Residents in action

In this section we elaborate on the second task of our research question, which concerns how our stakeholder addresses the situation: their understanding of the social, political, economic, institutional environment where they perform their resistance as well as the clarity of their goals, strategies, strengths and weaknesses.

Our actors, Amsterdam in Progress and Wij-Amsterdam, are just two examples from a larger network of neighbourhood associations in Amsterdam. They can be seen as part of the civil society that focuses on the topic of mass tourism and liveability in the city. They work on a voluntary basis, have created social networks, and strive to complement the working of the state. However, the profile of these associations is limited, it is not necessarily representative of the social dynamics and cultural diversity of Amsterdam. This then begs the question whether their strategies are formulated with all the residents concerns in mind.

Because of these resident groups’ insistence on dialogue, the city government representative Hiske de Ridder told us that they do not consider such associations as protest movements comparable to Barcelona and Venice. In addition, because they believe that as city authorities they have kept open the line of communication with the residents, the situation might not escalate. Jos Hageman from Amsterdam in Progress disagreed with this idea in our 29th November interview with him. He believes that the situation in Amsterdam has the potential to escalate to the level of cities like Barcelona and Venice, if nothing is done to address their most pressing concerns. This shows a lack of common understanding of the situation and a disconnect between the city government and resident associations.

A notion that struck us throughout our research, when getting to know our stakeholders, was the notion of balance, which came up repeatedly regarding issues of liveability and policy making. Achieving a balance in the city of Amsterdam was regarded as being the solution for minimizing the effects of mass tourism.

From the perspective of the city government, the notion of balance was something to be achieved through work on “community development.” Hiske de Ridder from the Amsterdam City Government told us that the city government aims to maintain “good equilibrium” between residents, business owners and tourists in order to keep Amsterdam “pleasant and comfortable.” However, attempts by the city government to address and satisfy all stakeholder concerns have proven difficult and it was acknowledged that the city “balance” is not as achievable as it used to be before the influx of mass entertainment-driven tourism. The strictest measures by the city government to “bring back balance” have been taken in the red light district. In this area, the city government has been promoting the improvement of the quality of life, order and the prevention of nuisance and disruption brought on by drug dealing and illegal holiday rentals. The city government is attempting to achieve that policy balance by being in regular contact with residents and other stakeholders and that when it comes to seeing residents' experiences first-hand, both the city government officials and the police are involved and often work together with the residents, going on site to see the issue which can then inform new policies.

Both Amsterdam in Progress and Wij-Amsterdam have similar goals set out for the future of Amsterdam. They hope to make Amsterdam liveable again for the residents by restoring the balance in the city, although their interpretation of balance differs on a few aspects.

According to Amsterdam in Progress, problems of the city revolve around three stakeholders: residents, business and visitors. However, these three do not hold an equal amount of weight and the relations between them is not equal either. They argue for balance between the government, market and society, and balance between economic, environmental and social responsibilities, both means to achieve, once again, balance between its target groups – the residents, businesses and visitors. According to the identified problems and solutions, the focus is mainly put on the residents’ side and the rest are those who have the responsibility to follow regulations such as businesses and who need to be regulated. This approach derives from the perception that there is less and less space for residents in the city but more and more businesses and city policies that promote an “unliveable” environment at residents’ cost. It leads to a reaction where residents feel the need to push back against excessive business oriented city policies in order to regain the balance among the three. This approach is closely connected to the concept of liveability, which is the concern of residents far more than that of the business sector.

Amsterdam in Progress constructs concrete plans and suggests solutions to each of the problems. Thus, in solving problems, they are actively engaging in order to “balance out” the relations between the three stakeholders. However, they also use the term balance in guiding and mediating public decisions and make it clear that the decision is up to the citizens. In this respect, the term balance is used in a different meaning other than “balancing out”.

In the ‘Balanswijzer’, the 10 evaluation aspects are the following: long-term vision; management of number of hotels; management of holiday rentals; diverse range of shops; diverse range of housing; spreading policy; management of group visitations; management of entertainment transport; traffic; active and practicable enforcement. The choice of these aspects can be seen from the residents’ and not necessarily from the holistic city perspective. The balance sought here is within these micro aspects rather than the entire city-wide ecosystem. The attendee of the debate and reader of the election guide is limited to think between these aspects of ‘how should hotels be managed?’ rather than ‘should hotels be managed?’ Hence, it clearly shows that the choice of evaluation points is used with the first meaning of the balance, “balancing out”.

However, this point alone contrasts with what Jos Hageman said in the 29th November interview. He said their position was a “mediator” which bridges all stakeholders to reach a common platform to seek solutions. In this second meaning of balance, the mediating role is applied on the guiding part. Instead of pushing their way out to achieve their goals, it intends to mediate between their goals and the reality by presenting facts-based information to the public. Influencing the public’s choice is an act of intruding and breaking the balance.

“We are not against growth or change, and certainly do not want everything to stay the same at all costs,” states Amsterdam in Progress. Balance does not mean going back to the previous state where residents didn’t have to think about tourists all the time. They accept the change and intend to find a solution between the unliveable and peaceful environment. However, one might ask at what point are they willing to meet.

Furthermore, several other individuals and organisations have been using the concept of balance, probably having another definition of “balance” in mind. The constantly recurring use of the word “balance”, leaves it at risk of becoming a so-called “buzzword”, and its ambiguous meaning leaves room for broad interpretation.

Wij Amsterdam also chose the main points for their evaluation of the election campaigns based on the residents’ point of view according to the meeting held on 18 January, 2018. These main points include: tourism definition; holiday rental issues; monoculture of shops; event management; maintaining rules and laws; process of citizen participation. The purpose of addressing these points is to give a perspective for the coming election and the association hoped that the result would be published in the newspapers. Giving residents’ perspective to the public indicates that their perspective is currently missing in the political discourse, and enabling it is seen as an act of balancing. Wij Amsterdam is aware of the fact that its evaluation points are a subjective source but wish to contribute to the debate with its subjective perspective without obviously pushing the public to one side over another.

In pursuit of constructive solutions, both Wij Amsterdam and Amsterdam in Progress use their associations as a platform for political influence and public awareness. For them, differentiating their platform from the reckless and destructive manifestations of the struggle in certain other cities but also in Amsterdam itself, is important for sustaining their position as long-term, constructive actors. We have considered how this strategy can affect the strength of their message, as by mirroring the government strategy our stakeholders might not be as forceful as they could be. In addition, we believe that the lack of concrete strategy in Amsterdam in Progress’ Amsterdam Balanswijzer was a missed opportunity to present both the residents and city officials with a robust action plan that could have increased their legitimacy and influence. Similarly, their hesitance to clearly judge the election program proposals on their quality, substance and relevancy, and to pinpoint the political parties which seriously addressed their concerns, was another missed opportunity for them to mobilise residents in a constructive way.