Managing diversity : a study of urban middle class residential practices in highly diverse neighbourhoods

(1)

Managing diversity

A study of urban middle class residential practices in highly diverse

neighbourhoods

Woodlands, Glasgow ↓ ↑ Spangen, Rotterdam Master Thesis Research Master Urban Studies University of Amsterdam February 28, 2017 Rosa de Jong 6123058 rosa.dejong@live.nl

Thesis supervisor: Dr. F.M. Pinkster Second reader: Prof. Dr. S. Musterd

(2)

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to take a moment to thank a few people who helped me through the process of writing this thesis. First of all, Fenne Pinkster, for guiding me through this two-year project. Thanks to my dad, Huib, for taking the time to read and correct my work from an outsider's’ perspective and supporting me through this period. Thanks to my mom, Els, for being encouraging all the way. Thanks to my friends, especially Anna and Nathalie, for having lunches and coffees at the most critical times and giving me the opportunity to getting my thoughts straight. Lastly, thanks to the respondents in both Woodlands and Spangen, for dedicating their time to me and sharing their stories with me to write this thesis.

Rosa

(4)

Summary

This thesis focuses on the relationship between motivations of the urban middle class for choosing diverse neighbourhoods and how this residential choice is translated into neighbourhood use, broken down into local social networks and local spatial behaviour. According to the literature, the motivations for the residential choice can be broadly divided into two groups: pragmatic reasons and symbolic reasons. Pragmatic reasons include the availability and affordability of housing, the location of the neighbourhood compared to for example family, friends, retail opportunities, services and work. Symbolic reasons are closely related to the way in which a neighbourhood coincides with a person’s habitus, or identity.

When a neighbourhood does not or not completely coincide with the habitus, this might result in selective belonging, only identifying with certain areas within the

neighbourhood and distancing oneself from other areas, or even practices of disaffiliation, where the neighbourhood doesn’t fit with the habitus at all and the neighbourhood isn’t used. Moreover, practices of placemaking are used to make the neighbourhood fit with a habitus when this initially isn’t the case. When a neighbourhood, according to the respondent, does coincide with their habitus, this results in elective belonging: the coincidence of

neighbourhood image and habitus.

Through investigating two neighbourhoods in Glasgow and in Rotterdam, a better understanding of the choice for diversity and the according neighbourhood use is provided. This study uses in-depth interviews complemented with the drawing of mental maps. This latter tool is used to give a better insight into the neighbourhood use of the respondents.

The results show that the relationship between choosing diversity and doing diversity is not as straightforward as it may seem. Although most respondents were positive about diversity and saw it as an intrinsic part of urban life, this didn’t lead to practices of doing diverse. The study shows that neighbourhood use, which is necessary to be able to identify doing diverse, is influenced by a neighbourhood’s reputation. Moreover, place specific characteristics such as housing differentiation and segregation, the presence or absence of a wide array of diverse amenities and retail spaces and the way and period in which

respondents moved into the respective neighbourhoods proved to be of influence in feelings of elective and selective belonging and the according strategies of neighbourhood use.

Furthermore, this study has provided insights in the role of public policy to upgrade neighbourhoods and create social cohesion. In general terms, large scale restructuring projects might result in rising housing prices and a more balanced social mix, but this thesis presents evidence that the influx of a higher socioeconomic class not necessarily results in social cohesion and bridging social ties.

(5)

Chapter 1. Introduction

Some like it, some don’t: living in a city and living in diversity. Within the middle class, a differentiation can be made between the urbanity seeking and the urbanity fleeing middle class (Butler & Robson, 2003). The urban seeking middle class, referred to throughout this thesis as the urban middle class, has different strategies to live in the city and manage diversity. The result is a differentiation of the urban middle class. This differentiation is based on a person’s habitus: a personal set of dispositions that informs behaviour, tastes and judgements (Bridge, 2006).

The residential choice is one of the fields in which this habitus is expressed. Because of different habituses, different groups within the urban middle class choose different

neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods are placed by the urban middle class in an urban hierarchy, in order of the extent to which these neighbourhoods’ reputations symbolically represent a person’s habitus or identity (e.g. Permentier et al., 2007). One of the

characteristics of a city is that it is a place of increasing diversity along various lines. These lines include diversity based on, amongst other things, culture, class, religion, ethnicity, age and lifestyle. Cities are thus becoming more super- or hyper-diverse (Vertovec, 2003; also Peterson, 2016). But some neighbourhoods are more diverse than others, and this aspect influences their reputation and place within the urban hierarchy for the urban middle class and thus their symbolic meaning for the urban middle class.

Apart from this symbolic decision making, the residential choice is also based on pragmatic reasoning. The urban middle class is affluent, but their means are not endless. This results also in choosing a neighbourhood for example based on affordability and availability of properties or a value-for-money argument (e.g. Pinkster, 2014) and accessibility of transport facilities and amenities (Knox & Pinch, 2010). Furthermore, amongst pragmatic decisions are the proximity of family and friends, as well as familiarity with a certain area (e.g. Andreotti et al., 2015; Boterman, 2012). Sometimes, the

combination of symbolic and pragmatic decisions result in a trade-off between the two. There are several strategies that are employed by the urban middle class to manage diversity. There are certain groups that are trying to avoid diversity or minimize interaction with ‘the other’, and can be identified as ‘diversity fleeing’. Atkinson (2005) provides a typology of these kinds of strategies, or an hierarchy of disaffiliation, on the level of the neighbourhood. These include (1) practices of insulation, where people try to move to neighbourhoods where they are the majority; (2) incubation, where people are trying to create a homogeneous neighbourhood that symbolizes security; and (3) incarceration, where people are actively segregating themselves from others through physical boundaries, such as gated communities. The first strategy is also referred to selective belonging (Watt, 2009): the practices of only feeling at home in certain parts of a neighbourhood. Another way of managing diversity is actively molding the neighbourhood towards a person’s wishes, both through narratives and practices, described as placemaking (e.g. Tissot, 2014).

On the other hand, some scholars also believe that there are groups that are perceiving diversity as something commonplace (Wessendorf, 2013), or are even actively ‘diversity seeking’ (Weck & Hanhörster, 2015; Blokland & Van Eijk, 2009). But how a

diversity seeking habitus or identity translates into neighbourhood use, still remains unclear. Weck & Hanhörster for example argue that diversity seekers are ‘doing diverse’: having heterogeneous social networks and using diverse spaces and places within the

(8)

neighbourhood. Blokland & Van Eijk on the other hand find no direct relationship between seeking diversity and doing diversity. This thesis will therefore explicitly focus on this relationship between choosing diversity and doing diversity. The research question that is the basis for the carried out study reads:

To what extent is choosing diversity translated into doing diverse by urban middle class residents in gentrifying and highly diverse neighbourhoods?

This thesis will thus on the one hand focus on the reasons that inform the residential choice of the urban middle class to move to highly diverse neighbourhoods. On the other hand, it will focus on how the neighbourhood is used both socially and spatially by urban middle class residents who chose to live in a diverse neighbourhood. This question is answered through a comparative case study. In both Woodlands in Glasgow and Spangen in

Rotterdam, in-depth interviews complemented with mental mapping have been conducted to get a better understanding of the relationship between choosing a diverse neighbourhood and the use of the neighbourhood.

With giving a better understanding of the thoughts and behaviour of the urban middle class in the light of diversity, this study also provides insights for the field of urban policy. In order to improve deprived and often ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, various policy makers are trying to attract the urban middle class to these areas through for example regenerating the housing stock (Lees, 2008). It is thought that this group of incomers belonging to a higher socioeconomic class than the incumbent residents provides social bridging capital and therefore not only improves the neighbourhood situation, but can also help on the individual level. By investigating how the urban middle class uses diverse

neighbourhoods and why they chose these neighbourhoods, this can provide input for future policy interventions on the neighbourhood level.

The remainder of this thesis is structured as follows. First, an overview of the relevant literature concerning this topic will be presented. The third chapter will discuss the research design and methods for the case studies in both Glasgow and Rotterdam. Thereafter, subsequently the findings in Glasgow and the findings in Rotterdam will be examined. In the sixth chapter, the findings in both neighbourhoods will be compared. Finally, the thesis will end with a conclusion where I will provide an answer to the research question, followed by a discussion with recommendations for further research and urban policy.

(9)

Chapter 2. Theoretical framework

Cities are places of diversity. Why does a part of the urban middle class chooses to live in diverse neighbourhoods? And how is this diversity managed by the urban middle class? This chapter will discuss these topics more in detail. The first part of this chapter will discuss the concept of urban diversity. Thereafter, the reasons of the urban middle class for choosing diverse neighbourhoods will be explored. Furthermore, this chapter will review literature on what strategies the urban middle class adopts when they are living in diversity. Lastly, policies that aim to create a social mix and more socially mixed neighbourhoods will be discussed.

2.1 Urban diversity

The social diversity of cities has become more complex over the past few decades. Vertovec (2007) argues that the diversity that can be identified in for example British cities can be described as ‘super-diversity’. While previously researchers often only meant different ethnicities when they were mentioning diversity, Vertovec states that diversity is an interplay of various factors. These include: “country of origin, gender, religion, languages, migration channel, legal status, access to employment, migrants’ human capital, locality, and

transnationalism.“The implications of this increasing super-diversity in cities is also that policies and research have to be adapted to this development, according to

Vertovec.Peterson (2016; after Tasan-Kok, van Kempen, Raco & Bolt, 2013) argues that the city is not only super-diverse, but becoming hyper-diverse:

“Even people who appear to belong to the same group express different lifestyles, attitudes and activity patterns.” (Peterson, 2016, p. 3)

Tissot (2014) acknowledges that how diversity is described by the urban middle class is influenced by specific and national contexts. Moreover, for a certain area, the perception of diversity might change over time. Tissot (2014) for example saw a change of focus on diversity in terms of ethnicity, to a more, indeed super-diverse, notion of the social

composition of a Boston neighbourhood that acknowledged also for example the presence of women and gay people. Savage et al. (2005) also identified different ways of describing diversity by the urban middle class. One group of middle class respondents mentioned diversity as the presence of a working class (p. 40), while another group divided the social groups within their neighbourhood according to different lifestyles (p. 41). Another way in which people describe social diversity is to differentiate in terms of individuals (Butler and Robson, 2001). In this latter research, the individuals were actually quite a homogeneous group.

The above makes clear that there is, especially under people living in diversity, no general idea about what social diversity means. Every individual approaches this topic differently. Therefore, in the context of living in diversity, it is important to study how diversity is perceived by residents of diverse neighbourhoods in different contexts.

2.2 Choosing place

Two types of reasons are weighed when it comes to choosing a neighbourhood. The first set of reasons can be identified as symbolic reasons, or the way in which a neighbourhood is

(10)

used as a distinction mechanism. Cultural capital and the wish to reproduce this kind of capital are the leading. Secondly pragmatic reasons, which are largely based on the amount of economic capital of a household. When there is a lot of economic capital, symbolic reasons will have the upper hand. When economic capital is not endless, trade-offs have to be made. This section will discuss both types of reasoning.

2.2.1 Performing identity: the neighbourhood as place of distinction

The decision to live in a particular area, reflects one’s preferences, wishes, ideas, values and norms; one’s identity. The social and physical makeup of a neighbourhood is thus of great importance for a large part of society, that are able to choose where to live. According to Benson (2014), social and spatial identities come together in the residential choice. The social considerations are intertwined with a household’s social position: “[social dimensions] include concerns over social reproduction as well as lifestyle, taste and aesthetics”.

Moreover, according to Knox & Pinch (2010, p. 260), housing expectations and aspirations are based on frames of reference, which are in turn based on various factors such as age, ethnic origin and previous experiences with aspects of urban life.

The characteristics of a neighbourhood reflect and become part of a person’s _habitus (Bridge, 2006). A habitus is: ‘an array of inherited dispositions that condition bodily

movement, tastes, and judgments according to class position’ (Bridge, 2006a, p. 1966). Benson (2014) writes that residential preference can “become a habit, an unquestioned part of [someone’s] habitus, reproduced through [somebody’s] repeated residential choices”. Lupi et al. (2007) conceptualize identification with the neighbourhood as cultural attachment.

Cultural capital is the way a habitus is expressed. Three forms of cultural capital can be differentiated according to Bridge (2006a): (1) institutionalized cultural capital or

education; (2) objectified cultural capital or material affairs; and (3) embodied cultural capital or tacit knowledge. For the middle-class, the reproduction of these three components or fields is of importance, and influences residential choices. Bridge (2006b) mentions the fact that cultural capital is not a homogeneous asset even within social groups or classes or individual life-cycle trajectories, and it is thus subject to change. Cultural capital influences neighbourhood trajectories but also social trajectories through and within the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood itself might also be seen as cultural capital (Benson, 2014).

Benson (2014; see also Boterman, 2012) states that a person’s habitus may cause a certain residential choice, but on the other hand the habitus may also change due to the residential choice. In particular this is the case when children are involved or in the case of retirement. Residents tend to rethink their residential choice at this lifestage, and choose to leave or stay in a (diverse) neighbourhood (Benson, 2014, Boterman, 2012). Characteristics of the neighbourhood that previously weren’t perceived as disturbing or disorderly might get this connotation because the neighbourhood is seen in a different light. On the other hand, the habitus might also be adapted to the characteristics of the neighbourhood to reach neighbourhood satisfaction (Benson, 2014; Pinkster, Permentier & Wittebrood, 2014).

The habitus or taste of one group can also result in the displacement of other tastes, such as working-class or ethnic, in a neighbourhood (Bridge, 2006b) because they influence the development of the neighbourhood with the development of amenities that cater to a certain group. In gentrifying neighbourhoods, feelings of belonging and the according strategies to feel at home by the middle class might involve the decrease of feeling at home by incumbent residents (Benson, 2014).

(11)

Connected to the expression of one’s habitus by their residential choice, is the concept of elective belonging:

“[...] seeing places as sites for performing identities. [...] Individuals attach their own biography to their ‘chosen’ residential location.” (Savage et al., 2005, p. 29).

The neighbourhood is for some used to express people’s identity. A certain group of people is able to do so: the middle class. They have the financial means and independence to be ‘picky’. But their means are not endless, and therefore their choice also comes with

trade-offs. The willingness to accept certain imperfections of a neighbourhood might change over time because of life changing events, and result in moving out of a previously

acceptable neighbourhood. In the next paragraph, I will explore the particularities of living in an urban diverse neighbourhood.

2.2.2 Choosing diversity: the metropolitan habitus

A part of the urban middle class seems to actively choose diverse environments, rather than established middle class neighbourhoods. Several urban scholars have looked into the existence of an urban habitus. This urban habitus is expressed in the decision for living in the city, as opposed to for example the suburbs. Butler & Robson (2003, p. 9) identify an urban-seeking and an urban-fleeing middle-class in London. These groups can be

distinguished based on the interplay of values, ideology, social background and occupational choice.

The urban seeking middle class is attracted to the city because of for example the clustering of managerial and higher professional occupations in cities makes the employees of these business to want to live in the city too, for mobility reasons for example. Moreover, a city offers a wide variety of facilities, services and amenities that suit diverse lifestyles’. A side note to this idea is that the process of gentrification - the transformation of a

neighbourhood to a population that belong to a general higher socio-economic class - is moving from the city center towards the city’s periphery. Proximity might therefore be less of a reason to move into the city.

Nowadays, according to Butler and Robson, there is not only a dichotomy between these two, but the urban-seeking middle class has differentiated. Butler and Robson argue that a new habitus has developed: the metropolitan habitus. Bridge (2006) also

acknowledges this differentiation, and calls this the development of mini habituses, as well as Savage et al. (2005, p. 10). In his research on residential decisions during parenthood, Boterman (2012) found that people with high cultural capital and low economic capital are more likely to stay within the city when they are having children, while people with low cultural capital and high economic capital are likely to move out of the city. The same goes for people with both high cultural and economic capital.

Intrinsic to people with a metropolitan habitus, is to distinguish themselves, the metropolitans, from a non-metropolitan middle-class and other groups within the urban sphere. Butler and Robson (2003) call this the ‘cosmopolitan-local dichotomy’ (p. 165). Cosmopolitans describe themselves as being more outward looking, not only focusing on the local community. The choice for living in a diverse neighbourhood is the expression of such a metropolitan, cosmopolitan habitus. According to Boterman (following Bourdieu, see also Bridge, 2006a), choosing diversity is a way of distinction and has become part of a

(12)

cosmopolitan lifestyle. Also Weck & Hahnhörster (2014) make use of the term ‘cosmopolitan lifestyle’ that is found in urbanity seekers. The cosmopolitan lifestyle can be best described as a contrast with ‘the perceived dullness and homogeneity of suburban locations’.

Moreover, gentrifiers in particular are associated with choosing diversity (Atkinson, 2006; Lees, 2008; Blokland, 2009). Moreover, a diverse neighbourhood is chosen when urban middle class residents have experience with living in diversity (Benson, 2014).

As stated above, there are now various middle-class urban-seeking groups to distinguish. Within the group of middle-class with this habitus, some scholars have studied diversity seekers in particular, a group of urban middle-class residents that chose a

neighbourhood for it’s diversity in particular. According to Blokland & Van Eijk (2010), diversity seekers are people ‘with access to resources for ‘getting ahead’. This means that they have completed higher education, and are employed in a paid job. They formulated this description based upon information from interviews with structured questionnaires with 206 residents of the socially diverse neighbourhood Cool in Rotterdam. Diversity seekers did consume the local facilities more than other residents, but were not more or less engaged in local, social and political neighbourhood affairs as others. Moreover, their social networks seemed to be rather homogeneous.

Weck & Hanhörster (2014) came to a more qualitative description based upon 19 semi-structured in-depth interviews with 19 middle class families in a German socially diverse neighbourhood. According to them, characteristics of a diversity seeker are the presence of inter-ethnic and/or inter-class network contacts and the appreciation of diversity in their narratives. Their view on a diverse neighbourhood is inclusive: the positive and less positive sides of living in diversity are perceived as part and parcel of such a neighbourhood. This corresponds with Wessendorf’s (2013) findings on seeing diversity as commonplace. Moreover, diversity seekers are involved in voluntary organisation in order to reproduce the neighbourhood social capital.

In short, various researchers have identified how living in the city and especially in a diverse neighbourhood serves as a distinction mechanism. It reflects being vibrant,

open-minded, tolerant, and cosmopolitan (Blokland & Van Eijk, 2009; Weck & Hanhörster, 2014; Tissot, 2014). Those living in the homogeneous suburbs or even further out on the countryside are being perceived as boring:

“[...] promoted by mobilized gentrifiers as an expression of openness and tolerance, ‘diversity’ works as a positive social marker stressing the gentrifiers’ difference from conventional and selfish suburbanites.” (Tissot, 2014, p. 1187)

Within the people with an urban habitus, there are differentiations to be made to which characteristics of a neighbourhood, for example diversity, they are attracted particularly. 2.2.3 Practical and pragmatic residential decision making

Various scholars have identified some more classical reasons to make the decision to reside in a diverse neighbourhood that complement the rhetoric of performing identity or may overshadow performing identity. In general, residential mobility is:

“a product of _{housing opportunities}

- the new and vacant dwellings resulting from

(13)

needs

and _expectations of households, which are themselves a product of income,

family size and lifestyle.” (Knox & Pinch, 2010, p. 252)

Thus, changes in the household situation are also responsible for moving. Moreover,

dissatisfaction the physical characteristics of housing and neighbourhood can serve as push factors to other neighbourhoods (Pinkster et al., 2014; Kleinhans, 2009). Housing features such as quality of the dwellings, dwelling satisfaction and dwelling type, neighbourhood perception and length of residency influence moving considerations. Other practical

considerations are the availability and affordability of dwellings in a potential area (see also Pinkster et al., 2014 and Weck & Hanhörster, 2014). Diverse neighbourhoods are for example more affordable. The argument of ‘value-for-money’ is also a way for the middle class to cope with problems and negative experiences by living in disadvantaged

neighbourhoods (Pinkster, 2014).

Architecture and design too may account for choosing a neighbourhood.

Municipalities are in some instances purposely building for a particular population group. In the west of Rotterdam, Arabic themed architecture was used for a housing block aiming at attracting a new middle class (Meier, 2009). Although the residents appreciated the project, it seemed that there wasn’t a lot of willingness to interact with the neighbourhood. Themed architecture is also found throughout other neighbourhoods and cities in the Netherlands, for example in the Borneohof in the Indische Buurt in Amsterdam (De Jong, 2014).

Apart from practical or ideological reasons, Andreotti et al. (2015) found that in various European cities there is no such thing as romanticism among managers about mixed communities as described above. The reason of these managers or members of the upper middle class to stay within mixed neighbourhoods is often one of tradition or because of the proximity of family and friends, although they wished to live in a more homogeneous area, something Boterman (2012) also concluded for some of his respondents in his research on residential decision making in the case of parenthood.

A neighbourhood is thus certainly not only a place where identity is performed. More practical reasons also lie at the heart of a residential decision. Moreover, reasons to choose a particular neighbourhood might be the result of some sort of tradition that people are part of. Lastly, knowing a neighbourhood from for example family and friends that already live in that area make it more tempting to move there, although it might not be the best fit. In the next section, I will discuss what strategies residents employ when they made the choice to live in a neighbourhood and are confronted with diversity.

2.3 Routes and routines: doing neighbourhood

When the decision for a diverse neighbourhood is made, how is the neighbourhood then used? There are various ways to live and make use of a neighbourhood and manage the social diversity in it. This section will discuss practices of selective belonging, place-making, disaffiliation and doing diversity. The former three are ways in which diversity is avoided to a greater or lesser extent. The latter is a strategy in which residents - in theory - engage actively with diversity.

(14)

2.3.1 Selective belonging

A first way to make use of the neighbourhood and manage diversity is through practices of selective belonging. Selective belonging is a form of neighbourhood belonging.

Neighbourhood belonging, also referred to as neighbourhood attachment, encompasses the different relationships that people have with their environment, or how they feel they belong to the neighbourhood (e.g. Lupi, 2007). These feelings of belonging to a neighbourhood can be divided into emotional and behavioural belonging. According to Pinkster, Permentier & Wittebrood (2014), emotional belonging or attachment

“[...] refers to a sense of belonging and feeling at home and to processes of identification.” (Pinkster et al., 2014, p. 2900)

Emotional belonging is also referred to as cultural attachment (Lupi, 2007). The behavioural component of neighbourhood belonging includes:

“[...] local social ties with neighbo[u]rs, friends, and relatives who might live in the area, as well as work-related or business activities in the neighbo[u]rhood and ties to local institutions such as schools and religious institutions. [...] Residents’ everyday lives [are] embedded in the neighbo[u]rhood over time.” (Pinkster et al., 2014, p. 2901)

In the concept of behavioural belonging, both social attachment and functional attachment are combined, as described by Lupi et al. (2007). Social attachment are the social

relationships that people have within neighbourhoods, while functional attachment refers to the spatial use of the neighbourhood. A resident might not feel like he or she belongs to every physical and social part of the neighbourhood. The resident then draws (imaginary) boundaries around the desirable areas. Watt (2009) coined the term ‘selective belonging’ in his research on feelings of belonging in the middle class in suburban London:

“Selective belonging is [a discourse] that simultaneously embrace[s] the immediate estate and abdjure[s] other [parts of a neighbourhood]. [...] [Selective belonging] highlights non identification and nonparticipation at the level of [a] wider area.” (Watt, 2009, p. 2875/2889)

Selective belonging is a form of segregatory behaviour. Atkinson (2005) provides us with a tripartite typology of this kind of behaviour. In this typology, selective belonging is

conceptualized as insulation, and the least segregated form.

In Watt’s research (2014), he found that the suburban middle class only felt at home in a certain estate that was inhabited by other members of the middle-class, or ‘people like them’. This rhetoric of middle class enclaves is also found by Pinkster et al., (2014) in their research on the middle class in Dutch diverse disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Some places are identified as ‘quiet corners’, where disorder is not experienced, and places of disorder are described as ‘hotspots’.

Use of language is important in these kinds of discourses. Dichotomies like

inside/outside, us/them, here/there are often used (see for example Watt, 2009 and Pinkster, 2014). In the research of Van Gent et al. (2016) selective belonging was visualised by

(15)

narratives of inclusion and exclusion of people and places are represented in the way the respondents perceive the boundaries of their neighbourhood.

Selective belonging is thought to result in homogeneous social networks and living parallel lives from other groups (social tectonics) (Blokland & Van Eijk, 2009; Valentine, 2008; Jackson & Butler, 2014; Permentier et al., 2007), and polarisation in education

(Boterman, 2012b). Thus, on the surface, a neighbourhood might look like it’s socially mixed, but on a more complex level, this might not be the case and the neighbourhood can be identified as divided or segregated. This development might hamper the forming of social bridging capital between groups, and reinforce social bonding capital among members of the same group (Putnam, 2000). Even living in the same tenement building might not result in heterogeneous networks, as Tersteeg & Pinkster (2015) and myself (2014) concluded.

Another way of selective belonging is presenting functional belonging, but systematically emotionally disidentifying oneself with the neighbourhood. This goes for example for the Black population living in the projects in New Haven, studied by Blokland (2009). There is a lack of emotional attachment to a neighbourhood. Interestingly enough, this type of selective belonging doesn’t make people necessarily move out of the

neighbourhood. A reason for this ‘odd’ behaviour might be that, because residents

established social ties over time, the transaction costs of actually moving are too high (see also Boterman, 2012 and Andreotti et al., 2015).

Selective belonging also results in selective use of functions and spaces, as for example Benson & Jackson (2014) found in their research on the middle-class in Peckham, London. The respondents make a distinction between middle-class spaces and other spaces, also in terms of what local businesses they support. Diversity is then more of a social wallpaper than something that the middle class is actually engaging in.

2.3.2 Placemaking

Instead of only selectively making use of the neighbourhood not feeling to belong to a neighbourhood as a whole, some residents also actively try to mold the neighbourhood to their preferences and wishes. Atkinson (2005) identifies this second stage in segregatory behaviour as incubation:

“[There is] a rising need for safety as the foundation of an adequately functioning home and the daily tasks of social reproduction.” (Atkinson, 2005, p. 822)

Fulfilling this need can be done by actively shaping the neighbourhood to the wishes of the middle class. For place-making in general goes that it might be an individual as well as a collective practice (Blokland, 2009; Permentier et al., 2007). This practice of placemaking is intertwined with the meaning that people give to a certain place. This meaning or narrative may change over time, and a place may have different meanings at the same time for different groups that make use of the place (Blokland, 2009).

Though the practice of placemaking people give, in this case, the neighbourhood symbolic meaning and thereby place it within the urban neighbourhood hierarchy. These narratives and practices of placemaking are not necessarily inclusive; they might exclude certain groups that do not belong to the dominant community (Blokland, 2009) and nudge lower income groups towards disconnecting from ‘their’ neighbourhood (Atkinson, 2005; Benson & Jackson, 2014). Through place-making, communities find a public way to express

(16)

their habitus. Moreover, pivotal events in the history of the neighbourhood might be seen as disastrous for one community, but a blessing for another. Not only is the choice to live in a diverse neighbourhood made because of characteristics that complement one’s habitus; the neighbourhood is also actively shaped according to the desirable habitus. Place should should thus be seen as performative.

Of importance in the practice of placemaking by middle-class residents is, according to Benson & Jackson (2014) the interplay between representations of the neighbourhood and people’s spatial practices (see also Pinkster, 2012 and Pinkster et al., 2014). The neighbourhood in Peckham, London, was associated with gang and gun crime, and

therefore newcomers were warned by their family and friends, but the residents try to explain in their narratives that the neighbourhood within Peckham where they live is not that way. The new middle class residents try to reshape the neighbourhood to their image of the neighbourhood, what they see as the authentic neighbourhood. Not only do the

Peckham-residents feel like they belong there, they also perform their feelings of belonging. This search for authenticity by the middle-class is also mentioned by Zukin (2010). According to her:

“[...] authenticity becomes a tool of power. Any group that insists on the authenticity of its own tastes in contrast to others’ can claim moral superiority.” (Zukin, 2010, p. 3) This can indeed lead to feelings and actual displacement of long-term residents (Zukin, 2010). By imposing the tastes of a certain group therefore, the social diversity of the place that is celebrated at first might disappear because the neighbourhood is not catering to the various groups that inhabit the neighbourhood.

Examples of place-making can be found in for example New Haven, where Blokland (2009) found that various groups left certain groups out of their narratives of the history, and moreover identified different periods as the authentic period. Another example comes from Weck & Hanhörster (2014), who found that a group of urbanity seekers for example set up their own daycare and kindergartens. Often, educational institutions in diverse

neighbourhoods have a high percentage of non-native students are seen as undesirable for reproducing the social and cultural capital as valued by the middle class urbanity seekers.

Key in these kinds of place-making practices is control, something that Tissot (2014) also acknowledges. In Boston, the middle-class tried to maintain a kind of diversity, but only a kind that they wanted. Certain groups were not advocated for by neighbourhood

associations, while others could count on their support. This ambivalence is also met by Blokland (2009). Gentrifiers in her study had the opinion that an inclusive mix of races and classes is part of living in a city. Nevertheless, the gentrifiers displayed having some difficulties being inclusive and tolerant on the one hand, but on the other hand fighting for a nice and beautiful neighbourhood with high property values. A diverse neighbourhood complicated this latter according to the gentrifiers.

Tissot (2014) and also Blokland (2009) thus demonstrate some sort of ambivalence within the celebrators of diversity. Andreotti et al. (2015) also stress how control is important in socially diverse neighbourhoods. Again, the fact that people ‘like us’ live in a diverse neighbourhood makes coping with diversity easier.

Discursive placemaking can be identified as symbolic use of the neighbourhood. This does not have to match with the actual use of the neighbourhood:

(17)

“Those who intensely use locations symbolically and are most vocal about it - for example, through celebration of local identity - may hardly use the neighbourhood in daily routes and routines.” (Blokland, 2009, p. 1608)

Important to note in this situation, is the fact that some people that do not live in the

neighbourhood anymore, because they have moved out in the past, might still be involved in reproducing a community’s narrative. Place-making is thus a way to make the

neighbourhood fit with one’s habitus. 2.3.3 Disaffiliation and bridging out

Another strategy to manage diversity, is disaffiliation of the neighbourhood. This practice can be seen as living somewhere, but not using the neighbourhood whatsoever. In Atkinson’s (2005) typology, this process of cocooning is described as incarceration. Examples of this kind of segregatory behaviour is the rise of more and less rigorous gated communities in previously undesirable areas in the centers of cities in the United Kingdom. This form of development is based on a desire for security, investment and privacy and results in social as well as spatial segregation. Moreover, special infrastructure is developed to also not having to interact on the way from home to work or leisure places. On the one hand, it is a way to avoid risks, but it might also might maintain feelings of fear and this type of

‘cocooning’ might reinforce estrangement to others (Boterman & Musterd, 2016).

The gated community is an extreme case of disaffiliation, but this might also happen on a micro-scale, when people live in a ‘normal’ home and perceive the neighbourhood amenities as not sufficient anymore. When children are born, “bridging out of the

neighbourhood to access institutions and activities outside becomes a strategy for coping with the disadvantageous effects of living in a socially mixed neighbourhood” (Weck & Hanhörster, 2014, also Boterman, 2012). The wish to express a certain symbolic capital, that of a tolerant middle-class person, suddenly becomes problematic when daycares and

schools are reviewed as insufficient for the offspring.

Other scholars also found that feeling the need to disaffiliate from the neighbourhood can be strengthened by living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods or neighbourhoods where people feel they are a minority. Wessendorf (2013) for example argues that:

“the presence of high numbers of ‘out-group members’ in a neighbourhood can be perceived as a threat, especially if opportunity for contact is not being taken up.” (Wessendorf, 2013, p. 409)

Also, according to Pinkster (2014), the perceived spoiled identity of disadvantaged neighbourhoods results in the middle class actively distancing themselves from the

neighbourhood, stating that they ‘just live there’. The identity of the neighbourhood doesn’t coincide with their personal identity. Disaffiliation because of a negative neighbourhood reputation is also acknowledged by Permentier et al. (2007). It is one of the strategies to evade from this reputation. According to their study, with a negative reputation also comes the decrease of loyalty towards the neighbourhood.

Disaffiliation can thus have different forms. On the one hand, it can be not using the neighbourhood at all, which results in bridging out of the neighbourhood. But making use of the neighbourhood but not identifying with the neighbourhood is a kind of social disaffiliation.

(18)

2.3.4 Doing diversity

Finally, and in contrast to the previous residential practices, urban middle class residents may actively make use of their neighbourhood based on feelings of elective belonging. This also results in practices of doing diversity. Instead of solely bonding social ties, they also have bridging social ties (Putnam, 2000). They not only see the social diversity as an expression of their identity, but also reproduce the neighbourhood’s social capital by

engaging in social initiatives like organizing or taking part in voluntary activities. This group is identified by Weck & Hanhörster (2014) as ‘diversity seekers’. They have more high cultural and social capital, but compared to urbanity seekers less economic capital.

Diversity seekers are more concerned with socioeconomic changes, and more in particular when they involve the influx of more middle class residents and show processes of gentrification. This in their eyes might result in a decrease of the neighbourhood capital. Therefore these diversity seekers sometimes act as ‘social preservationists’. They seek to preserve and maintain what they see as the authenticity of a place (Weck & Hanhorster, 2014). Benson & Jackson (2014) describe this practice as ‘place maintenance’. They found this practice in a village in the commuter belt that wanted to keep the village as a village instead of seeing it change into suburbia.

As for educational choices, diversity seekers more often are interested in institutions that are more mixed. They see growing up and dealing with diversity as an advantage of living in diversity (Weck & Hanhorster, 2014). But there might be boundaries to what mixture might be seen as advantageous (Ball, 2004 in Weck & Hanhörster, 2014). While Weck & Hanhörster found that diversity seekers are more socially and physically engaged in the neighbourhood, Blokland & Van Eijk came to another conclusion. Diversity seekers in their research still had more homogeneous networks and did not make more use of ‘diverse’ amenities and facilities within the neighbourhood.

Reasons for differences between these two studies, might be the fact that Weck & Hanhörster talked to middle-class families in particular, while Blokland & Van Eijk

interviewed a more varied group of middle-class residents. Moreover, diversity seekers for Weck & Hanhörster were people that had heterogeneous social networks, while that was not the case for Blokland & Van Eijk. Thirdly, the two studies are very different in methodology; Weck & Hanhörster used a qualitative method, while Blokland & Van Eijk used a quantitative method. This results in the investigation of different variables: Weck & Hanhörster

investigated the perceptions of neighbourhood change, casual encounters in public places and patterns of choice within childcare and the educational environment. Blokland & Van Eijk investigated neighbourhood use, as in the frequenting of local shops, and the social

networks. This shows that there is no broad consensus on who is a diversity seeker, and who is not.

2.4 Mixing it up: social mixing policies

The decision of the new urban middle class changes the socioeconomic makeup of a neighbourhood. In demographic and statistical terms, the neighbourhood gains a population that is higher educated, has a higher economic position and has a native background. This change in population is often referred to as gentrification. Many governmental bodies in cities see this type of neighbourhood change as a positive one, and are actively trying to

(19)

create an influx of urban middle class to disadvantaged, diverse and/or working class neighbourhoods. This type of gentrification can be referred to as state-led gentrification. 2.4.1 Reasons for mixing policies

In many countries, municipalities try to attract middle-class residents to ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, because these neighbourhoods generally know high levels of deprivation. Municipalities do this through so called mixing policies. These for example include

restrictions for un- or underemployed residents to move into deprived neighbourhoods (Blokland & Van Eijk, 2009), or through interventions in the housing stock (Lees, 2008 and Blokland & Van Eijk, 2009, Atkinson, 2005). In the Netherlands and the United Kingdom for example, this is achieved through demolishing or renovating social housing and replace it with private rented and owner-occupied housing (Lees, 2008 and Atkinson, 2005). In new built neighbourhoods, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity is achieved through the realisation of mixed buildings, in for example in IJburg, Amsterdam (Pinkster & Tersteeg, 2016). Often, the local community isn’t consulted in the making and execution of these policies (Atkinson, 2005).

There might be various reasons for policy makers to opt for social mixing policies. The overarching effects that are pursued, are socio-economic improvements of previously deprived neighbourhoods, by bringing in a higher income group into a deprived

neighbourhood. This is done for various reasons (Van Eijk & Blokland, 2008; Lees (2008), Weck & Hahnhörster, 2014). Schoon (2001, in Lees, 2008 and also Blokland & Van Eijk, 2009), identifies three reasons: middle-class people are better able to advocate for public resources - especially better quality schools that might also benefit lower class children; can support the local economy; and are good for bridging social ties to help get lower classes further.

Blokland & Van Eijk (2009) add that policy makers argue that social segregation hampers individual opportunities through one-sided social networks, and threatens cohesion because minority groups are keeping distance from each other. Moreover social mixing policies are thought to help improve the livability in disadvantaged neighbourhoods by means of decreasing segregation (Hochstenbach et al., 2015). The question is whether this is the case.

2.4.2 The effects of a social mix

What are then the effects of these policy measures? Several scholars report that these effects of policy aimed at social mixing are at least unclear. Van Eijk and Blokland, as well as Lees and Weck & Hahnhörster, state that living in proximity is ‘insufficient for overcoming racial, ethnic and possible class divides in social networks’ (Van Eijk & Blokland, 2009, p. 315). According to Lees (2008), one of the reasons for the continuous class divides is the fact that ‘diversity is more in the minds of […] gentrifiers, than in their actions, which makes the group that actually can be described as a ‘diversity seeker’ a very small one, according to Weck & Hanhörster (2014) and Blokland & Van Eijk (2012).

Social mixing may lead to displacement of lower class residents, and thereby the disruption of valuable bonding social networks. In other words, ‘it destroys one kind of social capital to try and create another’ (Lees, 2008, p. 2461). Moreover, it eventually leads to the socio-spatial segregation that these policies are attempting to reverse by the steadily out

(20)

pricing of low income residents. This is also acknowledged by Atkinson (2005). According to him, segregation is a problem not simply because low-income groups are lumped together, but also because affluent groups are now aided by governmental policy and by private markets to create their own exclusionary and exclusive spaces which support their social needs and fear of otherness. This results in practices of disaffiliation, bridging out and selective belonging.

An interesting point mentioned by Lees (2008) is that social mixing policies are always targeting deprived neighbourhoods that are characterized by low income and often non-Western households, but not wealthier neighbourhoods with mainly white native

residents. For the rare occasions that this did happen, however, no significant improvements in the social and economic well-being of the incoming low income households were found. This supports the argument that this might also not be the case when middle incomes are moved into deprived neighbourhoods, and thus that it is hard to impose social interactions of different groups through social mixing policies.

The fact that people of different backgrounds are forced to live together in a neighbourhood, thus doesn’t mean that they will or want to mix. For some, as Valentine (2008, p. 328) argues, it might even be the case that holding on to a certain prejudice is a way to provide the prejudiced with a “scapegoat for their own personal economic or social failures.” The importance of a mix of people is however acknowledged by numerous scholars (see for example Valentine, 2008). Valentine also acknowledges the fact that cities should be a place of social mixing and inter-group contact, but only if this includes ‘meaningful contact’. By this, Valentine means:

“Contact that actually changes values and translates beyond the specifics of the individual moment into a more general positive respect for - rather than merely tolerance of - others.” (Valentine, 2008, p. 325)

Peterson (2016) argues however that fleeting contacts that are repetitive and structural within semi-public places might help break down stereotypes and prejudice. Wessendorf found the same, and coins the term commonplace diversity:

“[...] ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity being experienced as a normal part of social life and not as something particularly special.” (Wessendorf, 2013, p. 407) According to Wessendorf, when regular encounters with ‘others’ are absent, this might result in the maintaining or even strengthening of prejudice. There is thus no broad consensus whether social mixing and social mixing policies do their work as in bringing together people of different backgrounds or reducing prejudice. Different people may react differently to social mixing.

2.5 Conclusion

In short, the choice of the middle class to live in a diverse neighbourhood is influenced by symbolic and pragmatic reasons. Symbolic reasons include the wish to express identity through the residential choice. This symbolic reasoning is complemented by pragmatic reasoning, which includes questions such as affordability and proximity of amenities. In the residential choice, the middle class tries to find a balance between the two.

(21)

residential choice might result in different strategies to manage diversity in the

neighbourhood. These strategies range from distancing oneself from the neighbourhood entirely, to actively participating in neighbourhood live through activities and everyday routines. When pragmatic reasons have the upper hand, the former might be the case, and when symbolic reasons are more in play, the latter might be the case. Pragmatists are often referred to as urbanity seekers, while symbolists can be seen as diversity seekers.

The middle class moving into diverse neighbourhoods is by municipalities still seen as something to aim for. The effects of a social mix are however unclear. Also, what can be achieved and must be achieved by creating a mix of a higher socioeconomic class and a lower socioeconomic class is still undetermined. Some scholars that fleeting but regular encounters aren’t enough, while others stress the fact that the absence of such encounters might hamper the breaking down of prejudice.

(22)

Chapter 3. Research methods and design

3.1 Research aim and questions

Out of the literature some questions remain concerning choosing a diverse neighbourhood and actively engaging with diversity. Some studies found that diversity seekers are not ‘doing diverse’ (e.g. Blokland & Van Eijk, 2009), while others state that there are diversity seekers that indeed are doing diverse (Weck & Hanhörster). With this study, I will try to create a better understanding between choosing a diverse neighbourhood by the urban middle class and the strategies that are used when living in diversity. Policy-measures focusing on establishing more diverse neighbourhoods are still implemented with the idea that this will lead to more bridging social capital and social cohesion, because of more contact between different ethnic and socioeconomic groups. This research could provide a better understanding in how and why diversity works or does not work, and help

policymakers make better policy measures to target different groups. This results in the following research questions:

To what extent is choosing diversity translated into doing diverse by middle class residents in gentrifying and highly diverse neighbourhoods?

To answer this research question, the following sub questions will be answered:

1. Why do urban middle class residents move into highly diverse neighbourhoods? 2. How do urban middle class residents experience and value diversity?

3. How do urban middle class residents manage diversity through social networks and neighbourhood use?

3.2 Conceptualization

The research questions form the following conceptual scheme, that helps understand the causal relationships between the concepts and provides guidance in answering the research questions (see figure 3.1).

(23)

The above stated tripartite causal model can be explained as follows and helps understand the internal validity of this research (Bryman, 2008). Managing diversity is the dependent variable (Y), which can be broken down into local social networks, or social attachment or belonging (YA), and neighbourhood use (YB), or functional attachment or belonging.

Differences in managing diversity result in different strategies, which have been stated in the literature and are identified as practices of selective belonging, disaffiliation and bridging out of the neighbourhood, placemaking and doing diversity.

Managing diversity is influenced by the independent variable that is identified as experiences of diversity (X2). But experiences of diversity in diverse neighbourhoods cannot take place unless the decision for living in a diverse neighbourhood has been made (X1). This decision for a diverse neighbourhood consists of two sets of reasons: first, the

pragmatic reasons, and secondly the symbolic reasons or reasons for distinction. Pragmatic reasons and reasons for distinction might contribute to a more or lesser extent to the

decision for living in diversity. In this respect, it is expected to find variation in the urban middle class.

3.3 Operationalization

This paragraph will discuss the concepts that came up in the conceptualization of the previous paragraph. The concepts of middle-classes, doing neighbourhood and doing diversity will be further elaborated upon.

3.3.1 Urban middle class

It is important to define what actually are the urban middle class that I am talking about. Van Eijk distinguishes between the ‘new’ middle class and the ‘traditional’ middle class. Similarly, Pinkster has a distinction between the ‘middle’ middle-class, the ‘marginal’ middle-class and the ‘new’ middle class. The term ‘new’ middle-class is coined by Butler and Robson (2003). This new middle-class has a ‘metropolitan habitus’, within which diversity is highly valued. As Van Eijk also states, differentiating within the middle-class is important because of the

various lifestyles that are represented by this group (2010:180).

The aim of this research is explicitly not to focus on a subgroup in the middle-class, but rather to target the middle-class as a whole. Nevertheless, how to distinguish the

middle-class from other classes has to be made clear. Distinctions between different classes in society are mainly made based upon professional occupation. This is seen as a proxy for belonging to the middle-class (e.g. Weck & Hanhörster, 2014; Pinkster, 2014). In the Netherlands, this could be the people receiving a middle-income. But Blokland & Van Eijk (2010) are opposed to this definition of the middle-class, and propose a distinction based on lifestyle. Also important is the educational level (Weck & Hanhörster).

Because the differences in the middle-class are what I want to investigate, I will use income, employment and education as indicators for who is middle-class. Thereafter, different lifestyles will be distinguished based on data gathered in the interviews, as proposed by Blokland & Van Eijk (2010).

3.3.2 Moving motivations

The move to a highly diverse neighbourhood is influenced by two types of reasons:

(24)

are based on changes in household situations (Knox & Pinch, 2010, Boterman, Bridge), such as having children, or facing retirement. Pragmatic reasons and symbolic reasons are balanced together in order to move to the most suitable neighbourhood. When symbolic wishes cannot be met, pragmatic reasons get the upper hand.

Pragmatic reasons include the affordability of housing and the availability of housing, combined in a value-for-money argument. Moreover, the relative proximity to work,

amenities and services are of importance. Thirdly, familiarity with the neighbourhood and proximity to friends and family are factors that are considered when choosing a

neighbourhood. Lastly, the accessibility of the neighbourhood in terms of infrastructure and public transport is weighed in the decision for a neighbourhood.

When it comes to symbolic reasons, the question for the potential resident is to what extent the neighbourhood fits their identity or habitus. In other words, do the residents

display feelings of elective belonging when they are making a decision for a neighbourhood? Symbolic reasons are based upon a neighbourhood’s reputation: it’s place in the urban hierarchy. The urban hierarchy does differ according to different types of habituses. Within the group of diversity seekers, it is expected that the neighbourhood’s diversity plays an important role in decision making and is a way of distinction.

3.3.3 Experiencing diversity

Not only moving motivations influence how a neighbourhood’s diversity is managed, also the actual experience of diversity is of importance. This might result in the appreciation or

rejection of diversity, and the according strategies. Important is to identify what type of diversity is to be found in the neighbourhood. Diversity can be described objectively by the researcher and subjectively by the respondents. This latter type of description is of most importance in this research, because that is how diversity is experienced. As various scholars already pointed out, different groups identify different types of diversity (Savage et al., 2005, Butler & Robson, 2003). Secondly, how the perceived type of diversity is valued, is of particular interest. Is the diversity in the neighbourhood more seen as commonplace diversity (Wessendorf, 2013) in which groups are more integrated, or is it seen as a more segregated type of diversity? Moreover, how the diversity is spatially distributed within the neighbourhood is of importance for experiencing diversity.

3.3.4 Managing diversity

The experiences with diversity results in managing this diversity. Two fields where diversity is managed, can be operationalized as social attachment and functional attachment (Lupi et al., 2007). Together, social and functional attachment form behavioural attachment (Pinkster, 2014). Social attachment refers to the local social networks that residents have in the

neighbourhood. Social networks can either be homogeneous or heterogeneous in nature. Or, as Van Eijk (2010) defines different social networks, homophilous and heterophilous. Heterogeneous or heterophilous networks are diverse networks. The question in

conceptualization is: when is a network diverse? Weck and Hanhörster (2014) used ‘name generators’ in their in-depth interviews. This is however a highly quantitative measure. I will address this issue by asking questions about what contacts the respondents have, if they are similar to themselves, how they would describe these contacts and where they did meet them (see also the appendix).

(25)

Functional attachment refers to the extent to which the neighbourhood is used or consumed in terms of amenities. Concerning diversity in particular, Blokland & Van Eijk (2009) refer to diverse spatial behavior as ‘consuming diversity’. Consuming diversity is closely related to the concepts of functional diversity and demographic diversity (2009:323). The authors gathered information about the workplace of their residents (in- or outside the neighbourhood), and where they spent leisure time in their neighbourhood (if at all) at restaurants, bars, cafés and public green. By asking respondents about their local spatial behaviour and local social networks and illustrate this with the use of a mental map, the extent to which the neighbourhood is used will be mapped and out of this process the strategies that respondents are pursuing in living in diversity can be identified. 3.4 Research design

This paragraph will provide a description of the cases that have been chosen for this study. Thereafter, the logic of comparing cases will be discussed.

3.4.1 Case selection

The cities in which this research has been conducted are partly chosen because of pragmatic reasons. Glasgow has been chosen because of a limited language barrier. Nevertheless, there are also other more methodological reasons that make a comparison between Glasgow and Rotterdam logical. The cities have a similar socio-economic history, have the same population size and are the second city in their country, next to the capital.

Because this study focuses on how the urban middle class experiences and manages diversity, two main features of neighbourhoods have been selected in order to identify diverse neighbourhoods: they have to be ethnically diverse and socioeconomically diverse. For this latter type of diversity, the presence of a tenure mix is used. This has resulted in the decision for the neighbourhood Woodlands in Glasgow, and the

neighbourhood Spangen in Rotterdam.

Woodlands, Glasgow, Scotland, the United Kingdom

Woodlands is a neighbourhood located in the West End of Glasgow. It lies at the edge of the West End, bordering the city center in the east. Broadly, the boundaries of the

neighbourhood are the M8 highway in the southeast, Woodlands Road in the southwest, the river Kelvin in the northwest and Great Western Road in the northeast.

(26)

Figure 3.1 Woodlands located in the West End of Glasgow. Source: Google Maps

Woodlands is part of the Victorian expansion of Glasgow at the end of the eighteenth century (Thompson, 2000). From the 1850s, the expansion was mainly directed at the bourgeoisie, that wanted to flee the industrial and dirty eastern part of the city. In the last quarter of this century, because of an increase of Glasgow’s population by tenfold, the demand for working class housing also grew considerably. This demand was translated into the erection of the classic tenemental building.

Iconic for this kind of building is that it:

“consists of solid stone housing, normally four storeys in height, with communal entrances and staircases and with residences on each landing. The tenements include communal courtyards utilised for drying washing and other domestic purposes.” (Thompson, p. 139-140)

As opposed to the housing for the bourgeoisie, which was located firstly on the several hills that can be found throughout the West End of Glasgow, these tenement buildings for the working class were located in between these hills. They were laid out on a rectangular grid, as is still visible today in Woodlands. Other areas where tenement buildings can be found in the West End are for example Partick and Hillhead. According to Thompson, the tenement buildings mainly differed concerning the outlay of the interior, but not in building quality. They were however built to maximise the income of the landlords.

This difference in class still lives on today in the perception of the residents, as is for example found by Paton (2009) in her research on Park Circus, a higher middle class estate neighbouring Woodlands in the south east. According to her:

“Park residents had a tendency to refer to Woodlands neighbours in the somewhat denigrating way of ‘those down the hill’.” (Paton, 2009, p. 445)

(27)

In the sixties and seventies, the subdivision of large townhouses were new ways for landlords to increase their maximum income out of their properties (Thompson, 2000). The inhabitants of these apartments with multiple occupancy were ‘young persons’, who were transient at had no capital to maintain the buildings and their exteriors, while at the same time the landlord invested the minimum of what was necessary. This resulted in severe deterioration of these properties. The tenement buildings in for example Woodlands have suffered less of this trend. Thompson even argues that the this area has improved

physically.

In the last two decades the city council, supported by the Scottish Town and Planning Act, started to counter this decay. This Act enabled the city council to designate buildings and areas as Conservation Areas. Woodlands, along with several other areas in the West End, has been labelled Category B, which means that external and internal changes have to receive planning permission. This categorization is based on the fact that Woodlands is an ‘area of typical tenement landscape’ (Thompson, 2000).

The Woodlands Conservation Area Appraisal (2014), provides a detailed overview of the physical characteristics of the Woodlands neighbourhood that have to be maintained and improved. These include the distinct Victorian tenement buildings, the green open spaces and the plot grid. According to the this appraisal, the demolition of buildings, the removal or work on trees and small developments such as the replacement of windows and the addition of satellite dishes are under planning control.

First, the Woodlands Conservation Area existed of two parts (Glasgow City Council, 2014). The Queen’s Crescent Conservation area which was established in 1972, and secondly the Woodlands Conservation Area that was established in 1984. In 1991, the two areas were merged together to become the Woodlands Conservation Area as it is today.

Commercially, the West End in general has been the stage for what Thompson (2000) calls the ‘banalisation of retailing and services’ during the second half of the twentieth century. The arrival of chain supermarkets and competition with shopping malls in the city center has led to the closure of independent grocery and fresh meat shops, as well as independent clothing stores. Moreover, various enterprises aimed at entertainment have sprung up.

The commercial activity in and around Woodlands is largely focused on its inhabitants (Thompson, 2000). The shops that are facing Great Western Road and Woodlands Road are reflecting the ‘dietary requirements’ of the large Asian population in Woodlands. The presence of a large Asian population is also acknowledged by Paton (2009). The households consist mainly of families, which live in owner-occupied housing. According to Paton, this group experiences higher rates of unemployment and is

overrepresented in overcrowded dwellings compared to Glasgow in general.

The current neighbourhood statistics provide the following picture. Concerning age, the population is quite young compared to Glasgow as a city. More than half of Woodlands residents is between 16 and 29 years old (56.4%), compared to less than one fifth (18.5%) for Glasgow. The proximity to the university can explain this high amount of young residents in the neighbourhood. Concerning ethnicity, the second largest ethnic group after white Scottish residents are Asian or residents with an Asian background (23.3%). This is significantly more than the amount of residents of Asian descent in Glasgow (2.7%). This figure is also represented in the distribution of religious groups in Woodlands. 18.1% of the population in Woodlands is Muslim, compared to 1.4% for Glasgow. Another significant

Managing diversity : a study of urban middle class residential practices in highly diverse neighbourhoods