A Square for Everyone?
Gentrification and the Regulation of Public Space
The Case of the De Coninckplein in Antwerp
Master Thesis Sociology, Social Problems and Social Policy
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Graduate School of Social Science
Jana Verstraete
Student Number: 10255389
August, 2012
First Supervisor: Dr. W.J. Nicholls
Second Supervisor: Dr. O. Sezneva
Picture Front page: De Coninckplein
Picture of Bert Hulselmans, Gazet van Antwerpen, 2012, July 17. Retrieved from www.gva.be
Preface
i
Abstract
Gentrification is a widespread process in which public space becomes more important. Private actors
and public authorities invest in public places, aiming for upgrades of these places. This process often
goes along with a trend towards more control, more surveillance and more regulation, a trend that
can be found in many contemporary cities. This research focuses on a public square in Antwerp
(Belgium): the De Coninckplein. This square has been transformed due to government interference.
Both its physical and social composition have changed. A new culture and a new atmosphere have
been created that are more attractive for the middle class, while other groups (partly) disappeared
from the square. This research argues the importance of state discourse in these processes of
gentrification and remaking public space. These discourses legitimise state interventions and are
translated into a wide variety of policy measures and policy tools. The discourse of the local policy in
Antwerp, as well as its translation intro an actual policy and their impact on the square are examined
by a claims analysis and by individual interviews with stakeholders.
ii
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of several people and I wish
to thank each of them for their contribution in realising this project. I express my gratitude to my
supervisors Walter J. Nicholls and Olga Sezneva for their guidance, support and most of all for their
endless enthusiasm. I sincerely thank all of the respondents for their time and for sharing their
stories and insights. I wish to thank my parents and Wim for their support and encouragements
during this year and during the thesis process. Lastly, thank you Marion, for your time and efforts at
the end of my thesis project.
iii
Table of Contents
Preface
i
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
ii
iii
iv
Part I: Introduction
1
Part II: Theoretical Framework
4
1.
Gentrification
1.1 Exploring the Concept of Gentrification
1.2 How to Explain Gentrification
1.3 Market-led and State-led Gentrification
1.4 Impact of Gentrification
5
5
6
7
8
2.
Displacement
2.1 Exploring the Concept of Displacement
2.2 Commercial Displacement
10
10
11
3.
Public Space
3.1 Exploring the Concept of Public Space
3.2 Urban Regeneration and Public Space
3.3 Regulation Public Space
13
13
14
15
4.
Framework for own Research
18
Part III: Methodology
19
1.
2.
20
20
21
23
3.
4.
Purpose of the Study
Research Design
2.1 Claims Analysis
2.2 Interviews
2.2.1
Collecting Data
23
2.2.2
Analysing Data
25
Limitations of the study
Location of the Study
28
28
iv
Part IV: Gentrification in Antwerp – Context
30
1.
2.
3.
31
33
35
Urban Policy in Belgium: From Staying out of the City to Promoting the City
Urban Policy and Urban Development in Antwerp
Gentrification in Antwerp
Part V: Gentrification and Public Space, the case of De Coninckplein
38
1.
2.
33
40
40
43
50
50
A Need for Change?
Tackling Nuisance and Insecurity & Increasing Liveability
2.1 Physical Upgrade of the De Coninckplein
2.2 What Can or Cannot Happen on the De Coninckplein
2.3 Rationale behind Policy Measures
2.4 Displacement?
Discussion & Conclusion
54
References
58
Figures
Figure 1: Labels and Sublabels
Figure 2: Antwerp and its Neighbourhoods
27
29
List of Tables
Table 1: Respondents
25
v
Part I:
Introduction
1
Gentrification is a process of changes in both the physical and social composition of a neighbourhood
(Hamnett, 1991) due to investments in the housing stock, in commercial places or in public space
(Rérat, Söderström, & Piguet, 2010). These investments aim to ‘upgrade’ these places and go along
with attracting new residents from a higher social class – mostly middle class – instead of the original
residents (Glass, 1964), new businesses (Zukin, 2009) and new frequenters of public places. The inmovement of new groups implies the out-movement of others. This out-migration is often
involuntary and is therefore referred to as displacement (Atkinson, 2004; Marcuse, 1986; Rérat et al.,
2010a; Zukin, 2009). Over the last decades, the state has taken a more active role in gentrification
processes by not only facilitating but also stimulating and financing gentrification (Rérat et al., 2010a;
Snel, Aussen, Berkhof, & Renlo, 2011).
The importance of public space in gentrification processes has grown (Raco, 2003). In many
contemporary cities, public space is facing more regulation, more surveillance and more control
(Beckett & Herbert, 2008; Cybriwsky, 1999; Van Deusen Jr., 2002). These places have to be made
attractive for capital, tourism and investors (Beckett & Herbert, 2008; Mitchell, 1997). (Local) Public
authorities develop new policy tools and techniques to gain control over public space and to enhance
security (Atkinson, 2003; Beckett & Herbertt, 2008; Raco, 2003).
This master thesis will study gentrification in a specific neighbourhood in Antwerp (Belgium) and will
examine how public space is transformed during and for this process. Antwerp can be seen as an
example of the Flemish situation (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002). For a long time, little
attention was given to urban issues by policy makers in Belgium. It was only in the 1980s and 1990s
that the interest for urban policies and urban renewal was growing (Loopmans, Luyten, & Kesteloot,
2007). Local governments started to make an effort to attract the middle class (Loopmans &
Uitermark, 2009). Antwerp was the first city that felt this need (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002). I
will focus on one public square in this city: the De Coninckplein. This square is located in a
neighbourhood (Antwerp North) that is undergoing state-led gentrification and which has changed
in various ways due to government interference in the last decade (Loopmans, 2006).
I argue that public space is a key aspect in gentrification processes and that the state applies a wide
range of discursive and regulatory means in re-making public space. Different techniques are used to
attain the wanted square and the wanted social mix: unwanted groups are directly or indirectly
displaced and wanted groups – the middle class – are attracted in various ways. I will study the case
of the De Coninckplein to see how this process manifests in this specific place. Moreover, I argue that
state discourse is of major importance in this process. With their discourses, public authorities
identify what can and cannot happen and what is seen as a problem on the one hand, and the
2
methods which have to be applied to tackle these problems on the other hand. Public authorities
present gentrification as a positive evolution. They will almost never use the term gentrification but
talk about urban renewal, urban regeneration and urban revitalisation (Lees, 2008). Moreover, they
link positive effects such as liveability and security to gentrification (Uitermark, Duyvendak, &
Kleinhans, 2007).
I want to study the discourse that is developed in Antwerp concerning gentrification and state
interference in public space. Furthermore, I will examine how this discourse is translated into policy
tools. Further, I will look at the impact of these policy measures on the De Coninckplein and the
changes it has caused. Finally, I will question how these changes are experienced by other local
stakeholders. This results in the following research questions:
1. What has changed on the De Coninckplein as a public space over the last decade?
a. What is the discourse of the local government concerning these changes?
b. How is this discourse translated into actual policy measures?
c. What is the impact of these changes on residents and frequenters of this public square?
2. How are these changes on the De Coninckplein related to the gentrification process in Antwerp
North?
Two research methods will be combined to answer these research questions. First, I will conduct a
claims analysis to look for claims made by different stakeholders in the process of re-shaping public
space and the process of gentrification. This analysis allows me to investigate the discourse
developed and used by the local government and its representatives. Secondly, I will do qualitative
interviews with different stakeholders in the neighbourhood Antwerp North.
This master thesis will continue with the theoretical framework of this research. I will examine three
central concepts of the research and examine how they relate to each other: gentrification,
displacement and public space (part II). Thereafter, the purpose of the study and the research
methodology are delineated in part III. Next, a context chapter provides information on urban
policies and gentrification in Belgium and Antwerp (part IV). In the fifth part of the master thesis, the
results of the research are presented. Finally, an interpretation of the results is given in the
discussion & conclusion.
3
Part II:
Theoretical Framework
4
1. Gentrification
Gentrification is a process widely discussed in academic journals over the last decades. Its
significance, causes, effects and characteristics have been largely researched and described by
different authors. As gentrification is a key concept in this research, it is important to understand its
different aspects. In succession, a general understanding of gentrification, its different explanations,
its various forms and finally its consequences are discussed in this first part of the theoretical
framework.
1.1
Exploring the Concept of Gentrification
Ruth Glass was the first to use the term gentrification, when she witnessed certain changes in the
city of London (Hamnett, 2003: 331). Glass (1964) identified gentrification as a process that involves
a physical improvement of the housing stock, an increase in the number of people owning their place
instead of renting one, rising rent prices and a shift in the social composition of the neighbourhood
whereby working class residents are gradually pushed out and replaced by middle class inhabitants
(Hamnett, 2003):
“One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the
middle class – upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages – two rooms up and
two down – have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become
elegant, expensive residences. Larger Victorian houses, downgraded in an earlier or
recent period – which were used as lodging houses or were otherwise in multiple
occasion – have been upgraded once again. […] Once this process of “gentrification”
starts in a district is goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working class
occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed”
(Glass, 1964: 7)
In this definition of Glass, two important dimensions of gentrification can be distinguished: the
process involves both a physical and a social change in a neighbourhood. Hamnett argues that every
attempt to give a (new) definition, should cover both aspects (1991: 176).
Since Glass defined gentrification in the 1960s, the process has changed. Gentrification today is no
longer as it was in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1990s (Lees, 2000; Rérat et al. 2010a; Slater, Curran, &
Lees, 2004). The meaning of gentrification has been extended in form, actors involved and spaces.
While Glass’ definition only included rehabilitation of an existing housing stock, gentrification studies
now also take new-build projects in inner cities into account (e.g. Davidson & Lees, 2010; Rérat,
5
Söderström, Piguet, & Besson, 2010). Secondly, more actors are considered to be potentially involved
in the process. Besides gentrifiers (in-migrants) and real estate agents or investors, the role of
(municipal) public authorities is also examined (e.g. Davidson, 2008; Lees, 2008; Loopmans, 2006;
Newman & Ashton, 2004; Uitermark et al., 2007). Thirdly, gentrification has also become spatially
more diverse. It is no longer a process that can only be found in major (world) cities, but has trickled
down and occurs now in cities lower on the urban hierarchy as well. Moreover, nowadays, there is
also such thing as rural gentrification (e.g. Ghose, 2004; Solana-Solana, 2010) (Rérat et al., 2010a;
Slater et al., 2004). Finally, gentrification has also been extended to non-residential upgrades. The
upgrade of public and commercial spaces is now complementary to classical gentrification described
by Glass (Rérat et al., 2010a).
To sum up, there are various ways in which gentrification can occur, depending on who is involved,
where the process happens, which type of upgrading takes place, at which time, etc. It is therefore
important to look at the specific context when one studies a specific case of gentrification. And
because gentrification is never the same, Lees (2000) argues that even though there are important
features of gentrification that are relevant in every case, specific characteristics of the process in a
particular context are as important.
1.2
How to Explain Gentrification
To understand and explain gentrification, one should consider two key questions. First, it should be
clear why gentrification occurs in a particular place, because gentrification does not happen in every
city or every neighbourhood. Secondly, it should be explained why the process takes place at a
certain point in time.
Just as researchers vary in describing gentrification, they also differ in explaining why and how
gentrification happens. Broadly speaking, different explanations can be classified into two main
groups: those who look primarily at the supply side of the process and those who focus mostly on
the demand side (Hamnett, 2003). These different groups can also be defined as economic or cultural
explanations (Smith, 1979). These two groups disagree on the actors they consider to be of the
largest importance for gentrification to occur, with the former mainly looking at capital and capital
institutions and the latter focusing on those who gentrify (Hamnett, 2003).
The theory of Neil Smith can be seen as a good example of a supply side explanation for
gentrification. According to Smith, economic forces are the most important to explain why
gentrification happens. One should examine the needs of production (Smith, 1979).
6
“… A broader theory of gentrification must take the role of producers as well as
consumers into account, and when this is done, it appears that the needs of
production – in particular the need to earn profit – are a more decisive initiative
behind gentrification than consumer preference.”
(Smith, 1979: 540)
It is a rent gap that stimulates actors in the land and housing market to invest in certain areas
because of possible economic benefits. This rent gap arises when there is a disparity between the
potential ground rent level and the actual ground rent capitalized under present land use. For Smith,
gentrification is a structural product of the land and the housing market (Hamnett, 1991; Hamnett,
2003; Smith, 1979).
Other explanations focus mostly on the consumption of land, rather than its production.
Gentrification is seen as a result of a societal shift from an industrial to a post-industrial society. With
this transformation, class structures have changed. The most important aspects of this change are
the expansion of the middle class and their social relations, cultural tastes and consumption practices
(Hamnett, 2003). These middle class people have changed their lifestyle and prefer an urban life
above a suburban one. And, according to this view, the patterns of consumption have a strong
impact on the patterns of production (Smith, 1979). This view can be found in the work of Ley and
Hamnett (Hamnett 1991; Hamnett, 2003).
Both perspectives on the origins of gentrification are incomplete and are only partial abstractions of
the totality of gentrification, while both aspects – supply and demand – are of crucial importance
(Hamnett, 1991: 175). Both the explanations have important shortcomings. Smith’s theory takes the
existence of a group of gentrifiers and the condition of demand for granted (Hamnett, 1991). The
demand side explanation on the other hand, does not explain why gentrification occurs in a certain
area and not in another. This theory takes for granted the supply of potential gentrifiable houses
(Hamnett, 1991: 178).
1.3
Market-led and State-led Gentrification
In a classical understanding of gentrification, only private actors are involved: gentrifiers, real-estate
agents and investors. Therefore gentrification is generally understood as a private market activity.
The state is, however, not completely absent in this process as it often creates a favourable climate
for investments. More recently, the role of the state has become more important and many (local)
authorities have embraced gentrification as a desirable revitalization strategy (Newman & Ashton,
2004: 1153).
7
The state can thus have a rather passive role by facilitating market-led gentrification, or might
actively stimulate or finance the process (Snel et al., 2011) and then it is called state-led
gentrification (Rérat et al., 2010a).
The embracement of gentrification by (local) governments can be explained in different ways. A first
motive is economic: when local authorities depend on tax-incomes from their own inhabitants, they
might want to strengthen their tax base by attracting new middle class residents (Uitermark et al.,
2007). Other than economic motives have been ascribed to local authorities when promoting
gentrification or implementing the process. Attracting the middle class becomes a means to solve
(social) problems in deprived neighbourhoods. Local governments sometimes frame gentrification as
deconcentration poverty and restoring the social balance in a neighbourhood. Poverty is reduced
here to a spatial problem asking for a spatial solution (Newman & Atkinson, 2004: 1153). Policy
makers promote gentrification under the assumption that it will lead to more socially mixed, less
segregated, more liveable and sustainable communities. It is often believed that neighbourhoods
with a share of middle class households will fare better than those without (Lees, 2008: 2449-2451).
Yet, creating a liveable neighbourhood, is in these policy discourses not understood as enhancing
living conditions of disadvantaged households. Instead, “In the discourse about this policy, a ‘liveable
neighbourhood’ refers to a ‘balanced’ neighbourhood with a low level of crime and a sizable share of
middle class households” (Uitermark et al., 2007: 125). By luring middle classes into disadvantaged
neighbourhoods, local governments strive to civilize its residents and gain control in the
neighbourhood (Uitermark et al., 2007: 127).
Even though a gentrification logic can be found in policy goals of many local governments,
gentrification is never expressed as such in policy language. Terms that are used instead are urban
renaissance, urban revitalization, urban regeneration or urban sustainability (Lees, 2008: 2452).
Gentrification is avoided because it reveals the truth about the class shift that is involved (Smith,
2002: 505). The other phrasings used instead neutralize the negative image of gentrification (Lees,
2008: 2452) and do not recognize the issue of displacement (Smith, 2002: 505).
1.4
Impact of Gentrification
Gentrification clearly has an impact on several people: those that are being displaced, gentrifiers who
move into a new neighbourhood, and residents who were already living in a gentrified
neighbourhood before this process started and who are not immediately displaced or are able to
resist displacement (Doucet, 2009).
8
Even though the impact and the consequences of gentrification are widely debated, still no
consensus is reached whether gentrification counts as a positive or negative process for local
residents and communities. While some authors focus on negative effects or costs of gentrification,
others believe it has positive outcomes.
Several costs of gentrification are discussed in the literature. Displacement of local residents is a
widely documented and discussed issue in gentrification literature. Because of its importance and
complexity, this will be handled in a separate section hereafter. Other negative effect are inter alia
rising rent prises, harassment and eviction by landlords (Atkinson, 2002; Doucet, 2009) – which can
also lead to displacement. It is also said to cause homelessness (Atkinson, 2002). Local services and
the neighbourhood characteristics might also change and make local residents not feel at home
anymore. Finally, some argue that local social networks are weakening due to the influx of new
residents and that polarization between local and new residents occurs (Atkinson, 2002; Doucet,
2009).
Besides all of these negative outcomes of gentrification for local residents, others contrast positive
effects. A first and evident benefit is the physical upgrade of a neighbourhood. There might be an
improvement of the image of the neighbourhood as well. Owners in the area see their property
gaining value due to the neighbourhood improvements. Some argue that a change in the service
provision is beneficiary for all residents, as better goods and services are provided. Another positive
effect might be poverty deconcentration (Atkinson, 2002; Doucet, 2009). And while some say local
residents feel less at home due to gentrification, others argue that place attachment gets stronger
(van der Graaf & Veldboer, 2009). Finally, some say crime rates decline in gentrifying
neighbourhoods, although this is contested by others (Atkinson, 2002).
9
2. Displacement
Displacement is a key issue in gentrification research and literature. Because of its high importance, it
is discussed separately from the other consequences of gentrification in this section. First the
meaning of displacement is discussed and its different forms are distinguished. Thereafter a nonresidential form of displacement is examined, namely commercial displacement.
2.1
Exploring the Concept of Displacement
Displacement is one of the central concepts in the definition of Glass: it refers to the out-migration of
lower class residents when the housing stock is being upgraded and when the middle class moves in
(Glass, 1964). A brief but very clear description of displacement is given by Atkinson: “displacement
can broadly be characterised as an involuntary move by a household” (2004: 111). Displacement can
be due to several reasons, such as harassment by landlords, rising rent prices and a lack of
investment by landlords which makes houses unliveable (Atkinson, 2004; Marcuse, 1986).
This forced moving out is, however, only one of the different forms of displacement. Marcuse (1986)
makes a clear distinction between four forms of displacement. He argues that all four types are
important and that they should all be taken into consideration when looking at the full impact of
displacement (Marcuse, 1986: 335).
-
Direct Displacement
Direct displacement is the form described above and is typical for classical gentrification (Rérat et al.,
2010a). It is a physical displacement of households (Marcuse, 1986). This direct displacement can, for
instance, occur because of pressure on the housing market due to the influx of more affluent groups
who create rising rents and prices. Lower-income groups are then priced out in the neighbourhood
(Atkison, 2000: 307).
-
Exclusionary Displacement
The second form of displacement is exclusionary displacement. It occurs when lower-income groups
are unable to move into a neighbourhood, because of its gentrification. There is a ‘price shadowing’:
because housing becomes too expensive, it is no longer possible for certain groups to move in.
(Davidson, 2008; Marcuse, 1986; Rérat et al., 2010a).
-
(Direct) Chain Displacement
When looking at a household that has been displaced, one might only see the displacement of the
last residents. It is, therefore, important to look whether others have been displaced earlier on from
10
the same building or the same neighbourhood. This succession of different households being
displaced, is called chain displacement (Marcuse, 1986).
-
Displacement Pressure
A last category Marcuse distinguishes is displacement pressure. With this form, Marcuse has added a
social and a psychological dimension to the traditional understanding of displacement (Snel et al.,
2011: 4). It is the kind of displacement that affects those who stay in the neighbourhood and are thus
not physically displaced but are still affected by gentrification (Marcuse, 1986). Atkinson describes a
‘more subtle way’ of displacement, which can be considered as displacement pressure: due to the
arrival of new groups, the social characteristics and services of the area change (2000: 307). Local
residents who do not move out of the neighbourhood, often do not feel at home anymore because
of changes in the neighbourhood and the in-migration of middle class households (Snel et al.,
2011). Snel et al. give some examples of changes such as camera surveillance and stricter police
acting, locals are no longer allowed to drink a beer outside with their neighbours as they used to.
This can lead to a feeling of loss of the working class culture or identity in the neighbourhood (2011:
17).
Despite a broad literature on displacement, there is no general agreement on the importance or the
scale of gentrification-induced displacement. Nonetheless, it was a key issue in early gentrification
research (Slater et al., 2004: 1144) and a large majority of more recent studies on gentrification, does
recognise displacement as a significant problem (Atkison, 2004: 113). Contrastingly, other authors
doubt the severity of displacement. Hamnett argues that the working class was shrinking and has
therefore been replaced rather than displaced in Londen by an expanding middle class (Slater et al.,
2004: 1144). According to Freeman, there is only a modest link between gentrification and
displacement. Although displacement may occur, there are other mechanisms that are more
important for a socioeconomic change in a neighbourhood (Freeman, 2005:480). He states that it is
possible that a neighbourhood gentrifies without a widespread displacement (ibid: 488).
2.2
Commercial Displacement
All forms of displacement described above, relate to the displacement of (individual) households.
This is, however, not the only kind. Displacement has many layers. Besides residential displacement,
one can distinguish social displacement and industrial displacement (Slater et al., 2004: 1144).
Another form that is relevant for our case, is commercial displacement, or neighbourhood resource
displacement (Davidson, 2008).
11
Commercial displacement, or commercial gentrification (Zukin, 2009: 48), refers to a replacement of
local retail stores and local services by new shops and services that rather satisfy the needs of the
new, higher-income residents. When neighbourhoods undergo gentrification, there is a change in the
commercial landscape. Cheap bars make place for more expensive restaurants and bio-organic shops
(Snel et al., 2011: 17) and grocers are replaced by delicatessens (Atkinson, 2000: 321). The new
commercial spaces contrast with the older ones in the neighbourhood (Zukin, 2009).
There are several factors that contribute to the disappearance of the local shops and bars. The local
retail shops lose customers to the new ones. And just as households can be priced out of a
neighbourhood, small businesses are sometimes chased out by rising rent prices. Other causes are
limited access to capital and – compared to new businesses – a lack of strategies regarding
marketing, tourism and technology (Zukin, 2009).
Commercial gentrification is not experienced entirely negative by local residents. These changes are
often seen as a positive change or an improvement of the neighbourhood (Atkinson, 2000: 321;
Davidson, 2008: 2392; Doucet, 2009: 309-310) and residents sometimes do appreciate the provision
of better goods and services (Zukin, 2009). Nonetheless, there are less positive effects of this
upgrade of the commercial space. These new spaces do not (always) serve the needs of the
indigenous residents but supply material and less tangible needs of more affluent residents and
newcomers (Zukin, 2009). The prices of the new commercials are often unaffordable for most local
residents (Snel et al., 2011). Hence they are restricted from the advantages of the new offers
(Doucet, 2009).
All of these new stores and bars in the neighbourhood, change the character of the commercial
places in a neighbourhood and do create a different sense of place, in which local residents might
feel uncomfortable or even insecure (Zukin, 2009). With these transitions, not only the commercial
offer changes, but it also includes a disappearance of meeting-places (Davidson, 2008: 2392). Even
though this commercial displacement has not been seen as a social problem for a long time (Zukin,
2009: 49), one can argue that it is an important aspect of gentrification.
12
3. Public Space
Displacement due to gentrification is not only manifested as residential and commercial
displacement, which have been discussed in the previous section. Another form is the displacement
of frequenters of certain places. Within (state-led) gentrification processes, exclusionary measures
intended to displace certain groups of people are expressed through the management of public
space. Some have linked the increasing importance of public space for gentrification processes with a
transition in many contemporary cities towards more surveillance and control by (local) public
authorities. Others describe this trend without linking it to gentrification. This master thesis argues
for the importance of public space in gentrification processes and the role of public authorities in
realising or facilitating gentrification by intervening in public space.
In this section, the meaning of public space is first examined and its relevance for contemporary
cities is argued. Afterwards, the importance of public space for gentrification processes and the
increasing regulation of public space are discussed.
3.1
Exploring the Concept of Public Space
Before the importance and the changing condition of public space in contemporary cities can be
described, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by this concept. Throughout this master thesis, the
understanding of public space is based on a description given by Cybriwsky (1999) who defines public
space as places that are
“… freely accessible to the public and are intended for social interaction, relaxation or
passage. Such spaces can be either indoors or outdoors (although the former are more
common) and may include walkways, parks and other open areas, landscaped plazas or
public squares, the lobbies of many buildings, and various other areas where people may
sit, gather or pass through”
(Cybriwsky, 1999: 224).
This description clearly outlines a characteristic of public space that I consider to be of central
significance: it is a place where everyone is free to access, to be present and to gather with others.
This feature of public space is not only of major importance, it is also a key aspect that has got under
pressure by recent development in urban policies, as will be discussed later.
Public spaces are of large importance for contemporary cities. They are vital for a city’s overall image
and reputation (Cybriwsky, 1999: 224) and have an important ideological position in democratic
societies (Mitchell, 1995: 116). Since ancient times, public space harbours three important aspects of
13
(public) life: politics, commerce and spectacle (ibid.). Raco argues that public places have become
increasingly important in regeneration programmes (2003). Precisely because these public spaces
have such an essential role for cities, they are also the most contested ones and therefore they are
the most regulated spaces (Mitchell & Staeheli, 2005: 364).
3.2
Urban Regeneration and Public Space
Why has public space become so important for contemporary cities? As mentioned above (see 1.
Gentrification),
gentrification has become a wider process with different forms over the last decades. It
is no longer restricted to changes in the housing stock in a neighbourhood, but also arises in other
forms: today, it includes a process of upgrading public spaces as well (Rérat et al., 2010a: 336).
An increasing mobility of industry and finance has led to a strong competition between cities over
the world. They all aim at creating a hospitable environment for investments, tourism and retail
operations (Beckett & Herbert, 2008: 16; Mitchell, 1997: 304). Due to this competition between
places, urban regeneration agencies are focusing more and more on the needs of investors rather
than on the needs of local communities (Raco, 2003: 1870). A key priority in creating such a
hospitable environment is creating a safe setting. Both the perceived and the actual levels of security
are of major importance. It is therefore necessary to ensure that places aimed for urban
regeneration are ensured to be safe places, and/or are seen to be safe. However, regeneration
projects often take place in areas that are characterised by actual or perceived crime rates and
dereliction. Hence, a safe place has to be created (Raco, 2003). In a broad range of cities there goes a
lot of effort into countering bad images of certain spaces (Beckett & Herbert, 2008: 16). To make
urban spaces safe and to improve their image, new policies are developed: “new technologies and
policing strategies and tactics have been adopted in a number of regeneration areas which seek to
establish control over these new urban spaces” (Raco, 2003: 1869). To attract capital, places are
sanitised and this often leads to displacing or removing specific groups that are seen as a threat to
the perceived and aesthetic quality of urban space. These security concerns of regeneration
agencies, are being included in the discourses and practices of regeneration (Raco, 2003).
Considering the previous, I argue that public space is becoming more important in processes of
gentrification. Many articles have been written on the changing relationship between public space
and several actors (investors, governments, frequenters of public spaces) and the increasing
securitising and regulation of public space (e.g. Beckett & Herbert, 2008; Cybriwsky, 1999; Mitchell,
1997; Mitchell & Staeheli, 2005; Van Deusen Jr., 2002). Although these changes are not always
directly linked to gentrification, it is important to take a closer look at these changes in order to
14
understand their role in gentrification processes. Therefore, I will outline this trend of securitising
(urban) public space in the following paragraph.
3.3
Regulating Public Space
Over the last decade, there has been an emerging trend towards more regulation of public space in
many European and North American cities (Doherty et al., 2008: 290). Public space is under even
more surveillance in order to control access and to improve its quality (Cybriwsky, 1999). As
mentioned above, security has become a prior issue and has become part of regeneration discourses.
Besides security, liveability is another central element when talking about regulating places. Cities
are intervening in (public) spaces out of concerns of liveability, understood as making urban centres
attractive for footloose capital and middle classes, politicians and managers (Mitchell ,1997). Thus, in
both processes of state-led gentrification (cfr. Uitermark et al., 2007) and the transition towards a
more intense regulation of public space, the interests of the wealthy are preferred by public
authorities over the interests of the less wealthy, previously living in or frequenting a certain place
(cfr. Raco, 2003).
Local authorities apply a broad variety of tactics and techniques to regulate space. They intervene in
public space by both physical and social measures. With these measures, governments reshape
public space. They try to control access to public places (Doherty et al., 2008; Mitchell, 1997), to
control behaviour and activities (Mitchell & Staeheli, 2005), and to sanitise spaces from certain
unwanted groups (Beckett & Herbert, 2008; Raco, 2003).
One way to gain control over public space is by recreating its (material) design. New urban
architectures show increasing attention and attempt to monitor who enters and leaves and to keep
an eye on present people. The hallmark of monitoring people’s behaviour is camera surveillance.
Other elements of public spaces are also enabled to gain control: fountains, gardens and sculptures
are positioned in such a way that they help to get people passing by unseen security checkpoints
(Cybriwsky, 199: 226). Places can be designed in such a way that they are socially filtering and that
certain groups who were previously frequenting these places are now excluded (Zukin, 1995 in Rérat
et al., 2010a). Doherty et al. call this the installation of surveillance architecture that is designed to
make public facilities and space as unliveable as possible for the poor and the homeless (2008: 302).
The use of certain street furniture is a good example of this practice: street benches can be designed
with an armrest, which makes sleeping on it no longer possible. In this way, (sleeping) homeless
people are designed out of public space (Atkinson, 2003: 1834).
15
Intervening in the physical design of public space is only one way to shape places and their social
character. Another way governments mediate in urban space and try to regulate who enters and
which activities occurs, is by developing official rules or new legislations (Beckett & Herbert, 2008;
Doherty et al., 2008; Mitchell, 1997; Mitchell & Staeheli, 2005). Urban governments proclaim local
laws or regulations, to define what can and cannot happen in public space (Mitchell & Staeheli, 2005:
368). Different authors discuss a variety of legal regulations: civility laws (Beckett & Herbert, 2008);
anti-homeless laws (Mitchell, 1997) or city codes (Mitchell & Staeheli, 2005). These laws should
enhance order and security. They focus on unwanted human behaviour and target those deemed
disorderly (Beckett & Herbert, 2008: 9) and should be “cleaning up contested urban space” (Herbertt
& Becket, 2008: 5).
Although these laws are not explicitly targeting one specific group and apply to everyone, they often
do have the strongest impact on and consequences for socially marginal groups. The homeless are a
group widely discussed as experiencing a huge impact of these legal developments (e.g. Doherty et
al., 2008; Mitchell, 1997).
“Regardless of their intent, these laws undoubtedly have the effect of criminalizing
behaviors – such as drinking, sleeping and urinating – when those behaviors occur in
public spaces, and therefore have a disproportionate impact on the homeless”
(Beckett & Herbert, 2008: 9)
“… while legislation is sometimes enacted with homeless people in mind, the homeless
are infrequently the explicit target; nevertheless the impact is disproportionately felt by
homeless people because of their reliance on public space for conducting their day-today activities.”
(Doherty et al., 2008: 292)
These new legislations significantly expand the state’s authority and dispersal of its surveillance
capacity, which enlarges its possibilities to regulate urban residents and spaces (Beckett & Herbert,
2008). Mitchell (1997) inserts an interesting thought about these urban laws. He argues that these
laws create crime instead of preventing it: “anti-homelessness legislation is not about crime
prevention, more likely it is about crime invention” (Mitchell, 1997: 307). In line with this idea, one
could argue that authorities formulate problems that require policy responses and in this way
legitimate these policies, since social problems are not a given fact but have to be defined as such.
Many situations could be seen as a social problem but are not defined that way, as they are in
competition to be identified as such. Political interests are often an important factor of influence in
this competition for societal attention (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Thus, one can argue that by
16
presenting a certain situation – e.g. the presence of the homeless – as a social problem, a
government can legitimise its interventions. Therefore, this research will look at the discourse of
public authorities and argues that one should not only look at the actual policy measures, but at
public discourses on public space as well. It is this discourse that frames what public space should be
used for – and what it should not be used for – and that creates the image of wanted and unwanted
people and behaviour.
Finally, other techniques used by urban governments, are creating border control and discipline.
Police and security personnel are in charge of keeping order in public spaces, but also private guards
and gatekeepers are used to survey the borders of delimited territory, to keep unwanted people out
(Doherty et al., 2008: 293-294).
By applying these regulations and policy tools, public authorities are banning certain groups of public
space. These new social control tools and techniques do not only unintentionally exclude certain
social groups, but are deliberately used to exclude the socially marginal from contested public space
(Beckett & Herbert, 2008). Mitchell (1997) claims that by annihilating spaces by regulations, this
automatically means the annihilation of people as well. People are not only directly excluded by the
prohibition of certain behaviour that characterises them, but also indirectly as the disadvantaged
simply no longer feel comfortable in certain places (Atkinson, 2003). There appear to be different
forms of displacement in public space that correlate to the forms of residential displacement
distinguished by Marcuse (1986): some experience direct displacement and others displacement
pressure. Hence, one can argue that these legal and social mechanisms are established to foster the
exclusion of particular groups (Van Deusen Jr., 2002: 149) and that public space becomes
exclusionary space. Places become exclusionary for groups or individuals said to be ‘social pollutants’,
in order to meet interests and needs of market-led developments (Raco, 2003: 1870). As public
spaces become exclusionary, they lose their key characteristic of free accessibility.
Contrasting these views of different authors on social control techniques as (intentionally) excluding
the disadvantaged, according to Mitchell, are those who promote these laws (in casus the antihomeless laws). They do not consider the programmes to be negative, but see themselves as
‘saviours’: saviours of the city, of the ‘ordinary’ people who cannot enjoy public urban space because
of the numerous homeless people. They see themselves as serving a good, necessary case (Mitchell,
1997: 312). This points out once more the importance of (state) discourse. By presenting state
interference as necessary and good, this interference is given a legitimised and needed motive.
17
This section is concluded with a remark of Atkinson, which may be important. This author reminds
the reader that “it would be too simplistic to assert that the securing of public spaces has only been
for the benefit of the affluent or that all of these measures are negative” (Atkinson, 2003: 1834).
Thus, less affluent residents might benefit from a safer environment, due to investments in
securitizing public space.
4. Framework for own Research
This final section resumes the main theoretical ideas which will form the framework for this research.
Furthermore, the contributions of this master thesis to the existing literature will be outlined.
This master thesis holds a broad interpretation of gentrification. The understanding of this process
not only includes residential improvements, but commercial investments and upgrades of public
space as well. These different dimensions of gentrification all lead to different forms of displacement
and are all important: residents who are physically (direct displacement) or emotionally displaced
(displacement pressure) (Marcuse, 1986), businesses that are displaced and replaced by others
(commercial displacement) (Zukin, 2009) and finally the displacement of certain groups that are seen
as unwanted in public space (Herbett & Becket, 2008; Doherty et al., 2008).
This research focusses on changes in public space in state-led gentrification processes. It will
contribute to the literature that has related a widespread trend of more intense regulation and more
surveillance in urban spaces and gentrification processes (Doherty et al., 2008). This master thesis
argues that state-led gentrification can manifest through the regulation of public space. For this
purpose, public authorities apply a variety of means. State discourses create a legitimation to
interfere in public space. Therefore this thesis argues for attention to policy discourses. State
discourse identifies both problems and solutions which are a source of legitimation in their policies.
Liveability and security are two key elements presented by governments.
This thesis will not only look at these discourses but will examine how they are been translated into
actual policy tools. Policy measures are both physical measures, by interfering in the architecture,
and legal interventions.
By intervening in public space, certain behaviour and certain people are banned out of public space
(Doherty et al., 2008). The homeless are widely discussed as a disadvantaged group experiencing
great impact of these developments. This research contributes to the displacement literature by
showing other disadvantaged groups feeling disproportionally targeted.
18
Part III:
Methodology
19
1. Purpose of the Study
In this master thesis, I wish to study the process of gentrification at one particular place, namely
Antwerp. I aim to investigate how gentrification manifests in a specific area of this city: Antwerp
North. The focus is on the relation between state-led gentrification and changes in public space. It is
the aim to look at how the state takes a leading role in the gentrification process by reshaping public
space and to look at which tools and measures are applied by the state in this process. Furthermore, I
aim to investigate how different stakeholders respond to these state-led changes and their
consequences, such as symbolic and physical displacement.
By analysing this particular case of gentrification and the regulation of public space, I wish to
contribute to the literature on both topics and especially to the literature on the relation between
both. I wish to contribute to the literature on the importance of public space in gentrification
processes. By combining individual interviews with claims analysis, I hope to point out the
importance of state discourse and state claims in the regulation of public space and the legitimation
of these interferences by public authorities. It is also the aim to see how these claims are translated
into policy tools and measures. Furthermore, I wish to show not only the claims of the state but of
other stakeholders as well.
2. Research Design
The research is of qualitative descriptive nature. Qualitative research is most suited for exploring
experiences, feelings and meanings of people about a certain topic (Baarda, De Goede, & Teunissen,
2005). In this research, I have been tracing experiences and points of view of people involved in the
gentrification process in Antwerp North.
In order to get an insight in these experiences and meanings, I have conducted descriptive research.
This type of research was most suitable, as is allows the mapping of the points of view of different
actors involved. I was not aiming at developing new hypotheses or theories, nor did I want to test
existing theories (Baarda et al., 2005).
Two methods of data collection were applied in this research. First, a claims analysis was conducted
to get a clear picture of the situation, the actors involved, the claims made by these actors and the
discourse that has been developed about the issues at stake. Secondly, I have interviewed different
actors that are involved in different ways.
20
2.1
Claims Analysis
A first research method that is used for this research is claims analysis, based on the claims-making
approach described by Statham & Koopmans (2009) and Statham and Gray (2005). It is an
established method to examine the visible political communication carried by the mass media
(Statham & Gray, 2005). By using this method, I have looked for claims made by different actors in
newspapers. These ‘claims’ are defined as “intentional public speech acts which articulate political
demands, call to action, proposals and criticisms, which actually or potentially, affect the interests or
integrity of claimants and/or other collective actors in an issue field” (Statham & Koopmans, 2009:
437).
Performing this search for claims of different actors, results in a good insight into problems identified
by actors, by which actors, reactions on these problems identified, (policy) solutions that are
proposed by actors and policy tools that are already developed to tackle the problems. Moreover, I
have paid attention to the discourse that is used in the claims that were identified: which words were
used when talking about certain problems/events/people.
Two types of documents have been analysed: newspaper articles and policy documents. When
analysing newspaper articles, the unit of analysis is not the article but the individual reported claim
(Statham & Koopmans, 2009: 442). Newspapers are an interesting source to examine when
identifying what happens in an area, or what is presented to be happening, because newspapers are
not an “undistorted and complete mirror of reality” (Statham & Gray, 2005: 65) but a representation
of claims selected by the mass media. Only few of the claims that are made every day by a variety of
groups are actually reported in the media. This selectivity is interesting because precisely these
public visible claims are able to impact on public perceptions and policy making (Statham & Gray,
2005: 65-67). Therefore, when looking at newspaper articles, it is interesting to see which actors are
more powerful to get their claims to reach a wider public.
Not only did I look for newspaper articles, I have analysed policy documents as well. These
documents gave a good overview of policy measures and policy tools, motives for political decisions
and the discourse used by policy makers.
The combination of these two sources resulted in a good overview of the problems identified
regarding gentrification and public space by different actors, solutions suggested and developed and
the arguments of policy makers for their interference in public space.
21
-
Newspaper Articles
I have selected three Flemish newspapers: De Standaard, De Morgen and De Gazet van Antwerpen.
De Standaard and De Morgen are generally seen as the most qualitative newspapers in Flanders.
Gazet van Antwerpen has an extra focus on things happening in Antwerp.
I have searched for relevant articles in the archives of these three newspapers, by searching some
key terms: De Coninckplein; Antwerp North [Antwerpen Noord]; 2060 (postal code of Antwerp
North) and urban renewal [stadsvernieuwing / stadsontwikkeling].
I have searched these key terms, within a certain period: I have selected articles from 2004 onwards.
There are several reasons for selecting this year as a starting point:

Most urban renewal projects in Antwerp North have been realised in the second half of the
2000s (e.g. the construction of Park Spoor Noord started in 2005, in 2005 the new library at
the De Coninckplein has been opened);

In 2004 there was a new Flemish minister for Urban policy (Stedenbeleid);

In 2004, the local government of Antwerp started with its actions to tackle nuisance in
Atheneumbuurt, the neighbourhood where the De Coninckplein is located;

In 2005, a policy document on safety was developed: Stadsplan Veilig.
However, the archive of De Morgen is not accessible for this entire period. It is only available for
articles written since 2007. Therefore, I could only look for articles for the period of 2004-2006 in the
other two newspapers.
In the articles that were selected, I have looked for several elements of claims, distinguished by
Statham & Gray (2005: 66). Firstly, I have looked for actors making claims. These were the claims
reported by the newspapers and will therefore only be some of the stakeholders in the
neighbourhood. I have looked for their statements about what happens in the neighbourhood and
on the De Coninckplein. Other stakeholders were identified by looking at who was mentioned within
these claims. Secondly, I have looked for the substantive issue of claims: what are the claims about.
Which problems are identified, what words are used, how do the claim makers describe a certain
situation. Thirdly, I tried to identify solutions proposed by these actors. What are the right solutions
according to them, and what is happening now. A last element I have looked for is the justification
for claim. These are the arguments and legitimisations of why action should be undertaken (Statham
& Gray, 2005: 66).
22
Besides looking for claims of these stakeholders, I have looked for claims of journalists themselves,
regarding the De Coninckplein. I have looked for descriptions of this square and the broader Area
Antwerp North, as these descriptions might contribute to the public perception of the De
Coninckplein.
-
Policy documents
I have not only analysed newspaper articles but I have looked at information provided by the local
government as well. Firstly, I have used some key documents developed by local policy makers. I
have used the formal policy agreement of the local coalition, the policy letter of the aldermen of
security and the agreement of Antwerp and the City Fund. Secondly, I have looked at the information
that is provided at the official website of the city of Antwerp. There is a broad range of information
on neighbourhoods, policy tools, urban renewal programmes etcetera.
These documents give an insight in how the local government of Antwerp talks about the relevant
issues, and which policy tools are used. By reading these documents, policy responses to certain
claims can become clear.
2.2
Interviews
2.2.1
Collecting Data
The second phase of this research consists of individual interviews with stakeholders of the process
of urban renewal in Antwerp North. In this part of the research, the aim is to explore what different
stakeholders think and know about the issue at stake, and how they feel about this. Qualitative
interviews are most suited to gather this kind of information (Baarda et al., 2005).
I have chosen for interviews because this is the most appropriate method to trace feelings, meanings
and attitudes (Baarda et al., 2005). More specifically, I have chosen for individual interviews. I believe
this type of interviewing is preferred over group interviews. Different stakeholders in this process of
gentrification have different experiences and different interests. When interviewing each respondent
individually, they have a chance to speak openly without other stakeholders knowing what they have
said. In this way, it can be avoided that things are left unsaid because of a direct confrontation with
other stakeholders.
The interviews were semi-structured. I used an interview scheme wherein main questions were
fixed. By using this scheme, I was sure that all important topics would be discussed. This type of
research still gave me the possibility to respond to information given by the respondents and to ask
additional questions according to the specific context (Baarda et al., 2005: 235).
23
The interviews were complementary to the claims analysis in this research and have added valuable
information for several reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, newspapers only cover claims of a few
actors and many claims are left out (Statham & Gray, 2005). By interviewing those involved in the
process of gentrification in Antwerp North who do not get voiced in newspapers, other claims and
other arguments can be found as well. Secondly, by interviewing stakeholders myself, the
information I received, was not selected, interpreted or restructured by others (journalist,
newspapers). Finally, by conducting interviews, a ‘bigger picture’ could be discovered. In newspaper
articles, claims are rather limited while an interview provides the possibility to dig deeper into claims,
arguments and points of view.
Gathering Respondents
I tried to include a broad variety of respondents in the sample of this research. It was aimed to
include actors in different positions because they could all give information on their specific and
personal view and experiences. To cover both the claims and points of view of residents or members
of action committees on the one hand and representatives of the city on the other hand, I have been
looking for actors in different networks.
I have gathered respondents through snowball sampling (Baarda et al., 2005: 160). At the end of
each interview I asked the respondent who else I should talk to. The advantage of this method was
that I was always directed to others who were active or involved in some way in the process of
gentrification in Antwerp North as well. However, this way of gathering respondents has possible
weaknesses. An important risk is to be stuck within one small network (Baarda et al., 2005: 160). I
have tried to overcome this disadvantage by using more than one starting point. A first entry in the
neighbourhood was a member of an action committee. This committee was mentioned in the
newspaper articles and is known for its actions against local policy measures. Through this starting
point I was able to snowball out to other active neighbourhood residents, a former bar tender on the
De Coninckplein and a member of an African umbrella organisation. The second entry into the
neighbourhood was a social worker in Antwerp. She was able to get me into contact with employees
of Samen Leven, a department of the local government, and with another social worker who is active
in the neighbourhood.
Besides this snowball method, I have contacted the cabinet of the alderman of urban renewal of
Antwerp. I was able to meet one of the core employees of this cabinet.
Table 1 provides an overview of all respondents. For all respondents, their position or relation to the
area is described. To guarantee the anonymity of each of them, only a general description is given.
24
R1
Neighbourhood Inhabitant + Member of Residents group
R2
Neighbourhood Inhabitant + Member of Residents group
R3
Neighbourhood Inhabitant + Member of Residents group
R4
African Community
Former Bar Tender on De Coninckplein
R5
African Community
Employee of an African organisation in Antwerp
R6
City of Antwerp
Cabinet Alderman of Urban Renewal
R7
City of Antwerp
Employee AG Vespa
R8
City of Antwerp
Employee Samen Leven
R9
City of Antwerp
Employee Samen Leven
R10
Social Worker
Table 1: Respondents
Content of the Interviews
In the interviews I have tried to get an insight in the way the respondents look at the De Coninckplein
and which changes they have witnessed in the past years. I have asked them to describe the square
and the neighbourhood and to ascribe how the neighbourhood has changed. I have asked the
inhabitants, the members of the African community and the social worker how the local policy of the
area has changed and which policy tools were developed and their impact. Further, I have asked
them what they thought the local government was aiming at with these policy measures. Finally, I
have questioned them about the way they were informed by or involved in the policy making
process.
Parallel questions were formulated for the employees and representatives of the local government,
but with a focus on their position. I have asked them how they see the De Coninckplein and the
neighbourhood, and what has changed there. I have asked for policy developments and policy tools. I
tried to get an insight in the rationale behind policy decisions. I have also tried to ask about the
consequences of urban renewal. Finally, they were questioned on their view on information provided
by the city and involvement of citizens into policy making processes.
2.2.2
Analysing Data
The analysing process started with preparing the collected data. The first step was to literally type
the interviews, which provides the rough data. Next, I reduced the interviews by removing all of the
irrelevant information. A third preparatory step, was to divide the interviews into fragments, and
represent these fragments by a key term or a label. The different fragments were divided based on
25
themes. It is possible to have more than one label for one fragment (Baarda et al., 2005). This
labelling process resulted in a long list of different key terms. Therefore, I looked for relations and
connections between several labels. The labels were ordered and structured into eight labels. All of
them had sublabels, which were in some cases further divided. An overview of the structure of the
different labels is provided in Figure 1.
Once the labels and sublabels were structured, the analysing process could start. Every interview was
read and labelled. All the relevant information was marked by its label. Thereafter, the fragments
were structured into tables according to their label. This is an iterative process: it continues until all
the information is labelled and structured. In this way, all information on a particular topic was put
together (Baarda et al., 2005). This gives a good overview of the different opinions and statements
on one theme.
I have not only looked at the content of the interviews. I paid attention to the discourse of the
respondents as well. I checked whether this discourse was related to or contrasted with the
discourse that was found in the newspaper articles.
26
Bars
General
Terrace
ban
De Coninckplein
Closing
time
Raids
General
Arrival
area
Involvement
General
Consultation
Poverty
Neoliberal Policy
Protest
General
Commercial Tourism
competition
Security
General
Imaging
Strategic
area
Samen Leven
Stadsplan
Veilig
Feelings of
(in)security
General
Buurtregie
Prices
Physical upgrade
Events
Gentrification
General
Social mix
Displacement
General
Apartments
Commercials Library
(Permeke)
Nuisance
General
GAS-fine
Measures
Loitering
Police
codex
Attendance
of police
Drugs
Alcohol ban
Figure 1: Labels and Sublabels
27
3. Limitations of the Study
This master thesis faces some limitations. A master thesis is always restricted in time and therefore
choices have to be made, which lead to limitations of the research. Even though it is not possible to
overcome all these limitations in this research, it is important to be aware of them, and to meet
them as good as possible and future research could meet these limitations.
First, gentrification is always a process while this research is restricted in time. Therefore I can only
study this process for a specific period. It would be interesting to have a longitudinal research to
examine how this gentrification process will evolve in the future.
Secondly, because of the restricted period of this research, choices had to be made concerning which
documents would be used for the claim analysis. For this research, I have selected key policy
documents and newspaper articles. A broader variety of documents would strengthen this analysis.
A third limitation of this study concerns the variety of respondents. I was hoping to interview more
members of the African community in Antwerp North, to examine the impact of changes in this area
on their community. However, it was very hard to get in contact with this group. Therefore, only two
respondents were found. If I could have interviewed more members of this community, it would
have added value to this study.
I have tried to include respondents that represent different positions within the process of
gentrification in Antwerp North. If more time would be available, it would be interesting to include
more respondents in the research to get an even better picture of changes in this area. It would be
interesting to interview the group loitering at the De Coninckplein; city representatives of other
departments and residents. Because it was not possible to interview all of these stakeholders, I have
tried to focus on individuals who have key positions in the process and who represent the interests
of these groups.
4. Location of the Study
Antwerp is a city in the North of Belgium. It is the largest city of Flanders, with the most inhabitants.
In 2011, almost 500.000 people lived in Antwerp – out of 10.800.000 inhabitants in Belgium (FOD
Economie, 2010). The population has increased with 40.000 residents in the previous decade. The
largest part of the population of Antwerp lives in the central district Antwerpen (37%), which is one
of the 9 districts of the city (Stad Antwerpen, 2011).
28
Antwerp North is a quarter in the north of the city
and can be distinguished by its postal code, 2060. It
includes the neighbourhoods Amandus-Atheneum
and Stuivenberg (Stad Antwerpen, s.d. a). Antwerp
North is situated in the district Antwerpen. On the
map (Figure 2), Antwerp North is the green area
(J83, H40, H41, H43, H44, C42, C43, C44, C45).
Certain characteristics of Antwerp North show that
this is a quarter with inhabitants with a weaker
socio-economic profile. In comparison to the city as
a whole, this quarter has a larger share of
unemployed people, more residents have social
benefits for income and the average income is
Figure 2: Antwerp and its neighbourhoods
(Hoefnagels, 2004)
€ 3.000 lower (Stad Antwerpen, 2012). Moreover,
the average income in Antwerp North is the lowest
of the whole city (Stad Antwerpen, 2010).
There have been several urban renewal projects in this part of the city. These projects and the
related urban policies will be discussed in detail in the next part of this thesis (Part IV). Two central
places in the urban renewal projects were De Coninckplein and Sint-Jansplein. In this research, the
focus is on the De Coninckplein. This is a square in the centre of the Atheneumbuurt and is close to
the central station of Antwerp. This square has been chosen as a central focus for the study, because
of the strong interference of the local government, as will be discussed in Part IV. The city has
developed several projects which have to give new impulses to the area and in this way have to
upgrade the area (Stad Antwerpen, s.d. b).
29
Part IV:
Gentrification in Antwerp – Context
30
1. Urban Policy in Belgium: From Staying out of the City to Promoting the City
In Belgian and Flemish policies, cities have always held a marginal position (Loopmans, 2007) and
urban problems did not get much attention on central policy levels (Loopmans, Uitermark, & De
Maesschalck, 2003). The anti-urban attitude in Belgium (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002;
Loopmans et al., 2003) can be explained by the hegemony of the Catholic church and the bourgeoisie
in the political landscape. Spatial policies were a way to maintain their dominance and to hinder
secularisation and the socialistic movement in central working class neighbourhoods. Therefore,
spatial concentration of the working class in urban centres was to be avoided (Loopmans et al.,
2003). Instead, spatial policies supported suburbanisation (Loopmans, 2007; Loopmans et al., 2003).
It was mostly the richer middle class that moved into the suburbs, while lower income inhabitants
lived in the urban centres (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002). Due to this city flight of the middle
class and the local fiscal autonomy, inner cities started to decline (Loopmans et al., 2003).
Although there were some impulses to develop urban policies from new action groups,
neighbourhood committees and a European urban renewal campaign, their effects and impact was
very limited (Loopmans et al., 2003: 249-250). It was only when marginal groups radically changed
their voting behaviour and a political threat of the extreme-right political party Vlaams Blok (now
called Vlaams Belang) was feared, that city centres caught the attention on the national and regional
levels and that disadvantaged neighbourhoods were incorporated in the political agenda (Loopmans
et al., 2003: 251). From 1988 onwards, Vlaams Blok enjoyed successive electoral victories in local and
national elections – referred to as Black Sundays (Loopmans et al., 2003).
As a reaction to these electoral victories, urban policy became a priority for the Flemish government
(Loopmans et al., 2003). In 1995 a first Minister of Urban Policy was appointed (De Decker, Kesteloot,
De Maesschalk, & Vranken, 2005) and urban revitalisation became one of the five priorities of the
Flemish government (Loopmans, 2007). A new fund was created: Social Impulse Fund [SIF] (Sociaal
Impuls Fonds). This fund became the spearhead of the first multidisciplinary and multifaceted urban
policy in Flanders. The aim of the SIF was to advance the social, physical and economic restructuring
of cities (Loopmans et al. 2003), with a strong anti-poverty logic (Loopmans, 2007).
The urban policy in Flanders was reoriented in 1999. The social angle of incidence was exchanged for
a more entrepreneurial one. The new goal of urban policy was formulated by the new minister:
“Countering the depopulation of urban areas by enhancing the quality of life, more specifically for
young families, middle- and high income groups and ‘active’ seniors” (Loopmans et al., 2003: 255).
This shift was welcomed by many local governments. A large part of the local revenue depends on
31
local taxes. Many municipalities were facing a financial crisis due to the selective suburbanisation. By
attracting higher incomes, they could safeguard their local tax basis (De Maesschalck & Loopmans,
2002; Loopmans, 2007).
Four years later, the SIF was dismantled and a new fund was installed in 2003 under pressure of local
governments. The SIF was criticized for its social focus and was said to neglect possibilities of
collaboration with economic actors, and to neglect the middle class (Loopmans, 2008: 2510). The
new ‘City Fund’ (Stedenfonds) had a more entrepreneurial angle. This new fund’s main goals were to
attract middle-class groups to the city and to strengthen the social basis for democracy. With this
change, there was a shift in target groups: while the SIF spent a large part of its budget on projects
for ‘deprived’ groups, this was largely reduced by the City Fund. The new fund invests in the
‘population in general’, the ‘physically’ deprived (e.g. the elderly) and the target of the middle class
(Loopmans, 2007). Since the introduction of the City Fund, a neoliberal urban development logic
made its entry on the regional and local level. Flemish cities became more active in the competition
with their suburbs for middle class, tax paying inhabitants (Loopmans & Uitermark, 2009: 57).
Since 2000, the Flemish urban policy focusses on countering the exodus or city flight of middle class
inhabitants (Thuis in de Stad, s.d.). The federal government of Belgium started to develop an urban
policy as well (Loopmans & Uitermark, 2009). There are some important differences in focus and
vision between these two policy levels. On the federal level, the urban policy was mainly focused on
social goals. It targeted deprived neighbourhoods and deprived groups. There was a special focus on
vulnerable groups on the housing market (Loopmans & Uitermark, 2009).
Thus, one can argue that the Flemish policy includes the idea of gentrification. The federal urban
policy, contrastingly, is clearly not aiming at gentrification. On the contrary, it clearly states that
social mixing cannot lead to the displacement of deprivation problems to other neighbourhoods
(Loopmans & Uitermark, 2009).
The idea of social mixing is an important element in urban policy on the regional and local level.
Social mixing is a goal in many municipalities. Some of its motives are enhancing social cohesion and
improving local earnings (cfr. Loopmans, 2007). Notably, social mixing always refers to attracting the
middle class into deprived areas, and never attracting deprived groups into affluent neighbourhoods
(Rekenhof, 2008 in Loopmans & Uitermark, 2009).
In the white paper of the Flemish minister of urban policy Keulen (2004 – 2009), restoring the
liveability in deprived and vulnerable areas is framed as a priority. It says that liveability is often low
in neighbourhoods with a one-sided composition of the population. Therefore, a better social mix
32
should be realised to improve liveability. The indicator set to measure liveability of a city, is the
attractiveness for young families with children (Keulen, 2004).
2. Urban Policy and Urban Development in Antwerp
The Flemish urban policy has always had an impact on urban policy in Antwerp. However, Antwerp
also has a specific history of urban policy and urban development. Some main features and
developments will be discussed here. The emphasis will be on the changing focus of urban
development plans and the centrality of liveability as a key issue in urban development.
Liveability has always been a central theme in urban policy and urban development in Antwerp but
its interpretation has strongly changed. In the 1980s, the new urban renewal programme had to
increase liveability in decaying neighbourhoods. It was stated that liveability had to be increased for
the original residents, and that displacement had to be avoided (Loopmans, 2008). In this period,
urban renewal was mainly characterised by a physical approach (Christiaens, Moulaert, & Bosmans,
2007; Loopmans, 2008).
When the extreme-right political party Vlaams Blok gained electoral successes at the end of the
1980s and in the 1990s, there was a new interpretation of liveability. It was no longer restricted to
physical aspects but was now broadened to liveability in general (Loopmans, 2008). Urban
development was no longer restricted to a purely physical approach (Christiaens et al., 2007) and
was redirected to more social aspects (Loopmans, 2008).
In the 2000s, yet another interpretation of the liveability concept was raised and a new approach of
urban renewal was installed. A new issue – the safety question – had been brought up by native
upper working and middle class active resident groups (Loopmans, 2008). Moreover, while the role
of private real-estate investors had rather been excluded before (Loopmans, 2008), they started to
lobby for more state support (Loopmans, 2008; Loopmans & Dirckx, 2011). Due to these two
pressures, there was a shift in urban policies in Antwerp from largely social welfare oriented towards
a more neoliberal approach (Loopmans & Dirckx, 2011: 105). A liveable neighbourhood was now
understood as “a safe, attractive and vibrant urban environment” and had to be measured by “its
attractiveness to higher income groups” (Loopmans, 2008: 2510), which is in line with the Flemish
policy (cfr. Keulen, 2004). To achieve this attractiveness, major investments were made to upgrade
and sanitise public space and public facilities: ‘attractive’ spaces and facilities (such as a new library
and a park) were provided while unwanted ones (such as a health care centre for drugs users) were
displaced (Loopmans & Dirckx, 2011: 108). In this last phase of urban policy, the answer that is
proclaimed to solve liveability problems, is attracting ‘better’ residents. Uncivil behaviour that leads
33
to unliveable neighbourhoods, is now tackled more by repression than by care (Loopmans, 2008:
2511).
In this period, urban development was no longer seen as necessary for certain specific
neighbourhoods. The social approach was weakened and the new discourse of the city stresses the
role of economic and physical renewal approaches in urban development for the city as a whole
(Christiaens et al., 2007: 241). This shift goes along with the transition of the SIF to the City Fund,
which spent less of its budget on projects targeting deprived groups than the former, and has a larger
focus on the market sector and middle-class housing (Loopmans, 2007). Urban development policies
were now more oriented towards stopping the exodus of middle class inhabitants. The budget of
urban development in Antwerp was removed from the alderman of Social Affairs and placed under
supervision of the alderman of Urban development and planning (Christiaens et al., 2007; Loopmans,
2008; Loopmans & Dirckx, 2011). Furthermore, the pursuit of security became more central in the
Antwerp urban policy (Chistiaens et al., 2007; Loopmans, 2006).
Two new institution were created in Antwerp: AG Vespa and Integral Security. AG Vespa is the semiautonomous real-estate and urban development company of Antwerp. It has to facilitate closer
collaboration with private investors (Loopmans, 2008; Loopmans & Dirckx, 2011). It is in charge of
managing the city’s real-estate properties (AG Vespa, 2011a). The new agency of Integral Security
was under the alderman for Integral Security. This agency had to take care of the social aspects of
urban development “but from a more ‘policing’ instead of ‘caring’ perspective” (Loopmans & Dirckx,
2011: 106). This agency has been merged with the Social Affairs service and is now called Samen
Leven [Living Together]. It organises own initiatives and collaboration between different services,
aiming at increasing the liveability and the security in all neighbourhoods of the city (Stad
Antwerpen, s.d. c).
In this neoliberal urban policy, the competition between Antwerp and suburban municipalities for
wealthy residents who can strengthen the income taxes, is still an important feature (Loopmans &
Dirckx, 2007). This competition has been going on since the 1980’s after several decades of selective
suburbanisation, as in other Flemish cities. Since the shift of the Flemish policy focus towards a more
entrepreneurial angle, the discourses of the regional and the local governments were more in line
with each other than before (Loopmans, 2007: 217).
34
3. Gentrification in Antwerp
The developments in the past decade that have been delineated in the previous paragraph, create a
favourable climate for gentrification. However, even before these changes there was a process of
gentrification in some areas in Antwerp. In recent years, the Antwerp government has taken a more
active role in gentrification processes.
In the 1980s private investors found their way to the Antwerp neighbourhood ‘het Zuid’. Investments
were made by the cultural world and by the real-estate sector. The role of the government in this
investment wave was very limited, while private developers had a leading role. The investors
explored new areas in the 1990s. They started to go northwards along the historical centre, up to the
neighbourhood ‘het Eilandje’ (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002: 121).
The investments did not only change the physical state of these neighbourhoods, but also started a
number of socio-spatial evolutions (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002: 122). De Maesschalck &
Loopmans looked at changes in income and housing prices in different neighbourhoods between
1993 and 1997. The strongest increase in income in Antwerp can be found in the neighbourhood ‘het
Zuid’. Income did also increase more than average in the neighbourhoods Bell-Gerechtshof and in
the district Berchem (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002: 122). Housing prices have risen most
strongly in ‘het Zuid’ and in the old centre. The north-eastern neighbourhoods show a much more
modest increase in housing prices (ibid., 2002: 123). Hoefnagels looked at changes in income,
educational level, profession, the number of renovations and migration in all neighbourhoods of
Antwerp. After taken all of these indicators into consideration, she also states that there is a positive
trend in some neighbourhoods in the period of the 1980s and 1990s: in ‘het Zuid’, in the west of
Antwerp around the old centre and in some neighbourhoods in Berchem (Hoefnagels, 2004).
While these neighbourhoods are characterised by the positive evolutions described in the previous
paraghraph, other neighbourhoods went through a negative transition. There were some areas were
the income decreased. This downturn was strongest in the north-eastern neighbourhoods (De
Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2008). Hoefnagels describes a negative trend for the indicators she used
in the north-eastern neighbourhoods (2004).
These two opposite trends during the same period, reveal a process of displacement. Where renting
and selling prices have risen strongly, poor residents have been pushed out. They ended up in the
nineteenth century working-class districts in the north-east of Antwerp where housing conditions are
worse, or in social housing in other districts (De Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002: 123).
35
In these first neighbourhoods that went through a process of gentrification, the role of the (local)
government was very limited. Its role was only to create a good climate for investors (De
Maesschalck & Loopmans, 2002). In more recent years, however, the state has had a more active
role in gentrification. Although the local government does not proclaim gentrification as a goal, we
may find elements in different policy papers, in statements of policy makers, in working papers of
different departments and in information provided on its website that does reveal ideas that can be
interpreted as gentrification. Just as in other places, other words are preferred by governments, such
as social mixing (cfr. Snel et al., 2011) and urban renewal (cfr. Lees, 2008; Snel et al., 2011).
As mentioned above, attracting middle class residents has become more and more important. To
make Antwerp attractive for this group, public spaces have been made ‘attractive’ by displacing
unattractive and installing attractive spaces and facilities. The real-estate department of the city has
been investing in housing for the middle class (Loopmans & Dirckx, 2011). It has to attract better
residents to the city (Loopmans, 2008). Attracting new residents is also a priority in the policy
agreement of the current Antwerp government: the governments want to get more people to the
city, in the first place young families with children and baby boomers who now live in the suburbs
(Stad Antwerpen, 2007). Attracting these better or new residents is legitimised by the promise of the
Antwerp mayor that neighbourhoods will become more liveable when these better residents have
arrived (Loopmans, 2008: 2512).
Antwerp North
It was only since the 2000s that signs of gentrification could be seen in Antwerp North. Before, lower
income residents from gentrifying neighbourhoods moved to Antwerp North (De Maesschalck &
Loopmans, 2002). The neighbourhood has to deal with several problems: neglected houses, bad
image, drugs nuisance and social and economic deprivation of the inhabitants (Hoefnagels, 2004: 46).
In the past decade, there have been large changes in Antwerp North. Not only have physical changes
been realised, there have been some broader, social changes as well. The city bundles different types
of projects in Antwerp North under the name Spoor Noord. These are social, economic and spatial
projects that should handle all important aspects of urban renewal. They should upgrade the
neighbourhoods in Antwerp-North (Stad Antwerpen, s.d. b).
Public investments have been made that supported gentrification in streets with better quality
housing (Beaumont & Loopmans, 2008). AG Vepsa bought several neglected buildings, demolished
them and replaced them by new construction projects, providing commercial places and apartments.
These purchases fit into the strategy of urban renewal to give new impulses into the neighbourhood
36
(AG Vespa, 2011b). There are also plans for other investments in housing in other areas in Antwerp
North (Loopmans, 2006). Beside these investments in housing, there have also been investments in
public buildings, that should give an impulse to the neighbourhood. A new public library was installed
at the De Coninckplein, as well as a new city office and new eatery and a design centre was opened in
the neighbourhood (Loopmans, 2006; Stad Antwerpen s.d. d). There has been investments in public
spaces as well. The De Coninckplein has been reconstructed in 2003 (Stad Antwerpen, s.d. e) and a
new park has been provided (Stad Antwerpen, s.d. f).
Along with these physical changes in Antwerp-North, other policy measures had an impact on the
residents and frequenters of this area. On (and around) the De Coninckplein, unwanted practices
have been banished or thwarted: raids in bars, terrace ban for bars and a social service for drug
abusers has moved to another quarter in the neighbourhood (Loopmans, 2006).
Residents have reacted in very different ways to all these changes. Some are in favour of what is
happening in the neighbourhood while others are strongly opposed. Some organised residents
groups are supporting the approach of the city and are requesting for the ‘cleaning up action’. They
see gentrification as a structural improvement for their neighbourhood (Loopmans, 2006). Some
‘entrepreneurial’ groups put pressure on the government to invest in gentrification in their area and
are opposed to the nuisance producing groups in the neighbourhood. Other groups are reacting
against gentrification. There are some who are reacting against the social displacement of certain
residents and other effects of gentrification (Beaumont & Loopmans, 2008).
37
Part V:
Gentrification and Public Space,
the case of the De Coninckplein
38
1. A Need for change?
In the discourse analysis, special attention was paid to the way people talked about the De
Coninckplein and how the square was presented by the newspapers. When interviewing the
stakeholders, I have asked about their perception of the square and how they would describe the
place to someone who has never been there. And, I have traced words and expressions they used
when talking about the square during the interviews.
The picture of the De Coninckplein that is created in newspapers in not too positive. The square is
called the most disreputable square of Antwerp (De Standaard, 13/06/2008) and a hotspot for drugs
(De Standaard, 14/05/2009). The neighbourhood is called one of the most risky ones in Antwerp
(Gazet van Antwerpen, 26/09/2006). In De Standaard (30/10/2010) one can read that “despite all
investments in architecture, culture and security and social work, the De Coninckplein is still a magnet
for alcohol addicts, drug dealers and users. It is a catastrophe”. The square is often related to
problems such as drugs, alcohol, litter, street fights and illegal immigrants. Policy makers and
residents who complain about problems in the area are frequently quoted while those who are said
to cause problems do not get a voice that often, which confirms the statement of Statham and Gray
(2005) that newspapers only represent a selection of claims made by different actors. This is also
mentioned by a respondent (R2). He argues that policy makers always get a chance to reply in
interviews, but when articles are written on, for instance, an African bar tender, he does not get a
chance to tell his side of the story. This rather one-sided representation causes a one sided influence
of public perception (cfr. Statham & Gray, 2005). As the story of so called ‘nuisance producers’ does
not get public attention, their claims are not likely to be seen as social problems (cfr. Hilgartner &
Bosk, 1988).
The role of the media in creating and sustaining a negative image of the De Coninckplein, is
mentioned by some respondents. One respondent tells us that the Gazet van Antwerpen made a
dossier on the neighbourhood with negative information and wild stories with suggestive
photographs. “Thus yes, it [the negative image] is strongly fuelled by the Gazet van Antwerpen” (R2).
However, according to some residents, the media are not the only actors in creating and maintaining
the negative picture of the De Coninckplein. The members of different action committees hold the
city government (partly) responsible for the harmful image of the square. “But if you keep on
portraying it as dangerous… Because, if you keep organising these huge actions and … then you just
keep saying that it is not at all cleaned yet” (R1). R3 argues that “the city makes a ‘black sheep’ of this
neighbourhood”.
39
When looking at official documents of the local government, the De Coninckplein is indeed regularly
linked to several problems or described as a problem area. On the website of Antwerp, the square is
described as followed: “The De Coninckplein is located in the heart of the Atheneumbuurt. The square
used to be known as the entertainment district of Antwerp, but fell into decay” (Stad Antwerpen, s.d.
d). On the same webpage, it is said that the neighbourhood got a new impulse due to some
investments. In the white paper of the alderman of security, the Atheneumbuurt is defined as one of
the hotspots in Antwerp. These hotspots are described as places where quality of living is insufficient.
The selection of these hotspots is based on research on nuisance and on urban surveillance
networks, which consist of police, city services, social housing organisation and other social
organisations. These hotspots get special attention to tackle nuisance (Stad Antwerpen. Integrale
Veiligheid, s.d.: 20-23).
There are three types of problems that appear to be very important in the Atheneumbuurt and on
the De Coninckplein: nuisance, (in)security and liveability. By defining this area through these highly
negative terms, policy action and urban renewal is made to appear inevitable and necessary.
2. Tackling Nuisance and Insecurity & Increasing Liveability
The local government and the Samen Leven agency have developed several policy tools and
measures to tackle the problems of nuisance, insecurity and liveability. While these tools are
defended by representatives of the city and the employees of Samen Leven, they are highly
contested by local residents who are active in action committees. The policy measures have an
impact on the physical state of the De Coninckplein and on the behaviour that occurs and that is
allowed there, which implies that there is an impact on who is frequenting the square as well.
2.1
Physical Upgrade of the De Coninckplein
In the white paper of the local government, it is declared that urban renewal is of high importance
during its legislature (2007-2012) (Stad Antwerpen, 2007). In a newspaper article in Gazet van
Antwerpen, a journalist states that the mayor of Antwerp and the alderman of urban renewal believe
urban renewal to be an instrument to improve liveability (Gazet Van Antwerpen, 02/06/2010). On
the De Coninckplein, there have been several ways of physical upgrade due to investments of the
local government or (semi-) autonomous departments of the city. There have been investments in
the housing stock, in businesses and in public space. In the white paper, it is also declared that public
space has an important impact on living together within the city. Therefore, the city will ensure the
quality of the public domain (Stad Antwerpen, 2007).
40
Attracting new residents is stated as a general goal in the white paper of the local government: The
municipality wants to attract more people to the city. In the first place young families with children
and baby boomers, moving into the city from the suburbs (Stad Antwerpen, 2007). Social mixing is
often (one of) the important motives behind investments for physical changes on the De
Coninckplein (and the neighbourhood). Although social mixing is not always expressed as a goal, it
can often be discovered as a goal when looking at the discourse when talking about these
investments. In some cases, the aim of social mixing is clearly stated.
Housing Stock
Investments have been made in the housing stock in Antwerp North by AG Vespa, the semiautonomous real-estate and urban development company of Antwerp. AG Vespa addresses some
neighbourhoods for a certain period, where the neighbourhood can tilt towards something positive
due to small insertions. By renovating some buildings in poor condition, they wish to pull the whole
street into a positive dynamic (R7). The De Coninckplein has been a target for a while, with two large
projects: two corner buildings have been bought, renovated and sold (R7). On the website of
Antwerp, one can read that these types of projects have an important value concerning liveability
and the embellishment of the streetscape: “… It is the aim to intervene visibly in residential areas
where one has to contend with decline and vacancy. Neglected buildings, that are not interesting for
private investors, are bought by the company. They are completely renovated or demolished and
replaced by a new building. […] It is needless to say that these projects serve as a significant value in
terms of liveability and beautification of the streetscape in certain residential areas” (Stad
Antwerpen, s.d. g).
Some respondents say that the new apartments are not very expensive, but still too expensive for
people who live in the neighbourhood, or others in similar situations. R1 argues that the apartments
can only be bought by dual-earning families, while the majority of the neighbourhood has Moroccan,
Turkish or Asian roots and that those families are mostly characterised by a single earning profile. R8
says that “it is true that these buildings are too expensive for half of the average Flemings, but… That
is … attracting a new population”. This inaccessibility of the apartments reveals one type of
displacement in this area, namely exclusionary displacement, defined by Marcuse (1986). R2 links the
new apartments with gentrification in the neighbourhood: “What did the city do? They bought the
corners of the De Coninckplein. They have renovated the buildings. And then you can clearly see what
gentrification means: the new residents are not the original residents. In the first place, those are
people who can afford to buy an apartment or a loft. The former residents cannot do that. Thus, you
have a social shift on the De Coninckplein”.
41
The new apartments are a means in realising the aim of social mixing. R9 tells that AG Vespa focuses
on attracting young dual earning families. “They say: we have to lift the mix on the square” (R9). The
cabinet of the alderman of urban renewal explains why social mixing is important. Firstly, there is an
economic importance: if there are not enough dual earners, you cannot support people in weaker
positions, as the taxes of dual earners are important to finance initiatives. Secondly, a mix is
important for a neighbourhood to prevent segregated communities (R6). R8 explains that social
mixing should lead to more carrying capacities and financial strength within a neighbourhood: “Gosh,
yes, social mixing … Without the displacement strategy of course. That you get a mix of … better and
that the original […] Getting a neighbourhood that gets better because you get more carrying
capacity and because you get more financial capacity … through what people who lived there before,
can enjoy that as well” (R7).
Commercial Developments
Not only the housing stock has been upgraded, there have also been attempts to improve the quality
of commercial developments in Antwerp and therefore on the De Coninckplein as well. “[Because]
nice commercial developments make Antwerp even more attractive” (Stad Antwerpen, s.d. h), the
local government provides premiums for traders, to embellish the interior and the frontage of their
businesses. In Antwerp North, businessmen can receive a premium that covers 75% of the costs
when renovating the frontage and 50% when embellishing the interior (ibid.). “It is a positive
message, we support this” (R6). When traders hand in a tender of the expected costs, they get
permission in most cases and when the bills are handed in, the traders receive the subsidy (R6).
These premiums are not only for improving existing commercials, but also to attract new ones: “the
premiums are given for the embellishment of the frontage, and to attract new merchants” (R9); “the
ambition of the city to attract a new type of catering on and around the De Coninckplein” (R10).
The existing businesses on the De Coninckplein – of which many are bars – are often associated with
nuisance. The local bars are regularly described as disturbing and nuisance producing in newspaper
articles, for instance: “The Antwerp municipality wants to get rid of the disturbing bars on the De
Coninckplein” (Gazet van Antwerpen, 10/11/2005). In newspaper articles, bars are related to several
forms of nuisance: night noise, fights, drunkenness. Several measures to tackle these nuisances have
been developed. They will be discussed below. Another term that is used when talking about
commercials is ‘image-reducing businesses’.
During the interviews, respondents rarely declared that the quality of existing bars was insufficient.
However, when talking about possible new bars, they said they should be better, for instance:
“Gosh… people wanted … still want … some better catering. Meanwhile, there is a new bar. And there
42
is a new newsagent, a dignified newsagent”. The aim for better quality retail businesses generates
critique by one of the respondents. According to R2, politicians are not in the right position to
determine what is quality and what is not. Quality differs for people, and if a commercial is
successful, they have quality for their customer: “… this street is not meant for an alderman [of
economy]. The shopkeepers have customers, so it is not important what he [alderman] thinks. When
the mayor declares on television that there is an improvement and that there are more quality shops.
Quality for whom?” (R2).
Library
One last element that will be discussed regarding the change of rather physical aspects of the De
Coninckplein, is the new public library ‘Permeke’. It was believed that the new library would give a
whole new dynamic (R1), a new boost (R8; R9) to the neighbourhood. It was thought that there
would be a more mixed public on the square due to the library: people would visit the library and
possibly stay on the square for a while. However that did not happen, people visited the library and
then left immediately (R9), neither did the library give the positive boost to the neighbourhood that
some expected. De Bilzen, a local group of traders, states the following in a newspaper: “We were
hoping that the library would be a reason for the municipality to tackle the marginality of this
neighbourhood. However, the library nor the design centre […] changed anything to this
neighbourhood where drug addicts and homeless people are still in charge” (De Standaard,
13/06/2008).
The physical investments apparently did not result in the expected and hoped outcomes. The new
library was not able to redeem its expectations. However, the physical investments were not the only
changes on the De Coninckplein. Other measures and policy tools were developed, that had a more
direct impact on what happened – or did not happen – on the square. These measures and their –
perceived – consequences are discussed in the next paragraph.
2.2
What Can and Cannot Happen on the De Coninckplein
The De Coninckplein has changed in many ways. The physical changes on the square – discussed in
the previous section – are only one part of how this public space has been re-made. In this section, I
look at other developments that have regulated conduct and banished some conduct while allowing
or promoting others.
As mentioned above, the De Coninckplein is highly associated with several forms of nuisance: drug
problems, litter, fights, night noise, hanging behaviour, etc. R9 gives an overview of problems
identified in a problem analysis of the area ‘Amandus- Atheneum’: “The De Coninckplein has always
43
been an entertainment area. […] Thus, you have, or had, the whole mix of nuisance related to bars, to
going out. […] Now, but it used to be even more, all the social assistance related to drugs is
concentrated there, and you have initiatives that support the homeless. […]. In addition, you have a
traditional group of people hanging around. […]. That all disturbs people”.
Samen Leven has
developed several policy measures that should tackle these problems and that should increase
liveability and (a sense of) security. Furthermore, the alderman of security developed a white paper
‘Stadsplan Veilig’ (City Plan Security), which contains several measures to increase security in
Antwerp, and in the ‘hotspot’ areas in particular. The goal for all actions was to “reduce criminality
and nuisance in 2060 and to make the De Coninckplein an attractive square that is accessible for
everyone and that lends itself to multiple use” (Stad Antwerpen / Samen Leven, 2011: 1).
Repressive measures
Most of the measures that were developed to reduce crime levels and to tackle nuisance can be
called repressive: they regulate and prohibit different types of behaviour.
A first repressive tool is the use of a certain type of sanctions: “Gemeentelijk Administratieve
Sancties” [GAS]. Since 1999, municipalities are able to punish violations of the police codex not only
by the criminal court, but also by own municipal administrative sanctions (Gemeentelijke
Administratieve Sancties). These sanctions can be given for several reasons, such as street noise,
spitting on the street, litter etc (Stad Antwerpen, s.d. i). One of these sanctions is a GAS-fine, also
called a nuisance-fine by respondents. These fines are increasingly applied in Antwerp – and in other
cities. Newspapers report that each day, seven GAS-fines are given on the De Coninckplein and its
surroundings.
GAS-fines are used as a means to address the problems related to drugs. A few years ago, it was
decided to persecute not only drug dealers, but those who look for drugs as well. When looking for
drugs, one risks a GAS-fine that can rise to €250. Rather than solving the drug problem, this measure
appears to displace problem people and problem conduct. Some respondents argue that the stricter
approach towards drugs has not solved the problem but argue that the problem still exists and has
been moved towards other places in Antwerp North: “Thus, it has just been moved a bit. They have
been chased away here but…” (R1); “The drugs have moved due to the nuisance measures, from the
De Coninckplein towards the Handelsstraat” (R2). This is not the only critic on the measures
regarding drugs from members of the action committees. They formulate a more fundamental
critique as well. They argue that – even though they acknowledge the drug problem in the area – the
drug problem has been used as a story to legitimate a strict approach in the neighbourhood. “And it
is so to say to tackle drug problems that they proclaimed the nuisances measures. […] But the dealers
44
are still there. And they [police] know it, and they know the dealers. Thus it has to be about
something else…” (R3); “They have proclaimed a story, that sounds negative. It is partly true, there is
a core of truth, of course. But they have used the story” (R1). This feeling is also expressed by some
(anonymous) frequenters of the square in a newspaper article: “we never have something [drugs]
with us, but they always come up with something. The police just wants us”; “the whole drug story is
just an excuse to expel us out of the city. They have chased us away at the station and now we have
to go again. We don’t fit in the picture that is presented of the city inhabitants and that’s why we
have to leave. It’s all about the image.” (De Standaard, 14/05/2009).
In 2011, drinking alcohol in public in a demarcated area – including the De Coninckplein – has been
forbidden. When this rule is violated, one can receive a GAS-fine as well (Stad Antwerpen / Samen
Leven, 2011).
Together with a wider action plan, these measures should reduce the crime level in the
neighbourhood 2060 and should make the De Coninckplein an attractive square that is accessible for
everyone (Stad Antwerpen / Samen Leven, 2011).
The employees of Samen Leven stress that there is more than just a repressive approach: “Thus, in
that sense, it is not only pure repression as it is always said” (R9). The GAS-fines are coupled with
mediation and social assistance. People who got fined for these violations can start a mediation
process and can lose their fine. “So we said […], okay these men get a fine, are stopped by the police,
but we are going to work with these guys. It would not be enough to give them a fine because that
would only mean we would chase them away. No, we want to get them to us. […] We told them,
guys, start this mediation process […] and we will drop your fine” (R9).
Although not explicitly targeted, there is a group of frequenters of the square that appears to
experience a great impact of these regulations (cfr. Doherty et al., 2008; Mitchell, 1997). There is a
group of drug users and alcohol addicts that traditionally hangs out on the square. This group is said
to create a sense of insecurity, although not really doing something wrong: “… And they don’t molest
you but ... yeah it … creates a sense of insecurity. It is not about real insecurity, but it does create a
sense of insecurity” (R8). R10 argues that men hanging out on the square were seen as a threat for
the development of the neighbourhood by some. The employees of Samen Leven stress that it was
never the intention to expel this group: “It is never said, we will clean the square. And that is not the
aim” (R9). R9 continues that it is the intention to act against aberrations. It should stop certain
behaviour, because as long as that lasts, they will never get “the social mix we want over there”.
Thus, the focus of these measures is not on people but on conduct that is associated with certain
people and, intentionally or not, this group (partly) disappeared due to the measures according to
45
some respondents. “Meanwhile, you have the GAS-fines, […]. They have ensured that those guys have
moved” (R10); “Those drinkers, they are still there but less. There are some who have a little house
and who said ‘we won’t go there anymore’, and there are some who have said ‘the police is bothering
us too much on the square, we’ll go to a bar to drink’. And there are some who moved to some
squares a bit further. Thus, the group has fallen apart a bit… what … was sort of the intention” (R9);
“and the alcohol ban has been proclaimed, that leads to the fact that… people are not here anymore
[…] they look for another place” (R8). According to R1, the city of Antwerp has intentionally targeted
this group, as it was a threat for the desired coming of new residents: “Who still has right to public
space? And then, the choice or the point of view has been, public space has to be for the ‘normal’
neighbour for sure, not even middle class. It is middle class but not just that. … has to stay accessible.
Thus, the group of problematic users has to be restricted” (R1).
Other repressive measures concern bars on the De Coninckplein. I have shown above that the bars
on the square are often related to nuisance. Therefore, different measures have been developed that
are targeting bars in Antwerp North (2060) and that should reduce nuisance. Two actions were
discussed by most respondents: a closing time at 1 am and a terrace ban. Even though the closing
time was proclaimed for all bars in a defined area in Antwerp North, some respondents argue that
the city was focusing on the De Coninckplein with this measure. “It was really concentrated on the De
Coninckplein. It was a way to break down all the businesses” (R4).
All bar tenders could apply for a permit to open their bar after 1 am. To get such a permit, bar
tenders have to prove they are doing well (R9). When a bar can be linked to previous cases of
nuisance (e.g. night noise, fights), a permit will be neglected (R8). Each year, bar tenders can apply
for a permit. R3 complains about the permits that were awarded on the De Coninckplein: twelve bars
on the square were refused a permit. These rejections are based on declarations of the police that
show that the bar has been producing nuisance repeatedly (Stad Antwerpen / Samen Leven, 2011).
According to R1, there were a lot of problems with these permits: some bars got a permit only a few
days after applying, while others got a rejection that was not motivated by the government.
The members of the action committees and the former bar tender talk about the large impact of this
measure on the (African) bars on the De Coninckplein. They argue that the closing time had a strong
and negative influence on the incomes of the bars: “… and then you had to close at 1 o’clock. In the
weekend. And the customer are used to… they want to stay until 6 in the morning. And then suddenly
you had to close at 1. The customers just didn’t come anymore” (R4). According to R3, seven or eight
bars which did not get a permit on the De Coninckplein, have gone bankrupt. Others argue that is
46
was not due to the measures that bars went bankrupt, rather because of bad management, or a
combination of both.
A second policy tool that was targeting the bars, was a terrace ban: bars on the De Coninckplein were
not allowed to have a terrace on the square. This was another measure to tackle nuisance, so that
the noise would be limited and would stay in bars (R8). R9 says the terrace ban resulted from several
incidents when the police had to intervene in fights and night noise. It was then decided to ban the
terraces. The members of the action groups state that this was another way of reducing the incomes
of the bar tenders. The former bar tender expresses that he applied for a terrace permit every year,
but never got the authorization. He continued that as soon as the library was installed, its foyer got a
terrace permit, in contrast to the other bars: “Nobody was allowed to have a terrace. And then they
opened the library. And they were allowed to have a terrace. But all the other bars were not” (R4).
Finally, some respondents complain about raids in bars. R4 says that there were police controls in his
bar regularly. When customers had drugs with them, they just dropped it. Then it was the
responsibility of the bar tender: “The law says that in Antwerp, everything that is found within a
business, is the responsibility of the manager. Thus. A Raid. The cops enter. Someone had a bit of
marihuana and drops it on the floor. The quantity is calculated and it is for the manager. And we have
been punished for that once. They told us we had to close the bar for two months. But we have been
to court, and we have been acquitted. So we could open again. Thus yes, that has happened” (R4).
The action group members claim that all of these measures had a strong impact on the bars and that
many of them were chased away, under the guise of tackling nuisance. R1 argues that the city could
have worked together with some of the bars, but did not: “with a lot of the bars they could have
done something. Because, their story was… They said, the drug problem is also our problem” (R1). R4
explains that he and other bar tenders were complaining about the lively drug scene before all the
measures were taken, but they did not get much support. He argues that the bars were punished for
everything that goes wrong in the neighbourhood, while they are not the cause: “The African bars
became the victim of the whole situation. It was targeted on the square. I remember at the last
moment there were a lot of police controls and zero tolerance. […] So it was targeted on the square.
[…] We were there with the bars, so we were actually the victim of the whole situation” (R4).
After one year, the measures to tackle nuisance – alcohol ban, closing time and strict approach
towards drugs – were prolonged, because they were said to be successful (De Morgen, 12/12/2011).
The city’s attitude towards terraces has changed: employees of Samen Leven note that they are now
actively reintroducing terraces. R8 is working with bar tenders to make a dossier for applying for a
47
permit. R9 tells us the city is planning to make a part of the square a pedestrian zone, so that
terraces can be there and people can stay on the square and to make it a lively place: “And now
definitely… with the new concept De Coninckplein and with the fact that it will be pedestrian in the
long-term, we as a city say explicitly we have to allow terraces now. If we want these people… from
the library here yes… What is a better way to keep people than a cosy terrace? Or on a bench on the
square … or… So no, no, we are definitely going to stimulate to allow terraces over there” (R9).
A third type of repressive measures is the intensification of police attendance in Antwerp North.
Gazet van Antwerpen, reports that stricter controls are part of a new phase in the approach of
Antwerp North. The chief of the local police declares that intensive foot patrol and controls should
reduce the level of thefts, fights, noise, vandalism and the feelings of insecurity that results from
these crimes. (Gazet Van Antwerpen, 03/05/2004).
Newspapers report about protests against these police interventions. Some have claimed that the
police was focusing on the African bars and that the controls were intimidation (De Standaard,
20/09/2006). In the interviews, I heard some critique as well. R5 articulates that the police
interventions were a way to put pressure on bar tenders: “The city buys buildings and gives the
owner a certain period to leave. Or … the police went there regularly to control… to make the owner
leave as soon as possible. By control on hygiene, by controlling this and … that has happened”.
The police codex has been changed as well. Some actions have been made penal, as discussed above:
the alcohol ban, looking for drugs, a stricter approach towards drug dealers and the closing time for
bars. R1 argues that these new rules are implicitly targeting the ‘nuisance producers’. He states that
the average citizen will not be bothered by these changes, because they are targeting these groups.
A last repressive policy tool that is used to fight nuisance and to increase security, is the installation
of (more) camera surveillance. In Stadsplan Veilig, it is announced that cameras will be installed in
the hotspots, on streets and squares to improve security. The use of cameras should prevent
antisocial behaviour and crimes (Stad Antwerpen Integrale Veiligheid, s.d.: 29). The cabinet of the
alderman of safety declares that with the new cameras on the De Coninckplein, the square will be
entirely visible (Gazet van Antwerpen, 26/09/2006).
Events
There are not only regulations and prohibitions that determine what cannot happen on the De
Coninckplein but also initiatives that introduce or promote certain behaviour. On the square, lots of
events are organised by Samen Leven or other organisations, supported by Samen Leven. Opinions
48
on these events among the respondents are very diverse. There is disagreement about the type of
events and about the involvement of residents.
Samen Leven wants the De Coninckplein to be a very lively square, with lots of activities: “At the
same time, we have said, okay, we will make an event plaza from the square. There has to be a lot
going on” (R9). With the events, it is the aim to actively attract new people, whether they are visitors
of the library or party goers does not really matter, they try to make it very diverse: piano
marathons, book squares, performances, … (R9). This diversity is questioned by R10. This respondent
argues that there now are a lot of events on the square indeed, but that they are activities suited to
the tastes of dual earners: “In the beginning, there wasn’t much allowed there. Now, there are a lot
of events… that … have the aim that Belgian dual earners gain foothold in the neighbourhood” […]
“yes there are a lot of initiatives but initiatives that ... what I just said about the social mix, that
mostly dual earners like to do” (R10). Further in the interview, this respondent argues that by
choosing particular types of events, a certain group is excluded, although it is never stated that this
group could not participate. It is the type of event that has an excluding character: “But they have
never consciously … people have never been excluded consciously. But if you organise Toer de Nord,
or, or you develop Park Spoor Noord or Permeke. It does say socially disadvantaged groups cannot
participate here. But it is what you organise. How you see culture. To see whether people participate
in that culture. […] It is known for ages that cultural manifestation or such … are not really adapted
to, specifically, to those groups or, the most weak … involved. Those are experiences rather excluding
than including. And there has been a clear choice. No, we are going, within the frame of social mixing,
go for the Belgian dual earner” (R10).
According to R8, the events are important to improve the image of the square as well: “Yes they are
experienced positively, thus, I think in that sense it is also important to create some sort of bridge to
this neighbourhood to… show people from outside Antwerp north that this is a lively neighbourhood
and that … Just the whole negative image…” (R8).
Some respondents say local residents and traders are well involved in the events, and that they are
well received by residents. “Always always. And those who say that it isn’t true, don’t know it. It is
true, they are involved. […] Thus, the city collaborates for cultural events, that has always been that
way” (R5). R2 agrees that there are some initiatives where allochtonous bar tenders are involved. R9
explains that there is a programme of events that is organised top-down, but also a programme of
bottom-up initiatives, which is becoming more important. R3 expresses that Samen Leven
(financially) supports initiatives of other socio-cultural organisations, but only those that fit ‘into their
stall’.
49
2.3
Rationale behind Policy Measures
Respondents have very different opinions about reasons behind these measures. While
representatives of the city / employees of Samen Leven argue that several measures were necessary
because there were too many problems in a small area. They state that due to the investments in
public space, the square should become pleasant. The measures should tackle nuisance and
problems concerning living together. According to the members of the action committees, the logic
behind new policy decisions and tools, is one of a neoliberal policy. These protesters refer to the
competition between cities, which has been discussed in the theoretical framework. They argue that
the city has to become more attractive - especially for tourists – to compete with others. According
to R2, this is at the expense of the local community (cfr. Raco, 2003): “Actually… making the city
attractive. To compete with other cities for tourists. Which is actually a neoliberal way of governing a
city. You mind less about the residents, you mind less about what poverty means in the city, what the
social contrast is in the city. But, they look at how they can attract wealthy residents, how they can
attract wealthy tourists. With restaurants and … That is the focus of the city. Competition with other
cities, with Bruges, with Ghent, with Amsterdam…” (R2). The De Coninckplein is located in a strategic
position: it is situated on the touristic axis in Antwerp (R3) and it is part of the area around the
central station (R1).
2.4
Displacement?
Whether or not the changes on the De Coninckplein and its surrounding – both physical and social –
have induced displacement or not, is seen differently by the respondents. While some argue that
certain groups have been displaced, others disagree and did not see (large-scale) displacement
happening. The research methods of this master thesis do not allow me to investigate whether, and
to which extent, displacement of residents is happening. Neither can I provide data that prove
commercial displacement or the displacement of frequenters of the square. Therefore, I can only rely
on information provided by respondents. Based on this information, displacement of residents does
not appear to be the main consequence of gentrification at this stage. It is not the re-composition of
residents, but the re-composition of public space that is the main issue at stake. Nonetheless, it is
important to discuss different opinions and findings concerning displacement of residents,
commercial displacement and displacement of frequenters of the square.
Residential Displacement
Displacement of residents is not a large scale problem in Antwerp North according to some residents.
R6 explains that a large share of the population owns their place instead of renting one in this
50
neighbourhood, which makes displacement less likely. Furthermore, this respondent argues that the
investments have been gentle, rather than abrupt and rapid. R9 agrees that renovations are fewer in
number than in other neighbourhoods in the past (e.g. ‘het Zuid’). R8 refers to a previous master
thesis about gentrification in Antwerp North that indicates displacement was not yet much of a
problem in 2008 yet. Both R8 and R9 declare that a lot of people move out of the area voluntary.
They explain that it is a transit zone where lots of people who arrive in Antwerp move in. After a
while, when they have achieved something, they move to other neighbourhoods. “I think, it is typical
for this neighbourhood… Close to the central station, close to the centre but still cheap. And I think
that when people arrive, they start here because it is affordable. And when people can, they go to
better living conditions. It is also because people live here in small places, to start something… And
when they know, okay we are doing better financially, they indeed move out” (R8).
Other residents have a contrasting point of view and argue that there is displacement in Antwerp
North. I have discussed previously that the new-build or renovated apartments on the De
Coninckplein are too expensive for local residents or others in a similar (financial) situation, which
might point at exclusionary displacement in the area. “On the De Coninckplein you have the corners.
Bought by the city and sold for a very reasonable price. Thus, that is a very good investment if you
have some money. But, those who originally lived there, can’t afford it” (R2).
Besides exclusionary displacement, direct displacement is a problem in this area as well according to
some respondents. R10 tells that a lot of social disadvantaged residents, supported by the social
services, lived in small, poor housing. The studios where they lived, have been renovated and
upgraded and restructured into larger family apartments. Now, these apartments are too expensive
for this original population. R10 adds that there are initiatives to shelter these people. There are
projects based on the housing first principle. However, these places are located in other areas in
Antwerp.
Finally, some express a fear of social displacement in newspapers. When the upgrade of the
neighbourhood got into gear in 2005, Jong Groen!, the youth section of the green political party, was
afraid that investments would lead to chasing out people of lower social classes (Gazet van
Antwerpen, 10/10/2005). A local resident, who is involved in local politics and local action groups,
warns about displacement due to investments and associated rising prices a well (De Standaard,
25/02/2009). A social organisation, Samenlevingsopbouw [Community development], asks for a
social policy that provides displacement: “The new park has a great impact on the neighbourhood,
but at the same time, it means the grudging displacement of poor groups looking for an affordable
alternative” (De Standaard, 26/05/2008).
51
Commercial Displacement
On the De Coninckplein and the surrounding streets, there used to be a lot of bars of which many
were African bars. A lot of these bars have disappeared over the last years. R3 tells that in the 1990s,
there were 22 African bars on the De Coninckplein and the surrounding streets. Now, most of them
have disappeared and only a few can be found these days. Whether or not they have disappeared
due to commercial gentrification, is contested by respondents.
One of the possible causes Zukin (2009) gives for commercial displacement, is rising rent prices for
commercial properties. This has not been mentioned by any of the respondents. They do discuss
rising rent prices or high purchases for dwellings, but not for commercials. A second cause Zukin
discusses, in a lack of strategies regarding marketing, tourism and technology. Some of the
respondents – both employees of Samen Leven and members of the action committees – agree that
not all former bar tenders had a good business instinct and that this shortage was (partly) the cause
of bankruptcies.
However, according to some respondents, the bars have been chased out of the neighbourhood by
the local government and the nuisance measures. Some of the protesters claim that the local
government was aiming to extrude the African bars. R1 states that the city wanted to get rid of the
bars and replace them by other types of commerce: “And one of the analysis on the De Coninckplein,
it is always like yes here is a bar and here and bars and only bars… and … A residential zone, you
cannot combine those two things. Thus, we want to get rid of the bars and we want shops instead”.
R5 holds both bar tenders themselves and the city responsible. Nonetheless, I hear critique on the
local government:
“People leave voluntarily, because no one is dragging them away. But … De Coninckplein
for instance. If I look at the traders or people who had a bar there… Yes, actually, they
have been expelled a bit huh. Because. It is not only the responsibility of the city, it’s also
the responsibility of some people themselves. But … I do notice that… from the beginning
they have taken a position. Okay. We are going to euh… bonafide and malafide … okay
they don’t respect the law. Okay we are going to run controls there. Yes, these are
socially disadvantaged groups, they do undertake in a different way. […]. I always say, of
course you have to evolve towards something better, more quality, more hygiene. But
that’s the role of the city as well, the policy should empower people… Thus, if you know
in advance, if I run control actions in this area, I will expel them all”.
52
The protesters and the former bar tender claim that the policy measures had a strong impact on the
income of the bar tenders and led to many bankruptcies and thus, many of the African bars
disappeared.
The disappearance of many African bars does not only (economically) affect the barkeepers. It has an
impact on the African community as well. These bars were meeting places for many Africans in
Antwerp and this meeting point has gone missing with the disappearance of bars: “Back then, on the
De Coninckplein, it was all African. It were all African businesses yes. It was like the ‘Matongewijk’ in
Brussels. It was cosy. There were many tourists as well, who came there to enjoy. […] Some are at
other places now. Groenplaats, Grote Markt, het Zuid. All spread. It used to be concentrated on the
square. If someone wanted to know anything about the African community, they came to the square.
You could find it all.” (R4).
R8 emphasis during the interview that the policy measures were not only for the African bars, but for
those that produced nuisance. There was, for instance, a Belgian, very popular bar as well that has
been closed for a while due to nuisance.
Finally, there is the impact of the nuisance measures on certain groups of frequenters of the square –
those who hang around, often drug and alcohol addicts – which has been thoroughly discussed
above. This group has partly disappeared on the De Coninckplein according to several respondents.
The employees of Samen Leven stress that it was never the intention to clear the square and to drive
off this group. Some respondents express contrasting opinions and claim that this group has been
chased out the area. R10 talks about the ‘chasing away policy’.
53
Discussion & Conclusion
54
In recent years, the De Coninckplein – a central square in the area Antwerp North – has changed in
many ways. Not only the look of the square has transformed due to renovations and new-build
projects, what can happen on and who is frequenting the plaza have changed as well. This square is
located within a neighbourhood that is undergoing state-led gentrification (Loopmans, 2006). This
master thesis argues that this public square is of central importance for gentrification in this area. At
this stage of the process, it appears that the main issue is not the re-composition of residents but the
re-composition of public space. The local government applies a wide range of means to remake this
public place. The changing character of the square and the attitude of the government are in line
with a trend of more intense regulation of public space in many European and North American cities
(Doherty et al., 2008).
Through this thesis I have argued the importance of (state) discourse in the gentrification process.
The negative representation of the De Coninckplein that can be found in policy documents and in
newspapers, makes an interference by the state seem inevitable and necessary. As in other cities, the
local government in Antwerp uses the terms urban renewal and urban development, not
gentrification (cfr. Lees, 2008). City representatives talk about restoring the social mix and give
several reasons for this mix, which were found in the literature as well: safeguarding the tax base
(cfr. Uitermark et al., 2007), restoring a ‘balanced’ social mix (cfr. Newman & Ashton, 2004) and the
belief of more carrying capacities in a mixed neighbourhood (cfr. Lees, 2008). In policy discourses,
attracting the middle class for the sake of this social mix is not the only motive for measures taken on
the De Coninckplein and its surroundings. Nuisance, insecurity and liveability are three key terms in
policy documents and in the discourse of city representatives. Interference on the square is
legitimised as being necessary due to the one-sided and problematic use of the plaza which lead to
nuisance and (feelings of) insecurity. Policy measures should tackle ‘nuisance producing’ behaviour
and activities. The measures are legitimised as providing a square that is accessible for everyone.
New policy measures are said to enhance liveability and security. However, this accessibility is
questioned and one respondent doubts who still has the right to public space. The state discourse is
contested and contrasted by members of local action committees. Existing problems in the area are
said to be used and to serve as a masque to realise other, neoliberal goals. They argue that the city is
driven by a neoliberal logic and that it is involved in a worldwide competition for capital and tourism,
a competition discussed in the theoretical part of this master thesis (see Beckett & Herbert, 2008;
Mitchell, 1997).
The discourse of the local government is translated into many different policy measures and tools.
Some are directly and rather explicitly aiming to attract the middle class, while others are more
indirectly aiming for this goal by making the square more attractive by displacing unattractive
55
conduct and activities and discouraging certain groups of frequenting the De Coninckplein and by
introducing new infrastructure and events. One of the respondents’ statement grasps accurately
what has happened: we wanted to give the square some ‘breathing space’ and rebuild it afterwards.
Several repressive measures have been developed and applied on the square and its surroundings:
administrative fines, an alcohol ban, a closing time and a terrace ban for bars, police attendance and
camera surveillance. These measures have displaced problem conduct and activities. Groups of
alcohol and drug addicts moved to other places in Antwerp and many African bars in the area have
disappeared. Meanwhile, new infrastructure has been installed: a new library was opened and new
apartments, that are clearly there for a new group of residents, have been built. All of these policy
means might not have a very large impact when applied separately, but because of their combination
they produce large changes on the square and rebuild this public place.
Even though some groups are not explicitly targeted by the policy measures in Antwerp North, they
do experience a larger impact than others. A group of loitering and homeless people has (at least
partly) disappeared from the square. And although they were not explicitly chased out of the area,
they are discouraged to frequent this place. For instance, when proclaiming an alcohol ban, a group
of loitering men and women is indirectly denied access to the square (cfr. Beckett & Herbert, 2008;
Doherty et al., 2008). The key characteristic of public space appears to be under pressure: its free
accessibility. Another group that appears to experience the consequences of the policy on the De
Coninckplein and its surroundings, is the African community. Many bars have disappeared when new
regulations regarding bars were proclaimed in this area. This is not only (economically) affecting
former bar tenders, but removes gathering places of this community as well.
Yet, as Atkinson (2003) remarks, these processes are never black or white, and the securitization of
public space does not only have negative consequences. When the drug scene can be restricted and
the feeling of security increases, the original residents and frequenters of the square can benefit
from a safer and more liveable neighbourhood as well. Moreover, the city is not only applying a
repressive policy but develops a social policy and social services as well. And, in Antwerp North, it is
the aim to introduce more bottom-up projects in the near future. However, it appears that a
gentrification-policy is now predominant. Disadvantaged groups feel that the government has chosen
for the middle class and has forgotten about them. Even if this would not be true, it is a relevant
problem for public authorities.
The findings of this research are not only relevant for this particular case of the De Coninckplein in
Antwerp, but have implications for other state-led gentrification processes and processes of
remaking public space in other settings as well. This research strengthens the argument made by
56
other authors that public space is of central importance in gentrification processes. It shows that
public place can not only be remade for the interests and needs of gentrification, but that this remake is part of the gentrification process itself. Furthermore, this research shows the importance of
state discourse in state-led gentrification processes and how these discourses frame and legitimise
state interferences in public space. It also shows how these discourses are translated into actual
policies. Rather than developing one big policy tool, public authorities apply a wide range of small
policy means which all together have a large impact. Further, it reinforces the argument made by
others that a trend towards more intense regulations and surveillance of public space has large
implications for disadvantaged groups. Due to these trend of regulating public space and the
disproportionate impact on some groups, a key characteristic of public space gets under pressure in
urban settings: its free accessibility.
57
References
58
AG Vespa (2011a). Over AG Vespa. Downloaded on 23th May 2012, on http://www.agvespa.be/over-ag-vespa
th
AG Vespa (2011b). Projecten. Downloaded on 29 May 2012, on http://www.agvespa.be/projecten/alle
Atkinson, R. (2000). The hidden cost of gentrification: Displacement in central London. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 15, 307-326.
Atkinson, R. (2002). Does Gentrification Help or Harm Urban Neighbourhoods? An Assessment of the EvidenceBase in the Context of the New Urban Agenda. Downloaded on 11th December 2012, on
http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Atkinson-2002-Gentrification-Review.pdf
Atkinson, R. (2003). Domestication by Cappuccino or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control and Empowerment in
the Management of Public Space. Urban Studies, 40 (9), 1829-1843.
Atkinson, R. (2004). The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban
Renaissance? European Journal of Housing Policy, 4 (1), 107-131.
Baarda, D.B., De Goede, M.P.M. & Teunissen, J. (2005). Basisboek kwalitatief onderzoek. Handleiding voor het
opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek (2nd ed.). Groningen|Houten: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Beaumont, J. & Loopmans, M. (2008). Towards Radicalizes Communicative Rationality: Resident Involvement
and Urban Democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32.1,
95-113.
Beckett, K. & Herbert, S. (2008). Dealing with disorder. Social control in the post-industrial city. Theoretical
Criminology, 12 (1), 5-30.
Christiaens, E., Moulaert, F., & Bosmans, B. (2007). The End of Social Innovation in Urban Development
Strategies? The Case of Antwerp and the Neighbourhood Development Association ‘BOM’. European Urban
and Regional Studies, 14 (3), 238-251.
Cybriwsky, R. (1999). Changing patterns of urban public space. Observations and assessments from the Tokyo
and New York metropolitan areas. Cities, 16 (4), 223-231.
Davidson, M. (2008). Spoiled Mixture: Where Does State-led ‘Positive’ Gentrification End? Urban Studies, 45
(12), 2385-2405.
Davidson, M. & Lees, L. (2010). New-Build Gentrification: Its Histories, Trajectories, and Critical Geographies.
Population, Space and Place, 16, 395-411.
De Decker, P., Kesteloot, C., De Maesschalck, F., & Vranken, J. (2005). Revitalizing the City in an Anti-Urban
Context: Extreme Right and the Rise of Urban Policies in Flanders, Belgium. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 29 (1), 152-171.
De Maesschalck, F. & Loopmans, M. (2002). Over herverdeling van middelen en mensen. Rooilijn, 35 (3), 120125.
Doherty, J., Busch-Geertsema, V., Karpuskiene, V., Korhonen, J., O’Sullivan, E., Sahlin, I., Tosi, A., Petrillo, A., &
Wygnánska, J. (2008). Homelessness and Exclusion: Regulating public space in European cities. Surveillance &
Society, 5 (3), 290-314.
59
Doucet, B. (2009). Living through gentrification: subjective experiences of local, non-gentrifying residents in
Leith, Edinburgh. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24, 299‐315.
FOD Economie (2010). Statistieken en cijfers. Downloaded on 24th June 2012, on
http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/
Freeman, L. (2005). Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods. Urban
Affairs Review, 40 (4), 463-491.
Ghose, R. (2004). Big Sky or Big Sprawl? Rural Gentrification and the Changing Cultural Landscape of Missoula,
Montana. Urban Geography, 25 (6), 528-549.
Glass, R. (1964). From “London: Aspects of Change”. In L. Lees, T. Slater, & E. Wyly (Eds.), The Gentrification
Reader, 7, London/New York: Routledge.
Graaf, van der, P. & Veldboer, L. (2009). The Effects of State-Led Gentrification in the Netherlands. In J. W.
Duyvendak, F. Hendriks, & M van Niekerd (Eds.) City in Sight. Dutch Dealings with Urban Change (61-80).
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Hamnett, C. (1991). Men and the Elephant: The Explanation of Gentrification. Transactions of the Institue for
British Geographers, 16 (2), 173-189.
Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification, Postindustrialism, and Industrial and Occupational Restructuring in Global
Cities. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), A companion to the city, 331-341, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hilgartner, S. & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model. American
Journal of Sociology, 94 (1), 53-78.
Hoefnagels, C. (2004). Theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek naar gentrification. Downloaded on 15th March
2012, on http://thesis.eur.nl/theses/economics_management/index/251917363/
Keulen, M. (2004). Beleidsnota stedenbeleid. Downloaded on 13th May 2012, on
http://docs.vlaanderen.be/portaal/beleidsnotas2004/keulen/stedenbeleid.rtf
Lees, L. (2000). A reappraisal of gentrification: towards a ‘geography of gentrification’. Progress in Human
Geography, 24 (3), 389-408.
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance? Urban Studies, 45
(12), 2449-2470.
Loopmans, M. (2006). Het einde van de stad? Stadsontwikkeling en concurrentiedenken. Oikos, 38, 12-21.
Loopmans, M. (2007). From SIF to City Fund: a new direction for urban policy in Fanders, Belgium. Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment, 22 (2), 215-225.
Loopmans, M. (2008). Relevance, Gentrification and the Development of a New Hegemony on Urban Policies in
Antwerp, Belgium. Urban Studies, 45 (12), 2499-2519.
60
Loopmans, M. & Dirckx, T. (2011). Neoliberal Urban Movement?: A Geography of Conflict and Mobilisation
over Urban Renaissance in Antwerp, Belgium. In T. Tasan-Kok & G. Baeten (Eds.), Neoliberal Urban Policies, 99117, Heidelberg: Springer.
Loopmans, M., Luyten, S., & Kesteloos, C. (2007). Urban Policies in Belgium: a Puff-Pastry with a Bittersweet
Aftertaste? In L. Van den Berg, E. Braun, & J. Van der Meer (Eds.) National Policy Responses to Urban
Challenges in Europe (79-104). London: Ashgate.
Loopmans, M. & Uitermark, J. (2009). Vernieuwing zonder verdringing. Ruimte & Maatschappij, 1 (2), 55-64.
Loopmans, M., Uitermark, J., & De Maesschalck, F. (2003). Against all odds: poor people jumping scales and the
genesis of an urban policy in Flanders, Belgium. Belgeo, 2 (3), 243-258.
Marcuse, P. (1986). Abandonment, Gentrification, and Displacement: The Linkages in New York City. In L. Lees,
T. Slater, & E. Wyly (Eds.) The Gentrification Reader (pp. 333-347). London: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 85 (1), 108-133.
Mitchell, D. (1997). The Annihilation of Space by Law: the Roots and Impliciations of Anti-Homeless Laws in the
United States. Antipode, 29 (3), 303-335.
Mitchell, D. & Staeheli, L. (2005). Turning Social Relations into Space: Property, La wand the Plaza of Santa Fe,
New Mexico. Landscape Research, 30 (3), 361-378.
Newman, k. & Ashton, P. (2004). Neoliberal urban policy and new paths of neighborhood change in the
American inner city. Environment and Planning, 36, 1151-1171.
Raco, M. (2003). Remaking Place and Securitising Space: Urban Regeneration and the Strategies, Tactics and
Practices of Policing in the UK. Urban Studies, 40 (9), 1869-1887.
Rérat, P., Söderström, O., & Piguet, E. (2010) [Rérat et al., 2010a]. Guest Editorial. New Forms of Gentrification:
Issues and Debates. Population, Space and Place, 16, 335-343.
Rérat, P., Söderström, O., Piguet, E., & Besson, R. (2010). From Urban Wastelands to New-Build Gentrification:
The Case of Swiss Cities. Population, Space and Place, 16, 429-442.
Slater, T., Curran, W., & Lees, L. (2004). Guest editorial. Environment and Planning, 36, 1141-1150.
Smith, N. (1979). Towards a Theory of Gentrification. A Back to the City Movement by Capital, not
People. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45 (4), 538,548.
Smith, N. (2002). New Globalism, New Urbanisme: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. In L. Lees, T. Slater,
& E. Wyly (Eds.),The Gentrification Reader, 495-508, London/New York: Routledge.
Snel, E., Aussen, S., Berkhof, F., & Renlo, Q. (2011). Views of gentrification from below: how Rotterdam local
residents experience gentrification? Downloaded on 10th December 2011,
on http://www.rc21.org/conferences/amsterdam2011/edocs/Session%202/2-1-Snel.pdf
61
Solana-Solana, M. (2010). Rural gentrification in Catalonia, Spain: A case study of migration, social change
and conflicts in the Empordanet area. Geoforum, 41, 508-517.
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. a). Wijk Antwerpen Noord. Downloaded on 22nd February 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/80/24/876.Y29udGV4dD04MDYyODQ2.html
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. b). Antwerpen-Noord op het goede spoor. Downloaded on 13th April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/22/866.html
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. c). Thuis in ‘t hart van de stad. Downloaded on 17th April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/23/582.html
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. d). De Coninckplein en Permekesite. Downloaded on 13th April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/80/37/641.Y29udGV4dD04MDM0MTI4.html
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. e). De Coninckplein – Stadsvernieuwingsproject. Downloaded on 13th April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/23/642.Y29udGV4dD04MDkwNTYy.html
th
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. f). Park Spoor Noord. Downloaded on 13 April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/23/212.html
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. g). Autonoom Gemeentebedrijf Vastgoed en Stadsprojecten Antwerpen. Downloaded on
4th July 2012, on http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/80/30/320.Y29udGV4dD04MDM0MDg2.html
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. h). Stad kiest voor kwaliteitsvolle handelspanden. Downloaded on 13th April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/BED/18/817.cmVjPTgwMDkyMDA.html
Stad Antwerpen (s.d. i). Gemeentelijke Administratieve Sancties. Downloaded on 13th April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/4/502.html
Stad Antwerpen (2007). Bestuursakkoord. Antwerpen 2007 - 2012. Downloaded on 11th December 2011, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/Bedrijven/Marketing_en_communicatie/MC_Com/Bestuursakkoord_20
07_2012_def.pdf
Stad Antwerpen (2010). Monitor Wonen 2010. Downloaded on 19th November 2011, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/Bedrijven/Sociale_zaken/SZ_Woon/Woonmonitor_2010.pdf
th
Stad Antwerpen (2011). Kerncijfers Stad Antwerpen 2011. Downloaded on 24 June 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/Bedrijven/Zelfstandige_stafdiensten/ZS_Notulen/72293_Kerncijfers_SA_
2011[web].pdf
Stad Antwerpen / Samen Leven (2011). Evaluatie bestuurlijke maatregelen 2060. Downloaded on 13th April
2012, on http://bastaonline.be/sites/default/files/extern/2011_12_11_antwerpen_samenleven_evaluatie_maatregelen_2060%20(1
).pdf
Stad Antwerpen (2012). Stad Antwerpen in cijfers. Downloaded on 24th June 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/
th
Stad Antwerpen. Integrale Veiligheid (s.d.). Stadsplan Veilig. Downloaded on 13 April 2012, on
http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/Bedrijven/Integrale_veiligheid/Stadsplan%20Veilig.pdf
Statham, P. & Gray, E. (2005). The Public Sphere and Debates about Europe in Britain. Internalized and conflict
driven? Innovations, 18 (1), 61-81.
62
Statham, P. & Koopmans, R. (2009). Political party contestation over Europe in the mass media: who criticizes
Europe, how wand why? European Political Science Review, 1 (3), 435-463.
Thuis in de Stad (s.d.). Een kijk op het Vlaamse stedenbeleid. Downloaded on 13th May 2012, on
www.thuisindestad.be
Uitermark, J., Duyvendak, J. W., & Kleinhans, R. (2007). Gentrification as a governmental strategy: social control
and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment and Planning, 36, 125-141.
Van Deusen Jr., R. (2002). Public space design as class warfare: Urban design, the ‘right to the city’ and the
production of Clinton Square. Geo Journal, 58, 149-158.
Zukin, S. (2009). New Retail Capita land Neighbourhood Change: Boutiques and Gentrification in New York City.
City & Community, 8 (1), 47-64.
Newspaper Articles
Gazet van Antwerpen (2004, May 3). Politie baas op De Coninckplein. Gazet van Antwerpen. Retrieved from
www.gva.be
Gazet van Antwerpen (2005, October 10). (Jong) Groen! wil ‘multicultureel’ De Coninckplein. Gazet van
Antwerpen. Retrieved from www.gva.be
Gazet van Antwerpen (2005, November 10). Antwerpen weert nachtcafés rond De Coninckplein. Gazet van
Antwerpen. Retrieved from www.gva.be
Gazet van Antwerpen (2006, September 26). Eerste camera uit ‘Stadsplan Veilig’ op Antwerpse De
Coninckplein. Gazet van Antwerpen. Retrieved from www.gva.be
Gazet van Antwerpen (2010, June 2). Stadsvernieuwing leidt tot leefbaarder Antwerpen. Gazet van Antwerpen.
Retrieved from www.gva.be
De Morgen (2011, December 12). Overlastmaatregelen rond De Coninckplein verlengd. De Morgen. Retrieved
from www.demorgen.be
De Standaard (2006, September 20). Actie voor behoud eigenheid De Coninckplein. De Standaard. Retrieved
from www.destandaard.be
De Standaard (2008, May 26). Park Spoor Noord drijft vastgoedprijzen omhoog. De Standaard. Retrieved from
www.destandaard.be
De Standaard (2008, June 13). Facelift De Coninckplein mislukt. De Standaard. Retrieved from
www.destandaard.be
De Standaard (2009, May 14). Wij worden de stad uitgedreven. De Standaard. Retrieved from
www.destandaard.be
De Standaard (2010, October 30). De Coninckplein: ‘Het dealen wordt alsmaar agressiever’. De Standaard.
Retrieved from www.destandaard.be
63
64