Why mixed communities regeneration fails to improve the lives of low-income young people

Abstract

The demolition and replacement of social housing with mixed income communities is thought to mitigate the harmful effects of growing up in geographical concentrations of poverty and improve the life chances of low-income populations. However, there is little evidence on how young people are impacted by mixed communities regeneration prevalent in many cities across the Western world. This paper examines the mechanisms through which the capabilities of low-income young people are influenced by transforming their social housing estate into a mixed income community. It draws on participatory research with teenagers and adult stakeholders in a London mixed income neighbourhood. The findings suggest that mixed communities regeneration perpetuates the social injustices that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds experience in the city. The paper identifies and unpacks the mechanisms of stigmatisation, exclusion, social inequalities, community fragmentation and marginalisation of youth voices implicated in these injustices. These mechanisms constrain many of the capabilities young people value including their ability to benefit from their neighbourhood’s regeneration.

Introduction

It is a common regeneration approach in cities across the Western world to demolish and replace social housing estates with a mix of private and social housing, with a view to create mixed income communities (Andersen, 2002; Blanc, 2010; Briggs et al., 2010; Musterd and Andersson, 2005; Tunstall, 2011). Mixed communities regeneration (also referred to as social mix) is implemented in response to increasing segregation and concentration of poverty, joblessness and crime in large social housing areas (Watt, 2017). Social mix has gained further momentum in urban planning since the COVID-19 pandemic as a key principle of the ‘15-minute city’ model (Casarin et al., 2023). Mixed communities regeneration is underpinned by an assumption that attracting wealthier households to deprived neighbourhoods will improve the lives of lower-income residents by reducing the negative effects of poverty concentration (Tunstall and Lupton, 2010). It is argued that growing up in socio-economically mixed communities can expose low-income children and young people to positive role models, better opportunities and diverse social and job networks (Arthurson, 2012; Formoso et al., 2010; Robison et al., 2016). Creating mixed communities is also thought to reduce stigma attached to social housing areas, enhance the quality of local services and reduce crime (Tunstall and Lupton, 2010). However, available evidence, which is largely informed by research with or about adult residents, has called into question these assumptions (Sautkina et al., 2012). A recent historical and evidence review shows that social mix policies have worsened the exclusion and marginalisation of lower-income groups and promoted the gentrification and displacement of working-class communities (Casarin et al., 2023).

Neighbourhood socio-economic context is important for young people’s wellbeing, with adolescence seen as critical time for exposure to neighbourhood poverty (Troost et al., 2022). Growing up in neighbourhoods with higher levels of poverty is associated with adverse teenage outcomes related to health, education and risk behaviours, independent of family background (Kleinepier and Van Ham, 2018; Lupton and Kneale, 2012; Nieuwenhuis and Hooimeijer, 2016; Visser et al., 2021).

However, these results are not uniform across sociodemographic groups. Focusing on youth from lower income families, the evidence for neighbourhood social mix is inconclusive. Some studies have found benefits associated with moving to or living in areas with a higher socio-economic mix or lower poverty (Kling et al., 2007; Toft and Ljunggren, 2016). In contrast, there is evidence suggesting that young people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds experience worse outcomes or are not significantly impacted by living in areas with a higher proportion of better-off residents, including on their education, mental and physical health, risk behaviours and socio-economic outcomes in adulthood (Andersson and Malmberg, 2015; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2017; Odgers et al., 2015; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011). Differences also exist by gender and ethnicity (Oberwittler, 2007). These results provide additional reasons to question the assumed benefits of mixed communities regeneration, while also confirming the understanding that neighbourhood effects are heterogenous (Sharkey and Faber, 2014). The mechanisms explaining such heterogeneity are largely underexplored, however.

Youth voices have been absent from neighbourhood effects theorisation including their experiences of mixed communities regeneration. Young people’s activities and outcomes in neighbourhoods are shaped by the meanings, interpretations and attachment they ascribe to the places they inhabit, which differ from those of adults (Satarino, 2019). In a special issue published in this journal, Skelton and Gough (2013: 457) criticised the absence of young people from urban studies despite being ‘social and spatial agents who dwell in the city in different ways from adults and play significant roles in the diversity of the city’. If mixed communities regeneration is to create more inclusive neighbourhoods and improve the lives of disadvantaged youths, it is important that the latter’s voices are incorporated in social mix research.

By foregrounding the perspectives of young people, this paper provides a unique contribution to mixed communities debates and the understanding of neighbourhood effects. It examines the mechanisms that underpin the influence of mixed communities regeneration on the capabilities of low-income teenagers (aged 13–18). It draws on participatory research conducted in a social housing neighbourhood that has undergone major transformation to its infrastructure and socio-economic mix in London, England. The capability approach is used to assess whether and how regeneration processes enhance or limit teenagers’ opportunities to achieve the things they value in life. Going beyond the mere availability of neighbourhood resources, the study examines young people’s ability to use these resources to achieve their wellbeing goals.

Mixed communities in the UK

In the UK, creating mixed and balanced communities is a key objective of urban planning policies. This involves balancing ¹ private, intermediate and social housing to suit all needs and ages (Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities and Local Government, 2019). Neighbourhoods where housing tenure is mixed and neutral are thought to promote wellbeing, social inclusion, integration, diversity and community cohesion (Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities and Local Government, 2014).

Successive UK governments since the 1980s have encouraged mixed communities regeneration to help reduce social exclusion, deprivation and stigma in social housing estates (Tunstall, 2011; Watt, 2017). In some cases, this has taken the form of infill projects that insert market-rate properties into social housing estates. In others, it has involved the demolition of socially rented housing, whereby the land is sold to a property developer that replaces the estate with a higher-density mixed-tenure development. A proportion of the revenue generated from the sale of market-rate housing is used to subsidise the cost of building social and affordable housing. An upgrade to neighbourhood amenities is often incorporated in large demolition and redevelopment projects. Many schemes also involve transferring the ownership of social housing from the local council to a housing association which may result in more expensive rents, energy bills and service charges (Watt, 2009). A study by Lees and Hubbard (2020) estimated that, since 1997, approximately 161 council estates in London have been demolished and replaced with mixed-tenure communities.

Researchers have argued that the UK’s mixed communities policy is driven by neoliberal retrenchment of the welfare state citing shrinking government funding for housing provision, the selling of public land and assets and encouraging the use of private finance to regenerate and build social housing (Bridge et al., 2011; Watt, 2009).

Neighbourhood effects pathways: Existing evidence for mixed communities and the wellbeing of low-income young people

Social interaction between residents is one of the pathways of neighbourhood effects that has received considerable attention from scholars. Some have argued that middle-class neighbours can serve as adult role models and peers for low-income young people, reducing the latter’s social isolation and exposing them to diverse social networks and job opportunities (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Wilson, 1987). However, studies of mixed communities – predominantly conducted with adults – show little meaningful social interaction between residents across various housing tenures and income levels (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2000; Kleit, 2005). Class- and race- based conflict is also documented, and any existing community is usually limited to small socially homogeneous groups (August 2016; Khare et al., 2015; Ruming et al., 2004). More affluent residents are often prejudiced against lower-income families, do not want their children mixing with the latter, and prefer to send their children to higher achieving schools in the suburbs (Moreira de Souza, 2019; Silverman et al., 2005).

It has also been argued that affluent residents may improve conditions for young people by imposing informal social control (Bond et al., 2013). Social organisation and collective efficacy theories posit that communities with lower poverty levels, more stability and less ethnic diversity are better equipped to apply informal social control which reduces crime and antisocial behaviour among young people (Lindblad et al., 2013; Sampson et al., 1997). Some studies of mixed neighbourhoods, however, reported community tension between adult residents from different class backgrounds over different parenting practices and unstructured youth activities (Carnegie et al., 2018; Chaskin et al., 2013; Tersteeg and Pinkster, 2016).

Furthermore, wealthier individuals may use their influence and resources to advocate for better local services and schools in deprived neighbourhoods (Ruming et al., 2004). However, this may also result in the silencing of the voices of disadvantaged families and the diversion of resources toward more affluent children (Posey-Maddox et al., 2014). In addition, studies show that gentrifying neighbourhoods undergo a process of resource displacement, where the changing patterns of consumption trigger a reduction in the provision of services for low-income residents (Davidson, 2008).

Another expected benefit of replacing social housing estates with mixed communities is that it may improve neighbourhood reputation and reduce stigma (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2001), thereby potentially mitigating stereotypes that portray young people from disadvantaged areas as ‘doomed-to-fail’ which worsens their education and job outcomes (Bauder, 2001; Gulczyńska, 2019). Nonetheless, there is evidence that it can be difficult to change negative representations of areas that have been stigmatised for a long time (Hastings and Dean, 2003). Some researchers also found that low-income ethnically minoritised young people who move to more affluent areas experience discrimination and racism (Clampet-Lundquist et al., 2011; Rudolph et al., 2021).

Mixed income communities may also lead to relative deprivation. Relative deprivation and social comparison theories suggest that as people compare their situations to referent others (e.g. neighbours), judging that they are unfairly disadvantaged may lead to angry resentment, with negative consequences for wellbeing, and inter-group relations (Smith and Pettigrew, 2015). While some researchers hypothesise that relative deprivation may underly the observed negative effects of social mix on young people, this proposition remains unexplored (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2017; Odgers et al., 2015; Rudolph et al., 2021).

The existing literature, thus, is inconclusive and leaves us with gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms through which low-income young people are influenced by increasing the socio-economic mix of their neighbourhoods. Evidence is largely informed by an adult standpoint. There is limited knowledge of young people’s experiences of redeveloped mixed communities and perspectives on most of the propositions cited above. This study has aimed to address this gap in knowledge.

The current study

The paper draws on an ethnographic case study of a London social housing estate ² that has been demolished and replaced with mixed-income housing as part of a regeneration project. A key reason for selecting this estate is that a mixed communities approach formed a defining feature of the regeneration and was seen by the local planning authority as integral to the reduction of its high deprivation levels, thereby providing an ‘information-rich case whose study will illuminate the research questions’ (Patton, 2002: 46).

The estate spans a whole neighbourhood comprising more than 3000 homes and about 6000 residents. It is located in an inner London borough with relatively high land value and benefits from good transport links to the city centre.

Prior to the start of fieldwork, the regeneration project had increased the housing density by 40% and changed the tenure and socio-economic mix of the area. The proportion of social rent had gone down from 65% to 48%, while homeownership and private rent more than doubled (52%). Social and market–rate housing were mixed at the street level, however they were located in separate building blocks. While the plans for the development espoused a tenure blind approach to building design, this mostly only applied to the façade of buildings. Market-rate housing blocks had amenities such as concierges, security guards and – in some cases – indoor gyms and swimming pools, which were absent from social housing. There had been a twofold increase in the percentage of residents in managerial and professional occupations (about 40%), while those without education qualifications almost halved (approx. 20%). The area remained ethnically diverse, albeit with a 10% reduction in the black population. Overall, about 25.5% were black (12% and 21% more than London and England, respectively), 40.5% white (about 10% less than in London), 16% Asian, 7% mixed and 11% from other ethnicities.

The regeneration project had also brought improved physical and service infrastructure including new community and sports facilities, a refurbished youth centre, play areas, green space and food outlets.

The capability approach as a conceptual framework

The capability approach informed the research design, data collection and analysis. It is a tool for assessing wellbeing through evaluating an individual’s real freedoms and opportunities (i.e. capabilities) to be and do the things they value in life (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993). As opposed to actual achievements or outcomes (e.g. educational attainment), capabilities form people’s ability to realise such achievements. The capability approach goes beyond looking at whether individuals possess rights and have access to resources and instead is concerned with determining whether they have the freedom to enact and use these rights and resources to achieve their valued beings and doings. People’s ability to convert resources to capabilities are enabled or restricted by what are called conversion factors. There are three types of conversion factors: (1) personal (e.g. age, skills, sex); (2) social (e.g. social hierarchies, social institutions); and (3) environmental (e.g. the built environment, transport, location) (Robeyns, 2017). As conversion factors interact with each other they produce variations in capabilities and wellbeing between individuals within and across social and environmental contexts.

In this study, neighbourhood improvements that resulted from the regeneration (e.g. new housing, community amenities, public spaces, increased security and new businesses) were considered resources to be converted to capabilities by different individuals and groups living in the area. Thus, it is expected that low-income young people’s ability to convert these resources into capabilities may differ from those of other groups such as higher-income youths and adults or low-income adults and young children by virtue of their different personal characteristics interacting with the social and environmental conditions of the neighbourhood. Similarly, variations among low-income teenagers may arise due to differences in other personal characteristics such as ethnicity or level of social (dis)advantage.

The study involved asking young people living in the case study area to identify their valued capabilities (i.e. the things they value in life), before examining their opportunities to achieve them. This follows the strand in the capabilities literature which advocates for using participatory methods to select valued beings and activities that reflect both individual and collective social realities and experiences of wellbeing (Biggeri and Mehrotra, 2011; Sen, 2004). Research shows that young people’s conceptualisation of what they value and their freedom to achieve those valued things are influenced by their social environments including levels of poverty and inequality (Hart, 2013; Unterhalter, 2012; Walker and Mkwananzi, 2015). Group discussions with young people involved in this research generated a group of 16 capabilities that are important to them. These are material wellbeing, self-worth, agency, learning and education, having influence and autonomy over decisions affecting them, having status, being respected, playing and being active, freedom of mobility, being safe, having fun, socialising with friends, belonging to a supportive community, caring and being cared for by their families, having basic physical needs (such as shelter, food and health) and emotional and mental wellbeing. These valued things align with previous studies that asked children and young people to define their wellbeing or valued capabilities (e.g., Bharara et al., 2019; Biggeri et al., 2006; Burchardt and Vizard, 2009; Dex and Hollingworth, 2012).

Building on and expanding this literature, the paper presents an analysis of how social and environmental factors interact with personal factors, influencing low-income young people’s ability to convert their neighbourhood resources into their valued capabilities.

Data production and analysis methods

Guided by the principles of youth-centred research, data was produced through a mix of qualitative methods. Fieldwork between 2018 and early 2020 included participant observation where I volunteered at a local youth centre that provides support services to young people (13–19-year-olds) on the estate and its surrounding areas. This allowed me to build relationships with the young people and develop a deeper understanding of their social realities. Participant observation also took place at the neighbourhood housing management office where I took up an unpaid placement allowing me to observe the housing officers’ interactions with residents and take part in home visits and meetings with residents. Additionally, I observed regeneration meetings, consultations, community events and public spaces.

A total of 42 young people (12–19 years) participated in the study. Of which, 33 took part in a series of group-based participatory activities (six to seven participants per group) including neighbourhood spatial and community mapping, drawing, picture collage, photo-diaries and storytelling which took place at the youth centre, a local school and a community centre. The study also included a small peer-research element: I delivered training on social research and conducting interviews to ten participants who designed and practised an interview topic guide. Four of them chose to carry peer interviews with a total of five other young people (13–19 years) and one adult on their perceptions of the neighbourhood and regeneration.

All participatory activities were accompanied by discussions that aimed to illicit their views on their valued capabilities, the neighbourhood and the regeneration, their daily activities, experiences of accessing and using local facilities and public spaces and interacting with community members. I also conducted semi-structured interviews with nine young people, four of whom could not take part in the group activities. These took place towards the end of fieldwork and confirmed the findings from participatory methods.

Presenting young people with different modes of participation allowed them to choose the methods most aligned with their preferences for self-expression (Clark, 2010). The flexible and open nature of these activities also enabled them to have some control over the topics discussed (Veale, 2005).

Of the 42 young people who participated in the study, 24 were females and 18 males, while 21 were from black, mixed and minority ethnic backgrounds. All young people belonged to lower-income families living in social housing. They were recruited through the youth centre, the local secondary school and the local council’s youth services team with the aim of reaching teenagers living on the estate’s social housing. I later sought to include young people in market-rate housing, but none were found.

Additionally, I conducted semi-structured interviews with adult community members and stakeholders who were recruited based on their direct involvement in the regeneration and/or neighbourhood institutions and the issues that came up in discussions with young people. They included regeneration decision makers (working for the housing developer, local authority and housing association), social and private housing residents, local politicians, and public and commercial service providers (e.g. teachers, police, youth workers, and shop and restaurant owners). Service providers were asked about the services they offer to the community and young people and how they are impacted by the social mix. Decision makers were questioned about their objectives in the regeneration, young people’s participation in decision-making, and how youth wellbeing is impacted by the mixed community. Residents were asked about the impact of the regeneration on their families and quality of life, community relations, their motivations for moving into the area, the services they access and interactions with young people.

Finally, these methods were supplemented by an analysis of regeneration documents including masterplans, planning applications, consultation reports and position papers produced by the local authority, housing association and property developer. The multi-method and multi-source approach adopted in this study was useful in exposing complex mechanisms underpinning the relationship between young people’s wellbeing and the mixed income regeneration of their neighbourhood.

In total, the data corpus included in the analysis comprised of transcriptions of audio recordings of the group sessions and interviews with young and adult participants, notes from field observations and the regeneration documents. The contents of the visual products from the participatory activities (the photographs, picture collages and maps), however, were not analysed. Only the discussions prompted by them formed part of the analysis.

Inspired by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006), a hybrid approach was applied to coding and theme development, whereby a deductive a priori framework was used alongside a data-driven inductive coding process. The deductive framework was based on the main concepts of the capability approach, namely ‘valued beings and doings’, ‘neighbourhood resources’, ‘other resources’, and ‘conversion factors’. The latter encompassed ‘barriers’ and ‘opportunities’ to achieving valued beings and doings. Inductive and deductive coding were carried out simultaneously, allowing phrases to be coded within both the capability approach a priori framework and other inductively produced codes.

I implemented a two-layered coding process using NVivo data analysis software. Initially, I coded the data produced with young people, which took centre stage and formed a rough framework for coding the data from the adult participants, fieldnotes and official documents. Simultaneously, codes were allowed to emerge from the latter independently of the young people-produced codes. Analysis then proceeded in cycles where codes were grouped under categories, which were then consolidated into higher-level themes and concepts (Saldaña, 2016).

Being a qualitative single-case study, the aim was not to achieve universalisation or statistical representation, rather the purpose was to pursue what Robert Yin called analytic generalisation: ‘the extraction of a more abstract level of ideas from a set of case study findings – ideas that nevertheless can pertain to newer situations other than the case(s) in the original case study’ (Yin 2013: 325).

Findings

The findings reveal that mixed communities regeneration perpetuates the social injustices affecting young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Mechanisms of stigmatisation, exclusion, inequality, community fragmentation and marginalisation undermine young people’s ability to achieve many of their desired capabilities. These mechanisms diminish some of the neighbourhood resources young people once accessed while restricting their ability to benefit from or convert new ones into valued beings and doings. Participants thought that the regeneration primarily benefits affluent people and property investors, as it is rooted in commercial and profit-making agendas and referred to it as ‘gentrification’. They viewed this as unfair, particularly for those who grew up during the years when the area was under-resourced. One participant asserted that while the regeneration may be ‘good for some people’, it is ‘bad for people like us’ (Jack ³ , 16). Another said: ‘it is not aimed for young people, it’s aimed for adults who are rich’ (Beth, 16).

Stigmatisation and exclusion

Mixed-communities regeneration reinforces the stigmatisation and criminalisation of low-income and racially minoritised youth. Participants thought that the presence of more affluent residents increases the likelihood of them being ‘disrespected’ and stereotyped as ‘criminals’ and ‘troublemakers’, which in turn makes them unwelcomed in public spaces and subject to higher scrutiny and policing. This diminishes their valued capability of being respected and treated fairly and equally.

They argued that negative stereotypes stem from wider prejudices towards young people from working class and/or black and ethnic minority groups. People living in private housing are less likely to be from these groups.

I’ve grown up in that area and you’re just sort of come in and you’re looking at me like am not supposed to be here […] A lot of people that are coming in from the outside, their views of like young black people are quite negative sort of thing and they’ve come into our area with those stigmas and those attitudes, and that’s not good because they’ve come into our area and they are tryna make us feel like we don’t belong here. (Jaden, 18)

My interviews with adult residents and local service providers confirm that groups of teenagers are commonly perceived as ‘threatening’, an ‘imposition’ (homeowner), ‘unsafe’, ‘anti-social’ (school leader), ‘disruptive’, and most likely affiliated with ‘gangs’ (community activist and social tenant).

Such stigmatisation permeates and is perpetuated by neighbourhood institutions that have been created by the regeneration, including the public–private partnership responsible for security and policing. This partnership involves multiple agencies, such as the police, housing developer, housing landlords, the local authority, and a private security company, who aim to eliminate anti-social behaviour and crime in the area. Because teenagers are thought to be among the main perpetrators of these problems, efforts are made to disperse any congregations of young people in the area, with teachers and security personnel clearing the streets and parks after school and in the evenings. Affluent residents are also more likely to report young people to the police, as one police officer said. Older teenagers and young men from black and ethnic minority groups experience worse restrictions on their mobility and presence in public spaces. A local school leader explained that improvements to the built environment may attract youth groups to hang out in the area, which may increase anti-social behaviour. His quote reflects a blank assumption about the inherent risk posed by groups of young people and the school’s role in maintaining social control.

We don’t want them hanging around just for the simple reason that if they hang around with nothing to do, the chances are there’s going to be a problem […] local people don’t tend to want to walk through a group of 20 or 30 young people who are just standing around aimlessly doing nothing. That’s our commitment to the local community in the sense of ensuring that things are harmonious outside school gates. (School leader)

Regeneration organisations’ security strategy paradoxically jeopardises young people’s capability of being safe and can be counterproductive. By preventing them from spending time together in the area, youth participants said that it forces them to seek unsupervised places far from home, which may expose them to gangs and sexual harassment (among young women). Increased police presence and CCTV, while they may be beneficial for younger children, do not improve teenage safety due to hostility towards them. Furthermore, spending less time in the neighbourhood weakens teenagers’ community relations and sense of belonging, factors linked to more crime and anti-social behaviour in the literature (Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999). Some participants also suggested that the lack of local youth activities may increase risk behaviours, as this quote demonstrates:

I think the area was better before because there was stuff for young people to do. But now because there is nothing for young people to do, they’re gonna get on the wrong path and do bad things. And do you know whose fault that is? The people that are in charge of the regeneration. They complain about young people getting involved in crime when it’s their fault. (Beth, 16)

Furthermore, the regeneration has increased marketisation of local amenities, restricting young people’s ability to access them. Affordable retail providers were forced to close before the estate’s demolition and have not been able to re-open due to higher commercial rents in the new development. Newly opened businesses (food, retail and leisure facilities) tailor their services to more affluent customers and make it prohibitive for young people to use their space due to the negative stereotypes about local youth. Business owners and managers interviewed for this study said that it is not possible to cater for both lower-income and higher-income customers. They have deliberately raised their prices or put age limits to stop teenagers from accessing their services. This has been in response to complaints from upmarket customers and to avoid young people’s ‘difficult to manage’ behaviour. A gym manager explained why they retracted their summer offer for teenagers by saying: ‘They pose a risk and we are running a business. We want to make sure customers are not intimidated’. The competition to attract wealthier customers and make more money, therefore, comes at the expense of the needs of lower-income youth in the area.

Increased marketisation also affects outdoor youth spaces. To avoid having teenagers gather near private housing, which might deter potential home buyers and investors, the new development has more playgrounds for children than sports and play areas for teenagers, some community stakeholders said. Local parks and football areas accessible to young people were demolished and not replaced. The reduction in youth spaces impedes young people’s capabilities of socialising, being active, and building local friendships and community relations. Young people told me ‘they can’t have fun’ and there is ‘nowhere to go’ and ‘nothing to do’ in the neighbourhood. The younger ones are spending more time at home playing video games or being on social media due to restricted mobility out of fear for their safety.

One exception has been the youth centre, which is directly funded by the local authority and, thus, has been spared from the developer’s regeneration plans. Young people felt respected and supported by youth workers and, as a free service, it was crucial for protecting to a certain extent their capabilities of being safe, playing and socialising, particularly for younger teenagers (13- to 15-year-olds).

Socio-economic inequalities and relative deprivation

Living near wealthier neighbours reinforces young people’s sense of disadvantage and lower social status. Differences in amenities between social and private housing – as mentioned in the current study section – contributed to young people’s sense of relative deprivation. Social housing was experiencing recurrent maintenance problems (e.g. faulty door entry systems, water leaks, breaking lifts and rat infestations) during fieldwork that typically took a long time to get fixed. Participants described visible disparities in material resources and living standards between themselves and their more affluent neighbours as ‘stressful’, ‘humiliating’, and ‘jealousy’ inducing. This is linked to the capability of social status, which participants articulated as fitting-in and avoiding being perceived as ‘poor’, ‘broke’, ‘unclean’, or being ‘looked down on’.

My analysis of regeneration documents and interviews with local stakeholders revealed that housing inequalities are embedded in regeneration planning structures. Housing design, quality, and amenities are ultimately determined by financial viability considerations, meaning the developer’s ability to maintain a certain profit level given the costs of development. Developers in England have broad freedoms to define their profit margins and assess viability (Grayston, 2017). The regeneration funding mechanism of cross-subsidisation results in a situation where the more exclusive and luxurious the more expensive private properties are, and therefore the more they are sold for, the higher the revenues that are available to build social housing while maintaining financial viability. When social tenants objected to housing disparities (especially super luxuries), the trade-off presented to them by the developer was to build fewer social housing units.

Perceptions of relative deprivation should be situated within broader socio-economic inequalities in the UK, exacerbated by a decade of austerity policies and cuts to welfare spending that have disproportionately impacted lower-income families with children (Cooper and Hills, 2021). As many participants’ families have experienced worsening material deprivation the arrival of wealthier neighbours has been demoralising for young people.

The regeneration project has worsened the financial situation and material well-being of families with children. Single mothers interviewed talked about how the higher social rents, energy bills and service charges exacerbate their financial struggles and impede their ability to provide for their children’s needs. One mother said:

We have much more spending to maintain now, you know, and bills, extra bills. We didn’t use to have charges; these charges are killers for a single parent who has kids to maintain and school uniform and food on the table and holiday.

The economic burden on young people’s families overshadows the benefits of living in new housing because they put other valued capabilities at risk. Living in a warmer, more modern and spacious home expands young people’s capability of shelter. However, the financial pressures experienced by some of the most disadvantaged families can jeopardise their basic needs, as the above quote demonstrates. They also have adverse consequences for young people’s mental and emotional wellbeing. Some participants expressed anxieties about the impact of the regeneration on their parents’ finances and potentially being forced to move to a different area due to increasing housing unaffordability. Others suggested that the regeneration can further push some young people towards crime and put them at risk of exploitation especially those who are of younger age and cannot access work, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Well, the regeneration made it worse because they made the housing more expensive so children are gonna think they need to do illegal things to make money to support their mum and siblings. (Beth, 16)

If you are younger, you have less experience and most jobs they look for people that have at least some type of experience […] But at 12 you don’t think about having a CV, you just think about having the money, how you’re gonna get the money, play with your friends, so the mentality changes as you get older. (Andrew, 16)

These factors are compounded by ongoing barriers for young people to access jobs and training. While the regeneration in the wider borough has attracted businesses, such opportunities were inaccessible for many participants. Barriers include lacking the skills and confidence to connect with the ‘right’ job networks, stereotypes of ‘lazy’ youth with no aspirations among employment services and a reluctance by employers to invest in training young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. During fieldwork the local authority launched a work placement scheme for 16- to 19-year-olds but failed to attract the target number of businesses to participate. Many of the tech and media companies that have opened as part of the regeneration are small start-ups that ‘often pushed back on young people who are below 18 […] They don’t have the capacity to bring on another young person, train them up, give them the skills, give them the tips’, said a youth employment support worker at the local council.

In sum, young people are not able to convert the resource of new local businesses into their valued capabilities of learning, achieving and material wellbeing. Participants argued that if the regeneration is to have a genuine influence on their wellbeing and root out crime in their communities, it must provide them with good job opportunities, build their skills and ‘help them earn money legally’ (Luke, 18). One participant said:

People aren’t gangsters because they wanna kill people it’s because of what they go through in their area, so it’s all nice that you’re regenerating but are you providing things like jobs? […] because at the end of the day if you want the place to change, you’re gonna have to change the people a bit by allowing them to have more opportunities. (Sharon, 17)

Community fragmentation and social division

Processes of community fragmentation and division triggered by the regeneration were among young people’s top concerns. They relate to their capability of belonging to a community. Participants’ long-time local social ties were disrupted by years of demolition, redevelopment and rehousing of residents on the estate. As some people moved out of the neighbourhood (whether temporarily or permanently) and others moved back to their new homes, it was challenging to maintain local friendships.

I liked the old area. I mean sure the houses were old but I liked it because the community was stronger […] We knew everyone but now it feels like strangers have just invaded it and started to change what we knew, what we grew up to do. (Nia, 15)

The densification of the neighbourhood’s population and influx of more affluent households is seen as fragmenting the community and creating an ‘us and them’ sentiment. In confirmation of previous research, I found that social and private housing residents occupy different social circles, send their children to different nurseries or schools and socialise in different places. And even when they use the same local facilities, such as the children’s playgrounds, they do not typically mix because – as one private renter said –‘they do not have anything in common’. Underlying this divide are class and racial prejudices. For example, a young couple who are private renters on the estate told me that they do not send their daughter to the local primary school because of their concerns about the different ‘gender and race-based’ values of other children in the area. Another resident who has lived on the estate for about 20 years said:

I think the barrier here is more to do with who’s got money and who ain’t because you get the people who are on low income or not working can be very biased against people that have a lot of money and vice versa […] some people that got a lot of money don’t think someone that’s on a low income is worth knowing either. (Jane, social housing resident)

Over the course of fieldwork, efforts were made by the resident association to revive the community spirit through organising community events and seasonal festivals. However, these mainly catered for families with younger children.

Teenagers have found it difficult to form new community connections after the disruption caused by the redevelopment. Most participants said they do not interact with or had negative encounters with residents of private housing. The social distance between the two groups is deepened by a lack of families with teenagers in market–rate housing. This is partly due to the relatively lower proportion of family-sized market sale units compared to social housing. Smaller properties yield relatively higher sales values for developers. Previous studies found that families in private housing eventually move somewhere else seeking more spacious accommodation as their children grow older (Silverman et al., 2005). The following quotes from a young person and a homeowner demonstrate the social divide between the two groups:

you can see the divide and you don’t see any of these people interacting with the young people, they keep themselves to themselves and we keep ourselves to ourselves. They’re on their side, we’re on our side sort of thing. (Jaden, 18)

My perception of the teenagers on this estate is probably the perception that I have of a lot of teenagers in general, which is they’re allowed to do what they want. Where are their parents? So I mean, I just, I don’t know any teenagers, that’s the thing, right? I just don’t know any teenagers on (name of the estate). (Kelly, homeowner)

It follows that neither young people nor their affluent neighbours perceived role model effects. Young people talked about adults in their lives, such as family members, youth workers, or neighbours who provide a positive example of success and increase their sense of agency. However, this is only possible where pathways to success are evident and relatable to them.

Participation and influence on regeneration decision-making

Another mechanism through which young people’s capabilities are undermined by the regeneration are the barriers to meaningfully participate in and influence decision-making. Unlike consultations with adults, youth engagement initiatives throughout the years, as well as those observed during fieldwork, were tokenistic and short-lived. Participants told me they feel ‘powerless’ and that their needs are overlooked. They have stopped going to consultations because they never see their opinions or demands implemented or hear back about how their contributions influenced the decisions made.

They are not gonna change anything, they are not gonna do what we want […] cause if they actually care, they would have asked. When they started the regeneration, they only asked us to make it look like they care and then at the end they do what they want. (Malik, 16)

The youth consultations I observed were ad-hoc and designed around narrow questions that did not address the range of issues related to how the regeneration affects young people’s lives. A local councillor told me that consultations are deliberately designed to be limited in scope to manage expectations and avoid raising problems that are beyond the capacity of local policymakers to deal with. The consultations were often used by the regeneration organisations for branding purposes with little real impact.

This is emblematic of a systemic marginalisation of young people in local planning. Underlying these shortcomings is an absence of institutional structures to hold regeneration organisations accountable for youth inclusion. Youth participation is not embedded in mainstream decision-making systems and is often pursued as a time-bound project.

These processes constrain young people’s valued capability of having a say in what happens in their communities and confirm their lower social status. As one participant put it, ‘just because we are young shouldn’t necessarily mean that our opinion doesn’t matter’ (Emma, 14).

The absence of youth voices also results in a general lack of understanding among decision makers of how the regeneration is affecting young people’s lives and wellbeing, as revealed by this study.

Discussion

This paper has explored the mechanisms through which mixed communities regeneration affects the capabilities of lower-income young people. Evidence from in-depth participatory research with teenagers and adult stakeholders in a London neighbourhood presented here suggests that the regeneration reinforces the social urban injustices affecting young people from working class and minoritised communities. Mechanisms of stigmatisation, exclusion, inequality, community fragmentation and lack of participation impede young people’s ability to benefit from their area’s regeneration (or convert its resources), undermining many of the capabilities they value. These include their freedom of mobility, being safe, playing, having fun, socialising with friends, having social status, being respected, belonging to a supportive community, accessing basic needs, influencing decisions affecting their life, and having material, emotional and mental wellbeing.

The findings provide a youth-centred standpoint on mostly adult-centric understandings and conceptualisations of neighbourhood and social mix effects in the literature, thereby illuminating the processes that help to explain some of the negative effects observed in the literature (e.g. Nieuwenhuis et al., 2017; Odgers et al., 2015; Rudolph et al., 2021). While the mechanisms broadly echo previous research with low-income adult residents, the findings highlight their unique effects and pathways through which they operate for young people. Young people are a deliberate target of exclusionary public space policing and social control measures, which may put them at risk due to their low economic means to access commercial spaces and other safe spaces to socialise with friends. The negative effects of relative deprivation on young people are arguably more acutely experienced due to their more restricted access of job and training opportunities. Teenagers are among the most marginalised from community activities and local decision making with negative impact on their sense of belonging and ownership of the area. Community fragmentation has a particular relevance for young people as it relates to connecting with role models.

The findings also show that some of these pathways and their influence on youth capabilities may vary based on their age, sex, ethnicity and the level of economic disadvantage. Older teenagers, young men, and those from black and other ethnic minority groups face higher levels of stigmatisation and policing. Young women are more likely to be exposed to sexual harassment with the lack of safe youth spaces, while younger teenagers can have their independent mobility restricted by their parents. Those whose parents are relatively more materially disadvantaged are more severely affected by the increase in housing costs and reduction in free youth activities. Community division and fragmentation is more relevant for young people whose social networks and friendships are rooted in the local area.

I find support for the relative deprivation hypothesis (Smith and Pettigrew, 2015) and extend it by arguing that the wider context of socio-economic inequalities and planning structures is important for understanding why this is the case. Comparisons of disparities in living standards between higher and lower income residents in addition to perceptions of the unfairness of mixed-communities regeneration exacerbate young people’s experiences of relative disadvantage and lower status, with negative consequences for their emotional and mental wellbeing. What underlies this relative disadvantage are inequalities related to welfare policies, labour market inequalities that disadvantage working class and ethnically minoritised youth, and urban planning structures that further the interests of property developers and drive housing inequities. The regeneration effects, thus, interact with and perpetuate existing structural and socio-economic conditions.

In contrast to the intentions of social mix policy, the findings reported here suggest that the regeneration processes reinforce young people’s material deprivation and their risk of criminal exploitation.

I did not find evidence that affluent neighbours serve as roles models or peers for disadvantaged young people who could provide them with bridging opportunities to social and job information networks. Instead, interactions between the two groups range from the avoidant to the antagonistic. These results support previous research that found community division based on social class and race in mixed neighbourhoods (Clampet-Lundquist, 2007; Tersteeg and Pinkster, 2016; Chaskin et al., 2013). When it comes to young people, this study suggests that community fragmentation may reduce their access to adult role models in their neighbourhood.

Advocates of social mix have argued that replacing social housing with mixed income communities reduces stigmatisation by institutional actors (Tunstall and Lupton, 2010). My findings suggest the opposite: neighbourhood institutions led by regeneration decision makers and local agencies perpetuate the stigmatisation of young people from low-income and ethnically minoritised backgrounds. Instead of social control operating as a form of ‘collective efficacy’, where members of a cohesive community look out for each other and intervene to stop anti-social behaviour (Sampson et al., 1997), it appears to function as a means by which institutions, driven by capital market interests that marginalise youth voices, expel young people from public spaces under the banner of ‘security’, with no regard or understanding of how this affects their capabilities to socialise, be active, and feel a sense of community belonging and safety. Researchers have documented similar exclusionary processes of securitisation and sanitisation which target ‘undesirable’ groups such as youths, street vendors and rough sleepers in the drive to create urban consumption centres (Kennelley and Watt, 2011; Lees, 2003; Raco, 2003). My findings suggest that this approach to neighbourhood security is ineffective, as it increases some teenagers’ exposure to risk and alienates them from the rest of the community.

Furthermore, the findings contest the claim that the presence of affluent residents benefits lower-income youth through improvements in neighbourhood services. Expanding previous evidence of resource displacement in gentrifying areas (Davidson, 2008), my findings demonstrate that when it comes to young people, this process is rather systemic and operates on a zero-sum basis. Excluding young people from neighbourhood facilities, whether through price increases, age restrictions or not building teenage play areas, is itself a strategy used by businesses and developers to attract more upmarket customers and homebuyers.

Taken together, the findings illuminate low-income young people’s distinct experiences of mixed communities regeneration, which calls for special attention to be paid to their needs and voices. The lack of genuine and effective involvement of working-class young people in urban planning and regeneration has been discussed by many researchers (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al., 2000; Phillips, 2004). Yet youth participation and whether their voices are valued or listened to in community governance are are rarely ever considered in the neighbourhood effects literature as an important pathway to improve young people’s outcomes and wellbeing.

For mixed communities regeneration to improve the lives of low-income young people, it is imperative that youth participation is embedded in mainstream regeneration governance structures with clear accountability measures. Neighbourhood institutions should work in partnership to build tolerant and equal relationships with young community members. This could include an agreement between residents from all tenures and institutional actors to protect young people’s right to play and freely socialise. Regeneration plans should incorporate play and social areas that meet the needs of teenagers, as well as retail and food facilities that cater for people from different ages and income-levels. Design-wise, housing should be truly tenure blind both internally and externally, and housing size mix, besides tenure mix, should be considered. Regeneration projects should incorporate job and training programmes for young people. The cross-subsidy finance mechanism should be reconsidered, and it is important that public funding of youth services is protected.

Conclusion

This paper has provided evidence for why mixed communities regeneration may fail to improve the lives of lower-income teenagers, and instead reinforces their disadvantage. The findings are inconsistent with the avowed policy goal of creating inclusive and socially mixed communities. It is not, however, my intention to argue that residential segregation is preferred or that young people enjoyed higher wellbeing in their pre-regeneration neighbourhood. Rather, the study demonstrates that mixed communities do not operate in a vacuum and that without considering the context of structural socio-economic and racial inequalities at the root of youth disadvantage, mixed communities regeneration may simply reproduce them.