Public Housing

From Amsterdam Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Abstract

In a broad sense our research has been to develop an understanding of the social housing system in Amsterdam. We were concerned with finding out who social housing served, how it manifested itself within the urban fabric of the city, as well as what the implications of policy decisions might be for the people who live within it. To narrow down the scope of our study we developed the fallowing question: "using Indische Buurt as a case study; what can be learned about the larger patterns of development and housing policy through examination of the built environment?”. In essence we have used a qualitative case-study approach to investigate the implications of policy and history of development as seen through the urban fabric of the Indische Buurt. More specifically we have focused on the past ten years of housing policy that has pushed a formerly a socialist system geared towards providing affordable housing to all into a more privatized market. We have used a rigorous methodology based in primary observation, and have found that the Indische Buurt is currently in a highly transitional period. Formerly a poorer immigrant neighborhood it is now being renovated and rebuilt to attract and accommodate a new creative class of individuals.

Background

Our preliminary research indicated that, within the Netherlands, development and management of Dutch housing by Housing Associations began in 1851 with the Vereeniging ten behoove van de arbeidersklasse (Association for the working class) forming as the first association with the sole goal of providing housing [1] From the beginning, “most of these associations could be characterized by their half-speculative, half philanthropic character.” [1] In 1901 the social housing sector had become a dominant part of the housing market with a governmental Housing Act that formalized the right to housing. With this right to housing, The Netherlands developed a robust and complex housing system designed to serve not only low-income families, through direct rental subsidies, but also higher-income citizens, through the provision of social housing units and rent control policies.[2]In Housing in The Netherlands 1900-1940, Donald Grinberg explains that, “Following the First World War, the Dutch were in a unique position to build, but they were only able to exploit the situation because of the important changes that had taken place through the Housing Act of 1901 and the housing built under its aegis prior to World War I.”[3]


This unique set of circumstances led to a social housing system in which housing associations developed and maintained housing in conjunction with the government. By 2001 social housing constituted 75% of the total rental housing stock and 36% of all housing stock. [4] The majority of these units, 49% as of 2002, were built between 1946 and 1974; 33% were built between 1975 and 1991, 9% after 1992 and 9% was pre-1945 construction. [4] Most recently, mergers of various Housing Authorities has created a wave of consolidation and the government is no longer providing housing development subsidies to these groups. While still operating in the public interest, they have developed into robust, financially independent businesses which must now maintain sufficient financial health to cover unprofitable investments with their own capital. [4] This has given them incentive gentrify and to start selling off their social housing units to private business or owners, or to convert them to higher cost apartments, targeted to the economic middle class. This push toward developing higher income apartments is enhanced by both a push to bring in a more affluent creative class of people, as well as to develop traditionally lower income areas into more profitable and attractive neighborhoods which will meet the needs of, and be attractive to this creative class.[5]


Immediately intrigued by what we saw as the development of a more private market housing system for one that was traditionaly rooted in socialist philosophy we were drawn to investigate how this shift in policy was developing on a neighborhood level. Based on our first explorations of neighborhoods in Amsterdam we found that the Indishe Buurt neighborhood exemplified these changes, being a neighborhood located in an outlying area which was primarily made up of social housing but appeared to now be undergoing major construction and renovation. Located in the district of Zeeburg, it was built in the early 20th century due to a large population increase in Amsterdam and economic boom that happened after the construction of the North Sea Canal in 1876 and the commissioning of the Merwedekanaal in 1892. It is the oldest neighborhood in the district, and was originally a shipping and residential neighborhood due to its location around the eastern port of Amsterdam. The social housing buit at its inception was created to house the workers at the dock ensuring that they were located close to their place of work. Once the port was moved in the 1960’s it became a purely residential area. [6] In the 1960's the neighborhood underwent a major shift. Because it contained such a large amount of social housing stock that were below market rate, the available housing attracted a large amount of immigrant workers.[7] As of now the Indische Buurt exists as a highly divere-multiethnic neighborhood that is undergoing another rapid shift in it's development.


We felt that this was an important topic to study because we ultimately believe that having access to housing whether it is a house of ones own or a room that is rented for a certain monthly rate, provides so much security, and safety and becomes such a part of how one thinks of themselves and their place in society as to be a fundamental need to be viable to society. This need however is not something that is always accounted for, and it is an ugly truth of our world that many are not provided this need. When we discovered that the Netherlands who had traditionally provided a fundamental right to housing, was shifting toward taking it away we were compelled to study how this shift was appearing within the neighborhoods effected by this change. Our goal was to find how housing policy of the past had helped to shape the built environment, and how it was shaping it in the present, to bring our focus down to the physical manifestation of theory, and to developing an understanding of these manifestations.


  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Grinberg, Donald I. Housing in The Netherlands 1900-1940. [Delft]: Delft UP, 1977. Print. P 22
  2. ↑ Ouwehand, André, Gelske Van. Daalen, and Jeanet Kullberg. Dutch Housing Associations: a Model for Social Housing. Delft: DUP Satellite, 2002. Print. P 42.
  3. ↑ Grinberg, Donald I. Housing in The Netherlands 1900-1940. [Delft]: Delft UP, 1977. Print. P 14.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Ouwehand, André, Gelske Van. Daalen, and Jeanet Kullberg. Dutch Housing Associations: a Model for Social Housing. Delft: DUP Satellite, 2002. Print. P 2.
  5. ↑ http://www.creativecapital.nl/
  6. ↑ http://www.buurt-online.nl/amsterdam/indischebuurt/.
  7. ↑ Musterd, Sako, and Rinus Deurloo. "Ethnic Segregation and the Role of Public Housing in Amsterdam." Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Social Geografie 88.2 (1997): 158-68

Research Methods

To find physical traces within the built environment, which reflect a trend in development of policy, we chose a methodology by which our main source of data collection was through primary observation of our case-study area. Primary observation as stated by Zeisel in “Inquiry by Design” means, “systematically looking at physical surroundings to find reflections of previous activity”. [1]. By using this tool we can begin to infer, “how an environment got to be the way it is…how people actually use it, [and] how they feel toward their surroundings.”[1] One of the benefits of collecting our data by means of primary observation was that we were unobtrusive to the trails that we documented. This means that we made sure our presence did not influence in any way the data we were collecting. Also, due to the lack of english language materials on our chosen topic, using primary observation allowed us to learn quite a deal about our area of study without relying on text.


In order to implement this plan of “systematically looking,” it was first necessary to orient ourselves to the area in order to understand the larger neighborhood context. We planned walking routes through the area meant to cover clusters of both improved and unimproved residential space, key commercial areas, and local transportation nodes. These initial explorations allowed us to become familiar with the area and to begin the process of identifying historic and contextual questions that would arise in exploring our case-study area. From this orientation, we chose to narrow our study area to a specific walking route within the Timorplein and Javaplein area. This particular route was chosen for several reasons. It contains the Studio K and Stayokay Hostel area, an investment by the University of Amsterdam, the Borneohof building, which will house a new neighborhood library, and the Javaplein area, which has been targeted for development into a car-free, pedestrian center. The route also includes the Javastraat commercial area and a few unimproved residential buildings, which are indicative of the historic condition of the neighborhood.


For our “walk around the block” primary research, we developed a clear methodology to ensure consistency in reporting. We established a criteria of exactly what to looking for when walking the Indische Buurt area; these were:

  • Signs of Current Change
    • Renovations of older housing units, New construction
    • Shows where intention lies as well as from where the neighborhood has come
  • Signs of External Influence in the area
    • Plaques from European Development Fund
    • Other signage indicating an external agenda for the area
  • Signs of Occupants
    • Children in the street, young travelers, Muslims
    • To show class, demographic or age of residents
  • Scale and Target Market of Businesses
    • We noted the contrast between small scale ethnic grocers and areas like Studio k and Badhuis
    • To show who was being marketed to,
  • Inhabitants’ Use of Space
    • The presence or absence of trash, graffiti ,political signage
    • To show how people relate to and feel about their space


To document our data after each walking tour we uploaded photos, added commentary about what struck us within each photo, and discussed our observations as a group. We built a Google map for each tour, keeping record of our walking path and important locations.


While primary observation was the best-suited tool with which to address our question it came with a couple of built-in limitations. Given the nature of the method of collecting surface impressions of our observations there exists a lack of context given by the traces themselves. This means that signs such as plaques indicating external influence or billboards for new construction (both of which we found) could only indicate the information that is present on the signs themselves and not the complete history and intention behind their existence in the area.Like-wise there exists the possibility of making an incorrect assessment of the meaning behind these traces, based on former experience of the observer. To better understand what the observable evidence is truly an indication of, more knowledge about the history of an area needs to be collected and a local context must be developed before a proper assessment can be made.


To address these limitations and better inform our data we reached out to scholars, residents, local experts, small business owners, city employees, and community members. Each of these accounts provided a deeper meaning to what we were observing in our explorations. Our interviews were semi-structured in format to allow those with deeper knowledge in specific areas the freedom to elaborate as they saw fit. Interviews with local residents were simple, yet informative, and focused on their personal opinions and attitudes toward change in the neighborhood. Using a semi-formal interview structure allowed for each interviewee to voluntarily offer us information. This insured that we were not leading our subjects into particular answers thus skewing our results.Ofcource the use of interviews themselves has its own limitations such as the possibility that an account will have a bias or personal agenda that will prevent the transference of completely accurate information. To help combat this we interviewed subjects from a verity of backgrounds to insure a more complete picture, as well as took into account why they might have certain biases and included that as a piece of our data.


We later used further secondary research as a means to answer some of the questions that arose after taking our walking tours, that couldn't be answered by our interview subjects. Our access to these materials was limited, however we were able to gain some valuable insight into certain trends and changes in the area.


Coming into the project we carried certain assumptions about how the social housing system might work in the Netherlands. Due to our experience in the U.S. that all social housing was given to poor and disadvantaged individuals which due to no social mixing policies became isolated ghettos ribbed with poverty and crime. We found from our initial research that this was not the case and that the social housing system had traditionally been marketed towards the middle class as well as the low class. We also assumed that due to the nature of gentrification as a model to increase the wealth and affluence of an area was inherently a negative occurrence, however after talking with member of the community who were enthusiastic of the change we saw a different side to this process. Ideally, none of these factors should manifest in our research, and it was our goal to maintain subjectivity while observing the neighborhood.

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Zeisel, John. Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-behavior Research. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub., 1981. Print. p 89.

Interviews with Human Subjects

For our study we used a variety of human subjects to better inform the data we collected through primary observation. We used the interviews we were able to get from them to build a context within which to better interpret our findings. The majority of subjects interviewed were either experts in the field of neighborhood development and policy within the Netherlands or what we considered to be local experts; people who work within the neighborhood’s key civic institutions who know how policy is being implemented within the community as well as how the residents are dealing with those changes. To get a sense of the how the local community felt about social housing development we conducted short street interviews, which we used later to build a video for our presentation.


For our expert interviews we made our contacts either by connections we had established within the Honors in Amsterdam program or by locating the offices of their designated area of expertise (i.e. civic center or police station within the neighborhood). The interview subjects we used for our video were approached on the street, at the point of interview, as we were making our final walking tour. For each of our interviews we explained that we were students studying for the summer with the university of Amsterdam doing a research study on the social housing development within the Indische Buurt. We assured them that the information we gained from them would be built into a composite research paper of our findings, and would not be used in any other way then purely academic reasons.


Before taping any of our subjects we made clear our purpose of study and asked for and received their explicit consent to use the material we collected for this purpose. To keep a level of anonymity to protect the identity of the subjects we interviewed for our video we included no personal information, such as names, or specific locations of residencies. In order to reference our expert interviews within our presentation and study paper we asked for and received their explicit permission to use their name in conjunction with direct citations from our conversations.

Data and Analysis

Visual Data and Analysis

To systematize our data, we not only established a criteria of what we were looking for and how to note our observations while in the field, but also established procedures for review and organization in order to ensure systematic and consistent reporting, assessment of meaning, and analysis of evidence. Through this process, we uncovered a couple of key themes that were clearly detectable within the built environment.

The recent redevelopment of the area was immediately observable through our primary observation process. We observed newly renovated buildings and newly planted streetscape improvements side –by-side on one side of Borneostraat, while the original, unimproved housing appeared in stark contrast on the other side of the street with dirty brick, old mortar, and graffiti covered façade.

Our curiosity about this particular contrast let us to discover that the older building’s redevelopment had been stalled by the shift in the market. We also observed graffiti on a single, newly painted, door indicating an encroachment upon the newly improved areas by the same people marking their ownership on other areas in the neighborhood. Also present were clear traces of external influence on the area. Historic traces of external influence were Eigen Haard signs present on a few buildings along Borneohof. These not only indicated the construction was completed by Eigen Haard, one of the majority stakeholders in the area, but is also indicative of larger trends of development in the area as a port town that was developed at the turn of the century to capitalize on the boom of grown after the building of the North Sea Canal.

Signage indicating investment by the European Development Fund in areas around Studio K pointed to a larger agenda of marketing cities as international hotspots for the creative class. Studio K itself confirms this trend, with the restaurant's menu positioning itself as "a sparkling, cultural complex... [which] provides for an interdisciplinary culture offer and is a melting pot for creative hopefuls." Redevelopment signs branded by Alliance and Ymere show the strong role of the housing authority in the area and indicate the presence of municipal and housing association cooperation.

We were also able to gain a sense of who was using the space through our observations. We found a multi-ethnic neighborhood with physical evidence of families and children. As exhibited by children playing unattended in the Javaplein. We also saw travelers and tourists from the Stayokay Hostel moving through the space around Timorplein and Javaplein. The presence of a black flag reading “Reckless” over a window seemed to indicate younger households and scooters chained to the outside of buildings indicated the presence of elderly or handicapped individuals and perhaps a lack of physical accommodation within their units.

The presence of businesses with differing audiences was also indicative of the neighborhood shift that has been occurring. The area is served by an abundance of small ethnic shops but all of the newer businesses seem to be targeting the young, hip, affluent, creative class.

We also observed expressions of ownership over the space exhibited in the forms of graffiti written on new and old buildings and political signage posted within housing units. Graffiti written all over the walls of the old buildings has already started to encroach on the new, which might mean that the sense of ownership has started to extended to the private homes. The content and location of these messages indicated that there might be existing tensions in the neighborhood focused perhaps on the new construction. A sign located right across from the Borneohof construction site reads "where's my vote" and an accompanying tag written on the fence is a sign in turkish that vaguely says "it's my right". The political signs located in student housing are protests against politicians known for their anti Muslim sentiments. Given the high percentage of muslims in the neighborhood, these signs lend a particular relevance that may be connected to a sense of alienation.

A catalogue of the photos taken can be found in the appendix of this paper.

Contextual Data and Analysis

Interviews

Below is a list of all the experts we interviewed with their title as well as a brief description below of what information was most relevant in each interview. Some of our interviews were recorded and the audio file fan be reached by clicking on the respective name and title of each interviewees.

  • Interview with chairman Elim Ugurlu of Turkish Federation 8/6/10
    • Chairman Ugurlu sees the gentrification as a positive change for the neighborhood in that it might help stimulate local businesses along the renewed area
    • Buildings like studio K and the Stayokay hostel are bringing new, younger people to the neighborhood
  • Sandy Smit Community Advocate from Civic Zeeburg 8/6/10
    • “Eigen Haard is planning to renovating 500 houses within the next year”
    • Community members that rely on social housing are afraid that renovations will incur an increase in rent they will not be able to afford and that they will be pushed out of the neighborhood
  • Interview with Floris Cramer, VLIEG Makelaars, OG. 8/6/2010
    • Indiche buurt is a good area that has been appreciating quickly and will continue to do so with the plans for improvement in the area.
    • many homes have been purchased, renovated, and split into separate apartments.
  • Daniel Kollmer Social Housing Expert 8/10/10
    • throughout the 20th century in the Netherlands the idea about housing was that in a country with limited space and high population density, you have to provide affordable housing for most people. This has been switched with the modern idea that social housing is something like welfare, for the poor. With this idea along came the idea that if you have areas that are comprised only of social housing then you will get ghettos of only poor people.
    • Sybilla Dekker, minister of housing in 2003-2006 initiated a mixing policy that allowed for a certain amount of social housing to be converted into condominiums or market rate apartments. With this now only 30% of current housing stock is required to be kept social, and only 30% must be built in to new housing
    • The housing associations can not dislocate tenants to do renovations without their consent, however they have been making it hard for people to live in their older apartments by doing construction at odd hours and not maintaining the buildings
  • Professor Leon Deben Social Housing and Urbanism Expert
    • “…One of the principles was the mixed idea; for workers, or middle income, the Housing Associations never built for the real lower part of the working class…We have to have mixed neighborhoods to prevent ghettoization.”
    • Gentrification is a necessary part of a city's life and growth, and happens in every city in the world
    • Urban renewal plans for Amsterdam started in 1945-1965 with post war reconstruction. In 1965-1975 with the arrival of the baby boomb generation people began to think of the city in a new way. That it was not just for production but also for living and consumption. At this time the concept of the new Urbanite developed as a class of people who contributed a great deal of social and intellectual capital, but not much economic capital. These were former students who lived within the city center and started to use the city in new ways. In the 1970s-1990s there was a mass initiative to rebuild and improve housing. Beginning in the 1990s people became more interested in public urban spaces like sidewalks, squares, and streets and improvements started to be made. within the past decade there has been another shift to attract a different kind of immigrant, middle class intellectual who will increase the cultural capital of cities and allow them to be competitive international cities in an increasingly globalized economic world.
  • Interview with Karine Verway
    • We found out that some of the buildings owned by Allientie that seemed more weathered were that way because production had stopped due to an economic downturn

Linked here is a video that shows our interviews with local residents. It is important to note that we were not able to get interviews with anyone from the local Muslim or immigrant populations.

Videoface.jpg

From these interviews we discovered that our initial impression that the Indisce Buurt was developing into a mixed income area with a push towards a higher income class of people was correct. We learned that the process of renewing urban neighborhoods actually fit in a longer history of housing development in Amsterdam dating back to the mid 1970’s. This was initiated by a keen interest in attracting the new urbanites as a means to bolster the livelihood of a city. More recently however the push to gentrify has been strengthened. With official policy dictating the need to break up large social housing blocks in 2003 the housing authorities have been given the green light to develop much of their current social housing stock into private dwellings, keeping as low as 30% of their units social. What this has meant for the Indische Buurt is that housing corporations such as Eigan Haard and the Alliencie are making it a priority to overhaul their housing stocks in favor of private condos or apartments to be sold at market rate. This is supported by a larger agenda of the municipality and to participate in an Urban renewal campaign to attract Young creative class people in an increasingly Globalized economic wold. This was originally indicated by the many European Development Fund plaques located by new developments in the neighborhood. We learned from talking with community members that this has excited a portion of the Indische Buurt’s residents, and that they are perceiving the development shift as an improvement to the health and vitality of the community. Talking with Sandy Smit however it was indicated to us that the rise in housing costs has an inevitable downside, in that people who rely on the availability of low-cost housing are fearing further displacement once these options become un-available.

Further Secondary Research

Our walking tours generated further questions about the signs of external influence in the area and we conducted additional secondary research to help answer them. We learned:

  • the housing corporation Alliantie was actually a conglomeration of the four housing corporations Atrium, Dawn, Green City Almere and SCW. Under the slogan “Together Indian Area”(Samen Indische Buurt) the housing corporations Ymere, Eigen Haard, and the district of Zeeburg are working with Alliantie to refurbish and resell former squatting residences, student housing, and other housing stock in need of renovation. [1]
  • Studio K, and the International Institute for Research and Education (IIRE) in the Timorplein are an investment made by the University of Amsterdam and the European Development Fund; an organization within the European Union to help improve the stability of towns and cities within the EU.[2]
  • The Borneohof building is the result of the municipality targeting the Indische Buurt "as problem area due to arrears on multiple levels...[such as] crime, poverty and language difficulties."[3] . Javastraat has been converted into a new “Mediterranean-style shopping boulevard” with newly paved streets and accessible bike parking. Just a few blocks to the east, the Borneohof building is currently under construction, which will add a large public library to the area surrounded by a pedestrian only promenade. [4]
  1. ↑ http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html.
  2. ↑ http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/development/overseas_countries_territories/r12102_en.htm
  3. ↑ http://www.peterbeerens.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=26&lang=en
  4. ↑ http://www.jlgrealestate.com/English/Amsterdam_Oost/Indische_Buurt/.

Conclusion

Utilizing primary observation as the key component in our recursive research process was a successful strategy for building a picture of the change that is occuring in Indische Buurt. By developing an appropriate local and historical context, and then systematically looking, we were able piece together a picture of both the historical and current changes in the area.
We found that there is specific policy being implemented to de-concentrate areas of social housing and to encourage more mixed-income communities; both throughout Amsterdam and within Indische Burrt specifically. Renovations are being carried out around the neighborhood and newer, more expensive units are being constructed as the amount of owner-occupied units and market-rate rental units increase. Much of this new construction, including attractions like Studio K, is geared towards bringing in more affluent people characterized as the “creative class.”

This shift in policy is causing a substantial drop in the social housing stock, with Housing Associations only required to retain or construct 30% of social units in any given project. This has created concerns about availability and affordability of housing options for those dependent upon social housing and lower wage earners. There are also concerns about the volatility of the housing market and what effects an increase in private-ownership might have on neighborhood stability. The political nature of the signage present in resident’s windows and the presence of graffiti on newly renovated and privatized units may be a reflection of the tension that exists around the prospect of neighborhood change.

We were able to develop a multi-layered picture of Indische Buurt through our research process. The traces we found in the built environment allowed us to piece together the past and some of the present life of the area, as well as giving us some indication of what may be in store for its future. Ten years ago the Indische Buurt was targeted by the municipality for improvements for transition because it was perceived as an area with “multiple arrears.” It is currently a multi-ethnic mixed income neighborhood in a transitional period, with its built environment displaying clear contrasts and tensions due to the current transition. In ten years, if plans for gentrification succeed low income individuals will not be able to live in the Indische Buurt, having been pushed out by rising prices and elimination of social housing units. However we believe that if policy makers and housing authorities have over-estimated their ability to attract higher income residents the neighborhood, investment and renewal efforts may not attract the anticipated interest, and the neighborhood will depreciate as vacancies rise or prices drop on newly renovated spaces.

Bibliography

  1. Bast, Paul. The Netherlands: Special Issue - IFHP 1988 on the Occasion of the IFHP Jubiles and 39th World Congress, 15-20 May, 1988. The Hague, the Netherlands: International Federation for Housing and Planning, 1988. Print.
  2. Beerens, Peter. "Project Javaplein." Project Javaplein. Peter Beerens. Web. 01 Aug. 2010. <http://www.peterbeerens.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=26&lang=en>.
  3. Bohmers, Bernadette. Stedelike Vernieuwing in De Vrolikstraat. Thesis. Universiteit Van Amstedam, 2007. Print.
  4. "CBS - Themes." CBS - Home Statistics Netherlands. Web. 01 Aug. 2010. <http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/default.htm>.
  5. Chase, John, Margaret Crawford, and John Kaliski. Everyday Urbanism. New York: Monacelli, 2008. Print.
  6. Diepen, Albertine Van. Households and Their Spatial-energetic Practices: Searching for Sustainable Urban Forms. Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, 2000. Print.
  7. Eigen Haard. Web. 03 Aug. 2010. <http://www.eigenhaard.nl/smartsite.shtml?id=100077>.
  8. Fact Sheet: Spatial Planning and Urban Renewal in Amsterdam. Legislative Council Secretariat. Web. 3 Aug. 2010. <http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/sec/library/0708fs06-e.pdf>.
  9. "FUTURECITY." FUTURECITY - Home. Web. 01 Aug. 2010. <http://www.futurecity.co.uk/home/>.
  10. Grinberg, Donald I. Housing in The Netherlands 1900-1940. [Delft]: Delft UP, 1977. Print.
  11. Heijdra, Ton, and Max Popma. Stomweg Gelukkig in Amsterdam-Oost: De Geschiedenis Van Dapperbuurt, Oosterparkbuurt, Weesperzijdestrook, Transvaalbuurt. Alkmaar: De Milliano, 1996. Print.
  12. Jacobs, Allan B. Looking at Cities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1985. Print.
  13. Lange, Michiel De. "Creative Capital Conference." Creative Capital Conference - Amsterdam, 17 & 18 March 2005. Web. 01 Aug. 2010. <http://www.creativecapital.nl/reports.php>.
  14. Musterd, Sako, and Rinus Deurloo. "Ethnic Segregation and the Role of Public Housing in Amsterdam." Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Social Geografie 88.2 (1997): 158-68. University of Washington Libraries. Web. 1 Aug. 2010.
  15. Oudenampsen, Merijn. "Extreme Makeover | Mute Magazine." Mute Magazine. 06 Oct. 2006. Web. 01 Aug. 2010. <http://www.metamute.org/en/Extreme-Makeover>.
  16. Ouwehand, André, Gelske Van. Daalen, and Jeanet Kullberg. Dutch Housing Associations: a Model for Social Housing. Delft: DUP Satellite, 2002. Print.
  17. Priemus, Hugo. "Poverty and Housing in the Netherlands: A Plea for Tenure-neutral Public Policy." Housing Studies 16.3 (2001): 277-89. University of Washington Libraries. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.
  18. "Regional Policy Inforegio - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)." EUROPA - European Commission - Homepage. Web. 15 Aug. 2010. <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/feder/index_en.htm>.
  19. Samen Indische Buurt. Web. 03 Aug. 2010. <http://www.samenindischebuurt.nl/>.
  20. Silverman, Abner D. Selected Aspects of Administration of Publicly-owned Housing : Great Britain, Netherlands and Sweden. Washington: Housing and Home Finance Agency, 1961. Print.
  21. Soja, Edward W. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-imagined Places. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1996. Print.
  22. Stadsteel Oost- Vernieuwing Indischebuurt. Web. 3 Aug. 2010. <http://www.oost.amsterdam.nl/indischebuurt>.
  23. Straussmann, Paul. "Residential Mobility: Contrasting Approaches in Europe and the United States." Housing Studies 16.1 (2001): 7-20. University of Washington Libraries. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.
  24. Sunikka, Minna, and Claudia Boon. Housing Associations and Sustainable Management: Environmental Efforts in the Netherlands' Social Housing Sector. Delft: DUP Satellite, 2002. Print.
  25. Woningen En Wijken- Ymere. Wonen, Leven, Groeien. Web. 3 Aug. 2010. <http://www.ymere.nl/ymere/index.asp?id=2215>.
  26. Zeisel, John. Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-behavior Research. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub., 1981. Print.
  27. Zekhtser, Mitchell. Gentrification: Good or Bad? Looking Into the Cases of Amsterdam and San Francisco. 2 June 2010. Web. 11 Aug. 2010.

Appendix A

Retrieved from "http://amsterdam.wiki.cliffordtatum.com/wiki/Public_Housing"
Personal tools