Policy-makers believe that socially mixed communities are healthier, safer, and more vibrant, and will attract investment, tourism, and economic development. It is suggested that social mix in communities like the Downtown Eastside (above) is beneficial for low-income people, providing employment and social capital, curbing crime and promoting “better” behaviour and neighbourhood reputation.

Photograph by: JONATHAN HAYWARD , THE CANADIAN PRESS

Cities are successful to the extent that they bring diverse people, of different backgrounds, together. So it seems to make sense that a healthy neighbourhood is one that includes a mixture of people. Implementing policies that encourage concentrations of people of the same background seems like a bad idea.

This is particularly the case, it seems, when it comes to poorer communities. Many advocate increasing the “social mix” of such neighbourhoods, ensuring that they don’t just contain poorer renters, but also include middle-class homeowners. Social mix is a popular policy, gaining momentum worldwide. Policy-makers believe that socially mixed communities are healthier, safer, and more vibrant, and will attract investment, tourism, and economic development. It is suggested that social mix is beneficial for low-income people, providing employment and social capital, curbing crime and promoting “better” behaviour and neighbourhood reputation. It also appears intuitively appealing: to oppose “mix” is to foster “segregation,” it seems.

It’s not surprising, then, that social mix is often invoked in relation to the Downtown Eastside. Michael Geller, the well-known local architect and planner, has criticized the City of Vancouver’s proposal to require new developments in a small portion of the neighbourhood to be 60 per cent social housing, and 40 per cent rental, a departure from the existing policy that allows for some non-rental market housing. This policy, which is still up for review, contradicts “conventional planning wisdom,” he said, in a Vancouver Sun opinion piece. He’s absolutely correct: it does. But this may not be a bad thing, once we examine the now-extensive academic research on social mix. But simply, the scholarship shows that the supposed beneficiaries of social mix, the poor and marginalized, do not often end up as winners.

While an appealing ideal, the literature points to two big problems with social mix. First, the benefits promised for low-income groups do not materialize. International research examining mixed public housing redevelopment, for example, reveals that improvements in employment, income, educational outcomes, youth delinquency, and health are not achieved.

Even worse, strong social networks and positive bonds of community — common features in low-income areas — are often permanently damaged by efforts to “deconcentrate” poverty and promote social mix. While social mix is believed to foster a more inclusive society, the research-based evidence suggests that marginalized groups are the least likely to benefit from these policies, and may even be worse off as a result of them.

A second problem with social mix involves the ideal of social cohesion. Recent studies indicate that rather than enhancing community, new residents are much less likely to engage in neighbourhood social interaction than longtime low and middle-income residents. When interactions do occur, they are often marked by tensions.

Shattering the “myth of the benevolent middle class,” research finds that higher-income newcomers often use their political know-how and influence to fight against services for the poor, or to target the activities of marginalized people in public space. In some communities, tenants are encouraged not to socialize outdoors, hold barbecues, or allow their children to play outdoors, as these activities offend or frighten wealthier neighbours. Far from fostering social cohesion, these trends speak to unequal power relations and social exclusion.

The problem with social mix is that it assumes an even playing field between people. However, people who have more resources, and stronger property rights, have a clear advantage. The uncritical adoption of social mix in the Downtown Eastside, therefore, could lead to the displacement of the many low-income renters who do not have secure tenancies. Social mix, in other words, could lead to social homogeneity. Ironically, then, creating forms of inclusionary planning that provide some protection for low-income renters, may be the only way in which downtown Vancouver can continue to be socially diverse.

Martine August is a Trudeau Foundation Scholar in the University of Toronto’s Department of Geography & Program in Planning, University of Toronto; Lisa Freeman is a post-doctoral fellow at SFU’s Department of Geography; and Nicholas Blomley is a geography professor at SFU.

> via vancouversun.com