Smooth Cohabitation in Amsterdam? The Impact of Increased Tenure Mix on Overall Neighborhood Confidence
Abstract
Several of Amsterdam’s inner-city areas that formerly were dominated by affordable social and private housing are undergoing processes of gentrification. Most of the gentrification literature highlights tensions and avoidance between classes. Is this also the case in Amsterdam, or has an increased tenure mix in the Dutch capital had a smoother impact? We assumed that in areas with increased tenure mix in Amsterdam, neighborhood confidence levels would be increasing. Results analysed from the 2001 and 2009 biannual Living in Amsterdam Surveys showed that an increase in owner-occupancy rates was correlated with a small, but significant, increase in overall neighborhood confidence. Nor was there any evidence that gentrification led to widespread displacement of ethnic groups. Case studies of two gentrifying areas produced similar results. These results which question the usually pessimistic discussion of gentrification in the literature can be explained by a mild version of gentrification in Amsterdam. The paper discusses the prospects for such smooth cohabitation of classes continuing in Amsterdam in the future.References
Amsterdam City Council (2005) Samenwerken aan Veiligheid. Voorkomen en Handhaven. (White Paper). College van Band W.
Amsterdam City Council (2008) Wonen in de Metropool. Woonvisie Amsterdam tot 2020 (White Paper). Dienst Wonen.
Arthurson, K. (2002) Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: A critical relationship or tenuous link? Urban Policy and Research, 20(30): 245- 261.
Beekman, T., Lyons, F. and Scott, J. (2001) Improving the Understanding of the Influence of Owner Occupiers in Mixed Tenure Neighborhoods. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.
Boer, J. (2005) Gentrification van de Oude Pijp en de Jordaan. Een onderzoek naar de rol van de overheid en het particulier initiatief. Doctoraalscriptie Stadsgeografie. Universiteit Utrecht.
Boutellier, H., R. van Wonderen, S. Tan, I. de Groot and Nieborg, S. (2007) Sociaal Vertrouwen in Oud-Zuid. Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Instituut.
Butler, T. with Robson, G. (2003) London Calling. The Middle Classes and the Re-making of Inner London. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Buys, A. (2008) Tekenen van Vertrouwen. Op Zoek naar Risico’s en Kansen Vanuit het Perspectief van Orde en Veiligheid in Woonwijken. Amsterdam: RIGO Research and Advies.
Campbell, S. (2003) Case studies in planning, comparative advantages and the problem of generalization (University of Michigan Working Paper). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Clark, E. (2005) Order and simplicity of gentrification: A political challenge. In: Lees, L, Slater, T. and Wyly, E. (eds.) The Gentrification Reader. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 24-31.
Cole, I. and Goodchild, B. (2001) Social mix and the “balanced community” in British housing policy―A tale of two epochs, Geojournal, 51(4): 351-360.
Freeman, L. (2006) There Goes the Hood. Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University.
Hox, J. (2010) Multi-level analysis―Techniques and applications. New York:Routledge.
Jupp, B. (1999) Living Together: Community Life on Mixed Tenure States. London: Central Books.
Kleinhans, R. (2005) Sociale implicaties van herstructurering en herhuisvesting (Disseration) Sustainable Areas 6. Delft: Delft University Press.
Lancee, B. and Dronkers, J. (2009) Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in the neighborhood: Explaining quality of contact with neighbors, trust in the neighborhood and inter-ethnic trust for immigrant and native residents. Paper presented at the IMISCOE Cross-cluster Theory Conference Interethnic Relations, 13-15 May 2009, Lisbon, Portugal.
Lees, L., Slater, T. and Wyly, E. (eds.) (2010) The Gentrification Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Marcuse, P. (1986) Abandonment, gentrification, and displacement: The linkages in New York City. In: Smith N. and Williams, P. (eds.) Gentrification of the City, Boston: Allen and Unwin, pp. 153-177.
Metaal, S. and Teijmant, I. (2008) Het Wonder van Westerpark. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Musterd, S. (2005) Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: Levels, causes, and effects. Journal of Urban Affairs. 27(3): 331-348.
Musterd, S. and Ostendorf, W. (2009) Residential segregation and integration in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(9): 1515-1532.
Musterd, S. and Ostendorf, W. (2012) Inequalities in European cities. In: Smith, Susan J. Elsinga, Marja, Fox O’Mahony, Lorna, Eng, Ong Seow, Wachter, Susan and David Clapham (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home, 4. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 49–55.
Ouwehand, A. and van der Laan Bouma-Doff, W. (2007) Excluding disadvantaged households into Rotterdam Neighborhoods. Equitable, efficient or revanchist? Paper presented on the international ENHR conference on sustainable urban areas. Rotterdam, 25-28 June 2007.
Ouwehand, André and Doff, Wenda (2013) Who Is Afraid of a Changing Population? Reflections on Housing Policy in Rotterdam. Geography Research Forum, 33:
Patillo, M. (2007) Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (2010) Nieuwbouw, verhuizingen en segregatie. Den Haag: Bilthoven.
Putnam, R.D. (2007) E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2): 137-174.
Ruming K., Mee, K. and Mc Guirk, P. (2004) Questioning the rhetoric of social mix: Courteous community or hidden hostility? Australian Geographical Studies, 42(2): 234 -248.
Reijndorp, A. (2007) Een parade van concepten. De creatieve stad als emancipatiemachine. In: Lucassen L. and Willems, W. (eds.) De krachtige stad. Een eeuw omgang en ontwijking. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, pp.141-170.
Sautkina, E., Bond, L. and Kearns, A. (2012) Mixed evidence on the mixed tenure effects. Findings from a systematic review of UK studies 1995-2009. Housing Studies, 27: 6.
Trouw (2008) Sociaal gemengde buurten kunnen onrust opleveren (17-04-2008).
Uitermark, J. (2011) An actually existing just city? The fight for the right to the city in Amsterdam. In Brenner, Marcuse, N. P. and Mayer M. (eds.) Cities for People, Not for Profit: Theory/ Practice. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 197-214.
Van Bergeijk, E., Kokx, A., Bolt, G. and van Kempen, R. (2008) Helpt herstructurering? Effecten van Stedelijke Herstructurering op Wijken en Bewoners. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
Van de Veer, J. (2009) Gemengde Buurten: De Mening van de Bewoners. WiA-onderzoek 2007, Leefbaarheid. Gemeente Amsterdam/ AFWC.
Van Gent, W. (Forthcoming) Neo-liberalization, shifting housing systems and gentrification; how the “third wave” broke in Amsterdam.
Van Oirschot, L., Slot, J. and van Oirschot, E. (2011) Voorspellers van buurtvertrouwen in de buurt. Sociale Cohesie in Amsterdam. Mens et Maatschappij, 1: 66-87.
Van Weesep, J. and Wiegersma, M. (1991) Gentrification in the Netherlands: Behind the scenes. In: Van Weesep, J. and Musterd, S. (eds.) Urban Housing for the Better-off: Gentrification in Europe. Utrecht: Stedelijke Vetwerken Verkstuk, pp. 98-111.
Veldboer, L. (2010) Afstand en betrokkenheid in de gemengde wijk. Over afwijzende en loyale groepen bij stedelijke vernieuwing. (Disseration) Amsterdam: Off-page.
Veldboer, L., Bergstra, M. and Kleinhans, R. (2011) Meer inkomensdiversiteit, meer buurtvertrouwen? Sociale tectoniek of vreedzame co-existentie in Amsterdamse gentrification-wijken. Den Haag: Nicis Institute.
Wittebrood, K. and Permentier, M. with Pinkster, F. (2011) Wonen, wijken and interventies. Krachtwijkenbeleid in perspectief. Den Haag: SCP.
- The contributor(s) (authors) warrant that the entire work is original and unpublished; it is submitted only to this Journal and all text, data, figures/tables or other illustrations included in this work are completely original and unpublished, and these have not been previously published or submitted elsewhere in any form or media whatsoever.
- The contributor(s) warrant that the work contains no unlawful or libelous statements and opinions and liable materials of any kind whatsoever, does not infringe on any copyrights, intellectual property rights, personal rights or rights of any kind of others, nor contains any plagiarized, fraudulent, improperly attributed materials, instructions, procedures, information or ideas that might cause any harm, damage, injury, losses or costs of any kind to person or property.
- The contributor(s) retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The contributor(s) are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- The contributor(s) are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- Geography Research Forum may disseminate the content of the publications and publications’ Meta data in text, image, or other print and electronic formats to providers of research databases (e.g. EBSCO, GeoBase, JSTOR) to facilitate publications' exposure.
