Infill housing : a case study on residential development in inner city neighborhoods

The purpose of this study was to identify and explain those factors that have either contibuted to or impeded the implementation of infill housing in Knoxville’s inner city neighborhoods. A chronological report of the city’s efforts to institute projects and programs documents successes and failures with infill housing since the late 1970s. The experiences of several local non-profit and for-profit developers were considered in the assessment of conditions that affect new housing construction on vacant lots in the inner city. An evaluation of three neighborhoods - Parkridge, Five Points, and Mechanicsville - is based on previous research that identified characteristics of neighborhoods having low potential for infill development. The study also addresses other issues that are pertinent to the implementation of infill housing. It analyzes public and private partnerships, the market for infill housing in Knoxville’s inner city, and the economic and social consequences for each study area. This research required a thorough analysis of neighborhood plans, reports and other published documents. Personal interviews were conducted with representatives from local non-profit organizations, officials from the city’s Department of Community Development, and private developers. The results indicate that developers of infill homes, both public and private, were skeptical about the market for new housing in the inner city. Consequently, new construction was not a priority for most developers and most efforts were directed towards housing rehabilitation. The city committed more funds to housing rehabilitation programs than programs dedicated to new housing construction. As a result, non-profit organizations whose budgets depend greatly on funding from the city and other federal programs, concentrated most of their effort on rehabilitating housing in the inner city. Their financial restrictions also greatly limited their ability to hire necessary staff to administer infill programs and to satisfy the needs of the potential homebuyer. There were very few private developers willing to build affordable housing in the inner city. Small private contractors had difficulty securing construction financing and the larger developers simply did not find infill housing to be a profitable market. Initially, I anticipated radical differences among the three neighborhoods in terms of success and failure with infill housing, but found that they share similar impediments and opportunities. The results of this study show that there is potential for infill housing in the inner city. An important question for planners, developers and city officials is not whether infill is feasible, but what can be done to make it an attractive development option? Cities across the United States are implementing legal statues that allow better management of derelict properties and vacant lots. With continued support from city officials, residents and non-profit organizations, infill housing can become a viable tool for revitalizing inner city neighborhoods.