University of Amsterdam Master Heritage Studies
Heritage and resident participation
Urban revitalization and heritage making in the Slotermeer
neighborhood in Amsterdam
Master Thesis
Anne Beeksma (5741661) Supervisor: dr. Chiara de Cesari Second reader: Hanneke Ronnes
Wordcount: approx. 20300
To Kerimcan
“Everybody who is able to, is asked to take responsibility for his or hers own life and environment.”1
“Someone is needed who can oversee the bigger picture. ‘They’ don’t care about this.”2
1 Government of The Netherlands. Ministry of General Affairs. Troonrede 2013. Den Haag: Government of The Netherlands, 17 Sept. 2013.
Contents
Introduction. Heritage and participation?...3
1. Changing the City. Transitions in the Dutch urban context...9
1.1. Silver lining the Bakemabuurt in Amsterdam New West...9
1.2. Transitions in Dutch urban renewal 1950 – 2014...13
1.2.1. Urban reconstruction 1945 - 1970...14
1.2.2. Classic urban renewal 1970-1990...16
1.2.3. Towards profitability...18
1.2.4. Urban Revitalization: ‘A policy cocktail’...20
1.2.5. Urban revitalization. The ‘problem’ of integration...23
1.3. Resident participation or the resident as consumer...26
1.3.1. A hot topic...27
1.3.2. Ownership...28
1.4. Transitions in Dutch built heritage policy and practice 1988 – 2014...31
2. Case study Slotermeer...35
2.1. Pioneers in the polder: malleable society...35
2.2. Revitalizing Slotermeer. Towards a more colorful neighborhood?...41
2.3. Stigmatizing Slotermeer...45
3. Opposition through heritage in Slotermeer...50
3.1. Heritage in Slotermeer...50
3.1.1. An inside and outside museum: residents and municipal stakeholders...52
3.2. Imagining Slotermeer through other narratives...56
3.3. The Airey houses. Heritage as obstruction...58
Conclusion...63
Works cited...66
Works consulted...70
Online sources...71
Introduction. Heritage and participation?
During the first month of 2014, large banners could be seen from the Burgemeester de Vlugtlaan in Amsterdam. They read “25 jaar geen onderhoud”, or “no maintenance for 25 years”.3 The banner reflected the resident’s discontent with their housing situation, in the
so-called Airey houses. Some of the expected discomforts for residents, such as the use of single glass panes and the lack of isolation, can be regarded by built heritage experts as favorable, as these discomforts are the result of the material authenticity of these buildings. This signals that expert heritage values, such as material authenticity, can be in direct contradiction to resident’s interests. This becomes more relevant when taken into consideration the fact that these Airey houses are part of a large urban revitalization project in Amsterdam and are planned to be demolished, a plan which is heavily debated as the Airey houses are part of the protected cityscape of Slotermeer in Amsterdam. As this debate carries on residents turn to more resolute measures, such as this banner.
This example of heritage contestation in the neighborhood of Slotermeer in Amsterdam illustrates that what is perceived as heritage and resident participation do not always go hand in hand. Resident participation here can be understood as the way in which residents react, or call or, change; the whole of communications through which residents act as active
stakeholders in regard to physical change in their environment. The case of the Airey houses illustrates that discussions about heritage are not standalone social phenomena, but instead intersect with social agenda’s which might also be reflected upon through other discourses; in this case discourse on urban revitalization and on resident participation. Within the heritage discourse, public participation is generally recognized as being of increasing importance to policymakers.4 Laurajane Smith and Emma Waterton have described a “infatuation with
community” in the heritage field; observing increased focus on community.5 This is closely
related to an increase in the governmental interest in participation in general, for example in 3 ‘Pak achterstallig onderhoud Aireystrook snel aan.’ SP Amsterdam. 7 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Dec. 2014. 4 See Assche, Kristof van, Martijn Duineveld. ‘The good, the bad and the self-referential:
heritage planning and the productivity of difference.’ International Journal of Heritage
Studies 19:1, 2013: 1-15 and Waterton, Emma, Laurajane Smith ‘Heritage protection for the 21st century.’
Cultural Trends 17:3 (2008): 197-203.
5 Resident participation and community are two distinct concepts here, as resident participation deals
specifically with the ways in which residents cope with changes in their environment whereas community might be applied in a much broader sense. Waterton, Emma, Laurajane Smith. ‘The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage.’ International Journal of Heritage Studies16:1, 2010: 5.
urban planning practice.6 In The Netherlands, interest for public participation in planning and
in heritage planning - planning practice that deals with heritage specifically - is still in the process of developing into clearly delineated policy and practice. This thesis joins critical heritage discourse with urban revitalization discourse through analyzing resident
participation.
In this context it is relevant to regard which nuances can be ascribed to resident participation in heritage. Apart from this subject being of relevance to policy makers, it is of significance to critical heritage scholars too, as it illustrates how heritage acts as a platform through which urgent controversy about urban revitalization is acted out. Furthermore, it illustrates how heritage can act as both a form of social capital, using a sociological concept coined by Pierre Bourdieu, supporting residents in their ownership of their direct environment and as an obstruction, to residents who do not possess this social capital.7
Within the last years, participation in general has become a political buzzword in the Netherlands. But how does this participation relate to a context of urban revitalization in which both heritage practice and policy and resident participation are per definition
problematic, as urban revitalization relies on demolishing the old run-down housing stock? And who participates? This research aims to provide insight in how different levels of management have different aims and methods, which structure participation projects and, by doing so, structure urban revitalization projects in suburban environments.
This focus results in the following research question:
How is resident participation used as a form of policy legitimization in the context of urban revitalization and how do residents use heritage to cope with the changes in their environment as a direct result of this policy?
Hypothetically, the answers will be intertwined and will both help to shed light on how resident participation in heritage takes place within the context of urban revitalization of disadvantaged neighborhoods. The aim of this research is lay bare the many complexities tied up with the questions posed here, in order to better understand how participation in this sense 6 E.g. Fisscher, F. Citizens, experts and the environment. The politics of local knowledge. London: Duke University Press, 2000. For a more specific reflection on a Dutch case study: M.J.W. van Twist et al. Gewoon,
in Amsterdam-West. Den Haag: Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur, 2014.
7 See Bourdieu, Pierre. ‘The forms of capital.’ In: Richardson, J. ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the
functions and why it functions in the way it does. This investigation is connected to a sense of social urgency as urban revitalization involves drastically changing the living environments of residents.
A key concept underlying the research questions posed is that of heritage. Heritage is often regarded as a body of objects. The concept can also be approached differently, leading to a more dynamic understanding. The concept of heritage-making is pivotal to the understanding of the research presented here. Laurajane Smith has argued that heritage can be defined as the process that moves objects from the realm of simple indifferent existence, towards the realm of heritage, in which the objects gain a greater social importance. Her conceptualization of heritage is related to the theorization of heritage by David Lowenthal and Eric Hobsbawm, who have discussed the way in which heritage differentiates from history because of its performative qualities. Both authors have emphasized the role of heritage in the creation and reproduction of national identity.8
Smith emphasizes the role of a hegemonic discourse, the Authorized Heritage Discourse, in or AHD in heritage and connects heritage to politics.9 Heritage here, can be understood as a
tool used by an expert community to manifest itself and can have an exclusionary character.10
The recent interest in the field of heritage in community, Waterton and Smith argue, has done little to bend the exclusionary heritage process in this sense towards a more inclusionary, or plural, project. Instead, they argue, the uncritical focus on community works to reinforce existing mechanisms, as a wide array of stakeholders with different agenda’s and narratives outside the expert community are ‘othered’; molded into one category: the community. This is highly political as the expert community represents the white middle class.11
Kristof van Assche and Martijn Duineveld have framed heritage as a social system, based on the social systems theory by Niklas Luhmann. They refer to social systems, and thus to heritage, as self-referential. Heritage as a system, they claim, like law or politics, can only function within society when it can be clearly identified as such. It needs to be recognizable within society to function properly. Allowing for stakeholders outside the system to influence the system directly would only dilute its function in society. Self-reference, they argue is positive and operational closure (the way in which a system maintains its stability) is useful.12
8 See Lowenthal, David. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. And Hobsbawm, Eric. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. 9 See: Smith, Laurajane. The uses of heritage. New York: Routledge, 2006.
10 Weiss, Lindsay. “Heritage-making and political identity.” Journal of Social Archeology 7 (2007). 11 “This artificial of community works to reinforce presumed differences between the white, middle classes and ‘the rest’, as well as the full range of heritage experts and ‘everybody else’.” Waterton 2010: 5.
Where Waterton and Smith regard the closed nature of the AHD as negative, Van Assche and Duineveld argue for the opposite. What is problematic about the work of Van Assche and Duineveld, is that it regards heritage as a standalone social system. Based on the work by Waterton and Smith however, it can be argued that both heritage an politics are not just a clearly delineated systems, but rather, politics function as the societal framework in which heritage operates as a tool used to produce and express social dominance.
Regarding heritage as an operationally closed system furthermore does not comply with the work of Gregory Ashworth. Ashworth et al. have argued that contestation is intrinsic to heritage, heritage can never reflect the interests of every member of society and is always the result of deliberated choices made by specific social groups.13 Whereas Ashworth et al. have
published on theorizing heritage in the context of plural society, this thesis moves away from focusing solely on heritage theory and instead looks at other discourse and, especially, in more depth at a specific case study.14
In this thesis, the focus within the scope of heritage lies on urban built heritage. This is due to the fact that the concept of heritage here is framed by a larger urban context, that of urban revitalization. As urban revitalization takes place in neighborhoods where relatively little legally protected built heritage objects can be found, an understanding of heritage as dynamic helps to delineate different forms of heritage and heritage-making through resident
participation within this context.
This thesis conceptualizes heritage as a social and as such possibly controversial process. Within this process different stakeholders, their agendas and corresponding narratives can be delineated. Heritage here, is not analyzed by looking solely at the heritage objects these stakeholders produce, but rather by mapping out which stakeholders were involved in assigning heritage value to objects in the first place and their reasons in doing so.
In this sense, heritage-as-process might very well be connected to other social processes that involve other controversies, that overlap with heritage making. The aim here is not to regard heritage as a ‘operationally closed system’(referring again to Van Assche and Duineveld), but rather as a social stage, through which agendas are played out that are intertwined with other social systems. In the case study regarded here, heritage will function as both a stage and as a
13 Ashworth, G.J., Brain Graham, J.E. Tunbridge. Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in
Multicultural societies. London: Pluto Press, 2007.
14 The abovementioned publication by Ashworth et al. provides a thorough theoretical framework for heritage in plural societies. It does however move very abruptly from one case to another, weaving together generalizing statements based on cases which in reality differ strongly from each other. It can be argued that a more useful methodology for looking at heritage in a plural context might be to carefully dissect cases.
tool through which a much larger discussion, about participating in planning drastic urban change, is played out.
Resident participation in urban planning and heritage planning is often regarded as positive. It seemingly guarantees democratic legitimization of policy, as residents are directly involved in how their environment is remodeled. It is however far from problematic, as the case study presented here will illustrate. Whereas government professionals, such as municipal
politicians, are eager to look at participation as a successful tool for creating policy safely embedded in local communities, reality proves otherwise. There is no such thing as thé community in reality and correspondingly, there is no such thing as resident participation as a political tool free of conflict and contestation. When resident participation in heritage
planning is free of conflict and contestation questions might be asked about how this is accomplished. Regarding heritage as intrinsically contested, referring to Ashworth, a conflict-free participatory project suggests that within the participatory process not all residents were represented. It can be hypothesized that within these ‘quiet’ processes only those voices were heard that did not stray too far from what the initiator of the process hoped to hear. Or, to frame this in terms taken from Emma Waterton and Laurajane Smith; if resident participation in heritage making is free of contestation, it might be expected that the participants and their stories and opinions are related to the AHD; the body of heritage that is perceived as thé heritage, based on expert valorization. If any representatives of alternative discourses would have participated, then a contestation of the AHD would most likely have been part of the participatory process.
The neighborhood of Slotermeer, as briefly introduced earlier, will function as the stage in this thesis where the relationship between heritage, planning and resident participation will be analyzed through looking at different forms of resident participation. Slotermeer is
characterized as a disadvantaged neighborhood. This was made explicit when the district of Amsterdam New West, of which the neighborhood of Slotermeer is a small part, was selected as one of forty national ‘probleemwijken’: neighborhoods branded as disadvantaged through governmental policy in 2007.15 This further stresses the importance of applying critical
heritage theory; the case study reviewed is positioned in a wide discourse on the urgency of improving disadvantaged neighborhoods, which is related to wider sociological debate on concepts such as populism and exclusion, as these disadvantaged neighborhoods are
15 Actieplan Krachtwijken. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, 2007: 3.
predominantly occupied by citizens of non-Dutch ethnic origin.16 This further emphasizes the
importance of looking at, and through, heritage in areas that seem like unlikely sites of heritage. Exactly their appearing ‘unheritageness’ might very well be a symptom of the fact that they who decide on what is heritage are part of an expert community that does not relate to the residents of the neighborhood.
In the research question mentioned, it is not delineated which stakeholders, such as policymakers, officials, politicians and other administrators and managers will be studied. Part of the aim of this thesis is to investigate how different levels of management put forward different aims and methods dealing with public participation within the context of urban revitalization. From a political point of view, participation might be stressed as important, whilst a local manager might have a different, more practical, take on participation. In this research, I hope to analyze these different points of view, in order to demonstrate the multifacetedness of public participation in heritage.
Reflecting the duality of the research question, this research can be roughly dissected into two parts. The first part deals with the many political and policy complexities tied up with participation in a context of urban revitalization. The second, which reflects on a case study in the neighborhood of Slotermeer, will be framed by the findings of the first part.
Critical theory will be predominantly used in the first part, but will prove of use to the contextualization of the case study as well. In order to present a nuanced understanding of the casestudy, different methodologies will be put to use. The first part will rely on an analysis of historical and contemporary policies on urban renewal and subsequently urban revitalization and on an analysis of the transition of Dutch built heritage policy. Participation, both as a form of policy legitimization and as a social practice, will function as a leitmotiv interwoven with these analytical frameworks. The case study will include descriptions of stakeholders, including participating residents, based upon data from interviews and witnessed events. The case study will be started with a description of urban revitalization policies in New West and Slotermeer. Throughout the case study, attention will be given to the architectural and spatial properties of the case presented. Descriptions of various forms of heritage, one of which is the Van Eesterenmuseum, will help to shed light on different forms of resident participation and its relation to urban revitalization.
16 Haar, Daniëlle ter, Luuk Schreven, Maartje Rienstra. Outcomemonitor Krachtwijken Nulmeting. Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2008: 7.
1. Changing the City. Transitions in the Dutch urban context
1.1. Silver lining the Bakemabuurt in Amsterdam New West
When traveling aboard tram 13 to the west of Amsterdam, one passes through the district of Nieuw-West (New West). Just before reaching the final stop, the Lambertus Zeilplein, the tram passes a series of relatively new building blocks on the right-hand side of the tracks, built after the These are contemporary buildings, built after 2005 characterized by bold shapes and use of contrasting materials (fig. 1). They feature large balconies, a built-in garage and a well-lit glass entrance. Just next to these buildings stand older structures, apartment blocks from the period in Dutch history known as the reconstruction era, which roughly spans from 1940 until 1965.17 These blocks are run down, some are even boarded up. Both the new
buildings and the older ones form one somewhat square complex, the Bakemabuurt, together with streets, passageways and other buildings (fig. 2). Three sides of the complex have recently been altered. Two sides, consisting of stretched apartment blocks, have been renovated. One side, as mentioned, consists of new building blocks. One side is still in run-down condition. This is the side through which mostly only residents access the area by foot (fig. 3). The other ‘new’ sides are much more visible to non-residents; to commuters,
travelers and to the new inhabitants of the district, who reside in new apartment blocks across the street, which were built to draw new, more prosperous inhabitants to the district. 18 These
buildings are “showpieces” as one sales brochure states.19 The Bakemabuurt, consisting
entirely of public housing, is in poor condition (fig. 4). Plans for the renewal of the area have been in the making for many years, but up to now, the only improvement of the area has been the renewal of its outer borders.20 And because these renovations have been strategically
placed as to shield off the desolation within the area, it can be argued that they act as a silver lining.
17 I choose to use the definition of the reconstruction era as used by the national Cultural Heritage Agency. ‘Reconstruction era.’ Cultural Heritage Agency. Cultural Heritage Agency, Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Web. 10 jun. 2014.
18 Opposite the Sonoy complex lie the ‘Zilverling’ and ‘Parkrand’ buildings, completed in 2007 and 2011. Both buildings feature a mixture of both social and commercial housing. ‘Zilverling, Amsterdam.’
Architectenweb. Web. 11 jun. 2014 and Bergen, Marina van den. ‘Woongebouw Parkrand Amsterdam.’ Archined. Jun. 2007. Web. 11 jun. 2014.
19 Translated by author from “Paradepaardjes.” Stadgenoot Woonmakelaars. Amsterdam Nieuw-West. Dr. H. Colijnstraat 608. Amsterdam: Stadgenoot, 2007.
20 The future of the small neighborhood is still uncertain, as new renewal plans have yet to be announced. Plans from 2005, as part of the bigger Richting Parkstad 2015 renewal project, have been cancelled. Buurtkrant
The case of the Bakemabuurt illustrates the current crisis in Dutch urban renewal. Many large scale plans and projects have come to a standstill.21 The prospected plans suffered from the
results of the financial crisis of 2007-2008.22 The future for urban renewal in the Netherlands
is still uncertain. It is in this context that this thesis is written. A temporal context of transition, during which different stakeholders in Dutch urban renewal deliberate on future actions, strategies and policies. Resident participation holds a special place within this transition.
21 The standstill of renewal was caused by the economic crisis. The In Amsterdam for example plans for New West have been postponed untill after 2020. Besluitenlijst Nieuw-West. Gemeente Amsterdam, 15 juni 2012. 22 Heijkers, Bram ed. Toekomst Stedelijke Vernieuwing na 2014. Nicis Institute and KEI, 2012: 35.
Figure 1. The Burgemeester Roëllstraat with contemporary housing blocks on the right, aside older housing. Source: “Burgemeester Roëllstraat” Vlieg Makelaar. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
Figure 2. Map of the Bakemabuurt. The arrow has been added by the author and indicates the side of the complex that has not been altered yet, the other sides have been altered. It is also the vantage point from which
the photo shown as figure 3 has been taken. Source: RROG stedenbouw en landschap. “huidige situatie”.
Figure 3. Passage into the Dirk Sonoy area, at the Dirk Sonoystraat. Source: Beeksma, Anne. “Dirk Sonoystraat”. 2014.
Figure 4. Looking into the Dirk Sonoy area from the Jan Zijvertszstraat. Source: Beeksma, Anne. “Jan Zijvertszstraat”. 2014.
1.2. Transitions in Dutch urban renewal 1950 – 2014
Dutch urban renewal has changed radically from the 1950s onwards, both as an urban practice and as governmental policy. Within this transformation, different transitions can be demarcated. The leitmotiv in this transformation is that of an increasing focus on economic profitability, as public housing corporations, who have continuously functioned as the main stakeholders within Dutch urban renewal, were pushed by the Dutch government to increase their economic autonomy. This increasing commercial focus has greatly influenced the role of resident participation within urban renewal. What will come to the fore within the
timespan presented here is a shift from urban policies addressing urban inequality towards the policy of urban revitalization. The latter will prove to reinforce marginalization of poor residents of an immigrant background.
After the 1950s, policy was directed at removing slums from the inner city on both ethical and economical grounds, to the social and spatial restructuring of suburbs from the end of the 1990s onwards, Dutch urban renewal has always been bold, both in scale and in ambition. Within this context, resident participation has concurrently taken different shapes, both within governmental policy and as actions partaken by residents to deal with the changes they faced within their city. As urban renewal policies changed, so did the forms of resident participation that accompanied them.
Urban renewal can be described as a continuous historical phenomenon that has accompanied the development of Dutch cities in general. In this guise, the term can be used to describe different phases in urban history. The definition of urban renewal used in this thesis however is more specific. It indicates governmentally initiated strategies aimed at thoroughly
transforming neighborhoods perceived as inadequate or disadvantaged.
Dutch governmental policy from 1981 defines this as: “an adaptation of the [...] environment to the current desires and standards that the arrears are made up by leaps and bounds, for the benefit of those who live, work and practice their trade in the areas in arrears.” 23
During the period described in this chapter, the spatial focus of urban renewal shifted from the inner cities to neighborhoods in the periphery of the city.
Plans for urban renewal reflect on perceived problems in the urban context and their corresponding solutions. These plans, together with the notions and policies they represent, reflect on the views and hopes of their makers and can be highly political. The timeframe of
23 Priemus, Hugo, Gerard Metselaar. Urban renewal policy in a European perspective: An international
1950 – 2014 is relevant for two reasons. Firstly, in accordance with Fraser’s reflections on academic methods, academic research must represent an immensely complicated reality as structured in order to generate comparisons and useful conclusions.24 In this thesis, urban reality is reduced to different concepts and developments, to allow an analysis of these concepts and phenomena. Secondly, urban renewal from WO II onwards, as a historical phenomenon, has certain properties which have influenced contemporary urban renewal. Urban renewal practices and policies, on both a national and local level, from the end of World War II onwards, have shared one important denominator according to Vermeijden. They have all conceptualized the city as a functional hierarchy, consisting of a city center surrounded by peripheries.25
1.2.1. Urban reconstruction 1945 - 1970
The period of urban renewal following World War II, the urban reconstruction period left little space for residents to participate, although large parts of inner cities were demolished. This policy was legitimized by the idea that any measures that would improve the Dutch economy would be beneficial to Dutch citizens. In the years leading up to World War II a Dutch urban planning discourse developed, which aimed to generate a better city through researching the city’s various properties. Understanding how the city ‘worked’, both demographically and logistically, aided in designing a future city that would function even better.26 World War II left the Netherlands scarred and in recession. Funds were made available for reconstruction and damaged urban spaces, of which Rotterdam was one of the worst examples, presented somewhat of a clean slate for the relatively young discourse to prove its worth.27 Alongside redesigning the old damaged city, or parts thereof, urban planners were also responsible for designing entire new districts. Modernist urban planning has influenced the case study presented in this paper in two ways. Firstly, the modernist urban planning practice has shaped the neighborhood being the subject of investigation here,
24 “<…> analytical distinctions are indispensable”. Fraser, Nancy. ‘From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age.’ New Left Review 212 (1995): 70.
25 Vermeijden, Ben. ‘Dutch urban renewal, transformation of the policy discourse 1960-2000.’ Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment 16 (2001): 228.
26 Wagenaar, Cor. Town Planning in the Netherlands since 1800: responses to enlightenment ideas and
geopolitical realities. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2010 and Bosma, Koos. Ruimte voor een nieuwe tijd: vormgeving van de Nederlandse regio 1900 – 1945. Rotterdam: Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, 1993. 27 The demolition of the city centre of Rotterdam provided the city and its most prominent urban planner, W.G.Witteveen, with a clean slate to design a new modern and efficient city centre, structured by a strict segregation of functions. See Het nieuwe hart van Rotterdam. Toelichting op het basisplan voor den herbouw
being built during the reconstruction era. Secondly, the urban planning discourse depended heavily on the analysis of the existing city. It presented a language with which the existing urban environment became seemingly malleable and thus debatable. Hugo Priemus has pointed out the historical singularity of Dutch Urban Renewal policy. The Netherlands has been the only EU member which has treated urban renewal as a distinct national task.28 Ben Vermeijden has analysed the history of Dutch urban renewal by inquiring into shifts in policy. His findings can prove useful when putting urban renewal into perspective.
Vermeijden has outlined three urban renewal policy concepts, intersected by policy shifts. These concepts are ‘urban reconstruction’, ‘classic urban renewal’ and ‘urban revitalization’. By looking at the philosophies behind policies, Vermeijden was able to set out how plans and policies were motivated and legitimated.29 The first phase of ‘urban reconstruction’ spanned from 1945 to 1970. The dominant policy philosophy in this period delineated by Vermeijden sustaining this phase was an awareness of the collective responsibility to diminish inequality and allow for all citizens to better their position within society. The instrument used to make this philosophy into a reality was economic mobility; as the 1960’s witnessed mayor
economic growth, economic optimism was prevalent.30 From 1945 onwards policies that meant to further develop the functionality of the city did so through extensive, large-scale plans which restructured entire neighborhoods. In inner cities, neighborhoods were demolished rapidly, causing this period to be given the nickname “the total demolition phase”.31 The inner city was ‘sanitized’ to increase ‘city formation’, to use the rhetoric that was used in this period.32 City centers were imagined as an economic stronghold and were restructured accordingly to accommodate further economic development. Attention for residents affected by reconstruction was lacking almost entirely.33 The demolition of
historical inner cities must be regarded keeping in mind that most historical inner cities, such as those of Amsterdam and Rotterdam were in a bad state. The inner city of Amsterdam was heavily overpopulated at the turn of the 21st century, with a large number of inhabitants living in terrible conditions in one-room housing.34 Dutch public housing corporations came into
28 Priemus 1992: 41. 29 Vermeijden 2001: 204. 30 Vermeijden 2001: 210 - 212. 31 Priemus 1992: 60.
32 E.g. ‘Sloophamers banen weg voor verkeersdoorbraak.’ Het Vrije Volk 3 Aug. 1960: 5 and ‘Plannen voor Amsterdamse binnenstad. Geen city-vorming, grachten blijven.’ De Telegraaf 23 Dec. 1954.
33 ‘Van sanering naar stadsvernieuwing.’ Kennisbank Platform 31. Platform 31. Web. 22 Dec. 2014. 34 Blauw, Maili. De Stad is nooit af. Ontstaan en ontwikkeling van het stadsdeel Slotervaart, van Algemeen
being in this context, as housing projects initiated by philanthropists who wanted to contribute to the improvement of the living conditions of the poor.35
The policy philosophy legitimizing ‘urban reconstruction’ - the idea that to benefit the Dutch economy was to benefit the lives of Dutch citizens - can be connected to the work by Beekers on the history of Dutch public housing corporations. He states that during the 1960’s, public housing corporations sought new ways of increasing their efficiency. In 1968, a president of a housing corporation in Limburg is the first to concretize this aim by using the term ‘social entrepreneurship’ in a small newspaper published by his organization.36 The use of this term is rooted in the specific notion that in order to efficiently achieve social goals beneficial to Dutch society, such as generating cheap housing, the housing corporations should operate in a way comparable to market-driven enterprises.
1.2.2. Classic urban renewal 1970-1990
Following the ‘total demolition’ or urban reconstruction phase, urban renewal took on a more social face, as resident’s interests were highlighted. Resident participation took on a rather activist shape, as the squatting movement emerged, a social movement that was, at least by some, regarded as heroic. Dutch society changed towards the end of the 1960’s. Civil unrest, the rise of social movements and the increasing instability of the pillarized society on the one hand and critique on urban reconstruction on the other, gave way to new thoughts about how the city should be managed. Civil unrest has been of critical importance to the development of Amsterdam in the second half of the twentieth century. ‘Amsterdaad 75’ for example was a ‘workgroup’, a citizen community, focused on debating the future of Amsterdam’s inner city during numerous ‘teach-ins’. Doeko Bosscher has argued that their actions have
contributed to bringing municipally initiated demolitions in the inner city of Amsterdam to a halt.37 Resident participation during this period in Amsterdam had an activist nature and was at times quite vigorous. This is exemplified by the rise of the Amsterdam squatter movement during the sixties. On the second of January 1965, the married couple Van Hoften, an
university student and his two-month pregnant wife, took up residence in an abandoned
35 Toelichting op de selectie van het gemeentelijk monumenten project stadsdelen. Amsterdam, Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Gemeente Amsterdam, 2007 and see Vreeze, Noud de, ed. 6,5 miljoen woningen,
100 jaar woningwet en wooncultuur in Nederland. Rotterdam: 010 uitgevers, 2001.
36 Beekers, Wouter. Het bewoonbare land. Geschiedenis van de Volkshuisvesting in Nederland. Amsterdam: Boom, 2005: 222.
37 Bosscher, Doeko. ‘Geen woningen, toch een kroning. Herwonnen zelfbewustzijn.’ Rooy, Piet de ed.
house, that a friend of theirs had accessed with a crowbar. Their actions drew immediate and large-scale media attention. Squatting was a new and somewhat heroic form of civil
disobedience, used by people in urgent need for housing. The actions of squatters were frowned upon by governments, but simultaneously approved by many of their peers. It was a form of protest that resonated the heroism of the WWII resistance movement.
“One who would occupy a fairly good house that had been nominated for demolishment by the government in her desire for urban renewal performed, to the idea of himself and his peers, a heroic act.”38
It is important to note that Vermeijden explains that the policy shift occurring the late sixties was not “the result of changes in knowledge about actual developments in the economy or the housing market.”39 Rather, the shift in policy was the result of the changes taking place within
society as described above. Resident participation, through squatting amongst other forms of activist participation, therefor, has played a crucial role in bringing about this policy shift. As a result the new policy on urban renewal highlighted the role of residents living in the
neighborhoods that were nominated for renewal. An often heard term in this context is ‘building for the neighborhood’ (fig. 5). Kuenzli and De Vreeze have described the coinciding development of an increase in possibilities for residents to participate in
policymaking.40 Open discussions and other forms of participation generated new possibilities
for residents to participate in processes that changed their city.
Vermeijden has labelled this new take on urbanism ‘classic urban renewal’.41 During the
seventies, the political balance had shifted towards the left. Classic urban renewal policy reflected this shift, by aiming to combat urban social inequality. Classic urban renewal policy included the renovation of existing housing in areas built before World War II and the construction of social housing for low-income groups within the city, even in central, inner city locations. A myriad of subsidies allowed for the creation and execution of urban renewal plans that were not profitable.42 These plans did not focus on financial benefit, but on the
improvement of the lives of residents. This was possible because of the governmental funding classic urban renewal was based on.
38 This quote, translated by the author from Dutch, and above mentioned arguments: Bosscher 2007: 458-460. 39 Vermeijden 2001: 213-214.
40 ‘Van sanering naar stadsvernieuwing.’ 41 Vermeijden 2001: 213.
Figure 5. This Amsterdam poster promoting a discussion about ‘construction and reconstruction’ reads “houses for who?” and “building for the neighborhood”. The discussion is open to everybody and attended by two aldermen. Source: Griepink, Bert. “Woningen voor wie? Bouwen voor de buurt.” 1976. Collection International
Institute of Social History.
1.2.3. Towards profitability
From the 1980’s onwards, public housing corporations developed from mostly participation-based small idealistic organizations, to becoming large semi-public professional market-oriented organizations. The financial dependency of urban renewal on governmental resources was changed drastically from the early 1980’s onwards. Throughout the last decades, urban renewal has shifted increasingly towards economical profitability and a decrease in governmental funding. In 1981, a report was presented by the Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), which presented urban renewal as both a state responsibility and as a finite project.43 In 1985, the Urban and Village Renewal
Act mirrored this report. However, this act created the ability for smaller authorities to shape
urban renewal according to their specific needs and aims. A formula was created as an to 43 Priemus 1992: 59.
distribute national funding. Dominant factors in this formula were the amount of old houses in the municipality applying for funding and the presence of low-income groups. When this formula was revised in 1990, it included a factor for the presence of businesses.44 Attention
for profitability had entered the urban renewal policy philosophy.
In correspondence with this push towards profitability, public housing associations started to merge and professionalize. Housing corporations had originally started as associations of civilians but have developed over the course of the last decades into large professional semi-public organizations.45 This shift can be related to what Wim Zonneveld and Femke Verwest
refer to as the debate on efficiency versus equity; is it better to focus on an increase in efficiency, or to focus on increasing social equity?46 Dutch housing corporations emerged in
the 19th century and sought to improve the living conditions of the poor trough building
affordable but decent housing blocks. These were very idealistic associations, in that they did not focus as much on financial gain, but on the improvement of the lives of the inhabitants of Dutch cities. Often, these organizations were quite small-scale. The ‘Society of Friends of Skilled Workmen’ for example, focused on improving the lives of workmen in Amsterdam, through sometimes rather moralistic measures, as “its goals included informing and
contributing to […] social and cultural edification.”47 Residents were kept under strict social
control by the associations, who were often, at least in part, governed by volunteers.48
The commercialization and the accompanying professionalization of Dutch housing corporations, which has diminished the participation of residents within the organizations, was heavily influenced by the decision of the Dutch government to promote corporatism during the 80’s. This push towards corporatism forced public organizations to strive towards financial independence as the Dutch state aimed to promote civil involvement in tasks fulfilled by the government. This liberal shift urged former public organizations to focus on efficiency and profit, a business model which left little space for non-professionals to participate in the organizations.49
1.2.4. Urban Revitalization: ‘A policy cocktail’
44 Priemus 1992: 61-62. 45 Beekers 2005: 13.
46 Zonneveld, Wim, Femke Verwest. Tussen droom en retoriek. De conceptualisering van ruimte in de
Nederlandse planning. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2005: 161.
47 Damme, Mascha van. ‘Affordable housing – historic buildings.’ in: It starts with housing. Bussum: Thoth, 2005: 121.
48 Damme 2005: 127. 49 Beekers 2005: 15-20.
The push towards profitability resulted in an urban renewal policy which is often referred to as urban revitalization, the urban renewal policy that was in place up to present day.50 This
policy resulted in a severe remodeling of neighborhoods regarded as problem areas, both socially and physically. Of key importance to the urban revitalization policies is, and has been, a focus on differentiation, both in social and physical terms. This differentiation policy aims to attract new wealthier residents to the problematic neighborhoods. This policy is partially legitimated by the the notion that the residents of the problematic neighborhoods, often poor and of immigrant descendance, would profit from this influx of new residents. What comes to light however, is that revitalization policy is based upon a body of
assumptions which should be scrutinized, as these assumptions are not related to an objective outlook on society, but rather on political and economic agenda’s that sometimes seem to function in direct contradiction to the aims revitalization policy seeks to achieve, such as the improvement of the lives of residents of ‘problem neighborhoods’.
Priemus has stated that the differentiation policy was based on the political desire to combat social segregation by tackling spatial segregation. Or, as André Buys has described: a focus on people, rather than on stones.51 The suggested revitalization policies were not based
on an actual increase in segregation, but rather on a prospected increase, which was based on a negative vision of the future.52 This prospected increase in segregation, both socially and
spatially, has however been a key argument supporting the differentiation policy, the core policy of the urban revitalization project.53 Socially, neighborhoods were re-imagined to
attract new residents, with the aim to diversify the demographic profile of these areas. Physically, as existing housing stock was deemed as outdated and unattractive and
subsequently demolished to make room for new, more comfortable and more costly housing for the new wealthier to take up residence in. Attracting new wealthier residents was sure to have a positive effect on the living conditions of the residents that would stay in the
neighborhoods, as the further dilapidation of the neighborhoods would be brought to a halt. 54
An aim which has often not been accomplished as illustrated by the case of the Bakemabuurt described earlier in this chapter.
50 Vermeijden 2001: 220.
51 “een accentverschuiving gaande van de ‘stenen’ naar de ‘mensen’” Translated by author. Buys, André. Over
wijken in steigers en stijgers in wijken. RIGO Research en Advies, commissioned by the Government of The
Netherlands, 2008: 1. 52 Priemus 1998: 303-304.
53 Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. Centrale Directie Voorlichting en Externe Betrekkingen. De gedifferentieerde stad. Gezamenlijke rapportage van de vier grote steden en het Rijk. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, 1996: 7.
Urban revitalization is a very complex and broad phenomenon because of a number of ambiguities that are tied up with this notion, it is somewhat of a ‘policy cocktail’.55 The
amalgamation of certain aims and terms make the extent of this policy both difficult to oversee and to understand. One of these amalgamations is the intermingling of socially and physically oriented policy. The shift towards urban revitalization was consolidated in 1995 by the initiation by the national government of the ‘big cities policy’ or GSB, which would result in the creation of various charters during the next decades. This body of policies and charters was explicitly legitimated by the national government by the combination of both economic and social policies.56 Just how complex this connection is, is discussed by researchers of the
University of Delft in 1996. In this publication, which was explicitly written to urge the government to stop further spatial and social urban segregation, researched seven case studies thoroughly and took notice of other cases. They found that all researched municipalities motivated their differentiation policy by arguing that a direct causal connection between physical differentiation and social differentiation exists, and that to create physical
differentiation is beneficial in diminishing social problems, such as unemployment. However, when discussing the actual policies actively combatting social problems, the findings hold no relation to physical renovation. Rather, the authors discuss the corporation policy of hiring ‘neighborhood coordinators’ to keep an eye out in the neighborhood and solve problems ‘behind the frontdoor’, which are then made explicit as ‘integration’, without further
elaborating on this complex term.57 This illustrates just how complex the rhetoric underlying
urban revitalization policies really is. The connection between solving social problems in the neighborhood and physical differentiation is not illustrated or proven as valid and at the same time, aside from physical differentiation, corporations also deploy other socially invasive methods, to tackle social problems. The use of the term ‘integration’ in this light makes this relationship, between the social and physical, even more complex. When a corporation hires somebody to tackle ‘integration behind the frontdoor’, who is to benefit? It is exactly this question which continuously proves to be problematic when analyzing urban renewal policy. Interventions in the urban context, part of the broader policy framework of revitalization, are legitimized by the benefits these economically motivated interventions will have for
residents.58 Vermeijden has argued that the reason for the connection between both a social
55 Priemus 1998: 303.
56 ‘Grotestedenbeleid.’ Kennisbank Platform 31. Platform 31. Web. 22 Dec. 2014.
57 Kalle, E. H. Kruythoff, V. Breuking, R. Teulle. Zorg om naoorlogse stadsvernieuwingswijken. Delft: Delftse Universitaire Pers, 1996: 22-28.
and economic agenda can be traced back to political changes taking place in the 1980’s: the rise of, what he calls, ‘liberalism with a social face’.59 Socially oriented political parties and
their more liberally oriented counterparts formed new alliances in this period. This resulted in the combination in policies supporting market economy development the on the one hand, and attention for social welfare and social mobility on the other. Vermeijden explicitly states that this combination resulted in putting the economic agenda first, and the social agenda second with “targeted ad hoc measures that were designed to ‘repair’ the detrimental effects of this policy on specific disadvantaged groups after the fact.”60
In this light the question ‘who is to benefit’, can be answered with: economic stakeholders, mostly the market-driven public housing corporations, in contrast to the residents living in neighborhoods subject to revitalization. This is what Loïc Wacquant relates to as ‘advanced marginality’ an urban phenomenon he connects to xenophobia, as poor residents have increasingly become the subject of racial hostility towards the poor. Wacquant’s argument is that economic advancement, which has been described as one of the motives underlying urban renewal in general, generates further social inequality.61
Rhetorically revitalization policy is, at least partially, legitimized by a prospected
improvement for residents. The tension surrounding the question ‘who is to benefit’ has also been described by Godfried Engbersen, who has argued that urban revitalization should be dubbed ‘social reconquest’ or ‘revanchism’. He argues, in line with the national urban revitalization policy, that dilapidated neighborhoods need of intrusive, normative and large-scale measures.62 He fails, however, to accurately explain how the aim to benefit the residents
of these run-down neighborhoods is related to the aim to force “specific low-income groups” to leave their neighborhoods.63 The work by Justus Uitermark and Jan Willem Duyvendak
helps to frame this discrepancy. They argue that urban revanchism is targeted to benefit capital development and the middle-classes. Also, they argue that revanchism is based on the notion that what is of universal interest, is actually of interest to the white middle-classes.64
This notion helps to explain how in revitalization policy what seems to be disadvantageous to residents is presented as beneficial, because what deemed as beneficial is structured through 59 Vermeijden 2001: 221.
60 Vermeijden 2001: 221.
61 Wacquant, Loïc. ‘Urban Marginality in the Coming Millennium.’ Urban Studies 10 (1999): 1640-1641. 62 Engbersen, Godfried, Erik Snel, Afke Weltevrede Sociale Herovering in Amsterdam en Rotterdam. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005: 19-21.
63 Engbersen 2005: 19.
64 Uitermark, Justus, Jan Willem Duyvendak. ‘Civilising the city: Populism and Revanchist Urbanism in Rotterdam.’ Urban Studies 45 (2008): 1485.
ideas about what is beneficial to the economic stakeholders of the revitalization project and the ‘new’ middle-class residents.
1.2.5. Urban revitalization. The ‘problem’ of integration
Another complexity tied to urban revitalization is that of the relationship between this policy and the Dutch societal debate on integration. From the 1990’s onwards, the formerly
positively regarded ‘multicultural society’ has been the subject of extensive societal
scrutiny.65 This shift is connected to the rise of populism in the Dutch political landscape and
has caused the criticizing and subsequent marginalization of Dutch citizens with an
immigrant background. This populist turn in the Dutch political landscape is connected to the shift in public and political opinion on the matter of multiculturalism as described by various authors.66 The debate on multiculturalism has seen the public devaluation of multiculturalism
from being regarded as a proper model for dealing with an ethnically diverse society, to being perceived as a symptom of a flawed and archaic political system.67 Dutch citizens with a
Moroccan background have been especially vilified through populist rhetoric. In March 2014, an example of this political denigration made both Dutch and international headlines as politician Geert Wilders encouraged a group of his followers to scant: “less, less, less” after he asked whether his followers desired the presence of less ‘Moroccans’ in The
Netherlands.68 Whether the integration of citizens with some form of immigrant background
into Dutch society can been deemed as successful, depends on the parameters one would use to judge integration. It can be stated in either way, that the heavy scrutinization of immigrants and multiculturalist policies alike from the 2000’s onwards has not been caused by an
absolute failure of immigration policy, but rather by political rhetoric and controversy.69
Societal anxiety towards Muslims since the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York on the
65 Within the scope of this thesis, is it not possible to thorougly discuss the complex topic of multiculturalism. Please see Levrau, Francois, Patrick Loobuyck. ‘Mogen we nog multicultureel denken? Over diversiteit, sociale cohesie en de integratie-erkenningsparadox.’ Ethische Perspectieven 2 (2010): 185-199 and Jong, Joop de. ‘Cultural diversity and cultural policy in The Netherlands’ International Journal of Cultural Policy 2 (1998): 357-387.
66 See Levrau and Looybuyck 2010 and Entzinger, Han. ‘Changing the rules while the game is on. From multiculturalism to assimilation in The Netherlands.’ Migration Citizenship Education. 2008. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.
67 Levrau and Looybuyck 2010: 185.
68 ‘Wilders laat publiek scanderen: ‘Wij willen minder Marokkanen’. De volkskrant. 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Dec. 2014. and ‘Dutch politician Geert Wilders takes aim at Moroccans and sparks outrage.’ The Guardian. 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.
11th of September in 2001 has added to the urgency with which politicians have participated
in the debate on immigration. A relationship exists between the debate on immigration and urban revitalization. Urban revitalization is, next to being an economical project, also a very political project and in this sense connected to numerous societal complexities, such as debates on security, livability and ‘social cohesion’, to name a few.70
In 2007 a new Dutch minister was appointed, tasked with ‘Housing, Work and Integration’.71
This minister, Ella Vogelaar, was especially tasked with neighborhood improvement, one of the focal points of the governing political coalition at the time.72 This coalition pays special
attention to ‘problem neighborhoods’, which are to be improved with the help of “all stakeholders”.73 Concretely, this resulted in the creation of a list of 40 specific ‘problem
neighborhoods’ which were to receive special attention.74 Vogelaar has written down her
experiences as minister in a diary together with her husband. Her thoughts and reflections bring to the fore an idea of the ‘problem neighborhoods’ being a political palliative; a political measure to meet populist demand as opposed to being a concrete and reflexive means of improving neighborhoods constructively.75
“The integration problems in the neighborhoods are of course eminently the topic on which to compete with SP, Verdonk and Wilders. These are the topics most suitable for profiling [ the political party of Vogelaar, PvdA, ed.].” 76
Vogelaar, in her diary, states that she really aspires to improve the lives of residents of ‘problem neighborhoods’. It appears however that the political focus on these areas is motivated by a different agenda, namely the need for politicians and policital parties, in this case specifically the leftist PvdA party, to show the public that they could act resolutely regarding the ‘immigration problem’. Whether immigration really was a problem and
70 Within the scope of this thesis these terms will not be discussed separately. For a thorough discussion of the political problematization of an imagined lack of ‘social cohesion’, a key topic in the integration debate, please see Verburg, Rudi, Justus Veenman. Sociale cohesie: Van containerbegrip naar analyse-instrument. Aksant, Amsterdam, 2008.
71 Kalse, Egbert, Guus Valk. ‘Balkenende-IV beëdigd.’NRC. 22 Febr. 2007. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.
72 Tweede kamerfracties PvdA, CDA, ChristenUnie. Coalitieakkoord tussen de Tweede Kamerfracties van
CDA, PvdA en ChristenUnie. 7 Febr. 2007: 9.
73 Tweede kamerfracties PvdA, CDA, ChristenUnie: 23.
74 Essen, Leo van. ‘De 40 Wijken van Vogelaar.’ Trouw. 22 Mar. 2007. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.
75Vogelaar, Ella, Onno Bosma Twintig maanden knettergek. Dagboek van een ministerschap. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Balans, 2009: 34, 35, 77, 194.
whether the proposed ‘problem neighborhood’ policy would really solve this problem, does not seem to be of much relevance. Eventually, later in 2007, minister Vogelaar was slandered by her superior, minister Bos, for her ‘soft’ approach to integration.77 This ‘softness’ can be
related to what Entzinger describes as the immigrant’s ‘guilt’. He sets apart how, in the wake of the rise of populism, immigrants, or rather Dutch citizens with an immigrant background, became increasingly guilty of their ‘lack of integration’ in both the public and political opinion.78 As such, any disadvantage in social mobility, welfare or education, that Dutch
citizens with an immigrant background might face, is not regarded as a societal and thus a political problem, but rather as a problem to be blamed on the citizens themselves. This is in direct contradiction to the concept that socio- economic inequality is a social problem which should be actively counteracted by governments.79 In this sense, the political framework of
revitalization differs strongly from urban reconstruction and classic urban renewal, as these policies were based on the notion that they would actively benefit social mobility and
equality. They were to combat marginalization, rather than reinforce it.80 In this sense, Dutch
urban renewal policy preceding urban revitalization differs from the concept of gentrification as described by Neil Smith, who argues that systematic gentrification, as a historical
phenomenon that emerged in the 1960’s, is process which dilapidated neighborhoods become of new interest to private economic stakeholders, a process which causes the displacement of residents, as investors successfully attract new, wealthier, residents to the neighborhoods.81
This does however relate to urban revitalization.
Politicians during the 2000’s have increasingly related societal problems to cultural or religious difference.82 In this light, integration means that Dutch citizens with an immigrant
background are expected to assimilate; to abandon their cultural ‘otherness’.83 Kleijn and
Mepschen have argued that many of the societal problems connected to the immigration debate, such as the high rate of unemployment amongst citizens with an immigration background, are not cultural, but rather economical; Dutch society has created a large and marginalized group of poor citizens with an immigrant background, an underclass.84 This
perspective on the many, often veiled, complexities tied to the notion of urban revitalization 77 Vogelaar 2009: 203.
78 Entzinger 2008. 79 Fraser 1995: 74. 80 Uitermark 2008: 1486. 81 Smith 1996: 7-8 and 26-27.
82 Kleijn, Leo de, Paul Mepschen. ‘Integratie en emancipatie kunnen niet zonder klassenstrijd’ NRC 28 Nov. 2008.
83 Entzinger 2008. 84 Kleijn 2008.
is of importance when reflecting on the assumptions that underlie the concept of resident participation, especially when regarded within the context of ‘problem neighborhoods’.
1.3. Resident participation or the resident as consumer
In 1972 a new term entered the Dutch discourse on public housing: the ‘housing consumer’.85
The introduction of this concept signals how public housing corporations, in the light of the push towards professionalization and commercialization described earlier, sought out new ways to approach their residents. As public housing corporations had originally functioned as idealistic non-profit organizations, and as their role was to generate public housing, rather than commercial housing, this change was not left undebated. Residents demanded to participate in the organizations on a policy level. The organizations and politicians both struggled with finding a balance between economic arguments on the one hand and the democratic nature of the public housing corporations on the other. What residents desired was often not in line with what the organizations and politicians wanted.86 Approaching the
resident as a consumer, who influences the corporations through his or hers financials decisions, creates a liberal solution to this ‘participation’ dilemma. This however has problematic properties. Firstly because this liberal notion of participation subdues existing social inequalities and secondly because housing corporations have been, and still are, public. The corporations however have come to operate increasingly on a grey sliding scale between socially motivated aims and market-driven reasoning. When looking at this scale in the context of urban revitalization, one side of this sliding scale is taken up by residents in need, who are prospected to benefit from the corporation’s actions, whilst the other end is taken up by the ‘new’ residents, the consumers, whom corporations seek to attract. This discrepancy however is not made explicit in urban revitalization policy documents and plans, as will be illustrated in the case study. It is a discrepancy though, that heavily affects the ways in which residents participate in an urban revitalization context. In any way, participation in this framework is based on an assumed discrepancy, or inequality, between residents. This inequality becomes even more problematic in the light of the connection between
revitalization and integration. It can be expected that, if residents are regarded as unequal on both economic and discriminatory grounds, resident participation will prove to be affected by this inequality.
85 Beekers 2005: 228. 86 Beekers 2005: 225.
1.3.1. A hot topic
Resident participation can be regarded in two different ways. As a social practice, but also as a phenomenon with political dimensions. The Dutch discourse on resident participation illustrates this discrepancy, as some authors focus on practical dimensions, such as who participates and how exactly, and others focus on the political aspects tied to the subject. In this thesis, participation is regarded as a form of citizen participation in the public sphere that explicitly happens outside of the realm of political representation. Participation in the sense of partaking in the Dutch national process of democratic representation will be disregarded in this research. Participation has been a hot topic in The Netherlands in the last few years. The King’s Speech presented in September of 2013 illustrates this public attention very vividly. In his speech, the King states that Dutch society is shifting from a welfare state towards a participation society.
In the speech the king also states that “Everybody who is able to, is asked to take responsibility for his or hers own life and environment.”.87
This influential speech moves participation away from simple form of interference in local matters, and into using participation as a means to generate a certain form of citizenship. However, resident participation in processes in the urban context predominantly takes place along clearly defined practices. The Platform Participatie (Participation) of the Dutch government uses a distinction between participation as initiated by authorities and
participation initiated by citizens.88 The King’s speech illustrates that on a national level, the
focus is moved in 2013 from the first form of participation to the second. The first form of participation often takes the shape of public consultation sessions, during which plans are presented to which the public is asked to react. In the Leidraad Participatie, a set of policy guidelines on participation used by the municipality of Amsterdam, different forms of this participation are mentioned, from workshops to local conferences to consultations.89 What is
important to mention here, is that this form of participation is highly regulated and requires of
87 Government of The Netherlands. Ministry of General Affairs. Troonrede 2013. Den Haag: Government of The Netherlands, 17 Sept. 2013: 2.
88 ‘Platform Participatie.’ Government of The Netherlands. Platform Participatie, Government of The Netherlands. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.
89 Leidraad Participatie. Gemeente Amsterdam, Amsterdams Volkshuisvestingsoverleg. Amsterdam:
residents to be rather well organized and informed in order to participate fully.90 Furthermore,
the actual scope of the participation will always be determined by municipal employees. The second form of participation, initiated by citizens is much more difficult to delineate. This is in part due to the fact that this form of participation is dynamic and has only rather recently (re)entered the public imagination. But this is also due to the fact that this form of participation is not merely a practical matter, but also a political and ideological one.
1.3.2. Ownership
Resident participation within the framework is often related to the notion of ‘ownership’. This concept places the responsibility of resident participation with the residents themselves. However in the previous paragraphs it has been argued that there is no such thing as equal residents, but rather a political sliding scale. On the one side of this scale stand the poor residents with an immigrant background, on the other stand the ‘new’ residents, wealthier members of the middle-classes. Furthermore, the residents on the less fortunate side of this scale are heavily problematized, and have faced policies that intervene in their lives and their environments and that have been legitimized by the beneficial properties these policies should have for them, but which are actually based on both an economic and a political exclusionary agenda.
The purpose of this research is not to thoroughly explore recent shifts in the definition of citizenship, but it is important to review some different viewpoints regarding the matter, in order to frame the case study that will be presented in the following chapters. A term that is often heard in the context of actively participating residents is that of ‘ownership’. In April of 2014, a public conference was organized about a new Amsterdam regulation regarding resident participation. The event was organized as a starting point for a series of conferences that were meant to create this law. The fact that such a regulation is in the making, and that it is attempted to generate the content of this regulation publically, is illustrative to the political foregrounding of the importance of resident participation in Amsterdam. This regulation is named the ‘buurtwet’, or ‘neighborhood law’. During the conference, different ‘active residents’, and both policy makers and politicians were present. Two remarks about this conference are of importance here. Firstly, that the attending ‘active residents’ shared a certain set of characteristics. Most were male, middle-age and a bit older and of Dutch ethnic origin. Secondly, the issue of cultural representation proved to be a problematic topic. When 90 This is made explicit in the preface to these guidelines.
asked during the public discussion whether (and how) it should be guaranteed that
Amsterdam residents belonging to ethnic minorities would also be represented through the creation of a ‘neighborhood law’, both a present municipal politician and policy maker and the moderator of the event stressed that “those who want to participate should be facilitated” and that “residents should actively gain ‘ownership’ over their neighborhood”.91 Participation
belongs to those who claim it. Here, the politician uses an English term in what was a Dutch debate. To explain ownership further, different theoretical concepts prove of use. Firstly the concept of citizenship as used by Van Gunsteren as quoted by Ted van de Wijdeven and Frank Hendriks in 2009:
“Inspired by Van Gunsteren (1998), we conceptualize citizenship first of all as an activity. Citizenship is formed and shaped through the actions of citizens making an effort for the common good or the public interest.”92
Van de Wijdeven and Hendriks explain ‘ownership’ of residents by connecting this concept of citizenship by Van Gunsteren to active participation and refer explicitly to their standpoint as being neo-republican.93 What was presented as a practical matter during the ‘neighborhood
law’ conference is thus connected to a vast political and discourse. David Miller has argued for the republican societal model as being especially effective in the context of globalized plural societies.
“Although it is a requirement of democracy that every citizen should have the opportunity to participate in collective decision-making in some way, this requirement can be met in a system embodying a high degree of pluralism. Pluralism may work in either or both of two ways: decisions may be parceled out to the sub-constituencies that are best place to make the, or most affected by the outcome; or else lower-level deliberating bodies may act as feeders for higher-level ones, with arguments and verdicts being transmitted from one to the other by representatives.”94
In this paragraph it will be argued that exactly the reasons for advocating for this societal model actually obstructs instead of encourages plural participation, a statement that will be
91 ‘Buurtwetbijeenkomst’ Pakhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam. 23 Apr. 2014.
92 Wijdeven, Ted van de, Frank Hendriks. ‘A little less conversation, a little more action: reallife expressions of vital citizenship in city neighborhoods’. Duyvendak, Jan Willem, Frank Hendriks, Mies van Niekerk ed. City
in Sight. Dutch Dealings with Urban Change. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009: 122.
93 An interesting research suggestion would be to analyze how American political concepts have influenced Dutch policy making for the urban context. This is however a topic that is impossible to discuss within the scope of this thesis.
