Steve Revill IGS Final

7/30/2019 Steve Revill IGS Final

1/59


2/59


3/59


4/59

3

Table of Contents

List of figures and tables 5

List of abbreviations 6

Abstract 7

1: Introduction 8

2: Theoretical Background and Literature Review 11

2.1 Mixed Community Development in UK Housing Policy 11

2.2 Mixed Tenure Development and Social Interaction 14

3: Research Objectives 19

4: Methodology and Methods 20

4.1 Methodology and Mixed Method Research 20

4.2 Design Analysis 22

4.3 Questionnaires 22

4.4 Interviews 23

4.5 Case Study 25

4.6 Elephant and Castle Regeneration and Garland Court 25

5: Analysis and Discussion 27

5.1 Design and Management 275.1.1 The application of good design advocated through policy 27

5.1.2 Spatial proximity and mixed community 30

5.1.3 The role of Housing Associations 33

5.2 Social Integration and Mixed Community 36

5.2.1 The role of tenure 36

5.2.2 Microspatial polarisation or voluntary segregation 40


5/59

4

6: Conclusion 42

7: Reference List 44

Appendixes 50

i. Original Independent Geographical Study (IGS) proposal 50ii. Ethical approval 58


6/59

5

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1 Garland Court 28

Figure 2 Ground floor plan 29

Figure 3 Second and third floor plans 31

Figure 4 Ages of questionnaire respondents 32

Figure 5 Household income of GC residents 33

Figure 6 Primary reason given for moving to GC 35

Figure 7 Time and tenure in relation to social integration 38

Tables

Table 1 Household Tenure, Size and Typology at GC 30


7/59

6

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


8/59

7

Abstract

Contemporary UK Housing Policy features rhetoric of mixed community design with

an orthodoxy of mixed tenure development. 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. This research finds that in Garland Court,

where this design orthodoxy has been employed, it has been successful in bringing

together a diverse population in close proximity. However, there are still

implications in regards to the integration of residents that are due to tenure, design

and management.


9/59

8

1. 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, 2007). Social mixing has long been advocated as an approach to

counteract what has been termed the neighbourhood effect, a distinct collection of

dysfunctional social issues that have been associated with monolithic, particularly

socially rented, housing developments (Manly et al., 2011). The advocation of this

approach has resulted in the emergence of social mix policy in the UK, implemented

through housing policy rhetoric. This has been carried out on the premise that some

particular characteristics of housing developments, particularly deprivation, have a

detrimental effect on the social, economic and physical wellbeing of residents

(Manly et al., 2011). 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.

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. Jacobs (1961) was an advocate of

density, complexity and the heterogeneous neighbourhood leading to her call to

work with human patterns of use and interaction. Sarkissian (1976) draws upon a

wide variety of historical literature to outline nine goals of social mixing, these goalsare very much the same principles that are reflected in contemporary policy and

literature. 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.

The adoption of mixed tenure community planning in the development and

redevelopment of urban housing estates has now become fully ingrained into UK


10/59


11/59

10

development in which a design of integrated units has been adopted. The

contemporary literature (discussed below) identifies gaps in the current research on

mixed communities. The concept of social cohesion, integration, mixing and the

facilitation of these through physical implementation are prevalent in policy (CLG,

2009). 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. Limited to case

studies of largely segregated or segmented (Groves et al., 2003) developments,

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. The

recent approach of pepper-potted developments is becoming increasingly

prevalent in planning policy in the UK, and so research into the extent of social

mixing on these developments will be of significant benefit (Roberts, 2007).

In the following chapter I will review both policy and academic literature, this will

enable the formulation of a set of research questions to be pursued in this research.


12/59


13/59

12

enforceable right to buy their homes and, combined with the 1980 Housing Act that

provided tenants with an average discount of 44% of market value, 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, 1990).

Saunders (1990) outlines the significance of these measures whereby those he terms

the have-nots, economically marginal groups such as the unemployed and single-

parent families, have become increasingly geographically concentrated in the least

popular of council estates.

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, 2008) and counteract the development of concentrated

areas of poor quality of life and lacking opportunity in major urban conurbations

(ODPM, 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. It was deemed necessary that government intervention was required to

facilitate the achievement of social change, raise living and housing conditions and

meet the demand for housing. In 1998 the Labour government released Circular

06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing (DETR, 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. At the same time the Urban Task

Force (UTF), chaired by Lord Rogers, was commissioned to examine the causes of

urban decline in the UK and present practical solutions. 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, 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 builtenvironment is essential to the social, economic and environmental regeneration of


14/59

13

urban areas (UTF, 1999). 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.

Following on from this were a series of reports produced by the Office of the Deputy

Prime Minister (ODPM) focusing upon regeneration, housing and sustainable

communities. These reports reinforced the notions proposed by the UTF and

presented mixed income communities, facilitated by an integration of housing types

and tenures, as a way of tackling deprivation, crime, unemployment and a poor

physical environment (ODPM, 2003; 2005). It is apparent that throughout the policy

literature the terms mixed tenure, 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, 1999). This is also accompanied by a number of other assumptions regarding

mixed tenure development made through the White Paper Regenerationthat Lasts

(DETR, 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.

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. However, definition of what

comprises high-quality design is vague at best, as is the extent to which design

solutions can contribute towards socially integrated, sustainable communities.

Despite the cuts made by the current Conservative government, including CABE,

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,

2011a) and its accompanying guide Better Places by Design (CLG, 2011b). However,

there is an increasing call for further research into the extent to which the focus ofpolicy upon design and tenure mix is achieving the outcomes that have been


15/59

14

assumed (Kleinhans, 2004; Murie & Rowlands, 2008). It is possible that this housing

policy has created a diverse community that is micro-spatially fragmented or even

polarized. As a result of housing policy and the drive for the creation of increasing

volumes of social rented and affordable market housing, as previously mentioned

housing associations have become the largest provider in this sector. 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.

2.2 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): from the arguments surrounding the housing developments

and the gentrification in regeneration (Butler, 2007), through to the extent of social

inclusion (Allen et al., 2005) and the development of social capital (Middleton et al.,

2005) to the influence of design (Roberts, 2007). Some research has been carried

out on the effects of mixed tenure developments upon social mixing and the

creation of social networks.

Jupps (1999) research into several housing estates that were of mixed tenure drew

several early conclusions. The study areas were of differing spatial characteristics in

the extent to which different tenures had been distributed throughout the estate.

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, 1999), this occurrence of street level segregation was reflected in the majority

of developments (Goodchild & Cole, 2001). It was also evident that in the few cases

where tenures had been integrated at street level, the estate was held in a more

positive view by the residents and without any greater perception of problems

(Jupp, 1999). This was reflected by Kleinhans (2004) who stated that the issue of

tenure was far outweighed by lifestyle as the determining factor on socialinteraction, but that proximity of differing tenures impacted upon cross-tenure


16/59


17/59

16

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.

However research into the social mixing that actually occurs in these new

developments remains largely nonexistent. This is reinforced by research into the

integration of social rental and affordable housing within market rate developments.

Tiesdell (2004) argues that although the spatial proximity between tenures may be

increased through design, the extent to which this leads to the development of

mixed communities that are socially integrated is questionable. 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.

There is some evidence to support the provision of mixed tenure

communities but significant gaps remain in the evidence-base. (Bailey &

Manzi, 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. CABE

(2003) also found that an increasing number of housing developments in South-East

England are characterized by the design principles outlined by PPG3. This shows that

the design driven policy is of growing importance in the development of new

housing. 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, 2008; Punter, 2011). 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. However, there is

the opportunity to pursue further research into the extent to which simply


18/59


19/59


20/59

19

3. Research Objectives

Having reviewed the literature surrounding the research area, as well as the housing

policy employed in the UK, I propose that the following question is pursued for the

purpose of this research;

- To what extent does pepper-potted tenure mix assist in the formation ofmixed 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, my case study site

outlined in the following chapter situated in the Elephant and Castle area of London;

- Has the Garland Court development created a socially diverse communityand achieved mixed tenure policy aims?

- Are Housing Associations playing a significant role in social integration in themixed tenure development of Garland Court?

- Is the Garland Court development creating more than just a spatiallyintegrated mixed community?


21/59


22/59

21

The research questions are best approached through the use of both intensive and

extensive research methods (Clifford et al., 2010). 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, age and

household income. 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, 1992). This mixing and matching allows the methods to

complement each other, with the in-depth, qualitative data being supplemented by

systematic measurement of factors through the extensive, quantitative method

(Greene et al., 1989; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The employment of both

questionnaires and interviews is a method of triangulating data for interpretation,

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, 1992). 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.

These methods are then combined with a third element of the methodology, a case

study. By adopting the case study method a framework is established upon which

the extensive and intensive methods can be applied. As the research is concerned

with the social interaction between residents on a mixed tenure development, it is

appropriate that a case study method be adopted to examine the holistic and

significant characteristics of actual social relations (Yin, 2009). It may be argued that

the use of a single case, as is proposed here, does not offer sufficient grounds for

generalizations. However, 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, 2009).


23/59

22

4.2 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. 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), comparisons could be

drawn between the design found at Garland Court and that which had been

criticised or praised in the literature and policy.

The design analysis was a form of urban morphology, of a cross-disciplinary nature

combined with urban-design and planning analysis (Larkham, 1998). Plans of the

Garland Court development were obtained through the architects, dRMM, and

supplemented by photographs and observational notes from site visits. The results

were then subjected to analysis through literature and the qualitative and

quantitative data obtained from the residents.

4.3 Questionnaires

There were several reasons that led to a questionnaire survey in my research.

Firstly, a questionnaire made it possible to survey and construct data from a large

population sample within the given time restraints. Secondly, 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. Finally, the

questionnaire enabled an initial insight into residents perceptions and behaviours

that helped to shape the questions used in the interview process.

In conducting the questionnaire survey a stratified sample was used; this method

was chosen due to the administrative constraints in obtaining the questionnaires

(McLafferty, 2010). Garland Court features secure entrances accessible by electronic

key. A total of 31 questionnaires were distributed, one questionnaire to each

household, by post. To maximise the response rate the questionnaire was suppliedwith a covering letter featuring the Kings College logo as well as a self-addressed


24/59

23

envelope with which the resident could return the questionnaire, as recommended

by Rubin & Babbie (2008). In total 20 questionnaires were completed and returned

representing a 64.5% response rate.

The structure of the questionnaire was carefully considered. Beginning with a set of

demographic indicators, the questionnaire was divided into two sections to provide

the resident with a logical structure when composing their responses (Rubin &

Babbie 2011). The final section of the questionnaire featured a selection of

questions using a Likert scale for the residents perceptions. Babbie (2010) points

out that value of the use of Likert scaling is the unambiguous ordinality of response

categories, creating a simple index of the strength of residents perc eptions. Upon

receipt of all the questionnaires they were then coded thematically and subjected to

analysis.

4.4 Interviews

It was appropriate to approach this research in an indicative maner, as a substantial

volume of qualitative data will be preferable to solely statistical information in

assessing the extent and nature of social mixing (CABE, 2005). 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., 2005).

In regards to the interviewing of the residents, 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. Following this the residents were contacted

and suitable arrangements were made for an interview to take place. The residents

association was also contacted and encouraged residents to take part in the

interviews. This was done to establish initial trust through an established body

within the community and to encourage participation (Babbie, 2010; Longhurst,2010). The interviews took on a semi-structured format (Longhurst, 2010),


25/59

24

questions were defined by the questionnaire responses and repeated with all

interviews; however flexibility was upheld to pursue further routes of enquiry

individual to each interviewee. The interviews were structured into three key areas

of questioning;

- Extent and nature of social interaction within the development, e.g. howmany people they know, extent of their relationship etc.

- Extent to which social networks have been influenced by the development,e.g. where they met others, facilities they utilise etc.

- The role of their tenure, and its surrounding issues, in influencing socialinteraction.

These areas were defined after reviewing the surveys used by both public

organisations (CABE, 2005) and private researchers (Jupp, 1999; Allen et al., 2005;

Middleton et al., 2005).

In total nine residents took part in the interview process, each interview took

between twenty-five and forty-five minutes. Initial questions followed up the

residents questionnaire responses to establish a rapport with the interviewee. Thequestions then became more in-depth and pursued the discussion points raised in a

more personal context. 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, attitudes and perceptions

(Babbie, 2010). The interviews were all recorded using a digital voice recorder

before being transcribed following the interview.

Following this was a process of analysis that combined the representations obtained

through the questionnaires and the intensive data from the interview processes.

These were analysed through a process of explanation building (Yin, 2009) to draw

out theoretically significant observations. For the purpose of analysis the names of

the respondents were altered in order to maintain confidentiality and anonymity.


26/59

25

4.5 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, the use of a case study provided the necessary

boundaries and framework for my research (Babbie, 2010). 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. The proposed study area is that of Garland

Court (GC) in Southwark, London. This development, undertaken by the housing

association Southern Housing, is described as a genuinely pepper-potted mix of

accommodation (dRMM, 2011). It was completed in 2006. The development has

subsequently earned its architects several awards for its architectural and social

design attributes (dRMM, 2011), it therefore provides an ideal case-study as a

pioneering fully integrated development, given time to develop social networks.

Garland Court is also a flagship development for the wider Elephant & Castle

regeneration (Southwark Council, 2011a). This makes Garland Court an extremely

relevant case study as the design principles used in this development are influenced

by PPG3 (CLG, 2011a) and are to be continually employed throughout the

regeneration scheme. The findings of this research will therefore be practical and

beneficial in the continued planning and development of this, and other,

regeneration schemes that aim for a diverse, mixed community.

4.6 Elephant and Castle Regenerationand 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.

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.

Despite this Southwark is ranked as one of the most deprived local authority areas in

London and the UK (Rydin et al., 2003). Having suffered significant bomb damage

during World War II, Elephant and Castle was substantially redeveloped during the

post-war period and the council engaged in an intensive housing constructionprogramme culminating in the construction of the modernist Heygate Estate in the


27/59

26

early 1970s (Montgomery, 2011). The result of this was that Elephant and Castle

became dominated by extremely large, single use buildings, isolated by various

physical boundaries from their surroundings (Rydin et al., 2003; Montgomery, 2011).

The Neo-Brutalist, 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; Coleman, 1985). This form of single tenure development has been blamed for

the social divisions now found in Elephant and Castle (Southwark Council, 2010) and

are exactly the type of development that the government is seeking to reverse with

its current housing policy. 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. This process began in 1999 and despite facing

much opposition and being subject to wide ranging controversy (Montgomery,

2011), it was decided that the Heygate Estate be redeveloped as part of the

regeneration of the area. The regeneration plan has been heavily influenced by

government policy and seeks to counteract social deprivation and exclusion the area

(Rydin et al., 2003) through the development of a number of mixed tenure and

typology housing developments (Southwark Council, 2010; 2011), as well as

improving the physical quality of the area (Rydin et al., 2003).

The first of these new housing developments were undertaken by housing

associations and residents moved into the first completed development, Garland

Court, in 2006 (Southwark Council, 2011a). This particular development has been

labeled as the demonstration project for the residential regeneration of Elephant

and Castle. MIMOA (2011) describes the site as providing 21st century requirements

for density, flexibility, sustainability, ownership and security. It is thereforeappropriate 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.


28/59

27

5. Analysis and Discussion

The following section features the analyses and discussion regarding the findings of

my research. The analysis has been divided into two broad subsections to answer

the research questions. 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. I conclude that although there is clear evidence that many goals are being

achieved, there remain significant areas which need to be addressed to encourage

the formation of truly mixed community as opposed to mere spatial integration

(Tiesdell, 2004).

The second section examines the extent and the nature of the residents social

interaction and examines the factors that have impacted upon the processes and

causality and the residents subsequent attitudes. 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, tenure and management.

5.1 Design and Management

5.1.1 The application of good design advocated through policy.

Housing policy outlines a number of indicators that constitute good design which

relate to social diversity and integration. These include:- Integration of different typologies and provision of communal space in PPG3

(CLG, 2011a); and

- Subdivision of developments, increased street frontage and indistinguishabletenures (DETR, 2000).


29/59

28

As well as the tenure blind and pepper-potted design approach outlined in the

following section, examples of the adoption of this policy advocated design approach

are evident throughout GC.

Figure 1 Garland Court (Source: Author)

Figure 1 shows how the block that GC comprises of has been subdivided into four

sections. The use differing colours for the faade, as well as changes in scale to

correspond with the neighbouring buildings, 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. These design principles increase the

opportunities for social interaction by increasing the active street frontage (Gehl,

2011; Jupp, 1999).

Figure 2 shows layout of the development at street-level with the four entrances,

each serving a staircase or lift, linked through to the communal area. When asked

where they most frequently engaged with other residents 95% of questionnaire

respondents cited the communal entrances and stairways. This concurs with

previous evidence that where increased locations for street level mixing occur so do

opportunities for social interaction (Jupp, 1999; Groves et al., 2003 & Middleton et

al., 2005).


30/59

29

Figure 2: Ground Floor Plan (Source: dRMM Architects)

However, policy also advocates the adoption of communal open space within

developments as a location of social interaction (DETR, 2000; CLG, 2011a) but the

provision of such an amenity was not represented in the results. Although 25% of

respondents cited the communal garden as somewhere they might engage with

another resident, the interviews uncovered a recurring theme;

To be honest you dont really use the garden because of the private

gardens, theres 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. Residents regarded the space as

little more than a visual amenity. 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. This is reinforced by the suggestions of

interviewees as to what might encourage them to use the area to mix socially;

I would say youd have to make the garden bigger or give us something

to do there for more of a social mixing area. (GC Resident 6)


31/59

30

If we could grow our own plants there, or there was a BBQ area, then I

would use the garden. (GC Resident 9)

An allotment, Id love that, Ive got green fingers, everything I touch, itgrows. (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. This

reflects the views of Gehl (2011), 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.

5.1.2 Spatial proximity and mixed community.

The UTF (1999) states that through the integration of a variety of housing types and

tenures within close spatial proximity, a socially diverse community will develop. In

many ways the research shows that such a community has been achieved in GC. All

tenure groups are accounted for as well as a diverse range of income, household size

and type, ages, nationalities, ethnicities and sexualities. 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,- Age of residents, and- Household income.

The questionnaire provided the following results.

Table 1 Household Tenure, Size and Typology at GC.

Tenure % No. of Occupants % Type %

Private Owner 15 1 50 Family 25

Private Rental 35 2 25 Married Couple 5

Part-buy Part-let 20 3 5 Co-habiting Couple 15

Housing Association 30 4 15 Co-habiting Friends 55 5 Single Occupant 50


32/59

31

Table 1 shows that while all of the tenures and household typologies are

represented at GC, there is a clear weighting towards single occupant dwellings

which is representative of the number of single bedroom apartments in the

development. Through the adoption of a pepper-potted, tenure blind design and

strong architectural language, SHG has succeeded in housing a diverse social mix in

close spatial proximity. A key part in obtaining such a diverse social mix can be

found in the provision of a variety of sizes of residential accommodation, as seen in

Table 1 and Figure 3, 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. Also by allocating a variety of each typology

to tenures and avoiding monolithic concentrations (Groves et al., 2003).

Figure 3 Second and Third Floor Plans (Source: dRMM Architects)


33/59

32

The interviews and questionnaires added further weight to this by revealing that

owner-occupiers, private renters and social renters all occupied one, two and three

bedroom properties.

Figure 4 Ages of Questionnaire Respondents

Theres a bit of everything here, kids, teenagers, couples, old folk, all

sorts, its a real mix. (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. The interview response of GC Resident

9 also demonstrates that a wide range of ages were visibly present, the

questionnaire results also gave further insight revealing that there were families

with children, teenagers and young adults with ages from 3 years to 22 living in GC.

A wide range of ages is deemed as helping to maintain stable residential areas

(Sarkissian, 1976) and this evident at GC.

The third indicator highlighted by the questionnaire results is that of household

income, this is demonstrated in Figure 5.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20

A

ge

Questionnaire Respondent


34/59

33

Figure 5 Household income of GC residents.

Figure 5 shows that from the questionnaire results there is a wide range of

household incomes represented in relatively equal measures.

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, 2008; Punter, 2011), 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. Despite this evidence, it is not clear from this the extent to which

this diverse population has integrated to form a mixed community. Section 5.2 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.

5.1.3 The role of Housing Associations.

Since 1988 the housing- association sector has assumed responsibility for

the provision of the majority of new, affordable, rented housing

Housing associations have diversified their activities, becoming involved in

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

50,000

QuestionnaireResponde

nts(%)

Household Income ()


35/59

34

the provision of other kinds of affordable housing including shared

ownership, other affordable ownership products, such as Homebuy, and

some have emerged as developers of market housing themselves. (Murie

& Rowlands, 2008)

This is very much the case in Garland Court where the housing association, in this

case Southern Housing Group (SHG), is the developer of a residential block

containing socially rented homes as well as part-buy, private rental and homes on

the private market. SHG as an association aspires to tenure-blind, pepper-potted

tenure mixing whereby the differing tenures are indistinguishable from one another

(SHG, 2007). 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, only 30% of whom claimed they could

distinguish the tenure of other residents. When asked about how they might

distinguish between tenures the following interview response from a female

resident sums up the general feeling;

You definitely couldnt tell just by looking at peoples properties We

might make guesses due to people behaving in a certain way. (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,

2007). My research shows that through the employment of an innovative

architectural practice to apply a tenure blind design approach, 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; this represented residents from all

tenure groups, as well as a diverse mix of ages, incomes and household types.


36/59

35

Figure 6 Primary reason given for moving to GC

Despite having been successful in bringing together a diverse social mix of residents,

SHG were heavily criticized by many residents in respect of their management of the

needs of all the tenure groups.

I dont think theyre quite used to this mix and theyre not quite clear

sometimes Its management issues. (GC Resident 6)

The communication is unacceptable; the service charge seems out of

control. They dont tell you whats going on. They have a cultural

problem, theyre used to housing association renters, theyre not used to

the private element, they havent a clue. (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. It was evident from all those interviewed who had a financial investment

in GC that their interests were not best represented by SHG, who appeared to have

little experience in managing a mixed tenure development. This reaffirms the

questions raised by Murie & Rowlands (2008) in regards to the suitability of HAs as

managing agents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Family Friends Community Building

Design

Location Re-housed

QuestionnaireRespondents(%)

Reason For Moving To GC


37/59

36

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.

they kept their word, they said the Kingshill would be demolished they

said that they would put me here when it was finished and they did, Im

very, very lucky they have been great, any problems and they sort it

out. (GC Resident 7)

This was the response of a SHG social tenant when asked about their opinion of the

role of SHG. 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.

5.2 Social Integration and Mixed Community

5.2.1 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, 1997). However, other literature points towards tenure playing an

insignificant role in social integration (Jupp, 1999; Goodchild & Cole, 2001; Allen et

al., 2005) with spatial proximity and lifestyle being more defining factors. What was

found at GC reflects neither of these dominant notions.

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, the interviews were more revealing.

I think theres a breakdown though as I dont think you talk to the

(private) renters as much as the people whove bought or are housing


38/59

37

association. The private renters I hardly ever see. And they often change,

the landlords Ive never met either.(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. This is reflected in the questionnaire

responses; 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, 40%

with one or more shared ownership and 45% with one or more housing association

tenants. The research data offers two possible explanations for these findings.

Of the seven private renters who responded to the questionnaire only two of those

had been in their property for over a year, combined with interview responses such

as that of GC Resident 6 above, suggests that the turnover of private residents is

more frequent than that of other tenures. Eight of the respondents were those who

had lived in GC for the full five years since its construction. GC Resident 9, a private

tenant, gave further weight to this by stating;

Ive only been here three months, Ill probably be somewhere else this

time next year why go out of my way to get to know these people, sure

theyre nice but Im not going to be here that long. (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. It

could also be argued that it has a detrimental effect on the residents ability to

integrate. Figure 4 shows a clear relationship in the questionnaire data between the

time a resident had been living in GC, their tenure and their integration indicated by

the number of residents with whom they are on first name terms. This shows a

general pattern of those living in GC longer knowing more people; 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.


39/59

38

Figure 7 - Time and tenure in relation to social integration.

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. This notion of lack of

commitment leads to the second possible explanation presented by this research.

Middleton et al. (2005), when looking at the formation of social capital in

Bourneville, argued that investment by the residents in the community was essential

in the formation of social capital. 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; financial

investment and social investment. There is evidence to show that with regard to

financial investment, tenure type plays a significant factor.

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. Ive invested my money here so Im very interested in whats going on.

(GC Resident 1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

No.ofresidentsonfirstn

ameterms

Yearsliving in GC

Market Tenant

HA Tenant

Shared Owner

Owner-occupier


40/59

39

This reflects the views of many of those interviewed who had invested financially in

GC as either leaseholders or shared owners, most felt that as they had invested in

the property and the building, they had also invested in the community and saw

more reason to make an effort to integrate on a social level. This was reinforced in

an interview with a GC Resident who was heavily involved in the organisation of the

Residents Association (RA). They explained that due to the management issues

touched upon in 5.1.3 the residents of GC had actively sought to form a united group

from which to address the issues with SHG. GC Resident 5 stated that although she

was reluctant to admit it, 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.

Just because you live in the same block doesnt mean you will all get

along. Unless something throws you together, like our tenants and

residents association As much as Id 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.(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. shared ownership and lease holders.(GC Resident 5)

This is further evidence that tenure is a determining factor in a residents willingness

to interact with others. 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. In the case of GC Resident 2, a leaseholder,

they viewed their property purchase as merely a stepping-stone onto the property

ladder; their intentions were short-term and they did not see the value of investing

themselves socially. Although I have shown that tenure can play a significant role inthe extent of social interaction, it is in cases such as this that lifestyle becomes a


41/59

40

more dominant factor (Kleinhans, 2004). This indicates an exclusion of those with an

attitude that is less inclined to invest socially in the GC community; although this is

mostly market tenants, other tenures should not be discounted as tenure is not the

defining cause of this personal attitude.

5.2.2 Microspatial polarisation or voluntary segregation.

The evidence shown in section 5.2.1 begins to raise the explanations as to why

certain levels of social integration have manifested at GC. When questioned on the

extent to which they want to integrate with the wider GC community the

interviewees made some interesting and insightful remarks.

You can see that theres all sorts of different people here, do we want to

share experiences and time together? I guess some of us do, not all but

some.(GC Resident 4)

If people want to speak to me, Ill speak to them, if they dont want to

say hello, too bad. Some of them very nice, say hello, some of them

dont. (GC Resident 7)

These were the responses of two HA tenants, both had been receptive to the notion

of integrating with other residents and had made social ties with various tenure

groups. However, it is clear that both acknowledged the fact that not all residents

felt so inclined to integrate. This attitude that they had encountered materialised in

the response of an owner-occupier;

I think part of it is that were not inclined to get to know our neighbours

Im perfectly willing to be friendly with people but I dont feel a need

to have any more of a relationship.(GC Resident 2)

Further evidence of this attitude was provided by both the private tenants

interviewed GC Resident 9, see 5.2.1, and GC Resident 4;


42/59

41

Im too busy at work and all I want to do when I get home is to chill, and

most of the weekend Im away from the flat as well.(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. 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;

(private tenants) couldnt give a damn. Its not their place, why should

they care as long as everything works theyll pay their rent and get on

with life. I think that there is a big divide between the kinds of people

who live here. (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. 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. 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. Rather it was the voluntary segregation by

particular residents, generally but not limited to private tenants as seen in 5.1.2, that

could be seen to be microspatial polarisation but as a circumstance dictated by

choice.


43/59

42

6. Conclusion

This research project set out to examine the extent to which the new orthodoxy of

pepper-potted mixed tenure design, advocated through housing policy and

implimented by SHG, has facilitated the formation of a social integrated community

at Garland Court. I examined the relationships between design, tenure and social

mixing, identifying key patterns in residents attitudes towards each of these factors.

My results show that design, tenure and management are all factors influencing the

form and extent of social integration in GC. In addition to this my results highlight

the shortcomings of the physical design of GC in regards to the communal spaces, as

well as demonstrating the detrimental effect of private tenants and voluntary

segregation on social integration.

In evaluation of the adopted approach of a pepper-potted design and a social mixed

population this project has identified both successes and weaknesses. 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,

2007). Despite this my research highlights the shortcomings of the physical design:

although there is provision of a communal realm (Sennett, 1994) in the form of a

shared garden it lacks the necessary functionality to act as a catalytic area of social

mixing (Gehl, 2011). The possibility for this space to facilitate wider social

integration was expressed by the residents, whose negative opinions of the current

use exposed its potential.

In my analysis of the residents social integration and attitudes towards mixing I

found that many residents were very open to mixing socially. However, I uncovered

three distinct patterns that factored upon the extent of the residents social

integration. The first was the link between financial investment and social capital;

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


44/59

43

social level. They were also united in their issues with SHG resulting in the formation

of the RA, which then served as a catalyst for wider integration across tenure groups.

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.

Secondly in my investigation of the role of tenure as a factor on social integration an

interesting pattern was uncovered. 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. There was a clear link uncovered at GC between time in residence and

social acquaintances, private tenants were mostly observed to be inclined to short

periods of residence and saw little point to integrating into the wider GC community.

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.

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. Despite this GC presents a firm basis for a sustainable mixed

community, integration was observed across all tenure groups providing evidence

that a socially mixed community was forming. There are however, issues

surrounding the high turnover of private tenants and the voluntary segregation of

residents. 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, however their issues with dealing with the private market residents must

first be resolved.


45/59

44

7. References

Allen, C., Camina, M., Casey, R., Coward, S. & Wood, M. (2005) Mixed Tenure,

Twenty Years On: Nothing out of the ordinary. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Babbie, E. (2010) The Practice of Social Research (12th

edn). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Bailey, N. & Manzi, T. (2008) Developing and sustaining mixed tenure housing

developments. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Balchin, P. & Rhoden, M. (2002) Housing Policy: an introduction (4th

edn). London:

Routledge

Butler, T. (2007) Re-urbanizing London Docklands. International Journal of Urban and

regional Research, 31 (4) 759-781

Clifford, N., French, S. & Valentine, G. (2010) Key Methods in Geography. London:

SAGE

Cochrane, A. (2007) Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Approach. Oxford:

Blackwell

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2003) The value ofhousing design and layout. London: CABE

Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2009) Evaluation of the Mixed

Communities Initiative Demonstration Projects. London: CLG

Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2011a) Planning Policy Statement 3

(PPS3): Housing. London: CLG


46/59

45

Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2011b) Better Places By Design. London:

CLG

Department of the Environment Transport & the Regions (DETR) (1998) Circular

06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing. London: DETR

Department of the Environment Transport & the Regions (DETR) (2000) By Design.

London: DETR

Department of the Environment Transport & the Regions (DETR) (2000a)

Regeneration that Lasts. London: DETR

dRMM (2011) Wansey Street Housing, Projects, [Online] dRMM Architects, Available

From:

http://www.drmm.co.uk/dRMM/projects/by%20name/Wansey%20Street%20Housi

ng.html

Gehl, J. (2011) Life Between Buildings (6th

edn). London: Island Press

Goodchild, B. & Cole, I. (2001) Social Balance and mixed neighbourhoods on Britain

since 1979: a review of discourse and practice in social housing. Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space. 19 103-121

Greene, J., Caracelli, V. & Graham, W. (1989) Toward a Conceptual Framework for

Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11 (3)

255-274

Groves, R., Middleton, A., Maurie, A. & Broughton, K. (2003) Neighbourhoods that

work: A Study of the Bournville Estate. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation


47/59

46

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Michigan: Random

House

Johnson, R. & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004) Mixed Methods Research: A Research

Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher. 33 (7) 14-26

Joseph, M. & Chaskin, R (2009) Mixed-Income Development: Resident Perceptions of

the Benefits and Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago. Urban Studies. 47

(11) 2347-2366

Jupp, B. (1999) Living Together: Community life on mixed tenure estates. London:

Demos

Kleinhans, R. (2004) Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A

review of recent literature.Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 19 367-390

Larkham, P. (1998) Urban Morphology and Typology in the United Kingdom. In:

Attilio, P. (ed.) Typological Process and Design Theory. Cambridge, MA: Aga Khan

Program for Islamic Architecture

Longhurst, R. (2010) Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups, In: Clifford, N.,

French, S. & Valentine, G. (eds.) Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE

Marie, A. (1997) The social rented sector, housing and the welfare state in the UK.

Housing Studies. 12 (4) 437-461

Marie, A. & Rowlands, R (2008) The new politics of urban housing. Environment and

Planning C: Government and Policy. 26 644-659

Maxwell, J. & Loomis, D. (2003) Mixed Methods Design: An Alternative Approach. In:

Tashakkori, A. & Teddle, C. (Eds.) Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research.London: Sage


48/59


49/59


50/59

49

Tunstall, R. & Fenton, A. (2006) In the mix. A review of mixed income, mixed tenure

and mixed communities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Urban Task Force (UTF) (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of the

Urban Task Force. London: E & F N Spon

Yin, R. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th

edn). London: SAGE


51/59

50

Appendix 1 Original IGS Proposal

IGS PROPOSAL

Identification and justification of the research question.

This research aims to address the issue of social mixing on a new build, mixed tenure

housing development in which a design of integrated units has been adopted. The

contemporary literature discussed below identifies gaps in the current research on

mixed communities. The concept of social cohesion, integration, mixing and the

facilitation of these through physical implementation are prevalent in policy (CLG,

2009). 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. Limited to case

studies of largely segregated or segmented (Groves et al., 2003) developments,

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. The recently implemented approach of pepper

potted developments is becoming increasingly prevalent in planning and policy in

the UK, and so research into the extent of social mixing on these developments

would be of significant benefit (Roberts, 2007). 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.

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.


52/59


53/59

52

appeared to discourage anti-social behaviour and were desirable places to live.

However, in their case studies they found that owners and renters occupied differing

social networks and inter-tenure integration opportunities were limited. 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., 2003)

Jupp (1999) found that when street-level mixing occurred, opportunities for mixing,

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, more opportunities for social interaction are

available (Jupp, 1999; Groves et al., 2003 & Middleton et al., 2005).

Roberts (2007) uses this evidence, along side that collected from her own studies, 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, 2007). Research such asthis has led to the call for and development of flexible, pepper potted, integrated

tenure housing (Roberts, 2007), however research into the social mixing that occurs

in these new developments remains largely nonexistent. 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.

There is some evidence to support the provision of mixed tenure

communities but significant gaps remain in the evidence-base. (Bailey &

Manzi, 2008)

Although its claimed that the evidence base for mixed tenure communities is not as

unsubstantial as it seems (Kleinhans, 2004), there is a consistent call for 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. These

included the patterns of interaction between differing tenures and the modes of

encouragement or discouragement of interaction between differing tenure groups


54/59

53

and how this relates to design and management of developments (Bailey & Manzi,

2008). Kleinhans (2004) states that there is a need for further investigation into

neighbourhoods social capital and housing diversification. This is reflected by

Roberts (2007) who proposes further design-focused research into the extent to

which physical integration facilitates social interaction. Roberts (2007) also states

that as pepper potting has only recently been incorporated into mixed income new

communities, there is justification into research that assesses the benefits of

incorporating this orthodoxy.

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,

2008) but also that taking place in developed cities across Europe and North America

(Berube, 2005; Kempen & Bolt, 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, 2007).

A methodology proposal.

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. The proposed

study area is that of Wansey Street Housing in Southwark, London. This

development is described as a genuinely pepper-potted mix of accommodation

(dRMM, 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.

It would be appropriate to approach this research in an indicative manor, as

qualitative data will be preferable to statistical information in assessing the extent

and nature of social mixing (CABE, 2005). 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). Thereforeboth the architects and housing association or developer involved in the design and


55/59

54

construction will be approached for interviews regarding the context of the

development. 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, this could be done in a number of ways, two are

proposed for application; 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. The latter maybe more effective in

establishing initial trust between the residents and researcher (Longhurst, 2010).

Previous literature shows varying levels of success in the surveying of residents in

mixed communities. 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, 2010). Using previous research as a

guide to expected response it is likely that a participation rate of 30-70% percent

could be expected (Jupp, 1999; Allen et al., 2005; CABE, 2005), this would mean the

participation of roughly ten to twenty of the households in surveying through

interviews. The interviews would be undertaken on a face-to-face basis, initially

lasting around half an hour. The interviews will take a relatively structured format

(Longhurst, 2010), the questions will be defined and repeated with all interviews,

however there will be flexibility to pursue further routes of enquiry should the

appropriate situation manifest. The interviews will be structured into three key

areas of questioning, these will be;

- Initial profiling questions, age, gender, length of time in property etc.- Extent and nature of social interaction within the development, e.g. how

many people they know, extent of their relationship etc.

- Extent to which social networks have been influenced by the development,e.g. where they met others, facilities they utilise etc.

These areas have been defined after reviewing the surveys used by both public

organisations (CABE, 2005) and private researchers (Jupp, 1999; Allen et al., 2005;

Middleton et al., 2005). There may be scope to back up the initial interviews with a

supplementary interview in order to further lines of investigation that present


56/59


57/59


58/59

57

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003) Sustainable Communities:

Building the future. London: ODPM

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2005) Sustainable Communities:

People, Places and Prosperity. London: ODPM

Roberts, M. (2007) Sharing Space: Urban Design and Social Mixing in Mixed Income

New Communities. Planning Theory & Practice. 8 (2) 183-204

Rogers, R. (2005) Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. London: Urban Task Force

Southern Housing Group (SHG) (2010) Mixing Tenures [Online] Southern Housing

Group, Available from:

http://www.shgroup.org.uk/Documents/Building%20new%20homes/Projects/Mixin

g%20tenures.pdf


59/59

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. An application was sent to the

Geography, Gerontology and Social Care Workforce Unit Research Ethics Panel and is

documented as application KCL/10-11_1545.

Student Name: Stephen Revill

Student Signature: