View/Open

[]
I
“Youcannotlivewiththepresent,if
youforgetthepast”
Aninsightonhow‘inbetween’residentsexperiencethe
effectsofgentrificationinMiddellandandKatendrecht
BachelorthesisGeography,Planning&Environment
MarijkeClarisse
S4394682
Mentor:RitskeDankert RadboudUniversityNijmegen
FacultyofManagement
August2016
[II]
Preface
TocompletemythirdyearandthusthebachelorSocialGeography,SpatialPlanningand
EnvironmentattheRadboudUniversityofNijmegen,Ihavebeenworkingonmybachelor
thesisforthelastsemester.TheresearchIdidwasontheexperiencesofgentrificationin
Rotterdamforresidentsthatarenottakenintoaccountinthetheoriesandhowthepositive
governmentalpolicyongentrificationcouldinfluencethis:
FirstofallIwouldliketothanksmymentorRitskeDankertwhoguidedmethroughthe
processofwritingthisthesisinthemanyfeedbacksessions.Ialsowouldliketothankthe
peoplewhotookthetimeandefforttohelpmebyprovidingmewiththeinformation
neededthroughinterviews.Andallpeoplewhohelpedmethroughthepastthreeyearsand
especiallythelastfewmonths:thankyou!
MarijkeClarisse
Nijmegen,12augustus
[III]
Summary
Gentrificationhasreceivedalotofattentioninthelastcoupleofyears.NotonlytheUnited
StatesofAmericaortheUnitedKingdomaredealingwithgentrification,thephenomenon
hasreachedtheNetherlandsaswell.IntheNetherlandsgentrificationisusedbythe
governmentasastrategyforsolvingtheproblemofsegregationincertainneighbourhoods,
whichmakesthoseneighbourhoodslessliveable.
Ifthegovernmentwantstokeepusinggentrificationasawaytorevitalisedisadvantaged
neighbourhoodsinthecity,itwillhavetofindawaytomeettheneedsofboththemiddle
classnewcomerstothearea,aswellastheindigenousresidentsthatwanttokeepliving
there.Becauseatthispointthegovernmentandthehousingassociationsseemtoaimto
embracemiddleclassfuturesforthecityinsteadofencompassingawidersocialbase
(Atkinson,2004,p108).Thisresearchwilltryandhelpfindawaytodothis,bylookingat
howindigenousresidentsthatkeeplivingintheneighbourhoodwhilegentrificationis
takingplaceexperiencetheneighbourhoodanditschanges.Thereforethefollowing
researchquestionisposed:
“Howdothe‘inbetween’residentsoftheneighbourhoodsMiddellandandKatendrecht
experiencethechangestakingplaceinthegentrifyingneighbourhoodsanddoesthepolicy
obtainedhaveaninfluenceontheseexperiences?”
Bymeansofaliteraturestudyinsightwasgivenonthetheoryofstate-ledandpositiveor
smartgentrification.Apartfromthattheoriesontheconsequencesofgentrificationwere
described.Inordertoanswerthecentralquestionamultiple-comparativecase-studywas
donewiththeneighbourhoodsMiddellandandKatendrecht,inRotterdam,asthecases.
FirstlyadocumentstudyontheoverallgentrificationpolicyinRotterdamandthatinthe
twoneighbourhoodsseparatelywasdone.Furthermoreinterviewswereheldwith‘in
between’residentsofbothneighbourhoods.Thedatacollectedwasthenanalysed,which
ledtothefollowingfindings.
Thefirsthalfofthecentralquestiononhowtheresidentsexperiencethechangescanbe
overallansweredpositively.Allresidentsseethechangesassomethingpositiveforthe
neighbourhoodsbecausetheneighbourhoodisevolving.However,notallseparatechanges
areexperiencedpositivelybytheresidents.
Asinthetheorydescribedtherearechangesvisibleintermsofonasocial,physicaland
economiclevelasdescribedinthetheory.Therearechangesinthehousingsectionofthe
neighbourhood,thefacilityandservicesupplyhasbeenchangedleadingtoeconomic
changesintheneighbourhood.Besidesthat,thesocialcompositionoftheneighbourhoods
havechangeswithanincreasingnumberofhigher-educatedmiddleclassresidents.
Thesecondhalfofthecentralquestionishowthepolicyobtainedcaninfluencethese
experiences.Inbothneighbourhoodsthereisstate-ledpositivegentrification.Thecontent
basedpartwherethegovernmenthasaclearstrategyongentrification(Geurtz,2007)is
there.Inbothneighbourhoodsthegovernmenthasdemolishedsocialhousingtomake
roomforprivatepropertyorstillhastheplantodoit.Theprocess-orientedside,inwhich
[IV]
opinionsofdifferentactorsaretakenintoaccount(Geurtz,2007)seemstomissin
KatendrechtbutisclearlyvisibleinMiddellandbecauseoftheinvestmentsinco-creation.
ThismightbetheexplanationofwhysomechangesonKatendrechtseemtoleaveoutthe
‘inbetween’residentsmorethaninMiddelland.Therespondentsconfirmthis;in
Middellandtheresidentsfeelwellrepresentedbythegovernmentandiftheyareawareof
theproject,feelliketheyhaveachoicetobeinvolved.OnKatendrechttheresidentsstill
havetotakeinitiativethemselvesandfeellikethegovernmentfailsatprovidingsome
essentialservices.InbothMiddellandandKatendrecht,theinformationsupplycanalsobe
increased.
Overall,the‘inbetween’residentsinbothMiddellandandKatendrechtexperiencethe
changesduetogentrificationasapositivedevelopmentfortheneighbourhoodandtheydo
notwanttoleavetheirneighbourhoods.Thepolicyobtaineddoeshaveaninfluenceon
theseexperiences,especiallyonKatendrecht,wherethepositivegentrificationpolicyseems
tofailininvolvingandrepresentingallresidents.InMiddellandtheresidentsfeelwell
representedbuttheywouldliketoseetheinvolvementbeingstimulatedmore.
Basedonthisresearchcertainrecommendationsforfollow-upresearchcanbedoneto
obtainabetterinsightonthesubject.
Inbothneighbourhoodsthereisstate-ledgentrificationthattriestobepositiveorsmart
gentrification.InMiddellandthegovernmentisquiteontrackwithinvolvingasmany
peopleaspossibleintheory,butseemtofailintheproject.OnKatendrechttheemphasisis
stillonluringinthemiddleclass,leavingouttheneedsandpreferencesoftheother
residents.Recommendationforfurtherresearchthereforecanbetoinvestigateboth
neighbourhoodsseparately,becausetheneighbourhoodsprovedtodifferquiteabitfrom
eachother.Wheninvestigatingtheneighbourhoodsindividually,thereisanoptiontogo
deeperintothespecificchangeswhicharetypicalfortheneighbourhoods.Thereforebetter
insightforthegovernmentscanbeobtained.Afterthisindividualinvestigationofboth
neighbourhoods,theresearchercanthenlookathowtheneighbourhoodscanlearnfrom
eachother.
Anotherimportantrecommendationistorepeattheresearchwhenlongtermchangesare
visible.Gentrificationinbothneighbourhoodshasonlybegun8yearsago.The
neighbourhoodsbotharestillchangingalotwithhousesbeingdemolishedandreplaced,
shopscomingandgoingandtheprojectsstillattherootsoftheirexistence.Thechanges
thencanbemoredistinctandresidentsmighthavechangedtheiropinionsbythen.Thatis
whyitisrecommendedtorepeatthisresearchinthefuture.
Apartfromthat,whatshouldalsobehighlightedisthat,whichisseeninthisresearchas
well,neighbourhoodsdifferalotfromeachother.Thisresearchcanberepresentativefor
similarneighbourhoods.Allneighbourhoodshoweverhavetheirowndynamicsandtheir
ownpathtofollow,whichhavedifferentinfluencesontheresidents,thechangesandthe
experiences.
[V]
Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Framework ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2ResearchObjective ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3ResearchQuestion ................................................................................................................ 5
2.TheoreticalFramework.............................................................................................................. 6
2.1StateledGentrification......................................................................................................... 6
2.2Positive/smartgentrification .............................................................................................. 7
2.3Effectofgentrificationontheneighbourhood ................................................................... 9
2.4.1HousingandDisplacement ......................................................................................... 11
2.4.2Facilitiesandservices ................................................................................................. 12
2.4.3Socialnetworks/cohesionandInteraction ............................................................... 13
2.4Conceptualmodel ............................................................................................................... 14
3.Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1ResearchStrategy ............................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Case Selection ...................................................................................................................... 16
3.3MethodsofDataCollection ................................................................................................ 16
3.3.1Literaturestudy ........................................................................................................... 17
3.3.2DocumentStudy........................................................................................................... 17
3.3.3Interviews .................................................................................................................... 17
3.4MethodsofAnalysis............................................................................................................ 19
4.Data ............................................................................................................................................ 20
4.1Casedescription.................................................................................................................. 20
4.2Policy ................................................................................................................................... 22
5.Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 26
5.1Housing................................................................................................................................ 26
5.2FacilitiesandServices ........................................................................................................ 29
5.3Socialnetworks/cohesionandinteraction....................................................................... 33
5.4GovernmentandPolicy ...................................................................................................... 39
5.5Characteristics+overallexperience ................................................................................. 41
5.6Reflectingonthetheory ..................................................................................................... 42
6.Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 46
7.Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 48
7.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 48
[VI]
7.2 Reflection ............................................................................................................................. 49
8.References ................................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix I Interviewguide............................................................................................................. 53
Appendix II List of code groups + members.................................................................................. 55
Appendix III Group code network ................................................................................................. 61
[VII]
1. Introduction
1.1
Framework
Phenomenon
Gentrificationhasreceivedalotofattentioninthelastcoupleofyears.NotonlytheUnited
StatesofAmericaortheUnitedKingdomaredealingwithgentrification,thephenomenon
hasreachedtheNetherlandsaswell.
Gentrificationisaprocessthathasbeendefinedforafewdecadesnow.RuthGlasswasthe
first,asanurbangeographerin1964,toputanametotheprocessofthemiddleclass
invadingneighbourhoods,predominantlyinhabitedbytheworkingclassinLondon.The
residences,ofallsorts,weretransformedinto‘elegantandexpensive’residences(Smith,
2002).AccordingtoRuthGlass,thisprocessofurbanrenaissance,thatshedefinedas
gentrification,continuedonuntilalmostallresidentsoftheworkingclassweredisplaced
outoftheneighbourhood,changingtheimageoftheneighbourhooddrastically(Smith,
2002).
ThereishoweverquiteadifferencebetweengentrificationinLondonandinthe
Netherlands.InLondongentrificationstartedwiththemiddleclasswhosawachanceto
movetothecity,becausethehouseswerecheaperincomparisontothoseinthesuburbs.In
theNetherlandstheprocessismostlyusedbypolicymakersasawayofupgradinga
disadvantagedneighbourhood.Bybuildingnewhousestheyattractthemiddleclasswho
thenrevitalisethecityquarter.Thegovernmentusesgentrificationtocreateliveable
neighbourhoods.InmanyDutchcitiesthisisseenastheonlypossiblesolutiontopresent
urbanproblems(Leesetal,2010).
However,otherpartiesthathaveaninterestintheprocessofgentrificationseethis
differently.Theystate:“Accordingtothisview,thestateactsintheinterestofcapitalists
andlegitimatesitselfbystigmatisingthevictimsofthispolicy.Manygentrification
researchersevendefinetheveryprocessbytheharmitcausesamonglower-class
households,precludingthepossibilitythatthesehouseholdssupportgentrificationor
benefitfromit”(Leesetal,2010,p510).Twodifferentgroupsaretakenintoaccountby
thesetwodefinitionsi.e.thegentrifiersandthedisplacedresidents.Whataboutthe
residents‘inbetween’thosetwogroupsisthequestionthatriseshere.
Dilemma
TheproblemthatgentrificationwantstochangeintheNetherlandsisthatofthesocial
segregationinacity.Thisarisesfromadistinctdifferenceinincomeandclassincertain
neighbourhoods.Duetothesegregationsomeneighbourhoodsbecomelessliveablethan
others,mostlytheneighbourhoodsthatarepredominantlyinhabitedbythelowerincome
[]
1
classarelessliveable.Thiscanbechangedbyluringinthemiddleclasstothesedistricts
andtrytociviliseandcontrolthose(Leesetal.,2010).
However,accordingtothedefinitionobtainedbyPacione(2009,p.211)“Gentrificationisa
processofsocio-spatialchangewherebytherehabilitationofresidentialpropertyina
workingclassneighbourhoodbyrelativelyaffluentincomersleadstothedisplacementof
formerresidentsunabletoaffordtheincreasedcostsofhousingthataccompany
regeneration”.Meaningthatwhenpeopleofahigherincomeclassmoveintothe
neighbourhoodandstartdominatingit,higherrentsandmoreexpensiveservices
consequentlyforcetheindigenousresidentstomoveoutoftheneighbourhood.This
symptomorconsequenceofgentrificationisreferredtoasdisplacement.
IntheNetherlandsdisplacementhappensaswell.ThereisatrendvisiblethatDutchstate
actorstogetherwiththehousingassociationstrytopromotetheneighbourhoodsofacity
thatareleastindemandatthatmoment(Leesetal.,2010).Thegroupofpeopletheywant
toattracttotheseneighbourhoodsisthemiddleclass;peoplewithhighereducationand
higherincomes.Residentswhoarenotpartofthisgrouparenotabletoprofitfromthe
developmentsthatgentrificationbrings.Thisisforcingthe‘successless’tomovetoother
neighbourhoods,oftenoutsideofthecity,whererentsarecheaper;leadingtoasmaller
socialmixinthecityandarelocationoftheproblemstheneighbourhoodwasdealingwith
(Meershoek,2015).
Ifthegovernmentwantstokeepusinggentrificationasawaytorevitalisedisadvantaged
neighbourhoodsinthecity,itwillhavetofindawaytomeettheneedsofboththemiddle
classnewcomerstothearea,aswellastheindigenousresidentsthatwanttokeepliving
there.Becauseatthispointthegovernmentandthehousingassociationsseemtoaimto
embracemiddleclassfuturesforthecityinsteadofencompassingawidersocialbase
(Atkinson,2004,p108).Thisresearchwilltryandhelpfindawaytodothis,bylookingat
howindigenousresidentsthatkeeplivingintheneighbourhoodwhilegentrificationis
takingplaceexperiencetheneighbourhoodanditschanges.
Furthermoreadistinctionbetweentwotypesofpolicyobtainedbythenationaland/or
localgovernmentofaneighbourhoodcanbemade.Bothtypeshavethemaingoalof
wantingtochangetheimageofthecitybyimprovingtheimageofdisadvantaged
neighbourhoods.However,thefocushowtoachievethisimagechangeisdifferentinthe
policies.Ontheonehandthereisa‘district-oriented’policyandontheotherhanda
residents-orientedpolicy.
Inthedistrict-orientedpolicythegovernmenttriestocreateliveableneighbourhoodsin
moreperipheral,disadvantagedneighbourhoods.Liveablerefersto‘abalanced
neighbourhoodwithalowlevelofcrimeandasizeableshareofmiddle-classhouseholds’
(Leesetal.,2010,p.510).Inordertoachievethis,thegovernmentwantstoluremiddle
classcitizenstotheneighbourhoodsothattheycanhelpinvestintheneighbourhoodand
trytociviliseandcontrolthem(Leesetal.2010).
[2]
Theresident-orientedpolicyalsowantstochangetheimageoftheneighbourhoodby
attractingthemiddleclasstoit.This,however,istheonlythingthegovernmentwantsto
achieve:aneighbourhoodwherethedistributionofhigh,middleandlowincomesisnot
dominatedbythelowerincomes(vanEijck,2015).‘Rotterdamwouldnotmindthecity
becomingmoreautochthonicandinordertochangetheeconomyinthecity,adifferent
populationisneeded’(vanEngelen,2015).Inordertodothis,thecityinvestsindwellings
andservicesfittothewishesof‘promising’families.Thentheproblemoccursthatthere
willbelesspayablehousesforthelowerincomeclasses.
Scientificrelevance
IntheliteratureongentrificationintheNetherlandsthereismuchwrittenaboutthetwo
maingroupsingentrification,namelythegentrifiersandthedisplacedresidents.Firstis
mentionedhowgreatgentrificationisforthecitiesandtheneighbourhoods;thesocial
compositionchanges,whichleadstobettereconomicsfortheneighbourhoodandgivesita
betterimage.Afterthatittellshowgentrificationdoesnottakeintoaccountthelowerclass
residentsintheneighbourhoodsandhowtheyaremostlydisplacedinthelongrun,tomake
roomfornewmiddleclassresidents.Displacingtheneighbourhoodproblems,together
withtheindigenousresidents(Markus,2016).
However,whatisnotraisedtoattentionishowdifferentindigenousresidentswhodostay
intheneighbourhood,andtogetherwiththenewmiddleclassresidentsexperiencethe
gentrification.Thisshouldbeofimportancebecauseofthepositivegentrificationpolicy
obtainedintheNetherlands.Thisthesisaimstoclosethisgapofknowledgebylookingat
howtheseresidents‘inbetween’experiencethechangesmadeintheirneighbourhooddue
togentrificationandhowthegovernmentplaysaroleinthis.Thecasesthataretherefore
usedaretwoneighbourhoodsintheNetherlands,morespecificallyinRotterdam.
Societalrelevance
Theone-sidedpointofviewongentrificationaffectsthegentrifyingneighbourhood
residentsandthedisplacedresidents,leavingoutthe‘inbetween’residents.These
residentsareabletostayintheneighbourhoodbecauseofthegreatnumberofsocial
housingintheNetherlands(Akse,2011).Theone-sidedviewhoweverleavesoutthose
residents.Withthisresearchtheexperiencesofthoseresidentsarelookedatandtakeninto
account.Asaconsequence,theresearchtriestoinformthemunicipalitiesbetteronhow
peopleexperiencetheneighbourhoodwhilenotbeingthemaintargetgroupofthepolicy
obtained.Theobtainedpolicycanthusbeadaptedtothesereasonsifnecessaryandmight
havepositiveconsequencesfortheresearchedgroup.
[3]
1.2ResearchObjective
Inthisparagraphtheresearchobjectiveandresearchmodelwillbegivenandexplainedin
ordertogiveinsightonwhattheresearchaimstodo.Theresearchobjectivecanbeputas
follows:
Togiveinsighttohow‘inbetween’residentsoftheneighbourhoodsMiddellandand
KatendrechtinRotterdamandothersimilarplacesintheworldexperiencetheneighbourhood
whilegentrificationistakingplaceandhowgovernmentalpolicyhasaninfluenceonthese
experiences.
Thefirstgoalistodescribetheinfluencethatpolicyhasonhowthe‘inbetween’residents
experiencelivinginagentrifyingneighbourhood.ThetwoneighbourhoodsinRotterdam,
KatendrechtandMiddellandrepresentthepositivestate-ledgentrificationnamelywith
district-orientedandresident-orientedgentrificationpolicy,respectively.Furthermore,
thesetwocaseswillcriticallyexaminetheliteratureonchangesmadeintheneighbourhood
bygentrificationandhowthesecanbeexperienced.Thereby,makingitrepresentativefor
morecasessimilartothoseusedintherelevantliteratureandtheresearchitself(Plyvbjerg,
2006).
PositiveState-Led
Gentrification
Operationalisation
Impactson
Neighbourhood
Interview
Questions
DataCollection
PreliminaryResearch
CurrentPolicy
DataAnalysis
Figure1ResearchModel
Intheresearchmodelabove(Figure1)theoverallstructureofthisresearchisshown.
Firstly,aliteraturestudywillbedoneontworelevanttheoriesnamely,state-led
gentrificationandimpactsthatgentrificationhasonagentrifyingneighbourhood.This
state-ledgentrification,especiallyintheNetherlands,ispositiveorsmartgentrification,
whichisthesecondtheorythatwillbeusedinthisresearch(inthemodelthisisshownas
one).Themaingoalofsmartgentrificationistomakethearealiveableandprovidingitwith
socialmixingsothatallresidentsbenefitfromtheprocess(Lees,2008).
[4]
Atthesametimeapreliminaryresearchwilltakeplace.Inthisresearchthedifferenttypes
ofpolicywillbeanalysedandthefeaturesdiscussed.Nexttothat,thisthesiswilllookat
differentimpactsthatgentrificationcanhaveonaneighbourhood.Threecategoriesof
impactswillbediscussedandresearchedinthecasestudytolookathowresidents
experiencethechangesthatgentrificationbringstotheneighbourhood.
Bymeansoftheliteraturestudydifferentconceptsneededforthisresearchwillbe
operationalised,basedontheseconceptsinterviewquestionswillbecomposedandput
togetherinaninterview.Theinterviewsenabledatacollectionthroughcasestudiesinthe
twoneighbourhoods.Thereaftertheinformationobtainedwillbeanalysedtogetherwith
theinformationobtainedoutofthepreliminaryresearch.Inthiswaytheresearchwillwork
towardsreachingtheresearchobjectiveandtoansweringtheresearchquestions.
1.3ResearchQuestion
Inthisparagraphthemainquestionforthisresearchispresented.Furthermore,thesub
questionswillbeexplainedinordertohelpanswerthecentralquestionintheconclusionin
chapter6.Thecentralquestionforthisthesisisasfollows:
“Howdothe‘inbetween’residentsoftheneighbourhoodsMiddellandandKatendrecht
experiencethechangestakingplaceinthegentrifyingneighbourhoodsanddoesthepolicy
obtainedhaveaninfluenceontheseexperiences?”
The‘inbetween’residentsinthequestionintendonpeoplewhohavebeenlivinginthe
neighbourhoodforovereightyears.Inordertoanswerthiscentralquestion,asetofsub
questionsisformedtohelpcometoaconclusion:
-
Whatarethechangesthatthe‘inbetween’residentshaveexperiencedinthelast8
years?
Howdothe‘inbetween’residentsexperiencethegovernmentalinterventioninthe
neighbourhood?
Beforebeingabletoinvestigatehowtheresidentsinaneighbourhoodexperiencecertain
changesinthatneighbourhood,thereneedstobeinvestigatediftheresidentsseechanges
happening.Thechangescanbeonasocial,physicaloreconomical.Themovinginofthe
newresidentscanhaveaninfluenceonthesethreetopicsandcanchangethewaythe‘in
between’residentsfeelaboutthechangesintheneighbourhood.Finally,theimpactof
governmentalinterventioncanalsohaveaninfluenceonhowtheresidentsexperiencethe
changes,butalsoonwhatchangesaremade.
Followingtothisintroductorychapter,thetheory,methodology,resultsandconclusions
andrecommendationswillbediscussed.Firstly,inthetheoreticalframeworkdifferent
relevanttheorieswillbeelaboratedleadingtotheconceptualmodelofthisresearch.
Thereafterthemethodologyforthisresearchwillbediscussedexplaininghowthedatawill
becollected.Thirdlythedatawillbeanalysedleadingtoconclusionsandrecommendations
forthissubject.
[5]
2.TheoreticalFramework
Thischapteraimstogiveaninsightonthethreemostimportanttheoriesforthisresearch.
Thestate-ledgentrificationthatismostlyobtainedinTheNetherlandswillbeexplained
leadingtopositivegentrificationasagovernmentalstrategy.Afterthattheconsequencesof
gentrificationforthreesubjectswillbeelaborated.
2.1StateledGentrification
Gentrificationcanbeinducedintwoways:market-ledandstate-led.Market-led
gentrificationismostlyfoundintheUnitedStates,yetnotsomuchinEurope.Especiallyin
theNetherlandsstate-ledgentrificationisquiteoftenusedinprojectstoupgrade
disadvantagedneighbourhoods(Uitermarketal.2007).Thestatemakesplanswith
differenthousingassociationsandprivatedeveloperstoinvestinthosedisadvantaged
neighbourhoodsbecauseofthelowrentinthoseareas.Themaingoalofthaturban
restructuringisto‘improveeconomicappeal’aswellasthe‘liveability’ofdesignated
neighbourhoods(Leesetal.2010p.510).Thestateandthehousingassociationsare
consideringthisstate-ledgentrificationtobetheonlysolutionfortheurbanproblemsthat
citiesintheNetherlandsarestrugglingwith(Uitermarketal.,2007).
WhenlookingatdifferentdefinitionsofgentrificationUitermarketal.(2007)cametothe
conclusionthatgentrificationisnotonlyfocussingonhowareasinacitychange.Itisalso
involvingissuessuchasofficedevelopment,retailenvironment,citymarketingetc.When
adoptingthefollowingdefinition:“gentrificationisaprocessofinvolvingachangeinthe
populationofland-userssuchthatthenewusersareofahighersocio-economicstatusthan
theprevioususers,togetherwithanassociatedchangeinthebuiltenvironmentthrougha
reinvestmentinfixedcapital”(Clark,2005,p.258).Uitermarketal.(2007)translatethis
intousingstate-ledgentrificationasawaytopromotecertaindisadvantaged
neighbourhoodstopeopleofthemiddleclassandwantingthemtomovetothoseareasto
helpchangetheimage.EspeciallyintheNetherlandsthisisapplicable,becauseofthehigh
socialhousingnumberinvariousDutchareas.
Thiswayofthegovernment‘leading’theprocessofgentrificationcanhavetwodifferent
outcomes.ThefirstwouldbeasPacione(2009)statesinhisdefinitiontoleadto
displacementofthelowerclassresidentsthatliveintheareabeforegentrificationtakes
place.Thishappenswhenthereisalackofinterestinthoseresidentsandonlywantingthe
citytochangeitsimageandlureinthemiddleclass.NexttoPacione,manyresearchersuse
thisdisplacementasawaytodefinegentrification(Leesetal.,2010).
ThesecondoutcomeistochangetheimageofaneighbourhoodbymakingitliveableThis
meanscreating‘abalancedneighbourhoodwithalowlevelofcrimeandasizeableshareof
middle-classhouseholds’(Leesetal.,2010,p.510),thuscivilisingandcontrollingthe
neighbourhoods(Uitermarketal.,2007).
[6]
However,accordingtoGeurtz(2007)theinfluenceofatop-downgovernmentalpolicyis
noteasilymadeintheprocess.Whenagovernmentwantstomakepolicyinorderto‘deal
with’gentrificationinacertainneighbourhood,ithastofocusontwodifferentaspectsof
theprocess,namelyacontent-basedandaprocess-orientedpartofgentrification.
Thecontent-basedpartconsistsofapreconditionedpolicywiththemaingoalbeing
gentrificationoftheneighbourhood.Thepreconditionsforstimulatingtheprocessare
equaltoeverythingintheneighbourhoodwhenthegovernmentdecidestostimulate
gentrification.Thereasonbehindthepolicyisastrategy,consciouslyorunconsciously
chosen,withthemaingoalbeinggentrification.Thestrategyisreflectedinthechoiceof
policyinstruments.Anexamplecanbethegovernmentbuyingcheaphouses(resultingfrom
therentgap)andsellingthemtogentrifiersorcorporationsasastimulatingmeasurethatis
alreadychangingthephysicalsituationinthearea(Geurtz,2007).
Theprocess-orientedsideofstate-ledgentrificationcouldnotexistwithoutanetwork.
Geurtz(2007)usesthefollowingdefinitionforanetwork:“Moreorlessstablepatternsof
socialrelationsbetweenmutuallydependentactors,whichformaroundpolicyproblems
and/orclustersofmeansandwhichareformed,maintainedandchangedthroughaseries
ofgames”.Thisdefinitionimpliesthattherearemultipleactorsinvolvedwhichdependon
eachotherandformrelations.Thestructure,thustherelationsinandofthisnetwork
changethroughoutthecourseofactionsimpliedbythepolicy.
Theactorsinthenetworkallhaveadifferentviewontheproblemandthusadifferent
relatedsolutioninmind,whichleadstodifferentinterestsintheprocess.Whenthese
interestsareputtogetherwiththevariousprioritiesoftheactors,adistributionofpoweris
createdandthegameofpolicycanbegin(Geurtz,2007).
2.2Positive/smartgentrification
Neighbourhoodscangentrifywithoutwidespreaddisplacementandthattheprocessprovides
theopportunitytoimprovethequalityoflifeofdeterioratedneighbourhoodsandmix
residentsfromdifferingsocioeconomicstratawithbenefitsforboththeindigenousresidents
andthelargersociety(Davidson,2008,p.2386).
Gentrification,asmanyresearchersdefineitby,leadstodisplacement.Whetherornotthis
isthecasedoesnotstopgovernmentsfromdifferentcountriesfromusingitaspolicyto
decreasesegregationandsocialpolarisationinneighbourhoodsaroundtheworld.This
especiallyhappensintheUnitedStatedofAmericaandinEurope.
Thegoalofthispositivegentrificationpolicyistomakeaneighbourhoodmoresocially
mixed,lesssegregated,moreliveableandasustainablecommunity(Lees,2008).Evenin
thebeginning,whenthefirstneighbourhoodofLondon,BarnsburyinIslington,was
gentrifying,someofthegentrifiersweretalkingaboutthebenefitsforthelessprivileged
peopleandthefactthatbothclassescoulddoeverythingsidebyside,butweresupposedto
livesegregated(Lees,2008).
[7]
Thepresenttrendtowardsarisingproportionofthemiddleclassesinthepopulationwill
continue.Thiswillhelpcreateabettersocialbalanceinthestructureofthecommunity,and
theprofessionalexpertiseofthearticulatefewwillultimatelybenefittheunderprivileged
population(Pitt,1977,p.1).
Buttherearetwosidestothestory.Namely,theanti-gentrificationgroupsweresceptical
abouttheseassumptionsbeingmadeaboutgentrification.Theystatedthattheproofof
socialmixingandtheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofitwerenotyetclearandcouldnot
betakenintoaccountwhentalkingaboutgentrificationyesorno.Someauthorswriting
aboutgentrificationinthattimesharedthesameopinionandwereunsureifsocialmixing
wouldworkasagovernmentalpolicy(Lees,2008).
Theoverallnewdiscussionsaboutgentrificationhowevertendtohaveasmallerconcern
aboutdisplacementandtherelatedinjusticeissuesthatcomewithit(Davidson,2008).
AccordingtoGrabinskyandButler(2015)thisriskofdisplacementisdecreasingand
neighbourhoodshaveabiggerchanceofbecomingmixed,ratherthanhomogenouslypoor
orwealthyi.e.segregated.
Thesedifferentoutcomesofgentrificationdependonthewaygentrificationhappens.
Residentsfromoneneighbourhoodcanexperiencemanypositiveeffectsofgentrification,
whiletheprocesscandirectlyhurtotherpoorresidents.Thepositiveeffectslaymostlyin
theintroductionofnewandbetterservices,thiscanhoweveralsobeexperiencedas
negativeforexamplewhenindigenousresidentscannotaffordthesenewservicesandwant
tokeeptheiroldsupermarkets(Meershoek,2015).
Anotherpositiveeffectcanbetherestorationofbuildingsinthearea.Whenthisstarts
becauseofthecomingofmiddleclasscitizenstherecanbeaspillovereffectthroughoutthe
area(Grabinsky&Butler,2015).
Therearethreedifferentargumentsusedforthegovernmenttosupportsocialmixingin
neighbourhoods(Lees,2008):
1. ‘Defendingtheneighbourhood’:neighbourhoodsinwhichmiddleclasspeoplelive
arestrongeradvocatesbecauseofthebiggersupplyinservicesandpublicresources
2. ‘Money-go-around’:mixedneighbourhoodsareabletosupportastrongerlocal
economythandisadvantagedareas.
3. ‘Networksandcontacts’:bridgingandbondingsocialcapitaltopromotesocial
mixingasthewaytogeneratesocialcohesionandeconomicopportunity.
Themaingoalofpositivegentrificationthusismakingtheneighbourhoodscivilisedand
incorporatedintothemainsocietysothattheareaisafairplayerinthatsociety(Davidson,
2008).Policyforintroducingsocialmixinginneighbourhoods,seekingasolutionforthe
segregationincertainareasbydeconcentratingpoorresidentsbyluringinthemiddleclass
inthoseneighbourhoods.This‘smellslikegentrification’accordingtoDavidson(2008),he,
however,triestopointoutthatthesestate-ledinitiativesdifferfromclassicalgentrification
andcomewithpossiblebenefitsfortheindigenousresidents.
Ifthissocialmixingisindeedthesolutiontomakeneighbourhoodsliveable,thenthe
governmentneedstocreateapolicythatmakessurethatthepoorerresidentscanstayin
[8]
thearea.AnexampleintheUnitedKingdomshowsthatthegovernmenttookgood
measuresbypromotingabrownfielddevelopment,whichactuallychangedthecomposition
ofresidentsoftheneighbourhood.Localandnationalgovernments‘pursuedlow-income
housingthroughaffordablehousingrequirementsdemandingthatbetween25percentand
50percentofallunitswithinnewdevelopmentsbebelowmarketcosts’(Davidson,2008,p
2388).
Inthiswaythegovernmentcoulddevelopforboththelower-incomeclassesandthemiddle
classandbothresidentgroupscouldbenefitfromthedevelopmentsthatthecomingofthe
middleclassbroughttotheneighbourhood.Inorderforthistohappen,itisimportantfor
thisresearchtolookattheconsequencesofgentrificationonaneighbourhood.
2.3Effectofgentrificationontheneighbourhood
Asseeninthedifferentdefinitionsofgentrificationgivenpreviously,theviewof
gentrificationisdifferentfordifferentstakeholders.Somedefinetheprocessassomething
positivefortheneighbourhood,whileothersdefineitbythenegativeimpactssuchas
displacement.Positiveeffectsaremostlydealingwithbettereconomicstateforanda
revitalisationoftheneighbourhood.Negativeeffectsaremostlyforthepeoplewhodonot
benefitfromtheprocessandwhoarebeingdisplacedbyitwithouthavingfurthersocietal
gainofit(Atkinson,2002).Ingeneralpoliticsthisdivisionisalsoseenbetweenontheone
handtheliberalsandontheotherhandtheleftparties,respectively(Atkinson,2002).
AsummaryofthemainpositiveandnegativeimpactsisgivenintheTable1below.Note
thatthesearethegeneralimpactsandthesecandifferperstakeholder,meaningfor
examplethatanincreaseinhousingpricesforonepartycanbeverynegative(e.g.
residents)andforanotherpartyasverypositive(e.g.houseowners)(Atkinson,2002&
Lang,1982)
[9]
Positive
Negative
Displacementthroughrent/priceincreases
Secondarypsychologicalcostsof
displacement
Stabilisationofdecliningareas
Communityresentmentandconflict
Increasedpropertyvalues
Lossofaffordablehousing
Unsustainablespeculativepropertyprice
increases
Homelessness
Reducedvacancyrates
Increasedlocalfiscalrevenues
Greatertakeoflocalspendingthrough
lobbying/articulacy
Encouragementsandincreasedviabilityof
furtherdevelopment
Commercial/industrialdisplacement
Reductionofsuburbansprawl
Increasedcostandchangestolocalservices
Displacementandhousingdemand
pressuresonsurroundingpoorareas
Increasedsocialmix
Lossofdiversity(fromsociallydisparateto
richghettos)
Decreasedcrime
Increasedcrime
Rehabilitationofpropertybothwithand
withoutstatesponsorship
Under-occupancyandpopulationlossto
gentrifiedareas
Evenifgentrificationisaproblemitissmall
comparedtotheissueof:
Gentrificationhasbeenadestructiveand
divisiveprocessthathasbeenaidedby
capitaldisinvestmenttothedetrimentof
poorergroupsincities
- Urbandecline
- Abandonmentofinnercities
Housing
Facilitiesandservices
Socialnetworks/cohesionandPlaceattachment
[10]
Table1PositiveandNegativeEffectsof
Gentrification(Atkinson,2002)
2.4.1HousingandDisplacement
Inthetableabovemanynegativeeffectsonhousingasaconsequenceofgentrificationare
summedup.Therearemanynegativeeffectsinthetable,butthesearesomewhat
compensatedbythepositiveeffectsthatarealsostronglyrepresented.Forthethree
differentgroups(i.e.thegentrifiers,thedisplacedresidentsandthe‘inbetween’residents)
thisisnotalwaysthecase.Theeffectsaffectthegroupsdifferently(Atkinson,2002).
Displacementinmostliteratureandresearchisconsideredasignificantnegativeeffectof
gentrification(Atkinson,2002).Furthermore,itisoneofthemostdiscussedtopicsin
researchongentrification(Atkinson,2002&Doucet,2009).Doucet(2009)defines
displacementaslowerincomepopulationsbeingremovedfromtheirhomes.
Displacementisanegativeimpactforthedisplacedresidentsortheresidentswhofaceor
feardisplacement.Anegativefeelingtowardsdisplacementnamelyisnotonlya
consequenceofactualdisplacement.Manylowerincomeresidentsseeanincreaseinrental
costsasaninevitableconsequenceofgentrificationandareinthatwaysortofwaitingforit
tohappenandasaconsequencetobedisplacedeventually.Besidesthat,storiesfrom
friends,neighboursorpeopleinasimilarsituationasthem,whohavebeendisplacedcan
alsoinfluencethewaypeoplefeeltowardsdisplacement.Athirdtriggercanbethemedia,
especiallylocalmediasuchasneighbourhoodnewspapersthatreportthenegative
consequencesfortheirresidentsinordertogiveanhonestviewofthesituation(Doucet,
2009).
Positivesidesofthehousingsituationduringgentrificationcanbeforpropertyowners.Ifa
residentownsthehousehe/shelivesin,thishousealsoincreasesinvalue,whichispositive
fortheowner.Thishoweverisnotpositiveforallbecauseofthefactthatthelower-income
residentswhodonotownahousearestilllosing.Inthiswaythegapbetweenrichandpoor
intheneighbourhoodstillremainsorevenbecomesworse(Doucet,2009).
Anothergroupthatisnotnecessarilylosingfromtheincreasedhousingpricesisthegroup
ofpeoplethatlivesinsocialhousing(Doucet,2009).Thispricecannotincreasedrastically
(Rijksoverheid,2016)andsothoseresidentsare‘protected’fromincreasinghousingprices.
Anothereffectofchangesinhousingisgeneratedbystudentificationinaneighbourhood
whereincollegeoruniversitystudentsareconsideredtobe‘apprenticegentrifiers’(Lees,
2010).Studentsincreasinglyprefertoliveoffcampusinsharedrentalhousinginthecity
wheretheiruniversityislocated.Whenstudentsmoveintoaneighbourhood,theiraesthetic
andculturalcapitalthattheybringintotheneighbourhoodmightalsotriggerincreasein
housingprices(Hubbard,2009).Thisintroductionofcapitalcanalsocreatesocialand
physicalupliftintheneighbourhood(Hubbard,2009).
Furthermore,thestudentsthatliveintheneighbourhoodhaveotherinfluence.Firstlythey
canbeconsideredas‘gentrifiers-to-be’whentheyfinishtheirstudies.Secondly,becauseof
thearrivalofthosestudentsintheneighbourhood,thesocialmixischangingaswell.This
mightleadtotensionamongtheoriginalresidents,whichcouldleadtoadecreaseinsocial
[11]
cohesionintheneighbourhood.Whensocialcohesiondecreases,peoplemightnolonger
feelathomeintheplacetheyliveofwhichanout-migrationorreplacementmightbea
consequence(Akse,2011&Hubbard,2009).
Thelastmainpositiveimpactofgentrificationonaneighbourhoodcanbetherehabilitation
ofdwellingswithorwithoutsponsorshipofthegovernment.Therenewalofthe
neighbourhoodismostlydonebythegentrifiersthemselves(Atksinson,2002).Thiscan
leadtootherresidentscopyingthegoodbehaviouronthelong-term,leadingtooverall
benefitsforeverybodyintheneighbourhoodandfortheneighbourhooditself(Akse,2011).
2.4.2Facilitiesandservices
“Gentrificationhasthepowertobringaboutadistinctchangetothecharacterofa
neighbourhood,turningitfromadecaying,run-downworking-classarea,toatrendy,
prosperousmiddle-classneighbourhoodinaveryshorttime”(Doucet,2009).
Intable1shownabove,theimpactsofgentrificationonfacilitiesandservicesareshown
(Atkinson,2002).ThereareonlytwoimpactsaccordingtoAtkinson(2002)andtheseare
negative,namelycommercialandindustrialdisplacementandincreasedcostsandchanges
tolocalservices.Thefirsteffectisclearlyvisibleintheneighbourhood;shopsandservices
arebeingreplacedbyother,morehipvariants.Thesecondeffectislessdirectlyvisible,but
hasagreateffectontheresidents(Atkinson,2000&Akse,2011).
Doucet(2009)howeverarguesthattherearetwodominantviewpointswhenlookingat
changesinfacilitiesandservicesinthegentrifyingneighbourhood.Hestatesthatontheone
handthehigher-incomeclassi.e.thegentrifiersaretheonlygroupbenefitingfromthe
changesandthatontheotherhandthelower-incomeresidentsareagaintheonessuffering.
Thenewservices,shopsandamenitiesarecreatedforthehigh-incomeresidents,whichcan
leadtogreaterpolarisationsintheneighbourhood.Thiscanevencausespatialsegregation
bycreationoftwoseparateretaildistrictsintheneighbourhood.Onemeantfortheoriginal,
poorerresidentswithaffordableproductsandtheotherforthegentrifyingresidents
(Doucet,2009).Thiscommunitypolarisationandthepossiblespatialsegregationcancause
peopletofeelcertainresentmenttowardsthegentrifiers‘invading’theirneighbourhood
(Atkinson,2000).
Ontheotherhand,Doucet(2009)statesthatchangingretailcanbeinclusiveandsomething
allresidentscanbenefitfrom.Fromthispointofviewpoorneighbourhoodsareoftenseen
as‘fooddeserts’meaningthatinthoseneighbourhoodsaccesstohealthyand/orfreshfood
islimited.Besidesthat,theylackbasicretailfacilities.Ifsuchaneighbourhoodwastobe
gentrified,thesebasicneedswouldbeintroducedtotheresidentsandeveryresidentwould
thusbenefitfromit(Doucet,2009).Apartfromthat,thenewserviceswouldcreatenewjob
opportunitiesforthelocalresidents.
Doucet(2009)alsohighlightsthecritiquemadetothispositivity.Thecritiqueincludesthat
notallneighbourhoodsthataregoingthroughtheprocessofgentrificationhavesucha
disinvestmenttothemandactuallydohavemostbasicfacilitiesandservicesbefore
[12]
gentrificationtookplace.Apartfromthathenamesthechancethatthenewfacilitiesand
servicesmightnotbepositivewhentheygobeyondthefinancialmeansandthedifferent
tastesandpreferencesofthelocalresidents.
2.4.3Socialnetworks/cohesionandInteraction
Againtable1showsbothpositiveaswellasthenegativeeffectsofgentrificationina
neighbourhoodintermsofsocialcohesionandplaceattachment.Remarkableisthatthere
arefewerpositiveeffectscomparedtonegative.Apartfromthatthepositiveeffects
‘increasedsocialmix’and‘decreasedcrime’haveacontradictorynegativeeffect(Atkinson,
2002).
Firstly,thesetwocontradictoryresultswillbediscussed.Thelevelofcrimecanontheone
handincreaseandontheotherdecrease.Someresearchresultsshowthatcrimerate
decreasesoverall;becauseofdisplacementoflower-incomeresidentsthecrimeisdisplaced
withit.However,crimecanalsoincreasebycrimerateschangingindifferentcategories.
Forexample,burglariescanincreasebecauseofthegreaterprevalenceofaffluent
households(Atkinson,2002).
Theothereffectofincreasedsocialmixontheonehandandlossofsocialdiversityonthe
otherisnotfullyexplainedintheAtkinsonpaper.Assumedwhatismeantisthatontheone
handdifferentpeopleareattractedtotheneighbourhood,whichleadstoanincreasein
socialmix.Onthelong-termmostlower-incomeclassresidentswillbemovingawayfrom
theneighbourhoodandthemainresidentgroupwillbeshiftedtowardsmiddletohigh
incomeresidents,leavingthesocialmixchangedbutnotincreasedperse.
Doucet(2009)alsotalksabouttheconsequencesonsocialcohesionandinteractionof
gentrification.Heoutlinesthreeimportantelementsofsocialcohesion,namelybeingsocial
networks,valuesandnormsandplaceattachment.Effectsonthispartofgentrificationare
consideredtobemostlynegative,especiallyfortheoriginalresidentsofaneighbourhood.
Reasonforthenegativityisthatnormallyinalower-incomeclasscommunitythesocial
cohesionisveryhigh.Whengentrificationinvadessuchacommunitythe‘tiesare
weakened’andthosewho‘survive’displacementpressuresandstayintheneighbourhood
arestayinginaneighbourhoodwheretogetherwiththeotherresidents,thestrongfeeling
ofcommunityisdisplacedaswell(Doucet,2009).
Thefeelingofresentment,previouslymentionedasaconsequenceofchangingfacilitiesand
services,canbereinforcedbythedifferentvaluesthatgentrifiershavecomparedtothe
originalresidents.Differentviewsofhowtolivelifeorhowtobehaveincertainsituations
canleadtostrongertensionbetweenthedifferentresidentgroups(Doucet,2009).
Finally,placeattachmentcanalsobechangedwhentheprocessofgentrificationis
introducedinaneighbourhood.Doucet(2009)statesthatthishappenswhendifferent
groupsofpeoplehavedifferentideasofwhattheneighbourhoodshouldlookandfeellikein
thefuture.Spain(1993)conductedaresearchinPhiladelphiainwhichhesays“[…]conflicts
arosebetweenlocalresidentsandgentrifiersovertheideaofwhattheneighbourhood
[13]
shouldfeellike.Thelocalresidentsfeltthattheyhadcreatedtheneighbourhoodcharacter
thatwasattractingaffluentresidents,yettheynowfelttheircommunitywasbecominga
playgroundfortherich”.
2.4Conceptualmodel
Impactson
neighbourhood
State-Led
Gentrification
Positive
Gentrification
Experiencing
Neighbourhood
PolicyObatained
Figure2ConceptualModel
Infigure2above,theconceptualmodelforthisresearchcanbefound.Theconceptsusedin
thismodelarebasedonthetheoriesexplainedinthefirstthreeparagraphsofchaptertwo.
Thetwomainconceptsarethepolicyobtainedandtheimpactsontheneighbourhood.The
policyobtainedcanbedefinedasstate-ledgentrification.Thisformofgentrificationcanbe
specifiedintopositivegentrification.Thesecondmainconceptistheimpactsof
gentrificationontheneighbourhood.Inthetheorythisissubdividedintothreecategories,
namelyhousing,facilitiesandservicesandsocialcohesion/networkintheneighbourhood.
Theimpactsontheneighbourhoodandthepolicyobtainedintheneighbourhoodleadtoa
wayofexperiencingthechangesintheneighbourhood.
[14]
3.Methods
Afterspecifyingthemainquestionandhowthetheorygivesabackgroundontheresearch
objective,theresearchcontinueswiththemethodology.Inwhatwaywilltherelationsin
theconceptualmodelbetranslatedinthefieldofresearch?Thischapterwillexplainthe
methodsforbothdatacollectionanddataanalysis.Furthermore,theresearchstrategyand
theresearchdesignwillbediscussed.
3.1ResearchStrategy
Asthefirstchapteralreadymentions,thisresearchwilllookathowdifferent‘inbetween’
residentsexperiencethechangesduetogentrificationintwoDutchneighbourhoods.‘In
betweenresidents’forthisresearcharedefinedasbeingresidentswhohavelivedinthe
neighbourhoodforovereightyears.Thisisbecausethoseresidentshaveexperiencedthe
neighbourhoodbeforegentrificationstartedandweretheretowitnessthechanges.
Becauseexperiencingsomethingissociallydifferentiatedandbecauseofgentrification
beingsomethingthataffectspeopleverydifferently,aqualitativeresearchmethodis
chosentobemostadequateforthisresearch.Thegoaloftheresearchthereforeistocreate
acomprehensiveandprofoundinsightintooneormoretimeandspacerestrictedobjectsor
processed(Verschuren&Doorewaard,2007).
Becauseofthereasonsandgoalaboveandthattwoneighbourhoodswillbecomparedto
eachother,amultiple,comparativecase-studyismade.Acase-studyistheanalysisofa
relativelysmallamountofcasesinanopenobservationonthechosenlocation(Verschuren
&Doorewaard,2010).Thedifferencebetweenasinglecasestudyandacomparativeoneis
thatnotoneseparatecaseislookedat,butmultiplecasesarestudiedinmutualcomparison.
Morespecificallyahierarchicalcomparativecasestudyisdone.Thismeansthatinthefirst
placethetwocaseswerestudiedseparatelyfromeachother.Later,whenalldatawas
collected,thecaseswerebroughttogetherandwerecomparedtoeachother.Theinsight
foundinthecase-studiesareexplainedandcomparedtoeachother.Eventuallythe
comparisonledtoawell-structuredandprofoundoverallviewofthecases(Verschuren&
Doorewaard,2007).
Thecasesthatarechosenforthiscomparativecasestudyareinstrumentalcases.Theyare
chosenaccordingtomaximalvariationtotheresearchsubject(Verschuren&Doorewaard,
2007).Thetwoneighbourhoodsareselectedinordertounderstandabroaderproblem,
namelytheinfluenceofapolicyontheexperienceofchangesstayinginacertain
neighbourhood(Cresswel,2012).Thetwoneighbourhoodsaretwoperfectexamplesofthe
problemthisresearchlooksat.Apartfromthat,thecasescanbewellcomparedtoeach
other.
[15]
3.2 Case Selection
Despitethebigdifferencesbetweenthetwocities,RotterdamisfollowingAmsterdaminits
footstepswhenitcomestogentrification.InAmsterdamgentrificationhasbeentaking
placethelastcoupleofyearsandhastransformedthecityintoacityforthemiddleclass.It
isnowRotterdam’sturntobegentrified.Thecityisfound‘cool’andhastheimageofnew,
industrialandraw,notas‘raked’asAmsterdam(vanEngelen,2015).
Theimageischangingthroughoutthewholecity.Inalmosteveryoldneighbourhoodof
Rotterdamgentrificationistakingplace,inagreaterorlesserextent.Peopledonotonly
wanttoliveinthecity,peoplealsowanttovisitthecityaccordingtotheincreasingnumber
oftourist.Furthermorebecauseoftheimage-changecompanieswanttoinvestoreven
establishinthecity.SotheimageproblemthatRotterdamusedtosufferfromis
disappearingasmoregentrificationisappearing(vanEngelen,2015).
ForthisresearchtwoofthoseoldneighbourhoodsinRotterdamwillbeusedascasesto
collectdata.ThetwoneighbourhoodsareMiddellandandKatendrecht.Thesetwoare
chosenbecauseofthestate-ledpositivegentrificationpolicyobtainedforthetwoareas.In
Middellandthepolicyismorefocusedonchangingthecompositionoftheresidentsrather
thanchangingtheneighbourhoodforallresidents.Themaingoalistoattractmiddleclass
citizenssothattheneighbourhoodbecomesmoreattractiveforthistargetgroup.In
Katendrechtthegovernmentalsowantstoattractthemiddleclass.However,theydothisin
ordertochangetheimageandthesituationofandintheneighbourhoodandtomakeit
moreliveable.Inbothneighbourhoodswillbelookedathow‘inbetween’residents
experiencethechangesthatcomewithgentrificationintheneighbourhood.
Furtherandmoredetailedcasedescriptioncanbefoundinthenextchapter.
3.3MethodsofDataCollection
Acasestudywantstogivea‘comprehensiveandprofoundinsight’(Verschuren&
Doorewaard,2007)toaproblem,inordertodothatmanymethodsofdatacollectioncanbe
obtained.Theuseofmultiplemethodsisevenencouragedtobeabletogivethemost
profoundconclusionaspossible.Theuseofmultiplemethodsiscalled‘method
triangulation’(Verschuren&Doorewaard,2007).Apartfromthat‘sourcetriangulation’is
alsorecommendedinacasestudy,meaningthatlookingatdifferentsourcescollectsthe
data.Thusacomprehensiveandprofoundinsightiscreated.
Forthisresearchthreedifferentwaysofdatacollectionarechosen,namelyaliterature
study,adocumentstudyandinterviewing.Theseareexplainedandappliedinthenext
paragraphs.
[16]
3.3.1Literaturestudy
Studyingliteratureisnotaformofdatacollectionperse.Itconsistsmostlyoftheoretical
insightsandhenceisbetterlookedatasasourceofknowledge.Thetheoretical
interpretationscanleadtoaresearchquestionandinthiswaybethebaseofthewhole
research.
Inthisresearchliteraturerelevanttothetopicofgentrificationwaslookedforandis
criticallyanalysed.Differentconceptsasaconsequencerolledoutoftheliteratureandwere
usedtocreateaconceptualmodelfittotheresearchfoundinparagraph2.5,revealingthe
mainconceptsthatwereinvestigated.Theseconceptswereoperationalisedandthusturned
intoindicators,whichwerelateronusedtoformtheinterviewquestions.
3.3.2DocumentStudy
Withinacasestudyitisimportantthattheresearchtakesplaceinits‘naturalenvironment’
(Verschuren&Doorewaard,2007).Inordertodosodatacollectionshouldoccuron
locationoftheinvestigatedcases.Consequently,documentsoftheparticularlocationthatis
researchedarelookedat.
Documentsinfacthaveaclearaddressingwhichmakesiteasytofindadocumentlinkedto
thecase.Incaseofpolicydocuments,theseareoftenlinkedtoacertainarea.Forthis
researchfirstlythemainpolicydocumentsongentrificationforRotterdamwerelookedat.
Formorespecificationforthetwoseparateneighbourhoods,documentsonthetwomain
projectsrunningareused.Theseprojectsemanatefromthegovernmentalstrategyfor
gentrification.
Whatislookedatspecificallyinthedocumentswerethemeasurestakenforthewhole
neighbourhoodandforthe‘inbetween’residentsspecifically,ifmentioned.Thosemeasures
havinganinfluenceontheexperienceofthoseresidents,wasthehypothesisinthis
research.Inordertocomplementthefindingsinthedocuments,interviewswereheldwith
theresidents,moreonthatinthenextparagraph.
3.3.3Interviews
Forgatheringfurtherinformationonwhyresidentschoosetostayandonthepolicy,
interviewswereheld.Theinterviewswereheldwithrespondents,meaningpeoplewho
giveinformationaboutthemselves,beingthemainsourceofdata(Verschuren&
Doorewaard,2007).Thischapterdescribesthismethodinamoredetailedway.
Respondents
[17]
Therespondentsforthisresearchpreferablywereresidentsofsocialhousinginthe
neighbourhoods.InMiddellandcontactingthisgroupwasquitedifficult,thatiswhytwo
respondentswereresidentslivinginamixedbuilding,butwhothemselvesdonotlivein
socialhousing.Furthermore,allrespondentshadtoliveintheneighbourhoodforovereight
yearsalready.Inthiswaytheresearcherwassurethattherespondentshaveexperienced
theneighbourhoodbeforethechangestookplace.
Therespondentswerefoundindifferentways.Thesearchstartedoutbycontacting
differentcommunitycentresintheneighbourhoodstoaskforfurtherhelp.Afterbeing
referredtodifferentpeopleseveraltimes,onecontactadvisedtogomeetpeopleonthe
streets,thisledtothefirsttwointerviewsinMiddelland,whichledtotwomore,thesewere
contactswhomettheconditions.TherespondentsonKatendrechteventuallywerefound
viacontactsandreferralsonFacebook,togetherwithavisittothecommunitycentre.
Eventuallyatotalof4respondentsinbothneighbourhoodswasreached.
Therespondentswereaskeddifferentrelevantquestions.Allquestionsconcernedthe
changestakingplaceintheneighbourhoodandhowtherespondentsexperiencedthese
changes.Thequestionswerepreparedbeforetheinterviewstookplace.Theprepared
interviewguidecanbefoundinappendixIofthisthesis.Differentopinionsandinterests
cameout,helpingtheresearchtomoveforward(Verschuren&Doorewaard).
Interviews
Becauseofthechoiceforqualitativemethods,theinterviewsthatareheldwereindepth
interviews.Theseinterviewsweresemi-structuredinterviewsinordertoleaveroomtobe
abletogodeeperinoncertainsubjectsoranswers.Theinterviewguide(seeappendixI)is
basedontheindicatorsthatcameforthoutoftheliteraturestudyinchapter2.The
subdivisionofthethreemaintopicswasalreadymadethere.Perindicatoraminimumof
onequestionwasprepared,leavingroomfordeepening,inordertoenhancereliabilityof
thedata.Thatiswhythequestionswerestructuredandposedinordertobedebatable
duringtheinterview(Verschuren&Doorewaard,2007).Throughthesequestionsinsight
onthechangesandhowtheseareexperiencedwasgained.
Duringtheinterview,theinterviewerkeptinmindallindicators,sothattheywouldallbe
discussedthoroughly.Thustheinterviewerhadthechancetogetdeeperintointeresting
answerswhilelinkingdifferentindicatorstoeachother.Consequently,noteveryinterview
followedtheexactsamestructure.This‘problem’wassolvedduringtheanalysisofthe
interviews.
Inordertoconceiveagoodanalysis,theinterviewswererecordedorwrittendownifthe
respondentsdidnotwantittoberecorded.Thismadeispossibletothentranscribethe
interviews.Inthiswaynoimportantinformationcouldgomissing.Aftertheinterviews
weretranscribed,thetranscriptswereimportedintoatlas.titobeabletocodethemand
makelinkagesinthedata.
[18]
3.4MethodsofAnalysis
Themethodfordataanalysischosenforthisresearchisgroundedtheory.Groundedtheory
concernsacertainprocessthatparticipantsinthestudyhaveexperienced.Literature
howeverisnotuptodatewiththisphenomenonandthatiswhydevelopmentofatheory
mighthelpexplainthepracticeandprovideaframeworkforfurtherresearch(Cresswell,
2012).Thetheorythusisnotexistentyet,butisgenerated,“grounded”,indatacollected
fromparticipantswhohaveexperiencedtheprocess(Cresswell,2012).
Groundedtheory,inthisway,“goesbeyonddescription”asCresswell(2012)states.Thatis
whatthisresearchneeds.Thereisnotheorythatcanfullyexplaintheprocessriseninthis
research.Therearehowevertheoriesandmodelsthatcanexplainpartsoftheprocess,but
thetheorycomesshortinhow‘inbetween’residentsexperiencethechangesina
gentrifyingneighbourhood.Groundedtheorycanhelptoprovidethisgeneralframework
forabetterunderstandingoftheprocess.
Furthermore,theresearchcomplieswithotherdefiningfeaturesofagroundedtheory.One
beingthatagroundedtheoryanalysisfocusesonaprocessoraction,herebeingthe
experienceofthechangesintheneighbourhood.Apartfromthatthemainformofdata
collectionconsistsofinterviewing.Duringtheseinterviewstheresearcherkeptinmindthe
formerinterviewsandcomparedthedatafromotherparticipantsinordertoalreadyform
ideasonthedevelopingtheory(Cresswell,2012).
Aftereachinterviewtherecordingsweretranscribedandcodedseparatelywhiletheother
interviewsinmind.Thiswasathree-stepprocess,namelystartingwithopencoding,
followedbyaxialcodingandafterthattheselectivecoding.Thesestepsintheoryare
explainedasfollows.Inthephaseofopencodingtheresearcherexaminesthetexts(i.e.
transcripts,documentsandfieldnotes)fordifferentcategories.Thesecanbedividedin
subcategoriesthateachhascertainproperties.Nextistheaxialcoding,heretheresearcher
selectsonecategoryfromtheopencodingtogodeeperintothisphenomenonandgatherall
informationsaidaboutit.Thisinformationisthenorganisedintoafigureorcoding
paradigm,beingthetheoreticalmodel.Inthefinalphaseofselectivecodingtheresearcher
generatespropositionsorstatementsderivedoutofthetheory(Cresswell,2012).
ThecodingforthisresearchisdonebyusingAtlas.ti.Firstopencodingwasdonebygiving
differentcodestodifferentpartsofthefirstinterview,explainingthesubjectofthatpart.
Thefirstfewinterviewsprovidedmanydifferentnewcodes,whichwerealsousedas
feedbackfortheinterviewguideandthenextinterviews.Afteropencoding,thecodeswere
groupedintothephaseofaxialcoding.Thegroupcodesandtheirmembercodesfromthe
opencodingcanbefoundinappendixII.InappendixIIIthenetworkofthosegroupcodes
canbefound.Inthisnetworkthedifferentrelationsbetweenthegroupscodescanbeseen,
withthechangesbeingthecentraltopic.Thenetworkwascreatedafterallinterviewswere
held.Outofthisnetworkthemainconclusionscouldbedrawnpersubjectandberelatedto
oneanother.Thestatementsandconclusionsfromtheinterviewscanbefoundinchapter5.
Theyarestrengthenedbyquotesretrievedfromdifferentinterviews.Thesequotesare
translatedfromDutchtoEnglish,becausetheinterviewswereheldinDutch,themother
[19]
tongueofallrespondents.Afterthatthestageofselectivecodingstarted,wherethelink
withthetheoriesusedinchaptertwowasmade,whichcanbefoundinparagraph5.6.
Thetheorygeneratedfromthisresearchcanbeseenasaframeworkforthemainquestion
ofthisresearch.Ittriestoputallrelevantaspects,ontheobtainedgentrificationpolicyand
experiencesofchangesintheneighbourhood,togetherandformsaframeworkforfurther
research.Apartfromthatthetheoryisbasedontwospecificcasesbutcanforman
explanationtothebroaderrisensubject.
4.Data
4.1Casedescription
ForthisresearchtwocasesareselectedinthecityofRotterdam.Thecasesaretwoseparate
neighbourhoodsthatarechangingbecauseofgentrification.Theseneighbourhoodsare
MiddellandandKatendrecht.Amorespecificdescriptioncanbefoundbelow.
Middelland
MiddellandisaneighbourhoodsituatedinthewestofthecityofRotterdam.Itcouldbe
statedthattheareahastwofaces;thatofthebig,busycityandofanicelivingarea.Thearea
vergesonthecitycentreandhasafewshoppingstreets.Consequently,thebustleofthecity
isstillvisible,especiallyontheshoppingstreetsintheneighbourhood.Whenpassedthese
busystreets,theneighbourhoodgraduallytransformsintoarusticareawithbeautiful
streetsandlanesconnectingthearea(CityportalRotterdam,2016).
GerritdeJonghdesignedthepre-worldwarIneighbourhood.Themaingoalofthearchitect
wastogiveabetteralluretothearea.Thisisreachedthroughthestaticlanesandstreetsin
thearea.ThepartoftheneighbourhoodthatGerritdeJonghdesignedwasparticularly
meantforwealthiercitizens.Anotherpartoftheneighbourhoodthatalreadyexistedbefore
[20]
1900hasmoreandsmallerhouses,meantfortheless-fortunateinhabitantsofthecity
(CityportalRotterdam,2016).
Withits12.000inhabitants,theneighbourhoodhasahighpopulationdensity,alsowhen
comparedtotherestofRotterdam(RuimtelijkEconomischeOntwikkelingRotterdam-West,
2014).Theso-called‘redlifestyle’ispredominantintheneighbourhood,makingthepeople
abitmorefocussedonthemselves.Thearea,however,isverytolerantandflexible
accordingtomanysources.Thiscanbeconfirmedbythebignumberofcitizens’initiatives
(Burgerinitiatieven).Furthermore,theneighbourhoodhasanaveragenumberof
immigrantscomparedtotherestofthecity.Theaverageageisquitelowandtheaverage
incomeisaswell.Thismightbeexplainedbythemultitudeofcreativeclassandstudentsin
thearea(REOR-W,2014).
Figure4MiddellandinRotterdam
(GoogleMaps,2016)
Figure3TwosidesofMiddelland(Own
material)
Katendrecht
ThepeninsulainthesouthofRotterdamiscalledKatendrecht.Itissituatednearthe
Maashaven,NieuweMaasandtheRijnhaven,vergingwiththeAfrikaanderwijk.Notonlythe
populationoftheneighbourhoodisvarying,therearealsomanydifferentkindsof
dwellings,varyingfromhistorichousestomodernnewbuildings.Inthelastcoupleofyears,
theneighbourhoodhasbeenchanging,duetogentrification,transformingitfroma
‘probleemwijk’thatpeopleavoid,tooneofthemostpopularandsafeareasofRotterdam
(CityportalRotterdam,2016).
Katendrechthasgonethroughsomedrastictransformationssincethebeginningofthis
century.Beforethetwoports,MaashavenandRijnhaven,werecreatedinthecity,
[21]
KatendrechtwasasmallpicturesquevillagesouthfromRotterdam.Afterofficiallymakingit
apartofthecityofRotterdam,theareaquicklychangedintoahavenforpartying,violence
andprostitutionsknownas‘DeKaap’(TheCape).Thisischangedbecauseofgovernment
initiativesofdemolishingandbuildingmanybuildings,makingtheneighbourhoodhipand
trendynowadays(CityportalRotterdam,2016).
Theareaonlycounts3.700inhabitants;however,itcanbecalledveryunique.The
compositionismadeupofdifferenttypesofpeople;therearetheoriginalinhabitantsofthe
islandthatalreadylivedtherewhentheneighbourhoodwasnotaspopularasitisnow.
Nexttothat,manydualearnersandyoungfamilieshavebeencomingtotheareaduringthe
lastdecade.Thisvarietyofcitizensvariesevenmorewhenitcomestoethnicityandcultural
background,allmakingtheneighbourhoodavibrantplacetolive(CityportalRotterdam,
2016).
Figure5KatendrechtinRotterdam
(GoogleMaps,2016)
Figure6NewandhipDelipleinon
Katendrecht(Ownmaterial)
4.2Policy
In2007themunicipalgovernmentofRotterdammadea‘stadsvisie’(cityvision)forthe
mainpartsofdevelopmentforthecityuntil2030.Oneofthevisionstheyhaveforthecityis
thatofgentrification.EspeciallyinthenorthofRotterdamthegovernmentreallywantsto
investingentrification.
Themaingoalofthestate-ledgentrificationistomakethecityattractiveasaliving
environmentforhighly-educatedknowledgeworkersandcreativeminds.Theywantto
keepthesundrycommunityinthecityandusethisasanappealtoattractnewresidents.
Theyalsohopebyluringinmoreeducatedpeoplethatthiswillcontributetotheeconomic
powerofthecityandstimulatethefurtherdevelopmentofthecreativeindustry(Gemeente
Rotterdam,2007).
[22]
Inordertoreachthisgoal,thepublicspaceshouldbemanagedproperlyandadjustedtothe
needsofthepotentialnewresidents.InthenorthofRotterdamthisismainlydoneby
tacklingthe‘s-Gravendijkwal,whichisnowanobstructioninthearea.Itcausesnuisancein
termsoftheenvironmentandtheaccessibilityforthepeoplewalkingorbikinginthearea.
Bytacklingthisproblem,thequalityofthepublicspaceshouldincrease(Gemeente
Rotterdam,2007).
Anotherstimulanttoattractmiddleclasscitizensisbyincreasingthenumberofprivate
propertyhousing.Thisisdoneindifferentways.Onewayisby‘penthousing’(Gemeente
Rotterdam,2007),thismeansthatnewpropertyisbuiltonexistingproperty.Inthisway
thespaceavailableintheareaisusedatitsbest.Anotherwayisbydemolishingsocial
housingtomakeplacefornewprivatepropertyhousing.ThegovernmentofRotterdamhas
theplantodemolish20.000socialhousingbuildingstomakeroomformiddleandhigh
incomepeople(Markus,2016).Thisshouldmakethecitymoreattractivefornewresidents.
Infrastructureisalsoanimportantaspectinordertomakecertainareasmoreattractive.
Theareasshouldbeeasilyaccessiblebycarandbyusingpublictransport.Accessibility
namelyisalsooneoftheaspectstomakeanareamoreattractiveforthehighly-educated
potentialresidents(GemeenteRotterdam,2007).
AnothergoalofgentrificationinthecityofRotterdamisattractingstudents.Thecityhasa
universityandacollege,thecityhowever,isnotdefinedasatypical‘studentcity’.The
governmentwantstochangethisbystimulatingstudent-basedactivitiesaroundthe
campus.Theyalsowanttokeepinmindthewishedandpreferencesofthestudentsfor
exampleagoodcateringindustry,culturaleventsandpayableresidences.Thesearenamely
similartothewishesandpreferencesofthemiddleclassresidents(GemeenteRotterdam,
2007).
Middelland
Middellandisworkingonaprojecttogetherwithresidents,localentrepreneursandcivil
servantstoupgradetheneighbourhoodandasocial,safetyandestheticallevel.Inthis
projectitisnotthepolicyplayingthebiggestpart,buttheexperiencesofallparties
involved.Consequently,newandcreativeideasmightcomeforwardandaregivenaplace
toevolve.Allthiscomestogetherintheproject‘Mooi,mooierMiddelland’(Desmet,2016).
Theconceptofco-creationiscentralinthisproject.Co-creationmeansthatresidents,
entrepreneursandthemunicipality,actingascivilservants,strengthenthesocialand
physicalcharacteristicsoftheneighbourhood.Throughstoriesandexperiencesof
motivatedthepartiesinvolved,newideasareseenasopportunitiesfasterthanduringa
‘normal’processofpolicy(Desmet,2016).Theseideashaveledtomanyinitiativesinthe
neighbourhood.
[23]
Thismindmapoftheneighbourhood
Middellandshowsthevariouscitizeninitiatives
createdintheneighbourhood.Theseareall
createdtobringpeopleintheareacloser
togetherandtooffervariousactivitiesand
placestodoso.Eachinitiativehasitsownview
onhowtodothisandwhattooffer.For
example,Oostervantfocusesespeciallyon
exerciseandworkingout,foreverybodyyoung
andold,whileWijkpaleistriestooffermore
creativeactivitiessuchascookingclasses,
woodworkingandaneighbourhoodcinema
(Desmet,2016).
Figure7MindMapMiddelland(Desmet,2016)
Theneighbourhoodhastwosidestoitsstory.Ontheonehandtheneighbourhoodisalive,
manyformalaswellasinformalnetworksworkontheliveabilityandsafetyinthe
neighbourhood.Asalreadymentionedbefore,thevariouscitizeninitiativesofferactivities
andgatheringsinorderfortheresidentstocomeclosertogether.Thesecomefrom‘old’
residents,butalsomorefromnewerresidentsintheneighbourhoodthatwanttousetheir
expertiseandexperiencestobringtoattentiontheshortcomingsandthesuccessesofthe
neighbourhoodaccordingtothemandhowtoworktheseinbenefitfortheneighbourhood
(Desmet,2016).
Ontheotherhand,theneighbourhoodhasa‘raw’and‘vulnerable’sidetoit(Desmet,2016).
Alongsidetheparticipatingresidents,therearealsoresidentsthrowinggarbageonthe
streets,disruptionpeacefromthemanycoffeeshops,drugs,violenceetc.InMiddelland
particularlydrugsandnuisancearethetwoelementsbeingworsethanthecity’saverage.
Peoplehavingtolivewiththisaremostlylessfortunateandarethevulnerablegroupofthe
neighbourhood.LuckilythemoneythatMiddellandhasbeengivenisalsospentonchanging
thispart(Desmet,2016).
Thecausesfortheprojectwereseveralpersistentsafetyproblems,liketheonesdescribed
above.However,safetyregulationisnotthenumberonefocusoftheprogram.Safetywill
followasanaturalconsequenceofallotherinitiativesintheneighbourhood(Desmet,
2016).
Katendrecht
ThemainprojectrunningonKatendrechtis‘KunjijdeKaapaan?’(Canyouhandlethe
Cape?).Thenameoftheprojectreferstothepastoftheneighbourhood,whereprostitutes
andsailorscharacterisedthestreetscape(Markus,2016).Sincegentrificationinthe
neighbourhoodhasbegun,theareabecamemorepopularandtalked-aboutthanever,this
[24]
projectisawayofshowingthattheneighbourhoodisstillaliveandstillhasmany,oldand
new,thingstooffer(OntwikkelingsbedrijfRotterdam,2016).
Theprojectisacollaborationbetweenthemunicipalgovernment,thehousingcooperation
andprojectsdevelopersonKatendrechttogetherwithlocalentrepreneurs,residentsand
otherpeopleinterested.Togethertheymaketheneighbourhoodattractivefornew
residentsandentrepreneurssincelivingandentrepreneurshiparethetwomainthingsto
doonKatendrecht(OntwikkelingsbedrijfRotterdam,2016).
Theprojecthasdifferentgoals.Themembersorganisedifferentactivitiessuchaslifemusic,
festivalsandstreettheatresduringtheyear.Themunicipalgovernmentandthehousing
cooperationalsomadeKatendrechtabeautifullivingenvironmentbydemolishingsocial
housingandreplacingandaddingtothemnewprivatepropertyhousing.Unfortunately,
duetothebankingcrisistheDelipleincouldnotbetackledanymore.Thishowevermade
roomforyoungandcreativeentrepreneurstosettleintheneighbourhood(Gemeente
Rotterdam,2016)(Markus,2016).
KatendrechtalsohasaprojectorganisedbythreeresidentsofRotterdamwiththemain
goaltobringpeopletogetherandgiveresidentsofRotterdamtheopportunitytotelltheir
story.WiththisaimtheBelvédère,a120-yearoldbuildingonKatendrecht,becamethe
hometothe‘Verhalenhuis’(StoryHouse)(Lambert,2014).
“Wehavetotellstoriestofeelconnected;connectionstothepast,connectanddeepenacts
inthepresent”–NellekeNoordervliet(ProjectPlan,2013).
TheprojectstartedwhenfiveindividualentrepreneursworkedintheBelvédère.Theywere
startingtosetupabigphotographyprojectontheresidentsofSouthRotterdam.The
projectstartedbecausebiginvestmentsonsocialaswellasphysicaldevelopmentson
RotterdamSouthweremade.Thisprojectwasaninitiativetobringpeopletogetherandwin
theirtrust(ProjectPlan,2013).
ThroughthisprojecttheresidentsofRotterdamSouthwerebeingmadeawareaboutthe
factthattheyarepartofsomethingbigger,notonlytheirneighbourhoodortheirsports
club,butthattheywerepartofthewholeareaRotterdamSouth.Thiscreatedasenseof
belongingandconnectednesstoareaandthepeopleinthearea.
ThegoaloftheprojectwashowevernotonlymeantfortheresidentsofRotterdamSouth.
Theareahadandmaybestillhasasomewhatbadreputation.Byshowingtheportraitsof
theresidentsinthearea,theyalsowantedtoshowthepossiblenewresidentsthe‘realface’
ofthearea.Theyusedtheexhibitionasawayofcommunicatingthenewandbetter
reputationofthearea(ProjectPlan,2013).
Afterthisproject,theinitiatorsstartedthinkingfurther,onhowtokeepbringingpeople
togetherandconnectingthemthroughtheStoryHouse.Itbecameaplacewherestoriesare
toldandheardinmanydifferentwaysandshapes(Lambert,2014).Thestoriesaretoldon
differentoccasions,beingdifferentactivitiesorganisedintheBelvédère.
Theactivitiesheld,varyquiteabit.Thefirstwasacookingevening,wherearesidentwould
cooksomethingfromhis/herhomecountrywhiletellinghis/herstory.Alsobaptismsand
birthdaysareheldintheBelvédère,ontheconditionthattheinitiatorscaninvitesome
[25]
peopletostimulateconnections(Lambert,2014).Inthefirstsemesterof2016theproject
‘TheNextStory’isrunning.InthisprojecttenoriginalresidentsofKatendrechttelltheir
stories(Belvédère,2016).
5.Analysis
Thecentraltopicinthisthesisisthechangestakingplaceinaneighbourhoodandhow‘in
between’residentsexperiencethese.Consequently,thesechangesarecentralinthedata
collectedandarewhatconnectsthedifferentresearchedtopicstoeachother.
Themaintopicsonwhichchangesoccurintheneighbourhoodarehousing,facilitiesand
servicesandsocialnetworkandcompositionoftheneighbourhood.Duringthedata
collectionandthedataanalysis,itbecameclearthatthesedifferenttopicsareall
interrelatedandplayabigroleinhowthechangesareexperienced.
Thesethreemaintopicsstructuredthetheoryandtheinterviews,thisstructurewillnowbe
usedinthischapteraswell.Theinsightfoundontheseexperiencesonthethreemaintopics
andthepolicywillbepresentedinanoverviewinthefollowingsection.
5.1Housing
Thefirstfewquestionsintheinterviewfocussedonthechangestakingplaceintheaspect
ofhousing.Thesechangesaretheincreaseofrentintheneighbourhood,theincreasein
personalestateinsteadofsocialhousingorprivaterenthousesandanincreaseofstudent
housing,displacementisdiscussedasaconsequenceoftheseincreases.Alsotheoverall
physicalimprovementoftheneighbourhoodplaysaroleinthechangesoccurring.
Increaseinrentandprivateproperty
Whenaskedabouttheincreaseofrentinbothneighbourhoodsforsocialhousingthe
respondentsmentionedthateveryJulytherentincreasesbythemaximumincrease
allowed,being4%oftheamountbeforeJuly.Asaresult,therentstaysrelativelylowand
theresidentsdonotseemtoworryabouttheincreaseaffectingthemsuchawaythatthey
shouldmaybeconsidermovingsomeplaceelse,ifitshouldhappentheyseeitasaproblem
forthefuture,makingthefearofdisplacementanirrelevanttopicatthemoment.
TheresidentsonKatendrechthavenotonlynoticedtheincreaseinpricesfortheirown
houses,butalsotheprivaterentalhouseshaveanincreasingrent.Everynewbuildingon
theislandthatisupforrentwillhaveahighrentofabout1200-1600Eurospermonthasa
consequenceofthehighpopularityoftheneighbourhood.Theythinkthatthepolicyis
changedtopurposelymaketheneighbourhoodmoreexpensive.
[26]
“Therentsarenotnormalanymore,ifyoupay600Eurosforahouse,Idonotthinkthatis
normal[…]Butthisistheirgoal,tomakeitamoreexpensiveneighbourhood.”
J.vanWaardenburg&Kroes(2016).
Whatalsostandsoutinbothneighbourhoodsisthattheamountofprivateproperty
housingincreases.OnKatendrechtmanynewhousesarebuiltatthewaterside,thisdoes
nothappensomuchinMiddelland,primarilyduetoalackofspace.However,inboth
neighbourhoodsitseemsthatalmostallvacatedrentalhousingisturnedintoprivate
property,thisiseasilynoticeablebythe'forsale'signsonmanyhousesinboth
neighbourhoods.
Manyofthehouseshavealreadychangedfromsocialhousingtoprivateproperty.Aperfect
exampleisthestreetwhereonetherespondentslives,theZwaerdecroonetraatin
Middelland.Onthisstreetonesidehasbeencompletelyturnedintoprivatepropertyatthe
sametime.Thetransformationtookaboutthreeyearsandchangedthephysicalaspectsand
thecompositionoftheneighbourhood,moreonthisfurtherinintheanalysis.
Inbothneighbourhoodstherespondentshavehadthechoiceofbuyingtheirsocialhousing,
mostofthemdidnot,apartfromonerespondent,S.Musa.Shechosetobuyherapartment
andasaconsequenceshenowlivesinabuildingwhereapartmentsaremixed;social
housingandprivateproperty.Allotherrespondentsdidnotchoosetobuytheirhouse,with
themainreasonbeingthattheyfoundittooexpensive.
“Youpay80.000forthisplace,thatIfindmessy,80.000Ihavetoreallythinkabout.”
J.Nieuwdorp(2016)
Displacement
Thisincreaseinprivatepropertyistypicalforgentrification,howeverthewayhowthis
propertyisobtainedcanbedifferent.Inmostcasestheprivatepropertyarepreviousrental
houses.ButinMiddellanddifferentwaysofobtainingprivatepropertyareused.Inthepart
oftheneighbourhoodwhereS.Musahasboughtahousethepreviousresidentswereforced
outoftheirhouses.Shespoketooneoftherenters,asinglemomwiththreechildren,across
thestreetswhotoldhertheywerebeingbulliedoutoftheirhousebythecooperation,
offering5.000Eurosasacontributionto'getlost'.Eversincetheplanistheretodemolish
thesebuildingandbuildnewones,thehousingassociationhasstoppedfixingproblemsand
starteddumpingwasteinthebackyards.Thiscouldbeseenasaformofdisplacementinthe
neighbourhood.
“HercellarisfloodedandWoonstadrefusestofixit,andtheyhavecreatedawastedumpin
thegardenbehindthehousesandthewasteisbeingthrowninhergarden.”
S.Musa(2016)
AnotherwayofcreatingspacefornewprivatepropertybuildingsinMiddellandisthe
Rotterdamwet.Inthislaw,uniqueforRotterdam,itsaysthat20.000rentalhouseswillbe
demolishedinordertocreatespacefornewbuildings.Areferendumwillbeheldinthe
nearfuturetotryandstopthecityfromdisplacingsomanypeoplefromtheirhomes.
[27]
“Theyaredemolishinghousesinthecityinordertoattractmorerichpeopletothecity”N.
Haasbroek(2016)
OnKatendrechtthepeoplearenotbeingpushedawaythiseasily.Theoriginalresidentsdo
notfeardisplacementandarenotplanningonleavingsoon,especiallynotbecauseofother
peoplecomingtotheneighbourhood.
Studentification
Bothneighbourhoodsaccordingtotherespondentsarenotverypopulartoliveinamongst
students.OnKatendrechtmostoftherespondentssaythatalmostnostudentsliveinthe
neighbourhood,butthattheydoseethemusingthefacilities.Keeshoweversaysthatthere
aresomestudentswholiveincertainstreetsontheisland.InMiddellanditisquitethe
same,thestudentsusethefacilitiesalot,sointhatwaystudentsarepresent.The
respondentswholivenearstudenthousingrecognisethatmorestudentslivethere,the
othersseemtohesitatemore.
Bothneighbourhoodsdonothavetheperfectlocationforstudentstolive,theErasmus
Universitynamelyisquitefarawayfrombothneighbourhoods.TheErasmusMedical
Centre,thetrainstationandthecitycentrehowever,areclosetoMiddelland,accordingto
therespondentsthismightbethemainreasonforstudentstochoosetolivethere.
Physicalimprovements
Overall,thephysicalappearancehasimprovedinbothneighbourhoodsoverthelastcouple
ofyears.Notonlythehousesincertainareas,butalsothestreetscapeinmostpartsofthe
neighbourhoodshasbeenimproved.Accordingtotherespondentsthishashappened
becauseofthenewmiddleclassresidents;theneighbourhoodhastobemademore
attractiveforthemandtheyinvestmoreintheneighbourhoodoncetheylivethere.
However,allrespondentsstatethatitcanonlybeimprovedmoreinthenextcoupleof
years.
OnKatendrechttheimprovementshavebeenhappeningsincethe'outercircle'withprivate
propertyhousinghasbeenbuiltandtheSS-boathasbeendocked.Theneighbourhoodis
dividedbythreecirclesofdifferentsortsofhousing.Heoutercircleiswherethenew
privatepropertybuildingsareandwheremostofthenew,middleclassresidentscometo
live.ThemidcircleiswheremostTurkishandChinesepeoplelive,theyareprivaterenters
ofbuyers.Theinnercircleiswheremostofthesocialhousingis.Accordingtothe
respondents,theimprovementsinthestreetscapeoftheinnercirclewouldnothavetaken
place,ifthosemiddleclassresidentswouldnothavebeenbuilt.
“Ithinkthatifthosepeoplewouldnothaveboughtthenewhousesontheoutercircle,thatthe
innercirclewouldnothavebeenimproved”“Yes,andalsothecomingoftheSS-boat.”
J.vanWaardenburg&T.Melfor(2016)
However,thegreeneryintheneighbourhoodhasnotchangedsincedecadesago,notreesor
plantshavebeenadded.Themunicipalityalsopostponestrimminghedgesinthe
neighbourhood,leavingthemembersoftheNeighbourhoodGovernsgrouptodoit.Apart
[28]
fromthat,thegarbagecontainersdonotseemtohelp,leavingalotofgarbageonthe
streets.
InMiddellandtheimprovementsareclearlyvisible,peoplewhovisitthecityseethe
changesandapplaudtheimprovements.Somerespondentssaythattheneighbourhoodhas
undergoneatotalmetamorphosis.Notonlyaremanystreetsnowfilledwithtrees,flowers
andothergreeneriesthroughlocalinitiatives,butalsobiggerprojectshavetakenplace.The
façadeofthebuildingsinthemainstreetsoftheneighbourhoodhavebeenrenovatedand
thelesspresentablebuildingsarerenovatedcompletelytocreateabetteroverallstreet
scapeintheneighbourhood.Thishowever,doesnothappeninonetime,butsmallpiecesof
thestreetarechangedonebyone.
Theonlythingkeepingtheneighbourhoodfromtotalimprovement,isthefactthatinsome
streetsorpartsoftheneighbourhood,theimprovementsfail.Thiscanhavedifferent
reasons.Oneofthembeingthatstudentsdonotkeeptheirhouseascleanasotherresidents
andanotherthatthereisacleardifferencebetweentherentersandbuyersinthe
neighbourhood,withbuyersbeingmoreinvested.Thesetwofactorsstillplayadefiningrole
inthestreetscapeofsomepartsintheneighbourhood.
“WhenIlookatthestudentbuildingsacrossthestreets,itdoesnotlookfreshtome,absolutely
notactually.”B.C.(2016)
5.2FacilitiesandServices
Thesecondpartoftheinterviewfocussedonthesubjectoffacilitiesandservices.Three
aspectsoffacilitiesandserviceswereinvestigated,namelyhowthesupplyofthemhas
changedinthelastcoupleofyears,howtheseserviceschangedintermsofeconomicvalue
(cheaper/nochange/moreexpensive)andhowandwhatinfluencetheyhaveonsociallife
andmixintheneighbourhood.Thesechangesmightalsohaveaninfluenceonthe
segregationandintegrationfromtheresidentsoftheneighbourhood.Apartfromthatthe
serviceofinformingaboutthechangesintheneighbourhoodwasalsoinvestigated
Inbothneighbourhoodstherearebigchangesintheareaoffacilitiesandservices.
Especiallyinthesupplyofthosefacilitiesandservices,thebiggestchangesarevisible.The
respondentsthinkthesechangeshavebeenmadeinordertomaketheirneighbourhood
moreattractiveandrepresentableforthenewresidentsandthepotentialnewresidents.
Facilityandservicesupply
InMiddelland,therespondentsallareverysatisfiedwiththesupplyofshopsandfacilities.
Afterthechangesbecauseofgentrificationstartedhappening,themunicipalitycloseddown
someoftheoldandrundownshopstobeabletorenovatethemandsellthemtonew
owners.Thepolicywasthatthenewownerscouldnotchangetheshopsinorderto
maintainthephysicalimprovementsintheneighbourhood.Withthesechangesthe
neighbourhoodnowexistswithaverywell-mixedsupplyofoldandnewshops.Theonly
thingthatoneoftherespondentmisses,isamunicipalserviceintheneighbourhoodwhere
residentscanaskallsortsofquestions.
[29]
“Alloldshopsgooutandtheygoinandrenovate,thennewownerscomeandcannotchange
anything,iftheyonlysawashelf,theywillgetafine.”
J.Nieuwdorp(2016)
Thesupplyofshopsisthefirstaspectwherethetwoneighbourhoodsdifferfromeach
other.OnKatendrechttheshopsupplybeforegentrificationwaswaybetteraccordingtoall
respondents.TheDelipleinwasfullofcafésaswellastherestoftheisland,withpubson
everystreetcorner,justlikeAmsterdamoneoftherespondentssaid.Everystreetcorner
exceptfor1,isnowempty.TheDelipleinhasundergoneamassivetransformationsinceit
nowexistssolelyoutofsmallrestaurantsorhipshops.Thissupplyworksfortourist,people
comingfromotherpartsinRotterdamandnewresidents,butnotforthetrueKapenezen.
TheKapenezennowgotothecitycentretogoforadrink.
Allotherstores,suchassupermarkets,drugstoresandgrocerystoreshavealsobeen
removedfromtheisland.Mostrespondentsdonotreallymissthese,becauseother
neighbourhoodsareeasilyreachablebycar.Forpeoplewhodonotdriveandelderlypeople
thisisagreatshortcomingintheneighbourhood.
“[...]weusedtohaveapostoffice,asupermarket,ATM's,andnoweverythingisgone.Itisjust
aresidentialareawithasquarewhereyoucanonlyeatandthat'sit.”
T.Melfor
However,theneighbourhooddidgettheFenixFoodFactory,ahipandoldbuildingwith
manydifferentshopsandservicesinit.Therespondentsseeitasapositiveadditiontotheir
neighbourhood,butdonotseemtouseitthatoften,becauseofthepricesoftheproducts,
thatseemtobeveryexpensive.J.vanWaardenburghoweverdoescometheremoreoften
andsaysthatpricesarenotthathigh,thattheresidentsonlythinkthatandthatisthreshold
keepingthemfromtheFenixFoodFactory.
Furthermore,anothersimilarityintheneighbourhoodsistheclosingdownofalmostall
communitycentresbeforegentrificationtookplace.Inbothcasestheclosingdownwasa
consequenceofcutsinthebudgetmadebythemunicipalgovernment,leavingbothareas
withoutaplaceforpeople,oldandyoung,tobeabletocometogether.
InMiddelland,sincethegentrificationandsincethemunicipalinvestmentsinthe
neighbourhood,manycommunitycentreshavere-openedandnewoneshavebeenadded.
Oneoftherespondentsisanactivememberinoneofthemanycentresandexplainsthat
thecommunitycentresaremostlytheretobringpeopletogether.Furthermore,many
differentactivitiesareorganisedbythecommunitycentres,sothatpeoplehaveaplaceto
goandtolearnandbetogether.
“Thecommunitycentremostlyfocussesonbringingpeopletogether,differentpeopleinthe
neighbourhoodandfighttheloneliness.”
B.C.(2016)
OnKatendrechtonlytwooutofsixofthepreviouscommunitycentreshavestayedopenor
havere-opened.Thetwothatarestillopenaremostlypopularamongtheolderresidents
andoneofthemalsoattractsnewmiddleclassresidents.However,theyoungerresidents,
[30]
wholiveinsocialhousingdonothaveaplace,akindofsafehaventogoto,consequently
causingproblemsintheneighbourhood.
Influenceonsociallifeandcomposition
Facilitiesandservicesinaneighbourhoodcanplayaroleinbringingpeopletogetheror
separatingthemonthecontrary.Someofthecommunitycentres,despitetheoverall
functionofbringingpeopletogether,seemtofailatdoingthis.
InMiddellandthecommunitycentresmostlybringtogethertwogroupsapartfromeach
other.Ontheonehand,thepoorer,oftenforeignresidentsofthecommunityandonthe
otherhandthemiddleclassresidentswhowanttobeinvolvedintheprojectcometogether,
butmixingthetwogroupsseemstobedifficult.Anexamplegivenbyoneoftherespondents
wasatameetingforaproject;thepeoplefromthemeetingwerewhite,middleclass
residentsandforeignwomenwereservingthefoodanddrinksasaneffortobligation.
InKatendrechtthetwocommunitycentresareseenascompetitiontooneanother,someof
theresidentsalwaysgototheVerhalenhuis,alsomanynewresidentschoosethisoneand
otherresidentsgoto'tSteiger.Thesetwogroupsthereforeseemtonotmixinthe
community,accordingtoafewoftherespondents,thisisduetothelackofaplacethat
welcomeseverybody.
Otherfacilitiesintheneighbourhoodcanalsoinfluencethesociallifeintheneighbourhood.
Where,asinwhatshops,peoplechoosetogotodepends,accordingtotherespondents,to
differentfactors.
InMiddellandthenewerandbigsupplyoffacilitiesplaysabigrole.Different,oldandnew,
facilitiesareattractiveadifferentkindofpeople.Therespondentsmentionedbudget,how
muchmoneyoneisabletospend,theneed,whatoneneedsorwantstobuyandculture,
wherepeopleofthesameculturego,asthreeofthemainreasonsofchoiceofwhatfacility
togoto.Therespondentsalsomentionthatconversationsinthefacilitiesarenotcommon,
exceptwithpeoplewhomtheyknow.
“Ithinkpeoplearemostlyattractedtowhattheyneedandtowhattheirfinancesallow,people
arealsoattractedbywhattheysee,ImyselfamSurinameseandwhenIseeaplacewhere
manySurinameseare,I'mmoreattractedtothatplace.”
B.C.(2016)
OnKatendrechtitisalsothefinancialpartthatseparatesthepublicforthedifferent
facilities.TheoriginalresidentsfindtherestaurantsontheDelipleinandthefacilitiesinthe
FenixFoodFactorytooexpensive.Forthisreason,theymostlygotothecitycentre,away
fromKatendrecht,togooutforadrinkorsomethingtoeat.Thefewcafésthatarestillthere
frombeforethegentrificationtookplacearemostlyvisitedbythealcoholicKapenezen
accordingtotherespondents.
Someoftheentrepreneursontheislandaremakinganefforttogeteverybodytogetherin
theFenixFoodFactory,byspreadingthewordthatthepricesarenotthathighandby
organisingdifferentactivitiesinthefactory.Theydothisinordertomakethethresholda
littlelowerandtobringpeopletogether.
[31]
“Maybe,sincewehadthatdinner,morepeoplewillvisittheFenixFoodFactoryfromnowon.”
Kroes(2016)
Furthermore,theDelipleinandtheFenixFoodFactoryaremostlyvisitedandusedby
touristsorpeoplefromotherpartsofRotterdam,amongstthemalsostudents,whohave
readorheardthatKatendrechtistheplacetobeinRotterdam.Thetouristsalsowantto
visittheSS-BoatthatisdockedinKatendrecht.
Economicchangesinfacilitiesandservices
Asalreadymentioned,thefinancialchangesinthefacilitiesareoneofthereasonswhy
somefacilitiesfailtobringpeopletogether.Thesefinancialchangesarenotvisible
everywhere.
InMiddellandrespondentssaythatthepricesintheoldfacilitiesandshopshavenotor
hardlyrisen.Intheshopsthatareaddedtothesupplyoffacilitiesaremostlyalittlemore
expensive.Specialisedstoresmightbemoreexpensiveaswellasdifferentsupermarkets
suchastheEkoPlaza.Whatstandsoutarethemanycoffee-houseswherecoffeeismore
expensivethanitusedtobe.
Becauseofthesehighpricesthesegregationbetweenforexamplethesinglemomsandthe
yuppiesisveryvisible.DuringtheinterviewwithS.Musa,shecameupwithanideatomix
thesetwogroupsbyorganisinga'coffeehour',whereinthecoffeeissoldatadiscountprice,
sothatmorepeopleintheneighbourhoodcanenjoythedeliciouscoffeeinoneofthemany
coffeehouses.Thismightbeasmallsolutiontotheproblemofthegapbetweenthepoorer
andthericher,becauseintegrationalonedoesnotsolvethatgapproblem.
“Integrationincreasesstepbystep,thishastoimproveonitself,however,itdoesnotsolvethe
problemofthegapbetweentherichandthepoor.”
N.Haasbroek(2016)
Thecoffee-housesarenotonlytooexpensiveforthepoorerpeople.Itnamelyalsoleadstoa
differentkindofpoverty,namelytheLatte-Poverty,inwhichyoungurbanprofessional
(yup)arelivingthehiplifeandhavetodrinkcoffeeincoffee-housessooftenthattheydo
nothavemoneyleftattheendofthemonth,makingthempoorinanotherway.
“Ifyouhavetosithere(coffee-house)threetimesadayandthendrinkfortofivelattesand
paythem,andthendothat30daysamonth,youhavetopayhundredsofEurosamonth.”
S.Musa(2016)
OnKatendrechttherespondentswanttobuyandlivethemostprofitablewaypossible.
ThatiswhymostofthemleaveKatendrechtwhendoinggroceryshopping.TheFenixFood
Factory,however,isnotthatexpensiveasmanysocialhousingresidentsthink,itisafable
thatgoesaroundfastintheneighbourhood.Onthecontrary,thenewfacilitiesonthe
Delipleinhavebecomemoreexpensive,whichiswhymostsocialhousingresidentsarenot
attractedtothoseplaces.
Inbothneighbourhoodstherentofthefacilitybuildingsisquitehighsincethe
neighbourhoodsbecamemorepopular.OnMiddellandthisisathresholdforentrepreneurs,
[32]
becauseafacilityisnoteasilyprofitable.OnKatendrechttheplacesontheDelipleinare
subsidisedfornewandcreativeentrepreneursbythemunicipalityforthetimeofthree
years.Afterthosethreeyearsmanyofthefacilitiesdonotseemtobeprofitableandhaveto
closedown.
“Therearemanythingsintheneighbourhoodthatyouhavetolookthrough,theylooknice,
therestaurants,butareclosingdownfast,youhavetokeepthatinmind.”
N.Haasbroek(2016)
Informationsupply
Therespondentsinbothneighbourhoodswerenotverysatisfiedwithhowtheresidents
arekeptinformedaboutthechangesinthearea.Theresidentsareinformedaboutsomeof
thechanges,butwhenoneislessinvolvedintheneighbourhood,mostinformationdoesnot
reachthosepeople.
InMiddellandtheresidentsaremostlyinformedbyneighbourhoodmeetingsorganisedto
involveandinformtheresidentsonthedecisionmakingprocess.Residentsreceivealetter,
invitingthemtothesemeetings.Thisinformationgetslostquiteeasilyandotherpeopleare
notinterestedinattendingthemeetings,leavingthemuninformed.
Thesemeetingsareoftenheldinoneofthemanycommunitycentresintheneighbourhood.
Someofthecentresalsohaveanactivitywherevolunteerscangofromonehouseto
anothertoinformpeopleverbally,whichseemslikeabetterwayofinformingtheresidents
intheneighbourhood.
“Notactively(informed),sometimesyoureceivealetter[…]whensomethingneedstohappen,
butingeneralithappenstoyouandthenallofasuddenyoucannotparkthecaranywhere.”
B.C.(2016)
OnKatendrechtitisquitethesame.Therespondentsaresomewhatinformed,butthe
reasonthereforeisthattheyareveryactivelyinvolvedintheneighbourhood.Theyarethe
onesreceivingallinformation.Otherresidentshoweverarenotbeinginformedaboutthe
changesorthehappeningsintheneighbourhood.Sometimestheyreceivealetter,butin
generaltheresidentsarenotortoolittleinformed.
“Rarelyornever(informed)let’ssaytoolittle,wehadatriathlonhere,myneighbourcalledme
inthemorning:Kees,whyareallthefencesdown,whatishappening?AndIsawthedistrict’s
officerandhetoldmethereisatriathlonandnobodyofusknewaboutit.”Kees(2016)
5.3Socialnetworks/cohesionandinteraction
Theinterviewmovedontothepartaboutsocialnetworks/cohesionandinteraction.The
mainthemesthatwerediscussedarethecriminality,thesocialcompositioninthe
neighbourhood,thelevelofintegrationandsegregationofthepeoplelivinginthe
[33]
neighbourhoodandhowgentrificationchangesasocialnetwork.Furthermore,the
involvementinthecommunityandtheplaceattachmentoftherespondentswas
questioned.
Criminality
Onthesubjectofcriminality,thetwoneighbourhoodsdifferlargelyfromeachother.In
Middellandallrespondentsfeltsafersincethechangeshavebeentakingplace.In
Katendrecht,onthecontrary,therespondentsexperiencedariseincriminalityonthe
islandeversincetheprocessofgentrificationhasstarted.
Middellandusedtobeaneighbourhoodabreedingspotforabadenvironment.Especially
thedrugculturewasverybigintheneighbourhood,withmanyjunkiesonthestreets,
leavingneedlesonthegroundandsleepinginporches.Thejunkiesdidnotbothermany
people,buttheimageoftheneighbourhooddecreasedbythat.
Asaconsequenceofgentrificationtakingplaceandpeopleofthemiddleclassmovinginto
theneighbourhood,moreattentionwasputtotheimageofthearea.Safetybecamemore
important,thatiswhypolicebecamemoreactiveonthestreets,duringthedayandatnight.
Cameraswerealsohungineverywhere,sothattherewouldbeaconstantcontrol.The
neighbourhoodalsoinvestedinaplacewherethehomeless,thejunkiesandthealcoholics
cansleep,‘deOntmoeting’.Withthisarrangementtheytrytokeepthosepeopleoffthe
streets.Becauseofthis,allrespondentsfeelsaferintheirneighbourhood,especiallyat
night.
“Maybethereismoresafety,inthelastcoupleofyearsmorepoliceofficersareactiveinthe
neighbourhood,solessjunkiesareonthestreets,Istillseethem,butlessthanIusedto.”
B.C.(2016)
Therehas,howeverbeenashiftinthekindofcriminalitytakingplaceinthe
neighbourhood.Drugsandjunkiesusedtobeonthestreets,butnowthecrimeshappen
inside.Burglaries,domesticviolenceandmoneylaunderinginhairdressersseemtohave
increasedinnumbersaccordingtotherespondents.Thisshifthasmadethecriminalityless
visibleintheneighbourhood,givingtheideathatisdecreasedoverall.
“IthasbecomelessvisibleIthink,thosejunkiesusedtohangaroundhere,itgivesyouan
unsafefeeling[…]alsodifferenttypesofcriminalityIthink.”S.Musa(2016)
Inthisneighbourhoodvandalismwasneverabigproblemandthathasnotchanged,
accordingtotherespondents.Clutteringonthestreets,however,inspiteofthesmall
numberofgarbagebinsinthestreets,hasimprovedsincegentrificationhasmadeits
introductiontotheneighbourhood.
OnKatendrecht,thestoriesarequitedifferent.Criminalitywasneverabigissueonthe
island,butsincetheneighbourhoodbecamemorepopular,criminalitydidaswell.Even
thoughtheneighbourhoodusedtobehometomanyprostitutes,theonlycrimesthat
happenednowandthenwererobberiesofpeoplecomingoutofthecaféandchildren
stealingcandy.Theprostituteshowever,knewalmosteverybody,sotheywereabletotell
whodidwhat,whichkeptthecriminalityatalowlevel.
[34]
Themiddleclasspeopleintheprivatepropertyhousingarenottheonescausingthisrisein
crimes.TherespondentssaythatthecomingofMoroccanfamiliesinsocialhousinghas
beencausingproblemsintheneighbourhood.Afterafewtroubledfamiliesmovedintothe
socialhousing,burglariesstartedhappeningmoreregularly,oftenmultipletimesinthe
samehouses.
“Onceaweekmyneighbourstopsbytotellmetoclosemydoorandwindowatnight,Iusedto
leaveeverythingopen,whichusedtobeokay,nowitisnotanymore.”
Kees(2016)
Theseburglarieswerethereasonwhyoneoftherespondentsstartedtakingaction.She
createdtheideaofapreventiongroupcalled‘neighbourhoodprevention’.Itdidnottake
longbeforeotherresidents,oldandnewones,wereinterestedinhelping.Sincethestartof
thedailywalksandtheWhatsAppgroupwithresidents,theyhavealreadyred-handedly
caughtburglarsandtheburglarieshavesodecreasedinnumber.
“Ifyouhavemanyburglaries,thenyes,youwanttoseetheburglars’faces,andthat’swhenwe
decidedtotakeaction.”
J.vanWaardenburg(2016)
JustasinMiddelland,vandalismhasnotbeenanissue.Theclutteringonthestreetsusedto
bewaylessthanitisnow.Beforethechanges,everybodykepttheirownporchandstreet
clean,notmatterhowbusytheywere.Nowpeoplethrowtheirgarbageonthestreets.Even
atplaceswheregarbagecontainersarefacilitated,thegarbagebagsarestillonthestreets.
“Youdiedofpovertybutyoukeptyourstreetclean[…]sometimeswewalkby,weopenupthe
containersandtheyaretotallyempty,with7,8,9,10garbagebagsnexttothem.”
T.Melfor(2016)
SocialComposition
ThecityofRotterdamconsists,accordingtoN.Haasbroek,forfiftypercentofpeopleliving
fromsocialsecurityfunds.Becauseofthechangestakingplaceintheneighbourhoodnew
peopleareattractedtoit.Asmentionedbefore,duetotheincreaseinprivatepropertyand
thegovernmentalpolicychangesmoremiddleclasspeopleareinterestedinmovingtoboth
theneighbourhoods.Alsothechangesinfacilitiesandservicesmaketheneighbourhood
attractiveforhigher-classcitizens.
ThefirstdifferencebetweenthetwoneighbourhoodsisthatMiddellandoriginallyisa
mixedarea,therehasalwaysbeenamixbetweenhigherclass,middleclassandlowerclass
residents.Katendrechtusedtobeamono-neighbourhood,meaningthatitmostlywas
inhabitedbypeoplelivinginsocialhousing.Inbothneighbourhoodschangeshave
occurred.
Middellandwasbuiltinacertainway,withthemainstreetsbeingbroad,withchichouses
forricherpeople.Thesidestreetsweremorenarrowandhouseswerebuiltforpoorer
people.Someofthosesidestreetsarestillmainlyinhabitedbypoorer,oftenforeign
[35]
residents.Theoriginalcompositionoftheneighbourhoodhasnotreallychangedthepeople
livingthereseemtohave.
AccordingtoallrespondentsinMiddelland,theareahasbecome‘whiter’.Inthemain
streetsmostlyarchitects,lawyersandentrepreneursstilllive.Someofthesidestreetshave,
however,changed.OnesideofthestreetwhereJ.Nieuwdorplivesissolelysocialhousing,
withamixofDutchandforeigncitizens.Theothersidehasbeeninrenovationforthree
yearsandnowconsistsofprivatepropertyhousing.OnthatsideofthestreetonlyDutch,
whitepeoplelive.Thistrend,ofpartsbecomingsolelywhite,isvisibleinmorepatsofthe
neighbourhood.
“Thatisthefunpart,onthatside,notoneforeignerlives.”
J.Nieuwdorp(2016)
Asaconsequence,thereisasocialmixinsomepartsoftheneighbourhood,inotherparts
however,segregationisstillvisible.Asalreadystated,somepartsarealmostsolelywhite
yuppies.Whileotherstreetsareinhabitedbyforeigners.Mostlyconcentratedbyone
cultureorethnicity,becausetheytendtolookforeachotherinordertocohabit.
“Yes,whiter,alsointhebuildingwhereIlive,thebuyersareallyuppies,coupleswhojust
started,theolderresidentsaretheoneslivingfromsocialsecurityfunds.”
S.Musa(2016)
Katendrechtalsohasacertaindivisioninresidences,asalreadymentionedintheparton
(…),inthreedifferentcircles.Theinnercirclemostlyconsistsofolderresidents,whohave
beenlivingonKatendrechtforalongtimenow,insocialhousing.Themidcirclearethe
TurkishandChinesepeople,thisisamixbetweensocialhousingandprivateproperty.The
outercircleisthenewone,herenewprivatepropertyisbuilt,sincetheneighbourhoodhas
becomemorepopular.
ThepeoplewhocometoliveinthenewhousesmostlyareDutchwhitepeoplebuying
propertyonKatendrecht.Alsootherethnicitiesandculturescometolivethere,theseare
mostlyChineseandTurkishpeople,whoareabletoaffordtheprivateproperty.Inthesocial
housingintheinnercircle,MoroccanandAntilleanfamiliesarethenewinhabitantsofthe
neighbourhood.Therespondentsallmentionedthatthesefamiliesareoftentroubledand
causingproblemsinthearea.ThatiswhytheyprefertheDutchpeopletomovein.
“I’drathertheycrameverythingwithpeoplewhocanafforditandwhoworkfortheirmoney,
insteadofwhatisinthesocialhousingnow,thosepeoplearegood-for-nothing.”
T.Melfor(2016)
SocialNetwork
Thesocialconnectionsthattherespondentshavemadesincethechangeshaveoccurredare
inbothneighbourhoodsnotreallyconsiderable.Peoplemostlyinteractwiththeirown
groupofpeopleandfriends.
[36]
InMiddellandinsomepartsthesocialmixisgood.Forexample,J.Nieuwdorpnowtalksto
theprivatepropertyownersacrossthestreetandseesthemasacquaintances.Thetwo
groupsmeeteachotheronthestreetoratthelocalcommunitycentre.
“Ialsohavemanyconversationswiththem,withthosepeople,that’swhatIreallylike,theyall
haveajobandanicecar[…]nowIalsoknowthosekindofpeople.”
J.Nieuwdorp(2016)
Inother,moresegregatedparts,thisisquitedifferent.N.Haasboekdescribesitas
‘Segregationwithadvantageousexceptions’.Meaningthatthemixbetweenclasseshas
becomebetterandisgoingokay,butthemixbetweenculturesisless.Hethinksthese
peoplemostlystayintheirowncircleofpeopleandintheareaoftheneighbourhoodthey
know.Thatiswhyconnectionswithotherpeoplearenoteasilymadeand,theyarenotfully
providedwithallinformationandhappeningsintheneighbourhood.Soiftheystayintheir
ownknownworld,theymightnotknowwhatotherpositiveornegativechangesare
happeningintheneighbourhood.
“Theircircleisagoodplace,theydonotexperiencethewholeneighbourhoodwhenonly
stayinginonestreet,that’swhytheymightnotbeawareofotherpositiveofnegativechanges
intheneighbourhood”.N.Haasbroek(2016)
Whatalsocomesupintheinterviewsisthattheneighbourhoodandmostofthepeople
livingtherearequiteindividualistic.Theystayintheirowncircle,butcontactwith
neighboursorpeoplelivinginyourblockisnotthatimportant,unlessitconcernsa
neighbourhoodissueorabuildingrelatedtopic.
OnKatendrechtthenewandoldresidentsarefindingithardtofindaconnectiontoone
another.ThebondwiththeoriginalresidentsofKatendrechtiswaybetterthanthatwith
thenewones.Mostofthemhaveknowneachothertheirwholelivesandhavebecome
familytoeachother.Withthecomingofthenewpeople,intheprivatepropertybutalsoin
thesocialhousing,thereisalienationoftheresidents,makingtheareamoreanonymous.
Therearehoweversomeexceptions,especiallywiththepeoplewhoaremoreinvolvedin
theneighbourhood.
Luckily,almostallnewresidentshavethesamegoal:
“Firstthingthatisimportantisthattheneighbourhoodisasafeandcleanplacefor
everybody,whereeverybodyfeelsgood,doesnotmatterifyou’reanoldornewresident,weall
wantthesame:noburglaries,novandalismandacleanplace.”
T.Melfor(2016)
Neighbourhoodinvolvement
Neighbourhoodinvolvementinbothneighbourhoodsissomethingthatneedstocomefrom
owninitiative.Therearemanygroupstojoin,actionstohelpwithandmeetingstoattendin
ordertoshowinvolvementintheneighbourhoodonelivesin.
[37]
InMiddellandthismostlyinterconnectswiththeprojectMooi,MooierMiddelland,which
willbediscussedin5.4.Theonlyproblemthatthisprojecthas,isthatcommunication
towardthewholeneighbourhoodstillisquitebumpy,consequentlynotmanypeopleare
notawareoftheexistenceoftheproject.Youhavetoreallyknowsomebodyinvolved,to
hearaboutit.
TherearehowevermanycommunitycentresinMiddelland.Onecanstopbytheretoattend
aworkshoporanactivitytospreadawarenessoftheproject.Othercommunitycentresalso
gatherpeoplefromtheneighbourhoodtotalkabouttheareatheyliveinandseewhatcan
bechangedorwhatisgood.
SomeoftherespondentsinMiddellanddoattendthesekindsofmeetings.Thetwo
respondentsgotothosemeetingswithdifferentintends.Onegoesbecauseofthe
connectiontotherestofthepeoplelivinginthearea,inthiswayhecanmeetnewpeople.
Theotherrespondentsattendtohaveavoiceinthedecisionsbeingmadeaboutthearea
shelivesin.
Somerespondentsmentionthatmostlythenewmiddleclassresidentsandpeoplelivingin
privatepropertyhousingaretheonesmostinvolvedintheneighbourhood.Foreignersand
peoplelivinginsocialhousingarelesslikelytoputaneffortinengaginginthecommunity.J.
Nieuwdorpconfirmsthisbytellingthatwhenhegoestocommunitymeetings,noforeigners
arepresentandthatonlytheDutchpeoplegothere.
OnKatendrechttherespondentsareveryactiveintheneighbourhood.Threeofthemare
partofthetwogroups‘NeighbourhoodPrevention’and‘NeighbourhoodGoverns’.Oneof
themalsostartedthepreventiongroupasaconsequenceofalltheburglariesinthearea.
Therefore,theywalkingroupstochecktheneighbourhoodintheeveningsandatnight.
Theforthrespondentisveryactiveinthecommunitycentre‘tSteiger,whichisclosetohis
house.Thiscentreiskeptopenonvoluntarybasis.
The‘NeighbourhoodGoverns’andthepreventiongroupconsistalmostoutofthesame
people.Thepreventiongroupistokeeptheneighbourhoodsafe,whilethegovernment
groupdoesmanyotherthings.Theytrytokeepthestringswiththemunicipalityshort,this
isnecessarybecauseRotterdam,accordingtotherespondentsisabigbureaucracy.They
havealistofthemostimportantpeopleinthemunicipalitysothattheycandirectlycontact
them.
Butevenso,therespondentsdonotreallyfeelwellrepresentedbythemunicipal
government.Somethings,suchastrimmingthehedgesinfrontofhousesisamunicipal
task.Thegovernmentgrouptriedtogetthemunicipalitytotrimthehedgesofsomeofthe
olderresidents,whenthistooktoolong,thegrouptooktheinitiativetofulfilthetask
themselves.
“Italljusttakesalongtime,everyactiontakessixweeksandwetrytokeepthestringshorter
[…],butitisadisaster,Rotterdamisthebiggestbureaucracythereis.”
J.vanWaardenburg(2016)
Thetwogroupsaretryingtohelptheoldandthenewresidentstomixinthe
neighbourhood,byorganisingactivitiesforbothgroups.AnexampleisbyhelpingMark
[38]
BaantolowerthethresholdforthemtocometotheFenixFactoryandmakeitaplacefor
theneighbourhoodtocometogether.
Placeattachment
Theplaceattachmentinbothneighbourhoodsisquitehigh,almostallrespondentsclaimto
beveryattachedtotheneighbourhood,notonlybecauseofthearea,butalsobecausethere
isnothingwrongwithit.
InMiddellandtherespondentsallreallyliketheneighbourhoodandplantostaythere.They
donotseeareasonatthemomenttomoveawayandthehabituationplaysaroleaswell.
Movingawayisnotaplanforthenearfuture,howeveroneoftherespondentssaysnotto
excludethepossibility.
”IwanttodieinMiddelland,Idonotwanttoliveanywhereelse.”
S.Musa(2016)
“IfIwanttostayhere?Well,whynot,Ineverhaveanycomplaints,sowhywouldIleave?”
J.Nieuwdorp(2016)
OnKatendrechttheplaceattachmentforolderresidentsisveryhigh.Allrespondentssay
theydonoteverwanttoleave.Nonewresidentsorchangesintheneighbourhoodcan
changethatattachmenttotheneighbourhood.Theyallgrewupontheislandanditisand
willalwaysbetheirhome.
“ToleaveKatendrecht?ThatisnotanoptionfortheKapenezen.”
StreetinterviewKatendrecht(2016)
“Nobodycantakeawaywhatisinyou,IcannottellyouhowoldI’llbe,butI’maKatendrechter
inheartandsoul,howcanastrangerstandabovethat?”
Kees(2016)
5.4GovernmentandPolicy
Forthepartoftheresearchongovernmentandpolicy,apreliminaryresearchtothetwo
mainprojectsintheneighbourhoodswasalreadydone(seechapter4).Theinformation
obtainedintheinterviewsmostlyconcernedtheknowledgeofandtheinvolvementinthe
projectsoftheneighbourhood.Furthermore,therepresentationoftheresidentsbythe
governmentwasquestioned,inordertoobtainaviewofthemaingoalsofthepolicy.
[39]
Onthesubjectofgovernmentandpolicyandtherunningprojectthetwoneighbourhoods
differalot.Middellandisatrialareaforco-creationwithamoredecentralisedgovernment.
Themunicipalityhasgiventheneighbourhoodalargeamountofmoneyinorderto
accomplishtheprojectofco-creation.InKatendrecht,onthecontrary,subsidieshavebeen
cutforthemostpart,creatinganenormousdifferencebetweenthetwoareas.
Middellandisatrialareafordecentralisationtoneighbourhoods,bytheRotterdam
municipalgovernment.Therefore,theprojectMooi,MooierMiddellandiscreated.The
emphasisofthisprojectisonco-creation,meaningthattheywanttoinvolveasmany
peopleaspossibleintheneighbourhood.
Thesubsidiesavailableforthisproject,mademanythingspossiblefortheneighbourhood.
Manycloseddowncommunitycentreshavere-opened,withdifferentprojectsinthe
differentcentres.Differentworkshopsareoffered,forexampleinthemanufacturingsector,
whichispopularforforeignpeople.Alsoactivitiestobringpeoplewithasimilar
backgroundtogether.Everycommunitycentrealso‘specialises’inacertaingoal,sothat
everybodyhasaplacetogoto.
“Thiscommunitycentrefocussesonconnectingpeople[…]theyorganiseactivitiesforelderly
people,butalsoformothers,fathers,families,children,theywanttoreachasmanydifferent
groupsaspossible,whichtheyactivelydo.”
B.C.(2016)
However,involvementintheprojectseemstobemoredifficultthanforeseen.N.Haasbroek
callstheprojecta‘whiteproject’,gettingforeignpeopleengagedintheprojectissomething
oneneedstoreallyputaneffortin.Anotherrespondentconfirmsthisbytellingthatshedid
notfeel100%comfortableatthefirstmeetingsheattended.Theotherattendantsmostly
werearchitects,designers,therealcoffeeshop-goers.
Gettingpeopleinvolvedalsoseemsmoredifficult,becausenoteverybodyisawareofthe
project.Twooftherespondentshavebecomeactiveinthelastmonthbecausethey
randomlyknowsomebodywhoisinvolvedaswell.Theotherrespondenthadnotheard
abouttheprojectonce.Oneoftherespondentswhoisnowactiveintheproject,saysshe
onlynownoticesthatshereceivesinformationaboutit.Thespreadingofthatinformation
hasbeenmadepossiblebyre-openingthecentres,butanotherrespondentsaysthatthe
informationshehasreceivedisunclear.
“NowthatIaminvolved,IseethatIreceivemessagesandpamphlets,informationalletters,
butmanyofthoseareimmediatelythrownaway.”B.C.(2016)
Theprojectitselfhas,apartfromtheopeningofthecommunitycentres,notreally
accomplishedmuch.Atthemomenttheyaremostlystilltalkingandcommunicatingabout
theneighbourhood.Furthermore,thepeoplewhoarealreadyinvolvedarenotverydiverse
andcertainimagesneedtobepermeated.Thesetwothingsstillneedtobetackledbythe
differentprojectgroups.
“Yes,theimageneedstobepermeatedsothateverygroupisrepresentedbytheproject.”S.
Musa(2016)
[40]
Asalreadymentioned,thesubsidiesforKatendrechthavebeencutafewyearsago.In
contrarytoMiddelland,only2communitycentreshavere-openedonKatendrecht.These
centresalsoputinanefforttoorganiseactivitiesintheformofworkshops,expositions,
story-tellingetc.Thetwocommunitycentresare,howeverseenascompetitioninthe
neighbourhood,sotheyfailinconnectingthewholeneighbourhood.Theyarebothopened
onavoluntarybasis,thatiswhynosmalldistrictnewspapercanbeafforded.
Therespondentsdonotreallyfeelrepresentedbythecommunity.Thefactthatthereareno
old/normalfacilitiesontheislandisonereasonwhy.Anotheroneisthatthemunicipality
doesnotactfastenoughonforexampletherequestoftrimmingthehedgesorcleaningthe
pavements.Therespondentsdonotminddoingitthemselves,butitshouldnotbetheir
responsibility.
(aboutthehedgetrimmingplan)”Theonlythingwecandoiswaitaweekforananswer,then
sendanotheremailandwaitanotherweek,thenIsendthelastoneandifitdoesnothappen
then,wedoitourselves.Theysaytheywilldoit,buttheydonot.”
T.Melfor(2016)
5.5Characteristics+overallexperience
Theinterviewstartedandendedwithmoregeneralquestions.Thefirstquestionwasto
describetheneighbourhoodbeforeandaftergentrificationstarted.Thefinalquestionasked
toformanopinionontheoverallfeelingtogentrification,iftherespondentsfindita
positiveorrathernegativeevolutionfortheneighbourhood.
BothMiddellandandKatendrechtaredescribeddifferentlybeforeandafterthechanges
startedtakingplace.TherespondentsfromMiddellandwererathernegativeabouthowit
usedtobeandhaveseensomegoodchangeshappening,althoughnoteverythingis
positive.OnKatendrechtitwastheotherwayaround,theycouldtalkabouthowthe
neighbourhoodusedtobeforhoursandwerelessenthusiasticaboutitnow.
TherespondentsinMiddellandhadquitethesamememoryofhowtheneighbourhoodused
tobe.Theyallmentionedthattheneighbourhoodusedtobefilledwithjunkiesonthe
street.Thismademanypeoplefeelratherunsafeinthearea.Theyalsodescribedthe
neighbourhoodtobemulticultural,uniqueandfullofshops.
Theselastthreecharacteristicshavenotchangedsincethegentrification.Theystillsaythat
itisauniqueplaceinRotterdamandarestillverysatisfiedwiththeshopsupply,whichis
oneofthemainreasonsotherpeoplecometothearea.
Theneighbourhoodhashoweverchanged.Ithasbecomesaferwhenthejunkiesleftasa
consequenceofhighercontrolmeasurestakenbythegovernment.Furthermore,ithas
becomeawellrated,hip,multiculturalneighbourhoodwhereeverybodycanlivepleasantly.
However,peoplestillexperiencehasslesintheneighbourhoodandsincetheareahas
becomemorepopular,residentshavetroubleparkingtheircar.
[41]
“Isometimeslaughwhenlookingatpeopleonthestreet,allthosepeopleandtheircars,aman
wholiveshereandcouldnotparkhiscar,hedrovebyeighttimesandIsawthecaragainand
againuntilhefinallyfoundaspot.”
J.Nieuwdorp(2016)
Katendrechtwasmoretheotherwayaround.Theneighbourhood,accordingtoall
respondents,usedtobeeffervescent,withtheDelipleinfullofpeople.Theydescribeitas
beingavillage,butwiththesamelivelinessasAmsterdam.Therespondentsallseethisas
bettertimes;onesaysthatitwillneverbebetterthanthat.
Nowthattheneighbourhoodhasbecomemorehipthelivelinesshasgoneandtheydescribe
isasdreary.TheDelipleinhasbecomesilent,evenwhenitiscrowded,onecanstillhear
nothing.Theystillseeitastheirvillageandnobodycanchangethat.Alsobecauseofthat
hipness,therehasbeenaparkingproblemaswell,morepeoplefromotherpartsin
RotterdamcametoparktheircaronKatendrecht,becauseitwasfree.Noweverybodyhas
topaytotheannoyanceofmanyresidents.
“Thatiswhywesaythattheneighbourhoodnow,haszeroappeal,nothinglivelyhere.”
T.Melfor(2016)
Overallallrespondentsfrombothneighbourhoodsunanimouslyagreethatthechangesfor
theirneighbourhoodarepositive.Theysaythatitcanalwaysbebetter,butthatevery
neighbourhoodhasitsownproblems.ThisisnotdifferentinMiddellandorKatendrecht.
5.6Reflectingonthetheory
Inthischapterthelinkbetweenthecollecteddataandthetheory,previouslydiscussedin
chapter2,willbediscussedandconnectedtoeachother.Therewillbelookedatwherethe
theoryandthedatacorrespondtoeachother,wherethetheorycomesshortandwhere
theyconsummateeachother.Thiswillbedonebyansweringthesubquestionsformedin
chapter1.3whichwillleadtoansweringthemainquestionintheconclusioninchapter6.
Thefirstsubquestionis:
Whatarethechangesthatthe‘inbetween’residentshaveexperiencedinthelast8years?
Inthetheorytherearemanychangesdiscussedonthesubjectofhousing.Manyofthose
changeswerediscussedintheinterviewsaswell.Theonethingthatstoodoutwasthe
increaseinthenumberofprivatepropertyhousing.Therespondentsallmentionthat
almostallrentalbuildings,whenvacated,arechangedintoprivateproperty.Relatedtothis
istheincreaseinpropertyvalue.Housesinbothneighbourhoodshaveincreasedinvalue
whensold.Thisresultsinalossofaffordablehousesinbothneighbourhoods.
Thisincreaseinvalueandthelossofaffordablehousingdoes,however,notresultin
displacementaccordingtotherespondents.Nobodyintheirsocialcirclehashadtomove
outoftheneighbourhoodbecauseofthechanges,thisisprobablybecauseofthe,still,great
[42]
amountofsocialhousingintheneighbourhood,asDoucet(2009)alsostatesinhistheory.
Nevertheless,inthesurroundingareaofMiddelland,wheresocialhousingneedstomake
roomforprivateproperty,therearesomefamiliesbeing‘bullied’outoftheirhomes,as
Atkinson(2002)alsostatedinhistheory.Thatisalsowhysomeoftherespondentsthink
thatthereisacertainfearofdisplacementforpeopleintheneighbourhood.
Theoverallimageoftheneighbourhoodchangesinapositiveway.Thestreetscapein
Middellandistackledandpiece-by-piece,theneighbourhoodischanged.Thismostly
happenswithinterventionbythegovernmentorthehousingsassociation.Butalso
neighbourhoodcommitteesarechangingthestreetscapeoftheneighbourhood.In
Katendrecht,however,therehasbeenanincreaseinclutteringonthestreets,without
interventionbythegovernment.Onecouldsaythatthisisanegativeimpactforthe
streetscapeintheneighbourhood.
InAtkinson’s(2002)theorytherecanbeeitheranincreaseoradecreaseincriminality.In
theinterviewsthiscameupaswell.Somekindsofcriminalitydoincrease;thisisseen
especiallyinKatendrecht.Therewaslittletonocriminalityintheneighbourhoodbefore
changesoccurredandnowthelevelofcriminalityhasrisen,alsowithdifferentkindsof
criminality.ThisisalsoseeninMiddelland,wherecriminalityshiftedfromdrugs-related
crimestomorebehind-the-doorcriminalityaccordingtotherespondents.
Thefacilitiesandserviceschangedaswell.Therespondentsinbothneighbourhoods
mentionedanincreaseinmorehipandspeciality-basedfacilities.Theydonotseethisasa
negativedevelopmentperse,asthetheorydoesdo.InMiddelland,theresidentscanstill
visittheshopstheyusedtoandtheycanstillfindeverythingtheyneedinthe
neighbourhood.OnKatendrechtmany‘normal’shopshavedisappeared,butmostresidents
donotseethisasaproblem,becausetheyownacar.Olderresidentshowever,mayseethis
differently.
Inbothneighbourhoodsanincreaseinfacilitiesandservicesisseen,asAtkinson(2002)
alsodescribes.InMiddellandthisresultsinamixbetweenoldandnewshopsandon
Katendrechttoasupplywithmostlynewshops.Inbothneighbourhoodsthefacilitiesand
servicesthatweretherebeforegentrificationandstillare,mostlystayedthesame.Ifthe
residentsvisittheshopsseemstodependmostlyonwhatattractsthemandwhatthey
need.
Thenumberofstudentsinthetwoneighbourhoodsdoesnotseemtoincreasesincethe
gentrification,onthecontrarytowhatDoucet(2009)states.Thishoweverdoesnotseemto
betotallyrelatedtogentrification.Bothneighbourhoodsarequitefarawayfromthe
universitycampusandthecollege,whichmightexplainwhytheyarenotsopopularfor
students.Middellandseemstohaveslightlymorestudents,whichcanprobablybe
explainedbyitsgreataccessibility.Ifstudentsstayaftertheireducationishardtosay
becauseofthat.
Becauseofgentrification,moremiddleclassresidentscometotheneighbourhood.Thishas
aninfluenceontheotherresidents.Firstly,theyseethatthesocialcompositionischanged
[43]
toaslightlywhiterpopulation.Thereishowevernotaclearlossofdiversityinthis
composition,becausebothneighbourhoodswerequitemixedtobeginwith.Thisisagain
differentfromthetheory.
Therespondentsdothinkthatmanyofthechangesmadeintheareaaremadebecauseof
thenewmiddleclassresidentsmovingin.Safetyhasimprovedbyhangingcamerasand
havingamorefrequentpolicewatch.Thestreetscapehasimproved,becausemorepeople
areengagedinkeepingtheneighbourhoodcleanandattractive.Therespondentsthinkthat
theseimprovementswouldnothavehappenedifthosepeopledidnotmovetothe
neighbourhood,sotheyseeitassomethingpositive.
Overallthechangesthattherespondentsseeintheneighbourhoodshavemuchincommon
withthechangesdescribedinthetheory.Butwherethetheoryisrathernegativeonmost
changes,especiallyfortheoldresidents,therespondentsseemedtohavearatherpositive
viewonthechanges,withsomeexception,mostlyonKatendrecht.
ThegovernmentalstrategyforRotterdamasdescribedinchapter4isclearlybasedon
state-ledgentrification.ThedocumentstudyalsoshowsthattheprojectinMiddelland
reallytriestoreachandinvolveallresidentsintheneighbourhood.OnKatendrechtthis
alsohappens,buttoalesserextent.Byansweringthesecondsubquestionofthisinterview,
therewillbegivenaninsightonhowtherespondentsviewthegovernmentalstrategyinthe
neighbourhood.Thesecondsubquestionofthisresearchisasfollows:
Howdothe‘inbetween’residentsexperiencethegovernmentalinterventioninthe
neighbourhood?
InMiddellandtheresidentsexperiencethisasquitepositive.Sincetheneighbourhoodisa
trialareaforco-creationmanycommunitycentreshavere-openedwhichtrytoconnect
people.Thisseemstobeworkingwell,howevermostpeoplevisitthecentreclosesttotheir
homes,thusconnectingthewholeneighbourhoodtoeachotherwillbedifficult.Thegreat
amountofsubsidiesallowstheneighbourhoodtodogreatthings,buttherespondentssay
thattheydidnotaccomplishmuchyet.
Furthermore,theprojectMooi,MooierMiddellandseemstoexcludesomepeople.The
respondentsthatareawareoftheexistenceoftheprojectcallitaratherwhiteproject.
Otherpeoplewhodonothaveaconnectiontotheprojectaremostlynotawareofits
existence,whichmightleadtosegregation,contrarytowhatpositivegentrificationwantsto
achieve.
OnKatendrechtlesssubsidiesareavailableandtherespondentsnoticethisbyfeelingless
representedbythemunicipalgovernment.Onlytwocommunitycentresareopeninthe
neighbourhoodandthesefailtobringeverybodytogetherbecausetheyareseenas
competition.Theshopsupplyontheislandisalsoadjustedtothenewmiddleclass
residentsandotherservicesliketrimmingthehedgesfailtobearranged.Thecrimerate
alsowentupinthelastcoupleofyears,contrarytowhatpositivegentrificationshouldbe
doing.
[44]
InMiddellandthepositiveorsmartgentrificationseemstobeworking,theneighbourhood
ismoresociallymixed,lesssegregatedandmoreliveable(Lees,2008)thanitusedtobe.
Katendrechtmightnotbethereyet.Partwherethedatadoesagreeonthetheoryisthat
displacementisheldverylow,withafewexceptionsjustoutsidetheneighbourhoods,the
socialmixisincreasedandthatmostservicesintheneighbourhoodareseenasapositive
outcomeofthegovernmentalpolicy.
[45]
6.Conclusion
Inthischapterthemainconclusionswillbedescribedbyansweringthecentralquestionof
theresearchposedinchapter1.Thiswillbedonebyconnectingthetheoryandthedata
analysis,previouslydiscussedinthisthesis.Thecentralquestionofthisresearchisas
follows:
“Howdothe‘inbetween’residentsoftheneighbourhoodsMiddellandandKatendrecht
experiencethechangestakingplaceinthegentrifyingneighbourhoodsanddoesthepolicy
obtainedhaveaninfluenceontheseexperiences?”
Thefirsthalfofthequestiononhowtheresidentsexperiencethechangescanbeoverall
answeredpositively.Allresidentsseethechangesassomethingpositiveforthe
neighbourhoodsbecausetheneighbourhoodisevolving.However,notallseparatechanges
areexperiencedpositivelybytheresidents.
Asinthetheorydescribedtherearechangesvisibleonasocial,physicalandeconomiclevel
asdescribedinthetheory.Therearechangesinthehousingsectionoftheneighbourhood
andthefacilityandservicesupplyhasbeenchangedleadingtoeconomicchangesinthe
neighbourhood.Besidesthat,thesocialcompositionoftheneighbourhoodshaschanged
withanincreasingnumberofhigher-educatedmiddleclassresidents.
Furthermore,theliveabilityoftheneighbourhoodshasincreased.Lees(2010)defineda
liveableneighbourhoodas‘abalancedneighbourhoodwithalowlevelofcrimeanda
sizeableshareofmiddle-classhouseholds’.Inbothneighbourhoodsthiscanbeseenbythe
changingsocialcompositionandtheincreaseinprivateproperty.However,crimerates
havenotdecreasedperseintheneighbourhoods,itisbettertosaythattherehasbeena
shiftincrime,makingthecrimelessvisible.InMiddellandthismostlyhastodowiththe
increaseofmiddleclasshouseholds,whichledtoanincreaseinsurveillancebypoliceand
cameras.InKatendrechtthecrimehasdecreasedwhentheresidentstooktheinitiativeto
startapreventiongroup.
Anotherdevelopmentthatistypicalforgentrificationisthechangeinfacilitiesandservices.
Inbothneighbourhoodsnewfacilitieshavebeenadded.InMiddellandthisresultedina
greatmixbetweenoldandnewfacilities,whichprovideforalldifferentresidentsinthe
area.InKatendrechthowever,almostalloldfacilitieshastoclosetheirdoorsandmake
roomfornewrestaurants.Thesenewfacilitiesarealmostneverusedbytheoldresidents,
becausetheyarefoundtooexpensive,whichisoneoftheconsequencesthatAtkinson
(2002)andDoucet(2009)mentionedintheirtheory.
Anotherpositivedevelopmentofgentrificationisthere-openingofcommunitycentresin
theneighbourhoods.InMiddellandmanynewoneshavebeenaddedaswell,giving
residentstheopportunitytovisitthecentreclosesttotheirhomes.OnKatendrechtonly
twoarestillopen,theyareseenascompetitiontomostresidents,thatiswhytheyfailin
bringingthecommunitytogether.Thus,inbothneighbourhoodsthecommunitycentresare
[46]
apositivechange,butmightcausesegregationforsome,disagreeingonthetheorythat
positivegentrificationcancreateastrongfeelingofcommunity.
Thiscanalsobeseeninthechangesonbehalfofsocialnetworkintheneighbourhood,
whichareminimal.Thecomingofnewfacilitiesandhousesmayhavemadethegap
betweenrichandpoorslightlybiggerasDoucet(2009)alsomentions.InMiddellandsome
ofthemixedstreetsgivewayfortheopportunityforresidentstomeeteachother.Butin
otherareasandonKatendrechtthereareclosetonoplaceswherenewandoldresidents
canmeetandsocialisewitheachother,leavingtheclosesocialnetworksmostlyuntouched.
Thesecondhalfofthecentralquestionishowthepolicyobtainedcaninfluencethese
experiences.Inbothneighbourhoodsthereisstate-ledpositivegentrification.Thecontent
basedpartwherethegovernmenthasaclearstrategyongentrification(Geurtz,2007)is
there.Inbothneighbourhoodsthegovernmenthasdemolishedsocialhousingtomake
roomforprivatepropertyorstillhastheplantodoit.Theprocess-orientedside,inwhich
opinionsofdifferentactorsaretakenintoaccount(Geurtz,2007)seemstomissin
KatendrechtbutisclearlyvisibleinMiddellandbecauseoftheinvestmentsinco-creation.
ThismightbetheexplanationofwhysomechangesonKatendrechtseemtoleaveoutthe
‘inbetween’residentsmorethaninMiddelland.Therespondentsconfirmthis;in
Middellandtheresidentsfeelwellrepresentedbythegovernmentandiftheyareawareof
theproject,feelliketheyhaveachoicetobeinvolved.OnKatendrechttheresidentsstill
havetotakeinitiativethemselvesandfeellikethegovernmentfailsatprovidingsome
essentialservices.InbothMiddellandandKatendrecht,theinformationsupplycanalsobe
increased.
Overall,the‘inbetween’residentsinbothMiddellandandKatendrechtexperiencethe
changesduetogentrificationasapositivedevelopmentfortheneighbourhoodandtheydo
notwanttoleavetheirneighbourhoods.Thepolicyobtaineddoeshaveaninfluenceon
theseexperiences,especiallyonKatendrecht,wherethepositivegentrificationpolicyseems
tofailininvolvingandrepresentingallresidents.InMiddellandtheresidentsfeelwell
representedbuttheywouldliketoseetheinvolvementbeingstimulatedmore.Inboth
neighbourhoodsthepastisnotforgotten,buttheyaremostcertainlyreadytoliveand
experiencethepresentanditschanges.
[47]
7.Discussion
Inthischaptertherecommendationsforpotentialfollow-upresearchandthereflectionon
thisresearchwillbedescribed.Thesetwocomplementeachother.Recommendationsare
importanttoshowwhyfurtherresearchisinterestingtodeepenthissubject.Thereflection
willgiveinsightonwhichstumblingblockscanbeforeseen,inordertomakefurther
researcheasier.
7.1 Recommendations
Intheconclusionstheresearchcametoapositiveansweronthecentralquestion.The‘in
between’residentsseethechangesduetogentrificationinbothneighbourhoodsasa
positivedevelopment.However,therearestillmanyfootnotestobemadewiththis
conclusion.
Inbothneighbourhoodsthereisstate-ledgentrificationthattriestobepositiveorsmart
gentrification.InMiddellandthegovernmentisquiteontrackwithinvolvingasmany
peopleaspossibleintheory,butseemtofailintheproject.OnKatendrechttheemphasisis
stillonluringinthemiddleclass,leavingouttheneedsandpreferencesoftheother
residents.Recommendationforfurtherresearchthereforecanbetoinvestigateboth
neighbourhoodsseparately,becausetheneighbourhoodsprovedtodifferquiteabitfrom
eachother.Wheninvestigatingtheneighbourhoodsindividually,thereisanoptiontogo
deeperintothespecificchangesthataretypicalfortheneighbourhoods.Thereforebetter
insightforthegovernmentscanbeobtained.Afterthisindividualinvestigationofboth
neighbourhoods,theresearchercanthenlookathowtheneighbourhoodscanlearnfrom
eachother.
Anotherimportantrecommendationistorepeattheresearchwhenlong-termchangesare
visible.Gentrificationinbothneighbourhoodshasonlybeguneightyearsago.The
neighbourhoodsbotharestillchangingalotwithhousesbeingdemolishedandreplaced,
shopscomingandgoingandtheprojectsstillattherootsoftheirexistence.Thechanges
thencanbemoredistinctandresidentsmighthavechangedtheiropinionsbythen.Thatis
whyitisrecommendedtorepeatthisresearchinthefuture.
Apartfromthat,whatshouldalsobehighlightedisthat,whichisseeninthisresearchas
well,neighbourhoodsdifferalotfromeachother.Thisresearchcanberepresentativefor
similarneighbourhoods.Allneighbourhoodshoweverhavetheirowndynamicsandtheir
ownpathtofollow,whichhavedifferentinfluencesontheresidents,thechangesandthe
experiences.
[48]
7.2 Reflection
Firstofallwhatshouldbetakeninmindinfollow-upresearchisthedifficultyinfinding
respondents.Peopledonotgivepersonalinformationawaytostrangerseasily,whichwill
notleadtomanyrespondentsviaemail.Goingonthestreetstotalktopeopleisquitehard
aswell.Peopletendtoberestrainedandarenotalwayswillingtoparticipateinthe
research.Importanttonoteisthatthewillingnessofcertaingroupsofpeopleislessthan
othersandnoteverybodyisabletospeakthesamelanguageastheresearcher.Still,itis
importanttoinvolveresidentsfromallethnicgroups.Bothneighbourhoodsnamelyhavea
largeshareofimmigrantgroupswithdifferentethnicbackgrounds.Theyhoweverwere
hardtoapproachordidnotfeeltheneedtoexpresstheiropinionsinaninterview;this
mightgiveadistortedimageoftheresearch.
Becauseofthis,therepresentativenessoftheresearchcanbeharmed.Therespondents
weremostlyfoundbythesnowballeffect,whereonerespondentsharedcontact
informationforanotherpotentialrespondent.Otherrespondentswerefoundbecausethey
wereknownandmoreinvolvedintheneighbourhoodandthereforeeasiertofind.This
mightleadtosimilarexperiencesoftheneighbourhood,becausetherespondentsarein
similarsocialcontextsorlivingareas.Thismakesitmoredifficulttogeneralisethefindings
tothewholegroupof‘inbetween’residents.Addingquantitativeresearchtoit,wherethe
biggestchangesarequestioned,tobeabletogeneralisemore,couldmaybechangethis.Itis
howeverimportanttodobothbecauseotherwisethedepthoftheresearchwillbelost.
Intheenditcanmaybebesaidthatthosepeoplewhohaveinterestingopinionsaboutthe
neighbourhoodandwhocareaboutwhatisdone,aretheoneswillingtotalkaboutthe
neighbourhoodinordertohelpchangeitinthebestwaytheycan.Thesearethepeople
whoareinterviewedandaretheoneswhocanmakeachangeintheneighbourhood.
[49]
8.References
Atkinson,R.(2000),Thehiddencostsofgentrification:DisplacementincentralLondon.
JournalofHousingandtheBuiltEnvironment,No.15,p.307-326.
Atkinson,R.(2002),Doesgentrificationhelporharmurbanneighbourhoods?An
assessmentoftheevidence-baseinthecontextoftheNewUrbanAgenda.ESRCCentrefor
NeighbourhoodResearch,paper5,p.1-25.
Atkinson, R. (2004). The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban
renaissance?. European Journal of Housing Policy, 4(1), 107-131.
ClarkE,2005,``Theorderandsimplicityofgentrification'',inGentrificationinaGlobal
Context.TheNewUrbanColonialismEdsRAtkinson,GBridge(Routledge,London)pp256
^264
Creswell,J.W.(2012).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfive
approaches.Sage.
Davidson,M.(2008).Spoiledmixture:wheredoesstate-led‘positive’gentrification
end?.UrbanStudies,45(12),2385-2405.
DePersgroepNederland,(2015).DekrantvoorderegioRotterdam.Requestedfrom
http://www.persgroepadvertising.nl/dé-krant-voor-de-regio-rotterdam
Desmet,E.(2016).Mooi,MooierMiddelland.Bewoners,ondernemersengemeentebundelen
krachtinco-creatie.Rotterdam.
Diappi,L.,&Bolchi,P.(2008).Smith’srentgaptheoryandlocalrealestatedynamics:A
multi-agentmodel.Computers,EnvironmentandUrbanSystems,32(1),6-18.
Doucet,B.(2009),Livingthroughgentrification:subjectiveexperiencesoflocal,non-
gentrifyingresidentsinLeith,Edinburgh.JournalofHousingandtheBuiltEnvironment,Vol.
24,No.3,p.299-315.
FeijtenP.&P.Visser(2005),Binnenlandsemigratie:Verhuismotievenenverhuisafstand.
CBSBevolkingstrends,2ekwartaal2005.pp.75-81
Florida,R.(2005).Citiesandthecreativeclass.Routledge.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research.Qualitative
inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
GemeenteRotterdam.(2016).Katendrecht,RotterdamFeijenoord.Retreivedfrom
http://www.rotterdam.nl/katendrecht
GemeenteRotterdam.(2016).Middelland,RotterdamDelfshaven.Retreivedfrom
http://www.rotterdam.nl/middelland
GemeenteRotterdam.(2007).BestemmingsplanMiddelland/HetNieuweWesten.Rotterdam:
BureauBestemmingsplannen
[50]
GemeenteRotterdam.(2007).StadsvisieRotterdamRuimtelijkeOntwikkelingsstrategie2030.
Rotterdam:GemeenteRotterdam
Geurtz,C.(2006).Gentrification,wijkenenbeleid.ErasmusUniversiteitRotterdam.
GoogleMaps.(2016).Katendrecht,Rotterdam.[StreetMap].Retreivedfrom
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Katendrecht,+Rotterdam/@51.9010105,4.4782581,16
z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c4337bbdea89c9:0x8d8aa28bc1f06040!8m2!3d51.900
0849!4d4.4797897?hl=nl
GoogleMaps.(2016).Middelland,Rotterdam[StreetMap].Retreivedfrom
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Middelland,+Rotterdam/@51.9165735,4.4507123,15z
/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c434bd8dd46baf:0x1b745914f8fc7520!8m2!3d51.9146
884!4d4.4586661?hl=nl
Grabinsky,J.&Butler,S.M.,(2015).TheAnti-PovertyCasefor“Smart”Gentrification,Part2.
Requestedfromhttp://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobilitymemos/posts/2015/02/11-low-income-neighborhood-gentrification-butler
Hubbard,P.(2009),Geographiesofstudentificationandpurpose-buildstudent
accommodation:leadingseparatelives?EnvironmentandPlanningA,Vol.41,p.1903-1923.
Inglis,D.andThorpe,C.(2012),AnInvitationtoSocialTheory,Cambridge:PolityPress.
Chapter10:‘StructurationistParadigms’
Lees,L.,Slater,T.&Wyly,E.(2010).ThegentrificationReader.Oxon,Routledge.
Lees,L.(2008).Gentrificationandsocialmixing:towardsaninclusiveurban
renaissance?.UrbanStudies,45(12),2449-2470.
Malherbe,L.,Desmet,E.,Boxman,T.(2012).BelvédèreProjectplan2013-2016.Retreived
fromhttp://www.belvedererotterdam.nl/missie-en-doel/
Markus,N.(2016).DetriomfvanRotterdam.Retreivedfrom
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/4262041/2016/03/12/Detriomf-van-Rotterdam.dhtml
Meershoek,P.(2015).Yuppenparadijs:hipenhoogopgeleidneemtAmsterdamover.
Retreivedfrom
http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/4/AMSTERDAM/article/detail/3851842/2015/02/15/Y
uppenparadijs-hip-en-hoogopgeleid-neemt-Amsterdam-over.dhtml
OntwikkelingsbedrijfRotterdam.(2016).KunjijdeKaapaan?.Retreivedfrom
www.kunjijdekaapaan.nl
Pacione,M.(2009).Urbangeography:Aglobalperspective.Routledge.
Pitt,J.(1977)GentrificationinIslington.BarnsburyPeople’sForum,London.
Rijksoverheid.(2016).Huurwoning.Retreivedfrom
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning
RuimtelijkEconomischeOntwikkelingRotterdam-West.(2014).Rotterdamse
Mobiliteitsagenda2015-2018.Rotterdam:GemeenteRotterdam
[51]
Schipper,K.(2013).TussenKatendrechtersenKapenezen.Retreivedfrom
https://versbeton.nl/2013/12/tussen-katendrechters-en-kapenezen/
Smith,N.(1996).Thenewurbanfrontier:gentrificationandtherevanchistcity.Psychology
Press.
Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban
strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450.
Spain,D.(1993).Been-heresversuscome-heres.JournaloftheAmericanPlanning
Association,59(2),156–172.
Uitermark,J.,Duyvendak,J.W.,&Kleinhans,R.(2007).Gentrificationasagovernmental
strategy:socialcontrolandsocialcohesioninHoogvliet,Rotterdam.Environmentand
PlanningA,39(1),125-141.
VanEngelen,M.(2015).Gentrificatie:NuisRotterdamaandebeurt.Opgevraagdvan
https://www.vn.nl/gentrificatie-nu-is-rotterdam-aan-de-beurt/
Verschuren,P.J.M.,&Doorewaard,J.A.C.M.(2007).Hetontwerpenvaneenonderzoek.Den
Haag:Lemma.
[52]
Appendix I Interviewguide
RadboudUniversityNijmegen
BachelorthesisGPM
MarijkeClarisse
Interviewguide
Introduction:
-
WhoamI?
Whatistheresearchaboutandwhyisitrelevant?
IsitokayifIrecordtheinterview?
Mentionthattherecordingswillnotbeusedforanythingbuttranscribing
Gentrificationoverall:
Canyouintroduceyourself?(Howlonghaveyoubeenlivinghere,whatdoyoudo…?)
Whatcharacteristicswouldyougivetheneighbourhoodbeforegentrification/changes
started?(physicalorsociale.g.cosy,divers,notreallynice…)
Howhasthischangedinthelastcoupleofyears?
Howwouldyounow,afterthechangeshaveoccurred,describetheneighbourhood?(shop
supply,socialstructure…)
Whatis,accordingtoyou,thereputationoftheneighbourhoodintherestofRotterdam?
Consequencesofgentrification:
Howareyouinformedaboutthechangestakingplaceintheneighbourhood?(e.g.letters,
informationmeetings,socialmedia…?)
Housing:
Reportsstatethatbecauseofgentrificationtherentsaregettinghigher,inRotterdamthe
privaterenthasgoneupwith9%since2015.Italsostatesthatthereisanincreasein
privatepropertyhousingandadecreaseinsocialhousing.
-
Doyourecognisethis?
Howhasthisaffectedyou?
Haveyoueverbeenscaredofhavingtoleavethisneighbourhoodbecauseofthese
changesinhousing?
Reportsalsostatethatthenumberofstudentsintheneighbourhoodincreases.
-
Doyourecognisethis?
Whatconsequencedoesthishavefortheneighbourhood?(Socialandphysical)
Doyoufeellikestudentswillstayhereaftertheirstudiesmorethantheyusedto?
Overall:howhastheneighbourhoodbeenphysicallyrefurbishedinthelastcoupleofyears?
Doyouthinkthishastodowithgentrification?
[53]
Facilitiesandservices:
Towhatextentareyoupleasedbytheshopsupplyintheneighbourhood?
Towhatextenthasthissupplychangedoverthelastcoupleofyears?
-
Haveshopsdisappearedornewonesappeared?
Mixbetweenoldandnew?
Towhatextenthavetheshopschangedonaneconomicallevel?
-
Aretheremoreexpensiveshopsthanthereusedtobe?Oramix?
Aretheredifferentkindsofshops?(e.g.morespecialityshops/organic?)
Towhatextentdothechangesinfacilitiesandserviceshaveaninfluenceonthesociallifein
theneighbourhood?
-
Moresegregationbetweenoldandnewresidents?
Socialnetworkandcohesion:
Researchstatesthatasaconsequenceofgentrificationcriminalitycanincreaseordecrease
(InRotterdamadecreasingtrendisvisible)
-
Towhatextentdoyouseechangesconcerningcriminality?
Payattention:burglariesinthestreetcanhaveabiginfluenceonasmallscale
Clutteringandvandalism?
Researchalsotellsusthatthesocialcompositionoftheneighbourhoodcanchangeasa
consequenceofgentrification
-
Doyouseechangesinthecomposition?
Whatconsequencesdoesthishaveforyourownsocialcirclewithpeopleinthe
neighbourhood?
Towhatextentareyouattachedtoyourneighbourhood?
-
Hasgentrificationchangedthis?
Doyoufeelathomeintheneighbourhood?
Governmentalrole:
TowhatextentareyouinformedaboutMooi,MooierMiddelland?
TowhatextentareyouinformedaboutKunjijdeKaapaanandVerhalenhuis,Belvédère?
Doyouknowwhytheseprojectsstarted?
Doyoufeelinvolvedinthechangesbeingmadeintheneighbourhood?
Overall:Doyouseegentrificationasapositiveornegativedevelopmentforthe
neighbourhood?
Aretherethingsyouwanttoaddtotheinterview?
[54]
Appendix II List of code groups + members
Betrokkenheid
Members:
○ acties ○ Alleen naar eigen buurthuis ○ Alleen Nederlanders komen ○ Allochtonen minder
betrokken ○ Arabische les ○ Betrokkenheid ○ Buurt Bestuurt ○ Buurt Preventie ○
Buurtcommissie ○ Buurthuis ○ Buurthuis als oplossing ○ Eerst zien dan geloven ○ Functie
buurthuis ○ Gemeenschappelijke inspanningsverplichting ○ Hoeft geen inspraak ○ iedereen
betrokken ○ Inspraak ○ Inspraak = Strijd ○ Inspraakavonden ○ Komen bij verhalenhuis met
buurt bestuurt ○ Komen niet zo vaak in het verhalenhuis ○ Komt er regelmatig ○
Maakindustrie ○ Mark Baan - Fenix Loods ○ Meer voor middenklasse bewoners ○ Minder
betrokken mensen niet geïnformeerd ○ Minder community ○ Minderheid mee laten doen ○
MMM buiten de boot vallen ○ MMM Verdelen van de taart ○ NL = Verwarrend ○
Opzoomeren ○ Samen schoonmaken ○ Sommigen snappen het niet ○ VVE vergadering ○
Wegbezuinigd ○ Workshops ○ Zelf initiatief ertegen ○ Zwaerdecroonstraat
Criminaliteit
Members:
○ Binnen en buiten het gebouw overlast ○ Broeiplek voor slechte milieus ○ Buurt Preventie ○
Buurthuis als oplossing ○ Camera's ○ Coffeshops ○ Criminaliteit ○ Criminaliteit daalt/stijgt ○
Daling criminaliteit ○ Goede relatie met junken ○ Grimmigheid weg ○ Hoerenbuurt ○
Ijssalons ○ In Rotterdam daalt criminaliteit ○ Inbraak ○ Inbraken ○ Junks gingen weg ○
Kapsalons ○ Louche zaken ○ Marokkanen ○ Marokkanen = enige probleemgroep ○ Meer
controle ○ Middenklasse zorgt voor verandering ○ Minder vandalisme en verrommeling ○
Nieuwe huis = Rust ○ Nieuwe Middenklasse in de wijk ○ Nog steeds af en toe slecht ○
Overlast ○ Politie kwam ertussen ○ Reden buurt preventie ○ Rotterdamwet ○ Stijging
criminaliteit ○ vandalisme ○ veiliger ○ verrommeling ○ Verschuiving criminaliteit ● Vroeger
Junk-achtif ○ Vroeger Junk-achtig ○ Vroeger slechter ○ Witwaspraktijken
Displacement
Members:
○ Displacement ○ Fear of Displacement ○ Geen reden om te verhuizen ○ Huurverhoging ○
Huurverhoging = Weggaan ○ Huurverhoging = zorgen voor later ○ Mensen trekken sowieso
weg ○ Niet bang voor huurverhoging ○ Prijs om te kopen is te duur ○ Slopen van woningen ○
Van huur naar koopwonignen ○ Verhuizen buiten Rotterdam ○ Vroeger sociale huur ○ Zelf
huis kopen
Fysieke opknapping
Members:
○ Aantrekkelijk voor nieuwe mensen ○ Andere mensen zijn ook onder de indruk ○
Bestemming ○ Containers helpen niet ○ Deliplein ○ Fysieke opknapping wijk ○ Groen zelfde
gebleven ○ Huizen opgeknapt ○ Indeling wijk ○ Kan alleen maar beter worden ○ Kan nog
[55]
beter ○ Kruiskade verbeteren ○ Liever als Witte de Whitstraat ○ Minder vandalisme en
verrommeling ○ Natuur ○ Niet meegegaan met gentrification ○ Nu hele blok opgeknapt ○
Opzoomeren ○ Redenen voor opknapping ○ Regels over fysieke uitstraling gebouw ○
Renovatie ○ Slopen van woningen ○ straatbeeld ○ Veranderingen in wijk ○ Verhelpt het
probleem niet ○ Verpauperd = Weg ○ Verschil kopers en huurders ○ Verschil opgeknapt en niet
opgeknapt ○ Vuilnis ○ Winkels opgeknapt ○ Zelf initiatief ertegen ○ Zwaerdecroonstraat
Informatie
Members:
○ Geen wijkkrant ○ Informatie dmv brieven ○ Informeren ○ Inspraak ○ Inspraakavonden ○
Minder betrokken mensen niet geïnformeerd ○ VVE vergadering
Initiatief
Members:
○ Buurt Bestuurt ○ Buurt Preventie ○ Buurtcommissie ○ Camera's ○ Mark Baan - Fenix
Loods ○ Meer controle ○ Politie kwam ertussen ○ Reden buurt preventie ○ Regeling buurt
preventie ○ Zelf initiatief ertegen ○ Zelf regulerend
Inleiding + Voorstellen
Members:
○ Altijd in MIddelland ○ Inleiding ○ Opgegroeid in Middelland ○ Ouders naar Noord ○
Voorstellen
Integratie
Members:
○ Arabische les ○ Deïntegratie ○ Etnisch label ○ Etnische profilering ○ Geen last van
Chinezen/Turken ○ integratie van Klassen ○ Sommige Marokkanen doen niks
Kenmerken wijk
Members:
○ Aantrekkelijk voor nieuwe mensen ○ Allochtonen minder betrokken ○ Als Amsterdam ○
Begint leven in te komen ○ Bereikbaarheid ○ Broeiplek voor slechte milieus ○ Bruisend ○
chique huizen met burgermensen ○ Co-Creatie ○ Coöperaties ○ Daling criminaliteit ○ de
'Bas' ○ de 'Ontmoeting' ○ Deliplein is stil ○ Eenzijdige populatie ○ Eigen aanpassingen huis ○
Eigen huis ○ Eigen karakter ○ Eten, drinken, lezen, schrijven ○ Geen reden om te verhuizen ○
Gezellig ○ Goed aangeschreven buurt ○ Heel goed winkelaanbod ○ Iedere wijk heeft
problemen ○ Kan nog beter ○ Kenmerken ○ Keurige buurt ○ Kipwinkel ○ Latte Armoede ○
Liever als Witte de Whitstraat ○ Meer plezier ○ Natuur ○ Net een dorp ○ Nieuwe
Middenklasse in de wijk ○ Nu hippe buurt ○ Parkeerprobleem ○ Positieve verandering ○
prettige buurt ○ Reden voor vertrek ○ Reputatie ○ Rotterdam is hip ○ Sociale controle
minder ○ SS boot ○ Typisch voor gentrification ○ Uitgestorven ○ Uitstraling van nul ○ Uniek
stukje Rotterdam ○ veiliger ○ Verschuiving criminaliteit ○ Vroeger beter ○ Vroeger
Bruisend ○ Vroeger Junk-achtig ○ Wereldburgers
[56]
Meer koopwoningen
Members:
○ Als ze weg konden gingen ze weg ○ chique huizen met burgermensen ○ Constructiefout ○ de
'Ontmoeting' ○ Hoge prijs ○ Huizen opgeknapt ○ Iedereen heeft auto, dus niet erg als je iets
vergeet ○ Inleiding huisvesting ○ Kant koopwoningen ○ Meer voor middenklasse bewoners ○
Nieuwbouw ○ Nieuwe eigenaars ○ Nieuwe woning meer contact ○ Nu hele blok opgeknapt ○
Nu koopwoningen ○ Prijs om te kopen is te duur ○ Sociale huur ○ Van huur naar
koopwonignen ○ Vroeger sociale huur ○ Zelf huis kopen
Nieuwe voorzieningen
Members:
○ Ah = Klasse ○ Arabische les ○ Biologisch = hip ○ Buurtcommissie ○ Buurthuis ○ Cafés ○
CoffeHour? ○ Containers helpen niet ○ Deliplein ○ Deliplein is stil ○ Deliplein trekt mensen
van buitenad ○ Fenix Food Factory ○ FFF weg in 2018 ○ Geen plek om samen te komen ○
Geen vaste openingstijden ○ Goede kwaliteit ○ Heel goed winkelaanbod ○ Het Deliplein
werkt ○ Huis van de wijk ○ Iedereen heeft auto, dus niet erg als je iets vergeet ○ Ijssalons ○
Kapsalons ○ Koffiehuisjes ○ komt er zelf ook ○ Markthal ○ Marokkaanse Slager ○ Mensen
samenbrengen ○ Minder acties ○ Missen geen voorzieningen verder ○ Mist drogist en
supermarkt ○ Mix tussen oud en nieuw ○ Niet rendabel ○ Nieuwe eigenaars ○ Nieuwe
ondernemers weten niet beter ○ Nieuwe winkels ○ NL = Verwarrend ○ non profit ○
Parkeerprobleem ○ Slecht winkelaanbod ○ Slechte winkels ○ Sommige winkels beter dan
andere ○ Speciaalzaakjes ○ Van natte naar droge horeca ○ Vaste klant ○ Veel concurrentie ○
Verhalenhuis ○ Verhalenhuis concurrent van Steiger ○ Verkeer ○ Verpauperd = Weg ○
Viszaak ○ Voorzieningen ○ Voorzieningen van de kaap af ○ Voorzieningen voor iedereen ○
Willen ook normale dingen ○ Willen voordelig ○ WInkelaanbod in de wijk ○ Winkels
opgeknapt ○ Winkels zijn veranderd ○ Zelfde soort winkels
Oude voorzieningen
Members:
○ ALcoholisten onder de Kapenezen ○ Bier drinken ○ Cafés ○ Coffeshops ○ de 'Bas' ○ Eigen
winkel ○ Geen drogist ○ Geen supermarkt ○ Groen zelfde gebleven ○ Hoerenbuurt ○ Jos
Eertmans ○ Junkenwinkel ○ Kapenezen kregen geen vergunning meer ○ Kipwinkel ○ Lidl/Bas
= Slechter ○ Lokale supermarkt ○ Mix tussen oud en nieuw ○ NL = Verwarrend ○ Oude
voorzieningen ○ Oude voorzieningen moesten weg, ookal draaiden ze goed ○ Ouderwetse
bruine kroegen ○ Slechte winkels ○ Stamcafés ○ Verpauperd = Weg ○ Vrienden gaan wel ○
Wegbezuinigd ○ Winkels zijn veranderd ○ Zelf komt hij er nooit ○ Zit er al lang
Overheid
Members:
○ 4 Clusters ○ Andere visie ○ Bureaucratie ○ COELO ○ Eerst zien dan geloven ○
Gemeente ○ Gemeentelijke interventie ○ Gemeenten bovenaan ○ Inspraakavonden ○
Investeren in de arme vrouw ○ Jos Eertmans ○ Katendrecht ○ Klagen bij Woonstad ○ koloniaal
gevoel ○ Nieuwe eigenaars ○ NL = Verwarrend ○ Onheldere communicatie ○ Ontwikkeling
haven ○ Profileren van Rotterdam ○ Projectgroep veiligheid ○ Representatie door gemeente ○
[57]
Rol overheid ○ Rotterdamwet ○ Slecht geregeld ○ Slopen van woningen ○ Sommigen snappen
het niet ○ Stedelijk Dillemma ○ Wegbezuinigd ○ Woonstad
Place attachment
Members:
○ Place Attachment
Project
Members:
○ Buurteconomie ○ Buurthuis ○ Buurthuis brengt mensen bij elkaar ○ Co-Creatie ○
Decentralisatie ○ decentralisatie van buurten ○ Gemeenten bovenaan ○ Grens? ○ Komen bij
verhalenhuis met buurt bestuurt ○ Komen niet zo vaak in het verhalenhuis ○ Komt er
regelmatig ○ Maakindustrie ○ Meer voor middenklasse bewoners ○ Middelland Proefgebied ○
MMM buiten de boot vallen ○ MMM communicatie ○ MMM groepen niet vertegenwoordigd ○
MMM je moet connecties hebben ○ MMM ongemakkelijk ○ MMM Verdelen van de taart ○
Mooi, Mooier Middelland ○ Niet van gehoord ○ Projectgroep veiligheid ○ Samen
schoonmaken ○ uitleg project ○ Veel Kapenezen gaan wel ○ Verhalenhuis ○ Verhalenhuis
concurrent van Steiger
Segregatie
Members:
○ Betere klik Kapenezen ○ chique huizen met burgermensen ○ Etnisch label ○ Etnische
profilering ○ Geen 1 buitenlander ○ Geen segregatie in voorzieningen ○ Kant koopwoningen ○
Kloof tussen arm en rijk ○ Marokkanen = enige probleemgroep ○ minder Segregatie ○
Nederlanders in koopwoningen ○ Segregatie in fysiek straatbeeld ○ Segregatie in soorten
winkels ○ Segregatie in straten ○ Segregatie van culturen ○ Tussenring veel Turken ○ Verschil
Kapenezen - Katendrechters ○ Zoeken elkaar op
Sociaal netwerk
Members:
○ Alleen naar eigen buurthuis ○ Anonimiteit in buurt waar ze woont ○ Betere klik Kapenezen ○
Dagelijks leven ○ Door werk contact met veel verschillende mensen ○ Fijn dat hij met 'hogere
klassen' contact heeft ○ Goede relatie met junken ○ Huurders asociaal ○ Individualistisch ○
Katendrechters bij elkaar ○ Klein contact ○ Leren kennen na verhuizing ○ Opleidingsniveau
maakt ook verschil ○ Sociaal contact ○ Sociaal contact met iedereen ○ Veel Kapenezen gaan
wel ○ Vervreemding ○ Voor jongeren niks ○ Voor oudere mensen ○ Vooral eigen kring ○
Vrienden van overal ○ Zelfde doel ○ Zoeken elkaar op
Sociale samenstelling
Members:
○ 50% uitkering ○ chique huizen met burgermensen ○ Iedereen zelfde behandeld ○ Kapenezen
komen terug ○ Koop en huur door elkaar ○ Kopers investeren meer ○ Liever nette mensen ○
Marokkaanse kinderen vaak tot laat op straat ○ Marokkanen ○ Marokkanen verspreid over de
[58]
wijk ○ Middenklasse ○ mix qua buitenlanders ○ Nederlanders in koopwoningen ○ Nederlandse
studenten ○ Nieuwe eigenaars ○ Nieuwe Middenklasse in de wijk ○ Ook arme mensen ○ Ook
veel Chinezen ○ Probleemgezinnen in sociale huur ○ Probleemgroep: Antilianen en
Marokkanen ○ Samenstelling buurt ○ Sociaal contact met iedereen ○ Sociale mix ○ sociale
samenstelling ○ Studentification ○ Tussenring veel Turken ○ Veel buitenlanders ○ Veel wittere
bevolking ○ Verhuizen buiten Middelland ○ Vroeger rijke mensen ○ Weinig studenten ○
Wereldburgers
Stijging Huurprijzen
Members:
○ Buurman krijgt voor het eerst huurverhoging ○ Geen prijsverhoging ○ Goedkope huur ○
Hoge huur ○ Huurverhoging ○ Huurverhoging = Weggaan ○ Huurverhoging = zorgen voor
later ○ Merkt niks van Huurstijging ○ Niet bang voor huurverhoging ○ Sociale huur ○
Verschuiving probleem sociale huur
Studentification
Members:
○ Buitenlandse studenten ○ door de vingers zien ○ Echte studentenstad ○ Geen last van ○
Gevolgen door studentification ○ Nederlandse studenten ○ Nu meer dan vroeger ○ Studenten
bezorgen last ○ Studenten bij Fenix Loods ○ Studenten door ZKH ○ Studenten feesten vaak ○
Studenten komen erbij ○ Studenten kopen vaker lunch ○ Studentification ○ Veel lawaai, geen
last van ○ Weinig studenten
Veranderingen
Members:
○ Als Amsterdam ○ Camera's ○ Criminaliteit daalt/stijgt ○ Daling criminaliteit ○ Eigen
aanpassingen huis ○ Eigen huis ○ evolutie prijzen ○ Fijn dat hij met 'hogere klassen' contact
heeft ○ Fysieke metamorfose ○ Fysieke opknapping wijk ○ Groen zelfde gebleven ○ Huizen
opgeknapt ○ Kan alleen maar beter worden ○ Kapenezen snappen het niet ○ Koop werd huur ○
Latte Armoede ○ Latte armoede in eigen kring ○ Mensen trekken sowieso weg ○ Minder
community ○ Niemand heeft alst van de veranderinge ○ Oude voorzieningen moesten weg,
ookal draaiden ze goed ○ Positieve verandering ○ Renovatie ○ Rotterdamwet ○ Slecht
winkelaanbod ○ Trip Advisor ○ Van huur naar koopwonignen ○ Veranderingen in wijk ○
Verschillende redenen om weg te gaan ○ Voor jongeren niks ○ Wanneer je geld genoeg hebt,
verhuis je ○ Winkels zijn veranderd
Voorzieningen economisch vlak
Members:
○ acties ○ Bonus bij AH ○ CoffeHour? ○ Door winkesl ○ Drempel omlaag ○ Economisch
vlak ○ Eigen koffie ○ Geen prijsverhoging ○ Geld speelt belangrijke rol ○ Hoge prijs ○ Kloof
tussen arm en rijk ○ Latte Armoede ○ Latte armoede in eigen kring ○ Mensen kopen meer ○
Middenklasse wordt arm ○ Minder acties ○ Niet duur ○ Niet prijzig ○ Niet rendabel ○ non
profit ○ Pas open als volgereserveerd ○ Prijs = drempel voor Kapenezen ○ Prijzen stijgen ○ SS
[59]
boot ○ Subsidies betalen eigenaars ○ Te veel uitgeven naar hun kunnen ○ Verkooptruc ○
Willen voordelig
Voorzieningen invloed sociaal leven
Members:
○ Aantrekkelijk voor nieuwe mensen ○ ALcoholisten onder de Kapenezen ○ Alleen naar eigen
buurthuis ○ Begint leven in te komen ○ Deliplein trekt mensen van buitenad ○ Goede relatie
met junken ○ Goede service ○ Iedereen zelfde behandeld ○ Invloed voorzieningen op sociale
leven ○ Kapenezen gaan Katendrecht af ○ Komen bij verhalenhuis met buurt bestuurt ○ komt er
zelf ook ○ Lidl/Bas = Slechter ○ Mark Baan - Fenix Loods ○ Opkomende plek ○ Segregatie in
soorten winkels ○ Stamcafés ○ Studenten bij Fenix Loods ○ Toeristen ○ Voorzieningen van de
kaap af ○ Winkels zijn veranderd ○ Zelfde mensen naar AH
Vroeger slechte wijk
Members:
○ 3 jaar spookstraat ○ Broeiplek voor slechte milieus ○ Criminaliteit ○ Daling criminaliteit ○
Fysieke opknapping wijk ○ Hoerenbuurt ○ Huizen opgeknapt ○ Iedere wijk heeft problemen ○
Inbraak ○ Inbraken ○ Junkenwinkel ○ Junks gingen weg ○ Meegegaan met de tijd ○ Minder
vandalisme en verrommeling ○ Nog steeds af en toe slecht ○ Nu hele blok opgeknapt ○ Nu
meer dan vroeger ○ Renovatie ○ Rotterdamwet ○ Slechte winkels ○ Stijging criminaliteit ○
veiliger ○ Veranderingen in wijk ○ Verpauperd = Weg ● Vroeger Junk-achtif ○ Vroeger
slechte reputatie ○ Vroeger slechter
[60]
Appendix III Group code network
61
[]