Abstract: In recent decades governmental policies have conspired to create a ‘residualised’ social housing sector where only those with the most complex problems are eligible. For areas where social housing is clustered, the effect is a concentration of poverty, disadvantage and social problems, along with a stigmatised identity for both the place and its residents. The typical policy response to this has been a program of urban renewal involving the physical upgrade of deteriorating housing stock, the supplementation of social housing with ‘affordable’ housing provided by the private market, and the dilution of disadvantage through strategies of social mix. For those concerned about the place-effects of social housing, urban renewal provides a much-needed means of ‘cleaning up’ areas that have become residential ‘dumping grounds’ for undesirable populations. Others believe it provides an opportunity to reconfigure social housing provision so that it better meets the needs of low-income households. A third perspective is that any increase in affordable housing should be opposed because it will further entrench existing social problems and poor neighbourhood reputation. This paper illustrates these contestations by identifying the competing discourses surrounding a planned social housing renewal program in Logan in Queensland. It argues that programs of housing renewal are not always coherent governmental programs with agreed-upon goals and strategies, but a space of contestation where competing interests seek to influence the nature and direction of social housing provision and the identity and reputation of the places involved.