governmental response Urban restructuring of the 1970s & 1980s In the previous chapter I introduced the concentration of socioeconomic weak groups in the areas that have a high number of social rent housing. This increasing concentration of low-income households in these areas were however not unexpected. Actually this concentration was caused by the basic philosophy of urban renewal in the 1970s and early 1980s. The principle idea under the title ‘building for the neighbourhood’ was that inhabitants of demolished housing had the right to be re-housed in the same neighbourhood. The aim of this policy was to stabilise the social structure of these neighbourhoods. As an effect of the renewal low-income households were particularly inclined to stay, due to the generally inexpensive new dwellings (van Beckhoven and van Kempen, 2003). This urban renewal policy created the conditions for the current ethnic concentration in these neighbourhoods.
Dutch housing policy 1997: physical mixing of housing stock Now in many of these neighbourhoods part of the solution to the concentration is again sought in restructuring projects (van Bruggen, 2000). In 1997 the Memorandum on Urban Renewal (Nota Stedelijke Vernieuwing) was brought out to bring an end to the undesired development of concentration. This time the objective was to achieve a mixed population, in contrast to the urban renewal of the 1970s and early 1980s. The aim of the new urban policy (Ministerie van VROM, 1997) is to create vital cities. By reducing unemployment, increasing the liveability, public safety and entrepreneurship in the weakest neighbourhoods of the cities, social and economic vitality of the city should be increased. This ‘Big Cities Policy’ aims specifically at the restructuring of the physical environment with its urban restructuring policy. Extending the choice opportunities of the city’s population can be pointed out as the main aim of the policy. It also makes it possible that all residential environments are accessible for potential residents. The most important mean to achieve this was considered to be the break-up of the monotonous housing stock in the neighbourhoods that was characterised by an over-representation of low-priced rent housing, where most of the housing belongs to the social rent. This physical intervention, the replacement of the old housing stock by new buildings of a higher price class, would retain and attract residents of the middle and higher income house-holds, counteract spatial segregation (of income-groups,
but not in terms of ethnicity), and enhance the quality of living in residential areas. The reason for this distinguishing between ethnicity and income is due to a longer discussion of several political parties about de-concentration of ethnic minorities. A discussion about forced de-concentration took place in the 1970s, which was followed by the selective migration policy of Rotterdam. Most likely the Ministry did not want to start this discussion anew and therefore focused its policy on the mix of incomes instead of ethnicity (van Beckhoven and van Kempen, 2003). The vision behind the current restructuring plans is the assumption that districts become viable when there is a differentiation according to income. So, as I stated before, the policy makers believe that an intervention in the housing stock will bring about societal effects. This physical mix is expected to improve the spatial quality of the neighbourhood concerned. But also it will create a more diverse population distribution on socio-economic levels (van Beckhoven and van Kempen, 2003). The policy makers believe that a differentiation of income groups should contribute positively to the social quality of the neighbourhood, it would bring an end to the segregation of incomes and enhance the quality of living. It is assumed that in this context the restructuring will create more possibilities for the societal deprived residents. Also an increase in the social integration is hoped for, because of the arrival of the new residents which could function as positive role models for the deprived residents. By adapting to the lifestyles of these new residents, the weaker residents are expected to integrate into mainstream society. Another goal of the policy is to improve the competitive position of the neighbourhood on the housing market. This diversity in the housing offer will be mostly beneficial for the housing corporation, for they will be able to sell private housing and high rent apartments at higher prices than their current housing offer. Also differentiation is considered to facilitate a housing career within the neighbourhood, and will create chances for high income groups coming from elsewhere. In the broader vision it is aimed at bringing more support to the local services and facilities through the extra purchasing power of the new residents. In this way they propose an economic advantage for the area by restructuring. In summary, the aim of the policy is to create a mixture of different income-groups, by constructing owner-occupied houses in neighbourhoods with mainly social housing. It is generally expected that this physical housing mix will lead to social mixing of the neighbourhoods inhabitants. Additionally the idea is that social mixing will not only create social cohesion, safety and liveability, but will also contribute to the social capital of local residents.