Placemaking for tenant wellbeing: Exploring the decision-making of public and community housing providers in Aotearoa New Zealand

• Public and community housing providers face high demand and tight financial constraints. • Investment trade-offs are made continuously between additional dwellings or social infrastructure. • Providers favor amenity-rich locations and shared spaces within developments to foster placemaking. • Integrating Māori landscapes, histories and memories respects and enhances tenants’ sense of place. • Iwi and government partnerships can lift social infrastructure provision in urban regeneration efforts. In addition to housing tenants, many public and community housing providers engage in placemaking to foster tenants’ connections to people and place. This paper reports on the placemaking practices of four community housing providers and two urban regeneration programmes in Aotearoa New Zealand. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with provider staff – including those leading strategy, community development, tenancy management, planning and design efforts – to investigate the placemaking strategies adopted by providers and the values, priorities and investment tensions that underpin their decision-making. Common placemaking strategies included site selection to secure tenants’ locational access to community services and amenities, and designing shared ‘bump spaces’ into housing complexes to encourage neighbourly encounters between tenants. Efforts to foster a sense of community through increased stability and diversity of households were hindered by a predominance of single-person units in older housing developments, and by funding and regulatory constraints. Māori, the Indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, comprise approximately half of all public housing tenants and many have deep intergenerational connections to place. Where providers were engaging with Māori, early steps had been taken to incorporate cultural landscapes and values into placemaking initiatives; such practices were more evident in urban regeneration than community housing provider developments, enabled by longer-term planning horizons, broader development mandates and partnerships with iwi (Māori tribes) and local government. Nonetheless, placemaking aspirations of all providers were tethered to resource constraints and investment trade-offs, with any social infrastructure provision weighed up against the value of providing one more home instead.