Clicca qui per scaricare

Condividi
Building community in and out viapadova36: the challenge of a social mix housing project in a multiethnic milanese neighbourhood
Titolo Rivista: SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE 
Autori/Curatori: Roberta Marzorati, Michela Semprebon 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2015 Fascicolo: 108  Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  17 P. 69-85 Dimensione file:  77 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SUR2015-108005
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


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: Housing sociale, mix sociale, coesione sociale, costruzione di comunità, accompagnamento sociale, 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. http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/resourcing-community-involvement-neighbourhood-regeneration
  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 (www.scothomes.gov.uk)
  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-



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

Roberta Marzorati, Michela Semprebon, in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 108/2015, pp. 69-85, DOI:10.3280/SUR2015-108005

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche