paper transformation

8/3/2019 Paper Transformation

1/18

WS25 - Reviewing architecture and the residential design in the urban context a critical inventory

1

Renovating houses, neighbourhood change and mixitA case study in Ghent, Belgium

Michael RyckewaertKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, Kasteelpark

Arenberg 1 box 2431, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium

e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Upgrading housing quality increasingly implies transforming existing housing and neighbourhoods. But

neighbourhood change can lead to gentrification, pushing out low-income groups and replacing them by urban

elites. This paper explores this problem on the basis of a case study in one urban neighbourhood in Ghent, Belgium.

A 2005 housing survey showed that physical housing quality in Flanders (the northern region of Belgium) has

improved in recent years. Some inner city neighbourhoods characterized by urban blight in the 1990s, have become

more attractive, leading to a process of gentrification. Based on a neighbourhood survey, interviews withinhabitants as well as an architectural analysis of their dwellings, this paper investigates the impact of this house-

by-house process of neighbourhood change, comparing it to larger-scale transformation projects that also occurred

in the area. It concludes that the step-by-step renovation process results in a mild gentrification. Large projects

have a more disrupting impact in terms of mixit, creating closed off sub-communities within the neighbourhood.

Keywords: neighbourhood change, gentrification, social mix, renovation, housing.

Introduction

Upgrading housing quality increasingly implies transforming existing housing and neighbourhoods. But

neighbourhood change can lead to gentrification, pushing out low-income groups and replacing them by

urban elites (Berg, Kaminer et al. 2008). This paper explores this problem on the basis of a case study in

the Tweepoorten urban neighbourhood in Ghent, Belgium.

A 2005 housing survey indicated a substantial improvement of housing quality in Flanders, the northern

part of Belgium, as compared to a 1995 survey (Heylen et al. 2007). The age of the housing stock

explains in part the poor overall housing quality found in the 1995 survey. Belgium has one of the eldest

housing stocks in Europe (Bartiaux et al. 2006). The improvement of housing quality was linked to a

trend showing that home ownership of starters on the housing market occurred increasingly on the

secondary, rather than on the primary market (Heylen 2007). Indeed, whereas home ownership in

Belgium was traditionally dominated by the construction of new homes by individual households a shiftoccurred to young households buying and renovating existing homes, as revealed in real estate and

building permit data (De Decker et al. 2010). Architects have eagerly taken up the renovation challenge,

adapting town and row houses to present-day housing standards, both in technical and aesthetic terms (De

Decker et al. 2010).

Some inner city neighbourhoods characterized by urban blight and degraded housing in the 1990s, have

become subject to a process of gentrification. A 2007 study on deprived neighbourhoods in Belgian cities

based on data of the 2001 census (Vandermotten et al. 2007) identified several gentrification


2/18


2

neighbourhoods, as compared to the 1991 census data where these neighbourhood were still characterizedas deprived (Kesteloot et al. 1996). A primary category to determine the gentrification neighbourhood

type in the 2007 study is the percentage of persons with a higher education degree. In other words, the

influx of highly educated inhabitants is considered a key element in the gentrification process of these

neighbourhoods.

Processes of neighbourhood change are often the result of urban policy measures. A key question is towhat extent urban renewal results in an undesired gentrification process that excludes and expulses low-income groups. There is much debate about the most appropriate policy measures for a wholesome and

sustainable urban regeneration process. Many cities pursue urban renewal policies that involve large scale

interventions in the built fabric, such as large-scale housing redevelopment, waterfront or brownfield

redevelopment etc. Such an approach is often criticised by those that favour a more socially innovative

approach that works in a more participative way, involves various stakeholders and inhabitants in the

planning of interventions, focuses on socio-economic interventions such as job programs, socio-cultural

and educational events to enhance appropriation of the neighbourhood, facilitate encounters between

various groups within the neighbourhood, and improves neighbourhood belonging (De Bruyne et al.

2008).

To what extent is the identified process of neighbourhood change in Tweepoorten sustainable? There isa multitude of dimensions to sustainable urban development and many indicators are used in variouspractices (Shen et al. 2011). In this case study we focus on two interrelated and crucial questions to assess

if the transformation process in Tweepoorten is sustainable:

1. Does the transformation process result in a more sustainable housing stock in terms of quality, comfort

and energy efficiency? What is the role of individual renovations in the physical revaluation of the

neighbourhood as a whole, as compared to more structured, large scale operations by professional

developers or housing companies that also occurred in the neighbourhood?

2. Does the transformation process result in the expulsion and exclusion of low income groups and/or

original inhabitants? Does this lead to social polarization or does a successful social mix arise where low-

and high-income groups live together?


3/18


3

Figure 1.: Situation of the Tweepoorten neighbourhood and location of deprived and gentrification(blue) neighbourhoods in the Ghent agglomeration.

Source: Vandermotten 2007 (right).

In order to answer these questions, a thorough case study is proposed of Tweepoorten neighbourhood in

the city of Ghent, Belgium. The focus is on the process of spatial transformation, much rather than on a

quantitative assessment of the relationship between renovations, gentrification and social mix. To unravelthe relations between the events at the individual house(hold) level and the neighbourhood level, case

study research and qualitative research methods are applied. This type of research is particularly well

adapted to a qualitative analysis of phenomena (Yin 2003). The case study relies on the following

methods: spatial analysis, field work and home surveys.

First of all, it starts with a detailed spatial analysis of the neighbourhood based on a typomorphology

approach (Moudon 1994). The typomorphological method allows to understand the set up of the urban

fabric and its relation to housing typology, as well as the structure and qualities of public space through a

historical reconstruction of the neighbourhood. This approach provides an insight in the plot-structures

and above all the available housing typologies present in the neighbourhood today.

Second, the neighbourhood services and amenities, as well as the qualities of public space, the public

transport service level and building typologies are further mapped in fieldwork. This includesphotographic surveys, mapping of public spaces and building typologies, functional analyses to identify

the various types of land use (residential, commercial, public services, etc.).

Finally, interviews with 32 inhabitants of the neighbourhood are carried out. Mainly respondents who

owned a house in the neighbourhood and had carried out renovations were recruited, but some

respondents were also renters. The interviews were carried out in the dwellings of the respondents, and a

thorough survey to assess housing quality was carried out.


4/18


4

A diverse and layered housing stock as the canvas for neighbourhood change

The Tweepoorten neighbourhood is located just south of the Ghent city centre. Its construction history is

crucial to understand the diverse typological composition of the neighbourhood, that combines medieval

buildings, a medieval bguinage (a housing complex organized around a courtyard originally inhabited by

lay sisters, recognised as a Unesco world heritage site in 1998), with 19 th century town houses, 19th

century workers terraces, and 20th century apartment buildings. The Scheldt and Leie rivers meet in thecity of Ghent, and both rivers are split up into several branches and meander through the urban fabric. It is

a marshy territory with some sandy higher ground. The neighbourhood was built on such higher ground

between two river branches, along the main road to the south, that forks in two roads leading to the two

original city gates in the citys defensive wall (hence the name Tweepoorten meaning two gates). The

defensive wall was later demolished and transformed into a tree-lined boulevard. Individual town houses

were located along the forking roads, as well as in between these roads and the Scheldt branch to the east,

where larger programs such as the bguinage, the Hollain military barracks and a cloister were built in

the pre-industrial time (before 1850).

19th

century industrialization profoundly changed the city of Ghent. Belgium was one of the first countries

where the industrial revolution reached the European continent. The textile industry flourished in Ghent.

The advent of the railroad, workers housing and workshops and factories meant that a 19 th century layerwas added to the urban fabric of the city. This gave rise to several new structures and building patterns in

de Tweepoorten neighbourhood.

First of all, the marshy terrain to the west of the area was raised for the construction of Ghents south

railway station (Binst and Verschaffel 1983). As in other cities, the advent of the railroad and train station

was accompanied by the construction of new neighbourhoods and town planning enterprises. In this case,a formal new square was planned at the northern edge of the neighbourhood, and new streets form the

main road towards the new station were laid out in the northern part of the neighbourhood. Large and fine

town houses for the upper class were built alongside these new public spaces.


5/18


5

Figure 2.: Historical development of the city of Ghent (1770, 1850, 1960).

Source: Ferraris cabinet map, Vandermaelen map, topographic map, NGI.

Secondly, the southern part of the area followed a different development. Here, there was no question of aformal urban plan. Much rather, an informal pattern of workshops, warehouses, factories and speculative

workers housing developed in new roads laid out between the fork of the southern main roads, and in thesmall streets or alleys leading from these main roads to Scheldt branch in the east and the new railway

line in the west.

Further physical changes occurred in the neighbourhood in the 20th century. A couple of newer streets in

between the railway line and the main road were built with art deco-style town houses, somewhat smaller

than their 19th

century predecessors, but still larger and more comfortable than the workers housing of the

late 19th and early 20th century row houses found in other streets.


6/18


6

Figure 3.: typomorphological composition of Tweepoorten neighbourhood (black: pre-1800construction, dark-grey 19th century construction, light grey 20th century construction) and 1855 cadastre

map.

Source: Ghent city archives (right).

The most important change however came in the second half of the 20th

century, when the impact of the

car on the urban fabric gained full force. First of all, the railway line was replaced by an urban highway,entering the city with a long fly-over, that sheds its shadow over the neighbourhood. The south station

was demolished, and a park was built in its place. This created an excellent connection by car to the new

Antwerp Ghent Courtrai highway, part of the inter-European highway network designated as the E3.

Giving the area an excellent accessibility by car, a the string of apartment buildings was built along the

urban highway and the park, creating a distinct western limit and built up front to the Tweepoortenneighbourhood. Secondly, the tree-lined boulevard that had replaced the citys defensive wall, was now

also replaced by an urban highway circumventing the city of Ghent.

Both these infrastructural interventions of the second half of the 20 th century meant that the

neighbourhood had become somewhat of an enclave, in between hard-to-cross infrastructures. Whereas in

previous times the traffic going in and out of the city had taken the forking roads that formed the very

spine of the neighbourhood, traffic was now bypassing the neighbourhood. From lively and vibrant

shopping streets the forking roads developed into roads to nowhere where the lack of passage resulted in

the degradation of the shopping tissue.

From the 1970s and 80s onward, also the residential tissue underwent a process of degradation. A process

of neighbourhood decline had started. Among other things, some the large 19 th century town houses weresplit up into apartments or student housing. The older stock of small and low quality 19 th and early 20th

century workers housing was becoming more and more derelict, attracting low-income and migrant

households. Also the bguinage was subject to degradation, while most factories, workshops, and the


7/18


7

military barracks closed down and became vacant. Poor housing quality, low-incomes, a substantial shareof migrant households as well as a low education level explain why in the 1990s the area was categorized

among the deprived neighbourhoods by Kesteloot et al. (1997).

One of the initiatives in the Tweepoorten neighbourhood was the construction of a social housing

project to replace the former military barracks, the Hollainhof. This was devised as an exemplary

project, for which an architecture competition was organized, that was won by Willem-Jan Neutelings(Vervloesem and De Decker 2008). The project was based in part on the concept of the bguinage, acollection of stacked housing on three floors, organized around a large interior courtyard. The project is

accessible from the street through a single gate, and borders on the Scheldt branch in the east. A day-care

centre is located in the courtyard. Furthermore, a private organization renovated the historical bguinage.

The bguinage dwellings were turned mainly in to high class housing, but some smaller units were

renovated and rented out to a social housing organization for affordable housing.

These projects show that the response to the urban decay and degradation of the neighbourhood wasinitiated by public authorities and private organizations. As such, the regeneration process is not merely a

spontaneous development, but also in part a deliberately planned process. These large projects were in

part triggered by Black Sunday, November 24, 1991 which marked the electoral breakthrough in urban

neighbourhoods of an extreme right xenophobic party in the municipal elections of that day. As Debruyneet al. (2008) have argued, this marked the transition of a careful and participative urban renewal policy ofthe 1980s to a large-scale social housing urgency program, resulting in large-scale projects such as the

Hollainhof. This was based on the political assessment by traditional parties that the earlier careful

policies were too slow in addressing the needs of the impoverished autochthonous population of the

declining neighbourhoods that found its electoral expression in xenophobia and populism.

These large projects of the (late) 1990s were followed in the 21st century by a spontaneous process of

individual investments in the neighbourhood, as evidenced in our case study. Among other things, our

neighbourhood survey and fieldwork revealed a high degree of individual renovations, as visible in newly

renovated facades and ongoing renovation and construction works. This analysis of the construction and

spatial transformation of the Tweepoorten neighbourhoods depicts the canvas against which the present

day transformation of the neighbourhood has to be understood.

First of all, it makes clear that a wide range of housing typologies exist in the neighbourhood. In addition

to single family housing typologies, collective housing of different kinds in present in the neighbourhood.

As far as the first is concerned there is terraced housing of different kinds, that on a scale of increasing

quality and comfort goes from the speculative and small 19 th century workers housing units, over the 5 m

wide row house to the somewhat more comfortable art deco version with widths of 6 to 7 m, to the large

19th century townhouses. As far collective housing is concerned, there are 1960s and 70s apartmentsoverlooking the urban boulevard and the South Park on the western edge of the neighbourhood,

apartments or student housing in split up town or row houses, the social housing of Hollainhof, and the

distinct typology of the bguinage houses.

Second, it makes clear that we are dealing with a well-located neighbourhood, but that has known a

certain amount of degradation in its residential tissue as well as in its level of service and the quality of itsamenities. Furthermore, a process of regeneration is started by the public authorities, in the provision ofsocial housing, and by a private partner who invested in a form of high class housing in the bguinage.

This process is followed by a process of individual renovations.


8/18


8

Results from the housing survey

Respondent profiles. Gentrifiers and others

The survey conducted in the neighbourhood targeted individual households who had renovated theirhomes. For the purpose of comparison, also a number of other respondent profiles were included in thesurvey, such as tenants or persons living in student accommodation. No respondents were invited from

the social housing project, but two respondents of a bguinage dwelling were social renters.

Individual respondents were recruited in various ways. A local neighbourhood association was contacted

and its chair person provided names of respondents, 9 of which agreed to cooperate in the research. Test

interviews were conducted with two of the latter respondents. In addition, letters were posted with an

invitation to contact the researchers. About half of the respondents (15 out of 32) were thus recruited.These letters were also distributed at a neighbourhood party, resulting in 6 more respondents. Finally, two

more respondents contacted the researchers at their own initiative after they had learned of the survey

though other respondents. As such, the list of respondents is by no means a representative sample of the

neighbourhood. However, clear criteria were used to determine which respondents would be included in

the research. First of all, the research was focused on home owners who had renovated their house, butalso renters were interviewed in order to be able to compare housing quality and socio-economic profiles

of both groups. Second, a good spatial distribution of respondents over the neighbourhood was aimed for,

as well as a good representation of the various housing types present in the area (as identified in the

spatial analysis detailed above).

The survey was carried out in the respondents house by means of a structured questionnaire. In addition, a

thorough inspection of the dwelling was conducted. The latter inspection is in accordance with the

housing quality inspections conducted by the Flemish government, that focuses on the building and

technical quality of the dwellings and safety issues as well as overcrowding. In addition to these building

qualities, the questionnaire and the inspection assess the comfort level of the dwelling. Finally, all the

necessary elements to conduct an architectural evaluation of the dwelling are gathered. This includes an

interior and exterior photographic survey, as well as a detailed and measured sketch of the plan.

Within the overall group of respondents, 8 different segments can be identified (see Table 1.). These

segments are based on a combination of socio-economic characteristics such as age, income and the

distinction between owners and tenants as well as typological characteristics of the dwellings.


9/18


9

Table 1.: profiles of respondents and segments within the overall sample.

typology

respondent

age

incomein

unemployed

working

student

retired

single

singleparen

t

couple

co-housing

family

owner

tenant

socialhousingtenant

Large townhouses

and art deco houses

1.1 33 >4000 1 1 1

1.2 50 2250 - 2499 1 1 1

1.3 46 4000 1 1 1

1.4 50 >4000 1 1 1

1.5 36 5000 1 1 1

1.6 34 3750 - 3999 1 1 1

1.7 40 x 1 1 1

2.1 69 3750 - 3999 1 1 1

2.2 60 750 - 999 1 1 12.3 65 3500 - 3749 1 1 1

2.4 67 3750 - 3999 1 1 1

Small row houses 3.1 30 3750 - 3999 1 1 1

3.2 34 2300 1 1 1

3.3 31 3500 - 3749 1 1 1

3.4 26 3250 - 3499 1 1 1

3.5 31 3250-3499 1 1 1

3.6 29 1750 - 1999 1 1 1 1

3.7 41 1500-1749 1 1 1

Beguinage houses 4.1 56 1250 - 1499 1 1 1

4.2 53 1000 - 1249 1 1 1

5.1 63 2250 - 2499 1 1 1

Apartments 6.1 25 2250 - 2499 1 1 1

6.2 31 x 1 1 1

6.3 32 > 4000 1 1 1

6.4 28 3250 - 3499 1 1 1

6.5 23 2000 - 2249 1 1 1

6.6 30 1750 - 1999 1 1 1

7.1 53 2250 - 2499 1 1 1

7.2 70 2250 - 2499 1 1 1

8.1 29 750 - 999 1 1 1

Student housing St 20 1 1 1

St 59 1 1 1

Within these 8 profiles, 3 groups stand out as gentrifiers. The first group are households with a head of

the family in their 30s, 40s or 50s, with high incomes, and living in the larger townhouses or art deco row

houses (segment 1, 7 respondents). These are all owners, and some of the respondents also have a

business in their residences (such as a pharmacist or other small business). The second and third group are

somewhat younger households, in their twenties or thirties, highly educated, with median to highincomes, occupying either small row houses and former workers houses (7 respondents), or apartments (6

respondents). Five of the latter respondents are tenants, the remainder are also owners.


10/18


10

These groups are usually new comers in the neighbourhood, and all of the owners among them havecarried out more or less substantial renovations. Some respondents in the first group have indeed

fundamentally changed the typology of the house they have bought. They have transformed town houses

back to single family dwellings, after a period during which they had been split up in rented rooms for

students. These respondents opt for the luxury and status of a town house in neo-classical or art decostyle.

The second and third group (segments 3 and 6) are usually starters on the housing market who wereattracted to the neighbourhood either because they developed a relationship with it during their student

years (Ghent is an important university town) or they found relatively cheap, but modest housing in the

degraded housing stock of 19th century or early 20th century workers housing. The owners among them

subsequently improved the housing quality through renovations, very often spread out over several years.

Another group within the neighbourhood are retirees who lived in the neighbourhood for many years and

occupy large town houses or art deco houses (segment 2, 4 respondents). Within this age group, there are

also 2 respondents living in apartments (segment 7). One of these is a long-time resident of theneighbourhood running a small super market, the other household occupied a large town house in the city

centre but moved to a newly-built apartment in the Tweepoorten neighbourhood once their children

went to live on their own.

A specific segment are the respondents living in the bguinage (3 respondents). Two of these respondents

are renting a small bguinage dwelling from the social housing company (segment 4). Both of these

respondents fall in the low-income group, and are living from unemployment benefits, while the third is aretiree who occupies the dwelling on a long lease contract (respondent 5.1).

Finally, one tenant is occupying an apartment in the basement of a split up town house. This respondent isunemployed and the overall housing quality is substandard, due to the lack of a separate bathroom and a

toilet within the apartment (it is located in a separate construction outdoors) (respondent 8.1).

The final two respondents were students occupying rooms in row houses. These respondents were not

included in the further research, but their presence in the sample completes the overview of different

inhabitant profiles found in the Tweepoorten neighbourhood.

To conclude this overview of inhabitant profiles and dwelling types, the primary actors of neighbourhood

change and their impact on housing in the neighbourhood can easily be identified. Traditional models of

neighbourhood change are the succession-invasion model and the life-cycle model (Schwirian 1983).While the first focuses on the aspects of resistance that occurs when new groups settle in a particular

neighbourhood, the second focuses on a continuous loop of development, transition, downgrading,

thinning out, and renewal. In particular the second model and the subsequent conceptualization of

gentrification as a process of neighbourhood change allow to interpret the processes identified in

Tweepoorten. Gentrification literature links transition and downgrading to the occurrence of a value

gap in the house price pattern Hamnet (Hamnett and Randolph 1986). This occurs when housing is

undervalued on locations in or near the city centre. The relatively poor housing quality of the older and

smaller housing stock, as well as the split up of town houses in student accommodations or low qualityapartments (see for example our last respondent) are indications of such a value gap that started to

develop in the 1990s.

Metaal (2007) identifies several stages in the regeneration and renewal process, depending on the natureof the new comers in the neighbourhood. The first influx comes from urban elites such as artists,

intellectuals and so on. In Tweepoorten this is not so much an artistic avant-garde, but nonetheless, the

group identified as starters consists of university educated respondents who prolong their relationship

with urban life in Ghent in their first firm housing choice, whereas somewhat older households with


11/18


11

children is equally highly educated and takes up some form an avant-garde position in that chooses anurban housing environment, whereas the majority of this demographic group chooses a suburban lifestyle

and dwelling.

On the one hand, we can clearly conclude that a process of neighbourhood change is going on, and that it

improves the socio-economic profile of the neighbourhood. For one thing, this also appears in the rising

population and household figures for the neighbourhood (Table 2.).

Table 2.: Evolution of the population and the number of households in the Tweepoorten neighbourhood,

1997-2007.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Households 858 858 936 973 1011 1033 1051 1074 1079 1079 1118

Population 1444 1418 1565 1642 1677 1705 1711 1723 1762 1799 1855

Source: Algemene directie statistiek en economische informatie (ADSEI), National register.

On the other hand we see that the groups that were originally present in the neighbourhood such as low-

income households, and older inhabitants who have a longstanding housing career in the neighbourhoodare still present. We can therefore conclude that the neighbourhood is probably in what Metaal calls the

mixed phase were new comers coexist with the original population. This also implies that these original

groups still find affordable housing in the area. The real gentrification stage is therefore not yet reached

in Tweepoorten as this means that an influx of middle incomes and a general rise in the price level

would drive out lower income groups.

Housing quality, comfort and energy efficiency

The house visits and questionnaire allowed to assess the overall housing quality of the dwellings and the

renovation process. The quality assessment is based on three pillars. First of all, the building technicalquality of the dwellings is determined based on Flemish government quality assessment method.

Secondly, the overall housing quality and comfort level is determined based on an indicator developed by

(Vanneste et al. 2007). Finally, special attention is devoted to the energetic qualities of the dwellings, an

increasingly important aspect in terms of housing quality that is not covered in the first two indicators,and in terms of sustainable development as a whole.

The respondents assessment of the qualities of their home and dwelling environment and their level of

satisfaction with their dwelling and the neighbourhood is given in the questionnaire. As far as the building

technical quality is concerned, all visited dwellings meet the Flemish government standard. Most

dwellings have limited problems of physical degradation such as cracks, moisture, outdated electrical

wiring or insufficient ventilation. The Flemish government quality assessment attributes a score to each ofthese problems, and when a dwelling accumulates enough negative points, it can be declared

uninhabitable. None of the visited dwellings accumulated enough points. The standard used is howeverrather minimal, as it merely prevents habitation of dwellings that pose a safety or health risk for the

inhabitant or that are overcrowded.

The quality and comfort indicator distinguishes between insufficient quality (no toilet or no bathroom or

the dwelling is in need of at least 4 substantial repairs), basic quality (toilet and bathroom and less than 4

substantial repairs needed), good quality (same as basic quality but with central heating, a kitchen of at

least 4 m2 and floor area living room plus bedrooms between 35 and 85 m2), good quality and spacious

(same a good quality but a floor area between 85 and 105 m2), very good quality (same as good quality


12/18


12

but a floor area greater than 105 m2, double glazing and no substantial repairs are needed; if the latter

criteria are not fulfilled it falls in the previous category).

Table 3. Housing quality, price and energy efficiency aspects of the sampled dwellings: construction

period, year of purchase and purchase price (rent in italics), floor area, quality and comfort indicator

(I=insufficient, B=basic quality, G=good quality, GS=good quality and spacious, VG=very good quality),

energy efficiency (heating, roof insulation and double glazing) and renovation cost.

typology

respondent

constructionperiod

yearofpurchaseoroccupation

purchaseprice/

monthlyrent[]

floorarea(linvingrooms,

bedrooms)[m2]

qualityandcomfortindicator

(Vaneste2007)

heating

Roofinsulation

doubleglazing

renovationcostpersq.m.

[]

Large town houses

and art deco houses

1.1 ? 2004 150 - 200 000 253 VG central yes full 672

1.2 1890 - 1900 2004 x 332 VG central Yes full 621.3 1860 2003 500 000 565 VG central Yes full 708

1.4 1908 1992 250 - 300 000 496 VG central No partial 444

1.5 1983 2001 150 - 200 000 283 GS central Yes no 406

1.6 1812 1997 100 - 150 000 358 VG central Yes full 838

1.7 1760 1999 100 - 150 000 324 VG central Yes partial *1235

2.1 1880 1980 < 100 000 399 VG central Yes partial 125

2.2 1936 1989 70 000 152 VG central Yes partial 33

2.3 1938 1998 x 229 VG central Yes full

2.4 1962 2003 200 - 250 000 196 VG central Yes partial 255

Small row houses 3.1 1910 2004 100 000 102 GS central Yes full 490

3.2 1994 500 85 G central Yes full

3.3 1930 2007 130 000 79 G central No full3.4 ? 500 - 750 105 GS central ? partial

3.5 1830 2003 95 000 145 VG central Yes partial 379

3.6 1940 2006 x 105 GS central No full 667

3.7 1780-1790 1999 100 000 170 VG central Yes partial 294

Beguinage dwellings 4.1 ? 250 - 500 139 GS central Yes no

4.2 1650 250 172 GS central Yes no

5.1 ? 1995 100 000 108 GS central Yes no

Apartments 6.1 1960 528 82 G central No no

6.2 1950 450 77 G central ? full

6.3 1960 2007 150 - 200 000 89 GS central ? partial 449

6.4 1920 600 144 B local, gas No partial

6.5 2008 x 120 VG central Yes full6.6 1970 2005 200 - 250 000 148 VG central Yes full

7.1 ? 300 77 G central / no

7.2 1976 2005 250 - 300 000 170 VG central Yes full

8.1 1930 340 61 I local, gas Yes full

Student housing St 1950


13/18


13

15 of the visited dwelling have a very good quality, 8 dwellings belong to the category good quality andspacious, 6 dwellings have a good quality, while 1 apartment only has a basic quality as it lacks central

heating, and 1 apartment, the basement apartment identified above, has insufficient quality because it

lacks a separate bathroom and toilet within the apartment. Not surprisingly, the respondent of the latter

dwelling also has a rather weak socio-economic position (unemployed and no higher education degree).As such, overall housing quality is good, which is to be expected as the research focuses on renovated

dwellings. The example of the last respondent however illustrates that the typical pattern of the residualrental market of low-quality dwellings for low-income groups that is found in many degraded urban

neighbourhoods in Belgium is still present in Tweepoorten.

As far as the 15 renovated dwellings in our sample are concerned, the survey showed that investments

were made that range from about 30 to about 800 eur/m2. The bulk of the renovations (9 dwellings) have

substantial renovation budgets of more than 400 eur/m2. In comparison, the construction cost of a new

house or apartment in Belgium today can be estimated roughly at about 1200 eur/m2

of the total surface

(the figures for the renovations use the net floor area). This means that substantial investments were made

and thorough renovations were carried out.

The architectural quality of these renovations is quite diverse. As far as the large town houses and art

deco houses are concerned, the renovation projects range from a simple upgrading of technicalinstallations and decoration works, where the original rooms and lay out of the house remains in its

original state, to projects where substantial demolition and reconstruction completely changes the layoutof the house creating modern interiors. In most cases these renovations are designed and supervised by

architects (as required by law) but sometimes they are also the result of a do-it-yourself approach by the

inhabitants. In one case this led to a rather chaotic and inefficient renovation project. These projects have

large budgets and result in luxurious dwellings (see Figure 4.). These are mainly found in the northern

part of the neighbourhood and fronting the park on the former South train station.

Figure 4.: first floor plan and picture of a large renovated town house (respondent 1.1)


14/18


14

Figure 5.: first and second floor plans and pictures of a renovated small workers house (respondent 3.1)

A particular category are the renovations of the small workers houses found mainly in the southern part of

the neighbourhood. These are very often very small dwellings on very small plots that leave little or no

room for a garden (see Figure 5.). Their floor area hardly exceeds that of a compact apartment, but

nonetheless we encountered some very fine renovations, where architects succeeded in creating

comfortable, high quality dwellings where all the requirements of present-day comfort are met.

As such, the gentrifiers we identified above bring a substantial investment to the neighbourhood that

improves housing quality and transforms previously derelict and/or degraded housing types to present day

standards of comfort and building technical quality.

When we look at sustainability from the point of view of energy efficiency, we see however that the

results are rather poor. Of all the renovated dwellings with investments of 400 eur/m2 or more, only half

have double glazing in all the windows. Some have no double glazing at all, which is also the case in the

bguinage that was thoroughly restored. In the case of the bguinage this was the result of heritage

conservation regulations as it is a protected monument. Also in the other cases where windows were notreplaced, the concern to keep the original character of the neo-classical or art nouveau facades wasdecisive.

The latter elements points to an important question that arises with respect to the older housing stock. In

view of more stringent energy efficiency regulations and CO2 reduction goals, some plead for large-scale

demolition and reconstruction of housing. Such claims come in conflict with heritage preservation

concerns, and criteria to come to a good trade off between both concerns, each of them important criteria

of sustainable urbanization, are not yet in place.

Satisfaction with the dwelling environment and neighbourhood bonding. Differences

between the north and the south of the neighbourhood.

A final factor to take into account is the appreciation and attitude of the inhabitants for their

neighbourhood. The most important qualities of the neighbourhood as stated by the respondents are its

central location, the good level of services, good accessibility by public transport (the neighbourhood isserved by a tram) and easy access to the highway. Negative points are a feeling of insecurity, vandalism,

and street litter, a poor quality of pavements and of public space in general. Families with children or


15/18


15

grandparents who regularly take care of grand children are concerned about traffic safety and the lack ofopen space and greenery.

There is a general sentiment among respondents that the neighbourhood is changing for the better, with

rising real estate prices. Younger people settle in the neighbourhood. One respondent claims that these

were initially students or recent graduates and now increasingly also families with children. Another

matter of change is the degradation of the shopping tissue, with local businesses being replacedincreasingly by immigrant shops. The influx of immigrants is mainly associated with the Hollainhofsocial housing project. Plans for additional social housing in the neighbourhood are resisted, among

others by the neighbourhood association. While not being opposed to social housing per se, the

association argues that with Hollainhof the southern part of the neighbourhood already has a sufficient

share of low-income housing. This reinforces the distinction between the northern and southern part of the

neighbourhood. As the spatial-historical and typological analysis has shown, the northern part mainly

houses the upper class housing whereas smaller houses and social housing are now concentrated in the

south. This indicates that even within this relatively small neighbourhood, patterns of internal segregation

occur.

This segregation is first of all related to the typological composition of the neighbourhood. But also a

series of unfortunate urbanization decisions lead to the existence of physical barriers in theneighbourhood. A first example deals with the lack of open space and greenery as it is perceived by therespondents. A map of the area shows in fact that large open and greens spaces are present in and around

the neighbourhood: the South park, the large courtyards and lawns of the bguinage and the Hollainhof

social housing project and finally the water surface of the Scheldt river branch that runs east of the

neighbourhood. Upon closer scrutiny however, these spaces are not very accessible. The South park is

separated from the neighbourhood by the very busy urban highway entering, whereas the open and public

spaces of the bguinage and the Hollain-project are in practice only used by the inhabitants of both

complexes. Without being really closed off estates, both complexes do seem to work as enclaves within

the neighbourhood.

In the case of Hollainhof there is the perception of a different social group of social tenants that creates a

distance. This is reinforced by the spatial lay out of the project, that is based upon the bguinage model of

a closed off central lawn giving access to adjoining dwellings, that is only accessible from the street

through one public underpass. This means that its large courtyard is hardly ever used by other inhabitants

of the neighbourhood, despite the fact that it is open to everyone and offers a safe and traffic-free playing

environment. A similar pattern occurs in the bguinage, where it is rather a well-to do public that

excludes itself from neighbourhood life. Here, the space is more privatised, as the signs reading do not

walk on the grass prevent the green spaces from being used as playing grounds (Figure 6.). As such, the

presence of open space and greenery are an implicit locus of contestation between groups within the

neighbourhood that find their origins in the physical layout of the urban tissue. This again draws the

attention to the importance of well-designed public spaces that turn them into a liveable and accessible

spaces of encounter between various groups. The latter vision is shared by the neighbourhood associationwho took the initiative to organise the neighbourhood party in the Hollainhof courtyard, thus encouraging

the encounter between social housing residents and other inhabitants of the neighbourhood.


16/18


16

Figure 6.: courtyard of the bguinage and entrance to the Hollainhof estate.

As a final assessment of the appreciation of the respondents for their neighbourhood the survey included

questions that should give more information on the level of neighbourhood bonding. Of the 32

respondents, only 12 respondents consider their present housing environment as permanent. These are

mainly the retirees (6 respondents), the two tenants in the bguinage who rent within the social housing

regime and two families who occupy a large town house. This means that most of the younger families

with children in the smaller houses or apartments consider Tweepoorten as their temporary place of

residence. A hypothesis for this rather low degree of neighbourhood bonding, has to do with the primary

housing preferences that reoccurs in many surveys of what families with children expect from their

dwelling, namely the presence of a garden. With the exception of two houses, the dwellings in our sample

only have very small gardens, a small paved courtyard or a terrace.

This reinforces the image of the starters group within our sample. These are young couples or families

with very small children who have bought a small but affordable house and subsequently renovated it, but

see this only as a first step in their housing career. These households probably expect to move to a larger

dwelling with a garden. In this quest they will probably be driven out to more suburban environments as

this typology is hardly ever available or affordable in neighbourhoods such as Tweepoorten safe for the

happy few we encountered in our first segment of respondents. The lack of safe and accessible greenery

and public play areas nearby is particularly problematic in this respect, as it might compensate for the lack

of a private garden.


17/18


17

The importance of urban design for sustainable neighbourhood change. Public space as the

primary locus of integration

To what extent is the entire transformation process sustainable? From a building energy point of view, the

results are rather poor. Residents apparently devote more attention to upgrading the comfort of the oldhousing stock in the neighbourhood, while building quality and above all- energy efficiency seem to be

of only secondary importance. Nonetheless, the renovations result in a housing stock that is adapted topresent day standards of comfort. It is a type of housing that appeals to families with children or young

couples. Two groups exist within this segment, young starters occupying small houses (former workers

housing) and middle aged high-income families occupying large townhouses. In some of the town houses

that have not yet been renovated and are still split up in several units or student rooms, affordable housing

-be it of poor quality- remains available for low income tenants. Finally, also some more recentapartments can be found in the neighbourhood that appeal to starters as well as older households.

As such, the typological diversity of the neighbourhood seems a good guarantee for social mix. Inparticular the presence of small houses, whose quality increases as a result of the accumulation of

individual renovations guarantees that young households find relatively affordable, individual housing inthis neighbourhood. A question remains as to why the respondents belonging to this group clearly favours

an urban living style see their housing situation as temporary. As these houses only have small gardens orterraces, the lack of greenery and of safe and accessible public playing areas seems to be of crucial

importance to obtain a higher sense of belonging for this group.

Affordable housing for low income groups remains available in the neighbourhood. This is the result of

urban policy to redevelop the military barracks into a social housing project (Hollainhof) and the

inclusion of a number of social rental units in the bguinage restoration. While these projects assure that

housing for low income groups remains available, these large interventions do repeat some of the

mistakes that characterize other large scale redevelopment or regeneration projects. This does not have to

do so much with their size, but rather with the architectural model and spatial layout they adopt. As we

have seen, both these complexes appear as enclaves within the neighbourhood. They fail to create

accessible public spaces that offer opportunities for encounter. This results in a sense of internal

segregation between sub-areas within the neighbourhood.

Given the disruptive nature of large-scale operations, we would warn against pleas for a larger-scale

renewal that would also target the stock of small workers housing. As energy improvements in individualrenovations are rather poor, it could be argued that such a structural approach would yield better results.

Much rather, we would argue for mechanisms that support individual households in making the right

renovation decisions and priorities. Apparently existing subsidy mechanisms and energy certification

systems do not suffice to reach this goal.

While gentrifier groups with university level education and high incomes invade the neighbourhood,

these new comers are mixed with original inhabitants who have a long history in the neighbourhood, as

well as low-income groups. As such Tweepoorten is at present subject to what might be called a softgentrification. In that respect, the decision to direct public urban renewal funds and structural

interventions to social housing seems to be the right one, as it is limited to correcting the possibly

expulsive effects of the gentrification process. The most important conclusion however is that urban

renewal should rely on careful urban design and high quality public space. First of all, it proves to be

crucial in creating integrated projects where various groups encounter each other and that do not appear as

closed off domains. Second, it proves crucial in transforming the existing housing stock to comfortable

and energy efficient homes. And finally, it is crucial in creating accessible and safe public spaces and


18/18


18

parks. In particular, the latter two dimensions are crucial in preventing middle-income groups fromleaving the city for a suburban home with a garden.

References

Bartiaux, F., Vekemans, G., Gram-Hanssen, K., Maes, D., Cantaert, M., Spies, B., and Desmedt, J. (2006) Socio-

technical factors influencing residential energy consumption (SEREC)Belgian Science Policy, Brussels.

Binst, S. and Verschaffel, M. (1983) Gent - Zuid, 1835 - 1870. Een stedebouwkundig-historisch onderzoek naar de

aanleg van het Zuidstation en de invloed hiervan op de verdere ontwikkeling van de omgeving. (unpublished

dissertation) KULeuven, Leuven.

De Bruyne, P., Oosterlynck, S. and Block, T. (2008) Sociale innovatie als basis voor stadsontwikkeling?

Grootschalige stadsprojecten versus sociale stadsvernieuwing in Gent.Ruimte en planning, 28(3): 19-34.

De Decker, P., Ryckewaert, M., Vandekerckhove, B., Pisman, A., Vastmans, F. and Le Roy, M. (2010)Ruimte voor

wonen. Trends en uitdagingen. Garant, Antwerpen.

Hamnett, C., and Randolph, B. (1986) Tenurial transformations and the flat break-up market in London. The

British condo experience, in: N. Smith, and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrification of the city, Allen & Unwin,

Boston, 129-152.

Heylen, K., Le Roy, M., Vanden Broucke, S., Vandekerckhove, B., and Winters, S. (2007) Wonen in Vlaanderen.

De resultaten van de Woonsurvey 2005 en de Uitwendige woningschouwing 2005, Ministerie van de Vlaamse

Gemeenschap. Departement RWO - Woonbeleid, Brussel.

Kesteloot, C., Vandenbroecke, H., Van der Haegen, H., Vanneste, D., and Van Hecke, E. (1996) Atlas van

achtergestelde buurten in Vlaanderen en Brussel, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Administratie

Kanselarij en voorlichting, Brussel.

Moudon, A. V. (1994). Getting to know the built landscape. Typomorphology, in: K. A. Franck and L. H.

Schneekloth (eds.) Ordering space. Types in architecture and design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,

289-311.

Schwirian, K. P. (1983). Models of neighborhood change,Annual review of sociology, 9, 83-102.

Shen, L.-Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N. and Zhang, X. (2011) The application of urban sustainability indicators. A

comparison between various practices,Habitat International, 35, 17-29.

Vandermotten, C., Kesteloot, C. and Ippersiel, B. (2007) Dynamische analyse van de buurten in moeilijkheden in de

Belgische stadsgewesten, POD Maatschappelijke Integratie. Grootstedenbeleid, Brussel.

Vanneste, D., Thomas, I. and Goossens, L. (2007) Woning en woonomgeving in Belgi, FOD Economie - Federaal

wetenschapsbeleid, Brussel.

Vervloesem, E. and De Decker, P. (2008) Hollainhof, Gent, in: E. Vervloesem, M. Ryckewaert, P. De Decker, B.

De Meulder, N. Meijsmans, C. Kesteloot, K. Van Herck and K. Laduyt (eds.) Onzichtbaar aanwezig. Sociale

huisvesting in Vlaanderen, vandaag, Vlaams Bouwmeester, Brussel, 45-69.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Desing and methods. Sage, London.

paper transformation

Documents