From Amsterdam Wiki

Contents 1 Regulation and Tolerance within Vondelpark 2 Abstract 3 Background 3.1 Literature review 3.2 Topic relevance 3.3 Field sites 4 Research Methods 4.1 Methods Strategy 4.2 Affordances and Limitations 4.3 Reflexivity 5 Analysis 5.1 Interview with Officer Hoogenueen 5.2 Interview with Park Employees 5.3 Direct Observation 5.4 Interpretations 6 Discussion 7 References

Regulation and Tolerance within Vondelpark

Author 1: Elisa Christiani

Environmental Studies Major, Scandinavian Studies Minor, Environmental Science and Resource Management Minor

University of Washington

Author 2: Patricia Smith

Biological Engineering Major Mathematics Minor

University of Washington

Abstract

Starting with an inherent interest in recreation in Amsterdam’s famous Vondelpark, our research group realized that it would not be possible to simply look at users recreating within the park, as it was too broad and there wasn’t an exciting spin we could find on the topic, therefore we decided to narrow our focus to the licit and illicit activities in the park. Once we had the lecture on Dutch tolerance, however, we knew our subject matter was going to include the tolerance of the Dutch to illicit recreation within Vondelpark. Upon our first visit to the park, we came across the idea of regulation, as a Code of Conduct sign was posted at every entrance we visited. Walking through the park and seeing these same regulations heavily violated we knew that tolerance was playing a role within the park as well. Seeing recreation in a space that was heavily regulated with communicated signage in several languages we could tell that tolerance of the illicit and the regulation of these activities were found in this microcosm of Vondelpark. This led us to our final question “What is the relationship between the regulation of recreation and the tolerance of illicit activities in Vondelpark?”

Background

Literature review

Vondelpark is Amsterdam’s oldest and most popular parks. In 1864, the “Association for the Construction of a Park for Riding and Strolling,” led by Christiaan Pieter van Eeghen, bought 8 hectares on the outskirts of Amsterdam and hired Jan David Zocher to design a park. It opened to members of its founding organization in 1865 as “Niew Park,” but after 1867 the park was known as “Vondelpark” when a statue of Joost van den Vondel, the Dutch Shakespeare, was placed at its center. The name change became official in 1880. The founders bought an additional 37 hectares of land and had Zocher’s son, Louis Paul Zocher, finish the project in 1877. The 1950’s saw a huge increase in bike traffic through Vondelpark, and paths had to be paved and enlarged due to heavy usage. In 1953 the Association became too poor to maintain the park and donated it to the city of Amsterdam. It has since undergone many renovations to improve its durability. Vondelpark was built on marshland and sinks about a centimeter each year. The most recent renovations have been taking place over the last ten years and are scheduled to end this year ^[1].

Vondelpark was designed and built in the mid-nineteenth century, a time when Romanticism was sweeping through Western Europe. Romanticism, as a historical movement, can be characterized as a reaction against the Industrial Revolution that occurred in the eighteenth century. As an intellectual movement, it emphasized emotion over rationalization and nature over industry. In this era, parks acted as an alternative to the city. They were a place to escape pollution, noise, and overcrowding. Vondelpark, Amsterdam’s first major park, was originally intended to emulate the English landscape style, which is associated with “picturesque garden[s] ornamented with Gothic, rustic, and nostalgically recalled Classical architectural forms” . This description can still be applied to many of the meadows and the overall layout of the park, although it has since undergone many renovations and developments. One of the earliest of these changes was its rechristening as “Vondelpark.” Linking the park to the Netherlands’ most prominent writer and playwright was “an expression of national soul,” which speaks to an influence of German Romanticism^[2].

Many of the alterations made to Vondelpark enhanced its practicality, the main feature of modern functionalist parks. It now includes play grounds, cafes, and an outdoor theater. It is not, however, a strictly functionalist park like Rembrandtpark and Westerpark, two less popular Amsterdam parks. These parks were built with the initial intention of serving the public, whereas Vondelpark was commissioned to serve a small group of wealthy locals. In the tradition of English landscape gardening, Vondelpark was “the work of landscape painters and created a living three-dimensional painting from the two-dimensional dream of an artist”^[3]. Instead of winding paths and picturesque ponds, Rembrandtpark and Westerpark have straight jogging trails and basketball courts. They are furnished with facilities that have a distinct purpose, and they are organized into categorical zones. All of the businesses within Westerpark are located in Westergasfabriek, an old gasworks, and all of the sports facilities in Rembrandtpark are on the same stretch of pavement. This method of “zoning” is not present in Vondelpark, where visitors engage in a variety of activities throughout the park.

Regardless of the manifestations of Romanticism and functionalism in different parks, they are all meant to provide space for recreation. In common usage, the term “recreation” means any activity that people do for pleasure or enjoyment. Within the social sciences, “recreation” is often associated with the concept of “leisure,” which widely agreed to have a psychological meaning of “perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation”^[4]. With this as our working definition, our next challenge is to examine and characterize recreation in Vondelpark. How can researchers determine whether an activity is motivated intrinsically? Within the context of Vondelpark, we will analyze recreation through the lens of regulation.

There are many modes of regulation that can be carried out by both the city and every day park users. In its document on the current status of policy in Vondelpark, the district counsel identifies four main techniques used to regulate recreational activities in Vondelpark: enforcement, maintenance and management, design, and communication^[5]. Enforcement, of course, means the intervention of the police in order to control park activities. Even just the presence of police can dissuade people from engaging in illicit activities. Maintenance and management ensures that the park is safe, clean, and fit for proper use. Design refers to the layout and available facilities. What the park actually provides for people is a large factor in controlling what they’re doing. Lastly, the district aims to regulate the park through communication. An example of this is Vondelpark’s new anti-littering slogan, “Old South, too good to be dirty.” The district counsel also encourages park users to utilize communication as a means of self-regulation. The most prominent need for regulation and policy-making is the result of friction between different groups of park users when the park comes too busy and visitors become a nuisance to each other. Park users are responsible for confronting visitors who are misusing the park, as the district has “confidence in the self-regulating capacity of visitors” ^[6]. This mechanism relies on the attitudes of park users towards certain activities.

The Dutch are notorious for their attitude of tolerance toward activities that are illegal in most countries. To define the idea of Dutch tolerance and contrast it against toleration, we are using the definition of “regulated tolerance” as a framework for our discussion of tolerance within Vondelpark. Regulated tolerance operates by an “informal system of hierarchical guidelines and unwritten rules”^[7]. Local enforcement is aware of certain activities and is willing to allow them to occur as long as no one involved is harmed or inconvenienced. “Toleration,” in contrast, is the willingness to accept a situation even if it is a source of some discontent.

Topic relevance

Recreation is essential to quality of life. Specific recreational activities can be therapeutic or enhance physical health, but the general participation in recreation is fulfilling as an exercise of personal freedom. Studying how citizens of Amsterdam engage in these activities and how these activities are regulated will contribute to the developing academic dialog on the definition of recreation, and it will show us how this particular society views and acts on personal liberty. In studying Amsterdam, we've found a reoccurring theme of "Dutch pragmatism," or "regulated tolerance." It is through this lens that we seek to uncover the nature of recreation in Amsterdam.

Field sites

In developing a research focus from the relationship between recreation and public space, parks stood out as a well-defined field research site. Upon our arrival in Amsterdam, however, it became apparent that studying all of the parks in the city was a bit of an ambitious endeavor. As we became more familiar with the city as our urban lab, we quickly discovered Vondelpark to be a treasure of historical and cultural significance. Vondelpark proved to provide a recreational experience unique to Amsterdam, and served as a representative example of how the city treats recreational activity.

Research Methods

For our research we decided our methodology would work best as a three pronged approach focused on expert and anecdotal interviews, visual interrogation of the space and online academic literature and policy.

Methods Strategy

Interviews

In order to get a real grasp on recreation and the regulation of illicit activities within Vondelpark we wanted to get the opinions of the workers who are there everyday and the police officers who patrol the park looking for infractions. By speaking with these park experts we were able to understand what activities truly occurred in the park, which ones were an issue of “public morality” and where the line of tolerance was, as both a recreational user of the park and for the enforcement. We conducted our interviews with the Chief of Police for the Vondelpark area, Cor Hoogenueen, as well as two park employees, Merwin as waiter at Café Vertigo and Daun the film museum’s curator. For Officer Hoogenueen our questions were targeted on what officers tolerated, in terms of rule breaking, in the park. This we believed would give us the official line on the tolerance of illicit activities in the park, while also showing us where perhaps there was more leeway demonstrated than articulated. We also spoke to the employees at the park who were there for months and years to tell us how similar the official regulation of recreation was to the reality.

Visual Interrogation

While the importance of expert interviews gave us a base to work off of, first person research needed to take place as well so that we would have a deeper understanding of recreation, licit and illicit activities, and the regulation of these within the park. Using this method we were able to come across a Code of Conduct sign posted in the park, as well as other signage in high traffic areas of the Do’s and Don’ts. With this form of direct observation we were also able to connect with some of the culture of Vondelpark, who uses it, how they follow or break the rules and which areas may have more leniency towards illicit activities. Also, the visual interrogation of other parks besides Vondelpark, like Rembrantpark and Westerapark, illustrated what was in Vondelpark and the kinds of activities that could take place, versus what amenities weren’t found there.

To give a fuller understanding for Vondelpark to the reader we also included a video which gives a Virtual Tour of the park.

Online Academic and Policy Literature

Using academic literature we were able to construct a framework of definitions that would inform us as to what we were viewing in the park, while also focusing of investigation to a manageable level. We looked at a strong definition of Dutch tolerance, as where it was situated between regulationist and legalization perspectives, enlightening us to the form of regulation that we were likely to find in the park, and where it may differ from the definition. We also looked at definitions of recreation and thereby put it into a societal construction of how people act. With these tools we were able to apply them to both our visual interrogation and one-on-one interviews to get a more holistic understanding of the situations. Finally, we utilized our Internet researching skills and came across the policy paper distributed by the Municipality of Amsterdam titled “Policy of Use: Vondelpark” or in Dutch “Beleidskader Gebruik Vondelpark.” This gave us the policymaker’s point of view on how regulation should be put into place in Vondelpark, and the reasoning behind the current ideas on how the park’s rules should be put into place, and then the levels on which they are enforced.

Affordances and Limitations

We attempted to use the interview as a way to inform our research question and help us see what was afforded tolerance within the park, what were the obvious targeting of bad behavior, as well as the unwritten rules of the park. When conducting interviews we had much difficulty contacting or getting access to people who would be able to give us the most in-depth answers, such as the president of the Friends of Vondelpark Society, who was willing to answer our questions but ended up not getting back to us, or the Head of Regulation for Vondelpark who was on holiday for the entirety of our research project. This limited our scope of understanding and somewhat hampered the questions we could ask the other interviewees. Also, some of the users and workers to whom we asked the questions about regulation in the park didn’t know what the rules were, or were tourists and had no understanding of the area which led us to uneducated answers and conclusions for our interviews, so we focused on the experts who worked in the park. Direct observation helped us in situating ourselves in the park while also giving us a lot of material to work with, however, more time would have been needed in order to become an expert in the cultural surroundings of Vondelpark and what the different sections of the park are used for, who we were only able to make the obvious leaps of what the separate meadows were used for and what people told us they were used for. Finally, some of the observations we were trying to make for illicit activities we were either unable to find, or couldn’t approach the people engaging in said activities for their privacy and our own safety, in cases of gay sex, drug use, and the use of the park for the homeless.

Reflexivity

Coming into the park we arrived with a thought that Dutch tolerance would be prevalent and very little would not be allowed. This was manifest in our first set of research questions that we presented to Officer Hoogenueen, which he quickly corrected us on, and we were able to listen to his advise on what actually happened in the park and how it was dealt with. This repositioned our idea of what the park was and who used it, as well as how we should approach future interviewees and what types of questions we should ask them.

Analysis

Interview with Officer Hoogenueen

Upon interviewing Cor Hoogenueen, the data that we received showed us that the different attributed towards illicit actions and how they might relate into tolerance. The behaviors that we perceived as most disturbing to the sphere of public morality, such as public drunkenness were enforced. This behavior Officer Hoogenueen mainly attributed to the homeless users of the park, so he was quick to enforce this as it tended to be a large public nuisance, as the drunks tended to yell and stumble around, creating an uncomfortable atmosphere. He stated that he would patrol the park during the night and early morning to make sure that the homeless would not make use of the park to sleep in. While public drunkenness was prosecuted, similar behaviors such as public sex, specifically of the homosexual variety, were allowed when it was not a nuisance to the surrounding areas. Also, as gays are the ones who utilize the park for this kind of social interaction, one of the reasons for not intervening in the activity was that it was targeting only gays and preventing them from having a safe outlet. A similar regulation of the somewhat sexual nature was public sunbathing, which tended to be a grey area. Only if there was a complaint, showing a lack of toleration of behalf of one member of society, would the police officer ticket or give a verbal warning to the participant. Even during the warm summer days, very little of this activity was observed, showing that what lack of tolerance there was had made its way into the culture of the park. Also, issues like noise concern, which we would have thought was a lesser infraction was a commonly ticketed offense. This heavy regulation manifested itself in the park, as there was no observed amplified music or drums during the weekdays or weekend hours. Finally bureaucratic issues such as vendor licensing and busking in the park were solid concerns for the officer, and he would commonly check for permits. This, however, related little to the use of recreation within the park and was not a major concern for park users.

Interview with Park Employees

Employees who are at the park everyday and observe the actions of the park users we believed would be a valuable resource as they see both the infractions and the tolerance of the enforcers. We approached two people, a waiter at the Café Vertigo named Merwin and the curator at the film museum Daun. When asking Merwin questions about each of the regulations posted on the Code of Conduct sign he stated that the ones violated most often were scooter driving and the homeless sleeping overnight in the park, which he believed made it somewhat unsafe to walk through. He also observed a large police presence within the park, but did not mention whether or not he found them to be effective. When interviewing Daun, he did not initially know that there were official rules governing the park and had to be informed of what they were, which was enlightening in that some users of the park, even regulars, may engage in illicit activities inadvertently. When he was informed of the rules, however, he stated that the one he most commonly saw broken was drunken yelling by the homeless or as he referred to them “vagabonds.”

Direct Observation

Upon entering the park we observed that the Code of Conduct sign that is posted at each entrance to the park, informing all visitors the societal norms they should follow when using the park. After reading this sign we noticed that the east half of the park was most commonly used for barbequing, people relaxing, smoking, strumming their guitars, some of which were against the park rules. As we moved further in there were some areas that were immediately recognizable as places for illicit use of drugs, which was underneath the overpass, meeting areas for the homeless, a bench by Café Vertigo, as well as common trysting spots, the rose garden. With these observations in hand we were able to see public drunkenness undertaken by both the homeless and some of the youth using the park as a social meeting spot where they could drink. On subsequent visits, we decided to focus on the rules of the park, focusing on the illicit activities found on the Code of Conduct signage. We noticed a significant amount of litter within the park, a common use of open flames to cook, scooter traffic, and public drunkenness from the homeless. What we did not observe was any loud music or nude sunbathing, showing that these two are being closely followed by the users of the park, either through a paradigm shift or close enforcement by the patrolling police.

Interpretations

By and large the police officers and park goers seem to have the same concerns. Drunkenness and the homeless using the park to sleep in seem to be the biggest nuisances and threats to public safety, and so they are the most heavily controlled by the police. Both the employees of the park, the police officer, and in our own observations conferred with this idea. . We observed evidence of most illicit activities posted on the sign, but they were treated with tolerance by the park-goers, and therefore so did the police. Activities that didn’t directly disturb the surrounding inhabitants were not as closely followed, as our research confirmed when we looked into the tight regulation of noise pollution.

Discussion

The regulation of recreation in Vondelpark relies on a mechanism of self-regulation and tolerance for the average park-goer. Within the park culture then, there exists an attitude of tolerance towards any activity that is not a direct nuisance to other visitors. Should any certain activity become an issue of contention between park-goers, policy makers expect the conflict to first be confronted by the participants, it is therefore first the responsibility of the park-goer to decide if an activity deserves tolerance, or if action needs to be taken and enforcement should become involved. Through this technique, an “informal system of hierarchical guidelines and unwritten rules” is honored locally. Official policy, then, tends to approach regulation less directly than it is approached de facto ^[8]. Vondelpark maintains an identity of “accessibility” and “pleasantness” by regulating activities that impinge on an emotional experience of perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation ^[9]. The officers are there to enforce the more unpleasant activities that become a hazard to keeping the peace, and infringe on other user’s experience of the park, such as public drunkenness or noise pollution. These activities impinge on other park-goers more than the passive rule breaking of nude sunbathing or cooking with an open flame. The officer’s sheer presence can also be a social tool to keep rule breakers of the more harshly controlled activities inside the sphere of socially acceptable behavior, for fear of being verbally warned, ticketed or arrested. In addition, the idea of recreation is also regulated through less obvious enforcement then police officers, with built in regulation also occurring through the use of zoning certain areas for different types of activities, such as a gated fence for playgrounds with a no dog sign on the outside, or the increased presence of facilities, like adding to the number of bathrooms in the park to decrease public urination. These show some of the culture of unwritten rules, and that design of the park itself can be a mode of regulation. Throughout this process, we also learned that the Code of Conduct signs have changed four times since their installation in 2006, making it apparent that tolerance and the social system that represents is a fluid paradigm, subject to change as park user’s, regulations and officers opinions adjust. If we were to continue on with our project we would want to look at this fluidity of tolerance and see why certain rules are added and subtracted to the signage found in the park, and why the unwritten rules in the park have remained unrecorded to park users, especially since Vondelpark is used largely by tourists, as well as native Amsterdammers. This would get us more into contact with the policy regulation side of the project and help us understand about the policy side of tolerance. It would also help us learn how regulated tolerance may continue in the regulationist perspective or move into legalization^[10], which from this microcosm could continue to inform us to greater Amsterdam society.

References

1. ↑ Friends of Vondelpark. "History of the Vondelpark in 1864-1900." Friends of Vondelpark. Aug. 12, 2010. <http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.vondelpark.tv/default.asp%3FPageID%3D5&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhg-AOM4XMZFGPYwjqs62SCW2Fle0w>
2. ↑ Rogers, Elizabeth B. "What is the Romantic Landscape?" GHI Bulliten. 4.13 (2007)
3. ↑ Treib, Marc. Modern Landscape Architecture: a Critical Review. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1994.
4. ↑ Mobily, Kenneth E. "Meanings of recreation and leisure among adolescents" Leisure Studies 8.1 (1989): 11-23
5. ↑ Gemeente Amsterdam. Stadsdeel Oud-Zuid. Beleidskader Gebruik Vondelpark. 2008. 3.
6. ↑ Gemeente Amsterdam. Stadsdeel Oud-Zuid. Beleidskader Gebruik Vondelpark. 2008. 2.
7. ↑ Brants, Chrisje. "The Fine Art of Regulated Tolerance: Prostitution in Amsterdam." Journal of Law and Society 25.4 (1998): 622-625.
8. ↑ Brants, Chrisje. "The Fine Art of Regulated Tolerance: Prostitution in Amsterdam." Journal of Law and Society 25.4 (1998): 622-625.
9. ↑ Gemeente Amsterdam. Stadsdeel Oud-Zuid. Beleidskader Gebruik Vondelpark. 2008. 2.
10. ↑ Brants, Chrisje. "The Fine Art of Regulated Tolerance: Prostitution in Amsterdam." Journal of Law and Society 25.4 (1998): 622-625.