UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
GSSS
MASTER URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Overtoomse Veld: Conquered by Cranes &
Creativity?
A spatial exploration emphasizing the lived space in an Amsterdam
neighbourhood on the verge of gentrification
Master Thesis Urban & Regional Planning 2015/2016
Leonoor Hogerheijde | 10004641
Supervisor: Dr. David Evers
June 20
th2016
A B S T R A C T
Arts-led urban regeneration and ‘place-making’ initiatives are becoming more widespread in European cities. In Amsterdam, these initiatives which favour transformations of the city (image) appear to go hand in hand with a policy orthodoxy of positive gentrification. Academic studies generally focus on both gentrification-induced displacement as well as a reinterpretation of gentrification as a positive process. However, there appears to be a lack of qualitative academic research that aims to understand which disadvantages for low-income communities occur when they are not physically displaced. This thesis project aims to enrich that ‘black box’ in academic urban planning literature. The ‘trialectics of space’, and in particular the concept of ‘lived space’ by Lefebvre or ‘thirdspace’ by Soja, which emphasizes the social experience of space, provide a useful theoretical foundation for this aim. Through an ethnographic method, combined with policy documents and interviews, the process of beginning gentrification is explored around the case of Lola Luid, which is located in a potentially gentrifying district of Amsterdam. It shows the contradictions between the perceived space of municipal urban regeneration policy, the conceived space of a creative city discourse and the lived space of neighbourhoods residents.
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5
1.1 Phenomenal debate on gentrification ... 6
1.2 Necessity for qualitative research ... 7
1.3 Conceptual framework founded on three spatial dimensions ... 8
1.4 Discrepancy with the fundaments of planning (political, social, spatial) ... 8
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 9
2.1ESSENCEOFURBANPLANNING&DESIGN ... 9
2.1.1 Planning in the face of power ... 9
2.1.2 Jane Jacobs’ influence on urban planning and design ... 11
2.1.3 Cultural critique on Jacobs’ urban perspective ... 12
2.1.4 Public culture in place-making? ... 14
2.2PARADIGMONSPATIALITY ... 15
2.2.1 Paradigm on spatiality ... 15
2.2.2 Spatiality in the gentrification debate ... 16
2.3DEBATEONGENTRIFICATION ... 18
2.3.1 Gentrification: From sociological phenomenon to neo-liberal urban policy concept ... 18
2.3.2 Initial stage of gentrification: artists as pioneers ... 20
2.3.3 Creative city as policy rhetoric ... 21
2.4SUMMARY ... 23
3. METHODOLOGY ... 24
3.1PROBLEM STATEMENT ... 24
3.2 Research design ... 24
3.3 Example of ethnographic contributions to planning ... 25
3.4 Ethnographic ontological and epistemological considerations ... 25
3.5CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 26
3.5.1 Gentrification without physical displacement ... 26
3.5.2 Framework and hypothesis ... 27
3.5.3 Concepts and operationalization ... 28
3.6DATA COLLECTION ... 30
3.6.1 Study area ... 30
3.6.2 Respondents ... 31
3.6.3 Participant observation and interviews ... 32
3.6.4 Semi-structured interviews ... 32
3.6.5 Documents ... 32
3.6.6 Data analysis ... 33
3.6.7 Limitations ... 33
4. PERCEIVED SPACE IN MUNICIPAL URBAN REGENERATION POLICY ... 34
4.1CASE DESCRIPTION OVERTOOMSE VELD NEIGHBOURHOOD ... 34
4.1.1 Recent developments in Overtoomse Veld ... 34
4.1.2 Contextual factors of Overtoomse Veld as disadvantaged neighbourhood ... 35
4.2.1 Focus on space: ‘Koers 2025’, space for the city ... 37
5. CONCEIVED SPACE OF ARTS-LED URBAN REGENERATION ... 39
5.1CREATIVE CITY DISCOURSE ... 39
5.1.2 Social mix by Lola Luid ... 40
5.1.3 Diversity in policy ... 41
5.1.4 Diversity in, and according to Lola Luid ... 42
6.1EXPERIENCE OF PLACE:OVERTOOMSE VELD ... 43
6.1.1 Shops and meeting places ... 43
6.1.2 Social structures ... 45
6.1.3 Local governance ... 46
6.1.4 Fear of rent increase ... 48
6.2CREATIVE CITY DISCOURSE IN PRACTICE:LOLA LUID ... 49
6.2.2 Diversity: no balance ... 55
7. CONCLUSION ... 57
7.1CONTRADICTIONS IN PERCEIVED, CONCEIVED AND LIVED SPACE ... 57
7.2CONTRIBUTION TO GENTRIFICATION DEBATE ... 58
7.3RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REINSTATING THE SOCIAL IN SPATIAL PLANNING ... 59
LIST OF REFERENCES ... 61
APPENDIX I ... 64
FIELD NOTES BUURTZAAK ... 64
APPENDIX II ... 68
FIELD NOTES LOLA LUID ... 68
APPENDIX III ... 75
FIELD NOTES FROM THE STREET ... 75
APPENDIX IV ... 77
TRANSCRIPTION INTERVIEW NO. 1 ... 77
APPENDIX V ... 87
1. INTRODUCTION
“In keeping with the discursive strategy of the neoliberal project, which deploys carefully
selected language to fend off criticism and resistance, organized around a narrative of competitive progress (…), we have apparently arrived in the age of regeneration, revitalization and renaissance in the hearts of Richard Florida’s cities of technology, talent and tolerance. Lost in the alliterative maze are the critical perspectives on gentrification upon which our understandings of the process and its effects were built” (Slater, 2006:738).
Fairly recently, the district of Nieuw-West in Amsterdam is being promoted as ‘the new Kreuzberg’, a neighbourhood in Berlin known for its hip and happening gentrification. In an article in Het Parool (2015), a key Amsterdam-based newspaper, attention is given to the major regeneration plans that are currently underway in this municipal district. Located at the western side of Amsterdam, Nieuw-West can be distinguished as a suburban city area, separated from the inner city by the main ring-road. After recent years of crisis, construction has begun to transform the area in quite a significant manner. The renovation of older dwellings, the construction of new ones, and the re-zoning of plans are all part of this fundamental transformation envisioned by the municipality. With the argument of releasing the increasing pressure on the inner city, Ronald Mauer, as representative responsible for daily governance within the district, finds it only logical that now the move is being made to the outer city area of Nieuw-West (Het Parool, 2015). Especially the area between the ring-road and the metro line that runs from the north-west to the south-west of the city, where the neighbourhood of Overtoomse Veld is situated in-between, faces extensive developments.
An important aim of these developments is to build for students and youngsters, with the hope that they will stay in the neighbourhood when they complete their education. Mauer hereby refers to a future vision of Amsterdam of becoming similar to Berlin, with its emphasis on the spreading of the city beyond its centre. Similarities are seen between Nieuw-West and gentrified neighbourhoods such as Kreuzberg and Brooklyn, New York, due to the mix of original residents and newcomers (Het Parool, 2015).
Besides these renovations and new constructions, a vacant school building in the neighbourhood has been transformed into a temporary pop-up mall by a group of artists, called Lola Luid. By emphasizing the public character of the building, the initiators aim to provide a connection between the old residents and the newcomers. In light of these developments, social geographer Wouter van Gent cautions for disregarding the consequences of gentrification for the initial inhabitants of the neighbourhood. If the district of Nieuw-West has the ambition to follow the example of Kreuzberg, a former immigrant neighbourhood roughly similar to the current composition of Nieuw-West, such a
debate on gentrification and its effects for the less privileged initial residents needs to be held (Het Parool, 2015). It is precisely this latter comment that spurs the interest of this thesis, which is a critical study that revolves predominantly around answering the following research question:
How can temporary place-making of Lola Luid, in a policy context of urban regeneration, be observed as spurring a process of beginning gentrification in Overtoomse Veld, through the lived experience of space?
1.1 Phenomenal debate on gentrification
The major regeneration plans that the purportedly deprived neighbourhood of Overtoomse Veld is facing, display preliminary signs that the phenomenon of gentrification is now spreading beyond the ring-border into this area. In Amsterdam, it can be said that the inner city is now largely gentrified, which makes the quest for new places reach beyond the ring-road border. In the field of urban planning, the debate on this phenomenon is astounding.
Gentrification is often understood as the middle-class taking over former working-class neighbourhoods. In its original understanding, coined by urban sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964, it refers to class inequality and injustice which can be observed through the displacement of less privileged initial residents, unable to remain in the area due to property price increases. Though, recent accounts on gentrification appear to lead attention away from its unequal essence. By means of rebalancing the concentration of poverty through an influx of middle-class residents, merits that are ascribed to this middle-class, such as having a work ethic and paying taxes, are assumed to stimulate low-income residents to do the same. This process would result in a higher quality of the urban living environment, benefiting all residents (Duany, 2001; Byrne, 2003). Tom Slater (2006), a pronounced author on urban injustice, finds this development in the debate worrying, as he thinks that the choice for low-income communities between either unliveable degeneration, or renewal and displacement, is a fairly false one. Especially the presumption that the social mix resulting from gentrification is a remedy for urban decay is questionable. In a contemporary context of neoliberal urban policy, policy rhetoric that combines urban regeneration proposals with social mix objectives needs to be critically examined, in order to perceive the injustices that lie beneath them.
A particular form of current policy rhetoric on urban regeneration, is inclined by an appreciation of cultural representations and creativity, often in the form of temporary initiatives. Such strategies conceive creative industries to be a catalyst for widespread investment. The development of such strategies is seen as being greatly influenced by Florida’s (2002) theory of a creative class, stating it to be a driver for economic development. Critical notions however, question the practical consequences of such rhetoric. Critical perspectives point at the opportune utilisation of creative city discourse in neoliberal urban policies, thereby normalizing socio-spatial inequality and gentrification (Peck, 2005).
1.2 Necessity for qualitative research
Concerning critical literature on gentrification, a void is recognized concerning qualitative research (Slater, 2006; Davidson, 2009). Especially with regard to the aspect of displacement, merely quantitative accounts on actual, physical displacement direct the attention away from the wide-ranging implications of its fine-grained process. Resulting from this methodological gap, the understanding of gentrification as a socio-spatial process that is unequal by nature gets lost. As Davidson (2008: 2401) states:
“Gentrification must therefore proceed with an understanding of displacement as a process and remain critical of the potential for injustice bound up in it”.
This thesis aims to address this methodological gap, by providing a qualitative account on an initial process of gentrification, by means of an ethnographic method. As such, I take on a perspective that emphasizes the multi-faceted processual nature of gentrification as a phenomenon of urban inequality. In particular, I will look at the case of Overtoomse Veld, where I place a special focus on the creative, cultural initiative of Lola Luid and its role in this process.
1.3 Conceptual framework founded on three spatial dimensions
The conceptual framework is structured in three-fold and finds its basis from theoretical thinking on different dimensions of space by Edward Soja (1996) and Henri Lefebvre (1991). Three metaphysical perspectives on space are offered, that are helpful in distinguishing the contradictions between regeneration policies, culturally inclined initiatives and the actual lived space of everyday life. These are defined as: perceived space, conceived space and lived space. This thesis argues that in the neighbourhood of Overtoomse Veld, the focus lies too much on the perceived space of renovating and constructing buildings, and the conceived space consisting of art-led urban regeneration theories, while the lived space of ‘non-creative’ residents remains marginalized. By including the dimension of ‘lived space’ in this study, it provides insights to place the sociality of planning back into the gentrification debate. The highly qualitative method of ethnography is most useful for grasping this important dimension in an initial process of gentrification.
1.4 Discrepancy with the fundaments of planning (political, social, spatial)
By taking on a conceptual framework and method that comprehends the dimension of lived space, the significance of socio-cultural aspects can be distinguished. Given the developments in the debate on gentrification, where the inherent facet of inequality seems to fade, together with the augmented utilisation of creative city discourses in urban policies, I believe it is highly relevant to reach back to these essential aspects in urban planning. This is done by means of theoretical insights derived from Forester (1989), Jacobs (1961), Zukin (1995; 2010) and Friedman (2010), regarding the political, social and cultural elements in planning. These are utilised to argue how the socio-spatial foundation of urban planning needs to be revalued in the debate on gentrification.
Furthermore, it places this process in a wider course of actions of municipal policy that is focused on neighbourhood regeneration and cultural temporary use. It thereby uses insights from principal works on the essential socio-spatial underpinnings of urban planning.
This is in line with the argument from Davidson (2008: 2402), stating that:
“Critics of gentrification therefore have to continue to illustrate the injustices of the process and engage a policy and political debate that offers an alternative for low-income communities”.
The study does not purport to be a systemic evaluation of all relevant indicators, but is an exploratory investigation into ‘real’, ‘perceived’ and ‘lived’ circumstances of the locality of Overtoomse Veld.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
“I understand planning to be a governance practice that has evolved to address the difficulties created by the complex colocations of activities and their relations and the impacts these colocations generate across space-time. It is a practice that is not merely concerned with managing existing relations but with imagining and opening up future potentialities for improving the conditions of daily life existence and enrichment for humans in their
coexistence with each other and the rest of the animate and inanimate world” (Healey, 2007;
cited in Healey, 2009: 277).
This quote by Patsy Healey concerning the core of planning concisely sums up the fundamental aspects that are recognized throughout the following theoretical framework. I understand it as regarding planning as an authoritative practice to address societal issues across space and time, for improving or enriching the daily living conditions of human beings, the relations with each other as well as with the world around us. This is by no means a simple practice, as the world, animate and inanimate, exists and transforms by the grace of complexity.
The intertwined relationship of sociality and spatiality as hinted at by Healey (2007), are discussed in the first part of this framework on the essence of urban planning and design. The aspect of politics and power is addressed by Forester (1989), sociological insights on urban planning are discussed through Jane Jacobs (1961) and Zukin (1995) provides a critique on these insights by including cultural influences. Friedman (2010) is attentive to the sociality that is involved in spatial place-making initiatives. The second part continues on a more abstract level, through discussing Soja’s (1996) metaphysical understanding of space, as well as Davidson’s (2009) application thereof in conceptualising gentrification. This forms the bridge to the last part, concerning the significant debate on this complex phenomenon.
2.1 ESSENCE OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN
2.1.1 Planning in the face of power
A classic urban planning text was written by John Forester in 1989, about the challenges of planning practice in a perilously democratic but strongly capitalistic society. His work, titled ‘Planning in the Face of Power’, emphasizes that planning guides future action, in a world that is inherently consisting of conflicting interests and grave inequalities of status and resources. This acknowledgement regarding the unequal nature of societies, hints at the significant aspect of politics, that planners have to deal with continuously. In spite of this fact, the bottom line for planners, and the essence of planning, is to plan
for people. As such, Forrester (1989:3) explores the vocation of planning for people and their well-being, or in more traditional terms, for social welfare and social justice. Throughout this exploration, the essentially political and practical character of planning is stressed.
“Only if the practical context of power relations, conflicting wants and interests, and political-economic structures are assessed clearly can planners respond to real needs and problems in anything approaching an actually rational, if not textbook-like, way” (Forester, 1989:7).
While remembering this quote as probably the main message of his work, and keeping in mind the organizational and institutional context in which planning exists, Forester highlights the significance of perceiving planning as practical communicative action. Language and listening are fundamental aspects for a planner, due to the politically inherent meaning to them. Yet, the work of listening can be poorly understood, as listening carefully is commonly mistaken for the practice of hearing (Forester, 1989:107). As Forester (1989:107) formulates it: “in planning practice, fact and feeling, reason and emotion are
often tightly intertwined”. For all the different stakeholders and actors that are involved in planning,
even (or especially) on neighbourhood level, careful listening is necessary, which requires sensitivity, self-possession and judgement.
Listening in this regard is not a passive task, it asks for participation on behalf of the listener. The choice for ignoring or responding to the questions that are raised, may it be by neighbourhood residents or project developers, makes the listener a political actor. In this sense, Forester (1989:118) emphasizes that we can only have a meaningful world of which we are intelligible, moral members when we have a shared language, work and interaction:
“In listening we may still better understand, explain and cut through the pervasive “can’t”, the subtle ideological distortions we so often face, including of course or own misunderstandings of who we are and may yet be” (Forester, 1989:118).
In addition to this highly important aspect of listening carefully and critically, Forester (1989:132) makes a case for observing the design feature of planning as a deeply social process. Wherever a creative design impulse originates, it depends on social relations for its development refinement and ultimately its realization. In his observations of a community planning meeting, the author highlights the rhetorical, organizational cultural and political dimensions when dealing with rather simple design problems. In this light, Forester (1989:132) argues for (re-) instating a vision on urban design that respects it as being a social practice. Thus, an alternative conception of designing urban landscapes is proposed, namely as an interactive effort of making sense together in practical conversation.
Following from these insights, Forester (1989:162) appeals to a recognition of planning practice as inherently communicative and argumentative. This paves the way for considerations of the
manner in which planning practice may distort or clarify the prospected plans that affected communities face. Consequently, his argumentation is intended for developing a ‘renewal of structurally sensitive, practically engaged, ethically and politically critical planning theory and practice’ (Forester, 1989:162). As he concludes his own communicative action:
“In the face of power, justice and equality are hopes, solidarity is a source of strength, and,
however daunting the odds, there is freedom in the struggle” (Forester, 1989:162).
2.1.2 Jane Jacobs’ influence on urban planning and design
An author who has dealt with this practical struggle over power, justice and equality in urban planning in her personal life is Jane Jacobs. Her work ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’, dating from 1961, is seen by many as an essential framework for assessing the vitality of cities. Jacobs (1961:3) addresses, or in her own words, attacks the prevailing principles and aims of modern, orthodox city planning and rebuilding. Her observations on urban renewal in New York City during that time, paint a picture of planners and architects, who were not consciously ignoring the actual functioning of cities, but nonetheless were clinging on too tightly to imaginations of how cities ought to work and what ought to be good for people. Her idea on this matter was that:
“They take this with such devotion that when contradictory reality intrudes, threatening to shatter their dearly won learning, they must shrug reality aside” (Jacobs, 1961:8).
Hence, Jacobs’ (1961:6) most pressing argument revolves around the discrepancy between theories and teachings on city building and city design on the one hand, and the actual study of success and failure thereof in real life on the other. In her perspective, cities should be seen as immense
laboratories of trial and error, where city planning should be learning and testing its theories. In this perspective, she introduces sociological insights for better understanding developments in urban planning and urban renewal projects.
A principal insight in this respect, forms that of the necessity for a highly complex mixture of uses that are constantly mutually connected (Jacobs, 1961:14). The presumed civilizing function of such mixture of uses, is greatly dependent on its level of diversity. As Jacobs (1961:144) argues, enough mixture of uses – enough diversity – creates sufficient complexity to sustain city safety, public contact and cross-use. The vitality or successful functioning of a city is seen to be reliant on this.
Accordingly, Jacobs (1961:150) proposes the necessity of four fundamental conditions for generating exuberant diversity in a city’s streets and districts. The first condition refers to the competence of a district to serve more than one primary function, and existing of a population that goes out on different schedules, but are able to have a common use of many facilities. A second is that
most blocks must be short, meaning a frequency of opportunities to turn corners. The third condition proclaimed by Jacobs, forms the presence of diverse buildings that differ in age and condition, and mingle in a fairly close-grained manner. The last condition is a presence of a sufficiently dense concentration of people, where their purpose of being there is of lesser significance. This includes a density existing of people who are there for residential purposes (Jacobs, 1961:151).
In her explanation and illustration of these four conditions, Jacobs’ (1961:433)
all-encompassing approach to understand cities is that of understanding organized complexity. As she puts it:
“They [cities] present ‘situations in which a half-dozen or even several dozen quantities are all varying simultaneously and in subtly interconnected ways” (Jacobs, 1961:433).
It is here that Jacobs aims to grasp the nature of the kind of problem that a city is, where she compares it as being the same kind of problem of organized complexity as occurring in the life sciences.
Viewing cities in this light, Jacobs (1961:439) is able to argue that the tactics to understand cities depend on the microscopic or detailed view, as is done in life science research. This insight leads back to her attack on the then prevailing principles and aims of city planning and renewal, which lacked a correct understanding of the nature of the problems at hand. She believes that a stagnation of planning occurs when the first requisite for a body of practical and progressing thought is lacking, namely recognizing the kind of problem at hand (Jacobs, 1961:439).
An important warning that Jacobs (1961:242) makes in this regard, concerns the danger of a city to self-destruct, due to its diversity being so successful. When a diversified mixture of uses becomes outstandingly popular at a certain place in a city, a competition for space in this locality follows. Consequently, as the winners of this competition will present only a narrow segment of its mixture of uses (that is the most profitable one), the locality becomes more monotonous and diversity fades.
2.1.3 Cultural critique on Jacobs’ urban perspective
As Jacobs’ practical inquiry into the most ordinary scenes and events in city neighbourhoods leads to an appraisal for creating a most intricate and close-grained diversity of uses in cities, this insight is prone to critiques that encompass a cultural perspective. A fairly recent critique stems from the account of Sharon Zukin (1995; 2010). Zukin argues against the practical, sociological design necessities as mentioned by Jacobs as prerequisites for a healthy and diverse city, and stresses the power of greater political-economical-cultural forces that construct the attractiveness of a neighbourhood.
Set in New York, Zukin (1995) discusses not only the growing importance of culture for boosting a cities’ symbolic economy (formed by the intertwining of cultural symbols and entrepreneurial capital), but furthermore deliberates on what that means for social differences and urban fears. She
argues that cultural symbols have material consequences, such as in the built environment of cities, which increases as cities become less dependent of traditional resources and technologies of material production (Zukin, 1995:268). Zukin’s main point in viewing these material consequences of cultural symbols, is to raise questions as to whose culture and whose city is actually represented. In a recent work, Zukin (2010) critiques how Jane Jacobs’ insights are currently being used in the social construction of ‘authentic’ places. As such, she points at how authenticity is not developing because of the design aspects as mentioned by Jacobs, but how the notion of authentic areas is being manufactured and so increases the attractiveness of a neighbourhood.
Zukin (1995:111) mentions the use of culture as an interim development strategy, which can be useful in times of uncertainty and risky development projects. She specifically points out how we, who live in cities, like to view culture as a solution for the often heard critique that cities represent the basest instincts of human society (Zukin, 1995:1). Trendy art galleries, cafes, restaurants or museums are supposed to lift us up from the swamp that is our daily life. Opposite this viewpoint that culture makes us thrive beyond the basest instincts, is the perspective that culture can be used to control cities. Zukin (1995:1) puts it as follows: “As a source of images and memories, it symbolizes “who belongs” in
specific places”. There is an interesting tension present in this, with regard to artists or other independent
cultural producers. Public officials and developers are seen to welcome the image of a city as cultural capital, while concurrently breaking down this value that is given to the arts when demands for low-cost artists’ housing start to compete with pressures for gentrification. It is noteworthy how Zukin (1995:111) mentions how artists are welcomed at first as “bridge” gentrifiers, but cannot rely on any protection when property values rise.
Zukin (1995:261) furthermore touches upon current conceptualizations of the city, where the struggle of both ethnic and social diversity is reflected in our public spaces. Questions concerning how these diverse people form a public, how to adjust to unavoidable contact with strangers or whose face we trust, come down to questions of culture. Answers are not unequivocal, as both the common use of the term culture as well as cultural styles have changed (Zukin, 1995:262). Zukin (1995:263) observes this as a modern revolution that is ideological and behavioural, stemming from feelings amongst citizens that their centre has fallen apart, whether that was the city, family or face-to-face communications. As a consequence, the norms of civility are broken where no one knows how to talk to anyone else. Especially with regard to the appreciation of cultural diversity, which is mainly limited to ethnic ‘color’, Zukin (1995: 283) recognizes a gap with an inability to understand the social problems that are disproportionately concentrated in low-income areas. Multiculturalism alone stops short of understanding the interrelated problems of people with another culture to integrate into the legal, mainstream economy. It is the negotiation herein that needs to be grasped (Zukin, 1995:290).
2.1.4 Public culture in place-making?
A particular strand in contemporary planning literature related to the global context that Zukin refers to, is that of place-making. In general, place-making is regarded through its social dimension, as a process of transforming spaces into qualitative places and by doing so linking meaning and function to spaces (Cilliers & Timmermans, 2014:415). In this regard, an intriguing shift of the focus of urban planning is identified. Traditionally, the focus was to plan for buildings and infrastructure with the overall aim to attract life. Whereas in current place-making approaches, the focus lies on adapting spaces to people, which places an emphasis on social realities and needs (Cilliers and Timmermans, 2014:414). In light of such place-making, Cilliers and Timmermans (2014:414) mention an interesting paradox between the traditionally slow-changing nature of the built urban environment, and a society that has an increasingly dynamic character with fast-changing needs. This paradox creates tensions between the urban environment and preferences of society.
Related to this paradox, is the contribution by Feldman and Stall’s (2004: 184) on the appropriation of spaces. The authors refer to the intentional use of a space by individuals or groups to make it their own. In doing so, successful and lively places, “can be characterized by this social
orientation as addressing the needs of the communities who are the actual users of the space” (Cilliers
and Timmermans, 2014: 415). Space then becomes a place linking meaning and function.
Such a social orientation is furthermore recognized by Friedman (2010), who argues for the importance for planners to recognize the small places of the city, such as neighbourhoods, in a rapidly urbanizing world. According to the author, the needs of ordinary people and the small places at neighbourhood level which they inhabit have been forgotten in those urbanization processes (Friedman, 2010:150). He discusses how contemporary strands of literature on the city are filled with references to a scenario of ‘placelessness’. A significant share of literature refers to sprawling suburbs and desolate public housing projects such as the banlieues in Paris, as illustrations of how people growingly lose a sense of place in the city and lose the connection with the lives of others. Friedman (2010:151) especially mentions how, throughout the globe, ever larger numbers of young people are declared redundant and are pushed to the margins of society by a system that excludes them. His argument runs counter to this, as he appeals for reclaiming the places of the ‘human habitat’ as urban residents and for reconnecting our lives with the lives of others in ‘ways that are inherently meaningful’ (Friedman, 2010:152). The way to achieve such re-humanizing of the urban is by focusing on and reviving urban neighbourhoods, according to the author. This needs to be done from a perspective on place that runs from the inside out, thereby assigning a key role to the ways in which place is experienced and sometimes transformed by those that are living in it. This is contrary to other perspectives on place that observe the concept from the outside in, where place is defined by the perspective from an outside observer (Friedman, 2010:152).
2.2 PARADIGM ON SPATIALITY
Forrester’s conception of planning practice as argumentative and communicative action, Jacobs perspective of understanding cities as organized complexities through diversity and Zukin’s discussion of the use of culture as development strategy for physical interventions, all hint at the element of social construction via physical intervention that is fundamental in planning practice. In order to critically examine concrete and contemporary urban renewal plans with the supposed aim of certain social outcomes, I believe it is necessary to highlight the metaphysical understanding of space as proposed by Edward Soja (1996) in his book ‘Thirdspace’. That is, for adequately grasping the beginning process of policy-led gentrification and its meaning for residents, examining the abstract considerations on space underlying those practical plans can amount to useful insights.
2.2.1 Paradigm on spatiality
At a highly abstract level, the spatial turn in critical studies that Soja announced during the mid-nineties, is concerned with the question of how to perceive space, as well as the role that space plays in our everyday lives and the world we live in. Human geographer Soja (1996) proposed an important perspective on this matter in the form of a ‘trialectics of spatiality’. The central argument of Soja’s work forms the importance of the ontological, epistemological, and theoretical rebalancing of spatiality, historicality and sociality as all-embracing dimensions of human life. Soja’s (1996:1) extensive work is based on the belief that “the spatial dimension of our lives has never been of greater practical and
political relevance than it is today” (Soja, 1996:1). As such, space got to be scrutinized with a same
critical emphasis as was predominantly given to time and history on the one hand, and social relations and society on the other.
The main purpose of Thirdspace is an encouragement for creatively redefining and expanding our contemporary consciousness of spatiality. Soja (1996:2) argues for not narrowing or confining the scope of our critical geographical imagination, but to keep our ways of thinking about space open. Only fairly recently, the spatial aspect of human life is being regarded by a growing community of scholars and citizens in a similar vein as sociality and historicality. The author mentions how “there is a growing
awareness of the simultaneity and interwoven complexity of the social, the historical and the spatial, their inseparability and interdependence” (Soja, 1996:3). As such, Soja presents a vital third mode to
theoretical and practical understandings of the world around us, which was heretofore essentially two-sided, namely social and historical. The author calls this a three-sided sensibility of spatiality-historicality-sociality, which “is not only bringing about a profound change in the ways we think about
With regard to conceptualising the matter of space, Soja introduces a ‘trialectics of spatiality’. This concept proposes three realms of understanding and experiencing space, which Soja (1996:10) views as being connected to Lefebvre’s (1991) meta-philosophical invocation of three different kinds of spaces; perceived space, conceived space and lived space. Soja (1996) refers to these perspectives as firstspace, secondspace and thirdspace. Firstly, perceived space or firstspace is mainly fixed on the concrete materiality of spatial forms. Cilliers and Timmermans (2014:413) mention this as the dominant mode for understanding space and the primary mode of operation for planners. Secondly, conceived space or secondspace is defined as ideas about space, or representations of human spatiality in mental or cognitive forms (Soja, 1996:10). The first perspective of space is often considered as ‘real’, whereas the second is considered as ‘imagined’. The third perspective on space, that is conceptualised as the lived or thirdspace, draws on both the first material and the second cognitive perspective on space, but extends beyond this dualism. Such spaces of representation are directly produced and experienced as images and symbols, formed by the everyday life of users (Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 1996 in Cilliers and Timmermans, 2014:413). As Soja (1996:23) states, the ultimate goal of this third perspective on space, which entails a radical openness and limitless scope, is ‘to contribute to the progressive resolution of at
least some of the problems associated with this contemporary restructuring-generated crisis’. It is this
thirdspace that needs to be recognized more in critical spatial studies, if the scope and practical relevance of our thinking about space and related concepts such as place, environment and city are to be expanded.
2.2.2 Spatiality in the gentrification debate
An author that pursues to reconceptualise the underlying notions on space in the debate on gentrification-related displacement, is Mark Davidson (2009). By means of Soja’s perceptions, this scholar emphasizes the lived experience of space in his conceptualisation of displacement as being an inherent part of gentrification. His argument revolves around rethinking the philosophy of space that underpins the gentrification debate, in order to highlight the intricate socio-spatial relations. Davidson (2009:220) identifies the ‘absence of phenomenology (the philosophical study of the structures of consciousness and experience) and associated critical understandings of place’ in the debate on displacement in gentrification literature. Contemporary debates on this topic are generally based on the actual physical removal of people from neighbourhoods, while disregarding the socio-spatial relations associated with displacement. As such, Davidson (2009) recognizes a continued presence of a theoretical and empirical void in understanding displacement from a thirdspace or lived space perspective.
The definitions of space and place are of substantial importance in this regard. As current gentrification literature is mainly concerned with the extent of physical displacement occurring within gentrifying neighbourhoods, a significant consequence is the interpretation of displacement as a purely spatial process. In this sense, space is considered as an abstraction, reducing the understanding of displacement as a purely spatial re/dis-location of individuals (Davidson, 2009:223). The problem of
such an understanding, is that it ignores important space/place tensions which involve the social aspect of space. In order to grasp displacement in its phenomenological entirety, this narrow spatial understanding needs to be replaced by one that captures the full dimensions of the process (Davidson, 2009:226).
As Davidson (2009:226) explains, the concept of place needs to be reasserted in displacement. The importance of such a reassertion lies in its capacity for asking questions as: ‘What does a loss of place constitute?’ or: ‘How is a loss of space differentiated from a loss of place?’. Davidson (2009:226) here refers to humanist geographer Tuan (1977:3), who claims that ‘place is security, space is freedom:
we are attached to one and long for the other’. In this perspective, place is seen as securing identity and
existence. Such an understanding of place distinguishes it from space, where the latter is regarded as being less attached to the self. Consequently, a subject’s alignment distinguishes a loss of place from a loss of space. When it is asserted that merely the spatial relocation of individuals constitutes displacement, place is understood as space. The personal attachment to place as securing identity and existence is then forgotten. For Davidson (2009:226), this lacking distinction in argumentation is what makes the abstracting metaphors underlying the current debate on displacement problematic. This identification paves the way for observing displacement not merely as actual physical displacement, but as an experience of a loss of place by people that are unable to (re)construct place (Davidson, 2009:228). In his reasoning, Davidson (2009:230) draws on Lefebvre’s conception of space, as previously discussed through Soja, to come to a principal implication for the study of gentrification-related displacement. Following from Lefebvre’s philosophy on space, the extent of displacement has to be understood through a more adequate, ‘placed’ conception of space within literature on gentrification (Davidson, 2009:231). This point stresses the loss of space/place as can be experienced by individuals, which needs to be regarded as displacement as much as the physical outward movement. The social utility of home and neighbourhood (Tuan, 1977 in Davidson, 2009:231) is thus recognized. The importance of such a perspective lies in the opportunity for analysing the spatial underpinning of social relations, seen as an essential part of the capitalist city. Within such a conception of displacement, merely preserving space as a political goal holds no guarantee of truly protecting place. This makes it possible to politically challenge contemporary urban renewal plans on the base of gentrification-induced displacement. Thus, the essential dimension of lived space for critical inquiries on gentrification is emphasized:
“(…), I want to make the point here that a general failure to understand lived space in its entire dimensions in recent gentrification scholarship represents a particularly significant problem for critical commentary” (Davidson, 2009:229).
2.3 DEBATE ON GENTRIFICATION
“It is argued that the ‘eviction’ of critical perspectives from a field in which they were once plentiful has serious implications for those at risk from gentrification, and that reclaiming the term from those who have sugarcoated what was not so long ago a ‘dirty word’ (Smith, 1996) is essential if political challenges to the process can be effective” (Slater, 2006:737).
Jane Jacobs’ contribution to urban planning, despite her attack on the rigidity of abstractions by planners, architects of urban design and the like, is taken up by some as a way of viewing gentrification as a form of positive urban regeneration. Ironically, within such an interpretation, Jacobs’ insights practically provide a blueprint for the phenomenon of gentrification. In a context of crisis and weak planning, temporary place-making initiatives occur and are growingly supported by local authorities in their quest to urban regeneration. A special form hereof is through arts-led
regeneration, an urban development strategy, sturdily spurred by Richard Florida’s argumentation on a creative class which is presumed to stimulate economic development. However, there is a growing body of critical research that questions the assumptions underlying arts-led regeneration, arguing that it is often used as an economic development strategy resulting in an uneven distribution of the
benefits. Those critical studies perceive certain economic strategies that interfere in the physical urban realm as catering to the needs and consumption of the middle-class, while circumventing the outcomes for wider communities (Munzner and Shaw, 2015:18). For this reason, it forms a part of the
gentrification debate as is discussed here.
2.3.1 Gentrification: From sociological phenomenon to neo-liberal urban policy concept
Ever since urban sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term ‘gentrification’ in 1964, the term has
generated a large body of international literature. This immense body of scholarship makes the debate on gentrification quite a substantial one for the field of urban planning. Glass’ initial definition originated from research on housing and class struggle in London, where she witnessed Victorian houses being rehabilitated, the transformation from renting to owning, property price increases and the displacement of working-class occupiers by middle-class newcomers (Slater, 2011: 571). The original understanding thus focused primarily on the class transformation as seen in residential rehabilitation and the physical displacement of people. According to Tom Slater (2011: 571), a human geographer with a profound interest in the urbanisation of injustice, this original understanding powerfully captures the class inequalities and injustices created by capitalist urban land markets and policies. Though, merely focusing on residential rehabilitation is not sufficient to understand the urban phenomenon of gentrification today, which is rather different in terms of sheer geographical scale
(Slater, 2011: 574). Institutional arrangements, such as private property rights and the free market, are seen to create urban environments that favour capital accumulation, instead of social needs such as home, community and family.
The essential meaning and critical intent of the concept is emphasized by geographer Neil Smith (2002: 445). He mentions how gentrification has become somewhat of a dirty word for
developers, politicians and financiers, because it so accurately points at the class shift that is involved in the regeneration of a city. Concerning this notion, Slater (2011: 572) mentions:
“Over the years there have been numerous deliberate attempts to avoid the language of gentrification completely, and more recently some attempts to gentrify the term itself, putting a positive gloss on a word that was coined to signify a worrying trend, one that raises vital, normative questions about the future of urban places” (Slater, 2011:572).
An example of this ‘positive gloss’ on the term gentrification, is given by American legal scholar Peter Byrne. Byrne (2003:406) argues that the process is ‘good on balance for the poor and ethnic
minorities’. His argument is based on a contention that an increase in affluent and well-educated residents is good for cities, as it augments the number of tax payers and residents who purchase local goods and services. Furthermore, he explains how gentrification can benefit low income residents economically, politically and socially. Economically, by ‘expanding more employment opportunities
in providing locally the goods and services that more affluent residents can afford’ (Byrne, 2003:419).
Politically, by creating ‘urban political fora in which affluent and poor citizens must deal with each
other’s priorities in a democratic process’ (Byrne, 2003:421). And lastly, the social benefits can be
seen as ‘new, more affluent residents will rub shoulders with poorer existing residents on the streets,
in shops, and within local institutions, such as public schools’ (Byrne, 2003:422).
Another celebratory account on gentrification, with a similar viewpoint as Byrne, is provided by American architect and urban planner Andres Duany (2001). His work on the occurrence of gentrification in great American cities speaks of rebalancing the concentration of poverty through an influx of middle-class residents, by providing their tax base, rub-off work ethic and their political effectiveness. Furthermore, he states that the quality of life for all residents will follow in the process, since “it is the rising tide that lifts all boats” (Duany, 2001:36). Duany (2001:39) hereby dismisses critiques on the negative effects of gentrification, as existing merely of ‘old neighbourhood bosses’ who cannot accept the self-reliance of the incoming new middle-class.
Slater responds to these ‘sugar-coating’ examples of what was formerly a dirty term, and puts his response in a broader commentary concerning the eviction of critical perspectives from
gentrification research. Slater (2006: 746) identifies three key reasons why contributions to the gentrification debate have transformed from a focus on rent increases, class conflict and displacement to a language of cheering gentrification, middle class natural habitats and residentialization.
The first explains the persistent focus in theoretical and ideological ‘squabbles’ on the causes of gentrification, leading to an under examination of the effects. The acknowledgement that the multi-faceted process of gentrification is an expression of urban inequality, which leads to serious effects, gets lost in the process (Slater, 2006:747). The second reason shows similarities to Davidson’s (2009) contribution on reconceptualising gentrification-related displacement. Although displacement is a vital aspect of gentrification, in the 1990s it has been substantially ‘displaced’ from gentrification literature, due to methodological reasons. Slater (2006:748) hereby refers to the emphasis on quantitative studies for measuring the number of displacement in a neoliberal context of public policy. No numbers, meant no displacement. It is argued that qualitative research is greatly necessary to put displacement and critical perspectives on gentrification back on the agenda. Lastly, a third reason for the triumphant shift in the gentrification debate forms a misguided focus on social mix as a remedy for urban disinvestment and decay. In the current era of neoliberal urban policy, Slater (2006:751) argues that recent policy rhetoric on urban regeneration projects by means of social mix can be seen as
gentrification in disguise. The empirical evidence on the intended effects of social mix paint a
different picture, where the assumed interaction between home-owners and renters in neighbourhoods appears to be limited and how it can even lead to social segregation and isolation (Blomley, 2004:99). In this light, it is surprising that there are still not many critical accounts on policy-led gentrification in Europe. Following from these three clarifying details, Slater states that:
“Perhaps a key victory for opponents of gentrification would be to find ways to communicate more effectively that either unliveable disinvestment and decay or reinvestment and
displacement is actually a false choice for low-income communities (…), and that progress begins when gentrification is accepted as a problem and not as a solution to urban poverty and blight” (Slater, 2006:753).
2.3.2 Initial stage of gentrification: artists as pioneers
Besides this delineation of an evolving gentrification debate, which is understandably more elaborate than can be described here, the process of gentrification itself can be categorized into evolving phases as well. This is done by Clay (1979) for instance, who has developed a four-stage model for the phenomenon of gentrification. The stages range from an initial pioneer gentrification phase, to a final phase of maturing gentrification. The final stages embody the conventional understanding of
gentrification as an increasing influx of middle class residents, accompanied by real estate developers that perceive investment possibilities in the ‘upcoming’ neighbourhood. What is important to note here, is that the initial pioneers are often distinctive of the typical middle-class gentrifiers commonly associated with the maturing phase.
This particular distinction was also mentioned by Sharon Zukin (1995). She perceives the pioneer gentrifiers as existing of artists, who are welcomed as ‘bridge gentrifiers’ by public officials that appreciate the image of the city as cultural capital. However, the welcoming presence of such bridge gentrifiers becomes precarious when property values rise. Concerning pioneer gentrifiers, Rose (1984) uses the term marginal gentrifier, which is distinctive of the mainstream matured gentrifiers. She distinguishes marginal gentrifiers as the less privileged of the new middle classes, that hold a high level of educational capital and a low level of economic capital. These people, predominantly
characterised as artists, students, and young couples/families, are presumably attracted to a tolerant, socially and ethnically mixed urban environment of city centre neighbourhoods. Mendes (2013) views a parallel between this concept of marginal gentrifiers and their preferences, with Richard Florida’s terminology on the creative class and its preference towards open, tolerant and diverse communities.
2.3.3 Creative city as policy rhetoric
Richard Florida has been widely influential in the academic and policy debates on city development. His work stems from economic research, more specifically a strand of research that is concerned with a shift from older industrial models of economic organization to newer, post-industrial and ‘flexible’ economic systems (Florida 2014:196). Influenced by Marxist and Schumpeterian thought, combined with the work of Jacobs, amongst others, Florida attempts to enlarge the focus of economic development by including attention to people and places. He has done so by researching ‘creativity’, which Florida views as a key human and economic resource, in particular our shared creativity that extends across all kinds of people and is embedded in every kind of occupation. Place holds an important position according to his perspective, as it is seen to be the locus of creativity and innovation. The influence of Jacobs can be distinguished in this sense, who Florida (2014:197) mentions as being one of the first to point out that the creation of new things and new kinds of work occurs in places, not in firms. The latter can enhance efficiency and innovation at best. Florida places his empirical focus therefore on occupations, as opposed to industry, for better understanding economic transformation and the role of place. This lead to a strand of economic research that investigates how place was supplanting firms as the primary social and economic organizing unit of the post-industrial age. The main line of reasoning is formed by three specific factors that Florida (2002) identified as critical for regional economic growth, namely technology, talent and tolerance, also referred to as the 3T’s of economic development. This line of reasoning has been subject to a fair amount of critique from other scholars.
2.3.4 Creative city strategies overly celebratory
An important critique on Florida’s creative class thesis, concerns the lack of attention for economic inequality and gentrification. Peck (2005) critiques the unsubstantiated claims of causality concerning the creative class as driver for economic development. As such, Peck (2005) points at the convenient
utilisation of creative city discourse in neoliberal urban policies, that are based on gentrification and the normalization of socio-spatial inequality. In this regard, Mendes (2013) points at the rhetoric of social mixing and diversity that is inherent to the creative city discourse, hereby linking it to the process of gentrification that is similarly characterised. Specifically, the contradictions between the discourse of gentrification and its actual practice are emphasized. The promotion of social mixing, multiculturalism and difference in the discourse is short-sighted, as it neglects the practical implication of real social and housing conditions of minority groups (Mendes, 2013).
An important practical inquiry that stands critical towards the ‘creative city’ arts-led urban regeneration strategies, is provided by Munzner and Shaw (2015). Arts-led urban regeneration is understood as the development of creative industries as a catalyst for widespread investment. The authors mention how Florida’s creative city strategy is the best-known manifestation of this (Munzner and Shaw, 2015:20). The analysis studies a regeneration strategy in Newcastle, Australia, concerning a temporary use and creative activation initiative that links local cultural producers with owners of vacant properties. The following quote can be observed as combining Zukin’s reasoning on culture in capitalistic cities with a critique on Florida’s influence in creative city policies:
“Creative city arts-led urban regeneration strategies are popularly employed to stimulate local economic competitiveness through developing cultural capital” (Munzner and Shaw,
2015:18).
The conclusions show that the central aims of local physical and social activation, economic
development and support of the arts and creativity are contrasting. The benefits for local communities and the arts and creativity fall short compared to the objective of economic development. This study contributes to a greater body of critical research, which concludes that arts-led urban regeneration is often used as a rhetoric for economic development that is tailored to middle-class consumption, ultimately leading to an uneven distribution of benefits (Munzner and Shaw, 2015:18). It hereby shows the relation between temporal uses through creative city strategies, and the debate on gentrification, which is expressed more clearly in the following quote:
“Further research in Europe suggests that recognition of informal and temporary cultural uses can in and of itself constitute a gentrification strategy” (Munzner and Shaw (2015:21).
As such, attention is given to the phenomenon of temporary cultural use in Europe, which are becoming valued for sparking interest in formerly decaying places, and can be seen today as core ‘strategic components of urban planning, development and management’ (Lehtuvuori and Ruoppila, 2012: 31).
2.4 Summary
This extensive theoretical review revolves around a core understanding of urban planning as involving political, social, cultural and spatial dimensions. Forester (1989) observes planning practice as being inherently communicative and argumentative, where careful listening in practical conversation is deemed to be of great importance. Jane Jacobs (1961) provides sociological insights for designing healthy cities, existing of neighbourhoods with a diversity of both functions as people. Zukin (1995; 2010) critiques a mere focus on such design necessities, and addresses the issue of political-economic forces that decide on whose culture is represented in a city. Accounts on place-making highlight how lively places can be created by addressing the needs of the communities that are the actual users of the space.
Concerning space, Soja (1996) and Lefebvre (1991) provide three metaphysical perspectives, namely perceived, conceived and lived, in order to widen the scope for critical studies on the urban environment. An example hereof is established by Davidson (2009), who identifies the necessity of including the perspective of lived space for a more adequate understanding of gentrification-related displacement.
Lastly, the debate on gentrification is comprehensively discussed, while connecting it to theories on the creative city. Here, it is emphasized how critical perspectives that perceive gentrification as a process need to readdress the inherent inequalities of the phenomenon. As the literature on the creative city has shown, in theory, diverse, creative and open places in a city are thought to produce practices of creativity and innovation, resulting in a flourishing city life. This spurs the argument that by creating social mix in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, upward social mobility can occur. However, a substantial amount of literature contradicts these intended effects from theory, by pointing at the practical effects of social exclusion and gentrification on neighbourhood level.
3. METHODOLOGY
“[The primary historical mission of critical thought … [is] to perpetually question the obviousness and the very frames of civic debate so as to give ourselves a chance to think the world, rather than
being thought by it, to take apart and understand its mechanisms, and thus to reappropriate it intellectually and materially” (Wacquant, 2004:101 in Slater, 2006:753).
This thesis seeks to investigate a planning topic by means of an ethnographic method. The theoretical ‘squabbling’ in the aforementioned gentrification debate shows the great importance of the chosen methodology for the resultant contributions to this debate. As Friedman (2010) touches upon the importance of focussing on the neighbourhood scale when assessing place-making, critical scholars such as Slater (2006) and Davidson (2009) are more explicit in stating the need for research on the lived-experience of space in order to adequately address the issue of gentrification.
As the aim of this research project is to explore the lived experience in a neighbourhood that is on the verge of gentrification, choosing a qualitative method of ethnography is only logical. Even more so, considering Forrester’s (1989) argumentation on behalf of practical engagement in planning, and Friedman’s (2010) call for focusing on urban neighbourhoods from an inside out perspective.
As ethnography is not a typical or traditional method for research in planning, I believe it is important to explicate why this interdisciplinary method can provide useful insights for both theory and practice of urban planning. To do so, two relevant examples are considered where this combination of ethnography and planning has already been employed. These two examples form the bridge to my conceptual framework, which leads to the main research question on the experience of lived space in a neighbourhood that is prone to an initial phase of gentrification.
3.1 Problem statement
The problem statement is derived from theoretical contributions by Slater (2006) and Davidson (2009) in particular:
In the debate on gentrification and displacement, critical qualitative research is substantially lacking, including a general failure to understand the dimension of lived space, which is essential in the practice of urban planning.
3.2 Research design
How can temporary place-making of Lola Luid, in a policy context of urban regeneration, be observed as spurring a process of beginning gentrification in Overtoomse Veld, through the lived experience of space?
In particular, it consists of a single case study, namely the neighbourhood of Overtoomse Veld, located in the municipal district of Amsterdam Nieuw-West. This design consists of an in-depth study of a particular research problem, as opposed to more comprehensive comparative inquiries. Since, the theoretical framework indicates the necessity for a detailed and descriptive exploration of the
phenomenon of gentrification. More specifically, qualitative accounts of displacement were called upon to contribute to this debate. A case study design is excellent for such purposes of detailed contextual analysis of complex phenomena. The reason for focussing on a single case, forms the aim to conscientiously explore how a process of beginning gentrification can be observed in practice. The only comparison I will make, is between municipal urban regeneration policies, the visions behind Lola Luid and the experiences of neighbourhood residents, to discover existing discrepancies.
3.3 Example of ethnographic contributions to planning
Since the main method in this qualitative research project is ethnography, I now turn to an example of how an ethnographic method is useful in planning research. This is done by Christmann (2014), who suggests an ‘ethnographic discourse analysis’ as possible complex research design. Such a research design, according to Christmann, can be of help for empirically exploring structures and dynamics of space-related communicative action in actor constellations. This research is relevant as it focuses on a research question involving ‘urban pioneers’ and by investigating bottom-up initiatives that aim to achieve more quality of life in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In the reflective conclusion, Christmann (2014:249) discusses how this particular methodological proceeding proved adequate to investigate spatial transformation processes on a ‘microscopic level’.
It is precisely this last point that is relevant for my research on Overtoomse Veld, as a neighbourhood that is on the eve of gentrification. The spatial transformation processes that are occurring are investigated on such a microscopic level, namely through observations on the streets of the neighbourhood and in particular at Lola Luid.
3.4 Ethnographic ontological and epistemological considerations
As this research explores the phenomenon of gentrification, which is social-constructivist by nature, it is evident that I take on an ontological position linked to constructionism. This entails a presupposition that social phenomena and the meanings assigned to them are continually being established by social actors (Bryman, 2008:20). The epistemological stance is interpretivist. I adhere to Schutz’ (1962:59) phenomenological ideas on social sciences, which firstly point out that social reality has meaning for
human beings, which leads to meaningful actions on their part; and secondly refer to the role of the social scientist in grasping those meanings and actions from their point of view.
Regarding methodological considerations for ethnographic research, LeCompte and Goetz (1982) provide a clear viewpoint. The formulation of problems in this type of research is distinguished as ‘emphasizing the interplay among variables in a natural context’ (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982:33). As ethnography is usually conducted in a real-life setting, it is particularly interested in contextual factors and on-the-spot analysis of causes and processes. In addition, concerning the nature of research goals, ethnographers: “attempt to describe systematically the characteristics of variables and phenomena, to
generate and refine conceptual categories, to discover and validate associations among phenomena, or to compare constructs and postulates generated from phenomena in one setting with comparable phenomena in another setting” (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982:33). Following from this, the concepts in
this research are developed to fit the data. This explanation points at the inductive stance on the relationship between theory and research as mentioned by Bryman (2008:366), as the formulation of hypothesis a priori is commonly avoided by ethnographers.
3.5 Conceptual framework
3.5.1 Gentrification without physical displacement
As I focus on a process of initial gentrification, where actual physical displacement cannot be observed, the insights from Shaw and Hagemans (2015) concerning gentrification without
displacement are of great significance. The relevance lies in the possibility offered by the authors for distinguishing how physical transformations in urban neighbourhoods cause a sense of loss of place without physical displacement (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). Although the researchers have not used an ethnographic method, their deeply qualitative approach provides essential notions for my research on the process of beginning gentrification in the Overtoomse Veld district.
The notions I am referring to, follow from the theoretical foundations on which Shaw and Hagemans (2015) build. These foundations share similarities with the theoretical framework of this thesis, with regard to the debate on critical perspectives on the process of gentrification. Based on Davidson’s (2008) work, the authors identify the loss of place according to two elements that are categorized as being most vulnerable to processes of class transition: shops and meeting places, and social structures and local governance (Shaw and Hagemans, 2015:326).
In their research, the method that Shaw and Hagemans (2015:330) have used are in-depth interviews. The respondents were long-term low-income residents of secure community housing in the gentrifying neighbourhoods Fitzroy and St. Kilda in Melbourne, Australia. The respondents were invited to participate in the study through the community housing providers.
With regard to the analysis of the data derived from the interviews, the authors took a deeply qualitative approach. The interest of the research was aimed at the residents’ experiences and how they
