Urban Renewal in Rotterdam An analysis of the discourse of gentrification in Rotterdam’s urban policy and practices Ryan Versluis August, 2017 1 | P a g e Master Thesis Land-use planning Course code: LUP-80436 Ryan Versluis Registration number: 930816883100 Supervisor: dr. IM Marleen Buizer Examiner: dr.ir. WGM Wim van der Knaap Wageningen University Wageningen, August 2017 2 | P a g eii Abstract Urban renewal - the process of redevelopment of urban areas - has evolved throughout decades in Dutch housing and planning policy. Urban renewal has taken place on large and small scales. Recently residents of Rotterdam could vote in a referendum on the urban renewal policies of their municipality. The municipality of Rotterdam has plans to restructure 20.000 affordable housing units for middle and high income households. Some argue that the need to retain higher educated people is necessary to propel the economic trajectory of Rotterdam. Others argue that the way in which affluent households are attracted displaces low income households. The ideas, motives and strategies which lie behind the current urban and planning policy will be analysed in this research. This paper examines the discourse of gentrification which has become manifest in the urban policy of Rotterdam. It will look at the argumentative structure of the discourse and identify which components make up the discourse. Two narratives have been distinguished: the pro gentrification narrative and the counter narrative. They view gentrification and the urban trajectory of Rotterdam differently. The aim of this thesis has been to understand the argumentative structure which lies beneath the current policy as it is implemented. The way in which a narrative can become institutionalised has thereby played an important a role. The thesis illustrates that the debate on gentrification - in Rotterdam - cannot be simply understood as those for and against the phenomena, but needs to be understood as a discourse wherein the pro gentrification narrative understands gentrification as a ‘tool’ to improve a neighbourhood, whereas the counter narrative acknowledges benefits associated with gentrification but has some concerns with gentrification and how it will shape the city. 3 | P a g eiii Table of content Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 3iii 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 An introduction to urban renewal and gentrification ................................................................ 3 1.2 Problem description ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Research objective & questions ............................................................................................ 5 2. Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Discourse theory ................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Discursive institutionalism & Discourse ................................................................................ 10 2.3 Power & institutionalisation ............................................................................................... 12 2.4 Discourse of gentrification ................................................................................................. 14 2.5 Research questions .......................................................................................................... 17 3. Method ............................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Data collection ................................................................................................................ 19 3.2 Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 20 3.3 Validity ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.4 Positioning of the researcher: Worldview & Bias ................................................................... 22 4. Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 24 4.1 The referendum ............................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Establishing the pro gentrification narrative ......................................................................... 32 4.3 The increased popularity storyline ...................................................................................... 35 4.4 The ‘trickle-down effect’ storyline ....................................................................................... 38 4.5 The ‘Strong Shoulders’ metaphor ....................................................................................... 40 4.6 The metaphor of ‘balance’ ................................................................................................. 42 4.7 Storylines on Displacement ............................................................................................... 46 5. Institutionalisation of the pro gentrification narrative ................................................................. 49 5.1 Institutionalisation in municipal policy ................................................................................. 49 5.2 Housing corporations & institutionalisation: Performance agreements ...................................... 50 5.3 ZOHO - Zomerhofkwartier ................................................................................................. 52 5.4 The Housing vision Referendum ......................................................................................... 54 6. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 58 6.1 An evolving discourse of gentrification ................................................................................ 58 6.2 Acknowledgement of displacement ..................................................................................... 63 6.3 Benefits of discourse and Institutionalism theory .................................................................. 65 7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 68 8. References .......................................................................................................................... 71 8.1 Public debate & interview .................................................................................................. 77 8.2 Images........................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix: Semi-structured interview guide .................................................................................. 78 iv 1. Introduction The urban fabric of cities changes continuously. In the past cities were strongly shaped by their key industries. A more globalised world led to the decline of these industrial industries in western countries (Paxton, 2016; Saltenyte, 2013). Many industries left the city and a post-industrial society slowly emerged. The sizable poorly qualified labour often remained, with a lack of job opportunities as a result. Industrial cities formerly known for their economic growth were often unable to shift towards a more modern knowledge based industry (Saltenyte, 2013; Uitermark et al., 2007). They often suffered or are still suffering the consequences of the industrial era (Agueda, 2014). Nowadays in the Netherlands it can be stated that cities are becoming more popular and are growing. A report by the PBL & CBS (2016) states that that by 2030 the Dutch population will have increased with one million inhabitants. More than 75% of the growth can be attributed to the cities (Kooiman et al. 2016). The urban landscape is constantly shaped and re-shaped by an increasing urban population and by a host of urban processes. Like many other big cities in the Netherlands, Rotterdam is actively involved in the development and transformation of its urban spaces. As part of the urban renewal policy, the city of Rotterdam is restructuring its dated neighbourhoods in order to improve the stock of housing and the living environment (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2017a; Uitermark et al., 2007). The way in which urban renewal takes place, in Rotterdam and the rest of the country has changed as well (Priemus, 2006; Musterd & Ostendorf, 2008; Schuiling, 2007). Over time, an urban renewal focus has incorporated social goals, besides the predominant physical ambitions (Schuiling, 2007; Uitermark et al., 2007; Colomb, 2011). The housing vision of Rotterdam is part of the urban renewal policy of Rotterdam. Plans are made to demolish and renovate affordable housing for more affluent inhabitants (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016a). Motives favouring this planned development are based on providing suitable housing for more affluent residents since Rotterdam putatively possesses an already exceedingly large supply of affordable housing. The resistance to the plans portrayed under the housing