Rotterdam’s ‘Balanced’ Housing: A Recipe for Less Resilience?

Hey there! Ever wonder what makes a city tough, able to bounce back when things get rough? We often talk about urban social resilience – that magic mix of community strength, connections, and the ability to weather storms together. Cities all over the world are trying to figure out how to build more of it. Rotterdam, a fantastic city I know, has been trying something called the ‘balanced neighbourhoods’ policy, especially when it comes to housing. Sounds like a great idea on the surface, right? Mix things up, get different folks living side-by-side, build a stronger community fabric.

But here’s the thing: sometimes, what sounds good in theory gets a bit… fuzzy in practice. This policy in Rotterdam, based on the value of properties (they call it the WOZ-value over there), claims it’s boosting social resilience. But a recent deep dive into the numbers suggests that this whole ‘balanced’ concept might be a lot more ambiguous than we thought, and maybe, just maybe, it’s actually working against the very idea of building a resilient community.

What’s the Big Idea Behind ‘Balanced’?

The core thinking behind ‘balanced neighbourhoods’ or ‘social mixing’ policies is pretty straightforward. The idea is that if you bring people from different backgrounds – different incomes, different cultures – together in the same area, they’ll interact. These interactions are supposed to create ‘bridges’ between groups, not just ‘bonds’ within similar groups. The hope is that this mixing reduces segregation, improves the neighbourhood vibe (they call it ‘liveability’), and helps disadvantaged folks by giving them access to wider networks and opportunities. Housing policies are a popular tool for this, as you can literally change who lives next door to whom by altering the housing stock.

This kind of social cohesion, built on connections and solidarity, is seen as a cornerstone of urban social resilience. It’s the social glue that helps a community act together, support each other informally, and adapt when things get tough.

The Rotterdam Twist: Property Values and Ambiguity

Now, Rotterdam’s approach, laid out in their 2016 housing vision (the ‘Woonvisie’), explicitly links urban social resilience to creating a ‘balanced society’. And how do they measure this balance? Primarily through housing values. Their plan involves demolishing thousands of social housing units and building many more homes in the middle, higher, and top price brackets. The goal is to attract higher-income households and ‘social climbers’ to areas currently dominated by social housing.

But here’s where the ambiguity creeps in. Rotterdam’s definition of a ‘balanced neighbourhood’ isn’t a single, clear target like “50% social, 50% market rate.” Instead, it’s defined by a set of mathematical inequalities based on the proportions of different housing value segments (Social, Middle, Higher, Top). This means there isn’t just one way to be ‘balanced’ according to their rules; there are actually thousands of possible combinations of housing types that technically fit the criteria. It’s not a fixed point, but a whole fuzzy region of possibilities.

This ambiguity is a big deal. It makes it hard to really know if the policy is achieving its stated goals. Plus, critics have pointed out that focusing on property values and pushing out social housing can actually worsen spatial inequality and displace vulnerable residents, which doesn’t sound very resilient, does it? The UN has even raised concerns that Rotterdam’s policies could be discriminatory.

Diving into the Data: Does ‘Balance’ Build Bonds?

So, the folks behind this study decided to really dig into this ambiguity. They took Rotterdam’s official definition of ‘balanced’ and figured out all the different ways a neighbourhood could meet those criteria based on property values – turns out there are 3,162 distinct combinations! Then, they used empirical data from Rotterdam’s neighbourhood surveys (looking at things like how much residents feel at home, if they share views, and if they’re willing to help neighbours) and property value data.

Using some sophisticated statistical modelling (they call it PLS-SEM, don’t worry too much about the jargon!), they tested whether these different definitions of ‘neighbourhood balance’ (based on property values) actually had a positive impact on social cohesion and, through that, on people’s willingness to provide informal support to each other. They wanted to see if the city’s *claim* that property value mix boosts social resilience held up under scrutiny.

The Surprising Results: Less Cohesion, More Questions

And the results? Well, they were pretty eye-opening. First off, they found that only a tiny fraction – just 2.1% – of all the possible housing combinations that Rotterdam officially considers ‘balanced’ actually aligned with the research model that assumes balance leads to more social cohesion and support. Think about that: 97.9% of configurations deemed ‘balanced’ by the city *don’t* support the idea that this kind of balance helps people connect and support each other. This strongly suggests that, in general, social mixing based on property value isn’t really doing much for urban social resilience.

But it gets more interesting (and concerning!). Even within that tiny 2.1% subset where the models *did* fit, the relationship between ‘balance’ and social cohesion was often *negative*. Yes, you read that right. For some definitions of ‘balance’ that fit the model, having a higher degree of that specific type of property value mix was associated with *lower* levels of social cohesion. In the few cases where this kind of balance mattered, it seemed to be counterproductive!

The study also highlighted the spatial aspect. Their analysis showed that areas in Rotterdam North, which tend to have a more polarised mix skewed towards higher values, could still technically meet some of these ‘balanced’ criteria, even if they don’t reflect the city’s stated long-term composition goals. Meanwhile, areas in the South, with more social housing, are often implicitly targeted for demolition and renovation under this policy. It seems the ambiguous definition allows the city to pursue renovation plans, particularly in the South, under the guise of creating ‘balance’, even if that balance doesn’t actually foster social connections.

Why Does This Matter? Undermining Resilience

So, why is this a big deal? Because if the policy designed to create ‘balanced neighbourhoods’ based on property values isn’t actually building social cohesion – which is the real engine of social resilience – then what is it doing? The study argues that this ambiguous definition of ‘balance’ obscures the true drivers of urban renovation, potentially allowing economic or political goals (like increasing property values or attracting wealthier residents) to be pursued under the banner of social improvement.

Evidence from other places, like the HOPE VI program in the US, shows that demolishing public housing and aiming for mixed-income areas often leads to displacement of low-income residents and a loss of affordable housing, rather than genuine integration. The Rotterdam findings align with this: simply putting different income groups next to each other doesn’t automatically create meaningful interaction or trust. In fact, it can sometimes lead to social distance or even conflict due to different lifestyles and expectations.

The risk is that policies focused on physically changing the neighbourhood composition based on property values, especially with an ambiguous definition of success, can actually weaken the existing social fabric, displace residents, and exacerbate inequalities, directly undermining the goal of building urban social resilience.

Looking Ahead: Focus on People, Not Just Prices

What’s the takeaway from all this? First, we need much clearer and more nuanced ways to measure urban social resilience and the factors that contribute to it. Relying on a fuzzy definition of ‘balance’ based on property values seems insufficient, and potentially misleading.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the study highlights that social cohesion itself – the trust, the shared norms, the willingness to help each other out – is a much more direct and powerful driver of informal support and, therefore, urban social resilience, than a neighbourhood’s property value mix. This suggests that policies aimed at building resilience should perhaps shift their focus from altering the physical composition of neighbourhoods based on price tags to actively enhancing social connections and community bonds.

This means supporting community initiatives, fostering trust, and ensuring residents feel a sense of belonging and mutual support. It’s about locally adaptive, community-driven approaches that build on the strengths already present in a neighbourhood, rather than imposing a top-down idea of ‘balance’ based on ambiguous metrics that might not reflect the reality of how people live and interact.

Of course, this study has its limitations – it’s a snapshot in time, and social cohesion is a complex thing to measure perfectly. But the core message is clear: focusing on property value mix as the key to urban social resilience, especially with a vague definition of ‘balance’, might be a misguided approach that doesn’t actually help communities become stronger and more supportive. True resilience is built on people, not just the price of their homes.

Source: Springer