Community light:
Territorial ties and local participation in a new suburban area
Tineke Lupi*
Paper prepared for the OTB conference ‘Doing, thinking, feeling home: the mental geography of residential environments’, Delft 14-15 October 2005.
Abstract
Since suburbanisation has become a mass movement in post-war America, a debate is going on about the effects of suburban life on people and society in general. On the one hand suburbs have a reputation of being dull and anonymous areas where private life is extremely dominant. Robert Putnam for instance claims they strongly contribute to the loss of social capital in the western world. On the other had there is a group of academics who in search for the ‘truth about suburban life’ found residents heavily engaged in their local community. In recent suburban research in the Netherlands traces of both viewpoints where found. However this paper will argue that suburban life cannot be seen as completely atomised nor exceptionally cohesive. Instead it represents a new form of local bonding in the form of ‘local community light’. Especially suburbs show how the relationship between people and place has changed over the past decades. Through a time where place did not seem to matter at all, it has regained importance in the form of the home territory. This locale, extending itself around the private property of the house, is the place people feel completely their own and will defend at all costs. In sustaining the order and control of the residents rely on each other, but generally stay distant. However when the collective home territory is at stake residential organisations get into action. The paper presents the concept of territorial ties and show how they have evolved and which part they play in current suburban areas. The focus lies on the early years of suburban settlements, the so-called pioneering stages. A comparison will be made between the 25 year old new town of Almere and a new Amsterdam suburban area called IJburg. There are both interesting similarities and differences that highlight the rise of the home territory and local community light.
* Contact details:
University of Amsterdam, Department of Geography and Planning Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130
1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 (0)20-5254258
1. Introduction
Suburban live is often perceived as anonymous and highly individualistic. Far from the busy city centre the residents have obtained the ideal house with garden, where they can be true kings in their castles. Almost sixty years ago James Richards already strikingly described the anatomy of the suburb as ‘castles on the ground’ (J.M. Richards, 1964). To the suburban dweller, the larger town often seems to mean very little. In line with the suburban ideology of peace, quietness and safety, the private sphere is very dominant. This somewhat alienated picture of suburban life is very deeply rooted in the public opinion, partly because of accounts by American scholars such as Whyte, Baumgartner and recently Putnam (Baumgartner, 1988; Putnam, 2000; Whyte, 1956). However in contrast to the picture they paint, exists an image of suburbs as socially active communities. Research into the social development of suburban areas in their early years has shown this, especially in the post-war Northern American suburbs, but also in the later British New Towns and the more recent Australian ones (Gans, 1967; L. Richards, 1990; Schaffer, 1970). Also in the Netherlands the first stage of several new suburban housing estates have been studied, be it in less detail then in America or Britain. Yet as in these countries, local social contacts seem to develop very quickly, first between next-door neighbours but soon to be followed by the organisation of local activities and the establishment of residential organisations.
The question which of the above representations is right has been debated on ever since suburbanisation became a mass movement in post World War II society. Early suburban researchers such as Gans, Berger and Dobriner branded the alienated, negative view to be a myth, based on subjective observations and cultural pessimism (Berger, 1960; Dobriner, 1958; Gans, 1967). This so-called myth of suburbia was contrasted by empirical findings on suburban life, claimed to picture the truth. However the ‘realistic view’ has been trying to demythologize the stereotype image of suburbs for years, it has not been very successful. Indeed academics have shown that a lot has changed since the suburbs of the nineteen fifties when the myth developed (Fishman, 1987, Masotti & Hadden, 1974). Today there is not one single suburban form, the stereotype view of a somewhat dull area consisting of detached houses occupied by white middle class families can only be found in some American regions. It can rather be seen as a continuum form a suburban district on the edges of a large city having more urban characteristics to areas or towns further in the outskirts with slight rural traits. In this respect all suburbs are relative, in fact all are urbanising from the moment they were built. What unites them is their density of housing, low compared to the larger city but high in respect to the village, and their division of functions, focussing most on housing. Some larger suburban new towns now themselves have a relative busy city centre with shops and offices, but beyond this they still entirely consist of residential areas with little more than some local grocery stores. Life in these places seems predictable so the suburban myth still seems to fit them.
The myth may have never been conquered because suburban research has always been secondary to urban studies. When the process of mass suburbanisation was relatively new and in full swing during the first decades after World War II it was given considerable academic attention, but this faded away in late seventies and the early eighties when urban renewal took of, especially in Europe. Since then attention has been focussed on social processes in old, often deprived urban residential districts and the newer massive post-war housing estates, built in the nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies. Some of the last can be seen as the forerunners or even early types of (European) modern suburbs, but are different in both social and physical structure. However, as the Netherlands has developed a new suburban policy in the last decade, the discussion on suburban myth vs. fact has re-emerged. At the same time the issue of local social cohesion has been put on the agenda. With respect to the fear for social crisis, suburban settlements cause as much and often even more worry than inner-city
neighbourhoods. Since the end of the nineties the suburban myth vs. truth debate has been fed with new research, focussing on issues of social cohesion and local identity (Deben & Schuyt, 2000; Van Ginkel & Deben, 2002; Reijndorp et al, 1998). The findings have shed new light on the subject of suburbanisation and the meaning to society a whole. Instead of debating on what represents the suburban reality most, it is best to acknowledge that both can exist at the same time. By not focussing on either the myth or the realist view one can see they are two sides of the same coin, that is the relationship between people and place and the way this changed in modern and post-modern society. The emergence of new forms of local attachment beyond strong local bonding of the Gemeinschaft type, or weak, individualistic ties of the Gesellschaft type especially becomes clear when studying suburban areas (Granovetter, 1972). It is there that the emergence of the so-called ‘community light’ can be found of which scholars like Delanty speak (Delanty, 2003).
First the suburban community question, as the debate about suburban life can be named, will be discussed. The next part of the paper introduces Dutch suburban research and explains the concept of territorial ties, used in recent studies. In the third part of the paper some research findings on how these territorial ties have evolved and which part they play in current suburban areas, both older and new ones. A comparison will be made between the 25-year-old new town of Almere and a new Amsterdam suburban area called IJburg. There are both interesting similarities and differences that highlight the rise of the home territory and local community light.
2. The suburban community question
In a time with much debate on social cohesion and the lost of community, suburbs don’t seem the place to look for local ties. On the one hand suburban life is seen as trivial, on the other hand many perceive it as damaging to society as a whole. In his influential book Robert Putnam for instance states suburbanisation has contributed to the loss of social capital in America. Because of the constant commuting urban sprawl in particular is claimed to isolate people from civil society and produce weak ties (Putnam, 2000). Putnam’s argument is far from new but part of the negative view on suburban life, stressing aspects as uniformity, individualism, narrow mindedness and alienation, that has evolved since the nineteen forties initially by American scholars. Some of them go as far to attribute all kinds of social problems to suburbanisation or even claim it to be pathologic. Apathy, youth crime, child abuse, work or school related stress, teenage pregnancy, divorce and mental illness are all said to be enforced by living in a suburb (Jackson, 1985; Klein, 1978; Riesman, 1957; Whyte, 1956; Wyden, 1963). On the social-spatial side suburbs are regarded as non-places, areas without a distinct identity but only a functional meaning to the residents (Auge, 1995; Fishman, 1987; Kunstler, 1993; Relph, 1976).
Suburbs have not always had this image. The forerunners of the modern, mass movement areas, such as the garden suburbs and country estates for the urban elites, were seen as ideal communities, combining the best of city and countryside. When because of growth in wealth and technology suburban living became available to everyone in the middle of the twentieth century, it was initially seen as a promising social process. When it got momentum this Garden of Eden soon transformed into a green prison in the eyes of many critics. Yet the picture of suburbs as utopia or paradise survived and is mainly echoed by residents through suburban studies. The researchers set out to discover the truth about suburban life found people describing their residential situation as a cosy oasis of peace and quiet. Also suburban dwellers were found to have more social contacts than urbanites, especially on the local level (Fava, 1958; Blauw, 1986). Many also make account of local community life in the form of block parties, which the researchers ascribe to a distinct suburban lifestyle. In a later stage
other scholars have used the utopian view to describe the changes in suburbs have gone trough in the past decades as ‘trouble in paradise’ (Baldassare, 1986; Fishman, 1987; Hamers, 2003).
Both visions, however different in their attitude, display the same outdated, stereotyped version about suburban life. They are very similar to what Wellman with regard to the discussion about the effects of urban life on society, has described as the ‘Community Lost’ and ‘Community Saved’ view (Wellman, 1979). It is indeed possible to describe the suburban academic debate in terms of a Suburban Community Question (Lupi & Musterd, 2004). Suburbs are neither completely atomised as the Lost view states, nor exceptionally cohesive in a Saved way. Indeed something has changed, but suburban life cannot be seen as an autonomous undermining process in western culture or society as a whole or even a specific lifestyle. The social and physical structure of suburbs is too heterogeneous nowadays. It is important to see that suburbanisation is a process connected to modern and post-modern society, symptomatic of social and spatial developments. So it is not a trivial or outdated research object, but a very relevant one if we want to understand current trends. At least half of the western population nowadays lives in a suburban setting. It is true that most social problems occur in urban areas, but by only focussing on the city one is missing part of the story.
A development that can be well seen in suburbs is the changing relation between people and place, especially their residential environment. Both the Lost and Saved argument of the (suburban) community question hold the viewpoint of strong local ties and connectedness with ones surroundings, which is the basis for strong social capital or cohesion. Putnam for instance values neighbouring more than work relationships. Because suburbanites according to him travel more, they pay what he calls the civic penalty, less involvement in community life (Putnam, 2000). This view is highly normative and outdated. With respect to urban neighbourhoods, sociologists and geographers these days all over to world acknowledge that they can and should not be seen as a single integrative framework. If for anything this is certainly true for suburban areas. After the urbanisation in the nineteenth century, the mass suburbanisation of the twentieth century is nothing more than another step in our modern society. In fact suburbanisation goes hand in hand with the emergence of the network society in which not specific places, but urban fields or regions, spaces of flows, are the dominant structures (Castells, 1996). Because people did not need to live in a city, close to work and shops, anymore, location has become less dominant with the emergence of suburban areas as one of the results. So in line with the Suburban Community Question one can say that community is Transformed, or even Liberated with this weakening of territorial ties.
In the first decennia of mass suburbanisation it looked like places would totally become interchangeable with only the house as point of reference. However by the end of the seventies it became clear that the increase in mobility had its limits, certainly in Europe. On the whole people may travel greater distances than ever before, but on a daily basis their action radius is limited. Functionally one is still bound to a location, especially Europeans who are not as keen on long commuting as Americans. Also the vicinity and affordability of other facilities such as shops and childcare is important and ties people spatially. In the eighties this functional dimension seemed the only thing left of territorial ties, but several years later place started to gain symbolical meaning, even in suburbs. The house had always been very important to the suburban dweller in their search for identity and belonging, caused by modernising processes as globalisation and individualisation. Initially the local served as a retreat from activities elsewhere, but it slowly got new emotional and political power as a counterpart of the spaces of flows. The emergence of what Castells calls ‘spaces of places’ is most evident in suburbs (Castells, 1997). Influenced by the suburban ideology the residential environment developed into the one place in people’s minds they can be safe, show-off their
status and identity and have complete control of. This ‘creation of the home territory’ has moved far beyond the house, stretching itself out from the street to the complete surrounding neighbourhood depending on the area one identifies with (Van Engelsdorp Gastelaars, 2003). The home territory is based both on the functional need to protect ones property, mainly the value of the house, and to express ones social-cultural status. This mechanism is most clear in residential organisations or homeowner associations that take care of their neighbourhood and deal with (potential) problems together. Actions can go from organising local activities to going to court (McKinzie, 1994). As described mostly by American scholars, the next step is the gated community and it is no surprise that they have first and foremost occurred in suburban areas (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Blandy et al, 2003). Local associations based on the home territory can appear to be very cohesive, most like a Gemeinschaft. However, they can best be described as a community of limited liability, a term used by Janowitz and Suttles to describe collectively in urban neighbourhoods (Janowitz, 1952; Kasadara & Janowitz, 1974; Suttles, 1973). The residential organisations seldom are formal organisations but rather spontaneous associations with a temporary status, only coming into action if a problem arises. Participation is voluntary and without obligations. When the issue is settled people usually keep only marginal contact with each other and turn back to their friends and activities elsewhere.
The emergence of the home territory as described above is a relative recent trend, developed from the nineteen eighties onwards in American suburbs. Since then it has also appeared in urban areas where it good hand in hand with processes like gentrification and recently revanchism (Smith, 1996). But because of the suburban ideology strongly connected to it, the home territory can be most clearly found among suburbanites. Many of them have a strong belief in their place of residence as the paradise described before. Also homeownership has always been higher in suburbs, so the residents have much to defend against. Their territorial ties are different form urbanites. In the next part of this paper research findings form Dutch suburbs will be present that show this mechanism. As described before suburban research in the Netherlands has just recently seen a revival. By comparing the recent data with findings from the early Dutch suburbs of the nineteen seventies en eighties it becomes clear that the relation between people and place has changed. Suburbanites display different territorial ties, often resulting in the creation of home territories.
3. Territorial ties
Suburban development in the Netherlands started relatively late, and gained momentum in the 1960s. Because of a policy response to control it, suburbanisation never developed into anything like the American mass movement. However, still many Dutch moved from the old cities to a new home in one of the so-called growth centres, attracted by the same suburban dream. This triggered lively debates on the effects of suburbia on Dutch society, though the criticism was mostly uttered in the media. Indeed a couple of studies were undertaken into the new phenomenon. In response to debates about the deficient social development of new towns, completely created and built in a very short period, the first residents of Almere were followed for some years. This resulted in several most descriptive reports that till however today are one the best accounts of early live in Dutch suburbs and new towns (Schonk & Constandse, 1984). While the process of suburbanisation itself continued to be of interest to researchers, suburban life as such got only moderate attention as both sociologists and geographers preferred to study the old urban cores.
However, since the end of the nineties there is a slight upswing in this interest, fuelled by a new policy on suburban growth launched by the Dutch government, captured under the name of VINEX-policy. At the same time debates concerning social cohesion arose in politics. This
led to renewed discussions about suburban life in which the Lost view has a large part. As in the time of the first Dutch suburban policy, there is much discussion how the new created areas could have a normal social development. At the same time several existing new towns stemming from the growth pole policy, are beginning to express great concern about the social cohesion among their residents. Local politicians worry they had spend too much attention on physical growth and left out on the social processes, resulting in some seemingly urban problems like loitering youth and rising crime rates. This situation has initiated interest into the social situation in existing and newly built suburban areas by Dutch researchers. First several existing suburban settlements and new towns were studied, recently followed by a research into some new areas built under the VINEX-policy (Deben & Schuyt, 2000; Van Ginkel & Deben, 2002; Reijndorp et al, 1998).
The questions asked in these studies are connected to issues of local social cohesion and the relation between people and their residential environment, the Community Question. In fact they all relate to the old suburban myth vs. truth dichotomy. The first studies show much influence of the Community Saved view, presenting the suburban settlements as cohesive neighbourhoods. The recent research takes more distance from the debates, expressing a Community Transformed approach. It is stated that neither urban nor suburban neighbourhoods are tightly knit communities; suburbs are no new type of Gemeinschaft. The local cannot be seen as the only place where social cohesion can develop, nor is this the context where community is naturally created. People nowadays are socially integrated through differentiated, looser networks of different scale. These may be found in an urban or suburban context. Yet, also the suburban neighbourhood ties people both socially and spatially. Several researchers dealing with this issue have chosen not to focus on local social cohesion but the concept of territorial ties. Social cohesion is a broad force connecting people to society as a whole and it is questionable if this can be broken up into parts that only refer to specific social spheres. Also many romantic, normative views about how society should be are tied to the concept of cohesion that makes it hard to work with. The question into the relation between people and place is more directly and broadly addressed by the concept of territorial ties. The idea of local or neighbourhood ties originally stems from the German sociologist Schmit-Rhelenberg and is used in Dutch sociology and geography since the nineteen seventies in different forms. This concept serves the purpose of developing a broad picture of the meaning of neighbourhood in the daily lives of people. The notion of ties expresses the principle that all social life is emplaced and the residential environment plays a big part in this. As defined by several Dutch urban studies neighbourhood ties refer to the whole of behaviour and experiences of local residents (Van Engelsdorp Gastelaars, 2003; Müller & van Til, 1998; Teijmant, 1979). It is important to note that territorial ties or local ties are not the same as the more familiar place attachment, derived from phenomenological theory. This concept only refers to emotional, deeply rooted bonds expressed in psychological terms as sense of place (Alman & Low, 1992). However feeling at home and identification are part of the researchprojects, territorial ties present a much broader spectrum including functional aspects such as usage of facilities, location of work, social networks and participation.
By using the concept of territorial ties instead of local social cohesion, romantic and nostalgic characteristics of community are left out and a concrete, measurable variable is presented. Dutch researchers of local social processes have over the past 25 years come up with several dimensions of territorial ties, such as the rational-existential tie, consumer tie, action tie, habitual tie and group ties (Van der Land, 2003; Müller & van Til, 1998; Teijmant, 1979). In the recent suburban research three basic forms of ties are used: the functional tie, social tie and mental tie. Bases upon Parsons’ social spheres another one is added in the current study
on new VINEX areas, coming to a total of four dimensions of territorial ties (Van Engelsdorp Gastelaars, 2003).
The four territorial ties:
- Economic, functional ties: Relations concerning the basic aspects of living and time-space patterns. Ties are based on functionality, social-economic status and needs. Indicators are the suitability of the residential situation, distance to the workplace and facilities at hand.
- Social ties: Relations based on communication in actual social contacts or imagined communities. Measures the number and intensity of social relations of the residents and their geographical dispersion.
- Cultural ties: Reflecting relations, based on identification and mental constructions, pride and trust. Two separate forms can be distinguished:
• Emotional ties: Based on identification with the fellow inhabitants, feeling at home in the neighbourhood.
• Aesthetic ties: Based on admiration for the physical-spatial environment, one likes the look of the place and feels connected to it.
- Political ties: Relations based on voice, concern for the place and involvement in organisations and initiatives, both passive and active. This tie varies form following the local news, signing a petition and turning up at elections to being a member of a residential organisation and participating in activities.
Although the concept of territorial ties was not used in the older Dutch suburban research, it is not hard to fit it in. By doing so the changes the relation between people and place has undergone in the past decades, as discussed above, become clear. In the first wave of suburbanisation mainly functional and social ties are shown. Political ties do play a role in the pioneer stages, but the cultural aspects are almost nonexistent. In the new area of IJburg on the other side, they play a very important role. Place is a factor the residents did much consider before moving. They wanted suburban life, so functionality is high on their list but IJburgers made different choices than people whom still today move to Almere.
Figure 1: Almere and IJburg in the Netherlands and the Amsterdam region
4. Almere
The New Town of Almere was built in the nineteen seventies and can be seen as the culmination of the Dutch restrictive suburbanisation policy. Over the past 25 years Almere has developed out of nothing into the most successful suburban growth pole of the Netherlands. When Almere was constructed the special aim was to offer new housing as an answer to growing demand in of Amsterdam. Not only more people sought a place to live, also at that time the old city was perceived to be outdated as a residential environment. To
solve this problem several former villages and small towns in the region were pointed out to built new (suburban) areas. When Amsterdam started large-scale urban renewal it was decided to build a complete new town in the region to house the residents form the renewal areas. Having learnt from the first suburban areas built in functionalistic style, Almere was developed more like a traditional suburb however with the urban aspirations. The town is now among the largest cities in the Netherlands with a population of 180,000. With a growth figure of 500 inhabitants per month, Almere will reach the target of 250,000 in 2015, only 40 years after the first residents moved in. Yet, a suburban character is still very much present. The majority of the housing stock consists of owner occupied and single-family dwellings and youth makes up almost a third of the population. Besides the city centre the several districts of which the town is composed have a pure residential function. Moreover Dutch people still perceive Almere as a suburb and the suburban dream is all around.
At the end of 2005 exactly 25 years ago the first residents moved to Almere. Until this point the new town had only existed in the heads of the developing company, who worked from the former new town Lelystad. Both suburban growth poles had received much negative publicity because of the building pace, housing style and the fact that they were completely planned. To counter this criticism the developing company sets out a research programme to follow the social development of both Lelystad and Almere. Because the former already existed for ten years, the focus lay on the latter. From 1976 till 1982 about 100 residents of Almere were followed and interviewed several times during this period. When the research started only a handful of people had moved into the new houses, but at the end the population consisted of ten thousands. In 1984 a survey was held amongst 1000 of the 30.000 residents of that time (Constandse & Schonk, 1984).
The first inhabitants of Almere mainly came from old Amsterdam areas were they lived in small apartments. Many of them felt their neighbourhood had deteriorated badly in the past years, especially with the coming of foreign immigrants. Their local ties had mostly faded, social contacts with neighbours were scarce and one did not feel attached to the area anymore. Also family in other parts of the city tied them little in a spatial sense. Housing needs were mostly functional, based upon the wish for a larger house with a garden if possible, in a quiet, child friendly area. Where did not matter much to them, but preferably not in the old city. Expectations for the new areas were low, especially on the social-cultural aspects. In retrospect one can say that this lack of territorial ties set the fist Almeerders apart from the group of Amsterdam residents who decided to stay in their old neighbourhood and wait for the renewal. What attracted them to Almere was the offer of the desired housing type and possibility tot move in fast. In line with the suburban dream, residential comfort was the most important aspect to the residents and this still remains today. In comparison to Lelystad for instance the Almeerders were much more focused on their house and developed sensitivity to possible peace disturbances at a very early stage.
The orientation tot the home territory in Almere was still mostly functional. Up to 90% of the residents in 1984 said they were satisfied with the area they live in because of the house, the local facilities, the quietness and the location in the larger region. From the outset the cultural tie was very low; one did not identify with it or felt especially proud to live there. The social and political ties on the other hand played a significant role, the political particularly in the first years of residence. As all new areas to some extend, Almere went through a pioneering stage at which tame local social life was very active. Even before the first residents moved in organisations were set up and after the move contacts with neighbours were easily established. Because everybody was new in a completely new area there was much need to socialise, on the one hand to share your experience but also to deal with developmental problems. Under the influence of the pioneer feeling, some people felt the urge to create a new form of society on the new land. Especially residents form former working class
neighbourhoods in Amsterdam wanted to turn Almere in an urban village with gemeinschaft relations.
During the first years many local organisations and facilities were set up such as sports clubs, community centres and political associations. The social developments were directly stimulated by the development company of Almere, who had appointed several local officials with the task of creating a community. Under the influence of a social worker, a schoolteacher and a minister the first residents tried out several social experiments, but non were successful in the end. After a few years people withdraw themselves from the local organisations, first the men but later also the women. The focus changed from the building of a new society on the new land to preservation of the existing. The political tie faded and the social tie changed from many, but weak to few, but strong ties with friends and family. Contacts with neighbours became less frequent, but on a whole the territorial social ties were shown to be strong. This is partly due because many residents attracted other relatives to Almere, especially their parents. The development company even had a slogan to promote this, ‘come to Almere and bring your mother’.
When Almere became the topic of a research project again in the late nineteen nineties still the functional and social ties appeared to be dominant 1. Of the current population more than half already lives there for ten years and many people have made a housing career in Almere alone. This is mostly based on these two ties. People have a large part of their social network living in their hometown, some even in their neighbourhood. Because jobs and shops are still low in Almere itself, the pure economic ties are low, but not nonexistent. Many residents express a desire to have all facilities nearer to their home and in the case of leisure activities, like playing sports or exerting hobbies, display a big local orientation. Yet only a few residents are actually active in organised networks, especially with respect to the active political tie the same group of people are in fact running several organisations. The passive part of the political tie is a little stronger; people do for instance follow local news and are interested in municipal affairs. Yet trust in local authorities is relatively weak, many people state that there is a lack of control by the police and the local government. In general residents focus on their specific residential surroundings and not Almere as a whole. Only a small number of them say they are actually proud of their place or call themselves ‘Almeerder’. Most positive responses are given regarding the quality of the dwelling and the peaceful, spacious, green and clean surroundings. In many cases this appraisal is followed by a complaint about increasing urbanisation and the disappearance of the rural character. This is also shown in elections where local political parties and especially the new protest parties, such as LPF, got many votes. The strong functional tie, based on the desire for a comfortable, non-problematic life, is a large contributor to this situation.
At the local level the emergence of the home territory and the community light is shown. In the latest Almere study cohesion and territorial ties were regarded not to be very strong, yet residents expressed that they felt at home in their neighbourhood and that they valued the daily interactions. Many people feel that it is important to know their neighbours and most of them actually do. About 60 per cent of the residents say they give help to other people in their surroundings. However, the contacts remain weak, superficial and instrumental.
1
In the research project over 150 people were interviewed and 418 residents participated in an internet survey (Deben, L. & Schuyt, K., 2000). For this paper also some large-scale datasets on social cohesion gathered by the municipal research departments Almere is used (Almere, 2003). These are surveys based on a random sample of inhabitants over 18 years old. Almost 10.000 questionnaires were collected by mail and phone, with a response rate of 37%.
Table 1: Relations with neighbours and the neighbourhood in Almere
Agree* Not agree*
People in this neighbourhood get along well 65% 7%
I feel at home with the people in this neighbourhood 44% 14%
I live in a cohesive neighbourhood 32% 24%
People barely know each other in this neighbourhood 38% 35%
I feel connected to this neighbourhood 59% 41%
* The in-between category ‘not agree/not disagree’ is left out of this table Source: Monitor sociale cohesie 2003, Almere
The suburban dream makes people put high value on the appearance of their neighbourhood. More than 80% of the residents say they feel responsible, however action is not often taken. In fact only 10% has been active in residential organisations over the last 10 years. But figures were considerably higher in neighbourhoods where the residential surroundings were at stake. People in these areas expressed a feeling of having their property violated. Plans, ranging from creating a hangout for youngsters, through building a community centre, or expanding a graveyard at the edge of town, received strong resistance from local residents. Statements as ‘what about us, we have paid good money for our residential property’ echo the rise of the home territory. In Almere now some so-called ‘residential parks’, can be found, who in a way can be seen as forms of gated communities. Prestige, property-value and common lifestyles play an important role, also one likes to present the place as gemeinschaflich. When asked the functional aspects of the residential domains appear to be predominant and residents don’t like to play community. However one does values the local social control that exists and in such takes part in what can be called the collective organisation of privacy.
5. IJburg
IJburg seems a very different case in comparison to Almere, in fact many of the designers and residents of the area regard is as the complete opposite. This is true in some point, but both in fact are suburban areas in the Amsterdam region and have many similar characteristics. IJburg is new area of Amsterdam, developed on the eastern sides of the city in the IJ-river. As Almere it is mainly built in reaction to the growing demands for housing, yet in line with the current policy to keep people in the city of Amsterdam and not to disperse them into the region. Also IJburg is not developed as a typical suburban area such as Almere, a dormitory town in the eyes of town planners. Reference is taken to urban areas connected to water, mostly the Amsterdam Eastern Harbour Area that was recently turned into an exclusive housing district, serves as an example. The construction of IJburg had begun in 1998 and will take 12 to 15 years. A total of seven islands are planned of which currently three exist. In late 2002 the first residents moved in and now about 3000 people occupy the area, much less than expected because of a lot of setback in the building process. Since early 2002 the (future) residents are studied in a research project directed to the social and physical construction of IJburg. Initially the discussions on the residential website were followed and observations were done at local meetings. In 2004 a survey was held amongst the approximately 600 households living on IJburg at that time, with a response rate of 55%. Recently 35 people were interviewed inept.
The first IJburgers display several differences in their territorial ties compared to other residents of suburban areas, both old new towns like Almere and new districts at the fringes of the city. Similar are the functional orientations to a bigger house in a child friendly area, but place does matter much to them. Most residents are tied to Amsterdam because of their job,
the facilities they use and their social network. Two thirds work in the city, 93% uses the shops, 80% attends a sports club and at least 65% visits Amsterdam’s restaurants, theatres and cafés. For 85% the city is a concentration point of social contacts, mainly friends but family as well. Also in respect to their cultural tie they are very much focussed on the city, perceiving themselves as true urbanites. Although most of them don’t originally come from Amsterdam they have lived there for several years, two thirds even longer than 10 years. A little over 75% now thinks of him- or herself as an Amsterdammer and 42% would not like to live elsewhere.
In the search for a new, bigger and more comfortable house the future IJburgers were not willing to give up on their urban lifestyle. Because their aversion to commuting and especially traffic jams, a classical suburb like Almere is out of the question. In fact 91% gave a positive answer to the question whether it is better to live in Amsterdam than Almere. When asked people pointed to the constant commuting and daily traffic jams, but proximity to the city is also a mental thing. Instead of an implosion of distance the IJburgers display a fear to it, despite of actual use one needs to feel close to urban facilities. So one can say that the suburban functionalism towards housing is crossed by a cultural attachment to the city. In this way IJburg makes the perfect location for them because it provides suburban quality of living within the city, an aspect the resident’s value the most. After moving to the area some confirmed urbanites find out, to their own embarrassment, they actually like the suburban characteristics that much one would never want to live in the inner city again.
In contrast to most early residents in Almere, the IJburgers are predominantly homeowners. Together with the fact that they have chosen their residential location much more consciously, this makes for a strong rise of the home territory. The culturalisation of housing has already driven the residents not to move to a just a suburban area but one with a strong place identity beforehand. One is familiar with the location, most people coming from adjoining Amsterdam districts, and is attracted to the planned diversity of IJburg, a mix of urban and suburban functions. As in Almere, the first years of IJburg are characterised by a pioneer process, yet not with the desire to create a new, better community life but a liveable and attractive neighbourhood. Some residents do have communal motives; nevertheless functional aspects play a larger part. Already before the first houses are occupied, people joined forces to influence the construction of their new homes and the surrounding area. The quality of life on IJburg was their main concern, ranging from the colour of the front doors to local facilities such as childcare and good public transport. The website and the negative imago of IJburg as an average suburban area where all plans go wrong, created a large communal feeling making people identify with each other and the place. The local pride rose quickly and the feeling of being an IJburger can still be found amongst both pioneers and the latest inhabitants. Like in Almere the pioneer process was very socially active, except in IJburg not that much local organisations were set up and the ones who are formed have an informal status. Except for the water sports society, no real leisure associations were established besides some occasional groups of residents jogging together. The residential association ‘IJbrug’ is the most important and active one, yet participation is very ad hoc as well as the organisational structure. Everyone is free to join and organise with no further strings attached. In the first two years this worked very well, but now IJburg is getting bigger and many of the setback problems are solved, the local involvement weakens. People now have two levels of local territorial ties, IJburg as a whole, which they have a functional and cultural tie to, and the block or street they live in that ties them most socially. Like in Almere neighbours generally know each other and put much value on this, but besides the people they have much in common and become friends, the local contacts remain weak and superficial. Keeping each other’s keys, lending gardening tools or watering the neighbours plants when they are on holiday, are the most common activities. Neighbouring families have more doings because of their children, like
watching the kids at turns or taking them on a trip together. After two years political ties are also more shown in the passive way, but people do still feel responsibility and also put this into action, like cleaning the streets and confronting others with nuisances.
Table 2: Relations with neighbours and the neighbourhood in IJburg
Agree* Not agree*
I feel responsible for this neighbourhood 80% 4%
I confront my neighbours or take other action when something bothers me
77% 3%
I feel connected to IJburg as a whole 68% 8%
The people in this neighbourhood make me feel at home 60% 9%
* The in-between category ‘not agree/not disagree’ is left out of this table
In line with the community light and home territory very few residents are a member of local organisations and even less are active in them. The most active ones are the pioneers who came to IJburg in late 2002 and early 2003. Also the local website is visited less frequently than before, however it remains of importance to many IJburgers. It’s a source of information for residents who want to know where to find something on IJburg and what is going on. Also it is still the only place where people can discuss the development of the area and since the suburban dream can be found amongst many residents they do have a lot to talk about.
6. Conclusion
In this concluding section I turn back to where this paper began. The question raised was whether the descriptions of suburban life as individualistic, footloose and detrimental or the early empirical accounts of socially active suburbs are most accurate. In the first part of the paper it was stated that both have some truth in it and the discussion of suburban myth vs. suburban reality is obscuring our view in finding out what the process of suburbanisation is really all about. In fact the debate is no other than the longstanding debate about the effects of modern society on the ties between people and the place they live, or local social cohesion. The suburbanisation that has emerged since the nineteen fifties is just another step in the process of modernisation. With respect to the Suburban Community Question the current suburbs are not Lost nor Saved, but either Transformed. Suburban life has not led to social crisis, neither has it preserved Gemeinschaft, it rather is a symptom of the modern, transformed social cohesion. In new suburban neighbourhoods the modern value of individual residential enjoyment, privacy and environmental control becomes most clear. Over time the settlements have become more urbanised, but the predominance of the suburban ideology is what still sets them apart. The clash of the increasing urban characteristics, due to the constant growth, and the suburban dream most residents cherish, has given rise to new forms of community involvement and local social control. Especially in suburban areas the rise of what can be named the ‘home territory’ can be observed. Symptoms of this process, like gated communities, are the suburban transformed local cohesion called ‘community light’ and ‘the collective organisation of privacy’ par excellence.
To illustrate this process, findings of several Dutch case studies were described in the second and third section of this paper. First the concept of territorial ties was outlined, which is developed in the Netherlands since the nineteen seventies en is used in the recent suburban studies. Four local or neighbourhood ties were distinguished, the functional, the social, the cultural and the political. These were related to developments in the new town of Almere and the suburban area of IJburg. The research evidence shows there is not one simple answer to the Suburban Community Question. Territorial ties have changed in orientation, but still exist.
Moreover they do so on many spatial levels, the global, regional, urban and local all play a different role. Moreover the four territorial ties all have some difference in the levels they are most dominant on. For instance the local social tie is most present on the sub-neighbourhood level of the street and block, as is the active political level most of the time. The cultural tie, and also the passive political tie, can be found on a little higher scale level. The functional tie is even a small step more up, covering an entire area or district.
The studies, especially the ones into the new town of Almere show that the strong suburban ideology does exists, even in the Netherlands, and makes the residents highly sensitive for elements threatening their residential environment. On the other hand many new suburban areas still seem to go through an active pioneering stage where the local community is very important. And even after the first few years, people are found to be locally bound on many aspects. When comparing Almere and IJburg it becomes clear that the functional tie is very important to suburban residents. All put most value on their individual housing needs and residential comforts. It shows how the house has become commodified and slowly extended its claim on the surrounding area creating the home territory. The functional tie has some different accents to residents of Almere and IJburg. In the new town the attachment because of work and facilities is low, but with respect to the quality and the affordability of the house it is high. In IJburg emotional aspects, mainly the love of urbanity, cross the pure utilitarianism. This is a sign of the emerged spaces of places amongst the spaces of flows. Almere is clearly a flow and even today people are attracted to it, where IJburg is an anti non-place.
With respect to the cultural tie, the different suburban setting of Almere and IJburg come into play. In Almere identification with the municipality is not very strong, but this is due to the preoccupation people have with their personal residential situation. On the local level one feels attachment and responsibility to the place. In IJburg the attachment to the residential environment is strong, both in the emotional and esthetical aspect. Unlike Almere residents value the look of their neighbourhood and have considerate local pride, many already think of themselves as IJburger. This may be due to the early stage the area is still in, but some of it will remain in the future. Difference can also be found on the territorial tie on the municipal level. Residents in IJburg feel much more attached to the larger city, in fact this is the main reason they choose this location.
Both Almere and IJburg also show how the community light has evolved. In the pioneer stages they went trough many signs of the community Saved are shown. Political ties are very high and also put into action. The urge to make something of their new neighbourhood in many residents is stronger than their longing for peace, space and privacy that seems to dominate life in older suburban areas. In Almere this was most clear, people there even strived to bring back Gemeinschaft or create a better society. The link between the political and social tie did work for quite some time. In IJburg social cohesion was initially also the aim of a few of the first residents, but the motives behind the get together were a mix of political, social and predominant functional aspects. Indeed people feel no need to ‘play community’ but put most value on individuality and autonomy. Flexibility and dynamics are the core elements of the community light (Duyvendak & Hurenkamp, 2004). Like the recent ‘residential parks’ in Almere, the residential organisations set up in IJburg are there to collectively organise and preserve the suburban dream. Social ties in the neighbourhood are mainly of the weak, bridging kind, but they are of great importance. The castles on the ground are indeed not complete without a community of limited liability surrounding them. So community light mainly creates cohesion on a mental level. With respect to inner city neighbourhoods this form of local attachment has also been called an imagined community (Blokland-Potters, 2003).
References
Altman, I. & Low, S.M. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachement. New York: Plenum Press.
Auge, M. (1995). Non-places: introduction to the anthropology of supermodernity (J. Howe, Trans.). London: Verso.
Baldassare, M. (1986). Trouble in paradise. The suburban transformation in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
Baumgartner, M. P. (1988). The moral order of a suburb. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berger, B. (1960). Working-class suburb : a study of auto workers in suburbia. Berkely: University of California Press.
Blakely, E. J., & Snyder, M. G. (1997). Fortress America: Gated communities in the United States. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Blandy, S., Lister, D., Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2003). Gated communities: a systhematic review of the research evidence. Sheffield/Glasgow: Centre for Neighbourhood Research. Blauw, P.W. (1986). Suburbanisatie en sociale contacten. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit. Blokland-Potters, T.V. (2003). Urban Bonds. Social relationships in an inner city neighbourhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.
Constandse, A. K., & Schonk, M. K. A. (1980). Leven in Lelystad. Een onderzoek naar de kwaliteit van het bestaan in een nieuwe stad. Lelystad: Rijksdienst voor de IJsselmeerpolders. Constandse, A. K., & Schonk, M. K. A. (1984). Leven in Lelystad en Almere: een onderzoek naar de kwaliteit van het bestaan in nieuwe steden. Lelystad: Rijksdienst voor de IJsselmeerpolders.
Deben, L., & Schuyt, K. (2000). Sociale cohesie in Almere. Sociale samenhang in een jonge stad. Amsterdam/Almere: Universiteit van Amsterdam/Gemeente Almere.
Delanty, G. (2003). Community. London: Routledge.
Dobriner, W. M. (1958). The suburban community. New York: Putnam.
Duyvendak, J.W. & Hurenkamp, M., Kiezen voor de kudde. Lichte gemeenschappen en de nieuwe meerderheid. Amsterdam: Van Gennep, 2004
Engelsdorp Gastelaars, R van. (2003). Veertig jaar territoriale binding. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers.
Fava, S.F. (1958). Contrasts in neighbouring: New York City and a suburban county. In: Dobriner, W.M. The suburban community. New York: Putnam. pp. 122-129.
Fishman, R. (1987). Bourgeois utopias. The rise and fall of suburbia. New York: Basic Books.
Gans, H. (1967). The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics in a new suburban community (1986 ed.). New York: Colombia University Press.
Ginkel, R. van, & Deben, L. (2002). Bouwen aan bindingen. Sociale cohesie in Zoetermeer. Amsterdam: Aksant.
Granovetter, M. S. (1972). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 1360-1380.
Hamers, D. (2003). Tijd voor suburbia. De Amerikaanse buitenwijk in wetenschap en literatuur. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanisation of the United Stated. New York: Oxford University Press.
Janowitz, M. (1952). The community press in an urban setting. The social elements of urbanism. Glencoe: Free Press.
Kasadara, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39(June), 328-339.
Klein, D. C. (1978). Psychology of the planned community: the new town experience. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Kunstler, J. H. (1993). The geography of nowhere: the rise and decline of America's man-made landscape. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Land, M. van der (2003). Vluchtige verbondenheid : stedelijke bindingen van de Rotterdamse nieuwe middenklasse. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit.
Lupi, T., & Musterd, S. (2004). The Suburban Communiy Question. Paper presented at the ESF Conference 'Cohesive Neighbourhoods and Connected Citizens in European Societies', Bristol.
Masotti, L. H., & Hadden, J. K. (Eds.). (1974). Suburbia in transition. New York: New Viewpoints.
McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia : homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Müller, T., & van Til, T. (1998). Je doet het voor het gevoel. Een onderzoek naar buurtbetrokkenheid in Amsterdam. Haarlem: Architect.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Reijndorp, A., Kompier, V., Metaal, S., Nio, I., & Truijens, B. (1998). Buitenwijk; stedelijkheid op afstand. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.
Richards, J. M. (1946). Castles on the ground. The anotomy of suburbia. London: Murray. Richards, L. (1990). Nobody's home. Dreams and realities in a new suburb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Riesman, D. (1957). The suburban dislocation. The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 314(november), 123.
Schaffer, F. (1970). The new town story. London: Granada.
Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city. New York: Routledge.
Suttles, G. D. (1973). The social construction of communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Teijmant, I. (1979). Buurtgebondenheid en verhuizen. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201-1231.
Whyte, W. H. (1956). The Organisation Man. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wyden, P. (1963). Suburbia's coddled kids. New York: Doubleday.
