Review and discussion

1Challenge the future

Review and discussion“Changing Contexts in Urban Regeneration” by Paul Stouten - chapters 4 - 5“Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects: evidence based policy or urban myth?” by Maarten van Ham “Liveability” by Machiel van Dorst


Today’s presentation

• Chapter 4 and 5 – Changing contexts in urban regeneration• Introduction

• Paper Maarten van Ham• Introduction• What’s in it for us?

• Paper Machiel van Dorst• Introduction• What’s in it for us?

Structure


Book Paul Stouten: “Changing context in urban regeneration” chapter 4

1970

1980

1990

1995

2000

2002

Context: Changes over time on the social environment: shifting economic growth, increase highly qualified work, level of education, incomes and unemployment

- Affect on social and economic divisions by unemployment, incomes, educational level, ethnic minorities etc.- Nuisance and lack of social cohesion are judged more negatively than quality of housing

Policy of social renewal-Increasing opportunities-Integration of minorities

Durable and sustainable urban regeneration focused on quality and solving social problems

Strategic area approach-Integration of spatial, social and economic measures-Take segregation into acount

- Change in socio-economic policy: withdrawal of the welfare state- Decreasing government support

- Housing associations came up taking more and more initiative (influence)- Safety net (unique) by the government

- Compact cities for better physical conditions - In traditional urban renewal areas density fell- Improve the poor image of the inner city


Book Paul Stouten: “Changing context in urban regeneration” chapter 5

Summary:1974-1993 High degree of government intervention

& fundamental change from the mass model of housing provision to a cooperative model.

Around 1980’s more room for specific wishes (peope age, household composition, ethnicity)

1990’s putting to the test the sustainability of urban renewal and the use of housing & the residential environment.

Key notions: Social housing, ‘Building for the nieghborhood’ (Housing stock & Population)

Introduction


Summary: -Testing the validation of the methodology used to research social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects.-Methodological problems exist because variable bias and selection bias. This means that there is no evidence that social mix is a cure to fix the mentioned problems, because there is no evidence that neighbourhood effects exist.

Key notions:-Negative neighbourhood effects: the suggestion that certain neighbourhood characteristics have a negative effect on a range of individual social, economic and health outcomes.-Social mixing: mixing social groups in a neighbourhood

Paper Maarten van Ham: “Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects?”

Introduction


Paper Maarten van Ham: “Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects?”

Discussion Points:

1)Can you take the environment out of the equation in this case?

How can we translate this into an approach which we can use?

2)Is a neighbourhood approach the best way to solve problems in a specific area or should the neighbourhood be looked at as a part of a bigger system?

What’s in it for us?


Paper Machiel van Dorst: “Liveability”

Summary:-The best result is a neighbourhood where individuals have control over the amount of social interaction. -Liveability: Here and now, 3 forms: perceived, apparent, presumed.-Sustainability: Elsewhere and future-If the inhabitants can control their territory between majority of outdoor space, the neighbourhood can function as an ecosystem that can sustain itself.

Key notions:-Sustainable liveability: healthy cities, safe neighbourhood, neighbourhood as a community, controlling the environment, sustainable green.

Introduction


Paper Machiel van Dorst: “Liveability”

Discussion points:

Statement: Every social group will need a different amount of control over the social interaction in their built environment. 1.What happens if you bring the concept of social mixing (discussed in paper Maarten van Ham) into these interaction zones?2.Can we use the tree forms of liveability as a design tool? (1. perceived liveability 2. apparent liveability 3. presumed liveability)

What’s in it for us?

Documents

Review and discussion