Assessing environmental gentrification in Slotervaart
Image 1 Green in Slotervaart. Source: Makelaarsvereniging Amsterdam (2017)
Rosanna Kistemaker
10729321
Bachelor thesis
Dhr dr. I. Yannis Tzaninis and dhr. Dr. Rowan Arundel
17-06-2019
Table of Content
Introduction 3
Theoretical framework 4
Operationalization 8
Methodology 9
Case description: Slotervaart 12
Policy documents 17 Analysis 20 Conclusion 29 Discussion 30 References 31 Appendix 33
Introduction
Environmental gentrification is a phenomenon that is occurring in cities worldwide. This phenomenon is defined as ‘processes started by the implementation of an environmental planning agenda related to green spaces that lead to the exclusion and displacement of politically disenfranchised residents’ (Dooling, 2009). It increases local property values and attracts wealthier residents with the consequences of exclusion and displacement of economically, marginalized residents (Gould & Lewis, 2016).
There have been many cases, especially in American cities, where environmental gentrification has occurred. For example, in the study of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park in New York, environmental gentrification occurred due to the restoration of the park, which led to construction-building in certain areas around the park and a change in residents qua income and race (Gould & Lewis, 2012). In addition, this type of gentrification also occurred in the Harlem neighbourhood of New York through the sustainable policies. It attracted investors who wanted to build expensive housing, leading to the displacement of low-income residents (Checker, 2011). Another example of environmental gentrification occurred in Barcelona with the implementation of the citywide greening agenda and the creation of new parks and gardens in less served neighbourhoods. At the same time of this project, urban renewal projects were happening in these neighbourhoods. Areas around certain parks in several districts experienced a change in residents in terms of higher educational background and higher income (Anguelovski, Connolly, Masip & Pearsall, 2018).
Also, another city that gentrifies is Amsterdam (Kloosterman & Van der Leun, 1999; Sakizioglu & Uitermark, 2014; Hochstenbach, Teernstra & Musterd, 2015; Pinkster & Boterman, 2017). Amsterdam is experiencing a transformation of its city, making it difficult for people with low incomes to settle. In addition to the fact that Amsterdam is gentrifying, it is also seen as a green city. According to the Economist Intelligenge Unit (2012) Amsterdam is positioned at number 5 of the greenest cities in Europe, which is measured with the Green City Index that exists of 8 categories such as energy, CO2 emissions and environmental governance. In the current city council Alderman Rutger Groot Wassink of Amsterdam has the ambition to make Amsterdam the greenest city of the Netherlands and even Europe. Thereby, all parties have an alderman who has an aspect of green or sustainability in his or her portfolio (Gualtherie van Weezel, 2018).
In the named cases of environmental gentrification, a form of governance trough planning such as sustainable policies or greening agenda, were linked with environmental gentrification. Amsterdam scores good on this combination, green city and environmental governance/policies, however during the process of finding literature, no article was found concerning this subject. While Amsterdam is already gentrifying, it also has a specific municipal department Ruimte and Duurzaamheid which focuses, among other aspects, on the urban green space. This department has formed various policies and visions on green and environmental aspects such as the structure vision 2040, the Hoofdgroenstructuur and the Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018. With having multiple green policies, a form of environmental governance and a gentrifying city, it is interesting to research the possibility of having environmental gentrification happening in Amsterdam.
Urban policy set by the municipality is an important driver of gentrification (Tieleman, 2013). In order to understand gentrification municipal policy is crucial, moreover since they own about 80% of the land in Amsterdam (Tieleman, 2013). According to Gould & Lewis (2016) greenery policies and initiatives form the groundwork for areas to gentrify, which can lead to environmental gentrification.
With multiple policies of the municipality of Amsterdam, but explicitly ‘Agenda Groen 2015-2018’ this bachelor’s thesis researches if this link of green policies and gentrification is also occurring in Amsterdam. It will focus on one place where gentrification has been going on, namely Slotervaart. In this area many city dwellers are entering among which a new middle class, more highly educated people, two-income households and expats. In addition, the share of residents with a non-western background is decreasing (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018) and the WOZ-value1 has risen with almost 27,7%% in 5 years (OIS, n.d.). Therefore, the research question of this thesis is, ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’.
To answer this research question the focus will lie on two neighbourhoods in the district, namely Overtoomse Veld and Slotervaart Zuid, in which Overtoomse Veld has a park. First the theoretical framework will be described by using the theory of Scott Campbell’s triangular model to discuss the contradictions of planning. This will be followed by the methodology where the research design will be explained. Then a case description of Slotervaart will be given where it is made clear why this district is gentrifying. After that the policy documents concerning the area will be explained, followed by comparing the two neighbourhoods with each other. At last a conclusion will be given.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this research exists of two fundamental concepts, environmental gentrification and green policies, that will be connected to the theory of ‘the triangular model of conflicting goals for planning’ by Scott Campbell (1996).
Environmental gentrification
There are various but similar definitions of environmental gentrification. Gould & Lewis (2016) define environmental (or green) gentrification as ‘the process of greening initiatives that create or restore environmental amenities. Environmental amenities draw in wealthier groups of residents and push out lower-income residents, thus creating gentrification’. Checker (2011) use a much broader term and describe environmental gentrification as ‘the convergence of urban redevelopment, ecologically open-minded initiatives and environmental justice activism’. However, during the search of literature several definitions where found were sustainability/green policies were involved. Pearsall & Anguelovski (2016) defined environmental gentrification as ‘the implementation of environmental or sustainability initiatives that leads to exclusion, marginalization, and displacement of economically marginalized residents’, furthermore the Dooling (2009) defines it as ‘processes started by the implementation of an environmental planning agenda related to green spaces that lead to the exclusion and displacement of politically disenfranchised residents. All the definitions describe the relation between greenery and displacement of people, yet there is a difference. Not all the definitions explicitly name policies as an indicator for this phenomenon. However multiple scholars, such as Checker (2011) conclude that urban environmental policy can be a powerful tool for greening an area and urban renewal/replacement. Now that Amsterdam city council is pushing its green agenda forward and the sustainability plans have increased considerably, it is relevant to research in what extent this green agenda can be related to the gentrifying city. Environmental gentrification will be the main concept in the research. It exists of two important aspects, namely environmental planning agenda, so sustainable and green policies, and the demographic change of the residents in the area.
1 WOZ-Value stands for the Real Estate Valuation Act. It is the value of your home. Each year this is determined
Sustainable and green policies
Dooling (2009) states that sustainable or green policies are a direct indicator for environmental gentrification. Also, Pearsall & Anguelsovski (2016) mention the involvement of an environmental planning agenda. In the aforementioned examples some form of environmental policy or green agenda resulted in environmental gentrification, namely in Barcelona, Harlem and Brooklyn, New York (Anguelovski, 2018). In these examples, but also for this research, sustainable/green policies focus and relates to urban green space. Urban green space is defined as ‘all publicly owned and publicly accessible open space with a high degree of cover by vegetation’ (p.110) (Schipperijn, Bentsen, Troelsen, Toftager & Stigsdotter, 2013). This includes green spaces, such as parks, forests, nature areas and other green space (e.g. community gardens) (Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014). For this research various green or sustainable policies of the municipality of Amsterdam will be analysed and will be explained briefly.
Economically strong and sustainable’ is the motto of the policy Amsterdam’s structure vision 2040. The structure vision shows the spatial development that Amsterdam has in mind, furthermore the city’s strategy on greenery is described here. Greenery is described as the improvement of urban green space. As said before, Amsterdam belongs in the top five of Europe’s greenest city, however the municipality wants to strengthen their greenery actions in the public space to make the city even more attractive to work, live and stay (Gemeente, 2011). The use of urban green space by the residents of Amsterdam has risen, moreover, plays an important role for the resident’s welfare and for companies to settle in Amsterdam. The ambition of Amsterdam is to develop further as an international, competitive and sustainable metropolis (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). To accomplish this investing in greenery is a key aspect. Due to the green ambitions and the increased co-financing there has been made a specific policy document about the greenery in Amsterdam, named ‘Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018’ with the approach on how to make the city more green
Contradictions of planning
To answer the research question ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’ the theory of the contradictions of planning of Scott Campbell will be used. Campbell (1996) discusses urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development in order to understand the various priorities of planning. To visualize these contradictions and priorities, he has made a triangular model, named ‘the triangle of conflicting goals for planning’. This triangular model poses three conflicts: resource conflict, property conflict and development conflict. For my research the development conflict is relevant. Campbell (1996) claims that this conflict is the most elusive. This development conflict occurs at international levels, but also at local levels. This conflict is about social equity and environmental preservation where the main question is how to increase social equity while preserving the environment. The thought behind this is that environmental preservation decreases economic growth, which leads to affecting the lower class of the socioeconomic ladder of society. That is why some argue that environmental preservation or protection is only for the wealthy class (Campbell, 1996).
Figure 1 The triangular model of Campbell (1996).
The goal of urban green policies is to improve urban green spaces for several reasons, yet with the possibility to create a more injust city. This triangular model will be used in the research due to the following:
- Amsterdam wants to improve urban green spaces by implementing green policies - The municipality of Amsterdam does not want an increase in the socio-economic
differences of the residents.
This is linked with the triangular model of Campbell (1996), because the green policies can be seen as an aspect of protecting the environment and on the other side gentrification can be seen as an aspect of social inequality, as inequality among residents in an area is considered to be an effect (Van Bouchate, 2013).
Figure 2 Link between the development conflict and the concepts of the research.
As said before, research about the phenomena environmental gentrification has not been researched yet in Amsterdam. However, with portraying Amsterdam as a nature city (Van Loenen, 2015) and the gentrification that is happening, the knowledge about the effects of environmental gentrification are important to take in consideration. In the Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 the decrease in socio-economic differences between residents was also emphasized, however on the existing literature an inevitable effect. Therefore, it is essential to know this, so the municipality and policy makers can react on these consequences.
Figure 3 Conceptual model Sustainability/liveability prism
The sustainability/liveability theory of Godschalk complements Campbells theory. The sustainability/liveability prism is another tool to express and comprehend conflicts in
planning. Godschalk (2007) discusses the triangular model of sustainable development from Scott Campbell. Godschalk (2007) argues that the model is not sufficient enough to guide land use planning practices. He adds liveability into the concept, which operates at the level of the everyday physical environment. The prism visualizes, among two other conflicts, ‘the gentrification conflict’. This conflict ‘arises from competing beliefs in preservation of poorer urban neighbourhoods for the benefit of their present populations versus their redevelopment and upgrading in order to attract middle-and upper-class populations’ (p.8) (Godschalk, 2007). Godschalk (2007) concludes that this critical conflict is inherent to the contemporary land use planning and remarks that planning approaches do not deal with the gentrification conflict sufficiently. This notion reinforces the idea that gentrification is strongly influenced by the planning domain. So in order to answer the central question both theories will be applied.
Figure 4 The prism of Godschalk (2007)..
Operationalization
Table 1 Operationalisation of the concepts.
Concept Dimension Indicator
Environmental gentrification - Improvement in urban green space - Less social rental
housing,more private rental housing - Increase of higher-income households - Displacement of lower-income, non-western background residents - Increase of new urban dwellers - Increase high educated people - Increase owner-occupied houses - OIS - Policies on Slotervaart, such as Gebiedsanalyse - Statistics of CBSinuwbuurt.nl
Sustainable and green policies
- Making the city more attractive for living, working and staying - Creating a more
attractive business climate
- Improving the quality of urban green space - Spreading the visitors’ pressure by making less used city parks more attractive - Increasing parks and
creating new parks - Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 - Structure vision 2040 - Relevant policies on Slotervaart, such as Gebiedsplan - Interviews
Methodology
This section will explain which methods are used to come to the results for this research. Research strategy
To analyse the possible link between green policies of the municipality of Amsterdam and gentrification in Slotervaart, a qualitative research strategy will be applied. Qualitative research is a form of empirical research in which data of qualitative nature is used and aims to interpret and describe situations, persons and events. It concerns the naming of behaviour, statements and text parts from collected documents (Reulink & Lindeman, 2005).
The qualitative research has an epistemological and ontological character. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, what is knowledge and how acceptable this knowledge is. It entails two approaches, namely interpretivism and positivism (Bryman, 2012). This research has an interpretative approach, meaning that the social world is not similar to the natural scientific world. Ontology is about what and how the reality is and has two approaches, namely objectivism and constructionism (Bryman, 2012). In this research, the constructionistic approach is used, in which the social world and its phenomenon are not separate from the social actors (Bryman, 2012). My aim is to analyse the green policies and how the findings of this analysis are related to gentrification in Slotervaart, additionally to see whether there is environmental gentrification happening. In order to research this, policies will be examined and how certain decisions have been taken, the reasoning behind these decisions and whether any consequences that could lead to gentrification have been considered when formulating policies. This is carried out by analysing policy documents and conducting an interview with the policymaker/civil servant Geertje Wijten. This gives more insights into how the process of environmental gentrification takes place in the social world, in which the social actor (the municipality/policies) is connected to the social phenomena (environmental gentrification). The qualitative research has a quantitative aspect, namely the relation between theory and empiricism. A theory is tested, in which the obtained data must test whether the theory is correct. This is a deductive approach and is a characteristic of quantitative research (Bryman, 2012). The theory is that green policies set by the municipality are leading to environmental gentrification (Dooling, 2009; Pearsall & Anguelosvski,2016). The aim is to research whether the theories of Dooling (2009) and Pearsall & Anguelovski (2016) is actually applicable in this case, thus Slotervaart. The theory is that environmental policies influence gentrification, leading to environmental gentrification. The hypothesis is that in Slotervaart environmental gentrification takes place due to the similar indicators. In the event that the hypothesis is correct, then it reinforces the theory. However, in the event that the hypothesis is incorrect in this case, then that gives the motive to further research.
Research units
My unit of analysis are policies from the municipality of Amsterdam, in which various policy documents will be analysed. These are policy documents that apply to the whole area of Amsterdam such as the structure vision 2040, but also policy documents specific applied for Slotervaart, such as the Gebiedsagenda 2016-2019. I use this research unit, because according to scholar’s municipality policies form an important driver concerning gentrification (Checker, 2011; Gould & Lewis, 2012 & Anguelovski et al., 2018). According to Tieleman (2013) there are two types of policies approaches that influence gentrification, namely real estate legislation and direct spatial interventions. The research focusses on direct spatial interventions, because improving urban green spaces in this research is expressed in physical transformation measures and actions.
Besides policies, the focus of this research is also on two neighbourhoods in Slotervaart, namely the Overtoomse Veld and Slotervaart Zuid. Statistical data from these two neighbourhoods are collected from the OIS. On the basis of these data, the neighbourhoods are analysed and compared to each other to research if there is a difference between a neighbourhood with a great urban green space and a neighbourhood without this aspect. Research design
The design of this research concerns a single case study. It entails a detailed and intensive analysis of a case. A case study is associated with a location, such as a community or organization. With a case study, a social phenomenon is thoroughly investigated in its natural environment (Bryman, 2012). It makes it a single case study because the focus is on one specific area. All of this is applicable to my research, because I want to research (environmental) gentrification (phenomenon) on the basis of the analysis policy documents and interviews in a specific area, namely Slotervaart (the case, natural environment).
An important criterion for a single case study is the external validity of the case study. External validity entails the extent to which the results of the research can be generalised (Bryman, 2012), which for a single case study is low. However, the research’s aim is not to generalize, but to obtain more in-depth knowledge, which is typical for qualitative research. Nonetheless, the results could be used as comparative material in other researches on the subject of green policies and environmental gentrification.
Data collection
In order to answer the research question, collecting data will be on the basis of policy documents set by the municipality and on the basis of interviews with the civil servant and policy-maker involved.
Policies
With the two mentioned green policies, Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015-2018, and other relevant policies named in the theoretical framework I will conduct a policy analysis. A short description of these policies has already been elaborated in the theoretical framework. A policy analysis is ‘a process that generates information on the consequences that would follow the adoption of various policies’ (p.12) (Walker, 2000). An important notion is that the goal of such an analysis is to provide a better basis by helping to clarify the problem, presenting the alternatives and comparing their consequences (Walker, 2000). For this research, the focus will be on the first aspect, namely clarifying the problem.
The first policy that will be analysed is the Structure Vision 2040. This policy describes the strategy for urban green space of the city council. The structure vision 2040 is about improving the prosperity and well-being of the people in Amsterdam and what the spatial development can contribute to this. The vision the municipality has in mind is to develop Amsterdam into a metropolis that competes internationally and functions sustainable (Gemeente, 2011). To realise the aforementioned vision and to give direction to the spatial vision for Amsterdam, the municipality has established 7 focal points. For this research, there will be focused on the point ‘Attractive greenery and water’. The reasoning behind this point, is that the use of the urban green space and water in and around the city by residents will increase and will have an important role for the welfare of the residents. Additionally, it will be more attractive for businesses to establish in Amsterdam (Gemeente, 2011). The Gemeente (2011) ends it with that greenery has become an important economic factor, which will enable Amsterdam (through this greenery) to present itself better. It is interesting how the point of making green and water starts with the benefits for the residents of Amsterdam but concludes with an economic-related notion. Then the structure vision explains the actions that will be taken throughout Amsterdam in the field of improving greenery and water. For this research, it will only concentrate on the actions made in Slotervaart. Urban green spaces for improvement are
for example Sloterplas and Rembrandtpark. The specific actions for improvement in this area will be further elaborated in the analysis.
The second policy that will be analysed is the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018. This policy describes the approach of the strategy, described in the structure vision, regarding urban green space. The Gemeente (2011) states that by greening the public space, Amsterdam will be more attractive to live, work and stay. In order to realise the green ambitions, more money has been made available from the coalition agreement and is being co-funded with €20 million euros. The Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018 discusses the goals to reach, namely investing in quality of urban green spaces, creating a balance in the use of urban green space, establishing a climate-resilient and healthy city, area-oriented investing and managing the urban green space together (Gemeente, 2011). Then the Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018 focuses on specific aspects for improvement, such as city parks and green space a neighbourhood. Each aspect explains the focus points and actions that will take place. This research concentrates on the specific actions being taken in Slotervaart. These specific actions will be elaborated in the analysis.
Other policies will also be analysed, but less thoroughly as the Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015-2018. First the policies Gebiedsagenda 2016-2019 and Gebiedsplan 2018 Slotervaart will be used. The Gebiedsagenda describes what is happening in the district. It shows the important developments, tasks and opportunities in Slotervaart. The Gebiedsplan is an elaboration of the activities needed to complete these actions of the Gebiedsagenda in Slotervaart. Both policies underline the importance of greenery and urban green space and it gives more context about Slotervaart. another useful report is called ‘Het grote groenonderzoek 2013’, which gives an insight in the use of urban green space in qualitative data. Lastly, the monitor Agenda Green will be used. This document gives an insight in the progress of the Agenda Groen 2015-2018. All these ‘other’ policies give more context and understanding of the two main green policies.
Interviews
For this research I have conducted one interview with a policymaker / civil servant named Geertje Wijten. Geertje Wijten wrote the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 together with Wouter van der Veer. The process of finding a person to interview was harder than my expectations. The intention was to interview both civil servants / policymakers Geertje Wijten and Wouter van der Veer. Their personal contact information was not on the internet, only the contact information of the relevant department Ruimte and Duurzaamheid. Therefore, I reached out to my contact who works at the municipality of Amsterdam. Both have given their email, which my contact sended to me. First, I emailed Wouter van der Veer on the 18th of April and then on the 23th of April I emailed Geertje Wijten. Both did not respond, so I emailed both again on the 5th of May. The next day, Geertje Wijten responded and scheduled an interview in. On the 24th of May we met face-to-face at Bar Tack nearby Rembrandt park and conducted an interview of 46 minutes.
The respondent was interviewed on the basis of a semi-structured interview, which is an interview where questions are prepared but there is still space for their own input knowledge, ideas and stories (Bryman, 2012). The interview consisted of two parts. The first part included questions about the purpose of setting up the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018, the ultimate goals of the agenda, certain insights of Geertje herself on the relation between urban green space and a changing neighbourhood and how the agenda was established. The second part included questions about certain quotes I found in the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018. These were quotes I found interesting to get into more depth or quotes I did not understand, so Geertje could elaborate these. The interview existed only of open-ended questions, so the respondent had all the space to elaborate her answers. With permission of Geertje Wijten, the interview was recorded and transcribed.
Analysis method
In this research the aim is to carry out a policy analysis, with aspects of a thematic analysis. As explained before, a policy analysis is ‘a process that generates information on the consequences that would follow the adoption of various policies’ (p.12) (Walker, 2000). When doing a policy analysis, the central questions are how the decision-makers make their decision, on the basis of what information will they act and to whom will they listen. The analysis points out the process of assessing policies and the product of that analysis (Patton & Sawicki, 1993). Doing interviews with the officials involved are used to obtain information about the reasoning of decisions, on what information they react and if gentrification is considered during the process. Thereby analysing green policies is a part of the assessment process. Analysing the green policies is simultaneously the thematic aspect. The green policies will be examined to see what greenery measures are being taken and how these measures are being implemented in practice. In these policies the matching themes can be observed, thus conducting a thematic approach. The goal of this research is to analyse if there is a specific problem (environmental gentrification) that is related to or even result from certain policies (Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018).
Case description: Slotervaart
This section will give an overview of the area and state of Slotervaart and discusses various indicators of gentrification.
Area description
Slotervaart is one of the four areas in the city district of Amsterdam Nieuw-West. The area is designed by Cornelis van Eesteren in the 30’s of last century according to the building principles applicable at the time. From 1955 the area was first inhabited by people (Slotervaart Tuinstad, n.d.). Then the area was characterized by a spacious layout with long sightlines and lots of green. In that time large and affordable (flat)dwellings were built in a spacious land parcelling. From the nineties the area on the north side was expanded with the district Oostoever (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). The biggest renovations and innovations in the area have occurred since 2000, however after the economic crisis in 2008 this diminished. After the recovery of the economic crisis, the renewal of Slotervaart has continued (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017).
Slotervaart is part of the Westelijke Tuinsteden and is divided into four neighbourhoods (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017):
- Slotervaart Zuid - Slotervaart Noord
- Overtoomse veld, located between the Ring and the railway to the North of Cornelis Lelylaan
- Westlandgracht, located to the South of the Lelylaan and at east of the railway
The eastern border of Slotervaart is bounded by the Ringspoorbaan, in the south by sportspark Riekerhaven, in the west by Christoffel Plantijngracht and the Sloterpark and Sloterplas and in the north by the Jan Evertsenstraat. The A10 ring road and the Ringspoorbaan are traversing Slotervaart. Also, an important station, namely NS station Lelylaan is located in the area (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).
Slotervaart is characterized by its urban green space. Residents and users see the Sloterplas as a green pearl (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). It is a large park that is developing into a new cultural hotspot for the Amsterdam metropolitan region. In the Rembrandt Park investments in green space and new facilities are being made, which will be later elaborated. The Rembrandt Park, Sloterpark and Sloterplas provide a strong urban green space for various forms of
accommodation and recreation, where throughout the year events are being held such in themes of festivals, sports, culinary and culture (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).
Slotervaart has approximately 36 000 residents, divided into nearly 17 000 households and 15 000 dwellings. Around the Ringspoorzone West an urban mixed living environment is pursued. In recent years large scale urban renewal has occurred in Slotervaart with more compaction in the zone along the railway. The number of owner-occupied houses, expensive rented houses and people with a higher income has increased. Due to the three colleges and student residences, more students are attracted to the area (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).
Due to the significant urban transformation and adjustments, the demographic change of the residents will change over time. According to the Gebiedsagenda 2016 – 2018, the Gemeente clearly renovates and constructs the area for the current residents, however this is not further elaborated (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).
State of the area
The municipality of Amsterdam has made a document named ‘Staat van de Gebieden 2018’. This document outlines the three most important developments for the coming management period of each area in Amsterdam and what effect they have in the area. For the section Slotervaart the following are the three most important tasks: Sloterplas as cultural hotspot, undivided city with room for all and opportunities and good citizenship for young people, where the first two developments are useful. ‘Sloterplas as cultural hotspot’ discusses that the Sloterplas is developing tremendously, which has led to more visitors. However, due to more visitors the pressure on Sloterpark and Rembrandtpark increases while the soil and trees need improvement. ‘Undivided city with room for all’ discusses the influx of many new city dwellers and more diverse categories of people, such as singles, families, double earners, highly educated people, expats, students and a new middle class. These changes resulted in more owner occupied and mid segment houses and owner-occupied studios. The municipality of Amsterdam also state that the gap between poor and rich and young and old is increasing, which leads to more differences among the residents. The last factor discusses that gentrification is occurring in Slotervaart (Gemeente, Amsterdam 2018).
Gentrification in Slotervaart Housing aspect
Gentrification is a process of upgrading the social, cultural and economic aspects of a neighbourhood or district attracting wealthy new residents/users and, as a result, expelling the lower classes from the district. This upgrading is accompanied by an increase in property prices and rents (Gentrificatie, n.d.). To claim Slotervaart is gentrifying, this will be substantiated with housing statistics from the municipality of Amsterdam and OIS.
The first factor discussed will be the housing aspect. Next to the increase in housing costs and rents, another condition is the change from social housing to private housing. In order to research the housing aspect of gentrification various indicators are obtained and collected. As the municipality already described the owner-occupied housing has increased in Slotervaart. According to OIS (n.d.), the number of owner-occupied houses increased of 3491 in 2013 to 3947 in 2018, which is an increase of 13%. This is the highest increase in the city district Nieuw-West, besides Geuzenveld.
Another important indicator is the change of social rental housing into private rental housing. According to the OIS, there has been a decline in the percentage of social rental housing2
namely with 13,1% in 5 years (2013 – 2017), while the private rental housing percentage has increased with 26% in six years (2013 – 2018). This change of property is worth naming as it is seen as an indicator for gentrification.
The last used indicator is the WOZ-value. In 20143 the WOZ-waarde was €185 836 and has risen to €236 540 in 2018, which is an increase of 27,3%. Slotervaart has the highest WOZ-value of housing of the city district Nieuw-West, besides De Aker4.
Demographic change aspect
Besides the importance of the housing aspect, the demographic change is also a relevant indicator. With gentrification, the composition of the residents transforms. The change of a neighbourhood also attracts new residents, which are mostly high educated people, with a higher income (Butler, 2007) and western-background (Anguelovski et al., 2018). This affects the ‘original’ residents, mostly with another social and economic position namely lower-income residents with a non-western background (Anguelovski et al., 2018). To claim Slotervaart is gentrifying, this will be substantiated with the demographic aspect.
The first indicator is migration background. When gentrification is occurring, the heritage composition of an area changes to a more white and western assembly. In Slotervaart the percentage of residents with a non-western background decreased with 6,5% in 5 years (2013;50,8% vs 2018;47,5%). In addition, the other quarters of city district Nieuw-West, so Geuzenveld-Slotermeer-Sloterdijken, Osdorp and De Aker, Sloten and Nieuw-Slotern all had an increase of residents with a non-western background, which is visualized in figure 5. The second indicator is the increase of new urban dwellers. The OIS defines new urban dwellers as ‘share in the population of persons with a Dutch or Western migration background, aged between 18 and 54, who are registered in the municipality of Amsterdam after their 18th’. In Slotervaart the percentage of new urban dwellers has risen with 26,1% in the period of 2013 – 2018, while in the other quarters of city district Nieuw-West this percentage decreased or has risen minimal. This is visualized in figure 6.
The third indicator is the education level of the residents, focused on highly educated residents. For this indicator, and also income level, the OIS only possess the statistics till 2016. The percentage of high educated residents had increased with 20% in the period of 4 years (2013 – 2016), which is the highest increase in the city district along with De Aker.
The last indicator is about income, however the OIS does not possess the statistics on the income level of residents. Therefore, the average spendable income is used, which also only computed till 2016. In 2016 the average spendable income in Slotervaart was €34.700, an increase of 10,2% vis a vis 2013. This is the highest increase of average spendable household income compared to the other three neighbourhoods in city district Nieuw-West.
So, the current state and area of Slotervaart are described together with the indicators of gentrification occurring in the district. In the following section, the policy documents that discuss urban green space and greenery will be analysed.
3 This is the first year that OIS possess statistics from 4 De Aker is another quarter in city district Nieuw-West
Figure 5 Graphs of non-westen residents (%) in the quarters of Slotervaart. Top left: Geuzenveld, top right: Slotervaart, bottom left: De Aker, bottom right: Osdorp.
Figure 6 Graphs of new urban dwellers (%) in the quartes of Nieuw-West. Top left: Geuzenveld, top right: De Aker, bottom left:Osdorp, bottom right: Slotervaart.
Policy documents
Structure vision 2040
As said before, the Structure Vision 2040 describes the strategy of the city council for urban green space. The vision elaborated in this policy is about to develop Amsterdam into a metropolis that competes internationally and functions sustainable. Therefore, the municipality has established 7 focal points. Here, the 7th focal point, namely ‘Attractive greenery and water’ will be elaborated. In addition, it will only concentrate on the strategies concerning Slotervaart. According to the Structure Vision 2040, the residents of Amsterdam cherish greenery and water, because it enhances the quality of urban life. The municipality states that Amsterdammers (residents of Amsterdam) want to have greenery in their street or a park in walking distance of their homes (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). Within these urban green spaces, there are high quality standards expected of the users. For example, neighbourhood greenery has to offer variation, it has to be pleasant to look at and should offer space for children. In addition, parks must offer space for all possible forms of outdoor creation and must accommodate large numbers of visitors without people getting in the way of each other (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). All these points require high-quality design and proper management. With the densification of Amsterdam, the pressure on the use of parks and other urban green space will increase, whereby investments in more quality will become more important. In addition, management for good quality is necessary. Next to increasing the quality of urban green space, access to these places also needs to be optimal through emphasizing on the use of bicycles and public transport. In order to improve the quality of urban green space, various actions will be taken;
- The first action is ‘Investing in the cityparks’. This will particularly focus on parks next to neighbourhoods where there is compaction or transformation happening. Such an investment should increase the park the number of visitors and appreciation of the park. - The second action is ‘optimizing the recreational cycle path network’. This is the network of cyclepaths that connects the parks and green areas in an accessible and pleasant manner.
- The third action is ‘stimulating the construction of roof gardens and the use of green facades on new housing estate and on existing housing’.
- The fourth action is ‘optimizing the attention for green in the public area of the compacting city, for example by the construction of postzegelparken and by giving city trees more underground growth space.
These actions are not specifically only for Slotervaart, but for all the urban green space throughout Amsterdam.
Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018
As said before, this policy document outlines the approach of the strategy, described in the structure vision, regarding urban green space, regarding urban green space. The municipality has set various goals in the Agenda Groen, which are for Amsterdam as a whole and more specific areas in Amsterdam. The more specific areas are focused on city parks and green spaces in a neighbourhood. Each aspect explains the focus points and actions that will take place. This research concentrates on the specific actions being taken in Slotervaart.
The first aspect is city parks. This municipality of Amsterdam describes city parks as communal gardens. Due to their location in the city and their use, these city parks have a function that
transcends the boundaries of the neighbourhood and are multifunctional. For this aspect the municipality has set two goals to reach before 2040 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015);
1. To contribute to the spreading of the pressure of city parks by activating and setting up less used city parks for more intensive use.
2. To adapt city parks better to wet conditions, in combination with intensive use.
To reach these goals the municipality has set various focus points, which will be elaborated. The first focus point is ‘structuring a number of city parks so that it invites residents to use them more intensively and are equipped for that’. This entails that the municipality along with the executive committee by investing in the value of use and experience of city parks that are not so well attended. Various actions and measures are being taken in 2015 – 2018 which are the following: redesigning three parks (or parts of it) in order to accommodate more intensive use, which can be accomplished by placing facilities (on more suitable places in the park), by investing in appropriate planting or by adapting the path structure; improving grasslands in the city parks (by drainage, armament, displacement), which means that the grassland can be used in a diverse and intensive manner throughout the year; creating basic facilities such as water raps, restaurants and toilets to stimulate movement in the city park; improving the accessibility of at least four city parks by redesigning the entrances or by constructing new entrances (Gemeente Amsterdam,2015).
The second focus point is ‘balancing the use of city parks. This entails that when designing redevelopments or programming city parks, there should be variation both between and within city parks. Therefore, the following actions and measures were taken: variation in city parks for the various needs of users of the city park, where desirable and possible, distinctive qualities will be strengthed (nature, water or cultural); points of attention with regard to events in urban green space will be worked out and incorporated into the urban events policy, including contribution to the awareness of green space, accessibility of the urban green space and the carrying capacity of the urban green space (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015).
The third focus point is ‘focusing on soil conditions of the city parks. Amsterdam is situated on peat soil causing the city to suffer from subsidence and the associated wetting. Therefore, the following actions and measures are set up: when designing the redevelopments of city parks, intensively used lawns are planned at suitable/less wet locations within a city park; when designing the redevelopment of city parks, choices for plant and tree species are geared to hydrological conditions; measuring and monitoring subsidence and soil compaction and the consequences for flora and fauna (Gemeente, Amsterdam,2015)
The last focus point is ‘identifying opportunities for new city parks. At various locations in the city developments are expected in which green investments can be included. Therefore, one action is set up namely exploring these possibilities for new city parks in the gebiedsstudies that will be carried out in the context of ‘Ruimte voor de Stad – Ontwikkelingsstrategie 2025 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015)’.
Now it is clear what the vision of the municipality of Amsterdam is concerning urban green space and greenery. Also, the gentrification process in Slotervaart has explained. Next, in the analysis two neighbourhoods will be researched regarding environmental gentrification. One neighbourhood in Slotervaart where no city park is present, Slotervaart Zuid and one neighbourhood where a city park is present, Overtoomse Veld. These two neighbourhoods are chosen for the following reasons:
- Overtoomse Veld is the only neighbourhood in Slotervaart that has a great urban green space, namely city park the Rembrandt park.
- Slotervaart Noord has the Sloterplas also a form of urban green space. However, Sloterplas is also situated in Osdorp and Geuzenveld – Slotermeer. The borders of the Sloterplas are shared with these three neighbourhoods
- The neighbourhood Westlandgracht is partly adjacent to the Rembrandt park
- In Slotervaart, Overtoomse Veld has the highest percentage of urban green space namely 26,7% in its own neighbourhood and Slotervaart Zuid has the lowest percentage of urban green space in its own neighbourhood, namely 3,2% (OIS, 2017).
Analysis
Overtoomse veld
Overtoomse veld is one of the four neighbourhoods in the district Slotervaart. this neighbourhood is in the north bordered by the Jan evertsenstraat, to the west by the Ringspoor, to the south by the Johan Jongkindstraat and in the east by the Rembrandtpark/A10. The neighbourhood is also close to other city parks, such as Vondelpark and Sloterplas. The Postjesweg divides the neighbourhood into two quarters, namely Overtoomse veld Noord and Overtoomse veld South. In 2004 the Projectgroep ‘Vernieuwingsplan Overtoomse veld’ wrote that the public space consists mostly out of greenery, however because it is described as fragmented it has an unclear character and is therefore not very useful. They also described the housing aspect, whereby almost the entire housing stock consisted of social rental housing. In addition, the non-corporate ownership was very small, only 18% (Projectgroep Overtoomse Veld, 2004).
Slotervaart Zuid
Slotervaart Zuid is located in the southwest of the district Slotervaart. The neighbourhood is in the north bordered by the Cornelis Lelylaan, to the west by the Christoffel Plantijngracht (not included in the neighbourhood), to the south by the Henk sneevlietweg and to the east by the metrolines. The neighbourhood is divided into four quarters, namely the Louis Crispijnbuurt, Medisch Centrum Slotervaart, Staalmanbuurt and Jacques Veldmanbuurt. According to the Hoofdgroenstructuur, this neighbourhood has no mentionable urban green space such as a city park or volkstuinpark (Slotervaart Zuid, 2019).
Figure 8 Slotervaart Zuid. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam.
From the used data of OIS and the Staat van gebieden 2018 it is evident that Slotervaart is gentrifying. To research whether this gentrification process in Slotervaart can be linked to green policies, the two named neighbourhoods will be analysed. Therefore, data from OIS and the municipality of Amsterdam will be used, and the action taken in Rembrandtpark from het grote groenonderzoek 2013, Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 and the Monitor Agenda Groen
Rembrandt park
Rembrandt park is situated in the neighbourhood Overtoomse veld. The park has various amenities such as a children’s farm, a building playground, school work gardens and a playground. It is 53 hectares in size and is situated from the Jan Evertsenstraat to the Cornelis Lelylaan (Gadet & Smit, 2018).
The Monitor Agenda Groen is an interim report on the state of play of the actions and goals of the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018, measured in December 2017. A focus point of the agenda was to improve the accessibility of the Rembrandt park. To reach this goal, new bridges have been built to increase the accessibility of the park. In addition, the accessibility of Rembrandt park is improved by refurbishing the entrances and constructing new entrances. Another focus point was structuring city parks for more sustainable and intensive use by users. In order to accomplish this focus point, the Rembrandt park has been provided new basic amenities (Wijten, 2017).
The focus point of balancing the use of city parks has also taken place in the Rembrandt park. In the conducted interview with Geertje Wijten, who wrote the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 and the Monitor Agenda Groen, it is made clear that variation in the park, and attracting various groups of users, has been accomplished (G. Wijten, personal communication, 24 May 2019). According to Wijten, families with children were already present in the park, but nowadays sportsmen doing various sports are also present. In addition, there was a WIFI point in the park, but also small festivals were organized, which makes the park attractive for diverse users and gives the park various purposes (G. Wijten, personal communication, 24 May 2019). Another relevant focus point is identifying opportunities for new city parks. According to Wijten (2017), a research has been conducted whereby the focus changed to the quality of existing city parks. This new focus has led to a decision, which will free up an additional 16 million euros extra for Rembrandt park, among other 5 city parks. This is in line with Wijten (personal communication, 24 May 2019) stating that Rembrandt park is still developing in terms of the progress in the park.
The Monitor Agenda Groen has an interactive map that displays the realised and planned green projects, visualised in figure 7. The first dot represents the action where the school garden is made more public, which was realised in 2018. The second dot concerns over the first focus point of the Agenda Groen by redesigning on more intensive use and construction of drained lawn. According to the interactive map (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017), the grassland has improved, and basic amenities are advanced. All these actions have been realised in 2016. The third dot represents the enhancement in accessibility by improving three entrances of the park, namely Jan Evertsenstraat, Orteliuskade and Staalmeesterlaan. In addition, improving the bridges is an approach of emphasizing the recreational route of the park. These actions are still in progress. The fourth dot is not directly located in Rembrandt park, but is still relevant. This dot is concerning the second action of the Structure Vision 2040, namely optimizing the recreational cycle path network. To connect the connection between parks and green areas in an accessible and pleasant manner, the green link between the Vondel park and the Rembrandt park in the city district Nieuw-West has been improved. This action has already been realised in 2015 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015).
The Grote Groenonderzoek 2013 shows that 43% of the people of Amsterdam have chosen the presence of a park as a (very) important motive to choose their current home. This percentage is higher for the Nieuw-West district, where 50% consider the presence of a park to be a very important reason for choosing the current dwelling (Van Kempen & Smeets, 2013). However, this study shows that the park use of residents in Slotervaart has dropped from 98% in 2008 to 87% in 2013 (Van Kempen & Smeets, 2013).
To answer the question ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’ the two neighbourhoods, Overtoomse Veld with a park and Slotervaart without a park will be compared to each other with various indicators. Housing aspects
As said before, gentrification is related to increasing housing costs. Next to an increase in housing costs and rents, the change of social housing into private housing is also a factor. In the following section various indicators will be discussed.
According to the statistics of OIS (n.d.), the number of owner-occupied housing in
Overtoomse Veld has increased from 780 to 924 in the years of 2013 – 2018. During this time period, there has not always been growth of owner-occupied houses, it even declined in 2017 – 2018. Overall, there has been a growth of 18,5%. In Slotervaart Zuid the same trend happened, where in the last two measured years there has been a decline of
owner-occupied housing. However there has been an overall growth of 22,6% of owner-owner-occupied houses in Slotervaart Zuid.
Another indicator is the change of social rental housing into private rental housing. According to the statistical database of OIS (n.d.), the percentage of social rental housing5 in Overtoomse Veld has decreased from 56% to 46% (2013 – 2017) respectively from 70% to 67% (2013 – 2017) in Slotervaart Zuid. Both neighbourhoods experienced an increase of social rental housing in 2015, however declining again. While Slotervaart Zuid has a greater percentage of social rental housing, it decreased more in Overtoomse Veld with 17,9% in the period of 2013 – 2017.in Slotervaart Zuid the percentage of social rental housing decreased with 4,3% When observing the private rental housing, there is a considerable difference between the two neighbourhoods. While the Overtoomse Veld private rental housing has increased with 49,8% (from 27,9% in 2013 to 41,8% in 2018), the percentage of this type of housing in Slotervaart Zuid has decreased with 40,7% (from 19,4% in 2013 to 11,5% in 2018) (OIS, n.d). To conclude, the decrease of social private housing is greater in Overtoomse Veld and there was an increase in private rental housing, which decreased in Slotervaart Zuid, which is visualised figure 10
This observation of an increase in private rental housing is also visible in the average rent. In the Overtoomse Veld the average rent per month in the area increased from 569 euros to 700 euros, as in Slotervaart Zuid in increased from 521 euros to 574 euros in the period 2013 -2017. In addition to the fact that the average rent per month in terms of quantity is higher, the percental increase is also higher namely with 23% against 10,2% in Slotervaart Zuid. Besides, the average rent in a year in Overtoomse Veld increases more than the average rent in Amsterdam (influx of +20,7%), both in terms of percentages and quantity (OIS, n.d.)
Table 2 Statistics on social and private rental housing in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS.
Figure 10 Statistics on social and private rental housing in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS. Demographic change aspect
As said before, gentrification is related to a changing population structure. In the following section various indicators will be discussed.
The first indicator is the migration background of the residents of the two neighbourhoods. According to the OIS (n.d.), the percentage of residents with a non-western migration background is the highest in the Overtoomse Veld compared to the other three neighbourhoods in district Slotervaart. In 2018 the Overtoomse Veld had a percentage of 53,4% of non-western background residents, while Slotervaart Zuid had a percentage of 50,4%, Westlandgracht 38,5% and Slotervaart Noord a percentage of 44,9% of non-western background residents. However, the percentage declined the most in the Overtoomse Veld with 15,5%, respectively with 4,9% in Slotervaart Zuid in the period of 2013 -2018. In Westlandgracht this percentage was minimal with an increase of less than one percent, while the residents with a non-western background in Slotervaart Noord increased with 3,7%. In addition, between the two neighbourhoods, the difference in percentage points in 2013 was 10,3% but declined in 2018 to only 3%. In the period of 2017 -2018, there was the highest decrease of non-western residents, namely with 5,7%.
New urban dwellers are also associated with gentrification (Metaal, 2007). When analysing the two neighbourhoods with each other, the Overtoomse Veld had an influx of +50,5% of new urban dwellers, while Slotervaart Zuid had an influx of +25,5% in the period of 2013 - 2018. In 2018 the percentage of new urban dwellers in the Overtoomse Veld was 29,2% while at the same time 20,7% of the residents in Slotervaart Zuid were new urban dwellers. In the named period, the Overtoomse Veld always had a larger share of new urban dwellers among its residents, than Slotervaart Zuid. In addition, the percentage of new urban dwellers has also been around the urban average of Amsterdam since 2014, while Slotervaart Zuid in all those named years has been under the average of Amsterdam (OIS, n.d.).
The following indicators are income and education based and the statistics for the income are starting from 2011.
Gentrification also changes the economic status among the residents. With the process of gentrification, wealthier, thus people with higher incomes, make their entrance in the neighbourhood (Boterman, 2005). Due to the fact that OIS does not have the statistics or percentages of high-income residents in a neighbourhood, another income aspect is considered namely the five quintiles. A quintile is the share of households with disposable income in the relevant quintile on the basis of the national distribution of incomes. Student and residents of institutions are not included. How higher the quintile, how higher the income of residents. When looking at the fifth quintile, there is a difference between the two neighbourhoods. While this quintile has been consistent in Slotervaart Zuid, where 3 years
were 9% and the last measured three years were 10%, it has increased in Overtoomse Veld. In table 3 you can see that the first 3 years has also been consistent, however since 2014 it has increased by one percent each year. Simultaneously, in the low-income area (first quintile) the percentage has risen in Slotervaart Zuid since 2014 in the time this percentage has dropped in Overtoomse Veld since 2015. The differences in the two neighbourhoods are not mindblowing, however the percentages in all the quintiles are in ‘favour’ of Overtoomse Veld. Meaning with favour is that in the first quintile the percentages of Overtoomse Veld has been mostly lower or equal compared to Slotervaart Zuid, which also applies to the second quintile. The percentages of the measured years in the fourth and fifth quintile have all been greater in the Overtoomse Veld, meaning that the households with middle-high (fourth quintile) and high (fifth quintile) incomes has increased more in that neighbourhood than in Slotervaart Zuid. Thereby, the average disposable income6, in the year from 2015 to 2016 has increased from 31 100 euros to 32 100 euros in Slotervaart Zuid, which is an increase of 3,2%. In the same year of 2015 to 2016 the Overtoomse Veld had an increase of 4,4% (31 700 euros to 33 100 euros). This is the highest average disposable income increase in Overtoomse Veld since the change from 2005 to 2006, which was 6% (OIS, n.d.).
Gould & Lewis (2016) describe gentrification also as a process where lower income residents are pushed out of the neighbourhood. Low income residents are also calculated in the statistical database of OIS. In terms of low-income residents, both Slotervaart Zuid and Overtoomse Veld are around the urban average of Amsterdam. However, there is a small difference. While both neighbourhoods had 25% of low-income residents in 2013, this percentage decreased greater in the Overtoomse Veld. In Slotervaart Zuid the percentage keeps swinging around 25% or 24%, while in Overtoomse Veld the percentage declined with 8% in the time of 2013 – 2018.
Boterman (2005) discusses the arrival of highly educated people in the gentrification process. Higher income residents combined with a high educated background are intertwined in this process. The percentage of Slotervaart Zuid of 2013 is missing, so the data as of 2012 is used. Although the percentage of high educated residents in both Slotervaart Zuid and Overtoomse Veld are below the urban average of Amsterdam, both neighbourhoods experienced a boost. Slotervaart Zuid had an influx of +20%% of high educated people, while in Overtoomse Veld there was an increase of 26,9%%. When looking at the pure numeral statistic, the Overtoomse Veld has a higher percentage of high educated residents in the whole period of the time frame (OIS, n.d.)
6 The average disporable income is the gross household income less social security contributions, other tranfsers
Table 3 Statistics on the five income quintiles in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS.
To involve the urban green space into the statistical database, several urban green space indicators will briefly be analysed. For these indicators the timeframe since 2015 will be used, as the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 is implemented in that year.
The maintenance of urban green indicates the average rating given by residents on the question: How do you rate the state of maintenance of the green spaces in your neighbourhood? Observing the ratings in the figures, Slotervaart Zuid has the biggest rating of 6,7. Both neighbourhoods’ ratings has been under the city’s average in the recent years. However, as you can see in figure 11, the rating of Overtoomse Veld has increased the most in the timeframe of 2015 – 2017, namely with 6,6%. At the same time, in Slotervaart Zuid in only increased with 3,1%. Overtoomse Veld had the highest increase in the four neighbourhoods of district Slotervaart, against influxes of +6,1% (Westlandgracht) and -1,4% (Slotervaart Noord) (OIS, n.d.)
Besides that, the appearance of urban green space is also analyzed. This indicator indicates the average rating given by residents on the question: How do you rate the green spaces in your neighbourhood? As in figure 11 is visualised, Overtoomse Veld has caught up with Slotervaart Zuid and have experienced an increased rate of 7,8% respectively of 1,5% of Slotervaart Zuid (OIS, n.d.)
Figure 11 Ratings on the maintenance (left) and appearance (right) of urban green space in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS.
In table 4, the results of the indicators on the two neighbourhoods are represented. The yellow marking stands for the neighbourhood that has a stronger outcome of the corresponding indicator. The data reveals that Overtoomse Veld, except for one indicator, has a higher increase or decrease in favour of the gentrification effects. Slotervaart Zuid only has a larger increase in the number of owner-occupied housing, which only makes a difference of 4 percentage points with Overtoomse Veld. There is no literature about gentrification in the two neighbourhoods precisely. However, based on the statistical database and indicators of gentrification this research shows that Overtoomse Veld has stronger symptoms of a gentrifying neighbourhood than Slotervaart Zuid.
Table 4 Overview and comparison of gentrification indicators
Overtoomse Veld
Slotervaart Zuid
Owner-occupied housing
(2013 – 2018)
+18,5%
+22,6%
Social rental housing (2013
– 2017)
-17,9%
-4,3%
Private rental housing (2013
– 2018)
+49,8%
-40,7%
Average rent per month
(2013 – 2017)
+23%
+10,2%
Residents with non-western
background (2013 – 2018)
-15,5%
-4,9%
New urban dwellers (2013 –
2018)
+50,5%
+25,5%
Lower income residents
(2013 – 2018)
-8%
-4%/+4%
High educated people (2012
– 2016)
+26,9%
+20%
Maintenance of green (2015
– 2017)
+6,6%
+3,1%
Appearance of green (2015 –
2017)
+7,8%
+1,5%
Conclusion
The central question of this bachelor’s thesis is ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’. This research question is based on the environmental gentrification theory. Environmental gentrification is defined as ‘processes started by the implementation of an environmental planning agenda related to green spaces that lead to the exclusion and displacement of politically disenfranchised residents’. Briefly, it states that improving urban green space leads to gentrification in a neighbourhood. This phenomenon has happened in cities worldwide. While Amsterdam is gentrifying it is also seen as a green city. In addition, the current board of directors of Amsterdam portray the city as a nature city. Now that the Amsterdam city council is pushing its green agenda forward, and the plans concerning sustainability and greenery have increased, it is relevant to research in what extent this green agenda can be related to the gentrifying city.
To answer the central question a statistical research has been conducted, where the claim of the municipality of Amsterdam that Slotervaart is gentrifying have been tested. Based on the indicators number of owner-occupied housing, percentage of social rental housing, percentage of private rental housing, WOZ-value, non-western residents, new urban dwellers, education level and average spendable income this statement can be supported.
The next step is to research there is a relationship between the green policies concerning the area what is being investigate by means of two neighbourhoods in Slotervaart namely Overtoomse Veld, where Rembrandt park is situated, and Slotervaart Zuid, which has no park in the area. Again, a statistical research has been conducted on various gentrification indicators, which are visualized and compared in table 4. Based on the used data and research it is assumed that the Overtoomse Veld is gentrifying stronger then Slotervaart Zuid. To see if green policies had any influence in this gentrification process, the taken actions in the Rembrandtpark and statistics will be analysed.
Since the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2016, and Structure vision have been in effect, various actions have been taken. In 2015 the green connection between Vondel park and Rembrandt park has been improved in a more accessible and pleasant connection wherefore the focus point ‘optimizing the recreational cycle path network’ of the Structure vision 2040 has been addressed. In 2016 various grasslands have been improved and basic amenities were advanced to make Rembrandt park more attractive for users. Here the focus point structuring a number of city parks so that it invites residents to use them more intensively and are equipped for that’ of the Agenda Groen has been realized. During the interview with Geertje Wijten it became clear that changes are still being made and that the Rembrandtpark is still in development. She claimed that certain entrances have been refurbished and new entrances have been constructed. The Monitor Agenda Groen adds that for three entrances improvement is still in progress. In almost the same time frame namely 2015 – 2017, the residents of Overtoomse Veld ratings on the maintenance of urban green space increased with 6,6%, which has been the highest increase of all the four neighbourhoods in Slotervaart. Besides that, the ratings of how you rate the urban green space increased with 7,8%, while this was only 1,5% in Slotervaart Zuid. Based on the used data, this indicates that the taken actions have a positive effect on the residents’ perception of urban green space. Some of the mentioned changes in Slotervaart did occur when the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 was in effect; the number of owner-occupied declined since 2017; the social rental housing percentage decreased by 9 percentage points in 2015; the percentage of private rental housing increased by 10 percentage points in 2017 – 2018; the percentage of non-western residents decreased the most since 2017; the low-income quintiles did decline and high incomes did increase since 2015.
