Introduction

In his foreword to the seminal British study of race and housing, Race, community and conflict, J.B. Rose noted: ‘The city is a crucible into which we pour the most disparate elements in our modern industrial society vaguely expecting that given time they will fuse into an acceptable amalgam’ (Rex and Moore, 1967, p v). Rex and Moore's groundbreaking research was adequate testament to how far this ‘vague expectation’ could be confounded by the operation of social and economic processes, notably the dynamics of the local housing market. This was crystallised in their observation that the ‘competition for the scarce resource of housing leads to formation of groups very often on an ethnic basis and one group will attempt to restrict the opportunities of another by whatever sanctions it can’ (Rex and Moore, 1967, p 16). In this chapter we revisit the city that was the focus of their study, Birmingham, more than 40 years on, and explore how market dynamics are continuing to shape patterns of mobility and settlement among different minority ethnic communities in two parts of the city.

Rex and Moore's Weberian approach subsequently attracted a great deal of attention and prompted a lively debate on their notion of ‘housing classes’ (Haddon, 1970; Saunders, 1981). This approach was evident in their focus on the struggle for control over parts of the local housing market by different groups, their attention to the role of ‘urban gatekeepers’ and their emphasis on market change, in response to the new pressures brought by immigration in the 1950s and early 1960s.

While the backdrop is very different now, we want to keep the notion of market change in focus in our account of the present-day Birmingham housing market. There is now extensive evidence on the different housing circumstances of minority ethnic groups in terms of housing quality, type, tenure and location. This has been the recurrent theme of research that has charted racialised inequalities in access, dwelling condition, overcrowding and housing wealth. In debates on community cohesion, it has also led some to argue that minority ethnic communities are ‘self-segregating’, forming distinct enclaves within urban systems (although see Phillips et al in Chapter Four, this volume). Yet this approach is essentially concerned with housing outcomes and can say little about the intervening influence of market processes on these outcomes.