Over the past decade, cities worldwide have increasingly adopted urban social resilience strategies, implementing systemic approaches to foster collective action and solidarity while considering the nuances of urbanisation. Their implementation, however, not only often prevents a clear assessment of the impact on resilience but also provides a fertile ground for cherry-picking, where ambiguous indicators can obscure the true drivers for urban renovation. This study examines the relationship between the "balanced neighbourhood" concept based on property value as defined by Rotterdam’s municipal policy and its contribution to urban social resilience. We use empirical data and structural equation modelling to investigate the relationship between property value distribution, social cohesion, and informal support in "balanced neighbourhood" configurations. Our findings reveal that only 2.1% of the possible property value configurations fit the research model underneath Rotterdam’s urban policy claims on social cohesion and informal support, and even in these cases, the associations are counterproductive. We argue that the ambiguous definition of "balanced neighbourhoods" obscures policy goals with certain areas, particularly in the North, paradoxically meeting policy conditions without showing the municipality’s long-term target composition, whereas the South, with a higher concentration of social housing, is targeted for renovation/demolition plans. Our study highlights the need for more nuanced and accurate measurement tools to assess social resilience and calls for a shift in focus from interventions that alter the physical composition of neighbourhoods to focusing on enhancing social cohesion as a key factor promoting resilient actions.
