Critical Evaluation Of Mixed-Income Community
In 2014, the Guardian published an article entitled, ‘poor doors: the segregation of London's inner-city flat dwellers’. It showed that despite the development being a Mixed-Income Community (MIC), segregation prevailed. These ‘poor doors’ highlighted the development of micro-geographies of segregation within MIC. Through critically evaluating the assumptions underpinning MIC, this essay will argue that MIC does not alone encourage meaningful interaction primarily due to differences in accepted social norms and behaviour between groups. The benefits of specialised neighbourhoods and ‘the paradox of the ghetto’ further support this argument.
The urban regeneration policy of neighbourhood renewal focuses on the populations of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and, especially, areas of social housing. A less traditional model of neighbourhood renewal, MIC argues that having a heterogonous array of tenure including private renting, council housing and housing associations in an area will benefit the overall community. This could be achieved through a change in the allocative policies or extensive remodelling of estates as seen with Aylesbury estate, London. The benefit of this is twofold. It is assumed that local amenities will improve leading to utility gains for residents from a lower social-economic background. The second benefit often mentioned in the wider literature is that lower income households will benefit from social interactions with higher income households. Difficulties in implementing such a policy include the high level of capital investment required, the displacement effect and the net loss of social housing. We will see that the policy may lead to effects which ultimately contradict or conflict with its original aim.
The proposed economic benefits of the policy are as follows: attracting incomers, boosting the estates spending power, sustaining the local economy and increasing availability and choice of housing etc. Despite this impressive list of economic benefits, it ‘is hard to argue that evidence of the benefits of creating more mixed communities in existing areas and advantages over traditional neighbourhood renewal is strong enough to justify substantial economic and social costs of demolition and rebuilding’. One of the most extensive research pieces on MIC the ’US Moving to Opportunity (MTO)’ piloted a scheme where low income families where relocated to higher income neighbourhoods. The follow up study found there was no statistically significant improvement in the economic indicators for the lower income group from moving to more an affluent neighbourhood. A possible reason behind the limited economic benefits observed could be the lack of meaningful social integration across income lines. The extent to which people in Britain interact with others who are different to themselves in relation to age, social grade, ethnicity and age. This argument could be applied to urban areas outside Britain and is part of wider commentary on human behaviour. More than a mixture of tenure is needed to overcome this. The point has been raised in the literature that MIC is limited in its effectiveness as it only addresses the symptoms of residential segregation. Chaskin and Joseph (2013) argued that if a, ‘person living in a deprived neighbourhood improves their employability and gets a job, they have a much-increased probability of moving out to a better neighbourhood’. This will add to the higher turnover rate and led to further residential segregation. MIC whilst it has merits, does not tackle the cause of residential poverty therefore it is limited in how far it can reduce segregation across income lines.
MIC will increase the availability and choice of housing however the effect of this is not in support of the original aim of the policy. Increasing the availability of other tenures of housing often at the expense of social housing tenants can led to displacement and a loss of social capital in the area for lower income residents. This has been a fear of many residents who faced MIC. For example, local protest meetings held by residents from a lower social income background in Scotswood fought against what they saw as a development of a, ’yuppie village ’. This is consistent theme in a majority cases of MIC developments for lower income residents as seen with the redevelopment of the Aylesbury estate, London. The language used in MIC developments, by politicians and the media highlights a divide between different groups and a difference in what defines social capital for the various groups. Articles like, ’ how gang terrorised doomed estate ’ and politicians speeches using strong language such as ‘hell's waiting room’ to describe the estate shows how the estate was demonised, adding to polarization across income lines. Such powerful language and the image it portrayed is called into question where you learn that Aylesbury Tenants and Leaseholders repeatedly challenged the Council as to why they ignored the 2001 ballot against demolition where 73% of the 76% of tenants who responded voted against demolition. It was clear that residents were adamantly against the MIC redevelopment. Shukara, a community activist questioned the authorities as to, ‘how could they really talk to us about the way we live? ‘. It would be interesting to evaluate the language used in MIC developments when describing certain groups. MIC is a policy and form of social engineering which aims to influence an area through mixing groups across income lines. In many cases, we find residents from a lower income groups against such redevelopments. MIC will not reduce meaningful segregation across income lines because of this difference in accepted social norms between groups. The language used to describe the Aylesbury estate, which was simultaneously a ‘hells waiting room’ for some and a community for others, emphasises this point. The argument for specialised neighbourhoods, which are areas with high concentrations of similar people, helps to shine light on the discussion concerning MIC developments leading to further interaction. Luttmer (2005) found that social interactions with neighbours are greater with your nearest 500 neighbours. This means that the income of your nearest 500 neighbours are more likely to impact your sense of well-being. If we consider Luttmer study and the paradox of the ghetto, it implies that the welfare of residents would be greater if their nearest neighbour shares a similar level of income. ‘Living alongside the rich may also make the poor more keenly aware of their own deprivation’ suggests Tim Newburn, an LSE criminologist. This suggests that the opposite of what MIC is aiming for would be more beneficial for resident’s overall welfare and helps to answer the question of why segregation prevails across income lines. It shows that more needs to be done than simply mixing tenure to encourage meaningful interaction.
The proposed social benefits of the policy are as follows: building ‘social capital’, improving the image of the area, reconnecting to mainstream society and defusing anti-social behaviour etc. Social capital as defined by Putnam, ’ is that networks and the associated norms of reciprocity that have value. ’ Critics of MIC have argued that it is a form of positive state gentrification and leads to social engineering. By comparing the view of residents from Oakwood Shores, Chicago and the Aylesbury Estate we can see the same issue prominent within MIC developments. . Chaskin and Joseph (2013) argue that the tension between high- and lower-income households is rooted in difference expectation for behaviour that is fundamentally about preference. Oakwood Shores the largest MIC project in Chicago has one-third of its 3, 000 units occupied by relocated public housing residents, with the remainder split between affordable (23%) and market-rate (44%) residents. It was noted in the study that respondents from different income backgrounds expressed increasing concern about the conduct of some neighbours. What is perceived to be acceptable conduct or social norms and the desire for the familiar pushes us to select communities sharing the same characteristics.
A quote from one of the respondent highlights this point, ‘my biggest hope is that we change the behaviour of the kids that what these mixed‐income communities are doing is sort of demonstrating to the next generation what's acceptable and what's not. . . ‘. These tensions are similar to those that have begun to be documented in other gentrifying contexts, but are thrown into particular relief by the magnitude of social distance between residents at either end of the socioeconomic spectrum in these developments. The difference in what is accepted as a social norm is drives natural separation is supported the wider literature. We naturally seek out and select neighbourhoods that tend to display a degree of homogeneity with regard to the characteristics of residents. This helps explains neighbourhoods dominated by certain characteristics such as ethnicity or income. As we have suggested previously (Joseph et al. , 2007), it seems clear that any presumed benefits from social networks across class lines are not likely to materialise in the mixed-income context, certainly in the medium term.
