DUTCH URBAN RESTRUCTURING POLICY IN ACTION AGAINST SOCIO-spATIAL SEGREGRATION: SENSE OR NONSENSE?

Urban areas 'at risk' have been gaining policy attention over the last decade in spite of the considerable physical improvements brought about through urban renewal programmes in the older parts of cities. A variety of problems may be stressed: the presence of too many poor and jobless people, of too many cheap but unattractive dwellings, of too many vacancies, or of too many socially undesired activities. In the Netherlands, both social (or people-based) and spatial (or place-based) programmes have been developed to improve situations considered undesirable. Spatial programmes, especially, have stirred up much debate. In the debate, there appears to be some confusion about how problems, goals and measures are linked to each other. This paper takes up the debate and tries to add some clarity by lining up opinions and facts about goals, instruments and intended effects of Dutch urban renewal policy for the cities. Moreover, it confronts the various views with the preferences and opinions of residents involved. It concludes that urban restructuring is a sensible thing to do from a social standpoint, providing that there is a strong coherence with new developments and that choice options of all household groups involved are taken into consideration.