Role Played by Housing in Shaping of Social Spatial Segregation - Coursework Example

Role played by housing in shaping of social-spatial segregation in global cities Introduction Socio-spatial segregation is one of the fields that has been most widely studied as far as social dynamics in a given society are concerned. This involves the physical separation of the groups that live in a given region into distinct neighborhoods like in our case which is an urban city. Societies are segregated on various grounds mainly socio-economic, religious or ethnic. The effects of this segregation range from positive to negative with the poor living in deteriorating levels of poverty when the rich in their immediate proximity are living in abundance. However, the urban diversity that is witnessed in any urban city is a factor of the segregation. Urban social segregation is effected by many factors. In regions like the African affected Apartheid towns, segregation was caused by legal frameworks effected by the government to that effect. In this work, we shall explore the role of played by housing in shaping of socio-spatial segregation in an urban city. The arising subtopics to ensure intensive analysis of the topic include the housing system in the city, the modes of access to housing which include factors such as the socio-economic differences among individuals in the society which must be significant in determining the neighborhood one lives. The essay shall also look at the functioning of the housing market as it must follow the normal curves of demand and supply to allow for segregation on the basis of economic disparity among the members of the society. Lastly, the housing sector is governed by policies both at the local level and national level. These policies often determine the availability of the houses to the members of the society or the trend that will be followed in addressing the housing problem which is a serious hindrance to urbanization. It is important to note that economic global segregation has been strongly associated with the increased dualism in the groups occupying the cities and exclusion mainly based on socio-economic status. Gentrification and Public Policy Intervention Gentrification is a process that involves a change in the population whereby in a given region the initial land users are replaced by new users who are of a higher socio-economic status. This change is always associated with a notable change in the reinvestment in fixed assets such as housing. The residents who occupy the given location have same ideals and/or similar demands (Atkinson, 2004). This will therefore lead to people of closely similar socio-economic status to live in a given region as the initial ones are displaced or they have to adjust to the changes by acquiring the status of the new residents. The change is most significant when the difference in the socio-economic status is large between the two groups of residents (Atkinson, 2004). The residential metamorphosis in London facilitated the coining of the term in 1960s to explain the habit of upper middle class households who were seen to be purchasing properties in regions of the city which were traditionally deprived i.e. East of London (Atkinson, 2004). The effects of gentrification is the conversion of a neighbourhood into a middle-class neighbourhood from the initial status of a low class neighbourhood in terms of socio-economic status. It has been linked to the intervention of public policy in urban cities such as London and Dutch cities. Through policies that foster partnerships between the public and private developers, it has been noted that the steps made are aimed at embracing a future made up of the middle class residents in contrast to a mixture between individuals with a great disparity in their income or ranging from the very low in the society to the higher classified. Policy makers have been at cross roads on the effects of gentrification which range from positive to negative. First, it leads to displacement of residents from their original residential localities. On top of that, as indicated earlier, the aim is to convert the cities’ housing to fit the middle class society. Therefore, there is a significant loss in affordable housing. Therefore, since the advantages of the process by far outweigh the disadvantages when we look at a wider scope including the neighbourhood effect which tries to establish the habits that will be witnessed as a result of a given neighbourhood (Shaw, 2008). In London, the housing sector has been dominated by partnerships between the public sector and private sector with partnerships being a household phenomenon. This has led to mushrooming of many houses that are best fit for the middle class society who are concerned with matters such as security and the availability of amenities such as water and access to medical facilities. The previous neighbourhoods that encompassed the citizens with low income has consequently vanished to pave way for the upcoming households. The Neighbourhood Effect Research done on the topic has established that living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood have dire consequences to the residents. This will most likely affect the individual characteristics of the individuals who are brought up in such a neighbourhood. This kind of neighbourhood will have its effects manifested on the individual’s outcomes such as educational achievement, school dropout rates, indulgence in deviant behaviour, social exclusion, health, transition rates from welfare to work, and social occupational mobility (van Ham et al. 2012). Policy makers therefore have a strong belief that neighbourhood effect exists and as a way of curbing social deviance that is associated with a certain type of living or the presence of a given class of people in a neighbourhood, they have been working to ensure that the status of the neighbourhood is polished to shed off the negative neighbourhood effects. This is cemented by a quote coming from the office of Prime Minister in the UK saying that people living in deprived neighbourhoods will have less chances of working, will most likely be poor and hence their life expectancy will be low. Therefore, as a way of addressing other issues such as raising the life expectancy rates in a society, basic issues such as neighbourhood effect have to be considered (ODPM, 2005). Housing Shortage: Demand versus Supply It is evident that in the recent years, housing shortage has hit an all-time high point in London (Copley, 2015). The crisis in housing has been caused by the increasing deficit in the supply of new homes in comparison to the increasing demand for the same. Following the normal supply curves, when the demand rises as the supply reduces, the cost of the commodity or the service is bound to rise. This has been the case in London with the cost of renting a house shooting to values unaffordable to majority of the individuals. Initially, individuals were ambitious on owning homes as though the cost was high it was within the affordable margin. However, in the last few years, this has changed with renting alone becoming a nightmare (Copley, 2015). This has serious consequences to the economic development of the city. Since the houses are not affordable to the workers and investors who may like to try their business in the city, they are shifting their interest to other cities that are affordable. Majority of the individuals who avail the market for the housing sector are the middle income citizens. When the price is beyond what they can afford, it becomes a serious crisis. London’s local authorities have for a long time determined the housing situation since they were mandated with the role of delivering the homes needed in the city. In 1980, the Right to buy effect was introduced, the main aim being to choke off the supply of new council homes for the next twenty years (Copley, 2015). This policy led to the number of council homes being built in a year dropping to zero. This process has led to a big gap since it has been impossible to replace all the houses that have been lost in the city as it used to happen when the council was responsible for the replacement. In the recent years however, reforms have been put in place to promote the replacement of the houses lost so that the deficit can be catered for. It has been established that as much as the government is determined to ensure the houses are replaced on a one-on-one basis, still, 1.5 homes are lost for every single one that is built. Among the issues that need to be addressed in the housing sector is an action on the findings that there will be a continuing decline in London’s council housing stock. Another problem arising is that there is less funding available for new housing. Lastly, a little amount of the money generated from the Right to Buy sales was reinvested in the housing sector therefore adding to the housing problem. By April 2012, the number of homes sold through the Right to Buy statute in London is 3, 485. This is by far larger than the number of homes built. To build each new council home, 1.6 Right to Buy homes needed to be sold. This translates that there needs to be a fund to supplement the funds got from the sales to achieve the one for one policy. As for now, the housing issue still remains to be a major challenge to economic development in the city as it is in other global cities across the world. The demand therefore continues to be high while the supply for housing is low maintaining the high cost of housing in the city (Ismail, 2010). Urban Regeneration Regeneration has been the main focus of urban policy in the UK over the past 20 years (Brindley, 2000). This was covered on a research by Brindley in 2000 which marked 20 years since the Right to Buy policy was effected. The Inner Urban Areas Act was passed in 1977 paving way for the regeneration process from 1980. There were od established urban communities which the government has been trying to salvage as it creates a bridge between bringing affordable homes and enough for every person in the city. Community regeneration has also been significant in this process as it was in the case of Coin Street where community groups in the Waterloo district, on London’s South Bank won a famous victory over property developers and due to that they gained control of several prominent sites (Brindley, 2000). Land values are rising therefore bringing a new set of considerations into the way the local authorities and the housing associations in the United Kingdom and London in specific decide how to manage the refurbishment of many of London’s social housing estates (Housing Committee, 2015). Race and Ethnicity in Socio-spatial segregation London is a multicultural city. Policies have been set in the past to address the issues of race and ethnicity. The government has made a public commitment for about seventeen years now since 1997 (Amin, 2002). This has been done on its bid to promote a non-racist society. However, it is important to look at how these different groups are living as in various regions social cohesion fails to be achieved when different ethnic groups are merged to live in one neighbourhood. The problem of inter-ethnic intolerance and conflict in the urban contexts has been seen as one of the reasons hindering social cohesion and therefore drawing lines in the locations each group settles in (Amin, 2002). Therefore, in this paper’s topic context, social spatial segregation can be caused by ethnic intolerance among the different ethnic groups. In 2001, there was civil unrest in Oldham, Burnley, and Bradford which served as a reminder of the cases of racism and cultural intolerance in the country. In London, segregation on the basis of ethnicity is not heard of. However, in other cities such as Bradford, ethnic segregation has been identified as one of the disturbances aligning the trend followed in the housing sector. Fear of racial harassment is the major reason behind ethnic segregation where the individuals concerned will ensure they are with members of their ethnic group. In major global cities, racial segregation has been discouraged through erection of stringent policies that give equal chances to individuals from all ethnic groups. This has yielded fruits though it still occurs on few infamous occasions. Another issue that arises is on gender mainstreaming. This promotes consideration of the diverse types of living arrangements and interests of the genders. Urbanistic models are designed in such a way that they enhance or create an approach that will put into concern the difference in age, gender, social and culture (Berlin Handbook; Kail, 2011). Gender mainstreaming has not been adopted in most local planning departments. It has been noted that the normal societal conditions disadvantages women and therefore calls for greater acknowledgement of women in the area of public policy is highly needed (Greed, 2005). Therefore, with the term gender, one is introduced to the contrasting roles of males and females which result to using space differently inside and outside the home within the built environment. This in response plays a role in socio-spatial segregation. According to this approach by Greed, gender mainstreaming is defined as the process through which there is systematic integration of gender into all systems and structures, policies, programmes, processes, and projects into ways of seeing and doing, into cultures and organisations (Greed, 2005). Women planners, urban geographers, and architects have criticized the nature of the built environment and the spatial policy that is allied to its development. They have proposed alternative urban policy scenarios that takes into account the needs of women as well as men. Women needs have not been a major concern in the designing of the cities. The result is that women suffer disadvantage within towns and cities that were developed by men and so there is the need to incorporate them in the process of planning. An integration of gender considerations into the planning process is likely to lead to the reconfiguration of the relationship between land uses and the location of social facilities. This will enable bother gender to combine their working and caring duties. The process is hindered by lack of national planning guidance, and reluctance to enact the measures. This will ironically address the drawbacks and the strengths of the quote ‘a woman’s place is in the home’, as evidenced in the American urban designs (Hayden, 1980) Conclusion As evidenced in this work, there are various factors that drive socio-spatial segregation in global cities such as London. The major one is global economic integration which draws the difference between various classes in the society therefore drawing the ones with similar demands and closely similar income to live in a given neighbourhood. In other cases social groups may seek segregation to strengthen their social identity (Decker, n.d.). Other factors that are associated with socio-spatial segregation include gender, ethnicity and culture where some people may feel they want to live in a region where their security or the design used is favouring their needs. Gentrification has been discussed in depth in this work as a process where the traditional structures in a given region in a city re replaced by better structures with a better design and most likely to carry more individuals. This is mainly enacted through policies like the Right to Buy that has been in place in the UK since 1980. Market forces have seen as playing a significant role in this process where the demand for the houses is higher than the supply therefore the cost rises beyond the range of the normal middle class. Bibliography Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity. 1-28. Atkinson, R. (2004). The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban renaissance. European journal of housing policy, 4(1). 107-131. Berlin Handbook. Gender mainstreaming in urban development. Brindley, T. (2000). Community roles in urban regeneration: new partnerships on London’s South Bank. 4(3). Copley, T. (January 2015). Out of stock: Right to buy, HRA reform and the future of London’s council housing stock. Greater London Authority, 1-30. Decker, B. (n.d.). Spatial Segregation. Greed, C. (2005). Overcoming the factors inhibiting the mainstreaming of gender into spatial planning policy in the United Kingdom. Urban Studies. 2005(42). Hayden, D. (1980). What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and human work. Journal of women in culture and society, 5(3). Housing Committee. (February 2015). Knock it down or do it up? The challenge of estate regeneration. Greater London Authority. Ismail, A. (2010). Spatial Segregation in Global Cities: Global Pressures and Local Changes in Housing Market. Urban Dynamics & Housing Change-Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd Millennium. 4-7. Kail, E. (2011). Gender Implementation in Vienna-An Overview. Moore, S. & Colomb, C. (2015). Planning for social diversity and difference: planning for/in multi-ethnic societies and gender sensitive planning. 1-54. Shaw, K. (20080. Gentrification: What it is, why it is, and what can be done about it. Blackwell Publishing. 1-32. Van Ham, m., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L. & Maclennan, D. (2012). Neighbourhood effects research: New Perspectives (Springer, Dordrecht). Read More