Responding to territorial stigma : insight from Brussels and Amsterdam

(1)

RESPONDING TO TERRITORIAL STIGMA

Insights from Brussels and Amsterdam

Master Thesis Research Master Urban Studies

25-07-2016

Annefleur Noom 10179399 anne_noom@hotmail.com

Supervisor : Dr. F. M. Pinkster

(2)

(3)

1

SUMMARY

Mental maps are leading in how we perceive and move through the city. These mental maps are images of reality, a lens through which we (get to) know places. Yet this may also result in the stigmatisation of places. Outsiders, namely, often base their image of the neighbourhood on easy-to-reach material, for example films, newspapers or area-based policy (Sharpe, 2013; Burgers & Vranken, 2003). Outsiders’ images might therefore differ from insiders’ assessments of the neighbourhood, resulting in a discrepancy between insiders’ and outsiders’ assessments of the neighbourhood. This discrepancy could lead to a response from residents living in a stigmatised neighbourhood. Based on the literature three categories of responses have been identified: counterstigmatisation (Kirkness, 2013; McKenzie, 2012), taking over (Wacquant, 2007) and resisting (Kirkness, 2013) a stigma.

This research focuses on two main elements: the possible perverse further stigmatisation of the neighbourhood based on area-based policy and residents’ responses to a territorial stigma. To investigate this, a comparative analysis is proposed investigating Kuregem Bara (Brussels) and G-buurt (Amsterdam). Both neighbourhoods suffer from a poor reputation and have been selected for an area-based policy program. However, the persistence of the territorial stigma and the communication of area-based policy are different. A mixed-methods approach is used to in-depth examine the neighbourhoods, combining exploratory questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.

Residents’ sense of place is more positive in G-buurt than in Kuregem Bara. Additionally, when respondents in G-buurt assess their neighbourhood, most say G-buurt is among the best neighbourhoods in Amsterdam. Contrastingly, in Kuregem Bara more ambiguity exists whether the neighbourhood is better than other neighbourhoods. The most striking finding is that many respondents of the questionnaires were unable to compare the neighbourhood with other neighbourhoods in the same city. The interviewees in both cases were better able to make a comparison. Most of the interviewees were therefore also able to argue whether the reputation was (in)correct, possible resulting in a discrepancy between insiders’ and outsiders’ assessment. Where in Kuregem Bara an indirect link between the stigmatising effect of area-based policy is present, in G-buurt the name of the area-area-based policy was hardly known. The case study of Kuregem Bara shows physical neighbourhood characteristics are considered by residents most influential on the neighbourhood’s reputation, in contrast to what Permentier et al. (2008) argue. However, in the case of Bijlmer it can be argued that the stigma is both based on the physical deviance of the neighbourhood and its ethnic component. While many authors have argued residents only use one response to express their feeling about the stigma, this study shows residents use multiple responses, sometimes even simultaneously. Therefore further research should be focused on the possible explanations for the coexistence of these multiple responses.

(4)

2

2.6 CONCLUSION ... 12 Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ... 13 3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 13 3.2 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME ... 13 3.3 OPERATIONALISATION ... 14 3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 16 3.4.1 A comparative analysis... 16 3.4.2 Logic of comparison ... 17 3.4.3 A mixed-methods approach ... 18 3.4.4 Data collection ... 19 3.4.5 Data analysis ... 20

Chapter 4: CASE STUDY KUREGEM BARA ... 21

4.1 A Brief Introduction to Kuregem (Bara) ... 21

4.2 Everyday Experiences of the Neighbourhood ... 24

4.2.1 Experiencing and Assessing the Neighbourhood ... 24

4.2.2 Residents’ Neighbourhood Assessment: Comparing Kuregem Bara ... 31

4.3 Experiences of the External Neighbourhood Reputation ... 31

4.4 Explanations for the Negative External Neighbourhood Reputation ... 33

4.4.1 The Involvement of the Municipality and Implementation of Area-based Policy ... 34

4.5 Responses to the Poor Reputation: Combining All ... 35

(5)

3

Chapter 5: CASE STUDY G-BUURT (BIJLMER) ... 38

5.1 A Brief Introduction to G-buurt (Bijlmer East) ... 38

5.2 Everyday Experiences of the Neighbourhood ... 40

5.2.1 Evaluations of the Neighbourhood ... 40

5.2.2 Residents’ Neighbourhood Assessment: Comparing Bijlmer ... 46

5.3 Experiences of the External Neighbourhood Reputation ... 46

5.4 Explanations for the Reputation ... 47

5.4.1 The Municipality and Area-based Policy as Friend and Enemy ... 47

5.5 Responses to the Reputation: Come and Have a Look ... 49

5.6 Conclusion ... 50

Chapter 6: CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 52

6.1 Conclusion ... 52

6.2 Discussion ... 57

REFERENCES ... 60

(6)

4

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Based on mental maps we have of a city, we move through it. We frequent certain neighbourhoods, while we avoid other neighbourhoods. Yet these mental maps we have provide only an image of reality. What we, as outsiders, hear from policymakers, read in newspapers, see at television shows, and hear from friends, family or acquaintances creates an image of a neighbourhood. When it comes to negative stereotypes, this sometimes results in stigmatisation of neighbourhoods. As outsiders often lack a comprehensive perspective on the neighbourhood, the image might differ from the insiders’ perspective. Residents would therefore in some cases consider the outsiders’ perspective as inaccurate, resulting in a discrepancy between the insiders’ and outsiders’ assessment of the neighbourhood. This disconnection in the insiders’ and outsiders’ assessment of a neighbourhood might trigger a response from residents. This research will examine how residents respond to a territorial stigma and what, from residents’ perspectives, the role of area-based policy is in stigmatising neighbourhoods.

Although the stigmatisation of a neighbourhood is an image of reality, this image can have real and negative consequences for the neighbourhood. Examples of these material consequences are the avoidance of an area by people and businesses (Wacquant, 2008), dropping housing prices (Wassenberg, 2013; Hasting & Deans, 2003), abandonment by the municipality, stagnating maintenance, or residents’ job opportunities (Bauder, 2002). When a neighbourhood has a poor reputation, for example that of a criminal neighbourhood, outsiders may want to avoid the area and do their shopping in another neighbourhood. Or, when the neighbourhood is known as a dangerous place, outsiders will be unwilling to buy a house in the area. Or, as is the fact for the investigated case of Kuregem Bara, the neighbourhood is known as the garbage bin of Brussels, which will bring more people from surrounding areas that literally dump their garbage Kuregem Bara. Additionally, stigmatisation often is part of a wider social exclusion discourse (Wassenberg, 2013; Wacquant, 2008; Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

In scientific research the concept of territorial stigma has first been used by Wacquant (2008). A first problem in the literature on territorial stigma lies in its conceptualisation. In many studies focusing on disadvantaged neighbourhoods scholars refer to a stigma without defining the term. Therefore what is meant by a stigma remains implicit. A second limitation of the current literature available is the predominant focus on residents’ responses that could either be defined as resisting a stigma (Kirkness, 2014) or taking over (Wacquant, 2008). Little attention is paid to the different ways in which residents respond or experience a territorial stigma and how these responses possibly coexist. It is assumed that residents respond to a stigma similarly and only make use of one type of behavioural response. This research therefore looks at the multiple ways in which residents in the same neighbourhoods respond to a territorial stigma, how their responses might have changed over time, differ among residents and coexist.

A territorial stigma can be related to area-based policy. In many European countries current policy is aimed at improving disadvantaged neighbourhoods and thereby also their reputation.

(7)

5

Physical as well as social improvements should make the neighbourhood more liveable and attractive to (potential) residents. Examples of these types of policies are aandachtswijken in the Netherlands, wijkcontracten in Brussels, or zone urbaine sensible in France. Area-based policy might have the counter effect of further stigmatisation. Instead of bettering the neighbourhood reputation, the labels given to the neighbourhood by these policies could give outsiders an extra opportunity to stigmatise the area (Pinkster, 2014; Kirkness, 2014). Therefore this research will also include whether and how residents relate territorial stigmatisation to area-based policy. Furthermore, this study provides insights for policymakers on how to implement their policy to avoid further territorial stigmatisation. This research thus focuses on two components: responses to territorial stigma and the stigmatising effect of area-based policy. Therefore the main research question is: ‘how do

residents respond to the territorial stigmatisation of their neighbourhood and what is, according to them, the impact of area-based policy on the neighbourhood reputation?’ To

answer this question a comparative analysis is proposed. The inquiry will compare the neighbourhoods of Kuregem Bara in Brussels, Belgium and G-buurt (Bijlmer East) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Both neighbourhoods have experienced a poor neighbourhood reputation at the urban and national level and were at least partially selected for an area-based policy program.

The thesis begins with an overview of the literature on territorial stigmatisation, focusing on the definition, how outsiders and insiders assess a neighbourhood and the role of area-based policy and responses to territorial stigmatisation. After this the methodology is presented in the third chapter. Chapter four and five present the results for each case study separately. Eventually in the conclusion both cases will be compared and the main research question will be answered.

(8)

6

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review below first defines what a territorial stigma is. The chapter moves on by focusing on the neighbourhood characteristics on which outsiders base a territorial stigma. Hereafter the focus will be on the possible stigmatising effects of area-based policies. The fourth paragraph discusses how and to what extent outsiders and insiders assess the neighbourhood differently. The last paragraph reviews insiders’ possible responses to a territorial stigma.

2.1 A MULTILAYERED DEFINITION OF TERRITORIAL STIGMA

Research has implicitly and explicitly focused on neighbourhood reputations, using terms as place image, external neighbourhood reputation or territorial stigma interchangeably. Regarding stigmatisation, Goffman’s work often is a starting point for many researchers. He defines a stigma as a concept that refers to ‘an attribute that is deeply discrediting’ which reduces a person ‘in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one’ (Goffman, 1963, p. 12-13). This stigma is a result of what he calls a certain discrepancy in a person’s virtual and actual social identity. The stigmatiser assumes the stigmatised person possesses certain attributes on which the stigmatiser bases the virtual social identity. The actual social identity shows the attributes a person really has. A stigma might be based on three characteristics, according to Goffman: abominations of the body, blemishes of individual character and lastly on race, nation and religion. Whereas the first two of these types of stigma are at the individual level, the last focuses more on groups.

Gofmann’s work provides first insights in how a stigma works. However, his work primarily focuses on individuals rather than groups (Link & Phelan, 2001). A more precise definition of a stigma therefore is that it exists ‘when elements of labelling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination occur together in a power situation’ (idem, p. 367). Labelling refers to the process of emphasising certain human differences in identifying groups. This can only be done when categories are assigned to groups of people that oversimplify the differences between the groups. The labels that are being given to groups of people are specific to time and space. The label links a group of people or an individual to a set of undesirable characteristics that form the stereotype. The separation process of the stigma refers to a clear distinction that is being made between ‘us’ and ‘them’, insiders and outsiders, participants and non-participants. People who share the same label will be referred to as ‘them’ who are different from the group ‘us’. Additionally, Link and Phelan (2001) also include status loss and discrimination in their definition. When groups of people are being labelled and stereotyped often the stigmatisers start to devalue, reject or exclude these labelled groups. As a consequence, status loss and discrimination might occur. Lastly, a stigma is dependent on power in the social, economic and political realm. Power is essential in this definition as a stigma is often put on a dominated group instead of a dominant group (Link & Phelan, 2001). The above given definition of Link and Phelan is not specifically related to a geographical area. Wacquant (2008) adjusted Goffman’s definition and theory of stigmatisation to a territorial stigmatisation, which he refers to as the place of residence. Wacquant perceives a territorial stigma as akin to a stigma based on race, nation, religion since it ‘can be transmitted

(9)

7

through lineages and equally contaminate all members of a family’ (2007, p. 67). When referring to a territorial stigma, it can be hard to define whether the territorial stigma purely exists of a spatial dimension or whether it is also based on a stigmatised group. For example the territorial stigma might also be based on ethnicity, religion or political affiliation (Kirkness, 2013). As a consequence, the stigma given to a neighbourhood is often layered. It is a combination of an already stigmatised group that is concentrated in a certain neighbourhood with deviating aesthetics. The definition of Link and Phelan can be helpful in defining a territorial stigma. Here, creating a label will be based on differences between neighbourhoods, which are oversimplified and specific to time and space. A territorial stigma, thus, does not have to be based on accurate information (Permentier et al., 2008). These negative labels will then be transformed in a stereotype and the neighbourhood, including her residents, could suffer from status loss and discrimination. Outside and within the neighbourhood processes of distinguishing ‘us’ and ‘them’ take place, for example the process of boundary drawing within the neighbourhood to identify distinctions within the working class (Watt, 2006).

In conclusion, a territorial stigma has multiple dimensions that can be categorized as the

concentration of residents living in the neighbourhood with deviating aesthetics. This

research will thus use a multilayered definition of a territorial stigma.

2.2 NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTERISTICS AND TERRITORIAL STIGMA

A neighbourhood consists of various characteristics: structural, infrastructural, demographic, class status, public service, environmental, proximity, political, social-interactive and sentimental. All these characteristics are spatially situated at the same location (Galster, 2001). Although a stigma is an oversimplification of reality, a lens through which outsiders look at a neighbourhood, it is assumed that to a certain extent they are related to ‘objective’ or ‘real’ (measurable) neighbourhood characteristics. Concerning territorial stigmatisation, so far only the effects of physical, functional and social objective neighbourhood characteristics have been studied (Permentier et al., 2008).

A physical neighbourhood characteristic (Permentier et al., 2008), which may wake territorial stigma when it is interpreted as abominations of the body (Bürk et al., 2012), is the built environment. Here, the focus is on the differences between what is considered as the norm in terms of aesthetics in society and what is visible in the built environment of the stigmatised neighbourhood. For example, the presence of graffiti, the type of built environment, or the presence of garbage on the streets could all be examples that might lead to a stigmatised spatial area.

Functional neighbourhood characteristics may also contribute to a territorial stigma. These are factors such as the location (Hastings & Deans, 2003), accessibility of the neighbourhood and the facilities within the neighbourhood (Permentier et al., 2008). Neighbourhoods that are isolated from the city, for example located in the outskirts, might be more stigmatised than inner-city neighbourhoods. The isolation or physical distance from the city centre may emphasise a group’s separateness (Permentier et al., 2008). Additionally, certain amenities in the neighbourhood, such as a rehabilitation centre, might influence a neighbourhood’s reputation.

(10)

8

Social neighbourhood characteristics form a last category. These elements can be perceived as the combination of blemishes of individual character and a stigma based on race, nation and religion (Bürk et al., 2012) and refer to characteristics such as the level of unemployment, lifestyle or social structure of the neighbourhood and are thus related to residents (Permentier et al., 2008). Although some disagreement about which specific element of the social characteristics primarily fosters a territorial stigma, most studies show these social neighbourhood characteristics are the major components on which a territorial stigma is based (Permentier et al., 2008; Wacquant, 2008). Class and ethnicity are considered the most important characteristics. Wacquant (2008) argues that in the Parisian banlieues the class position of the residents causes the territorial stigma, while in the American ghetto ethnicity explains the poor neighbourhood reputation. Others have argued that the stigmatisation of the Parisian banlieues is related to a concentration, and thus an overrepresentation, of ethnic minorities (Tissot, 2007). In the case of Utrecht ethnic and class characteristics seem to overlap and both characteristics are strong determinants for outsiders to evaluate the neighbourhood (Permentier et al., 2008). Also lifestyle, which might be related to ethnicity and class, is an important characteristic. Rhodes (2011), namely, shows that for Burnley, a textile town in England, white and non-white neighbourhoods are both evaluated on the living culture of the residents.

However, these three types of objective neighbourhood characteristics not fully capture the explanations of territorial stigma. In addition, neighbourhoods are often related to stories (Blokland, 2008), for example on the history of the neighbourhood (Permentier et al., 2008). And Blokland (2008) also shows that stigmatisation is not caused by the real concentration of problems in the neighbourhood, but on the outsiders’ assumptions that people in the neighbourhood do not care about their community and that residents would live there only for a short period of time. Likewise, the history of the neighbourhood seems to be of significant importance. It might even be the case that a neighbourhood’s reputation considers the history of the neighbourhood more than the current neighbourhood attributes. In conclusion, a territorial stigma is thus, among other things, based on ‘objective’ neighbourhood characteristics and stories told about the neighbourhood.

2.3 ACTORS OF STIGMATISATION: THE ROLE OF AREA-BASED POLICY A stigma, as indicated above, has to be imposed by a dominant group to a dominated group (Link & Phelan, 2001). The dominant group might consist of journalists, policy makers, the state, scientists (Wacquant, 2008) and other city-residents (Permentier et al., 2008). The role of policy in this process is ambiguous. The aim of policy is often to physically or socially improve a neighbourhood and by this also its reputation. However, the implemented policy is not always assessed positively by residents, which can result in a reinforcement of a territorial stigma. And even after renovation or renewal projects a territorial stigma can last (Hastings & Deans, 2003).

These types of policies are often referred to as area-based policy or targeted neighbourhood-approaches. Frequently, neighbourhoods within a country or city in Western Europe are evaluated based on predefined themes on which each neighbourhood will receive a score. The neighbourhoods that score lowest are considered ‘priority neighbourhoods’ (Permentier et al.,

(11)

9

2013; Sharpe, 2013). For a beforehand determined period of time these neighbourhoods will receive extra funding to physically redevelop the area and/or focus on social and cultural activities. Current area-based policies are also more stimulating residents’ participation in improving the neighbourhood (Andersson & Musterd, 2005). However, the highlighted problems in these types of policies are not always recognised by residents of stigmatised neighbourhoods (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003).

Area-based policy could have a ‘perverse effect of further stigmatisation’ (Burgers & Vranken, 2003, p. 16). Area-based policy, namely, is focused on a particular neighbourhood and its residents while neglecting the structural causes (van Gent, 2009). It might then be thought that the residents are causing the problems in the neighbourhood, which could lead to a further stigmatisation when policymakers are unable to physically or socially improve the neighbourhood (van Gent, 2009). Pinkster (2014) shows that the middle class living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and The Hague perceives the name that is given to their neighbourhood (aandachtwijken) as an extra label for outsiders to negatively evaluate the neighbourhood. In 2007 in the Netherlands a list of the 40 ‘worst’ neighbourhoods of the country was created and later on published for the public. Different labels for these neighbourhoods were used: priority neighbourhoods (aandachtsijken), problem neighbourhoods (probleemwijken), empowered neighbourhoods (krachtwijken), or beautiful neighbourhoods (prachtwijken). Although the names might have changed, all these names could further stigmatise the neighbourhood. However, before this labelling, outsiders might not have regarded these neighbourhoods as priority neighbourhoods. In addition, not only outsiders use these extra labels, residents also start using them when referring to their neighbourhood (Kirkness, 2014). This extra label caused by policy might be unintentional, but some authors argue that the reinforcement of a territorial stigma is a strategy of policy makers to justify the development of mixed-income neighbourhoods (August, 2014).

Area-based policy might thus have the (unintended) additional effect of a further stigmatization of the selected neighbourhood. Policy influences outsiders’ perception of the neighbourhood and could make its poor reputation more well known among non-residents. This (further) stigmatisation of a neighbourhood is perceived as one of the most significant costs of the targeted-neighbourhood approach (Sharpe, 2013). It has even been a reason for municipalities in Sweden not to implement area-based policy (Andersson & Musterd, 2005). 2.4 SENSE OF PLACE, NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSESSMENT AND

TERRITORIAL STIGMA

Although a stigma is often imposed by dominant groups to dominated groups (Link & Phelan, 2001), in the process of stigmatisation both groups (Blokland, 2009; Bürk et al., 2012) and their relations matter (Blokland, 2009). Insiders are often referred to as the residents (Rijpers & Smeets, 1998) but also include other stakeholders such as shop keepers (Hortulanus, 1995, p. 4). Insiders’ assessments of the neighbourhood are based on a more comprehensive view of the neighbourhood that includes subjective evaluations (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003) as well as physical and social objective neighbourhood characteristics (Permentier et al., 2008).

The objective neighbourhood characteristics are similar to the ones that outsiders base their image of the neighbourhood on. So, again, the internal neighbourhood reputation is partially based on the functional, physical and social characteristics outlined above (Permentier et al.,

(12)

10

2008). In assessing a neighbourhood the socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics of the population are for insiders and outsiders most important (Permentier et al., 2008). However, other appreciated objective neighbourhood characteristics for insiders differ from the ones for outsiders (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003; Permentier et al., 2008), partially because they have more detailed information about their neighbourhood than outsiders. Insiders namely also refer to the cohesiveness and sense of community in the neighbourhood (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003) when evaluating its’ reputation. Furthermore, residents take into account the physical characteristics such as the household composition and number of shops in the neighbourhood and functional characteristics as the level of urbanity (Permentier et al., 2008).

Objective neighbourhood characteristics do not fully capture insiders’ perceptions of the neighbourhood. Again the subjective perceptions related to those objective characteristics have to be considered as well. The way people make sense of their neighbourhood is done by hermeneutic processes (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003). First, it can be about how residents use and interpret their neighbourhood in their everyday life (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003). Second, and related to the first, is how residents conceive and experience space (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003). The experiences people have in their neighbourhood and their related emotions and feelings together form their sense of place (Cresswell, 2009; Foote & Azaryahu, 2009). Thus, rather than the type of objective neighbourhood characteristics, it is about residents’ appreciation, experience, perception and reasoned awareness of these characteristics (Hortulanus, 1995, p.43; Foote & Azaryahu, 2009).

The territorial stigma and insiders’ assessment of the neighbourhood are likely to influence each other (Permentier et al., 2007). Insiders and outsiders interact which leads to an exchange of evaluations of the neighbourhood. It is even possible that both groups rate certain neighbourhood characteristics in the same manner. However, often residents rate their neighbourhood higher than non-residents and are able to apply micro-differentiation where the neighbourhood is being divided in smaller blocks or streets (Permentier et al., 2008). Another important difference is the time insiders spend in the neighbourhood and the personal experience they have in the neighbourhood. Therefore the insiders’ perception of the neighbourhood often is more detailed (Permentier et al., 2008) and their sense of place is more accurate (Cresswell, 2009).

In conclusion, territorial stigma may not match with residents’ assessment of the neighbourhood. Residents often have a more accurate sense of place on which they might base their assessment of the neighbourhood. Territorial stigma and insiders’ assessment are both subjective and therefore images of the neighbourhood based on information people obtain from their personal experience, media or family and friends. This clearly refers to a gap between the image created by people and the real world (Crang, 2005).

2.5 RESPONSES TO TERRITORIAL STIGMA

When a discrepancy exists between a territorial stigma and residents’ sense of place, residents may also respond to a territorial stigma. First, residents need to be aware of the external neighbourhood reputation. Batty and Flint (2013) showed that the working class in six different neighbourhoods in London do not compare themselves with other social groups or neighbours, for the simple reason that they have not thought about it. This can also be applied

(13)

11

to the comparison of neighbourhoods, as working class residents might not compare neighbourhoods or are unaware of the reputation of their neighbourhood.

However, there is evidence that residents respond to a territorial stigma. The submission of a stigma, counter-stigmatisation and resisting a stigma are possible responses (Adler-Nissen, 2014; Goffman, 1963; Wacquant et al., 2007; Wacquant, 2008; Wacquant 2014). Submission, also referred as stigma recognition, the adaptation of a stigma or the internalisation of a stigma, is defined as a form of taking over the stigma and trying to transform the neighbourhood as it will fit in what is considered normal by the dominant group (Jensen & Christensen, 2012; Adler-Nissen, 2014). According to Wacquant (2008), submissive responses are dominant in the stigmatised ghettos in Chicago and the Parisian banlieues. A form of this strategy is mutual distancing and the elaboration of microdifferences (Wacquant et al., 2014). This is in many articles identified when residents argue that their lifestyle is different from the lifestyle of other residents (August, 2014). This form is related to lateral denigration, where residents ‘thrust the stigma onto a faceless, demonised other’ (Wacquant, 2007, p. 68). Two other, more physical responses, are the retreatment into the private sector and, when resources allow residents, exiting the neighbourhood. Exiting the neighbourhood is the clearest response to a territorial stigma (Permentier et al., 2007).

Counter-stigmatisation is a second way to deal with a stigma according to Goffman (1963, p.63). When residents counter a stigma they turn the stigma into something they can be proud of (Goffman, 1963, p. 63; Adler-Nissen, 2014). This type of response exists when residents disagree with the stigma, but not actively try to frame the neighbourhood more positively. Creating an alternative value system is a way to counter a stigma as residents ignore the territorial stigma and focus on other aspects of their life. McKenzie (2012) shows that multiple alternative value systems exist in the same neighbourhood. In her research women are highly focused on the status gained from motherhood, while the elderly value the amount of time spent in the neighbourhood. Young people are proud to live in this area and protect the neighbourhood from outsiders. Another example of counterstigmatisation is given by Kirkness (2014) when he describes that residents of the Parisian banlieues stigmatise the city centre of Paris as a response to their poor neighbourhood reputation. It could be the case that based on the created alternative value system, residents start to evaluate and stigmatise other neighbourhoods.

Resisting a territorial stigma is a third manner to respond the outsiders’ perception of the neighbourhood. Resisting a stigma refers to the questioning and rejection of a stigma (Adler-Nissen, 2014), which can vary from a political statement to an everyday practice (Kirkness, 2014) and can be an individual or collective response (Permentier et al., 2007). In the neighbourhood this is often a collective response where a number of residents organise themselves. Whereas Wacquant (2008) argues this strategy is not often used by residents of a neighbourhood with a poor reputation, Mazanti and Ploger (2003) show that the territorial stigma led to a neighbourhood organisation. In addition, residents may start to defend the neighbourhood. To do this, residents could participate in neighbourhood initiatives themselves or contact officials (Permentier et al., 2007). Individuals, especially those organised in a neighbourhood initiative try to frame their neighbourhood positively.

(14)

12

Place framing or place making refers to the advertisement of an image. Place framing as performed by residents is how one organises and makes sense of events. In this research place framing focuses on the conscious acts of residents framing their neighbourhood. For example, residents can frame their neighbourhood history differently and emphasise only certain aspects of it, which even within the neighbourhood might result in different interpretations of the neighbourhood (Blokland, 2008; 2009). By this, residents consciously frame the image of their neighbourhood, which should be interpreted as a political project (Martin, 2003; Blokland, 2009).

However, these categorisations, following Gotham and Brumley (2002), are too simple to refer to the actions of residents of a stigmatised neighbourhood. They argue that the urban poor use space in multiple ways to protect the neighbourhood, avoid certain places or support redevelopment. Most of the time submission and resistance are going on at the same time and reinforce each other (Gotham & Brumley, 2002). Thus, different responses might simultaneously take place in the neighbourhood and residents could even change their strategy over time. The research will eventually look at how these responses possibly coexist. 2.6 CONCLUSION

To sum up, the responses to a territorial stigma residents will show depends on the discrepancy between insiders’ and outsiders’ assessment of the neighbourhood. Some expectations can be formulated based on the above reviewed literature. A submissive response would be expected when residents’ assessment of the neighbourhood and the territorial stigma are similar. Here, residents will not reject the stigma, but take over a stigma. Second, resisting a stigma occurs when residents’ assessments of the neighbourhood are different from the territorial stigma. When resisting a stigma, residents then frame their neighbourhood positively and therefore try to change the external neighbourhood reputation. Third, when residents’ assessments of the neighbourhood differ from the territorial stigma, but they disengage from the stigma, they perform counter-stigmatisation. However, as mentioned above, this typology is not discrete (Gramling & Forsyth, 1987) and the research will look for the coexistence of responses.

(15)

13

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

To investigate the responses to territorial stigma, this chapter presents the research questions, conceptual scheme, operationalisation and research design of this study.

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The focus of this research is defined in the following research question:

How do residents respond to the territorial stigmatisation of their neighbourhood and what is, according to them, the impact of area-based policy on the neighbourhood’s reputation?

To be able to adequately answer this question, the next sub-questions are leading the investigation:

1. How do residents in a stigmatised area perceive, experience and assess their neighbourhood?

2. To what extent do residents experience a territorial stigma?

3. To what extent do residents perceive area-based policy as a cause of the territorial stigma?

4. How do residents respond to a territorial stigma?

The first research question focuses on residents’ sense of place and assessment of their neighbourhood to later allow a comparison between this and the territorial stigma. The second sub-question looks from insiders’ perspectives on the territorial stigma in order to understand whether residents are aware of the outsiders’ reputation of their neighbourhood. This has by some authors been called the self-reflective image (Smeets & Rijpers, 1998). In addition, the third question investigates from residents’ views the evaluation of area-based policy and its possible stigmatising effect. Lastly, the responses to the experienced territorial stigma will be examined.

3.2 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME

Figure 1 shows the relationships between the different concepts and the focus of this research. As is shown, the objective characteristics of the neighbourhood and the area-based policy influence the subjective notions of the neighbourhoods. The study of Permentier et al. (2008) shows that residents’ assessments of the neighbourhood as well as the territorial stigma are based on measurable neighbourhood attributes. The first sub question will therefore look at how residents assess their neighbourhood and their sense of place. Secondly, from residents’ perspectives the territorial stigma will be discussed in further detail. The third sub question will follow up this question by focusing on what the possible relationship between area-based policy and the territorial stigma might be. Eventually, in the literature it is argued that a discrepancy might exist between insiders’ and outsiders’ assessments of the neighbourhood. The comparison between these two assessments can lead to a response of residents, investigated in the fourth sub question. Resident might counterstigmatise, take over or resist a stigma. A possible consequence of a response might be the reframing of the neighbourhood, which could influence the territorial stigma.

(16)

14

Disconnection internal reputation and territorial stigma

reputation Figure 1: Conceptual scheme

Objective Subjective

Relations focused on in the research Other relations

3.3 OPERATIONALISATION

In the research the sense of place, experiences of and responses to a territorial stigma, and the evaluation of area-based policy are central.

Sense of Place and Neighbourhood Assessment

The sense of place is defined as the manner in which residents perceive and experience their neighbourhood. Sense of place, a subjective notion, refers to a feeling, perception or reasoned awareness simultaneously (Foote & Azaryahu, 2009). It thus refers to an emotional tie to a specific place (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001). An open-ended approach has been taken by asking people how they like living in the neighbourhood, what the positive and negative sides of living in the neighbourhood are. In addition, questions concerned residents’ attachment to the neighbourhood: their time spend in the neighbourhood, which places they frequented and their social embeddedness in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, residents were asked to assess the neighbourhood: they were asked to rate the neighbourhood and define the best and worst neighbourhoods in Amsterdam. As is argued in the literature review, this assessment is partially based on objective neighbourhood characteristics (Permentier et al., 2008; Smeets & Rijpers, 1998). Therefore the perception of objective neighbourhood characteristics which are

Sense of place and neighbourhood assessment (RQ1) Neighbourhood characteristics Framing Area-based policy (RQ3) Territorial stigma (RQ2) Responses to territorial stigma (RQ4)

(17)

15

categorised as social, functional and physical characteristics will be discussed. Questions have been formulated to refer to for example the built environment, amenities in the neighbourhood, proximity to the city centre, other residents (Permentier et al., 2008) or sense of community (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003). Other characteristics that might be of influence are the seniority in the neighbourhood and lifecourse stage.

Experiences of Territorial Stigma

In this research territorial stigma is perceived as a multilayered concept that refers to the concentration of an already stigmatized group in a neighbourhood with deviating aesthetics (Kirkness, 2013). The experience of a territorial stigma is related to how residents think outsiders will assess their neighbourhood. This is called the self-reflective image (Smeets & Rijpers, 1998). Therefore, residents have been asked how they think outsiders would assess the neighbourhood and how acquaintances respond when they tell where they live. Wutich et al. (2014) developed a neighbourhood stigma scale. In their study they formulated statements such as ‘because of where I live, some people avoid me’ or ‘sometimes I feel I am talked down to because I live in this neighbourhood’. These statements have been reformulated into open questions.

Responses to Territorial Stigma

The literature suggests several types of responses to a territorial stigma exist. These responses have been categorised as resisting, taking over a territorial stigma or counterstigmatising. It is argued in the conceptual scheme that these responses, among other things, depend on the discrepancy between the insiders’ neighbourhood assessment and the territorial stigma. Wacquant (2008) argues primarily submissive responses (taking over a stigma) will be found in deprived and stigmatised areas. In practice, the response of taking over can be subdivided in the following responses: the elaboration of microdifferences in the neighbourhood, the division between small areas in the neighbourhood, and putting the stigma on another place in the neighbourhood. Additionally, residents might stay in their private domain or are trying to move out of the neighbourhood. Counterstigmatisation occurs when residents start either emphasising different neighbourhood attributes than outsiders do (McKenzie, 2012). They might value certain cultural characteristics of the neighbourhood, on which they also evaluate other neighbourhoods. By this, they may stigmatise another area (Kirkness, 2014). The response of resisting a territorial stigma can be present when residents start arguing the stigma is wrong and for example start organising themselves in neighbourhoods organisations (Mazanti & Ploger, 2003; Permentier, 2007). At the end of the literature review some expectations were formulated concerning the responses to a territorial stigma. In the interview guide, residents have been asked what they think of the neighbourhood’s reputation. When possible or necessary, the responses described here have been transformed into interview questions.

Area-based Policy

Area-based policy is referred to as a project (Madden, 2014) led by local or national government on a specific area. A particular neighbourhood is selected for the policy and will receive extra funding from the government for a predetermined period of time. In this study area-based policy refers directly to the policy present in the neighbourhood.

(18)

16 3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design consists of two essential components: a comparison and mixed-methods approach. Below, an elaboration on the comparative component is given and the two cases are presented. Afterwards, the research methods are introduced.

3.4.1 A comparative case study

The main aims of the comparative analysis are to reveal the processes of responding to a territorial stigma and the mechanisms of the stigmatising effect of based policy. As area-based policy exists in and is different in various countries, the effects experienced by residents might vary as well. In many European countries policy has been implemented to overcome social exclusion (Uitermark, 2014) or improve a neighbourhood’s poor reputation. These policies could, however, differ in their stigmatising effect and their aims and results (physical redevelopment and/or social improvements). A case comparison provides insights in how these policies might influence the neighbourhood reputation.

For the inquiry Kuregem Bara (Brussels) and Bijlmer East (Amsterdam) were selected based on the presence of a territorial stigma and area-based policy. A brief description of these two elements is provided here per neighbourhood. A further investigation of the neighbourhood is found in the empirical chapters.

Kuregem Bara

Kuregem Bara is one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Brussels and Belgium (https://wijkmonitoring.irisnet.be/tables). Over time the neighbourhood has received a variety of names and associations in Dutch and French newspapers such as ‘The Bronx of Brussels’, ‘the no-go zone of Brussels’, a problem neighbourhood, ‘Cureghem, le dépotoir impuni’ (Kuregem, the unpunished rubbish dump), a neighbourhood with a zero-tolerance policy, a neighbourhood where the police fights drugs criminals or a neighbourhood where the police is absent. Even though newspapers start presenting Kuregem differently, this poor reputation is still prevalent among people living in Brussels and Belgium.

Since 1994 Brussels Capital Region uses neighbourhood contracts in deprived neighbourhoods in the city. The policy is based on the transformation of real estate, improvement of public space and social actions (Noël, 2009). Five goals have been formulated, primarily focusing on the built environment. The first goal refers to the renovations or rebuilding of houses by the municipality to increase the amount of social housing. A second goal is the building of houses for the middle class, and a third is the rental of houses by the municipality which have been built by private investors. These houses will then be used by the municipality as social housing. A fourth goal is focused on the physical improvement of public space such as squares, streets and parks. The last goal is related to social and cultural activities which should lead to integration and social cohesion. Increasingly, the focus of these interventions is based on residents’ participation (Noël, 2009). Since 2010 the name of this policy changed into sustainable neighbourhood contracts, from then onwards more focusing on environmental renovations.

Only 10 of the 19 municipalities in Brussels Capital Region can participate in the neighbourhood contract program. Each year the regional government selects 3 or 4 areas for the program (Sacco, 2010), and lists them at their website. The neighbourhood contracts are the first type of area-based policy in Brussels and should last 4 years and 2 additional years

(19)

17

for the realization of the project. Residents, private and public investors collaborate to formulate the specific goals per contract.

G-buurt (Bijlmer East)

Over time, Bijlmer has received many labels. The neighbourhood, inspired by the modernism architectural ideas of Le Corbusier, has been criticized because of its design, the safety in the neighbourhood and the population. When presenting the neighbourhood, newspapers have referred to shootings in the streets, drugs, gangs of youths, mugging and robbing. Even scientists without further explanation referred to the neighbourhood as having a ‘culture of poverty’ (Aalbers et al., 2010). The neighbourhood has sometimes been known as the worst neighbourhood (Wassenberg, 2013).

In 2007 Bijlmer East (including G-buurt) was selected by the national government as one of the 40 krachtwijken/aandachtswijken in the Netherlands. The Dutch government, with Ella Vogelaar as the Minister for Housing, Communities and Integration, decided to improve the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the Netherlands, which were called aandachtswijken (priority neighbourhoods). Based on a cumulative score on housing, employment, education, growing up, integration and safety a list of these most disadvantaged neighbourhoods has been created. Here, the focus from the start seemed to be on the social and physical aspects of redeveloping a neighbourhood. Several goals per neighbourhood, related to the aforementioned themes, were formulated in cooperation with local partners. It was meant to supply each neighbourhood with an additional fund a decade long; however, in 2012 the extra subsidies from the central government were stopped. Since then, the municipality of Amsterdam is still renovating Bijlmer (East). The neighbourhoods have been selected via a top-down approach which mainly focused on liveability issues instead of for example shares of low-income households (van Gent et al., 2009).

3.4.2 Logic of comparison

First, a comparison may be interesting because Kuregem Bara and Bijlmer East are both characterised by a territorial stigma, but the intensity of the territorial stigma differs. Especially after the terrorist attack in Paris, most media attention shifted from Kuregem to Molenbeek; whereas the stigma placed on Bijlmer (East) is not overshadowed by another stigmatised neighbourhood in Amsterdam. It could therefore be argued that the territorial stigma of the Bijlmer is more intense than Kuregem’s reputation. This might result in different responses of residents. However, authors seem to disagree whether a stronger territorial stigma leads to the internalisation of a stigma or the resistance. According to Wacquant (2007, 2008), the stronger a territorial stigma, the easier residents will internalise a stigma. Alternatively, Kirkness (2014) rejects the idea that a strong territorial stigma generates internalisation and states that residents use different forms of resilience, reworking and even resisting the territorial stigma. It has thus to be concluded that there is an assumption in the literature that a stronger stigma influences a resident’s response but to which type of response this leads is ambiguous.

A second element in the comparison is the implemented based policy. In both cases area-based policy is used by local or national governments to upgrade a neighbourhood:

krachtwijkenbeleid (Bijlmer) and neighbourhood contracts (Kuregem). This type of policy

might influence a territorial stigma in two divergent ways. A first possible impact is that through policy a neighbourhood improves physically and socially resulting in a decrease or

(20)

18

even transformation of a territorial stigma, an assumption that is focused on the actual results of the policy. In contrast, another effect could be that through the policy the neighbourhood receives a stigmatising label (Burgers & Vranken, 2003; Sharpe, 2013), for example that of a problem neighbourhood. This label is dependent on the communication of the policy by policy makers as well as journalists. This part of the comparison will focus on whether area-based policy has the effect of improving a neighbourhood’s reputation. Or, alternatively, whether different formulations and types of communication have led to another influence on the neighbourhood’s reputation. To conclude, the effect of area-based policy on a territorial stigma is related to the material results of the policy and how the policy is framed.

In addition to these two characteristics many more differences and similarities between these two neighbourhoods exist. However, this study is particularly interested in the above mentioned concepts and how they work out in a unique context.

3.4.3 A mixed-methods approach

The main aim of this research is to explain how residents respond to a territorial stigma and to what extent they think area-based policies are affecting the neighbourhood and its reputation. Some expectations derived from the literature will be used to reconstruct currently available theory (Burawoy, 1998, p. 16). To be able to reconstruct theory, the study used, from a pragmatist point of view, a mixed-methods approach. All the methods were qualitative in nature to fully capture residents’ experiences and evaluations. The study combines newspaper articles, exploratory questionnaires, interviews with professionals, interviews with residents, informal conversations with residents and visitors, policy documents and fieldwork notes. The selected cases form the basis of the analysis and by using a multiplicity of research methods, a case can be researched more in-depth (Bazely, 2009; Denzin, 2012). In addition to this, combining different research methods offers the possibility of triangulation. The research questions are investigated from multiple perspectives which contribute to the internal validity. Using the method of triangulation does not obligate the researcher to find consistent outcomes, but it provides the researcher an opportunity to a deeper understanding of the data (Patton, 2002). Therefore, the empirical chapters will focus more on the combined results of the sources and possible inconsistencies rather than the individual outcomes. All these methods were not strictly used in a sequential order but were conducted concurrently.

The exploratory questionnaires were brief in nature to make completion facile. Most of the questions were open, asking how people would describe their neighbourhood in three words, what the best and worst neighbourhoods in their city were and how they would rate their neighbourhood (see appendix I). These questionnaires provided a first insight in how residents experience and assess their neighbourhood. Some of the question in the semi-structured interviews overlapped with the questions of the questionnaire. However, the interviews focused more on the explanation of the answers, offering a deeper understanding of the answers in the questionnaires (see appendix II). However, the respondents of the questionnaires and interviews did not necessarily have to overlap. Whereas the questionnaires are more representative, the interviews add more explanations to the research.

Based on this research some hypotheses concerning the specific circumstances and processes might be added to improve existing theory, referred to as a logical hypothesis by Small (2009, p.23). The empirical results of this study will be compared to the expectations derived from

(21)

19

the literature, resulting in analytic generalization and generalization to theory (Yin, 2009, p. 43).

3.4.4 Data collection

In total 103 exploratory questionnaires were completed by residents in Kuregem Bara, 81 in G-Buurt. For several days a couple of hours were spend on frequented neighbourhood locations (squares, shopping streets, and playing grounds) to ask people to complete a questionnaire. Different days and locations were selected to be able to provide a good overview of residents (see appendix III). Questionnaires were mainly answered in French, Dutch or English. Even though it was tried to select a representative sample, the results should be carefully interpreted in terms of generalisation because not all approached residents were able to complete the questionnaire due to a language barrier or lack of interest.

From all the respondents in Kuregem Bara, 43 were women, 59 men (one missing). The respondents’ average age is 40; participants were between 18 and 78 years old. Respondents' average seniority in the neighbourhood is 12,7 years, ranging from 1 month until 50 years. Half of the participants lived in the neighbourhood 9 years or less. The participants were born in 26 different countries. Most of the people who completed the questionnaire were born in Morocco; the second largest group was born in Belgium. Other countries of origin of the participants included among others Congo, Brazil, Tibet, Cameroon, France, Pakistan, Algeria and Bulgaria. In G-buurt 44 men and 36 women participated (one missing). Respondents’ were aged between 18 and 83 years, with an average of 45 years. These respondents on average lived 15,8 years in the neighbourhood, varying from 3 weeks to 40 years. They were born in 12 different countries, most respondents in Surinam, the Netherlands, Ghana, Nigeria or Curacao. Approximately a third of the respondents lived in the neighbourhood 9 years or less.

Sometimes brief informal conversation arose after the conduction of the questionnaires. These informal conversations were noted down at the questionnaires themselves or in my fieldwork diary. In addition to these informal conversations with residents I sometimes spontaneously spoke with visitors of the neighbourhood. These conversations and observations during the conduction of the questionnaires were immediately written down after the periods of time spend in the neighbourhood. In the case of Kuregem Bara, I lived close to the neighbourhood and therefore observed the neighbourhood also when I was doing the groceries or biking to a train station.

In addition, 13 interviews with residents and 3 interviews with professionals were performed in Kuregem Bara and 11 interviews in G-buurt. For all the interviews an interview guide for semi-structured interviews was developed that slightly changed over the course of the research. Two of the three interviews with professionals were conducted before the investigation to get to know the neighbourhood better. These interviewees were selected because they were working for a neighbourhood/social organisation in the neighbourhood for several years or worked as a politician to lead one of the neighbourhood contracts. Finding residents willing to participate in an interview was quite a time-consuming process. Residents were approached door to door, by giving certain streets an information letter, but the response was quite low. Even after approaching all these residents two times after the information letter, residents were unwilling to contribute to the research. Some residents did not master French, Dutch or English, others said they were busy or just did not open their doors. After a

(22)

20

couple of weeks this sample method did not work out very well, so neighbourhood initiatives were visited and active participants were asked for an interview. Eventually, additional interviewees were selected based on snowball sampling. Because of these difficulties of the door-to-door approach in the case of G-buurt active neighbourhood residents were immediately approached. However, along the entire period of the research the method of providing information letters was used to approach a diverse range of residents. Nevertheless, a bias is still present in the interviewees, which is mainly due to time constraints.

The seniority in the neighbourhood among the interviewees living in Kuregem Bara differs from 4 to 40 years. The majority of the interviewees were born in Belgium, three in European countries and two in Morocco. Those interviewees who were born in another country lived in Belgium for at least 10 years. In total 7 men and 6 women were interviewed, all between the age of 29 and 58. Except from one interviewee, all the respondents were homeowners. In G-buurt women are dominant in the interviewees (9 out of 11). The age of respondents varies from 24 to 74 years. Interviewees lived in the neighbourhood from half a year to 20 years. However, some who only have lived a couple of years in G-buurt, already resided in Bijlmer for more than 15 years. Most interviewees were social renters. Table IV in the appendix provides an overview of all the respondents.

Relevant newspaper articles and (policy) documents were investigated before and during the research. The newspaper articles consists of various topics that all in some way refer to Kuregem but are not necessarily directed to the poor living conditions in the neighbourhood. These newspaper articles predominantly provide insights in how the neighbourhoods are perceived by outsiders. Relevant policy documents contain the documents related to neighbourhood contracts and krachtwijkenbeleid.

3.4.5 Data analysis

The exploratory questionnaires were analysed using Excel; all the data from the questionnaires were typed in an Excel-file. Most of the answers were directly analysable. The answers of open-ended questions were categorized in order to analyse them. As the aim of these questionnaires is to provide a first insight in how these residents describe their neighbourhood, no statistical analyses have been performed. The focus of the questionnaires was on the words respondents used.

Concerning the interviews, all of them were transcribed and coded using Atlas.ti. A list of codes present in the theory has been made; however, most of the codes derived from the data. Interviews were analysed and coded several times. These codes were consequently added to the list of codes, eventually resulting in a clear overview of concepts used in theory and derived from the interviews. This list of codes helped defining the existing lacks prevalent in current theory.

(23)

21

Chapter 4: CASE STUDY KUREGEM BARA

This chapter presents the case study of Kuregem Bara by first introducing the neighbourhood and its geographical location in Brussels. After this overview, the everyday experiences and evaluations of the residents are discussed. The third paragraph provides insights in what residents perceive to be the external neighbourhood reputation followed by a paragraph on the explanations residents give for this external reputation. Lastly, the manners in which residents respond to this perceived external neighbourhood reputation are discussed.

The chapter discusses the interviews and questionnaires collectively. The descriptive characteristics mentioned in the questionnaires will be illustrated by the interviews and function as a mean to interpret the answers of the questionnaire. In this chapter respondents refer to residents completing the questionnaires; interviewees refer to people with whom an interview was conducted; and participants concerns both groups.

4.1 A Brief Introduction to Kuregem (Bara)

Kuregem Bara is located in what has often been referred to as the poor crescent of Brussels in the western part of the city, close to the city centre. The neighbourhood is situated in the municipality of Anderlecht and is part of the district Kuregem that consists of three neighbourhoods: Kuregem Bara, Kuregem Veeartsenij and Kuregem Dauw. The southern border of Kuregem Bara is Brussels’ South station, the largest train station in Belgium where trains from Paris, London and Amsterdam arrive daily. Rue de l’Instruction forms the eastern border of the neighbourhood and the northern border consists of Chaussée de Mons, a lively street with pedestrians, shops, busses and cars. Boulevard du Midi, a four lane street including a tram line that is part of the inner city ring road, is the western border of the neighbourhood. The western and southern borders of the neighbourhood are evident; however, the eastern and northern border might not be interpreted as the boundaries of the neighbourhood by residents. These eastern and northern borders are the borders between the other neighbourhoods in Kuregem (see map 1 and 2).

The neighbourhood developed at the end of the 19th century. Following the construction of the canal, which still is a significant physical and social border in Brussels, the first houses and plants were built. As business in the neighbourhood started to flourish, it attracted Flemish migrants in the second half of the 19th century, Jewish migrants in the beginning of the 20th century, and from the 1950s onwards guest workers from Italy, Spain, Greece, Morocco and Turkey (De Caluwé, 2012). However, from the 1970s onwards almost 25 per cent of the population, particularly the Belgians, Italians, Spanish and Greeks, moved out of the neighbourhood; the number of Moroccans and Turks in the neighbourhood increased. This coincided with an impoverishment of the neighbourhood of which it is still suffering. Currently, Kuregem is still known as a ‘place of arrival’, a place where migrants first arrive when entering Belgium.

(24)

22

Map 1: Kuregem Bara and surroundings (source: Google Mymaps) Map 2: Kuregem Bara, Anderlecht, and Brussels Capital Region

(25)

23

For a long period of time Kuregem did not receive much attention from the local municipality (De Caluwé, 2012). The immigrant population had no opportunity to vote during the elections of the local municipality. Some authors say that due to the underrepresentation of these immigrant groups in the elections, the leading party never was really interested in the neighbourhood (Sacco 2010; Meert et al., 1995). Since 2006, residents without a Belgian nationality have the possibility to participate in the elections for the municipality. During the 1990s Kuregem, as well as the entire municipality of Anderlecht, was part of the federal safety contracts. These safety contracts provided the municipality with extra funding from the federal government to prevent crime in the neighbourhood, primarily used in the form of repression by investing in extra police controls in the neighbourhood. At the end of the 1990s the ‘famous’ riots between the police and youth were caused by the dead of a 24-years old resident of Kuregem who was shot by the police (De Caluwé, 2012). During the 1990s the municipality was in favour of demolishing the entire neighbourhood of Kuregem; however, the neighbourhood contracts brought changed in 1997 (Sacco, 2010). The riots and minimal attention for the neighbourhood are still referred to when the reputation of Kuregem is discussed.

Currently, a large part of the population still has an immigrant background, as is shown in (Appendix V). Residents primarily come from countries of the European Union, for example France and Bulgaria, or from countries in North or Sub-Saharan Africa. Kuregem Bara has 12291 inhabitants in total in 2013; however, some reports estimate this number 20% higher as not all the inhabitants are registered (De Caluwé, 2013). The population density is high in Kuregem Bara compared to its surrounding neighbourhoods and the average population density in Brussels. Overall, the population in Kuregem Bara is young, which is a consequence of the high presence of families. The average income in the neighbourhood in 2012 was €16747 per tax return, which results in a wealth index for the neighbourhood that is slightly less than half of the average wealth index in Belgium (Wijkmonitor.be, 2015).

Regarding the housing stock, the private rental sector was largest in 2001 followed by owner-occupied housing. An overlap between the private rental sector and owner-owner-occupied houses exists as some owners rent out certain rooms of their home. Per 100 inhabitants, 2,01 social houses are provided in 2015. This figure is very low as the average number of social houses provided in Brussels in 7,29 per 100 inhabitants. Overall, the quality of the housing is poor (Wijkmonitor.be, 2015).

Currently, private and public investors collaborate to improve the neighbourhood in the future. These projects include Les Abattoirs, South Station and the neighbourhood contracts. Les Abattoirs, situated just outside Kuregem Bara, is a market frequented by over 100.000 visitors per weekend. This site will be redeveloped in the near future to make the market better accessible, to make it more a public space, build new houses and upgrade the market (Organization for Permanent Modernity, 2011). Whether Brussels’ South Station will be redeveloped is less certain. The project attempts to make the train station more accessible from the neighbourhood, hereby also making Kuregem more accessible from the train station. This project will also open up Kuregem to the adjacent neighbourhood of Saint-Gilles (Heughebaert & Rouyet, 2014).

Lastly, the neighbourhood contracts aim at physically and socially improving Kuregem Bara. The exact aims of the neighbourhood contracts program are outlined in the methodology

(26)

24

chapter. Some of the houses and public spaces in Kuregem Bara were selected for this program (map 3). In total 5 neighbourhood contracts were (partially) performed in Kuregem Bara between 1997 and 2011. Although the official time of these contracts has expanded, some of them are still under construction. The contracts were primarily focused on the built environment: providing houses (red and blue) and renovating public space (orange). Except from the development of crèches, the map does not show any social projects. Possibly indicating that these projects were absent or not easily being mapped.

Map 3: Selected Areas in Kuregem Bara for Neighbourhood Contracts Program from 1997 until 2016

Source: http://wijken.brussels/1/

4.2 Everyday Experiences of the Neighbourhood

4.2.1 Experiencing and Assessing the Neighbourhood

Respondents’ evaluations of the neighbourhood vary considerably. A first reflection of this diversity in assessing the neighbourhood is the average grade given by respondents to the neighbourhood: 5,7. Most respondents (26) give the neighbourhood 7 out of 10, followed by those who give the neighbourhood a 5 (16) or 6 (15). In total 19 respondents give the neighbourhood a grade of 4 or lower and 6 respondents give the neighbourhood a 9 or 10. This variety in the numerical evaluation of the neighbourhood is also present in the three key words respondents were asked to provide to describe the neighbourhood. In total the answers of 103 respondents can be reduced to 53 different categories to describe the neighbourhood. These categories have been classified as a positive, negative, ambiguous or factual and are presented in table 2. The following sections will further illustrate these descriptions.

Responding to territorial stigma : insight from Brussels and Amsterdam