Street food : from stigmatized to celebrated practice? : an exploration of the food trend in Amsterdam and Berlin

STREET FOOD: FROM STIGMATIZED

TO CELEBRATED PRACTICE?

An exploration of the food truck trend in Amsterdam and Berlin

Master Thesis | Research Master Urban Studies University of Amsterdam | Graduate School of Social Sciences

Joline Rodermans | 6118216 jolinerodermans@gmail.com Supervisor: Prof. dr. Jan Rath February 2017

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank Prof. dr. Jan Rath for his supervision, support and flexibility. Second of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the participants of this research for taking the time to share their knowledge and stories with me. Last but not least, I would like to thank my boyfriend, family and friends for their thoughts and encouragement.

In loving memory of my mother.

Index

Acknowledgements ... 3

1. Introduction ... 7

2. Literature review ... 9

2.1 The stigmatized practice - ‘the pushcart evil’ ... 9

2.2 The celebrated practice - gourmet food trucks ... 12

2.3 Governmental interference & accommodating the street food trend ... 14

2.3.1 Market driven approach ... 14

2.3.2 Governmental-driven policy experiments ... 16

2.4 Critical voices ... 19

2.5 Vendor strategies to accommodate the food truck trend ... 20

2.6 In summary ... 20

3. Methodology ... 21

3.1 Research questions and operationalization ... 21

3.2 Comparative Case Study Approach - Cases and Case-Selection ... 22

3.3. Data Collection ... 23

3.4 Data Analysis ... 25

4. Food trucks in Amsterdam ... 27

4.1 Regulatory history and context mobile street food vending ... 27

4.1.1 History ... 27

4.1.2 Regulatory context ... 28

4.2 Food trucks in Amsterdam prior to the policy experiment ... 30

4.3 The supportive food truck policy experiment ... 30

4.3.1 The initiative proposal ... 30

4.3.2 License and entry requirements ... 31

4.3.3 Parking and vending regulations ... 32

4.3.4 Regulatory barriers and vendor experiences ... 33

4.3.5 City council’s perspective ... 35

4.4 Food trucks in Amsterdam outside of the policy experiment ... 36

4.5 In sum ... 36

5. Food trucks in Berlin ... 38

5.1 Mobile Street Food Vending in Berlin: Regulatory History and Context ... 38

5.1.1 History ... 38

5.1.2 Regulatory Context ... 39

5.2 Berlin’s market-driven food truck trend ... 40

5.2.1 License requirements ... 40

5.2.2 Beginning of the street food trend ... 41

5.2.3 The maturing of the street food trend ... 43

5.3 Food trucks outside of the street food markets and events ... 45

5.4 In sum ... 46

6.1 Conclusion ... 48

6.2 Methodological considerations ... 50

6.3 Further Research ... 50

7. References ... 51

Appendix: Topic list interview guide food truck owners ... 57

1. Introduction

It is a Friday afternoon in 2015, mid-May, in Westerpark, Amsterdam. I am visiting the most famous food festival in Amsterdam, The Rolling Kitchens. I observe a myriad of bright colored (vintage) food trucks with names such as The Dutch Weed Burger, Dim Sum Now and Smoking Roaster, decorated with colorful light bulbs, plants and chalkboards, selling organic pommes frites, vegan dishes, fair trade coffee, and gin & tonics. It smells like barbecue, there is a singer-songwriter playing on his guitar and most of the crowd and vendors look young and trendy. A month later, on a Friday afternoon in 2015, mid-June, in Kreuzberg, Berlin, I am visiting one of Berlins most well-known food events, Bite Club, near the Badeschiff, a floating swimming pool in the city’s river the Spree. Here the vendors sell the ‘finest Italian street food’, lamb & cheeseburgers, gourmet ice and traditional German dishes from their (vintage) food trucks and trailers decorated with similar colorful light bulbs, plants and chalkboards. There is a DJ playing music and also in Berlin the patrons and vendors look trendy and young. Nowadays, street food and food trucks are celebrated in popular culture and are (re-) entering the urban landscape in cities in the global north (Koch 2016, Linnekin et al. 2012, Privetera 2015). In 2008, in Los Angeles, Roy Choi and his Kogi BBQ truck catalyzed a food truck phenomenon throughout the United Stated by selling culinary fusion foods (Korean-Mexican tacos) and using the social media tool Twitter (Linnekin et al. 2012, Ehrenfeucht 2016).

However, street food in cities in the global north as such is nothing new. Think of the hot dog vendor in New York, the taco truck in Los Angeles, the Pretzel vendor in Berlin and the herring cart in Amsterdam. But now the character of street food seems to be changing. Whereas the traditional street food businesses used to be associated with unhealthy foods and unskilled vendors, the new food trucks often use differential marketing techniques (colorful trucks, catchy names, ingenious logos and online branding), are operated by culinary skills, and sell fresh, healthy, culinary adventurous, local, organic and/or artisanal foods to a young, hip and affluent clientele (Hernandez Lopez 2011, Martin 2014, Newman and Burnett 2013).

Even though street food vending already exists in cities and is nowadays re-entering the urban landscape, it has a history of being severely restricted through local laws. However, the new food truck phenomenon has reinforced debates over street food vending regulations in the media, in academia and among policy makers. To enable food trucks to successfully enter the urban landscape, scholars advocate a market-driven regulatory laissez-faire approach (Hernandez-Lopez 2011, Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Ehrenfeucht 2016, Linnekin et al. 2012) while policy makers, if they respond at all to the food truck trend, are responding with governmental-driven and complex policy experiments (Newman and Burnett 2014, Martin 2014). Three of these cities, where a highly top-down food truck experiment was applied are Toronto, Vancouver and Chicago. The aim of these policy

experiments was bringing healthier and more sustainable foods into the urban landscape. However, it is questioned to what extent these top-down driven policy experiments are an effective way to realize a vibrant street food culture (Newman and Burnett 2014). Besides, it is questioned to what extent these kinds of policy experiments are socio-exclusionary (Martin 2014, Hanser and Hyde 2014). However, Portland is a different story. The city is often heralded as the epitome of a successful urban street food culture due to its market-driven regulatory laissez-faire approach (Newman and Burnett 2014, Hernandez-Lopez 2011). Regulations are limited to safety and public health. This regulatory laissez– faire approach has helped the food truck trend unfold over the last years contributing to Portland’s urban culture and tourist appeal.

Although street food vending in the global north, and the food truck trend in particular, is an understudied phenomenon, scholarly interest is growing (e.g. Newman and Burnett 2013, 2014; Linnekin et al. 2012, Koch 2016, Ehrenfeucht 2016). However, the few studies that exist on the food truck trend are contextualized in Northern-America. Despite that food trucks have traveled to the European continent as well, scholarly insights remain few. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap. To be able to do so, two European capitals where food trucks have entered the urban landscape are selected for this research: Amsterdam and Berlin. However, they follow different trajectories in the re-introduction of street food. The rere-introduction of street food in Amsterdam is, at least partly, governmental-driven. In 2015 the municipality of Amsterdam introduced a policy experiment supporting food trucks to enter the urban landscape, similar to the experiments in Vancouver, Toronto and Chicago. In Berlin, food trucks are entering the urban landscape as well, though this is happening in a more market-driven manner, a supportive governmental policy is absent. The aim of this paper is to shed a light on the food truck trend in the European context to expand the knowledge on how local authorities should respond to this trend. Therefore, the research question of this study is: How do local governmental policies shape the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin, how do vendors experience and cope with these rules and regulations and to what extent does the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin differs? This study draws upon a qualitative comparative case study.

In the next chapter, the literature review, I will first present a section that explains why restrictive street food vending regulations exist in the global north. Thereafter, I will elaborate on the contemporary food truck phenomenon and the various policy responses including their implications. In the third chapter I will elaborate on the qualitative comparative case study design of this research. In chapter four and five I will introduce the results of the case studies in respectively Amsterdam and Berlin. Chapter six contains the conclusion and discussion of this paper, in which I will compare the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin followed by the methodological considerations and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature review

In this chapter I will introduce the academic literature that will guide me exploring the renewed popularity and the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin. Although scholarly interest in street food and food trucks is expanding along with the trend in popular culture, academic insights remain few. Most of the studies covering the growing popularity of street food are contextualized in North America. However, this trend has also spread to Europe. The empirical part of this paper should address this knowledge gap. In what follows, drawing mostly on studies embedded in the Northern-American context, I will first explain why street food vending disappeared from the streets in cities in the global north and more specifically why restrictive regulations exist. Thereafter I will elaborate on the contemporary street food trend, which seems to be characterized by gourmet food trucks. Lastly, I will elaborate on various policy responses, their implications and how vendors themselves can cope with restrictive regulations.

2.1 The stigmatized practice - ‘the pushcart evil’

First of all, in this paper, food trucks are understood as a form of mobile street food vending. Street food was for the first time defined in 1986 by the FAO on the Regional Workshop on Street Food in Asia as: “(…) a wide range of ready-to-eat foods and beverages sold and sometimes prepared in public places, notably streets.” According to this understanding, street food, as the word itself implies, is thus a form of street vending. Street vending is “the retail or wholesale trading of goods and services in streets and other related public axes such as alleyways, avenues and boulevards” (Bromley 2000: 1). Although it is hard to imagine New York without its hot dog carts, Los Angeles without its taco trucks, Amsterdam without its herring carts and Berlin without its pretzel vendors, mobile street food vending in all of these cities, like most cities in the global north, is highly regulated, restricted and controlled through municipal bylaws. In this section I will discuss why restrictive regulatory environments exist.

In his article The pushcart evil, a title that summarizes the historical negative connotation of the mobile street vendor quite well, Bluestone (1991) elaborates on the history (1890-1940) of the peddler in New York City, a history that shows many commonalities with other cities in the global north (Janssens 2014, Graaff and Ha 2015, Bromley 2000, Cross 2000). Just as in New York, in many cities the peddler has a reputation of being poor, loud, unhygienic, untrustworthy, and not paying taxes. The peddler was believed to cause public nuisance, unfair competition, traffic, and pedestrian congestion and eventually even devaluation of private property and even entire neighborhoods (Bluestone 1991, Bromley 2000, Cross 2000, Janssens 2014, Ehrenfeucht 2016). Many of today’s complicated

restrictive street food ordinances in cities in the global north find their roots in arguments against street food vending originating from the 19th and early 20th century (Ehrenfeucht 2016, Linnekin et al. 2012).

Street vending is one of the most ancient professions in the world. Going back in history, before supermarkets existed, street vendors were vital in provisioning the urban residents with food. Cities owe their existence to their food-producing countryside. Through street vendors and markets the food was distributed from the hinterlands to the urban residents (Steel 2008). The facilitation of public food markets was one of the first activities conducted by municipalities (Bluestone 1991; 69). It enabled them to regulate urban food provisioning and generate tax incomes to expand the city (Bluestone 1991, Janssens 2014, Morales and Kettles 2009). Besides facilitating urban food provisioning, the city had to police it as well. In the nineteenth century markets expanded, were chaotic and hindered pedestrians and other traffic. Despite the attempts of local authorities to limit or ban (unlicensed) peddling, (unlicensed) street hawkers kept persisting. Formal market traders and licenced peddlers saw these unlicensed peddlers as unfair competition because they did not pay taxes (Janssens 2014, Bluestone 1991). This resulted already in pre-modern times in a hostile attitude towards mobile food vendors.

This hostile attitude gained even more strength in times of the envisioned planned and structured modern city where streets were given to traffic, where supermarkets, department stores, and shopping malls made their entrance and where anti-minority sentiments rose. Many of these arguments against street food vending came from urban elites (Bromley 2000). Modernity was characterized as “on the one hand, the centralization of production and distribution in the hands of mega-corporations built around the theory of economies of scale. On the other hand, it emphasized the regulatory role of the state in managing relations between workers, managers, owners, and consumers (Cross 2000: 34)”. The personification of the modern city is the famous and influential architect Le Corbusier. Le Corbusier envisioned a new and better society in which modern city design was key. The design of the modern city was based upon the panoptic prison model of Foucault (1995): highly top-down planned, structured and controlled city with no place for indeterminacy. Urban governance followed this model. This made the modern city a city in which the chaotic practice of street food vending does not fit (Cross 2000, Bluestone 1991). Besides, cities became denser and automobiles entered the urban landscape. Traffic became a pressing problem for local authorities in this time and peddlers aggravated this problem by blocking the streets and contributing to traffic and pedestrian congestion (Bluestone 1991: 76, Newman and Burnett 2013, Ehrenfeucht 2016, Hernandez Lopez 2011). In addition, supermarkets, department stores and shopping malls mushroomed in the modern city. Food provisioning predominantly moved indoors and became privatized: shopping practices changed. Those who fell outside the formal economy operated as street vendors: the poor and the foreign newcomers (Bluestone 1991). Eating on the street was perceived as something that a decent man who could afford

to eat inside would not do (Bell and Valentine 1997). In modern times, the unlicensed peddlers were not only seen as unfair competition of licensed vendors and market traders but were now additionally perceived as unfair competition of tax- and high rent paying shopkeepers. The presence of peddlers was perceived to decrease surrounding private property values and by doing that being able to denounce complete neighborhoods (Bluestone 1991, Ehrenfeucht 2016, Hernandez Lopez 2011, Bromley 2000). Whereas the street food vendor was a vital actor in the food provisioning of pre-modern city, during the 20th _{century, street food was perceived as an inappropriate use of public space} and stigmatized as a practice for the poor and underdeveloped. Local authorities prevented mobile street food vending as much as possible.

However, critical urban scholars (Basinski 2014, Hernandez-Lopez 2011, Martin 2014) who investigated mobile street food vending argue that it were not mere modern ideals that stigmatized street food and produced hostile regulatory environments. In many American cities, the urban street food culture is mainly driven by (undocumented) immigrants. It is indeed the case that street vending is an appealing industry for more vulnerable groups in society. Costs (such as start-up, overhead, rent and taxes) are relatively low and it is easy accessible for those with a low level of education or skills. The traditional street vendor is therefore often portrayed as the ‘necessity-based’ entrepreneur (Reynolds 20002, Wongtada 2013): an entrepreneur that is in the business as a strategy to survive and not because he/she saw an innovative business opportunity. This is also the reason why more critical scholars and activists (e.g. Basinski 2014, Hernandez-Lopez 2011, Cross 2000) have long been advocating looser regulations to support the economic opportunities of traditional street food vendors who are often in the industry because they lack other options.

All these factors combined led to hostile regulatory environments that impeded entrepreneurial opportunities for street food vendors. Nowadays, in most cities in the global north, mobile street food vending is commonly regulated through local urban laws. Most cities have similar health codes that apply to street food vending while vending and parking regulations vary highly among cities (Linnekin et al. 2012, Esparza et al. 2014). These different regulatory environments involve specific license requirements, license caps and zoning and parking restrictions. These regulations may indicate where and how long a vendor can stand somewhere to sell, obey mobile street vendors to operate at a minimum distance from restaurants or shops, include litter restrictions and specific sites or neighborhoods where vending is prohibited. Informal vending, vending without a license, can be fined and can even lead to imprisonment in some cities (Ehrenfeucht 2016, Esparza et al. 2014, Hernandez-Lopez 2011)

2.2 The celebrated practice - gourmet food trucks

However, since the last decade, something interesting is happening, street food is being celebrated in popular culture. Or to put it more precisely, a specific type of street food is celebrated: gourmet food trucks. In the literature, this trend is often explained as a result of the 2008 recession, the rise of foodie culture, changing urban lifestyles and the influence of mass- and social media (Newman and Burnett 2013, Martin 2014, Pill 2014, Koch 2016, Wessel 2012, Hanser and Hyde 2014, Linnekin et al. 2012). The protagonists of this street food revolution are gourmet food trucks (Martin 2014) also described in the literature as new wave food trucks (Hernandez-Lopez 2011), upscale trucks (Basinski 2014) or as the (gourmet) food truck movement (Ehrenfeucht 2016, Pill 2014, Martin 2014).

Although the line between traditional and gourmet food trucks is not black and white (Basinski 2014), some differences are identified in the literature. Firstly, the gourmet food trucks use different branding techniques, which include different aesthetics (vintage, colorful and decorated trucks), catchy names (some of the conventional street food businesses did not even have names) and online brand creation (use of social media), which helped them to create a collective identity. Secondly, gourmet food trucks sell different, and often more expensive, products. Whereas the traditional street food businesses commonly sell pre-packaged and standardized products that are often not fresh, unhealthy and inexpensive (for example the hot dog), the contemporary street food trend is described as ‘the trend towards ethnically diverse and high quality street food’ (Koch 2016) or ‘good foods’ (Hanser and Hyde 2014) in which fresh, healthy, local and organic food options are valued. Thirdly, the vendors are often different. The new wave vendors are generally former culinary skilled chefs or other creative types whereas the traditional operators were mostly coming from vulnerable groups. Fourthly, the patrons are associated with foodies, hipsters, or young urban professionals (Hernandez-Lopez 2011, Martin 2014, Newman and Burnett 2013: 2014, Koch 2016, Pill 2014).

This contemporary street food trend has re-raised questions about where, when and how street food vendors and food truck owners can operate. As a response to the food truck phenomenon, food truck owners, foodies and even scholars are advocating for fewer street food vending regulations because in most cities, as the previous section has shown, existing rules and regulations are limiting a vibrant street food industry (Hernandez-Lopez 2011, Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Linnekin et al. 2012). Ehrenfeucht (2016) therefore stresses that ‘it’s time for a new approach’ to overcome the burdensome street food vending regulations that limit food trucks entering the urban landscape. She refutes the aforementioned main arguments against street food vending that underlie restrictive regulations: traffic and pedestrian congestion, unfair competition for nearby restaurants and the necessity of complex regulations. Just like Hernandez-Lopez (2011: 259), who refers to it as ‘the fallacy of unfair competition’, Ehrenfeucht (ibid.) repudiates the unfair competition argument by explaining how food

trucks and restaurants are distinct enough to complement each other and by questioning whether local authorities should interfere with market competition. Hernandez-Lopez (2011) echoes this by arguing in favor of the traditional street food vendors, loncheros, in Los Angeles. Ehrenfeucht (ibid.) dismantles the congestion argument by research that shows that a pedestrian- and street food culture can be compatible. Lastly, she argues that complex regulations are often impeding street vending instead of supporting it. Therefore, to accommodate a vibrant street food culture, scholars like Ehrenfeucht (ibid), Newman and Burnett (2013, 2014) and Linnekin et al. (2012) advocate a governmental regulatory laissez-faire approach in which governmental regulations are limited to issues of public health and safety and thus not include complicated license requirements including complex parking and vending regulations.

Some urban policy makers are indeed responding receptive to the food truck trend and are introducing accommodating governmental policies because they believe these new food trucks contribute to economic, social and cultural goals. Firstly, with low entry barriers, food trucks offer entrepreneurial opportunities for those who lack financial capital to start a restaurant. Secondly, it can bring affordable ‘good’ foods to the street because overhead costs for food truck owners are relatively low. Thirdly, because these food trucks often offer fresh, healthy, local and/or organic meals, it is believed that these food trucks can contribute to sustainability and public health goals. Fourthly, food trucks can activate public space and contribute to neighborhood vitality. Furthermore, food trucks can contribute to a city’s image that appeals tourists (Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Privitera 2015, Morales and Kettles 2009).

Several scholars (Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Martin 2014, Hanser and Hyde 2014) explain the sudden interest of policymakers in street food against the backdrop the cultural turn in urban policy making which took place over the last decades. Branding cities as interesting and vibrant places with abundant cultural consumption spaces is now key in urban economic prosperity (Martin 2014, Zukin 1998). The significance of cultural consumption spaces gained even more significance after the rise of the well-known and often implemented policy ideas of Richard Florida. In 2002 he published the international bestseller ‘The Rise of the Creative Class’ in which he advocates that cities can achieve economic prosperity and compete with other cities by focusing on creativity and building a city that appeals to the so-called creative class. To be able to do so cultural consumption spaces are essential. A vibrant food truck industry contributes to the image of the creative city (Newman and Burnett 2013, Martin 2014).

2.3 Governmental interference & accommodating the street food trend

As the previous section has shown, in most cities, it is cumbersome for food trucks to enter the urban landscape due to existing restrictive regulations. When it comes to governmental policy approaches to accommodate the contemporary food truck trend, food truck owners, foodies, and various scholars stress that street food vending restrictions should be reduced to public health and safety regulations. They advocate a market-driven regulatory laissez-faire approach (Ehrenfeucht 2016, Linnekin et al. 2012, Newman and Burnett 2014). Portland is an example of a city where this laissez-faire approach yields a vibrant street food culture (Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Hernandez-Lopez 2011, Koch 2016, PSU 2015).

However, when policy makers respond to this trend with supportive legislative approaches they often introduce complex governmental-driven programs instead of applying a laissez-faire approach (Newman and Burnett 2014, Martin 2014). To what extent should local authorities interfere to accommodate the food truck trend? In what follows I will introduce and discuss the two discern approaches employed by local authorities: a more market-driven regulatory laissez faire approach and governmental-driven policy experiments.

2.3.1 Market driven approach

Nowadays, Portland’s (Oregon) street food industry is often presented as the epitome of a vibrant urban street food culture (Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014), even by more critical scholars such as Hernandez-Lopez (2011: 259). Portland is designated as ‘cartopia’ (Rodgers and Roy 2010, Newman and Burnett 2013, Koch 2016). The city experienced a rapid and tremendous growth of food trucks, especially since 2010 when within one year 140 trucks entered the cities’ street food industry while two decades ago, there were just a ‘few dozen’ food trucks in Portland. In 2016 the city counted 603 registered food trucks (Koch 2016: 1240). Nowadays, Portland is well known for its vibrant street food industry that contributed to Portland’s economic growth especially because of its ‘tourism appeal’ (Newman and Burnett, 2014: 54). Other cities have used Portland as an example and have attempted to emulate Portland’s model. But how can Portland’s blossoming urban street food culture be explained?  

Newman and Burnett (2013) argue that Portland owes it thriving street food industry to its current regulatory laissez-faire approach, its urban form (walkable city and availability of privately owned parking spots and undeveloped urban space), the climate (dry warm summers and mild winters) and demographics (many left-wing oriented young people). They argue that the regulatory laissez-faire approach is replicable for other cities, while the other factors are context-dependent.

In order to understand what Portland’s regulatory laissez-faire approach implies, it is first of all important to understand the two factors that underlie the possibility of a regulatory laissez-faire approach in Portland: 1) Portland did not have to overcome already existing burdensome regulations and 2) Portland has a large deal of undeveloped privately owned urban space (Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Koch 2016). Firstly, unlike for example New York and Los Angeles, Portland did not already have an extensive existing food truck culture prior to the contemporary trend. Because of this, a priori restrictive regulations were lacking. To be able to support the contemporary street food trend, the city council of Portland did thus not have to deal with existing restrictive street food vending regulations. Due to this, the food truck trend could evolve rather organically (Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Koch 2016). According to Koch (2016: 1244) this is because Portland has a relatively homogeneous population when it comes to socio-economic and ethnic diversity and the city lacked the group of people that were traditionally drawn to the street food industry. Secondly, Portland’s food trucks do not operate in actual public space but on privately owned land that is publicly accessible. Portland has an unusual availability of privately owned parking spots and undeveloped urban space. The food truck owners lease a vending spot from the person that owns the land on which they want to operate. This also enables them to form clusters, or ‘pods’ as it is locally called. Food trucks do not have to be mobile all the time and can build seating. Licenses to operate in public space are scarce and restrictive, but licenses to operate at privately owned land are relatively easy and inexpensive to obtain. There is no license cap that limits the amount of licenses and governmental involvement and control is limited to safety and health issues. Outside of these issues, control is complaint based (Newman and Burnett 2013; 2014, Koch 2016). In spite that Koch (2016) argues that Portland has a relatively homogenous population, a research report by the Urban Vitality Group in collaboration with the City of Portland shows is that 51% of the surveyed food truck owners is born outside of the United States. Besides, it seems as if the laissez-faire approach contributes to the economic success of the vendors: 63% strongly agrees with the statement “The food cart has been a good way for me to support myself and my family”, 19% indicated that they have another job on the side and 13% indicated that they have seasonal jobs next to the food truck (PSU 2015).

This market-driven regulatory laissez-faire approach of Portland as promoted by Newman and Burnett (2013, 2014), in which governmental interference is limited to public health and safety regulations and where food trucks can operate freely at privately owned public space, is what food truck owners, food truck enthusiasts and scholars like Ehrenfeucht (2016), Hernandez-Lopez (2011) and Linnekin et al. (2012) recommend when city councils want to realize a vibrant street food culture. However, the possibility of the minimum amount of governmental interference in Portland should be understood against the backdrop of Portland’s uniqueness in terms of lacking restrictive street food vending regulations and the great deal of publicly accessible privately owned space, which can be used by the food truck owners. Besides, it should be taken into account that Portland’s successful street food

culture is not only dependent on the market-driven regulatory laissez-faire approach but also other factors as mentioned before.

2.3.2 Governmental-driven policy experiments

In spite of many scholars arguing in favor of a regulatory laissez-faire approach as applied in Portland, most city councils that are currently reintroducing street food do this through complex and highly top-down planned policy experiments. One of these cities is Amsterdam. In the following section I will elaborate on three cities (Toronto, Vancouver and Chicago) that implemented a similar policy experiment.

Newman and Burnett (2014) examined the in 2009 introduced A La Carte policy experiment in Toronto. Here the urban street food culture used to be restricted to hot dog carts. The goal of A La Carte was to enrich Toronto’s urban street food culture with ethnical and cultural diverse foods. This policy experiment was highly top-down regulated. A limited amount of licenses was available, vending locations were limited and selected by the city council, locations fees ran up to $15.000, vendors had to buy their trucks from the municipality, menus had to be approved by the local authorities and established chefs were favored. Trucks could participate if they sold healthy or local food. While one of the aims of the A La Carte program was to bring ethnic foods to the streets, the focus on healthy and local food options “meant that these foods were mediated through conceptions of nutrition held by local policymakers and hegemonic beliefs surrounding different cultures and appropriate foods” (p.49). Economically, the policy experiment was not very successful. Most of the entrepreneurs lost instead of earned money. In 2011 the policy experiment was considered a failure. A La Carte became designated as A La Failure. After an assessment by consultants (Cameron Hawkins and Associates Inc. 2011) and a social media campaign by (would be) vendors, foodies and residents, eventually a more looser policy program was developed. However, the new policy experiment is still governmental-led and regulated. Due to these restrictions, food trucks turned to privately owned property. This case study of Toronto shows that top-down implemented policy might result in a healthier and more sustainable urban street food culture, but complex regulations hinder economic success. In addition, high entry costs, favoring established chefs and applying ‘hegemonic beliefs surrounding different cultures and appropriate foods’ make, in comparison to for example Portland, Toronto’s urban street food culture less socio-inclusionary.  

Like Toronto, Newman and Burnett (2014) examined the reintroduction of street food in Vancouver. Although Vancouver’s city council learnt from the missteps in Toronto, they implemented a similar top-down led and regulated policy experiment. Like Toronto, prior to the policy experiment, street food vending was highly limited. But in 2010 the city council issued seventeen new licenses, there were 800 applicants (Hanser and Hyde 2014). Only entrepreneurs with healthy menus were eligible to

participate in the lottery for a license. Just like in Toronto, culinary skilled chefs were preferred. Unlike Toronto, the entrepreneurs did not have to buy their trucks from the city council but were selected based on the uniqueness of the food truck concept. The program matured after its start in 2010. In 2013 there were 99 street vendors active in Vancouver. Licenses are no longer awarded based on a lottery but on a scoring system taking specific selection criteria into account. The main criteria are: contributing to public health, to the cultural diversity of the street food industry and sustainability. Vancouver wants to be the ‘greenest city’ in the world; the food trucks should contribute to this image. Therefore, trucks that offer fresh fruits and vegetables or organic or fair-trade products are scored higher. Vending locations are fixed and a parking fee must be paid. Entrepreneurs can suggest vending locations but these are subjected to the city council’s approval. Most locations are in downtown- or business improvement areas. However, the food trucks are now slowly spreading to neighborhood areas. Plus, vending locations have to be at least 60 meters away from restaurants with a similar concept. In 2012 there were some very successful street food festivals in Vancouver that exemplified the usefulness of pods. Since 2013 the city of Vancouver is experimenting with pods on privately owned urban space, which is designated for commercial use. Although governmental-led as well, the policy experiment in Vancouver was more successful than the even more governmental-led experiment in Toronto. Albeit, similar to Toronto, the experiment might contribute to the green and healthy street food culture but strict rules and regulations limit the economic success and the license requirements may exclude vendors representing different cultures and tastes.  

Another city that introduced a highly top-down regulated policy experiment is the city of Chicago. Chicago used to have one of the most restrictive street food ordinances of the United States. The policy experiment was introduced in 2012 after a lobby leaded by two former chefs. Thirty-seven new vending locations were created in public space where food trucks entrepreneurs, with the necessary licenses, may park for a maximum of two hours to sell their products. Other regulations that include the Chicago food truck ordinance are that food trucks cannot sell in the proximity of 60 meters of restaurants and that they need to have a GPS on board in order for the city council to follow them (City of Chicago 2016, Martin 2014). According to local newspapers, such as the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune, the restrictive ordinance led to a lot of commotion in Chicago’s food truck industry. Food truck entrepreneurs are unsatisfied with the current course of events because it does not enable them to run a lucrative business. In the Chicago Sun-Times, one of the entrepreneurs was quoted: “The people making the rules have no idea what it’s like to be out here in business” (Mihalopoulos 2016). The case of Chicago seems to reinforce the question to what extent these highly governmental-driven policy experiments are contributing to economic success.

These case studies have shown examples of the reintroduction of street food with high levels of governmental interference, partly to realize healthier and more sustainable urban street food cultures.

Although these policy programs are governmental driven, they are not subsidized but market oriented. Because of this, to be able to create a vibrant street food culture, as the examples have shown, it is thus necessary for the food truck owner to be able to respond to consumer demand in order to run a profitable business. However, responding to consumer demand is being impeded by high levels of governmental interference, as for instance the example of Toronto has shown where food truck operators could not even use their own truck and decide on their own menu. However the same goes for the vending locations: the food truck owners have to be able to operate somewhere where there are potential consumers. Albeit, it should be taken into account that, unlike Portland, these cities had to deal with pre-existing mobile street food vending regulations that limited the practice. Second, whereas food trucks operate predominantly in privately owned public space in Portland, these supportive policy programs in Toronto, Vancouver and Chicago were aimed at allowing the trucks in actual public space. These factors combined complicate the reintroduction of street food in cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Chicago. .

So based on these examples, to what extent should local authorities interfere to accommodate the food truck trend? Scholars such as James Scott (1998) stress that states, at any level, are not the most suitable actors to implement creativity and spontaneity because they fail to include local knowledge. According to his often-cited book, cities should evolve organically and more bottom up. The evolvement of the street food culture in Portland is a good example of this (Newman and Burnett 2013). Next to scholars such as Newman and Burnett (2014) and Linnekin et al. (2012) who advocate this approach in favor of the contemporary street food trend, there are also scholars who argue in favor of this approach to support traditional street food vendors. For example Hernandez-Lopez (2011: 259) who argued in favor of less governmental interference to accommodate traditional Mexican taco truck vendors in Los Angeles “if the free hand of consumer demand did not like the food trucks they would not support them, Why should local regulations disrupt this market?”, or Saskia Sassen (2016) who emphasized in a lecture on street food vending that it is precisely interdeterminacy, a potential character of street food, that makes a city a city. However, through governmental interference and licensing regimes, the local governmental can shape the reintroduction of street food and thus ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ of an urban street food culture (Koch 2016). They can for example set goals such as more ethnic foods, healthier foods or more sustainable foods like the examples of Vancouver, Toronto and Chicago have shown. They could also deliberately shape more socio-democratic street food cultures, which was not really the aim in the examples of Vancouver, Toronto and Chicago.

As the preceding section has shown, there are two discern ways how food trucks can enter the urban landscape: more market-driven ways and more governmental driven ways. The previous case studies suggest that less governmental interference, thus a more market-driven reintroduction of street food,

leads to a more vibrant urban street food culture. However, it should also be taken into account that Portland is a quite unique case when it comes to the possibilities of the accommodating regulatory laissez-faire approach.

2.4 Critical voices

However, there are also more critical voices who express their concerns about the so-called gourmet food trucks, both regarding the market-driven and governmental-driven approach. Peck (2005) criticizes the creative city thesis that seems to underlie the motivation of policy makers to give food trucks more space. His argument is built on the idea that creative city policies aim at building a city for a specific urban creative elite instead of building a more inclusionary city taking racial and class dimensions into account. Martin (2014) investigated the effects of the food truck policy experiment in Chicago. She stresses that gourmet food truck entrepreneurs are accommodated at the expense of traditional immigrant street food vendors in Chicago. Traditional (undocumented) street food vendors are displaced by culinary skilled chefs. She sees policy experiments accommodating the gourmet food truck trend as worrisome example of the neo-liberalization of urban policy.

However, there are also scholars that are more critical in terms of letting the consumer decide when it comes to street food. Zukin (2008, 2010) for example argues how urban ‘authentic’ consumption spaces, such as for example farmer’s markets (2008) or (gourmet) food trucks in Brooklyn (2010), might contribute to processes of urban development that can lead to the displacement of working-class and ethnic minority consumers and, in the case of the food trucks in Red Hook, contributed to making the neighborhood more attractive for the urban middle class, which led to demographic changes in the neighborhood which resulted in the displacement of working-class and ethnic minority residents. Hanser and Hyde (2014: 46) argue, against the backdrop of the upswing of gourmet food trucks that “Food practices and tastes mark boundaries between elite and non-elite lifestyles”. They use the example of Vancouver arguing that the policy experiment in Vancouver only created more space for gourmet food trucks and excluded the former hot-dog vendors.

Taking these concerns into account, these scholars thus seem to suggest that the gourmet food trucks can possibly lead to a form of commercial gentrification which is understood by Zukin (2009: 49) as “the disappearance of traditional, local stores, and their replacement by chain stores and boutiques”. Therefore, when accommodating the food truck trend, local authorities should take social diversity into account.

2.5 Vendor strategies to accommodate the food truck trend

However, not only local authorities can contribute to a vibrant street food culture. Linnekin et al. (2012) investigated strategies food truck owners themselves can apply to overcome restrictive regulations. The four strategies they present are: the use of social media, forming urban entrepreneurial vending associations, litigation and clustering (on private-public space). On the one hand, social media can be used by individual food trucks to communicate their vending locations. In hostile regulatory environments, it thus creates resilience because they can communicate their (new) vending location easily. Besides, it can help building up a customer base. On the other hand, it has also been used for collective lobbying for looser regulations in for example Washington DC and in Toronto (Linnekin et al 2012, Newman and Burnett 2014). In many American cities, gourmet food trucks have formed trade organizations or entrepreneurial movements. These associations are often non-profit movements and membership is voluntary. These associations represent collective interests (such as political or financial issues) and help to create a collective identity (Linnekin et al. 2012, Esparza et al 2014). The third strategy is litigation and negotiation. This happened for example in Los Angeles, not per se by gourmet food truck entrepreneurs, but by traditional taco trucks. The city council of Los Angeles wanted to implement a more restrictive ordinance, the vendors went to court, and court sided with the vendors (Hernandez-Lopez 2012). The last strategy is forming ‘truck lots’, gatherings on private-public space, mostly private parking lots. This is also one of the factors that make the street food in Portland ‘successful’ and this is part of the model that is predicted as successful for the future of urban street food cultures beyond Portland (Linnekin et al. 2012, Newman and Burnett 2013, 2014).

2.6 In summary

This paper aims to contribute to insights, especially embedded in an European context, on how local authorities can interfere to accommodate the contemporary street food trend. To be able to do so, I will explore and compare the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin. As this chapter has shown, in order to understand the response of local authorities to the contemporary street food trend, it is first of all important to understand the regulatory history. Furthermore, it is important to understand the current regulatory framework concerning mobile street food vending. Thereafter, I will explore the development trajectories of the governmental-led reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and the market-led reintroduction in Berlin. I will also elaborate on what the food truck owners themselves can do to realize a vibrant street food scene and I will take the social concerns sketched out by authors like Martin (2014) into account.

3. Methodology

The main aim of this paper is to explore the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin in order to contribute to insights on how local authorities should respond to the food truck trend to accommodate it. In order to do so, it is first of all important to know how local governmental policies shape the food truck trend in Amsterdam and Berlin. To be able to explore and compare the food truck trend in these two cities, this study draws upon a qualitative comparative case study research design. In what follows, I will elaborate on this research design.

3.1 Research questions and operationalization

How do local governmental policies shape the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin, how do vendors experience and cope with these rules and regulations, and to what extent does the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin differs?

To be able to answer this question, I will answer the following sub-questions:

1. What is the (historic) regulatory context of mobile street food vending in Amsterdam and Berlin?

2. What is the development trajectory of the governmental-driven reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and of the market-driven reintroduction of street food in Berlin?

3. How do food truck owners experience and cope with these rules and regulations?   4. How social diverse is the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin?  

By answering the first question, I shed a light on the historic regulatory context of mobile street food vending in Amsterdam and Berlin to find out why and to what extent mobile street food vending is restricted in Amsterdam and Berlin.

To be able to describe the discern development trajectories of the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam, I will describe the licensing requirements, parking and vending regulations and the pace of the policy experiment in Amsterdam (from proposal to actual plan). In order to analyze the development trajectory the market-driven reintroduction of street food in Berlin, I will describe how the street food trend arrived and set out in Berlin.

To some extent, the second and third questions are interrelated. Discussing the experiences and strategies of the vendors to cope with regulatory barriers should give an insight in how vendors themselves can operate within restrictive regulatory environments. It will be evaluated to what extent the strategies introduced by Linnekin et al. (2012) are applied by the vendors.

The fourth question derives from the socio-exclusion concerns articulated by for example Martin (2014). Although this is not the main focus of this research, I do want to touch upon it. To be able to look at social diversity, I will evaluate the socio-economic and ethnic diversity of the participants of this research. Furthermore, the license/entry requirements will be evaluated in terms of social diversity.

3.2 Comparative Case Study Approach - Cases and Case-Selection

This comparative case study follows a qualitative research approach. The philosophical foundation of the qualitative case study lies in the constructivist paradigm (Baxter and Jack 2008). Constructivism “recognizes the importance of the subjective human creation of meaning, but it doesn’t reject outright notion of objectivity. Pluralism, not relativism, is stressed with focus on the circular dynamic tension of subject and object” (Miller and Crabtree 1999: 10, cited in Baxter and Jack, 2008: 545). The qualitative methodology aims at verstehen. Social reality is thus perceived from the perspective of the participants in the study (Bryman 1984: 78, Baxter and Jack 2008).

But why use a qualitative case study approach? Through case study research, an intensive (qualitative) research approach is applied which is in contrast with the extensive (quantitative) approach. Applying an extensive approach implies investigating a large number of cases. Findings of the research are then believed to be generalizable because they are applicable to a large amount of cases. Applying an intensive approach diving deeper into a social phenomenon and generate more in-depth insights. The intensive approach is often called a case study (Swanborn 2010, Gerring 2004).  Yin (2009: 17) echoes this motivation of using a case study based on the work by Schramm (1971) “The essence of a case study, the central tendency among all types of case study, is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they are taken, how they were implemented and with what results” (emphasis added by Yin 2009). Since the aim of this study it to explore and describe the distinct trajectories of the reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin, the qualitative case study method is selected for this research.

However, this paper does not draw on a single case study but on a multiple comparative case study. As the literature review has shown, there are two manners how food trucks can enter the urban landscape: more market-driven and more governmental-driven. Since the aim of this study is to give an insight in how different levels of governmental interference affect the reintroduction of street food in the European context, two cases that represented these two discern approaches were selected. Therefore, Amsterdam and Berlin are selected as diverse cases (Gerring 2007). Amsterdam is selected because of the presence of a supportive governmental food truck policy comparable to the policy experiments of Vancouver, Toronto and Chicago (Newman and Burnett 2014, Martin 2014). Berlin is selected as the case that represents the market-driven approach. Prior to the start of this research, I visited multiple

street food markets and events in Berlin. Therefore, I knew food trucks were gaining popularity in Berlin. Besides, German media presented street food as a new trend in Berlin (Vorbringer 2015, Wagner 2014). A supportive governmental policy is absent in Berlin. Although Amsterdam and Berlin are selected, they also share some commonalities which make them eligible for this comparative case study: both capitals, geographical location (Western European cities) and urban governance model characterized by a cultural turn in policy making (Peck 2012, Colomb 2012). By selecting and comparing these two diverse cases, this study thus aims to give an insight in the two distinct development trajectories of the food truck trend in the European context.

3.3. Data Collection

In order to explore how different policy approaches affect the reintroduction of street food in the urban landscape, various qualitative research methods were combined. The fieldwork, in Amsterdam and Berlin, took place between January and November 2016. The main sources of data used in this inquiry were policy documents and semi-structured interviews. In addition, academic articles were used to describe the history of mobile street food vending in Amsterdam and Berlin, multiple street food events were visited, I worked in semi-fixed gourmet street food business and newspaper, books, articles and blogs were used to gain a better understanding of the growing popularity of street food in Amsterdam and Berlin. However, these data sources played a minor role in the analysis of this study. Therefore, in what follows, I will discuss the two main sources of data collection (analysis of policy documents and interviews) in more depth.

This comparative case study draws on discern policy approaches. Therefore, to be able to analyze these different policy approaches, policy documents covering the current rules and regulations, and licence requirements concerning mobile street food vending in Amsterdam and Berlin were analyzed and summarized. In the Amsterdam case, this thus includes the new governmental-driven policy experiment that supports the re-introduction of street food in the urban landscape. Both the initial proposal and the actual policy document are taken into account to be able to analyze the trajectory of the reintroduction of street food.

However, semi-structured interviews are central in this inquiry. Table 1 and 2 give an overview of the participants in this research. Participants are predominantly food truck owners (table 1). To gain a better understanding of the reintroduction of street food, food truck owners’ perspectives were supplemented with the perceptions of city officials and other actors involved in the reintroduction of street food (table 2).

General criteria used to select the food tucks owners were based on aforementioned characteristics of the new street food trend: started after 2008, aesthetics, selling ‘good’ foods and participating in either the policy experiment or in markets/events that characterize this trend. In addition, they had to be predominantly active in either Amsterdam or Berlin. The food truck owners were selected through purposive sampling or snowball sampling (Bryman 2008).

In Amsterdam, all the food truck owners participating in the food truck pilot whereof contact details were available, which were twenty-nine food truck owners, were approached. Eventually eight participated in the research. The group of food truck owners participating in the pilot project was united in two different conglomerates, food truck owners of both conglomerates participated. Both chiefs of these conglomerates were among the participants of this research. In addition, one of them was also in the board of the Dutch association for street food (Street Food Nederland). However, besides the governmental-led reintroduction of street food, in Amsterdam food trucks are additionally entering the urban landscape in more market-driven manners as well (mainly festivals and events). Some of these food truck owners deliberately did not want or could not to take part in the policy experiment. To investigate their perspectives and to shed a light on the more market-driven reintroduction of street food in Amsterdam, some of these food truck owners were included in the research. Two of them operated from privately owned space (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), the others were only active on festivals. One of these non-pilot participants (number 13) was a more ‘social’ street food initiative contributing to employment opportunities of vulnerable women. In addition to the interviews with entrepreneurs other actors were interviewed. Among them were three city officials: the alderman who initiated the policy experiment, the lawyer who designed the policy experiment and one of the project managers of the pilot project. To reflect on the success of the pilot project, the project manager was interviewed twice: once in February 2016 and once in October 2016. To gain a better understanding of the current food truck trend in the Netherlands, a catering company manager was interviewed. In addition, two rather informal interviews took place with an academic investigating urban markets in Amsterdam and the first ice cream/hot dog vendor in Amsterdam. All interviews were conducted in Dutch.

In Berlin, fourteen interviews were conducted, whereof nine food truck owners, four street food vendors who used a stall and one street food market manager. In total, twenty food truck owners were approached. In addition the city council and several street food market managers were approached, unfortunately in vain. All the food truck owners and street food vendors interviewed in Berlin were active in at least one the street food markets/events in Berlin (Street Food auf Achse, Street Food Thursday, Bite Club). Except for the participants representing food truck no. 18. However, this truck was often mentioned in the German media, even in some American media, as one of the first food trucks in Berlin. Due to this street food market and event system, several vendors did not owe a truck

but sold from a stall (number 24-27). All interviews were conducted in English, except the interview with the street food market manager in Berlin, which was held in German.

The duration of the interviews was between 45-120 minutes. All interviews in Berlin, and most in Amsterdam, were conducted in person. In Amsterdam three interviews were conducted over the phone. In addition to how the food truck owners experienced and cope with the current rules and regulations (including the presence/absence of a supportive policy experiment), they were asked about their concept (truck and foods), personal business motivations, entrepreneurial challenges and future perspectives. The topic guide is presented in appendix 1 at the end of this paper. The other participants were asked about their perspectives.

3.4 Data Analysis

The analytical approach employed in this study to analyze the interviews is inspired on framework analysis as described by Ritchie and Spencer (1994). This approach was developed for applied qualitative social policy research and allows case- and theme based approaches. Therefore, this analytical approach was selected for this study. Five interrelated phases are distinguished within framework analysis: familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting and interpretation. These stages will be discussed.

In the first phase, the researcher gets familiar with the data. Recurring ideas and themes are noted. During data collection, I already kept track of these recurrent ideas and themes to be able to include them in my interview guide when necessary. This phase is particularly important when multiple researchers have been involved in the research or when data is being excluded from the analysis. In the second stage, the thematic framework is developed. In this study, this thematic framework was based on the interview guide supplemented with issues being raised in the semi-structured interviews. The indexing phase, the third step in this analytical approach, is interrelated with the previous phase and involves the application of the thematic framework to the interviews. The themes are coded. To facilitate this process, ATLAS t.i. was used. After the indexing phase follows the charting stage. During this stage, the findings are summarized in a table. To enable this step, Excel was used. The last phase is interpretation. Since the aim of this paper is to explore and compare the reintroduction of street food in Berlin’s and Amsterdam’s urban landscape, the main objectives (as defined by Ritchie and Spencer ibid.) of this study is providing explanations (of the implications of the different policy approaches) and developing strategies (policy recommendations).

Table 1 – Participants: food truck owners # City Product/

theme

Year Truck

Gender Age Ethnicity Education

1 AMS (pilot) Self employed Bread 2014 M 57 Dutch Art school

2 AMS (pilot) Self employed Spanish 2013 M 34 Dutch Culinary school 3 AMS (pilot) Self employed Caribbean

(music) 2012 M 43 Dutch Culinary school

4 AMS (pilot) Self employed Salads 2013 M 36 Dutch Culinary school

5 AMS (pilot) Store Italian 2013 F 35 Dutch College

6 AMS (pilot) Self employed Mobile kitchen 2013 M 34 Dutch University master/culinary school

7 AMS (pilot) Self employed Iberico 2015 M 34 Dutch College

8 AMS (pilot) Store On a stick 2015 F 37 Dutch College

10 AMS Self employed Pulled pork 2016 M 47 Dutch Culinary school

11 AMS Self employed Fusion sushi 2014 M 35 Dutch-

Japanese

College 12 AMS Self employed Latin American

(music)

2016 M 34 Dutch Culinary school 13* AMS Initiative Incubation

kitchen / ethnic

2016 M - - -

14* AMS Self employed Healthy 2014 M 35 Dutch College / Culinary

School

15 BER Self employed Burgers 2013 M 34 Canadian University

16 BER Self employed German 2013 M 35 German University

17 BER Self employed Italian 2013 M 34 Italian University / art

school 18 BER Self employed Tacos

(music) 2010 M & M 44 & 47 German American & Music school & college 19 BER Self employed Gourmet ice 2013 F 32 French Culinary school 20 BER Self employed Pulled Pork 2012 F & M 33

& 36

Italian and German

University & art school

21 BER Self employed Gourmet Ice 2013 F 32 French Culinary school

22 BER Self employed Pizza 2016 F 29 Italian University

23 BER Self employed Pie 2015 F 33 American University

24* BER Self employed Vega(n) Tacos 2016 F 33 American University

25* BER Self employed Mexican 2016 M 32 Mexican University

26* BER Self employed Fusion 2016 M 36 Taiwanese University

27* BER Initiative Working with refugees 2016 F & M 29 & 33 German & German University

* These participants do not own a food truck but do sell street food. Participants13 & 14 had semi-permanent ‘trucks’ (respectively a shipping container and a bus), participants 24-27 had street food stalls

Table 2 – Other participants

# City Function

28 AMS City official: alderman, labor party, initiator food truck experiment

29 AMS City official: lawyer food truck pilot 30 AMS City official: project manager food truck pilot 31 AMS Food truck catering company

32 AMS Academic urban markets 33 AMS First ice cream vendor 1970s

4. Food trucks in Amsterdam

In this paper, Amsterdam represents the case of a more governmental-driven reintroduction of street food. Within the Dutch context, Amsterdam is an interesting city exploring the reintroduction of street food since it is thus far the only city in the Netherlands where local authorities initiated a supportive food truck policy experiment. In what follows, I will first describe the historic and regulatory context of (mobile) street food vending in Amsterdam. Then I will discuss the governmental-driven reintroduction of street food: the policy experiment Tasty food on Amsterdam’s streets. I will elaborate on the development of the proposal, the license and entry requirements, the vending and parking regulations, the experience of the vendors and the city council, and the strategies food truck owners have used to cope with the restrictive regulations despite the existence of a supportive food truck policy experiment.

4.1 Regulatory history and context mobile street food vending

Mobile street food vending used to be a common, although already in pre-modern times stigmatized, practice in historic Amsterdam. However, after the Second World War, mobile street food vending declined even more. Reasons for this are the restrictive regulations, the arrival of supermarkets, changing consumer patterns and the expansion of the welfare state (Rath 1998: 11).

4.1.1 History

Just like in other cities in the global north, it seems as if the connotation of the peddler is one of adversary. The peddler was being portrayed as poor, disturbing public nuisance by calling and shouting to sell his goods in addition to hindering other traffic. This negative attitude towards peddling seems to go far back in Amsterdam’s history.

When taking the history of Amsterdam’s street food culture into account, it is important to discern between the formal markets facilitated by the city council and the, often unlicensed, peddlers. In pre-modern times, the formal street food markets, with licensed market traders, were key in providing the residents with food and generating tax incomes that were necessary to expand the city. The city council facilitated these markets and kept an eye on the quality of the foods. The licensed and tax paying market traders and peddlers joined different Guilds in Amsterdam. The unlicensed peddlers did not, they tried to evade taxes and controls. The licensed street food vendors perceived them as unfair competition and the local authorities were not happy with these tax evaders. Therefore, already in pre-modern times, the local authorities made several attempts to ban peddling, but to no avail (Janssens 2014, Huberts 1940).