Policy and practice restructuring urban neighbourhoods in the Netherlands: Four birds with one stone (original) (raw)
Related papers
Urban Research & Practice, 2012
In the second half of the 1990s, Dutch urban housing policy shifted from urban renewal to urban restructuring and the creation of more socially mixed neighbourhoods. Motives for restructuring stem from the ongoing debates on concentration, segregation and social mix. Here, we focus on the main instruments of urban restructuring, that is, the demolition of social housing and the construction of more expensive rental and owner-occupied housing. Continued restructuring may eventually lead to a shortage of social rented dwellings for low-income households, the target group of social housing. An important political question is therefore whether the dwindling supply of social housing still matches the potential demand in the target group. We addressed this question with an analysis of three Dutch cities: Rotterdam, The Hague and Breda. The results indicate that, although demolition has brought about substantial changes, the share of social rented housing remains high in most restructuring neighbourhoods and restructuring has not resulted in concentrations of social rented housing in other, non-restructuring neighbourhoods in any of the three cities. In Rotterdam, which had a very large social housing stock at the beginning of the restructuring operation, there are still sufficient affordable homes for lower income households. However, in The Hague and Breda, restructuring has tightened the supply of social rental housing. The municipal authority in The Hague has attempted to remedy the situation by entering regional agreements to secure sufficient levels of affordable housing.
Revolution in Social Housing in the Netherlands: Possible Effects of New Housing Policies
The social rented sector in the Netherlands has always had a very special status. Unlike many other countries, in the Netherlands this sector has never been regarded as a segment exclusively for low-income households. Consequently, neighbourhoods with large numbers of social rented dwellings have never been areas for low-income households only. Since about 1990, however, the proportion of low-income households in social rented housing has increased, while high-income households can be found more and more in the owner-occupied sector. At least for the 1990s, housing policies can be seen as partially responsible for this change. In this contribution, we argue that new housing policies in the Netherlands will probably have the effect of increasing the share of low-income households in social housing even more. This holds for the policy of urban restructuring, initiated in 1997, as well as for the newest plans of the State Secretary of Housing that were launched in his Housing Memorandum at the end of the year 2000. If the proposed housing policy is implemented in the near future, we doubt whether the status of social housing in the Netherlands will continue to be so different from that of other EU countries.
A comparison of Dutch and US public housing regeneration planning: the similarity grows?
Urban Research & Practice, 2011
Based on a comparison of HOPE VI and Big Cities Policy in the United States and the Netherlands, we argue that despite major differences in context, there has been a convergence in regeneration strategies in the two countries. In both countries the neighbourhoods look better, are safer and have a better reputation. However, in the Netherlands shopping facilities have improved more than in the United States. In both countries, most of the original residents have a better quality of life after than before the policies were implemented, whether they live on-site or have relocated. However, the needs of multi-problem families are not being met by either HOPE VI or Big Cities Policy. Finally, there is no evidence that the original residents have become more self-sufficient in either country as a result of the regeneration.
Overcome Gentrification: New Dutch Urban Paradigms
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture
The study is related to the city of Rotterdam, investigated in relation to the spatial changes caused by the massive immigration that took place since the 1940s and of which contemporary spatial planning is taking place. The urban regeneration program, promoted by the Municipality of Rotterdam, provided for the reconnection of the district to the urban dynamics of the city and the improvement of public spaces and private accommodation to encourage a process of social gentrification. The social challenges that characterize contemporary cities, especially caused by the violent immigration, have defined a new urban paradigm and new forms of collaboration; as urban planners, we must continue to promote the formation of inclusive, multi-faceted and multitasking cities that are able to capture the diversity of sociality that inhabits the strategic character that makes them different and unique and to experiment welfare and social governance models that allow the shared experience within the urban analyzed contexts; only by making the immigrants protagonists of sociality and of urban civilization can we build stainless cities that resist to climate change and above all to social changes.
This city profile provides a multi-dimensional overview on the most recent social, economic, political and spatial changes in the city of Amsterdam. We map the social-geography of the city, discussing recent housing and spatial development policies as well as city-regional political dynamics. Today, the city of Amsterdam is more diverse than ever, both ethnically and socially. The social geography of Amsterdam shows a growing core–periphery divide that underlines important economic and cultural asymmetries. The tradition of public subsidies and regulated housing currently allows for state-led gentrification within inner city neighborhoods. Public support for homeownership is changing the balance between social, middle and high-end housing segments. Changes in the tradition of large-scale interventions and strong public planning are likewise occurring. In times of austerity, current projects focus on small-scale and piecemeal interventions particularly oriented to stimulate entrepreneurialism in selected urban areas and often relate to creative economies and sustainable development. Finally, underlying these trends is a new political landscape composed of upcoming liberal and progressive parties, which together challenge the political equilibriums in the city region
Wither the ‘Undivided City'? An Assessment of State-Sponsored Gentrification in Amsterdam
Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 2014
Like many other governments, the Dutch government has simultaneously pursued the contradictory goals of liberalising the housing market and countering the concentration of low-income groups. This paper discusses how the tension between promoting market forces and countering segregation has played out, using Amsterdam as a case study. The findings suggest that the policy may have mitigated but did not prevent a deepening division between the city's increasingly privileged core and its periphery. This is at least in part because social mixing was pursued also in neighbourhoods already prone to gentrification.
The emergence of gentrification as a ‘global urban strategy’ (Smith, 2002, “New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as a global urban strategy” Antipode 34 427 – 451) is clearly visible in the peripheral boroughs of Dutch cities. We suggest, however, that the driving force of gentrification in these areas is not the local government’s need to strengthen its tax base or developers’ pursuit of profit. Gentrification is also not a response to the housing demands of a new middle class. Instead, we conceive of state-led gentrification in the Netherlands, and perhaps elsewhere as well, as an attempt by a coalition of state actors and housing associations at generating social order in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Gentrification is used to pacify tensions and to reduce concentrations that pose a problem for authorities. In many cases, residents support this strategy, either actively or passively. But, at the same time, interaction between low-income and higher-income households, and between renters and homeowners, in restructured neighbourhoods are often superficial at best and hostile at worst. Thus, gentrification undermines social cohesion and thereby reduces the chance that residents will find solutions for tensions in the neighbourhood.