There has long been a transatlantic flow of ideas between the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) in everything from cultural trends to political and economic theories and practices. In recent years this flow has included approaches to housing policy, as the public sectors in both countries have turned toward the private sector to help provide affordable housing. This change has been led by policy and practice in the US, where it has occurred to a greater degree. In particular, the US’ HOPE VI program has served as a model for the redevelopment, or regeneration, of housing developments serving very low income families. Characteristics of the model include the use of mixed-financing for the demolition and construction of new housing, private-sector housing developers (both for-profit and not-forprofit) in the construction of new developments that include a mix of deeply subsidized public housing units, moderately subsidized affordable units and unsubsidized rental and homeownership units, and a supportive services component contracted out to other public and/or not-for-profit entities. While this approach to the provision of public and affordable housing has been taking place in the US, there have been efforts underway in the UK to sell social housing units to individual owners and to re-envision community regeneration along the lines of mixedincome communities.

It is within this context that Harris Beider of the Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) in the UK and Susan Popkin and Diane Levy of the Urban Institute (UI) in the US developed an innovative 12-month program of work to compare approaches to community revitalization, community cohesion and sustainable neighborhoods in cities across both countries. The project, which began in January 2008, is sponsored by the Rockefeller, MacArthur and Casey Foundations in the US, and Birmingham City Council, Clapham Park Homes (CPH), Coventry City Council, Notting Hill Housing Group and iCoCo in the UK. A hallmark of the program is the inclusion of public and private housing practitioners, private foundations, and policy researchers, which has allowed for rich learning opportunities between the two countries and across professions.

The program included three components: study visits, policy seminars and reports.

Report to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Cities in both the UK and the US face similar challenges in terms of manufacturing decline, developing healthy housing and neighborhoods, and addressing diversity. Though the problems are similar in certain regards, the historical, policy, and governmental contexts are very different, which have lead to distinct approaches. The sites program  participants visited have been shaped by the relatively more important role of the welfare state and a focus on building and supporting community across race and ethnic lines in the UK and the relatively more
important role of the private sector and a focus on encouraging the  self-sufficiency of individuals and economic integration in the US.

US participants were impressed by the breadth of regeneration plans that included strong community infrastructure, community participation in the planning and approval process, and the deep financial support from the national government. Notable contrasts to participants were the
view of housing as a right and the inability of housing providers to evict a resident unless another housing option is found.

Participants also noted the minimal diversity on the national scale in the UK compared to the US. The ability to talk about race and ethnicity openly and with greater ease than in the US was refreshing; differences in the two countries’ histories around race likely help explain this difference.
UK participants were impressed by the drive and determination of organizations and individuals in the US; the ability to work across private and public sector boundaries combined with the intense entrepreneurial flair that shaped interventions on the ground; and the belief that everyone should have an opportunity to move into home ownership and reduce their dependence on the state.

UK participants were struck by the reticence to talk in-depth about race in the US and the lack of focus on race in housing policy, especially when public housing developments undergoing regeneration were marked by extreme racial segregation. Also surprising was the perspective of black activists in the US that white Americans need to increase their awareness and understanding of race-related issues and concerns if improvements in race relations are to occur. The extremes of poverty and associated problems also stood out to UK participants.

In short, participants from both countries and across professions found much to be admired in each others’ efforts to address the similar  problems each face. UK participants were particularly drawn to the more entrepreneurial approach to regeneration taken in the US while Community Revitalization in the United States and the United Kingdom 15 US participants were impressed by the focus on community and efforts to build and support social community within housing developments.

Urban Institute
2100 M Street, NW
20037 Washington, D.C.
Phone: +1 (202) 833-7200
http://www.urban.org/index.cfm
Diane Levy (Researcher)

31/12/2008

Harris Beider, Diane K. Levy, and Susan Popkin

research

Urban Policy > Social inclusion & integration

Community development