<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tampa&#8217;s poor to be swept under a rug</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogwood.com/archived/1179/tampas-poor-to-be-swept-under-a-rug/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogwood.com/archived/1179/tampas-poor-to-be-swept-under-a-rug/</link>
	<description>Return of teh Wood</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:19:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve koppelman</title>
		<link>http://blogwood.com/archived/1179/tampas-poor-to-be-swept-under-a-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-504</link>
		<dc:creator>steve koppelman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 19:43:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogwood.com/archived/1179/tampas-poor-to-be-swept-under-a-rug/#comment-504</guid>
		<description>As any New Urbanist will tell you, housing for the poor in mixed-income neighborhoods is far better than large low-income developments. The trouble with 257 low-income units in a 4500-units project isn&#039;t the 4200 middle- and higher-income units per se. It&#039;s that a bunch of other developments going up have no low-cost units at all.

Further, what works isn&#039;t this sort of awful suburban-style project with low-income buildings isolated from the rest of the development, usually in an undesirable corner by the feeder road or a gas station or whatever. What works is old, organic small-scale urban development, with tenements sprinkled among more expensive homes and buildings, so that block by block there&#039;s economic diversity.

The dominant residential style these days, though, is the exact opposite. Even within a high-end gated community, income groups are strictly segregated, with the $300,000 townhomes completely cut off from the $500,000 4-bedroom homes, and those in turn completely isolated from the $800,000 6-bedroom homes. It&#039;s going to take a seismic political change to climb down from that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As any New Urbanist will tell you, housing for the poor in mixed-income neighborhoods is far better than large low-income developments. The trouble with 257 low-income units in a 4500-units project isn&#8217;t the 4200 middle- and higher-income units per se. It&#8217;s that a bunch of other developments going up have no low-cost units at all.</p>
<p>Further, what works isn&#8217;t this sort of awful suburban-style project with low-income buildings isolated from the rest of the development, usually in an undesirable corner by the feeder road or a gas station or whatever. What works is old, organic small-scale urban development, with tenements sprinkled among more expensive homes and buildings, so that block by block there&#8217;s economic diversity.</p>
<p>The dominant residential style these days, though, is the exact opposite. Even within a high-end gated community, income groups are strictly segregated, with the $300,000 townhomes completely cut off from the $500,000 4-bedroom homes, and those in turn completely isolated from the $800,000 6-bedroom homes. It&#8217;s going to take a seismic political change to climb down from that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

