Download
1 / 8
80 likes | 227 Vues
Review and discussion. “ Changing Contexts in Urban Regeneration ” by Paul Stouten - chapters 4 - 5 “Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects: evidence based policy or urban myth?” by Maarten van Ham “Liveability” by Machiel van Dorst. Today’s presentation. Structure.
E N D
Review and discussion “Changing Contexts in Urban Regeneration” by Paul Stouten - chapters4 - 5 “Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects: evidence based policy or urban myth?” by Maarten van Ham “Liveability” by Machiel van Dorst
Today’s presentation Structure • Chapter 4 and 5 – Changing contexts in urban regeneration • Introduction • Paper Maarten van Ham • Introduction • What’s in it for us? • Paper Machiel van Dorst • Introduction • What’s in it for us?
Book Paul Stouten: “Changing context in urban regeneration” chapter 4 Context: Changes over time on the social environment: shifting economic growth, increase highly qualified work, level of education, incomes and unemployment - Housing associations came up taking more and more initiative (influence) - Safety net (unique) by the government - Affect on social and economic divisions by unemployment, incomes, educational level, ethnic minorities etc. - Nuisance and lack of social cohesion are judged more negatively than quality of housing • Strategic area approach • Integration of spatial, social and economic measures • Take segregation into acount - Compact cities for better physical conditions - In traditional urban renewal areas density fell - Improve the poor image of the inner city 1970 1990 2000 2002 1995 1980 Durable and sustainable urban regeneration focused on quality and solving social problems - Change in socio-economic policy: withdrawal of the welfare state - Decreasing government support • Policy of social renewal • Increasing opportunities • Integration of minorities
Book Paul Stouten: “Changing context in urban regeneration” chapter 5 Introduction Summary: 1974-1993 High degree of government intervention & fundamental change from the mass model of housing provision to a cooperative model. Around 1980’s more room for specific wishes (peope age, household composition, ethnicity) 1990’s putting to the test the sustainability of urban renewal and the use of housing & the residential environment. Key notions: Social housing, ‘Building for the nieghborhood’ (Housing stock & Population)
Paper Maarten van Ham: “Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects?” Introduction Summary: • Testing the validation of the methodology used to research social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects. • Methodological problems exist because variable bias and selection bias. This means that there is no evidence that social mix is a cure to fix the mentioned problems, because there is no evidence that neighbourhood effects exist. Key notions: • Negative neighbourhood effects: the suggestion that certain neighbourhood characteristics have a negative effect on a range of individual social, economic and health outcomes. • Social mixing: mixing social groups in a neighbourhood
Paper Maarten van Ham: “Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects?” What’s in it for us? Discussion Points: • Can you take the environment out of the equation in this case? How can we translate this into an approach which we can use? • Is a neighbourhood approach the best way to solve problems in a specific area or should the neighbourhood be looked at as a part of a bigger system?
Paper Machiel van Dorst: “Liveability” Introduction Summary: • The best result is a neighbourhood where individuals have control over the amount of social interaction. • Liveability: Here and now, 3 forms: perceived, apparent, presumed. • Sustainability: Elsewhere and future • If the inhabitants can control their territory between majority of outdoor space, the neighbourhood can function as an ecosystem that can sustain itself. Key notions: • Sustainable liveability: healthy cities, safe neighbourhood, neighbourhood as a community, controlling the environment, sustainable green.
Paper Machiel van Dorst: “Liveability” What’s in it for us? Discussion points: Statement: Every social group will need a different amount of control over the social interaction in their built environment. • What happens if you bring the concept of social mixing (discussed in paper Maarten van Ham) into these interaction zones? • Can we use the tree forms of liveability as a design tool? (1. perceived liveability 2. apparent liveability 3. presumed liveability)
