7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

1/13

On affecting social and cultural capital

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

2/13

Economic capitalcommand over economicresources (cash, assets)

Cultural capitalForms of knowledge, skil ls, educat ion,and advantages giving a person a

higher status in society. Parentsprovide their children wit h cult uralcapital by transmitting the attitudesand knowledge needed t o succeed inthe current educational system

Social capitalResources based on group membership, relationships, networks ofinfluence and support . The aggregate of the actual or potentialresources which are linked to possession of a durable network ofmore or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintanceand recognition. (Bordieu)

Human capitalCompetences, knowledge and per-sonality attributes embodied in theabil it y to perform labor so as to pro-duce economic value. Gained througheducation and experience(example: a college education)

Physical capitalAny non-human asset madeby humans and used inproduction (example: ascrewdriver)

On the concept of social capital

social capital stands for the abilit y of actors to secure benefits by vir tue ofmembership in social networks or other social st ructures(Portes A., Social Capit al: It s Origins and Appli cat ions in Modern Sociology ,2000)

. . the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value.Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capi-tal) can increase productivity (both individual and collective) so too socialcontacts affect the product ivity of individuals and groups.(Putnam R., Bowling Alone ,1999)

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

3/13

On individual level

Refers to the st ructure of peoplesrelationships (both close individualones and distant, as a member of the

samt group) and the positive effectsone may gain from them. This couldbe access to information and skil l,knowledge of a job opport unity, eco-

nomic resources, family support etc.

diagram mapping personal network(www.chass.utoronto.ca)

On social capit al and inequalit y

- Not equally available to all : Geographic and social isolation can limit theaccess to social capital. (Edwards and Foley, 1997) Jane Jacobs argues that cut -ting a neighbourhood off from its surroundings for instance by constructingfreeways next to it can decrease its social capital.

- The real value of social capital depends on the socioeconomic posi-t ion of i ts source - t hough a poorer neighbourhood might be rich in bondingsocial capital, this may not help the residents gain access to resources such

as j ob prospects, financial benefits or better educational outcomes, as theyare bonding with people that have equally poor access to these resources.(Edwards and Foley, 1997)

On urban/community level

- Associated with the level of civic-ness in a communit y: Social capit alalso means features of social organi-

zations, such as networks, norms andt rust , that facili tate action and coop-eration for mutual benefit. Workingtogether is easier in a communityblessed with a substantial stock ofsocial capital (Putnam, 1999)- According to Robert Putnam, lack ofsocial capital could be the downfallof democracy, and is connected to

low levels of poli t ical involvementand low election turnouts.- Affects the level of trust, vibrance,safety and well-being in a commu-nit y, as well as its possibi l it ies ofeconomic growth.- Has been labelled a bit of a cure-al l for al l t he maladies af fect ingsociety (Port es, 2000), from povertyand crime to gent rification and lackof activity and ownership of neigh-bourhoods.

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

4/13

An import ant dist inct ion: Bridging social capitalvs bonding social capital

. . .most important is the dist inct ion between bonding (or exclusive) andbridging (or inclusive). Some forms of social capit al are, by choice or neces-

sity, inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homog-enous groups. Examples of bonding capital include ethnic fraternal organiza-tions, church-based womens reading groups, and fashionable country clubs.Other networks are outward looking and encompass people across diversesocial cleavages. Examples of bridging social capit al include the civil rightsmovement, many youth service groups, and ecumenical religious organiza-tions. Bonding social capital is good for undergirding specific reciprocit yand mobil izing solidari ty. Dense networks in ethnic enclaves, for example,provide crucial social and psychological support for less fortunate members

of t he communit y, while furnishing start -up financing, markets, and reliablelabor for local entrepeneurs. Bridging networks, by contrast, are better forlinkage to external assets and for information dif fusion. Economic sociologistMark Gravetter has pointed out that when seeking j obs - or poli t ical all ies- the weak t ies that l ink me to distant acquaintances who move in dif fer-ent circles from mine are actuall y more valuable than the st rong t ies thatlink me to relatives and intimate friends whose sociological niche is very likemy own. Bonding social capital is good for gett ing by , but bridging socialcapit al is crucial f or get t ing ahead . Moreover, bridging social capit al cangenerate broader ident it ies and reciprocit y, whereas bonding social capit albolsters our narrow selves. (...) Bonding social capital, by creating strongin-group loyalty, may also create strong out-group antagonism (...) and forthat reason we might expect negative external effects to this form of socialcapital. Nevertheless, under many circumstances both bridging and bond-ing social capit al can have powerfully posit ive social ef fects. Many groupssimoultaneously bond along some social dimensions and bridge across others.The black church, for example, brings together people of the same race and

rel igion across class lines (. ..) bonding and bridging are not eit her-or cat -egories int o which social networks can be neatly divided, but more or less

dimensions along which we can compare different forms of social capital.Robert Putnam, Bowl ing Alone (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), p 22-23

Bonding

Bridging

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

5/13

Social and cultural capital and New Urbanism

Principles of New Urbanism (www.newurbanism.org)

1. Walkabil it y- Most things within a 10-minute walk of home and work- Pedest rian fr iendly st reet design (buildings close to st reet ; porches,windows and doors; tree-lined streets; on street parking; hidden park-

ing lots; garages in rear lane; narrow, slow speed streets)- Pedestrian streets free of cars in special cases

2. Connectivit y- Interconnected street grid network disperses traffic and eases walking- A hierarchy of narrow st reets, boulevards, and alleys- High quality pedestrian network and public realm makes walkingpleasurable

3. Mixed-Use & Diversity- A mix of shops, offices, apartments, and homes on site.- Mixed-use within neighborhoods, blocks, and buildings- Diversity of people (ages, income levels, cultures, and races)

4. Mixed Housing- A range of types, sizes and prices in closer proximity

5. Quality Architecture & Urban Design- Emphasis on beauty, human comfort , and creating a sense of place;Special placement of civic uses and sites within communit y. Humanscale archit ecture & beautiful surroundings nourish the human spir it

New Urbanism and smart growt h have emerged as a react ion against thereality of sprawl and conventional suburban development, and formulate astrategy to create neighbourhood-based, sustainable and socially strong com-munities in many different variations. The strategy aims at promoting place-

making, human scale, vibrance, demographic variation and high levels ofsocial capital through promoting principles such as walkability, large amountsof publ ic space and mixed use. The New Urbanism t rend has grown popular,for instance in the sprawl-ridden Unit ed States, where the principles are usedin a wide variety of urban development projects, from smaller towns to theHOPE VI programme for redevelopment of ghetto social housing. Crit ics haveaccused New Urbanism of being retrospective and creat ing the image ofcommunit y rather than actual communit y (Harvey,1997). It is currently stronglydiscussed whether the built proj ects based on NU principles actually turn

out to be st rong communit ies rich in social capit al - and if they do, to whichdegree t his can actually be accredited to NU planning.

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

6/13

6. Tradit ional Neighborhood St ructure-Discernable center and edge-Public space at center-Importance of quality public realm; public open space designed ascivic art

-Contains a range of uses and densities within 10-minute walk-Transect planning: Highest densities at town center; progressivelyless dense towards the edge. The transect is an analytical system thatconceptualizes mutually reinforcing elements, creating a series ofspecific natural habit ats and/ or urban li festyle sett ings. The Transectintegrates environmental methodology for habitat assessment withzoning methodology for communit y design. The professional boundarybetween the natural and man-made disappears, enabling environmen-talists to assess the design of the human habitat and the urbanists to

support the viabil it y of nature. This urban-to-rural t ransect hierarchyhas appropriate building and st reet types for each area along thecontinuum.

7. Increased Density-More bui ldings, residences, shops, and services closer together f orease of walking, to enable a more efficient use of services and re-sources, and to create a more convenient , enjoyable place to live.-New Urbanism design principles are applied at the full range of den-

sit ies from small towns, to large cit ies8. Green Transportation-A network of high-quality trains connecting cities, towns, and neigh-borhoods together-Pedestrian-friendly design that encourages a greater use of bicycles,rollerblades, scooters, and walking as daily transportation

9. Sustainabil it y-Minimal environmental impact of development and its operations-Eco-friendly technologies, respect for ecology and value of naturalsystems-Energy efficiency-Less use of finite fuels-More local production-More walking, less driving

10. Quality of LifeTaken together these add up to a high quality of life well worth living,and create places that enrich, uplif t , and inspire the human spirit

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

7/13

New Urbanism project : Orenco Station, Port land OR, USA

- Transit-oriented community devel-opment opened in 1997- 400 single-family townhomes and

cot tages, 1400 apartments- New Urbanism principles:walkabil it y, mixed-use with com-mercial center and residential areas,mixed housing (medium-densitycomplexes, single-family houses,cheaper flats on top of garages),private backyard space reduced,amount of public green spaces, small

plazas, playgrounds, sportsfacilitiesetc increased.

Social capital in Orenco Station- Homogenous population (95%self-proclamed white, monthly income5000-5500 USD)

- High level of bonding socialcapital (within-neighbourhood cohe-sion, report s of neighbourly friendli-

ness and social interaction, feelingof safety, high level of participationin formal and informal communit ygroups)- Exclusionary? Low level of bridgingsocial capit alA) many original residents resistantto integrating more ethnically andfinancially diverse population into the

communityB) some hostility within the neigh-bourhood to outsiders coming to usepublic amenities (parks etc.)

(Podobnik, B., New Urbanism and the Genera-t ion of Social Capit al: Evidence f rom OrencoSt ati on)

Walkable streets, large amount of public space, commercial walkable centre, social interaction

Mixed housing types (single family, appartment buildings etc), walkway with greenery and pub-

lic square space from lightrail station through commercial centre to housing area

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

8/13

HOPE VI Proj ect and social capital survey:Maverick Landing, East Boston, USA

HOPE VI is an American programaimed at redeveloping U.S. publichousing developments into mixed-

income communit ies. Most proj ectswithin the program, including Mav-erick Landing, are based on NewUrbanism principles, and are aimedat increasing the positive effects ofsocial capital through mixing resi-dents from different income groups.While the proj ect was under con-st ruct ion, old residents were relocat -ed to other mixed-income housing,social housing or single-family homesin higher income areas. This providedthe base for a survey on whethermix of income groups in itself fosters

social capital. While Maverick Land-ing has achieved a higher level ofsocial capital (feeling of neighbour-

hood security, place-attachment,neighbourhood friendliness) after theredevelopment, the survey showsthat this is closely linked to walkabil-ity and the amount of neighbourhoodresources such as commercial areas,public spaces, kindergardens etc thatprovide space for casual encountersand distant social contact by view ,rather than to the presence of mixed(higher) income groups.

(Curley, A., Relocat ing t he Poor: Social Capit aland Neighbourhood Resources)

Before: block-style buildings wit h li t t le sur-

rounding public space and wide st reets wit hhigh level of car t raffic and parking

After: Varied buildings facing publically ac-

cessible green spaces, narrower streets withwider sidewalks, close access to neighbourhoodresources, recreat ional spaces by the water et c

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

9/13

Housing proj ect Sargfabrik , Vienna, Aust ria,1996, Architects BKK-2

The Sargfabrik is much more thana housing modelits a way ofli fe. Along wit h the luxurious roofgarden, a range of common areascreates a landscape of communica-t ion and pleasure, wit h a culturalhouse, restaurant, kindergarten,and twenty-four-hour bathhouse

that is also publically accessible.Parking spaces for cars were kept toa minimum in order to make roomfor the swimming area, and only bydesignat ing the building a resi-dence hall could public f unding besecured. The Sargfabrik and MissSargfabrik are owned by the Associa-t ion for Integrat ive Lif estyle (VIL),which rents out the seventy-fiveunit smaisonettes with floor areasof 45 m2, wit h the possibi l it y of

linking up to six unitsmodeled as acollect ive. There is very l it t le t urno-ver. Identification and dedicationare already evident in the secondgeneration, some of whom have nointention of moving further awaythan the neighboring Miss Sargfab-

rik, the younger sociotope offshoot.Its thirty-nine units, including anumber of l iving-working-ateliers,provide for new spat ial experi-ences with angled walls and inclinedfloors. A communit y kit chen, library,and rehearsal room serve to aug-ment the Sargfabriks facil it ies.(www.wohnmodelle.at)

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

10/13

The Sargfabrik- Situated in cent ral Vienna- Established in an old coffin factory- 15%of flats reserved for elderly,handicapped or displaced

- Owned by VIL, an associat ionconsisting of the occupants of theapartments. In case of moving out ,the apartment belongs to the as-sociat ion it self , which is landlord,const ructor and operator at thesame time. Central decisions aremade in general assemblies of theassociation.- Inhabitants finance the

collective establishments through adefined proport ion of their rent ,and pay for a social capit al thathelps other residents who havefinancial problems.

Common/publi c facili t ies:- Indoor swimming pool/ sauna(open to public)- Restaurant- Room facilities for concerts,theat re and seminars (available forpublic use)

Miss Sargfabrik facil it ies:- Youth club room- Common living room- Communal kitchen

- Library/ home office space- Shared laundromat

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

11/13

Social capital in the Sargfabrik:

- The form of shared ownership fosters and relies on participation, trust andreciprocity- Bonding and bridging social capit al: High diversit y among inhabitants

(secured through 15%fl

ats reserved for elderly/ handicapped/ misplaced andpromoted through different types and sizes of units)- High level of social interaction between inhabitants (though a value of theproject is no pressure to participate, will non-participating residents notbe st igmat ised?)- A producer or a result of social capital?(init ially a result , but also aproducer: inhabit ant states; I initially moved here for the architecture, butnow that is t he least of it for me www.wohnmodelle.at)- Favours/ at t racts people with high interest in social interact ion, and not

those t ruly deprived of social capit al?- Highly select ional regarding new inhabit ants that usually get in based onpersonal relations to the old inhabit ants in the housing, and are chosen bythe people in neighbouring flats.- Promotes social capital in the surrounding areas as well (bridging type)through inst it utions of public interest , such as the bath, restaurant andkindergarden, thus helping to revitalize the neighbourhood. The willingnessof residents to share their amenit ies wit h outsiders stand in cont rast to theunwil l ingness of Orenco Station residents, but not ice dif ference in resident

demographics, proximity to major city etc.

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

12/13

In conclusion

Social and cultural capit al in an urban context are complex concepts thatare difficult ly measured, connected to many dif ferent variables, and affect -ing them calls for action on many levels, planning of physical realities alonehardly suffices.

When looking at the case studies, it seems import ant to consider:1) The level of bonding vs bridging social capit al - att ract ing a homogenousgroup of cit izens might have exclusionary effects (t hink about mixing housingtypologies and costs, providing neighbourhood resources that attract differ-ent demographics etc.)2) Neighbourhood resources and their placement, the demographic they mayat t ract etc.3) The connectivity to the surrounding neighbourhoods and possible incen-tives for non-residents to visit the neighbourhood (public amenities andinstitutions, such as schools, sports grounds, commercial areas etc.)4) Socioeconomic and cult ural mix in a neighbourhood - it remains a quest ionwhether this will have a direct positive effect on the level of social capi-tal, and whether it will lead people to form bonds across cultural and classcleavages, or they will lead parallel l ives in the same communit y. How-ever, when combined with a high level of shared neighbourhood resources(schools, public spaces, commercial areas, sports grounds etc.), studiesindicate that people will st il l get familiarized at least by view , j ust by be-

ing present in the same space, and that this might lead to enhanced socialcapital, trust and reciprocity and mutual identification, although deeperbonds may not form.

Diagram: Key for evaluat ing a public space, and assessing whether it has the key qualit ies of socia-bili t y, act ivit y, access and comfort . (htt p:/ / www.placemakingchicago.com/ about / quali t ies.asp)

7/31/2019 20100329 Social+Capital

13/13

NotesOn social capit al:

Putnam Robert . Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of Americancommunit y. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999

Alessandro Portes. Social Capit al: It s Origins and Appl icat ions in Modern Sociology. InKnowledge and social capital: Foundat ions and applications, edit ed by Eric L. Lesser.Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000

Bob Edwards & Michael Foley. Social Capit al and the Polit ical Economy of Our Discon-tent. American Behavioral Scientist 40, 669 (1997), ht tp:/ / spabs.highwire.org/ cgi/ re-print/ 40/ 5/ 669

Thomas Sander. Social Capital and New urbanism: Leading a Civic Horse to Water?National Civic Review 91:3 (Fall 2002), pp 213-234. ht tp:/ / www.ncl.org/ publicat ions/

ncr/ 91-3/ ncr91-3_chapter2.pdf

David Harvey. The New Urbanism and t he Communit arian Trap. Harvard Design Magazine1 (Winter/ Spring 1997). htt p:/ / mitpress.mit .edu/ HDM

New Uranism principles: www.newurbanism.org

Diagram for place-evaluation: http:/ / www.placemakingchicago.com/ about/ qualit ies.asp

Case studies:

Orenco Station, Portland, USABruce Podobnik. New Urbanism and the Generat ion of Social Capit al: Evidence fromOrenco St at ion. Nat ional Civic Review 91:3 (Fall 2002), pp 245-256. ht tp:/ / www3.inter-science.wiley.com/ cgi-bin/ fulltext/ 104541073/ PDFSTART

Photos and project descript ion: htt p:/ / www.planetizen.com/ node/ 92

Maverick Landing, Boston, USAAlexandra Curley. Relocat ing the Poor: Social Capit al and Neighborhood Resources.

Journal of Urban Affairs 32, no.1 (January 2010) ht tp:/ / www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/ full text / 123243550/PDFSTART

ht tp:/ / www.hud.gov/ offices/ cpd/ environment / library/ maverick_landing.doc

htt p:/ / www.iconarch.com/ live/ mavericklanding.html

Sargfabrik & Miss Sargfabrik, Vienna, AustriaArmin Schmau. Housing Project Sargfabri k, Vienna, Aust ria. Mobilit y Management andHousing Case Study (February 2008). ht tp:/ / www.add-home.eu/ docs/ FGM_Vienna_Sarg-fabrik_ADDHOME.pdf

Fotos and project descript ion: htt p:/ / www.wohnmodelle.at/ index.php?id=90,81,0,0,1,0