The (mix)match between policy-makers and residents : on the problematization of Geuzenveld and social mixing as a potential solution

(1)

The (mix)match between policy-makers and residents

On the problematization of Geuzenveld and social mixing as a

potential solution

Master thesis

02-07-2015

Sociology – Migration and Ethnic Studies

Graduate school of Social Sciences

University of Amsterdam

Esther Lemsom

Student ID: 10609156

Supervisor

M. Pratsinakis

Second reader

J.W. Duyvendak

(2)

Abstract

This study examines a deprived neighborhood by identifying its problematizations and to what extent social mixing is proposed as a potential solution, by policy-makers and residents. This has been done by analyzing policy documents on Geuzenveld, together with two interviews with policy-makers. The view of the residents has been captured by sixteen in-depth interviews with residents of different ethnic backgrounds.

It seems that the majority of problems that Geuzenveld faces are similarly represented to be by the two actors. Underlying those problems are the lack of a good command of Dutch and the low-educational level of some ethnic minorities, which are problems that are assumed to cease in time. Social mixing is, according to both actors, also seen as a solution to the problems. While residents expect individual influences of income differentiation through housing differentiation on ‘weaker’ residents, policy-makers suffice with the stabilizing effect it is expected to bring in the neighborhood. Ethnic mixing is desired by most residents from different backgrounds. It remains however ambiguous why policy-makers are less focused on ethnic differentiation than in earlier policy on ethnically segregated so-called deprived neighborhoods.

(3)

5.1.1 Characterization………... p. 23 5.1.2 Notable deviations………. p. 24 5.1.3 Prioritization……… p. 26 5.2 Urban renewal………. p. 28 5.2.1 Comparison documents 2004-2014..………. p. 28 5.2.2 Current tendencies in urban renewal……… p. 30 5.2.3 Urban renewal as an answer to the problem represented to ……… p. 31 5.3 Concluding the policy analysis……….. p. 33

6 The residents

6.1 Defining the problem……….. p. 36 6.1.1 A deprived neighborhood and its image……….. p. 41 6.1.2 Non-integration………..……… p. 43 6.2 Urban renewal………. p. 44 6.2.1 Assumed goal………... p. 44 6.2.2 Effect of owner-occupied dwellings and a higher income………. p. 45 6.2.3 Owner-occupied dwellings versus social housing………. p. 47 6.2.4 Desire for social mix………. p. 48 6.3 Concluding the view of the residents……… p. 49

7 Conclusion……….. p. 53 7.1 Recommendation……….. p. 58 Bibliography………. p. 60 Annexes 1 Topic lists……… p. 63 2 Respondents……….. p. 66 3 Observation……… p. 68

(4)

3

Acknowledgement

During my time living and working intensively in Geuzenveld, I got interested in the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the residents. On the one hand, it gave me a feeling of being part of something special which my friends and family did not fully understand. On the other hand, I experienced integration issues daily and I felt like I found myself outside of the Netherlands, somewhere in the exotic countries of Morocco or Turkey.

These experiences, together with an article of Uitermark about governing marginality (2014) which I had to read for a course during the master, inspired me to write this thesis. In the last half a year, I got to understand the policy framework on social mixing and urban renewal by analyzing documents and interviews with policy-makers. Furthermore, I had the opportunity to get to know the neighborhood inside-out, by conducting interviews with residents. Due to these two methods, I finalized a research which is comparative and gives a broad understanding of problematizations of a so-called deprived neighborhood and possible solutions.

Doing intensive research in such a short period of time, would not have been possible without the support of some people. I would like to thank all the acquaintances in Geuzenveld who contributed to this study by talking so openly with me during the interviews. I would also like to thank Dogan Oorthuis, for giving me quick access to all policy documents needed. Moreover, I thank Maarten van Ettekoven and Peter Hazewindus for sharing their substantive ideas on Geuzenveld in an informal setting.

I would also like to thank my parents and sister, who showed interest and supported my during the entire period of doing research. Furthermore, I would like to thank my study peers and close friends Lianne van Rooijen, Esmee de Jong en Noora Heiskanen, for the motivation while studying together and writing the thesis. Last but definitely not least, I would like to thank my supervisor Manolis Pratsinakis. He took the time to look critical and also took the time to discuss the content together, in a practical and abstract manner. This gave me insight in where I was going with this research and kept me on track continuously.

(5)

4

1 Introduction

-“Where do you live again?” -“In Geuzenveld.”

-“Seriously, why would you live there? You are probably the only Dutchie there right?”

This is a frequent conversation I have with city dwellers in Amsterdam, if they know the district. Sometimes I need to clarify that it is in Nieuw-West, even more West than district Amsterdam West. The idea of residents in Amsterdam about Geuzenveld is that the population largely consists of minorities of Arab or Turkish descent, that it is poor and mainly, deprived and excluded from the rest of Amsterdam.

Many neighborhoods in Western cities are classified as deprived. The term deprived is given to neighborhoods by policy-makers, politicians, media, other city dwellers and the residents of those areas themselves. This can have several consequences for local policy and for the residents.

The first objective of this thesis is to examine how Geuzenveld, a neighborhood that is widely perceived to be deprived, is problematized in policy documents and by policy-makers and the extent to which those problematizations correspond with the viewpoints of the residents about the neighborhood. Despite the fact that I had worked with residents prior to doing this research, I did not know whether their views on the neighborhood are in accordance with those of the policy-makers and how the residents problematize Geuzenveld, if they do at all. By exploring this, I aim to contribute to future local policy whereby the problems identified by the residents can be included in broader policy plans for the neighborhood.

Geuzenveld is constantly changing, due to urban renewal plans and projects that are ongoing since around the year 2000. In academic literature about urban renewal, social mixing policies are extensively evaluated. Over time, different goals of social mixing policies are identified, such as the use of middle-class Dutch role-models in a migrant neighborhood, the aim to provide more social interaction between different groups and countering residential segregation (Bolt et al., 2008). Uitermark (2003) evaluates policy goals of urban renewal policy and social mixing as a means to the integration of ethnic minorities and controlling unstable deprived neighborhoods. The second objective of this thesis is to evaluate urban renewal and in particular social mixing as a potential solution to the problems represented to be in the neighborhood, identified by the two main actors; policy-makers and residents. Regarding the municipal policy I would like to examine if social mixing is still desired and if the expected

(6)

5

effects are still in congruence with the literature named above. Secondly, I want to examine to what extent social mixing is desired by the residents and under what conditions it is posed as a solution to the identified problems in the neighborhood. In the end, the presentation of the problematizations and potential solutions by the two actors will be put in a comparative framework.

In this research, when talking about the group of 1st_{, 2}nd_{and 3}rd_{generation migrants of}

non-Western descent, I will use the concept ‘ethnic minorities’. A term that is commonly used in the Netherlands to denote a citizen with a non-Western background is that of ‘allochtoon’. This term is contrasted with the term ‘autochtoon’, which is reserved for a native Dutch citizen. This terminology was introduced in policy and media in the end of the nineties. However, I decided not to use the term ‘allochtoon’ in my thesis due to its derogatory connotation of exclusion and the fact that over time it has emerged as a stigmatizing label (van der Haar & Yanow, 2011). Instead, when talking about people of migrant background, I will use the term ‘ethnic minorities’ and when talking about a person I will use for example Turk’ or ‘Dutch-Surinamese’. Still, it should be noted that those terms also come with their limitations. In the situation of Geuzenveld, the term ethnic minority still is an ambivalent one, since ethnic groups that are minorities in the Netherlands as a whole, like Dutch-Turks and Dutch-Moroccans, are overrepresented in Geuzenveld, while ethnic Dutch residents are a minority.

In this research, the main question that leads this study is:

To what extent do the problematizations and proposed solutions on Geuzenveld by policy-makers and residents match, particularly on social mixing policies?

Subquestions:

1. How is Geuzenveld problematized by policy-makers and to what extent is social mixing, as part of broader urban renewal policies, framed as the solution?

2. What are the main problems of Geuzenveld identified by the residents and to what extent is social mixing viewed as a potential solution?

The structure of the thesis unfolds as follows. The next chapter presents contextual information about Geuzenveld, the focus of this research. More concretely, it outlines the history of the establishment of the neighborhood, its social composition and a context wherein local policy is formulated. Thereafter the theoretical framework for this research is outlined, examined and nuanced. The methodology that is applied in this research is presented in chapter four. The findings and results of the fieldwork are presented in chapter five and six, which are divided in the policy analysis and the findings of the interviews with the residents. In chapter seven, the concluding chapter of the thesis, the research questions are answered in an elaborative manner.

(7)

6

2 Context

2.1 Geuzenveld

In the beginning of the 19th_{century migrants from the north of the Netherlands and}

North-Europe, such as Germans, settled in Nieuw-West. Shortly after their settlement, Indian Dutch migrants arrived as a consequence of the end of the colonial period in Indonesia. After World War II, a lot of houses were built to accommodate population growth and tackle the housing shortage in the center of Amsterdam. In the fifties until the seventies, Surinamese migrants settled and the first guest workers arrived too (Westerpost, 2010). The guest workers, mainly of Turkish and Moroccan descent, arrived in two waves. From the fifties until the mid-seventies they were recruited to work in Europe to fulfill the labor shortages due to the booming post-war economy in the Netherlands. After recognizing that the ‘guest-workers’ were here to stay permanently, their wives and children were approved to follow. This second wave occurred between the mid-seventies and ended approximately end-eighties within the legal framework of the family reunification law (Hansen, 2003). Since the 1980’s the national government and the municipality started shaping integration policies for non-Western newcomers, mainly focusing on migrants of Turkish or Moroccan descent.

Many of these post-war neighborhoods in Western cities were, and still are, facing problems with respect to a decreasing quality of life (DMO et.al., 2014). At the same time, migration trends have changed. The migration of the traditional countries of origin stagnated, while more migrants from Western countries arrive, such as Bulgarian and Polish migrants. This change in migration is apparent in Nieuw-West and Geuzenveld in particular as well (Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, 2012). Ethnic Dutch residents are decreasing in percentage of inhabitants in Geuzenveld from the mid-seventies on and the number is continuously decreasing.

Of all the residents of Amsterdam, 2,1% live in Geuzenveld. Ethnic diversity is apparent among the population, but the main ethnic groups are Dutch-Moroccans, Dutch-Turks, and ethnic Dutch. Almost half of the residents only attained low-education and almost 70% of the housing is social housing. The unemployment rate is, since less than half of the population performs labor, higher compared to the average in Amsterdam and there are more households that live with a minimum income than on average in Amsterdam. There are also a lot of residents who need help with practicalities because of the lack of a good command of the Dutch language, so-called assistance recipients, think about reading letters or folders and filling out forms. This results in the fact that 21,4% of the residents in Geuzenveld do not experience the ability of full

(8)

7

control of their own life. The risk of tensions among population groups is observed as higher than on average in Amsterdam (DMO et al., 2014).

Concerning its urban space, the neighborhood Geuzenveld was built in its composition as it is now, in 1953. Several architects who were part of this building process had different ideas about how it should be developed. For example Van Tijen wanted to stress a district concept whereby he focuses on the self-efficacy of the population to strengthen solidarity. Hereto the space between the housing blocks was intended for vegetable gardens. Other architects wanted a more closed character. They needed to find compromises which none of the architects fully agreed on. In general, the image of Geuzenveld, urban planning wise, is more sober and modest compared to the neighboring district Slotermeer. In the years until 1990, many new areas were appointed as build- and housing land, which makes it clearly a residential area (Bestemmingsplan Geuzenveld, 2010).

2.2 Policy framework

Policy frameworks always contain at least state policy, provincial and municipal policy. Therefore it is important to look at all three of them, since municipal policy, where this research is focused on, is limited by the frame that is set by policies on a higher level.

Thus, before going into the local policy framework, it is necessary to look at the broader context of policy in cities, especially with regard to ethnic minorities. Since the nineties, ethnic minorities live in large numbers in cities and it has been observed that migrants gained a relatively small share of the prosperity that was ongoing in the Netherlands at that time. In

(9)

8

1995, the Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, the most important governments’ research agency, wrote that ‘ingredients for marginalization, geographical segregation and the emergence of a culture of poverty are present (SCP, 1995 in Veldboer et al., 2002). Already from the second half of the nineties, the assumed negative implications of concentration became the focus of housing and integration policies. In 1995 het Grotestedenbeleid (Big Cities Policy) was launched which involved the improvement of living conditions for underprivileged people living in a deprived neighborhood. Already at this time, the policy states that if a healthy future for the city is desired, a diversified composition of the urban population and housing is essential (Bestemmingsplan Geuzenveld 2010).

Further in time this goal is maintained, and it goes together with more practical issues that concern policy-makers. For example in the structural vision on the Randstad in 2008 it is said that the Randstad, which is a conurbation in the Netherlands which consists of the four largest cities; Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, needs 500.000 new houses. In the Nota Ruimte, which is the Note on Space it is said that the current urban area should be used to the optimum through densification. Also, to avoid an unbalanced composition of the population, the state stimulates more variation in housing offers. The provincial policy of 2009 agrees on the state policy by stating that the central policy goal is to realize sufficient housing within the existing urban area (Bestemmingsplan Geuzenveld, 2010).

In 2014, the municipality decided to work with a regional approach (gebiedsgericht werken).This translated into new plans that were focused on certain districts. Also for Geuzenveld, documents are created, such as the regional plan, regional analysis and an action card Geuzenveld. All the above mentioned documents will be analyzed in the policy analysis in this research. These documents do not stand on their own, they are based on renewal plans of the district in 2004. Because of the economic crisis which started in the Netherlands in 2008 and the fact that the documents are outdated, there was a need to revise the relevance of the goals, ambitions, projects and activities. It is shown that the goals and ambitions were equally relevant in 2004 and 2014, but the context and the mode of approach have changed over the years. The Action Card is thus an update of the old plan to the current state of affairs, whereby there is more focus on efficiency, creativity and another planning to achieve the objectives (Actiekaart Geuzenveld, January 2014).

2.2.1 Consequences economic crisis on urban renewal

Due to the crisis, plans that were written in 2004 had to be approached differently. The urban renewal was delayed and will be executed on a smaller scale. The program manager P. Hazewindus adds that the “urban renewal machine stagnated. The large scale demolitions are

(10)

9

passé.” According to M. van Ettekoven, different shifts have occurred due to the crisis. In the first place, a direct consequence is cuts in the governments expenses. Partly due to the cuts, the corporations, developers and the municipality are organized differently. They started to make new area plans, which delayed the plans that were already there. They started to evaluate processes and tried to organize plans as efficient as they could. They started to focus on their own processes, before they could collaborate with other stakeholders again. In 2004, social facets and urban planning were intertwined, within the neighborhood and between neighborhoods. Since all plans and partners were interdependent, it was a problem if a partner, for example a housing corporation, could not invest anymore because of economic reasons. As a consequence of the crisis, there was stagnation in all plans that were on the agenda. Since the stakeholders learnt from this, in the current plans of 2014 they focus on particular housing blocks to see how they should be maintained, renovated or demolished. The third shift in realization of plans due to the crisis is that initially, the housing corporations owned almost 90 to 95% of the housing blocks. When they were not able to invest anymore in all they could before, they left it to the market. In certain situations, the municipality took initiative to place self-plots or tendered it to private ownership. In this sense, there still is cooperation and collaboration with different stakeholders, however there is less cohesion in plans. A side-effect is that there is more creativity in the architecture of housing blocks.

As an example of this creativity, due to the delay of the urban renewal, projects are framed as chances for Geuzenveld in the policy documents. To improve the socio-economic situation of the residents, the municipality seeks collaboration with partners and residents in the neighborhood, not only with housing partners, but also with schools and social institutions. It is framed that for example the SCAMIG Mosque has been given the chance to develop a new mosque by themselves. Also, the Turkish community is showing initiative with the self-built plots. This shows new perspectives for other renewal projects and developments, in a social and physical manner. We can conclude here that the lack of money resulted in initiatives and new perspectives for residents and NGO’s in the neighborhood (Interview M. van Ettekoven).

(11)

10

3 Theoretical framework

3.1 Urban deprivation

On the simplest level, Smith (1979) argues, the condition to assign the term ‘deprived’ to a

geographical area is a mere euphemism to characterize the poverty of the slums. It implies deficiency or inadequacy in the material conditions of life. This notion of urban deprivation implies that the location where people live affects their chances to participate in an inclusive society. It is a spatial dimension of inequality which can be part of the broader exclusionary factors faced by residents in a deprived neighborhood. This dimension becomes even more important when we identify the recognition of an increased spatial segregation between the poor and the better-off in the last thirty years in most big cities in Western Europe (Atkinson & Kintrea, 2001).

Bolt et al. (2008) observe, in addition to what Atkinson and Kintrea (2001) propose, also spatial segregation between ethnic minorities and ethnic Dutch in so-called deprived neighborhoods. In their research on ethnic minority groups in the Dutch housing market, they assign several consequences to living in a deprived neighborhood for the residents. They pose the idea that living in a deprived neighborhood can have negative consequences for the social position and social mobility of the residents, because they lack contact with relevant people. Research has shown that deprivation in a neighborhood can have many other negative neighborhood effects, such as a low socio-economic position, school dropout, social exclusion, unemployment and retarded child development (Bolt et al., 2008). However, they also assign positive consequences to ethnic segregation, such as maintenance of cultural tradition, social networks that can support one another and functioning of the location as a safe haven in a hostile environment, which is congruent with the following statement of Power (2000):

“Neighborhoods offer a sense of familiarity and security to the people who live there, which counters fear of the unknown, even where the neighborhood is poor, run-down or unpopular”(Power, 2000: 1).

Because of the poverty and assigned deprivation, certain neighborhoods are selected as underprivileged and require intervention by specific policies. Interventions are deployed to counter unemployment, create a more socio-economically mixed population and to ameliorate public space. However, by selecting the neighborhood as deprived and an area to focus on to improve the living conditions of the residents, there is a chance that this leads to categorization, labeling and eventually even to territorial stigmatization (Wijngaarden). Consequences of this impaired or stigmatized reputation can have negative effects on the neighborhood, such as

(12)

11

difficulties in attracting investors, an outflow of upwardly mobile residents and the feeling of residents themselves being second class citizens (Wijngaarden). Not only do policy-makers frame the neighborhood in a certain way, consciously or unconsciously, media plays an important role in the image and reputation of a neighborhood as well. Due to media, residents and non-residents are informed of an image of an area, which gives a neighborhood a normative connotation and a constructed meaning, which leads to a stereotype.

“From then on, the neighborhood will be interpreted through a biased lens; a lens that can be either positive or negative” (Wijngaarden: 5).

This constructed image can change fluently, due to personal experiences, media, visible characteristics and functions of the neighborhood. The reputation, according to Wijngaarden, can be distinguished into two reputations which have different effects; the internal and external reputation. In the former, the negative images that are communicated by policy-makers, media or other third parties are internalized by the residents. This can lead to feelings of shame and the development of coping strategies. They can for example develop the desire to move elsewhere or distance themselves from the image by breaking ties with the underprivileged residents. This implies that living in a neighborhood with a large concentration of disadvantaged inhabitants causes a further reduction of the residents’ chances of life and an increase in vulnerability.

The external reputation is related to non-residents, such as professionals working in the neighborhood or other urban dwellers. This reputation of the neighborhood is more based on prejudices and is generally more negative than the nuanced internal reputation. The influence and effect on the neighborhood however, is even stronger. Consequences are the hardships to attract middle-class citizens and investments are seen as huge risks. The residents individually can face hardships in finding a job, restricted usage of public services and limitations of social participation (Wijngaarden). In my opinion this is ambivalent, because when a neighborhood is selected as a deprived neighborhood where interventions are needed, the accessibility of public services increases, as do projects to promote social participation. The perspective which can be identified in the citation of Power above, is totally left-out in the internal and external reputations of Wijngaarden. In the idea of labeling and categorizing urban deprivation, urban renewal policies can be seen as potential pitfalls (Wijngaarden).

(13)

12

3.2 Governing marginality

As Power (2000) argues:

“Cities are made up of neighborhoods and their fortunes are locked up together. The success of cities depends on successful neighborhoods and therefore the urban agenda - an attempt to reverse the urban exodus and overcome social exclusion”(Power, 2000: 1).

This idea as well as the fact that the city forms an organic conglomeration of neighborhoods, has made policy-makers and academics in many cases focus on deprived neighborhoods due to a fear that those neighborhoods might cause instability to the city as a whole. Therefore different actors have different interests in deprived neighborhoods. The national government pays, directly or indirectly, all public schools, the police and the community and social workers in those areas. Furthermore, if disorders occur, the national media immediately cover developments and local as well as national politicians seek to restore order. This means that there are a lot of interdependencies between institutional actors in deprived neighborhoods, such as national actors, local state institutions, housing corporations and civic associations (Uitermark, 2003).

Uitermark (2003) highlights three phases of these interdependencies throughout time. Until the year 1990, the national government financially supported municipal governments in provision of social rented housing and other services. Social housing was viewed as right and a high share of it was seen as an asset to the city as a whole. From 1990 to 2000, there was a transition in the way social housing was viewed, it became problematized. Economic motives played an important role in this shift, since rent subsidies demanded more financial resources than the national state was ready to grant. Social housing became increasingly associated with social dislocation, disorder and with disadvantaged neighborhoods with unlivable conditions. The role of urban renewal thereby changed. Whereas policy-makers previously saw social provisions as solutions to social ills, after 1990 they argued that concentration itself was the problem. This created support for the construction of owner-occupied housing and the demolition of social housing in order to create neighborhoods with a balanced social composition, which again, comes down to social mixing. The third phase brings this a little bit further, by stating that social housing had become a social ill in itself. Social housing became associated with dependency, while owner occupation became associated with freedom and active citizenship (Uitermark, 2003).

Bolt et al. (2008) state that ethnic segregation can have positive and negative consequences. However, according to them, policy circles focus almost exclusively on the negative

(14)

13

consequences by countering residential segregation and the spatial concentration of low-income households and ethnic minorities. Uitermark (2014) continues this line by stating that the policy-makers try to govern marginality to stabilize neighborhoods and get them under control again. He implies that certain neighborhoods are represented by policy-makers to have somehow escaped the state’s grip and to have become unmanageable. Thus spatial concentration of deprived groups cannot be governed through desegregation policies alone, but mainly through integration, since the status quo of the neighborhood signals a fear that the enclosure of deprived groups may undermine the stability of the society. Uitermark continues:

“Areas where these groups concentrate have become key sites for attempts to integrate marginalized groups into society’s mainstream” (Uitermark, 2010: 1419).

He argues that integration here is used as a mode to govern marginality. The technologies that the government uses are divided into four categories, according to Uitermark (2014); monitoring, local-central exchange and cooperation, social mixing and integral and joined-up policies.

The literature describes an evaluation of policy goals. None of the literature, however, identifies the real problems of the neighborhoods and the problem representations behind the reasons why the areas should be governed that way. It is necessary to take a step back by looking at what the problem definition exactly is. Bacchi (2009) poses three propositions about governing, which are useful regarding deprived neighborhoods. She starts off by saying that we are governed through problematizations. Secondly, she states that we should look behind the lines and not research the problem but how the problem is represented. The third proposition is interrogating the problematization through scrutinizing the premises and the effects of the representations (Bacchi, 2009). After analyzing policy in that way we will reach a full understanding and we can compare the problematization of the neighborhood by policy-makers with the problem represented by the residents.

3.2.1 Urban restructuring, diversification and social mixing

What we read in the paragraph above, is that the general expectation of policy-makers in Western societies is that mixed housing projects can help overcome integration problems and that economic and cultural inequality, which is expressed in spatial divisions, should be fought against. It is important to underline two concepts which are included in these spatial divisions; concentration and segregation. Musterd et al. (2002) define them as follows:

“Concentration refers to the relative overrepresentation of a population category in a certain urban area, whereas segregation denotes the process of spatial separation and alienation between particular population categories”(Musterd in Veldboer et al., 2002).

(15)

14

Since the general idea is that socioeconomic and sociocultural divisions should be counteracted, diversification policies receive high priority in Western countries. Differentiation policies are mainly translated into desirable mixed neighborhoods, which are proposed as a solution to the potential problems of concentration and segregation (Veldboer et al., 2002).

According to Bolt et al. (2008), social mixing is the most important measure to counter segregation by means of differentiation of the housing stock. This had already been on the political agenda from the end of 1990’s, however focused solely on income segregation. The shift to also counter ethnic segregation occurred around the year 2000, when anxiety about ethnic concentration became an important concern. They state however that urban restructuring is not directly aimed at reducing ethnic segregation, but the assumption is that socio-economic segregation is the main determinant of ethnic segregation (Bolt et al., 2008: 1368). Urban restructuring became the keyword, especially in post-world war II neighborhoods: social rented dwellings had to be demolished or renovated to make room for more expensive, often owner-occupied dwellings to strive for a more mixed population. According to Bolt et al. (2008), the urban renewal policy in the Netherlands is based on several assumptions: (1)The residential concentration of minority ethnic groups hampers their integration into Dutch society. (2)Mixing of ethnic groups leads to social interaction between different groups. Moreover, people with a higher social status may act as positive role models for the other residents. (3)Ethnic segregation is the result of socioeconomic segregation and socioeconomic segregation is the consequence of spatial distribution of affordable housing. (Bolt et al., 2008: 1379).

Veldboer et al. (2002), propose three different tracks that policy-makers utilize for achieving diversification in neighborhoods. The first is to realize exit options, which would help vulnerable groups to leave ‘bad’ neighborhoods and enter ‘good’ ones. The second track is to introduce role models into problem areas for the weaker groups. A third track, which is deployed simultaneously, is creating a new population mix from physical measures in the housing stock, such as new constructions and demolitions (Veldboer et al., 2002). In conjunction with the second track, also Kleinhans et al. (2000) argue that policy-makers attract the middle- and higher-income groups with the hope of serving as social and economic role models for weaker groups (Kleinhans et al., 2000). The reason behind restructuring policy contains a clear ethnic and cultural component, according to Veldboer et al. (2002).

(16)

15

We have seen that homogeneity in Dutch neighborhoods is claimed as being disadvanteous, however several geographers and sociologists have doubted if it is as excessive and economically disadvanteous as presented. It is also doubted whether diversification actually produces sound social relations. Forced mixing, research shows, does not necessarily lead to intermingling. Social distances can remain vast, while physical distances are being reduced (van Kempen & Bolt, 2009).

Earlier, Uitermark (2003) had already suggested an alternative approach to Dutch restructuring policy, which is based to a lesser extent on neighborhood effects as the drive for policy-makers to act upon. He presented social mixing policies as an attempt to facilitate the social management of disadvantaged neighborhoods, instead of focusing on neighborhood effects like role-models. He states that the goal is to weaken the social effects of problematic integration of ethnic minorities (Uitermark, 2003). Furthermore, the goal to have a social mix is reflexive of Amsterdam’s identity as a diverse, tolerant and egalitarian city (Fainstein in Lawton, 2010).

As stated, neighborhood effects have become to a lesser extent the drive for policy-makers to act upon. It is also said that diversification does not necessarily lead to more integration or a more stable neighborhood. When we read research from 2010 on, it seems that policy-makers adopted that view. There is less focus on individuals who would be influenced by neighborhood effects but more on the neighborhood as a whole. It should be livable and safe, which means that some individuals will have to pay the price by moving to another neighborhood. The idea is to upgrade the livability by attracting higher-income households. The expectation of the newcomers having a positive contribution to the current residents is limited. However, the policy-maker can at least identify with the newcomers, the middle-class citizens and they are easier to approach in their eyes. Even if they will not be active citizens, they will at least not contribute to the neighborhood in a negative manner. This means the problems in the neighborhood will be reduced and the pressure on the social facilities will decrease since the newcomers are expected to be at least self-reliant (Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2010). While means remain the same, which is mixing the population through more owner-occupied dwellings, the articulation of the expected effects on the neighborhood by policy-makers became different over time. Furthermore, Uitermark and Duyvendak (2010) expect that the concentration of groups will be viewed as a problem to a lesser extent and the empirical reality will force policy-makers and researchers to recognize the fact that some neighborhoods will contain of a high percentage of underprivileged or ethnic minority groups (Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2010).

(17)

16

3.3 Gentrification

Gentrification is a concept which cannot be viewed in isolation from all of the above. As stated by Uitermark, Duyvendak and Kleinhans (2007), gentrification should be defined differently in the context of the Netherlands than the normative definition of the concept. Gentrification in most other countries is referred to as a response to housing demands of middle class citizens. Moreover, the term gentrification is used when talked about the need of the local government to strengthen the tax base or developers’ pursuit of profit. Economic interest for several actors is the main weight in gentrification processes. In the case of the Netherlands however, housing associations do not pursue profit, since they are legally bound to reinvest all their profits in housing for target groups of social housing policies. Furthermore, municipal agencies do not have to attract middle-class households to strengthen the tax base because cities receive most of their resources from the national state budget. This means that there should be other forces that drive gentrification in the Netherlands. According to Uitermark et al. (2007), it is state-led and a tool for local government actors and housing corporations to pursue social control in a disadvantaged neighborhood (Uitermark et al., 2007). Again, social mixing is the goal to govern integration and to upgrade the livability of the area. Gentrification in the Netherlands is broadly seen as all processes related to the production of space for a more affluent population with differing incomes, whereof urban restructuring and renewal policies are seen as an example. Clark (2005) defines gentrification, which is suitable for the concept in the Netherlands and elsewhere as follows:

“Gentrification is a process involving a change in the population of land-users such that the new users are of a higher socio-economic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital”(Clark, 2005: 258).

Gentrification is in a way interchangeable with the concept of social mixing, since it is similarly used as a means to pacify tensions and to reduce concentration that pose a problem for authorities. From a practical view, state actors induce housing associations and seduce private developers to invest in the construction of middle-class owner-occupied housing in disadvantaged neighborhoods which are concentrated with social housing.

Similarly as for social mixing, there is proof of researchers in studies about gentrification in the Netherlands that interaction between low-income and higher-income households and between renters and home owners are often superficial at best and hostile at worst. Gentrification thus undermines social cohesion and thereby it reduces the chance that residents will find solutions for the tensions in the neighborhood (Uitermark et al., 2007).

(18)

17

3.4 Home ownership & stability

The main means, among others, which is analyzed in this research on urban renewal and social mixing policies in a deprived neighborhood, is increasing the percentage of owner-occupied dwellings and decrease the percentage of social housing in the area. Steward and Rohe (1996) in their research on home ownership and stability, state that the long-held belief was that home owners are better citizens, better neighbors and even better persons. They are believed to be more involved and to maintain their properties at a higher standard. These in turn are thought to lead to more stable neighborhoods. In neighborhood revitalization programs, this correlation is taken for granted. They identified four aspects that might get stabilized by an increase in home ownership in the neighborhood: (1) length of tenure of current residents, (2) property values, (3) physical condition of properties and (4) social conditions in the neighborhood such as school dropouts and crime rates (Steward & Rohe, 1996: 39).

The stability is mainly focused on the type of households which owner-occupied dwellings attract. They are assumed to have economic interests and use interests which lead to participation in organizations, social interaction in general and a sense of community. This in itself leads to property maintenance and demands on city services. As a consequence, neighborhood conditions increase, residential satisfaction increases and actions of other residents and outsiders, such as cash flows, media portrayals and other public policies. The influence of home owners on social neighborhood conditions, such as school dropouts, arrest rates and teen pregnancy is researched, by Green and White (1997). They found that children of home owners are less likely to contribute to the high level of these negative social conditions than children of renters.

While studies show that the above causal relations are significant, a few counterarguments should be made. Home owners are seen to be more committed and participative in local organizations, but this is only with other home owners for their own interests. Another critical note on the study of Stewart and Rohe (1996) should be mentioned regarding the maintenance of the house, since home owners are compared to landlords, instead of renters. And finally, the study is from the year 1996, which is relatively old.

(19)

18

4 Methodology

4.1 Interpretive design

This research is conducted within an interpretive research design. Public policy is analyzed and evaluated by looking at two main actors; the policy-makers and the recipients of the policy, the residents. To make sense of the problematization of Geuzenveld as a so-called deprived neighborhood and the solutions thereof as well as residents’ problematizations, I used two distinct methods for researching each of the two actors. Correspondingly, the methodology for this thesis consists of two parts; analyzing the framings of municipality policy documents on governing marginality and interviews with the residents. I analyze policy documents on area plans in general and specifically about how social mixing within urban renewal plans is positioned as a solution to the problem represented to be. Thereafter, I give voice to the residents in Geuzenveld to identify their problematization of the neighborhood and their ideas on urban renewal and specifically social mixing. As Schwartz-Schea and Dvora (2012) point out in their book on interpretive research:

“In interpretive research, human beings are understood not as objects, but as agents. Such persons are seen as actively and collaboratively constructing (and de-constructing, meaning both critically assessing and changing) their polities, societies, and cultures- along with the institutions, organizations, practices, physical artifacts, and language and concepts that populate these” (Schwartz-Schea & Dvora, 2012: 46).

4.2 Policy analysis

Within policy analysis, the main purpose is identifying the problem represented to be in the policy documents. Bacchi (2012) argues that the objective of studying problematizations is to examine how a problematization politizes taken-for-granted ‘truths’. The study of problematizations directs attention to the strategic relations, the politics itself, that shape lives. The study of problematizations can be seen as fitting in a poststructural, Foucauldian analysis (Bacchi, 2012:1). The poststructural analysis of Foucault is a description of thinking as a practice. A problematization, following this line, is always a kind of creation, whether it is in a historical process or not (Bacchi, 2012: 2).

“By studying problematizations it is possible to demonstrate how things which appear most evident are in fact fragile, rest upon particular circumstances and are often attributable to historical conjunctures which have nothing necessary or definitive about them”(Foucault in Mort and Peters, 2005: 19).

(20)

19

Linder (1995), argues that there are different constructions of a problem. To understand these constructions, we need to reduce the problems to their discursive elements. This offers a simplified characterization as well as a systematic basis for comparison. The interpretive approach provides the epistemological underpinnings for this, emphasizing the connection between forms of talk, power and ontological assumptions about individuals and the institutions that mediate their relationship (Linder, 1995: 211). In practice, Foucault and this research, are trying to carve out a space between realism and idealism. In this research, this is done by analyzing practical texts. While coding these practical texts, attention has been paid to headlines, formulations, functional relations, disclaimers, lexical choices, stereotyping and metaphors (van Dijk, 2000).

4.3 Fieldwork

4.3.1 In-depth interviews

Apart from analyzing the policy documents, I conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with sixteen residents and two policy employees in the municipality. The interviews took from thirty minutes to one and a half hours. In-depth interviews combine structure and flexibility, since a prepared topic list is the basis of the interview but additions and changes can be made. A second key feature of in-depth interviews is that they are interactive in nature. A third feature is that the interviewer uses a range of probes to achieve depth of answer in terms of penetration, exploration and explanation. The last feature that is apparent in most in-depth interviews is that they are generative. New knowledge can be produced, since some interviewees are directed into certain thoughts where they have never thought about before (Legard et al, 2003).

Except for one, all interviews are tape-recorded so that I could listen to the recordings again, since the nuance of the interviewee’s language is important to understand the meaning of the words. Therefore it needs to be captured in its natural form. It is also very contributive that the interviews were face-to-face. This makes it more flexible, interactive and the interviewer can make the respondent feel at ease to talk freely (Legard et al, 2003).

The interview is divided into two parts. The first part consists of general questions about the respondent and the neighborhood to identify their problematizations or the non-problematization on their neighborhood. The second part aims to explore to what extent social mixing is seen as a potential solution to the problematizations.

(21)

20 4.3.2 Sample

For this research, different demographics are taken into account to achieve a diverse group of respondents. In the proposal for this research, I assumed a discrepancy between opinions and problematizations of ethnically Dutch residents and Dutch residents of non-Western descent. Regarding my experience in living in the neighborhood and talking to the different residents, I expected that Dutch residents would blame their non-Western neighbor for several problems in the neighborhood, such as litter. I also expected that they would have problems with the overall non-Dutch identity of the neighborhood. For the ethnic minorities themselves, I assumed that they would have different stances; some would probably love the diversity and some would probably have internalized external bad reputations about the neighborhood. I also assumed that the ethnic minorities would be more suspicious towards policy in general and urban renewal specifically than ethnic Dutch. These assumptions led to a sampling strategy in which respondents with diverse ethnic backgrounds are chosen. Regarding the location, residents are chosen who live in different parts of Geuzenveld, preferably in parts where urban renewal plans are already implemented, partly implemented and parts where the plans will be implemented from 2015 on (See map annex p.67). In addition, different age-groups are interviewed.

It is important to be aware that the problematizations of the residents are influenced and partly shaped through, mostly negative, perceptions of their neighborhood from outsiders, the media, and the authorities. Therefore the word problematization, regarding the perceptions of the residents may simply be a representation of those external discourses. To partly tackle this problem, only active residents that participate in the community are interviewed. I presupposed that those residents may be more engaged with the neighborhood and thus their opinion should not be simply a representation of external views but an interaction of those views with their actual experiences. This makes their opinion more nuanced. The fact that I already know active citizens has proved very positive in the field giving me access to certain categories of people such as Dutch-Moroccan and Dutch-Turkish men, whom I might have had difficulties approaching otherwise due to the ethnic, gender and age differences.

4.4 Limitations

According to the methodological planning, the interviews with the residents came as a follow-up to the policy analysis. Because of time limitations, it was desired to go into the field to conduct interviews as soon as possible. However, it was necessary to do the policy analysis first, since I initially chose to let the residents evaluate the urban renewal plans and goals that I identified in the policy documents. I decided to do a brief policy analysis and go into the field immediately afterwards. The theoretical framework which was outlined in the research proposal served as a

(22)

21

starting point. The literature I read was about deprived neighborhoods, governing marginality and urban renewal policies in the Netherlands, such as social mixing. These theories, together with my own interpretation, formed the basis for the policy analysis.

After about ten interviews with residents, I interviewed the project manager of urban renewal who is responsible for the districts Geuzenveld and Slotermeer. While my interpretation of the policy analysis corresponded with the literature on social mixing, his ideas on the urban renewal plans and the future for Geuzenveld took a different direction. However, it was my own analysis of the policy plans, which diverged from that of the project manager, that was used in the interviews to introduce the subject of urban renewal. Concretely, I first openly asked about what they knew of the urban renewal plans in their neighborhood, and after I explained my subjective interpretation of the goal of the plans. The following interpretation was proposed:

“The goal of the municipality with the urban renewal plans is to link it more to the city. Also, they would like more of a mix of residents, like more residents with middle class income, starters, students and ethnically Dutch. Furthermore, they want to increase the socio-economic position of the residents and the livability of the neighborhood. This goal should be achieved through increasing the quality and differentiation of housing, to upgrade the public space and the most important mean is to offer less social housing and more owner-occupied housing.”

A difference with the policy-maker was that he did not focus on linking Geuzenveld to the city. The main difference however, is that he identified differentiation as very important, but did not mention mixing necessarily with ethnic Dutch.

Since I needed to know if my own interpretation was biased or if the project manager had an exceptional position that did not express the plans in congruence with the documents, I analyzed the policy documents again and conducted another interview with an employee that was actively involved in constructing the documents. This interview determined that the initial brief policy analysis was indeed biased because of my assumptions and because of the theoretical framework on governing marginality and social mixing policies which was not nuanced enough.

To be more concrete, in most interviews, middle-class citizens are subjectively linked to white residents, even though we cannot find that in the policy documents literally. Also, the idea of linking Geuzenveld to the city center of Amsterdam is interpreted as important with the academic literature in the back of my mind. However, after the interview and after analyzing the documents for the second time, I came to the conclusion that linking to the city is less important

(23)

22

than focusing on both the quiet and spatial character of Geuzenveld and urbanizing the neighborhood within its borders.

In the end, this means that I should have been more aware of the bias I had as a researcher. On the other hand, it should be noted that every researcher has this bias because of the theoretical framework which is written before going into the field. Especially in sociology, it is important to have a theoretical framework which is not fixed and has the potential to add theories, nuance theories or in general question the framework that was constructed after analyzing your findings in the field. It would have been good to have an interview with a municipality employee at an earlier stage, before having interviews with residents, to investigate and control my own interpretation and analysis of the documents. All the answers are directly related to the subjective goal statement that was posed by the researcher could not be included in any results and conclusions on the research. I therefore took the opportunity to change my research question, since I could no longer answer how the residents evaluate the posed plans of the municipality. However, I did have enough material that evaluated social mixing in general.

(24)

23

5 Policy analysis

In this section, several policy documents are examined and analyzed in order to understand the framing of certain characteristics of the neighborhood. Thereby the problem represented to be by the policy-makers is identified. After that, the analysis expands on urban renewal plans and social mixing and how these plans are posed as an answer to the problematizations of the neighborhood. To go deeper into the urban renewal projects, one has to go back to the year 2004. This is because most plans that are just finished, that are in process now or that are on the agenda, are based on the urban renewal plans of 2004.

Since the municipality works with a regional approach, policy-makers created several documents to start off the new way of working in 2014, as described in the policy framework. They composed a so-called Regional Analysis, a Regional Agenda Nieuw-West and Geuzenveld in particular, and action plans. These plans are not totally new, since they are based on former plans and ideas that the district Nieuw-West had for Geuzenveld. However, all figures and facts are revised and it is supposed that the language of the documents is well-considered. Thus, this gives us a bright understanding of the current image of Geuzenveld by local policy-makers.

5.1 What is the problem represented to be?

5.1.1 Characterization

In the introduction of the Regional Analysis of Geuzenveld which is written in April 2014, Geuzenveld is framed as urban space with a green character, a “Gardencity”. Lambertus Zijlplein is presented as the center, however it is somewhat hidden in the neighborhood. Moreover, it is framed as a district which is in the middle of transitions, referring mainly to housing developments. Many facilities are named which over all present the neighborhood as convenient and pleasant (Gebiedsanalyse Geuzenveld, April 2014).

What the writers of the regional analysis find striking and outstanding, is the new tower of Liesbeth van der Pol, a famous architect. The existence of this tower in Geuzenveld is outstanding, since, according to the writers, you would expect to find this piece of art in the district Oud-Zuid. Geuzenveld and Oud-Zuid are opposed to each other as a direct contradiction (Gebiedsanalyse Geuzenveld, April 2014). This choice of words is interesting and places Geuzenveld in a certain corner. Is this an image that the writers have internalized, that such an architectural structure does not fit in and belongs to Geuzenveld? What does that say about the character of the housing and the neighborhood in general?

(25)

24 5.1.2 Notable deviations

In the introduction of the document (Regional Analysis, 2014), spatial characteristics are elaborated while population and socio-economic characteristics are left-out. However, when ‘notable deviations’ are mentioned, they start elaborating on the population, which changes the proposed convenience of living in Geuzenveld. Concerning residents, more than 62% of the residents are of non-Western descent. The largest amount is of Turkish or Moroccan descent. Within the age of 0 to 14 years, the percentage of children of non-Western background reaches 80%. Furthermore, it is stated that a lot of children face a language delay. More than 50% of that group are second generation migrants. The chronological order and the choice of words in this section make it hard to not link ethnic minorities to apparent problems (Gebiedsanalyse Geuzenveld, April 2014).

The health experience of residents in Geuzenveld is framed as a direct consequence of this relatively low-educated population. To a larger extent than on average in Amsterdam, residents in Geuzenveld feel unhealthy, are obese, suffer from diabetes, or face psychosocial health issues. According to the Regional analysis of Geuzenveld, the health problems can be linked directly to the socio-economic position of the residents and their physical and social living environment (Gebiedsanalyse Geuzenveld, April 2014, Gebiedsagenda Nieuw-West, June 2014).

Moreover, in the Regional Agenda Nieuw-West, it is stated that the original population of Geuzenveld is aged and that the new stream of residents is more multicultural. More than half of the residents have a non-Western background. Among other things, this is presented as a risk for tensions between population groups and this risk is thus higher in Geuzenveld than on average in Amsterdam. Moreover, it is often hard for children to be raised in Geuzenveld. Many of them grow up in a family with a low income, in small houses, with parents that are low educated and with psychosocial problems. This may result in dropouts, arrears and low performances at school(Gebiedsagenda Nieuw-West, June 2014). However, both policy-makers that are interviewed asked themselves if it is a bad thing if almost all the population of a neighborhood is of migrant background. It is compared with the fact that in for example Bloemendaal where only rich ethnic Dutch people live, there are more tensions between residents than elsewhere in the country (interview M. van Ettekoven & P. Hazewindus). They also mention that the coloring of the neighborhood will only increase in the upcoming years.

Concerning housing, on average the houses are in the category small or medium. In an area where most families have more children than on average in the Netherlands, many families live in cramped conditions. This problem can hardly be tackled sufficiently. However, the document

(26)

25

states that due to the increased offer of new buildings, residents that are ‘promising’ are offered the chance to stay in the neighborhood in better housing circumstances. ‘Promising’ residents are residents who have a better economic position and can afford to live in a larger house. On the other hand, new residents are attracted to the neighborhood. This is framed as an asset for the district. However, due to demolished and new buildings, a lot of ‘weaker’ residents, in terms of their socio-economic position, moved within and remained living in the neighborhood. This group is problematized, since it is said that a part of that population cannot speak the Dutch language adequately. Only at the moment of coming across language, it becomes apparent that the policy-makers are talking about ethnic minorities. This means that weaker residents are presented as equivalent to ethnic minorities. Moreover, they mostly interact within their own limited network and therefore it is hard for them to participate in our society optimally and find a paid job. I would like to remark that this framing of the residents is mentioned under the header housing instead of residents. It can be concluded that policy-makers problematize the resettlement of weak residents of ethnic minorities within broader problems of the neighborhood, namely unemployment and non-integration. In the framework of maintenance and renewal, the public space is also on the agenda to tackle. The condition of the public space in Geuzenveld is now referred to as frugal.

One of the main problems in Geuzenveld identified by the policy-makers is that many residents are not self-reliant and are distanced from society. This is due to unemployment, low incomes and a high percentage of assistance recipients. In the recent years these percentages increased and they characterize Geuzenveld (Gebiedsanalyse Geuzenveld, April 2014). In the Regional Agenda Nieuw-West, it is presented as a given that a relatively large group of the residents is hard to reach by regular ways of approaching groups. The rich diversity of inhabitants in Nieuw-West can be a source of enormous potential and developmental power, but on the other hand it demands special attention. It is stated that areas where a lot of vulnerable residents live and residents with a very diverse cultural background, need the most attention, because they are seen as less involved and in these areas the social interaction is low (Gebiedsagenda Nieuw-West, June 2014). Differentiation and diversification however, in another section, is stated as positive and required. It seems that a diverse area which consists of different ethnic minorities is not desirable, whereas a diversification in residents due to mixing with students is recommended and framed as an inspiration. However in the interviews the policy-makers Hazewindus and van Ettekoven, both share the opinion that ethnic segregation is almost inevitable and should maybe not be seen as such a problem. Economically, the population should be mixed and more diversified in the near future, but on the basis of ethnicity, the

(27)

26

municipality cannot steer and regulate diversity and social mixing in for example certain housing blocks.

Furthermore, safety is presented as a problem. Both subjective and objective safety have a low score in Geuzenveld. However, while objective safety has increased, subjective safety has been influenced negatively in the past few years. This has to do with raids, liquidations, and to a lesser extent youth nuisance on the streets. To work on this subjective safety, the municipality tries to increase social control through involvement of residents with the neighborhood and neighbors. This is a difficult challenge since in certain districts there is deficient or lousy contact between different groups of residents. P. Hazewindus, program manager, agreed and added that people do not know each other and do not dare to approach each other. Moreover, the policy documents state that many residents feel subordinated to other districts in Nieuw-West. Trust in governance and involvement decrease, which increases the likelihood of degradation. This implies that the municipality identifies a certain internalization of the image of Geuzenveld by the residents. Also, pollution is seen as a cause of a negative streetscape and also of negative subjective safety (Gebiedsanalyse Geuzenveld, April 2014). In the Regional Agenda it is framed as ‘cluttering of the urban space’ and is seen as a point that needs to be worked on, since many residents are bothered by it. It also has a negative effect on the involvement of residents in the neighborhood and it contributes negatively to the image of Geuzenveld. (Gebiedsagenda Nieuw-West, 2014). The subjective safety can be increased through urban renewal projects in public spaces.

The ‘notable deviations’ which are identified in the analysis can be concluded in the following concepts:

-low-education and language delay for non-Western migrants -low social interaction and involvement

-resettlement of weak residents

-unemployment and low incomes, which leads to non-self-reliance -low objective and subjective safety

-cluttered urban space 5.1.3 Prioritization

At the end of 2014 the policy-makers, the municipality employees that are working in the field and some residents constructed four priorities for Geuzenveld. These are based on the priorities that were created a year earlier for Slotermeer, since that was already a so-called focus area of the Nieuw-West policy. These priorities are translated in more than a hundred activities, which consist of physical renewal projects to stimulate recreation and participation, education, youth,

(28)

27

but also city marketing and tackling unsafe public spaces. Logically, these priorities should tackle the above identified problematizations, together with the future plans for Geuzenveld. In sum, it gives meaning to where Geuzenveld as a so-called deprived neighborhood, should be heading to, regarding current and desired conditions.

1 Increase quality of life

“This priority is translated in 36 activities that will increase the quality of life and will have a positive effect on ‘city marketing’ of Geuzenveld”. (Gebiedsplan Geuzenveld-Slotermeer 2015).

City marketing is not posed in the header of the first priority, but it is also not posed as a side-goal only. It seems that it is one of the main foci and is necessary to increase the living quality. In my opinion, the municipality hereby focuses on both residents and outsiders; outsiders as in positive profiling to attract students and middle classes and on insiders also by positive profiling so that the current residents will appreciate their living environment more.

Half of the activities that are created as a means for the priority, consist of a wide range of urban renewal projects; physical renewal projects concerning housing and the state of the public space. One of the activities is continuing the urban renewal and increasing the diversity of housing. It would be logical to say that diversity of housing is meant in diversification in the offer of housing blocks, self-plots etcetera. However, between brackets it seems to be said that diversification of living also contains more students, communities and middle class citizens.

2 Increase socio-economic position residents

This priority translates into 57 activities, which stimulate for example entrepreneurship and establish a better connection between the residents and the labor market. Participation in general deserves a lot of attention as well, with language lessons, parent involvement in schools, etcetera. Within this priority, poverty reduction is high on the agenda too. Urban renewal projects are also apparent in this priority, since the renewal of eight school buildings is on the planning. This priority is evidently focused on increasing conditions for the current residents.

3 Increase health

This priority is elaborated in 19 activities. They focus on stimulating sports, reduction of loneliness and obesity and the improvement of the psychosocial condition of the residents. Specific target groups for these activities are youth and ethnic minority women who should be outdoors more, argued by the municipality.

(29)

28 4 Increase subjective and objective safety

15 activities are headed under this priority, which involve projects on the safety of public spaces and the tackling of criminality. In practice, this means more cameras in public space, the use of district safety teams and redesigning unsafe spaces. The latter projects are again through urban renewal. Also, networks of residents should be intensified to work on subjective safety. This implies that knowing your neighbors and having a good relationship with them and other inhabitants, decreases subjective safety (Gebiedsplan Geuzenveld-Slotermeer 2015).

Prioritization in Action Card

Despite the fact that in the Regional plan Geuzenveld-Slotermeer 2015 the prioritization is framed as such, in the Action Card of January 2014, it is possible to identify a certain prioritization as well. The main goal of the actions is ‘Pleasant living in the Gardencity’. Two main goals should be achieved so that living in the Gardencity becomes more pleasant, which are; more involvement of residents and a better image. There are five means to accomplish this, which would be 1; better and suitable housing offers, 2; increase the quality of public space, 3; a safer neighborhood, 4; tailored facilities and 5; increase the socio-economic position of residents. In all five means, urban renewal has a core position (Actiekaart, January 2014).

5.2 Urban renewal

We have seen that in general urban renewal is positioned as a means to different priorities and that in the problematization of Geuzenveld in the policy documents diversification and social mixing is mentioned and desired more than once. To give a more specified analysis on urban renewal policies and social mixing, we first need to go back to the year 2004.

5.2.1 Comparison documents 2004-2014

Since the documents of 2004 form the basis for all the urban renewal plans of 2014 and 2015, it is important to briefly elaborate on the earlier plans and highlight the major differences in the framing of the two timeframes. Three renewal plans for specific regional projects are briefly analyzed; development plan van Tijenbuurt, renewal plan Geuzenveld-Zuid and Eendrachtsparkbuurt.

Contrary to the documents of 2014 and 2015, in 2004 the documents start with characterizing the degradation of the neighborhood as a whole. In the renewal plan Geuzenveld-Zuid (Vernieuwingsplan Geuzenveld-Zuid, 2005), it is said that the ambiance changed negatively over the years due to the changing demographics. Most ethnic Dutch residents that could afford to leave, left, only the elderly remained in the neighborhood. Many low income families, mainly

The (mix)match between policy-makers and residents : on the problematization of Geuzenveld and social mixing as a potential solution