Creating mixed communities through housing policies: Global perspectives

Social mixing or mixophobia in regenerating East London? ‘Affordable housing’, gentrification, stigmatisation and the post-Olympics East Village

“…Second, 'micro-segregation mechanisms and processes' (Maloutas and Botton, 2021: 2) which occur within East Village in relation to housing tenure in both vertical and horizontal forms. Not only do our findings reinforce widespread academic scepticism regarding the efficacy of mixed-tenure neighbourhoods in general (Tunstall and Lupton, 2010;Levin et al, 2022), they also highlight how the Olympics' 'inclusive' legacy and social mixing goals are far from being realised in practice (see Cohen, 2017;Humphry, 2020;Bernstock, 2020). In conclusion, this paper has highlighted how the twin policy pillars of the East Village promotional lexicon -affordable housing and social mixingprovide an ideological gloss on a reality involving profound socio-spatial inequalities and segregations.…”

“…Social mixing -the development of new-build mixed-tenure neighbourhoods consisting of properties for private sale and/or rent alongside social rental housing -emerged as a prominent urban policy theme during the 1990s and has subsequently become policy orthodoxy across many parts of the world (Levin et al, 2022). Social mixing aims to promote 'mixed communities' whereby poor/working-class social tenants benefit socially and economically from living in close spatial proximity to affluent middle-class homeowners, for example via raising their aspirations and providing 'bridging social capital' in Robert Putnam's terms (Watt, 2021).…”

“…Social mixing aims to promote 'mixed communities' whereby poor/working-class social tenants benefit socially and economically from living in close spatial proximity to affluent middle-class homeowners, for example via raising their aspirations and providing 'bridging social capital' in Robert Putnam's terms (Watt, 2021). However, existing research provides limited evidence for such beneficent tenure mixing (Tunstall and Lupton 2010;Levin et al, 2022). On the contrary, many studies underscore how social mixing via new-build developments contributes towards heightened class and racialised divisions, including tenure stigmatisation by affluent homeowners directed against spatially proximate poor social tenants who in London are also often from BAME backgrounds (Davidson, 2010;Bretherton and Pleace, 2011;Lindsey, 2012;Horgan, 2020;Watt, 2021;Levin et al, 2022).…”

“…However, existing research provides limited evidence for such beneficent tenure mixing (Tunstall and Lupton 2010;Levin et al, 2022). On the contrary, many studies underscore how social mixing via new-build developments contributes towards heightened class and racialised divisions, including tenure stigmatisation by affluent homeowners directed against spatially proximate poor social tenants who in London are also often from BAME backgrounds (Davidson, 2010;Bretherton and Pleace, 2011;Lindsey, 2012;Horgan, 2020;Watt, 2021;Levin et al, 2022). Studies of mixed-tenure neighbourhoods in England have however tended to focus on private homeowners alongside social renters, with Bretherton and Pleace (2011) being one exception in also examining shared owners, a tenure category that is pertinent to the East Village case study examined here.…”

Spatiotemporal-Behavior-Based Microsegregation and Differentiated Community Ties of Residents with Different Types of Housing in Mixed-Housing Neighborhoods: A Case Study of Fuzhou, China

“…In the context of mixed-housing neighborhoods, an increasing number of studies have found that there are significantly different or even segregated daily activities of different housing residents [14,34]. For instance, Chaskin et al [35] used interview data from Chicago mixed-housing neighborhoods and found that different housing groups employed different parental management that served as a barrier among different groups.…”