Lena Van Der Wal P5 Presentation, 10Th of July 2020

P5 presentation, 10th of July 2020

Impact first development

Lena van der Wal P5 presentation, 10th of July 2020

Impact first development

Lena van der Wal Marcella Wong

The economy was not invented to make money.

4 The economy was created to add value to the collective.

5 But a short-term focus on wealth maximisation...

(Jensen, 2010) 6 ...has led to many negative social and environmental impacts.

(Jensen, 2010) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Although recently environmental sustainability gets attention (in business).

14 Also in the built environment.

15 Social sustainability is often forgotten.

(Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017) 16 Especially in the built environment.

(Van Honschoten, 2020; Buskens & Heurkens, 2016; Dempsey et al., 2011) 17 As example gentrification

18 In the built environment gentrification is a major source of negative social impacts.

(Atkinson, 2002; Atkinson & Bridge, 2005; Chong, 2017) & many more 19 (Jorritsma & König, 2019) 20 Short-term effect of gentrification

minimum wealth minimum diversity (“slum”) diversity

wealth (Mehaffy, 2019, p. 28) 21 Long-term effect of gentrification

minimum wealth maximum wealth minimum diversity minimum diversity (“slum”) (“enclave”) diversity

wealth (Mehaffy, 2019, p. 28) 22 Jacob's Curve

maximum diversity

optimum diversity and wealth combination

minimum wealth maximum wealth minimum diversity minimum diversity (“slum”) (“enclave”) diversity

wealth (Mehaffy, 2019, p. 28) 23 Jacob's Curve

maximum diversity

optimum diversity and wealth combination

minimum wealth maximum wealth minimum diversity minimum diversity (“slum”) (“enclave”) diversity

wealth (Mehaffy, 2019, p. 28) 24 (Lariviere, 2018) 25 “Research evidence overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that gentrification has a negative impact on the neighbourhoods it affects.”

(Atkinson, 2002, p. 16) 26 Approach / Short term Long term Societal impact Societal impact Measurable Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations characteristics Sub effects sub effects on location in greater city AspectsImpacts

Stabilizes Decreased crime Lower educational declining areas in gentrified areas levels

Placemaking Urban renewal Visible physical Disinvestment Uneven power Increased often temporary by rehabilitation of in poorer game between attracting start-ups & "architecturally unemployment creative industries desirable areas" property communities income groups

Focus on spaces Loss of Reduction in excluding people local identity Increased crime suburban sprawl Low-income individuals 'Coleur locale' Second wave and people of color gentrification

First wave Increasing Community Displacing Enclaves gentrification integration Loss of community conflict Segregation Loss of social middle income Exclusive, unaffordable networks diversity Socioeconomic, racial Between old & households Spatial & social neighborhoods, without a and ethnic new residents local identity Displacing Increased Gentrification lower income social mix households Only temporary Poverty Immoral means to (Secondary) Fostering of Inequality Slums deconcentration displace residents Loss of diversity psychological Problem neighborhoods, discriminatory Affecting different groups Functional & social by ‘displacing’ rather than impacts of (No evidence backing this Deprivation, harassment, disproportionally behavior solving social problems up) intimidation & eviction displacees

References Housing demand Exponentially Reduction in pressures Health problems of increasing 1 (Allegré & Timbeau, 2015) 11 (Freeman, 2011) 21 (Martinez-Fernandez vacancy displacees property prices incl. rising prices in 2 (Atkinson & Bridge, 2005) 12 (Harvey, 1982) et al., 2012) surrounding areas 3 (Atkinson, 2002) 13 (Henig & Gale, 1987) 22 (Mehaffy, 2019) 4 (Atkinson, 2000) 14 (Hung, 2011) 23 (Perez-Mayo, 2019) 5 (Badcock & Cloher, 1980) 15 (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001) 24 (Power, 2012) 6 (Bailey & Robertson, 1997) 16 (Kwong, 1999) 25 (Power, 1973) Attracting new, Increased property Increase in Rapid economic Underoccupancy & 7 (Brenner, Marcuse & 17 (LeGates & Hartman, 1986) 26 (Tobin & Anderson, 1982) more affluent values and tax rent prices Homelessness investment population loss Mayer, 2012) 18 (Lester & Hartley, 2014) 27 (Van Kempen & Marcuse, households revenues Inflated rents 8 (Cassiers & Kesteloot, 2012) 19 (Lyons, 1996) 1997) 9 (Chong, 2017) 20 (Marcuse, 1985) 28 (Wagner, 1995) 10 (Florida, 2002) Loss of affordable Improvement Price increases housing of local shops & in local shops & Increase in poverty services services Also in surrounding areas Increase in local fiscal revenues Industrial negative effects Loss of restructuring Decreased crime manufacturing from manufacturing to jobs in gentrified areas positive effects retail & restaurant time 27 Approach / Short term Long term Societal impact Societal impact Measurable Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations characteristics Sub effects sub effects on location in greater city AspectsImpacts

Stabilizes Decreased crime Lower educational declining areas in gentrified areas levels

Focus on spaces Loss of Reduction in excluding people local identity Increased crime suburban sprawl Low-income individuals 'Coleur locale' Second wave and people of color gentrification

References Housing demand Exponentially Reduction in pressures Health problems of increasing 1 (Allegré & Timbeau, 2015) 11 (Freeman, 2011) 21 (Martinez-Fernandez vacancy displacees property prices incl. rising prices in 2 (Atkinson & Bridge, 2005) 12 (Harvey, 1982) et al., 2012) surrounding areas 3 (Atkinson, 2002) 13 (Henig & Gale, 1987) 22 (Mehaffy, 2019) 4 (Atkinson, 2000) 14 (Hung, 2011) 23 (Perez-Mayo, 2019) 5 (Badcock & Cloher, 1980) 15 (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001) 24 (Power, 2012) 6 (Bailey & Robertson, 1997) 16 (Kwong, 1999) 25 (Power, 1973) Attracting new, Increased property Increase in Rapid economic Underoccupancy & 7 (Brenner, Marcuse & 17 (LeGates & Hartman, 1986) 26 (Tobin & Anderson, 1982) more affluent values and tax rent prices Homelessness investment population loss Mayer, 2012) 18 (Lester & Hartley, 2014) 27 (Van Kempen & Marcuse, households revenues Inflated rents 8 (Cassiers & Kesteloot, 2012) 19 (Lyons, 1996) 1997) 9 (Chong, 2017) 20 (Marcuse, 1985) 28 (Wagner, 1995) 10 (Florida, 2002) Loss of affordable Improvement Price increases housing of local shops & in local shops & Increase in poverty services services Also in surrounding areas Increase in local fiscal revenues Industrial negative effects Loss of restructuring Decreased crime manufacturing from manufacturing to jobs in gentrified areas positive effects retail & restaurant time 28 'Rich enclave' economisation Gentrification Displacement Segregation Inequality 'Poor slum' disinvestment

29 Yet until now, in the Netherlands gentrification is often used as a state-led urban renewal strategy.

(Van der Graaf & Veldboer, 2009) 30 For example, in the city's vision for Rotterdam 2030 'gentrification' has been mentioned positively 32 times.

(Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007) 31 For a fair and affordable built environment

32 Short-term wealth

current economy

How can we move from an economy focused on short-term wealth maximisationeconomy for long- term positive societal impact (impact economy)? 33 Positive Short-term societal wealth impact current economy impact economy

...towards an economy for long-term positive societal impact?

34 Impact thinking!

Positive Short-term societal wealth impact current economy impact economy

35 Impact 1 | Theory Thinking

36 Impact thinking!

Positive Short-term societal wealth impact

current economy impact economy

New way of thinking 37 Social entrepreneurs Impact investors Impact thinking! CSR's

Positive Short-term societal wealth impact

current economy impact economy

Impact thinking actors 38 Impact thinking!

Positive Short-term societal wealth impact current economy impact economy Proving & improving impacts made

39 Amplify impact

. Understand p 1 rob lem g n n o i ti n c r a a e e l k a s t 2 u & . o D e u r e n i u t s n

n a e

o e

h .

** s

g 5

i u

Impact Thinking o

t e

l s

3 M

a .

M S

i t l m

p v

e a

. p

l s

t a M

* Impact Management & Measurement ** Engage stakeholders throughout based on (Epstein & Yuthas, 2017) 40 "(Urban) development is characterized by many social and environmental challenges, yet from the perspective of private developing parties, who are responsible for a substantial part of (urban) (75% in the Netherlands) development, there seems to be no clear strategy towards creating positive societal impacts and a general lack of knowledge about the impacts currently being created."

Problem statement 41 How to implement impact thinking in (urban) development from the perspective of the social entrepreneurial (urban) developer?

42 literature Background of 1 | Theory Impact Thinking

interviews Defining Impact 2 | Empiry Development

design Applying Impact 3 | Design Development

43 Defining 2 | Empiry Impact Development

44 Impact thinking in development = impact development!

45 Impact thinking! Impact development

Positive Short-term societal wealth impact

Current economy Impact economy

46 # Date Interviewee Profession Category

1 Feb-27 Frans Soeterbroek Director, de Ruimtemaker UD

2 Feb-28 Thomas van Leeuwen Director & Partner, D/Dock ID

3 Feb-29 Michel Scholte Founder & Director, Impact Institute IE

4 Mar-5 Chantal Robbe Senior Advisor Urban Development, Stadkwadraat UD

5 Mar-19 Jurgen Hoogendoorn Policy Maker / Advisor, Gemeente Amsterdam UD

6 Mar-20 Piet Klop Impact Investor, PGGM II

7 Mar-24 Niel Slob Founder & CEO, RE:BORN ID

Mar-25 8 Apr-1 Hans Karssenberg Founder & CEO, STIPO II ID UD Apr-6

9 Mar-26 Evert-Jan Roelofsen Process Manager, Kerckebosch Zeist ID

10 Apr-1 Karin van Dijk Impact Investor, ASN Bank II

11 Apr-3 Sarriel Taus Founder & CEO, Social Impact Real Estate ID

12 May-1 Andrea Palmer Impact Investor, Triodos Bank II

13 May-1 Bart van Veenendaal Senior Project Developer, STEBRU ID

UD Urban Development Expert 14 May-7 Mark Sutherland Urban Developer, Gemeente Rotterdam UD ID (proposed) Impact Developer May-12 IE Impact Expert 15 Mariya Tsvetkova Impact Investor, Fore Partnership, UK May-28 II ID II Impact Investor 16 May-12 Nena Rood Development Manager, EDGE Technologies SH Stakeholder Wielewaal ID

47 (Participants) Innovators

Early Early Late Adopters Majority Majority Laggards 2.5% 13.5% 34% 34% 16%

(Rogers, 2010, p. 8) 48 49 Barriers Drivers

Market-focus Increased equality

Top-down Societal pressures + Human-Stone

Government Taxing/incentivizing Lack of knowledge impact

Short-term thinking Increased equality

Industry Long-term Lack of innovation commitment

Underdevelopment Development of IM of IM

Bad reputation Professionalisation of SE

Impact thinking No economic incentive The right intention

50 No Guideline or Handbook

Impact developments require using common sense

51 6 principles for Impact Development

52 1

2 3

4 4

53 1

1. Understand the problem/project 1

2. Listen to the people 1

2 3

3. Impact first! 1

2 3

post-measurement 4 4 pre-measurement

4. Measure & adjust 1

2 3

4 4

5. Rethink ways of working 1

2 3

4 4

6. Pay it forward! Principle 1. Understand the problem / project

60 Principle 1: Understand the problem/project

Analyze the situation

Stakeholders Qualities Challenges

Discover the most important problems

61 62 Principle 2. Listen to the people

63 Principle 2: Listen... truly involve all people

Be humble You don’t know what’s best Involve & learn from all stakeholders

Participate & co-create

Be gentle & fair Everyone should benefit from the development

64 Bottom-up Middle-up-down Top-down

— H. Karssenberg, personal communication, April 6, 2020 65 Principle 3. Impact first

66 Principle 3: Impact first!

Choose impact objectives Social Environmental Economical Formulate mission & vision What’s the common story of the area?

Practice what you preach

Find partners with the same intention

67 “De verandering zit in mensen zelf [...]. Dus wat ik de afgelopen 1,5 à 2 jaar probeer te doen, is de bedrijfsvoering zó te maken dat dit werkt.Dat zit hem dus in: wat doe je met elkaar als bedrijf, wat eet je tijdens de lunch (vegetarisch), wat voor activiteiten doe je met elkaar? Zodat je juist daar ook de impact in maakt, waardoor je een besef krijgt bij de mensen in hun hoofd, zodat zij ook automatisch in hun projecten op een andere manier gaan handelen. Uiteindelijk zit het erin dat je de mensen zo beïnvloedt dat ze daar uiteindelijk zelf mee aan de gang gaan, want dan gaat het vanzelf.”

— N. Slob, personal communication, March 24, 2020 68 Principle 4. Measure & adjust

69 Principle 4: Measure and Adjust

Be aware of impacts made Analyze the ‘nul’ situation Compare the impacts of alternatives

Formulate Theory of Change Choose the right metrics (1-3, preferably industry standards, SDGs) Practice what you preach

Find partners with the same intention

70 “Door je te verdiepen in het gebied of het probleem, ontdek je vrij snel – nee, niet vrij snel, dat kost je wel wat energie – waar ligt nou de kern van het probleem? Dan ga je op dat specifieke probleem, ga je nadenken van wat is hier nou een meetbaar element in? En als dat er nog niet is, kun je natuurlijk pre- en post-measurement doen.”

— T. van Leeuwen, personal communication, February 28, 2020 71 Principle 5. Rethink ways of working

72 Principle 5: Rethink ways of working

Long-term, win-win & adaptive

Rethink the business case Create win-win, monetarize impacts, commit long-term

Rethink the process

Rethink the design

Allow for continuous learning

73 100% Affordable Rental Housing + Reïnvesting in the community Revolving funds & ‘Fair-pacht’ (‘Omzetgerelateerde Huur’) Urban Area Coöperation Housing Coöperation(s) workers' neighborhood High quality affordable High quality Community Land Trust (High pays for low) Redistribution Turnover Rent (Land Lease)

tools more common more unusual ‘feasible’ example projects ‘fair’

Kerckebosch Zeist De Warren Geuzenveld Senákw blz. X

Granby Four Agnetapark Club Rhijnhuizen Hof van Cartesius Streets CLT

74 Principle 6. Pay it forward

75 Principle 6: Pay it forward

Demand impact from partners

Reinvest in change elsewhere

Inspire your industry

Through stewardship & sharing lessons learned

76 "(Real estate) development with the intention of having positive, measurable impact on people and/or planet, embedded in a healthy business model"

— T. van Leeuwen, personal communication, February 28, 2020 77 Development as a means to create impact, not as a goal itself.

78 Senákw Social goal: high-density inner-city affordable housing for a vulnerable community Environmental goal: sustainable construction, high quality green spaces, almost car-free Financial goal: help Indian community thrive for centuries to come

79 Heilige Boontjes Social goal: give opportunities to ex-prisoners and other disadvantaged people Financial goal: do so in a financially independent way 80 Applying 3 | Design Impact Development

81 To apply this On the case knowledge of Wielewaal

82 Lena Marcella Development Architecture

83 An impact first development that is designed to last.

84 1

2 3

4 4

85 1

1. Understand the problem/project 86 By public transport till centre: 45 min Centrum By car till centre: 17 min

Kop van Zuid

Katendrecht

Waalhaven

Vreewijk

Zuiderpark

Wielewaal 87 Semi-permanent

88 Garden city

Photo by Roland Huguenin

89 Typical house

Photo by Joke Schot

90 Social cohesion

Photo by Joke Schot

91 Life-long resident of Wielewaal

Photo by Joke Schot

92 Demolition and displacement

Photo by Joke Schot

93 New plan Existing plan 1

2. Listen to the people 95 Two opposing plans, but what about the people? 96 Timeline

3 4 Bewonersorganisatie De Wielewaal De Wielewaal Bewonersorganisatie (BOW) founded geeft bewoners van 75% Bewonersonderzoek: potentieel en 83% willen blijven te aan sowieso eigen plan ontwikkelt Bewonersinitiatief geeft de 545 huishiudens van Draagvlakmeting 1: 95% de Wielewaalers en voor van de Unie plan van aan achter staan te de van 99% bidboek: Draagvlakmeting 2 bij uitreiken en van de Unie het plan van geeft aan achter bewoners staan te de Wielewaalers voor van (na motie afgezet BOW & Besturen HVW te over administratie weigeren wantrouwen), vandoor en zijn er met de kas leveren uit de wijk vertrekken ... bewoners tevreden) Woonstad (volgens naar Wielewaal-Oost opgericht wordt de Wielewaalers en voor van Unie leegstand) veel de wijk (want betreden Krakers spannen een rechtzaak aan huishoudens 191 Woonstad tegen het dienen 67in tegen zienswijzen Bewoners bestemmingsplan in 60 zienswijzen dienen wederom Bewoners het bestemmingsplan tegen (zonder opschortende in cassatie gaan Bewoners voorwaarden) Bewoners geven aan van besturen af te willen, aangezien zij niet in hun aller belang spreken

Gevoel van schijnparticipatie, manipulatie, ontransparantie en gebrek aan luisteren (volgens een deel van de bewoners) Social 1949 1984 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 Participatietraject (volgens Woonstad) Gedurende dit traject zegt Woonstad zoveel mogelijk huishoudens uit de Wielewaal persoonlijk bezocht te hebben opgeheven, want ‘klaar’ in opdracht van WoonstadCTW Wielewaal opgericht (HVW) Huurdersvereniging De Wielewaal wordt opgericht (CTW) Commissie en Toekomstvisie Beheer inspraak wegens geen gevoel van daadwerkelijke volgens bewoners slecht bezocht, over de Nieuwe Wielewaal inloopmomenten om te spreken Organisatie van verschillende bewoners op basis van ‘passend toewijzen’ Woonstad biedt ‘terugkeergarantie’ aan d.m.v. sloop-nieuwbouw ca. 33 miljoen € korting op verhuurdersheffing Woonstad maakt (vermoedelijk) aanspraak op dichttimmeren ramen) onbewoonbaar (afsluiten voorzieningen, Woonstad maakt leegstaande woningen plan financieel onhaalbaar verklaart aangegaan met bewonerscoöperatie, Woonstad geeft aan 5 gesprekken te zijn weigeren aan te nemen bod van zelf 50 woningen kunnen realiseren bewonerscoöperatie, nadat ze het finale Woonstad beëindigd gesprekken met Hoge Raad stelt Woonstad in het gelijk

1 5

Beoogde planning “De Nieuwe Wielewaal” van Woonstad Uitloop

Physical 1949 1984 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 tussen Woonstad en BPD (geheim) Vermoedelijke overeenkomst getekend en Woonstad getekend tussen Gemeente Anterieure Overeenkomst (109 appartementen & 23 eengezinswoningen) Nieuwbouw Wielewaal Oost opgeleverd Sloop eerste woningen in Wielewaal ingediend Bestemmingsplan “De Nieuwe Wielewaal” State wegens missen MER-rapportage Bestemmingsplan vernietigd door Raad van bestemmingsplan ingediend Herzien meer vangebruik maken) vereniging (bewoners mogen er geen huurdersUitzetten uit Speeltuin 1 According to residents, this organisation wasn't necessary, Gemeente & besturen HVW/BOW Convenant getekend door Woonstad, as the BOW already existed 2 Earlier and more equal participation could've been conducted. 3 Almost all inhabitants support the plan of the Unie van en voor de Wielewaalers, serious conversations with this group could've been conducted 4 Anti-squat policy could have been installed 5 'Verhuurdersheffing' leads to negative stimulants for the

illustration) as based on interviews & Tijdlijn Wielewaal, Wielewaal, Tijdlijn & on interviews as based illustration) (own of Wielewaal process of the redevelopment Timeline 5.23. Figure 2020) de Wielewaalers, en voor van Bestuur) (Unie Openbaarheid van (Wet – WOB through requested documents, on 500 based housing association (they might have had no other option)

97 Wielewaal residents voicing their opinion and experience 6 98 Yet the displacement continues nevertheless 99 Short term Long term Societal impact Societal impact Measurable Approach Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations Sub effects sub effects on location in greater city Impacts

Stabilizes Decreased crime Lower educational declining areas in gentrified areas levels

Focus on spaces Loss of Reduction in excluding people local identity Increased crime suburban sprawl Low-income individuals 'Coleur locale' Second wave and people of color gentrification

First wave Increasing Community Displacing Enclaves gentrification integration Loss of community conflict Segregation Loss of social middle income Exclusive, unaffordable networks diversity Socioeconomic, racial Between old & households Spatial & social neighborhoods, without a and ethnic new residents local identity Displacing Increased Gentrification lower income social mix households Only temporary Poverty Immoral means to (Secondary) Fostering of Inequality Slums deconcentration displace residents Loss of diversity psychological Problem neighborhoods, discriminatory Affecting different groups Functional & social by ‘displacing’ rather than impacts of (No evidence backing this behavior Deprivation, harassment, disproportionally up) intimidation & eviction solving social problems displacees

Housing demand Exponentially Reduction in pressures Health problems increasing vacancy of displacees property prices incl. rising prices in surrounding areas

Attracting new, Increased Increase in Rapid economic Underoccupancy more affluent property values rent prices Homelessness investment & population loss households and tax revenues Inflated rents

Loss of affordable Improvement Price increases housing Increase in of local shops & in local shops & poverty services services Also in surrounding areas Increase in local fiscal revenues Industrial potential negative effects Loss of restructuring Decreased crime manufacturing from manufacturing to jobs in gentrified areas potential positive effects retail & restaurant

time 100 Short term Long term Societal impact Societal impact Measurable Approach Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations Sub effects sub effects on location in greater city Impacts

Stabilizes Decreased crime Lower educational declining areas in gentrified areas levels

Focus on spaces Loss of Reduction in excluding people local identity Increased crime suburban sprawl Low-income individuals 'Coleur locale' Second wave and people of color gentrification

First wave Increasing Community Displacing Enclaves gentrification integration Loss of community conflict Segregation Loss of social middle income Exclusive, unaffordable networks diversity Socioeconomic, racial Between old & households Spatial & social neighborhoods, without a and ethnic new residents local identity Displacing Increased Gentrification lower income social mix households Only temporary Poverty Immoral means to (Secondary) Fostering of Inequality Slums deconcentration displace residents Loss of diversity psychological Problem neighborhoods, discriminatory Affecting different groups Functional & social by ‘displacing’ rather than impacts of (No evidence backing this behavior Deprivation, harassment, disproportionally up) intimidation & eviction solving social problems displacees

Housing demand Exponentially Reduction in pressures Health problems increasing vacancy of displacees property prices incl. rising prices in surrounding areas

Attracting new, Increased Increase in Rapid economic Underoccupancy more affluent property values rent prices Homelessness investment & population loss households and tax revenues Inflated rents

Loss of affordable Improvement Price increases housing Increase in of local shops & in local shops & poverty services services Also in surrounding areas Increase in local fiscal revenues negative effects Industrial experienced by local residents Loss of restructuring Decreased crime manufacturing in gentrified areas positive effects as proposed / from manufacturing to jobs observed in plans retail & restaurant

time 101 Short term Long term Societal impact Societal impact Measurable Approach Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations Sub effects sub effects on location in greater city Impacts

Stabilizes Decreased crime Lower educational declining areas in gentrified areas levels

Focus on spaces Loss of Reduction in excluding people local identity Increased crime suburban sprawl Low-income individuals 'Coleur locale' Second wave and people of color gentrification

First wave Increasing Community Displacing Enclaves gentrification integration Loss of community conflict Segregation Loss of social middle income Exclusive, unaffordable networks diversity Socioeconomic, racial Between old & households Spatial & social neighborhoods, without a and ethnic new residents local identity Displacing Increased Gentrification lower income social mix households Only temporary Poverty Immoral means to (Secondary) Fostering of Inequality Slums deconcentration displace residents Loss of diversity psychological Problem neighborhoods, discriminatory Affecting different groups Functional & social by ‘displacing’ rather than impacts of (No evidence backing this behavior Deprivation, harassment, disproportionally up) intimidation & eviction solving social problems displacees

Housing demand Exponentially Reduction in pressures Health problems increasing vacancy of displacees property prices incl. rising prices in surrounding areas

Attracting new, Increased Increase in Rapid economic Underoccupancy more affluent property values rent prices Homelessness investment & population loss households and tax revenues Inflated rents

Loss of affordable Improvement Price increases housing Increase in of local shops & in local shops & poverty services services Also in surrounding very likely to occur in areas the future, based on the plan Increase in local fiscal revenues negative effects Industrial experienced by local residents Loss of restructuring Decreased crime manufacturing in gentrified areas positive effects as proposed / from manufacturing to jobs observed in plans retail & restaurant

time 102 Gentrification is happening right now in Wielewaal

103 1

2 3

3. Impact first! 104 50. Households returning to orignal Wielewaal

678. New households to be added

132. Households returning right next to Wielewaal

363. Households displaced

211. Monumental trees cut

+25% Public pavement for extra parking spaces 1 Temporary community centre / information point 1 Digital community website, replacing physical centre -1 Sports centre, to be demolished for housing -1 Community centre, to be demolished for soil investigation: without any further plans

Current impact by BPD 105 Housing price average of First increase of Increase without boundaries €500.000 an average of € 30%

30%

70% 70% 95% 70% Time 30% 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years 5% 1 2 3 4 5

1 Available footprint €300.000 Start price (social buy, according to BPD) 2 Promise of 30% social, 70% middle 3 Return guarantee towards current Wielewaal residents €500.000 Average house price 4 Expected ratio of income (70% social, 30% middle if all residents return €600.000 Higher segment housing (225 units) 5 Footprint needed to fulfill all ambitions, densification = 2,4

Plan BPD Plan Union 106 From gentrification to gentlyfication

107 Approach Aspects

Maintain all households

Maintain & strengthen Strengthen local identity Local identity

In functions

both commercial densification might also mean as societal losing some local qualities, Diversify which might result in unpleasant feelings of change through densification for local residents In people

attracting middle and higher incomes Gentlyfication

Permanent Integrate placemaking & programming

Social services

Enable

Allow for equal opportunities (Perpetual) affordable housing

Adapt Flexibility continuously positive technical & legal effects

risks (on negative effects) Continuous reinvestment metrics to measure fitting our impact strategy

time 108 Societal impact Societal impact Approach Aspects Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations on location in greater city

Increasing Investment Maintain integration in poorer all households Socioeconomic, racial communities and ethnic Focus on spaces including people Maintain & Unpleasant Clear strengthen Strengthen feelings of change local identity local identity Might be experienced by Local identity 'Coleur locale' local inhabitants

In functions Improvement Price increases Diversity in of local shops & in local shops & both commercial functions densification might also mean as societal services services losing some local qualities, Diversify Diversity which might result in unpleasant feelings of change Functional & social through densification try to prevent by for local residents In people regulating a certain % Reduction in of affordable rent in Diversity in commercial spaces attracting middle and suburban sprawl people higher incomes Gentlyfication Increasing Permanent Increased Attractive, integration Integration Integrate placemaking & social mix inclusive Socioeconomic, racial Spatial & social programming Permanent neighborhoods and ethnic

Strengthening Social services community networks Enable

Allow for equal opportunities Visible physical Reduction in Equality (Perpetual) Long term rehabilitation of discriminatory affordable housing affordable housing Affecting different groups property behavior disproportionally

Adapt Flexibility Stabilizes

continuously technical & legal declining areas positive Resilience effects Sustainable neighborhood Through long term adaptability try to prevent through risks (on negative effects) Increased property Continuous regulations or through values and tax the use of perpetual reinvestment revenues affordable housing metrics to measure types fitting our impact strategy time 109 1

2 3

post-measurement 4 4 pre-measurement

4. Measure & adjust 110 Societal impact Societal impact Approach Aspects Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations on location in greater city

Strengthening Social services community networks Enable

Adapt Flexibility Stabilizes

time 111 Societal impact Societal impact Measurable Approach Aspects Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations Operationalisation on location in greater city Aspects

Increasing Investment Crime numbers or Maintain integration governmental police in poorer Decreased crime all households spendings vs. year Socioeconomic, racial communities and ethnic before Focus on spaces including people Maintain & Unpleasant Clear Spendings on health strengthen Strengthen feelings of change local identity Reduction of costs by health insurances vs. a year local identity Might be experienced by health problems Local identity 'Coleur locale' local inhabitants before

In functions Improvement Price increases Diversity in % of different ethnic, of local shops & in local shops & Social diversity both commercial functions age and income groups densification might also mean as societal services services losing some local qualities, Diversify Diversity which might result in unpleasant feelings of change Functional & social through densification try to prevent by for local residents regulating a certain % In people Increase in Life / neighborhood Reduction in of affordable rent in Diversity in commercial spaces happiness and satisfaction grade vs. attracting middle and suburban sprawl people year before higher incomes satisfaction Gentlyfication Increasing Permanent Increased Attractive, Integration integration social mix Reduction in Increase in Integrate placemaking & inclusive household income Socioeconomic, racial Spatial & social poverty programming Permanent neighborhoods and ethnic

Strengthening Higher % Educational degrees Social services community educational finished vs. year before networks levels Enable

Allow for equal opportunities Visible physical Reduction in Equality (Perpetual) Long term % Spendings on rent rehabilitation of discriminatory Affordability as part of income / affordable housing affordable housing Affecting different groups property behavior disproportionally % Affordable houses

Adapt Flexibility Stabilizes Increased % Employment vs. year before continuously technical & legal declining areas employment positive Resilience effects Sustainable neighborhood Through long term adaptability try to prevent through risks (on negative effects) Increased property Continuous regulations or through Reduction in CO Embodied energy & values and tax the use of perpetual 2 operational energy reinvestment emissions revenues affordable housing emissions metrics to measure types fitting our impact strategy

time 112 Societal impact Societal impact Measurable Approach Aspects Short term effects Long term effects Spatial translations Operationalisation on location in greater city Aspects

Strengthening Higher % Educational degrees Social services community educational finished vs. year before networks levels Enable

time 113 1

2 3

4 4

5. Rethink ways of working 114 Rethink design Affordable, quality housing

present Garden City 2.0

Flexible to Genius Loci adaptive, high density low-rise adaptation

past future

115 Taking qualities of the past, combining with knowledge of today, leaving space for the insights of tomorrow.

for an impactful design that can adapt to the needs of people Short housing blocks

Front sides Multi-functional buildings

Community centre providing and enabling opportunities for the neighbourhood

Urban plan following the ditch structure

Free to adapt and customisable Qualities of the past architectural elements 117 Melchertstraat

Marjoleinstraat Eilertstraat

Eelkmanstraat

Rollostraat

Warmoldstraat

Minkestraat

Schulpweg

Tacostraat A4

Melchertstraat New alterations in urban plan Godschalkstraat 118

Tannekestraat

1:1000 Housing cooperative (perpetually affordable)

B. van Veenendaal #13 Interviews: - C. Robbe #4 multigenerational Shared facilities co-housing - J. Hoogendoorn #5 N. Slob #7 - H. Karssenberg #8 (also fitting historical courtyard) function-dynamic buildings courtyard Interview: living - B. van Veenendaal #13

Different dwelling types for a variety of different target groups (inclusive) Shared green spaces Interviews: - C. Robbe #4 Interview: - E. Roelofsen #9 - B. van Veenendaal #13 - B. van Veenendaal #13

With knowledge of today 119 The building method allows for co-creation and freedom of choice for inhabitants (slow development)

Interview: - H. Karssenberg #8

Translated into the architecture 120 "Developing buildings in such a way that they can easily adapt or improve over time"

Interviews: - N. Slob #7 / - N. Rood #16

Material decisions Made possible by can be based on impact (embodied & operational technology, leaving space for energy) Interviews: the insights of tomorrow - K. van Dijk #10 121 Rethink idealistic / 'socialistic' realistic / 'capitalistic'

Enabling Mixed business Neighborhood for neighborhood neighborhood the commons 60% rent – 40% sale, 100% affordable rent, 100% coöperative neighborhood benefits case profits reinvested in neighborhood, with CLT agreements in social community (social services) functions & programming 50-50%* 30-70%** 40-40-20%***

*own choice > 'equal groups' **conform city policy ***fitting Amsterdam's social mix policy income-based rents densification & reinvestment redistribution

De Warren Senákw Kerckebosch Zeist

'fairpacht' buying land

less dense more dense less dense

lagere grondprijs hogere grondprijs

122 Rethink process

Slower & smaller Gentle & fair

- Develop organically - Maintain all residents - Involve residents earlier and equally (transparent & open) - Co-create (freedom of choice) - Gentle rehousing strategy - Balance interests: middle-up down

123 1

2 3

4 4

6. Pay it forward! 124 Demand change Reinvest - Urban area cooperatives - Hire local, unemployed - Stay involved as investor people (contractor) & reinvest profits elsewhere - Open for community in off hours (commercial tenants) Inspire sector - Neighborhood benefits agreement (developer) - Continuously measure impacts - Communicate lessons learned

125 Impact thinking! Impact development

Positive Short-term societal wealth impact

Current economy Impact economy

126 0.

Short-term wealth Chosen problem maximalisation

1. 2. 3.

Impact thinking! Impact development Application

On the case of Based on theory Based on empiry Wielewaal

Summary graduation 127 128 For a fair and sustainable built environment

129 In which qualities of the past, with knowledge of today, leave space for the insights of tomorrow. An impact first development that is designed to last.

131 To conclude

132 How to implement impact thinking in (urban) development from the perspective of the social entrepreneurial (urban) developer?

133 Impact thinking in real estate requires involvement from multiple actors

134 Developers have to be proactive

It is possible, just do it!

135 The government has to create the right conditions for impact thinking to thrive

Tax & incentivize impacts Stimulate & challenge (impact) developers

136 Thank you!

137 1 Pay it forward Understand 6

2 3 Listen Impact first

4 Measure & 4 Adjust

5 Rethink

138