Introduction

This chapter seeks to delve into the theoretical assumptions and political rhetoric of social mix. I start from a simple question – how can social relationships be modified by a change in spatial configurations? Or, in other words, how does intergroup physical proximity trigger other processes of integration (functional, relational and symbolic)? To answer these questions, this chapter is presented as follows. First, I describe the policies intended for integration (historical and current), and some problems in the study of socially mixed neighbourhoods. Second, I analyse the cases of Cabrini Green in Chicago and La Florida in Santiago, in terms of four dimensions of socio-spatial integration (physical, functional, relational and symbolic). Third, I discuss differences and similarities between the cases. Finally, I finish with the major empirical findings, theory and policy implications and some critical approaches to deal with segregation.

Policies and problems in the study of social mix

The origins of the idea of socially mixed neighbourhoods date back to the Victorian era in England (Sarkissian, 1976). The idea then was supported by those who idealised the value of small towns, and by those who felt mixing was a solution to industrial overcrowding, but none of them were worried about decreasing inequality. Different actors in the urban debate considered social mix as a solution from a variety of viewpoints: Ebenezer Howard proposed low-scale segregation for his Garden City as a representation of the whole society; Octavia Hill thought that it would help in a ‘spirit of emulation’ (similar to W.J. Wilson's role models); and Lewis Mumford maintained that it would allow cross-cultural fertilisation (Sarkissian, 1976). After the Second World War, the idea of social mix was revived with the removal of barriers to opportunities reaching urban planning. Meanwhile, Jane Jacobs celebrated the vitality of heterogeneous neighbourhoods, initiating a new emphasis on social mix from planning and legislation (Sarkissian, 1976). The 1990s were especially important for the US in this trajectory: New Urbanism introduced urban design into the debate, contributing with normative prescriptions to the Hope VI programme, and social mix was established as a new consensual wisdom in planning debates. Today, although the political rhetoric still points to the historic progressive ideals of equality of opportunity, recent applications have been more in line with a neoliberal governance (August, 2008).