This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Stephen Revill 2012
This dissertation is submitted as an Independent Geographical Study as a part of a BA degree in Geography at King’s College London.
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
INDEPENDENT GEOGRAPHICAL STUDY
I, ………………………………………………………………… Hereby declare (a) that this dissertation is my own original work and that all source material used is acknowledged therein; (b) that it has been specially prepared for a degree of King’s College London; and (c) that it does not contain any material that has been or will be submitted to the Examiners of this or any other university, or any material that has been or will be submitted for any other examination. This Dissertation is ………………………….. words.
Firstly I would like to thank Tim Butler, my supervisor for the assistance and guidance he has provided throughout this research project. I would also like to thank the residents of Garland Court for giving up their time to allow me to interview them and participating in this piece of research.
This piece of work is the culmination of my time studying at King’s College and I would like to express my gratitude to those who have given me the opportunity to study here and learn from them. This would not have been possible without the continuing support and sacrifices of my fiancé Lucy Darton and both my parents. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for believing in me.
Table of Contents
List of figures and tables List of abbreviations Abstract 5 6 7
2: Theoretical Background and Literature Review 2.1 Mixed Community Development in UK Housing Policy 2.2 Mixed Tenure Development and Social Interaction
11 11 14
3: Research Objectives
4: Methodology and Methods 4.1 Methodology and Mixed Method Research 4.2 Design Analysis 4.3 Questionnaires 4.4 Interviews 4.5 Case Study 4.6 Elephant and Castle Regeneration and Garland Court
20 20 22 22 23 25 25
5: Analysis and Discussion 5.1 Design and Management 5.1.1 The application of good design advocated through policy 5.1.2 Spatial proximity and mixed community 5.1.3 The role of Housing Associations 5.2 Social Integration and Mixed Community 5.2.1 The role of tenure 5.2.2 Microspatial polarisation or voluntary segregation
27 27 27 30 33 36 36 40
7: Reference List
Appendixes i. ii. Original Independent Geographical Study (IGS) proposal Ethical approval
50 50 58
List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1 – Garland Court Figure 2 – Ground floor plan Figure 3 – Second and third floor plans Figure 4 – Ages of questionnaire respondents Figure 5 – Household income of GC residents Figure 6 – Primary reason given for moving to GC Figure 7 – Time and tenure in relation to social integration 28 29 31 32 33 35 38 Tables Table 1 – Household Tenure. Size and Typology at GC 30 5 .
List of Abbreviations CABE: Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment GC: Garland Court HA: Housing Association ODPM: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister RA: Residents Association RTB: Right-To-Buy SHG: Southern Housing Group UTF: Urban Task Force 6 .
More recently this has further evolved to champion a spatial integration of tenures known as ‘pepper-potted’ tenure mix with the assumption that this will engender social integration between tenure and income groups in new developments. design and management. there are still implications in regards to the integration of residents that are due to tenure. However. 7 . This research finds that in Garland Court. it has been successful in bringing together a diverse population in close proximity.Abstract Contemporary UK Housing Policy features rhetoric of mixed community design with an orthodoxy of mixed tenure development. where this design orthodoxy has been employed.
. 2011). The adoption of mixed tenure community planning in the development and redevelopment of urban housing estates has now become fully ingrained into UK 8 . a distinct collection of dysfunctional social issues that have been associated with monolithic. particularly socially rented. This demonstrates that the ideas enforced in contemporary policy are in themselves not recent concepts but are in fact re-workings of existing principles in a current context.. Introduction The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of design principles that endorse a particular type of housing tenure mixing within a single development with the aim of increasing social integration between residents from a variety of social backgrounds and therefore prevent the development of dysfunctional communities (Cochrane. housing developments (Manly et al. complexity and the heterogeneous neighbourhood leading to her call to work with human patterns of use and interaction. This piece of research will focus upon one particular discourse employed to counteract these neighbourhood effects through the application of mixed tenure design. aimed at facilitating a socially mixed community. Sarkissian (1976) draws upon a wide variety of historical literature to outline nine goals of social mixing. these goals are very much the same principles that are reflected in contemporary policy and literature. 2011). implemented through housing policy rhetoric.1. particularly deprivation. Jacobs (1961) was an advocate of density. 2007). The advocation of this approach has resulted in the emergence of social mix policy in the UK. have a detrimental effect on the social. This has been carried out on the premise that some particular characteristics of housing developments. economic and physical wellbeing of residents (Manly et al. Social mixing has long been advocated as an approach to counteract what has been termed the ‘neighbourhood effect’. Initial arguments for mixed tenure developments can be traced back to critiques of increasingly fragmented urban communities by those such as Jane Jacobs who condemned modernist planning and urban policy.
2005. economical and physical regeneration of inner city areas (Joseph & Chaskin. 2011a) and its accompanying guide ‘Better Places by Design’ (CLG. Despite the drive towards a select set of design principles through policy and a body of literature investigating connections between physical design and integration. 2007). The physical design of new residential developments has also become subject to increasing critique in respect of the facilitation of social integration between different tenure and social groups (Tiesdell. or not. enhancing potential benefits for the low-income residents and tackling problems such as crime. Roberts. This aims to reduce the locational disadvantages that impact upon those concentrated in neighbourhoods that are economically disadvantaged by attempting to remove the problem of unpopularity of housing areas (CLG. and to seek out evidence of Sarkissian’s (1976) ‘Goals of Social Mix’ to ascertain which factors are deemed as desirable. 2009). Gehl (2011) wrote that social interaction in housing developments increased when the opportunities for casual encounters increased. 2003). The implantation of this policy seeks to counteract the development of concentrated areas of poor quality of life and lack of opportunity in major urban conurbations (ODPM. The integration of a mixture of housing types and tenures is cited as one of the key requirements for sustainable communities (ODPM. 2005. Joseph & Chaskin. 2011b) and ‘By Design’ (DETR. unemployment and poor environment while providing a high standard of livability (ODPM.government policy (Rogers. which could be enabled through the application of certain design principles. 2000). One way of examining the larger issue of social mixing is by examining a small pepper-potted (i. 2009). Although again this is far from a new concept. 2000). fully integrated tenure) development to establish how these interactions play out. CLG.e. 2007). The development of what is regarded as good design practice has also received more emphasis through government policy such as ‘Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing’ (CLG. there remains a large gap in design-focused research on the extent to which physical integration facilitates social interaction (Roberts. mixed tenure housing 9 . 2009) and thereby encourage the social. This research aims to address the issue of social mixing on a new build. 2009). 2004.
mixing and the facilitation of these through physical implementation are prevalent in policy (CLG. Limited to case studies of largely ‘segregated ‘ or ‘segmented’ (Groves et al. The concept of social cohesion. 2007). The contemporary literature (discussed below) identifies gaps in the current research on mixed communities. this will enable the formulation of a set of research questions to be pursued in this research. 2009). 10 . However evidence into the extent to which evolving methods and approaches to implementation are achieving their goals and facilitating the development of social networks is largely under-represented. and so research into the extent of social mixing on these developments will be of significant benefit (Roberts. The recent approach of ‘pepper-potted’ developments is becoming increasingly prevalent in planning policy in the UK.. integration. In the following chapter I will review both policy and academic literature.development in which a design of integrated units has been adopted. there is opportunity for new research into the degree to which fully integrated design can facilitate social mixing and the patterns of social interaction between residents in different tenures and with different economic and social profiles. 2003) developments.
1997. including the damage done to the reputation of council housing through increased residualisation and marginalization of single tenure developments rendering them unsustainable (Murie. The RTB gave council tenants a legally 11 . The impacts of two particular pieces of policy of the Thatcher government are particularly influential upon contemporary policy relevant to this study. 2008).2. combined with the capacity for Housing Associations to borrow on the private market. 2. I will also examine texts that draw upon the importance of design in regard to the facilitation of these notions of mixed communities and social interaction. This will establish the extent to which social mix through mixed tenure has become engrained in policy before going on to review existing academic research regarding the development of mixed tenure communities and their resulting social interaction. By the mid-1980’s this level had fallen to almost zero and the construction of housing in this sector has not revived since. Murie & Rowlands. 2002. nor has it been filled by the private sector (Murie & Rowlands. Maire & Rowlands. I will begin by examining literature related to mixed community development in UK housing policy and how it has changed to shape the state of contemporary urban housing development. Secondly the ‘Right To Buy’ (RTB) legislation which had a wide variety of impacts upon the state of housing in the UK. Firstly the Housing Act 1988 reduced local authorities to an enabling role and this. resulted in housing associations to becoming the leading provider of new social and private rental accommodation (Balchin & Rhoden. Literature Review In this chapter I will examine a number of texts regarding the changing nature of housing in the UK and the associated effect upon social mixing.1 Mixed Community Development in UK Housing Policy It is impossible to examine the current state of housing policy in the UK without acknowledging the impact of policy changes made under the Conservative government elected in 1979 that resulted in a decline in the volume of housing constructed by local authorities. which did not count as public expenditure. 2008). 2008).
2000). With the election of the Labour government in 1997 came a reworking of housing policy that has directly influenced contemporary new-build developments and their design. The report produced in 1999 outlined two factors that should become fundamental in new residential developments: a high quality of design of the built environment and diversity in neighbourhoods achieved through mixed tenures (UTF. It was deemed necessary that government intervention was required to facilitate the achievement of social change. In 1998 the Labour government released ‘Circular 06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing’ (DETR. chaired by Lord Rogers. 1999). According to this report mono-tenure estates are a key aspect in the decline of many areas therefore a mixed tenure approach combined with a high quality of design in the built environment is essential to the social. this resulted in a massive transfer of local authority housing stock onto the private market and represented the Tories drive for the privatisation of housing stock (Saunders. was commissioned to examine the causes of urban decline in the UK and present practical solutions. At the same time the Urban Task Force (UTF).enforceable right to buy their homes and. These impacts provide the underpinning foundations for the state of contemporary housing policy in the UK which aims to address the issues of provision of affordable housing (Murie & Rowlands. 1990). Saunders (1990) outlines the significance of these measures whereby those he terms the ‘have-nots’. economically marginal groups such as the unemployed and singleparent families. economic and environmental regeneration of 12 . raise living and housing conditions and meet the demand for housing. have become increasingly geographically concentrated in the least popular of council estates. combined with the 1980 Housing Act that provided tenants with an average discount of 44% of market value. 2008) and counteract the development of concentrated areas of poor quality of life and lacking opportunity in major urban conurbations (ODPM. 1998) emphasising that local authorities should ensure that there is a mixture of dwellings in terms of size and typology with the aim to avoid areas of social exclusion and encourage the development of mixed and balanced communities.
1999). Despite the cuts made by the current Conservative government. there is an increasing call for further research into the extent to which the focus of policy upon design and tenure mix is achieving the outcomes that have been 13 . Following on from this were a series of reports produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) focusing upon regeneration. definition of what comprises high-quality design is vague at best. The Labour government also established the agency CABE (Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment) through which they promoted a particular style of urban development that is focused on achieving high standards of architectural design as a means to higher densities. 2011a) and its accompanying guide ‘Better Places by Design’ (CLG. It is apparent that throughout the policy literature the terms mixed tenure. including CABE. 2000a) including tenure diversification will reduce the turnover rate of residents and that increasing private ownership will increase the level of economic commitment to the development by the residents. sustainable communities. These reports reinforced the notions proposed by the UTF and presented mixed income communities. This is also accompanied by a number of other assumptions regarding mixed tenure development made through the White Paper ‘Regeneration that Lasts’ (DETR. facilitated by an integration of housing types and tenures. crime. 1999). 2011b). However. mixed income and mixed community are used interchangeably and there is an assumption within the policy literature that through this prescribed mixing a socially integrated and sustainable community is developed (UTF. as a way of tackling deprivation. unemployment and a poor physical environment (ODPM. 2003. 2005). However. housing and sustainable communities.urban areas (UTF. As a result of this housing association developments are being built to serve not only the social and private rental markets but also providing homes for private ownership. as is the extent to which design solutions can contribute towards socially integrated. much of the housing policy outlined above is still reflected in the latest publications of housing policy including the ‘Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing’ (PPG3) (CLG.
Murie & Rowlands.. Some research has been carried out on the effects of mixed tenure developments upon social mixing and the creation of social networks. This was reflected by Kleinhans (2004) who stated that the issue of tenure was far outweighed by lifestyle as the determining factor on social interaction..2 Mixed Tenure Development and Social Interaction Effects of the implementation of this policy on the development and redevelopment of inner-city housing has become of increasing interest in contemporary literature (Bailey & Manzi. 2008). 2004. as previously mentioned housing associations have become the largest provider in this sector. 2005) to the influence of design (Roberts. through to the extent of social inclusion (Allen et al. It is possible that this housing policy has created a diverse community that is micro-spatially fragmented or even polarized. The study areas were of differing spatial characteristics in the extent to which different tenures had been distributed throughout the estate. but that proximity of differing tenures impacted upon cross-tenure 14 . the estate was held in a more positive view by the residents and without any greater perception of problems (Jupp. Jupp’s (1999) research into several housing estates that were of mixed tenure drew several early conclusions. 1999). Murie & Rowlands (2008) suggest there is a need to investigate further whether they are in fact the appropriate agents for the development and subsequent management of mixed tenure developments or whether they are beneficial or a hindrance to the socially diverse communities they have thrust together. 2007). 2008): from the arguments surrounding the housing developments and the gentrification in regeneration (Butler. 2. As a result of housing policy and the drive for the creation of increasing volumes of social rented and affordable market housing. 2005) and the development of social capital (Middleton et al. 2007). 2001). It was also evident that in the few cases where tenures had been integrated at street level.assumed (Kleinhans. this occurrence of street level segregation was reflected in the majority of developments (Goodchild & Cole. 1999). Although it was clear that tenure mixing was a non-issue for residents many areas labeled ‘mixed tenure’ remained largely segregated into tenure groups at street level (Jupp.
amongst other things. 2007). opportunities for mixing.social mixing. Gehl (2011) also notes from his observations that these spaces must be functional to the residents and not just visually appealing in order for them to become spaces of social interaction. 2003) Jupp (1999) found that when street-level mixing occurred. 2003 & Middleton et al. 2004). Groves et al. Tunstall & Fenton (2006) claim that 15 . (2003) developed a taxonomy of tenure mixing responding to the need to define levels of mixing on estates: - Integrated: side by side Segmented: blocks Segregated: in concentrations Monolithic: single tenure (Groves et al. mixed tenure communities appeared to discourage anti-social behaviour and were desirable places to live. (2005) noted that. Gehl (2011) and Sennett (1994) extend the evidence base for increased social encounters to include the public and semi-public realm stating that the provision of locations that facilitate the opportunities to meet other residents increase community cohesion through the exchange of small courtesies that may develop into stronger social ties.. Research such as this has led to the call for and development of flexible. in their case studies they found that owners and renters occupied different social networks and inter-tenure integration opportunities were limited. more opportunities for social interaction and the formation of social capital are available (Jupp. alongside that collected from her own studies. integration and cohesion on a social level were increased and there are increasing volumes of evidence to support theory that where tenure proximity is high and tenures are increasingly integrated. to be ‘tenure blind’ (Roberts. Cross-tenure networks are seen to increase as the proximity of differing tenures increases (Kleinhans.. ‘pepper-potted’. However. Roberts (2007) uses this evidence. 2005). 2007).. integrated tenure housing which aims for different tenures to be indistinguishable from one another. Groves et al. to argue in the case of well thought out design and tenure integration. this defines ‘the “new orthodoxy”. a fine grain distribution of units’ (Roberts. Allen et al. 1999.
2008. 2011). However research into the social mixing that actually occurs in these new developments remains largely nonexistent. This shows that the design driven policy is of growing importance in the development of new housing. Tiesdell (2004) argues that although the spatial proximity between tenures may be increased through design. CABE (2003) also found that an increasing number of housing developments in South-East England are characterized by the design principles outlined by PPG3. Punter. However there remains a lack of empirical evidence from within the development of mixed tenure residential areas as to whether the production of mixed developments under policy directive is resulting in truly ‘mixed communities’ (Marie & Rowlands. Investigation into the impact of policy on the development of mixed communities is given further weight by Tiesdell (2004) who suggests that when tenure mix is adopted in contemporary developments the mixing of tenures is often carried out with the intention of protecting the value of market-rate housing as opposed to facilitating social interaction. This reflects a theme running through the literature that current research into mixed tenure housing is lacking empirical evidence regarding the actual extent of social mixing in tenure blind. mixed developments. However. the extent to which this leads to the development of ‘mixed communities’ that are socially integrated is questionable. ‘There is some evidence to support the provision of mixed tenure communities but significant gaps remain in the evidence-base. 2008) Punter (2011) has examined the extent to which the UTF (1999) recommendations have been successful and presents a wide variety of evidence to highlight the successes and failures of the report and its subsequent impact upon policy.’ (Bailey & Manzi. This is reinforced by research into the integration of social rental and affordable housing within market rate developments.this tenure blind approach is favoured by developers as it means social housing is less likely to affect the ‘saleability of private homes’ if it is indistinguishable. there is the opportunity to pursue further research into the extent to which simply 16 .
’ (Bailey & Manzi. what factors residents take into account in deciding to transfer between houses and tenures in the same development as family size and household income changes. 2001). In a recent review of current literature Bailey & Manzi (2008) define six key areas that are under-represented in mixed tenure community research. It is also stated that ‘pepperpotting’ has only recently been incorporated into mixed income new communities and as a result there is justification for research that assesses the benefits of incorporating this orthodoxy (Goodchild & Cole. compared with mono-tenure developments. whether these are off- set. 2008) Kleinhans (2004) states that there is a need for further investigation into social capital and housing diversification of neighbourhoods. improved educational attainment and lower levels of unemployment. whether mixed communities are more expensive to develop than single tenure developments. and whether the proportion of housing in different tenures increases or decreases over time. regardless of design intentions. ‘- whether the mix of housing creates more opportunities for social interaction between different sections of the community. for example. in the reduction of crime. 17 . This is reflected by Roberts (2007) who proposes further design-focused research into the extent to which physical integration facilitates social interaction. and how these costs fall on the public and private sectors. whether there are different patterns of social interaction between residents in different tenures and differential usage of local facilities. this is summed up by Roberts (2007). and whether there is a tipping-point where the mix strategy is undermined.increasing the spatial proximity of tenures has on social integration. if there are additional management costs.
‘ 18 . There has been little post-occupancy evaluation of mixed income new communities.‘it is necessary to consider design at the street and block level in relation to social research.
3. - To what extent does pepper-potted tenure mix assist in the formation of mixed communities? I then propose a set of sub-questions to answer this key research question focusing on the specific sub-set of social mix found at Garland Court. as well as the housing policy employed in the UK. Research Objectives Having reviewed the literature surrounding the research area. I propose that the following question is pursued for the purpose of this research. - Has the Garland Court development created a socially diverse community and achieved mixed tenure policy aims? - Are Housing Associations playing a significant role in social integration in the mixed tenure development of Garland Court? - Is the Garland Court development creating more than just a spatially integrated mixed community? 19 . my case study site outlined in the following chapter situated in the Elephant and Castle area of London.
The adoption of a mixed method approach provides a pragmatic application of the strengths of both approaches to provide solutions to practical research questions (Tashakkori & Teddle. Methodology and Methods In this chapter I will summarise the research methodology that I have undertaken as well as providing the reasoning for the selected methods in the context of the aims of my research. in-depth interviews. It is therefore essential that the appropriate methodology be adopted to draw out appropriate evidence and data. This provides an insight into the practical application of design principles as well as the perceptions of the residents of the extent in which mixing is taking place on a social level and how this has been facilitated or hindered by design. 4. I will conclude this section with an explanation of my chosen case study (Garland Court) with regard to the background of this particular development and its location. In formulating the appropriate methodology for my research the nature of the information that I sought and the research questions were at the forefront of my mind. questionnaires and semi-structured.1 Methodology: Mixed Method Research The conceptual framework for this research lies in the impact of housing policy in facilitating mixed tenure developments and the subsequent social mixing that occurs. third paradigm in research methodology design (Maxwell & Loomis. 20 . By using these methods it will be possible to address the research questions outlined. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie. 2003. For the purpose of this research I have chosen to combine both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.4. A mixed method approach was born out of controversies regarding the use of solely qualitative or quantitative methods and has now become defined as an alternative. As a result of this the research methodology required the employment of design analysis. 2004). 2003).
However.. a case study. 1989. 2009). This mixing and matching allows the methods to complement each other. 21 . it is appropriate that a case study method be adopted to examine the holistic and significant characteristics of actual social relations (Yin. The employment of both questionnaires and interviews is a method of triangulating data for interpretation. 2004). age and household income. as is proposed here. with the in-depth.. this research is not to enumerate frequencies but rather to provide analytical generalizations in respect of the broader theory of social mix facilitated through mixed tenure design (Yin. 1992). As the research is concerned with the social interaction between residents on a mixed tenure development. By adopting the case study method a framework is established upon which the extensive and intensive methods can be applied. qualitative data being supplemented by systematic measurement of factors through the extensive. does not offer sufficient grounds for generalizations.The research questions are best approached through the use of both ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’ research methods (Clifford et al. 2010). quantitative method (Greene et al. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie. This enables conclusions to be drawn from the qualitative data in the light of the information obtained on the larger scale regarding the social relationships and circumstances to which they are related. that is to say that the meaning of each part is constantly reassessed in relation to the meaning of the whole and vice versa (Sayer. This will provide a set of representative results that will be supported by intensive research methods to provide an in-depth analysis of the relationships between the residents and the factors that impact upon their social integration (Sayer. It may be argued that the use of a single case. 1992). These methods are then combined with a third element of the methodology. The use of extensive research methods allowed me to collect data to investigate the differences in residents’ perceptions of community according to factors such as tenure type. 2009).
2010). 4. In conducting the questionnaire survey a stratified sample was used. The results were then subjected to analysis through literature and the qualitative and quantitative data obtained from the residents. by post. Through the use of data sources such as architectural drawings for the development combined with observational data regarding the completed developments physical design attributes (Larkham. 1998). A total of 31 questionnaires were distributed.3 Questionnaires There were several reasons that led to a questionnaire survey in my research.2 Design Analysis Having reviewed the literature and policy related to this research a design analysis was formulated to provide a systematic measurement of the extent to which the development being research met certain criteria that have become associated with ‘good’ design. of a cross-disciplinary nature combined with urban-design and planning analysis (Larkham. To maximise the response rate the questionnaire was supplied with a covering letter featuring the King’s College logo as well as a self-addressed 22 . this method was chosen due to the administrative constraints in obtaining the questionnaires (McLafferty. Garland Court features secure entrances accessible by electronic key. Firstly. one questionnaire to each household. comparisons could be drawn between the design found at Garland Court and that which had been criticised or praised in the literature and policy.4. Finally. the questionnaire enabled an initial insight into resident’s perceptions and behaviours that helped to shape the questions used in the interview process. The design analysis was a form of urban morphology. Secondly. and supplemented by photographs and observational notes from site visits. Plans of the Garland Court development were obtained through the architects. a questionnaire made it possible to survey and construct data from a large population sample within the given time restraints. dRMM. the questionnaire was a tool that enabled the initial contact with the residents with the intention of building a relationship and inducing participation in follow-up interviews. 1998).
as recommended by Rubin & Babbie (2008). Upon receipt of all the questionnaires they were then coded thematically and subjected to analysis. 2010). Therefore interviews played a very important role in the formation of the data set for this research. It was evident that preliminary interviews with key stakeholders in the development were important to build a background on the development in question and in particular design principles that may be useful in the analysis of social interaction (Middleton et al. Babbie (2010) points out that value of the use of Likert scaling is the ‘unambiguous ordinality of response categories’. as a substantial volume of qualitative data will be preferable to solely statistical information in assessing the extent and nature of social mixing (CABE. initial contact was gained through the questionnaires that ended with an option for the resident to take part in an interview by providing contact details. 23 .. the questionnaire was divided into two sections to provide the resident with a logical structure when composing their responses (Rubin & Babbie 2011). The residents association was also contacted and encouraged residents to take part in the interviews. The final section of the questionnaire featured a selection of questions using a Likert scale for the resident’s perceptions. 2005).4 Interviews It was appropriate to approach this research in an indicative maner.envelope with which the resident could return the questionnaire. Following this the residents were contacted and suitable arrangements were made for an interview to take place. creating a simple index of the strength of resident’s perceptions. Beginning with a set of demographic indicators. 2010. The interviews took on a semi-structured format (Longhurst. In regards to the interviewing of the residents. 2010). 2005). 4. The structure of the questionnaire was carefully considered. This was done to establish initial trust through an established body within the community and to encourage participation (Babbie. In total 20 questionnaires were completed and returned representing a 64.5% response rate. Longhurst.
The interviews were all recorded using a digital voice recorder before being transcribed following the interview. e. In total nine residents took part in the interview process. in influencing social interaction. how many people they know.g. 2009) to draw out theoretically significant observations. e. These were analysed through a process of explanation building (Yin. however flexibility was upheld to pursue further routes of enquiry individual to each interviewee. Through the use of a semi-structured format of questioning it was possible to maintain a level of comparability between the interviewees responses whilst also exposing individual experiences.. Middleton et al. 2005). Following this was a process of analysis that combined the representations obtained through the questionnaires and the intensive data from the interview processes. extent of their relationship etc. facilities they utilise etc..g. Extent and nature of social interaction within the development. These areas were defined after reviewing the surveys used by both public organisations (CABE. 2005) and private researchers (Jupp. The interviews were structured into three key areas of questioning. each interview took between twenty-five and forty-five minutes. The questions then became more in-depth and pursued the discussion points raised in a more personal context. 2005. For the purpose of analysis the names of the respondents were altered in order to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. The role of their tenure. Initial questions followed up the residents questionnaire responses to establish a rapport with the interviewee. Allen et al.questions were defined by the questionnaire responses and repeated with all interviews. attitudes and perceptions (Babbie. 1999. and its surrounding issues. Extent to which social networks have been influenced by the development. 24 . 2010). where they met others.
it therefore provides an ideal case-study as a pioneering fully integrated development. The development has subsequently earned its architects several awards for its architectural and social design attributes (dRMM. and other. 2003). 2011a) and are to be continually employed throughout the regeneration scheme.. Having suffered significant bomb damage during World War II. To answer the research questions the study must obtain data regarding the behaviour and attitudes of residents in regard to social mixing on a mixed community development that is fully integrated in terms of tenure allocation. This development. is described as a ‘genuinely pepper-potted mix of accommodation’ (dRMM. 2011). regeneration schemes that aim for a diverse. The proposed study area is that of Garland Court (GC) in Southwark. The findings of this research will therefore be practical and beneficial in the continued planning and development of this. Garland Court is also a flagship development for the wider Elephant & Castle regeneration (Southwark Council.4. 2010). 2011a). undertaken by the housing association Southern Housing.6 Elephant and Castle Regeneration and Garland Court Murie & Rowlands (2008) argue that there is a need to research local case studies in relation to the adoption of mixed tenure developments in both policy and practice. mixed ‘community’. Despite this Southwark is ranked as one of the most deprived local authority areas in London and the UK (Rydin et al. The Elephant and Castle area is situated in the south London Borough of Southwark and as a London inner-city borough both social extremes of wealth can be found. 4. 2011). given time to develop social networks. Elephant and Castle was substantially redeveloped during the post-war period and the council engaged in an intensive housing construction programme culminating in the construction of the modernist Heygate Estate in the 25 . the use of a case study provided the necessary boundaries and framework for my research (Babbie.5 Case Study As the nature of this research is not to form a broad representation of social interaction on mixed-tenure developments but rather examine the processes and causality in a determined locality. London. This makes Garland Court an extremely relevant case study as the design principles used in this development are influenced by PPG3 (CLG. It was completed in 2006.
early 1970s (Montgomery. flexibility. ownership and security’. Garland Court.. 2003. 2011).. 2011a). Coleman. MIMOA (2011) describes the site as providing ‘21st century requirements for density. 2010. Montgomery. as well as improving the physical quality of the area (Rydin et al. This particular development has been labeled as the ‘demonstration project’ for the residential regeneration of Elephant and Castle. 2003). in 2006 (Southwark Council. sustainability. single tenure design of housing estates such as the Heygate has also been the subject of significant criticism and bared the brunt of the blame for social problems from crime and the fear of crime to graffiti and littering (Newman. 1972. The first of these new housing developments were undertaken by housing associations and residents moved into the first completed development. 26 . The regeneration plan has been heavily influenced by government policy and seeks to counteract social deprivation and exclusion the area (Rydin et al. single use buildings. The Neo-Brutalist. This form of single tenure development has been blamed for the social divisions now found in Elephant and Castle (Southwark Council. 2003) through the development of a number of mixed tenure and typology housing developments (Southwark Council. it was decided that the Heygate Estate be redeveloped as part of the regeneration of the area. 2010) and are exactly the type of development that the government is seeking to reverse with it’s current housing policy. It is therefore appropriate to carry out research into this particular development regarding the influence of government housing policy and the creation of ‘mixed communities’ to assess the extent to which the aims of government policy and Southwark Councils plans are being achieved. The combination of social and physical decline of the residential areas of Elephant and Castle along with the guidelines set by the Labour governments housing policy have resulted in a comprehensive regeneration plan being enacted by Southwark Council.. 2011). The result of this was that Elephant and Castle became dominated by extremely large. 2011). 1985). This process began in 1999 and despite facing much opposition and being subject to wide ranging controversy (Montgomery. isolated by various physical boundaries from their surroundings (Rydin et al. 2011).
I conclude that although there is clear evidence that many goals are being achieved. 5. 27 . Analysis and Discussion The following section features the analyses and discussion regarding the findings of my research.5. 2004). increased street frontage and indistinguishable tenures (DETR. 2000). The first examines the extent to which the design and management of the development have attracted to GC the sort of socially diverse population aimed for by UK housing policy and the Elephant & Castle regeneration scheme. The analysis has been divided into two broad subsections to answer the research questions. These include: Integration of different typologies and provision of communal space in PPG3 (CLG.1. and Subdivision of developments. there remain significant areas which need to be addressed to encourage the formation of truly ‘mixed community’ as opposed to mere spatial integration (Tiesdell. The second section examines the extent and the nature of the resident’s social interaction and examines the factors that have impacted upon the processes and causality and the resident’s subsequent attitudes. Housing policy outlines a number of indicators that constitute good design which relate to social diversity and integration.1 The application of good design advocated through policy. tenure and management. 2011a). In this section I argue that there are factors that impact both positively and detrimentally upon the social interaction of residents and although many can be seen as individual there are common patterns found regarding design.1 Design and Management 5.
1999. 2011. 1999). linked through to the communal area. 2005). 2003 & Middleton et al.As well as the tenure blind and pepper-potted design approach outlined in the following section.. Jupp. Figure 1 – Garland Court (Source: Author) Figure 1 shows how the ‘block’ that GC comprises of has been subdivided into four sections. Figure 2 shows layout of the development at street-level with the four entrances. When asked where they most frequently engaged with other residents 95% of questionnaire respondents cited the communal entrances and stairways. examples of the adoption of this policy advocated design approach are evident throughout GC.. This concurs with previous evidence that where increased locations for street level mixing occur so do opportunities for social interaction (Jupp. These design principles increase the opportunities for social interaction by increasing the active street frontage (Gehl. each serving a staircase or lift. Groves et al. employed to break up the block to avoid the impression of a monolithic structure. This has been combined with four entrances to the development at street level. as well as changes in scale to correspond with the neighbouring buildings. The use differing colours for the façade. 28 .
CLG. ‘To be honest you don’t really use the garden because of the private gardens.Figure 2: Ground Floor Plan (Source: dRMM Architects) However.’ (GC Resident 6) 29 . This is reinforced by the suggestions of interviewees as to what might encourage them to use the area to mix socially. This suggests that the mere provision of such a space is not satisfactory in order for it to meet its intended purpose as a location of social interaction and that a form of catalyst is required for residents to participate in interaction or community activity. the interviews uncovered a recurring theme. ‘I would say you’d have to make the garden bigger or give us something to do there for more of a social mixing area. 2011a) but the provision of such an amenity was not represented in the results. there’s not somewhere where you might sit.’ (GC Resident 3) It is evident that the communal space provided held little appeal to the majority of residents as a space in which they would engage. policy also advocates the adoption of communal open space within developments as a location of social interaction (DETR. 2000. Although 25% of respondents cited the communal garden as somewhere they might engage with another resident. Residents regarded the space as little more than a visual amenity.
This reflects the views of Gehl (2011). a socially diverse community will develop.2 Spatial proximity and mixed community. Tenure Private Owner Private Rental Part-buy Part-let Housing Association % No. Age of residents. of Occupants % Type 15 1 50 Family 35 2 25 Married Couple 20 3 5 Co-habiting Couple 30 4 15 Co-habiting Friends 5 5 Single Occupant % 25 5 15 5 50 30 .1. All tenure groups are accounted for as well as a diverse range of income. The questionnaire provided the following results. The UTF (1999) states that through the integration of a variety of housing types and tenures within close spatial proximity. and Household income. or there was a BBQ area. In many ways the research shows that such a community has been achieved in GC. From the goals of social mixing outlined by Sarkissian (1976) three main indicators can be used to demonstrate the extent of the mix achieved at GC: Household type and size.’ (GC Resident 7) Although the provision of the space has been accounted for in the design of GC it is clear that it lacks a motivating factor for the residents to engage in the space. I’ve got green fingers. household size and type. 5. everything I touch. it grows. then I would use the garden.’ (GC Resident 9) ‘An allotment. I’d love that. Table 1 – Household Tenure. ethnicities and sexualities. reinforcing the notion that public and semi-public space must have a functional element in order to successfully serve as an area for social integration.‘If we could grow our own plants there. Size and Typology at GC. nationalities. ages.
as seen in Table 1 and Figure 3. there is a clear weighting towards single occupant dwellings which is representative of the number of single bedroom apartments in the development. one. two and three bedroom homes are carefully integrated side-by-side providing accommodation for a variety of household types and avoiding concentrations of a particular typology.. 2003). Figure 3 – Second and Third Floor Plans (Source: dRMM Architects) 31 . tenure blind design and strong architectural language. Also by allocating a variety of each typology to tenures and avoiding monolithic concentrations (Groves et al. A key part in obtaining such a diverse social mix can be found in the provision of a variety of sizes of residential accommodation.Table 1 shows that while all of the tenures and household typologies are represented at GC. Through the adoption of a pepper-potted. SHG has succeeded in housing a diverse social mix in close spatial proximity.
teenagers and young adults with ages from 3 years to 22 living in GC. 80 70 60 50 Age 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 Questionnaire Respondent 15 20 Figure 4 – Ages of Questionnaire Respondents ‘There’s a bit of everything here. private renters and social renters all occupied one. couples.The interviews and questionnaires added further weight to this by revealing that owner-occupiers. A wide range of ages is deemed as helping to maintain stable residential areas (Sarkissian. all sorts. old folk. kids. The interview response of GC Resident 9 also demonstrates that a wide range of ages were visibly present. 32 . this is demonstrated in Figure 5. the questionnaire results also gave further insight revealing that there were families with children. The third indicator highlighted by the questionnaire results is that of household income.’ (GC Resident 3) The questionnaire revealed that there is a wide range of ages represented by the residents of GC as demonstrated by Figure 4. teenagers. 1976) and this evident at GC. two and three bedroom properties. it’s a real mix.
it is clear from this that the SHG has bought together a social diverse population at GC and is meeting many of the aspirations of UK housing policy.3 The role of Housing Associations.1.000 40-50.2 will examine this issue in further detail to explore the processes and causalities the social integration and community cohesion that has formed at Garland Court. 2011). Punter. 2008.000 30-40. Despite this evidence. Section 5. 5. it is not clear from this the extent to which this diverse population has integrated to form a mixed community. Figure 5 shows that from the questionnaire results there is a wide range of household incomes represented in relatively equal measures.000 Questionnaire Respondents (%) Figure 5 – Household income of GC residents. ‘Since 1988 the housing. becoming involved in 33 . rented housing … Housing associations have diversified their activities.association sector has assumed responsibility for the provision of the majority of new. However there are strong assumptions within policy that by creating a socially diverse population in close spatial proximity will result in a ‘mixed community’ (Murie & Rowlands.000 Household Income (£) >50. affordable.000 20-30.30 25 20 15 10 5 0 <20.
other affordable ownership products. ‘You definitely couldn’t tell just by looking at peoples properties … We might make guesses due to people behaving in a certain way.the provision of other kinds of affordable housing including shared ownership. private rental and homes on the private market. SHG has been able to attract a diverse social mix of residents. 60% of respondents cited the building design as their primary reason for moving to GC. as well as a diverse mix of ages. this represented residents from all tenure groups. When asked about how they might distinguish between tenures the following interview response from a female resident sums up the general feeling. My research shows that through the employment of an innovative architectural practice to apply a tenure blind design approach. only 30% of whom claimed they could distinguish the tenure of other residents. and some have emerged as developers of market housing themselves. 2007). is the developer of a residential block containing socially rented homes as well as part-buy. incomes and household types. 2008) This is very much the case in Garland Court where the housing association.’ (GC Resident 2) This suggests that SHG have been successful in creating a tenure blind development that represents the design orthodoxy set out by those such as Tunstall & Fenton (2006) and has become prevalent in development literature and practice (Roberts. SHG as an association aspires to tenure-blind. The commitment to this principle is evident in the design of Garland Court as the external features of all the properties are identical and this was reflected in the responses from the residents. in this case Southern Housing Group (SHG). pepper-potted tenure mixing whereby the differing tenures are indistinguishable from one another (SHG.’ (Murie & Rowlands. 34 . such as Homebuy. 2007).
they’re not used to the private element. they’re used to housing association renters. who appeared to have little experience in managing a mixed tenure development. SHG were heavily criticized by many residents in respect of their management of the needs of all the tenure groups.70 Questionnaire Respondents (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Family Friends Community Building Design Location Re-housed Reason For Moving To GC Figure 6 – Primary reason given for moving to GC Despite having been successful in bringing together a diverse social mix of residents. They have a cultural problem. ‘I don’t think they’re quite used to this mix and they’re not quite clear sometimes … It’s management issues.’ (GC Resident 5) These responses to the role of SHG as a management agent are representative of the attitudes of those interviewed that were leaseholders or shared-ownership residents. They don’t tell you what’s going on.’ (GC Resident 6) ‘The communication is unacceptable. It was evident from all those interviewed who had a financial investment in GC that their interests were not best represented by SHG. the service charge seems out of control. 35 . they haven’t a clue. This reaffirms the questions raised by Murie & Rowlands (2008) in regards to the suitability of HAs as managing agents.
the interviews were more revealing.The difference between the responses of those with a financial investment and those who are social tenants of SHG is marked and highlights their lack of experience with regard to the private element. I’m very. 2005) with spatial proximity and lifestyle being more defining factors.2 Social Integration and Mixed Community 5.’ (GC Resident 7) This was the response of a SHG social tenant when asked about their opinion of the role of SHG. 5.2. any problems and they sort it out. other literature points towards tenure playing an insignificant role in social integration (Jupp. Although 70% of the questionnaire respondents either disagreed with or were impartial to the statement that they are less likely to get to know a resident of a different tenure. What was found at GC reflects neither of these dominant notions. they said the Kingshill would be demolished they said that they would put me here when it was finished and they did. 1999. The resident was extremely positive towards the actions of SHG highlighting that their ability to manage social tenants was significantly different to that of private properties under their management.. 1997). Goodchild & Cole. very lucky … they have been great. ‘I think there’s a breakdown though as I don’t think you talk to the (private) renters as much as the people who’ve bought or are housing 36 . Allen et al. However. 2001. ‘they kept their word.1 The role of tenure. Much of the literature surrounding social interaction of residents on mixed tenure developments places strong emphasis on the potential for tensions created between those in market and social properties due to the stigma associated with social housing (Murie.
association. Eight of the respondents were those who had lived in GC for the full five years since its construction. It could also be argued that it has a detrimental effect on the resident’s ability to integrate. gave further weight to this by stating. GC Resident 9. This shows a general pattern of those living in GC longer knowing more people. a private tenant. combined with interview responses such as that of GC Resident 6 above. This is reflected in the questionnaire responses. suggests that the turnover of private residents is more frequent than that of other tenures. The research data offers two possible explanations for these findings. I’ll probably be somewhere else this time next year … why go out of my way to get to know these people. Figure 4 shows a clear relationship in the questionnaire data between the time a resident had been living in GC. Of the seven private renters who responded to the questionnaire only two of those had been in their property for over a year. 37 . And they often change. The private renters I hardly ever see.’ (GC Resident 6) This comment from a part-buy part-let resident is reflective of the attitude held by many towards the market rental residents. their tenure and their integration indicated by the number of residents with whom they are on first name terms. this shows that those market tenants who move with more frequency do not remain in their residence for a sufficient time in which to form significant social bonds with their neighbours. only 25% of residents were on first name terms with a private renter in comparison with 55% on first name terms with one or more owner-occupiers. sure they’re nice but I’m not going to be here that long. 40% with one or more shared ownership and 45% with one or more housing association tenants. the landlords I’ve never met either.’ (GC Resident 9) It is evident that the increased mobility that comes with being a market tenant has a detrimental effect on their attitude towards actively integrating on a social level. ‘I’ve only been here three months.
This notion of lack of commitment leads to the second possible explanation presented by this research. ‘We bought this flat so when we were approached to get involved with the residents association and meet other residents I wanted to be part of it. financial investment and social investment. Middleton et al. There is evidence to show that with regard to financial investment. This research shows that in the case of a mixed tenure development such as GC there are two types of investment that impact upon the integration of the residents and the formation of social capital. argued that investment by the residents in the community was essential in the formation of social capital.25 No. This reflects concerns raised by Murie & Rowlands (2008) who commented on the lack of commitment to the property shown by market tenants and their buy-to-let. absentee landlords leading to high turnovers of tenants. when looking at the formation of social capital in Bourneville.Time and tenure in relation to social integration. tenure type plays a significant factor. I’ve invested my money here so I’m very interested in what’s going on.’ (GC Resident 1) 38 . (2005). of residents on first name terms 20 15 Market Tenant HA Tenant Shared Owner Owner-occupier 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years living in GC Figure 7 .
In the case of GC Resident 2. Although I have shown that tenure can play a significant role in the extent of social interaction. shared ownership and lease holders. ‘Just because you live in the same block doesn’t mean you will all get along. like our tenants and residents association … As much as I’d hate to think that the issues with Southern Housing have played a part but I guess they have bought us together as a sort of community. most felt that as they had invested in the property and the building.1. these issues and the subsequent formation of the RA had been the most significant catalyst for the residents of GC to integrate on a wider scale. Unless something throws you together. they had also invested in the community and saw more reason to make an effort to integrate on a social level. They explained that due to the management issues touched upon in 5.This reflects the views of many of those interviewed who had invested financially in GC as either leaseholders or shared owners.3 the residents of GC had actively sought to form a united group from which to address the issues with SHG. their intentions were short-term and they did not see the value of investing themselves socially. they viewed their property purchase as merely a stepping-stone onto the property ladder. This was reinforced in an interview with a GC Resident who was heavily involved in the organisation of the Residents Association (RA). a leaseholder. GC Resident 5 stated that although she was reluctant to admit it.’ (GC Resident 5) However they also pointed out an important factor that influenced the decision of those who were most involved in participation with the RA. ‘The biggest lack of interest was from private tenants and then HA tenants … most people who turned up to the RA meeting were those who had a financial interest ie.’ (GC Resident 5) This is further evidence that tenure is a determining factor in a resident’s willingness to interact with others. it is in cases such as this that lifestyle becomes a 39 . However a financial investment into the building did not guarantee a social investment into the community and social investment was also present without a financial incentive.
‘I think part of it is that we’re not inclined to get to know our neighbours … I’m perfectly willing to be friendly with people but I don’t feel a need to have any more of a relationship. and GC Resident 4.’ (GC Resident 2) Further evidence of this attitude was provided by both the private tenants interviewed GC Resident 9. When questioned on the extent to which they want to integrate with the wider GC community the interviewees made some interesting and insightful remarks. some of them don’t.1. (GC Resident 7) These were the responses of two HA tenants. Some of them very nice. although this is mostly market tenants.more dominant factor (Kleinhans. both had been receptive to the notion of integrating with other residents and had made social ties with various tenure groups.2 Microspatial polarisation or voluntary segregation. not all but some. see 5. do we want to share experiences and time together? I guess some of us do. I’ll speak to them.2. ‘You can see that there’s all sorts of different people here. 5. 2004). it is clear that both acknowledged the fact that not all residents felt so inclined to integrate.’ (GC Resident 4) If people want to speak to me. The evidence shown in section 5. say hello. However. This attitude that they had encountered materialised in the response of an owner-occupier. if they don’t want to say hello.2. other tenures should not be discounted as tenure is not the defining cause of this personal attitude. This indicates an exclusion of those with an attitude that is less inclined to invest socially in the GC community. 40 .1 begins to raise the explanations as to why certain levels of social integration have manifested at GC.2. too bad.
41 . and most of the weekend I’m away from the flat as well. This stands at odds with motivations of some to develop a sense of community at GC and is even seen by some to be a source of friction between residents. Although Tiesdell (2004) and Roberts (2007) both made cases of microspatial polarisation occurring between differing tenure groups there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case at GC due to tenure prejudice.1. why should they care as long as everything works they’ll pay their rent and get on with life.’ (GC Resident 4) Despite the physical integration of different social groups in GC it was clear that certain residents were making a conscious decision not to integrate with the other residents on anything more than the most basic level.’ (GC Resident 5) The comments made here by the participants in the interviews do not suggest that there are any factors influencing their social interaction other than a personal attitude that is inclined to maintain a level of segregation from other residents. generally but not limited to private tenants as seen in 5. that could be seen to be microspatial polarisation but as a circumstance dictated by choice. ‘(private tenants) couldn’t give a damn.‘I’m too busy at work and all I want to do when I get home is to chill. I think that there is a big divide between the kinds of people who live here.2. This is characteristic of what Punter (2011) terms ‘voluntary segregation’ whereby regardless of the degree to which the units in the development being physically integrated the residents consciously decide not to mix socially. It’s not their place. Rather it was the voluntary segregation by particular residents.
advocated through housing policy and implimented by SHG. as well as demonstrating the detrimental effect of private tenants and voluntary segregation on social integration. whose negative opinions of the current use exposed its potential. Despite this my research highlights the shortcomings of the physical design: although there is provision of a communal realm (Sennett. tenure and social mixing.6. In my analysis of the residents’ social integration and attitudes towards mixing I found that many residents were very open to mixing socially. tenure and management are all factors influencing the form and extent of social integration in GC. 2007). identifying key patterns in residents attitudes towards each of these factors. those who had invested financially as leaseholders or shared owners felt as though they had also invested in the community and so saw more reason to integrate on a 42 . has facilitated the formation of a social integrated community at Garland Court. 2011). Conclusion This research project set out to examine the extent to which the new orthodoxy of pepper-potted mixed tenure design. 1994) in the form of a shared garden it lacks the necessary functionality to act as a catalytic area of social mixing (Gehl. My results show that design. I examined the relationships between design. In addition to this my results highlight the shortcomings of the physical design of GC in regards to the communal spaces. However. Analysis of the design and mix in GC has shown that the development has successfully created a spatially integrated mixed population in close proximity through the incorporation of a variety of unit sizes and tenure typologies that are physically tenure blind (Roberts. In evaluation of the adopted approach of a pepper-potted design and a social mixed population this project has identified both successes and weaknesses. The first was the link between financial investment and social capital. The possibility for this space to facilitate wider social integration was expressed by the residents. I uncovered three distinct patterns that factored upon the extent of the residents social integration.
43 . however their issues with dealing with the private market residents must first be resolved.social level. There are however. Despite this GC presents a firm basis for a sustainable mixed community. private tenants were mostly observed to be inclined to short periods of residence and saw little point to integrating into the wider GC community. which then served as a catalyst for wider integration across tenure groups. In summary the physical design of GC did little more than bring together a spatially integrated community and fell short on its potential to provide a more inclusive shared space. There is potential for SHG to play a more significant role in reducing this through the restriction of buy-to-let and enforcement of longer contracts for private tenants. This served to highlight the third issue of voluntary segregation of certain residents although this attitude was also noted in leaseholders using GC as a step on the property ladder. Despite policy claims that mixed tenure would reduce the turnover rate of residents it was evident at GC that high turnover of private tenants was being experienced and having a detrimental effect on their integration. issues surrounding the high turnover of private tenants and the voluntary segregation of residents. integration was observed across all tenure groups providing evidence that a socially mixed community was forming. There was a clear link uncovered at GC between time in residence and social acquaintances. Secondly in my investigation of the role of tenure as a factor on social integration an interesting pattern was uncovered. This also emphasized stark differences between the attitudes of SHG as a managing agent highlighting their ability to provide for HA tenants and their lack of experience with the private market residents. They were also united in their issues with SHG resulting in the formation of the RA.
T. S. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Babbie. (2007) Re-urbanizing London Docklands. (2002) Housing Policy: an introduction (4th edn). S. E. P. & Wood.7.. R. N. Casey. International Journal of Urban and regional Research.. Bailey. (2007) Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2003) The value of housing design and layout. (2010) The Practice of Social Research (12th edn). Belmont. G. London: CABE Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2009) Evaluation of the Mixed Communities Initiative Demonstration Projects.. N. M.. (2008) Developing and sustaining mixed tenure housing developments. & Manzi. & Valentine. London: CLG Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2011a) Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing. 31 (4) 759-781 Clifford. M. French. London: CLG 44 . (2010) Key Methods in Geography. (2005) Mixed Tenure. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Balchin. M. CA: Wadsworth. Coward. T. Twenty Years On: Nothing out of the ordinary. London: SAGE Cochrane. Camina. A. & Rhoden. C. References Allen. London: Routledge Butler.
& Broughton. J.html Gehl. London: Island Press Goodchild. Middleton. London: DETR dRMM (2011) Wansey Street Housing. & Graham.uk/dRMM/projects/by%20name/Wansey%20Street%20Housi ng. London: DETR Department of the Environment Transport & the Regions (DETR) (2000) By Design. London: CLG Department of the Environment Transport & the Regions (DETR) (1998) Circular 06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing. A. B. (2003) Neighbourhoods that work: A Study of the Bournville Estate. & Cole. W. London: DETR Department of the Environment Transport & the Regions (DETR) (2000a) Regeneration that Lasts.. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation 45 .. V. I.drmm. A. (2001) Social Balance and mixed neighbourhoods on Britain since 1979: a review of discourse and practice in social housing. (1989) Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Maurie. (2011) Life Between Buildings (6th edn). 19 103-121 Greene. [Online] dRMM Architects. J. 11 (3) 255-274 Groves. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Available From: http://www.. Caracelli. Projects. R. K. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2011b) Better Places By Design.co.
Michigan: Random House Johnson. French. G. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Demos Kleinhans. M. A. (1998) Urban Morphology and Typology in the United Kingdom. & Onwuegbuzie. C. R. 19 367-390 Larkham. J. A. B. R. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. (1997) The social rented sector.) Key Methods in Geography. & Teddle. N. (ed. 47 (11) 2347-2366 Jupp.) Typological Process and Design Theory. & Loomis. London: Sage 46 . D. In: Tashakkori. 26 644-659 Maxwell. & Valentine.Jacobs. R (2008) The new politics of urban housing. & Chaskin.. S. (2004) Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A review of recent literature.) Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. P. 12 (4) 437-461 Marie. housing and the welfare state in the UK. Cambridge. A. (2004) Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. In: Attilio. Housing Studies. London: SAGE Marie. R (2009) Mixed-Income Development: Resident Perceptions of the Benefits and Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. P. (eds. Urban Studies. & Rowlands. R. (1999) Living Together: Community life on mixed tenure estates. Educational Researcher. (2010) Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In: Clifford. (Eds. (2003) Mixed Methods Design: An Alternative Approach. 33 (7) 14-26 Joseph. J. A. MA: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture Longhurst.
Available from: http://mimoa. A. (eds. In: Clifford. (2005) Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. & Valentine.) Key Methods in Geography. Urban Studies. Belmont. Murie. French. City. A. W. 15 (3-4) 443-455 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2000) Our Towns and Cities: The Future. Journal of Urban Design. London: ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2005) Sustainable Communities: People. J.. G. 42 (10) 1711-1738 MIMOA (2011) Wansey Street Housing [Online] MIMOA. S. (2011) Sounding the Heygate Estate. M. & Babbie. (2011) Research Methods for Social Work (7th edn). R. (2011) Urban Design and the English Urban Renaissance 1999-2009: A Review and Preliminary Evaluation. 8 (2) 183-204 Rogers. Planning Theory & Practice. London: ODPM Punter. S. London: ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building the future. (2005) Social Capital and Neighbourhoods that Work. E. N.eu/projects/United%20Kingdom/London/Wansey%20Street%20Housi ng [Accessed: 21/06/2011] Mongomery. A. 16 (1) 1-41 Roberts.McLafferty. Places and Prosperity. London: SAGE Middleton.. (2010) Conducting Questionnaire Surveys. (2007) Sharing Space: Urban Design and Social Mixing in Mixed Income New Communities. CA: Brooks/Cole 47 . & Groves. London: Urban Task Force Rubin. R.
& Sommer.uk/info/200183/elephant_and_castle/2043/affordable_ housing/2 [Accessed: 21/06/2011] Tashakkori. London: Faber and Faber Southwark Council (2010) Elephant and Castle Master Regeneration Plan: Version 16.. Y. R.. (2003) Incorporating sustainable development concerns into an urban regeneration project: how politics can defeat procedures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design.Rydin. (1994) Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization. F. London: Southwark Council Southwark Council (2011a) Affordable Housing [Online] Southwark Council. A. W. C. 46 (4) 545-561 Sarkissian.southwark. (2004) Integrating affordable housing within market-rate developments: the design dimension. London: Unwin Hyman Sayer. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. A. Available from: http://www. Hands.gov. Holman. London: Routledge Sennett. Urban Studies. (1976) The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review. (1992) Method in Social Science (2nd edn). P. London: Southwark Council Southwark Council (2011) Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report. N. 13 (3) 231-246 Saunders. (1990) A Nation of Home Owners. S. London: SAGE Tiesdell. & Teddle. (2003) Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. 31 195-212 48 . V.
Tunstall. R. London: SAGE 49 . & Fenton. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Urban Task Force (UTF) (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of the Urban Task Force. mixed tenure and mixed communities. A. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th edn). London: E & F N Spon Yin. (2006) In the mix. A review of mixed income. R.
Limited to case studies of largely ‘segregated ‘ or ‘segmented’ (Groves et al. The concept of social cohesion. This research aims to address the issue of social mixing on a new build. 2007). 2009). and so research into the extent of social mixing on these developments would be of significant benefit (Roberts. 2003) developments. With this in mind as the underlying justification for undertaking research into this area the following has been identified as the research question: To what extent does fully integrated tenure allocation on a housing development facilitate the social interaction of residents of differing tenures? The research in context. mixing and the facilitation of these through physical implementation are prevalent in policy (CLG.. It is therefore decided that the research question will adopt a newly built mixed tenure development with fully integrated units as its core study area. The contemporary literature discussed below identifies gaps in the current research on mixed communities. there is opportunity for new research into the degree to which fully integrated design can facilitate social mixing and the patterns of social interaction between residents in different tenures. 50 .Appendix 1 – Original IGS Proposal IGS PROPOSAL Identification and justification of the research question. mixed tenure housing development in which a design of integrated units has been adopted. integration. The recently implemented approach of ‘pepper potted’ developments is becoming increasingly prevalent in planning and policy in the UK. However evidence into the extent to which evolving methods and approaches to implementation are achieving their goals and facilitating the development of social networks is largely under-represented.
This was reflected by Kleinhans (2004) who stated that the issue of tenure was a far outweighed by lifestyle as the determining factor on social interaction. as a way of tackling problems such as crime. The integration of a mixture of housing types and tenures is cited as one of the key requirements for sustainable communities (ODPM. 2005. unemployment and poor environment and providing a high standard of liveability (ODPM. This policy implementation seeks to counteract the development of concentrated areas of poor quality of life and lacking opportunity in major urban conurbations (ODPM. 2005).. Allen et al.The adoption of mixed tenure community planning in the development and redevelopment of urban housing estates has become fully ingrained into UK local government policy (Rogers. 2007) to the extent of social inclusion (Allen et al. 2009). Initial cases for mixed tenure developments can be traced back to the early work of those such as Jane Jacobs and her advocacy for density and complexity and her call to work with human patterns of use and interaction (Jacobs. (2005) noted that. mixed tenure communities 51 . 2003). From the arguments surrounding the housing developments and the gentrification in regeneration (Butler.. 2004). 2005) to the influence of design (Roberts. the estate was held in a more positive view by the residents without any greater perception of problems (Jupp. 1999). but that proximity of differing tenures impacted upon cross-tenure social mixing. Although it was clear that tenure mixing was a non-issue for residents many areas labeled ‘mixed tenure’ remained largely segregated at street level (Jupp. 1961). 2005) and the development of social capital (Middleton et al. Jupp’s (1999) research into several housing estates that were of mixed tenure drew several early conclusions. 2000). 1999). It was also evident that in the few cases where tenures had been integrated on the same streets. Effects of the implementation of this policy on the development and redevelopment of inner-city housing has become of increasing interest in contemporary literature (Bailey & Manzi. The study areas were of differing spatial characteristics in regard to the extent in which different tenures had been distributed throughout the estate. 2007). Much research has been carried out on the effects of mixed tenure developments upon social mixing and the creation of social networks. amongst other things. 2008). CLG. Cross-tenure networks are seen to increase as the proximity of differing tenures increases (Kleinhans.
however research into the social mixing that occurs in these new developments remains largely nonexistent. to argue in the case of well thought out design and tenure integration. Roberts (2007) uses this evidence. Research such as this has led to the call for and development of flexible. 2008) Although its claimed that the evidence base for mixed tenure communities is not as unsubstantial as it seems (Kleinhans. this defines ‘the “new orthodoxy” a fine grain distribution of units’ (Roberts. 2003 & Middleton et al. Groves et al.. (2003) developed a taxonomy of tenure mixing responding to the need to define levels of mixing on estates: Integrated: side by side Segmented: blocks Segregated: in concentrations Monolithic: single tenure (Groves et al. 2007). This reflects a theme running through the literature that current research into mixed tenure housing is littered with holes and would benefit from further research. In a recent review of current literature Bailey & Manzi (2008) define six key areas which are under-represented in mixed tenure community research. ‘pepper potted’. in their case studies they found that owners and renters occupied differing social networks and inter-tenure integration opportunities were limited. more opportunities for social interaction are available (Jupp. These included the patterns of interaction between differing tenures and the modes of encouragement or discouragement of interaction between differing tenure groups 52 . 2003) Jupp (1999) found that when street-level mixing occurred. 1999.’ (Bailey & Manzi. there is a consistent call for further research. along side that collected from her own studies. opportunities for mixing. 2005). Groves et al. integration and cohesion on a social level were increased and there is increasing volumes of evidence to support theory that where tenure proximity is high and tenures are increasingly integrated. ‘There is some evidence to support the provision of mixed tenure communities but significant gaps remain in the evidence-base.. 2004).. However. integrated tenure housing (Roberts. 2007).appeared to discourage anti-social behaviour and were desirable places to live.
This is reflected by Roberts (2007) who proposes further design-focused research into the extent to which physical integration facilitates social interaction. Kleinhans (2004) states that there is a need for further investigation into neighbourhood’s social capital and housing diversification. It would be appropriate to approach this research in an indicative manor. 2008). It is evident that preliminary interviews with key stakeholders in the development are important as they can build a background on the development in question and in particular design principles that may be useful in the analysis of social interaction (Middleton et al. 2005. 2005). there is justification into research that assesses the benefits of incorporating this orthodoxy. The proposed study area is that of Wansey Street Housing in Southwark. This development is described as a ‘genuinely pepper-potted mix of accommodation’ (dRMM. 2005). 2011) and completed in 2006 it provides an ideal case-study as a pioneering fully integrated development given time to develop in order for social networks to manifest. Roberts (2007) also states that as ‘pepper potting’ has only recently been incorporated into mixed income new communities. Kempen & Bolt. London. as qualitative data will be preferable to statistical information in assessing the extent and nature of social mixing (CABE. Therefore both the architects and housing association or developer involved in the design and 53 .and how this relates to design and management of developments (Bailey & Manzi. 2007). 2008) but also that taking place in developed cities across Europe and North America (Berube. Research of this nature has wide scope for practical application both in terms of the continuing urban development and renewal taking place in the UK (Bailey & Manzi. To answer the research question the study must obtain data regarding the behaviour and attitudes of residents in regard to social mixing on a mixed community development that is fully integrated in terms of tenure allocation. A methodology proposal. 2009).. It also presents evidence for social democracies in rapidly urbanising countries to adopt alternative models and avoid the segregated developments that previously dominated the post-war planning and developments of the USA and the UK (Roberts.
g. The interviews will be structured into three key areas of questioning. Allen et al. extent of their relationship etc. gender. 1999. The latter maybe more effective in establishing initial trust between the residents and researcher (Longhurst. length of time in property etc. e. this could be done in a number of ways. 2010). CABE. facilities they utilise etc. how many people they know. an initial postal invitation outlining the research and inviting residents to participate using a text message response to ascertain participation and use of official bodies such as a residents association or housing association to initiate participation in interviews. 2005. There may be scope to back up the initial interviews with a supplementary interview in order to further lines of investigation that present 54 . The interviews would be undertaken on a face-to-face basis. Using previous research as a guide to expected response it is likely that a participation rate of 30-70% percent could be expected (Jupp. this would mean the participation of roughly ten to twenty of the households in surveying through interviews. 1999. these will be. Previous literature shows varying levels of success in the surveying of residents in mixed communities. Extent and nature of social interaction within the development. 2005) and private researchers (Jupp. 2005). Allen et al. 2010). initially lasting around half an hour. however there will be flexibility to pursue further routes of enquiry should the appropriate situation manifest.. The residents themselves will then be approached in order to obtain the required qualitative data. Initial contact will be made to assess willingness of participation in the research. 2005. Initial profiling questions.. e. the questions will be defined and repeated with all interviews. Middleton et al. age. where they met others. The interviews will take a relatively structured format (Longhurst.g. two are proposed for application. 2005). 2010). These areas have been defined after reviewing the surveys used by both public organisations (CABE.. In using Wansey Street Housing as the case study for the research it will be possible to approach all of the residents within the development as it consists of thirty-one households (SHG.construction will be approached for interviews regarding the context of the development. Extent to which social networks have been influenced by the development.
References Allen. (2005) and CABE (2005) showed the effectiveness of focus groups and it might be useful to also adopt this approach to assess the nature of social relationships between residents and also their attitudes to the facilitation of social mixing as a result of integrated tenure design. The results obtained would then be subject to interpretation and analysis. It is also important at this point not to rule out alternative methods that have been utilised in previous research. This will enable an analysis of the effectiveness of tenure integration in the facilitation of social mixing. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation 55 . It is also possible that this method of planning could in fact result in tensions and conflicts between residents that may not have previously manifested due to the uniqueness of the development in question. M. 2003). S..themselves in the initial interviews. C. Expected findings. The interviewing of residents together in a group may highlight different attitudes portrayed by differing tenure groups that may not be apparent in individual interviews. Based on suggestions made by existing literature it is expected that the level of social mixing will be a somewhat exaggerated version of that found in research on other mixed tenure developments. This method of research could be applied alongside the interview process and may result in participation of residents who would prefer not to partake in individual interviews. Casey. however this will be largely determined by the responses from the residents and their willingness to participate further. Coward. & Wood. Allen et al.. Camina. However it will be the possibility of uncovering different patterns of social mixing and the extent to which the design has played influence upon this that will be most interesting.. Twenty Years On: Nothing out of the ordinary. (2005) Mixed Tenure. this will be completed as a comparison between the findings from this research and research that has been previously undertaken into ‘segmented’ and ‘segregated’ developments (Groves et al.. R. M.
Maurie. 42 (10) 1711-1738 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2000) Our Towns and Cities: The Future.. (2009) Social cohesion. 19 367390 Longhurst. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Berube. (2005) Mixed communities in England: A US perspective on evidence and policy prospects. In: Clifford. A. R. 31 (4) 759-781 Commision for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)(2005) What its Like to Live Here: The views of residents on the design of new housing. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Jacobs. Urban Studies. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities.html Groves. (2005) Social Capital and Neighbourhoods that Work. N. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. A. & Bolt. social mix. A. Projects. & Valentine. (2003) Neighbourhoods that work: A Study of the Bournville Estate. G. Murie. International Journal of Urban and regional Research. (1999) Living Together: Community life on mixed tenure estates. (2010) Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. S. J. London: SAGE Middleton.. T. G.co. Michigan: Random House Jupp. R. R.Bailey. Middleton.drmm. N. London: ODPM 56 .. [Online] dRMM Architects. & Groves.. and urban policies in the Netherlands. French.uk/dRMM/projects/by%20name/Wansey%20Street%20Housi ng. Evaluation of the Mixed Communities Initiative Demonstration Projects. A. London: CLG dRMM (2011) Wansey Street Housing. T. R. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. & Broughton. London: Demos Kempen. Available From: http://www. (2007) Re-urbanizing London Docklands. London: CABE Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2009). (2004) Social Implications of Housing Diversification in Urban Renewal: a review of recent literature. B. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Butler. (2008) Developing and sustaining mixed tenure housing developments. R. (eds. 24 457-475 Kleinhans. A. & Manzi.) Key Methods in Geography. K.
pdf 57 . London: Urban Task Force Southern Housing Group (SHG) (2010) Mixing Tenures [Online] Southern Housing Group.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building the future. London: ODPM Roberts. M. Planning Theory & Practice.org. (2005) Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. 8 (2) 183-204 Rogers. (2007) Sharing Space: Urban Design and Social Mixing in Mixed Income New Communities. Available from: http://www.shgroup. R.uk/Documents/Building%20new%20homes/Projects/Mixin g%20tenures. London: ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2005) Sustainable Communities: People. Places and Prosperity.
Gerontology and Social Care Workforce Unit Research Ethics Panel and is documented as application KCL/10-11_1545. An application was sent to the Geography.Appendix 2 – Ethical Approval I confirm that the research methodology regarding interactions with human participants detailed within this manuscript has been considered and approved by the King's College Research Ethics Committee. Student Name: Stephen Revill Student Signature: 58 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.