[WS:] It is very much so here too. What I've seen in the Baltimore/DC area is two unequal forces at work: one that works to keep the poor out of the settlements occupied by middle class elements, and one aiming to mix the two. There was a definite effort to create "mixed" neighborhoods by moving the urban poor to suburbia, but also a far more powerful effort to prevent that. The latter was far more resourceful and tried every trick on the book, from killing public transit initiatives to creating ex-urbia and gated communities in the remote rural areas (they could not openly oppose it because there are federal laws prohibiting housing discrimination) . The interesting thing is, however, that developers kept their dirty paws in both, since both required construction of new housing, which translated into more profits for them.
While we are at this, the socialist housing situation can be very informative in this context. Due to internal migration (from country side to the cities) there was a chronic shortage of housing in large cities, while such shortages did not exist in rural areas and small towns. Housing construction was publicly subsidized, even though most new housing developments (which were vast) were nominally cooperatives. Clearly, the factors that plague US housing development - segregationism, NIMBY, and developer kickbacks to local politicians - were for the most part absent there. Yet the problems were very similar to those under capitalism - local housing shortage, exorbitant prices (due to grey market for houses in desirable locations) and generally substandard living conditions for most (except those who could afford to build single family houses in the suburbia). it was quite common that apartments in most desirable areas stayed empty because their "owners" did not want to relinquish control of them, and did not want to rent them out, since actual occupancy often trumped property rights (i.e. the owner could not kick you out unless he found you an alternative housing).
This comparison demonstrates that housing development is for the most part determined by the locality - i.e. that any locality can accommodate only a limited number of housing units, and this will effectively limit supply in high-demand localities. Technology (i.e. high density buildings) can alleviate this to some degree but not chance the imbalance between supply and demand. The market will "solve" it by setting the price high and keeping those who cannot afford it out. This "solution" while applauded by sociopathic economists and neolibs is nonetheless unacceptable from a social justice point of view. Regulation and planning may address some of the social justice concerns, but they will lead to hoarding, grey markets, high prices and informal segregation mechanisms that will exacerbate shortages even more.
This is why I believe that a combination of technology (construction of high density *desirable* living spaces), very careful urban planning, and cooperative ownership of *all* housing is the only way to go in housing development. There is no alternative to it. The market approach - whether open or grey - will inevitably lead to local shortages and artificial segregation. Planning is obviously needed to alleviate negative effects of development, but the key to it is all cooperative ownership, meaning that you have the right to live in a space but you do not own it and you cannot sell it or sublet it i.e. turn it into a rent generating venture. It will provide adequate housing to all regardless of wealth (occupants will pay only the maintenance cost - the construction costs are paid by general taxes) and greatly reduce local shortages caused by speculation or hoarding.
I understand that this sound very un-American, since a privately owned single family house is a foundation of the American Dream, but I also think that this is not a dream but a nightmare and it is time to wake up and smell the coffee. -- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."