![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Drawing on Wellman's classic “Community Question” this paper offers a theoretical framework with which to examine contemporary community formation and the doctrine of social mix, which finds form in the renewal of stigmatized public housing estates in Australia and the United Kingdom. Proponents of “social mix” argue that geographic propinquity of social groups “elevates” lower‐class values through contact with more affluent residents, providing them with greater access to social capital, employment opportunities and other resources. The Community Question incorporates three perspectives: Community Lost, Community Saved and Community Liberated. Where both the Lost and Saved perspectives examine community from the position of geographical propinquity, the Liberated perspective inquires directly into the structure and network of primary ties, finding that most social ties are not dense, tightly bounded solidarities but sparse, loosely bounded networks. Thus community is “liberated” from being restricted to interpersonal affiliations based on geographic propinquity alone. Three interrelated aspects which give viability to the “liberated community” are discussed: the production of social space, the principle of homophily, and the influence of communicative technology. The latter is examined through the “new mobilities paradigm” which emphasizes differential access to mobilities resources. The paper concludes by probing the implications for policies of “social mix” underpinned by sedentarist notions of community which normalize stability, meaning and place rather than dynamic networks in social space. It does this with reference to public housing regeneration programs in Australia, which rest on the doctrine of social mix to promote positive interactions between disparate residential groups.