State-led gentrification and staying put Resistance in Nieuw-Crooswijk & Vreewijk Daniël Bossuyt – 100079036 Bachelor Thesis Supervisor: dr. Darshan Vigneswaran 30 June 2013 Word Count: 9567 (excluding references) University of Amsterdam Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Literature Review 6 Causes of gentrification 7 Definition 7 Forms of gentrification 7 Aims of state-led gentrification 8 Resistance 9 Three Waves 9 Neutralization of resistance 10 Contemporary resistance to gentrification 11 3. Methodology 15 Case 15 In-depth interviews 16 Policy documents 17 Media 18 Triangulation 18 4. Urban policy in the Netherlands 19 Privatization 19 Stadsvisie 2030 21 5. Resistance in Rotterdam 22 Nieuw Crooswijk 22 Vreewijk 25 6. Conclusion 29 Bibliography 31 2 1. Introduction Gentrification has become the preferred urban policy instrument of choice for states all over the world. Public-private partnerships of city governments and property developers actively intervene in neighborhoods in order to change its socio-economic profile. The make-up of the neighborhoods changes, replacing the penniless by the more fortunate. From a sporadic process restricted to the city-center of a few cities, it has spread both vertically and laterally. It is no longer exclusively found in central urban areas, but also in peripheral neighborhoods. Occurrences are not limited to the large cities of the Anglo- sphere, the phenomenon can now also be found in Rio de Janeiro or in Rotterdam (Smith, 2002: 439). In Rotterdam, 'urban restructuring' is on the forefront of the policy agenda. The municipal city government and housing associations seduce private developers to invest in owner-occupied housing disadvantaged neighborhoods. Public policy is used to spur gentri- fication of disadvantaged neighborhoods. In contrast to the generalization of gentrification stands the absence of contestation. Never have sounds of opposition been as silent as in this phase. Despite the rigorous social consequences for which the process is known, of which displacement and loss of community are most infamous, open contestation is completely muted in some places, but less so in others (Slater, 2008: 220). The contrast with the seventies and eighties, when gentrification often caused citywide protests is stark (Smith, 2002: 442). The absence of overt contestation sparks a few questions on gentrification. How do gov- ernments actually use gentrification as a policy instrument? How do people resist gentrifica- tion and what strategies do they use? Answering these questions contributes to a better understanding of the consequences of gentrification, how the process plays out in a local context and gives perspective on the role of agency in resistance. Whereas much attention has been devoted to the causes of gentrification, its consequences remain under researched. According to Tom Slater this is part of the "eviction of critical per- spectives in gentrification research". He asserts that gentrification has been sugarcoated in public and policy discourse. "It no longer evokes thoughts of rent increases, landlord har- assment and working-class displacement, yet currently is more associated with lattes, art 3 galleries and hip bars” (Slater, 2006: 739). Lance Freeman attacked Slater for his critical stance, asserting that ‘positive gentrification’ exists (Freeman, 2008). Slater accused him of being an apologist: "The suggestion that there can be ‘positive gentrification’ fails to appre- ciate that ‘gentrification’ was designed to capture and challenge the neighborhood expres- sion of class inequality." and "Of course gentrification can be positive — for gentrifiers, city managers and particularly the owners of capital". Further adding that social scientists are too busy preoccupied with making research ‘policy relevant’. This is on its own not prob- lematic, but a situation where “research funds tends to flow to researchers who convincing- ly propose that the ‘evidence’ will be ‘relevant’ to a mysterious group of ‘end users’” is (2008: 219). In other words, states rarely consult social science unless it supports the poli- cies they want to pursue. As a consequence, gentrification research has become largely one-sided and a legitimation of ‘neoliberal urbanism’. Have Lance Freeman and his associ- ates really sold their souls to the devil? It is possible that critical perspectives have dwindled as gentrification plays out more peacefully. Likewise it is possible that critical perspectives have dwindled because it has been harder to contest gentrification in general. In his article in 2002 Neil Smith was the first to bring gentrification out of its local level and showed that it is tied to processes at the global scale such as globalization, neolib- eralization of welfare states and the unprecedented movement of financial capital. His ab- stract theory is most at home explaining gentrification in very broad terms. At the same time, he mentions that “gentrification has occurred in markedly different ways in different neighborhoods and according to different temporal rhythms”, specifying the need for a more contextual understanding of the process (Smith, 2002: 440). The danger of course, is that it becomes all about specifying local variations of the same story. (Van Gent, 2013: 504- 505). This thesis contributes by bringing Smith’s abstract theory to a more contextual level. Existing explanations on gentrification research tend to view residents in a passive sense. This is possibly the outcome of structural viewpoints that tend to downplay agency. Residents are seen as passive subjects to the decisions imposed upon them by states & property developers. Not much is known how residents may actually actively resist gentrifi- cation. An exception is the article by Newman and Wyly (2006), which looks at individual and household strategies for resisting displacement in New York City. The problem is that they primarily look at market-induced gentrification in the United States. 4 In this bachelor thesis I investigate restructuring policy in Rotterdam, where the local munic- ipal government, housing associations and property developers actively pursue an agenda of gentrification. Rotterdam prides itself on being the ‘Manhattan on the Maas’. A reputation that it thoroughly deserves in terms of harsh neoliberal politics. If one Dutch city would be successful in quashing resistance to gentrification, it would probably be Rotterdam. Never- theless a lot of resistance to restructuring emerged in Vreewijk & Crooswijk. Using a combi- nation of in-depth interviews, policy documents and media sources, this thesis investigates how contemporary gentrification, manifested through restructuring policy, sparks resistance and how this plays out in the case of Rotterdam. Ultimately this thesis responds to Tom Slater’s call: “If we are to restore a critical agenda, it would seem of paramount importance to study how and at what spatial scales people fight for their right to place, or their right to be re-placed" (Slater, 2006: 220). This thesis is structured as follows: in chapter 2 I give an overview of the rich literature on gentrification and sparse work on resistance to gentrification, concluding with expectations I derived from the both strands of literature. In chapter 3 I assert why Rotterdam is an opti- mal case for this research, I also line out the rationales for the methods of data collection I have used. In chapter 4 I draw from policy documents and newspapers to chart the devel- opment of Dutch urban policy, showing a trend of neo-liberalization. I use a historical mac- ro-to-micro approach, starting with a broad historical picture before moving on to Rotter- dam in recent years. In chapter 5 I closely investigate restructuring & resistance in Vreewijk & Crooswijk, using a combination of interviews and media sources. Finally I sum up my main findings in chapter 6, and point out avenues for future research. 5 2. Literature Review It is an understatement to state that there is a substantial amount of literature on gentrifi- cation (Van Gent, 2013: 503). Since its conception in the sixties, it has evolved into one of the most popular topics of urban inquiry. Furthermore, the concept has received wide- spread attention from journalists, policy-makers and politicians and is firmly rooted in con- temporary public discourse (Lees, Slater, Wyly, 2010: xvi). This chapter is divided in three parts. In the first part I look at the theoretical debate on gentrification. The debate long focused at the causes of gentrification. With the generali- zation of gentrification, the role of the state became more prominent. As a policy instru- ment gentrification serves various purposes. In the second part I look at resistance to gentri- fication. I give an account of its historical development, look at why people choose to mobi- lize and also what strategies residents use. In the third part I sum up the expectations from the literature. Causes of gentrification Much of early research was devoted to the root causes of gentrification. Scholars squabbled over the question whether the process is caused by living preferences - consumption-side explanations - or the flow of capital - production-side explanations. Production-side theories see gentrification as the outcome of the movement of capi- tal. An influential production-side theorist is Neil Smith. Trying to understand the puzzling back-to-the-city movement of capital, he developed the rent gap thesis. Central to which is "the disparity between the potential ground rent level and the actual ground rent capital- ized under the present land use" (Smith, 1979: 545). The actual rent gap itself is created through the devalorisation of land, created by disinvestment. The flow of capital to the place of highest return closes the gap. Gentrification is a back to-the-city movement of capi- tal. Demand-side explanations see gentrification as the outcome of changes in occupational structures and human cultural preferences. A class has emerged that has a disposition to- wards living in the inner-city. Gentrification is a back-to-the-city movement of people (Lees, Slater, Wyly: 2010: 67). Over the decades, much of the debate’s intensity has worn out.