HNSW Report on Estate Renewal and Social Mix

COMMUNITY
 RENEWAL  FORUM REDFERN
and WATERLOO 26 August 2010 – Report
on proceedings

 

PURPOSE OF FORUM

The
event was hosted by Housing NSW to explore social mix in the context of public
housing estate renewal. About 30 people attended the Forum.

Bernie
Coates (HNSW) welcomed
participants and explained the purpose of the Forum.

Public
housing estate renewal projects around the world aim to address disadvantage by
creating communities with a greater mix of incomes, tenures and demography.
This is the concept of social mix. 
Commonly, mix is achieved by redeveloping public housing estates to
reduce the concentration of social housing dwellings and increase the numbers
of private home owners and private renters.

There
is a lot of debate about whether social mix works, in what circumstances it may
work and what are the best practice models for achieving social mix. There is
now a significant amount of research from around the world on social mix and
good practice in social mix.

This
Forum explored the issue in three sessions:

• David Lilley (Housing NSW) gave a summary of the International
  research on social mix and identified the main findings of the research.
• A panel of experts, composed of Peter Phibbs (UWS),
  David Lilley (Housing NSW), George Housakos (Urban Communities) and
  Michael Darcy (UWS) led discussion on key issues and how the
  International research might relate to Redfern and Waterloo.
• George Housakos (Urban Communities) showed a video about the
  Kensington Renewal Project in Melbourne and talked about how social mix is
  working in practice, in that project.

David
presented a synthesis of over 120 research papers on social mix.

Social
mix can be about the range of household incomes, tenure (public rental, home
owners, social housing tenants) or demography (ages, cultures etc). In public
housing estates, the mix is often very narrow with high levels of social housing,
low income households and narrow demographics.  Social mix can be changed in estates through:

• sales
• changing
  allocation policy or
• through
  redevelopment, whereby new private housing is built.

The
arguments that support an increase in
social mix are:

• Better quality
  housing and environment for current and future residents
• Reducing the
  impact of ‘neighbourhood effects’ and disadvantage
• Improving the
  management of social housing

The
arguments against increased social mix via redevelopment are:

• It causes
  anxiety and distress
• It disrupts
  social support and networks
• It doesn’t
  change the disadvantage experienced by tenants

The
research in this field mostly covers:

• How disadvantage
  is affected
• Interaction
  between public and private residents
• What best
  practice looks like

On
disadvantage, the research distinguishes people from places. Major
redevelopment does lead to substantial reductions in disadvantage within the
area affected. But there are questions about who benefits. Whether the people
who lived there experience a reduction in disadvantage is debated in the
research. Goetz (2010) found improved feelings of safety but no improvements in
school achievement or employment. Popkin (2010) found improved safety, quality
of life, reduced depression and a decrease in behavioural problems in
children. 

On
public and private interaction, Arthurson (2008) found little interaction takes
place, and where it does occur, it is among the children or very casual. It is
more likely to occur where public and private homes are spatially integrated
and where home owners have neighbourhood connections (e.g. children at local
school)  

The
best practice identified in the research involves:

• Good resident
  participation
• A
  holistic/integrated approach (physical and social)
• Opportunities
  for current tenants to stay or move back
• Ensuring the
  redevelopment delivers benefits to the original residents

The
Australian Governments’ National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) commits
Governments to “…creating mixed communities that promote social and economic
opportunities by reducing concentrations of disadvantage that exist in some
social housing estates”.

The
HNSW approach in Bonnyrigg, Minto, Airds and other projects has been to
acknowledge the positives and the negatives of redevelopment, to focus on how
to maximise positives and minimise negatives and to take a holistic approach
based on best practice. 

Discussion

Discussion
followed, which made the following points:

• It is not yet clear how social mix will
  be applied in Redfern and Waterloo. The Redfern and Waterloo communities
  can debate whether social mix is a good idea or not, but in Housing, we
  want a space to talk about, if social mix is to happen, how can we make
  sure we do it well. 

• Social mix, deconcentration and social
  inclusion are related topics, but definitions and concepts vary.

• Many renewal projects provide
  opportunities for social housing tenants to become home owners, which
  contributes to tenure mix

• If there is social mix, social housing
  tenants with behavioural problems can cause grief for private residents.
  Private residents may not buy into areas with a reputation for anti social
  behaviour.

• Will appropriate human services be
  available to make sure social mix works?

• Redfern Waterloo is already a mixed
  community. A key question is how existing tenants can stay here,
  contributing to community.

• There is already concern about the rate
  of ‘gentrification’ in the area and the divide between the very rich and
  the very poor.

• There is a lot of research on how social
  mix improves lives but there are other ways to achieve this.

• Concern that camaraderie in poor areas is
  broken up when redevelopment occurs. There is a lot of good work done by
  local volunteers, which took a long time to build up, and could be
  destroyed if the character of the area is changed.

The
discussion was facilitated by A/Prof
Bruce Judd (City Futures, UNSW).

The
panel members made introductory remarks, as follows:

• Professor Peter
  Phibbs (UWS)
  is an urban
  planner with an international reputation in the area of housing studies. His
  research in recent years has been in two main areas: the non-shelter outcomes
  of housing and the broad area of affordable housing. He is the UWS co-ordinator for the Australian Housing and
  Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

Peter
said that social mix often makes no difference in the lives of the people who
lived there, but there was evidence that it can produce better outcomes for the
children, especially in education and employment.  Project outcomes vary – in some cases there
have been important changes, in other projects there have not been. So it is
important to look at where it has had good results and why.

• Associate Professor Michael Darcy (UWS) is a prominent researcher on social housing
  policy and management, and the connections between social disadvantage and
  place. His recent work questions orthodox approaches to concentration and
  de-concentration of disadvantage, and the way in which constructs of
  ‘social capital’ and ‘social mix’ have been deployed in public policy.

Michael
said he was not against social mix, nor is it a new concept. Over 150 years
ago, Bournville in the UK was built using the concept that wealthy people would
be better people if they lived amongst poorer people. There are good examples
of social mix, such as City West in Pyrmont, where buildings have a mix of
income groups but you can’t distinguish the tenure from the outside of the
building. A mix of incomes and household types has meant that schools can stay
open and community facilities keep running. City West is a model that should be
looked at.

Michael
noted that Redfern is already socially mixed, with many higher income people;
much more mixed than Paddington for example. He also said that social mix is meant
to improve the lives of the poorer people who live here, but there are many
other ways of improving lives, such as investing in upgrading the existing
housing stock for example. 

• George
  Housakos
  is the CEO of Urban Communities, a
  property management company managing over 800 properties in Kensington
  (Melbourne). Urban Communities manage public housing, private rental,
  Owners Corporations (Bodies Corporate) and provide facilities management
  services.

George said he can
share the experience from the last 10 years in Melbourne. He is interested in
how you make social mix work on the ground and how to bring diverse people
together. At Kensington, there are 800 homes over 7 hectares, with a mix of 50%
public housing and 50% private (and 70% of private buyers are investors). Urban
Communities manages the estate, using a place
management approach and an integrated
service delivery model. The key to success has been listening to residents.
He said there are lots of ways you can get people from different incomes and
tenures to mix.

• David
  Lilley is Project
  Manager, Community Renewal in Strategic Projects Division of Housing NSW.
  David is also a Visiting Fellow, City Futures Research Centre, University
  of NSW. David’s areas of interest are strategic planning, social planning,
  research and evaluation.

Discussion:

There
was lively discussion, which made the following points:

• Was HNSW open to discussion about social
  mix, or is the premise that social mix is Government policy and will
  happen whether the community likes it or not. David said that the
  community can debate the merits of mix, but should not miss the
  opportunity to influence how mix was achieved and what best practice looks
  like.

• Some participants supported the
  replacement of the old walk ups with new apartment buildings, but we don’t
  want to see the area lose its sense of community.

• The reality at present is that the
  public and private residents do not mix much.

• Michael said social mix is ‘not an end
  in itself’. What’s important is why we want social mix and how is it to be
  achieved. There needs to be transparency about the underlying assumptions.
  

• Another way to look at it is: because
  HNSW does not have the funds, it is necessary to realize the value of the
  land (by selling private housing) to generate the funds to build the new
  social housing.

• Why has Housing chosen 70% private, 30%
  public (Bonnyrigg, Minto) for example. All the options should be
  considered. Bernie acknowledged the percentages depended on the location,
  and there was no formula.

• The Redfern and Waterloo areas badly
  need new retail, especially a supermarket and specialty shops. George
  noted that in Kensington, the shops were closing down before the
  redevelopment. Now shops are important places for people to meet and mix.
  Peter noted that City West owns the retail space, and so it can determine
  what happens.

• Participants noted the two approaches to
  social mix:  dispersing the
  disadvantaged (Minto) or injecting the advantaged into an area (Bonnyrigg).
  Michael noted there were different experiences: in the Netherlands, the
  approach is to bring in home owners – to ‘penetrate the unruly
  neighbourhoods to improve social control’, because home owners are more
  likely to call the police and object to crime. In the US, it has been more
  common to move the poor people out to ‘better’ areas (HOPE VI). Often
  projects are very selective about social housing allocations to the
  renewed area and have different rules for the public as against the
  private residents.   

• Peter noted that putting public and
  private people together did not mean they became friends. Michael noted
  that, in Pyrmont, there is a lack of active street life, because most of
  the people are off working during the day.

• George said residents need to be treated
  as customers. Housing providers and NGO’s often talk about ‘our tenants’
  and ‘our estates’ as if they own them. A whole lot of language needs to
  change.

• There was concern about those on the
  waiting list for public housing. We need an increase in units to meet demand.
  

• Is stock transfer to community housing a
  necessary part of renewal? Michael noted that the bigger the Community Housing
  Provider (CHP) gets, the more they look like HNSW. The real differences
  were in access to Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) and the ability of
  CHPs to borrow funds. If there is stock transfer as part of the renewal,
  it is important to protect people’s rights through the transfer. There is
  also concern about CHPs acting as developers and being exposed to
  excessive risks.

• There is concern about tenants who rely
  on their neighbours for support. Will private residents provide this neighbourly
  support? Public housing tenants see neighbours as extended family, they
  look after each other. Private people are more concerned about what’s
  inside their place. George favoured over 55’s blocks. On site managers can
  also ensure people get the support they need, and facilitate interaction.

• David noted the need for all these
  issues to be recorded so they can be tracked through the planning process
  for renewal.

George
showed a short film about the Kensington project. He explained that the place
management approach is crucial. This involves delivering social and economic
benefits for the community and managing all aspects (construction, sales,
tenancy management, private rental services, facilities management, grounds
maintenance, community safety, employment services etc) in an integrated way
with a focus on problem solving.

Urban
Communities (UC) has a zero tolerance approach to rubbish, graffiti and
vandalism, maintains high standards of cleanliness and maintenance of the
public space and will act swiftly if someone is causing a disturbance. Staff
are empowered to do whatever is necessary to solve problems as they arise, and
are rewarded for innovation. Where there is a gap in services, UC will create
the service.

A
Community Liaison Committee (CLC) has a say in all aspects of the project,
including signing off the building designs. The CLC is chaired by a local business
person, has about 60 members with a consistent 25 -30 attending each meeting.
The committee also has a strong focus on problem solving.

UC
is a response to Kensington and it has been set up as an ongoing structure.
There are some principles that can be applied in other places, but each area
needs to come up with its own structure and approach.

Discussion

The discussion made
the following points: 

• Urban
  Communities manage the social housing (as a registered community housing
  provider), manage the Owners Corporations (as strata managers) and run a
  private rental letting agency (for investors). They therefore have access
  to all three tenures and can respond to issues wherever they arise. They
  take a ‘problem solving’ approach, to quickly identify problems and
  marshal resources to solve the problem as fast as possible.

• Urban
  Communities takes the highest need clients off the public housing list,
  because it has the systems in place to support them, and high need clients
  get access to opportunities through the social programs Urban Communities
  runs. 

• Investors
  are attracted by good returns and are willing to provide longer leases and
  to take higher need clients, because Urban Communities manages the
  situation.  UC can meet the needs of
  the private renters (and struggling home owners) just as well as the
  social housing residents.

• UC uses local maintenance people who
  agree to employ local residents.

• UC approach is to deliver what the
  community says it wants. People will come to meetings because they love
  the place and UC listens to them.

• We work with the local services to
  ensure support is available for those who need it. Local agreements with
  services work because there is a shared commitment and accountability is
  clear. The community also plays
  a part. Neighbours often act as mentors to high need residents and it is
  local residents who stop drug dealers re-establishing their networks.

• Through the project, there is no net
  loss of public housing. One high rise was demolished and 2 kept. The low
  rises were all demolished and tenants moved off site. Former tenants have
  a right of return to the site.

• Staff are recruited from a range of
  backgrounds. They are given lots of scope to do ‘whatever it takes’ to get
  problems solved and there is plenty of opportunity to innovate. The asset
  management team has to deliver social outcomes and have performance
  indicators to meet around local employment.

Feedback

Participants
were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire. The main feedback was:   

• The participants
  particularly enjoyed the panel
  discussion, hearing about the Kensington
  development and the place management
  model used in Kensington.

• Most would like
  have see more application to Redfern Waterloo situation (more information about
  what will happen, how the Kensington model could work here) and more of a
  “hands on” approach.