Public Housing Revisiting Housing for the Masses
Isaac Keller
HOUSING SHORTAGE_cincinnati
40,000 UNITS +6% 8.7% 12,240 people Deficit of housing Increase in median Eviction filing rate in Number of individuals affordable & available gross rent, 2012-2017 2014-2017 served by homeless to low-income system, 2018 households
LISC.ORG HOUSING OUR FUTURE
HOUSING SHORTAGE_nationwide
7.2 MILLION UNITS +6.82% 40 MILLION PEOPLE 570,000 PEOPLE Deficit of housing Increase in median At risk of eviction due Number of individuals affordable & available gross rent, 2012-2017 to Covid-19 served by homeless to low-income system, 2018 households
Abstract
Affordable housing in the United States is slipping out of grasp for millions of Americans every year. In the past cities used public housing as a powerful tool to provide adequate housing for those that were unable to afford housing in the private market. The downfall of public housing as a tool cities use is a complex story that involves changes in policy, changes in public perception, and changes in the built product. Since 1998 no additional federal public housing units have been built, contributing to the existing housing affordability crisis that millions of Americans suffer from. It is time to reexamine public housing as a tool the city and the federal government can use to address the affordable housing crisis. This document will analyze past failures, identify past successes, and re-imagine how a new public housing system would function to address the issues of today and prevent the issues of tomorrow.
1955
2020
Proposal
Cincinnati is primed to become a leader once again in public housing. There is a
new excitement by citizens to provide affordable housing for those that are dealing with the current 40,000-unit deficit. Based on the historical analysis of previous public housing projects in the city and examining planning practices, a few potential sites seem ideally suited for a new large-scale public housing development. The most promising location is situated south of the West End neighborhood directly across from the highway that split the community in half in the 1950s and 60s. This location is underutilized, filled with parking lots scattered office buildings, and gas stations. This new public housing project would connect to West End on the North and Downtown Cincinnati on the East. The design of this development would incorporate Oscar Newman’s best practices by containing multiple building typologies that are specifically suited for different demographics. The building typologies include a boundary building typology, a terrace building typology, and a tower building typology. Additionally, each building will have its own “zone of influence” so that residents can develop a sense of ownership of their building and the areas around it. The remaining areas outside of these “zones of influence” will be highly programmed spaces so that activities and interaction can happen among the residents. To encourage wide public support for the project it would be important that the materials of the buildings and the labor are all regionally sourced. This would provide jobs to the region and general goodwill towards the project from local industry leaders. Growth is also a major consideration for a project like this. Balconies and terraces will be provided for all residents so that they can expand their personal space and activities into the public realm. Growth of the overall development is also important; walkways and bridges extend past the initial site with the hope that the success of the project will accelerate the construction of even more public housing in the future.
HIGH DENSITY 1 ENTRY PER 100-150 UNITS CORE CIRCULATION PRIVATE BALCONIES
SITE STATS 1 TOWER BUILDINGS ~150 UNITS 3/10 OF TOTAL UNITS
RECOMMENDED FOR: ELDERLY WORKING ADULTS
MEDIUM DENSITY 1 ENTRY PER 50-75 UNITS INTERIOR CIRCULATION PRIVATE TERRACES
SITE STATS 6 TERRACE BUILDINGS ~400 UNITS 2/5 OF TOTAL UNITS
RECOMMENDED FOR: WORKING ADULTS FAMILIES W/O CHILDREN
LOWEST DENSITY 1 ENTRY PER 12-20 UNITS EXTERIOR CIRCULATION 1ST & 2ND FLOOR ACCESSIBLE UNITS WALK-UP
SITE STATS 23 BOUNDARY BUILDINGS ~300 UNITS 3/10 OF TOTAL UNITS
RECOMMENDED FOR: FAMILIES W/ CHILDREN
Conclusion
Housing the masses has always been an initial aspiration for public housing in
the United States. This aspiration is the reason that the conversations around building new public housing have never ended. A city, government, and society should aspire to progress to a point where the basic needs of all people are taken care of. While specific policies relating to the financing and development structures may differ from city to city, the idea that certain populations may need assistance from the collective population to cover basic needs is universal. Any city seeking to construct social housing for these vulnerable populations will benefit from looking at their past to develop their own tailored solution. This solution will target populations that have been most hurt by previous planning and policy decisions, heal physical scars in the city that were caused by top-down planning of highways and industrial areas, and provide an optimized mix of well-designed housing typologies to empower the individuals and families that will call this new place their home. These solutions could appear in every city in the United States that struggles with affordable housing. They must be able to be constructed quickly, constructed affordably, and constructed in a way that empowers the lives of the residents that will call them home. In cities throughout the country, this movement is already underway. There is a swell of affordable housing advocates making their voices heard and challenging those in power to act on this issue. These calls to action are similar to the work that the Housers of the 1930s did which resulted in the landmark Housing Act of 1937. This new movement could create a new mandate that results in the vision of the future where there is decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing available for the masses.
Isaac Keller kellerid@mail.uc.edu