Design and Affordable American Housing
AbstractAmericans have experimented with new models for affordable housing for more than two centuries. The private sector, public agencies, and nonprofit organizations have all played a role. Architecture and site planning have been crucial elements in these efforts, yet they have received scant attention. In arguing that the design of good housing is neither elusive nor subjective, this article explores some of the best practices-and a few mistakes. The article begins with a historical background of diverse endeavors to provide better, more affordable housing for single women, workers, public housing tenants, immigrants, homeless individuals, and low-income families. It then relates this legacy to recent efforts to integrate housing with community development.IntroductionGiven the U.S. history of housing booms and busts and a penchant for novelty, Americans have experimented for more than two centuries with innovations and reforms that promised to produce less expensive, better quality housing for more people. These promises were sometimes marketing ploys or political rhetoric. Public programs have never provided more than 5 percent of total U.S. housing production, and the poorest citizens have often been left out. Nonetheless, the goal of expanding affordable housing has been resonant in the public and private realms, including the fields of architecture and construction.Builders have pursued ways to economize since the late 19th century. Private philanthropists constructed "model tenements," hoping to elevate a deplorable building type with simplified designs, public health, and moral uplift. Experiments with neoteric building materials and construction systems sought to reduce production costs. States and municipalities funded cooperatives. The federal government created the first public housing for the unemployed "deserving poor" during the Great Depression-although the main concerns were job creation and support for the private sector.1The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA's) financial supports for suburbanization joined postWorld War II (WWII) shelter magazines in promoting small, visibly modern "economy houses" for suburban workingand middle-class families-if they lived in White neighborhoods (Harris, 2013).2 Addressing the assisted low-income housing stock, President Lyndon Johnson's 1968 task forces on urban poverty and violence lambasted the shortage of good subsidized housing, yet resolutely condemned modern highrises (NCUP, 1968).These efforts ground to a halt with President Richard Nixon's 1973 moratorium on housing and community development assistance. When federal funding for housing was reinstated, it focused principally on vouchers for private developers. New assisted housing production never again approached the level of the early 1970s. Design innovations persisted in very local and transgressive ways, however, as religious groups and community design corporations built small-scale "contextual" enclaves. By the 1980s and 1990s, urban activists had formed coalitions based on housing issues as varied as gentrification, job training, and historic preservation.Architecture is a crucial element in achieving good housing, yet it usually plays at best a minor role in deliberations about cost and value.3 This contradiction stems in part from fundamental misconceptions. Architecture is not a matter of taste or mere aesthetics. Design quality is crucial to good affordable housing. The skillful organization of interiors, views, public areas, outdoor spaces, and even facades is especially important when budgets and square footage are at a premium (Davis, 2004; Feldman and Koch, 2004; KEA, 2006).As many practitioners and scholars have documented, good design is not elusive or subjective.4 Four themes characterize the best practices, whatever the era, scale, aesthetic, or auspices.1. The direct involvement of residents encourages better design. Diverse groups have asserted their distinctive needs and preferences, sometimes challenging the architects' priorities and the power of cultural norms. …
Low-Income Households' Perceived Obstacles and Reactions in Obtaining Affordable Housing
Low-Income Households’ Perceived Obstacles and Reactions in Obtaining Affordable Housing by K. Mark Leonard Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Administration Walden University November 2018 Abstract Low-income affordable housing remains an issue for the town on Martha’s Vineyard where this study was conducted, in which an estimated 54% of low-/moderate-income households spend more than 50% of monthly income on housing. Using Schneider and Ingram’s work regarding the social construction of target populations as the foundation, the purpose of this qualitative research was to assess how the perceived social standing and political power contributed to determining the benefits and burdens allocated to the town’s low-income households. Data for this study consisted of 14 individual semistructured interviews with members of low-income households who were seeking or in affordable housing. The research concentrated on the obstacles and reactions the lowincome households experienced in the quest for affordable housing. Data were coded and analyzed using a value coding procedure followed by thematic analysis. Three themes emerged from the research: a perception by the participants of not being valued in the community and a lack of attention by town leadership to their affordable housing struggles; a self-reliance to find affordable housing; and coping strategies by renting bedrooms with shared kitchen and living areas or resorting to a 9-month lease and beingLow-income affordable housing remains an issue for the town on Martha’s Vineyard where this study was conducted, in which an estimated 54% of low-/moderate-income households spend more than 50% of monthly income on housing. Using Schneider and Ingram’s work regarding the social construction of target populations as the foundation, the purpose of this qualitative research was to assess how the perceived social standing and political power contributed to determining the benefits and burdens allocated to the town’s low-income households. Data for this study consisted of 14 individual semistructured interviews with members of low-income households who were seeking or in affordable housing. The research concentrated on the obstacles and reactions the lowincome households experienced in the quest for affordable housing. Data were coded and analyzed using a value coding procedure followed by thematic analysis. Three themes emerged from the research: a perception by the participants of not being valued in the community and a lack of attention by town leadership to their affordable housing struggles; a self-reliance to find affordable housing; and coping strategies by renting bedrooms with shared kitchen and living areas or resorting to a 9-month lease and being displaced during the summer tourist season. The research illuminated the low-income community’s housing experiences and perceptions, thereby helping town leaders to form housing policy and make fiscal decisions. The implications for positive social change include recommendations to town leadership to examine incentivizing homeowners to offer affordable rentals, investigating congregate housing solutions, and developing multifamily affordable housing for the town’s low-income households. Low-Income Households’ Perceived Obstacles and Reactions in Obtaining Affordable Housing by K. Mark Leonard Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Administration Walden University November 2018 Acknowledgments I would like to thank the housing authority for their support of my research and the study participants whose sharing of their affordable housing experiences was not only informative but very touching, without their willingness to share their stories this research would not be possible. I would like to express my gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Linda Day for her mentorship, insightful feedback, and constant encouragement to make my dissertation meaningful as a scholar and to the community. I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Gary Kelsey for his timely inputs that shaped the research methodology and direction. Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife Lisa for her continued love and support throughout my doctorate journey and in life.
Ideological Quietism? Ideology and Party Politics in Britain
Ideology and political parties are frequently depicted as disparate entities, with scholars citing a range of exogenous and endogenous changes to demonstrate the decreasing relevance of ideology to party politics. This article moves away from such accounts by looking at the role of actors, and specifically party leaders, in contributing to perceptions of ideological decline. Through an examination of the rhetoric of Labour and Conservative Party leaders in Britain between 1946 and 1997, this article contends that politicians have engaged in, what is termed here, ‘ideological quietism’. In this sense, parties have not abandoned ideology but have made rhetorical shifts indicative of ideological decline.