Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Rijnhaven cityscape
Rotterdam’s housing plans will affect tens of thousands of residents, but only 17% voted in November’s referendum Photograph: Leuntje/Alamy
Rotterdam’s housing plans will affect tens of thousands of residents, but only 17% voted in November’s referendum Photograph: Leuntje/Alamy

Rotterdam's anti-gentrification movement must learn the lessons of its failed referendum

This article is more than 7 years old
Brian Doucet, Marguerite van den Berg, Gwen van Eijk

The Netherlands’ second city is increasingly divided on plans to replace affordable homes with more expensive properties

On Thursday, Rotterdam city council will vote on whether to replace 20,000 affordable homes with 36,000 properties for middle- and upper-income households.The vote is the latest step in the city’s focus on “improving” neighbourhoods, by combining gentrification with rules preventing some low-income households from moving into poorer neighbourhoods.

Rotterdam, the Netherlands’ second city, is an increasingly divided one: while many neighbourhoods around the centre are gentrifying and the city is a rising star on the international tourist map, it is also home to some of the country’s poorest neighbourhoods.

Late last year, a diverse grassroots movement emerged to oppose the city’s housing plans. A petition calling for a referendum obtained more than 13,000 signatures, resulting in a vote on 30 November.

But the odds were stacked against the referendum. While organisers wanted a vote on the potential disappearance of the 20,000 affordable housing units, the question they posed to Rotterdammers wasn’t clear. the vague nature of the question: “Are you in favour or against Rotterdam’s housing vision?” was likely to have discouraged many people from voting, because they didn’t fully understand what they were voting for.

The city also stipulated a 30% turnout to validate the referendum. Because those in favour of the housing vision could win based on a low turnout, there was little incentive for the yes campaign, including the city’s government, to encourage people to vote.

In the end, 72% voted against the housing vision. However, only 17% of the electorate voted, well below the required 30%. The council vote this Thursday, 15 December, is expected to ignore the referendum and find in favour of adopting the housing plans as official policy. The grassroots campaign offers several insights for those dealing with gentrification in cities around the world. Tenants’ associations, while active in initiating campaigns, need to do more to engage with people in their communities. Participation levels in these associations are very low in Rotterdam and a primary objective for this movement is better organisation of residents, particularly tenants in social rented housing.

However, on the positive side, because opposition and resistance was focused on a city-wide issue, rather than a specific development or estate, gentrification and displacement became major topics of conversation across the city.

Rather than it being an abstract academic or political debate about social justice or a fair city, the referendum was about specific housing plans which will affect tens of thousands of Rotterdammers for years to come. As a result, the question: “Whose city is Rotterdam?” was discussed in homes, community centres and cafes.

It was also a genuinely bottom-up initiative, spearheaded by local tenants’ associations. The campaign connected a diverse group of people who all had connections to the issue of gentrification.

This is important because the organisers of the referendum have announced that they will protest against every demolition project in the next 15 years. As the referendum created widespread attention, it will be easier to mobilise more people to stand with them.

Rotterdam’s housing referendum was initiated by those who rarely feature in mainstream and professional debates about the future of the city. Too often, these focus exclusively on the positive side of gentrification, but it is a political issue over who has access to a city.

As urban scholars who investigate the human cost of gentrification, we believe it is essential to connect diverse voices into coalitions to fight for a city that is open and accessible for all.

Brian Doucet is a senior lecturer at Erasmus University College. Marguerite van den Berg is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam. Gwen van Eijk is an assistant professor of criminology at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Sign up for your free Guardian Housing network newsletter with news and analysis sent direct to you on the last Friday of the month. Follow us: @GuardianHousing

Most viewed

Most viewed