Integrating The Inner City: The Promise And Perils Of Mixed-income Public Housing Transformation by Robert J. ChaskinIntegrating The Inner City: The Promise And Perils Of Mixed-income Public Housing Transformation by Robert J. Chaskin

Integrating The Inner City: The Promise And Perils Of Mixed-income Public Housing Transformation

byRobert J. Chaskin, Mark L. Joseph

Paperback | January 25, 2017

Pricing and Purchase Info


Earn 217 plum® points

Prices and offers may vary in store


In stock online

Ships free on orders over $25

Not available in stores


For many years Chicago’s looming large-scale housing projects defined the city, and their demolition and redevelopment—via the Chicago Housing Authority’s Plan for Transformation—has been perhaps the most startling change in the city’s urban landscape in the last twenty years. The Plan, which reflects a broader policy effort to remake public housing in cities across the country, seeks to deconcentrate poverty by transforming high-poverty public housing complexes into mixed-income developments and thereby integrating once-isolated public housing residents into the social and economic fabric of the city. But is the Plan an ambitious example of urban regeneration or a not-so-veiled effort at gentrification?

In the most thorough examination of mixed-income public housing redevelopment to date, Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph draw on five years of field research, in-depth interviews, and volumes of data to demonstrate that while considerable progress has been made in transforming the complexes physically, the integrationist goals of the policy have not been met. They provide a highly textured investigation into what it takes to design, finance, build, and populate a mixed-income development, and they illuminate the many challenges and limitations of the policy as a solution to urban poverty. Timely and relevant, Chaskin and Joseph’s findings raise concerns about the increased privatization of housing for the poor while providing a wide range of recommendations for a better way forward.
Robert J. Chaskin is professor and deputy dean at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration and director of the University of Chicago Urban Network. He is the author or editor of several books, including, most recently, Youth Gangs and Community Intervention. Mark L. Joseph is associate professor in the Jack, Jo...
Title:Integrating The Inner City: The Promise And Perils Of Mixed-income Public Housing TransformationFormat:PaperbackDimensions:363 pages, 9 × 6 × 1 inPublished:January 25, 2017Publisher:University of Chicago PressLanguage:English

The following ISBNs are associated with this title:

ISBN - 10:022647819X

ISBN - 13:9780226478197

Look for similar items by category:


Table of Contents


Part One

1 Concentrated Poverty, Public Housing Reform, and the Promise of Integration
2 Theoretical Assumptions and Policy Orientations
3 Mixed-Income Development in Context: Urban Poverty, Community Development, and the Transformation of Public Housing

Part Two

4 Setting the Stage: The Neighborhood and Development Site Contexts
5 From Physical Transformation to Re-Creating Community: Development Strategies and Inputs
6 Does Social “Mix” Lead to Social Mixing? Emergent Community and the Nature of Social Interaction
7 Space, Place, and Social Control: Surveillance, Regulation, and Contested Community
8 Development, Neighborhood, and Civic Life: The Question of Broader Integration
9 The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing Transformation

Appendix: Methods and Data

Editorial Reviews

“An ambitious, provocative book on the subject of what the authors call “contrived” integration. The aim is to expose the complications of an ‘integrationist agenda’—that is, the effort to integrate people of varying incomes in mixed-income housing developments. . . . The authors’ bottom line is that whatever benefits have been garnered—and there have been some—they do not outweigh the costs. The shift to market rate, mixed-income development essentially squandered limited public funds that might have been used to house more people in need.”