Social-physical renewal

In the Urban Renewal Memorandum (1997), the Dutch government fuelled the idea that the solution of neighbourhood problems lies principally in the attraction of affluent residents with higher incomes from outside the neighbourhood. This approach is not unique with respect to the Netherlands. The governments of several Western European countries have adopted housing policies that target mixed-income and mixed tenure areas with the aim of reducing, or preventing spatial segregation (Van Kempen & Priemus, 1999, Veldboer et al., 2002). However, the general conclusion of research is that physical improvements and an enforced social mix are unsustainable and do not solve such problems as unemployment, segregation, insecurity, crime, and school dropout (Hall, 1997; Parkinson, 1998; Musterd et al., 1999; Van Kempen & Priemus, 1999; Ostendorf et al., 2001; Crump, 2002; Skifter-Andersen, 2002, for example). Such a strategy can be described as a form of blaming the victim, with out-placing the victim as the consequence. The cause of a neighbourhood’s problems is assumed to lie with the current residents and relocating them is seen as a solution. However, since social problems (in contrast with many physical problems) are not tied to a particular place, physical measures can rarely form a definitive solution for large-scale social problems (cf. Fortuin & Foolen, 2001). Of course, physical measures applied to the housing stock are adequate in a poor housing market position, with low quality of the stock, and unoccupied housing (Helleman et al., 2001, for example). But many urban issues (criminality, social nuisance, tension between various lifestyles, unemployment) can and must be resolved via the social-economic infrastructure. In this essay we describe the implementation of this integrated approach in the Netherlands.

Integrated approach
Due to the above criticisms, current Dutch policy debates have adopted a less ambitious viewpoint. Urban renewal policy is being directed more at integrated (area-based) approaches and less at housing redifferentiation as such. The Dutch Housing Memorandum What People Want, Where People Live 2000-2010 (Nota Mensen, Wensen, Wonen) states: "Urban problems in general, and the problems of distressed neighbourhoods in particular cannot be resolved merely by stacking bricks on top of each other. Just as important are the measures needed in the socio-economic area. The types of measure that are a success in one neighbourhood will not necessarily work so well in another neighbourhood. There must, however, be a certain degree of underlying coherence. Without it, physical investments would be relatively useless and would merely lead to problems being shifted around. The integrated approach is therefore the most important principle of the urban renewal policy"(MVROM, 2000, p. 34). Strategies must therefore be sought which deal with the physical, social, and economic problems at the same time. In many countries in Europe, the pursuit of these strategies has been in hand since the 1990s (Parkinson, 1998; Krantz et al., 1999; Skifter Andersen & Leather, 1999; Hull, 2001; Skifter Andersen, 2002, for example). For example, Hull concludes (2001, pp. 304-305) with reference to the regeneration initiatives in the English City Challenge programme, that the value of single-objective projects, whether large or small, is reduced where no links are made between the physical and social objectives of a programme. But, despite the acknowledgement that a holistic and integrated approach is the most appropriate way to tackle multiple problems, its achievement has not come easily (2001, p. 308).

  

Implementation issues
So the Dutch government strongly advocates an integrated area-based approach, but in everyday practice, local authorities, housing associations and social actors face many implementation problems because of the differences between the various pillars’ objectives, substance, organization, and operating procedures (cf. Fortuin & Foolen, 2001).

First, the objectives and measures in one pillar may contrast, or even conflict with the objectives and measures in another pillar. For example, a strong physical approach may well lead to an extra burden on the environment and unwelcome damage to the existing social and cultural structures in a neighbourhood. Especially in the case of demolition, the living situation of the current residents will doubtless be thrown into confusion, while the objective of the social pillar is to improve their situation.

The second issue is the different substance of the pillars, especially with regard to the available budgets. It appears in practice that physical measures often dominate an integrated approach, dictating social and economic policies and enforcing their adaptation to the physical programme. This reluctance can be attributed to discussions held in the 1980s about the extent to which social change could be affected by government policies. During this period, social institutions were subjected to painful economy measures. They are still facing severe capacity shortages today.

A third implementation issue is the organization within each pillar. The ‘playing field’ in the social pillar is far more crowded that in the other two pillars. Parties such as welfare organizations, the police and the law, health centres, community workers, nursing and care homes, childcare centres, education, churches and mosques, the social services and sports clubs, all have their own particular part to play in this pillar. Marked specialization and fragmentation frequently hamper cooperation between these institutions. In contrast, the physical pillar is well ordered and involves fewer actors. The most important of these are local authorities, housing associations, and project developers. As a result, implementation and coordination in the physical pillar is relatively unproblematic, but extremely difficult in the social pillar. In addition to the difference in their number, the actors in the social sector are usually concerned with policy implementation, while those in the physical and economic pillar are involved in policy development, and thus, more used to mutual coordination (Gilsing et al., 2001).

Finally, the operating procedures within the pillars differ strongly. The social pillar has to do with socially, non-tangible problems which change rapidly and in unexpected directions. Because the solutions do not have a real finishing point (as with a new building) the results are hard to measure. The actors in this pillar are not usually used to longer term planning, or may be apprehensive about undertaking it. In contrast the physical pillar is more area-based, can easily be influenced, and is set up programmatically, from the tradition of housing construction planning. The result is tangible and measurable and so relatively straightforward. Consequently, the mutual coordination of the physical and social pillars is extremely difficult.

  

In practice
Taken together, these implementation issues comprise the major cause of the integrated approach failing to get going properly. There are no simple solutions to this problem. The social and economic sector will have to come up with their own initiatives and gain the confidence to work out their own agenda (more assertive). This would be possible whenever, for example, a social and/or economic neighbourhood analysis and neighbourhood vision is realized alongside a physical programme. Developments in the social sector, in the supply of and demand for care facilities for instance, could then turn out to be a prompt for physical changes. As Hortulanus (2001, p.18) states: ‘the social sector should not be restricted to reactions to physical-social issues and the guidance of interventions. The actors concerned should play a more prominent part; that is to say, they should have such an effective knowledge about the social living environment, that they can make their own contribution to the social profiling of urban districts and the appropriate social interventions.’ On the other hand a cultural turnover has to be made in the physical pillar. Policymakers should be obliged to look further than the boundaries of their own policy field. In practice, of prime importance is that people are aware of the various perspectives, and that they are all taken seriously. Wherever possible, good coordination is desirable, but the separate pillars must also be given the space to make their own mark with their own issues and measures. True integration, which creates added value through a well-coordinated combination of physical and social measures, is only possible when each sector recognizes the clear relationship between physical, social, and economic areas.

 

The Dutch government acknowledges the problem outlined above and has set up a knowledge development programme to safeguard and improve the integrated nature of the neighbourhood approach. The goal is to put the relation between the two pillars on the (political) agenda and to find solutions for the above-mentioned cooperation. This is realised with (expert-)meetings, excursions to classis examples and different publications:
- ‘Leidraad sociale wijkvisie' : a guide to write a (longer-term) social view of the neighbourhood when urban renewal will take place (in Dutch).
- ‘Voorbeeldwijken': descriptions of good examples in Rotterdam, Breda, Alkmaar, Dordrecht, Groningen and Maasstricht (in Dutch).
- ‘Sociale verbouwing' : a manual for the organisation of the social infrastructure (to make the social measurements more measurable) (in Dutch).  

KEI (and X-S2) support this programme by organizing (expert)meetings, working visits to social-physical renewal neighbourhoods and a website (www.kei-centrum.nl/sociaal-fysiek in Dutch) with publications and projects about this subject. 

References / notes for further reading

Beckhoven, E. van, S. Musterd, W. Ostendorf & , Siân Sankey (2005) Physical policies for social problems. Workshop 1: Restructuring large housing estates in Europe: Policies, practices and perspectives. Conference for researchers and policymakers 19-21 May 2005 in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Boonstra, B. Celebrating the individual: Intentions for Urban Development, TNO (Netherlands òrganization for Applied Scientific Research), Delft, july 2008

Crump, J. (2002) Deconcentration by Demolition: Public Housing, Poverty and Urban Policy, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20-5, pp. 581-596.

Fortuin, K. & Foolen, J. (2001) Fysiek en sociaal werken aan de wijk: appels en peren? (Working, physically and socially in the neighbourhood: apples and pears?), in: Hortulanus, R.P. & Macielse, J.E.M. (Eds) Op het snijvlak van de fysieke en sociale leefomgeving (On the crosscut of the physical and social living environment) (Den Haag, Elsevier).

Gilsing, R., Veldheer, V. & Vorthorten, M. (2001) De betekenis van de sociale pijler in het grotestedenbeleid (The meaning of the social pillar in the Major City Policy), in: Hortulanus, R.P. & Macielse, J.E.M. (Eds) Op het snijvlak van de fysieke en sociale leefomgeving (On the crosscut of the physical and social living environment) (Den Haag, Elsevier).

Hall, P. (1997) Regeneration Policies for Peripheral Housing Estates : Inward- and Outwardlooking Approaches, Urban Studies, 34-5+6, pp. 873–890.

Helleman, G., Kleinhans, R. & Ouwehand, A. (2001) Sloop en opbouw, herstructurering als sociale interventie (Demolition and Re-establishment, Restructuring as a Social Intervention) (Utrecht, Netherlands Institute of Care and Welfare).

Hortulanus, R.P. (2001) Leefomgeving en sociaal beleid (The Living Environment and Social Policy), in: Hortulanus, R.P. & Macielse, J.E.M. (Eds) Op het snijvlak van de fysieke en sociale leefomgeving (On the crosscut of the physical and social living environment) (Den Haag, Elsevier).

Hull, A. (2001) Neighbourhood Renewal: a Toolkit for Regeneration, GeoJournal, 51, pp. 301-310.

Hulsbergen, E. & P. Stouten (2001) Urban Renewal and Regeneration in the Netherlands. Integration Lost or Subordinate? City, 5-3, pp. 325-337.

Kempen, R. van & Priemus, H. (1999) Undivided Cities in the Netherlands: Present situation and Political Rhetoric , Housing Studies, 14-5, pp. 641-657.

Krantz, B†, E Öresjö and H Priemus (1999) Large Scale Housing Estates in North-West Europe: Problems, Interventions and Experiences (Delft, Delft University Press).

MVROM (2000) Mensen Wensen Wonen: wonen in de 21ste eeuw (What People Want, Where People Live – English Summary) (The Hague, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment).

Musterd, S., Priemus, H. & Van Kempen, R. (1999) Towards Undivided Cities: the Potential of Economic Revitalisation and Housing Redifferentiation , Housing Studies, 14-5, pp. 573–584.

Ostendorf, W., Musterd, S. & De Vos, S. (2001) Social Mix and the Neighbourhood Effect. Policy Ambitions and Empiral Evidence , Housing studies, 16-3, pp. 371-380.

Parkinson, M. (1998) Combating Social Exclusion: Lessons from Area-based Programmes in Europe (Bristol, The Policy Press).

Skifter Andersen, H. & P. Leather (Eds) (1999) Housing Renewal in Europe (Bristol, Policy Press).

Skifter Andersen, H. (2002) Can Deprived Housing Areas be Revitalised? Efforts against Segregation and Neighbourhood Decay in Denmark and Europe , Urban Studies, 39-4, pp. 767-790.

Uitermark, J. (2003) ‘Social Mixing’ and the Management of Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods: The Dutch Policy of Urban Restructuring Revisited , Urban Studies 40-3, pp. 531-549.

Veldboer, L., Kleinhans, R.J. & Duyvendak, J.W. (2002) The Diversified Neighbourhood in Western Europe and the United States: How do countries deal with the spatial distribution of economic and cultural differences? Journal of International Migration and Integration, 3-1, pp. 41-64.