Belonging to Slotermeer:
Comparing the General Expansion Plan with the
Experience of Residents
Name student: Sam Vos UvA ID number: 10330925 E- mail: s.i.vos@hotmail.com Programme: Sociology: Urban Sociology
Words: 23,128
First supervisor: Yannis Tzaninis Second supervisor: Linda van de Kamp
Date: July 10, 2017 Place of submission: Amsterdam
1
Table of Contents
Summary p. 02
1. Introduction p. 04
2. Experience of Belonging p. 06
2.1. Planned Space and Experienced Space p. 06
2.2. Experience of Belonging p. 07
3. Historical Context of Slotermeer p. 10
3.1. The General Expansion Plan (AUP) p. 10 3.2. Population of Slotermeer over Time p. 11 3.3. Current Neighborhood Renewal p. 12
4. Methods p. 14
5. Experience of Slotermeer p. 19
5.1. The Garden Village p. 20
5.2. Residential needs p. 24 5.3. Concerns in Slotermeer p. 29 6. Belonging to Slotermeer p. 34 6.1. Moving to Slotermeer p. 35 6.2. Residents p. 37 6.3. Feeling at home p. 48 6.4. Neighborhood renewal p. 53 7. Mental Mapping p. 57
7.1. The Different Focus of the Three Categories p. 57
7.2. Mobility p. 60
7.3. Boundaries and Landmarks p. 62
8. Conclusion p. 65
Bibliography p. 71
Apendix A - Interview Questions p. 73
Apendix B - Mental Maps p. 75
2 Summary
During Amsterdam's urbanization period in the mid-20th century, Slotermeer was built in 1952 as part of the General Expansion Plan (AUP), a plan for the city expansion west of Amsterdam. Slotermeer was built in line with the concept "air, light and space" and it was supposed to become a garden city. A concern of planning entire neighborhoods from scratch is that social functions and processes should be accounted for in the planning. Slotermeer provides a case study to investigate how planned space serves social functions and how the realized planned space is experienced by its residents. Lefebvre's triad of space (1974) is an important basis of this thesis: the relation between planned space, experienced space and spatial practice in Slotermeer has been discovered.
A number of urban sociological studies have investigated how social change in the neighborhood has influenced residents’ experience of belonging. New neighbors are accompanied by social changes (Madden, 2014). The arrival of new residents is related to boundary drawing based on perceived differences between residents in norms, values, behavior and lifestyle (Elias & Scotson, 1965; Suttles, 1972, cited in Pinkster, 2016; Duyvendak, 2011; Pinkster, 2014; 2016). The historical background of Slotermeer, including the demographic diversification in the 1970's and the current neighborhood renewal plans of the government (Blauw, 2005; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016; Heijdra, 2010), makes Slotermeer a place where feeling of belonging is a present concern. Hence, feeling of belonging has also been investigated in this thesis.
For this thesis, 19 residents of Slotermeer have been interviewed. To take the population changes and its related social changes over time into account, I have interviewed three categories of residents: first residents (people who moved to Slotermeer between 1952-1970), middle residents (people who moved to Slotermeer between 1970-2000) and recent residents (people who moved to Slotermeer after 2000).
One of the main findings is that realized planned space and experienced space in Slotermeer relate well to each other. Residents value the AUP and the “air, light and space”. Especially the first and middle residents don’t want to live anywhere else than in Slotermeer. However, they see a decline of green and space in the neighborhood because of the
3
Although the planned space is valued, its social functions are considered as less ideal. There are social boundaries in the neighborhood. This has always been the case in Slotermeer, Slotermeer was even planned to separate between different pillars of the compartmentalization. The existence of social boundaries between different groups is in resemblance with Pinkster (2016). Recent residents call Slotermeer "monocultural: there are only Muslims". Interestingly, some Moroccan residents also miss the presence of the Dutch culture in the neighborhood. More interestingly, part of the recent residents, who are migrants themselves, felt displaced by Muslim migrants. One explanation for this perception is the cosmopolitan life style of these migrants. It may be a struggle between cosmopolitan and more conservative cultures. This explanation is in line with Duyvendak (2011).
Regardless this change in population and culture over time, all first and middle residents feel like they belong to Slotermeer in a sense of place attachment. Residents are familiar with the neighborhood and this is their main reason to stay. Meanwhile, half of the recent residents doesn't feel attached. Duyvendak (2011) related a decrease of attachment to increased mobility. Furthermore, recent residents have had less time to get attached to the neighborhood. This explanation is in line with Pinkster (2016).
In the sense of group membership, not all residents feel at home. The first residents still feel at home, they always have. However, half of the middle and recent residents doesn't feel at home in Slotermeer. Although not all residents feel part of the entire community, they do feel like they belong to certain community centers, groups and shops. In addition to Antonsich (2010) and Pinkster (2016), this thesis gives the impression that residents experience the neighborhood as divided in small territories and feel at home in their "own territory".
Overall, there seem to be conflicts between the plans of the government and the experience of the residents, resulting in new social structures and concerns, as Lefebvre's triad (1974) represents. The suburbanization policy of Amsterdam in the 1970s leaded to a significant demographic diversification in Slotermeer. The daily life changed. Not all residents are pleased about this change. Now, with the neighborhood renewal, residents told me they don't know their neighbors anymore. They have less contact with their neighbors. Social life reacts to political forces, in congruence with Lefebvre (1974).
4
1. Introduction
Life in the Garden Village is in many ways a radical break with the past. One exchanges the dark houses in the old neighborhoods for the modern existence in New-West. Everything is
different and even the word 'flat' is new! (Heijdra, 2010, p. 106)
Figure 1. The AUP, Slotermeer
Slotermee r Ga rden Suburb (Photo: Het Nieuwe Instituut - Architecture Collection)
During Amsterdam's urbanization period in the mid-20th century many neighborhoods have been built to keep up with the growing population of Amsterdam (Heijdra, 2010). One of these neighborhoods was Slotermeer, built in 1952 as part of the General Expansion Plan (AUP), a plan for city expansion west of Amsterdam Center (see Figure 1). A concern of planning entire
5
neighborhoods from scratch is that social functions and processes should be accounted for in the planning. A long time ago, Mumford (1937) already discussed this concern. In his opinion, social processes were not taken into account by city planners. Mumford viewed the city as a social institution, a "theater of social action" and emphasized the importance of close attention to social functions (Mumford, p. 93). The debate of space and the gap between social functions and planned space has maintained and is still a vibrant subject (Martin, 2003; Madden, 2014). Slotermeer provides a case study to investigate how planned space serves social functions and how the realized planned space is experienced by its residents. Furthermore, residents' sense of belonging to Slotermeer is an interesting concept for investigation. By 'belonging' I understand both place attachment and being part of a group (Antonsich, 2010). Changing neighborhood populations can influence one's feeling of belonging (Madden, 2014; Pinkster, 2016). The historical background of Slotermeer, including the population switch in the 1970s and the current neighborhood renewal plans of the government (Blauw, 2005; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016; Heijdra, 2010), makes Slotermeer a place where feeling of belonging is a present concept. Slotermeer is a place where the relation between space and social processes could be studied to find out if planned space and a diverse neighborhood population could provide for a feeling of belonging to Slotermeer. Besides, I want to explore how the realized planned space of Slotermeer is experienced by its residents.
In the next chapters, planned space and experienced space will be outlined in more detail. Furthermore, belonging will be discussed. Thereafter, the case of Slotermeer will be introduced and planned space will be connected with the General Expa nsion Plan (AUP). Finally, the methods that have been used and the obtained results will be discussed.
6
2. Experience of Belonging
2.1. Planned Space and Expe rienced Space
Lefebvre (1974) has constructed a triad to explain the relations between social processes and top-down planned space. According to Lefebvre, space is a social product. Social and political forces classify space in order to control it. However, space is also a place for social action, and people will try to use space in a way that they want to use it. Lefebvre's triad exists of the following three spaces (1974, p. 37):
1. Spatial practice : a consensus between the wishes of the social and political forces on the one hand, and the needs of the people who use the space in their daily lives on the other hand. These two elements complement each other.
2. Representations of space : conceptualized space. This is the top-down process in which planners of social and political forces classify space.
3. Representational space: This is the lived space and consists of the actual usage of space. Representational space and spatial practice can be the same if people use the space in the way that it was meant to be used.
This thesis will look at the relation between spatial practices, representations of space and representational space. In this thesis, to avoid confusion between these two very similar sounding spaces, the term representations of space will be replaced by the term planned space. The planned space is in this case Slotermeer, viewed from the perspective of the AUP. The term representational space will be replaced by the term experienced space. The experienced space is the experience of Slotermeer by its residents. Spatial practices are in this thesis the daily routines of residents. Lefebvre (1974) pointed out with his triad that planning space is a complex process. Planned space does not have to match with the needs of its residents.
Madden (2014) reflected on the triad of Lefebvre. He interpreted that social relations place themselves into space, and he argued that this means that social relations shape its space into "characteristic ways that are productive for it" (Madden, p. 480). Martin (2003) specifically focused on neighborhoods while arguing the same perspective as Madden (2014): Martin (2003)
7
approached neighborhoods as a social and political product that changes over time and believed that they should be investigated as such. Martin (2003) viewed change as a positive and natural process. Madden (2014) is more negative about change. He called this formative process of change a spatial project. Spatial projects are the changes made by new dominant groups in a neighborhood or by the government (p. 480). In the ideal case, according to cosmopolitanism, these changes will break open prejudices and traditions, with the result of a fusion of old and new cultures (Ley, 2004). However, Madden has another vision of spatial projects. As a consequence of new dominant groups, a disconnection might arise between old groups in the neighborhood and the space they live in. In this case the neighborhood is not matching the needs of its residents anymore and certain residents will experience social displacement (p. 491). Functions of a neighborhood are, in this sense, not stable, they are fluid and they change because of interventions by various actors and institutions. Neighborhoods are the result of complex struggles concerning identity, planning and purpose over time between groups (Madden, 2014).
2.2. Experience of Belonging
The struggles between groups, mentioned by Madden (2014) relate to experience of belonging to a neighborhood. Antonisch (2010) developed an analytical framework about belonging. Antonsich (2010) argued that belonging includes both the personal experience of fee ling at home (or place attachment), and the practice of socio-spatial inclusion/exclusion (or group membership). 'Home' means in this case: "a symbolic space of familiarity, comfort, security, and emotional attachment " (p. 646). Both parts of the definition are important in order to obtain a complete construct of belonging:
Whether belonging develops ultimately seems to depend on the interaction between social identity and place identity. Neighbourhood belonging should therefore be understood as performed, displayed, and enacted through individual and collective practices.
8
Pinkster (2014) found evidence for this theoretical framework of belonging. She found that place attachment is more common than group membership. Not all neighbors were concerned about their neighborhood or about its residents, they only felt attached to their house. Residents trivialized problems in the neighborhood through a “value-for-money discourse”. The prices of the houses were the main reason to live in the area. The neighborhood was often described as only the starting-point of the daily routines of the residents. However, neighbors that had lived in the neighborhood for longer periods of time felt also connected to the neighborhood and its residents (the community), but felt estranged over time. Place attachment and group membership thus are different processes and should therefore both be taken into account as separate parts of belonging. Duyvendak (2011) agrees with Pinkster (2014) and Antonsich (2010) on the two components of belonging:
People can, to a certain extent, ‘familiarize’ themselves with new neighbors and shops. But such ‘public familiarity’ […] is not enough to truly feel at home. When people feel marginalized or threatened, they begin to view their own place in relation to other groups and their places, emphasizing its exclusive identity. (Duyvendak, 2011, p. 30)
A number of urban sociological studies investigated how social change in the neighborhood influenced residents’ experience of belonging. The arrival of new residents was related to boundary drawing based on perceived differences between residents in norms, values, behavior and lifestyle. Class and ethnicity frequently corresponded to these drawn boundaries (Elias & Scotson, 1965; Suttles, 1972, cited in Pinkster, 2016; Duyvendak, 2011; Pinkster, 2014; 2016). Different groups living together in one neighborhood may translate into tensions between these groups. And changing composition populations, mainly induced by migration, increase the debate of “who belongs here” (Duyvendak, 2011).
Madden (2014) observed that new goals in a neighborhood displaced certain residents, and they didn’t feel at home in the neighborhood anymore. Eventually, displacement pressure might occur: residents might move when their neighborhood has transformed into a space that no longer serves their needs (Marcuse, 1986). Also Pinkster (2016) mentioned that neighborhoods change over time on account of economic, political and social processes. Pinkster has done a qualitative case study in Betondorp (Concrete Village), a working-class neighborhood in the East
9
of Amsterdam. She found that the duration of residence is an indicator of belonging. People are supposed to feel more "at home" the longer they live somewhere. However, changing processes in the neighborhood mediated this indicator. Although residents experienced a strong sense of belonging to the neighborhood, they also expressed their concerns about a process of neighborhood decline, which they linked to "new" residents.
In Slotermeer, different new groups have arisen over time. While the neighborhood was first inhabited by native Amsterdam residents and people from the countryside of the North- East of the Netherlands, later Slotermeer became more inhabited by residents with other ethnic backgrounds (Heijdra, 2010). Even more recently, the neighborhood attracted students because of the temporarily available houses, until the renovation of Slotermeer starts (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016b). Sharing identity space seems to be a key issue in these struggles for Slotermeer and New-West in its entirety (Mepschen, 2016). Every group has the need to express their identity, and identity space is the space used to express identity (or culture). In neighborhoods like Slotermeer, where different cultural and ethnic groups live together, negotiations about the expression of identity and everyday life practices between residents are unavoidable in order to construe a sense of community (Mepschen, 2016). These negotiations, or spatial projects, influence the feeling of belonging (Madden, 2014).
Suttles (1972), Elias and Scotson (1965), Madden (2014), Pinkster (2014; 2016) and Mepschen (2016) all show that different (old and new) groups in neighborhoods experience frictions between them. For this matter, as Antonsich already argued, belonging will be viewed as both a concept of place belonging and of group membership.
10
3. Historical Context of Slotermeer
3.1. The General Expansion Plan (AUP)
Slotermeer was built as a garden city to stop the housing shortage in Amsterdam during its urbanization period in the mid-20th century (Blauw, 2005; Heijdra, 2010; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). Slotermeer was one of the neighborhoods that were part of the Algemeen
UitbreidingsPlan (AUP), or general expansion plan. This plan was designed by Cornelis van
Eesteren and Theo van Lothuizen in 1930 and the city planning was influenced by the Neues
Bauen and the CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne), an architect movement
that divided the city in four main functions: housing, work, recreation and traffic. This division was supposed to create a "Functional City". Features of this plan are a spacious layout, a green environment and varying patterns of buildings around gardens instead of straight rows of houses. The annexation of villages west of Amsterdam in 1921 provided space to bring these plans of the CIAM into practice and to build new neighborhoods like Slotermeer (Heijdra, 2010). Slotermeer was meant to feel like a village, not a city, with parks, open spaces and only low-rise homes. In 1935, the AUP was accepted and in 1939 a concrete plan for Slotermeer was established. The plan included 11.000 houses for the working-class in a neighborhood that was light and green so the working-class could be away from the "dark" city after their working hours, according to Heijdra. Slotermeer was planned in detail, even some aspects of human life were planned: it was calculated how large the graveyard had to be, estimating how many elderly would come to live in Slotermeer and how fast they would die (Heijdra, 2010). Houses were equipped to serve the comfort of the housewife, Slotermeer was supposed to offer an ideal life style (Heijdra, 2010). However, the ground was too expensive to build only low rises. Besides, there was a shortage of homes, especially after World War II, resulting in a variety of low-rises and high-rises of four floors high. Except for some high-rises, the realized planned space conformed to the planned space of the AUP (Heijdra, 2010). Slotermeer became like it was supposed to become, as opposed to other neighborhoods of the AUP. In Bos en Lommer, for example, the realized planned space became more dense than was agreed upon. Streets became less wide and high-rises were built instead of low-high-rises.
11
Another feature of the AUP was compartmentalization (Bakker, 2013; Heijdra, 2010). In the 1950s there existed three pillars in the Netherlands: Catholicism, Protestantism and Socialism. The populations of the three pillars lived in different parts of the neighborhood, and houses and churches of each pillar were built by different architects. This resulted in many facilities: each pillar had their own church, shops, schools and libraries. The compartmentalization of Slotermeer influenced social life, there was segregation between the pillars until compartmentalization eroded in the early 1980s (Heijdra, 2010; Duyvendak, 2011).
3.2. Population of Slotermeer over Time
In 1952 the first people started living in Slotermeer. Most of them had already lived in Amsterdam before (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017; Heijdra, 2010). Another significant part of the first residents of Slotermeer moved from the countryside of Friesland and Groningen to Slotermeer (Heijdra, 2010). They were seen as migra nts by the Amsterdam population. These people, who were not used to living in a city, felt less attached (Heijdra, 2010). Segregation was an occurring process, and Slotermeer became stigmatized. The papers even called Slotermeer an "architectonic monster" (Heijdra, 2010, p. 114).
At the end of the 1970s, the ethnicity of the population of Slotermeer started to diversify. An active policy was performed by the government of Amsterdam in order to activate Amsterdam's residents to move to the surrounding cities like Purmerend, Almere and Hoofddorp (Bakker, 2013; Heijdra, 2010). Amsterdam had become too crowded and the government wanted to start a de-concentration of its population. Many residents of Slotermeer moved out of Amsterdam during this period of suburbanization. Meanwhile, the population with a Turkish and Moroccan ethnic background of Amsterdam enlarged because of the arrival of guest workers since 1960 due to the need for labor during the economic growth in that period (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016a; Heijdra, 2010). This suburbanization policy leaded to a significant demographic diversification in Slotermeer, a shift that is still present: until recently, 40% of the population of Slotermeer has a Turkish or Moroccan background, where only 27% of the entire population of Amsterdam has a Turkish or Moroccan background (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2006). Turkish bakeries and Moroccan greengrocers popped up, "changing" the view of
12
Slotermeer (Heijdra, 2010, p. 138). Developing a feeling of attachment was again "not going plainly", partly because of language problems, and partly because of a non-integration policy of the government, hoping that if guest workers would not feel attached, that they would move back to their native country after a few years (Duyvendak, 2011). The recession during the oil crisis in the 1970s made interaction and a feeling of attachment even harder, many guest worker families became unemployed and became isolated (Heijdra, 2010). The demographic diversification in Slotermeer in the 1970s-1980s has thus led to social change in the neighborhood. Because of this, this shift is problematized in this thesis.
3.3. Curre nt Neighborhood Renewal
The years have passed, the buildings have decayed and do not function as well as they used to in the 1950s (Heijdra, 2010). Housing associations have made renovation- and demolition plans to accomplish neighborhood renewal (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). These plans were discussed with stakeholders and residents for the first time in 1998 and in 2001 there was a concrete plan available (Heijdra, 2010). 1/4 of the houses were supposed to be demolished to make place for more houses. After large resistance of the residents, some demolition plans have been changed into renovation plans and in 2016, the renovations could finally start after a delay of more than a year (Nul20, 2016). The same amount of social housing will be available after the neighborhood renewal and the residents are offered a temporary house and can move back into their old house in a few years (WSW, 2009). However, renewing a neighborhood can have negative consequences for the social structure (Bell, 2001): "Relocating has often negative consequences. Destroying a neighborhood not only eliminates buildings, it can destroy a functioning social system and sense of identity for neighborhood reside nts." (p. 355).
Furthermore, there are plans for density building, or verdichtingsbouw (Zonneveld, 2017). This way, the government hopes to introduce new “residential environments” in the neighborhood, while keeping intact Van Eesteren’s garden city: “With respect for Van Eesteren, careful compaction is also quite possible.” (Zonneveld, 2017). However, Zonneveld also worries about the “underestimation of the lived city”. Social processes are forgotten sometimes while designing a renovation plan, according to Zonneveld. For example, he describes the upcoming
13
“new social structures like the Moroccan and Turkish middleclass”. At the moment, Slotermeer is still designed in agreement with the compartmentalization:
At the time, Slotermeer was designed around the important institutions back then: the church and the association life, in the context of the Welfare state. Now, that has all changed, and it is important that this will be replaced with something new. (Zonneveld, 2017)
Density building could contribute to a reduction of social problems, Zonneveld states. However, most plans have still not been carried out, leaving the residents "insecure" about the length of their stay in their homes before they have to move out (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016a, Heijdra, 2010). Temporary renting agreements are becoming more common and the population composition shifts often as a result of these temporary renting agreements (Heijdra, 2010). These temporary residents are often students and these students form a new social group in Slotermeer (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016b). Besides, a part of the social housing is sold to new citizens that want to buy a house in Amsterdam, but can only afford to buy a house in Amsterdam New-West (Nio, Veldhuis & Reijndorp, 2008). In general, composition shifts like this one decrease the level of place attachment (Duyvendak, 2011). The government tries to avoid this and invests in social projects to stabilize the neighborhood in order to let the renewal plans fulfill smoothly (Heijdra, 2010). Duyvendak (2005) is positive about this policy in Slotermeer: constant social support is required in his opinion for Slotermeer because different groups are living together in this neighborhood, which causes tensions between certain residents (Duyvendak, 2005, cited in Heijdra, 2010). In short, the process of renewal since 2001 in Slotermeer has set in motion changes in population and in level of insecurity about the future of Sloter meer and its residents. Hence, this renewal process will be taken into account in this thesis.
As this brief history of Slotermeer shows, there are a lot of social processes going on in the space built consistent with the AUP. This raises questions about how the planned space relates to the changing population and how the space is experienced by its residents. This thesis will therefore address the question: how does planned space and experienced space relate to
14 4. Methods
In this thesis, the experience of realized planned space has been explored, as well as feeling of belonging to Slotermeer. Since Slotermeer very closely resembles the original plans of the AUP, planned space and realized planned space are almost similar. The main question, How does
planned space and experienced space relate to each other for residents in Slotermeer over time,
has been divided into two sub questions:
1. What are the differences between realized planned space and the experience of space, and does the realized planned space support social functions and residential needs?
2. What are the changes in population in Slotermeer over time and what is the influence of these changes on feeling of belonging?
These two sub questions have been examined by two methods. Firstly, semi-structured interviews have been held with 19 residents. Secondly, mental mapping has been used to explore the daily routines of residents.
Semi-structured interview
19 Residents of Slotermeer have been interviewed. To take the population changes and its related spatial projects over time into account, I have interviewed three categories of residents:
1. First residents: People who have moved to Slotermeer between 1952-1970. They can tell how it was to live in Slotermeer when it was just built. These residents are able to describe the differences over time in Slotermeer. The focus of these interviews was on neighborhood change overtime and if these changes influenced feeling of belonging. 2. Middle residents: People who moved to Slotermeer between 1970-2000. In the late
1970s, many first inhabitants of Slotermeer moved to surrounding cities of Amsterdam like Purmerend and Almere. A lot of new people moved to Slotermeer. These residents
15
might or might not have introduced new spatial projects, changing the social constructions in Slotermeer. This group was mainly interviewed about the experienced space and about their daily life, but also about their feeling of belonging. The term "middle residents" is not optimal, it isn't as clear as the term "first resident". However, these residents had not much in common, it was hard to categorize them in another way than residents that moved to Slotermeer in the "middle" of Slotermeer's history.
3. Recent residents: People who moved to Slotermeer between 2001 and 2017. There is a neighborhood renewal plan for Slotermeer since 2001. Some of the new residents have temporary renting agreements and will have to leave within a couple of year s. Others live in houses that will not be renovated or already have been renovated. They can stay in Slotermeer, but still moved here knowing that change is coming to the neighborhood. The main focus of the interviews in this group was on the experienced space and about their daily life, but also about their feeling of belonging.
Table 1. Overview of interviewed residents First residents (1952-1970) Middle residents (1970-2000) Recent residents (2001-2017)
Name Year* Ethnicity Name Year* Ethnicity Name Year* Ethnicity 1 Eduard 1963 Dutch Ria 1975 Dutch Sofija 2006 Serbian 2 Ans 1959 Dutch Ali 1990 Moroccan Alida 2015 Hungarian 3 Marta 1969 Dutch Sarah 1994 Moroccan Sebastian 2015 Colombian 4 Harrie 1969 Dutch Rudolf 1980 Indonesian Thomas 2015 Dutch 5 Maria 1969 Dutch Tineke 1975 Dutch Amina 2002 Moroccan 6 Elizabeth 1999 Scottish Aïsha 2009 Turkish 7 Anke 1995 Dutch Rozanne 2012 Dutch * Year of moving to Slotermeer
** The names of the interviewed residents are fictitious to protect their privacy
For each category, I tried to carry out seven interviews. However, it was hard to get in touch with first residents. The first residents are a small category of Slotermeer because of their age : unfortunately part of the first residents has passed away. Furthermore, the chance of finding someone who lives in Slotermeer for more than 50 years is smaller than the chance of finding someone who has lived here for a shorter period of time. Therefore, only five first residents have
16
been interviewed. An overview of the interviewed residents can be found in Table 1. Half of the interviewed residents has been contacted via community centers in Slotermeer. There is a slight chance that this way of sampling select people who are more socially concerned than the average resident of Slotermeer. I am aware of this possible bias and have tried to be careful about it. I have also tried to contact people who are not attached to community centers, this will weaken the chance of a small sampling bias. Unfortunately, I could only find first residents via community centers. An overview of the way of making contact with residents to ask for participation can be found in Table 2.
Table 2. How the residents have been contacted to participate in this research
Way of making contact Cathegory Numbe r of residents
Going to a coffee morning in a community center First residents 5 Middle residents 4 Recent residents 0
Total 9
Contacting parents, unrelated to community centers, of children who go to community centers
First residents 0 Middle residents 1 Recent residents 3
Total 4
Own connections in Slotermeer First residents 0 Middle residents 1 Recent residents 1
Total 2
Connections of own connections in Slotermeer First residents 0 Middle residents 1 Recent residents 3
Total 4
Total of interviewed residents Total 19
The experience of the realized planned space and the feeling of belonging to Slotermeer have been explored. These concepts will be operationalized as follows:
Experienced space has been operationalized by questions about the characteristics that constitute Slotermeer: the houses, streets and experienced safety. Furthermore, it was discussed what kind of needs the residents have and if these needs are fulfilled by the neighborhood (needs like facilities for their children, stores, etc). In addition, the daily
17
life of residents has been explored to find out how planned space is used in reality. Finally, it has been explored if in the opinion of these residents, Slotermeer has indeed become a garden village or not, and if it matters to them that it is a garden village or not. This information will provide an answer to the question if the philosophy behind the AUP is indeed experienced by residents. There was a philosophy behind the planning: space should be open and green. Do the neighbors recognize and value this philosophy in the realized planned space?
Belonging is a more emotional concept than experienced space and exists of place attachment and group membership (Antonsich, 2010).
o Group membe rship has been operationalized by asking questions about social groups and cultures in the neighborhood. Pinkster (2016), Madden (2014), Suttles (1972) and Elias and Scotson (1965) all show that different (old and new) groups in neighborhoods experience frictions between them. For this matter, frictions between residents have been explored by asking about differences and frictions between residents. The residents have been asked if they feel part of social groups in order to find out if they belong to the group. Furthermore, social changes like population changes over time in the neighborhood have been explored, as well as the opinion of the residents about those changes.
o Place attachme nt: The opinion of residents about the neighborhood renewal has been asked. Do they see it as a way to decrease the gap between experienced space and realized planned space, or to increase the gap? Do they still feel attached to a place that is changing? Besides, it has been asked why people came to Slotermeer. Where did they live before and what did they expect Slotermeer to be like before they came to Slotermeer in terms of social processes and use of space? Were their expectations close to the truth?
Mental mapping
In this thesis, most interviewees have been asked to draw a mental map of the neighborhood. In total, 12 residents drew a mental map of Slotermeer. These mental maps have been used to explore the familiarity of a person with certain parts of the neighborhood and thereby to explore
18
someone's daily life pattern. This daily life pattern provided information about how space is used and thereby, to which parts of a neighborhood a person attaches/belongs.
A mental map is defined by Bell, Greene, Fisher and Baum (2001) as "a mental framework that holds some representation for the spatial arrangement of the physical environment" (p. 68). It is a personal representation of a familiar environment that a person experiences. Mental maps exist of paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks. The more familiar someone is with his neighborhood, the more detailed a mental map will become. Furthermore, people have the tendency to draw certain features of their neighborhood bigger if they like these features or if they are familiar with these features. In this thesis, drawn features and the size of these features have therefore been taken into account in the analysis of the mental maps. Mental maps need to be treated with care. It is more likely that a person uses certain features in space if he draws them, but this does not actually have to be the case. Therefore, there have not been drawn hard conclusions out of the analysis. It was used as an explorative measure only.
19
5. Experience of Slote rmeer
Sub question: What are the differences between realized planned space and the experience of space, and does the realized planned space support social functions and residential needs?
5.1. The Garden Village p. 20
5.2. Residential needs p. 24 5.2.1. Shops p. 24 5.2.2. Meeting places p. 26 5.3. Concerns in Slotermeer p. 29 5.3.1. Garbage p. 29 5.3.2. Poverty p. 30 5.3.3. Safety p. 31
20
5.1. The Garden Village
Eduard: Van Eesteren was a pretty young architect back then. He had of course a very
divergent building style. He wanted many open spaces with a lot of green. He has accomplished this idea fairly well.
In 1952, the first residents entered their house in Slotermeer. The new neighborhood was "modern" and the houses were experienced as "palaces". Ans, a woman who lives in Slotermeer since 1959, felt like a "queen" when she walked around in her house, she was not used to the space. Her former house in Amsterdam was too small for her, her husband and the ir two children. And normal though it may seem today, Harrie and Maria, a married couple who live in Slotermeer since 1969, were excited about having a shower:
Harrie: Here, we had for the first time in our lives a shower! For the first time in our lives. I had
no shower in my parents' house and neither did Maria. Haha I had 10 brothers and sisters and we had no shower. And then all of us bathing a little in the kitchen. So that was very different of course.
Slotermeer has been built according to the co ncept of "lucht, licht en ruimte", or "air, light and space". All the first residents are aware of this concept, they know the history of their neighborhood. They see the variety in low rises and high rises, the uniqueness of every neighborhood within Slotermeer, but can still see the all-encompassing theme in Slotermeer. They experience Slotermeer as a garden city and they appreciate the concept of "air, light and space". Accordingly, Lefebvre's experienced space and planned space seem to be congruent in Slotermeer.
The neighborhood was built very fast after the Second World War and as a consequence, some of the buildings are "less stable" than in the center of Amsterdam. However, Marta, a woman who lives in Slotermeer since 1969, pointed out that these "unstable houses" were part of the history of the neighborhood and she liked it. It was part of the character of Slotermeer. Not
21
all residents agree about the defects of the houses: Harrie thinks his house is stable and soundproof.
The first residents seem to agree with each other: Slotermeer is the "prettiest neighborhood of Amsterdam" and the most "successful" part of the AUP. It is green, open, and the "total opposite of the city center", according to Eduard. However, some of them have to admit that the neighborhood is changing right now: the open space is narrowed down so new buildings can be built. This is called verdichtingsbouw, or density building. In contrast to the prediction of the government (Zonneveld, 2017), residents are not happy about this change and they don’t agree with the opinion that density building respects the AUP of Van Eesteren: Harrie: Yes, we have everything here. I wouldn’t know what Van Eesteren could have done
better. However, they are now going to build on the open spaces between buildings. They call it "verdichtingsbouw". That might not have been the wish of Van Eesteren, but hey, he is dead anyway, so… I just hope that they don’t do it here.
Furthermore, now they are getting older, the first residents face another problem. The neighborhood was not built for people who have a mobility issue. Mobility scooters did not exist yet when Slotermeer was planned, and the sidewalks have lots of stairs. Shops are often too far away for these people and the stairs in their houses can’t always be adjusted to their new mobile situation. Slotermeer was indeed built for families (Zonneveld, 2017), not for elderly, and this leads to an upcoming mobility problem, according to Zonneveld and my interviewed residents. For the rest, the residents think that Slotermeer has been built in a proper way.
Also the middle residents experience the same change overtime: verdichtingsbouw. Where they had a beautiful view from their window when they came here, now they see mostly buildings, according to Elizabeth and Anke. However, Slotermeer is still experienced as a neighborhood with a lot of green and wide streets. The middle residents and the recent residents also mention another problem: the houses are not well maintained. Where the first residents moved into new, modern houses, these same buildings are now seen as old, and in a bad shape. A shower is not special anymore, like it was to Harrie and Maria. The originally installed coal heater is also not of this time anymore:
22
Harrie: Previously, when we arrived here, we had a heater working on coal of course. You
probably don't even know what a coal heater is haha! We had to install the gas heater ourselves, but now the gas heater has to be replaced. There is apparently a law that states that we need central heating.
Where the houses were experienced as a "palace" by the first residents, the middle residents and recent residents experience the houses as "just nice and big enough". They are happy with their house, but they know that many families live with many children in a two bedroom apartment. Aisha and Sarah were both lucky to find a bigger house for them and their five children in Slotermeer, but they both are exceptions. Ria, a woman who lives in Slotermeer since 1975, explained that she had lived in a very big house in Slotermeer, the Verfdoos, or painting box. It is a mark in Slotermeer because of the Mondriaan- like, colorful walls of the house. Ria explained that they stopped building these houses because they were too expensive. It did not fit Slotermeer's aimed population of working-class people. The Verfdoos is experienced by Ria as beautiful, but the recent residents call the 1960s style of the buildings "ugly", although they still enjoy the open space and the green. Sebastian, a man that moved to Slotermeer in 2015, says: "The 60s style, or the Van Eesteren style, the taste is outdated. But I think it is ugly as hell. "
The fact that the houses in Slotermeer are experienced as too small for some families, is in contrast with the spatial projects of Madden (2014). New groups are supposed to make changes to the neighborhood in order to fit in. But in Slotermeer, the houses are suited for the first residents and not for the more recent residents with large families. However, changing the size of a house is not accomplished easily. These kind of changes take time. At the moment, a certain spatial project might be noticed: the neighborhood renewal. Thus, Slotermeer might soon indeed adjust to its more recent residents, and be in congruence with Madden (2014) after all.
Rudolf, a man who lives in Slotermeer since 1980, tried to explain to me why Slotermeer is a nice neighborhood by comparing Slotermeer to the Bijlmer. As he told me, the Bijlmer and Slotermeer were both built according to the concept of "light, air and space", and were supposed to house many people in a short time. However, Slotermeer has less high rises, allowing less people to be on the same place at the same time. As a consequence, Rudolf believes, Slotermeer is less chaotic and worked out just fine, and the Bijlmer became more problematic. As I conclude
23
from Rudolf's opinion, the AUP is thus experienced as a well thought through plan because there is no discrepancy between planned space - in this case a spacious area - and the experienced space - in this case a very dense area because of an overload of residents. Congruence between planned space and experienced space can thus lead to satisfaction of residents about t heir neighborhood.
Except for two residents, everyone agrees: Slotermeer is a real garden city and they appreciate that. Van Eesteren did a "great job" and he was "able to realize his plans". The planned space and realized planned space were the same. They experience Slotermeer as green, some of them even call Slotermeer the greenest neighborhood of Amsterdam. Everything is close: the city center of Amsterdam and the nature of the polder. There is fresh air and there are parks. Children can play on the street or in one of the many playgrounds. However, five people mention the verdichtingsbouw. Open space is exchanged for new houses. This might create a gap between the planned space and the experienced space: the concept of "air, light and space" might get lost. Still, Slotermeer is green and open and they want to live in an environment like this. The concept of "air, light and space" is still appreciated. However, the needs of people have "evolved", according to Rozanne, a student who came to Slotermeer in 2012. The houses can't be experienced any longer as large:
Rozanne: That idea of "air, light and space" of the 1950s, for them it was a lot of space but we
are used now to more space, bigger houses, bigger bathrooms, and so on. Just because humans evolve in this sense. So the house is not "air, light and space". Although, it is bright, just not big. But outside it is, when I look outside I see trees and the park.
Overall, residents experience Slotermeer as a garden village, a neighborhood with a good architectural plan. When it was built, it was progressive and modern. However, the neighborhood needs to be improved to match current standards of living, with well isolated houses and enough room.
This part of the chapter was about the experience of the architecture and planning of Slotermeer. However, a neighborhood can also be experienced in the sense of functionality. Therefore, in the next part of this chapter residential needs will be discussed.
24
5.2. Residential needs
Thomas: Slotermeer is becoming more trendy, and there are two exponents. On the one hand you
have trendy upper-class places that don't belong in this kind of neighborhoods, I think. But on the other hand, there is for example the Halal Fried Chicken, the Halal Burger and Chick en, you
have that Meram restaurants and lunchrooms at plein '40'45… These are good examples of local, successful companies that are trendy but originated from the people that actually live here.
And these people have, rightly so, the feeling that they belong here and are supposed to stay here. So I believe that these companies in the neighborhood are good.
Most residents talked about only two needs that they thought of as important in their neighborhood: shops and meeting places. The presence of these two functions are important for their daily life and for that matter, it will be discussed if their needs are fulfilled by Slotermeer.
5.2.1. Shops
All the first residents mention that when they moved to Slotermeer, there were shops in every street. Everything was available and there was much diversity. Now, there are fewer shops in the streets according to the first residents. There are still places with lots of shops, but these shops are mostly greengrocers and butchers. The first residents don’t seem to mind, except the ones who can't walk far. They believe that the shops are matching the needs of most residents of the neighborhood: the Moroccan and Turkish population. Although this means that the shops don't match their needs anymore, the elderly think that this change is fair. Marta, a woman who moved to Slotermeer in 1969, is one of the elderly that has seen the change in stores over time:
The shops are not that great. Everything is Turkish or Moroccan, they have taken over everything. There was a drugstore and bakery… Anyway, there were nice shops. But now it is all… Everyone is complaining about it, it has all become Moroccan and Turkish. But what do
25
they expect? All the residents are Moroccan and Turkish and from other countries. So the shops are good for them.
The elderly themselves have had their time to make use of the functions of the neighborhood, now they "don’t have many needs anymore". The times have changed and so has the neighborhood, that’s the way it goes. Marta mentioned that change is natural:
I can't help the change because the times have changed. And I am also becoming older. It is not like it was better in the past, it is a different time now. So I don't mind. You can't say "Everything was better in the past". No, the past is in the past ! Yes, you will have a very different music taste than I have. I still like music from the 1960s-1980s. And you like disco I suppose. What I mean is that taste for music has changed as well.
This change is in resemblance with Madden's spatial projects. There are indeed new shops that match the needs of new residents. However, in contrast to Madden (2014) and Pinkster (2014; 2016) the first residents don’t seem to feel estranged due to these spatial projects and new residents. In a certain way, they agree that the shops are not for themselves anymore, but they don’t experience this as negative. Marta's opinion about change is more in agreement with Martin (2003) than with Madden (2014): neighborhoods are a social product that changes over time, and these changes are a positive and natural process.
The middle residents are a little more negative about the changes than the first residents. Residents miss the diversity of the stores. Some people even mention that they just miss Dutch shops, they want a Dutch greengrocer and a Dutch butcher instead of the available Moroccan and Turkish greengrocer and butcher. The same is true for the markets: the market is matching the needs of the Moroccan and Turkish population according to the middle residents, not of the Dutch residents. In earlier times, there were flowers and clothes on the market. Now there are "fruit and long dresses", according to Anke. So, the middle residents do feel displaced by spatial projects. Their experience of change is more in resemblance with Madden (2014) than with Martin (2003).
Ethnicity was not a mediating factor: some Moroccan people didn't like the plenitude of Turkish grocery stores as well. They moved to the Netherlands to become a part of the Dutch population. Being able to go to a Dutch shop is part of the attachment process that they seek,
26
Amina explained to me. This is in contrast with Madden (2014) and Martin (2003): the new spatial projects that were tailored around the new ethnic category don't connect to the needs of all residents of this new ethnic group. This opinion was not held by all residents: some residents (both Moroccan and Dutch) are happy with the stores because the stores are matching the needs of the biggest part of Slotermeer's population.
In contrast to the other two categories, the recent residents are positive about the shops and markets, they match their own needs. The "daily life needs can be fulfilled" and the "greengrocers are cheap". The stores are close to their houses, which they like. Especially the students like the diversity in food, they can get everything they want here. They like the liveliness that the shops bring to the neighborhood. However, they do miss clothing stores, just like the middle residents.
There was another facility that the three categories didn’t agree upon: restaurants. The first residents don't mention them. In the other two categories, some people do think that there are too many restaurants and don’t like the opening of new restaurants at regular basis. The two students in my residents sample agree that there are more restaurants, but they like it. It makes Slotermeer trendy. However: one of the students doesn't like Western restaurants. "We are in Slotermeer and people don't need Western bars here.", Thomas believes. He likes the modern restaurants that breathe the Islamic culture, since those are more suited to the residents of Slotermeer. On the other hand, two other young adults miss the Western restaurants and bars. They want to have fun and "experience no fun in Slotermeer". They acknowledge that there are restaurants, but these restaurants are "not Western" and they don't like them.
Cultural differences are clearly seen in this disagreement about restaurants and shops between neighbors. In the chapter Belonging to Slotermeer, these differences will be discussed further. Now, the second important need in Slotermeer is reviewed: meeting places.
5.2.2. Meeting places
Social facilities have been present in Slotermeer since the beginning, according to the first residents. There were, and still are, sports clubs, community centers and activities. The first residents have taken initiative and started coffee mornings, women associations, and so on. They have been involved with the neighborhood from the beginning. The first residents mention that
27
there existed different groups and that each group had their own social meeting places: Catholics, Protestants and Socialists. When Indonesian people arrived in Slotermeer in the late 1960s, they also organized their own meetings, according to Ans. Thus, social life was present from the beginning, but every group arranged its own social life apart from each other.
The separation of social life is also acknowledged by the middle residents. Half of this category mention that there has been a "take over" of community center The Hongingraat. These days, only Muslims come to this community center, according to some Dutch residents. This has to do with the new rules, introduced by Muslims, Ria explained to me. Drinking and smoking are not allowed anymore, and men are not welcome at some activities. Ever since, Dutch people don't like the atmosphere of the Honingraat, and if they come, they have the feeling that they are not welcome, and that they are not seen as part of the group. This opinion is not only held by Ria. Elizabeth and Anke also mentioned this. This is a good example of the displacement due to spatial projects, mentioned by Madden (2014).
Although there are boundaries within the social life in Slotermeer, almost everyone of the middle residents is part of it. Only one person says that he never goes to social activities in Slotermeer. Slotermeer has a lot to offer according to its residents: there are language lessons, bicycle lessons, swimming lessons and Arabic lessons for adults. For children, there was not much to do until seven years ago. Tineke, a woman who was born in Amsterdam and lives in Slotermeer for 40 years now, wanted to invest in the neighborhood when she retired. She noticed that children were always hanging around on the street, without supervision, causing nuisance. She decided to start a community center, the Dobbekamer. She started to work together with VoorUit, an organization that offers students a house in neighborhoods in New West in exchange for neighborhood participation. The students of VoorUit organized, and still do organize, activities in the Dobbekamer. Tineke really thinks that it is valuable that these children have a place to go now, and that they have some supervision. Other neighbors mention as well that children are not being watched by their parents. They acklowledge the value of de Dobbekamer and other community centers.
Another initiative in the neighborhood is the "phone circle". This is an initiative to help lonely elderly. Every day the elderly call each other to have a conversation and to check on each
28
other. Anke, a woman that lives in Slotermeer since 1995, is part of the phone circle and she really appreciates it.
The recent residents are less involved with the social life of Slotermeer. One woman, Amina, mother of three children and 15 years in Slotermeer, takes Dutch language lessons, but for the rest she is not interested. She does mention that there are lots of opportunities and that many people make use of all the options. She especially appreciates the activities for the elderly to avoid loneliness. Her children make use of the library, VoorUit, de Honingraat and the football club. Aisha and Sofija have also children who go to VoorUit. They themselves do not feel the need to participate in social life of the community of Slotermeer. Alida and Sebastian only want to be part of an art gallery, the Vlught, in Slotermeer. For the rest, they don’t want to make use of Slotermeer's social facilities. They think Slotermeer is "not Western" and they even don't want to "expose their child" to the non-Western influence and the Islamic culture.
The only two very involved recent residents are Thomas and Rozanne, both students who work for VoorUit. Rozanne stopped working for VoorUit two years ago but she still lives in Slotermeer. Thus, the recent residents make less use of meeting places in Slotermeer, except for those who have worked for those meeting places or organizations. Taking the three categories together, there is a clear decrease visible: the first residents have made an effort to improve the social functions of the neighborhood, while the middle residents only make use of social functions, except for Tineke. The recent residents don't make use of social functions, except for the students of VoorUit.
29
5.3. Concerns in Slotermeer
Rudolf: They make an effort here to clean the streets. I have to laugh about that. Then they come
with seven people to clean the street, and then I tell them sometimes: "Come back in an hour hahaha! Then it will be a mess again!"
The last part of the chapter Experience of Slotermeer is about the concerns of the residents. This part is about concerns that the architects of the neighborhood could not have provided for, since these concerns are related to the behavior or social-economic status of Slotermeer's residents. There were three main concerns of the residents: garbage, poverty and safety.
5.3.1. Garbage
One of the main concerns in Slotermeer is the large amount of garbage on the streets. Most elderly don't complain about garbage, but the middle residents and recent residents think Slotermeer is very dirty. Everyone throws their trash on the streets, some even throw their garbage from their balcony, according to many residents. It is mentioned sometimes by Dutch people that this problem exists because of the culture of "other" residents, which refers in this case to people from other ethnic backgrounds, I learned during the interviews. Dutch people say that real Dutch people won't behave like this. However, other people from other ethnic backgrounds also complain about the garbage. A few times in the week people clean the streets, but the day after it is dirty again, according to Rudolf and Thomas. There are garbage containers in almost every street, but that does not seem to matter. A p roblem that comes with the garbage is the presence of rats, although it helped that the streets have been renewed. Ever since, there are fewer rats, according to Aisha. Some people wonder why the streets are so dirty, because Slotermeer has very neat residents: the houses of Slotermeer are very clean on the inside :
Rozanne: People clean their houses very well, it is amazing, with chlorine and that kind of stuff.
30
Rozanne believes that this has to do with taking responsibility: no one feels responsible for keeping public space clean.
5.3.2. Poverty
The second concern in Slotermeer is poverty. The first residents don't mention poverty. However, Eduard mentions that the houses were too expensive when they were built. Although the houses were built for the working-class, most people from the working-class could not afford to buy the houses. Ria and Rudolf, two middle residents, also mention this imbalance.
The middle residents talk more about poverty. One of them, Ali, has an unemp loyment benefit, he is not able to do much in his daily life because of the low income. He could only get jobs which were in his opinion really bad and boring, so he decided to take an unemployment benefit. Another woman, Sarah, wants to find a job for a few hours a day, but she found out that that is impossible. Two others mention poverty in the neighborhood but have no problem themselves. Many residents mention that they are afraid that the neighborhood will become too expensive after the renovation of the houses. Right now, many people live in Slotermeer because this is one of the few neighborhoods they can afford to live in, I heard from some of the residents. These residents will be excluded from Slotermeer if the renting prices go up.
The recent residents have more diverse aspirations. Half of the category wants the prices to go up, in contrast to the middle residents. This way, people with a higher socio-economic status will come to the neighborhood. The residents believe that this would be good for the diversity of people. However, one of these residents is Aisha, a woman who has to work hard to feed her 4 children, the 5th child is on the way. Although Aisha wants more people with a higher socio-economic status in the Slotermeer, she also mentions that she would not be able to live here if the neighborhood got more expensive. Also Sofija, a single mother, wants more people with a higher socio-economic status in the neighborhood, but has trouble with her own financial situation. It seems like these women want to be surrounded by people from a higher economic status, but haven't realized that not only their neighbors, but they themselves, will also be financially displaced if the prices go up.
Contrary to these two mothers that have trouble with their financial situation, Alida and Sebastian have a stable financial situation. They have a very different perspective on the neighborhood, because they bought a house. It is in their interest that the neighborhood becomes
31
more expensive, they want to sell their house for a good price, Sebastian explained. Alida, who came with her husband and one year-old child to Slotermeer two years ago, thinks that it is visible in the neighborhood that most houses are social rent and that people do not work. She believes, like Aisha and Sofija, that the neighborhood would be impro ved if more people with a higher socio-economic status would live in Slotermeer.
The other half of the recent residents agree with the middle residents: the neighbors should not be displaced because of too expensive rents. Thomas sees poverty in the neighborhood, and he sees the impotence of some residents. There are many benefits available for those in need, but he thinks that the government makes it hard to get those benefits. Especially the people with language problems are the ones in need of the benefits, he believes, but they are the ones who don't understand the documents that ha ve to be filled in to get a benefit. Thomas is astonished by this paradox.
5.3.3. Safety
The last concern in Slotermeer is safety. In contrast to the middle residents, the first residents feel completely safe in Slotermeer. Just one person mentions robbery. They feel safe in their house and on the street. Most of them never go out during the night-time, but that has nothing to do with safety. Ans, who moved to Slotermeer in 1959, did go often to the polder in the dark, but she never felt unsafe:
My allotment garden is in the polder. And people asked sometimes: "Oh, aren't you afraid to bike there on your own in the evening?" You don't think that someone will stand there behind a tree, waiting until Ans will bike by at 11 o'clock? Come on, but hey… No I have never been afraid. But if they say that kind of things I start looking behind my back anyway. Not that that makes sense. Because do you have to be afraid if there is someone walking behind you or do you have to be afraid if no one does haha?
Of the middle residents, almost everyone feels safe. They feel safe in their house, but some of them have taken precautionary measures. They are aware of robbery and burglary in the neighborhood and they want to protect themselves. Tineke mentions that if you live on the ground floor, you need to install rolling shutters. Ali has also an apartment on the ground floor.
32
He has been burgled three times. The middle residents also feel safe on the street, although two women always watch their purse when they walk around. However, this category does mention more criminality. Half of the category has been a victim of burglary. There are stories about broken car windows and the robbery of mobility scooters, bikes and "everything that can be taken away", according to Anke. Although the middle residents mention more criminality than the first residents, there seems to be no increase of criminality. The middle residents experience less criminality than there used to be. Anke tells about street fights between different groups in different neighborhoods in the New West:
When we were young and lived in Slotervaart, we had many street fights against the Blue of Slotermeer. That's how they were called, it were the Indonesian boys. And my boyfriend and his friends fought against them, that was what we did in the past. My boyfriend even got a knife in his body one day back then.
The recent residents are aware of the criminality, but don't experience Slotermeer as unsafe. Breaking into houses is not hard in Slotermeer, according to Thomas:
No I am not afraid of thieves but I know that it can happen. Because it is easy to break into these houses, let’s be honest. Most of the flat doors you can open with a kick. And everyone who is a little bit good at being a thief can get these front doors open as well. So I hope they know that I don't have valuable stuff.
Many people feel safe to walk around at night, they even let their children walk around in the dark. Rozanne, a student who lives in Slotermeer for five years now, also feels completely safe:
I am not afraid. Lovable people live here, just like everywhere else, who go to their job and put their children in bed in the evening. You know, people can be so difficult. Although I do feel sorry for the elderly who don’t feel safe, but I don't know what that fear is based upon. You can get shot everywhere, also in the center. But that won't happen, they won't shoot ordinary people like you and me.
