Gentrification in Amsterdam and Berlin

In recent years several studies have highlighted how gentrification strategies are imposed under the discursive umbrella of ‘social mixing’. However, most evidence is based on Anglo-Saxon experiences. This paper sets out to expand the geography of gentrification by looking at the representation of processes and policies of gentrification as put forward by key stakeholders in the Nord-Neukölln (Berlin) and Indische Buurt (Amsterdam). It shows that, in both contexts, stakeholders and policy documents actively engage with the concept of gentrification, rather than avoid it. Due to public policy influence and local criticisms this engagement differs between both cases. In Nord-Neukölln the term is heavily contested and policymakers attempt to refute accusations of gentrification, while in the Indische Buurt, the process is explicitly pursued as a positive policy instrument by policymakers. Different representations within each case are shown to be influenced by the characteristics of inmoving and out-moving residents; the employed timeframe; and the perceived influence of institutions on urban regeneration. Over the years the literature on gentrification has conceptually and geographically expanded. An important addition to this literature examines the shift towards generalized, blueprint strategies of state-led gentrification implemented in a range of contexts (Hackworth, 2002; Smith, 2002; Uitermark et al., 2007). A crucial element of state-led gentrification is the way it is represented by policymakers, other stakeholders and in general discourse (see Lees, 1996). A growing body of critical literature highlights how gentrification is represented as a positive policy instrument to enhance, inter alia, the liveability, social order and residential composition of disadvantaged neighborhoods to prevent negative neighborhood effects (e.g. Bolt et al., 2010; Uitermark et al., 2007; Walks & Maaranen, 2008).