{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032471835652750164, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033134526176275677, 'mean_word_length': 5.9907407407407405, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Marginalisation and inclusion

This chapter draws upon social tenants’ housing histories and employment experiences to assess urban marginalisation with reference to class, race and gender. Since the 1970s, social housing estates in Western cities have been characterised by poverty, deprivation and stigmatisation. London’s public/social housing has increasingly accommodated deprived and socially marginalised groups including the poor, unemployed, sick and disabled, lone-parent families, ethnic minority groups, and the homeless (Hamnett). This process has been conceptualised as residualisation, social exclusion, and socio-tenurial polarisation. These conceptual frameworks are critiqued along three dimensions. First, they have under-emphasised the dynamic, spatial and inclusionary aspects of tenants’ labour market engagement; female residents often work in the local labour market, and such employment contributes towards working-class getting by and place belonging (Chapter 6). Second, estates have become more socially and ethnically diverse and inclusionary spaces (Sassen). Third, in terms of tenure preferences, council/social housing is valued because, unlike the private rental sector (PRS), it provides security at manageable rents. Contrary to the residualisation thesis regarding social renting, it’s the PRS which has consistently been the tenure of last resort for working-class Londoners. The final section focusses on the shifting relationship between homelessness and social renting.