lived urbanisme

1

LIVED URBANISMEXPLORING THE SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURES OF LUCHTBAL

MARJOLEIN LYSSENS

LIVED URBANISM: Exploring the social infrastructures of Luchtbal Marjolein Lyssens

2

At fi rst sight, the image of luchtbal tends to be dominated by its grand modern gestures and its strong infrastructural boundaries. When further explored, the physical setting will only reveal part of the complex reality of the socio-spatial processes that shape the everyday life in luchtbal. Therefore this paper tries to approach luchtbal from a more imaginative point of view, more particularly from the experience of people. As Stated by Kevin Lynch: “Every citizen has had long associations with some part of his city, and his image is soaked in memories and meanings. Moving elements in a city, and in particular the people and their activities, are as important as the stationary physical part.”1

By analyzing people and their activities, the aim is to explore the social infrastructures of Luchtbal: Where do people meet? Which places do they use? How do they move around? How do they perceive Luchtbal? But also: What are the potentials and weaknesses of the existing social infrastructures? The research will be based on interviews and mental mappings (cfr Kevin Lynch), for which people are asked to draw what they perceive as Luchtbal and the places which have a certain value to them. The aim is to understand the ways in which social interactions take place and how this varies within different social groups. This as an attempt to reveal the potentials of different social groups to create a sense of community. The link with the physical environment represents the value of space in counteracting or facilitating such processes of social cohesion.2

INTRODUCTION ISLAND OF OTHERNESS

Throughout its history, Luchtbal has often been associated with its extraordinary character, which is a result of its modern architecture, the high percentage of social housing and its strong infrastructural boundaries –creating a strong (spatial) distinction between “insiders” and “outsiders”. During the implementation of the modernistic master plan (1940-1970), Luchtbal was considered to be(come) an ultramodern neighbourhood. People applying for an apartment were screened and informed about the modern ways of living. Most of the inhabitants of Luchtbal were the better labourers, mainly engaged in the harbour or city employees.3 From the 1970s onwards, the fragmentation of the neighbourhood was levered by migration and the economic crisis. The population in the northern part, which partly consists of private properties is dominated by white elderly, while the blocks in the southern part are mainly inhabited by young migrant families. The efforts of the city since 1990 to create a social mix have failed: only part of the projects were implemented.4 Luchtbal continues to be a neighbourhood of segregation -an island of otherness- which was an important theme throughout the interviews and mappings.

Dominating physical setting vs the dynamics of socio-spatial processes


3

Inside vs outside

Outsiders usually know Luchtbal from their visits to Kinepolis or the larger shops at the Noorderlaan, or from passing by, either by train or by car. “So easily accessible, that nobody ever comes there” as people say.5 They often conceive the neighbourhood as dangerous and inferior. This image of Luchtbal is also enhanced by social media. E.g. the soap “De familie Backeljau” is about the daily life of a stereotype marginal family living in Luchtbal. Also in newspapers, Luchtbal is often depicted as a marginalized environment with problems of pollution, criminality and cultural confl icts6. Because the neighbourhood is so isolated, most people don’t have any other references to negotiate the imposed perception of Luchtbal.

Quotes from outsiders:

Young mother taking the train to Antwerp, to visit the zoo with her family, “informs” her children when passing by Luchtbal: “This is a dirty neighbourhood.” 7

My parents, living at 10 km from Luchtbal, only know the area from passing by to visit Kinepolis or Decathlon. While doing fi eldwork on Luchtbal, they called me several times to check whether I was ok. When coming home, they were eager to know what kind of people I met in this area: “Aren’t there many marginal people?”.

Quotes from insiders:

Koen, used to live at Luchtbal, but still a frequent visitor of local parish events: “The media supports the bad image people have of Luchtbal. Also the high rate of immigrants has its share, but they should get to know the neighbourhood before condemning it.” 8

Cindy, lives in the Canadablocks (11 year at Luchtbal, +- 40 years old): “When my children invite people from outside Luchtbal, their parents don’t want them to come and play here, but they should come and have a look!”8

“Polluted Luchtbal”:An example of the stigmatisation of Luchtbal by social media.

Source: http://www.ademloos.be/nieuws/antwerpse-luchtbal-weer-blootge-steld-aan-vervuilde-lucht, last visit: 21/01/2013


4

Native vs immigrant

The large infl ow of immigrants and the small percentage of autochthonous people moving to Luchtbal, have caused the demographic imbalance of the area. 37% of the inhabitants are immigrants, and 22% of the Luchtbal population are “new Belgians”.9 This segregation is even more emphasized by the generation gap that exists between native “Luchtbaliaanen” and immigrants. Many of the Autochthonous inhabitants were born in Luchtbal and often their children moved out to other parts of Antwerp.8 This older generation is in sharp contrast with the many young immigrant families. Communication problems, but also the difference in culture, religion and education often causes tensions, both among native and immigrant inhabitants as between immigrants with a different cultural background. In schools at Luchtbal, this segregation is even more extreme. Autochthonous children often go to schools outside of Luchtbal, because their parents think that the level of education suffers from the language problems (both because of the extra efforts necessary for teaching the children themselves as because of the impossibility of afterschool guidance by other parents).8 This resulted in an extreme unbalance of students in schools at Luchtbal.

Quotes from natives:

Ludo, lives in tower 4 (20 years at Luchtbal, 56 years old):”You do know how they call Luchtbal? Kinshasa-bal, because of all the immigrants living here. I am not a racist, but it is out of balance.” 8

Alfons, lives in the long blocks (50 years at Luchtbal, 70 years old): “The new blocks will have apartments with 5 bedrooms, they don’t build them for Belgium families. The problem is that they aren’t used to live in such nice buildings and they don’t maintain their houses as they are supposed to do. “ 8

Quotes from immigrants:

Cindy, lives in the Canadablocks (11 year at Luchtbal, +- 40 years old): “I used to live in Merksem but since I moved to Luchtbal, I am much more engaged in my environment. My husband is from Sierra Leone and we have two kids together. My family is more accepted here, and there is a lot of contact with neighbours. “ 8

Meryam, lives in the Columbiastraat (11 year at Luchtbal, 20 years old): “It is diffi cult to live together with so many different cultures. I prefer a silent environment, but African people tend to make a lot of noise. “ 8

Icon of a protest action against the new mosque at Luchtbal (Vlaams belang, extreme right wing party) Part of the native population considers thie support of other cultures as an obstacle for integration.

Source: http://www.vlaamsbelangmerksem.be/4/101, last visit: 21/1/2013


5

Employed vs unemployed

Since more than 90% of the residential facilities of luchtbal are preserved for social housing9, this neighbourhood also has to cope with large unemployment rates. The unemployment pressure10 in Luchtbal is 19.6%, compared to 10,9% for the city of Antwerp.9 Because of the economic crisis and the delocation of industry starting in the 70s, it became much harder to fi nd a job near Luchtbal. The high percentage of immigrants also contributes to the high unemployment rate, since language problems make it more diffi cult for immigrants to fi nd a job.4 The high rate of unemployment causes a lot of poverty in the area. This evokes frustrations on one hand by working people, especially because of the different rates for rent or childcare etc. It also makes it diffi cult to bring people together, since part of the inhabitants cannot afford to participate in local events or to inscribe their children for activities. Another group of non-working people are early/recently retired people. These are often important for the social activities at Luchtbal, since they are still very active and have a lot of time to help with the organisation.

Quote by employed inhabitants:

Annick, lives in the Argentiniëlaan (44 years at Luchtbal, 44 years old): “Of course it is diffi cult to fi nd a job these days. But nevertheless it is sometimes frustrating when working people have to pay almost €500 a month for childcare, while non-working people have it almost for free. You should think they have more time to look after their children. “ 8

Quote about unemployed inhabitants:

Margriet, lives in the church tower (78 years at Luchtbal, 78 years old): “For the parish feast, we ask 7 euro for adults and 3 euro for children of 9 years or older. But there are people who cannot afford this 7 euro, and they are my responsibility since I know many of these people. Once I know people are really living in poverty and in need of contact, I invite them when I get them alone. I’ll ask them to come, and I tell them we will take care of the costs. I also ask them not to tell this to their children or other people, so they can enjoy the party –even with some extra money to drink a glass of wine- without being stigmatized as poor people.” 8

Quote by retired inhabitant:

Jan, lives in the Philadelphiastraat (62 years at Luchtbal, 62 years old): “I have worked all my life, so I cannot stay inside all day. I enjoy my voluntary work at the cultural centre, so I’m almost as busy as I used to be while I was working.”8


6

The discussed patterns of otherness cannot only be described as social phenomena, but also have their spatial impact. The use of space isn’t just determined by the shape of the built environment, but it is intrinsically linked with certain activities, that are related to social position and associated lifestyle.11

Children go to school on fi xed hours, and maybe have some afterschool activities. For adults, work often determines certain constrains to the time-space use of the environment, but culture and fi nances also infl uence the use of space. Yet, spatial layout also has its impact on the use of space: Seduction can evoke more intensive (non-essential) use while fear can result in avoidance. When analysing the mental maps of the interviewees, some of the above mentioned patterns of otherness also become visible when looking at the use of space. Although individual use can deviate from the described patterns, it gives a good image of the spatial translation of the existing segregation.

SOCIO-SPATIAL ENVIRONMENT

NMBSNMBS

Leo

Jan

Fam. Tracz

Maureen

Cindy

Alfons

(Intern. supermarkt ) Ammar

Annick

Ludo

Margriet

(DSKO) Ellizabeth

(Sandwish bar) Yves

Meryam

Esther

Sabina

Jonas (Jardin Collier)

Liliane & Annie (Digipunt)

Inhabitant

work at Luchtbal

House

Built environment (as drawn)

Open space (as drawn)


7

Inside vs Outside

When comparing the maps, based on people’s perception and use of the environment a major difference can be distinguished between outsiders, outsiders with destinations at Luchtbal and insiders. The use space by outsiders, is limited to Luchtbal’s boundaries, with some major recreation-destinations at the Noorderlaan and the car as major mode of transportation. The identity of Luchtbal is determined by the characteristic modern gestures of the area: the towers and the long blocks. Outsiders with a destination in Luchtbal show very similar patterns, although some additional areas, linked to their local destination were indicated. Insiders on the other hand show a more diverse image of Luchtbal in which the modern gestures and infrastructural boundaries are less represented in their drawings. The environment of the house and the link with daily activities and recreation (which are often located outside of Luchtbal) are of main importance.

NMBS

Left side: My own mental map (grew up in Kapellen) 10/12/2012Right side: Mental map by Jan, lives in the Philadelphiastraat (62 years at Luchtbal, 62 years old) 13/01/2013

House

Destinations




8

Native vs Immigrant

In the diverse image of spatial associations by insiders, a distinction can be made between the use of space by native and immigrant inhabitants. Based on the results of the user analysis by social planning12 and the maps drawn by interviewees, the following description shows some major differences in use of space. The social life of Moroccan families mainly takes place in (semi-)private environments: the house of family members or the mosque are important meeting places. Young children mostly go to school in Luchtbal and make active use of the playgrounds of the area. Language problems and the diffi culty to fi nd a job have their impact on the fi nancial situation and also lead to isolation (of women) when no family members live in Luchtbal. The use of space by black African families indicates similar patterns of isolation. Their knowledge of European languages helps to surmount some of the communication problems, and their social life often takes place in the city ( Antwerp, Brussels, ..) The use of space by native inhabitants on the other hand, is mainly located in their direct environments. Daily activities, such as work and school are mostly located outside of the area. The social life of natives on the other hand is often strongly related to the local community life, especially for elderly. The local pubs are only visited by native people, because of the difference in culture. Alternatives such as a teahouse do not exist in the area.

Left side: Mental map by Meryam, lives in the Columbiastraat ( 11 years at Luchtbal, 20 years old), 13/01/2013Right side: Mental map by fam. Tracz, live in the Argentiniëlaan ( 20 years at Luchtbal, 47 years old), 13/01/2013

House

Destinations




9

Employed vs unemployed

The use of space by employed people throughout the week is mostly restricted to the necessary functionalities –house and shops- with many of the displacements taking place by car. In the local bars, most of the customers are unemployed or retired –except for some peaks of other customers during lunch break and right after working hours.8 Retired people are often very engaged in local activities or like to walk around in the area. Unemployed inhabitants on the other hand tend to be less involved with their surroundings, due to fi nancial problems and exclusion by society.

House

Destinations



Left side: Mental map by Annick, lives in the Argentiniëlaan( 44 years at Lucht-bal, 44 years old), 13/01/2013Right side: Mental map by fam. Esther, live in theGroenendaallaan ( 11years at Luchtbal, 59 years old), 08/01/2013


10

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURES

The segregation of Luchtbal can be understood as an extreme outcome of the diversifi cation of our society. Furthermore individualisation, supported by increased opportunities of mobility and communication, resulted in concerns of social cohesion -given its impact on living standards. Architecture and urbanism aren’t the answer to this problem, but they can shape the spatial context to enable social cohesion.

Social cohesion is supported by two types of social relations: identity and social networks. In Luchtbal, the existing social relations are strongly shaped by identity, which causes the “we against them” feeling. The spatial segregation inhibits social networks among different identities. The “contacthypothesis” of Gordan Allport13 argues that regular contacts and acquaintance with strangers of similar social status can take away prejudices and feelings of insecurity and fear. 14 Yet it is important that these interactions are intensive and frequent and do not confi rm the existing prejudices. Equal access to public space, is important to bring the different social groups together.

In this respect, the master plan of De Nijl architects15 must be handled with care. Their intention to create a social mix, is counteracted by their spatial translation. They create a front of middle-class housing connected to the Noorderlaan, and stigmatize the social housing even more by making it the backside of such “ameliorations”. The issue of social mix in Luchtbal is a balancing exercise: The existing social housing

stock is of great value, because of the shortages in Flanders. Allowing other structures of ownership within one building, will lead to a loss of social housing, which will create other subordinated areas. Also, the stimulation of ownership doesn’t necessarily attracts higher income groups. The question must be asked, whether social mix -either by densifi cation or by changing structures of ownership- will do the trick16.

Instead of focussing on the integration of new social groups, Luchtbal appears to be in a growing need for social networks that connect the existing social groups. Translated to Feld’s theory17, there is a need to stimulate bridges (weaker relations with ‘others’) to interconnect the wide variety of strong relations in a network of ‘equals’ (ties). Such social networking relies on face-to-face contacts and thereby depends on meeting places that allow and stimulate such interactions. According to Feld, this stimulation of interaction depends on the size and the constraint of a “focus”.18 Yet the size and constraint do not only depend on the spatial characteristics of a place, but also on the territorialisation by people. This territoriality defi nes who may be encountered at a certain moment in time. Different degrees of territoriality defi ne the possibilities for new encounters. Semi-public areas, such as pubs or the direct environment of people’s house, mainly stimulate new ties (strong relations) between people. Associational encounters on the other hand, stimulate the creation of bridges.19 Based on these social theories, this chapter will focus on the potential of the existing meeting places to enhance the social networks at Luchtbal.


11

Organised activities

Parish and Cultural centre

Most of the social activities are organised by the local Church, the cultural centre or by a co-operation of the two. The New Year-parish feast, organised in the premises of the parish itself, is only for members. This religious identifi cation brings people together and stimulates interaction, regardless of social equality. The participants showed a broad perspective of Luchtbal-inhabitants of different generations, ethnicities and income groups.20 Such activities are a perfect “focus” for the creation of bridges. Other activities such as the Christmas tree burning or the fairground in summer are an initiative of the local Church, supported by the cultural centre and focus on all the inhabitants of Luchtbal. To reach as many people as possible, they actively try to engage people by reading the invitations in their Dutch classes and motivate people by doing home visits. The creation of such social constraint based on face-to-face conversations is very time-consuming but helps to bring different social groups together. In spite of their religious inspiration, they don’t want to exclude other religions or ethnicities. Nevertheless, the difference in (religious) habits and expressions causes some tensions as well.

Today the cultural centre is already involved in some activities, but most of the volunteers are active members of the parish. The most important driving force, Margriet Hoedemaekers, decided to stop after this year, because she considers herself too old to continue (78 years old!). The challenge for the cultural centre will be to motivate inhabitants to keep on contributing to these social activities.

Next to the support for the activities of the local parish, the cultural centre has a broad agenda of other activities as well. They offer theatre plays, dance classes, cooking workshops, movies, an open bar in summer etc. Furthermore they make their infrastructure available for groups at very economic rates. Yet these activities mainly confi rm existing ties between people -mostly (retired) natives. On the one hand, this can be attributed to their public character, which doesn’t provoke new encounters. On the other hand, the constraint of more privatized activities appears to be a threshold to participate. A good example in this respect is “Komen eten” (come to dinner), an activity the CC organises to introduce people to foreign food cultures. Nevertheless immigrants of Luchtbal are rare attendants for these activities. A missed chance, since it could bring different cultures closer together by exchanging knowledge with your own neighbours. The effort to engage people by doing home visits is less obvious for such an organisation, which makes it diffi cult to engage immigrants that are not familiar with such concepts. Nevertheless it remains an important meeting place to support activities of the environment. The cultural centre also houses a library and a “digipunt”, which are a great contribution for the area as well. Children that don’t have a computer at home come here to play games, or to make their homework.21 The “digipunt” also provide classes to get familiar with a computer, mostly with the aim to help people in fi nding a job, but also to motivate older people to make use of the possibilities of computers.

Margriet, entertaining the children at the parish feast. (13/01/2013)

Children making their homework at the Digipunt (16/01/2013)


12

The cultural centre has a central role in providing a platform for interactions, especially since most of the associations have dissapeared. The physical infrastructures of the CC are intensively used, for which the planned youth centre could become a great contribution. The challenges in this respect do not only lie in the expansion of the physical infrastructures, but also in actively engaging other social groups to stimulate interactions.

Opsinjoren & neighbourhood-organisations

Opsinjoren is an organisation of the city that supports neighbourhood activities. One of the most important activities supported by Opsinjoren in Luchtbal is the annual spring cleaning. Inhabitants are motivated to clean their street or the hall of their apartment in return for fl ower boxes. Each part of the neighbourhood has its “cleaning responsible” to motivate people to participate in this event. This identifi cation of groups, based on residence aims to stimulate a local feeling of community. At the central point where people can get their fl owers, some food and drink stalls create a meeting place. 22

Yet in certain areas neighbours also meet without these city-organisations. The small scale of the Northern part appears to be more appropriate for such initiatives than the large scale in the south. Annick and her family live in the Philadelphiastraat and use their communal garden to organise activities with their neighbours, such as barbeques or camping nights for the kids. Direct contact with the environment is less obvious when living in a fl at, which requires other inputs to stimulate neighbour contacts in this area as well.

Poster Lentepoets (2010)Opsinjoren

Source: http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/blog/john-moussiaux/2010/05/11/antwerpendertiende-opsinjoren-lentepoets-groot-succes, last visit: 21/01/2013

bicycle tour and Barbeque, initiative of Dublinstraat (26/6/2010)

Source:http://www.inabuurt.be/bewonersgroepen/dublinstraat/fotos/10de-fi etstocht-met-B.B.Q./311/, last visit: 21/01/2013


13

Open space

Le collier jardin

The wide supply of open space in Luchtbal provides many opportunities for recreation and social interactions. With the garden project “Le collier jardin” in the northern part, the city tries to bring neighbours together through gardening. The majority of the participants, indicates the social value of the projects: They met new people by working together, found a new goal in their life, teached their children the value of healthy food etc. Yet most of them indicate the missed chance to integrate immigrants as well.23 Again, the threshold to cooperate might be too large, especially once a group of people is already active and has “territorialized” the garden. The challenge for the (future) garden coach exists in actively engaging other ethnicities as well. The cultivation of foreign vegetables in the green house might be an opportunity to stimulate this. Sharing culture or knowledge with other people, might be the trigger to bond with people of different backgrounds. Again this can become a place that brings different social groups together, which can enhance mutual acceptation of differences. Neighbours of the project indicate that since the initiation of the project, more people pass by.23 This indicates the necessity of activities in the public domain to invite people to make use of it.

Community garden in summer (2012)Picture by Jonas, the garden coach


14

The implementation of the new playground is a good initiative in this respect and is of great value for the children of the area. Along with the children, they also attract parents. According to Cindy, the small playground inside the Canadablocks is frequently used by the children. When the weather is good, parents often come along as well. Cindy knows most of her neighbours and has much contact with them.8 The city also provided an organ to organise activities at the squares and if necessary can intervene in case of problems. This “pleinontwikkeling”, which recently changed to “JES” is very popular in the area, especially in summer. This low threshold organisation -everybodyw can just come and play along, without registration- reaches a wide audience of children and youngsters. The occupation of these children and youth and the stimulation of own initiative-projects prevents them to end up in petty crime by boredom. The football match at the demo-fi eld of Decathlon, organised by the youngsters is a great example of this initiative. The stimulation of engagement, enhances the image of Luchtbal for both insiders as outsiders. Such activities can become the trigger to bring (proud) parents together and might reach social media in a positive way. 24

“Children building their own playground”, activity by Pleinontwikkeling 13/4/2012

Source: http://www.gva.be/regio-antwerpen-stad/luchtbal-rozemaai/kinderen-van-wijk-luchtbal-bouwen-zelf-speeltuin.aspx, last visit: 21/01/2013


15

Destinations

The stimulation of the use of public domain isn’t only related to initiatives in the open space. The current lack of “destinations” inside Luchtbal, evokes inhabitants to go elsewhere and thereby limits their use of space at Luchtbal to the direct environment of their house. The spreading of commercial activities or meeting places throughout the area might stimulate the use of the public domain. This is important, because direct contact makes people more familiar with each other. But it can also help to dispel the fear for criminal events, since it evokes a system of social control.

Commercial activities

Although Luchtbal used to be revolutionary in terms of commercial activities, the current situation shows an imbalance of supply and demand. The original supermarket had to make place for a new project in 1999. The new buildings host less commercial activities: currently they consist of a bowling, a supermarket, a café (café Canada), a launderette and a snackbar. Yves is the owner of the recently established snackbar. Since there aren’t many alternatives in the area, he has many customers –both from inside as outside Luchtbal. Yet his main income derives from the supply of companies, for which the proximity of the Noorderlaan is a great advantage.8

In the northern part of Luchtbal, most of the local shops have disappeared. The international supermarket, owned by Ammar and his family, answers an urgent need in Luchtbal. Because of the demands for Belgian products as well, he

expanded his product range. They also offer home delivery, for Luchtbal and surroundings (Ekeren, Merksem, …), so again the enlargement of the target audience is necessary to ensure suffi cient revenues. They installed a new security system, since they were robbed a few times : now they have to open the door for each customer, so they can check who enters. 8

The need for local shops in Luchtbal is high, especially for elder people that depend on other people for their daily groceries. On the other hand, many of the potential customers at Luchtbal don’t have many fi nancial resources. A combination of a local shop with a delivery service, which can make use of the potentials of the road infrastructure surrounding Luchtbal can expand the customer base to convince future investors.

Yves in his Sandwishbar, 8/01/2013

International supermarket (Ammar), 16/01/2013


16

Pubs

Local bars also have an important value as social infrastructures, because of their permanent accessibility as a platform for new/existing ties. The problem in Luchtbal is that all the existing bars attract about the same public: Older native inhabitants – especially man, often retired or unemployed. Although cafe Centrum attracts a wider public, the difference remains small. Especially for youth or migrants, such infrastructures are absent in the area. A youth centre has been planned already, but facilities for migrants remain a sensitive topic (The plans for a large mosque in an old warehouse near Luchtbal have already caused a lot of protest, because people consider it as an obstacle for integration6). Because of the different ethnicities, it is also impossible to make one meeting place for all. A polyvalent bar that allows and stimulates temporal territorialisation by different ethnicities (eg Moroccan tearoom once a week) could be a nice alternative, that might also attract a wider public. Summer terraces can become an important link with the public domain.

“Fietsostrade” (highway for bikes)

In the context of the planned highway for bikes, which intends to connect the Northern part of Antwerp with the city centre, a great potential exists in making Luchtbal a stopover.25 This would make Luchtbal into a destination for outsiders, creating more activity in the public domain and opportunities for new economies. At the same time it invites outsiders to get familiar with the environment, which might infl uence the negative image of Luchtbal.

Fun park with youth and sport centreSource: http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/81/44/652.Y29udGV4dD04MDM0MjI1.html, last visit: 21/01/2013

Exterior of café de Luchtbal 16/01/2013


17

Getting the ball rolling

The aim of this paper to explore the social infrastructures of Luchtbal started from the opinion that this platform has the potential to create social cohesion, which can improve the neighbourhood from the inside out –in contrast with the master plan of De Nijl which attempts to improve the neighbourhood by the injection of middleclass inhabitants (from the outside in). Although the current small scale integration of “houses for sale” can have a positive effect on the process of social cohesion, this limited creation of a social mix cannot put such a social reform in motion on its own.

But why is this social cohesion that necessary ? It must be said, that the confrontations of otherness, do not result in a confl ictual neighbourhood. On the other hand, many of the inhabitants of Luchtbal are isolated from their environment and the abandonment of the public domain reinforces the process of individualisation. People fear their own environment, due to the distrust of the unknown. Social cohesion and active engagement can break the vicious circle and make Luchtbal into a supporting environment: not only by providing a place to live for people in need, but also by stimulating them to integrate into society (again).


18

1 LYNCH Kevin (1960). The image of the city,

MIT Press, US, p2

2 DE MEULDER Bruno, HEYNEN Hilde (2003).

De rol van de ruimte bij processen van uitsluiting en

normalisering;Een toelichting aan de hand van een uitgewerkte

casestudy (De Coninckplein, Antwerpen).

In: Devos R., Vanmarcke L. (Eds.), Uitsluiting – Insluiting.

Kanttekening bij een beleid van sociale integratie 59-88.

3 De Kroniek van Luchtbal 1925-2005,

CC Luchtbal en fotomateriaal uit het Felixarchief.

4 VAN DEN BROECK Pieter, VERVLOESEM Els, (2012),

Social innovation and spatial planning in spindus: Spatial

organisation as a compromise of spatialities of users and their

logics. (presentation 21/11/2012)

5 Quote by Roger, inhabitant of Luchtbal, ex-trainer of Luchtbalboys.

in: Political blog Claude Marinower, article Luchtbalboys

Source: http://www.marinower.be/index.php?option=com_

content&view=article&id=201:luchtbalboys&catid=1:..,

last visit: 22/01/2013

6 Newspaper-article on nuisance of the Moskee in Luchtbal.

Source: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/

detailaspx?articleid=QP2JPUKN,


ATV reportage on robberies in Luchtbal:

Source:http://www.atv.be/item/luchtbal-geteisterd-door-overvallers,


7 Observations train Roosendaal-Antwerp, 13/1/2013, 12h

8 Interviews+ mental maps:

Name: place of interview + date

Who?

Ammar:International supermarket 8/01/213

Operator shop (2 year) , lives in St Lenaerts

Indian origin (28 years old)

Annie & Liliane: cafe Centrum 8/01/2013

Visit Digipunt, live in Merksem & Antwerp

(80 years old, 64 years old)

Yves: Sandwishbar 8/01/2013

Operator bar (1 month), lives in Deurne,

Esther: Café Canada 8/01/2013

Inhabitant Luchtbal (11 year), 59 years old

Alfons: Construction site Manchesterlaan, 8/01/2013


Elizabeth, DSKO, 8/01/2013

ex-inhabitant, works at DSKO, 54 years old

Ludo: Café de Luchtbal, 8/01/2013


Jonas: Café de Luchtbal, 8/01/2013; 16/01/2013

(pre-arranged meeting)

Gardencoach(lives in Antwerp),23 years old

Meryam: bus stop, 13/01/2013


Moroccan origin

Jan: parish feast 13/01/2013

(+ visit CC Luchtbal, 16/01/2013)


Leo: parish feast 13/01/2013

(+ visit CC Luchtbal, 16/01/2013)


Maureen: parish feast 13/01/2013


Filipino origin

Sabina: parish feast 13/01/2013


Ghanaian origin

Cindy: parish feast 13/01/2013

Inhabitant Luchtbal (11 year), +-40 years old

husband from Sierra Leone

Annick: parish feast 13/01/2013


Koen: parish feast 13/01/2013

ex-inhabitant Luchtbal

Mrs. Tracz: parish feast 13/01/2013


Margriet: parish feast 13/01/2013


(+ telephone interview 14/01/2013)

REFERENCES:


19

9 Data from buurtmonitor:

Source: http://www.antwerpen.buurtmonitor.be/

Last visit: 21/1/2013

10 Employment pressure = the ratio between the number of

unemployed job seekers at working age compared the total

population at working age.

11 LOOPMANS Maarten; LECLERCQ Els; NEWTON Caroline,(2011).

Plannen voor mensen – Handboek social-ruimtelijke planning,

Garant, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, p13

12 LEROY Trees (2009), Policy report : Masterplan Luchtbal.

Advies Sociale Planning , p22-30

13 ALLPORT, G (1954) The nature of prejudice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

14 LOOPMANS Maarten; LECLERCQ Els; NEWTON Caroline,(2011).

Plannen voor mensen – Handboek social-ruimtelijke planning,

Garant, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, p27

15 DE NIJL ARCHITECTS (2007), Luchtbal Antwerpen,

Stedenbouwkundige studie, eindrapport oktober 2007

16 To create social cohesion

17 FELD, S. (1982) The focused organisation of social ties,

American journal of sociology, 86, 1015-1035

18 “A focus is defi ned as a social, psychological, legal, or physical

entity around which joint activities are organized (e.g., workplaces,

voluntary organizations, hangouts, families, etc.).” p1016

19 PUTNAM, R. (2000), Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of

American community. New York: Simon and Schuster

20 Observations parish feast 13/1

21 Observations digipunt 16/1

22 Interview Margriet Hoedemaekers (initiator central point at

Lentepoets), see reference 8

23 VAN GINNIKEN, Jonas (2012), Masterproef gemeenschapstuin

24 News paper article activity Pleinontwikkeling:

Source: http://www.gva.be/regio-antwerpen-stad/luchtbal-

rozemaai/kinderen-van-wijk-luchtbal-bouwen-zelf-speeltuin.aspx

25 http://www.provant.be/mobiliteit/fi etsen/fi etsostrades/antwerpen-

essen/ , last visit: 21/01/2013

lived urbanisme

Documents