Telling displacement : a comparative analysis of narratives on state-led displacement in the late 19th century and early 21st century Brussels

(1)

TELLING DISPLACEMENT:

A

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NARRATIVES ON STATE

-

LED

DISPLACEMENT IN THE LATE

19 TH CENTURY AND EARLY

21 ST

CENTURY

B

RUSSELS

.

ARNOULD ELIE STUDENT NB: 11768657

RESEARCH MASTERS URBAN STUDIES

Supervisor and First Reader: Prof. Dr. Rivke Jaffe Second Reader: Dr. Virginie Mamadouh

Date of submission: 15 August 2019 Word count: 20267

(2)

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to sincerely thank all of those who helped me make this research possible.

I would first like to give my gratitude to my supervisor, Rivke Jaffe, who patiently helped me through the process of writing this thesis. Her support encouraged me to pursue when everything seemed too difficult.

I want to thank Wafaa Hammich, as well as Pascal Smet for their contribution to this research. Special thanks also, to my friend Charlotte Levay who thoroughly helped me in the making of this thesis.

Thanks to Juliette and Pauline, my sisters, to Maïté and Natalie, to Naïm, to Keyvan, to Olivier, to Simon, to Basil, to Merlin, for helping me and encouraging me.

Thanks to ‘Keb au Cambodge’ for giving me the opportunity to relax for a moment every day. And of course, I thank all my comrades, my friends, my family, with all my heart.

(3)

3

Summary

This thesis analyses two cases of led displacement through the narratives of state-actors. In doing so, it brings together the literature on Haussmannization and the literature on state-led gentrification as two processes of state-led displacement. The research consists of the combination of a contextual analysis, based on secondary literature, and a narrative analysis, based on city-archives, interviews and press review. Moreover, the narrative analysis was conducted through a conventional content analysis. The first case is the covering of the Senne in 1871 by the Municipal government in Brussels. The second case is the pedestrianization of the central boulevard in 2017 by the Municipal government in Brussels. In this sense, the main research question of the thesis is: “How are actors’ narratives characterized in framing state-led displacement in late 19th_{-century and early 21}st_{-century Brussels?” In both cases, the}

contextual analysis exposes that state-led displacement occurred in a similar pattern of centre-periphery movement of residents, with economically vulnerable residents moving from the centre towards the periphery, and wealthier residents moving from the periphery towards the city-centre. Moreover, the contextual analysis demonstrates that state-led displacement resulted from local government strategies aimed at increasing fiscal autonomy. Finally, the contextual analysis shows that state-led displacement occurred with the collaboration of the public and the private sectors. On the other hand, the narrative analysis exposes four themes: ‘population’; ‘environment’; ‘economy’ and politics. Based on these results, the comparative analysis answers to the main research question. In this sense, the findings suggest that, in both cases, state-actors develop a problem-solution narrative to legitimize displacement. Moreover, the narratives in the case of the covering of the Senne are characterized by a ‘replacement’ frame. The narratives in the case of the pedestrianization of the central boulevard are characterized by a “social mixing” frame. Finally, in both cases, state-actors put an emphasis on their capacity to control the private sector such as to maximize the interests of the population. The thesis ends with a conclusion where the relevance of focusing on narratives in researching state-led displacement is discussed.

(6)

6

1. Introduction

Since the end of the 20th_{century, the State has taken a central role in processes of}

displacement. In this sense, state-led gentrification theory suggests that processes of decentralization of power, as well as inter-territorial competition in the Global North have consistently pressured local governments to develop new fiscal strategies (Harvey, 1989; Smith, 2002; Paton and Cooper, 2016). Consequently, local urban policies tend to shift towards an ‘entrepreneurial’ management of the urban territory, aimed at attracting investments of wealthy residents and private capitals in the city (Harvey, 1989, Lees et al. 2008; Uitermark et. al., 2007). The contemporary role played by governments in displacement has entailed a renewed emphasis on the concept of Haussmannization, especially to the processes of urban development occurring in the Global South (Merrifield, 2013; Rodgers, 2012). In this sense, Merrifield uses the term ‘neo-Haussmannization’ to designate a global urban strategy of 'peripheralization' of the working class. Although theory treats these two phenomenon’s as distinctive concepts, Harvey already demonstrated that state-led gentrification and Haussmannization relate to similar processes of capital surplus absorption and state sponsorship (Harvey, 1989; 2003; 2012). Thus, there are grounds for bringing these two sets of theories together in analyzing processes of state-led displacement.

Moreover, this research specifically looks at how state-actors’ narratives participate in the process of state-led displacement by framing a problem-solution narrative that works to legitimize and enforce displacement in processes of Haussmannization and state-led gentrification. As Gottweis (1998) suggests, narratives are “essential for the shaping of policies, the settling of conflicts, or the securing of legitimacy for political actions” (p.468). Accordingly, this thesis explores the framing of displacement through state-actors’ narratives in two cases of state-led displacement in Brussels. Although state-led gentrification has been explored in the case of contemporary Brussels (Van Criekingen, 2013; Dessouroux et al. 2009), Haussmannization remains underexplored in this setting and in conjunction with other European cities (Harvey, 2003; Schubert and Sutcliffe, 1996; Rodgers, 2012).

Thus, this thesis focuses on two Brussels-based cases of state-led urban displacement in two different time-periods. The first case consists of the covering of the Senne River and the construction of the central boulevard in 1871 by the Municipal government of Brussels. In doing so, the objectives of the city were to improve public health, modernize the urban infrastructure and attract the bourgeoisie from the ‘faubourgs’1_{towards the city. The covering of the Senne}

was a part of a larger long-term development plan of ‘sanitation and embellishment’ in the city at the end of the 19th_{century, of which it consisted of the most important part. Moreover, the}

1_{“Faubourgs” consists of the historical villages surrounding Brussels which suburbanized in the second half of the}

19th_{century with the economic development of Brussels. The “faubourgs” were populated by a wealthy bourgeois}

(7)

7

covering of the Senne entailed the direct physical displacement of more than three thousand residents who were mostly forced to move further away towards the ‘faubourgs’ (Demey, 1990). The second case consists in the pedestrianization of the central boulevard by the Municipal government in 2017. The pedestrianization occurred within a context of state-led gentrification initiated by the Regional government in order to attract the middles classes residing in the periphery back into the city-centre (Van Criekingen, 2013). This time, the Municipal and Regional governments cause the direct economic displacement of economically vulnerable residents from the city-centre, which are forced out towards the periphery of the city.

The thesis offers a comparative analysis of narratives framing of state-led displacement in a longitudinal case study (Yin, 2009) between the late 19th_{century and early 21}st_{century in}

Brussels. The main research question of the thesis is as follows:

“How are state-actors’ narratives characterized in framing state-led displacement in late 19th-century and early 21st-century Brussels?”

This main research question is divided into two sub-questions: (1) “What is the economic and political context?”

(2) “What themes can we find in state-actors’ narratives framing displacement”

Moreover, the aim of this thesis is to contribute to the literature on state-led displacement by showing how a narrative analysis can lead to a better understanding of the process of displacement. In doing so, it also aims to bring together the literature on Haussmannization and state-led gentrification through the concept of state-led displacement.

The thesis is divided into five chapters. In the first chapter, I present the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework of the research. In the theoretical framework, I discuss the literature on state-led displacement, then I bring together Haussmanization and state-led gentrification as two theories of state-led displacement and demonstrate how they relate to each other. Finally, I suggest that a focus on the narratives framing of state-led displacement could contribute to a better understanding of these theoretical discussions. In the second chapter, I sketch out the research design, the methods of analysis, as well as the methodology discussion of the research. In the third chapter, I answer to sub-question 1: “What is the economic and political context?”. In doing so, I set both cases in relation to the economic and political context. In the fourth chapter, I answer to sub-question 2: “What themes can we find in state-actors’ narratives framing displacement?” The results group into four themes: “Population”; “Environment”; “Economy”; and “politics”. Finally, the fifth chapter gives a comparative analysis based on the results from the contextual and the narrative analysis. In this sense, in the fifth chapter, I answer the main research question: “How are state-actors’ narratives characterized in framing state-led displacement in late 19th_{-century and early 21}st_{-century Brussels?” and relate the findings to the}

(8)

8

2. Theoretical framework

This chapter presents the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework of the thesis. The theoretical framework starts by defining displacement. It then outlines the literature on the subject in relation to capital accumulation and state-sponsorship. It goes further by bringing together the literature on “Haussmannization” and “state-led gentrification”. Finally, it links the theory to the concept of narratives. Moreover, the conceptual framework displays the key elements in understanding narratives on state-led displacement and situates these narratives with regards to the theoretical framework.

2.1 Displacement, Capital and the State

Building on earlier work by Grier and Grier (1978), Marcuse (1985) conceptualized four types of displacement: (1) Direct last-resident displacement; (2) Direct chain displacement; (3) Exclusionary displacement; And (4) displacement pressure. The difference between last-resident and chain displacement resides in the temporality of displacement. For example, in cases of gentrification, last-resident displacement occurs when gentrification happens and forces residents to move out. Chain displacement, on the other hand, looks at displacement as a process by taking into account displacement already occurring in periods of urban disinvestment prior to gentrification. Moreover, “direct” displacement can be physical (e.g. eviction) or economic (e.g. rent increase). Finally, exclusionary displacement means inaccessible/unaffordable spaces for residents and displacement pressure means when resident remain in their housing but the rest of their environment (shops, community, etc.) is being displaced (Marcuse, 1985).

Marcuse (1985) conceptualized this to solve the 1980’s academic presumed dualism between processes of abandonment and gentrification. This dualism presented abandonment and gentrification as two distinct processes, the former being unavoidable, the latter being desirable. By looking at abandonment and gentrification through the concept of displacement, Marcuse made the powerful point that “in fact, while neither process causes the other, each is part of a single pattern and accentuates the other.” (Marcuse, 1985, p.197). This focus on displacement was further taken over by Tom Slater who called in 2006 for re-centering studies on gentrification back to the question of displacement: “Displacement is and always will be vital to an understanding of gentrification, in terms of retaining definitional coherence and of retaining a critical perspective on the process.” (Slater, 2006, p. 748). Moreover, Desmond and Scholenberger (2015), in their research on eviction extended the question of forced displacement by mentioning that it was not simply restricted to processes of abandonment and gentrification but rather endemic to poor communities in urban development. Correspondingly, Harvey (2003, 2012) demonstrated the importance of land investments in processes of capital accumulation as urbanization enables the capitalists to absorb surpluses of capital:

(9)

9 “Urbanization, we may conclude, has played a crucial role in the absorption of capital surpluses and has done so at ever-increasing geographical scales, but at the price of burgeoning processes of creative destruction that entail the dispossession of the urban masses of any right to the city whatsoever.” (Harvey, 2012, p. 22)

Following, if Slater suggests that displacement is vital to gentrification processes, Harvey goes further by suggesting that dispossession and displacement are central to processes of capital accumulation through capitalist urban development. Accordingly, Harvey coined the term ‘accumulation by dispossession’ to signify this ontological relationship between displacement and capital accumulation. The Marxist author characterized 'accumulation by dispossession' as the “necessary cost of making a successful breakthrough into capitalist development with the strong backing of state powers.” (Harvey, 2003, p. 154).

Thus, capital accumulation and displacement go hand in hand in processes of capitalist urban development. But in the aforementioned definition of ‘accumulation by dispossession’, Harvey also mentions the ‘strong backing of state powers’. In this sense, there is also a central role played by the State in supporting the extraction of land value by the capitalist class and the consequential displacement of the working class (Paton and Cooper, 2016; Harvey, 2003; 2012). For example, states frame the legality of eviction and the ‘legitimate’ use of violence against tenants based on possession and property ownership. Thus, the State plays a support in favor of capital accumulation. However, the State also acts with a certain autonomy in pursuing its own interests. Indeed, national and local governments actively enhance displacement following variable motives: urban security (Uitermark et al., 2007; Rodgers, 2012, Dessouroux et al. 2009), fiscal budget (Zukin, 1987), social diversity (Rose, 2008), etc. To this extent, national and local government make an extensive use of laws and urban policies to propel processes of urban displacement.

To sum up, the literature shows that displacement in capitalist urbanization processes occurs in tandem with the combination of capital accumulation and state-sponsorship.

That being said, there is an extensive body of literature on the relation between displacement, capital accumulation and the State in the study of gentrification processes (Smith, 1987; Slater, 2012; Lees et al, 2015; Newman and Wyly, 2006). Most famous is Smith’s rent gap theory following which capital is invested where land is devalued and thus presents a ‘rent gap’ between the actual land value and expected land value giving maximized profit returns (Smith, 1987).

Capital State

(10)

10

Developers invest in land where the given rent gap is high enough and, through increasing rent-value, force renters to move out (Slater, 2006). Moreover, the ‘rent-gap’ can also largely be produced and supported by state spatial disinvestment and reinvestment of specific urban areas, hence sponsoring the movement of land depreciation, capital accumulation and the displacement of residents (Paton and Cooper, 2016; Harvey, 1989). However, there has been less interests in studying the relationship between displacement, capital accumulation and the State in other phases of capitalist urban development, and in particular, during Haussmannization.

2.2 Bringing Haussmannization and state-led gentrification together

This section compares the theory on Haussmannization and the theory on state-led gentrification with regard to displacement, capital accumulation and state-sponsorship.

2.2.1 Haussmannization

The concept of Haussmannization has been central in discussions of state-led urban displacement in the late 19th_{century Europe (Harvey, 2005; Demey, 1990; Schubert and}

Sutcliffe, 1996; Rodgers, 2012). The term refers to the Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann who, with the help of the emperor Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, commanded and supervised the radical transformation of Paris in the second half of the 19th_{century. Although}

historians agree on using the term Haussmannization to describe a general trend of urban modernization originating from Paris then spreading throughout Europe during this period (Brussels, London, Vienna, Berlin, etc.), they do not always give a clear definition of the concept2_{. In historical research, Haussmannization tends to refer to a combination of traits}

and characteristics such as the re-organization of street-patterns, sewage system development, improvement of air, light, water, goods and human circulation (Demey, 1990; Schubert and Sutcliffe, 1996; Chapman and Chapman, 1957; Jordan, 1995). However, restricting the conceptualization of “Haussmannization” to a range of infrastructural characteristics is insufficient to understand its connection to displacement, capital accumulation and the State.

Therefore, I suggest to define Haussmannization as a movement of urban development characterized by (1) The organized eviction and displacement of the working class from the city-centre to its periphery; (2) The absorption of capital surplus through land (re)investment at the national level; (3) The increase in government tax yields such as to enhance local government fiscal autonomy; (4) Making the city secure with regard to urban insurrections; (5) The narrow collaboration between the public and private sectors.

2 _{For example, the historian Thierry Demey gives a rich descriptive analysis of the “Haussmannization” of Brussels}

(11)

11

(1). The organized eviction and displacement of working class resident from the city-centre to its periphery;

State-led displacement is inherent to “Haussmannization”. The ‘displacement model’ generally follows a movement of working class moving from the centre to the periphery and the bourgeoisie moving from the periphery towards the centre (Harvey, 2003). Paris city-centre historically developed with slums and concentration of poor working class inhabitants (Rideout, 2016). In the making of the transformation of Paris, these slums were completely erased to be replaced by the bourgeois housings and large boulevards in order to attract and welcome the bourgeoisie from the outskirt of the city towards the centre. Moreover, working-class residents were evicted by state authorities and further expulsed to the periphery of the city (Rideout, 2016). Similarly, Schubert and Sutcliffe (1996) explain the same patterns of displacement, although to a lesser degree, in the case of the Kingsway-Aldwych in London. In this extent, Haussmannization clearly relates to a demographic makeover of the city with centre/periphery movements of residents relating to social class. (2). The absorption of capital surplus through land (re)investment at the national level;

In Haussmannization, fluxes of capital originate from investors at the national and regional level. Indeed, the industrial revolution of the 19th_{century created a diversity of localized}

bourgeois classes throughout Europe. In the case of Paris, Harvey shows how the real-estate private developers and investors comprised a restricted group of French capitalist elite (Harvey, 2003). In the case of the Haussmannization of Paris, the French capitalist class witnessed of a crisis of capital surplus unemployment. After the coup in 1851, Louis Bonaparte solved this issue of capital surpluses by ordering a gigantic program of infrastructure transformation. Thus, streams of capital were restricted to a very localized, personal context (Harvey, 2003). Moreover, in the Marxist theory, the replacement of the medieval pattern of streets by the boulevards relates to the circulation of goods, humans and capital, which was a necessity for the industrial development of the city (Harvey, 2003).

(3). The increase in government tax yields such as to enhance local government fiscal autonomy;

The principal tax base that supported Haussmann’s projects was the octroi: “a tax on commodities entering Paris.” (Harvey, 2003, 139). By favoring the building of expensive bourgeois housings, Haussmann secured a government budget that allowed to plan for the construction of the boulevards. As Harvey suggests, this particular characteristic of the tax system led Haussmann to “subsidize and debit-finance any amount of development in Paris, provided it increased the tax revenue” (Harvey, 2003, p.139). Indeed, Haussmann easily gave land to private developers provided that their buildings matched conditions of style that would favor high tax yields on the building materials through the octroi. In other cities,

(12)

12

urban governments often lacked of sufficient funds, therefore planning urban development occurred at smaller scales (such as in London) (Schubert and Sutcliffe, 1996).

(4). Making the city secure with regard to urban insurrections;

Another key element of “Haussmannization” is the question of urban security. Road-building, of which some of the iconic boulevards of Paris are a product, consisted in one of Baron Haussmann’s central tenets of restructuring of Paris (Rodgers, 2012). Before then, Paris was a medieval city with an irregular pattern of narrow streets. The replacement of the medieval pattern of streets by a regular and symmetric design of wide boulevards eased the increasing circulation of air, light, goods and humans. But, as Rodgers mentions, “Haussmann himself wrote in his memoirs that the underlying logic for the straight boulevards was first and foremost ‘security’, and only afterwards ‘circulation’.” (Rodgers, 2012, p. 420) Indeed, the boulevards bore a number of characteristics such as direct liaison to barracks, width that would prevent barricades, tarmacking that made the use of cobblestones as projectiles impossible, among others. Accordingly, James Scott (1988) demonstrated that Haussmann specifically targeted insurrectional foyers in his plans, by ensuring large areas of military control and fast routes to these foyers. Scott uses the concept of “legibility” to define the propensity of Haussmann’s transformation of Paris to secure the city against popular insurrections. At the same time, Rodgers coins the term “infrastructural violence” to define a “particular political configuration and a deliberate pattern of infrastructural development […] that aims at both segregating and managing the unwanted population living in the city’s slums and poor neighborhoods in a repressive manner.” (Rodgers, 2012, p. 432). Thus, “Haussmannization” can be characterized as a movement of urban planning centred on rendering the city secure.

(5). The narrow collaboration between the public and private sectors;

Haussmannization also refers to a narrow collaboration between the public and the private sector towards favouring economic interests and the investments of the local urban elite. As mentioned, in the case of Paris, the tax system of the octroi led the urban government to give freedom for private investments as long as it corresponded to Haussmann’s development lines. In transforming Paris, Haussmann built a series of monumental public buildings, but he also conceded important plots of land to private developers: “…a haute bourgeoisie of landlords and commercial interests who could afford to look upon the buying and selling of property as a speculative activity” (Rodgers, 2012, p. 418).

2.2.3 State-led gentrification

The concept of state-led gentrification belongs to the broader sub-set of literature on gentrification but, as the name indicates, state-led gentrification’s particularity is that it

(13)

13

underlines the importance of the state as a leading actor in gentrification processes (Smith, 2002; Hackworth and Smith, 2001; Lees, 2003).

(1). Demographic makeover

State led gentrification in the 21st_{century relates to new kinds of urban policies which are}

a consequence of the economic and political context (Harvey, 1989; Smith, 2002). Authors of state-led gentrification literature agree that the outcome consists in the direct displacement of economically vulnerable out-movers and their replacement by a wealthier in-mover population (Hackworth, 2002; Lees et al., 2008; Paton and Cooper, 2016). The in-out displacement model of gentrification in general does not relate to a specific place in particular. Indeed, gentrification can occur in urban centres, as well as small decentralized neighborhoods. However, in state-led displacement, the displacement model occurs rather in centre-periphery spatiality. Accordingly, a more than average proportion of economically vulnerable residents move from the centre to the periphery and a more than average proportion of wealthier residents move in towards the centre (Hochstenbach & Van Gent, 2015).

(2). Capital surplus absorption at a global scale

“The phenomenon of gentrification is global to an extent that urban spaces around the world are increasingly subject to global and domestic capital (re)investment to be transformed into new uses that cater to the needs of wealthier inhabitants. Indeed, it has become an important process in the growing inequality of cities and societies worldwide.” (Lees et al., 2008, p.165)

As this quote suggests, contemporary gentrification relates to the globalization of fluxes of capital. Accordingly, the opening of national markets following the neoliberal turn of the 1980's released extensive streams of capital investment at a global scale. Following Lees et al. (2008), in the Global North, at the interurban level, the globalization of capital leads to the increasing of service-based economy, as well as the shifting economic function of central cities (from industrial cities to post-industrial cities). In the Global South, urban centers are defined by the expansion of industrial activities and the high-tech sector. In this sense, international investments are streamed towards the “systematic, large-scale, reconstruction of large chunks of the urban fabric” (p. 166).

(3). (Local) government strategies

It appears that since the end of the 20th_{century, the state has taken an active part in}

sponsoring redevelopment of urban areas, usually dis-invested city-centres. David Harvey, explains this tendency focusing on political and economic factors. He examines the neoliberal turn of the 1980’s that occurred in western Europe and North America which consistently weakened the Keynesian welfare state and enhanced decentralization of power to regional and city governance levels (Harvey, 1989). As redistribution from the

(14)

nation-14

state level to localities declined, the imperative for cities and regions to find new sources of revenue became stronger. In addition, the neoliberal reforms adopted in the 1980’s enhanced international mobility of capital and the opening of national markets, which consistently brought cities in inter-territorial competition on a supra-national scale (Harvey, 1989; Smith, 2002; Scott, 2011). The combination of both these tendencies of decentralization of power and inter-territorial competition brought cities to adopt an “entrepreneurial” posture towards investments of capital and residents, centred on policies of “attractiveness” and “competiveness” (Harvey, 1989; Smith, 2002; Peck et al., 2009). This city “entrepreneurialism” translates into a variety of new strategies such as targeted housing production, the development of touristic attractions, campaigns aimed at improving the image of specific neighborhoods, and so on (Lees et al., 2008). Moreover, Zukin stated how city-centre reinvestment increased tax yield for local government (Zukin, 1987). This ensemble of city development strategies aiming at attracting capital investments and residents within the city relates to what Harvey labelled the “new urban policies” (Harvey, 2005).

(4). Security

State-led gentrification also relates to a question of urban pacification. As Uitermark et al. (2007) suggest:

Serving the middle classes, we suggest, is not their ultimate goal (the State). Instead, gentrification is a means through which governmental organizations and their partners lure the middle classes into disadvantaged areas with the purpose of civilizing and controlling these neighborhoods. (p. 127)

According these authors, the crisis of the welfare-state and the neoliberal backlash of the 1990s created strong ‘marginalities’ in urban territories, which in turn created situations of social crisis in disinvested neighborhoods. Local government then, have been unable to change the situation, which consistently transformed local urban policies into crisis management policies (Uitermark et al., 2007). Moreover, Dessouroux et al. (2009) use the term ‘embellishment under surveillance’ to show that state-led gentrification processes often relate to the sponsorship of security policies in ‘insecure’ territories, which translate in the installation of video cameras, the addition of security agents, light improvement, etc. More importantly, these policies often aim at reducing the sentiment of insecurity in environments that show no actual increases in security threats. Thus, security policies act upon the ‘visibility’ of insecurity rather than on its social causes. (5). Relation between public and private sector

Finally, state-led gentrification relies on the narrow collaboration of both public and private sectors. Smith (1996) outlined the diversity of private actors that enhance gentrification processes: developers, builders, mortgage lender, and real estate agents. But these actors respond in relation to the government (at different levels of power) that “…sets

(15)

15

the conditions for and catalyses gentrification processes through public subsidy and policy” (Zuk et al., 2018, p.2). Accordingly, private and public sectors work hand in hand as sharing interests in the gentrification processes, at the expense of the displaced residents:

“The relationship between accumulation of private industry and dispossession of low-income households cannot be fully understood without assessing the underlying network of power and public-private relations that help the rent gap be capitalized and legitimate the coercive means by which it is achieved.” (Paton and Cooper, 2016, p. 3)

2.2.3 Conclusion

In conclusion, the comparison between Haussmannization and state-led gentrification can be presented as such:

Haussmannization State-led gentrification Displacement State-led – General in-out

pattern of displacement on a centre-periphery axis: the working class moving out, the bourgeoisie moving in.

State-led – General in-out pattern of displacement on a centre-periphery axis: the working class moving out, the middle classes moving in. Capital National fluxes of capital

investments - Small capitalist class.

Global fluxes of capital investments – Broad trans-national capitalist class The State Importance of city economic

autonomy (tax yields) - Importance of security and urban control.

Importance of city economic autonomy (urban

entrepreneurialism) - Importance of security and urban control.

Public/private relationship Close relationship between

public and private actors. Close relationship between public and private actors. As the table shows, there are consistent grounds to bring Haussmannization and state-led gentrification together when studied through the lenses of displacement. That being said, this thesis makes the theoretical assumption that a perspective on narratives could enrich the

(16)

16

discussion on state-led displacement and accordingly the Haussmannization and state-led gentrification theories.

2.3 Discourses and narratives

Discourse can be defined as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, p.1). Often, discourse is discarded from research on displacement because it is seen as reflective of political and economic processes (Hastings, 2000). However, discourse theory makes the epistemological assumption that discourses are key to understand social reality. In this sense, discourse theory believes that “language is not simply a transparent communicative medium for talking about a pre-existing reality. Rather, language is involved in producing and constructing reality, specifically our perception or knowledge of the world and the meaning we make about it” (Hastings, 2000, p.132 in Belsey, 1980). Moreover, van Dijk defines discourses analysis as the study of “talk and text in context” (van Dijk, 1997). In other words, discourse analysis can focus on text, talks, or the combination of both. In the literature on state-led displacement, text analysis usually refers to the study of official texts such as legislative papers or policy documents (Atkinson, 1999; Allen, 1999). However, as Hasting mentions: “the emphasis on textual analysis has arguably led to a restricted view of the nature of the policy process” (Hastings, p. 133). On the other hand, narrative analysis (the analysis of spoken discourses (Gottweis, 1998)) generally focuses on the actors experiencing displacement. In this sense, narrative analysis is often limited to micro-level studies (Pomerantz and Fehr, 1997).

There are consistent grounds in applying a narrative analysis to state-actors. Gottweis (1998) suggests that narratives are “essential for the shaping of policies, the settling of conflicts, or the securing of legitimacy for political actions” (p. 468). Similarly, Hajer (1993) states:

“Obviously, this process of constructing, or framing, political problems is a highly significant element of the political process. Actors try to impose their views of reality on others, sometimes through debate and persuasion, but also through manipulation and the exercise of power.” (p. 46).

Thus, the aim of an analysis based on discourses is to explore how language is being used, why is it used, and how it helps to produce reality. More precisely, in this thesis, the narrative analysis aims to accurately exposes the problem/solution narrative that is mobilized in the making of state-led displacement (Hastings, 2000).

Research relating to the narratives of Haussmannization is largely underdeveloped. However, there seems to be at least one main emphasis that characterizes Haussmannization narratives. This emphasis focuses on hygiene and sanitation (Harvey, 2003; Demey, 1990; Gandy, 1998). As Gandy (1998) suggests, the transformation of Paris related to a new hygienist discourse shared among the medical and the public sectors. The re-organization of urban space

(17)

17

“set in motion an increasing dichotomy in the olfactory experience of the urban environment between the middle classes and the laboring poor.” (p. 35).

On the other hand, the narratives of state-led gentrification are well developed. Neil Smith (1996) coined the term 'revanchist city' to identify a state-sponsored unified strategy of displacement against the working class. In the revanchist city theory, gentrification occurs through the aggressive appropriation of a neighborhood by a dominant class and the eviction of its original residents (Smith, 1996; 2002). Moreover, the 'revanchist city' narratives promote the 're-conquest' of abandoned territories. These narratives also refer to terms such as 'no go zones', 'pacification', 'urban ghettos', etc. In this sense the 'revanchist city' discourse partake to an aggressive textual and spoken discourse that poses the working class engaging in class war (Van Criekingen, 2013). However, Uitermark et al. (2007) have showed how state-led gentrification narratives can also put the emphasis on ‘social mixing’. In this sense, city governments encourage socially mixed neighborhoods by “bringing middle-income people in low-income neighborhoods” (p.221). This type of narratives also relates to terms such as 'social cohesion', 'diversity', 'urban development', etc. That being said, the outcome remains the same. Indeed, Uitermark et al. (2007) argue that such public intervention based on social mixing, although claiming to protect local residents and favor economic activity, actually worsens segregation by “accelerating the displacement of lower-income groups from areas with a strong market position” (p.222).

2.4 Conceptual framework

This conceptual model shows three ranges of concepts. The first concept is the context which looks at the different causal contextual factors that influence state-led displacement. The context concept groups (1) the economic context (capital); and (2) the political context (State). The second concept is the problem/solution narratives from state-actors that aim to legitimize state-led displacement. Finally, these two concepts are the causal factors of the third concept: state-led displacement.

(18)

(19)

19

3. Methodology

This chapter presents the research design, the methods of analysis and a discussion on the methodology.

3.1 Research design

This qualitative research undertakes a comparative analysis of state-actors’ narratives on state-led displacement based on an embedded multiple-case design (Yin, 2009). The two cases are the covering of the Senne river (1867-1871) (case 1) and the pedestrianization of the boulevard Anspach (2017-.) (case 2). Moreover, the research follows what Yin calls a “longitudinal case” which consists of a historical study of a phenomenon, (in this case state-actors’ narratives on state led displacement) aiming to present this phenomenon through a cross-historical comparison. Finally, the two cases can be considered as ‘most-different’ (Gerring, 2006). The covering of the Senne and the pedestrianization of the boulevard Anspach have in common the forced displacement of population supported extensively by the state. Yet, they differ in many respects regarding the economic, institutional and historic context.

The units of analysis are state actors, who stand at different levels of power involved in the making of forced displacement of population. The data collection consists of the Bulletins

Communaux de la Ville de Bruxelles: the archives of the city-council reports from 1859 to 1872,

for the first case. This source presents the complete records of the discussions, debates, public reports and decision-making votes which were held at the city-council before, during and after the covering of the Senne. For case 2, the data collection consists in qualitative semi-structured interviews, and interviews collected in newspapers. City-council reports are a good database to study state-actors’ narratives on state-led displacement in case 1 because arguments legitimizing displacement are mobilized in discussions and debates preceding decision-making. Moreover, semi-structured qualitative interviews are a good database to study narratives on stated-led displacement in case 2 because semi-structured interviewing allow for an inductive approach to the data.

3.2 Methods of analysis

Regarding case 1, data collection starts in 1859 because the question of the sanitation of the Senne river became public concern at that time. The data collection ends in 1872 because the actual works finishes in 1871 and the discussions afterward no longer concern displacement. Regarding the second case, data collected consists of 2 semi-structured interviews conducted with Wafaa Hammich, the spokesperson for Philippe Close, the mayor of the City of Brussels (the person in charge of the pedestrian-related policies at the municipal level). Another interview was conducted with Pascal Smet, the ministry of mobility (the person in charge of the pedestrian-related policies at the Regional level). My questions were open-ended because I intended to let

(20)

20

the interviewee naturally raise topics or issues the theory did not address to more accurately grasp their views and narratives on the pedestrian. Moreover, the initiative of pedestrianizing the boulevard Anspach was made in 2015 by the previous mayor Yvan Mayeur. Since Mr Mayeur was out of reach, I added in the data collection for case 2, several interviews he gave to the newspapers with regards to the pedestrian. Furthermore, the archives and the interviews are initially in French and were subsequently translated into English by myself.

For both sets of data, I conducted a conventional content analysis (Hseih & Shannon, 2005, p.1279). Vaismoradi et al. define content analysis as “…a systematic coding and categorizing approach used for exploring large amounts of textual information unobtrusively to determine trends and patterns of words used, their frequency, their relationships, and the structures and discourses of communication” (Vaismoradi et al., 2013, p. 400). Moreover, since this research aims to conduct a descriptive analysis of state-actors’ narratives on state-led displacement, the content analysis follows an inductive approach in the sense that “the coded categories are derived directly from the text data” (Vaismoradi et al., 2013, p. 401). Hseih & Shannon suggest that the advantage of the conventional content (inductive) analysis is that it gains “…direct information from study participants without imposing preconceived categories or theoretical perspectives” (Hseih & Shannon, 2005, p.1279).

Following, I proceeded manually with the steps of the conventional content analysis such as described by Hseih & Shannon (p.1280):

Hseih & Shannon—Conventional content analysis

Application of method to case study

“Analysis starts with reading all data repeatedly to achieve immersion and obtain a sense of the whole”

After transcription of my interviews, I read through both data sets.

“Then, data are read word by word to derive codes by first highlighting the exact words from the text that appear to capture key thoughts or concepts”

I highlighted every key-words and reported them.

“The researcher approaches the text by making notes of his or her first impressions, thoughts, and initial analysis. As this process continues, labels for codes emerge that are reflective of more than one key thought.”

The appearance and recurrence of certain words gave me a positive first impression: it appeared they were common words shared by the different interviewees as well as common themes between the two datasets.

(21)

21

“Codes then are sorted into categories based on how different codes are related and linked.”

I grouped the different words of both sets in categories. The categories were alike for both sets.

“These emergent categories are used to organize and group codes into meaningful clusters.”

With these categories, I developed the themes that characterize the narratives on state-led displacement.

“Next, definitions for each category, subcategory, and code are developed. To prepare for reporting the findings, exemplars for each code and category are identified from the data.”

I described for each dataset how the theme is characterized.

“Relevant theories or other research findings are addressed in the discussion section of the study.”

Finally, I linked the findings with the theory in the discussion.

3.3 Methodology discussion

When intending to analyze narratives, the first methodological question that arises is

whose narratives? In answering this question, the researcher makes a selection of certain actors

whose narrative matter to answer the research question. The aim of the research is to focus on narratives that justify and legitimize the forced displacement of residents. Therefore, I intentionally excluded the various counter-narratives or alternative narratives from opponents and protesters from this research. However, in the data analysis, alternative narratives are sometimes mentioned because it allows to explain state-actors’ narratives facing such critiques. Non-state actors’ narratives were also excluded from the data set because the fieldwork showed that the narratives from non-state actors involved in the cases of forced displacement were not relevant. Indeed, since the non-state actors are not involved in the decision-making process, and are involved rather for economic reasons in the process, they do not need to justify their actions in the same way state-actors do.

(22)

22

4. Contextual analysis

This chapter answers to sub-question 1: “What is the economic and political context?”.

4.1 Embellishing and sanitizing the city (1867-1871)

The creation of the Belgian State and the decision to make Brussels its capital-city, resulted in Brussels bearing greater financial costs than other cities due to its particular administrative costs as a capital. Moreover, the city sought to improve its status of capital in a context of urban depreciation and economic welfare (Demey, 1990). City authorities lacked of sufficient tax yields since the poor sanitary conditions of the city drained the bourgeoisie and its wealth outside of city boundaries towards the faubourgs such as Etterbeek, Schaerbeek, Ixelles, etc. Additionally, the existence of the octroi, a tax on all products entering the city, dating back to the ancient regime, was making it more attractive for craftsmanship and industry to reside outside of Brussels in order to benefit from a larger commercial profit. Therefore, Brussels bore greater costs without compensation in terms of tax yields.

The socio-spatial repartition in 1860 was of the wealthy bourgeoisie residing in the periphery and a majority of small artisans and unskilled workers within the city. Accordingly, the quality of life in the central districts surrounding the Senne river was weak, such as: high rates of tuberculosis, high death rates, low life expectancy. Moreover, the unplanned spontaneous development of the medieval city heightened the unhygienic condition, the bad circulation of light and air. With the absence of operational sewage system, the spreading of epidemics and most of all the spreading of cholera increased among the population. Indeed, in 1866, the city faced an intense cholera epidemic which spread from the insalubrious districts to the wealthier districts, resulting in more than 3.500 victims.

By 1860, the river had caused repeated floods in the low parts of the city in previous decades. Residents had complained to the municipality which had been reluctant to solve the problem. Moreover, demographic growth as well as industrialization had consistently impacted the pollution of the river, transforming the river in an “open-air sewage” (Demey, 1990). Additionally, the uneven street pattern composed of narrow streets and dead-ends decreased the good circulation of air and light in the area. These issues increased the spreading of epidemics in the most insalubrious parts of the city.

Accordingly, prior to 1867, the year when the city-council voted the covering of the Senne river, the city faced two challenges: embellishing the city to attract the bourgeoisie residing in the faubourgs; and sanitizing the city in order to prevent the propagation of diseases. However, as Demey (1990) mentions, it is important to underline that the first challenge prevailed over the second because the discussions regarding sanitation of the city preceded a cholera epidemic in 1866. In this sense, the sanitation of the city also served as an opportunity to

(23)

23

demolish, embellish and re-develop certain working class districts and thus did not specifically relate to the epidemic disaster.

The city government first took on abolishing the octroi in 1860 and replaced it by a tax based on consumption, which, according Demey: “…made a decisive influence, yet hard to measure, on the urbanization of the capital” (Demey, 1990, p.43). Following, the city developed a planning program aimed at developing and embellishing the city in order to attract the bourgeoisie from the faubourgs towards the centre. In 1863, the new mayor Jules Anspach presented to the city-council a list of works considered “necessary” for the city. Among this list, the covering of the Senne stood at the top of the list.

The Senne river in 1867, Brussels (Brussels City Archives (A.V.B.))

Prior to 1867, the expropriation law was too restrictive to apply for the scale needed to cover the Senne. Indeed, in an insalubrious zone, only the buildings which were considered as such could be subject to expropriation. Therefore, if a zone was redeveloped such as to facilitate the circulation of air and light, the whole zone would benefit from a land plus-value. Hence, the initiator of the works couldn't get the full return on its investments. However, the law of the 15th

of November 1867 on expropriation gave the legal capacity to expropriate the entirety of a given zone, such as to make it possible to organize large-scale sanitation of the city. To this extent, the covering of the Senne in 1867 consisted in the first application of the new law (Demey, 1990).

Based on the argument that the city could not bear the costs of the sanitation alone, the council agreed on contracting with a private developer, an English company named Belgian

Public Work Company Ltd. However, by doing this, the council secured the embellishment of the

Senne area. Indeed, in order to be a profitable operation for the private developer, the sanitation of the River must have involved the embellishment of the area so that the it could have made

(24)

24

returns on its investment by the selling of the new buildings. In this extent, building a wide luxurious boulevard on the Senne would allow to bring together the sanitation of the river as well as the embellishment of the area at the lowest cost for the city. The council chose the plans of the architect Leon Suys because it met all its requirements. Indeed, Suys' plan proposed to cover the river and build on top of it a 30m wide boulevard in a straight line from the South-end to the North-end of the city. Moreover, to meet the embellishment requirements and attract the bourgeoisie of the faubourgs, the plans also included a large Fountain, a stock exchange building and several market halls on the central boulevard.

Léon Suys' Plan for the Covering of the Senne (1867), Projet de Bourse, grand boulevard et halles centrales –

Rectification du cours de la Senne sous les boulevards, présenté par Léon Suys, architecte (Brussels City Archives

(A.V.B.))

On the 23rd_{of September 1865, the council and the English company agreed on a first}

contract. The works required a total amount of 26 million which were shared by the State, the Province and the City of Brussels respectively for 9M, 3M and 14M of francs. The placing of the first stone was done by the King Léopold II on the 13th_{of February 1867. The construction took}

place over four years, but the bad relationship between the council and the company, the construction delays, the costs of expropriation of the residents and the bad returns on investments, caused the company file in February 1871. Consequently, the city took the company to court which resulted in the city finishing the project itself at the expense of the company. Thus, the City was able to continue construction without interruption. Finally, the covering of the Senne River was inaugurated and the boulevard open to the public on the 30th_{of November 1871.}

Inspired by Haussmann’s works in Paris, the large boulevard that was built on the river replaced the previous narrow streets and dead-ends and thus favored the circulation of air and light. Moreover, the sanitation and embellishment of the surrounding of the Senne River led to the expropriation and forced displacement of thousands of residents, of which the majority was made-up of workers. 1.100 homes were demolished in total. Part of the contract with the English company was the obligation to build new working class housings in the periphery of the city. Yet, the company never granted this part of the contract (Demey, 1990).

(25)

25

On the Left, the covering of the Senne river (1867). On the right, the new boulevard (1880), Boulevard Anspach

(1880). (Brussels City Archives (A.V.B.))

4.2 A city-centre for the pedestrians (2017-.)

The post-war period initiated a new trend of urban development in Brussels influenced by the American modernism. This modernist phase of urban planning was characterized by policies of urban renovation, understanding the building of entire neighbourhoods out of any considerations for the urban morphology. These urban planning policies took upon large-scale transformations of cities with the building of several functional areas such as the administrative and the financial districts in the 1950’s and 1960’s. These transformations were made at the expense of the residents of Brussels, leading to an increased spatial segregation between the middles classes and the working class. The middle classes opted for the comfort and the clean environment of the periphery, notably supported by public policies (Dubois, 2005), and the precarious parts of the population, later joined by the successive Moroccan and Turkish immigration waves, remained in the central districts (Van Criekingen, 2013). Moreover, to sustain this new socio-spatial configuration of Brussels and its periphery, the inner-ring was built around the centre of Brussels to sustain the increasing traffic flows of cars going in and out of the city. In that perspective, the boulevard Anspach was re-designed as an “urban highway” in the very core of Brussels.

However, the radical modernization of Brussels didn’t go unchallenged. A number of district committees consistently opposed and came to cancel a series of projects. Moreover, these committees were able to articulate a transversal narrative regarding the right to the city and impacted urban planning in the end of the 1970s. Indeed, the 1977 law “Arrêté Royal organique de la rénovation d’îlots dans la Région bruxelloise”, was specifically designed for the city of Brussels, focused on the rehabilitation of the built environment and put an emphasis on keeping the residents in their districts. However, these policies barely achieved their goals since the national context of austerity in the 1980s and the restrictive legal frame left little space for such urban operations (Van Criekingen, 2013; Noël, 1998). In this context, the Boulevard Anspach area remained without investments. Urban planners were failing to consistently redevelop the area and the ongoing increase in car traffic congestion and consequent air and noise pollution led

(26)

26

to a vicious cycle of underdevelopment, urban degradation and social impoverishment in the central districts (Hubert et. al. 2017).

The creation in 1989 of the Region Brussels-Capital as an autonomous political entity led to the transfer of the territorial competences from the national level to the new regional level. As Van Criekingen (2013) explains, this political autonomy was still limited in the first years for three reasons: first, the city still had to cope with the other political levels (Federal and Municipal), second, the Region didn’t have any power on the peripheral population, and third, in the end, the city did not have direct control on the urban real-estate since most of the built environment was privately or semi-privately owned. However, since its creation, the Region actively enhanced the re-development of the city, and most of all by re-framing the urban planning laws and creating a diversity of policies and planning programs aiming at the urban

revitalisation of Brussels (Van Criekingen, 2013).

Most revealing is the adoption of the 1995 “Plan for Regional Development” (PRD), which drew in the big lines what this re-framing of urban policies consisted of. To this extent, prior to the PRD, disinvestment of the city-centre consisted in a problem per se. But the PRD on the contrary, put the emphasis on the lack of attractiveness of the city-centre. Indeed, the text explicitly expressed the necessity for the Region to develop the centre in order to stop the urban exodus to the periphery and bring the middles classes back to the city. In other words, planning policies shifted from a stress on the residential capacity to the attractiveness of the central districts (Van Criekingen, 2013).

The political will to attract the middle classes in the city and thus to break with the socio-spatial configuration of the centre and the periphery from the 1960’s occurred in this specific context where the Region, as a newly constituted political territory, sought to increase fiscal budget through the attraction of a wealthier population inside its boundaries. Moreover, the constitutional reforms of 2001 increased the fiscal autonomy of the Region notably by adding a regional tax on real-estate transaction which quickly made up to 40% of its annual revenue. Consequently, the Region’s budget became strongly impacted by the real-estate market. This further increased the will of the Region to enhance the urban redevelopment of the centre and stimulate the return of the middle classes in Brussels.

In the momentum of re-framing the urban planning policies in the 1990s, the Region created a series of tools to realize urban revitalisation programs. Among these tools, the “Contrats de Quartier” or district contracts, were designed as localized re-development programs in contractual partnerships between the Region and the municipalities. This enabled the Region to keep control on the main trends of development in the city while submitting the execution of the works to other entities (Van Criekingen, 2013). These re-development programs targeted the requalification of public space by sponsoring projects improving comfort and aesthetics. Moreover, the “Contrats de Quartier” also sponsored the building of middle-class housings boosting the real-estate offer while limiting the production of new social housings (in 2017, the

(27)

27

proportion of social housings in the central districts was 4.49% for 7.29% average in the city (Monitoring des quartiers, 2017). Finally, aside from these localized re-development programs, since the 2000, the Region has been investing massively, in collaboration with the Federal power, in large-scale projects such as train stations, international institutions, etc., enhancing the position of Brussels as the “Capital of Europe” in the global fluxes of capital and high-profiles workers.

As Van Criekingen states, this redefinition of the urban policies thus translated in the state-led gentrification of the central districts, already occurring at the end of the 1990’s and more visibly since 2000 with the booming of the real-estate market. Indeed, it appears the central districts witnessed and are still witnessing an increasing number of newcomers with high social, cultural and economic profiles settling in the central districts, as well as an increasing amount of private capital investments in the area (Van Criekingen, 2003). Moreover, initial residents from the central districts are pressured by the housing market and forced out of the city-centre. Van Criekingen exposed accurately that, although the displaced residents follow different migratory trajectories following their social status, it appears that the most precarious parts of the displaced residents re-establish in the direct surroundings of Brussels which offer more affordable housing options.

The pedestrianization of the boulevard Anspach in 2017 indubitably relates to this context. Indeed, the pedestrianization of the central boulevard consists in an improvement of the quality of life in the central districts hence enhancing the attractiveness of the city-centre. Moreover, the pedestrian also creates a better environment for tourism since most of the tourist attractions are in the centre. To this extent, the pedestrian plays on both levels of regional scale and international scale competition. That being said, as mentioned earlier, the policies regarding the re-development of the central districts date as far as the creation of the Region Brussels-Capital itself. By the beginning of the 1990’s the Region had already taken the idea to transform the city-centre and reduce car-traffic on the boulevard Anspach (Hubert et al. 2017). Thus, mobility planning policies relate to the evolution of the socio-spatial configuration of Brussels. Indeed, in the 1950’s-1960’s, the modernist urban development of Brussels set the middle classes in the periphery of the city, relying on the democratization of car-ownership and supporting in/out mobility through the building of the ring, the inner-ring and the transformation of the central boulevard in a highway in the middle of the city. The new urban policies occurring since the 1990s put the emphasis on attracting the middle classes back into the city-centre. Consequently, political interest for car-use decreased within in a context of traffic congestion and air pollution in the city-centre. Instead, the Region set the emphasis on reducing car-traffic and improving inter-modal mobility. For example, the new Regional Plan for Mobility (2019) sets among its main objectives: (1) Improving the quality of life by reducing car-traffic; (2) Diminishing the impact of mobility on the environment; (3) Encouraging the development of proximity services; (4) Improving the already existent public transport network; (5) enhance pedestrian and cycling circulation.

(28)

28

On the left, car-traffic on the boulevard Anspach prior to the pedestrianization (2012). On the right, graphic model of the expected pedestrian by SumProject (2019).

Thus, in the 1990s, it was still unclear exactly what was to be done but the Region agreed on reducing car-traffic on the boulevard. In 2004, the Region ordered a first study to Sumproject, a private company of architecture and urban planning. However, the transformation of the central boulevard was set aside in 2006 due to permit delays and more importantly to new elections which gave an unfavorable majority to the project. In 2012, the project of transforming the central boulevard came back with a social movement named Picnic the Streets mobilized for the reduction of car traffic as well as the improvement of the quality of life in the city-center. Picnic

the Streets made several successful actions of blocking and occupying the boulevard. On the 8th

of June 2014, the new socialist mayor of Brussels-city (the municipal territory of the city-center) Yvan Mayeur, presented as sympathetic to the social movement by joining the action.

At the beginning of the year 2015, due to the influence of Picnic the Streets but more importantly to the favorable political environment set by the Region, the mayor of Brussels-city Yvan Mayeur with the support of the city-council, the Regional power and the Federal power, took the decision to pedestrianize the boulevard. On the 29th of June. On that day, the traffic was blocked and the boulevard was made pedestrian for the first time. This first attempt at pedestrianization consisted in a test phase meant to last 6 months before the beginning of the real works. Yet, the terrorist attacks of the 22nd_{of March 2016 in Brussels delayed the beginning of}

the works reporting them to the end of 2017. The works are now still in process and the City plans to complete the project by the beginning of 2020.

(29)

29

5. Narrative analysis

This chapter answers sub-question 2: “What themes can we find in state-actors’ narratives framing displacement”. The conventional content analysis exposed a series of key-words which were grouped into four different themes. These four themes are “Population”; “Environment”; “Economy”; and “politics”.

5.1 The city and the people

Case 1

The very question of the Senne River’s disastrous sanitary condition emerges when mentioning the behaviour of the population living along the river. The residents living along the river are represented as responsible for the disastrous sanitary conditions of the river. There was thus a semantic population-river relationship that was central to the emergence of the narratives regarding the covering of the Senne as a necessity. On the 16th_{of July 1859, 8 years before}

beginning construction, a city counsellor declared “The drought allows us to see the numerous abuses committed by the residents throwing away their waste, ashes, in the Senne River, despite the police regulations. Our fellow citizens thus contribute to the spreading of miasma’s which they complain for.” (BCB, 1959, T.1, part 5, p. 385). The emphasis was put on blaming their behaviour as demonstrates the following quote: “The filthiness of the renters is also a great cause of insalubrity by the influence it does on the nature of the atmosphere they live in.” (BCB, 1865, T.II, part. I, p.85). The attitude of the public authorities consisted in repressing those behaviours of the population living along the river:

“The mayor of the city of Brussels, (...) notices to the population that this infraction to the article 25 of the police regulation of the 25 April 1856 will be severely punished.” (BCB, 1862, T.II, part.1, p.17).

Moreover, the growing urbanization of Brussels attracted more and more people in the city. Consequently, the bad condition of the river were likely to worsen as the growing density accentuated the problem: “while the water level is decreasing, the trashes increase everyday and will continue to increase because of the growing population. (...) By these considerations, we are right to conclude that the Senne will get more and more pestilential” (BCB,1863, T.I, part.1, p. 96).

(30)

30

Thus, the covering of the Senne river was presented as a necessity because the working class population residing on its shores was polluting it. Seemingly paradoxically, the covering of the Senne was presented as beneficial to the same population. On the 18th of July 1863, city-council mentioned a petition signed by the inhabitants of the Senne for the city to take actions for the sanitation of the Senne. Indeed, the pollution of the river worsened hygiene conditions and enhanced the spread of diseases amongst the local population. In this sense, city-council mentioned meeting the demands of the residents by covering the Senne river: “if there is one work that the whole population desires (...), it would be the sanitation of the Senne, the disappearance of this open-air sewage” (BCB, 1863, T.II, part.1, 95).

As mentioned in the context analysis, the embellishment of the area is constitutive to the project of the sanitation of the river. Therefore, there was within the covering of the Senne a logic of displacement. Indeed, the new buildings were to meet higher standards and consequently be unaffordable for the working classes that used to live along the river. The population targeted by the embellishment consisted of the bourgeoisie residing outside the city in the faubourgs. However, city-council didn't categorically define that category of population apart from when considering the embellishment of the centre. In this extent, when debating the importance of a monumental fountain on the boulevards, the mayor replied: “The selling of the plots of land on which the company relies can only be fruitful if we attract the population on this great lane, by the beauty and the utility of its monuments” (BCB, 1865, T.II, part2, p. 291).

The displaced working classes were subject to numerous discussions in council. At the city-council meeting on the 10th_{of March 1866, councillors made mention of a workers’}

manifesto written by the residents of the Senne which criticized the actions of city-council regarding the forced displacement of the population. The council justified these actions by stating: “Haven’t you seen your administration recommend to the company, in charge of the transformation of this part of the city, to build housings for the working class, in order to allow the workers, when they will have to leave their unhealthy dwellings, to find shelter where they will live in all conditions required by hygiene.” (BCB, 1866, T.1, part.3, p.454). Later, on the 17th_{of November, the mayor stated: “We just voted 17 million, to give the least well-off}

population of the capital, the ones that live in the most insalubrious neighbourhoods, better housings, air and light, and consequently health” (BCB, 1866, T.II, part.4, p.473). Displacement, was justified through alleged improvement to the working class’ living condition. As such, the building of housings for the working classes was part of a contract made between city-council and a private company in charge of the covering of the Senne. Yet, the company would never build these housings. In March 1870, M. Bochard told the mayor Jules Anspach: “Never have you had the intention to force the English company to execute the article of the contact which obliges formally regarding the construction of the workers’ housings. And you only used this pretext of constructions in order to obtain the luxurious works that you wanted to execute” (BCB, 1870, T.I part.2, p.125). To this, the mayor replied that the company did build some housings

Telling displacement : a comparative analysis of narratives on state-led displacement in the late 19th century and early 21st century Brussels