TIME PERIOD

Timing of projects

Above, we can see that out of the total of 115 total projects, the ‘1980–1984’ time period contains by far the most new projects, namely 34 (30% of the total). At least eleven of these still persist today. This would seem to confirm the widely held view that this period was the heyday of the squatters movement.

I can say for certain that 32 projects were ongoing at the close of 2013; in fact the figure is probably higher since I was not able to ascertain if all places had been evicted.

The sixteen columns on the righthand side of the table indicate how many projects continued through the five year time periods, thus for example we can see that from the ‘until 1979’ section, 6 projects remained in operation at the close of 2013, with one lasting until 1980–1984 (Groote Keyser, which was converted into social housing as the squatters demanded) and another until 2000–2004 (de Loods). All of these 6 projects were legalised at a certain point, a theme we will look at in more detail below.

The lowest number of new projects is 6, in the time period 1985–1989. Interestingly, this directly follows on from the highest amount. This may well reflect the generally accepted decline of the movement following the peak of the early 1980s, but another factor could be that since so many previously occupied projects were still open and vibrant, there was a reduced need for more public projects.

The potential for contradictory conclusions is also present when we look at the contemporary figures, since between 2010 and 2013, there were 12 occupations, of which four were still running at the close of 2013 (Valreep, Vluchtgarage, Antarctica, Vondelbunker). The survival rate of a third of projects would certainly suggest that the criminalisation of squatting in October 2010 has not completely succeeded in repressing the squatting movement, yet the overall numbers are small. Also, perhaps these new occupations were in response to previous evictions, which then created a need for new projects. Nevertheless, 12 occupations in this period is an impressive amount when one considers that the squatter movement was under severe repression.

Social centres by time period

The Vondelbunker is included here since it is very much a part of the squat scene (for example the Studenten Kraakspreekuur meets there) but it is actually a legal space and has been from the very beginning. It is run by the Schijnheilig collective, which previously squatted buildings in the centre as venues for art galleries and events. It is therefore counted as one of the four projects which continue to the end of 2013 having been occupied, since it is part of the squatters movement.

Of the others, Antarctica and Valreep are currently under eviction threat [2015 — both evicted] and the Vluchtgarage was the latest in a series of squats [which are continuing into 2015] in which the people from We Are Here (Wij Zijn Hier) are resolving their housing needs. We Are Here defines itself on its website as “a group of refugees without papers, that want to make our problem visible.” Further:

We have applied for asylum in your country. Our claims have been rejected. Now we are called ‘illegals.’ But we prefer to call ourselves refugees. Wars, international conflicts and systematic violence have devastated our countries. So you understand why we don’t like being called illegals. We are refugees. And now we live on the streets. We barely have rights. We have no means of subsistence.

The help of the political squatters movement was prompted by the harsh winter eviction of the Tentcamp at Osdorp, which resulted in the occupation of a former church. With the agreement of the owner, the Vluchtkerk (Refugee Church) was used for 6 months and then the group squatted the Vluchtflat (Refugee Flat), then the Vluchkantoor (Refugee Office) and then the Vluchtgarage. A fuller and more up to date story is hosted on their website.

The occupation of the Vluchtgarage [Credit: HansFoto]

Following the criminalisation of squatting, the Mayor of Amsterdam promised in 2010 to evict 200 of the 300 (mainly residential) squats in the city, and opinions differ on how successful a policy this has been. The old tradition of an eviction wave every three months has since been stopped and until recently Sunday squat actions also did not happen so much, although now they have started up again. It would seem that criminalisation drastically reduced the number of people squatting (thus removing the need for evictions). The number of KSUs dropped to just three, down from more than 20 in the 1980s. Nevertheless, social centres continue to be occupied (and evicted) and as we have seen, other squats persist.

Overval: Squatted & evicted in 2015

As a sidenote, it is interesting to assess where this number of 200 to 300 squats comes from. It appears to have first been stated on krakengaatdoor, which was set up to fight the kraakverbod (‘squatban’ i.e. criminalisation). In answer to the question ‘How many squatters are there?’ the answer given is ‘It is not known […] in Amsterdam estimates range from 200 to 300 squats and 1500 to 2000 squatters.’ This number seems to have been gained general acceptance.

In May 2014, Vice magazine was told by a press officer from Amsterdam council that:

We have no idea of the number of squatters in Amsterdam. That’s because we only know the reported squats. In addition, it is not known how many people live in these squats. Regarding the number of evicted places: in 2013, there were 62 buildings evicted in the usual manner and 3 properties emptied in a speed eviction [‘spoedontruiming’ — a new process permitted by recent legal battles over the new law]. In 2014 so far, a few buildings have been evicted. The exact number we do not know but it’s not more than 10.

This opinion appears more honest than police commissioner Leen Schaap’s claim in 2012 that 350 squats had been evicted since the kraakverbod in October 2010. This was presumably an overblown figure designed to create the impression that squatting in Amsterdam had been wiped out. In the same report, Schaap added the derogatory remark “There may be a Pole sitting in a flat somewhere that we are not aware of, but you can no longer call Amsterdam a squatters’ city”. On this point, activist and researcher Deanna Dadusc sees criminalisation as a “police strategy to de-motivate people from squatting, of letting the movement shrink to specific groups of people and containing squatting to specific areas of the city: this strategy works not much through punishment of squatters, but through constant

evictions of squatted projects and through identifications of those who remain active in the movement.”

To return to the analysis then, we can suggest that from 2010 onwards, following the criminalisation of squatting, the squatters movement in Amsterdam has been at a low ebb, losing participants and caught up in battles over the new meaning of squatting. However, the movement has not been completely destroyed and there are recent signs of a resurgence, since more squat actions are now being carried out once again. However, the landscape has changed dramatically from the previous situation in which a chair, table and a bed constituted living arrangements and once a place had been secured, the squatters would call the police, who would come round to check the place had previously been empty, then (in most cases) congratulate the squatters and go on further with their day. Now, police are seldom permitted entry to squats and there have been instances of police violence at occupations. All this would seem familiar to squatters from other countries such as the UK. In this way then, Amsterdam has appeared as a squatters paradise in the past, since squatting was a legally available option, but perhaps no more.

In terms of cycles, we could therefore construct a very crude overview, below:

Cycles of squatting

No-one would dispute that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, squatters formed a large-scale social movement in Amsterdam. Such flashpoints as the 1980 riots against the Queen’s coronation and the squatters’ effective campaign against the Olympics coming to the city indicate an organised and effective movement. It is also uncontroversial to state that the movement then declined, although exact dates can be argued over. For Uitermark, writing in 2004, “after 1980, the movement declined rapidly and stabilised around 1990. Only in the past two or three years can we discern some ways in which the movement may again gain momentum and acquire new political significance.” It would indeed appear that there was a recent upturn in the squatters movement, which lasted until criminalisation in 2010. Criminalisation dented this upsurge, but has not ultimately stopped it.

Housing

We can see from the table above that for 60 projects (over half the total) there definitely was housing in addition to the social centre, for 9 definitely not, and for 46 it is impossible to say. We cannot draw much conclusions from this except to say that in other cities such as Berlin for example, the majority of projects were also used for housing, with a social centre function on the ground floor and/or basement, since many properties were apartment blocks. In Amsterdam, a range of buildings were occupied, as we see below in the bar chart which shows the type of buildings which were occupied (the type referring to the use prior to squatting). The diversity of buildings demonstrates the squatters’ willingness to requisition whatever derelict property is available.

Types of building squatted

We can see from the pie chart below that most squats were in the three central boroughs of Centrum, West or Oost (‘east’).

Social centres by borough

This is unsurprising, since for a public project, squatters would want to be in the centre where people will find it easier to come to events. The diversity of buildings occupied shows that the type of building is itself not an obstacle, rather more of a challenge to be worked with. However, the previous discussion of gentrification asks the question whether there will continue to be the same number of squats in the central boroughs in future. This seems unlikely, since as areas gentrify the empty building stock is used up. Whilst gentrification is far from being a smooth, city-wide process, tending to occur more in specific pockets, we have seen that districts such as the Pijp now have far less squats than in previous decades and as this trend continues squatters may find themselves occupying empty buildings more on the fringes of the city. Yet this prediction itself is far from certain, since gentrification is of course itself part of a more general processes of change and urban renewal, in which areas improve and decline. As certain places experience the bust following the boom, opportunities for squatting may increase again.

Conclusions

Whilst the total number of social centres in Amsterdam are dwarfed by the figures for other West European cities such as Barcelona (382) or London (263), it is of course a smaller city and it is clear that social centres (as a visible, public part of the political squatters movement) have over time made a huge impact on the city of Amsterdam. Owens asserts that “few groups have influenced Amsterdam’s recent development as much as the squatters movement, who helped transform the city’s housing, political and cultural landscape”. We can roughly chart the phases of the movement as boom, decline, consolidation, upsurge and post-criminalisation.

Right now, in the years following criminalisation in 2010, it is hard to say what comes next — in a gentrifying city there are less large buildings available to be squatted in at least some areas of the centre (e.g. the Pijp) but broader urban cycles of growth and decay mean that it is unlikely the supply of empty buildings will dry up completely.

But then are there still people squatting? Yes, certainly there are, perhaps in small numbers than before but the 32 ongoing projects at the close of 2013 indicate that a scene still exists. Writing in 2015, all three of the post-criminalisation squats which survived until the end of 2013 have been evicted, with only Vondelbunker remaining as a legal project. The Valreep eviction was an important symbolic moment although it ended in defeat. A sequence of new buildings have been squatted by Wij Zijn Hier, with the Vluchtgebouw being most recently evicted in May 2015. There have also been new projects, such as Autocontrol/Krakaoke, De Strijd and Overval.

Valreep eviction

The squatters movement in Amsterdam benefits from the infrastructure provided by long-existing social centre projects, some of which have been active for decades. Of course, different people favour different places and groups veer between greater and diminished political activity, but nevertheless the places provide both physical spaces from which to organise and a cultural memory of former victories.

In this article we have seen that from the 1970s onwards squatters in Amsterdam have claimed all sorts of buildings both to live in and work in, and to create cultural spaces, mainly in the three central districts of Centrum, West and Oost. Thanks to a tolerant council policy, and backed by a large social movement, a significant number of places negotiated a legalised structure for themselves in the 1980s, in some cases even buying the property. Whilst not all of these projects have remained connected to the movement, many have, and this has allowed the movement as a whole to survive over time and even through the recent period of criminalisation. The concept of the broedplaats was proposed by squatters from the 1980s onwards and when in the late 1990s it began to tie in with the cultural policies of the city authorities, the convergence of interests facilitated some cases of anomalous institutionalisation.

Now, following the criminalisation of squatting and at a time when the movement itself is smaller, it seems unlikely that many projects will follow this pattern. Other factors would include the shift to a less tolerant governance, the lack of space for broedplaats style discourses, the phenomenon of anti-squat and the ongoing gentrification of Amsterdam. However, this is not to say that the squatters movement no longer exists and indeed there are some indications that it is currently undergoing a resurgence following a lean period.

Kraken gaat door! / Squatting continues!