Mot(s) clés libre(s) : économie du logement, logement social, marché immobilier, offices de l'habitation, politique du logement, ségrégation urbaine, sociologie de l'habitat

Mot(s) clés libre(s) : économie de l'habitat, logement social, politique du logement, sociologie de l'habitat

Social mix strategies in urban renewal: paradoxical effects ? / Christine Lelévrier [version avec traduction simultanée en français]. In "Mixité : an urban and housing issue? Mixing people, housing and activities as urban challenge of the future", 23ème colloque international de l'European Network for Housing Research (ENHR), organisé par le Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Solidarités, Sociétés, Territoires (LISST) à l'Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail, 5-8 juillet 2011. Plénière 4 : Approaches, pratices and challenges of mixité in different urban contexts, 7 juillet 2011.Social mix is a powerful category of housing and urban policies in France. The idea that urban and social diversity is a condition for a “balanced” and “peaceful” city life is not new and almost as old as urban planning and social housing. But, the strength of this notion has increased since the middle of the 1990’s. As in other countries, (the French) national government and local authorities consider social mix as a condition for community cohesion and social inclusion, a sort of public answer to poverty and ethnic concentration in cities and more recently, as a principle for sustainable development and territorial equality (Fenton, Turnstall, 2006). As in other countries as well, housing and especially social housing on one hand, area-based policies on the other hand, are the main public tools for implementing social mix strategies. In 2003, an ambitious urban renewal programme, focused on deprived neighbourhoods and based on housing diversification, followed up the debate about perverse effects of social mix strategies applied to poor areas. - Are urban renewal strategies successfull at diversifying housing and population in the neighbourhoods ?- Does social diversification mean more social capital and social interactions in the neighbourhoods ?- What are the benefits from urban renewal for the inhabitants, the “outsiders” and the “managers” of those neighbourhoods ?The findings from research conducted since 2004 highlight two mains processes of change: re-clustering and fragmentation (Lelévrier, 2010). Those urban and social effects could be seen as paradoxical ones, in reference to social mix public attempts, proceeding from a holistic and dualistic spatial representation of the city and the neighbourhood: instead of mixing, urban renewal just displaces poverty and instead of reenforcing cohesion, it enhances boundaries and distance between social groups. But the assessment could be different if the new private small residences are the opportunity for the “neighbourhoods children”, part of them coming from the immigrant families, to upgrade their residential careers and stay in the familiar neighbourhood while being able to keep social distance… Those changes encountered not national but local social housing managers -a way to stabilize “good tenants”, as well as private one- a way to endow their investments.> La communication est traduite en français par Mme Solange Hibbs (directrice du Département Centre de Traduction, d'Interprétation et de Médiation linguistique (CETIM) de l'université Toulouse II-Le Mirail).
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : cohésion sociale, logement social, mixité sociale, politique du logement, ségrégation urbaine, sociologie de l'habitat, urbanisme (aspect social)

Mixité, diversity: pertinent notions ? : présentation de la plénière [version avec traduction simultanée en français] / George Galster. In "Mixité : an urban and housing issue? Mixing people, housing and activities as urban challenge of the future", 23ème colloque international de l'European Network for Housing Research (ENHR), organisé par le Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Solidarités, Sociétés, Territoires (LISST) à l'Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail, 5-8 juillet 2011.The first plenary session will go on to question the foundations of the concept of diversity. What are the possible definitions ? How can we come to terms with the fact that currently, diversity so forcibly structures public discourse and action in the field of housing and habitat ? What does diversity encompass ? How can we measure it? What is its goal ? Leaving aside the fact that one can question the very substance of the notion of diversity, we must shed light on its ideological underpinnings in order to better understand the controversy it elicits in academic circles. The relevance of diversity in terms of the problems it is meant to address seems indeed to be scrutinized in regards to the values and political models of the societies that choose to use this concept.> La traduction en simultané de la communication est assurée par Mme Solange Hibbs (directrice du Département Centre de Traduction, d'Interprétation et de Médiation linguistique (CETIM) de l'université Toulouse II-Le Mirail, membre de l'Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence-AIIC).
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : diversité sociale, mixité sociale, politique du logement, ségrégation urbaine, sociologie de l'habitat, sociologie de la ville, sociologie urbaine

Mot(s) clés libre(s) : logement social et urbanisme, mixité sociale, politique du logement (Australie), poltique du logement (Europe), questions urbaines, sociologie de l'habitat

Planning social mix. A critical review of programs [version française] / Jürgen Friedrichs. In "Mixité : an urban and housing issue? Mixing people, housing and activities as urban challenge of the future", 23ème colloque international de l'European Network for Housing Research (ENHR), organisé par le Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Solidarités, Sociétés, Territoires (LISST) à l'Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail, 5-8 juillet 2011.Plénière 1: Mixité, diversity: pertinent notions?, 6 juillet 2011.Social mix has been a goal of urban planning since long time, from the the Cadbury (Bournville) estate at the end of the 19th century up to programs in the early 21st century. These programs aim at improving or establishing neighbourhood opportunity structures by modifying the social composition of residents. In order to achieve this goal, the structure is supposed to change from state A to a desired state A’ by implementing specific measures. In terms of social science methodology, this measure is an application of an empirical law. The measure ”If more homes to buy are offered, this will attract upper middle class households to the neighbourhood” rest upon the empirical evidence of a high propensity of middle class households to become homeowners. More generally speaking, programs aim at planning social behavior. Based upon this methodological reasoning, the paper assesses social mix programs in several countries, among them Australia, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The analyses pertain to a) the type of social mix to be achieved, b) the measure suggested to achieve this goal, c) the empirical evidence for the implicit propositions. The major conclusions derived from the inspection of social mix programs are: social mix is not specified precisely (dimensions? share of which groups?), and many propositions on household behaviour rest upon shaky empirical evidence. Thus, the feasibility of planning social mix is overestimated.> La traduction en français est assurée par Mme Solange Hibbs (directrice du Département Centre de Traduction, d'Interprétation et de Médiation linguistique (CETIM) de l'université Toulouse II-Le Mirail, membre de l'Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence-AIIC).
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : mixité sociale, politique du logement (Australie), poltique du logement (Europe), questions urbaines, sociologie de l'habitat

Mot(s) clés libre(s) : mixité sociale, politique du logement, ségrégation urbaine, sociologie de l'habitat

Approaches, pratices and challenges of mixité in different urban contexts : présentation de la plénière / Ian Cole [version française]. In "Mixité : an urban and housing issue? Mixing people, housing and activities as urban challenge of the future", 23ème colloque international de l'European Network for Housing Research (ENHR), organisé par le Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Solidarités, Sociétés, Territoires (LISST) à l'Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail, 5-8 juillet 2011. Plénière 4, 7 juillet 2011.This session will address the following questions: How are the concepts of social mixity / ‘mixité’ and social mix implemented in different contexts and by which categories of stakeholders? What representations of the society and the city do they reflect? How do market logics support or constrain policies objectives? How and to what extent do urban practices contribute to ‘mixité’ or on the contrary, to what extent do they reinforce sociospatial disparities?> La communication est traduite en français par Mme Solange Hibbs (directrice du Département Centre de Traduction, d'Interprétation et de Médiation linguistique (CETIM) de l'université Toulouse II-Le Mirail).
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : mixité sociale, politique du logement, ségrégation urbaine, sociologie de l'habitat