1 / 22

Social mix strategies in urban renewal paradox effects ?

Social mix strategies in urban renewal paradox effects ?. Christine Lelévrier , Assistant Professor Urban Planning Departement , University of Paris-Est-Créteil ENHR, Toulouse, 2011. Presentation. Social mix and urban renewal in France

aren
Download Presentation

Social mix strategies in urban renewal paradox effects ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social mix strategies in urbanrenewalparadoxeffects ? Christine Lelévrier, Assistant Professor Urban Planning Departement, University of Paris-Est-Créteil ENHR, Toulouse, 2011

  2. Presentation • Social mix and urbanrenewal in France • Somesyntheticfindings of research on social impacts • Conclusion : social mix and residentialmobility

  3. 1. Social mix in France? • A powerful and increasingcategory of urban and housingpoliciessince the 1990’s • Two main policies (Solidarity and urbanrenewallaw, 2000/Urban renewal program, 2003) • Social housing as a tool for social mix • A criticalresearch perspective • (Allen, Authier, Avenel, Bacque, Behar, Belmessous, Bonetti, De Rudder, Donzelot, Epstein, Fol, Jaillet, Kirszbaum, Simon, Vieillard-Baron,,, …) • But littleempiricalresearch on the impacts of policies and local strategies

  4. 1. Urban renewal in France • Focused on deprivedneighbourhoods (ZUS), large housingestates (1960) • A shift in area-basedpolicies (1980) from integrated approachestowards more physicalrestructuring • Around 500 projects, 2003-2015, 3 millions of inhabitants, 42 billions of euros • Social mix expectations ; dispersion of the poor and the immigrants, attraction of higherincome people, better management and social cohesion

  5. Housing diversification as a tool . Demolition of social housinginside the neighbourhoods : 250 000 units, 11 % of the stock . Replacement byprivatehousing, rental(La Foncière) and ownership (incentive for developers) • Not « residualisation » but relocation of social housing(one for one, 50 % of new social housingoutside of the neighbourhood • Change in housing design (400 000 units in smallerresidentialentities)

  6. Housing diversification and social impactsSomegeneralfindings

  7. Research If strategiesimplemented in the name of social mix do not reduce social concentration, what do theyproduce as consequences for people and place ? • Empiricalsurveyssince 2004 (PUCA/DREIF/CES ANRU): Relocation (10, 4) • Housing diversification and social mix (20,12, 3) • Residential and social trajectories as a focus (interviews and quantitative datas fromhousing bodies) • Long termfolowing of change in three areas

  8. Relocation, dispersion Displacement, deportation (Godard, 1973) Benefits of social diversity Gentrification and loss of support, networks(Coing, 1966) More social distance and conflicts (Chamboredon,Lemaire, 1970 Pervers effects ; Just displacement of poverty Reducing of very social housing (Tanter, Toubon,1999) Relocation, dispersion An opportunity(moving out, residentialupgrading) Benefits of social diversity Areducing of neighbourhood effects and more social capital (Wilson, 1987, Putnam 2000) Neighbourhood change ; Lesspoverty and stigmatisation Sustainability (services, facilities, management) Are classical concepts valuabletoday ?

  9. 1- Relocation : not dispersion but reconcentration 75 % stay in the same « commune », 50 % in the same neighbourhood) • Spontaneousmoving out (17 %, mostlyhigherincome) • A major relocation in the same social areas(68 % in deprivedneighbourhoods) • A filteringprocess

  10. New housing, ‘new comers’ ? 2. The Creation of an intermediatehousingsector (ownership, under the marketprices, public incentives) affordable for « smallmeans » (Cartier, Coutant, Masclet, Siblot, 2008) and smallhouseholds(TVA 5,5%)Smaller flats : 68 % of new housing in 12 projects are flats with 2 or 3 rooms (3000 units) 3. New buyers are not middle-class outsiders but « insiders » « oldretiredworkers » and « local kids » from the neighbourhood (Lelévrier, 2010) A differencebetweenrental and ownership and programs

  11. 3. Not gentrification but fragmentation • ‘Residentialisation’ : smallresidentialunits (30 to 100), diverse (financing, tenure, architecture…) but eachhomogeneousinside (in terms of income and trajectories) • The end of large housingestates as a massive plan (ZUP) • An internal dualisation (fringes/centre)

  12. Lyon-La Duchère

  13. 900 new social housing, ‘heart’ and fringes

  14. Résidentialisation

  15. ORLY : 5000 units, a large housing estate from the 1960, 60 % of the inhabitants Twenty five years of renewal, the end of the large housing estate

  16. 5. Social interactions ? Different local situations and groups • The distants : enclosure, external practices, the fringes (la Foncière, Dreux…) • The participants : close to the neighbourhood, involved in the change (new buyers, Lyon) • The local kids : familiarity, family networks but social distance (second/thirdgeneration of immigrants, Orly) • The stake of school, confidence and safety

  17. Separation and conflicts : a social distance (Dreux, AFL, houses of 150 m2, the fringes)

  18. Lyon- la Duchère • Internal mixed tenure Two condominiums and one social housing unit • Common spaces/conflicts • A shared car park • A gardenreserved to ownerships but used by ‘rentalfamilies’

  19. Orly : a residentialupgrading for « local kids » and the « established » • « This is a quiet residence. The neighbours look good, they respect whatthey have boughttheytake care… » ( man, 55, couple) • « I wanted to move out becauseeverybodyknowseachother, but my parents and my friendswerethere…So, I waslookingaround. I did not plan to buynow, I wanted to wait to save money…But, I gotthisopportunity and I justtookit » (man, 39, parents fromAlgeria, bornthere)

  20. Conclusion : So what and why ? Paradoxeffects : • social mix as an aim but reconcentration and micro-fragmentation as results ? • Or social mix redefined inhousing practices and interests ? • Developers focus on local buyers • Social housing associations favourcommunityresidentialcareers • Safer and profitable, more sustainablethantrying to attract middle-class (la Foncière)… • Encounter the aspirations of the inhabitants to both move out of « the ghetto » whilestaying in the neighbourhood…. • Favoringchoices and trajectoriesleads to agregation of peers… • Fragmentation and trajectories • An exacerbation of boundaries and conflicts, the end of cohesion? • Or a commonway to deal with spatial proximity and social distance

  21. Conclusion MOBILITY Regularmobilityislargerthan the impact of new housing Rooting but with social diversityinsidefamily places ? Chain mobility and trajectories : whowillleave, whowill come ? Social and residentialbenefits ? Not equal … Management and social action needed more than social mix Social housing for low-income people at the city level Social interaction: a residential or a city issue ?

More Related