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)