State-led gentrification;

good or bad?
An exploration of the impact of state-led
gentrification on social sustainability

AR0835 Social Sustainability in Human Habitats

Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment
Delft University of Technology

Marijn Veraart
4378199
M.Veraart@student.tudelft.nl

20 March 2023

Socially sustainable housing

Name tutor: (Dr) Darinka Czischke

Number of words
2143

Abstract – Development is only truly sustainable if it is so from an environmental,

economical and societal perspective. However, the societal (or social) sustainability
lags behind in theory as well as practice. This essay answers the question: How
does a state-led gentrification process affect social sustainability in Rotterdam, the
Netherlands? Rotterdam’s strategy of state-led gentrification meant to attract
investments in certain deprived neighbourhoods. However, involvement of the state
in gentrification processes does not seem to help mitigate the negative
consequences of this phenomenon. Low income inhabitants were still displaced by
wealthier newcomers, leading to a decrease of social cohesion. This seems to be a
consequence of the municipality’s strategy, which focusses on improving tangible
indicators. However this left a blind spot for intangible indicators. And the original,
low-income inhabitants of these neighbourhoods paid the price for this.

Key words
Social sustainability, gentrification, state-led gentrification, Rotterdam

1 Introduction
Over the past few decades, sustainability has
become a term that is widely used among a multitude of
disciplines, even to an extent that its actual meaning
becomes easy to oversee. When the word sustainability

1
is deconstructed – sustain / ability, the ability to
sustain – it becomes much more clear what it is about.
Whatever it is that you want to be sustainable, it
means that you want it to last for an extended period
of time. This is in line with how Shirazi & Keivani
(2017) summarize the famous Brundtland report: “actions
taken today should not compromise future generations”.
Brundtland (1987) attempts to make sustainable
development more tangible by presenting the framework
consisting of three pillars, later coined ‘the triple
bottom line’. Brundtlandt and her colleagues state that
a development is only truly sustainable when it is so
from an environmental, economical and societal
perspective. This report has become the basis and
inspiration of many studies to this day. However,
Shirazi & Keivani (2017) found that the latter
perspective lags behind. These authors describe two
shortcomings to the concept of social sustainability:
theoretical concerns (i.e. how should it be defined and
understood) and practical concerns (i.e. how should it
be operationalised into projects and planning). This
essay will shed a light on the theoretical concerns,
by examining how it is operationalized in the case of
Rotterdam. This city employed a strategy to gentrify
certain neighbourhoods such as Hoogvliet and
Tweebosbuurt. This means that these neighbourhoods have
been intentionally gentrified by the municipality, in
order to promote diversification and improve the
liveability and housing quality (Uitermark et al.,
2007). Thus, the research question that will be
answered in this essay is as follows: How does a state-
led gentrification process affect social
sustainability in Rotterdam, the Netherlands?
This question shall be answered through a
literature review. Herein, the relevant concepts as
well as the case of Rotterdam shall be examined. The
reviewed literature will then be critically examined
in the discussion, which leads to the answer of the
research question in the conclusion.

2 Literature review
Understandings of the relevant concepts will
first be explained through a literature review. The
covered concepts will be gentrification in general and
state-led gentrification specifically. Then the case
of Rotterdam will be briefly explained, with a specific
lens on Hoogvliet and Tweebosbuurt. Lastly, the notion
of social sustainability will be reviewed.

2.1 (State-led) Gentrification

2
 The term gentrification was first coined by
sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964. She describes it as a
process in urban working class districts where the
social status and value of the dwellings rapidly
inflates. This ultimately leads to the displacement of
the original working class inhabitants and a change in
the social character of the district (Blend Ed, 2022).
Remco Vermeulen describes Ruth’s definition as ‘classic
gentrification’ in the Blend Ed video. He also explains
that the phenomenon has branched out into many forms
in many different contexts. However, every form of
gentrification shares several common denominators.
Among which a low income group that is displaced by
wealthier inhabitants, the rent and property value
rises, and that investments are made in infrastructure
and the built environment.
In order to critically examine the role of the
state in gentrification processes, this essay will draw
from literature out of political sciences. Katy Wells
(2020) describes the effect on the self-respect of
inhabitants that are badly off through state-led
gentrification. And Huber & Wolkenstein (2018) argue
in their article that gentrification is a violation of
occupancy rights.
Although often criticized as a cause for
unaffordability and displacement of inhabitants,
gentrification processes also know academic and non-
academic proponents whom see it as a positive change
(Wells, 2020). These proponents mainly observe an
upgrade of infrastructure and buildings as a result of
the influx of wealth. Among these proponents are urban
decision makers that promote and support such
processes, often framing it as urban renewal of
deprived areas. This involvement of the state, ‘state-
led gentrification’, is usually a joint effort by the
local government and real estate developers. However,
Wells argues that these proponents oversee the effect
on the original inhabitants of these areas. This seems
to be in line with the argumentation of Huber &
Wolkenstein (2018). They state that individuals cannot
claim exclusive rights to (part of) a neighbourhood,
however a collective of dwellers can claim these rights
on the basis of their connection with the neighbourhood
through their social, economic or cultural practices
in this neighbourhood. Social and spatial
transformation through gentrification undermines these
dwellers in pursuing their life plans.

2.2 The case of Hoogvliet and Tweebosbuurt

As was implied by Wells (2020), gentrification
does not know only downsides. Otherwise local
governments would not engage in ‘state-led

3
gentrification’. Uitermark et al. (2007) point out that
there is more to it than ‘just’ a financial incentive.
As for the case of Hoogvliet, the gentrification policy
goal is a joint effort of the municipality and housing
corporations. Housing corporations in the Netherlands
are legally bound to reinvest their profits in social
housing. Uitermark et al. suspect that gentrification
of Hoogvliet was promoted to attract developers that
would otherwise not invest in this neighbourhood. In
other words, state-led gentrification might be a
strategy for redistribution of investments among all
inhabitants of a city. However, gentrification as a
strategy still comes down to an influx of a wealthier
middle class into low-income neighbourhoods,
ultimately displacing the original inhabitants. A
survey among long-time inhabitants of Hoogvliet
clarifies the result of the gentrification process in
Hoogvliet. The 216 questioned inhabitants conclude that
the liveability (i.e. clean, safe and well maintained)
has improved. Also the neighbourhood reputation has
seen a small rise. However, the social cohesion and
social involvement has declined significantly,
according to the inhabitants (Uitermark et al., 2007).
The gentrification process of the Tweebosbuurt is
interesting as its consequences caught the attention
of the United Nations (NOS, 2021). The Tweebosbuurt is
a neighbourhood that is part of the Afrikaanderwijk
just south of the river Nieuwe Maas. In 2018, housing
corporation Vestia announced to demolish 535 social
housing dwellings, and replace them for 374 new
residencies of which 130 will be social housing
(Tweebosbuurt – Recht Op De Stad, 2022). This led to
protests by the inhabitants, as it is impossible for
Vestia to promise every inhabitant a place back in the
neighbourhood, after construction is finished. Housing
rights initiative ‘Recht Op De Stad’ (Right To The
City) reports several court cases between inhabitants
and Vestia. One of which was won by the housing
corporation, allowing them to terminate the contracts
with the tenants. Another was won by inhabitants which
prevented the demolishment of certain buildings. Other
cases are still pending appeal (Tweebosbuurt – Recht
Op De Stad, 2022). Experts have arrived to the
consensus that the actors in power have failed the
inhabitants. Rapporteurs of the UN express their
concerns about this neighbourhood in a letter to the
national government (NOS, 2021). This neighbourhood was
to be demolished and rebuilt in order to improve the
housing quality in the area. However, the government
failed to offer the inhabitants housing that was
affordable and nearby. The rapporteurs also conclude
Vestia was also not operating in service of the

4
inhabitants, as the corporation needed to make up for
financial losses over the past. The letter explains
that the policy and regulations of the controversial
‘Rotterdam Act’ and the National Programme for
Rotterdam South (NPRZ) are discriminatory as it allows
for exclusion on the basis of class and origin (United
Nations, 2021). This policy framework will lead to all
of the aforementioned negative consequences of
gentrification, according to the rapporteurs. The
number of affordable houses in the targeted
neighbourhoods will be reduced by 9000; social networks
in neighbourhoods are not taken into account; and
displaced inhabitants are inadequately supported in
finding a new affordable home nearby.

2.3 Social sustainability

Social sustainability is widely considered as an
umbrella term, that encompasses many aspects of human
life and the built environment (Janssen et al., 2021;
Shirazi & Keivani, 2017). This is also reflected in
definitions of social sustainability. Janssen et al.,
(2021) describe a consensus for social sustainability
that is largely similar to Shirazi & Keivani’s summary
of the Brundtland report: “maintaining or improving the
well-being of people in this and future generations”.
Janssen and their colleagues follow up on this
definition by stating that it is inherently a
pluralistic concept, which can possibly lead to
conflict when one tries to operationalize social
sustainability. This highlights the two sides of the
same coin of such a widely defined concept. One side
is its general applicability and wide arrange of values
and principles that fall under it, leading to frequent
use and popularity of the term. The other side is
fragmentation of its definition and application, making
it difficult to operationalize for specific contexts.
Janssen et al. try to mitigate the latter side of the
coin by developing a framework that accepts the
ambiguity of the concept that is social sustainability.
They argue that different conceptions of social
sustainability exist which can be operationalized for
specific contexts (see figure 1).

5
 Figure 1: Steps of operationalising social sustainability
Source: Janssen et al., 2021

As can be seen in figure 1, it is implied that

different conceptions of social sustainability should
be evaluated differently, using different indicators.
Janssen et al. inquired through literature what these
indicators could be for specific conceptions and split
them into two categories: tangible indicators (e.g.
decent housing, transport and public spaces) and
intangible indicators (e.g. social interaction,
feeling of community, safety). These indicators should
help define what the conception was of the municipality
of Rotterdam for the state-led gentrification process
of Hoogvliet and Tweebosbuurt. It should also help to
define the conception of Rotterdam’s policy as well as
to assess the impact on the social sustainability of
this neighbourhood.

3 Discussion
Looking at the framework of Janssen et al., it
seems that the conception of social sustainability –
if there is any – focusses on tangible indicators
rather than intangible indicators. Uitermark et al.
(2007) perceive that the inhabitants find Hoogvliet
more clean (public space, tangible), safe (intangible)
and well maintained (decent housing, public space,
urban design, tangible). However, the most negative
changes, according to the survey, are social cohesion
and social involvement (both intangible). This seems
in line with the proponents of gentrification that are
described by Wells (2021), who predominantly see an
influx of investments to improve the infrastructure and

6
housing quality, tangible indicators. This seems to
come with the risk of having a blind spot for the
intangible indicators. The case of Tweebosbuurt
exemplifies this risk. The ‘Recht Op De Stad’
initiative describes a research on the neighbourhood
which concludes that the inhabitants generally feel
safe and had a sense of belonging in Tweebosbuurt prior
to demolishment (Tweebosbuurt – Recht Op De Stad,
2022).
In these Rotterdam cases, the state-led
gentrification policy seems to have been a trade-off
between the tangible and intangible indicators. And the
people that enjoy the benefits of this trade-off are
not directly suffering from the downside. However, it
should not be forgotten that the criticism on the
redevelopment of these neighbourhoods is as much about
the execution of the policy as it is about the policy
itself. Communication was a one-way street from the
government or housing corporation to the inhabitants,
and the inhabitants were insufficiently compensated for
their offer (United Nations, 2021). But it might be
that the poor execution of the policy is a direct
consequence of the chosen conception of social
sustainability. I would argue that Janssen et al.
(2021) made a sensible distinction by splitting
tangible indicators and intangible indicators. As
tangible indicators seem more controllable and
measurable to me. So having a policy that is evaluated
only by these indicators makes for easier work.
Unfortunately, the path of least resistance does not
seem to have the best outcome when other indicators are
taken into account.
However, Rotterdam’s attempt to attract
investments to neighbourhoods that otherwise would not
is still noteworthy. Existing social networks should
be preserved and low-income inhabitants should be
better protected by the local government. But the
policy is understandable from a environmental
sustainability perspective, as quality requirements of
the built environment (i.e. energy efficiency) is
rapidly changing (EZK, 2019). Thus, there is growing
pressure on municipalities to renew old, neglected
neighbourhoods.

4 Conclusion
The research question for this essay was: How does
a state-led gentrification process affect social
sustainability in Rotterdam, the Netherlands?
From the analysis it becomes clear that the city
of Rotterdam failed to protect its inhabitants during

7
this state-led gentrification process. But, renewing
housing to modern (environmental) standards will be
necessary for years to come. Thus, there needs to be
found a way to increase the liveability of a
neighbourhood, whilst mitigating the negative
consequences of gentrification. And the conception of
state-led gentrification by Rotterdam does not seem to
do that. Other conceptions of social sustainability,
that take intangible indicators such as ‘social
cohesion’ and ‘feeling of belonging’ into account are
likely to have a better outcome for the (low-income)
inhabitants of a city.

8
References
Blend Ed. (2022, July 1). Gentrification, by Bahar Sakizlioglu and Remco Vermeulen [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnpNlboXOs

EZK. (2019). Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan: 2021-2030. In

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/ (No. 19410647). The Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Climate Policy. Retrieved March 19, 2023, from
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-03/nl_final_necp_main_en_0.pdf
Chapter 2.2

Gemeente Rotterdam. (2016). Woonvisie: Koers naar 2030, agenda tot 2020. In
https://rotterdam.notubiz.nl/. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from
https://rotterdam.notubiz.nl/document/3629537/1/document

Huber, J., & Wolkenstein, F. (2018). Gentrification and occupancy rights. Politics, Philosophy
& Economics, 17(4), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x18766818

Janssen, C., Daamen, T. A., & Verdaas, C. (2021). Planning for Urban Social Sustainability:
Towards a Human-Centred Operational Approach. Sustainability, 13(16), 9083.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169083

NOS. (2021, June 18). VN-rapporteurs uiterst kritisch op woonbeleid Rotterdam. NOS.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2385604-vn-rapporteurs-uiterst-kritisch-op-woonbeleid-
rotterdam

Shirazi, M. R., & Keivani, R. (2017). Critical reflections on the theory and practice of social
sustainability in the built environment – a meta-analysis. Local Environment,
22(12), 1526–1545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1379476

Tweebosbuurt - Recht op de stad. (2022, November 19). Recht Op De Stad.

https://rechtopdestad.nl/buurten/tweebosbuurt/

Uitermark, J., Duyvendak, J. W., & Kleinhans, R. (2007). Gentrification as a Governmental

Strategy: Social Control and Social Cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment
and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(1), 125–141.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a39142

United Nations. (2021). AL NLD 3/2021 (AL NLD 3/2021). Retrieved March 8, 2023, from
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicati
onFile?gId=26359

WCED. (1987). Our common future. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from

https://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/media/publications/sustainable-
development/brundtland-report.html

Wells, K. (2021). State-Led Gentrification and Self-Respect. Political Studies, 70(3), 819–836.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321721989168