Cities for or against citizens? Socio-spatial restructuring of low-income neighbourhoods and the paradox of citizen participation
Urban renewal has evolved into an ambitious and sophisticated urban strategy, recognised as urban revitalisation in America and urban regeneration in Western Europe. This new urban strategy, which tends to be area-based and state-sponsored, claims for the most part to coordinate a wide range of resources, partners and public agencies to bring about social, economic and spatial improvements in underdeveloped and impoverished city areas while improving the livelihoods of the local residents. However, as this study asserts, the objectives behind this new urban strategy have considered, for the most part, the interests of those formulating and implementing such efforts rather than local residents and stakeholders, and produced in turn ‘attractive’ neighbourhoods increasing city revenues, boosting real estate prices, attracting new investments and alluring new residents. Most importantly, citizen participation and gentrification have been concurrently promoted in urban restructuring policy and programmes bringing about a paradox. Citizens have been devised as both subjects and objects of governance (Uitermark, 2014). Urban restructuring programmes have called for residents’ involvement in decision making frameworks while imposing urban revitalisation and regeneration approaches guiding the fate of their neighbourhoods and putting communities at risk of displacement.
This study uses comparative research to investigate the way that urban renewal targeting low-income neighbourhoods has evolved into a new urban strategy involving principles and tactics ingrained in neoliberal economic principles. The study shows that this applies in cities led by market-driven development where governments facilitate more than regulate urban growth, and in cities partially exposed to market-driven development and led by interventionist governments which regulate and guide urban restructuring transformations. New York City and The Randstad Holland have been selected as study areas. Above all, the role public policy, instruments and institutional frameworks have played in facilitating citizens’ involvement in decision making in these contrasting contexts is particularly scrutinised looking at two neighbourhoods in the municipalities of Brooklyn and Rotterdam; Bushwick and Tarwewijk, respectively. The study exposes the motives, successes and drawbacks of public programmes and instruments fostering citizen participation and community-led change, in an effort to both create awareness of potential risks in the case of unsuccessful initiatives, and envision the exchange and adaptation of some of those successful schemes for the production of more equitable neighbourhoods.
This thesis asks to what extent urban restructuring trends converge in the two contrasting geographical areas since both territories have been exposed to the same global agents and influences that have impacted urban restructuring policy and interventions (i.e. neoliberal economic policies, global financing, interurban competition, etc). However, it recognizes that the outcomes may manifest differently due to differences in welfare programmes, urban policy, implementation frameworks, local and global housing markets at the neighbourhood level, as well as variations in local governance structures and instruments facilitating civic participation in urban and housing restructuring programmes.
Citizen participation in urban restructuring in America and Western Europe
Citizen participation was widely recognised in urban and housing public programmes in America and Western Europe during the 1960s and 1970s. In a time of political and economic shifts and as a result of citizen struggles and social movements, the democratisation of decision making in planning became a political act. Feeling alienated from the urban transformations taking place in their own neighbourhoods, citizens organised and demanded to be part of the production of cities. Citizen demands were gradually adopted and institutionalised by public policies and programmes. However, such progressive approaches did not last for long. Citizen participation in urban renewal and housing programmes lost agency as liberal urban policy was gradually overthrown beginning with the recessions of the late 1970s and the conservative governments that followed in the 1980s and beyond. National states and municipalities began withdrawing from those endeavours while coordinating efforts to attract private partners and investment to pursue larger and more ambitious urban restructuring interventions in cities. Certainly, the community-driven scope of a number of public programmes shifted to a more ambitious one that sought to achieve economic growth and profitable urban development bringing about shifts in urban restructuring policy, programmes, funds and leadership over the following decades. Evidently, as neoliberal economic agendas became more and more ingrained in urban policy and programmes guiding urban restructuring, uneven development and segregation became more stark bringing new urban challenges across cities. What is interesting is that in a context of increasing decentralisation, privatisation, and deregulation of urban restructuring interventions that have impacted directly citizens and particularly low-income communities, national states began once again promoting citizen participation. As national states have increasingly devolved decision-making and resources to lower government levels, municipalities and their partners, from the private and not-profit sectors, have been more involved in making and implementing local policies and addressing citizens and community needs. However, the motive, scope, impact and outcome of current local policies and programmes fostering the involvement of low-income and minority groups in urban restructuring programmes have left many questions unresolved. A number of studies assert that the deliberate activation of specific community groups by national states and their partners in urban restructuring programmes has been promoted: (1) to deal with the unprecedented economic and social consequences that emerged out of the neoliberal project through socially interventionist and ameliorative public policies and programmes (Peck & Tickle, 2002; Uitermark, 2014); (2) to control and discipline vulnerable and deprived groups who have been victims of the byproducts of the current neoliberal urbanisation and who should be ‘integrated’ through highly engineered measures (Albers & van Beckhoven, 2010; Brenner, Peck & Theodor 2009; Schickel & van der Berg, 2011; Uitermark, 2014; Uitermark & Duyendak, 2008); and (3) to build coalition politics by assembling strategic alliances in areas undergoing political and socio-spatial restructuring while seeing themselves as symbols of the community to legitimise their powers and in turn assert control and gain support to fulfil ongoing plans without opposition (Harvey, 1989). This study delves into these claims by scrutinising recent urban restructuring approaches in two different geographical contexts and investigating policies and programmes advocating for citizen participation.
Research content and questions
This study is structured in five sections: (1) introduction (2) theoretical framework; (3) politico-institutional historical context; (4) case study research; and (5) final analysis of comparative research. The first section, Introduction, outlines the research framework of this study including problem statement, aim, methodological approach and selection of case studies as well as the design and structure of this research. The second section, Cities for or against Citizens, includes Chapter 2 which provides a theoretical understanding of the way urban restructuring discourses, objectives and strategies have evolved in America and Western Europe. It introduces the right to the city as one of the main demands citizens, academics, activists, advocate planners, civic and grassroots groups have called for, and mobilised around, to fight the injustices produced by contemporary neoliberal urbanisation. It then explains the way that economic restructuring has led to new socio-spatial configurations and politicoeconomic relations in cities with impactful outcomes, such as uneven development and segregation and new institutional policy and governance frameworks. In relation to such new developments, the shift of urban renewal into a more ambitious and coordinated global and economic strategy is presented in conclusion to section two, enquiring about the state’s continuous promotion of participation and integration of citizens in urban restructuring policies and programmes targeting low-income neighbourhoods in both geographical areas.
The third section, The Evolution of Urban Restructuring, provides the politicoinstitutional historical context of urban restructuring in New York City and the Randstad Holland. It encompasses Chapter 3 and 4 which carefully explain public policy, programmes and instruments involving or facilitating citizen participation in urban restructuring and housing programmes in low-income neighbourhoods from the postwar years until today. Chapter 3 focuses on policies and programmes bringing about urban restructuring in New York City, from the urban renewal programmes calling for 'citizen participation ’for the first time and the War on Poverty programmes which institutionalised the 'widespread participation of the poor' for the improvement of deprived inner city areas, to the tenant-led sweat equity housing management programmes that emerged after the city’s nadir of the 1970s, and the public policies and instruments of devolution which gave way to the professionalisation of grassroots movements, and in turn, the growth of the non-profit sector currently in charge of community and housing development. On the other hand, Chapter 4 explains the evolution of social oriented policies and participatory programmes promoted for the restructuring of low-income neighbourhoods in the Randstad Holland, from community work [opbouwwerk] with specific goals and targets and Building for the Neighbourhood [Bouwen voor de Buurt ], a collective and politicised urban renewal effort bringing about political and social change, to more recent policy programmes promoting the integration and participation of low-income and marginalised communities. The historical account of these two chapters provides an overview of the endeavours national states have undertaken at different levels facilitating citizen participation and community-led initiatives, as well as their successes and shortcomings. Both chapters offer a policy context useful for the analysis of the most recent urban restructuring frameworks and trends, which are examined in the following chapters. The ultimate objective of this section is to answer the following question: How have public policy and programmes targeting low-income and minority districts evolved with the decentralisation of national state’s power and resources?
The fourth section, Socio-spatial Restructuring in Low Income Neighbourhoods in New York City and the Randstad Holland, involves case study research. Composed of Chapter 5 and 6, it delves into the socio-spatial restructuring of two lowincome neighbourhoods in New York City and the Randstad Holland; Bushwick and Tarwewijk, respectively. The way urban restructuring policies and programmes depicted in the previous two chapters have evolved and transformed socio-spatial configurations through shifts in housing provision —including planning, funding and development schemes— and local urban governance are illustrated in detail. Above all, policies, programmes and local initiatives promoting the involvement of citizens in decision making processes are particularly examined. Additionally, the role of local stakeholders in the implementation of those policy frameworks is presented considering decentralisation, privatisation and deregulation trends in housing and urban restructuring. Lastly, a critical analysis of the purpose, evolution and outcomes of public policies, planning strategies, participatory endeavours and trends facilitating the restructuring of low-income income neighbourhoods is offered. The central questions in this section are the following: How have changes in public policy and programmes played out in cities with liberal governments and unregulated market-driven development and in cities with interventionist governments and regulated market driven developments? How and why have national states promoted the integration and participation of residents of low-income and minority groups throughout the evolution of urban restructuring processes?
The last section, The New State-Led Urban Restructuring Strategy: Analysis and Alternatives, offers a final analysis and a reflection on the comparative research. It is composed of Chapter 7 and 8. Chapter 7 provides a summative analysis of the previous chapters by delving into the way urban revitalisation and regeneration in low-income neighbourhoods in America and Western Europe, respectively, have evolved into a new urban restructuring strategy with clear objectives, locations, and approaches. The urban restructuring trends outlined in this section depict current state-sponsored policies, strategies, tools and measures promoted in disinvested areas to integrate these segregated sites into the new economic functions of cities. Additionally, it lays out the way citizens have been concurrently perceived by policy and public programmes as part of the new urban restructuring strategy. This section concludes with Chapter 8 which reflects on the rise of urban mobilisations and counteracting urban practices responding to the increasing disability of citizens to be part of the transformation of their own living environments. This last section aims to answer the main question of this investigation: Are cities being restructured for the welfare of citizens or are they being reshaped against the will, needs and interests of their own citizens?
Urban restructuring trends and alternatives
The final analysis of the study, as it was mentioned above, lays out the current directions of urban restructuring that are identified, while examining the evolution of urban restructuring policies, programmes, and strategies of implementation targeting low-income neighbourhoods in New York City and the Randstad Holland. As part of the findings of this study, the following urban restructuring trends were identified: (1) urban restructuring being used by national states as an instrument for speculation, competitiveness and economic growth; (2) an increasing outward diffusion of urban restructuring from urban centres to peripheral areas; (3) a rise of area-base policies, investments and urban interventions; (4) ‘social mixing’ as urban policy to diversify housing opportunities and in turn promote socially and economic diverse neighbourhoods; (5) a generalisation of state-led gentrification in urban restructuring policy and programmes; (6) new regulatory policy and institutional configurations; (7) the waning of housing provision for the poor and the working-class; and lastly, and most importantly for this study, (8) citizen participation being devised as a state instrument for the pacification, control and bargaining of low-income neighbourhoods in transformation. These trends certainly bring to light the fate of low-income communities and neighbourhoods, but also underscore the fields and spaces— from policy, programmes and governance frameworks to urban and housing planning approaches —where intervention is needed to generate more equitable neighbourhoods.
Against this background, and concluding the final analysis, this study also highlights successful approaches and practices facilitating citizen- and community-lead urban restructuring processes in New York City and the Randstad Holland. Historically, as this study shows, progressive policies have promoted and, in many cases, managed to create democratic tools and processes of planning and development, particularly in times of crisis and when the private sector is not willing nor able to intervene. Such policies and their outcomes have proven, even with their shortcomings, that cities for citizens can be produced with a fair distribution of political power, resources and benefits. Alternative forms and models of housing development which have been devised, for the most part, by common citizens responding to the urgency of both creating housing according to their own needs and priorities and producing less alienated dwelling environments are underscored including housing cooperatives, community land trusts, self-management housing programs and other nonspeculative and regulated housing development schemes. Interestingly, just as the policy and planning approaches of the two case studies tend to converge, so do the principles and purpose of the urban restructuring models in many ways. But the effects manifest themselves differently due to the differences in institutional policy and government frameworks in each context. These schemes have been presented throughout this study but are particularly emphasised at the end of this study since they offer a valuable insight into alternative ways of restructuring low-income neighbourhoods, and urban districts in general, so as to produce more equitable cities, in other words—cities for citizens.
Aalbers, M. & van Beckhoven, E. (2010). The integrated approach in neighbourhood renewal: more than just a philosophy? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(4), 449-461.
Aalbers, M. (2006). When the Banks Withdraw, Slum Landlords Take Over: The Structuration of Neighbourhood Decline through Redlining, Drug Dealing, Speculation and Immigrant Exploitation. Urban Studies, 43(7), 1061-1086.
Aalbers, M., Beckhoven E. van, Kempen R. van, Musterd, S. & Ostendorf W. (2004). Large Housing Estates in the Netherlands: Policies and Practices. RESTATE. Utrecht: Faculty of Geosciences, Utrech University.
Afdeling Ruimtelike Ordening, Stadsvernieuwing en Volkshuisvesting (1980). Nota Tweede Ringsgebieden, March 1980. Rotterdam: Afdeling Ruimtelike Ordening, Stadsvernieuwing en Volkshuisvesting.
Aleshire, R. A. (1972). Power to the people: As assessment of the community action and model cities experi- ence. Public Administration Review, 32, 428-442.
American Community Survey (1999). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
American Community Survey (2016). Demographic, social, economic and housing characteristics by borough and community districts. Retrived June 3,2017 from http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/american-community-survey.page
American Community Survey (2015). Selected housing characteristics 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, New York City community districts. Retrived June 3, 2017 from http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/data-maps/nyc-population/acs/hous_2015acs5yr_puma.pdf
American Community Survey (2015). Hispanic or latino origin by specific origin. Retrived June 3, 2017 from http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/data-maps/nyc-population/acs/hisp_2015ac-s5yr_puma.pdf
American Community Survey (2011). Selected Housing Characteristics, 2009-2011. American Community Sur- vey 3-Year Estimates, New York City Community Districts. Retrived September 3, 2012 from http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/data-maps/nyc-population/acs/puma_housing_09to11_acs. pdf
Andersen, H.T. & Kempen, R. van (2003). New Trends in Urban Policies in Europe: Evidence form the Nether- lands and Denmark. Cities, 20(2), 77-86.
Angotti, T. (2011, March 8). Community Planning. Gotham Gazette, Land Use Newsletter.
Angotti, T (2010). Land Use and The New York City Charter. Submitted to the New York City Charter Commission Retrieved from http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/ccpd/repository/files/charterreport-angotti-2.pdf.
Angotti, T. (2008). New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real State. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Angotti, T. (1997). New York City’s ‘197-a’ Community Planning Experience: Power to the People or Less Work for Planners? Planning Practice and Research, 12(1), 59-70.
Angotti, T. and Jagu, C. (2007) Community Land Trusts and Low-income Multi-family Rental Housing: The Case of Cooper Square, New York City. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Retrived June 4, 2017 from http://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/working-papers/community-land-trusts-low-income-multifamily-rent-al-housing
Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, Inc. (2013). Real Affordability: An Evaluation of the Bloomberg Housing Program and Recommendations to Strengthen Affordable Housing Policy. New York: ANHD.
Banerjee, T. & Baer, W. (1984 ). Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential Environments and Public Policy. New York: Plenum Press.
Barbagallo, C. & Federici, S. (2012). Care work and the Commons. The Commoner, 15. Retrived July 11, 2016 from http://www.commoner.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/commoner_issue-15.pd
Beekers, W.P. (2012). Het bewoonbare land. Geschiedenis van de volkshuisvestingsbeweging in Nederland. Amsterdam: Boom.
Berg, B. F. (2007). New York City Politics: Governing Gotham. New York: Rutgers University Press.
Beswick, C. & Tsenkova, S. (2002). Overview of Urban Regeneration Policies. In Tsenkova, S. (ed.) Urban Regeneration: Learning from the British Experience. Calgary: University of Calgary, Faculty of Environmental Design.
Biehl, J. (2015). Ecology of Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bloomberg, M. (2006). Brownfield’s Redevelopment Best Practices. Washington: The United States Conference of Mayors.
Blunkett, D. & Jackson, K. (1987). Democracy in Crisis: The Town Halls Respond. London: The Hogarth Press Ltd. Bockmann, R. (2016, December 13). Rabsky lands $93 M construction loan for Rheingold project. The Real Deal: New York Real Estate News, Retrived July 21, 2017 from https://therealdeal.com/2016/12/13/rabsky-lands-93m-construction-loan-for-rheingold-project/
Boer, Jo (1976, March 20). Hoe een boerendorp aan ‘t veranderen is. Leeuwarder Courant.
Boer, J. (1975). Dorp in Drenthe: een studie over veranderingen in mens en samenleving in de gemeente Zweeloo gedurende de periode 1930-1970 . Mappel:Uitg. Boom.
Boer, J (1967). Community organization: theory, principles, and practice (1e druk 1955, 2e druk 1967), New York: Uitg. Harper & Row.
Boer, J. (1960). Maatschappelijk opbouwwerk: Verkenningen op het gebied van ‘Community Organization’ in Nederlandse verhoudingen. Arnhem: Uitg. Van Loghum Slaterus.
Boer, J. (1959). Opbouw Drenthe in de veranderende samenleving, NDV 77 , 72-107.
Boer, J., Kamphuis, M. & Nijhoff, A.C.C. (1949). Maatschappelijk werk op het platteland. Enkele aspecten van taak en functie der plaatselijke maatschappelijk werkster ten plattelande. Alphen a.d. Rijn.
Bonneville, M. (2005). The ambiguity of urban renewal in France: Between continuity and Rupture. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 229-242.
Bookchin, M. (1974). The Limits of the City. New York: Harper and Row.
Bortel, G. van & Mullins, D. (2009). Critical Perspective on Network Governance in Urban Regeneration, Com- munity Involvement and Integration. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24, 203-219.
Bos, A. (1946). De stad der toekomst, de toekomst der stad: Een stedebouwkundige en sociaal-culturele studie over de groeiende stadsgemeenschap. Rotterdam: A. Voorhoeve Uitg.
Botman, S. & Kempen, R. van (2001). The Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration: the case of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. URBEX Series No.19. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Study Centre for the Metropolitan Environment.
Brash, J. (2011). Bloomberg’s New York: Class and Governance in the Luxury City. Athens: University of Georgia Press
Brenner, N. (2009). Urban Restructuring and the Crisis: A Symposium with Neil Brenner, John Friedman, Margit Mayer, Allen J. Scott, and Edward W. Soja/ Interviewer: Soureli, K. &Youn, E. Critical Planning , 16, 34-58. Retrived February 2012 from http://publicaffairs.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/Soureli_34_59.pdf
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P. & Mayer, M. (2009a). Cities for People, not for Profit. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 13 (2-3), 176-184.
Brenner, N. & Elden, S. (2009). Henri Lefebvre on State, Space, Territory. International Political Sociology, 3 ( 4), 353-377.
Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. (Eds). (2003). Spaces of Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell. Broadway Triangle Coalition (2010). Retrived from http://www.broadwaytriangle.com/
Bruin, D. de, & Riemersma, H. (2003). Verslaafd aan de Millinxbuurt:Kroniek van een verbeten aanpak. Rotter- dam: Grafeno B.V.
Buck, N. (2001). Identifying Neighborhood Effect on Social Exclusion. Urban Studies , 38(12), 2251-2275. Buck, N. & Fainstein, N. (1992). A Comparative History, 1880-1973. In Fainstein S.S., Gordon, I. &Harloe, M.
(Eds) Divided Cities: New York and London in the Contemporary World. Oxford: Blackwell.
Burgers, J. & Kloosterman, R. (1996). Dutch comfort: postindustrial transition and social exclusion in Spangen, Rotterdam, Area, 28(4), 433-445.
Bushwick Housing Independence Project (2011, Summer 2011). Success by Perseverance. BHIP Newsletter. 3 (3).
Cammen, H. van der, & Klerk, L. de (2003). Ruimtelijke ordening. Van Grachtengordel tot vinexwijk. Utrecht: Spectrum.
Carley, M., Campbell, M., Kearns, A., Wood, M. & Young, R. (2000). Regeneration in the 21st Century: Policies into practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Centrum voor Criminaliteitspreventie en Veiligheid (2007). Oversight Interventies Wijkveiligheid: 40 antwoor- den op onveiligheid in de wijk. Available from Centrum door Criminaliteitspreventie en Veiligheid.
Dai, S. (2015, June 23). New Rheinglod Developer Won’t Commit to Affordable Houisng Units, Local Say. DNA Info. Retrived June 10, 2016 from https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150623/bushwick/new-rhein- gold-developer-wont-commit-affordable-units-locals-say
David Goodman, J. (2017, December 3). City to Settle Discrimination Cliam in Brooklyn Housing Plan. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/nyregion/brooklyn-housing-discrim- ination.html
Davies, J. S. (2002). The governance of urban regeneration: a critique of the ‘governing without government’ thesis. Public Administration, 80, 301–322.
De Raad van de Gemeente Rotterdam (2002). Voorstel tot advisering aan het nieuwe gemeentebestuur inzake het programma Wijkaanpak. Rotterdam: De Raad van de Gemeente Rotterdam.
Deurloo, M.C. & Musterd, S. (1998). Ethnic clusters in Amsterdam, 1994-96: A micro-area analysis. Urban Studies, 35(3), pp. 385-396.
Castells, M. (1983). The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (2010). Retrieved from www.cbs.nl
Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (2003). Income in the Big Cities. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/inkomen-bestedingen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2003/2003-1115-wm.htm
Centrum voor Criminaliteitspreventie en Veiligheid (2007) Overzicht Interventies Wijkveiligheid: 40 Antwoor- den op onveiligheid in the wijk. Utrech: Stichting Centrum voor Criminaliteitspreventie en Veiligheid
Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (2010).Buurtmonitor. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://rotter-dam.buurtmonitor.nl/
Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (2009).Buurtmonitor. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://rotter-dam.buurtmonitor.nl/
Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statiestiek (2007). Feitenkaart Inkomensgegevens Rotterdam en Region 2007.
Retrieved March 10,2007 from http://www.cos.rotterdam.nl/smartsite229.dws?Menu=2141152&Main-Menu=2141152&goto=2259773&style=2036&substyle=
Connolly, H. (1977). A Ghetto Grows in Brooklyn. New York: New York University. Couch, C. (1990). Urban Renewal: Theory and Practice. London: Macmillian.
Couch, C. & Fraser, C. (2003). The European Context and Theoretical Framework. In Couch, C., Fraser, C. & Percy, S. Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dahl, R.A. (1961). Who Governs? New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.
Davis, J. (2002). The Governance of Urban Regeneration; A critique of the Governing without Government The- sis. Public Administration, 80(2), 301-322.
Dereszewski, J. (2007). Bushwick notes: from the 70s to today. Up From Flames. Retrived from c/Brooklyn Historical Society, New York. http://upfromflames.brooklynhistory.org/uff_resources/
Deurloo, M. C., & Musterd, S. (1998). Ethnic clusters in Amsterdam, 1994-96: A micro-area analysis. Urban Studies, 35(3), 385-396.
Dieleman, F.M. & van Weesep, J. (1986). Housing under fire: budget cuts, policy adjustments and market changes. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 77,310–315.
Dirks, B. & Huisman, C. (2013, February 21). Bururthuizen bezwijken oder crisis. Volkskrant. Retrived from https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/buurthuizen-bezwijken-onder-crisis~a3397319/
Doorn, van J.A.A. (1955). Wijk en stad: reële integratiekaders? Proceedings for the Congress over Sociale Same- hangen in Nieuwe Stadswijken, 17 December, Amsterdam 1955.
Dulchin, B. (2013). The Bloomberg Housing Legacy in New York City:What’s Really Affordable? Shelter Force.
Retrived June 23, 2015 from https://shelterforce.org/2013/02/28/the_bloomberg_housing_legacy_in_ new_york_city_whats_really_affordable/
Dirks, B. & Huisman, C. (2013, February 21). Buurthuizen bezwijken onder crisis.De Volkskrant.
Douglass, M. & Friedmann, J. (1998). Cities for Citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age. New York: John Wiley.
European Commission. (1999). Action Plan to Promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness. Bruseels: Office of the OfficialnPublications of the European Communities.
European Urban Knowledge Network. (2008). Fact sheet Dutch urban policy and the 40 Districts Approach. The Hague: Nicis Institute.
Fainstein, S. (2010). The Just City. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Fainstein, S. (2008). Mega Projects in New York, London and Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban Region- al Research, 32(4), 768-785.
Fainstein, N.I. & Fainstein, S.S. (1998). “Governing Regimes and the Political Economy of Developoment in New York City, 1946-1984”. In Power, Culture and Place, edited by Jonh Mollenkopf, 161-99. New York” Russell Sage Foundation.
Fainstein, S. S. & Fainstein, N. I (1992). The Changing Character of Community Politics in New York
City:1968-1988. In Mollenkopf, J.H. & Castells, M (Eds.), Dual City: Restructuring New York. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation.
Federici, S. (2012). Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction and Feminist Struggle. Oakland: PM Press.
Fels, L. (2007). Bouwen voor de buurt: De stadsvernieuwingswoningen van toen in de buurten van nu (Master Dissertation). Retrived from http://files.vastgoedbibliotheek.nl/Server/getfile.aspx?file=docs/msre/07/ fels.pdf
Fisher, G. ( 2008, September 23). Mollie Orshansky: Author of the Poverty Thresholds. Amstat News. Retrived September 23 from http://www.amstat.org/about/statisticiansinhistory/bios/OrshanskyMollie.pdf
Forman, S. (2000, September 20). Community Boards. Gotham Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.gothamga- zette.com/lessons/boards.shtml
Fox-Piven, F. (1969). Advocacy as a Strategy of Political Management. Perspecta, 12, 37-38.
Fox-Piven, F. & Cloward, R. A. (1971). Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare. New York: Pantheon Books.
Friedman, N., Bloom, C. & Marks, D. (1974). Neighborhood Variation: An Analysis of an Ethnically Mixed Low-In- come Neighborhood. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.
Furman Center (2016). The State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods-2016 Report, Brooklyn BK 04. Retrived April 7, 2017 from http://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/SOC_2016_PART2_BK04.pdf
Furman Center (2015). The State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods-2015 Report, Brooklyn BK 4. Retrieved April 7, 2017 from http://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/SOC2013_Brooklyn_04.pdf
Furman Centre (2014). The estate of New York City’s housing and neighborhoods-2014 Report, Brooklyn BK 4. Retrieved April 7, 2017 from http://furmancenter.org/research/sonychan/2014-report
Furman Center (2013). The state of New York City’s housing and neighborhoods-2013 Report, Brooklyn BK 4. Retrived April 7, 2017 from http://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/SOC2013_Brooklyn_04.pdf
Furman Center (2013). 10 Issues for NYC’s Next Mayor. Retrieved October 5, 2015 from http://furmancenter.org/nychousing/10issues
Furman Centre (2012). The State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods-2012 Report, Brooklyn BK 4. New York City: New York Univerity
Furman Center (2011). The State of New York City’s housing and Neighborhoods -2011 Report, Brooklyn BK4. New York City: New York University.
Furman Center (2008). The State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods-2008 Report, Brooklyn BK4. New York City: New York University.
Furman Center (2005). The State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods-2005 Report, Brooklyn BK4. New York City: New York University.
Furman Center (2001). The State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods-2001 Report, Brooklyn BK4. New York City: New York University
Garvin, A. (2002). The American City: What Works, What doesn’t. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Gemeente Rotterdam (2014). Gebiedsplan Charlois 2014-2018: Bewoners, ondernemers en instellingen praten mee over prioriteiten.
Gemeente Rotterdam (2010a). Wat moet ik doen om een huisvestingsvergunning te krigen?. Rotterdam: Ge- meente Rotterdam.
Geemente Rotterdam (2010). Velligheidsindex 2010: Meting van de veiligheid in Rotterdam. Retrived from http://www.rotterdam.nl/Directie%20Veilig/PDF/Veiligheidsindex/Veiligheidsindex2010LR.pdf
Gemeente Rotterdam (2009). Evaluatie Huisvestingsvergunning Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek in opdract van dS+V-Afdeling Wonen
Gemeente Rotterdam, Deelgemeente Charlois & Woonstad Rotterdam (2009). Programma Intenfief Beheer Mijnkintbuurt. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam.
Gemeente Rotterdam (2006).Wanneer heeft u een huisvestingsvergunning nodig?. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam.
Gibson C. & Jung K. (2002). Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals by Race, 1790 to 1990, and by Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, for the United States Regions, Divisions, and States. Population Division:
U.S. Census Bureau. Working Paper No. 56. Retrived from http://www.census.gov/population/www/docu-mentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
Glass, R. (1964). London: Aspects of Urban Change. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Goodman, D. (1917, December 3). City to Settle Discrimination Claim in Brookln Housing Plan. The New York Times. Retrived from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/nyregion/brooklyn-housing-discrimina- tion.html
Goodman, R. (1972). After the Planners. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
Government Accountability Office (2010). Community development block grant: Entitlement communities’ and states’ methods of distributing funds reflect program flexibility. Report to the Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, September 2010. United States Government Accountability Office.
Gramlich, E. (1998a). CDBG: An Action Guide to the Community Development Block Grant Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Gramlich, E. (1998b). HUD’s consolidated plan: An action guide for involving low income communities: Iden- tifying needs, setting priorities, monitoring your government’s performance. Washington D.C.: Center for Community Change.
Grebler, L. (1964). Urban Renewal in European Countries: Its Emergence and Potentials. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press.
Gottlieb, M. (1986, February 2). F.H.A. case recalls Bushwick in the 1970’s. New York Times.
Gourarie, C. & Maurer, M. (2016, November 18). Yoel Goldman scores $215M loan for Rheingold Brewery project. The Real Deal: New York Real Estate News. Retrived February 13, 2017 from https://therealdeal. com/2016/11/18/yoel-goldman-scores-215m-loan-for-rheingold-brewery-project/
Haan, W.J.M. de (1997) Evaluatie integraal veiligheidsbeleid: Een verkennende studie in Amsterdam en Rotterdam. In Opdract van het Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau
Hackworth, J. & Smith, N. ( 2001).The changing state of gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92, 464-477
Hafetz, D. (2008). Building by building: Buhswick Housing Independence Project and Brooklyn A combat tenant displacement in Bushwick. Brooklyn: Legal Services Corporation A.
Hallman, H. W. (1972). Federally financed citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 32, 421-427. Ham, D. van den & Stouten, P. (1987). Eigenaar-bewoner in Bloemhof: Een haalbaarheidsonderzoek naar woningverbetering, zelfwerkzaamheid en werkloosheidsbestrijding. Delft:Delftse Universitaire Pers.
Harloe, M. (1995). The People’s Home: Social Rented Housing in Europe and America. Oxford and Cambridge (UK): Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2014). Seven contradictions and the end of capitalism. London: Profile Books Ltd
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London and New York: Verso.
Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, Vol 53. Retrived from https://newleftreview.org/II/53/ david-harvey-the-right-to-the-city
Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of global capitalism: Towards a theory of uneven geographical development. London/ New York: Verso
Harvey, D (2005). A brief History of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2004). The ‘new ‘ imperialism: accumulation by Dispossession. Socialist Register, 40, 63-87. Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harvey, D. (1989). The Urban Experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Hebert, S., Heintz, K., Baron, C., Kay, N., & Wallace, J.E. (1993). Non-profit housing costs and benefits. Final Report. Washington, D.C: Abt Associates with Aspen Systems for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Hevesi, D. (2003, June 29). Something’s Brewing in Bushwick. New York Times Retrived from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/realestate/something-s-brewing-in-bushwick.html?src=pm
Howard, E. (1898). To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co. Ltd.
Hulsbergen, E. & Stouten, P. (2001). Urban renewal and regeneration in the Netherlands: Integration lost or subordinated?. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy and Action, 5(3), 325-337.
Hulshof, M.H. & Torre, E.J. van der (2000). Eend Drugsscene op Zuid (de Millinxbuurt): een model voor de strategische analyse van drugsscenes. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom.
Hybenova, K. (2013, August 1). Community board 4 illegaly approved rezoning of Rheingold Brewery. Daily News. Retrieved from http://bushwickdaily.com/bushwick/categories/news/1489-communi-ty-board-4-rezoning-of-rheingold-brewery-illegal-approval
Jackson, K.T. (1998). The Neighborhoods of Brooklyn. Yale: Yale University Press.
Jessop, B. (2012). Left Strategy. Tranformed! European network for alternative thinking and political dialogue. Retrived June 10, 2016 from http://www.transform-network.net/journal/issue-102012/news/detail/Journal/left-strategy.html
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
Jessop, B. (1995). The regulation approach, governance and post-fordism: Alternative perspectives on economic and political change? Economy and Society, 24 (3), pp. 307-33.
Jessop, B. (1994). Post-fordism and the state. In A. Amin (ed.), Post-fordism: A reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
Jonge, D. de (1985). Problems of post-war flats in the Netherlands. In N. Prak & H. Priemus (eds.), Post-war public housing in trouble. Delft: Delft University Press.
Katz, S.& Mayer, M.(1985). Gimme shelter: Self-help housing struggles within and against the state in New York City and Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 9(1), 15-46.
Kempen, R. van (2007). Divided cities in the 21st century: Challenging the importance of globalisation. Journal Housing Built Environment, 22, 13-21.
Kempen, R. van (2000). Big cities policy in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 91(2), 197-203.
Kempen, R. van and Priemus H (2002). Revolution in Social Housing in The Netherlands: Possible Effects of New Housing Policies, Urban Studies, February 2002, 39 (2), 237-253.
Kempen, R. van (2001). The Netherlands: the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. Leuven: Acco. Kempen, R. van & Priemus, H. (1999). Undivided cities in the Netherlands: Present situation and political rhetoric. Housing Studies, 14(5), 641-657.
Kempen, R. van, Teule, R. & Weesep, J. van (1992). Urban policy, housing policy, and the demise of the Dutch welfare state. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 83, 317–329.
Kennedy, M. (2009). Transformative planning for community development, Working paper for the Institute for Reserach on Labor and Employment, UCLA.
Kennedy, M. (1996). Renewing hope, restoring vision: Progressive planning in our communities. Prepared for the 1996 Planners Network Conference.
Kettl, D. F. (1979). Can the cities be trusted? The community development experience. Political Science Quarterly, 94 ( 3 ), 437–51.
Kloman, E. (1972). Citizen participation in the Philadelphia Model Cities Program: Retrospect and prospect. Public Administration Review, 32, 402-408.
Koffijberg, J.J. (2005). Getijden van beleid: omslagpunten in de volkshuisvesting. Over de rol van hiërarchie en netwerken bij grote veranderingen. Proefschrift, Onderzoeksinstituut OTB, Technische Universiteit Delft.
Koppenjan J.F.M. & Klijn E.H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.
Korthals Altes, W. K. (2002).Local government and the decentralisation of urban regeneration policies in The Netherlands. Urban Studies , 39(8), 1439-1452.
Kruythoff, H. (2003). Dutch urban restructuring policy in action against socio-spatial segregation: Sense or Nonsense?. European Journal of Housing Policy, 3(2), pp. 193-215.
Leefbaar Rotterdam (2010). Veiligheidsindex 2010: Zuid glijdt af. Retrived February 12, 2010 from http:// www.leefbaarrotterdam.nl/index.php/new/comments/veiligheidsindex_2010_zuidt_glijdt_af/
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: Towards and inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies, 45(12), 2449-2470.
Lees, L. (2000). A re-appraisal of gentrification: towards a geography of gentrification. Progress in Human Geography, 24, 389-408.
Lefebvre, H. (2009). State, space, world: Selected essays. N. Brenner & E. Stuart (Eds). (N. Brenner, E. Stuart & M. Gerald Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre, H. (2003). The urban revolution. (R. Bononno Trans.)Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. In E. Kofman & E. Lebas (Eds.). Writings on Cities. Cambridge (USA): Blackwell Publishers.
Lefebvre, H. (1970). The urban revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Originally published in French under the title La Revolucion Urbaine, copyright 1970 Editions Gallimard.
Les Gales, P. & Thatcher, M. (1995). Les réseaux de l’action publique-débats autour des policy networks. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Linderman, J .(2009, June 25). ULURP committee conditionally votes yes on Broadway Triangle Rezoning. The Greenpoint Gazette.
Lupton, R. (2003). Neighborhood effects:Can we measure them and does it matter?. CASE Paper 73. London: Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.
Lupton, R. & Power, A. (2004). What we know about neighbourhood change: a literature review. CASE Report 27. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.
Lupton, R. & Turok, I. (2004). Anti-poverty policies in Britain: Area-based and people-based approaches. In U.J. Walther & K. Mensch (Eds.), Armut and Ausgrenzung in der ‘Socialen Stadt’. Darmstadt: Schader- Stiftung.
Lupton, R. & Tunstall, R. (2003). Targeting deprived areas an effective means to reach poor people? an assessment of one rationale for area-based funding programs, CASE Paper 70. London: Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.
Madden, D. & Marcuse, P. (2016). In defense of housing: The politics of crisis. London and New York: Verso. Make the Road New York (2011). Rent fraud: illegal rent increases and the loss of affordable housing in New York City. Retrieved from http://www.maketheroad.org/report.php?ID=1939
Make the Road New York (2009a). If walls could talk: how landlords fail to obey childhood lead poisoning prevention laws in Bushwick. Retrieved from http://www.maketheroad.org/report.php?ID=977
Make the Road New York (2009b). Toxic homes. Retrieved from http://www.maketheroad.org/report.php?ID=1084
Malanga, S. (2008). The death and life of Bushwick. City Journal, 18(2). Retrieved from https://www.city-jour- nal.org/html/death-and-life-bushwick-13083.html
Marcuse, P. (1986). Abandonment, gentrification, and displacement: The linkages in New York City. In N. Smith & P. Williams (Eds.), Gentrification of the City. London: Unwin Hayman.
Marwell, N.P. (2007). Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community organizations in the entrepreneurial city. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Mashayekhi R. (2015, November 5). Yoel Goldman closes on Rheinglod. Retrieved from June 10, 2016 from https://therealdeal.com/2015/11/05/yoel-goldman-closes-on-rheingold-brewery-parcel-for-69m/
Massachusetts Homestead Commission (1914). Annual report of the Homestead Commission. Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Company.
Mayer, M. (2009a). The ‘right to the city’ in the context of shifting mottos of urban social movements. City, 13(2), 362-374.
Mayer, M. (2009b). Brenner, N. (2009). Urban Restructuring and the Crisis: A Symposium with Neil Brenner, John Friedman, Margit Mayer, Allen J. Scott, and Edward W. Soja/ Interviewer: Soureli, K. &Youn, E. Critical Planning , 16, 34-58. Retrived February 2012 from http://publicaffairs.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/Soureli_34_59.pdf
Mayer, M. (1994). Post-fordist city politics. In A. Amin (Ed.), Post-fordism: A reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Model Cities Administration (1970). Partnership for change: A guide to the New York Model Cities Program. Mollenkopf, J. (1983). Contested City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Moulaert, F. Rodriguez, A. & Swyngedouw, E. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. In N. Brenner and N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of neoliber- alism: urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford, Australia and Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Mullins, D. and Rhodes, M.L. (2007). Special issue on network theory and social housing. Housing Theory and Society, 24(1), pp. 1-13.
Municipal Art Society (1998). The State of 197-a planning in New York City. Online Access: http://www.com- munitybasedplanningnyc.org
Municipal Art Society (2008). Rheingold Brewery Plan in Planning for All New Yorkers: An Atlas of Communi- ty-Based Plans in New York City [WWW document]. URL http://www.communitybasedplanningnyc.org
Musterd, S. and Ostendorf, W. (2008). Integrated Urban Renewal in The Netherlands: a Critical Appraisal. Urban Research and Practice, 1(1), pp.78-92.
Musterd, S. & Ostendorft, W. (1998). Segregation and social participation in a welfare state: the case of Amsterdam. In S. Musterd and V. Ostendorf (Eds.), Segregation and social participation in a welfare state: Inequality and exclusion in western cities. London: Rutledge.
Nicis Institute (2007). Wijkactieplan en charter Rotterdam Oud Zui. Retrieved from http://www.grotevier.nl/g4/dossiers/Bestuurenorganisatie/Prachtwijken/Wijkactieplan-Rotterdam-Oud-Zuid_1116.html
National Housing Law Project (2009). An advocates guide to the HUD Section 3 Program: Creating jobs and economic opportunity, 7.Retrieved November 17, 2011 from http://www.nhlp.org/files/03%20Sec.%203%20Guide.pdf.
Nathan, R.P., Dommel, P.R., Liebschutz, S.F. & Morris, M.D. (1977). Monitoring the Block Grant Program for community development . Political Science. Quarterly, 92( 2 ), 219 – 44 .
Needelman, M. (2012). Major victory in Brooklyn: A Brodway Triangle case. Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A Retrieved from URL http://www.legalservicesnyc.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=641
New York City Arson Strike Force (1986). Arson in New York City: 1985. Rockville: National Institute of Justice New York Daily News (1977, August 1). The Tragedy of Bushwick, New York Daily News.
New York City Department of City Planning (1969). Plan for NYC. New York: Department of City Planning.
New York City Department of City Planning (2011a). Community-based planning. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/community_planning/197a.shtml
New York City Department of City Planning (2011b). Bushwick Profile. New York: New York City Department of City Planning.
New York City Department of City Planning (2010a). Community-based planning: The 197-a plan. Retrived from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/community_planning/197a.shtml
New York City Department of City Planning (2010). Bushwick Profile. New York: New York City Department of City Planning.
New York City Department of City Planning (2010). Consolidated Plan 2010 Addendum: Neighborhood Stabilization Program Round 3. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/pub/conplan2010_nsp.pdf
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (2009). Broadway Triangle ULURP application. New York: Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (2000). Building on a solid foundation: Conference Proceedings Summary. New York.
New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (2011). New York City housing and vacancy survey.
New York City Independent Budget Office (2012). Analysis of the mayor’s preliminary budget for 2013. Retrieve from http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/march2012.pdf
New York Stimulus Alliance (2012). Stimulating smart investment and job creation in low-income communi- ties: A user-friendly guide to the federal CDBG program for grassroots organizations and local policy makers. Retrived from http://www.cvhaction.org/sites/default/files/CDBG-reportforweb.pdf
Ouwehand A. & Daalen G. van (2002).Dutch housing associations: A model for social housing. Delft: DUP Satellite, Delft University Press.
Organisatie van en door Bewoners Tarwewijk [OvdB] (2008). Plan van aanpak: Project Mijnkintbuurt. Retrieved from http://www.ovdbtarwewijk.nl/projectmijnkint.htm
Overbeeke, R.W. van, & Soomeren P.F. van (1994). Eindrapportage ‘criminaliteitspreventie in het kader van buurtbeheer’: de procesevaluatie. Amsterdam: Van Dijk, Van Soomeren en Partners B.V.
Peck, J .(2001). Neoliberalizing states: Thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress in Human Geography, 25(3), 445–455.
Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. In N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford, Australia, Malden: Black- well Publishers.
Peper, B. (1972). Vorming van welzijnsbeleid: Evolutie en evaluatie van het opbouwwerk (Doctoral dissertation). Meppel: Boom. Retrieved from http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/pepe006vorm01_01/
Perine, J. (2005). The Rheingold Brewery: Brownfield redevelopment in Bushwick, Brooklyn, New York. Paper presented at the International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference 2005.
Perry, A. P. (1929). The neighbourhood unit: A scheme for arrangement for the family-life community. In Re- gional Survey, vol. 7 : Neighbourhood and Community Planning (Ed.), Committee on Regional Plan of New York and its Environs.
Priemus, H. (2003). Changing urban housing markets in advanced economies. Housing Theory and Society, 21(1), 2-16.
Priemus, H. (2004). Housing and new urban renewal: Current policies in the netherlands. International Journal of Housing and Policy, 4(2), 229-246.
Priemus, H. (1988). Housing and urban management in the Netherlands, Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, 3 (1), 61-77.
Priemus, H. (1981). Rent and subsidy in the Netherlands during the seventies, Urban Law and Policy , 4, 299- 355.
Priemus, H. & Kempen, R. van (1998). Herstructurering stadswijken verdient kans, Geografie, 7, 4–8.
Priemus, H. and Kempen, R. van (1999). Policy and practice: restructuring urban neighbourhoods in the Netherlands: four birds with one stone, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 14, 403–412.
Reaven, M. (2009). Citizen Participation in City Planning: New York City 1945-1975 (Doctoral dissertation). New York University
Reckman, P. (1974). Social aktie: Opnieuw bekeken. Baarn: Anthos.
Reckman, P. (1971). Sociale aktie: Naar een strategie en methodiek. Baarn: Anthos.
Real Impact Real Estate (2012). Brooklyn rental market report. New York: Real Impact Real Estate.
Rendón, G. & Robles-Durán, M. (2017). Social property and the need for a new urban practice. In D. Petrescu and K. Trogal (Eds.), The social (re)production of architecture: Politics, values and actions in contemporary practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rhyne, C.S. (1960). The workable program: A challenge for community improvement. Law and Comtemporary Problems, 25(4), 685-704.
Rich , M. J. (1989). Distributive politics and the allocation of federal grants . American Political Science Review, 83 ( 1 ), 193 – 213.
Right to the City Alliance NYC Chapter (2010). People without homes, and homes without people: A count of vacant condos in selected neighborhoods. New York: Right to the City Alliance NYY Chapter.
Roberts, P. (2000) .The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. In P. Roberts & H. Sykes (Eds.), Urban regeneration: A handbook. London,Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Robson, B., Parkinson, M., Boddy, M. & Maclennon, D. (2000). The state of English cities. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions.
Rose, N. (1996). Governing ‘advanced’ liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osbourne & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason. London: UCL Press.
Rosenfeld , R. A. (1979). Local implementation decisions for community development block grants. Public Administration Review, 39( 5 ), 448 – 57.
Ross, M. (1955). Community organisation: Theory and principles. New York, Evanston and London: Harper and Row Publishers.
Rotterdam Buurtmonitor (2015) Population, spatial planning and housing and economy characteristics. Re- trived from URL https://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl/
Sanchez, T. (1988). Bushwick neighborhood profile. New York: Brooklyn In Touch Information Center.
Sanchis, E. (2010). Stimulus funds are not enough to fight foreclosures in New York. Retrieved from URLhttp:// news.feetintwoworlds.org/2010/02/10/stimulus-funds-are-not-enough-to-fight-foreclosures-in-new- york/
Schwartz, A. F. (2006). Housing policy in the United States: An introduction. New York:Routledge.
Schwartz, A.F. & Vidal, A (1999). Between a rock and a hard place: The impact of federal and state policy chang- es on housing in New York City. In M.H. Schill (Ed.), Housing and community development in New York City: Facing the future. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schill, M., Gould Ellen, I., Schwartz, A. E. & Voicu, I. (2002). Revitalizing inner-city neighborhoods: New York City’s ten-year plan, Housing Policy Debate, 13( 3) 529-566.
Schinkel, W. & Berg, M. van den (2011). City of exception: the Dutch revanchist city and the urban Homo Sacer. Antipode, 43(5), 1911–38.
Shaar, J. van der (1982). Social and owner occupied housing in the Netherlands. Consultant’s report. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Simonse, J. (1997). De teloorgang van het kerkelijk clubhuiswerk: het verhaal van een secularisatieproces. Baarn: Te Have.
Smith, N. (2008). On the eviction of critical perspectives. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 32(1), 197-197.
Smith, N. (2006). Gentrification generalized: From local anomaly to urban regeneration as global strategy. In M.
S. Fisher & G. Downey (Eds.), Frontiers of capital: Ethnographic reflections the new economy. Durham: Duke University Press.
Smith, N. (2003). Foreword. In H. Lefebvre (R. Bononno Trans.), The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis and Lon- don: University of Minnesota Press.
Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. In N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of neoliberalism: urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford, Australia, Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Smith, N. (1996). ‘Global arguments’, the new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. London and New York: Routledge.
Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development: culture, capital and the production of space. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Smith, G., Noble, M. & Wright, G. (2001). Do we care about area effects? Environment and Planning, 33, 1341- 1344.
Soja, E.W. (1997). Postmodern Geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. New Delhi: Prem Rawat for Rawat Publications.
Soffer J. (2010). Ed Kock: And the Rebulding of New York City. New York: Columbia University Press. Strange, John H. (1972). The Impact of Citizen Participation in Participation in Public Administration, Public Administration Review 32 (September 1972), pp. 457-470.
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (2013). De social start van Nederland 2013. Edited by Bijl, R., Boelhouwer, J., Pommel, E., and Sonck, N. Den Haag 2013.
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau [SCP] (1994). Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport. Rijswijk: SCP.
Soomeren D. van & Parners B.V. (1994). Bijlagenboek bij wind rapportage ‘Criminaliteitspreventie in een buurt- beheercontext’ (procesevaluatie) - Beschrijving van de projection. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justice, Directie Criminalteitspreventie.
Sour, R. & Reijngoud, J. (2009). 169 Klushuizen: Van expriment naar instrument. Heijningen: Jap Sam Books Stouten, P. (2017). Urban Design and the changing context of urban regeneration in the Netherlands. European Spatial Research and Policy, 23(1), 111-126.
Stouten, P. (2016). Gentrification and urban regeneration in the urban fabric of Rotterdam. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 11(1), 92-103.
Stouten, P. (2010). Changing Contexts in Urban Regeneration: 30 Years of Modernisation in Rotterdam. Amster- dam: Techne Press.
Stouten, P. (1995). Urban renewal in transition. Delft: Vakgroep Voklshuisvesting en Stadvernieuwing. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizens: the janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991-2006.
Swyngedouw, E. (1996). Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new authoritarism: closing the Belgian mines. Urban Studies, 33(8), 1499-1521.
Thabit, W. (2005). How East New York became a ghetto. New York City: NYU Press.
Uitermark, J. (2014). Integration and control: The governing of urban marginality in western Europe, international. Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1418-1436.
Uitermark, J. (2003). Social Mixing and the Management of Disadvantage Neighborhoods: The Dutch Policy of Urban Restructuring Revisited.Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3, 531-549, page 531.
Uitermark, J., Duyevendak, J. W. & Kleinhans, R. (2007). Gentrification as a governmental Strategy: Social Control and Social Cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment and Planning, 39(1), 125-141.
Uitermark, J.& Duyvendak, J.W. (2008). Civilising the city: Populism and revanchist urbanism in Rotterdam.
Urban Studies, 45(7), 1485-1503.
Vliet, W. van, Huttman, E. & Fava, S.F. (Eds.)(1985).Housing needs and policy approaches: Trends in thirteen countries. Durham: Duke University Press.
Vereninging Eigen Huis (2014). Huurwoning kopen. Retrived June 10, 2014 from http://www.eigenhuis.nl/kopen/orienteren/wat-wil-ik-kopen/huurwoning-kopen/
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Orderning en Milieubehher [VROM] (2010). Neighbourhood visit: Rotterdam Zuid slowly improving. Retrieved November 10, 2010 from http://www.vrom.net/pagina.html?id=48436
VROM (2009a). De koopwoning bereikbaar voor starters. Woenen, Wijken en Integratie. Den Haag: Ministerie van VROM
VROM (2009b). Minister van del Laan allocaties €30 million to improve the quality of life in districts. Retrieved November 8, 2009 from http://international.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=41532
VROM (2007). Wijkenselectie en wijkentoer. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM
VROM (2007a). Actieplan krachtwjken:van aandachtswijk naar krachtwijk. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM.
VROM (2007b). Charter krachtwijkenaanpak Rotterdam. Wonen, Wijken en Integratie. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM.
VROM (2006). Tarwewijk 1e fase: Dordselaan en Mijnkintbuurt. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM
VROM (2006). Major City Policy. Retrived November 10, 2009 from http://international.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=37443
VROM (2005). Betrokken bewoners: Burgerparticiopatie in de stedelijke verniewing. Den Haag: Ministerie van VROM.
VROM (2001). What people want where people live: Housing in the 21st century. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM.
VROM-Raad (2001). Grotestedenbeleid, Voortzetten en Verbouwen. Advies over Grotestedenbeleid. Advies 030. Den Haag: Raad voor VROM.
Wacquant, L. (2002). The rise of advance marginality: notes on its nature and implications. In P. Marcuse and R. van Kempen (Eds.), Of estates and cities: The partitioning of urban space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wacquant, L. (1999). Urban marginality in the coming millenium. Urban Studies, 36(10), 1639-1647. Re- trieved June 2016 from http://loicwacquant.net/assets/PapersURBMARGINALITYMILLENIUM.pdf
Ward, S.V. (1992). The garden city: past, present and future. London and New York: Spon Press Warner, S.B. (1972). The Urban wilderness: A history of the American city. New York: Harper and Row.
Weinberg, D. (2009). Our historical accomplishments. Cooper Square. Retrieved from https://coopersquare. org/about-us/our-historical-accomplishments
Weissman, R.S. (1978). The limits of citizen participation: lessons from San Francisco’s Model Cities Program. Political Research Quarterly,. 31, 32-47.
Whitford, E. (2015). “Our home is not a new frontier”: Bushwick locals fight new luxury development. Goth- amist. Retrieved from http://gothamist.com/2015/04/22/bushwick_colony_gentrification.php
Willis, M. A. (1987). Housing: A city perspective. City Almanac, 19(4),16–23.
Wilson, W.J. (1996). When work dissapers: the world of the new urban poor. New York: Knopf.
Whitted N. (2002). CB 4 veteran Nadine Whitted: Cites completion of Bushwick Housing Plan. The Bushwick Observer, 9(1).
Woonstad Rotterdam, Deelgemeente Charlois, & Gemeente Rotterdam (2008). Opgroeien in de stad: Een kind- vriendelijke Tarwewijk. Rotterdam: Woonstad Rotterdam, Deelgemente Charlois & Gemeente Rotterdam
Zwan, A. van der & Entizinger, H. (1994). Beleidsopvolging minderhedendebat: Advies in opdracht van de min- ister van binnenlandse taken. The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.