+Nomads in the Netherlands

The New Map of Tbilisi aims to show the effects of planning policy, land deals and development proposals on the future of Tbilisi .

It will be produced by collecting data from institutions, companies and citizens. With the New Map, links and relations between the various plans are put into perspective, potential conflicts brought to light and spatial impacts revealed.

The New Map clarifies who wants to do what, where and when. By making the plans for the future to Tbilisi transparent the New Map hopes to foster public debate, empower Tbilisi ’s citizens and contribute to sustainable planning policies.

Within the framework of the New Map, exhibitions, public forums, seminars and workshops will be organized.

‘...The first were my parents who live in Overtoomse Veld. A few years ago, they got a letter in which it was explained that their building was going to be demolished. So they had to look for a house, pack their belonging and move out from our home. The year after that, my brother received the same letter. He lived in an apartment block in Osdorp with his wife and children. They have been looking for a house for two years. ... Two weeks ago they finally got a house in Osdorp, at the end of the tram line...I thought I was lucky but in 2003 I also got a letter with the announcement of the demolition!’

 

Quote from an interview with Ms A. Slotermeer August 2007

 

In the Netherlands, urban issues have commanded policy attention for decades, with different spatial approaches in fashion over time. One of the recent urban policies, introduced in 1994, is called ‘Big City Policy’ and seeks to fighting the concentration of low income/immigrant populations.

 

In Dutch political discourse, areas with large concentrations of immigrants have become synonymous with areas that suffers from economic, cultural and political backwardness and lack of social cohesion. Therefore, specific urban policies have been put in place to (dis)solve these areas.

 

The proposed solution, under the slogan of ‘mixed neighborhoods’, aims at dillulte the concentration of poor households in some areas of Amsterdam by attracting more middle and higher income people to the problematic areas. However, this appealing idea of 'upgrading' the areas with the ‘injection of the middle class’ has a significant side effect: It creates a massive displacement of poor households, such that it “solves the problem” in one area by transfering it to another area. 

 

The implementation of ‘renewal’ policies in poor areas  displaces a large section of lower-class households. This phenomenon is theoretically and practically unavoidable because alternative accommodation cannot be offered to everybody in the same area due to policy makers' choices. These considerations lead to reflect on this paradox: Dutch urban renewal policies may have the effect of institutionalizing the very situation they was designed to improve, namely strengthening the socio-economical situation of the  marginalised parts of the population by bringing them into the widening society.

 

The areas in the Netherlands which are targeted for top-down transformation are mainly the postwar garden neighborhoods. In these districts immigrants are setting up. Small businesses ,are flourishing, and local economies are developing. As a result, the neighborhoods and the community benefits from the insertion of these independents initiatives.

 

The urban structure of the garden districts doesn’t function in the same way as the city center, Its closed building blocks structure, clearly defined streets, squares and shopping areas. Allowing the immigrant-run businesses to settle in marginal shopping squares and strips and in little business spaces scattered around and hidden in the neighborhoods. The rent of the space is cheap and the customers – mainly residents of the neighborhoods - know their way around in this closed circuit of suppliers and clients.