Independent Research 2016: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen by Maren Sonoda

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

SOCIAL COHESION AND THE NEIGHBOURHOODS IN DUTCH SOCIAL HOUSING CONTEMPORARY CHANGES

Átila Rezende Fialho | S3024431 University of Brasilia

Maren Lury Sonoda | S3020738 University of Campinas

June 17, 2016

University of Groningen: Faculty of Spatial Sciences | Independent Research

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Summary 1. Introduction…………...………………………………………………………………….……..03 2. Theoretical framework….……..………………………………………………………………..04 2.2. Contemporary changes…………………………...……………………….…...............04 2.3. Social cohesion in the urban renewals………...……………………….........................06 2.4. Case of study: Pendrecht…….…………………...……………………........................07 3. Research problem definition……………………………………………………….…………...08 4. Research goal definition………………………………………………………………………...09 5. Research questions…………………………………………………………………….………..09 6. Research design…………………………………………………………………….....................09 6.1. Questionnaire…….…………………………………………………………...………..10 6.1.1. Theoretical basis.............................................................................................10 6.1.2. Definition of area: zoning…………………………………………………...12 6.1.3. Analysis of the results: average and deviation……………………………...12 7. Results…………………………………………………………………………............................14 7.1 The urban renewals, the visual analysis and the changes so far...........................................................................................................................................14 7.2. Residents’ perceptions about the renewal.......................................................................18 7.3. Is there, in fact, a social mix?.........................................................................................20 7.3. How is this social mix influencing the social cohesion? Is there a social cohesion in fact?........................................................................................................................................21 7.4. The different characters of each area – Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4………………………...…00 8. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….....................29 9. References…………………………………………………………………………......................30 9.1. Published........................................................................................................................30 9.2. Non-Published................................................................................................................31 10. Appendix…………………………………………………………………………......................32 10.1. Questionnaire................................................................................................................32 10.2. Overall Results...….......................................................................................................33

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Introduction

For the Netherlands, the social housing has a goal that is serving those residents who, based in their incomes and assets, are unable to secure adequate housing within the free market. It is said that the Dutch approach in spatial policies is to recognize the strength of consensus and cooperation (Dolata, 2008). In other words, is the idea that they need to recognize their individual needs as a shared duty. This character can be seen as exemplary in the actual context of the housing market: Housing Associations, which accounts for the majority of the rented housing stock. They cooperate between themselves, but also with the municipalities, organisations and, more recently, free market actors (Elsinga and Wassenberg, 2007). In the actual context, two subjects increased their importance: the concepts of social mix and social cohesion. They believed that providing different options and freedom of choice for the households was a possible solution appointed to achieve the social mix and indeed is one approach took by the associations. This way, the idea in the Dutch policies, is that the social mix is a tool to enhance the social cohesion. It is a logical result of substantial demolition that some people have to move while others would arrive, promoting a gradual differentiation of the residents based on this mobility. “The more the new and upgraded dwellings differ from the previous housing with regard to housing type, price and tenure, the more differences in population characteristics generally arise” (Kleinhans, Priemus & Engbersen, 2005). The new policies are looking for enhance a social cohesion, because their main idea is that it can raise a common trust and solidarity within the neighbourhood; enable communitarian activism; diminish prejudice and segregation; raise the sense of safety and bring a sense of belongingness to the neighbourhood. All those resources, product of this cohesion, are important part of resident’s quality of life (Forrest and Kearns, 2001). Due to its complex conceptualization, for this report we choose three dimensions of Social Cohesion raised by Janes Jenson (1998). For this research, a neighbourhood was chosen to be analysed: the Pendrecht, in Rotterdam. The choice has been made because Pendrecht had a project of urban renewal in 2006, which follows the ideas of these new approaches. With that, it is possible to study the efficiency of these changes in the Dutch social housing, by evaluating the effectiveness in achieve a social mix, and so, how has it affected the dwellers’ perception of social cohesion.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Theoretical framework

2. 1.

Contemporary changes The Housing Associations were originally created during the second half of the 19th

century by different groups that were socially active - such as entrepreneurs and church bodies - and concerned about the unappealing conditions of poorer groups (Hoekstra, 2013). Despite several changes during the history, the universal role of providing the necessary amount of houses with assured quality, laid by the Housing Act of 1902, remains the same. However, throughout the last century, they have broadened their role into more sophisticated aims such as guaranteeing the financial continuity of the enterprise; renting on a priority basis to the “special attention groups intended in policy”; involving tenants in the policy and management of the organization; making a contribution to the quality of life in neighbourhoods and communities and to the housing for people in need of care or supervision (Aedes, 2013). The most recent change in the policy of the Housing Associations was the “Brutering” in 1995, better known as the “Grossing and Balancing Agreement”. This operation marks the increase in the independence of the social housing organisations, which means that authorisations and responsibilities were decentralised, displacing room for them to make their own policy (Elsinga and Wassenberg, 2007). They finally became financially independent, and so, it had consequences in their management and activities. One of the major effects of this new policy, and the focus of this work, is related to the increase of the importance of the neighbourhood as a whole to the Housing Associations, and not only the building itself. They are using their investments in the urban renewal, to improve the quality of life in old and deprived urban neighbourhoods (Elsinga and Wassenberg, 2007). In order to restructure the urban environment, all kinds of measures are being undertaken, such as sale, demolitions and replacement for new buildings and home improvements. They did not only achieve structural and energy-saving measures, but also social and economic interventions, like neighbourhood facilities, shops and jobs (Aedes, 2013). Other mechanisms are resulted from the recent changes in the policies regarding the Housing Associations, explained in the following section. We, then, conceptualize social cohesion and its relation with neighbourhood environment and describe our case study, a recently renewed urban area of Rotterdam, reasoning our selection. The importance of the present research, which also contributed to our choice, is connected to the treatment of the Social Housing in the Netherlands, showing some aspects that might have endorsed the exceptional image of a system that, instead of concentrating poverty and 4

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

stigmatization, was used as a tool to tackle these problems. For that reason, is also important to evaluate whether the new system for the Housing Associations will successfully keep concerned about these fundamental issues or not. The outputs could be used for future policies and urban renewals measures in the Netherlands as well as in other countries. Nowadays, more and more investments are being made in neighbourhoods. For the social housing organisations, as it has been said before, their management does not only involve home improvements and maintenance. The major challenge is to maintain the high quality of life for the districts and villages, or bring it back (Aedes, 2013). However, the new policies and the broadening of the public tasks of the Housing Associations have been questioned by researchers in some aspects. The important role played by these associations in the housing market had been a product of an intensive public investment beginning in the post-war decades due to the housing shortage, focusing in a large house production, when the share of the social rented dwellings in the Netherlands was as humble as 12 per cent (Priemus, 2003). In fact, they succeed when this rate of social housing achieved an impressive mark of 41 per cent of the total housing stock by the beginning of the 1990’s (Boelhauer, 2014; Priemus, 2003). This achievement may have been a reason to the following turning point. The financial position and independence that the Housing Associations find themselves nowadays is due to the policies applied by the government in the beginning of the abovementioned decade, firstly, by raising the rents substantially above the inflation rates in order to enable the reclaim of the great load of subsidies. Secondly, by cutting of the subsidies, the government relieved the bureaucratic system and obtained substantial savings. Able to work in a revolving fund, the associations developed into a market oriented approach, and they also obtained certain flexibility when dealing with the other actors - (umbrella or common fund) organisations, semiprivate bodies and municipalities - which have great importance in maintaining this new system (Boelhauer, 2014). As a hybrid organisation, balancing this new position and the public tasks stated by the Housing Memorandum of 2000 had been an issue. Some of these tasks are a major concern of the present research: improve the “quality of the residential environment in neighbourhoods” and “strengthen the social cohesion” in order to engage the tenants in maintaining the overall quality of the neighbourhood (Priemus, 2003, 2007). The latter works as a cause-effect cycle: while a greater engagement of the tenants in the improvement of their environment should be a result of a better social cohesion, the latter is also strengthened by this sort of activism.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

The associations also had to deal with the duty of expanding the social differentiation in their stock, in which they managed with selling and buying new properties, mixing owner occupiers with tenants and targeting other groups - higher income groups (Elsinga and Wassenberg, 2007; Priemus, 2003, 2007). The conviction is that “hybrid ownership formed between rental and ownership tenure and different types of homes contribute to the diversity and create an attractive residential neighbourhood” (Aedes, 2013). The same mechanism - selling and buying - is used to improve their own financial position (Elsinga and Wassenberg, 2007).

2.2.

Social cohesion in the urban renewals Hugo Priemus (2003) has already stated in his studies how the “spatial concentration of

poverty, unemployment and lack of safety” created a social stigma that discouraged social housing policies in many other countries due to the way that they had dealt with the problem. A possible solution is to achieve a social mix, which means provide different options for the households. In fact, the social rented sector in the Netherlands is characterised as so varied and attractive that this social stigma may not even be such great problem as in many other places - not only low-income groups live in those places, but also higher income groups (Priemus, 2003). As said before, in the Dutch policies, social mix was always believed to enhance the social cohesion, being the first stage supposedly a product of constant and intensive physical restructuring. Further than that, the social mix now has been subject of this new mix of tenure promoted from the selling off former rental homes. Social cohesion is usually addressed in many different ways and related to even more varied conditions and consequences, especially when linked to policy measures, being shaped according to the situation and the intention of the author. This fact calls for better conceptualization: the term concerned in this study is referred as the state in which the ties established among citizens and between them and the representative institutions are solid enough to enable a set of attitudes and informal norms - “common trust, sense of belonging and the willingness to help and participate” (Chan et al, 2006). It refers to the relations in the most mundane everyday level (Forrest and Kearns, 2001). These aspects benefited by the social cohesion, like enhancing a sense of belonging and a relation within the neighbourhood, are important for the resident’s quality of life. As is also defined by Forrest and Kearns (2001), any city or urban area lacking this feature “would be one which

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

displayed social disorder and conflict, disparate moral values, extreme social inequality, low levels of social interaction between and within communities and low levels of place attachment”.

2.3.

Case of study: Pendrecht

Figure 1 – Location of Pendrecht in relation with the city of Rotterdam. Source: Google Earth.

The efficiency of the changes in the Dutch social housing are going to be analysed through Pendrecht, a neighbourhood located in the south edge of Rotterdam. After the city was bombed during the Second World War, in the year of 1940, they started the projects for their reconstruction. So, this neighbourhood was assigned by the municipality to relieve the housing shortage (Architecture guide, accessed on 03/05/2016). The neighbourhood of Pendrecht was designed by the architect Lotte Stam-Beese, in the year of 1949, and has around 6300 dwellings. The concept was to create an ideal society, an inseparable entity, meaning a well-functioning community (Chun Lu, 2008). It reflects the changes in the way of thinking the town planning, where they believed that the well-being depends strongly on the relation with the environment and the fellow men, avoiding the individualism that was predominant at this time (Cammen and Kler, 2012). To achieve the spatial and social link between home and neighbourhood, she designed a module composed of 70 to 80 families, varying in composition and age. In this way, creating an 7

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

element where the form follows the social function. This module is composed by the mix of buildings - low rise, flats and high rises - for different life phases of households - families with and without children, the elderly and singles (Cammen and Klerk, 2012). Besides, in the neighbourhood, was designed buildings for general use - shops, churches, schools, and others - to fulfil the necessities of the inhabitants (Chun Lu, 2008). In her plan, the group of families lived together as a housing community, creating a relation not just in the district of Pendrecht, but with the city as whole. For a certain period, the neighbourhood was seen as a model district in the Netherlands and internationally. However, in the following years there was a social change, with an increase in the unemployment and decrease of the Rotterdam’s population. Pendrecht started to get deteriorated, becoming isolated and threatened by social security issues (Chun Lu, 2008). The image of the neighbourhood as a problem area developed over the years, reaching the second position in the list of the so-called “40 problem neighbourhoods”, created by the housing Minister Eberhard van der Laan in 2007, which was based on household income of the residents and the lack of security (Expatica, accessed on 03/07/2016). The changes in the policies of the Housing Association affected Pendrecht as well. In the year of 2006, a restructuring plan was approved in order to improve their physical living quality (Chun Lu, 2008). In this plan, large parts of Pendrecht are to be torn down, with low-cost social housing being replaced by more expensive owner-occupied properties (Cammen and Klerk, 2012). This approach reflects the main concern to improve the social mix of this area, which should provide a better social cohesion. Knowing the importance and the scope of these changes, the objective of this work is to use this neighbourhood to analyse the effectiveness of this policy.

Research problem definition

The historical development alongside the twentieth century broadened the role of the Housing Associations in the social rented sector. As they developed a financial independence, some of their duties, as the neighbourhood improvements and the promotion of the social cohesion, became increasingly important. In order to achieve these tasks, urban renewals and changes in tenure aiming the mix of different social groups are being undertaken, which calls for a closer look in order to analyse the legitimacy of these means. Thus, some important aspects of the social cohesion – tolerance, participation and common values and norms – and its (possible) relations with 8

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

the social mix and urban renewals shall be analysed. Pendrecht, Rotterdam, originally conceived to be an ideally cohesive neighbourhood, has been recently restructured under the new conditions after been considered one of the most deprived neighbourhoods of the Netherlands, proving a suitable case study for this research.

Research goal definition Analyse to what extent are the recent operations and urban renewal in Pendrecht promoting

social cohesion taking the literature of Janes Jenson as criteria.

Research questions Based on our research background, problem and goal, the following research questions

were formulated: 1. Given the recent renewals in Pendrecht, how has it affected the social cohesion? 1. Have there been changes at all until now? 2. Has it affected people? 2. Is there, in fact, a social mix? 3. How is this social mix influencing the social cohesion?

Research design In order to understand the potential of social mix and social cohesion in the neighbourhood

after the recent urban renewals, the analysis were based in four aspects: both old and new projects for Pendrecht; demographic composition data, in order to evaluate the social character and social mix of the neighbourhood; visual analysis through a field trip, to see the changes that have been made so far; and the data about the social cohesion perceived by the residents. It is known that some of the components of the social cohesion are not precisely measurable, like the sense of safety and the shared norms, being a major challenge to the research. 9

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

However, an analysis can be done through the study between the original and the renewed projects; and the quantitative research. For the last one, the methodology used was a questionnaire. It was created in order to understand the relevance and the residents’ perception of these renewals; to correlate it with their social background; and so, evaluate the social cohesion of Pendrecht.

6.1.

Questionnaire

6.1.1. Theoretical basis To operationalize the research, we brought the dimensions used in Jane Jenson’s literature to define the term “social cohesion” (Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research, 1998), focusing mainly in three of them. First of them, belonging and isolation, is widely shared among authors and it is clearly recognizable in the concept we gave. The “shared value and norms” refers to what extent does the individual feel as belonged to a group. “A threat to social cohesion is associated with feelings of isolation from the community” (Jenson, 1998). The second dimension we will also be concerned is the participation or non-involvement, which analyses the individuals’ willingness to participate in decision-making and political local level. Being involved and feel represented by institutions is stated as a primary condition for enhancing the social cohesion, in this way (Jenson, 1998). In our study, it is especially important to analyse this dimension as we have a clear relation between one actor – the Housing Association – and the population – Pendrecht – with an important political interference – the urban renewal – that can either make people feel represented and willing to be involved, or be a threat to their involvement. The final aspect is recognition: the respect and tolerance for diversity. We incorporate this idea, even though it is more a condition than a constituent of the meaning, as pointed by Joseph Chan et al (2006), because it seems pointless to promote a cohesive neighbourhood without promoting tolerance for the differences. Furthermore, such a value seem to become increasingly present during the housing policies development described above – promoting “social mix” and diminishing the social stigma - and in the Dutch governance as a whole. Although we might find the other aspects addressed in Jenson’s work in our research indirectly and perhaps as a by-product, they go further than our scope and have less conceptual consistency to be described here. To summarize, in order to evaluate the potential of social cohesion in Pendrecht, the questionnaire was based on aspects of the three dimensions – Sense of belonging (A); the Willingness to help and participate (B); and the Common trust (C) (Jenson, 1998). Thus, the 10

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

questions 1 to 11, in addition to 19 and 20, were created by following one or more of it, as in the image below: Dimensions

Number

Question Do you feel part of a community in your

Do you regularly talk with your neighbours?

A-B

Is there any associational activies with them?

A-B-C

neighbourhood?

Do you feel comfortable to express your cultural traditions in your neighbourhood (religion, clothes...)? Do you think that there is a high amount of unemployment in your neighbourhood? Do you feel safe in your neighbourhood? Do you think that the quality of the public spaces in your neighbourhood are good? Do you think that the public spaces in your neighbourhood are well maintained? Does the facilities in the neighbourhood meet your needs (shops, supermarkets, churchs, schools...)? Do you think that your neighbourhood is a good place to live? If you could define your neighbourhood in one word, which one would it be? Are you aware that an urban renewal has been taking place since 2006 in Pendrecht? If "yes" to question 18, do you think that your opinion was taken into account in this urban renewal proccess? If "yes" to question 18, do you think that the urban renewal changed the neighbourhood significantly?

Table 1 – How were the questions elaborated based on the dimensions of the social cohesion.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

6.1.2. Definition of area: zoning The case study consists in a district with a relatively large area located in the south of Rotterdam and the renewals that have been undertaken in Pendrecht have been made under quite different projects and design conditions. So, for a better analysis, we decided to divide the whole neighbourhood in four zones, described in the image below. The zoning also serves for assessing the differences of each region that may influence the results of the questionnaires and ease the correlations that we may trace.

Figure 2 – Zoning made during the research for better analysis. Source: Google earth [adapted].

6.1.3. Analysis: average and deviation The questionnaire is consisted in three subjects: Social cohesion (questions 1 to 11), for analyse the perceptions of the dwellers; Demographic composition (12 to 17), to compare with the data obtained; and Urban renewal (18 to 20), to be answered just for the residents that are aware about the changes in the neighbourhood, and so, their view about it. To facilitate the analysis, some questions’ answers were standardized. As can be seen in the questionnaire in the Appendix, in nine questions of the first subject, and all the questions of the last 12

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

one, the dwellers should respond based on the scale (1 to 5 points), which means the following answers: “No, not at all”; “No, partially”; “Neutral”; “Yes, partially”; and “Yes, very much”. To make the results more synthetic, we analysed and compared the average of the answers for this scale. Besides, the responses of each zones, using their Deviation, created through the comparison between the zones’ and the average of the whole neighbourhood. In order to facilitate the comprehension, we also used color patterns in the deviation – the most close to green are above the Pendrecht’s average, and the most close to red are over. The averages and the deviations of the zones can be seen in the overall results in the Appendix.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Results

7.1. The urban renewals, the visual analysis and the changes so far.

Figure 3 - Overview of the Urban Renewal in Pendrecht. Source: La ciudad viva <http://www.laciudadviva.org/blogs/?p=3972>

The planning project was mainly a product of partnership between the Housing Association (Woonstand Rotterdam) and different architects, depending on the area of the neighbourhood. The zone 1 and 2, respectively Ossenissebuurt and Tiengementebuurt, have been renovated under the responsibility of De Nijl Architecten. The first one was the most affected by the demolitions, where 800 families were displaced, and most of the buildings that were not demolished but renovated were vertically merged, increasing the area per property. However they reused the same property lines of the original project, a lot of public spaces were lost to become private gardens (Lardiés & Alonso, 2010). Apart from that, three five-storey residential buildings with adaptations and special care for the elderly were planned in Burghsluissingel (De Nijl Architecten, 06/06/ 2016). Tiengementebuurt had a relatively high amount of buildings preserved, but the changes in relation with public spaces kept the same principles. The renewal zone, a strip cutting the both areas from east to west, followed some similar modifications in the urban design by, for example, modifying or displacing the streets in order to become communal spaces and maybe in some way compensate for the lost public area (De Nijl Architekten, 06/06/2016). The project was planned to be done by 2012 and, indeed, it was when the fieldtrip took place.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Figure 4 - The project for the area of the zones 1 and 2, respectively, Ossenissebuurt and Tiengemetenbuurt, by De Nijl Architekten. Source: De Nijl Architekten <http://www.denijl.nl/project/woongebouwen-burghsluissingel/>

Figure 5 (left) – One of the three elderly adapted buildings of Ossenissebuurt. Figure 6 (right) – One of the new housing blocks of Tiegemetenbuurt.

The Northern areas of the district, namely the Zierikzeebuurt and Herkingenbuurt and respectively the zones 4 and 3, have been under the projects of Van Schagen Architekten and Duinker Van der Torre. In Herkingenbuurt, zone 3, there was some changes in the street urban design, in which an east-west internal axis were created while some allotments of houses were 15

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

changed. The modifications in the housing character consisted basically of the same: bigger single family properties with private gardens, however with some differentiation in the plans regarding the size and number of storeys.

Figure 7 (left) – In red, the old buildings that were demolished in Herkingerbuurt. Source: Duinker Van de Torre. Figure 8 (right) – The new green areas created after the renewal. Source: Duinker Van de Torre.

In Zierikzeebuurt, zone 4, much of the same operations took place: renovation, demolition, major repairs and some changes in the character of the houses. There was an attention for the elderly adapted spaces alike, as in Ossenissebuurt. Besides that, the character of the other new houses were mainly projected to more spacious apartment – four bedrooms – and single family homes. Some leisure green spaces were created in between these new buildings to compensate the privatization of some gardens for the singe family properties. After its early completion compared to the others, in 2006, in the operations for these area as a whole what one can see is that the original project were more respected than in the others (Lardiés & Alonso, 2010).

Figure 9 – New plan for Zierikzeebuurt. Source: Van Schagen Architekten < http://www.vanschagenarchitekten.com/projecten-lijst/item/340-zierikzeebuurt-fase-2#>

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Figure 10 – Another elderly adapted building, this time in Zierikzeebuurt (is not represented on the map above).

Thus, basically, the renewals took in Pendrecht followed more or less what this research has been showing about the new situation of the Housing Associations: mix of tenures and attempts to attract other groups, with the aggravation that the neighbourhood have to fight against the deprivation it has been suffered. Translating in spatial planning, the Housing Association lead the operations to privatization of former public gardens, the creation of elderly adapted buildings and the increase of the property unit area, in which most of them are owner-occupied. For that, they also increased the number of parking lots. The fieldtrip confirmed that these renewals are almost done, being the exceptions some small refurbishment that still takes place in Herkingenbuurt area.

Figure 11 – “1953” square, probably one of the most frequented places of the whole neighbourhood.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

7.2. Residents’ perceptions about the renewal Even though there were changes in the neighbourhood after the urban renewal, the results of the questionnaire showed that it did not affect the dwellers in an effective and positive way. As can be seen in the graphic below (Graphic 1), around half of the respondents were aware of the existence of the renewal that has been taking place since 2006. For these people, they were asked to answer two more questions – number 19 and 20 – being the first one “Do you think that your opinion was taken into account in this urban renewal process? ”, and the second “Do you think that the urban renewal changed the neighbourhood significantly?”.

Graphic 1 – Most of the dwellers are not even aware of the urban renewal.

The results of the question 19 showed that in general they did not feel that their opinion were taken into account, during this process. The average of the whole neighbourhood was below the neutral line of the scale, scoring in 2,33 points. Having the worst collection of answers in the Zone 3, followed by Zone 4, 1 and 2, being only this last a little over the average of the overall (Table 1). On the other hand, the average for the question number 20 was a little bit more optimistic, scoring in 3,54 points, having the answers above the average in the Zones 2 and 3, and below in the Zones 1 and 4 (Table 2).

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda Q.19: If "yes"to question 18. Do you think that your opinion was taken into account in this urban renewal proccess? 20

15 10

11 3

0 No, not at No, partially all

Neutral

Yes, partially Yes, very much

Q.20: If "yes"to question 18. Do you think that the urban renewal changed the neighbourhood significantly? (B) 20

10 5

4 1

0 No, not at all No, partially

Neutral

Yes, partially Yes, very much

Graphic 2 - Question 19. Most of the dwellers think that their opinion were not taken into account in the urban renewal. Graphic 3 - Question 20. Half of the dwellers think that the urban renewal changed the neighbourhood significantly.

These results show that even if the neighbourhood had improved, it was not so much effective for the major part. Besides, there was a lack of popular participation in the project. This is consequence of the lack of interest from the responsible for the urban renewal in consulting the needs and interests of the dwellers. The neighbourhood is clearly composed by a majority of immigrants, although, the constructions and urban planning were made following the Dutch architecture. During the visual analysis, some spontaneous adaptations from the residents were noticed, for example, trying to “fix” the large windows’ lack of privacy, which may bother some part of the population. Besides that, in all the projects for the renovation it seems that only a small room is displaced for the dwellers making their own intervention. This fact may deepen the lack of participation, as we will analyse in the last topic of this section.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

7.3. Is there, in fact, a social mix? As said before, one of the approaches in the urban renewal is achieve a social mix. By social mix, a difference in the character of residents, that can be different cultures, types of tenures, ages, and others. In this case and as explained in the background, much of the social mix that the operations are trying to achieve has been made through mix of tenures, refurbishments and increasing of the area of the property units in order to attract other economic groups.

Graphic 4 – Age distribution in Pendrecht. Source: CBS <http://www.cbsinuwbuurt.nl/#buurten2014_aandeel_geboorten>

Table 2 - Population composition in Pendrecht in YEAR (Source: rotterdam.feiten.info. Accessed on 06/06/06/2016.)

The data found during the research showed that in general Pendrecht has a balanced social mix in the majority of aspects: age distribution (Graphic 2); families with or without children. Regarding the origin of the residents (Table 2), there are more migrants than Dutch and among the former, there are more with non-western background. Besides that, there are relatively more unmarried people (57%) than married, separated or widowed (Graphic 3). The projects aims to achieve 54% of social housing, however the questionnaire showed that only 27% are from social 20

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

housing; 36% from owned; and 37% from non-social rented (Graphic 4). Nevertheless, different data were found in each zone, which shows that these different groups are not so equally spread.

Graphic 5 – Marital Status in Pendrecht. (Source: rotterdam.feiten.info. Accessed on 06/06/06/2016.)

Graphic 6 – Type of tenure of the respondents in Pendrecht.

7.4. How is this social mix influencing the social cohesion? Is there a social cohesion in fact?

In general, the rate of the answers were close to neutrality (3 points) being the most positive one question 9, about the availability of facilities in Pendrecht (4,13 points). As said before, it was planned according to some functional sectors, being the services concentrated in the middle area of 21

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

the four main areas. There are a lot of stores and facilities, especially around the Plein 1953, among them schools with some children friendly signs spread in the neighbourhood. Although the second most positively rated replies regards question 4 – about their comfort in expressing their cultural traditions – it reached a result closer to neutrality than any strong affirmative answer. Being Pendrecht predominantly composed by immigrants – 57% only nonwestern, it is an important factor. During the fieldtrip and application of questionnaire, it was possible to find a lot of people from other countries, especially from Middle East and Africa and some signs of cultural manifestations apart from Dutch. In opposition, the worst rated question was the 19, related to the accountancy of the residents opinions (2,33 points). This result can be related to the analysis of the dimension through the question 3, about the availability of associational activities. As can be seen in the image below, there is almost none of this kind of activity, and even so, their involvement is low (Graphic 7). As said before, the response rate for both questions can be understood as a symptom of the lack of participation from the residents, an important dimension that accounts for social cohesion, but probably the weakest one in Pendrecht.

Graphic 7: Question 3, the overall results.

A final observation should be made about the answers for the question 11: when asking about a word that could describe the neighbourhood. The present research aimed to gather the similar responses and analyse whether there were common values and identity to the neighbourhood. In general there were predominantly positive adjectives, in the image below the 22

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

words with greater prominence were the most cited. Even though, most of the words used were empty, and so, this question cannot be considered so relevant for the original purposes.

Figure 12: Word cloud with the answers for the question 11.

7.4. The different characters of each area – Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4

In order to obtain a more meaningful outcome and take into account more aspects of the data collected, these last topics will explain the differences found between each zone – described in our methodology. Neither the projects for the urban renewals, the demographic composition nor the aspects of social cohesion were equally spread in the four main areas of Pendrecht. First of all, the differences between the response rates begin with the resident’s perception about the public spaces. Ossenissebuurt has showed more optimistic views about the quality – question 7 - and maintenance of the public spaces – question 8. Followed by Tiengementebuurt, we obtained the average of 3,5 for both questions in zone 1 (See the Appendix attached). Also important to mention, there was an urban redesign in the main square of Ossenissebuurt area during the last years of 1990, prior to the present operations, which shows that this area has been subjects of improvements for some time already. The worst areas regarding this criteria according to the dwellers came to zone 3 and 4, with averages of 3,13 and 3,35 for question 7 and 2,88 and 3,13 for question 8, respectively for each zone (See graphs 8 and 9).

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda Q.7: Do you think that the quality of public spaces in your neighbourhood are good? (B) 3,6 3,5 3,4 3,3 3,2 3,1 3 2,9 Average (Pendrecht)

Average (Z1)

Average (Z2)

Average (Z3)

Average (Z4)

Graphic 8 (above) and graphic 9 (below) – The difference of the results for questions 7 and 8 per each zone.

Q.8: Do you think that the public spaces in your neighbourhood is well maintained? 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Average Average (Z1) Average (Z2) Average (Z3) Average (Z4) (Pendrecht)

Regarding the social mix, it can be noticed that the different groups are not equally spread (Figure 13) however the whole district has a balanced presence of these different groups. It is an important statement since the different positive or negative responses can be related to the social mix or to other factors, which is what we are looking for. For example, in Zierikzeebuurt we can find different sizes family, considering those with marriage or not and with children or not, in Ossenissebuurt we can find a balanced age distritution, but more family with no children and unmarried people.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Figure 13: Social mix of different groups in each Zone, according to marital status; age distribution; type of house; size of family and origins of the dwellers.

The Zone 1 had the most positive responses rates (Graphics 10 and 11, and Table 3). The most optimistic answers were those to question 5, asking about the level of unemployment, which are perceived in low levels by the respondents of this area. Ossenissebuurt had no response averages below any question for the whole district, fact that we can correlate with the high amount of nonsocial rented or owner occupiers among the interviewees. It makes sense that these groups feel less that their cultural traditions may be disrespected or that the neighbourhood is a good place to live. When asked about feeling part of a community and if they regularly talk with neighbours, the respondents for this area also presented more disparate positive responses when compared to the other zones. One thing that may be a factor is the substantial changes that this area suffered. As 25

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

explained in the first topic of this section, Ossenissebuurt had several demolitions, mergers and new properties. Apart from that, the investments in public spaces arrived there earlier and there are more diverse facilities, exemplified by the “Plein 1953” project and noticed during the fieldtrip. [Ossenissebuurt - Z1] Q.1: Do you feel part of a community in your neighbourhood? 10 8 6 4 2 0 No, not at No, all partially

Neutral

Yes, Yes, very Non-valid partially much answers

Graphic 10 (above) and Graphic 11 (below): results for zone 1, Ossenissebuurt, regarding questions 1 and 2, respectively.

[Ossenissebuurt - Z1] Q.2: Do you regularly talk to your neighbours? 8 6 4 2 0 No, not at No, all partially

Neutral

Yes, Yes, very Non-valid partially much answers

Q.1: Do you feel part of a community in your neighbourhood? (A) Average (Pendrecht)

Average (Z1)

Deviation

3,12345679

3,533333

0,409876543

Q.2: Do you regularly talk to your neighbours? (A) Average (Pendrecht)

Average (Z1)

Deviation

3,395061728

3,8

0,404938272

Table 3: Results for zone 1, Ossenissebuurt, regarding questions 1 and 2, respectively.

Characterized by implementing more owner occupiers properties, maybe these operations brought together residents that feel more connected among each other for they belong to similar economic groups. Thus, the most noticeable strength of this area is the sense of belonging, even 26

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

though it is probably not a consequence of the mix of different groups, but instead the homogeneity of them. The averages for the other questions kept significantly close to the average of the whole Pendrecht response rates, which mean in our case that the other dimensions are not as strong as this one. The highest contrast comes with the Zones 3 and 4. The second has only one question with average above Pendrecht’s, even though most of them were close to it and only two had a more negative than neutral response rate. The region had the worst average for question 6: when asked about the sense of safety, Zierikzeebuurt scored as low as 2,72, the lowest average for the area when compared to the others (see Graphic 12). For this zone, there were less social-rented respondents, but a significantly smaller share of young people and a similar one for migrant background compared to the Zone 1, Ossenissebuurt, which means not so many migrants as the other two areas, 2 and 3. The fears of the residents were expressed during the application, when they told histories about robberies and were not so open to talk with strangers. Moreover, the field trip showed that it is the zone with the least maintenance or infrastructures regarding public spaces and housing blocks, apart from the lack of facilities. As said before, another differential for Zierikzeebuurt is that the original project was more preserved in this part than in the others. If it is not about the architecture, the only factor of the social mix that may play some role for its disparate result is the age, with more people in between the age of 31 to 60 years old.

Number of respondents

[Zierikzeebuurt] Q.6: Do you feel safe in your neighbourhood? 10

8 5

6 4

4 3 2

2 0 No, not at all No, partially

Neutral

Yes, partially

Yes, very much

Answers

Graphic 12: Results for Question 6 in Zone 4, regarding the sense of safety.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Herkingenbuurt area - Zone 3 - is characterized by an old population and no children; moreover, a higher share of social housing, being only below the Zone 2. They scored significantly low in the questions 2 with negative deviations of 0,45 compared to the average for the whole neighbourhood, which shows that this area suffers from strong isolation feelings. The questions from 8 to 10 were also significantly lower, which means worse maintenances and quality of housing (see Graphic 13). Translating in social cohesion, people are not only willing to participate less, but also may feel less represented by institutions.

Averages

Differences between averages: Pendrecht X Herkingenbuurt 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 QUESTION 8 PENDRECHT

QUESTION 9

QUESTION 10

HERKINGENBUURT (Z3)

Graphic 13 - Results for each zone regarding questions 8 to 10, with the averages of the responses of each one and the difference from the average of Pendrecht.

The results showed for zone 3 may be the most elucidative about the topic because, even though there is a relative mix of different types of tenure and ethnic backgrounds, the social cohesion seems to be weak. The renovation of this area brought new greenery, a new urban street design, more owned properties and single family houses, but its population still apart from each other and unsatisfied. In this case, neither the renewals nor the social mix enhanced the cohesion. Apart from the question about unemployment, Zone 2 presented slightly above average results, but it was basically the same response rates as those for the whole district of Pendrecht. The renewals that were undertaken in this area were pretty similar to those of Zone 1, but in a smaller scale and lesser concern with the public spaces.

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Conclusion The operations in Pendrecht were characterized by the same principles described in

the beginning for the context of the Housing Associations, in which they are trying to attract more owned occupiers in order to achieve a mix of social groups. In the case of our study, this also served to promote some privatizations of former public areas to become gardens for single-family houses. In some cases, there were some attention to the renewal of the public spaces – Zone 1 – and restructuring of the streets – Zone 1 and 3 – but the renovations consisted mainly in refurbishments, redesigns and demolitions of housing blocks. The worst dimension of social cohesion analysed in the neighbourhood is regarded to the level of participation in the decision making field – Dimension B. This factor can be explained by the way that the renewals have been undertaking, in which dwellers’ opinions about the way it should be and their cultural background were not taken into account. Moreover, there was small room for them to make their interventions with the current thorough planning of the housing units, thus making population feel even less represented by this institutions. Belonging and isolation – Dimension A – had a slightly better perspective overall, with an even higher average among the dwellers from Ossenissebuurt, in which the renewals were the most massive. This area had the highest number of demolitions of former housing units and, consequently, a larger share of short time dwellers and owner or nonsocial rented occupiers. Apart from that, this Zone (1) has been subject of improvements for its public areas some time before the current renewals. What we can conclude is that these dwellers feels more connected to each other due to their similarity. For their performance in the first dimension, it may also be influenced by this long term urban improvements for their zone. For the Zone 3, namely Herkingenbuurt, there was also a lot of operations but way less people had to move and these operations did not consist in any substantial improvement for the public spaces, only urban redesign of the streets at most. The demolitions took place for the same reasons: attract owner occupiers, but there was a larger share of long term dwellers than in the first zone. This last factor could be related to the 29

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

lower averages for this zone when compared to Ossenissebuurt, in which substantial changes took place. The dwellers that are living in the neighbourhood for long time feels more apart and unwilling to participate. Regarding the tolerance for the differences – Dimension C – the results showed a more optimistic view from the residents compared to the other ones, receiving an average above 4 for the whole neighbourhood. This dimension reinforce the facts showed in the background that in the Dutch social housing context, the social stigma is less perceivable than other countries. Thus, the social mix, said to be the tool for achieving the social cohesion, in the case of Pendrecht at least, was considerably a weak factor. What was more noticeable is that this social mix factor had been used as an alibi for attracting higher income groups for the district, with the increase of property area unit and loss of public spaces. The structure of the area, the way that renewals have been taking and the relations between the Housing Associations and the dwellers are apparently more influential. The mix of different groups will not bring, by itself, a neighbourhood where people are willing to intervene in the public sphere, participate, integrate and respect each other.

References

9.1.

Published

Aedes, Dutch association of social housing organisation (2013) “Dutch social housing in a nutshell” Netherlands. Boelhouwer, P. (2014), "Maturation of the Dutch social housing model and perspectives for the future". Delft, Netherlands. Cammen, H. and Klerk L. (2012), "The selfmade land: Culture and evolution of urban and regional planning in the Netherlands". Antwerp, Belgium. Chan, J., Ho-Pong, T, and Chan, E. (2006), “Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research”. Hong Kong, China. Chun Lu, M. S. (2008), "Efficient urban planning in new energy era: The urban renewal planning guide for GHG reduction". Delft, Netherlands. 30

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Dolata, R (2008), “Social housing in the Netherlands” Netherlands. Duyvendak, J. W.; Hendriks, F. and Niekerk, M. (2009), "City in sight: Dutch dealings with urban change". Amsterdam, Netherlands. Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (2001), "Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood". Hoekstra, J. (2013) “Social housing in the Netherlands: The development of the Dutch social housing model”. Delft, Netherlands.

Jenson, J. (1998), “Mapping the Social Cohesion: the state of Canadian Research”. Canada. Larcher, J. V. M. (2005) “Diretrizes visando a melhoria de projetos e soluções construtivas na expansão de habitações de interesse social” Curitiba, Brazil. Kleinhans, R,; Priemus, H. and Engbersen, G. (2005), "Understanding social capital in recently restructured urban neighbourhoods: Two case studies in Rotterdam". Groningen, Netherlands. Musterd, S. and Deurloo, R. (1997), "Ethnic segregation and the role of public housing in Amsterdam". Amsterdam, Netherlands. Priemus, H. (2001), "Social housing as a transitional tenure: Reflection on the Netherlands new housing memorandum 2000-2010", Groningen, Netherlands. Priemus, H. (2003), "Dutch Housing Associations: Current developments and debates". Delft, Netherlands. Santos, C. H. M. (1999) “Políticas federais de habitação no Brasil” Text for discussion number 654, Brasília, Brazil.

9.2.

Non-published

CBS – Statistics Netherlands. Data about Pendrecht. <http://www.cbsinuwbuurt.nl/#buurten2014_aandeel_geboorten> accessed on 08/06/2016 De Nijl Architekten, Residential buildings Burghsluis Singel <http://www.denijl.nl/project/woongebouwen-burghsluissingel/> accessed on 06/06/2016. Groenendijk, P, Vollaard, P. NL Architecture Guide. <www.architectureguide.nl> Accessed on 05/03/2016. Netherlands Architecture Institute. <en.nai.nl> Accessed on 05/03/2016. Expatica. <www.expatica.com> Accessed on 07/03/2016. Susana Aparicio Lardiés & Juan Alonso (2010): Renovacion Urbana em Holanda. Segundo Caso: Pendrecht. <http://www.laciudadviva.org/blogs/?p=3972> Accessed on 06/06/201

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

10.

Appendix

10.1. Questionnaire

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

10.2. Overall results

OVERALL Q.1: Do you feel part of a community in your neighbourhood? (A) NonNo, not at all No, partially Neutral Yes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 3 12 44 16 6 2 3,123457 Q.2: Do you regularly talk to your neighbours? (A) No, not at all

SOCIAL COHESION

Nonvalid Average answers 11 28 21 16 2 3,395062 Q.3: Is there any associational activities with them? (A-B)

No, partially

Yes, and I'm part

Yes, but I'm not part

Neutral

Yes, partially Yes, very much

No, don't have 44

Nonvalid answers 7

Q.4: Do you feel comfortable to express your cultural traditions in your neighbourhood (religion, clothes...)? © NonNo, not at all No, partially Neutral Yes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 2 6 26 26 21 2 3,716049 Q.5: Do you think there is a high amount of unemployment in your neighbourhood? © No, not at all

No, partially

Neutral

NonYes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 29 9 3 3,275

Q.6: Do you feel safe in your neighbourhood? (A) No, not at all

No, partially

Neutral

NonYes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 19 16 3 3,3375

Q.7: Do you think that the quality of public spaces in your neighbourhood are good? (B) No, not at all

No, partially

Neutral

Yes, partially Yes, very much 24

Nonvalid Average answers 2 3,320988 33

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Q.8: Do you think that the public spaces in your neighbourhood is well maintained? (B) Nonvalid Average answers 5 14 30 20 10 4 3,202532 Q.9: Does the facilities in the neighbourhood meet your needs (shops, supermarkets, churchs, schools...)? (B) NonNo, not at all No, partially Neutral Yes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 1 4 9 35 31 3 4,1375 No, not at all

No, partially

Neutral

Yes, partially Yes, very much

Q.10: Do you think that your neighbourhood is a good place to live? (A B C ) No, not at all

No, partially

Neutral

NonYes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 23 19 4 3,632911

Q.11: If you could define your neighbourhood in one word which one would it be? (A)

DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION

Q.12: What is your marital status? Married

Unmarried

Others

Nonvalid answers 8

Q.13: How old are you? 0-18

19-30

31-60

61 or more

Nonvalid answers 2

Q.14: In which country were you born? Netherlands

Other countries

Nonvalid answers 6

Q.15: How many children do you have, if any? None

3 or more

Nonvalid answers 5

Q.16: Are your house rented or owned? If rented, is it social rented?

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Owned 29

Less than 1 year

URBAN RENEWAL

Nonvalid answers 30 22 2 Q.17: How long have you been living in this neighbourhood? NonMore than 9 1-3 years 4-9 years valid years answers 20 21 30 3 Non-social rented

Social rented

Q.18: Are you aware that na urban renewal has been taking place since 2006 in Pendrecht? (B) NonYes No valid answers 39 40 4 Q.19: If "yes"to question 18. Do you think that your opinion was taken into account in this urban renewal proccess? (B) NonNo, not at all No, partially Neutral Yes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 9 11 16 3 0 4 2,333333 Q.20: If "yes"to question 18. Do you think that the urban renewal changed the neighbourhood significantly? (B) NonNo, not at all No, partially Neutral Yes, partially Yes, very much valid Average answers 1 4 11 16 5 6 3,540541

ZONE 1

ZONE 2

ZONE 3

ZONE 4

Q.1: Do you feel part of a community in your neighbourhood? (A) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 3,533333 0,409877 3,074074 -0,04938

-0,12346

Q.2: Do you regularly talk to your neighbours? (A) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 3,8

0,404938 3,518519 0,123457 2,941176 -0,45389 3,318182 -0,07688 Q.4: Do you feel comfortable to express your cultural traditions in your neighbourhood (religion, clothes...)? ©

Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 4,25

0,533951 3,846154 0,130104 3,647059 -0,06899 3,227273 -0,48878 35

FINAL REPORT | Átila Rezende Fialho and Maren Lury Sonoda

Q.5: Do you think there is a high amount of unemployment in your neighbourhood? © Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 2,25

-1,025

3,68

0,405

3,411765 0,136765 3,454545 0,179545

Q.6: Do you feel safe in your neighbourhood? (A) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 3,8125

0,475

3,44

0,1025

3,470588 0,133088 2,772727 -0,56477

Q.7: Do you think that the quality of public spaces in your neighbourhood are good? (B) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 3,5 0,179012 3,346154 0,025166 3,352941 0,031954 3,136364 -0,18462 Q.8: Do you think that the public spaces in your neighbourhood is well maintained? (B) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 3,5

0,297468 3,291667 0,089135 2,882353 -0,32018 3,136364 -0,06617 Q.9: Does the facilities in the neighbourhood meet your needs (shops, supermarkets, churchs, schools...)? (B)

Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 4,4375

0,3

4,16

0,0225

3,882353 -0,25515 4,090909 -0,04659

Q.10: Do you think that your neighbourhood is a good place to live? (A B C ) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 4,1875 0,554589 3,68 0,047089 3,294118 -0,33879 3,428571 -0,20434 Q.19: If "yes"to question 18. Do you think that your opinion was taken into account in this urban renewal proccess? (B) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 2,333333 0 2,416667 0,083333 2,25 -0,08333 2,3 -0,03333 Q.20: If "yes"to question 18. Do you think that the urban renewal changed the neighbourhood significantly? (B) Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation 3,428571 -0,11197 3,666667 0,126126

3,625

0,084459

3,4

-0,14054