Imagineering the gentrifying neighbourhood: place
branding neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and London
!
Caroline Mies
University of Amsterdam
Research Master Urban Studies
!
! !
Supervisor: prof. dr. Jan Rath
Second reader: dr. Willem Boterman
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Student number: 10208704
Email: caroline_mies@hotmail.com
Date of submission: 23-06-2017
Imagineering the gentrifying neighbourhood: place branding
neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and London
Caroline Mies
University of Amsterdam
Abstract
Place branding is gaining popularity and various governmental institutions have increasingly taken on its opportunities. However, most research focused on the branding of nations, regions and cities but the neighbourhood level is less explored. In this article I bring together the literature on place branding and gentrification by focusing on place branding campaigns in two gentrifying neighbourhoods in London and in Amsterdam. I argue that gentrification coincides with competition over neighbourhood identity, and that place branding can be used as an active instrument to (more) forcefully impose an identity on a neighbourhood. Additionally, I describe how a place brand can capitalise on the neighbourhood being gentrified.
Keywords: place branding; gentrification; symbolic displacement; neighbourhood; Amsterdam; London
Introduction
In February 2017 in the neighbourhood Oud-West in Amsterdam the municipality removed the supplementary neighbourhood signs that stated: the ‘Hallenkwartier’ (Halls Quarter). The signs were taken down after local residents had complained about the newly given (additional) neighbourhood name. The new name, Hallenkwartier, was part of the place branding efforts of the shop owners in the surrounding shopping streets, who collaborated in a ‘Business Investment District’ (BID). A BID is a collaboration of all entrepreneurs working on improving their area and is facilitated by the municipality through levying the obliged contribution. The new name is derived from the recently redeveloped former tram depot, called the ‘Hallen’ (the Halls), now home to a popular food court, cinema, library and a variety of social enterprises. The conflict in Amsterdam between local residents, the municipality and the BID over the branding of the neighbourhood to Hallenkwartier, is far from unique. In London, where developers seem to have more free rein with regard to redeveloping, rebranding and renaming urban areas, examples of rebranding are abound. The residents of the redeveloped estate Wornington Green, in West London, had been through a similar struggle about the right to rebrand the neighbourhood. The redevelopment included upmarket owner-occupied housing and was said to be in need of a new neighbourhood identity in order to get the attention of potential buyers and lose its ‘estate’ image.
Place branding provides opportunities to disassociate an area from older images and transform it to promote a more suitable appearance of the area to the desired target audience. Nations and cities have made vast use of place branding practices in order to increase their
competitive position. Additionally, branding of neighbourhoods has also rapidly increased since different stakeholders such as developers, residents and shop owners have taken up on its opportunities. Subsequently, place branding has become a common feature in the remaking of the city and contemporary urban development (Madden 2017). As Boisen et al. (2011, p.2) explain: “ultimately, the goal of such practices is to improve the image of the place as attractive and competitive amongst desired target-groups in the hope that a positive image will influence individual and institutional decisions that will benefit the place in question”. Furthermore, they argue that place branding entails imposing an identity and image on that locality and might be used to signify who and what belongs there (Boisen et al. 2011). It is thus an instrument that actively directs the symbolic image of the area and thereby adds to the constitution of the place itself (Madden 2017). However, the ability to brand places is unequally distributed because high costs are associated and not everyone has the resources to effectively brand places. Branding gentrifying neighbourhoods can be especially problematic, because there the struggle over neighbourhood identity is more explicit.
Gentrification not only produces a material competition over space but the influx of new residents and the outflow of lower class residents also transforms the image, feel and sense of place of the neighbourhood (Atkinson 2015). Because the new residents not only bring capital investments, they also have distinctive consumer preferences and habits, a preference for particular architectural aesthetics, and their own middle class social and cultural institutions that alter the neighbourhood. Moreover, Zukin (1987, p.143) argues that “culturally validated neighbourhoods automatically provide new middle classes with the collective identity and social credentials for which they strive”. With the constellation of new residents, the neighbourhood shows a material and social transformation as well a change in the basic identity of the neighbourhood. In this light, Atkinson (2015) and Davidson (2009) both highlighted the problematic nature of the common conceptualisation of displacement, as solely the physical outmigration of residents in gentrifying neighbourhoods. According to Davidson (2009, p.223) this “reduces a socio- spatial phenomena to a purely spatial event”. Therefore, Atkinson (2015, p.385) argues that displacement is also about the “symbolic dislocation and defamiliarization” of places. Examining why and how various groups and institutions use place branding in gentrifying neighbourhoods, where the struggle over neighbourhood meaning is more explicit can highlight the contested aspects of place branding practices. Additionally, it directs research towards the neighbourhood level, a spatial scale that is not yet widely researched in place branding literature (Johansson & Cornebise 2010). This article will thus investigate the practices of place branding in two gentrifying neighbourhoods, in Amsterdam and London. Doing this, I highlight that gentrification also implies a competition over neighbourhood meaning and I describe how that plays out through place branding.
I start by outlining the theoretical framework through exploring the literature on place branding. In the next part I describe the methods used for this research. This is followed by the introduction and analysis of the two cases, in London and in Amsterdam. Lastly, the conclusion will highlight the differences and similarities between the two cases, stress the contested aspects of branding gentrifying neighbourhoods and reflect on the implications for the literature.
Branding places
‘IAm Amsterdam’, ‘I love New York’, ‘Be Berlin’ and ‘Je Suis Paris’, are famous examples of successful city branding campaigns. Increasingly, cities in Europe and in the United States have turned to place branding policies to differentiate themselves from other cities. Place branding promises to highlight the area’s core culture and main benefits (Louro & Cunha 2001). The goal of place branding is to add value to the place in question. As Boisen et al. (2011, p.2) explain “by influencing the perceived qualities of the place in question place branding can indirectly result in the
attraction of more tourists, more inhabitants, more firms and more investments – yet the essence of place branding should be to add value to the existing users of the place in question”. Place branding can thus help differentiate a locality by highlighting distinct characteristics of the area. Thereby place branding can strengthen the position of that locality in the competition over new investments, tourists, companies and desirable residents. Place branding has been implemented for different reasons and it is often used to encourage tourism and foreign direct investment or to promote ethnic neighbourhoods (Aytar & Rath 2012; Loukaitou-Sideris & Soureli 2011; Shaw et al. 2004; Wirth & Freestone 1996). However, it can also be used to stimulate a sense of pride among residents of the locality, as residents likewise desire to live in unique places and branding can aid in identification (Mommaas 2002; Johansson & Cornebise 2010; Hall 1999). Additionally, place branding is frequently implemented in concurrence with regeneration projects, as it can help change out-dated pre-existing place images. Moreover, it might help regeneration projects by branding areas favourable for the new relevant target markets of these regeneration projects (Bennett & Savani 2003). Place branding thus provides opportunities to dissociate an area with former images and promotes a more desirable appearance of the area to target markets (Boisen et al. 2011).
Furthermore, place branding comprises of more than just simple advertising. Increasingly it involves spatial planning and urban design to create a more effective place brand, which is integrated with the spatial design of a locality. As the decision making of planning policies is still ruled by governments in most countries, state institutions have had a major role in deciding place branding strategies (Da Silva Oliveira 2015). Hence, place branding is mostly conceptualised as implemented top-down and government led. However, the responsibilities of many Western national governments have changed as they have taken on more neoliberal approaches, resulting in “a commitment to the extension of markets and logics of competitiveness […] married with aggressive forms of state downsizing, austerity financing, and public- service ‘reform’” (Peck et al. 2002, p.381). So parties other than the nation state like, supranational institutions, local authorities, the business sector, civic society organisations and the media have gained more important positions (Hajer 2003). In particular, local authorities are (financially) pressured to look for alternative ways to stimulate their economies. Hence, increasingly local administrations look for cooperation with non-state actors. Parallel to this is Johanson and Cornebise’s argument (2010, p.200) that as “neighbourhood spaces and functions are less locally oriented and increasingly serve the entire population of a mobile and functionally integrated city, branding is a logical outcome”. However, research on place branding at the neighbourhood level is scarce. Nevertheless, it is likely that other actors outside of state institutions, such as developers, real estate agents, shopping street associations and resident groups, embark on place branding. This is especially probable at lower spatial scales, where it might be easier to see the directly generated result than from branding at higher spatial scales. Moreover, another reason could be that local authorities often have smaller budgets and therefore leave more opportunities for other parties to initiate place brand campaigns.
Despite the different reasons for initiating new place brands, the branding procedures are similar. Place branding often entails the creation of a (new) name, design and logo (Bennett & Savani 2003). Additionally, new maps may be issued with clear signage of the branded area and its most important features, such as museums, cafes or other places of interest (Beckman et al. 2013). Furthermore, particular identities, consumption practices and activities are defined to align with that locality. The new marketing mix with appropriate fresh images including advertisements, promotions, PR activities, festivals, and banners are likely to come at considerable financial costs since they have to be adjusted to the new redevelopments in the area. The costs associated with (re)branding a place are thus substantial (Bennett & Savani 2003).
Branding also implies defining a target market. However, places are complex entities with multiple different stakeholders and the branding of places for the desired target group thus inevitably
involves certain selectivity. This selectivity is for critical scholars one of the main issues with place branding since it implies a “conscious selectivity amongst ‘the owners’ of the brand in determining which individuals, firms and institutions are deemed strategically important and thus central to policy action […] [who] are then given special attention, both in terms of communication, involvement in the branding process and ‘real’ changes” (Boisen et al. 2011, p.41). Moreover, it is argued that at the higher spatial scale there is more room for various brand identities applying to different audiences, whereas, if you lower the scale of the branded locality there are fewer opportunities to accommodate multiple brand identities (Kavaratzis & Ashworth 2005; Johansson & Cornebise 2010).Therefore, neighbourhood branding implies more selectivity than branding of the city or regional and national level. This can be problematic because a brand image might be suitable for one group, whereas it might be inappropriate for others, such as pre-existing residents. Especially, since in many cases the area being (re)branded has a “history of social and economic problems and may be extremely diverse in terms of local residents’ ethnicity, social class, culture, lifestyle, income levels and types of employment” (Bennett & Savani 2003, p.75). So the question becomes, whose narratives will be dominant and whose narratives will be marginalised in the place branding efforts (Braun et al. 2013). This, together with the unequal ability of various stakeholders to brand places, because of the associated costs and the often-necessary cooperation with the state, can result in conflict over the created place brand as it only reflects the desire of a selective group.
However, in this discussion the audiences of the place branding efforts, such as the residents and tourists, are considered passive consumers of the place brand and are only identified as the target market. Nevertheless, residents in particular have been recognized as having a much larger stake in the branding efforts as they can “actively create, sustain, confront and reinforce a city’s unique attributes” (Hudak 2015, p.35). Residents can act as ambassadors of a place brand, can provide the place brand more credibility, and provide political legitimacy to branding efforts by supporting the government. Community ownership of the brand is considered important for a successful place brand because it provides the place brand with authenticity, community commitment and sustainability. Furthermore, the residents can be an integrated part of the brand as it offers a framework in which residents engage and ‘act on’ the place brand (Bookman 2014). However, certain groups can be more supportive of the new place brand because it presents them with more benefits, whereas others might feel more negative towards the place branding efforts. Correspondingly, residents can oppose the official place brand and thereby weaken the brand. Residents can resist the ‘official branding’ for instance starting by counter-branding campaigns (Braun et al. 2013). These different positions for residents in place branding shift the role of residents from a passive audience to a more active one. Especially in gentrifying neighbourhoods, we need to understand how residents associate with the created place brand.
Research design
The aim of this research is to examine the practices of neighbourhood place branding in two gentrifying neighbourhoods, and highlight their contested aspects. Undertaking this research, two case studies were conducted in Amsterdam and London. The case study design was chosen, because it is useful for understanding complex social phenomena (Yin 2009). Moreover, it allows for an in-depth investigation, necessary to meaningfully grasp the real life-events in both neighbourhoods. The use of qualitative methods and a case study research design is also the preferred method by the majority of place branding researchers because it allows for a detailed discussion (Gertner 2011). The cases were selected because both the processes of gentrification and neighbourhood place branding were present. Moreover, the specific neighbourhoods are in two European capital cities that have a long-standing tradition in place branding.
The article is based on data gathered through three main qualitative research strategies: semi-structured stakeholders interviews (N= 28), public documents, such as newspaper articles and policy documents, and neighbourhood branding materials. A content analysis of the public documents and branding materials identified a list of people involved, provided a timeline of important events and shed light on recent history of the area. The first interviewees were selected on the review of the public documents. The subsequent interviewees were selected using the snowballing method (Ritchie & Lewis 2014). In order to acquire a fuller picture of the processes at hand it was important to include different perspectives from various stakeholders in the branding process. Therefore, interviewees included: area managers, residents, neighbourhood activists, local business owners, local politicians, real estate agents, and, people from the local community centre, the housing association and the branding company. Data collection focused on retrieving information about the people and their reasons for, initiating place branding, and how this was performed. Additionally, interviews focused on the different roles of the various stakeholders and their perceptions of the branding efforts. The use of semi-structured interviews allowed being flexible to the respondents’ answers whilst ensuring that key information was gathered. To analyse the interviews, the method of qualitative content analysis is used which is “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh & Shannon 2005, p.1278). The ‘directed approach’ in qualitative content analysis seemed most appropriate. The conventional approach in content analysis is entirely inductive whereas with the directed approach the researcher uses existing theory to the initial coding scheme, whilst staying open so that other codes and themes can emerge during the analysis (Hsieh & Shannon 2005, p.1283). I used the theoretical framework, laid out in the previous section, for the initial coding scheme but new codes and themes, specific for branding the (gentrifying) neighbourhoods that came up, were added.
London - redeveloping Wornington Green
The Wornington Green estate is currently being redeveloped and rebranded and is located in West London, in the popular Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. This borough has historically been the home of the affluent and is characterised by large and expensive houses. With an average house price of £1.082.000, it has the highest house prices in the country (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 2013). However, there also some large income disparities within the borough, with areas of extreme wealth juxtaposed with areas of deprivation. In the borough there is an income polarisation with approximately 30% of the residents that earn more than £100.000 per year versus a similar amount of residents earning less than £20.000 per year (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 2013). Most of the poorer neighbourhoods are located in the area of North Kensington, but the area has also experienced rapid gentrification. Moreover, North Kensington is infamous for experiencing one of the first race riots of the UK in 1958, from which later the Notting Hill Carnival emerged (Miles 1984). Additionally, the trendy neighbourhood Notting Hill is located in North Kensington. Notting Hill is celebrated for its eclectic feel, the popular Portobello Road Market and beautiful coloured houses. This area has experienced rapid gentrification and has become very fashionable. The film ‘Notting Hill’, starring Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts, from 1999, has boosted the celebrity status of Notting Hill. On the border of Notting Hill lies the ward Golborne. Golborne, with the estate Wornington Green at its heart, is a Labour stronghold in the Conservative borough and is the joint-poorest ward in London. This is striking, since it lies in the wealthiest borough.
Wornington Green is located at the top end of Portobello Road and is just north of Golborne road. Golborne Road acts as a divider between the more popular areas south of Golborne
road and the estate Wornington Green, north. Until recently residents south of Golborne Road referred to Wornington Green as ‘NoGo’, suggesting that the area North of Golborne Road (i.e. Wornington Green) is a no-go area. Wornington Green was built between 1965 and 1985 as a slum-clearance initiative and is owned by a housing association. Unlike the rest of North Kensington, typified by its tenure mix and terraced housing, Wornington Green’s housing mix are 100% social rented housing and featured a design with shared entrances and common stairwells, thereby creating an ‘island’ community. However, for years the estate was poorly maintained and was therefore considered to be in disrepair. The redevelopment of the estate was done in three phases; including demolition and rebuilding. Demolition was deemed necessary because of intrinsic design faults in the old estate. More importantly, demolition provided the opportunity to align the design with the surrounding neighbourhood through a new layout with terraced townhouses. Also, building additional housing for private sales or rent could increase the density of the area. Moreover, including private housing would subsequently help finance (the rest of) the redevelopment. The opportunity to reconnect the estate with the surrounding neighbourhood through the new design, was an important rationale for the borough’s planning department to give permission for the redevelopment plans. Another motivation for the borough to approve the plans, is that densification projects like these help them meeting their housing targets (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 2013). Likewise, people buying the private properties pay higher council tax and often make less use of the public services. This gives another (financial) incentive for the borough to approve of such redevelopment plans.
Connecting with Notting Hill – creation of Portobello Square
The demolition of the old estate started in 2011 and the move away from the ‘estate neighbourhood’ began. Aside from the new area’s design, typical estate-like features such as signs with ‘no ball games’ and maps of the various buildings on the estate were removed. The housing association wanted to create a tenure blind neighbourhood where from the outside it was unclear to see the tenure of the house. Moreover, selling the private up-market houses was among the top priorities, because this would be the main financier for the entire redevelopment. Therefore, in concurrence with building the new residences, the housing association hired a branding company to create a new place brand for the transforming area. This was necessary because, as Tim1 explains: “people that are buying these houses have the option to choose to live somewhere else. They have the money, so they need to be attracted, therefore we have to make the redevelopment look appealing to them” (Tim, housing association, October 2016). The redevelopment’s real estate agent reinforced the need to create a new more compelling place brand for the area as this helped selling the properties off-plan. He indicates:
“They are redeveloping the area and they are just kind of updating it and in combination with the attraction of Portobello Road it is a good time to do this. It is Kensington and Chelsea anyway, so it should be an attractive area. But it is the scruffiest part of the borough […] so they improve it, smarten it up, and market it as being an up and coming area and get a better price. By calling it Portobello Square they were able to familiarise people with it, especially from abroad, and so a lot of it was sold off-plan to people from Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai.” (Patrick, real estate agent, November 2016)
Because of the importance of selling the private houses, the initial brief for the branding company was to create a place brand solely for the private sales, however this evolved to creating a place brand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for both the audiences for the private and the ‘affordable’ housing. The branding of the area focused on reconnecting the area with the bordering Notting Hill. First and foremost, this entailed creating a new name, Portobello Square. Portobello Square relates the redevelopment with the internationally known Portobello Road Market in Notting Hill. Additionally, through hoarding, advertising, websites, brochures and community newsletters the newly formed place brand of ‘Portobello Square, Village & City’ was spread. As Katy from the branding company explained:
“Our branding focused on extracting what made this end of Portobello Road so unique and vibrant. Although it had become slightly disconnected from the wider area and didn’t, at that time, share the prospects and reputation of the southern end of Portobello Road it had an existing thriving community and distinct personality and its multi-cultural community added to this vibe. Our branding was inspired by these qualities; we wanted to promote this corner of London as an exciting place to live based on what it already had to offer. The expectations of the branding was to create a strong, engaging place brand that put this end of Portobello Road on the map, that demonstrated that you could live in popular Notting Hill, but in a part that had a rich and distinctive personality of its own.” (Katy, branding company, December 2016)
The branding needed to appeal to potential buyers and thus featured beautiful pictures and promotional images of the redevelopment. Because of the selective branding a specific neighbourhood identity was created, which is, according to a woman working at the local community centre “going for the look that you need to be pretty well off to live here” (Michelle, works at the community centre, October 2011). Furthermore, through the ‘Out & About’ guide expensive shops and restaurants are highlighted showing the “eclectic mix of independent shops and stylish boutiques around Westbourne Grove” (Philosophy Design 2016). Additionally, a lifestyle video showed a day in the life of a young couple; as they are doing yoga, having a cup of coffee with a friend at a nearby hip coffee bar, doing some luxury shopping in an expensive shop on Westbourne Grove, having a run in Hyde park, enjoying dinner in a fancy restaurant and having a glass of wine on the balcony at the end of the day (Philosophy Design 2015). Moreover, the housing association set up ‘neighbourhood rules’ in which they asserted ground rules with regards to levels of noise, keeping of pets, the types of curtains you can have, the illegality of putting up television aerials and what you can and cannot do in the communal areas and on your balcony. An example is that you cannot hang your laundry on the balcony to dry. To ensure the development is clean, well maintained and an attractive place to live but also complying with the branding efforts, these neighbourhood rules are enforced through tenancy agreements and leases. The branding thus forced the new identity of Portobello Square on the area, instead of an organic and slow neighbourhood identity transformation in accordance with the influx of new people.
This is not Notting Hill – this will always be Wornington Green
Aside from the ‘official’ branding of Portobello Square, there were also instances of ‘unofficial’ branding efforts. The first signs of ‘unofficial’ place branding started to arise when the redevelopment plans were made public. To help define the area as a site in need of redevelopment and demolition, the estate was stigmatised in the media by the borough and the housing association. Aspects like the poor state and design of the estate were highlighted and issues of crime were emphasized. However, the tight-knit community was outraged by the plans and the threat of losing their estate. In response, a group of residents launched their own campaign to try and stop the demolition. As Catherine, a local Labour councillor, explained:
“He [a Conservative cabinet member for Housing, Property and Regeneration] said that Wornington Green was a ‘concrete ghetto full of fear and paranoia’. We used his statement as a headline for the media and we put it beside wonderful pictures of Wornington Green in the sunshine with the beautiful red brick houses, which they have knocked down now. It is not a concrete estate. Also I did a crime map of where the most crime in the borough is, and actually, most crime is around South Kensington Station. [...] So what they did was stigmatise the area to give them an excuse to knock it down” (Catherine, local Labour councillor, October 2016)
Through reaching out to the local media and newspapers, a group of residents added diverse personal stories to the estate. Elements that were threatened by the new plans, such as the Venture centre for local kids to go and play and the beloved park, were highlighted and praised for their significance to the wider community. Furthermore, they reached the national media in 2007 with the ‘Declaration of the Republic of Pepler House’. Pepler House is a much-loved building on the estate and residents tried to stop its demolition by declaring it a republic. Additionally they tried to get it spot-listed by underscoring the architectural heritage of the building. The ‘unofficial’ branding by the residents was a form of resistance to the redevelopment plans and emphasized the highly appreciated aspects of the old estate, to block its demolishment. However, the residents’ efforts were unsuccessful and demolition started in 2011. Nevertheless, local residents continue to resist the redevelopment by reaching out to the media to show the faults in the new development and the branding of Portobello Square. For instance, a resident created a website very similar to the official website of Portobello Square, but instead of using the beautiful promotional images, it showed the ‘real’ situation with leaking roofs and cracks in the building. Moreover, local residents highlighted issues regarding the branding of Portobello Square, namely: (i) the inclination that the redeveloped area is part of Notting Hill, and (ii) the portrayed neighbourhood identity. For instance, the newly appointed name is ridiculed by local residents, as there already is a locally known Portobello Square down the road. Moreover, they argue that Golborne has a very different and distinct identity to Notting Hill. Golborne is the joint-poorest ward in London with a large Moroccan community whereas Notting Hill is extremely gentrified and residents argue that this is not represented in the branding of Portobello Square. As a resident explains:
“It is ridiculous that they are rebranding it and calling it Portobello Square, it is a name that says nothing. They are just trying to get the fame from Portobello Road Market. The branding is vacuous. It doesn’t say anything about the locality. The images are a faux attempt to looking like they are all inclusive and everything, when they are not. None of their advertisements have any brown, black or Muslim people; it is all white, unless it is an acceptable fashionable not too dark person with an afro.” (Julia, local resident, November 2016)
The residents argue that these issues show the lack of local knowledge and consideration for the local residents throughout the creation of the place brand of Portobello Square. Despite these criticisms, the redevelopment and the accompanying place branding campaign won several awards2 and almost all of the properties of phase 1 and 2 have been sold.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!Such as: Housing Design Awards 2015 – 2015 Mayor’s Award
What House Awards 2014 – Best Apartment Scheme
Amsterdam – recent regeneration of Oud-West
In contrast to the redevelopment of Wornington Green, the neighbourhood of Oud-West in Amsterdam experienced a smoother and less forceful process of gentrification. Oud-West is located just out of the city-centre and borders the popular park Vondelpark. The area of Oud-West was built in the late 19th century to house the growing working-class population, and was commonly referred
to as “the wrong side of the Vondelpark” (Monica, district municipal authority, March 2017). Oud-West is one of the most densely populated neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and can be subdivided in six smaller neighbourhoods, that each have their own identity and transformation process. However, the transformation of the entire area has really taken off since 2000. Through stimulating the sale of social rented housing, tenure restructuring and investments in public space the municipal district authority had put effort in upgrading the neighbourhood (Hochstenbach 2016). As a result the area has changed from a working-class area to a gentrified neighbourhood, particularly popular among the young urban middle class (Gemeente Amsterdam West 2017). However, the economic crisis of 2008 had somewhat paused the gentrification process and the shops in the area were struggling. One of the ways in which the municipality tried to alter this was to introduce shopping street managers. Additionally, the municipality developed the ‘Business Investment District’ (BID) policy. The BID is a new tool of the municipality, which works as a fund, and can be set up by shop owners, entrepreneurs and property owners (Gemeente Amsterdam 2016a). Together these stakeholders work on improving their area, of which the boundaries they determine themselves. When a large majority of the stakeholders in the determined area vote in favour of the BID, it will go live. All the entrepreneurs in the area are then obliged to pay a contribution for five years, which the municipality levies. The fund can then be used to create a safer, cleaner and more beautiful area.
Parallel to this development is the regeneration of the Hallen, a former tram depot located at the heart of Oud-West, which has given the entire area a recent boost in popularity. The first buildings were built in 1902 -1905 and functioned as a tram depot and garage. However, the building lost its function and since 1996 the municipality had been concerned with converting the building and giving it a different purpose (Zaaijer 2015). During a 15-year decision-making process the building was left empty and was deteriorating. “It was a rather nasty place actually, acting as a divider in the neighbourhood, with a lot of junkies and scary people hanging around there” (Miranda, shopping street manager, March 2017). However, the renovation was a contested topic since the initial idea was to make it a large entertainment centre. Consequently, a group of local residents that were against this idea started protesting and formed the initiative ‘TROM’ (Tram Depot Development Society) together with architects and developers. TROM had quite a different understanding of what the neighbourhood needed. They wanted to renovate the building and keep the original details and make it of social importance to the neighbourhood. When the plans to make it a large entertainment centre became unfeasible because of the economic crisis, there was an opening for TROM’s idea. Subsequently, the renovation following the plans of TROM started in 2010 and the official opening of the Hallen was in 2014. The Hallen now functions as the ‘living room’ of Oud-West and features among other things: a public library, hotel, indoor food hall, cinema, nursery and an art library (Zaaijer 2015). Additionally, through differentiated rents it is possible for social enterprises to be located in the Hallen.
The creation of the Hallenkwartier
The place branding of the Hallenkwartier started after the entrepreneurs of six surrounding shopping streets realised the prospective of the Hallen, as the ‘new place to be’, could have for the shopping streets. Resultantly, each shopping street created their own BID and got into contact with the board of the Hallen to see how they could benefit from each other and work together. As the chair member of a BID explains:
“The Hallen were facing the same challenge; how to announce the Hallen to the public and how to keep it popular for a longer period in time. In the beginning it will probably stay popular by itself, but for the long run they did have to market it, but how? That’s when we all said: let’s join hands! Then everyone, the municipality, the borough, all the shopping streets – some more than others – got excited, because in the end it is about money! That is when the idea of the Hallenkwartier really started” (Rick, chair BID, March 2017)
Additionally, the board of the Hallen had gotten the instruction by TROM and the municipality to connect with the local community. The board recognized the potential of working together with the surrounding shopping streets. The ambition was to create an all-encompassing place brand, the brand Hallenkwartier, and tying in to that are six unique street brands, one for each shopping street. By creating one strong place brand, the area and the BIDs would gain a more professional appearance and a stronger position in negotiations with the municipality. Additionally, the goal was to connect the hotspot, the Hallen, with the wider area so that people visiting the Hallen would not only visit the renovated tram depot but also the surrounding shopping streets. In this way, people could spend a full day exploring all the beautiful streets in Oud-West and combine it with a visit to the Hallen. Thereby putting the area on the map. This is in line with recent policy measures taken by the municipality to manage the flip side of the increasing popularity of Amsterdam. The municipality therefore tries to stimulate the creation of urban centres outside of the city centre to release some pressure of the inner city and stimulate equilibrium between growth and the quality of life (Gemeente Amsterdam 2016b). By place branding the Hallenkwartier this part of Amsterdam could be promoted as such a new urban centre.
To create a new place brand for Oud-West, the BIDs together hired a company specialised in BIDs and street branding, to consult and support them. Additionally, the municipality facilitated the branding. Together with the chairmen of each of the individual BIDs and the Hallen; place branding aspects such as having the same flower baskets, Christmas lights in the streets and the creation of a new map promoting the area were decided upon. Through place branding they thus try to create a more compelling story highlighting the essence of what makes Oud-West special. Moreover, with the new place brand the BIDs wanted to build upon the gentrification of the area and the Hallen as the ‘new place to be’. They emphasized that in the Hallenkwartier you can always find something of your liking, from food to fashion, from high-end to vintage, and from local to exotic. As explained by a board member of the Hallen, the branding is still in its developing stage but focuses on the unique features of the Hallenkwartier, with the Hallen as the ‘beating heart’:
“The selling point of the Hallenkwartier is the authenticity and diversity of this area, the area is for everybody. We have the Clerqstraat with small-scale hospitality, Jan Pieter Heijestraat with little boutiques, Kinkerstraat with larger chain stores, so every commercial street has its own unique features. Together with the beautiful architecture and the hotspot the Hallen we can really sell this area to tourists if we brand it properly” (Pete, board member of the Hallen, April 2017)
To promote the area the BIDs want to launch a website for the Hallenkwartier with a page for each street and their individual street brand. Moreover, they have organised a neighbourhood festival ‘Hallelujah – The West Festival in Town’, with each shopping street organising something specific. Additionally they have initiated the ‘Stagestraat’ (internship street), which brings entrepreneurs together with people that are in the process of embarking on the labour market trajectory (such as students and refugees). Moreover, they started a campaign highlighting the ‘hidden treasures’ of the
area via a walking tour. However, it is acknowledged by the entrepreneurs that the place brand is still in its developing stage. Despite being still an evolving place brand, they wanted to increase the visibility of the Hallenkwartier and make it easier for tourists to navigate to the area. Therefore the entrepreneurs had requested the municipality to put up signs with the name of Hallenkwartier. Financed by the municipality and the BIDs, the municipality put up 136 Hallenkwartier signs in Oud-West. Unlike the initial plan, the signs were not only put up in the commercial streets but were also placed on strategic places to attract more tourists.
Reclaiming Oud-West
Even though the place branding of the Hallenkwartier is still developing there has already been much commotion about it after the neighbourhood sub-signs were put up in the summer of 2016. A group of residents were angry about the sudden placement of the signs of the Hallenkwartier and started protesting against it. As a resident angrily explains:
“We really did not like that! We are the Kinkerbuurt, Oud-West! We have always been! We really don’t want to all of a sudden be the Hallenkwartier! It is ridiculous! The signs were all the way up to the Leidseplein! It makes no sense that is an entirely different neighbourhood! And we were not involved at all, which was very bad as well” (Anna, local resident and a member of TROM initiative, April 2017)
These residents were confused as to (i) why their neighbourhood was suddenly called the Hallenkwartier, (ii) why they were not consulted beforehand and (iii) why the Hallenkwartier was such a large area with the same boundaries as Oud-West. Therefore some residents expressed their discontent and signs started to disappear. Moreover, a fake Hallenkwartier twitter account was set up, as a gimmick to ridicule the new developments and the ‘yuppification’ of the area. After the account was taken down, a new one was created named #ballenkwartier (mockingly suggesting the neighbourhood is a posh area). Furthermore, the residents emphasized that Oud-West already had a strong identity and did not need this new place brand. Additionally, some residents found out that the Hallenkwartier signs where in essence illegal because the right procedures had not been followed. Subsequently, the residents filed multiple enforcement requests to the municipality. The local entrepreneurs regretted that all this commotion around the implementation of the street signs was widely covered in the media, culminating in an item on a national television show ‘Van Onze Centen’ (From Our Money) mocking the waste of government spending on the signs. However, the protest against the Hallenkwartier signs seems to be about more than just the signs and is experienced as a form of symbolic politics by local politicians and entrepreneurs.
“It is so sad that the discussion is not about the idea that is behind the place branding, but just about the signs. It has become symbolic politics. People now tie everything negative, the entire changing city, and the sales of social rented houses to those signs. Whereas I would argue that is an entirely different discussion.” (Miranda, shopping street manager, March 2017)
Nevertheless, with the municipal elections approaching, the local politicians wanted to keep the peace in the area and decided in February of 2017 that all the Hallenkwartier signs needed to be removed. Despite this setback the BIDs are determined to create a successful place brand to promote the area.
Conclusion
In this article I have examined the practices of place branding in two gentrifying neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and London. Unlike branding of nations, regions or cities, where strategies and decision making are regularly set out by state institutions, the branding of the two researched neighbourhoods were initiated and organised by private parties. In London it was the housing association that in concurrence with the redevelopment of the estate, hired a professional branding and marketing company to create a compelling place brand for the redevelopment. The borough’s role was limited to giving planning permission for the redevelopment of the estate, making it possible to create a more cohesive place brand through integrating it with the spatial design. Compared to the borough in London, the municipality of Amsterdam had a more active role in the place branding practices of the Hallenkwartier. The municipality and the district authorities helped enable the place brand by facilitating and subsidizing the BIDs. Likewise, the municipality covered the costs of the debacle around the Hallenkwartier signs. Nevertheless, the fact that the branding of the Hallenkwartier was initiated and planned by entrepreneurs, organised in BIDs, was problematic for a group of residents. These residents saw the branding by the BIDs of the Hallenkwartier as a symbol of the ‘commercialisation’ of the city. Despite the concerns raised by the residents about private parties branding their neighbourhoods, the literature on place branding has not yet sufficiently caught up. Instead most research focuses on state institutions initiating and executing place branding, but with the retreating state it is quite likely that also other parties will embark on place branding efforts. The question that remains unexplored and that further needs to be investigated is (to what extent is) it legitimated for private parties to brand places, and in particular the neighbourhood?
Several reasons for branding nations, regions and cities have been highlighted in the literature, among them encouraging tourism, direct investment, stimulating a sense of pride, helping identification and to transforming an out-dated pre-existing place image (often simultaneously as part of /with regeneration projects) (Mommaas 2002; Johansson & Cornebise 2010; Hall 1999; Bennett & Savani 2003). Branding Portobello Square was necessary because the finances for the redevelopment mainly came from the sales of the private housing. Therefore, branding the area helped manage appealing image associations to potential buyers and thus attract them to the redevelopment. In particular, the housing association wanted to disassociate the development from the old ‘estate’ image, which would not attract the people that could afford to by upmarket private housing. In essence, the branding was necessary to help advance the gentrification of the area and stimulate the sales of the private housing by promoting an attractive neighbourhood identity. On the other hand, in Amsterdam the branding of the Hallenkwartier was mainly an initiative by the BIDs to encourage visitors and to stimulate engagement from residents. By creating a distinctive place brand for the neighbourhood the entrepreneurs hoped to capitalize on the gentrification of the area and the popularity of the recently renovated hotspot Hallen. Whereas in London the branding of Portobello Square was done to help activate the gentrification of the area, the branding of Hallenkwartier was initiated to take advantage of the gentrification of the area and the popularity of the Hallen. Place branding thus seems to be another instrument in the gentrification toolbox but it also works the other way around, gentrification can be a tool for place branding. Considering the different uses of place branding in relation to gentrification, it is interesting to also get more insight in how place branding might be used by residents or other parties to slow down the process of gentrification in a neighbourhood. However, research on the relation between place branding and gentrification is still limited as the literature specifically focused on the neighbourhood level is mainly concentrated on ethnic branding, like research on Chinatowns and Little Italy (see for instance: Aytar & Rath 2012; Mak 2003; Shaw et al. 2004; Rath et al. 2017).
Nevertheless, both cases appear to follow the standard procedures highlighted in the literature on place branding practices of nations and cities (Bennett & Savani 2003; Beckman et al.
2013). New names, maps, logos and designs were created for the brands of Portobello Square and Hallenkwartier, both with utilizing new names and relating to the main hotspot in the area. Moreover, important area features, such as specific buildings, cafes, restaurants and shops were highlighted via different marketing materials like maps, websites, booklets and flyers in order to manage and define distinctive image associations of the neighbourhoods. In Amsterdam, the place brand needed to be of a more overarching brand. Each individual shopping street tied into this, with its own specific identity, and the branding campaign would thereby show the diversity of the area and appeal to a wide range of visitors. Consequently, the place brand of the Hallenkwartier was not very selective with regards to the target audience and therefore the presented neighbourhood identity was also not as selective as the brand of Portobello Square. However, local residents had an issue with the neighbourhood boundary definitions that the branding of the Hallenkwartier imposed. The residents stressed that it grouped distinctive neighbourhoods together and thereby dismissed the differences between the areas. Likewise, in London the residents highlighted the differences between their neighbourhood and Notting Hill. They stressed that the two neighbourhoods were very different and that the created place brand tried to connect Portobello Square with the bordering Notting Hill. Branding a neighbourhood thus appears to be more problematic as the neighbourhoods’ socio-spatial boundaries appear to be more fluid, especially in gentrifying neighbourhoods, where residents negotiate different neighbourhood boundaries and identities (Hwang 2015). This could be an interesting difference between branding neighbourhoods and branding nations and cities, where the boundaries are more distinctly pronounced. Further research could focus on understanding this difference in more detail.
In London, the target audience of the branding campaign was significantly more selective because the branding, first and foremost, needed to attract potential buyers. The branding of Portobello Square thus focused on promoting an image of the area that would appeal to a wealthy population. Consequently, the distributed place brand was very different to the lifestyle of the old residents and their perceived identity of the neighbourhood. This was considered very challenging for the old residents of the estate as it amplified the feeling of displacement and being ‘wiped away’. Kavaratzis & Ashworth (2005), and Johansson & Cornebise (2010) argue that branding of the neighbourhood inherently needs to be more selective than branding of larger spatial entities, where it is possible to implement multiple messages for different audiences. However, it appears that this selectivity is particularly problematic for the residents as it only promotes a specific neighbourhood identity. Especially in gentrifying neighbourhoods, the newly promoted (and imposed) neighbourhood brand can be very different to previous imaginations of the neighbourhood and thereby foster and strengthen the feeling of symbolic displacement.
With respect to the role of residents, this research has focused on residents defying the place branding efforts by the private parties. In both cases this has led to a group of local residents undermining the place brand. By creating fake websites, ridiculing the created place brand and stressing in the media that there already is a strong neighbourhood identity that does not need to be changed, residents put pressure on the ‘official’ branding practices. In Amsterdam, the resistance of local residents and the amount of negative publicity surrounding the Hallenkwartier signs, led to the district authority removing the signs. While Braun et al. (2013) stress that place branding needs ambassadors to create a sustainable and credible place brand; a group of residents in London and Amsterdam opposed and challenged the place brands. Nonetheless, other neighbourhood stakeholders, such as shop owners and real estate agents have positively engaged with the place branding efforts. Different stakeholders thus view place branding differently, depending on their position in the neighbourhood. Further research could focus on the how gentrifiers engage with place branding, it is to be expected that they have a very different understanding of the place brand compared to the former local residents.
Concluding, this article directs research to the neighbourhood level, a spatial scale not yet sufficiently researched in the place branding literature. The accounts presented here highlight different aspects and issues specific for branding neighbourhoods. The more selective nature of branding the spatial scale of the neighbourhood is a concern already highlighted by Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005) because there is less scope for defining multiple brands for different audiences. This research also raises new issues that seem to be specific for neighbourhood branding, like the challenging nature of defining neighbourhood boundaries through branding as well as the (problematic) role of private parties initiating and organising branding of the neighbourhood. Additionally, by focusing on residents fighting the place branding efforts, this research emphasizes that place branding is a social practice that can be a contested, especially in gentrifying neighbourhoods where the competition over neighbourhood identity is more explicit. Instead of a more organic and slow change in neighbourhood identity, coinciding with the influx of new residents, place branding can speed up the transformation and thereby incite the feeling of symbolic displacement. Furthermore, this research has reiterated the prevalence of symbolic displacement concurring with gentrification, as argued by Atkinson (2015) and Davidson (2009), and highlights place branding as an instrument in the gentrification toolbox. Considering the issues raised in this article, we should rethink the way place branding is performed in gentrifying neighbourhoods. After all, as Boisen et al. (2011, p2) stress: “the essence of place branding should be to add value to the existing users of the place in question”.
References
Atkinson, R., 2015. Losing one’s Place: narratives of neighbourhood change, market injustice and symbolic displacement. Housing, Theory and Society, 6096(August), pp.1–16.
Aytar, V. & Rath, J. eds., 2012. Selling Ethnic Neighborhoods. The Rise of Neighborhoods as Places of Leisure and Consumption, New York: Routledge.
Beckman, E., Kumar, A. & Kim, Y.-K., 2013. The Impact of Brand Experience on Downtown Success. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), pp.646–658.
Bennett, R. & Savani, S., 2003. The rebranding of city places: An international comparative investigation. International Public Management Review, 4(2), pp.70–87.
Boisen, M., Terlouw, K. & Gorp, B. van, 2011. The selective nature of place branding and the layering of spatial identities. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(2), pp.135–147. Bookman, S., 2014. Urban brands, culture and social division: Creativity, tension and differentiation
among middle class consumers. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(3), pp.324–342.
Braun, E., Kavaratzis, M. & Zenker, S., 2013. My city - my brand: The different roles of residents in place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 6(1), pp.18–28.
Davidson, M., 2009. Displacement , space and dwelling!: placing gentrification debate. Ethics, Place and Environment, 12(2), pp.219–234.
Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016a. Bedrijveninvesteringszones. Available at:
https://www.amsterdam.nl/ondernemen/biz/biz_amsterdam/ [Accessed June 1, 2017]. Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016b. City in Balance, Amsterdam.
Gertner, D., 2011. Unfolding and configuring two decades of research and publications on place marketing and place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(2), pp.91–106.
Hajer, M., 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), pp.175–195.
Hall, D., 1999. Destination branding, niche marketing and national image projection in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(3), pp.227–237.
Hochstenbach, C., 2016. State-led Gentrification and the Changing Geography of Market-oriented Housing Policies. Housing, Theory and Society, pp.1–21.
Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), pp.1277–1288.
Hudak, K.C., 2015. Dahntahn discourses and neighborhood narratives: Communicating the city brand of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 11(1), pp.34–50. Hwang, J., 2015. The Social Construction of a Gentrifying Neighborhood: Reifying and Redefining Identity and
Boundaries in Inequality,
Johansson, O. & Cornebise, M., 2010. PLACE BRANDING GOES TO THE
NEIGHBOURHOOD: THE CASE OF PSEUDO-SWEDISH ANDERSONVILLE. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 92(3), pp.187–204.
Kavaratzis, M. & Ashworth, G.J., 2005. City branding: An effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), pp.506–514. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. & Soureli, K., 2011. Cultural Tourism as an Economic Development Strategy
for Ethnic Neighborhoods. Economic Development Quarterly, 26(1), pp.50–72.
Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand Management Paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7–8), pp.849–875.
Madden, D.J., 2017. Pushed off the map: Toponymy and the politics of place in New York City. Urban Studies, (In Press).
Mak, A., 2003. Negotiating identity: Ethnicity, tourism and Chinatown. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(77), pp.93–100.
Miles, R., 1984. The riots of 1958: Notes on the ideological construction of “race relations” as a political issue in Britain. Immigrants & Minorities, 3(3), pp.252–275.
Mommaas, H., 2002. City branding: the necessity of socio-cultural goals. In T. Hauben, M. Vermeulen, & V. Patteeuw, eds. City Branding: Image Building and Building Images. pp. 32–47. Peck, J. et al., 2002. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), pp.380–404.
Philosophy Design, 2015. Portobello Square - Phase 1, United Kingdom: Philosophy Design. Philosophy Design, 2016. Portobello Square - Phase 2, United Kingdom: Philosophy Design. Rath, J. et al., 2017. Chinatown 2.0: the difficult flowering of an ethnically themed shopping area.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 0(0), pp.1–18.
Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J., 2014. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 2013. Housing Strategy 2013 - 2017, London.
Shaw, S., Bagwell, S. & Karmowska, J., 2004. Ethnoscapes as spectacle: reimaging multicultural districts as new destinations for leisure and tourism consumption. Urban Studies, 41(10), pp.1983–2000.
Da Silva Oliveira, E.H., 2015. Place branding in strategic spatial planning. Journal of Place Management and Development, 8(1), p.23.
Wirth, R. & Freestone, R., 1996. Tourism, Heritage and Authenticity: State-Assisted Cultural Commodification in Suburban Sydney, Australia. Urban Perspectives, pp.1–10.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods,
Zaaijer, L., 2015. Tramremise De Hallen, Amsterdam!; Nieuw leven in de Kinkerbuurt. de Architect, (mei), pp.70–79.
Zukin, S., 1987. Gentrification: Culture And Capital In The Urban Core. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), pp.129–147.
