Dealing with neighbourhood change:
The resilience of the gentrifying red light districts of London and Amsterdam
The #no fucking photo’s campaign was launched by a collective of sex workers and entrepreneurs of De Wallen (photo by author)
Marthe Singelenberg Research Master Urban Studies June 23rd 2017 Supervisor: Wouter van Gent Second reader: Rivke Jaffe Wordcount: 7431
1. Abstract
Since the early 2000’s, western cities have developed urban policies aimed at the
regeneration of their red light districts by reducing the number of sexually oriented business and by stimulating public-private investments in real estate. It has been argued that these processes of state-led gentrification are transforming these districts into ‘sanitized spaces’, whereby marginalised groups such as sex workers are targeted for displacement. This research will look at experiences of neighbourhood change in the gentrifying red light
districts of London and Amsterdam. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, it will show that these districts accommodate communities of place-based stakeholders with social and financial interests in the neighbourhood. As they use these interests to negotiate urban change, they contribute to the ways in which the gentrification of red light districts is accepted, contested and adopted.
2. Introduction
The status of red light districts has been subject to ongoing public and academic debate. Within the urban discourse, they have been both marginalised and romanticised, avoided and frequented, endangered and protected, and recently, their existence has been contested. Worldwide, in cities like Hong Kong, Taipei, Montreal, Antwerp, London and Amsterdam, municipalities have developed policies aiming at reducing the physical presence of sex work in the city (Cheng 2016). The red light district, providing a profitable working environment for those sex workers relying on the acquisition of clients through location, has become the main target of these policies. As cities have increasingly become the competing centres for the accumulation of capital (Scott 2012), red light districts, associated with immorality and criminality, have become an eye sore for municipalities aiming to upgrade their city centres (Hubbard 2004). While municipalities have emphasized the need to address problems surrounding prostitution such as human trafficking and involuntary prostitution, critics have analysed these policies as attempts to ‘clean up’ red light districts from ‘undesirable’ people (Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016: 4).
Recent studies on the gentrification of red light districts have mainly focused on its displacing effects on the sex industry. Researchers have investigated how urban policies have led to the displacement of numerous sex workers and sexually oriented businesses such as sex shops and shows (Hubbard 2009; Aalbers & Sabat 2012; Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016). In this article, I will contribute to these findings by looking at the ways in which the residents of the red light districts of London and Amsterdam have experienced
neighbourhood change. Red light districts do not just accommodate sex workers; they are home to a vibrant community of inhabitants, regulars, employees and entrepreneurs. These districts are interesting cases of gentrification as they cannot be identified as working class neighbourhoods but rather accommodate mixed communities of residents from different socio-economic classes and cultural backgrounds. As place-based stakeholders with social and often also financial interests with regard to their neighbourhood, they are affected by the
recent regeneration policies and respond to them in different ways. Through their dealings with these changes, they influence the processes of gentrification and stigmatisation in contested urban spaces such as red light districts.
3. Theory
3.1 Red light districts
Aalbers and Deinema (2012:129) have defined a red light district as an area where ‘prostitution is heavily concentrated and somewhat visible in a specific area of a city’. These districts still function as the geographical centres for the selling and buying of sexual
services, despite the increasing offer of escorts, online chatrooms and other types of services ‘which can be purchased at a distance’ (Hubbard & Whowell 2008: 1744). Prostitution is generally regarded as an immoral form of sexuality and has therefore been stigmatised as a profession (Hubbard 2000: 203). This stigmatisation may be conceptualized as a negative neighbourhood effect (Glaster 2010:3), as red light districts have often been described as immoral, dangerous places where criminality flourishes (Ashworth et al. 1988). Recently, municipal policies have been developed aimed at restricting the number of sexually oriented business (Hubbard & Whowell 2008; Cheng 2016). While these policies have been explained as fighting the illegality surrounding the sex industry, they have also been criticized as
attempts to ‘clean up’ these neighbourhoods from ‘undesirable’ people (Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016: 2). It has been argued that these policies are designed to legitimize state-led gentrification, whereby ‘sanitized spaces’ (ibid.: 4) are created to attract a more ‘affluent user’ (Hackworth 2012: 815).
At the same time, red light districts have increasingly been acknowledged for their significant position in urban entertainment economies (Chatterson & Hollands 2003). Strategically situated in the centres of global cities, they have attracted costumers from all over the world, turning sex into a commercialized good for mass consumption. By becoming more ‘mainstream’, the sexually oriented businesses themselves have played a significant role in the upgrading of red light districts, as they have transformed their sleazy strip clubs and cheap peep-shows into large companies offering ‘adult entertainment’ for mass
consumption (Hubbard & Whowell 2008: 1745). The transformation of the ‘traditional’, small scale red light districts catering to a local clientele into large scale entertainment economies has turned them into attractive spaces for investment. In combination with the hardened municipal policies with regard to the sex industry, red light districts have been subject to processes of state-led gentrification.
3.2 State-led gentrification
Classic definitions have described gentrification as the replacement of lower income groups with middle income groups in inner city areas (Glass 1964; Zukin 1987; Bridge 2006). As the literature expanded, different contexts and processes were included to provide a broader definition which refers to gentrification as ‘the production of space for the more affluent user’ (Hackworth 2012: 815). The changing residential compositions of inner city neighbourhoods have often been accompanied by processes of commercial gentrification, which has generally been described as ‘the disappearance of traditional, local stores and their replacement by chain stores and boutiques’ (Zukin 2009: 48). Red light districts, functioning as spaces for entertainment, have partly adapted their commercial composition to middle class consumption patterns. These changes have been visible in sexually oriented businesses as well as in the types restaurants and shops (Zuckerwise 2012; Hubbard et al 2013).
Hackworth & Smith (2000) have described the changing role of the state in the redevelopment of western cities since the post WWII-period, when the city centres were upgraded through private investments covered with state insurance. The 1970’s marked a period of economic recession and urban decline, which led to a second round of gentrification characterized by small investments in cheap real estate by resident groups with low incomes but high levels of cultural capital. It was during the third wave of gentrification, which started in the late 1980’s and had been accompanied by the influx of higher income groups, when the state took on a more leading role by actively investing in real estate. Recently, as cities have increasingly become the competing centres for the attraction and accumulation of capital (Scott 2012), state-led gentrification has become ‘a global urban strategy for cities that must be sophisticated entrepreneurs’ (Davidson & Lees 2010: 397). These strategies have been analysed as neoliberal urban policies, whereby private investors have been attracted in implementing large scale urban redevelopment projects (Smith 2001; Swyngedouw et al. 2002; Uitermark et al. 2007).
In these urban policies, cities have applied zero tolerance policies with regard to crime, whereby security measurements have been intensified, often in collaboration with private parties (Németh and Smith 2011: 5). Smith (2001) has analysed these policies as post-liberal revanchism, which have emerged as a reaction to the high levels of crime and neglect in the 1970’s (p.: 72). When looking at the regeneration of ‘disadvantaged’ neighbourhoods, it has been argued that the ultimate goal of state-led gentrification is not to attract the middle classes, but rather to control and civilize these neighbourhoods through the presence of these more well behaved residents (Uitermark et al. 2007: 127). Hereby, the emphasis on the problems in these areas can function as a strategy to legitimise state-led gentrification (Hochstenbach 2015: 819).
Red light districts have become targeted by state-led gentrification through the increasing number of state investments and the strict regulations with regard to the sex industry (Hubbard 2009; Aalbers & Sabat 2012; Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016). These interventions are in contrast with the neglect of the city centres in the 1970’s (Hackworth & Smith 2000), when criminal activities in red light districts were to some extent tolerated or
rather, ignored (Brants 1998: 624). Once a neighbourhood is labelled as a lawless zone, authorities are able to legitimize ‘special measures, deviating from both law and custom’ (Wacquant 2007: 69), often specifically designed to redevelop these areas. When
implementing these policies, they ‘draw a line between worthy and unworthy residents’ (Sakizlioglu & Uitermark 2014: 1371). Sakizlioglu & Uitermark (2014) referred to these strategies as the symbolic politics of gentrification, whereby the state uses its performative power to impose a stigma on a deprived neighbourhood (p.: 1370). In order to pursue state-led gentrification, a hegemony or ‘a form of rule relevant to how transformations in social relations are managed while the capitalist system is maintained overall’ (Paton 2008: 2) is imposed on the residents of the targeted areas. This hegemony is achieved ‘as much
consensually as it is coercively’, whereby residents are encouraged to join in the upgrading of their neighbourhood by adjusting to the behaviour of the more affluent user (ibid.:2). Similar processes can be observed in red light districts in western cities, where residents are either being displaced or, sometimes coercively, encouraged to adopt new patterns of behaviour.
3.3 Gentrification and neighbourhood change
There is a wide range of literature on the experiences of neighbourhood change as a consequence of gentrification, mainly focusing on the displacement of lower incomes as a consequence of rising housing prices (Marcuse 1985; Zukin 1987; Davidson & Lees 2010). An often-used definition of displacement is ‘the involuntary dislocation of households from city neighbourhoods as more affluent households compete with them for the desirable older housing stock’ (LeGates & Hartman 1982: 31). It has been argued that displacement as a process is hard to quantify (Slater 2009: 301) and that the subjective experiences associated with neighbourhood change should receive more attention (Davidson & Lees 2010: 403). As the consumption pattern of the middle classes comes to dominate the commercial activities in a neighbourhood, the remaining resident group of lower incomes may experience
displacement pressure (Marcuse 1985: 207). Without actually being forced out of their
homes, residents feel a pressure to leave as the services and social networks they were relying on are disappearing and new amenities are being designed for households with different consumption patterns (ibid.: 207). When residents experience a mismatch between their own identity and the identity of a neighbourhood, their neighbourhood belonging, defined as ‘the degree to which residents feel at home in and identify with a neighbourhood’, decreases (Pinkster 2015: 873).
Still, Paton (2008) has argued that working class households do not always experience a loss of belonging as a consequence of gentrification; ‘some enjoy it since gentrification brings new pleasures’ (p. 21). In addition, recent research on the effects of gentrification have showed that processes of displacement are more complex than the middle classes pushing out the working classes. Middle class residents may also experience loss of belonging as a
consequence of the influx of new residents with different consumption patterns (Pinkster & Boterman 2017). Still, middle class residents often have ‘more control over their movement in and out of the neighbourhood’ than working class residents, as they can ‘afford to secure
activities to ensure their social reproduction and lifestyles outside of the neighbourhood’ (Paton 2008: 21). In this way, they control their ‘fixity to place’ (ibid.: 21). The extent to which residents are ‘fixed’ to their neighbourhoods, for example through their financial and social interests, influences their experiences of neighbourhood change.
In red light districts, similar experiences of neighbourhood change have been observed. Given that selling sex is a highly profitable industry and red light districts have been acknowledged as successful urban entertainment economies, it has been argued that the policy rationales for displacing the sex industry are not related to solely economic reasons (Hubbard 2009: 1699). Rather, the sex industry is seen as an immoral business with criminal associations which needs to be ‘eliminated from the sight of the affluent’ which the
municipalities are trying to attract (ibid.: 1698). Additionally, residents of red light districts cannot be identified as either working class or middle class. As place-based stakeholders with financial and social interests in the neighbourhood, they are in a way ‘fixed’ to place, which influenced their perceptions on neighbourhood change.
4. Methods
To understand how neighbourhood change has been experienced in gentrifying red light districts across western cities, two qualitative case studies were conducted in Soho (London) and De Wallen (Amsterdam). Both red light districts are well-visited entertainment areas, strategically located in the city centres of global cities. In the post WWII-period, when inner city neighbourhoods were left for the suburbs, both districts attracted a vibrant
community of migrants, artists and others in search of opportunities and cheap housing prices. Since the early 2000’s, they have been subject to municipal policies which aim to regenerate the areas by limiting the number of sexually oriented businesses, which are associated with criminality and immorality. In both cases, the municipalities have attracted private investors to redevelop the neighbourhood (Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016; Aalbers & Sabat 2012). In the UK, processes of gentrification had already been observed in the 1960’s (Glass 1964). In the Netherlands, the effects of gentrification remained relatively small until the 1990’s, when the state started to stimulate the privatization of the housing market (Van Gent 2013: 518). The countries also differ in terms of their legal structure, as operating a brothel is illegal in the UK while the ban on brothels was lifted in the Netherlands in 2000. Because of these differences, London has seen its red light district gentrifying in a much more rapid pace than in Amsterdam, where the sex industry is still prominently present. While the similarities enable me to conduct an intensive comparative case study (Yin 2009: 52), the different institutional contexts allow me to show how different stages of
gentrification influence the experiences of neighbourhood change.
In order to investigate how the residents of red light districts have responded to and dealt with the changes in their neighbourhoods, I have applied a broader definition of
spent so much time there that they have turned it into their ‘home territory’ and apply a high sense of belonging to it (Lofland 1973:122). Although Lofland’s understanding of ‘residents’ applies to the users of public space, it forms a useful analytical concept for this research as public spaces such as streets, bars, and shops form important stages for the creation of a ‘home territory’. Inhabitants, regular visitors, employees or entrepreneurs can in this way be defined as residents, as they have been ‘residing’ in the neighbourhood for so long and with such intensity that they feel like it is ‘theirs’. They can be locals such as the old man who visits a neighbourhood café every day or a café owner who spends the majority of his time in his bar, switching between being at work and socializing. What these residents have in common is that they have social and often also financial interests in the neighbourhood. As place-based stakeholders, they are affected by the regeneration of their neighbourhood and therefore have to respond to it.
Between September 2016 and April 2017, I have conducted ethnographic fieldwork in the red light districts of London and Amsterdam. I paid regular visits to both neighbourhoods and observed the visible effects of the processes of state-led gentrification. For example, I saw old shops and cafes being closed to be replaced by new businesses which fitted Zukin’s (1987) definition of commercial gentrification. As a part of these observations, I engaged in informal conversations with residents such as employees of shops or local visitors of bars. In these encounters, I informed about their attachment to the neighbourhood and their
perceptions on its redevelopment. From these conversations, I selected residents who were ‘residing’ in the neighbourhoods for over ten years as respondents for sit-down interviews. In total, I collected 25 interviews with residents of the red light districts, of which 14 in
Amsterdam and 11 in London. In order to ensure a diverse research sample, I selected a mix of inhabitants, entrepreneurs, employees and regular visitors of different ages and sexes. In the interviews, varying from 30 minutes to one hour, respondents were asked about their function in the neighbourhood and the length of their residency. Furthermore, they were asked to describe the red light district when they first came there and how and to what extent it had changed since then. Finally, I informed about their perceptions on and dealings with these changes. The data, complemented by statements from newspaper articles, were
analysed by coding per recurring theme. Additionally, I have conducted two interviews with informants who were not residents but represented different groups of stakeholders from outside of the neighbourhood: one Amsterdam municipality representative and one expert on sex work in Soho. These interviews allowed me to reflect on the residents’ statements from a different point of view and functioned as background information.
5. The gentrification of Soho and De Wallen
In the 1960’s, both neighbourhoods had already become well visited entertainment districts, offering a wide variety of both sexually oriented businesses and other forms of entertainment such as theatre, gambling and drinking. Respondents indicated that the red light districts formed closed informal economies, whereby many residents, namely
entrepreneurs, were profiting from the presence of the sex industry. While running a brothel was still illegal in both countries at the time, workspaces operated on the condition of the authorities ‘looking the other way’ (Hubbard 2004: 1963). It can be argued that through their success, the sex industries themselves were already ‘gentrifying’ both neighbourhoods by turning them into popular spaces for consumption. In the 1970’s, western cities entered a period of economic recession and urban decline. As Soho and De Wallen were invaded by drug dealers and addicts, they became increasingly associated with immoral and criminal activities (Parker 1986, Clark 2014). As a consequence, they became subject to the revanchist urban policies which were developed in response to urban decline (Smith 2002). Around the turn of the century, the cities of London and Amsterdam developed policies to ‘clean up’ the majority of the prostitution and regenerate their red light districts to attract more affluent users (Hubbard 2004; Aalbers & Sabat 2012). Quantitative data on rising real estate prices provide some insight in the effects of these processes of state-led gentrification. For example, rising housing prices (Central London: 30,8%, Amsterdam: 15%) may predict changes in residential compositions (Butterworth 2015, Snyders 2016). Additionally, increases in commercial rent prices, especially in London (Central London: 50%, Amsterdam city centre: 9%), form an explanation for the replacement of smaller businesses with larger corporations (City of Amsterdam 2016, Whittle 2016). These numbers show that there has been an increasing pressure on inner city neighbourhoods in general and on red light districts as both marginalised and popular spaces for consumption in particular.
In Soho, gentrification has been stimulated by a collaboration between the local city council and a number of private investors (Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016: 1). Previously run-down properties have been transformed into luxury apartments and seedy sex shows turned into exclusive erotic night clubs. Furthermore, the city council has aimed to attract more affluent residents by privatizing social housing (Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016: 4) and by actively monitoring undesirable activities such as rough sleeping and drug dealing
(Westminster City Council 2016).As rent prices have risen, many of the smaller shops and bars that were catering to the former Soho community have been struggling to make ends meet. Amsterdam’s red light district has seen a similar pattern of gentrification, although prostitution still is the most visible commercial activity in the neighbourhood. In 2007, the Amsterdam municipality launched Project 1012, named after the postal code of the area. The project focused on dismantling the criminal infrastructure, reducing the clustering of
‘criminogenic and low quality enterprises’ and creating a more qualitative and diverse area (City of Amsterdam 2016). At the finish of the project in 2018, 38 out of 83 window brothels will have to be closed down as well as 31 of the 74 coffee shops. Through Project 1012, the municipality hoped contribute to the liveability of the neighbourhood and to rebrand
combination of public and private investments, many brothels, sex shops and coffee shops have been replaced by businesses associated with middle class consumption such as gourmet restaurants, fashion boutiques and artisanal coffee shops. Next to investments, both
municipalities have used licensing as a tool to limit prostitution and stimulate the attraction of more affluent users of the neighbourhood (Hubbard et al 2009; Zuckerwise 2012), which has led to the displacement of numerous sexually oriented businesses. During the interviews, it became clear that the residents of these neighbourhoods were affected by these processes of state-led gentrification as well.
6. Experiencing neighbourhood change
When asked about neighbourhood change, different opinions were held amongst the residents. Some respondents were positive about the changing commercial composition, as they felt like the neighbourhood had more to offer for them. One resident who has lived in De Wallen for 33 years said:
I think it is getting better and better in terms of what the neighbourhood has to offer. In the beginning they weren’t sure what to do so they were just buying brothels and putting fashion designers in there, that didn’t make any sense. But now some nice stores have moved in… a book club, the Topnotch coffee place, those kinds of things. (Rob, De Wallen)
Others were relieved to see the problems in the sex industry being dealt with, as it made their neighbourhood a safer place. A long-term resident of Soho said:
Soho was very different around that time, there were a lot of nasty clubs called clip joints that would steal your money, they were just a cover up for involuntary prostitution. I was happy when they were all closed down. (Lili, Soho)
These residents experienced these aspects of change as positive, and in this way enjoyed ‘the pleasures of gentrification’ (Paton 2008: 21). At the same time, they, as well as most of the interviewees, were negative about the effects of the regeneration of their neighbourhoods. Three recurring themes can be analysed from their concerns on neighbourhood change: the loss of an authentic character, the loss of a community feeling and the decreasing tolerance with regard to the sex industry.
First, many residents identified with an old, authentic character of their
neighbourhood, represented by a small-scale businesses and a locally oriented social life. According to many, this authenticity had become endangered by the influx of a new group of residents. Examples of these frowned upon newcomers were rich inhabitants moving in renovated houses or young professionals running art galleries or coffee places. The owner of a café on De Wallen said:
So since 2007 you get this new import, like that store there on the opposite of the canal. She didn’t even step by to introduce herself. […] It just doesn’t fit… If I want to buy a fancy dress, why would I go into this neighbourhood? (Mieke, De Wallen)
Other incoming businesses which were criticized were those that were ‘only for tourists’ such as souvenir shops, shops selling ‘low quality food’ such as ice cream or waffles or chains such as Starbucks. Additionally, the large amount of temporary visitors was named as an important factor in ruining this authenticity. As these residents saw their familiar shops and cafes disappear to make place for fashion boutiques or businesses designed for tourists, many of them felt like their neighbourhood was being transformed to attract a different clientele, which led to a loss of belonging (Pinkster 2015).
A second recurring theme was the loss of a close community, which was ascribed to the influx of newcomers such as investors and new residents. Especially ‘corporate
developers’ were mentioned as a big threat to the social cohesion in the neighbourhood, as these organisations or individuals bought houses without living there to use them as an investment or rent them out through Airbnb. The owner of a local Soho café noticed:
People buying these flats do not actually live in there, it doesn’t do any good for the community. [When asked to explain] We have always had a thriving community here, where everyone would watch each other. It’s kind of sad that it’s just being destroyed, that it doesn’t seem to matter at all. (Lili, Soho)
Many residents were nostalgic about the past, when neighbours knew each other and when there were always eyes on the street, which made these areas, despite their bad reputations, ‘one of the safest places in the city to walk around at night’. One of the residents of De Wallen said:
When a bartender moved to work at another place within the neighbourhood, the neighbours would create a path of tea lights from the one place to the other. Can you imagine this happen now? It would be impossible. No one knows each other anymore… the streets are too crowded with strangers. (Linda, De Wallen)
A final theme that was mentioned by many respondents was the decreasing tolerance with regard to the sex industry. This tolerance was often named as a necessary condition for a neighbourhood such as red light district, which were known for allowing activities which were unlikely to be tolerated elsewhere. Due to this air of tolerance, they had attracted
marginal groups applying alternative lifestyles or alternative tastes in sexuality, such as artists and LGBTQ groups. One Soho resident said:
You know, people were attracted to Soho because they could find acceptance here. No matter who you were or where you came from; you could become a part of the Soho community. It was just the most exciting place to be on earth. Now, it’s just loud and boring. (Lydia, Soho)
Through their acceptance of (sexual) activities which weren’t tolerated elsewhere, both neighbourhoods developed what residents called a ‘live-and-let-live mentality’. Recently, as urban policies have been developed to restrict the number of sexually oriented businesses, the tolerance with regard to the sex industry has decreased. Although many residents agreed that problems such as human trafficking and involuntary prostitution had to be dealt with, a number of them were also critical about the evictions of sex workers. A resident of Soho said:
They are just sinning those girls, they are giving them a tuff time. Well, if it doesn't go on in Soho, it will probably move somewhere else. It goes on in the suburbs, out of the eyes of politicians, who are supposed to keep up the morals or ethics of society… (Bert, Soho)
Another resident from De Wallen agreed:
I think closing brothels is not a solution to the problems with prostitution. I think it’s safer for them to work behind a window than to be on the streets. (Sterre, De Wallen)
Not only were they critical about the evictions because of the safety of the sex workers, they were also concerned that if the sex industry would disappear, the before mentioned authentic character of the neighbourhood would become lost. In this way, the sex industry symbolised the tolerance which was significant to a red light district. In Soho, the experience of loss of tolerance extended to other parts of the sex industry such as sex shows and shops. In both neighbourhoods, several residents indicated that they rather had a neighbourhood which was ‘somewhat seedy but edgy’ than one which was just ‘busy’ and ‘boring’.
Logically, those residents who earned their incomes from the sex industry felt most threatened by the stricter regulations. In Amsterdam, brothel owners (as well as other entrepreneurs on De Wallen) have been targeted by the bibob law, which was established in 2002 to enable the restriction of licenses for enterprises who were found to maintain financial connections with criminal parties (City of Amsterdam 2016). On top of that, stricter
regulations for running a brothel have been developed. A brothel owner explained:
The municipality has accused me of being a criminal, while I am just renting out rooms to women who work independently. I have to go and check on them three times a day, that is just ridiculous. I am paying thousands of euros to fit their [red. the municipality] stupid rules. It is just a way of the municipality to get rid of us… no one seems to care that we have been here for generations. (Jan, De Wallen)
In Soho, workspaces suspected of functioning as illegal brothels such as massage salons and houses offering ‘model girls’ have been raided by the police ‘as part of an ongoing operation to tackle human trafficking, prostitution, firearms, immigration offences and money
laundering’ (quoted in Gillet 2016). As a consequence, remaining sex workers, who see the brothels as the safest spaces to perform their work, live in fear of eviction (Topping 2013). Licensed sex shows have become targeted to stricter regulations such as a minimum age for visitors, a minimum of clothes, a maximum proximity to schools and high security
measurements (Hubbard et al 2009: 193). Several sex shops selling pornographic films have been closed down and the ones which are still running are under strict surveillance. One resident who used to work in a sex shop said:
There used to be so many unlicensed shops selling illegal porn from continental Europe. It used to be such good money, you know, I could leave work after three days with 3,000 pounds of wages. But now they have started to fine everyone… After a 5,000 pound fine I decided to quit, it’s not worth it anymore… (Paulo, Soho)
7. Dealing with neighbourhood change
The residents of Soho and De Wallen used three ways of dealing with neighbourhood change: resignation, resistance and adaptation.
7.1 Resignation
Residents decided to resign themselves to the changes they experienced as negative when they felt like nothing could be done to stop these changes. This group of residents generally hold a pessimistic view on the future of their neighbourhood. Some of them had even given up:
There is no use in fighting, the government has given property developers carte blanche to destroy the neighbourhood. (Lili, Soho)
Some residents not only felt powerless but were even considering to leave their neighbourhood. A resident of De Wallen said:
It is getting worse and worse, at some point this neighbourhood will turn into some kind of Kalverstraat (red. the main shopping street in Amsterdam), but then with tourists eating at large restaurant chains selling lousy food. Once this happens, I will be out of here. (Linda, De Wallen)
Whereas some connected their feeling of being pushed out to the influx of newcomers, other directly related it to the pressure of displacement, as rents were rising. In Soho, the owner of a small Italian private club gave a similar statement:
Once the rent prices go up again we’re gone. It’s over, Soho is over. (Tracy, Soho)
Others saw change as a natural given, something which could not be fought at all. One resident described Soho as something ‘of the past’:
Things change, you know, Soho will take on a completely different character. Where I live used to be a very smoky part of Soho, Covent Garden, full of prostitutes and vagabonds, now it has become such a fancy place. Things will move on, and there is a danger about being too nostalgic, that's why I'm saying the Save Soho campaign thing is nonsense because what are they trying to save doesn't exist. And it hasn’t existed for a long time. (Bert, Soho, resident)
7.2 Resistance
A second and more visible way of dealing with neighbourhood change was resistance, a tactic which was most often used by those involved in the sex industry. Since 2013, the English Collective of Prostitutes has organized several protests against the evictions of workspaces, similar to the 2015 demonstrations organized by the sex workers’ organization PROUD in Amsterdam. Through their actions, the protesters questioned the stigma that had been created around prostitution and linked it to immorality and criminality. The sex workers stated that the municipalities’ declared motivations for closing the brothels - protecting
victims of human trafficking and fighting criminal gangs - were merely a cover for the upgrading of the neighbourhood (Topping 2013, Bockma 2015). In Amsterdam, after the controversial Project 1012 was announced, brothel owners and sex workers collaborated to start legal procedures against the rigorous regulations. As one brothel owner stated in a local newspaper:
I am the first one to start procedures against these bizarre regulations, in the name of the Wallen Prostitution Entrepreneurs Association. The girls agree with me, yes, and they will come to court as well. (Jan, De Wallen, quoted in Vugts 2015)
In Soho, where brothel owners and sex workers are operating on the edge of illegality, there is no possibility to go into court. Despite their fear of eviction, many sex workers continue selling their services but try to hide their presence as much as possible. For those who know where to look, the stickers promoting ‘models’ reveal that there are still numerous brothels in operation. The same goes for other entrepreneurs earning their money from (semi)-illegal sex, such as the shops selling illegal pornographic films. An employee of a sex shop said:
Some licensed sex shops still secretly sell illegal DVD’s, if you know who to ask… (Paulo, Soho)
While the chances of getting caught seem high, there apparently is enough money to be made to take the risk. Although these practices are well hidden, they can be analysed as forms of resistance as they rebel against the regulations.
While most resistance in Amsterdam has focused on the sex industry, Soho residents have extended their protests to the disappearance of local services such as the fruit and vegetable market. One Soho resident and activist stated:
I won’t stop until the municipality realises that the market is important for so many people in the neighbourhood. For one of the old ladies I know, this market is the reason to get out of her house… to go out and have a small chat with someone. (Brian, Soho)
Furthermore, the Save Soho action group has been active in protecting Soho’s music venues (Vaines 2015), and a campaign has been launched to prevent of the demolishing of a local arthouse cinema in favour of the construction of a new metro line. In Amsterdam, where state-led gentrification is being implemented at a slower pace and where historical buildings are legally protected against demolition, such protests have not been observed yet.
7.3 Adaptation
Finally, there were residents who adapted to the neighbourhood changes because they were positive about them, because they saw opportunities in strengthening their financial position or because they feared eviction or bankruptcy. This strategy was mostly adopted by entrepreneurs who had the financial means to adjust to the new patterns of consumption, but there were also inhabitants who saw possibilities in earning money from the popularity of their neighbourhood. As a resident of De Wallen stated:
It has two sides, you know. One the one hand, we complain about the crowdedness, on the other hand, we can ask high prices for our apartment on Airbnb. We used to have high and low season, but now we are almost always fully booked. (Romy, De Wallen)
In both districts, local stores, markets and cafes have adapted their products, services and prices to a gentrifying clientele. A market stall holder in Soho said:
These days it is mainly businessmen coming to grab a quick lunch, they want to get proper sandwiches for a fiver. The falafel place over there is making good money. (Brian, Soho)
A similar statement was given by a café holder from De Wallen, who explained how her family had always managed to adjust their business to the changes in the neighbourhood. Once a small grocery shop, her business had been transformed into a sandwich shop, a snack bar and finally, into a café. She explained:
You have to keep up with the times, you know. The neighbourhood will always keep its charm. (Mieke, De Wallen)
In the sex industry, entrepreneurs with sufficient financial capital have invested in their businesses in order to attract a new type of customer and to adapt to the new regulations in order to avoid eviction or being fined. De Wallen’s famous Casa Rosso, offering expensive
sex shows for tourists, business events and stag parties, has gained a strong commercial position in the red light district. According to the owner of the place, the shows have become more commercial as a response to the needs of the costumers:
People want less extreme things these days you know, for us Amsterdammers it is not a big deal what is happening on stage, but for the tourists… […] It’s more groups
nowadays, buses full of groups and we can fit a 184 people. On Saturdays we even have to make a line, sometimes people have to wait for two and a half hours. (Jan, De Wallen)
Since Jan took over in 1996, he has used the profit from the sex shows to buy up properties around the main venue - ‘one each year’, as he stated in the interview. Now, the Casa Rosso empire expands all over the neighbourhood with several bars, sex shops and smaller shows employing around 286 people. Still, Casa Rosso is not the only sexually oriented business with a strong financial position in the neighbourhood. A large share of the real estate of De Wallen is owned by entrepreneurs whose families have been involved in the sex industry for generations. This turned out to be a big obstacle for the municipalities’ intentions to close down brothels, as many of these entrepreneurs were too rich to buy out (Hensink & Husken 2009).
In Soho, a smart entrepreneur had settled in the 1960’s and developed an empire of sex shows with a size comparable to the Dutch Casa Rosso. The owner was known as ‘the King of Soho’ and has been held responsible for the success of Soho’s sex industry. After his death in 2008, his company Soho Estates has started to redevelop the traditional sex shows into expensive clubs, offering erotic entertainment to Soho’s richest consumers. While Soho has seen many of its smaller, ‘seedy’ businesses closing down, new expensive sex clubs such as
The Box have been opened. Table prices start at 1,000 pound per evening and entrance is only
available to an exclusive clientele. Rather than the sex industry itself, it seems to be the seedy end of it, associated with crime and ‘cheap entertainment’, which is targeted for
displacement. In this way, the pressure of displacement is mostly felt by those who are not capable of adapting to the new consumption patterns.
8. Summary of findings
To summarize, there were some aspects of change which a number of the residents were positive about, such as the decrease of nuisance from criminal activities as a consequence of the regeneration. A few even enjoyed the effects of gentrification, as the new stores fitted their patterns of consumption. Those residents who were negative about the neighbourhood changes were those who felt like the regeneration was designated to attract a type of
resident/visitor which did not fit the authentic and tolerant community that they associated with. As they saw their old shops and cafes closing down, their fellow residents leaving and the tolerance they were so proud of evaporate, they experienced a loss of belonging or even a pressure to leave. The pressure of displacement (Marcuse 20185) was mostly felt by those working in the sex industry, who had been targeted by stricter regulations or were risking eviction. Although many residents felt that problems such human trafficking and involuntary prostitution had to be dealt with, they saw the sex industry as a part of the identity of the neighbourhood and were critical about the effectivity of these policies. At the same time, the sex industry symbolised the ‘live-and-let-live’ mentality which made their neighbourhood ‘somewhat seedy but exciting’ rather than ‘just crowded and boring’.
I have analysed three ways of dealing with neighbourhood change: resignation, resistance and adaptation. Residents chose to resign themselves to the changes when they did not have the (financial) capability to ‘save’ their neighbourhood or when they saw change as
inevitable. Some of them had lost so much of their sense of belonging that they even considered leaving. The majority of the resistance focused on the municipal policies with regard to the sex industry, which were criticized as a legitimization for state-led
gentrification. Sex workers and, in the case of Amsterdam, brothel owners, were most active in demonstrating against these policies, as some of them had already experienced actual displacement through the restriction of licenses and the eviction of workspaces. By
questioning the stigma created around prostitution, the protesters were resisting the authority of the state as well as the symbolic politics of gentrification (Sakizlioglu & Uitermark 2014). Others used more hidden forms of resistance by continuing their practices out of public sight. Still, both types of resistance were adopted by those who refused to adjust to the desired
behavioural patterns as proposed by the state. In this way, they contested the hegemony of gentrification (Paton 2008). Finally, adaptation was adopted as a strategy by those residents, especially entrepreneurs, who had the financial capital to adjust to the process of
gentrification. This has been mostly visible in the commercial composition of both
neighbourhoods, which has become dominated by large chains, fashion boutiques and fancy restaurants. In the sex industry, numerous small businesses have been replaced by large corporations with a strong financial position in the neighbourhood. By adapting to the desired patterns of behaviour, these residents were joining in the hegemony of gentrification (Paton 2008).
9. Conclusion
Worldwide, municipalities have adopted urban policies whereby red light districts have been targeted for regeneration and opened up for private investments. The residents of the red light districts of London and Amsterdam have either accepted, contested or adopted the ‘desired’ behavioural patterns which have been implemented as a part of the symbolic politics of gentrification. Red light districts distinguish themselves from other gentrifying inner city neighbourhoods in their strong position in the urban entertainment economy. State-led gentrification seems to progress at a slower pace in red light districts than in ‘normal’ residential neighbourhoods due to the fact that that sexual entertainment is a highly profitable business and the residents of red light districts are not necessarily working class. Financially capable residents and entrepreneurs have managed to adapt to the ‘desired’ patterns of consumption and in this way, joined the hegemony of gentrification. Those who refused to join this hegemony either resigned themselves to the changes or resisted them. This
resistance was performed both openly in the form of protest and court cases as well as hidden in the form of taking illegal practices underground. Through their resistance against the displacement of the sex industry, red light districts have aimed to contest their stigmatisation as ‘lawless zones’ which have to be ‘cleaned up’.
Through the focus on red light districts as communities of residents rather than only as spaces for the consumption of sexual entertainment, this research has tried to add new perspectives on the research on gentrification and displacement in red light districts. Red light districts have a unique status in the urban discourse as they are regarded as marginalised areas of criminality and immorality and as successful spaces for consumption at the same time. As they have contested their stigmatisation while adapting to the hegemony of gentrification, they can be regarded as resilient neighbourhoods, which have the ability to influence neighbourhood changes.
10. Bibiliography
Aalbers, M.B. and Deinema, M. (2012) Placing prostitution: the spatial–sexual order of Amsterdam and its growth coalition. City 16(1-2): 129-145.
Aalbers, M.B. and Sabat, M. (2012) Re-making a Landscape of Prostitution: The Amsterdam
Red Light District. City 16(1-2): pp. 112-127.
Brants, C. (1998) The fine art of regulated tolerance: Prostitution in Amsterdam. Journal of
Law and Society, 25(4), 621-635.
Bridge, G. (2006) It's not just a question of taste: gentrification, the neighborhood, and cultural capital. Environment and Planning A, 38(10): pp. 1965-1978.
Brown, W. (2006) Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chatterton, P. & Hollands, R. (2003) Urban Nightscapes: Youth cultures, Pleasure Spaces
and Corporate Power. Routledge: London.
Cheng, T. (2016) Red Light City. The Architecture Observer.
Davidson, M. and Lees, L. (2010) New-Build Gentrification: Its Histories, Trajectories, and Critical Geographies. Population, space and place vol. 16: pp. 395-411.
Glass, R. (1964) London, Aspects of Change. London: Routlegde.
Galster, G. C. (2010) The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications. Paper for presentation at the ESRC Seminar: “Neighbourhood Effects:
Theory & Evidence” St. Andrews University, Scotland, UK.
Hubbard, P. (2004) Cleansing the metropolis: sex work and the politics of zero tolerance.
Urban Studies, 41(9): pp. 1687-1702.
Hubbard, P., Whowell, M. (2008) Revisiting the Red Light District: Still Neglected, Immoral and Marginal? Geoforum, 29: pp. 1743-1755.
Hubbard, P., Matthews, R., and Scoular, J. (2009) Legal Geographies – Controlling Sexually Oriented Businesses: Law, Licensing and the Geographies of a Controversal Land Use.
Urban Geography, 30(2): pp. 185-205.
Hochstenbach, C. (2015) Stakeholder Representations of Gentrification in Amsterdam and Berlin: a Marginal Process? Housing Studies, 30(6): pp. 817-838.
LeGates, R.T. and Hartman, C. (1982) Gentrification-caused Displacement. The Urban
Lawyer 14(1): pp. 31-56.
and Policy Responses in New York City. Urban Law Annual; Journal of Urban and
Contemporary Law 28(4): pp. 195-240
Németh, J. and Smith, S. (2011) The privatization of public space: modelling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B vol. 38 pp. 5- 23.
Neuts, B., Devos, T. and Dirckx, T. (2013) Turning off the Red Lights: Entrepreneurial Urban Srategies in ‘De Wallen’ Amsterdam. Applied Geography 49(2014): pp. 37-44. Parker, L. C. (1986) The Changing Dutch Response to Crime. Police Stud.: Int'l Rev. Police
Dev., 9, 78.
Paton, K. (2008) Not the only power in town? Challenging binaries and bringing the working class into gentrification research. Presented as a discussant paper for the ESRC Seminar,
22-33 May 2008, King’s College London.
Pinkster, F. (2016) Narratives of Neighbourhood Change and Loss of Belonging in an Urban Garden Village, Social & Cultural Geography, 17(7): pp. 871-891.
Pinkster, F.M. & W.R. Boterman (forthcoming) When the spell is broken: gentrification, urban tourism and privileged discontent in the Amsterdam Canal District, Cultural
Geographies.
Sanders-McDonagh, E., Peyrefitte, M. and Ryalls, M. (2016) Sanitising the City: Exploring Hegemonic Gentrification in London’s Soho. Sociological Research Online 21(3): pp. 1-5. Sakizlioglu, N. B. & Uitermark, J. (2014) The symbolic politics of gentrification: the restructuring of stigmatized neighborhoods in Amsterdam and Istanbul. Environment and
Planning A vol. 26, pp. 1369-1385.
Scott, A.J. (2012) A World in Emergence; Cities and Regions in the 21st Century. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Slater, T. (2009) Missing Marcuse. On gentrification and displacement. City, 13(2-3): pp. 293-311.
Smith, N. (2001) Global Social Cleansing: Postliberal Revanchism and the Export of Zero Tolerance. Social Justice 28(3): pp. 68-74.
Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert, and A. Rodriguez (2002) Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy. Antipode 34(3): pp. 542-577.
Uitermark, J. & Duyvendak, J.W. (2007) Gentrification as a governmental strategy: social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment and Planning A vol. 39, pp. 125-141.
How the ‘Third Wave’ broke in Amsterdam, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 37(2): pp. 503-522.
Wacquant, L. (2007) Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality, Thesis
Eleven, 91: pp.66-77.
Yin, R. (2009) Designing Case Studies: Identifying Your Case(s) and Establishing the Logic of Your Case Study, Sage: chapter 2
Zuckerwise, G.M. (2012) Governmentality in Amsterdam’s Red Light District, City 16(1-2), pp 146-157.
Zukin, S. (1987) Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core, Annual Review of
Sociology 13: pp.129-147.
Zukin, S., V. Trujillo, P. Frase, D. Jackson, T. Recuber and A. Walker (2009) New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change: Boutiques and Gentrification in New York City, City &
Community 8(1): pp. 47-64.
Newspaper articles
Bockma, H. (2015, April 10) Prostituees protesteren tegen sluiting ramen op de Wallen. De Volkskrant, Amsterdam.
Butterworth, M. (2016, May 17) What slowdown? House prices in most of London continue
to soar – but drop by 12% in the most expensive areas as tax rises start to bite. Daily Mail,
London.
Clark, P. (2015, November 25) The slow death of Soho: farewell to London’s sleazy
heartland. The Guardian, London.
Gillett, F. (2016, October 21) Chinatown and Soho: 18 arrested in prostitution and slavery
raids as police storm six ‘massage parlours’. Evening Standard, London.
Hensink, H. & Husken, M. (2009, February 14) De slag om de Wallen. Vrij Nederland, Amsterdam
Snyder, H. (2016, July 21) Sterkste stijging woningprijzen in negen jaar tijd. Financieel Dagblad, The Netherlands.
Topping, A. (2013, October 9) Soho sex workers protest against forced evictions in London
Vaines, C. (2015, May 17) Soho Stories: Sex, Drugs and Rock ‘n Roll. The Guardian, London.
Vugts, P. (2015, September 7) Bordeelhouder lucht hart: ‘De gemeente schuift alles op ons
af’. Het Parool, Amsterdam.
Whittle, N. (2016, September 22) Meet the people saving Soho’s restaurants. Financial Times, London.
Policy documents
Gemeente Amsterdam (2016, March 30) Voortgangsrapportage Project 1012.
Websites
Westminster City Council (2016, September 26) Have your say on rough sleeping services in
