Fostering social cohesion in the built environment

A quick glance at the news suggests that intolerance and ‘othering’ – viewing or treating a person or group of people as different from and alien to oneself – is increasing around the globe.  The world is becoming further divided along economic, cultural and political frontiers.

What is causing this divide? 

Fear and uncertainty drive protective behaviour – this could be over economic conditions or climate related concerns.  Inequality and resource scarcity are on the rise for various groups in society and this in turn breeds resentment. Migration is also rising in many of our urban centres and we know that the “dynamics of cultural transmission are one of the main drivers of processes of change”. Interestingly, it is only where cities are heavily segregated that social cohesion is at risk, indicating it is more the fear of a loss of sense of belonging, rather than the lived experience of diversity, that is the driver for aggressive identity assertion and social tension.

While social drivers of cohesion are far more pervasive, spatial effects can be subtle and long lasting.  These effects can be at an urban or building scale, materialised by walls that divide, signs that exclude, or communities that gate themselves off from the city. Discussed here are the drivers and potential design interventions at these two scales, of the city and of the building, that those in the built environment profession must be aware of and consider in their work.

Cities have long been divided along many dimensions: economic through clustering; ethnic through forced quartering or natural congregation; political through socioeconomic position.  This can also have positive effects, like the agglomeration economies of goods and services or support for new migrant groups on first arrival. Many of these phenomena are driven by natural processes of homophily – the desire to be with others like oneself.  But modern cities are also plagued by further divisive forces. The cost of living and housing affordability drives certain groups into different areas. Then transport infrastructure determines how people commute and what populations come in to contact with each other in their daily lives, with investment decisios supported by cost benefit analyses that privilege the output intensive (and often class-divided) industries. This transport infrastructure also often causes huge rifts in the urban fabric that can cause deeper divides. In one area of London, the life expectancy on one side of a wide train junction is 10 years different to that on the other side of the tracks. 

What is the right answer? 

Mixed communities have been promoted by urban designers and questioned by sociologists over the last twenty years or longer . We know from research that people of different group identities do not always, out of choice, ‘hang out’ in the same social spaces but contact in common public space is considered to promote social cohesion, to do with a familiar stranger effect. Some spaces are, however, universal – schools (policy dependent), parks, food markets (pricing dependent).

We also know that being singled out as different can be detrimental to social cohesion – as in the stigmatisation of highly visible social housing – but that having a unique identity is critical to a sense of belonging. Some identities are universally embraced, again often around entertainment, food and family. Planners and designers of the built environment can try and ensure that housing/jobs, common public transport links and town centres are equally accessible both spatially and affordably, and that place based programs focus on strong unique identities that offer universally loved activities.

These ideals of equal access and welcoming identities also apply to treatment at the public space and building scale. The configuration of space and materiality can send unconscious messages to occupants about the openness, or otherwise, of a place.  For public spaces, locating these centrally can indicate they are valued and encourage natural flow through the site. Clear visibility into these spaces and layers of openness and enclosure once inside means people can choose their level of public exposure. As a designer or developer, be aware of the types of user groups that are present and who is not there, consider how representative the user groups are of the local community and adjust offerings accordingly. 

Research shows that spontaneous interactions are more likely to happen in the spaces and moments between different activities. This makes slightly congested, intensely used spaces that overlap novel activities the most conducive to social cohesion. As a practical example, think markets. Social relationships in one street market were found to be 40% more socially cohesive than the general community and it was found to be a place considered welcoming by 100% of recent migrant users.

At the building scale, be conscious of the normative messaging of materiality and style. For example, the New London Vernacular style has been lauded for being ‘democratic’ but lack of diversity in the built environment profession calls in to question how well design guide led vernaculars represent highly diverse cities. The desired intent, to increase the quality of the built environment, can be positively linked to social cohesion , but the invisibility of diversity can signal a lack of integration . Strong local identities are a sought-after ideal in contemporary place-making, uniqueness is what makes exploring new areas so exciting and expression of identity allows us to develop attachment to place. Ensuring that built identity is expressive and also inclusive is a fine balance that only consideration for and co-design with all potential user groups can produce.
 
Several years ago, it was estimated that lack of social cohesion costs the UK economy up to £6 billion a year, this figure is likely growing. The role that the built environment plays in social cohesion is complex and more research is needed to understand the subtle dynamics of social group behaviour in space. With increasing social tension in our society, it is important now, more than ever, to ensure that we create environments where everyone feels welcome, that celebrate multiple, fusion identities and allow different groups to enjoy sharing the same space.