European countries are facing rising demand for affordable housing from 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 the 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 the housing sphere.

Social mix has played a pivotal role within state-led integrated area-based urban renewal policies of deprived neighborhoods in many Western European countries (Van Gent et al., 2009). Policy-makers have claimed that mixed neighborhoods would help tackle the so-called negative neighborhood effects that 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 neighborhood reputation. In addition, neighborhood 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 the 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 the social mix by relating its mainstream implementation in the context of deprived neighborhoods 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, the continuing shortage of affordable housing for low- and middle-income groups, and 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 the social mix to ongoing macro dynamics. The central argument in this paper is that a reframing process of the concept of ‘social mix’ in the housing field is ongoing. 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 the 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 shows that the 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 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 of ‘social mix’ in 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 make 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.