The Revanchist Renewal Of Yesterday’s City Of Tomorrow In Amsterdam
Introduction:
European revanchist makes the city safe for corporate investment and aims to restore social order as well as stimulate the development of a strong middle class. This paper demonstrates how hard revanchist policies are demanded not only by private developers but also by the middle and lower classes, and they exist alongside soft “caring” policies, even for the “undesirables”.
Although planned as the “City of Tomorrow”, the Bijlmer district in Amsterdam quickly became the quintessential symbol of urban decline. Today, even with half of the planned renewal of the Bijlmer completed, the alleged success of this urban revitalization program is questionable. Parts of the black middle class did not move out and some are even returning to the Bijlmer; the combination is producing a type of “black gentrification”, which forces the “undesirables” like drug users, and the homeless people, and undocumented immigrants to leave. This revanchist renewal not only benefits the middle and lower-class population of the district but also serves the interests of private developers.
The Revanchist City:
Neil Smith (1996, 1998) originally developed the concept of the revanchist city as a reflection of a new phase of urban policies related to gentrification. It was not too long before he also assigned a wider meaning of neoliberal urban restructuring to revanchist (Smith 2002). The city is “made safe” for corporate investment by cleaning it from the “other”, in some way undesirable, groups. In this scenario the state is increasingly less a regulating and intervening power and increasingly more a slave to the market. Instead of a means to an end, privatization becomes a central goal in itself.
The revanchist city has become a useful concept in researching neoliberal urbanism, not only in northern America, but also in the UK, continental Europe, Latin America and Asia. It could be argued that one should distinguish between “heavy-handed” revanchist in the USA and (continental) European revanchist, as Uitermark and Duyvendak have persuasively argued. In European revanchist, the involved actors (in particular the state) play a different role than in US revanchist.
Rather than revanchist in principle, European urban policies and practices contain some revanchist elements. While US style gentrification and neoliberal urbanism are often accompanied by lip-service statements exalting the “good for the people”, European revanchist urbanism, partly due to the long tradition of “welfare for the people”, often goes hand in hand with emancipatory goals and results.
Urban Policies in the Netherlands:
After World War II, the Dutch national government took the lead in designing and implementing interventionist public policies, which resulted in the development of a strong, nationally coordinated welfare state. Social housing was an important ingredient in the development of the Dutch welfare state. Although the most important housing agencies, the housing associations or housing corporations, were privately regulated institutions, they became increasingly subject to public regulation.
The Rise and Fall of the “City of Tomorrow”:
The Amsterdam Uitbreidingsplan (AUP, Amsterdam Extension Plan) of 1934 contained all of the planned future expansions for the city through the year 2000. An extension southeast of the city was not envisioned. However, in the 1960s there was a pressing need for additional space for housing, parks and workspace. The first potential location for addressing this need was the North Bank of the IJ waters, followed by the Bijlmer to the southeast of the city. In 1965, the urban design for the Bijlmer—the bulk of the Southeast extension—was presented by the City Department of Urban Development and Public Works.
The revanchist of the Bijlmer:
Although many problems in the Bijlmer were socio-economic, it was argued that the physical structure of the area added to the occupants living in fear of vandalism and crime. In 1992, the city district office, the municipality and the housing corporation jointly planned a largescale revitalization project. With the implementation of the revitalization plan, many high-rise units were torn down and replaced by mid and low-rise units. In the earlier years, the renewal of the Bijlmer is characterized by a general consensus of what needs to be done: there are few opposing voices.
Rough Sleeping Homeless and Drug Users:
In the mid 1980s, many marginal groups found refuge in the Bijlmer, namely: refugees, migrants, undocumented immigrants and others. This was also true for socially deviant groups, such as drug users, drug dealers and associated criminals. There was no better location to conceal one’s activities and to remain unnoticed than in the Bijlmer, with its anonymity and badly organized public and semi-public spaces. Almost half of the rough sleeping homeless people in Amsterdam live in the Bijlmer (almost a 100 people on an average winter night). While drug use is a common feature of homeless people in Amsterdam, it is more common in the Bijlmer where 83% of them are addicted to drugs.
Coloured revanchist : Emancipation and Revenge:
The revanchist of the Bijlmer was not a big success in the early years. The Bijlmer remained a place where people passed through but did not settle down permanently. In the late 1990s the revitalization reached a critical mass: increasingly residents decided to stay rather than leave. Surinamese culture was blossoming and many Surinamese Dutch improved their position substantially with the booming economy. Also other migrant groups, like the Ghanaians, settled in the Bijlmer.
Conclusion:
The revanchist of the Bijlmer is a coloured one—not because a black lower class is replaced by a white middle class. On the contrary, it was the black middle classes who recaptured the Bijlmer from years of degeneration. However, thanks to massive governmental financial support, the real estate sector also captured territory and a “new” market was created for investments against reduced risk.
The revanchist of the Bijlmer is also a coloured one for the “undesirables”. For years they have been “tolerated” as they disturbed other inhabitants from leading quiet lives, but now they face harsh consequences which threaten their lifestyle. The revitalization of the Bijlmer had a double effect; it rejuvenated and created a pleasant residential environment for the black middle and lower classes while at the same time taking revenge on the “undesirables”.