A comparison of Dutch and US public housing regeneration planning: the similarity grows?

Abstract

Based on a comparison of HOPE VI and Big Cities Policy in the United States and the Netherlands, we argue that despite major differences in context, there has been a convergence in regeneration strategies in the two countries. In both countries the neighbourhoods look better, are safer and have a better reputation. However, in the Netherlands shopping facilities have improved more than in the United States. In both countries, most of the original residents have a better quality of life after than before the policies were implemented, whether they live on-site or have relocated. However, the needs of multi-problem families are not being met by either HOPE VI or Big Cities Policy. Finally, there is no evidence that the original residents have become more self-sufficient in either country as a result of the regeneration.

Keywords:

• income mixing
• ethnic minorities
• relocation
• HOPE VI
• Big Cities Policy

Notes

1. In the United States context, we are talking about developments operated by local public housing authorities (i.e. public housing ‘projects’) whereas in the Netherlands we are talking about developments managed by private housing companies. To increase readability, we use the term ‘public housing’ for developments in both countries. We limit the scope of the article to public housing neighbourhoods; it was beyond the intended purpose of this article to investigate neighbourhood revitalization efforts in private rental housing communities.

2. Sometimes we also refer to unpublished papers, in order to overcome the publication bias of significant findings (Cooper 2009).

3. We did not conduct a systematic literature research employing keywords and library databases. Instead, we used a ‘snowball’ type strategy (Cooper 2009). That is, we started off with each of us reviewing 10 of the most important articles, books or reports on public housing revitalization in the United States and the Netherlands, respectively. We then expanded our search using (1) references in these 10 books, (2) notifications of new publications from publishers and research institutes and (3) suggestions we received in emails from scholars and practitioners. We believe that this approach yielded as complete a list as we would have obtained from a more systematic literature review.

4. In the Netherlands, as elsewhere in Europe, members of ethnic minorities are sometimes referred to as ‘black’ even though they are Caucasians. Clearly, the meaning of ‘blackness’ varies between the United States and Europe (Aalbers et al. 2011).

5. Priemus et al. (2005, p. 583) observe that ‘there is emerging concern about the possible negative impacts of the housing allowance on work incentives and on economizing on housing costs. The poverty trap has become more of an issue as a result of the accumulation of income-related programs’. Unfortunately, there has been little empirical research examining the influence of housing and income programmes on the motivation to work.

6. For a more detailed discussion of the history of America's public housing programme, see Landis and McClure (2010) and Schwartz (2010).

7. As we will show below, this is certainly the case with respect to the use of vouchers for relocating HOPE VI residents.

8. The so-called Rotterdam Act is discussed in more detail below.

9. Dutch researchers have not been uniformly positive regarding improvements in physical conditions. Van Bergeijk and colleagues (2008) highlight a disappointingly high incidence of neighbourhood problems (litter, crime, complaints about different life styles) at some revitalization sites. They believe that building new homes and demolishing other dwellings is not sufficient to turn around the ‘spiral of decline’ in these neighbourhoods. Marlet and colleagues (2009) assert that even where physical strategies are effective, community organizations may not support these measures.

10. Global trends (the ‘greying’ of the population, socio-economic decline in parts of the city, economic ‘scaling up’ in the retail sector and rising automobility) have undercut the viability of neighbourhood shopping centres in the larger social housing estates leading to a concentration of shopping in district centres (Elsinga and Wassenberg 2007).

11. Site visits by the authors highlight a number of other shopping centre success stories (especially in comparison to HOPE VI sites): Amsterdam West, Hoogvliet (Rotterdam), Southwest Hague and Poptahoff (Delft).

12. There are some more positive findings, however. Galster (2007) concludes that low-educated and unemployed residents in mixed European neighbourhoods do profit from slightly better off neighbours. However, the status differences between the better off and the poor should not, however, be too great in order for this type of mixing to be beneficial. Also, Van Beckhoven and colleagues (2009) argue that well-designed public spaces could promote social cohesion by encouraging members of different groups to interact.

13. Pinkster's (2009) study of two neighbourhoods in The Hague indicated that low-income residents in a more homogeneous low-income area had a more constricted social network than low-income residents living in a more mixed area. However, this finding does not prove that a mixing strategy would help low-income people expand their social networks. Only a longitudinal study would provide convincing evidence.

14. Levels of segregation (based on the Index of Dissimilarity) are declining faster for Surinamese and Antilleans than Moroccans and Turks.

15. Multi-problem tenants are ones who exhibit problems of paying rent, who are unable maintain basic housekeeping or childrearing and who are unable to maintain workable relationships with neighbours with or without help or supervision (Scobie 1975, see also Vale 2000, pp. 331–332). Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute (Popkin et al. 2004) uses the more politically acceptable term ‘hard-to-house’ which unfortunately conflates two distinct groups (1) those who have trouble finding adequate housing but who do not pose a threat to neighbours (e.g. grandmothers raising their grandchildren); and (2) those with a record of criminality and/or antisocial behaviour who pose problems for neighbours. These problematic tenants comprise a significant minority among the hard-to-house at most HOPE VI sites.

16. Sampson et al. (2005) advocate similar policies in the United States, that is, to create a greater degree of familiarity among neighbours thereby promoting a greater degree of social control.

17. This section focuses on the impact of neighbourhood restructuring on public/social housing residents through their relocation experiences. It is beyond the intended scope of this article to discuss the effects of relocation patterns on destination neighbourhoods (negative neighbourhood spillovers). For a detailed treatment of this subject, see Kleinhans and Varady (2010).

18. Some who are qualified to move back choose not to do so either because of concern about the employment requirement at the HOPE VI site (discussed in the next section) or having moved once preferred not to move again.

19. A number of Dutch scholars (Van de Wijdeven and Hendriks 2009) have made the same point, that area-based strategies are fundamentally limited in their ability to address poverty problems.

20. One could argue, however, that the Netherlands is moving more and more in the direction of America's stricter approach to social benefits. As an example, we cite Rotterdam's decision to implement a welfare programme requiring recipients to work in order to obtain benefits (‘Rotterdam unemployed to work for their benefits’ 2010).

21. The incidence of single-parenthood and teenage pregnancies is particularly high among black immigrants from the Netherlands Antilles (Gijsberts and Dagevos 2010) but up to now little attention has been given to family-strengthening policies sensitive to the characteristics and needs of particular ethnic groups.