Emerging strategies for revitalizing public housing communities

New Directions in Urban Public Housing

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 121-141

  Epp, Gayle ^a  

^a ABT ASSOCIATES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85070642468     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Abt Associates. 1988. Study of the Modernization Needs of the Public and Indian Housing Stock-National, Regional, and Field Office Estimates: Backlog ofModernization Needs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
2. Cavanaugh, Gordon. 1992. Comment on Kathryn E Nelson and Jill Khadduri's "To Whom Should Limited Housing Resources Be Directed?" Housing Policy Debate 3(1):67-75
3. Epp Associates, TAMS Consultants, Inc., and Swander Associates. 1990. Redevelopment Handbook: Procedures and Design Guidelines for Redeveloping Public Housing. Prepared for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development. Boston
4. Epp, Gayle, and Jonathan Lane. 1992. Capital Improvement Programs and the Physical Condition of Public Housing. In Working Papers on Identifying and Addressing Severely Distressed Public Housing, National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, 5-1-5-55. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
5. Gentry, Richard C. 1993. Comment on Lawrence J. Vale's "Beyond the Problem Projects Paradigm: Defining and Revitalizing 'Severely Distressed' Public Housing." Housing Policy Debate 4(2): 175-82
6. ICF, Inc. 1992. The Modernization Needs of Severely Distressed Public Housing. In Working Papers on Identifying and Addressing Severely Distressed Public Housing, National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, B-I-B-24. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
7. Jones, Ronald, David Kaminsky, and Michael Roanhouse. 1979. Problems Affecting Low Rent Public Housing Projects. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research
8. Kennedy, Shawn G. 1995. Working People to Have Priority for City Housing. New lOrk Times, February 4
9. Kustina, Rick. 1994. Seattle Housing Authority's Experience with the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. In Future Visions of Urban Public Housing: An International Forum, ed. Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, David E Varady, and Francis E Russell, 244-49. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati
10. Lane, Vincent. 1995. Best Management Practices in U.S. Public Housing. Housing Policy Debate 6(4):867-904
11. Lines, Jeffrey K. 1993. Comment on Lawrence J. Vale's "Beyond the Problem Projects Paradigm: Defining and Revitalizing 'Severely Distressed' Public Housing." Housing Policy Debate 4(2): 183-98
12. Marchman, Kevin. 1994. Memorandum on URO Plus: A Tool for Neighborhood Revitalization. Distributed to all URO awardees. February 14. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
13. Meehan, Eugene J. 1979. The Quality ofFederal Policymaking: Programmed Failure in Public Housing. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press
14. Mulroy, Elizabeth A. 1991. Mixed-Income Housing in Action. Urban Land, May, pp. 2-7
15. National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. 1990. The Many Faces ofPublic Housing. Washington, DC
16. National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. 1992a. The Final Report of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
17. National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. 1992b. Case Study and Site Examination Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
18. Nelson, Kathryn P., and Jill Khadduri. 1992. To Whom Should Limited Housing Resources Be Directed? Housing Policy Debate 3(1): 1-55
19. New York City Housing Authority. 1995. Revitalization Plan: Beach 41st Street Houses, HOPE VI Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program. November 15. New York
20. Newman, Oscar. 1980. Community of Interest. New York: Anchor/Doubleday
21. Pader, Ellen J., and Myrna Margulies Breitbart. 1993. Transforming Public Housing: Conflicting Visions for Harbor Point. Places 8(4):34-41
22. Rohe, William M. 1995. Assisting Residents of Public Housing Achieve Self-Sufficiency: An Evaluation of Charlotte's Gateway Families Program. Journal ofArchitectural and Planning Research 12(3):259-77
23. Schnare, Ann B. 1991. The Preservation Needs of Public Housing. Housing Policy Debate 2(2):289-318
24. Seattle Housing Authority. 1994. Holly Park Redevelopment: HOPE VI Urban Revitalization Demonstration Plan. Seattle
25. Shlay, Anne B. 1993. Family Self-Sufficiency and Housing. Housing Policy Debate 4(3): 457-95
26. Shlay, Anne B., and C. Scott Holupka. 1992. Steps toward Independence: Evaluating an Integrated Service Program for Public Housing Residents. Evaluation Review 5:505-33
27. Spence, Lewis H. 1993. Rethinking the Social Role of Public Housing. Housing Policy Debate 4(3):355-68
28. Struyk, Raymond J. 1980. A New System for Public Housing. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute
29. Tise, Hurwitz & Diamond, Inc., and Clyde E. Woods & Associates, Inc. 1995. Concord Village-Eaglecreek Revitalization Plan for the Urban Revitalization Demonstration (URD) Program. Final plan submitted to the Indianapolis Public Housing Agency. Brookline, MA
30. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1993. Revised Notice of Funding Avail ability (NOFA) for the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program: Revised Procedures to Reduce Burdens on Applicants. Federal Register, March 29, 16590-605
31. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1995. Impact on Progress. Facsimile received from the Office of Distressed and Troubled Housing Recovery by the Housing Research Foundation, dated October 6
32. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1996. Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Public Housing Demolition, Site Revitalization, and Replacement Housing Grants (HOPE VI). Federal Register, July 22
33. Upshur, Carole, Gayle Epp, and Elaine Werby. 1981. Social Service Programs Essential for Mixed Income Housing. Journal ofHousing 38(5):262-69
34. Vale, Lawrence J. 1992. Occupancy Issues in Distressed Public Housing: An Outline of Impacts on Design, Management, and Service Delivery. In Working Papers on Identifying and Addressing Severely Distressed Public Housing, National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, A-1-A-60. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
35. Vale, Lawrence J. 1993. Beyond the Problem Projects Paradigm: Defining and Revitalizing "Severely Distressed" Public Housing. Housing Policy Debate 4(2):147-74
36. Vale, Lawrence J. 1996. Public Housing Redevelopment: Seven Kinds of Success. Housing Policy Debate 7(3):491-534
37. Walker, Christopher. 1993. Nonprofit Housing Development: Status, Trends, and Prospects. Housing Policy Debate 4(3):369-414
38. Welfeld, Irving. 1994. Public Housing: The Need for a New Framework. In Future Visions of Urban Public Housing: An International Forum, ed. Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, David P. Varady, and Francis P. Russell, 118-34. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati
39. Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press