was an objective 

that was met in Milwaukee where the PHA created a number of micro-neighborhoods 

each with its own defined edge and public space. Baltimore also created a plaza in the 

center of the Pleasant View Gardens development. 

4.3.2 Achieving Defensible Space Objectives 

Exhibit 4-4 provides the authors’ assessment of the extent to which defensible space 

principles were incorporated at the sites.128 As noted previously, the features of defensible 

space include the following: 

•	 Subdividing outdoor space into public and semiprivate spaces that can be controlled 

by residents; 

•	 Positioning windows and doors to allow residents to monitor the street; 

•	 Using building design that fits in with the surroundings and is not readily identified as 

low-income housing; 

•	 Locating housing in safe areas with compatible land uses. 

Some sites have been more successful than others in incorporating these elements. At the 

rehabilitation-only sites, the designers made the most of defining the boundaries between 

public and private outdoor space. As already described, Milwaukee’s effort to develop microneighborhoods at Hillside Terrace offers a good example of this. In addition, Oakland 

enhanced the privacy of existing courtyards at Lockwood Gardens through the careful 

placement of fencing and landscaping. The fencing has an un-gated archway entrance to each 

128 This assessment is based on qualitative information, namely interviews and site visitor observations. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 68 
Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 69

courtyard that discourages but does not forbid entry by outsiders. Nearly the entire courtyard 

is visible from the entrance. Low-growing landscaping increases the attractiveness of the 

courtyards without offering hiding places for criminals. 

Most rehabilitation-only sites (the 

exceptions being Oakland and 

Outhwaite in Cleveland) were also 

able to create new sidewalks and 

streets so that some if not all buildings 

that once faced interior courtyards 

now had windows and doors 

overlooking the streets. In Camden, 

for example, several new streets were 

added that break up the existing 

superblocks and imitate the street 

patterns in the surrounding 

neighborhood. In addition, all of the 

internal parking lots were eliminated, 

and all parking is on the street. These 

changes allow residents to view the 

street directly from their front porches 

or front windows. (See Figure 4-7.)

Because rehabilitation does not offer 

the same flexibility as new 

construction, the rehabilitation-only 

sites were not as successful in 

adopting all four defensible space 

features. More of these features were 

successfully incorporated at the new 

construction sites.

Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East in San Francisco provide examples of newly constructed 100-

percent public housing properties that successfully implemented defensible space design. As in 

Camden, the creation of new through streets enabled a new housing configuration in which all 

units face the street. Residents can monitor what is happening outside their homes and it is easier 

for police to patrol the development. At Plaza East, all units also have a fenced back yard or 

balcony. (See Figure 4-8.) The perimeter of each block is secure to ensure that the back yards can 

be accessed only through the units and there are no passageways between the fences separating 

one yard from another. As the housing agency’s Director of Security noted, “The new site design 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

promotes individual responsibility by 

reducing common areas and 

introducing more private space and 

private entrances.”129 

In addition, the San Francisco sites 

also feature building design that 

imitates architecture in the 

neighborhood so that the 

developments blend naturally into 

their surrounding environment. These 

developments are not recognizable as 

100-percent public housing. The 

developments are also located in areas 

with compatible surrounding land 

uses—both thriving residential neighborhoods. While the neighborhoods have crime problems, 

the residents of Bernal Plaza and Plaza East are no more vulnerable than other neighborhood 

residents. 

The Townhomes on Capitol Hill is a mixed-income site that also exhibits all four 

defensible space features. Each unit has an outside entrance that fronts the street. Small 

front yards are set apart with decorative iron fencing so that private and public spaces are 

readily distinguished. The unit designs mimic the architecture in the neighborhood 

allowing the development to blend in naturally with its surroundings. The edges of the 

development are not readily noticeable. Thus, the development does not stand out as an 

affordable housing cooperative. As with the San Francisco sites, the development fits into 

a mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhood. (See Figure 4-9.) 

Overall, because they had greater flexibility, the designers of the new construction sites 

were more successful that those at the rehabilitation sites in adopting new urbanism and 

defensible space principles. Among the new construction sites, it appears that the sites that 

had the highest percentage of market-rate residents—that is, Charlotte, Washington, and 

Atlanta—are also the sites that have the most new urbanism and defensible space 

characteristics. The differences between these developments and others are discussed in 

Section 4.4. 

Figure 4-9 The Townhomes in Washington, DC, blend into the 

surrounding neighborhood. 

129 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East in San 

Francisco, California, March 2003, pp. 27-28. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Exhibit 4-4 

Implementing Defensible Space Principles at HOPE VI Sites 

Doors/Windows Building Design that Safe/Appropriate 

Well-Defined Facing the is Compatible with Location of 

HOPE VI Site Public/Private Spaces Street Surroundings Housing 

Camden  

Cleveland 

Outhwaite	 

King Kennedy 

Milwaukee  

Oakland 

(Lockwood only) 

San Francisco 

Bernal	    

Plaza East    

Baltimore  

Boston   

New Haven   

Charlotte    

Washington    

Atlanta	    

Source: Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program. Case study reports for all 11 sites (1999 to 2002). 

4.4	 Physical Difference Between Mixed-Income and 100-Percent 

Public Housing Sites 

The biggest difference between the mixed-income and 100-percent public housing sites is 

that the five mixed-income sites involved new construction, while four of the six 100-percent 

public housing sites were primarily or all rehabilitation. As already discussed, this accounts 

for substantial differences in the extent of physical change between rehabilitated and new 

construction sites. These two groups differ along several other dimensions as well, including 

market appeal, amenities and unit sizes. These are discussed below. 

4.4.1	 Market Appeal and Amenities 

Focusing first on the new construction sites, there are some differences between the four sites 

that serve a largely low-income population (that is the two 100-percent public housing sites 

in Baltimore and San Francisco as well as the sites in Boston and New Haven with small 

numbers of public housing households) and the sites that are truly mixed-income—Atlanta, 

Charlotte, and Washington, D.C. These three mixed-income sites have more market appeal 

than any other sites in the study. The fact that these sites were most successful in 

incorporating new urbanism principles has already been discussed. In addition, based on the 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

observations of site visitors, these sites also paid more attention to finishes and details in the 

unit interiors and exteriors. Finally, Charlotte and Atlanta are the only two sites to offer 

community amenities such as a swimming pool and a fitness room. As shown in Exhibit 4-2, 

while many of the remaining study sites (both rehabilitation and new construction) have 

community centers, these centers are more likely to provide services that address the needs of 

low-income residents. 

4.4.2 Unit Sizes 

In addition to physical appeal and amenities, unit sizes vary somewhat between some mixedincome and 100-percent public housing developments. (See Exhibit 4-5.) With the exception 

of Washington, D.C., the mixed-income sites tend to be more spacious than the 100-percent 

public housing sites. New Haven boasts the largest average two-bedroom unit, with 1,275 

square feet. The average two-bedroom unit in Atlanta and Charlotte also has more than 1,000 

square feet. The smaller size of the units at the Townhomes on Capitol Hill may be explained 

by the fact that they are similar in size to other townhouse units in the Capitol Hill 

neighborhood. 

While the mixed-income sites tend to have more square footage that the 100-percent public 

housing sites, they are less likely to have many three- or four-bedroom units.130 In Camden, 

San Francisco, and Milwaukee more than one-third of all units contain three or four 

bedrooms. Almost one-half of all units at San Francisco’s Bernal Dwellings have three or 

four bedrooms, which reflects a conscious decision on the part of the housing agency to 

create more units for large families in a very tight housing market. With the exception of San 

Francisco, housing agencies that redeveloped the 100-percent public housing sites chose to 

retain the same percentage of large family units as existed before revitalization or decreased 

this percentage slightly. 

By comparison, the percentage of three- and four-bedroom units is quite small at most of the 

mixed-income sites. At the Townhomes on Capitol Hill, three- and four-bedroom units 

comprise just 4 percent of all units. The figures for Atlanta and New Haven are 13 and 15 

percent. This represents a significant decline at these sites in the percentage of units for large 

families after revitalization. The decline is most significant in Charlotte, where the percent of 

units for large families dropped from 56 to 21 percent. The only mixed-income site that is an 

exception to this pattern is in Boston, where 42 percent of the units have three or four 

bedrooms (down from 52 percent before redevelopment). The reasons for reducing the 

percentage of large bedroom units at these sites are not fully known. However, it is possible 

that there was concern about increased density or that large families would present additional 

management challenges. 

130 A January 2002 General Accounting Office report found that for all HOPE VI projects nationwide the 

average number of bedroom is 2.4. This is a higher average than for other current housing programs 

included in the GAO analysis. See Federal Housing Assistance: Comparing the Characteristics and Costs 

of Housing Program. U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 

	 

Exhibit 4-5 

Unit Availability at HOPE VI Sites 

Percent two- Percent three- Percent three- or 

HOPE VI Sites 

Size of an average 

two-bedroom unit 

Percent onebedroom units 

bedroom 

units 

or more 

bedroom units 

more bedroom units 

pre-HOPE VI 

Camden 750 square feet 11% 47% 42% 50% 

Cleveland 

Outhwaite 900 square feet 16%1 32% 52% 10% 

King Kennedy 

Milwaukee 600 square feet 15% 50% 35% 35% 

Oakland 750 square feet 22% 61% 17% 17% 

(Lockwood only) 

San Francisco 

Bernal 1056 square feet 2% 49% 49% 35% 

Plaza E. 864 square feet 10% 54% 36% 17% 

Baltimore Not Available 36% 40% 24% 33% 

Boston 960 square feet2 22% 36% 42% 52% 

New Haven 1275 square feet 32%3 33% 15% 25% 

Charlotte 1027 square feet 31% 48% 21% 56% 

Washington 780 square feet 34% 61% 4% 21% 

Atlanta 1,000 square feet 36% 51% 13% 19% 

Source: Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program. Case study reports for all 11 sites (1999 to 2002).
 

1Includes 12 efficiency apartments.
 

2Excludes units in elevator building.
 3In addition, another 32 percent of New Haven’s units are efficiency apartments.
 

It is also worth noting that there are many more elderly units at these sites—especially the 

mixed-income sites—after revitalization. Three of the mixed-income sites, including Boston, 

New Haven, and Charlotte, added elderly buildings as part of the revitalization, even though 

they had not existed previously.131 In addition, an elderly building was constructed at one 

100-percent public housing site, Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore. It represents about a 

third of the total units at that site. 

4.4.3 Resident Views of HOPE VI Units 

Despite differences between the 100-percent public housing and mixed-income sites, it 

appears that residents of each type of development are equally satisfied with their units. 

Exhibit 4-6 presents the results of several survey questions that were asked of a sample of 

131	 The New Haven site is unique in that HOPE VI funds paid for the revitalization of a 99-unit elderly building and 

a four-unit building for disabled persons in the adjacent neighborhood. These two buildings are now considered 

part of the HOPE VI development. In addition, a new elderly building was constructed on the site. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 73 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

residents at all sites except Atlanta.132 Residents were first asked about the level of 

satisfaction with their apartments or houses. Across all sites, 58 percent said they were very 

satisfied and another 34 percent said they were somewhat satisfied. Residents of the mixedincome sites showed slightly higher levels of satisfaction. Of residents at the mixed-income 

sites, 60 percent said that they were very satisfied compared with 56 percent of residents at 

100-percent public housing sites. This difference may have less to do with the mix of 

neighbors at a site than it does with whether the unit was newly built or rehabilitated. Four of 

the new construction sites (including Baltimore, New Haven, Charlotte, and Atlanta) had the 

largest number of residents who were very satisfied with their units (between 61 and 66 

percent of all residents). Baltimore is the only public housing site in this group. 

Residents were also asked about possible problems with their units, such as whether they had 

problems with peeling paint, plumbing, the heating system, or appliances, or whether the 

units were too small, had too little storage space, or were noisy. Residents were asked to rate 

each item as “a big problem,” “some problem,” or “no problem at all.” The percentage of 

residents reporting that they had a big problem with paint, plumbing, or heating was small 

across the sites. However, larger numbers of residents reported concerns about storage space, 

noise, and, to a lesser extent, unit size. For example, across all sites 15 percent of residents 

said that the lack of storage space was a big problem. There was no substantial difference in 

the percentage of 100-percent public housing and mixed-income residents who reported this 

as a big problem. However, there were several sites where a significant number of residents 

reported the lack of storage space as a big problem, including Baltimore (23 percent), 

Washington, D.C. (24 percent), Cleveland (18 percent), and Bernal Dwellings in San 

Francisco (33 percent). Significantly smaller percentages of residents at these sites reported 

that a lack of living space was a big problem. 

An apartment can be noisy because sounds are emanating from the street or from other 

apartments. While there is no way of knowing the cause of the noise (urban location, thin 

walls, lax management), 13 percent of residents said that “too much noise” is a big problem. 

More residents at 100-percent public housing sites said that noise is a big problem (15 

percent) than did residents of mixed-income sites. The sites where the greatest percentage of 

residents reported noise as a big problem were: Camden (23 percent) and San Francisco (24 

percent). At three mixed-income sites, market-rate renters were two to three times more 

likely to report noise as a big problem as were public housing residents. For example, in 

Boston, 44 percent of market-rate renters said that noise is a big problem compared with 17 

percent of public housing residents. In New Haven and Charlotte, the percentage of marketrate renters who think it is a big problem was 30 and 25 percent compared with 2 and 9 

percent of public housing residents.133 Given that market-rate and public housing residents 

are interspersed throughout these developments, this finding is puzzling. It is possible that 

residents have different tolerances for noise based on where they had lived previously. 

132	 The Atlanta Housing Authority requested that these questions be dropped from the survey of residents at 

Centennial Place. 

133	 See additional survey data in Appendix C. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Exhibit 4-6 

Resident Satisfaction with Housing at HOPE VI Sites 

100-Percent Public Mixed-Income Site All Sites Average Housing Site Average Average 

Satisfaction with apartment 

Very satisfied 58% 56% 60%
 

Somewhat satisfied 34% 35% 32%
 

Somewhat dissatisfied 7% 8% 5%
 

Very dissatisfied 2% 2% 2%
 

Too little living space
 

Reported as a big problem 6% 7% 4%
 

Some problem 17% 20% 12%
 

No problem 77% 73% 84%
 

Adequacy of storage
 

Reported as a big problem 15% 15% 14%
 

Some problem 22% 22% 22%
 

No problem 63% 63% 64%
 

Too much noise 

Reported as a big problem 13% 15% 11% 

Some problem 16% 16% 16% 

No problem 71% 70% 73% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

Note: Residents at Atlanta’s Centennial Place were not asked resident satisfaction questions at the request of the housing agency.
 

4.5 Loss of Affordable Rental Units 

One final dimension of physical change at HOPE VI sites concerns the decline in affordable 

rental units—that is, units available to households earning up to 80 percent of area median 

income. Before HOPE VI, there were a total of 7,810 units at the study sites. (See Exhibit 4-

7.) Because of conditions at the sites, not all of these units were available for occupancy. As 

of 1992, the number of occupied units at these sites totaled 5,600. Thus, nearly 30 percent of 

all original units were vacant. 

Given that density reduction was a redevelopment goal at most sites, and the fact that limited 

federal resources preclude the one-for-one replacement of public housing units, a loss of 

affordable rental units is expected. For mixed-income sites, a portion of the new units must 

be reserved for middle-income families, further reducing the supply of affordable units.134 

134 Many of the original residents who could not return to these developments were provided with affordable 

rental units elsewhere. Some moved to other public housing developments while others moved to private 

rental units with assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher Program. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 

	 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

Exhibit 4-7 compares the number of occupied public housing units in 1992 with the number of 

affordable rental units (Tax Credit and public housing) that are currently available at the sites. 

Overall, there are roughly 26 percent fewer affordable rental units at the study sites today.135 

There is significant variation in the change in affordable housing units that occurred among 

the sites. Three sites gained occupied affordable units. In Camden and Oakland this 

represented a very modest gain over the number of units that existed before HOPE VI. In 

Washington, D.C., Ellen Wilson had been vacant since the late 1980s. Thus, there was a net 

gain of 114 occupied affordable units since 1992 (eligible to households with incomes up to 

80 percent of median income in this case). 

Exhibit 4-7 

Supply of Affordable Rental Units at HOPE VI Sites Pre- and Post- Revitalization1 

Total affordable	 Number of Percent 

rental units after	 affordable affordable 

Total affordable accounting for Total affordable rental units rental units 

rental units pre- vacancies pre- rental units on site lost/gained lost /gained 

HOPE VI Site HOPE VI HOPE VI post-HOPE VI on site on site 

Camden	 368 243 253 +10 +4% 

Cleveland
 

Outhwaite 1024 522 5352 +13 +2%
 

King Kennedy 1152 392 2483 –144 –37%
 

Milwaukee 596 542 470 –72 –13% 

Oakland	 372 364 372 +8 +2% 

San Francisco
 

Bernal Plaza 208 206 160 –46 –23%
 

Plaza East 276 276 193 –83 –30%
 

Baltimore 807 790 311 –479 –61% 

Boston	 822 542 445 –97 –18% 

New Haven 561 527 325 –202 –38% 

Charlotte 409 385 250 –135 –35% 

Washington 134 -- 114 +114 --

Atlanta	 1081 883 443 –440 –50% 

Total	 7,810 5,600 4.119 1,481 –26% 

Source: Abt Associates Inc. An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI. Volume 2, Case Studies, August 1996. Interim
 

Assessment of the HOPE VI Program. Case study reports for all 11 sites (1999 to 2002).
 

1Post-revitalization affordable units include Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Units (available to households with incomes up to 60 percent
 

of median), public housing units (available to households with incomes up to 80 percent of median), and co-op units at the Townhomes
 

on Capital Hill that are available to households with incomes up to 80 percent of median.
 

2This includes 200 unrenovated units at the site.
 

3 This includes 80 units renovated under other grant.
 

135	 This figure does not take into account affordable rental units built or acquired off-site or affordable 

homeownership units built on or off site. Three grantees built or acquired affordable rental units off site. 

They include Milwaukee (79 units), Oakland (54 units), and Charlotte (94 units). In addition, four grantees 

built affordable homeownership units on or off site: Baltimore (27 units), New Haven (55 units), Charlotte 

(20 units), and Atlanta (20 units). 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

The remaining eight sites lost anywhere from 46 to 479 units. Five sites—two 100-percent public 

housing and three mixed-income—lost one-third or more of their original affordable units: 

Atlanta, Charlotte, New Haven, Baltimore, and the King Kennedy portion of the Cleveland site. 

4.6 Update on Physical Conditions at the HOPE VI Sites 

The physical changes that have occurred at the study sites over the past 10 years are 

dramatic. This chapter has documented these changes based on site visits that were made to 

each of the study sites within a year of reoccupancy. At that time, the properties were all in 

good condition and local observers were mostly satisfied with the physical outcomes. 

As noted in Chapter 1, the study authors made return visits in early 2003 to six sites where 

case studies were prepared in 2001 or earlier.136 The purpose of these visits was to see what 

changes had occurred since the case study was completed. The study authors found that the 

buildings and grounds continue to be very well maintained. At several sites, housing agency 

staff discussed ways in which the design of their developments might have been improved. 

However, for the most part, housing agency staff and residents alike appear to be satisfied 

with the design of the developments and the quality of construction. The authors’ 

observations are noted below: 

•	 Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee: The building exteriors, streets, sidewalks and 

common areas look well maintained. The property looks as good as new. The housing 

authority staff said there were no significant maintenance issues. Site managers said 

they have fewer work orders than other developments. 

The housing authority staff said that they were pleased with the results of the 

revitalization effort at Hillside Terrace. At the same time, they speculated as to 

whether they might have tried to make Hillside Terrace a mixed-income development 

or demolish and build larger units as has been done in subsequent HOPE VI projects. 

•	 Outhwaite Homes and King Kennedy in Cleveland: There is still work to be done 

at this site. Another 3 buildings (102 units) are scheduled for demolition in the spring. 

The space will be used for parking and green space. There are still roughly 200 

occupied units that have not been renovated and funds have not yet been identified to 

renovate these units. These units look bad, with broken windows and doors. 

Several renovated units were toured in each development. They seem fine—solid 

construction, decent-sized rooms, decent fixtures, modestly improved amenities 

(washer/dryer hook-ups), but still institutional looking. I spoke with residents who 

said they were happy with units and management. 

136	 These sites included Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Housing authority staff are generally satisfied with the design. If he had it to do over,

the current HOPE VI coordinator (who was not at CMHA at the time of the grant

award) would have targeted all the money to one development or the other, rather

than spreading it across two developments. 

•	 Centennial Place in Atlanta: The development still looks good—nice landscaping, 

well-maintained streets and parking areas. The manager and developer staff said 

there have been no major maintenance issues. Reserves have been sufficient to 

address the minor problems (normal wear and tear in the units, and an erosion 

problem) that have developed. 

When asked whether they would do anything differently if they were starting over on 

the development’s design, a developer representative said she would use less siding 

and more brick because the siding is less attractive and (according to the manager) is 

hard to keep clean. 

•	 First Ward Place/Autumn Place in Charlotte: Buildings and grounds still look good. 

The property manager said they were getting ready to repaint the exteriors from the 

first phase of the redevelopment, since it is reaching the 5-year point. She said this is 

normal maintenance. I also spoke to three public housing residents who each said that 

maintenance is great. They just call the management office and it is done. 

The housing authority’s executive director said “I like it better than any HOPE VI 

project I’ve seen.” In short, the housing authority staff think they did this 

development right the first time. 

•	 Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore: The property has been occupied for 5 years, 

and there are the usual kinds of maintenance issues: broken windows, broken 

downspouts, replacing plastic on the stair treads, cracks in floor tiles, bald spots in the 

grass. They also have to keep up with the graffiti. The private property manager noted 

that the number of work order requests is increasing. Overall, however, the property 

looks well kept and it was reported that there are no significant structural problems. 

A housing authority staff member mentioned that a REAC inspection of the property 

had just been completed. Pleasant View Gardens passed the inspection, although not 

with as high a score as one would have thought. The staff member noted that the 

inspectors were “tough” and focused on a number of things that inspectors had not 

paid attention to in the past. 

•	 The Townhomes on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.: The property is beautifully

maintained. At the time of first site visit, the co-op units had been completed but no 

work had begun on the 13 homeownership units. These are now completed and will

be ready for occupancy in the spring of 2003. The sales prices have jumped

dramatically. The smallest units are now expected to sell for around $425,000 and 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 78 
 

the largest at close to $500,000. At the time of the original site visit, a local realtor

indicated that the units would be priced between $200,000 and $400,000. 

The cooperative board is now formally established and management appears to be

running smoothly with assistance from the private management company that has

been involved since the first co-op units were sold. According to the private property 

manager, the co-op has exceeded its goals with regard to building up operating and

replacement reserves. This is largely due to the fact that co-op carrying charges have 

risen with increases in area median income (to which the charges are tied) as well as 

increases in co-op member incomes. 

These comments suggest that sites have generally held up very well and that the residents

and property managers alike are satisfied with building conditions. As these buildings age,

several factors will become increasingly important in ensuring that they remain in good

condition. Most important is quality property management. In addition, the PHAs or other 

owners need to ensure that supportive services are available for the residents who need them. 

Finally, it is critical that residents feel safe on the site. These three factors are discussed in

the next chapter. 

Chapter 4—Building Anew: The Physical Transformation of HOPE VI Sites 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

5. Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at 

HOPE VI Sites 

HOPE VI provided local PHAs with the opportunity to address comprehensively the problems 

of distressed public housing. HUD encouraged grantees to try innovative management 

approaches, to use HOPE VI funds to support the needs of the development’s residents, and to 

take new measures to address crime problems. This chapter examines HOPE VI activities in 

these three domains. In Section 5.1, the management models implemented at the revitalized 

sites are examined, including experience with private management firms and with new 

screening and occupancy criteria for residents. Section 5.2 reviews the supportive services 

provided to help residents move toward employment and greater self-sufficiency. Finally, in 

Section 5.3, efforts to improve security and reduce crime at the study sites are assessed. 

5.1	 Management of HOPE VI Sites 

A few of the HOPE VI awards examined in this study were made to housing authorities, such 

as Charlotte and Milwaukee, that, although they had at least one severely distressed 

development in their inventory, were otherwise considered to be well managed. Many of the 

early HOPE VI awards, however, were made to agencies with histories of management 

problems. Of the sites included in this research, seven were at PHAs on HUD’s list of 

“management-troubled” housing authorities in 1992.137 This designation meant that the 

agency had received a score of 60 or below (out of 100) from HUD’s Public Housing 

Management Assessment Program (PHMAP), the tool used at that time to calculate 

composite scores of management performance. Washington, D.C., had the lowest PHMAP 

score of all PHAs in 1993 (22.4), earning it the dubious distinction of being the worstmanaged housing authority in the nation. These concerns led HUD to require an entity other 

than the PHA to administer the Washington HOPE VI grant. This was not the case at other 

management-troubled PHAs. 

Within the HOPE VI developments, distress was manifested in high vacancy rates, lax lease 

enforcement, poor rent collections, and neglected maintenance and upkeep. HOPE VI grants 

offered agencies the opportunity to try new management strategies, such as private 

management, decentralized management procedures, and modified resident selection and 

occupancy policies. 

137 The seven agencies were San Francisco, Washington, Camden, Atlanta, Boston, New Haven, and 

Cuyahoga Metro (Cleveland). Source: An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Volume I, 

August 1996, pp. 1-10. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 80 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

This section reviews the management changes introduced in the revitalized developments, 

including new management models, as well as policies and procedures (such as admissions 

and occupancy) that govern the HOPE VI developments. 

5.1.1 Management Models After Redevelopment 

Private firms manage the majority of the reoccupied HOPE VI developments. In part, this 

occurred in response to the demands of Tax Credit investors, who usually insist on private 

management even if the development is entirely or predominantly public housing. All five 

study sites with Tax Credit financing have private management.138 In fact, only in Cleveland, 

Milwaukee, and Oakland does the public housing agency continue to have full responsibility 

for managing the revitalized development. 

In San Francisco, where the two HOPE VI developments are 100-percent public housing, 

PHA staff would have preferred to manage the properties, but the Tax Credit investors 

requested private management. The PHA negotiated an agreement whereby a private 

management firm was hired to handle most management functions during a 3-year transition 

period. The PHA is responsible for applicant screening and selection, inspections, and skilled 

maintenance. At the end of 3 years, the developments could revert to PHA management. This 

change would require approval of the Tax Credit investors, who will examine the Tax Credit 

compliance and fiscal performance of each property as well as the PHA’s capacity to 

maintain the properties and fulfill Tax Credit requirements. 

Local respondents cited several potential benefits of private management beyond meeting 

Tax Credit investor requirements. For example, Boston PHA staff said that resident 

complaints about the agency’s poor management at Mission Main contributed to the decision 

to hire a private manager soon after the HOPE VI grant award, even though the revitalization 

plan at that time did not involve Tax Credit financing. A private firm took over the day-today management of the development, including coordination of resident relocation. The new 

firm dramatically improved living conditions for residents and helped the PHA begin to 

regain residents’ trust. Although PHA staff do not view private management as a cure-all, 

they are very pleased with the results at Mission Main. 

Housing Authority of Baltimore City staff reported that they viewed HOPE VI as a chance to 

experiment with a new management approach. Even though PHA staff have stated that the 

agency could manage the development for a lower cost, they have been satisfied with private 

management. All of Baltimore’s HOPE VI developments are now privately managed. Unlike 

traditional public housing developments, staff at the HOPE VI sites develop and negotiate 

annual operating budgets with senior housing agency officials. They know at the beginning 

of each fiscal year how much money will be available for operations at the site and can plan 

138	 In Charlotte, the PHA manages an elderly building developed under HOPE VI, but the family housing is 

managed by a private firm. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

accordingly. Public housing managers at non-HOPE VI sites do not have this information. In 

addition, staff from Baltimore and other PHAs using private management said that private 

firms have more flexibility in hiring and firing staff than PHAs do, and that this contributes 

to better performance. The PHA can terminate its contract with the management firm if 

performance does not meet expectations, as has happened in at least one site (Charlotte). 

Private management can require a period of adjustment for both PHAs and residents. For 

example, in San Francisco, the PHA and management firm had communication difficulties 

early on. The management firm’s computer system was not compatible with the PHA’s 

system, making monitoring and reporting difficult. As for residents, private management 

staff in several sites, including Boston, Camden, Baltimore, and San Francisco, said that 

residents were not accustomed to the “all-business” attitude and rigorous lease enforcement 

of the private managers. Baltimore managers said that they had to educate residents not to 

contact the PHA’s central office when they had a management or maintenance problem, but 

to consult the site manager instead. These issues are usually resolved and tend to dissipate 

over time. 

Although a number of sites proposed involving residents in management of the revitalized 

developments, this has happened only to a modest extent. San Francisco’s HOPE VI 

residents are among the most active. Three of five management staff at each of the two San 

Francisco sites are residents, and residents helped write the management plan and assist with 

new resident orientation. In Boston, a resident organization holds a small ownership interest 

in the development and meets regularly with the developer and management team to talk 

about management issues and make “condo board-type decisions.” At the Townhomes on 

Capital Hill housing cooperative, the developer was initially responsible for overseeing the 

private property manager. More recently, a resident board was created and is gradually taking 

over this role. In Baltimore, New Haven, Milwaukee, and Cleveland, resident organizations 

play advisory roles. 

According to survey results, residents in most of the revitalized developments are satisfied with 

the management of their developments, whether publicly or privately managed and whether in 

100-percent public housing or mixed-income sites. As shown in Exhibit 5-1, across all sites, an 

average of 84 percent of respondents said they were “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with the 

management of their development. Satisfaction ranged from a low of 71 percent of residents in 

San Francisco to a high of 94 percent of residents in Baltimore. Residents in San Francisco are 

part of the property management team, filling both the property management job and two of the 

other four positions at both developments. It is not clear whether the residents on the management 

staff are a source of the lower satisfaction ratings (e.g., because of their lack of experience) or 

mitigate what would otherwise be even lower levels of satisfaction. The resident property 

management staff in San Francisco received formal management training plus substantial on the 

job training by an experienced property manager. Nevertheless, managers at both San Francisco 

developments had been in their positions for only a few months before the survey, and one of the 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

developments was still in the midst of reoccupancy.139 Furthermore, as at several other sites with 

private managers, the property management company staff stated that lease strict enforcement was 

generating complaints from residents who had not experienced this before. 

In Charlotte, the site with the second lowest level of resident satisfaction with management 

(75 percent), the private management company at the time of the survey was replaced by 

another company in June 2002. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Satisfaction with Management and Maintenance at the Revitalized Developments 

Percent of Respondents: Very or Percent of Respondents: Very or 

Somewhat Satisfied with Somewhat Satisfied with 

Site	 Management of Development Maintenance of Apartment/Unit 

All 100-percent public housing sites 83% 84%
 

All mixed-income sites 84% 90%
 

All sites 84% 87% 

PHA managed sites 

Milwaukee 89% 93% 

Oakland (Lockwood only) 83% 78% 

Cleveland 77% 77% 

Privately managed sites 

Baltimore 94% 99% 

Boston 92% 95% 

New Haven 86% 87% 

Washington, DC 85% 95% 

Atlanta 84% 87% 

Camden 83% 83% 

Charlotte1 75% 87% 

San Francisco 71% 80% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

1 The private management company manages the 283-unit mixed-income portion of the development, but the Charlotte Housing Authority
 

manages the 68-unit elderly building.
 

5.1.2 Management Experience 

Information on standard, quantifiable management indicators for both PHA managed and 

privately managed developments indicates that the HOPE VI developments are well 

managed overall. Rent collections were generally greater than 90 percent. Turnover was 

typically reported to be around 10 percent.140 

139	 One of the two San Francisco properties (Plaza East) had only started reoccupying approximately four 

months before the survey, while the property manager at the other site had recently replaced the previous 

manager who had left for personal reasons. 

140	 Based on discussions with staff from the National Multi Housing Council, the average yearly turnover 

among market-rate rental properties is between 40 and 50 percent. Turnover for 100-percent public and 

assisted housing properties is thought to be around 15 percent, on average. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

Site-based waiting lists are a way of signaling potential residents that the HOPE VI 

developments are different from the other public housing developments in a city. This may 

be attractive to the non-public housing residents who consider living in the development and 

are accustomed to private property management practices. Furthermore, it may help to attract 

public housing applicants who are not interested in other public housing developments 

(although they can be on the central list at the same time), while also requiring applicants on 

the central waiting list or other potential applicants to demonstrate their specific interest in 

the site by filling out a separate application. At the study sites, only the five mixed-income 

sites use site-based waiting lists to identify and select public housing residents. However, the 

PHAs at two 100-percent public housing sites (Oakland and Cleveland) have discussed the 

possibility of using them. Oakland PHA staff stated they are planning to implement sitebased waiting lists once all renovations are completed at Lockwood Gardens in 2005. 

The use of centralized waiting lists at 100-percent public housing sites that are privately managed 

(Baltimore, Camden, and San Francisco) requires effective coordination between the private 

manager and PHA staff. In Camden, the private manager performs all management functions 

except for maintaining the waiting list. When a vacancy occurs, the private manager contacts 

housing agency staff who provide a list of applicants that meet the unit size criteria. The manager 

then begins notifying these applicants (starting at the top of the list). If the applicants who 

respond meet initial requirements, the private manager begins the necessary screening. 

Admissions requirements at the revitalized developments are generally more stringent than 

before redevelopment although there is variation from one site to the next. All revitalized 

HOPE VI sites require full screening of new residents (public housing, Tax Credit, and 

market-rate households), including criminal background checks and credit checks, and 

housekeeping checks (at some sites for public housing households only). (See Exhibit 5-2.) 

At just five sites—Oakland, Boston, Charlotte, Washington, D.C., and Atlanta—were former 

residents required to undergo the same background screening as new residents. In San 

Francisco, former residents were allowed greater leeway on the criminal background check 

in that they needed to show a clean record after relocation (approximately 5 years) rather 

than the 10-year period required for new residents. 

Five other sites—Baltimore, Camden, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and New Haven—did not 

require any credit or criminal background checks.141 In Camden, the lack of screening may 

have contributed to an ongoing crime problem at McGuire Gardens. 

There are several other admissions requirements that some HOPE VI sites have imposed. 

Six sites require residents to participate in an orientation session. In Boston, this session 

focuses on use of the appliances and maintenance of the units. In Washington, D.C., a series 

141	 Returning Elm Haven residents were checked to make sure they were up to date on rent payments to the 

housing agency. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

of sessions focuses on the special responsibilities associated with being a member of a 

housing cooperative. 

Six sites require public housing residents to sign lease addendums. In Oakland, the lease 

addendum requires residents to attend at least four resident council meetings annually, 

volunteer at least 2 hours per month in support of resident council activities, maintain good 

housekeeping practices, and avoid illegal, disruptive, or disorderly activities. Local observers 

believe that, while the addendum may not be enforceable, it has been a deterrent to crime.142 

In addition to these requirements, the Atlanta and Charlotte sites require all new public 

housing applicants (except elderly or disabled residents) to meet self-sufficiency 

requirements in order to live at the revitalized development. Both sites require that applicants 

be working, in school, or preparing for employment before applying for housing at 

Centennial Place or First Ward Place. In Atlanta, returning residents had to meet the same 

self-sufficiency requirements as new residents, whereas in Charlotte a returning resident 

could be eligible if he or she agreed to work towards self-sufficiency in the FSS program 

even if the resident did not meet the eligibility criteria for FSS before returning. However, 

FSS participants in Charlotte had to sign an agreement that they would become self sufficient 

and leave the HOPE VI development within 5 years.143 A number of other sites, including 

Camden and Cleveland, give an admissions preference to public housing applicants who are 

working, although employment is not a requirement for eligibility. 

At Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee, applicants are required to meet with a tenant screening 

committee before their application is approved. The purpose of the meeting is to determine 

whether the applicant is willing to commit to the “special responsibilities” of living at Hillside 

Terrace. These responsibilities are spelled out in that development’s lease addendum. According 

to the private property manager, the only applicants who are rejected by the screening committee 

are those who express disdain or disregard for participation in community service.144 

142	 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Lockwood Gardens, Oakland, California. 

January 2002, p. 26. 

143	 At the time of the site visit in 1999, none of the Charlotte public housing residents had reached the five year 

maximum. At the followup visit in 2003, housing authority staff reported that some residents had reached 

the maximum and had either agreed to stay but change to Tax Credit renter status, or agreed to move to 

non-HOPE VI public housing. Charlotte Housing Authority staff were working on the language of the FSS 

contract and its procedures in case the five-year maximum had to be enforced in the future. 

144	 Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Hillside Terrace, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

March 2000, p. 16. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 5-2 

Admissions Requirements at HOPE VI Sites 

HOPE VI Site 

Full Screening 

for All New 

Residents 

Screening for 

Former 

Residents 

Required 

Orientation 

Lease 

Addendum 

Other 

Requirements 

100-Percent Public 

Housing Sites 

Camden Yes None No No 

Cleveland Yes None Yes No 

Milwaukee Yes None Yes Yes Meeting with development 

residents 

Oakland Yes Same as New No Yes 

San Francisco Yes Limited No No 

Baltimore Yes None Yes Yes 

Mixed-Income 

Sites 

Boston Yes Same as New Yes No 

New Haven Yes None No Yes 

Charlotte Yes Same as New No Yes Self-sufficiency 

requirement 

Washington, DC Yes Same as New Yes No 

Atlanta Yes Same as New Yes Yes Self-sufficiency 

requirement 

Source: HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Reports from the quarter preceding the site visits (1999 to 2002). 

The strictness of admissions requirements did not appear to affect eviction rates at least in the 

initial months after the properties began to be reoccupied. For example, Oakland and New 

Haven reported no evictions at the time of the initial site visit,145 and Washington, D.C., and 

Camden each reported just one eviction. The Camden property manager indicated that there 

were some problem residents, but that the management company was committed to working 

with residents to resolve tenancy issues rather than pursuing evictions. 

At some sites the number of evictions has increased over time. In 1999, Cleveland’s King 

Kennedy site manager reported four households had been evicted for nonpayment of rent over 

an 8-month period. During a 2003 visit, the King Kennedy management company reported that 

they had evicted 34 residents from the development in 2002, because of much tighter lease 

enforcement than in earlier years. During the first year after reoccupancy at Pleasant View 

Gardens in Baltimore, the manager had attempted unsuccessfully to evict two residents. As of 

2003, the number of evictions had risen, but was still a modest six per year. The Atlanta site 

manager reported a similar number of evictions per year, but also added that the required new 

145 These sites were only partially occupied during the period for which eviction information was collected. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

resident orientation helps make sure residents understand their obligations and keeps evictions 

low. Charlotte and San Francisco146 reported an average of one eviction per month in 2002. 

Occupancy rates were high at the HOPE VI sites visited early in the study period (late 1999 

to 2001), but some sites visited for a second time in early 2003 were having some difficulties 

with vacancies in Tax Credit or market-rate units. The softening of housing markets in some 

cities, including Atlanta and Charlotte, reportedly is contributing to higher vacancy rates in 

the market-rate units. Again, private property managers were not overly concerned. Atlanta 

management staff said that the 85-percent occupancy rate for market-rate units at Centennial 

Place in the spring of 2003 is lower than for previous years, but is still considered reasonable 

given the market. The Charlotte manager cited statistics indicating a lower turnover rate for 

the non-public housing households than the citywide average. 

5.1.3 Maintenance Experience 

The site visits for this study were conducted soon after units were completed and reoccupied. 

The revitalized units were still quite new, and maintenance concerns were rarely raised. 

Among respondents to the resident survey there were very few reports of serious 

maintenance problems, such as peeling paint, rodents, or plumbing problems (10 percent or 

fewer of respondents in most sites). 

Across all the sites, 87 percent of residents reported satisfaction with the maintenance of their 

unit, with residents of the mixed-income sites reporting slightly higher levels of satisfaction 

than residents in the 100-percent public housing sites. (See Exhibit 5-1.) The two sites with 

satisfaction rates below 80 percent, Cleveland and Oakland, are both 100-percent public sites 

managed by the PHA. Both are also rehabilitation rather than new construction sites, which 

might suggest a relationship among PHA management, rehabilitation, and increased 

maintenance problems. However, Milwaukee is also a rehabilitation site managed by the 

housing agency and has one of the highest levels of resident satisfaction with maintenance. 

Another possible factor is that the Cleveland and Oakland sites had a mixture of rehabilitated 

and un-rehabilitated units on site during the study period. Rehabilitation was being done in 

stages. Even though the survey responses are from residents living in revitalized units, some 

responses may reflect overall maintenance at the site rather than maintenance of just the 

revitalized units. This cannot be confirmed however. 

5.1.4 Future Challenges 

The HOPE VI developments are all better managed than the pre-revitalization sites, whether 

the PHA continues to be responsible for management or a private firm has assumed 

responsibility. At a number of sites, management changes initially implemented at the HOPE 

VI developments have been adopted at other PHA developments. 

146 In San Francisco, the “eviction average” is the number of households for which the housing authority has 

started eviction procedures. The City has strong tenant’s rights laws, so it usually takes nine months or 

longer to evict someone. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 87 
 

 

When asked about management challenges, property managers raised a variety of issues, 

depending on local circumstances. Managers at four sites expressed concerns about crime 

and other problems attributed to original residents, either because original residents 

continued to live at the site during redevelopment (Oakland) or because substantial numbers 

of original residents had returned without rigorous screening (New Haven and Camden). 

Despite the reported problems, there have been relatively few evictions at these sites. 

Among the mixed-income sites, maintaining the targeted income mix can be a management 

challenge. These sites need to attract tenants with different incomes in order to create a 

mixed-income community and ensure the financial sustainability of the development. At 

Charlotte, this is particularly challenging because each of the development’s buildings must 

achieve the targeted mix of public housing, Tax Credit, and market-rate tenants. This is more 

complex than achieving the desired ratios for the entire development, especially given the 

high (but typical for market-rate renters) turnover rates at First Ward Place. 

There is a similar challenge for The Townhomes on Capitol Hill, in that a certain number of 

residents must fall into each of three income bands: 33 households with incomes less than 25 

percent of area median; 34 with incomes between 25 and 50 percent of median; and 47 

households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of median. While there is some leeway 

(plus or minus 10 percent) for the number in each band, the private manager reported that the 

challenge of maintaining this balance is particularly difficult because of the generally rising 

incomes of development residents. 

For developments located in distressed neighborhoods, maintaining the developments’ “curb 

appeal” and deterring crime are important issues for site managers. Managers in Boston, 

Baltimore, Camden, and Atlanta all raised these concerns. For example, during a 2003 site 

visit the site manager at Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore stated that she has to be vigilant 

to ensure that property is well maintained. Her main concerns are two-fold: first, the property 

is now 5 years old and just beginning to show signs of wear; and second, the surrounding 

area, which is in poor physical condition, could negatively impact the site. She also said that 

she was concerned about an increase in crime given the closure of a police substation at the 

community center on site. 

5.2 Supportive Services at HOPE VI Sites 

As part of its comprehensive approach to revitalization, the HOPE VI program provided 

PHAs the option to spend a portion of their program funds (up to 15 percent of the HOPE VI 

grant) on supportive services for residents. Before HOPE VI, HUD had not traditionally 

provided substantial funding for services. However, some housing agencies (including 

Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Charlotte) had histories of using HUD and other resources for 

resident services. Federal welfare reforms in the mid-1990s gave further impetus to the goal 

of providing services to help public housing households move toward employment and 

greater self-sufficiency. This section describes the services offered at the HOPE VI 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

developments before the award of the HOPE VI grant and assesses the approaches to HOPE 

VI-funded services implemented after reoccupancy. 

5.2.1 Pre-HOPE VI Supportive Services 

Before the start of the HOPE VI program, five PHAs (Cleveland, Baltimore, New Haven, 

Charlotte, and Milwaukee) offered supportive services to original residents at the study sites. 

In Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Charlotte these services were provided at onsite community 

centers. The services offered by the five PHAs typically included childcare, recreational 

programs for youth, and some self-sufficiency programs such as job readiness or job skills 

training. In New Haven, housing agency case managers made home visits, assessed services 

needs, and made referrals to a network of community providers. 

The remaining HOPE VI sites offered very limited services before HOPE VI. The PHAs at 

these sites had limited capacity to provide services directly, and many did not have 

relationships with local providers that would ensure public housing residents’ access to 

services. For example, only Head Start and indoor recreation programs were offered to 

Camden’s McGuire Gardens residents. The lack of services was partly attributed to poor 

communication between local service providers and the Camden Housing Authority.147 In 

Boston and Atlanta, the PHAs’ resident services staff focused mainly on working with tenant 

associations rather than on providing supportive services. In San Francisco public housing, 

virtually no services were provided on site, leaving residents to identify and access services 

available in their neighborhoods. 

5.2.2 Goals for Community and Supportive Services at HOPE VI Sites 

With the coming of HOPE VI, PHAs at the study sites had the resources to provide 

comprehensive services to residents at the targeted developments. The original HOPE VI 

applications outlined approaches for community and supportive services (CSS) programs that 

were expanded and refined after the HOPE VI grants were awarded. The PHAs were 

required to develop community service goals that would create a strong resident community 

through resident leadership development programs, block patrols, and community-oriented 

service projects. Most PHAs at the study sites never fully understood or embraced these 

community-oriented HOPE VI goals.148 When HUD policy shifted away from a community 

service focus, the goals were largely abandoned. As discussed later in this section, the service 

focus shifted to self sufficiency with the advent of welfare reform. 

The PHAs also developed supportive services goals and plans during and after the HOPE VI 

application process that focused largely on improving the well being of public housing 

families. Such services typically included childcare, health care and health education, 

addiction education and treatment, and life skills training. Charlotte, with its early adoption 

147	 Hecht, Peter. “HOPE VI Baseline Case Study, Peter J. McGuire Gardens: Camden, New Jersey,” in An 

Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI: Volume 2, Case Studies. August 1996. 

148	 An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Volume 1, p. 5-42. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of a resident services program oriented toward self-sufficiency, placed the strongest emphasis 

on moving residents to employment. Milwaukee’s goals also focused on working families. 

Some sites’ initial plans lacked detail. For example, Oakland sought to “replace hopelessness 

with opportunity” through cultural change, neighborhood organizing, enhanced public safety, 

and education and training. The methods for achieving these outcomes were not well defined. 

In Washington, D.C., the initial HOPE VI plan said that a community needs assessment 

would be done to determine the services needed, but no specific plans were outlined. Several 

sites, including Cleveland, Oakland, San Francisco, and Atlanta, had goals for economic 

development, such as encouraging resident and neighborhood business development, but the 

supportive services plans contained few details on how these goals would be implemented. 

Community centers were typically proposed as part of the revitalization plan for the study 

sites, although the size of and uses for these community facilities varied. Plans for 

community centers in Cleveland and Camden were among the most ambitious. The 

Cleveland PHA proposed to establish a large, one-stop center that would include offices for 

service providers and a medical clinic in an existing elderly building. Camden also developed 

an ambitious plan to build an 80,000 square-foot community center to house service provider 

offices and a health clinic, food co-op, and laundry. Both sites planned to use substantial 

amounts of their HOPE VI CSS funds to pay for services or to subsidize the space occupied 

by outside providers. 

With the implementation of the new federal welfare reform legislation in 1996, HUD 

required that PHAs revise their CSS plans to focus on activities and services to move public 

housing residents toward employment and increased earnings. The agencies were required to 

conduct a community needs assessment and to develop new CSS plans (using a standard 

format developed by HUD) reflecting the findings of the needs assessment. PHAs were 

encouraged to establish or expand partnerships with local welfare agencies and service 

providers and to use HOPE VI funds to leverage other resources and to fill gaps in the local 

service system. With this shift in policy, most PHAs at the study sites revised their original 

plans to place greater emphasis on providing case management services to residents, 

developing partnerships with existing providers in their communities, and moving residents 

from welfare to work. 

5.2.3 HOPE VI Funding for Supportive Services 

The study sites allocated varying levels of HOPE VI funding to supportive services (see 

Exhibit 5-3).149 The proportion of HOPE VI funds budgeted for services ranged from just 2 

percent in Baltimore to the full 15 percent allowed in Cleveland and Charlotte. In dollar 

terms, the amounts allocated ranged from $1.1 million in Baltimore to $7.7 million in 

Cleveland. Several sites relied entirely on the HOPE VI funds for their supportive services 

149 In addition to the funds allocated for staffing and service provision, most of the study sites included plans 

to use some of their construction funds to build or renovate community facilities. The funds budgeted for 

these community centers are covered in the construction budgets and thus are not included in the CSS 

figures in the table. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

initiatives (Camden, Cleveland, San Francisco, and New Haven). The remaining sites 

leveraged at least some funds from other sources. Modest amounts were pledged in Oakland 

and Washington. More substantial funds were promised in other sites including Boston ($7 

million), Milwaukee ($2.9 million), Charlotte ($2.3 million), and Atlanta ($1.1 million).150 In 

Boston, the PHA allocated substantial funds to supportive services, in part because the 

agency was committed to encouraging residents of the pre-revitalization development to 

return. Many of these residents had very low incomes and extensive supportive services 

needs. 

As shown in the last column of the exhibit, a number of sites—including Camden, Cleveland, 

Milwaukee, San Francisco, Washington, and Oakland—had exhausted all or most of their 

CSS funds within the first year of reoccupancy.151 Sustaining services is a challenge in these 

sites, as discussed later in this section. By contrast, several other sites (including Baltimore, 

New Haven, Boston, and Charlotte) had spent considerably less than would be expected, 

given the number of years since grant award. The reasons for this vary. The Baltimore 

housing agency relied largely on non-HOPE VI funding to provide services after 

reoccupancy. In New Haven, the CSS plan went through several iterations before a nonprofit 

organization was created in 1999 to oversee the CSS program. Limited services were 

provided to residents while the plan was being revised. 

In both Boston and Charlotte, the CSS component was slow to get underway because the 

PHAs and their development partners were paying more attention to construction. Original 

residents did not receive supportive services because relocation occurred before the services 

plan was put in place. In Charlotte, because so few Earle Village residents returned to the 

redeveloped site, very few benefited from the services. Boston had a larger proportion of 

residents who either never left the site or left and came back, so a larger proportion of 

original residents took advantage of services once the site was reoccupied. 

150	 In Baltimore, a variety of nonprofit and other public funding sources were tapped to support the provision 

of supportive services, but these amounts were not included in formal reports to HUD. 

151	 Information on CSS funds spent is provided for the period just prior to the site visit. Some of the sites were 

not fully reoccupied at this time. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Exhibit 5-3 

Community and Supportive Services Funds Budgeted and Spent 

(Quarter Preceding the Site Visits) 

Percent of Total 

CSS Funds Spent 

HOPE VI Funds CSS as Percent of Other Funds (year after 

HOPE VI Site Budgeted for CSS HOPE VI Grant Budgeted for CSS reoccupancy) 

Camden $3.1 million 7% $0 100%
 

Cleveland $7.7 million 15% $0 100%
 

Milwaukee $2.8 million 6% $2.9 million 100%
 

Oakland $3.1 million 11% $263,719 85%
 

San Francisco $2.5 million 5% $0 93%
 

Baltimore $1.1 million 2% Not available 28%
 

Boston $5.8 million 12% $7.0 million 15%
 

New Haven $4.1 million 9% $0 37%
 

Charlotte $6.1 million 15% $2.3 million 39%
 

Washington, DC $1.9 million 7% $30,154 89%
 

Atlanta $2.5 million 6% $1.5 million 60%
 

Source: HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Reports from the quarter preceding the site visits (1999 to 2002). 

HOPE VI CSS funds are used for several categories of people: original residents who stayed 

on site during the redevelopment; original residents who moved away permanently; original 

residents who moved away and returned; new residents of the revitalized development; and 

residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the HOPE VI sites.152 Because this report 

focuses on changes at the HOPE VI sites after revitalization, the discussion below is limited 

to the supportive services provided to residents of the revitalized developments after 

reoccupancy.

153 

5.2.4 Approaches to Supportive Services Provision After Reoccupancy 

While similar types of services are provided to residents at the study sites (see Section 5.2.5), 

the approaches for providing services at revitalized properties vary. These approaches to 

HOPE VI supportive services can be distinguished according to: 

•	 who oversees the CSS program; 

•	 who provides case management and referrals; 

•	 who provides services; and 

•	 where the services are provided. 

152	 Neighborhood residents are eligible for some CSS services as long as the housing agency primarily serves 

original residents and new public housing residents of the revitalized site. 

153	 Early HOPE VI grantees had significant latitude in determining who would be assisted with CSS funds. 

More recent grantees are expected to provide services to original residents both before and during 

relocation regardless of whether they will be returning to the development. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CSS Program Administration 

At seven study sites, the PHA oversees the CSS program, through either a resident services 

or a HOPE VI unit within the agency. (See Exhibit 5-4.) Several of these agencies already 

had extensive experience in overseeing resident services programs. For example, before 

HOPE VI, Milwaukee coordinated the delivery of services to Hillside residents through 

extensive partnerships with public, nonprofit, and private groups. With the advent of HOPE 

VI, the agency enhanced these existing partnerships and collaborated with new agencies to 

build an “integrated services system” that focused more on addressing the employment needs 

of residents than it had done previously. 

Exhibit 5-4 

Models for Delivering Supportive Services 

Services primarily 

Entity that Entity providing case Entity providing provided on site or 

HOPE VI Site administers CSS management/ referrals services off site 

Camden Nonprofit organization Nonprofit organization Nonprofit organization 

Cleveland PHA PHA Community providers On site 

Milwaukee PHA PHA Community providers On site 

Oakland PHA PHA Community providers On site 

San Francisco PHA PHA Community providers Off site 

Baltimore PHA PHA PHA and community 

providers On site 

Boston Newly created Newly created nonprofit Community providers On site 

nonprofit organization organization 

New Haven Newly created Community provider Community providers On site 

nonprofit organization 

Charlotte PHA PHA PHA (FSS) and On and 

community providers Off site 

Washington, Nonprofit Nonprofit organization Nonprofit organization and On site 

D.C. organization community providers 

Atlanta PHA One management staff Community providers Off site 

person; community 

providers 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment Case Studies (1999 to 2002). 

Four sites (Boston, Camden, New Haven, and Washington, D.C.) opted to hire or create 

nonprofit organizations to administer the HOPE VI supportive services program. This step 

was usually taken because of concerns about PHA capacity. For example, the New Haven 

agency created a nonprofit subsidiary to administer services, in part because the HOPE VI 

developer was not satisfied with the services being provided by the PHA. The Alliance for 

Strong Communities was created to coordinate the efforts of private agencies providing 

services to residents of Monterey Place, as well as residents of other New Haven public 

housing. Concerns about PHA capacity also led to nonprofit administration in Washington, 

D.C., and Camden. In Boston, however, the development team created a nonprofit 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

organization to administer supportive services because they anticipated that the nonprofit 

could more effectively secure outside funding for supportive services, thus increasing the 

likelihood that services would be available over the long term. 

Case Management and Service Delivery 

Case management to assess service needs and coordinate referrals is a key element of the 

CSS program at all the study sites. With the exceptions of Atlanta and New Haven, the 

agency responsible for CSS administration also provides the case management. New Haven’s 

Alliance for Strong Communities has contracted with a local nonprofit to provide onsite case 

management and referral services at Monterey Place. In Atlanta, the management company 

hired a staff member to work with the housing authority’s resident services department to 

provide case management and referrals. 

While case management services are typically provided by PHA or nonprofit staff, two sites 

hired residents to be case managers. In San Francisco, trained residents work with other 

residents to develop service plans and make referrals to community service providers. 

Residents can apply for grants of up to $1,200 to pay for self-sufficiency activities, such as 

job training and college courses. The PHA has been very satisfied with this approach, stating 

that residents participating in services are more comfortable with case managers who are also 

residents. A similar effort to employ residents as case managers was tried in Camden, but 

was less successful reportedly because the residents did not receive adequate training. 

Supportive services are provided by existing providers in the community at every site except 

Camden where the services have been provided by the nonprofit organization that manages 

the CSS program. According to HOPE VI staff in Camden, there were few community 

providers available to offer services to McGuire Gardens residents. At other sites, the PHAs 

or developers contract with local service agencies to provide services to HOPE VI residents. 

Onsite and Offsite Services 

Seven study sites provide supportive services mostly on site, at newly completed community 

centers or in buildings that have been temporarily set aside for use by supportive service 

providers.154 At Baltimore’s Pleasant View Gardens, for example, new facilities house a day 

154 A few sites encountered difficulties with their plans for a community center. For example, at the time of the site visit 

to New Haven in mid-2001, the PHA had run out of money before completing planned renovations to the 

development’s community center. The site was using a former administrative building for services and seeking 

other funds to do the renovations. Camden had an ambitious plan for an $18 million, 80,000 square foot community 

center. By the time HUD officials rejected the plan as too large and costly, the PHA had already spent some $2 

million on activities that had not been approved. As of early 2003, the PHA was looking for funding to build a small 

(7,500 square foot) center. In the meantime, a small townhouse unit at the development is being used for a youth 

program. Finally, the Washington, D.C. community center is planned but has not been built yet. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 94 
Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 95

care center, a Boys and Girls Club, a community health center, and offices for a variety of 

supportive service providers. 

These community buildings have been used to entice service providers to establish offices 

within the HOPE VI sites. PHAs in Cleveland, Milwaukee, Oakland, and Baltimore encouraged 

community providers to locate services on site with free or reduced-rate space. Cleveland’s Carl 

B. Stokes Social Services Mall, formerly an eight-story elderly housing building, has been 

renovated to house a full-service medical clinic, a large transitional housing program, a probation 

center, a childcare center, and a variety of services for families. HOPE VI funds were initially 

used to cover operating costs of the space so that providers did not have to pay rent. Now that 

HOPE VI funds have been exhausted, providers pay rent, but at below-market rates. 

Referrals to offsite providers are the norm in Atlanta, Charlotte, and San Francisco. Residents 

of all of the Atlanta Housing Authority’s mixed-income developments (including all the 

HOPE VI developments) have to be working, in school, or enrolled in the PHA’s selfsufficiency program. The PHA has some onsite services in its mixed-income developments, 

but has a preference for developing networks of offsite community providers that agree to 

work with public housing residents. Charlotte also requires participation in self-sufficiency 

activities. Family Self Sufficiency Program staff based at the HOPE VI community center 

make referrals to community providers. 

In San Francisco, the community facilities were completed in 2002, but were intentionally 

modest in size. HOPE VI staff stated that encouraging residents to use neighborhood-based 

supportive services is part of the effort to integrate public housing residents with the 

surrounding community. Case managers use lists of supportive service providers in the 

neighborhood and other parts of the city to make referrals. 

While San Francisco encourages residents to seek neighborhood-based services, other sites 

encourage neighborhood residents to seek services at the HOPE VI sites. In Baltimore, for 

example, some of the community buildings are situated purposely at the edge of the Pleasant 

View Gardens development to encourage use of the services by neighborhood residents. 

Other sites that have made the HOPE VI facilities available to neighborhood residents 

include Milwaukee and Cleveland. 

5.2.5 Use of Services 

Based on responses to a resident survey, both awareness and use of HOPE VI services was 

much higher at the 100-percent public housing sites than at the mixed-income sites (see 

upper panel of Exhibit 5-5). Nearly two-thirds of residents at 100-percent public housing 

developments were aware that services were available through the HOPE VI program, and 

about one-half of those respondents had a household member (including the respondent) who 

had used at least one service. By contrast, slightly more than one-third of respondents at 

mixed-income developments were aware services were available, and just under a third of 

them had a household member who used any service. The most commonly used services 
Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 96

were the same for both groups (youth/after school programs, adult education, and childcare), 

but utilization rates were lower at the mixed-income developments. 

Exhibit 5-5

Awareness and Utilization of Supportive Services

Of those aware that supportive services are available:

HOPE VI Site

Awareness of services 

(% of residents aware 

of services)

Utilization of services 

(% using any service) Services most commonly used

For all residents:

All sites 56% 45%

Youth/after school programs (23%)

Adult education (21%)

Childcare (18%)

All 100-percent 

public housing sites 61% 49%

Youth/after school programs (24%)

Adult education (22%)

Childcare (19%)

All mixed-income 

sites 49% 39%

Youth/after school programs (18%)

Childcare (8%)

Adult education (5%)

For public housing residents only: 

Camden 34% 67%

Youth/after school programs (33%)

Childcare (30%)

Adult education (30%)

Cleveland 73% 65%

Youth/after school programs (36%)

Childcare (28%)

Adult education (24%)

Milwaukee 92% 55%

Youth/after school programs (36%)

Adult education (28%)

Childcare (24%)

Oakland 63% 25%

Youth/after school programs (8%)

Childcare (17%)

Adult education (11%)

San Francisco 36% 30%

Childcare (22%)

Adult education (9%)

Youth/after school programs (7%)

Baltimore 85% 54%

General counseling (31%)

Adult education (24%)

Youth/after school programs (17%)

Boston 80% 43%

Adult education (26%)

Youth/after school programs (15%)

Childcare (14%)

New Haven 45% 25%

Youth/after school programs (7%)

Adult education (7%)

General counseling (7%)

Charlotte 71% 67%

Household management (44%)

General counseling (49%)

Youth/after school programs (28%)

Washington 20% 43%

Household management (38%)

Adult education (25%)

Parenting programs (13%)

Atlanta 52% 48%

Adult education (28%)

Youth/after school programs (22%)

Childcare (20%)

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 
Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 97

As shown in the lower panel of the exhibit, public housing residents’ awareness of services 

ranged widely, from Washington, where only 20 percent of respondents knew services were 

available (most service provision happened before the site was reoccupied) to Milwaukee, 

where 92 percent of respondents were aware of services. Cleveland, with its large social 

services facility, had high rates of both awareness and utilization (73 and 65 percent). 

Residents in Milwaukee and Baltimore also had high rates of awareness of the services they 

could access on site, although only about one-half the residents in the sites reported using the 

services. 

The most commonly used services for almost all sites were youth/after school programs, 

childcare, and adult education. These services are consistent with the HOPE VI goal of 

helping public housing households work toward self-sufficiency. While information is not 

available to assess the effectiveness of the services provided, survey respondents uniformly 

reported high rates of satisfaction with the services received. For nearly every service used at 

every site, more than 90 percent of respondents using the service were very or somewhat 

satisfied with it. (See Appendix Exhibit C-8 for results on resident satisfaction with services.) 

5.2.6 Future Challenges 

At all of the sites, the HOPE VI grants allowed PHAs to offer a richer array of services to 

residents than had been possible in the past. The community facilities built or renovated with 

HOPE VI funds are widely seen as valuable resources, although the use of these centers by 

the larger community varies among the sites. For example, in Baltimore, the community 

center at the HOPE VI site is considered a community-wide resource, offering childcare, a 

Boys and Girls Club, and a medical clinic that serve both development and neighborhood 

residents. In Charlotte, the childcare center is fairly convenient for people working 

downtown, so it has attracted a mix of development and community residents. The 

community center is used for neighborhood association meetings attended primarily by nonHOPE VI residents, and the recreational facilities by youth from First Ward Place as well as 

by students at a new private school in the neighborhood. 

The experience in Cleveland has been somewhat different. Cleveland’s large social services 

mall was built primarily to serve public housing residents in the Central Neighborhood, 

including the two HOPE VI developments and two other public housing developments 

nearby. The PHA views the facility as an extraordinary resource for public housing residents 

in the Central Neighborhood. However, service providers working in the community (but not 

housed at the mall) believe it has not reached its full potential because it does not reach out to 

community residents outside public housing in this very low-income community. Outside 

service providers believe this exemplifies the PHA’s reputation for insularity. 

Information on the outcomes for residents using supportive services is limited. HUD’s 

information system now requires grantees to report quarterly enrollment in services and on 

outcomes such as completion of education and employment training programs and new job 
Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 98

placements. However, the system was implemented only relatively recently. The PHAs were 

asked to recreate historical data, but were not always able to do so. The data are reported 

inconsistently and do not appear reliable for early HOPE VI grantees.155 Staff may use other 

reporting formats developed to meet local requirements, but these reports are nearly 

impossible to compare across sites. 

At virtually all sites, supportive services program staff are concerned about the sustainability 

of services once HOPE VI funds are exhausted.156 Early study sites that were revisited in 

2003, such as Baltimore and Camden, were already experiencing declines in the availability 

of services to residents as HOPE VI funds had run out. At one site, Camden, the private 

management company has used operating funds to hire social service staff to work with 

residents because the PHA had not found alternative sources of services. In Charlotte, a small 

community facility offers youth recreational and educational activities that are funded out of 

operating revenue. At least two sites (New Haven and Washington, D.C.) were attempting to 

establish endowments to fund services over time. 157 The Atlanta PHA requires service 

providers that seek contracts with the PHA to commit to raising funds to sustain the 

programs, and Boston’s nonprofit supportive services organization is making fundraising a 

priority. Charlotte also considers fundraising capacity in its selection of service provider 

partners. In the March 2003 followup visit, Charlotte Housing Authority staff reported that 

they had completed all the planned redevelopment and were seeking HUD approval to use 

remaining HOPE VI money to help fund a new mixed-income development on adjacent 

housing authority land with 60 public housing units, 156 market-rate units and 120 affordable 

homeownership units. Most of the remaining HOPE VI funding targeted for the new 

development is from unused funds budgeted for CSS. Nevertheless, Charlotte’s CSS 

expenditures of $4.3 million represents more than 11 percent of all their HOPE VI 

expenditures.158

 

155 According to HUD’s HOPE VI program office, CSS information is much more reliable for later grantees. 

156 Exhibit 5-3 shows that three sites (Camden, Cleveland, and Milwaukee) had exhausted their CSS funding 

by the time the case studies were written. According to the Financial Summary Report in the HOPE VI 

Quarterly Progress Report (covering period through September 30, 2002), Baltimore and Atlanta have since 

exhausted their CSS funds and Oakland, San Francisco, Charlotte, and Washington, D.C., had expended 

over 90 percent of their CSS budget. Only New Haven (69 percent expended) and Boston (29 percent 

expended including 63 percent of HOPE VI CSS funds) had substantial CSS funds left at the end of 

September 2002. 

157 For early HOPE VI grants, CSS funds can only be used during the life of the grant. More recent grantees 

are eligible to use CSS funds to create an endowment trust for supportive services that would extend 

beyond the grant’s end date. New Haven and Washington, D.C., have considered creating such an 

endowment using non-HOPE VI funds. 

158 HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report, Financial Summary Report, Earle Village, 4QFY02. 
 

 

 

5.3 Security and Safety at HOPE VI Sites 

The HOPE VI program was designed to address problems at some of the most physically and 

socially distressed housing developments in the country. The developments selected for 

funding had serious crime problems and most were located in neighborhoods with high crime 

rates. For example, the baseline case studies describe Baltimore’s Lafayette Courts as a 

haven for criminals, Boston’s Mission Main and New Haven’s Elm Haven as locations of 

large open-air drug markets, and Camden’s McGuire Gardens and Washington’s Ellen 

Wilson Dwellings as the most crime-ridden areas in cities known for pervasive urban crime. 

Developments in Oakland, Cleveland, and San Francisco were located in neighborhoods with 

high crime rates compared with citywide rates. The nicknames of San Francisco’s 

developments are indicative of their criminal reputation: Plaza East was known as “OC” for 

“out of control” and Bernal Dwellings was known as “the Battleground.” Local police 

service was a problem at a number of sites. Camden police avoided the McGuire Gardens 

area and Oakland city police would reportedly enter Lockwood Gardens only “in force.” 

Although there are many causes of the high crime rates at these developments, including 

neighborhood problems that were outside the PHA’s control, ineffective screening and lax 

lease enforcement were contributing factors. The ineffective policies helped perpetuate the 

persistence of crime and the fear and isolation among residents in many HOPE VI sites. 

Local respondents in Boston and Oakland noted that concerns about crime made delivering 

supportive services difficult. 

All HOPE VI grantees recognized that dramatically reducing crime was essential to creating 

viable revitalized developments. As described in Chapter 4, many of the grantees 

incorporated physical design elements to increase safety in HOPE VI communities. These 

included using principles of “defensible space,” such as orienting all units toward the street, 

and improving sight lines within the developments. In addition, many sites adopted stricter 

screening criteria and more stringent lease enforcement to reduce the number of potential and 

current residents participating in criminal activities. 

This section reviews other strategies, beyond physical design and management changes, that 

have been used by HOPE VI grantees to enhance public safety. Survey findings regarding 

residents’ views on crime and safety in the reoccupied developments are discussed and the 

extent to which HOPE VI may have contributed to improved safety is considered. 

5.3.1 HOPE VI-supported Security Measures 

HOPE VI grantees used grant funds and other resources to enhance security in a number of 

ways. Highlights of the strategies that had been implemented within a year or more after 

reoccupancy began are summarized in Exhibit 5-6 and are described below. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intensifying Onsite Security 

Grantees used several methods to increase security at the HOPE VI developments. In Boston, 

Atlanta, New Haven, and San Francisco, management hired private security firms to patrol the 

HOPE VI developments. Surveillance cameras were installed throughout Baltimore’s Pleasant 

View Gardens, and a Housing Authority police substation was set up in the new community 

center. In Cleveland, the housing agency police department relocated from downtown to a 

building next to Outhwaite Homes and King Kennedy, providing a more visible police 

presence near the developments. In Atlanta and Charlotte, “courtesy officer” programs offer 

city police officers free or reduced rent at the HOPE VI developments to encourage officers to 

live there. In Charlotte, up to three officers could live rent free in exchange for patrolling the 

development at least once a day during their off hours. In Atlanta, there are no formal 

requirements that the courtesy officers provide police services once off duty. The idea is that 

simply having police officers living in the development may deter crime. 

Exhibit 5-6 

Selected Strategies Used to Enhance Security at HOPE VI Sites1 

Locating Hiring 

Police Station Private Improving Free or Reduced Increasing Resident 

in or Near Security Collaboration Rent for Police Involvement in 

HOPE VI Site Development Firm with City Police Officers Crime Prevention 

Camden 

Cleveland 

Milwaukee  

Oakland  

San Francisco 

Baltimore  

Boston  

New Haven 

Charlotte 

Washington  

Atlanta    

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 1HOPE VI grantees also used physical design elements and management policies to enhance security and address crime. These 

strategies are discussed in Chapter 4. 

Fostering Cooperation with Local Law Enforcement 

Program staff at several sites said that the housing agencies worked with city governments to 

improve police services in HOPE VI communities. The security plan for Washington, D.C.’s 

Townhomes charges the management company with making sure District police patrol the 

development; staff confirmed there have been regular patrols. In Atlanta, a new police 

department substation was built near the HOPE VI development. Centennial Place is also 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

patrolled by Georgia Tech and Georgia State campus police because students are living in the 

development. In Camden, the housing agency receives a daily arrest report from the city police 

department. PHA staff review the list and notify public housing development managers if any of 

their tenants appear on the list so that the manager can identify residents who have violated their 

lease and are a candidate for eviction proceedings. To improve communication between the 

housing agency and city police departments, three of the PHAs (Camden, Milwaukee, and 

Oakland) hired high-ranking police officers to lead the housing agency police.159 The personal 

connections of the former city police officers are expected to facilitate communication, raise the 

prestige of the housing authority police, and improve the coordination of the two agencies. 

In Oakland and Boston, crime reduction efforts that began before HOPE VI are helping to pave 

the way to safer developments. In 1995 (before construction began at Mission Main), the Boston 

Housing Authority and Boston Police Department worked together on a large enforcement effort 

in and around Mission Main. This “sweep” resulted in more than 100 drug-related arrests and 

was coordinated with intensified lease enforcement and eviction proceedings by the PHA. 

Oakland’s PHA and police department initiated community policing, increased security patrols, 

and made site improvements in the early 1990s to reduce crime at Lockwood Gardens and in the 

surrounding neighborhood. 

Resident Involvement in Security 

In a few sites, residents of HOPE VI developments have been encouraged to get involved in 

improving safety and security. Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department officers have 

participated in occasional Townhomes resident meetings to discuss crime. The Oakland Housing 

Authority designated a “responsible resident” at Lockwood Gardens. The resident receives 

reduced rent in exchange for doing minor maintenance and serving as the PHA’s “eyes and ears” 

at the development. Tenant patrols are encouraged in Baltimore’s public housing developments, 

although Pleasant View Gardens staff reported in 1999 that the development has not had an 

active patrol. 

Addressing Neighborhood Crime 

In communities where the HOPE VI site is located in a larger neighborhood with high rates 

of crime, addressing security at the site is not enough. In addition to site-based strategies, the 

San Francisco, Charlotte, Cleveland, and Camden housing agencies tried to persuade local 

and state officials to extend their anti-crime efforts to dangerous areas near the HOPE VI 

developments. San Francisco staff worked (and are still working) with city police to increase 

patrols at nearby parks and shut down adjacent drug houses, both of which were problematic 

sources of crime. Near Charlotte’s First Ward Place, a privately owned apartment building 

159 The Oakland Housing Authority signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Department agreeing 

that a Housing Agency Police Chief would come “on loan” from the City Police Department. The Chief’s salary 

is paid by the PHA while at the Agency, but he returns to City Police Department after a few years. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

known for criminal activity was demolished as part of the revitalization, improving the area’s 

physical appearance while also reducing criminal activity. 

The Central Neighborhood in Cleveland historically has had a high concentration of public 

and subsidized housing and high crime rates. A HUD-assisted development near the HOPE 

VI site had very high crime rates, as did another nearby public housing development. The 

housing agency applied for a second HOPE VI grant to revitalize the troubled public housing 

development and supported the efforts of a new owner to demolish and rebuild the HUDassisted development. The revitalization of these two developments, added to the efforts at 

Outhwaite and King Kennedy, are expected to result in a substantial reduction in crime. 

Similarly, subsequent HOPE VI grants for nearby developments are expected to benefit 

Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee and Lockwood Gardens in Oakland. 

Camden has had less success addressing what PHA staff report is a key crime problem in the 

McGuire Gardens neighborhood. The PHA tried to convince the state to close an access road that 

runs between McGuire Gardens and a nearby highway. Despite the PHA’s argument that drug 

dealers use the street for easy access in and out of McGuire, the state did not agreed to close the 

roadway. 

5.3.2 How Have Crime Levels Changed? 

The results of HOPE VI grantees’ efforts to reduce crime are positive overall. Some sites 

reported dramatic reductions in reported crime and substantial improvements in residents’ 

perceptions of their safety in and around their developments, while other sites reported only 

modest improvements. The following sections summarize the available data on changes in crime, 

relying on survey data and official crime statistics supplemented by information provided by 

local informants, such as development managers, PHA staff, and law enforcement officials.160 

Crime rates were lower at all sites after revitalization than before revitalization. It is not possible 

to attribute definitely the changes to the revitalization as crime rates were declining in most areas 

during the 1990s. However, by determining whether declines in the crime rates for these sites 

exceed citywide declines or declines in parts of the city, it is possible to suggest whether a 

linkage exists. Comparable pre- and post- crime data are available at only six of the sites. 

160	 Cross-site comparisons are difficult because housing agencies and police departments were often unable to 

provide current and historical data using comparable measures. For example, some jurisdictions keep data 

on calls for service while others report criminal offense reports. Several of the police agencies did not have 

city crime data broken down by neighborhood or development from the early 1990s. The resident survey 

data are also limited because pre-HOPE VI survey data on crime was available for only about half the sites. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Exhibit 5-7 

Changes in Crime Rates at HOPE VI Sites 

HOPE VI 

Site 

Crime Measure 

Used 

Crime Rate at Baseline 

Crime Rate 

per 100 

Residents 

at HOPE VI 

Site 

Comparison Crime 

Rate per 100 

Residents 

(Geographic Unit) 

Crime Rate at Reoccupancy 

Rate at HOPE VI Site 

(percent change) 

Comparison Rate 

(percent change) Changes/Comments 

Milwaukee All criminal 

offense reports 

13.9 12.2 

(other public housing) 

9.2 (–51 %) 12.4 (+2 %) 

(other public housing) 

Oakland Part 1 criminal 

offense reports 

9.1 10.7 

(citywide) 

6.6 (–27 %) 6.3 (–41 %) 

(citywide) 

Citywide rate declined more in this period, but 

HOPE VI site had dramatic reduction in early 

1990s. 

Baltimore All criminal 

offense reports 

12.4 12.9 

(citywide) 

10.8 (–13 %) 10.7 (–17 %) 

(citywide) 

Crime still a concern at interim followup. 

Boston All criminal 

offense reports 

16.1 8.5 

(citywide) 

4.8 (–70 %) 5.6 (–34 %) 

(citywide) 

New Haven Reported 

felonies 

22.2 14.3 

(other public housing) 

10.7 (–52 %) 9.2 (–37 %) 

(other public housing) 

Absolute rate still higher at development. 

Drug/gang activity in original occupied units 

were still problems during this period. 

Charlotte All criminal 

offense reports 

40.7 25.5 

(other public housing) 

13.5 (–67 %) 23.3 (–9 %) 

(other public housing) 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

Notes: Table includes sites for which we have data on crime rates both at baseline and at reoccupancy. Dates for baseline data range from 1993 to 1996. Dates for reoccupancy data range from 1999 to 2002. The crime
 

rate is for crimes reported in specified geographic area (e.g., at HOPE VI site), but neither criminal nor victim necessarily live in the specified geographic area. Citywide comparison rate data includes crime that occurred at
 

the HOPE VI site, but other public housing comparison rate data does not include crime that occurred at the HOPE VI site.
 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At four of the sites, the crime rate decreased faster at the HOPE VI site than for the comparison 

group, while the change was smaller for two sites. (See Exhibit 5-7.) Crime data for Charlotte, 

Milwaukee, Boston, and New Haven document that crime rates decreased much faster in the 

HOPE VI developments than in either the city or in other public housing. The change in 

Charlotte is particularly dramatic, where the crime rate was very high to begin with, but then 

dropped by 67 percent compared with a 9-percent drop in other public housing. At two other sites 

the trends were not as significant. At Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore, crime dropped by 13 

percent compared with 17 percent citywide, while in Oakland it dropped by 27 percent at the 

development compared with 41 percent citywide. 

Although comparable statistics were not available, PHA staff in Cleveland, Camden, 

Washington, D.C., and San Francisco reported modest changes compared with other citywide 

or public housing measures of crime. Crime decreased at Washington, D.C.’s Townhomes at 

about the same rate as the citywide average. San Francisco’s two HOPE VI developments 

saw crime drop relative to citywide averages, but crime rates in the HOPE VI neighborhoods 

remained higher than at least 80 percent of the city’s neighborhoods. No data were available 

in Camden, but local administrators believe that, although crime is down at the development, 

drug activity is still a considerable concern. 

5.3.3 Resident Perceptions of Safety 

Resident perceptions of crime provide another indicator of the level and trends in crime. 

Perceptions are in part what determine the overall desirability of living in a neighborhood. 

Even if there is high level of criminal activity, if it is limited to small areas in the 

neighborhood residents may not perceive it as an issue for their safety. 

Across all the sites, an average of 74 percent of the HOPE VI residents reported feeling safe 

outside their building compared with 58 percent of the pre-HOPE VI residents. (See Exhibit 5-

8.) Resident perceptions of their safety are significantly higher after revitalization at five of the 

eight sites for which data are available on resident perceptions before HOPE VI. The most 

dramatic increases occurred in Baltimore (+ 58 percentage points) and Charlotte (+37 

percentage points). The official crime rate data also showed a dramatic decrease in crime at the 

Charlotte site, but the decrease in Baltimore was a more modest 13 percentage points. 

It is important to note that in several sites, despite near-rampant crime at around the time the 

HOPE VI grants were awarded, large proportions of baseline survey respondents reported 

feeling very or somewhat safe just outside their apartments. For example, in Boston 77 

percent of respondents to the baseline survey reported feeling very or somewhat safe just 

outside their apartments and in Atlanta, 74 percent felt very or somewhat safe. Some 87 

percent of Oakland’s baseline residents felt very or somewhat safe. In these sites, there was 

seemingly little room for improvement. In fact, there was virtually no change in the 

proportion of Boston and Atlanta respondents expressing a sense of relative safety at the time 

of the interim survey. In Oakland, where a substantial proportion of the original development 

had not yet been rehabilitated, the proportion of respondents expressing that they felt safe 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 104 
Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 105

dropped substantially from 87 percent at baseline to just 35 percent.161 Despite the decline in 

the overall share of residents feeling safe, 75 percent of the returning Lockwood residents 

reported the development was somewhat or much safer than before the redevelopment. The 

high perceptions of safety at baseline (despite high crime rates in the Lockwood 

neighborhood) may have been a reflection of the relative increase in feelings of safety after a 

number of non-HOPE VI security improvements, which had started several years before the 

baseline survey was implemented.162 In fact, Lockwood Gardens experienced a dramatic 

decrease in crime between 1991 and the baseline survey in 1995. 

Exhibit 5-8

Pre- and Post-HOPE VI Resident Perceptions of Safety Outside their Building at Night

HOPE VI Site

Percent Who Feel 

Safe Outside 

 Pre-HOPE VI

Percent Who Feel 

Safe Outside 

Post-HOPE VI

Change in 

Percentage Points

For Returning 

Residents: 

Neighborhood 

Safer Now

Camden 31% 69% +38 75%

Cleveland 48% 79% +31 89%

Milwaukee 58% 83% +25 89%

Oakland 87% 35% –52 75%

San Francisco-Bernal NA 50% -- 82%

San Francisco- Plaza NA 67% -- 92%

Baltimore 38% 96% +58 100%

Boston 77% 73% –4 89%

New Haven NA 89% -- 91%

Charlotte 48% 85% +37 93%

Washington NA 86% -- NA

Atlanta 74% 74% 0 81%

All Site Average 58% 74% +14 87%

Sources: Pre-HOPE VI data from Baseline Case Study (1996). Post-HOPE VI data are from HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident 

Surveys (1999 to 2002). 

Notes: NA = not available. “--” indicates data needed for the calculation are unavailable.

 

161 The change in resident perceptions of safety in Oakland’s Lockwood Gardens may reflect differences in the 

“tolerance” for crime of residents pre- and post-HOPE VI. That is, the current residents may have a lower 

tolerance for crime than the pre-HOPE residents, thus current residents may report feeling less safe than the 

pre-HOPE VI residents even though there is less reported crime on site. This cannot be explored, because 

there is no way to link the specific respondents in the baseline survey conducted by local researchers with 

the respondents to the interim survey. 

162 For more information on crime prevention strategies implemented at Oakland’s Lockwood Gardens prior to 

HOPE VI, see Feins, Epstein, and Widom (1997), “Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods: 

Comprehensive Changes in Design, Management, and Use.” A report prepared for the National Institute of 

Justice in the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the most knowledgeable respondents to report on changes in perceived safety are the 

residents who lived in the development before HOPE VI and returned to live there after it 

was revitalized. More than one-half of returning residents (56 percent) reported feeling much 

safer in their neighborhood after revitalization and another 30 percent reported feeling 

somewhat safer than before revitalization. (See last column of Exhibit 5-8.) At every site, at 

least 75 percent of the returning residents reported feeling much or somewhat safer in the 

neighborhood after revitalization. The returning residents were most positive about the 

improved safety in Baltimore, Charlotte, San Francisco’s Plaza East, and New Haven. 

5.3.4 Resident Perceptions of Drug Dealing and Violence 

While drug-related criminal activity was a significant issue at most of these developments before 

revitalization, it is not currently perceived to be a big problem in most of the revitalized 

developments. Residents were asked to what extent drug use, drug dealing, groups hanging out, 

and shootings and violence in the development (among other things) were problems at baseline 

and at reoccupancy. At many sites, there were substantial drops in the proportion of respondents 

reporting big problems with drugs compared with the baseline survey (see Exhibit 5-9). In 

Baltimore, 80 percent of baseline respondents reported that people selling drugs was a big 

problem in their development compared with just 2 percent of interim survey respondents. The 

responses regarding people using drugs and groups of people hanging out showed a similar 

pattern. Cleveland also showed a large reduction in the proportion of respondents reporting big 

problems with drugs, which is notable given that construction was still underway at the time the 

interim survey was conducted. Some 71 percent of baseline residents reported that drug dealing 

was a big problem compared with only 18 percent of respondents to the interim survey. The 

exceptions to the trends are Oakland and San Francisco’s Bernal Dwellings (but not San 

Francisco’s Plaza East) where residents’ perceptions of crime have stayed the same or risen. At 

Bernal Dwellings, perceptions of drug-related crimes and groups hanging out have decreased 

only slightly, but residents perceive a large decrease in shootings and violence. In Oakland, only 

4 percent of 1995 residents reported big problems with shootings and violence compared with 56 

percent of current residents. Perceptions of drug selling, drug use, and groups of people hanging 

out have also increased, although less dramatically. 

Across the study sites, the proportions of respondents reporting big problems with drugs and 

crime after revitalization are modest, but not inconsequential. (See Exhibit 5-10.) Between 15 

and 19 percent of all respondents to the interim survey reported big problems with drug use, drug 

dealing, and groups hanging out in their developments with somewhat fewer respondents 

reporting big problems with violence. A smaller proportion of public housing respondents (18 

percent) reported problems with groups hanging out compared with non-public housing 

respondents (29 percent). By contrast, non-public housing residents were less concerned about 

problems with drug use, drug dealing and violence than public housing residents. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 106 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Exhibit 5-9
 

Changes in Percent of Residents Reporting “Big Problems” with Drugs and Violence
 

People Selling People Using Shootings and Percent of Groups Hanging Out Drugs Drugs Violence Residents 

Reporting Big Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Problems with
 HOPE VI HOPE VI HOPE VI HOPE VI HOPE VI HOPE VI HOPE VI HOPE VI 

Camden 90% 43% 88% 41% 75% 31% 79% 24%
 

Cleveland 71% 18% 70% 18% 50% 19% 41% 8%
 

Oakland 2% 11% 4% 11% 3% 16% 4% 56%
 

San Francisco
 

Bernal 64% 56% 57% 56% 57% 46% 71% 17%
 

Plaza East 76% 27% 62% 23% 71% 29% 48% 11%
 

Baltimore 80% 2% 71% 1% 74% 7% 72% 1%
 

New Haven 80% 4% 79% 2% 68% 9% 62% 0%
 

Charlotte 33% 4% 23% 2% 24% 16% 16% 2%
 

Source: Pre-HOPE VI figures are from baseline survey results reported in An Historical Assessment of HOPE VI, Volume 3. (August
 

1995); Post-HOPE VI figures are Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

Notes: Respondents in only these three sites were asked these questions at baseline.
 

Exhibit 5-10 

Percent of Residents Reporting “Big Problems” with Drugs and Violence in their 

Neighborhood 

Percent of Respondents Reporting All Public Housing Non-Public Housing All Residents 

Big Problems with... Residents (N=1433) Residents (N=295) (N=1728) 

People selling drugs 16% 8% 15% 

People using drugs 15% 5% 14% 

Groups of people hanging out 18% 29% 19% 

Shootings and violence 12% 9% 9% 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002). 

Despite the dramatic decrease in suspected drug dealing and violence, a number of sites – 

Boston, Oakland, and San Francisco as well as Camden—continue to struggle with crime 

problems. (See Exhibit 5-11.) After reoccupancy, more than 20 percent of respondents in 

Camden, Boston, and Oakland reported “shootings and violence” were big problems in their 

neighborhood. Residents in Camden and Boston also reported serious problems with drug 

dealing, as did residents from San Francisco.163 

163 See Appendix Exhibit C-7 for exact percentages of responses for each site. 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 107 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 

5.3.5 Future Challenges 

Although crime rates have declined and HOPE VI residents’ perceptions of safety are higher, 

the extent of change varies across sites. It is difficult to assess the extent to which HOPE VI 

caused the reductions in the crime rate, but the data do seem to suggest that HOPE VI has 

contributed to crime reduction. 

Local respondents in several sites acknowledge that sustaining the reductions in crime will be 

challenging in the face of a weaker economy and more limited resources for crime prevention 

and law enforcement. Already in Boston, the development’s private manager and PHA staff 

suggested that many of the people imprisoned as a result of the 1995 drug sweep are now 

getting out of prison and may be returning to their old neighborhood. During a return visit to 

Baltimore in early 2003, it was learned that surveillance cameras installed at Pleasant View 

Gardens are not working and are too expensive to repair or replace. The police substations 

built near Pleasant View Gardens and Atlanta’s Centennial Place are rarely staffed. 

Concerns about crime have much to do with conditions in neighborhoods surrounding these 

developments. The next chapter of this report explores neighborhood conditions and the 

changes that have occurred in these communities since the HOPE VI grants were first 

awarded. 

Exhibit 5-11 

Percent of Residents Reporting “Big Problems” with Drugs and Violence in their 

Neighborhood, by Site 

Percent of Respondents <10% of All Resident 10 to 20% of All >20% of All Resident 

Reporting Big Problems with ... Survey Respondents Resident Survey Survey Respondents 

Respondents 

People selling drugs Milwaukee, Baltimore, 

New Haven, Charlotte, 

Cleveland, Oakland Camden, San 

Francisco, Boston 

Washington 

People using drugs Milwaukee, Baltimore, 

New Haven, Charlotte, 

Cleveland, Oakland, 

Boston 

Camden, San Francisco 

Washington 

Groups of people hanging out Baltimore, New Haven, 

Washington 

Cleveland, Milwaukee, 

Charlotte 

Camden, Oakland, San 

Francisco, Boston 

Shootings and violence Cleveland, 

Milwaukee, Baltimore, 

New Haven, Charlotte, 

San Francisco Camden, Oakland, 

Boston 

Washington 

Source: HOPE VI Interim Assessment, Resident Surveys (1999 to 2002).
 

Notes: Respondents in Atlanta were not asked this series of questions. See Appendix Exhibit C-7 for exact percentage of responses to
 

these questions by site.
 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 108 
 

 

Chapter 5—Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Other Changes at HOPE VI Sites 109 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

6. The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding 

Neighborhoods and Residents 

Among the anticipated impacts of the HOPE VI program are the various neighborhood-level 

changes that may result from the revitalization of a distressed public housing development. 

The activities that occur on site may help to make the surrounding neighborhood a more 

desirable place to live and work and, perhaps, stimulate investment in the community. For 

example, a redevelopment initiative may remove a neighborhood eyesore; add better quality 

and more attractive housing; incorporate design features that integrate the public housing into 

the community; offer recreational amenities to neighborhood residents; or increase the 

economic diversity of the neighborhood. Moreover, the revitalization efforts focus directly 

on improving the neighborhood by making infrastructure improvements and constructing 

new rental and homeownership units near the development. 

In this chapter, the potential effects of HOPE VI on surrounding neighborhoods and residents are 

examined. This examination begins with a brief discussion of the characteristics of the 

neighborhoods before redevelopment and the extent to which neighborhood revitalization goals 

were part of HOPE VI plans. The next section presents a qualitative analysis of the changes that 

have occurred at the study sites since 1990. This analysis uses Census data from 1990 and 2000 

as well as interviews with knowledgeable local observers to identify and explain these changes. 

The extent to which neighborhood change might be attributable to the HOPE VI program is also 

discussed. The concluding section describes the results of a quantitative analysis of the impact of 

HOPE VI on two neighborhoods based on home sales data. 

6.1	 Pre-HOPE VI: Neighborhood Conditions and Redevelopment 

Goals 

The HOPE VI sites are located in a variety of settings. In the early 1990s, these settings varied in 

land use patterns, physical condition, and levels of social and economic distress. Five sites 

(Camden, New Haven, Oakland, and San Francisco)164 were in predominantly residential areas, 

although public housing developments dominated three of these neighborhoods. At two other 

sites (Atlanta and Charlotte), the development contained most of the housing in the 

neighborhood. The remaining five sites were in mixed-use neighborhoods where the 

development was surrounded by a mixture of residential, institutional, industrial, and commercial 

land uses, or by vacant land. Several sites were located near anchoring institutions, including 

universities, churches, hospitals, and sports arenas. 

164 The HOPE VI award in San Francisco was for two developments several miles apart. Since the two 

developments are in distinct neighborhoods they are separated for analysis in this chapter. Both are in 

predominately residential neighborhoods. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 110 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most neighborhoods contained pockets of residential housing that were fairly well 

maintained. These pockets, however, were typically bordered by areas in various stages of 

disrepair. Some areas contained a mix of occupied, vacant, and abandoned housing units, 

teetering between rejuvenation and decline. In the most extreme conditions, bordering areas 

contained vacant homes in severe disrepair, boarded-up storefronts, missing street signs, and 

yards and alleys strewn with debris. 

Most HOPE VI neighborhoods were also seriously distressed socially and economically. 

They had major crime problems, and surveyed residents at some sites reported that drug- and 

gang-related activities were the most pressing problems in their neighborhoods. Residents 

also reported high levels of prostitution and vagrancy. With few exceptions, these 

neighborhoods had high (30 to 40 percent) or extreme (above 40 percent) levels of poverty 

and were home to poorly educated, unemployed minorities. These neighborhoods offered 

few commercial, retail, or cultural amenities. 

In responding to the original NOFA for the HOPE VI program, PHAs at the study sites 

focused their attention primarily on the problems at the sites and not in the surrounding 

neighborhoods. As the HOPE VI program evolved, HUD broadened the program’s goals to 

include neighborhood objectives. The logic supporting this evolution was straightforward. 

The revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood is good for the neighborhood itself and 

will also help sustain the HOPE VI site’s long-term success and viability. 

While these early grantees still concentrated their HOPE VI resources on the sites, many 

eventually incorporated neighborhood goals into their final redevelopment plans. Such goals 

often involved onsite physical improvements, including the construction of community 

centers and other facilities intended to support programs to which neighborhood residents 

would have access. Other physical improvements to the neighborhood included infrastructure 

enhancements, rehabilitation of parks, and offsite housing development. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, nearly all of the plans proposed to better integrate the public housing 

sites into the neighborhood. New and rehabilitated structures would be made architecturally 

compatible with the existing housing stock and would improve the neighborhood’s aesthetic 

appeal. Street patterns would change to connect the development with the neighborhood, for 

example, by removing dead ends, alleys, or barriers to encourage the free-flow of vehicle and 

pedestrian traffic. The edges of the development would be softened by adding housing units and 

community facilities along the property’s periphery. 

Finally, HOPE VI plans for some sites proposed to diminish the neighborhood’s severe 

economic and social distress by providing services that would foster economic selfsufficiency among neighborhood residents. These plans suggested that changing cultural 

norms in the neighborhood was critical to promoting social mobility among development 

residents. HOPE VI plans often stated that development and neighborhood fortunes were 

interwoven. The next section explores the linkage between HOPE VI developments and 

neighborhood improvement. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 111 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

6.2 HOPE VI Redevelopments and Neighborhood Change 

This discussion of HOPE VI neighborhoods focuses on the changes that occurred in the study 

neighborhoods over the past decade and the extent to which these changes can be attributed 

to the revitalization efforts. To understand these changes, the study neighborhoods are 

categorized according to the level of change that occurred during the 1990s. Specifically, the 

HOPE VI study neighborhoods have been sorted into one of three groups depending on 1990 

to 2000 changes in key demographic and housing characteristics according to the Census.165 

The three classifications are: 

•	 Appreciably improving neighborhoods: areas that showed the largest percentage 

point change improvements for the greatest number of demographic and housing 

characteristics; 

•	 Moderately improving neighborhoods: areas that improved across several housing 

and demographic characteristics but remained unchanged or slightly worse in other 

neighborhood indicators; and 

•	 Slightly improving or unchanged neighborhoods: areas with characteristics that 

improved little or not at all in comparison with other sites. 

For each demographic and housing characteristic, HOPE VI neighborhoods were ranked by 

the magnitude and direction of the change during the decade. For example, increases in the 

total population and the percentage of owner-occupied housing units were considered 

desirable improvements. Conversely, decreases in these characteristics were interpreted as 

less favorable types of neighborhood change. Also, decreases in the neighborhood’s poverty 

rate and vacancy rate were viewed as desirable types of neighborhood change. Exhibit 6-1 

shows the demographic and housing characteristics used as neighborhood indicators and the 

direction of change that was considered desirable. 

165 The characteristics include total population; race/ethnicity; poverty rate; percent female householder with children 

under 18; percent of persons (age 25 or over) with less than a high school diploma; unemployment rate; percent 

employed in professional or managerial occupations; vacancy rate; and the percent owner-occupied housing 

units. These characteristics were selected based on literature that demonstrates the importance of these indicators 

in describing a neighborhood’s trajectory and in shaping individual outcomes. For a review of the literature, see 

Ellen and Turner, 1997; Galster and Killen, 1995; Galster, Quercia, and Cortes, 2000; Jencks and Mayer, 1990; 

and Newman, 1999. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 112 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Exhibit 6-1 

Desirable Types of Change within HOPE VI Neighborhoods, 1990 to 2000 

Increases in... 

•	 Total population1 

•	 Neighborhood diversity2 

•	 Percent employed in professional or 

management occupations 

•	 Percent owner-occupied housing units 

or Decreases in... 

•	 Poverty rate3 

•	 Percent female householders with children 

•	 Percent with less than a high school diploma 

•	 Unemployment rate 

•	 Vacancy rate 

1 Increases in a neighborhood’s population may, in turn, increase the demand for housing in the area and possibly raise property values. 

In addition, as more persons move into a neighborhood, commercial and retail businesses seeking to capitalize on the larger customer 

base are likely to follow. 

2 Since most HOPE VI neighborhoods have very high minority percentages and are highly segregated by race, changes in the proportion 

of those racial/ethnic categories that indicate increased neighborhood diversity are viewed as positive neighborhood change. Thus, 

neighborhood diversity in most HOPE VI neighborhoods results from an increase in the proportion of non-Hispanic Whites and a 

decrease in the proportion of Hispanics and African Americans. The Plaza East neighborhood in San Francisco and the Capitol Hill 

neighborhood in Washington, D.C., were racially diverse communities in 1990 (See Appendix D). In these neighborhoods, stability in the 

racial/ethnic composition of residents over the decade preserves neighborhood diversity. 

3 The Capitol Hill neighborhood was the only low-poverty neighborhood in 1990 (See Appendix D). However, at the time of the 1990 

Census, the Ellen Wilson Dwellings development was totally vacant and thus the site’s former, low-income residents were not counted 

in the Census. The partial reoccupancy of the housing development in early 1999 reintroduced a low-income population into a 

moderately affluent neighborhood, which contributed to an increase in the area’s poverty rate. The unique dynamics occurring in the 

Capitol Hill neighborhood are discussed in more detail in Section 6.2.3. 

Exhibit 6-2 shows how the neighborhoods were grouped using this method.166 There are 

three caveats to keep in mind in interpreting this analysis. First, the groupings do not 

consider a neighborhood’s level of distress in either 1990 or 2000, but rather focus on the 

overall change among several neighborhood indicators over the decade. Thus, some 

neighborhoods that improved appreciably during the decade continue to be more distressed in 

2000 than neighborhoods that improved only slightly but began the decade in better 

condition. 

In addition, the definition of each HOPE VI neighborhood includes the area containing the 

HOPE VI site as well as what local observers defined to be the “neighborhood” unit 

surrounding the HOPE VI site.167 Thus, some of the neighborhood changes observed in 

Census data during the decade reflect changes in the demographic and housing characteristics 

of the HOPE VI sites. 

166	 Appendix D contains 1990 and 2000 Census data for each neighborhood and city. 

167	 Rarely did a HOPE VI development constitute a geographic area that could have been separated out from 

the Census tract used in the neighborhood analysis. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 113 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 


 


 


 

	 

	 

Exhibit 6-2 

Neighborhood Change Among HOPE VI Neighborhoods, 1990 to 2000 

Appreciably Improved Moderately Improved	 Slightly Improved 

• Centennial Place (Atlanta) • Pleasant View Gardens 

(Baltimore) 

• McGuire Gardens (Camden) 

• Mission Main (Boston) • King Kennedy Estate and 

Outhwaite Homes (Cleveland) 

• Hillside Terrace (Milwaukee) 

• First Ward Place/Autumn 

Place (Charlotte) 

• Monterey Place (New Haven) • Lockwood Gardens (Oakland) 

• Plaza East (San Francisco) • Bernal Dwellings (San 

Francisco) 

• Townhomes on Capitol Hill 

(Washington, DC) 

Source: Authors’ classification based on 1990 and 2000 Census data.
 

Note: The HOPE VI award in San Francisco was for two developments several miles apart. Since the two developments are in distinct
 

neighborhoods, they are separated for analysis in this chapter.
 

Furthermore, the observed changes are sensitive to the timing of a site’s reoccupancy activities 

(see Chapter 2 for more detail). Four developments (King Kennedy Estates in Cleveland; 

Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore; Hillside Terrace in Milwaukee; and First Ward Place in 

Charlotte) were fully reoccupied before April 2000,168 and thus the characteristics of their 

residents are reflected in 2000 Census data. Four other developments (Bernal Dwellings and 

Plaza East in San Francisco; McGuire Gardens in Camden; and Monterey Place in New 

Haven) began reoccupancy after April 2000, and consequently the characteristics of the 

residents and units in these new developments are not included in the 2000 Census data.169 The 

remaining developments (Centennial Place in Atlanta; Mission Main in Boston; Outhwaite 

Homes in Cleveland; Lockwood Gardens in Oakland; and the Townhomes on Capitol Hill in 

Washington, D.C.) began limited reoccupancy before the Census data collection period, but 

had not yet made all the planned units available for occupancy. Census data for neighborhoods 

containing these developments will only partially reflect the characteristics of these new 

residents. The effect of reoccupancy on the observed changes is discussed in more detail 

below. 

The classification of neighborhood change is not intended to suggest that some HOPE VI 

redevelopment efforts were more (or less) successful than others in producing positive (or 

negative) spillover effects. Rather, the classification scheme places each HOPE VI 

redevelopment within a broader context by describing how neighborhoods changed relative 

to each other over the decade. 

168	 April 2000 was the primary data collection period for the 2000 Census. 

169	 In New Haven, some original residents had yet to be relocated and so would be included in the 2000 

Census. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.2.1 Appreciably Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods 

Exhibit 6-3 presents the percentage point change in selected demographic and housing 

characteristics for “appreciably improving” HOPE VI neighborhoods. The neighborhoods 

around Centennial Place in Atlanta, Mission Main in Boston, First Ward Place/Autumn 

Place in Charlotte, and Plaza East in San Francisco experienced considerable change in 

demographic and housing characteristics. In general, the neighborhoods became less racially 

segregated and poor, and witnessed declines in the proportion of female-headed households 

with children, persons (age 25 or older) with no high school diploma, unemployment, and 

housing vacancies. The neighborhoods also experienced a sizable increase in the percent of 

persons employed in professional or managerial occupations and slight increases in the 

proportion of owner-occupied housing units. 

Exhibit 6-3 

Appreciably Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods: Percentage Point Change in Selected 

Demographic and Housing Characteristics, 1990 to 2000 

Atlanta Charlotte Boston San Francisco 

Nghbd. City Nghbd. City Nghbd. City Nghbd.1 City 

Positive Sign on Indicator Suggests Improvement 

Total Population –19.8 +5.7 +7.8 +36.6 +7.3 +2.6 +23.3 +7.3 

Percent Employed in +21.2 +11.8 +21.9 +9.4 +20.8 +10.6 +17.8 +13.6 Professional/Mgmt. Occupations 

Percent of Owner-Occupied +6.3 +0.6 +22.4 +2.5 +1.7 +1.3 –1.3 +0.5 Housing Units 

Race/Ethnicity2 

Hispanic (any race) –0.4 +2.6 –0.8 +6.0 –8.7 +3.6 +0.3 +0.2 

African American (non-Hispanic) –15.5 –5.8 –20.2 +1.0 –8.4 +1.3 –22.7 –2.8 

White (non-Hispanic) +11.0 +1.1 +18.4 –6.6 +8.2 –4.4 +12.7 +2.9 

Negative Sign on Indicator Suggests Improvement 

Poverty Rate –28.0 –2.9 –16.3 –0.2 +4.3 +0.8 –3.7 –1.4 

Percent Female Householder with –26.9 –1.9 –11.3 +0.6 –9.2 +0.3 –6.0 –0.7 Children under 18 

Percent of Persons with Less than –33.9 –7.0 –27.7 –3.9 –21.3 –3.2 –11.2 –3.2 H.S. Diploma 

Unemployment Rate –3.4 +2.8 +1.1 +1.0 –5.9 –0.9 –6.7 –1.2 

Vacancy Rate –3.8 –4.8 +0.7 –0.2 –6.7 –4.0 –5.1 –2.1 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000. 1 Plaza East neighborhood. 

2 Since most HOPE VI neighborhoods have very high minority percentages and are highly segregated by race, changes in the proportion of those 

racial/ethnic categories that indicate increased neighborhood diversity are viewed as positive neighborhood change. Thus, neighborhood diversity in 

most HOPE VI neighborhoods results from an increase in the proportion of non-Hispanic Whites and a decrease in the proportion of Hispanics and 

African Americans. The Plaza East neighborhood in San Francisco was a racially diverse community in both 1990 and 2000 (see Appendix D). 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 115 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

Changes in Atlanta and Charlotte’s HOPE VI neighborhoods were substantial, and nearly all 

indicated neighborhood improvement. Both neighborhoods experienced a large reduction in 

poverty: 72 to 44 percent in Atlanta; and 54 to 38 percent in Charlotte. Changes in other 

characteristics—unemployment rate, proportion of persons without a high school diploma and 

persons employed in professional occupations—suggest a lessening of the neighborhoods’ social 

isolation.170 These neighborhoods also became less racially segregated during the decade, 

although minorities still comprise a large proportion of the 2000 population (73 percent in 

Atlanta and 64 percent in Charlotte). 

Figures 6-1 and 6-2. An upscale grocery store caters to 

Charlotte’s downtown workers and residents of new 

housing in the First Ward Place neighborhood (2003). 

Much of the observed change in the Atlanta and Charlotte neighborhoods reflects the significant 

transformations that occurred at each housing development and the timing of reoccupancy. 

Located close to Atlanta’s downtown, the HOPE VI neighborhood was largely institutional,171 

and the housing development comprised the neighborhood’s largest residential area in 1990. 

Thus, the steep decline (20 percent) in the population of the Centennial Place neighborhood over 

the decade is largely the result of the relocation of Clark Howell and Techwood residents and 

incomplete reoccupancy at the time of the Census. The decline in the poverty rate and the 

number of female-headed households with children and the increase in the White population also 

reflect who has moved to Centennial Place. The changes in Charlotte are similar in many 

respects. Before the redevelopment of Earle Village, the area surrounding the housing 

170 Social isolation refers to the restricted social mobility (or ability to advance socially and economically) 

among “underclass” residents of distressed neighborhoods due to a lack of neighborhood resources, the 

relative absence of conventional role models, and a disconnect from mainstream social networks. This 

concept is operationalized by examining changes in the proportion of persons who are employed, have a 

high school diploma, or are working in professional/managerial occupations. (See William Julius Wilson, 

1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) 

171	 Georgia Institute of Technology continues to comprise a large proportion of the neighborhood. Coca-Cola’s 

corporate headquarters is also near the development. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 116 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

development was largely nonresidential. The area experienced a surge in residential construction 

throughout the redevelopment process, resulting in sizable increases in the neighborhood’s total 

population, number of households, and number of housing units. These increases would have 

been slightly higher had it not been for the demolition of two distressed private apartment 

buildings adjacent to the development.172 

Since 2000, both the Charlotte and Atlanta neighborhoods have continued to experience 

improvements. Recent changes in the Charlotte neighborhood are detailed on the following 

page (see insert). In early 2003, when researchers returned to Atlanta for a followup visit, 

there was extensive evidence of neighborhood change in the area around Centennial Place 

that local observers attribute to the HOPE VI redevelopment. In an underutilized section 

between Centennial Place and downtown that had previously been known as “The Void,” 

new construction was underway. A new aquarium was being built. Two large market-rate 

condominium projects were under construction, and another was planned. Retail and 

commercial development had not yet followed. There still were no grocery stores, drug 

stores, or other basic services in the community, despite the Centennial development team’s 

efforts to attract them to a parcel adjacent to the HOPE VI site. However, the aquarium is 

expected to attract other tourist-related establishments and once the condominiums begin to 

sell, other retail services may locate in the neighborhood. 

The changes in the Mission Main neighborhood in Boston and the neighborhood surrounding 

Plaza East in San Francisco were substantial, but less pronounced than those in Charlotte or 

Atlanta. Both neighborhoods attracted new residents over the decade and became among the 

most racially diverse HOPE VI communities in the study. The Mission Main neighborhood 

was the only neighborhood in the “appreciably improving” group that experienced an 

increase in poverty. While this also occurred in Boston as whole, the increase was much 

larger in the HOPE VI neighborhood. 

Boston Housing Authority staff and other local respondents in Boston were reluctant to attribute 

improvements that have occurred in the Mission Main neighborhood to the HOPE VI 

redevelopment. Although the replacement of the aging brick, barracks-style development with 

new townhouse style buildings has dramatically improved the visual appeal of the area, most 

respondents said that changes in the neighborhood would have happened anyway. They point to 

the economic boom and increased interest in city living in Boston during this period that led to 

rapidly escalating rents. The Mission Main neighborhood (known as Mission Hill) emerged as a 

somewhat more affordable but previously overlooked neighborhood for city living. In addition, 

the need for student housing at nearby universities drove demand. An administrator from a local 

university said that she thought the most significant impact of the Mission Main redevelopment 

on the neighborhood was that parents of students felt safer having their children live there. This 

led investor-owners to buy rental housing in the neighborhood for the student market. 

172 Combined, the two apartment buildings contained 95 units. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 117 
 

The Plaza East neighborhood in San Francisco appeared to be gentrifying and experienced 

many positive changes between 1990 and 2000, including reductions in poverty, 

unemployment, and single parent households. Compared with the other sites, however, the 

largest changes were the 23-percentage-point increase in the population and a 23-percentagepoint decrease in the share of African American residents. The population increase is 

particularly noteworthy since the original 276-unit development was demolished, but the new 

development was not yet reoccupied. Both changes were also mirrored in the city of San 

Francisco, but the changes were much smaller at the city level. 

First Ward Place/Autumn Place, Charlotte 

The First Ward Place/Autumn Place neighborhood experienced a dramatic 

transformation, particularly in the development of new market-rate rental and 

homeownership units. As part of the city’s broader revitalization strategy, approximately 

250 market-rate units were built in the neighborhood and an additional 83 units were 

under construction in early 2003. The new units are townhomes and condominiums 

available for rent and homeownership, and built in a variety of architectural styles. Also, 

a 50-unit apartment complex, the only apartment building left standing during the HOPE 

VI redevelopment process, was rehabilitated by the local church that owns it. 

Crime in the neighborhood has decreased dramatically since 1994. In 1994, there were 

694 total crimes and 350 violent crimes reported in the neighborhood. By 2002, the total 

number of crimes dropped to 300, and violent crimes declined to 42. When two 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officers who have patrolled the neighborhood for over a 

decade were asked to compare the level of crime before and after the redevelopment, the 

officers responded: “You can’t even compare the two.” These officers currently view the 

neighborhood as very safe and would be comfortable telling any person they could safely 

walk through the neighborhood, day or night. 

Institutional development in the neighborhood has also prospered. A private Presbyterian 

school recently opened in the neighborhood and is adding a middle school to the existing 

elementary school. The school was purposely built within the central city, and school 

children are given access to nearby community facilities, including the First Ward Place 

Community Center. A large sports arena is being planned for an area approximately five 

blocks from First Ward Place/Autumn Place. Neighborhood residents believe the arena 

will attract additional new residents and provide jobs. However, commercial and retail 

developments have lagged behind other development, and current plans for new retail 

space are tentative. Moreover, unappealing commuter parking lots take much of the land 

in the few blocks between the development and downtown Charlotte. 

Overall, the First Ward Place/Autumn Place neighborhood has experienced significant 

signs of improvement since 1994, and many local observers describe the importance of 

the HOPE VI grant in stimulating the change. Local stakeholders assert that the larger 

neighborhood revitalization plan was a non-starter without the redevelopment of First 

Ward Place/Autumn Place. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 118 
 

 

 

 

The large neighborhood population increase reflects new construction in the neighborhood in 

response to demand for more housing in easy commuting distance from the government and 

financial center of the city. It also, in some part, may reflect a temporarily reduced population 

in 1990, because some homes were damaged in a 1989 earthquake and needed repair before 

they could be reoccupied. Reflective of a willingness of higher income households to live in 

the neighborhood, new luxury condominiums were built across the street from Plaza East and 

were selling for $500,000 and higher in 2002. 

The decrease in the share of African American residents was driven by the number of White 

and Asian residents who moved into the neighborhood. This influx would have reduced the 

share of African American residents even if the absolute number of African American 

residents stayed the same. But, the African American population in the neighborhood 

decreased in absolute numbers also, resulting in the large decline in the share of African 

American residents. This happened both because Plaza East was unoccupied in 2000 and 

because of the citywide trend of African Americans moving from San Francisco to more 

affordable cities in the area. The city had a 2.8-percentage-point decrease in the share of 

African Americans in the 1990s. 

The Plaza East neighborhood consists primarily of large multifamily buildings. It is one of 

the most densely populated and economically and racially diverse areas in the city. This 

population mix has attracted a full complement of retail stores, including both full-scale 

grocery and drug stores. Within a few blocks are a multitude of restaurants and an eightscreen movie theater. Both moderate and upscale shopping is also within walking distance. 

Local observers reported that the retail sector in the neighborhood became more vibrant 

during the decade, but attributed it to the citywide economic boom rather than changes at the 

development. The retail area serves a much larger population than the development or even 

its immediate neighborhood. Similar observations were also made for most of the other 

positive changes in the neighborhood, with the exception that the redevelopment was given 

credit for some of the modest reduction in crime and the revitalization activities immediately 

adjacent to the development. 

Overall, the market forces and Plaza East redevelopment are complementing each other to 

improve the neighborhood, a good situation for the public housing and neighborhood 

residents. The neighborhood’s prosperity, however, has likely resulted in a trade-off that is 

typical of a gentrifying neighborhood. The area’s resurgence may push other affordable 

housing options out of the neighborhood and possibly decrease the opportunity for additional 

development of affordable housing. The number of public housing units at the site has in fact 

declined,173 although a senior elderly public housing building and a Low-Income Housing Tax 

Credit development remain in the neighborhood. The HOPE VI development certainly 

preserved some affordable units in the neighborhood. However, the long-term prospects for 

retaining affordable housing in the Plaza East community will not be known for some time. 

173 As discussed in Chapter 4, the number of public housing units declined from 276 in 1993 to 193 in 2002. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 119 
Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 120

6.2.2 Moderately Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods 

Exhibit 6-4 presents the percentage point change in demographic and housing characteristics 

of HOPE VI neighborhoods that improved “moderately” during the decade. The 

neighborhoods around Pleasant View Gardens in Baltimore, King Kennedy Estate and 

Outhwaite Homes in Cleveland, Monterey Place in New Haven, and Bernal Dwellings in 

San Francisco experienced mixed changes from 1990 to 2000. These neighborhoods 

improved across several of the demographic and housing characteristics, but remained 

unchanged or slightly worse in other neighborhood indicators. 

Exhibit 6-4

Moderately Improving HOPE VI Neighborhoods: Percentage Point Change in Selected 

Demographic and Housing Characteristics, 1990 to 2000

Baltimore Cleveland New Haven San Francisco

Nghbd. City Nghbd. City Nghbd. City Nghbd.1 City

Positive Sign on Indicator 

Suggests Improvement

Total Population –22.7 –11.5 –28.3 –5.4 –20.4 –5.2 +6.1 +7.3

Percent Employed in 

Professional/Mgmt. Occupations +4.5 +9.0 –1.9 +6.1 +6.3 +7.3 +12.2 +13.6

Percent of Owner-Occupied 

Housing Units +1.9 +1.7 –1.8 +0.6 +5.1 –2.2 +1.7 +0.5

Race/Ethnicity2

Hispanic (any race) +0.4 +0.7 +1.1 +2.7 +6.4 +8.2 +0.3 +0.2

African American (non-Hispanic) –6.6 +5.3 –1.6 +4.7 –11.8 +2.0 –3.8 –2.8

White (non-Hispanic) +2.3 –7.1 –0.2 –6.5 +2.9 –5.5 +3.5 +2.9

Negative Sign on Indicator 

Suggests Improvement

Poverty Rate –19.2 +1.0 –13.6 –2.4 –5.6 +3.1 –9.8 –1.4

Percent Female Householder with 

Children under 18 –20.7 0 +4.7 +1.7 –4.8 +1.1 –2.5 –0.7

Percent of Persons with Less than 

H.S. Diploma –8.8 –7.7 –46.0 –10.2 –3.1 –2.6 –5.7 –3.2

Unemployment Rate +12.0 +0.4 –33.1 –1.4 –1.3 +2.5 –7.7 –1.2

Vacancy Rate –4.9 +5.1 –9.6 +0.8 +9.9 +1.6 –3.9 –2.1

Sources: 1990 and 2000 Census 1 Bernal Dwellings neighborhood.

2 Since most HOPE VI neighborhoods have very high minority percentages and are highly segregated by race, changes in the proportion of 

those racial/ethnic categories that indicate increased neighborhood diversity are viewed as positive neighborhood change. Thus, 

neighborhood diversity in most HOPE VI neighborhoods results from an increase in the proportion of non-Hispanic Whites and a decrease 

in the proportion of Hispanics and African Americans. The Bernal Dwellings neighborhood in San Francisco was one of the few HOPE VI 

neighborhoods in the study with a very high proportion of Hispanics in both 1990 and 2000 (see Appendix D).
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The modest positive improvements in the Baltimore neighborhood around Pleasant View 

Gardens are clearly tied to the demolition of a dense family public housing development and 

the reconstruction of the new HOPE VI townhouse community. Along with a 23-percentagepoint decline in population, the neighborhood today has many fewer female-headed 

households with children (down from 41 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2000) and is 

substantially less poor (from a 75-percent poverty rate to a 56-percent rate). At the same 

time, the area’s unemployment rate rose 12 points over the decade, and by 2000 one-third of 

neighborhood residents were unemployed. As of 2000, the neighborhood was still highly 

segregated (89 percent were African American), as well as poor. Of persons age 25 or over, 

53 percent did not have a high school diploma. 

The Pleasant View Gardens neighborhood is less than a mile from downtown Baltimore. It is 

a mixed-use area that includes several lowrise publicly and privately subsidized housing 

projects in addition to Pleasant View, along with several schools, an industrial plant, and a 

small number of retail establishments. The Johns Hopkins University Hospital is nearby but 

just outside the neighborhood, as is a state penitentiary. There is little sign of economic 

investment in the immediate area. Knowledgeable local observers suggested that given the 

development’s isolated location, located between two major east-west thoroughfares, the 

development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the surrounding community. 

The city of Baltimore generally fared worse than the HOPE VI neighborhood between 1990 

and 2000. Unlike the Pleasant View Gardens neighborhood, neighborhoods citywide became 

increasingly minority-concentrated, with a 6-percentage-point increase in African Americans 

and Hispanics and a 7-percentage-point decrease in non-Hispanic Whites. There was a 1-

percentage-point increase in the poverty rate to 23 percent, and the vacancy rate increased 5 

percentage points to 14 percent. The city experienced no change in the proportion of female 

householders with children. 

In Cleveland (see insert), the HOPE VI neighborhood experienced large decreases in poverty and 

unemployment rates and in the percent of persons without a high school diploma. At the same 

time, the neighborhood’s racial composition remained unchanged,174 and the community was the 

only site to experience an increase (almost 5 percentage points) in female-headed households 

with children. As with Pleasant View Gardens, the presence of other large-scale public housing 

developments in the immediate vicinity limits opportunities for the King Kennedy Estates and 

Outhwaite Homes redevelopments to contribute to positive neighborhood change. 

The New Haven and San Francisco (Bernal Dwellings) neighborhoods also improved 

moderately, across nearly all dimensions of neighborhood quality. 

174 In 2000, the King Kennedy Estate and Outhwaite Homes neighborhood was the most racially segregated area 

among all the sites (98 percent African American). The city of Cleveland is predominantly minority, 51 

percent African American and 7 percent Hispanic and more than two-fifths (42 percent) non-Hispanic White. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 121 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Haven’s Monterey Place is located in an historically African American community known 

as Dixwell. It has been in decline for the past 50 years, despite its close proximity to Yale 

University. During the 1990s, the neighborhood lost 20 percent of its population, but also 

experienced a 6-percent decline in the poverty rate (from 30 to 24 percent), as well as declines in 

the percentage of female-headed households with children and the percentage of the population 

that is African American. However, the vacancy rate increased 10 percentage points over the 

decade, and by 2000 one-fifth of the area’s housing units were vacant. It is likely that some of 

these changes, particularly the population decline and vacancy rate increases, can be explained by 

the HOPE VI redevelopment. Many residents of the former Elm Haven site had been relocated 

although some were still living at the site in 2002. No units had been reoccupied by the 2000 

census. 

Citywide patterns in New Haven departed considerably from patterns in the HOPE VI 

neighborhood. The city became increasingly minority-concentrated, poor (a 3-percentagepoint increase in poverty), and inhabited by female householders with children (a 1-

percentage-point increase). The city’s owner-occupancy rate also decreased slightly (by 2 

percentage points). 

Despite the negative citywide statistics and only modest improvements at Monterey Place, local 

observers stated that the redevelopment of Elm Haven has caused both the public and private 

sector in New Haven to begin focusing on Dixwell. There are a number of initiatives planned or 

underway that offer hope for long-term improvements. These include efforts to revitalize a 

nearby shopping center, redevelopment of industrial buildings into a biotech facility, the 

redevelopment of an elementary school, and property investment by Yale. 

The Bernal Dwellings neighborhood is a residential area in the southernmost portion of the 

Mission District, which is the cultural, commercial, and residential heart of San Francisco’s 

Hispanic population. The neighborhood contains primarily single-family, attached houses 

and small apartment buildings of no more than 25 units. 

Exhibit 6-4 shows positive trends on all the indicators of neighborhood change. The changes are 

significant and exceed the positive trends in the city for most indicators, but are more modest 

than the changes in the Plaza East neighborhood. The most noteworthy changes are the 7.7-

percentage-point decline in the unemployment rate and the 12-percentage-point increase in the 

share of residents employed in professional or management occupations. These trends, 

particularly in the share of professional employment, are likely due to the information technology 

boom of the 1990s. The Bernal neighborhood is close to some of the areas where entrepreneurs 

were buying and renting underutilized warehouse space and converting them to computer and 

telecommunication businesses. Bernal, with its historic townhomes and vibrant street life, was an 

attractive location for people working in these businesses and for other “urban pioneers” seeking 

a relatively affordable area in the extremely expensive San Francisco market. Both PHA staff and 

other local observers reported that the positive trends for the neighborhood were primarily a 

result of the city’s economic boom. Local observers also acknowledged that the development 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 122 
 

 

 

 

 

 

eliminated a major eyesore in the neighborhood and opened the door for future economic 

growth to encompass the entire neighborhood rather than just the fringes. 

King Kennedy Estates and Outhwaite Homes, Cleveland 

The most significant challenge to improving the King Kennedy Estates/Outhwaite Homes 

neighborhood has been the concentration of public housing in the immediate vicinity. 

Since 1994, local, state and federal officials have confronted this challenge, and signs of 

neighborhood improvement are becoming evident. In addition to the redevelopment of 

King Kennedy Estates and Outhwaite Homes, the first phase of the redevelopment at 

Longwood complex, a troubled HUD-assisted development near Outhwaite Homes, 

resulted in the demolition and reconstruction of a large portion of the complex. New 

townhomes at Longwood have greatly improved the neighborhood’s residential appeal, 

and the remaining units are slated for similar treatment. 

Redevelopment is also underway at Carver Park, another HOPE VI site located within a 

block of Outhwaite Homes. At Carver Park, 217 units were recently demolished and 

rebuilt; and 279 new units are planned. In addition, a private, nonprofit social services 

agency that has operated near the site for many years has raised funds to build a $5.8 

million, 41,000-square foot community center. 

In addition to these public housing redevelopment projects, the neighborhood is witnessing 

the construction of new single-family housing units in a homeownership zone north of 

Outhwaite Homes. The units are supported by a number of community development 

corporations and private developers. Approximately half of the modest units are reserved for 

lower income, first-time homebuyers, and the remaining units are market-rate. 

Crime decreased substantially between 1994 and 1999 and has remained relatively stable

since. Neighborhood residents near Outhwaite Homes attributed the decrease in crime in

part to the redevelopment of Longwood since, for many years, crime at Longwood spilled

over into Outhwaite Homes. In addition, the decision to move housing agency’s police

force from its previous location near the PHA headquarters to a building adjacent to King 

Kennedy likely contributed to the decline in crime. 

Overall, the King Kennedy and Outhwaite Homes neighborhood is gradually improving, 

and the pace of this improvement is closely linked to the redevelopment of other public 

housing in the area. The long-term fortunes of the neighborhood will likely hinge on the 

success of these other development projects. Nevertheless, local observers suggested that 

the HOPE VI efforts at King Kennedy and Outhwaite Homes have instrumental in giving 

potential investors confidence to invest in the neighborhood. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 123 
 

 

 

 

 

The Bernal neighborhood contains active commercial thoroughfares filled with local 

businesses, older industrial buildings, and churches and nonprofit agencies that serve the 

Hispanic immigrant population. The immediate neighborhood includes a mainstream video 

store, some light industrial sites (e.g., a boat repair shop), and many local take-out and sitdown restaurants. However, it also includes an excessive number of establishments that sell 

alcohol, such as bars, convenience stores, and liquor stores. Several local observers pointed 

out that this draws “problem people” to the neighborhood. The border street on the southern 

portion of the development also serves as a gathering place for day laborers looking for work. 

Some neighborhood respondents complained the day laborers were responsible for nuisance 

crimes such as public urination and littering, but also stated that the laborers provided 

customers and cover for drug dealers and prostitutes working the neighborhood. Resident 

responses to the survey in 2002 indicated that drug dealing was still believed to be a big 

problem in the neighborhood after revitalization. 

Figure 6-3. There are numerous corner grocery/deli and liquor Figure 6-4. The housing across the street from San Francisco’s 

stores in San Francisco’s Bernal Dwellings neighborhood. Bernal Dwellings exhibits a variety of architectural styles. 

6.2.3 Slightly Improving or Unchanged HOPE VI Neighborhoods 

Exhibit 6-5 presents an overview of HOPE VI neighborhoods that experienced the least 

change from 1990 to 2000. The neighborhoods of McGuire Gardens in Camden, Hillside 

Terrace in Milwaukee, Lockwood Gardens in Oakland, and Townhomes on Capitol Hill in 

Washington, D.C., were characterized by varying levels of distress in 1990 and changed only 

slightly (if at all) over the decade. 

The Capitol Hill neighborhood abutting the Townhomes on Capitol Hill was markedly less 

distressed in 1990 than any other neighborhood in this study. In 1990, the neighborhood had 

a 9-percent poverty rate, was racially integrated (one-quarter minority), and was well 

educated (only 11 percent of persons did not have a high school diploma). It had a very low 

unemployment rate (2 percent) and a high owner-occupancy rate (48 percent). 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 124 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Exhibit 6-5 

Slightly Improving or Unchanged HOPE VI Neighborhoods: Percentage Point Change 

in Selected Demographic and Housing Characteristics, 1990 to 2000 

Camden Milwaukee Oakland Wash. DC 

Nghbd. City Nghbd. City Nghbd. City Nghbd. City 

Positive Sign on Indicator 

Suggests Improvement 

Total Population -21.7 –8.7 –33.2 –5.0 +8.9 +7.3 –2.8 –5.7 

Percent Employed in +4.9 +2.9 +6.2 +6.7 –3.1 +7.3 +10.4 +12.0 Professional/Mgmt. Occupations
 

Percent of Owner-Occupied
 +1.7 –2.3 +0.9 –1.5 +3.3 –0.2 +3.0 +1.9 Housing Units
 

Race/Ethnicity1
 

Hispanic (any race) +12.0 +7.6 -4.8 +5.7 +21.7 +8.0 +3.5 +2.5 

African American (non-Hispanic) –12.4 –0.9 +2.6 +7.0 –22.7 –7.5 –0.7 –4.8 

White (non-Hispanic) -2.8 +1.6 +1.3 –10.9 0 +2.8 –5.4 +3.4 

Negative Sign on Indicator 

Suggests Improvement 

Poverty Rate +3.0 –1.1 –15.8 –0.9 –5.4 +0.6 +4.7 +3.3 

Percent Female Householder with –8.3 –0.4 –3.2 +0.7 –6.9 –1.1 –0.3 +0.3 Children under 18
 

Percent of Persons with Less than
 +3.2 –1.3 –17.6 –3.3 +5.1 +0.5 +4.4 –4.7 H.S. Diploma 

Unemployment Rate +2.2 –1.2 –2.2 +0.3 +6.2 –0.8 +2.7 +2.1 

Vacancy Rate –7.7 +5.6 +12.0 +1.4 –3.6 –2.8 –7.9 –0.8 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 1 Since most HOPE VI neighborhoods have very high minority percentages and are highly segregated by race, changes in the proportion of 

those racial/ethnic categories that indicate increased neighborhood diversity are viewed as positive neighborhood change. Thus, 

neighborhood diversity in most HOPE VI neighborhoods results from an increase in the proportion of non-Hispanic Whites and a decrease in 

the proportion of Hispanics and African Americans. The Capitol Hill neighborhood was predominantly non-Hispanic White in both 1990 and 

2000, and thus neighborhood diversity resulted form the partial reoccupancy of the development by residents who were mostly minorities. 

Partial reoccupancy of the development began in early 1999, resulting in the introduction of 

both market-rate and public housing-eligible residents. The market-rate residents were well 

educated (73 percent were college graduates), and nearly all (96 percent) earned income from 

employment. Public housing-eligible households had incomes less than 50 percent of area 

median, 90 percent were minority, and 46 percent were unemployed. As a result, by 2000, a 

few neighborhood indicators had improved slightly or remained unchanged, while others had 

worsened. The neighborhood became slightly more diverse and home to an increasingly 

educated population who owned their homes. The percent of persons employed in 

professional or managerial occupation increased by 10 percentage points to 72 percent. On 

the other hand, the neighborhood became slightly poorer (the poverty rate increased by 

approximately 5 percentage points) and a larger proportion of residents were unemployed. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 125 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, the neighborhood did not change much over the decade, but was still much less 

distressed in 2000 than most other HOPE VI neighborhoods. The neighborhood was also less 

distressed than the District of Columbia as a whole.175 

The Townhomes on Capitol Hill is a small development (147 units) in a big residential 

neighborhood (more than 11,000 units in 2000). Thus, the impact of this redevelopment 

project is likely to be felt only in the immediate area. At the time that the case study was 

completed in 2000, there was evidence that renovation of some single-family units was 

occurring within several blocks of the site. During a more recent visit to the site (2003), it 

was learned that a new apartment complex is being built directly across from the 

development. Local observers stated that the Townhomes redevelopment likely played a role 

in spurring this private development. 

Figure 6-5. Vacant property adjacent to McGuire Gardens in 

Camden. 

Figure 6-6. Boarded-up housing in the McGuire Gardens 

neighborhood. 

Unlike the Capitol Hill community in Washington, D.C., the neighborhoods of McGuire 

Gardens in Camden and Lockwood Gardens in Oakland were severely distressed in 1990, 

changed little over the decade, and continue to be seriously distressed environments in 2000. 

These neighborhoods are highly segregated communities experiencing high poverty and 

social isolation. The Hillside Terrace neighborhood in Milwaukee was not as socially or 

physically distressed as the Lockwood and McGuire neighborhoods, but was also a poor, 

isolated community. 

As the insert on the following page suggests, the area around McGuire Gardens, known as 

East Camden, is a particularly troubled neighborhood with a poverty rate of 41 percent and 

an unemployment rate of 21 percent in 2000. Some of the changes that occurred in East 

175 The District was much more minority-concentrated (68 percent citywide versus 28 percent in the 

neighborhood), poorer (20 percent citywide versus 14 percent in the neighborhood), and had higher 

unemployment (7 percent citywide versus 5 percent in the neighborhood.) 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 126 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

Camden over the decade—including the 20-percent loss in overall population, an 8-percent 

decline in the percentage of female-headed households with children, and an 8-percent 

decline in the vacancy rate—were partly attributable to the transition occurring at McGuire 

Gardens. In 1990, there were 368 units on site and a 34-percent vacancy rate. As of 2000, 

140 units had been built or rehabilitated and were reoccupied. 

The Lockwood Gardens neighborhood had a mixture of positive and negative changes 

between 1990 and 2000 according to the Census neighborhood indicators in Exhibit 6-5. On 

the positive side, the population increased, the poverty rate and share of single female-headed 

households decreased, and the vacancy rate decreased. On the negative side, the 

unemployment rate increased, the share of employed persons in professional or management 

occupations declined, and the share of high school graduates decreased. It is not clear why 

the unemployment rate could increase by 6.2 percentage points, yet the poverty rate went 

down. It is possible that a higher share of the residents are in the labor force (thus eligible to 

be counted as unemployed)176 or that the few persons who can find employment are earning 

enough to raise their family above the poverty line, while many others cannot find jobs. 

The Lockwood Gardens neighborhood also experienced a significant change in racial 

composition, a 23-percentage-point decline in the African American population with an 

offsetting 22-percent increase in the Hispanic population. This trend reflects the growing 

share of Hispanics in the city of Oakland, which saw an 8-percentage-point increase during 

the decade. Local observers reported that the Hispanic neighborhood to the north of 

Lockwood Gardens is expanding southward, accounting for the increasing Hispanic 

population in Lockwood. 

Lockwood Gardens is an inward-looking development with house fronts facing courtyards or 

interior streets and wrought iron perimeter fencing and few vehicular entrances to the 

development. This pre-HOPE VI design was intended to increase security at Lockwood 

Gardens and did not change as part of the redevelopment. The improvements at this HOPE 

VI site were limited when compared with other sites. The redevelopment did not involve new 

construction activities or include mixed-income housing. These factors suggest, and rightly 

so according to local observers, that the revitalization had a limited impact on the 

neighborhood. However, housing authority staff and some local realtors believe the 

redevelopment has inspired neighbors to better maintain their properties and has led to the 

purchase and investment in improvements at neighboring property. 

176	 To be in the labor force, a person must be 16 years of age or older and either employed or searching and 

available for work. People who have given up looking for work (i.e., discouraged workers) or are not 

interested in employment (e.g., retired workers) are not considered in the labor force. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 127 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McGuire Gardens, Camden 

The fortunes of the McGuire neighborhood have declined along with those of the city of 

Camden. Like many other northern industrial cities, Camden fell headlong into economic 

and social distress beginning in the 1950s as its industrial capacity weakened, middle-class 

Whites fled to the suburbs, and the tax base withered. Left behind was an increasingly 

poor, minority population with little social mobility and a significant need for social 

services. 

Many private investors have left Camden, and the city has become increasingly dependent 

on state and federal funding to provide basic services. In fact, the city’s problems have 

become so great that in July 2002, the governor of New Jersey signed legislation to allow 

the state to take over the city. A chief operating officer has been appointed to oversee and 

reorganize the city’s operations. As part of the state takeover of city operations, New 

Jersey State police have joined Camden police to address local crime problems. 

To date, the McGuire Gardens neighborhood—known as McGuire/Marlton—is one of 

the poorest neighborhoods in Camden and has struggled to curb the devastating 

impacts of social and economic distress. Currently, the neighborhood’s social isolation 

is extreme. Approximately 94 percent of residents are African American or Hispanic, 

nearly 20 percent are unemployed, 54 percent do not have a high school diploma, and 

only 16 percent are working in professional or managerial occupations. In addition, 

nearly one-quarter of the neighborhood’s housing stock lies vacant. Renters occupy 

three-fifths of all occupied housing units. 

There has been little economic or housing development in McGuire/Marlton in recent 

years. There are a few locally-based organizations attempting to revitalize the 

neighborhood but their efforts are piecemeal—literally one house at a time. The area’s 

commercial strip boasts a new gas station and a roller skating rink built adjacent to 

McGuire Gardens. Beyond that, little has changed in the mix of struggling commercial 

businesses—a Laundromat, a liquor store, a grocery store, and several convenience stores 

and fast food establishments. 

It is unlikely that the McGuire Gardens redevelopment alone will spur serious 

revitalization in this community. Substantial additional public investment will be 

needed. One optimistic local observer noted that the recovery will be slow and that it 

may take 30 years to revitalize East Camden. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 128 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The crime rate in the Lockwood Gardens neighborhood decreased dramatically in the 1990s, 

but most of the change occurred before HOPE VI and local observers attributed it to security 

measures undertaken using non-HOPE VI funding (e.g., Public Housing Drug Elimination 

Program funds). Despite the decrease, the neighborhood still has serious drug and violence 

problems. Nearby retail is also limited to fast food restaurants, convenience, and liquor stores. 

Several storefronts are vacant and the parking lots are littered with glass. Furthermore, the 

neighborhood is still extremely poor and dominated by public housing. However, the Oakland 

Housing Authority was awarded a HOPE VI grant to revitalize an adjacent distressed and 

crime-ridden public housing development, Coliseum Gardens. The Coliseum redevelopment 

plan calls for mixing public and non-public housing households and adding 100 

homeownership units in the neighborhood. Given the small size of the existing homes and the 

preponderance of low-income neighborhoods in East Oakland, the neighborhood is not likely 

to see large changes in the income mix of residents. Nevertheless, the combined revitalization 

of both developments has great potential for increasing the quality of life in the neighborhood. 

The Hillside Terrace neighborhood in Milwaukee experienced a 16-percentage-point drop in its 

poverty rate between 1990 and 2000. Other positive indicators include a decline in the share of 

high school dropouts and in the unemployment rate. The neighborhood also experienced 

negative changes, such as a decrease in population and an increase in the vacancy rate. While 

the observed changes in the neighborhood reflect a fully reoccupied development, much of the 

change can also be explained by a 25-percent decrease in the number of units at Hillside and 

the substantial vacancy in a nearby HOPE VI development (Lapham Park) at the time of the 

2000 Census. However, changes in the characteristics of Hillside residents pre- and postHOPE VI also account for some other positive outcomes. To the north of the development are 

three modest-sized non-public housing developments, one of which is subsidized. A small 

number of single-family and four- to eight-unit buildings are also in the neighborhood. The 

second HOPE VI development was completed and partially reoccupied by early 2003. A 

census today would likely show all positive changes in the neighborhood since 1990, except 

the population is probably still lower because of the reduction in units at the HOPE VI sites. 

Hillside is a few blocks from downtown Milwaukee, but is an isolated residential site 

bordered by a highway and light industry. Only the northern border of the development has 

residential housing. Nonetheless, as of 2003, there are several positive trends in nearby 

neighborhoods that have the potential to vastly improve the desirability of the Hillside 

neighborhood. The highway ramp on the southern border of Hillside is being torn down, 

freeing 25 acres between Hillside and downtown for new development by 2004. The 

Brewer’s Hill neighborhood to the northeast has experienced resurgence and several 

abandoned industrial buildings along the river (about three-quarters of a mile to the East) 

have been converted to trendy lofts and condos. PHA staff and other local observers did not 

attribute these activities to HOPE VI, but stated that the nearby redevelopment has been more 

successful and will likely stretch closer to Hillside because of the HOPE VI improvements. 

In fact, PHA staff said that if Hillside had not been recently revitalized, there would have 

been pressure to demolish it to make room for more upscale development given other 

neighborhood trends. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 129 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several other more modest neighborhood improvements were attributed to the HOPE VI 

redevelopment. A commercial baker adjacent to the development tore down a fence separating 

his property from Hillside, and repainted and relandscaped the property. A PHA staff member 

reported the owner told him that the changes were a result of the improvements at Hillside. Other 

development activities that local observers partially attributed to HOPE VI include a new 

headquarters for the Milwaukee Boys and Girls Club that was built on vacant land across the 

street and two 12-unit condominium developments that were constructed in the neighborhood. 

6.2.4 Conclusions 

Viewed as a whole, the majority of HOPE VI neighborhoods improved from 1990 to 2000 

and several are much less socially isolated than at the start of the decade. However,

improvement varied among the sites and the current conditions of these neighborhoods are

mixed. Most communities began the decade in serious distress and improved throughout the 

decade, but still confront considerable challenges. No HOPE VI neighborhood grew 

markedly worse over the decade. 

Based on the observations of key local informants, it can be concluded that neighborhood 

improvements can be attributed to HOPE VI redevelopment at some sites. For example, local 

stakeholders in Charlotte indicated that the HOPE VI initiative was the catalyst for broader 

neighborhood revitalization and became the foundation for the construction of a new 

residential neighborhood. In Atlanta, the HOPE VI development was considered critical to the 

Atlanta School Board’s decision to build a state-of-the-art magnet school177 adjacent to the site. 

Yet, while the HOPE VI program was an important factor that likely contributed to the 

revitalization of these surrounding neighborhoods, the nature of this relationship is unclear. 

Establishing clear and significant linkages between a HOPE VI redevelopment initiative and 

neighborhood effects requires a more rigorous statistical approach. The final section in this 

chapter utilizes an econometric model to explore the relationship between HOPE VI 

redevelopments and changes in property values. 

6.3 The Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhood Property Values 

One of the possible outcomes of the HOPE VI program is that rehabilitating or rebuilding a 

distressed public housing development will increase property values in the surrounding 

neighborhood. Property values in the neighborhood may respond favorably either to physical 

improvement of the HOPE VI site or to changes in the characteristics of HOPE VI residents. 

This assumption has recently become the subject of study. 

Several studies that attempt to examine empirically the effect of public or assisted housing 

developments on neighboring property values have examined whether the presence of public 

housing—not redeveloped public housing—depresses surrounding neighborhood property 

177 Children from Centennial Place have first priority for enrollment in the school. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 130 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

values.178 However, most of the studies failed to control for a neighborhood’s housing market 

price levels and trends before the development of subsidized housing. As a result, the studies 

are unable to determine whether the presence of subsidized housing leads to a decline in 

neighborhood property values or whether subsidized housing is systematically located in 

areas with declining property values. These earlier studies have also been criticized for 

failing to account for spatial econometric issues. Concerns over the spatial dependence 

(autocorrelation) among proximate home prices suggest that the property value associated 

with a home in a particular location is not independent of the prices of other homes nearby. If 

left uncorrected, spatial dependence leads to biased parameter estimates and false t-tests for 

statistical significance. Thus, most of the existing research must be interpreted with caution. 

A few recent studies have overcome these shortcomings and offer the most promising 

methodology for studying the effects of HOPE VI developments on surrounding 

neighborhood housing markets.179 These studies have found statistically significant price 

effects, both positive and negative, that vary depending on the types of neighborhoods that 

contain the subsidized housing. We use this approach to study the effects of HOPE VI on two 

neighborhoods in our study with a large enough number of owner-occupied, single-family 

home sales for the methodology to be feasible. 

6.3.1 Methodology 

The methodology is based on a hedonic price index that describes the “quality” of each 

housing unit as a package of various characteristics. The quality of the house, or its “hedonic 

value,” is a function of its physical characteristics, neighborhood attributes, and local public 

services.180 The price of the house is a function of its hedonic quality. The empirical tool for 

statistically deconstructing sales prices into the constituent package of attributes is a multiple 

regression equation. The log sales price is typically used as the dependent variable in the 

equation, and an array of physical, neighborhood, spatial, and other relevant characteristics 

are the independent variables (described in more detail in Appendix E). 

The distinct feature of this approach, and its main improvement over most prior studies 

(many of which also use hedonic house price estimates), is the use of a pre/post design that 

compares both levels and trends of house prices in the surrounding neighborhood both before 

and after key milestones of the HOPE VI redevelopment initiative. Using a period in time 

before the start of the redevelopment initiative as the baseline for establishing what prices 

would have been in the absence of the redevelopment, the pre/post design measures changes 

178	 Briggs, Darden, and Aidala, 1999; Cummings and Landis, 1993; De Salvo, 1974; Goetz, et al., 1996; Guy

et al. 1985; Lee, Culhane, and Wachter, 1999; Lyons and Loveridge, 1993; Nourse, 1963; Warren et al.,

1983. 

179	 Ellen, et al., 2001; Galster, Tatian and Smith, 1999; Galster, et al., 2000; Santiago, Galster, and Tatian, 

2000; Schill, et al., 2002; Schwartz et al., 2002. 

180	 Santiago, Galster, and Tatian, 2000, p. 69. For additional information on the definition and use of a hedonic 

price index, see: Rothenberg et al., 1991, chapter 3. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 131 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in both price levels and trends in the area near a HOPE VI site after the announcement of the 

grant, the start of demolition, and the start of construction. It is the examination of these 

changes that provides evidence for inferring the impact of the HOPE VI redevelopment. 

Applying this methodology is sensitive to: 

• site selection; 

• definition of the impact area (i.e., the surrounding neighborhood); 

• definition of the pre/post period; and 

• sample size. 

Site selection hinges on three conditions. First, the methodology requires that a sufficient 

number of single-family housing units exist in the neighborhood to ensure an ample number of 

home sales during the study period. HOPE VI sites with a paucity of home sales in the 

immediate vicinity could not be included in the analysis. Also, the presence of other major 

events in proximity to the HOPE VI site can obscure the potential association between the 

latter’s effects on property values, especially when these other events are roughly concurrent 

with the HOPE VI revitalization. Potentially positive impacts from a HOPE VI redevelopment 

might be offset if the neighborhood suffered a major blow at the same time, such as a 

catastrophic fire or the closing of a major local employer. Lastly, home sales data with 

property-level characteristics are not easily available, and the comprehensiveness of available 

data varies considerably from one county to another. Obtaining high quality property-level data 

is important, since the predictive accuracy of the model depends on measuring as many 

explanatory variables as possible. 

Given these conditions, only Bernal Dwellings in San Francisco and Monterey Place in New 

Haven (formerly Elm Haven) were selected for this quantitative analysis. The remaining sites 

were deemed inappropriate, either because there were an insufficient number of owneroccupied, single-family home sales; because other major redevelopment initiatives were 

ongoing near the site; or because home sales data were unavailable for these areas. 

Both the definition of the impact area and the pre/post period are contingent upon an 

adequate number of single-family home sales, since the model must have sufficient sales to 

estimate price trends within the impact area both before and after key redevelopment 

milestones. This analysis defines a single 2,000-foot ring centered on each site as the impact 

area,181 and tests for three pre/post periods defined by the date on which the HOPE VI grant 

was awarded, the start of demolition, and the start of construction. These dates, presented for 

181 Past studies have used a series of concentric circles centered on each site and extending 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 miles 

from the site to measure price effects at various distances. An effort was made to replicate these concentric 

circles but due to the limited number of home sales this approach could not be used. The number of home 

sales within close proximity to the sites was especially limited before the announcement of the HOPE VI 

award and after the start of construction since there were only a few years (or quarters) worth of data. The 

lack of data also prevented the measurement of post reoccupancy effects at Bernal Dwellings. Reoccupancy 

at Monterey Place is ongoing. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 132 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bernal Dwellings and Monterey Place in Exhibit 6-6, were all used because property value 

impacts could potentially occur as a result of each event. The announcement of the HOPE VI 

grant may spur land speculation in the surrounding area if homeowners expect the 

neighborhood to become a better and more desirable place to live as a result of the 

redevelopment initiative. The demolition of these sites removes a neighborhood eyesore and 

pushes some undesirable elements out of the neighborhood. This event could also result in 

increased property values, if demand for housing in the area rises. The start of new 

construction is a clear sign of neighborhood revitalization and could, similarly, attract new 

home purchasers to the neighborhood. However, since the period following the start of 

construction included only a small number of years worth of the data, it was not possible to 

capture the full price impact of the selected HOPE VI developments. This restriction is 

discussed in more detail below. 

Exhibit 6-6 

Pre/Post Dates for Bernal Dwellings and Monterey Place 

Grant Award Start of Demolition Start of Construction 

Bernal Dwellings August 1993 May 1997 December 1999 

Monterey Place November 1993 June 1996 December 1998 

Sources: Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Bernal Dwellings and Plaza East in San Francisco, California, 

March 2003; Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Monterey Place in New Haven, Connecticut, December 2001. 

Both theory and evidence strongly suggest that the analysis sample should be confined to 

housing submarkets that are representative of the dwellings in HOPE VI neighborhoods. 

Theoretically, the segmentation of a housing market into submarkets is based on housing 

quality, which is in turn a function of a dwelling’s total package of attributes (i.e., physical 

characteristics, neighborhood attributes, and local public services).182 The price of a house is the 

market value placed on its overall housing quality, or in terms of the hedonic function, the sum 

of the implicit prices paid for each physical, neighborhood, and local public sector attribute. 

The underlying principle is that dwellings with a different package of attributes will sell for 

different prices and that a dwelling’s sales price can be predicted by measuring the amount of 

each attribute, multiplying that amount by its implicit price, and then aggregating everything.183 

However, the implicit price for a particular characteristic in a low-quality submarket is very 

likely to be valued differently than the implicit price for the same characteristic of a home in an 

upscale community. For instance, the implicit price for a quarter-acre plot of land in an affluent 

neighborhood (i.e., a high-quality submarket) will likely be valued higher than a quarter-acre 

plot of land in a distressed environment (i.e., a low-quality submarket). Thus, the precision of 

182 For instance, a dwelling with very desirable physical characteristics located in a decent neighborhood and 

supported by an array of public sector services will fall into a higher-quality submarket than a dwelling with 

less desirable physical attributes located in a distressed environment and lacking public sector services. 

183 Galster, Tatian and Smith, 1999, pp. 884-885. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 133 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

the hedonic price index relies on a comparison of dwellings within the same submarkets. 

Empirically, this was found to be the case.184 

The challenge in producing a sample that is representative of the dwellings in HOPE VI 

neighborhoods is identifying a practical and precise measure for housing quality. We 

considered several measures of housing quality and concluded that sales price was the best 

indicator since prices measure in summary form all the dimensions of housing quality. That 

is, housing prices aggregate the value placed on each property characteristic, neighborhood 

attribute, and local public sector service.185 Accordingly, the analysis sample was restricted 

to all home sales in San Francisco County and New Haven County with a home sale price 

less than the counties’ median value by each quarter from 1990 to 2000. This stratification 

procedure limits the sample to dwellings in the low- to moderate-quality submarkets. 

6.3.2 Data 

Data for all single-family home sales from 1990 to 2000 in San Francisco County and New 

Haven County were purchased from a private data vendor (DataQuick). The data include 

information from county tax rolls on each property and cover information on a home’s most 

recent transaction and a home’s past two historical sales.186 Each record includes sales price 

and date of transaction, an array of property-level characteristics,187 longitude and latitude 

coordinates, and census tract geographic identifiers. 

184 To confirm this assumption statistically, Chow-tests were generated to verify whether the coefficients in the 

regression models were the same in two separate subsamples composed of either below median-priced homes 

or above-median priced homes, when compared to the combined dataset (Ho: β1 = β2 = β). The results 

indicated that in both San Francisco [F (215, 51658) = 78.167] and New Haven [F (110, 5257) = 20.05] the 

null hypothesis was rejected and the coefficients were not the same among the stratified subsamples. 

185 Other studies similarly use sales price as a measure for housing quality, see Rothenberg et al., 1991. It is 

important to note that independent variables are typically used to stratify a sample since stratification based 

on the dependent variable—the variable that is being explained—will exclude observations that may 

potentially contribute to the statistical significance of the parameter estimates. The use of independent 

variables, such as a dwelling’s square footage or lot size, were considered but they could not fully capture a 

dwelling’s overall housing quality since they do not measure other contributing factors (i.e., all physical 

characteristics, neighborhood attributes, or local public sector). Nevertheless, the analysis was conducted 

using the full sample to determine whether estimates were sensitive to the stratification procedure, and the 

results are presented below. 

186	 With the exception of sale price and transaction date, property-level characteristics were available only for 

the most recent transaction. These characteristics were appended to the respective home’s historical 

record(s), if present, which assumes that these property-level characteristics did not change over time. This 

assumption, while not fully accurate, is defensible since many of the property-level characteristics (e.g., 

number of stories, year built, and lot size) used in the analysis tend to be static. 

187 The property-level characteristics in San Francisco included number of bathrooms, year built, lot size, 

number of rooms, square footage, and number of stories. Data coverage was more comprehensive in New 

Haven, and property-level characteristics included the same variables from San Francisco supplemented by 

two dummy variables separately indicating the presence of a fireplace and a garage/carport. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 134 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

Exhibit 6-7 

Number of Home Sales Near Bernal Dwellings and Monterey Place in the Stratified 

Sample, Before and After Major Redevelopment Milestones, 1990 to 2000 

Grant Award Start of Demolition Start of Construction
 

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
 

Bernal Dwellings 

Inside 2,000 ft. ring 238 630 563 305 792 76 

Outside 2,000 ft. ring 5,496 19,455 13,974 10,977 21,884 3,067 

Total	 5,734 20,085 14,537 11,282 22,676 3,143 

Monterey Place 

Inside 2,000 ft. ring 13 120 55 78 78 55 

Outside 2,000 ft. ring 253 2,307 883 1,677 1,739 821 

Total 266 2,427 938 1,755 1,817 876 

Source: DataQuick data on home sales in San Francisco and New Haven between 1990 and 2000. 

There were 54,949 records (including 23,892 current and 31,057 historical records) in San 

Francisco County, and 6,742 records (including 3,031 current and 3,711 historical records) in 

New Haven County. Atypical records that were either extremely large or extremely small 

homes were deleted from the analysis188 to reduce the chance of extreme outliers biasing the 

estimates. After stratifying the sample by median sales price calculated for each year and 

quarter and deleting above-median sales, the data files used in the analysis contain 25,819 

home sales in San Francisco and 2,693 observations in New Haven (see Exhibit 6-7). Within 

the 2,000-foot impact area, there are a total of 868 home sales near Bernal Dwellings and 133 

sales near Monterey Place.189 

6.3.3 Results 

Overall Trends in Sale Prices 

Figures 6-6 and 6-7 graphically present the average sales price by year and quarter for New 

Haven and San Francisco. The figures show overall, unadjusted sales trends for three 

separate samples: the full sample of countywide home sales; the subsample of home sales 

below the county’s median value by year and quarter; and home sales below the county’s 

median value by year and quarter and within 2,000 feet of the HOPE VI site. 

188	 Extremely large homes were those with 10+ rooms, more than 4 stories, or more than 20,154 square feet. 

Extremely small homes were those with one room, no bathroom, or fewer than 144 square feet. 

189	 After stratifying the sample to below-median prices, 509 homes sales within 2,000 feet of Bernal Dwellings 

(out of 1,377 total sales located in the impact area) and 14 homes sales within 2,000 feet of Monterey Place 

(out of 147 total sales located in the impact area) were dropped from the analysis. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 135 
 

A

vera

ge S

ale Price 

Figure 6-6 

Average Home Sale Price in New Haven by Year and Quarter, 1990 - 2000 

$0

$20,000

$0 

$40,000

$60,000

$40,000 

$80,000

$100,000

$80,000 

$120,000

$140,000

$120,000 

$160,000

1

$160,000 

2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

Demolition Started 

June 1996 une 1996 

Construction Started 

December 1998 

Award Date 

November 1993

$20,000 

$60,000 

$100,000 

$140,000 

1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 

1993 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

A Year and Quarter, 1990-2000 ll Home Sales 

All Homes Sales Below Median Value 

All Homes Sales Below Median Value & within 2,000 feet of Elm Haven 

(When there is no data value for a pa for a particular quarter, this indicates that no home sales were recorded in the quarter.) quarter.) 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 136 
A

vera

ge S

ale Price 

Figure 6-7 

Average Home Sale Price in San Francisco by Year and Quarter, 1990 - 2000 

$700,000 $700,000 ion Started 

$600,000 $600,000 

$500,000 $500,000 

$400,000 $400,000 

$300,000 $300,000 

$200,000 $200,000 

$100,000 $100,000 

$0 

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Demolition Started 

May 1997 

Construct

December 1999 

Award Date 

August 1993

2 4 2 

1993 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Year and Quarter, 1990-2000 All Home Sales
 

All Homes Sales Below Median Value
 

All Homes Sales Below Median Value & within 2,000 feet of Bernal Dwellings
 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 13
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

As Figure 6-6 demonstrates, countywide home sale prices in New Haven fluctuated 

throughout the decade. All home sales peaked in the third quarter of 1993 (with a mean sales 

price of $143,381) and reached their nadir in the first quarter of 1996 (with a mean sales 

price of $75,996). The countywide average sale price throughout the 1990s was $93,089. 

Among homes with below-median sale values, the trend mirrored the countywide pattern, but 

was noticeably more erratic among homes located within 2,000 feet of Monterey Place.190 

The homes with below-median values situated near Monterey Place typically had much 

lower average sale values ($34,383) during the decade than homes in similar housing 

submarkets but not in the vicinity of the site ($51,395). Moreover, the price trend among 

these homes did not react in any discernable manner following the announcement of the 

HOPE VI grant, the start of demolition, or the start of construction. 

In San Francisco, average home sale prices across San Francisco County were relatively 

unchanged from 1990 to 1996, and then sharply increased from 1997 to 2000. The steep 

increase in average sales values began in the first quarter of 1997 (at which the mean value 

was $290,829), just before the start of demolition for Bernal Dwellings. Sales prices 

appreciated at a steady rate through 2000, reaching an average value of $594,761. Similarly, 

average sales prices for homes with below-median values remained nearly static until the 

first quarter of 1997 and subsequently increased through 2000. These homes began the 

decade with an average price of $187,882 and ended the decade with an average value of 

$368,017, nearly a two-fold increase. Homes with below-median values located within the 

impact area also remained unchanged from 1990 through 1997 and appreciated thereafter. 

These homes had slightly lower average prices ($206,547) during the decade than other 

below-median priced homes that were not proximate to the site ($208,854), and were valued 

only slightly higher from the first quarter of 1999 through the third quarter of 2000.191 House 

price trends for homes in the impact area did not change markedly after the announcement of 

the HOPE VI grant, after the start of demolition, or after the start of construction. 

Overall, these figures suggest that price levels or trends among homes with sale prices 

below-median value and near the HOPE VI sites did not change considerably after any of the 

HOPE VI milestones. Price trends for homes in the target area mirrored the price trends of 

other homes countywide. 

Econometric Models 

The results from the multiple regression models are presented in Exhibit 6-8. Overall, nearly 

all of the coefficients associated with the control variables (e.g., physical, census tract, and 

spatial characteristics) were significantly different from zero and had the expected signs. For 

190	 The sizable increases and decreases in sale price, especially from 1990 to 1993 results, in part, from the 

smaller number of records for that period within Monterey Place’s impact area. 

191	 Between the first quarter of 1999 to the third quarter of 2000, the average value for homes with belowmedian values was $215,526 countywide. The average value for homes with below-median values located 

in the target area was $229,131. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 138 
Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 139

example, property-level characteristics that are frequently associated with higher property 

values (e.g., number of rooms or square footage) did in fact contributed significantly to 

increased sale prices. The model was able to explain more of the sale price variance in New 

Haven (adjusted R-square was 0.37) than in San Francisco (adjusted R-square was 0.25), 

which is likely because of the more comprehensive coverage among property-level 

characteristics in New Haven County. 

The sign on the dummy variable for any home sale within the 2,000-foot ring indicates that 

homes in low- to moderate-quality submarkets that are near Monterey Place or Bernal 

Dwellings were valued less than homes in the same submarkets but not near these sites. 

However, the coefficients associated with this variable were not statistically significant, so it 

is not clear that this pattern would show up in a different sample of home sales in these 

neighborhoods. Nevertheless, this finding underscores the general patterns observed in 

Figures 6-6 and 6-7. 

Exhibit 6-8

Estimated Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors for HOPE VI Impact 

Variables1

Monterey Place Bernal Dwellings

Dummy Variable for Sale in Impact Area –0.521

(0.478)

–0.065

(0.085)

Trend Variable for Sale in Impact Area 0.056

(0.036)

–0.002

(0.008)

Post-Announcement of Grant Award:

Price Level –0.394

(0.318)

0.008

(0.081)

Price Trend -0.055

(0.053)

–0.004

(0.011)

Post-Start of Demolition:

Price Level 0.428

(0.313)

–0.058

(0.102)

Price Trend –0.037

(0.061)

0.019

(0.014)

Post-Start of Construction:

Price Level –0.469

(0.371)

–0.004

(0.176)

Price Trend 0.094

(0.062)

–0.05

(0.049)

1 In the multiple regression equation (see Appendix D) the dummy variable for the impact area is labeled DAll2k, and the trend variable 

for the impact area is represented by Time2k. Also, the variables for changes in the level of prices post-announcement, -demolition, and 

-construction are DPostAnn2k, DPostDem2k, and DPostCon2k, respectively. The variables for changes in price trends following these 

same HOPE VI milestones are TrPostAnn2k, TrPostDem2k, and TrPostCon2k.

None of the variables that test for changes in the levels and trends of home prices were found 

to be statistically significant in either New Haven or San Francisco. Homes sales after the 

announcement of the HOPE VI grant, the start of demolition, or the start of construction did 

not significantly differ in price levels or trends compared with homes that sold before these 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

HOPE VI milestones. In addition, we tested for the collective significance of all the impact 

variables in both New Haven and San Francisco, and did not find statistically significant 

results.192 These neutral findings raise a few issues. 

First, by stratifying the sample using median sales prices for each quarter from 1990 to 2000, the 

price effect of the HOPE VI redevelopment on higher-valued houses located near the site was not 

captured. To determine whether the stratification procedure affected the parameter estimates, we 

ran the regression on the full samples. In San Francisco, the results were unchanged and no 

statistically significant effects on price levels or trends were found. In New Haven, however, a 

statistically significant (0.05 level) negative impact (-0.582) on the price level was found after the 

announcement of the HOPE VI grant. No other statistically significant effects were found. The 

negative impact may suggest that higher-valued homes193 located within 2,000 feet of Monterey 

Place experienced a 58-percent decrease in prices after the announcement of the HOPE VI grant. 

However, the dramatic, discontinuous shift downward is highly uncharacteristic of housing 

market fluctuations and may be misleading if, as we believe, the hedonic price function behaves 

differently for houses in higher-quality submarkets. 

Second, it is possible that the limited number of home sales within 2,000 feet of Monterey 

Place was insufficient to fully detect significant price effects. We deconstructed the 

econometric model by running three regression equations that separately tested for postannouncement, post-start of demolition, or post-start of construction effects on price levels 

and trends.194 Both the equations that modeled post-announcement and post-start of 

demolition effects did not find statistically significant impacts. However, the post-start of 

construction model did reveal a statistically significant (0.05 level) negative impact (-0.621) 

on the price level. These results suggest that property values near Monterey Place dropped 

substantially after the start of construction when compared with homes outside of the target 

area. This impact may result from the large, albeit temporary, disruption to the neighborhood 

that is associated with the construction of a large housing development. Large-scaled 

construction projects often require massive equipment that results in street closures, loss of 

parking, decrease in pedestrian traffic, and noise pollution. In addition, the start of 

construction is a clear indication that public housing residents will soon be returning to the 

neighborhood, which perhaps generates negative perceptions about the neighborhood’s 

stability in the future. 

192	 The results indicated that in both New Haven [F (6, 2586) = 1.73] and San Francisco [F (6, 25623) = 0.72] 

the F-test was not statistically significant. 

193	 The average sale price of the 14 homes located within the target area but dropped from the analysis due to 

stratification was nearly double the average sale price of homes in the target area and remained in the 

stratified sample. 

194	 Each of the three regression equations had four impact variables, rather than the eight impact variables in 

the full model. The impact variables included the dummy variable for any sale in the impact area, the trend 

variable for any sale in the impact area, and the price and trend variables for the post-HOPE VI milestone 

in question. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 140 
 

Third, data for this analysis could not be obtained for sales occurring after 2000. As a result, 

in San Francisco, only five quarters of information about post-construction impacts 

contributed to the regression. The housing markets around Bernal Dwellings may not have 

reacted quickly enough to the start of construction to register significant price effects. That is, 

it may take more than a few quarters after the start of construction for homeowners to expect 

that the neighborhood will become a more desirable place to live, and thus land speculation 

in the surrounding area has not occurred. 

Moreover, the data and redevelopment timelines also prevented the measurement of price 

effects following the completion of the HOPE VI initiatives in New Haven and San 

Francisco. The redevelopment at Monterey Place continues today and work at Bernal 

Dwellings finished in September 2001. We suspect that post-completion effects would be the 

most interesting impacts to measure within HOPE VI neighborhoods for several reasons. 

Given the difficult track record at many HOPE VI sites and the length of time that often 

elapses before a revitalization project is complete, housing markets around HOPE VI sites 

may not react to the redevelopment until after its completion. Also, HOPE VI neighborhoods 

are very distressed environments and grapple with an assortment of social ills. As a result, it 

may require more than the announcement of a grant, the start of demolition, or the start of 

construction to generate statistically significant price effects in these neighborhoods. 

Lastly, housing sale prices are only one type of neighborhood outcome, and not necessarily 

the most important type of neighborhood impact. Housing values are useful outcomes in that 

other neighborhood-level changes are believed to be reflected in housing values, and price 

effects often form the crux of the contentious “not-in-my-back yard” argument. Yet, in these 

severely distressed neighborhoods, many other outcomes may be equally important, although 

less easily incorporated into a quantitative analysis. Crime rates, drug use, lack of educational 

opportunities, teenage pregnancies, and other social ills are more likely to be viewed as major 

neighborhood problems by residents than property values. 

6.4 Conclusion 

Before redevelopment, most of the HOPE VI neighborhoods in the study were seriously 

distressed communities confronting an array of social and economic challenges. The 

neighborhoods were highly segregated, poor areas characterized by large concentrations of 

poorly educated, unemployed, minority residents. As the HOPE VI redevelopment plans 

evolved, some HOPE VI sites located within these struggling communities incorporated 

neighborhood revitalization goals into their redevelopment plans believing that the long term 

success and viability of the redevelopment was linked to the overall health of the surrounding 

community. 

Over 10 years, some HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced considerable improvement and 

others changed only slightly. The confluence of a strong national economy, local economic 

development initiatives, and a variety of government programs clearly contributed to the 

observed changes at many sites. Yet, many local observers also indicated that the HOPE VI 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 141 
 

redevelopment projects contributed to positive change in their communities. HOPE VI 

catalyzed broader neighborhood revitalization efforts at a number of sites, and led to better 

integration of the public housing sites into the neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods became 

considerably less distressed environments, though the redevelopment initiatives did not result 

in significant impacts on housing prices in the two sites where this was analyzed. 

Today, most of the HOPE VI neighborhoods in the study are at a critical moment in their 

path toward revitalization. There are many uncertainties that may, if events go well, further 

stimulate neighborhood improvement or, if events turn sour, send neighborhoods into 

decline. The health of the national economy and the ability of HOPE VI sites to maintain 

their economic viability are perhaps the most important of the unknowns. The long-term 

fortunes of HOPE VI neighborhoods remain uncertain. 

Chapter 6 - The Effects of HOPE VI on Surrounding Neighborhood & Residents 142 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

7. Conclusions and Future Challenges 

The HOPE VI program has resulted in significant change at all 11 sites covered in this report, 

especially with regard to the sites’ physical appearance, how the properties are managed, and 

the characteristics of residents. This chapter summarizes the major outcomes to date and then 

outlines the challenges that these sites will face in the coming years. The chapter concludes 

with a brief evaluation of the redevelopment solutions that were implemented at these study 

sites 

7.1 A Summary of HOPE VI Program Outcomes 

The redevelopment of a severely distressed public housing project is a long-term initiative 

involving substantial financial and administrative resources. Many of the PHAs that applied for 

HOPE VI funding in 1993 anticipated a much shorter redevelopment period than actually 

occurred. As of mid 2003, 5 of the 11 sites have yet to fully complete their revitalization 

programs, although a significant portion of planned units have been built and reoccupied.195 The 

outcomes discussed in this report reflect the period shortly after some sites were partially 

reoccupied and others were fully reoccupied. It is important to recognize that at most sites the 

characteristics of the development and surrounding neighborhoods are still evolving. As the 

developments mature, nearby housing markets respond to the redevelopment, and resident 

populations stabilize, more can be learned about the ultimate impact of these HOPE VI projects. 

Changes in Resident Characteristics 

Among the most significant program outcomes is the change in resident characteristics at the 

HOPE VI sites. The current residents have higher average incomes, are more likely to be 

working, are more likely to be elderly, and have smaller households. However, as was the 

case before HOPE VI, a majority of households have extremely low incomes, and 93 percent 

are headed by a minority. Of the current residents, 41 percent reported that they lived at the 

HOPE VI site before revitalization. This explains, in part, why the pre- and post- HOPE VI 

public housing residents share some characteristics, such as race. 

At the same time, the presence of non-public housing households is an important reason for 

differences in resident characteristics before and after revitalization. Not surprisingly, the 

overall change in resident characteristics is greatest at the five mixed-income sites—Atlanta, 

Boston, Charlotte, New Haven, and Washington, D.C. The mixed-income developments 

were able to attract households with much greater economic means than public housing 

households. In addition to having higher incomes, the non-public housing households are 

195	 Four other sites from the Baseline Study were not included in this report because of a lack of progress in 

redevelopment. 

Chapter 7—Conclusions and Future Challenges 143 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

more likely to be White, much less likely to be headed by an elderly person, and much less 

likely to have children in their household. 

When the comparison of resident characteristics is restricted to new and returning public 

housing households, there are still substantial differences between the pre- and post-HOPE 

VI residents. Current public housing residents have higher average incomes, are more likely 

to have earned income, and are less likely to have income from welfare. While this mirrors 

national trends for public housing resident incomes, the changes at the HOPE VI sites were 

more dramatic. 

Substantial Improvement in Housing Quality 

Current residents live in substantially better housing than did the former residents of public 

housing at these sites. The most radical transformations have occurred at the seven sites 

where all original units were demolished and replaced with new housing. This included two 

100-percent public housing and five mixed-income developments. Reducing density, 

integrating the sites into the surrounding neighborhoods, and designing the sites to be less 

amenable to crime are important goals for these newly constructed developments. Typical 

features of these developments include two- and three-story buildings that mimic traditional 

residential architecture in the area and offer a mix of apartment and townhouse units; a new 

network of streets to link the site to the surrounding neighborhood; buildings and unit 

entrances facing the street with minimal setbacks; and clearly defined public and private 

open space. While the physical changes are not as dramatic at the rehabilitated sites, there 

have been discernible improvements in their physical livability and desirability. 

All of the mixed-income sites involved new construction, while four of the six 100-percent 

public housing sites were primarily or all rehabilitation. Mixed-income developments differ 

from 100-percent public housing along other dimensions as well. The mixed-income sites paid 

more attention to architectural details and finishes that would be appealing to market-rate 

renters, and two sites built swimming pools and athletic facilities. The mixed-income sites tend 

to have more square footage than the 100-percent public housing sites, while the 100-percent 

public housing sites typically contain a higher percentage of three- and four-bedroom units. 

There are many more elderly units at all sites—especially the mixed-income sites—after 

revitalization. Three of the mixed-income sites—Boston, New Haven, and Charlotte—did not 

have elderly buildings before HOPE VI but added elderly buildings during redevelopment. 

Better Site Management 

All of the HOPE VI developments are better managed than the pre-HOPE VI sites, as 

evidenced by well-maintained common areas and substantially lower vacancy and turnover 

rates. This is true regardless of whether the PHA continues to be responsible for management 

(at three sites) or a private firm has assumed responsibility for management (at eight sites, 

including three 100-percent public housing sites). Based on the comments of property 

managers and a survey of residents, all sites were in good condition a year or more after 

Chapter 7—Conclusions and Future Challenges 144 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

occupancy. Residents of 100-percent public housing and mixed-income developments are 

equally satisfied with their units. 

A Reduction in Crime at Most Sites 

A significant concern of both site managers and residents is a safe environment with low 

levels of crime. Available data indicate that crime rates have declined significantly at these 

sites over the past 10 years, and HOPE VI residents perceive the developments to be safer, 

although the extent of change varies from site to site. Crime rates dropped in most areas of 

the country during this time, so it is difficult to assess the extent to which HOPE VI caused 

the reductions in the crime rate. But interviews with PHA staff and community stakeholders 

suggest that the HOPE VI revitalization is a contributing factor toward reduction in crime in 

most cases. 

Increased Availability of Supportive Services and Community Facilities 

The HOPE VI grants allowed PHAs to offer a richer array of supportive services to residents 

immediately after reoccupancy than had been possible in the past. At many sites, these services 

are offered at newly built or renovated community facilities that are seen as valuable resources by 

HOPE VI residents. These centers offer childcare, Boys and Girls Club programs, and medical 

clinics, as well as office space for case managers and supportive services providers. At several 

sites, the community centers offer resources for neighborhood residents as well. 

Awareness and use of HOPE VI services was much higher at the 100-percent public housing 

sites than at the mixed-income sites. The most commonly used services at both types of sites 

are youth/after school programs, adult education, and childcare. While data were not 

available to assess the outcomes of the services provided, residents who had used services 

reported that they were very satisfied with the services received. 

Improvements in HOPE VI Neighborhood Conditions 

Before redevelopment, most of the neighborhoods in which HOPE VI projects in this study are 

located were seriously distressed communities. The neighborhoods were highly segregated and 

characterized by large concentrations of poorly educated, unemployed residents. Over the past 

10 years, some HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced considerable improvement and others 

changed only slightly. It is difficult to separate the influences of a strong national economy, 

local economic development initiatives, changing neighborhood conditions, and HOPE VI 

investments. However, local observers at a number of sites stated that the HOPE VI 

redevelopment projects played an important role in effecting change in their communities. 

HOPE VI catalyzed broader neighborhood revitalization in some cases and, in all cases, 

resulted in better integration of these sites into the surrounding neighborhoods. 

Chapter 7—Conclusions and Future Challenges 145 
 

 

 

7.2 Future Challenges 

The 11 study sites will face different types of challenges in the years ahead. For a few sites 

the challenges are fairly straightforward—maintaining the property and ensuring it remains 

financially viable. For other sites, the challenges are much more complicated and go beyond 

what is typically within the control of a private property manager or a PHA. This section 

briefly reviews the challenges that one or more of the study sites are likely to confront over 

the next decade. 

Maintaining the Developments 

While all of the developments are now in good physical condition and evictions have been 

relatively few, most private and PHA property managers had some concerns. Some expressed 

concern about “problem tenants,” some of whom were original residents let back into the 

development because of light screening criteria for them. Others were concerned about the 

ongoing availability of supportive services for disadvantaged residents or about crime in the 

surrounding area. Because many of these sites continue to serve a majority of extremely lowincome people and because some are in vulnerable locations, quality property management is 

critical to the long-term viability of these sites. Management staff will need rigorous lease 

enforcement to avoid on-going management issues created by problem tenants. It should not 

be presumed that these sites require fewer operating resources because they are newly 

constructed or recently rehabilitated. 

Deterring Crime 

Safety concerns have the potential to affect the marketability of these developments. While 

all HOPE VI projects are safer than they were before redevelopment, many are in 

neighborhoods where crime remains a problem. As of early 2003, security measures that 

were implemented at some sites as part of the redevelopment are no longer in operation. 

Local respondents at several sites said that sustaining the reductions in crime will be 

challenging in the face of a weaker economy and more limited resources for crime prevention 

and law enforcement. Although much of the effort to reduce neighborhood crime is outside 

the purview of the private property managers or PHAs, reinstating security measures that 

were abandoned because of limited resources should be given top priority. Property 

managers can also contribute to crime deterrence through strict lease enforcement and 

lobbying local police to address problem areas. 

Providing Supportive Services to Disadvantaged Residents. 

Even with the introduction of non-public housing residents, a majority of residents at each 

study site have extremely low-incomes. Further, compared with original residents, many 

more current residents are elderly and may require increasing levels of services as they age in 

place. At virtually all sites, staff are concerned about the sustainability of services once 

HOPE VI funds are exhausted. Study sites that were revisited in 2003 were already 

Chapter 7—Conclusions and Future Challenges 146 
 

experiencing declines in the availability of services to residents as HOPE VI funds dwindled. 

At one site, Camden, the private management company has allocated funds to hire social 

service staff to work with residents because the PHA had not found alternative services to 

assist residents. Several sites discussed the need for fundraising and exploring options for 

endowments to fund services over time. PHAs and private property managers will need to 

work both creatively and industriously to ensure that HOPE VI residents receive the services 

that they need to maintain or gain self-sufficiency. 

Maintaining or Establishing Resident Involvement and Commitment 

At several sites, resident leaders were actively involved in the redevelopment process and 

residents appear committed to maintaining the recent improvements. At these sites, it will be 

important to maintain that same level of commitment over time. At other sites, an entirely 

new neighborhood has been created. Because these developments are still new, a true 

community and community leadership have not yet developed. For these sites, which are 

mostly mixed-income, the challenge will be to create this new community, given the 

variation in income levels and differences in racial and family composition among marketrate, public housing, and Tax Credit households. 

Completing the Redevelopment Work 

Revitalization work at several sites is not yet completed. In early 2003, two sites contained 

unrehabilitated units that are in disrepair and may have a negative effect on the HOPE VI 

revitalized units. Three other sites are also incomplete pending the final phase of 

construction. The full impact of the HOPE VI revitalization will not be known until the work 

is completed and the developments are fully reoccupied. 

Addressing Neighborhood Concerns 

Ultimately, the success of these HOPE VI projects may depend largely on what occurs just 

outside the developments. Several of the 100-percent public housing sites remain in 

somewhat isolated locations where there is very little market-rate housing or commercial 

activity. There is concern about the lack of retail activity (such as a grocery store and 

restaurants) that is important to thriving urban neighborhoods. Further residential and retail 

development is needed in these isolated environments. 

Other HOPE VI neighborhoods are located in dense urban locations that are troubled 

physically and socially. For sites in these locations, the concern is that the surrounding 

neighborhood will have a negative effect on the developments in the long term. 

Neighborhood problems require community-wide involvement. The managers and resident 

leaders should communicate and work with community leaders, recognizing that each is 

integral to creating a strong neighborhood. 

Chapter 7—Conclusions and Future Challenges 147 
 

7.3 HOPEVI Solutions Considered 

The HOPE VI projects in this study reflect a range of solutions to the problems of severely 

distressed public housing. Some public housing agencies chose to make radical changes— 

demolishing all existing structures and building back a mix of units that house both marketrate and public housing families. Other housing agencies chose to tear down all units and 

rebuild public housing on the site. Still others made only modest changes by physically 

rehabilitating units and inviting back to the site many of the original residents. 

Five or ten years from now it will be possible to fully assess which PHAs made the best 

choices—that is, which sites provided a quality housing environment for as many lowincome people as possible and exerted some positive influence on the surrounding 

neighborhood. In the meantime, there is early evidence to suggest that some sites may have 

made better choices than others. 

 In Atlanta and Charlotte, the PHAs chose the most radical redevelopment solution—an allnew mixed- income housing development. In both cases, the sites were in isolated locations 

surrounded by vacant land and nonresidential activity, but not far from downtown. Today, 53 

percent of units at Centennial Place are affordable (public housing or Tax Credit), as are 71 

percent of the units at First Ward Place. 

Even at this early stage, both Centennial Place and First Ward Place have been instrumental 

in bringing new private investment to the surrounding area. Building back an all public 

housing project would likely not have generated private investment in market-rate housing in 

these communities. In addition, over the long term, it is questionable whether another 100-

percent public housing project could have been sustained at either site. While there was a 

greater loss of affordable housing at these mixed-income sites than at other study sites, this 

type of project can be justified if the public investment stimulates private investment in 

vulnerable neighborhoods. 

The San Francisco PHA made a very different choice at Plaza East and Bernal Dwellings. 

Overall, the city has a low vacancy rate and expensive rents, leaving low-income families 

with limited housing choices. While the neighborhoods that surround these two 

developments have some crime problems, they are thriving mixed-use, mixed-income areas. 

The PHA’s decision to build back two modest-sized 100-percent public housing 

developments appears to have been the best choice for these sites. Replacing these with 

mixed-income projects might have exacerbated the tight market conditions for affordable 

housing in the neighborhood while providing no quality of life advantages. 

The experience with HOPE VI to date suggests that HOPE VI projects can provide 

affordable housing and initiate broader neighborhood revitalization. However, this is not a 

one-size-fits-all program. In making funding decisions, federal and local officials need to 

consider what is the most appropriate type of development for that city and that specific 

location. In some cases, this may mean rebuilding a 100-percent public housing project, 

Chapter 7—Conclusions and Future Challenges 148 
 

while in other cases the best choice may be a mixed-income project. In some instances, the 

best use of the site may be nonresidential and the housing placed elsewhere. These 11 study 

sites provide valuable information on the types of choices made and the outcomes to date. 

Chapter 7—Conclusions and Future Challenges 149 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Abt Associates (1996). An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Volumes 1,2, and 3. A 

report produced for HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research. 

Briggs, Xavier de Souza, J.T. Darden, and A. Aidala (1999). “In the Wake of Desegregation—Early 

Impacts of Scattered-Site Public Housing on Neighborhoods in Yonkers, New York.” Journal of 

the American Planning Association, 65(1): 27-49. 

Cummings, Paul M. and John D. Landis (1993). “Relationships Between Affordable Housing 

Developments and Neighboring Property Values.” Working Paper 599, Berkeley, CA: Institute 

of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley. 

De Salvo, Joseph (1974). “Neighborhood Upgrading Effects of Middle Income Housing Projects in 

New York City.” Journal of Urban Economics, 1: 269-277. 

Ellen, Ingrid Gould and Margery Turner. (1997). “Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent 

Evidence.” Housing Policy Debate, 8(4); 833-866. 

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Michael H. Schill, Scott Susin, and Amy Ellen Schwartz (2001). “Building 

Homes, Reviving Neighborhoods: Spillovers from Subsidized Construction of Owner-Occupied 

Housing in New York City.” Journal of Housing Research, 12(2): 185-216. 

Galster, George and Sean P. Killen. (1995). “The Geography of Metropolitan Opportunity: A 

Reconnaissance and Conceptual Framework.” Housing Policy Debate, 6(1): 7-43. 

Galster, George, Peter Tatian, and Robin Smith (1999). “The Impact of Neighbors Who Use Section 8 

Certificates on Property Values.” Housing Policy Debate, 10(4): 879-917. 

Galster, George C. , Roberto G. Quercia and Alvaro Cortes. 2000. “Identifying Neighborhood 

Thresholds: An Empirical Exploration.” Housing Policy Debate, 11(3): 701-732. 

Galster, George, Kathryn Pettit, Peter Tatian, Anna Santiago, and Sandra Newman (2000). The 

Impacts of Supportive Housing on Neighborhoods and Neighbors. Report to HUD, Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute. 

Goetz, Edward G., Hin Kin Lam, and Anne Heitlinger (1996). “There Goes the Neighborhood? The 

Impact of Subsidized Multi-Family Housing on Urban Neighborhoods.” Minneapolis, MN: 

Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. 

Guy, D. C., J. L. Hysom, and S. R. Ruth (1985). “The Effect of Subsidized Housing on Values of 

Adjacent Housing.” AREUEA Journal-Journal of the American Real Estate & Urban Economics 

Association, 13(4): 378-387. 

Jencks, Christopher and Susan Mayer. 1990. The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor 

Neighborhood. In Inner-City Poverty in the United States, ed. Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. and Michael 

G.H. McGreary, 111-86. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

References 150 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lee, Chang-Moo, Dennis Culhane, and Susan Wachter (1999). “The Differential Impacts of Federally 

Assisted Housing Programs on Nearby Property Values: A Philadelphia Case Study.” Housing 

Policy Debate, 10(1): 75-93. 

Lyons, Robert F. and Scott Loveridge (1993). “An Hedonic Estimation of the Effect of Federally 

Subsidized Housing on Nearby Residential Property Values.” Staff Paper, St. Paul, MN: 

Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota. 

Newman, Sandra J., ed. 1999. The Home Front: Implications of Welfare Reform for Housing Policy. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 

Nourse, Hugh. (1963). “The Effect of Public Housing on Property Values in St. Louis.” Land 

Economics, 39: 433-441. 

Rothenberg, Jerome, George C. Galster, Richard V. Butler, and John R. Pitkin. (1991). The Maze of 

Urban Housing Markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Santiago, Anna, George Galster, and Peter Tatian (2001). “Assessing the Property Value Impacts of 

the Dispersed Housing Subsidy Program in Denver.” Journal of Policy Analysis and 

Management, 20(1): 65-88. 

Schill, Michael H., Ingrid Gould Ellen, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Ioan Voicu. (2002). “Revitalizing 

Inner-City Neighborhoods: New York City’s Ten Year Plan.” Housing Policy Debate, 13(3): 

529-566. 

Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Ioan Voicu (2002). “Estimating The External Effects 

of Subsidized Housing Investment on Property Values.” Report Presented to NBER Universities 

Research Conference. 

Warren, Elizabeth, R.M. Aduddell, and Raymond Tatalovich (1983). The Impact of Subsidized 

Housing on Property Values : A Two-Pronged Analysis of Chicago and Cook County Suburbs. 

Chicago, IL: Center for Urban Policy, Loyola University of Chicago. 

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public 

Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 

References 151