The production of Sluisbuurt Amsterdam : a thesis exploring contesting visions in the debates on Amsterdam’s new high-rise environment

(1)

The Production of Sluisbuurt Amsterdam

A thesis exploring contesting visions in the debates on Amsterdam’s new

High-Rise environment.

Inge Kuik (10201459) Email: irkuik@hotmail.com

Supervisor and first assessor: dr. Olga Sezneva Second assessor: dr. Thea Dukes

University of Amsterdam Program: Sociology (MSc)

Thesis group: Urban Space, Material Culture and Identity Date: 3 December 2018

(2)

2

Foreword

I have been passing the future Sluisbuurt countless times in my life. The two long ‘Red Bridges’ – as I used to call the Amsterdamse Brug and the Schellingwoude brug as a child – have always felt to me like the gateway that brings you out of and back into the city. For as long as I can remember, my parents have a small allotment garden in Schellingwoude in Amsterdam Noord. Surrounded by ditches, the wide landscape of Waterland and the small villages in the distance, the place feels miles away from home in the city. When I was young, we regularly cycled towards this little green oasis from our house in Oostelijk Havengebied, which was the perfect place to build tree houses, go canoeing and help my mother gardening. In 2004, we moved to IJburg to a house with a garden. That was something that my mother had longed for ever since moving to Amsterdam in the 1980s. However, she still couldn’t say goodbye to her garden in Noord.

My parents have moved away from IJburg and ‘back’ into the city in 2012 to a house without garden, but of course, the garden house in Noord remained. During my years as a teenager and adolescent, I has lost interest in the garden house, and I barely visited it because the city was, of course, much more exiting. Lately, however, I rediscovered the place and when I’m there, it feels like I’m on holidays.

The summer of 2018, the summer I have written this thesis, was the warmest and driest summer ever measured in The Netherlands. My small apartment on Marnixstraat was hardly cooling off at night. The allotment garden offered an ideal spot to escape the heat – as far as possible – and find a place without the distraction of internet and city life.

I have been passing the future Sluisbuurt countless times in my life and many times this summer. In between the two red bridges, on Zeeburgereiland, the municipality plans to create a new urban environment with 5500 dwellings and I have tried to image how the route over the bridges would feel like when the Sluisbuurt towers are finished. And how the towers would change the experience of being in the garden when the towers are visible above the trees. It’s hard to image something so big and abstract as a city, when it doesn’t exist yet. So I’ll have to see what happens.

(3)

3

Abstract

This thesis analyses the public debates that have been organised in response to the design plan for Sluisbuurt in Amsterdam – a mixed-use urban area with approximately 5500 dwellings and a significant number of residential high-rise buildings. Being traditionally a city of low buildings heights, Sluisbuurt appears to signalise a turning point in Amsterdam’s planning approach. The high-rise seems to polarise the opinions among civil servants in the municipality, design professionals, developers and the general public. This study analyses how in the debates positions and visions are justified and how power over space is contested by state, market and civil society actors. The study finds that the municipal discourse and position is dominant in the debates and that the impact of opposing visions seem marginal. The debates function as means to achieve consensus about the plan while simultaneously confirming the egalitarian image of Amsterdam’s planning process. The findings of this study display the diffuse roles in terms of state, market and civil society. In the discussion, this study raises questions about a tendency towards homogeneous spaces and the issue of the inaccessibility of Amsterdam for many groups.

(4)

4

Introduction

Amsterdam is traditionally a city of low-rise building. Up until the Second World War, urban sprawl was characterized by buildings of maximum 5 storeys high. The narrow 19th_century

districts – built after the pattern of the former ditches – achieved high density without building up high. It was not until the 1960s that urban planners began to think about large-scale high-rise, inspired by international examples, to replace the dilapidated 19th_{century districts. Many}

of these plans met with resistance from monument-protection organisations and residents, including the plans for the Bijlmermeer. The original plan was never completed, partly because of financial cuts, partly because the high criminal activity rate in the 1970s and 1980s that concentrated around the high-rise buildings (De Liagre Böhl, 2010).

Now, almost 50 years later, Sluisbuurt will be one of the first large scale residential high-rise projects after the Bijlmermeer project. With an increasing population, Amsterdam plans to have built 70.000 new dwellings by 2040. High-rise buildings now appear to be increasingly embraced as an appropriate architectural format by the municipality. Not only Sluisbuurt is characterised by height; the Northern IJ-bank, South Axis, Amstelkwartier, Westerdokseiland are some of the restructuring areas in which high-rise buildings occupy a prominent position. As these new towers begin to alter the lines of the Amsterdam cityscape, the amount of debates on this development are rising. Urban environments that are reminiscent of overseas global cities in which high-rise buildings are incorporated on a large scale and in high density, have not yet been done in Amsterdam before. But the current city planning is shifting towards this approach. And precisely that is what causes the public controversy around the Sluisbuurt. In the eyes of many, the implementation of high-rise buildings threatens the historically-formed visual and physical character of Amsterdam. They argue that the urban fabric is what makes Amsterdam successful and that this traditional line of urban planning should be continued. In the eyes of others however, building high is the best, if not only way to accommodate to the current housing demand which is still on the increase. The high-rise seems to polarise the opinions among civil servants in the municipality, design professionals and developers and the general public. The focus of this research are the events in which the Sluisbuurt plan with its high-rise buildings are debated between various stakeholders. Moreover, the study treats the debates as a window, granting access into the dynamic process of actors shaping, influencing and formulating visions on and about Amsterdam’s urban future. The relation between groups with different stakes into the debates will be assessed. The central question in this study is: What are the identities and positions of the stakeholders that are engaged in debating the Sluisbuurt development and what discursive practices do they use to promote their developmental agenda? The questions that guide the study towards answering this central

(7)

7 question are: how do actors in the debates justify and defend their position (which topics do they address and how do they counter opposing arguments)? What are the discursive techniques the actors use during the debates? And lastly, how do these positions correspond to the actor’s position in state, market or civil society?

In broader sense, the aim of this thesis is to gain more insight into contemporary discourses in Amsterdam’s urban planning. Because high-rise building is a relatively new trend in this city, this may indicate a shift.

The structure of this thesis is as follows: chapter 1 provides an overview the central concepts of existing literature related to this study and will assess their usability for this particular study. Chapter 2 explains the theoretical lens from which the study is approached. Thereafter follows chapter 3, explaining the methodological steps that were taken to carry out this research. Before moving on to the empirical part, the development and role of governmental parties, civil society parties and market parties in Amsterdam’s urban planning history are discussed in chapter 4. Then, chapter 5 is dedicated to placing the debates in context. This chapter first addresses how high-rise in Amsterdam has been debated in the past, followed by a timeline of the main events surrounding Sluisbuurt and, also, it introduces the formats of the debates in this study. After these contextualising chapters, the thesis moves on to the data analysis. This section consists of four chapters. Each chapter presents and analyses the main discursive positions of the actors that are grouped together in ‘state’ (chapter 6), ‘market’ (chapter 7), ‘civil society’ (chapter 8) or ‘researchers’ (chapter 9). Excerpts from the transcripts are used in the text for clarity and transparency of the interpretations. These are the parts that best demonstrate how discursive tactics are deployed in the aim of winning an argument. In the end of each of these chapters, the variation and overlap between the discourses is assessed. Chapter 10 zooms out from the content towards the relations in the debates between the various groups. The final, concluding chapter of this thesis brings together the findings and theory and returns to the research questions.

Chapter 1: Literature review

This literature section will review the central sociological insights and concepts from existing literature that give guidance to this thesis. The aim is to demonstrate the sociological significance of studying the Sluisbuurt debates and the role of the high-rise, as well as to sharpen the focus of the study. It first addresses the transformational identity of ‘the high-rise building’ as an object that gets granted different (symbolic) meanings in different contexts and historical periods. Furthermore, it explains the relationship between aesthetic preference and

(8)

8 politics which deepens the understanding that the urban landscape isn’t just a collection of buildings.

1.1 The transformational identity of High-Rise

The high-rise buildings in the municipal Sluisbuurt plan are the focal point in the debates surrounding the envisioned neighbourhood. Originally, they were the incentive for the debates and remain to be the most controversial element of the plan. In contrast, the second largest city in The Netherlands, Rotterdam, ‘represents a prominent European high building city that has a mature high building policy in place’ (Van der Hoeven & Nijhuis, 2011, p. 278). Also, the representation of high-rise buildings internationally does not reflect reluctance: just thinking of cities like New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Moscow will confirm that high-rise has become a dominant building form in large urban environments throughout the globe. This raises the question of why the Sluisbuurt is so controversial, or more precisely, why high-rise buildings in Amsterdam are so controversial.

For the answer, we must look at the question itself. Asking why high-rise is a contested architectural typology in one city, and generally accepted in another city is the beginning of an answer. Namely, the meaning given to high-rise depends on the particular socio-economic and historical context and therefore is not the result of the architectural form itself. In light of the contemporary housing crisis for the working class – in which lower and middle income groups are increasingly excluded from the housing market in many global cities – Stephan Graham (2015) critically assesses a proposition that Harvard Economist professor Edward Glaeser did in the magazine The Atlantic in 2011. To address the housing problem, Glaeser proposes to build more high-rise buildings and argues for minimum state intervention. He emphasises the economic rationale that building up spreads out the costs over more units and that regulations make the housing market inflexible. Graham problematizes this statement because it neglects ‘structural social and political forces shaping the production of urban housing in contemporary cities’ (Graham, 2015, p.619) by assuming that increasing the housing stock with vertical growth will automatically stabilise the costs and result in more affordable housing. Simplistic rationales such as these, have generated an international urban narrative in which equalising and sustainable effects are attributed to high-rise buildings for higher economic classes. In reality, these same cities consist of super tall buildings housing the economic elites making the city centre inaccessible for the lower economic classes. Graham places the current situation in historical perspective. From this, we learn that initially, with the emergence of high-rise building on large scale around the 1930s, it was intended to house the general urban population. However, after some failed projects, mass social housing’s reputation was distorted and subsequently invoked a radical reorganisation of housing policies and planning.

(9)

9 Political interference in the housing market was reduced and high-rise buildings became objects for speculation and symbols for sustainable urban growth. The ‘creative’ elites living in the new high-rises displaced the lower classes.

The ‘myths’ that dominate the narratives about the high-rise buildings are simplified versions of reality:

“In the context of contemporary housing crises, mythical assumptions that any high-rise towers for lower-income residents must necessarily be a bad idea are profoundly unhelpful. In their preoccupation with reading off social ‘impacts’ from abstract design ideas, critics of social housing towers have tended to neglect a wide range of important factors that have often contributed heavily to the failures of vertical social housing projects.” (Graham 2015, p. 627)

Creating a successful residential environment or any urban environment is far more complex and is a culmination of a broad variety of factors, Graham continues:

“Poor housing management policies, racialised policing and catastrophic drugs policies also need to be considered. We need also to address the often shoddy and cheapskate design of resulting houses, the failure to deliver promised infrastructure, services or jobs, and the power of demonising stigma. Above all, we must recognise the wider deindustrialisation and disinvestment of many local economies in the areas surrounding towers and the severe problems of mass unemployment that followed.” (Graham 2015, p. 627)

The main point to take from Graham’s analysis is that the high-rise itself has no inherent characteristics or meaning. Not the high-rise itself but merely the myths that dominate the public discourse cause processes that in many contemporary urban contexts result in segregation, exclusion and inequality. In other words, social inequality is not about buildings and, accordingly, there is nothing inherently problematic or controversial about high-rise. Rather, it is the various stakeholders that co-articulate the meaning of high-rise buildings and equate properties to it (see also Costello, 2005 for an analysis about the changing discourses of high-rise living in Melbourne). So, to understand the high-rise controversy of Sluisbuurt, the focus should shift away from the buildings and towards the historical context as well as the stakeholders’ involvement and narratives. In this thesis I will therefore be attentive to what meanings the actors in the debates – the stakeholders – give to the high-rise buildings or the Sluisbuurt more generally and why.

(10)

10

1.2 Urban perspectives

In line with what was established in the previous section, it is useful to assess the theoretical concepts used by others in studies about urban controversies. This section will discuss two exemplary studies that have conceptualised two opposing discursive trends in different national contexts.

Urban planning is not just a matter of designing or redesigning urban space at the service of society’s requirements. It is a complex process and involves many individuals with different interests and perspectives on what is good for the city, how problems should be approached and even about what is considered a problem. Urban planning is essentially a political process. A conflict about urban restructuring is a conflict between people with contesting interpretations of what is “good” for the city. This notion of what is good for the city is ideologically motivated; a recital funded on what one perceives as the natural order of the world. Ideal visions and perceptions on what the city should look like are also – although not necessarily consciously – fostered on ideological perceptions.

In studies related to urban controversies, the interpretations of ‘what’s good for the city’ are represented by two extreme, conflicting positions. Alexei Yurchak (2011) labels the two groups representing each extreme position in the context of Saint Petersburg, with on the one side the ‘preservationists’ and on the other the ‘transformationists’:

“According to the one extreme interpretation [preservationists], the city of St Petersburg as an aesthetic whole had been completely achieved in the past, and today’s urban policy should be directed at preserving that achievement. According to another extreme interpretation [transformationists], to remain a future-oriented “world-city”, which was the original plan of Emperor Peter the Great, St Petersburg should continue developing and evolving, even in its historic center.” (Yurchak 2011, p. 2)

Cordula Rooijendijk (2005) studied public debates surrounding urban restructuring plans in both Rotterdam and Amsterdam in three different time periods: 1945-1960/65 ; 1960/65-1980/85 and 1960/65-1980/85-1995. She operates three categories. Two terms describe similar opposing visions on the city as used by Yurchak for St Petersburg:

“[‘Culturalists’ who] idealized the past, wanted to create a cultural historic inner city, and wanted planning to focus on community and history [and ‘progressists’ who] emphasized the importance of idealizing a future city, of a CBD [central business district] heart located in the inner city and on top of the urban hierarchy, and of city planning focussing on trade and industry”. (Rooijendijk, 2005, p. 429)

(11)

11 To the ‘culturalist’ and ‘progressists’ categories she ascribed the so called ‘urban intellectuals’, “someone educated that addresses the issues of the city” (Rooijendijk, 2005, p. 9). A third group, introduced by Rooijendijk, are the ‘city planners’ who she found to be predominantly expressing ‘progressist’ perspectives in their ideal urban images in the sense that their orientations were predominantly towards economic and business developments as means of creating a flourishing city.

Rooijendijk has included in her study the occupations and ideological views that generally tend towards either culturalist perspectives on the one hand and progressist perspectives on the other. Leftist conservatism is usually associated with culturalists perspectives whereas right-wing liberalism is associated with progressists views. What is emphasised by Rooijendijk, is that despite the conflicting urban visions, the shared motivation of all parties is that they believe that their approach will benefit the city most. Everyone wants to make the city ‘flourish’ (Rooijendijk, 2005, p.68) and succeed. The only difference is how they envision this to be achieved.

The concepts as used by Rooijendijk will be helpful to interpret the data and distinguish ideological perspectives that are the forces behind the positions towards the Sluisbuurt. The dissertation of Rooijendijk shows similarities to what this thesis aims to unravel, that is, getting insight into what ideal visions the urban intellectuals express in the debates about Sluisbuurt. However, this thesis differs from Rooijendijk’s approach because it will not have a comparative component (between cities nor time periods). Moreover, this thesis aims to add another component to the analysis, by interpreting how the position of the actors – in state, market or civil society sectors – relates to the attitude towards the municipal Sluisbuurt plan.

1.3 Urban aesthetics

This last sub section will zoom in further on the political identity of urban aesthetics. This is useful to sharpen the understanding of the far-reaching social implications of urban restructuring projects.

The positions discussed above signify something about how you wish to see the city and what you think is good for the city. Therefore, the aesthetics of a city are political; it contains elements that articulate ideology (Yurchak, 2011, see also Harvey, 2008). But who has the power to decide how the city looks and develops, and who should have this power? Which people does the city ‘serve’? And also, who decides on the meaning of buildings? Moreover,

(12)

12 particular facilities and aesthetics attract different groups of people: people with different tastes and preferences. Aesthetics thus have the power to attract specific groups of people, as well as that particular groups of people can have the power to shape the urban space according to their preferences. This is well illustrated by Sharon Zukin (2008) in which she describes how particular products, buildings and neighbourhoods are becoming places of ‘authenticity’, a highly valued commodity for the upper middle class. This quest for authenticity transforms former working class and migrant neighbourhoods into expensive middle-class neighbourhoods to meet middle-class demands. The implication of this gentrifying process is the displacement of the working class and minorities who often loose a sense of feeling at home in the neighbourhood and may not be able to afford to live there any longer.

In this study, the aesthetics of Sluisbuurt are a main point of discussion. The studies above point out the political nature of aesthetics and what aesthetic outlooks of a neighbourhood, or the desired outlook can reveal about who the Sluisbuurt aims to attract. In Zukin (2008) the process of capitalisation of urban space is described. The driving force behind this process is not only an economic interest (customers do not want their products to get more expensive) but ‘taste’ also plays a role. Tastes are linked to class and therefore urban aesthetics are linked to class (see Bourdieu, 1994). Different groups of people will be attracted towards different looking environments. From Yurchak we learn that different meanings are given to buildings, which in this study raises the question of what meanings will be given to the high-rise in Sluisbuurt by the actors in the debates?

In line with Yurchak’s ‘political aesthetics’ concept, Sluisbuurt should then be considered not only a result of the most dominant power, but also as a space with the power to attract a particular group in society. We may thus be looking in this study for a link between the high-rise and the people that are recruited to live in the Sluisbuurt. This allows us to establish the ideal images of the city of Amsterdam.

Chapter 2: Three producers of urban space

The insights from the literature review bring us to the theoretical foundation upon which this thesis is built; the notion that urban space is socially produced (Henri Lefebvre). More concretely, in line with this notion of space, three sectors – state, market and civil society – are considered as the major producers of space. This is explained along the lines of Susan Fainstein’s take on this division. Finally, the usability for this research of the ideas of Lefebvre and Fainstein is explained.

(13)

13

2.1 Social production of space

Henri Lefebvre (1991[1974]) has conceptualised what he calls ‘social space’ in his book ‘The Production of Social Space’. Central in his thesis on space is the notion that the physical outcome of the city is a product of society, reflecting a process of human exchange of visions and desires. Physical space is thought of, shaped and contested by its users; a social production. Lefebvre distinguishes three dimensions in which social space production takes place (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 33): (1) social practices, (2) representation of space and (3) representational spaces. In the context of this thesis, especially the latter two dimensions are relevant to discuss here briefly. They inform this thesis and help to further develop the ideas of Fainstein later in this chapter.

‘Representation of space’ can be understood as materialised visions on space, such as cadastral maps and scale models with an incorporated logic of how these envisioned spaces are to be used. Usually designs of professionals such as urban planners and architects. These are people who are in the position of materialising their perspectives on the city into the built environment; a position of power (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 26). ‘Representational spaces’ is used to indicate how spaces are truly experienced in everyday life by the users of it. In other words, “while representations of space are the creations of dominant groups, representational spaces flow from the lived experiences of people, especially from those that are underground or clandestine” (Ritzer, 2012, p. 312).

Lefebvre warns of the dangers of too little overlap between representations of space and representational spaces. Put differently, if urban development plans foster problems such as social exclusion, inequality, segregation and polarisation, the plans should be questioned on their ability of enhancing the city’s well-being. What is aimed for in the long run of urban restructuring (e.g. more affordable housing) may get lost in abstract, ‘iconic’ designs or because of insufficient knowledge about what is needed to achieve the goal. Lefebvre observes this tendency in contemporary cities as a result of the increased role of private parties (acting for profit) in urban development. Lefebvre argues for a prominent role of civil participation in the planning and developing process and market parties regulated by the state (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 422) (See also Harvey, 2008).

2.2 Planning Strategies

Susan Fainstein (2008) investigated the share of participating actors in the realisation of mega-projects in three cities: New York, London and Amsterdam. The physical similarities in all projects are striking – the projects are all high-rise dominated spaces. Also:

(14)

14

“All three cities must deal with escalating housing prices and have incorporated housing into the new projects, claiming the residential component as an equity measure. They differ, however, in the extent to which they intend to provide affordable units and to which physical and social goals are tied together.” (Fainstein, 2008, p. 769)

Despite some similarities, the social outcomes of the large scale projects vary greatly. Fainstein demonstrates how the different socio-economic circumstances and political decision making in New York, London and Amsterdam shape planning processes differently. In other words, Fainstein reconstructs the roles of local and national governments, private investment companies and citizen’s participation and initiatives in five mega projects in the three cities mentioned before. In order to clarify how planning styles differ globally, I first delineate the findings in the New York context before moving to Amsterdam.

Fainstein demonstrates the reluctant role of city and regional governments in New York. Since the 1970s, in major development projects, like Atlantic Yards, the development is in hands of private developers and investments. The Atlantic Yards project illustrates that citizens have little or no influence on the developments, because the of the closed of character of the public-private construction. However, Fainstein argues that even if there had been more opportunity for citizen’s participation in the process, it would not make much difference due to the lack of a comprehensive planning strategy of the government and absence of state funded low-cost housing (Fainstein, 2008, p. 770-774). Private companies tend to take more financial risks and in combination with an profit incentive and no state regulation, this often leads to the demise of public concerns in urban developments.

In an earlier article by Fainstein (2005), Amsterdam was praised for its egalitarian planning style. Fainstein writes about Amsterdam as a ‘just city’ with an admirable balance of equality, diversity, growth and sustainability. In her 2008 article, she observes that the trend towards ‘public-private partnerships’, active in the United States since the 1970s, made its appearance in Amsterdam as well. Until 1985, the city’s housing stock comprised about 90% social-housing. This number has dropped rapidly since then, in 2017 it was about 52,7% of the total housing stock (OIS, 2018, p.5). However, Amsterdam traditionally is known for a strong commitment towards social equity in the sense that the planning strategy is open to public participation and the development proceeds in steps instead of working form a single model (Fainstein, 2008, p. 780). Also, national and in particular the local government remain to have a control over the funding for social housing. Still, especially Zuidas is an example in which the role of the market has visibly increased. In Fainstein's analysis of the projects in New York, London and Amsterdam it is evident that Lefebvre’s critique on contemporary planning is relevant. Profitability and competitiveness become embedded elements in the planning apparatus which goes at the expense of social benefits:

(15)

15

“The contemporary mega-projects discussed in this article indicate that public-private partnerships can be a vehicle for the provision of public benefits, including job commitments, cultural facilities and affordable housing. They also show, however, that such projects are risky for both public and private participants, must primarily be oriented toward profitability, and typically produce a landscape dominated by bulky buildings that do not encourage urbanity, despite the claims of the project’s developers.” (Fainstein, 2008, p. 783)

This thesis is concerned with a large scale projects in Amsterdam. Because the study is interested in the discourses of the participants in the debates, it is helpful to be able to structure the actors according to the state, market, civil society division. These sectors all have different roles in the planning process and these positions inform the narratives (see Rooijendijk, 2005). Also, we have seen that the power relations can shift. This thesis explores a fragment of the process of space production in Amsterdam and will assess the dominant ideals and positions as they are expressed in the debates about Sluisbuurt. The goal is to get insight into who the dominant parties are and what ideologies they promote.

Chapter 4 addresses the historical evolution of city planning in Amsterdam in more detail. The emergence of a strong organised civil society who has conquered its place into the planning process is particularly important. In that chapter we also return. i.a., to the mega projects discussed by Fainstein (2008) – Bijlmermeer and Zuidas.

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Research questions

The overarching question that this thesis is concerned with is:

What are the identities and positions of the stakeholders that are engaged in debating the Sluisbuurt development and what discursive practices do they use to promote their developmental agenda?

The research questions that will be guide towards formulating an eventual answer to this question are:

1. How do actors in the debates justify and defend their position? Which topics do they address and how do they counter opposing arguments?

2. What are the discursive techniques the actors use during the debates?

3. How do these justifications correspond to the actor’s position in state, market or civil society?

(16)

16 This section explains the methodological choices made to conduct this research. First, the process of data gathering and the type of data used in this thesis is explained. Secondly, The remaining of this chapter

3.2 Data gathering

The process by which the data for this thesis was gathered started by reading newspaper articles, investigative journalism and social media posts in which Sluisbuurt is discussed, debated, criticised and celebrated. After this introduction to the overwhelming amount of data available (and increasing daily) about the Sluisbuurt controversy, it became apparent that a consideration of the data source had to be made in view of the limited scope and reserved time for this study. Besides the written material available, I came across several public events that had been organised in response to the fuss that the plan had caused. There is a total six of these events – that I’m aware of – organised in the period from 19 January 2017 until September 2017 for which Sluisbuurt in general and the substantial share of high-rise buildings specifically had been the provocation. Three of those were video recorded and of two others was published a short summary document1_{, the sixth event has no video or written record}2_.

The video recordings of the two debates3_{organised by the local municipal (Gemeente}

Amsterdam) and the third ARCAM debate4_{. Those three debates were fully transcribed.}

Combined, this resulted in a 70 page long document of data. During the process, especially the two municipal debates were found to be fit for this study because the three producers of space – state, market and civil society – were represented there and these debates focused on Sluisbuurt specifically. The third ARCAM debate unfortunately focused less on Sluisbuurt and more on urban development in Amsterdam in general, making it less appropriate for this study. One reason that the recorded debates are preferred over written data such as newspaper articles, magazine articles and social media messages, is because it allows to include notes on vocal nuances and bodily expressions – such as vocal pace, hesitations, tone of voice and postures – into the interpretations of what was said and how (Silverman 1997, p. 152). It should, however, be stressed that no rich conversation analysis was performed and included in this thesis. These techniques rather informed the analysis to the extent that it activated an

1_{First ARCAM debate: ‘The sky is the limit’ Hoogbouw debat (available via:}

https://www.arcam.nl/verslag-debat-hoogbouw/) on 19 January 2017

Second ARCAM debate: Hoogbouw debat II (available via: https://www.archined.nl/2017/04/sluisbuurt-amsterdam) on 28 March 2017

2_{Pakhuis de Zwijger debate (available via:}_{https://dezwijger.nl/programma/debat-sluisbuurt}_{) on 27 June 2017} 3_{First municipal debate: Stadsdebat Sluisbuurt (available via:}_{https://vimeo.com/206106373}_{) on 28 February}

2017 (total length 2:15:34)

Second municipal debate: Je bent jong en je wilt ook in Amsterdam wonen (available via:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnsYwRvyw4 ) on 18 May 2017 (total length 2:04:25)

4_{Third ARCAM debate: Hoogbouw debat III (available via:}_{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Lb3BjFFeI}_{) on}

(17)

17 alertness to meaningful vocal and bodily nuances that could be informing for the interpretations of the data. Another reason for selecting this type of data is that during the public debate events, stakeholders come together in one space to discuss visions on the city. Stated in more sociological terms, it is an arena in which the power over space is contested. Rearticulated in Lefebvrian terms, debates are social/representational spaces (events of interaction) in which representations of space (visions on the future of the city) are articulated by various stakeholders. The debates at focus in this study, present the best data to answer the research question because the three sectors introduced before – state, market and civil society – come together at these events. The debates form social spaces in which the process of the production of space takes place.

3.3 Analytical methods and notes on limitation

The purpose of this thesis is to uncover the discursive practices of the stakeholders involved with the Sluisbuurt and to achieve this, methods from discourse analysis are used. As mentioned, the initial provocation for the debates around Sluisbuurt is the high-rise. A provocation indicates that there is disagreement of some sort, that there are conflicting interests. In other words, that there is something at stake here. In this case, different people, representing different organisations that have divergent views on the plans for Sluisbuurt.

“One theme that is particularly emphasised here is the rhetorical or argumentative organisation of talk and texts; claims and versions are constructed to undermine alternatives” (original from Potter, 2004, p. 203, cited in Silverman 2011, p. 301)

In social sciences, talk, and more precisely interaction, is considered an act of positioning one selves and constructing and/or maintaining and justifying (asymmetrical) social relations. In discourse analysis it is aimed to distract patterns in talk that help to uncover, in this case, power relations in urban planning in Amsterdam. The ‘stake’ concept is a useful tool to perform discourse analysis:

“People treat each other as entities with desires motive, institutional allegiances and so on, as having a stake in their actions. Referencing stake is one principle way of disclosing the significance of an action or reworking its nature.” (cited from Potter,

2004 in Silverman, 2011, p. 308).

Interpretative repertoires “must always be located within an account of their wider context” (Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 173). Chapter 4 and 5 in particular intent to provide context for the Sluisbuurt debates.

Within the context of this study, we must understand language as a political instrument (Hajer, 2002); it is in itself an instrument to create stories, or, in other words, narratives. These

(18)

18 narratives carry within them the perspectives and biases of participants and can be mobilisers for both conflict as well as consensus. It is a matter of framing particular ‘truths’ and disputing others. The study is concerned with what ideas the participants promote (topics) and how these ideas are promoted and framed as convincing, or not (discursive tactics in interaction). A ‘disclaimer’ is an example of a tactic: “a disclaimer is a verbal device designed to ward off potentially obnoxious attributions” (Wetherall & Potter, 1988, p. 176). Also, for example the use of statistics and other scientific and technical references can be deployed to justify claims. It is tempting to treat scientific information as ‘objective’ truths, but scientists, as well as any other person, are influenced by certain paradigms (Silverman, 2011, p. 304).

I identified individual speakers and analysed with the help of codes the rhetoric that the speaker produced. I do not intent to suggest that individuals need to be seen as powerful actors or have specific influence on the debate, but because they serve as exemplars to what they represent in the urban planning process. Extracts of the transcripts will be presented along with the interpretations in chapter 6, 7, 8 and 9 in order to be able to follow the reasoning from data to conclusions (see Wetherell & Potter, 1988). These chapters intent to identify the ‘scripts’; the story lines of the actors (Silverman, 2011, p. 309-314). Each of these chapters end with a short interim conclusion section (‘trends’) in which the trends in discourses are assessed and compared to other discourse trends.

Chapter 10 then zooms out from the content of the debates and returns to the general course of the debates. The aim is to relate the main findings to the positions in state, market, civil society. Put differently, the results are assessed with the help of Susan Fainstein’s take on the roles of the state, market and civil society in Amsterdam (see chapter 2 and chapter 4). Keeping in mind the roles of the sectors in other large scale urban developments, the discourses used in the debates on Sluisbuurt are evaluated.

A note on limitation about this method should be made beforehand. It is very difficult to say with certainty when someone talks from one position or the other. Even when – based on common sense knowledge – it is evident that a person speaks as a civil servant and, thus, from a state position, it remains very diffuse. First of all, because people tend to not always present themselves as speaking on behalf of a commercial business, if, for example in case of an architect expressing ‘an opinion’. She or he may use discourse that is in line with civil society actors, while at the same time her or his activities cannot be separated from the fact that financial incentives will likely also influence her/his position because their income is earned by designing for clients (e.g. the state). Besides the multiple roles actors can have, the sectors as well cannot, in many cases, be strictly separated from one another. This complexity is illustrated in the following statement on the website of Statistics Netherlands (CBS):

(19)

19

As of 3 January 2004, CBS has the status of an autonomous administrative body (in Dutch: ZBO). This means that CBS performs public service tasks, but operates independently and not under the direct authority of a Dutch ministry. The Minister of Economic Affairs is politically responsible for relevant legislation, budget and conditions. CBS is financed from the state budget. (from: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/about-us/organisation)

CBS conducts independent research but is financed by the state. The organisation is thus affiliated with both state and civil society. A similar ‘problem’ occurs with Research, Information & Statistics (OIS), a local Amsterdam variant of CBS5_.

With the awareness of the complexities and difficulties in mind, the division as used by Fainstein (2008) is a helpful way to think about the production of space. Various studies discussed in the literature section (Graham, 2015; Yurchak, 2011; Rooijendijk, 2005; Zukin, 2008; Fainstein, 2008) established that there is a relationship between the actor’s position in the state, market civil society division and the discourse (i.e. truths, i.e. ideals) they promote. In order to classify the actors, some criteria need to be set. The field of state actors include all people who manage, organise and execute governmental tasks, for example policy makers, politicians and civil servants. The market field consists of commercial businesses that strive for profit, for example real estate companies and entrepreneurs. Non-governmental and non-commercial organisations and initiatives that are committed to society or community are grouped under the field of civil society, for example associations and foundations. These classifications of the sectors are debatable and I do not aim to suggest they are completely valid. Their use is to structure the data, based on general conceptions about the nature of state, market and civil society organisations.

Because of the before mentioned problem that CBS and OIS cannot be straightforwardly classified with one of the three sectors, I decided to discuss them in a separate chapter (chapter 9) under the title ‘Researchers’. In chapter 10 the positions of the ‘Researchers’ – as well as the other positions – are re-evaluated.

Chapter 4: Planning in Amsterdam – State, Market & Civil Society

This chapter establishes the parameters of building traditions in Amsterdam. It explains the emergence of public debates about urban restructuring and illustrates how various civil society

5_{“OIS has an independent position within the municipality of Amsterdam, that can be compared to that of}

Statistics Netherlands (CBS) within the national government.” (from website OIS:

(20)

20 organisations emerged and gained a position in the planning process. The role of the sectors – market, state and civil society – that define urban development will be assessed in the context of Amsterdam.

Since around 1900, the aesthetic outlook of Amsterdam started to get highly valued and something to protect and maintain in urban development plans. In the decades that followed, the aesthetics of the Amsterdam historical centre consistently reoccurred as subject of debate. At the end of the 19th_{century, industrial growth of the city demanded spatial expansion to}

provide housing, especially for the working class. The in 1935 approved General Expansion Plan (Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan, from now on referred to as AUP) was largely based on quantitative studies and focused on spatial growth and population growth. It was believed that the spatial planning based on these studies would result in a future proof, modern and balanced city. Because of the financial crisis and Second World War, the implementation of the plan stagnated. This delay gave architects Boeken, Komter, Staal, Van Woerden and Zandstra, Giesen & Sijmons the opportunity to propose an alternative urban development plan. The original AUP did not reflect a sense of community which they thought to be an essential property of an urban design plan. World War II had damaged the faith in progress and modernity, which fostered a tendency towards the past. They proposed to follow the aesthetics of the 17th_{century concentric scheme of Amsterdam; appreciating the cultural value of that}

which existed instead of a shift to modern materiality. This alternative plan was never adopted. Meanwhile, the original AUP plan had to be adjusted to unanticipated conditions and the much higher demand for housing, despite the population decrease. One of the main unanticipated factors was the average occupancy per dwelling had fallen lower than expected (Van Es, 2007, pp. 39-47).

The 1960s and 1970s were characterized by criticism and protests about renewal plans that would radically reform the city centre’s structure and aesthetics (Rooijendijk, 2005, chapter 6, Uitermark 2009). In 1957, the Amsterdam Council of Urban Development (Dutch: Amsterdamse Raad voor de Stadsontwikkeling, from now on referred to as ARS) was founded on the initiative of alderman Goos van ‘t Hull. Van ‘t Hull initiated the council in response to the worries that citizens and historical associations had shared with the city council about the restructuration plans for the city in the decades after the war. The intent was to improve exchange of ideas and visions about the city between these citizens’ associations and the city council so that more consensus could be achieved. Van ‘t Hull appointed delegates from these monumental and historical associations to the ARS. At the outset, ARS members varied from architects, sociologists and planners to entrepreneurs, councillors and civil servants with as chairman alderman Van ‘t Hull. Criticism about the opaque character and the political involvement eventually led to a reorganisation of the council around 1970 until 1972. The

(21)

21 council became more independent and autonomous by seceding the political branch and including members from other socio-economic institutions. ARS was an active council that combined the knowledge and broad view of the city of the experts into advisory reports to the city council. ARS aimed to look after the interests of Amsterdam’s residents and associations and processing these into advisory reports for the local government (Mulder 2007, p. 10-14). ARS was active until 2010.

In 1965, the development plan for Bijlmermeer – an on Le Corbusier inspired futuristic urban environment in the south of Amsterdam – was received critically by members of the city council, the central government, architects, urban planners and ARS because of its large share of high-rise buildings and the lack of human scale that would foster alienation and loneliness. The housing crisis was urgent and despite all scepticism, the plan was approved. During this decade, there were more plans for the city that were subject to resistance. Joop den Uyl (PvdA, labour party), alderman of economics from 1963 until 1965 embodied the ‘city-vorming’ (city formation of urbanisation) movement. He was developing a proposition to rapidly transform the inner city by demolishing and replacing 30.000-40.000 houses with tall buildings in 20 years on the edge of the inner city, creating the so called “Manhattan on the Amstel river” (Liagre Böhl 2010, p. 50). Plans to reform the city in such a manner that neighbourhoods would be demolished to make space for modernist urban design encountered a stream of criticism and protest from civil society organisations such as monument protecting, residents, squatters, journalists, artists, scholars, as well as city administrators and politicians (Rooijendijk 2005, chapter 6). ARS offered advisory reports to the city council suggesting more long term structural development plans, warnings about practical solutions at the expenses of the characteristic historical centre, and suggestions to prioritise housing before large scale infrastructural developments (such as the metro-line for which many buildings in the Nieuwmarktbuurt were being demolished) (Mulder, 2007, pp. 14-15). The resistance proved to be lucrative on some occasions: most parts of Nieuwmarktbuurt and Jordaan have been spared. Other plans, such as Bijlmermeer and Nederlandse Bank (tall building) did get carried out, although Bijlmermeer was never completed after the original design.

As these examples illustrate, Amsterdam’s spatial planning and aesthetic outlook have been debated by citizens and interest groups for many decades. Moreover, the formation of the ARS council was a result of public dissatisfaction about municipal planning. Other non-governmental and non-market related groups as well have emerged over the years and have taken in an important watchdog position as representatives of societal sentiments and needs. Civil society organisations, such as Vereniging Vrienden van de Amsterdamse Binnenstad6

(VVAB, founded 1975) have a recognised position as controllers of urban development plans.

(22)

22 They are committed to protecting the historical inner city of Amsterdam in order to maintain the ‘typical’ Amsterdam character and atmosphere. With regard to Lefebvre’s critique, is seems that in Amsterdam, civil groups have gained more influence on planning since World War II. As society changes over the years, Dutch planning approaches and orientations shift and change as well, which naturally encompasses shifting opinions about policies and urban development plans within society. As illustrated by Susan Fainstein (2008) the development of Bijlmermeer is an example of how Dutch planning approaches have altered orientations and approaches over the years. The ambitious plan of creating a modernist residential district did not turn out the way the planners had hoped and Bijlmermeer developed into a problematic area with high crime rates. For the restructuration of the area, urban planners wanted to create a less uniform area, in form and function, to attract a variety of people. Also, they chose to adapt a more organic and step-by-step approach that would leave more flexibility instead than the original plan had. Furthermore, residents and associations were included into the planning process (Fainstein 2008, pp. 778-780).

Another largescale project in Amsterdam that is addressed by Fainstein (2008) is Zuidas (South Axis). Unlike the restructuration of the Bijlmermeer, where the municipality involved citizens to participate in the planning process, the development of the Zuidas was driven by private investors. Encouraged by the national government, the area was set out to become one that could measure up to European global cities like Paris, Frankfurt and Milan. Located strategically close to the international airport as well as the city centre, the area attracted two large banking companies seeking for office space. The area was intended to be multifunctional – with housing, education, retail and cultural facilities (Fainstein 2008, p. 781). However, it initially consisted mainly of office spaces, which did not create pleasant public spaces, especially after office hours. The high expenses of the infrastructural development were for 60 percent financed by private investors. These investment parties received development rights in return for their involvement. Resulting from this public-private coalition is that 70 percent of the housing is market rated; an exceptionally high rate for Amsterdam’s standards and forms a financial barrier for lower income groups. Since 2016, a new vision is implemented in Zuidas, into creating a mixed business and residential area7_.

These outlines of the roles that state, market and civil society sectors have played in different projects and over different times, illustrate how variable urban restructuring can be and how it can results in varying spaces for different groups. In summary, the main responsibility of the state is to formulate a long-term vision for urban development which reflects the needs of the city. In order to do so, consensus between different parties is desired. Citizens and civil society

(23)

23 organisations have a watchdog position in this process. Market parties are involved as financers of development projects. Their incentive is to increase land value and generate profit.

EMPIRICAL PART

Chapter 5: Description Of The Object

This section contextualises the debates that this study analyses. First – to get a better understanding of why the debates were organised in the first place – an outline of high-rise buildings in the Amsterdam context will be given. Next, this section presents a timeline of the progress of the municipal Sluisbuurt plan from its first conceptual version until the most recent developments of the Sluisbuurt up until the moment of writing this thesis (July 2018). The timeline is meant to provide a general outline of the time span and notable moments of the development surrounding Sluisbuurt after being made public. Following this brief timeline, the three selected debates will be explained: why, where and by whom were they organised? Who were the speakers and which professional groups did they represent? What was the setting and the format of the debates? And how freely could anyone take turns speaking? The first – and central debate in this thesis – is the one that took place in De Balie on 28 February 2017. To keep things organised, the outlines of the other two debates that are included in this thesis will be discussed more concise, since those will complement the data instead of take in a central position.

5.1 High-rise in Amsterdam

Previous chapter has explained the Amsterdam urban context in terms of politics and institutions, societal movements and market involvement. To understand the controversy surrounding Sluisbuurt, we must take a good look at the position that high-rise buildings have taken in Amsterdam. This section will therefore provide a brief outline of the relationship between Amsterdam and high-rise buildings in the past.

Traditionally, Amsterdam has been reluctant when it comes to high-rise. Rotterdam and De Hague, the second and third biggest cities in The Netherlands have gone through an architectural reorientation around the 1980s that has embraced high-rise as architectural form to create compact cities. Stichting Hoogbouw (High-rise Association) had played a key role in this and succeeded in breaking the high-rise taboo. Also, in the case of Rotterdam especially, the bombing during World War 2 that destroyed most of the city’s historical centre, has impacted the city’s urban fabric to the extent that it needed extreme reorganisation (Van der

(24)

24 Hoeven & Nijhuis, 2011). Amsterdam, however, had a vital historical inner city that for this reason had, in the eyes of many, no cause for extreme reformations. Consequently, when plans for high-rise are considered, it generally leads to deep divisions between council member, urban intellectuals and civil society organisations.

Probably the most famous – or infamous – example of large scale high-rise in Amsterdam is the Bijlmermeer. The plan was presented as an on Le Corbusier inspired modernistic residential area with lots of public space and greenery. Architects and planners presented the Bijlmermeer as ‘the city of the future’ and it was meant to be the solution for the pressing housing shortage. The plan was overloaded with criticism from monument protection organisations and residents but was approved by the city council despite thereof. An accumulation of demographic changes, economic changes, government decisions in combination with misjudgements in the design have let Bijlmermeer to be remembered as one of The Netherlands’ biggest failures in urban planning history (see Van Kempen, 1986). With an association between high-rise estates and poverty and criminality as an additional result. The business district Zuidas, that was addressed earlier as well, is another example of a large scale high-rise project. By virtue of the ‘strategic’ location, Zuidas was intended as metropolitan multifunctional living and working environment. While the business branch has settled in easily and has made it a successful economic competitive location the area has failed to live up to the ambition of becoming ‘urban’ in the sense that the stakeholders, mostly private parties, have put less effort into social domains, resulting in unpleasant public spaces (Majoor, 2009). Zuidas is by many not associated with a lively urban atmosphere (Fainstein, 2010. p, 162). The project is currently being restructured to “create a space of living and recreation”8_.

In the inner city especially, high-rise buildings such as Rembrandt Tower and Nederlandse Bank have been contested because of their impact on the cityscape of Amsterdam and the surrounding region. “The unprecedented height of [The Rembrandt Tower] elicited an emotional response from the profession, advisory bodies, political circles in and around Amsterdam, and from its citizens” (Kloos, 1995, p. 98).

(25)

25

5.2 Timeline

2014

November: Publication of Actieplan woningbouw 2014-2018 in which Sluisbuurt was selected as ‘location of acceleration’ (versnellingslocatie). This means that Sluisbuurt is regarded as ‘promising’ because of its strategic location on the IJ-bank and inside the ring A10.

2015

October: Presentation of Start Vision Sluisbuurt.

End of the year: Concept version of Urban Design Plan Sluisbuurt (Concept Stedenbouwkundig Plan Sluisbuurt).

2016

11 November – 22 December: Residents, entrepreneurs, stakeholders and other interested parties can submit a reaction on the conceptual version of the Sluisbuurt plan to the municipality. They could do this during information evenings on Zeeburgereiland, in Pakhuis de Zwijger and in Schellingwoude.

2017

19 January: First high-rise debate organised by ARCAM ‘The sky, the limit?” in OBA Theater (no video registration).

28 February: First Sluisbuurt debate organised by Gemeente Amsterdam in De Balie

28 March: Second high-rise debate organised by ARCAM in Concert Hall Tolhuistuin (no video registration).

4 April: Lecture organised in Borneo Architectuur Centrum9_{where urban planner and architect}

Sjoerd Soeters presents an alternative plan10_{for Sluisbuurt; a high density design with approximately} the same amount of houses but with a maximum building height of about 6 to 7 layers.

18 May: Second Sluisbuurt debate organised by Gemeente Amsterdam in Tolhuistuin specifically

focused on millennials: ‘Young people want to live in Amsterdam too.’ (Dutch: ‘Je bent jong en wilt óók in Amsterdam wonen.’)

24 May: Feitenrelaas (facts) about high-rise published by Gemeente Amsterdam. 27 June: Sluisbuurt debate Pakhuis de Zwijger (no video registration).

9_{Announcement of the lecture via:}

https://www.architectuur.nl/nieuws/lezingen/sjoerd-soeters-over-alternatief-plan-sluisbuurt/

(26)

26

August: A document is published in which suggestions, worries and complaints that were submitted during the 11 November – 22 December period are assessed and answered by Gemeente Amsterdam in a ‘note of reply’ (Nota van Beantwoording) (available online). Alterations reported in the document: > The maximum height of the towers was lowered from 143 meter to 125 meter. This adjustment has been made in response to the advice of “Monuments and Archeology” and the UNESCO guidelines. > The number of towers was reduced from 28 to 25.

> The number of towers above 80 meters high was reduced from 6 to 5. 12 September: Third debate organised by ARCAM in OBA Theater.

27 September: Definitive urban plan Sluisbuurt adopted by the City Council. Final plan set the housing program as follows: 40% social housing, 35% middle range housing (was 40%) and 25% market rate housing (was 30%).

2018

21 March: Municipal elections.

19 April – 31 May: The draft zoning plan made available for inspection to the public at three city desks (Centre, North and East).

18 May: Information evening organized by Gemeente Amsterdam. Representatives of the Amsterdam municipality are present to elaborate on the zoning plan and the environmental impact assessment (abbreviated in Dutch as MER) as well as to answer questions from the public. 30 May: Inauguration of the eight new aldermen in Amsterdam – (New coalition: Groenlinks, PvdA, D66, SP. Former coalition: VVD, D66, SP).

4 & 5 June: Presentation of 3 x 7 meter scale model of Sluisbuurt and its surroundings in Zuiderkerk (open to public). Also, the Sluisbuurt project team of Gemeente Amsterdam organised brainstorm sessions (‘Sluisbuurt Sessions’) addressing the following topics: greenery and ecology, technology and mobility, living and working, sustainability, possibilities for temporary facilities and initiatives. 28 November: City council votes in favour of the Sluisbuurt plan and the plan is officially approved. All political parties voted in favour of the plan, except CDA (Christian conservative party). This is the last administrative approval required to build the Sluisbuurt. Expected start of construction: fall 2019.

As indicated in the timeline, in the period of 11 November until 22 December 2016 residents and stakeholders had the opportunity to react to the conceptual urban plan of Sluisbuurt. However, the reactions to the plan were not limited to this official assigned period of public participation. The plan, and especially the number and height of the high-rise buildings in the plan were widely reported on in the media. De Groene Amsterdammer published an article on

(27)

27 19 January 2017 in which the implications of the high-rise buildings in the Sluisbuurt are critically assessed. The article came about from conversations with people from different organisations (Stichting Hoogbouw, Monumenten en Archeologie Amsterdam, Ruimte en Duurzaamheid, Architectuurcentrum Amsterdam and several urban planners). Among other things, the construction costs, fall winds, aesthetics and effects on sight-lines were addressed, as well as psychological effects of high-rise environments11_{. Furthermore, local and national}

newspapers published about Sluisbuurt; with the high-rise buildings as central topic and topic of debate. National newspaper De Telegraaf published on 17 February 2017 an article in which politician of the Centre district (stadsdeel Centrum) spoke out against the towers because it would “have consequences for the visual integrity of the Unesco World Heritage”. This view was supported by VVAB, an association that protects the historical inner city. Contrary, the Central City (centrale stadsbestuur) supports the plan and states that “the towers cause minimal visual amenity to the historical inner city” 12_{. Worries about aesthetics outlook of the}

high-rise towers were also expressed by residents of Landelijk Noord13_{, who’s view on the city}

will be largely impacted14_{. A frequently reoccurring name in the media in relation to Sluisbuurt}

is Sjoerd Soeters, urban planner and architect at PPHP15_{. As opponent of the high-rise}

buildings in the municipal plan, he presented an alternative design to the city council: a high density environment with the same amount of housing but with a maximum height of 6 to 7 levels.

5.3 Debate 1

In extension of the controversy about the Sluisbuurt, Architectural Centre of Amsterdam (ARCAM) organised a debate to discuss the high-rise in relation to the city of Amsterdam. Following this high-rise debate, Gemeente Amsterdam organised a debate event focussed on Sluisbuurt on 28 February 2017 ‘to talk with the city about relevant themes to an innovative Amsterdam area’16_{. This debate took place at the main hall of debate centre De Balie in}

Amsterdam, which can seat a maximum of about 200 to 250 people on the gallery and balcony. “De Balie is a well-known platform and center for freedom of speech, contemporary art, politics, culture, cinema and media”17_{. De Balie was founded in 1982 and initially financed by}

11_{De Groene Amsterdammer, 18 January 2017, ‘Een kuil met een rand van torens; Architetuur – Verdichting en}

functiemening’ author: Jaap Huisman

12_{Telegraaf, 17 February 2017, ‘Binnenstad tegen woontorens Oost’ author: Richard van der Crommert} 13_{Consisting of 5 villages, surrounded by greenery. The area is protected and preserved.}

14_{Het Parool, 1 augustus 2016, ‘Torens kunnen het silhouet verzieken’ author: Lex Boon}

15_{Some articles: Het Parool, 26 March 2016, ‘Hoogbouw maakt dat mensen binnenblijven’, author: Maxime Smit;}

Trouw, 7 January 2017, ‘Intussen in Amsterdam’ author: Hanne Obbink; Het Parool, 17 January 2017, ‘IJdelheid of noodzaak om te kunnen wonen?’ author: Lex Boon.

16_{Quote from municipal newsletter, translated. Last retrieved, 15 August 2018 from:}

https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/sluisbuurt/nieuwsbrief/nieuwsbrief-1/

(28)

28 the government. Since 2005, De Balie is largely dependent on partners, ticket sale and donations18_{. The type of programs and the reputation of De Balie makes it a place that attracts}

people with a large cultural capital and interest in social topics. For this event, it’s safe to assume that a self-selected audience was present, meaning that they have an interest in urban development. It should thus be noted that the choice for the location can tell a lot about which people were aimed to be attracted and also plays a role in whether people decide to attend and for what reasons. For example, it should be considered that a Sluisbuurt debate in a community centre would not attract the same amount of people and possibly another group of people with other motives for attending.

The hall has a stage with lectern on which the invited speakers took turns to give their contribution. On the background wall is a screen that projected their personal visual presentation or slideshow. Interested people could register on the website of De Balie for the event free of charge. On the Facebook page of Sluisbuurt, a link to the event was posted as well. The event was fully booked and based on the video, most people indeed attended the evening. Judging from footage, the general public was middle aged and this judgement was reaffirmed during the debate by the moderator. The leading role in channelling the evening was for moderator Hadassah de Boer. She made an opening statement before announcing the course and outline of the evening and introducing the first speaker on stage. The six speakers were invited to the stage individually. After each speaker – and an applause – De Boer returned to stage with a short summary or reflection on the preceding contribution before giving a number of people from the audience the opportunity to ask questions about related topics – due to time restrictions, not all questions could be answered. The six presentations each lasted around 10-14 minutes. Between each speaker there were a few minutes of questions and answers from the audience to the speaker. However, several times, the speaker passes on the question to another speaker, explaining they feel that the other person can answer the question better. The total time of the video recording of the debate is 2 hours, 15 minutes and 34 seconds.

Six people were officially part of the program and prepared a presentation to give on stage. The actors that are included in this thesis does, however, not exclusively consist of people who were officially invited to give a presentation on stage. Relevant contributions of people in the audience are included also. Despite their sometimes short speaking-time, I believe there is an added value of including these people as actors, because they are the general public and fulfil a role as participant in the debate.

The production of Sluisbuurt Amsterdam : a thesis exploring contesting visions in the debates on Amsterdam’s new high-rise environment