The Other City: Exposing Tarwewijk

Page 1






Cohabitation Strategies

META-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH & OPERATION —Tarwewijk Cohabitation Strategies works on a theoretical framework and urban lineaments that would define the socio-spatial reconstruction of vulnerable neoliberalized neighborhoods. No longer approaching the process of urbanization as the result of narrow, market oriented and reformist master plans, but by inquiring towards a unitary understanding of the urban industry so to find possibilities for rupturing its processes with socio-spatial insertions.

THE OTHER CITY: EXPOSING TARWEWIJK “Urban restructuring through ‘creative destruction’, violently segregates, as nearly always has a class dimension since it is the poor, the underprivileged and those marginalized from political power that suffer first and

foremost from this process.” David Harvey, The Right to the City1. The Other City: Exposing Tarwewjik is a project developed by ‘Cohabitation Strategies’, a Rotterdam based cooperative for socio-spatial development that focuses on conditions of conflict and exclusion within the contemporary city. During this three day event, a series of public workshops, excursions and presentations were prepared with the goal of discussing possibilities to design alternative cohabitation models, stimulate difference in socio-spatial relations and construct parallel local economies in Tarwewijk, a vulnerable and segregated neighborhood in the south of Rotterdam included in this year’s list of the 40 most ‘problematic’ neighborhoods of the Netherlands2. This neighborhood is an exemplary urban case study that reflects the socio-spatial casualties of the Dutch neoliberal trend of urbanization. Invited contributors are: Alonso Ayala, Wim Blauw, Libia Castro, Aetzel Griffioen, Vinca Kruk, Ólafur Ólafsson, Thomas Purcell, Erik Swyngedouw and Daniel van der Velden. ‘Cohabitation Strategies’ members are: Lucia Babina, Emiliano Gandolfi, Gabriela Rendón and Miguel Robles-Durán. Project members are Guillermo Delgado, Phillip Lühl and Taufan ter Weel.

1 Harvey, D. 2008. The Right to the City. New Left Review. Nr. 53, New Left Review LTD, London.

2 VROM, 2009. ‘40 Probleem wijken’. Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment.


Our urban approach deals with research, design and development for an urbanization within an urbanization, whose main materialization would be an urbanization of spatial ruptures produced by the empowerment of localized socio-economic exchanges between the inhabitants of the neighborhood. Contrary to the traditional perspectives on governance and urbanism which keep on building on the singular tradition of purely form producers, or on the modernist tradition of utopian visionaries with conviction to design for a perfect city where no conflict exists, where humans are throttled, mollified, rendered miraculously convergent and where unity reigns without chance or contradiction; our cooperative’s primary task is to speculate on the design of a unitary urban framework that produces space in response to localized socio-economic exchanges that allows the citizen to embrace its difference and take control of its production and conflicts. We believe there is a need for further reserach, design and action that could speculate towards a parallel urban design framework that could create a positive rupture in the dominant neoliberal model. The working methodology for this project emerges from the critical and practical engagements, with institutions, society and all the individual behaviors that construct contemporary urban life, and to achieve this, we want to call for a radical expansion of knowledge and most importantly of action (fig 01). For achieving this we propose four parallel instances of research and action (fig 01): 1. Meta-disciplinary research. A construction of correlational disciplinary understandings on the condition of Tarwewijk, this to be able to confront stances and enforce a dialogue of ruptures in the traditional notion of the city. 2. Research through direct engagement. Establishment of three urban observatories / pilot projects with the aim of understanding the everyday condition and relation of the inhabitants of Tarwewijk. Our intention with these pilot projects is to directly engage with the community that constructs the city and perceive the possibilities for organization towards different ways of producing collective space. 3. Relational constructions. Informed by the other instances of the research and parallel to them, an analysis will be made on the relational collapse of the disciplin-

ary stances on the research topics into a common assemblage that could address Tarwewijk in a unitary and cohesive manner. 4. Design and cohabitation strategies. During the research process we will be tracing the implementation of possible design and cohabitation strategies that would aid in achieving a parallel form of urbanization, these could be in the form of socio-economic processes, policy or spatial design. We believe that urban practice must acquire the knowledge to engage in governmental processes, in the organization of the political-economy, in the system of rights, in social organization and the environment; In our view, urbanism is research and socio-spatial design through disciplinary mediation. We define our organizational approach as Meta-disciplinary because we believe in the autonomous capacity of each engaged urban discipline to draw both in and for itself, from real instances in the politics of the urban, as well as in their relational capacity to engage with the other disciplinary apparatuses in the common research, design and activation of difference in the contemporary urban milieu. Difference for us is the transformation that arises from the empowerment of the regular citizen, its relational adaptation to space and the conditions imposed by society. Production of spatial ‘difference’ is only achieved when all the strata of power – from marginalized citizens to the highest ranks of government – are choreographed in a dialectical struggle for transformation via structured participation, dialogue and mediation. In relation to this choreography, we diagramed our envisioned operative structure in fig. 3. This leaflet introduces some of the conclusions of the first phase of the researchaction project, and part of the second phase. In both cases, though scientific and empirical researach, Tarwewijk is exposed calling for setting the ground for an urban practice that is neither top or down, but that mediates the transformative realities that define our dreadful ecologies. As David Harvey denotes: “The future must be constructed, not in some fantastic utopian mold or in a historicist perspective, but through the raw materials given to us our present state. This raw materials must be assembled through spatio-temporal dynam-

ics, movements and processes”3. This is the production of space that the Tarwewijk project proposes. The neoliberal restructure that the world has gone through from the mid 1970s onward has driving multidimensional transformations in cities affecting spaces and people unevenly from neighborhoods to city-regions. Central to this is the deindustrialization of developed countries and post-industrialization in developing ones starting in 1970s, and therefore, the boom of the service and knowledge-creative industry in the north along the raising of cheap labor in the south in the following decades. Such economic shifts besides the massive migration from one hemisphere to another, have stimulated a radical change in urban dynamics and form in every place, scale and instance. Nonetheless, the reconfiguration of production, consumption, specialization, control and management of cities under a global economic system has been associated with a profit-based urbanization and has forgotten about people. Urban restructuring has been the materialization of the economic inequalities stimulated by the new economic order and its neoliberal strategies of spatial organization which along state policy biased approaches have worsened the social and spatial disparity of Western European cities in the last three decades. Urban politics have allowed the intensification of a dominant urbanization based in privatization, commodification, entrepreneurship, competitiveness and beautification. Endorsing the fact that cities, as Harvey24 addressed 30 years ago, are founded on the exploitation of the many by the few. Due to urban restructuring many lowincome inner city districts around Western Europe have emerged, reproduced and declined in the last decades. Having barely or no means of investment and attention, the physical, social and economic shifts of those areas have been uncontested stimulating a progressive urban decay; housing and public space degradation, urban and social exclusion, crime and unemployment. Nonetheless the intensification of impoverished living conditions, insecurity and economic decline have set currently as a priority in the agenda of federal policies addressing housing and urban development and renewal in western Europe. But how the latest politics managing socio-spatial exclusion in disadvantaged districts have been addressed and in which way they differ form former ones?

3 Harvey, D. 2008. The Right to the City. New Left

Review. Nr. 53, New Left Review LTD, London.  4 Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City. pp.314. Edward Arnold, London.


Cohabitation Strategies











D. CULTURAL POLITICS Meta-Disciplinary Approach & Methodology


RESEARCH A.01 A.02 A.03 A.04 A.05 A.06 A.07 A.08 A.09 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 A.14 A.15 A.16 A.17 A.18 A.19 A.20 A.21 A.22 A.23 A.24 A.25 A.26 A.27 A.28 A.29 A.30 A.31 A.32 A.33 A.34 A.35 A.36 A.37 A.38 A.39

National Development and Renewal Strategies Municipal Development Strategies Municipal Governance Networks District and Neighbourhood Governance Local Centralities and Connections Municipal Economic Perspectives Land Use and Function Distribution Core Economic Zones ( Wealth and Poverty) Water and Nature Mobility Municipal Budget for Housing Local Budget for Housing Building Funds, Subsidies and Fiscal Instruments Social/Private Rental Housing Home Ownership Housing Housing Developers, Corporations and Associations Building Regulation and Quality Control Housing Deficit and Allocation Urban and Neighbourhood Restructuring Public and Recreation Spaces Tenants Right, Obligations and Associations Real State Value Connectivity Community Organizations Urban Mobilizations (Present and Historical) Gentrification Processes Community Knowledge of Local Policy Collective Consumption Institutionalization of Community Organizations/Programs Decision Making and Peoples Power (Jurisdiction) Waste Management and Recycling Land Contamination Groundwater Depletion Water Management (Accumulation, treatment, distribution) Energy Management and Conservation Alternative Energy Natural Resources Recycling Culture Urban Agriculture Culture, Location and Distribution

B.01 B.02 B.03 B.04 B.05 B.06 B.07 B.08 B.09 B.10 B.11 B.12 B.13 B.14

Uneven Urban Development Spatial and Functional Distribution Spatial Correlations Infrastructure Networks Mobility Networks Spatial Demographics and Statistics Temporal Dynamics Technologies (Spatial, Building and Infrastructure) Building Clearance Land Speculation Vacancy Rates Fragmentations Urban Deprivation and Marginalization Streets

C.01 C.02 C.03 C.04 C.05 C.06 C.07 C.08 C.09

Housing Typologies and Contemporary Occupation Streets, Pedestrian Corridors and Public Space Abandoned Structures and Spatial Inefficiencies Urban rhythms Social Rites Aesthetic Values Social Processes and Relations Public Services Street Culture

D.01 D.02 D.03 D.04 D.05 D.06 D.07 D.08 D.09 D.10 D.11 D.12

Migration Gentrification, Displacement and Marginalization Forms of Social Relations and Class Stratification Spatial Occupation Social Cohesion Criminality Racial Segregation Gender/Age Social Reproduction Child Rearing Residential Differentiation Community Development

E.01 E.02 E.03 E.04 E.05 E.06 E.07 E.08 E.09 E.10 E.11

Labour History (Strugles, Organization, etc) Material Conditions and Local Capacities Productive Services/Activities and Labour Power Division of Labor and Specialization Structure of Labour Markets and the Circulation of Value Mobility Chances Means of Production Surplus Allocation and Circulation Taxation and Financial Instruments Commodity Distribution Credit Systems and Local/External Finances and Resources

D.01 D.02 D.03 D.04 D.05 D.06 D.07 D.08

Cultural Heritage and Everyday Habits Traditional Forms of Culture Social and Cultural Interaction / Discrimination Intellectual and Artistic Potentials New forms of Aggregations Youth Tribes Community Activities Techniques of Empowerment



Cohabitation Strategies Stakeholder Relations


Legal Instruments Social Programs/facilities Participatory Neighborhood Programs/Facilities Cultural Programs/Facilities


Sports and Leisure Programs/Facilities Economic and Labor Processes Modes of Production Redistributive Processes Against Poverty


Local Asset Distributions Urban Educational Programs/Facilities Spatial Occupation Strategies


Transport Infrastructure and Connectivity Environmental Solutions Urban and Housing Renewal Programs Sustainable Approaches


Public Services/Facilities


Cohabitation Strategies

META-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH —A. Urban Politics A.01 National Development and Renewal Strategies In the last twelve years, problematic neighborhoods like Tarwewijk have been strongly targeted by several national urban policies with the aim of socio-economic restructuring and urban sanitization. Starting in 1997 with the Major Cities Policy (Grote Steden Beleid) and New Urban Renewal Policy Document, followed in the year 2000 by a New Law for Urban Renewal (Wet Stedelijke Vernieuwing, WSV), which was implemented once again – as with the previous two policies – at the neighborhood scale, with the intend of ensuring market demands for housing in the long term, stimulating heterogeneous populations, reducing the social rental housing and increasing home owner occupied housing with middle and high income families. Later on, in 2002, a program called 56 wijkenaanpaak (56 priority neighborhoods) was set in action addressing neighborhoods in large and medium size cities in the Netherlands. This program was followed by the 40 Probleemwijken (40 problematic neighborhoods) program in 2007, where the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment established an agreement in regard to policy on housing, communities and integration for deprived neighborhoods for a ten-year period. In the 2009 version of the list, the neighborhood of Tarwewijk was selected ranking number 19 among the 40 districts, and belonging to the clustered problematic neighborhoods which according to statistics are the worst areas in the Netherlands. In such statement was set as an aim to work with residents, civil society organizations and institutions active locally to create the conditions required to revitalize ‘problematic neighborhoods’. In addition to long-term, intensive, cohesive and broad approach tackling significant problems as high unemployment and scarcity of jobs, homogeneous populations, housing running down, public spaces deterioration, drug nuisance, crime and antisocial behavior.5 Besides the significant amount of policy programs for social, economic and physical improvement in urban areas in distress, the Netherlands has experienced already 15 years with block grant systems which have been implemented in different ways through the several programs of urban renewal. The establishment in 1985 of an Stadsvernieuwingsfonds (Urban Renewal Fund) was a significant breakthrough in central and local government relations. In addition in recent years the decentralization of resources for Urban Renewal has increased with the establishment of the Investeringsbudget voor stedelike verniuewing, ISV (Investment Budget for Urban Regeneration), which combines even

5  MVROM 2007. Wonen op een Ritje, Den Haag.


more grant systems in one budget 6 with the formulation of long-term development programs. Such decentralization has not been only in regard to finances but also to political power. For instance, currently municipalities and local authorities are able to create decentralized urban regeneration and development programs and even local urban policy. A.02 Municipal Development and Renewal Strategies The Municipality of Rotterdam currently works with several programs for the development of the city; Haven Plan 2020 (Ruimtelijk Plan Regio Rotterdam 2020)7, Rotterdam Urban Vision Strategy for 2030 (Stadsvisie Rotterdam 2030)8, and Rotterdam Wijkactieplan (Neighbourhood Action Plan), as part of the national plan for 40 problematic neigboorhoods. Such plans have an influence over Tarwewijk, and are developed in close cooperation with municipalities, private and public institutiions, as well as with water boards when needed. At the same time there is a especial interest in community organizations and residents participation. The different programs converge in enhancing a balanced composition of the population and the stimulation of liveable neighborhoods, improving the housing stock when needded for their purposes. In the other hand the enforcement of a strong economy is central, as well as the development of the river banks. In the case of the South, according to the Stadsvisie 2030, the Rotterdam South Pact will enable the area to improve and develop by tackling socio-economic and physical problems in a comprehensive way. Districts in a weak position on the housing market will be transformed in attractive ones. The Oud Zuid area, including Tarwewijk, is particularly addresed tackling the existing housing stock. In the case of the Rotterdam Neighbourhood Action Plan, besides physical issues, many social and economical problems will be address, for instance, juvenil delicuency, drug related crime, unemployment and school droping. A.03 Municipal Governance Networks • dS+V (Dienst Stedenbouw en Volkshuisvesting) Responsible for Stadsvisie Rotterdam • OBR (Ontwikkelings Bedrijf Rotterdam, Rotterdam Development Corporation) • Mediator between public (municipality) and private partners

6 Korthlas Altes, W.K., 2002. Local Government and the Decentralization of Urban Regeneration Policies in The Netherlands, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, No. 8, p. 1439-1452   7  Ruimtelijk Plan Regio Rotterdam 2020. Online 8  Gemeente Rotterdam 2007, dS+V, Stadsvisie Rotterdam: Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030.

Municipal and District Governance

A.04 Neighbourhood Governance • WOM Tarwewijk WOM (Neighbourhood Development Agency) is a typical public-private partnership (PPS) which profits from public instruments and private possibilities. WOM Tarwewijk is a partnership between housing association De Nieuwe Unie (now part of Woonstad Rotterdam), private developer AM Grondbedrijf and the OBR Rotterdam Development Corporation, which is the development agency of the municipality. All three partners have an equal share of 33%.9 WOM Tarwewijk consists of WOM Tarwewijk BV – the fiscal entity which is responsible for the purchase and sale – and WOM Tarwewijk CV – the fiscal entity which governs the neighbourhood redevelopment strategies.10 WOM Tarwewijk is exempt from transfer tax when in involved in urban renewal projects.11 9 Erratum on “Beleidskader verzelfstandiging, aangaan en beheer deelnemingen in gemeenschappelijke regelingen, stichtingen en vennootschappen.”

10 BV (besloten vennootschap) is a fiscal entity

whereby there is not a private responsibility for possible losses and CV (Commanditatire Vennootschap) is the fiscal entity which is only responsible for the governance and is financially dependent on the BV.  11  VROM

Financing The total investment is around €80 million, €10 million is funded by the municipality12 and €4.6 million is funded by VROM via IPSV.13 Through these investments WOM, as most other public-private partnerships, is the only actor that is purchasing and selling estates and land. Therefore private and market-driven interests are implemented in planning strategies which used to belong to the public sector. •Pact op Zuid Pact op Zuid is an agreement between private and public partners (not a PPS) it directs flows of money to specific projects in the South of Rotterdam. The main aim is to prevent selective migration, in other words attracting and keeping the high- and middle income population in the area. Pact op Zuid partners are the municipality of Rotterdam, district Charlois and housing associations Woonstad Rotterdam, Vestia, Woonbron and Com. Wonen. Financing Investments: (raadsbrief 07BSD01019, 12 februari 2007, BSD) Corporations: €850 million (cofinianciering) 12 id=1897&item_type=project&item_id=174  13 IPSV (Innovatie Programma Stedelijke Vernieuwing) is part of ISV, fund for innovative neighbourhood restructuring projects.

ISV: €90 million (€30 million ISV2) Gemeente: €82,2 million IPSV (Innovatie Programma Stedelijke Vernieuwing) - 4,6 million to Tarwewijk (Dortselaan and Mijnkintbuurt) for 1500 housing units and social programs14. First phase 2002-2012. ISV3 – 10 million to Tarwewijk15 A.05 Local Centralities and Connections Zuidplein and the Erasmus line With the construction of the first metro line in Rotterdam - the Erasmus Line - completed in 1968, the municipal network between central areas and south of the city was established. The line connected Rotterdam Central Station with Zuidplein. The latter became the major transportation hub of the south part of the city. This large scale infrastructure is a superimposed structure which is not directly related to the existing urban fabric because it is either placed underneath or elevated above the existing fabric. The implementation of this structure may be understood as the introduction of a new type of urbanization based on a municipal network of fast connections between centralities. The combination of this transportation hub with a large scale commercial centrality 14  VROM 2009. Herover het vastgoed, herover de wijk p. 15. 15 Interview, Michel de la Vieter, 30-10-2009 .

(see shopping mall component Zuidplein) causes heavy traffic and congestion at the Pleinweg, which increases the segregation between the Tarwewijk and Carnisse. Furthermore the only proper pedestrian connection, a pedestrian bridge, is merely accessible through this private space. IC Station Stadionpark – network of Randstad centres. The restructuring and intensification of the South of Rotterdam – mainly of the attraction of middle- and high income population – is part of a strategy on national level to connect and strengthen specific “Randstad centres” in order to compete with other European cities16. Therefore it is an ambition of Rotterdam Municipality to a “Randstad Centre”17. This is the main driving force of the development of the Stadionpark and the upgrade the existing Intercity station, and make it more accessible in the Ranstad network18.

A.06 Municipal Economic Perspectives 16  Rijksplanologische Dienst, VROM, Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening (2001) p. 230  17  Gemeente Rotterdam 2007, dS+V, Stadsvisie Rotterdam: Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030. 18  Gemeente Rotterdam, dS+V, Stadsvisie Rotterdam: Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030 (Gemeente Rotterdam: Rotterdam, 2007) p.124.


Cohabitation Strategies

One of the main economic strategies of the municipality of Rotterdam is to strengthen its position as international harbor city. This means the scale will increase and therefore the harbor needs to shift to the west where new industry will be developed. This leads to the restructuring of former city harbors. The northern part of Rotterdam is a zone which focuses on knowledge and service based economies. The southern part is more based on logistic and industrial based economies and related the harbor (see diagram Land Use and Function distribution). The area which connects the before mentioned economic zones is the international business centre of Rotterdam. A. 07 Land Use and Function Distribution See diagram A.08 Core Economic Zones A.09 Water and Nature A.10 Mobility A.11 Municipal Budget for Housing The city of Rotterdam receives state funding for the restructuring of so-called problematic neighbourhoods (Vogelaarwijken) from the Fund for Urban Renewal Investments (ISV – Fonds Investering Stedelijke Vernieuwing) which it allocates through its Municipal Development Agency (OBR)19.OBR executes land exploitation, preparing land for new developments and selling it to developers and/or housing corporations (see 1.2.12 Land Ownership). Hereby the funding is channelled indirectly to developers or housing corporations in the form of land-cost subsidies for projects that are supposed to further the goals of the City Vision 2030. From these incomes it finances further land preparation and (public) projects that are stipulated by the municipal City Vision 2030.

Approach Klushuizen: One example of specific subsidies, directed at supporting the city vision found in Tarwewijk is the project of Klushuizen. This project intends to attract (potentially) higher income starters of the creative class to neighbourhoods that are eyed for gentrification. For this OBR will buy run-down and ideally clustered houses and renovate the casco as well as foundations if necessary. The externally renovated houses are then sold to eligible persons that are compelled to renovate the interior with an assigned architect according to their wishes within one year and successively have to reside there for a minimum of 2 years [Interview with Piet van Namen, Deelgemente Charlois, 30.10.09]. > 25 dwellings in Tarwewijk 2007 – 200920 > Ann Huizing, Municipality Rotterdam A.12 Local Budget for Housing The district (deelgemeente) receives the major share of its income (92%) from the Distrisct Fund (Deelgemeentenfonds) that in turn receives it from the Municipality 19 Dutch Housing Associations, Delft 2002, p. 8081.  20 Piet van Namen, Deelgemente Charlois in Interview 30.10.09.


Fund (Gemeentefonds) that is financed by central government. This means that the district, in this case Charlois, is financially more or less independent form local income sources. In line with the City Vision 2030 priority is given to housing high and middle-income groups in the sub-municipality to limit selective migration (the influx of low-income groups and exodus of high income groups). Of the 12 000 houses to be built in the period 2007-2010, 500 will be realized in the district of Charlois, on which € 1.6 mil or 4.6% of the yearly budget will be spent21. An example in Tarwewijk is the proposed development of high-end apartments including shopping facilities and roof-park on the Wevershoekterrein. A.13 Building Funds, Subsidies & Fiscal Instruments Object Subsidies General state subsidies for housing construction (object subsidies) have been phased out in the mid nineties in a long process of transforming housing associations into state authorized market-driven housing corporations. Now they are supposed to finance housing construction by their accumulated capital reserves and the sale of part of their housing stock (revolving fund) as well as Government guaranteed loans through the Bank Netherlands Municipalities (BNG). The Central Housing Fund and the Social Housing Guarantee Fund form the security for corporations that find themselves in financial difficulties. Subsidies are only given indirectly in the form of reductions of land costs through the municipality (see 1.2.1 City Budget for Housing). These subsidies as well as very rare, specific stimulus subsidies and subsidies for local authorities for urban regeneration are bundled in the Fund for Urban Renewal Investments (ISV – Fonds Investering Stedelijke Vernieuwing). 22(see Governance diagram A.03/04) Subject Subsidies: Rent Allowance Since the seventies so-called subject subsidies, subsidies directed at enabling individuals to afford good quality rental housing such as rent allowance (huurtoeslag, voormalig huursubsidie), were increased to a broad part of the population. This subsidy is applicable to all dwellings below the subsidy limit (huurlimiet) of € 631.73 per month and is calculated form the size of the dwelling and the income of the tenant. Everybody with Dutch Nationality or valid residence permit who is registered at the municipality may apply, provided a maximum disposable income of € 20 975.00 per year for individual households or € 28 475.00 per year for multiple person households.23 Fiscal Instruments In the Netherlands income from rent is taxfree up to a certain limit (€ 4065,- in 2008) and loss of income (from non-received rent) is deductible from income tax [Inter21 Programmabegroting 2009, Deelgemeente Charlois.

view with Piet van Namen, Deelgemeente Charlois, 30.10.09]. NOTE: research further •Vennotschapsbelasting •Overdrachtsbelasting •Hypotheekrentsaftrek •Onroerende Zaakbelasting A.14 Social and Private Rental Housing Social Rental Housing The social rental-housing sector in the Netherlands accounts for 36% of the total housing market. In Tarwewijk, with 5, 991housing units, the ratio is 30% (owned by Woonstad). 24 (see A.15 diagram) This is the main domain of the housing corporations, it is the so-called primary target group (aandachtsgroep) that has a disposable income lower than the limit stipulated for rent subsidy (see Subject Subsidy A.13). Allocation to the primary target group is further discussed in Housing Allocation A.18. Legal structure of housing corporations changed from mainly associations where members have more direct influence on policy to foundations without members. They are conceptualized as social entrepreneurs. Rent protection is one of the main objectives of the sector, which stipulates rent levels through a house rating system as well as maximum annual rent increases on a national scale and is applicable for corporation as well as private rental housing below the rent limit. To monitor these regulations a rent commission (huurcomissie) can be approached in case of arguments between landlord and tenant. Also landlords may not terminate a rent contract in order to increase rent. 25(also see Tenant Rights A.21)

Associations). Prices up to € 280 000 [Interview with Arnoud,

OvdB Tarwewijk]

> 120 dwellings Bas Jongeriusstraat > 270 dwellings Dordtselaan A.15 Home Ownership Home ownership is seen as a major obstacle in the process of urban regeneration because instead of talking to a handful of housing corporations, many hundreds of people need to be approached. On the other hand home ownership is stimulated through privatizing land ownership and the focus on private sector housing as well as aiming at increasing real-estate values.28 The private housing stock can only be controlled via the Housing Law (Woningwet) if the quality falls beneath the national standards. This is mostly aimed at landlords that rent out their property in ways that are not conform with the housing law. In Tarwewijk the 28% of the housing stock is private housing. Maatschappleijk Verantwoord Eigendom (socially responsible ownership) means that one buys a house in the range of € 60.000 to € 150.000 from a housing corporation but that the maintenance remains responsibility of the corporation for a fixed service cost. Also the corporation grants a buy-back guarantee for the first owner, so that he is at all times assured that he can 28  Gebiedsontwikkeling Tarwewijk 2020, Deelgemeente Charlois 2008

sell his apartment.29 A.16 Housing Developers, Corporations and Assosiations For large-scale urban regeneration a primarily private housing stock such as in Tarwewijk (ca. 70%) is problematic because thousands of owners are to be included in the process. Therefore the municipality introduced the adoption policy, where large housing corporations can adopt certain neighborhoods and form public-private partnerships in order to contribute to the urban regeneration. In this way they have a say in the making of neighborhood visions and long-term planning. Woonstad, formerly De Nieuwe Unie and Woningbedrijf Rotterdam own 42% of Vogelaarwijken in Rotterdam [Interview Miriam van Oosterhout, Woonstad, 30.10.09]. In reality this means that these publicprivate partnerships not only centralize the planning of the city but also the execution of these plans, which is even more regreattabel seeing the pure financial reasoning behind their developments (refer to A.22 Real Estate Value).

and real estate prices that are among the lowest of Rotterdam, there is a 20 % rate of housing vacancies. These rates are even higher, up to 30 %, in the newly renovated buildings, as Millinxbuurt.30 In contradiction to these data there are known cases of illegal occupation estimated to 25 - 30 % (non registered inhabitants overpopulating single apartments with up to 10 dwellers). These vacancies are partly to due to the bad reputation of the neighborhood and partly to the housing permit policy of the Municipality which wants to attract welgestelde gezinnen (middle class families).31 This policy of preference treatment of wanted target groups is thus negating the reality of the neighborhood as a place where immigrants first appear in their quest to establish themselves as part of society.

A.18 Housing Deficit and Allocation

Housing Allocation Aanbodmodel (Supply Model) In 2005 a new housing allocation system the so-called supply model (aanbodmodel) was introduced in Rotterdam. In this model, “details of vacant dwellings are published in a magazine or newspapers [and the internet] and eligible applicants can respond to specific notices, provided they meet the accessibility criteria, which are published alongside the advertisements”.32

Housing Deficit In Tarwewijk despite commercial rental rate

30 Concept Gebiedsvisie Taerwewijk 2020.

A.17 Housing Regulation and Quality Control

31  Ibid. 29  Woonstad Jaaroverzicht 2009.

32  Dutch Housing Associations, Delft 2002, p 50.

Sale of Rental Housing In order to finance new housing developments and to promote gentrification26 Private Rental Housing In Tarwewijk private rental housing takes the 27% of its housing stock.27 Private landlords have to adhere to the regulations regarding rent protection. (See A.21 Tenants Rights, Obligations and Associations) Maintain Or Sell (Aanschrijvingsmodel): A way to control illegal housing situations bad landlords that rent out their apartments to illegal amounts of people Housing Law Enforcement > 25 dwellings in Tarwewijk in 2009 Purchase – Renovation – Sale (AVV): This approach was taken in the restructured parts of Dordtselaan and Bas Jongeriusstraat by WOM Tarwewijk (see A.16 Housing Developers, Corporations and 24  Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek, Wonen, 2009 Buurt:Tarwewijk 25  Dutch Housing Associations, Delft 2002, p. 3545.

22 Dutch Housing Associations, Delft 2002, p 79

26  Stadsvisie Rotterdam, Municipality Rotterdam p. 37.

23  Folder Huurtoeslag 2009, Woonstad July 2009

27  Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek, Wonen, 2009 Buurt:Tarwewijk.

Social Rental Housing(Woonstad) Private Rental Housing Owner Occupied

Tarwewijk Housing


Cohabitation Strategies

It stipulates certain percentages housing corporations have to adhere to in the allocation of their dwellings (see pie chart: 40% without requirements, 25% direct mediation, max. 15% social criteria, max. 20% labelling).33Especially the 20% labelling of target groups (students, starters, elderly (55+), and large households of more than 5) becomes a tool for the zoning of certain lifestyles and groups following the promotion of gentrification in the city vision Rotterdam 2030.

Huisverstingsvergunning HVV (Housing Permit) In 2005 the Wet bijjziondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek (Special measures for urban problematic Act) was introduced on National level to facilitate dealing with so-called problem-neighbourhoods. The main aims of this law, initiated by Rotterdam an often referred to as Rotterdamwet are limiting the influx of marginalized groups while seducing the well-educated, high-income groups to stay as well as the increase of real estate values in specific areas. The law is heavily contested, as one of the classification criteria for problem-neighbourhoods is the percentage of foreigners living in the neighbourhood, violating article 1 of the Dutch constitution that prohibits discrimination based on race (LBR Rotterdam 2005).34 The law enables Municipalities to introduce housing permits in problem-neighbourhoods in order to control the housing situation. Housing permits are not applicable to people residing in Rotterdam for more than 6 years and to the free rent sector (above € 631.73 in 2009).35 By stipulating income from work (including welfare, subsidies and pensions) as the main criteria for issuing housing permits the weakest social groups are marginalized and housing allocation is instrumentalized to displace unwanted groups (see main diagram; map clash of reality vs. city vision & gentrification). A.19 Urban and Neighborhood Restructuring

Demolition – Reconstruction Urban renewal in the Netherlands has a long history of a very pragmatic, no-concessions approach of tabula rasa. Here, the housing law (the famous Woning Wet of 1901) is taken as the measure of the qual33  Overeenkomst Woonruimteverdeling Rotterdam 2006.  34 Zorgen ten aanzien van wetsvoorstel maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek, Landelijk Bureau ter bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie, Rotterdam 2005. 35  Folder Huisvestingsvergunning Gemeente Rotterdam.

36 City Vision 2030, Municipality Rotterdam 2007.

A.23 Connectivity A.24 Community Organizations The civil organizations in the neighborhood include religious temples (one Christian church, one evangelical, and one mosque), two park buildings that watch gated playgrounds, two wijkgebouw (in Dutch “neighborhood buildings”) that serve as community and recreation center, civil associations (OvdB and Buurtpost), and a sailor’s club in the same building as the mosque and artist’s studios. Each of these organizations have their own administrative structure, and regardless that in a way they sometimes are both funded by the deelgemeente (sub-municipality) Charlois, they do not carry joint cooperations.

purchase – renovation – sale (150 dwellings) Housing Law Enforcement on private owners Klushuizen (see A.11 Municipal Budget for Housing) Intensive management A.20 Public and Recreation Spaces The Deelgemeente pursues a policy of fencing off public parks on arguments of safety for playing children and unwanted use by hangjongeren (vagabond youth). The managing of the parks therefore becomes an issue of control, in the case of the newly constructed Millinxpark the management falls under the department of Sport and Recreation, in contrast to what was promised to inhabitants that they would have local control over the new park [Interview with Pembe Bayrak, BSW Rotterdam 23.11.09]. In the case of the planned Playground Moerkerkeplein management will be handed over to a Stichting that will be in control of right of admission [Interview with Piet van Namen, Deelgemeente Charlois, 30.10.09]. In this way public space annexed and controlled either by centralized and delocalized institutions or by privileged local institutions.

Tenants Rights In the case of demolition of social rental housing in Rotterdam, housing corporations are expected to issue a re-housing announcement (herhuisvestingverklaring) maximum of 18 months in advance and tenants have to actively search for alternative housing by means of application for a dwelling pass (woonpas). Tenants to be relocated have priority of allocation based on their urgency to find alternative housing, keeping in mind an average waiting time of 5 years for social housing. If not successful during the first nine months, the housing corporation will actively assist tenants in their search. In this process tenants have the right to refuse a “fitting” apartment (regarding dwelling type, max. number of rooms and max. rent) three times. [Interview with Antillean women at Buurtpost, Tarwewijk ]Tenants can apply for restitution of moving costs, as it is a forced re-location.

Urban Restructuring The City Vision also stipulates which areas are to be restructured within the policy of the Vogelaarwijken.

month investment in social housing becomes completely un-feasible. [calculation based on own rough estimates]

> number of dwellings Tarwewijk

A. 21 Tenants Rights, Obligations and Associations

Gentrification One of the major topics in the city vision is gentrification and how to promote this process, that is commonly defined as the replacement of local inhabitants with a higher income group, in and around the city centre of Rottedam.36


ity of life that a dwelling can accommodate. Dwellings that are not up to the latest standards are considered for reconstruction and dwellers are duly approached to find alternative housing. Privately owned dwellings that do not meet housing regulations anymore can be ordered to act on the situation by the Housing Control (Woningtoezicht). If they do not adhere the Maintain Or Sell policy (aanschrijvingmodel, see A.14 Private Rental Housing) will be applied.

Rent Protection Legal reasons for the termination of a rent contract by the landlord: refusal to pay the rent, nuisance (more specific),

A.25 Urban Mobilizations and Policy Contestations ( Present and Historical) A.26 Gentrification Processes

dwellings to be demolished or radically renovated, or the tenant does not live in the dwelling.37

Anti-squat (Anti-kraak) Anti-squat does not classify as rent and thus does not offer the regular protection for tenants. Squat-guards are supposed to see to it that vacant real estate is not vandalized and depreciated in the process. Therefore they are supposed to pay only for water, electricity, gas as well as administration costs. Anti-squat contracts stipulate a 2-weeks notice, the right of the anti-squat facility to enter the building at any time, no right to talk to the press or take juridical steps, notification if squatguard wants to go on vacation and that partners may not structurally sleep over.38

One of the major topics in the Stadsvisie (Urban Vision) Rotterdam 2030 is gentrification and how to promote this process, that is commonly defined as the replacement of local inhabitants with a higher income group, in and around the city centre of Rotterdam. The aim is to create enough economic demand by inhabitants to support shops and municipal facilities and make the city more attractive for developers, inhabitants and enterprises.39 For this purpose many different means are pursued: policy of koop je huurhuis (buy your rental dwelling) as well as Klushuizen (see A.11 Municipal Budget for Housing) and a change in land allocation policy in 2002 that stipulates that land has to be given out in private property rather than leasehold (see A.15 Home Ownweship). A.27 Community Knowledge of Local Policy

A.22 Real Estate Value

A.28 Collective Consumption

Housing Corporations usually finance their investments within a 50-year timeframe. By law they have to handle a financial calculation that puts the value of an apartment at zero after 50 years. During the first 30 years the investment is written off and the remaining 20 a profit is made. At that point a decision is made if the apartments are to be renovated or demolished for reconstruction. [interview Miriam van Oosterhout, Woonstad 30.10.09] The real market value after 50 years however is about € 70 000. With building costs of € 700/m3 a new apartment of 120m2 (considered the standard for a family) costs 210 000 to build, plus the 70 000 plus demolition costs, bringing it to a total of 280 000. With an amortization rate of 2% (€ 5600) and 5% interest (€ 14 000) this sums up to costs on investment of € 19 600 per year or € 1 633 per month. Seen purely financially, with the social rent limit (huurlimiet) being at € 631.73 per

A.29 Institutionalization of Community Organizations and Programs In the neighborhood there are several social workers/centers as well as Victory Outreach Church that provide help to inhabitants. Kees Koot, Pembe Bayrak and Piotr Zielewski are examples of social workers that due to their own initiative and abilities to detect and follow up situations where people are in need of help, be it reading Dutch letters, personal problems, getting subsidies for local activities, organize gatherings and social programs for specific groups of people, and help to solve illegal housing conditions. They are all directly or indirectly paid by the Deelgemeente. Victory Outreach Church is founded by Jerry, a self confessed ex-drug addict that found a way out of addiction and now, with the help of his wife and many enthusiastic followers helps others through the church, mainly drug addicts with a guided housing

37 Dutch Housing Associations, Delft 2002, p 73  38  NRC Friday 6 November 2009. Een Avontuur, maar Wildwestregels.

39  Stadsvisie Rotterdam 2030, Gemente Rotterdam p 32.

Community Organizations

program for about 50 people, but also single mothers and the like. On grounds of secularization the church experiences a lot of resistance from the Municipality when it asks support for new initiatives such as a centre for kids of the neighborhood. [Interviev Jerry, Victory Outreach Church] There is another centre for drug addicts where they can use drugs in a secure and healthy environment with medical care. The inhabitants association OvdB helps inhabitants by providing a help-desk like service that inhabitants can approach with questions related to welfare, rent, integration, subsidies etc. A.30 Decision Making and Peoples Power (Jurisdiction) Often participation means that the Municipality and dS+V together with housing corporations and developers make plans for new developments and once finished these are presented to the public in participatory meetings to measure support for projects. If there is no support by inhabitants these instances argue that things have been carefully planned and thought through and that they will therefore proceed with the project [Interview Michel de la Vieter, Gebiedsmanager Tarwewijk, dS+V Rotterdam, 31.10.09].

A.31 Waste Managment and Recycling A.32 Land Contamination A.33 Groundwater Deplition A.34 Water Managment (Accumulation, Treatment and Distribution) A.35 Energie Managment and Conservation A.36 Alternative Energy A.37 Natural Resources A.38 Recycling Culture A.39 Urban Agriculture Culture, Location and Distribution A.40 Housing Usage, Occupation, and Longevity The largest amount of housing available for sale or rent is located along the Pleinweg, Mijnsherelaan, and Dordtselaan in renovated or reconstructed blocks that are handled by several makelaars (see 2.6 and 2.7). The oldest inhabitants found precisely in these areas, since in the rest of the neighborhood the majority of the housing has been renovated or reconstructed and, therefore, its former population displaced.


Cohabitation Strategies

META-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH —B. Urban Morphologies B.01 Uneven Urban Development B.02 Spatial and Functional Distribution B.03 Spatial Correlations [After meeting on the 3rd of November 2009 at the Buurtpost with Antillian women] Immigrant populations from the Antilles that were former inhabitants of the Tarwewijk were displaced to areas such as Barendrecht, Hoogvliet, and Capelle an der IJssel. They now meet regularly at the Buurtpost in the Millinxbuurt, relating in this way distant areas such as the ones in which they now live today.

Vacancy Rates

B.04 Infraestructural Networks B.05 Mobility Networks During the years before the war, already “came an end to the period in which workers preferred to live as close as possible to their place of employment. This was a consequence of shorter working days and the availability of better means of transport” 1 The addition of the metro line in the 1960s and the construction of the Zuidplein in 1965, increased the flow of cars along the Pleinweg, Dordtselaan, and Mijnsherelaan, turning them from main points of encounter into segregating elements between the Tarwewijk and neighboring areas such as Carnisse and Hillesluis. Accumulation of commercial activities in the center of Rotterdam (Lijnbaan) and the Zuidplein, were made possible by the construction of efficient means of transport to access them.

Building Clearence

B.06 Spatial Demographics and Statistics

to be inquired for the development of this topic.

B.07 Temporal Dynamics

B.09 Building Clearance See diagram

B.08 Technologies ( Spatial, Building and Infraestructure) [After a meeting with Michele Oosterhuis, at Woonstad Rotterdam, on November 2009] The “50-year theory” by which housing corporations operate (Woonstad, being a public-private partnership) starts from the fact that after fifty years, any property has to go through either a renovation or a reconstruction. The housing corporation evaluates which one is more economically viable, and proceeds: in case of renovation, maintenance operators are contacted (the VAHO Groep has been detected to operate as maintenance company in the area of the Tarwewijk), and in case of reconstruction an architectural firm as well as a construction companies are commissioned to carry on the project. These companies that housing corporations contact when either renovation or reconstructing are the ones 1 Mens, N 2007. W.G. Witteveen en Rotterdam. Uitgeverij 010, Rotterdam.


Housing Typologies

B.10 Land Speculation See diagram B.11 Vacancy Rates The makelaars (in Dutch “real estate agents”) are private organizations that serve as mediators between the renter and the landlords. Their fee ranges between one to two months of rent (paid by the renters), and are in charge of contracts and marketing of the property. They are grouped in “Makelaars associations”, that are mainly three: LMV (RE/MAX, Marq), NVM (Atta, Ooms, Kolpa), and VRO (Adwil, Zuidstad). This last one is the one that is most active in the areas where availability is higher, such as Mijnkintbuurt, Millinxbuurt, and properties along the Pleinweg, Mijnsherelaan, and Dordtselaan. Property values range from 55-150,000 euro in the Millinxbuurt and XX-XX,000 in the Mijnkintbuurt. An average of Xx euro/ m2 is considered for the area. Access to

this properties are granted by the makelaars after proof of stable full-time job, while immigrant population relies mostly on part-time sporadic employment. B.12 Fragmentations B.13 Urban Deprivation and Marginalization B.14 Streets [After meeting with Arnold Gielen at the OvdB Tarwewijk, on November 3rd, 2009] When the Dordtselaan, Mijnsherelaan, and Pleinweg were completed as 50-meter-long boulevards during the 1940-50s, the number of cars as well as frequent local economies at the ground floor of most blocks, produced a street-life that was prone to a higher density of encounters.

Spatial Inneficiencies


Cohabitation Strategies

META-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH —C. Typology and the Everyday C.01 Housing Typologies and Contemporary Occupation This part would require a comparison between original plans (van der Broek’s “Algemeen belang”, van Tijen “Zuidpleinflat”) and renovation of these project by WOM (“lifestyle” adaptation of interiors: vintage, modern, urban, and nature). C.02 Streets, Corridors, and Public Space C.03 Abandoned Structures The abandoned structures that were found were already part of a reconstruction or renovation project (see B.10 Land Speculation map). C.04 Spatial Inneficiencies The park structure is mostly dedicated to children crossing between schools (Campus project) and dog-looting areas. Unused or surplus of open space is marked in the spatial inefficiencies C.05 Urban Rhytms See diagram. C.06 Social Rites C.07 Aesthetic Values C.08 Social Processes and Relations C.09 Public Services C.10 Street Culture

Urban Rhytms



Cohabitation Strategies D.04 Spatial Occupation

META-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH —D. Society and Class Structure

D.05 Social Cohesion The most evident cases of social cohesion emerge within groups coming from same countries. Webs of mutual help create communities out of necessities, also instigated by the lack of social services in the proximity. Some social group are clearly identifiable, as the Turkish community in the Millinxbuurt, Dutch working-class inhabitants in the Tarwebuurt and Eastern European workers that in the recent years are substituting the Antilleans in the Mijnkintbuurt.

D.01 Migration The condition of the Tarwewijk from the 20th century on is that of a “reception area” for newcomers for either the city or the country. The first inhabitants of the area, before the 19th century, consisted on a rural population that subdivided the territory on parcels on different polders. With the construction of the Maashaven in 1898-1905, large-scale grain industry was established and with it came a residential area called the Tarwebuurt (in Dutch, “wheat neighbourhood”) built in 1914 in a piece of polder from the recently acknowledged sub-municipality of Charlois. The arrival of large industries caused the disappearance of small scale economies in the area: windmills used for milling grain and producing paper, ice-cream, vegetables, cigar, fish, coal, and chocolate shops, all were sold in different stores and produced by a different farm. Gentrification by demolition started in the 1930s, when rural houses were torn down along the Katendrechtse Lagedijk to give way to new housing and urban infrastructure, such as tram and the construction of the Maastunnel. During these times, a gradual migration to urban areas from the provincial regions of Brabant, Drenthe, and Zeeland, arrived to the area and established there until the second half of the 20th century. After the war, the Netherlands welcomed an inflow of migrants from Turkey and the former colonies (such as Indonesia and the Antilles) to cope with the work of reconstruction of the city and the growth of the port of Rotterdam into the largest in the world. This area was housed in southern areas, and neighbourhoods such as the Tarwewijk. It was not until the 1980s when a second significant gentrification by demolition occured in the Tarwebuurt, displacing its current population and bringing a new one that could afford the newly built houses. Later on, with the creation of the European Union, an second inflow of foreigners arrived specifically from the newly-added countries such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Rumania. 02: Gentrification, Displacement and Marginalization The diagram showing first the movement of the people from the Netherlands to foreign territories that would later become their colonies. A century later, the flow would invert despite a constant expulsion from the city center of incoming foreign populations. Hypothesis: as soon as the borders of the country were crossed, another kind of division had to be established to preserve the class structure favoring the priviledged.


D.09 Social Reproduction D.10 Child Rearing In 2008 a program called Kindvriendelijke Tarwewijk (Child friendly Tarwewijk) was initiated to promote child friendly use of public spaces. In particular a program called Campus should be bringing together a series of public spaces and parks in the

neighborhood in order to have a safe environment for children. D.11 Residencial Differenciation D.12 Community Development

Migration Rotterdam

D.06 Criminality Over the last thirty years Tarwewijk has been undergoing a process of degeneration of social cohesion and decrease of the perception of safety. Parallel to this process, an institutionalized control has been established through Police and local patrols - Stadsmarinier (City Marines). In the Nineties drug dealing and production was reported in the Mijnkintbuurt. This was the cause of a extensive eviction. Tarwewijk is extensively covered with surveillance cameras, especially in the Mijnkintbuurt. In 2007 a special device called ‘Mosquito Sound System’ was installed in the area around the Zuidplein mall as an anti-gathering device that is aggressively disturbing the hearing of youngsters through emission of ultrasound. In 2002, following a national law, the Municipality of Rotterdam subscribed the Preventief Fouilleren (Preventive Body-search law), as part of Zero Tolerance policy of the government. This law allows the Police forces to body search suspects without the necessity of a search warrant.

Migration Neighbourhood

D.03 Forms of Social Relations and Class Stratification Historically Tarwewijk is a working class neighborhood. It was developed originally to house the wave of immigration from Zeeland and Brabant in the Twenties, that was attracted by new job opportunities in the neighboring harbor. Following the growth of the harbor of Rotterdam, many of these inhabitants followed the opportunity to move gradually up the class system, till the mid Sixties when on account of the industrialization and mechanization of the Port the employment rate of workers of Tarwewijk in the harbor gradually diminished. In these years many harbor workers moved gradually to other districts as Hoogvliet and Spijkenisse. Sectors of these communities are still inhabiting in Tarwewijk, mostly in Tarwebuurt. In terms of social relations the Turkish community is the most intelligible. Turkish immigration in Tarwewijk goes back to the Seventies and it was mostly single men recruited officially by the Dutch government. During the Eighties and Nineties many families were reconciled and the most wealthy inhabitants started buying dwellings in Millinxbuurt. In 1929 the Witteveen expansion plan for Rotterdam foresaw the construction of three boulevards in South - Dordtselaan, Mijnsherenlaan and Pleinweg - that would lead to what was planned to become Zuidplein. This avenues were specifically

D.07 Racial Segregation Total inhabitants 10.799 Natives Surinam Turkey Other not Western Other Western Dutch Antilles Morocco Cape Verde

27% 15% 14% 13% 9% 9% 8% 3%

Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statiestiek. Gemmente Rotterdam, January 1, 2008. D.08 Gender / Age

conceived to house the middle class. (see picture 0016 and Witteveen plan) These insertions were designed to avoid the unity of large areas of working class population in the south of Rotterdam. The boulevards where developed to attract middle class population to the south and concentrate this group along axes. The intention was to physically and socially fragment the working class neighbourhoods.

0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years

7,5% 6,3% 5,9% 6,6%

0-19 years


20-34 years 35-54 years 55-64 years 65-79 years 80 years or older

30,6% 28,5% 7,9% 5,6% 1,1%

Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statiestiek. Gemmente Rotterdam, January 1, 2008.


Cohabitation Strategies

META-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH —E. Economy and Labour E.01 Labour History (Strugles, Organization, etc) Historically the harbour activities provided the economic base for Tarwewijk that attracted rural-urban migration from the Dutch province and later increasingly from oversees; the Dutch (former) colonies and Turkey, Marocco. More recently migration from eastern Europe on the basis of the law for free movement within Europe is more related to sectors with seasonal or short-term employment opportunities in the agricultural sector, food production and meat processing as well as construction. [POLEN IN ROTTERDAM Gemeente Rotterdam, November 2008] E.02 Material Conditions and Local Capacities E.03 Productive Services/Activities and Labour Power Small-scale shops used to exist in Tarwewijk when it was still a reasonably independent neighborhood with employment related to harbor activities. After the construction of the Zuidplein shopping mall in 1972, economic activities and services were concentrated among the new center of consuption stimulating a decrease in the local economy of the neigbourhood. At the time the mall was built (1972) Rotterdam was being pushed to be transformed into a metropolis, and therefore the small-scale shops where found problematic for the new urban fabric. “The system of ‘having a shop in every corner’ had to be abandoned”.1 Another development is the increase in scale of harbor activities with the introduction of container shipping. This had two consequences: first of all the more central small harbors like Maashaven were abandoned in favor of the large, deep new harbors to the west since the 60’s and 70’s. Maashaven lost more and more its original function of exchange harbor where freight from oversees imports would be distributed in the European network, mainly to Germany. This process will be finalized when in 2020 all remaining harbor activities will be moved to Waalhaven [Stadsvisie Rotterdam]. In the remaining industrial strip along Maashaven large investment opportunities for housing developments along or in the water are foreseeable. The second development that comes with the increase in scale is the decrease of employment in the harbor related industry sector during the last E.04 Division of Labour and Specialization

1 Noor Mens, W.G. Witteveen en Rotterdam, 010 2007.


E.05 Structure of Labour Markets and the Circulation of Value E.06 Mobility Chances E.07 Means of Production E.08 Surplus Allocation and Circulation The 55 000m2 shopping mall Zuidplein receives 11million visitors per year, a staggering amount compared to Tarwewijks 10 900,- inhabitants. Apart from a few employment opportunities little of this enormous economic activity reaches the neighbourhood, while heavily depending on its infrastructure. E.09 Taxation and Financial Instruments E.10 Commodity Distribution E.11 Credit Systems and Local/External Finances and Resources


Cohabitation Strategies

META-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH —F. Cultural Politics F.01 Cultural Heritage and Everyday Habits F.02 Traditional Forms of Culture Tradition and cultural habits are very important means to preserve and refresh the social interrelation amongst members of a same cultural community, especially if those members have a different background from the hosting country. Tradition and cultural habits crystallize into rituals to be reiterated in order to preserve a specific identity, ceremonies that turn into neat gestures and attitudes that manifest clearly the belonging to a particular cultural group. In Tarwewijk there is a strong group of Antillian women, which since the late ‘90s meets once a week to celebrate their original culture and to endure habits of the country of origin, despite the distance and in some cases the fact that they actually never lived there. Their meetings become an important ritual for the whole Antillian community: the community in fact is formed around them. F.03 Social and Cultural Interaction/ Discrimination F.04 Intellectual and Artistic Potentials F.05 New Forms of Aggregations


At the beginning of 2000 redevelopment of the neighborhood has been implemented especially in order to get rid of the local micro criminality, which have spread since the ‘90s. An entire community has been relocated by disintegrating the social pattern. “Dangerous but cozy” is the oxymoron used to describe the neighborhood at that time by remaining inhabitants. Timid and spontaneous attempts of aggregation took place afterwards, new communities of Turkish people came into the neighborhood and invested in the area after being evicted from other suburbs of Rotterdam, such as Slinge. Other temporary communities are shaping up around the evangelic Victory Outreach church. Recently smaller communities are aggregating, usually on a temporary basis, of inhabitants from Eastern Europe. F.06 Youth Tribes F.07 Community Activities A successful program concerning activities with communities in the neighborhood was set up by Kees Koot, a social entrepreneur who started working in Tarwewijk in the ‘90s and founded the Buurtpost Tarwewijk. This social center has the aim to engage with local residents, in particular providing cultural program for youngsters, kids and women. Koot managed to create a social centre, which became a reference point for the inhabitants. He was especially successful in giving to youngsters opportunities that would offer them an alternative to the street life, such as the ABC Brassband that now is renowned allover the Netherlands.

F.08 Technique of Empowerment F.09 Forms of Social Engagement F.10 Activism Moving in Free Zones #2 Moving in Free Zones is an international workshop organized by iStrike Foundation. It had the ambition of involving architects, artists, inhabitants, politicians and civil servants to engage in a discussion from different disciplinary perspectives on the future development of Charlois, a working class neighborhood serving the harbor of Rotterdam. The second edition of a project, held in 2009, was aimed at researching and creating awareness on the urban redevelopment of Charlois, and used the production of a film - in collaboration with the filmmaker Jacopo Gandolfi and Urban Body TU Delft – as a tool to foster an appropriation process in the neighborhood. The film ZUID was a collaborative process that involved inhabitants to build up and re-enact intimate stories concerning the neighborhood, springing from their dreams, whishes and aspirations. The film built the opportunity for new encounters, to foster further discussions and for envisioning possible new ways of inhabiting Charlois.


Cohabitation Strategies



Cohabitation Strategies



Cohabitation Strategies


Wolphaertsbocht Wolphaertsbocht ++ Katendrechtse Katendrechtse Lagedijk Lagedijk

Campus Campus

Tarwebuurt ++ Industry Industry Tarwebuurt

Boulevards Boulevards

Production Gate Gate Production

Mijnkintbuurt Mijnkintbuurt

Zuidplein Zuidplein Millinxbuurt Millinxbuurt



Cohabitation Strategies


—Tarwebuurt and Industry

Early 20th Century Workers Housing Tarwebuurt is what remains of the earliest workers housing that was constructed in the polder outside the old town of Charlois, next to the new Maashaven harbour. The increasing harbour activity in Rotterdam spurred the influx of rural-urban migration from mainly Zeeland and Brabant in the 1920’s and later in the 1930’s from Groningen and Drenthe. Workers were accommodated in single-storey houses of around 40m2, with shared bathrooms. The newcomers, unwanted in the area of Charlois, were settled in a newly developed quarter in proximity to the factories were they would work. Industry along the Maashaven expanded with the building of the massive grain silo (from this derives Tarwebuurt, meaning ‘Wheat Neighbourhood’) and other large-scale industries that spatially cut off Tarwebuurt from the water and formed the main economic base of the area. In these factories trade schools trained the students selected from the primary schools in Tarwewijk. When in the 1980’s new housing quality standards had to be met, urban restructuring meant the demolition and reconstruction of parts of Tarwebuurt, provoking sporadic protests against the plans. However, policy at the time provided that inhabitants could return after being temporarily rehoused elsewhere, as long as they could afford the raised rent rates. This is reflected in the fact that typology and size did not change considerably in the new houses. Today Tarwebuurt is the only remaining neighbourhood in the area with majority social rent, mainly Dutch autochtone (autochthonous) inhabitants, and it’s a relatively socially coherent. According to Mirjam van Oosterhout, manager Zuid - Woonstad, until now Tarwebuurt is still the most ‘desirable’ area of Tarwewijk.



Cohabitation Strategies


—Katendrechtse Lagedijk-Wolphaertsbocht

Intensive Urban Renewal 1990’s: Demolition - Reconstruction Katendrechtse Lagedijk exemplifies the violent demolition - reconstruction approach that was long seen as the primary answer to urban renewal in the Netherlands. Violent because through a complete erasure and reconstruction (tabula rasa approach), it applies a merely physical statistic based understanding, neglecting the socio-political complexities of the neighbourhood. Early 20th century private housing (typology 1) was replaced by collective housing to dwell a raising population, also built by private developers (typology 2). A third wave of demolition-construction was developed in the Eighties and Nineties by large housing corporations targeting a higher social group, in a more individual typology and lower density (typology 3). These commercial developments are financially necessary for corporations to survive since national social housing subsidies were stopped in the 1990’s. These circumstances lead to a progressive homogenisation of the urban fabric, mainly designated to housing and insignificantly to other activities. The effect on an architectural scale lead to apartment blocks with storage spaces on the ground level facing the street, fenced-off internal parks, and car parking on the plot. Displacement as a result of the demolition of houses destroys whatever social fabric still exists and is instrumentalized by housing corporations to further the Stadsvisie gentrification agenda of the municipality, by re-housing low-income inhabitants largely in the outskirts of the city.



Cohabitation Strategies



Intensive Urban Renewal 2000’s: Renovation for Gentrification Millinxbuurt was most severely affected by neighbourhood decline during the 1990’s when better-off homeowners moved out of Tarwewijk and rented-out houses to lowincome work migrants. The influx of marginalized groups and their non-adequate accommodation and labour conditions furthered social and spatial decline to the point that official institutions such as banks would not provide mortgages anymore, deteriorating conditions further as blackmarket housing practices took over most of the neighbourhood. With predominantly private homeownership making intensive urban restructuring nearly impossible, a public-private renovation program, known as purchase renovation sale (Aankoop Verbouwing Verkoop AVV) was introduced, which aims at gentrifying the area, based on the Stadsvisie Rotterdam. This strategy includes the combination of units into bigger apartments and turn-key renovations, with theme-interiors such as Urban, Vintage, Nature and Modern as well as using housing allocation mechanisms that favour middle class families and students (the future middle-class). Extreme high vacancy rates (up to 30%) after renovation show that gentrification policy is completely disregarding the reality of the neighbourhood. Securitization did improve the safety index, however previous problems have surfaced in the nearby Mijnkintbuurt, validating the conclusion that this approach only relocates problems rather than solving them. The high rate of privately owned housing units in the area lead to land speculation and illegal housing occupancy. Publicprivate partnership was then applied to recuperate control on social order. Some areas are affected by a sort of tolerance to some illegal activities, as drug dealing and prostitution in the Mijnkintbuurt. Between the Eighties and the Nineties these activities were in located initially in the Perron nul, then Marconiplein, and at last, before moving to Mijnkintbuurt, in the Millinxbuurt.1 1 Aalbers M.B. 2006. When the Banks Withdraw, Slum Landlords Take Over, , Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 7, 1061–1086.



Cohabitation Strategies

FRAGMENTS —Zuidplein

The superimposition of centralities Zuidplein could be understood as the introduction of a new type of urbanization which is based on larger scale municipal networks and centralities, without a direct relation to the existing urban fabric. Zuidplein metro hub was implemented with the first metro line of Rotterdam in 1968. The line connected Rotterdam Central Station with Zuidplein, the city centre with the south of Rotterdam. In direct connection to the metro hub a large scale shopping mall was built (19621972). A concentration of commerce within a private enclosed structure was relatively new at that time and had a major influence on the economic activities in Tarwewijk. Shops and services which were located in Tarwewijk diminished and therewith social control on street level as well. This process triggered the replacement of social control by police control and institutionalized social organizations. The commercial centrality causes heavy traffic and congestion at the Pleinweg, which as an effect increases the segregation between Tarwewijk and Carnisse. Furthermore, the only proper pedestrian connection, a pedestrian bridge, is merely accessible through the private space of the mall. In 2007 a special device called ‘Mosquito Sound System’ was installed in the area around the Zuidplein mall as an anti-gathering device that is aggressively disturbing the hearing of youngsters through emission of ultrasound.



Cohabitation Strategies


Fragment Zuidplein could be understood as the introduction of a new type of urbanization which is based on larger scale municipal networks and centralities, without a direct relation to the existing urban fabric. Zuidplein metro hub was implemented with the first metro line of Rotterdam in 1968. The line connected Rotterdam Central Station with Zuidplein, the city centre with the south of Rotterdam. Parallel with the appearance of the metro hub a large scale shopping mall was built (1962-1972), in direct connection to this hub. A concentration of commerce within a private enclosed structure was relatively new at that time and had a major influence on the economic activities in the Tarwewijk. Shops and services which were located in the Tarwewijk diminished and therewith social control on street level as well. This process triggered the replacement of social control by police control and institutionalized social organizations. The commercial centrality causes heavy traffic and congestion at the Pleinweg, which increases the segregation between the Tarwewijk and Carnisse. Furthermore, the only proper pedestrian connection, a pedestrian bridge, is merely accessible through the private space of the mall.



Cohabitation Strategies


Fragment Zuidplein could be understood as the introduction of a new type of urbanization which is based on larger scale municipal networks and centralities, without a direct relation to the existing urban fabric. Zuidplein metro hub was implemented with the first metro line of Rotterdam in 1968. The line connected Rotterdam Central Station with Zuidplein, the city centre with the south of Rotterdam. Parallel with the appearance of the metro hub a large scale shopping mall was built (1962-1972), in direct connection to this hub. A concentration of commerce within a private enclosed structure was relatively new at that time and had a major influence on the economic activities in the Tarwewijk. Shops and services which were located in the Tarwewijk diminished and therewith social control on street level as well. This process triggered the replacement of social control by police control and institutionalized social organizations. The commercial centrality causes heavy traffic and congestion at the Pleinweg, which increases the segregation between the Tarwewijk and Carnisse. Furthermore, the only proper pedestrian connection, a pedestrian bridge, is merely accessible through the private space of the mall.



Cohabitation Strategies


Fragment Zuidplein could be understood as the introduction of a new type of urbanization which is based on larger scale municipal networks and centralities, without a direct relation to the existing urban fabric. Zuidplein metro hub was implemented with the first metro line of Rotterdam in 1968. The line connected Rotterdam Central Station with Zuidplein, the city centre with the south of Rotterdam. Parallel with the appearance of the metro hub a large scale shopping mall was built (1962-1972), in direct connection to this hub. A concentration of commerce within a private enclosed structure was relatively new at that time and had a major influence on the economic activities in the Tarwewijk. Shops and services which were located in the Tarwewijk diminished and therewith social control on street level as well. This process triggered the replacement of social control by police control and institutionalized social organizations. The commercial centrality causes heavy traffic and congestion at the Pleinweg, which increases the segregation between the Tarwewijk and Carnisse. Furthermore, the only proper pedestrian connection, a pedestrian bridge, is merely accessible through the private space of the mall.



Cohabitation Strategies

CONCLUSION IMPRINT Produced by Cohabitation Strategies: Lucia Babina Emiliano Gandolfi Gabriela Rendón Miguel Robles-Durán Thomas Purcell Team: Guillermo Delgado Philip Lühl Taufan teer Weel In collaboration with: Eric Dullaert -Cultureel Denkwerk Special thanks to: Annie Club Dames Birasol, Tinus de Does, Robbert De Vrieze, Eric Dullaert, Jacopo Mario Gandolfi, Arnold Gielen, and Mark Heijne, Moussa, Jerry Mendesszoon, Kees Koot, Selma Quirindongo, Paul van de Laan, and Harry Wols. Photographs: Tinus de Does

With the kind support of the Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam, Woonstad, Deelgemeente Charlois, dS+V and Intitute of Housing and Urban Developement.



Cohabitation Strategies