Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
TRP450: Group 4
Transcript of TRP450: Group 4
A European Agenda Holes in the policy The Cross-Roads Recommended
Actions Ché Eade, Ambreen Masud & John Diver Social mix became a key justification for regeneration and neighbourhood renewal throughout Western Europe from the late 1980s.
It assume that socially mixed neighbourhoods can alleviate negative neighbourhood effects and improve social capital.
It attempted to counter social exclusion through the housing market Emerging empirical evidence suggests mixed community initiatives have been ineffective and potentially harmful The controversy of social mix State-led gentrification? Social Mix: An Answer to Segregation French Context English Context Dutch Context Western European Findings Positives
More people eligible for social housing in France and the Netherlands
Reduces stigmatisation of tenure
Incorporating education, economic and management schemes alleviates problems with redevelopment.
Problems displacement & social cohesion A large 1960s modernist estate with 95% council owned
1980s onwards the estate suffered disinvestment resulting major social problem and urban decay
Mid-1990s transformative regeneration to renew housing to improve community The Local Implementation: Norfolk Park, Sheffield Paris: Goutte d’Or Praised nationally as a sustainable mixed development due to
the transformation of the estate's aesthetics
its effect of simulating the housing market
However the social regeneration aims were less successful
Majority of original residents were displaced – unable to observe any benefit.
Lack of community facilities provision has limited opportunities for social interaction, lowering levels of social cohesion.
Conflicts between tenure groups
Assumed benefits of social mix have not been achieved as social networks have not been adjusted. The Local Implementation: Norfolk Park, Sheffield North African & Arab immigrant population
1990s Urban decay
Urban renewal and renovation to recalibrate the social composition
25% Social housing
(33% reserved for middle-class households)
Slow burn gentrification
Tensions, conflict and marginalisation of original residents Social Mix by Law
1990 Besson Act
1991 Social Exclusion Act
2000 Urban Renewal Act
2003 Sensitive Urban Areas Social Mix in National Legislation English National Policy containing elements relating to Social Mix. Reached its peak under New Labour
Tackling social exclusion was high on the agenda.
Intervention was pro-urban and pro-social mix. Lack of cultural stigmatisation towards social housing due to:
More people eligible
Less polarisation in education and employment. Social housing context
70% of population eligible
Municipality selection Social Mix in Housing Source: Hertweck 2012 Similar social mixing strategies utilised neighbourhood renewal in
France, the Netherlands and England Case studies Dutch social welfare large 1960s modernist project aimed to provide social mix
High immigrant population
Inferred concerns for ethnic segregation
1990s renovation and renewal through:
High rise to low rise family living
Focus to include education, employment and estate management Source: Eikongraphia 2008 Neighbourhood Renewal in Amsterdam Case Study: Bijlmermeer Cultural Indifference to Wealth Social Mix New Labour Policy and Initiatives Analysis and Evaluation Prioritises economic competitiveness over social concerns
Financial structures increases influence of private interests Unsympathetic and insensitive
Fails to recognise support networks in poor neighbourhoods Implementation of Social Mix Policy
Homogenous low income neighbourhoods lack ‘bridging capital’
Social mix increases access to opportunities through social interaction
Lack of cohesion creates tensions and restricts the flow of opportunities through social networks.
'Bonding capital' is not acknowledged - under researched area Tackles spatial concentration of poverty, and not the initial causes
People will still struggle with previous issues
Disengagement from labour market
Financial insecurity Forced out from rising rents and increased cost of living
Instability and disruption of social networks
Less comfortable housing Unintended Consequences Source: Smith 2010 The Assumptions and Evidence Base Summary Poverty, Deprivation & Segregation Social Cohesion & Social Capital Unintended displacement Prejudice and stigma - minimizes social cohesion Powers of discretion - selective exclusion Social relations are ‘tectonic’
Perceived negative views towards social tenants - social ignorance
Tensions and resentment Registered Social Landlords: exclusion in the name of balance at the expense of the most vulnerable
Academy schools: exclusion through admissions process
Middle class parents: resist mixing through using external facilities This section will critically evaluate three problematic areas of social mixing policy.
Assumptions - Implementation - Unintended consequences Prioritise economic recovery over social mix and stability
Welfare reforms reduce tenant’s rights (benefit caps & over occupation)
S106 'Special Measures' will reduce affordable housing ratios
These reforms will reduce stability, increase segregation and equate to a '‘strategy of inequality’ (Murie, 2012).
Segregation in the context of poverty can intensify deprivation and social exclusion Welfare and Planning Reforms in England No explicit rejection of social mix policy in Europe
Entwined in regeneration and political discourse
Economic uncertainty and public austerity
Reduces social housing provisions
Reluctant development industry
Less public subsidies Social Mix – In Economic Crisis BIG AMBITIOUS Realistic and achievable v. Clement Atlee’s administration 1947 Nationalisation of Lane
100% tax on development profits
Change development patterns of speculation
A resurgence of “Garden City" values - Egalitarian ethics Seek a departure from market-based neoliberalism which has failed to reduce inequalities Learn from the Netherlands
Increase social and welfare provision
Reduce wealth, education an employment inequalities
Reducing stigmatisation Large scale and ambitious Utilising Localism and Neighbourhood Plans - to create inclusive neighbourhoods
‘Just Space’ - Elephant and Castle alternative neighbourhood plan
Can localism work? Community Land Trusts (CLTs)
Non-profit organisations retaining land and property in trust
Creates a model for community ownership - San Francisco levy on property development re-invested in affordable homes Network of actions which can be incorporated into current planning practice Community empowerment to increase pride, reduce stigma and reverse disillusionment
Small scale action - community gardens
Refocus spending on delivering shared facilities and service for the whole community
Importance of access to jobs and training programmes Countering Displacement Increase Community Empowerment Working with the System MCI in North-West Europe have similar outcomes;
Marginalisation of original residents through regeneration
Lack of welfare improvement for the urban poor
Holes in the policy limit the impact of MCI on inequalities. It effectively advocates a strategy of dispersal and is ultimately harmful to those it proposes to help.
Urban policy can not address the mechanisms which create and sustain poverty alone, but social mix and urban planning can assist social inclusions where it aims to;
Counter displacement, increase social benefit and promote community empowerment. Concluding Thoughts... Reference list Hertweck, J., (2012) Bijlmermeer. Flickr. [Online] Available at: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/59238173@N07/6826101139/> [Last Accessed 7th December 2012]
Eikongraphia (2008) Modernist flats of the Bijlmermeer, Amsterdam. [Online] Available at: <http://www.eikongraphia.com/?p=2287> [Last Accessed 7th December 2012]
Smith (2010) Allies Organizing Themselves Against Gentrification [Online] Available at: < http://griid.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/gentrification.jpg>[Last Accessed 7th December 2012]
Karl (2002) Norfolk Park Flats [Online] Available at: < http://www.flickr.com/photos/kazzle101/3481028202/in/faves-estatepictures> [Last Accessed 7th December 2012]
Supertram (2012) Norfolk Park Demolition [Online] Available at: <http://www.thetrams.co.uk/supertram/pictures/001371/image/original.jpg> [Last Accessed 7th December 2012]
Belkacem (2011) Goutte d'Or Marche [Online] Available at: <http://www.najat-vallaud-belkacem.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/goutte-dor.jpg> [Last Accessed 7th December 2012]
Parr (2011) [Online] Available at: <http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1HRGRGKV4> [Last Accessed 7th December 2012] 1994 Single Regeneration Budget
1997 Social Exclusion Unit created
1998 New Deal for Communities
1999 Urban Task Force report
2002 Housing Market Renewal
2005 Mixed Communities Initiative There are a number of unintended consequences which are independently and accumulatively harmful There is a general consensus that social mix policy has been ineffective in action Deployed in a Neoliberal Frame Advocates a strategy of dispersal "Policies prompting desegregation and social mix rarely meet policy expectations"
(Bolt et al., 2010 p.132) Holes in the policy - subverting the effectiveness of MCI.
Over emphasis on housing ignores social capital of the working-classes leaving little room for strategies to improve health,
education and employment. The empirical evidence and current economy has
real implications for social mix
NOW & NEXT Social mix policy has been ineffective and is unable to effect inequality in the current regeneration frame
Our recommendations aim to:
Genuinely reduce inequality, poverty and polarization
Promote social inclusion
Alter regeneration and development to be more inclusive Tackling the root causes of poverty; Reform the way land is developed Source: Parr, 2011 Source: Belkacem, 2011 Most successful at social mix initiatives Video Summary of Norfolk Park: Source: Karl 2002 Small Scale: Realistic and Achievable