H02P5a: Urban Spatial Structures and Social ChangeConfronting the social spatial structure of Antwerp with the classic models

Pietro Cesari - Esther Danso-Wiredu - Amber Kevelaerts - Miguel Van Steenbrugge2011 - 2012

Antwerpen OntwerpenSTRATEGISCH RUIMTELIJK STRUCTUURPLAN

INFORMATIEF DEEL

INFO

RMAT

IEF

DEE

LA

ntw

erpe

n O

ntw

erpe

n

www.antwerpen.be/structuurplan

Stadsontwikkeling

2

Table of Contents

1. Historical Analysis 3

1.1. Antwerpattheendofthe19thCentury 3

1.1. Antwerpinthe20thCentury 4

1.2. Antwerpinthe21stCentury  5

2. City Center & Periphery: A Visual Comparison 6

3. The City Model Comparison 8

3.1. TheSyntesisModel  8

3.2. ComparisontotheConcentricModel(Burgess)  9

3.3. ComparisontotheSectorialModel(Hoyt)  10

3.4. ComparisontotheNucleiModel(Harris&Ullman)  11

3.5. ComparisontotheSocialAreaAnalysis  12

3.6. ShortComment  13

4. References 13

upper-class

higher middle class

development railwaybrialmont rampart New avenue on the former spanish ramparts

3

1.1. Antwerp at the end of the 19th Century1. Historical Analysis

At the end of 19th century the city of Antwerp went through a major development. BecauseofarapidlygrowingcitypopulationandeffortsmadebytheBelgiangovernmenttomakeAntwerp the military capital of the country, the old Spanish ramparts were demolished in 1860.A new rampart is constructed: the “Brialmont” rampart. The old Spanish rampart were demolished and turnedintowideHaussmannianavenues:TheLeienasweknowthemnow.In1868thecityparkwasconstructed,inspiredbytheideasofParisianarchitectHaussmann.Aroundthecityparkanewresidentialneighbourhoodwasbuilt.Between old and new rampart, new neighbourhoods arose. For example: Stuivenberg, Zurenborg (a newresidentialneighbourhood)andAntwerpSouth(afterdemolishingthe“southcastle”).AroundtheKattendijk-dockalsoanewneighbourhoodwascreated.TheportofAntwerpdevelopedfurtherandbecamebiggerandmoreimportantinternationally.TheScheldebankswerebeingstraightened.Todothis,amajorpartoftheoldcitycenterwasdemolished and the former moults were closed. Also an important development in the railroads caused a further expansion of Antwerp. In 1920 Antwerp reacheditshighestpopulationofabout303,000inhabitants.Antwerp became more and more a car oriented city. A lot of streets were enlarged and staightened. Also the former watercoarses were arched.AnenlargementoftheMeirmadethisavenueaveryprestigiousconnectionbetweencentralstationandthe old center. At the end, we can see the upperclass was mostly situated around the important avenues and main roadsandtheworkingclassandpoorestpeopleweresituatedinbetween.

upper-class

higher middle class

development railwaybrialmont rampart New avenue on the former spanish ramparts

4

1.1. Antwerp in the 20th Century

TheexponentialgrowthofAntwerpcontinueson.TheportofAntwerpgrewevenbiggerandbiggerandbecamemore independent of the rest of the city. Thecombinationofamorecontaminatedcitycenterandaincreasingmobility,encouragespeopletoleavetheinnercityandtomovetothesurroundingvillages,seekingmoregreenspace.Thecitycentergrewlargerbutalsolessdense.AfterWWIIthistendencykeptongoing.Onlyforthelasttenyears,Antwerpspopulationremainsstable,andevenwithincreasingimmigration,andnewgentrificationpolicies,itstillgrowsataslowpace.Also the spreading of industry in the beginning of the 20th century persuaded people to migrate to the suburbanised centersaroundtheinnercity.AroundtheCockerillwerfandtheindustryofHoboken,theamountofworkingclasshousesincreasedfrom1000to4064units.Eventuallythepopulationgrowthmadeanexpansionofthecityterritorynecessary.Newneighborhoodsappearedforhighclasshouseholdsandtheaffluentworkers.Thepoorestpeopleremained in the old city center. The Law Taeye made this tendency even stronger. This law encouraged the building of single-family dwellings. Because land was cheaper on the edges of the city, most housing units were build here. In 1960 almost all suburbs were fully built up, mostly through private owners. Theeconomicallawsofthelate60’sthatprovideforcheapindustryzones,madethatalsocompanieslefttheinnercity. Fromthenon, stores,banksandofficesoccupied thedepopulatedcity,effectivelybecomingacommercialdistrict.Antwerpalsobecameanimportanttraffic-knotbetweenAmsterdamandParis.Whentheringandtheinner-ringwere completed, alsohere, interesting terrains foroffices arose. In the80’s, giant shopping centers andmovietheatersarosearoundthecity,makingthecommercialcenteralmostobsolete.AfterWWIItherewas,besidesprivateownership,alsosomecreationofsocialhousing.Theneighborhoods‘HetKiel’and‘luchtbal’areexamplesofthisdevelopment.

new social housing developments

the port of Antwerp became bigger and more importantThe suburbs got fully built up by high class people - the poorest people lived in the depopulated inner city

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21th century, the city of Antwerp began with urban renewal projects, to clean up the city centre and to attract new, young, high class people.

This is the beginning of the gentrification in Antwerp, a pheno-menon that we can already notice in Antwerp-south. Also in other neighbourhoods, such as ‘het eilandje’ we can see this tendency coming up.

high-class people entering the south of Antwerp

poor people concentrated in the northern part of Antwerp

5

1.2. Antwerp in the 21st Century

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21th century, the city of Antwerp began with urbanrenewalprojects,tocleanupthecitycentreinordertoincreasethelivabilityandtoattractnew,young, high class families.

ThiscanbeseenasthebeginningofgentrificationinAntwerp,aphenomenonthatwecanalreadyobserveinAntwerpneighborhood“hetZuid”.Alsoinotherneighbourhoods,suchas‘hetEilandje’wecanseethistendency coming up.

6

2. City Center & Periphery: A Visual Comparison

7

8

3. The City Model Comparison3.1. The Syntesis Model

BasedonseveralmapswithCensusdata(Buurtmonitor)wewereabletomakethissynthesismap.Welooked at different data sets including division of housing typologies, income, employment, ethnicity,fertility,migration, labourandmore.Themostastonishingobservationwhilecombiningall theCensusmappings, is the strong differentiation of high and low income groups along a North-South path. BypresentingthistoanothergroupworkingonBrussels,itappearsthatthisisnotuncommon.Moreso,theCityofLeuvenhasasimilardifferentiation.

9

3.2. Comparison to the Concentric Model (Burgess)

LiketheBurgessmodel,inthebeginningtherichpeoplesettledinthemedievalcore,aftertheimmigrationof foreigners (from the countryside and abroad) and consequently the increases in disease, crime and disorder, they shifted to the periphery, seeking green space, a calm environment and security. In theoppositedirectionthepoorpeoplewhichneededtobeclosetotheworkplacemovedintothecentertoworkinthegrowingport.Tocleanuptheunhealthyhistoriccenter,therewereasequenceofdemolitionand rebuilding in favor of new high-rise business buildings.

10

3.3. Comparison to the Sectorial Model (Hoyt)

With the development of infrastructure followed the construction of new social housing in the firstperiphery.Thegentrificationphenomenaalsotookplace(andstillisinseveralneighborhoods)asyounghigh income groups started to return to live in the business district and in the new medieval center devoted toshopping.Thetransportation“borders”(deLeien,theRingroadandradialhighwaysoutofthecity)helpedtocreatemoredistinctiveneighbourhoods,andsubdividetheareainamoresectorialway.

11

3.4. Comparison to the Nuclei Model (Harris & Ullman)

Withthedevelopmentofnewurbancentersaroundofthecity(inessencetheurbanizationofthecloseperiphery) the central business district in the city center became less important. These new centers were ofteninfluencedbygentrification.Alsothemoredevelopedinfrastructuresystem(inparticulartheRingRoad)contributedtothedifferencesbetweenneighborhoods,andcreatedamoredistinctivedistrict.

12

3.5. Comparison to the Social Area Analysis

Fromthemap,itisclearthatthereisevidenceofsegregationinAntwerpwithforeignersclusteredinareasnotfarfromthecentraltrainstationandalongseveralmajorroadsgoingoutsideofthecity(forexampletheTurnhoutsebaanwhichbeginsnearCentralStationandcontinuesthroughBorgerhout).Withdivisionof labour, the census data for 2000 and 2007 indicates that there has been an increase in the service sector as the highest income producer to the district. The percentage of women in employment has also increased over the years as shown in the chart above. With evidence from the data, it is clear that there is apositivecorrelationbetweenimmigrantsandlowincome.

Percentage of market devoted toservices:2000: 10,8+1,8+8,3% = 20,9%2007:12,8+2,1+10,9%=25,8%

Percentage of market devoted toindustry:2000:17,5%(41.650people)2007:13,5%(33.575people)

Percentage of single family households:2004:17,9%(40.976intotal)2008:17,5%(40.643intotal)

Percentageofwomenworking:2000:42,7%=58.183women(29,8%=6.879onindependentbasis)2008:45%=68.892women(32,8%=8.435onindependentbasis)

13

3.6. Short Comment

4. References

Articles:- Loopmans Maarten, 2010, Threatened or empowered? The impact of neighbourhood context on Community involvement in Antwerp,Belgium,UrbanAffairsReview,45:797,PublishedbySAGEonbehalfofaspa-theurbanpoliticalsection,AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation- Loopmans Maarten, 2008, Relevance, Gentrification and the development of a new Hegemony on Urban Policies in Antwerp, Belgium,UrbanStud,45:2499,PublishedbySAGEonbehalfofUrbanStudiesJournalLimited-DeMaesschalckFilip,2010,The politicization of suburbanization in Belgium: Towards an Urban –Suburban divide,UrbanStud2011,48:699,PublishedbySAGEonbehalfofUrbanStudiesJournalLimited-LoopmansMaarten,herfst2005,Het einde van de stad? Stadsontwikkeling en concurrentiedenken,Oikos35,p12-21-LEYSEN,C.,Antwerpenonvoltooiedestad,Lannoo,Tielt,België,2003.

Images:AllimagescollectedwithGoogleMaps&Panoramio,2011 maps.google.be www.panoramio.com

Websites:-BuurtmonitorCensusMaps,http://antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/,Accessedokt-nov2011- RSP Vlaanderen, http://www.ruimtelijkstructuurplanantwerpen.be/main.aspx?l=04, Accessed okt-nov2011-AerialPhotograpy,http://www.agiv.be/gis/diensten/geo-vlaanderen/?catid=8,Accessedokt-nov2011-Topography,NationaalGeografischInstituut,http://www.ngi.be/topomapviewer-beta/public?lang=nl&-GeolokettenProvincieAntwerpen,http://www.provant.be/bestuur/grondgebied/gis/geoloketten/lijst_geoloketten.jsp?referer=tcm:7-15857-64,Accessedokt-nov2011-SAGEJournalsOnline,online.sagepub.com,Accessedokt-nov2011,Accessedokt-nov2011

Key Persons:- Marcel Loopmans, who took the time to discuss Antwerp with us after his lecture- Tahnee Van Steenbrugge, who works at the department of city planning and provided us with valuable information and sources

Afterconfrontingalltheclassicalmodelsofresidentialdifferentiation,thegroupcanconcludethatAntwerphardlyfitsexactlyintoanyofthemodels.Thisisnotsurprisingbecauseresidentialdifferentiationislinkedtohumanbehaviourwhichisverydifficulttopredictoreventomap.Peoplehavedifferentreasonsforsettlinginotherpartsofthecityandthesereasonscouldbemulti-dimensionalinnature.AntwerpCity,likeanyotherhumanspatialstructure,willbeverydifficulttofitintoanyfixed(anddesigned)theoreticalmodel.ThegroupseesthemodelofAntwerptodayasshownearlieronpage8andthisresidentialpatternismostlikelytochangesignificantlyovertime.