Examining
LAHC’s claims about the social objectives of estate renewal
LAHC makes four key claims about the social benefits of
redeveloping public housing estates and replacing them with mixed tenure
housing. These are listed below and examined in light of findings from
scholarly research on estate redevelopment and mixed tenure policies (also
known as ‘social mix’). I have also made some comments about the particular
context of the Waterloo estate.
For a more thorough literature reviews, see Darcy and Rogers
(2019), Kelly and Porter (2019) and Arthurson (2012).
1.
New social housing is well designed and
indistinguishable from private and affordable housing
It is to be expected that new social housing will be better
designed than old public housing (notwithstanding issues of building defects).
It is implied that similar design improvements cannot be achieved without
demolition and redevelopment. However, there are several examples of social
housing refurbishment projects which bring old buildings up to contemporary
standards. For instance, OFFICE Architects’ ‘Retain, Repair, Reinvest’ model
demonstrates how public housing can be refurbished to higher standards than
typical for new developments and at a lower cost than would be incurred through
redevelopment. Internationally, architects Lacaton and Vassal are renowned for
refurbishing public housing complexes to suit contemporary standards and needs.
The claim that social housing will be indistinguishable
assumes, firstly, that the ‘distinguishability’ of social housing is based on
its appearance at the end of construction. However, this does not fully account
for why social housing might be distinguishable from other housing types. Lack
of maintenance in particular is an issue that can cause social housing to stand
out from other tenures. Furthermore, households in social housing tend to have
fewer financial resources than those in private housing, and this can become
apparent through features such as window furnishings.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the claim that
redevelopment makes social housing indistinguishable from other types implies
that social housing should be indistinguishable from other types. It is
sometimes claimed that it will reduce the ‘stigma’ of social housing (e.g. van
den Nouwelant and Randolph 2016). However, Raynor et al. (2020) and Arthurson
et al. (2015) find that private housing residents in mixed tenure developments
held negative views towards their neighbours in social housing. This is because
the stigmatisation of social housing is not merely a product of its appearance
but the result of several decades of policy decisions and economic
restructuring as well as hostile government and public attitudes towards the
provision of assistance to people on low incomes (see Sisson 2022). Making social housing less distinguishable is
therefore a highly questionable justification for the extent of upheaval that
renewal involves.
2.
Renewal improves ‘place outcomes’
It isn’t entirely clear what LAHC means by this claim. I
take it to mean that renewal will improve the amenity of public and community
spaces as well as access infrastructure and services. This has occurred in some
projects. Shaw and Hagemans (2015) explain that this is due to public and
private investment that higher income households attract – as consumers with
more disposable income than social housing tenants, as higher rate payers, and
as a class with more influence over government policy decisions. However,
Redfern and Waterloo are suburbs in which a large number of higher-income
households already live, and where these levels of investment are already
apparent. The argument is therefore less convincing in the specific context of
the Waterloo estate renewal.
Crucially, access to enhanced place outcomes is not
always equal. Jama & Shaw (2020) found in their study of the
redevelopment of an estate in Carlton, Victoria, that private housing residents
had access to facilities that social housing tenants did not, such as gardens
and gyms. This was not only unequal but reduced the possibility for social
interaction, which, as I explain below, has important consequences regarding
claims that tenure mix reduces disadvantage
3.
Renewal improves education and employment
outcomes and reduces disadvantage
This claim is the most contentious of all claims about the
benefits of renewal and mixed tenure development. The basis for the claim is
the concept of ‘neighbourhood effects’, which, in essence, posits that the life
chances of disadvantaged people are worsened by living in a neighbourhood where
disadvantaged people are concentrated. This is to say that spatial
concentration causes a level of disadvantage over and above that which
is experienced by residents as a result of other causes.
At a broad level, this argument has been largely
discredited. Galster, who has written extensively on the topic (e.g. 2007,
2013), argues that claims about social mix solving social disadvantage are
“based more on faith than fact” (2007: 35). Similarly, Kelly and Porter (2019) conclude
from their literature review that there were no empirical findings which
supported social mix policies as solutions to disadvantage. To cite one
example, Musterd et al. (2003: 87) found that the likelihood of a household
gaining employment during the course of their longitudinal study was “barely
dependent” on the employment status of neighbouring households.
In certain cases, access to employment and education might
be improved by renewal, as part of their ‘place outcomes’ – including improved
public transport services, new employment hubs, new education services, etc.
(Arthurson et al. 2015). However, we can confidently set this aside in the case
of Waterloo: it is a neighourhood that already has excellent access to
employment and education, being located in close proximity to several schools,
universities, and business districts (e.g. CBD, ATP, Surry Hills). This leaves
claims about the benefits of ‘role modelling’ and social capital gained through
the development of relationships between social housing and non-social housing
residents. This claim has been proven false. For one, such relationships have
not been found to develop; in fact, tenure mix can lead to experiences of
exclusion and isolation for lower-income tenants (e.g. Chaskin and Joseph 2015;
Jama and Shaw 2020; Popkin et al. 2004). Moreover, given that many social
housing tenants are elderly, face significant adversity (such as disability,
trauma, mental ill health and recent incarceration) and/or have caring
responsibilities, the suggestion that a neighbour who owns their home or has
paid employment will be an appropriate role model can’t be taken seriously and
is highly disrespectful towards social housing tenants.
4.
Renewal reduces crime and anti-social
behaviour
This claim is closely related to both the above claim
regarding disadvantage and the earlier claim about place outcomes. Crime and
antisocial behaviour, it suggests, will be reduced either through
aforementioned ‘role modelling’ or through design interventions which enable enhanced
active or passive surveillance, or some combination of the two.
There are few studies that investigate changes in rates in
crime and antisocial behaviour following estate renewal. Darcy and Rogers (2019:
5) comment that reductions in antisocial behaviour “over and above demographic
change” tend to depend on design interventions and tenant selection strategies.
Livingston et al. (2013) argue that the relationship between tenure mix and
crime rates has not been clearly explained in the literature and, in their
study of Glasgow, found it to be weak. They point instead to factors such as
relative income and density of alcohol outlets. As such, while it may be
possible to improve rates of crime or antisocial behaviour in one neighbourhood
by relocating more deprived residents, this would not improve the rate of crime
or antisocial behaviour generally.
Furthermore, Baum et al. (2015) find that a greater degree
of tenure mix can lead to greater perceptions of antisocial behaviour. This is
consistent with the aforementioned literature that suggests that social housing
and non-social housing residents do not ‘mix’ to a great extent and the latter
can hold hostile attitudes towards the former. It is also consistent with
concerns raised by Waterloo residents about the relative lack of tolerance that
private renters or homeowners might have for social housing tenants.
*
It should be clear by now that ‘numbers’ and ‘outcomes’
can’t be separated in the way that LAHC implies. This is because the arguments
made by proponents of renewal and mixed tenure development are based on an
expectation that outcomes are the result of numbers. In other words, the
argument in favour of renewal and tenure mix posits that reducing the
concentration of social housing will lead to socially beneficial outcomes. As I
have outlined, this argument is highly questionable. Yet even if we accept the
premise that deconcentration has socially beneficial outcomes, it is only
logical to inquire about the extent of deconcentration required to achieve
those outcomes. LAHC claims that 30% is an appropriate proportion of social
housing and has followed this model for more than 20 years. However, they are
yet to present the case – based on their own evidence or that of similar
projects in other jurisdictions – that 30% social housing is the optimal
proportion to achieve the social objectives they claim to desire.
Dr Alistair Sisson
Postdoctoral
research fellow
University
of Wollongong
References
Arthurson, K. (2012). Social Mix and
the City: Challenging the Mixed Communities Consensus in Housing and Urban
Planning Policies. CSIRO Publishing.
Arthurson,K., Levin, I., & Ziersch, A. (2015). What is
the Meaning of ‘Social Mix’? Shifting perspectives in planning and implementing
public housing estate redevelopment. Australian Geographer, 46(4),
491-505.
Baum, S., Arthurson, K., & Han, J. H.
(2015). Tenure social mix and perceptions of antisocial behaviour: An
Australian example. Urban Studies, 52(12), 2170–2185.
Chaskin, R., Joseph, M. (2015). Integrating the Inner City:
The Promise and Perils of Mixed-income Public Housing Transformation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
Darcy, M., & Rogers, D. (2019). Finding
the Right Mix in Public Housing Redevelopment: Review of Literature and
Research Findings. University of Sydney.
Galster, G. (2007). Neighbourhood Social Mix as a Goal of
Housing Policy: A Theoretical Analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy,
7(1), 19-43.
Galster, G. (2013). Neighborhood Social Mix: Theory,
Evidence, and Implications for Policy and Planning. In N. Carmon & S.
Fainstein (Eds.), Policy, Planning, and People: Promoting Justice in Urban
Development (pp. 307–336). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jama, A., & Shaw, K. (2017). ‘Why do
we need social mix?’. Paper submitted to Housing Studies. Available at https://1stdirectory.co.uk/_assets/files_comp/9d165b9f-0644-4379-bf7d-b9a4d26d0a02.pdf
Kelly, D., & Porter, L. (2019). Understanding
the Assumptions and Impacts of the Victorian Public Housing Renewal Program.
RMIT Centre for Urban Research; Cities of Moreland, Darebin and Yarra. https://cur.org.au/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/understanding-the-assumptions-and-impacts-of-the-phrp-final-report-28-5-19.pdf
Livingston, M., Kearns, A., & Bannister, J. (2014).
Neighbourhood Structures and Crime: The Influence of Tenure Mix and Other
Structural Factors upon Local Crime Rates. Housing Studies, 29(1), 1–25.
Musterd, S., Ostendorf, W., & de Vos, S. (2003).
Neighbourhood Effects and Social Mobility: A Longitudinal Analysis. Housing
Studies, 18(6), 877–892.
Popkin, S. J., Katz, B., Cunningham, M. K., Brown, K. D.,
Gustafson, J. and Turner, M. A. (2004) A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings
and Policy Challenges, The Urban Institute, Available at urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/411002-A-Decade-of-HOPE-VI.PDF
Raynor, K., Panza, L., Ordóñez, C.,
Adamovic, M., & Wheeler, M. A. (2020). Does social mix reduce stigma in
public housing? A comparative analysis of two housing estates in Melbourne. Cities,
[early view], 1–14.
Shaw, K. S., & Hagemans, I. W.
(2015). ‘Gentrification Without Displacement’ and the Consequent Loss of Place:
The Effects of Class Transition on Low-income Residents of Secure Housing in
Gentrifying Areas. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
39(2), 323–341.
Sisson, A. (2022). Public housing and
territorial stigma: Towards a symbolic and political economy. Housing
Studies, 0(0), 1–20.
van den Nouwelant, R., & Randolph, B.
(2016). Mixed-tenure development: Literature review on the impact of
differing degrees of integration. City Futures Research Centre.