The Use of Mixed-Income Housing Development to Address Poverty and Inequality, Based on Delphi Empirical Approach: A Case of South Africa

Since the dawn of democracy in 1994, the Republic of South Africa (RSA) has been trying to address the aftermath and consequences of the apartheid regime. This comprises of the socio-economic, spatial, and political challenges that have persisted over the decades. These have had far reaching repercussions in the society to the extent that 25 years later after apartheid, the country finds itself with alarming rates of poverty, social exclusion, unemployment, and inequality. Literature has revealed that there is a direct relationship between poverty and inequality as well as access to socio-economic services / opportunities. Poor access to these services perpetuates exclusivity and thus inequality and marginalisation in all form and character. The purpose of this study is to investigate how housing developments have been used in South Africa to address poverty and inequality. The aim is to understand how to plan for better and more socially and economically thriving communities through housing development, focusing specifically on aspects of development that contributes to addressing poverty and inequality. Using a Delphi three round method of Inquiry of 20 experts, perceptions from a diverse panel of experts about mixed-income housing development were uncovered. In comparison to previous housing models, the study uncovered a significant paradigm shift in housing development and what a housing intervention should achieve. Since 2004 after the introduction of the Breaking New Ground Policy (BNG), the housing development approaches, and interventions have shifted away from just providing roof over once head to providing social asset to the poor and a whole range economic opportunities. The conclusion is that housing development by virtue of location, diverse housing typologies and tenure options is now part and parcel of integrated planning and the pro poor development agenda.

A post-occupancy evaluation study of a mixed-income gated community in Cibubur, West Java, Indonesia

Gated communities (GCs) have been demonized as a malicious form of urban segregation because they provide a secure neighbourhood and exclusive facilities. The objective of the Indonesian government policy related to balanced housing is to create mixed-income housing in order to foster interaction between social classes in neighbourhoods and reduce the alarming social gap. This study seeks to validate the occurrence of social interaction among different economic strata in a mixed-income GC. To understand social interaction among its residents, the reasons why residents from different economic strata selected their housing are examined. The research methodology includes a post-occupancy evaluation in a mixed-income GC in Cibubur, West Java, Indonesia, an area known for its high quality neighbourhoods and facilities. This study identifies security as a major housing preference factor for many people living in a mixed-income GC. However, the reduced exclusivity of such facilities decreases their usage frequency, giving rise to trans-cluster social interaction within the same class. This finding contradicts the objective of the balanced housing policy because the residents interact with others in a similar social class beyond the segregated walls of the housing clusters.

Welcome in my backyard: how having good neighbours can help ending homelessness

In the Netherlands, the city of Utrecht is leading in providing adequate accommodation through mixed housing projects for ‘regular’ tenants and people previously living in homeless services or protected housing facilities. ‘New’ homeless persons also obtain the possibility for making a new start, instead of having to depend on shelters first. The concept of mixed housing, not to be confused with mixed income housing, relates in our definition to small and medium-sized (up to 500 residents) housing projects that are home to different groups of people who intentionally live next to each other, connect and engage in joint activities.In this paper, we examine three projects, with mainly self-contained dwellings: ‘Groene Sticht’ (since 2003), a small neighbourhood with 69 regular tenants and home-owners, and 35 ex-homeless persons; ‘Parana’ (2014), a purpose build complex with 24 regular and 44 (ex-)homeless individuals/families; ‘Majella Wonen’ (2016), older basic, post-war dwellings with 39 regular tenants and 35 homeless persons/families. These price-winning projects, co-created by a homeless service, social integration services and a social housing provider are built on an innovative concept of social management, with a high level of self-organisation. All residents are fully eligible members of the residents-committees and take responsibility for activities such as festivities, gardening, and the selection of new tenants. If necessary, ex-homeless inhabitants receive individualised support.We discuss structures and mechanisms that help homeless people feel at home amidst their (new) neighbours and foster their social integration. In addition, we identify several tensions that hamper integration and analyse the ways in which both residents and professionals try to tackle these obstacles.We collected data (2016 -2018) through the participatory meetings of a Community of Practice on Mixed housing, the study of documents, in-depth interviews with inhabitants of the housing complexes, focus group-sessions with professionals and interviews with local stakeholders.Based on this research we will apply for follow up funding. Through national funds and/or European funds.

Mitigating the Legal Risks for Landlords Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program

Public housing units are deteriorating while there are insufficient allocations for their renovation or maintenance. In 2012, Congress initiated the Rental Assistance Demonstration (“RAD”) in an attempt to save public housing without the need to apportion additional funds to housing assistance pro- grams. The RAD program converts public housing to mixed-income housing and transfers majority ownership to private developers. Current tenants of these public housing complexes are transferred to mixed-income apartment complexes owned by private landlords and developers who receive a portion of the rent from the tenant and additional rent from the local Public Housing Authority. The success of the RAD program is dependent on landlords and developers voluntarily participating and electing to dedicate units to affordable housing. This Comment discusses the legal exposures these landlords face when participating in RAD, methods of mitigating these risks, and policies to incentivize participation.