Reframing Social Mix In Affordable Housing Initiatives In Italy And In The Netherlands
Introduction:
Social mix has played a pivotal role within state-led integrated area-based urban renewal policies of deprived neighbourhoods in many Western European countries. Policy-makers have claimed that mixed neighbourhoods would help tackling the so-called negative neighbourhood effects which stem from the socio-spatial segregation of poor populations. The essential philosophy of social mix assumes that increasing residential proximity between middle- and lower-classes would improve livability, social cohesion and neighbourhood reputation.
This paper discusses the development of these initiatives within wider trends in housing policies and in relation to the domestic debate on social mix in the two countries. Drawing on Magic Mix and Housing Social 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.
Towards a reframing of the concept ‘social mix’?
The idea of social mix in Europe originated and developed throughout the industrial society, characterized by remarkable division between social classes and high stability of labour and housing careers. In the post WWII Western Europe, flourishing welfare state and economic prosperity guaranteed relatively easy and affordable access to housing for large portions of society, especially middle-classes. Households’ residential mobility was relatively low, which facilitated the development of territorially based identities, community and neighbourhood belonging.
Social mix: a ‘silent issue’ in the Italian housing debate:
With public housing stock accounting for only 5.5% and a homeownership rate of around 72% (Eurostat, n.d.), Italy is an emblematic representation of the metaphor ‘housing as the wobbly pillar under of the welfare state’. As a typical Southern European housing system, a residual share of public housing accommodates the most vulnerable groups, while the private sector has taken up the task of providing housing for more affluent groups, including low-middle income households.
A persistent ideal in a changing context:
The share of the social rented stock in the Netherlands is currently around 30% , revealing a gradual decrease over the last 20 years. Traditionally attractive and accessible for a wide range of income groups, including middle-classes , social housing is provided by housing associations, private organizations operating within the frame of specific public law since the early years of the 20th century. Affordable housing provision for all socioeconomic group is a cornerstone of the Dutch welfare state, classified as a crossover between conservative and socio-democratic regimes. Nevertheless, the Dutch social rented sector is increasingly moving towards revisualization, targeting almost exclusively low-income groups. Such a shift is also a manifestation of the neo-liberal restructuring of the welfare state since the 1990s.
Rephrasing the concept ‘social mix’ in five domains:
Discourses Common to all examined initiatives, social mix is, above all, a by-product of affordable housing projects, which primarily seek to satisfy the housing demand of different groups. However, higher expectations are attached to the mix between vulnerable (i.e. status-holders, welfare dependents, homeless) and resourceful groups (mainly students and young people) in terms of better opportunities of social inclusion for the former.
Target groups:
Early 21st century social mix policies used to target low- and middle-income residents, whereas initiatives distinguish between resourceful tenants (i.e. those in relatively advantage position like young workers or students), and vulnerable tenants (i.e. welfare dependents, low-income, and refugees). Of course there are significant differences between social groups, e.g. between refugees and people with disabilities, even though they are both considered as ‘vulnerable tenants’.
Practices:
A grounding assumption in these social mix initiatives is that diversity can be a strength for meaningful relationships amongst residents. Likewise, it is evident that living side by side does not make necessarily good neighbours as envisaged by mainstream assumptions. According to our respondents, social mix is intended not only as residential proximity of different social groups, but as a sum of daily practices that enable positive encounters and community building.
Institutional frame:
By ‘institutional frame’, we mean the set of relevant laws, policies, reforms, including actors, in which the idea of social mix is contextualized and implemented. Social mix was a fundamental element of area-based urban restructuring policies in the Netherlands, and in Italy. Despite contextual differences, both policies were partly funded by central governments and applied nationwide to low-income neighbourhoods (mainly of social housing).
Urban downscaling:
Both in the Dutch urban restructuring policy and in the Italian National Programmes of Neighbourhood Contracts, applied to specific neighbourhoods with relatively high levels of socio-economic deprivation. Conversely, in all case studies, practitioners tend to implement social mix when opportunities arises, regardless of location. It is no coincidence that, frequently, such opportunities are vacant buildings.
Conclusion:
The societal and historical context influences policy approaches, discourses, and values attached to the ideas of social mix and mixed community. Within this framework, we have investigated how the concept ‘social mix’ is being reframed in times of deep socio-economic transformations fueled by austerity politics and welfare retrenchment, growing socio-spatial segregation, increasing diversification of European cities, and shortage of affordable housing.
Also Read: Housing and Living off the Grid in an era of Urbanization