Comparing public housing revitalization in a liberal and a Mediterranean society (US vs. Portugal). (April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Varady, David P.; Matos, Fatima
• Is Part Of: Cities. Volume 64(2017)
• Page Start: 37
• Page End: 46
• Publication Date: 2017-04
• Subjects: Housing policy -- Relocation -- HOPE VI -- PER -- Public housing -- Portugal; City planning -- Periodicals; Urban policy -- Periodicals; 711.4
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.01.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-2751

Abstract

Abstract: Little has been written about public housing revitalization in the US (a liberal society) and Portugal (a Mediterranean one) from a comparative perspective. Our paper tries to close this gap. Based on a comparison of HOPE VI (US) and the Special Relocation Program (PER, Lisbon and Porto) we argue that despite major differences in context, there are similarities in the regeneration strategies in the two countries. First, physical improvement efforts at HOPE VI and PER sites have created more attractive places but the areas still suffer from an image problem. Second HOPE VI has a more explicit emphasis on social mixing although lower- middle-income families live in close proximity under PER. Third, neither program has been able to promote social cohesion through citizen participation. Fourth, relocation is more of a problem in HOPE VI. Fifth, both programs have made progress in achieving greater safety but the problem of incivilities and anti-social behavior remains. Finally, although HOPE VI has a more explicit self-sufficiency focus than PER, there is little evidence that that either effort has succeeded. Highlights: Little has been written about public housing revitalization in the US (a liberal society) and Portugal (a Mediterranean one) from a comparative perspective. Our paper tries to close this gap. Based on a comparison of HOPE VI (US) and the Special Relocation Program (PER, Lisbon and Porto) we argue that despite major differences in context, there has are similarities in the regeneration strategies in the two countries. First, physical improvement efforts at HOPE VI and PER sites have created more attractive places but the areas still suffer from an image problem. Second HOPE VI has a more explicit emphasis on social mixing although lower- middle-income families live in close proximity under PER. Third, neither program has been able to promote social cohesion through citizen participation. Fourth, relocation is more of a problem in HOPE VI. Fifth, both programs have made progress in achieving greater safety but the problem of incivilities and anti-social behavior remains. Finally, although HOPE VI has a more explicit self-sufficiency focus than PER, there is little evidence that that either effort has succeeded.