Residential mobility and social segregation in Amsterdam 1890-1940 Henk Laloli NIWI-KNAW Amsterdam.
-
Upload
barbara-patterson -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
0
Transcript of Residential mobility and social segregation in Amsterdam 1890-1940 Henk Laloli NIWI-KNAW Amsterdam.
Residential mobility and social segregation in Amsterdam
1890-1940
Henk LaloliNIWI-KNAWAmsterdam
Aim of the study
• Relate individual residential mobility patterns to changes in social segregation
Questions Do we see a residential mobility pattern of moving out of the centre in the sample? Did these moves contribute to social segregation? What do residential mobility and segregation tell us about urban development?
Sources and subjects
• City and neighbourhood level tax and housing rent data
• Sample of dockworkers or casual workers from the population register
Who?
• The poorest people in the city with on and off jobs, high fertility, very low incomes
Amsterdam development
Population by area 1850-1941
Old city
New City 19th. c.New City 20th. c.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
1859 1869 1879 1889 1899 1909 1920 1930 1941
Residential mobility
• Dockworkers’ distribution differs from city population• Change does not keep pace with city population
Dockworkers and city population in areas compared
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Id Old city Working-classdistricts
Id Old city Working-classdistricts
Start address Final address
%
Marriage before 1909
Marriage after 1909
City whole 1900 and 1936
Residential mobility• Two cohorts: addresses starting round
1900 and after 1909 to 1930s
• Dockworkers move to new areas
• They keep living near the harbour
• Their distribution is very different from the general population: overrepresented in old city and working-class districts
How could they move to the new areas?
Low rent housing by area (%)
37,942,9
40,36
11,6213,68 14,01
05
101520253035404550
1915 1925 1936
< fl. 2,50 < fl. 4,- < fl. 4,81
%Old city
New City
• The new areas generally have higher rents
Regression analysis on low rent housing of workers’ last adresses in 1930s
Model Summary
,710a ,504 ,473 18,33774Model1
R R SquareAdjustedR Square
Std. Error ofthe Estimate
Predictors: (Constant), zone_end_new, other religion,reformed dutch, allowance, age of marriage wife,movements, working_class area, jewish, catholic,migrant, steady job, no religion, marriagecohort2,children
a.
Coefficientsa
21,737 9,827 2,212 ,028
-3,194 2,791 -,059 -1,144 ,254 -,201 -,077 -,055
,579 2,711 ,011 ,214 ,831 -,015 ,014 ,010
-,870 2,616 -,017 -,333 ,740 ,106 -,023 -,016
,594 ,396 ,090 1,501 ,135 ,179 ,101 ,072
,109 ,204 ,029 ,537 ,592 ,114 ,036 ,026
-,371 3,005 -,007 -,123 ,902 -,090 -,008 -,006
,289 ,325 ,048 ,890 ,375 -,055 ,060 ,042
24,781 3,069 ,398 8,074 ,000 ,436 ,480 ,385
-3,921 13,420 -,014 -,292 ,770 -,047 -,020 -,014
4,693 3,688 ,067 1,273 ,205 ,108 ,086 ,061
-22,320 6,733 -,171 -3,315 ,001 -,062 -,219 -,158
1,143 3,438 ,020 ,332 ,740 -,065 ,023 ,016
1,340 3,828 ,019 ,350 ,727 -,005 ,024 ,017
-27,904 2,615 -,533 -10,671 ,000 -,538 -,586 -,509
(Constant)
Steady job
Migrant
Poor law
Number of children
Movements
Marriage cohort 2
Age of marriage wife
Working_class areaReformed dutch
Catholic
JewishOther religion
No religion
Zone_end_new
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part
Correlations
Dependent Variable: rent percentage below 4,81 in 1936a.
• New zones: few low rents• Working class areas: high on
low rents
Total stock of low rent housing by area (%)
65
52,4
37,035
47,6
63,0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1915 1925 1936
< fl. 2,50 < fl. 4,- < fl. 4,81
%
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Abs.
Old cityNew cityAbsolute total
• Dockworkers live around the harbour in the old city• Not in elite or middle class districts
• Elite spreads from old centre to the south• Dockworkers remain around harbour
• Dockworkers live in low rent areas• Concentrated in the old centre
• They move to low rent areas, also in new areas
Income segregation
Elite Districts
1915 and 1930 1936
Grachtengordel
Hugo de Grootgracht - Vondelpark
Museum-Concertgebouwbuurt
Pijp Amstellanen
Elite tax segregation4 districts containing % of elite
71,76 75,1180,57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1915 1930 1936
%
Homogeneity of working-class areastaxed in middle and elite category (%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
North East West Jordaan OostelijkeEilanden
Pijp
New city Old city
Working-class areas Mixed area City
%1915
1930
1936
Impact of the crisis of the 1930s
General conclusions
• Dockworkers live in the areas with low rent housing and lowest income: segregated
• They continue to do so when they move• They don’t keep pace with general population in
terms of distribution over new areas• Work place and housing rent influence
residential choice• Dockworkers are able to move to low rent
housing in new areas• Municipality builts low rent housing in new areas• They live in housing built by municipality?
City development• Social segregation
– Social classes are spatially segregated but economic development softens this until 1930
– Crisis of the 1930s increases segregation again (rents weigh higher on budget)
• Old city degradation?– Loss of population: elite, middle class diminish– Still a mixed area: inner core tends to CBD, part of elite remains – After 1930 working-class districts decline
• Social differences between zones of development? – Housing quality (rents) and health differ between old and new– Income differences are spread inside the zones– Working-class areas in old and new zones grow nearer in income level
• Spatial social segration– Takes the form of an opposition between the south and rest
• Residential mobility pattern of working-class– outward movement into newly built areas like other classes (but more
restricted)