ArticlePDF Available

Reframing social mix in affordable housing initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands. Closing the gap between discourses and practices?

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

European countries are facing rising demand for affordable housing by a widespread and differentiated audience. Both in Italy and in the Netherlands policy-makers and practitioners address this emerging need by implementing new social housing projects targeting diverse social groups – such as students, young households, welfare dependents, and refugees – which results in a fine-grained social mix. This paper discusses the development of these initiatives within wider trends in housing policies and in relation to the domestic debate on social mix in the two countries. Drawing on Magic Mix and Housing Sociale projects as case studies, respectively in the Netherlands and in Italy, we aim to explore and unfold the contemporary meanings and the practices attached to the idea of social mix. In so doing, this paper paves the way for a new conceptualization of social mix in the current post-crisis and hyper-diversified European scenario. We discuss traces of continuity and discontinuity between these forms of social mix and the mainstream idea of tenure mix, which has been a cornerstone of area-based urban renewal policy in many European countries. This paper contributes to the existing literature by offering insights into new practices of social mix in housing sphere.
Content may be subject to copyright.
THIS IS AN AUTHOR’S POST-PRINT VERSION OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED
AS:
Costarelli, I., Kleinhans, R., & Mugnano, S. (2019). Reframing social mix in affordable
housing initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands. Closing the gap between discourses and
practices?, Cities, 90, 131-140.
Publisher version at this link https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.033
Reframing social mix in affordable housing initiatives in Italy and
in the Netherlands. Closing the gap between discourses and
practices?
Abstract
European countries are facing rising demand for affordable housing by a widespread and
differentiated audience. Both in Italy and in the Netherlands policy-makers and practitioners
address this emerging need by implementing new social housing projects targeting diverse social
groups such as students, young households, welfare dependents, and refugees which results in
a fine-grained social mix. This paper discusses the development of these initiatives within wider
trends in housing policies and in relation to the domestic debate on social mix in the two
countries. Drawing on Magic Mix and Housing Sociale projects as case studies, respectively in the
Netherlands and in Italy, we aim to explore and unfold the contemporary meanings and the
practices attached to the idea of social mix. In so doing, this paper paves the way for a new
conceptualization of social mix in the current post-crisis and hyper-diversified European scenario.
We discuss traces of continuity and discontinuity between these forms of social mix and the
mainstream idea of tenure mix, which has been a cornerstone of area-based urban renewal policy
in many European countries. This paper contributes to the existing literature by offering insights
into new practices of social mix in housing sphere.
Keywords: social mix; Housing Sociale; Magic Mix; Italy; The Netherlands
Introduction
Social mix has played a pivotal role within state-led integrated area-based urban renewal policies of
deprived neighbourhoods in many Western European countries (Van Gent et al., 2009). Policy-makers
have claimed that mixed neighbourhoods would help tackling the so-called negative neighbourhood
effects which stem from the socio-spatial segregation of poor populations (Van Ham et al., 2012). The
essential philosophy of social mix assumes that increasing residential proximity between middle- and
lower-classes would improve liveability, social cohesion and neighbourhood reputation. In addition,
neighbourhood social mix may provide low-income residents with more opportunities to diversify
their own social networks through social interaction with middle-income groups (Camina & Wood,
2009) who are supposed to act as role models. However, despite being claimed as a solution for
several urban problems (i.e. inequality, deprivation, social exclusion etc.) a large number of studies
have questioned the presumed benefits of residential mix (Atkinson & Kintrea, 2000; Bolt et al.,
2010; Bond et al., 2011; Kleinhans, 2004; Musterd & Andersson, 2005).
In this paper, we put forward an original perspective on the study of social mix by relating its
mainstream implementation in the context of deprived neighbourhoods with ongoing trends in
housing and broader societal developments in Europe. This includes the neoliberal reconfiguration of
welfare states, the effects of post-crisis austerity measures
1
, the continuing shortage of affordable
housing for low- and middle-income groups, along with new migration flows enlarging the already
strong diversity of European cities.
Recent societal trends and political climates might provide opportunities to reframe the concept of
‘social mix’, marking a turning point in the current debate. In so doing, we contribute to the existing
literature by connecting the current debate on social mix to on-going macro dynamics. The central
argument in this paper is that a reframing process of the concept ‘social mix’ in housing field is on-
going. However, such reframing does not stand in opposition to earlier definitions of social mix in
urban planning and urban renewal policies. In line with current policies and practices of social mix,
this paper adds an original conceptualization of this notion taking into account the context of new
social housing initiatives addressing mixed audiences at building level. Based on empirical findings,
we unfold the ‘social mix’ concept along five main axes: discourses, target groups, practices,
institutional frame, and urban downscaling.
Previous research show that meanings and outcomes of social mix policy are strictly context-
dependent (Bolt & Van Kempen, 2013; Rose et al., 2013). In order to account for contextual
differences, we draw on a multiple case study approach. The paper looks at contemporary forms of
social mix in Italy and in the Netherlands, where innovative, small-scale social housing projects are
being developed for a variety of low-income target groups. Despite remarkable differences between
these countries, especially in terms of overarching housing and welfare policies, a similar framing of
the concept ‘social mix’ in the housing practices seems to occur. As will be discussed further on, there
are a number of commonalities between examined Italian and Dutch social mix projects that makes
this comparison relevant. For example: the discourses attached to social mix, the identification of
vulnerable and resourceful groups as project targets, a quid-pro-quo mechanism regulating the access
to affordable housing, and an opportunity-driven approach adopted by all housing providers. We
address two research questions: how is the concept of social mix currently reframed in the context of
changing urban and housing policy in Italy and in the Netherlands? What are its main features in
terms of theoretical assumptions, policy frame, and target groups?
In the next section, we problematize the concept ‘social mix’ in light of contemporary macro
political and societal transformations. The third and fourth section briefly discuss the domestic debate
around social mix in the two research settings, and relate it to the on-going trends in housing sphere.
The fifth section explains the research design, stressing the context-sensitive approach adopted.
Finally, we discuss our findings based on case studies analysis and interviews with local stakeholders.
Towards a reframing of the concept ‘social mix’?
The idea of social mix in Europe originated and developed throughout the industrial society,
characterised by remarkable division between social classes and high stability of labour and housing
careers (Sarkissian, 1976). In the post WWII Western Europe, flourishing welfare state and economic
prosperity guaranteed relatively easy and affordable access to housing for large portions of society,
especially middle-classes (Scanlon et. al, 2014). Households’ residential mobility was relatively low,
which facilitated the development of territorially based identities, community and neighbourhood
belonging (Tasan-Kok et al., 2013).
In the post-industrial society, many of these traits started being questioned. Since the 1980s, a
process of erosion of the welfare state has affected many European countries, culminating in
increasing socio-economic polarisation and segregation (Tammaru et al., 2016). The growing gap
between different social groups risks weakening social cohesion and hampering chances for
intergroup relationships (Tasan-Kok et al., 2013).
Bearing in mind contextual specificities, overall similar trends are ongoing throughout Western
Europe. Along with precarisation of the labour market, housing careers have become more flexible,
contributing to reshape housing markets on both demand and supply sides (Arundel & Doling, 2017).
Growing social inequality and the neoliberal turn of welfare state exacerbate the access to affordable
housing for a variety of income groups, also as consequence of post-economic crisis austerity
measures (Priemus & Whitehead, 2014). The reduction of affordable housing stock in largest cities
1
. Including the ending of large-scale urban renewal programs targeting the social housing stock in several EU countries.
affects also the ‘squeezed’ middle-classes (Jonkman & Janssen-Jansen, 2015), who struggle both to
access social housing due to residualization trends and to afford rising prices on the private rental
market. The precarious position of middle-classes in the housing market might depict a new scenario
for already questionable theoretical assumptions and unconvincing empirical evidences of
social mix policy.
A basic assumption of social mix is that poor groups living in deprived neighborhoods lack of
positive role models, mainly defined in terms of social classes. Thus, the presence of middle-classes
should help to activate mechanisms of distant or proximal role modeling, meaning stimulating
marginalized people to emulate desirable behaviors of higher-class neighbors either by observing
them from distance or by having direct social interaction (Graves, 2011)
2
. Yet, research show that
despite residential propinquity, middle-classes tend to avoid mixing with lower-class neighbours in
public spaces and in other domains of everyday life (Pinkster, 2014; Watt, 2009). Indeed, social
contact is much more a matter of lifestyles than simply tenure mixing (Kleinhans, 2004). In addition,
role models other than neighbours, notably mass media, are able to influence individual behaviors too
(Bandura, 1977).
Social mix policies in the post 1990s aim to increase neighbourhoods’ diversity, mainly defined in
terms of residents’ income, social classes and tenure composition of the housing stock. However, a
recent strand of research puts emphasis on wider forms of diversity characterizing the 21th century
society, attaching this term with new meanings and bringing about broader implications. Next to
‘super-diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007), Tasan-Kok and colleagues (2013) coined the term ‘hyper-
diversity’ to indicate an “intense diversification of the population, not only in socio-economic, social
and ethnic terms, but also with respect to lifestyles, attitudes and activities” (p. 12), suggesting that
income and social class alone might not be any more the only criteria for effective diversity-oriented
policy design. Adopting a hyper-diversity perspective might question the basis for the definition of
role model groups since an interpretation of role models primarily grounded on socio-economic
criteria (i.e. income and social classes) is central to the social mix debate. In addition, policy discourse
is apparently shifting from concerns about ‘too much homogeneity’ to ‘too much diversity’, loading
the latter with increasing negative connotation (Tasan-Kok et al., 2013) that questions the desirability
of social mixing.
The role of residential neighbourhood in shaping people’s networks and social contact is object of
academic debate, in light of increasing mobility and online communications opportunities (Van
Kempen & Wissink, 2014). A ‘sedentarist’ view of social mix has dominated policy assumptions
(Gwyther, 2009), which hardly accounts for social relations and interaction out of residential
neighbourhoods. The different ways of experiencing social contact (i.e. through ICT) question the
territorially-based character of social mix, and more broadly the effectiveness of area-based policies
(Tasan-Kok et al., 2013).
In order to address similar challenges, like those aforementioned, urban and housing policy-makers
are tempted to copy and paste ideas, tools and policies, often without proper accountability of national
and local peculiarities. Social mix is no exception, as this concept has travelled worldwide in the past
(Bridge et al., 2012).
In the next two sections, we review the debate on social mix in Italy and in the Netherlands in
relation to each domestic context and main trends in housing. Particular attention will be paid to
address the ‘local’ declination of general concepts that have appeared most frequently in the literature
debate on social mix, notably discourses (i.e. rationale, aims and institutional frame of social mix) and
practices (i.e. scopes, target groups and means of implementation of social mix).
2
. See also the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954).
Social mix: a ‘silent issue’ in the Italian housing debate
With public housing stock accounting for only 5.5% and a homeownership rate of around 72%
(Eurostat, n.d.), Italy is an emblematic representation of the metaphor ‘housing as the wobbly pillar
under of the welfare state’. As a typical Southern European housing system (Allen et al., 2004), a
residual share of public housing accommodates the most vulnerable groups, while the private sector
has taken up the task of providing housing for more affluent groups, including low-middle income
households.
Since the 2001 reform of Constitution, housing policy in Italy has been regional-based. A
devolution process has transferred housing competences from the central state to regions, creating a
fragmented national scenario in terms of housing policy (Mugnano & Palvarini, 2013). The reform
also laid the foundations for greater involvement of third-sector organisations (foundations,
cooperatives, private-social actors) in the provision of local welfare services and housing.
One of the most important changes affecting the Italian housing system concerns the shift towards
a public-private cooperation. Besides existing public housing supply (Edilizia Residenziale Pubblica
in Italian), which is fully provided by public housing companies or municipalities, third sector
housing organisations (i.e. foundations, cooperatives or social enterprises) deliver and manage a new
or refurbished supply of social rented units (known as Housing Sociale in Italian). Most of newly
constructed Housing Sociale units are built through new financing arrangements such as the
Integrated Funding System (Sistema Integrato di Fondi) that combines national and local funds to
build new social housing (see Housing Plans 2009 and 2014).
One of the major drivers of such governance shift is the need to address a widening demand for
affordable housing of specific segments of population, which a dualistic housing system is unable to
meet. These segments, known as grey area (area grigia), vary according to socio-economic and social
conditions (people with unstable income, low-middle income households, single-parent households,
young households, temporary workers), ethnic background (migrants), and lifestyles (students). These
groups are entrapped in a limbo either because the availability of public housing is insufficient to
cover their needs, or because they cannot afford rising prices in the private rental market. Such unmet
housing need has been detected by third-sector housing organisations (i.e. housing cooperatives or
foundations) through a (rising) number of housing projects labelled as ‘Housing Sociale’ (HS). We
refer to HS as a set of social-oriented housing projects targeting a diversity of groups in housing need,
the grey area, who lacks of adequate housing protection and struggle to find affordable homes,
especially in largest cities.
The 2009 National Housing Plan formalises such new configuration of housing system, within
which third-sector actors consolidated their role in providing good quality housing at affordable prices
to heterogeneous groups, which would serve also as means to make local communities more cohesive
(Poggio & Boreiko, 2017).
The political discourse around social mix in Italy is rather ‘fuzzy’ and unclear, especially if
compared to the Dutch counterpart (see next section). The relevance of such policy tool in the Italian
context might be questionable. There is a common agreement on the fact that Italian ‘compact’ cities
can benefit from a good level of socio-ethnic mix. Low levels of socio-spatial segregation along with
residual share of public housing have made the rhetoric of social mix less pervasive compared to other
EU countries (Bricocoli & Cucca, 2014), though it is still present. Traces of social mix can be found
already in the first public housing national programme in 1949 (Piano Fanfani), which implicitly
encouraged the residential proximity between social rented tenants and homeowners (target groups)
(Mugnano & Palvarini, 2013). More recently, several policy tools have been deployed to diversify the
social composition of public housing tenants. In 1993, a right-to-buy law (Legge 560/1993) entered
into force creating the conditions for tenure mixing operations (practices) within public rented sector.
This law can be considered part of a broader and longstanding strategy of demise of public housing
stock by the national government.
The fragmentation of welfare and housing policy has increased the territorial divide amongst
regions and cities. Within the national scenario, the Lombardy region can be considered a best
practice in terms of ability to combine public-private partnerships aimed to promote social innovation
in welfare and housing initiatives. In this framework, Lombardy of which Milan is the capital
stood out as a breeding institutional ground for the development of social mix policies since the
2000s. In line with other EU countries, local authorities adopted social mix policy in the frame of
urban renewal programmes at neighbourhood scale (Mugnano & Costarelli, 2015) as well as in
housing policies that deliver new residential opportunities for specific target groups, like middle-
classes (Belotti, 2017).
The Italian housing system is currently experiencing a transition phase. At institutional level,
public-private partnerships strengthen the engagement of third-sector housing organisations in new
practices of affordable housing solutions targeting socially mixed groups (i.e. HS).
In today's public debate, HS is presented as a versatile tool to cope with a number of social
vulnerability-related issues. Improving social cohesion through community building represents one of
the most commonly used discourses, which is associated to such housing practices. Not the least, in a
country where welfare and housing were traditionally separated domains of public action (see Allen et
al., 2004), the HS model aims to bridge this gap by acknowledging housing as a component of
broader social policy. We will now switch our perspective to the Dutch context and debate.
A persistent ideal in a changing context: the Netherlands
The share of the social rented stock in the Netherlands is currently around 30% (Eurostat, n.d.),
revealing a gradual decrease over the last 20 years. Traditionally attractive and accessible for a wide
range of income groups, including middle-classes (Priemus, 2003), social housing is provided by
housing associations (woningcorporaties), private organisations operating within the frame of specific
public law (Woningwet) since the early years of the 20th century. Affordable housing provision for all
socioeconomic group is a cornerstone of the Dutch welfare state, classified as a crossover between
conservative and socio-democratic regimes (Hoekstra, 2003). Nevertheless, the Dutch social rented
sector is increasingly moving towards residualization, targeting almost exclusively low-income
groups (Hoekstra, 2017). Such a shift is also a manifestation of the neo-liberal restructuring of the
welfare state since the 1990s (Musterd, 2014). Besides the residualization of the social rental sector,
the Dutch housing market is experiencing flexibilization and precarisation trends (for extended
discussion see Huisman, 2016). In 2015, a new law entered into force (Wet Doorstroming Huurmarkt)
allowing new forms of short-term rental contracts. The Dutch rental market discloses a mismatch
between those households who benefit from a ‘protected’ position in the rental market and those who
struggle to access it on permanent and affordable basis.
In recent years, the question of housing affordability has become more pertinent in the Netherlands
and it is now back at the centre of the political discussion. This issue was first raised following the
large inflow of refugees and asylum seekers in 2015. Soon after, along with recent welfare reforms of
the care system and social services (Dijkhoff, 2014) and the introduction of stricter allocation rules of
social housing to the lowest-income tenants (passend toewijzen) (Hoekstra, 2017), it became clear that
a pool of people (so-called spoedzoekers) was also concerned by similar problems. According to
recent welfare reforms, welfare dependents such as elderly, psychiatric patients and homeless people
are now supposed to live independently. Several housing associations started to think about possible
solutions to accommodate a plurality of social groups urgently looking for housing who differ in
terms of lifestyles (students), ethnicity (status holders, migrant workers), and social conditions (young
households, people with mental disorders or less invalidating problems, homeless, anti-squatters
3
).
These groups face difficulties in accessing the regular rental market, either due to affordability-related
problems in the private sector or long waiting lists in the social rental sector caused by strong
competition. A recent Dutch research report (Van der Velden et al., 2016) introduced the term ‘Magic
Mix’ (MM) to indicate a new typology of small-scale social housing initiatives, mainly on temporary
basis, coming to the forefront in several middle-sized and large Dutch cities.
3
. Renters occupying empty buildings as live-in security guards (Huisman, 2016).
Social mix is a longstanding issue in the Dutch urban and housing policy. Discourses and practices
around the notion of social mix have been cyclical, following government priorities and different
urban agenda (Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009; Van der Velden et al., 2018). The idea of social mix
became very dominant in policy discourses and practices throughout the 1990s in the context of urban
restructuring programmes (institutional frame) tackling socio-spatial segregation. From 1994
onwards, the Big Cities Policy enabled 31 cities to draft physical and socio-economic measures to
revitalise problematic districts. More specifically, the Urban Renewal Act (Wet Stedelijke
Vernieuwing) of 2000 launched long-term urban restructuring process that included demolition and
reconstruction operations in post-WWII social housing districts (Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009;
Kleinhans, 2012).
At the beginning of the new millennium, the debate on social mix shifted from socioeconomic to
ethnic terms, as the spatial concentration of ethnic minorities was increasingly perceived as
detrimental to integration (Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009). Building on the policy as carved out in the
Urban Renewal Act, a slightly different policy approach (40 Wijkenaanpak) targeted 40 Dutch urban
districts from 2007 onwards, aiming to improve social cohesion in those neighbourhoods with an
over-representation of ethnic minorities and low-income households. Housing diversification
(practice), which increases the proximity between low- and middle-income households (target
groups), continued to play a pivotal role in the achievement of mixed post-war neighbourhoods. In
this paper we explore how the ideal of social mix is been reframing since the ending of Urban
Renewal Act in 2015 within the context of MM initiatives.
Research design
Previous research showed that the connotation of social mix, especially in terms of discourses and
aims, is strongly shaped by contextual differences at national and/or local levels (Rose et al., 2013;
Veldboer et al., 2002). Thus, a multiple case studies research in different settings (countries) allows a
greater understanding of each peculiarities. Our focus is on the mobile nature of social mix concept
and on its implications for policy and practices. Following McCann and Ward’s (2012) approach of
‘policy assemblage, mobility and mutations’, we consider social mix as dynamic and mobile
assemblage of ideas, assumptions and practices, which we aim to unfold in the context of affordable
housing initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands.
Considering the exploratory nature of our research questions and our available resources, we
adopted a qualitative approach using four case studies (social housing projects). Social housing
initiatives include two HS and two MM projects respectively in Italy and the Netherlands, chosen
upon specific criteria: (1) realisation time after 2008 (outbreak of economic crisis); (2) target socially
heterogeneous groups; (3) location in cities with high problems of housing affordability.
The Italian case studies are Ospitalità Solidale and Casa dell’Accoglienza. The first project
consists of 24 small-sized dwellings scattered in several public housing estates situated in two
neighbourhoods in Milan, i.e. Niguarda and Molise Calvairate. Dwellings are allocated at below
market rent price for maximum two years to young people aged between 18 and 30 years old, who are
asked to engage in supportive and solidarity activities, such as organizing convivial moments, meals
or gardening workshops, to the benefit of sitting public housing tenants for at least 10 hours per
month. Casa dell’Accoglienza provides short-term accommodation for a variety of households in need
of affordable and/or temporary housing solutions in a peripheral municipality, i.e. San Donato
Milanese, located in the southeast of Milan. By entering such housing project, the most vulnerable
tenants (i.e. evicted households, welfare dependents etc.) will have the opportunity to expand their
social networks and benefit from the contact with other ‘resourceful’ tenants (i.e. students) to
overcome temporarily problematic situations.
The Dutch case studies are Startblok Riekerhaven in Amsterdam and Majella Wonen in Utrecht.
Startblok Riekerhaven consists of more than 500 social housing pre-fabricated units, which are home
to young people between 18 and 27 years old. Half of the tenants are asylum seekers and half are
Dutch. It is assumed that the integration of newcomers in the city, especially in terms of learning new
language, works better if Dutch people and asylum seekers live close to each other. In this project, all
tenants are actively involved in the housing management process (self-management) for which they
are responsible. The Majella Wonen project in Utrecht has been established in a residential estate that
was initially set to be demolished. It consists of 70 social housing dwellings. Half of these dwellings
are allocated to ‘regular’ tenants and half to ‘vulnerable’ tenants who have recently left social care
institutions or shelter facilities. The aim of Majella Wonen project is to build a supportive community
which can facilitate vulnerable tenants to form new social networks that will ultimately improve their
social inclusion in society. Similarly to Ospitalità Solidale in Milan, also in Majella Wonen ‘regular’
tenants are expected to contribute to community building activities, for 16 hours per month, as part of
their tenancy agreement.
Tables 1 and 2 offer a schematic description of these case studies. From a comparative overview, it
can be noticed that in Italy both the scale of initiatives and the length of tenancy are far smaller than in
the Netherlands. We interpret such dissimilarity as a prominent sign of distinct traditions in social
housing development and diffusion of social mix strategy in the two national contexts (see previous
sections).
Methods and analysis
Between January and September 2017, we conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders
(one hour each on average) through a snowball sampling approach. Respondents included three key
informants (researchers and civil servants), 17 housing practitioners and project managers (seven in
Italy and ten in the Netherlands), and six public servants (four in Italy and two in the Netherlands).
We did not include tenants as potential targets of our interviews since the aim of this paper, which is
part of a larger research project, was to study the concept of social mix from a practitioners and
policy-makers’ perspective. We were interested to explore how practitioners and policy-makers
implement social mix, including the discourses, rather than exploring tenants’ perceptions and
opinions about living in a mixed housing project.
Interviews were taped, transcribed, and coded using Atlas.ti. Coding strategy was mainly a
deductive approach deriving from the mainstream framing of the concept ‘social mix’ as found in the
literature, that is policymakers’ ambition to attract middle-class (target groups) ‘role model’
households (discourse) in low-income neighbourhoods (scale), by means of tenure diversification
(practices) in the frame of urban renewal policy (institutional frame). Accordingly, coding procedure
resulted in two main domains, discourses and practices, and three sub-domains, target groups,
institutional frame, and urban downscaling, which all together build up a new framing of the concept
‘social mix’ (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Schematic overview of concepts and domains.
Table 1. Main features of the case studies (Housing Sociale).
Name
Dwellings
Tenancy
(max)
Partners
Start
Characteristics
Ospitalità
Solidale
24
Two years
Housing cooperative DAR=CASA,
associations Arci, Comunità Progetto,
Municipality of Milan.
2014
Scattered social mix programme in
refurbished public housing units in District
4 and 9.
Casa
dell’Accoglienza
Six (three
studios, three
two-room
apartments)
18 months
Municipality of San Donato Milanese,
cooperatives: La Strada, Consorzio SIS,
Spazio Aperti Servizi.
2015
Temporary accommodation for households
in urgent housing need. Two-storeys house
with communal ground floor available to
tenants and neighbourhood initiatives.
Source: own elaboration based on interviews transcripts
Table 2. Case studies description (Magic Mix).
Name
Dwellings
Tenancy
(max)
Target groups
Partners
Start
Characteristics
Startblok
Riekerhaven
565 (463
studios, 102
rooms in
shared units)
Five years
Status-holders and Dutch
students or workers (18-27
years).
Housing association De Key, housing
organisation Socius Wonen,
Municipality of Amsterdam.
2016
Two/three-storeys blocks of removable
housing units where tenants are mixed door-
to-door. Renters are expected to manage
communal spaces and liveability-related
issues by themselves.
Majella Wonen
70 social
housing units
Three years
35 dwellings allocated to self-
selected tenants (Portaal) and
35 dwellings to vulnerable ones
(De Tussenvoorziening
clients).
Housing association Portaal, social
service organisation De
Tussenvoorziening.
Mid-2016
The community provides guidance and
support to help vulnerable tenants gaining
self-reliance. Tenants are mixed door-to-
door.
Source: own elaboration based on interviews transcripts.
Rephrasing the concept ‘social mix’ in five domains
Discourses
Common to all examined initiatives, social mix is, above all, a by-product of affordable housing
projects, which primarily seek to satisfy the housing demand of different groups. However, higher
expectations are attached to the mix between vulnerable (i.e. status-holders, welfare dependents,
homeless) and resourceful groups (mainly students and young people) in terms of better opportunities
of social inclusion for the former.
Bearing in mind that in socially mixed communities inter-group interaction was often hampered by
middle-classes’ avoidance towards marginalised groups (see literature section), these initiatives put
forward a new perspective. As one Dutch respondent argued:
We wanted to transform NIMBY to WIMBY approach (…) by appealing to people who think they can live
together with fragile people and maybe give some help, it’s all right for them. We appeal to a very different
interest and I think that’s the genius of this concept. We give different starts by appealing to positive energies
and interests…so from NIMBY to WIMBY it’s the most crucial idea and maybe even a strategy for our
housing association because we have more and more people in similar situations (Practitioner, Portaal)
4
.
Interestingly, social inclusion as project goal builds on the idea of self-reliance. By joining these
projects on a temporarily basis, vulnerable tenants can find a supportive environment to start afresh
after difficult periods of their life. This argument applies especially for those projects where
vulnerable tenants used to rely on public welfare support (i.e. Majella Wonen and Casa
dell’Accoglienza). In both cases practitioners aim to boost self-reliance by shaping vulnerable
tenants behaviour (see Manzi, 2010). Yet, in the two contexts, this goal is pursued in different ways.
In Casa dell’Accoglienza, project staff (including social workers) designs ad hoc programs during
tenant(s) stay in the project as a tool to achieve desired changes:
Local authorities demand us to draft a training project to foster self-sufficiency (accompagnamento
all’autonomia) (…) for each individual according to his/her need. Self-sufficiency means that individuals are
able to leave this project on their own feet, (…) with the ability to support themselves (Practitioner, La
Strada, own translation).
In Majella Wonen, greater emphasis is placed on creating mixed community (referring to the
members of housing project) as a tool to provide positive role models to ‘get vulnerable tenants back
on track’, including incentives for tenants who successfully internalize desirable norms of conduct.
First aim was to create a community where fragile tenants could make a better start than in ‘normal’
situations. We thought that this could be better for them and for people who choose to live in this Magic Mix.
In three years, if this is going well, vulnerable tenants will have their own regular rental contact with Portaal,
and Tussenvoorziening leaves the scene (Practitioner, Portaal).
Although the link between social mix and (inclusive) communities is far from new in the debate
(see Arthurson, 2002), we found traces of discontinuity which relate to current ‘responsibilisation’
and ‘activation’ discourses in welfare systems in many Western European countries (Peeters, 2013).
Thus, the degree of inclusiveness of mixed community results from a twofold dynamic: on the one
hand, the extent to which resourceful tenants are able to mobilize pro-actively individual resources to
the benefits of the collectivity (activation); on the other hand, the extent to which boosting self-
reliance through politics of responsible behaviours does effectively equal to increasing social
inclusion (responsibilisation). The next section provides further insights on how resourceful target
groups contribute to realise mentioned discourses.
Target groups
4
. In the Netherlands, due to recent reforms, municipalities and housing associations must provide accommodation to a
growing number of vulnerable groups who were previously living in specific social care institutions (see Dijkhoff, 2014).
Early 21st century social mix policies used to target low- and middle-income residents (Kleinhans,
2004), whereas examined social mix initiatives distinguish between resourceful tenants (i.e. those in
relatively advantage position like young workers or students), and vulnerable tenants (i.e. welfare
dependents, low-income, and refugees). Of course there are significant differences between social
groups, e.g. between refugees and people with disabilities, even though they are both considered as
‘vulnerable tenants’. These differences are likely to influence the outcomes of social mix.
In both research settings, we observed that the role model idea underlying these social mix projects
is built upon the differentiation between ‘resourceful’ and ‘vulnerable’ tenants. Common to all case
studies is the idea that resourceful people should be willing to provide vulnerable neighbours with
help, and mobilize their capabilities to contribute to the benefits of the collectivity (see previous
section), in this case the housing project.
Resourceful residents might be a driving force for vulnerable ones. (…) They can bring a know-how, even
basic things like using computers. They can be reference persons in the project for other people who haven’t
same skills (Practitioner, La Strada, own translation).
We still keep on mixing people and we think that is good especially for refugees and for vulnerable people.
They can live together with other people and it is always good when people can meet and learn from each
other, so we make living rooms where people can live, cook, chill together, watch TV or whatever (Policy-
maker, Municipality of Amsterdam).
While in traditional social mix policies target groups were defined mainly along income or tenure
differentiation, in these projects different criteria apply in the selection of target groups who wish to
become ‘a driving force’ for somebody else. While, generally, no specific criteria other than urgent
need apply to the selection of vulnerable groups, in the case of resourceful residents, since they should
be willing to ‘act’ as role models, practitioners often carefully select candidates through face-to-face
interviews and/or motivation letters. Such selection is based on a combination of objective (i.e.
income, age, citizenship etc.) and subjective requirements. The latter may include the endowment of
personal attitudes towards social commitment, ‘motivation’ or ‘enthusiasm to participate’, meaning:
People must be motivated to live here with refugees, have attitudes to help persons from other countries and
introduce them to Amsterdam, or are curious about how is to live with them. People who are willing to be
part of a community to build up here (Practitioner, De Key).
In our view, the reference to those subjective features echoes the concept of ‘hyper-diversity’
(Tasan-Kok et al., 2013), in a way that diversity as a proxy of social mix does not only refer to
ethnicity or income levels, but includes age, life styles and personal preferences such as motivation
and attitudes (which are difficult to gauge and to account).
Mixed communities are not anymore a combination of low and middle-income groups in different
tenures. In our case studies, the social diversity refers to ‘outsiders’ on the domestic housing
markets, whose demand for affordable and/or urgent housing solutions cannot be satisfied by the
current supply. To a certain extent, it is by definition a fragile social mix of low-income tenants
(young people seeking social housing units) and groups with other forms of social vulnerability. In
such situation, some (resourceful) people can turn personal attitudes (e.g. sociability) into a sort of
‘bargaining counter’ to increase their chances to find affordable housing. As the next section will
show, the described situation is part of a mutual obligation framework amongst future tenants and
housing providers.
Practices
A grounding assumption in these social mix initiatives is that diversity can be a strength for
meaningful relationships amongst residents. Likewise, it is evident that living side by side does not
make necessarily good neighbours as envisaged by mainstream assumptions of social mix (see
theoretical section). According to our respondents, social mix is intended not only as residential
proximity of different social groups, but as a sum of daily practices that enable positive encounters
and community building. As a respondent argued:
I don’t think it’s a good idea when you build, put people there and then say ‘good luck!’ I think you have to
do more. It might work but it might be possible that the atmosphere there is not OK, and you don’t have any
control in your complex (Practitioner, De Key).
Daily practices range from sport activities, movie nights, language exchange, walks to garden or
cooking activities. Not the least ‘it’s also about little things [such as] (…) step in and say hello!’
(Practitioner, Portaal). Such practices reflect the idea of ‘proximal role modelling’ as diverse people
are expected to interact, rather than just observing each other (see literature section).
The practices of social mixing are embedded in a quid pro quo rationale. Selected tenants commit
themselves to be involved in social-oriented activities aiming to build trust relationships and provide
mutual support. The tenants can benefit from lower rent prices (compared to private rental market) or
quick housing provision (‘jumping’ long waiting lists for regular allocation of social housing
dwellings) while in return they are asked to invest a certain amount of time in social activities. A
principle of conditionality, meaning the admittance to housing projects in return to solidarity
activities, is common to both Italian and Dutch cases:
We look for tenants who will pay lower rent (...) and in return he/she will pledge his/her time to manage other
tenants’ necessity, such as helping old people (Practitioner, La Strada, own translation).
You join the project with the idea of helping and supporting each other (…) we also made an agreement…a
little bit of commitment: you agree to spend like 4 hours per week on a project (Practitioner, Portaal).
Conditionality applies both in the selection procedure of candidates, in order to establish the
endowment of needed attitudes (see previous section), and during the tenancy, to assess tenants’
contribution to project objectives (i.e. through periodic meetings and interviews). Two observations
arise. First, while quid pro quo mechanisms are not new in other welfare domains, such as work and
social benefits (see e.g. Veldboer et al., 2015), these initiatives show how similar principles are
entering the housing field. They provide potential insights to explore how conditionality is reshaping
the access to certain social housing opportunities within the broader paradigm shift from traditional to
post welfare regimes in Western Europe. Second, social mix as a ‘cure’ for marginalized groups
shifted from top-down tenure differentiation strategies, usually policy-based (see Kleinhans, 2004), to
bottom-up, project-based approaches to boost everyday practices of social interaction at building
scale. We will now shift to the last two domains, which explore institutional and spatial dimensions of
these projects.
Institutional frame
By ‘institutional frame’, we mean the set of relevant laws, policies, reforms, including actors, in
which the idea of social mix is contextualized and implemented. Social mix was a fundamental
element of area-based urban restructuring policies in the Netherlands (Wet Stedelijke Vernieuwing)
(Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009; Kleinhans, 2012), and in Italy (see the National Programme of
Neighbourhood Contracts - Contratti di Quartiere). Despite contextual differences, both policies were
partly funded by central governments and applied nationwide to low-income neighbourhoods (mainly
of social housing). Housing associations (HAs) in the Netherlands, and public housing companies
(Aziende Casa) in Italy were key players in social mix policies. Public housing stock in Italy is owned
either by regional public housing companies (ex-IACP) or by municipalities. In Lombardy, public
housing company ALER (Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale) owns and manages most of the
stock.
In terms of institutional frame, our cases studies suggest a paradigm shift from policy-based (e.g.
Wet Stedelijke Vernieuwing and Contratti di Quartiere) to project-based approach. Both HS and MM
initiatives are jointly run by ad hoc local-based partnerships involving housing providers
(cooperatives and housing associations), public authorities (city governments), and other
organisations which bring relevant expertise to the projects, such as socio-cultural associations (Italy)
and/or social care organisations (The Netherlands).
The local-based character is an outcome of broader devolution processes from central to local
authorities that occurred in the two countries at different timing. While devolution trends in housing
and welfare field in Italy date back to early 2000s, the Dutch counterpart experienced massive
devolution processes since the 2014 Social Support Act (see literature sections). Although such
processes mainly concerned welfare services, these had evident implications also in housing. In the
name of informal care, many care homes in the Netherlands have been progressively vacated. As far
as possible, vulnerable or socially disadvantaged people, such as elderly, homeless or psychiatric
patients, ought to rely on the resources provided by citizens and communities in urban
neighbourhoods. In addition, parallel to the ending of Urban Renewal Act, the 2015 Housing Act re-
adjusted housing associations’ tasks by forcing them to stick to their core business (i.e. providing
shelters only for low-income people) and by reducing their freedom to build more expensive houses
for middle-income households (a cornerstone of Dutch social mix approach). In this light, it is likely
that Dutch HAs will have to accommodate a growing number of socially disadvantaged and low-
income people in the future (e.g. in MM projects) while limiting tenure mixing operations in
neighbourhood regeneration. This implies a shift from area-based urban renewal policies to more
individual-based policies targeting vulnerable groups (see Van der Velden et al., 2018).
As mentioned earlier, in Italy, downscaling processes from central government to local authorities
(regionalisation) date back to early 2000s. Focussing on Region Lombardy as the context of our
empirical research, the last decade witnessed a greater involvement of Third Sector housing
organisations in HS initiatives (see literature section). This has occurred in parallel to and partly
because of the declining capacity of regional public housing company (ALER) to address the
housing needs of diverse social groups (also due to shortage of financial resources). This provides a
possible explanation of the increased tendency to establish partnerships with private housing
organisations (limited or not for profit) to enlarge the provision of affordable housing for mixed
audience.
More than 600 (public housing) units have been put into the hands of third-sector organisations to deal with
social disadvantaged groups, whose needs can be addressed also through those apartments that we (public
housing company) made available to these organisations. [These apartments] need some refurbishment
interventions to comply with minimum standards of living, so associations that can do this investment can
have the apartment for several years (Civil servant, ALER Milano, own translation).
The 2016 regional housing law (Legge 16/2016) further strengthen this development as it ‘entitles
private stakeholders and third-sector organisations to manage public housing units’ (Civil servant,
ALER Milano, own translation).
From a spatial scale perspective, the paradigm shift from post-1990s policy-based approach to
project-based approach means a downscaling of the concept ‘social mix’ from neighbourhood(s) to
building(s) level.
Urban downscaling
Both in the Dutch urban restructuring policy (Stedelijke Vernieuwing) and in the Italian National
Programmes of Neighbourhood Contracts (Contratti di Quartiere), social mix applied to specific
neighbourhoods with relatively high levels of socio-economic deprivation. Conversely, in all case
studies, practitioners tend to implement social mix when opportunities arises, regardless of location.
It is no coincidence that, frequently, such opportunities are vacant buildings (Casa dell’Accoglienza,
Ospitalità Solidale, Majella Wonen) or empty plots of land filled with removable houses (Startblok
Riekerhaven).
In today’s austerity climate and cutbacks to public spending, providing affordable housing is a
continuous challenge for policymakers (Mulliner & Maliene, 2013). In the Dutch situation, new
construction of social housing is going very slow and in insufficient numbers to cater for the growing
demand. As mentioned, recent welfare reforms left lots of empty spaces in former care homes for
elderly people and this is where some HAs seek to implement new MM projects. One of the most
emblematic examples is Genderhof (Eindhoven) with almost 200 apartments converted into flexible
housing for different groups. In Italy, the high number of (publicly owned) vacant dwellings is often
due to mismanagement reasons (e.g. lacking maintenance or substandard for regular allocation). Until
recently, this situation was not particularly problematic as many Italian households could benefit
from relatively high levels of tenure security. Today, however, as a new the housing question is back
at the forefront (see literature section), vacant stock represents an unused asset that could be more
efficiently allocated to address emerging housing needs.
The intent to maximize benefits from disposable resources to cope with unmet housing demand is
clearly present in both case studies, suggesting the sharing of a ‘doing more with less’ philosophy. In
our Dutch and Italian respondents’ words:
Eight or nine years ago that building was set to be demolished (…) to build more middle-class dwellings. We
did a step back and decided to maintain and repair it (…). We saw the opportunity to make a new mix in
building that was already there (Practitioner, Portaal).
We already had those houses. We haven’t bought them, we only had to move and renew them a little bit. So we
can exploit them for nine more years (Practitioner, De Key).
Due to financial limits, public housing companies like ALER struggle to maintain the units in good
conditions, so we look for those individuals or organisations who, even with small investment of money (10-
15,000 euro), can do some maintenance work (e.g. changing doors or toilets) by themselves. In return, we
offer a discount on charges. This way allows us to value our stock, which, otherwise, could not be rented due
to current normative restrictions (Civil servant, ALER Milano, own translation).
Vacancies result from very different dynamics in the two countries and produce different
configurations, scales and layouts of social mix. In the Italian case studies, where vacant units could
be considered as a ‘structural’ feature due to longstanding disregard of public housing stock,
vacancies are scattered in different public housing neighbourhoods and buildings. This might results
either in fine-grained social mix at building level (Casa dell’Accoglienza) or in ‘pepper-potting’ social
mix programmes filling empty units in public housing estates (Ospitalità Solidale). Within this frame,
social mix results from the matching between existing opportunities (public housing units that are
made available for HS projects) and the current demand of social housing (social profile of
households). It follows that smallest [available] units are usually allocated to singles or couples while
bigger ones to larger households’ (Practitioner, DAR=CASA, own translation). In that sense, Italian
practitioners retain less room of manoeuvre in designing type and balance of social mix as they have
to stick to broader structural conditions (e.g. available dwellings and buildings), at least in the HS
initiatives taking place in publicly owned stock (as those examined in this paper).
In the Netherlands, vacant spaces where HAs decide to launch MM projects can be considered as
much more linked to circumstantial consequences of recent political reforms (i.e. healthcare), which,
however, might predict more structural changes in the future. In these contexts, project managers
benefit from relatively more freedom to decide to whom allocating dwellings and in which
percentages (balance). As both Dutch case studies show, project managers opted for allocating units
to vulnerable and resourceful categories in equal numbers (50% each) and according to a door-to-door
configuration, pursuing the maximum spatial proximity between different groups at the smaller scale
(same building, same floors).
The grabbing opportunities approach, discussed above, recalls the dichotomy that we highlighted
in relation to the discourses underpinning social mix in the examined initiatives. This refers, on the
one hand, to social mix as the by-product of structural mismatches in the housing systems and, on the
other hand, to social mix as an explicit strategy to foster social inclusion of the weakest component of
housing projects through proximal role modelling mechanisms triggered by committed tenants. On
this basis, we argue that the ‘silver thread running through all the domains that compose such
reframing process of ‘social mix’ is the shared belief to make a virtue out of necessity.
Discussion and conclusion
The societal and historical context influences policy approaches, discourses, and values attached to
the ideas of social mix and mixed community (Cole & Goodchild, 2001). Within this framework, we
have investigated how the concept ‘social mix’ is being reframed in times of deep socio-economic
transformations fuelled by austerity politics and welfare retrenchment, growing socio-spatial
segregation, increasing diversification of European cities, and shortage of affordable housing.
Starting from McCann and Ward’s (2012) approach of policy assemblage, mobility and
mutations’, we have conceptualised social mix as a dynamic and mobile assemblage of ideas,
assumptions and practices, unfolding in the recently changed context of affordable housing initiatives
in Italy and in the Netherlands. Although housing and welfare systems in these countries are
remarkably different, a similar reframing of the concept ‘social mix’ seems to occur, which continues
to be important in post-crisis social housing provision, but in different ‘assemblages’ from the pre-
crisis context in both countries.
We empirically examined four recent affordable housing projects, respectively Housing Sociale in
Italy and Magic Mix in the Netherlands, which target a mix of social groups with urgent housing
needs. In so doing, we contribute to the existing literature a new post-crisis framing of the concept
‘social mix’ described along five domains: discourses, target groups, practices, institutional frame,
urban downscaling.
In conclusion, we identify two specific aspects that have emerged from our analysis and provide
clear evidence of a reframing of the concept of social mix in recent years.
Firstly, instead of attracting middle-classes into low-income neighbourhoods a key element of
the highly criticised frame of the pre-2015 social mix policy via tenure mix the analysed initiatives
aim to bring in resourceful tenants. Together with vulnerable tenants, they create a fine-grained social
mix at building level. Interestingly, the adjective ‘resourceful does not refer to a better economic
condition (i.e. a relatively higher income) but to the disposal of (relatively higher) socio-cultural and
human capital and to the willingness to make it available to all the other tenants in the housing
projects. The attribution of the ‘role model’ function to resourceful tenants indicates an utterly new
approach in social mix discourses, recognising the importance of personal attitudes and motivation to
interact with neighbours from different socio-cultural backgrounds over and beyond the
differentiation in terms of tenures and income levels. In order to better understand the magnitude of
such paradigm shift we should also recall that, in the ‘mainstream’ social mix policy, one of the main
reasons why the ‘role model’ assumption has proved ineffective was the post-intervention lack of
social contact between low- and middle-income groups, also because of different lifestyles.
Secondly, social mixing as a set of daily practices requires that tenants engage themselves in
community building activities on regular basis. Although, the short-term tenancy makes it clear that
these initiatives represent a temporal and/or a transitional phase in one’s own housing career (one may
also wonder how far these strategies are realistically addressing housing problems) warm and lasting
relationships among neighbours are essential to nourish the community development process.
Notwithstanding the commendable intentions, in the long-term tenants’ efforts may inevitably face
high and low tides which might jeopardize the social sustainability of the project. In this regard, two
key mechanisms should guarantee the presumed effectiveness of the current social mix assemblage:
the relatively high turnover rate of residents, and the conditionality element, that is the mutual
agreement to take part in community-oriented activities in return to affordable rents.
The high turnover constantly provides new, motivated people with opportunities to join the project.
Thus, future tenants will bring fresh energies and inputs for continuing to pursue established goals,
which can help to counterbalance former tenants’ decreasing motivation. As for the conditionality
element, previous research in mixed communities show that stimulating residents’ participation in
social-oriented activities can be important driver of social interaction, provided that people do not feel
forced to (Mugnano & Palvarini, 2013). Thus, while this paper revealed policymakers’ expectations
and hopes regarding very recent projects (see Tables 1 and 2), we recommend future research to
explore the assumed ‘magical’ consequences of such mix, especially in terms of project-linked’
social relationships between tenants. Equally important is to better understand how different scales of
social mix projects as well as differences between social groups, e.g. asylum seekers and welfare
dependents, influence the outcomes of social mix projects.
In the same vein, we also stress the need to shed more light on the mechanisms adopted in order to
measure tenants’ efforts (i.e. contribution to project goals), and to understand what the implications
are if expectations do not materialize. A quid pro quo system according to which tenants exchange
supportive actions in return to affordable rents may raise issues of fairness, especially if the number
of similar projects increases or ever scale up to policy level, moving beyond grabbing ad-hoc local
opportunities. In a climate of overall trends towards residualization of social housing in Europe, we
should critically ask whether linking the provision of (scarce) affordable housing to the endowment of
subjective attitudes and willingness to take up social commitment tasks might be a just and universal
prospect for the future, especially in countries with a residual share of de-commodified housing stock,
like Italy.
References
Allen, J., Barlow, J., Leal, J., Maloutas, T., & Padovani, L. (2004). Housing and welfare in Southern
Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. NY: Doubleday; Garden City.
Arthurson, K. (2002). Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: a critical
relationship or tenuous link?. Urban Policy and Research, 20(3), 245261.
Arundel, R., & Doling, J. (2017). The end of mass homeownership? Changes in labour markets and
housing tenure opportunities across Europe. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 124.
Atkinson, R., & Kintrea, K. (2000). Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts. Policy
& Politics, 28(1), 93108.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Belotti, E. (2017). The importation of social mix policy in Italy: A case study from Lombardy,
Cities, 71, 4148.
Bolt, G., Phillips, D., & Van Kempen, R. (2010). Housing policy, (de)segregation and social
mixing: An international perspective. Housing Studies, 25(2), 129135.
Bolt, G., & Van Kempen, R. (2013). Introduction special issue: Mixing neighbourhoods: Success
or failure?. Cities, 35, 391396.
Bond, L., Sautkina, E., & Kearns, A. (2011). Mixed messages about mixed tenure: do reviews tell
the real story?. Housing Studies, 26(1), 6994.
Bricocoli, M., & Cucca, R. (2014). Social mix and housing policy: Local effects of a misleading
rhetoric. The case of Milan. Urban Studies, 53(1), 7791.
Bridge, G., Butler, T., & Lees, L. (Eds) (2012). Mixed communities: Gentrification by stealth?.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Camina, M. M., & Wood, M. J. (2009). Parallel Lives: Towards a Greater Understanding of What
Mixed Communities Can Offer. Urban Studies, 46(2), 459480.
Cole, I., & Goodchild, B. (2001). Social Mix and the Balanced Community in British housing
policya tale of two epochs. GeoJournal, 51(4), 351360.
Dijkhoff, T. (2014). The Dutch Social Support Act in the shadow of the decentralization dream.
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 36(3), 276294.
Eurostat (n.d.). Dataset: Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income
group - EU-SILC survey. Retrieved from
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_lvho02&lang=en
Graves, E. M. (2011). Mixed outcome developments. Journal of the American Planning Association,
77(2), 143153.
Gwyther, G. (2009). The Doctrine of Social Mix in the Mobile Society: A Theoretical Perspective.
Housing, Theory and Society, 26(2), 14356.
Hoekstra, J. (2003). Housing and the welfare state in the Netherlands: an application of Esping-
Andersen's typology. Housing, Theory and Society, 20(2), 5871.
Hoekstra, J. (2017). Reregulation and Residualization in Dutch social Housing: a critical Evaluation
of new Policies. Critical Housing Analysis, 4(1), 3139.
Huisman, C. J. (2016). A silent shift? The precarisation of the Dutch rental housing market.
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(1), 93106.
Jonkman, A., & Janssen-Jansen, L. (2015). The ‘squeezed middle’ on the Dutch housing market: how
and where is it to be found?. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(3), 509528.
Kleinhans, R. (2004). Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A review of
recent literature. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19(4), 367390.
Kleinhans, R. (2012). A Glass Half Empty or Half Full? On the Perceived Gap between Urban
Geography Research and Dutch Urban Restructuring Policy. International Journal of Housing
Policy, 12(3), 299314.
Manzi, T. (2010). Promoting responsibility, shaping behaviour: Housing management, mixed
communities and the construction of citizenship. Housing Studies, 25(1), 519.
McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012). Policy assemblages, mobilities and mutations: Toward a
multidisciplinary conversation. Political studies review, 10(3), 325332.
Mugnano, S., & Costarelli, I. (2015). Il mix sociale nelle politiche di rigenerazione urbana dei grandi
complessi residenziali a Milano [Social mix in urban renewal policies of large housing estates in
Milan]. Sociologia urbana e rurale, 108, 86100.
Mugnano, S., & Palvarini, P. (2013) ‘Sharing space without hanging together’: A case study of social
mix policy in Milan. Cities, 35, 417422.
Mulliner, E., & Maliene, V. (2013). Austerity and reform to affordable housing policy. Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment, 28(2), 397407.
Musterd, S. (2014). Public housing for whom? Experiences in an era of mature neo-liberalism: The
Netherlands and Amsterdam. Housing Studies, 29(4), 467484.
Musterd, S., & Andersson, R. (2005). Housing mix, social mix, and social opportunities. Urban
Affairs Review, 40(6), 761790.
Peeters, R. (2013). Responsibilisation on government's terms: new welfare and governance of
responsibility and solidarity. Social Policy and Society, 12(4), 583595.
Pinkster, F. (2014). ‘I Just Live Here’: Everyday Practices of Disaffiliation of Middle-class
Households in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 51(4), 810826.
Poggio, T., & Boreiko, D. (2017). Social housing in Italy: old problems, older vices, and some new
virtues?. Critical Housing Analysis, 4(1), 112123.
Priemus, H. (2003). Dutch housing associations: current developments and debates. Housing
studies, 18(3), 327351.
Priemus, H., & Whitehead, C. (2014). Interactions between the financial crisis and national
housing markets. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 29(2), 193200.
Rose, D., Germain, A., Bacqué, M. H., Bridge, G., Fijalkow, Y., & Slater, T. (2013). Social Mix and
Neighbourhood Revitalization in a Transatlantic Perspective: Comparing Local Policy Discourses
and Expectations in Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montréal (Canada). International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 430450.
Sarkissian, W. (1976). The idea of social mix in town planning: an historical review. Urban Studies,
13(3), 231246.
Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C., & Fernandez Arrigoitia, M. (Eds.) (2014). Social Housing in Europe.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Tammaru, T., Van Ham, M., Marcińczak, S., & Musterd, S. (Eds.) (2016). Socio-economic
segregation in European capital cities: East meets West. London: Routledge.
Tasan-Kok, T., Van Kempen, R., Raco, M., & Bolt, G. (2013). Towards Hyper-Diversified European
Cities: A Critical Literature Review. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences.
Van der Velden, J., Tiggeloven, P., & Wassenberg, F. (2016). De Magic Mix. Een verkenning van
wooncomplexen waar verschillende doelgroepen gemengd wonen [The Magic Mix. An exploration
of residential complexes where different target groups live together]. Den Haag: Platform 31.
Van der Velden, J., Uyterlinde, M.; & Bronsvoort, I. (2018). Sturen op gemengde wijken?
Verkennend onderzoek in zes steden [Steering towards mixed neighborhoods? Exploratory research
in six cities]. Den Haag: Platform31.
Van Gent, W. P. C., Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. (2009). Disentangling Neighbourhood
Problems: Area-Based Interventions in Western European Cities. Urban Research & Practice,
2(1), 5367.
Van Ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L., & Maclennan, D. (Eds.) (2012). Neighbourhood
Effects Research: New Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Van Kempen, R., & Bolt, G. (2009). Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the
Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(4), 457475.
Van Kempen, R., & Wissink, B. (2014). Between Places and Flows: Towards a New Agenda for
Neighbourhood Research in an Age of Mobility. Geografiska Annaler, 96(2), 95108.
Veldboer, L., Kleinhans, R., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2002). The Diversified Neighbourhood in
Western Europe and the United States. Journal of International Migration and Integration,
3(1), 4164.
Veldboer, L., Kleinhans, R., & van Ham, M. (2015). Mandatory Volunteer Work as Fair
Reciprocity for Unemployment and Social Benefits?. IZA Discussion paper 9111.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and racial studies, 30(6), 1024
1054.
Watt, P. (2009). Living in an oasis: middle-class disaffiliation and selective belonging in an English
suburb. Environment and Planning A, 41(12), 28742892.
... The aim of these encounters is to counteract social exclusion and social isolation, arising, for example, from a lack of relationships (Van Eijk, 2010). They take the form of common projects and regular, shared social activities among residents (Costarelli, Kleinhans, & Mugnano, 2019). As the site of such activities, the housing sphere can be included among what Amin (2012) denotes as a 'micro-public,' with the potential to produce new patterns of social interaction across diversity. ...
... Research into mainstream approaches to social mix, i.e. diversifying housing tenure within lowincome neighborhoods to attract the middle-class, has not supported the assumption that diverse people living next to each other automatically engage in encounters across diversity (Arthurson, Levin, & Ziersch, 2015;Blanc & Bidou-Zachariasen, 2010;Chamboredon & Lemaire, 1970;Chaskin & Joseph, 2011). In this context, a new framing of 'intentional' social mix, introduced in reference to affordable housing programs in the Italian and Dutch contexts (Costarelli et al., 2019), emphasizes residents' motivation-or intention-to encounter their neighbors, rather than merely living side by side. ...
... This smallscale approach is a departure from the large-scale framework of state-led urban renewal policies, which have tended to demolish significant chunks of old social housing stock and replace it with mixed tenure developments. This shift raises questions about how the greater involvement of housing practitioners and managers in an intentional approach to social mix adds value through setting expectations, providing a clear framework, and in some cases concrete support for such encounters to occur (Costarelli et al., 2019), which is the focus of this paper. Housing practitioners' roles in initiating and supporting encounters within mixed residential settings are particularly critical in three types of housing management activities (Priemus, Dieleman, & Clapham, 1999): selection of tenants, i.e. how professionals select suitable, motivated residents; allocation of dwellings, e.g. ...
Article
Full-text available
The concept of social mix has been thoroughly examined in the housing literature. Research to date finds little evidence of encounters between socially diverse residents living in mixed settings. This paper provides comparative insights into new, socially mixed housing initiatives in Milan and Paris that have been conceived to promote encounters among diverse residents. Both initiatives, implemented by not-for-profit organizations, provide affordable housing for university students or young professionals in low-income social housing neighborhoods in exchange for their commitment to organize solidarity activities with and for their social housing neighbors. The paper examines how frameworks provided by housing practitioners for 'intentional' encounters between motivated youth and low-income residents shape these encounters and considers the receptivity of the youth population to intentionally engage in common projects across diversity. It distils some core conditions within these programs that promote encounters among diverse residents.
... Good housing is a key success element in provisioning human wellbeing and sustainable communities; therefore, governments should afford adequate and well-located housing possibilities, meeting the needs of all segments of existing and future society, offering equality of opportunities and good services for all, with a focus on environmental issues and landscape functioning (Gopalan et al., 2015;Dillmana et al., 2017;Costarelli et al., 2019). In accordance to the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), cities today need to employ sustainable strategies in housing policies and programmes based on inclusion and participation. ...
... As a way to address the housing crisis and the prevalence of slums, as well as their impact on quality of life, the Algerian government has allocated considerable budgets on different housing programmes and policies through four national development plans since 2001 (Djafri et al., 2019;Niang, 2019). They target all income levels separately (low middlehigh), thus undermining the idea of social mix (Costarelli et al., 2019;Safar-Zitoun, 2020). However, there is still a gap in terms of housing supply, quality and affordability compared to the effective demand (Aknouch, 2016). ...
Article
Being considered as a basic necessity and a key element in the development of sustainable communities, housing is a major concern for the Algerian government. Algiers is facing for the last years a challenging housing shortage and as a way to overcome this problem, many housing projects have been launched. However, the pressing need to address this crisis has disregarded what the pattern of landscape will be, how the existing infrastructures will accommodate with such housing projects and how they will impact on human well-being. This research aims to advance the challenges of planning for sustainability by proposing a methodological approach in a context of high lack of data to support decision-makers in the elaboration of affordable housing projects. The main objective is to trade off urban growth with residential satisfaction and the preservation of natural resources. We developed two Cellular Automata (CA) based residential development scenarios to identify suitable locations for future affordable housing projects: Urban densification scenario (UD) and Constrained urban sprawl scenario (CUS). Both scenarios are based on indicators of residential preferences and measures taken in order to counter the negative effects of urbanization. Results reveal the low capacity of Algiers to meet the housing shortage according to the conditions set for each scenario. The scenarios were evaluated by quantifying their spatial patterns using a preselected set of six class-level landscape metrics. Results show a combination of aggregated and dispersed patterns growth for both scenarios meeting trade-offs among the advantages and the challenges of urban densification and urban sprawl. Then, Standard deviation and regression analysis were conducted to assess the accuracy of CA simulation and the evaluation of pattern changes in the simulated scenarios. The resulting values indicate the good performance of CA and confirm its effectiveness in predicting the future locations of housing projects.
... One of the benefits of international comparative studies is that shifts in contemporary meanings and practices attached to the idea of social mix can be examined across countries in light of wider global changes, such as the 2008 economic crisis (Costarelli et al., 2019) or a neoliberal global trend (Rose et al., 2013). Cross-country analysis thus offers an opportunity to examine if a given condition in one society is influential elsewhere or not, and to examine how similar social mix policies are enacted differently in practice. ...
... There were some local variations: the Carlton program also aimed at integrating the site with the rest of the neighborhood while the Green Ono program aimed at increasing densities as part of a national plan. However, similar to findings reported from other international comparative studies (e.g., Costarelli et al., 2019;Rose et al., 2013), both projects reflect similar neoliberal governance trends which have led to limited government investment in housing in both countries over the past 30 years. As a result, housing regeneration programs relying heavily on private sector investment, such as the programs examined here, incorporate market-rate housing to meet the profit requirement of the private sector (Marom & Carmon, 2015;Rose et al., 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
During the past 30 years, social mix has been on the policy agenda of many countries as a tool for deconcentrating urban disadvantage and enhancing social inclusion. However, these projects often take diverse forms in different institutional and policy contexts. In this article, we compare two separate studies of current urban regeneration programs in Australia and Israel. The comparative analysis reveals major similarities and differences regarding the physical and social outcomes of social mix. Our findings suggest that although both projects did not declare to create socially mixed communities, the resulting resident makeup was mixed. Despite differences in the projects’ physical designs, both resulted in two communities living side-by-side but not interacting meaningfully, and therefore not gaining from the possible benefits of social mix. We argue that international comparative studies of social mix policies in different contexts allow for a better understanding of the practicalities of social mix processes for policymakers and planners.
... Yet, research on the everyday interactions between newcomers and the local residents is limited. Although there are a few studies dealing with community interaction (Costarelli et al., 2019;Czischke & Huisman, 2018;K. Kim & Smets, 2020), the scope of the community in these studies is mostly limited to co-habitants of a housing project. ...
Article
Full-text available
In the Netherlands, several housing projects have housed local young adults and refugees together, attracting media and academic attention. Along with praise for complementing the integration process of newcomers, criticism has also been leveled that such projects are often located far from residential areas. Meanwhile, the SET project located in a residential area in Amsterdam attempt to extend the active participation of locals in facilitating the integration of newcomers. This qualitative study investigated the community experiences of Syrian newcomers, the elements which stimulate or hinder newcomers’ participation in community activities and care programs in their everyday lives.
Article
A concern that living in concentrated public housing could worsen outcomes for public housing tenants has underpinned policy for decades in New Zealand; most recently, in decision-making around how much public housing to provide in new, mixed-tenure communities. Our research examines the degree to which public housing is concentrated in New Zealand, and analyses the association between the proportion of public housing where public housing tenants live in 2013, and their health outcomes five years later. Most public housing tenants are living in areas with low numbers of public housing tenants. As the proportion of public housing tenants in the local population increases, their hospitalisation rate decreases, as does the chance they would utilise mental health outpatient services and the number of prescriptions they receive, although in most cases this reversed for very high densities of public housing tenants. Our study indicates that higher densities of public housing than often assumed may be beneficial to public housing tenants.
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to investigate policy tools related to the Munich Mix in Germany and to present the direction of development of affordable housing policies for achieving the social mix in Korea. It shows that the municipality has focused on urban development and land use planning tools to attain the two objectives of housing construction and reduction in construction costs. The second major finding is that the housing policy was considered as an axis of social policy, especially in association with full financial support for families with children. Third, the Munich Mix accommodated market expectations, but it is also co creating social value and transformation through policy interventions. Taken together, these findings suggest several courses of action for affordable housing and the social mix in Korea, including collaborative governance through public-private partnerships (PPP), the need for a new philosophy of housing policies with inclusive designs, and new financing models for affordable housing construction. However, despite the government’s continuing efforts in Munich, it still does not seem to be enough for them to solve the housing problems due to (1) a lack of aggressive policy intervention to pursue housing and rental price stability, (2) insufficient supply of publicly-owned vacant lands for housing construction, (3) delay in resolving the issues of land expropriation and compensation, (4) the placing of an excessive financial burden and redemption on the private sector, and (5) a chronic issue of housing provision.
Article
Full-text available
This article proposes the study of social mix evolution of through the public space. To that end, attention is focused on the “Frères Fisli” neighbourhood in Azzaba city as a case study. A social space, which, is considered as an adequate place, that promotes social mix and living together between Algerian inhabitants of different types of habitat that exist. The main objective of this article is to quantify the impact of public spaces to achieve the goal of social mix and its management, in order to promote living together. In order to carry out our survey, the study uses two survey tools: the mind map and the questionnaire. The choice of these two tools is not fortuitous. It has been studied in order to carefully check whether the constraints for the public space development are dependent on the evolution of inhabitants ‘social relations. Received: 21 September 2021 / Accepted: 15 November 2021 / Published: 3 January 2022
Chapter
Residential construction is the largest segment and accounts for 75% of the building stock in the EU-27, of which 36% is multi-family. It is generally accepted that the building sector is one of the largest energy consumers in Europe and residential buildings are responsible for the majority of energy consumption (more than 65% of energy is used for heating). A significant proportion of today's social housing in Europe was built between the 1950s and 1970s, when post-war reconstruction and heavy immigration flows to the most industrialised areas required an immediate response to housing shortages. In many cases, solutions were adopted that were very different from those of the first working-class neighbourhoods, which were built in the early 1900s primarily to address health emergencies and had deficiencies related to outdated building types and poor performance, lack of services, distance to work, and social degradation. This chapter demonstrates how the necessary energy refurbishment required by current regulations provides an opportunity to modernise housing to meet new needs and regenerate suburban areas. New housing models, small temporary apartments associated with multifunctional spaces, represent the latest requirements that characterise a new type of users and families. The recent emergency in Covid 19 has highlighted that this type of accommodation is not able to respond to ever-changing needs and requires flexibility to fulfil functions not strictly related to housing. The examples provided in this chapter are evidence of good practice in reviewing outdated models of existing housing stock.
Article
This article examines the relationship between housing mix and population mix, which is often assumed to exist in social mix policies. As urban form has been suggested as an alternative factor related to population mix, this feature is also considered. In Sweden, one of the main ways to achieve population mix is through housing mix by the densification of already established neighbourhoods. Thus, a salt-and-pepper-like housing mix policy has emerged, which has been adopted to various extents by the (in this respect, rather autonomous) municipalities. Accordingly, in the present study, the grades of mixes are calculated at a detailed geographical level using an entropy index, and then aggregated to the 124 urban (≥10,000 inhabitants) localities in Sweden. However, correlations between the urban localities' grades of housing/tenure mixes and population mixes cannot be found. Yet, significant correlations can be established between urban form and urban localities' various population mixes. Therefore, it is argued that urban form deserves more attention in future studies of population mix. Future research on both population mix and its extension, mix policies, may benefit from more consideration of urban contexts.
Article
Social mix is a widely used component of urban housing policy in post-welfare states. Problematizing homogenous areas of disadvantage, social mix policies purportedly aspire to increase socioeconomic diversity within defined areas. In Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, a major program of public housing renewal has been underway since the early 2000s, justified by a social mix agenda. This paper investigates the discursive and scalar mechanisms used to justify and advance this policy scheme. First, the paper examines the discursive framing of social mix, demonstrating how this conceals both the commercial real estate drivers and continued government withdrawal from public housing. We then quantify the social mix outcomes of redevelopment, showing that estate renewal actually decreases mix at the neighborhood scale. In the midst of a serious housing crisis in Melbourne, the paper questions the purported social goals of public housing estate renewal and contributes to ongoing debates about social mix and public housing.
Article
Full-text available
The Dutch social rental sector often serves as an example for other countries as a result of its large share and good quality housing. However, many things have changed in the sector in recent years. After 2011, the central government has regained its control over the housing associations. This was needed after the unacceptable amount of scandals that characterized Dutch social housing after 2000. Unfortunately, some of the new housing policies direct the sector into the direction of a residualization (the sector becomes smaller and there is a larger concentration of lower income groups). This is undesirable because the challenges that housing associations have to face are bigger than ever. Housing shortages are increasing, housing affordability is under pressure and spatial segregation is growing. © 2017, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Sociology. All rights reserved.
Article
Full-text available
With continued economic growth and expanding mortgage markets, until recently the pattern across advanced economies was of growing homeownership sectors. The Great Financial Crisis (GFC) has however, undercut this growth resulting in the contraction of homeownership access in many countries and the revival of private renting. This paper argues that these tenure changes are not solely a consequence of the GFC, and therefore, reversible once long-term growth returns. Rather, they are the consequences of more fundamental changes especially in labour markets. The very financialisation that fuelled the growth of homeownership has also led to a hollowing out of well-paid, secure jobs—exactly those that fit best with the taking of housing loans. We examine longer-term declines in labour market security across Europe from before the GFC, identifying an underlying correlation between deteriorated labour market conditions and homeownership access for young adults. While variations exist across European countries, there is evidence of common trends. We argue that the GFC both accelerated pre-existing labour insecurity dynamics and brought an end to offsetting such dynamics through the expansion of credit access with the likelihood of a return to an era of widespread homeownership growth starkly decreased.
Book
Encouraging neighbourhood social mix has been a major goal of urban policy and planning in a number of different countries. This book draws together a range of case studies by international experts to assess the impacts of social mix policies and the degree to which they might represent gentrification by stealth. The contributions consider the range of social mix initiatives in different countries across the globe and their relationship to wider social, economic and urban change. The book combines understandings of social mix from the perspectives of researchers, policy makers and planners and the residents of the communities themselves. Mixed Communities also draws out more general lessons from these international comparisons - theoretically, empirically and for urban policy. It will be highly relevant for urban researchers and students, policy makers and practitioners alike.
Book
Over the last 25 years a vast body of literature has been published on neighbourhood effects: the idea that living in more deprived neighbourhoods has a negative effect on residents’ life chances over and above the effect of their individual characteristics. The volume of work not only reflects academic and policy interest in this topic, but also the fact that we are still no closer to answering the question of how important neighbourhood effects actually are. There is little doubt that these effects exist, but we do not know enough about the causal mechanisms which produce them, their relative importance in shaping individual’s life chances, the circumstances or conditions under which they are most important, or the most effective policy responses. Collectively, the chapters in this book offer new perspectives on these questions, and refocus the academic debate on neighbourhood effects. The book enriches the neighbourhood effects literature with insights from a wide range of disciplines and countries.
Article
Social housing in Italy, its historical and recent developments, and its critical issues are discussed considering both the pre- and the post-crisis period. The main effects of the crisis of the Italian households and the background of tougher housing problems are also analysed. An analytical review of the main policy tools implemented before and after the crisis is provided, with a special focus on the new models of intervention. It is not clear how the housing needs of low income households will be addressed in the near future. Traditional public-managed social housing has been left with insufficient resources while the newly built affordable housing sector is mainly targeting mid-income households. Several new policy tools have been deployed and billions of euros invested. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to observe a consistent strategy addressed to increase the level of social protection in the housing domain, besides the conventional management of “emergencies”. © 2017, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Sociology. All rights reserved.
Article
The proliferation of quasi-market rental models has characterised the rearrangement of housing policy in Italy. These new models aim to differentiate the supply of social housing by including groups from the middle class, and to remedy the traditional public housing system's tendency to produce spatial concentrations of low-income population. They are thus associated with the notions of tenure diversification and ‘social mix’. This analysis focuses on the rearrangement of housing policy in the context of Bergamo, by analysing the implementation of a new social housing model, namely ‘moderate rental’, and evaluating its effectiveness as a tool of tenure diversification within neighbourhoods characterised by high concentrations of public housing apartments and low-income households.
Book
All countries aim to improve housing conditions for their citizens but many have been forced by the financial crisis to reduce government expenditure. Social housing is at the crux of this tension. Policy-makers, practitioners and academics want to know how other systems work and are looking for something written in clear English, where there is a depth of understanding of the literature in other languages and direct contributions from country experts across the continent. Social Housing in Europe combines a comparative overview of European social housing written by scholars with in-depth chapters written by international housing experts. The countries covered include Austria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands and Sweden, with a further chapter devoted to CEE countries other than Hungary. The book provides an up-to-date international comparison of social housing policy and practice. It offers an analysis of how the social housing system currently works in each country, supported by relevant statistics. It identifies European trends in the sector, and opportunities for innovation and improvement. These country-specific chapters are accompanied by topical thematic chapters dealing with subjects such as the role of social housing in urban regeneration, the privatisation of social housing, financing models, and the impact of European Union state aid regulations on the definitions and financing of social housing.