Comment on Mark Joseph's “Is mixed‐income development an antidote to urban poverty?”

Joseph's analysis of the literature on mixed‐income developments reveals different motives and casts significant doubt on key assumptions about the presumed benefits of that approach. This literature provides more support for the ability of mixed‐income developments to enhance social control and help leverage neighborhood political and economic gains. However, some of those advantages could be achieved for low‐income households through well‐managed housing, careful tenant selection, and good design—without income mixing. Revisiting the early history of public housing suggests some parallels with HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) initiatives and casts doubt on the ability of policy makers to sustain socially engineered communities. The inconclusive endorsement for mixed‐income housing proffered by Joseph's analysis suggests the need for further ethnographic research on these communities, including an analysis of the importance of homeownership, the pattern of engagement with public schools, and the advantages of different kinds of income mixing.