Building Community in and out ViaPadova36: the Challenge of a Social Mix Housing Project in a Multiethnic Milanese Neighbourhood

Author/s Roberta Marzorati, Michela Semprebon
Publishing Year 2016 Issue 2015/108 Language English
Pages 17 P. 69-85 File size 77 KB
DOI 10.3280/SUR2015-108005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

La letteratura suggerisce che il mix sociale implementato a livello di edificio/isolato può favorire l’interazione, ma le evidenze empiriche sono ancora scarse. L’articolo analizza il progetto abitativo di mix sociale ViaPadova36 a Milano. Sulla base di una ricerca etnografica, si indagano i processi di accompagnamento sociale e costruzione di comunità per rispondere alle seguenti domande: in che misura queste pratiche contribuiscono all’obiettivo del progetto di promozione della coesione sociale? Se e in che modo favoriscono l’interazione fra residenti del condominio e con gli abitanti del quartiere?

Keywords: Social Housing, Social Mix, Social Cohesion, Community Building, Community Development, Via Padova.

  1. Alietti A. (2013). Politiche abitative, integrazione e immigrazione nel contesto europeo. In Alietti A., Agustoni A. Integrazione, casa e immigrazione. Esperienze e prospettive in Europa, Italia e Lombardia. Milano: Fondazione Ismu.
  2. Atkinson R., Kintrea K. (1998). Reconnecting Excluded Communities: The Neighbourhood Impacts of Owner Occupation. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.
  3. Arrigoni P. (2010). Via Padova. Tra cosmopolis e ordine pubblico. In Bricocoli M., Savoldi P. Milano downtown. Milano: Et al. Edizioni, 164-189
  4. Arthurson K. (2012). Social Mix and the City. Csiro Publishing.
  5. Bacqué M., Fijalkow Y., Launay L., Vermeersch S. (2011). Social Mix Policies in Paris: Discourses, Policies and Social Effects. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35: 256–73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00995.
  6. Beekman T., Lyons F., Scott J. (2001). Improving the understanding of the influence of owner occupiers in mixed tenure neighbourhoods. Report 89. Edinburgh: ODS Limited for Scottish Homes.
  7. Bolt G., Van Kempen R. (2011). Successful mixing? Effects of urban restructuring policies in Dutch neighbourhoods. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102: 361–368. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2011.00668.
  8. Bolt G., van Kempen. R. (2013). Introduction Special Issue: Mixing Neighbourhoods: Success or Failure? Cities, 35: 391–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.00
  9. Bricocoli M., Cucca R. (2014). Social Mix and Housing Policy: Local Effects of a Misleading Rhetoric. The Case of Milan. Urban Studies, 26: 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/004209801456049
  10. Briggs X. (1998). Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces of social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 9: 177-221. DOI: 10.1080/10511482.1998.952129
  11. Brophy P., Smith R. (1997). Mixed-income housing: Factors for success. Cityscape, 3(2): 3-32.
  12. Camina M.M., Wood M.J. (2009). Parallel Lives: Towards a Greater Understanding of What Mixed Communities Can Offer. Urban Studies, 46(2): 459–80. DOI: 10.1177/004209800809936
  13. Chaskin R.J., Joseph M.L. (2010). Building “Community” in Mixed-Income Developments Assumptions, Approaches, and Early Experiences. Urban Affairs Review, 45(3): 299-335. DOI: 10.1177/107808740934154
  14. Cheshire P.C. (2007). Segregated Neighbourhoods and Mixed Communities: A Critical Analysis. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  15. Cheshire P. (2012). Are mixed community policies evidence based? A review of the research on neighbourhood effects. In Van Ham M., Manley D., Bailey N., Simpson L., Maclennan D. (Eds.) Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives Dordrecht: Springer, 267–294.
  16. Dekker K., Bolt G. (2005). Social Cohesion in Post-War Estates in the Netherlands: Differences between Socioeconomic and Ethnic Groups. Urban Studies, 42(13): 2447–2470. DOI: 10.1080/0042098050038036
  17. Duncan P., Thomas S. (2000). Resourcing Community Involvement in Neighbourhood Regeneration. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  18. Forrest R., Kearns A. (2001). Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12): 2125–43. DOI: 10.1080/0042098012008708
  19. Galster G. (2007). Should policy makers strive for neighborhood social mix? An analysis of the Western European evidence base. Housing Studies, 22(4): 523–545. DOI: 10.1080/0267303070138763
  20. Galster G.C. (2013). Neighbourhood social mix: theory, evidence and implications for policy and planning. In Carmon N., Fainstein S. Policy, Planning and People. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 306-335.
  21. Goodchild B., Cole I. (2001). Social balance and mixed neighbourhoods in Britain since 1979: A review of discourse and practice in social housing. Environment & Planning, 19: 103–122. DOI: 10.1068/d39
  22. Helleman G., Wassenberg F. (2004). The renewal of what was tomorrow’s idealistic city. Amsterdam’s Bijlmermeer high-rise. Cities, 21: 3-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2003.10.01
  23. Joseph M. (2006). Is mixed-income development an antidote to urban poverty? Housing Policy Debate, 17: 209–234. DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2006.952156
  24. Joseph M.L., Chaskin R.J., Webber H.S. (2007). The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3): 369–409. DOI: 10.1177/107808740629404
  25. Kearns A. (2002). Response: From residential disadvantage to opportunity? Housing Studies, 17: 145-50. DOI: 10.1080/0267303012010596
  26. Kearns A., Forrest R. (2000). Social Cohesion and Multilevel Urban Governance. Urban Studies, 37(5-6): 995–1017. DOI: 10.1080/0042098005001120
  27. Kearns A., Mason. P. (2007). Mixed Tenure Communities and Neighbourhood Quality. Housing Studies, 22(5): 661–91. DOI: 10.1080/0267303070147462
  28. Kearns A., McKee M., Sautkina E., Cox J., Bond L. (2013). How to Mix? Spatial Configurations, Modes of Production and Resident Perceptions of Mixed Tenure Neighbourhoods. Cities, 35: 397–408. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.00
  29. Kleinhans R., Priemus H., Engbersen G. (2007). Understanding social capital in recently restructured urban neighbourhoods: Two case studies in Rotterdam. Urban Studies, 44(5/6): 1069–1091. DOI: 10.1080/0042098070125604
  30. Kleinhans, R.J., Bolt, G. (2014). More than just fear. On the intricate interplay between perceived neighborhood disorder, collective efficacy and action. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26. DOI: 10.1111/juaf.1203
  31. Kleit R. (2008). Neighbourhood segregation, personal networks, and access to social resources. J. Carr, N. Kutty (ed.) Segregation. The rising costs for America. New York: Routledge, 237-60.
  32. Lamont M., Molnár V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social science. Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 167-195 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.14110
  33. Lelévrier C. (2013). Social Mix Neighbourhood Policies and Social Interaction: The Experience of Newcomers in Three New Renewal Developments in France. Cities, 35: 409–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.00
  34. Martin G., Watkinson J. (2003). Rebalancing communities by mixing tenures on existing rented housing estates. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  35. Marzorati R. (2014). Neighbour Relations In The Socially And Ethnically Diverse Centre Of A Northern Italian Town: The Role Of Housing Conditions. Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, 105: 50–64. DOI: 10.3280/SUR2014-10500
  36. Musterd S., Andersson R. (2005). Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities. Urban Affairs Review, 40: 761-90. DOI: 10.1177/107808740527600
  37. Musterd S., Ostendorf W., De Vos S. (2003). Neighbourhood effects and social mobility: a longitudinal analysis. Housing studies, 18: 877-892. DOI: 10.1080/026730303200013548
  38. Mugnano, S., Palvarini P. (2013). Sharing Space without Hanging Together: A Case Study of Social Mix Policy in Milan. Cities, 35: 417–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.00
  39. Naparstek A.J., Freis S.R., Kingsley G.T. (2000). HOPE VI: Community building makes a difference. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
  40. Ostendorf W., Musterd S., de Vos S. (2001). Social mix and the neighbourhood effect: Policy ambition and empirical support. Housing Studies, 16: 371-80. DOI: 10.1080/0267303012004972
  41. Palvarini P. (2014). Casa e disuguaglianze. In Vicari Haddock S. (a cura di). Questione urbane. Bologna: il Mulino.
  42. Permentier M., Bolt G., Van Ham M. (2011). Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of neighbourhood reputation. Urban Studies, 48: 977–996. DOI: 10.1177/004209801036786
  43. Pologruto P. (2013). Le sfide di un modello di housing sociale. Caso studio Maison du Monde. In Alietti A., Agustoni A. Integrazione, casa e immigrazione: esperienze e prospettive in Europa, Italia e Lombardia. Milano: ISMU
  44. Popple K. (2006). Community development in the 21st century: a case of conditional development. British Journal of Social Work, 36: 333–340. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bch32
  45. Savage M. (2008). Histories, Belongings, Communities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11: 151–62. DOI: 10.1080/13645570801940863
  46. Scottish Homes (2001). Precis no. 136: empowering communities: the impact of registered social landlords (RSLs) on social capital (
  47. Silverman E., Lupton R., Fenton A. (2006). A good place for children? Attracting and retaining families in inner urban mixed income communities. Coventry: JRF/CiH.
  48. Tunstall, R., Fenton A. (2006). In the Mix, a Review of Mixed Income, Mixed Tenure and Mixed Communities: What Do We Know. York, Housing Corporation, Joseph Rowntree Foundation & English Partnerships.
  49. Wilson W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  50. Valentine G. (2008). Living with Difference: Reflections on Geographies of Encounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32: 323–37. DOI: 10.1177/030913330808937
  51. Van Beckhoven E., van Kempen R. (2003). Social effects of urban restructuring: a case study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 18: 853–75. DOI: 10.1080/026730303200013547
  52. Van Eijk G. (2010). Unequal networks - Spatial segregation, relationships and inequality in the city. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  53. Van Kempen R., Bolt G. (2009). Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands. J Housing and the Built Environment, 24: 457–75 DOI: 10.1007/s10901-009-9161-

  • La casa di chi? Da territorialità esclusive verso territorialità inclusive: rileggere il lavoro di comunità in contesti di nuova immigrazione Paolo Boccagni, Silvia Volpato, in SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE 117/2019 pp.38
    DOI: 10.3280/SUR2018-117003

Roberta Marzorati, Michela Semprebon, Building community in and out viapadova36: the challenge of a social mix housing project in a multiethnic milanese neighbourhood in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 108/2015, pp 69-85, DOI: 10.3280/SUR2015-108005