Urban Affairs Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1078087407312179v1
43/6/777    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DeFilippis, J.
Right arrow Articles by Wyly, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
This version was published on July 1, 2008
Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 43, No. 6, 777-816 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1078087407312179

Running to Stand Still

Through the Looking Glass With Federally Subsidized Housing in New York City

James DeFilippis

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Elvin Wyly

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Research and policy on the geography of assisted housing is dominated by a powerful conventional wisdom: Project-based subsidies are presumptively bad because they anchor assisted households in poor, racially segregated neighborhoods, while vouchers are inherently good because they promote deconcentration and integration through tenant choice. Unfortunately, this consensus is based on geographical assumptions that have been subverted by the dramatic restructuring of cities with tight housing markets over the last generation. In this study, we use the case of New York City to analyze these spatial contradictions. Project-based subsidized housing is disappearing from yesterday's poor neighborhoods that have been remade by gentrification at the urban core, while recipients of Housing Choice Vouchers are concentrated in today's poor neighborhoods of color farther from the city center. If the policy goal is to break the link between housing assistance and the stereotypes of "projects" in the worst neighborhoods, then in the case of tight, expensive urban housing markets, voucher-driven deconcentration will be less successful than the preservation of the existing project-based housing stock.

Key Words: housing policy • poverty deconcentration • New York City • assisted housing


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?