Mixed cohousing : a start up for community building but not a panacea : cohousing projects in Amsterdam with statushouders and Dutch students

(1)

Mixed cohousing:

a start up for community

building but not a panacea

Cohousing projects in Amsterdam with statushouders and

Dutch students

Master’s Thesis

Sociology: Cultural Sociology Marloes Jesse (10214909) Thesis advisor: Linda van de Kamp Second reader: Paul Mepschen 15-08-2018 Amsterdam

(2)

1. Introduction

Last year, an acquaintance informed me about a cohousing project, ‘Karmijn’, that would start taking applications in the summer of 2017. This project is one out of many current cohousing projects in Amsterdam, there are at least 6 projects up and running, where the residents are either Dutch students or so called statushouders1. One of the most important ideals behind these cohousing projects, becomes very clear from the following citation:

‘To create a good home base for everyone, we are looking for residents that want to make an

effort to build a community. The goal of this cooperation between residents is to stimulate the integration process of the statushouders, and to create a pleasant living environment for everyone. Thus, we expect that each resident will be a good neighbor to their co-residents, so that everyone feels at home and is open to one another.’2

When I applied to live in the cohousing project, it started to spark an interest: how do these projects work exactly, and are they beneficial for the statushouders? In the end, I was put on a waiting list and eventually got rejected for the specific project, but it has lead me to develop such an interest in the existence and development of these projects, that I decided to devote my thesis to the subject.

By the end of 2018, Amsterdam has to create housing opportunities for 2700

statushouders, but up until now, the Municipality of Amsterdam has created housing

(projects) for about 1500 of them (Amsterdam, 2018). Housing organizations like De Key and

Socius have put up cohousing projects in collaboration with the Municipality of Amsterdam,

starting with Startblok Riekerhaven in 2016 (Riekerhaven, 2018). Cohousing has become an increasingly popular initiative: it combines the advantages of individual housing situations and the benefits of living in a community with shared areas, such as living rooms and community gardens (Sagrisson, 2012). Especially Startblok Riekerhaven got a lot of media attention: the debate about whether cohousing was a good or bad initiative of the Municipality

1_{Someone that is a statushouder, is a refugee that is “recognized” by the municipality and has a (temporary)}

residence permit (Amsterdam, 2018). The term statushouder(s) and residence permit holder will interchangeably be used throughout this thesis.

2_{This citation is translated to English. The original citation is the following: ‘Om voor iedereen een fijne}

thuisbasis te creëren, zijn we op zoek naar bewoners die zich willen inzetten voor het opzetten van die community. Deze samenwerking tussen bewoners heeft als doel de integratie van de statushouders te

bevorderen, en voor iedereen een fijne leefomgeving te creëren. Van élke bewoner verwachten we dan ook dat die zich als een goede buur opstelt naar zijn of haar medebewoners, zodat iedereen zich thuis voelt en openstaat voor elkaar’. (Socius, 2018)

(4)

of Amsterdam has dominated multiple Dutch newspapers3_{. Questions about “What will it do}

to the neighborhood?”, “Isn’t it dangerous to just put refugees with Dutch students together, and what are the consequences?” and “Will these projects really be beneficial for both parties?” were raised. There are two cohousing projects, Startblok Riekerhaven and

NDSM-Werf, that are the subject of this research: statushouders live with Dutch youth, with the main

purpose of making the progress of integration easier for the refugees, through the idea of cohousing as community formation that leads to social inclusion. These cohousing projects have a specific age bracket, the specific reasoning behind this will be explained in the analysis section: all residents are between the age of 18 and 27 years old.

One of the many reasons why these projects are interesting to analyze, and to shed a “sociological light” on these projects, is because recent research shows that in general, Dutch asylum procedures separate the asylum seekers from the rest of society by building separate asylum centers, often in rural areas, where the asylum seekers stay until they gain leave to remain (Bakker, Cheung, & Phillimore, 2016). Once a decision has been made and they are allowed to stay in the Netherlands with a residence permit, the state appoints them social housing, which is a “one-time-offer”, after which they have to leave the asylum seekers’ center within two weeks. When it comes to cohousing projects, there has been quite a lot of research done on cohousing projects with for example elderly people and students, but not as much on projects that aim at ‘mixing’ Dutch students with statushouders. Overall, there has been little research on these mixed cohousing projects concerning the lived experiences of tenants (Jarvis, 2011). However, there has been a lot of research on processes of integration, also in relation to the recent increase of refugees coming to Europe, in the period 2015-2016 (European Commission, 2017). New ways need to be found in making sure the refugees feel socially included (Bakker, Cheung, & Phillimore, 2016), maybe even integrated (depending on the personal definition), and most importantly: get on well in the country of their residence. The question is to which extent cohousing projects with former refugees could contribute to forms and feelings of inclusion or exclusion. Refugees, integration, creating communities, social inclusion and exclusion: it has become a more demanding and researched subject over the years and as a few researchers have been warning for, research can become normative and stereotyped. They are concerned with the meaning making and definitions of these specific terms involved, but have yet to be focused on the experiences of residents and to actually come up with eventually a book of good practice for cohousing projects. Thus, to

(5)

break the normative and stereotyped cycle of research, the focus of this research will be on the experiences of the residents at Startblok Riekerhaven and NDSM-Werf and policy makers and coordinators of cohousing projects in Amsterdam.

In what follows, I will further expound the underlying theories that founded my main research question: How do the cohousing projects Starblok Riekerhaven and NDSM-Werf try

to shape a sense of community between residents and how does it contribute to feelings of belonging or not belonging? To answer the main research question, the following sub

questions have been examined:

- How are the cohousing projects designed as community spaces by the different stakeholders?

- How are residents involved in the community making process and how do they perceive the community sense?

- Which senses of belonging do residents experience?

In what follows, a theoretical framework will be provided first to provide insight in the main subjects of the topic at hand. The methodology section will follow, chapter 3, in which an operationalization of the research questions will be given, as well as a detailed section of data collection, methods and limitations. In chapter 4 the first sub question, How are the cohousing

projects designed as community spaces by the different stakeholders?, will be addressed

through an discourse analysis and analysis of interviews with the coordinators and policy makers. Subsequently, the second and third sub questions will be addressed in chapter 5, through a thorough analysis of the interviews with residents. Chapter 6 will be the concluding chapter, in which a general conclusion will be given, as well as a reflection.

(6)

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Social mixing

Since 2001, policies and debate on socially mixed neighborhoods emerged in the Netherlands. Creating mixed districts is expected to have positive outcomes, such as social cohesion, social mobility opportunities and more residential stability (van Kempen & Bolt, 2009, p. 460). Over the years the debate on social mixing has changed, stating that concentration and residential segregation has negative and disadvantageous consequences, especially for minority ethnic groups (Ibid.). This residential segregation can, for example, make ethnic dividing lines more visible and concentration of groups can make possibilities for meeting and contacts impossible, which diminishes the contact with native Dutch, and thus would influence the social chances of ethnic minorities (Ibid., p. 464).

Uitermark (2003) emphasizes that it is frequently suggested that ‘social mixing’ policies ‘strengthens the tissue of a disadvantaged neighborhood’, and could potentially “save” inhabitants of these neighborhoods in terms of social and economic integration, stating that disadvantaged neighborhoods inhibit these processes. Furthermore, by mixing designated neighborhoods with ‘affluent households’, the policy aims to stabilize the socioeconomic status and attract people to stay in the neighborhood (Ibid.). The restructuring policy, i.e. social mixing, is strongly correlated with the Dutch integration debate. As Uitermark (2003: p. 537) points out, the policy illustrates the ways in which the government is seeking for new ways to regulate social relations and ‘it shows a connection between governance initiatives at neighborhood level and the lack of opportunities for integration on a national scale’. There are four possible effects of this restructuring policy, according to Uitermark (2003). Firstly, ‘social mixing’ is supposed to have a positive reciprocity in a neighborhood: affluent households are expected to beneficial for the ‘less-well-off households’ in the neighborhood (Ibid., p. 544). Secondly, since there are problems associated with concentration neighborhoods, dispersing and mixing them over a larger territory is expected to create a certain balance and harmony (Ibid.). Thirdly, ‘affluent ethnic households’ are expected to function as intermediaries and prevent ‘less-well-off households’ to socialize exclusively with their own community (Ibid., p. 545). Fourthly, ‘affluent households’ are expected to play an active role in the neighborhood when it comes to maintaining and stimulating social cohesion (Ibid.).

In relation to the cohousing projects, the main focus has been on the goal of enhancing the integration processes, but the perspectives of the residents in these projects remain poorly

(7)

researched, if even researched at all. Van Kempen and Bolt (2009: p. 460) emphasize the desire of policy-makers to create ‘mixed districts’, and argue the following: ‘Social mixing is expected to lead to a range of positive outcomes, like social cohesion, social mobility opportunities, more social capital, better services, less crime, an improved neighborhood reputation, and more stability’. These expectations can be linked to the specific ‘social mixing’ of the cohousing projects in Amsterdam, seen as Uitermark (2003) argues that the socioeconomic and ethnic background of neighborhood residents still seems to play a decisive role in the so called perceived ‘liveability’ of a neighborhood. The report of van der Velden, Tiggeloven & Gelinck (2017), is concerned with the ‘social mixing’ on a smaller scale: creating the ‘magic mix’. In this report they have examined 15 different projects concerning their designs and goals with regard to the ‘magic mix’. The ‘magic mix’ refers to a mix of residents that are living together in cohousing projects. Creating cohousing projects could thus be considered an addition or alternative for creating ‘socially mixed’ neighborhoods, seen as the specific mix discussed in this thesis consists out of cohousing projects with Dutch youth and statushouders, i.e. residence permit holders.

2.2 Cohousing

The idea of creating socially mixed housing to enhance social cohesion and to create opportunities for social mobility or otherwise, takes a particular shape in cohousing projects. As van Kempen and Bolt (2009) stated in their research, creating social cohesion in neighborhoods is seen as one of many goals of future policies in the Netherlands, including in Amsterdam. During interviews, one of the respondents, interviewee no. 2, made clear that most of the young (between 18 and 23 years old) residence permit holders get transferred to big cities, mostly Amsterdam, to be housed in cohousing projects because there are more opportunities for them. Firstly, it is assumed that there are more opportunities for them in big city with regards to job opportunity and the social city life. Secondly, cohousing projects are founded with the intention of having a beneficial effect on both the Dutch youth and residence permit holders (Interviewee no. 2).

The notion of cohousing, typically include ‘clustering of smaller-than-average private

residences to maximize shared open spaces for social interaction, common facilities for shared daily use; and nonhierarchical consensus-based resident management’, and often

include a type of intentional community (Jarvis, 2011). Furthermore, inhabitants of cohousing projects are assumed to develop closer social contacts than in regular neighborhoods, and

(8)

benefit from communal activities and mutual support (Ache & Fedrowitz, 2012). This exactly seems to be the case in the (future) cohousing projects of interest, especially Startblok

Riekerhaven, where the emphasis is on ‘building a future together’, through shared spaces,

self-management, activities and an all around “community building mindset” behind the planning of the projects, as will be discussed further in the analysis sections (van der Velden, Tiggeloven, & Gelinck, 2017)The idea that cohousing is not merely a physical form, but a form of daily practice, is also emphasized by Ache & Fedrowitz (2012, p. 395), stating that the residents are involved in e.g. ‘the conceptual and planning phase, a kind of contract that formulates the sense of community, or communal spaces in addition to individual units’.

Bakker et al. (2016), conducted a research in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom: in their research the Netherlands is specifically putting refugees up in asylum centers, and the UK is using cohousing to enhance the integration process. As they emphasize, the different policy practices in both countries increased the process of social exclusion is because there were insufficient resources to deal adequately with the feelings of harassment, racism, prejudice and segregation in the two societies. The question would be if the measures that are taken in these recent cohousing projects in Amsterdam are helping to prevent these feelings of social exclusion. A possible hypothesis might be that with these cohousing projects social inclusion and integration is achieved, rather than social exclusion. The following citation could be a possible hypothesis to support this:

‘Integration is a long-term two-way process of change, that relates both to the conditions for

and the actual participation of refugees in all aspects of life of the country of durable asylum as well as to refugees’ own sense of belonging and membership of European societies’ (Ager

& Strang, 2008, cited in ECRE 1999b: 4).

Ache and Fedrowitz (2012) also acknowledge that there is a critical aspect of a new form of segregation that might be represented by the cohousing projects, stating that one can see the projects as a form of ‘elective affiliation’. However, as they emphasize as well, social inclusion or exclusion could happen in various contexts.

According to Lietaert (2010) there are six fundamental characteristics of cohousing: the participatory process, where cohousing residents manage the process; the intentional neighborhood design; the common facilities and activities; a complete resident management; the absence of hierarchy; and that incomes are separated. The main focuses of this thesis are two cohousing projects in Amsterdam, as aforementioned, Startblok Riekerhaven and

(9)

NDSM-Werf. All six characteristics seem to apply in some degree at Startblok Riekerhaven, however,

at NDSM-Werf some of them are absent. How these six characteristics specifically come into play in these projects will be expounded in the operationalization section of this thesis.

2.3 The debate on integration and the culturalization of citizenship

As Slootman and Duyvendak (2015, p. 148) argue, ‘culturalization and emotionalization of citizenship has taken place’, which has caused a shift in what citizenship entails: the focus has become more and more on the norms and values of a culturally defined community, and less about rights and duties. Culturalization of citizenship has started a process where these norms, values, symbols and traditions are the key elements in defining a Dutch citizen, subsequently having the consequence that immigrants have to prove their loyalty to the Netherlands (Ibid.). In this process of culturalization, the citizens are subjected to “feeling rules” (Ibid., 152), where people have to feel specifically connected to our society: if you don’t feel “at home” in it, you will not be able to feel Dutch. This notion of naturalization comes with a warning: if you don’t feel at home, you should go “home”, which would refer to the country that the immigrant originally came from, even if they are second generation. As Slootman and Duyvendak (2015) emphasize, this culturalization and emotionalization of citizenship, and emotive integration discourse, has had a paradoxical effect: it demands that people identify as Dutch, and feel as such, but is hindering (second generation’s) emotional attachment to Dutch identity.

Uitermark (2012) argues that culturalism was present in the 1980s, but gained (political) resonance in the early 2000s. Culturalism argues that ‘the mingling of different cultures leads to the disintegration of the national body’ (Ibid., p. 82), and in the case of the Netherlands, the Dutch needed to reclaim and redefine their national identity, as the following quote shows:

‘An ease-loving multiculturalism is gaining ground because we do not articulate what binds

our society together. We do not talk enough about our limits, we do not maintain a relationship with our own past, and we treat our language carelessly. A society that belies itself has nothing to offer to newcomers. A majority that denies that it is a majority has no eye for the hard-handedness of integration, which always entails a loss of one’s tradition. Those who do not understand what is being taken do not have much to give’ (Scheffer, 2000, cited

(10)

As mentioned above, it integration and Dutch citizenship thus became more about unspoken and unwritten ‘feeling rules’, and a certain “wishful thinking” when it comes to what immigrants need to feel, participate in and have general knowledge about in the Netherlands. This “wishful thinking” of the new integration settings, also seems to play hand in hand with the Dutch paternalism and egalitarianism. There seems to be a somewhat incommensurable relationship of paternalism and egalitarianism in the Netherlands (van den Berg, 2016): there is a big wish for everyone to be equal and to treat everyone equally, but that is at odds with the governmental interference through specific policies. Fundamental research on cohousing projects, specifically with regard to this seemingly incommensurable relationship, still has to be carried out but it is the question whether these cohousing projects have the same paradoxical effect. When one considers the cohousing projects at hand, relationship of paternalism and egalitarianism could also be questioned: these projects are supposedly beneficial for both parties and designed to improve the integration process, but who decides what it means to be integrated? If these projects do enhance feelings and the process of social exclusion, rather than inclusion, it seems to be the opposite of the main purpose of cohousing projects. Seen as the creation of a community can be considered a practice, and active ‘doing’ (Blokland, 2017), these processes of social in- and exclusion could also be considered as such: active practices. So, how do these processes influence the shaping of a community: do they have a sense of belonging and is there a community being shaped in these cohousing projects?

2.4 Community as practice to create senses of belonging

As Blokland emphasizes, ‘community manifests itself in the details of everyday life’ (2017, p. 9). Community is more than just the technical meaning of a group of people with common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society: it refers to ideologies, values and symbols (Hamilton, cited by Blokland, 2017). A common idea of a community is that it provides the idea of belonging, to which we seem to assign a specific (geographic) place. The question central in the theoretical framework of Blokland (2017, p. 9) seems to be, ‘How does community, as it is imagined, come about in, or as a form of, social practice?’. Although a community is not restricted to a geographical place or neighborhood, there is an important urban dimension: ‘we are physically closer, can escape others less, are more confronted with the presence of other people, need more subtle ways of avoidance and connecting in a context

(11)

that engages more people whom we do not know than people whom we do’ (Ibid., 42). Especially in the case of cohousing projects, where people are living together in a restricted area with communal spaces, this seems to be even more evident. The question that is often asked to people, is whether they feel like they belong or what they perceive as their community: we thus gain little understanding about the processes that actually create those communities and the experiences about them (Ibid.). We are actively ‘performing community’ as Blokland emphasizes, especially through daily urban practices through which we develop shared experiences and shared symbols: by pre-occupying with people in our day-to-day lives and establishing relationships with others. By seeing community as a cultural concept, it includes the performances and public practices that are producing senses of belonging, but also feelings of inclusion and exclusion (Ibid.).

Blokland states that the sense of belonging is not simply a feeling: it includes social practices and performances, and incorporates performativity. When you think about the cohousing projects, these social practices and performances put an emphasis on the shared spaces and organized group activities. Ruiu (2016, p. 404) argues that cohousing projects produce a bonding social capital, mainly by creating supportive networks within the cohousing community. It is highlighted that participation in, for example, decision-making processes and self-management systems within the cohousing projects are promoting social interaction within the groups, and thus in creating a sense of belonging through community-shaping practices (Ibid.). Bakker et al. (2016) have researched these asylum practices and cohousing projects and connected this to the creation of social inclusion or exclusion. Their research and theories provide a basis for a research that combines the focus of cohousing projects and how, or whether a community is being formed. As stated above, sense of community can be created or shaped in different ways through different factors and practices, and could be, like stated in the introduction, considered a ‘thing’ you actively do.

According to McMillan & Chavis (1986, p. 9), there are four criteria for a definition and theory of sense of community: membership; influence; integration and fulfillment of needs; and shared emotional connection. Membership includes the sense of belonging, or sharing a sense of personal relatedness, which includes feeling like you are a part of, a member of, and has a right to belong somewhere. The second criterion, influence, includes the feeling of making a difference to a group and mattering to its members, and thus a process of consensual validation. Third, the element of integration and fulfillment of needs is essential, and practically mere reinforcement: it’s about the feeling that the members’ needs will be met through being a member of the group. The last criterion is shared emotional connection: to be

(12)

able to identify and commit to sharing, or will share, history, common places and similar experiences (Ibid.). These four elements of sense of community, and more specific about senses of belonging, seem to be essential when one talks about “building a community”, like is done in the cohousing projects. Through creating the self-management teams, shared spaces, rules, activities and events the notion of membership within the project becomes an important element: neighbors care for each other, and involve each other as much as possible. Another notion of senses of belonging, includes the work of Duyvendak (2011), where it is expounded what makes people feel at home, or not at home, in their own country and why home is considered a haven or heaven. There are three different notions of feeling at home. Firstly, there is the concept of ‘familiarity, which includes one of the most basic feelings of feeling at home: ‘knowing the place’ (Ibid.). Secondly, there is the notion of ‘haven’, where the feeling of home is considered safe and comfortable, specifically in the privacy of your own home, where one can feel relaxed and be intimate (Ibid.). Thirdly, Duyvendak (2011, p. 38) expounds the notion of ‘heaven’: this includes the feeling at home where one can publicly feel free and independent, and where home embodies shared histories. When talking about feeling at home, a different sense of belonging that always seems to play an evident and important part when people discuss where they live, answers seem to fit in one (or more) of these three notions. This has also been one of the main subjects of the interviews: what has contributes to the senses of belonging, your feeling at home at the projects, and how?

2.5 Conclusion of theory

In summary, there are multiple themes and topics that need to be considered when researching the community building processes and senses of belonging among residents of cohousing projects. It is important to note that the definitions of ‘community’ and ‘senses of belonging’ are widely debated, as is argued by many, as previously stated. The theories about ‘social mixing’ and how it might be implemented on a smaller scale concerning cohousing projects, will prove to gain more insight in the analysis regarding the policy makers and coordinators involved. Furthermore, the additional literature about cohousing and their fundamental characteristics will serve as comparison material for the cohousing projects that are being analyzed. The theories about the culturalization of citizenship, and the debates about integration, are relevant for both the analysis of policy makers and the analysis of the lived experiences of residents. The question there is, are these projects reinforcing the culturalization of citizenship, and if so, how? Additionally, what are the experiences and

(13)

opinions of the residents of the cohousing projects: do they feel like it is being enforced, are there too many “feeling rules” for statushouders and, if so, what consequences do they experience? Lastly, since the definition of a community differs for many and as such, it is important to analyze the definition of community in the eyes of respondents, combined with the underlying theories expounded above.

(14)

3. Methodology

3.1 Operationalization of research questions

3.1.1 Cohousing

As stated in the theoretical framework section, there are six fundamental characteristics of cohousing (Lietaert, 2010). Firstly, there is the element of the participatory process, where cohousing residents manage the process. As will be discussed in depth in the analysis chapters, this comes about in different forms within different cohousing projects. What is most important to note is that there is a slight difference between Lietaert’s (2010) characteristics and the cohousing projects discussed: in the cohousing projects in Amsterdam, the residents don’t ‘manage the whole process from scratch’. However, they do manage the process once the project is up and running, and as I’ve been told, in future projects the

gangmakers, group managers, will be chosen before the selection of other residents begins,

and they will thus be involved in the project before it is open for other residents. Secondly, the characteristic of an intentional neighborhood and cohousing design involves decisions like where they are going to build the project and what it’s surroundings are going to be, like green zones (Ibid.). This characteristic has an important influence on the possibility of community building, and has proven to be an important factor for the existing cohousing projects in Amsterdam as well. The locations of nearly all cohousing projects in Amsterdam are not in the city center, but still within the ring road of Amsterdam with good connection to the public transport. This has multiple reasons and advantages, to name a few: it is not in the crowded city center and thus the size of the project depends less on physical space; there is room for shared spaces like gardens and clubhouses; the costs of the project are lower. Third, a fundamental characteristic is the common facilities (Ibid.), where (organized) activities can take place. Since the ideal of cohousing is to create some form of social cohesion among its residents, whether it includes community building or not, these shared spaces have proven to be very important. It includes spaces like common rooms, gardens, laundry rooms and clubhouses: all the spaces where the residents can (intentionally) meet. A resident management (Ibid.), or - in the case of the cohousing projects at hand - self-management, is the fourth characteristic. It is important that there is some sort of democratic system at place, where every resident has the opportunity to voice his or her opinion and ideas and has the feeling that it’s valued (Ibid.). This also implies that there are regular meetings, where residents discuss the state of affairs and are able to refer back to the necessary corporations if

(15)

they feel the need. This corresponds with the fifth characteristic, which is the absence of hierarchy (Ibid.). Even though there is a self-management at place, the residents acknowledge them and there is no sense of “higher ranking”. Finally, the last characteristic is the separation of incomes (Ibid.), which refers to the fact that it is not a commune, and every resident has to earn his or her own income. As will become clear in the analysis chapter, some of the group managers in current or future residents do receive some sort of volunteers’ fee, but this is not substantial nor their main income.

3.1.2 Community and senses of belonging

The conception of community, and what it entails, is very widespread in literature, as emphasized by Blokland (2017). As stated in the theoretical framework, there are four criteria for a definition and theory of sense of community, and sense of belonging, according to McMillan and Chavis (1986). During this research, these four criteria have been the central thread when defining and questioning the existence of a sense of community at the cohousing projects that have been the subject of this research. The first element is ‘membership’, which ‘is a feeling that one has invested part of oneself to become a member and therefore has a right to belong’ (Ibid.). Relating this to the analyzed cohousing projects and their sense of community, it becomes clear that it is not about the mere existence of the project and the selection procedure they had to endure to be able to live there. In this case, being a member of the community includes feelings of belonging to the specific groups within the project, boundaries, and potential processes of inclusion or exclusion. The second criterion, ‘influence’, is twofold: it concerns the influence of a member on the group, but simultaneously entails that the group is influencing its members (Ibid.). As stated in the theoretical framework, it thus includes a process of consensual validation: a feeling of being able to make a difference to a group and mattering to its members. This can specifically be related to the role of the self- and social management teams, the supervisors and group managers at the cohousing projects. It is related to the absence of hierarchy, as discussed above, and given much value by both policy makers and residents of cohousing projects. Third, there is the element of ‘integration and fulfillment of needs’, which is translated to reinforcement (Ibid.). Of course, in this research, there is an important notion of “actual” integration of the residence permit holders, but this is not to be misunderstood with the meaning of ‘integration and fulfillment of needs’. Relating it to a community and a group, it is a ‘motivator of behavior’ (Ibid.), rewarding, and what potentially binds people together. One

(16)

of the most important elements for this criterion is the presence of shared values within a group. Seen as the residents of the cohousing projects are a mix of Dutch youth and

statushouders, there are many different (cultural) backgrounds that dominate the question of

whether this criterion is being fulfilled. The last element that McMillan and Chavis discuss is ‘shared emotional connection’, which is based on shared, or will share, history and to be able to identify with one another. The organized activities and events within the projects facilitate this shared emotional connection, and could potentially strengthen the community building process. All these criteria will be related to the question whether there is a process of ‘community building’ within the projects, and how much the residents themselves are involved, in the analysis chapter. Furthermore, to conceptualize the notion of ‘senses of belonging’, the definitions of ‘home’ as given by Duyvendak (2011) have been explained to the respondents, and asked whether they could relate to any of them.

3.2 Methods

Seen as the main focus of this research is about the personal experiences and views of residents, organizers and policy makers of cohousing projects in Amsterdam, the decision has been made to use qualitative research methods. To gain more insight in the way that these projects operate, and how it is perceived by it’s residents, semi-structured interviews have been conducted, for which the general questionnaire can be found in the appendix. Besides semi-structured interviews, a discourse analysis has been done of websites, project plans and other reports.

3.2.1 Interviews

The semi-structured, in depth interviews have been conducted over the months of April, May and June, and have mostly taken place at either the workplace of the respondent or their house. All of the interviews were taped, after which I transcribed them, coded them and translated the parts that were used in this thesis to English. There have been a total of eleven respondents, four of which are involved in cohousing projects with regard to the planning or improvement of (future) projects, or employed at the Municipality of Amsterdam. Seven of the respondents are residents of cohousing projects: respectively three respondents, two of which statushouders, that live at the NDSM-Werf, and four that live at Startblok Riekerhaven. The aim of the interviews have been to research the role of cohousing projects in community

(17)

shaping processes, combined with the role that these cohousing projects play in the integration processes, from the point of view of the residents. The main goal has not been to focus on the specific definitions of integration, but how integration is experienced by residents of these projects. Furthermore, the focus is on how the residents experience the cohousing projects, how they experience senses of belonging and to discover whether or how they perceive a sense of community. In these in-depth interviews I have focused on their individual perception of these projects, their motivation for living in a cohousing project, what they consider a community and how they contribute to it, and how they experience senses of belonging. Furthermore, the arguments of Ruiu (2015) have been valuable, concerning the interviews with the policy makers of these projects: what were the ideals behind these cohousing projects, and how are they being achieved? This gained more insight in the reasoning behind these projects, like the specific placement of shared spaces and intentional planning of activities and events, and to have more detailed knowledge about processes that precede the selection procedures of these projects.

The respondents that have been involved in the semi-structured interviews have been collected through snowball sampling: one contact gave me e-mail addresses and phone numbers of others, through which I gained more contacts down the line. The focus has mainly been on the experiences of the youth living at the cohousing projects, aged between 20 and 25. There has not been a selection of male or female, since the respondents were difficult to find and gender wasn’t assumed to be a distinctive variable. Furthermore, for the interviews with coordinators and policy makers involved behind the screens of the projects, the focus has mainly been on their position and activities in relation to the projects. This resulted in two respondents that were involved in active planning of (future) cohousing projects, one respondent that has been involved with coaching intercultural communication within a project, and one respondent that is involved in housing vulnerable groups in the Municipality of Amsterdam.

3.2.2 Discourse analysis

In addition to interviews, a discourse analysis has been done, to gain more insight in the processes that delineate the objectives of cohousing projects. Analysis of websites, previously done research and reports have been proven extremely helpful in researching the underlying objectives, and in understanding how and why one cohousing project differs from another. Furthermore, the discourse analysis has given explicit insight in the selection procedure that

(18)

takes place in these cohousing projects, including the decision making process of who is given the opportunity to live there, and the reasoning behind it. The discourse analysis has also proven to create some contrasts between the objectives of the project and the actual lived experiences of residents, as will be shown in the analysis section.

3.3 Limitations

One of the biggest limitations of this research has been the difficulty of gaining access to the research field. It became apparent that most of the cohousing projects did not want to be involved in yet another research project of a student, seen as they already get many research requests. This also became very clear when speaking to the residents: many indicated that they’ve participated in many interviews concerning the cohousing projects. This limitation has caused delay in the research process, and has changed the strategy and approach of this research. Since the group that has eventually been interviewed is quite small, at least to generate conclusions from to bigger populations or other cohousing projects, the goal is exploratory and to give indications for future research. Additionally, it is important to consider that every cohousing project is different and that especially experiences are always subjective. As a result, I focused more on the policy makers and professionals involved in the projects, to analyze their visions about the cohousing projects, how they build and reflect on them and what is necessary to create a successful project. Furthermore, it will be a start in gaining more insight in the experiences of residents within these projects, which could help adjust policies for future cohousing projects. As Jarvis (2011) has emphasized, the lived experiences of cohousing has remained undertheorized.

Another limitation has been the translation process of the interviews. All the interviews have been conducted in Dutch, which means that they have been translated to English for the purpose of this thesis. Even though this has been done in an as objective manner possible, this could still cause some discrepancies. When considering the language discrepancies, the interviews with the statushouders should also be taken into account: both interviewees are still in the process of learning Dutch, and did not want to, or could, speak English. This made the interview process somewhat difficult at times, and some questions and answers difficult to interpret.

(19)

4. Analysis: the making of mixed cohousing projects

In 2015, the Dutch government had to provide accommodation for approximately 43.000 residence permit holders, also called statushouders, which were scattered in different asylum seekers’ centers throughout the Netherlands (van der Velden, Tiggeloven, & Gelinck, 2017). One of the initiatives that came up are so called ‘magic mix’ housing projects, for which the municipalities work together with local housing corporations, to find temporary cohousing accommodation for specific groups. Two of the most dominant corporations in Amsterdam that facilitate these cohousing projects with residence permit holders are Socius and De Key4. As stated in the introduction main research subject of this thesis are cohousing projects where residence permit holders are mixed with Dutch youth. In this chapter, I will address the first sub-question: ‘How are the cohousing projects designed as community spaces by the different

stakeholders?’. First, an analysis of the ‘Magic Mix’ will be given, followed by an in-depth

analysis of the policies of the Amsterdam municipality. Furthermore, an analysis will be given based on the interviews held with respondents involved in the projects professionally, the selection processes and other decision-making processes and it will conclude with a short discourse analysis of documents, websites and interview material of the specific projects:

Startblok Riekerhaven and NDSM-Werf.

4.1 The ‘Magic Mix’

‘Magic mix’ housing projects seem to be a new and upcoming initiative, starting from 2015, but that couldn’t be further from the truth: the first ‘magic mix’ project started in the nineties, called the ‘Short Stay Facility’ in Dordrecht (van der Velden, Tiggeloven, & Gelinck, 2017). All the interviewees seemed to have this “insider term”, as interviewee no. 1 and 4 called it, referring to the mix of residents that are in the cohousing projects as the ‘magic mix’. Projects where ‘magic mixes’ are involved, mean that they are a mixed cohousing project, combining vulnerable and newcomer groups, outsiders, with insiders: people that have experience in the concerning city and housing market (Ibid.). There are 11 types of different groups that qualify for the ‘magic mix’, hence the umbrella term: students, expats, starters, people in the process of a divorce, EU economic migrants, residence permit holders, ex-home and roofless persons, mental welfare clients, people that are mentally impaired, ex-detainees

4_{Socius is a management corporation, that is hired by housing corporations. These were the two corporations}

that were mentioned most often in the interviews, of course, there are other corporations involved as mentioned, e.g. Stadgenoot, Academie van de Stad, Rochdale and DUWO.

(20)

and elderly (Ibid.). According to Platform31 (Hinssen, 2018), a knowledge and network organization that funded the research concerning the ‘magic mix’ cohousing projects the need to find accommodation for large groups of refugees and residence permit holders is causing a lot of debates and discussions, which is one of the reasons why these groups are now a priority and are thus housed in temporary or permanent new uses of buildings (van der Velden, Tiggeloven, & Gelinck, 2017)

One of the first large scale projects implementing the cohousing ‘magic mix’ of residence permit holders with Dutch students is Startblok Riekerhaven, which is also analyzed in depth in the ‘The Magic mix – the update’ report (Ibid.). In this report they concluded that the people that sign up for ‘magic mix’ projects, are presumably mainly interested in these projects because they are desperate for accommodation and don’t have a lot of demands. It thus seems to be the case that living in a cohousing project is not necessarily a specific desire, but more a case of “accepting what’s necessary”, and viewing these projects as advantageous only comes when people have been living in the project for quite some time (Ibid., p. 19). In the specific case of Startblok Riekerhaven, which will be further discussed later in this chapter, the residence permit holders are assigned by the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA), whilst the Dutch students or starters are carefully selected through a selection procedure. In this report, they compare four ‘magic mix’ projects, including De

Studio and Startblok Riekerhaven. De Studio is a cohousing project where they implemented a

‘magic mix’ strategy in the second phase of the project: in the south wing of the building they accommodated students, starters and residence permit holders in a clustered manner, housing the specific groups over two floors in the building. According to this report, these two projects contrast sharply with each other. Besides one of the biggest differences being the way that they assign studio apartments, in the case of Startblok Riekerhaven residence permit holders live alternately next to a Dutch student or starter, whilst in the case of De Studio they live clustered on different floors.

The main goals of the projects differ greatly as well. As becomes clear in the report,

De Studio has a main goal of ‘temporary housing with preservation of the waiting list

[concerning social housing]’, whilst the goal of Startblok Riekerhaven is ‘temporary housing with integration and community building’ (Ibid., p. 64). According to this report, ‘selection at the gate’ is necessary if you want the cohousing project to “succeed”: someone needs to want and be able to live in a cohousing project, which emphasizes a certain selection procedure, done by either the municipality or corporation that coordinates the project.

(21)

4.2 The policy of the Amsterdam Municipality and selection procedures

As stated above, the selection procedure for cohousing projects, concerning residence permit holders greatly differs from the selection procedure concerning Dutch youth. In these projects there are two universal requirements: both groups have the same age bracket, in the case of

Startblok Riekerhaven and NDSM-werf between 18 and 27 years old, and there are no

practicing criminals and addicts allowed (van der Velden, Tiggeloven & Gelinck, 2017). One of the respondents, interviewee no. 2, works within the department of housing vulnerable groups at the Municipality of Amsterdam, and explained the procedure of assigning accommodation to residence permit holders. Firstly, the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) decides how to divide and spread the refugees over different municipalities, once they will become residence permit holders and can get out of the asylum seekers’ center. The assignment of accommodation to a residence permit holder is primarily based on the date that they arrived in the asylum seekers’ center. When it is decided that they will go to Amsterdam, the municipality, and especially the department of housing vulnerable groups, looks at the needs of the refugees and most of them go into the regular system of accommodation through housing associations. However, when a refugee is between the ages of 18 and 23, thus having a very low income as an allowance and won’t be eligible for high rent subsidies, they will be placed in cohousing projects (interviewee no. 2). When asked about the procedure of assigning accommodation to the younger residence permit holders, and what it entails, the following became clear:

Interviewer: At the moment you assign accommodation in a cohousing project, is there another process, like do you talk to them face to face and ask whether they are willing to live there? Because I’ve heard that in the case of Startblok Riekerhaven, the residence permit holders didn’t know that they were going to live there.

Interviewee no. 2: No, that’s true, and that actually goes for most of the projects. Look, we assign accommodation from the municipality, and at the moment that we have the file complete, so that we have everything we need to mediate, so bank account number, social security number, you name it, everything. So when we say ok, you really have everything to be able to sign a rental agreement and get an allowance, then you get a one-time offer. This goes for youth and families. So we assign, we decide what someone gets. […]

(22)

However, even though the residence permit holders don’t really have a choice in the matter, they do keep certain things in account, for example if they have relatives living in a certain neighborhood they will find accommodation in the vicinity, or when they have grounded reasons for a specific preferred neighborhood, the Municipality of Amsterdam will comply with the requests (interviewee no. 2). In the case of these specific cohousing projects with statushouders and Dutch youth, the municipality also tries to comply with the need of diversity within a project: they try to make sure that the group of residence permit holders is a mix of different nationalities, to avoid the clustering of specific groups. Besides providing accommodation the Municipality of Amsterdam also makes sure that the statushouders are registered at the address, get a semi-furnished apartment, have a loan at the bank so that they will have some pocket money, and start the applications of health care and housing allowance (interviewee no. 2). Furthermore they get a client manager at the Work and Income department (WPI) and Vluchtelingenwerk, refugee aid, who ensure that they get social guidance and start the naturalization process.

4.3 Reflections by involved professionals and future projects

At the moment there are about six large scale cohousing projects, accommodating the ‘magic mix’ of residence permit holders and Dutch youth, up and running in Amsterdam, and there are three more planned for the fall of 2018 (interviewee no. 4). Even though, as interviewee no. 2 emphasized, there are not enough refugees to actually accommodate at the moment, there are still new projects coming up. The plan is then, to re-accommodate the refugees that are in, for example, NDSM-Werf, to one of the newer projects since those apartments need to be empty by the end of 2019. Re-assigning residents of older projects, more specifically the residence permit holders, seems to be beneficial in two ways. Firstly, the residence permit holders that are still not old enough to be able to get an affordable apartment on their own, will be assigned to a new project and thus still be able to live relatively cheap. Secondly, the residence permit holders that transfer from an old to a new project, will thus have more experience with them and might be more inclined and able to motivate and help others (interviewee no. 4).

One of the strategy advisors of an upcoming cohousing project in Amsterdam spoke about the process of setting up a new project, and everything that comes with it. One of the most important changes that they are trying to implement with this project is a more detailed selection procedure, to keep the “active neighbor duty” rate as high as possible.

(23)

Interviewer: So you are really going to, during the selection process have face-to-face conversations with possible residents

Interviewee no. 1: yes so that, sort of, first we’re going to deliver it digitally and then we’re going to, eh, we’re going to invite 500 people, 1000 that respond, and we only need, eh, 125. So that needs to be filtered out somewhere. And from that there will be 125 or 250 that we invite again, to hear the whole story. And then eh, a sort of speed date, with another time again. […] At least I want to be able to look everyone in their eyes to see, of course we know this from Riekerhaven, where they selected very intensively, but in the end the people that are actually active, maybe 100 or 75, 100.

Even though this seems like an unfeasible amount of people to interview as part of a selection procedure, even residents at Startblok Riekerhaven (interviewee no. 7 & 8) emphasized that these types of procedures might be a good strategy in getting more of the “right” people to live there. As stated above, the residence permit holders don’t participate in a selection procedure: they get one offer and the Municipality of Amsterdam decides and assigns the accommodation for them. However, interviewee no. 1 emphasized the desire to fully inform the statushouders about where they are going to live, to avoid disappointment that they are not living in a regular housing situation. This desire is also stated clearly in the management plan for the upcoming cohousing project that he is involved in, where they state that they want to inform the Municipality of Amsterdam about the main principles of the project, so that they can make a more informed decision with regards to who they are going to place in the project (Stadgenoot, 2018). To make sure that the Dutch residents are motivated to live in the specific projects, online questionnaires are provided as part of the selection procedure. In the cases of the recent cohousing projects, like Karmijn and Stek Oost, the focus of these questionnaires is on what the intentions are of the future residents when it comes to building a community, organizing events and social involvement (personal experience; Stadgenoot, 2018). In the case of Stek Oost, a tenant has to sign a declaration of intent, which states that you are willing to spend at least one hour per week ‘in the community’:

‘If you are one of the tenants, we expect you to spend at least 1 hour of your time per week in

the community. For example you can start a sport group, provide cooking classes or organize a writing class to help the statushouders learn Dutch. In addition you will be connected to

(24)

your neighbour in your hallway to help him or her with practical issues’ (Woningcorporatie

Stadgenoot, 2018).

Furthermore, the “community-builders” in Stek Oost, who are part of the self-management team and oversee the organization of activities among other things, will get a small volunteers’ fee (interviewee no. 1) and interviewee no. 4 spoke about small rewards when taking a neighbor to a supermarket. This example, and the selection procedures in general, show that there is still a certain degree of a top-down approach, obviously meant in a stimulating matter, to achieve the main goal of building a community together and create a ‘save and sound environment’ (Woningcorporatie Stadgenoot, 2018). With the anticipated, and somewhat pressured, input of the Dutch residents in these cohousing projects it could be related to the ‘social mixing’ policies of the Dutch government (Uitermark, 2003) in general: the support of the Dutch tenants is expected to “lift up” and help integrate the residence permit holders.

One of the subjects that all respondents agreed on is the importance of shared spaces and the necessity of organization of the right types of events. This is also emphasized by Ruiu (2016), who states that the physical design in cohousing projects facilitates social interaction, and together with a democratic decision-making process, e.g. a self-management system, are the cornerstones of a community building project. When one compares the two projects

Startblok Riekerhaven and NDSM-Werf, with regard to the shared spaces, there is already a

substantial difference: one has several shared spaces, whilst the latter has only one. As far as the future projects go, two of the interviewees that are both involved in developing two separate future projects, defer greatly in the ideas of the utility of a common room per hallway. Both interviewer no. 1 and 4 are involved in new cohousing projects with residence permit holders and Dutch youth in Amsterdam, and as such, were doing more research about what works and what doesn’t work in the current projects, with Startblok Riekerhaven as their main example. Interviewee no. 1 stated that he learned from the experience from Startblok

Riekerhaven that the common rooms aren’t always used as a meeting place and are often a

mess, so they decided against having a common room per hallway in the future project. However, interviewee no. 4 stated that they are following along the same lines as Startblok

Riekerhaven, including common rooms per hallway and one big shared space (clubhouse) that

could be used by all residents in the project. Besides the specific desired purposes of shared spaces, the location also seems to be an important factor in whether or not it promotes social interaction between the residents (Ruiu, 2016; Evans, 2009).

(25)

4.4 Startblok Riekerhaven and selection procedures

Figure 1: Startblok Riekerhaven. Source: startblokriekerhaven.nl

Startblok Riekerhaven is the first cohousing project that was set up in Amsterdam in

July 2016, after the executive board of the Municipality of Amsterdam decided in September 2015 to transform former sports park Riekerhaven into housing facilities (Riekerhaven, 2018). There are 565 units, which exist out of 463 studios and 102 rooms (Ibid.). One of the most important and particular initiatives concerning the placement of the Dutch students and refugees, is that they specifically “place” them alternately, so a Dutch person has two refugees as neighbors. The main purpose of positioning residents within the project in this way is to avoid clustering of, for example, Dutch students, and to encourage interaction between the neighbors (interviewee no. 1). There are 7 “blocks” in total, all of which have two or three floors, and each floor has it’s own hallway. A hallway can either be divided in 17 or 30 adjacent apartments, and they all have two so-called group managers who are part of a social management team, which will be discussed in the next chapter.

As discussed in the beginning of this chapter, Startblok Riekerhaven was the first cohousing project that mixed refugees with a residence permit and Dutch students or starters. As interviewee no. 2, who works within the department of housing vulnerable groups at the Municipality of Amsterdam, stated, it is somewhat difficult to place the young refugees in Amsterdam.

(26)

Interviewee no. 2: Because we kept getting more adolescent refugees, we started these projects. That is something within the municipality, let’s say, in collaboration with corporations. So because these youngsters were very difficult to house in the regular circuit, because they are between 18 and 23 years old. So they don’t have a lot of income, as benefits, but they can’t get a lot of housing benefits, so they can only rent very cheap. And that was very difficult, so we couldn’t really house them anywhere, since there are just very few small, affordable houses in the city to place this group. That’s when the projects started, eh, since there wasn’t a lot for Amsterdam youth either, eh, they go through a lot of trouble trying to find a room or student flat, so they thought lets combine those things. One of the first things was for example Riekerhaven, in Amsterdam West, eh, there we thought lets just build a sort of trailer park thing, affordable cheap housing […]

After the success of Startblok Riekerhaven, as emphasized by interviewee no. 2, the Municipality of Amsterdam decided to build more: there are now around six projects in Amsterdam that cohouse Dutch and refugee youth, and three others will start in the fall of 2018. There are different types of selection processes for the two groups before they can live at Startblok Riekerhaven. As stated before, interviewee no. 2 and many others, emphasized that there is not really a selection procedure for the refugees: there is a list of names, based on the order of how long they have stayed in the asylum seekers’ center, and they get a house appointed to them which they cannot refuse. It is merely a formality: if a refugee would turn down the offer, they would have to leave the asylum seekers’ center within two weeks. This selection process, or lack there of, also results in a discrepancy between the expectations of the refugees that are being housed in cohousing projects, and what others expect of them in the project. As is shown in the documentary The Boys next door (2017), the refugees expected to be living in “normal houses” and this [Startblok Riekerhaven] reminded them of the asylum seekers’ center that they were placed in when they got here. In contrast to the refugees, the Dutch residents do have a selection procedure to go through to get to live in Startblok

Riekerhaven. Firstly, they have to be registered with ‘woningnet’, a website where one can

find social housing, and apply for the project, after which the 40 applications that have the highest rank on the waiting list will be invited to an information meeting. After that, they are asked to write a motivation letter and fill in an online questionnaire, in which they expound their personal reasons for wanting to live in this specific project. However, when the

(27)

respondents that were living at Startblok Riekerhaven were asked about the selection process, they emphasized that they felt that there was no real selection procedure and it might even be too “easy” to get in, which, according to them, might be one of the reasons why a big part of the tenants are not participating in organized activities (interviewee no. 6, 7 & 8).

As stated in the theoretical framework section, the focus of Startblok Riekerhaven is about ‘building a future together’ (Riekerhaven, 2018) with an emphasis on community building (van der Velden, Tiggeloven & Gelinck, 2017). This has many consequences: it influences the selection procedures and the way that the studio apartments are built, but it also influences the organization and management of the project. In the specific case of Startblok

Riekerhaven some parts of the organization seems to be a top-down strategy: there is one

project coordinator that assigns the rest of the management teams, which will be further discussed in the next chapter. These social and general management teams themselves are the most influential when it comes to building a community, organizing events or fixing problems (Ruiu, 2016). However, there is a very top-down approach towards the residence permit holders that live in these cohousing projects in general, as interviewee no. 3, who was involved in Startblok Riekerhaven as intercultural communication consultant, emphasizes in the following:

‘Eh, and the whole top-down approach, it is a thing. It’s also sort of a reoccurring theme concerning residence permit holders that they, because there is a lot, they’re forced to do a lot. They need to learn Dutch, while some of them think I, I just saved my life, and I’m really busy with what’s happening in Syria, Eritrea, I just don’t have the space in my mind to learn that language. Saying you have to, you have to, you have to naturalize, there is a lot of having to. And there’s also, eh, they also have a lot of experience with the clientmanager, they were pushed by the clientmanager. So I think that it’s more of a general approach. If eh, if it’s less, if the whole approach would be less top-down, and would have better preparation, then I think it will work better.’

Analyzing the website of Startblok Riekerhaven, it has become clear that there were several intercultural communication consultants, who are trying to give advice and create a more bottom-up approach, through for example the ‘ten tips for living together’. Here, you can find tips about being aware of cultural differences and creating feelings of exclusion and how some things and beliefs are taken for granted, that might need to be discussed. These tips and

(28)

strategies seem to contradict the culturalization and emotionalization of citizenship that Slootman and Duyvendak (2015) argue.

‘All the residents have their own life stories, experiences and cultural backgrounds. At

Startblok, we see this diversity as a unique opportunity for personal development. We can all learn from each other’s view of the world, customs and ways of communicating.’

(Riekerhaven, 2018).

As this citation at the intercultural communication section reads, the emphasis within the project seems to be on quite the opposite than the necessity of “feeling Dutch” (Ibid.), and promotes rather different “feeling rules” than those that might be promoted in general in the Dutch society.

4.5 NDSM-Werf and selection procedures

Figure 2: NDSM-Werf. Source: rochdale.nl

The studio apartments in Amsterdam North, NDSM-Werf, used to be a specific student housing project for students in Amsterdam. However, in 2016 the Municipality of Amsterdam, together with Academie van de stad and Rochdale, decided to house refugees with a residence permit there as well. There are about 378 housing opportunities on the