In many Dutch neighbourhoods with a large social housing stock, a concerning development of nuisance and unsafety is emerging alongside an increasing concentration of vulnerable residents. These neighbourhoods often show little resilience, resulting in reduced overall liveability. Research indicates the important role of the built environment in shaping neighbourhood resilience. However, studies in the past decade have mostly overlooked the connection between social environments, such as neighbourhoods and the specific elements that enhance resilience. This knowledge gap makes it difficult to understand how the built environment can contribute to neighbourhood resilience. Therefore, this study aimed to explore how the built environment can enhance neighbourhood resilience to help prevent a decline in liveability when neighbourhoods face an influx of vulnerable residents by answering the following research question: ‘’How can the built environment foster and enhance resilience within Dutch Neighbourhoods characterised by a large social housing stock and growing concentrations of vulnerable residents, thereby addressing the unfavourable developments of nuisance and unsafety in these areas?’’ To answer this research question, quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used. The approach involved selecting two cases using the resilience maps available on ‘Aedes’ and the ‘leefbaarometer’. Within these two neighbourhoods, in-depth interviews were conducted with municipalities, housing associations and other institutes like welfare organisations, to gather insights into the usage and quality of the built environment. Both neighbourhoods highlight the necessity of guiding youth and organising various social activities, where suitable amenities play a crucial role. Importantly, beyond this need for appropriate amenities, it is often the individuals and professionals involved who make the difference. Unfortunately, both neighbourhoods have also exhibited negative dynamics. Unlike how resilient neighbourhoods are often described as well-maintained, the two investigated neighbourhoods do not fit this description. Poor maintenance undermines neighbourhood resilience in both cases. In one neighbourhood, it primarily fosters feelings of unsafety for some residents, while in the other, a combination of housing type and poor maintenance is associated with undesirable and criminal activities. However, valuable lessons can be learned from these negative aspects. Based on both positive and negative experiences in the neighbourhoods and their identified needs, eight recommendations have been proposed. These recommendations pertain to essential amenities, necessary professionals and other crucial aspects to consider.