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

References

• Arthurson, K. 2002. “Creating Inclusive Communities Through Balancing Social Mix: A Critical Relationship or Tenuous Link?” Urban Policy and Research 20 (3): 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/0811114022000005898.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R., and K. Kintrea. 2000. “Owner-Occupation, Social Mix and Neighbourhood Impacts.” Policy and Politics 28 (1): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1332/0305573002500857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barth, F. 1998. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, M. P. 1989. The Moral Order of a Suburb. Cary: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berezin, M. 1997. “Politics and Culture: A Less Fissured Terrain.” Annual Review of Sociology 23 (1): 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.361.
   Google Scholar
• Bolt, G., D. Phillips, and R. Van Kempen. 2010. “Housing Policy, (De)Segregation and Social Mixing: An International Perspective.” Housing Studies 25 (2): 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030903564838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretherton, J., and N. Pleace. 2011. “A Difficult Mix Issues in Achieving Socioeconomic Diversity in Deprived UK Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 48 (16): 3433–3447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010396233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camina, M. M., and M. J. Wood. 2009. “Parallel Lives: Towards a Greater Understanding of What Mixed Communities Can Offer.” Urban Studies 46 (2): 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008099363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, E., J. R. Henly, D. S. Elliott, and K. Irwin. 2009. “Subjective Constructions of Neighborhood Boundaries: Lessons from a Qualitative Study of Four Neighborhoods.” Journal of Urban Affairs 31 (4): 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2009.00450.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaskin, R. J., and M. L. Joseph. 2013. “‘Positive’ Gentrification, Social Control and the ‘Right to the City’ in Mixed-Income Communities: Uses and Expectations of Space and Place.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (2): 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01158.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheshire, P. 2007. “Segregated Neighbourhoods and Mixed Communities: A Critical Analysis.” http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2066-segregation-mixed-communities.pdf. April 27, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. 1994. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Duyvendak, J. W. 2011. The Politics of Home: Belonging and Nostalgia in Europe and the United States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Galster, G. 2013. “Chapter 15. Neighborhood Social Mix: Theory, Evidence, and Implications for Policy and Planning.” In Policy, Planning, and People: Promoting Justice in Urban Development, edited by. N. Carmon and S. S. Fainstein, 307–336. University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812207965.307
   Google Scholar
• Galster, G. C. 2012. “The Mechanism(s) of Neighbourhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.” In Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives, edited by M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, S. Ludi, and D. MacIennan, 23–56. Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Garber, J. A. 2000. “‘Not Named or Identifies’: Politics and the Search for Anonymity in the City.” In Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life, edited by K. B. Miranne and A. H. Young, 19–39, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.
   Google Scholar
• Gehl, J. 2011. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1963. Behaviour in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York, USA: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, E. M. 2010. “The Structuring of Urban Life in a Mixed–Income Housing “Community”.” City & Community 9 (1): 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2009.01305.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haapajärvi, L., J. Juvenius, and L. Junnilainen. 2020. “Hyvä naapuri, hyvä suomalainen – erontekojen ja kuulumisen käytännöt Helsingin monietnisillä asuinalueilla.” Sosiologia 57 (4): 326–345.
   Google Scholar
• Henriksen, I. M., and A. Tjora. 2014. “Interaction Pretext: Experiences of Community in the Urban Neighbourhood.” Urban Studies 51 (10): 2111–2124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013505891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiscock, R., A. Kearns, S. MacIntyre, and A. Ellaway. 2001. “Ontological Security and Psycho-Social Benefits from the Home: Qualitative Evidence on Issues of Tenure.” Housing, Theory & Society 18 (1–2): 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090120617.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, E., and T. Butler. 2015. “Revisiting ‘Social Tectonics’: The Middle Classes and Social Mix in Gentrifying Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 52 (13): 2349–2365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014547370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, P. 2009. “Putting Architecture in Its Social Place: A Cultural Political Economy of Architecture.” Urban Studies 46 (12): 2519–2536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009344230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jupp, B., J. Sainsbury, and O. Akers-Douglas. 1999. Living Together: Community Life on Mixed Tenure Estates. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, K., and P. Smets. 2020. “Home Experiences and Homemaking Practices of Single Syrian Refugees in an Innovative Housing Project in Amsterdam.” Current Sociology 68 (5): 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392120927744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, M., and V. Molnár. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28 (1): 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, M., and A. Swidler. 2014. “Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing.” Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton, P. 2013. “Understanding Urban Practitioners’ Perspectives on Social-Mix Policies in Amsterdam: The Importance of Design and Social Space.” Journal of Urban Design 18 (1): 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.739546.
   Google Scholar
• Lofland, L. H. 1973. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space. New York, USA: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Mäenpää, P. 2007. “Residents’ Experiences of Arabianranta.” In Arabianranta. Rethinking Urban Living, edited by J. Kangasoja and H. Schulman, 170–207, Porvoo: City of Helsinki Urban Facts.
   Google Scholar
• Murcia, P., L. Eduardo, and P. Boccagni. 2022. “Of Home-Comings and Home-Scales: Reframing Return Migration Through a Multiscalar Understanding of Home.” Global Networks 22 (3): 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinkster, F. M. 2013. “‘I Just Live Here’: Everyday Practices of Disaffiliation of Middle-Class Households in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 51 (4): 810–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013489738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinkster, F. M., M. Permentier, and K. Wittebrood. 2014. “Moving Considerations of Middle-Class Residents in Dutch Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: Exploring the Relationship Between Disorder and Attachment.” Environment & Planning A: Economy & Space 46 (12): 2898–2914. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130082p.
   Google Scholar
• Rakoff, R. M. 1977. “Ideology in Everyday Life: The Meaning of the House.” Politics & Society 7 (1): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/003232927700700104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raynor, K., L. Panza, C. Ordóñez, M. Adamociv, and M. A. Wheeler. 2020. “Does Social Mix Reduce Stigma in Public Housing? A Comparative Analysis of Two Housing Estates in Melbourne.” Cities 96:102458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. 1989. “Designing the Home: Domestic Architecture and Domestic Life.” In Home and Family: Creating the Domestic Sphere, eds.Graham Allan and Crow Allan, 33–47. UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20386-4_3.
   Google Scholar
• Ruonavaara, H. 1996. “The Home Ideology and Housing Discourse in Finland 1900–1950.” Housing Studies 11 (1): 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039608720847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmel, G. 2013. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” In The Urban Sociology Reader, edited by J. Lin and C. Mele, 23–31, Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Smets, P., and M. Kusenbach. 2020. “New Research on Housing and Territorial Stigma: Introduction to the Thematic Issue.” Social Inclusion 8 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i1.2930.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somerville, P. 1997. “The Social Construction of Home.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 14(3): 226–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. 2006. “Public Intimacy in Neighbour Relationships and Complaints.” Sociological Research Online 11 (3): 137–157. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swidler, A. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51 (2): 273–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tersteeg, A. K., and F. M. Pinkster. 2016. “‘Us Up Here and Them Down There’: How Design, Management, and Neighborhood Facilities Shape Social Distance in a Mixed-Tenure Housing Development.” Urban Affairs Review 52 (5): 751–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415601221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilly, C. 2006. Regimes and Repertoires. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Beckhoven, E., and R. van Kempen. 2003. “Social Effects of Urban Restructuring: A Case Study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands.” Housing Studies 18 (6): 853–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303032000135474.
   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): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gent, W. P. C., W. R. Boterman, and M. W. van Grondelle. 2016. “Surveying the Fault Lines in Social Tectonics; Neighbourhood Boundaries in a Socially-Mixed Renewal Area.” Housing, Theory & Society 33 (3): 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2015.1134650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viirkorpi, P. 1986. Sosiologisia lähtökohtia ns. sekatalon soveltamisesta Ruoholahden asuntorakentamisessa. Helsinki: Helsinki City Archives.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society : An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Vol. 1. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wimmer, A. 2008. “Elementary Strategies of Ethnic Boundary Making.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31 (6): 1025–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870801905612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirth, L. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” The American Journal of Sociology 44 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/217913.
   Google Scholar