This nursery policy is pushing gentrification and segregation

Like affordable housing, the city also needs affordable workplaces and accessible public spaces. Places where the social and the creative-artistic intersect and meet in a relaxed way. To make it clear that living, working, living, learning and playing can be organized in one place. And especially that it is about rights rather than about a condition subject to strong transactions.

Incubators are potentially places where all of this can come together. Places where the individual is stimulated towards the collective, in solidarity and creativity. Because he theoretically realizes affordable studios, workplaces, public spaces and sometimes housing for artists and creative people (and sometimes undocumented people), who then also dedicate themselves to the surrounding neighborhood.

But it is precisely the incubator policy that hinders this opportunity. Because in practice it almost always leads to gentrification and segregation. Especially if it creates predominantly white, gated enclaves in colorful neighborhoods — in former public spaces like community centers and schools. After which, hip restaurant concepts and developers are eagerly moving to places they didn’t want to be found dead before. Which slowly complicates affordability in the area as prices rise with their arrival. After which, not only the surrounding residents, but also the same “pioneer” artists and creators are oppressed. Because these places almost always have a temporary function. And so, the exact opposite of what the incubator policy purports to be is achieved.

This is mainly attributable to the incubator developers, who receive all the trust and resources from the municipality to appropriate the space in the city. And which then maintain the homogeneity of the space with an outdated “door policy”. What makes breeding grounds “affordable” is the so-called CAWA requirement. In order to be allowed to rent, as an artist or creator, you are tested on certain diplomas and professional experience, which excludes, for example, self-taught students, students in pre-vocational secondary education and MBO students. So who exactly are we keeping this rare space in the city affordable for?

A frequently used counter-argument is that “only” 40% of breeding areas should be tested by CAWA. So isn’t there room to implement 60% “free”? But as long as you use the CAWA, you accept the impediment to opening these places 100% to the community.

Incidentally, despite this 40%, incubator developers can hardly show how they involve and strengthen local communities. The few exceptions prove the rule. Of course, it helps if current tenants partner with local parties in a lasting and servile way. Fortunately, it happens in some places. But developers have to make space themselves.

These are often municipal properties which, by definition, should be owned by the community. We don’t need frustrating intermediaries for that. Give our own neighborhood co-ops the space and resources (in return) so that we can own and run our places ourselves.

Rapper and writer Massih Hutak (1992) writes a weekly column for Het Parool. Read all his columns here return.