Social Mix Information Booklet

Waterloo Redevelopment Capacity Building Project

Social Mix Information Booklet

Table of Contents

Workshop Program and Resource Booklet…………………………2-16

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Workshop Program………………………………………………………………………………..4

Waterloo is already mixed isn’t it?...... 5

Why does Housing want to change it? History, Social &

Economic Effects……………………………………………………………………………………10

Does Social Mix Work?...... 12

Reflections……………………………………………………………………………………………..15

From Our Archive: What is a ‘Better Social Mix’?– ISV Magazine ‘03...17

Workshop Debriefing Document…………………………………….…18-26

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………..18

Feedback………………………………………………………………………………………………..19

“Isn’t Waterloo already mixed?” – Debriefing………………………………………..20

“Why do they want to change it?” – Debriefing……………………………………..21

“Does it work?” – Debriefing………………………………………………………………….22

General Discussion – Threats & Opportunities exercise………………………….24

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………..26

More Reading on Social Mix………………………………………………27-28

Books……………………………………………………………………………………………………..27

Journal & Magazine Articles……………………………………………………………………28

WORKSHOP PROGRAM AND RESOURCE BOOKLET

Introduction

Changes are coming to Waterloo, and for many reasons, the outcome of these changes is largely out of the control of current residents.

However, there will be opportunities to influence the process and the decision makers, and the effectiveness of these efforts will depend on the quality of information and argument that residents can marshal.

This workshop is designed to help you think about and build arguments concerning “social mix”. This idea forms a significant part of the rationale or justification for the Waterloo redevelopment project, but it is fair to say that it is a highly contested concept with many possible meanings and outcomes. There is no consensus amongst planners or academics about how to achieve it or even what the benefits might be.

The aim today is not to get answers from experts, or to agree on how we feel about or respond to proposals about social mix in Waterloo. Indeed, as I am sure we will discover, Waterloo residents clearly already know a great deal about living in a mixed community, and many of you have already formed views (or possibly fears) in response to what you have heard. Different residents may hold very different opinions, and this is perfectly understandable and legitimate. So what we hope to do today is to test and develop those views, to be better informed and better prepared to contribute where possible to decisions which will be made about the future of the neighbourhood.

The program is structured around 4 basic questions:

• Isn’t Waterloo already mixed?
• Why do they want to change it?
• Does it work?
• What should residents say about all this?

For each of these we have formulated some sub-questions to guide the discussion – but these are only suggestions and you are encouraged to add your own questions to the list.

The format will be guided but highly interactive discussion, and you should feel free to contribute whatever you know or are thinking about. There are no right or wrong answers, no final position will be taken or reported to LAHC.

Some resources, in the form of data and summaries of readings about social mix, are provided to help our discussion along, but these are just a start. One outcome of today’s workshop will hopefully be to help you with your own further research and thinking about this very important issue for the future of Waterloo.

Michael DarcyThomas Chailloux

Workshop Program
9.30 am – 12.30 pm

Acknowledgement of Country

Welcome and Introductions (5 min)

Outline of the workshop format (5 min)

Question 1: Isn’t Waterloo already mixed?
Small group discussion and feedback (20 mins)
Review of resources and general discussion (10 min)

Question 2: Why do they want to change it?
Outline of the main ideas from research and policy (15 mins)
Questions and discussion (15 mins)

Morning Tea (20 mins)

Question 3: Does it work?
Australian and International examples and experience (20 mins)
Threats and Opportunities exercise (20 mins)

Question 4: What should residents say about all this?
Small group discussion and feedback (20 mins)
General discussion (30 mins)

Waterloo is already mixed isn’t it?

Each group to consider the ways in which they believe Waterloo is a socially mixed community, and the way in which it is not – and how we observe or know this?

QUESTIONS / POINTS TO THINK ABOUT
What do we mean by mixed?
How do we know? / Dimensions
Ethnicity
Age
Wealth/Income
Family Size and type
Housing type
Housing Tenure/Landlord
What do we mean by “the Waterloo Community”? / Waterloo as a place
Boundaries
Scale
Waterloo people
Relationships vs Geography
Mobility and technology
How did it come to be this way? / Housing allocations practices
Housing costs in Sydney

Redevelopment area (red) and Waterloo ABS ‘suburb’ (blue)

My Notes

Why does Housing want to change it?

What’s so good about mix? / Planners and mix:
History of an idea
Stigma and prejudice
Concentration of disadvantage and ‘tipping points’
LAHC and the government’s agenda / Social objectives:
Crime, unemployment etc. Neighbourhood effects?
Economic imperatives:
Land value and housing value
Obsolescence and gentrification
Infrastructure and density
Can you think of a downside? / Prejudice?
Existing relationships?
Community stability?

History of ‘Social Mix in Town Planning:
Three strands:
Romantic, Conservative – recalling rural and village community life
Utilitarian – making cities work more efficiently
- includes ‘raising standards of the poor by emulation’
Social Justice – provide greater equality of opportunity
includes raising awareness and tolerance of middle class

Wendy Sarkissian (Urban Studies 1976)

“Finally, although the advantages of the mixed area are hard to measure, it is probably safe to say that diverse areas should be encouraged simply because they are not homogeneous. The sense of stigma and lack of opportunity of one-class areas should be avoided”

Current Ideas

Scott Baum (Suburban Scars 2008)

“ contemporary social structure has resulted in unequal access to resources and life chances for individuals and households. This inequality is expressed in a polarised socio-spatial urban structure as ‘rich and poor concentrate respectively in rich and poor environments in terms of the resources of collective consumption, housing, mobility and access to jobs’ (Kesteloot 1998, p.127) .. across Australian metropolitan regions some spaces are, increasingly, being identified as places of status and opportunity, while others are increasingly becoming known, as sinks of vulnerability and deprivation”

George Galster (Urban Affairs Review 2003):

This emphasis on social mix typically has been justified on grounds of both economic efficiency (e.g. making society as a whole better off by enhancing solidarity, labour productivity and community sustainability) and distributive equity (e.g. improving the life-chances and social inclusion of disadvantaged groups)

• More Liveable Cities:
  Cultural complexity
  Affordable housing for key workers
• Reducing inequalities in access to services and jobs (more efficient use of social infrastructure)
• Stabilising the Local Government tax base (North America)
• Negative ideas about concentrated poverty (neighbourhood effects)

Neighbourhood Effects

George Galster (Housing Studies 2003)

neighbourhood effects could transpire through one or more of the following mechanisms

• Neighbourhood resources: reputation of place, local public services and informal organisations, accessibility to jobs, recreation, health and other key services.
• Model learning via social ties and interrelationships: nature of interpersonal networks, peer groups, etc.
• Socialisation and collective efficacy: commonality of norms, sense of control of local public space.
• Resident perceptions of deviance, such as crime, drug dealing, physical decay of buildings and general state of disorder. ..

George Galster (European Journal of Housing Policy 2007):

“even the crudest guidance for policy aimed at achieving an optimal mix of households among neighbourhoods depends on the careful, explicit delineation of precisely which mechanisms of neighbourhood effects are operative, and perhaps the relative magnitudes of the externalities involved if multiple effects are operative”

Economic Imperatives

Damaris Rose, (Canadian Journal of Urban Research 2004)

My Notes

Does Social Mix Work?

Does it make people better off in the end? / International and Australian experience
Mix and mixing
Stigma
Anti Social Behaviour
How is it done and what would it look like in Waterloo? / The right balance? Who for? Why 70:30?
Social tipping points and Economic tipping points
Building and open space design
Scale? Apartment blocks? Floors? Pepper pot?
Streets and services

Wendy Sarkissian (1976)

“very little empirical evidence exists to support the claims of those who favour residential mix. Many `community studies' discuss the subject, but very few come to grips with the issues”

Kathy Arthurson (Urban Policy and Research 2010

‘anticipated benefits include providing low-income residents with middle-income role models and access to broader social networks that may lead to employment-related opportunities. These goals are predicated on propinquity in space providing an important context for facilitating social interaction between residents across income levels and housing tenures. The findings of the current research project, which explores social mix policies implemented in three neighbourhoods in South Australia, imply that scale of implementation, residents' lifestyles and the stigma attached to social housing are critical factors in determining whether or not social interaction occurs. Overall, the findings suggest it is critical to continue to interrogate social mix policies and the social engineering agendas that they engage in. At the very least, if policy makers persist in implementing such policies, then we need a better understanding of the consequences of operationalising social mix at different spatial scales, such as the street, block or neighbourhood”.

Chaskin & Joseph (2015) Integrating the Inner City: The Promise & Perils of Mixed Income
Public Housing Transformation

East Greenwich, Rhode Is. Infill Development Plan

Block by Block

“Pepper Pot”

1

Threats and Opportunities

WHO FOR? / WHAT MIGHT BE DONE?
THREATS OR FEARS
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
2
HOPES OR OPPORTUNITIES
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
2

1

What should we tell Housing about Social Mix and the Future of Waterloo?

What else do we need to know?

How do we tell them?

Open ended discussion.

My Notes

On the next page…

This 2003 Inner Sydney Voice Magazine article on social mix and how it pertains to the community in Waterloo and Redfern reminds us that even 15 years ago, social mix was a highly debated topic. It was questionable if social mix was the right strategic solution to fix problems that fall on the socially disadvantaged, and the article explores the possible implications that social mix could have on the community, both good and bad. It argues that while the idea of social mix has good intentions to create an integrated and inclusive community, some studies show that the opposite effect could transpire, causing greater isolation for the remaining public tenants. This article “What is a ‘Better Social Mix’?” tackles the reality of how the implementation of social mix, while well-intentioned, might only prove to create new challenges for the community to overcome.

1

Would Waterloo be a better community if it was more socially mixed?

A Capacity Building workshop about “Social Mix” organised by Inner Sydney Voice

DEBRIEFING

Workshop Title / Would Waterloo be a better community if it was more socially mixed?
Objective / Explore concepts and experiences of social mix including challenges & benefits of a more socially mixed community in Waterloo. Discuss the issue together and get ready to put forward key messages to government in Master Planning process.
Held on / 17th of May 2017 – 9.30am-12.30pm
Target Audience / Waterloo/ Redfern Residents and workers
Organised by / ISV and Groundswell
Facilitated by / Dr. Michael Darcy, Researcher on Social Housing Policies
Report Aim / Debrief and record outcomes of the workshop for those who couldn’t attend.
Attendance / 36 people total
Approx. half Public Housing tenants, half community organisations. A few private residents and a few local government workers also attended.
2 participants identified as Aboriginal.
17 people filled the attendance sheet:
11 identified as female and 5 as male
4 were between 25 and 44 years old, 10 between 45 and 64 years old, 2 between 65 and 84 years old.
3 spoke a language other than English at home

A booklet showing the workshop’s programme and outline, as well as resources such as graphs, diagrams, maps and quotes from academic literature was distributed to participants. It also included space for note taking. It is attached to this debriefing document.

The outline of the workshop was organised around 4 questions to guide and stimulate discussion and included every time a short presentation by Dr. Michael Darcy as well as general and small group discussion.

Those 4 questions about Social Mix in general and in Waterloo were:

• Isn’t Waterloo already mixed?
• Why do they want to change it?
• Does it work?
• What should residents say about all this?

Summary of Feedback sheets

Did you find the content of the workshop relevant and useful?

Very useful: 3/12

Useful: 8/12

Not Useful: 0/12

How did you find the structure of the workshop?

Well structured: 3/12

Could be improved: 8/12

Poorly structured: 1/12

How did you find the timing of the workshop?

Too long: 1/12

Right amount of time: 9/12

Too short: 1/12

Would you recommend your friend/neighbour to participate in a similar workshop?

Definitely: 4/12

Possibly: 7/12

No: 0/12

Additional suggestions/feedback:

• Leave more time for discussion (& spend less time presenting)
• Reflection on what these changes mean in Waterloo
• Make clear what residents should get out of each different group exercise
• Explain more of the pros & cons of social mix, what studies have been done to support the success/failure of social mix (more concrete examples), and how the effects of social mix might present themselves in Waterloo & Sydney in general
• Try to better stay on schedule with timing for discussion, presenting, etc.
• Workshops are important & should be continued to help build residents’ understanding of the issues at hand (although workshops are not as relevant to someone from an NGO)
• Some participants said that it was too much like an academic lecture, not interactive enough and that they didn’t get enough time to discuss among themselves and produce their opinion. (This was taken on board and used to improve later workshops).

This is an exhaustive summary of 12 feedback sheets collected from participants. It does not mean Inner Sydney Voice necessarily agree with the feedback or that feedback is consistent.

“Isn’t Waterloo already mixed?” – Debriefing

The 36 participants split into 5 tables for small group discussion.

The comments are a response to the question #1 guiding discussion “Isn’t Waterloo already mixed?” and some answers refer to the data provided in the booklet, which included age distribution, statistics about Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities, tenancy type, level of income and main income source and number of motor vehicles per household in Waterloo Redevelopment Area, Waterloo Suburb, Sydney Metropolitan area and Australia.

The comments reported here come from different groups and do not represent the view of all participants and might be contradictory. Note taking and this debriefing document was done by Thomas Chailloux who was facilitating the workshop at the same time and might not be exhaustive and/or representative of everything that was said/everyone who participated. Bold emphasis from Thomas Chailloux to make it faster to read and stress on certain key-points.

The fact that there was less of an “age mix” in Waterloo Redevelopment area than in the wider Waterloo suburb, and that therefore it might be interesting to focus on age mix rather than on “social mix” was mentioned. Influx of first homebuyers to the area with young children might however contribute to more age mix.

Someone mentioned that the low number of young people in the data about the redevelopment area might come from the fact that they are often not officially tenants and therefore not counted, or that they manage to enter the private market at some point thanks to the work of community workers.

This comment led to a discussion about whether the data was accurate or skewed for various reasons, such as historical reluctance in the area to engage in the census and/or FACS data being skewed.

It was also stated that looking at the data provided in the booklet and from their personal perspective and experience, it looked like Waterloo was already a quite mixed community and a well-balanced area, although not “the exact average Australia”.

Considering that the wider Waterloo area is very similar to other inner city areas, the question of where the boundary of the area is drawn is extremely important, especially since it is used as the justification for the “need for more social mix” in the area. Considering that there is close to 100% social housing on the Estate, where the boundary is drawn and the scale of the data being considered is very important.

Some participants mentioned that there is already relatively low levels of mixing with private tenants/home-owners in the area. This was exemplified by the use of the expression “they don’t mix”. The general consensus on one table in particular was that there was no ‘mixing’ with private residents living outside the estate because they do not engage with public housing tenants. The tenants discussed how the private residents didn’t engage within any parts of the public housing tenants community including shops, medical services, schools etc. Some common sentiments were that people were afraid of public housing tenants and didn’t want to come anywhere near them. Tenants discussed the inevitability of this occurring furthermore in a redeveloped Waterloo and how the stigma will still exist and continue to segregate public housing tenants from private residents.