Financialization and the reorganization of U.S. public housing

Bibliographic Data

ID12979313
AuthorsRodney Kirk (0000-0002-4918-2082, University of California, Los Angeles, corresponding author)
Year2025
Publication date2025-11-21
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHuman Geography (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1942-7786 • E-ISSN: 2633-674X
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/19427786251396898
OpenAlexW4416512417
LanguageEN
References cited32

This article explores the financialization of U.S. public housing, arguing that programs like Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) and the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) have restructured housing policy to prioritize speculative capital over social need. Promoted as reforms to concentrated poverty, these initiatives dismantled traditional public housing in favor of mixed-income developments governed by public–private partnerships (PPPs), which derisk private investment by shifting financial burdens onto the state while guaranteeing returns for developers. Framed as solutions to concentrated poverty, these initiatives dismantled traditional public housing in favor of mixed-income developments governed by PPPs, embedding affordability within financial markets. Central to this shift are instruments like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which recast housing as an asset class valued for yield potential rather than social utility. The analysis reveals how financial tools depoliticize displacement and redevelopment, masking state-subsidized profit extraction under the guise of market efficiency. Racialized dispossession further underpins this process, as historically marginalized communities are transformed into investment frontiers. While HOPE VI and CNI claim to revitalize neighborhoods, they often exacerbate inequality by displacing low-income residents—particularly Black and Brown households—and prioritizing investor returns. The article critiques the ideological framing of financialization as a neutral solution, exposing its role in redistributing public resources to private actors. Ultimately, it calls for a reorientation of housing policy toward democratic control and decommodified models, challenging the dominance of financial imperatives in shaping urban space

Democracy · Dominance (genetics · Financial market · Financialization · Framing (construction · Ideology · Neoliberalism (international relations · Public housing · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Urban Planning and Governance · Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies