Slow coffee and slow violence? : the case of specialty coffee and gentrification in the Kinkerbuurt neighborhood in Amsterdam

Aridan Mećava

The case of specialty coffee and gentrification in the

Kinkerbuurt neighborhood in Amsterdam

Slow

coffee

and slow

violence?

Aridan Mećava

Student number 10370986

Supervised by mw. dr. ir. C.J.M. (Lia) Karsten Second reader dhr. dr. W.R. (Willem) Boterman

Slow coffee and slow violence? The case of specialty coffee and gentrification in the Kinkerbuurt neighborhood in Amsterdam University of Amsterdam

Department of Human Geography, Planning, and International Development

Urban Geography MA program 2016-2017 Master thesis

Word count 26.984 June 26, 2017

Content

PREFACE

4

1 INTRODUCTION

6

1.2 The research question and relevance 1.3 Thesis outline

2 THEORIES AND CONCEPTS

10

2.1 Gentrification and cultural change 2.2 Dwelling, slow violence, exclusion 2.3 Specialty coffee, taste, and gentrification 2.4 Bringing in new angles

2.5 Status quo

3 METHODOLOGY

20

3.1 Operationalization 3.2 Research methods 3.3 Limits, ethics, and positionality

4 THE SETTING

28

4.1 Arriving at the Kinkerbuurt 4.2 Specialty coffee

5 THE CRAFT AND CONNOISSEURS

37

5.1 What happens inside

5.2 Imagined globally, consumed locally 5.3 Conclusion

6 THE RESIDENTS

51

6.1 Imagining diversity 6.2 When youth take over 6.3 Conclusion

7 THE SLOW VIOLENCE OF SLOW COFFEE

62

7.1 Findings so far 7.2 Slow violence?

REFERENCES

67

APPENDIX

71

Preface

Specialty coffee bars are a global phenomenon that is strongly associated with gentrification. In the Kinkerbuurt, a gentrifying neighborhood in

Amsterdam, Lot Sixty One Coffee Roasters café presents itself to residents as an icon of recently accelerating cultural changes in the neighborhood.

Imagined as a global craft by its baristas, the café is consumed and contested by many local residents. While some local residents consume coffee at Lot Sixty One as part of a lifestyle and aesthetic culture, others carefully maneuver between new globalized consumption spaces and long-standing consumption spaces. Nevertheless, many older long-term residents associate the café with a sense of loss of diversity. This loss of diversity is perceived in relation to a young population that is increasingly prioritized in the retail landscape. Increasingly they feel estranged by new consumption spaces and new cultural codes that young newcomers brought to the neighborhood. However, their relatively privileged position makes them an uneasy target for slow violence of gentrification.

Key words: gentrification, retail gentrification, cultural change, specialty coffee, urban

Acknowledgements

This thesis, my second ethnography, is the product of a year of urban geography courses, literature review, fieldwork, analysis, and ethnographic writing. During this year, I learned about social science research in practice and I delved deeper into urban geography theory. Furthermore, I applied previous knowledge from urban geography and anthropology courses and my degree in Contemporary Asian Studies at UvA. The path that led to this thesis was obviously not straight, nor easy, but the journey was enjoyable. I managed to balance working a part-time job, free-time, and research at the same time. Working a part-time job while doing research was a challenge. However, I learned that one has to work hard to be able to make a living in Amsterdam. I hope my efforts pay off.

With the help of several people, this thesis would have not have seen its completion. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Ir. Lia Karsten for her effort in guiding me throughout all stages of my research, providing me with insightful comments at all times despite significant workload on herself. I would also like to thank Dr. Fenne Pinkster and Dr. Sako Musterd for their effort in guiding me through urban geography theories and

discussions during the core course of the Urban Geography master program. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Olga Sooudi, Dr. Tina Harris, and Dr.

Shanshan Lan at the anthropology department at UvA for introducing me to anthropology and ethnographic research in 2015 and 2016 during the Asian Studies minor program and the Contemporary Asian Studies master program UvA. Together, my background in urban geography, to which Dr. Fenne Pinkster contributed greatly, and my background in cultural anthropology made this study possible. With this thesis, my formal university education comes to a close. In the future, I aim to continue researching and writing, whether as a PhD candidate, or as a writer or journalist.

I would like to thank all the people that shared their life-stories with me. I would also like to thank my parents. Without them, I would not have been able to study. I believe heir decision to move to the the Netherlands in 1991 and raising me here contributed greatly to my development as a person. Lastly, I would also like to thank my partner, and my sister for their support and love.

Thank you Dank jullie wel Puno vam hvala

1 Introduction

Roaming around cities across the globe, there is a fair chance one runs into a specialty coffee bar. In fact, specialty coffee is now undoubtedly a global phenomenon. Not only is it visible on the streets of cities worldwide, both in developed nations and in developing nations, it often appears in the academic debates, especially within the realms of social sciences. Specialty coffee is frequently mentioned by sociologists, anthropologists, and human geographers in discussions on distinction, power relations, consumption, and social

inequalities. In urban geography, specialty coffee is well established in the discussion on gentrification and the changing nature of urban consumption within the context of gentrification. Here, it is related to advancing stages of gentrification where new consumption spaces are increasingly claiming physical and cultural space within urban neighborhoods. Within the realm of urban geography, specialty coffee is seen as an upper-middle-class commodity that offers a community-centered alternative to mass market chains cafés, and other, more traditional working class coffee establishments. This encapsulates the wider concern about the uprise in specialty coffee bars and new

consumption spaces within the discussion on gentrification. Critical receptions of new consumption spaces in relation to the everyday realities of long-term residents and long-standing establishments are well rehearsed within the field of urban geography.

Specialty coffee bars are not celebrated by all but they are examined critically. The presence of specialty coffee bars in relation to some

neighborhood residents, who simply do not have the financial resources to part take in the consumption of specialty coffee, is seen as highly problematic by urban geographers. Moreover, specialty coffee bars are perceived as a threat to long-standing, working class consumption spaces that are often replaced by new urban terroirs like specialty coffee bars. Not only through direct

displacement of old establishments and their visitors, but also through more subtle, cultural ways alike, specialty coffee bars are perceived to exclude individuals in (Kern, 2015; Sullivan & Shaw, 2011). Clearly, a power relation exist between those who can enjoy specialty coffee bars and those who cannot. It has been acknowledged that specialty coffee bars contribute to a

restructuring of power relations within urban neighborhoods and local communities within the realm of culture, consumption, and gentrification (Reese et al, 2017; Gelmers, 2015; Koning, 2015; Zukin, 2010; Zukin, 2008). While being critical of the implications of specialty coffee bars on local communities, it becomes crucial to carefully examine what is exactly happening

within specialty coffee bars. In order to understand the ways in which specialty coffee bars contribute to processes of gentrification, displacement, and cultural exclusion, one needs to enter and examine from within. There is a lack of empirical evidence that addresses these issues, at specialty coffee bars, and other spaces of retail gentrification. Furthermore, in academia, these spaces are only understood from the outside. Often, specialty coffee bars are seen as invasive perpetrators of gentrification that, through the act of craftsmanship style of coffee brewing can change the ever so authentic neighborhoods they moved into. Moreover, specialty coffee bars are imagined as exclusive cocoons or bubbles that sit amid a sea of original residents who are not able to enter. While the common aesthetic of exposed brick walls and old classroom

furniture propose that all specialty coffee bars are same (Kooyman, 2016), our understanding of the cultural production within these spaces remains limited. However, one way in which specialty coffee bars are understood by baristas, as well as academics, is as distinctly different to mass-market coffee chains or working class coffee houses. Specialty coffee is often defined as ‘third wave’ coffee that is different to ‘first wave’ espresso bars of Italy, and ‘second wave’ chains like Starbucks, Tim Horton’s, and Costa. Within the third wave, coffee is an exoticized produce that evokes notions of terroir of areas around the equator. Sharon Zukin (2010) makes a cultural or aesthetic distinction in terms of mass-market chains like Starbucks, and ‘hipster’ style independent cafés that are independent from large corporations, and almost have an obscure feel to them. The focus of this study will be on specialty coffee bars of the ‘third wave’ independent nature as they present themselves as exclusive and contested icons of gentrification.

1.2 The research question and relevance

The main issue that will be addressed in this study is the tension between the production of slow violence within specialty coffee bars and the lived everyday experiences of residents who may or may not feel displacement pressure that is produced through cultural change and (retail) gentrification. The main question that will be addressed is “In what ways do specialty coffee bars

contribute to the production of slow violence of gentrification, and in what ways is this experienced by local residents?” This question will be supported by the following

questions;

-

-

-

-

This study will combine anthropological methods in the field of geography in its attempt to unveil two things; the ways specialty coffee bars, their owners,

employees, and customers, shape a place-specific culture, and the ways in which specialty coffee bars are perceived by residents who do not engage in this culture. This cultural processes of (retail) gentrification will be captured through the lens of ‘slow violence’. The concept of slow violence is concerned with consequences of gentrification that unfold over prolonged periods of time and across space (Kern, 2015). Its focus on the less visible side of gentrification is useful in this study in order to grasp the experiential side of gentrification and its local implications. Studying specialty coffee bars in this way, from both within them, as well as from outside them, provides a rounded, holistic understanding of the slow violence of gentrification (Kern, 2015). By examining the workings of slow violence of gentrification through the

perspectives of different actors; specialty coffee bar owners and employees, the visitors, and local residents, this rounded understanding is achieved. The relevance and innovation of this research lays within its in-depth ethnographic nature examining multiple actors within the gentrification context.

Furthermore, this study will contribute to the scarce body of empirically based evidence of cultural processes within new consumption spaces like specialty coffee bars. The focus on life stories, nostalgic story telling, and memories will provide a highly personal perspective on the sides of producers, consumers, and residents. Furthermore, the research population, consisting of many long-term residents older than fifty years will provide insight into the effects of gentrification on older residents. This study will add to a better understanding of the realities of urban elderly, being not merely as victims of gentrification (Hochstenbach & Boterman, 2017). The intersection between age and class will provide a gaze into the little explored reality of relatively old and affluent social strata.

While keeping an objective outlook, it is believed that personal narratives enrich fieldwork data. As Mary Pratt (1986) has recognized, personal narratives about fieldwork experiences often find their way through in ethnographic reports, but they should always be accompanied by a formal ethnography. Nevertheless, personal narratives “play the crucial role of anchoring that description in the intense and authority-giving personal experience of

fieldwork. […] Always they are responsible for setting up the initial positioning of the subjects of the ethnographic text: the ethnographer, the native, and the reader” (pp. 32). This advice is taken on board with me as I write this thesis and tell the story of the producers, customers, and residents I met.

1.3 Thesis outline

The remainder of this thesis will be structured as follows. In chapter 2, the theoretical debate on gentrification and relevant concepts will be provided. In chapter 3, the applied methodology will be explained. Definitions of key-concepts will follow later on, throughout chapter 5, 6, and 7, as they become relevant for the analysis of data. This chapter will serve as the foundation upon

which the data, presented in chapters 5, 6, and 7, will be built. In chapter 4, the case of the Kinkerbuurt and Lot Sixty One will be presented. In chapter 5, I will tell the story of specialty coffee producers and consumers at Lot Sixty One in relation to the production of practices and culture. In chapter 6, I will tell the story of Kinkerstraat residents and their perceptions of practices and culture, focusing on inclusion and exclusion. In the final chapter 7, I will combine the three actors’ perspectives in a concluding elaboration of slow violence of gentrification in the Kinkerbuurt. This is also where I will return to the main research question of this study. In the appendix, a list of informants and relevant details about them will be provided.

2 Theories and

concepts

Before elaborating on the research design, I will reflect on the status quo of the gentrification debate, highlighting the prevalence of direct displacement within the debate. After that, I will turn to the less tangible side of

gentrification that is characterized by the process of cultural displacement and slow violence of gentrification. Next, I will connect specialty coffee

production and consumption to slow violence. Lastly, I will bring in new angles that are little explored and that will be applied in this study.

2.1 Gentrification and cultural change

Gentrification is often defined as the process in which neighborhoods are physically improved and in which new, wealthier, residents move in, in favor of long standing, ethnic and lower class residents (Zukin, 2016). Sharon Zukin (2008) concisely defines gentrification as “upgrading properties without tearing down buildings” (pp. 726). Within the gentrification debate, a strong focus on displacement, through a changing housing market, often promoted by a neoliberal government, has dominated the gentrification debate (Zukin, 2016). Since gentrification came to scholar attention after the 1960s, displacement, and the extent to which this occurs remained a highly important and contested topic of the discussion (Zukin, 2016; Newman & Wyly, 2006). On the one hand, gentrification was welcomed by neoliberal governments as a process that was to produce exciting neighborhoods that are mixed in terms of race, class, and lifestyles. As a result, it is accepted that living conditions indeed improve with gentrification (Zukin, 2016). On the other hand, gentrification must also be seen as a process that expels low-income minority groups out of desirable inner-city neighborhoods and into less desirable peripheries. The definition of Loretta Lees et al (2008) becomes useful here, as they define gentrification as a transformation of urban spaces in terms of class. In so, the quality of life and political power is taken away from low-income minority groups (Zukin, 2016; LeGates & Hartman, 1986, pp. 194, in Newman & Wyly, 2006). Sharon Zukin’s (2016) description of the outcome of gentrification in terms of neighborhood upgrading through the “bitter punch line to an old joke” by which she

compares gentrification to surgery says “the operation was successful, but the patient died”. This description summarizes the gentrification debate as follows; while the processes of gentrification is often successful regarding

neighborhood upgrading and physical improvement of built structures, diverse ethnic and social communities die out in favor of one class strata, resulting in a process of homogenization (pp. 205).

This cleavage, in which proponents and opponents of gentrification hold different understandings of gentrification is still prominent in the discussion today, and consensus about the causes of displacement and the workings of the process of displacement remains to be reached (Zukin, 2016). Proponents of neoliberal urban policy, which in the context of Amsterdam is characterized by “the neoliberalization of the housing market and the sale of public

buildings to corporate investors, luxury hotel chains and international department stores” (Pinkster & Boterman, pp. 13), favor gentrification with the intention of progress and improving life quality. However, Katie Newman & Elvin Wyly (2006) argue that underestimating gentrification “involves high costs for theoretical understanding of neighborhood change and even higher tolls for poor and working-class residents and the tattered policies in place to give them some protection” (pp. 51). Those who are displaced are deprived of social networks as they are forced into the ever so competitive housing market where they face crowdedness, rising rent, and a greater distance from services and life chances (Newman &. Wyly, 2006).

Recognizing the problematic consequences of gentrification, Tim Butler & Garry Robson (2011) point towards the need of new understandings of gentrification. They have shown how a variety of middle classes have sought to create and maintain urban lives and city living ideals in three gentrifying

London neighborhoods. In doing so, they have revealed the variability of the process of gentrification and its outcomes, which they deem crucial for gaining a holistic understanding of gentrification. Butler & Robson (2011) have

criticized existing approaches to gentrification as lacking, as they tend to see gentrification as a homogenous process that unfolds in a uniform way in different contexts. Rather, they propose a diverse, context-specific outlook on gentrification process. Following this line of thought, Cody Hochstenbach & Wouter van Gent (2015) have explored the heterogeneity of gentrification further by looking at a multitude of causes of gentrification that go beyond the classical occupation with migration as the main mechanism behind

gentrification. Hochstenbach & Van Gent (2015) have pointed out that in-situ social mobility, as well as demographic change and the dying out of older populations can contribute to gentrification. While Butler & Robson (2011) and Hochstenbach & Van Gent (2015) have pointed out the importance of the multitude of causes of gentrification and the variety of local forms it can take, Newman & Wyly (2005) call for renewed attention to displacement within the gentrification debate. Newman & Wyly (2005) reinstate the importance of displacement in the displaced’s lives, but also its embedding in class, race, ethnicity, and gender inequalities. This study takes a critical perspective that encompasses the highly damaging effects of gentrification. In doing so, it focuses on the power that lies in the social and cultural aspects of

gentrification through an examination of experiences of those in the neighborhood.

Having recognized some causes and implications of gentrification, I now turn to the processes and consequences of gentrification that are less tangible, yet crucial for gaining a holistic understanding of gentrification (Mazer & Rankin, 2011; Sullivan & Shaw, 2011). These less tangible mechanisms and outcomes are part of a wider process of placed based displacement where cultural change perpetuates a sense of estrangement to the neighborhood. Katie Mazer & Katherine Rankin (2011) describe this experiential side of gentrification and displacement pressure as the “social, emotional, and symbolic dimensions of displacement, the everyday ways in which people are dislocated from the social spaces of neighborhoods even as they continue to physically inhabit those neighborhoods” (pp. 882). An even earlier definition of displacement pressure is formulated by Peter Marcuse (1985) which states that “(w)hen a family sees the neighborhood around it changing dramatically, when their friends are leaving the neighborhood, when the stores they patronize are liquidating and new stores for other clientele are taking their places, and when changes in public facilities, in transportation patterns, and in support services all clearly are making the area less and less livable, then the pressure of displacement already is severe” (pp. 207). In terms of cultural change, Derek Hyra (2015) recognizes that when norms, behaviors, and values of newcomers in the neighborhood dominate the tastes and preferences of long-term residents, we can speak of cultural displacement (pp. 1754). As newcomers establish norms that are in line with their tastes and needs, long-term residents might feel they have lost the place they once knew, no longer identifying with their neighborhood, which may provide incentive to move out. Mazer & Rankin (2011) highlight the importance of day-to-day experiences of neighborhood change of long-term residents, especially those who are marginalized. This alternative viewpoint that moves away from the classical direct displacement approaches to gentrification raises questions on rights to the city, not only in material and built terms of housing and physical space, but also in terms of basic human needs for self-realization and self-determination and achieving the moral right to access to one’s own neighborhood, city, and society. Such ethical perspectives on gentrification through an examination of moral claims over the right to the city should take the view of those who are at greatest risk of displacement in order to examine the disruptions to social space. Mazer & Rankin (2011) argue that a growing number of gentrification scholars have recognized the importance of everyday experiences of those facing displacement in providing a crucial point of view from which gentrification and the dynamics of dispossession in the city should be understood.

2.2 Dwelling, slow violence, exclusion

This study will contain a humanistic notion of ‘dwelling’ in the analysis of resident narratives. This idea of dwelling describes how people are embedded in the local context over time while gaining comfort and familiarity in their surroundings (Duyvendak, 2011; in Pinkster & Boterman, 2017). As many residents that are featured in this study are long-term residents that are sometimes born and raised in the neighborhood, or that have moved into the neighborhood during early adolescence, this is a useful approach which will highlight unintentional and subconscious project of dwelling. The concept of dwelling will be highlighted by nostalgic stories and experiences of

neighborhood residents that reflect their sense of belonging. In their study on middle-class residents in the Amsterdam canal district, Fenne Pinkster and Willem Boterman (2017) state that “(o)ur feelings of connection to place are thus strengthened when we feel comfortable with the people we encounter and feel familiar with the way our surroundings look, feel, sound, smell and taste. Vice versa, feelings of home may transform into estrangement, when the neighborhood changes. […] Places can be conceived of as sensescapes, referring to the physicality of place, such as the visual aesthetics of the built environment and natural environment, as well as the activity rhythm of public life.” (pp. 4). This highlights the multi-faceted nature of belonging that can be social, cultural, temporal, and physical. As this study aims to reveal less-visible aspects of gentrification process, this understanding of belonging is highly useful.

Another useful way of studying this lived, day-to-day side of place based cultural displacement is by using the concept of ‘slow violence’, coined by Rob Nixon (2011), and applied within the field of gentrification by Leslie Kern (2015). This concept resonates with notions of dwelling and belonging as it lays bare the invisible, emotional, and experienced violent forces that are forcing residents out of their neighborhoods. Rob Nixon (2011) defines slow violence as “violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all” (pp. 2). This captures the essence of the less tangible side of gentrification that is out of plain sight, spread out over time and space, displacing residents over long periods of time across neighborhoods in a seemingly natural way. Rob Nixon (2011) argues for recognition of violence, not only the violence that occurs as a single event that is explosive, spectacular, and highly visible, but also violence that is incremental and accretive. He calls for attention to the temporal dispersion of the effects of slow violence and the ways in which this affects our perception and response to a variety of social afflictions. To illustrate, Rob Nixon (2011) points to disastrous events like “falling bodies, burning towers, exploding heads, avalanches, volcanoes, and tsunamis” (pp. 3) that have political power over tales of slow violence, like toxic buildup and greenhouse emission, that

unfold over many years. This raises questions over how slow violence can be called into attention, moving it out of the anonymous sphere over which spectacular disasters claim public passion and can claim political intervention. Even though Rob Nixon (2011) applies his definition to environmental issues, he views slow violence as relevant to broader social issues and disorder. As outlined above, retail gentrification, cultural change, and displacement pressure unfold over time. In so, they might be seen as out of sight, deeming them less violent effects of gentrification than direct displacement through, evictions, renovations, rent increases, or new construction. While the event of eviction, for example, is highly visible, the effects of the processes of retail

gentrification, cultural change, and displacement pressure are less so. Slow violence, then becomes a highly useful concept to apply to the field of

gentrification. Leslie Kern (2015) uses this concept to analyze the temporalities of gentrification. As residents are unable to participate in the newly established temporalities of life in their neighborhood, they are limited in their

recognition, belonging, and representation. As the neighborhood becomes a place where a fast-paced professional lifestyle becomes dominant over time, long-term residents are slowly left behind.

In this study, exclusion and inclusion are highly relevant concepts. This study will focus on the emotional and sensed experience of exclusion and exclusion within gentrification process (Williams, et al 2001; Sibley, 1995) Inclusion and exclusion are not only maintained physically but access is also determined by feelings. As Peter Williams et al (2001) have argued, “‘access’ is not solely concerned with whether shopping opportunities can be reached, but also whether consumers feel they ‘belong’ in a location” (pp. 204). Exactly this approach to inclusion and exclusion will be embraced in this study. As outlined before, the less tangible side of displacement which is place based

displacement needs one such approach in order to be explored fully and properly. Williams et al (2001) have recognized that analysis of emotions that consumers experience are worthwhile studying as these emotions, translated through desire and disgust, reflect the workings of geographies of inclusion and exclusion. Through desire and disgust, consumers, and others, evaluate, among other things, the people, products, employees, aesthetics that populate consumption spaces. Slater (1997; in Williams et al, 2001) argues that “the study of consumer culture is not simply the study of texts and textuality, of individual choice and consciousness, of wants and desires, but rather the study of such things in the context of social relations, structures, institutions,

systems. It is the study of the social conditions under which personal and social wants and the organization of social resources mutually define each other (pp. 207). This study acknowledges that this a way in which cultural change and slow violence can shape inclusion and exclusion within the process of gentrification.

2.3 Specialty coffee, taste, and gentrification

The case of specialty coffee will now make clear the relationship between gentrification and retail change. As Daniel Sullivan & Samuel Shaw’s (2011) have illustrated, new retail spaces may be experienced by residents as unwelcoming or hostile, based on the employed symbolic language and aesthetic codes. Sullivan & Shaw (2011) argue that a focus on shifting retail landscapes within the gentrification debate is useful as retail gentrification alters the range of goods and services that are available to residents, both long-time and new (pp. 414). In turn, cultural changes in local retail establishments may create quasi-public spaces that might welcome some residents, while making others feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. Consequently, this will provide an incentive for some residents to spend time in the neighborhood, while for others, it will not. Retail transformations may thus feed general cultural changes in the lived space that will include some and exclude others. As retail spaces, specialty coffee bars are well established within the

gentrification debate, often cited as iconic markers of neighborhood change that stand for a wider process of retail gentrification, cultural change, displacement pressure, and in general a changing way of life that becomes dominant in the local gentrifying neighborhood.

Turning to specialty coffee, it is a well-rehearsed argument that as

gentrification takes off, specialty coffee bars tend to move into neighborhoods. However, neighborhoods of already advanced gentrification stages in

Amsterdam have seen new specialty coffee bars emerge as well. In Amsterdam, specialty coffee bars, precedented by coffee chains like ‘Coffeecompany’, first emerged in early gentrification parts of the city around 2008, as gentrification was taking off around the Westergasterrein and the Beukenplein square. Here, the first specialty coffee bars in Amsterdam opened their doors. In the past five years, specialty coffee bars emerged in newly gentrifying neigborhoods like Mercatorpleinbuurt, Transvaalbuurt, and Kinkerbuurt, as well as in already gentrified areas of the inner city and around the Sarphatipark. Areas of the north of Amsterdam have seen the opening of several specialty coffee bars and roasteries in the past decade as well. Sharon Zukin has been influential in the debate on gentrification and urban consumption. In her work, Sharon Zukin frequently mentions specialty coffee bars as examples of new consumption spaces that are replacing local traditional working-class establishments (2008; 2010). The establishment of these new consumption spaces is related to the process of retail gentrification that puts displacement pressure on original local residents (Zukin, 2010; 2008). According to Sharon Zukin (2008) “(t)hese spaces fabricate an aura of authenticity based on the history of the area or the back story of their products, and capitalize on the tastes of their young, alternative clientele” (pp. 724). Through their

consumption of ‘pure’, original, ethnic, and fresh products, this young, alternative, clientele is contributing to neighborhood change and a general

re-imagination of previously run down marginal neighborhoods. The dirt and danger were no longer seen by them as undesirable, but instead, the grime and grunge provided excitement and authenticity.

Specialty coffee bars, but also other consumption spaces like upscale barber shops, yoga studios, organic grocery stores, high-end denim stores, small fashion boutiques, vintage furniture shops, and modern art galleries all cater to this clientele of young urbanites. Sharon Zukin (2008) characterizes them as “affluent residents of ‘latte towns” that “lead both an aesthetic and ascetic life” (pp. 727). They prefer the “authentic, natural, warm, rustic, simple, honest, organic, comfortable, craftsmanlike, unique, sensible, sincere” over the “delicate, dainty, respectable, decorous, opulent, luxurious, elegant, splendid, dignified, magnificent, and extravagant” of the old gentry (Brooks 2000, p. 83, in Zukin, 2008, pp. 727). Without delving into the concept of authenticity completely, it must be recognized that these spaces manipulate authenticity to feed new residents’ needs (Zukin, 2008, pp. 734). In doing so, these spaces also help to create the conditions upon which gentrification can advance. Not only through replacement of long-standing consumption spaces or through higher prices of products, but also through shifts in culture and taste, specialty coffee offer the urban gentry the tools to exert cultural dominance in the social space of the neighborhood (Zukin, 2010; Zukin, 2008). The consumption practices these places cater to often produce exclusion through aesthetics and comfort (Kern, 2015; Zukin, 2010; Zukin, 2008). Sharon Zukin (2008) speaks of specific discourses that do not divide people by social class, income level, or race; they divide by taste. Taste is how places like specialty coffee bars create inclusion and exclusion based on cultural factors like aesthetics, comfort, and cultural practices, and codes. Specialty coffee then becomes a tool through which one can claim moral superiority over others as the neighborhoods start to belong to a new group of residents. Simultaneously, other local residents may feel a great sense of belonging and inclusion within these spaces. Not only in Sharon Zukin’s work but also more broadly, specialty coffee bars are often seen as these iconic markers of gentrification and the urban middle-class consumption aesthetic (Reese et al, 2017; Gelmers, 2015; Koning, 2015; Zukin, 2010). As Sharon Zukin (2008) and John Manzo (2010) once again emphasizes that “it is important to note that ‘taste’ is, or can be, a basis for this sort of separation from one’s other social moorings, including one’s social class-based expectations of consumption” (Manzo, 2010, pp. 153). Along with Sharon Zukin (2010; 2008), Leslie Kern (2015) has recognized that new, authentic consumption spaces not only require “specific forms of cultural capital and socialization techniques within an aesthetic code that favors White, middle class, young residents” (pp. 442), but their success is in fact

predetermined by the presence of these cultural conditions that have to do not only with financial burdens but mostly with taste.

The component of taste is important in the debate on gentrification. It is argued that transformation of taste can be viewed as a form of symbolic violence over others (Bridge, 2006). Taste, along with the power to produce taste transformation, becomes a tool through which one can claim superiority. This reasoning resonates with the concept of slow violence as it recognizes taste, including aesthetic taste, and potentially sensory taste, as a tool of dominance. It is widely recognized that the predominant demographic that visits specialty coffee bars and new consumption spaces alike is constituted of relatively young, middle-class white people. A shared taste among visitors of specialty coffee is therefore assumed. However, critics of Bourdieu’s model of distinction have argued that it is too simplistic to assume that goods are appropriated in a uniform way, by a uniform class stratum (Jarness, 2015). Assuming that specialty coffee is consumed by one class demographic in a uniform way would lead us into the trap that assumes social class and race to predetermine taste. However, John Manzo (2010) has recognized that taste in the form of coffee connoisseurship is important in the distinction between specialty coffee producers and consumers on the one hand, and outsiders on the other hand. While coffee connoisseurship might provide a sense of

inclusion for one group of visitors, specialty coffee bars might present itself as ‘just’ coffee shops for other visitors. This pluralist approach will be elaborated further.

2.4 Bringing in new angles

This study will attempt to bring in new anges to the gentrification process debate. Firstly, this is done by bringing in the idea that class does not

predetermine taste. Many scholars have deemed Pierre Bourdieu’s (1986) model of class-structured lifestyle differences outdated, especially in regards to cultural knowledge, participation, and taste (Jarness, 2015; Savage, 2015). However, Bourdie’s (1986) model is deemed relevant. Despite widespread critiques of the model, Vegard Jarness (2015) and Mike Savage (2015) argue that Bourdieu (1984) has in fact recognized that goods are appropriated in different ways by people from the same class, hereby divorcing the ‘what’ and ‘how’ in the analysis of cultural consumption. Supporting this, Savage et al (2015) have observed a pluralist shift in cultural consumption. In a similar vein, Vegard Jarness (2015) and Mike Savage (2015) argue that it is important to emphasize the different ways in which goods are culturally appropriated, rather than assuming that goods are appropriated in a universal way. They state that “Bourdieu maintains that a given cultural good can be perceived, appreciated and appropriated in qualitatively different ways, implying an analytical

decoupling of the whats and hows of cultural consumption” (Jarness, 2015, pp. 66). As Jarness (2015) has argued, people that consume the same thing might not have the same taste. This study will acknowledge this recent

are appropriated by people, and in which ways exactly they are meaningful to them.

By recognizing the pluralism in cultural consumption, different cultural different meanings that are attributed to specialty coffee can be laid bare. In this way, room is made for new understandings of gentrification by

acknowledging the diversity of cultural meanings associated with specialty coffee production and consumption that produce the slow violence of gentrification. It is not novel to assume that a single class demographic of gentrifiers produces slow violence in a uniform way. Pluralism in actors that are located in the local field of slow violence and gentrification is now necessary. For example, it should be examined if it is indeed solely a ‘hipster’ population that is part of the specialty coffee culture and the production of slow violence of gentrification, an argument that is often heard (Maly & Varis, 2016). By both embracing the pluralism in cultural consumption and by acknowledging a variety of actors within specialty coffee consumption and its local context, established binaries that distinguish between uniform groups of victims and perpetrators of gentrification can be challenged. This leaves room for new understandings of power in the gentrification debate through the perspective of multiple actors and the field of cultural power relations between them. Secondly, this study will attempt to acknowledge the role of age in the context of gentrification explicitly. As Cody Hochstenbach and Willem

Boterman (2017) argue in their working paper, age is often only acknowledged implicitly within gentrification process research. This study will acknowledge not only the role of young households, but it will focus on middle-aged and elderly residents in its population and analysis. Gentrification process is most often approached with a focus on young people who move to inner-cities where they are close to educational and labour market opportunities, as well as consumption spaces that cater to their tastes (Hochstenbach & Boterman, 2017). Concerning older people, Hochstenbach & Boterman (2017) recognize empty nesting and retirement as associated with a specific form of

gentrification. They observe that as one gets older, relative wealth expands as mortgage debts are paid off or one moves into a smaller and cheaper dwelling. At the same time, emotional and financial responsibilities to others, like one’s children, are reduced. However, at a later age, retirement might in some cases reduce this relative affluence. At the same time, new practices might emerge. However, despite this, urban elderly are often seen as victims of displacement and loss of sense of belonging (Hochstenbach & Boterman, 2017). Little attention is paid to the intersection of age and class, and the ways in which urban elderly actually deal with neighborhood change. It must be

acknowledged that the baby-boom generation often provided the foundations for gentrification to commence, while they often contribute to gentrification in their later life, and also pass on a taste preference for gentrified areas to their children (Ley, 1996; in Hochstenbach & Boterman, 2017).

2.5 Status quo

In this chapter, I have illustrated the outcomes of gentrification process through Sharon Zukin’s (2016) picture of the outcome of gentrification: “the operation was successful, but the patient died”. While the processes of gentrification is often successful regarding neighborhood upgrading and physical improvement of built structures, diverse ethnic and social

communities die out in favor of homogenization as a result (pp. 205). I have also recognized the heterogeneity of gentrification as varying causes and local forms exist. Turning to the less tangible side of gentrification, that of cultural change, it is clear that displacement pressure is exerted in subtle ways in which preferences of newcomers become dominant cultural norms. As Mazer & Rankin (2011) recognize, it is important to examine the experiences of long-term residents who are at risk of displacement. One way of recognizing the subtle ways in which cultural displacement works is through the concept of slow violence. By focusing on culture as the center of this study, the invisible process of cultural change, that is spread out over time and space, becomes visible. Inclusion and exclusion become important concepts in understanding how power plays out for residents, both long-term and new. Specialty coffee presents itself as an excellent case as it is symbolic for gentrification, often perceived as an exclusive perpetrator of retail and cultural change. With specialty coffee, culture changes and authenticity is re-imagined. However, the potential multitude of ways in which coffee is appropriated must be

recognized, as well as the intersection of age and class within the nostalgic narratives of local urban elderly.

3 Methodology

In this chapter, the operationalization of key-concepts will be presented, as well as the categorization of the three actor categories around which this study is built. The research methods will be explained, after which there will be attention for the limits and ethical issues of this study, as well as my positionality as the author.

3.1 Operationalization

The concepts that are central to this study are practices, culture, inclusion, exclusion, and slow violence. As these become relevant to the analysis of the data in chapters 5, 6, and 7 these concepts will be defined. Before the research was carried out, the concepts were operationalized according to these same definitions in order to organize, understand, and enable quantitative analysis data, while also aiding the data collection (Bryman, 2012; Shensul, et al., 1999). As this research is concerned with filling a knowledge gap within the

gentrification, place based displacement, and retail gentrification debate, knowledge about the on-the-ground reality of these concepts within this context is unknown. Due to this lacking understanding, the operationalization was partial and open. As this research will produce grounded theory, this is a justified approach (Bryman, 2012). The categories and indicators were derived from practice and actual fieldwork data, rather than from literature or theory. 3.1.2 Concepts

Each of the core concepts has multiple indicators which will stand for the concept, hereby increasing the chance of capturing the concept as a whole, while also making finer distinctions and classifications within the data (Bryman, 2012). In the table below, a schematic of the operationalization of the key concepts is presented, followed by the research method that was applied to study the reality of the concept. A detailed elaboration of the concepts and dimensions is found at the outset of chapters 5, 6, and 7.

TABLE 1: OPERATIONALIZATION OF KEY CONCEPTS

SOURCE: OWN WORK 3.1.3 Conceptual model

FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL

"

SOURCE: OWN WORK 3.1.4 Three actors

As illustrated in the conceptual model, this study is based around three actors; specialty coffee producers, specialty coffee consumers, and local residents in order to gain a rounded understanding of what is going on within specialty coffee bars and how this contributes to inclusion, exclusion, and

Concept Dimensions Measures Actors

Practices • Patterns of movement

• Behavioral habits (repeated actions and rituals) • Participant observation Producers, customers, residents Culture • Set of shared rules (common

vocabulary, a behavioral norm, a common style of dress, and a shared aesthetic code or appreciation)

• Participant observation • Interviews

Producers and customers

Inclusion • Sense of belonging • Sense of being desired

• Sense of sameness to those who are present

• Experience of being acknowledged • Sense of being in power

• Being able to participate without having to overcome financial or physical burdens • Participant observation • Interviews Residents and customers Social

exclusion • Sense of non-belonging• Sense of being undesired

• Sense of difference to those who are present

• Experience of being oppressed • Being absent and unable to participate

due to financial or physical burdens

• Participant observation • Interviews

Residents

Slow violence • Inability to understand and participate in practices

• Sense of invasion of territory by a place, person, or group of people • Sense of oppression, exclusion, and

non-belonging in the neighborhood • Sense of loss of power and dominance

over one’s neighborhood • Sense of decaying well-being

• Interviews Residents

Consumers

Producers

Practices and culture

(In)exclusion

Slow violence

potentially slow violence in the local neighborhood. Significant overlap between these categories has become apparent. Many residents are occasional or frequent visitors, while some producers act as visitors during their days off. However, not all residents are visitors. The strength of this study will lay exactly in this approach, examining the lives and the stories of multiple actors, with multiple identities, within specialty coffee consumption and slow violence of gentrification, providing a rounded understanding of what is at hand within specialty coffee bars and within gentrifying neighborhoods.

3.2 Research methods

This research is of a deductive nature, departing from existing theory about gentrification, place based displacement, inclusion and exclusion, and slow violence (Bryman, 2012; Maxwell, 2005) and contributing to new

understandings of these theories through a descriptive ethnographic single case-study in and around a specialty coffee bar in an Amsterdam

neighborhood. The ethnographic description was produced during and after conducting structured and unstructured observation in and around the specialty coffee bar, walking interviews in the form of visits to the specialty coffee bar with surrounding residents, and unstructured and semi-structured interviews with producers and customers.

3.2.1 Ethnographic approach

Over the methods that will be applied in this study, I will lay an ethnographic layer that will inform the nature of my observations and interviews. In 2003, Loretta Lees recognized the attractions of ethnographic research in critical geography. Regarding ethnographic research, Lees (2003) argues that “it addresses the richness and complexity of human life and gets us closer to understanding the ways people interpret and experience the world. It is well able to deal with complex concepts like culture. It believes in the socially constructed nature of phenomena and the importance of language…” (pp. 110). As this research is concerned with exactly this complexity of human life, interpretations, experiences, culture, and practices, ethnographic methods are an appropriate choice. By producing an ethnography as the outcome of the research, I am able to do justice to the rich observational and interview material that was gathered. As this research is considered with invisible, emotional, and personal matter, thick ethnographic description will contribute to the broader goal of giving voice to the actors that are involved in specialty coffee production, consumption, and to local residents. Their feelings, struggles, and aspirations will be taken to the center stage through this

ethnographic approach, rather than hiding them behind quantitative analysis of survey data or reducing them to a few quotes within a more general qualitative analysis. As this research is also considered with aesthetics and aesthetic

change, ethnographic description is needed in order to vividly illustrate this and to take the reader onto a journey into the research context.

3.2.2 Participant observation

Participant observation is the first ethnographic research method that plays an important role in this study. Participant observation was used to observe the behavior of different actors, producers, consumers, and residents, in and around the research site. Furthermore, the meanings that these actors attribute to their environment and behavior will be observed. I will operate as a covert full member of specialty coffee consumers during my observations (Bryman, 2012). I will have full membership as a coffee consumer and my status as a research will be unknown during the beginning stages of the research. Only during interviews and conversations with other actors, I will reveal my status as a researcher. Revealing my identity as a research at the outset would conflict with the purpose of my observations, which is to participate fully at the research site as if I was a regular customer. More concretely, revealing my identity as a researcher to everyone at the research site would be challenging and possibly disturbing for customers and producers. I am aware of ethnical issues in relation to covert research, however, revealing my identity as a researcher to the producers at the outset of the research might create

unnecessary boundaries between me and the field. Therefore, I opted to reveal my identity at the first interview or conversation.

During my observations, I participated in coffee consumption in a way that sits close to the ways in which other consumers act in order to act like a native consumer. Participant observation was carried out across different days and different times of day. I visited the research site on all days of the week on multiple occasions, making sure I cover different times of day during different days of the week. I spent 30 to 120 minutes per observation session. Engaging in participant observation at different times and on different days will ensure a rounded understanding of behaviors, differences in actors, and street

dynamics. An observation guide for observations in and around the research site may be found in the appendix.

3.2.3 Interviews and analysis

Unstructured interviews and semi-structured interviews support the findings from participant observation while also gaining understandings of information that could not be obtained via observation. Short unstructured interviews with producers and consumers were held during the participant observation activities. As I tried to engage baristas and customers at Lot Sixty One in short conversations, I slowly gained their trust. In this way, I gained insight into the lives of the baristas and local residents. However, many regular customers remained at a distance, engaged in personal activities. In total, 2

baristas were interviewed during a sit-down interview of around 30 and 50 minutes long. With one other barista, I had several short conversations. In terms of customers, I engaged in short conversations, lasting between 15 minutes and 30 minutes, with 5 customers at Lot Sixty One itself. I met 20 residents. Of these 21 residents, 15 are occasional or rare visitors at Lot Sixty One. I held sit-down interviews with 13 residents, lasting between 30 and 120 minutes. With one of the residents I had spoken prior to the research period about the neighborhood during a sit-down interview of 60 minutes. With the last resident, I only conversed through e-mail. Next to the baristas and residents, I spoke to one former resident and one local entrepreneur that is opening a specialty coffee bar in De Hallen. With the former resident, I had a sit-down interview that lasted 150 minutes. With the entrepreneur, I had two sit-down interviews, one lasting 60 minutes and the other lasting 40 minutes. Interviews with neighborhood residents were often held at Lot Sixty One. Two residents I met at alternative locations, according to their preference and ability. In total, I have had contact with 26 individuals in the form of day-to-day interactions, short informal conversations, and formal sit-down interviews. An overview of respondents and additional details on their personal characteristics can be found in the appendix.

Recruitment of neighborhood residents occurred through a smartphone application. This application, called Next Door, serves as a neighborhood bulletin board. Next Door was used to post a message about my research. Most resident interviews were held with app users that had replied to my message in the app. These were mostly older, long-standing residents of Dutch descent, which had worked stable jobs, mostly in the creative sector. This bias in respondents enables me to tell the story of a relatively privileged group of residents with strong ties to the neighborhood. As this research is concerned with grounded theory, the interview topics were broad, leaving room for the respondent’s story. Based on topics that emerge as relevant, additional probing delved deeper into the matter (Bryman, 2012). A topic list for interviews with producers, consumers, and residents may be found in the appendix.

Interviews were be recorded whenever possible. Short interviews with customers and producers, as well as some interviews with residents were not recorded as they occurred spontaneously and starting a recording would interrupt the respondents’ story. In this case, a longer transcript was made in the fieldwork journal immediately after the interview to maintain as many details from the interview as possible As this concerns mostly short interviews, this remains relatively unproblematic. Recorded interviews were transcribed, focusing on the most significant parts of interviews, while other parts were summarized using keywords. No coding software was used during the analysis, again due to time constraints. Instead, key-themes were identified and analyzed manually in the form of a table, containing a list of respondents along the y-axis and main themes along the x-y-axis. The table was filled in with relevant

key-words, referring to the respondents’ narrative. Observation notes were

considered in the identification of key-themes. The notes serve as support for interview data, as well as independently build arguments around the key-themes, especially in chapter 5.

3.3 Limits, ethics, and positionality

3.3.1 Limits

This study has several potential limits that need to be addressed. First of all, time constraints have put additional pressure on the outcome of this study. Within the timeframe of a month to six weeks, most fieldwork activities were carried out and analysis was started. This has left little time for full emersion ethnographic research and several opportunities for further data collection had to be abandoned. Making sure the study relies on sufficient interviews was a major challenge. It must be recognized that this study is a single case study with relatively few informants. Research findings might not be directly

generalizable to other specialty coffee bars in different neighborhoods, as well as to other residents in the neighborhood. The residents I met are of a relatively privileged social strata, many coming from Dutch families, working stable jobs in the creative industries or in the service sector. I was not able to reach more marginalized groups that reside in the area, which would have provided new angles to the neighborhood case. However, the research population presents an interesting view on how long-standing, relatively affluent residents are affected by gentrification and slow violence. 3.3.2 Positionality

Explaining my positionality as the researcher in this study is important as my personal background contributes to my understanding of the research matter. My position as a 25-year-old male, White non-Dutch native

Amsterdammer, working as a barista influences my position as a researcher. Having been a barista since I was 17 years old, my knowledge of specialty coffee is extensive. In order to keep a distance to the subject matter, I have selected Lot Sixty One as the case for this research, it being that I have not visited Lot Sixty One more than 3 times prior to the research. I did not

personally know any of the producers and customers at Lot Sixty One prior to the start of fieldwork. However, my knowledge about specialty coffee enabled me to gain access relatively easily, be it that I felt relatively at ease entering Lot Sixty One. Because I work in the same industry as the producers, a certain closeness and rapport was established at the outset of the research period. This contributed to the respondents feeling at ease, telling me more personal

information. On the other hand, I was able to understand industry specific vocabulary and colloquialisms during my observations and interviews. I was able to relate to the experiences of producers through my own experiences as a

barista. However, I am extremely careful not to fall into the trap of reporting on my own experiences.

During interviews, I found that my positionality as an local Amsterdam born in De Pijp neighborhood and raised in the Gaasperdam neighborhood in the South East of the city was a great advantage. Informants opened up more after I told them I grew up in Amsterdam, telling me about the pride they take in their city in greater detail. As I am also a neighborhood resident, they felt motivated to share details about specific areas of the neighborhood, naming specific buildings, shops, institutions, people, dynamics, and tensions, which they believed I was aware of. My position as an Amsterdammer of non-Dutch descent might have inspired my Indonesian Dutch, Moroccan Dutch, and Surinamese Dutch informants to speak about the role of ethnicity in the Kinkerbuurt in detail. My inability to speak Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Hindi, and any other language than English, Dutch, Croatian, and Serbian might have been a barrier to approach ethnic neighborhood residents. If I had spoken one of the languages spoken by many ethnic minorities in the neighborhood, I could have gained more access to the ethnic communities in the neighborhood. I understand my relatively young age, compared to most of my informants, as an advantage. The social distance in terms of age forced respondents to state obvious issues that they thought I am not aware of. I clearly stated that I am younger than them and that I do not know what the area was like in past times. This allowed respondents to introduce me to the feel and dynamic of the Kinkerbuurt as it was before, as well as how it changed. I do not believe that my position as a young, high-educated, individual influenced my

conversations with interviews negatively. As many long-term residents told me, they were ‘like me’ when they were young, referring to my lifestyle as a student and trendy youngster. Many consumers at Lot Sixty One did not steer away from talking to me, as I fit the customer demographic relatively well, both in terms of age and culture. However, my age and position as a student might have been a barrier for many neighborhood residents not to reply to my letters that I posted in around two-hundred mailboxes in the neighborhood.

3.3.2 Ethical issues

As this research is concerned with sensitive information such as life stories, personal struggles, and stories considering the professional environment of one’s employment, there are several ethical issues to consider. Privacy of informants is ensured so no harm to the participants can be done. All formal interviews were conducted with informants that agree upon doing an interview before the actual time of the interview. I clearly stated the purpose of my research, revealing my identity as a researcher. All interviewees were informed about their privacy and their right to refuse to answer questions. In this thesis, respondent’s names are replaced with a pseudonym which matches their

gender identity. Exact addresses of residents are mentioned in this thesis. As the name of the research site is not replaced with a pseudonym, I am not able to guarantee complete anonymity of employees at Lot Sixty One. Resident’s and consumer’s current site of residence will only be mentioned in broad terms, using street names or descriptions, not house numbers. Informant’s gender will be mentioned, as well as their age, educational background, profession, personal life details and ethnicity, as this is relevant for the context of the research findings.

4 The setting

In this chapter, the case selection will be explained. The geographic case of the Kinkerbuurt will be described extensively. Furthermore, the context of specialty coffee within which this study is also situated will be illustrated. 4.1 Arriving at the Kinkerbuurt

The case selection for this study was concerned mostly with tension. Examining the meanings of specialty coffee within a neighborhood that is in early to advancing stages of gentrification where there is social tension between residents and newcomers was what interested me. Examining a specialty coffee bar within an already gentrified, upmarket area would offer little insight into the dynamics of the gentrification process but rather reveal potential outcomes of gentrification process. The geographic case of this study, the Kinkerbuurt neighborhood, is one of the neighborhoods of Amsterdam that is currently in the midst of gentrification (Gemeente

Amsterdam, 2016). Constructed in the early twentieth century, it is located just west of the outer canal ring (Singelgracht) that marks the older historic inner-city neighborhoods. Along with De Baarsjes, Indische Buurt, Oosterparkbuurt and Bos en Lommer, the Kinkerbuurt neighborhood is a well-known frontier of gentrification where long term residents and newcomers are competing for space. The absence of high-end specialty coffee bars in Bos en Lommer and Indische Buurt neighborhoods and my close personal connections to specialty coffee bar owners and employees who work at specialty coffee bars in De Baarsjes and Oosterparkbuurt naturally led me to the case of Lot Sixty One Coffee Roasters in the Kinkerbuurt neighborhood. As my personal

connections to many producers at specialty coffee bars in the city could have disrupted my research, Lot Sixty One was an obvious choice, as I was not familiar with the producers and customers at the site before the start of the study.

MAP 1: RESEARCH AREA AROUND KINKERSTRAAT

"

SOURCE: OWN WORK IN ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR, BASED ON GOOGLE MAPS FOR GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE

In this study, the Kinkerbuurt is defined as the general area around the Kinkerstraat, within five to seven minutes walking distance (see map 1). This area is mapped in detail in the map above that also features major streets and locations that are frequently mentioned by informants. This is the geographic context of where my informants live and where their narratives draw from. The definition of the Kinkerbuurt that is used here transcends municipal neighborhood boundaries. According to municipal definitions, the Kinkerstraat marks the South border of the Kinkerbuurt (E18) neighborhood that extends northwards to the northern point of the triangular island, two blocks north of De Clercqstraat. However, the neighborhoods of Da Costabuurt, Kinkerbuurt, Van Lennepbuurt, Helmersbuurt, and Overtoomse Sluis are all part of this study. Below, some relevant statistics on the Kinkerbuurt (E18) will be presented, along with statistics that concern the greater West borough

(Oud-West) of the city, of which the Kinkerbuurt (E18) is also part. As will become

clear below, differences exist between the Kinkerbuurt (E18) and adjacent neighborhoods where some informants live. Nevertheless, the central role of the Kinkerstraat in many informant’s daily trajectories marks the centrality of the Kinkerbuurt in their lives.

TABLE 2, RELEVANT STATISTICS ON NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL (E18) AND BOROUGH LEVEL

SOURCES: GEMEENTE AMSTERDAM (2016; 2014; 2010; 2007). As shown in table 2, the Kinkerbuurt has lost some non-Western population over the past ten years. In the same period of time, dwelling occupation has gone up and property values have risen dramatically. The average length of residence has gone down, presumably due to the influx of many new residents. This is also reflected in the dramatic rise in total

population, while the geographic area of the neighborhood has remained the same. Average disposable incomes have also risen, while percentage of low income residents has fallen dramatically. Over the past seven years, the population of twenty to thirty-four year-olds has gone up significantly, while the population of fifty to sixty-four year-olds, of which many of my

informants are part, has remained stable. In general, these figures show that the neighborhood has become more densely populated, more affluent, less ethnic, and more young, as twenty to thirty-four year-olds now make up for almost half its population.

In a recent official report, the municipality of Amsterdam considers the southern part of the West borough, which is the area around Kinkerstraat, to be gentrified (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). This statement is supported by the fact that 49% of the residents are ‘new urban dwellers’ (nieuwe stedelingen), young individuals from outside the city that come to Amsterdam to work or study (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). Furthermore, the large and expanding share of consumption spaces and the big share of creative businesses mark the area’s gentrified character, according to the report. Due to renovations, the municipality finds the quality of dwellings to be improved. According to

Kinkerbuurt (E18) 2007 2016

% of residents non-Western non-Dutch 26,2 23,8

average dwelling occupation 1,55 1,77

average property value (x €1000)

178 248

average length of residence in years 8,0 7,0

average disposable income (x €1000)

20,5 (2004) 27,8 (2013)

% low incomes (less than €18.100 per year) 43,0 (2004) 34,4 (2013)

2010 2014 2016

total population 5181 6129 6358

West (borough) 2010 2014 2016

20-34 year olds 33,9% 43,4%

report, one in three borough residents find their neighborhood to have been generally improved as well. In the report, the southern part of the West borough, is seen as a neighborhood that serves many twenty to thirty year olds that move out as soon as they get children. In general, the area houses many twenty to thirty-year-olds, around 45 per cent. This is significantly higher than the city average of 36 per cent. However, this percentage has remained fairly stable over the past 10 years.

The neighborhoods adjacent to the Kinkerstraat and Kinkerbuurt are comparable, yet slight differences exist, both in terms of built environment and demographics. In the Vondelbuurt neighborhood to the south of Kinkerstraat, there was always a more wealthy population (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). In general, the neighborhoods to the south and east of Kinkerstraat (Kinkerbuurt, Vondelparkbuurt, Helmersbuurt, Overtoomse Sluis, Da Costabuurt) hold a reputation for being more wealthy and less crowded, whereas the areas west and north of Kinkerstraat (Van Lennepbuurt, Kinkerbuurt, Overtoomse Sluis) are considered to be less wealthy and more crowded. This division is clearly visible in the diverging average property values in these neighborhoods. Moreover, 18,8 per cent of 18 to 65 year-old residents in the northern part of the Bellamybuurt rely on unemployment benefits where this is true for 11 per cent of residents in the Borgerbuurt (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). On the other side, this is true for only 1,6 per cent and 3,7 per cent in the Helmersbuurt and Da Costabuurt, where many of my

informants live. The municipality report has recognized that the Helmersbuurt, Overtoomse Sluis, Da Costabuurt, and Kinkerbuurt are increasingly moving towards the wealthier Vondelparkbuurt in terms of socio-economic position of residents. This could be related to the ageing population of these

FIGURE 2: CORNER OF KINKERSTRAAT AND BILDERDIJKKADE IN 1987

"

SOURCE: HTTPS://GEHEUGENVANWEST.AMSTERDAM

FIGURE 3: CORNER OF KINKERSTRAAT AND BILDERDIJKKADE IN JUNE 2017

"

SOURCE: OWN WORK