Squatting Amsterdam

Primarily, the primary requirement for homeless individuals is to obtain a place to call their own. Conversely, home seekers consist of individuals such as young adults, residents dwelling in inadequate housing, expanding families, separated couples, those who require space to work remotely, and migrants who have recently arrived (Bouillon, 2009; Leal, 2010). Individuals who desire to live in communities or collaborative housing ventures may also express their need for housing in the form of a request.

Squatters utilize their power and skills to satisfy their own requirements while also supporting the efforts of those who are marginalized by the current housing system. A political objective of all types of squatters, including those who self-provide their housing and those who operate occupied social centers, is to demonstrate solidarity with homeless, poorly-housed, economically disadvantaged, and young individuals who cannot afford a suitable and well-equipped home. They often disregard political representation in favor of self-sufficiency, direct democracy, and self-advocacy. Which individuals are given priority to receive housing? What guidelines are employed to ensure that access to an occupied location is both equitable and fair? How can we eliminate obstacles encountered by specific social groups due to their gender, class, ethnicity, or physical limitations (Nussbaum, 2003)?

These squatters engage in self-help and assist others in locating accommodation, using squatting as a method to protest against housing shortages, vacancy, speculation, and housing policies. Numerous independent groups hold discussions, establish norms, and make their own decisions regarding where to squat based on the location, type of building, and their knowledge of the owner. They also recruit members and support other potential squatters based on trust, political alignment, needs, opportunities, abilities, knowledge, and other factors.Typically, squatters do not assert their right to a legal title as private owners (although this may sometimes occur). Rather, they assert their right to manage the building and its inhabitants according to their own collectively agreed-upon regulations (Martínez, 2002: 189–92). This might be referred to as the right to partial private possession, as opposed to private property.

The privatization of communal goods, land, natural resources (such as minerals, oil, water, and fisheries), public services (such as health, education, transport, and planning), software, and knowledge has created new types of scarcity.

Squatting has played a significant role in Amsterdam’s political landscape over the past few decades, shaping debates and policies around issues of housing, urban planning, and social justice.

Amsterdam has a long history of squatting, with the practice becoming widespread in the 1970s and 1980s as the city faced a shortage of affordable housing and rising rents. Squatting became a form of direct action against the dominant economic and political systems that were failing to provide adequate housing for all.

Squatting in Amsterdam has had a significant impact on local politics, both in terms of direct action and broader policy debates. Squatters and their supporters have organized numerous protests and demonstrations to highlight the issue of housing inequality, and have successfully pressured policymakers to take action on the issue.

One of the most significant outcomes of squatting in Amsterdam has been the creation of a legal framework for squatting. In the 1990s, Amsterdam became one of the few cities in Europe to legalize squatting, allowing people to legally occupy vacant buildings for as long as they were not being used. This policy helped to regulate the practice of squatting, and also ensured that vacant buildings were being put to use rather than left empty.

Source: Rene Boer, Architecture of Appropriation

Poortgebouw is a former office building located in Rotterdam, the second-largest city in the Netherlands. The building was constructed in the 1980s and was initially utilized as an office space for a shipping company. However, the building was left vacant after the shipping company moved out, and it soon became a target for squatters.

In 1980, a group of squatters, many of whom were artists, musicians, and activists, occupied the building and began to transform it into a communal living and working space. The squatters organized themselves into a collective, and they set up a system for managing the building, including cleaning, maintenance, and security.

Over time, the Poortgebouw became a hub for alternative culture in Rotterdam, hosting concerts, art exhibitions, and other cultural events. The building was also home to a number of small businesses, including a bakery, a silk-screen printing shop, and a bicycle repair workshop. The Poortgebouw was not officially recognized by the government as a legal squat, but the squatters managed to stay in the building for more than 20 years. In 2001, the squatters were finally evicted by the police, and the building was sold to a private developer Today, the Poortgebouw is still remembered as a unique and vibrant space that embodied the spirit of resistance and creativity that defined Rotterdam’s alternative scene in the 1980s and 1990s..

Source: Rene Boer, Architecture of Appropriation

Source: Rene Boer, Architecture of Appropriation

Source: Rene Boer, Architecture of Appropriation