The Social Mix Policy

Success or Failure?
Maha Bani M.Sc. of Architectural Design Arc 609 - Architecture & Housing Faculty of Architecture University of Khartoum (U. of K.)

Abstract
Social mix (S.M.) is a Policy goal for achieving diversity in a given area, commonly expressed around tenurial, household type and income variations and sought on the basis that greater mix may help to achieve the dilution of area effects. This policy has been applied in many housing projects and neighbourhoods world wide. Some had been applied as an organic process, while others were implemented by the government/decision makers as a policy. This paper will show a comparative study of the advantages vs. the disadvantages of S.M. by studying a few examples and Case Studies.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background of Social Mix & Public Housing Social Mix started back in the mid-nineteenth century in Britain where it was a solution for the problems caused by the spatial segregation of the working class from the middle class. In the last two decades in Australia, the United Kingdom, North America and numerous European countries, social mix has increasingly been presented as the solution for the problems that beset many public housing estates[1] Public housing was originally built to house lowincome families, but due to the unavailability of low priced dwellings, all disadvantaged people found no solution but to turn to Public Housing, therefore creating a concentration of people who are low-income, homeless, underprivileged, unemployed, and even the elderly.

1.2 Social Mix as a Solution Internationally, public housing with disadvantaged concentrations has been facing many problems such as poor education, unemployment and anti-social behaviors which lead to neighborhood stigma and high levels of crime. In many countries, governments and policy-makers addressed these problems by implementing Social Mix, which is considered as a key mechanism for such situations. Social mix has come to refer to a specific understanding of what constitutes a functional and sustainable community, namely one that is heterogeneous in a range of aspects, including housing tenure, ethnicity and socio-economic characteristics of residents[2] The policy usually involves the demolition, redevelopment and sale of old public housing stock and the building of new housing aimed at middle class households, thereby creating a neighborhood that contains a balance of homeowners, private renters and public housing tenants[3]

[1] [2]

Arthurson 2008b; Arthurson 2008, 209 [3] Stubbs et al. 2005

1.4 Social Mix as a Policy There is the question of that are policy makers targeting the right aspects in order to solve this problem? And shouldnt they target the individuals rather than targeting the living areas of the disadvantaged people? Social Mix was and is still criticized as a policy, because it is said that the solution to such problems is tied to assumptions of what causes the social problems and what to do to counter them. But in the other hand, due to the spatial separation of the disadvantaged from the wider population, undesired negative effects (such as role model effects and peer group influences, social and physical disconnection from jobfinding networks, a culture of poverty leading to dysfunctional values, discrimination by employers and other gatekeepers, access to low quality public services, and high exposure to criminal behavior) are created. Policy makers also believed that concentrations of poverty make individuals poor(er). So by diversification, all those negative aspects will decrease, therefore creating a more livable positive atmosphere.

quality houses to encourage middle-class people to move in there. 2.3 Regulation for new Developments This is also considered as a place-based strategy. It is done by forcing mixed occupancy as a condition in order to get an approval or/and funding for a housing project, i.e. providing affordable units in new developments in order to get a planning permission.

3.0 Case Studies

3.1 The United States American Social Mix policies started in the 1960s under the influence of the Civil Rights Movement, after noticing that negative neighborhood effects were rising from the isolation of poor black households. As a response, policy makers shifted their strategies into the encouragement of mixed-income neighborhoods, and several programs were initiated, such as (a) The Section 8 Program1974: which was based on the distribution of housing vouchers, (b) HOPE VI-1993: which was based on the renewal of distressed neighborhoods, and (c) Moving to Oppurtunity-1994: which was based on the distribution of vouchers under different conditions. 3.1.1 The Section 8 Program: In this program the vouchers were given to poor families to help them pay part of their rent in the private market. Studies showed that this program helped in poverty dispersion and that families that moved from the high poverty to low poverty areas experienced better housing conditions. But it was also noticed that some poor families

2.0 Strategies for developing Social Mix

2.1 Spatial Dispersion of Poverty This is considered as a people-based strategy. It focuses on moving the lowincome/disadvantaged people out of low-class neighborhoods into middle-class neighborhoods. 2.2 Regeneration Housing of problematic Public

This is considered as a place-based strategy. It is done by improving local services, removing buildings with high densities and building high-

suffered form prejudice because the recipients were concerned that they might bring with them problems. But nevertheless the positive outcomes were more that the negative ones because the residents had a greater diversity in their social networks and had more access to information. The program also offered vouchers to majoritywhite neighborhoods -which was a total success- to encourage the black families to move there rather than using the subsidies to move to similar poor neighborhoods. Studies showed that families that moved to the majority white suburbs experienced higher employment, completion of high-school and college education, and results in leaving welfare assistance. 3.1.2 HOPE V1: In this program distressed units were demolished and replaced by high-quality lowerdensity redeveloped units. The residents of the demolished units were given 4 options: 1. To return to the same area after redevelopment, 2. Use a Section 8 Voucher to rent from the private market, 3. Move to another public housing area if available, 4. To receive other forms of benefit or leave assistance. Results showed that the renewed dwellings reduced poverty and crime rates, which improved the well being of residents. The only disadvantage reported was the loss of neighborhood friends and the feeling of isolation regarding the people who chose the options of moving and renting elsewhere.
[1] [2]

3.1.3 Moving to Opportunity: This was a demonstration program where residents/participants received vouchers for different types of neighborhoods. The participants were families with children who previously lived in social housing or received Section 8 subsidies. They were randomly distributed into 3 groups: 1. Experimental Group: Who received mobility counseling, housing vouchers for areas with less than 10% of poverty. 2. Comparison Group: who received regular housing vouchers with no restrictions. 3. Control Group: who received no assistance and remained in public social housing. Results showed that children in the first two groups showed better performance in school. Also evaluations regarding employment rates, family safety, health and children behavior were made and results showed that there was improvements in the safety, health and behavior issues, while employment rates didnt change. 3.2 The United Kingdom: British housing policies have long tradition in promoting social mix in housing policies. The most important phases regarding the Social Mix policies were the post-war period with the construction of The New Towns, and the Labor Government elected in 1997. The New Towns Project was inspired by the Garden City Movement. It was subsidized by the government on the principal idea of mixed neighborhoods. The problem is that the social mix ideal stopped at a local level, because

Arthurson 2008b; Arthurson 2008, 209 [3] Stubbs et al. 2005

conflicts arising from indiscriminate mixing allowed the similar social class to live together in sub-units, which created segregation on a smaller scale. This gave the complete opposite of the desired results i.e. Social Mix. In the 1980s the government established the right to buy which was meant to be a policy of tenure diversification. But it was a complete failure and was considered as the reason for increasing poverty concentrations, because when higher-income tenants bought their own dwellings, it caused the social composition of people living in public housing to narrow down to low-income households only. When the new labor government was elected, this poverty concentration problem became the center of attention. The new government started to solve this problem by promoting the high-income families to move to areas of concentrated poverty by providing high-quality housing and ownership in disadvantaged neighborhoods. 3.3 The Netherlands: Urban segregation is very low compared by the UK and USA, and thats because more than half of the housing stock is owned and rented by public not-for-profit housing corporations. The two main social mix policies are the (1) Restructuring (Hertstructurering) and the (2) Spreading (Spreiding). 3.3.1Restructuring/Regeneration (Hertstructurering): Its most important instruments is regulations for new developments to include higher and lower cost housing mix, and reduction of poverty concentrations in existing neighborhoods. These policies were firstly
[1] [2]

launched for the 4 largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag and Utrecht) and then grown into an urban development strategy for the whole country. The following set of problems which were considered to influence and reinforce each other- was addressed: Unemployment rates Urban residents low income Lower level of education Outflow of companies and jobs Housing market domination by cheap, unattractive rental units Large vulnerable groups, such as drugaddicts and homeless people

Small cheap public housing are demolished and replaced by high-value ownership units in order to attract high-income buyers. 3.3.2 Spreading/Dispersal (Spreiding): This was a contested policy, and was implemented off the record. Dispersion and spreading policies for the migrants were declared illegal by the parliament. Also people with incomes lower than 20% above national minimum wage were banned from settling in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty. This was considered a racist policy because there was a suspicion that the goal was to filter out newcomers with a migration background. 3.4 Debates on Dutch S.M. Policies Studies showed that Negative Neighborhood effects in the Netherlands are minimal to nonexistent. Also the social interactions in the restructured neighborhoods didnt change. But the question is why does the Dutch government invest so heavily in the social mix

Arthurson 2008b; Arthurson 2008, 209 [3] Stubbs et al. 2005

policies knowing that the spatial segregation is very low? It is because the primary goal for such policies is to strengthen the cities economic position. Also the outer cities are attracting the high-income families by their new housing projects, causing the inner cities to lose their best candidates who help in raising the economy. Thats why they are investing in developing the inner-city neighborhoods in order to gain back their high-value residents.

families are involuntarily displaced and forced to live elsewhere. While they can be given subsidies to relocate, displaced households often simply move to other neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, and often report less positive experiences in their new communities. Although the policies were meant to address the disadvantaged and assist them to elevate their living standards, the process actually makes them become displaced and relocated in order to house higher income people in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

4.0 Do Social Policies Work?

After all this planning, applications and implications of the social mix policies, critics still oppose to it and think that the disadvantages and negative outcomes that are caused by these policies are a lot and that they need to be changed and rethought. In cases of relocation in order to demolish and restructure, the families that are involuntarily displaced do not all get the chance to come back to their neighborhoods, nor get the chance to receive vouchers for other neighborhoods. That is because only desirable families get the chance to live in better areas. The selection criterion is very tight. Only families with a clean background and no criminal records are selected. And that is considered very rare for people who live in high poverty concentration neighborhoods. Therefore, most of the displaced families end up living in other negative neighborhoods. Several studies showed that social mix actually impedes equality and creates more poverty concentrations or as they say ghettoization. For example in the American HOPE VI program which was based on dispersing lower income households by demolishing high density buildings to reduce the concentrations, the
[1] [2]

5.0 Conclusion
It is safe to say that there is no specific conclusion when it comes to social mix policies and there is no single formula for success. And that is because cities differ according to their needs, market levels and deprivation levels. Social mix can be considered a successful policy when it comes to the displaced people who got the chance to live in better areas by getting selected by the criteria. Also, these policies should concentrate on addressing socioeconomic factors, not ethnic or any other reasons, because this will lead to the problem of racism. If socioeconomic factors are addressed first this will automatically cause ethnic mix. Moreover, in order to make sure that social mix works effectively with fewer disadvantages as possible, policy makers and planners should try to implement these policies in new developments and projects, rather than acting on existing ones and displacing people and diminishing affordable housing options.

Arthurson 2008b; Arthurson 2008, 209 [3] Stubbs et al. 2005

6.0 References
Arthurson 2008b; August 2008; Bacque et al. 2011; Cole and Goodchild 2001; Galster 2007; Kleinhans 2004; Popkin et al. 2000 Arthurson, K 2008b. The role of qualitative research in identifying residents perspectives about social mix, in Maginn, PJ, Thomson, S, and Tonts, M (eds), Qualitative Housing Analysis: An International Perspective, 209225 Stubbs, J, Foreman, J, Goodwin, A, Storer, T and Smith, T 2005. Leaving Minto: A Study of the Social and Economic Impacts of Public Housing Estate Redevelopment, Minto Resident Action Group in association with Social Justice and Social Change Research Centre, UWS Animation Project, St Vincent de Paul Society, Uniting Care Burnside and other services.

Arthurson, K. (2002). Residents Perspectives about Social Mix, (Arthurson), 112. Beckhoven, V., Boxmeer, B. Van, & Holmqvist, E. (n.d.). Social mix

policies in large housing estates: a comparison of the Netherlands , Sweden , and Spain, 81101. Essay, B. R. (2012). Geography Book Review Essay Social mixing as stateled gentrification?, 4749. doi:10.5194/sg-7-47-2012 Feitosa, F., & Wissmann, A. (2006). Social-mix policy approaches to urban segregation in Europe and the United States, (November), 134. Galster, G. (2007). Neighbourhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy: A Theoretical Analysis, 7(1), 1943. doi:10.1080/14616710601132526 Manley, D., Ham, M. Van, Doherty, J., Manley, D., Ham, M. Van, & Doherty, J. (2011). Social Mixing as a Cure for Negative Neighbourhood Effects: Evidence Based Policy or Urban Myth?, (5634). Mixed Communities. (n.d.). Morris, A., Jamieson, M., & Patulny, R. (2012). Is social mixing of tenures a solution for public housing estates?, (1). Social, D., & Policies, M. (2011). Do Social Mixing Policies Work?

[1] [2]

Arthurson 2008b; Arthurson 2008, 209 [3] Stubbs et al. 2005