Dealing with neighbourhood change: The resilience of the gentrifying red light districts of London and Amsterdam The #no fucking photo’s campaign was launched by a collective of sex workers and entrepreneurs of De Wallen (photo by author) Marthe Singelenberg Research Master Urban Studies June 23rd 2017 Supervisor: Wouter van Gent Second reader: Rivke Jaffe Wordcount: 7431 1 1. Abstract Since the early 2000’s, western cities have developed urban policies aimed at the regeneration of their red light districts by reducing the number of sexually oriented business and by stimulating public-private investments in real estate. It has been argued that these processes of state-led gentrification are transforming these districts into ‘sanitized spaces’, whereby marginalised groups such as sex workers are targeted for displacement. This research will look at experiences of neighbourhood change in the gentrifying red light districts of London and Amsterdam. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, it will show that these districts accommodate communities of place-based stakeholders with social and financial interests in the neighbourhood. As they use these interests to negotiate urban change, they contribute to the ways in which the gentrification of red light districts is accepted, contested and adopted. 2. Introduction The status of red light districts has been subject to ongoing public and academic debate. Within the urban discourse, they have been both marginalised and romanticised, avoided and frequented, endangered and protected, and recently, their existence has been contested. Worldwide, in cities like Hong Kong, Taipei, Montreal, Antwerp, London and Amsterdam, municipalities have developed policies aiming at reducing the physical presence of sex work in the city (Cheng 2016). The red light district, providing a profitable working environment for those sex workers relying on the acquisition of clients through location, has become the main target of these policies. As cities have increasingly become the competing centres for the accumulation of capital (Scott 2012), red light districts, associated with immorality and criminality, have become an eye sore for municipalities aiming to upgrade their city centres (Hubbard 2004). While municipalities have emphasized the need to address problems surrounding prostitution such as human trafficking and involuntary prostitution, critics have analysed these policies as attempts to ‘clean up’ red light districts from ‘undesirable’ people (Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016: 4). Recent studies on the gentrification of red light districts have mainly focused on its displacing effects on the sex industry. Researchers have investigated how urban policies have led to the displacement of numerous sex workers and sexually oriented businesses such as sex shops and shows (Hubbard 2009; Aalbers & Sabat 2012; Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016). In this article, I will contribute to these findings by looking at the ways in which the residents of the red light districts of London and Amsterdam have experienced neighbourhood change. Red light districts do not just accommodate sex workers; they are home to a vibrant community of inhabitants, regulars, employees and entrepreneurs. These districts are interesting cases of gentrification as they cannot be identified as working class neighbourhoods but rather accommodate mixed communities of residents from different socio-economic classes and cultural backgrounds. As place-based stakeholders with social and often also financial interests with regard to their neighbourhood, they are affected by the 2 recent regeneration policies and respond to them in different ways. Through their dealings with these changes, they influence the processes of gentrification and stigmatisation in contested urban spaces such as red light districts. 3. Theory 3.1 Red light districts Aalbers and Deinema (2012:129) have defined a red light district as an area where ‘prostitution is heavily concentrated and somewhat visible in a specific area of a city’. These districts still function as the geographical centres for the selling and buying of sexual services, despite the increasing offer of escorts, online chatrooms and other types of services ‘which can be purchased at a distance’ (Hubbard & Whowell 2008: 1744). Prostitution is generally regarded as an immoral form of sexuality and has therefore been stigmatised as a profession (Hubbard 2000: 203). This stigmatisation may be conceptualized as a negative neighbourhood effect (Glaster 2010:3), as red light districts have often been described as immoral, dangerous places where criminality flourishes (Ashworth et al. 1988). Recently, municipal policies have been developed aimed at restricting the number of sexually oriented business (Hubbard & Whowell 2008; Cheng 2016). While these policies have been explained as fighting the illegality surrounding the sex industry, they have also been criticized as attempts to ‘clean up’ these neighbourhoods from ‘undesirable’ people (Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016: 2). It has been argued that these policies are designed to legitimize state-led gentrification, whereby ‘sanitized spaces’ (ibid.: 4) are created to attract a more ‘affluent user’ (Hackworth 2012: 815). At the same time, red light districts have increasingly been acknowledged for their significant position in urban entertainment economies (Chatterson & Hollands 2003). Strategically situated in the centres of global cities, they have attracted costumers from all over the world, turning sex into a commercialized good for mass consumption. By becoming more ‘mainstream’, the sexually oriented businesses themselves have played a significant role in the upgrading of red light districts, as they have transformed their sleazy strip clubs and cheap peep-shows into large companies offering ‘adult entertainment’ for mass consumption (Hubbard & Whowell 2008: 1745). The transformation of the ‘traditional’, small scale red light districts catering to a local clientele into large scale entertainment economies has turned them into attractive spaces for investment. In combination with the hardened municipal policies with regard to the sex industry, red light districts have been subject to processes of state-led gentrification. 3 3.2 State-led gentrification Classic definitions have described gentrification as the replacement of lower income groups with middle income groups in inner city areas (Glass 1964; Zukin 1987; Bridge 2006). As the literature expanded, different contexts and processes were included to provide a broader definition which refers to gentrification as ‘the production of space for the more affluent user’ (Hackworth 2012: 815). The changing residential compositions of inner city neighbourhoods have often been accompanied by processes of commercial gentrification, which has generally been described as ‘the disappearance of traditional, local stores and their replacement by chain stores and boutiques’ (Zukin 2009: 48). Red light districts, functioning as spaces for entertainment, have partly adapted their commercial composition to middle class consumption patterns. These changes have been visible in sexually oriented businesses as well as in the types restaurants and shops (Zuckerwise 2012; Hubbard et al 2013). Hackworth & Smith (2000) have described the changing role of the state in the redevelopment of western cities since the post WWII-period, when the city centres were upgraded through private investments covered with state insurance. The 1970’s marked a period of economic recession and urban decline, which led to a second round of gentrification characterized by small investments in cheap real estate by resident groups with low incomes but high levels of cultural capital. It was during the third wave of gentrification, which started in the late 1980’s and had been accompanied by the influx of higher income groups, when the state took on a more leading role by actively investing in real estate. Recently, as cities have increasingly become the competing centres for the attraction and accumulation of capital (Scott 2012), state-led gentrification has become ‘a global urban strategy for cities that must be sophisticated entrepreneurs’ (Davidson & Lees 2010: 397). These strategies have been analysed as neoliberal urban policies, whereby private investors have been attracted in implementing large scale urban redevelopment projects (Smith 2001; Swyngedouw et al. 2002; Uitermark et al. 2007). In these urban policies, cities have applied zero tolerance policies with regard to crime, whereby security measurements have been intensified, often in collaboration with private parties (Németh and Smith 2011: 5). Smith (2001) has analysed these policies as post- liberal revanchism, which have emerged as a reaction to the high levels of crime and neglect in the 1970’s (p.: 72). When looking at the regeneration of ‘disadvantaged’ neighbourhoods, it has been argued that the ultimate goal of state-led gentrification is not to attract the middle classes, but rather to control and civilize these neighbourhoods through the presence of these more well behaved residents (Uitermark et al. 2007: 127). Hereby, the emphasis on the problems in these areas can function as a strategy to legitimise state-led gentrification (Hochstenbach 2015: 819). Red light districts have become targeted by state-led gentrification through the increasing number of state investments and the strict regulations with regard to the sex industry (Hubbard 2009; Aalbers & Sabat 2012; Sanders-MacDonagh et al 2016).