Under permanent maintenance : how transient residents in temporary spaces inform urban renewal

(1)

Under Permanent Maintenance:

How Transient Residents in Temporary Spaces Inform Urban Renewal

Kimberly A. Donaldson

Student No. 12045225

kimberlyadinadonaldson@gmail.com

13th_{August 2019 - Amsterdam}

Supervisor: Dr. Kristine Krause

Second readers: Dr. Laurens Bakker and Dr. Olga Sooudi Partner organization: Heesterveld Creative Community Program: MSc Cultural and Social Anthropology (Applied Track) Department: Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam

(2)

(3)

2

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution.

- Russian Proverb

(4)

3

Plagiarism Declaration

I have read and understood the University of Amsterdam plagiarism policy

[http://student.uva.nl/mcsa/az/item/plagiarism-and-fraud.html]. I declare that this assignment is entirely my own work, all sources have been properly acknowledged, and that I have not previously submitted this work, or any version of it, for assessment in any other paper.

Kimberly Donaldson 13-08-2019

(5)

4

Acknowledgments

This thesis would not have been possible without the time and energy graciously given to me by others.

I would first like to thank my interlocutors who were so willing to participate and gave me the opportunity to hear their stories, to connect, and for their belief in my research and this thesis. I feel privileged to have been able to meet so many incredibly talented and approachable people in the short time that I have lived in Amsterdam. Of course, working with them would not have been possible without the partnership with Heesterveld Creative Community, whose director I would like to commend for working hard to cultivate a strong community.

I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Kristine Krause and Dr. Laurens Bakker, and second reader, Dr. Olga Sooudi. Specifically, during the writing of this thesis, the support, guidance, and patience I received from Kristine has undeniably helped me improve as an academic and an individual. Thank you for sticking with me through the many ups and downs.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends, especially my parents and Simon, for the mental support and uplifting words throughout this process. To my former teachers and professors who took the time to read and give feedback on my work, I am grateful for the care and confidence you gave me. I do not think I could have been less prepared for the anxieties that can be coupled with completing an international master’s program, but I am eternally grateful to you all for helping me through it.

(6)

5

Abstract

Temporary urbanism has steadily gained global attention as an urban strategy that maintains the capacity to transform physical and socio-political spaces. As Amsterdam strives to be economically and sustainably competitive among other European cities, temporary initiatives and cultural policies that incorporate artists and students are among the wide range of urban renewal strategies employed to help the city reach its goal. In this thesis I focus on transient residents living in Heesterveld, a temporary neighborhood in Amsterdam Southeast and home to the breeding ground Heesterveld Creative Community. In this thesis I work with theories and concepts of gentrification, displacement, and capital to demonstrate how spatial, structural and symbolic boundaries emerge in Heesterveld. I draw on residents’ narratives, practices and perceptions in order to give them a voice as they exist ambiguously within an urban planning strategy that, while appearing to renew and revitalize places, hides its impact on their daily practices, sense of belonging, and embodiment of boundaries. I look at how boundaries hinder the success of the creative breeding ground and overall cohesion of the neighborhood in addition to ongoing changes in the temporary neighborhood which indicate that the process of gentrification is occurring. Gentrification signals an incoming gentry that could ultimately displace current Heesterveld residents. As residents, especially artists, contribute to the neighborhood’s growing recognition as a ‘cultural hotspot’ in a stigmatized area, as transient residents they continue to face future displacement despite the cultural and symbolic value they bring to the area.

(7)

6

Introduction

I visited Heesterveld for the first time on my fifth day living in Southeast. Just an eight-minute bike ride from my student flat, it was unlike any neighborhood I had seen in Amsterdam. The bright yellow, blue, and red apartments welcomed me from a distance. A mural showcasing a collection of surreal fish donning feline features covered the entire face of one building. I slowed to observe, head on a swivel, practically biking on the wrong side of the path. ‘What is this place? Who lives here? Also, why is it painted so many colors?’ The moment passed in all of 30 seconds; the Bullewijk metro tunnel was overhead. Gray corporate high-rises towering above the road replaced the vibrant façade. Within two minutes, I was locking my bike to a pole in the IKEA parking garage. My day went on without further investigation. I filed the memory away among the other memories of places I had passed in Amsterdam and hoped to look into later. [Excerpt from

field notes]

Only one month went by before this memory resurfaced. As the daughter of an artist, I was immersed in art at an early age, so the opportunity to work with a population of artists immediately appealed to me. During the preliminary phase of researching an organization with whom to partner for this applied anthropology thesis, an image of the neighborhood described above illuminated my computer screen. A few days later, I sat excitedly across the table from Noah, the director of Heesterveld Creative Community (HCC), Heesterveld’s local creative breeding ground, who brought me up to speed on HCC and the neighborhood.

In 1982, the neighborhood was constructed as an innovative approach to social housing and architectural response to the original, high-rise Bijlmer structures. Soon after its creation, Heesterveld became riddled with crime and drug trafficking, which led Ymere, the housing corporation that operates Heesterveld, to devise a massive overhaul. A failed demolition request and lack of government funding due to the global financial crisis of 2008 resulted in Ymere embarking on an experiment1_{. Heesterveld Creative Community was established in one section of}

the buildings, while the remaining accommodations were allocated to student housing and entrepreneur spaces. The dwellings currently serve as a combination of temporary accommodations and studio spaces. Ten years ago, Heesterveld would not have caught my attention the way it did when I arrived in Amsterdam last autumn.

1_{In 2007, Ymere’s demolition request was not fulfilled. This prompted the housing corporation to host an architectural} competition to create a ‘sustainable quality living environment’ that would ‘appeal to the economically successful migrant, in particular Surinamese, Antillean and Ghanaian’ (Vastiphout 2007; Abdou 2017). Unfortunately, the financial crisis hindered this plan from coming to fruition.

(10)

9 I sat slightly puzzled when Noah informed me that the neighborhood is in contention for demolishment. The only question I could muster was, “Why?” It seemed odd to demolish a space that, from our conversation, seemed to have so much potential. He explained that Heesterveld is a placeholder between what was and what will be when its redevelopment finally occurs. With that, it seems Heesterveld is a prime example of temporary urbanism; a time-limited urban planning approach often used to revitalize or give purpose to an area during a transition (Bishop & Williams 2012).

Many people attribute Heesterveld’s transformation to the presence of HCC and its resident artists who are encouraged to create and share their work with the neighborhood and district, thus creating a more vibrant atmosphere. The municipality and other sources increasingly endorse Heesterveld as an upcoming ‘cultural hotspot,’ ‘a new color on the cultural palette of Amsterdam Southeast’2_{. The district also gains a more positive reputation with such a creative}

space being located within it. Other forthcoming developments are also expected to contribute to the district’s transformation. While the seminal urban planning strategy is taking place in Heesterveld, just opposite the metro tracks is an urban renewal project boasting a clear long-term masterplan through 20403_.

Keenly aware that Heesterveld’s existence is fleeting amidst emerging renewal, I shifted my attention to residents; the artists, students, and other young tenants inhabiting the space. What was it like for them to live in a temporary neighborhood? How do they connect to the area and their neighbors? Do residents feel Heesterveld has reached its status as a ‘cultural hotspot,’ and if not, what happens to them when it does? Is this another case of gentrification? Noah and I found common ground in our concern for residents. He was optimistic that my research could provide insight and solutions to his additional questions regarding HCC and its role in the neighborhood.

Temporary urbanism literature primarily exists within the fields of urban planning, urban studies, architecture, or fields of the like. Though fascinating, they often provide work centered around repeated case studies that outline development and application of the strategy from urban planning or architectural assessments. I found that there is a lack of anthropological texts concerning temporary urbanism, especially articles taking a critical stance and discussing the implications of the urban strategy on non-immigrant transient residents. Therefore, the work presented in this thesis is an effort to use ethnographic research to give voice to residents who exist within an urban planning strategy that, while appearing to renew and revitalize places, hides

2_{www.zuidoost.nl}

(11)

10 its impact on their daily practices4_{, sense of belonging, and embodiment of boundaries. Drawing}

on and analyzing narratives and practices through ethnographic methods, I work to illustrate how and why the internal and overall success of HCC and Heesterveld is limited.

This research is relevant as the City Council of Amsterdam’s ‘Structural Vision’ has detailed what must be done in order for Amsterdam to become economically strong and sustainable as it strives to develop as an internationally competitive European metropolis by the year 20405_.

Positioning my thesis within the interrelationship of temporary urbanism, gentrification, and displacement will hopefully allow it to serve as an insightful anthropological contribution to inform strategies and policies concerning urban renewal and breeding grounds in Amsterdam.

In this thesis I aim to answer the question: For whom is Heesterveld? To help answer this question, I devised four important sub-questions:

How are residents imagined by planners?

How do residents live their lives and relate to the space and other inhabitants? What does impermanence do to daily life in Heesterveld?

What is enabling and hindering emplacement and belonging within the neighborhood?

As I answer these questions, I also work to fulfill HCC’s main objectives, which include 1) to find ways to increase artist cohesion and collaboration within the breeding ground and 2) to understand how the breeding ground can better connect with residents of Heesterveld and the surrounding area.

In the remainder of this chapter I first draw upon relevant theory through which concepts and terms are clarified. The latter half of the chapter details methodology including limitations, and ethical considerations. An overview of the remaining thesis chapters concludes the introduction.

Theoretical Inspiration

Temporary urbanism

4_{My use of the term ‘practice’ is as a broad term that encompasses discourses, routines of daily life, and other activities. I} apply De Certeau’s (1984) understanding of practices as strategies and tactics, for example, when discussing the practices of the planners in the design of Heesterveld and its policies (de Certeau 1984). I also apply Reckwitz’ (2002) theory of practice. He asserts that practices are routinized types of behavior that are individually carried but socially shared through ‘bodily activities, forms of mental activities, things and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, and states of emotion and motivational knowledge’ (Reckwitz 2002: 247-249).

(12)

11 Temporary urbanism has steadily gained global attention as an urban strategy that maintains the capacity to transform physical and socio-political spaces (Bishop & Williams 2012; Pasqualis 2016; Haydn & Temel 2006; Studio Urban Catalyst 2003). In order to understand how planners imagine Heesterveld residents, I first looked at why planners opt for temporary initiatives6_{, then more closely at why this strategy was employed in Heesterveld.}

Heesterveld is an initiative that was developed based on ‘the intention of the user, developer or planner that the use should be temporary’ (Bishop & Williams 2012). Though ‘planned from the outset to be impermanent,’ it ‘seeks to derive unique qualities from the idea of temporality’7_{(Haydn & Temel 2006; Moore-Cherry & Mccarthy 2016). Whether an intentional}

phase or not, temporary uses are generally understood as a deviation from regular development cycles (Colomb 2012; Moore-Cherry & Mccarthy 2016; Bishop & Williams 2012) or an interim solution awaiting a more permanent, long-term masterplan (Tonkiss 2013).

In its current state, the primary agents involved with Heesterveld include the municipality of Amsterdam, Ymere, HCC, and the residents and entrepreneurs who occupy the residential and commercial spaces of the development. Characterized by temporary housing and HCC, the neighborhood meets Tonkiss’ positive8_{top-down model of Peck’s ‘austerity urbanism’ (Peck 2012).}

This is noted through the municipality’s approval of the initiative and Ymere providing temporary, low-cost leases to specified residents. Additionally, the use of Amsterdam’s creative breeding ground policy9_{works to ‘incorporate self-organization and community action’ (Tonkiss 2013).}

Heesterveld is prescribed to draw positive attention through resident participation. As a result, over time the neighborhood and Southeast district are redefined (Bishop & Williams 2012; HUD 2004; Bialski et al. 2015). Colomb asserts that ‘redefining’ may be a prerequisite for permanent development (Colomb 2012). Throughout this period of redefinition, Heesterveld exists temporarily, ambiguously, and ‘uneasily between different modes of occupation and activation’ (Tonkiss 2013) as a ‘test-bed for change’ rolled out against the backdrop of ongoing redevelopment (Shane 2015). This ‘uneasy’ existence was understood by many of my interlocutors as gentrification, a process often coupled with temporary uses (Bishop & Williams 2012).

6_{Temporary uses can be formal and planned or informal, spontaneous, accidental, or even illegal (Bishop & Williams 2012).} They have been praised for their experimental and pioneering appeal, as well as their ability to ‘[compel agents] to mobilize and activate, to connect’ (Ferreri, 2015; Colomb 2012; Ferreri, 2015; Bishop & Williams 2012). Their duration can range from one weekend to more than ten years. In some cases, temporary uses are developed as acts of political defiance, while in others, they come to fruition by government intervention (Bishop & Williams 2012). With such diverse capabilities, defining the urban strategy becomes dependent upon its context of use.

7_{I find that this is more oriented toward the artists living in HCC as they have time and space to develop work}

8_{In this model, ‘policy and planning create the conditions for informal, interim and auto-agencies through various legal,} property and policy measures’ (Tonkiss 2013; Peck 2012).

(13)

12

Gentrification

Over time, understandings of the term and concept of gentrification have become blurred with it now being used as either a buzzword or complex policy term. Since Ruth Glass’ coinage of the term in 1964 (Glass, 1964) the concept of gentrification has been widely viewed as a policy-led strategy used to capitalize on economic interests in urban spaces (Kirchberg & Kagan 2013). Neil Smith recognizes that gentrification “has become the leading residential edge of a much larger endeavor: class remake of the urban landscape” (Smith 1996). He asserts that it is not driven by the wealthy residents moving in, but rather by urban developers realizing the potential to gain economic profit by investing in residential space production (Smith 1996).

So where do Heesterveld and its residents fit in? Most interlocutors noted awareness of artists being ‘tools’ of gentrification. They recognized that artists are often the first agents to inhabit temporary spaces because they benefit from low-cost accommodations and bring forms of capital with their practices and lifestyles, attributes that are often valued by the cultural elite (Bourdieu 1993; Sooudi 2018; Zukin 1982; Lloyd 2006; Holm 2010a; Kirchberg & Kagan 2013; Bishop & Williams 2012). Additionally, studentification, the influx of post-secondary students to neighborhoods (Smith 2005; Hubbard 2008), and youthification, the increasing concentration of young adults in urban areas due to a combination of housing and labor market constraints (Moos 2016; Moos et al. 2018) generate symbolic, social, cultural, physical and economic changes linked to gentrification.

All three notions are at work in Heesterveld and contribute to subtly changing its ‘symbolic cultural capital’ through agent lifestyles, practices, class, etc. Some residents identified themselves as the gentry who replaced original residents but also noted observing an influx of racially different and more affluent gentrifiers frequenting local businesses, bolstering the assertion that gentrification occurs when “young, white, educated and higher income” gentry replace residents who are often low-income or minority group members in a spatially concentrated manner (Marcuse 1985).

Finally, changes in infrastructure can indicate gentrification (Atkinson 2015; Reece 2004). In Heesterveld these include displacement of original tenants, physical upgrades of the apartments, and new cafés that are unaffordable for many local residents, among other indicators (Zukin 1990; Zukin 1991; Kirchberg & Kagan 2013). Resident practices are affected by these types of changes which are revealed through a multiplicity of embodiments of their increased feelings of displacement or belonging.

(14)

13 Within gentrification literature, displacement is widely contested through quantitative and qualitative methods as an effect of the gentrification process. Some debates focus on the extent to which physical displacement impacts residents and indicate that significant social damage can occur (Atkinson 2015; Davidson 2009; Newman & Wyly 2006; Freeman & Braconi 2004). I observed that transient residents are keenly aware of looming physical displacement. For Heesterveld residents, this form of temporal displacement pressure was exposed through Ymere’s enforcement of temporary contracts, which subsequently evicted residents, and the housing corporation’s authority over new neighborhood developments. I show this through accounts shared about top-down interventions undercutting the initiative’s participatory design, resulting in residents’ disengagement during tenancy.

Displacement is not only physical eviction but also symbolic exclusion from a sense of place or belonging (Marcuse 1985; Glass 1964; G. Grier & E. Grier 1978; DeFilippis 2004; Herzefeld 2010; Kirchberg & Kagan 2013). Davidson (2009) draws on Heidegger and Lefebvre to argue for multiplicity in accounts of “being in place” and how it is impacted by neighborhood changes associated with gentrification (Atkinson 2015; Davidson 2009). Building on Davidson, Atkinson (2015) asserts that displacement discourse should be more focused on residents’ feelings of ‘injustice, anger, resentment and of being supplanted even while remaining in place’ as these are ‘generated by new symbolic markers and incoming affluent populations as much as being evicted’ (Atkinson 2015).

Lefebvre’s Rhythmanalysis also merits discussion. He explains that rhythm occurs whenever there is interaction between a place, a time and an expenditure of energy (Lefebvre 2004). He distinguishes rhythms of the self and rhythms of the other. The two forms of rhythm are tempered within social spaces like an apartment, a house, on the street, in the square, and in the district, and among varying social groups like immediate and extended family, the neighborhood, and relations in the city (ibid. 2004). In this thesis rhythms are drawn on to depict how neighborhood features, changes, and events have the ability to impact residents’ rhythms, which can cause them to carry out increased rhythms of self that are connected to displacement, or increased rhythms of the other that increase feelings of belonging and engagement.

Capital and boundaries

Bourdieu explains that groups or collective identities form through individuals coming together who share cultural and social capital (Bourdieu 1984). Bourdieu asserts that cultural capital is the collection of material, corporeal and symbolic attributes (such as clothing, style, mannerisms, skills, credentials, etc.) that one acquires by being part of a particular social class. In contrast, he defines

(15)

14 social capital as “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992: 119). Displacement and emplacement can occur through prioritization of temporalities of those who possess certain social and cultural capital. As Heesterveld is pushed to become a ‘cultural hotspot,’ in other words to substantially increase its ‘symbolic cultural capital,’ a lack of the cultural and social capital necessary to contribute to the neighborhood’s symbolic capital result in residents struggling to connect and find belonging.

Feelings of displacement and emplacement are evoked by physical, social, cultural, and psychological transformations generated by urban renewal and gentrification. These feelings can be explained through shared or divergent practices and other forms of capital retained by residents in a changing neighborhood. From such transformations I assert that boundaries can emerge. Lamont and Molnár (2002) specialize in boundaries and assert that symbolic boundaries inherently form categories as they are “conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space” (Lamont & Molnár 2002: 168). They are ‘tools’ used by individuals and groups. On a causal level, symbolic boundaries can be required for manifestation of social boundaries that are noted through identifiable patterns of social exclusion, class, and racial segregation, among other examples. Social boundaries are “objectified forms of social differences manifested in unequal access to and unequal distribution of resources (material and nonmaterial) and social opportunities” (ibid. 2002: 168).

In this thesis I group residents based on their identities as either students or artists and then as Southeast locals or non-locals. Boundaries not only exist between artists and students but also in the relations that residents have to Southeast as locals or non-locals. Boundaries became increasingly observable in the way residents identified themselves, carried out practices, and related to the neighborhood and other inhabitants, exposing moments of disconnection that hinder cohesion and collaboration. Though I will often discuss residents as existing within this dichotomy of displacement and belonging, I allow for and will bring attention to instances of multiplicity.

Methodology and Ethical Considerations

Methodology

In order to support the aim of this thesis and answer the overall research question and questions put forth by HCC, a three-month (January-March) ethnographic fieldwork project was completed in Heesterveld. Collaborating with HCC positions this research within applied

(16)

15 anthropology. My research benefited from being able to experience Heesterveld from within the organization (van Willigen 2002). Due to the subjective nature of experiences, I used qualitative ethnographic methods to collect empirical data. These included semi-structured interviews, walk-with-me ethnographies, cognitive mapping, observation, participant observation, an anonymous survey, and document and event analysis. These assisted in defining concepts and answering sub-questions.

The first days in the field were spent gathering in-depth information online and through observation about Amsterdam Southeast, the Heesterveld neighborhood, Amstel III developments, and the roles of Ymere and the municipality in these spaces. I observed buildings, who was on the streets and when, advertisements, etc. This provided me with up to date information which laid the groundwork for collecting data through other methods. Additionally, it allowed me to preliminarily note physical and symbolic boundaries such as the bike path.

The main source of information for this thesis came from the transcription and analysis10

of twenty-five semi-structured interviews (Adams 2010) ranging from 45-120 minutes long with Heesterveld student-side11_{residents (5), artists/entrepreneurs (17), developers (2), and}

municipality members (1). In this thesis, all interlocutors’ names are pseudonyms. An overview of the population is in the appendix (A1). This method could have been improved by interviewing more student-side residents.

Noah ensured my attendance to a mandatory HCC artist meeting. This meeting proved vital. After introducing myself and research topic at the meeting, I successfully recruited about ten artist informants. I then used snowball sampling as a tactic to collect remaining interlocutors12

which also guaranteed their connection with Heesterveld (Noy 2006; de Certeau 1984; Browne 2005). Interviews were primarily focused on residents’ practices and perceptions which helped with interpreting what being a student, artist, Southeast local, or non-local living in Heesterveld entailed and what kinds of capital individuals with these identities possessed. Residents’ descriptions of Heesterveld varied, as did their sentiments of displacement and belonging. Their interpretations of identity allowed me to see how physical and symbolic structures such as categorizations and labels have helped boundaries to emerge within the space. Interlocutors also thought deeply about the concepts associated with this thesis, attempting to define or explain how and when they identified them in the area. This gave way to dialogical anthropology. We engaged

10_{I used}_otter.ai_and_atlas.ti_{software to assist with transcription and analysis.} 11_{The term ‘student-side’ was used by interlocutors}

12_{Most interlocutors were current residents in the neighborhood, but snowball sampling directed me to former residents} who could speak to aesthetic and policy driven neighborhood changes, as well as developers and the municipality member, who gave their perceptions on Heesterveld, its residents, and the future of the neighborhood.

(17)

16 in a collaborative brainstorming session, working together to explain phenomena and distinct neighborhood traits (Tedlock 1987).

Walk-with-me ethnographies13_{proved to be an insightful form of sensory ethnography}

(Pink 2009) and way for interlocutors to share their knowledge while allowing me to be in and part

of their environment (Harris 2007; Pink 2011). Walking can be a form of place-making and many

authors assert that sensory and motor capacities influence ways of perceiving and acting in different settings (Sheets-Johnstone 1999; Johnson 2007; Ingold 2000; Iared & Oliveira 2018; Pink 2009; de Certeau 1984; Gray 2003; Lee & Ingold 2006). In this way, by letting interlocutors guide me through Heesterveld, they were able to ‘show’ me their emplacement or displacement. They clarified their practices, experiences and memories while attributing meaning to their surroundings and explaining their knowledge of the neighborhood (Pink 2009; Ingold 2011; Merleau-Ponty 1971). Interlocutors also identified which changes constituted gentrification and symbolic capital and why.

I used cognitive mapping or cartography (Woods 1992; Woods 2010) to have informants create a tangible, two-dimensional representation of their embodied practices and perceptions to see how residents related to Heesterveld, were living their lives, and creating a sense of place (see Appendix A2). At the end of interviews, I provided participants14_{with pens and a piece of tracing}

paper placed atop a printed map15_{, then asked them to map out and label meaningful areas and}

their daily practices and routines (i.e. shopping, leisure activities, mode of transport, feelings evoked in certain areas, etc.). With no right or wrong way to complete the map, I left interpretation open. Genz and Lucas-Drogan (2017) reference Greverus’ (1972, 1994) in their assertion “that mapping can be understood as “readable text”, which deals with culturally shaped perceptions of space and its usage, as well as identity-forming processes of urban everyday life” (Gez & Lucas-Drogan 2017). Interlocutors brought to the fore meaningful or contested spaces through symbols (i.e. hearts for valued places) and comments (i.e. “rich people,” “cash flow,” “home, but hard to connect with neighbors”) that showed interpretations of social class, patterns, and spatial practices (Lefebvre 1991; Woods 1992; Woods 2010; Gez & Lucas-Drogan 2017). It is a shame that more maps were not completed although twelve still provided an abundant amount of data to assess. Additionally, upon analysis I recognized that providing a map zoomed in on Heesterveld only as opposed to a zoomed-out view of Southeast could have presented me with more Heesterveld-specific practices to interpret.

13_{This method proved challenging to recruit participants for in the winter months} 14_{I also completed a map at the end of my field work to see my own practices} 15_{Took a screenshot on Google Maps of Heesterveld and surrounding district}

(18)

17 A consistently asked question revolved around who things (the neighborhood, cafés, meetings, events, Amstel III developments, etc.) were for, suggesting that spaces or places were confined to particular people or groups, so I investigated this through participant observation, event attendance and document analysis. I observed the atmosphere, the venue, the people, and their interactions at seven major events (details in A3). I primarily engaged in small talk, noting themes of conversation or concerns that were voiced before going back to see how they factored into the data. I compared event descriptions to event observations and analyzed event documents and flyers, noting that English was often used in events that were promoting new developments and soliciting visitors who possessed seemingly different capital, socially and economically, than Heesterveld residents (see A3). At events, Heesterveld residents generally discussed neighborhood drawbacks and what would make the space better. In contrast, most of the developers, municipality members, and non-Heesterveld residents discussed the neighborhood’s ‘potential’ and their excitement about current and upcoming projects that would draw people from outside of Southeast to the area (i.e. local eateries, Amstel III housing, etc.). It seemed there was a disconnect between Heesterveld residents’ wishes and discourses about future developments.

In my last week in the field I used the knowledge I had acquired (Werner & Schoepfle 1987) to devise a questionnaire and posted the link to the form in the Heesterveld Facebook page consisting of over 400 members (see A2). The questionnaire was used to find out how residents interacted with the neighborhood and what they felt was lacking. I acquired basic information about respondents such as their occupation, Heesterveld residence, duration of tenancy, and frequency of visits to local establishments and events. Though I hoped for more responses, I received 37. The most useful part of the questionnaire seemed to be the open question at the end where written responses asked for affordable cafés, a small market, and other spaces and amenities characteristic to people’s daily practices in other Amsterdam neighborhoods. This questionnaire seemed to show that residents are not highly engaged with the space which could be from a lack of amenities, although the small respondent population only allows speculation.

Ethical Considerations

Van Willigen asserts that “the essential core of the ethics of applied anthropology is the nature of the potential and manifested impact on the people involved” (van Willigen 2002: 47)16_.

16_{Van Willigen notes that as applied anthropologists we must take into consideration additional ethical concerns that}

(19)

18 This thesis only came to fruition due to the willingness of interlocutors to provide lived experiences and narratives as outlined in the methods. Therefore, as I did not require interlocutors and participants to complete a consent form, I thoroughly outlined my research goals and methods before requesting verbal consent. I ensured on-going consent by consistently requesting consent when applying methods, analyzing and using subsequent data, and writing this thesis. I was also certain to state my partnership with HCC before employing methods requiring consent. To protect interlocutors’ identities, I have anonymized them to the best of my ability. Maintaining my interlocutors’ privacy is essential, especially given that they are from an acute, and in some ways marginalized population, but also due to various critiques articulated about my partner organization and housing and government authorities who maintain certain degrees of power.

Though I will elaborate on this in Chapter Four, I was keenly aware of my position as a researcher but, at times, internally conflicted by and conscious of the power of my own identity. I am a 24-year old, Jamaican-American, black female. I am also a university student and daughter of an artist. These attributes alone gave me the ability to transcend numerous social boundaries in the field and amongst my interlocutors, which I believe made me more approachable for my interlocutors and allowed me to better understand and empathize with them. In the field I was aware that I could knowingly present as both an ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ given the context and setting of my research, but also that I could be perceived as one or the other by my informants. Therefore, I was adamant about maintaining a boundary for ethical concerns by consistently making my position as an applied researcher clear through reminders and carrying myself in such a way to reflect this. Lastly, as my research involves highly contested topics and concepts, many of which I had prior knowledge of within the Western context before entering the field, I worked to avoid confounding my interlocutors’ data by withholding my biases and information that could skew their responses.

Chapter Overview

In Chapter One I give a comprehensive overview of the research setting and important history that situate this research in the Dutch context. I argue that Southeast maintains a rich history that must be understood in order to understand the social positions of Heesterveld residents. Additionally, I present Amsterdam’s housing market and explain breeding ground

awareness of the impact on populations is vital. Additionally, complexity is added when working with an organization or agency that is outside of the population (van Willigen 2002: 47)

(20)

19 policies that impact Heesterveld. In closing I briefly discuss the new long-term development of Amstel III existing in close proximity to Heesterveld.

Chapter Two begins to form the primary argument of this thesis. In this chapter, I draw on interviews with artists and students, cognitive maps, and the questionnaire to show how transient residents’ practices, interactions, and perceptions expose boundaries manifested from Heesterveld’s design. I discuss how planners’ physical and symbolic structure of the neighborhood creates expectations that stimulate feelings of displacement. In a final section, I address how resident participation and placemaking practices are hindered by top-down interventions, exposing a paradox within the temporary initiative.

In Chapter Three, I briefly bring attention to relevant discourse surrounding issues of race, class and displacement in the Netherlands, and more specifically Amsterdam in order to highlight a social boundary between Heesterveld residents who are Southeast locals or non-locals. By analyzing interviews with Southeast locals, I uncover what being from Southeast means and how my interlocutors’ perspectives and practices while living in the temporary neighborhood are affected by this position. I then consider the different ways that non-locals work to emplace themselves in Heesterveld and Southeast. In a final section I draw on both locals and non-locals’ perceptions through interviews and cognitive maps to explain how changes in Heesterveld are linked to the process of gentrification.

In a fourth chapter I reflect on my time and positionality in the field as I work to assess my navigation and handling of various social and symbolic boundaries mentioned earlier in this chapter. I conclude with suggestions to meet the objectives of my partner organization as well as what I have done and will do with HCC in order to assist with implementation.

The thesis is brought together with a concluding chapter within which I give an overview of my findings outlined in the prior chapters in order to answer my overall research question. I assess limitations and how they could further this research.

(21)

20

Chapter One: Setting and Context

Figure 1 - Map of Amsterdam districts (Source: Gemeente Amsterdam - https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/districts/)

Amsterdam-Southeast (Amsterdam-Zuidoost) and The Bijlmer17

Amsterdam-Zuidoost (Amsterdam-Southeast), also referred to as Bijlmermeer, De Bijlmer, or Bims18_{, is one of Amsterdam’s eight boroughs. My introduction to Southeast occurred before even}

arriving in the Netherlands. I informed a Dutch friend19_{of the location of my student room when}

I was assigned an accommodation after what felt like a never-ending virtual hunt. Though unfamiliar with the specific neighborhood, he noted that the area “used to have a very high crime rate. [However, it was] getting better. Just Google ‘Bijlmer’.” Jolted, I followed his prompting. Among the results were articles explaining that it was a failed district due to architecture. He noted

17_{Southeast has a rich and complex history that will only briefly be summarized. More in-depth information can be found in} references.

18_{An informant provided this insider knowledge as ‘Bims’ is known less widely than the ‘Bijlmer’}

19 This friend graduated from a Dutch university with a degree in architecture and was pursuing a career in his respective field. He lived in Oud-Zuid, one of the most affluent neighborhoods in Amsterdam.

Zuidoost

(Southeast)

Zuid (South) Oost (East) Nieuw-West (New West) West (West) Noord (North) Centre (Center) Westpoort (West Port)

(22)

21 the failure was also “in combination with bad politics.” I sat staring at my phone, plagued with anxiety, ‘Where am I moving? Is it safe? Why would the housing corporation place me in a failing neighborhood?’ The anxiety transformed into unenthusiastic acceptance. Despite this, upon arrival, I chose to explore and understand Southeast and its residents. I grew to appreciate it as my first home in Amsterdam. Living there allowed me to understand its history and celebrate its many positive attributes that seem to be discussed less often in larger discourses.

During interviews, nearly every informant summarized or referenced Bijlmer’s history. This indicated to me that knowing and being aware of this contextual information is integral when living in Southeast. The largest of four neighborhoods, the Bijlmer maintains a rich and complex history dating back to the 1960s after the Second World War. Designed as “the City of Tomorrow” to accommodate Amsterdam’s rapid growth and initially solicited to Dutch middle-class families, the Bijlmer was an idealist project based on a modernist CIAM-plan20_{and inspiration from Le}

Corbusier (Le Corbusier 1986; Aalbers 2010). The project boasted high-rises with spacious three- and four-bedroom apartments and large green spaces throughout the district yet failed to attract its targeted residents who felt it was disconnected from Amsterdam’s city center, a disposition amplified by the delayed public transit and shopping square construction. With a large portion of buildings remaining vacant, the degeneration of the Bijlmer made it a symbol of modernist, utopian urban planning gone wrong (Aalbers 2010; Abdou 2017).

Suriname’s21_{liberation in 1975 resulted in an influx of nearly 45,000}22_{Dutch-Surinamese}

migrants who chose to retain their Dutch passports. The Bijlmer became a primary location to place incoming migrants, not only from Suriname, with such availability of vacant, affordable dwellings (van Niekerk 2003) and became characterized by its vast Afro-Dutch population. In the 1980s, the district reached an unemployment rate of nearly 50%. Around the same time, the government relocated a methadone clinic from the city center to Southeast. These two events are often noted as precursors to the negative reputation that the district gained as they contributed to various social issues (crime23_{, unemployment, drugs and poverty among others) for which it}

received stigmatization as the ‘first and only Dutch ghetto’ (Sterk & Zahirovic 2005; Aalbers 2010; Abdou 2017).

20_{Congrès internationaux d’architecture modern (CIAM) [International Congresses of Modern Architecture]} 21_{A small country on the northeastern coast of South American colonized by the Netherlands in the 1600s}

22_{This number was reached within two years of liberation due to the Dutch government’s limited window in which to} immigrate. After a certain date, migrants would forfeit their right to migrate freely (Abdou 2017).

23_{The residential turnover rate in the Bijlmer was very high as were the crime rates – in 1987 over half of the residents} reported being victims of crime (Aalbers 2010).

(23)

22 The government provided a €136 million bailout to Nieuw Amsterdam24_{to help with}

lowering rents, split dwellings into smaller units, and make visual upgrades. The resulting dwellings were primarily social-sector housing lacking the quality once sought out by Le Corbusier. The cheaply built spaces led many middle-class families to move elsewhere, leaving the Bijlmer with a 25% vacancy rate by 1985 (Abdou 2017; Bruijne et al. 2002; Heijboer 2009; van Nieuwkerk 1994). Considerable attention was paid to the Bijlmer in 1992 when a plane crashed into two high-rise apartment complexes. The result was the death of over 43 people25_{and homelessness of nearly}

200 who were forced to vacate their homes (Mingle 2018).

A new phase of redevelopment was launched throughout the 1990s and has continued into the 2000s. Urban renewal efforts and funding policies have led to an increased corporate landscape throughout the Bijlmer. High-rise blocks have been demolished and replaced with low-rise buildings, and upgrades made to public space, public transit, and commercial spaces. Despite seeing an influx of capital, being a melting pot of over 130 nationalities, and its positive cultural and creative energy, the stigmas and negative image are still associated with the district as many Dutch understand the Bijlmer as a, if not the most problematic area in the country (ibid. 2018).

‘Southeast locals,’ a label I explain further in Chapter Three, are among my Heesterveld interlocutors. The Southeast population consists of groups who in Dutch society have been symbolically categorized and, in many ways, physically segregated (location of Southeast in Figure 1) due to their socio-economic, racial and cultural positions in the Dutch context (Ghorasi 2014). As Southeast locals have grown up in the region and experienced some of the events noted above, these experiences serve as social and cultural capital that non-locals lack. I draw on local narratives later to discuss how Heesterveld represents an attempt to change the overall district but also how this imbalance in capital creates boundaries and feelings of displacement within Heesterveld.

Amsterdam Housing Market and Policies

Housing is discussed in every Amsterdam borough, not only Southeast. Including an overview of the housing system (Figure 2) helps bring clarity to this thesis. Increasing rent prices and changing housing policies seem to be the primary topics of discussion among Amsterdam residents, especially those who identify as low-income (working poor, low-to-middle income, and unemployed) and are seeking affordable housing through social-rentals. The Dutch housing

24_{formed by management consolidation of all existing housing corporations operating in the district} 25_{including undocumented residents}

(24)

23 market is a state-led system experiencing increased de-regulation26_{(Hochstenbach 2017). It is}

organized into three official sectors: owner-occupied, private-rental, and social-rental (Gemeente Amsterdam). The owner-occupied sector is explained through its name and growing steadily through government support of homeownership (Hochstenbach 2016).

Figure 2 – A chart displaying the various Amsterdam housing sectors

The private-rental sector consists of two subsectors, the free-market and the affordable private-rental sector, which function on a different set of rules. The free-market private-sector is characterized by a lack of price regulation and is open to all types of households. In contrast, the affordable sector has a rent cap, and tenants are decided upon by landlords or small private housing institutions (Hochstenbach & Boterham 2014; Dienst Wonen Amsterdam 2008; Gemeente Amsterdam).

Finally, in the social-sector, housing is allocated to individuals based on income and wait time27_{or urgency status. Urgency status applies to residents who are displaced due to the}

demolition or renovation of their dwellings (Hochstenbach & Boterham 2014; Kleinhas 2003). This housing occupies around 40% of the overall housing stock. Artists and students are often among the many residents seeking social housing. One artist noted still being in the least urgent category even though she had accumulated 15 years of waiting time. Although accommodation

26_{Hochstenbach asserts that ‘welfare state restructuring not only seeks to reduce the size of social-rental housing, but} policy reforms are generally also geared towards the de-regulation and re-regulation of rental segments. Examples of such reforms are the gradual erosion of tenant rights, a reduction in state subsidies, and efforts to give private landlords and investors more leeway (Hochstenbach 2017; Huisman 2016; Kadi & Ronald 2016).

27_{Individuals can register for social housing; yet, due to the limited number of dwellings becoming available, dwellings are} assigned according to the duration of registration (i.e., waiting time).

Ams ter da m Ho us in g Sect or s Owner-Occupied Private-Rental Free-Market Affordable Private-Rental Social-Rental Other Subsectors Student-Housing Illegal Subletting Temporary

(25)

24 availability is limited and dwindling, for artists, breeding grounds and ateliers within the social-sector (unless otherwise stated) give them affordable housing options. In this thesis, understanding breeding grounds is integral to understanding Heesterveld and will be discussed later in this chapter.

Three additional ‘subsectors’ exist outside of the official ones. Within the vast student

housing-sector, housing with temporary contracts is available to students who are registered at

Amsterdam-based higher education institutions. In this light, ‘studentification’ of neighborhoods in Amsterdam becomes more normalized. The other two sectors consist of the illegal-subletting (of owner-occupied and social dwellings) and temporary sector. Short-term rent contracts, used when households travel or as a part of anti-squatting, generally characterize the temporary sector (Hochstenbach 2013).

Ymere Housing Corporation and Heesterveld Housing Policies

Heesterveld is a combination of social, temporary, and student housing. Ymere’s housing structure changed in 2013. In Heesterveld tenants were allocated temporary ‘campus’ contracts (campuscontract). Campus contracts are allocated to students living in either side (HCC or student-side) of Heesterveld, valid to full-time students who are 18-years or older and for a maximum of 8 years. In 2017, they imposed additional temporary ‘youth’ contracts (jongerencontract) valid for five years for non-student, young adults between the ages of 18 to 28 who fall within a particular income requirement. After the rental period of either contract, tenants must vacate28_.

The implementation of the youth contracts greatly affected the social space of Heesterveld. Nearly every resident who did not meet the requirements or had already lived there for five years had to vacate their accommodations. Some who were within the constraints managed to get new contracts to extend their time after making appeals because they were incorrectly reassured of this possibility. Jan, an HCC resident further introduced in Chapter Three, was granted a new contract. He reminisced about Heesterveld before the new policies were enforced. Large friend groups within Heesterveld, primarily made up of HCC residents spent time together and programmed events. The changes completely altered the dynamics of the social space, with the neighborhood losing social energy in the process: “So many people left that were pretty important people in Heesterveld. You had these groups of people greeting each other, hanging out at Oma Ietje29

28_{https://www.ymere.nl/aanbod/studenten-en-jongeren.html}_01/2019 29_{local café and eatery}

(26)

25 together; the groups were big.” Noah also noted that the individuals evicted were “promised a lot by Ymere.”

At the same time, another policy was introduced. When the two primary tenants on a contract move out, all remaining tenants must vacate the apartment, forced to forfeit remaining tenancy. This process happened to one of my interlocutors, Jasmine, soon after interviewing her. Both examples expose displacement caused by Ymere’s top-down interventions and practices, Jan’s recount indicating a direct blow to Heesterveld’s social vitality.

Heesterveld: Southeast’s Upcoming Hotspot

‘Project Booster’ Eva de Klerk creates a new hotspot

As noted, Heesterveld has experienced a few development phases since its construction. Its current phase as a temporary initiative, spans ten years. In 2009, Ymere commissioned Eva de Klerk30_{, a Dutch, self-proclaimed ‘project booster,’ to identify whether Heesterveld could be}

Southeast’s next ‘hotspot.’ De Klerk’s “heart lies with the raw no-go areas, the ‘forgotten’ places of the city,” “places where change seems impossible, where development is locked and where everything is open at the same time.” Her goal was to work with locals who could offer insight, ideas and support to carry out the project (Eva de Klerk, translated from Dutch)31_{. She approached}

the temporariness of the neighborhood head-on, using it as fuel to develop a space that would grow organically after consciously placing selected agents, businesses, and organizations.

Experimenting with Heesterveld as an ‘interim initiative’ was Ymere and de Klerk’s attempt to make it more than just a fleeting developmental phase, but rather a potential basis for developments ‘beyond the meantime’ (Pakhuis de Zwijger 2013). They hoped to inspire resident participation, synergetic interactions, and connections between the young residents coming from different walks of life. In 2013, Southeast’s former district manager, Emile Jaensch, remarked, “We no longer think in terms of blueprints, but try to give space to creative developments in Southeast such as in Heesterveld” (Zonneveld 2013). With the addition of a carefully crafted hospitality industry, Jaensch envisioned Heesterveld becoming a metropolitan where the students, creatives, employees from Amstel III and other visitors assembled. Heidi Borm, Ymere’s neighborhood program manager at the time, explained that small investments, such as attending to frail roofs, were still being made. She asserted that if Heesterveld continued positively and depending on

30_{De Klerk is widely known for her leadership during the creation of the city’s largest breeding ground in Amsterdam Noord,} NDSM. Her new task was to devise a revitalization initiative for the neighborhood that would last through 2017.

(27)

26 Ymere’s options, the buildings could remain standing beyond their 2017 demolition date (ibid. 2013).

Aalbers applies Smith’s (1996) concept of neoliberal revanchist renewal and gentrification to Amsterdam Southeast. Aalbers concludes that “civilizing and controlling” are goals of revitalization efforts in the Bijlmer, that they are “not only done to restore social order but also to stimulate middle class formation” (Aalbers 2010). In the Bijlmer, this is primarily to the benefit of middle-class residents and private developers (Aalbers 2010). To this effect, Heesterveld exemplifies some form of ‘civilizing and controlling.’ Although the young residents are not economically of the middle class, they are seemingly used to ‘restore’ and facilitate social order.

From Then to Now

Since 2013, much has occured in Heesterveld, but the area remains temporary. Even with the neighborhood’s temporary status, cafés like the Juiciety32_{and Oma Ietje}33_{have placed roots in}

the area with help from Ymere. They exist alongside, Hot O Twenty radio station, a dreadlock salon, a bed-and-breakfast, a visual arts workspace, an exhibition room, workshop classrooms for children and an artist-in-residence accommodation, all approved by Ymere34_{. In the field, I was}

able to see the newest addition materialize in the ground-level space next to Juiciety. I watched them build and paint walls, install lighting, new desks, chairs and office necessities that would come together to create the co-working space for entrepreneurs of Heesterveld Business Hub35_.

Creative programming is meant to permeate the neighborhood through events like the annual Open Art Route Zuid-Oost (OARZO)36_{, during which artists from Heesterveld and other}

Southeast creative communities open their doors to visitors. Additionally, Get Known Comedy is an open mic comedy show for emerging and well-known stand-up comedians that serves as their platform to develop and activate in the world of Dutch entertainment. Attending OARZO in October 2018 was my second encounter with Heesterveld prior to entering the field. I was curious to see the talents of other Heesterveld artists after watching a futuristic music video created by an HCC videographer from Southeast who has collaborated with famous companies like Fila37_and

32_{Juiciety is owned by two Amsterdam locals with Surinamese roots. They “are on a mission to inspire people and create} change to lead a healthy life through fresh juices with Caribbean ingredients and giving juice workshops.”

(http://www.juiciety.nl/)

33_{Oma Ietje offers creative, global-inspired dishes and a sunny Amsterdam terrace.} 34_{http://heesterveldcc.nl/community/}

35_{The project is a collaboration between Ymere and the Municipality of Amsterdam who, with funding from the European} Regional Development Fund (ERDF), hope the initiative will benefit and provide a boost to ambitious entrepreneurs in the area (https://heesterveldbusinesshub.nl/).

36_{http://oarzo.nl/en/home/}

(28)

27 Daily Paper38_{. I was inspired by the creativity exhibited by someone of my age and living out de}

Klerk’s vision of Heesterveld, her hope that it would attract outside visitors and spark curiosity was not lost on me. However, I was noticeably one of the only event attendees. In Chapter Two, I further discuss event attendance in Heesterveld from observations and the perspective and practices of residents.

Breeding Grounds (Broedplaatsen)

Breeding grounds or ‘creative communities’ were officially established in 2000 by the municipality to maintain and improve accessibility for new space-seeking creatives and artists. About 700 squatters, consisting of artists and other individuals who faced evictions due to construction plans confronted the municipality and asked for a constructive policy (Gemeente Amsterdam, Bureau Broedplaatsen39_{). At the end of 1999, artists protested about the significant}

shortage of affordable studios. Following this, the municipality established what is now Bureau Broedplaatsen (BBp) (Gemeente Amsterdam, Bureau Broedplaatsen). Through the breeding policy, breeding ground residents can receive funding for social and cultural projects in exchange for building and maintaining communal spaces in their communities (Abdou 2017; Gemeente Amsterdam-Herzien Amsterdams Ateliers en Broedplaatsenbeleid 2015 – 201840_)._{More than 60}

breeding grounds exist in Amsterdam in collaboration with the municipality, housing corporations, and other organizations41_.

Housing corporations are eligible for grants and subsidies when making efforts to better a neighborhood. Ymere’s approach to reforming Heesterveld serves as an example. I find the breeding ground policy to be mostly favorable but feel that Abdou points out an important and critical concern. She asserts that ‘problematization of the residents [and neighborhoods] is lucrative as it ensures the continuity of the income stream’ (Abdou, 2017). This not only supports Aalbers’ notion of civilizing and controlling, but also points to the practice of prioritizing the capital and practices of a creatives as a means of capitalizing on economic return.

38_{An Amsterdam-based fashion company (}_{https://www.dailypaperclothing.com/}₎

39_{https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/organisaties/organisaties/bureau-broedplaatsen/organisatie/} 40_{https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/organisaties/organisaties/bureau-broedplaatsen/beleid/}

41_{Within breeding grounds, a distinction exists between subsidized and standard studios. In order to live in a subsidized} studio, often available at a lower rental price, artists are assessed by the Commissie voor Ateliers en (Woon) Werkpanden

Amsterdam (CAWA) for workmanship and income requirements (Gemeente Amsterdam-Ateliers en Broedplaatsen,

https://www.amsterdam.nl/kunst-cultuur/ateliers/broedplaatsen/). The assessment examines work quality, whether the production of art and culture is the main activity, and whether sufficient production, presentation, and recognition have been demonstrated (CAWA, Jaarversalg 2018 in Dutch). Motivation is also assessed through artists’ answers to questions regarding their forthcoming creative plans and collaborations with renowned institutions, how a studio contributes to future ambitions, and the necessity of the space (i.e., location, lighting, size) (CAWA, Jaarversalg 2018 in Dutch).

(29)

28

Heesterveld Creative Community (HCC)

Image 1 - Heesterveld Creative Community (Source: HCC - http://heesterveldcc.nl/, Retrieved 2019, Translated to English)

Founded in 2012, and officially deemed a breeding ground in 201942_{, HCC works “to}

inspire and create a climate of growth and creation, to make Heesterveld the cultural epicenter of the Bijlmermeer.” Residents’ disciplines include music, film, production, textiles, photography, theater, illustration, and design, among other art forms. Through the collaboration of its creative residents and the HCC board of residents and professionals from the cultural field, HCC strives to contribute to the living environment in the neighborhood and the city43_.

HCC offers living and working space, financial support, and a joint exhibition space (H75) for residents. The director of HCC operates H75. The space allows for programming put on by HCC or groups and organizations that rent it for a fee. Initially, it was a shared space for the neighborhood. During my research, I observed and was informed that it no longer serves as a ‘free zone’ that people enter and use at their leisure. Noah explained that HCC now has a lower budget due to a cut back in funding from Ymere, noting that it makes HCC’s ability to program and plan for future success more difficult. In this case, I understood that renting H75 for a fee can help fund programming, but interlocutors noted that it no longer felt accessible to them. The next chapter discusses how HCC fits into the social space of Heesterveld.

Amstel III44

42_{Artists expressed concerns with demolishment even though HCC received CAWA’s official recognition as a breeding} ground in 2019. This recognition also means that artist portfolios and residency are now subject to CAWA’s assessment. 43_{http://heesterveldcc.nl/}

(30)

29

Image 2 - Upcoming Amstel III development (Source: Gemeente Amsterdam - https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/amstel3/)

Across the Bullewijk metro station from the H-neighborhood, significant changes have already taken place over the years, although the most prominent urban renewal the Bijlmer will see is yet to come. Amstel III45_{was designated for transformation in 2011 (Image 2 and 3).}

Between 2019 and 2040, developers will build 15,000 new homes in the upcoming metropolitan area between the Amsterdam Medical Center (AMC) and the Bijlmer ArenA. The aim is to combine living and office spaces and increase public space, creating a diverse and mixed district. Connecting this new development with the existing Southeast district, especially the H-neighborhood, has been indicated as a primary focus. Numerous organizations, such as De Proefzaak, Club Jack, Hondsrugpark Freezone, and The Ballroom, have already begun to set the stage with events, their goal to create a lively and connected new neighborhood.

(31)

30

Image 3 - Amstel III outlined on map (Source: Hondrugspark - https://www.hondsrugpark.nl/het-plan/)

Conclusion

Though dense, this chapter is imperative as it outlines the intricacies of Amsterdam Southeast and Heesterveld. Southeast, though similar in some ways to Amsterdam’s other seven districts, differs significantly due to its history, which I assert is important when conceptualizing the identities of interlocutors and Heesterveld residents who are Southeast locals. Additionally, I provided an overview of the existing housing and cultural policies relevant to this thesis with hopes that it helps to bring clarity when referenced in remaining chapters. Interlocutors were very knowledgeable about many of these topics, understandable given the fact that they are relevant to their everyday lives.

Finally, this chapter helps to ensure that this research is thoroughly situated within the Dutch context. In the field, this knowledge helped me better understand interlocutors, their references, and their views. I recall initially struggling to grasp the vast background and contextual information as my default interpretation was from a U.S. perspective. In the remaining chapters, I will expand upon this information through presenting and analyzing data in order to further substantiate concepts and showcase evidence that will help to answer my overall research question.

(32)

31

Chapter Two: Temporary Boundaries

“Soon, you’ll enter Amsterdam by train and the first thing you see will be Heesterveld.” (van der Beek 2011)

Image 4 - Amsterdam-Zuidoost, Photo by Vadim Schepel, June 2018, Google LLC

Bringing Worlds Together

In the field, and even more so when analyzing interviews, I was fascinated with the way that residents introduced themselves. Introductions resembled this structure:

“Hi, my name is ___. I’m ___ years old. I’m a(n) (student/artist). I live in the (blue building/red building/yellow building/Creative Community). I’ve lived here for ___ years.”

The categories within which interlocutors identified themselves revealed underlying structural and representational strategies. These strategies have helped shape physical and symbolic boundaries in Heesterveld (Lamont 2002). Hwang (2015) asserts that neighborhoods experiencing change may engage in boundary work, citing Lamont and Molnár’s (2002) definition as ‘kinds of typification systems, or inferences concerning similarities and differences, [with which] groups mobilize to define who they are’ (Hwang 2015; Lamont and Molnár 2002). Categorization and boundaries have not only impacted residents’ perceptions of their social identities within Heesterveld but also their feelings of displacement or belonging.

Under permanent maintenance : how transient residents in temporary spaces inform urban renewal