‘Developing in the spirit of North’ : a qualitative research on residents’ place attachment and experiences with participating in the SASA area development

(1)

‘Developing in the spirit of North’: a qualitative research

on residents’ place attachment and experiences with

participating in the SASA area development

Student: Tom Bijlholt (10431462)

Supervisor / second reader: dr. Adeola Enigbokan / dr. Linda van de Kamp Program: Sociology (MSc) - University of Amsterdam

Track: Social Problems and Social Policy

Place of submission: Amsterdam Roeterseiland Campus Date: July 9th, 2018

(2)

2

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my second reader dr. Linda van de Kamp and my thesis supervisor dr, Adeola Enigbokan. Adeola, you’ve inspired me a lot this year. You let me think about the why and how of sociology and of all the courses I’ve followed, your classes made me laugh the most. That’s really an achievement! I would like to thank my fellow students as well, you were/are all so nice and willing to help. I would also want to express my sincere gratitude to the residents of North who made time for me, who conveyed their love for North, who took me on hours-long biking tours through North, who kept sending me interesting articles, who always approached me with a warm smile when I saw them again on the streets or at information meetings. I would also like to thank the beautiful humans surrounding me: Cleo, Lea/Henk, Cécile, Joris, Siebert, Yoren, Tania and Chiem and Bart. Wheely and Lea, thanks a lot for the extensive feedback. Jasper, the walks and conversations were very relaxing. Joris, Joe, David, Nicolas, the hours of chess were very much needed. Finally, I want to thank my dearest Lisa, Antoon and Yvon for their unconditional support and their even more unconditional love. I want to dedicate this thesis to my brother Stef. Although he’s not here anymore and I miss him intensely, I haven’t lost him. He will always inspire me.

(4)

4

Summary

In this study, I focus on two related themes: firstly, residents’ place attachment to their living environment – the Sixhaven and surrounding areas (SASA) in Amsterdam North –, which is being considered for redevelopment by the municipality of Amsterdam. Secondly, I focus on how residents experience the participation process regarding this redevelopment.

Historically, Amsterdam North accommodates ‘the things Amsterdam did not want to have’: the gallows field, the polluting industries and the re-education villages (Asterdorp is the most famous example) (Oudenampsen, 2010). This played an important role in the stigma that North carried; a ‘anti-social’ place where ‘one would not want to be caught dead’ (Kok, 2016). At the end of the 20th century, however, a shift occurs in municipal policy. By reframing North from anti-social and industrial to creative and metropolitan, the focus shifted from emancipating the current population to attracting middle class families with higher incomes (Oudenampsen, 2010). In addition: the municipality of Amsterdam employs a densification policy, which encompasses designing residential complexes that can accommodate more residents per m2 compared to the current situation. Many of the potentially to be densified areas in the SASA are areas that are currently still green areas.

Chapter II shows that this policy damages the ways in which residents are attached to the SASA. There is a generally shared worry that, as a result of the proposed developments, the SASA might lose its unique green, wide and quiet character. These environmental features, as well as the village-like housing stock, are exactly the aspects residents are attached to. These places let them ‘unwind’ and function in a stress-reducing manner, and create a certain calmness which they appreciate and which is mentioned as one of the key reasons why residents have moved to the SASA and why they are not considering relocation. Hence, it is important to take residents’ attachments to the SASA into account in the development of the SASA. In order for this to happen, the development process needs an adequate participation process.

Chapter III proves a deeper insight into this participation process. Residents of the SASA have experienced the participation process as a process in which they were not taken seriously. Although they were allowed to say something, they felt to have little influence on the actual plans. This feeling of non-involvement contradicts the key aim of participation and damaged the trust relationship between the municipality and the residents of the SASA. I illustrate this by addressing five points. Firstly, feelings of non-involvement are a result of non-transparent, lacking or misrepresented information sharing by the municipality. The

(7)

7

second point is about contradicting expectations regarding the concept of participation and its different phases, and unclarity about the frames of the development project. It was unclear to residents what was decided and what was still open for discussion. Moreover, there were conflicting perceptions on the timing of participation. Residents would have wanted to be co-creatively involved from the beginning, while the municipality only wants to inform residents in this phase. Thirdly, the trust relationship was damaged by an accumulation of negative experiences of residents with the municipality in which they felt unheard or mistreated. Fourthly, self-organizing participation forms from residents was sometimes not welcomed, which gave residents the feeling they were not taken seriously. Lastly, residents’ opinions or ideas for development were often in line with what the municipality proposed. However, this potential consensus was overshadowed by residents’ dissatisfaction with the participation process in the exploratory phase. This made mobilizing support for the area development of the SASA more difficult.

(8)

8

Abstract

Densification is the central aim of housing policy of the municipality of Amsterdam. Seventeen areas in Amsterdam are selected to be redeveloped so that they can accommodate more residents, creating a ‘compact city’. The Sixhaven and surrounding areas (SASA) in Amsterdam North is one of these areas. In this study, I focus on the participation process related to area development and argue that distrust of residents towards the municipality was created as a result of inadequate involvement of residents in the exploratory phase. Residents felt unheard and were dissatisfied in various ways with municipal communication. This hampering of the participation process is worrying, because implementing densification policy damages the place attachments of residents with the SASA. Hence, I argue that residents’ place attachments to the green, open and quiet character of the SASA should be taken into account in the remaining participation process, resulting in a ‘place-sensitive redevelopment’ (Jones & Evans, 2012, p. 2328).

Introduction

‘Dragging equates demolishment!’ (Steven, resident of Sixhaven). This is a quote by someone who, one month after he bought a houseboat in Amsterdam North, read in a policy document that the land and water surrounding his houseboat were selected for redevelopment. When he took a closer look at one of the attached drawings, a shock went through his body: his houseboat was literally and figuratively not part of the picture! The plan announced that the houseboat would have to be dragged away.1 For houseboat residents, ‘dragging’ feels the same as relocation as a result of urban renewal demolishment.2 Nine months later, in April 2018, I visited Steven’s3 houseboat to interview him and his partner about their dissatisfaction with the participation process, which Steven expressed very strongly at an information meeting from which the above quote was taken. Steven feels ‘treated like a child’, and like many of the other 350 attending residents, he says that although he can voice his concerns, he is not heard by the municipality.

Steven’s houseboat moors in the Sixhaven, Amsterdam North. The Sixhaven is part of one of the seventeen potential area development projects of the municipality of Amsterdam called ‘Sixhaven and surrounding areas’ (SASA). The other subareas are Tolhuistuin,

1_{Eight months later , the relocation of the houseboats was reaffirmed in the central policy regarding this area}

development, the Principle Note Sixhaven (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b, p. 10).

2_{This is what many residents of the Sixhaven told me. They expressed this as well at several information meetings and}

meetings of the municipal council.

(9)

9

Laanwegkwartier and IJplein-west (see images 1 and 2). The urban strategy of the

municipality is densification, which is a reaction to the housing shortage and encompasses transforming the current housing stock and selecting former industrial or green/open spaces for residential housing construction. Besides densification, the municipality wants the SASA to have a metropolitan outlook and to be more ‘lively’, and ‘mixed’, and the public space to be less ‘worn-out’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017b, p. 53).

Images 1 and 2: left: the SASA as located in Amsterdam (Maps of Europe, 2018). Right: SASA (Bestuurscommissie Noord, 2018, p. 6)

Many residents have publically voiced their concerns. Two things stand out: firstly, residents are very satisfied with living in the SASA. Phrases like ‘my granddad grew up here, my dad did, I did and my children will do so as well’ or ‘Amsterdam North has a unique character for which I came here’ are very common to hear when I talk with residents on the street. Secondly, residents worry about the ‘high tempo of the plan- and decision-making process’, which could obstruct a ‘thoughtful participation process’ (Bestuurscommissie Noord, 2018, p. 1). Similar worries have been expressed by residents of other neighborhoods in Amsterdam, which makes it an urgent topic to be studied.4 Scholars have argued that resistance to area development is often as a result of residents feeling threatened by the plans, in particular when they might have to relocate.5 These acts of resistance are perceived by scholars as articulations of place attachment, and ‘to adequately understand and respond to such reactions, it is critical to uncover and address these latent place attachments’ (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, p. 337). Moreover, it is important to take residents’ place attachment into

4_{Examples are: the Klaprozenweg in Amsterdam North (see minute 2:24:00 of the municipal council meeting}

https://amsterdam.raadsinformatie.nl/vergadering/517057/Tijdelijke%20Algemene%20Raadscommissie%2023-05-2018); Slotermeer in Amsterdam West (see Mepschen (2013)), and the K-Buurt in Amsterdam Southeast (see

http://www.bijlmerenmeer.nl/ participatiestaking-k-buurt-groot-succes/).

5_{Initially, relocation was also an option for residents of 141 houses on the IJplein as well as a housing block in the}

(10)

10

account in urban planning, aiming at a ‘place-sensitive-redevelopment’ (Jones & Evans, 2012, p. 2328). Therefore, it is important as well to study the participation process in which residents’ place attachments can be expressed. Moreover, in light of the abundance of reports concluding that there is a democratic gap between the government and its citizens, the importance of this question is clear (ROB, 2012a; WRR, 2012; SCP, 2016).

In this study, I therefore focus on two interrelated themes: residents’ experiences of place attachment with the SASA and residents experience of the participation process related to the development of the SASA. Understanding both provides a window into processes of area development, and shows the importance of incorporating a place-dimension in sociological studies on urban transformation (Gieryn, 2000). Many urban sociologists have studied place attachment by focusing on places which have already been developed to show how residents have experienced these developments (Van der Graaf & Duyvendak, 2009; Arnberger, 2012; Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). The current study makes a contribution to the field of urban sociology by showing how residents experience place attachment before places have changed as a result of densification policies. In this regard, the SASA development is a particularly interesting case to study, because the locations which are selected as potential house construction sites are currently open and green spaces. Research has shown that green spaces have an important recreational and stress reducing function for residents (Van den Berg et al., 2007; Nielsen & Hansen 2006). This means that residents are attached to these places, hence developing these places might damage those attachments. Place attachment is in this study defined as ‘(…) a bond between an individual or group and a place that can vary in terms of spatial level, degree of specificity, and social or physical features of the place, and is manifested through affective, cognitive, and behavioral psychological processes’ (Scannell & Gifford, 2010, p. 5). In view of the preceding considerations, the research questions are as follows:

In what ways are residents (not) attached to the SASA and how do they experience the participation process with regard to the development of this area by the municipality Amsterdam?

What are the current policies regarding the SASA and how can they be understood historically?

In what ways are residents (not) attached to the SASA and how does the existence of the PNS impact the attachment of residents?

(11)

11

In what way have residents of the SASA experienced the participation process with regard to the area development of the SASA?

To answer these questions, I will conduct semi-structured interviews as well as ‘walking-interviews’ with residents of the SASA. Walking interviews can ‘generate richer data, because interviewees are prompted by meanings and connections to the surrounding environment’ (Evans & Jones, 2011, p. 849). In chapter I, I will discuss the policies regarding the SASA and how these can be historically understood. In chapter II, I will delineate how residents are attached to the SASA and how the densification policy might have a damaging effect on these attachments. In chapter III, I will address residents’ experiences with the participation process.

(12)

12

Theoretical framework

Place attachment

As was shown previously, residents of the SASA were resisting the plans of the municipality. Manzo and Perkins, both environmental psychologists, argue that ‘[those who feel] threatened by redevelopment may consequently resist a proposal regardless of its potential value. To adequately understand and respond to such reactions, it is critical to uncover and address these latent place attachments’ (2006, p. 337). However, what is actually meant by PA, and why is it relevant to study this in this specific context? Since the concept is used in diverse ways (Hernandez et al., 2013), it is important to explicate the conceptualization that will be used in this research. Scannell and Gifford present a holistic model (see figure 1), which defines PA as ‘(…) a bond between an individual or group and a place that can vary in terms of spatial level, degree of specificity, and social or physical features of the place, and is manifested through affective, cognitive, and behavioral psychological processes’ (2010, p. 5). The reason why in this study this multidimensional conceptualization is used is based on the specific case of the area development of SASA. The previously presented concerns around this area development process signal that the PA dimensions presented by Scannell and Gifford (2010) – the personal, psychological processual and place dimensions – all seem to be relevant for understating how the residents of SASA value place. Residents have expressed themselves affectively, talking about the ‘enjoyment and the love of the current

Figure 1: The tripartite model of place attachment (Scannell and Gifford, 2010, p. 2)

residents for their neighborhood’ (Bestuurscommissie Noord, 2018, p. 18). They also refer to the potential damaging of the cultural-historical value of the SASA, which indicates the cultural dimension of PA. Hints to attachments are also seen in the way residents talk about

(13)

13

how North is gradually changing, and how they experience themselves as a ‘Noorderling’ (strongly identifying with North) (Bestuurscommissie Noord, 2018, p. 10). These are some examples which to support the use of a PA framework for the current study.

I will now turn to an additional but related theoretical approach which became relevant while I was doing the fieldwork. I gradually got to understand the ways in which residents expressed place attachment. The preliminary findings pointed to experiences of place attachment to certain ecological features of the SASA – it’s openness, greenness and related calmness. This opened up a new theoretical angle, focusing on the relation between these greenery-centered place attachments and densification policy. How exactly are these two processes related? Densification is one of the central strategies of the municipality of Amsterdam to react on the housing shortage. One of the dilemmas and challenges of this ‘compact city approach’ is how and to what extent green areas within cities should be preserved? An increasing amount of research is done on how residents experience living in a the densified ‘compact city’ on the one hand and how they value green spaces on the other (Howley, 2009; Kyttä et al., 2011; Arnberger, 2012; Buys & Miller, 2012; Kyttä et al., 2013). A recurrent finding in this research field is that urban densification can lead to an over crowdedness of green spaces, which can ‘reduce [its] recreational quality’ (Arnberger, 2012, p. 703). The current study will use these insights to analyze residents’ place attachment and, relatedly, how residents experience the densification policy concerning the SASA.

A sociological study of place

Within the sociological field, ‘the study of emotions and the study of places remain thus far largely separate and marginalised disciplines’(Van der Graaf, 2009, p. 34). By focusing on place attachment, this study attempts to connect these two sub-disciplines. In this paragraph several sociological studies will be discussed be which have also took up this task. Sociologist Reinout Kleinhans argues that transforming places has a direct influence on how residents experience their living environment: ‘As a result of moving out, residents lost their familiarity and ‘feeling of home’ in the previous living environment’ (2006, p. 225-247). Although it is not decided if residents of the SASA have to (temporarily) move out, many of the concerns do touch upon this undermining of ‘familiarity’ by the area development of SASA. Moreover, research has shown that ‘(…) loss of space does not require physical displacement but can occur as individuals experience its transformation’ (Saw & Hagemans, 2015, p. 327).

(14)

14

to better understand how residents are (not) attached to places as well as to unveil underlying socio-cultural relations (Gieryn, 2000). Examples of these relations are the previously mentioned cultural and ecological ‘demolishing’ arguments, but also the arguments about social cohesion. In relation to this, sociologist Thomas Gieryn ask the question: ‘how do places come to be the way they are, and how do places matter for social practices and historical change?’ (2000, p. 463). One of the answers Gieryn provides is that place ‘secures otherwise intangible cultural norms, identities, memories and values (…)’ (2000, p. 473). In the area development of SASA, this ‘securing’ function of place is potentially in danger because ‘(…) residents can become detached and can feel alienated from the place where they live due to changes in the population and their living environment, which are caused by urban renewal’ (Van der Graaf, 2009, p. 47). The question arises if the SASA is experienced in the ways described above. Do residents feel alienated, or ‘at home’, the latter describing the predominant positive experiences of ‘place attachment’ (Van der Graaf & Duyvendak, 2009, p. 20). It is important to study this in the process of area development, because when these feelings of home are harmed urban renewal policies have failed (Van der Graaf & Duyvendak, 2009).

Participation

First of all, participation has no clear-cut definition nor operationalization (Duyvendak & Uitermark, 2008). The form of participation varies based on the topic, the field of citizen involvement – for example national elections or urban renewal – and the actors involved (Van Beveren, 2014). Based on the focus on area-development, participation is in this study defined as ‘participation [by citizens] in the planning and administrative processes of the government’ (Callahan 2007, p. 1181). To make this general definition a bit more tangible, an operationalization of participation will now be discussed. Arnstein’s ‘participation ladder’ (see image 3) is a typology of participation consisting of eight steps. The higher on the ladder, the more citizens have to say in the planning process. The first two steps – manipulation and therapy – are forms of non-participation which ‘(…) enable powerholders to ‘educate’ or ‘cure’ the participants’ (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). This might lead to ‘displacement through participation’ (Huisman, 2014).

(15)

15

Although steps three to five – informing, consultation and placation – give participants a voice, it is still participation without a ‘“muscle”, hence [giving] no assurance of changing the status quo’ (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). The final three steps – partnership, delegated power and citizen control – are ‘degrees of citizen power’.

Image 3: The participation ladder (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217).

There are different reason to involve citizens in the planning process: ‘to promote democracy, build trust, increase transparency, enhance accountability, build social capital, reduce conflict, ascertain priorities, promote legitimacy, cultivate mutual understanding, and advance fairness and justice’ (Callahan, 2007, p. 1183). In addition, there are different things which can hamper participation (Bergeijk et al., 2008, p. 97-104). Firstly, ‘inadequate information’, for example when the municipality is very passive in sharing information or when the information is very ‘technical, specialist or abstract’. Secondly, ‘endurance and time-pressure’: participating can be very tiring for residents. Civil servants on the other hand experience time-pressure as well; the time to truly listen to residents. Thirdly, ‘little transparency, much distrust’: residents feel that the municipality is not telling them the honest story, which creates distrust and damages the relationship between the residents and the municipality. Lastly, ‘obstacles of residents’, when there is disagreement between residents or a ‘non-constructive attitude [of residents] towards collaboration’.

Trust as a key condition for planning and participation

The current study focuses in particular on the beginning phase of participation. The existing literature on participation was analyzed with this in mind. A variety of studies show the importance of an adequate starting phase of area development, as well as the consequences for the remaining participation process if the starting phase evokes frustration and/or distrust

(16)

16

(Innes & Booher, 2004; Kahila-Tani et al., 2016). This beginning phase of participation in planning is often analyzed through the lens of trust - trust in models, persons, organizations or abstract systems (Talvitie, 2011). The effectiveness or success of the participation process is often a result of manifestations of (dis-)trust (Swain & Tait, 2007; Laurien, 2009; 2011; WRR, 2012; Tait & John Hansen, 2013).

Trust can be operationalized along three lines: ‘citizen-centered thinking, investing in trust and encouraging change’ (WRR 2012, p. 11). Thinking from a citizen-centered perspective builds on three ‘success factors’. Firstly, the presence of (a network of) key figures; the so called ‘leaders’ (trekkers) and ‘connectors’ (verbinders). A ‘Leader’ are important figures in the neighborhood. ‘Connecters’ are those who can ‘speak two languages’, the language of citizens and the language of policymakers, they are active in different networks and can bring people together (WRR, 2012, p. 81-82). Secondly, ‘respect for citizens’: when citizens are taken seriously, ‘difficult’ projects such as ‘building a homeless shelter, large-scale renovation, or constructing a road’ are carried out with less opposition. Respect for citizens also implies a constant and reciprocal process of information-sharing and it is important to be very concise about the topics and frames of the participation process; what can citizens expect of it? Thirdly, a balancing act between on the one hand giving citizens the freedom to make plans and on the other hand coordinating and facilitating them. The second ‘success factor’ for citizen participation is ‘investing in trust’ (WRR, 2012, p. 203), and is divided into four mechanisms: firstly, the ‘creation of counter-play’, by increasing the sharing and gathering of information. Secondly, ‘enlarging the everyday influence’ of citizens, by moving beyond the traditional focus on the neighborhood and incorporating citizen initiatives on other scales (regional or national). Thirdly, ‘stimulating social interaction’ in public spaces. Fourthly, ‘building pillars’ by creating solidarities as well as connections between civil society organizations, governmental organizations and market parties. This operationalization of participation provides a framework for analyzing how trust functions in citizen participation processes. Analyzing the participation process of the development of the SASA through this lens enables understanding the experiences of residents and unveiling the obstacles to a participation process with which all parties are satisfied.

(17)

17

Methodology

This research has a qualitative research design. This entails a predominantly inductive (theory generated on the basis of the empirical), ontological constructivist (social phenomenon are the result of interacting people) and epistemological interpretivist (understanding the social word on the basis of the interpretations of this world) stance (Bryman, 2012, p. 380).

Residents’ place attachment with the SASA and their experiences of the participation process related to the area development of the SASA is studied, by using three methods: semi-structured interviews,6 ‘walking-interviews’, and participant observation. In a normal interview setting, where the interviewer and interviewee take place both on one side of a table, inside one’s home or in a café, the respondent might not be able to express certain attachments to places. In order to be able to unveil these attachments, I walked with residents through the SASA, which enabled ‘[generating] richer data, because interviewees are prompted by meanings and connections to the surrounding environment’ (Evans & Jones, 2011, p. 849). The specific places to visit were selected on the basis of two criteria. Firstly, places mentioned in PNS, for example the IJplein, the waterfront and the open (green) spaces where potentially houses will be built. Secondly, I have asked residents in advance to think of places which are meaningful to them. The seven walks took between 15 minutes and one and a half hour, and some of the pictures I took on the walks are displayed throughout the text. The semi-structured interviews also had a visual-component. I used several municipal visualizations of how the SASA might look like after the area development, as a way to spur the conversation and ‘[trigger] place attachment manifestations’ (Hernández et al., 2013, p. 131, see also: Bendiner-Viani, 2016).7 I did participant observation at several meetings organized by the municipality and gatherings organized by residents, in order to get close to the experiences of residents.8

23 residents participated in this study, of which 14 are men and 9 are women.9 They are between 30 and 74 years old and, except for one residents who was born in Eritrea, all respondents are from Dutch descent. It proved difficult to reach residents with a migration background, who make up for nearly fifty percent of the SASA population (OIS, 2018). I tried to by asking residents on the street and by sending an email to residents with a migration background.10 Apart from some brief conversations on the streets, I eventually only

6_{See appendix 1 for the interview scheme.} 7_{See appendix 2 for the visualizations.}

8_{See appendix 3 for an overview of these meetings.}

9_{See appendix 4 for an overview of the respondents and the sampling methods.}

(18)

18

interviewed one residents with a migration background. The primary selection criteria was location: except for the two persons of the municipality, all respondents are residents of one of the four subareas of the SASA (IJplein-west, Sixhaven, Laangwegkwartier and

Tolhuistuin, see image 2). I used three sampling methods:

1. Asking residents directly on the street, on meetings, or via email. 2. Snowball sampling.

3. Distributing a flyer.11

These different methods interwove, for example, when a resident I gathered via the flyer, distributed the flyer on two Facebook pages of the neighborhood. Via this Facebook posts I gathered two respondents. This is an example of snowball sampling: ‘A sampling technique in which the researcher samples initially a small group of people relevant to the research questions, and these sampled participants propose other participants who have had the experience or characteristics relevant to the research’ (Bryman, 2012, p. 424). In addition to this, I have visited the SASA regularly. I approached people on the street and distributed 200 flyers in which I explain my research and invite residents to participate. I have used this sampling method to prevent my sample to be too homogeneous, and, for example, only consisting out of protesters, and not the perhaps ‘silent’ residents who might be satisfied with the PNS. However, representative sampling nor generalization to the entire population of SASA is aimed at in this study. Hence, the external validity of this study is low. However, the internal validity is high. I was able to build up strong rapport with my respondents by staying in contact with them. Via email-conversations, I checked provisional findings, and I spoke with many residents several times on different information meetings. After every meeting I adjusted my findings, based on these conversations.

(19)

19

Chapter I: A historical perspective on spatially engineering the SASA

Historically embedding the current policies regarding the SASA is a necessary condition for understanding how residents of the SASA are attached to their living environment and experience the participation processes with regard to the development of the SASA. The concepts of place attachment and participation are the focus of chapter II and III. This chapter focuses on the history and consists of six parts. First, I will describe the SASA. Subsequently, I will present a historical sketch of Amsterdam North, in particular focusing on processes of stigmatization. Thirdly, I will address a shift in municipal policy regarding North: from ‘social’ to ‘spatial engineering’ (Oudenampsen, 2010). In the fourth part, I will discuss the city wide densification policy and the proposed implementation in the SASA. Finally, I will delineate the municipal participation policies.

Images 4 and 5: Some of the IJplein flats and the green fields surrounding the IJplein. Pictures taken by author [July 3rd, 2018].

1.1 The Sixhaven and surrounding areas

The SASA is located at the bottom of Amsterdam North (see image 2, p. 9). When one looks from the Sixhaven across the IJ one will see the central station of Amsterdam; a two minute ferry trip will get you there. As image 3 shows, the SASA is divided into four areas:

Sixhaven, IJplein-west, Laanwegkwartier and Tolhuistuin. The SASA is 39.5 hectares of

which 11 are water, while the remaining 28.5 hectares contain 643 houses and 32 houseboats (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017b, p. 4-5). When one gets off the ferry which brings you from central station safely across the IJ-river to the IJplein, one experiences a certain peacefulness which is hard to find in the rest of Amsterdam. The streets are wide, and between the east and the west side of the IJplein you will find a big open green field. Next to the ferry is a small cafeteria where locals get their coffee and share their daily lives or just wait for the ferry to

(20)

20

take them to ‘the other side’, as some residents call the rest of Amsterdam. After having crossed the square you will encounter the four-floor high flats (see picture 4 and 5) which are described by residents with considerable affection. As many residents have told me, the SASA is still a place where people greet each other. As a stranger, it is easy to have a short conversation, for example when you wait for the ferry or when relaxing on one of the many benches along the riverside or green fields. Roos told me that, like many other residents, she lived here for over 30 years and never wants to leave. When I asked what kind of people live here, she mentioned the cultural diversity, which she finds gezellig!12 How cultural diverse the area is, socioeconomically it is homogenous.

Compared to the Amsterdam average, the SASA has a large share of social housing (77%) and a high unemployment rate (19.8%, average is 11.9%) (OIS, 2018).13 Furthermore, a large share of the population have a low level of education (35%, average is 25%) (OIS, 2018), and a high percentage earn low incomes (33%, average is 24% (OIS, 2015)). However, many residents I talked with on the streets did not agree with this. Some of them pointed to the fact that 49% of the IJplein housing blocks have, for a few years, been owner-occupied, and so are the houseboats of the Sixhaven. Others did not explicitly reject the socio-economic composition of the neighbourhood, but just did not refer to it. Instead, they talked about the general friendliness of neighbours, not considering their socio-economic status as an important topic. What was mentioned by all the residents I spoke with is that people who live there tend to stay there. This is illustrated by the fact that people stay in the same house for a longer time compared to the Amsterdam average (11.9 years, average is 8.7) and by the fact that the neighbourhood has a lower than average mutation rate.14 In summary: people tend to stick to the neighbourhood and have a relatively low socioeconomic status, although this is not always seen as an important issue by the residents I spoke with. This description does, however, hint to residents being attached to the SASA as a place, which might explain the resistance towards the plans (Manzo & Perkins, 2006).

12_{Gezellig means something in between convivial, cozy and fun (Wikipedia 2018).}

13_{The information used for this study is all collected between 2014 and 2018. Some information includes only IJplein and}

Sixhaven and other information also Vogelbuurt. These neighborhoods are categorically put together by the Municipality because they share many characteristics (Bestuurscommissie Noord 2017: 9).

(21)

21

Image 6: The Sixhaven, viewed from the Buiksloterweg ferry. This is where the IJ River (at the right) meets the North Holland canal (stretching out to the left). Picture taken by author [July 3rd, 2018].

1.2 Amsterdam North: a place ‘one wouldn’t want to be caught dead’

Within the development of Amsterdam over the past few centuries, Amsterdam North has had a peculiar position, because it ‘accommodated everything Amsterdam did not want to have’ (Oudenampsen, 2010, p. 27). This led to a certain stigma on Amsterdam North as a place where ‘one would not want to be caught dead’ (Kok, 2016). Many respondents expressed variations of this saying as well. As a result of this, in the 1990s, many residents of Amsterdam North felt they did not belong to Amsterdam (Leydesdorff, 1990).

This can be understood by addressing a few historical examples. The first example is the gallows field which was located in Amsterdam North from the year 1409 until 1795 (Dembski, 2013, p. 13). This field showed to all the passing ships that in Amsterdam ‘the law was strictly upheld in the territory concerned, and that it was to be respected by everyone’ (Meurkens, 2010, p. 7). More importantly, it contributed to the stigmatization of North, since this field was unwanted in the rest of Amsterdam (Oudenampsen, 2010). Besides the gallows field, other examples are the polluting industries, trailer parks, and the dominance of less affluent parts of the population.

A final example is the so called ‘re-education camps’ or villages, in which certain parts of the population – the uncivilized or ‘a-socials’ – were ‘re-educated’ (Steinmetz, 2016). These villages were emblematic for the ‘social democratic dream to elevate the working-class population’ (Oudenampsen, 2010, p. 27). However, they also carried a certain stigma. Political scientist Stephan Steinmetz, who wrote his dissertation on the most well-known village called Asterdorp, concludes that residents experienced living in Asterdorp as humiliating (Steinmetz, 2016). This had to do with the criteria based on which families were selected by the municipality for relocation to Asterdorp. The 1,292 families who lived there between 1926 and World War II were classified by the municipality as ‘a-social’ and

(22)

22

‘impermissible for normal social housing’. Asterdorp consisted of a few streets surrounded by a 4-meter-high brick wall (see image 7 and 8). Re-education in these villages concretely meant that a supervisor made sure that the men were not drinking and the women made up the beds and scrubbed the floor. There also existed a social hierarchy in relation to the different neighborhoods of North. When families were deemed re-educated, they were relocated to normal social housing in other neighborhoods in Amsterdam North like Floradorp or ‘t Blauwe Zand (Steinmetz, 2016).

Images 7 and 8: Map and picture of Asterdorp 1942 (Dokwerker, 2018).

This specific history helps to understand that Amsterdam North in the second half of the 20th century still carried a stigma, classifying it as an unwanted place to be and to live (Oudenampsen, 2010; Donkers, 2013; Kok, 2016). Knowing about these efforts of city planners to ‘civilize’ certain parts of the population is an important condition for interpreting and investigating ‘individual ideologies and memories’ of the inhabitants of Amsterdam North (Leydesdorff, 1990, p. 54). This is illustrated by the fact that many of the residents I interviewed expressed themselves by referring to the past. They were very aware of the fact that they lived in a part of the city which has a specific history and negotiated certain representations and ideas about North. Some, for example, said: ‘North was never beloved, North was on the other side of the IJ, you simply shouldn’t go there’(Alfred), or: ‘you had to mentally cross the IJ (…) that really was a barrier’ (Lucas). However they were referring to the start of this century. Contemporarily, North is seen as ‘hip’ and ‘booming’, yet increasingly accessible only ‘for the rich’. The latter point has recently also been made by social geographers of the University of Amsterdam, who focused on Amsterdam and Rotterdam (Hochstenbach & Musterd, 2018). Chapter II will provide a lengthier discussion of how residents of the SASA experience and negotiate the transformation of their living environment and how this influences their perception of the proposed changes.

(23)

23

The next paragraph will shift the attention from North as a location for ‘everything Amsterdam did not want to have’ to one of the core targets of municipal policy. Although the

residents have always been a target of municipal policy – think of Asterdorp – the focus has

shifted to the location as a target – from policies of ‘social engineering’ to policies of ‘spatial engineering’ (Oudenampsen, 2010). Concretely, these policies focus on reducing the housing shortage, improving the location by strategically reframing it from industrial to creative and metropolitan, and attracting middle-class families (Oudenampsen, 2010; Mepschen, 2013; Savini & Dembski, 2015).

1.3 Shifting from the current residents to the future place

Besides getting a deeper understanding of the expressions of residents, the second reason why a historical context is presented is to better understand the current urban planning strategy and policies of the municipality. As will be made clear subsequently, a particular shift has taken place in urban planning policy strategy. Sociologist and political scientist Merijn Oudenampsen argues that from the 1920s to the 1970s, the Amsterdam municipality employed policies of ‘social engineering’ (2010, p. 27). Policies were predominantly targeted at the population and the re-education camps are an emblematic example. Since the 1970s, however, these policies have been replaced by policies of ‘spatial engineering’. This ‘paradigmatic shift in governmental strategy’ means that not the population but the location became the main focus of policies (Oudenampsen 2010, p. 38). The key result of this is that the municipality has been employing different strategies to attract more affluent middle class citizens who would improve the location – Amsterdam North. The underlying strategy was to ‘reframe’ Amsterdam North: instead of an industrial image, the municipality started to frame Amsterdam North as ‘a hotspot for the creative sector’ (Savini & Dembski, 2015, p. 140). Thus, area development projects in Amsterdam North gradually became ‘(…) less focused on the current residents and more on the imagined future populations’ (Mepschen 2013, original emphasis).

As a result of these spatial policies and reframing strategies, Amsterdam North is nowadays – when you read the policy documents – becoming more a part of Amsterdam (Donkers, 2017). But do residents also experience it as such? This is, at least, questionable since not so long ago, many of them experienced feelings of not-belonging (Leydesdorff, 1990). This was in the 1990s, when Selma Leydesdorff – who is widely acknowledged for her expertise on ‘oral histories’ – interviewed original residents of North about their feelings of (not-) belonging. Today, scholars have argued similarly that the original residents are not

(24)

24

2-2011

• Structuurvisie 2040: Economisch sterk & duurzaam (Structural vision 2040: Economically strong and sustainable)

4-2016 • Koers 2025: Ruimte voor e stad (Course 2025: Space for the city)

6-2017 • Sprong over het IJ (Jump across the IJ)

12-2017

• Stad om het IJ (City around the IJ)

3-2018

• Principenota Sixhaven en omgeving (Principle note Sixhaven and surrounding areas)

adequately represented in the municipality initiated development process of North (Oudenampsen, 2010). The current study focuses on one specific geographical context of this development process - the SASA. In the remainder of this chapter, the recent policies of the municipality which focus on this area will be discussed.

1.4 The policy regarding the Sixhaven and surrounding areas

Before addressing the concrete policies concerning the SASA it is, first of all, necessary to discuss several municipal policies for Amsterdam North as a whole. Image 9 gives an overview of the municipal policies which are relevant for the development of the SASA.

Date: Policy:

Image 9: Amsterdam municipal policies concerning the redevelopment of SASA

The overarching and citywide policy plan is called Structuurvisie 2040 and was presented in 2011 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). Koers 2025: Ruimte voor de stad narrows down on the issue of the housing crisis/challenge and presents potential construction sites in Amsterdam.

Stad om het IJ is a related policy focusing specifically on the construction sites in Amsterdam

North and along the IJ-river. Sprong over het IJ is an operationalization of the Koers 2025 as well, but focuses on optimizing the infrastructural connections between North and the rest of Amsterdam. Finally, the Principenota Sixhaven en omgeving (PNS) zooms in a bit further by focusing on, and presenting ideas for, the development of the SASA. These documents show that the municipality clearly has plans for developing Amsterdam North. Before turning to these ideas for the SASA, I will provide a short history of the underlying goal of Koers 2025: to densify the city.

(25)

25 1.4.1 Koers 2025: densifying the city

Koers 2025 is an operationalization of Structuurvisie 2040 in which the ambition is presented

to build 50,000 houses in Amsterdam before the year 2025, counted from 2016. Images 10 shows that the SASA is one of the selected areas to realize a share of these 50,000 houses.

Image 10: The areas in which houses are to be built in Amsterdam; the so called ‘building blocks’. The arrow points to the SASA (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016, p. 27).

The two main strategies to increase the housing stock are densification and transformation. Transformation means ‘converting existing buildings [for example empty offices] to residential complexes’. Densification encompasses ‘utilizing or intensifying existing urban areas in a better way’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016, p. 4), which translates to designing residential complexes that can accommodate more residents per m2, compared to the current situation. In other words: new houses will only be built within Amsterdam, not around it anymore (Kahn & Van der Plas, 1999). For a long time, the latter was the case. Many villages in Amsterdam North are, for example, built on pastures, dikes or impoldered lakes. The densification approach has resulted in the emergence of the so called ‘compact city’ vision (Savini et al., 2016).

Although it is presented in Amsterdam policies as a relatively new approach, Dieleman et al. (1999, p. 609) argue that ‘compact urban development has remained the cornerstone of Dutch physical planning’ since the 1960s. Back in 1966, it was argued by the Dutch national government that the ‘urban sprawl’ approach was a threat to the so called ‘green heart’; the green area between the four largest cities of the Netherlands (Amsterdam,

(26)

26

Rotterdam, Den Haag and Utrecht). The ‘urban sprawl’ approach entails ‘the growth of urban spatial patterns with low densities, large outward expansion, spatially segregated land uses, and leapfrog urban development’ and is hence the opposite of the ‘compact city approach’ (Dieleman & Wegener, 2004, p. 308). The ‘urban sprawl approach’ has several related problems: ‘non-efficient use of resources e.g., of land and energy causing a larger urban footprint, loss of biodiversity (…) [and] environmental problems (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015, p. 760). One example is the dependency on cars: where the urban sprawl approach often implies residents using cars, the compact city approach relies more on public transport (Dieleman & Wegener, 2004). One of the key underlying arguments in favor of densification policy is therefore also to develop a more sustainable city and world (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015).

Before the ‘compact city approach’ was put forth in the Netherlands, a policy of ‘concentrated deconcentration’ was first introduced. This approach focused on the cities in between the four largest cities; it ‘(…) channeled the urban growth into a number of designated growth centers’ (Dieleman & Wegener, 2004, p. 319). During the 1980s, this approach was replaced by the ‘compact city approach’. Besides sustainability, one of the reasons was also the ‘decay of the old urban centers’ (Dieleman & Wegener, 2004, p. 320). This ‘compact city approach’, however, was concurrently an approach of gentrification (Van Gent, 2014). The decaying urban center of Amsterdam was transformed into an attractive place to live. Although gentrification implies attracting higher income population groups, the Amsterdam municipal policies back then maintained a focus on affordable housing.

Some worries of residents that are not discussed in this gentrification literature, but are relevant in relation to densifying a city like Amsterdam, are about preserving the historical character the areas that are meant to be densified (Davison, 2009; Dovey et al., 2009), or preserving the green areas within the city (Howley, 2009; Kyttä et al., 2011; Arnberger, 2012; Buys & Miller, 2012; Kyttä et al., 2013). The current policies of densification in Amsterdam are therefore not undisputed. Many residents I spoke with, as well as architects, worry that the green areas Amsterdam still has, and for which Amsterdam North is known, will be lost. According to architect Tjeerd Dijkstra, who worked for many years for the Amsterdam municipality, this would be a ‘mortal sin’, resulting in Amsterdam North ‘losing its identity’ (Freriks, 2016). Moreover, there is an increasing number of scholars studying the negative effects of densification on mental and physical health, when the densification policy implies less green space within the city (Van den Berg et al., 2017; Nielsen & Hansen, 2006). Chapter II will show more concretely what is at stake in this

(27)

27

process of area development, namely that these worries in the end boil down to discrepancies between residents’ place attachment to the SASA and the ideas of the municipality for developing this area. First, these ideas will be discussed in the next paragraph.

1.4.2 Densifying the SASA, where, what and why?

Nothing has yet been decided with regard to the exact location and the number of houses to construct in the SASA. In Koers 2025, the estimation for the SASA is between 500 and 1500 houses (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016, p. 38). Two years later, the municipality goes a bit more into detail when it presents specific potential locations on the SASA (see image 11). For one of the four areas in this image, the Sixhaven ‘Sluiseiland’, the municipality considers constructing high-rise. This might conflict with the municipal policy on high-rise (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011b). If the municipality nevertheless decides to construct high-rise, it says that this should then be supported with arguments, in order to make a ‘transparent administrative consideration’ (een transparante, bestuurlijke afweging) (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b, p. 18). Some of the proposed ideas are mentioned below. The numbers in image 11 corresponds to potential construction sites in the SASA.

1. Laanwegkwartier/-park: start of planning process in 2020, currently functioning as a park.

2. IJplein-west: add houses or transform the current housing stock by adding floors on top of the current flats.

3. Sixhaven Sluiseiland: construct 500-1500 houses, high-rise being a serious option. 4. ‘Anker in het IJ’: add a 16.000m2 building for education, sports and culture.

5. Sixhaven: ‘disclose this currently fragmented and poorly accessible area’. The municipality will do further research on the necessary ‘integration/relocation of the houseboats’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b, p. 10).

6. A bridge across the NHC. 7. A ‘water-rich riverside-park’.

(28)

28

The question that arises is what the municipality, besides houses, envisions to realize on these locations? In other words, what does the SASA need, according to the municipality? A first step in order to legitimize what is needed, is to describe what is currently there. In this respect, the municipality presents a certain picture of what the SASA as a place currently evokes. It says, for example, that the IJplein is ‘worn out’ and ‘not sustainable’ and the housing blocks which are approached when getting off the ferry leave an ‘unapproachable impression’ on the viewer (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017b, p. 53). Instead of this, the municipality wants to give the IJplein an ‘attractive and urban character’, which demands a ‘quality-improvement of the public space as well as intensifying [densifying] and function mixing’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b, p. 7).15 Amsterdam North is evolving from an industrial economy to ‘a small-scale economy based on knowledge, leisure and creative business activities’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017a, p. 3) which makes ‘a much more mixed, intensified and more lively area desirable’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017b, p. 89). This concretely means that the SASA should become a place which accommodates ‘metropolitan functions’, such as ‘museums, office spaces, education facilities, restaurants or events’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017b, p. 55). One of the ideas is, for example, to build shops or social organizations on the ground floors of the IJplein buildings. Another is to transform the now quiet waterfront of the IJplein and parts of the Sixhaven into a ‘water-rich riverside-park’ (watterijk oeverpark) with a ‘hybrid, multifunctional building accommodating education, sports and culture’ (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b, p. 11-12).

Thus, the municipality clearly adopts an approach focusing on metropolitan development and densification, which prefers certain options, while dismissing others. Nevertheless, the municipality conveys the message that everything is still possible, that nothing has been decided yet with regard to what exactly will be realized in the SASA. This putative contradiction – having a clear approach and saying everything is possible – has caused significant confusion among residents.

Finally, an important point to be considered is that ideas of the municipality are inspired by the plans of three design bureaus which were hired. In contrast with the urban development of the IJplein in the 1980s – in which (future) residents were participating from the beginning onwards (Looise, 1987) – the opinions of residents have not been taken into account.16 The municipality says that this will happen in later stages of the area development

15_{Function mixing concerns creating a neighbourhood that is both designed to live as well as to work in (Pols et al., 2009)}

as well as a socioeconomically more mixed population.

(29)

29

process in 2018 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b, p. 22). In the many conversations I had with residents, a question which kept resurfacing was why they had not been involved from the start. This is in stark contrast with the constant promise of the municipality, that it will involve the residents and other stakeholders in the planning process (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017a, p. 55). This contradiction will be discussed and analysed in more detail in chapter III.

1.4.3 Infrastructural policies: the bridge across the North Holland canal

The construction of two bridges across the North Holland Canal (NHC) (see image 11, p. 27 and 12) is one of the infrastructural measures of Sprong over het IJ which resulted in commotion. As a result of the previously discussed developments, Amsterdam North will attract many more residents and workers, increasing the number of crossings over the IJ

every year. The current 46.000 daily crossings are estimated to be doubled by 2030 and an increasing number of people will pass the IJplein on their way to other central parts of Amsterdam North. For this they must cross the NHC, and therefore two bridges across the NHC for cyclists and pedestrians are needed (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017b, p. 9, 37). Besides this, it is estimated that as a result of this bridge, more people will make use of the IJplein ferry, which would unburden the overcrowded Buiksloterweg ferry.

Image 12: The yellow circles correspond to the Buiksloterweg ferry (left) and IJplein ferry (right). The blue circles correspond to the two bridges across the NHC (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017a, p. 108, edited by author).

This plan has aroused a lot of commotion, because many residents question the necessity of the bridge which will be built next to their house or through their beloved park. Moreover, many residents feel the municipality does not involve them adequately in the decision making process concerning these bridges (Bestuurscommissie Noord, 2018). These concerns have been voiced on several occasions which the author attended, and will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters. These experiences of residents show that urban infrastructural projects are never only a technical object. They have a social dimension as well, which implies that ‘they are always contested. And they are never truly universal or politically or socially ‘neutral’’ (Graham, 2000, p. 115). The bridges across the NHC are

(30)

30

contested by residents, which can be explained by the fact that these infrastructural projects are constructed within a sociocultural and political context.

1.5 Participation in the exploratory phase of the SASA area development

The development of the SASA is divided into different phases (see table 1). In order to understand the experiences of residents with the participation process of the development of the SASA, which is the focus of chapter III, it is important, firstly, to show how the municipality organizes area development.

Table 1: The different stages of area development in Amsterdam. Information for table derived from: <https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/sixhaven/project-sixhaven> [May 15th, 2018].

At the moment of writing – June 2018 – the exploratory phase has just ended. The Principle Note Sixhaven (PNS) was published at the sixth of March (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b), and the municipality says that nothing has been decided yet; only potential development ideas have been shared. The PNS, as the name says, outlines the general principles of the proposed development. Only at the end of the second phase will concrete decisions be made about what will be developed on the SASA and what not. This second phase will start sometime this summer when residents are contacted later this year for participation sessions focusing on certain parts of the development (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b, p. 22). Phase two will lead to a ‘project decision’ followed up by an ‘investment decision’ in stage three. However, it is not explained on the Sixhaven project website of the municipality what these phases concretely encompass. In an interview I had with Ida, a high ranking civil servant related to the SASA development, she says about the exploratory phase:

The Principle note is only just the start of a process, actually only the moment we decide to start (…) That’s the problem I think, people find it very difficult to distinguish between the two [optional ideas and decisions]. They [residents] think ‘there’s something on paper, so you [the municipality] must have already thought this out and we do not have a say in it anymore. Phases Resulting policy

1 Exploratory Principle Note (see Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b for the PNS)

2 Feasibility Project decision

3 Design Investment decision

(31)

31

However, the PNS is not by definition ‘only just the start of a process’. In the case of the SASA development, it was decided that there would be no public communication nor ‘co-creative involvement of residents’ (Harold, civil servant). However, other area development projects in Amsterdam, for example concerning the Amsterdam forest, did have a co-creative component included in the exploratory phase, resulting in the Principle Note.

The formal participation trajectory in the exploratory phase includes one clear option to voice one’s concerns, namely when the PNS is discussed by the local government of North and by the municipal council. Residents get three minutes to voice their opinions about the development plan.17 However, apart from this, little background information can be provided about how the municipality wants to organize participation in regard to the SASA, because a clear and official guideline or framework is not available. However, when I emailed a civil servant I met on an evening about Koers 2025 in debate centre Pakhuis de Zwijger with the question if there are guidelines on how to organize participation within area development projects, he sent me an unpublished concept study on this theme. Although this study, which is named ‘Participation and Citizen Involvement’ (HvA, 2018), does not have an official status, it is, according to my contact person, widely used by civil servants of the Amsterdam municipality. Moreover, it is endorsed by the head of the department of Space & Sustainability, and the high ranking civil servant related to the SASA area development who I interviewed also referred to it.

One of the proposals of this report is to clearly define how the municipality envisions participation, because an ‘unambiguous ambition or approach’ is currently missing (HvA, 2018, p. 43). Furthermore, participation can result in the following benefits: ‘higher quality of plans through input of local knowledge, new ideas and alternative solutions through the input of more knowledge, increase legitimacy of government action, improved implementation as a result of broader support’. Participation should hence not be seen as a ‘goal’ but as a ‘means’ towards a better outcome. Subsequently, the authors mention several reasons for why it is attractive for citizens to participate: ‘to get a better living environment, input own interests, input local initiative, day care and to enhance one’s network’ (HvA, 2018, p. 17-18). However, especially with respect to densification policies, participation can be difficult. This is because other financial interests and the public interest of reducing the housing crisis play an import role. These conditions and advices of this report resonate strongly with the

17_{In one of the municipal council meetings this was shortened to only one and a half minutes because of the great amount}

of speakers. Residents who were going to speak were informed about this only on the morning of the meeting. This exacerbated the already existing feeling of not being heard.

(32)

32

knowledge from the participation literature (Callahan, 2007; Laurian, 2009; WRR, 2012) as well as with many of the things that went wrong in the participation process regarding the development of the SASA, which I discuss in chapter III. This shows that, although the knowledge is available, the participation process does not go smoothly. In other words: organizing participation is ‘a complex and difficult, though essential and challenging endeavour’ (Botes & van Rensburg, 2000, p. 41).

A final important point to address concerns the persons who were asked to participate in this concept study. The researchers spoke with a whole range of policymakers, scientists, urban planners and experts from social organizations. The list counts 43 names, of which 34 were interviewed and 9 participated in an advisory board. Subsequently, only two persons are mentioned under the heading ‘organized citizens’, hence individual residents with ‘participation experiences’ were never interviewed. Although the report itself is insightful and nuanced, it leaves a gap for studying the experiences of residents. This is where the current study makes a contribution.

1.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have outlined the municipal policies targeting Amsterdam North and in particular the SASA. Historically, Amsterdam North accommodated the things Amsterdam did not want to have: the gallows field, the polluting industries and the re-education villages. This played an important role in the stigma that North carried, an ‘anti-social’ place where ‘one would not want to be caught dead’ (Kok, 2016). These villages, of which Asterdorp is the most famous example, were built for the ‘anti-social’ families of Amsterdam. These families were selected by the municipality and re-educated and ‘civilized’, which made these villages emblematic for the social democratic policy to emancipate the working class. At the same time, living in these villages was experienced as humiliating by residents, which gradually let to the stigmatization of North.

However, a shift occurred at the end of the 20th century. Instead of uplifting the population, the location became the main target of the municipal policies. By reframing North from anti-social and industrial to creative and metropolitan, the focus shifted from emancipating the current to attracting a more affluent future population. In addition to this North-related policy, the central policy for Amsterdam as a whole is called densification, which encompasses designing residential complexes that can accommodate more residents per m2 compared to the current situation. I have shown that many of the potentially to be densified areas in the SASA are areas places that are currently still green areas. The SASA

(33)

33

development project is an interesting case, because it manifests all these processes – the stigmatization, the shift from social to spatial policy and the densification strategy. It has many green and quiet spaces which are selected for densification, as well as long-term residents, who negotiate the stigma. Furthermore, it should develop into an metropolitan area, partly to attract more affluent residents. Although this chapter answered some questions, it brought up questions as well in particular regarding the experiences of the current population. How do they perceive the densification of their living environment? And how do they experiences the participation process regarding the area development? These questions will be answered in the following chapters.

(34)

34

Chapter II – Place attachment in the densifying city

2.1 introduction: the taboos ‘in which people are living’

(…)[as politicians/urban planners] hanging above a map and saying ‘okay let’s put your house here, and then we do this here, just nicely thinking without taboos’ (…) and then suddenly people are angry, they turned out to live in these things with which we were shuffling! (…) It is 2018! We cannot deal with the city as if it were pawns on a chessboard (…) there are persons living in these taboos! (Jorrit Nuijens, former municipal councilor of the Green Left party in Amsterdam).18

This chapter shows why it is important to involve residents in this process of ‘thinking without taboos’. Residents are emotionally attached to certain places in the SASA and changing these places might damage these attachments. Subsequently, chapter III describes how the trust relationship between the municipality and residents was damaged because the municipality did not involve residents in the planning process from the start.

The current study contains images which visualize several development ideas. Again, I want to emphasize very clearly that these images are not definitive plans, but optional ideas. These visuals sometimes concern difficult decisions, like demolition or the construction of houses on green space, and hence there lies a taboo in discussing them within the municipal council and with residents. Although these images are ‘just ideas’, they have had real effects on people’s lives. Some residents got stressed or considered relocation, others think that the ideas are more definitive than is argued by the municipality. In line with the author of the above quote, I propose to ‘rethink our spatial planning processes’. I argue that the commotion could have been prevented and the negative effects could have been softened if residents had been involved in an earlier phase of the redevelopment, while these images were created (WRR, 2012). Besides preventing stressful reactions, the municipality could have included the ideas and experiences of residents which could have possibly enriched the planning process, resulting in a more ‘place-sensitive-redevelopment’ (Jones & Evans, 2012, p. 2328).

The following chapter consists of three sections. First, I will discuss the densification policy and the most prominently expressed place attachments, PA to green, open and quiet places. Subsequently, I will discuss residents’ perceptions of high-rise construction. Finally, I will address residents’ perceptions on how Amsterdam North is changing.

18_{This quote is taken from a debate on the development of the SASA in the municipal council on March the 7}th_{, 2018. The}

debate centered around the question of how the commotion around this development, which was fueled by the potential demolishment and the frustration of residents concerning how this was communicated, could have been prevented and could be prevented in the future.

‘Developing in the spirit of North’ : a qualitative research on residents’ place attachment and experiences with participating in the SASA area development