Housing for Whom?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Housing for whom? Distributive justice in times of increasing housing shortages in Amsterdam Author: Spike Snellens Student nr.: 10432590 Track: Political Science PPG Course: Politics of Inequality Supervisor: Dr. F.J. van Hooren 2nd reader: R.J. Pistorius Date: 23 June 2017 Words: 23.999 1. Abstract Famous for its egalitarian housing provision and social sector Amsterdam has inspired urban justice theorists and planners throughout Europe and beyond. However, due to a list of developments for more than ten years now the depiction of Amsterdam as a ‘just city’ is criticized. In fact, even reserved authors fear that in the near future Amsterdam will lose the features that once distinguished it as an example of a just city. In this thesis Amsterdam is treated as such, i.e. as a deteriorating just city. It is treated as a city characterized increasingly by the principle cause of injustice, i.e. shortages in housing, due to insufficient supplies and too much demand and due to the housing reforms which the past twenty years on the local, national and European level have been implemented. These shortages, in turn, are interpreted through the lens of scarce goods multi-principled distributing frameworks, a concept which was borrowed from Persad, Wertheimer and Emanuel. The idea behind this conceptual framework is that multi-principled distributing frameworks highlight and downplay morally relevant considerations, i.e. both include and exclude on the basis of justice principles, which means in turn that ‘just injustice’ entails that there exist a certain un-biased balance between allocative principles. The use of this lens mirrors the idea that housing is a perennial challenge, by which is meant that distributive struggles revolve around the design of such allocating frameworks and that these can increase when shortage increases. In line with the critiques on the depiction of Amsterdam as a just city it is concluded in the end that allocation has been based one-sided on maximizing value and promoting usefulness principles first. Second, due to an imposed income limit for social housing, the underdeveloped liberalized sector, rising sales prices and the attraction of Amsterdam, it is concluded that those who benefitted most of this one-sided allocation today are the ones who are in need of prioritizing distributive principles. Third, it is concluded that the increasing shortages have created new and more entitled categories, i.e. that the multi-principled distributive framework at work became more complex. That said, fourth, in line with the larger transformation the city is undergoing the current distributing system of Amsterdam nevertheless remains biased. However as the outcome of the latter and since the social market cannot be slinked endlessly, this pressure between prioritizations has the potential as well to merge instead of collide. 1.1 Keywords Amsterdam, just city, population growth, housing reforms, housing shortages, multi- principled distributive frameworks. - 3 - 2.Foreword Before you lies my master thesis ‘Housing for whom? Distributive justice in times of increasing housing shortages in Amsterdam’ which has been written to fulfill the graduation requirements of the political science Public Policy and Governance track at the University of Amsterdam. It is outcome of a project which was undertaken for two reasons. First, as a born Amsterdammer on a personal level it is the outcome of an urge to better understand what is happening to my city since it is changing fast. In fact, the theme of this thesis I think will be the main theme the upcoming municipal elections in 2018. Second, since housing is one of if not the biggest industry on earth and since spatial planning is connected to a large amount and wide range of societal questions it is the outcome of a desire to learn more about housing in general. In fact, in hindsight in an urbanizing world recovering from a financial crisis based on unhealthy mortgages it is quite incomprehensible that in almost four years of political science not once I had to read one article about housing or planning while it evokes large questions. The preliminary investigation for this thesis was consuming as such and mind blowing and has made me worries even more about Amsterdam than I was before. That said, I never minded doing it either since it enriched, deepened and confirmed several understandings of mine about urgent topics and about the power of the government. Moreover it allowed me write this thesis in the end and to formulate the question how to interpret the distribution of the houses of Amsterdam using a multi-principled perspective. On the other hand, this nescience structured the process too and has led to a hodgepodge of touched themes. To end, I would like to say thanks here to my supervisor Franca van Hooren for her guiding efforts. Also, I would like to say thanks to the second reader Robin Pistorius. I hope the both of you enjoy reading this thesis, With kind regards, Spike Snellens 23 June 2017 - 4 - 3 Table of contents 4 Glossary (in 2015 Levels) 5 5 Introduction 6 6 Literature review 11 6.1 The just city Amsterdam 11 6.2 The city as a social concept 12 6.3 The urban justice discourse 13 6.3.1 Lefebvre’s ‘Right to the city’ 14 6.3.2 Harvey’s radical depiction of urban justice 15 6.3.3 Fainstein’s ‘just city’ 17 6.4 Amsterdam place within the urban justice discourse 18 6.4.1 Amsterdam as an ideal European city 18 6.5 Dutch critique on the idealization of Amsterdam 19 6.5.1Oudenampsen’s and BAVO’s critique on urban revanchism 19 6.5.2 Uitermark’s in memoriam 22 6.6 Towards another perspective on justice 24 7 Conceptual framework 25 7.1 Multi-principled distributive frameworks 25 7.2 Persad, Wertheimer and Emanuel’s system translated 26 7.2.1 Treating households equally 26 7.2.2 Prioritarianism 27 7.2.3 Utilitarianism 28 7.2.4 Promoting and rewarding social usefulness 29 7.3 Legitimizing (the use of) multi-principle allocation systems 31 8 Research question 31 9 Data collection 31 10 Case description 32 10.1 Gentrifying student city Amsterdam (2001-2007) 33 10.2 A city which grew during a financial crisis (2008-2011) 35 10.3 The internationalization of Amsterdam and housing reforms (2012- 2017) 38 10.4 Conclusion in between 44 11 Research Results 46 11.1 Coalition Accords 47 - 5 - 11.2 The actions of the council 48 11.2.1 New constructions 48 11.2.2 The private social sector 49 11.2.3 Lobbying 50 11.2.4 Cooperation Agreements 2015-2019 50 12 Conclusions 52 13 Reflection 53 14 References 55 15 Attachments 68 4 Glossary (in 2015 levels) Income limits: 80% of the released social dwelling are allocated to households with an incomes up to €34.911 and 10% to households with an income between €34.911- €38.000. Rent liberalization limit: €710.68 (146 points). Social house: <146 points Liberalized Low income: €0 – 34.911. Mid-income: €34.911 - €52.367 (1.5x modal). High income: €52.367 or higher. Cheap rentals: €0 - €710.68. Cheap owner-occupancies: €0 - €152.000. Mid-priced rentals: €710.68 - €971. Mid-priced owner-occupancies: €152.000 - €249.000. Expensive rentals: >€971. Expensive owner-occupancies: >€249.000. Amsterdam knows four administrative scales since 2015 (In the attachments two maps are added showing the boroughs and areas). - 481 neighborhoods. - 99 boroughs. - 22+1 (Westpoort) areas. - 7+1 (Westpoort) districts. - 6 - 5 Introduction Famous for its egalitarian housing provision, its large public/social housing stock, its limited spatial segregation, the achievements of the resistance movements during the 1960s-1980s and more, for about half a century the Netherlands but Amsterdam especially has inspired urban justice theorists and planners throughout Europe and beyond. Renowned scholars such as Lefebvre (1968), Fainstein (2010), Soja (1992) and Gilderbloom, Hanka and Lasley (2009) have been depicted Amsterdam as a just city, the ideal approaching city, the world’s greatest city, the city where the right to the city has been recovered, an alternative for segregated cities, the best available model of a divers, egalitarian and democratic city and as the city to gain inspiration from. In short, Amsterdam does not suffer from a lack praise. However, for a while now and especially by Dutch ideological fellow thinkers these painted pictures are being dismissed as foregone times. Scholars such as Oudenampsen (2006), Kadi and Musterd (2015) or Uitermark (2009) argue that these depictions turn a blind eye to the neoliberal reforms since the early 1990’s in housing of The Hague and somewhat later of multiple successive councils of Amsterdam. Moreover, they argue that the city is moving away rapidly from the ideal and according to some of them Amsterdam is already no longer a ‘just city’. In other words, these critics identify a gap between the practice and the theory of the just city literature and point to the need to reconsider Amsterdam’s place in it since the ‘search for the just city’ should not cover Amsterdam’s own problems and blur this search since it is the city which is gained inspiration from (Novy & Mayer, 2009). So what is a just city? Or perhaps better said what was Amsterdam once? Just city theorists have two agendas. The first is a common search for the just city. That is, it is an academic debate in which an idealized social space is visualized which is diverse, non- competitive, locally focused, non-privatized, non-exploitative, egalitarian, democratic, anchored, decommodified and inclusive. In short, it is the search for the just city1.