Actors, Agents and Attendants II: Research Platform I

Report

by Ilse van Rijn

After having concentrated on health care during the first international symposium in the series Actors, Agents, and Attendants, the second edition continued investigating SKOR’s fields of activity. This time the symposium focused on social housing as another responsibility of the welfare state. The title Social Housing - Housing the Social was intended to stimulate the audience to reflect on the question: What types of pragmatics and practicalities have emerged in a society that has undergone such dramatic political, economic and social changes? The experts attending the research platform preceding the symposium were asked to fuel the organisers with questions and remarks relating to the symposium’s theme.

Dr. Jeroen van der Veer, policy advisor at the umbrella organisation Amsterdam Federation of Housing Associations (‘Amsterdamse Federatie van Woningcorporaties’), highlighted some useful facts and figures relating to the history of, and changes to, the field of social housing, using the city of Amsterdam as an example.

The Netherlands has the highest percentage of social dwellings in Europe. It is only recently that social housing in the Netherlands - with its high percentage of middle-income groups - has mostly been provided for lower income groups (< € 33.000,- / per annum). Almost all rentable social housing in the Netherlands is owned by private, non-profit Housing Associations (HA); in Amsterdam they own 48% of the housing stock. The Housing Act of 1901 changed these originally philanthropic Housing Associations into ‘authorised institutions’. The first authorised HA in Amsterdam was established in 1903; by 1925 there were 58, which, after mergers, decreased to 9 in 2011.

Statistics show that relative to previous decades more social housing was constructed in the Netherlands during the early 1920s and was largely influenced by the Amsterdam School (Spaarndammer neighbourhood, Berlage Plan). Peaks in social housing also occurred after WWII, when more standardisation and functionality were introduced to architectural practices, as can be seen in the Western Garden Cities. The period between 1966 and 1975 witnessed the high-rise boom: the Bijlmermeer neighbourhood was constructed in this period, for example. The years between 1976 and 1989 were marked by urban renewal that was carried out under the banner Bouwen voor de Buurt (‘Building for the Neighbourhood’), which also included the conversion of private dwellings into social housing projects. The 1990s saw sweeping changes to housing policy. Subsidising social housing was considered unnecessary; instead, individuals rather than bricks received financial support (subject-subsidies). It was during this period that Housing Associations - which are required to create appealing residential environments - also became property developers.

Housing Associations became financially independent in 1995. The resulting interdependency between local government and Housing Associations with regard to new housing developments and re-designating existing buildings as social dwellings, for example, resulted in a joint policy. In Amsterdam there was noticeable general decline in the construction of new social housing, which has been exacerbated by the recent economic crisis. Projects are now more often cross-subsidised. There is an increase in owner-occupied dwellings, and post-war housing stock is being demolished or renovated.

The 1990s saw the implementation of unprecedented organisational and financial changes in the Housing Associations. Since then urban regeneration has resulted in a mix of social housing and owner-occupied housing as well as an increase in the types of houses that are available. Housing density increased and social programmes became more important. At the moment, more residents choose to remain in their neighbourhoods, where they feel comfortable.

Gert Dijkstra, Head of Public Relations at Eigen Haard Housing Association in Amsterdam, discussed his work in general before focusing on the ‘practice and potential of art projects in social housing’.

Eigen Haard, the third largest Housing Association in Amsterdam, owns 61.343 houses, equivalent to the number of dwellings in a city the size of Leiden. To improve the cleanliness and safety of certain neighbourhoods, Eigen Haard initiated interventions that often involved mobilising youngsters or the elderly. Two types of interventions were identified. Firstly, it is frequently better to work directly with the residents to, for example, ensure that a dark underpass is safe to use again or to stop vandalism; and secondly, to commission artists to create works that enhance the area. However, some of these art projects were not always successful.

Whereas potential art projects could, according to Dijkstra, be instrumental in creating new approaches, be sources of inspiration, connect cultures, reduce discrimination and improve social interaction, most of the time they did not result in safe and comfortable dwellings and neighbourhoods. Many art projects were unsuccessful, were too expensive and acquired a bad name. Dijkstra concluded that there is a hiatus between the practice and potential of art projects in a social housing context, and summarised some of the reasons for this: the benefits are not evidence-based, art is a costly luxury item, it remains the property of the artist, and is usually presented more as a ‘dessert’ rather than as the ‘main dish’. His suggestions included “Rename it! Never use the word ‘art’ again!”. Moreover, he believes that art can succeed if the citizens or tenants are the artists, if the benefits are shared and upgraded, and if art is reintegrated into (the construction of) social housing, as happened before WWII.

Dijkstra was followed by the visual artist Jeanne van Heeswijk, whose work involves creating contexts for interaction in public spaces and is characterised by committed social involvement. Her presentation concentrated on the situation in the Afrikaanderwijk, a neighbourhood in south Rotterdam, and her practice and experiences turned out to be the exact opposite of Dijkstra’s viewpoint.

Around the time of her presentation, Van Heeswijk was about to sign an agreement with Vestia Housing Association and the city of Rotterdam relating to the development of the Afrikaanderwijk, which is centred on its outdoor market. After an experimental phase of about two years, this contract would make her responsible for the development of the entire area; she would effectively become a co-investor and would be able to work autonomously. And, she added, “If you want to include an art work in a social housing project such that it helps to improve a neighbourhood’s ‘appeal’ and ‘safety’, but you only have a very limited budget, then please don’t call me!”

The Afrikaanderwijk remains a social housing area in the rapidly changing city of Rotterdam. Van Heeswijk described the micro-scale of the neighbourhood as an urban laboratory of our time. Her concern lies with the residents: what will happen to them, in which ways are they participating in the changes to the neighbourhood, and how are they being affected by these changes? After all, the renewal of the area in 2009 proved unsuccessful. Van Heeswijk argued that residents should be asked what they think their neighbourhood requires, instead of working with the assumption that it should merely be ‘safe’ and ‘clean’. An economically and culturally mixed group of residents does not fit into a formalised market place, which does not allow for diversity.

Severe regulations - for example, food can only be prepared in two places, but cannot be sold at either of these locations - obstructed entrepreneurs, she continued. Consequences included a profusion of empty stalls and a decline in visitor numbers. Over a one-year period Van Heeswijk organised small-scale interventions, which changed the place visibly (presentations were made more appealing and invitations were extended to public speakers), but also instigated the discussion about the market and its sometimes-absurd regulations. This resulted in public resistance to the regulations, but mostly demonstrated to the stallholders how they could become co-creators of their market.

The three communal work places (a workshop, a kitchen and a local shop) Van Heeswijk created provide opportunities for people from different backgrounds to share their qualities, skills and time: they participate in their programme, not in a programme. The products - tangible or otherwise - that are produced in these places surrounding the market are shown or sold at the Afrikaander market, which, in the end, is revealed as the vibrant heart of a community. The residents in the Afrikaanderwijk became co-producers of the public domain.

Van Heeswijks project is an example of ‘housing the social’, relating to the symposium’s title. According to Andrea Phillips (Goldsmiths, London), the project can be related to two phenomena, namely the relative infancy of privatisation in the UK and the fact that different models of co-production, both philosophical and political, have been reassessed and are now widely disseminated. However, these are also precarious models! We need to reflect on approaches that can bridge the gap between the art world and housing associations. According to Fulya Erdemci (SKOR), this gap and overcoming it, are not only practical problems; in the long run, solutions could also have a social impact.

The question remained what the role of the artist can, or should, be in art projects that are integrated into social housing developments (Barbara Visser, artist: “to use art as a panacea is never a good idea.”; Andrea Phillips: “in order to pursue a new housing situation we have to redefine ourselves and our roles, as well as reassess the notion of the ‘exclusive’ artist”). To clarify (and defend) her position as an artist, Van Heeswijk stated that art helps to create an image of a neighbourhood; it helps people to identify themselves to the place where they live. Co-production remains important. Furthermore, artists rarely engage in the development and execution of a social housing project. Because art and social involvement are inextricable, it would be good to think in terms of co-execution. This was also suggested by Dijkstra, although he was largely referring to the integration of sculptural works in a building (Het Schip). Dijkstra also stated that he was interested in collaborating with Van Heeswijk. From the perspective of Hedwig Heinsmans (DUS Architects), Van Heeswijk could be described as a ‘smart architect’. Van der Veer, on the other hand, questioned whether her approach was actually such a radical departure from the abovementioned recent ‘neighbourhood approach’ of the housing associations, in which they not only take care of the ‘bricks’, but also pay close attention to what happens around them.

Fulya Erdemci questions whether we could develop models that can result in a more fruitful collaboration between the various parties involved in social housing? Could we think of a more radical agenda? Is the ideological agenda of the early 20th century still relevant? This issue is underscored by the fact that widespread notions such as ‘safety’ and ‘cleanliness’ indicate that we want to live in sterile residential neighbourhoods. Something, which is hardly feasible in our current diverse culture, characterised as it is by a broad palette of habits and customs.

According to Huib Haye van der Werf (SKOR): “In striving for a new housing situation, we have to redefine our roles and functions, but we also need to invest time and energy.” After having us reflect on the ways in which we use political terminology, Lisette Smits (curator) reminded us that artists do not think in ‘models’. Tati Freeke-Suwarganda (SKOR) emphasises the fact that language is interpreted differently in these - until now - separate domains. Because these interpretations do not coincide, they prevent us from engaging in fruitful collaborations.

Organisers Fulya Erdemci, Andrea Phillips, assisted by Vesna Madzoski
Presenters Dr. Jeroen van der Veer (Amsterdam Federation of Housing Associations), Gert Dijkstra (Eigen Haard Housing Association), Jeanne van Heeswijk (visual artist)
Moderator Chris Keulemans
Expert Panel Andrea Phillips (Goldsmiths, London), Arie van der Ham (STIPO), Barbara Visser (artist), CASCO Utrecht, Christian Ernsten (Partizan Publik), Dirk Bergvelt (Architectuur Locaal), Fulya Erdemci (SKOR), Guido Zijlstra (Huurteams Amsterdam), Hedwig Heinsman (DUS Architects), Huib Haye van der Werf (SKOR), Jorinde Seijdel (Open), Liesbeth Melis (SKOR/Open), Lilet Breddels (Volume), Lisette Smits (curator), Saskia van Stein (NAi), Theo Tegelaers (SKOR), Tati Freeke-Suwarganda (SKOR), Vesna Madzoski (SKOR)