How a HUD Choice Neighborhoods public-housing redevelopment included a splash pad as resident-led community amenity
A composite Choice Neighborhoods Initiative case study of a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative public-housing redevelopment whose central courtyard splash pad was scoped through resident-led community-engagement infrastructure and structured resident-council governance, centering current and returning public-housing residents and broader neighborhood-stakeholder community across the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation.
Summary
A HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative public-housing redevelopment serving roughly 460 mixed-income residential units across the broader site footprint — replacing an aging public-housing development serving approximately 420 households at peak occupancy with a structured mixed-income, mixed-tenure redevelopment under the HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation framework, with structured one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protecting the right-to-return for current public-housing residents — included a $385,000 splash pad in the redevelopment's central courtyard scoped through resident-led community-engagement infrastructure and structured resident-council governance. The pad scoping process operated entirely through resident-led community-engagement infrastructure across the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation engagement period, with structured monthly resident-council meetings, structured resident-survey infrastructure across all current and returning public-housing households, structured resident-elected scoping-committee infrastructure, and broader neighborhood-stakeholder consultation across the engagement period predating capital scoping. The capital structure combined the HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant, a city of Memphis matching capital appropriation, a state Tennessee Housing Development Agency match, and a structured resident-led-and-neighborhood-stakeholder capital campaign anchored on resident-led community-amenity scope dimensions.
Key metrics
Background: a Choice Neighborhoods public-housing redevelopment and a resident-led community-amenity opportunity
The redevelopment is a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative public-housing redevelopment serving roughly 460 mixed-income residential units across the broader site footprint, replacing an aging public-housing development serving approximately 420 households at peak occupancy with a structured mixed-income, mixed-tenure redevelopment under the HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation framework. The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative operates as HUD's structured public-housing-redevelopment infrastructure supporting comprehensive neighborhood-transformation across distressed public-housing-and-neighborhood contexts, with the People dimension supporting current and returning public-housing residents through structured supportive-services programming, the Housing dimension supporting mixed-income, mixed-tenure housing-redevelopment with structured one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protecting current resident right-to-return, and the Neighborhood dimension supporting broader neighborhood-transformation infrastructure including public-realm, retail, and supporting neighborhood-amenity infrastructure. By 2022, the redevelopment's resident-council governance infrastructure in coordination with the implementing public-housing-authority and the broader Choice Neighborhoods stakeholder coalition had identified a substantial central-courtyard amenity opportunity, with structured resident-led community-engagement supporting the amenity-scoping framing across the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation engagement period.
Resident-led community-engagement scoping: structured resident-council governance and Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering
The defining scoping framework of the project is fully resident-led community-engagement scoping reflecting the Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering of current and returning public-housing residents. Resident-led scoping operated entirely through resident-council governance infrastructure with structured monthly resident-council meetings across approximately 22 months of resident-led scoping engagement, structured resident-survey infrastructure across all current and returning public-housing households, structured resident-elected scoping-committee infrastructure with current-and-returning-resident representation across every committee dimension, and structured resident-controlled scoping-decision infrastructure across every project dimension including pad design, water-feature selection, surfacing material choices, capital-source vetting, and broader scoping decisions. Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering shaped every scoping decision through structured resident-stakeholder consultation reflecting the Choice Neighborhoods structural reality that current and returning public-housing residents are the primary People-dimension stakeholders of the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation. Right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering reflects the structural reality that one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protects current public-housing-resident right-to-return, with the scoping framework substantively centering both current public-housing residents and returning residents who anticipate returning to the redevelopment under the right-to-return infrastructure. Broader neighborhood-stakeholder consultation operates across the broader Choice Neighborhoods Neighborhood-dimension stakeholder infrastructure including broader neighborhood-resident stakeholder consultation, broader neighborhood-stakeholder consultation, and broader Choice Neighborhoods coalition consultation.
Capital structure: HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant, city and state match, and resident-led capital campaign
The $385,000 construction cost was funded through a four-source capital structure deliberately calibrated across the Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation framework. The HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant contributed $185,000 through the broader Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant capital infrastructure supporting the redevelopment, with HUD Choice Neighborhoods program staff explicitly citing the project as a strong demonstration of resident-led community-amenity infrastructure within Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering. A city of Memphis matching capital appropriation contributed $115,000 through the broader city Choice Neighborhoods match capital pathway, with city leadership citing the project's broader Choice Neighborhoods integration with broader city neighborhood-transformation programming. A state Tennessee Housing Development Agency match contributed $50,000 through the broader state Choice Neighborhoods match capital pathway, with state THDA leadership citing the project's broader Tennessee public-housing-redevelopment integration. A structured resident-led-and-neighborhood-stakeholder capital campaign raised $35,000 from approximately 285 contributing households across the broader resident-and-returning-resident donor infrastructure, broader neighborhood-stakeholder donor infrastructure, broader Choice Neighborhoods stakeholder donor infrastructure, and broader Memphis-and-Tennessee public-housing-redevelopment-stakeholder donor infrastructure with the campaign anchored explicitly on resident-led community-amenity scope dimensions throughout. The capital-structure design was vetted through structured resident-council capital-vetting infrastructure reflecting the broader resident-led community-engagement scoping framework, with capital sources structurally aligned with resident-led community-amenity scope dimensions prioritized.
Programming integration: resident-led community programming, Choice Neighborhoods supportive-services, and broader neighborhood-stakeholder programming
The pad operates as integrated programming infrastructure across the resident-led community-programming portfolio, the Choice Neighborhoods supportive-services programming portfolio, and the broader neighborhood-stakeholder programming portfolio. Resident-led community programming including structured resident-council community-engagement programming, structured resident-led family-engagement programming, and broader resident-led community programming uses the central-courtyard infrastructure including the pad as integrated programming infrastructure with structured resident-controlled programming windows reflecting resident-led community programming primacy. Choice Neighborhoods supportive-services programming including structured Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension supportive-services programming, structured early-childhood supportive-services programming, structured workforce-development supportive-services programming, and broader Choice Neighborhoods supportive-services programming uses the pad as integrated supportive-services programming infrastructure across overlapping programming windows. Broader neighborhood-stakeholder programming including structured broader-neighborhood family-engagement programming, structured neighborhood-transformation visitor-engagement programming, and broader neighborhood-stakeholder programming uses the pad as supporting programming infrastructure across overlapping programming windows. The integrated-programming framework was developed across the engagement period predating construction and is documented in the redevelopment's broader resident-led-and-Choice-Neighborhoods operating agreement. Cross-programming coordination operates through structured monthly resident-council and Choice Neighborhoods supportive-services coordination meetings reflecting the broader resident-led community-engagement governance infrastructure.
Replicability across other HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative public-housing redevelopment contexts
The Memphis Choice Neighborhoods model is replicable across other HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative public-housing redevelopment contexts where substantial resident-led community-engagement infrastructure converges with central-courtyard amenity opportunities and capital pathways supporting integrated HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation, city Choice Neighborhoods match, state Choice Neighborhoods match, and resident-led capital campaign infrastructure. Analogous Choice Neighborhoods Initiative redevelopments where the pattern would translate include the broader HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant redevelopment portfolio nationally including the structured Choice Neighborhoods redevelopment portfolio across major American cities, the broader HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) public-housing-redevelopment portfolio nationally where structured resident-led community-engagement infrastructure converges with central-courtyard amenity opportunities, the broader HOPE VI legacy public-housing-redevelopment portfolio where structured resident-led community-engagement frameworks operate, and the broader public-housing-authority redevelopment portfolio where structured resident-led community-engagement scoping operates. Several conditions affect replication success. First, fully resident-led community-engagement infrastructure with structurally embedded resident-council governance is essential — redevelopments operating with thinner resident-led community-engagement infrastructure face structurally different scoping frameworks. Second, structured one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protecting current resident right-to-return is essential — redevelopments operating without one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure face structurally different right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering. Third, integrated HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation, city Choice Neighborhoods match, state Choice Neighborhoods match, and resident-led capital campaign infrastructure are uneven across redevelopments — redevelopments operating in capital contexts that constrain integrated capital pathways face structurally harder capital structuring. Fourth, structured Choice Neighborhoods supportive-services programming integration with resident-led community programming is essential — redevelopments operating without integrated Choice Neighborhoods supportive-services programming face thinner integrated-programming outcomes. Where these conditions converge, the public-housing-redevelopment splash-pad pattern produces uniquely strong combined resident-led community-amenity, Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation, and broader neighborhood-transformation programming outcomes.
Voices from the project
“Resident-led community-engagement scoping reflects the Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering of current and returning public-housing residents. Every scoping decision across the splash pad project operated entirely through resident-led community-engagement infrastructure rather than through externally-imposed scoping frameworks, and the resident-led community-engagement scoping is the structural mechanism that protects resident-led community amenity outcomes substantively across the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation.”
“Right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering reflects the structural reality that one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protects current public-housing-resident right-to-return. The scoping framework substantively centered both current public-housing residents and returning residents who anticipate returning to the redevelopment under the right-to-return infrastructure, and the framework reflects the explicit authority of right-to-return residents to define what community amenity infrastructure means for the broader Choice Neighborhoods redevelopment.”
“HUD Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation framework operates substantively rather than as decorative programming language. The integrated People-dimension centering of current and returning public-housing residents through resident-led community-engagement scoping, the Housing-dimension structural one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protecting right-to-return, and the Neighborhood-dimension broader neighborhood-stakeholder consultation reflect the structural reality of comprehensive neighborhood-transformation under the broader Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.”
Lessons learned
- Operate the project entirely through fully resident-led community-engagement infrastructure with structured resident-council governance reflecting the Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering of current and returning public-housing residents; externally-imposed scoping frameworks substantively erode resident-led community amenity outcomes and undermine the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation.
- Center current and returning public-housing residents as primary People-dimension stakeholders across every scoping decision through structured resident-stakeholder consultation, resident-council scoping governance, and structured resident-elected scoping-committee infrastructure; thinner resident-stakeholder centering substantively undermines the Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension scope.
- Reflect right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering across every scoping decision through structured returning-resident consultation, returning-resident scoping-committee representation, and structured returning-resident communication infrastructure; right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering substantively reinforces the structural reality of one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protecting current resident right-to-return.
- Pursue HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant capital pathways where the project demonstrates resident-led community-amenity infrastructure within Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering; the program-fit narrative writes itself for resident-led community-amenity projects scoped substantively.
- Engage city Choice Neighborhoods match and state Choice Neighborhoods match capital pathways where the project demonstrates substantive Choice Neighborhoods integration; city and state Choice Neighborhoods match capital pathways are structurally aligned with Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant projects scoped substantively.
- Structure resident-led community programming as primary scope dimension across the broader resident-led-and-Choice-Neighborhoods programming framework with structured resident-controlled programming windows reflecting resident-led community programming primacy; framework dimensions that prioritize broader-neighborhood programming over resident-led community programming substantively undermine the Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension scope.
- Develop structured resident-council capital-vetting infrastructure with explicit alignment-vetting against resident-led community amenity scope dimensions; capital sources structurally misaligned with resident-led community amenity scope substantively compromise the project across every operational dimension if accepted without resident-council vetting.
FAQ
How does fully resident-led community-engagement scoping operate, and what specific resident-council governance infrastructure shaped the splash pad scoping process?
Fully resident-led community-engagement scoping operates through several integrated resident-council governance infrastructures reflecting the Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension centering. Structured monthly resident-council meetings operate as the primary resident-led governance decision-making infrastructure across approximately 22 months of resident-led scoping engagement, with structured resident-controlled agenda infrastructure, structured resident-controlled deliberation infrastructure, and structured resident-controlled voting infrastructure across every resident-led scoping decision. Structured resident-survey infrastructure across all current and returning public-housing households operates with structured resident-controlled survey-instrument infrastructure, structured resident-controlled survey-administration infrastructure, and structured resident-controlled survey-analysis infrastructure. Structured resident-elected scoping-committee infrastructure operates with current-and-returning-resident representation across every committee dimension, with structured resident-elected committee-leadership infrastructure and structured committee-decision infrastructure across every project dimension. Resident-controlled scoping-decision infrastructure operates across every project dimension including pad design, water-feature selection, surfacing material choices, capital-source vetting, and broader scoping decisions. The resident-led community-engagement scoping framework reflects extensive consultation with the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension stakeholder infrastructure across the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation engagement period.
How does right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering operate, and what specific returning-resident consultation infrastructure shaped the scoping process?
Right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering operates through several integrated returning-resident consultation infrastructures reflecting the structural reality that one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protects current public-housing-resident right-to-return. Structured returning-resident consultation operates through structured outreach to former residents who anticipate returning to the redevelopment under the right-to-return infrastructure, with structured returning-resident scoping-survey infrastructure, structured returning-resident community-engagement programming, and structured returning-resident scoping-deliberation infrastructure. Returning-resident scoping-committee representation operates with structured returning-resident representation across the resident-elected scoping-committee infrastructure, with structured returning-resident committee-leadership opportunities and structured returning-resident committee-decision infrastructure. Structured returning-resident communication infrastructure operates through structured ongoing returning-resident communication during the broader Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation engagement period including structured periodic returning-resident-stakeholder communication, structured returning-resident-stakeholder programming, and broader returning-resident-stakeholder engagement infrastructure. The right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering framework reflects the explicit authority of right-to-return residents to define what community amenity infrastructure means for the broader Choice Neighborhoods redevelopment.
How does the HUD Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation framework operate, and how do the splash pad project's scoping dimensions reflect each of the three transformation dimensions?
HUD Choice Neighborhoods People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation framework operates as HUD's structured comprehensive neighborhood-transformation framework supporting integrated People, Housing, and Neighborhood transformation dimensions. People-dimension transformation supports current and returning public-housing residents through structured supportive-services programming, structured resident-led community-engagement infrastructure, and structured Choice Neighborhoods People-dimension programming integration. The splash pad project's resident-led community-engagement scoping reflects substantively the People-dimension centering of current and returning public-housing residents. Housing-dimension transformation supports mixed-income, mixed-tenure housing-redevelopment with structured one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure protecting current resident right-to-return, supporting structured housing-redevelopment integration with broader supportive infrastructure. The splash pad project's right-to-return resident-stakeholder centering reflects substantively the Housing-dimension structural one-for-one replacement-unit infrastructure. Neighborhood-dimension transformation supports broader neighborhood-transformation infrastructure including public-realm, retail, and supporting neighborhood-amenity infrastructure. The splash pad project's broader neighborhood-stakeholder consultation reflects substantively the Neighborhood-dimension broader neighborhood-stakeholder integration. The integrated People-Housing-Neighborhood transformation framework operates substantively across every project scoping dimension.
Related reports & data
Pair this case study with our original-data reports for citation and benchmarking.