URL originale : https://books.openedition.org/psn/7531

Socio-Spatial Segregation in UK Cities: Causes, Consequences and Ways Forward
p. 135-151
Texte intégral
1William Julius Wilson in The Truly Disadvantaged (1987) put forward the idea that concentrations of poverty in US inner cities was not all structural, deriving from the labour market, nor all the result of racial discrimination, but also it arose out of social forces in neighbourhoods where people were predominately poor. Simply put, living in a poor neighbourhood was said by Wilson on the basis of his Chicago evidence to increase an individual’s chances of poverty. Since then the idea of ‘neighbourhood effects’ or ‘area effects’, and their contribution to the extension and perpetuation of disadvantage, has become a strong research theme in Europe and the UK. It has also been significant for policy in several European countries, including France and the UK. In a context of housing policy interventions being used to promote greater social justice, ‘neighbourhood effects’ has provided justification for area based approaches promoting ‘social mix’ or ‘mixed communities’ in the context of the regeneration of problematic social housing estates and the planning of new residential developments.
2This chapter sets out to review the evidence about the segregation of poverty in the UK, the extent to which there appear to be ‘neighbourhood effects’ consistent with the Wilson hypotheses at work in UK cities, and the direction of policy towards mixed communities. The chapter first considers patterns of social segregation, especially the segregation of poverty, and some of the reasons that lie behind it. Second, it questions whether poor neighbourhoods are themselves a source of disadvantage. Third, it examines housing and urban policy-based approaches to developing ‘mixed communities’. Most clear is the evidence that there is segregation and concentrations of poverty; less clear is the evidence on the impact that concentrated poverty has; least clear is the value of current interventions and attempts to build ‘mixed communities’ in the face of longstanding patterns of residential choice.
Segregation in the UK
3Segregation concerns the spatial separation of people according to their social and/or economic position. The essence of the problem of segregation is the interplay of housing systems and labour market-derived inequalities. Inequalities have shifted considerably in the last 20 years and these are underpinned by international trends that have acted to intensify concentrations of affluence and deprivation. Accounts of ‘global cities’ (Fainstein et al., 1992; Sassen, 2001) together with more localised accounts of social exclusion (for the UK, Lupton, 2003) identify increasing inequalities in occupational structure, job opportunities and incomes, a growing group experiencing economic disadvantage, a tendency for the separation of poor groups from ‘mainstream society’, and greater social disorganisation. The concern in this chapter is the extent to which these tendencies also have spatial dimensions.
4In the UK, there is no official data about segregation, despite there being policies intended to counteract it but a range of researchers have used census data and other data, such as the distribution of benefits, to provide various pictures of the geography of poverty (and sometimes also of wealth) and how it has been changing. There are many technical issues in identifying deprivation and segregation, relating to definitions, geographical coverage, the reliance on the census that can be quickly outdated, and the difficulty of drilling down to a local level, especially since the neighbourhood is where ‘area effects’ are supposed to work. Nevertheless a reasonable picture of segregation at a regional and local level can be put together from a review of recent studies.
5The first observation is that although there have been some improvements for some households and individuals in the last 15 years, across the UK poverty rates appear to have risen rather than fallen, although there are fewer people among the poor who are very poor (Dorling et al., 2007). This suggests some measure of success in increasing jobs and shifting people away from out-of-work benefits. But the same analysis also suggests that the wealthy have become wealthier, so that society is continuing to become more unequal.
6There are strong and well-established regional differences within Britain in the extent of concentrations of poverty and disadvantage. Dorling et al. (2007), working on the basis of bespoke ‘tracts’ of 45,000 people, report that areas where more than 40% of the population are ‘breadline poor’ are found only in inner London, cities in the midlands and the north of England, central Scotland, especially Glasgow, and South Wales. Working at the scale of electoral wards (an average of 5,000 people) Lupton (2005, Table 2) found that 64% of all wards in England where more than 40% of the population of working age were not working were located in the north east and north west regions, which contained only 17% of all wards nationally.
7The evidence points to Britain becoming more polarised and the rate of change quickening, based on measures relating to ethnicity, work and higher education (Dorling and Rees 2003). Local studies between 1971 and 2001 by Dorling et al. (2007) also suggest that patterns of segregation are becoming more exaggerated. For example, in Glasgow poverty levels within the city boundary grew, while for wealthy areas in the surrounding suburbs they remained stable. Similar patterns were apparent in most of the major cities of the north and midlands of England. In London and the surrounding Home Counties they comment on ‘an increasingly intense “bulls-eye” effect’ with deepening concentrations of poverty in inner and east London, and rising concentrations of wealth in the outer areas. Altogether, then, across most conurbations the conclusion they draw is that segregation of the poor from the wealthy has been increasing.
8That the places with the strongest segregation in England are the large, older industrial locations such as Middlesbrough, Stockton, Preston and West Lancashire is confirmed by Meen et al. (2005), i.e. places within the same regions identified by Lupton as having the greatest proportion of poor wards. At a low level of aggregation Meen at al (2005) found that segregation was stark within a similar group of northern local authorities as well as some cities in the south, where the segregation of social housing showed higher values than other variables.
9The housing system is central in translating social segregation into spatial segregation. Owner occupation has grown to about 70% of households in the UK and social housing (council housing and housing associations) has fallen to under 20% and households within it are increasingly poor. Over a 30 year period, social housing has shifted from providing for the ‘ordinary family’ to becoming a residualised welfare safety net, mainly housing those with few other choices. Although there are no formal income tests, Stephens et al. (2003) show that social housing contains a greater proportion of poor households than other comparable European countries. Owner occupation, in contrast has enabled the greater proportion of households to exercise choices about where they want to live, albeit within a system where there are important constraints relating to affordability and land supply.
10The concentration of the poor in social housing is the result of three tendencies. First, strongly as a result of policy, allocation of social housing since the 1970s has been increasingly based on needs, and social housing has become an important resource for homeless households. Second, the areas with the most social housing outside London are industrial cities and towns which were the most badly hit by industrial restructuring from the 1970s onwards. Therefore older tenants have become poorer in situ (Lupton, 2003). The upshot of this, as Hills (2007) reports for England in 2004/05 is that almost 70% of those in the bottom 40% of the income range are in social housing, and only 19% of the top half.
11Third, social housing also tends to be relatively concentrated. This is the result of historic patterns of development of housing estates combined with the tendency for sales to sitting tenants to be disproportionately high in areas where there was already less social housing. Palmer et al. (2006, Table 42 a and 42b) report that social housing tenants in Britain have on average half of their neighbours who are also social housing tenants.
12The areas where social housing is most clustered tend to be deprived in other respects. In Scotland in 2001, for example, 70% of houses in the most deprived 10% of areas were rented from social landlords, although the tenure housed only 29% of households overall (Scottish Executive, 2005, Table 7.2). Although this proportion had shrunk since 1991, there was a greater proportion of social housing altogether in the bottom half of the deprivation deciles. In England, similar patterns are apparent, although social housing is not as important as in Scotland in the poorest areas (Hills, 2007, Table 9.3).
13The evidence, then, points to poverty being unevenly spread about the UK, and indicates that social housing is an important concentrator of poverty. There has been continuing (or expanding) segregation at a regional level, and city-regions have become more segregated internally and, at a more local level, social housing, closely associated with disadvantage, is strongly clustered. All of this suggests that adverse ‘neighbourhood effects’, which might operate to intensify poverty, are present in the UK, especially in northern English towns and cities, central Scotland and inner London.
14In closing this section two points have to be made, though. First, poor people are certainly disproportionately found in poor areas, but not overwhelmingly so. Confirming earlier studies such as Lee and Murie’s (1999), Palmer et al. (2006) report that a majority of poor people do not live in poor areas. Second, it has to be repeated that the origin of inequalities lies in the labour market, not the housing system, so housing processes only can play a secondary role in alleviating inequality.
The Disadvantages of Concentrated Disadvantage
15The central argument of the neighbourhood effects hypothesis is that there are disadvantages that follow from concentrations of disadvantage. There are many possible elements of this, including poor physical environments and low quality public and private services, but the core idea of neighbourhood effects is that the locality is an important arena in which beliefs, attitudes and expectations are constructed, and in poor areas these can act to reinforce poverty.
16In detail this idea has three dimensions (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2004). The first is a pre-condition, living in a position of relative isolation. The second concerns the development of networks that are only loosely connected to the wider world, including the growth of forms of social capital which are constraining and inward looking rather than enabling and outward looking (helping people to ‘get by’, not ‘get on’ [Portes, 2000]). Therefore there is a shortage of ‘weak ties’, which are held to be essential in the labour market (Granovetter, 1972; Morris, 1995). The third dimension concerns the development of norms and expectations that are depressed in situations of majority poverty.
17Many researchers have expended effort to find out whether neighbourhood effects can be observed empirically. In the USA there have been evaluations of the impacts of mobility programmes that have enabled people to move from poor areas to more mixed areas. A second approach has been to use secondary longitudinal data sets, which include data about people’s economic circumstances and about the areas that they have lived in at different points in their lives. This enables a comparison to be made over time between people who have lived in poor areas and those that have not. Studies like this have been conducted in the context of the US, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (for the UK, Buck, 2001; McCulloch, 2001; Bolster et al., 2007.) There have been also various cross sectional studies and qualitative studies, including our own work.
18It is fair to say that the results so far are not conclusive. Some have questioned whether neighbourhood effects have relevance at all in European welfare states because of reduced levels of inequality compared to the US and stronger integration policies (Ostendorf et al., 2001). Indeed longitudinal European studies such as Musterd and Andersson (2005) have found only a small influence, if any, of the neighbourhood on life chances. It is difficult to make comparisons internationally but theorists of welfare states and of housing systems have tended to place the UK among a group of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries where inequalities are relatively wide (Kemeny, 1995) and housing systems segregated. So, perhaps, of European countries, the UK has more potential for neighbourhood effects as it has a more distinctive set of poorer neighbourhoods and a more residualised social housing system. Of the three UK longitudinal studies discussed above, all using the same data set, two find some evidence of neighbourhood effects, while the most recent finds none.
19Our findings on these questions from studies in matched pairs of neighbourhoods – deprived and more socially mixed – in Glasgow and Edinburgh can be summarised from Atkinson and Kintrea (2001; 2004) and Atkinson et al. (2005). The deprived neighbourhoods were both built as council housing estates and now have a greater variety of tenure, with some low cost home ownership and housing associations operating. The more mixed areas were adjacent to the deprived areas, and contained a greater mix of housing. They were not regarded as problematic, and were not subject to regeneration efforts. Their built environments had been developed in a more organic way, with a physical environment which was more diverse, and there were more shops and other private services, although possibly fewer public services. The summary below concentrates on the deprived areas; the mixed areas showed little evidence of adverse area effects.
20It was clear that the deprived areas were relatively socially isolated from the rest of their cities, so the conditions existed for a localised social dynamic to develop. The areas were isolated in the opinion of outsiders, who stigmatised the areas and avoided going there, and although there was a high turnover of residents and an exodus of the more ambitious and economically successful, a core of stable, poor households remained who were largely untouched by the throughput. One interviewee described these processes as ‘skimming off the best and leaving the dross in a white working class ghetto’.
21Many of the residents did not travel much to other areas of the city, partly because they lacked resources, but partly because they lacked reasons, skills and confidence, too. Residents variously told us that the rest of the city, or specifically the city centre was ‘out of bounds’ or (echoing Disraeli) ‘on another planet’. In more concrete terms, many of those of working age did not participate in the labour market, but of those who did, a high proportion worked locally, mainly in service jobs.
22The social networks in the poor estates had at least some features of the hypotheses. They were relatively cohesive places, but fractured by crime that influenced a focus on support and survival, and many people lacked strong networks beyond the estates. There was bonding social capital, but not much evidence of the bridging social capital that is held to be useful to ‘get on’. Even at a level within the estates, many were disconnected from each other across short distances; in Glasgow a particular feature was quite extreme territorial behaviour (Kintrea et al., 2007), among young people mainly, but also penetrating the world of adults, where small areas of the estates were isolated from each other by rivalries over the use and control of space.
23The horizons of many estate residents were definitely constrained, both in spatial sense and in a social sense. Many residents were not socially or economically mobile and had no expectation that upward mobility was possible, especially in a context of widespread economic change that had removed the industrial base of the city and sponsored widespread unemployment. The response to poverty often appeared to be fatalistic. These kinds of findings are echoed in other recent studies of deprived neighbourhoods (North and Syrett, 2006.)
24The findings in Glasgow and Edinburgh can be contrasted to those in London, where there are a number of important contextual differences. A lot of the regional inequality in Britain is between London and other locations and, although there are significant concentrations of poor neighbourhoods within London, they are unlike the council estates of the north. Parallel research in London suggested disadvantages associated with residence in poor areas were much fewer, and that the inward looking character and disconnectedness found in Scotland was not evident (Buck et al., 2002). This is supported by the evaluation of the New Deal for Communities, a government programme aimed at improving deprived areas, which found it necessary to ascribe deprived areas in London to a separate category because they were less evidently disconnected (Beattie and Cole, 2007). So the London neighbourhoods were poor, certainly, but they were much more in demand owing to the tightness of the housing market and intense in-migration. Physically, they were more integrated into the urban fabric. Perhaps most importantly, they existed within a job rich labour market. Therefore they were much less consistent with the neighbourhood effects thesis.
25While this kind of research and the attempts to measure impacts empirically through various kinds of longitudinal data has suggested that neighbourhood effects have some importance, there remain many uncertainties about the connection between neighbourhood segregation and the well being or life chances of individuals. Galster in various papers (Galster and Zobel, 1998; Galster et al., 2000; Galster 2007a; 2007b) raises a number of important questions about the proportions of particular groups that are needed to produce ‘effects’, about whether effects are linear or non linear according to social composition, about the age range of those most likely to be affected, and whether there are also disbenefits for better off people if the poor live among them. Other authors (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2000; Tunstall, 2007) have raised questions about how neighbourhood effects might be transmitted locally, particularly whether active social contact as opposed to simple residence in the same areas is required.
Ways Forward
26So can the segregation of the poorest neighbourhoods that seem to bring additional disadvantages be countered by policy? Are there ways forward? Certainly the lack of strong evidence and conceptual clarity have not stopped housing and urban policy in different parts of the UK and in some other European countries aiming to create more ‘socially mixed communities’ so as to benefit disadvantaged groups.
27In England, the official policy relating to planning for housing puts an obligation of spatial strategies at regional and local authority level to plan for ‘a mix of housing’(DCLG, 2006: 9). At site level this means that local authorities should ensure:
the proposed mix of housing on large strategic sites reflects the proportion of households that require market or affordable housing, and achieves a mix of households as well as a mix of tenure and price. For smaller sites, the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities having regard to the number of households that require market or affordable housing […] (DCLG, 2006: 10).
28This has been accompanied by the Mixed Communities Initiative, a set of pilot projects, currently under evaluation. Similarly in Scotland, the official policy was outlined in 2006 in the following terms:
[the] key focus of our housing and regeneration policies is the creation of sustainable communities-communities where among other things there is a mix of incomes and sufficient range, diversity and affordability of housing within a balanced market (Scottish Executive, 2006:17).
29The mix implied in these policy statements is not very clearly specified, but broadly it has to do with income levels, perhaps expressed through the provision of market price and non-market housing, and the presence of different household types.
30There are three main contexts within which mixed communities might be created. First, there are master-planned ‘new communities’, which are leveraged in some way by the public sector; second there are developments which are led by private developers, where the main influence that can be extracted is through conditions imposed through the planning process. The third context is the regeneration of existing housing areas. The prospects for promoting social mix in each of these are very different.
31Looking at master-planned new communities, there is now a body of good practice advice and examples from experience to draw upon, best expressed in Bailey et al. (2006; 2007) who highlight schemes such as the New Gorbals in Glasgow, Hulme in Manchester, Attwood Green in Birmingham and Caterham Village in Surrey. Master-planned new communities are often on urban brown field sites and usually start with a site that is more or less open. Private developers and housing associations sign up to involvement on the basis that they are building a mixed community. It seems clear that with good planning and promises of future management, private sector developers’ objections to selling houses in a mixed area can be overcome.
32Master-planned mixed communities typically have a lead organisation that shapes the scheme and promotes adherence to the original vision. In the larger and more ambitious schemes, other local amenities such as shopping, community and health centres, and primary schools are also part of the plan. In the longer term, it is recognised that such communities also need overt management (unlike most residential areas).
33The evidence is then clearly that such schemes can be put together and can work. There are perhaps two main misgivings. The first is that it has proved difficult to attract a wide range of households in higher income groups to inner urban locations, particularly families with children (Silverman et al., 2005) mainly due to concerns about schools and the suitability of inner city environments. However, the social housing in mixed tenure developments often has relatively high numbers of children. This is because, with a general shortage of ‘family’ homes for rent in the social sector, housing associations take advantage of new building opportunities to provide larger homes. This implies that socialisation among children and young people in the neighbourhood may still predominately take place between those who come from relatively poor, social renting backgrounds as the more affluent still head for the suburbs when they have children.
34The second misgiving is that in pursuit of ‘social sustainability’ and to head off neighbour disputes between owners and social renters there is a temptation by managers to avoid placing the most disadvantaged households in mixed tenure areas (Bailey et al., 2006). If the concern is to create greater opportunities for the poorest in society by ‘reconnecting’ them in mixed communities, allocation policies which are selective, for example limiting the number of single parent households or households with children in general, or homeless households, undermine the benefits that mix might bring.
35The second kind of environment in which mixed communities might be created is new development areas where the private sector is in the lead. In these circumstances the ability of public policy to shape housing mix, and social mix outcomes, is more limited. Since the 1990s there has been the possibility of influencing the extent to which new developments provide ‘affordable’ housing by writing in requirements for affordable housing into area-wide development plans and then using these as a basis to formulate planning agreements with developers to provide affordable housing as a part of new residential developments (Crook et al., 2002). As developers almost always would prefer to build for sale without hindrance, to a large extent the success of the policy has rested upon the extent to which it can be made robust enough to withstand appeal processes. Over time, policies have become stronger and the more successful planning authorities have employed specialist staff to negotiate with developers resulting, after 10 years, in a high proportion of all the affordable housing in England having some benefit from the ‘planning for affordable housing’ processes.
36It is not clear that the inclusion of ‘mixed communities’ as a legitimate object of planning processes will add all that much to existing provision. It is possible for planning authorities, for the first time, to include tenure as a planning concern, however, which is a significant departure from previously ‘tenure blind’ policies. However, social house building also requires to be funded heavily.
37Responses to the proposals from planning authorities mostly were that more guidance was needed to better determine the relationship between house sizes, household sizes and community considerations. Responses from house builders mainly saw the approach as already too prescriptive and argued for consumer choice as the preferred method of arriving at housing mix. This confirms this suspicion that there may be many battles to come before the policy can be implemented (ODPM, 2005) and clashes with the wider aim in the Green Paper (DCLG, 2007) to speed up planning processes to improve the rate of housebuilding.
38What is more, as with its forerunner ‘planning for affordable housing’, such approaches rely upon an analysis of the housing market as the basis for plan making and subsequent negotiation with developers. The areas of the country where planning for affordable housing polices have been best developed and are most effective are those where there is a shortage of housing, particularly the south of England. It is less possible to develop such policies in the north and many parts of Scotland, where, as we have discussed above, the greatest segregation exists among looser housing markets or housing surpluses. For example, Glasgow has not developed a policy towards affordable housing because it would find it impossible to argue to developers that there was shortage of such housing in the city, where there are plans to demolish 14,000 units of social housing on the grounds there is no demand. Similar problems are likely to occur around the theme of mixed communities.
39The third possible area for the promotion of mixed communities is to attempt to desegregate existing social housing estates. There are perhaps five main possibilities. At the national level, the first is to find ways of increasing the incomes of social housing tenants by extending their participation in the labour market. Hills (2007) for example, proposes a more integrated approach to the provision of social housing and housing benefits and supports for joining the labour market. Although this could make an important difference, it does not fully recognise the large numbers in social housing who are not able to work, or are above retirement age.
40A second approach is to consider ways to ‘reinvent’ social housing and in doing so make it more attractive to higher income groups by creating greater equality between the benefits offered by private and social housing respectively, recognising that a failure to retain upwardly mobile residents in social housing is a key reason for residualisation. This was proposed by IPPR (2000) which suggested that housing associations and local authorities should offer market rented options. Other proposals along the same lines are to extend equity sharing tenures (Hills, 2007). The problem with these proposals is that there has been no let up under conditions of shortage of the key role of social housing in meeting needs, and without significant expansion of social housing it is hard to see how an extension to more affluent groups could be justified.
41The third possibility towards social housing estates is to diversify them with selective demolition and replacement with more up market housing. Under some circumstances the question is whether the overall welfare of disadvantaged people would be improved if the result was their displacement in high demand markets in favour of higher income groups. However, under conditions of weak demand, the question is how much diversification is necessary to transform housing estates into mixed areas, particularly as home ownership has moved down market and is now found everywhere. In an earlier paper (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2002), we argued that reconstruction of social housing areas had been too piecemeal and incremental, and was often not extensive enough or well planned. Also, new building patterns contribute to continued segregation. Bramley (2007) shows that the new building rate for social housing falls between more deprived and less deprived areas, with very little social housebuilding in the least deprived areas in spite of ‘planning for affordable housing’ polices. On the other hand, the building rate for private housing rises the less deprived an area is.
42A fourth possibility towards diversifying social housing is to manage it better, hoping that neighbourhoods become more popular (Scott et al., 2001). This means close attention to the basics such as dwelling quality and repair services, an emphasis on tenancy management to combat antisocial behaviour, better neighbourhood management, including a focus on crime, as well as taking care of the physical environment outside the home. Changes to allocations, including choice based lettings are also suggested as ways to both diversify residents and protect against concentrations of difficult households. Hills (2007) also believes that these kinds of changes are important, but given the very longstanding difficulty of making inroads into improving the relative position of social housing estates as places to live, the widespread stigmatisation of social housing and the continued attraction of home ownership, it seems hard to believe that these kinds of changes will make much difference to social profiles.
43Finally, it is worth mentioning some other approaches such as the possible role of ‘portable subsidies’ which would enable social housing tenants whose home were scheduled for redevelopment to choose houses in the private sector, which their landlord would then buy and rent back to them. More widely, social landlords, instead of procuring additions to their stocks through building new estates, could proceed by buying housing on the open market, therefore diversifying the range of areas in which houses were available for rent. Also, it is probably worth considering how the isolation of deprived areas can be broken down by greater attention to transport infrastructure and using the planning system to help direct major new public and private sector investment, for example in leisure and retailing, into deprived areas in order to normalise them as part of the urban fabric, and decrease their stigma.
44Patterns of segregation in the UK have been set by a combination of spatially uneven economic development and stagnation, and by historical approaches to building and rebuilding cities, and by the impacts of tenure restructuring. To some extent they reflect international trends in the restructuring of labour markets and in city structures. The evidence is that segregation is significant, enduring and more likely to be growing rather than shrinking, and that it is most significant in those areas of the country outside the housing market boom area of the south and south east. There has been a lot of interest in the question whether segregation is harmful in the sense of its potential contribution to the intensification of disadvantage, and it has to be said that the evidence on neighbourhood effects is patchy, although it often resonates with experiences. Certainly most policy makers and commentators recognise that there is at least something in it. Current policy and initiatives towards mixed communities reflect this, albeit often in an unfocussed way where the theory of change between the provision of mixed communities and their putative benefits is often ambitious and not very well articulated (Galster, 2007a).
45A reasonable contribution to promoting less segregation across the UK would be to find ways to lift more households out of poverty by increasing employment rates, by local action and by promoting a more regionally well-balanced economy. Beyond that, the fundamental problem with this whole area of policy is that it is attempting to overturn very longstanding residential choice processes within a housing system that is mainly marketised. Even social housing has within it choice processes that favour slightly better off groups within needs based and bureaucratised systems of allocation. In the market, neighbourhoods that offer better amenities (e.g. environment, views, quietness, public services, schools, transport access, public safety) are in greater demand and cost more. What is more people, when they can choose, select neighbourhoods where other people are similar to themselves, even differentiating locally between occupational and consumption groups within the middle class (Butler and Robson, 2003), presumably because they see advantages to themselves of living among others who share their values and represent a social resource. The residential choices of the middle class are mainly about putting as much distance as they can between themselves and the disadvantaged (Atkinson and Flint, 2004).
46Yet current policy shows some promise that socially mixed neighbourhoods can be built and can be acceptable to those who have choices to make in the housing market. Certainly some newly built residential areas will have a greater social mix than those built in the past, particularly where new social housing is included (and spending on social housing is set to rise somewhat, at least in England, following the recent Green Paper (DCLG, 2007). In pressured areas of the country the use of the planning system to promote more mixed development has a good chance of success.
47But looking at residential development processes more widely it certainly does not seem that there is a sure recipe for a new more integrated pattern of urban development. In the UK there is a lot of experience of regeneration processes, particularly aimed at housing estate level, that have not made much difference to turning deprived estates around, and therefore they continue to play the role of the place of residence of the most deprived groups in society, or at least an important part of them, even though neighbourhood conditions and services have been improved often out of all recognition compared to 20 or 30 years ago (Kintrea, 2007). Outside these strongly segregated areas it is a significant task to overturn current patterns of development which tend to reinforce what already exists, and very high land costs make developing subsidised housing for lower income groups in non-deprived areas hard to stomach in an era of tight public spending. In any case, much of the apparent demand for new social housing in low demand areas comes from the need to replace obsolete or uneconomic stock, and meeting basic housing needs is still the most overwhelming rationale for state involvement in housing provision.
48In spite of these misgivings there is still a lot to play for. The widespread acceptance that segregation brings disadvantages and can at least be tempered by policy is an important brake on the tendency of labour markets and housing markets to disadvantage the poor. Longer-term evaluation is needed of current mixed community initiatives, and more attention needs to be given to how mixing occurs and how benefits to disadvantaged people in living in mixed communities occur. Yet there are already signs that a backlash against mixed communities is beginning (Cheshire, 2007). It would be disappointing if this kind of free market critique, together with the technical difficulties of assessing the case for mixed communities and the practical difficulties of using the planning system to ensure their development, were to overturn the mixed communities policy before it has really got under way.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.
References
Atkinson, R., Buck, N. and Kintrea, K., 2005, “British neighbourhoods and poverty: Linking place and social exclusion”, in Buck, N., Gordon, I., A. Harding and Turok, I. (eds.), Changing Cities, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 163–85.
10.1080/0267303042000293982 :Atkinson, R. and Flint, J., 2004, “Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time space trajectories of segregation”, in Housing Studies, vol. 19, no. 6, p. 875–92.
10.1332/0305573002500857 :Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K., 2000, “Owner occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts” in Policy and Politics, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 93–108.
—, 2001, “Disentangling area effects: Evidence from deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods”, in Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 12, p. 2277–98.
—, 2002, “Area effects: What do they mean for British housing and regeneration policy?”, in European Journal of Housing Research, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 147–66.
—, 2004, “‘Opportunities and despair, it’ s all in there’: Experiences and Explanations of area effects and life chances”, in Sociology, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 437–55.
Bailey, N., Haworth, A., Manzi, T., Paranagamage, P. and Roberts, M., 2006, Creating and Sustaining Mixed Communities: A Good Practice Guide, Coventry, Chartered Institute of Housing.
Bailey, N., Haworth, A., Manzi, T. and Roberts, M., 2007, Creating and Sustaining Mixed Communities in Scotland: A Good Practice Guide, Edinburgh, Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.
Beattie, C. and Cole, I., 2007, “Reflections on poverty and dynamics of place”, paper to European Urban Research Association conference, ‘The Vital City’, Glasgow, 13th September.
10.1093/jeg/lbl013 :Bolster, A., Burgess, S., Johnston, R., Jones, K., Propper, C. and Sarker, R., 2007, “Neighbourhoods, households and income dynamics: A semi-parametric investigation of neighbourhood effects”, in Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 7, p. 1–38.
Bramley, G., 2007 (forthcoming), Housing Investment and Neighbourhood Market Change, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
10.1080/00420980120087153 :Buck, N., 2001, “Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion”, in Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 12, p. 2251-2275.
10.4324/9781315015408 :Buck, N., Gordon, I., Hall, P., Harloe, M. and Kleinman, M., 2002, Working Capital: Life and Labour in Contemporary London, London, Routledge.
Butler, T. and Robson, G., 2003, London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Remaking of Inner London, Oxford, Berg.
Cheshire, P., 2007, Segregated Neighbourhoods and Mixed Communities: A Critical Analysis, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Crook, T., Currie, J., Jackson, A., Monk, S., Rowley, S., Smith, K. and Whitehead, C., 2002, Planning Gain and Affordable Housing: Making it Count, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, YPS.
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006 “Housing”, Planning Policy Statement 3, London, DCLG.
—, 2007, Homes for the Future: More Affordable, More Sustainable, London, Stationery Office (Cm 7191).
10.1080/02690940600951980 :Dorling, D., 2006, “Inequalities in Britain 1997–2006: The dream that turned pear shaped”, in Local Economy, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 353–61.
Dorling, D. and Rees, P., 2003, “A nation still dividing: The British census and social polarisation, 1971–2001”, in Environment and Planning, vol. 35, p. 1287–1313.
10.1093/ije/dyl017 :Dorling, D., Rigby, J., Wheeler, B., Ballas, D., Thomas, B., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D. and Lupton, R., 2007, Poverty, Wealth and Place in Britain, 1968–2005, Bristol, Policy Press.
Fainstein, S., Gordon, I., Harloe, M., 1992, Divided Cities: New York and London in the Contemporary World, Oxford, Blackwell.
10.1080/02673030701387630 :Galster, G., 2007a, “Should policy makers strive for neighborhood social mix? An analysis of the Western European evidence base”, in Housing Studies, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 523–45.
—, 2007b; “Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy a theoretical analysis”, in European Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 19–43.
Galster, G., Quercia, R. and Cortes, A., 2000, “Identifying neighbourhood thresholds: An empirical exploration”, in Housing Policy Debate, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 605–22.
10.1080/02673039883128 :Galster, G. and Zobel A., 1998, “Will dispersed housing programmes reduce social problems in the US?”, in Housing Studies, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 605–22.
10.1086/225469 :Granovetter, M., 1972, “The strength of weak ties”, in American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, p. 1361–80.
Hills, J., 2007, Ends and Means: The Future Roles of Social Housing in England, London, Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics (CASE report 34).
Institute of Public Policy Research, 2000, Housing United: The Final Report of the IPPR Forum on Social Housing, London, IPPR.
Kintrea, K., 2007, “Neighbourhood renewal: recent English experience”, in Housing Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 261–82.
Kintrea, K. Bannister, J., Reid, M. and Suzuki, N., 2007, “exploring territoriality among young people in Britain’s cities”, paper to European Urban Research Association conference, ‘The Vital City’, Glasgow, 14th September.
10.4324/9780203308554 :Kemeny, J., 1995, From Public Housing to Social Market: Rental Policy Strategies in Comparative Perspective, London, Routledge.
Lee, P. and Murie, A., 1999, “Spatial and social divisions winthin British cities: Beyond residualisation”, in Housing Studies, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 625–40.
10.2307/j.ctt1t899jb :Lupton, R., 2003, Poverty Street, Bristol, Policy Press.
—, 2005, “Changing neighbourhoods? Mapping the geography of poverty and worklessness using the 1991 and 2001 census”, in CASE-Brookings Census Brief 3, London, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.
—, 2001, “Ward level deprivation and individual social and economic outcomes in the British household panel survey”, in Environment and Planning A, vol. 33, p. 667–84.
McCulloch, A., 2001, “Ward level deprivation and individual social and economic outcomes in the British household panel survey”, in Environment and Planning A, vol. 33, p. 667–84.
Meen, G., Gibb, K., Goody, J., McGrath, T. and Mackinnon, J., 2005, Economic Segregation in England: Causes, Consequences and Policy, Bristol, Policy Press.
10.4324/9781315870588 :Morris, L., 1995, Social Divisions: Economic Decline and Social Structural Change, London, UCL Press.
10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00239.x :Musterd, S., 2005, “Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: Levels, causes and effects”, in Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 331–48.
10.1177/1078087405276006 :Musterd, S. and Andersson, R., 2005, “Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities”, in Urban Affairs Review, vol. 40, no. 6, p. 7612–790.
North, D. and Syrett, S., 2006, The Dynamics of Local Economies and Deprived Neighbourhoods, London, DCLG.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005b, Summary of Public Responses to the Consultation Paper ‘Planning for Mixed Communities’, London, ODPM.
Ostendorf, W., Musterd, S. and de Vos, S., 2001, “Social mix and the neighbourhood effects: policy ambitions and empirical evidence”, in Housing Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 371–80.
Palmer, G., Kenway, P. and Wilcox, S., 2006, Housing and Neighbourhoods Monitor, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Portes, A., 2000, “The two meanings of social capital”, in Sociological Forum, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 1–12.
10.2307/j.ctt2jc93q :Sassen, S., 2001 (second edition), The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Scott, S., Currie, H., Fitzpatrick, S., Keoghan, M., Kintrea, K. Pawson, H. and Tate, J., 2001, Good Practice in Housing Management: A Review of the Literature, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.
Scottish Executive, 2005, Social Focus on Deprived Areas, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive.
—, People and Place: Regeneration Policy Statement, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive, 2006.
Silverman, E., Lupton, R. and Fenton, A., 2005, A Good Place for Children?: Attracting and Retaining Families in Inner Urban Mixed Income Communities, Coventry, Chartered Institute of Housing.
10.1080/0042098032000065290 :Stephens, M., Burns, N. and Mackay. L., 2003, “The limits of housing reform: British social housing in a European context”, in Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 8, p. 767–89.
Tunstall, R., 2007, “Mixed communities: The fourth dimension”, paper to EURA Conference, ‘The Vital City’, Glasgow, September 2007.
10.4324/9780429501531 :Wilson, W., 1987, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass and Public Policy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Notes de bas de page
1 Most of the discussion in the chapter specifically refers to England and Scotland.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Crises et politiques du logement
Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks
Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org
Crises et politiques du logement
Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.
Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org
Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.
Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.
La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.
Référence numérique du chapitre
Format
Référence numérique du livre
Format
1 / 3