The gentrifying neighbourhood as a gay ally
How gentrification shapes gay men’s neighbourhood belonging
Bachelor thesis project | Everyday life in gentrifying Amsterdam Stijn Verwoest | 11052376
stijnverwoest@gmail.com Bachelor Sociale Geografie & Planologie
Supervisor: Dr. Bahar Sakizlioglu Second reader: Dr. Rowan Arundel
14-01-2019 University of Amsterdam
3 Index 1. Introduction ... 4 2. Theoretical framework ... 4 2.1 Gentrification ... 4 2.2 Gay gentrification ... 5 2.3 Neighbourhood belonging ... 6
2.4 The relation between gentrification and neighbourhood belonging ... 7
3. Problem statement and research question ... 7
4. Definition of the concepts and conceptual diagram ... 8
4.1 Gentrification ... 8
4.2 Neighbourhood belonging ... 8
4.3 Conceptual model ... 9
5. Research design and methodology ... 10
5.1 Research type and design ... 10
5.2 Case relevance ... 10
5.3 Methods ... 12
5.4 Research units ... 12
5.5 Positionality ... 13
6. ‘’Oh, this is different’’: gentrification and its effects on gay residents’ belonging ... 14
6.1 Gay men in Indische Buurt ... 14
6.2 Long-term gay residents’ perceptions of gentrification ... 15
6.3 Social neighbourhood belonging ... 19
6.4 Geographical neighbourhood belonging ... 21
7. Conclusions and recommendations ... 25
8. Discussion ... 27
Reference list ... 29
4 1. Introduction
Gentrifying neighbourhoods have been discussed as liberating environments for gay men who escape heteronormativity and homophobia (Lees 2000). Not only are those people attracted to gentrifying spaces, but they create them through their social and financial positions and tolerant views (Lees et al 2013, Rothenberg 1995).
Also, research has been done on how neighbourhood modifications, as a result of gentrification, affect feelings of belonging of long-term residents (Pinkster 2016, Palmboom 2015). However, the perceptions and experiences of long-term gay residents are missing in these narratives. This research will address this gap in the literature by studying the effects of gentrification on long-term gay male residents’ feelings of belonging. Such research is important because the inflow of gay people and creations of LGBTQ+-friendly spaces in gentrifying neighbourhoods could lead to increasing feelings of being at home and being safe. At the same time however, neighbourhood changes could also lead to a loss of neighbourhood belonging. Research on this particular topic could bridge the existing gap between the making of gentrification and the effects of gentrification on long-term gay male residents’ feelings of belonging and provide information about the pros and/or cons of gentrification for a marginalized social group. For the specific case of Amsterdam, Zebracki and Maliepaard (2012) show that the city is losing its position as a ‘gay capital’. Gay people in Amsterdam are said to be afraid to hold hands or kiss in public spaces and feel unsafe around Dutch-Moroccan street youth in public spaces. Since gentrification can improve gay men’s living environments, this research can inform policies regarding gentrification to enhance gay men’s experiences in the city while, at the same time, providing policymakers with input to avoid potential downsides of neighbourhood change.
In the following chapter, the theories relevant to this study will be explained. The resulting problem statement and research questions can be found in the third chapter. Chapter four will explain the concepts used and will visualise their relationship in a conceptual model. Chapter five deals with methodology, the selection of the case and research units and a reflection on the researcher’s positionality. In chapter six, the collected data will be presented and analysed in order to answer the sub-questions in the same order as they are presented in chapter three. Chapter seven will conclude on the findings of this research and provide some policy recommendations. Finally, chapter eight will discuss some of the limitations of this thesis and the need for further research on this topic.
2. Theoretical framework
To give this study its theoretical relevance and be able to decide on the way concepts are used, existing theories and literature have informed this research. The following theoretical framework presents an overview of approaches, findings and theories referred to in relation to the concepts used in this thesis.
2.1 Gentrification
Ruth Glass used the term ‘gentrification’ in 1964 when she was describing the process of working-class areas being infiltrated by new middle-class residents who upgraded housing, thereby driving up prices and eventually displacing all working-class residents and changing
5 the nature of the neighbourhood. According to Atkinson (2012, p.270), general talk on gentrification consists of two important features that are agreed on by many: “The first is a class-income colonisation and migration by the affluent to cheaper residential neighbourhoods, and second, a reinvestment in the physical housing stock […]’’.
Ley (1996) also adds new consumption spaces, which set themselves apart from old ones by rejecting patterns of mass consumption, as a component of gentrification: “Stores exuded the idiosyncrasy of individual retailers rather than the predictable uniformity of the chains; in a series of constant reversals, the old and the recycled were valued as well as the new and the fashionable; the hand-produced and organic were presented in place of the standardized and machine produced; a personalized transaction between buyer and seller sought to rehabilitate retailing from the impersonality of corporate marketing’’ (Ley 1996, p.185). These new consumption spaces also include visible LGBTQ+ friendly ones (Doan and Higgins 2011). Not only in private spaces like homes and businesses is gentrification visible. The public space is privatised, made to look better and regulated increasingly to enhance quality and avert homeless and alcoholic people. These transformations fit the desires of the middle-class gentrifiers entering the neighbourhood (Karsten 2014).
Some see gentrification as an outcome of poverty and degradation (Lees 2013). Others criticise the process focusing on social justice and highlighting negative outcomes like displacement of long-term residents (Atkinson 2012). These differences in points of view make gentrification a contested and debatable subject.
2.2 Gay gentrification
Gay men have been said to be indicators of economic growth in an influential research by Richard Florida (2013). He suggested why the ‘revitalization’ of an urban space needs gay people. Florida (2013) suggests tolerance, besides talent and technology, as one of the three requirements for economic success. It is under circumstances of tolerance, in which people are easily accepted and welcomed, that creative people are attracted. These creative people are the ones who bring about success and innovation.
According to Castells (1983, p.158) gentrification “has been largely, although not exclusively, triggered by gay people’’. What lies behind this is the social class position of gay people which is often linked to not having children and therefore does not include the costs of supporting a large family (Castells 1983, Lauria & Knopp 1985). Especially for gay men, who earn more than women, this means that they constitute possible gentrifiers.
Gay gentrifiers have created LGBTQ+-friendly spaces, also known as queer spaces, by clustering together in tolerant places. In addition to the tolerant places in businesses that LGBTQ+ people create, they also produce sexual minority events that are seen as “forward-looking and trendy even by heterosexual travellers [and] can influence destination image’’ (Hahm et al 2018, p.244). These events are therefore part of the process of gentrification. These spaces, however, are threatened when gentrification reaches a point in which lower-class LGBTQ+ people and businesses are displaced. Although they are sometimes replaced by higher-class LGBTQ+, it often occurs that affluent non-LGBTQ+ people and businesses take over the places they grew interest in because of the revitalization the LGBTQ+ community made possible (Doan & Higgins 2011).
This is especially the case when a look is taken at critiques of Richard Florida’s views on the affluence of gay people. These state that the ‘myth’ of white middle-class monogamous
6 childless gay households which dominates the image of gay gentrifiers leaves out many LGBTQ+ people, who are in much poorer financial situations and are prone to the negative effects of gentrification (Matthews & Besemer 2015). The involvement of gay men in processes of gentrification is thus also class-based (Knopp 1990). Therefore, intersectionality must be taken into account.
Intersectionality ‘’stresses that systems of power (e.g., race, gender, class, sexuality, ability, age, country of origin, citizenship status) cannot be understood in isolation from one another; instead, systems of power intersect and coproduce one another to result in unequal material realities and the distinctive social experiences that characterize them’’ (Collins & Chepp 2013, p.4). Brown (2008) shows that some intersections with sexuality have been increasingly normalized and socially accepted in some spaces. This mostly relates to white ethnicities and middle-class people. Thus, systems of power, besides sexuality, that are at play when studying the effects of gentrification on gay men’s belonging should be reflected on, so studies not merely focus on more accepted homosexualities.
Furthermore, while gay people play an important role in creating a tolerant environment that is able to prosper economically, this also entails that the resulting gentrification can lead to other minorities being displaced because of rising prices. This can be the case for ethnic minorities, for instance. In this way, one minority’s success can lead to another minority’s defeat (Lees et
al 2013).
In conclusion, gay people make gentrification in two ways. First, they create spaces of tolerance and acceptance where creative generators of success are welcomed. Second, the number of gay residents in a gentrifying area grows, as they have the financial resources to become gentrifiers and use their network to attract others within their community.
2.3 Neighbourhood belonging
Feelings of belonging can be seen as the extent to which people feel safe and at home within a place or social group (Yuval-Davis 2006).
Modifications in the neighbourhood affect people’s feelings of belonging. According to Palmboom (2015), feelings of belonging can be divided into social and geographic dimensions. Where social belonging points towards social connectedness to other people, geographical belonging points to connectedness to certain places and feeling at home (Antonsich 2010). These concepts can also intertwine.
Feelings of belonging are not static but can be changed positively or negatively by experiences: “The sense of belonging is a fundamental aspect of the social experience […]. Yet many individuals feel unaccepted and marginalized within their social and cultural groups, particularly when they experience multiple forms of oppression […]’’ (Harris et al 2015, p.1374-1375).
While it is often said that residents feel safer and more at home within their neighbourhood, which can be linked to the concept of geographical belonging, as they stay in that area for a longer period of time, Pinkster (2016) shows that this view is too optimistic, and feelings of belonging can also decrease when neighbourhoods change. As Palmboom (2015), Pinkster (2016) mentions social aspects of neighbourhood change, which consist of new residents coming into the area, and geographical aspects, which are related to the natural and built environment, including shops, buildings and parks. Social change in a neighbourhood can lead to a decrease in long-term residents’ feelings of social belonging when they can’t identify with the new incoming residents. Also, loss and degradation of public (meeting) spaces can lead to
7 a decrease in feeling at home, which is linked to loss in geographical belonging. On the other hand, the presence of certain spatial attributes can enhance neighbourhood belonging (Kusenbach 2008). Valentine (2008) refers to these spaces as ‘micro-publics’. “These may include specific shops, services and local institutions as well as parks, playgrounds, squares and particular iconic buildings’’ (Pinkster 2016, p.874).
It has been stated that feelings of social belonging play a special role in gay men’s shaping of their identity. “[M]en negotiate gay identity through relationships with significant others, such as friends, romantic partners, and mentors at work. […] mutual identification is a skilled social practice that serves as the foundation for all other forms of belonging’’ (Rowe 2014, p.439). Besides social belonging, geographical belonging also plays a particular role in gay men’s belonging. In Rowe’s (2014) case study, gay men described the contribution of pride flags in public space and the tolerant image of gay-friendly neighbourhoods to their feelings of belonging.
Furthermore, Hahm (et al 2018) discusses the relation between LGBTQ+ friendly events and feelings of belonging of LGBTQ+ people. These events provide “opportunities for sexual minority attendees to feel a sense of belonging by affirming social identities’’ (Hahm et al 2018, p.244) through a shared identification with other LGBTQ+ residents.
2.4 The relation between gentrification and neighbourhood belonging
Neighbourhood change affects feelings of belonging. This is also valid for the process of gentrification. The inflow of new types of people, mainly belonging to the middle-class, alters residents’ connectedness to each other. The renewal of urban space and stimulation of urban local economy through new shops and cafés can influence the sense of belonging to places (Palmboom 2015).
That gentrification can influence neighbourhood belonging positively is showed by one quote from a participant in a research on the effect of gentrification on feelings of belonging in Indische Buurt in 2015: “'When I arrived 6 years ago, ... The area was mostly an area of foreign people, mostly Moroccan and Turkish people. ... But it became better. […] I'm gay, if I hold hands with my boyfriend [among Moroccan-Dutch and Turkish-Dutch] I'd have a problem. I had that problem in the [Indische Buurt] six years ago as well, but much less now'’’ (Palmboom 2015, p.45-46). Although this quote was made by someone who was not a long-term resident, it shows that feelings of safety among LGBTQ+ people can increase due to gentrification. As said, according to Yuval-Davis (2006), the increase in safety feelings are an important factor in feelings of belonging.
3. Problem statement and research question
Scholars have discussed the pioneer role of gay people in gentrification (Lees et al 2013). What has been neglected is what gentrification brings to long-term gay residents.
In this study I aim to fill this gap by answering the question: “How do long-term gay male residents experience gentrification and how do these changes affect their neighbourhood belonging?’’
The following sub-questions will be answered in order to give insights in the main research question:
8 - How does gentrification affect long-term gay male residents’ social neighbourhood
belonging in Indische Buurt?
- How does gentrification affect long-term gay male residents’ geographical neighbourhood belonging in Indische Buurt?
This will support existing literature by studying the effects of gentrification on long-term gay male residents’ livelihoods and neighbourhood belonging.
4. Definition of the concepts and conceptual diagram
The concepts that lie at the basis of this study will be defined in this chapter. Also, a conceptual diagram will visualise the relationships between these concepts.
4.1 Gentrification
Gentrification is the process of class-income colonisation and migration by the affluent to cheaper residential neighbourhoods, and a reinvestment in the physical housing stock (Atkinson 2012). Gay and lesbian people are often said to be at the forefront of this change (Lees et al 2013). Ley (1996) also includes the opening of new consumption spaces in the concept. In gentrifying areas, these consumption spaces are more accepting towards LGBTQ+ people and include visible LGBTQ+ spaces (Doan & Higgins 2011). Furthermore, the public space is regulated and arranged to be more inviting to gentrifiers (Karsten 2014). Lastly, in the process of gentrification, new (LGBTQ+-friendly) events/activities emerge that are seen as trendy and forward (Hahm et al 2018).
Gentrification can therefore be measured by looking at: - The inflow of new affluent people into the neighbourhood - Reinvestments into the physical housing stock
- New consumption spaces
- Regulation and fixing up of public spaces - New (LGBTQ+-friendly) events/activities
As explained above, gentrification results in changing feelings of belonging of residents (Palmboom 2015, Pinkster 2016).
4.2 Neighbourhood belonging
Neighbourhood belonging consists of feelings of social and geographical belonging as experienced by (a group of) people. Social belonging relates to social connectedness to others around one person (Dijst 2014). Geographical belonging refers to connectedness to a place and feeling at home (Palmboom 2015, Antonsich 2010). The two can also be interrelated.
Social feelings of belonging resemble the connectedness to others and the recognition in public spaces (Palmboom 2015). According to Pinkster (2016, p.874), social feelings of belonging are affected by the inflow of new residents which leads to “boundary drawing between who does and does not belong based on perceived differences in norms and values, behaviour and lifestyle’’. When long-term residents are feeling overruled by new incomers, their neighbourhood belonging decreases (Valli 2015). Within the LGBTQ+ community Rowe (2014) places great attention on identification with similar people and relations with people with similar sexual orientations as a basis for social belonging.
9 Social feelings of neighbourhood belonging can therefore be measured by looking at:
- Connectedness to neighbours/recognition in public spaces - Identification with neighbours
- LGBTQ+ relations/networks
Geographical neighbourhood belonging is considered with space. Antonsich (2010) mentions the sense of feeling at home as part of the concept of geographical or spatial belonging, experienced through every day use of the neighbourhood. Pinkster (2016) mentions the appearance of the built space as well as environmental aspects as contributing to neighbourhood belonging. Yuval-Davis (2006) stresses the importance of feeling safe in a place as contributing to belonging. Rowe (2014) shows that gay people’s belonging increases in areas that have an LGBTQ+-friendly image. Furthermore, he states that LGBTQ+ imagery in public space, like pride flags, contribute to one’s spatial belonging.
Geographical feelings of neighbourhood belonging can therefore be measured by looking at: - Everyday use of the neighbourhood
- Connectedness to public space appearance - Appreciation of environmental attributes - Feelings of safety
- LGBTQ+-friendly image/LGBTQ+ imagery in public space 4.3 Conceptual model
10 5. Research design and methodology
The following section will deal with the research methods that will be called upon in this study to give it its scientific weight and guide the process of carrying out research. 5.1 Research type and design
Scholars have shown how the LGBTQ+ community triggers processes of gentrification (Florida 2003, Lees et al 2013, Rothenberg 1995). Also, they have shown a relation between neighbourhood changes and residents’ feelings of belonging in a neighbourhood, as was stated above (Pinkster 2016, Palmboom 2015). In the current context in which literature production on this topic has started to increase, the present research explores how gentrification affects long-term gay male residents’ feelings of belonging in a neighbourhood, which we know little about. Therefore, this will be an explorative study. Its aim is to provide empirical data that can be built on and theorized about, which makes its approach inductive (Bryman 2012).
This research employs a case study, which entails the ‘’detailed and intensive analysis of a single case’’ (Bryman 2012, p.66). A single case study is chosen over a multiple case study as the research explores a phenomenon and its aim is not to compare this to other cases. Also, time constraints would not allow for studying multiple cases. The case study in this research is on the long-term gay male residents’ experiences of gentrification and the geographical case is Indische Buurt. By using a case study research design, rich data can be gathered on this case, which will provide an in-depth view of the relation between gentrification and long-term gay male residents’ neighbourhood belonging.
5.2 Case relevance
As has happened in other cities, the Amsterdam municipality boosted social mixing by placing middle-class households within areas that were known to be dominated by the lower class. This has often been referred to as ‘disguised gentrification’ (Uitermark & Bosker 2014). Although it originated spontaneously, gentrification soon became a strategy used by the Amsterdam municipality. Under circumstances of privatisation, more expensive non-social housing increased and consumption spaces for middle-class gentrifiers arose (Van Gent 2013). Proponents looked at the process as an opportunity to break through the concentration of deprival by differentiating the housing supply, fixing up housing and public spaces and stimulating the local urban economy (Dukes 2011). Although the government’s interest was in socio-economical weaker peripheral areas, it also invested in areas that were already likely to experience gentrification in the city centre. This has mainly led to a gentrification of neighbourhoods placed within or near the city centre, which have become unaffordable for lower-class residents (Uitermark & Bosker 2014).
Indische Buurt is an example of an Amsterdam neighbourhood which has been experiencing gentrification. At the start of the year 2000, an urban renewal program focused on tackling physical and social problems in the north-west part of Indische Buurt. It was not until July 2007, however, when the Amsterdam municipality and two housing corporations joined the operation, that a joint, integrated approach was taken to improve conditions in the Indische Buurt with the signing of the ‘Covenant Indische Buurt’ (Dukes 2011).
Statistics from the department of research, information and statistics of the Amsterdam municipality (OIS 2016) show a combination of the favourable geographical position of Indische Buurt within the city and investments into the urban redevelopment of the neighbourhood as attracting households with a somewhat higher social-economic status than before. In 2008 the average disposable income per person per year in Indische Buurt was valued
11 at €23.872,- (Zijlema 2012). In 2015, this amount had grown to €27.400,- in Indische Buurt’s western part and €25.100,- in its eastern part (OIS 2015). The number of residents with a non-western migration background decreased from 59% of the total inhabitants in the non-western part of Indische Buurt in 2005 to 47% in 2015. In the eastern part of the neighbourhood, this number decreased from 58% to 53% (OIS 2016).
The total number of houses has been constant in recent years. However, the division between owner-occupied-, private rental and corporate rental housing has shifted. Owner-occupied housing covered 25% of domestic properties in Indische Buurt in 2016, compared to 20% in 2011. Social rental housing shrunk from 68% to 62% in the same timeframe. Private rental housing remained the same at 13% (OIS 2017). While these changes show the effects of gentrification in Indische Buurt, the status of some households, mainly in the Ambonpleinbuurt, de Makasserpleinbuurt and the Sumatraplantsoenbuurt, is below the Amsterdam average. In these areas, 8,8 to 10,4 percent of the residents receive financial support and 3,7 to 4,4 percent receive debt assistance. The presence of lower-class residents in Indische Buurt is therefore clear, which shows gentrification has not reached its ending point yet.
The processes of gentrification in Indische Buurt go hand in hand with LGBTQ+ related gentrification through visibility and LGBTQ+ related activities/spaces. In the past years, there has been an increasing amount of activities focused on the LGBTQ+ community. In 2008, LGBTQ+ residents initiated a get-together in Oostelijke Haveneilanden which has then also transferred to Indische Buurt, where the activity is now organized twelve times a year by PINKOOST in LGBTQ+-friendly Bar Joost (PINKOOST n.d.). In the last six years, ‘Pride East’ has annually returned as an activity to celebrate sexual and gender diversity at Javaplein. Pride East is organized as a component of Amsterdam’s Pride festival and takes place on Wednesday in Pride week (Pride.Amsterdam 2018). The festival at Javaplein is organized by Alle Kleuren Oost, which is an organization promoting diversity in Amsterdam-East. With that same intention of creating connectedness between diverse people, Pride East was organized at
12 Javaplein. Since 2017 ‘Pre-Pride’ has been organized at various locations as well (Indische Buurtbalie n.d.).
5.3 Methods
The inductive approach of this research and its aim to explore socially constructed processes of gentrification and feelings of belonging call for a qualitative research strategy (Bryman 2012). Because the focus of this research is on the feelings of belonging of residents, then their feelings and perceptions are key to create understanding. To get intensive and detailed data on this, qualitative interviews are used as a research method. The interviews are semi-structured. The advantages of this type of interviewing are that it allows for detailed, rich answers considering its flexible nature, and puts the focus on the interviewee’s point of view. A list of questions has been used as a guide that have given the interviews a somewhat similar course (Bryman 2012). This list can be found in the appendix.
The data was then analysed using the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software program ATLAS.ti. Codes were partly made based on interview questions before analysing the data. However, codes were also added to this list based on respondents’ answers. Because of this approach, often-returning themes were not ignored, but also included in the coding of the interviews. Therefore, some themes or experiences that had not been included in the interview questions still could be used in the analysis of the data. After assigning codes to the transcripts of interviews, this tool helped to retrieve data by grouping answers with similar codes or within code groups together. This helps to speed up the process of coding and retrieving and makes it more efficient (Bryman 2012).
5.4 Research units
For this research’, long-term resident gay men in Indische Buurt were studied. Therefore, they form the research unit from which data was collected. Although it is hard to define when the process of gentrification in Indische Buurt actually started, Glazer (2017) uses the year 2008 to make a division between ‘original residents’ and ‘new residents’ in Indische Buurt. This is based on actions taken by the municipality to attract relatively wealthy people from the middle class, which promotes gentrification. These can also be related to the agreements in the ‘Covenant Indische Buurt’ as has been discussed earlier.
People who can be seen as original residents have a clear vision on which changes have taken place and are taking place at the moment. Therefore, this research defines long-term resident gay men in Indische Buurt as all gay men that have been living in Indische Buurt since 2008 or longer and are still living in this neighbourhood. For this research this criterion for its research units was somewhat loosened. This is due to the fact that two respondents who have been living in the neighbourhood less than ten years also clearly experienced many of the changes in the neighbourhood driven by gentrification.
Because sexuality can be a sensitive topic which is not easily defined by someone’s appearance, possible respondents were approached ethically, with caution and care. Therefore, possible respondents were approached at social activities and places that attract LGBTQ+ people, such as the social gathering organized by PINKOOST at Bar Joost, which allowed for an open and tolerant setting to ask people about their sexuality. Also, online social groups for neighbourhood residents and LGBTQ+ residents were used to get in contact with people who fit within the research unit.
13 When long-term gay male residents in Indische Buurt were contacted, they were asked if they knew other long-term gay male residents in the neighbourhood. Through this form of snowball sampling, contacts were established with other respondents. To make sure the results would still be representative of different social groups within Indische Buurt, this research only allowed for one reference through snowball sampling per respondent. Eventually two respondents were approached through snowball sampling.
In total, ten gay male residents of Indische Buurt were interviewed. Their characteristics can be found in the appendix. Besides these interviews with respondents, an interview was conducted with an expert on this topic. Not only has Marten Bos lived in Indische Buurt for fifteen years himself, he is also coordinator for COC, an interest group for LGBTQ+ people, in Amsterdam-East and founder of Alle Kleuren Oost, the organization responsible for organizing Pride Amsterdam-East in Indische Buurt.
The interviews took about 45 minutes to one hour each and often took place in an environment chosen by the respondent to stimulate comfort and openness in their answers. Also, they were informed that their responses would be anonymized and the sharing of the results of this research was offered.
5.5 Positionality
In geographic research on sexual identities, it is important to be aware of the effects of the researcher’s positionality. Reflection on the social position of a researcher leads to research that is aware of power relations in place when studying sexual identities (England 1994). This study on gay men’s belonging was conducted by a gay man. Respondents seemed to be aware of this, which was at times explicitly expressed, or inexplicitly by the use of gay slang in interviews. As a result, participants seemed to understand the researcher’s interest in the subject. Also, the social position of being a gay man was helpful in getting access to the gay community in Indische Buurt at social gatherings.
Where respondents were aged between 32 and 61 years old, the researcher’s age was 21 at the time of conducting the interviews. This has possibly influenced respondents’ answers when discussing the inflow of young people in Indische Buurt. In two interviews, expressions such as “your generation’’ and “no offence’’ when talking about young hipsters signalled caution in answers given. The researcher tried to avoid the respondents’ reservation by explaining his wish to hear the honest and personal views and experiences of participants before starting the interviews.
For this study, it was hard to reach low-income participants and participants with a migration background. This partly might have been a result of the researcher’s own position as a white person, coming from a middle- to high-income family. To be able to truly present the views of low-income participants and participants with a migration background, the researcher was very attentive to his own preconceptions when interviewing these respondents and analysing their responses. However, it is recommended that further research is carried out with the help of people who are in more similar positions to low-income participants and participants with a migration background.
14 6. ‘’Oh, this is different’’: gentrification and its effects on gay residents’ belonging
In this section, the data acquired by the interviews will be presented and analysed in order to answer the research question of this study.
6.1 Gay men in Indische Buurt
Although among respondents there is a large variety in age, including men aged 32 to 61, most of the respondents moved into the neighbourhood in the ten years between 2000 and 2010. One exception to this is a man who has been living in Indische Buurt with his parents for all of his life. Almost all the men interviewed grew up outside of Amsterdam. When moving to the city, some first settled in other Amsterdam neighbourhoods, while others went directly to Indische Buurt.
Residents’ occupations varied much but included multiple jobs in creative industries such as interior design, graphic design and publishing. Furthermore, some participants who were not active in creative industries at the moment have been in the past, doing studies at the Rietveld School of Art and Design, and the Academy of Theatre and Dance. None of the interviewees in this research had children, which might be an explanation for the fact that many of the respondents were economically well-off. This position was for some substituted by a double income, provided by a partner or husband. According to Marten Bos, this economic position makes Indische Buurt very suitable for gay men:
‘’I think that the LGBT-community here counts a few hundred, if not thousand. This was of course a neighbourhood which wasn’t that expensive at all, but at a certain point an upswing began. […] They’re small properties, where it is true that it is difficult for people with children. But living alone or together […] and when you have a double-income and no children [is affordable]. So there are many LGBT people in this neighbourhood.‘’
Although many of the respondents can be situated within the economic middle class, affordability of housing in the neighbourhood was often mentioned as a reason for moving in. According to what was said in interviews, housing in Indische Buurt used to be a lot less expensive. This attracted many respondents to the area.
Besides the constraints of finding housing in terms of financial affordability, housing availability in Amsterdam also limited the options where one could settle down. Many participants chose to live in Indische Buurt because their current home was one of few options to move in to. As one man answered a question about his reason for moving into the neighbourhood:
‘’[I moved here] because that was the only place where I could find something to rent. It was a bit forced then.’’ (43 y/o, middle income, 18 years in Indische Buurt)
Some respondents who had recent previous experiences in the neighbourhood before moving in said these had given them a good impression and made it an inviting living environment. A few others had previous negative associations with the neighbourhood related to unsafety but still decided to move.
When looking at these characteristics of residents of Indische Buurt, some aspects seem to confirm literature on gay men in gentrifying areas. First of all, most of the respondents came into the neighbourhood just before or around the time that neighbourhood changes started to
15 take place, thereby indeed being at the forefront of gentrification. The notion that gay men who move into gentrifying neighbourhoods trigger gentrification through their economic positions seems to be applicable to this research’s respondents, since many of the participants had a middle or high income. Literature on gay men and gentrification mentioned the childlessness of gay men as a large contributor to their economic position, which makes them excellent gentrifiers (Castells 1983). Marten Bos’ statement seems to echo this theory, and the childlessness of all respondents confirms this.
Besides this, many respondents are or have been involved in creative industries. This is reminiscent of Richard Florida’s (2013) theory on the creative class. In his research, gay people are seen as indicators of economic revitalization of urban spaces through their tolerance which stimulates creativity. In Indische Buurt this theory is applicable to many of the gay residents being involved in creative industries.
6.2 Long-term gay residents’ perceptions of gentrification
Following the interviews, long-term gay residents in Indische Buurt clearly experience neighbourhood changes related to gentrification in multiple ways. Every respondent indicated an inflow of new affluent people into the neighbourhood. It is one of the most prominent ways through which respondents experience gentrification. Double-incomes were mentioned as an attribute of new residents. Respondents also emphasized the economic well-being of inflowing residents as differing from the economic position of the neighbourhood’s previous residents:
‘’I think that more money has come into the neighbourhood. […] at least people with a higher income than people who up till now predominantly have been here in social rental housing.’’ (54 y/o, high income, 12 years in Indische Buurt)
The inflow of people with middle to higher incomes included many new lesbian women and gay men who, according to Marten Bos, started to come into Indische Buurt around the time a division can be seen between original residents and new ones:
‘’The last, well, eight years, there have been a lot added. Also because there was much for sale at a certain moment. There were properties that were rebuilt, renovated, and then went for sale. […] And that attracted many LGBT people, or mainly LG people.’’
In contrast to increasing income levels in Indische Buurt, new residents’ ages were said to be coming down. A big part of changes in the neighbourhood was said to be the inflow of students and young people. The term ‘yuppies’ (young urban professionals) was used to describe these new residents. Also, it was specifically mentioned that these younger people are coming into houses which were previously owned by elderly people, which makes that younger and student residents are not only added to the existing residents of the neighbourhood, but actually are replacing old residents in Indische Buurt.
The inflow of people into Indische Buurt did not consist solely of higher incomes and a younger crowd. Ethnicity and skin colour were very often mentioned as attributes of the new residents that are coming into the neighbourhood as well. All of the respondents mentioned that the neighbourhood has become ‘whiter’ since they moved in:
‘’And one day I entered the [supermarket] and it really took a while. It took a while until it dawned on me that I was not the only white man in that supermarket anymore. So that was very comical. Because at once there were many young people. Not that I was that old myself. But they were young people, white. But it really took me a while before I realised that I thought: oh,
16 this is different. And after that it went really fast.’’ (53 y/o, middle income, 13 years in Indische Buurt)
Before these new white residents moved in, the neighbourhood was dominated by Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch people, according to respondents. They stated that new white residents mainly consisted of Dutch people with no migration background. However, some also said that, among new white residents, other nationalities were included such as English, French, Australian and Austrian. Some respondents raised questions about the displacement of previous residents, wondering where they have gone, now that middle-class residents are taking over their living spaces.
For many respondents, the new white residents with higher incomes are seen as creating more balance between the different types of residents that live in the neighbourhood. It was often stated that the mix of people has become bigger and Indische Buurt is now more diverse because of the inflow of new people:
‘’Yes, the neighbourhood has become more diverse. Absolutely. That’s what I think. That is because many more white people have been added. Look, people live here, in this complex, from England, from France, from Austria. It is divided more proportionately.’’ (61 y/o, middle income, 8 years in Indische Buurt)
Some who were familiar with the term gentrification viewed the change in residents as a typical example of gentrification. The change in residents was often said to be related to changes in the housing supply. Old houses have been renovated and some have been joined together, thereby attracting economically better-off people than before. Also, social rental housing has made way for many new private rental- and owner-occupied housing. This can be related to the ‘Covenant Indische Buurt’ in which the involved parties agreed on pushing back the share of social rental housing in Indische Buurt through reinvestments into the housing stock (Dukes 2011). The interviewees were very attentive to these changes, as they were mentioned by almost all respondents.
The changes in housing supply also included a rise of housing prices. Private rental- as well as owner-occupied housing was said to have gotten more expensive, explaining the inflow of more wealthy residents. Many of the men interviewed with an owner-occupied home exemplified that their property had seen a major increase in value, sometimes now being worth double the price they paid for it or even more. The increasing costs of private rental housing and the weeding out of social rental housing, however, was also said to make it more difficult for original residents who cannot afford the increasing costs of living to stay in the neighbourhood. The changing housing supply and related changes in types of residents are also connected to shifts in consumption spaces in Indische Buurt. When talking about the supply of consumption spaces at the time of moving into the neighbourhood, Indische Buurt was characterized by having many shops that were focused on groceries, especially for fruit and vegetables and phone shops. Like the characterization of many original residents of Indische Buurt, these shops were run by Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch entrepreneurs. In the past years in which the neighbourhood has changed, these shops have partly redeveloped with the help of investments by the municipality in entrepreneurships in Indische Buurt. Also, new residents with other spending habits than previous residents have had an influence on the existing shops and what they offer:
‘’The southern part of Indische Buurt was predominantly social rental housing and to that a large number of owner-occupied houses have been added. Because of that, higher-incomes have also flown into the neighbourhood that also just want to get a beer or a cup of coffee in the evening
17 or during weekdays or want to visit restaurants.’’ (54 y/o, high income, 12 years in Indische Buurt)
Changes in consumption spaces for a large part contain the addition of many businesses in the catering industry, meeting the demands of people with higher incomes as mentioned in the quote above. In these consumption spaces, product ranges have been extended, containing more food options. Besides businesses that fall into the catering category, the number of clothing stores, gift shops and second-hand shops also increased. These places were typified as trendy or hip. Some people found many similarities in the appearances of the new shops:
‘’Suddenly, it all has to meet the decades of the ‘60’s/’70’s as to its decoration. Buy it in a second-hand shop. Place it. And you have a nice shop. Which also makes it a bit of a uniformity.’’ (59 y/o, middle income, 12 years in Indische Buurt)
This shows that new consumption spaces cater to both old and new trends, as is typical of gentrification. The consumers that are being attracted to new consumption spaces were described in similar ways to the new residents, being white and economically well-off. According to a respondent, their economic position gives them the ability to do ‘fun’ things with their money, which explains new shops like concept stores for dogs and children in Javastraat, one of Indische Buurt’s main shopping streets. Also, it was commented that this new shopping public included many international people. However, Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch people were said not to be seen visiting the new consumption spaces. A clear division was made by many between older and more recent consumption spaces. Nonetheless, despite the addition of new consumption spaces and their replacement of some of the earlier established shops, many of the older consumption spaces still remain in Indische Buurt.
When asked if there has been a change in LGBTQ+-friendly consumption spaces, respondents thoughts differed. Some stated that none of the consumption spaces portray themselves as being LGBTQ+-friendly. Others pointed to some consumption spaces being own by gay men or hosting LGBTQ+ activities and therefore labelled them as being LGBTQ+-friendly. Also, some respondents viewed most or all of the consumption spaces that have come since neighbourhood changes started to happen as LGBTQ+-friendly, since they felt that being gay was less to none of an issue in those places.
Figure 2: The Borneohof, realised in 2011, is one of the new iconic buildings in Indische Buurt and contains a gym, flowershop, library, café and apartments. Source: De Gebouwengids (n.d.).
18 Besides investments in entrepreneurship to stimulate changes in consumption spaces, the Amsterdam municipality also realized changes in other aspects of the public space. The changes were felt by the respondents through investments that were aimed at rebuilding the neighbourhood. Many old buildings were said to either be renovated or demolished and replaced by new buildings in the last years, including iconic eyecatchers such as the Borneohof as seen in Figure 2. Also, streets and squares were redeveloped and adjusted. In this process, it was mentioned, surveillance cameras were added. These changes were often described as being cleaned up. These opinions are also applicable to changes in the natural environment, with people saying that green spaces are now tidier than before. Some people noticed an increase in natural attributes, while others did not.
Furthermore, respondents noted changes in the number and type of events in Indische Buurt. A few participants made mention of new activities like a food night, vintage markets and activities around King’s Day. Most of the interviewees began to name new LGBTQ+-friendly activities straight away when asked how events in the neighbourhood changed. Pride East, the yearly celebration of Pride at Javaplein was most often mentioned. This event was said to attract a lot of different people, including LGBTQ+ as well as non-LGBTQ+ people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds:
‘’Nowadays there is East Pride during Gay Pride in Amsterdam, at Badhuis. And there are stalls, there are entrepreneurs, it is multicultural. There were Syrian asylum seekers who were dancing, there were Moroccan housewives who watched, white gay men, the lesbians from Indische Buurt. Everything intermingles. Indische Buurt belongs at that point for a second to all of society.’’ (49 y/o, middle income, 14 years in Indische Buurt)
Although the public which attends Pride East is diverse, economic changes also affect events like these. Marten Bos explained that Pride East-beer, especially made for and sold at the event, costs a consumer 4,95 euros, which makes the event less inviting for some people who are not able to afford such prices for beverages. For comparison: in 2016 the average Amsterdam beer price of 2,93 euros was said to be the most expensive among Dutch cities (‘’Biertje: Amsterdam’’ 2016).
Another LGBTQ+-friendly event that was put forward many times was the social gathering for LGBTQ+ people in Bar Joost every two months. Around fifty to sixty people were said to attend this event every two months. When speaking to one of the respondents who is also one of the organisers, he told that this number is continuing to grow. The addition of new (LGBTQ+) events and the growth in number of attendees show gentrification’s effects in Indische Buurt. Lastly, it was mentioned that the previously discussed neighbourhood changes have attracted more tourists to Indische Buurt. A respondent noted that a travel guide’s advertisement recommended the neighbourhood as a traveling destination. The increase in tourism was visualised by an increase in the amount of trolley cases being carried in the streets. According to respondents, Airbnb, an online marketplace for hosting tourists, has influenced the attraction of tourists to the neighbourhood.
This section has dealt with the first research sub-question, regarding long-term gay residents’ experiences of gentrification in Indische Buurt. Respondents have characterized gentrification as a process that involves the inflow of affluent, gay, young people, reinvestments in the physical housing stock, new consumption spaces - including LGBTQ+-friendly spaces -, regulation of the public space and new (LGBTQ+-friendly) events. According to the participants, these changes increased tourism and resulted in the displacement of previous residents.
19 6.3 Social neighbourhood belonging
As it is clear that neighbourhood changes are experienced by gay men in Indische Buurt in multiple ways that align with existing theories on gentrification, it is important to take a look at how these changes have influenced neighbourhood belonging. First, the social neighbourhood belonging of respondents will be analysed.
A first component of social neighbourhood belonging that was brought up is the connectedness to neighbours. When talking about connections in the neighbourhood, just one man affirmed that he was still living with his parents. Another one mentioned a niece who is living in the neighbourhood. Other respondents had no relatives living in Indische Buurt. Therefore, connections in the neighbourhood consisted mostly of friends, relations to neighbours and, sometimes, co-workers. The degree of connectedness to these people varied. Some said to see their friends in the area multiple times a week, while others had few friends in Indische Buurt and did not often meet up with them. However, for some, changes regarding gentrification led to more contact with friends in the neighbourhood. This was the result of more catering industry related stores which made some respondents feel like there were more places to visit with friends in Indische Buurt. The connectedness to neighbours also varies between respondents. A few people have no contact with their neighbours, some make conversation regularly, but most know their neighbours well and get along well with them. As one man said:
‘’The contact with my neighbours is good. I know who they are, what they do. It also goes somewhat beyond simply greeting them when they pass by. […] I could also ask if they would take care of my cat if I were to go on vacation, if I had a cat. That is positive.’’ (32 y/o, middle income, 10 years in Indische Buurt)
For respondents with an owner-occupied house, their homeowner associations played a large role in maintaining contact with neighbours. Thus, the changing housing stock, which is creating more owner-occupied housing as a result of gentrification, leads to more contact for some respondents and their neighbours. This increased their connectedness to neighbours:
‘’[…] all those apartments were first rented. I think that our property is now the only one where everything is owner-occupied. And because of that, a homeowner association was of course created, through which one must have much more contact also generally about maintenance issues. So actually for a practical reason, you get to know each other. And before that time, when everything was still rental [housing], people had less to do with each other.’’ (43 y/o, middle income, 18 years in Indische Buurt)
Thus, as the housing stock changed because of gentrification, some participants’ social neighbourhood belonging partly increased due to a higher sense of connectedness to new residents.
For many, the long period of time they have lived in Indische Buurt has led to more connections in the neighbourhood, increasing recognition of people and being recognized in public spaces. This was said to have a positive influence on their living experience:
‘’You know, it is also just nice to run into people that are literally living in the neighbourhood. Subsequently, you also run into those people at hundreds of moments in the neighbourhood. And that gives somewhat of a small village feeling. That you just recognize people, or that you meet recognition in the streets, apart from the people in the building or in your direct living environment. I think that really adds something to the pleasure of living in an urban district or neighbourhood.’’ (54 y/o, high income, 12 years in Indische Buurt)
The amount and intensity of connections in Indische Buurt was often related to the degree to which respondents identified with residents in the area. This was heavily influenced by
20 gentrification and its inflow of new people and affected participants in different ways. For some white respondents with middle incomes and no migration background, their identification with neighbours has grown because of gentrification. Before gentrification, they felt like they were one of the few white people in the neighbourhood. Now that gentrification has led to an increasing white population in Indische Buurt, white participants could identify more with the neighbouring residents. The identification with new residents with no migration background was not just based on skin-colour. This became clear when a person of colour with a Surinamese migration background was asked to the extent to which he identified with new residents:
‘’I think it mainly has to do with the fact that you’re very Western in your thoughts, norms and values.’’ (32 y/o, middle income, 10 years in Indische Buurt)
His statement was a result of a conflict with street youth with a North-African migration background who were smoking cannabis in front of his home. Although he mentioned that street youth is not necessarily defined by a migration background, it occurred to him that people with a North-African migration background were overrepresented in this group. His negative experiences with this social group made him feel more connected to people with no migration background.
Ethnicity was not the only factor to play a role in identification. Many of the participants said to identify with the high economic status and high educational level of new residents. This shows that, at least partially, boundary drawing among gay long-term residents in Indische Buurt happens on the basis of socio-economic status and ethnicity. Many middle-income, highly-educated, white participants said to identify with the new incoming affluent residents in the neighbourhood. For some, this resulted in increased feelings of belonging.
That not all long-term residents are able to identify with the new incoming residents becomes clear when talking to a lower-educated, low-income man with a Surinamese ethnic background about these new residents:
‘’I can be social with them, but I cannot mix with them. We don’t have the same interests. That clashes then. They don’t have the same taste in music. I watch different things on television. It just differs. It is also a culture difference. I am maybe more into Surinamese things. That is just the way I am, sorry. […] I am not that rich. But most yuppies are. They have double incomes. Both of them earn well. They have owner-occupied houses. They are well-off. Maybe that is also an obstacle for me to associate with them. I don’t fit within their little group actually.’’ (36 y/o, low income, 36 years in Indische Buurt)
This participant’s connectedness to new residents therefore decreased, affecting his social neighbourhood belonging negatively. Resulting from the fact that he was not able to build more connections to new residents, the extent to which he recognized people in public spaces also decreased.
As therefore has been shown, social identification differs based on ethnicity, and socio-economic class. However, while white, middle-income residents are more able to identify with new residents, it was often said that these groups of people should not dominate in Indische Buurt. Many of the long-term gay residents appreciated the mix of people and expressed concerns about too many new affluent, white residents coming into the neighbourhood. The inflow of new residents was for some respondents too substantial, resulting in the displacement of previous residents. This shows that respondents feel connected to other long-term residents, despite not necessarily being able to identify with those people based on ethnicity, income or educational level. Thus, questions can be raised regarding to which extent identification and recognition influence social belonging, when others are knowingly being displaced.
21 Moreover, what is interesting is that many respondents automatically made a distinction between non-LGBTQ+ connections and LGBTQ+ connections. Often it was said that the number of LGBTQ+ relations had grown in the neighbourhood. This had multiple causes. First and foremost, it was said that more gay men have come into the neighbourhood. These men are now also more visible with the help of new technologies and social media networks. (Gay) social media networks such as Grindr, but also Facebook, were said to improve contacts with other gay men and LGBTQ+ people in general. Furthermore, the addition of LGBTQ+ events in Indische Buurt has also led to an increasing LGBTQ+ network in the area for some respondents. The bimonthly social gathering aimed at LGBTQ+ people in Bar Joost was said to increase LGBTQ+ networks and therefore recognition of people they know in public spaces. Respondents value the recognition of LGBTQ+ people in the neighbourhood since it makes them feel less alone:
‘’[…] if you’re a man, you have to act manly, you have to be in a relationship with a woman, have to have sex with a woman, preferably three times a week on average, you have to measure up to that example, you have to dress manly. And everything that falls outside that image, sexual orientation, gender identity, -expression, so how you dress yourself, that is not the norm, so you can be addressed on that. And if you come into a neighbourhood where you are not the only one, it can be empowering.’’ (49 y/o, middle income, 14 years in Indische Buurt)
Therefore, recognition of LGBTQ+ people and an increasing LGBTQ+ network are closely related to identification with neighbours, which is said to be important to gay men’s sense of community. The inflow of new residents and new LGBTQ+ events increased LGBTQ+ networks, recognition and identification, which affected part of social neighbourhood belonging positively. This part of social belonging is very distinctive for gay men, as opposed to other social groups. What was interesting is that respondents not only identified with other gay men, but also emphasized the importance of shared identification with other members of the LGBTQ+ community such as lesbian women.
In contrast to the social identification with non-LGBTQ+ people, these feelings of identification and recognition among respondents did not differ based on ethnicity or socio-economic class. Nevertheless, some differences were found based on age and household composition. Somewhat older respondents or men who shared their homes with a partner or husband placed less importance on LGBTQ+ networks in the neighbourhood. This was related to the fact that these interviewees had already built up a sufficient network which they can identify with and therefore see less necessity in meeting other LGBTQ+ people in Indische Buurt. For this group of respondents, social neighbourhood belonging was not affected because the new events focused on LGBTQ+ people in Indische Buurt had less priority to them.
The data that has been presented in this section shows that gentrification has a profound effect on respondents’ social neighbourhood belonging. For some middle-income, white, highly-educated respondents, connectedness, recognition of people they know in public spaces and identification increased with gentrification, thereby positively affecting social belonging. However, some hinted at a loss of social belonging if too many new residents came into the neighbourhood. Also, low-income, non-white respondents’ social belonging was negatively affected through loss of connectedness and identification. LGBTQ+-related changes enhanced identification and social LGBTQ+ networks among most respondents, thereby increasing social belonging.
6.4 Geographical neighbourhood belonging
As mentioned before, neighbourhood belonging does not merely consist of social belonging, but also includes geographical belonging. This refers to the connectedness to certain places. To
22 get a full understanding of the effects of gentrification on long-term residing gay men’s neighbourhood belonging, it is also important to take a look at their experiences related to this side of the concept.
Firstly, a theme that was brought up in interviews was the use of space in Indische Buurt. Many respondents noted that their daily activities had increasingly changed to take place in the neighbourhood. Before neighbourhood changes, many said to be more focused on the city centre for shopping, going out and meeting friends, or other neighbourhoods for doing groceries. As was mentioned when discussing gentrification, neighbourhood changes in the past years have changed the supply of shops and the catering industry in Indische Buurt. For many participants, this changes their spatial patterns with an increasing use of the neighbourhood:
‘’[…] then my life did not really take place here. What I said before, [it was] where I slept and where I was at night. And partly because my own life has now changed a little, because I work from home as a freelancer, but also because the supply has changed a lot […] I am feeling more at home.’’ (43 y/o, middle income, 18 years in Indische Buurt)
All respondents now used the neighbourhood for their daily shopping activities, and many also changed the location of less-frequent activities like going out (for dinner) or buying clothes and gifts to the neighbourhood. Many men expressed wishes to continue this as they planned on staying in the neighbourhood for a long time. According to them, other Amsterdam neighbourhoods did not compare to Indische Buurt. Some even said to be willing to live in Indische Buurt until their health would not allow them to stay at their own places anymore. For that reason, many respondents have recently extended their mortgages by many years, seeing themselves grow old in Indische Buurt.
As a part of geographical neighbourhood belonging, the extent to which residents feel at home is demonstrated by the way people use the space in their neighbourhood and can therefore be measured by their spatial patterns. For many respondents their use of space within Indische Buurt has increased in the past years. Also, many respondents showed plans to stay in the neighbourhood for a long time, thereby investing in their neighbourhood use on the long-term. Respondents’ experiences therefore show increased geographical belonging to Indische Buurt. Furthermore, their appreciation of the public space changed. As respondents expressed in their views on gentrification, the public space changed very much as a result of actions taken by governmental actors. Respondents mentioned the renovation and rebuilding of Indische Buurt, which have made the neighbourhood more cleaned up. Opinions of interviewees on these changes contrasted. Many statements were made which expressed a positive judgment of the changed public space. Some felt attracted to the new iconic buildings and pavements and appreciated the tidiness that was a result of said changes. Although none of the respondents had any children, multiple respondents appreciated the construction of playgrounds, since this showed to them that the area was developing. Also, they associated playing children with safety. However, some respondents also had negative feelings towards the new appearance of the public space. To them, the redesign of the public space was seen as inappropriate, because it did not conform to residents’ use of streets, bike paths and pedestrian crossings. Also, others worried that the neighbourhood was becoming too neat and therefore losing its character. These contrasting views on the alteration of spatial attributes in Indische Buurt were also found when talking about shops as part of public space. Respondents were already said to experience changes in the supply of consumption spaces which mainly involved the addition of stores within the catering industry, and trendy giftshops and clothing stores, as well as vintage shops. Again, some people were attracted to these new consumption spaces and liked the expansion of the neighbourhood’s supply. These new places were preferred to previous coffeehouses,
23 phone shops and ‘dodgy’ cafés. Still, some respondents felt less attracted to new consumption spaces. This group of participants included low-income men as well as high incomes and men with a migration background as well as men without a migration background. For many men, earlier established shops were appreciated and visited more often than new shops. The ethnic diversity of shop owners and their products was valued, as well as the lower prices which made these shops more accessible, especially but not exclusively to low-income participants. According to the opponents of the new consumption spaces, more recent shops all looked the same. Some were very vocal about this:
‘’I am hoping that the character of the neighbourhood will be maintained to a certain extent. Because at some moment you can see, and I am a bit fearful of this, when streets and shopping streets become very popular because the public changes, that soon owners of properties increase the rent in such amounts that eventually all those nice individual entrepreneurships and stores cannot afford it anymore and will be replaced by all the same generic mess that you see everywhere in main streets. I would find that very unfortunate.’’ (54 y/o, high income, 12 years in Indische Buurt)
Contrasting opinions on changes in the public space’s appearance and attributes like iconic buildings, squares and shops show that gentrification has affected the geographical neighbourhood belonging of gay residents both positively and negatively.
What is less affected by changes of gentrification, is the appreciation of environmental attributes and the use of the natural environment. Most respondents mainly use the park and other green spaces for leisure or sportive activities. Some added the use of the natural environment for sexual encounters to this. It was often mentioned by respondents that the Flevopark in Indische Buurt was better maintained. Although a few participants said to appreciate the maintenance, most men said that their appreciation of green spaces in the neighbourhood and their use of them was not affected:
‘’[…] the parks are all the same to me. I go there, and I walk through them for a bit. And whether it is refreshed or not is all the same to me. […] Whether there is a new or an old bench. Those are not the things that matter.’’ (59 y/o, middle income, 12 years in Indische Buurt)
As a result, gentrification-related changes in the natural environment have left respondents’ geographical neighbourhood belonging untouched.
What led to more distinctive responses, was the subject of safety. When asked on this topic, many interviewees said the Indische Buurt used to be less safe before neighbourhood changes started. Respondents mentioned the presence of drug-dependent people, drug dealing, street prostitution, violent events and even murders. Also, Indische Buurt was labelled as a ghetto or no-go area multiple times. However, what was very interesting is that all respondents still felt really safe in the neighbourhood. Although all above mentioned activities were not brought up as relevant to Indische Buurt today, respondents did not feel much of an increase in feelings of safety. Only one respondent stated that the neighbourhood has become safer in general.
When safety was specifically related to the respondents’ sexuality, views changed somewhat. One respondent who grew up in Indische Buurt shared his experiences of discrimination and violence. He used to be bullied, discriminated against and even beaten up by groups that consisted, according to him, of ‘’Moroccan boys’’. As stated by this man, his experiences started to change for the better ten years ago because of new residents and cameras in the public space that kept street youth away. Some other gay men mentioned the change in residents in Indische Buurt as contributing to their feelings of safety. According to Marten Bos this is because ‘’LGBT people feel safer in a neighbourhood that is white.’’ Also, seeing more gay men in the streets was said to enhance safety feelings. This shows that gay men’s sexuality has
