2
3 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Yannis Tzaninis for guiding and supporting me during the research process and the realization of this master thesis. I am also grateful for the open attitude of all the respondents and the effort they took to inform me about their everyday life.
4
Abstract
This thesis explores the social effects of self-building as alternative mode of urban production in an inner-city neighbourhood in Amsterdam, a city where the urban landscape is predominantly conceived through a top-down approach either by the municipality, housing associations or private developers. Buiksloterham is an outdated industrial area currently being developed into a mixed urban neighbourhood of working and living, situated in gentrifying Amsterdam-North and surrounded by working class neighbourhoods. Individual and collective forms of self-building transform the ‘polluted’ urban space into a sustainable living environment. I argue that self-building in Buiksloterham is generally positively experienced among its practitioners, results in strong internal social benefits for the community but simultaneously creates a sharp social division between the self-builders and the native residents.
Space, in this research, is seen as social space that is produced by individuals and consists of multiple dimensions, lived experiences and spatial practices. Lefebvre’s (1991) production-of-space theory will be projected on Buiksloterham and used as a tool to decipher the multi-layeredness of that socially produced space. A qualitative research approach has been chosen - which includes interviews with residents and the municipality of Amsterdam -, literature reviews and personal observations, to provide for an in-depth understanding of the situation in Buiksloterham. The objective was to create insight into the everyday life in the neighbourhood, the lived experiences of the residents and the social factors of the self-build practice.
The results of this research present themselves in a dualistic manner. Self-building as a mean for city making creates abundant internal social benefits for the neighbourhood and its inhabitants. Social contact is easily initiated during the building process and leads to a tight sense of community with close social ties and a strong internal cohesion. In the case of Buiksloterham, the self-build practice has attracted city dwellers with similar household compositions that are living the combined lifestyle of a suburbanite and a young urban professional parents (Karen, 2003). This produces a homogeneous and clear distinct group which separates itself from the urban context. A sharp social division between the lower-class native residents and the new prosperous residents arises, contributing to the overall gentrification processes in Amsterdam-North, an inverted suburbanization in the city and a closed urban system. Therefore, the external social effects of self-building can be seen as less fortunate.
5 Tables of Content 1. Introduction 6 2. Theoretical Framework 8 2.1 The Scientific Debate on Self-Building 8 2.2 The Production of Space: A Multi-layered Tool 11 2.3 Self-Build in the Context of the Netherlands 14 2.4 ‘Brownfield’ Buiksloterham as Case Study 15 3. Research Question and Methodology 16 3.1 Research Questions 17 3.2 Methodology 17 4. Buiksloterham in Context 10 5. Results 24 5.1 Social Background: Who are the Producers 24 5.2 The Act of Self-Building 27 5.3 An inner-city Suburban Lifestyle 37 5.4 An Internal Sense of Community 40 5.5 Division ‘Oud Noord’ and Buiksloterham 43 6. Conclusion and Discussion 49 Appendix 58
6
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
“What’s happening to cities today is that cities become closed systems and as a result, we are losing not only freedom but also our experiences [which] are being flattened out and tantalised ... [We] are becoming much more one-dimensional.”
- Richard Sennett, 2016 Taking the ferry from Amsterdam Central Station to the cultural hotspot NDSM-werf in Amsterdam-North, one can easily spot the urban development projects on the banks of the IJ-canal, some already finished and some still in progress. A mixture of construction cranes, architectural landmarks and expensive apartments dominate the urban scenery where the buildings prominently present themselves to the eye of the observer. With the transformation of the northern IJ-banks, the municipality of Amsterdam pursues its planning ambitions of expanding its city centre by restructuring the areas adjacent to the IJ-canal into a “mixed-use urban zone with clear orientation towards Amsterdam” (Dembski, 2013). Most of these redevelopment projects, such as the Oostelijke Eilanden and Overhoeks, are hereby realized through a top-down approach where powerful actors, as the municipality, housing associations or major private developers, have the biggest control over the urban landscape (Savini & Dembski, 2016; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014).
Space in the city is considered contested, as a place where a variety of ideologies and visions collide (Harvey, 2003; Uitermark, Nicholls & Loopmans, 2012). The academic debate of the discrepancy between the planned and lived space, the physical built environment and the everyday experiences, is hereby of contemporary concern (Lefebvre, 1991; Madden, 2014). Given the recently passed demographic milestone of the occasion that more than half of the world’s population now lives in an urban environment (UN-Habitat, 2014), it is urgent that knowledge is acquired about this discrepancy because our future will be predominantly rested in cities. Many old and contemporary respected scholars such as Richard Sennett are calling out the increasing individualism, evaporation of close social connections and the creating of closed systems in the urban environment (Sennett, 2013/2016; Lupi & Musterd, 2006; Wirth, 1969; Tönnies, 1887). The complex task remains of how the city can be opened up to its
7
inhabitants as a place where the built environment is shaped according to its users’ needs and opportunities for social connections are stimulated.
The solution to this urban problem seems obvious. The built environment in the Netherlands is now generally written in the language of professionals, by planners and politicians, reflecting their ideologies of how a city should be organized and thereby neglecting the input of the eventual users of that space. This master thesis will explore the social effects and the individual experiences of self-building, a mode of urban production where city dwellers construct their own house and their own living environment. Buiksloterham, an inner city industrial site located adjacent to the IJ-canal in Amsterdam-North, is being transformed into a mixed urban neighbourhood of working and living by individual and collective initiatives based on self-building (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015). The (future) inhabitants play hereby the leading role in the change of the city landscape. In the context of the current developments on the IJ-banks, Buiksloterham contradicts the Dutch ‘traditional’ way of urban planning through the empowerment and engagement of the (future) residents in the transformation of the area. Although the urban environment is normally a pre-fabricated output in Amsterdam, this neighbourhood can therefore be considered unique for the separation from its surrounding top-down urban transformation projects and its different approach to city making in the Netherlands.
Researching Buiksloterham as self-built neighbourhood will be beneficial in regards to the question if the residents create an open urban environment and experience their own produced space, including the wider neighbourhood, in an intimate and positive manner that bridges the gap between the planned and lived space. In addition, given its location adjacent to the IJ-canal, Buiksloterham as case study can be a leading example for a known international challenge as well: transforming former inner city industrial areas into sustainable living-working environments due to the rise of the knowledge-economy and our increasing desire to live in close proximity of the city centre. This study will therefore focus on self-building as social concept for producing urban space in the Dutch society and what it effects are on social structures, individual experiences and everyday life. A qualitative research design has been conducted for the research of this urban phenomenon using a triangulation methodology of 11 semi-structured interviews, theoretical concepts, existing literature and personal observations.
8
2. T H E O R E T I C A L C O N T E X T
To explore the social factors of self-building, this study will look at the type of space it produces and its place in the city. Space is hereby seen as social space, produced by its users, composed by significant relationships and made up of a complex of individual meanings towards spatial symbolism that are grounded in a specific environment (Harvey, 1973). The spatial form of the city is a basic determinant for human behaviour, and vice versa, placed in a particular context where each society produces its own fitting type of space (Harvey, 1973; Lefebvre, 1991). Social processes and spatial forms are thus connected in a dialectic relationship with each other. Seeing space as social space is therefore necessary to decipher the social factors of self-building in Buiksloterham.
This chapter is meant to introduce academic concepts that will function as guidance for researching self-building as urban phenomenon and to establish a theoretical background by scrutinizing the current literature. First, in order to gain insight in the presence and effects of the self-build practice in our society, the overall scientific debate on this subject will be described for a deeper understanding of the concept. Second, Lefebvre’s unifying theory of the social production of space will be elaborated which will work as an analytic lens to research the case study Buiksloterham. Third, a brief description of the history and politics of self-building in the Netherlands is stated. Lastly, the theoretical relevance of Buiksloterham will close this chapter. 2.1 The scientific debate of Self-building Building one’s own home isn’t a new urban phenomenon. Just think of the Amsterdamse Grachtengordel, the city centre of Amsterdam built in the 18th century which consists of streets of individual plots adjacent to the canals. With a vast majority of the contemporary literature emphasising the role of self-building in Third World countries as a mean for survival (Bredenoord & Van Lindert, 2010; Ward et al., 2011; Tunas & Peresthu, 2010; Sengupta, 2010), this method of city making is also present in more advanced developed economies as well. As Duncan and Rowe (1993) demonstrate, for many of these predominantly First World countries, including Belgium, France and Germany, it accounted for an extensive slice of the housing supply during the 1980s, especially as a means for supplying owner-occupied housing, which robustly influenced the economics of the housing market and the building industry. A more recent research
9
even addresses self-building as “a maturing form” of urban development that can contribute as a main solution to the housing crisis in the UK (Lloyd et al., 2015). Before heading any further, it is favourable for a clarification what can the practice of self-building entails.
Current literature provides for several terminologies, definitions and indicators what building your own house encompasses. There is a distinction between the use of the terms self-help, self-building and self-provision. The former is used to designate “the action of providing … for oneself without depending on others” and occurs largely in the context of housing the poor (Soliman, 2012, Bredenoord & Van Lindert, 2010; Tunas & Peresthu, 2010; Sengupta, 2010). The latter two are defined as an “economic use of labour power or effort” to realize a certain project without the help of an institutional partnership and is mostly used in an advanced capitalist context (Soliman, 2012; Lloyd et al, 2015; Brown, 2008; Duncan & Rowe, 1993). A second distinction is made between individual self-building and collective self-building where the difference lies in the number of households that participate in the building process (Clapham et al., 1993). Lastly, there are a number of ramifications in terms of who promotes the development, who actually builds the dwelling and who earns the profit (Duncan & Rowe, 1993). Given that our case study is situated in a Western context and in order to provide for a clear and unambiguous image, this research will handle the term ‘self-building’ following Brown’s (2008: 359) overarching definition to address “the act of self-building as the instances where individuals are involved in the conceptualization, design and building of a home through undertaking all or some of the [building] activities, directly or indirectly”, rather than buying a pre-fabricated house on the market.
Self-building opposes the high-volume and mostly uniform modes of production of homes that creates a gap between the ideology of its users, the occupiers, and the physical representation of the language used by professionals. Scholars have revealed the positive effects of self-building on the individual users of that produced space. The practice of self-building establishes a form of democratizing power in the urban environment as well as opportunities for self-expression and creativity, bridging the space between the professional and the consumer (Brown, 2008). This act of consuming differently, i.e., not settling for a pre-fabricated home, creates an enhancement in knowledge and skills, an increase in economic capital due to the saving on labour costs, a higher quality of living and reflects the personality of the builder that results in a deeper
10
meaning given to everyday life (Clapham et al., 1993; Brown, 2008; Duncan & Rowe, 1993). Cox (2016) demonstrates that self-building improves hereby the feeling of ‘homey-ness’ as well as the sense of belonging which enhances the happiness of the resident. On the other hand, the article of Lloyd et al. (2015) demonstrates that the process of self-building generates tensions as well. First of all, it is considered a time-consuming process compared to large-scale development where not only the municipality but also the people should be realising that they will be living in a construction site for several years. Cities with a high housing shortage and where the need for qualitative housing is high, such as Amsterdam or many Asian and African cities, cannot afford to have a break on their urban developments. Second, the authors suggest, on the basis of the self-build estate Homeruskwartier in Almere, that it takes a long time before community well-being and quality is realised. Also, the act of self-building possibly causes mechanisms of social exclusion due to the act of securing finance that will most likely exclude younger groups. Lastly, the effects on the aesthetics of the built environment is contested by architects where they argue that the diverse presence of multiple designs in a self-build neighbourhood may contest the conformity and quality of the city. What needs to be addressed is that these previous assumptions are not backed up by empirical data by its authors and requires further inspection.
As the previous states, the scientific debate on self-build housing is largely confined to the effects on the housing market, the expressive properties it produces for individuals and the diverse types that exist in our society. What is noticeable, and what other authors (Brown, 2008; Clapham et al., 1993; Duncan & Rowe, 1993) also address, is that the supply of literature on the social and economic effects of self-building continues to be relatively slim compared to the amount of influence this mode of housing production has on our urban environment. Sociological research doesn’t appear in the picture at all. One key element that remains underexposed in current research is its impact on social life in the city, i.e., what are the effects of self-building on interaction patterns, social structures, the community and the experiences of the practitioners. Given its increasing popularity in contemporary urban development (Zonneveld, 2015; Lloyd et al, 2015; Borrel, 2015; De Castella, 2011), examining the social and urban consequences cannot be underexposed. For this reason, the purpose of this research is to bring a contemporary sociological understanding of this mode of urban production.
11
2.2 The Production of Space: a multi-layered tool
Space is defined by social actions, created in a specific historical setting and reflects the cultural values and social meanings of that society. If we want to create an understanding of the experiences of that socially produced space, an insight into the relationship between user and space, it is essential to research in what manner this social space is being produced. Lefebvre’s unifying production-of-space theory (1991) offers us a toolset to dissect the multi-layeredness of social space. His ideas are widely discussed among critical scholars due to its theoretical complexity and is held in high regard by the fields of urban planning, geography and social sciences (Goodewardena et al., 2008; Merrifield, 1993; Smith, 2008; Zhang, 2006). This research isn’t destined to unravel all the intricacies and indistinct ambiguities hidden in this theory, but instead takes Lefebvre’s work and uses it to understand the dynamics and mechanisms of space production in an inner city self-build neighbourhood.
“(Social) space is a (social) product” (Lefebvre, 1991: 26). This well-known statement reflects Lefebvre’s understanding of space as not an independent material/physical reality but as a social reality full of social meaning and power relations created by social practices; in other words, it is produced through social mechanisms (Schmid, 2008). A classroom isn’t just a space with four walls, but a space where teachers and students give meaning to through their social practices of learning and lecturing. Space constructs society and society constructs space, which resonates with Lefebvre’s Marxists dialectic thinking character. Each society produces its own type of space embedded in a specific historical context with the corresponding social constellations, social orders and conflicts. This means that space is not universal; instead, it is placed in a specific setting determinative for that specific time (Schmid, 2008). If space then is produced, how is this constituted and how can we decipher its multiple layers?
Lefebvre argues for a unifying theory that bridges several scientific fields and where the everyday life plays a central role (Lefebvre, 1991: 16). In this single theory, the goal is to shift from the things in space to the actual production of space, i.e., to decode, expose and read space, which only can be achieved by thinking through a dialectic and interactive character (Merrifield, 1993). According to Lefebvre (Schmid, 2008), space falls apart into three interacting dimensions. The perceived space is linked to objective forms and materiality, to the physical space that presents itself to the
12
senses. It is perceivable and is part of every social practice and habitual activities (Soja, 1996). Conceived space is the space of knowledge, space as an act of thought and the workings of the mind (Soja, 1996). “Space cannot be perceived… without having been conceived in thought previously” (Schmid, 2008). The final dimension of the production of space is the lived space and refers to the symbolism in space which reflects social meanings and lived experiences. It is the subjective experience of everyday life by people.
The dimensions of the production of space, the perceived-conceived-lived, are translated into a spatial triad where spatial practices, representations of space and representational space are in an interconnected relationship with each other (Schmid, 2008; Merrifield, 2006). These three intertwined ‘moments’ come together as “a conflictual process of creation, as a process of producing” (Merrifield, 1993) and is meant to unravel the complexities of social space. This research considers the spatial triad as follows: • Spatial Practices. Consists of the everyday life in space, the daily routines, social activities, interaction and networks of members of society, and is closely linked to the perceivable or sensible aspects of space. • Representations of Space. Is written in the discourse of planners, social scientists, technocrats and other professionals, currently dominated by authoritative forces (Chevalier, 2015), which is materialized in maps, signs and design ideology. Eventually, this “language” of space, driven by the mind, transforms itself in the built environment.
• Representational Space. Reflects the symbolic dimension, the lived, of space which resembles “something bigger [as a] divine power, a process of signification (Schmid, 2008: 37, 40). It is the lived experience of space by “human beings in the practice of everyday life” charged with feelings, norms and values. It is the space of its users.
Each element of the spatial triad contributes differently to the production of space, according to its own value and the historical context and society its situated in (Merrifield, 1993). Lefebvre was mostly involved in the discrepancy between the representations of space and the representational spaces, where the former gained
13
Figure 1. The spatial triad as producer of social space by three intertwined and intersected modes of production
(Source: Author’s own)
more power over the latter. Living in France during 1960s, Lefebvre’s concern was the large-scale restructuring of the French urban environment whereby he questioned the major influence that capitalism had on this movement (Stanek, 2008).
The purpose of this research is not to engage with this critique of capitalism, but to use the conceptual triad as a multifaceted lens to look at self-building as an urban phenomenon that produces a unique type of social space. Due to its comprehensive and multi-dimensional character, the production-of-space theory can reveal a wide range of physical as well as social elements that constitutes the produced space and, additionally, is suited for bringing social tensions, structures and interaction patterns to the surface (Herder, 2016). The first noticeable thing when self-building is used as a mean for producing space is the shift of power in the conceived space, transposing from the professionals to the actual users of space, the self-builders. Marx describes the term praxis, the ability of human beings to change his/her environment and while doing change the meaning they give to that space (Marx, cited in Calhoun et al., 2012). Given the fact that self-builders are actively contributing to the process of producing their own space, it can be expected that they experience this space differently on a symbolic, social and physical level than people who buy a pre-fabricated house.
14
2.3 Self-building in the context of the Netherlands
While in other European countries, such as Austria, Belgium or Germany, self-build homes account for a major part of the housing supply, it still is a relatively small means of urban production in the Netherlands. The explosive demand for new housing after WWII led to an industrial mode of building with as an outcome standardized, pre-fabricated housing that enabled rapid construction of Dutch cities at a relatively low cost (Lloyd et al., 2015). During the 20th century, large-scale housing projects were characterized by a top-down approach and realised by housing associations during times of the welfare state, and by private developers after the processes of neoliberalization and privatization in the 1980s and 1990s1 (Woolthuis et al., 2013; Van der Klundert, 2017; Van Gent, 2013). The latter confined the amount of land available for self-building, decreasing the opportunities for this practice, due to the non-cooperating character of the private developers and the fact that large housing development projects were more profitable (Lloyd et al., 2015).
In 2001, self-building got a boost on the Dutch urban agenda as a result of the implementation of a national policy, the Dutch National Housing Report “People, Wishes, Living” (Mensen, Wensen, Wonen), where it was stated that the share of self-build housing in the housing supply should rise from 15 per cent to a third (Lloyd et al., 2015). Furthermore, terms as bewonersparticipatie (citizen participation) and organic urban development gained more momentum in the Dutch planning discourse, introducing a new urban mentality in the Netherlands (Van Marissing, 2008; Van der Klundert, 2017, PBL & Urhahn Urban Design, 2012). Local governments were enforced to encourage this goal through the provision of infrastructure for self-build initiatives in their region and zone or allocate land for self-build purposes. However, according to the data of the Dutch Central Bureau of the Statistics (CBS), this goal of stimulating self-building has never been realised (Lloyd et al., 2015). Even though it is argued that self-building in the Dutch context performs better during times of crisis and recession, the data also exposes that housing associations still are contributing a major share to the Dutch housing supply, discernible more than the self-build strategy. On a side note, large-scale urban experiments where self-building is the dominant mode of production are being realized in the Netherlands such as the Homeruskwartier in Almere and several successful
1 Power relations are at work in the Dutch neoliberal context. Even though interesting to address, the topic won’t
15
projects in Amsterdam and The Hague. Nevertheless, while the increase of self-building is advocated in Dutch political strategies and discourses as urban transformation strategy, the results in reality are still of slim proportion. 2.4 ‘Living Lab’ Buiksloterham as case study Buiksloterham is particularly interesting for conducting sociological research due to the high presence of individual and collective constructed housing in the area. In addition, Buiksloterham is often referred to as “living lab due to its emphasis on sustainability and circular energy and is therefore an intensive researched urban redevelopment project catching the interest of many scholars and students (Circular Buiksloterham, 2015). However, most of this research is strictly focussed on subjects in planning, engineering, technology and politics, neglecting hereby the attention devoted to the social effects and individual experiences of self-building in the neighbourhood. Buiksloterham makes therefore an excellent case for researching this urban phenomenon for the reasons that there are several forms of self-building present, i.e., people that actually construct their own home, people who hire a contractor and help with the design and people who collectively build their homes; the self-builders live next or in close proximity with each other making them responsible for not only the development of their individual plot, but also the whole neighbourhood; the fact that it is labelled ‘living lab’ for its progressive innovations regarding sustainability and circular energy can put the future meaning of self-building in a new spotlight.
Self-building as research topic is relatively new social-scientific territory with many questions left open to be answered. How is the process of building your own house experienced by residents and what is the difference with a pre-fabricated house? How does it affect social relations and the sense of community among the inhabitants of the neighbourhood? In the case of Buiksloterham, how are the concepts of sustainability and circular energy translated in the built environment and into everyday life? How does it affect the perception of space by the residents and their involvement in the neighbourhood? And how does it relate to surrounding neighbourhoods, the context of Amsterdam-North, in general? Capturing the answers to these kind of questions will, hopefully, provide for a valid contribution to the sociological research of self-building as a mean for urban production.
16
3. R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N & M E T H O D O L O G Y
3.1 Research Questions
The main objective of this thesis is to explore the impact of self-building on the experiences of residents and how it affects and produces social structures, interaction patterns and everyday life by using Lefebvre’s production-of-space theory as a tool kit to decipher the multi-layered composition of that social space, with Buiksloterham as case study. This provides us with the following main research question: “How is self-building in Buiksloterham conceived, perceived and experienced in the context of a predominantly top-down developed city?”. The answer is meant to unravel the produced space and establish a comprehensive insight into the social effects of self-building. Several elaborating sub-questions can be added to this broad research question.
Given that space is subjectively experienced - by the residents, the municipality, the media, old residents of surrounding neighbourhoods etcetera - and therefore can take unlimited forms, the main focus of this research will be concentrated on the lived experiences of the residents. The fact that they produce their own (social) space and eventually will live in that produced space makes it the relevant group for research. Their spatial practices in Buiksloterham as neighbourhood in Amsterdam-North and the social interaction patterns among the residents contributes to these experiences and the overall production of space. This leads up to the following sub-question: How do the residents of Buiksloterham live their daily practices and routines, what is the role of self-building in this and how is this experienced?
The designation ‘self-building’ indicates that this is a certain sort of space, produced in a particular way which is a different mode compared to the ‘traditional’ top-down urban strategies in the Netherlands. The differences between the two modes and the effects on the individual will be answered with the next sub-question: What is the difference between the social effects and experiences of self-build housing and of standardized pre-fabricated housing?
Given that this research is interested in the social effects of self-building, the importance of the community and the manner in which Buiksloterham relates to surrounding neighbourhoods in Amsterdam-North needs to be elaborated. This places self-building in the wider urban context, exposing its social benefits and also its disadvantageous. The final sub-question is therefore stated as follows: What are the
17
social effects of self-building on the community and how does Buiksloterham relate to surrounding neighbourhoods in Amsterdam-North?
3.2 Methodology and Data collection
Given that this research focusses on individual experiences and social effects, a qualitative research design was pursued to provide for the most comprehensive description of the social reality in Buiksloterham and to give in-depth answers to the research questions. Qualitative research focusses on the manners in which individuals give meaning to their surrounded reality and is based on a constructionist ontology and an interpretative epistemology (Bryman, 2012). Social properties are hereby seen as a product of the interaction between individuals which results in a socially created reality that is subjectively experienced by each individual. An interpretative methodology aims to understand the social world by examining this social reality through the eyes and interpretations of its participants in order to understand the meanings individuals give to this human construction (Bryman, 2012). This research explores the reality in Buiksloterham, how space is socially produced and experienced by the local residents, by using a combination of an inductive and deductive approach. The inductive method, i.e., the act of theory making, is based on the usage of the collected data which will be transformed into a sociological theory of self-building that includes the social effects of this practice in Buiksloterham. The deduction of existing theories, particularly the production of space theory by Lefebvre (1991), will work as an analytic framework to deconstruct the multi-layeredness of the social space in Buiksloterham.
The gathering of data to support the research question has been accomplished by the use of multiple methodologies which were combined and merged into an overall and robust theory by using the scientific practice of triangulation (Bryman, 2012). First, academic articles, internet- and newspaper articles, municipal policy documents and web feeds have been analysed to form a basic understanding of the self-build practice and the embedment of Buiksloterham in the wider urban and political context. Second, 11 semi-structured interviews have been conducted and form the groundworks of the overall data collection. Interviews, namely, are a suitable tool for qualitative research due to their focus on individual narratives and the capability to empathetically understand the meanings of the respondent’s social world. Third, the mixture of secondary data which includes the spatial analysis of elements in the neighbourhood,
18
personal observations during site visits and the language of maps and design drawings have provided an awareness of the general development process occurring in Buiksloterham.
The respondents of interests for the interviews fall into three categories. The first and main group are the residents of the self-build houses who’ve individually realized a home and transformed a building plot. The actual involvement in the self-build practice during construction varies among the respondents, some have actually build their house with their own knowledge and handy craftsmanship whereas others have limited themselves to the design and hired a contractor or architect to pursue the actual build. The second group are the residents of the collectively constructed apartment blocks, as Patch22 and the Superlofts, otherwise known as the CPO’s (Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap). Most of these collaborative projects are initiated by the interest of an architect and/or contractor where residents enter the design process in a later stage, fixate more on the interior design and are less involved with the aesthetics of the building. These first two group form the core of the respondents because they have built their own living space, experience Buiksloterham as transforming neighbourhood and create everyday life in the area. The similarities and differences between the groups create an extra analytic layer in regards to the importance of the amount of involvement in the self-build process and the scale of production. The third group consists of one respondent who works at the municipality of Amsterdam as a project manager of Buiksloterham. This adds the top-down perspective on the development project and construction process. The total number of respondents comprise of 2 residents of the CPO-constructed apartment blocks, 8 residents of self-build houses and 1 project manager of the municipality of Amsterdam. The first interviewees were gathered through my own personal network and the digital platform of Buiksloterham which resulted in a snow-ball effect of more respondents.
The interviews focused on the spatial practices, individual experiences and everyday life of the residents in Buiksloterham. The questions were hereby directed to the interaction patterns, lived experiences and daily routines in the neighbourhood and were operationalized on the basis of the introduced theoretical concepts. For example, one question fixated on the feeling of ‘homey-ness’, brought in by Cox (2016), and the questions directed to the project manager revolved around the way the municipality perceives and conceives the development in Buiksloterham, referring to Lefebvre
19
(1991). All the questions were asked in an open manner to leave space open for the respondent’s own narrative to secure the interpretation of their own experiences. Pseudonyms are devised in Chapter 5 to secure the respondent’s privacy and prevent biases. For an example of an elaborate interview guide, see Appendix I.
After the collection of the main data, the computer software Atlas.ti worked as a tool for structuring the findings. The transcriptions of the interviews were analysed through the methods of open coding which entails the process of examining, labelling, categorizing and eventually conceptualizing the collected data (Bryman, 2012). These concepts were grouped into super codes which ultimately led to the creation of more general and abstract themes. These themes worked as the backbone for the overarching theory of the case study Buiksloterham. The used coding scheme is displayed in the Appendix II. The overall triangulation of the three data gathering methods and the data analysis process created a valid and dense framework to understand the complexities in Buiksloterham. On a side note, the data collection has occurred during the transformation of the area, while some projects were already realized and some were still in the middle of the construction process. This means that the final product of Buiksloterham as transformed industrial area couldn’t be the main focus of analysis. But this gave me the opportunity to analyse the case study in its ‘unfinished’ form, during the process of the realization of a self-build neighbourhood, while the experiences of the residents and the municipality were still ‘fresh’ in their minds and social structures were right in the middle of its making. It would be interesting, though, for further research to analyse the final product, the completed state of Buiksloterham as mixed urban neighbourhood in Amsterdam-North, and see how the social structures and experiences in the area have evolved and transformed.
20
4. B U I K S L O T E R H A M I N C O N T E X T
This research revolves around a single case study which makes it a requirement to describe the exclusive context-based shapers of the unique space in Buiksloterham. This chapter aims to put Buiksloterham in its particular context, as neighbourhood and as urban development project, by elaborating its historical and geographical background, its relation to the gentrification in Amsterdam-North and the concept of Buiksloterham as ‘living lab’.
Buiksloterham consists of a 52 acres’ surface with plans to intensify the occupied floor space to one million m2, an increase of 700.000 m2, by adding a mixture of workplaces and approximately 3500 new houses (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). The municipality of Amsterdam plays an important role in this gradual transformation of the area, due to its ownership of the majority of the ground, but also private developers and local housing associations have several projects running in the neighbourhood.
Figure 2. Aerial map of Buiksloterham and its surroundings (Source: Google Earth with
author’s modifications)
21
4.1 Buiksloterham in its historical and geographical context
The Buiksloterham area is situated adjacent to the IJ-canal in Amsterdam-North, an upcoming city quarter, between the predominant upper-class neighbourhood Overhoeks and the cultural hotspot NDSM-werf. In the early twentieth century, the former polder was transformed into an industrial estate and became a home for water-based industrial activities, the municipal power plant and a waste incinerator which contributed to Buiksloterham’s ‘polluted’ image (Dembski, 2013). The main city and Amsterdam-North are and have always been divided by the IJ and are presently connected by municipal ferries. However, the soon to be realized Noord/Zuidlijn, a railway line that connects Amsterdam-North to the city centre, and political debates about the possibilities of bridging the IJ-canal make the connection between the two city quarters more intimate which resonates into an increased desirability of Buiksloterham’s location as living enivornment.
After WW I, multiple new lower-class neighbourhoods were realized in Amsterdam-North, adjacent to Buiksloterham, to provide for suitable housing for the growing number of industrial workers in the area. These neighbourhoods were based on the garden city concept which explains Amsterdam-North’s spatial pattern as a “patchwork of closed villages” (Dembski, 2013). Buiksloterham remained, until then, a generally uninhabited urban area focussed on industrial activities. In the 1980s, the industrial sector and wharf industries in Amsterdam-North moved from the city centre to the outskirts of the city which created a huge amount of unused urban space. Artists and squatters were the first to transform the former NDSM shipyard into a cultural hotspot and several successful large-scale housing projects as the Oostelijke Haveneilanden were realized, putting Amsterdam-North back on the urban map (Dembski, 2013). Buiksloterham differed from these transformed areas and remained subordinated due to its less radical industrial decline and its presence of a mixture of old small-scale industrial activities and newly attracted activities as public utilities, workshops and small-scale businesses that belonged to the creative industries (Dembski, 2013).
Nowadays, the municipality of Amsterdam assertively steers to develop Buiksloterham into a successful mixture of a working and living area. As an industrial site being converted into a sustainable neighbourhood, Buiksloterham can be
categorized as a prime example of a ‘brownfield redevelopment project’ where an inner- 22
city post-industrial area with the presence of polluted ground and outdated industrial activities gets transformed into a sustainable living and working environment (Dale & Newman, 2009). The times of recession during the economic crisis of 2008 made the municipality of Amsterdam and private developers abandon the planned large-scale housing projects and created the opportunity for self-build development in Buiksloterham. According to a project manager of the municipality, self-building was the only solution that could set in motion the transformation of the area during that time. The fact that this transformation is based around the concepts of sustainability and circular energy changes the meaning of energy in Buiksloterham: from a polluted image of fossil fuel and wharf industrial activities into a green sustainable future.
4.2 Gentrification in Amsterdam-North
In the future structure vision of Amsterdam, Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040, the municipality claims to aim for the expansion of its city centre to adjacent neighbourhoods while intensifying its land use through the realization of objectives as work-, residential- and urban recreational functions (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). This includes Amsterdam-North, the area where Buiksloterham is situated in. This part of the city is one of the poorer districts with an overall below average income and education standards compared to the rest of the city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014/2012). Characterized by the working class, Amsterdam-North is often stigmatized and many respondents of this research addressed that they never visited the area before they started living in Buiksloterham. However, this overall negative image of Amsterdam-North has been drastically changing over the last few years and is placed back on the map through “active policy … and autonomous processes” (Dembski, 2013). Gentrification is highly recognizable in the area with property values rising fast and an increasing presence of ‘hip’ consumer spaces. Nowadays, instead of being pictured as poor, decayed and stigmatized, Amsterdam-North is getting re-envisioned through a government-led gentrification process and reframed into an attractive and authentic location desired by middle to higher income households and creative industries (Savini et al., 2016; Sakizliogu & Uitermark, 2014).
Buiksloterham’s place as neighbourhood in this gentrification process needs some further clarification. On the one hand, the rising property values in the neighbourhood, one of the initial components of gentrification (Smith, 1979), may
23
indicate that gentrification is occurring in the area. On the other hand, given that it is a brownfield development project with no presence of existing properties and no socially-excluded native population, it remains debateable if Buiksloterham fulfils the requirements for the categorization of gentrification. Even though gentrification isn’t the main focus of this research, the findings and conclusion intend to provide for a brief clarifying contribution to the influences of Buiksloterham and self-building on this overall gentrification process.
4.3 ‘Living Lab’ Buiksloterham
Buiksloterham has exchanged its polluted industrial image for the label “living laboratory of the city” which comprehends the neighbourhood as an organic development project with the mixed presence of small-scale industrial production, knowledge and creative economies and innovative living environments (Savini & Dembski, 2016). The Manifest Circular Buiksloterham, a local policy document where 20 parties – including the municipality of Amsterdam, housing corporations and creative institutions – agreed to the ambition to make Buiksloterham an international example for circular urban development, translated the concepts of sustainability and circular energy into writing. Besides the economic, ecologic and energy-based ambitions, the Manifest Circulair Buiksloterham (2015) also prescribes a vision of a socially diverse and inclusive neighbourhood with a tight sense of community.
These international ambitions - being a leading example in the transformation of brownfield areas and creating sustainable urban environments - have attracted the interest of many scholars. This leading position is regularly mentioned in news articles where terms as “green utopia” are frequently used (Van Zoelen, 2015). Many residents I spoke with are aware of this ‘living lab’-phenomenon and are approached frequently for interviews through emails or face-to-face which can be from time to time, as self-builder Jan states, “a bit exhausting”. Most of these interests are converted into studies of planning, governmental or technological aspects. For instance, one research focusses on the impact of the combined bottom-up and top-down development approach (Dembski, 2013) or another looks at the possibilities to use the concept circular energy as an urban tool to restore the metabolism of the city (Giezen & Roemers, 2014). This leaves the social effects of the label ‘living lab’ underexposed.
24 5. R E S U L T S This chapter reveals the main findings of the conducted fieldwork and the gathered data. The interviews with the respondents will be analysed and connected to several themes that presented themselves during coding and the research process. Before heading into the socially produced space in Buiksloterham, the analyses first will be concerned with the type of individuals, i.e., their personal backgrounds and demographic characteristics, that produce this particular space; in other words, who lives and creates everyday life in Buiksloterham. After establishing the social composition of this community, the act of self-building and its experiences will be discussed that will fixate on questions as what does it mean to construct your own house, what are its effects on the experiences of the residents and how do the relations work with the municipality during the construction process. The third part looks at how the process of self-building and the arrangement of the households influence social interaction, consumption patterns and everyday life in Buiksloterham. Fourth, the effect of self-building on the sense of community and the local social structures is described. Lastly, Buiksloterham’s relation with the surrounding neighbourhoods in Amsterdam-North will be elaborated.
5.1 Social Background: Who are the Producers
As addressed before, Lefebvre (1991) argues that each social space is produced by a specific society situated in a particular geographical and historical context which makes each socially produced space different and unique. A logic starting point would therefore be to begin with the type of individuals, the ‘small society’, that produce space in Buiksloterham.
5.1.1 Young creative parents moving away from the city centre
The respondents observe and affirm the presence of a social group in Buiksloterham who share many similar characteristics. The first main demographic component is the comparable composition of the family in the majority of the households. Almost all the residents are white, have one or two young children that attend the local elementary school and in nearly all the cases two-income households where both parents have jobs is a normality. The average age of the parents is mostly situated between the 30 and 40 years old, with a couple of exceptions, and have had the privilege to experience higher
25
education. All these characteristics are summed up and stated perfectly in one sentence by Liza, a mother of two children who works as an interior architect for the municipality of Amsterdam:
“It looks like a small bubble within Amsterdam-North which is different compared to the rest and everybody in the street is, I didn’t want to say this, is exactly the same. It is very homogeneous … we all have children younger than eight years old, everybody has a two-income household, everybody is higher educated and so on. It isn’t a very mixed-up neighbourhood.”
- Liza
Not only are most people in the neighbourhood higher educated, many of them share the same interests and work in the creative sector as an architect, urban planner, graphic designer, artist, piano maker, festival organizer, photographer or film-music composer. Some residents have small offices integrated into their homes, providing the opportunity to perform their work at the house which allows to consider the neighbourhood not only as living environment but also as a creative hub for business. The reasons for moving to Buiksloterham show peculiar resemblances as well. Before settling in the neighbourhood, a considerable amount of residents lived in the city centre of Amsterdam, with Amsterdam Oud-West and the area surrounding the Westergasfabriek in particular. A stay-at-home mom, one of the exceptions in the respondent sample, also noticed that there were a lot of “Westerlingen”2 living in Buiksloterham. Three intertwined reasons were given why the respondents moved particularly to Buiksloterham: more space, a (big) garden and the children. The need for a more spacious environment, and the lack of it in the city centre, was largely desired to accommodate the first, second or sometimes third child. Some residents wanted to use the extra space Buiksloterham offered for their eagerness of having a garden, an attribute that is relatively scarce in a dense city like Amsterdam, or to fulfil their dream of having an own workplace. Buiksloterham created the opportunity to build a big house for a small amount of money close to the city centre that could realize these aspirations. Another attribute that a majority of the residents have in common is their personal attitude in combination with their lifestyle. The self-builders possess an open and social personality, something I experienced during my interviews and observations
26
through the neighbourhood. People greet each other on the streets, plan collective social activities and are open in the exchange of personal objects and information regarding the building process. Additionally, they all have and share an ambitious and enterprising mentality which is not only reflected in their jobs, but also in the process of building their own house. The fact that dozens of households camped outside in the rain in order to get a plot exemplifies this individual treat. One of the self-builder states this as well:
“Because you built and start a new street here together, you are a self-builder, so the people are sharing an enterprising personality, it is a particular kind of person that dares to take such a challenging process. They [the residents] all have something creative and you recognize that in each other”.
- Liza
This driven mentality in combination with their suburban lifestyle, which I discuss later in the analysis, creates a group of like-minded people with comparable backgrounds and mind-sets. This will in turn affect the greater social structures and everyday life in Buiksloterham and its relation to surrounding neighbourhoods.
These characteristics of the residents in Buiksloterham resonate with Florida’s (2003) conception of the “creative class”. According to Florida (2003), the distinguishing property is that members of the creative class engage in the work of “creating meaningful new forms”; in other words, they create and make new things like products, theories, music or art. It is about new technologies and innovation, self-made success and starting businesses. The creative class consists of higher educated people and are attracted to an environment where they can express themselves. The educational background and professions of the residents proven to be almost identical with this description. Buiksloterham provided the opportunity for personal expression and creating enterprising work which is why the area is now inhabited by scientists, architects, artists and designers, or “creative people”, who transform the greater area into a wanted inner-city neighbourhood.
5.1.2 Change in residents, the first and the contemporary
The transformation of Buiksloterham is just as perceivable in the physical environment as in the change of the social composition and mentality in the neighbourhood. These
27
changes are noticeable in the alternative approach towards self-building by newer residents. The people who live in the Bosrankstraat are often referred to as the ‘pioneers’, who really have constructed their homes with their own hands. People who had a dream of building their own house and where, as resident Mark says, “nobody had a lot of money” to realize this. This deed of the actual build is considerably less present on the Klaprozenweg and Monnikskapweg, streets where plots were expended a few months later than the Bosrankstraat. For instance, Bart and Marijke hired an architect and contractor to build their home, putting a distance between the construction and themselves, while still greatly being involved in the design and realization process of the build. These type of self-builders can be seen as the ‘second-wave’ of residents. Nowadays, Buiksloterham is in high demand and the plots are more valuable, and therefore more expensive, which attracts individuals of a wealthier class to the area that aren’t as much involved in the neighbourhood. These new residents can be categorized as ‘third-wave’ residents.
“It is getting more expensive for people to come live in our street. That last part, the area that still needs to be developed, the ground there is twice as expensive as our plot. So the people who can afford that price are rich and keep getting richer.” - Liza To sum things up, the people in Buiksloterham are mostly members of the creative class and are predominantly white parents between the 30 and 40 years’ old who have young children. They all share an ambitious and enterprising mentality which affect, as we will see, the composition of the social structures and spatial practices in the neighbourhood. In addition, a chronological change in the type of self-builder can be found, one which has a negative impact on the involvement in the neighbourhood. 5.2 The Act of Self-Building
This section will describe the lived experiences of the self-build practice, how it influences the individual builders and the perceived relationship with the municipality. The differences between individual and collective self-build projects will be explained, followed by the meaning and the importance of the concepts sustainability, one of the major pillars of the transformation strategy in the area, and ‘pioneering’ in the
28
neighbourhood. This will provide us with knowledge and insights about the effects of self-building on the individual and what the main differences are with a standardized, pre-fabricated house. 5.2.1 The difference between individual and collective self-building There are several approaches towards the practice of self-building in Buiksloterham. For the individual plots, this ranges from the situation where residents hire an architect and contractor to help with the realization of their house to people who do the actual design and built by themselves. Several hybrid forms lie within this spectrum, each entailing a different manner of involvement. For example, Bart and Marijke don’t use their hands during the actual built of their home but are decidedly contributing to the construction process by helping with the design, looking for the right materials and looking for possibilities to improve. Collective self-building, known as the Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap (CPO), has a more singular approach to the realization of apartment blocks. These projects originate from the proposition of an architect and contractor who want to design and built their architectural ideas. The future residents enter the design process in a later stage and are more engaged with the interior design of the apartments, which shows a distinct level of involvement compared to the individual plots.
Several noticeable differences were found between the self-builders and the CPO’s. First, contrasting demographics reveal a homogeneous population in the self-build street and a heterogeneous population in the apartment blocks. Where streets as the Monnikkapstraat and Bosrankstraat largely houses young families, apartment blocks as the Superlofts or BlackJack are the homes of a more diverse social composition where starters, single-moms, seniors, individuals and young families create a varied social mix of individuals. Second, (public) space is perceived with more distance by the CPO-residents which may be explained by the fact that they are less involved with the design of their apartment and therefore also their neighbourhood. The high-rise design often decreases this feeling of closeness to the street. Sammy, a resident of the Superloft, addresses this by describing her view out of her window:
“From this point of view, you only see the roof terrace and some green tops of the trees on the streets. We don’t see any cars or cyclist driving around, no action.”
29
Her boyfriend Thomas, an interior architect, continues:
“Probably because we live high above the ground. Sometimes we miss that, the lively part of the neighbourhood.”
- Thomas
A perfect example to illustrate this perceived distance is the construction of the Papaverpark. This local park, designated for the whole neighbourhood, was designed through citizen participation. The park is located adjacent to the facades of the Monnikkapstraat with the Klaprozenweg behind it. A busy road creates a barrier between the apartment blocks and the Papaverpark, isolating the high-rise buildings even more. The CPO-residents were, therefore, considerably less involved and associated with the design process of the local park than the residents of the self-build streets.
Third, this division between the self-builders and CPO’s is also experienced in the local interaction patterns. Most social activities such as barbecues, the exchange of information and knowledge about self-building or the occasional Friday afternoon drinks are mostly limited to the street or the apartment block. When the respondents of the self-build streets were asked if they ever have contact with people from the CPO’s, and vice versa, they all endorsed that this was mostly restricted to their own street or own apartment. Dennis, a self-builder of the Monnikskapweg, also addresses that the CPO’s are more anonymous because they don’t have an own front door. When respondents were asked if they experience a sense of community, many of them said “only with this area”, referring to their own street or apartment. The divergent demographics, the different perceiving of the neighbourhood and the separate interaction patterns results in a division between the self-builders in the low-rise houses and the CPO’s in the high-rise apartment blocks. 5.2.2 Self-building: a positive but energy-consuming practice Moving from one place to another becomes more intense and task-filled when building your own home. Instead of ‘just’ worrying about finances and mortgages, perhaps some renovation work, self-builders are much more engaged with the “conceptualization, design and building” of their home by taking responsibility for all or some of the building activities (Brown, 2008). The experience of this augmented engagement is
30
different for each individual; some residents experience this as an energy- and time-consuming process, others want to continue this in the future and are attracted to the enterprising attribute of self-building.
Bart and Marijke, residents of the Klaprozenweg, hired an architect, who coincidentally lives in a self-build house on the Bosrankstraat, to help with the design and construction of their home. The following quote demonstrates the extra proceedings they had to take during the self-build process:
“It is a time-consuming and complicated process. Finding an architect, looking for references for the design of your home, starting the design which took over a year to complete, getting a permit from the municipality, handing over off the ground, finding a notary and constructor which was pretty hard, arranging the finance, finding all the materials. There is a lot going back and forth regarding specifications and costs.”
- Bart
The municipality wasn’t as much present during the design and construction process as one would expect. The builders are handed over a ‘Kavelpaspoort’, a form with guidelines regarding the volume of the house, security regulations etcetera, but this wasn’t more than one piece of paper including a set of relatively few building rules. A lot of room was left open for the conceiving ideas of the residents, making them more powerful in the realization of physical space. This beginning with an empty image with no strict guidelines, something a pre-fabricated house doesn’t offer, provided the residents with an abundant of possibilities which can be experienced stressful from time to time:
“You are starting with a completely blank picture, and that makes it kind of hard. If you are renovating an existing house, the stairs already have a location, the kitchen etcetera. However, here you can put the kitchen in the top floor or in the basement. Yes, start working on that haha. It is hard, but I didn’t experience this in a negative way. There is just some kind of doubt, questions if I’m going to like my home in 10 or 20 years from now, do the children fancy it, is het saleable to other people or are we making some kind of strange house.”
- Bart
Self-building gives the residents an opportunity to express themselves and distinct from the normal standardized and pre-fabricated neighbourhoods. Dennis, for example, has
31
made his entire house of wooden materials, a fabric that he knows and loves due to his personal history in working with sailboats. Residents can build their home fitting to “the next step in their lives”, as Jan puts it, reflecting their wishes for sustainability, having an own work place or building a house for the children. According to Cox (2016), do-it-yourself construction leads to a better suit of the inhabitant’ needs and enhances the feeling of homey-ness, a concept that increases the sense of belonging to a place and the “ability to feel at home in a space such as a dwelling”. This resonates with the positive experience and the reactions of the residents of their dwellings. Bart describes how he has adjusted the design of his home to “everything he ever wanted in his house”, such as choosing big doors as main entrance so he can displace a sailboat in his workshop. When the residents are asked if there are any negativities about this method of city making and if they ever think about living in a pre-fabricated house again, they all provide for a likewise answer as the following:
“I couldn’t live in a pre-fabricated house anymore. The process is really special and when you finally live there, it’s fantastic. It only has advantages, it’s more affordable and you just grow into your house. It is a process of getting to know yourself and that is something you can’t do when you just buy a house or apartment.”
- Marijke
Even though the building process comes with an amount of stress, the end result pays off and leads to a great satisfaction among the residents. A couple of respondents mentioned the possibility to do it again, when the children are grown up or as a side project for economic benefits. These positive reactions apply to the self-builders as well as the CPO’s. On a side note, it has to be emphasized that the situation in Buiksloterham is unique referring to the cheap price of the plots during the economic crisis. The residents share the thought that they all were very lucky with the exclusive chance of building their own home for a relatively small amount of money. However, they also often mention that self-building is very profitable budget-wise, which partly may explain the positive experience. It remains therefore questionable if the overall positive experience would still exist if the property value would decrease or if the construction process was more expensive.
