Social mix strategies in urban renewalSocial mix strategies in urban renewal paradox effectsparadox effects ? ?

Christine Lelévrier, Christine Lelévrier, Assistant ProfessorAssistant Professor

Urban Planning Departement, Urban Planning Departement, University of Paris-Est-CréteilUniversity of Paris-Est-Créteil

ENHR, Toulouse, 2011ENHR, Toulouse, 2011

PresentationPresentation

Social mix and urban renewal in FranceSocial mix and urban renewal in FranceSome synthetic findings of research on Some synthetic findings of research on social impacts social impacts Conclusion : social mix and residential Conclusion : social mix and residential mobility mobility

1. Social mix in France?1. Social mix in France?A powerful and increasing category of A powerful and increasing category of urban and housing policiesurban and housing policies since the 1990’s since the 1990’sTwo main policiesTwo main policies (Solidarity and urban (Solidarity and urban renewal law, 2000/Urban renewal program, renewal law, 2000/Urban renewal program, 2003)2003)Social housingSocial housing as a tool for social mix as a tool for social mixA critical research perspective A critical research perspective ((Allen, Authier, Avenel, Bacque, Behar, Belmessous, Bonetti, De Allen, Authier, Avenel, Bacque, Behar, Belmessous, Bonetti, De Rudder, Donzelot, Epstein, Fol, Jaillet, Kirszbaum, Simon, Vieillard-Rudder, Donzelot, Epstein, Fol, Jaillet, Kirszbaum, Simon, Vieillard-Baron,,, …)Baron,,, …)

But little empirical researchBut little empirical research on the impacts on the impacts of policies and local strategies of policies and local strategies

1. Urban renewal in France1. Urban renewal in France- Focused on Focused on deprived neighbourhoodsdeprived neighbourhoods

(ZUS), large housing estates (1960)(ZUS), large housing estates (1960)- A shift in area-based policiesA shift in area-based policies (1980) from (1980) from

integrated approaches towards more integrated approaches towards more physical restructuring physical restructuring

- Around 500 projects, 2003-2015Around 500 projects, 2003-2015, 3 , 3 millions of inhabitants, 42 billions of euros millions of inhabitants, 42 billions of euros

- Social mix expectationsSocial mix expectations ; dispersion of the ; dispersion of the poor and the immigrants, attraction of poor and the immigrants, attraction of higher income people, better management higher income people, better management and social cohesionand social cohesion

Housing diversification as a toolHousing diversification as a tool . . Demolition of social housingDemolition of social housing inside the inside the

neighbourhoods : 250 000 units, 11 % of neighbourhoods : 250 000 units, 11 % of the stockthe stock

. . Replacement byReplacement by private housing, private housing, rental rental (La Foncière)(La Foncière) and ownership and ownership (incentive for developers)(incentive for developers)Not « residualisation » but relocation Not « residualisation » but relocation of social housingof social housing (one for one, 50 % of (one for one, 50 % of new social housing outside of the new social housing outside of the neighbourhood neighbourhood Change in housing design (Change in housing design (400 000 400 000 units in smaller residential entitiesunits in smaller residential entities))

Housing diversification and Housing diversification and social impactssocial impacts

Some general findingsSome general findings

ResearchResearchIf strategies implemented in the name of social If strategies implemented in the name of social

mix do not reduce social concentration, what mix do not reduce social concentration, what do they produce as consequences for people do they produce as consequences for people and place ?and place ?

Empirical surveys since 2004Empirical surveys since 2004 ( (PUCA/DREIF/CES ANRU)PUCA/DREIF/CES ANRU) : : Relocation (10, 4)Relocation (10, 4)Housing diversification and social mix (20,12, 3)Housing diversification and social mix (20,12, 3)Residential and social trajectories as a focus (Residential and social trajectories as a focus (interviews and interviews and quantitative datas from housing bodies)quantitative datas from housing bodies)Long term folowingLong term folowing of change in three areas of change in three areas

Are classical concepts valuable Are classical concepts valuable today ?today ?

Relocation, dispersionRelocation, dispersionDisplacement, deportationDisplacement, deportation ((Godard, 1973)Godard, 1973)

Benefits of social diversity Benefits of social diversity GentrificationGentrification and loss of and loss of support, networkssupport, networks (Coing, 1966)(Coing, 1966)

More social distance and More social distance and conflictsconflicts (Chamboredon,Lemaire, (Chamboredon,Lemaire, 19701970

Pervers effects ; Pervers effects ; Just Just displacement of poverty displacement of poverty Reducing of very social Reducing of very social housinghousing ( (Tanter, Toubon,1999)Tanter, Toubon,1999)

Relocation, dispersionRelocation, dispersionAn opportunityAn opportunity (moving out, (moving out, residential upgrading)residential upgrading)

Benefits of social diversity Benefits of social diversity AA reducing of reducing of neighbourhood neighbourhood effectseffects and more and more social capitalsocial capital ((Wilson, 1987, Putnam 2000Wilson, 1987, Putnam 2000))Neighbourhood change ; Neighbourhood change ; Less poverty and Less poverty and stigmatisationstigmatisationSustainability (services, Sustainability (services, facilities, management)facilities, management)

1- Relocation : not dispersion but 1- Relocation : not dispersion but reconcentrationreconcentration

75 % stay in the same « commune », 50 % in the 75 % stay in the same « commune », 50 % in the same neighbourhood)same neighbourhood)

Spontaneous moving outSpontaneous moving out ( (17 %, mostly 17 %, mostly higher income)higher income)

A major relocation in the same social A major relocation in the same social areasareas (68 % in deprived neighbourhoods)(68 % in deprived neighbourhoods) A filtering process A filtering process

Same

commune Of which, same neighbourhood

Same social landlord

Orléans 100 77.9 87.5 Cherbourg 90.8 Justice Epinal 54 Vierge Epinal 51 Epinal 53 65 La Courneuve 74.5 54.7 84 Montfermeil 62.3 58.8 77.3 Orly 81.8 54.7 99.8 Montereau S 66 57 Montereau C 100 80 95.7 Corbeil 88 51 Bagneux 90 30 22.9 Montreuil 100 26 Vitry 100 49 81.7 Lille MB 94.2 46.7 Lille CPSR 85.3 67.6 Marseille 62.4 53 Avignon 65.4 Nice 85.9 82 Lyon 80 49 78 Grenoble 86 51 98 Montchovet 77 51 84 Romans 90 58 100 Source; available data, summarised extracts from reports, Lelévrier C., 2008.

New housing, ‘new comers’ ?New housing, ‘new comers’ ?

2. 2. The Creation of The Creation of an an intermediate housingintermediate housing sectorsector (ownership, under the market prices, public (ownership, under the market prices, public incentives) affordable for incentives) affordable for « « small meanssmall means » » ( (Cartier, Cartier, Coutant, Masclet, Siblot, 2008) and small households Coutant, Masclet, Siblot, 2008) and small households (TVA 5,5%)(TVA 5,5%) Smaller flatsSmaller flats : : 68 % of new housing in 12 projects are flats 68 % of new housing in 12 projects are flats with 2 or 3 rooms (3000 units)with 2 or 3 rooms (3000 units)

3. New buyers are not middle-class outsiders but 3. New buyers are not middle-class outsiders but « insiders » « insiders » « old retired workers » and « local kids » « old retired workers » and « local kids » from the neighbourhood from the neighbourhood (Lelévrier, 2010)(Lelévrier, 2010)

A difference between rental and ownership and programsA difference between rental and ownership and programs

3. Not gentrification but 3. Not gentrification but fragmentationfragmentation

‘‘Residentialisation’ : small residential Residentialisation’ : small residential unitsunits (30 to 100), diverse (financing, (30 to 100), diverse (financing, tenure, architecture…) but each tenure, architecture…) but each homogeneous inside (in terms of homogeneous inside (in terms of income and trajectories)income and trajectories)The end of large housing estatesThe end of large housing estates as a as a massive plan (ZUP)massive plan (ZUP)An internal dualisationAn internal dualisation (fringes/centre) (fringes/centre)

Lyon-La DuchèreLyon-La Duchère

900 new social housing, ‘900 new social housing, ‘heart’ and fringesheart’ and fringes

RésidentialisationRésidentialisation

ORLY : 5000 units, a large housing estate ORLY : 5000 units, a large housing estate from the 1960, 60 % of the inhabitantsfrom the 1960, 60 % of the inhabitants

Twenty five years of renewal, the end of the large housing estate

5. Social interactions ?5. Social interactions ?

Different local situations and groupsDifferent local situations and groupsThe distantsThe distants : enclosure, external practices, the : enclosure, external practices, the fringes (la Foncière, Dreux…)fringes (la Foncière, Dreux…)The participantsThe participants : close to the neighbourhood, : close to the neighbourhood, involved in the change (new buyers, Lyon)involved in the change (new buyers, Lyon)The The local kidslocal kids : familiarity, family networks but : familiarity, family networks but social distance (second/third generation of social distance (second/third generation of immigrants, Orly)immigrants, Orly)The stake of school, confidence and safetyThe stake of school, confidence and safety

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

Lyon- la DuchèreLyon- la DuchèreInternal mixed tenure Internal mixed tenure Two condominiums and Two condominiums and one social housing unitone social housing unitCommon spaces/conflicts Common spaces/conflicts A shared car park A shared car park A garden reserved to A garden reserved to ownerships but used by ownerships but used by ‘rental families’‘rental families’

Orly : a residential upgrading for « local kids » and Orly : a residential upgrading for « local kids » and the « established »the « established »

«« This is a quiet residence. The  This is a quiet residence. The neighbours look good, they neighbours look good, they respect what they have bought respect what they have bought they take care… » they take care… » (( man, 55, couple) man, 55, couple)

« I wanted to move out because « I wanted to move out because everybody knows each other, but everybody knows each other, but my parents and my friends were my parents and my friends were there…So, I was looking around. there…So, I was looking around. I did not plan to buy now, I I did not plan to buy now, I wanted to wait to save money…wanted to wait to save money…But, I got this opportunity and I But, I got this opportunity and I just took it » (just took it » (man, 39, parents from man, 39, parents from Algeria, born there)Algeria, born there)

Conclusion : So what and why ?Conclusion : So what and why ?Paradox effectsParadox effects : :

social mix as an aim but reconcentration and micro-fragmentation social mix as an aim but reconcentration and micro-fragmentation as results ?as results ?Or Or social mix redefined insocial mix redefined in housing practices and interests ?housing practices and interests ?Developers focus on local buyers Developers focus on local buyers Social housing associations favour community residential careers Social housing associations favour community residential careers Safer and profitable, more sustainable than trying to attract middle-Safer and profitable, more sustainable than trying to attract middle-class (la Foncière)…class (la Foncière)…Encounter the aspirations of the inhabitants to both move out of Encounter the aspirations of the inhabitants to both move out of « the ghetto » while staying in the neighbourhood….« the ghetto » while staying in the neighbourhood….Favoring choices and trajectories leads to agregation of peers…Favoring choices and trajectories leads to agregation of peers…Fragmentation and trajectoriesFragmentation and trajectoriesAn exacerbation of boundaries and conflicts, the end of cohesion?An exacerbation of boundaries and conflicts, the end of cohesion?Or a common way to deal with spatial proximity and social distanceOr a common way to deal with spatial proximity and social distance

Conclusion Conclusion MOBILITYMOBILITYRegular mobility is larger than the impact of new housingRegular mobility is larger than the impact of new housingRooting but with social diversity inside family places ?Rooting but with social diversity inside family places ?Chain mobility and trajectories : who will leave, who will Chain mobility and trajectories : who will leave, who will

come ?come ?

Social and residential benefits ? Social and residential benefits ? Not equal …Not equal …Management and social action needed more than social mixManagement and social action needed more than social mixSocial housing for low-income people at the city levelSocial housing for low-income people at the city levelSocial interaction: a residential or a city issue ?Social interaction: a residential or a city issue ?