TEXT VERSION
CENTRUMEILAND, AN EXPERIMENT IN CITIZENSHIP
A qualitative study into self-build and Active Design on Centrumeiland.Name: Jacky Verhulst Student number: 11790776
Date: 5-7-2019
Period: 2nd semester of 2018-2019 First reader: Dr. Adeola Enigbokan Second reader: Dr. Linda van de Kamp
Abstract
The Netherlands has transformed from a welfare state into a participation society. This implies that citizens are expected to fulfil the role of an active and knowledgeable citizen and to show some degree of individual responsibility for themselves and their environment. In order to keep up with the growing demand for urban living, the municipality of Amsterdam assigned
Centrumeiland as an acceleration site for the development of 11.000 to 15.000 new houses. With the application of the “Beweeglogica” alongside the fact that 70 percent of the houses will be self-build, Centrumeiland presents itself as an interesting case. Using a qualitative approach, this research aims to illustrates how a new form of (active) citizenship expresses itself at
Centrumeiland. Throughout this research it becomes clear that the imagined form of citizenship at Centrumeiland might not be possible for everyone. Presumed motivations of active
citizenship like individual freedom, participation from everyone in society and inclusion are challenged in various ways throughout this research. This research illustrates that only particular citizens will thrive on Centrumeiland, while others are left behind.
Abstract Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Self-build housing 2.2 Active Design 2.3 Citizenship 3. Ethnic terminology 4. Methodology 4.1 Participants 4.2 Data gathering 4.3 Analysing the data 5. Centrumeiland
5.1 Centrumeiland
5.2 Land reclamation in The Netherlands
5.3 Centrumeiland with respect to the Amsterdam housing market
6. Results
6.1 Critical Discourse Analysis – “The Active City” 6.1.1 “The Active City is a playground”
6.1.2 “An Active City is a healthy and happy city”
6.1.3 “The municipality and its partners produce the Active City.” 6.1.4 “The Active City is here for every Amsterdammer”
6.1.5 Conclusion 6.2 Self-build
6.2.1 Individual
6.2.2 “together in small”
6.2.3 Collective Private Commissioning (CPO) & Housing Cooperation 6.2.4 Commonalities
6.2.5 Conclusion
6.2.6 Capital: economic, social and cultural 6.2.7 Conclusion 7. Conclusion 7.1 Conclusion 7.2 Recommendations 7.3 Limitations 7.4 Further research Acknowledgements References
Introduction
An experiment in citizenship
During his first Kings’ speech in 2013 King Willem Alexander of The Netherlands introduced the concept ‘participation society’. In this speech, he called on the Dutch citizens to take greater responsibility for their own life and their environment. This greater responsibility relates to all aspects of life, including one’s health (Rijksoverheid, 2013). This shift from a classical welfare state to a participation society means that the state now relies upon a whole set of self-sufficient characteristics of its citizens, instead of citizens relying on the welfare state (Warren 2009; Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013). Therefore, the imagined and desired kind of citizenship has also changed. Active citizenship is often used to describe this new form om citizenship (Boutellier, 2014). Six years later, the concept participation society has received a lot of criticism. Movisie, the national knowledge institute, concluded in their research that the participation society could potentially increase the existing gap between the high and lower educated and that mainly the vulnerable groups in society suffer under this new regime (Movisie, 2017).
Being active is beneficial for the health of people of all ages (Cavill, Kahlmeier, and Racioppi 2006; Warburton, Nicol & Bredin, 2006; WHO, 2018). However, only 44% of Dutch adults are meeting the exercise directives which the Health Council established in 2017 at the request of the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport (Health Council, 2017). There are four directives formulated for adults and elderly people; being active is good but being even more active is better; devote at least 150 minutes per week to mildly intense activities, like walking or biking; practice weighted exercises at least times two times a week, for the elderly this should be combined with balance exercises; and avoid too much sedentary behaviour. Also, the World Health Organisation calls childhood obesity one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st century (WHO, n.d.). In attempts to improve people’s health, the physical environment of people has become widely recognised as an important facilitator of physical activity (Sallis et al., 2006; Ding et al., 2011; Ding & Gebel, 2012).
In light of these and other developments, the Municipality of Amsterdam developed the urban agenda “The Active City”. The ambition of the Active City is: “Every Amsterdammer is active. Outside and inside, when they are on the move, by exercising and by playing.” (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016a). To realise this ambition, the “Beweeglogica” was established in 2016. This is a practical instrument that illustrates multiple building blocks, as they are called by the municipality, that can be applied to the city in order to shape an ‘active’ environment. Inspired by the “Active Design Guidelines” that were developed by the city of New
York in 2010, the “Beweeglogica” aims to connect the physical environment of the city to
people’s (daily) physical activity. The four main guidelines of the “Beweeglogica” are: The Active City makes room for pedestrians and bikers; in the Active City sport is around the corner; the Active City is a playground; and there is no sedentary behaviour in the Active City. Through the application of the “Beweeglogica”, the municipality attempts to attain a city where physical activity is a self-evident part of daily life.
In 2014, the city council of Amsterdam announced that in order to keep up with the growing demand of urban living, a minimum of 5.000 additional dwellings needs to be built every year (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016b). To realise this objective, the municipality appointed, alongside the regular building sites, fifteen acceleration sites throughout Amsterdam, including Centrumeiland. Centrumeiland will be the first real testing ground of “The Active City” urban agenda (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016c). This implies that from the very first design of the island in 2015 there was the clear ambition to create an environment that encourages people to be more active. This has resulted in a Centrumeiland city design where; public spaces are be specifically designed for pedestrians; where there is a mixed use of land; where varying heights in the form of small hills and stairs throughout the island encourage walking and playing on the streets; and where cars are secondary to pedestrians (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016c). The municipality expects to host around 1.100 to 1.500 properties on the island, and with 70 percent of its properties destined for self-build, it is the largest self-built neighbourhood of Amsterdam. Besides an island where being active and self-build play a central role, there is also the ambition of sustainable (rainproof and energy-neutral) and high-density island. You could say that Centrumeiland is an experiment in citizenship that aims to address several social,
environmental and economic challenges. This is not new as urban experiments are increasingly celebrated by planners and policymakers who are trying to create a ‘better’ world (Savini & Bertolini, 2019).
The built environment in relation to physical activity has received more research attention over the last years (Sallis et al., 2006). However, to my knowledge, no research paper has yet been published about what these Active Design interventions, such as “The Active City” urban agenda, mean in relation to citizenship in current times. Also, the literature that exists in relation to self-build is somewhat outdated and mainly discusses ways to scale up self-build practices (Benson & Hamiduddin, 2017). This research aims to update the existing research in relation to self-build by capturing the voices and stories of self-builders. Centrumeiland present itself an interesting case as it is the first testing ground of the “Beweeglogica” besides housing mainly self-builders. Therefore, the research question of this paper is:
(How) Is a new form of citizenship emerging from a combination of Active Design and self-build on Centrumeiland?
This question is operationalised with the support of the following sub questions: - How is the municipality presenting a new form of citizenship?
- What are the distinctions between the different types of self-builders and what do these distinctions mean?
- What role does (economic, social and cultural) capital play on Centrumeiland?
In the chapter that follows, the theoretical framework of this research is discussed. This
framework functions as a guide throughout this thesis. Within this section, self-build is discussed first, followed by Active Design. This chapter ends with the concept citizenship. Chapter three illustrates the complexness of ethnic terminology in The Netherlands and chapter four describes the methodology of this research. In the methodology chapter it becomes clear what kind of methods were used to gather the data and how this was analysed. In the fifth chapter,
Centrumeiland is discussed in detail. A small section of this chapter is dedicated to the history of land reclamation in The Netherlands. The Amsterdam housing market, of which Centrumeiland is a part, is also discussed in this chapter. In the following chapter, chapter six, the results are presented. This chapter is divided into two sections, the first one revolves around the critical discourse analysis that has been undertaken on several municipality documents regarding the Active City. The latter section zooms in on the self-build aspect of Centrumeiland. In this chapter, it becomes clear what differences there are between the different forms of self-build and what role different forms of capital (economic social and cultural) play at Centrumeiland. This thesis ends with an all-encompassing conclusion, which forms chapter seven.
2. Theoretical Framework
Active Design and self-build are distinct aspects of Centrumeiland and have a significant impact on one’s sense of citizenship. Hence, being a resident of Centrumeiland means that your way of living might differ from people who live in an already established neighbourhood in Amsterdam. The aim of this chapter is to introduce concepts that are leading throughout this research. To understand how Active Design and self-build influences one's sense of citizenship, the concepts self-build and Active Design are discussed first. Next, is a brief history of self-build in The
Netherlands. After this, the concept citizenship is explained.
2.1 The concept self-build
In current literary studies, several terminologies and definitions are being used to describe what building your own home encompasses. Ducan and Rowe (1993) describe building your own home as a form of self-provision where the household itself acts as developer and promoter of the future home. This implies that the first occupants arrange for the building of their own home and participate, in various ways, in the production of their home. Bossuyt, Salet, & Majoor (2018) define self-building as “the practice where people, individually or as a group, commission the production of housing for their own use”. In this context, the term commissioning suggests that self-management and control over production are key elements of self-build. This definition also includes individual or collective self-build which are both present at Centrumeiland.
Furthermore, in most of the Dutch policy documents regarding self-build, self-build is referred to as (Collective) Private Commissioning (Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap), which is the official name for (collective) self-build. Although Private Commissioning is the official name, it is hardly used when people actually talk about building their own house, instead, self-building is predominantly used among people who build their own house.
However, in this research the definition given by Brown (2008) is leading. He describes self-building as “the conceptualization, design and building of a home through undertaking all or some of the activities directly, or indirectly, through the management and subcontracting of the work”. In addition to this definition, I would like to refer, and appeal to, the definition of Bossuyt et al. (2018) and the official term (Collective) Private Commissioning, mentioning that self-building can be done individually or collectively. The definition by Brown (2008) is sensitive to various ways of self-building, as the self-builders all have their own approach towards the build of their home. Some people mainly manage the build of their home, while some may perform a
lot of the work themselves. Besides this, the concept conceptualization is used in the definition by Brown (2008). This concept is interpreted as a number of activities that happen before the actual build of the home, like the financial arrangements, but also the ideas and imaginaries that are part of such a project.
2.2 A history of self-build in The Netherlands
Although self-build has always been around in The Netherlands, just think of the Amsterdam canals which are self-build (Keers, Van der Schaars & Frissen, 1999), for a long time, the Dutch seem to have forgotten how to self-build. For a big part, this is due to the housing crisis of the 19th century, which was a consequence of industrialization and population growth that resulted in an explosive demand for housing (Dammer et al., 2007; Ronald, 2013). During this crisis, people lived in very poor and unhealthy urban conditions, which led to a cry for state
intervention. This resulted in the Housing Act (WoningWet) in 1901. In this act, building
standards were defined and housing responsibilities came to lie in the hands of local authorities (Ronald, 2013). During the following years, large areas of urban housing were produced in a top-down manner, whereby quantity was prioritised over quality. These large-scale
developments resulted in serial produced housing, in which no room was left for individual preferences or taste (Raithel, 2017). In 1950, a moment in time when The Netherlands was still a welfare state, this meant that primarily housing associations were providing housing for
citizens. This started to change in 1980’s, when social welfare policies gradually got replaced by neo-liberal policies. From this moment forward, housing production got primarily placed in the hands of private developers (Woolthuis et al., 2013). This housing paradigm shift, which transformed the housing market into market-based system, also relates to shifts in other public domains, like healthcare and education. The Netherlands transformed from a welfare state into a, neo-liberal guided, participation society, where more and more responsibility has been put on citizens. Phrases like ‘active citizenship’, ‘consumer focus’ and ‘private initiative’ are increasingly appearing in professional discourses (Qu & Hasselaar, 2011). Qui & Hasselaar (2011) describe this transformation as a shift from ‘choice’, making the most of what you have, to ‘voice’, actively change things by speaking out, individually or collectively. In a participation society, citizens are expected to fulfil the role of an active and knowledgeable citizen and to show some degree of individual responsibility for themselves and their environment (Qui & Hasselaar, 2011). Overall, individual responsibility and self-reliance have become prevailing characteristics of the Dutch society. It is not surprising then that since the late 1990’s the Dutch government is reviving its long tradition of self-build (Loyd, Peel & Janssen-Jansen, 2015). In 2001, the Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment published the National Housing Report: “People, Wishes, Living” (“Mensen, Wensen, Wonen”). In this report, the following is said: “Docility and tradition has made room for self-development and emancipation. People cannot be easily put into clear categories with equal wishes, they are asking for custom made products. People have specific demands when it comes to their home and living environment”. This policy document explicitly encourages self-provisioning as a form of housing production in urban areas, whereas self-build in The Netherlands traditionally took place in rural areas. Also, by bringing self-build back on the agenda, the Dutch government wants to limit the dominant practices of large-scale housing developers (Lloyd et al., 2015). In this document, the ministry set out the ambition, that a third of the Dutch housing production should be self-build by 2010. This was ambitious at that time, because up until then, the amount of self-build was around 15 percent of the annual housing production (Loyd et al., 2015). However, compared to countries like Germany (30 percent self-build) and Belgium (60 percent self-build), where self-build has always been a part of the dominant housing culture (Dammers et al., 2007), this Dutch ambition does not appear to be that high. For a long time, this ambition was never reached (Loyd et al., 2015). However, in 2013, while the national housing market was at a low, 39 percent of the annual housings production consisted of self-build (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2016). Raithel (2017) gives the following explanations for this rapid increase in self-build: 1) Society is changing, home-buyers do not want to be patronized and are claiming their responsibility. Someone’s home becomes an expression of their own wishes and needs. This aligns with the arguments that Qui & Hasselaar (2011) mention in their book. They state that people who are in favour of self-build often use neo-liberal arguments like self-determination, self-expression and responsibility for private environment. The next explanation that Raithel (2017) gives is: 2) After the economic crisis of 2008, municipalities were forced to sell land directly to individuals instead of project developers. This had led to a facilitating land policy and a newly gained interest from the government into self-build. Van den Boom (2016) in his
research suggest that the build policy narrative suggests a causal relationship between self-organisation, individual freedom of choice, responsibility and empowerment on one side, and higher quality urban areas on the other. The most recent numbers date from 2016, in that year, 30 percent of the annual housing production consisted of self-build (CBS, 2017).
2.3 Active Design
Active Design as a term was first introduced by Sport England, which is a non-departmental body that falls under the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in England. In 2007,
they published the document “Active Design, Promoting opportunities for sport and physical activity through good design”. In this document, several urban design and management measures are presented which encourage physical activity. These measures are aimed at creating environments that offer opportunities to be ‘naturally’ active as part of one’s daily life (Sport England, 2007). In 2006, the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene also began to focus on built environment interventions in order to improve the city's buildings, streets and neighbourhoods with the aim to support healthy and active living (Lee, 2012). In 2010, New York followed the example of England and the Center for Active Design published the “Active Design Guidelines”. These guidelines were created in collaboration with several partners, including the Departments of Design and Construction, Health and Mental Hygiene, Transportation and City Planning (Lee, 2012). The Center for Active Design defines Active Design as: “An evidence-based approach to development that identifies urban planning and architecture solutions to support healthy communities”. In 2016, the municipality of Amsterdam followed with their own urban agenda “The Active City”, which is inspired by the “Active Design Guidelines” of New York. The ambition of “The Active City” is: “Every Amsterdammer is active. Outside and inside, when they are on the move, by exercising and by playing.” (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016a). To realise this ambition, the “Beweeglogica” was established in 2016. This is a practical instrument that illustrates multiple building blocks, as they are called by the
municipality. These building blocks can be applied to the city in order to shape an ‘active’ environment. The “Beweeglogica” aims to connect the physical environment of the city to people’s (daily) physical activity (image 1). The four main guidelines of the “Beweeglogica” are: The Active City makes room for pedestrians and bikers; in the Active City sport is around the corner; the Active City is a playground; and there is no sedentary behaviour in the Active City. Besides taking New York as an exemplary case in the development of the “Beweeglogica”, the municipality also analysed existing exercise projects in Amsterdam and other cities. They also made a scholarly review of research that focuses on the relationship between the physical environment and physical behaviour. Lastly, they looked at current agendas, programs and policies directed towards the improvement of health and physical activity. Together, these actions led to the formation of the “Beweeglogica”. To test the usability of the “Beweeglogica”, consultations were held with the following five departments of the Municipality: Traffic and Public spaces (V&OR), Space and Sustainability (R&D), Sport and Forest (S&B), Municipal health service (GGD), and Land and Development (G&O). Through the application of the
“Beweeglogica”, the municipality attempts to attain a city where physical activity is a self-evident part of daily life (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016a).
2.4 Citizenship
Marshall (1964) defines citizenship as a status given to those who are full members of a
community. The ones who possess this status are considered equals, regarding their rights and duties. He divides citizenship in to three parts: civil, political and social rights. The first one is directed towards individual rights of freedom, like freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial, the second one is directed towards the right to participate in the exercise of political power like the right to vote, the latter one is the right to ensure that everyone is able to live a civilized life according to the prevailing standards of a certain society, such as the right to welfare and education.
Schinkel & van Houdt (2010) describe citizenship as “a state regulated mechanism of in- and exclusion that is a crucial instrument in the (inter)national management of populations”. They take the image of a citizen by Marshall further as they describe the twin process of a moralization of citizenship and a responsibilization of citizenship (Schinkel & van Houdt, 2010). They make a distinction between formal and moral citizenship. Formal citizenship is as a juridical status by which a citizen enjoys civic, political, social and cultural rights and duties. Moral citizenship is an extra- juridical normative concept of how a good citizen should act and behave, what is considered good and bad behaviour (Schinkel & van Houdt, 2010). In this way, citizenship is not a status that is exclusively granted by the state to its members, like the form of citizenship described by Marshall, but it is becoming a status that has to be attained by the members of society themselves through acting according to the Dutch norms and values. Schinkel Van Houdt (2010) call this neo-liberal communitarian governmentality. With the entering of moral citizenship also enters the idea of a ‘good’ or ‘active’ citizen and to be
considered one, it does not suffice to meet the formal requirements, as you also have to live up to the moral standards of a ‘good’ citizen.
Hurenkamp, Tonkens & Duyvendak (2011) describe citizenship as a top-down
construction to produce governable people, but which also carries the fears and ambitions of these people. By this they mean that citizenship is now slowly being appropriated by citizens themselves; “citizenship entries into the everyday lives of people who fill it with their thoughts, emotions, and deeds to negotiate and understand their own lives”. This description of
citizenship by Hurenkamp et al. (2011) aligns with the formal and moral aspect of citizenship described by Schinkel & van Houdt (2010). So, although citizenship is a top-down mechanism, it is now appropriated by citizens and actively shaping their lives.
3. Ethnic terminology
Diversity of people in Amsterdam
At some point in this research, distinctions on the basis of ethnicity have to be made. However, in The Netherlands this topic is particularly sensitive as the topic (heritage, race, ethnicity, background) is often ignored and propagated as culture (Essed & Trienekes, 2008). In this research however, I want to retain myself from doing the same by having a clear ethnic terminology. This terminology is briefly presented in this chapter.
Due to the negative implications of the term allochtoon, which referred to a person who has been born outside The Netherlands of whom at least one parent has been born outside The Netherlands, has been replaced by ‘a person with a migration background’ (CBS, 2016).
Autochtoon, which referred to person of whom both parents were born in The Netherlands, got replaced by ‘a person with a Dutch background’. Besides this modification in 2016 there has been a more recent adjustment by The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy. This council suggests a new classification to look at the diversity of people in The Netherlands and thereby rejects the traditional western and non-western classification of migrants. They propose a more modern and diverse perspective which accounts for the great diversity of people in The Netherlands (Jennissen, Engbersen, Bokhorst & Bovens, 2018). This classification consists of 17 groups, 18 when you include The Netherlands (figure 2).
The municipality of Amsterdam followed this example and, in the document, “Amsterdam in numbers 2018” they make the following classification of migrants (figure 3). The group who accounts for the highest number of migrants in Amsterdam are the ‘classic’ immigrants, which are Amsterdammers with a migration background from Surinam and the Antilles (77.165), Morocco (76.108) and Turkey (43.501). Next, follow the European migrants from centre and East-Europe (33.719), the Mediterranean area (33.455) and the Anglo-Saxon countries (33.069) (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). In this research, I will follow the definition of the Central Statistics Office (CBS) and the classification of The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy and refer, when needed, to people with a migration background as such. I thereby also indicate to which one of the 17 groups I refer.
4. Methodology
This research is based upon various qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews and a discourse analysis. In the remainder of this chapter, I illustrate how the data of this
research was gathered. Doing so, I specify which methods and documents were used to answer the (sub)question(s) of this research. Next, the participants of this research are presented. The final section illustrates how the gathered data is analysed.
4.1 Data gathering
The data for this research was gathered via several channels. I started out at the ‘build cafes’, the monthly meetings at the cultural centre Lolaland where the self-builders come together to talk about their plans. These meetings are facilitated by the municipality but organised by three self-builders and a project manager from the municipality. After getting permission from the project manager to attend these meetings, it became an easy and effective way to get to know the future residents of Centrumeiland. At these meetings, I presented myself as a sociology student who was interested in self-build and Active Design, as well as someone who would love to hear their personal self-build stories. During these meetings, I talked to several
Centrumeiland citizens and got to know a few of them. Besides this, I also used these meetings as an observation site. During these observations, I was particularly interested in the dynamics between the individual builders, CPO’s and the “together in small” groups. These meetings provided a good opportunity to start building rapport with some of the residents (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011).
In order to answer the first sub question of this research: How is the municipality presenting a new form of citizenship? a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was carried out of the following municipal documents regarding “The Active City”: Amsterdamse Beweeglogica (2016), Plan Amsterdam: ‘Een stad die uitnodigt tot bewegen (2017), and “Stedenbouwkundig plan Centrumeiland (a selection regarding Active Design at Centrumeiland), 2016. The first document explains the “Beweeglogica” in general. It does so by explaining how, and by the efforts of who (or which departments of the municipality), the Beweeglogica has come about. This document also illustrates the four main guidelines of the “Beweeglogica” in great detail. The second document is a ‘physical activity atlas’, which is a map of Amsterdam that illustrates the measured physical activity of citizens in different parts of the city. This document provides an insight into the groups that exercise sufficiently and those who do not, divided on the basis of socio-economic characteristics. This document also showcases several examples of the
Centrumeiland of which a section is devoted to Active Design. This section explains which and how the “Beweeglogica” principles are applied to Centrumeiland. Having undertaken this CDA, it became clear what characteristics are inherent to an Active City and also clarified how this active ideology is presented to the public (Van Dijk, 1993).
In addition, I held 13 in-depth semi structured interviews that lasted between 45 and 70 minutes. The project manager of Centrumeiland, Rosanne Fillius functioned as my gatekeeper during the research (Hennink et al., 2011). Although having this projects manager’ support and having met some of the self-builders at the ‘build cafes’, it was still challenging to find people who wanted to participate in my research due to their lack of time. After finding the first few participants, I made use of the snowballing sampling technique, which very quickly resulted in a sufficient number of participants. I deliberately let the participants choose a location themselves, because I wanted them to feel ‘free’ and comfortable to talk to me about their process (Hennink et al., 2011). Apart from a few exceptions, most of the interviews were carried out at the homes of the participants during evening hours. The aim of this research was to have an equal division between the three different forms of self-build. However, in practice this turned out to be not feasible within the given time for this research. Individual builders seemed to know mainly other individual self-builders whom they could introduce me to. Also, people who are part of a
“together in small” group and especially people who are part of a CPO, already have a lot of (CPO) meetings that they have to attend. This probably explains the difficulty of finding these particular types of self-builders who wanted to participate. Because these houses are not yet built, I asked the participants to show their architectural plans, inspirational photos and other additional material in order to explain their vision of their homes and neighbourhood in depth. In practice, this resulted in people showing me pictures of self-build houses on their phones, while others already finalized their architectural plan and showed me these (image 2&3). One couple showed me their inspiration board (image 4) which is there to keep them inspired and
excited throughout this whole process. However, at the time of interviewing, the participants were finding themselves in different stages of the build process. This made it, in some cases, impossible for people to show such plans, photos etc. In these cases, there was barely any, or none at all, visual material that supplemented the interview. During the interview process, I made ongoing inferences which I used in the subsequent interviews. This allowed me to refine the questions and subsequently, small changes throughout the script were made in order to reach the point of saturation (Hennink et al., 2011). By means of the data I gathered from the interviews, I was able to answer the second sub question: What are the distinctions between the different types of self-builders and what do these distinctions mean? During the
interviews, I did not explicitly ask about economic, social and cultural capital. However, these topics seemed relevant anyhow and were naturally discussed in the context of our conversation. So, while this question was originally not included in this research, the data I gathered led up to the formation of the following sub question: What role does (economic, social and cultural) capital play on Centrumeiland?
4.2 Participants
In order to capture the self-builders’ individual voices and stories (Hennink et al., 2011), I interviewed 13 future residents of Centrumeiland who are going to build their own houses. Seven of these 13 people are going to build individually, three are part of a “together in small” group and two are part of a CPO. Besides this, I also interviewed someone who is part of the housing cooperation ‘De Warren’. This form of self-build is comparable to a CPO, but instead of buying an apartment, people rent the apartment. In chapter five, I will elaborate on this a bit more. Beforehand, I asked the participants’ consent to record the interview. Besides this, I also asked their consent to use their real name and stories in the research. Almost everyone gave permission for this, except for some participants who prefered to stay anonymous. For these people the description “participant + (number)” is used throughout this research. In chapter 6.1, I go into further detail about these different types of self-builders. Besides the self-builders of Centrumeiland, I also talked to Marianne Griffioen, designer of public spaces at Centrumeiland; Erjen Prins, urban planner of Centrumeiland; and Fred Schoenmaker, the “gebiedsmakelaar” (district realtor) of IJburg. The “gebiedsmakelaar” of IJburg is the first person with whom citizens and businesses speak to when they want to get in contact with the municipality. These talks were very informative and supplemented the information that I had gathered up until that point.
4.3 Analysing the data
For the discourse analysis, I made use of the tool ATLAS.ti to code the information in the documents. This was done by creating several codes and then grouping these codes. Some of these codes were: “physical activity”, “greenery” and “benefits of being active”. Possible ideas, connections or theories that came to mind during this process I wrote down in several memos. After transcribing all the 13 interviews I conducted with self-builders, ATLAS.ti was also used to structure, analyse and code these interviews. I specifically looked at the number of times specific words were used and what topics came up multiple times. The codes that arose from this coding process were eventually put together and transformed into more general super codes, such as “economic capital” or “motives”.
5. Centrumeiland
For this research, I decided to use Centrumeiland as a case study. As Centrumeiland is the first location that combines Active Design with a high percentage of self-build, it presents itself as an interesting case. In the remainder of this chapter, a detailed description of Centrumeiland is given alongside a brief history of land reclamation in The Netherlands and an impression of the Amsterdam housing market.
5.1 Centrumeiland
The city of Amsterdam is growing fast as more tourists as well as residents are finding their way towards this city. In 2016, the municipality of Amsterdam decided that, in order to keep up with this growing demand of urban living, a minimum of 50.000 dwelling need to be built in the following ten years (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016b). To realize this ambition, the
municipality appointed 15 acceleration sites throughout Amsterdam, including Centrumeiland (Image 5&6).
With these acceleration sites, the municipality expects to build 15.000 new properties in a period of seven years, starting in 2018. For some of these locations, investment plans already existed, but were put on hold due to the housing crisis. For some locations a new plan had to be
developed (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016b). However, in 2018 the city council revised the plans of 2016 and raised the ambition to 7.500 dwellings a year, adding up to a number of 52.500 dwellings in a period of seven years (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2018). Of these 7.500 dwellings per year, around 2.500 dwelling are destined for social housing. The first plan of Centrumeiland dates from 1995 when the city district IJburg was developed (image 7)
However, in light of the collapse of the housing market, this plan was put on hold as a result of the economic crisis in 2008 (Van Weezel, 2016). In 2013 and in spite of the housing crisis at that time the land of Centrumeiland was created. Marianne Griffioen, landscape architect of Centrumeiland and Erjen Prins, urban planner of Centrumeiland, explained to me that
exploratory meetings happened with several people from the area. Here, it was discussed what should or could be created at Centrumeiland. From these meetings, it became clear that there was a desire for self-build, sustainability and protection from the wind. These characteristics were used to shape the urban design plan of Centrumeiland (image 8). However, Marianne Griffioen mentioned that the layout of Centrumeiland is exclusively
designed by designers from the municipality and not in collaboration with future residents, because there needed to be a plan fast as Centrumeiland is an acceleration site. Plans for the
current development of Centrumeiland were approved by the city council in 2016. Until the start of 2019 the reclaimed land of Centrumeiland has functioned as a site for temporary initiatives like festivals, playgrounds and as a city beach. Besides Strandeiland and Buitenland,
Centrumeiland is part of the second phase of the city district IJburg (image 9). The municipality expects to host around 1.100 to 1.500 properties on the island and, with 70 percent of its properties destined for self-build, it is the largest self-built neighbourhood of Amsterdam. Self-build can be done individually or collectively in the form of “Collective Private Commissioning” (CPO) or “together in small” groups. A CPO is a group of citizens who collectively register themselves as a legal entity, meaning that they themselves are the developers of their own homes. This means that they collectively hire an architect and contractor to carry out the construction of their homes (RVO, 2018). To be considered a CPO at Centrumeiland, at least four households should be participating, whereas a collective up to three households is
considered a “together in small” group. These smaller groups share the ownership of one lot on which they collectively build their homes. Besides these self-build houses, 20 percent of the properties are destined for social housing and the remaining 10 percent will be issued as
tenders for developers. A tender is a procedure where the state publishes a certain project upon which businesses, interested in executing such a project, can sign up via a tender. Recently, there has been an addition to the already established forms of self-build on Centrumeiland, a housing cooperation (Wooncoöperatie). “This is a group of self-builders who are the developers of their own home, but they rent the home, so they are not home-owners”, as Erjen Prins explained it. Apart from the fact that people will rent their house instead of owning it, the build process is very similar to that of CPO’s. In The Netherlands, this form of housing is possible since 2015 and this is the first pilot case in Amsterdam. This self-build housing cooperation will realise 36 sustainable, affordable, social and middle-income rental houses. Eventually, this new form of self-build results in a higher percentage of social housing at Centrumeiland. Besides an island where being active and self-build play a central role, there is also the ambition of a sustainable (rainproof and energy-neutral) and high-density island. From the conversation with Erjen Prins and Marianne Griffioen, it became clear that the ambition to make Centrumeiland an active island, strongly relates to the other two ambitions of Centrumeiland: high density and sustainability (rainproof and energy neutral). So, the height differences throughout the island, in the form of stairs and small hills (image 10), relate to both the ambition of making it an active island and to the ambition of making Centrumeiland sustainable. Also, the lower placed wadi’s, a with sand filled tranche, will both function as a place to store water in case of heavy rain and as a playground for children when the wadi’s dry up (image 11). Furthermore, urban areas with
a high density are more appealing for people to take the bike or to walk to a supermarket nearby. Therefore, the three ambitions: Active Design, sustainability and high density seem to be strongly interrelated. The ambition to mainly house self-build houses does strongly relate to the ambitions of sustainability and high density. This however, does not seem the case
regarding the Active Design ambition. As Erjen Prins states: “I do not think the self-builders are really interested in Active Design. We already knew this. We are mainly concerned with public spaces when it comes to Active Design. The municipality does suggest things regarding Active Design in relation to, for example the school, but we do not do this with self-builders. It would only make the process of self-building even more complex than it already is”. Centrumeiland is divided into four tranches and at the moment of writing, the whole first tranche, consisting of 400 houses, is sold off to future citizens and developers. Tranche two is, besides the tender, also fully issued. Tranche three is open for registration and the fourth tranche is still in early stages of preparation (Municipality of Amsterdam, n.d.a). Regarding the population composition, the municipality is expecting to primarily welcome families onto the island (Municipality of Amsterdam, n.d.b). According to Marianne Griffioen, this is mainly due to the location of Centrumeiland, which is relatively far from the city centre, and partly because of the green surroundings which are highly appreciated by the future residents. “It is just not a place that is interesting for young students”, mentioned Marianne Griffioen. They also notice that many families favour Centrumeiland, because there are sufficient schools at biking distance and because there are many job possibilities within 30 minutes of Centrumeiland. Centrumeiland is expected to be completed by 2025 (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016c).
5.2 Land reclamation in The Netherlands
There is the old saying: “God created the earth, but the Dutch created The Netherlands”. Nearly one third of The Netherlands lies below sea level and in order to protect itself from the water, canals and dikes are being built since medieval times. The first dikes were built in the 10th and 11th century and primarily for defensive purposes as these dikes protected the
residents from high floods. Around the 12th century the focus shifted towards land reclamation for agricultural purposes, which on average took about five years (Hoeksema, Vlotman &
Madramootoo, 2007). In the 16th century, due to the invention of windmills, it became possible to drain lakes. This way, polders where created by using windmills to pump the water out of the enclosed area (Cavendish, 2003). Halfway the 19th century, the invention of steam pumping stations gradually replaced the original windmills. Later, in the 20th century, steam pumping stations got replaced by diesel or electric pumping stations. These technological innovations
made it possible to drain increasingly larger areas, which facilitated more agriculture and the housing of residents (Cavendish, 2003). This led to the reclamation of the Flevopolder from the IJsselmeer in 1968. This new 1.650 km piece of land became appropriated for agriculture, recreation, and urban expansion (Hoeksema et al., 2007). Flevoland, a province since 1986 in The Netherlands and part of the Flevopolder, currently houses around 400.000 people
(Province of Flevoland, 2018). Today, approximately 26 percent of The Netherlands is actually below sea level, which is home to over 59 percent of the country's population of 17 million (Milieu- en Natuur planbureau, 2007)
5.3 The Amsterdam housing market
Historically, Amsterdam has been known for its large amount of social housing (Hoekstra, 2013; Savini, Boterman, van Gent & Majoor, 2016) and therefore (and among other things), by
Fainstein (1997), displayed as a ‘Just City’. In social housing, rents are regulated, largely in terms of quality and dwellings are assigned based on waiting lists (Kadi & Ronald, 2014). People are only eligible for social housing if they meet the social and economic requirements. Currently, the rent limit for social housing is 720,42 euros a month (Rijksoverheid, n.d.). The social housing sector started developing cautiously at the end of the 19th century. It was only after the establishment of the welfare state after the Second World War that this sector started to grow substantially (Musterd, 2014). In 1995, the Amsterdam social housing sector was at its peak and the housing stock consisted of 55 percent social housing (Musterd, 2014; Savini et al., 2016). Since the late 1980’s however, and particularly after the 2001 housing memorandum “People, Wishes, Homes” (“Mensen, Wensen, Wonen”), the housing policy focus shifted from general housing provision to owner occupied housing, also among lower income groups (Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002; Elsinga & Wassenberg 2014). Since then, the Dutch government is wanting to decrease the share of social housing and favors owner occupied housing. To enable this shift, new provisions to expand mortgage lending were introduced and many homes in the rental sector were sold off (Savini et al., 2014; Elsinga & Wassenberg 2014). Alongside this housing policy shift, also changed the perception of social housing. While social housing in The Netherlands, in contrast to many other European cities, had never been viewed as something that solely provides housing for the poor (Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002), it is currently no longer considered a sector for middle-income groups, but as a safety net for low-income groups (Kadi & Ronald, 2014). In 1990, eight percent of the total housing stock in Amsterdam was owner occupied (Savini et al., 2014), in 2017 this number had risen to 33 percent (OIS, 2018). Although new social housing is being built, the amount of social housing is declining due to
liberalization, sales and demolition (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2017). In 1995, 58 percent of the total housing stock consisted of social housing. In 2018, this was only 52 percent (Kadi & Ronald, 2014; OIS, 2018). In the last 10 years, the Amsterdam population has grown
tremendously and is expected to grow to a number 922.000 in 2050. This is an increase of 59.000 people compared to the population in 2019 (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2017). The municipality expects to have a deficit of ten percent in social housing and a deficit of two percent in mid-segment housing by 2025. The municipality expects to have an excess of ten percent in high segment rental properties by 2025 (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2017). Meanwhile, the prices of owner-occupied houses are rapidly increasing. On average, a house in Amsterdam costs around 450.000 euros, this comes down to an amount of 5.000 euros per square meter. These prices are unprecedented compared to the national average of 283.000 euros per dwelling. Furthermore, the amount of private rental properties has increased from six percent in 2006, to 15 percent in 2017 (OIS, 2018). This increase is due to the build of new mid-segment housing and liberalization of social housing (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2017). However, the rental prices in the private sector are also rapidly increasing. Furthermore, the already extensive waiting period of 14,5 years for social housing (Niemantsverdriet, 2019) will only expand in the following years. Finally, due to a lack of affordable rental and owner-occupied housing, it is getting increasingly difficult for starters to enter the Amsterdam housing market. For starters who are not from Amsterdam, who do not have intergenerational financial support and who are part of an ethnic minority, it is even more difficult to find a house in Amsterdam (Boterman, Hochstenbach, Ronald, & Sleurink, 2013)
6. Results
6.1 Critical Discourse Analysis, The Active City
A critical discourse analysis was executed by analysing three municipal documents regarding the Active City: “De Bewegende Stad, de Amsterdamse Beweeglogica, 2016”, “Plan
Amsterdam, 2017” and “Stedenbouwkundig plan Centrumeiland (a selection regarding Active Design at Centrumeiland), 2016”. Throughout an intense coding process, four main themes were distilled: “The Active City is a playground”, “An Active City is a healthy and happy city”, “The municipality and its partners produce the Active City” and “The Active City is here for every Amsterdammer”. In this chapter, these four themes are explained and critically examined. First, it becomes apparent what is meant by being active in the Active City. In this section, the focus is on play and what it actually entails to play from a sociological perspective. The next part
demonstrates how being active (may wrongfully) equates to being happy in the Active City. What follows is a section which demonstrates that moral citizenship is an essential aspect of “The Active City” urban agenda. Finally, it becomes clear that the imagined citizenship in the Active City may not be possible for everyone, although it is presented in this way. This chapter ends with a conclusion.
6.1.1 “The Active City is a playground”
In the Active City live citizens who, walk, bike, play sports and play outside. In the analysed documents, much emphasis is placed upon activities that, for most people, are part or should be part of daily life in The Netherlands, like biking and walking. Sports, like soccer, tennis or fitness, take on a different position in the Active City in comparison to walking or biking as these
particular physical activities are less perceived as self-evident parts of daily life and therefore not the main focus of “The Active City” urban agenda. Alongside walking, biking and sports, ‘playing’ as a physical activity is often mentioned throughout the documents. Playing refers to activities like, playing hide and seek, playing a spontaneous game of soccer, playing with water and running around. “Amsterdam is a playground”, “Playing can take place everywhere” are phrases that demonstrate the alleged ability to play throughout the city. Although a connection is often made between children and playing, the quote “play areas are not only suitable, attractive and accessible for kids, but for everyone” demonstrates that playing is presented as an activity that is appropriate for everyone. However, when we consider the book Homo Ludens (1938) by Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga, a different perspective can be applied to “the city as a playground” perspective of the municipality. In his influential book Homo Ludens (1938),
Huizinga writes about the man as a player: A Homo Ludens. He gives a broad description of play, starting with playing as a voluntary activity that one can defer or suspend at any time. It is not a task someone has to do and does not have to be undertaken out of physical necessity. The next characteristic he gives is that play is not ‘real’ life or ‘ordinary’ life. Play is stepping out of ‘real’ life and into a temporary scene. He also writes about the locality and temporality of play in a way that it allows people to create alternative worlds and alternative identities for
themselves for a limited amount of time. One final characteristic he mentions is the fact that play offers no material rewards. People play for the experience of playing and not because it
generates material benefits. Play only rewards intrinsically, although it can potentially provide prestige ones one becomes good or exceptional at it (Huizinga, 1938). According to Huizinga (1938), play is a crucial aspect of life, as many cultural activities (rituals, socialization) emerge out of play. Approaching “The Active City” urban agenda from this perspective, sheds a whole new light on the matter.
The question arises whether play, as described in “The Active City” urban agenda, is actually play as it is described by Huizinga (1938). I believe that play in the Active City is
deployed as a tool by the municipality to create healthy citizens. Playing in the Active City is not about a temporarily step outside ‘ordinary’ life, in contrary, it is about integrating play into your ‘everyday’ life, as the following quote clearly demonstrates: “The Active City is a city in which being active is a self-evident part of daily life”. Play in the Active City is a means to achieve a certain result and not about the experience of playing itself, a characteristic which Huizinga (1938) ascribes to play. Stevens (2007) in his book “The Ludic City” states that: “Cities are principally planned to optimize work and other practical, rational, preconceived objectives, and are designed accordingly, with even leisure space serving well-defined functions”. Knowing this, I believe that the playgrounds and public (green) spaces in the Active City serve a clear health related purpose. Therefore, it cannot be considered as play like Huizinga (1938) described it. Nonetheless, Poulson (2017) in his research shows that people can experience professional sports, which is a non-play activity according to Huizinga, as play. Taking competitive forms of walking and biking for instance, triathlons are experienced as a feeling of freedom, as the participants feel like they are free to choose if they want to participate or not (Poulson, 2017). So, even though an additional outcome might be a better health and prize money, the athletes experience triathlons as play. Walking could also be perceived as a playful activity considering the Flâneur. A flâneur is someone who wanders, free from goals, compulsions and inhibitions, in a heightened state of distraction (Benjamin, 1994). Living in Amsterdam, I wonder if this is actually the way people walk through the streets of Amsterdam. People always seem in a hurry
and distracted by their phones, traffic and much more. Do people even have the time to walk around like a flâneur, to play a game of soccer or to create an alternative identity which
Huizinga (1938) talks about? The distinction between play and non-play is very difficult to make as play is not a fixed phenomenon and play can mean different things to different people
(Stevens, 2007). For someone it might feel liberating to go running, while for others it feels like an obligation. For the municipality it is worthwhile to consider that play, as they envisioned it, may not be considered as play by everyone. Is there, for the people who do not consider these activities as play, but as an obligation or task (non-play) that they have to perform in order to stay healthy, still time left to play or is this becoming an increasingly scarce good?
6.1.2 “An Active City is a healthy and happy city”.
In the analysed documents, several beneficial aspects of being active are mentioned.
“An Active City is a healthy and happy city, because being active leads to increasingly healthy years and to a higher quality of life throughout life. Also, a smaller chance of developing obesity, less missed classes, better school results, a higher income, lower health costs and less sick leave. Being active makes you feel fit, energetic and healthy. Besides this, it is also beneficial for your brain” (De Bewegende Stad, De Amsterdam Beweeglogica, 2016). In this quote, several physical, social and mental beneficial effects of being active are mentioned. By
presenting all these physical and socio-economic advantages of being active, the municipality is convincing its citizens to be(come) an active citizen. All these beneficial aspects of being active also leads to citizens happy, is what the municipality is saying in this quote.
By presenting being active as the determinant for happiness, being active becomes a ‘technology of the self’. Foucault (1997) explains technologies of the self as: “Technologies which permit individuals to effect, by their own means or with the help of others, a certain number of operations on their own bodies and semis, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality”. This implies that people undertake all sorts of activities like reading books, wearing makeup, meditating, following an (online) course or eating healthily to become the person they want to be. What this exactly entails can differ from person to person. Someone may prefer to develop themselves intellectually by reading a lot, while others might be more focussed on creating the ‘ideal’ physique. However, everyone undertakes these different activities because they believe it makes them happy. In the Active City, the ‘technology’ entails physical activity. So, by walking, biking or playing one can attain the status of a happy and healthy citizen. Notice that this makes being happy or healthy an individual responsibility. We all
have the opportunity to be happy, as long as we undertake the right actions, which in this case means being active.
Being active (walking, playing, biking, exercising) is presented as a ‘technology of the self’ and while being active possibly leads to happiness, health is not the sole determinant for happiness. Socio-economic aspects like, marital status, employment status, income (Frey & Stutzer, 2000; Gerdtham, & Johannesson, 2001), institutional aspects like democracy (Dorn et al., 2007; Dutt & Radcliff, 2009) and even genes (Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Pine et al., 2013) are important determinants for happiness as well. Besides this, being healthy in the Active City seems to relate exclusively to physical activity. There is no mentioning of mental health
whatsoever. Although the municipality is correct when they mention all the beneficial aspects of being active (Health Council, 2017), they seem to ignore the fact that other socio-economic factors like, social capital, employment, income, education and age are important determinants in creating healthy citizens (Gerdtham & Johannesson, 2001). Hence, for someone who has a low-paid job and a small social network it might be difficult to become the healthy and happy citizen the municipality expects you to be. In that case, the image of the happy citizens that the municipality is presenting might be a form of cruel optimism for some. These people may desire to become this particular image of a healthy and happy citizens, but their (social) environment and personal situation could make this a lot harder for them, maybe even unachievable (Berlant, 2007). The municipality is oversimplifying the relation between being active, health and
happiness. Citizens of Amsterdam seem to have been reduced to simply their physical activity. The view on citizens that the municipality is presenting in these documents might be
problematic as people are intricate human beings who do not solely adjust their behaviour or become happy citizens when their physical environment is modified.
Lastly, something that explicitly is not mentioned in these documents are the economic benefits for the municipality when Amsterdam (mainly) consists of healthy citizens. The national annual costs of overweight and obese people lay around 1.2 billion euros, which is spend on medical care. Besides this, there are additional costs of 2 billion euros each year, due to the fact that some of these overweight people work less or are not able to work at all (RIVM, 2012). Professor Johan Mackenbach states that, investing in people's health is the most reliable and most profitable investment one can make (Bregman, 2013). He also concludes that 50 percent of illness could be prevented by adopting a healthier lifestyle. With the Active City, the
municipality of Amsterdam also aims at a lifestyle change of its citizens as the goal is to improve people's daily physical activity. Besides these costs reducing benefits, there are the benefits of potential economic growth as being healthy leads to higher productivity and participation
(Suhrcke et al., 2006). This finding corresponds to Green (2006), who claims that sport and physical activity policy prioritises a focus on programs that aim to reduce longer-term financial costs associated with poor health. However, in the analysed documents, these neo-liberal ideals are hidden by presenting being active as a ‘technology of the self’ and by a language of morality (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013). This latter part is be addressed below.
6.1.3. “The municipality and its partners produce the Active City.”
The municipality, in these documents, claims to take responsibility regarding the health of their citizens. They (claim to) do this by creating a physical environment which entices people to be active. In the Active City, being active is considered a logical or even unavoidable consequence of the surroundings that are created by the municipality. The municipality is stating that they create this particular environment for their citizens’ best interest, Van Dijk (1997) calls this apparent sympathy. However, while the municipality is creating a particular ‘active’ environment, including playgrounds, safe sidewalks and green parks, citizens themselves have to make use of these surroundings in an ‘active’ manner. The Amsterdammer himself, has to bike or walk in order to stay healthy and to be(come) the citizen the municipality wants him to be. In this way, being active becomes an individual responsibility. This ‘responsibilization’ discourse is in line with the discourse described by Petersen, Davis, Fraser & Lindsay (2010). They describe a discourse that calls on individuals to ‘take responsibility’ and to ‘make smart choices’ regarding different aspects of life, like exercise, diet and emotional wellbeing. In this way, health, or more accurately (healthy) lifestyle choices, are becoming a crucial aspect of citizenship.
‘Responsibilization’ is one of the core principles of active citizenship in The Netherlands (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013). Active citizenship has been at the heart of the 2007 Social Support Act (SSA) (Dutch: Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning, Wmo). Two major themes of this act are: enhancing the social participation of vulnerable groups and a call towards citizens to provide informal care to these groups (Potting, 2009). In 2013, the Dutch King used the term ‘participation society’ to propagate this new form of citizenship in The Netherlands. In a
participation society, every citizen (the young, the handicapped, the homeless, the addicted) takes greater responsibility for their own life and their environment. What followed was that in 2015, under a new conservative and partly populist government, the SSA was revised. Since then, more emphasis is placed upon active citizenship in all domains of public life, not merely (health and social) care, with the aim to make citizens less dependent on the welfare state and more self-reliant (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013). The idea behind this act is for both left and right wings parties appealing as it would offer more individual freedom (right), enable or forces
participation from everyone in society (mid) and fosters a feeling of community among people (left) (Movisie, 2015). Where before the citizen was a subject of the state (1950s), an individual to empower (1970s) or a consumer (1990s). Now, the imagined citizen is a participant and self-reliant (Boutellier, 2014). The Dutch government cannot force its citizens to become active citizens, they can however appeal to citizens to behave in a certain way. Consequently, being an ‘active’ citizen has become part of moral citizenship. Moral citizenship, according to Schinkel & van Houdt (2010), is an extra- juridical normative concept of how a good citizen should act and behave, what is considered good and bad behaviour. In this case, being inactive is
presented as ‘bad’ or inappropriate behaviour by the municipality and thus as such considered by citizens, because many citizens are likely to adopt ideologies presented by politicians, due to a lack of alternative discourses and because of their own corresponding ideologies (Van Dijk, 1993). Verhoeven & Tonkens (2013) explain in their research how Dutch citizens are shaped into active citizens by a discourse of ‘responsibility talk’ through which active citizenship becomes a duty. Neo-liberal policies such as “The Active City” urban agenda put more and more emphasis upon the responsibilities and duties of citizens. In this way, what once were considered social problems, has now come to be seen as a personal failure requiring personal accountability (Ayo, 2012). While social capital is increasingly being recognized as an important concept in relation to health (Cattell, 2001; Harpham, Grant & Thomas, 2002; Giordano & Lindstrom, 2010), it is barely being mentioned in the analysed documents. This confirms the individualistic view on health that is prevailing in contemporary Western societies (Ayo, 2012).
That “The Active City” urban agenda is a direct expression of political power, became very apparent in the brief conversation I had with Nelleke Pennings, one the creators of the “Beweeglogica”. She mentioned that (former) councillor Eric van der Burg had made it his personal mission to leave something behind, a sort of ‘legacy’ as Nelleke called it. He wanted a ‘legacy’ that could be used throughout the city, not only in one distinct part of the city or for a particular group of people. As he was the counsellor of sport, health and spatial planning,it is only logical that something like “The Active City” urban agenda would follow out of this personal mission.
The municipality does not (yet) sanction citizens who do not comply to their active ideology as everyone is free to take the elevator instead of the stairs. This, however, does not imply that the municipality is not governing over its citizens, they now govern through
community. Schinkel & van Houdt (2010) have called this new form of governing, neo-liberal communitarian governmentality. This implies that citizens who are inactive or eat unhealthily might be judged or treated differently, because they do not represent a ‘good’ citizen according
to the ideology that has been created by the municipality. This also corresponds with a
statement by social psychologist, Susanne Tauber (2018), who says that a healthy lifestyle has become the norm and people who live up to that norm actually exclude people who do not live according to these moral norms. So, while the municipality might not sanction its citizens for being inactive or unhealthy, society will take over this task for them. Considering taking your kids to school with your car, while every other parent is bringing their kids by bike. A possible feeling of shame or guilt, which Althusser (1971) describes as an important aspect of being a subject, makes you want to take your bike the next time you bring your kids to school. Hence, the municipality claims to create the Active City, but in reality, citizens are just as much the creators of the Active City because they enforce the Active City ideology.
6.1.4 “The Active City is here for every Amsterdammer”
Citizens of the Active City are predominantly presented as a homogenous group throughout the analysed documents. This positions them as a group of people who all share the same
characteristics. Merely two distinctions are made throughout the documents, based on age: children, adults and elderly and on socioeconomic status (SES) (note: this latter distinction is only mentioned in one of the three documents). Although the differences among the people from different SES groups are recognized by the municipality, there is no purposive approach to encourage the separate groups to be more active. “The Active City” urban agenda applies to everyone in the same way. “The Active City is here for every Amsterdammer in all age groups”, is something that is repeatedly mentioned throughout the documents.
However, this does not imply that this city agenda is not inherently classed. The importance of being active or to exercise mainly complements the ideology of the higher educated people. In The Netherlands, 71 percent of the higher educated people exercise weekly, while only 36 percent of the lower educated people do this (Hoogendoorn & Hollander, 2016). Besides this, they do not meet the exercise directives according to the Social and
Cultural Planning Office (2018). The main causes for this relatively low rate are: a low income, a different cultural understanding of being active and exercising and a lack of experience
regarding sports and health issues (Hoogendoorn & de Hollander, 2016). The lower educated people are also the ones where, more often than not, being overweight is accompanied by smoking and drinking (Kraaykamp & Andre, 2018) and an unbalanced diet (Hulshof et al., 2013). So, while this city agenda aims to create an ‘active’ environment for every
Amsterdammer, the underlying ideology clearly originates from a particular class, starting with (former) counsellor Eric van der Burg. The lower educated seem to be the ones who would (and
