Nuancing the international debate on social mix: evidence from Copenhagen

Abstract

Whilst the political rhetoric of social mix has been similar across countries, asymmetries in their housing and planning systems and institutions owing to dissimilar underlying values, norms, and cultures has defined national and municipal practices of implementation. The purpose of this paper, based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with government, local officials, and academics, is twofold. First, to investigate why and how city planners in the municipality of Copenhagen have used strategies of social mix in the fields of housing and land-use planning, and how these policies have evolved to deal with recurrent shortages of affordable housing. Second, to highlight the contingent nature of social mix and argue the need for more context and more sensitive analysis of social mix policies and practices. Whilst many have claimed that social mixing is a euphemism for gentrification, this paper argues that the concept can contribute to a more progressive housing and urban planning agenda.

Divergence in planning for affordable housing: A comparative analysis of England and Portugal

“…Second, by providing knowledge about "why and how" planners "do what they do", this paper responds to calls for more context and more sensitive analysis of the ideas related to building mixed communities (Alves, 2019) and the use of planning obligations for affordable housing (Calavita, & Mallach, 2010). The empirical data seems to confirm the positive contribution that planning for affordable housing makes to securing land and infrastructure for the provision of affordable housing (Crook and Whitehead, 2019).…”

“…Social protection is based essentially on individuals' status in the labour market and their history of paid contributions, except for social assistance. Due to a low level of state economic redistribution, both countries have high levels of poverty and inequality (Alves, 2019).…”

“…The strategy used to rehouse former slum dwellers in new council housing estates, typically built on the municipal periphery where cheap land was available, reinforced the segregation of people along lines of class, income, and ethnicity. While more attractive locations were re-zoned and redeveloped for middle-to high-income families, thus sustaining the economic interests of landowners and developers, families with fewer resources were displaced to areas "of deposit" in the periphery, characterised by a lack of infrastructure and social and spatial stigmatisation (Alves, 2019).…”

“…Studies in the fields of planning have also drawn attention to the role of contingency in history, showing that ideology in the context of certain economic and political conjunctures is able to shape professional values and goals (Branco and Alves, 2020) and thus modes of thinking and acting that influence the evolution of planning policies and practices. Comparative studies have demonstrated that the degree to which governments are concerned with tackling socioeconomic and spatial inequalities or addressing housing market failuressuch as those relating to the supply of affordable housingcan vary considerably across space and over time, but current decisions are not independent from "path dependency", or the sequences of past events (Knieling and Othengrafen 2015;Tasan-Kok, 2015;Alves, & Andersen, 2019;Alves, 2019).…”

Een ontspannen perspectief op residentiële segregatie

“…Beleid dat koerst op het optrekken van achterstandsbuurten naar het niveau van de gemiddelde buurt, veelal door sociale menging na te streven, is op veel plekken toegepast, vooral in landen met sociaaldemocratische ervaring (Andersson e.a., 2010;Kleinhans, 2004;Lawless e.a., 2010;Blanc, 2010;Bacqué e.a., 2011;Bolt & Van Kempen, 2010, 2013Alves, 2019;Musterd, 2020). Dit beleid, dat op nationaal en op lokaal niveau kan worden ontwikkeld, richt zich op een selectie van buurten met relatief veel achterstand.…”