Rotterdam’s Dakpark: an example of green gentrification?
How Rotterdam’s Dakpark shapes the sense of belonging of long-time residents.
University of Amsterdam College of Social Science
Bachelor Sociale Geografie & Planologie Bachelor thesis project | Stedelijke ongelijkheid
Antonia Dubberke | 11265671 Supervisor: Dhr. dr. Cody Hochstenbach Second reader: Dhr. dr. Merijn Oudenampsen
Preface
This thesis is written in order to complete the Bachelor’s degree Human Geography and Urban Planning at the University of Amsterdam. The research is carried out in the context of the project: Urban Inequalities.
Since the beginning of this study I became fascinated by the development in cities and certainly in the last year I became interested I how these developments may lead to unequal outcomes. Growing up in Berlins most greenest district, I particularly was interested in how urban green influences those processes. As the study greatly uses examples of Amsterdam it was important to me to carryout research in another cities context.
In first place I would like to that all the respondents. I not only had interesting and revealing conversations with them but they also welcomed me to take part in their group and in their volunteer work. I could not have done this research without their time, effort and enthusiasm. Also, I would like to thank my supervisor Cody Hochstenbach for all his advice, sharp feedback and critical but always constructive critique. Finally, I would like to thank my friends, especially Natascha Bardina for all their emotional support, intellectual input and time during this research.
Both the process of research and the writing of this thesis were and intensive but educational trajectory. I highly appreciate all the new knowledge and skills I gained through this process. But most importantly I found that there is even more to learn. I look back on this process with satisfaction and I am proud of the thesis that is in front of you now.
Abstract
Greening and economic development have become increasingly coupled as more and more cities have embraced sustainable development as a key component of economic growth plans. Processes of greening often find justification within this sustainability paradigm. The intended purposes of urban green spaces as climate adaptations and improvement of public space for some may be accompanied by less desired effects like the social displacement of others. The concept of ‘Green Gentrification’ combines assumption of gentrification with concerns about sustainable development. This research focused on the sense of belonging as a way to measure displacement at the neighbourhood scale, caused by green gentrification. Hence, this study aims to determine the effects of new urban green space on the sense of belonging of long-time residents. Doing so, 10 in-depth interviews, with long-time residents living through gentrification were taken. While displacement is central to the definition of green gentrification, experiences with gentrification cannot only be positive or negative. This study shows that experiences of residents living through gentrification contain various contradictions about gains and losses. Residents certainly appreciate and welcome multiple factors of gentrification but at the same time realize the disadvantages to it. In general the attitude towards green gentrification seems to be more positive in nature. Residents do not experience a strong loss in their social or geographical belonging. They appreciate the changes in the neighbourhood and feel like the municipality is acting in their best interest. Furthermore, there are some aspects of the gentrification that residents welcome. Pride and the park as an asset for the neighbourhood were themes that resonated through multiple of the interviews. The rather positive attitude towards gentrification in this study can be explained by the special context of the case.
Index
Introduction ... 5
Social relevance ... 6
Scientific relevance ... 6
Research aim ... 6
Chapter 1. Theoretical framework ... 8
1.1. Gentrification ... 8
1.2. State-led gentrification ... 8
1.3. Sustainable development ... 9
1.4. Green Gentrification ... 10
1.5. Sense of belonging ... 11
1.6. Definition of the concepts ... 12
1.6.1. Green Gentrification ... 12
1.6.2. Sense of belonging ... 12
Chapter 2. Research Design and Methodology ... 13
2.1. Qualitative Research ... 13
2.2. Research Design ... 14
2.3. Methods ... 14
2.4. Conceptual model ... 15
2.5. Analysis Methods ... 16
Chapter 3. Rotterdam’s Dakpark... 17
3.1. The welfare state ... 17
3.2. Case relevance ... 17
3.3. Conclusion ... 20
Chapter 4. Analyses ... 21
4.1. Long-time residents’ perception on green gentrification ... 21
4.2. Long-time residents’ social belonging ... 24
4.3. Hard geographical belonging... 25
4.4. Soft geographical belonging ... 27
4.5. Conclusion ... 29
Chapter 5. Conclusion, Discussion and Recommendations ... 30
5.1. Conclusion and Recommendations ... 30
5.2. Discussion ... 32
References... 33
Appendix I : Item list interviews ... 36
Appendix II : Network of Atlas.ti codes ... 37
Introduction
Within the climate agreement of Paris (2015) 196 nations found a common base to undertake ambitious efforts to fight climate change and to adapt to its effects. Since then the term of sustainability gained great attention. It seems that sustainable development has become the answer of every government to counteract climate change. As part of a transition to a more sustainable form of the urban, cities around the world call for urban environmental improvements. Under multiple of these calls there is also a call for additional green space (Pearsall, 2018). It is clear that ecosystem services provided by urban green space provide numerous health, social and ecological benefits (Anguelovski et al., 2018). What we saw the last years was that the concept of sustainable development was used for the branding of cities and thereby increasing international promotion of a city. Greening and economic development have become increasingly coupled as more and more cities have embraced sustainability and sustainable development as a key component of economic growth plans (Pearsall, 2018). Through urban green transformations cities compete for a the most attractive city (Anguelovski, 2018). The new green orthodoxy gained global reach as its combines redevelopment and urban sustainability strategies and thereby creating new green flagships (Anguelovski, 2018).
However municipalities can campaign sustainable interventions under supposedly science driven agendas like ‘greening’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘climate adaptation’ which can create socio-spatial inequalities (Anguelovski, 2018). Perspectives on the relationship between urban greening and gentrification have expanded since the initial empirical studies of pollution remediation in the 2000s (Pearsall, 2018). The construction or renovation of green spaces potentially make the neighbourhood more attractive and more expensive. Thereby wealthier groups could replace existing residents and thus gentrify the neighbourhood (Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). In sum, the intended purposes of urban green spaces as climate adaptations and improvement of public space for some may be accompanied by less desired effects like the social displacement of the original residents.
In that sense, the process of sustainable development finds parallels with gentrification: the advantages are mainly environmentally, while the disadvantages are rather social in nature. The concept ecological gentrification, or how it is often called ‘Green Gentrification’ combines assumption of gentrification with concerns about sustainable development. Supporting the idea that changes in the built environment influence residential exclusion or displacement as much as green spaces (Anguelovski, 2018).
The concept of green gentrification will be central to this research. It is what Dooling (2009) defines as the implementation of an environmental planning agenda related to public green spaces that leads to the displacement or exclusion of the economically vulnerable population. This means a physical upgrade of any environmental amenity facilitated by a political process (Checker, 2011). Underlying this frame of green gentrification there is the struggle of planning for a sustainable city versus planning an affordable city. The displacement described by green gentrification can be both, physical as well as psychological. Changes in the built environment can affect the connection between residents and their neighbourhood. This concept has been highlighted by several authors and fits within what they describe as feelings of belonging and the loss of them. (Antonsich, 2010; Pinkster 2016).
Social relevance
For whom are green spaces and can only middle class residents ‘be green’ in the long term? As argued above green spaces tend to have unequal outcomes by displacing the most economically vulnerable residents. This reality requires a critical examination of practices around urban greening and its consequences (Anguelovski, 2016). It is interesting to look at this phenomenon because it is also thought to mitigate towards climate change and an important step towards a sustainable city. As sea levels are rising, weathers of any sort become more extreme and cities turn into urban heat islands, processes of climate mitigation and adaptation will only gain more attention (Boezeman, 2015). Several cities in the Netherlands implemented those strategies within their spatial planning documents under the name of sustainable development. Yet there is only little understanding of the mechanisms of gentrification that come with it. Processes of greening often find justification within the sustainability paradigm, where under technical and science driven agendas such as ‘resilience’ and ‘adaptation’ municipalities can promote greening interventions (Anguelovski, 2015). This represents a way in which urban sustainability efforts can produce gentrification, resulting in the displacement of the most vulnerable groups. Gentrification here can easily be measured in the physical displacement and thus more easily been tackled by policies. However the psychological displacement is rather hard to measure and thus harder to be addressed by polices. The sense of belonging of those residents may be used as such a measurement of the psychological displacement. Thus, as municipalities advocate sustainable development, there is a high chance of creating new socio-spatial inequalities. (Anguelovski, 2015). Hence, research is needed on how to successfully implement sustainable developments while at the same time preventing its negative effects. Scientific relevance
Examples representing green gentrification greatly refer to cases in North America. Recently more there has been an increase of such studies in Europe. However most of those studies are of quantitative nature (Anguelovski, 2015) or out of the perspective of the gentrifies and thus leaving a gap of the perception of the non-gentrifies (Slater, 2006). In discussions about gentrification, the theme is often boiled down into discrete categories of winners and losers. Consequently also academic debates tend to focus on either on the gentrifier or the displaced (Doucet & Koenders, 2018). What is missing is research into the lived experience of gentrification and perspectives from those living and engaging with it (Doucet & Koenders, 2018). Also, research has been done on how gentrification in general affect the feeling of belonging of residents (Pinkster 2016, Palmboom, 2015). However the perceptions of residents on new green spaces are missing in these narratives. In the Netherlands there has been done little research on to neighbourhood effects of new green facilities. Due to strong tenant protection and great awareness and appreciation of green in the Netherlands, this form of gentrification may even improve residents’ sense of belonging: In that way the case offers an insight into a possible positive form of gentrification.
Research aim
This research therefore aims to study the effects of new urban green space on the sense of belonging of long-time residents: Doing so in order to understand how new urban green spaces can influence or contribute to the displacement of long-time residents, described by green gentrification. The research aims to answer the question:
Reading guide
This thesis starts in chapter 1. with the theoretical framework to the research. The chapter is written on the basis of scientific literature relevant for this research. Thereby it is supposed to serve as a framework for the research to be carried out in. The description of each relevant topic is then trickled down to the definition of each concept used in this research.
The second chapter contains an explanation of the research design and methodology to this thesis. It includes the chosen research strategy, research methods and analysis methods. It represents the accountability of the research. In this case it was chosen for a qualitative case study of a neighbourhood, whereby long-time residents of this neighbourhood were interviewed.
In the third chapter the actual case of this case study is discussed, starting with a brief description of the Dutch context, followed by a description of the city, neighbourhood and the park. Municipality documents were used as data in order to get a full understanding of the context. After the context of the case, the case relevance is established and will explain why it is important to carry out research on this case.
In chapter 4. the data gained through the interviews is analysed on the basis of the conceptual model and the sub-questions. Every defined concept of chapter 1 will be analysed in an one paragraph, followed by a brief summary of all categories.
In the last chapter (chapter 5) the results of chapter 4 are brought into a conclusion and recommendations. Furthermore, there is an discussion in which will be reflected on the strengthens and weaknesses of this research and possible recommendations for further research. In the references the following things can be found: an item list used during the interviews (Appendix I), a figure of the codes and networks between them, used during the analysis with ATLAS.ti (Appendix II) and table of the characteristics of the respondents (Appendix III).
Chapter 1. Theoretical framework
In this chapter a theoretical framework is established on the basis of existing literature. To understand the main concepts and processes of this research there will be a short explanation of each. Starting in 1.1. with a closer look to gentrification in general in order to understand its main dimensions. It becomes clear that gentrification is not something new. Second of all in 1.2. there will be a brief discussion about the involvement of the state in gentrification and a definition of what then can be called state-led gentrification. In 1.3. attention is payed to sustainability and sustainable developments, which related to climate change are an increasing component of city planning. Together those to processes of gentrification and sustainable development find each other in dilemma, as sustainability plans are often accompanies by gentrification. Therefore, in 1.4. the process of green gentrification will be closely defined. This process then has influence of residents sense of belonging as in 1.5. will ben elaborated. 1.1. Gentrification
The process of gentrification causes changes in the urban fabric of cities on different dimensions. These changes can be physically as well as socially. On a social level one can feel less connected with the neighbourhood. On a physical level the neighbourhood can get a lift through for example renovations (Smith, 2002). Hackworth (2002) defines gentrification as the production of space for increasingly prosperous residents. For Glass (1964) Gentrification is the process class succession and displacement whereby working-class areas are being infiltrated by new middle-class residents. Through the upgrade of housing and the increase of prices, working-class residents consequently will be displaced. When lower income classes in a neighbourhood are replaced by residents of higher classes the neighbourhood changes socioeconomically (Atkinson, 2012). Generally the talk of gentrification consist of two important features that are agreed on. The first is a class-income colonization and migration by the affluent to cheaper residential neighbourhoods, and second, a reinvestment in the physical housing stock. (Atkinson, 2012). Thus, the process includes changes in the social composition and an increase in house prizes. Furthermore, new facilities can take the place of activities that previously mainly met the needs of the old resident.
However, gentrification is not only visible in private spaces. When public space is privatized, improved or regulated to increase quality and to avert certain groups, those transformations meet the desires of middle-class gentrifies and thus are part of gentrification (Karsten, 2014).
1.2. State-led gentrification
Gentrification does not occur naturally, it is often part of a wider approach to upgrade neighbourhoods (Doucet & Koenders, 2018). As the process of gentrification is the spatial expression of class differences it must be seen as a deeply political process (Smith, 1996). Atkinson (2003) argues that gentrification has become a strategy of regeneration to governments. These regeneration strategies often are based on social mixing with a focus on higher income classes. When local governments act as drivers of these transformations of urban space, this can be called state-led gentrification (Hoekstra et al, 2018). It reflects a dynamic trialectic of state, class and urban space (Hackworth & Smith, 2001). It is what Hackworth and Smith’s (2001) call the third wave gentrification. A phase of involvement of large scale actors such as private developers, governments or housing associations, in financially riskier neighbourhoods further away from the city centre accompanied by a decline in resistance.
Government-driven gentrification in European city districts are often conceptualized as top-down processes where the state physically intervenes in the built and social environment (Hoekstra et al., 2018). Physical intervention represents one way in which governments stimulate gentrification. Another, more recent approach, is inspired by Florida (2005) and his concept of the creative class. Hereby governments use consumption, culture and creativity to make neighbourhoods more attractive to middle-income residents. Spatially this can happen through interventions in the shopping offer and local amenities (Hoekstra et al., 20018). Around the world these policies become more ingrained and central to urban policy which confronts residents with what Slater (2014a) calls ‘false choice urbanism’. It describes a process whereby gentrification is presented as a necessary and only option to stem neighbourhood decline. In the Netherlands gentrification is mostly driven by urban policies called social mixing and urban restructuring. For the last decades that meant large-scale demolition of low-income neighbourhoods and replacement with mixed tenure neighbourhoods with strong emphasis on owner-occupies apartments (Van Gent, 2013). But spurring gentrification may also take place in the way Hoekstra et al. (2018) inspired by Florida (2005) describes. As being green and being sustainable becomes ‘in vogue’ the next way cities will compete by marketing themselves as green (Pearsall, 2018). In this way cities can attract middle-income classes by reacting to their consumption wishes of green.
1.3. Sustainable development
In 1988, in a report called Our Common Future, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) introduced sustainable development on to an international political agenda. Within that report is was defined as: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). EU documents on sustainable development strategies (Europeans Commission, 2015) argue for those strategies to have multiple benefits including social cohesion and solutions to various societal challenges. The report highlights the subject of social inclusiveness, referring to the cumulative social benefits created and supported in cities. From a mainstream perception changes towards a more sustainable city are thought to be equally beneficial to all residents in a city. Thus as green is beneficial to everyone due to health improvement etc. it cannot be injustice. (Pearsall, 2018). It is clear that ecosystem services provided by urban green space provide numerous health, social and ecological benefits (Anguelovski et al., 2018). Firstly, in terms of ecological benefits, green spaces increase biodiversity, improve water absorption and reduce the urban heat island effect (Anguelovski et al., 2018). Secondly, green spaces contribute to the public health of urban populations (Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014) by encouraging active lifestyles and reducing rates of disease associated with air pollution (Anguelovski et al., 2018). Thirdly, green paces may lead to stronger social connections among the residents and organizations, by creating a meeting point for personal and regular interactions (Conolly et al., 2013). Last, green space might strengthen the identity of an area by making it an attractive and desirable place to work, live and visit (Anguelovski, 2015).
However, due to the vagueness of this definition multiple other goals are actually being pursued under the name of sustainability. Adams (2009) argues that the use in different discourses ensures that sustainability as a concept is fairly freely interpretable and can therefore be misused. The space in interpretation leads to the neglection of the social side of sustainable development (Lehtonen, 2004). Checker (2011) refers to what he calls eco-elitism. Promoting a green and ecologically responsible lifestyle has been exploited through marketing for expensive products, which has led to sustainability being used as a means of exclusion by the elite (Checker, 2011).
The sustainability paradigm emphasizes the natural science idea of ecology and its power of motivating urban greening. Public green areas within urban environments are thought to ameliorate negative impacts of urbanization (Dooling, 2009). By coupling sustainability with gentrification one challenges the assumption that urban green spaces produces benefits that are universally distributed by all residents (Dooling, 2009). The dilemma of urban greening and sustainability is that urban environmental changes that often are key of urban sustainability plans are mostly accompanied by gentrification (Pearsall, 2018). While the concept of sustainable development is greatly a positive one, the vagueness of the terms allows policymakers to promote policies with less positive intended outcomes.
1.4. Green Gentrification
From a supply-side perception, green gentrification arises out of an environmental rent gap. This gap arises as pollution in air, soil and water makes a place less attractive to residents and thereby depresses property values. Once removed not only property values rebound, but there also will be an increase in the mean household income and percentage of college-educated residents (Pearsall, 2018). However, supply-side perspectives may not provide an adequate explanation of this phenomenon. As policymakers respond to consumption patterns of the middleclass to make places more attractive, and as being green becomes a trend, this reflects a more demand-sided perception of green gentrification (Pearsall, 2018).
Under the agenda of sustainability and environmental planning, urban greening immediately becomes associated with ‘being good’. Dooling (2009) argues that the implementation of environmental planning related to pubic green space produces a suite of social outcomes, including displacement and exclusion of the most vulnerable individuals, while advocating an environmental ethic. In consequence green gentrification becomes a provocative term, highlighting the contradictions between an ecological rationality and the production of injustices for economically vulnerable people (Dooling, 2009).
Green gentrification also highlights the fact that residential exclusion and displacement is as much influenced by changes in the built environment as by a number of parks (Anguelovski, 2018). It is what Wolch, Byrne, & Newell (2014) call the urban greening paradox. Here the addition of green space in underserved neighbourhoods leads to an increase in the cost of living which can ultimately displace or exclude long-time residents. When the construction or renovation of environmental amenities in an area causes the influx of wealthier occupiers at the cost of pushing out lower-income residents, this process can generally be understood as green gentrification. Put differently, the processes of greening that lead to gentrification (Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). When green spaces are physically upgraded the neighbourhood may become more attractive and thus costly to live in. Hence, as green spaces make neighbourhoods more desirable for potential residents and real estate development, they will eventually contribute to the increase of property values and thus to green gentrification (Anguelovski, 2018). Doing so, urban greening interventions increasingly create new dynamics of exclusion, displacement and segregation (Anguelovski, 2018). Furthermore, green spaces then may be conceived of as tools of economic development (Dooling, 2009). Consequently green gentrification can be thought of as a combined process of land revaluation, greening and displacement. (Anguelovski, 2018). In a sense, green amenities become locally unwanted land uses, as socially vulnerable residents face a green space paradox, where they become excluded from new green spaces intended for them (Anguelovski, 2018).
According to recent research, combined strategies of environmental clean-up, land restoration and green space creation are increasingly remaking urban neighbourhoods in favour of wealthier residents (Checker, 2011; Dooling, 2009). Indeed, many greening projects fail to consider the social vulnerability of residents to displacement (Checker, 2011). Thus, urban greening is increasingly framed as a path towards a technological and ecological utopia, while the approach often avoids considering core urban issues, such as inequalities, social hierarchies and environmental privilege (Anguelovski, 2018).
1.5. Sense of belonging
Green gentrification implies that residential exclusion and displacement is much influenced by the construction or renovation of green public spaces. Displacement, however, is a problematic subject given debates about constitutes displacement itself (Atkinson, 2000). Furthermore, displacement and its broad definition opens the subject for multiple interpretations. Scholars studying place-based displacement of lower class residents in gentrifying neighbourhoods, show that especially long-time residents may experience some sort of alienation from their residential surrounding. This is the result of an increasing mismatch between neighbourhood identity and their own identity, where long-time residents end up feeling out of place in their own neighbourhood (Davidson, 2009). However, while displacement is central to the definition of green gentrification, not all residents are displaced in all contexts (Doucet & Koenders, 2018). Studies of different researchers shows that the majority of residents, that are living through the process of gentrification in fact felt that the neighbourhood was improving and that those changes were perceived as something good (Sullivan, 2006). Or that residents at least have dualistic views on the process. In which on the one hand residents appreciate that the neighbourhood becomes safer and they get better quality amenities, while at the same time also seeing negatives (Freeman, 2006). Concluding these findings, the perceptions of residents might not be as binary, divisions between gentrifiers and non-gentrifiers are not experienced as starkly as it is often portrayed by literature (Ernst & Doucet, 2014). Thus, experiences with gentrification can not only be positive or negative but nuanced and complex.
This research will focus on the sense of belonging as a way to measure displacement at the neighbourhood scale. Research of Pinkster (2016) shows that material, social or institutional change in a neighbourhood can produce changes in the feeling of belonging of residents. Belonging has various forms and is linked to the concept of place-belonging in geography. Antonsich (2010) describes this concept as a personal, intimate feeling or as 'being at home'. Doing neighbourhood refers to the way in which everyday routine is embedded in the neighbourhood. Neighbourhood belonging then is expressed through individual and collective practices in the neighbourhood (Benson & Jackson, 2013). It is often assumed that that belonging and attachment to neighbourhoods is a positive experience, that grows over time (Pinkster, 2016). Therefore ties between residents and their residential surrounding, over time, are supposed to only increase. Residents often feel safer and more home within their neighbourhood. This can be linked to the concept of geographical belonging (Pinkster, 2016). Antonsich (2010) referrers to this feeling at home as territorial belonging or place-belonging. Literature suggests that in early stages of ‘upgrading’ described by gentrification, the process can be welcomed by a wide variety of residents, including gentrifiers and non-gentrifiers (Ernst & Doucet, 2014). Several reasons can be applicable to this. Often mentioned are new services and the improvement of basic services in the neighbourhood. Studies show that the arrival of these types of businesses are contributing to the positive experience of gentrification by the non-gentrifiers. Thus, gentrification contributes to a more optimistic outlook about the neighbourhood. (Ernst & Doucet, 2014).
However, Pinkster (2016) also argues that this view might be too optimistic. When neighbourhoods change, as a result of social, political or economic processes, residents’ relationship to them may as well (Pinkster, 2016). Thus, feeling of belonging may also decrease due to neighbourhood changes. Madden (2014) explains this by the definition of neighbourhoods as ‘spatial projects’ which are produced through interventions of various actors and institutions. Therefore, as these actions do not reflect the interests and needs of the residents, it may become difficult for them to use the neighbourhood as they were used to. In turn, this can undermine their sense of belonging (Madden, 2014).
Neighbourhood belonging however is more than just the social meaning of place. It can also be related to environmental attributes. Therefore, changes in residents’ feelings can be divided in social aspects of neighbourhood changes, including the inflow of new residents, and geographical aspects, related to the natural and built environment (Palmboom, 2015; Pinkster, 2016). The social dimension of belongingness contains a sense of connectedness to others, significant contacts and social-cultural groups. The geographic dimension of belonging is the sense of connectedness to a location (Palmboom, 2015).
1.6. Definition of the concepts
1.6.1. Green Gentrification
Green gentrification in this research is understood as the construction or renovation of green public amenities, under a sustainability agenda, in an area which causes the influx of wealthier occupiers at the cost of the psychological displacement of long-time residents (Anguelovski, 2018; Dooling, 2009; Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014).
Green gentrification can therefore be measured by: -‐ Reinvestment in / New green spaces
-‐ Inflow of new affluent people -‐ Change in housing stock
1.6.2. Sense of belonging
The sense of belonging in a neighbourhood consists as much of social belonging as of geographical belonging experienced by a group of people. The two can also be interrelated. In this case social belonging referrers to the connectedness to other in the neighbourhood (Palmboom, 2015). Geographical belonging relates to connectedness to the neighbourhood as a place (Antonsich, 2010). Geographical belonging can also be divided in direct hard impacts (as the pure physical quality and everyday use of the green) and indirect soft impacts (as the feeling of being in space in the green). These two are rooted in and greatly related to each other but for the research separated.
Social belonging can therefore be measured by:
-‐ Connectedness to neighbours (Relations & networks with neighbours) -‐ Recognition in green space
Geographical belonging can therefore be measured by: -‐ Direct hard impacts
o Everyday use green space
o Awareness and appreciation of green space -‐ Indirect soft impacts
o Connectedness to green space o Feelings of safety in green space o Feelings of home in green space
Chapter 2. Research Design and Methodology
Scholars have shown that residential exclusion and displacement is as much influenced by changes in the built environment as by a number of parks (Anguelovski, 2018). Research also showed a relation between neighbourhood changes and residents feelings of belonging (Pinkster, 2016). As in the current context literature production on this topic is increasing, this research will search for links between the production of new green public spaces and the feelings of belonging in a neighbourhood. In this chapter the methodological choices of this research will be justified. In 2.1. it will be explained why qualitative research is the best fit to this study. Followed up by a description of the research design and its research units in 2.2. In paragraph 2.3. methods of data collection will be discussed and in 2.4. the analyse of those. Finally in 2.4. the conceptual model to the research can be found.
2.1. Qualitative Research
Because of its inductive approach and its aim to explore socially constructed processes of green gentrification and feelings of belonging this research needs to be accessed throughout a qualitative research strategy (Bryman, 2012). Qualitative research examines how people make the social world with interpretative methods. This research aim is to dig deeper and give meaning to how people make the social world and how they organize their built surrounding (Bryman, 2012). As in this this case its aims to give meaning to the way in which residents experience their belonging. The research will explore urban processes form an individual, actors perspective. That is because of the main focus of the perception of individuals into the lived experience of green gentrification.
Qualitative research is ontology as it is constructionism in the sense that social objects are tangible and social actors are independent of rules, organization or value but recognize those (Bryman, 2012). Meaning that the social world is fundamentally different than the natural world. Thereby, daily interaction creates order (power relationship and trust). Qualitative research is epistemology as it is interpretivism. Meaning that people continuously interpret their world and as a consequence act based on their interpretations. Knowledge on the social world thus tries to understand peoples interpretation (Bryman, 2012). Therefore, this research is qualitative as its recognizes that daily interaction creates order and thus feeling of belonging and as it tries to understand residents interpretations of belonging.
Aiming to go further than only explaining a case this research wants to build a knowledge on what is going on. Therefore, this research intermediates between a descriptive and a testing research. It aims to provide data from which a hypothesis can be formulated or developed (Baarda & de Goede, 1994). The starting point of the research is built on ideas, from other authors, about possible connections between new green spaces neighbourhood change and sense of belonging. Because of the characteristics and aims of this research, a how-question was chosen. This reflects the explorative character of the research. According to Yin (2009) case studies are preferred when how-questions are asked and when the focus lies on a contemporary problem.
2.2. Research Design
This research will employ a case study. It entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman, 2012). It is concerned about the complexity and particular nature of one case and thereby clarifying its unique features (Bryman, 2012). This design was chosen because it allows empirical research to be carried out on a social phenomenon that takes place in society, which thereafter will be closely examined (Yin, 2009). Using a case study gives the opportunity to gather rich data on a case. This data will provide an in-depth view of the relation between new public green space and long-time residents’ sense of belonging. It reveals the perception of a social phenomenon out of the view of a certain group. Deepening in one specific case can provide a valuable new approaches. The argumentation of respondents in a case can lead to more understanding of the processes, when meaning is given to larger theories.
A case study also scores high on its ecological validity, which entails researching the real world (Bryman, 20129. Through its in depth view on the case in question it is ensured that the real world is researched. Furthermore, by going in depth through questions the measurement validity can increase (Bryman, 2012).
Based on the local context, the initial observations and the additional literature study, the case of Bospolder Tussendijken could be classified as a typical case of green gentrification. The key data shows multiple similarities with cases like the High Line park in New York, where new green development was increasing gentrification. It would be what Bryman (2012) defines as a representative case. The case of the Dakpark Rotterdam is chosen because it exemplifies a broader category of which it is a member (Bryman, 2012). Thereby it provides a suitable context for the research question to be answered by examining key social processes (Bryman, 2012).
This research will be based on small n sample. That is because of its qualitative nature. Whereby the focus lays on in rich data of respondents and therefore it is not the quantity but the quality of data that is important. Consequently this research uses one kind of research units. Those will be long-time residents of the neighbourhood. More specific, residents that have lived in the neighbourhood for longer that 10 years as the park opened in 2013. Which means that the respondents lived there 5years before the park came and 5 years since the park opened. Therefore they potentially collected feelings of belonging before the park came and feeling of belong since the opening of the park. Thus as the research units are long-time residents, the phenomenon to be investigated are the feelings of belonging of the units in question.
2.3. Methods
Because the focus of this research lays on the feelings of belonging of residents, their feeling and perceptions are key to create understanding. Their personal thoughts on the new green space and their belonging can only be reached through interviews. Therefore, qualitative interviews are used to get intensive and detailed data. These interviews will be semi-structured. Advantages of this type of interview are that it puts the focus on the interviewee’s point of view whereby it allows for detailed and rich data of the respondents due to its flexible nature. But at the same time a list of questions is used to give the interviews somewhat of a similar course (Bryman, 2012). Thus while a range of subjects and questions is used to guide the interview, it still offers enough space for the interviewee to discuss his or her perspective on the issue. In that way the interviews provide insight to what the residents themselves regard as relevant and important. Since belonging often is an ambiguous phenomenon in the daily life of an individual, in-depth-questions within an semi structured interview will guide the respondents in reflecting in their daily experience of belonging.
For this research 10 semi structured interviews were taken. Those interviews were held following a list of subjects and question which can be found in the first Appendix. The interviewees needed were found in several ways. First of all, several visits of the area took place, whereby people on the street and in the park were contacted. Second of all a visit to the local ‘green group’ took place. This is a club of volunteers who maintain the park. Furthermore they have a small vegetable garden in the park where they started several inclusionary projects with other neighbours. By contacting the first interviewees some sort of snowball system occurred. More interviewees were found by contacts received from the ‘green group’ and by several interviewees in the park. In that way it was possible to contact different groups, reprehensive of the social composition of the neighbourhood. Some of the residents were quite active in the neighbourhood and in the park, others were less active but still users of the park. The respondents came from a variety of backgrounds. Five of them were Dutch, 2 of them were Turkish, one was Italian, one Moroccan and one Surinam. The sample does show a greater percentage of Dutch respondents.
The interviews taken, lasted for about 30 to 45 minutes depending on the language skills. The interviews often took place in the park or in an environment chosen by the respondents. The interviewees were informed that their responses would be anonym.
2.4. Conceptual model
The conceptual model shows how green gentrification can influence long-time residents’ sense of belonging. As the connection between these two is influenced by different components a division on the basis of the definition given by the sense of belonging takes place. Showing that residents’ sense of belonging is influenced by green gentrification through firstly, the geographical belonging. This the includes direct hard impacts. Referring to the awareness and appreciation of the new present green space. Furthermore, it includes the indirect soft impact, like residents’ connectedness and feeling of home. Secondly it can be influenced by the social belonging of residents. Which is referring to the connectedness in the neighbourhood.
Gr
ee
n
Ge
nt
ri
fi
ca
ti
on
geographical
hard impacts
soft impacts
social
Se
ns
e
of
B
el
on
gi
ng
2 1 3
The conceptual model is the used to established sub questions in order to answer the main research question:
How does new public green space influences the sense of belonging of long-time residents?
The following sub questions need to be answered:
1. How do long-time residents experience the presence (the direct hard impacts) of new green public space?
2. How does this affect long-time residents’ indirect soft geographical belonging? 3. How does this affect long-time residents’ social belonging?
2.5. Analysis Methods
In order to structure and conveniently analyse the data a thematic analysis will be used. According to Bryman (2012) a thematic analysis can help to establish which ideas and subjects occur mostly in the interviews. The data collected from the interviews was analysed using the computer-assisted qualitative analysis software program ATLAS.ti. Qualitative information can then be sorted and effectively requested. Using this analysis, codes are made referring to one subject which later can be interpreted. Some codes were partly made before analysing the data, based on the interview questions. As in the beginning it was not clear which subjects might be most relevant and in order to prevent an incomplete analysis codes were also be added to the list after the interviews based on the respondents’ answers. In that way often returning themes are not ignored. Experiences that had not been included in the interview questions can still be used in the analysis of the data. To make sufficient use of this program, codes will be assigned to every transcript of the interviews. This tool will help to retrieve data as it is grouping answers on the basis of similar codes.
Chapter 3. Rotterdam’s Dakpark
This chapter will provide a brief overview about the context of the research area. In 3.1. there will be an explanation about the welfare state and its possible influences on the outcome of the research. After that in 3.2. the relevance of the case will be established and it will be described as to what reason this case was chosen. This mostly will happen by analysing documents and plans form the municipality. Also included will be a description of the case and a brief summary as to why this case can be connected to green gentrification.
3.1. The welfare state
This research will be carried out in Rotterdam. The Netherlands in general are an interesting subject for this kind of studies because of strong tenant protection laws, due to the welfare state. Social housing was a crucial part of the development of the welfare state as the most important housing agencies became the subject of public regulation (Aalbers, 2011). Since then housing associations play an important role in urban renewal and revitalisations programs in the Netherlands. Gentrification then also has been far more state-led than in other countries. Local governments and housing associations take key roles in the realisation of gentrification (Ernst & Doucet, 2014). In the Dutch context gentrification is rather seen as a top-down, government led process than a demand-driven process originating from middle-class households (Ernst & Doucet, 2014). While gentrification may be going on for some time in an area, most of these gentrified neighbourhoods retain a certain amount of social and housing mix. Therefore, in comparison with Anglo-Saxon countries, residents are not expected to experience the same displacement pressure (Doucet & Koenders, 2018). ‘Because of the Dutch welfare state
tradition, the poor are generally less poor.’ (Aalbers 2011, p.1706).
State-led gentrification in the Netherlands is prolific. However, scholars have found that the effects are milder in nature when compared to Anglo-Saxon countries. This is largely related specifically to the managed and planned nature of Dutch gentrification and more generally to urban development (Doucet & Koenders, 2018). This means that due to strict housing regulations, the chance of becoming homeless as a result of gentrification is way smaller. More specific, those who might be displaced by it will be rehoused in the neighbourhood or elsewhere in the city (Doucet & Koenders, 2018). Nevertheless, Ernst & Doucet (2014) argue that from a historical perspective, a marked shift in policy has taken place, away from social justice towards more market-driven solutions.
3.2. Case relevance
In the last years, especially Rotterdam has implemented multiple greater urban regeneration projects. The city wants to weaken its image of a dirty, unhealthy city. One of the projects within this framework is the new Dakpark in the neighbourhood of Bospolder Tussendijken. The spatial task is substantively based on the need for more qualitatively valuable outdoor space for the residents of the adjacent urban neighbourhoods (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2008). In these neighbourhoods is visible that gentrification is actively taking place, due the municipality’s policy to gentrify several low-income neighbourhoods.
‘What is needed to realize living environments that prevent selective migration? […] Promote
gentrification in the neighbourhoods around the centre.’ (Gemeente Rotterdam 2007, p.63). 1
Doing so by demolishing older, social rented housing and their replacement by new, owner-occupied dwellings or market rent apartments (Doucet, 2018).
‘The decrease in cheap stock takes shape on the one hand by demanding more market-based rents, provided the quality and location allow this. On the other hand, by merging homes, major renovations or demolishing. This is based on home quality and desired differentiation of the stock at the neighborhood level.’ (Gemeente Rotterdam 2016,
p.16).
Rotterdam aims to combine approaches to environment and spatial development in a creative way (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007). Doing so in order to keep and attract new young families (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007). The city’s main target groups are highly educated, creative workers of middle and high incomes (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007). The vision of the city entails clear formulated interventions to promote gentrification. The aim is to increase gentrification which leads to the transformation of neighbourhoods into more quiet urban living environments. According to the city, public outdoor spaces are one of the drivers to promote gentrification (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007).
‘By selling rental homes, making private home improvement attractive to homeowners,
improving the outdoor space and offering space to the hospitality industry and the creative economy in the old city districts, we stimulate the process of gentrification.’
(Gemeente Rotterdam 2007, p.70).
The public space functions as an accelerator to spatial developments. To improve the city’s’ image, Rotterdam wants to improve the quality of public spaces such as parks. Doing so by mainly using materials of a more sustainable and unambiguous quality (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007).
In the district, of Bospolder Tussendijken, restructuring is taking place on a large scale. Old town houses have been demolished and are being replaced by new construction of land-based homes and apartments. The Housing vision (Woonvisie) of Rotterdam plans to continue the development and restructuring in Bospolder. ‘[…] the addition in the middle and high segment, gets form through new construction at restructuring locations. With the new-build program we focus on adding high-quality homes in various living environments that meet the needs of (future) Rotterdam residents.’ (Gemeente Rotterdam., 2016).
The roof park falls under the restructuring of the entire Vierhavenstraat street and the so-called Parklane. The park is located on the top of a large elongated building (the Strip). The city promotes the park to be one for the whole city, and one that benefits the residents of the Bospolder Tussendijken due to its size and high-quality interior (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2008). The outdoor area of the district will be extended by the large (roof) park with a total surface of approximately 7 hectares, whereby the quality of living in Bospolder Tussendijken is visibly improved by this (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2008). The park is located in the centre of the city near to Delfshaven and between the Marconiplein and the Hudsonplein. Its length includes about 1,200 meters, 85meters wide and largely 9 meters height. The Strip and thus the park are built on an old railway yard. The track has only been used sporadically in recent years and the decision has recently been taken to remove the railway yard (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2008).
Figure 1: A map of the park and the district of Bospolder Tussendijken. Source: https://www.nieuwbouwthehudsons.nl/locatie/de-wijk
As to the definition of green gentrification Rotterdam greatly meets the definitions of this concepts by promoting the construction of a park under a sustainable agenda which aims to attract new wealthier residents. Rotterdam even openly describes their aims to promote gentrification by the improvement of green public spaces. The interesting point here is to look on how this gentrification influences feeling of displacement of the long-time residents in the neighbourhood. And to what extent this relates to what is described by literature on green gentrification.
Furthermore, the case of Rotterdam’s Dakpark shows a lot of similarities with the High Line Park in New York. The city also transformed a former elevated train line spur into a linear urban park . The park nowadays has become one of the most popular destinations in the city, visited by five million people each year and often promoted as a pioneer of urban design (Anguelovski, 2018). However, statistics show that the property values near the High Line increased by 103% within less than 10 years (Anguelovski, 2018). One might raise the question about who then really has access to the park. Thus this ‘green transformation’ has increased the displacement of local residents rather than creating an inclusive public green space.
Through the rehabilitation of older, typically low-income areas, by making them more liveable and attractive, urban green projects can set off gentrification. This in fact can dramatically alter housing opportunities for lower income community (Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). Thus here too, sustainable approaches have paradoxical results. This paradoxical effect has been variously termed green gentrification.
3.3. Conclusion
Therefore it is interesting to look at Rotterdam’s dakpark. Firstly because it fits into what this research defines as green gentrification. Secondly it shows multiple similarities to the project of the High Line, which is proved to create green gentrification. Thirdly, because this park is design in corporation with residents of Rotterdam and thus might lead to different outcomes. Fourthly, residents in the Netherlands may experience different outcomes, due to the influence and securities of the welfare state. In sum, this case provides an interesting insight in how residents might or might not feel displaced by such urban green project.
Chapter 4. Analyses
In this section, the data acquired by the interviews will be analysed in order to answer the research question of this paper. Therefore thy analyse will start by examining the perception of residents on green gentrification in 4.1. Following the conceptual model the social belonging of the residents will be presented in 4.2. After that the geographical belonging will be analysed. This will be divided in the hard (4.3.) and soft (4.4.) geographical belonging. All quotes in this chapter are translated from Dutch into English by the author.
4.1. Long-time residents’ perception on green gentrification
According to the interviews, long-term residents clearly experience neighbourhood changes related to gentrification and possible green gentrification in the neighbourhood. Nearly every respondent noted the demolishing of old buildings (mostly social renting) and their replacement by new dwellings, mostly to buy. It is one of the most prominent ways through which residents experienced gentrification. Most of the respondents described how bad the neighbourhood has been in the past, connected to high rates of poverty, crime and vacancy.
‘This was a poverty district that was on the wrong end of all lists of drug use, illegal living, crime, education level, schools, all at the top of the wrong end.’
Many respondents reflected quite negative about the neighbourhoods’ past. It was often mentioned that a lot of drug dealers and junks were present and that these groups used to occupied the empty buildings, having ‘wild’ party’s. In the view of the residents this caused a lot of nuisance and feelings of low safety. According to one respondent, 20 ago the municipality started a ‘clearance ‘ of the neighbourhood. Together with police and the GGD, the municipality cleared the neighbourhood of any criminal and illegal activities. Doing so by demolishing vacant and occupied dwellings. Most of these building were either renovated or demolished and replaced by new constructions. It was thought that by removing these old buildings, the composition of the neighbourhood can be turned towards one with less crime.
‘At that time, the municipality actually closed almost all garages because there were
garages everywhere. And they have either demolished or made houses of it. So a huge amount has happened to say that this neighbourhood actually cuts all the bad hands out of it.’
One respondent mentioned that he felt that the last time problems were not only recognized but that actions towards these problems were taken by the municipality. He felt that since then the neighbourhood became more liveable.
‘The neighbourhood is becoming more liveable, people are tackling the problems.’ These descriptions sketch how residents in the neighbourhood view and perceive gentrification in general. Most of the respondents had negative associations with the neighbourhood in the past. Through the interventions of the municipality, the demolishment and cleaning-up of the undesired residents, the quality of the neighbourhood increased, out of their view. Thus, as these processes are viewed as greatly beneficial, the attitude towards changes and gentrification seems to be of positive nature. Furthermore, even if gentrification then is associated with displacement, it contains the displacement of others, social-economically weaker. In consequence, residents do not feel threatened by new changes and might not be recognized as potentially negative.. Their perception of gentrification shows that residents associate
gentrification in the neighbourhood with improvements for themselves. Their understanding of gentrification is crucial to their understanding of the changes happening now and with the new green space.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a rather negative attitude towards the new dwellings that are built at the moment. Mainly because for them to be built, three fields used as green space, need to be removed. These fields are currently used as a playground, creative garden and community centre. Those are referred to as places of ‘wild nature’ and creative breeding grounds. Also it is the place of the community centre which organizes multiple events and offers internships for kids.
‘No, but it's just a shame that these kind of places have to go away and that again many dwellings are coming. [...] And you also lose the community centre below. Then you only have a pack park. But yes nothing can be done about it.’
Contributing to this claim of the loss of green space in exchange of buildings, residents argue that the amount of homes to rent are decreasing. They feel like everyone from Rotterdam has to actually leave the city to find a place. Arguably they even feel displaced by the apartments coming as one respondent argues:
‘So everyone from Rotterdam should actually leave Rotterdam. And then make way for all those owner-occupied homes.’
New built dwelling are getting bigger and bigger and increasingly become owner-occupied homes only. According to this respondent, there is no need for those in the neighbourhood. In fact, it is experienced that there is a deficit in rental homes for starters. Children of residents in the neighbourhood are waiting for long times and mostly are forced to look elsewhere. Multiple respondents claimed that there is no need for more owner-occupied homes, instead there is a need for more, qualitative better housing to rent. As the quality of most of the current houses is not always at its best, they would highly appreciate to be given the opportunity to move in the new dwellings. But due to the fact that these new apartments are owner-occupied homes only, there is little possibility for current residents to move up the housing latter.
Together with the change of the built environment and the neighbourhoods’ composition of rent and owner-occupied dwellings, a change in the offer of shops seems to take place. Under the clearance of the neighbourhood, mentioned above, also shops which were thought to be semi-illegal were also removed. The municipality send special teams into the neighbourhood.
‘Matters that can hardly trust the daylight that are kicked out of the neighbourhood.
And if there are 10 hairdressing salons in a street, one has the idea, that is not a bit much on a street. You know, things that aren't entirely legal after all.’
One respondent even mentioned that the changes in the neighbourhood can be associated to gentrification, justified by the new coffee places and shops that are coming. Those new shops are supposed to serve the new residents coming into the neighbourhood. As those are mostly families with higher incomes, shops also need to be of higher quality. There are thought to increase local economy.
Consequently to the new dwellings, new residents are coming into the neighbourhood. In the past the neighbourhood had been dominated by people from the bottom of social-economic status. As the neighbourhood was built when the harbour was established, al lot of the residents were workers that came from elsewhere in the Netherlands. The neighbourhood became a working-class neighbourhood. Besides that it was often mentioned that the neighbourhood is dominated by lower income residents with migration background. Still most of the residents described the neighbourhood as average and good mixed. However there is somewhat of a concern about new people moving into the neighbourhood. The demolishment of the buildings meant that most of the cheap apartments are missing. Ergo, the social economically weak bottom of people are missing as well.
’ Everything is changing. It starts with Delfshaven then with the roof park.’
This respondent includes the park as a part and thus cause of what is happening in the neighbourhood. As respondents clearly experience changes that can be associated with gentrification, to what extent is the park part of that, and thus possibly causing green gentrification. Generally the respondents experienced the park as an improvement. It was told that before the park the unused train rail was used as a hangout place and as a dog walk. This was, especially at night, experienced as dangerous. Residents told to avoid this place by night. However some respondents argued that those placed are also part of the city, because it is not constructed but established by residents claiming this place. The investment of the municipality in the park is thus greatly appreciated. However, it has been said that the municipality is also using the project as one of prestige for Rotterdam.
‘Well it certainly plays a role that it is a kind of Rotterdam prestige. The municipality and a number of services that are fluttering with the park.’
Green is certainly a subject of greater attention at the moment as multiple newspapers written about the park. But it is also advantageous for the neighbourhood. Respondents claimed that the neighbourhood was at the top of the wrong lists. The park seemed to change that. Furthermore the park seemed to stimulate the sale of the houses in the neighbourhood.
‘And also the fact that the houses there on the empty fields were sold in no time. That does say that people really want to live here, also because there is such a park here.’
In that way the park is seen as something contributing to gentrification. When asking about the meaning of the park in a bigger picture, multiple respondents noticed that the advent of the park is in relation to the plans for the MH4 project for the old harbour. Residents gave the idea that when the idea of the park was established, the municipality already had plans for the MH4 area. The park then was not only thought to contribute the neighbourhood of Bospolder Tussendijken but also further developments. Even notices were made that the neighbourhood might be too successful in attracting ‘yuppies’. The developments in the neighbourhood might be too much orientated towards the attraction of those. Concerns were raised about the expensive developments at MH4 and its influence on the park and this neighbourhood. It was noted that the park is one designed like parks in London and Paris. This design then is more coordinated with the new residents and consequently the park might be adopted by them.
4.2. Long-time residents’ social belonging
When asking the respondents about their social connections in the neighbourhood, the results were quite differing. Some had a lot of family in the neighbourhood other fewer and same goes for friends in the neighbourhood. However is was striking that groups seem to go with groups and that there is little exchange between those groups. This also seems to apply for the way in which groups use the park. As the respondents were firstly found visiting the green group of the park, which is maintaining the park. The members of this group appeared to be quite white and Dutch from background. Volunteer-work in the park seems to be dominated by Dutch residents. Every respondent interviewed from this group claimed that they felt connected to the park because of their networks and friends in the green group. Within that group, most people did not use the park for other, private or recreative purposes. But multiple residents from the group told that they enjoy the possibility of social contact and networks through their volunteer work. They highly experience and shape perception of the park through the green group.
‘No groups deal with groups and not with other people. At the rooftop park, for example, they are all white people with a decent education. In any case, volunteering is very culturally coloured.’
In contradiction, the two Turkish people spoken, had a quite different way of using and experiencing the park. This group seem to make more daily use of the park. They were not taking part in any volunteer work but use the park as a meeting point. Respondents told that if the weather is good they come together in the park before and after church, or just to sit and talk. When coming to the park they only search for contact to other Turkish people. Therefore, this represents a very different way of creating social belonging. Other respondents asked seemed to make daily use of the park as well, provided that the weather is good. Most of them referred to the park as a place of recreation. The come with friends, family or just alone. As the park is located between the buildings and the stores, respondents told to go to the park as a stopover to the shops.
Summarizing the perceptions of the residents towards their social belonging, it can be said that the park is a reflection of the neighbourhood itself. Groups go with groups. What generally can be said is that all respondents referred to the park as a place to make new and maintain social networks. The park is seem as a meeting place by multiple residents. It is also a place where different groups, even though they do not interact, meet each other. Groups go with groups but in the park they all have to act to one another. Groups are confronted with each other, other norms and values are confronted with each other. The park then serves as a place of encounter.
‘It is of course a public good, so everyone has the right to go there and therefore to use it. So I think that for the composition of the neighbourhood with high and low differences in incomes that this is not a primary role. But in the sense that it takes into account that there are differences in the neighbourhood. That it is then possible to come together in certain places.’
In general it did seem that residents associated mostly positive feelings of social belonging with the park. This could be because of the early stage of the developments. Most of the new residents still have to move in. However, it was mentioned that when demolishing the houses the neighbourhood would automatically attract other kinds of people. This seemed to be a logical and therefore accepted process to the residents. Still, residents were concerned that the new residents would not mix with the recent ones. Some even harshly criticised the new residents:
‘No ... they are all a bit of snobs yes. [...]
Most of the friends and family of the residents might still live in the neighbourhood and therefore, feelings of social displacement yet did not occur. However one respondent noted her dissatisfaction with the new, mostly owner-occupied dwellings. Her son is looking for an apartment in the neighbourhood for a couple of years now. Still he has not been able to find one within the district. The respondent is concerned that he might has to look at a totally different side of the city to find a place. In the long term, and if this happens more frequently, residents might feel more socially disconnected in the neighbourhood.
‘Here they just have a shortage of rent for all those young. And I myself have one of 25 at home who is just responding to homes that are not arriving.’
4.3. Hard geographical belonging
As mentioned before, residents‘ sense of belonging does not purely consists of social belonging but also of geographical belonging. Which in turn can be split up in hard and soft geographical belonging. Hard geographical belonging refers to the awareness, appreciation and everyday use of the green space. When residents were asked about their first impression of the park, interestingly residents mentioned that at first it was not quite clear that there was a park above the stores.
‘It is at a height so it is largely unknown. People see the shops on one side and they see a green slope on the other. But then have no idea that there is also a park above.’
The first theme brought up by multiple respondents was the fact that the park is too structured and too manicured, its design is experienced as artificial, sterile and empty. Multiple respondents also mentioned that they prefer the parks or green downstairs to the park itself. The green they referred to is the same areas where the future new dwellings will be placed. They described the green there as wild and creative and by that those places feel more inviting to the residents. One respondent referred to the park as one in the style of parks in London and Paris.
‘I think that it stays a bit the same upstairs. It's boring. But yes that is then I think much more used by new residents who say I want a park a la London.’
In this quote also lays the assumption that the park might be designed to serve the taste and needs of the new residents and thus not the long-time residents. In that way long-time residents could feel excluded from the use of the park and by that become more discontented with the neighbourhood or might even feel displaced. The design of the park then can also be seen as something to attract certain types of new residents to the neighbourhood and more specific to the new dwellings next to the park. In that way the green space promotes gentrification by attracting new, more affluent people. The design of the park is thus greatly criticized. It is described as less welcoming and empty. From the interviews the reason of the parks’ design by the municipality became more clear. Respondents said that because of safety issues of the neighbourhood in the park, the residents and the municipality desired a save park. However it seems that designing for safety comes at the expense of the attractiveness of the park.
