Mixed use thrives, mixed income often doesn’t
On the ground, mixed-income redevelopments promote order and safety. These are real successes. Urban Institute’s HOPE VI research documented significant drops in fear of crime after relocation and rebuilding.1 But the same work finds weak cross-class ties and persistent stigma—different rulebooks for renters and owners; conflicts over behavior and space. Bridging relationships, the core promise, mostly doesn’t appear.2
I’ve lived in poor and working-class Black, Native American, and Hispanic communities where people were happy because their means and culture aligned. Dignity came from belonging—not from beautiful architecture. Mixed-income policies often overlook that human baseline.
We’ve reconstructed distressed blocks into “mixed-income communities” hoping that proximity to affluence would change outcomes. Streets are safer. Buildings are better. But when poor families live next to wealthier ones, daily comparisons—cars, clothes, summer trips—don’t fade; they sharpen. The relative-income research is blunt: well-being depends more on rank than on absolute income; adolescents are especially sensitive. Studies show poorer youth in richer areas report more depression and social problems. That’s the opposite of cohesion.3,4,5
Design tries to finesse social physics. In the UK, “tenure-blind” and “pepper-potting” disperse affordable homes and make them look identical to market units. Poundbury (~35 percent affordable) n Dorset and Nansledan (~30 percent affordable) in Cornwall exemplify this. Advocates say it feels seamless. However, independent, causal evaluations—such as stigma, churn, school outcomes, and crime—are limited, if they exist at all. Treat claims as promising design practices, not proven success.6,7
Affordable housing awards often highlight this seamless appearance. The bias is structural: as scholars of housing stigma point out, design is used to make poverty less visible rather than less real.2 We don’t want to see the poor; we want to hide them. I’ve worked on projects in Black neighborhoods where designers were shocked by what residents wanted, and residents were shocked by what the design firms proposed. The clash was not accidental. CNU aesthetics and working-class aesthetics are different. The question is simple: who are you building for, and does it serve them?
None of this excuses disinvestment. Safety matters. Better buildings matter. But we’ve oversold what on-site income mixing can do. If “integration” is the goal, why keep inserting a token 20–30 percent of the poor into affluent enclaves and handing out awards when the façades match? Try symmetry: bring market-rate homes, jobs, and real ownership ladders into poorer neighborhoods—paired with credible school improvement. Or fund mobility for young children to low-poverty school zones, which we already know moves the needle.8
A UK reality check: “affordable” there often means percent off market, not US style area median income. If the median flat in Poundbury is £303,456, a 20 percent discounted unit is £242,765. With 10 percent down, that’s ~£218,000 to borrow; at a 4.5× loan-to-income cap you need roughly £48,500 household income. Dorset’s typical incomes are around £32–36k.9 Many locals don’t qualify. Call it what it is: a mixed upper- and middle-income neighborhood, not poor–rich integration.10
There’s also a class culture gap that we often overlook. Working-class families value items like tools, bulk goods, and spare parts because being thrifty is practical. Minimalist apartments with strict service rules punish thrift and cause conflicts long before any “bridging” ties can form. We create neighborhoods for good photos, but people live authentic lives inside. The kind of housing a white-collar household finds comfortable often doesn’t suit a blue-collar household.
Bottom line: mixed-use areas often thrive and boost local economies.11 Mixed-income developments—whether at the building or block level—across large income gaps mainly create order and visual appeal. That “order” or social stability is often achieved by excluding those at the lowest economic levels who don’t meet new income or credit criteria—i.e., the displaced who don’t return. If that’s acceptable—call it improved neighborhood safety and economic renewal—but stop pretending it’s about social integration or mobility. If we want real mobility—i.e., improving the lives of low-income people—invest in it: build decent housing in low-income neighborhoods, creating naturally affordable spaces that reflect how people actually live. And if we give awards for economic integration, we should measure social outcomes, not “seamless” façades.
Notes
1 Urban Institute — Popkin, “Safety Is the Most Important Thing” (HOPE VI safety). Urban Institute link
2 Chaskin & Joseph (2011), “Social Interaction in MixedIncome Developments.” Urban Studies (open PDF). Chaskin and Joseph link
3 Luttmer (2005), “Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and WellBeing.” QJE. Luttmer link
4 Odgers (2015), “Income Inequality and the Developing Child.” Child Development Perspectives. Odgers link
5 Nieuwenhuis et al. (2017), “Being Poorer than the Rest of the Neighbourhood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Nieuwenhuis link
6 Greater London Authority, Housing Design Standards (tenureblind/pepperpotting). GLA link
7 UK House of Commons Library (2023), “What is affordable housing?” Research Briefings link
8 Chetty Hendren Katz 2016
9 Dorset Council Insights, Weekly pay (residents) ~£616. Dorset Council GIS link
10 Rightmove, Poundbury house prices (flats £303,456 avg). Rightmove link
11 Center for Regional Analysis George Mason University, 2010
Bank of England/PRA (2025), LTI 4.5× flowlimit framework (review notice). Bank of England link
UK scheme outcomes on stigma/cohesion are uncertain pending independent longitudinal evaluations.
