The Practice of Aesthetic Imperfection at NDSM Wharf: From Rubbish to Gentrification

(1)

From Rubbish to Gentrification

Name

Lotte Timmermans

Student number

5674255

Subject

MA Thesis European Studies

Supervisor

dr. Chiara de Cesari

2

nd

_supervisor

_{prof. dr. Joep Leerssen}

Date

July 6, 2015

The Practice of Aesthetic

(2)

Introduction

For years, one of the places to be in Amsterdam is NDSM Wharf. The original ship-docking site is characterized by a raw and industrial design, and presents an interesting mix of art, culture, leisure, and business, which attracts numerous of people for several purposes. This phenomenon of original industrial sites is not uncommon as similar practices are present in cities such as Barcelona and Berlin. In these cities, old industrial sites such as Can Ricart and RAW-Temple show many resemblances to NDSM Wharf in terms of design and organization. Whereas previously these neglected and raw spaces were discarded, artists and creatives began to show an interest in using these spaces for artistic and creative purposes. As a result of further developments, and the manifestation of events at such sites, more and more people from non-artistic and creative circles are drawn to these sites: a process that is called gentrification.

According to Ellen Rutten, this interest for raw and industrial design could be best understood as an appreciation for aesthetic imperfection. She understands this appreciation for the imperfect as a reaction to increasing technologies, which gives us the control to perfect everyday life. Such sites as NDSM Wharf, Can Ricart, and RAW-Temple show a high level of authenticity we long for as a contrast to the augmented realities we create by media such as Facebook and Photoshop. This return to neglected objects or sites is theorized by Michael Thompson in Rubbish Theory, in which he argues that by means of an aesthetic appreciation for rubbish objects, these can become (re)valued by society again. One of the vastest and well-known examples of re-valuation is the process of gentrification: previously unvalued buildings become popular again and increasingly attract both more people and more investments, which often can lead to new and innovative projects.

This gentrification process is also present at the industrial sites NDSM Wharf, Can Ricart, and RAW-Temple. However, can we indeed argue that the increasing popularity and development of these areas is the result of an appreciation of aesthetic imperfection? This thesis explores the implications of aesthetic imperfections at industrial sites. It will use NDSM Wharf as a case study to assess to what extent gentrification processes, rubbish theory, and the appreciation of aesthetic imperfection are connected. In the theoretical framework these three notions will be linked, which will show that the manifestation of aesthetic imperfections resembles the practice of transitioning rubbish objects into valuable objects, in which gentrification is a result of this practice.

(4)

Research Question and Outline

This thesis examines whether we could approach aesthetic imperfection as the practice of value transitioning in rubbish theory. In order to answer this question, we will first consider two theoretical frameworks: gentrification theory, and rubbish theory in connection to aesthetic imperfection. After we have established our theoretical framework, we will apply that in our analysis of the gentrification process and the manifestation of aesthetic imperfection at NDSM Wharf. What this thesis aims to achieve is to offer a better understanding of how shifts in aesthetic trends (that in the case of gentrification can alter several lives immensely) develop.

(5)

Theoretical Framework: Gentrification and Imperfection

This thesis responds to two theoretical frameworks, which it opts to bring together in the case study NDSM Wharf: gentrification and imperfection. In his book Rubbish Theory (1979) Michael Thomson argues that gentrification falls under the process of turning that what is deemed to be rubbish (i.e. unvalued by society) into something with durable value. In the same vein, Ellen Rutten recognizes an appreciation of aesthetic imperfection in contemporary society, as an answer to our increasing ability to perfect our surroundings and daily lives (2011). In other words, she too observes an interest and new use of formerly perceived rubbish materials. This link between rubbish theory and aesthetic imperfection are also present in gentrification processes. The sociologist Sharon Zukin considers gentrification to be “a process of spatial and social differentiation” (1987: 131). However, she observes that much research on gentrification often only focusses on either the spatial or the social aspect of gentrification. This either/or approach in the study of gentrification has also resulted in research that predominantly focusses on the supply-side of gentrification or the demand-side, which both highlight different aspects of gentrification and, if not considered together, can show incomplete or disrupted data (Zukin 1987: 131).

As gentrification and imperfection theories are closely linked, this theoretical framework will first dissect what gentrification is, how it has developed over time, what its different agents are, and its aesthetics. This will then be related, with Thompson’s rubbish theory as a linking theory, to the theory of aesthetic imperfection, and how imperfection seems to become increasingly present in many aspects of our daily lives. From regenerating the city to gentrification

At the beginning of writing this thesis, I attempted to link the aesthetics of imperfection as found at NDSM Wharf, Amsterdam, to the practice of urban regeneration. However, it soon dawned on me that the practice of regeneration could not be approached as innocently as I assumed. As my research advanced, I realized that the development of NDSM Wharf as a creative and social space was not that easy to characterize and thus analyze. In order to understand the aesthetic imperfections of the design at NDSM Wharf, it is necessary to consider who decided to take this imperfect turn. In other words, I had to turn the question from what does it represent into who. Who were the initiators of regenerating this abandoned site across the water from inner-city Amsterdam? Who proved to remain as key agents, and which agents had joined the main

(6)

body of this regeneration process? Who are the people that feel attracted by NDSM? All these questions became crucial to understanding the practice of imperfection.

However, in terms of theories on urban regeneration, this interaction between initiators, actors, and consumers is most predominantly ascribed to gentrification. After further research into the theory and practice of gentrification, it soon dawned on me that this concept would prove to be most productive for our research at hand, especially since it cannot be denied that NDSM Wharf fits the description of gentrification as a practice of urban regeneration, in which a class with certain privileges is able to take over an abandoned or neglected neighborhood or site by means of investment and renovation. By means of this practice, as a result, they push out those who belong to a class with less privileges than they do. Although NDSM Wharf did not function as an official place of residence or business when independent artists and creative entrepreneurs showed an interest in occupying the site in the late 1990s, it was mainly used by squatters for the purpose of art, culture, skating, and criminal activities (NDSM “Van Scheepswerf”). After years of development, renovation, and investment, today NDSM Wharf attracts not only creatives, but also commercial enterprises such as Hilton Hotel, (media) companies such as VIACOM, and restaurants and bars.

Taking this into account, I have decided to analyze the creative imperfection in the design of NDSM Wharf not through the theoretical framework of regeneration, but through gentrification. Below I will first discuss some of the main features of gentrification theory and practices, which will be followed by a comparison between gentrification theory and the theory of imperfection and rubbish.

Gentrification: theory and practices

Much scholarly work on gentrification theory and practices approaches gentrification from one specific perspective, such as, for example, its geographical, sociological, or political implications. It could be helpful for the reader to bear in mind these different approaches of gentrification throughout the upcoming section, as it will turn out to be difficult to coin a general understanding of the term. Furthermore, the process of gentrification holds different types and forms, which are the result of many different variables in each gentrification process. Not only is the process of gentrification dependent on the initial gentrifiers, but the type of city (in a geographic, social, and political sense) also plays a great role in how gentrification comes about and what its further development is. Additionally, it would be productive for our understanding of gentrification to note that gentrification is often approached by gentrifiers, politicians,

(7)

and the like as a negative term. Often other terms are used, such as ‘restructuring’ or ‘regeneration,’ which discard the class implications of gentrification.

As will become clear in the next section on classic gentrification, it is quite difficult to come to terms with the many manifestations of gentrification. Lees et al. argue that in academic research on gentrification processes some scholars have argued that new labels for different gentrification processes should be introduced and used, such as e.g. ‘reurbanization.’ However, Lees et al. “advocate the idea of an elastic but targeted definition of gentrification” (xxii). Here I would shortly like to argue my agreement with their statement that the research and discussion on gentrification would benefit a broad and elastic definition but should be used and applied within a specific setting. To invent numerous labels that share many (main) similarities with each other, but are, due to their specifics, not the same, does not seem productive to me.

This thesis will focus on the theory and practice of gentrification in a culturally aesthetic sense, and what the practice of imperfection could further add to the theory of gentrification. However, before we can turn to that specific approach, it would be productive to first shortly discuss the definition of gentrification. This will be followed by different influences on the development of gentrification such as globalization, socio-economic trends (mutations), the type of agents, waves, and phases of gentrification, and specifically what I would like to call ‘creative’ gentrification. After that, the aesthetic implications behind the gentrification process will be briefly discussed, after which we will turn to the next theoretical framework that considers aesthetic imperfection. But first, what is gentrification?

Classic gentrification and the importance of class

It is widely accepted among scholars that sociologist Ruth Glass first coined the term gentrification in 1964 (although it has been rumored that she already used the term in an unpublished study in 1959 (Lees et al. 5)). In her 1964 study, Glass used the term to describe an urban change in London in which the middle-class increasingly took over lower-class neighborhoods out of an appreciation for the “[s]habby, modest mews and cottages” that were occupied by the lower-class in such places (Glass in Lees et al., 2008: 4). Although the term gentrification was only introduced in 1964, the phenomenon of middle-class people taking residence in lower-class neighborhoods due to an aesthetic appreciation of buildings there has a longer history. Widely used examples are the Haussmannization of Paris in the second half of the 19th_{century and New York in the}

(8)

city, which were then occupied by the lower classes (see e.g. Lees et al. 2008; Smith 1996; Gale 1984).

However, Loretta Lees, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly argue in their textbook to gentrification, “the emergence of gentrification proper […] began in postwar advanced capitalist cities” (2008: 5). They argue that, in the 1950s, cities such as Boston, London, and New York City saw a spread in urban renewal (in this case meaning the demolition of old neighborhoods and their replacement by modern housing and infrastructure), which resulted in protests initiated by “mainly historians and architects” who were slowly but increasingly “joined by young, middle-class families who bought and lovingly reconditioned beat-up, turn-of-the-century houses in ‘bad’ neighborhoods” (Lees et al., 2008: 6). The involvement of the middle-class taking over working-class neighborhoods is one of the main characteristics of gentrification, hence the term’s reference to the transformation of a working-class neighborhood to a middle-class or ‘gentry’ neighborhood. In this process, the working-class (or at least a lower class than the gentrifiers) becomes displaced as a result of gentrification. This class struggle that lies at the core of gentrification has been criticized by many scholars, politicians, and citizens. For example, Margaret Kohn in “What is Wrong with Gentrification” (2013) analyzes five dimensions of gentrification that are perceived harmful: 1) residential displacement; 2) exclusion; 3) transformation of public, social, and commercial space; 4) polarization; and 5) homogenization (297-310). Additionally, Tom Slater presents a critical study of gentrification processes and results in his contribution to The New Blackwell Companion to

the City (2011). Both authors discuss and critique the displacement of lower or

working-class residents who originally resided in the gentrified neighborhoods. It is also because of this negative connotation with gentrification and displacement practices that policy makers and politicians do not refer to gentrification initiatives with the label ‘gentrification,’ but rather by means of other labels that also refer to the aim to restore old, deteriorated buildings to their rightful glory, such as ‘urban restoration,’ ‘urban rehabilitation,’ ‘urban revitalization,’ ‘urban renaissance,’ and ‘urban regeneration’ (see e.g. Smith 2002; Lees et al. 2008).

However, as stated before, what distinguishes gentrification from these other types of urban regeneration processes, is that gentrification includes the result of what is camouflaged in many regeneration processes: the displacement of a certain class by the attraction of another class. Slater explains this inherent class struggle as a result of market led production and consumption effects. Or, in other words, that displacement is the

(9)

indirect result of the supply and demand of regenerated houses and neighborhoods (574). As a solution to the gentrification effect of displacement, Kohn argues that “decommodifying housing” could serve as a possibility (308). However, as will appear later in this thesis, in our consideration of social housing in the Netherlands and Amsterdam in relation to our case study, the policy practice of decommodified housing has not yet been proven completely successful (see e.g. Uitermark and Duyvendak 2007). This critique on gentrification and displacement effects considered, Lees et al. maintain that this type of gentrification in which disinvested, central city, working-class neighborhoods are generated into upgraded, middle-class neighborhoods by which the working-class population are displaced, is best understood as ‘classical gentrification’ (Lees et al. 10). However, the boundaries and forms of gentrification have shifted and mutated over the years, which we will consider in the next section (see e.g. Lees et al. 2008; Ley 2009).

The effects of globalization and mutation

In recent years, the process of gentrification has changed and mutated greatly due to globalization and socioeconomic and cultural transformations (Lees et al. 129). Whereas previously processes of gentrification occurred predominantly in North America and Europe, today it has gone global with many manifestations in many other parts of the world. Additionally, it has mutated into different types of gentrification, of which Lees et al. distinguish “rural gentrification,” “new-build gentrification,” and “super-gentrification” (129). Ash Amin, Doreen Massey, and Nigel Thrift argue in their Cities for

the Many not the Few (2000) that such mutations raise questions about economic

distribution amongst classes, their transformations, the dis- or replacement of classes, differentiation in the experience of the city or certain urban sites, and so on and so forth. These are intriguing questions to consider, but unfortunately too vast to take further note of in our research at hand. However, this short acknowledgment of the study by Amin et al. does demonstrate the far-stretching implications of gentrification. To examine what the practices of aesthetic imperfection at a site such as NDSM Wharf, Amsterdam represent, it is important to consider how gentrification has both developed and mutated over the years.

Gentrification mutations

In their contemporary consideration of gentrification, Lees et al. observe three main mutations of gentrification: 1) rural gentrification; 2) new-build gentrification; and 3)

(10)

super-gentrification. They understand these three specific mutations to be the results of the changing process of gentrification, prompting scholars to alter the terms they use to explain and describe these specific forms of gentrification (129). The first term mentioned, rural gentrification, finds its origins in research by Parsons in 1980, and “refers to the link between new middle-class settlement, socioeconomic and cultural transformations of the rural landscape, and the subsequent displacement and marginalization of low-income groups” (129). In contemporary research this phenomenon is also referred to as ‘greentification’ (Smith and Philips 2001 in Lees et al.). The second mutation of gentrification Lees et al. mention is new-build gentrification, in which not old buildings become occupied by gentrifiers (one of the main characteristics of classic gentrification), but rather new buildings become the object of their gentrification practices. This type of gentrification is also referred to by some as ‘reurbanization’ (Lees et al. 130). The third term, super-gentrification, refers to “a further level of gentrification which is superimposed on an already gentrified neighborhood” (Lees et al. 130). This type of gentrification requires a higher financial investment and economic resources than other types of gentrification.

Additionally, Lees et al. observe the emergence of other forms of gentrification in recent years, which they link to the third wave of gentrification we will discuss in this thesis shortly. Types of gentrification such as “studentification,” which is concerned with “the process of social, environmental, and economic change effected by large numbers of students invading particular areas of the cities and towns in which popular universities are located,” and “tourism gentrification” that explains “the transformation of a neighborhood into a relatively affluent and exclusive enclave in which corporate entertainment and tourism venues have proliferated” (Lees et al. 130-131). These are just some examples of gentrification mutations, as many more can be considered and used to explain and describe the many forms in which gentrification processes can begin and unfold. In the following sections we will see that gentrification is a highly dynamic phenomenon, of which the development depends on numerous factors, such as globalization.

The effects of globalization

Some scholars believe that the development of gentrification processes is the result of the ever-expanding existence of the ‘global city.’ In the next section “Gentrification: waves” we will look at how each wave of gentrification has changed due to both local and global developments, but for now it would be productive to consider how

(11)

globalization has effected and still effects gentrification strategies in global cities, according to Neil Smith in “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy” (2002). In this article, Smith argues that in the beginning of the 21st

century the global city itself has come to embody the crisis of social reproduction (435). He observes that in the last decades the crisis of social reproduction has increasingly become territorialized, of which he gives examples such as the promotion of urban regeneration and the emergence of environmental movements which all call for a level of displacement or marginalization of certain groups of people.

In his article “New Globalism, New Urbanism,” Smithconvincingly shows that the process and intentions of gentrification has profoundly changed over the years. Whereas, as we have seen, in ‘classic gentrification’ the main agents belong to a middle- or higher-class with an aesthetic appreciation for old buildings or housing, he observes in his studies that in recent years gentrification has become increasingly institutionalized by the government. In a comparison between Glass’ introduction to the term gentrification in 1964 and a 1999 decree for “Urban Renaissance” issued by the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Smith recognizes that “the agents of urban regeneration thirty-five years [after Glass’ 1964 study on gentrification] are governmental, corporate, or corporate-governmental partnerships” (439). This observation should not be considered as a general or global development on its own, but he does observe that gentrification appears to have become a strategy for local and national governments increasingly often.

In order to illustrate this, Smith points to how gentrification has become an integral part of urban policy, in which it serves as a tool to improve the economic, spatial, or social outlook of neglected or disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods and sites worldwide. He calls this development of gentrification “the generalization of gentrification” as it has become the general approach to gentrification to consider it as an urban policy that will restructure the urban immensely (444-445). However, as mentioned previously, urban planners and policy makers are reluctant to refer to gentrification, as it has received quite some critique over the years, and as a result can have a negative connotation. As a result, in urban policy the term ‘regeneration’ is often mentioned while gentrification is the main objective, as, “because the language of gentrification tells the truth about the class shift involved in ‘regeneration’ of the city, it has become a dirty word to developers, politicians, and financiers” (445).

(12)

Smith argues that denial of the presence of gentrification can result in a dangerous and uncontrollable situation. “Gentrification as a global urban strategy is a consummate expression of neoliberal urbanism. It mobilizes individual property claims via a market lubricated by state donations” (446). As the processes of gentrification are still active, ignoring or silencing them will not solve the displacement and distortion of social cohesion. Although he emphasizes that definitely not “all regeneration strategies are Trojan horses for gentrification,” he does insist that gentrification is a “powerful” and “often camouflaged” intention “within urban regeneration strategies” (Smith 2002: 446). Camouflaging what is in reality gentrification in order to avoid socio-political confrontations, Smith continues, can in turn threaten the vulnerable groups in the process.

Gentrification: waves

In order to map the effects of globalization on gentrification Smith developed, in collaboration with Jason Hackworth, an overview of different waves of gentrification in “The Changing State of Gentrification” (2000). In their research, they recognize three different waves of gentrification since the introduction of the term in the 1960s. Although Hackworth and Smith draw their conclusions predominantly based on the development and transformation of gentrification in New York City, they believe that:

[The timeline] has wider applicability insofar as studies from other cities were used to assemble it. Specific dates for these phases will undoubtedly vary from place to place, but not so significantly as to diminish the influence of broader scale political economic events on the local experience of gentrification. (466)

The first wave of gentrification is labeled as “sporadic and state-led” gentrification, which took place roughly in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and is characterized by sporadic and often state-funded investments into deteriorated inner-city housing. This form of gentrification largely resembles the description of gentrification as proposed by Glass, and which has been dubbed classic gentrification by Lees et al.

The second wave of gentrification lasted roughly from the late 1970s until the late 1980s. During this period, gentrification became more intertwined with broader processes of urban restructuring. Additionally, the second wave of gentrification was increasingly introduced in “smaller, non-global cities” (466-468). The third and last wave observed by Hackworth and Smith, emerged in the 1990s, and is characterized by a post-recession redevelopment of old neighborhoods and an expansion of gentrification processes to neighborhoods and sites situated outside of the city center. This third wave

(13)

gentrification discerns itself from the other two waves by means of four developments: 1) its expansion to other outer inner-city neighborhoods; 2) the strengthening of larger real estate developments, due to effects of restructuring and globalization on the real estate industries; 3) less effective resistance to inner-city gentrification as the working-class is largely displaced from these neighborhoods; and 4) greater involvement of the state in gentrification and urban planning processes (468). However, since the study by Hackworth and Smith dates from 2000, and as it has been some time now since the third wave of gentrification emerged, could we argue for a fourth wave of gentrification that describes our contemporary situation?

In their discussion of the three waves of gentrification as proposed by Hackworth and Smith, Lees et al. “suggest that we are seeing a new, distinctive fourth wave of gentrification in the United States […] This wave combines an intensified financialization [sic.] of housing combined with the consolidation of pro-gentrification politics and polarized urban policies” (179). They observe that since the turn of the century recession, gentrification has become a lucrative investment policy, since the interest rates for loans were low while housing investments became the new financial speculation after the stock market had failed. Whereas in earlier waves investors were predominantly risk averse when it came to real estate investments in old neighborhoods, in the fourth wave they are “aggressively competing for new loans” (179-181).

Although Lees et al. already mention some critical stances to this development in terms of financial and speculative sustainability, they could not be certain that these fears would come true so soon (as their text book was published in 2008). As the latest recession was indeed caused by the dangerous and unrealistic increases in mortgages and loans and the speculative value of housing in the United States (but also elsewhere in mainly Canada and Europe), we could wonder whether the fourth wave is still in motion. Especially, since the emergence of all the other waves are related to economic recoveries after recessions. However, a fifth wave of gentrification has not been theorized by scholars yet.

Gentrification: phases, sites, and agents

Up to now we have considered what gentrification entails and how it creates and embodies both spatial and social differentiation, how it has changed over the years due to globalization and mutation, and how that has resulted in four different waves of gentrification. However, we have not considered the development of a gentrification process itself yet. Who are the key agents of gentrification? And how does the initiation

(14)

of this process prompt other agents to join? And do different sites attract different types of gentrifiers? In “Gentrification, an Overview” (2007) Stefan Metaal literally offers an overview of how gentrification manifests itself. Besides discussing the three basic phases through which a complete gentrification process develops theoretically, he additionally maps the different actors and sites in order to clarify the many different forms and appearances of gentrification. For our argument here, it would be productive to first introduce the different phases and their respective types of gentrifiers as presented in Metaal. After that, we will shortly consider the implication of the specific characteristics of a neighborhood for the (theoretical) process of gentrification.

Phases

In his overview of the different gentrification phases, Metaal bases his data on the theory and data provided in Dennis Gale’s contribution to Back to the City (eds. S. Laska and D. Spain 1980 95-115). In his chapter, Gale distinguishes three different phases through which, according to his research, gentrification generally takes place: 1) the artistic phase; 2) the mixed phase; and 3) the fashionable phase (Gale in Metaal 2007: 8-10). The process of gentrification often starts with the first phase, which is characterized by “alternative, young people, artists and creative professionals” (but also squatters) who leave the suburbs for the city. This first group of gentrifiers consists often of young people with one- or two-people households, (often) without children and who resemble a queer1_{lifestyle (Metaal 8). In this artistic phase, most gentrifiers occupy neglected}

and/or abandoned residential or industrial buildings, which they renovate and rebuild according to both the historical aesthetics of the building and their own preferences (Metaal 8).

The second phase of gentrification as discussed by Metaal is the mixed phase. During this phase the “socially and culturally conscious middle-class” develops an interest for the sites the previous group began to occupy and renovate. These second phase gentrifiers often work as (semi-)professionals, and are able to buy and renovate apartments on a greater scale (Metaal 10). It is often during this phase that poor and/or working-class tenants and occupants are being displaced to different neighborhoods. Simultaneously, the gentrification of the neighborhood itself becomes more pronounced by the introduction of more middle-class types of shops and restaurants, which, in

1_{Here, Metaal does not elaborate on what should be understood as queer. Drawing on queer}

theory proposed by J. Halberstam in The Queer Art of Failure (2010), I understand ‘queer’ in this case as, those who deviate from what is expected to be normal, and are thus considered strange.

(15)

combination with the displacement of lower classed residents, can cause resistance from the neighborhood and previous residents.

The third and final phase Metaal discusses is the fashionable phase. During this last stage a wealthier group of residents, often upper middle-class, will settle in the gentrified neighborhood. The popularity of the neighborhood will have caused the real-estate prices to soar, and many residential and commercial spaces will have become too expensive for the artistic and creative residents responsible for the first phase to continue their residence and/or business. The real-estate prices will stabilize, which will draw in more wealthy professionals, including more families. Also, the government will most likely increase their investments in these neighborhoods. Additionally, more mainstream and chain stores and restaurants will enter the area (Metaal 12).

It is important to note that Metaal does emphasize that these phase developments are not fixed, and are greatly shaped by the process of theorizing data in which findings are often exaggerated or generalized in order to suggest a trend. Additionally, he argues that often gentrification processes do not make it through all the three phases. In other words, gentrification does not necessarily start in the creative phase and then ends in the fashionable phase: depending on variables such as the class of the agents and the urban policy in the city, the process can begin and end in any of the three phases, while some of the characteristics of these phases may differ from the provided description above. Besides this critical note on how to approach the theory of these phases, Metaal continues that the development of this phase-structure also depends on the different characterizations of gentrified neighborhoods, such as their location and aesthetics (14).

Sites

Again, Metaal provides his readers with a threefold overview in which he divides three specific types of gentrification sites: 1) the old artistic neighborhood; 2) old cultural capital sites; and 3) reconstruction sites. The first site, the old artistic neighborhood, should be understood as originally a bohemian site (and thus suggested to belong to the artistic phase and gentrifiers), but which is increasingly gaining characteristics of the fashionable phase, characterized by the settlement of more main-stream shops and restaurants in the neighborhood, and the increase of upper middle-class residents (often with families). The second site discussed by Metaal is characterized by old cultural capital, which has always been bourgeois (and thus belongs mostly to the type of gentrifiers in the second, mixed phase) but draws the attention of the younger gentrifiers from the fashionable phase. The reconstruction site is the last site discussed by Metaal,

(16)

and occurs mostly at former industrial sites that are situated near the center, that has no residents yet (Metaal 12-14). We will return in more depth to this latter site during our consideration of NDSM Wharf and the processes of gentrification there.

Agents

We have already briefly discussed the different agents active in relation to the different waves, phases, and sites of gentrification. In our consideration of gentrification phases and sites, the agents involved were restricted to different people and groups from the middle-class only. As we have seen in the gentrification time-line as proposed by Hackworth and Smith, and extended by Lees et al., the different agents in gentrification strategies are not restricted to the middle-class solely, as many different agents such as companies, real-estate developers, and governmental institutions have increasingly become a part of gentrification practices (see e.g. Hackworth and Smith 2000; Lees et al. 2008; Smith 2002). As we will see in our upcoming discussion of gentrification in the Netherlands and Amsterdam in connection to NDSM Wharf, these different agents can all be a part of the same gentrification practice.

However, as much as the focus still lies on the middle-class (which is only logical, since they are generally the initiators or target group necessary for gentrification) it would be productive to note here that, since the 1980s, scholars and critics have argued that it seems that the middle-class is disappearing from North American and European societies, an issue that is still relevant today (see e.g. Thurow 1984; Barbalet 1986; Beach 1988; and Katz-Gerro 1999). In the same vein, Richard Florida proposes in his overall well-received study The Rise of the Creative Class (2002, Revisited 2012) that “[o]ur world [in 2000] was changing as dramatically as it had since the early days of the Industrial Revolution […] Beneath the surface, unnoticed by many, an even deeper force was at work – the rise of creativity as a fundamental economic driver, and the rise of a new social class, the Creative Class” (Florida 2012 vii). In the next section, for the purpose of this thesis, we will look at those creative agents of gentrification, whom we could also argue to belong to the creative phase of gentrification: artists, creative entrepreneurs and the like.

The creative middle-class and gentrification

In their 2012 paper, Antònia Casellas, Esteve Dot-Jutgla, and Montserrat Pallares-Barbera study the role of artists as initiators of gentrification in Barcelona (104). Their study is not exceptional, since similar studies have been conducted by, for example,

(17)

Sharon Zukin, who examined artists as initial gentrifiers of Lower East Manhattan (1982), and Richard Lloyd, who examined art and its connection with neighborhood development in the city of Chicago (2002, 2006). In all three studies, the implications of artists as initiating gentrifiers have resulted in different processes and developments. In their article, Casellas et al. examine the Hangar Centre (established in 1997), an “artistic production association created by the Catalan Association of Visual Artists” (111). This collective of artists is located in Can Ricart, an old 19th_{century textile factory}

in Barcelona, which was offered to them by the private owner who wanted to “replicate the Lower East Manhattan experience” (Casellas 111). Although the enterprise of the Hangar Centre at first appeared to be fruitful, the private owner attempted to displace the artists because they could not meet his real-estate strategies. This eventually led to resistance from “artists, the local community, university groups and public institutions,” upon which the City Council eventually agreed to protect the residence of the Hangar Centre in Can Ricart. However, the conditions of the new agreement between Hangar Centre, the government, and the owner, and further developments of the Can Ricart area did not please the original initiators of the Hangar Centre and resulted in displacement of many of the first creative gentrifiers. A development that seems to fit the transition of the creative phase into the mixed phase almost perfectly.

In the case of Zukin’s study into the creation and the increasing popularity of Lower East Manhattan lofts in the 1970s and early 1980s, we recognize a gentrification process that is similar to the three phases as proposed by Gale as well (in Metaal 2007). Initially, Zukin argues in Loft Living (1982) that lofts appealed to artists as “the large amount of floor space and window area” proved ideal for them to create “live-in studios for both work and residence” (1982 2). Additionally, the costs to live in such spaces were relatively low, due to a relatively great and increasing availability of old manufacturer buildings and factories, as small businesses that had occupied these lofts declined (Zukin 1982 6). As more and more artists became interested in the low costs of loft living and the loft’s spacious and raw aesthetic appeal, loft owners began to increase their rents slowly. Slowly but surely the interests in loft living expanded to middle-class people who had no connection to the arts whatsoever. The aesthetics of loft living had become fashionable resulting in further increasing rents and property prices, which eventually displaced the group of artists that initiated this gentrification process in these neighborhoods.

(18)

In both these cases of artists as initiating gentrifiers, it is eventually that group of gentrifiers who become displaced in a later stage of the gentrification process. However, the difference between these two examples is that the artists in Lower East Manhattan were indeed displaced by capitalist market processes (which resulted in the increase of rents and property prices, making the lofts too expensive for lower income artists to reside in), whereas in Can Ricart the artists of Hangar Centre were protected by the government, but to such an extent that they were displeased with the terms by which they were provided to stay.

In “Neo-bohemia” (2002) Richard Lloyd argues that in recent cities the relation between art and culture, on the one hand, and economy and politics, on the other, has changed. He coins the term neo-bohemia, a “spatial practice” with which he “suggests that traditions of cultural innovation in older city neighborhoods persist, but that these bohemian traditions intersect with economic development in new ways in the post-Fordist city” (Lloyd 2002 517). Based on the findings from his research into ‘art and neighborhood development in Chicago,’ Lloyd recognizes that former industrial spaces attract both business enterprises (such as entertainment and new media companies) and residential (creative) gentrification projects. The combination of creativity in the form of artists and citizen initiatives with financial and economic development, in the form of real-estate developers and businesses is nowadays viewed as a lucrative business investment (Florida 26-27). Besides Lloyd’s analysis of neo-bohemia in Chicago, we could also argue that interdependent gentrification processes such as Hangar Centre in Barcelona and NDSM Wharf in Amsterdam are examples of this new spatial practice. Gentrifications and aesthetics

As discussed in the previous section, there are great differences between the different types of gentrifiers, which affects what sites will be gentrified, the process of gentrification (which people will be displaced), and the effects of gentrification (housing prices, attraction of other classes, mingling of urban policy, etc.). However, what does all of that mean for the appearance or aesthetics of gentrification. What types of gentrifiers are attracted to what types of aesthetics? Might there be a politics of aesthetics, in which each group uses their aesthetic preferences in order to overpower or resist another group? This last question might seem to be formulated a bit extreme, but I do believe that the aesthetic characteristics of a site can imply more than just a pretty sight.

Sharon Zukin considers gentrification as a movement that began in the 1960s and is shaped by “private-market investment capital into downtown districts of major urban

(19)

centers” (1987 129). However, she, more strongly than Lees et al., emphasizes that this gentrification was not simply practiced by people from middle-class suburban backgrounds who wanted to live in the city. What gentrification expressed was “a symbolic new attachment to old buildings with a heightened sensibility over space and time” while it simultaneously “indicated a radical break with suburbia, a movement away from child-centered households toward the social diversity and aesthetic promiscuity of city life” (Zukin 1987 131). As mentioned earlier, Zukin approaches gentrification as both a spatial and a social process, which often begins with an appreciation for old, raw, and spacious buildings by artists and creatives, who occupy these sites for “mixed use” (working and living purposes) after which the raw and bohemian (i.e. the imperfect) aesthetics of these spaces attract middle class professionals (1982 10).

This aesthetic appreciation of older, and at times historical, deteriorated houses and sites is still present in urban processes today, as is shown in studies by Casellas et al. and Lloyd, and does not necessarily limit itself to the practice of gentrification. Such related urban regeneration practices are ‘urban restoration,’ ‘urban rehabilitation,’ ‘urban revitalization,’ ‘urban renaissance,’ and ‘urban regeneration.’ However, in these three studies, and as we will see later in our case study, all creative gentrifiers are drawn to spacious urban sites, that are often, as Metaal already argued, situated in industrial areas. What these specific spaces offer is an aesthetic of rawness and imperfection due to neglect and deterioration, which is accompanied by a spaciousness that, taken together, give these artists, creative entrepreneurs, and comparable initiators the autonomy and creative freedom to turn such spaces into anything they want. After this consideration of gentrification we will now continue to the second part of the theoretical framework: aesthetic imperfection.

Aesthetic imperfection: coming to a theoretical understanding

This aesthetic preference for raw, industrial, and neglected sites, is referred to by Ellen Rutten as aesthetic industrial imperfection (2011). In her research, she observes the increasing contemporary popularity of aesthetically imperfect objects, materials, and buildings as a counterpart of technological developments with which we can perfect our lives and our surroundings. However, as her research is still ongoing, no definite academic theory of aesthetic imperfection exists as of yet. Therefore, I will critically approach Rutten’s proposed theory of imperfection by means of existing research that presents comparable observations and trends. First, Thompson’s rubbish theory will be discussed, which will serve as a linking theory between gentrification and aesthetic

(20)

imperfection. Second, the theory of imperfection as proposed by Rutten will be considered, which will be followed by a critical assessment of her theory in comparison to studies that examine similar trends in contemporary society. In a concluding paragraph, I will formulate some main characteristics of imperfection, which we can use in the assessment of aesthetic imperfection in relation to our case study, NDSM Wharf. Rubbish theory: where gentrification and imperfection meet

In his book Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value (1979), Michael Thompson examines how exactly we come to value objects by means of studying rubbish, which he approaches as “the dark side of the other” (“Rubbish”2_{12). According to him, we cannot}

truly access those objects of value without considering its opposite rubbish, an approach that is also present in contemporary studies on failure (Appadurai 2015; Halberstam 2011). What the study of rubbish shows, Thompson continues, is that it predominantly “holds out the possibility, not just of understanding value, but of understanding the process whereby value is continually being created and destroyed” (“Rubbish” 12). In other words, it is not merely the study of rubbish objects themselves he is concerned with, but rather the creation of norms which constantly fluctuate. What is deemed to be valuable today might not have been valued five years ago or next year. However, we tend to only include those objects we consider to have value, while rubbish products are easily disregarded (“Rubbish” 12).

This has all to do, Thomson argues, with the aesthetic value judgments we make. But how can we explain that objects that were first excluded transform into highly valued products? According to Thompson’s theory, valued objects can fall into two categories: the durable and the transient. The value of durable objects’ increases over time, whereas the value of transient objects decreases over time and will eventually slide into the rubbish (Rubbish 7-9). Thompson proposes that this third category of valueless rubbish objects is quite valuable as an intermediate between transient and durable objects. Not only can the transient object eventually become rubbish, in turn a rubbish object could transfer into a durable object by means of (re)discovery and a personal (aesthetic) commitment turn a formally transient object into a durable one (Rubbish 10). Take for

2_{I have used two texts by Thompson on rubbish theory, which both go by the exact same title}

and are published in the same year. One of them concerns his book to which I will refer to with

Rubbish and the other (the article published in advance of the book) with “Rubbish.” I have

attempted to trace Thompson’s findings and ideas as presented in “Rubbish” back in Rubbish, but was unable to find most of the exact same quotes. Additionally, Thompson can quite elaborate on certain subjects in Rubbish, whereas he is quite concise on these matters in “Rubbish.” In these cases I will also refer to “Rubbish.”

(21)

example the contemporary popularity of LPs. Whereas the introduction of the CD and digital music turned the LP into a ‘rubbish’ product, the aesthetics and experience of playing a record are highly valued today.

According to Thompson, the dynamics of rubbish theory are quite fixed. Objects, products, and materials in the transient category will decrease in value over time and can eventually fall gradually into the rubbish category. There they will either stay or transfer into the durable category. As made clear in the diagram (fig. 1), the only transfers that can occur are those from the transient category into rubbish, and from the rubbish category into the durable. Other transfers do not take place. Thompson calls this “the dynamic system of cognitive categories” that should be understood as a cultural system which is socially controlled. Who exactly is in control “varies widely and rapidly,” and is comparable to the agents of gentrification, as it depends highly on the social status of the person(s) involved, cultural implications, and so on and so forth (Rubbish Theory 44-45).

Figure 1: Thompson’s rubbish theory dynamics (Rubbish Theory 45)

In terms of housing, Thompson recognizes that the value of houses, and thus whether they should be maintained, renovated, or demolished, is highly influenced by “a concealed social process” (“Rubbish” 13). Not only is the value categorization of houses determined by the state of a house’s structure or its aesthetics, it is also based on what tenants (or rather what class) is meant to eventually reside in a house. If a house is structurally sound, but is in dire need of modernizing renovation practices, due to either a lack of maintenance and/or changes in resident laws, it highly depends on by which class such a house will be occupied (Rubbish 35). Agents in these value judgments concerning housing and other types of architecture would be urban planners and the

(22)

government, occupants, and real estate agents and economists. If a house resides in a location meant for working class residents, a deteriorated house with a sound structure will be deemed rubbish and thus demolished, whereas if it were the case that its resident would come from middle class, it would be more likely that such a house would be renovated and modernized (“Rubbish” 14).

Thompson’s observation of rubbish and the renovation or regeneration of housing and architecture echoes much of the class implications we have seen in our discussion of gentrification. Not only does it show that city planners rather displace working-class residents than fix their housing, but also that they favor renovation if these residents are predominantly middle-class (Rubbish 35). Additionally, Thompson addresses the inequality of gentrification processes that have been present in London since the 1960s. This inequality is the result of the level of investments residents can make, in which case it is more likely that the middle-class can invest enough for the house to gain in value, whereas most working-class residents will at best prolong the deterioration of their houses (Rubbish 45-46). However, he does admit that this system works: in the minds of the working-class residents their deteriorated houses were rubbish while the middle-class newcomers and residents believed these neglected houses would gain durable value after renovation.

The displacement of working-class residents from these neighborhoods into other “slums,” Thompson argues, makes sure that the category system works. As “rubbish is an integral and extremely important part of the category system, and in particular the existence of the rubbish category, together with the possibility of the transfer from rubbish to durable, permits the social mobility which relates our social system to changing technology and other macro-forces” (55). In other words, if we completely get rid of slums or deteriorated housing and sites, the rubbish category will disappear, and with that the complete value framework will come undone. In this sense rubbish, and especially the rubbish category, appears to be extremely valuable in our creation of value and the dynamics of society.

Towards a theory of aesthetic imperfection?

As mentioned earlier, Ellen Rutten currently researches the increasing contemporary popularity of aesthetically imperfect objects, materials, and (urban) areas. In an interview for the article “Lekker imperfect” (2011) in Dutch newspaper Het Parool, Rutten, cultural historian and professor of literature, argues that this practice of aesthetic imperfection presents itself in numerous forms: from jeans deliberately worn out in the production

(23)

process and art made from recycled rubbish, to the regeneration of old industrial buildings and a revival of analog photography. She believes that all these manifestations belong to the same trend: imperfection. In her research, she argues that these aesthetic imperfections voice a reaction to the increasingly technologizing society: due to ever-improving technologies we find ourselves able to perfect our daily lives. As a reaction to those developments, the creative industries long for imperfection because it appears more sincere and authentic (Het Parool 20).

This move to imperfection is present on four different levels, Rutten argues. The first being “organic imperfection,” which makes use of nature as imperfect and authentic opposition to technologically perfected commodities (20). “Handcrafted imperfection” is the second mode of imperfection, and emphasizes the authenticity of hand-made and amateurishly made products (21). Another form of imperfection Rutten recognizes is “industrial imperfection,” which is characterized by raw and industrial products, and buildings that contrast the clean and perfect shapes of recently produced products and architecture (22). The final form of imperfection mentioned by Rutten is “underground imperfection,” which plays with the aesthetics of the squat scene. By making use of punk and semi-illegal looking venues and design, this mode of imperfection attempts to resist the mass-production and pop-culture of society, by means of creating a private, smaller scaled creative collectivity (23). There is no denying these imperfections truly exist. Wherever one turns in cities such as Amsterdam, London, New York, or Berlin, imperfection is around us, but where does this interest for the imperfect come from? In her grant plan “Sublime Imperfections: Creative Interventions in Post-1989 Europe” (2014), Rutten continues to develop her theory on imperfection. She observes that sublime imperfection has become increasingly important in creative projects in Europe since 1989, and with her research program she aims to examine “how we develop ideas and practices within a swiftly changing and culturally mobile community of practitioners.” Not only will the program be concerned with the “different cultural, social and economic interventions … sublime imperfections facilitate,” it will also examine what explains the popularity of imperfection among cultural producers and consumers (1). With this program, Rutten expects to discover that the (aesthetic) appreciation of imperfection can be best understood as “a powerful social drive” that “heightens in times of radical socio-economic and technological change – and that we are witnessing an age of drastic transition today” (3).

(24)

Rutten’s approach of imperfection as both a signal of socio-economic and technological change, and as a reaction against ever-increasingly (technological) perfect forms, suggests that the contemporary popularity of imperfection and its aesthetics marks a critical stance towards technological developments and the search for perfection. In the previous section on gentrification, we also detected a certain resistance in the (initial and, here, very generalized) practice of gentrification by those from the middle-class, who aim to distance themselves from the suburban lifestyle and environment. As a result these first gentrifiers move to cheap urban neighborhoods mostly characterized by its historic and raw feel, where they are autonomous in both aesthetically and practically design these spaces. Taking this similarity into account, could we argue that the aesthetic appreciation of imperfection could be best understood as the gentrification of products and materials?

Although he did not directly make this link, it is suggested by Thompson in his rubbish theory, and in particular in his category system of value creation, that it is often the middle-class that turns rubbish value into durable value, as the working-class does not see past the rubbish value and the upper-class does not see past that what has already passed as durable value. However, can we indeed make that connection between gentrification and imperfection? I do aim to suggest that this thesis will answer that question for us, but for our argument at hand it would seem productive to keep this optional connection in mind. For now, in order to come to a set of characteristics of imperfection we can use in our analysis of NDSM, it is necessary to further explore the idea of imperfection first, in connection to other ‘imperfect’ or ‘rubbish’ theories, such as failure.

On understanding imperfection: the dark side of the other?

In “Rubbish Theory,” Thompson understands rubbish as “the dark side of the other,” arguing that we simultaneously cannot understand value and value processes without studying that rubbish too. Imperfection can be understood as the dark side of the other too: perfection. This is also suggested by its etymology as the prefix im- (Latin for “not”) suggests: imperfection is that what perfection is not. Whereas Thompson, likely deliberately, chose the noun rubbish to represent the opposite of value, with which he gives rubbish an identity on its own, the definition and relation to value will remain. The same goes for imperfection. According to its etymology, imperfection can thus only exist by virtue of the other, of the perfect. But what is perfection? The Cambridge Dictionaries

(25)

that sense imperfection should be all that is not “complete and correct in every way.” In turn, according to the same dictionary, the noun ‘imperfection’ translates as “a fault or weakness” and the adjective is defined as “damaged, containing problems, or not having something.”

At first sight, it would seem only logical to suggest that imperfection can only exist by the mercy of perfection. Without knowing what is deemed perfect, it would be impossible to know what is imperfect. In this sense, perfection serves as the ideal or successful form, and thus the dominant norm, whereas imperfection serves as the flawed or failed form, thus inferior to the dominant norm in society. However, the vastness of the definition of imperfection suggested by the Cambridge Dictionaries Online implies that imperfection is a more complex concept to consider. If imperfection is that what is “a fault or weakness” and the imperfect that what is “damaged, containing problems, or not having something” it does not immediately suggest that it is an unwanted or rather unresolvable form. Furthermore, who declares something to be faulty or weak? These notions seem to be highly dependent on a certain norm that establishes by what means something is complete and strong. But, then, what happens to imperfection (and thus the faulty and weak) when the norm of perfection (and thus the complete and strong) changes? Could the choice for imperfection eventually turn the tables around, in which case imperfection becomes perfection and perfection becomes imperfection?

Again, this thesis is not the place to answer these questions, and therefore they serve for the reader as a critical reminder of the complexity of working with a term that has not yet been academically theorized. To answer these questions clearly is a difficult path to take. However, what our etymological consideration of imperfection does do for the argument at hand in this thesis is that it aids us in understanding its connection to Thompson’s consideration of rubbish being the dark side of the other. Both imperfection and rubbish are constructed by subjective value judgments. However, as mentioned previously, the perfect often serves as the dominant norm, which in turn suggests that the perfect is fixed and hardly changeable. This suggestion shows a break with Thompson’s proposed dynamics of his value system.

What I would like to propose here, is to consider rubbish and imperfection not as interchangeable phenomena, but to consider the latter as part of rubbish theory dynamics. Whereas imperfection rather shows a passive stance in the value system (it never has a fixed status, as it is highly dependent on trends in (aesthetic) value judgments), the rubbish category claims a far more active and dominant position in

(26)

rubbish theory dynamics, as it is the only category in the system that interacts with both transient and durable valued objects (it either receives formerly transient objects or produces durable objects). However, we may want to consider imperfection not as a category, but maybe as the practice of the rubbish to durable transfer.

Aesthetic imperfection as the practice of rubbish to durable transfer?

In understanding the appreciation of aesthetic imperfection as the practice of the transfer of rubbish objects into durable, it would be productive to first return to Thompson’s rubbish theory. In the transformation from the rubbish category into the durable, the rubbish must be first recognized and aesthetically appreciated by an agent (Rubbish 26). Such appreciations often begin, Thompson argues, with “eccentrics” who discover the aesthetics of rubbish objects. Second, they display these rubbish objects, often in personal spaces, while deciding what to do with them (27). Finally, if these objects then prove to be valuable, after the evaluation of step two, they are transformed to their personal taste and re-used (27). These practices of the transfer from rubbish to durable are displayed in the diagram below (fig. 2).

Figure 2: Thompson’s rubbish theory dynamics with practices

Here, I would like to propose to merge Thomson’s rubbish theory dynamics with the theory of aesthetic imperfection, and suggest considering those aesthetically imperfect objects as those objects that fall into the transfer stage from rubbish to durable. Not only do discovered rubbish objects and aesthetically imperfect objects share that they are appreciated aesthetically by an agent which deviates from the norm of those valued or perfect objects, they also show a similar process that eventually leads to re-use, which in turn, can become part of the normalized durable or perfect category. In other words, what I am advocating here is that those aesthetically imperfect objects are those rubbish

(27)

objects in the transition phase from the rubbish to the durable category. This would also apply to the aesthetic imperfection of buildings or sites that are regenerated or gentrified. As we have seen in our consideration of gentrification and how that process begins, it is often artists or creatives that show an appreciation and commitment to re-using those buildings and sites that have become neglected or marginalized.

On the innovation of imperfection

Now we have established a theoretical understanding of how we can understand aesthetic imperfect objects as those objects that are in the transitional phase from the rubbish to the durable category, what does this understanding of aesthetic imperfection add to our understanding of rubbish theory and gentrification processes? In other words, why should the label of aesthetic imperfection be attached to these practices? As we have seen in both rubbish theory and gentrification theory and practices, both processes are initiated by a creative and personal aesthetic appreciation by “eccentrics.” However, neither Thompson nor the academics we have discussed in connection to gentrification are able to explain what it is exactly that transforms a personal appreciation and commitment to an object into a popular trend that increasingly attracts more people from higher classes. In the upcoming section we will explore whether it could be productive to understand the innovational aspects of imperfection in connection to theories of failure, creative destruction, and ‘the rise of the creative class.’

Rubbish, imperfection, and failure

From an economical and production point of view, we could consider rubbish theory in terms of success and failure, in which we could discern the following pattern: those objects that have fallen into the rubbish category have become valueless, and thus failed to remain successful in terms of economic or production interests. The transient objects are not necessarily failures, but are not successful either, as their value will not increase, but only decrease over time. However, as the transient category is deemed to be valuable (if only in a declining sense) I would propose to perceive these transient objects as the temporal successful objects. In this sense, the objects in the durable category fit two different types of success: those objects that have always belonged to the durable category would be the successful objects, as they have proven consistent and often increasing economic value; and those that have transitioned from rubbish to the durable category would be imperfect successful objects, because their transition between three different categories has different economical and production value implications. I call