A ‘better neighborhood’ : a case study on the social effects of urban renewal in Hilversum

(1)

1

A ‘Better Neighborhood’

A case study on the social effects of urban renewal in Hilversum

Sven Maureau

First reader: Freek Janssens

Second reader: Walter Nicholls

Master Thesis Urban Sociology

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences

(2)

2

Introduction

Dutch urban policy of the early 21st century is characterized by large-scale urban renewal programs. The national government started the Investments Budget for Urban Renewal (ISV) in 2000, to last until 2014. The ideology behind this policy is to improve the ‘livability’ of certain neighborhoods, by stimulating a mix of residents with lower- and higher income in the concerned areas (Lees 2008:2449). The designated neighborhoods are often largely inhabited by low-skilled, low-income residents. The ‘livability’ is supposed to improve by creating a socially mixed neighborhood, through attracting people with higher education and a higher income (Lees 2008:2449). Urban sociologists refer to this as ‘state-led gentrification’: governments are investing in attracting higher educated and richer people, in neighborhoods with many low-cost social rented dwellings (Uitermark, Duyvendak & Kleinhans 2007:125). This thesis is a qualitative evaluation of the effects of a first wave of state-led gentrifiers on a neighborhood in Hilversum.

One of the areas where money from the ISV is invested to “improve the quality of living”1 is the district ‘Over ‘t Spoor’2

in Hilversum, a town with 85.000 inhabitants close to

Amsterdam. The topic of this thesis is the first project of urban renewal in forty years in the neighborhood the Geuzenbuurt in the district ‘Over ‘t Spoor’. The Geuzenbuurt has a bad reputation in Hilversum, and contains mostly residents with a lower income, compared to the people moving into the new street, after the project finished in 2006. This project is called the

Hoge Larensehof, an area that contains a street and a square. For the arrival of the street a

vacant printing house and nine houses had to be removed. The square is the only square of the

Geuzenbuurt. A remarkable event is that in less than a year after the opening, the design of the

square was restructured. The square in its first design was visited on a daily basis by a group of about forty adolescents, who disappeared from the square after the intervention. A

qualitative analysis of the social effects of this urban renewal shows how initiating a state-led gentrification of a neighborhood can be a messy process, with unforeseen effects on the social relations of that neighborhood. The central question guiding this thesis is:

1

www.noord-holland.nl

(4)

4

How can the policy interventions on the Hoge Larensehof be explained and what are their social effects?

To structure the essay, the central research question is broken up into three sub-questions, being:

 What are the intended inhabitance and social effects of the street and square?

 How can the transformation of the square in its first design be explained?

 What are the effects of the built environment, including the transformation of the

square, on the social relations in the Geuzenbuurt?

The first sub-question is about the desired social effects, as the relevant policymakers explain them in interviews done for this thesis. The transformation of the square is seen as the second policy intervention, besides the initial project of building the Hoge Larensehof that finished in 2006. The final sub-question deals with the impact of the physical layout - resulting from the policy interventions - on the interactions between the residents of the Geuzenbuurt.

This research is therefore broadly twofold: the policy behind the physical interventions in this urban renewal will be critically analyzed, and it will be researched how this affects the social relations in the street and in the neighborhood.

The new residents – being the ones who moved into the new street -, and the old residents – the ones who already lived in the Geuzenbuurt - are the central actors and sources of data in this research. The built environment is often regarded as a reflection of social and political structures of a neighborhood (Lawrence & Low 1990:466). This research will show that restructuring public space can be a crucial event: it plays a role in defining the social structure of the Geuzenbuurt, it reveals the acknowledgement of a failed policy, and gives indications about how gentrification will evolve in ‘Over ‘t Spoor’. The restructuring will be considered as a ‘critical moment’: discourse, attitudes and social interaction changed because of an event (Putnam 2004:287). This thesis describes a conflict between the old and new residents, as is often the case in a gentrifying neighborhood (Uitermark e.a. 2007). The restructuring of the square changed the nature of this conflict, as the results will show.

In the next chapter the chosen methods to gather the data will be discussed. The most

(5)

5

a theoretical framework will be laid out, discussing gentrification. The highlighted characteristics of the process of gentrification are: the discourse policymakers use to

legitimize the policy, the effects of the social mix - residents with a higher income moving into a neighborhood where the residents generally have a lower income - and the impact of the physical layout of the new urban environment on the lives of the residents. A theory about neighborhood identity is also introduced to show how the lives of old residents can be

impacted by gentrification.

After the theoretical chapter, the policy relevant for the case will be discussed. In order to explain the policy and the effects of the interventions on the Hoge Larensehof, a historical overview is helpful. This reveals a unique quality of the neighborhood that is crucial for the realization of urban renewal. The relevance of the theory on ‘neighborhood identity’ will also become clear in this chapter. In the chapter leading up to the concluding parts, the results will be laid out. In the final part the research questions will be answered. But first of all the case will be discussed in more detail, in order to make clear what the urban sociological relevance is of this thesis and why certain theories about gentrification can help explain actions and attitudes of the actors in question.

Chapter 2: The Case

In this chapter the researched area and the sociological problem will be described. The case is the project Hoge Larensehof and the restructuring of the square, and the problem is how these two interventions came into being and what their social effects are.

(6)

6

The image above shows how the Hoge Larensehof looks after the final intervention: the restructuring of the square that took place in 2007. This thesis does not focus on the entire district ´Over ‘t Spoor’, nor on the entire neighborhood ‘Geuzenbuurt’. The case is how gentrification affects the lives of old residents and how the interactions between old and new residents can be defined. The role of the built environment in influencing interaction will also be analyzed.

The Hoge Larensehof is located at the western part of the Geuzenbuurt in Hilversum-East, close to Hilversum Central Station. The houses cost approximately 300.000 euros, and contain three of four bedrooms. The owners of the new houses were mostly in their thirties, with one or two small children or plans to raise children there. They have a higher income than the other residents of the Geuzenbuurt. The Buys Ballotstraat consists of two rows of houses that can be seen on the right side of image 1, the front doors of the two blocks facing each other. In between is a small sidewalk where no motorized vehicles are allowed, and some bushes. The physical layout does not seem to attract a lot of residents or people not living on the street. This is resonated in the discourse around the urban renewal: ‘Hof’ (from Hoge

Larensehof) means courtyard, which is therefore an interesting name for the project, since it is

often stated by policymakers that urban renewal should lead to an increase of the ‘livability’ by mixing old with new residents (Lees 2008:2449). What this says about the intended effects – the central theme of the first sub question – is a topic of the interviews.

The social relations between the old en new residents and their attitudes towards one another changed after the second policy intervention: the transformation of the square a year after the

Hoge Larensehof opened in 2006. The restructuring of the public square serves as a window

into the social relations among residents of the Hoge Larensehof and residents living in surrounding streets, of whom a lot have been living their whole lives in the Geuzenbuurt. Before the restructuring, dozens of adolescents visited the square on a daily basis. In its first design, the entire square contained a football field, as can be seen on image 3. The adolescents visiting this football field stopped coming to the square after the restructuring. The

intervention took place after new residents complained about nuisance on a daily basis, and several meetings with policymakers, old and new residents where held about a new design.

(7)

7

Image 2: Geuzenbuurt in blue, Buys Ballotstraat in red, the square in yellow

Image 3: the Hoge Larensehof as it looked in 2005 - 2007

Policymakers involved in the realization of the first and second design of the Hoge

Larensehof were interviewed for this thesis, together with several old and new residents, in

order to analyze the interactions between old and new residents. The policymakers provide the information about the intended inhabitance and why they choose for the first and second design. The old residents provide information about how the new houses influence their lives, and new residents tell how they experience living in the new buildings.

(8)

8

Relevance

The ISV is a nationwide, ambitious policy of urban renewal. Billions of euros are invested on a yearly basis, in areas where the ‘quality of living’ can or has to be improved, according to the national and local policymakers. Within the field of urban sociology a lot has been written about urban renewal (Butler 2003; Lees 2008; Musterd 2003). The effects of and the

discourse around the ISV policy have been under massive investigation (Kleinhans 2004; Musterd & Ostendorf 2001; Schuiling 2007 & Uitermark e.a. 2007).

As image 3 and the image on the front page indicate , the public square transformed from a football field to a smaller playground. Most theory on Dutch urban renewal in the 21st century focuses on cultural differences between different socio-economic groups, and this thesis expands on that theory by showing how the built environment is formed by, represents and strengthens those differences. Theories of Caldeira (1996), Dikeç (2003) and Reinders (2011) are applied to illustrate the social qualities of urban design. These theories show how the design of public space reflects differences between different people, and how negative attitudes among different people can be aggravated. These theories are relevant not only because the built environment did transform, but the Hoge Larensehof clearly stands out in the neighborhood, as can be seen in image 3. It is of another color, height and form than the surrounding streets.

So, by analyzing what the arrival of this street and a later physical policy intervention caused in the neighborhood, the social effects of initiating an instance of state-led gentrification can be shown. The next chapter will provide information about the legitimization and goals of urban renewal in the district ‘Over ‘t Spoor’, and how this policy of urban renewal can be understood, based on sociological theory.

(9)

9

Image 4: The Hoge Larenseweg, that runs crosswise on the Hoge Larensehof, that can be seen here as well.

Chapter 3: Methodology

In this chapter, the research techniques will be discussed. The way the data are gathered and used will be described. Also, the advantages and difficulties of this type of research will be discussed. This thesis is a qualitative inquiry of the first project of urban renewal in a neighborhood appointed by the Dutch government. This research can be regarded as a case study on the social effects of the interventions of the local government.

3.1 Interviewing

The main source of gathering data is interviewing. The interviews have a semi-structured character, and lean more towards unstructured than structured interviews. The interviews are semi-structured, because the interviews are have four or five guiding questions, but differ from one another because different follow-up questions were asked to all the respondents. Most of the information was gathered from follow-up questions.

(10)

10

The first interviews were held with the aim to get a proper understanding of the problems and relations in the neighborhood. The interviews have general topics, but by doing

semi-structured / unsemi-structured interviews, other problems or interesting findings could be derived from them, and questions about official documents for which they are held responsible could be answered. All the interviews are in Dutch, so trying not to lose the connotations of their discourse has been a priority in formulating the results of these data.

The respondents for the interviews were found with the snowball-method: A new resident on the street told about the problem, and I asked him who I could speak to as well. I also asked which policymakers and old residents could provide the most information about the case. A total of fifteen respondents have been interviewed : newcomers (7), original residents (3), the neighborhood officer, and policymakers (4): the alderman, an urban designer, and two

policymakers working for the municipality who handled the problems occurring on the Hoge

Larensehof. Some of the policymakers have been living their entire lives in the neighborhood,

and could provide the same type of information as old residents, information about the social interactions and history of the Geuzenbuurt.

The interviews were not held in order to make claims on the entire neighborhood or a larger population, but to obtain a proper understanding of the case. Since the old residents tell a coherent story about what the neighborhood, and especially the square meant for them and how their relationships with new residents can be described, the findings can be generalized to how new houses influences the lives of old residents, who are in a situation of conflict with new residents. No claims or statements are made about residents who did not or do not visit the square and interact with new residents. The findings can also be generalized to how the first wave of new residents experience their interaction with old residents. First wave residents means the first time new, richer residents settle in a neighborhood containing

residents with a low-income, who usually have been living their entire lives there. Claims can also be made about the intentions and policy of the municipality of Hilversum, since four policymakers responsible for executing the policy regarding urban renewal, and are told by the interviewer what the other policymakers said about the policy and thoughts about the policy. The technique of respondent validation is applied here, meaning the respondents are confronted with findings of the researcher in order to seek corroboration or obtain more information (Bryman 2008:377).

(11)

11

The interviews were all very different from one another. The first five interviews were meant to get a picture of the research problem, and the respondents were asked who could provide more information about the case. The last two interviews with new residents were not meant to get an understanding of the problems on the street and how they were handled, since the third and fourth new resident respondents gave the same information the first and second respondents provided. Interview six and seven with new residents were meant to define the interactions with, and attitudes towards old residents. A theme that returns in all the

interviews is the respondent’s opinion about the built environment. They were asked their opinion about the built environment, what they thought was the reason why it looks the way it does, and whether this would lead to more or less interaction among residents, and why.

The analysis of the data is guided by theory, and the data also let to revise the theory. The

credibility of the findings is strong when new data leads to new theory. (Bryman 2008:377).

After interviews with the policymakers, theories about the social qualities of urban form were added, theories that did not come to mind before the interviews. These theories help explain how the interactions are influenced by the way the urban environment is designed. Another advantage of the use of semi-structured interviews is that the chapters about the history of the

Geuzenbuurt were added because the neighborhood officer told a story of about an hour,

about why the infrastructure looks the way it does and what type of people live in the neighborhood. He was not asked about this in specific, he brought up the story after I asked him what the square looked like before the entire project started.

3.2 Qualities of Qualitative Methods

An emic perspective is used in the interviews: how does the respondent regard and describe urban space? So in-depth interviews will show what changes (demographic or physical) are most important to the respondents. By ‘seeing through the eyes of the people being studied’, a better understanding of the point of view of the concerned respondent can be obtained

(Bryman 2008: 385).

Apart from the interviews, several sources of written data have been analyzed: official documents about urban renewal in the Netherlands and ´Over ‘t Spoor, and the framework of the Hoge Larensehof. Besides these official documents, several letters from the municipality addressed to residents, newspaper articles, magazines about neighborhood communities, reports of public consultation meetings and an online blog about the Geuzenbuurt have been analyzed.

(12)

12

A critique of qualitative research is the generalizability. By keeping track of all data sources and transcriptions, the dependability is guaranteed (Bryman 2008: 379). The confirmability is also sought to insure: personal values or presumptions are attempted to be avoided as much as possible (Bryman 2008:379).

All the respondents are anonymous, by which is meant that their names do not appear in this research. They were asked permission for recording the interviews, and were told about the anonymity. However, their function or role in this research is mentioned, since three groups can be distinguished: old residents, new residents, and policymakers. Gathered data has not been given to third parties. The role of the researcher has been made clear to the respondents. Because of choosing to use the snowball-method, no respondents are interviewed who have no contact with the seven new residents. They might very well now the square, and the new-houses might very well have influenced their lives. However, questions about interaction with new residents would not be relevant. By asking all respondents who else to interview, the respondents were found who were involved in handling the problems on the square in its first design after the opening of the Hoge Larensehof. One old resident, two new residents and two policymakers who were interviewed were tipped by all of the other respondents. There was no non-response, all of the approached actors were willing to give an interview.

Chapter 4: The Social Impact of Urban Renewal

In order to explain the policy of ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ and the ISV, literature is reviewed to analyze what has been published about the premise of the social mix, and about what social effects this might have. First of all gentrification will be discussed, to show this process is not a phenomenon that is merely happening in this case. The classic definition of gentrification will be provided, and the characteristics and effects of state-led gentrification in the Netherlands will be discussed.

(13)

13

4.1 State-led Gentrification

Gentrification is one of the major themes in urban sociology, since the second half of the twentieth century. It was first brought up by Ruth Glass, and has been increasingly studied since. The shortest classic definition of ‘gentrification’ is the replacement of a socio-economic class. In its classical definition, it refers to the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of the central city into middle-class residential and/or commercial use (Lees, Slater & Wyly 2010:5). A social mix of residents of lower and higher income in thus created. The phenomenon resonates in discourse of media, policymakers and businesses. Gentrification is studied worldwide: in the fifties and sixties it was first studied in England, and during later decades in cities as New York, Paris, Sidney and Amsterdam. The major critique on

gentrification by scholars has been the about the demolition of buildings in order to make way for new houses, with residents who lived in houses designated for demolition forced to leave their neighbourhood. The original, lower-skilled and poorer residents will eventually

disappear from the renewed area (ibid.).

In this thesis, gentrification is state-led. That means the (local) government is responsible for the settlement of new residents in an area of residents with lower-income. That means the new residents of higher-income bought the new houses because governments built relative

expensive houses in an area containing less expensive dwellings. Gentrification is often met with a lot of resistance from the residents living in the designated area – in this thesis referred to as old residents. Protests are a common response, and clashes between old and new

residents have also happened more than once when projects of urban renewal were being executed (Lees e.a. 2010:23).

As research has indicated, gentrification is diffusing worldwide (Hackworth & Smith 2001; Van Gent 2012). Hackworth and Smith speak of the ‘third wave’ of gentrification, and one of the new characteristics of gentrification is that it is no longer solely happening in the inner-centers of big cities like New York or Amsterdam, but also in smaller cities and towns, like Hilversum with its 85.000 residents. Urban renewal of the 21st century in the Netherlands is characterized by pursuing gentrification, and the term means in current discourses developing policy in favor of more affluent residents in less wealthy areas (Uitermark e.a. 2007:126).

(14)

14

4.2 The Goal of Gentrification in the 21st Century in the Netherlands

In the United States, the central goal of gentrification is to gain economic profit for

governments (Uitermark e.a. 2007:138). That same study indicates attracting richer people to poorer areas is a way to establish social order in areas in the Netherlands. Economic motives do not play a significant role (Uitermark e.a. 2007:137). Social order means the government is trying to create a ‘safe and green’ environment for new, richer residents, so that the

government can control who lives there, which are often residents who are less likely to face problems for authorities like criminality. Policymakers want to civilize neighborhoods and reduce criminality rates. So governments in the Netherlands want to control social life (Uitermark e.a. 2007:127).

Schuiling states that since the beginning of the 21st century a central goal of Dutch national policy is to fight segregation, and building bigger houses to buy for more affluent residents. Selective migration of the socio-economic climbers should be “dammed” (Schuiling

2007:165). This implicates the state is trying to monitor, or control social migration. Uitermark e.a. speak of social order, when addressing this phenomenon of selective migration. They claim that the most important goal of urban restructuring is not economic profit, but “generating social order in disadvantaged neighborhoods.” They continue by stating that gentrification is used to “pacify tensions and to reduce concentrations that pose a problem for authorities.” (Uitermark e.a. 2007:125) So, the arrival of people with higher income in the Buys Ballotstraat should reduce tensions there, based on these theories. Whether this is the case, will be discussed in the concluding chapters. Policymakers do not say they want to create social order, or gain more money through gentrification. They

legitimize their policy by saying the ‘livability’ will improve, through social mixing deprived areas (Uitermark e.a. 2007; Lees 2008; Schuiling 2007). What this is will be discussed in the next chapter.

4.3 The Premise of the ‘Social Mix’

This chapter deals with what sociologists state about the legitimation of the policy by the responsible agents, in order to compare this with what the policymakers in this case say they want to establish with the policy of urban renewal. This chapter thus serves to analyze the legitimation of the policymakers, by providing an indication of what their political agenda is

(15)

15

according to several sociologists. Studies of the 21st century in England and the Netherlands show governments are actively pursuing a social mix: combining residents of higher income and lower income in the same neighborhood. Policymakers state this is best for everyone (Lees 2008:2450).

Lees (2008) makes clear that the positive effects of the assumption, or dogma of ‘social mixing’ is barely question in the policy discourse. Policymakers fail to demonstrate how ‘social mixing’ between diverse neighborhood groups is going to be achieved (Lees

2008:2462). She notices it is increasingly promoted in policy circles that ‘social mixing’ will lead to less segregated, more livable and sustainable communities (Lees 2008:2449).

Encouraging socially mixed neighborhoods and communities has become a major urban policy and planning goal in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (Lees 2008:2450-2451). What the qualitative impulse of the Buys Ballotstraat is or was supposed to be, will be

discussed on the basis of the theory applied in this chapter.

Kleinhans also mentions that it is often unclear in political discourse how sustainable

neighborhoods are to be achieved (Kleinhans, 2004:373). It is promoted in policy discourse in the Netherlands that minorities are confronted with social and economic success of new residents, who serve as a role model for the minorities (Kleinhans 2004:372). Kleinhans states that social contacts in neighborhoods are usually exclusively with geographically close

neighbors, people who live in your street or block. Old residents are more likely to experience feelings of loss of their familiar neighborhood, due to newcomers. (Kleinhans, 2004:379-380). As a result of the layout of the neighborhood, “cross-tenure social interaction is hampered by spatial separation between tenures.” (Kleinhans, 2004:380). This statement indicates social interaction between residents around the street was influenced in a negative way in their eyes, because of the arrival of the Hoge Larensehof in between them. Uitermark e.a. state mixing lower- and higher-income households can have a counterproductive effect; tensions in the neighborhood often increase instead of reduce (Uitermark e.a. 2007:125). This is backed up by Lees, who states cohesion is more likely to occur in homogeneous areas. People associate and interact with people of the same class (Lees 2008:2459). Further on she states how research on gentrification has shown it can worsen the quality of life for existing residents.

A qualitative study on the effects of a state-led gentrification for old residents is done by Reinders (2011), who focused on feelings of home among old residents in a gentrifying area. To describe the social interaction between the old residents before the start of gentrification,

(16)

16

he applies the term ‘neighborhood identity’, a term that will also be used in this thesis.

Neighborhood identity refers to the shared experiences among residents, who share a sense of community identity and solidarity since they have been living together in the same

neighborhood for the bigger part of their lives (Reinders 2011:22). In this case, the term can be applied to the old residents, who have been living in the Geuzenbuurt their entire lives, which is over fifty years now. People with a strong sense of neighborhood identity feel like they belong to society. How urban renewal influences the sense of neighborhood identity of the old residents will be analyzed in this thesis.

The second policy intervention, being the restructuring of the square in 2007, will be regarded as a ‘critical moment’, as stated in the introduction: discourse, attitudes and social interaction changed because of an event (Putnam 2004:287). This theory of Putnam will be used to analyze the relation between the old and new residents. When two groups of people are in a state of conflict, certain events like critical moments can change the framing of the conflict situation. “The groups then reach new understandings of their situation, the nature of the conflict, the relationship among the parties and the problems they face are redefined” (Putnam 2004:276). This means it will be analyzed if the old and new residents are in a state of

conflict, and how the transformation of the square redefines the way they interact with each other.

The premise of “improving the quality” might be a half-truth; by only stimulating the needs of the new higher-income residents. The houses are built to attract higher-income residents, for whom a ‘safe and green’ environment is created. The used sociological theory does not indicate this environment improves the economic and social situation of old residents. The newly built environment can also play a significant part in representing or segregating class differences, as the next chapter will show.

4.4 The Social Quality of the Built Environment

In the Netherlands, the legitimation for this has a social character: gentrification should improve the quality of living for the old residents, which might be a dogma as the previous chapter indicates. The new residents are supposed to be a role model for old residents, as Kleinhans’ publication indicates (2004). However, the way the newly built environment is designed can stimulate polarization, if it differs from the surrounding infrastructure.

(17)

17

Dikeç states the production of space results from power relations (Dikeç 2003:172). More than a decade earlier, Lawrence and Low published an overview of the development of literature on the built environment, ranging from geographical theory to psychological theory. They investigated the relation between power and the built environment, and concluded that the built environment reflects class differences, as a result of conflict (Lawrence & Low 1990:488). These conflicts might be influenced by the political agenda of the policymakers, since they try to attract residents with higher income to the area. The government wants people with higher education and income from outside the area to move into the new neighborhood, by offering them houses they “want” (Schuiling, 2007:163). This might also very well be the case for any public spaces next to those houses. People attach meaning to the built environment (Caldeira 1996:324). He concludes residents construct social boundaries around areas where they do not feel welcome. Where people are spatially segregated, social differences are reinforced and increase (ibid.).

However, Caldeira bases his findings on research on gated communities. His study is therefore definitely not about a situation in which a social mix is ought to be stimulated. So Caldeira argues closed communities favor segregation (Caldeira 1996:324). But Lees’ (2008) and Kleinhans’ (2004) theories suggest the new built environment where ‘stimulating a social mix’ is the case, also has segregating effects. Public space is used in a way the new residents prefer. This is of course quite the opposite of what the discourse around the urban policy of urban renewal proclaims. In discourse around urban renewal in the Netherlands, it is stated that the policy should have positive effects of interaction, and should result into a qualitative impulse. The role of the built environment according to all the respondents of this thesis will be asked, and analyzed on the basis of this chapter.

Chapter 5: Understanding the policy for the Hoge Larensehof

In this chapter, the policy for the area ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ will be analyzed - of which the

Geuzenbuurt is a part - but first of all the ISV-policy will be analyzed on the national scale.

(18)

18

analysis of the ISV, when making statements about the policy of urban renewal in the Netherlands.

In order to be able to explain the effects of the interventions, it is necessary to first of all place the policy ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ in a larger, national policy. The ISV was initiated in 2000, and the data gathered for this thesis is done during the last year of this policy, being the year 2014. The central goal of this ambitious national policy is to “improve the living quality in neighborhoods”, neighborhoods designated by the government. This has to be realized through creating housing and jobs for more affluent residents, so this policy can be typified as a state-led gentrification to stimulate an urban environment for people of higher-income (Uitermark e.a. 2007; Schuiling 2007). The ISV is divided into three phases: the period 2000-2004, 2005-2009 and its current and last phase: 2010-2014. During each phase, more

responsibility for the execution of the policy is diffusing from the national to the local level. Urban renewal should solve social and physical problems in neighborhoods, for which subsidies are available3.

In municipality of Hilversum, the area ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ became a designated area for the policy ISV in its first phase, in 2002. This does not mean the local government had nothing to do with the execution of urban renewal; the municipality of Hilversum was responsible for the way the new houses and square look like. A difference between ISV I and II is that the goals for the designated areas are more clear and explicit.4 What the social goals were when this project was executed, will be reviewed in the analysis of the data. The ISV policy is seen as a clear case of gentrification (Uitermark e.a. 2007; Lees 2008). This does not mean the local politicians of Hilversum actively try to replace the residents of the Geuzenbuurt or that all of

‘Over ‘t Spoor´ will consist of people with higher education and income in the near future, but

theory indicates the ideology behind these kinds of urban renewal does favor that process.

The plan to build a new street in the middle of the Geuzenbuurt started in 1998, the same year when the zoning plan ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ was published. This was before the ISV policy started, but the execution of the project started when ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ was already a designated area. An edited version of the zoning plan was published in 2011, in which it is mentioned that the zoning plan of 1998 is still in progress (Over ‘t Spoor 2011:9). “Reinforcing the characteristic of the compact building blocks” is one of the goals of the plan (Over ‘t Spoor 2011:9). The

3_{www.grotestedenbeleid.nl}

(19)

19

urbanization and new infrastructure of ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ are supposed to become a part of a national network of cities: the Netherlands’ western part the Randstad. This is the part that contains the most important cities for the national economy. The goal is to improve the accessibility, socio-economic position and livability of the cities in these networks (Over ‘t Spoor 2011:27).

By executing policy “aimed at the future”, by transforming the area into an urban

environment, a “qualitative impulse for the rest of the neighborhood” (Over ‘t Spoor 2011:31) should be realized. The creating of a network throughout the Netherlands’ Randstad - of which Hilversum is a part - indicates the stimulation of gentrification, since the labor market of this area is dominated by residents of higher-income. How urban renewal is supposed to give a “qualitative impulse” to the rest of the neighborhood, will be discussed later on. In order to realize an “urban character”, it is “necessary to create a more differentiated housing market, with more room for young starters with high incomes.” (Over ‘t Spoor 2011: 33-34). This quote resembles Uitermark e.a.’s theory that urban renewal is aimed at the more affluent citizens (2007:126).

Chapter 6: Historical Development of the Geuzenbuurt

This chapter briefly sets out some important characteristics of the Geuzenbuurt, in order to get a better understanding of the attitudes of the original residents about their urban environment, policymakers and newcomers. This also helps understanding what the project Hoge

Larensehof means for the old residents. An overview of some developments also gives an

understanding of the policy interventions on the street, and is very important for indications of the future of the neighborhood. This overview is not a complete historical exposition of the demographic or physical development of Geuzenbuurt; only specific phenomena or events are highlighted relevant for the case on hand. This chapter is based on a document about the history of ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ (Van Aggelen 2010) and on data gathered for this thesis. This chapter is also based on the interpretation of the data, which consists of “seeing through the eyes of the respondent”, in-depth interviews and an analysis of several policy documents.

(20)

20

6.1 A Low-Income Neighborhood

Hilversum-East came into being when this part of town was separated from the rest of Hilversum by the arrival of a new railway, in 1874 (Van Aggelen 2000:150). Shortly after Hilversum Central Station was in use, East got the nickname ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ (across the railway). There were barely no houses in the area currently known as ‘Over ‘t Spoor’. This area swiftly became one of the fastest growing areas of the Netherlands, around the year 1900. The streets surrounding the Hoge Larensehof were built between 1890 and 1900,

commissioned by factory-owners to house their workers (Van Aggelen 2000:151). Urban renewal that started in 1915 gave ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ its present character that is still relevant for urban renewal of the 21st century, since the area consists of a lot of small houses with barely no public space left. New factories were built rapidly throughout ‘Over ‘t Spoor’, and the remaining space in between was filled with small streets for the working-class, that resulted in a very densely populated area (Van Aggelen 2000:156).

Many inhabitants of ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ belong to the low income bracket, though their average age is rising. The houses have remained in the family: since the prices of the houses always have been relatively affordable, they are almost all privately owned. If you live in this

neighborhood, you stay there the rest of your life and work on maintaining your hundred year-old house, says an year-old resident. The people of the neighborhood “are born, live and die there”, according to the neighborhood officer who has been working in ´Over ‘t Spoor’ for thirty years. According to the alderman and the neighborhood officer, about eighty percent of the houses in the Geuzenbuurt are privately owned.

Almost all the factories have since been replaced with houses. Urban renewal in the seventies and eighties are the cause of the reputation of the neighborhood, according to three

respondents. In this period, a lot of workers from Turkey and Morocco settled in the

Geuzenbuurt, state three of the respondents. The houses there cheap, attracted labor

immigrants, and resulted in a strong increase of criminality in the Geuzenbuurt. This bad reputation has been persistent in Hilversum throughout the years, and calling the entire project ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ is therefore stigmatizing. Its negative connotation is persistent this way. In ‘Over ‘t Spoor’, the residents have relatively low income and they caused more problems and criminality than the rest of the town, according to three respondents. When talking about ‘Over ‘t Spoor’, “everyone in town” still regards this as the “bad part of town”. Whether the criminality index and the average income have changed is not under investigation here.

(21)

21

Calling the project ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ does indicate the need of investing here, since the respondents state “everyone” thinks ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ is a “bad area”.

All four policymakers say that because practically all the houses are still privately owned, new houses could only be built when one of the remaining old and vacant factories could be bought and demolished. This would be the factory next to the only public square of the

Geuzenbuurt. The role of the square for the old residents will be discussed next.

6.2 One Central Meeting Place

By the end of the twentieth century only a few factories remain, which are concentrated next to the railway. Next to the transition between the industrial and the residential area is the only public space without any buildings: here a field of grass and a square were located, which is now the square of the Hoge Larensehof.

Since shortly after the Second World War this public area was the place where the residents of the Geuzenbuurt and from other neighborhoods in ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ came together. It was the place you walk your dog out, barbecues and parties were organized and more intimate relationships were formed. It was especially a place for the children of the Geuzenbuurt: the grass was used as a football field on a daily basis, and football and table tennis tournaments were organized. The square next to the grass was used as an ice rink in wintertime. All the required attributes – tennis rackets, skates, balls – were provided by the people of the

neighborhood. The local ice cream man, butcher and baker provided food and beverages. An old resident describes the interactions in the following way:

“The children were skating on the track, and you could get warm chocolate milk and wine for just a quarter. These were beautiful times for the entire neighborhood, it doesn’t matter what skin color or background you have.”

Next to the public square was a bathhouse located, that also functioned as a “nice meeting place”, according to a respondent who grew up in the neighborhood in the fifties and sixties and went to the bathhouse several times a week with his family, since they did not have a shower in their house. The association governing the bathhouse was named “Over ‘t Spoor”, indicating that the area embraced its ‘bad’ nickname. The clientele of the bathhouse consisted predominantly of low-income residents together with unemployed people – which are the residents of the neighborhood -, as image 6 shows (‘Werkloozen’ means the unemployed).

(22)

22

Image 6: Poster of the bathhouse with info and houserules Image 7: picture of the bathhouse around 1950

The bathhouse, built in 1920, was part of a building block of eleven houses. These houses, along with the bathhouse, were demolished in 2004, to make room for the Hoge Larensehof. The people living in those houses had to leave their homes5, state the architect of the Hoge

Larensehof as well as the neighborhood officer. None of these two respondents know where

those residents went.

The urban planner working for the municipality of Hilversum acknowledges the problem that none of the respondents know where these residents went, and has the following to say about that:

“… There is always the problem of where do those people have to go.. Well then we quickly look the other way. It’ll find a way. It remains difficult” – Urban Planner.

This quote confirms the start of a state-led gentrification in the Geuzenbuurt, since the most fundamental critique of sociologists about the phenomenon of gentrification appeared to have happened during this urban renewal: less affluent residents are forced out of their homes for the arrival of new higher-income residents, and rehousing the former residents is not

mentioned by the policymakers (Lees, Slater & Wyly 2010).

(23)

23

Chapter 7: Urban Renewal Leading to Conflict

The previous chapter made clear the square functioned as a central meeting place, it was the only area in the Geuzenbuurt where children could play. In the area ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ as part of ISV-1, the first project was the Hoge Larensehof. How state-led gentrification started on this place will be discussed in this chapter. How the interactions between the old and new

residents can be defined and what their attitudes are towards each other, will be discussed in chapter 10.

7.1 An Awkward Compromise

The arrival of the Hoge Larensehof was prioritized over the preservation of the central meeting place of the “old neighborhood”. The new residents on the Buys Ballotstraat were delighted with the plans they were shown of how the houses were going to look when they saw the original design, and how the public square was going to look be like. However, this was not how the square in its first design would be, which came as a surprise for the new residents.

During one of the public consultation meetings about the plans of the Hoge Larensehof with old residents, they demanded a list of changes to the design in order to preserve ‘their square’, that were implemented and executed. The square contained a football field, the same size as the field of grass used to be (image 3). It could still be transformed into an ice rink when it freezes. The newcomers state they were not aware of the adaptations based on the claims of the old residents, as a newcomer states:

“In the first place there would be a playground for little kids, with a small seesaw. Not some football field. There were trees, very nice! That’s how we bought it from the municipality!”

Another newcomer states:

“The buyers were told it was going to be the type of square with a lot of green, with a nice appearance. When we just moved here, we saw asphalt being laid out.. it gave me a seizure.”

An official policy document from the municipality of Hilversum shows the old residents handed in a list of demands, on January 11th of 2001: a playground for children up to age six, preservation of the ice skating and football facilities, a fitting design compared to the

(24)

24

surrounding houses, more green, less traffic, and more gardens and parking spots for themselves. The demands for the square were implemented.

7.2 Escalation on the Football Field

In 2006, the new residents settled in the Geuzenbuurt on the Buys Ballotstraat. The new residents felt “their” promised square was taken from them. The original residents were desperate to preserve their square. They immediately got in a situation of conflict with a group of adolescents who came to the football field every night. The confrontations with the adolescents eventually led to the second intervention: the restructuring of the football field to the playground it became since 2007, as can be seen on the front page and in image 1. The interactions between the old and new residents after the second intervention will be discussed in chapter 8. This chapter will describe the conflict situation that occurred after the street opened and the transformation of the playground as a solution to the conflict.

The playground in its first design with the football field was no part of the original urban framework, until it was implemented due to the demands the original residents had. The use of this playground in its first design was the biggest problem that occurred in the Geuzenbuurt in a long time, according to the policymakers and the neighborhood officer. The football cage attracted approximately forty adolescents from all over Hilversum, and caused nuisance on a daily basis. There was alcohol and cannabis consumption according to the neighborhood officer and two new residents, scooters caused a lot of noise, and the newcomers felt “terrorized” at times, says a new resident. Eggs were thrown against windows, firework bombs were thrown against houses, “somebody stood with a knife in front of the door” and cars underneath carports were destroyed. A newcomer living directly on the square recalls the period as “one big hell”. “It escalated into a conflict with the old neighborhood”, says another newcomer.

According to an old resident, they never expected the football field to be this close to the new houses, which was asking for trouble. “You don’t have to be an expert to see, this goes wrong”. All other respondents confirm the first design was a “mistake”. It is interesting to see that the original residents, newcomers and policymakers all see a different cause for the occurring problems. The old residents blame the policymakers for building too many houses around the football field. The alderman admits more houses were built than planned, but this is not the reason for the problems. The alderman and urban planner both state implementing the playground into the design at the last moment caused the trouble. The new residents blame

(25)

25

both the policymakers and old residents: the policymakers “lied” to them, the initial design was “meant to be a disaster”, states a new resident. The old residents were blamed for escalating the problems by inciting the adolescents.

So the football field attracted adolescents from all over town and not just the Geuzenbuurt, according to the neighborhood officer and two original residents. There were way more people on playground than ever before. The newcomers also blame the original residents for the escalation, as the following quote shows:

“With their parents too, they joined in. They were looking for conflict (…) We were being terrorized, I’m sure. It was their intension to kick up a dust. They were encouraged by their parents, I’m sure.” – a newcomer

The new residents living on or near the square experienced their arrival as very stressful, and often told the children to get away from the square. This led to anger among the old residents, who regarded the playground as theirs, so the newcomers had “no right” to tell children of ´Over ‘t Spoor’ to go away from “their” square. The newcomers were referred to as “yippies6” by old residents, on a forum that unfortunately has been taken offline. Newcomers who read the forum about the Geuzenbuurt said they were being stigmatized, “they” merely said negative things about “them”. On this forum the Buys Ballotstraat, often named the B.B, was cynically named the ‘Betere Buurt’ (‘Better Neighborhood’). So stigmatization and a situation of conflict between the old and new residents occurred almost instantly after the Hoge

Larensehof opened. The conflict between the old and new residents was about to whom the

square in its first design belongs. The old residents made claims on the square, as well as the new residents. The presence of the adolescents eventually led to an intervention of the policymakers, that changed the framing of the conflict between the old and new residents.

7.3 Looking for a Solution

The new residents did not feel welcome in the neighborhood from the start. Several of them organized a neighborhood association in order to handle the situation on the square. So the newcomers formed both a formal and emotional bond with each other, because of the shared experiences on the playground and stigmatizing discourse on the forum. The central goal of the association was the adolescents to leave. This worsened the conflict situation with the original residents, and led to the response “well then they have to leave!” from some of the old residents.

(26)

26

In 2006, a year after the Hoge Larensehof opened, policymakers mediated in the conflict when the association of the newcomers asked for help from the municipality. The association and the municipality both regarded redesigning the playground to be the solution. They handed in a design themselves, in which the playground would be transformed into a green area, with lots of bushes, trees and flowers. On September 17th 2007, the municipality organized an informative meeting, in which their own, new design was discussed. Both original residents and newcomers were present. The report of that meeting shows conflicting interests and attitudes among the residents.

The policymakers stated redesigning a square is expensive, so a relatively cheap, ‘vandalism proof’ new design to decrease the nuisance to a minimum was sought. The policymakers state the playground will be not be appropriate for children past the age of twelve. When the original residents realized the football field was going to disappear, they became angry, and some of them walked out of the meeting. An original resident, who is the chairman of the neighborhood association of the original resident and of community center De Geus, says he represents “the neighborhood”, and informing them about the result of this meeting is “unbearable”. The policymakers and newcomers respond by saying this is a compromise in which nobody completely gets what he wants. The concept design was not changed after the meeting, though several signs with rules have been added to the square:

- A curfew after 21h

- no alcohol or cannabis consumption - no loud music or screaming

- no motorized vehicles

The redesign let to a lot of resistance in the “old neighborhood”. When the Hoge Larensehof was being built, there were some signs of protest, but because the policymakers always said the original residents could keep their square, these protests were relatively small. A

movement of resistance only started when the playground was going to be redesigned. The monthly newspaper of the neighborhood association De Geus contained letters of protest, and signatures from tens of people were handed over to the municipality.

The alderman of the labor party searched for a new place for the playground. He said to the original residents and their children “it’s your square, so let’s find something together”. In 2008 a temporary place was found on a ground on the corner of the Geuzenbuurt, where a

(27)

27

school would be built in the future. So the original residents lost their ice rink, but “the children of the Geuzenbuurt” could at least keep “their” football field.

The old residents now felt they had lost “their” square. The conflict was no longer about the ownership of the square. The old and new residents no longer had to appoint meetings with policymakers to solve the issue with the adolescents. The interactions between old and new residents will be discussed in chapter 10, and how the attitudes towards each other are

different from the period 2005-2007 will also be discussed there. It will then become clear the second intervention can be regarded as a critical moment: discourse, attitudes and social interaction changes because of an event (Putnam 2004:287). First of all the transformation of the playground before the Hoge Larensehof was built to how it looks since after the critical moment will be discussed.

7.4 From Central Meeting Place to Semi-Public Space

In the urban framework of 20077 the planners give their view on how the new environment, created with the second intervention, can or should be used. This framework was published after the municipality negotiated with the old and new residents about a second design for the square.

In order to analyze what is meant by the information in the framework, interviews with the responsible policymakers have been done. The framework of the Hoge Larensehof reveals the street is designed as a “semi-public space”, that has to be “discovered”. The new

playground, in its original draft, had to have a “collective function for the neighborhood”, and gives the new urban form a “visible and accessible relation with the surrounding area”. This seems to contradict the “semi-public” character of the street. The policymakers of the

municipality of Hilversum who published the urban framework justify this by the following quote:

“A place fitting into the structure of the neighborhood, physically related to the existing streets, but forming an own visual world. Its appearance can be called semi-public; it is a place accessible for everyone, but you have to discover it .. The architecture fits the historical character. A cohesion is being pursuit, that shapes the connectedness of living next to a courtyard.”

- Urban Framework

(28)

28

It is remarkable that the playground is called a courtyard (binnenplein), implying the non-public character of it. It is also mentioned in the framework that the playground should function as a central meeting place for people of the entire neighborhood, while the urban design seems to have such a distinct character, bringing about a feeling of a demarcated area.

So the new urban form is supposed to fit in the structure of the neighborhood, but not in a visual way. The playground has to fulfill a collective function for the neighborhood, though it is supposed to be semi-public since 2007. The surrounding houses are one story tall, as the framework also mentions, though the houses of the Buys Ballotstraat are two stories tall.

The document ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ (2011) states the houses should have a character that “fits the working-class design of the area” (page 12), while also forming a transition to possible future urban renewal. The politician of the labor party who grew up in ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ said about the design “you get the idea they built it for the middle-class”, a statement that is resonated by all other respondents, except for the urban planner. A newcomer also stated “they tried to attract yuppies”, and the alderman describes the street as a “nice place for starters with young

children, which is also the vision of ‘Over ‘t Spoor’”. The urban planner, who was responsible for the design of the street and the square, stated:

“It was too expensive to renovate, so we were planning to build something new. (…) Well when those houses were being built there the entire neighborhood suddenly screamed “we have to get our football field back!” There were some doubts about this but.. But you know, they have a say, it hás to be.. So yeah, it was integrated in the design..”

This interesting quote of the urban planner indicates the responsible policymakers for the urban design did not want the old public square, with its important social function by being the only meeting place in a neighborhood where most people lived their entire lives, to interfere with the plans of building something “nice” – “nice” meaning adapting the

Geuzenbuurt to an environment attractive to “yuppies”, according to the other residents – but

the design was changed, because old residents have a say in urban renewal in their

neighborhood. The theoretical classification of the Dutch urban renewal of the 21st century that it favors more affluent residents (Lees 2008; Schuiling 2007; Uitermark e.a. 2007) – often described as “yuppies” by the respondents in this research – is confirmed here. The quote about the “semi-public” character of the square was submitted to the same urban planner, about which he stated:

(29)

29

“Well it is a special place, because .. there are only streets there. Now you suddenly have a place. So we decided to make it a courtyard where children could safely play, and where you could peacefully sit. But the courtyard was not for the people living there, it had to be accessible for the entire

neighbourhood. So that is why it semi-public”.

Here the urban planner acknowledges this square is the only public space in the Geuzenbuurt. He wanted it to be a courtyard for the newcomers, judging on the disappointment in his tone when he said the original plan had to be adjusted, and the cynical way in which he stated it “had to be for the rest of the neighborhood”. This appears to be incommensurable with the theory that there is a discourse of integration in Dutch urban renewal of the 21st century. The urban planner would prefer the playground was for the new residents only, as he indicates that the initial plans were that the playground would be “peaceful and quiet”, an environment for residents of the new street with small children. The urban planner says:

“the square had to be for the rest of the neighborhood as well, therefore it is semi-public”.

So, the intentions of the urban planner was to design the square for just the new residents. The theory of Lees (2008), Uitermark e.a. (2007) and Schuiling (2007) that mixing leads to segregation seems to be confirmed here. How the Hoge Larensehof influenced the neighborhood identity of old residents of the Geuzenbuurt will be discussed next.

Chapter 8: Situation after the two Interventions

Before analyzing the interactions and attitudes, two problems that the old residents face will be highlighted: the loss of their central meeting place and the lack of parking lots, that worsened when the Hoge Larensehof arrived. The disappearance of the original playground and the decrease of available parking lots are the two most important causes for how the old and new residents regard each other, as chapter 10.1 will show.

8.1 Decline of Neighborhood Identity after the Interventions

This chapter deals with how old residents regard the Geuzenbuurt, after the first project of urban renewal in forty years took place, for which the central meeting place had to make way. Reinders’ concept of ‘neighborhood identity’ can and will be applied here. The importance of the central meeting place becomes clear, because even though some houses were demolished,

(30)

30

a movement of resistance only developed after “their” football field was about to be removed from “their square”, as mentioned in chapter 7.3. They have associations of a lifetime in common and share a common identity and feelings of solidarity (Reinders 2011:22).

In the 1980s and 1990s three community centers were active in ‘Over ‘t Spoor’, of which the one in the Geuzenbuurt a hundred meters from the playground was the most popular one, according to an original resident. The people of the neighborhood were very concerned with the wellbeing of the neighborhood according to the original residents, they worked together on the maintenance of the houses and spent their free time in the community centers or on the public field. The community center in the Geuzenbuurt, called De Geus is the only one left in

‘Over ‘t Spoor’. Subsidies stopped in 2012, and the respondent who went to the bathhouse

when he was a child is now trying his best to keep De Geus functioning. He finds it hard preventing community center De Geus from going bankrupt.

All four respondents who grew up in ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ notice a dramatic change in demography and community involvement in the Geuzenbuurt over the last decades. A respondent who is now a local politician and was involved in the making of the plan for the Hoge Larensehof calls it “a world of difference”, compared to forty years ago. Criminality was a big problem until the beginning of the 21st century. By 2014, the neighborhood officer calls the

Geuzenbuurt a “complete normal neighborhood”, compared to 2001. The chairman of De Geus describes the Geuzenbuurt as a neighborhood that has it all: two mosques, a house for

Jehovah-witnesses, three community centers, but it lacks a central meeting place. He complains nobody goes out of the house anymore to engage himself in and for the

neighborhood. The residents of low-income are aging fast and are too old to participate in the

Geuzenbuurt, and the “Turks and Moroccans”, are not involved at all, complains the chairman

of De Geus. This is backed up by the policymakers who lead consultation evenings about interventions in the neighborhood. An urban planner says “only the old workers are still active and concerned about what happens in the Geuzenbuurt”, and “the Turkish and

Moroccan families are very introvert”. The chairman of De Geus complains they never visit the community center.

So the Geuzenbuurt still has the same infrastructure as a century ago, characterized by a lot of narrow streets with houses built for the working class, practically all of them privately owned. The bathhouse and playground were not, and had to make way for the Hoge Larensehof in 2004, which meant the first entrance of higher-income residents in the Geuzenbuurt.

(31)

31

The old residents all state they feel they ‘lost their’ public place where ‘their’ kids used to play, with the first restructuring of the square in the period 2004-2005. This place was crucial for the forming of a sense of neighborhood identity, a lot of experiences were shared together here. Now De Geus is supposed to fulfill that role, but two respondents state this cannot be compared to the role and meaning the old square used to have.

8.2 Another Conflict: the Parking Problem

A problem that has been present and worsening in the Geuzenbuurt for a long time is the shortage of parking spots. The infrastructure of the neighborhood basically has not changed since it was constructed in the beginning of the twentieth century. As chapter 5 has shown, the houses were built for lower-income people. The factories in ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ ordered the houses to be built for their workers, which explains why the streets are narrow, the houses small, and why there is no space constructed for the parking of cars. Having a car was very rare a hundred years ago. Lower-skilled and lower-income people owning a car was unthinkable. By the beginning of the 21st century, almost everyone owned a car in the

Geuzenbuurt, and some of the families even owned two cars. Because the Geuzenbuurt is

located next to Hilversum Central Station, there is always a shortage of parking lots. Solving this shortage of was one of the goals of the policy ‘Over ‘t Spoor’ (Over ‘t Spoor 2011:32). Parking had always been free in the ´Geuzenbuurt’, until 2011:

(32)

32

The policymakers promised more parking lots to be available for the old residents, as two new residents, three old residents and a policymaker say. Instead of solving the parking problem, the problem worsened and resulted into another conflict among the old and new residents. With the arrival of the street parking space disappeared, and no new space could be created in the neighborhood. The houses of the Buys Ballotstraat all contained a carport behind the backdoor. Since the front doors of the two lines of houses on the Buys Ballotstraat face each other, the residents of the street behind the Buys Ballotstraat now faced these carports. The newcomers paid for their parking places, and the first conflict among the old and new residents occurred when original residents blamed the newcomers for not letting them park their cars there, and the newcomers blamed them for doing so. The following quote is of a newcomer, describing the neighborhood mediation that occurred because of the parking conflict:

“There we got a story about people in a divorce.. very sad, but not my problem. That doesn’t mean you earn a parking place, for which we paid 8000 euros. But that’s what going on “I’m in a divorce, feel sorry for me so I can park? Well, no! Sorry!”

The next quote is from the same interview, describing the conflict after neighborhood mediation:

“We’ve had a lot of problems with parking, and still do. There is a couple that still parks their car here. I say you know you can’t park here, and they reply: “I know, don’t care”, and walk away. That’s provocation.”

The old residents blame the newcomers for being “bad neighbors”. The old residents developed a strong sense of solidarity, to which they appeal to the new residents. Those newcomers have not been raised in the area, nor will they stay there the rest of their lives: they consider their home on the Hoge Larensehof an ideal place to stay for five or six years. The new residents lack a community identity on which the old residents made an appeal.

A ‘better neighborhood’ : a case study on the social effects of urban renewal in Hilversum