One of the arguments for ‘social mix’ urban renewal in low-income neighbourhoods is that the presence of middle-class residents would improve life chances for lower-income groups. However, according to various researchers, middle-class newcomers have little social interaction with the neighbourhood, do not feel at home there and make little use of the neighbourhood’s public spaces and facilities. In short, they show disaffiliation with their mixed neighbourhoods, thus compromising the assumed positive effects of social mixing. Several studies, on the other hand, point to different factors that mediate this (dis)affiliation, such as newcomers’ lifestyles, housing trajectories, the width of class and ethnic differences between newcomers and the existing population and the presence of neighbourhood shops and facilities that can cater to both groups. This relatively large set of factors suggests a need for detailed case-study research to understand neighbourhood affiliation of middle-class newcomers. We made a qualitative and quantitative study of a housing complex designed specifically for middle-class buyers with a ‘diversity-liking lifestyle’, in a poor neighbourhood in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It has not been researched before how using the assumed preferences of diversity-liking middle-class households in dwelling design, for social mix, relates to the eventual residents’ neighbourhood affiliation. The study yields hardly any disaffiliation in the sense of exclusionary spatial strategies: almost all residents use (semi-)public spaces in the neighbourhood on a day-to-day basis. Affiliation in terms of self-identification with the neighbourhood, however, is higher for residents with a diversity-liking lifestyle, and only the minority-ethnic residents use neighbourhood primary schools.

Social mix, a mixed population according to income and ethnicity, has been an important paradigm in urban development and housing and became the corner stone of renewal in post-war areas in the Netherlands in recent decades. In public as in academic debate, however, this concept has also been heavily criticized. The assumed positive effects of mixing for social cohesion and mobility would be limited or even negative. In this doctoral dissertation the central research question is: How do residents with different ways of life perceive and assess their changed and changing neighbourhood? The study in the post-war residential district Zuidwijk in Rotterdam focusses on the change as the result of autonomous moving processes in the existing social rental sector (the influx) as well as the result of demolition and new housing construction, often for owner-occupancy (the intervention). In general the residents of Zuidwijk are positive about their dwelling and immediate vicinity. They have experienced their move to Zuidwijk as a step up in their housing career. All residents value the green character and quiet setting of Zuidwijk, but are critical about the (shooting) incidents that happened in the past. The perception of residents from all clusters, be they Dutch natives or not, is that the influx in the existing social rental dwellings mainly, some even say totally, consists of households with a migrant background. The influx of mainly allochthonous households is seen as a problem by all residents. Dutch-native residents emphasize the negative effects on liveability and neighbourhood reputation and regret the loss of decorum and respectability. The allochthonous households emphasize the negative effects on integration and want to live in a mixed neighbourhood with Dutch native residents. In general the residents are positive about the impact of the social mix strategy: demolition and new housing development. Exceptions are found with the households of older allochthonous residents and allochthonous single-parent families. People in both groups have a low income and state that the new-built dwellings are not meant for them. Ethnic diversity is not seen as a problem in the population composition of the new-built houses for owner-occupiers. These residents have to work to be able to buy a dwelling and by doing so they ‘prove’ to be decent and respectable. Mixing makes a difference: it is important that the influx in the social rental dwellings not only exists of households with a migration background and a low income. Throughout the history of restructuring in Zuidwijk, the dominant narrative has been that the newcomers (meaning households with a migration background) did not have ties with the neighbourhood and only came there to obtain a cheap rental dwelling. This study disproves this narrative: a large number of them have come to live in Zuidwijk as youngsters and have grown up there. They identify themselves very strongly with Zuidwijk and, after a number of removals with their families, have rented or purchased a dwelling on their own. Ethnic diversity will become more normal while more and more allochthonous residents will grow up in the neighbourhood. The growing presence of allochthonous middle-class households in the new built houses may reinforce that. On the other hand the tensions and problems in the neighbourhood are heightened by the polarized national political debate about integration. The municipality and housing association do have an important role in acting adequately to signals and complaints of residents and supporting mutual contact of residents, but the austerity of the housing association and municipality in recent years has decreased the possibilities in this regard.

The changing composition of the population affects the appreciation and reputation of neighbourhoods. Instudies about social mix and state-led gentrification the focus is often on the effects for the residents and theneighbourhood of the changes caused by the new built dwellings and their residents. In this paper, based on aqualitative case study in a post-World War II district that has been part of a major urban renewal operation, theeffects of the changing inflow of residents in the still existing social rental stock are highlighted in contrast withthe changing population as the result of urban restructuring. The perceived change in the inflow of newresidents in the social rental dwellings is shared by almost everyone, old residents and newcomers, native Dutchand residents that belong to an ethnic minority. All are critical about the occurring concentration of the latter,based on different considerations. In-depth interviews provide insight in the changing feelings of the residents.Loss of respectability and of shared norms and values of how to live in the neighbourhood play an importantrole in the critical stance of a part of the, mostly older Dutch native, residents. Also residents with a migrantbackground criticize the concentration as a negative influence for their integration in Dutch society. Otherresidents relate negative changes more to class than to ethnicity. A negative assessment of the neighbourhoodchange however, does not have to have much impact on the behaviour of these residents and their ‘doing’neighbourhood. The heated debates in society at large – about the Dutch identity and immigration – influencethe way how residents cope with their changed assessment of the neighbourhood and feelings of belonging.