Camille Wimpe
Design
This research paper and presentation were made to understand the state of public housing today using Mission Main as a test case. Link to the paper
Excerpt from Abstract // The transformation of Boston’s dense public housing projects into mixed-income, lower-density projects mirrors the calls for increased densification in the rest of the city. Public housing has been transformed based on an argument that high-rise, high-density sites inherently are problematic, a rhetoric that has resulted in the net decrease of low-income housing units. New Urbanist principles justify the physical reduction of units, while income mixing decreases the number of units available even further, incorporating a significant percentage of market-rate units into most projects. The case study of Boston’s Mission Main traces this net reduction of affordable housing units, and given the fact that there are 37,000 families on the waitlist for a subsidized apartment according to the Boston Housing Authority (Kohli, 2023), it seems almost impossible to justify any reduction in the cities inadequate affordable housing stock.
Context // Boston Housing Authority applied for a HOPE VI grant in 1993 for Mission Main. Mission Main and Orchard Park were both eligible to apply, but because “institutions which are located around Mission had attempted to get ownership of the development for many years,” (Kornegay, 50) the city felt increased pressure to address the problems associated with the development. The original plan for Mission Main’s redevelopment abided by the 1:1 unit replacement rules, and called for the renovation of the existing units. Until, in 1995, the Boston Globe “announced that instead of renovating, the development would be razed, rebuilt”
Analysis of Built Form // To better understand whether the redevelopment met the goals outlined by the HUD, I decided to draw through each of their defined goals as they are seen in Mission Main today.
Conclusions // 486 families were displaced by the development, 300 moved into new units, while 80 opte to move to other developments, and the remaining families chose to accept Section 8 vouchers instead. The redevelopment scheme hinges on the argument that high-rise, high-density sites are inherently bad.