Abstract
The redevelopment of distressed public housing under the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program, or HOPE VI, has laudable social, physical, community, and economic goals. Three public housing projects in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio demonstrate the complexity and trade‐offs of trying to lessen the concentration of low‐income households, leverage private resources, limit project costs, help residents achieve economic self‐sufficiency, design projects that blend into the community, and ensure meaningful resident participation in project planning. Although worthwhile and ambitious, HOPE VI cannot achieve all these goals. More of them can be achieved by developing strategies related to the strength of the local real estate market. To that end, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and public housing authorities must use the market‐based tools in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Standards for improved physical design and resident participation and further research on critical supportive services for residents are also needed.

This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit: