It is asserted that mixed-tenure public housing redevelopments can improve informal social control in targeted neighborhoods. We investigate this question using a validated measure of collective efficacy from a survey of residents in Toronto’s Regent Park neighborhood. We find that social housing residents report higher perceived levels of collective efficacy than do residents of the market buildings and that households with children report higher perceptions of collective efficacy than do households without children. Our findings provide some support for existing best practices, particularly the provision of amenities for families and the preservation of social ties among social tenants.
AllenChrisCaminaMargaretCaseyRuthCowardStuartWoodMartin. 2005. Mixed Tenure Twenty Years on: Nothing Out of the Ordinary. York: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
2.
ArthursonKathy. 2010. “Operationalising Social Mix: Spatial Scale, Lifestyle and Stigma as Mediating Points in Resident Interaction.”Urban Policy and Research28 (1): 49–63.
3.
AtkinsonRowlandKintreaKeith. 2000. “Owner-Occupation, Social Mix and Neighbourhood Impacts.”Policy & Politics28 (1): 93–108.
4.
AugustMartine. 2014. “Challenging the Rhetoric of Stigmatization: The Benefits of Concentrated Poverty in Toronto’s Regent Park.”Environment and Planning A46 (6): 1317–33.
5.
AugustMartine. 2016. “‘It’s All about Power and You Have None’: The Marginalization of Tenant Resistance to Mixed-Income Social Housing Redevelopment in Toronto, Canada.”Cities57:25–32.
6.
BartonHugh. 2010. “Strengthening the Roots of Planning.”Planning Theory & Practice2 (1): 95–101.
7.
BondLyndalSautkinaElenaKearnsAde. 2011. “Mixed Messages about Mixed Tenure: Do Reviews Tell the Real Story?”Housing Studies26 (1): 69–94.
8.
BrailShaunaKumarNavid. 2017. “Community Leadership and Engagement after the Mix: The Transformation of Toronto’s Regent Park.”Urban Studies54 (16): 3772–88.
9.
BurdaCheriseHainesGrahamSaxe HildebrandShoshanna. 2017. Bedrooms in the Sky: Is Toronto Building the Right Condo Supply?Toronto: Ryerson City Building Institute.
10.
ChaskinRobert J.JosephMark L.2013. “‘Positive’ gentrification, social control and the ‘right to the city’in mixed-income communities: uses and expectations of space and place.”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(2): 480–502.
11.
ChaskinRobert J.JosephMark L.2015. Integrating the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ColeIanGoodchildBarry. 2000. “Social Mix and the ‘Balanced Community’ in British Housing Policy: A Tale of Two Epochs.”GeoJournal51 (4): 351–60.
14.
CrawfordJohn. 2010. “Health at the Heart of Spatial Planning.”Planning Theory & Practice2 (1): 91–94.
15.
DeFilippisJames. 2004. Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global Capital. New York: Routledge.
16.
GalsterGeorge C.2012. “The Mechanism(s) of Neighbourhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.” In Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives, edited by van HamMaartenManleyDavidBaileyNickSimpsonLudiMaclennanDuncan, 23–56. Dordrecht: Springer.
17.
GalsterGeorge C.FriedrichsJurgen. 2015. “The Dialectic of Neighborhood Social Mix: Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue.”Housing Studies30 (2): 175–91.
18.
GranovetterMark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.”American Journal of Sociology78 (6): 1360–80.
19.
GravesErin M.2011. “Mixed Outcome Developments: Comparing Policy Goals to Resident Outcomes in Mixed-Income Housing.”Journal of the American Planning Association77 (2): 143–53.
20.
GressTrevor H.JosephMark L.ChoSungduck. 2019. “Confirmations, New Insights, and Future Implications for HOPE VI Mixed-Income Redevelopment.”Cityscape21 (2): 185–212.
21.
JanowitzMorris. 1975. “Sociological Theory and Social Control.”American Journal of Sociology81 (1): 82–108.
22.
JohnsonLeslie C.JohnsonRichard E.2017. Regent Park Redux: Reinventing Public Housing in Canada. New York: Routledge.
23.
JosephMark. 2006. “The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty through Mixed-Income Development.”Housing Policy Debate17 (2): 209–34.
24.
JuppBenSainsburyJamesAkers-DouglasOliver. 1999. Living together: Community life on mixed tenure estates. Demos.
25.
KasardaJohn D.JanowitzMorris. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society.”American Sociological Review39 (3): 328–39.
26.
KellySusannah. 2013. “The New Normal: The Figure of the Condo Owner in Toronto’s Regent Park.”City & Society25 (2): 173–94.
27.
KlijsBartM De LeonCatharina F.KibeleEva U.SmidtNynke. 2017. “Do Social Relations Buffer the Effect of Neighborhood Deprivation on Health-Related Quality of Life? Results from the LifeLines Cohort Study.”Health & Place44:43–51.
28.
LeesLoretta. 2008. “Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance?”Urban Studies45 (12): 2449–70.
29.
McCormickNaomi J.JosephMark L.ChaskinRobert J.2012. “The new stigma of relocated public housing residents: Challenges to social identity in mixed–income developments.”City & Community11 (3): 285–308.
30.
McCullaghPeterNelderJohn A.1989. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed.London: Routledge.
31.
MoosMarkusVinodraiTaraRevingtonNickSeasonsMichael. 2018. “Planning for Mixed Use: Affordable for Whom?”Journal of the American Planning Association84 (1): 7–20.
32.
NasarJack L.JulianDavid A.1995. “The Psychological Sense of Community in the Neighborhood.”Journal of the American Planning Association61 (2): 178–84.
33.
OreopoulosPhilip. 2003. “The Long-Run Consequences of Living in a Poor Neighbourhood.”Quarterly Journal of Economics118 (4): 1533–75.
34.
PermentierMatthijsvan HamMaartenBoltGideon. 2008. “Same Neighbourhood. . . Different Views? A Confrontation of Internal and External Neighbourhood Reputations.”Housing Studies23 (6): 833–55.
35.
PfeifferDeirdreCloutierStephanie. 2016. “Planning for Happy Neighborhoods.”Journal of the American Planning Association82 (3): 267–79.
36.
PurdySean. 2003. “‘Ripped Off’ by the System: Housing Policy, Poverty, and Territorial Somatization in Regent Park Housing Project, 1951-1991.”Labour/le Travailleur52:45–108.
37.
RosenGillad. 2017. “Toronto’s condo-builders: development approaches and spatial preferences.”Urban Geography38 (4): 606–25.
38.
RosenGiladWalksAlan. 2015. “Castles in Toronto’s Sky: Condo-ism as Urban Transformation.”Journal of Urban Affairs37 (3): 289–310.
39.
RoweDaniel J.DunnJames R.2015. “Tenure-Mix in Toronto: Resident Attitudes and Experience in the Regent Park Community.”Housing Studies30 (8): 1257–80.
40.
SampsonRobert J.RaudenbushStephen W.1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.”American Journal of Sociology105 (3): 603–51.
41.
SampsonRobert J.RaudenbushStephen W.2004. “Seeing Disorder: Neighborhood Stigma and the Social Construction of ‘Broken Windows.’”Social Psychology Quarterly67 (4): 319–42.
42.
SampsonRobert J.RaudenbushStephen W.EarlsFelton. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.”Science277 (5328): 918–24.
43.
SarkissianWendy. 1976. “The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review.”Urban Studies13 (3): 231–46.
SilvermanElspethLuptonRuthFentonAlex. 2005. A Good Place for Children? Attracting and Retaining Families in Inner Urban Mixed Income Communities. London: Chartered Institute of Housing for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
46.
Stan Development Team. 2022. Stan Modeling Language Users Guide and Reference Manual (Version 2.31). https://mc-stan.org.
47.
SwaroopSapnaMorenoffJeffrey D.2006. “Building Community: The Neighborhood Context of Social Organization.”Social Forces84 (3): 1665–95.
48.
TachLaura M.2009. “More than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes, and the Mixed–Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project.”City & Community8 (3): 269–99.
49.
ThompsonSara K.BuceriusSandra M.LuguyaMandeep. 2013. “Unintended Consequences of Neighbourhood Restructuring: Uncertainty, Disrupted Social Networks and Increased Fear of Violent Victimization among Young Adults.”British Journal of Criminology53 (5): 924–41.
50.
TomaltyRayMallachAlan. 2015. America’s Urban Future: Lessons from North of the Border. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Toronto Community Housing. 2007b. “Regent Park Social Development Plan Part II: Best Practices for Social Inclusion in Mixed-Income Communities.”
53.
Toronto Community Housing. 2007c. “Regent Park Social Development Plan Part III: Strategies for Social Inclusion.”
54.
Toronto Community Housing. 2007d. “Regent Park Social Development Plan Part I: The Context.”
55.
UrbanikMarta M.ThompsonSara K.BuceriusSandra M.2017. “‘Before There Was Danger but There Was Rules. And Safety in Those Rules’: Effects of Neighbourhood Redevelopment on Criminal Structures.”The British Journal of Criminology57 (2): 422–40.
56.
ValeLawrence J.ShamsuddinSohail. 2017. “All Mixed Up: Making Sense of Mixed-Income Housing Developments.”Journal of the American Planning Association83 (1): 56–67.
57.
Van BeckhovenEllenvan KempenRonald. 2003. “Social Effects of Urban Restructuring: A Case Study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands.”Housing Studies18 (6): 853–75.
58.
WilsonWilliam J.1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
