An in Memoriam for the Just City of Amsterdam Justus Uitermark

Home , Nieuwmarkt

This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] On: 17 November 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906458368] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

City Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410570

An in memoriam for the just city of Amsterdam Justus Uitermark

To cite this Article Uitermark, Justus'An in memoriam for the just city of Amsterdam', City, 13: 2, 347 — 361 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13604810902982813 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810902982813

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Social housing in the Nieuwmarkt neighbourhood (above) and gentrification in process (below). Photos: Goezde Tekdal Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 CITY, VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3, JUNE–SEPTEMBER 2009 An in memoriam for the just city of Amsterdam

Justus Uitermark

Taylor and Francis

This paper shows how the just city of Amsterdam came to live, celebrates its achievements and mourns its death. The paper suggests that an equitable distribution of scarce resources and democratic engagement are essential preconditions for the realization of a just city. Social movements of Amsterdam struggled hard to make their city just and they had considerable success. However, in the late 1980s, social movements lost their momentum and, in the late 1990s, neoliberal ideologies increasingly pervaded municipal policies. Whereas urban renewal was previously used to universalize housing access and optimize democratic engagement, it is now used to recommodify the housing stock, to differentiate residents into different consumer categories and to disperse lower income households. Part of the reason that these policies meet so little opposition is that the gains of past social struggles are used to compensate the most direct victims of privatization and demolition. Future generations of Amsterdammers, however, will not enjoy a just city.

Introduction The old buildings as well as the messy street plan had to be replaced by straight roads, a he Nieuwmarkt subway station has metro and high-rises that would allow a collage of monuments of resis- people, traffic and capital to circulate with T tance and reminders of oppression. unprecedented speed. On one of the One picture on the wall shows a sign ‘Juden pictures some of the houses are still stand- Viertel’ and a road block. The Nieuwmarkt ing amidst the rubble. On another picture neighborhood had been a predominantly the riot police are gearing up to sweep Jewish neighborhood and the Nazi occupi- protesters out of the streets to make way Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 ers had closed it off and turned it into a for the next round of demolition. On one repository for Jews that were to be side of the platform, just before the tunnel, deported to concentration camps. On there is a small and fractured wooden wall another picture we see a person blindfolded with a slogan on it—‘we will continue on a stage. Perhaps it was one of the dock living here’ (wij blijven hier wonen). On the workers who went on strike to protest upper platform, in a corner, the wall is against the deportations and had to pay made of red brick instead of the usual ster- with their lives. ile light grey paint. There are beams and The walls also tell another story, namely, girders sticking out of the wall and, as if to that of the resistance against draconic remind us that this is not just a forgotten urban renewal that hit the neighborhood corner, a replica of a wrecking ball.1 two decades after the war. The authorities It would be grotesque to draw a parallel wanted to raze the entire neighborhood. between the atrocities of the Nazi occupiers

and the modernization agenda of an elected signals a belief that defines the difference government—but I do not think that this is between the darkest pages of Amsterdam’s what the monument intends. The monument, history and the heydays of democratization: in fact, seems to lack coherence. The pictures protest against inhumane authorities is not a just hang there and I never found any sign to crime but a duty. This official memorializa- explain what is on display and why it is tion of resistance against state-mandated there.2 The only printed text is below a giant, urban renewal projects rather graphically kitschy picture frame and says ‘Greetings illustrates Amsterdam’s importance as a from the Nieuwmarkt’ (groeten van de Nieu- source of inspiration for contemplating what wmarkt). There is a broken mirror in the the just city might actually look like. This frame but it is unclear whether this was the paper indicates what I understand by the just intention of the creator or the work of city, examines how the just city came to life in vandals. If this collage of pictures, props and Amsterdam, and shows how it also came to its murals has any meaning, it does not lie in the end there. Against this background, the paper parallels but in the differences between the argues that the movement successes of the two eras; differences that, I think, capture the recent past (strong tenant rights, a large social essence of democracy and the essence of housing stock, formalized resident consulta- the right to the city. During the occupation, tion) do not necessarily pose an obstacle to the Jewish residents of the Nieuwmarkt gentrification. In fact, these institutions neighborhood were exterminated and the compensate the most immediate and resource- resistance activists were executed. Any ful victims and thereby help to co-opt or outcry against injustice or solidarity with the prevent resistance against policies that seek to Jewish residents only reinforced the atroci- promote gentrification. ties. During the urban renewal operation, by contrast, the authorities not only allowed residents to voice their discontent but also— The just city and Amsterdam ultimately—gave in. started.Figure 1By SocialwayAbove of housing commemoration, in the Nieuwmarkt this memorial neighborhood. ground,stone was The erected pillar in on 1986.’ the turtle Source: in the Goezde forefront Tekdal.one belongs to a monument can with the text ‘U p seeto this point the oldwhere city pattern disappeared. Beyond thismodern- point the urban renewal of the neighborhood The achievements of urban social movements ism was halted: at the border of the Nieuw- in Amsterdam have been extensively docu- markt neighborhood, at Waterlooplein, where mented and praised in the international litera- the four-lane highway ends. Where hotels and ture. In the late 1960s, Amsterdam attracted banks were planned, there is now social hous- the attention of Lefebvre, who ventured to ing (Figure 1). The fact that the government Amsterdam to explore the city with artists memorialized the resistance against itself and activists who were experimenting intel- lectually and practically with new strategies Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 for resisting modernization. Around 10 years later, in 1977, Susan Fainstein arrived in Amsterdam for the first time and discovered in it an equitable alternative to the cities of the USA. In the 1990s, Ed Soja wrote of Amsterdam as a city that fosters a culture of tolerance and civic engagement (Soja, 1992). After several return visits in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Fainstein praised Amsterdam as a city that approached her ideal of a just city, that is, a city that has found the right trade-offs between equity, diversity, Figure 1 Social housing in the Nieuwmarkt neighbor- growth and sustainability (Fainstein, 2005). hood. Source: Goezde Tekdal. In 2008 John Gilderbloom organized a 350 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

conference in Amsterdam on the ‘ideal city’, for realizing the just city: mechanisms that praising the conference site as a place where guarantee an equitable allocation of scarce people are ‘more tolerant, secure, happier, resources; and mechanisms that engage resi- and healthier compared to citizens in the dents with the ongoing project of making the United States’ because of a unique blend of city. progressive policies (with respect to drugs A fair distribution of scarcity is one of two and prostitution) and a comprehensive crucial preconditions for a just city. The welfare state. ‘Amsterdam, at this moment in commitment to make the city accessible to history, might be the world’s greatest city each and every person irrespective of their because of its ability to ensure basic necessi- purchasing power is a cornerstone of any ties, freedom and creativity.’ Most impres- project that aims to fairly distribute scarcity. sively, everybody can partake in this success Note that this is not the same as quality—it as ‘quality housing is supplied to everyone may be the case that houses are small or ugly, that gives pride of place’ (Gilderbloom, 2008, but I still think a city could be legitimately n.p.; see also Gilderbloom et al., 2007). called just (though not necessarily pleasant) if My understanding of the just city is it provides its limited or imperfect housing slightly different from that of Fainstein and evenly across the population. This means that Gilderbloom. Gilderbloom emphasizes that the just city would either create an egalitarian Amsterdam outperforms American cities on income distribution or that it would create criteria as diverse as prosperity, quality, toler- institutions that prevent households and ance, health and welfare. While all these investors from translating their economically features make a city nice or good, they do not privileged position into a privileged position necessarily make it just (see also Fainstein, in land and housing markets (which therefore 2006, p. 3). A just city, in my view, is a city would cease to be markets). where exploitation and alienation are absent. A second precondition for the just city is In this sense my understanding is closer to that residents have control over their living Fainstein for whom equity is central to the environment, that is, they engage with the concept of a just city (Fainstein, 2000). Much polity of which they form part. Since it is more than Gilderbloom, she argues that usually the state that enforces the first democratic participation and an engaged precondition of a just city, there is a very real populace are crucial for realizing the just city. danger that economic egalitarianism leads to However, like Gilderbloom, she also praises the concentration of power in the hands of a Amsterdam for its capacity to combine bureaucratic apparatus that defines what is growth with diversity and sustainability just, without too much consideration for the (Fainstein, 2005). In my view, ‘growth’ can individuals and groups that are supposed to Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 help to promote justice but it might just as benefit from the system. Rather than simply well exacerbate injustices. Likewise, it is very receiving whatever provisions are allocated well possible to imagine a city that is sustain- to them, residents should have the right and able and diverse, yet replete with inequalities. capacity to inform and shape the distribution According to my understanding of the just of universal provisions in particular ways. city, then, growth, sustainability, health, and This implies that they should have what so on, can be valued but not traded off for less recent literature on civil society refers to as equity or lower civic engagement. In order to collective efficacy and social capital; they clearly differentiate the just city from a nice, should have the right and ability to organize prosperous, sustainable or safe city (all of in such a way that they can effectively inform which have their specific contribution to and shape the distribution of universal provi- make to the well-being of urbanites), I want sions according to their particular needs. to focus on two preconditions that, in my These two criteria are formulated in such a view, are essential (but perhaps not sufficient) way as to demand the impossible. There is, to UITERMARK: AN IN MEMORIAM FOR THE JUST CITY OF AMSTERDAM 351

my knowledge, no city in the world that can 1970s squatters gained significance as a move- live up to the standards of a just city. But ment against the demolition of affordable some come closer than others and it is exactly housing and the imposition of modernist for this reason that we should be interested in fantasies on urban space. In the Nieuwmarkt concrete approximations of abstract ideals. and many other Amsterdam neighborhoods, And, even though my criteria are different vacancy rates accelerated in anticipation of from those of Fainstein, Gilderbloom and demolition or due to speculative reasons; others, I agree with these authors that subsequently, large numbers of squatters Amsterdam provides fascinating insights and moved in. It is in the very nature of squatting inspiring examples for other cities. However, to achieve revolutionary change through I think Amsterdam should not only be held conservation—that is, by preventing space up as an example of a just city but also as an from being redesigned to maximize profit. example of how quickly and dramatically Squatters have always been disliked by large movements striving for the just city parts of the Dutch population, but during this (Nicholls and Beaumont, 2004) can lose their time they were actually a natural ally of resi- momentum. Amsterdam, I argue, has degen- dents who demanded proper housing for a erated from a city that aspires to be just for reasonable price. Everywhere in the city resi- all into a city that is nice for many. dents—tenants and squatters—successfully opposed modernist renewal plans. In the space that had been left by capital and had not The ascendancy of the just city been colonized by the state, a residents’ movement grew that propagated an alternative view In the 1960s and 1970s, the state as well as of the city. This movement advocated the capital discontinued investments into inner construction of new houses, the maintenance cities. Investors as well as governments felt of the existing stock and the democratization that the city had to be drastically renewed of planning (Pruijt, 1985; Mamadouh, 1992). and restructured according to the demands of The strength of this movement ultimately the time. The demands of the time, in turn, led to the overthrow of the modernistic tech- were defined in modernist terms. Through nocrats within the ruling Labor Party. More modernist lenses the city looked like a hope- than anyone else, Jan Schaeffer personified lessly dysfunctional, chaotic and ugly mess. the new urban vision. He had actively But a growing number of people identified resisted modernistic renewal in the Amster- strongly with exactly those parts of the city dam neighborhood of De Pijp during the that disgusted the modernist planners. And, 1960s and early 1970s, and he had subse- equally important, those urban residents no quently made his way into the higher ranks Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 longer perceived the government’s wishes as of the Labor Party on the wings of the resi- divine law. Criticism and imagination dent movement. In 1973, he became Junior democratized rapidly. The authorities that Minister of Public Housing in the national had previously appeared as skillful government, and in that position he would executioners of the collective were now rein- help to create the institutional preconditions terpreted as modernist fanatics. for a further deepening and broadening of the In the course of the 1970s, resident resis- residents’ movement. In the most left-wing tance intensified in cities throughout Western cabinet that the Netherlands had ever seen, Europe (Castells, 1983). In the case of he could break with the conception that Amsterdam, the emergence of the squatting urban renewal should serve to restructure the movement contributed to an intensification city to better meet the ‘demands of the time’. and radicalization of resident protests. Squat- Instead he helped to popularize and institu- ting is usually a marginal urban practice of tionalize the slogan ‘building for the neigh- people left without other options, but in the borhood’ and to work out the concept of the 352 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

‘compact city’. Rather than razing entire trends occurred nation-wide but they were neighborhoods, projects would be realized as especially pronounced in Amsterdam as a much as possible within the existing urban result of the strength of the residents’ move- structure and, wherever possible, renovation ment. First, the rights of owners to determine would be chosen over demolition. The rent levels were gradually curtailed. Over central government made considerable time a comprehensive system was created to budgets available to stimulate housing determine a fair rent, the so-called point production. system (puntensysteem). In the point system When he moved back to Amsterdam in rents are based on the use value of a house. 1978 as a local party leader and alderman for Use value is calculated according to objective urban renewal, he could demonstrate that his criteria, like the size of a house and the approach was not only more humane, but quality of its amenities (Huisman and Kelk, also more effective: housing construction 2008). These regulations apply to all houses exploded from 1100 units in 1978 to 9000 regardless of ownership. The points system units in 1984 (Dienst Wonen, 2008, p. 7). The does not apply if the total number of points recession of that period did not at all hinder surpasses a certain threshold. Currently that Schaeffer’s plans. At the national level, the threshold corresponds to a rent of 620 euros expenditures for housing were considered but before 1991 it was substantially higher. essential and beneficial for the economy. This basically meant that the entire rental Because private owners were confronted with sector was subject to strong regulation. And high interest rates and low demand, they since owner-occupied houses constitute a often preferred to sell their properties to the very low share of the stock (13% in 1997), it government. Around 35,000 houses (c.15% meant that, by the late 1980s, the Amsterdam of the stock) were taken out of the market housing market had in effect become decom- and put under the control of housing associa- modified (Huisman, 2009, p. 9). tions and the state (Dienst Wonen, 2008, Second, the rights of owners to determine p. 12). The belated acceleration of urban the use of their properties were gradually renewal also triggered major conflicts. As the curtailed. Property owners in the 1960s still state took over urban space, squatters were had major discretion to choose their tenants, pushed out of their houses and violent clashes but in the course of the 1970s their discretion ensued. But this only helped Schaeffer in was circumscribed through the centralization pushing through his agenda. As his successor and standardization of allocation. Standard- noted: ization was achieved through the formula- tion of universal criteria of eligibility. ‘[Squatting] gave him an incredibly strong Waiting time is by far the most important Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 argument to break through everything. We criterion, but under some conditions (urgent) are in a war and as a government we have to need also plays a role. Centralization was show that we do not only evict those people achieved through the creation of a city-wide from their squats but that we also build distribution system. Private landlords had to appropriate housing. That gave him wings.’ register their property and the municipality (Stadig cited in: Dienst Wonen, 2008, p. 15) and the landlord alternately allocated the accommodation that would become DecommodificationFigurein these 2kindsSocial of complexes housing of can the sell 1980s for inanywhere the Oosterparkbuurt between 150,000 in Amsterdam and 300,000 East. euros. In the This 1960s block and is 1970sstill 100% andthe quality social housing.of social Shousingource:equity Goezde was often Tekdal. poor according to contemporary standards. However, quality gradually improved and houses available. Housing associations initially each had their own waiting lists but these were Even though the mechanisms for allocating gradually fused together. housing and determining rent levels are Third, access to the centrally allocated dynamic and intricate, we can nevertheless housing supply was gradually universalized. observe three general trends in the direction Initially only married couples qualified for of a decommodified housing stock. These housing that was distributed through the UITERMARK: AN IN MEMORIAM FOR THE JUST CITY OF AMSTERDAM 353

municipality but in the 1960s the growing dents in their struggles against the state group of single-person households and (Duyvendak and Uitermark, 2005). They unmarried couples also qualified. The age could afford this position—another irony— limit was gradually reduced from 26 in the because they were fully funded by the central early 1960s to 18 in the early 1980s. The state. Since they were not dependent on local housing associations initially only catered to governments or housing associations, they specific groups like members of unions or could choose the side of (the most radical) other professional associations but they grad- residents. ually opened up access to the general public. Community workers were just one actor Corporations thus never catered only to the in a larger network that provided logistical needs of the poorest segments of the popula- and professional support to residents who tion but there was a conscious effort in the wanted to change plans to better meet their 1980s to develop a housing stock that demands. With state subsidies and voluntary provided appropriate and affordable housing support of sympathizing professionals, resi- to all income groups. Although definitions of dents could win the advice of architects, what is appropriate varied over time, it meant academics and planners. With all these insti- roughly that a two-person household would tutions and professions working increasingly have a two-room apartment, a three-person as an extension of the residents’ movement, household would have a three-room apart- abstract ideals could be translated into ment, and so on. In other words: housing concrete policy suggestions. It is this power composition rather than income would deter- to translate intuitions and desires into formal mine what is appropriate and what is not. representations that is crucial for shaping urban space in such a way that it meets the needs of residents both as individuals and as Democratization and engagement (diverse and overlapping) collectives.

The growing power of the state was abso- lutely central to this project but so was the The birth of a just city power of residents over the state. Many specific institutions were created in the 1970s The history of Amsterdam’s housing politics and the 1980s to ensure that residents would after 1960 was a double development: grass- be able to claim their housing rights. Official roots mobilization brought the state under organizations to provide support to orga- democratic control and the housing market nized resident groups as well as the legal was gradually brought under state control. assistance to individual tenants were created, The resident movement and emerging institu- Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 offering activists the chance to transform tions helped to create a decommodified hous- their movement careers into careers in the ing stock that universalized accessibility and state bureaucracy. The profession of social maximized affordability, while in the process work was thus completely reconfigured in promoting resident engagement and facilitat- less than two decades. Many young activists ing direct action and direct democracy.3 If we went to schools for social work (sociale want to decide on a birth year for the just city academie) which—under pressure of the of Amsterdam, it would have to be 1975—the students—adopted an increasingly suspicious moment that residents and squatters united attitude towards authority in general and the around the preservation of the Nieuwmarkt state in particular. There was a paradoxical neighborhood. It reached maturity in 1982 development: the state increasingly took when the city constructed no less than 9000 social work out of the hands of private initia- housing units and had reduced the waiting tive and civil society, but social workers time for a two-room apartment to an all-time increasingly saw themselves as an ally to resi- low of two years (Figure 2). These really were 354 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

housing construction were increasingly ques- tioned. Budget-cutters of the Christian and Right-wing parties reasoned that there was plenty of scope drastically to reduce public expenditures on social housing. For the first time, administrators said that the housing shortage was ‘qualitative’ rather than ‘quanti- tative’—they claimed that everyone could find accommodation; the problem consisted in the fact that not all groups could realize their preferences. The government therefore decided that no subsidies should be made Figure 2 Social housing of the 1980s in the Ooster- available to promote housing construction parkbuurt in Amsterdam East. In the 1960s and 1970s and that the upgrading of the housing market the quality of social housing was often poor according to contemporary standards. However, quality gradually should be promoted through privatization: improved and houses in these kinds of complexes can the large-scale selling of social housing sell for anywhere between 150,000 and 300,000 generates funds to maintain the stock while it euros. This block is still 100% social housing. Source: creates a stimulus for private investments Goezde Tekdal. into the more expensive segments of the market. revolutionary developments: they gave the city to its people and they helped generate a vibrant creativity in spaces that had been Segregating the housing stock freed from both the state and the market. This is an idealization of course—there The ideological core of the new policy were many things to criticize (perhaps discourse on housing is that all income including the inclination incessantly to groups should have their own segment of the criticize)—but I think this is the type of housing market. The working class, accord- idealization we need in order to imagine ing to this discourse, should live in social what a just city would look like. What should housing. If their rents are high in proportion be idealized then, and elaborated through to their income, they can claim rent subsi- dialectical analysis, are the processes that dies. The middle and higher classes should empowered residents to make the city. What own their houses; the government supports should be dissected and struggled against are them with subsidies for purchasing a house, the processes that give urban development especially the so-called hypotheekrenteaf- Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 over to the state and the market. trek, which allows homeowners to deduct mortgage interest from their taxable incomes. Whereas in the old policy constellation, Recommodification and disengagement subsidies were used to make social housing available to all income groups, in the new The emergence of a just city was the outcome policy constellation subsidies are used to of the interaction between a radical resident segregate the housing stock; residualization movement and a national housing policy that of the social sector is not merely a side effect was designed to solve the housing shortage of policies but one of the key objectives through massive investments in social (compare Malpass, 1990 for the British case). housing (Fainstein, 2000). But in the late The national policies of the 1990s were a 1980s national policies were starting to direct assault on the universal provisions that change. As neoliberal ideologies pervaded the had been created in the 1980s. The problem of government subsidies for social housing and the housing shortage was declared solved, UITERMARK: AN IN MEMORIAM FOR THE JUST CITY OF AMSTERDAM 355

which meant—in the case of Amsterdam— during the course of the 1990s it began to adopt that the 50,000 people on the waiting list for such policies. The government no longer social housing simply disappeared as a target considered the large stock of social housing as group. The general trend of bringing the hous- an achievement of social struggles, but instead ing stock under state control, and of bringing came to view that stock as an impediment to a the state under control of the resident move- well-functioning housing market. The local ment, was thus reversed. Housing associations alderman for housing, Tjeerd Herema, were formally privatized and transformed recently summarized this new, market-based into housing corporations in which tenants vision for local housing policy: ‘the housing are mere consumers (woonconsumenten) and policy aims at a much more diverse group than not even the most important types of consum- before. The focus is no longer exclusively on ers. That privileged role has now been the lowest incomes. Amsterdam is a city for assumed by the middle classes. They are everyone’ (press release, 7 December 2007). expected to purchase the newly privatized This quote is interesting not least due to its social housing and to invest the capital neces- flagrant misrepresentation of Amsterdam’s sary to upgrade the properties. Apart from recent history. Policies in the 1980s were based relegating each class to its own segment of the on the premise that no differentiation should housing market, the government fragmented be made between different income groups, residents through the creation of new tenure because all households could apply for social types, such as so-called anti-squatters and housing. This misrepresentation of history temporary tenants.4 Anti-squatters are resi- allows the government to present its focus on dents without tenant contracts and (hence) the higher income groups as an inclusive without tenant rights. They can be requested measure: they, not the working class, suffer. to leave their residences within a day or within The number 1 target group for current policies a month, depending on the agreements are the so-called scheefwoners: tenants with between property owners and anti-squatters. high incomes who are, according to the policy Temporary tenants also do not enjoy the legal discourse, trapped in a segment where they do protection of regular tenants but they do have not really belong. A visualization of this contracts which stipulate that the property discourse is depicted in Figure 3. owner needs to inform them at least one Figure 3 IncomeFigure segments and housing market segments3 compared. suggests Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2008, p. 27). quite forcefully what month before they have to move out. Anti- would previously have been considered squatters and temporary tenants have a posi- absurd, namely, that there is a large surplus of tion on the housing market that is analogous affordable housing in Amsterdam. It suggests, to flex workers in the labor market: because further, that the main challenge is to reduce their position is so precarious they are the number of affordable dwellings so that the Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 extremely unlikely to protest against property housing market becomes more balanced owners. Property owners, including housing (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2008, p. 27). The corporations, often place anti-squatters and municipality uses several tools to achieve this. temporary tenants in houses that are to be One simple strategy is to allow owners—both redeveloped in order to prevent opposition housing corporations and private real estate from residents with full housing rights and in firms—to sell apartments that were previ- order to avoid providing compensation to ously in the regulated sector. residents that are to be displaced. Figure 4 Gentrification in process. In the process of renewal or renovation, the share of social housing is typically reduced from 100 to around 20. Source: Goezde Tekdal. These general trends in Dutch housing policy—privatization and consolidating Integrating neighborhoods tenant rights—did not circumvent Amster- dam. In the late 1980s, the Amsterdam govern- Another strategy has been to use urban ment had protested against the national renewal policies to change tenure composi- policies to privatize the housing market, but tions. Instead of constructing housing for a 356 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

income segments 35 24 24 17

housing stock 57 15 16 12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

lowest incomes / most affordable houses low middle incomes / affordable stock

high middle incomes / low market price high incomes / high market price

Figure 3 Income segments and housing market segments compared. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2008, p. 27).

broad cross section of the population, the and governments can govern these neighbor- government and the housing corporations hoods and extract profits out of them. Similar now pursue a strategy of ‘social mixing’ arguments could be advanced about the which refers—as usual—to attempts to policy construct of ‘integration’. This term no replace a proportion of the low-income longer refers to the composition of a society households with high-income households or a neighborhood, but rather to a process (see Uitermark et al., 2007). The goal of that minorities are said to have to go through ‘constructing for the neighborhood’ has been in order to become part of Dutch society replaced by the goal of making neighbor- (Schinkel, 2007). Hence, in practice, the ideal hoods ‘livable’ and ‘integrated’. Livability has of ‘undivided cities’ means that policies try to been a central concept in Dutch urban poli- disperse concentrations of migrants and cies since the late 1970s. Initially, it was used lower income groups (Figure 4). by resident groups who protested large-scale There are many possible criticisms against demolitions and who argued for more subtle these policy discourses and practices. The interventions that do not force tenants to first and most obvious is that the policies do relocate. Now, 20 years later, housing corpo- not work. Renewal operations are used to rations and governments argue that their own drastically transform the tenure composition policies are supposed to promote livability. But if we look at the operationalization that is used for calculating livability scores,5 it is Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 evident that the concept has been completely redefined (Uitermark, 2005). Residents’ perceptions are still included in the operationalization, but the score is also said to be based on ‘objective’ criteria. For example, if a neighborhood has a high share of ethnic minorities, the score goes down. If it has a high share of lower income households, the score goes down. If it has a high share of affordable housing, the score goes down. In short, what is really being measured here is Figure 4 Gentrification in process. In the process of not the extent to which residents can live a renewal or renovation, the share of social housing is typi- pleasant and affordable life in neighborhoods, cally reduced from 100 to around 20. Source: Goezde but the extent to which housing corporations Tekdal. UITERMARK: AN IN MEMORIAM FOR THE JUST CITY OF AMSTERDAM 357

of neighborhoods, but they typically do not tenants in renewal projects to try their affect high-income tenants.6 This is because chances on the city’s housing market rather such groups are underrepresented in renewal then facilitating their participation in plan- areas and because displacees will have to be ning the neighborhood itself. In short, offered another social housing unit. This whereas urban renewal was previously also leads to the second criticism: the trans- instrumental for improving the condition of formations do not seem to lead to a reduc- a neighborhood and strengthening ties tion of scheefwoners. There is no reason to among different groups of neighborhood assume that the transformations would have residents, it is now used to disperse tenants this effect in the first place, but there is also and to transform the neighborhood from some research—conducted by tenant organi- above. If participation and integration are zations—that suggests the share of scheef- understood as active engagement with issues woners does not in fact decline through such of common concern and with fellow resi- policies (Initiatief Betaalbaar Wonen dents, then it is clear that the renewal Amsterdam Noord, 2008). These two criti- process is today designed to achieve cisms thus lead to the conclusion that the precisely the opposite goal: it differentiates government should either abandon its goals the population, individualizes residents and to transform the housing market, or have the hands over its democratic responsibilities to guts directly to target the higher income actors—housing corporations—that are residents. accountable to no one. But a more fundamental criticism of the government’s policy—and one that would lead to a different conclusion—is that the Discussion idea of scheefwonen, the notion that there are ‘too many’ affordable houses and the One might ask: how did this happen? Why fear that social housing will lead to the was the ideal of the just city abandoned so concentration of poor ethnics—is predicated swiftly and so smoothly? The largest part of on the assumption that lower income the answer to this question cannot be found groups should spend time on a waiting list at the local level. The ascendancy of for unpopular social housing, whereas neoliberalism at the national level in the higher income groups should have the right Netherlands—itself something that should to instantly buy their way into the more be understood as part of a global trend— popular segments of the city’s housing was extremely consequential for those who market. The conclusion that follows from prioritized the use value of the city. But part this criticism is that the state has the duty, of the answer can indeed be found at the Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 first and foremost, to address the housing local level. For what has become of the shortage in the city. Even though the wait- movements that had previously forced the ing time for a two-bedroom apartment is up government to design the city for people from two years in 1982 to 10 years in 2008,7 rather than for profit? Why did they not the very word ‘housing shortage’ does not protest as they once did? The main reason, I appear in the current policy vision of think, is that the movements were so Amsterdam. Not only do these policies lead successful in realizing their demands and in to less equity, they also lead to citizen penetrating the state that they created struc- disengagement at the neighborhood and city tures that benefit—first and foremost— levels. Whereas, in the 1970s, urban those who have the good fortune to live in renewal was oriented towards neighborhood an affordable house and whose rights are— itself, it is now oriented primarily towards as a consequence of the activism in the people from outside of the neighborhood. past—rock solid. The movements have Housing corporations now encourage turned into interest groups (see Mayer, 358 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

2007) and they now represent only the the institutions that are now cooperating interests of tenants, which means they have with the government to privatize the hous- no interest—or formal role—for the masses ing stock used to be either grassroots orga- of people who are not lucky enough to be nizations (tenant and community inside the social sector, and are thus forced associations) or were part of civil society to pay very high rents in the private sector, (housing associations, social work). Their to resort to illegal subletting or to become a absorption into the state gave these actors temporary tenant. The strategy of the inter- the chance to translate their ideals into regu- est organizations was to demand regulations lations and stipulations but it was also the and promises of the government to protect beginning of a process of gradual disconnec- the position of tenants in a rapidly privatiz- tion from the grassroots. The resident ing housing market.8 One of the outcomes movement at the time, however, assumed of the negotiations is that tenants— that the state would be more subject to formally—have a very strong position in democratic control than civil society associ- urban renewal processes: they have a right ations, but it seems now that they were to be consulted and a majority of tenants wrong.9 It is ironic that the municipality’s need to agree with the plans. Tenants who housing association has since its privatiza- are forced to relocate receive urgency status tion made a name for itself as a ruthless on the waiting list and a moving subsidy of demolisher of social housing. As a true at least 5050 euros. What we see in Amster- Brutus, it now turns against the movement dam is that the gains of earlier struggles are that gave it its power. In retrospect, it now—literally—sold out or given away to appears that Amsterdam would have been compensate those groups with the most far more resilient to gentrification pressures rights or key positions. There are still many if squatters and militant tenants had estab- residents who fiercely resist forced reloca- lished cooperatives to purchase and manage tions and the attendant rent increases, but their houses. the Tenant Associations (Huurdersverenig- ing Amsterdam, HA) as well as the Amster- dam Resident Support (Amsterdams Conclusion: just a nice city Steunpunt Wonen, ASW) generally encourage these protesters to accept better deals Few passengers will nowadays notice the rather than to challenge the premises of the monument on Nieuwmarkt station. Its inco- policies. This is not surprising because the herent parts are likely to merely reinforce HA has been created by the government to the image of yet another poorly maintained participate in tripartite negotiations while metro station with graffiti, broken glass and Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 the ASW increasingly relies on the housing unmanicured edges. There is only one part corporations for funding. Community work of the whole ensemble that is not messy, organizations at the local level are increas- ambivalent and chaotic. This is the slogan ingly funded by the local government and on the platform that is stretched across housing corporations, which induces nearly 20 meters. There it is, grafted in community workers to streamline the stone, the most fundamental element of any process of urban renewal rather than to right to the city: ‘housing is a right, not a equalize the balance of power between favor’ (wonen is geen gunst maar een recht). residents and housing corporations. The slogan represents a promise of the What can be learned from the case of government; the promise to provide housing Amsterdam? In my view, the main lesson is to all its residents regardless of their income, this: the state may be a necessary vehicle for background or merit. The letters are big and achieving justice, but there is a danger in bright, but very few people notice them. investing too much power into it. Many of When the monument was created, it UITERMARK: AN IN MEMORIAM FOR THE JUST CITY OF AMSTERDAM 359

symbolized the power of a residents’ move- While it is impossible and unnecessary to ment that had their ideas inscribed into the allocate responsibility for the demise of the urban fabric and institutionalized into local just city of Amsterdam to any specific actor, organizations. The meaning that it conveys I do think that there is a special responsibility today is that a massive momentum can be for scholars in general and, by way of conclu- reduced to an incoherent collage. The sion, I would like to flesh out how critical monument has been transformed from a urban analysts could take on this responsibil- sign of strength of the residents’ movements ity. Scholarship has played a crucial role in to an in memoriam for the just city of both the tendential emergence of the just city Amsterdam. For many, if not most, resi- and in its demise. In the 1970s and 1980s, dents of Amsterdam today, the idea of academics and experts actively cooperated promoting egalitarianism and engagement with resident groups and tried to help them may or may not be appealing, but it is to translate their demands and desires in certainly not something they strive for. The concepts, figures and drawings. For instance, fragmentation of people into different students in architecture thought of new ways market segments makes it very difficult to to renovate houses and sociologists foster solidarity among tenants. A waiting attempted to unearth policy processes and to list of 10 years has become a fact of life, map the needs of residents and house seekers. where in an earlier era a waiting list of two But in the 1990s residents lost most of their years was considered a breach of the basic academic support. Today, housing corpora- right to housing. The case of Amsterdam tions and municipalities fund the bulk of thus shows that it is very difficult to work research into cities and especially lower class towards a just city but nearly impossible to groups. Thus discourses and data on cities sustain it. reflect the interests of entrepreneurial Just to be clear: Amsterdam has not governments and corporations rather than become a playground for hard-edged neolib- those of residents. The idea that there are ‘too eralism. The stock of social housing is still many’ social houses and that selling social comparatively large and tenants enjoy a houses is the best way forward to improve strong legal position. For international schol- ‘liveability’ goes virtually unchallenged. I ars, it makes sense to hold up Amsterdam as think critical urban analysts—including an example that proves to conservatives and those who do not subscribe to the ideal of the neoliberals that a city can have success when just city as I have sketched it here—do have a it combines a relatively comprehensive responsibility to improve reflexivity and to welfare system with progressive policies.10 open up debate. The way to do this is to crit- But when we analyze the city historically ically scrutinize dominant conceptualizations Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 rather than comparatively, the reality looks of the city and to show that alternative rather different. All the institutions that had conceptualizations are possible. When previously decommodified the housing notions such as ‘integration’, ‘liveability’ and market and engaged residents now use their ‘differentiation’ are measured and mapped as power to promote gentrification and the if they reflected an objective reality, then polarization of the housing market. Ironi- there is a need to challenge the discursive cally, it was the residents’ movement of the hegemony of the authorities and their merce- 1980s that invested these institutions with the nary experts. To show that the changing defi- power and resources necessary to impose nition of these concepts reflects changing their view upon the city. Neoliberalization power relations then is one crucial enterprise proceeds so smoothly because the gains of for critical urban analysts. Next deconstruct- past social struggles are used to compensate ing naturalized renderings of reality, critical the most direct victims of privatization and scholars face the daunting but fascinating demolition. challenge to provide rigorous operationaliza- 360 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3

tions and conceptualizations of alternative there is a poem of Jacob Israël de Haan on the conceptions of the city, for instance, in terms nostalgia for Amsterdam of Jews who had migrated of justice or use value. to Israel. On the other side there is, finally, a text that describes what happened: ‘Up to this point the The value of such work is that it may old city pattern disappeared. Beyond this point the open up alternative urban futures. Under urban renewal of the neighborhood started. By present conditions in Amsterdam, however, way of commemoration, this memorial stone was it is highly unlikely that residents will regain erected in 1986’ (Figure 1). 3 the momentum of the 1980s. The heritage of 3 The residential areas that planners could construct without the interference of residents became the just city can be seen everywhere in planning disasters. The most famous example is Amsterdam, but the just city itself died the gigantic futuristic suburb in South East sometime around 1990. The heritage that Amsterdam colloquially referred to as Bijlmer permeates the urban fabric is now consid- (Aalbers, 2006). But where residents were present ered an obstacle to the functioning of the and engaged, they managed to temper the modernist ambitions to write designer history and housing market. Once again, ‘market’ and to focus instead on the needs of residents in the ‘housing’ go together as an inseparable renewal neighborhoods. couplet. It is now the market rather than 4 4 Tenants with regular contracts enjoy very strong residents that needs to be freed from legal protection: the property owners can only constraints and put into motion. To think of force them to relocate if they urgently need to have control over the house (for instance, to proceed the just city under such conditions is frus- with urban renewal) and only after they have trating but also stimulating. It is a lost cause, offered alternative housing and a relocation fee. but perhaps that is precisely why the just 5 5 There are many varieties of the city is worth fighting for. leefbaarheidsmonitor. The most recent and comprehensive is online: http:// www.lemoninternet.nl/lemondnn/default.aspx (accessed 14 March 2009). Acknowledgements 6 6 The most obvious solution would be to let wealthy tenants with low rents pay more for their units but This paper draws from essays published in such a plan would run into the strong protection of the journals Volume and Stadscahiers and the tenant rights. As a consequence of the decades of resident mobilization it is nearly impossible to one- collection Houses in Transformation. Some sidedly discontinue a lease or to raise rents. Plans of the ideas have been developed in a series of in this direction immediately trigger a response meetings with the International Housing from powerful tenant lobby groups which represent Activists in Amsterdam and I would like to a core constituency of the ruling labor party. 7 thank them for their input. 7 Among the most important reasons for the increase in waiting time is that the social sector is shrinking, the growing number of displacees with urgency status (and hence priority) and the virtual standstill Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 Notes of housing production. 8 8 Sometimes the drive to dispense of public goods 1 1 It is difficult to say whether it is an original. It might takes on frenzied forms. While housing be the case that some government officials have corporations are formally not allowed to make a pulled it from the rubble to preserve a reminder of profit, some managers and directors—free from the houses that other government officials state interference, accountability to residents and destroyed. It could also be the case that they market discipline—have found other ways to commissioned someone to reproduce the wall and consume dispossed surpluses. At the time of to write—in big brushes of white paint—the words writing—March 2009—the news is full of the that had motivated so many to stand up for their fraudulent transactions of one of the former neighborhood. directors of housing association Rochdale and 2 2 The careful observer will find another quirky little especially his car park. During work-time he moved monument above ground. It is made of stone and around in a Masserati with a driver (until his features a turtle that carries an ionic pillar on its employees told him that he might give the wrong— shell. The symbolism is lost on me but fortunately that is, of course, the correct—impression on tenant we do find some text here. On one side of the pillar representatives and others) and in his holiday UITERMARK: AN IN MEMORIAM FOR THE JUST CITY OF AMSTERDAM 361

house in Spain he had a choice between a number Huisman, C. and Kelk, S. (2008) ‘A (very) rough guide to of expensive sport cars, all paid for by the housing Amsterdam housing policy’, corporation. Other directors—who used to earn housingamsterdam.org/po_inside/ modal wages as civil servants—have been so roughguide2008.doc generous on behalf of the public interest to give Initiatief Betaalbaar Wonen Amsterdam Noord (2008) themselves up to 600,000 euros of salary per year. Sociale woonvoorraad in Amsterdam Noord in 9 9 Schools provide an interesting counter example to gevaar! Amsterdam: Initiatief Betaalbaar Wonen housing associations: they are non-profit Amsterdam Noord. associations that are governed by a board of Malpass, P. (1990) Reshaping Housing Policy: Subsidies, parents rather than enterprises. Rents and Residualisation. London: Routledge 10 Still, it would be nice if they would not just idealize Mamadouh, V. (1992) De stad in eigen hand. Amsterdam’s achievements but also defend them. Amsterdam: SUA. The impression that Gilderbloom, Fainstein and Mayer, M. (2007) ‘Contesting the neoliberalization of other scholars leave behind is that Amsterdam is urban governance’, in H. Leitner, J. Peck and E.S. ruled superbly. Sheppard (eds) Contesting Neoliberalism. Urban Frontiers, pp. 90–115. New York: Guilford Press Nicholls, W. and Beaumont, J. (2004) ‘The urbanization References of justice movements’ [Special issue], Space & Polity 8(2). Pruijt, H. (1985) ‘Cityvorming gekraakt’, Agora 1(4), Aalbers, M. (2006) ‘The revanchist renewal of pp. 9–11. yesterday’s city of tomorrow’, paper presented at Schinkel, W. (2007) Denken in een tijd van sociale the Revenge and Renewal Conference, University of hypochondrie: aanzet tot een theorie voorbij de Newcastle, August. maatschappij. Kampen: Klement. Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots. A Soja, E. (1992) ‘The stimulus of a little confusion: a Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. contemporary comparison of Amsterdam and Los London: Edward Arnold Angeles’, in M. P. Smith (ed.), After Modernism: Dienst Wonen (2008) Jan komt. Deel 2 van De Global. Restructuring and the Changing Boundaries Amsterdamse Volkshuisvesting, 1970–2005. of City Life, pp. 17–38. New Brunswick, NJ: Amsterdam: Dienst Wonen. Transaction Publishers. Duyvendak, J. W. and Uitermark, J. (2005) ‘De Uitermark, J. (2005) ‘The genesis and evolution of urban opbouwwerker als architect van de publieke sfeer’, policy: a confrontation of regulationist and Beleid & Maatschappij 32(2), pp. 76–89. governmentality approaches’, Political Geography Fainstein, S. (2000) ‘New directions in planning theory’, 23(2), pp. 137–163. Urban Affairs Review 35(4), pp. 451–478. Uitermark, J., Duyvendak, J.W. and Kleinhans, R. (2007) Fainstein, S. (2005) ‘Cities and diversity. Should we want ‘Gentrification as a governmental strategy. Social it? Can we plan for it?’, Urban Affairs Review 41(1), control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, pp. 3–19. Rotterdam’, Environment and Planning A 39(1), Fainstein, S. (2006) ‘Planning and the just city’, paper pp. 125–141. presented at Searching for the Just City, Columbia University, New York, 29 April. Gemeente Amsterdam (2008) Woonvisie Amsterdam. Justus Uitermark teaches in the Depart- Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 12:52 17 November 2009 Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. ment of Sociology at the Erasmus Univer- Gilderbloom, J. (2008) Ideal City: New Perspectives for sity, Rotterdam. He has published books the 21st Century!, http://www.hollandnow.org/ (accessed 14 April 2009). and articles on a wide variety of subjects, Gilderbloom, J., Hanka, M. and Lasley, C.B. (2007) including housing policy, rescaling processes, ‘Amsterdam the ideal city: planning and policy’, drug policy, social movements and urban paper presented at Urban Justice and Sustainability, governance. He is currently completing a University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, project on the governance of ethnic and reli- 22–25 August. Huisman, C. (2009) ‘Splitsen als onderdeel van gious diversity in the Netherlands during overheidsgestuurde gentrification’, Amsterdam, the last two decades. Email: uiter- unpublished paper. [email protected]