It's easy to criticize different approaches, but it's misleading to imply that locations such as Techwood Homes were stable. I'm not very familiar with a lot of the other public housing systems listed, but there were too many omissions in an anti-mixed-income slant in the Atlanta sections to make me trust that the other sections aren't similarly biased.
Also, an entire chapter on gentrification where the premise was "well, at first it was entirely public housing, and now it's mixed income - surprisingly, the average income is now higher!" was the most tautological waste of pages I've possibly ever read. It specifically did not talk about cultural effects of gentrification, and in fact emphasizes that a lot of the 'gentrifiers' were black in predominantly black areas, but it's intent on making it sound like a negative thing without really discussing negative effects. It's a difficult problem, because you don't want people who have lived in an area getting pushed out of their homes because they can't afford it, but concentrated poverty has its own negative impact that has to be at least considered.
It would be an interesting discussion starter, but I know too many relevant facts about the Atlanta locations that were omitted to make a point that they would have complicated. It's a complicated issue; leaving out one side of the argument entirely instead of answering it and saying why your solution is better oversimplifies the issue and only is convincing to people who are already on your side of the issue.