One of two mixed-use, mid-rise buildings in River Garden

Renters who participated in my interviews were mostly from out-of-state with renters in The Highrises having the highest representation of out-of-towners. Incomes ranged from lower-middle to upper-income and all reported having attended college, with the majority completing a bachelor’s degree. Renters who were integrated with

72

former and sub-paying residents were pretty equal in terms of gender representation but six out of seven Highrise dwellers were women. Renters were in their 30’s and 40’s. Three had school-aged children living with them and one had a toddler. Several

respondents in this category moved into River Garden because they were displaced by Hurricane Katrina while the remaining residents were attracted by River Garden’s new construction and location. At least half of the renters in The Highrises moved into River Garden because of the secured entry system of their mid-rise buildings.

Homeowners

The final group of residents are the homeowners of River Garden.They are represented by both market-rate and affordable homeowners and were informed about the mixed-income concept prior to purchasing their properties. Homeowners who participated in the focus group that I conducted were mostly White (5 of 8) and equally male and female. They are primarily college-educated professionals in two-person households reporting incomes of $75,000 or more. Homeowners were mostly in their mid-30’s to 40’s and were lured to River Garden by new urbanist principles such as walkability, architectural design, and the rarity of new construction in New Orleans.

Former Residents

Public housing residents who are former St. Thomas tenants or former residents of other New Orleans’ public housing developments

Sub-paying Residents (sub-payers) Residents utilize Section 8 voucher, which helps to subsidized rent; resident’s portion of rent is calculated based on income and need

Market-Rate Residents (Renters) Residents pay advertised rate for rent and are

integrated into the development, outside of mid-rise buildings, or live in one of the two

mid-rise buildings

Homeowners

73

V.

S

M

-I

C

Depending on when observed, neighbor interaction is visible and vibrant in River Garden, particularly among residents who are home during the day. Residents

socialize with tones of familiarity relating to each other as though they have known each other for a while. There are also spurts of “oh, how you doing, how was your day?” signaling courteous, but less familiar exchanges. At other times, I noticed people walking past each other without speaking or I observed that the neighborhood was simply quiet. In other words, neighbor interaction in River Garden can be best described as spotty. Consistent with previous HOPE VI studies, neighbor interaction was prevalent within housing tenure, with less evidence of cross-tenure interaction (Chaskin and Joseph 2011; Chaskin and Joseph 2010; Tach 2009; Kleit 2005). When interaction was across housing tenure, it was fleeting.

My first task in understanding these dynamics was to conduct an assessment of the physical and social environment. Is the space conducive to neighbors interacting and are there mechanisms that specifically promoted class-tenure interaction? The results of my inquiry suggest that a number of controls are inhibiting interaction, particularly cross-tenure interaction. Although HOPE VI ideology leads us to believe that interacting with neighbors of different housing tenure is a desired outcome, the design of this particular public/private development detracts from such goals. I surmise that the reason for spotty interaction in River Garden is because the development is designed to attract renters and homebuyers meaning private market desires for peace and privacy have to be delivered to some extent, a notion that is consistent with Pow’s

74

assertion that developers are motivated to meet consumers’ demand for a privatized lifestyle (Pow 2009).

In order to appeal to the middle class, River Garden developers have

undermined HOPE VI design principles which are based in new urbanist philosophy. New urbanism calls for connectedness facilitated by pathways and spatially proximate features such as porches and stoops. In River Garden, porch space and sidewalks are regulated in an effort to curtail socializing. New urbanism also strives to incorporate social space. In River Garden, Boettner Park could serve that purpose; however, the absence of benches and its designation as the “dog park” deters residents from using park space. These examples are part of an overall design to control the use of space in River Garden. Throughout this chapter, I identify four practices that are instrumental in dictating how space is used in River Garden - territoriality; social control/ spatial design; gated communities; and smoke and mirrors. These practices, some strategic and some unintentional, equate to diminished social space in which cross-tenure interaction could occur in the neighborhood. To further illustrate the production of social space, I

demonstrate how the aforementioned practices are played out in the specific spaces of the stoops of the row home units in Phase II, Boettner Park, the backyards of

homeowners, elevators in the mid-rise buildings, and HRI events. These spaces are indicative of neighbor interaction in River Garden and help illuminate opportunities and barriers for within- and cross-tenure interaction. Throughout these spaces, I also tease out the mechanisms of social networks, routines, and institutions as described in

75

Given the diminished social space in River Garden, residents claim other spaces as places to socialize. The neighborhood Walmart not only promotes within-tenure interaction but also enables cross-tenure interaction. I conclude the chapter by signifying Walmart’s role in the neighborhood and presenting another factor that has had a significant impact on the level of activity within the neighborhood - crime. Some residents admit to being afraid of being victimized and they choose to stay within the confines of their units. I discuss the crime situation in River Garden as a matter outside of management’s control and how it has a bearing on neighborhood dynamics in River Garden.

Territoriality

Sack’s theory of territoriality explains the concept as an “attempt by an individual or a group (x) to influence, affect, or control objects, people, and relationships (y) by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic area. This area is the territory” (Sack 1983, 56). In River Garden, both the stoops and Boettner Park have become spatialized territories.

On St. Thomas Street, row homes provide anchorage for concrete stoops

sheltered by second-floor balconies. On several of the stoops, women, with a splattering of men, are seated on steps and in chairs that have been positioned for optimal views of neighborhood activity. The stoops and balconies provide orchestra and mezzanine seating for the ongoing street theater (see Photo 6). Today’s cast includes a young mother pushing a stroller, a group of teen boys, several dog walkers, and an intermittent parade of cars that seem to be competing in a booming bass contest. The women on

76

the stoops are very comfortable with each other. They joke, laugh, and gossip. They agree and they disagree.

Photo 6: "Orchestra and mezzanine" seating on stoops and balconies of River Garden row