The Planning Role in Stretching the City: A Tale of Two London Neighbourhoods (SpringerBriefs in Geography) 3031354826, 9783031354823

Table of contents :
Introduction
References
Contents
Part I How Do Latent Orders Determine Residential Dynamics in London?
1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration
References
2 How Do Housing Strategies Stretch Housing Positions?
2.1 The Horizontal Axis
2.2 The Vertical Axis
2.3 The Spatial Encounter Between the Horizontal and Vertical Axes
References
Part II Planning for Undocumented Communities
3 How Have Undocumented Residents in Whitechapel Managed Their Housing Decisions?
References
4 Approaches to Social-Residential Relations: ‘Bonding’, ‘Friends’, and Methods to Examine Interresidential Relations
References
5 Managing Residential Selections in the Context of Illegality
References
6 Ethnicity as a Bridge Between Stated and Revealed Residential Preferences
References
7 Residential Solutions of the Undocumented Population
References
8 The Effect of Different Compositions of Social Ties on Residential Selections
References
9 “Planning” Visual Dominance in Whitechapel’s Absorption Neighbourhood?
References
Part III Planning Integration?
10 “Nations Are in Conflict, Neighbours Are not”: The Case Study of the Iranian and the Israeli Communities of West Finchley
10.1 What Are the ‘Push and Pull’ Factors to Promote Shared Iranian and Israeli Communities?
References
11 Micro-Integration Analysis
11.1 The Research Area of WFNP
References
12 Residential Choice of the Iranian and the Israeli Communities
12.1 Intra- and Intergroups Residential Preferences
12.2 The Micro-11th SDG Goal: The Power of Soft Residential Boundaries in Creating an Inclusive, Safe Diverse Urban Area
References
Discussion and Conclusion

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Geography Shlomit Flint Ashery

The Planning Role in Stretching the City A Tale of Two London Neighbourhoods

SpringerBriefs in Geography

SpringerBriefs in Geography presents concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across the fields of physical, environmental and human geography. It publishes compact refereed monographs under the editorial supervision of an international advisory board with the aim to publish 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance. Volumes are compact, 50 to 125 pages, with a clear focus. The series covers a range of content from professional to academic such as: timely reports of state-of-the art analytical techniques, bridges between new research results, snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics, elaborated thesis, literature reviews, and in-depth case studies. The scope of the series spans the entire field of geography, with a view to significantly advance research. The character of the series is international and multidisciplinary and will include research areas such as: GIS/cartography, remote sensing, geographical education, geospatial analysis, techniques and modeling, landscape/ regional and urban planning, economic geography, housing and the built environment, and quantitative geography. Volumes in this series may analyze past, present and/or future trends, as well as their determinants and consequences. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series. SpringerBriefs in Geography will be of interest to a wide range of individuals with interests in physical, environmental and human geography as well as for researchers from allied disciplines.

Shlomit Flint Ashery

The Planning Role in Stretching the City A Tale of Two London Neighbourhoods

Shlomit Flint Ashery Department of Geography and Environment Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel

ISSN 2211-4165 ISSN 2211-4173 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Geography ISBN 978-3-031-35482-3 ISBN 978-3-031-35483-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35483-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Introduction

The cultural advantage becomes decisive in determining competitive advantage not only of products but also of cities, and the importance of the economic competitiveness of diverse cultural competencies cannot be overestimated. The social-spatial need to balance between preserving immigrant cultures and assimilation across our regions places the spatial aspect of that issue in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for research of social challenges. Several studies have described housing strategies, explain how individuals’ preferences, resources, constraints, and opportunities affect the residential pattern (Alterman 2007; Skovgaard et al. 2015; Adam et al. 2020). For example, housing strategies lead certain families to maintain the practice of coresidency at the residential unit level, which in turn, at the building and neighbourhood levels strengthened by the tendency of certain groups to congregate (Zhelnina 2020; Sanò et al. 2021). The spatial outcome of these housing strategies is spatial segregation which is strengthened in social housing. Moreover, these preferences prevent them from achieving a more advantageous residential situation and push them to experience population density (Usman et al 2021; van Lanen 2022). Studies claim that the concepts of shared values and rules are useful in understanding how social hierarchies are translated into socio-spatial patterns (Hoekstra and Gerteis 2019; Ye 2019). They are related to specific urbanisation paths, property allocation mechanisms, property relations governing building stock, the production process of the built environment, and the planning regulations, and according to Maloutas and Karadimitriou (2022) “affect the reproduction of social inequalities as well as the diverse ways their form and content have evolved in cities”. It is therefore essential to identify trends and the micro-SDGs level, address the needs of communities, recognise the differences between them, and the effect of informality on space and resources. In times of mass migration and massive construction, issues of residential selections are especially important. Skovgaard et al (2015) demonstrated that in Stockholm and Helsinki, public housing has traditionally been the main tenure for Somalis, thus constituting a central part of their housing strategies. For many of the interviewees who arrived in the 1990s, public housing had indeed offered a stable and progressive housing career. However, the demand for cheap rental housing increased v

vi

Introduction

rapidly in the 2000s, decreasing the chances of both access to and progress within the sector. The introduction of social-mixing policies in Helsinki has also made a public housing career less predictable. In Oslo, the low proportion of public housing and the general lack of affordable rentals decreased the interviewees’ housing choices. The stretch idea results from applying complexity science (Allen 2006; Batty 2007) and the Hierarchy Theory (Simon 1973; Gibson et al. 2000; Lin 2016) to urban studies and seeing the built environment as an ecosystem wherein the relationship between its components highly complex and discontinuous (Moroni 2010). This study assumes that interaction between entities of differing scale, extent, and resolution comprising the urban system is evolving over time and space: (a) Mechanisms and units Mechanisms of stretch that are based on exploiting group-specific social codes are used to measure and study a phenomenon. Each mechanism consists of its own units of analysis that are located within the mechanism and is based on the following features: Social mechanism: We contend that in order to examine urban processes, one must refer to the social normative system that drives the local process and the values from which the generative spatial ‘order’ draws its strength (Flint-Ashery and Hatna 2021). While units can vary over time and place and between groups, it is essential that the units be accepted by the agents acting in a specific area as motivations for action that affect their social behaviour, judgement, and choices. It is assumed that the local population has similar income, and the price of the apartments in the area is similar. Thus, we are able to focus on the differentiating features. Organisational mechanism: Defined as clearly bounded and organised political units (Cash 2006; Flint-Ashery and Stadler 2021). We highlight the synergetic impact of various organisational units on the mixed neighbourhoods’ spatial structures and distinguish between the functional and (in)formal features of three levels of action: (1) individuals’ relationships with their own and other groups; (2) the community leadership’s powers inside the group and with respect to other groups; and (3) government directives and tools. Spatial-temporal mechanisms: We would like to model how the population of neighbourhoods are evolving over time and space (Flint Ashery and Natapov 2020). Each individual building is characterised by its year of construction, the number of floors, the religion of its tenants, etc., and the characterisations of nearby buildings. We expect to reach a high accuracy using standard prediction models such as bagging or boosting facing issues such as the relatively small size of the surveys. We will develop methods of semi-supervised learning and transfer learning for such hierarchical data. Residential selections and the formation of urban enclaves have been extensively studied in urban studies literature. In particular, the profound structural changes altering the resources available for individuals to self-organise have drawn scholarly attention, raising the question of what kind of order is possible in an intensely ethnically diverse society (Peach 2006; Adida et al. 2016). There are often significant differences between neighbouring groups of people (Bunce and McElreath 2018).

Introduction

vii

The maintenance of certain aspects of cultural diversity may promote individual identity maintenance, contribute to social adaptability, and enhance intergroup relations (Kolodny et al. 2015). In spite of individual’s identification with and pursuit of their distinct cultures (Kopenawa and Albert 2013), individual decisions can also result in the loss of cultural variation. The transition from extended family orientation to those prevalent in the Global North can challenge individuals’ abilities and resources and set newcomers on a lifelong course of coping strategies with regard to their living arrangements (Lowenstein and Daatland 2006; Yoshikawa 2011; Tomaszczyk and Worth 2018). Yet, the effect of minority housing strategies along the horizontal and vertical axes of the cities, and how it relates to urban inequalities, segregation and even integration, requires more in-depth insight. Studies among other residential groups should explore the culture-oriented residential behaviour of undocumented populations, thereby opening new directions for dialogue and empirical theory. As with the East-End dwellers, spatial juxtapositions reflect urban identities and social relations. Here, we hope to discover the meaningful aspects that can provide and shed light on their impact on seemingly heterogeneous urban spaces. Our aim is to evaluate how housing strategies differ by immigrants’ country of origin and tenure types. We seek to ascertain whether certain strategies are a characteristic of specific groups and whether it is practised more in private or in social housing. However, comparative microanalysis research, focusing on the housing experiences, decisions and outcomes of un/documented populations residing in major cities, is needed to assess the effect of rapid turnovers of people within the networks on its resilience and the quality of residential solutions. In order to do this, this book is divided into three parts, each of which examines hidden orders and offers relevant examples of inter- and intraspatial interactions between documented and undocumented migrants of various ethnic groups that are similar in many respects. At the same time, each can access and mobilise different kinds of residential resources. The following part examines strategies according to the principal axis—horizontal or vertical—on which they operate and analyse how they relate to urban inequalities and segregation. Part II evaluates the role played by housing strategies in stretching the logic and functioning of Whitechapel. The findings in Part III add to the literature on the effects of replicating residential practices from the home country on residential patterns with broader planning policy implications. Beginning with a theoretical framework that outlines the existence and maintenance of housing strategies, the following sections present the research methods and the case studies of Whitechapel and West Finchley. In Part I (Chaps. 1 and 2), the mechanisms and methodology are presented both horizontally and vertically. East London’s Whitechapel neighbourhood provides an interesting example of how cultural preferences and resources are linked to constraints and opportunities within a compact and dense inner-city area (Flint Ashery 2018). Whitechapel is situated near the historic financial district of London and is home to 27 (2012) population groups of various ethnic backgrounds and economic abilities. Whitechapel allows us to examine the housing strategies of

viii

Introduction

various ethnic groups to maintain, reproduce, and expand their group’s and household’s housing position in a high-demand area based on three factors: (1) individuals’ residential preferences; (2) communal affiliations; and (3) the location of the residential unit in the building stories. Based on an extensive field survey at the family level and in-depth interviews (2011–2012) and 2021 updates, we assessed the housing strategies along the horizontal and vertical axes of Whitechapel’s buildings by evaluating the number of families in residential units and stories. Part II (Chaps. 3–9), the manuscript has revealed new and interesting aspects of the relationship between the social ties and residential selection of undocumented migrants within the urban enclave of Whitechapel. In particular it shows how legal status, as a cause for residential constraints, brings together undocumented migrants of various ethnic backgrounds and enforces residential homogeneity despite turnovers in the microresidential units. Based on mixed research methods, the study indicates that in addition to the legal immigration status of the undocumented population in Whitechapel, ethnicity plays a crucial role in the ability of undocumented individuals to implement their stated preferences in the urban realm. This work argues that undocumented migration is a by-product of these processes and global capitalism in particular. It uses a network lens to explore to what extent the undocumented populations can apply stated residential preferences to living among their groups, given their lack of legal residence status. This part starts with two pertinent questions: Who are the undocumented populations in Whitechapel, and what are their residential preferences? What are the barriers and challenges that the undocumented population face in the UK? By approaching these questions, this timely study will contribute to our understanding of housing decisions in the context of illegality. Our case study, the neighbourhood of Whitechapel, which is the traditional absorption area of East London, has until recently served as a home to a large number of undocumented immigrants. The study examines the nature of relationships and their influence on residential opportunities, indicates the actual resources available and realisable within particular social networks, and exemplifies the impact of social networks operating within a microcosm of small communities, on the spatial organisation of a densely populated urban area. Lessons from Isovist analysis and through geodesign collaboration process, planning should address the needs of undocumented communities, recognise the differences between them, and the effect of informality on space and resources. This is especially important during the period of mass migration and in areas that undergo massive construction. Part III (Chaps. 10–12) focuses on the individual- and householder-level interactions within the urban migrants’ societies and aims to expose the untapped potential that migration brings to cities. Migrants of various ethnic and religious groups have become a salient factor in Western society, where many of our neighbourhoods host to migrant groups who are known for their political, ethnic, or religious differences. The residential decisions of the residents follow, at least in part, by their desire to live where their “friends”—neighbours from the same or close group, live, and/or relying on communal networks. However, the geographical proximity of the countries/areas of origin, and as a result, the cultural similarities, seems to be able to overcome the

Introduction

ix

political barriers. And so, our Western cities have witnessed a set of mixed neighbourhoods and shared communal spaces with Turks and Greeks, Iranians and Israelis, Chinese and Koreans, Bangladeshi Indian and Muslim, who are known for their political, ethnic, or religious conflicts. The members of these potentially conflicting migrant groups peacefully interact with each other. They create and share the same neighbourhoods and communal spaces, compete for similar social and economic opportunities and use the same routes of integration into the new society. This research’s concept is based on the understanding of the close yet hidden interactions between individual migrants of “conflicting” nations in a third country, with a knowledge gap about the (existing and extensive) opportunities these similarities open to strengthening integration in Western cities. Moreover, the benefits of these connections are not yet fully realised, and a broader base of evidence and understanding of their contributions to integration and inclusion is required. Building upon extensive shared social, cultural, and historical practices, this study recognises latent orders that determine residential dynamics between Iranians and Israelis and the general population and entails understanding how spatial-cultural structures are embedded within the urban societies. As this tendency and the existing branding resulting in the curiosity to get to know the other ‘unknown’ nation may tie them, the mutual exchange of knowledge could enhance the potential opportunities of integrating close-knit communities into the hosting societies. This manuscript argues that encouraging discrepancy between political and social stereotypes and reality should become leverage for establishing an effective system for facilitating migrants’ integration and social inclusion.

References Adam F, Föbker S, Imani D, Pfaffenbach C, Weiss G, Wiegandt CC (2020) Municipal housing strategies for refugees. Insights from two case studies in Germany. Springer International Publishing, pp 201–223 Adida CL, Laitin DD, Valfort MA (2016) Why Muslim integration fails in Christian-heritage societies. Harvard University Press Allen TF (2006) A summary of the principles of hierarchy theory. 1st WICI International Workshop, WImBI 2006, Beijing Alterman R (2007) Land and housing strategies for immigrant absorption: what the Palestinians can learn from the Israeli experience. In: Brynen R (ed) Palestinian refugees: challenges of repatriation and development. London and New York, IB Tauris, pp 163–217 Batty M (2007) Cities and complexity: understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. The MIT press Bunce JA, McElreath R (2018) Sustainability of minority culture when inter-ethnic interaction is profitable. Nat Hum Behav 2(3):205–212 Cash D, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2) Flint Ashery S (2018) Micro-residential dynamics: a case study of Whitechapel. London, Springer Flint Ashery S, Natapov A (2020) A democratisation of urban space: gender and ethnicity in the Whitechapel market. J Urban Aff. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2020.1749006 Flint-Ashery S, Hatna E (2021) Coresidency of immigrant groups in a diverse inner-city neighborhood of Whitechapel, London. Housing Policy Debate, 1–16

x

Introduction

Flint-Ashery S, Stadler N (2021) Dynamics of transcendence and urbanism: the latent mechanisms of everyday religious life and city spaces. Hous Theory Soc 1–24 Gibson C, Ostrom E, Ahn T-K (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32:217–239 Hoekstra MS, Pinkster FM (2019) ‘We want to be there for everyone’: imagined spaces of encounter and the politics of place in a superdiverse neighbourhood. Soc Cult Geogr 20(2):222–241 Kolodny O, Creanza N, Feldman MW (2015) Evolution in leaps: the punctuated accumulation and loss of cultural innovations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(49):E6762–E6769 Kopenawa D, Albert B, Malaurie J (2013) La chute du ciel: paroles d’un chaman yanomami. Plon Lin Y, Zhang MP, Wang HT, Li YC (2016) Comprehensive evaluation research on the sustainable development of urban infrastructure. In: Civil engineering and urban planning IV: proceedings of the 4th international conference on civil engineering and urban planning, Beijing, CRC Press, p 85 Lowenstein A, Daatland SO (2006) Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-national context: evidence from the OASIS study. Ageing Soc 26(2):203–223 Maloutas T, Karadimitriou N (2022) Introduction to Vertical Cities: urban micro-segregation, housing markets and social reproduction. In: Vertical cities. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 1–21 Moroni S (2010) Rethinking the theory and practice of land-use regulation: towards nomocracy. Planning Theory 9(2):137–155 Peach C (2006) Islam, ethnicity and South Asian religions in the London 2001 census. Trans Inst British Geogr 31(3):353–370 Sanò G, Storato G, Della Puppa F (2021) Interstitial urban spaces: housing strategies and the use of the city by homeless asylum seekers and refugees in Trento, Italy. Social Anthropology/ Anthropologie Sociale, 29(4):976–991 Simon HA (1973) The organization of complex systems. In: Pattee HH (ed) Hierarchy theory: the challenge of complex systems. New York, George Braziller, pp 1–27 Skovgaard Nielsen R, Holmqvist E, Dhalmann H, Søholt S (2015) The interaction of local context and cultural background: Somalis’ perceived possibilities in Nordic capitals’ housing markets. Housing Stud 30(3):433–452 Tomaszczyk AC, Worth N (2018) Boomeranging home: understanding why young adults live with parents in Toronto, Canada. Soc Cult Geogr 1–19 Usman M, Maslova S, Burgess G (2021) Urban informality in the Global North:(il) legal status and housing strategies of Ghanaian migrants in New York City. Int J Housing Policy 21(2):247–267 van Lanen S (2022) My room is the kitchen: lived experience of home-making, home-unmaking and emerging housing strategies of disadvantaged urban youth in austerity Ireland. Soc Cult Geogr 23(4):598–619 Ye J (2019) Re-orienting geographies of urban diversity and coexistence: analyzing inclusion and difference in public space. Progress Hum Geogr 43(3):478–495 Yoshikawa H (2011) Immigrants raising citizens: undocumented parents and their children. Russell Sage Foundation Zhelnina A (2020) Engaging neighbors: housing strategies and political mobilization in Moscow’s renovation. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York

Contents

Part I

How Do Latent Orders Determine Residential Dynamics in London?

1

The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 9

2

How Do Housing Strategies Stretch Housing Positions? . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Horizontal Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Vertical Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Spatial Encounter Between the Horizontal and Vertical Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 14 16

Part II 3

19 21

Planning for Undocumented Communities

How Have Undocumented Residents in Whitechapel Managed Their Housing Decisions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 29

Approaches to Social-Residential Relations: ‘Bonding’, ‘Friends’, and Methods to Examine Interresidential Relations . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 39

5

Managing Residential Selections in the Context of Illegality . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 46

6

Ethnicity as a Bridge Between Stated and Revealed Residential Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 53

Residential Solutions of the Undocumented Population . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 59

4

7

xi

xii

8

9

Contents

The Effect of Different Compositions of Social Ties on Residential Selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 67

“Planning” Visual Dominance in Whitechapel’s Absorption Neighbourhood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 83

Part III Planning Integration? 10 “Nations Are in Conflict, Neighbours Are not”: The Case Study of the Iranian and the Israeli Communities of West Finchley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 What Are the ‘Push and Pull’ Factors to Promote Shared Iranian and Israeli Communities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Micro-Integration Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 The Research Area of WFNP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87 89 91 93 96 97

12 Residential Choice of the Iranian and the Israeli Communities . . . . 99 12.1 Intra- and Intergroups Residential Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 12.2 The Micro-11th SDG Goal: The Power of Soft Residential Boundaries in Creating an Inclusive, Safe Diverse Urban Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Part I

How Do Latent Orders Determine Residential Dynamics in London?

Chapter 1

The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

Abstract The existence and maintenance of housing strategies resulting in spatial patterns pose a challenge to policymakers’ visions for sustainable and inclusive urban development planning. Particularly, environmental concerns and public debates on environmental sustainability emphasise the importance of compact cities and the implementation of densification strategies that may conflict with strategies leading to segregation. The housing strategies of various ethnic groups to maintain, reproduce, and even expand their groups’ and households’ housing positions in a high-demand area can be explored in multiple ways and at various spatial scales. However, only at the scale of individual flats, microanalysis methods can explore the agents’ trajectories and identify their underlying ‘real’ dynamics. Nevertheless, mixing social groups in the urban (macro), neighbourhood (meso), or building block (micro) levels is not a policy option with a guaranteed outcome. Keywords Housing strategies · Inclusive development · Microanalysis method

Over the last decade, a growing body of literature on vertical differentiation (Maloutas and Karadimitriou 2001; Maloutas 2020) has added to the rich literature existing in the field of horizontal segregation and its social effects (Hedberg and Tammaru 2013; Ouˇredníˇcek et al. 2015; Tammaru et al. 2015, 2021; van Ham et al. 2021; Friesenecker and Kazepov 2021; Haandrikman et al. 2021). At the same time, the housing strategies of various ethnic groups to maintain, reproduce, and even expand their group’s or household’s housing position in a high-demand area—which may lead to segregation—are often overlooked. The theories employed in this manuscript vary in the importance they accord to individuals’ resources, opportunities, and constraints, thus offering various explanations for the existence and maintenance of housing strategies (Markkanen and Harrison 2013; Skovgaard Nielsen et al. 2015). According to research on residential selections and ‘geography of opportunities’ (Squires and Kubrin 2005; Karsten 2007), individual identity is an essential factor in determining residential selections (Twigger-Ross and Uzzell 1996). As far back as the early twentieth century, the Chicago School explained the effects of spontaneous

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Flint Ashery, The Planning Role in Stretching the City, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35483-0_1

3

4

1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

cooperation among free individuals on urban structures (Blumer 1951). Current theories suggest that the tendency to cooperate is more complex, entwined with trust and self-identity for individuals (Davis et al. 2018). In the social identity theory, individuals’ behaviour is mainly determined by their perception of their own identity and their neighbours, which usually reflects identification with larger social groups (Tajfel and Turner 1986; Clark and Coulter 2015). Especially for migrants residing in diverse neighbourhoods, social determinants have a significant impact on their residential behaviours (Van Tubergen 2013; Iglesias-Pascual 2019). Sharing territory with ‘friends’ of the same community can preserve communal identities, values, and languages and help provide access to community services, mutual assistance, and support (Boal 2008; DeVerteuil 2015). Individuals adapt to the norms and lifestyles of their group and may be driven into segregating themselves from the influences of ‘others’ at different scales, including flats, buildings, building blocks, and enclaves (Johnston et al. 2007). Meaningful social interaction and strong ties are crucial for the stability and resilience of the formed communities (DeVerteuil 2011). Studies of residential segregation frequently obscure the underlying mechanisms, be they socio-cultural or economic, that cause spatial patterns (Flint-Ashery 2015). However, Schelling’s ethnic residential segregation model (Schelling 1971; Sakoda 1971) includes the consequences of non-economic local interactions. Schelling studied householders’ perception of spatially adjacent neighbours as differentiating between ‘friends’ -that is, neighbours of the same group -and ‘strangers’ -neighbours belonging to other groups. The model reduces the noneconomic influences on a person’s residential decision to the neighbourhood’s fraction F of ‘friends’. Over time, residents’ preferences to live in neighbourhoods with many friends lead to a segregated residential pattern. In this research, we examine small-scale noneconomic housing strategies. A distinction between the desire to congregate with ‘friends’ and the desire to isolate from ‘others’ could be particularly relevant to the study of ethnic groups. According to the behavioural approach, people buy and rent homes according to their household characteristics, needs, and composition (Adams and Gilder 1976). Household resources—whether material, cultural, or cognitive—determine their ability to overcome residential constraints (Ihlanfeldt and Scafidi 2002; Wahlstrom 2005). Housing shortages, competition over affordable housing, and discriminatory practices by landlords or realtors can also cause constraints, as can local authorities exclusionary policies (Özüekren and Van Kempen 2002; Bolt and Van Kempen 2013; Peach 2013). The ethnocultural approach, a particular form of the behavioural approach, stresses the role of choice in the relationships between individual preferences and resources, constraints and opportunities, and the macro-level sociospatial context in which people reside. Residential behaviour is culturally informed at the household level, resulting in differences in residential patterns between social groups (Lersch 2013; Søholt 2014). Studies have shown that in addition to linguistic and cultural differences, there is a structural difference between the post-traditional society that views people as individuals and the communal order of groups living in multi-cultural cities in social units larger than households (Andersen 2019a: 141–7). We will employ lessons from behavioural and ethnocultural approaches

1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

5

to better understand internal and external group processes, exclusion, barriers, and discrimination and how they affect interpersonal bonds. We also draw on Abram’s (2004) definition of culture as a “way of doing things” (see also Saha 2022), which has been more recently articulated in Wiedner et al.’s (2022) critiques of both spatial assimilation model and the place stratification theory stated how “well-established immigrants and their descendants… may reside in ethno-religious enclaves … because they value their cultural heritage, family-ties and religion”. However, certain location-specific factors, such as ethnic prejudices in the host society and discriminatory practices in the housing market, can restrict a group’s possibilities for spatial assimilation into the broader society (Clark and Drever 2000; Wessel et al. 2017; Andersen 2019b). The place stratification theory will be applied to explain the reasons for housing strategies as expressions of how individuals link socio-cultural preferences and resources to constraints and opportunities in cities. In a Western city, migration often challenges individuals’ abilities and resources and results in various adaptation strategies. One housing strategy is cohabitation (Khvorostianov and Remennick 2015; Flint-Ashery and Hatna 2021), a term used to describe the living arrangements of two or more families living in the same residence. Cohabitation has been studied from different perspectives, focusing primarily on the preferences, constraints, and opportunities of individuals (DeVerteuil 2011; Carling et al. 2012; Søholt 2014); the impact of cohabitation on density and crowding (Mahler et al. 2015; Reynolds et al. 2010; Brannen 2016), and the effect of chain migration of extended families in modern cities (Reynolds et al. 2010; Brannen 2016). Another housing strategy is socio-spatial vertical differentiation between floors (Forrest et al. 2020). It can result from different processes, take a variety of socio-spatial forms, and may have different impacts in different cities (Pfirsch 2011; Dines 2012; Maloutas 2020). Most studies have found a positive correlation between socio-economic rank and residence floor, which varies by region and culture (White 1984; Wiles 2014; Natera-Rivas et al. 2018; Marci´nczak and Hess 2019). In post-war Anglo-American cities, modern high-rise buildings often served as low-quality, high-density housing for low-income renters, while the wealthy lived in traditional flats and low-rise buildings, but today it is the elite moving upward in cities (Graham 2015; Saitluanga 2017). High-rise tower housing has also been affected by gentrification in Hong Kong, Seoul, and Sao Paulo (Mak et al. 2010; Harris 2015; Kim et al. 2015; Forrest et al.2020). Vertical differentiation appears as ‘fortified verticality’ in cities with increased tension, such as Beirut. Thus, while most migrants live in the least desirable housing segments of the market, studies show that families adopt housing strategies even as their socio-economic circumstance improves (Crowder et al. 2006; Pais et al. 2012). The existence and maintenance of housing strategies resulting in spatial patterns pose a challenge to policy makers’ visions for sustainable and inclusive urban development planning. Particularly, environmental concerns and public debates on environmental sustainability emphasise the importance of compact cities and the implementation of densification strategies that may conflict with strategies leading to segregation (Næss 2021; Rérat 2012; Soltani et al. 2022). There is growing evidence that unequal outcomes for groups living in different neighbourhoods are more related to

6

1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

their social characteristics than their spatial separation, especially when segregation levels are moderate (Maloutas 2020). Nevertheless, compact, dense cities are more socially mixed than those segregated at the neighbourhood level, but not necessarily more equal (Asibey et al. 2021). Mixing social groups in the urban (macro), neighbourhood (meso) or the building block (micro) levels is not a policy option whose outcomes can be guaranteed (Gruner 2013; Mouratidis 2020). However, while social mix is insufficient to counteract the reproduction of social inequality in urban areas, the experience of dense cities proves that it enhances the chances of policies and practices that do so (Sampson 2019; Soltani et al. 2022). The emergence of “nested” places-smaller communal areas within the social mix neighbourhood is therefore likely to occur. The housing strategies of various ethnic groups to maintain, reproduce and even expand their groups’ and households’ housing positions in a high-demand area can be explored in multiple ways and at various spatial scales. However, only at the scale of individual flats, microanalysis methods can explore the agents’ trajectories and identify their underlying ‘real’ dynamics. This research is part of an extensive project aimed at examining microresidential dynamics in Whitechapel neighbourhood (Fig. 1.1), a first port destination to many migrants in East London. As part of the broader study, a detailed spatio-temporal database that contains data at the family level and flats was constructed during 2011–12. The microdata is from 2011 to 2012, so it is not new, but it is supposed to coincide with the 2011 UK census. Although our intention was to conduct another complete survey alongside the official census in 2021, Covid-19 prevented us from covering the entire neighbourhood, and we sampled 368 families. This microdatabase allows GDPR compliance to strengthen the data protection for the residents while being highly relevant to explain the microdynamics when Whitechapel infrastructure was largely stable while residential patterns changed. A door-to-door survey: Along with Mr. Fardin Ali, an interviewer from Whitechapel’s Sylheti community, the author of this research carried out an in-depth field survey between February 2011 and December 2012. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, Whitechapel’s occupants were asked to identify themselves by their place of origin, religion and ethnicity and recall the flat’s former dwellers back to 1995. By identifying prior residents, we learned which group’s members resided in which flat over a specific time. Whitechapel’s occupants were also asked about their stated and revealed preferences (Speare et al. 1975; Iceland 2009), to better understand their residential behaviour. Stated preferences (SP) are the individuals’ declared attitudes and intentions (e.g. the relative importance of proximity to services); while revealed preferences (RP) are people’s actual behaviour (e.g. the actual location of these services). Additionally, we asked them to describe the type and variation of their housing tenure, the reasons for choosing their flat, and rank the relative importance of the flat’s price, the neighbours, and the proximity of institutions (e.g. churches, mosques, and schools) when deciding to relocate there. This survey collected data about the location of services used by families, ownership versus rental of the flat, and the source of information about flats prior to buying or renting. Due to possible bias in memory,

1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

7

Fig. 1.1 Research area of Whitechapel

information concerning 1995–2005 was separated from that of 2006–2012. Being already familiar with the area and also speaking Bengali and Arabic, we achieved 74 per cent of cooperation, representing the study area, and we were able to canvass 4656 families living in 3186 flats. Only after analysing the “real data”, the role of the undocumented population in Whitechapel revealed. Although we didn’t ask outright about their legal status, 1342 families (about 31% of Whitechapel population, of Somalia, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Bangladesh) explained their housing decisions and constraints as stemming from their status and described their reliance on nonprofit organisations’ services. The project was managed through a quality assurance process which ensured consistency. This involved piloting and ongoing basis review. The database analysis revealed spatial-cultural tendencies, so 108 in-depth interviews were conducted with residents about their residential experience, 79 of which were with interviewees living in the upper quarter of the buildings and 58 who also practice co-residency. Gender, ethnic, racial, and religious diversity was a significant criterion in selecting our interviewees. Data Analysis: Whitechapel’s GIS was constructed using layers updated to 2011 and to 2021, provided by the OS, the national mapping agency in the United Kingdom. The characteristics of Whitechapel’s flats and households were organised as a GIS layer, in which every record in the table is related to the corresponding building. The layer was then included in the area’s high-resolution GIS. The area’s GIS contains additional layers pertaining to topography, roads, land parcels, and buildings, the latter characterised by use and number of floors.

8

1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

The georeferenced data from the interviewees and the survey’s spatial–temporal GIS (e.g. Moran’s I index of spatial autocorrelation) enable the evaluation of residential patterns and dynamics at the resolution of a single apartment, building and neighbourhood. A high level of cooperation with the survey enabled a comparison between stated and revealed preferences (Speare et al. 1975) that were gathered during the survey. A total of 1149 families resides in 47 social housing buildings, and 3507 families in 1615 privately owned flats spread across 241 buildings. Most buildings are four to six storeys and have no lifts or upper loft storage. Data analysis was conducted using R (2018). The observed tendency of various groups to share apartments (no. of occupants per residential unit) is compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Maps were produced using ArcMap 10.6.1, and the Moran’s I indices of spatial autocorrelation (Anselin 1995) were calculated using Geoda 1.12.161.27 (Anselin et al. 2006). Thus, even though Whitechapel’s margins have dramatically changed over the past decade due to accelerated gentrification processes, the evidence supports the existence and continuity of the mechanisms described here. Whitechapel was developed gradually with significant growth in the late sixteenth century. WWII devastated much of the area, leading to the dispersal of the population. In the 1950s, with the construction of new public housing, Whitechapel experienced social changes. The closure of the last of the East London docks in 1980 led to attempts at regeneration to the south and east of Whitechapel. Subsequently, a location close to the financial centre of London and the strong presence of economic regeneration together with social policy activity has led to a massive gentrification process (Hammett 2004). Despite the location close to the financial centre of London and much new development, some parts of the East End, including Whitechapel, continue to suffer considerable social and economic disadvantage, containing the most deprived areas within Britain. Those areas are largely populated mainly by the UK’s youngest and fastest-growing minorities (Glynn 2017). The largest ethnic group in Whitechapel is the Bangladeshi Muslims (27%), the older and well-established ethnic minority, followed by English (16.5%), Lithuanian families (6.6%), Lebanese (6.3%), Moroccan (5.6%), Indian (5.4%), Japanese (4.8%), and German (2.8%). The other groups in the area are relatively small, divided in this research by their place of origin (mainly Sudanese, Chinese, Jamaican, Irish, Pakistanis, Greek, Scottish, Emiratis, Scandinavian, and Sri Lankan). According to Fig. 1.2, Whitechapel is highly integrated, with members of many different population groups living close to one another. The close intergroup and intra-group relations produce a group-specific information network that helps householders locate available units from within their group. Data also indicate that 74% of residents either rented or bought their current flat after receiving information from friends and family, whereas only 8% learned about it from advertising and real estate agents. The stated residential preferences (SP) indicate that residents have similar concerns. Only East Europeans ranked the location of institutions as their primary concern. Whitechapel’s proximity to the city centre can be attributed to this preference. Fewer than 20% of residents indicated that price was critical, contrary to accepted economic theories. What is important is that more than 46 per cent

References

9

Fig. 1.2 Spatial distribution of population groups in Whitechapel’s buildings 2012

of Whitechapel’s residents were concerned about the identity of their neighbours, despite its reputation as a mixed migrant neighbourhood. Members of all groups share this stated preference which is their first or second priority. Most of the neighbourhood residents want at least a few ‘friends’—members of the same or close groups—to feel comfortable in their residential building. We thus turned to investigate the impact of these declared preferences on the revealed preferences of Whitechapel’s dwellers along the horizontal and vertical axes of the neighbourhood.

References Abram S (2004) Personality and professionalism in a Norwegian district council. Plan Theory 3(1):21–40 Adams JS, Gilder KS (1976) Household location and intra-urban migration. Social Areas in Cities 1:159–192 Andersen HS (2019a) Ethnic spatial segregation in European Cities. Routledge Andersen HS (2019b) Urban sores: on the interaction between segregation, urban decay and deprived neighbourhoods. Routledge Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geogr Anal 27(2):93–115 Anselin L, Syabri I, Kho Y (2006) GeoDa: an introduction to spatial data analysis. Geogr Anal 38(1):5–22

10

1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

Asibey MO, Poku-Boansi M, Adutwum IO (2021) Residential segregation of ethnic minorities and sustainable city development. Case of Kumasi, Ghana. Cities 116:103297 Blumer H (1951) Collective behaviour. In Lee AM (ed) Principles of sociology, pp 166–222 Boal FW (2008) Territoriality on the Shankill-falls divide, Belfast. Ir Geogr 41(3):349–366. https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/00750770802507079 Bolt G, Van Kempen R (2013) Ethnic segregation and residential mobility: relocations of minority ethnic groups in the Netherlands. In: Linking integration and residential segregation. Routledge, pp 173–194 Brannen J (2016) Fathers and sons: generations, families and migration. Springer Carling J, Erdal MB, Horst C (2012) How does conflict in migrants’ country of origin affect remittance-sending? Financial priorities and transnational obligations among Somalis and Pakistanis in Norway. Int Migr Rev 46(2):283–309 Clark WA, Drever AI (2000) Residential mobility in a constrained housing market: implications for ethnic populations in Germany. Environ Plan A 32(5):833–846 Clark WA, Coulter R (2015) Who wants to move? The role of neighbourhood change. Environ Plan A 47(12):2683–2709 Crowder K, South SJ, Chavez E (2006) Wealth, race, and inter-neighborhood migration. Am Sociol Rev 71(1):72–94 Davis MA, Gregory J, Hartley DA (2018) The long run effects of low income housing on neighborhood composition DeVerteuil G (2011) Survive but not thrive? Geographical strategies for avoiding absolute homelessness among immigrant communities. Soc Cult Geogr 12(8):929–945 DeVerteuil G (2015) Resilience in the post-welfare inner city: voluntary sector geographies in London. Policy Press, Los Angeles and Sydney Dines N (2012) Tuff city: urban change and contested space in central Naples, vol 13. Berghahn Books, New York & Oxford Flint Ashery S, Steinlauf-Millo R (2002) Planning vertical differentiation? Geodesign workshop in the case study area of Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood in Tel Aviv. In: T Maloutas, N Karadimitrio (eds) Micro-segregated cities. An international comparison of segregation in dense cities. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Flint-Ashery S, Hatna E (2021) Coresidency of immigrant groups in a diverse inner-city neighborhood of Whitechapel, London. Hous Policy Debate, pp 1–16 Flint-Ashery S (2015) Public welfare or sectarianism: a new challenge for planning. Plan Theor Pract 16(3):299–318 Forrest R, Tong KS, Wang W (2020) Residential stratification and segmentation in the hyper-vertical city. In Handbook of urban segregation. Edward Elgar Publishing Friesenecker M, Kazepov Y (2021) Housing vienna: the socio-spatial effects of inclusionary and exclusionary mechanisms of housing provision. Social Inclusion 9(2):77–90 Glynn S (2017) Playing the ethnic card—politics and segregation in London’s East End. Urban Stud 47(5):991–1013 Graham S (2015) Luxified skies: how vertical urban housing became an elite preserve. City 19(5):618–645 Gruner S (2013) ‘The Others don’t Want...’. Small-scale segregation: hegemonic public discourses and racial boundaries in German neighbourhoods. In: Linking integration and residential segregation. Routledge, pp 115–132 Haandrikman K, Costa R, Malmberg B, Rogne AF, Sleutjes B (2021) Socio-economic segregation in European cities. A comparative study of Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo and Stockholm. Urban Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1959778 Hammett C (2004) Economic and social change and inequality in global cities: the case of London. Greek Rev Soc Res 113A:63–80 Harris A (2015) Vertical urbanisms: opening up geographies of the three-dimensional city. Prog Hum Geogr 39(5):601–620

References

11

Hedberg C, Tammaru T (2013) ‘Neighbourhood effects’ and ‘city effects’: the entry of newly arrived immigrants into the labour market. Urban Stud 50(6):1165–1182 Iceland J (2009) Where we live now: immigration and race in the United States. Univ of California Press Iglesias-Pascual R (2019) Social discourse, housing search and residential segregation: the social determinants of recent economic migrants’ residential mobility in Seville. Hous Stud 34(7):1163–1188 Ihlanfeldt KR, Scafidi BP (2002) An empirical analysis of the cause of neighborhood racial segregation Johnston R, Poulsen M, Forrest J (2007) The geography of ethnic residential segregation: a comparative study of five countries. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 97(4):713–738 Karsten L (2007) Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle-class families’ preference for an urban residential location. Hous Stud 22(1):83–98 Khvorostianov N, Remennick L (2015) Immigration and generational solidarity: elderly Soviet immigrants and their adult children in Israel. J Intergenerational Relat 13(1):34–50 Kim H, Park SW, Lee S, Xue X (2015) Determinants of house prices in Seoul: a quantile regression approach. Pac Rim Prop Res J 21(2):91–113 Lersch PM (2013) Residential relocations and their consequences: life course effects in England and Germany. Springer Science & Business Media Mahler SJ, Chaudhuri M, Patil V (2015) Scaling intersectionality: advancing feminist analysis of transnational families. Sex Roles 73(3–4):100–112 Mak S, Choy L, Ho W (2010) Quantile regression estimates of Hong Kong real estate prices. Urban Stud 47(11):2461–2472 Maloutas T (2020) Vertical social differentiation as segregation in spatial proximity. In: Musterd S (ed) Handbook of urban segregation. London, Edward Elgar Maloutas T, Karadimitriou N (2001) Vertical social differentiation in Athens: alternative or complement to community segregation? Int J Urban Reg Res 25(4):699–716 Maloutas T, Karadimitriou N (due Oct 2022) Vertical cities, micro-segregation, social mix and urban housing markets. Edward Elgar Publishing ISBN: 978-1-80088-638-4 Marci´nczak S, Hess DB (2019) Vertical segregation of apartment building dwellers during late socialism in Bucharest, Romania. Urban Geogr 41(6):823–848 Markkanen S, Harrison M (2013) ‘Race’, deprivation and the research agenda: revisiting housing, ethnicity and neighbourhoods. Hous Stud 28(3):409–428 Mouratidis K (2020) Neighborhood characteristics, neighborhood satisfaction, and well-being: the links with neighborhood deprivation. Land Use Policy 99:104886 Natera-Rivas JJ, Larrubia-Vargas R, Navarro-Rodríguez S (2018) Vertical segregation in Southern European Cities. The case of Malaga, Spain, Papeles de Población 23.93. URL https://rppobl acion.uaemex.mx/article Næss P (2021) Sustainable urban planning–what kinds of change do we need? J Crit Realism 20(5):508–524 Ouˇredníˇcek M, Pospíšilová L, Špaˇcková P, Kopecká Z, Novák J (2015) The velvet and mild: Sociospatial differentiation in Prague after transition. In: Tammaru T, Marci´nczak S, van Ham M, Musterd S (eds) Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities. Routledge, London, pp 261–286 Özüekren AS, Van Kempen R (2002) Housing careers of minority ethnic groups: experiences, explanations and prospects. Hous Stud 17(3):365–379 Pais J, South SJ, Crowder K (2012) Metropolitan heterogeneity and minority neighborhood attainment: spatial assimilation or place stratification? Soc Probl 59(2):258–281 Peach C (2013) E pluribus duo: contrasts in US and British segregation patterns. Institute for Social Change Working Paper Series (2010–2013). Pfirsch T (2011) La localisation résidentielle des classes supérieures dans une ville d’Europe du Sud. Le Cas De Naples. L’espace Géographique 11(4):305–318

12

1 The Study of Whitechapel’s Terrain of Integration

Rérat P (2012) Housing, the compact city and sustainable development: some insights from recent urban trends in Switzerland. Int J Hous Policy 12(2):115–136 Reynolds T, Goulbourne H, Solomos J, Zontini E (2010) Transnational families: ethnicities, identities and social capital. Routledge Saitluanga BL (2017) Vertical differentiation in urban space: a case of Aizawl city. Singap J Trop Geogr 38(2017):216–228 Saha A (2022) Sustaining multicultural places from gentrified homogenisation of cities. Cities 120:103433 Sakoda JM (1971) The checkerboard model of social interaction. J Math Sociol 1(1):119–132 Sampson RJ (2019) Neighbourhood effects and beyond: Explaining the paradoxes of inequality in the changing American metropolis. Urban Stud 56(1):3–32 Schelling TC (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1(2):143–186 Skovgaard Nielsen R, Holmqvist E, Dhalmann H, Søholt S (2015) The interaction of local context and cultural background: Somalis’ perceived possibilities in Nordic capitals’ housing markets. Hous Stud 30(3):433–452 Soltani S, Gu N, Ochoa JJ, Sivam A (2022) The role of spatial configuration in moderating the relationship between social sustainability and urban density. Cities 121:103519 Søholt S (2014) Pathways to integration: cross-cultural adaptations to the housing market in Oslo. J Ethn Migr Stud 40(10):1637–1656 Speare A, Goldstein S, Frey WH, Frey WH (1975) Residential mobility, migration, and metropolitan change. Ballinger Publishing Company. Squires GD, Kubrin CE (2005) Privileged places: Race, uneven development and the geography of opportunity in urban America. Urban Stud 42(1):47–68 Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of inter group behaviour. In: Worchel S, Austin WG (eds) Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson, Chicago Tammaru T, Marci´nczak S, van Ham M, Musterd S (eds) (2015) Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities. Routledge, London Tammaru T, Knapp D, Silm S, van Ham M, Witlox F (2021) Spatial underpinnings of social inequalities: a vicious circles of segregation approach. Soc Incl 9(2):65–76 Twigger-Ross CL, Uzzell DL (1996) Place and identity processes. J Environ Psychol 16(3):205–220 van Ham M, Tammaru T, Ubareviˇcien˙e R, Janssen H (2021) Rising inequalities and a changing social geography of cities. An introduction to the global segregation book. In: van Ham M, Tammaru, T, Ubareviˇcien˙e R, Janssen H (eds) Urban socio-economic segregation and income inequality. A global perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 3–26 Van Tubergen F (2013) Religious change of new immigrants in the Netherlands: the event of migration. Soc Sci Res 42(3):715–725 Wahlstrom AK (2005) Liberal democracies and encompassing religious communities: a defense of autonomy and accommodation. J Soc Philos 36(1):31–48 Wessel T, Andersson R, Kauppinen T, Andersen HS (2017) Spatial integration of immigrants in Nordic cities: the relevance of spatial assimilation theory in a welfare state context. Urb Affairs Rev 53(5):812–842 White P (1984: 155–156) The West-European city. A social geography. Longman, London. Wiedner J, Schaeffer M, Carol S (2022). Ethno-religious neighbourhood infrastructures and the life satisfaction of immigrants and their descendants in Germany. Urban Stud, 00420980211066412 Wiles W (2014) The chaos and tangled energy of living cities. Aeon Magazine. Available at: http:/ /aeon.co/magazine/living-together/the-chaos-and-tangled-energy-ofliving-cities/. Accessed 20 July 2014

Chapter 2

How Do Housing Strategies Stretch Housing Positions?

Abstract The neighbourhood of Whitechapel serves as a relevant example of how minority housing strategies affect the structure of a neighbourhood, in terms of both social practices and responses to modern urban trends such as demographic pressures and sharing economies. To better identify stretching mechanisms that exploit group-specific social codes, the revealed housing strategies are divided according to the principal axis—horizontal or vertical—on which they operate. Issues of identity and belonging, the links between vertical and horizontal differentiation at the single unit, building and neighbourhood level, and minority housing strategies along these axes, intensify spatial competition between the groups occupying Whitechapel. The housing strategies of various ethnic groups to maintain, reproduce and even expand their group’s and household’s housing position in a high-demand area reflect residential dynamics as a result of residential choice and marginalisation. These complimentary housing strategies operate at the individual residential units while maximising resources within the building and across the neighbourhood through territorial and spatial practices. Since the interactions within or across mechanisms intensify the built environment, it is appropriate to refer to the aggregate results under the heading ‘Stretch’. Keywords Stretch · Housing strategies · Neighbourhood structure · Demographic pressures · Sharing economies · Horizontal axis · Vertical axis · Identity · Belonging · Territorial and spatial practices

Whitechapel provides an example of how minority housing strategies affect the structure of a neighbourhood, both in terms of social practices and responses to modern urban trends like demographic pressures. To better identify stretching mechanisms that exploit group-specific social codes, the revealed housing strategies are divided according to the principal axis—horizontal or vertical—on which they operate.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Flint Ashery, The Planning Role in Stretching the City, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35483-0_2

13

14

2 How Do Housing Strategies Stretch Housing Positions?

2.1 The Horizontal Axis Ethnic minorities’ housing strategies along the horizontal axis reflect residential dynamics that organise Whitechapel’s residential patterns along the horizontal plane of the neighbourhood. The two interrelated strategies presented below—cohabitation and microsegregation—are largely derived from individuals’ preferences for congregating with their ‘friends’, which impact the larger components of the city. Cohabitation arrangement is a practice in certain communities in which multiple families live in the same single dwelling unit simultaneously. This residential strategy is measured by the ratio of surveyed families per occupied residential unit. Moriom, who identified herself as a 28-year-old Sylthi-Bangladeshi, describes her residential experience: “Most of the families live like that, all brothers and their families live together, it makes living more affordable and instils values of peace and prosperity in us. Both here and there (e.g. in London and Bangladesh) it is very common for non-immediate family members to live with us permanently along with or without other relatives or children.” According to the 2006–2012 data, private ownership residential units housed on average 1.8 families (95% CI [1.79, 1.91]). In 2012, about 44.4% of the residential units (indicating a median of 1) were shared by two or more families. Families of the same ethnic group occupied almost all the flats (~99.4%), which indicates a high level of ethnic segregation among flats. However, the few (13 flats) that mixed groups occupied were almost all rented by European groups such as English and German. These findings support past studies’ arguments that cohabitation is not merely a product of limited resources and that coresidents might prefer to share accommodations even when they can afford other alternatives. Similarly to the cohabitation strategy, microsegregation also operates through social norms and interpersonal bonds. This two-stage powerful generative process produces intra- and intergroup distinctions that create a sense of belonging for individuals. The entry stage represents the first stage of the microsegregation mechanism (Flint Ashery et al. 2012). We first calculated the percentage of D-households in each building with an empty flat, and then, for each group D, correlated the average fraction of D-households in buildings where a vacant flat was chosen by new D-households, with the percentage of D-households in the remaining buildings. In Table 2.1, the average fraction of same-group families selected and not selected (buildings level) by D-families is shown for each group D. The buildings chosen by D-householders have up to three times higher percentages of ‘friends’ than the non-occupied flats ignored by D-householders. The results show that individuals choose to live in buildings whose residence level is significantly higher compared to the percentage of their group in the total population. The second stage involves turnover, characterised by high resident confidence in establishing group identity and a pattern of residence. According to Table 2.1, a relatively high percentage of families live in flats vacated by families of the same group. This probability is calculated as DReplacing_NOT_D/NOT_DLeft, where DReplacing_NOT_D represents families of a group D that replaced families of other groups NOT_DLeft represents the total number of families of other groups moving

2.1 The Horizontal Axis

15

Table 2.1 Mean percentage of “Friends”, by Group, 1995—2012 in building “Chosen” and “Not Chosen” The flat in the building was … Chosen by members of D

Not chosen by members of D

Group D

N

Mean

STD

N

Mean

STD

P

British

776

25.9

16.3

1197

18.0

14.9