IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/chosxx/v30y2015i1p139-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'They Seem to Divide Us': Social Mix and Inclusion in Two Traditional Urbanist Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Markovich

Abstract

Mixed tenure communities have become an important element of UK housing policy in recent decades. Whilst valued by policy-makers for generating a range of benefits, particularly for residents living in social rented housing, the empirical literature suggests that tenure mixing is neither a sufficient nor a reliable remedy for addressing issues associated with concentrations of poverty, disadvantage and social exclusion. This paper reports on a doctoral research study that considered tenure mixing practices at two traditional urbanist communities in the UK: Poundbury, Dorchester, and New Gorbals, Glasgow. Conceptually, the paper uses Young's critiques of residential segregation and the integration ideal to evaluate the two communities. Methodologically, it draws on qualitative interviews with residents, planners and social housing providers. The research findings contradict many aspects of Young's ideal and highlight the complex and multidimensional nature of integration in practice. Reflecting on these findings, the paper identifies five housing policy and research priorities that might usefully be pursued in future work.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Markovich, 2015. "'They Seem to Divide Us': Social Mix and Inclusion in Two Traditional Urbanist Communities," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 139-168, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:30:y:2015:i:1:p:139-168
    DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2014.935707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02673037.2014.935707
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02673037.2014.935707?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:30:y:2015:i:1:p:139-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/chos20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.