| Popis: |
Development patterns in the United States have undergone a drastic change in the twentieth century. Thriving urban neighborhoods steadily decayed into neglected ghosts of their former selves. At the same time, suburban development boomed, gobbling up greenfields and contributing to automobile dependence and isolation. Neither option is a stable - or sustainable - solution. Mixed-income neighborhoods, places that have a variety of housing options and where residents are not segregated by income level, offer an alternative development possibility. Many tout the mixed-income theory as a "cure-all" for development problems. Yet these neighborhoods are not readily found in practice. This research examines two mixed-income neighborhoods to determine if what is hyped in theory is true in practice. Case studies were conducted on the neighborhoods of Manchester and Spruce Hill, using characteristics for study gleaned from the literature. Manchester, a central Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania neighborhood, has undergone an incremental revitalization process. Threatened by demolition in the 1960s, Manchester was "rescued" by preservationists and empowered by a local leader. Central to the neighborhood's success was the strong desire to not displace existing residents. Rather, a sustained vision with community buy-in led to long-term success. Spruce Hill, a part of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's University City area, has experienced a more rapid form of revitalization. Neglected for years, Spruce Hill's turning point came when the University of Pennsylvania realized assisting this adjacent neighborhood would be a mutually beneficial prospect. This process, however, has not been without its critics - Penn's sudden interest in the neighborhoods leads to tension and conflict with existing residents who have differing views of the future. Evaluation of the two neighborhoods revealed that physical elements, while important as a preliminary ingredient in a mixed-income area, were not as crucial for success as were socially oriented characteristics. The strength or weakness of community leadership and a neighborhood's social ties can lead to mixed-income success or failure. Additionally, these two seemingly similar neighborhoods exhibited different models of achieving mixed-income status (a "bottom-up" grass-roots approach in Manchester versus a "top-down" in Spruce Hill), allowing for the possibility for many other types of mixed-income models to occur. |
