Well-Behaved Owners and Troublesome Tenants? How Dense Social Mixing Shapes Housing Communities and Dispels Prejudices

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the kinds of boundaries laid by residents of mixed-tenure housing communities and how distinctions are rationalized. Based on interview data on a densely mixed community (both owner-occupied and social housing apartments mixed with stairwells) in Helsinki, Finland, I observe how residents outline their neighbourhood. Based on the analysis, urban anonymity was the most significant repertoire defining communal life, followed by others such as sense of home and fiscal prudence. In densely mixed settings, residents are forced to witness each other’s domestic life; thus, dense social mixing can prevent prejudices between tenure groups. The study results contribute to the understanding of cultural repertoires in hierarchical relationships vis-à-vis each other, creating varying contexts and defining the lived realities in communities. Empirically, the results question prevailing images of troublesome tenants and well-behaved owners.

KEYWORDS:

• Social mixing
• tenure
• urban anonymity
• boundary
• cultural repertoires

Introduction

Many cities now implement social mixing to prevent the accumulation of social problems. Nevertheless, mixing residents from diverse backgrounds is not always easy, as social mixing may accentuate varying boundaries amongst housing communities, causing friction amongst residents (Jackson and Butler 2015; Lawton 2013; Mäenpää 2007; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016). These boundaries are often based on cultural images of different tenures (Hiscock et al. 2001; Rakoff 1977; Somerville 1997).

Thus, to understand the conditions of social mixing, we need a better understanding of the cultural images attached to people with different tenure types. This paper focuses on so-called mixed-housing companies¹ where social rental housing and owner-occupied apartments are mixed on a micro-scale and within the same stairwells. This means that in practice, some neighbouring flats are owner-occupied, while others are subsidized social housing. These companies were formed as a trial in Ruoholahti, Helsinki, in the early 1990s. In urban studies, the term pepper-potting is often used to describe this kind of dense mixing (Camina and Wood 2009; Galster 2013). As mixing occurs within stairwells, residents are not necessarily able to distinguish their neighbours based on tenure, at least compared to mixing in separate buildings.

The model of the mixed-housing companies in Ruoholahti is quite exceptional due to the tight scale of mixing; however, there are no studies on these densely mixed communities. Therefore, mixed-housing companies offer a unique chance to observe micro-level boundary-making in situations where residents are unaware of each other’s tenure. Thus, in this paper, I will observe how mixed-housing residents outline their immediate neighbourhood and how these distinctions define the residents’ housing conditions. As analytical tools, I utilize the cultural sociological concepts of boundaries and repertoires, drawing on the works of Michèle Lamont, Virág Molnár and Ann Swidler (Lamont and Molnár 2002; Lamont and Swidler 2014; Swidler 1986).

In this paper I ask the following questions:

What kinds of boundaries do residents of mixed-housing environments erect?

What Kinds of Repertoires Do They Use to Rationalize These Boundaries?

In principle, tight social mixing may rupture tenure-based distinctions and discrimination and help build better-functioning communities. However, this cannot be taken as granted if residents find other ways to rationalize micro-level divisions. Observing local-level boundaries and repertoires allows us to better understand how this can happen and whether or not it can be avoided. Thus, we need to turn to tools from cultural sociological theorizing to understand how mundane distinctions and moral boundary-drawing around tenure types actually function.

As this paper looks at housing as a lived experience, another important conceptual reference point is the literature on the phenomenological sense of home. This literature emphasizes home as a place-bound culture layered through time (Duyvendak 2011; Kim and Smets 2020; Murcia, Eduardo, and Boccagni 2022).

The paper reads as follows. First, I present key theoretical concepts and discussions, followed by recent discussions around social mixing, the case, data, methods and theoretical concepts. The analysis is organized around the repertoires that the interviewees use to rationalize their local-level distinctions. The paper concludes with a discussion on the possibilities of tight social mixing for future urban planning. Due to the hierarchical nature of boundaries and repertoires, tight social mixing in urban environments can prevent local-level boundaries between tenure groups, as residents are forced to consider that the tendency to cause a nuisance or the ability to live by community rules and maintain urban anonymity are not dependent on tenure.

Social Boundaries and Their Justification

This paper utilizes the concepts of boundaries and repertoires as analytical tools. Symbolic boundaries are categorizations used to classify time, space, people and practices (Lamont and Molnár 2002). They can be built through speech, thoughts and the level of mundane encounters (see Barth 1998). These distinctions help people distinguish the unwanted from the desired (Douglas 1994). They are hierarchical in nature as they are used to consolidate the inner cohesion of groups as well as exclude those who do not belong to the group (see Weber 1968). Symbolic boundaries can be determined from the standpoints of morality, economic success or cultural sophistication. Social boundaries reflect these distinctions but are also consequences of the unequal division of material and non-material resources. Social boundaries are objectified forms of social distinctions, but both forms of boundaries should be viewed as equally real (Lamont and Molnár 2002), as they both define what is deemed valuable and what is not.

The analysis herein also pays attention to the ways in which these boundaries are negotiated through the personal toolkits and cultural repertoires of residents. Their varying backgrounds and viewpoints also create personal toolkits through which they operate in their mundane lives (Swidler 1986). Collisions of these toolkits require residents to negotiate the boundaries they build to organize communal life. In these negotiations, people use so-called cultural repertoires, understood in the context of this study as “filters” that people use to interpret the world around them and rationalize distinctions. These repertoires steer mundane social life and collective action (Berezin 1997; Tilly 2006). They are thoroughly cultural and structural, as they rest on collective understandings of identity, social ties and organizational forms (Tilly 2006, 42–43). However, neither culture nor these repertoires are stable systems that consistently steer action (Swidler 1986); there are, for example, political, societal and environmental changes that often shift repertoires (Tilly 2006). To sum up, repertoires allow people to act in ways that are intelligible to others.

Different repertoires create varying toolkits that people use to operate in their daily lives, and repertoires vary between people (Swidler 1986). Still, some boundaries are more powerful than others. Here, the term boundary work refers to the ways that people dispel boundaries or the ways in which “others” become “us.” A consideration of boundary work enables a more subtle analysis of boundaries. A focal question is whether these boundaries differ in terms of significance or rigidity (Lamont and Molnár 2002; Wimmer 2008).

In urban settings, dwelling owners tend to assume a hegemonic status (Arthurson 2002; Jackson and Butler 2015; Lawton 2013), usually interpreted by the owners’ investment in their dwelling. Social mixing is based on the idea that resettling better-off residents in less affluent areas guards against varying social problems and that residents with a lower socio-economic position will gain opportunities to learn from their neighbours. However, the latter reasoning is predicated on communication between residents. The important question is how the urban environment – which is based on categorizations and anonymity – affects this pattern.

Social Mixing in the Urban Sphere

Many global cities implement social housing to prevent spatial socio-economic segregation (Bolt, Phillips, and Van Kempen 2010). However, mixing residents from diverse backgrounds in the same housing community may not be easy: residents draw boundaries to define communities, which are used to consolidate internal group cohesion as well as distinguish those who are left out. Spatial structures such as streets, parks and schools may act as barriers or draw two parts of a neighbourhood together (Campbell et al. 2009). Thus, some cities have paid special attention to building unified urban environments in order to tackle such distinctions (Arthurson 2002; Bretherton and Pleace 2011; Camina and Wood 2009; Jones 2009). Previous research has also shown that planning public premises in a way that residents of different tenures can coexist may level off boundaries (Chaskin and Joseph 2013; Jackson and Butler 2015; Lawton 2013). Nevertheless, previous research has shown how tenure groups differ in terms of local attachment. Owners tend to spend less time in the domestic sphere, which weakens communication and neighbourhood relations (Arthurson 2002; Gehl 2011; Henriksen and Tjora 2014; Van Gent, Boterman, and van Grondelle 2016), although they might appreciate more superficial and passive but responsive communication (Van Eijk 2011). Another strategy is to form so-called “pockets of communities” (Atkinson and Kintrea 2000) based on shared interests, that is, shared tenures in mixed settings. Mixed-area residents may also live parallel lives if different resident groups live alongside each other but do not socialize (Pinkster 2013; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016; Van Beckhoven and van Kempen 2003).

Previous research has shown that residents make assumptions about each other’s way of living based on superficial encounters (Van Eijk 2011). These occasional encounters produce varying categorizations that residents utilize to make sense of their mundane environment (Garber 2000). However, due to the superficial nature of these meetings, residents do not personally know all their neighbours and might also be forced to lean on varying cultural ideas. These cultural ideas may not be based on actual experiences but may also be strengthened through the mass media and popular culture (Smets and Kusenbach 2020). Seeing other residents through categorizations is typical in urban environments, and classical urban scholars have recognized that the significance of personal ties has weakened due to increased density (Wirth 1938). As Simmel (2013 [1903]) wrote in his seminal essay, “The Metropolis and Mental life,” urban density creates a constant flow of altering sensory stimuli, and thus, it is no longer possible to be immersed in every detail of the environment. According to Simmel, being, sensing and belonging become less conscious. Thus, urban anonymity has made communal life impersonal and routinized. Cities offer anonymity for their residents, as personal matters are stripped from place-based boundaries (Garber 2000; Lofland 1973).

Neighbourhood communities are based on ideas around shared values and a consistent way of life (Campbell et al. 2009; Chaskin and Joseph 2013; Van Gent, Boterman, and van Grondelle 2016), but these foundations may be under threat in mixed-tenure housing communities where different tenures carry certain cultural connotations. For most owners, the apartment is the biggest economic commitment of their life, and thus, they are eager to protect their investment and maintain control over the housing environment (Hiscock et al. 2001; Rakoff 1977; Somerville 1997). However, tenants are not expected to be committed to their dwelling environment, and their attitude towards the housing community is assumed to be indifferent. Thus, tenancy is often associated with disorder and dirtiness. Mixed-tenure housing communities might be designed in a way that all decisions are made only between shareholders (Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016), which may strengthen prejudices towards tenants and create power asymmetries between different tenures (Graves 2010).

By drawing boundaries between resident groups, urban dwellers seek to both analyse their mundane environment and secure their sense of home. While the present-day urban environment produces anonymity and generality, the home has maintained its status as a place with a particular meaning (Duyvendak 2011; Somerville 1997). The phenomenological sense of home sees it as a lived and experienced place. According to this view, home represents stability, familiarity and permanence; it is a place for order and comfort (Duyvendak 2011; Kim and Smets 2020; Murcia, Eduardo, and Boccagni 2022). Duyvendak (2011) summarized these ideas by presenting the feeling of home as a place-bound culture. From this perspective, home is understood as something that includes residents’ intimate meanings and lived experiences, which are layered through time (Kim and Smets 2020; Murcia, Eduardo, and Boccagni 2022). Goffman (1963) compared home to the backstage of the theatre, as representing the most private sphere of one’s life. As home is such a personal space, which everyone organizes the way they wish and where people create their own way of being, disruptions and threats are easily noted and can act as the foundation for boundary-drawing.

To sum up, mixed-housing residents presumably differ on the basis of background, with some having sufficient means to purchase an apartment and others being entitled to means-tested rental accommodation. Based on the literature on mixed communities, differences in terms of background and local-level attachment may cause friction between tenure groups of mixed-housing companies in urban environments where neighbours are encountered superficially through varying categories. Conversely, architectural unity in housing communities may ease boundaries. However, mixed-housing companies present the tightest possible form of social mixing. Therefore, they offer a unique context to observe how tenure and class differences and the different cultural images often attached to different tenures affect mundane, local-level boundary-making. There is a dearth of research on the differences between small-scale social mixing and local-level boundary-making – the focus of this paper.

Data, Methods and the Case

This paper draws on interview data collected from the residents of the biggest mixed-housing company in Ruoholahti. The company has two crescent-shaped buildings, with a shared courtyard between them. The multi-storey buildings have altogether eight entrances and 171 apartments, roughly half of which are social housing rentals and the other half owner-occupied. The mixed-housing company differs from many other previously studied mixed communities in the sense that mixing happens within each stairwell. In other words, there are both tenants and owners in each of the eight stairwells, and they use the same entrance, stairs, lifts, pathways and refuse storage chambers. Conducting fieldwork in this environment provided a chance to see how the implementation of social mixing on the smallest possible scale affects the boundaries in the neighbourhood community. The fieldwork was conducted in this company as it is the biggest in the mixed-housing sector. I decided to focus on one company – though the biggest one – as I was interested in the residential community of such a densely mixed environment. I made no comparisons between the different mixed-housing companies as they were all in the same geographical location, though every company had their own courtyard, other common premises and their own government structures, including annual meetings and company boards. Nevertheless, this small study scale may present some limitations for the general applicability of the results.

Mixed-housing companies were built in the early 1990s as part of an experiment by politicians and city officials who were eager to try new models for social mixing. A total of seven companies with 948 apartments were built, all in Ruoholahti. The area is located by the sea, with direct links to the Helsinki city centre. Mixed-housing companies follow other “regular” housing companies as they were organized according to the limited liability company model. In practice, this means that apartment owners own their share of the housing company, and its governance is organized through the company’s annual meetings, where the shareholders make decisions regarding the maintenance of the premises and varying fiscal issues. The annual meeting also selects the company’s board, which takes care of common matters between the meetings. The rental apartment shares are owned by a limited liability company, fully owned by the City of Helsinki. These apartments belong to Helsinki’s municipal social housing programme and are granted on a means-tested basis. Thus, applicants’ incomes, wealth and current housing situation are considered. Tenants have their own annual meetings, where they choose two tenant representatives to sit on the company board. However, they do not have access to the annual meeting, despite this being the company’s highest decision-making body, potentially heightening the juxtaposition between tenures (Graves 2010; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016).

The owner-occupied apartments fall under Helsinki’s municipal price control system, which means that public authorities determine the highest possible selling price for the first 30 years. The company where the data were collected was built in the early 1990s, which means that the restrictions will soon be lifted. Therefore, a large number of owner-occupied apartments will be in private rental use, as there will be opportunities for notable capital gains once the apartments are no longer under price control.

No new mixed-housing companies have emerged after the area in Ruoholahti was completed in the late 1990s. According to some city officials interviewed here, the City of Helsinki is hesitant to build new mixed-housing companies because they are perceived as demanding to govern. City officials have been more willing to use the model of mixed housing blocks in newer areas where different tenures share the courtyard but cannot access other buildings.

The interviews were conducted during 2016–2018² and included 21 residents,³ of which 15 were owners and six were tenants living in social housing rental apartments. The main study interest lay in the experiences of the owners, as previous research has shown how owners’ economic commitment towards housing makes them more critical (Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016) and how accumulated assets enable them to leave an undesired area (Cheshire 2007; Hiscock et al. 2001; Pinkster 2013; Pinkster, Permentier, and Wittebrood 2014). Considering the ways in which owners arrange their housing environment can provide insights into alternative mixing solutions. Against this backdrop, a number of tenants were also interviewed to complement the data. The interviewees were recruited by (1) attending the housing company’s annual meeting in two subsequent springs, (2) distributing leaflets to the apartments and (3) spending time in the company’s courtyard and speaking to people passing by.

Fourteen interviewees were women and seven men. Three interviewees had children living with them, and four had raised their now adult children in the company. Six interviewees lived alone. They ranged in age between their 20s and 70s. Twelve interviewees had a tertiary degree, and their occupational positions varied from porter to diplomat. Eight were original residents who had moved in straight after the building was completed in 1995, while others had moved in over the years. The majority of the interviews took place at the homes of the interviewees, two were organized at the university, three at the local library and one at the local fast-food restaurant. There were 20 individual and one couple interviews. The interviews lasted between 23 and 51 minutes, most lasting around 45 minutes. They were recorded and transcribed.

The interviews began with questions about the common premises, residential activities and the interviewee’s use and participation in them. This was followed by questions about the neighbours and how the interviewee interacted with them. The interviews ended with questions on the interviewee’s wider social networks and time use.

In addition to the research interviews, three expert interviews were conducted to gain background information on the mixed housing. One expert was an urban studies scholar, who followed the planning phase of the mixed-housing companies, and one was a politician from the Helsinki city council and board for urban planning at the time the companies were planned and built. They were interviewed to gain supplementary information about the background of mixed-housing companies. The third expert was a director of housing issues at the Helsinki city office. This expert was interviewed to widen my knowledge on varying social mixing implementations in Helsinki and plans for the future.

The data analysis focused on the boundaries that the mixed-housing residents expressed in relation to each other and the repertoires used to rationalize these distinctions. First, I coded the interviewees’ descriptions of themselves and their neighbours to determine the kinds of distinctions and conceptualizations they made. In the second coding round, I paid attention to the cultural repertoires the interviewees used to rationalize and justify boundaries and considered the moralities entailed in these characterizations (Lamont and Swidler 2014). Based on this coding, I was able to see how the interviewees rationalized these distinctions, which could be subsumed under the sociological understanding of urban anonymity and the phenomenological sense of home. Thus, the first analysis chapter focuses on residents’ aspiration towards urban anonymity and the second on homemaking. The interviewees also recognized the cultural prejudices attached to different tenures, but as the analysis shows, tenure was not instrumental in defining the community.

Urban Anonymity Meets Fiscal Prudence

During the data collection, I attended the company’s annual meeting twice (in 2016 and 2017). A handful of attendees participated in these meetings: a small minority of the company’s shareholders. This is surprising, as previous studies have found that the company’s annual meetings are the principal forum for collective decision-making (Rakoff 1977; Roberts 1989; Somerville 1997; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016). The data revealed that the interviewees found the culture and code of conduct at these meetings off-putting, which made them stay away. They attributed their non-participation mainly to the atmosphere in the meetings, which was perceived as odd and strained. Heikki, a middle-aged man and homeowner, explained the company’s situation as follows: “the atmosphere of the company is not the best possible, as there is friction between the company board and other owners.” Heikki described how the majority of the board members lived in the second of the company’s two buildings. Leena, an elderly woman and homeowner, said that another part of the company secured its position of power by collecting proxies in order to get their ideas through. The interviewees saw such behaviour as off-putting, as it seemed to emphasize personal relations and interests. Leena explained how the heads of the company “hold themselves as the better side of the company” and how the board “has put seasonal lighting only into their end of the yard.” Leena, amongst others, corroborated some of the spatial distinctions reported in previous studies (Campbell et al. 2009; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016). Even the two buildings did not differ based on aesthetics or residential composition; the spatial setting made it possible to draw a boundary between the residents of the two buildings.

These negative images made the interviewees hesitant to take part in the common activities and decision-making. As Heikki put it, he “had no time or interest to fight in the meetings.” The interviewees complained that the board was only willing to further their own ideas. Lempi, an elderly woman and homeowner, complained that “the board made mocking comments when someone misunderstood something in the meetings or when they did not support other residents’ ideas for community development.” Nevertheless, the interviewees had not actively pursued their rights, even though they mentioned certain events they had perceived as unjust. As a result of this non-participation, they were unaware of common issues in the company.

Maire, an elderly woman and homeowner, described that “there has been no discussion on the radiator renovation” and that, therefore, she “had no idea why renovations are done.” Still, Maire had not attended the company’s annual meetings “due to her busy work situation.” Lempi also explained how the company board authorized an eaves renovation without a competitive tendering, even if, as she claimed, it was “the most expensive renovation the company had ever done.” These examples demonstrate that by staying away from company meetings, the homeowners forfeited their chances to control the company’s fiscal prudence (cf. Hiscock et al. 2001; Rakoff 1977; Roberts 1989; Somerville 1997).

This non-participation was also evident in the company’s other activities. The interviewees stated that the company had not held communal work bees (Finnish “talkoot”) for years, even though these are common in Finnish housing companies for keeping yards and common premises tidy. Anna, a young mother and homeowner, said the following:

… but maybe it shows that it may be difficult to organize that communal activity, for example, communal work bees, as I’ve understood, are not much of interest to the rental tenants. Well, this is only a general assumption, but they may not feel like coming and taking part in a big housing company like ours, but then again, you don’t see too many of the owners there either. Maybe that’s because this is such a big building […] Personally, I’ve seen it as a positive thing, that it may even be fun. So maybe it may not be that obvious that you can have people with different incomes or in different situations.

Anna’s comment shows that she recognized the cultural stereotypes that are often attached to different tenures (cf. Raynor et al. 2020; Ruonavaara 1996), but she was not aware that tenants were less committed or participative. Instead, she cited the company’s size and the great number of residents. As she mentioned, living in a densely populated environment facilitates the maintenance of anonymity, which is at the core of the urban realm. Nevertheless, it seems that other interviewees also appreciated this aspect of anonymity in their choice of dwelling but perceived board members as breaking this code. Tarja, a middle-aged homeowner, described that she no longer participated in the courtyard cleaning because of “the feeling of being like an outsider,” as she “did not belong to the housing company’s core group.” Most interviewees felt that the recent company boards had paid too much attention to their personal interests and relations, attributes that are commonly attached to small-town-like communities as opposed to the urban way of living (Wirth 1938). The interviewees appreciated the anonymity provided by a large densely populated housing company. As Elisabet, an elderly homeowner, put it:

This is a suitably big housing company for me, so I can kind of be here anonymously enough, but not feeling lonely in any way, or not having people talk to me or that I couldn’t turn to someone if needed.

The interviewees were willing to apply this same benevolent but distant manner when dealing with common issues in the company. They did not avoid neighbours in particular but were willing to encounter them on an impersonal level or when necessary. From this perspective, varying occupation-based qualities are important. Lempi described how she sponsored a certain neighbour for the company board but “only because this neighbour is a real-estate professional.” To support the desired development of professionalization, the company hired an external professional chairperson to the board, which is quite uncommon for Finnish housing companies. Based on the comments, the professional chairperson was perceived as a neutral outsider whose expertise the interviewees relied on. This also minimized the need for morally charged debates between residents (see Baumgartner 1989), therefore raising some interviewees’ hopes for new modes for governance. Lempi, for example, was pleased with the situation and had “decided to go to the meeting next spring,” as she was “interested in the company’s long-term maintenance plan.”

The interviews revealed the interviewees’ cognizance of the fiscal prudence relating to ownership. Nevertheless, unlike previous research results (Mäenpää 2007; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016; Verkasalo 2010), in general, they did not draw boundaries based on higher levels of fiscal prudence amongst owners. The only exception was Tarja, who complained that “a tenant neighbour too eagerly calls for maintenance services for the premises, as she does not understand how us owners are the ones who pay the bills.” Still, even Tarja hesitated to participate in activities, due to the lack of interest.

A number of interviewees mentioned that the anonymity offered by the dense urban environment was one of the best characteristics of their present dwelling situation. They did not elaborate on the point, but aspirations towards anonymity were evident in their concrete actions. They did not necessarily avoid taking part in communal decision-making and activities but maintained suitable anonymity and social distance, which set the frames for action. This means that there were two competing repertoires, with fiscal prudence being subordinate to urban anonymity. The interviewees were willing to participate in the company’s activities but only if this did not require overly close contacts with neighbours. They were willing to distinguish personal matters from local relations (cf. Garber 2000; Lofland 1973). All interviewees had active social lives; however, this was distinct from place-bound relations, with local-level bonds remaining superficial (cf. Camina and Wood 2009).

The above suggests that fiscal prudence and urban anonymity were competing against each other as repertoires used by the residents to justify neighbourhood-level boundary-making; however, urban anonymity showed stronger currents. Maintaining urban anonymity was a precondition for residential participation; thus, the interviewees deemed it important that all residents are treated equally and that personal ties had no place when dealing with common issues. As the interviewees perceived that these preconditions were not fulfilled, they stepped back from residential activities. When owners are not interested in participating in the company’s decision-making, there is no power imbalance between tenure groups (Graves 2010). Due to the loose nature of the community, residents lived parallel lives alongside each other (Van Beckhoven and van Kempen 2003). Together, these factors prevented boundaries from forming between the tenure groups.

Securing Home

These mixed-housing residents were therefore not socially attached to their neighbourhood and were willing to keep personal matters separate from the local housing community. Following the repertoire of urban anonymity, the residents were not willing to pay attention to every detail in their housing environment, and the local environment was structured through categories, a typical feature of urban environments (Garber 2000). Due to the importance of urban anonymity, the interviewees drew a boundary separating those who were unable to keep a suitable social distance. Unlike previous studies (Hiscock et al. 2001; Mäenpää 2007; Rakoff 1977; Somerville 1997; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016), in this study, fiscal prudence did not appear as an important factor outlining the local community; therefore, it created no boundary between the tenure groups. However, this does not mean that the residents had no opinions about how people should live in their community.

While the interviewees were not keen on paying attention to the details in their housing environment, some of them did mention the dirtiness of the common premises. Outi, an elderly homeowner, mentioned that she was “shocked by the disorder of the stairwell.” Maire, who lived in a different stairwell to Outi, mentioned that there had been discussions about whether their “stairwell was filthier than others because of the biggest quota of tenants,” but Maire did not believe this. Nevertheless, these comments show that some interviewees did recognize some of the issues in their immediate surroundings that disrupted their desired way of being. The complaints also included varying distractions, such as loud voices or smells carried from one apartment to another. Kata, a homeowner and mother in her 30s, complained about neighbours who caused disturbances at night-time:

Well, I’m not sure I even knew for many years that we have this kind of mix here, that I would not personally think about it from a negative viewpoint. We’ve had more trouble from owners. Then on this floor, we’ve had some noise issues, but not from tenants, let’s say. But yes, even that issue has been fixed. We had some differences about noise levels with some of the residents. There was some noise during nights and evenings, but that situation has now calmed down.

Distractions, such as the noise issues mentioned above, made the interviewees aware of the neighbours’ lives, which disrupted their domestic life in a way that, according to previous studies, lessened the home’s role as a place for resting and social recreation (Duyvendak 2011; Stokoe 2006). In other words, the interviewees’ desired way of being at home was restricted due to nuisances. It is clear that the interviewees tended to recognize common cultural prejudices attached to different tenures, including the assumption that tenants cause trouble (cf. Hiscock et al. 2001; Rakoff 1977; Somerville 1997). Nevertheless, the interviewees did not share these ideas. In fact, they denied any correlation between tenure type and troublemaking. Elisabet, for example, mentioned that “on the sixth floor, there’s a family, they are not tenants, but I have heard yelling at the stairway, like ‘help, help’, and then I called the police.”

These comments further defined the social order of the community: owners were expected to behave in a decent manner by default and were seen as those meant to define the standards for communal living. Tenants were approved of if they were able to follow these standards. Maire described the situation between the tenure groups as follows:

But then most of those tenants – well, first, I have never specifically asked anyone if they live in a rental or their own apartment – but about the tenants, most of the tenants have lived here for a long time, so their apartments are kind of like their own then.

The interviewees’ statements were similar to those in previous studies (Duyvendak 2011; Hiscock et al. 2001), and the length of tenure was a significant factor in predicting one’s ability to follow the shared norms of the housing company. Due to the forthcoming termination of price control measures, a small share of the rental apartments were in private rental use, especially short-term rentals such as Airbnb. The interviewees were especially annoyed by the temporary residents in these apartments. Outi, for example, mentioned that there had been “indefinable noise” but that the people causing this were “from short-term rental apartments and not permanent residents.” Lempi also complained about how “residents changed quite often downstairs” and how “they partied all night long,” which meant that she could not sleep and has had to call the police.

The interviewees drew parallels between long-term housing and the ability to follow the community’s shared rules, both of which were characteristics usually associated with ownership and commitment (Duyvendak 2011; Hiscock et al. 2001; Ruonavaara 1996; Somerville 1997). Still, life in a densely mixed housing company showed that the type of tenure did not seem to play an important role in the way the interviewees saw the longer-term tenants respecting the rules of the housing company and committing to the community. This might have been unexpected for the interviewees, as they mentioned only the tenure of troublemakers who behaved contrary to expectations. They also mentioned information about troublemakers’ social standing only if their status was considered good. Martti, an elderly male homeowner, provided an anecdote on his former neighbour:

Once we had a man living downstairs, a professor of law from Turku, who was here for a little while, and he had a piano, and he played the piano, and then he had a powerful voice and he sang. So some people found it disturbed them, but we didn’t.

Martti’s comment summarizes many important points regarding the social boundaries in mixed-housing companies. First, the interviewees’ willingness to follow the patterns of urban anonymity created relatively simple frames for communal life. Urban anonymity creates a setting where aspirations towards a secure sense of home (Duyvendak 2011) become the most notable factor in defining social life in mixed-housing companies. The interviewees set up strong moral boundaries against those who interrupted their way of being or who made neighbours aware of their domestic life. This also shows how the interviewees understood the different layers of their domestic space (cf. Kim and Smets 2020; Murcia, Eduardo, and Boccagni 2022). For them, the apartment itself was the core of home, organized according to their personal wishes and what they wanted to secure. They were not that interested in using the company’s common premises, as this would require negotiations and communication with other residents. Last, all interviewees reported having a vibrant social life that went beyond the home’s immediate surroundings. This means that even though the home was an important place for resting and caring, the neighbourhood was not their primary community. Second, in the comments about troublemakers, the interviewees highlighted similar prejudices regarding assumptions about the connections between lifestyle and tenure, similar to previous research on mixed communities (Graves 2010; Hiscock et al. 2001; Lofland 1973; Rakoff 1977; Ruonavaara 1996; Somerville 1997; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016; Viirkorpi 1986). Third, tight social mixing made residents realize that the tendency to cause interruptions did not depend on troublemakers’ social standing (cf. Galster 2012; Jupp, Sainsbury, and Akers-Douglas 1999).

In the context of the housing company, apartments can be seen as presenting the backstage of residents’ life or places where most personal matters are brought to life (cf. Goffman 1963). As the company was mixed according to the pepper-potting technique (cf. Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016), the residents were forced into frequent encounters in the shared premises and to witness neighbours’ domestic life. Thus, they became aware that both tenure groups consisted of those who lived according to community rules and those who did not. The interviewees drew moral boundaries against neighbours who interrupted their domestic life. Due to the tight mix, these troublemakers were seen as individuals. The interviewees were cognizant of the cultural prejudices often attached to tenancy, although boundaries were not drawn around them. Aspirations towards a secure sense of home were deemed a more important repertoire in defining a desired housing environment, and thus, the interviewees did not draw boundaries based on tenure. They rationalized this non-boundary by explaining that the length of the residency impacted the ability to live according to community rules. The characteristics of permanency and stability are often associated both with ownership and a sense of home (Duyvendak 2011; Somerville 1997). Still, here, a mundane life meant that a majority of the social housing tenants had lived in the company for some time. Some interviewees mentioned how short-term tenants living in Airbnb and other private rental apartments caused trouble. Nonetheless, the boundary against short-term residents did not appear so significant as to affect their general dwelling patterns.

The aspiration regarding sense of home was used as the rationale for boundary-making also by the small minority of interviewees who were against social mixing. Anneli, an elderly woman and home-owner, complained about several privately rented apartments and how tenants living in those had caused trouble:

There were loud voices, like some animal screaming, and after that there was music that lasted until quarter past ten, and after that there was silence.

According to Anneli, these noises were caused by Muslims’ call to prayer and social life that took place after the hour of the prayer. Anneli was not alone in her views, but almost all interviewees drew a boundary between “us Finns” and “those foreigners” with racist comments⁴ (Haapajärvi, Juvenius, and Junnilainen 2020). Even though, according to Anneli, the situation had been resolved after some discussions with the neighbours, she saw these issues as discriminating against tenants as an entity. Tarja, another interviewee, complained about a family living in the same stairwell: “it is completely clear for owners that there must be silence after 10:00 p.m., but not for tenants, they have doors banging all night long.” For these hesitant interviewees, the cultural boundary against tenants was so strong that the violations of their sense of home strengthened their prejudices. Following such logics, tenants living in a manner deemed appropriate were seen as exceptions: Tarja mentioned that “there is a wise couple living on our floor; it is a rental apartment, but they are really quiet in there.”

Results and Discussion

The interviewed mixed-housing residents drew moral boundaries that distinguished their neighbours. Nevertheless, unlike reports in previous studies of other densely mixed settings (Arthurson 2002; Atkinson and Kintrea 2000; Gehl 2011; Henriksen and Tjora 2014; Mäenpää 2007; Pinkster 2013; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016; Van Beckhoven and van Kempen 2003; Van Gent, Boterman, and van Grondelle 2016), none of these boundaries turned into social boundaries that excluded groups of residents from residential activities or certain parts of the company’s premises.

The residents drew boundaries between the two buildings, even though they appeared identical and had a similar residential composition. Unlike previous studies (Arthurson 2002; Bretherton and Pleace 2011; Camina and Wood 2009; Jones 2009), this similarity in building composition did not prevent micro-level boundary-making in Ruoholahti. Instead, in this mixed-housing company, boundaries were built through encounters intended for residential activities. Based on the interviews, the company’s annual meetings were the only place where residents from both buildings encountered each other. The interviewees found that the situation in the company’s annual meetings was so strained due the off-putting behaviour by proxy-collecting neighbours from the other building that this turned into a symbolic moral boundary. The interviewees felt that bringing personal interests into the company’s shared matters broke the code of urban anonymity, which was seen as the most important aspect of neighbourhood sociality. Aspirations towards securing a sense of urban anonymity were shown to be even more important than securing the fiscal prudence often attached to ownership (cf. Hiscock et al. 2001; Rakoff 1977; Somerville 1997). Urban anonymity also created the frames for the interviewees’ conceptualizations of the phenomenological sense of home.

The analysis showed that the mixed-housing residents of Ruoholahti had a similar appreciation for urban anonymity, which has been found in previous studies (e.g. Garber 2000; Lofland 1973): no one wants to witness their neighbours’ domestic life through voices, smells, litter or antisocial behaviour. However, unlike previous assumptions in the literature (Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016; Van Eijk 2011) or the planning documents of mixed-housing companies (Viirkorpi 1986), there were no differences in lifestyle between the two tenure groups. This means that the old ideas regarding decent-behaving owners and troublemaking tenants need to be updated at the level of both public discussion and urban planning. The study results showed that the length of tenure was more important in determining how others perceived one’s ability to live according to community rules; This suggests that in seeking to build cohesive housing areas, emphasis should be on supporting possibilities for long-term residency.

Although there are altogether seven mixed-housing companies in Ruoholahti, this article focused only on one. However, the results might be useful in planning densely mixed urban environments. In the interviews, and like in previous studies, emphasis was placed on the owners (Cheshire 2007; Hiscock et al. 2001; Pinkster 2013; Pinkster, Permentier, and Wittebrood 2014; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2016); however, people’s willingness to stay in mixed-housing environments is crucial for successful social mixing. There is also a need for further studies on tenants’ contentedness; moreover, implementing urban planning according to residents’ wishes lowers the cultural boundary between tenures.

Theoretically, the results points to ways in which repertoires are used to rationalize varying boundaries. In the case of mixed-housing companies, aspiration for urban anonymity was found to be the most important boundary. This repertoire set frames both for the sense of home and communal being. However, tenure-based boundaries are erected on the level of mundane encounters. In this context, mixed-housing community residents are forced to witness each other’s domestic life, forcing them to abandon cultural prejudices often attached to different tenures (see, e.g. Smets and Kusenbach 2020). Based on the interviewees’ ways of speaking about the community, it was clear that they recognized these images. It was also clear that the owners were seen as the ones defining the rules for communal life. However, in densely mixed communities, the ability to live according to community rules did not depend on a neighbour’s tenure; this required the highest possible level of mixing. If different tenures had been separated into different stairwells, the prejudices expressed by the interviewees could have morphed into symbolic or even social boundaries. Thus, it could be worth trying to implement more densely mixed communities in urban areas. Most importantly, the results show that different repertoires create varying contexts. Understanding these repertoires and their hierarchical nature is crucial for successful urban planning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. In Finland, even social housing is arranged through limited liability companies, often the size of a single or few adjacent buildings. Thus, I use the term “company” to describe my research field.

2. Data for this article were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have changed people’s dwelling patterns. However, as in the case of this article, urban anonymity and not spending time with your neighbours turned out to be one of the most notable factors defining the community, so the study results remain relevant.

3. The interviewees were assigned pseudonyms to ensure their anonymity.

4. This paper focuses on boundary-making in tight social mixing, but as ethnicity become another interesting topic during the interviews, we wrote another piece focusing ton ethnic boundary-making (Haapajärvi, Juvenius, and Junnilainen 2020).