Social-mix policies and their effects/affects within social space: problems from Amsterdam

Philip Lawton, "Understanding Urban Practitioners' Perspectives on Social-MixPolicies in Amsterdam: The Importance of Design and Social Space," Journal of Urban Design 18 (2013): 1

The take-away: This article examines the views of urban practitioners in Amsterdam (e.g. “planners, architects and management personnel”) regarding the relationships among ‘social-mix’ policies, urban design, and social space. In saying ‘social-mix’, author Philip Lawton denotes “the premise that the isolation of poorer groups leads to, and intensifies, social problems, such as unemployment and deprivation” (98). Lawton interviews urban practitioners and residents who largely expressed that the implementation of social-mix policies resulted in increased tensions between residents of market- and social-housing. In multiple examples, the success of ‘social-mix’ developments was limited by the prevalence of market forces that “dictate[d] a certain degree of social ordering based on the ability to pay for either space or views” (113). Because of this “micro-politics of design” (112), it is argued, tensions between different ethnic and socioeconomic groups have been generated or exacerbated, and this has had a negative effect on the ‘liveability’ of public spaces. In response to this predicament, Lawton recommends that future social-mix policies account for micro-level characteristics of different spaces that may generate social frictions, as mitigating these can improve the level and quality of interactions in streets and other public spaces. 

Abstract: Throughout recent decades, socially-mixed neighbourhoods have become a key element of urban policy and debate. This paper argues, with Amsterdam as an empirical case, that the design, layout and everyday use of social space—including public and private space—is of key importance in understanding the experiences and perspectives of social-mix policies amongst ‘urban practitioners’, such as planners, architects and management personnel. While the promotion of ‘liveability’, through the management of social problems, is often highlighted as a key element of social-mix policies, the findings presented indicate the degree to which the mixing of different groups according to ethnicity, race and social class presents a number of new challenges for liveability and management within both public and private space. Furthermore, it is argued that these challenges play a significant role in dictating the scale at which social mixing takes place, from the urban block to the street and at the neighbourhood level. It is concluded that a greater amount of attention is needed to such factors in understanding the dynamics of social interaction in public and private communal space when seeking to understand the everyday realities of socially-mixed neighbourhoods.