Assessing Environmental Gentrification in Slotervaart

Assessing environmental gentrification in Slotervaart

Image 1 Green in Slotervaart. Source: Makelaarsvereniging Amsterdam (2017)

Rosanna Kistemaker 10729321 Bachelor thesis Dhr dr. I. Yannis Tzaninis and dhr. Dr. Rowan Arundel 17-06-2019 Amount of words: 10.605

1 Table of Content

Introduction 3

Theoretical framework 4

Operationalization 8

Methodology 9

Case description: Slotervaart 12

Policy documents 17

Analysis 20

Conclusion 29

Discussion 30

References 31

Appendix 33

2 Introduction

Environmental gentrification is a phenomenon that is occurring in cities worldwide. This phenomenon is defined as ‘processes started by the implementation of an environmental planning agenda related to green spaces that lead to the exclusion and displacement of politically disenfranchised residents’ (Dooling, 2009). It increases local property values and attracts wealthier residents with the consequences of exclusion and displacement of economically, marginalized residents (Gould & Lewis, 2016).

There have been many cases, especially in American cities, where environmental gentrification has occurred. For example, in the study of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park in New York, environmental gentrification occurred due to the restoration of the park, which led to construction-building in certain areas around the park and a change in residents qua income and race (Gould & Lewis, 2012). In addition, this type of gentrification also occurred in the Harlem neighbourhood of New York through the sustainable policies. It attracted investors who wanted to build expensive housing, leading to the displacement of low-income residents (Checker, 2011). Another example of environmental gentrification occurred in Barcelona with the implementation of the citywide greening agenda and the creation of new parks and gardens in less served neighbourhoods. At the same time of this project, urban renewal projects were happening in these neighbourhoods. Areas around certain parks in several districts experienced a change in residents in terms of higher educational background and higher income (Anguelovski, Connolly, Masip & Pearsall, 2018).

Also, another city that gentrifies is Amsterdam (Kloosterman & Van der Leun, 1999; Sakizioglu & Uitermark, 2014; Hochstenbach, Teernstra & Musterd, 2015; Pinkster & Boterman, 2017). Amsterdam is experiencing a transformation of its city, making it difficult for people with low incomes to settle. In addition to the fact that Amsterdam is gentrifying, it is also seen as a green city. According to the Economist Intelligenge Unit (2012) Amsterdam is positioned at number 5 of the greenest cities in Europe, which is measured with the Green City Index that exists of 8 categories such as energy, CO2 emissions and environmental governance. In the current city council Alderman Rutger Groot Wassink of Amsterdam has the ambition to make Amsterdam the greenest city of the Netherlands and even Europe. Thereby, all parties have an alderman who has an aspect of green or sustainability in his or her portfolio (Gualtherie van Weezel, 2018).

In the named cases of environmental gentrification, a form of governance trough planning such as sustainable policies or greening agenda, were linked with environmental gentrification. Amsterdam scores good on this combination, green city and environmental governance/policies, however during the process of finding literature, no article was found concerning this subject. While Amsterdam is already gentrifying, it also has a specific municipal department Ruimte and Duurzaamheid which focuses, among other aspects, on the urban green space. This department has formed various policies and visions on green and environmental aspects such as the structure vision 2040, the Hoofdgroenstructuur and the Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018. With having multiple green policies, a form of environmental governance and a gentrifying city, it is interesting to research the possibility of having environmental gentrification happening in Amsterdam.

Urban policy set by the municipality is an important driver of gentrification (Tieleman, 2013). In order to understand gentrification municipal policy is crucial, moreover since they own about 80% of the land in Amsterdam (Tieleman, 2013). According to Gould & Lewis (2016) greenery policies and initiatives form the groundwork for areas to gentrify, which can lead to environmental gentrification.

3 With multiple policies of the municipality of Amsterdam, but explicitly ‘Agenda Groen 2015- 2018’ this bachelor’s thesis researches if this link of green policies and gentrification is also occurring in Amsterdam. It will focus on one place where gentrification has been going on, namely Slotervaart. In this area many city dwellers are entering among which a new middle class, more highly educated people, two-income households and expats. In addition, the share of residents with a non-western background is decreasing (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018) and the WOZ-value1 has risen with almost 27,7%% in 5 years (OIS, n.d.). Therefore, the research question of this thesis is, ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’.

To answer this research question the focus will lie on two neighbourhoods in the district, namely Overtoomse Veld and Slotervaart Zuid, in which Overtoomse Veld has a park. First the theoretical framework will be described by using the theory of Scott Campbell’s triangular model to discuss the contradictions of planning. This will be followed by the methodology where the research design will be explained. Then a case description of Slotervaart will be given where it is made clear why this district is gentrifying. After that the policy documents concerning the area will be explained, followed by comparing the two neighbourhoods with each other. At last a conclusion will be given.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework for this research exists of two fundamental concepts, environmental gentrification and green policies, that will be connected to the theory of ‘the triangular model of conflicting goals for planning’ by Scott Campbell (1996).

Environmental gentrification

There are various but similar definitions of environmental gentrification. Gould & Lewis (2016) define environmental (or green) gentrification as ‘the process of greening initiatives that create or restore environmental amenities. Environmental amenities draw in wealthier groups of residents and push out lower-income residents, thus creating gentrification’. Checker (2011) use a much broader term and describe environmental gentrification as ‘the convergence of urban redevelopment, ecologically open-minded initiatives and environmental justice activism’. However, during the search of literature several definitions where found were sustainability/green policies were involved. Pearsall & Anguelovski (2016) defined environmental gentrification as ‘the implementation of environmental or sustainability initiatives that leads to exclusion, marginalization, and displacement of economically marginalized residents’, furthermore the Dooling (2009) defines it as ‘processes started by the implementation of an environmental planning agenda related to green spaces that lead to the exclusion and displacement of politically disenfranchised residents. All the definitions describe the relation between greenery and displacement of people, yet there is a difference. Not all the definitions explicitly name policies as an indicator for this phenomenon. However multiple scholars, such as Checker (2011) conclude that urban environmental policy can be a powerful tool for greening an area and urban renewal/replacement. Now that Amsterdam city council is pushing its green agenda forward and the sustainability plans have increased considerably, it is relevant to research in what extent this green agenda can be related to the gentrifying city.

Environmental gentrification will be the main concept in the research. It exists of two important aspects, namely environmental planning agenda, so sustainable and green policies, and the demographic change of the residents in the area.

1 WOZ-Value stands for the Real Estate Valuation Act. It is the value of your home. Each year this is determined by the municipality (OIS, n.d.)

4 Sustainable and green policies

Dooling (2009) states that sustainable or green policies are a direct indicator for environmental gentrification. Also, Pearsall & Anguelsovski (2016) mention the involvement of an environmental planning agenda. In the aforementioned examples some form of environmental policy or green agenda resulted in environmental gentrification, namely in Barcelona, Harlem and Brooklyn, New York (Anguelovski, 2018). In these examples, but also for this research, sustainable/green policies focus and relates to urban green space. Urban green space is defined as ‘all publicly owned and publicly accessible open space with a high degree of cover by vegetation’ (p.110) (Schipperijn, Bentsen, Troelsen, Toftager & Stigsdotter, 2013). This includes green spaces, such as parks, forests, nature areas and other green space (e.g. community gardens) (Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014). For this research various green or sustainable policies of the municipality of Amsterdam will be analysed and will be explained briefly.

Economically strong and sustainable’ is the motto of the policy Amsterdam’s structure vision 2040. The structure vision shows the spatial development that Amsterdam has in mind, furthermore the city’s strategy on greenery is described here. Greenery is described as the improvement of urban green space. As said before, Amsterdam belongs in the top five of Europe’s greenest city, however the municipality wants to strengthen their greenery actions in the public space to make the city even more attractive to work, live and stay (Gemeente, 2011). The use of urban green space by the residents of Amsterdam has risen, moreover, plays an important role for the resident’s welfare and for companies to settle in Amsterdam. The ambition of Amsterdam is to develop further as an international, competitive and sustainable metropolis (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). To accomplish this investing in greenery is a key aspect. Due to the green ambitions and the increased co-financing there has been made a specific policy document about the greenery in Amsterdam, named ‘Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018’ with the approach on how to make the city more green

Contradictions of planning

To answer the research question ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’ the theory of the contradictions of planning of Scott Campbell will be used. Campbell (1996) discusses urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development in order to understand the various priorities of planning. To visualize these contradictions and priorities, he has made a triangular model, named ‘the triangle of conflicting goals for planning’. This triangular model poses three conflicts: resource conflict, property conflict and development conflict. For my research the development conflict is relevant. Campbell (1996) claims that this conflict is the most elusive. This development conflict occurs at international levels, but also at local levels. This conflict is about social equity and environmental preservation where the main question is how to increase social equity while preserving the environment. The thought behind this is that environmental preservation decreases economic growth, which leads to affecting the lower class of the socioeconomic ladder of society. That is why some argue that environmental preservation or protection is only for the wealthy class (Campbell, 1996).

Figure 1 The triangular model of Campbell (1996).

The goal of urban green policies is to improve urban green spaces for several reasons, yet with the possibility to create a more injust city. This triangular model will be used in the research due to the following: - Amsterdam wants to improve urban green spaces by implementing green policies - The municipality of Amsterdam does not want an increase in the socio-economic differences of the residents. This is linked with the triangular model of Campbell (1996), because the green policies can be seen as an aspect of protecting the environment and on the other side gentrification can be seen as an aspect of social inequality, as inequality among residents in an area is considered to be an effect (Van Bouchate, 2013).

Figure 2 Link between the development conflict and the concepts of the research.

As said before, research about the phenomena environmental gentrification has not been researched yet in Amsterdam. However, with portraying Amsterdam as a nature city (Van Loenen, 2015) and the gentrification that is happening, the knowledge about the effects of environmental gentrification are important to take in consideration. In the Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 the decrease in socio-economic differences between residents was also emphasized, however on the existing literature an inevitable effect. Therefore, it is essential to know this, so the municipality and policy makers can react on these consequences.

Figure 3 Conceptual model

Sustainability/liveability prism

The sustainability/liveability theory of Godschalk complements Campbells theory. The sustainability/liveability prism is another tool to express and comprehend conflicts in planning. Godschalk (2007) discusses the triangular model of sustainable development from Scott Campbell. Godschalk (2007) argues that the model is not sufficient enough to guide land use planning practices. He adds liveability into the concept, which operates at the level of the everyday physical environment. The prism visualizes, among two other conflicts, ‘the gentrification conflict’. This conflict ‘arises from competing beliefs in preservation of poorer urban neighbourhoods for the benefit of their present populations versus their redevelopment and upgrading in order to attract middle-and upper-class populations’ (p.8) (Godschalk, 2007). Godschalk (2007) concludes that this critical conflict is inherent to the contemporary land use planning and remarks that planning approaches do not deal with the gentrification conflict sufficiently. This notion reinforces the idea that gentrification is strongly influenced by the planning domain. So in order to answer the central question both theories will be applied.

Figure 4 The prism of Godschalk (2007)..

Operationalization

Table 1 Operationalisation of the concepts.

Concept Dimension Indicator Environmental gentrification - Improvement in - OIS urban green space - Policies on - Less social rental Slotervaart, such as housing,more private Gebiedsanalyse rental housing - Statistics of - Increase of higher- CBSinuwbuurt.nl income households - Displacement of lower-income, non- western background residents - Increase of new urban dwellers - Increase high educated people - Increase owner- occupied houses Sustainable and green - Making the city more - Agenda Groen 2015 policies attractive for living, – 2018 working and staying - Structure vision 2040 - Creating a more - Relevant policies on attractive business Slotervaart, such as climate Gebiedsplan - Improving the quality - Interviews of urban green space - Spreading the visitors’ pressure by making less used city parks more attractive - Increasing parks and creating new parks

8 Methodology

This section will explain which methods are used to come to the results for this research.

Research strategy To analyse the possible link between green policies of the municipality of Amsterdam and gentrification in Slotervaart, a qualitative research strategy will be applied. Qualitative research is a form of empirical research in which data of qualitative nature is used and aims to interpret and describe situations, persons and events. It concerns the naming of behaviour, statements and text parts from collected documents (Reulink & Lindeman, 2005).

The qualitative research has an epistemological and ontological character. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, what is knowledge and how acceptable this knowledge is. It entails two approaches, namely interpretivism and positivism (Bryman, 2012). This research has an interpretative approach, meaning that the social world is not similar to the natural scientific world. Ontology is about what and how the reality is and has two approaches, namely objectivism and constructionism (Bryman, 2012). In this research, the constructionistic approach is used, in which the social world and its phenomenon are not separate from the social actors (Bryman, 2012). My aim is to analyse the green policies and how the findings of this analysis are related to gentrification in Slotervaart, additionally to see whether there is environmental gentrification happening. In order to research this, policies will be examined and how certain decisions have been taken, the reasoning behind these decisions and whether any consequences that could lead to gentrification have been considered when formulating policies. This is carried out by analysing policy documents and conducting an interview with the policymaker/civil servant Geertje Wijten. This gives more insights into how the process of environmental gentrification takes place in the social world, in which the social actor (the municipality/policies) is connected to the social phenomena (environmental gentrification).

The qualitative research has a quantitative aspect, namely the relation between theory and empiricism. A theory is tested, in which the obtained data must test whether the theory is correct. This is a deductive approach and is a characteristic of quantitative research (Bryman, 2012). The theory is that green policies set by the municipality are leading to environmental gentrification (Dooling, 2009; Pearsall & Anguelosvski,2016). The aim is to research whether the theories of Dooling (2009) and Pearsall & Anguelovski (2016) is actually applicable in this case, thus Slotervaart. The theory is that environmental policies influence gentrification, leading to environmental gentrification. The hypothesis is that in Slotervaart environmental gentrification takes place due to the similar indicators. In the event that the hypothesis is correct, then it reinforces the theory. However, in the event that the hypothesis is incorrect in this case, then that gives the motive to further research.

Research units My unit of analysis are policies from the municipality of Amsterdam, in which various policy documents will be analysed. These are policy documents that apply to the whole area of Amsterdam such as the structure vision 2040, but also policy documents specific applied for Slotervaart, such as the Gebiedsagenda 2016-2019. I use this research unit, because according to scholar’s municipality policies form an important driver concerning gentrification (Checker, 2011; Gould & Lewis, 2012 & Anguelovski et al., 2018). According to Tieleman (2013) there are two types of policies approaches that influence gentrification, namely real estate legislation and direct spatial interventions. The research focusses on direct spatial interventions, because improving urban green spaces in this research is expressed in physical transformation measures and actions.

9 Besides policies, the focus of this research is also on two neighbourhoods in Slotervaart, namely the Overtoomse Veld and Slotervaart Zuid. Statistical data from these two neighbourhoods are collected from the OIS. On the basis of these data, the neighbourhoods are analysed and compared to each other to research if there is a difference between a neighbourhood with a great urban green space and a neighbourhood without this aspect.

Research design The design of this research concerns a single case study. It entails a detailed and intensive analysis of a case. A case study is associated with a location, such as a community or organization. With a case study, a social phenomenon is thoroughly investigated in its natural environment (Bryman, 2012). It makes it a single case study because the focus is on one specific area. All of this is applicable to my research, because I want to research (environmental) gentrification (phenomenon) on the basis of the analysis policy documents and interviews in a specific area, namely Slotervaart (the case, natural environment).

An important criterion for a single case study is the external validity of the case study. External validity entails the extent to which the results of the research can be generalised (Bryman, 2012), which for a single case study is low. However, the research’s aim is not to generalize, but to obtain more in-depth knowledge, which is typical for qualitative research. Nonetheless, the results could be used as comparative material in other researches on the subject of green policies and environmental gentrification.

Data collection In order to answer the research question, collecting data will be on the basis of policy documents set by the municipality and on the basis of interviews with the civil servant and policy-maker involved.

Policies With the two mentioned green policies, Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015-2018, and other relevant policies named in the theoretical framework I will conduct a policy analysis. A short description of these policies has already been elaborated in the theoretical framework. A policy analysis is ‘a process that generates information on the consequences that would follow the adoption of various policies’ (p.12) (Walker, 2000). An important notion is that the goal of such an analysis is to provide a better basis by helping to clarify the problem, presenting the alternatives and comparing their consequences (Walker, 2000). For this research, the focus will be on the first aspect, namely clarifying the problem.

The first policy that will be analysed is the Structure Vision 2040. This policy describes the strategy for urban green space of the city council. The structure vision 2040 is about improving the prosperity and well-being of the people in Amsterdam and what the spatial development can contribute to this. The vision the municipality has in mind is to develop Amsterdam into a metropolis that competes internationally and functions sustainable (Gemeente, 2011). To realise the aforementioned vision and to give direction to the spatial vision for Amsterdam, the municipality has established 7 focal points. For this research, there will be focused on the point ‘Attractive greenery and water’. The reasoning behind this point, is that the use of the urban green space and water in and around the city by residents will increase and will have an important role for the welfare of the residents. Additionally, it will be more attractive for businesses to establish in Amsterdam (Gemeente, 2011). The Gemeente (2011) ends it with that greenery has become an important economic factor, which will enable Amsterdam (through this greenery) to present itself better. It is interesting how the point of making green and water starts with the benefits for the residents of Amsterdam but concludes with an economic-related notion. Then the structure vision explains the actions that will be taken throughout Amsterdam in the field of improving greenery and water. For this research, it will only concentrate on the actions made in Slotervaart. Urban green spaces for improvement are

10 for example Sloterplas and Rembrandtpark. The specific actions for improvement in this area will be further elaborated in the analysis.

The second policy that will be analysed is the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018. This policy describes the approach of the strategy, described in the structure vision, regarding urban green space. The Gemeente (2011) states that by greening the public space, Amsterdam will be more attractive to live, work and stay. In order to realise the green ambitions, more money has been made available from the coalition agreement and is being co-funded with €20 million euros. The Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018 discusses the goals to reach, namely investing in quality of urban green spaces, creating a balance in the use of urban green space, establishing a climate-resilient and healthy city, area-oriented investing and managing the urban green space together (Gemeente, 2011). Then the Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018 focuses on specific aspects for improvement, such as city parks and green space a neighbourhood. Each aspect explains the focus points and actions that will take place. This research concentrates on the specific actions being taken in Slotervaart. These specific actions will be elaborated in the analysis.

Other policies will also be analysed, but less thoroughly as the Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015-2018. First the policies Gebiedsagenda 2016-2019 and Gebiedsplan 2018 Slotervaart will be used. The Gebiedsagenda describes what is happening in the district. It shows the important developments, tasks and opportunities in Slotervaart. The Gebiedsplan is an elaboration of the activities needed to complete these actions of the Gebiedsagenda in Slotervaart. Both policies underline the importance of greenery and urban green space and it gives more context about Slotervaart. another useful report is called ‘Het grote groenonderzoek 2013’, which gives an insight in the use of urban green space in qualitative data. Lastly, the monitor Agenda Green will be used. This document gives an insight in the progress of the Agenda Groen 2015-2018. All these ‘other’ policies give more context and understanding of the two main green policies.

Interviews For this research I have conducted one interview with a policymaker / civil servant named Geertje Wijten. Geertje Wijten wrote the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 together with Wouter van der Veer. The process of finding a person to interview was harder than my expectations. The intention was to interview both civil servants / policymakers Geertje Wijten and Wouter van der Veer. Their personal contact information was not on the internet, only the contact information of the relevant department Ruimte and Duurzaamheid. Therefore, I reached out to my contact who works at the municipality of Amsterdam. Both have given their email, which my contact sended to me. First, I emailed Wouter van der Veer on the 18th of April and then on the 23th of April I emailed Geertje Wijten. Both did not respond, so I emailed both again on the 5th of May. The next day, Geertje Wijten responded and scheduled an interview in. On the 24th of May we met face-to-face at Bar Tack nearby Rembrandt park and conducted an interview of 46 minutes.

The respondent was interviewed on the basis of a semi-structured interview, which is an interview where questions are prepared but there is still space for their own input knowledge, ideas and stories (Bryman, 2012). The interview consisted of two parts. The first part included questions about the purpose of setting up the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018, the ultimate goals of the agenda, certain insights of Geertje herself on the relation between urban green space and a changing neighbourhood and how the agenda was established. The second part included questions about certain quotes I found in the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018. These were quotes I found interesting to get into more depth or quotes I did not understand, so Geertje could elaborate these. The interview existed only of open-ended questions, so the respondent had all the space to elaborate her answers. With permission of Geertje Wijten, the interview was recorded and transcribed. .

Analysis method In this research the aim is to carry out a policy analysis, with aspects of a thematic analysis. As explained before, a policy analysis is ‘a process that generates information on the consequences that would follow the adoption of various policies’ (p.12) (Walker, 2000). When doing a policy analysis, the central questions are how the decision-makers make their decision, on the basis of what information will they act and to whom will they listen. The analysis points out the process of assessing policies and the product of that analysis (Patton & Sawicki, 1993). Doing interviews with the officials involved are used to obtain information about the reasoning of decisions, on what information they react and if gentrification is considered during the process. Thereby analysing green policies is a part of the assessment process. Analysing the green policies is simultaneously the thematic aspect. The green policies will be examined to see what greenery measures are being taken and how these measures are being implemented in practice. In these policies the matching themes can be observed, thus conducting a thematic approach. The goal of this research is to analyse if there is a specific problem (environmental gentrification) that is related to or even result from certain policies (Structure vision 2040 and Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018).

Case description: Slotervaart

This section will give an overview of the area and state of Slotervaart and discusses various indicators of gentrification.

Area description

Slotervaart is one of the four areas in the city district of Amsterdam Nieuw-West. The area is designed by Cornelis van Eesteren in the 30’s of last century according to the building principles applicable at the time. From 1955 the area was first inhabited by people (Slotervaart Tuinstad, n.d.). Then the area was characterized by a spacious layout with long sightlines and lots of green. In that time large and affordable (flat)dwellings were built in a spacious land parcelling. From the nineties the area on the north side was expanded with the district Oostoever (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). The biggest renovations and innovations in the area have occurred since 2000, however after the economic crisis in 2008 this diminished. After the recovery of the economic crisis, the renewal of Slotervaart has continued (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). Slotervaart is part of the Westelijke Tuinsteden and is divided into four neighbourhoods (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017): - Slotervaart Zuid - Slotervaart Noord - Overtoomse veld, located between the Ring and the railway to the North of Cornelis Lelylaan - Westlandgracht, located to the South of the Lelylaan and at east of the railway The eastern border of Slotervaart is bounded by the Ringspoorbaan, in the south by sportspark Riekerhaven, in the west by Christoffel Plantijngracht and the Sloterpark and Sloterplas and in the north by the Jan Evertsenstraat. The A10 ring road and the Ringspoorbaan are traversing Slotervaart. Also, an important station, namely NS station Lelylaan is located in the area (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).

Slotervaart is characterized by its urban green space. Residents and users see the Sloterplas as a green pearl (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). It is a large park that is developing into a new cultural hotspot for the Amsterdam metropolitan region. In the Rembrandt Park investments in green space and new facilities are being made, which will be later elaborated. The Rembrandt Park, Sloterpark and Sloterplas provide a strong urban green space for various forms of

12 accommodation and recreation, where throughout the year events are being held such in themes of festivals, sports, culinary and culture (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).

Slotervaart has approximately 36 000 residents, divided into nearly 17 000 households and 15 000 dwellings. Around the Ringspoorzone West an urban mixed living environment is pursued. In recent years large scale urban renewal has occurred in Slotervaart with more compaction in the zone along the railway. The number of owner-occupied houses, expensive rented houses and people with a higher income has increased. Due to the three colleges and student residences, more students are attracted to the area (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).

Due to the significant urban transformation and adjustments, the demographic change of the residents will change over time. According to the Gebiedsagenda 2016 – 2018, the Gemeente clearly renovates and constructs the area for the current residents, however this is not further elaborated (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).

State of the area

The municipality of Amsterdam has made a document named ‘Staat van de Gebieden 2018’. This document outlines the three most important developments for the coming management period of each area in Amsterdam and what effect they have in the area. For the section Slotervaart the following are the three most important tasks: Sloterplas as cultural hotspot, undivided city with room for all and opportunities and good citizenship for young people, where the first two developments are useful. ‘Sloterplas as cultural hotspot’ discusses that the Sloterplas is developing tremendously, which has led to more visitors. However, due to more visitors the pressure on Sloterpark and Rembrandtpark increases while the soil and trees need improvement. ‘Undivided city with room for all’ discusses the influx of many new city dwellers and more diverse categories of people, such as singles, families, double earners, highly educated people, expats, students and a new middle class. These changes resulted in more owner occupied and mid segment houses and owner-occupied studios. The municipality of Amsterdam also state that the gap between poor and rich and young and old is increasing, which leads to more differences among the residents. The last factor discusses that gentrification is occurring in Slotervaart (Gemeente, Amsterdam 2018).

Gentrification in Slotervaart

Housing aspect Gentrification is a process of upgrading the social, cultural and economic aspects of a neighbourhood or district attracting wealthy new residents/users and, as a result, expelling the lower classes from the district. This upgrading is accompanied by an increase in property prices and rents (Gentrificatie, n.d.). To claim Slotervaart is gentrifying, this will be substantiated with housing statistics from the municipality of Amsterdam and OIS.

The first factor discussed will be the housing aspect. Next to the increase in housing costs and rents, another condition is the change from social housing to private housing. In order to research the housing aspect of gentrification various indicators are obtained and collected. As the municipality already described the owner-occupied housing has increased in Slotervaart. According to OIS (n.d.), the number of owner-occupied houses increased of 3491 in 2013 to 3947 in 2018, which is an increase of 13%. This is the highest increase in the city district Nieuw-West, besides Geuzenveld.

Another important indicator is the change of social rental housing into private rental housing. According to the OIS, there has been a decline in the percentage of social rental housing2

2 The percentage of social rental housing appears once every two years in the odd years.

13 namely with 13,1% in 5 years (2013 – 2017), while the private rental housing percentage has increased with 26% in six years (2013 – 2018). This change of property is worth naming as it is seen as an indicator for gentrification.

The last used indicator is the WOZ-value. In 20143 the WOZ-waarde was €185 836 and has risen to €236 540 in 2018, which is an increase of 27,3%. Slotervaart has the highest WOZ- value of housing of the city district Nieuw-West, besides De Aker4.

Demographic change aspect Besides the importance of the housing aspect, the demographic change is also a relevant indicator. With gentrification, the composition of the residents transforms. The change of a neighbourhood also attracts new residents, which are mostly high educated people, with a higher income (Butler, 2007) and western-background (Anguelovski et al., 2018). This affects the ‘original’ residents, mostly with another social and economic position namely lower-income residents with a non-western background (Anguelovski et al., 2018). To claim Slotervaart is gentrifying, this will be substantiated with the demographic aspect.

The first indicator is migration background. When gentrification is occurring, the heritage composition of an area changes to a more white and western assembly. In Slotervaart the percentage of residents with a non-western background decreased with 6,5% in 5 years (2013;50,8% vs 2018;47,5%). In addition, the other quarters of city district Nieuw-West, so Geuzenveld-Slotermeer-Sloterdijken, Osdorp and De Aker, Sloten and Nieuw-Slotern all had an increase of residents with a non-western background, which is visualized in figure 5.

The second indicator is the increase of new urban dwellers. The OIS defines new urban dwellers as ‘share in the population of persons with a Dutch or Western migration background, aged between 18 and 54, who are registered in the municipality of Amsterdam after their 18th’. In Slotervaart the percentage of new urban dwellers has risen with 26,1% in the period of 2013 – 2018, while in the other quarters of city district Nieuw-West this percentage decreased or has risen minimal. This is visualized in figure 6.

The third indicator is the education level of the residents, focused on highly educated residents. For this indicator, and also income level, the OIS only possess the statistics till 2016. The percentage of high educated residents had increased with 20% in the period of 4 years (2013 – 2016), which is the highest increase in the city district along with De Aker.

The last indicator is about income, however the OIS does not possess the statistics on the income level of residents. Therefore, the average spendable income is used, which also only computed till 2016. In 2016 the average spendable income in Slotervaart was €34.700, an increase of 10,2% vis a vis 2013. This is the highest increase of average spendable household income compared to the other three neighbourhoods in city district Nieuw-West.

So, the current state and area of Slotervaart are described together with the indicators of gentrification occurring in the district. In the following section, the policy documents that discuss urban green space and greenery will be analysed.

3 This is the first year that OIS possess statistics from 4 De Aker is another quarter in city district Nieuw-West

Figure 5 Graphs of non-westen residents (%) in the quarters of Slotervaart. Top left: Geuzenveld, top right: Slotervaart, bottom left: De Aker, bottom right: Osdorp.

Figure 6 Graphs of new urban dwellers (%) in the quartes of Nieuw-West. Top left: Geuzenveld, top right: De Aker, bottom left:Osdorp, bottom right: Slotervaart.

16 Policy documents

Structure vision 2040

As said before, the Structure Vision 2040 describes the strategy of the city council for urban green space. The vision elaborated in this policy is about to develop Amsterdam into a metropolis that competes internationally and functions sustainable. Therefore, the municipality has established 7 focal points. Here, the 7th focal point, namely ‘Attractive greenery and water’ will be elaborated. In addition, it will only concentrate on the strategies concerning Slotervaart.

According to the Structure Vision 2040, the residents of Amsterdam cherish greenery and water, because it enhances the quality of urban life. The municipality states that Amsterdammers (residents of Amsterdam) want to have greenery in their street or a park in walking distance of their homes (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). Within these urban green spaces, there are high quality standards expected of the users. For example, neighbourhood greenery has to offer variation, it has to be pleasant to look at and should offer space for children. In addition, parks must offer space for all possible forms of outdoor creation and must accommodate large numbers of visitors without people getting in the way of each other (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). All these points require high-quality design and proper management. With the densification of Amsterdam, the pressure on the use of parks and other urban green space will increase, whereby investments in more quality will become more important. In addition, management for good quality is necessary. Next to increasing the quality of urban green space, access to these places also needs to be optimal through emphasizing on the use of bicycles and public transport. In order to improve the quality of urban green space, various actions will be taken; - The first action is ‘Investing in the cityparks’. This will particularly focus on parks next to neighbourhoods where there is compaction or transformation happening. Such an investment should increase the park the number of visitors and appreciation of the park. - The second action is ‘optimizing the recreational cycle path network’. This is the network of cyclepaths that connects the parks and green areas in an accessible and pleasant manner. - The third action is ‘stimulating the construction of roof gardens and the use of green facades on new housing estate and on existing housing’. - The fourth action is ‘optimizing the attention for green in the public area of the compacting city, for example by the construction of postzegelparken and by giving city trees more underground growth space.

These actions are not specifically only for Slotervaart, but for all the urban green space throughout Amsterdam.

Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018

As said before, this policy document outlines the approach of the strategy, described in the structure vision, regarding urban green space, regarding urban green space. The municipality has set various goals in the Agenda Groen, which are for Amsterdam as a whole and more specific areas in Amsterdam. The more specific areas are focused on city parks and green spaces in a neighbourhood. Each aspect explains the focus points and actions that will take place. This research concentrates on the specific actions being taken in Slotervaart.

The first aspect is city parks. This municipality of Amsterdam describes city parks as communal gardens. Due to their location in the city and their use, these city parks have a function that

17 transcends the boundaries of the neighbourhood and are multifunctional. For this aspect the municipality has set two goals to reach before 2040 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015); 1. To contribute to the spreading of the pressure of city parks by activating and setting up less used city parks for more intensive use. 2. To adapt city parks better to wet conditions, in combination with intensive use.

To reach these goals the municipality has set various focus points, which will be elaborated. The first focus point is ‘structuring a number of city parks so that it invites residents to use them more intensively and are equipped for that’. This entails that the municipality along with the executive committee by investing in the value of use and experience of city parks that are not so well attended. Various actions and measures are being taken in 2015 – 2018 which are the following: redesigning three parks (or parts of it) in order to accommodate more intensive use, which can be accomplished by placing facilities (on more suitable places in the park), by investing in appropriate planting or by adapting the path structure; improving grasslands in the city parks (by drainage, armament, displacement), which means that the grassland can be used in a diverse and intensive manner throughout the year; creating basic facilities such as water raps, restaurants and toilets to stimulate movement in the city park; improving the accessibility of at least four city parks by redesigning the entrances or by constructing new entrances (Gemeente Amsterdam,2015).

The second focus point is ‘balancing the use of city parks. This entails that when designing redevelopments or programming city parks, there should be variation both between and within city parks. Therefore, the following actions and measures were taken: variation in city parks for the various needs of users of the city park, where desirable and possible, distinctive qualities will be strengthed (nature, water or cultural); points of attention with regard to events in urban green space will be worked out and incorporated into the urban events policy, including contribution to the awareness of green space, accessibility of the urban green space and the carrying capacity of the urban green space (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015).

The third focus point is ‘focusing on soil conditions of the city parks. Amsterdam is situated on peat soil causing the city to suffer from subsidence and the associated wetting. Therefore, the following actions and measures are set up: when designing the redevelopments of city parks, intensively used lawns are planned at suitable/less wet locations within a city park; when designing the redevelopment of city parks, choices for plant and tree species are geared to hydrological conditions; measuring and monitoring subsidence and soil compaction and the consequences for flora and fauna (Gemeente, Amsterdam,2015)

The last focus point is ‘identifying opportunities for new city parks. At various locations in the city developments are expected in which green investments can be included. Therefore, one action is set up namely exploring these possibilities for new city parks in the gebiedsstudies that will be carried out in the context of ‘Ruimte voor de Stad – Ontwikkelingsstrategie 2025 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015)’.

18 Now it is clear what the vision of the municipality of Amsterdam is concerning urban green space and greenery. Also, the gentrification process in Slotervaart has explained. Next, in the analysis two neighbourhoods will be researched regarding environmental gentrification. One neighbourhood in Slotervaart where no city park is present, Slotervaart Zuid and one neighbourhood where a city park is present, Overtoomse Veld. These two neighbourhoods are chosen for the following reasons: - Overtoomse Veld is the only neighbourhood in Slotervaart that has a great urban green space, namely city park the Rembrandt park. - Slotervaart Noord has the Sloterplas also a form of urban green space. However, Sloterplas is also situated in Osdorp and Geuzenveld – Slotermeer. The borders of the Sloterplas are shared with these three neighbourhoods - The neighbourhood Westlandgracht is partly adjacent to the Rembrandt park - In Slotervaart, Overtoomse Veld has the highest percentage of urban green space namely 26,7% in its own neighbourhood and Slotervaart Zuid has the lowest percentage of urban green space in its own neighbourhood, namely 3,2% (OIS, 2017).

19 Analysis

Overtoomse veld

Overtoomse veld is one of the four neighbourhoods in the district Slotervaart. this neighbourhood is in the north bordered by the Jan evertsenstraat, to the west by the Ringspoor, to the south by the Johan Jongkindstraat and in the east by the Rembrandtpark/A10. The neighbourhood is also close to other city parks, such as Vondelpark and Sloterplas. The Postjesweg divides the neighbourhood into two quarters, namely Overtoomse veld Noord and Overtoomse veld South. In 2004 the Projectgroep ‘Vernieuwingsplan Overtoomse veld’ wrote that the public space consists mostly out of greenery, however because it is described as fragmented it has an unclear character and is therefore not very useful. They also described the housing aspect, whereby almost the entire housing stock consisted of social rental housing. In addition, the non-corporate ownership was very small, only 18% (Projectgroep Overtoomse Veld, 2004).

Figure 7 Overtooms veld. Source: Google maps.

20 Slotervaart Zuid

Slotervaart Zuid is located in the southwest of the district Slotervaart. The neighbourhood is in the north bordered by the Cornelis Lelylaan, to the west by the Christoffel Plantijngracht (not included in the neighbourhood), to the south by the Henk sneevlietweg and to the east by the metrolines. The neighbourhood is divided into four quarters, namely the Louis Crispijnbuurt, Medisch Centrum Slotervaart, Staalmanbuurt and Jacques Veldmanbuurt. According to the Hoofdgroenstructuur, this neighbourhood has no mentionable urban green space such as a city park or volkstuinpark (Slotervaart Zuid, 2019).

Figure 8 Slotervaart Zuid. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam.

From the used data of OIS and the Staat van gebieden 2018 it is evident that Slotervaart is gentrifying. To research whether this gentrification process in Slotervaart can be linked to green policies, the two named neighbourhoods will be analysed. Therefore, data from OIS and the municipality of Amsterdam will be used, and the action taken in Rembrandtpark from het grote groenonderzoek 2013, Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 and the Monitor Agenda Groen

21 Rembrandt park

Rembrandt park is situated in the neighbourhood Overtoomse veld. The park has various amenities such as a children’s farm, a building playground, school work gardens and a playground. It is 53 hectares in size and is situated from the Jan Evertsenstraat to the Cornelis Lelylaan (Gadet & Smit, 2018).

The Monitor Agenda Groen is an interim report on the state of play of the actions and goals of the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018, measured in December 2017. A focus point of the agenda was to improve the accessibility of the Rembrandt park. To reach this goal, new bridges have been built to increase the accessibility of the park. In addition, the accessibility of Rembrandt park is improved by refurbishing the entrances and constructing new entrances. Another focus point was structuring city parks for more sustainable and intensive use by users. In order to accomplish this focus point, the Rembrandt park has been provided new basic amenities (Wijten, 2017).

The focus point of balancing the use of city parks has also taken place in the Rembrandt park. In the conducted interview with Geertje Wijten, who wrote the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 and the Monitor Agenda Groen, it is made clear that variation in the park, and attracting various groups of users, has been accomplished (G. Wijten, personal communication, 24 May 2019). According to Wijten, families with children were already present in the park, but nowadays sportsmen doing various sports are also present. In addition, there was a WIFI point in the park, but also small festivals were organized, which makes the park attractive for diverse users and gives the park various purposes (G. Wijten, personal communication, 24 May 2019).

Another relevant focus point is identifying opportunities for new city parks. According to Wijten (2017), a research has been conducted whereby the focus changed to the quality of existing city parks. This new focus has led to a decision, which will free up an additional 16 million euros extra for Rembrandt park, among other 5 city parks. This is in line with Wijten (personal communication, 24 May 2019) stating that Rembrandt park is still developing in terms of the progress in the park.

The Monitor Agenda Groen has an interactive map that displays the realised and planned green projects, visualised in figure 7. The first dot represents the action where the school garden is made more public, which was realised in 2018. The second dot concerns over the first focus point of the Agenda Groen by redesigning on more intensive use and construction of drained lawn. According to the interactive map (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017), the grassland has improved, and basic amenities are advanced. All these actions have been realised in 2016. The third dot represents the enhancement in accessibility by improving three entrances of the park, namely Jan Evertsenstraat, Orteliuskade and Staalmeesterlaan. In addition, improving the bridges is an approach of emphasizing the recreational route of the park. These actions are still in progress. The fourth dot is not directly located in Rembrandt park, but is still relevant. This dot is concerning the second action of the Structure Vision 2040, namely optimizing the recreational cycle path network. To connect the connection between parks and green areas in an accessible and pleasant manner, the green link between the Vondel park and the Rembrandt park in the city district Nieuw-West has been improved. This action has already been realised in 2015 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015).

The Grote Groenonderzoek 2013 shows that 43% of the people of Amsterdam have chosen the presence of a park as a (very) important motive to choose their current home. This percentage is higher for the Nieuw-West district, where 50% consider the presence of a park to be a very important reason for choosing the current dwelling (Van Kempen & Smeets, 2013). However, this study shows that the park use of residents in Slotervaart has dropped from 98% in 2008 to 87% in 2013 (Van Kempen & Smeets, 2013).

Figure 9 Interactive map of Monitor Agenda Groen, the Rembrandtpark. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam.

23 To answer the question ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’ the two neighbourhoods, Overtoomse Veld with a park and Slotervaart without a park will be compared to each other with various indicators.

Housing aspects As said before, gentrification is related to increasing housing costs. Next to an increase in housing costs and rents, the change of social housing into private housing is also a factor. In the following section various indicators will be discussed.

According to the statistics of OIS (n.d.), the number of owner-occupied housing in Overtoomse Veld has increased from 780 to 924 in the years of 2013 – 2018. During this time period, there has not always been growth of owner-occupied houses, it even declined in 2017 – 2018. Overall, there has been a growth of 18,5%. In Slotervaart Zuid the same trend happened, where in the last two measured years there has been a decline of owner- occupied housing. However there has been an overall growth of 22,6% of owner-occupied houses in Slotervaart Zuid.

Another indicator is the change of social rental housing into private rental housing. According to the statistical database of OIS (n.d.), the percentage of social rental housing5 in Overtoomse Veld has decreased from 56% to 46% (2013 – 2017) respectively from 70% to 67% (2013 – 2017) in Slotervaart Zuid. Both neighbourhoods experienced an increase of social rental housing in 2015, however declining again. While Slotervaart Zuid has a greater percentage of social rental housing, it decreased more in Overtoomse Veld with 17,9% in the period of 2013 – 2017.in Slotervaart Zuid the percentage of social rental housing decreased with 4,3% When observing the private rental housing, there is a considerable difference between the two neighbourhoods. While the Overtoomse Veld private rental housing has increased with 49,8% (from 27,9% in 2013 to 41,8% in 2018), the percentage of this type of housing in Slotervaart Zuid has decreased with 40,7% (from 19,4% in 2013 to 11,5% in 2018) (OIS, n.d). To conclude, the decrease of social private housing is greater in Overtoomse Veld and there was an increase in private rental housing, which decreased in Slotervaart Zuid, which is visualised figure 10

This observation of an increase in private rental housing is also visible in the average rent. In the Overtoomse Veld the average rent per month in the area increased from 569 euros to 700 euros, as in Slotervaart Zuid in increased from 521 euros to 574 euros in the period 2013 - 2017. In addition to the fact that the average rent per month in terms of quantity is higher, the percental increase is also higher namely with 23% against 10,2% in Slotervaart Zuid. Besides, the average rent in a year in Overtoomse Veld increases more than the average rent in Amsterdam (influx of +20,7%), both in terms of percentages and quantity (OIS, n.d.)

5 The percentage of social rental housing appears once every two years in the odd years.

24 Table 2 Statistics on social and private rental housing in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS.

Figure 10 Statistics on social and private rental housing in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS.

Demographic change aspect As said before, gentrification is related to a changing population structure. In the following section various indicators will be discussed.

The first indicator is the migration background of the residents of the two neighbourhoods. According to the OIS (n.d.), the percentage of residents with a non-western migration background is the highest in the Overtoomse Veld compared to the other three neighbourhoods in district Slotervaart. In 2018 the Overtoomse Veld had a percentage of 53,4% of non-western background residents, while Slotervaart Zuid had a percentage of 50,4%, Westlandgracht 38,5% and Slotervaart Noord a percentage of 44,9% of non-western background residents. However, the percentage declined the most in the Overtoomse Veld with 15,5%, respectively with 4,9% in Slotervaart Zuid in the period of 2013 -2018. In Westlandgracht this percentage was minimal with an increase of less than one percent, while the residents with a non-western background in Slotervaart Noord increased with 3,7%. In addition, between the two neighbourhoods, the difference in percentage points in 2013 was 10,3% but declined in 2018 to only 3%. In the period of 2017 -2018, there was the highest decrease of non-western residents, namely with 5,7%.

New urban dwellers are also associated with gentrification (Metaal, 2007). When analysing the two neighbourhoods with each other, the Overtoomse Veld had an influx of +50,5% of new urban dwellers, while Slotervaart Zuid had an influx of +25,5% in the period of 2013 - 2018. In 2018 the percentage of new urban dwellers in the Overtoomse Veld was 29,2% while at the same time 20,7% of the residents in Slotervaart Zuid were new urban dwellers. In the named period, the Overtoomse Veld always had a larger share of new urban dwellers among its residents, than Slotervaart Zuid. In addition, the percentage of new urban dwellers has also been around the urban average of Amsterdam since 2014, while Slotervaart Zuid in all those named years has been under the average of Amsterdam (OIS, n.d.).

The following indicators are income and education based and the statistics for the income are starting from 2011.

Gentrification also changes the economic status among the residents. With the process of gentrification, wealthier, thus people with higher incomes, make their entrance in the neighbourhood (Boterman, 2005). Due to the fact that OIS does not have the statistics or percentages of high-income residents in a neighbourhood, another income aspect is considered namely the five quintiles. A quintile is the share of households with disposable income in the relevant quintile on the basis of the national distribution of incomes. Student and residents of institutions are not included. How higher the quintile, how higher the income of residents. When looking at the fifth quintile, there is a difference between the two neighbourhoods. While this quintile has been consistent in Slotervaart Zuid, where 3 years

25 were 9% and the last measured three years were 10%, it has increased in Overtoomse Veld. In table 3 you can see that the first 3 years has also been consistent, however since 2014 it has increased by one percent each year. Simultaneously, in the low-income area (first quintile) the percentage has risen in Slotervaart Zuid since 2014 in the time this percentage has dropped in Overtoomse Veld since 2015. The differences in the two neighbourhoods are not mindblowing, however the percentages in all the quintiles are in ‘favour’ of Overtoomse Veld. Meaning with favour is that in the first quintile the percentages of Overtoomse Veld has been mostly lower or equal compared to Slotervaart Zuid, which also applies to the second quintile. The percentages of the measured years in the fourth and fifth quintile have all been greater in the Overtoomse Veld, meaning that the households with middle-high (fourth quintile) and high (fifth quintile) incomes has increased more in that neighbourhood than in Slotervaart Zuid.

Thereby, the average disposable income6, in the year from 2015 to 2016 has increased from 31 100 euros to 32 100 euros in Slotervaart Zuid, which is an increase of 3,2%. In the same year of 2015 to 2016 the Overtoomse Veld had an increase of 4,4% (31 700 euros to 33 100 euros). This is the highest average disposable income increase in Overtoomse Veld since the change from 2005 to 2006, which was 6% (OIS, n.d.).

Gould & Lewis (2016) describe gentrification also as a process where lower income residents are pushed out of the neighbourhood. Low income residents are also calculated in the statistical database of OIS. In terms of low-income residents, both Slotervaart Zuid and Overtoomse Veld are around the urban average of Amsterdam. However, there is a small difference. While both neighbourhoods had 25% of low-income residents in 2013, this percentage decreased greater in the Overtoomse Veld. In Slotervaart Zuid the percentage keeps swinging around 25% or 24%, while in Overtoomse Veld the percentage declined with 8% in the time of 2013 – 2018.

Boterman (2005) discusses the arrival of highly educated people in the gentrification process. Higher income residents combined with a high educated background are intertwined in this process. The percentage of Slotervaart Zuid of 2013 is missing, so the data as of 2012 is used. Although the percentage of high educated residents in both Slotervaart Zuid and Overtoomse Veld are below the urban average of Amsterdam, both neighbourhoods experienced a boost. Slotervaart Zuid had an influx of +20%% of high educated people, while in Overtoomse Veld there was an increase of 26,9%%. When looking at the pure numeral statistic, the Overtoomse Veld has a higher percentage of high educated residents in the whole period of the time frame (OIS, n.d.)

6 The average disporable income is the gross household income less social security contributions, other tranfsers paid and taxes on wages, income and health (OIS)

26 Table 3 Statistics on the five income quintiles in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS.

To involve the urban green space into the statistical database, several urban green space indicators will briefly be analysed. For these indicators the timeframe since 2015 will be used, as the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 is implemented in that year.

The maintenance of urban green indicates the average rating given by residents on the question: How do you rate the state of maintenance of the green spaces in your neighbourhood? Observing the ratings in the figures, Slotervaart Zuid has the biggest rating of 6,7. Both neighbourhoods’ ratings has been under the city’s average in the recent years. However, as you can see in figure 11, the rating of Overtoomse Veld has increased the most in the timeframe of 2015 – 2017, namely with 6,6%. At the same time, in Slotervaart Zuid in only increased with 3,1%. Overtoomse Veld had the highest increase in the four neighbourhoods of district Slotervaart, against influxes of +6,1% (Westlandgracht) and -1,4% (Slotervaart Noord) (OIS, n.d.)

Besides that, the appearance of urban green space is also analyzed. This indicator indicates the average rating given by residents on the question: How do you rate the green spaces in your neighbourhood? As in figure 11 is visualised, Overtoomse Veld has caught up with Slotervaart Zuid and have experienced an increased rate of 7,8% respectively of 1,5% of Slotervaart Zuid (OIS, n.d.)

Figure 11 Ratings on the maintenance (left) and appearance (right) of urban green space in the two neighbourhoods. Source: OIS.

In table 4, the results of the indicators on the two neighbourhoods are represented. The yellow marking stands for the neighbourhood that has a stronger outcome of the corresponding indicator. The data reveals that Overtoomse Veld, except for one indicator, has a higher increase or decrease in favour of the gentrification effects. Slotervaart Zuid only has a larger increase in the number of owner-occupied housing, which only makes a difference of 4 percentage points with Overtoomse Veld. There is no literature about gentrification in the two neighbourhoods precisely. However, based on the statistical database and indicators of gentrification this research shows that Overtoomse Veld has stronger symptoms of a gentrifying neighbourhood than Slotervaart Zuid.

Table 4 Overview and comparison of gentrification indicators

Overtoomse Veld Slotervaart Zuid Owner-occupied housing +18,5% +22,6% (2013 – 2018) Social rental housing (2013 -17,9% -4,3% – 2017) Private rental housing (2013 +49,8% -40,7% – 2018) Average rent per month +23% +10,2% (2013 – 2017) Residents with non-western -15,5% -4,9% background (2013 – 2018) New urban dwellers (2013 – +50,5% +25,5% 2018) Lower income residents -8% -4%/+4% (2013 – 2018) High educated people (2012 +26,9% +20% – 2016) Maintenance of green (2015 +6,6% +3,1% – 2017) Appearance of green (2015 – +7,8% +1,5% 2017)

Conclusion

The central question of this bachelor’s thesis is ‘How is gentrification manifesting in Slotervaart and what’s its relationship to green policies in the area?’. This research question is based on the environmental gentrification theory. Environmental gentrification is defined as ‘processes started by the implementation of an environmental planning agenda related to green spaces that lead to the exclusion and displacement of politically disenfranchised residents’. Briefly, it states that improving urban green space leads to gentrification in a neighbourhood. This phenomenon has happened in cities worldwide. While Amsterdam is gentrifying it is also seen as a green city. In addition, the current board of directors of Amsterdam portray the city as a nature city. Now that the Amsterdam city council is pushing its green agenda forward, and the plans concerning sustainability and greenery have increased, it is relevant to research in what extent this green agenda can be related to the gentrifying city.

To answer the central question a statistical research has been conducted, where the claim of the municipality of Amsterdam that Slotervaart is gentrifying have been tested. Based on the indicators number of owner-occupied housing, percentage of social rental housing, percentage of private rental housing, WOZ-value, non-western residents, new urban dwellers, education level and average spendable income this statement can be supported.

The next step is to research there is a relationship between the green policies concerning the area what is being investigate by means of two neighbourhoods in Slotervaart namely Overtoomse Veld, where Rembrandt park is situated, and Slotervaart Zuid, which has no park in the area. Again, a statistical research has been conducted on various gentrification indicators, which are visualized and compared in table 4. Based on the used data and research it is assumed that the Overtoomse Veld is gentrifying stronger then Slotervaart Zuid. To see if green policies had any influence in this gentrification process, the taken actions in the Rembrandtpark and statistics will be analysed.

Since the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2016, and Structure vision have been in effect, various actions have been taken. In 2015 the green connection between Vondel park and Rembrandt park has been improved in a more accessible and pleasant connection wherefore the focus point ‘optimizing the recreational cycle path network’ of the Structure vision 2040 has been addressed. In 2016 various grasslands have been improved and basic amenities were advanced to make Rembrandt park more attractive for users. Here the focus point structuring a number of city parks so that it invites residents to use them more intensively and are equipped for that’ of the Agenda Groen has been realized. During the interview with Geertje Wijten it became clear that changes are still being made and that the Rembrandtpark is still in development. She claimed that certain entrances have been refurbished and new entrances have been constructed. The Monitor Agenda Groen adds that for three entrances improvement is still in progress. In almost the same time frame namely 2015 – 2017, the residents of Overtoomse Veld ratings on the maintenance of urban green space increased with 6,6%, which has been the highest increase of all the four neighbourhoods in Slotervaart. Besides that, the ratings of how you rate the urban green space increased with 7,8%, while this was only 1,5% in Slotervaart Zuid. Based on the used data, this indicates that the taken actions have a positive effect on the residents’ perception of urban green space. Some of the mentioned changes in Slotervaart did occur when the Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 was in effect; the number of owner-occupied declined since 2017; the social rental housing percentage decreased by 9 percentage points in 2015; the percentage of private rental housing increased by 10 percentage points in 2017 – 2018; the percentage of non-western residents decreased the most since 2017; the low-income quintiles did decline and high incomes did increase since 2015.

29 These changes, and the fact that the gentrification indicators are overall stronger in Overtoomse Veld indicate that there can be a possible relation between green policies and the gentrification process. .As the municipality stated, and is substantiated by statistical data, the gap of social inequality has risen in Slotervaart. This gentrification conflict, with the revitalisation of the neighbourhood, has led to an income, educational and ancestral gap among its residents in Slotervaart. Based on this research, it shows that this social inequality, and gentrification process, is stronger in a neighbourhood where a park is situated, and actively preserves their urban green space. However, on the basis of this research, it cannot be fully concluded that the preservation and improvement of the Rembrandt park has actually led to gentrification. As a result, it is uncertain to claim that there is actually a development conflict happening in Overtoomse Veld and Slotervaart, where preserving and improving the Rembrandt park forms an obstacle to social equality in the area. It is possible that environmental gentrification takes place in a certain degree, but this separate research does not provide hard and sufficient evidence here. At this moment it cannot be concluded that the green policies and improvements in the Rembrandt park actually influence or relate with the manifestation of the gentrification processes in Slotervaart.

Discussion

Throughout this study, there are a number of discussion points that need to be mentioned.

For the interviews, it was desirable to speak to several policy makers/officials. However, after several attempts, where no telephone numbers are available of the policy makers and no responses after multiple emails, it is difficult to reach this goal in the limited time. Because Geertje Wijten was the projectleader of Agenda Groen 2015 – 2018 she has the most knowledge to provide an accurate perspective of the developments in the Rembrandt park.

It is possible that not all the transformation measures, that have been realised, have been included in this study. The focus of this study was on the actions and measures discussed in the Agenda Green 2015 - 2018 and Structure Vision 2040. However, there is also a municipal project team that is working on the renovations in the Rembrandt park. The email contact with them shows that transformation measures are in place, but that they have not yet been drawn up in a document. This document could also be included in a follow-up study.

Also, in the conversation with Geertje Wijten, she told that currently a Grote Groenonderzoek is being set up by the municipality. This last Grote Groenonderzoek happened in 2013. The Grote Groenonderzoek 2013 showed that 50% of the residents of Nieuw-West did choose their houses because of the presence of the park nearby, but the actual park use in Slotervaart did decline. However, this is now an outdated document that no longer provides current insights and data. With the new Grote Groenonderzoek on the way, this document could also be analysed for a follow-up study, so that the current and recent motives of visitors to the Rembrandt park can also be investigated.

30 References

- Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J., Masip, L., & Pearsall, H. (2018). Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: a longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography, 39(3), 458-491. - Boterman, W. (2005). De stad is anders: Gentrification in Kopenhagen als distinctiestrategie. AGORA Magazine, 21(4), 16-19. - Bryman, A. (2012) Social research methods, Fourth edition, Oxford University Press. - Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312. - Butler, T. (2007). For gentrification?. Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 162-181. - Checker, M. (2011). Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City & Society, 23(2), 210-229. - Dooling, S. (2009). Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 621-639. - Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). The Green City Index. - Gadet, J., & Smit, M. (2018). Het Rembrandtpark een gebruiksanalyse op basis van m.n. het Groot Groenonderzoek (2013). Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/rembrandtpark/publicaties/ - Gentrificatie. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrificatie - Gemeente Amsterdam. (2016). Gebiedsagenda Slotervaart 2016 - 2019. Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur- organisatie/stadsdelen/gebiedsgericht/gebiedsagenda-2016/ - Gemeente Amsterdam. (2017). Gebiedsanalyse 2017. Slotervaart Stadsdeel Nieuw- West. Retrieved from https://www.ois.amsterdam.nl/downloads/pdf/2017_gebiedsanalyse_9.pdf - Gemeente Amsterdam. (2018). Staat van de gebieden 2018. - Gemeente Amsterdam. (2018). Gebiedsplan 2019 Slotervaart. Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur- organisatie/stadsdelen/gebiedsgericht/gebiedsplannen-2019/gebiedsplannen- nieuw/slotervaart/ - Gemeente Amsterdam. (2011). Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040. Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/groen. - Gemeente Amsterdam. (2015.). Agenda Groen 2015 - 2018. Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/groen/ - Gemeente Amsterdam. (2015). Monitor Agenda Groen. Retrieved from https://maps.amsterdam.nl/agenda_groen/?LANG=nl - Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5-13. - Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2012). The environmental injustice of green gentrification: the case of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, immigration, and ethnic politics in a global city, 113-146. - Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2016). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice. Routledge. - Gualtherie van Weezel, T. (2018, May 24). Dit zijn de opvallendste plannen van het nieuwe Amsterdamse stadsbestuur. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/dit-zijn-de-opvallendste-plannen-van- het-nieuwe-amsterdamse- stadsbestuur~b47bb19d/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F - Hochstenbach, C., Musterd, S., & Teernstra, A. (2015). Gentrification in Amsterdam: Assessing the importance of context. Population, Space and Place, 21(8), 754-770. -

31 - Kloosterman, R. C., & Van Der Leun, J. P. (1999). Just for starters: commercial gentrification by immigrant entrepreneurs in Amsterdam and Rotterdam neighbourhoods. Housing Studies, 14(5), 659-677. - Metaal, S. (2007). Gentrification, een overzicht. Oase, tijdschrift voor Architectuur, 73, 7-13. - OIS. (n.d.). Dashboard kerncijfers Amsterdam [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://www.ois.amsterdam.nl/visualisatie/dashboard_kerncijfers.html - Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. - Pearsall, H., & Anguelovski, I. (2016). Contesting and resisting environmental gentrification: Responses to new paradoxes and challenges for urban environmental justice. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 1-7. - Pinkster, F. M., & Boterman, W. R. (2017). When the spell is broken: gentrification, urban tourism and privileged discontent in the Amsterdam canal district. cultural geographies, 24(3), 457-472. - Projectgroep Overtoomse Veld. (2004). Vernieuwingsplan Overtoomse veld. Retrieved from https://www.eigenhaard.nl/~/media/files/in-uw-wijk/renovatie-en- sloop/amsterdam-nieuw-west/2004-3-overtoomse-veld-vernieuwingsplan.ashx?la=nl- nl - Reulink, N., & Lindeman, L. (2005). Kwalitatief onderzoek. Participerende observatie, interviewen. - Sakizlioglu, N. B., & Uitermark, J. (2014). The symbolic politics of gentrification: the restructuring of stigmatized neighborhoods in Amsterdam and Istanbul. Environment and Planning A, 46(6), 1369-1385. - Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P., Troelsen, J., Toftager, M., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. - Slotervaart (Tuinstad). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotervaart_(tuinstad) - Informatie over Slotervaart Zuid. (2019, May 9). Retrieved from https://allecijfers.nl/wijk/slotervaart-zuid-amsterdam/ - Tieleman, J. (2013). The shifting cityscape of Amsterdam-poster. - Walker, W. E. (2000). Policy analysis: a systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 9(1-3), 11-27. - Van Bouchaute, B. (2013). Gentrificatie als strategie van stadsvernieuwing?: Case: Gentse stadsvernieuwing in de 19de-eeuwse gordel 2000-2012. Academia Press. - Van Kempen, H., & Smeets, H. (2013). Het Grote Groenonderzoek 2013. Retrieved from http://www.onderzoekenstatistiek.nl/extra/13124/13124.pdf - Van Loenen, S. (2015, June 19). Amsterdam wil de groenste zijn. NRC. Retrieved from https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/06/19/amsterdam-wil-de-groenste-zijn-1505849- a957166 - Wijten, G. (2017). Monitor Agenda Groen. Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/groen/ - Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and urban planning, 125, 234-244.

32 Appendix transcript Geertje Wijten

[Mezelf voorstellen]

Kunt u zichzelf even voorstellen?

Ik ben Geertje Wijten en ben officieel planoloog bij de Gemeente Amsterdam Ruimte Duurzaamheid. Daar werk ik al meer dan 20 jaar en ik ben nu de projectleider van de Groenvisie. We zijn nu een Groenvisie aan het maken voor Amsterdam, die is er nu nog niet. We hadden voorheen per stadsdeel altijd verschillend beleid en nu werken we veel meer samen. Maar we hebben wel een structuurvisie dat is eigenlijk het beleid voor Amsterdam, ruimtelijk waarin heel veel is vastgelegd. Over 2 jaar wordt er een omgevingsvisie vastgelegd en dat komende jaar de Groenvisie gaat bepalen, dat wordt eigenlijk een bouwsteen voor de omgevingsvisie. Dat gaat over alle groene ruimte in de stad en niet alleen de openbare maar ook de niet openbare ruimte. Dat zijn daken en tuinen etcetera. Er zijn ook semi-openbare ruimte, zoals volkstuinenparken waar je soms op kan maar ook soms niet.

Zou u voor mij kunnen beschrijven wat de Agenda Groen precies is?

De Agenda Groen was eigenlijk een soort actieprogramma van het vorige College, dus in 2014 hadden we een nieuw college en die wilde wel heel veel acties op groen en ook voor het eerst echt combineren met alle andere ecosysteemdiensten die het groen levert, dus bijvoorbeeld klimaatadaptatie, biodiversiteit en gezondheid. Dus daar werd die combinatie wel gemaakt, maar het is geen nieuw beleid. Dus het is niet iets voorgeschreven een actie in de Agenda Groen waar men zich vervolgens aan moest houden, het is een soort van inspirerend document dat aangeeft waar als de investeringen in Amsterdam in de groene ruimte waar je dat dan zou kunnen doen en waarom. Er waren 56 acties aan gekoppeld, waar we 4 jaar aan hebben gewerkt om die uit te voeren en er was ook een budget van 20 miljoen euro voor groengelden, dus daar konden allerlei partijen ook gebruik van maken.

Dus eigenlijk is de Agenda Groen niet een beleidsstuk, maar meer een inspiratiedocument. Maar is dit de eerste keer dat er zo'n soort document is opgesteld over specifiek openbare groene ruimte en niet-openbare groene ruimte?

Het eerste is vanuit de centrale stadsdeel zoals ze dat noemen. Voorheen waren er veel van dat soort documenten denk ik in verschillende stadsdelen maar ieder stadsdeel...en nog steeds kan ieder stadsdeel eigenlijk zelf bepalen wat die doet, maar niet meer qua beleid. In de vorige periode was het nog zoeken van wie gaat nu waar waarover, en nu wordt dat steeds duidelijker.

En komt dat het nu een steeds meer een hot topic is, met groen en klimaatadaptatie dat dat wat makkelijker gaat?

Nou nee dat niet, het heeft meer met de organisatie van de gemeente te maken. Al die veranderingen die leiden ertoe dat iedereen weer even moet hergroeperen van waar zijn we van, wie hebben we in dienst. Maar groen is in Amsterdam altijd al heel belangrijk geweest, dus we hebben de basis eigenlijk gelegd doordat we Amsterdam als soort van vingerstad gingen bouwen. Ik weet niet of je bekend bent met de term scheggen? Amsterdam is zo dat je binnen een paar minuten in je eigen buurt naar een park kan en binnen 10 minuten op de fiets in een groene scheg kan komen, dat is het idee. En omdat Amsterdam zo is gebouwd als een soort van een soort vingers die in het landschap steken, je hebt bijvoorbeeld de Amstelscheg, Amsterdamse bos scheg, je hebt de Diemen scheg in Oost en Waterland in Noord en in het westen de Tuinen van West. Dus je zit altijd snel in het groen. De structuurvisie is heel belangrijk voor Amsterdam, en bij de structuurvisie was denk ik in 1996

33 of die daarna was... In ieder geval was toen de Hoofdgroenstructuur vastgelegd en dat is wel echt beleid, dat is echt een toetsinstrument, dus dat bepaald welk groen in Amsterdam beschermd is en waar je dus als je dus bijvoorbeeld wilt bouwen of wilt verharden dan moet je langs de B&W om goedkeuring te krijgen. Dus dat is wel beleid, maar dat zegt dan niets over investeren, over kwaliteitverhogen. Wat we in Amsterdam ook hebben is dat we veel stadsecologen in dienst hebben, ze hebben ook een ecologische visie, dus qua biodiversiteit is Amsterdam altijd al goed bezig geweest. De natuurwaarde is ook hoger dan die in het landschap eromheen, maar wat nog minder aandacht had, dat was voor het eerst bij de Agenda Groen, was de aandacht voor klimaatadaptatie. Dus dat vooral toen nog als stad zeg maar met probleem voor het regenwater, dat we daar iets moesten verzinnen. Maar ook steeds meer duidelijk van het hitteprobleem en droogte komt er nu bij. En verder die koppeling met gezondheid en bewegen, dat was ook voor het eerst bij de Agenda Groen die we maakten. Hoe kan je mensen meer stimuleren om bijvoorbeeld te wandelen en dat hebben we samen over nagedacht ook wat je dan in parken meer zou kunnen doen. Of dat je meer sporttoestellen of meer ruimte voor paden.

Dus inderdaad dat welzijnsaspect dat was in de vorige stukken niet, maar nu wordt dat meer?

En wat minder is in de Agenda Groen was de aandacht voor sociale cohesie, dat was in de periode daarvoor meer. Dus dat je echt bijvoorbeeld postzegelparkjes ging realiseren met het idee dat mensen elkaar daar ook ontmoeten en het vorige college was ook wat minder rood dus daar was wat minder aandacht voor eigenlijk. Wat meer D66 en VVD waar we mee te maken hadden. Je ziet dat bij dit College is er weer meer aandacht voor, ook omdat het als stad duidelijk wordt dat die sociale ongelijkheid groter wordt, dat mag nu in het beleid wel meer aandacht krijgen.

Wat is precies uw rol geweest bij de Agenda Groen?

Ik was medeopsteller van de Agenda Groen, ik was niet de projectleider maar degene die samen met de projectleider het opstelde. En dat was in 2014-2015 en vanaf toen ben ik twee jaar degene geweest die de projectleiding had over de uitvoering, dus ik moest ook steeds naja kijken hoever staan we, welke acties zijn er verricht, wat moet er nog gebeuren, en hoe gaan we rapporteren aan de raad en de wethouders.

In hoeverre is het ook nageleefd, want er waren ook verschillende doelstellingen en focuspunten, is dat nageleefd?

Bijna alles wat we hebben opgeschreven is nageleefd, het waren ook echt realistische doelen. Je kunt natuurlijk ook dat zo'n visie bijvoorbeeld wat we nu schrijven, daar ga je veel meer dromen ' hoe zou de stad er moeten uitzien op lange termijn', dus grote veranderingen. En in de Agenda Groen borduurde we voort qua acties om dingen die al een beetje ontstaan waren, waar ook al meteen geld voor was, dus we wisten ook wel dat is realistisch, dus eigenlijk bijna alle doelen zijn gehaald en worden nu nog gehaald. Er zijn gewoon dingen die minder handig waren. Er staat bijvoorbeeld iets in over geveltuinenbeleid, dat was voorheen voor ieder stadsdeel apart georganiseerd en dat wilde we op 1 manier gaan doen. Toen zijn we de vorige periode eerst gaan kijken van wat kunnen we sowieso meer doen aan groen in de buurt, meer buurtinitiatieven faciliteren. En eigenlijk nu wordt pas het geveltuinbeleid geharmoniseerd noemen ze dat, dus dat is wat dan een jaar later gebeurt. Ik denk dat bijna alles is gehaald, in sommige iets meer, ik denk de meeste doelen die zijn zeg maar...daar zijn we hoger uitgekomen bijvoorbeeld als het gaat om groene daken, of schoolpleinen. Ik denk alleen bij het verbinden van een aantal groene verbindingen en die komen denk ik pas in deze periode dat die we die echt realiseren. En natuurspeeltuinen, echte natuurspeeltuinen die zijn er niet zo heel veel, wel heel veel speelplekken zijn vergroent, maar echte natuurspeeltuinen die zijn net niet gehaald.

En met stadsparken? Weet u dat?

Ja de stadsparken zijn allemaal... het voordeel bestond niet dat we een heel park opnieuw gingen inrichten maar delen van, dat kun je al snel realiseren.

Toen de Agenda Groen werd opgesteld, wat was toen eigenlijk het doel van de Agenda Groen?

De vorige wethouder die daar achterstond, wethouder Choho, was heel erg gericht op uitvoering. Die wilde geen nieuw beleid. Hij wilde niet dat we allerlei dingen opnieuw gingen bedenken maar hij wilde dat er binnen die periode veel gebeurde, heel erg actiegericht, uitvoeringsgericht. En dat heeft ook gewerkt. We gingen niet eerst nadenken over hoe gaan we het precies doen, maar al heel snel over tot actie.

Dus de uitvoerende aspect erbij?

Ja en ook veel meer zeg maar samenwerking met organisaties en bewoners. Dat zie je ook, er zijn veel subsidies tot stand gekomen voor stadslandbouw, groen in de buurt, groene daken en muren, klimaat en biodiversiteit is er aan toegevoegd als indicator. Dus dat heeft het wel teweeggebracht. Heel actiegericht, groen toevoegen, ondertussen brandde de stad ook en werd er meer gebouwd. En dat was niet zo dat wij daar speciaal naar keken of dat dan...We hebben het afgelopen jaar heel veel vragen gekregen over 'is er nu groen bijgekomen of niet'. Maar daar hebben we nooit echt naar..We hebben vooral gekeken wat er binnen deze projecten aan groen bijgekomen, maar dat er misschien bij anderen woonbouwprojecten groen is verdwenen, daar daar keken we niet naar.

Puur naar wat er tot stand is gekomen. En kwam die vraag van bewoners of onderling?

Van organisaties. Bijvoorbeeld Uva heeft ook onderzoek gedaan naar remote sensing op basis van luchtfotokaart, van hoeveel groen is er bijgekomen en dat blijven ze ook doen. Dus ik had maand geleden met iemand van de Uva daar contact over, er zijn ook veel kennisinstellingen die het interessant vinden om dat te onderzoeken. Bijvoorbeeld ook vanuit de Hva. De WUR is bijvoorbeeld bezig met de waarde van groen in kaart brengen, dus eigenlijk soort op basis van alle ecosysteemdiensten en de waarde daaraan. Dus het leeft erg.

Toen de agenda werd opgesteld, lag toen ook het initiatief bij u of hoe is dat geinitieerd?

We hebben bij Ruimte & Duurzaamheid, heette toen nog Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, een dienst met heel veel groene beleidsmedewerkers en ontwerpers, dus iedere periode als er weer een nieuwe wethouder komt, dan gaan we daar mee om de tafel en dan vertellen we ook vanuit ons idee wat wij denken wat goed zou zijn voor de stad. Maar ieder college is natuurlijk ook een programma/coalitieakkoord of collegeakkoord waar allerlei doelen in staan beschreven, dus in ieder geval stond er heel duidelijk dat er 20 miljoen was voor groen in dat collegeperiode. En toen heeft wethouder Choho aangegeven nou ik wil graag dat dat gekoppeld wordt aan een agenda.

Dat waren mijn specifieke vragen over de agenda zelf. En toen heb ik een aantal quotes uit de agenda gevonden, wat ik wel interessant vond.

Er staat in het voorafje dat is geschreven door wethouder Choho en dan staat er ‘ Investeren in het groen in de stad staat dan ook gelijk aan het investeren in de economie en de toekomst van de stad. De huidige coalitie gaat dubbel zoveel geld uitgeven aan groen dan in de voorgaande jaren. Hiermee erkennen we de grote waarde die de groene stad heeft voor

35 al zijn bewoners’. Ik interpreteer lijkt het alsof er dubbel geld wordt uitgegeven omdat er eerst hier een link wordt gemaakt met dat het ook gelijk aan investeren in de economie. Hoe denkt u daar over?

Het was zo dat we in het geld, die bijdrage van 20 miljoen vanuit de wethouder hebben we altijd gevraagd om een cofinanciering van andere partijen. Dus daardoor is het dat de 20 miljoen heeft geleid tot een investering van 50 miljoen. Dus iedere partij, en dat was vaak een stadsdeel, die had eigen budget en wij betaalden de helft van het hele budget. Dus als er ook subsidie werd verleend, verleenden wij niet de hele subsidie maar de bewoner moest zelf ook nog investeren. Dus zo is het eigenlijk tot stand gekomen dat die 20 miljoen tot een veel grotere investering heef geleid omdat andere partijen mee moesten betalen.

In de inleiding is er een apart kopje met Balans in gebruik waarin staat ‘Dat doen we door de komende jaren minder gebruikte stadsparken en groengebieden in en om de stad te activeren’. Wat wordt er bedoeld met activeren? Hoe uit dat zich in de praktijk?

Dat is wat je toen zag, dat is nu alweer anders, maar dat was het in het Vondelpark superdruk en dan mocht je ook barbequeen enzo, en Rembrandtpark was het veel minder druk. Wat we hebben gedaan is in het Rembrandtpark een aantal toestellen bijgekomen, de route tussen het Vondelpark en Rembrandtpark is vergroend, je moet altijd een soort barriere over maar het is wel aangenamere route geworden. In het Rembrandtpark is bijvoorbeeld een heel weide/grasmat opnieuw aangelegd en er zijn van die lange houten banken bijgekomen. Er zijn nog wat schoonheidsfoutjes, maar dat bedoelen we eigenlijk met activeren. Dat je een impuls geeft aan een park, wat minder druk is, dat het wat gebruiksvriendelijker wordt of dat het beter aansluit bij aan waar er op dat moment behoefte aan is en daardoor ook meer mensen naar het park gaan.

En hoe wordt dat gemeten?

We hebben iedere vier jaar een groot Groenonderzoek, daar kun je zien hoe een park eigenlijk gebruikt wordt. En de resultaten van het laatste onderzoek die komen pas in juni beschikbaar.

In deel 2 worden de uitdagingen besproken, waar een onderscheiding wordt gemaakt van 5 zones; centrumgebied, ringzone, stedelijke lobben, groene scheggen en metropolitaan. Voor de ringzone staan er dan het volgende ‘Gerichte groeninvesteringen in deze zone betekenen een impuls voor de stedelijke ontwikkeling’. Wat wordt hiermee bedoeld, met stedelijke ontwikkeling?

Dat is nog voordat we zo gigantisch gingen bouwen, en voordat het eigenlijk vanzelf ging. In die periode was de Ringzone nog niet zo'n interessante periode, vervolgens is er bedacht juist daar gaan we investeren, ook met nieuwbouw. Je ziet wel vaak, dat is een beetje die gentrification waar jij ook mee bezig bent, bijvoorbeeld dat er nu gebouwd wordt rond Lelylaan dat leidt er wel toe dat daar ook cafeetjes komen, andere type mensen gaan wonen, het gaat wel veranderen daar. Je kunt niet zeggen daar, dat juist het vergroenen tot die ontwikkeling heeft geleid, want op sommige plekken is dat wel gebeurt in het verleden bijvoorbeeld bij het Westerpark. Vroeger had je eigenlijk het oude Westerpark, ook klassiek parkje en dat is toen helemaal uitgebreid en toen kwam het Westergrasterrein en daarachter is weer van alles ontwikkeld. Dan zie je wel dat dat ook ervoor zorgt dat zo'n buurt weer opleeft. Alleen wat we nu wel steeds meer zien is dat 'het een kan niet zonder het ander', dus als je zegt van nou 'in een buurt die nog niet zo ontwikkeld is gaan we investeren in een

36 park en dan komt het wel goed met die hele buurt'. Nee zo werkt het niet en en we zijn ook al denk ik een beetje nu aan het afkomen van dat stedelijke ontwikkeling en meer investeringen en meer koopwoningen altijd beter is voor een buurt. Want nu zie je dat ook een deel van de mensen niet meer in de stad kan wonen en dat er veel meer aandacht is voor...veel meer overal voor die mix zorgen en het is niet perse als een buurt...die gentrificatie zorgt ervoor dat sommige buurten zo veryupt zijn of alleen nog maar expats wonen dat veel mensen dat ook niet fijn vinden.

Maar in hoeverre denkt u dan dat het verbeteren van openbare groene ruimtes invloed heeft op een buurt? Hoe dat verandert?

Ik heb de afgelopen jaren een opleiding gevolgd, die heet 'Triomf van de stad' en toen hadden we ook les van een aantal professoren, met onder andere Maarten van Ham, die onderzoek heeft gedaan naar de buurteffecten. Want ik vind dit wel heel interessant, omdat wij altijd wel denken van zo'n impuls van een wijk zorgt ervoor dat mensen meer sociale cohesie is, gezonder. Dus dat zou ook allemaal wel, en de klimaatadaptie en biodiversiteit, dat mensen elkaar eerder kennen op straat. Maar het zorgt er nog steeds niet voor dat het economisch perse beter gaat met die mensen of dat hun sociale positie verbeterd. Want onderzoek ook uit Amerika heeft aangetoond dat als je een buurt helemaal opkomt en ook, daar hoort natuurlijk vaak bij bijvoorbeeld in Amsterdam dat ook deel van de huurwoningen koopwoningen worden, dan duurt het wel 2 a 3 generaties voordat de mensen waar het minder goed meegaat daar profijt van hebben. Waar ik steeds meer achter kom is dat zeg maar die....Als je in een sociale achterstandpositie zit dan is het heel moeilijk om daar uit te komen en dan is het eigenlijk heel belangrijk dat je wel elkaar ontmoet en dat er een netwerk ontstaat van verschillende mensen. Dit is niet mijn expertise maar wat ik nu denk, dat we eigenlijk in een soort bubbel leven, ik woon in de Baarsjes en mijn kinderen gaan naar een heel gemengde school. Er zit echt alles op die school, maar je ziet wel dat de witte hoogopgeleide, althans de hoogopgeleide, die trekken naar elkaar toe en de mensen van Turkse afkomst die gaan met elkaar om, met Antiliaanse, Surinaams en dat we proberen op de school juist die verbinding te maken. En dat is ook goed, maar je blijft een soort clupjes houden en dat is gewoon het netwerk waar mensen zich ook prettig bij voelen en vaak is het toch om uit een achterstandspositie te komen heel belangrijk dat je de goede mensen ook kent. En dat vind ik heftig dat het zo werkt, maar het werkt zo wel.

Hoe heette dat vak ook alweer?

Het heet Triomf van de stad. Ik denk dat die professor Maarten, het zou natuurlijk heel mooi zijn als je vanuit dat groen daar aan kan bijdragen. Natuurlijk is het zo dat als mensen bijvoorbeeld in een groenere omgeving wonen, dan zijn ze vaak gezonder. Dus daar kan je ook echt iets wel doen. Maar je ziet ook in Amsterdam dat er wijken zijn, bijvoorbeeld in West of ZuidOost, dat qua oppervlakte aardig groen is geweest, maar waar niet de gezondste mensen wonen of de met de hoogste opleiding. Dat heeft ook erg te maken met het type groen wat je hebt. We zijn aan het kijken naar meer variatie. In ZuiOost en in Nieuw-West had je heel lang veel grasvelden, waar je vervolgens niks mee kon doen. Mensen gingen niet, de afstanden tussen voorzieningen waren groot, dus mensen gingen niet wandelen maar met de bus of scooter of auto. Het is natuurlijk ook een bepaalde cultuur, dat zie je ook gewoon. In de tram zie je andere mensen dan op de fiets of scooter. Beetje generaliseren, maar het is wel een beetje. Maar die zie je ook al veel verandering in, want je ziet bijvoorbeeld, ik ren wel eens bij Sloterplas, aantal jaar geleden kwam je daar bijna niemand tegen en zeker niemand met een hoofddoekje en dat is wel echt aan het veranderen. Iedereen ontwikkelt zich, de stad ontwikkelt zich.

Wat me ook opviel is dat het ook over het vestigingsklimaat gaat, dat het vergroenen van de stad of verbeteren van het groen, Amsterdam aantrekkelijker moet maken voor bedrijven om

37 zich hier te vestigen, dus dat groen eigenlijk ook een belangrijke economische factor is. Kunt u dat toelichten, hoe is dat meegenomen?

Ja dat heeft ook te maken met het College van D66 en VVD wat we toen hadden, iets wat zij belangrijk vonden om daar de nadruk op te leggen. Het schijnt bijvoorbeeld zo dat het aan de Zuidas zo werkt, is dat een aantal bedrijven zich wel willen vestigen maar ook omdat daar vlakbij een Amstelpark is en een Amstelscheg. Dus ook voor als mensen dan heel veel medewerkers naar zo'n nieuwe stad meenemen, dan willen die een prettige leefomgeving die moet dan ook wel groen zijn of mogelijkheden bieden.

Dus meer vanuit dat oude College?

Ik denk dat dat nu nog steeds wel speelt, maar nu zijn we...bij het groen richten we ons meer op zeg maar die aandacht voor sociaal, klimaatadaptatie en biodiversiteit en minder op dat economische aspect. Dat heeft ook met de kleur van een college te maken en met de tijd waarin we nu leven, want het gaat nu gewoon heel goed met Amsterdam.

In deel 1 van wat gaan we doen wordt eerst stadsparken behandeld. Daarin staat dat Rembrandtpark wordt de komende jaren getransformeerd naar een stadspark met een verbrede gebruiksfunctie. Wat wordt hiermee bedoeld?

Wat je ziet....is dat wel deels al geslaagd denk ik, dat het Rembrandtpark echt gevonden wordt door bijvoorbeeld toeristen, door jongere mensen. Je hebt een deel van het park, dat is al een tijdje geleden, hebben we toen een wifipunt gemaakt, en dat werkt wel, zag je echt mensen met hun laptop zitten bij het punt. Ik weet niet of dat nu nog zo is en of dat nog zo belangrijk is, maar we kregen andere sporters. Met brede, bedoelen we echt een bredere doelgroep. Je had altijd al mensen met kleinere kinderen, maar bijvoorbeeld meer sporters zijn gekomen ook urban sports en dat heeft denk ik ook te maken met de drukte van bijvoorbeeld in het Vondelpark met de verschillende bootcamps. Het Rembrandtpark is veel meer ook een optie geworden voor sporters om heen te gaan. Ik weet niet of de doelgroep kinderen al meer bediend is, want eigenlijk was ook het idee dat de kinderboerderij al zou zijn uitgebreid met horeca en dat er nog een speeltuin bij zou komen, maar dat is nog niet gelukt. Dat is nog wel steeds het plan, dus het wordt nog steeds wel verder ontwikkeld. Er zijn meer kleine festivalletjes bijgekomen, daar is misschien een deel van de mensen niet meer zo blij mee, barbequeen wel mag in het Rembrandtpark zijn er ook meer mensen naar het park gekomen, maar daar is nu ook een discussie ook over. En in het Zuidelijke deel van het park zijn er meer bruggen bijgekomen die zijn wat breder, dus in dat deel meer ecologie, maar dat is ook nog een beetje in ontwikkeling dus er moet nog wel wat gebeuren.

U noemde de Groenvisie, kunt u mij daar al iets over vertellen?

Ja eigenlijk zijn we nu echt in de fase dat we overal zeg maar, we noemen dit de ophaalfase, dus het deel waarin je via participatie al informatie ophaalt, we hebben nu een grote bewonersbijeenkomst georganiseerd en dat grote groenonderzoek, die resultaten zijn belangrijk. We gaan nog langs alle stadsdelen en ik heb bijvoorbeeld gisteren met een aantal groene bewonersorganisaties of belangenorganisaties gesproken. Dus dat geeft allemaal input en pas deze zomer gaan we echt een conceptstuk schrijven en daar kan ik eigenlijk nog niet zoveel over zeggen, omdat een wethouder eerst nog moet zeggen wat die daarvan vindt. Dus wij kunnen wel op basis van wat we hebben opgehaald een voorzet doen, we weten zeker dat dieren en ecologie belangrijk worden, dat vindt de wethouder ook erg belangrijk, klimaatadaptatie belangrijk wordt, gezondheid en sociaal, dus dat weet ik. Maar hoe die fusie er precies uit gaat ziet dat hangt ook af van de ambities van de wethouder.

38 En wordt daarin al het aspect van sociale cohesie die dan nu in de Agenda Groen niet echt benoemd is, wordt dat nu wel actief meegenomen?

Ja ik verwacht dat daar meer aandacht voor komt. Maar je merkt daar wel en dat is ook wel interessant voor jou, dat die koppeling tussen het sociale domein en het fysieke, dus ook als je op zoek gaat naar bijvoorbeeld sprekers of hoogleraren, zijn dus heel veel mensen die zich focussen ook vanuit de wetenschap op sociaal aspecten en vanuit de wetenschap op de groene aspecten en dan zien we ook gewoon bij een College, portefeuilles zijn heel vaak verdeeld, dat dat niet bij een wethouder zit, maar ook ambtelijk verschillende diensten, je hebt dienst die is sociaal, of een dienst die meer op ruimte gericht, en daar zou meer samenwerking moeten plaatsvinden op al die domeinen. Want dan kun je pas echt een slag slaan. En nu weet ik wel dat er bij mensen die werken aan onderwijs, jeugd en zorg, dus meer het sociaal domein van Amsterdam, heeft ook wel kennis over bijvoorbeeld nu hebben we ontwikkelbuurten in Amsterdam. Dat zijn de achterstandswijken, dat zijn wijken waar zeg maar sociaal, opleidingsniveau en naar wat mensen verdienen, hoeveel werkloosheid, maar er zijn wijken waar het echt minder goed gaat. En die zijn er in Nieuw-West, in ZuidOost en een paar in Noord. Dat zijn de 3 stadsdelen waar echt nog wijken zijn waar aan gewerkt wordt. En dan kijken ze dus ook van kunnen we daar iets in de openbare ruimte doen. Alleen er is niet een duidelijk plan van wat je dan moet gaan doen, dus daarom is een koppeling tussen sociaal en fysiek belangrijk. Want mensen die werken in de sociale domein meer weten over wat je kan doen in de openbare ruimte en dat mensen in een ruimtelijke domein werken, zoals wij, of met duurzaamheid meer begrijpen van het sociale aspect. Dat kan nog beter.

Volgens mij heb ik al mijn vragen. Heeft u nog iets van aanvullingen of vergeet dit niet of nog goed om te weten?

Ik was benieuwd of je nog breder gaat in Slotervaart?

Ja mijn onderzoek gaat dus echt over hoe beleid/documenten of dat een link heeft naar gentrification in een buurt. Heel moeilijk om te bewijzen, ik ga nu dus kijken naar een buurt met een park, Overtoomse veld, en bij Slotervaart-Zuid wat niet gelegen is aan park. Dat ga ik kijken of er verschil is qua samenstelling van de buurt.

En de buurt rond August Allebeplein?

Dat hoort bij de Overtoomse veld.

Ik ga dus kijken of ik er verschil is.

Wat ik denk is dat je niet met zeg maar vergroening gentrification op gang kunt brengen perse. Je ziet toch wel vaker, dat zie je ook wel een beetje in die buurten, dan komt er een ergens een nieuw bedrijf, er komt een school in de buurt, er dient zich een mogelijkheid toe om ergens een koffietentje van te maken, er komen mensen langs. Daardoor krijg je dus wel iets weer op gang, maar is dat dan omdat je eerst iets in de openbare ruimte doet of omdat de tijd rijp is voor die mensen om samen te verenigen.

Er spelen inderdaad ook andere factoren mee, maar als je moet kijken naar de wetenschappelijke literatuur dan zijn er wel degelijk voorbeelden van environmental gentrification, zoals in Barcelona, in Zweden en in New York bij de Brooklyn Prospect Park, dat daar echt op een moment dat een buurt zwaar is getransformeerd wat betreft groen dat het veel aantrekkelijker wordt om daar te wonen en dat de mensen met een laag inkomen, laag opleidingsniveau dat die uiteindelijk weg is gegaan, omdat er ruimte is gekomen voor mensen met een hoger inkomen.

39 Ik denk dat als het heel slecht is in een buurt, bijvoorbeeld ik denk dat dat dus is gebeurt bij de highline in New York destijds is dat een buurt heel weinig groen heeft en gaat niet zo goed en er komt zoiets heel bijzonders bij dat t zo wel werkt, maar dat het altijd...in Amsterdam is het eigenlijk al heel lang wel oke, mensen zijn best wel tevreden en er is groen en je kunt dan ergens heen. Er is nooit....Zoals je in sommige wereldsteden ziet, dat het echt zo onleefbaar is, dat zo'n impuls heel veel doet. Maar wat ik wel denk, wat heel belangrijk is, is dat de beheerachterstanden, bijvoorbeeld in Amsterdam Noord was heel lang...als je bijvoorbeeld overal ziet dat er ook zwerfafval rondslingert en overal komt er onkruid tussen de tegels en je ziet gewoon van oke aan mijn buurt wordt eigenlijk weinig aandacht aan beheer/onderhoud vanuit de overheid geschonken dat t wel weer leidt tot ontevredenheid. Dus dat wel andersom, als jij in soort van verwaarloosde buurt leeft of je ziet dat t snpik en span is en iedereen houdt het schoon, dat dat ook wel belangrijk is. En wat ook wel leuk is, en dat zie je ook in Nieuw-West op een aantal plekken, waarbij buurtbewoners of mensen die aan broedplaatsen werken ofzo of ken je de spiegeltuin, die hebben ze gewoon ontwikkeld vanuit het idee van de buurtbewoners met heel weinig geld, dat is een heel mooie plek geworden. Maar dat komt destijds op veel braakliggende terreinen omdat er nog niet gebouwd wordt, en nu wordt daar binnenkort gebouwd dus dan zou dat weer verdwijnen.

[Afsluiting interview]