Urban commons and commoning in Amsterdam east the role of liquid communities and the local government

Author/s Peer Smets, Firoez Azarhoosh
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/1 Language English
Pages 19 P. 91-109 File size 244 KB
DOI 10.3280/SP2019-001005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Urban commons offer new opportunities for looking into citizens’ participation and the role of communities in co-creation. Often the focus is on public and private sector organizations, and the role of citizen collectives are underestimated or even neglected. But such communities can play a role in co-creation aimed at developing solutions for contemporary problems. To illustrate the creation of urban commons and the process of commoning, we used a case study of the Indische neighbourhood in Amsterdam East. This study shows how older structures are disembedded and how new embeddedness offers possibilities for co-creation of urban commons such as the self-management of a neighbourhood centre. Moreover, this study shows that even though neoliberal solutions are often seen as the only possibility, there are many alternatives (Tama) available.

Keywords: Urban Commons; Government; Governance; Communities; Indische neighbourhood

  1. Atkinson, W. 2008. Not all that was solid has melted into air (or liquid): A critique of Bauman on individualization and class in liquid modernity. The Sociological Review, 56 (1), pp. 1-17.
  2. Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
  3. ( 2002. Community. Seeking safety in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity.
  4. Berger, R. 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t. Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research, Qualitative Research, 15 (2), pp. 219-234.
  5. Blackshaw, T. 2010. Key concepts in community studies. London: Sage.
  6. Bollier, D. 2014. Think like a commoner. A short introduction to the life of the commons. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
  7. Boutellier, H. 2011. De improvisatiemaatschappij. Over de sociale ordening van een onbegrensde wereld. The Hague: Boom, Lemma.
  8. Bradshaw, T. 2008. The post-place community: Contributions to the debate about the definition of community. Community Development, 39 (1), pp. 5-16. DOI: 10.1080/1557533080948973
  9. Bruun, M.H. 2015. Communities and the commons: Open access and community ownership of the urban commons. In C. Borch and M. Kornberger eds. 2015. Urban Commons. Rethinking the city, pp. 153-170. London: Routledge.
  10. Bryman, A. 2012. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Cadat, M. 2012. Budget monitoring in de Indische buurt. Alliantie tussen burgerparticipatie en innovative ICT. Sociaal bestek, June-July, pp. 16-18.
  12. Castells, M. 2000. The rise of the network society. Malden: Blackwell.
  13. Center for Budget Monitoring and Citizen Participation n.d. -- Homepage. URL: http://budgetmonitoring.nl/en/ (visited 7-2-2019).
  14. Checkaway, B. 2011. Community development, social diversity, and the new metropolis. Community Development Journal, 46 (S2), pp.ii5-ii14.
  15. De Angelis, M. 2016. Foreword. In S. Stavrides Common space: The city as commons. London: Zed books.
  16. DeFilipis, J. and Saegert, S. 2008. Communities develop: The question is how? In J. DeFilipis and S. Saegert eds. 2008. The community development reader, pp. 1-6. New York: Routledge.
  17. De Moor, T. 2015. The dilemma of the commoners: Understanding the use of common-pool resources in long-term perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Fiere, R., Mehlkopf, P. and Wüst, S. 2012. Meevaart of Tegenstroom. Amsterdam: Stichting Meevaart Ontwikkel Groep.
  19. Fung, A. and Wright, E. 2001. Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & Society, 29 (1), pp. 5-41. DOI: 10.1177/0032329201029001002
  20. Galloway, M., Hoepel, M. and Smets, P. 2014, Post 9/11 state of affairs. Everyday encounters and notions of belonging attributed to Moroccan-Dutch and native-born in Amsterdam. Global Built Environment Review special edition, pp. 31-34.
  21. Scott, J. 1998. Seeing like a state. Why certain schemes to improve the human conditions have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  22. Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman, B. 1997. Studying online social networks. Journal of Community-Mediated Communication, 3 (1). -- Downloaded from URL: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html.
  23. Gilbert, J. 2014. Common ground. Democracy and collectivism in an age of individualism. London: PlutoPress.
  24. Granovetter, M.S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), pp. 1360-1380. DOI: 10.1177/0032329201029001002
  25. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859), pp. 1243-1248.
  26. Harvey, D. 2012. Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso.
  27. Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. eds. 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: MIT press.
  28. Horlings, I. 2010. Vital coalitions. Partnership for sustainable regional development. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Press.
  29. Kalb, D. 2017. Afterword: After the commons-commoning! Focaal, Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology, 7, pp. 67-73.
  30. Kornberger, M. and Borch, C. 2015. Introduction urban commons. In C. Borch and M. Kornberger eds. 2015. Urban Commons. Rethinking the city, pp. 1-21. London: Routledge.
  31. Levine, J.R. 2017. The paradox of community power: Cultural processes and elite authority in participatory governance. Social Forces, 95 (3), pp. 1155 1179.
  32. Löfgren, A. 2015. Sharing an atmosphere: Spaces in urban commons. In C. Borch and M. Kornberger eds. 2015. Urban Commons. Rethinking the city, pp. 68-91. London: Routledge.
  33. Löw, M. 2015. Managing the urban commons: Public interest and the representation of interconnectedness. In C. Borch and M. Kornberger eds. 2015. Urban Commons. Rethinking the city, pp. 109-126. London: Routledge.
  34. Lietaer B., Ulanowicz, R. and Goerner, S. 2009. Options for managing a systemic bank crisis. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society 2 (1).
  35. Linebaugh, P. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto. Liberties and commons for all. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  36. Massey, D. 1994. Space, place and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  37. Mehlkopf, P. 2009. Potentie, ambitie en beweging, een andere kijk op de revitaliseren van leefomgevingen en buurten. In F. Azarhoosh and P. Mehlkopf eds. 2009. Maatschap in de buurt, pp. 19-32. Amsterdam: TPC.
  38. Mingione, E. 2018. The double movement and the perspectives of contemporary capitalism. In A. Andreotti, S. Benassi and Y. Kazepov eds. 2018. Western Capitalism in transition. Global processes, local challenges, pp. 291-306. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  39. O+S 2011. Kerncijfers Amsterdam 2011. Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam.
  40. Ostrom, E. 2009. Nobel Prize Lecture: Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. http://bit.ly/2VnUlp5.
  41. Pierre, J. 1999. Models of urban governance: The institutional dimensions of urban politics. Urban Affairs Review, 34 (3), pp. 372-396. DOI: 10.1177/1078087992218398
  42. Robertson, R. 1995. Glocalization: time–space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R. Robertson ed. 1995. Global Modernities, pp. 25-44. London: Sage.
  43. Samen Indische Buurt 2000. Voort op de ingeslagen weg. De Indische buurt in opkomst. Amsterdam: Stadsdeel Zeeburg, de Alliantie Amsterdam, Ymere, Eigen Haard.
  44. Savage, M., Bagnall, G. and Longhurst, B. 2005. Globalization and belonging. London: Sage.
  45. Sennett, R. 2013. Together: The rituals, pleasure and politics of cooperation. London: Penguin.
  46. Smets, P. 2006. Living apart or together? Multiculturalism at a neighbourhood level. Community Development Journal, 41 (3), pp. 293-306.
  47. ( 2011. Community development in contemporary ethnic plurifom neighbourhoods: A critical look at social mixing. Community Development Journal, 46 (S2), pp. ii15-ii32.
  48. ( 2018. Indian community-based housing finance systems: potentials and pitfalls for urban development and housing improvement. International Journal of Urban Sciences.
  49. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2018.1514274.
  50. Smets, P. and Salman, T. 2008. Countering urban segregation: Theoretical and policy innovation from around the globe. Urban Studies, 45 (7), pp. 1307 -1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008090676
  51. Stavrides, S. 2016. Common space: The city as commons. London: Zed books.
  52. Susser, I. 2017. Introduction: For or against commoning? Focaal, Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology, 79, pp. 1-5.
  53. Susser, I. and Tonnelat, S. 2013. Transformative cities: The three urban commons. Focaal, Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology, 66, pp.105-132.
  54. Swyngedouw, E. 2005. Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 1991-2006. DOI: 10.1080/0042098050027986
  55. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F. and Rodriguez, A. 2002. Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large- scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34 (3), pp. 542-577. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8330.00254
  56. Tonkens, E. and Verhoeven, I. 2011. Bewonersinitiatieven: Proeftuin voor partnerschap tussen burgers en overheid Een onderzoek naar bewonersinitiatieven in de Amsterdamse wijkaanpak. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam/Stichting Actief Burgerschap.
  57. Tönnies, F. 2001 [1957]. Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, In J.J. Macionis and N.V. Benokraitis eds. 2001. Seeing Ourselves: Classic, Contemporary, and Cross-Cultural Readings in Sociology, pp. 59-61. Upper Saddle River (N.J): Prentice Hall.
  58. Van den Berg, E., Van Houwelingen, P. and Hart, J. de 2011. Informele groepen. Verkenningen van eigentijdse bronnen van sociale cohesie. The Hague: SCP.
  59. Vliegenthart, R. and C. Roggeband 2007. Framing immigration and integration: Relationships between Press and Parliament in the Netherlands. The International Communication Gazette, 69 (3), pp. 295–331.
  60. Vlind, M. and Smets, P. 2018. Senses of belonging and nonbelonging within citizen’s summits in Amsterdam. In. K. Davis, H. Ghorashi and P. Smets eds. Contested Belonging: Spaces, Practices, Biographies, pp. 89-111. Bringley: Emerald.
  61. Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7 (2), pp. 225-246. DOI: 10.1177/135050840072002

  • Community experiences and aspirations of young Syrian newcomers in a neighborhood in Amsterdam, the Netherlands Kyohee Kim, in Journal of Community Practice /2022 pp.418
    DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2022.2137873
  • The Politics and Aesthetics of the Urban Commons: Navigating the Gaze of the City, the State, the Market Louis Volont, Peer Smets, in Social Inclusion /2022 pp.84
    DOI: 10.17645/si.v10i1.5392

Peer Smets, Firoez Azarhoosh, Urban commons and commoning in Amsterdam east the role of liquid communities and the local government in "SOCIOLOGIA E POLITICHE SOCIALI" 1/2019, pp 91-109, DOI: 10.3280/SP2019-001005