The creation of mixed communities has become a key element of UK housing policy but empirical research in such areas is limited. Through interviews with and diaries kept by residents of three mature estates, planned as mixed tenure from the start, levels of neighbourhood usage and social interaction are analysed. The techniques used deliberately replicate earlier work in mixed-tenure regeneration areas. While giving some support to the conventional wisdom that owners and renters tend to live separate lives, the distinctions are not as strong as previously suggested and the estates studied differ from each other. Explanations are drawn from both physical planning and community development. The authors indicate the parameters needed for such developments to meet residents' aspirations and draw out the lessons for policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, C., Camina, M., Casey, R. et al. (2005) Mixed tenure, twenty years on: nothing out of the ordinary. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
2.
ATD Fourth World (2006) Not too hard to reach: developing a tool to reach the most disadvantaged families . ATD Fourth World, London.
3.
Atkinson, R. (2005) Neighbourhoods and the impacts of social mix: crime, tenure diversification and assisted mobility. CNR Paper No. 29, Housing and Community Research Unit, ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research .
4.
Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (2000) Owner occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts, Policy and Politics, 28(1), pp. 93-108.
5.
Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (2001) Disentangling neighbourhood effects: evidence from deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2277-2298.
6.
Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (2004) Opportunities and despair, it's all in there: practitioner experiences and explanations of area effects and life chances, Sociology, 38(3), pp. 437-455.
7.
Beckhaven, E. van and Kempen, R. van (2003) Social effects of urban restructuring: a case study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands, Housing Studies , 18(6), pp. 853-874.
8.
Camina, M. (1980) Bowthorpe: the implementation of a dream. Centre of East Anglian Studies, University of East Anglia.
9.
Casey, R., Coward, S., Allen, C. and Powell, R. (2007) On the planned environment and neighbourhood life , Town Planning Review, 78(3), pp. 311-334.
10.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) (2006) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. London: TSO.
11.
Dekker, K. and Bolt, G. (2005) Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups, Urban Studies, 42(13), pp. 2447-2470.
12.
DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000) Regeneration that Lasts: A Guide to Good Practice on Social Housing Estates. London: TSO.
13.
Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood , Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2125-2143.
14.
Gilchrist, A. (2000) The well-connected community: networking to the `edge of chaos', Community Development Journal, 35(3), pp. 264-275.
15.
Granovetter, M. (1973) The strength of `weak ties', American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp. 1360-1380.
16.
Henning, C. and Lieberg, M. (1996) Strong ties or weak ties? Neighbourhood networks in a new perspective, Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 13, pp. 3-26.
17.
Hislock, R. (2001) Are mixed tenure estates likely to enhance the social capital of their residents?Paper presented to the Housing Studies Association Conference, Housing Imaginations, University of Cardiff , September.
18.
Holmans, A. (2005) Housing and housing policy in England 1975-2002 . Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
19.
Jupp, B. (1999) Living Together: Community Life on Mixed Tenure Estates. London: Demos.
20.
Kearns, A. and Parkinson, M. (2001) The significance of neighbourhood, Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2103-2110.
21.
Lowndes, V. (2000) Women and social capital: a comment on Hall's `Social Capital in Britain', British Journal of Political Science , 30, pp. 533-540.
22.
Martin, G. and Watkinson, J. (2003) Rebalancing communities: introducing mixed incomes into existing rented housing estates. Joseph Rowntree Foundation , York.
23.
MBC (Middlesbrough Borough Council) (1977) SouthMiddlesbrough: the issues. Middlesbrough Borough Council.
24.
Meegan, R. and Mitchell, A. (2001) It's not community round here, it's neighbourhood: neighbourhood change and cohesion in urban regeneration policies, Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2167-2194.
25.
Munro, M. (2007) Evaluating policy toward increasing owner occupation , Housing Studies, 22(2), pp. 243-260.
26.
NCC (Norwich City Council) (1974) Bowthorpe Master Plan. City of Norwich.
27.
Norris, M. (2006) Developing, designing and managing mixed tenure estates: implementing planning gain legislation in the Republic of Ireland , European Planning Studies, 14(2), pp. 199-218.
28.
PDC (Peterborough Development Corporation) ( 1970) Greater Peterborough Master Plan. Peterborough Development Corporation.
29.
Parkes, A., Kearns, A. and Atkinson, R. (2002) What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods? , Urban Studies, 39(13), pp. 2413-2438.
30.
Popple, K. (1995) Analysing Community Work: Its Theory and Practice . Buckingham: Open University Press .
31.
Popple, K. (2006) Community development in the 21st century: a case of conditional development, British Journal of Social Work , 36, pp. 333-340.
32.
Rosenbaum, J., Reynolds, L. and DeLuca, S. (2002) How do places matter? The geography of opportunity, self-efficacy and a look inside the black box of residential mobility, Housing Studies, 17(1), pp. 71-82.
33.
Rowlands, R., Murie, A.S. and Tice, A.J. (2006) More than tenure mix: developer and purchaser attitudes to new housing estates. Chartered Institute of Housing in association with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York (http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/9781905018185.pdf ).
34.
Sampson, R.J. (1988) Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: a multilevel systemic model, American Sociological Review, 53(5), pp. 766-779.
35.
Scottish Homes (2001) Precis no. 136: empowering communities: the impact of registered social landlords (RSLs) on social capital (www.scot-homes.gov.uk).
36.
Silverman, E., Lupton, R. and Fenton, A. (2005) A good place for children? Attracting and retaining families in inner urban mixed communities. Joseph Rowntree Foundation,York (http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1905018126.pdf ).
37.
Talen, E. (1999) Sense of community and neighbourhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism, Urban Studies, 36(8), pp. 1361-1379.
38.
Talen, E. (2000) New urbanism and the culture of criticism, Urban Geography, 21(4), pp. 318-341.
39.
Thomas, D. (1991) Community development at work: a case of obscurity in accomplishment. Community Development Foundation, London.
40.
Tunstall, R. (2003) `Mixed tenure' policy in the UK: privatization, pluralism or euphemism, Housing, Theory and Society, 20(3), pp. 133-159.
41.
Turok, I., Kearns, A. and Goodlad, R. (1999) Social exclusion: in what sense a planning problem? , Town Planning Review, 70, pp. 363-384.
42.
Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of the Urban Task Force. London: E & FN Spon.
43.
Wekerle, G.R. (1985) From refuge to service center: neighbourhoods that support women, Sociological Focus, 18(2), pp. 79-95.
44.
Wood, M. (2003) A balancing act? Tenure diversification in Australia and the UK, Urban Policy and Research, 21(1), pp. 45-56.
45.
Wood, M. and Vamplew, C. (1999) Neighbourhood Images in Teesside: Regeneration and Decline?York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
