Social mix policies aim to promote social cohesion by creating economically diverse neighborhoods. However, in practice social mix often reduces housing access for poor and disadvantaged groups. While social mix may reduce stigma, it can destroy community networks and isolate poor households. There is little evidence it creates more cohesion, and it is often used to block housing for the homeless. Overall, social mix concepts seem to decrease rather than increase options for those most in need of housing.

1. Social mix and its impact on
access to housing for people
who are homeless
1. June 2007, FEANTSA seminar
Volker Busch-Geertsema
GISS, Bremen, Germany

2. An orthodoxy in housing policy?
- Social mix and “balanced communities“ have become
new orthodoxy in housing policy
- Are supposed to promote social cohesion and prevent
negative effects of “poverty of space“ adding to the
disadvantages of economically disadvantaged people
- In reality the aim of social mix often further reduces the
chances of poor and disadvantaged people to gain
access to regular housing
• Social mix: A concept aiming at social cohesion and
fostering exclusion?

3. Bad neighbourhoods ?
• ”Underclass“; “culture of poverty“, welfare dependency
• Lack of positive role models of behaviour
• Lack of social network helping to gain access to jobs
(informal information sources)
• Bad image of poverty areas – stigmatizing inhabitants
and deteriorating job chances
• High level of deviant behaviour – increased fears of
crime and high level of dissatisfaction
• Social rest and riots – negative publicity

4. Targets of social mix
Promotes more social interaction and social cohesion
Encourages mainstream norms and values
Creates social capital
Opens up job opportunities
Overcomes place-based stigma
Attracts additional services to the neighbourhood

5. Social Mix: What are we talking about?
• Geographical level; area, street, housing block?
• What kind of mix are we talking about? “All
neighbourhoods are, of course, ‘mixed’ to a degree – but
some are more ‘mixed’ than others.” (Cole and Goodshild
2001: 351)
• Degree of mix, tipping points, critical thresholds: What is
a healthy mix?

6. More cohesion by social mix? Empirical
Results not too convincing
More affluent people in mixed communities tend to spend
more time away from estates and use local facilities less
Placing residents with different income levels in the same
neighbourhood might create tensions and conflicts rather
than social cohesion
Existing and cohesive community networks in poor areas
might be destroyed, increased social isolation of
“dispersed“ poor households
Public awareness of social problems and the need to tackle
them might be reduced: “Out of sight, out of mind“
Additional resources might be lost by dispersing those in
need of them

7. A case of social justice rather than of
social cohesion?
Stigma is a real problem and can be reduced by
diversification strategies
More shops and commercial services might be attracted
by increasing social mix in poor areas
Increased rates of crime and violence in specific areas
are a real problem
While in many social housing estates surpri-singly high
rates of satisfaction of tenants can be found, there are
areas where almost nobody wants to live. But poor
people are often forced to live there.

8. A case of social justice rather than of
social cohesion?
Enforced segregation is much worse than segregation by
choice
Target would have to be: to open up additional housing
options for the poor and disadvantaged
In reality all to often the opposite is the rule
Conflicting ideas about reducing concentration of
“problem households“ in one area and protecting “stable
neighbourhoods“ elsewhere

9. Perverse effects of discourse on social mix
“Housing agencies generally find it easier to define
and recognize the problems associated with
imbalance rather than the advantages of balance
as a social ideal.”
“Under the discourse of inclusivity, the “balanced”
community became paradoxically a means of
leaving some unwanted participants out.”
(Cole and Goodshild 2001: 358, 354)

10. Social mix. An achievable ideal?
“The concept of social mix has never been extended to
the rich, who still live in highly segregated areas.”
Few targeted measures are taken for increasing the
share of poor people in areas dominated by higher
income households
Option for new developments but not too popular among
private developers
Need for area based initiatives, investing in material
resources, compensating social and educational
infrastructure, transport etc.

11. Social mix – consequences for
homeless people
Too often used as an excuse for blocking access to
regular housing
Result can be and often is a much more dramatic
concentration in dilapidated private estates or in
temporary accommodation
Even greater challenge for municipalities to search
places for shelters and temporary accommodation for the
homeless facing „nimby“-reactions everywhere
Main question for local practice: Do concepts for social
mix increase or decrease options of those most in need?

12. Thanks for your attention!

13. Contact
Gesellschaft für innovative
Sozialforschung und Sozialplanung
(GISS e.V.)
Volker Busch-Geertsema
Kohlhökerstraße 22
D-28203 Bremen (Germany)
Fon: +49-(0)421 – 334708-2
Fax: +49-(0)421 – 3398835
Mail: vbg@giss-ev.de
Internet: www.giss-ev.de