Urban regeneration and tenure mix: exploring the dynamics of neighbour interactions

References

• Abrams, P., & Bulmer, M. (1986) Neighbours: The Work of Philip Abrams (Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge).
   Google Scholar
• Allen, C., Camina, M., Casey, R., Coward, S., & Wood, M. (2005) Mixed Tenure, Twenty Years on - Nothing Out of the Ordinary. (Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation).
   Google Scholar
• Arthurson, K. (2010a) Operationalising social mix: Spatial scale, lifestyle and stigma as mediating points in resident interaction, Urban Policy and Research, 28(1), pp. 49–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthurson, K. (2010b) Questioning the rhetoric of social mix as a tool for planning social inclusion, Urban Policy and Research, 28(2), pp. 225–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthurson, K. (2013) Mixed tenure communities and the effects on neighbourhood reputation and stigma: Residents’ experiences from within, Cities, 35, pp. 432–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. (2005) Neighbourhoods and the impacts of social mix: Crime, tenure diversification and assisted mobility, ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research. Available at http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/wp-content/uploads//2011/06/Atkinson-2005-Nhoods-and-Impacts-of-Social-Mix.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R., & Kintrea, K. (2000) Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts, Policy & Politics, 28(1), pp. 93–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey, N., & Manzi, T. (2008) Developing and sustaining mixed tenure housing developments, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/2295.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beekman, T., Lyons, F., & Scott, J. (2001) Improving the Understanding of the Influence of Owner Occupiers in Mixed Tenure Neighbourhoods (Edinburgh: ODS Ltd. for Scottish Homes).
   Google Scholar
• Blokland-Potters, T. (2017) Community as Urban Practice (Malden, MA: Polity Press).
   Google Scholar
• Bolt, G., & Van Kempen, R. (2011) Successful mixing? Effects of urban restructuring policies in dutch neighbourhoods, Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 102(3), pp. 361–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1989) Social space and symbolic power, Sociological Theory, 7(1), p. 14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camina, M. M., & Wood, M. J. (2009) Parallel lives: Towards a greater understanding of what mixed communities can offer, Urban Studies, 46(2), pp. 459–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantle, T. (2001) Community Cohesion. A Report of the Independent Review Team Chaired by Ted Cantle (London: Home Office).
   Google Scholar
• Carter, H. (2008) Building the divided city: Race, class and social housing in Southwark, 1945–1995, The London Journal, 33(2), pp. 155–185.
   Google Scholar
• Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (2011) Social interaction in mixed-income developments: Relational expectations and emerging reality, Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(2), pp. 209–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheshire, P. (2007) Are mixed communities the answer to segregation and poverty? Available at http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/are-mixed-communities-answer-segregation-and-poverty (accessed 31 October 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Cheshire, P. (2009) Policies for mixed communities: Faith-based displacement activity? International Regional Science Review, 32(3), pp. 343–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheshire, L., Walters, P., & Rosenblatt, T. (2010) The politics of housing consumption: Renters as flawed consumers on a master planned estate, Urban Studies, 47(12), pp. 2597–2614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, I., & Goodchild, B. (2000) Social mix and the ‘balanced community’ in British housing policy–a tale of two epochs, GeoJournal, 51(4), pp. 351–360.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, A. (1984) Design Influences in Blocks of Flats. The Geographical Journal, 150(3), pp. 351–358.
   Google Scholar
• Colomb, C. (2011) Urban regeneration and policies of “social mixing” in British cities: A critical assessment, ACE: Architecture, City and Environment = Arquitectura, Ciudad y Entorno [En Línea], VI(17), pp. 223–244.
   Google Scholar
• Darcy, M. (2010) De-concentration of disadvantage and mixed income housing: A critical discourse approach, Housing, Theory and Society, 27(1), pp. 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR] (2000) Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (London: DETR).
   Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG] (2015) English Housing Survey. Households 2013-2014 (London: Department for Communities and Local Government).
   Google Scholar
• Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [DTLGR] & Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment [CABE] (2001) By design: Better places to live: A companion guide to PPG3 (Tonbridge: Thomas Telford).
   Google Scholar
• Department of the Environment (DoE) (1994) Bidding Guidance: A guide to funding from the Single Regeneration Budget, April.
   Google Scholar
• de Souza Briggs X. (1997) Moving upversus moving out: Neighborhood effects in housing mobility programs. HousingPolicy Debate 8(1) pp. 195–234.
   Google Scholar
• DiPrete, T. A., Gelman, A., McCormick, T., Teitler, J., & Zheng, T. (2011) Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust, American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), pp. 1234–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood, Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2125–2143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goss, S. (1986) Local Labour and Local Government: A Study of Changing Interests, Politics, and Policy in Southwark 1919-1982 (PhD). University of Sussex. Available at www.ethos.bl.uk.
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973) The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp. 1360–1380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gwyther, G. (2011) New Mobilities and the Formation and Maintenance of the Personal Communities of Social Housing Residents, Urban Policy and Research, 29(1), pp. 73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helderman, A. C., Mulder, C. H., & Van Ham, M. (2004) The changing effect of home ownership on residential mobility in the Netherlands, 1980-98, Housing Studies, 19(4), pp. 601–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henning, C., & Lieberg, M. (1996) Strong ties or weak ties? Neighbourhood networks in a new perspective, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 13(1), pp. 3–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hipp, J. R. (2009) Specifying the determinants of neighborhood satisfaction: A robust assessment in 24 metropolitan areas, Social Forces, 88(1), pp. 395–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulse K. & Milligan V. (2014) Secure Occupancy: A New Framework for Analysing Security in Rental Housing. HousingStudies., 29(5) pp. 638–656.
   Google Scholar
• Janowitz, M. (1952) The Community Press in an Urban Setting. The Social Element of Urbanism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
   Google Scholar
• Jupp, B. (1999) Living Together: Community Life on Mixed Housing Estates (London: Demos).
   Google Scholar
• Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2000) Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance, Urban Studies, 37(5–6), pp. 995–1017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearns A. McKee M. Sautkina E. Weeks G. & Bond L. (2013) Mixed-Tenure Orthodoxy: Practitioner Reflections on Policy Effects. Cityscape, 15(2) pp. 47–67.
   Google Scholar
• Kearns, A., & Mason, P. (2007) Mixed tenure communities and neighbourhood quality, Housing Studies, 22(5), pp. 661–691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearns, A., McKee, M., Sautkina, E., Weeks, G. & Bond, L. (2013) Mixed-Tenure Orthodoxy: Practitioner Reflections on Policy Effects. Cityscape 15(2), pp. 47–67.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, S. (1968) The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective (New York: Random House).
   Google Scholar
• Kilburn, D. (2013) Together, Apart? Situating Social Relations and Housing Provision in the Everyday Life of New-Build Mixed-Tenure Housing Developments (London: London School of Economics).
   Google Scholar
• Kleit, R. G., & Carnegie, N. B. (2011) Integrated or isolated? The impact of public housing redevelopment on social network homophily, Social Networks, 33(2), pp. 152–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusenbach, M. (2006) Patterns of neighboring: Practicing community in the parochial realm, Symbolic interaction, 29(3), pp. 279–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, D. K., McDade, Z., & Bertumen, K. (2013) Mixed-income living: Anticipated and realized benefits for low-income households, Cityscape, 15(2), pp. 15–28.
   Google Scholar
• Louch, H. (2000) Personal network integration: Transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations, Social Networks, 22(1), pp. 45–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malpass, P. (1992) Housing policy and the disabling of local authorities. In Housing policy in the 1990s (pp. 10–28) (London; New York: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Malpass P. (2004) Fifty Years of British Housing Policy: Leaving or Leading the Welfare State? 4(2) pp. 209–227.
   Google Scholar
• Malpass, P., & Murie, A. (1999) Housing Policy and Practice (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
   Google Scholar
• Mann, P. H. (1954) The concept of neighborliness, American Journal of Sociology, 60(2), pp. 163–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markovich, J. (2015) ‘They Seem to Divide Us’: Social mix and inclusion in two traditional urbanist communities, Housing Studies, 30(1), pp. 139–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks, Annual Review of Sociology, 27(2001), pp. 415–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGahan, P. (1972) The neighbor role and neighboring in a highly urban area, The Sociological Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 397–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mixed Communities Evaluation Project Team [MCEPT] (2010) Evaluation of the Mixed Communities Initiative: Demonstration Projects - Final Report (London: DCLG).
   Google Scholar
• Mollenhorst, G., Völker, B., & Flap, H. (2008) Social contexts and personal relationships: The effect of meeting opportunities on similarity for relationships of different strength, Social Networks, 30(1), pp. 60–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musterd, S., & Andersson, R. (2005) Housing mix, social mix, and social opportunities, Urban affairs review, 40(6), pp. 761–790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics [ONS] (2011) 2011 Census: KS402EW Tenure, Area: Southwark (Local Authority), [computer file] NOMIS Official Labour Statistics. Available at https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/key_statistics_uk (accessed 3 June 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM] (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (p. 72). London: HMSO. Available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000) Measuring social capital in five communities, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1), pp. 23–42.
   Google Scholar
• Painter, J. (2012) The politics of the neighbour, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(3), pp. 515–533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peckham Partnership. (1994) A Bid for Single Regeneration Budget Funding (London: Southwark Council).
   Google Scholar
• Pinto, R. R. (1993) An analysis of the impact of estate action schemes, Local Government Studies, 19(1), pp. 37–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priemus, H., & van Kempen, R. (1999) Policy and practice restructuring urban neighbourhoods in the Netherlands: Four birds with one stone, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 14(4), pp. 403–412.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital, Journal of Democracy, 6(1), pp. 65–78.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. (1996, March 20). Who killed civic America? Prospect Magazine. Available at http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/1996/03/whokilledcivicamerica/
   Google Scholar
• Rollwagen, H. (2015) Constructing renters as a threat to neighbourhood safety, Housing Studies, 30(1), pp. 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, D., Germain, A., Bacqué, M.-H., Bridge, G., Fijalkow, Y., & Slater, T. (2012) ‘Social mix’ and neighbourhood revitalization in a transatlantic perspective: Comparing local policy discourses and expectations in Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montréal (Canada), International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), pp. 430–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkissian, W. (1976) The idea of social mix in town planning: An historical review, Urban Studies, 13(3), pp. 231–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Social Exclusion Unit [SEU] (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (London: Stationery Office).
   Google Scholar
• Social Exclusion Unit [SEU] (2001) A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Action Plan (London: Stationery Office).
   Google Scholar
• Smart, V. (1988) Hurd warns of ethnic riots, The Observer (1901- 2003), July 10, p. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2006, September 30). Public intimacy in neighbour relationships and complaints [Text.Article]. Sociological Research. Available at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/stokoe.html (accessed 19 May 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E., & Wallwork, J. (2003) Space invaders: The moral-spatial order in neighbour dispute discourse, British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), pp. 551–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tunstall, R. (2003) ‘Mixed Tenure’ Policy in the UK: Privatisation, Pluralism or Euphemism? Housing, Theory and Society, 20(3), pp. 153–159.
   Google Scholar
• Valentine, G. (2008) Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter, Progress in Human Geography, 32(3), pp. 323–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Beckhoven, E., & van Kempen, R. (2003) Social effects of urban restructuring: A case study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands, Housing Studies, 18(6), pp. 853–875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eijk, G. (2011) “They eat potatoes, I eat rice”: Symbolic boundary making and space in neighbour relations, Sociological Research Online, 16(4), pp. 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Ham, M., & Clark, W. A. V. (2009) Neighbourhood mobility in context: Household moves and changing neighbourhoods in the Netherlands, Environment and Planning A, 41(6), pp. 1442–1459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Kempen, R., & Bolt, G. (2009) Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(4), pp. 457–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Völker, B., & Flap, H. (2007) Sixteen million neighbors: A multilevel study of the role of neighbors in the personal networks of the Dutch, Urban Affairs Review, 43(2), pp. 256–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellman, B. (1996) Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian Reconsideration. Social Networks, 18(4), pp. 347–354.
   Google Scholar
• Wessendorf, S. (2014) ‘Being open, but sometimes closed’. Conviviality in a super-diverse London neighbourhood, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), pp. 392–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willmott, P. (1986) Social Networks, Informal Care and Public Policy (London: PSI).
   Google Scholar
• Wise, A. (2009) Everyday multiculturalism: Transversal crossings and working class cosmopolitans, in: A. Wise & S. Velayutham (Eds), Everyday Multiculturalism, pp. 21–45 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
   Google Scholar
• Wood, M., & Vamplew, C. (1999) Neighbourhood Images in Teesside: Regeneration or Decline? (York: York Publishing Services).
   Google Scholar