UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM GSSS MASTER URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING Overtoomse Veld: Conquered by Cranes & Creativity? A spatial exploration emphasizing the lived space in an Amsterdam neighbourhood on the verge of gentrification Master Thesis Urban & Regional Planning 2015/2016 Leonoor Hogerheijde | 10004641 Supervisor: Dr. David Evers June 20th 2016 A B S T R A C T Arts-led urban regeneration and ‘place-making’ initiatives are becoming more widespread in European cities. In Amsterdam, these initiatives which favour transformations of the city (image) appear to go hand in hand with a policy orthodoxy of positive gentrification. Academic studies generally focus on both gentrification-induced displacement as well as a reinterpretation of gentrification as a positive process. However, there appears to be a lack of qualitative academic research that aims to understand which disadvantages for low-income communities occur when they are not physically displaced. This thesis project aims to enrich that ‘black box’ in academic urban planning literature. The ‘trialectics of space’, and in particular the concept of ‘lived space’ by Lefebvre or ‘thirdspace’ by Soja, which emphasizes the social experience of space, provide a useful theoretical foundation for this aim. Through an ethnographic method, combined with policy documents and interviews, the process of beginning gentrification is explored around the case of Lola Luid, which is located in a potentially gentrifying district of Amsterdam. It shows the contradictions between the perceived space of municipal urban regeneration policy, the conceived space of a creative city discourse and the lived space of neighbourhoods residents. 2 CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Phenomenal debate on gentrification ................................................................................ 6 1.2 Necessity for qualitative research ............................................................................................. 7 1.3 Conceptual framework founded on three spatial dimensions ................................................... 8 1.4 Discrepancy with the fundaments of planning (political, social, spatial) ................................. 8 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................. 9 2.1 ESSENCE OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN ..................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Planning in the face of power ................................................................................................ 9 2.1.2 Jane Jacobs’ influence on urban planning and design ........................................................ 11 2.1.3 Cultural critique on Jacobs’ urban perspective .................................................................. 12 2.1.4 Public culture in place-making? .......................................................................................... 14 2.2 PARADIGM ON SPATIALITY .............................................................................................. 15 2.2.1 Paradigm on spatiality ........................................................................................................ 15 2.2.2 Spatiality in the gentrification debate .................................................................................. 16 2.3 DEBATE ON GENTRIFICATION ......................................................................................... 18 2.3.1 Gentrification: From sociological phenomenon to neo-liberal urban policy concept ......... 18 2.3.2 Initial stage of gentrification: artists as pioneers ................................................................ 20 2.3.3 Creative city as policy rhetoric ............................................................................................ 21 2.4 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 23 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Research design ...................................................................................................................... 24 3.3 Example of ethnographic contributions to planning ............................................................... 25 3.4 Ethnographic ontological and epistemological considerations .............................................. 25 3.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 26 3.5.1 Gentrification without physical displacement ...................................................................... 26 3.5.2 Framework and hypothesis .................................................................................................. 27 3.5.3 Concepts and operationalization ......................................................................................... 28 3.6 DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................... 30 3.6.1 Study area ............................................................................................................................ 30 3.6.2 Respondents ......................................................................................................................... 31 3.6.3 Participant observation and interviews ............................................................................... 32 3.6.4 Semi-structured interviews .................................................................................................. 32 3.6.5 Documents ........................................................................................................................... 32 3.6.6 Data analysis ....................................................................................................................... 33 3.6.7 Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 33 4. PERCEIVED SPACE IN MUNICIPAL URBAN REGENERATION POLICY ..................... 34 4.1 CASE DESCRIPTION OVERTOOMSE VELD NEIGHBOURHOOD .................................................. 34 4.1.1 Recent developments in Overtoomse Veld ........................................................................... 34 4.1.2 Contextual factors of Overtoomse Veld as disadvantaged neighbourhood ......................... 35 4.2.1 Focus on space: ‘Koers 2025’, space for the city ................................................................ 37 5. CONCEIVED SPACE OF ARTS-LED URBAN REGENERATION ...................................... 39 5.1 CREATIVE CITY DISCOURSE ...................................................................................................... 39 5.1.2 Social mix by Lola Luid ....................................................................................................... 40 5.1.3 Diversity in policy ................................................................................................................ 41 5.1.4 Diversity in, and according to Lola Luid ............................................................................. 42 6. LIVED SPACE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTS ......................................................... 43 3 6.1 EXPERIENCE OF PLACE: OVERTOOMSE VELD ......................................................................... 43 6.1.1 Shops and meeting places .................................................................................................... 43 6.1.2 Social structures .................................................................................................................. 45 6.1.3 Local governance ................................................................................................................ 46 6.1.4 Fear of rent increase ........................................................................................................... 48 6.2 CREATIVE CITY DISCOURSE IN PRACTICE: LOLA LUID ........................................................... 49 6.2.2 Diversity: no balance ........................................................................................................... 55 7. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 57 7.1 CONTRADICTIONS IN PERCEIVED, CONCEIVED AND LIVED SPACE .......................................... 57 7.2 CONTRIBUTION TO GENTRIFICATION DEBATE ......................................................................... 58 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REINSTATING THE SOCIAL IN SPATIAL PLANNING ........................ 59 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................................ 64 FIELD NOTES BUURTZAAK .................................................................................................... 64 APPENDIX II .............................................................................................................................. 68 FIELD NOTES