Early September a delegation of 26 from the Danish town of Århus went to Utrecht looking for inspiration for their work with socially vulnerable residential areas. The outing was arranged by Det Boligsociale Fællessekretariat (The Joint Office for Social Housing) in cooperation with the management group responsible for the professional development of housing estate social workers. The participants were: Housing estate social workers, volunteers and Beboerdemokrater from various residential areas of Århus; project managers involved with the town-wide projects of Det Boligsociale Fællessekretariat as well as employees of Det Boligsociale Fællessekretariat. Some of the knowledge we acquired is presented in this report. For more information you can visit our website www.bydele.dk which also features images from the trip.
Common challenges – Different Approaches
The towns of Århus and Utrecht have much in common. They are of approximately the same size. They both have a long tradition as university towns and they both face challenges in the form of socially vulnerable residential areas with social problems as well as problems relating to integration. Another similarity is that both towns are connected through Similar Networks: a co-operation on urban development including several EU member states. These similarities made Utrecht a good choice as a destination for our outing.
The municipality of Utrecht made a remarkable effort in preparation of the outing and their great hospitality contributed to making the outing a very positive experience both professionally and socially. (A detailed evaluation can be found at the end of the report)
When one studies the reports on socially vulnerable residential areas of Utrecht it becomes evident that the approach of the municipality of Utrecht has been somewhat different from the Danish. During the past two decades the Dutch have put a lot of effort into changing the residential areas in question physically by renovating, demolishing and by initiating development. They have given less attention to social initiatives. In Denmark the emphasis has, conversely, been on social initiatives and physical aspects have been given less attention. Yet plans currently in the making for the residential area of Gellerup-Toveshøj and other residential areas to a large extent include physical initiatives. Consequently we may learn much about physical initiatives from the Dutch whereas they may be able to learn from us when it comes to social initiatives. Nevertheless the main challenge to us and the Dutch is the same: To make physical initiatives go hand in hand with social initiatives and form a synthesis. Another significant difference between Denmark and the Netherlands is that the liberalisation of the Dutch public sector has had the effect of making housing associations function as urban development corporations. This means that housing associations are able to sell one section in a specific urban area and reinvest the proceeds in a socially vulnerable residential area. When one takes into account the additional subsidies provided by state and municipality this means that the budgets of Dutch housing associations are significantly larger than in Denmark. In Denmark the sale of residences owned by housing associations has been much debated. In Utrecht the sale of residences was part of their strategy. In one residential area a more mixed composition of residents had been achieved by the sale of residences. However in another area the sale of residences had to be stopped as a group of owners which were unable to handle the maintenance of residences and the adjacent outdoor areas had come into being. It would consequently be very interesting to examine the causes and effects of the sale of residences in Utrecht in depth before this approach is employed on a large scale in Denmark.
Benedikte Erlykke and Jens Møller
Common challenges – Different Approaches
The towns of Århus and Utrecht have much in common. They are of approximately the same size. They both have a long tradition as university towns and they both face challenges in the form of socially vulnerable residential areas with social problems as well as problems relating to integration. Another similarity is that both towns are connected through Similar Networks: a co-operation on urban development including several EU member states. These similarities made Utrecht a good choice as a destination for our outing.
The municipality of Utrecht made a remarkable effort in preparation of the outing and their great hospitality contributed to making the outing a very positive experience both professionally and socially. (A detailed evaluation can be found at the end of the report)
When one studies the reports on socially vulnerable residential areas of Utrecht it becomes evident that the approach of the municipality of Utrecht has been somewhat different from the Danish. During the past two decades the Dutch have put a lot of effort into changing the residential areas in question physically by renovating, demolishing and by initiating development. They have given less attention to social initiatives. In Denmark the emphasis has, conversely, been on social initiatives and physical aspects have been given less attention. Yet plans currently in the making for the residential area of Gellerup-Toveshøj and other residential areas to a large extent include physical initiatives. Consequently we may learn much about physical initiatives from the Dutch whereas they may be able to learn from us when it comes to social initiatives. Nevertheless the main challenge to us and the Dutch is the same: To make physical initiatives go hand in hand with social initiatives and form a synthesis. Another significant difference between Denmark and the Netherlands is that the liberalisation of the Dutch public sector has had the effect of making housing associations function as urban development corporations. This means that housing associations are able to sell one section in a specific urban area and reinvest the proceeds in a socially vulnerable residential area. When one takes into account the additional subsidies provided by state and municipality this means that the budgets of Dutch housing associations are significantly larger than in Denmark. In Denmark the sale of residences owned by housing associations has been much debated. In Utrecht the sale of residences was part of their strategy. In one residential area a more mixed composition of residents had been achieved by the sale of residences. However in another area the sale of residences had to be stopped as a group of owners which were unable to handle the maintenance of residences and the adjacent outdoor areas had come into being. It would consequently be very interesting to examine the causes and effects of the sale of residences in Utrecht in depth before this approach is employed on a large scale in Denmark.
Benedikte Erlykke and Jens Møller
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten