Log in


Forgot your password?
 
You are here: Home / Other RW Issues / Public Housing / Redevelopment / Social Mix - Will it solve the problems? / HNSW Report on Estate Renewal and Social Mix

HNSW Report on Estate Renewal and Social Mix

On 26 August 2010 HNSW held a Community Renewal Forum for Redfern & Waterloo titles "Estate Renewal and Social Mix: The good, the bad and the ugly". Below is the HNSW Report on Proceedings of the forum which was provided to participants on 18 November 2010.

Estate Renewal and Social Mix: The good, the bad and the ugly

 

COMMUNITY  RENEWAL  FORUM REDFERN and WATERLOO 26 August 2010 - Report on proceedings

 

PURPOSE OF FORUM

The event was hosted by Housing NSW to explore social mix in the context of public housing estate renewal. About 30 people attended the Forum.

Bernie Coates (HNSW) welcomed participants and explained the purpose of the Forum.

Public housing estate renewal projects around the world aim to address disadvantage by creating communities with a greater mix of incomes, tenures and demography. This is the concept of social mix.  Commonly, mix is achieved by redeveloping public housing estates to reduce the concentration of social housing dwellings and increase the numbers of private home owners and private renters.

There is a lot of debate about whether social mix works, in what circumstances it may work and what are the best practice models for achieving social mix. There is now a significant amount of research from around the world on social mix and good practice in social mix.

This Forum explored the issue in three sessions:

  • David Lilley (Housing NSW) gave a summary of the International research on social mix and identified the main findings of the research.
  • A panel of experts, composed of Peter Phibbs (UWS), David Lilley (Housing NSW), George Housakos (Urban Communities) and Michael Darcy (UWS) led discussion on key issues and how the International research might relate to Redfern and Waterloo.
  • George Housakos (Urban Communities) showed a video about the Kensington Renewal Project in Melbourne and talked about how social mix is working in practice, in that project.

SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION

1.  David Lilley’s presentation:

David presented a synthesis of over 120 research papers on social mix.

Social mix can be about the range of household incomes, tenure (public rental, home owners, social housing tenants) or demography (ages, cultures etc). In public housing estates, the mix is often very narrow with high levels of social housing, low income households and narrow demographics.  Social mix can be changed in estates through:

  • sales
  • changing allocation policy or
  • through redevelopment, whereby new private housing is built.

The arguments that support an increase in social mix are:

  • Better quality housing and environment for current and future residents
  • Reducing the impact of ‘neighbourhood effects’ and disadvantage
  • Improving the management of social housing

The arguments against increased social mix via redevelopment are:

  • It causes anxiety and distress
  • It disrupts social support and networks
  • It doesn’t change the disadvantage experienced by tenants

The research in this field mostly covers:

  • How disadvantage is affected
  • Interaction between public and private residents
  • What best practice looks like

On disadvantage, the research distinguishes people from places. Major redevelopment does lead to substantial reductions in disadvantage within the area affected. But there are questions about who benefits. Whether the people who lived there experience a reduction in disadvantage is debated in the research. Goetz (2010) found improved feelings of safety but no improvements in school achievement or employment. Popkin (2010) found improved safety, quality of life, reduced depression and a decrease in behavioural problems in children. 

On public and private interaction, Arthurson (2008) found little interaction takes place, and where it does occur, it is among the children or very casual. It is more likely to occur where public and private homes are spatially integrated and where home owners have neighbourhood connections (e.g. children at local school)  

The best practice identified in the research involves:

  • Good resident participation
  • A holistic/integrated approach (physical and social)
  • Opportunities for current tenants to stay or move back
  • Ensuring the redevelopment delivers benefits to the original residents

The Australian Governments’ National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) commits Governments to “…creating mixed communities that promote social and economic opportunities by reducing concentrations of disadvantage that exist in some social housing estates”.

The HNSW approach in Bonnyrigg, Minto, Airds and other projects has been to acknowledge the positives and the negatives of redevelopment, to focus on how to maximise positives and minimise negatives and to take a holistic approach based on best practice. 

Discussion

Discussion followed, which made the following points:

  • It is not yet clear how social mix will be applied in Redfern and Waterloo. The Redfern and Waterloo communities can debate whether social mix is a good idea or not, but in Housing, we want a space to talk about, if social mix is to happen, how can we make sure we do it well. 
  • Social mix, deconcentration and social inclusion are related topics, but definitions and concepts vary.
  • Many renewal projects provide opportunities for social housing tenants to become home owners, which contributes to tenure mix
  • If there is social mix, social housing tenants with behavioural problems can cause grief for private residents. Private residents may not buy into areas with a reputation for anti social behaviour.
  • Will appropriate human services be available to make sure social mix works?
  • Redfern Waterloo is already a mixed community. A key question is how existing tenants can stay here, contributing to community.
  • There is already concern about the rate of ‘gentrification’ in the area and the divide between the very rich and the very poor.
  • There is a lot of research on how social mix improves lives but there are other ways to achieve this.
  • Concern that camaraderie in poor areas is broken up when redevelopment occurs. There is a lot of good work done by local volunteers, which took a long time to build up, and could be destroyed if the character of the area is changed.

2. Panel Discussion

The discussion was facilitated by A/Prof Bruce Judd (City Futures, UNSW).

The panel members made introductory remarks, as follows:

  • Professor Peter Phibbs (UWS) is an urban planner with an international reputation in the area of housing studies. His research in recent years has been in two main areas: the non-shelter outcomes of housing and the broad area of affordable housing. He is the UWS co-ordinator for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

Peter said that social mix often makes no difference in the lives of the people who lived there, but there was evidence that it can produce better outcomes for the children, especially in education and employment.  Project outcomes vary - in some cases there have been important changes, in other projects there have not been. So it is important to look at where it has had good results and why.

  • Associate Professor Michael Darcy (UWS) is a prominent researcher on social housing policy and management, and the connections between social disadvantage and place. His recent work questions orthodox approaches to concentration and de-concentration of disadvantage, and the way in which constructs of ‘social capital’ and ‘social mix’ have been deployed in public policy.

Michael said he was not against social mix, nor is it a new concept. Over 150 years ago, Bournville in the UK was built using the concept that wealthy people would be better people if they lived amongst poorer people. There are good examples of social mix, such as City West in Pyrmont, where buildings have a mix of income groups but you can’t distinguish the tenure from the outside of the building. A mix of incomes and household types has meant that schools can stay open and community facilities keep running. City West is a model that should be looked at.

Michael noted that Redfern is already socially mixed, with many higher income people; much more mixed than Paddington for example. He also said that social mix is meant to improve the lives of the poorer people who live here, but there are many other ways of improving lives, such as investing in upgrading the existing housing stock for example. 

  • George Housakos is the CEO of Urban Communities, a property management company managing over 800 properties in Kensington (Melbourne). Urban Communities manage public housing, private rental, Owners Corporations (Bodies Corporate) and provide facilities management services.

George said he can share the experience from the last 10 years in Melbourne. He is interested in how you make social mix work on the ground and how to bring diverse people together. At Kensington, there are 800 homes over 7 hectares, with a mix of 50% public housing and 50% private (and 70% of private buyers are investors). Urban Communities manages the estate, using a place management approach and an integrated service delivery model. The key to success has been listening to residents. He said there are lots of ways you can get people from different incomes and tenures to mix.

  • David Lilley is Project Manager, Community Renewal in Strategic Projects Division of Housing NSW. David is also a Visiting Fellow, City Futures Research Centre, University of NSW. David’s areas of interest are strategic planning, social planning, research and evaluation.

Discussion:

There was lively discussion, which made the following points:

  • Was HNSW open to discussion about social mix, or is the premise that social mix is Government policy and will happen whether the community likes it or not. David said that the community can debate the merits of mix, but should not miss the opportunity to influence how mix was achieved and what best practice looks like.
  • Some participants supported the replacement of the old walk ups with new apartment buildings, but we don’t want to see the area lose its sense of community.
  • The reality at present is that the public and private residents do not mix much.
  • Michael said social mix is ‘not an end in itself’. What’s important is why we want social mix and how is it to be achieved. There needs to be transparency about the underlying assumptions.
  • Another way to look at it is: because HNSW does not have the funds, it is necessary to realize the value of the land (by selling private housing) to generate the funds to build the new social housing.
  • Why has Housing chosen 70% private, 30% public (Bonnyrigg, Minto) for example. All the options should be considered. Bernie acknowledged the percentages depended on the location, and there was no formula.
  • The Redfern and Waterloo areas badly need new retail, especially a supermarket and specialty shops. George noted that in Kensington, the shops were closing down before the redevelopment. Now shops are important places for people to meet and mix. Peter noted that City West owns the retail space, and so it can determine what happens.
  • Participants noted the two approaches to social mix:  dispersing the disadvantaged (Minto) or injecting the advantaged into an area (Bonnyrigg). Michael noted there were different experiences: in the Netherlands, the approach is to bring in home owners - to ‘penetrate the unruly neighbourhoods to improve social control’, because home owners are more likely to call the police and object to crime. In the US, it has been more common to move the poor people out to ‘better’ areas (HOPE VI). Often projects are very selective about social housing allocations to the renewed area and have different rules for the public as against the private residents.   
  • Peter noted that putting public and private people together did not mean they became friends. Michael noted that, in Pyrmont, there is a lack of active street life, because most of the people are off working during the day.
  • George said residents need to be treated as customers. Housing providers and NGO’s often talk about ‘our tenants’ and ‘our estates’ as if they own them. A whole lot of language needs to change.
  • There was concern about those on the waiting list for public housing. We need an increase in units to meet demand.
  • Is stock transfer to community housing a necessary part of renewal? Michael noted that the bigger the Community Housing Provider (CHP) gets, the more they look like HNSW. The real differences were in access to Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) and the ability of CHPs to borrow funds. If there is stock transfer as part of the renewal, it is important to protect people’s rights through the transfer. There is also concern about CHPs acting as developers and being exposed to excessive risks.
  • There is concern about tenants who rely on their neighbours for support. Will private residents provide this neighbourly support? Public housing tenants see neighbours as extended family, they look after each other. Private people are more concerned about what’s inside their place. George favoured over 55’s blocks. On site managers can also ensure people get the support they need, and facilitate interaction.
  • David noted the need for all these issues to be recorded so they can be tracked through the planning process for renewal.

3. George Housakos’ presentation

George showed a short film about the Kensington project. He explained that the place management approach is crucial. This involves delivering social and economic benefits for the community and managing all aspects (construction, sales, tenancy management, private rental services, facilities management, grounds maintenance, community safety, employment services etc) in an integrated way with a focus on problem solving.

Urban Communities (UC) has a zero tolerance approach to rubbish, graffiti and vandalism, maintains high standards of cleanliness and maintenance of the public space and will act swiftly if someone is causing a disturbance. Staff are empowered to do whatever is necessary to solve problems as they arise, and are rewarded for innovation. Where there is a gap in services, UC will create the service.

A Community Liaison Committee (CLC) has a say in all aspects of the project, including signing off the building designs. The CLC is chaired by a local business person, has about 60 members with a consistent 25 -30 attending each meeting. The committee also has a strong focus on problem solving.

UC is a response to Kensington and it has been set up as an ongoing structure. There are some principles that can be applied in other places, but each area needs to come up with its own structure and approach.

Discussion

The discussion made the following points: 

  • Urban Communities manage the social housing (as a registered community housing provider), manage the Owners Corporations (as strata managers) and run a private rental letting agency (for investors). They therefore have access to all three tenures and can respond to issues wherever they arise. They take a ‘problem solving’ approach, to quickly identify problems and marshal resources to solve the problem as fast as possible.
  • Urban Communities takes the highest need clients off the public housing list, because it has the systems in place to support them, and high need clients get access to opportunities through the social programs Urban Communities runs. 
  • Investors are attracted by good returns and are willing to provide longer leases and to take higher need clients, because Urban Communities manages the situation.  UC can meet the needs of the private renters (and struggling home owners) just as well as the social housing residents.
  • UC uses local maintenance people who agree to employ local residents.
  • UC approach is to deliver what the community says it wants. People will come to meetings because they love the place and UC listens to them.
  • We work with the local services to ensure support is available for those who need it. Local agreements with services work because there is a shared commitment and accountability is clear. The community also plays a part. Neighbours often act as mentors to high need residents and it is local residents who stop drug dealers re-establishing their networks.
  • Through the project, there is no net loss of public housing. One high rise was demolished and 2 kept. The low rises were all demolished and tenants moved off site. Former tenants have a right of return to the site.
  • Staff are recruited from a range of backgrounds. They are given lots of scope to do ‘whatever it takes’ to get problems solved and there is plenty of opportunity to innovate. The asset management team has to deliver social outcomes and have performance indicators to meet around local employment.

Feedback

Participants were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire. The main feedback was:   

  • The participants particularly enjoyed the panel discussion, hearing about the Kensington development and the place management model used in Kensington.
  • Most would like have see more application to Redfern Waterloo situation (more information about what will happen, how the Kensington model could work here) and more of a “hands on” approach.

APPENDIX 1              Attendance list

Name

Organisation

Ross Smith

Waterloo

Mabel Chang

Waterloo

Larry Billington

Waterloo

Marlene Newton

Waterloo

Barbara Rhall

Redfern

Darryl Dartnell

Redfern

Brian Parker

Redfern

Anita Faber

Redfern

Diane Whitworth

Waterloo

Deborah Ambrose

Redfern

Jacqueline Lecouvey

Redfern

Val Johnson

Redfern

Patti Willis

Redfern

Julie Parsons

Redfern Waterloo Authority

Jennifer Huxley

Redfern Waterloo Authority

Cr Irene Doutney

City of Sydney

Dom Grenot

City of Sydney

Ian Hay

City of Sydney

Geoff Turnbull

REDWatch

Michael Shreenan

The Factory Community Centre

Gitte Backhausen

Bobby Goldsmith Foundation

Jane Rogers

South Syndey Community Transport

Rosemary Perkov

Redfern and Inner City Home Support

Pamella Vernon

Surry Hills

Georgina Clark

UNSW Community Development Program

Maria Sjomyr

UNSW Community Development Program

Nick Warren

Housing NSW consultant

A/Prof Bruce Judd

UNSW

Sarah Elliott

Housing NSW

Sue Thomas

Redfern Legal Centre