Since the end of World War II, much of the rise and fall of American cities has been documented. As Keynesian economic policies began to fail, cities such as, Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Seattle began implementing new strategies to recover their urban areas. Although many differences exist between these cities, one prevailing ideology is alike to all, neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is simply defined as an ideological rejection of egalitarian liberalism in general and the Keynesian welfare state in particular, with a selective return to classical liberalism (Hackworth 10). Neoliberalism ideals have allowed these cites to appropriate their needs and services to only certain sectors that may be in the most need or repair. Independent
…show more content…
Under neoliberal ideals, public services, such as housing, and the market should be privatized. As Jason Hackworth describes in The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism, a shift from Keynesian economics to a free market economy, has brought many changes to the landscape of many urban American cities. According to Hackworth, “Neoliberal urbanism is highly segmented and far from complete. Public housing, social welfare, and other Keynesian artifacts still exist, and their destruction is neither inevitable nor complete” (Hackworth 175). Despite having a smaller sized public housing sector as compared to other advanced capitalist nations, the United States has issues with the HOPE VI program. Problems with the implementation of HOPE VI include placing tenants in a unit who do not qualify and not appointing housing to those who may need it. There is a lack in the framework of HOPE VI program that does not govern how the choice is made to house tenants in the redeveloped communities. Many cities did not have formal mandates to form councils to negotiate with tenants …show more content…
According to Hackworth, around the United States, the uneven responses to the HOPE VI program were not in the neighborhoods themselves, but “Deeply ingrained geoinstitutional differences that manifest themselves through housing authorities are far more to blame for the differences in quantity and quality of public housing after HOPE VI” (Hackworth 52). Many of these differences can be seen in cities coast to coast such as New York, Chicago, and Seattle. While the federal government plays a less active role in the provision of public housing under glocalization, each locality pursued and enacted HOPE VI grants in different ways (Hackworth 52). New York retained much of their public housing while using HOPE VI grants to demolish, redevelop, and rebuild public housing. New York focused on replacing complexes for their most low income and impoverished areas of the community. During the restructuring process, tenants were well informed and were held a unit in the new developments. Chicago, in contrast, choose to reduce the size of their public housing by removing as many complexes as possible and creating more income diverse environments. Chicago used multiple HOPE VI grants to divest in the amount of public housing infrastructure that they offered and rebuilt fewer more diverse neighborhoods. Most of the neighborhoods that were of focus were some of the cities
Under neoliberal ideals, public services, such as housing, and the market should be privatized. As Jason Hackworth describes in The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism, a shift from Keynesian economics to a free market economy, has brought many changes to the landscape of many urban American cities. According to Hackworth, “Neoliberal urbanism is highly segmented and far from complete. Public housing, social welfare, and other Keynesian artifacts still exist, and their destruction is neither inevitable nor complete” (Hackworth 175). Despite having a smaller sized public housing sector as compared to other advanced capitalist nations, the United States has issues with the HOPE VI program. Problems with the implementation of HOPE VI include placing tenants in a unit who do not qualify and not appointing housing to those who may need it. There is a lack in the framework of HOPE VI program that does not govern how the choice is made to house tenants in the redeveloped communities. Many cities did not have formal mandates to form councils to negotiate with tenants …show more content…
According to Hackworth, around the United States, the uneven responses to the HOPE VI program were not in the neighborhoods themselves, but “Deeply ingrained geoinstitutional differences that manifest themselves through housing authorities are far more to blame for the differences in quantity and quality of public housing after HOPE VI” (Hackworth 52). Many of these differences can be seen in cities coast to coast such as New York, Chicago, and Seattle. While the federal government plays a less active role in the provision of public housing under glocalization, each locality pursued and enacted HOPE VI grants in different ways (Hackworth 52). New York retained much of their public housing while using HOPE VI grants to demolish, redevelop, and rebuild public housing. New York focused on replacing complexes for their most low income and impoverished areas of the community. During the restructuring process, tenants were well informed and were held a unit in the new developments. Chicago, in contrast, choose to reduce the size of their public housing by removing as many complexes as possible and creating more income diverse environments. Chicago used multiple HOPE VI grants to divest in the amount of public housing infrastructure that they offered and rebuilt fewer more diverse neighborhoods. Most of the neighborhoods that were of focus were some of the cities