Urban renewal and social mixing in Bijlmermeer, Amsterdam Wouter

Urban renewal and social mixing
in Bijlmermeer, Amsterdam
Wouter van Gent
Urban Geographies, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR)
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Presentation
Seminar “Urban Renewal Projects in Europe”
Institut dÚrbanisme de Paris, 8 March 2011
Outline
1. History of Bijlmermeer
2. Problems
3. Renewal and interventions
4. Social appraisal
Amsterdam Metropolitan Housing Policy
Wouter van Gent, ENHR 09, Prague, 28 June- 1 July 2009
3
MAP
Living will be good in Bijlmer
CITY of the FUTURE
…with spacious sound-proof flats, parks,
and four shopping centres
Rationalistic Planning
Second post-WWII urban extension after the Western
Garden Cities
1964-1965: Designed according to principles of Congress
International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM)
Urban planning experiment with ‘scientific’ and rationalistic
principles: separation of functions, lots of green space and
elevated roads.
Rationalistic Planning
Rationalistic Planning
Rationalistic Planning
Separation of traffic
(Tativille)
Housing
Exclusively
high-rise apartment blocks
…in parkland
Honey-comb structure
Housing
- 23,000 nearly identical dwellings
- Comfortable and spacious (100-125 m2)
- Middle class housing
- Rented and managed by housing associations
2. Problems
• Vacancies and high turn-over rates (highest: 25% in 1985)
• Social problems:
poverty, crime, nuissances, youth gangs, unsafe public space,
unemployment, sans-papier
• Manageability problems (high costs)
• Most stigmatised neighbourhood in NL (‘Black ghetto’)
Cause I: Planning failures
• Late arrival of amenities, shopping centres and subway
(1980s)
• ‘Indefensible’ space
• Too much (semi-)public space
• Monotonous and disproportionate design
and housing market
Parking Garage
Cause II: External developments
- Suburbanisation of middle classes (since 1960s)
- Decolonisation: independence of Surinam (1975)
- ‘Cleaning up’ of city centres (1990s)
1980s: First efforts: “Nieuw Amsterdam”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A new housing association (1983)
Technical improvements
Demolishing parts of parking garages
Rearranging public space
Galleries and inner-streets closed off
Lowering rents and free parking
Splitting apartments
Private gardens
However,
• Still maintenance problems,
vacancies, social issues and crime
• Threatening bankruptcy
3. Renewal and interventions
• Remaining problems yet central state refused to help financially
• Early 1990s: ambitious programme (extended in 2001) to
transform the neigbourhood socially and physically
• Aim: ‘socially varied population living in an attractive and varied
housing stock’
• Social mixing for neighbourhood and for residents
– Positive neighbourhood effects through socialisation, role
modelling, social efficacy, social capital
– Less negative effects
• 3 Pillars (integrated effort)
– Large-scale renewal
– Management and public safety
– Social economic programmes
Large-scale renewal
‘It is beneficial to use, if possible, solid but less
durable materials, as this will decrease the life
span of housing, which will allow for earlier
replacement of housing and for adaptations to
changing technical and societal conditions.’
Mr. van der Velde (1968)
Large-scale renewal
• 15 years after last construction: demolishing high
rises (1/4 in 1992, expanded to 2/3 in 2001 and
2008)
• Intensive renovation of remaining high-rises
• New construction: densification (+13%)
• Housing market restructuring
(92% social rent -> 55%)
Large-scale renewal
•
•
•
•
Demolishing: 7000
New: 8000 (70% owner occupied – 30% social rent)
Renovation: 4000
Privatisation: 1500
• Renewal public space: 400 hectare
• Demolished parking garages: 16
• Renewal shopping centres: 2
• Development of Bijlmer Arena
• Costs: €1600 million (excl. Arena), €450M covered by public
Management and safety
• more cleaners in public areas and extra cleaning
operations in apartment blocks
• anti-pollution squads to fine offenders
• temporary closing-off of box-rooms, lobbies, dead
ends etc. in flats to be renovated
• service and repairs outside office hours
• wardens in flats and public areas
• neighbourhood safety offices
• cameras in interior corridors of flats
End of ‘Bijlmer Paradise’
•
•
•
•
•
Undocumented immigrants (sans papiers)
Homeless and drug users
‘Soft’ policies: shelter, health, ‘use spaces’
‘Hard’ policies: criminalization, forcing to move around
Bijlmer junkies versus non-Bijlmer junkies
Social economic programme
e.g.
• Employment training (ArenA initiative)
• Financial and administrative support for start-up
businesses and entrepreneurs
• Artist spaces
• Religious spaces
• Language courses for older immigrants
• Children welfare and ICT projects
• Festivals and festivities for social cohesion
• ‘Woman at work’ & Women Empowerment
• Youth work (anti-gangs, sports, policing)
• Community gardening and maintenance projects
• ‘Behind the front door’ approach
• ‘Housing training’
4. Appraisal of social transformation
Persuasive physical changes but social transformation is not
complete yet (and may not be that revolutionary)
55000
50000
45000
Population Bijlmermeer
Non Western Immigrants
40000
35000
30000
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
50,0%
45,0%
40,0%
35,0%
low income Bijlmer
30,0%
high income Bijlmer
25,0%
Low income A'dam
20,0%
high income A'dam
15,0%
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
4. Appraisal of social transformation
Positive version:
ArenA area
Attracted real estate investments
Improved reputation
Improved manageability (in social and physical terms)
Effective cooperation between justice, police, social work and health
Emancipation of black middle class
Housing careers possible
Model for regeneration in the Netherlands
4. Appraisal of social transformation
Critical
ArenA area is separate from housing estate
Improved reputation, yet still highly vulnerable housing market
position (slow sales, no upper market). Also, still media attention
for incidents with youth gangs and crime (‘Parisian Situation’)
Bijlmermeer no longer a safe haven for sans papier
Individual poverty and social economic problems remain
(complex neighbourhood effect mechanisms)
4. Appraisal of social transformation
Critical
Transformation through social mixing:
- Direct displacement of residents
- ‘Waterbed effects’ (same issues pop up elsewhere)
- Broken support networks
Tenure restructuring at the periphery and gentrification of centre
-> less housing for lower income housing in Amsterdam
(Amsterdam housing policy:
-20% lower income housing; -10% low income households in 2020)
Conclusion
Radical transformation: good for neighbourhood, but not
necessarily for residents
Comparative perspective:
- housing market status,
- housing and urban policy framework,
- social housing stock and housing associations
Questions
My research
Comparative study of nine neighbourhoods undergoing physical and social
economic regeneration in four Western European countries (thesis: four
neighbourhoods)
Aim: contextual factors (institutional) and social outcomes
Q: What is the capacity of neighbourhood regeneration policies for social
and societal change, and how does the housing and policy context affect
this capacity?
Case selection: welfare state typology
Method: mixed, mostly interviews with experts, professionals, policy-makers.