Amsterdam occupies a special place in modern urban imaginations. A recurring theme is that of the supposed “particularity”, “difference” or “otherness” of Amsterdam. Discuss this statement with reference to Soja (1996) and Savini et al. (2016). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay There is no doubt that Amsterdam has been, since the 16th century, at the geographical heart of Dutch society, that it whether economic, political or cultural (Nijiman 1999) and thus occupies a particular place in modern urban imaginations. A recurring theme is that of the supposed “particularity”, “difference” or “otherness” of Amsterdam. Soja (1996) and Savini et al (2016) address these concepts through a critical urban analysis of Amsterdam's restructuring, but vary in their goals and time frames. This essay aims to illustrate these themes, using the readings as primary references, but also drawing on broader literature to deepen the debate. Soja (1996) uses his “perspective” (285) on the Spuistraat and micro-geographies to focus on unique developments within the city's Centrum. The primary focus is on the distinct imprint of the 1970s squatter movement and its central role in its revival, combined with the city's distinct commitment to libertarian socialist values ​​that are apparent throughout the urban built environment (Soja 1996) and both fuel this argument of a city of “difference”. Amsterdam's unique attempts to preserve its golden age without clear efforts to express its achievements are also explored as they spark ideas of “urban peculiarities” (Soja 1996). Similarly, Savini et al (2016) provide a multi-dimensional overview of the most recent social, economic, political and spatial changes in the city (2016: 103), but with particular reference to housing policies and social and ethnic diversity growing influence of Amsterdam within a more informed discourse. The continuity of Amsterdam's policies in the mid-1990s is illustrated, while recognizing some “peculiar” and “unexpected” discontinuities that were the result of experimental approaches. Furthermore, future municipal policies are discussed from a perspective of “organic planning”, neoliberalism, and Savini et al (2016) address the contemporary issue of the financial crash and its effects on the Amsterdam real estate market. This ensures an accurate and current understanding of the city and questions whether Soja's reading, published in 1996, has become dated in comparison, as he was clearly unable to address these current factors. Nevertheless, Soja (1996) still provides a valid and insightful representation of Amsterdam in modern urban imaginaries. Amsterdam was at the center of the squatting world in 1980, home to the largest and most militant squatter movement in Europe (Van der Steen and Andresen 2016). This historical connection with the squatter movement is essential to illustrate the city's "specialness", as it has been etched more deeply into Amsterdam's built urban environment than any other city center in the world (Soja 1996). . In Amsterdam, it emerged in the 1960s through a band called The Provos, a direct result of the large number of inhabited buildings. The group managed to gain political power which stimulated further advances within the radical social movement and consequently played an important role in the field of housing and the urban fabric in general (Uitermark, 2004: 227). The most successful campaign ofKabouter was for the right to affordable housing and for banning the destruction of cheap housing in the city center (Soja 1996). Nepstad (1997: 47) argues that the movement can be seen as an alternative housing strategy and enabled “cogitative liberalization”. It is therefore these urban developments, fueled by radical social movements, which make Amsterdam’s place “special” in modern urban imaginations. Additionally, it highlights a powerful young generation that dominates the population of downtown Amsterdam as they stake their claim to the city as "in no other major city in the world today do young owners have so much control the city center” (Soja 1996). The dominant imprint of squatter movements on Amsterdam's urban core highlights the city's underlying political values, illustrating another “difference” argument. For example, the city's deep and enduring commitment to libertarian socialist values ​​(Soja 1996: 285) which are arguably expressed more openly in Amsterdam than in other European cities. This is evident in the extent to which civic authorities publish pamphlets on “How to Become a Squatter” (Soja 1996), expressing this open tolerance. Nijiman (1999) argues that it is this status as a protest city that makes Amsterdam “special” (154). However, some also argue that these radical movements are becoming less prevalent as the city's social climate is threatened by the dismantling of the Dutch welfare state (Nijiman 1999: 155), reinforced by the fact that squatting has become illegal in Amsterdam in 2010. So perhaps the distinctive power of the city within social movements is wavering; which poses a valid suggestion as to why the topic has been avoided in Savini et al's (2016) more contemporary interpretation of the city. However, Savini et al (2016) and Soja (1996) acknowledge the increase in ethnic diversity in Amsterdam, through the common reference that the city has become a "majority minority city" with more than half of its population of non-Dutch origin (Aalbers and Duerloo 2003). Although globalization encourages international migration through improved transportation, Amsterdam has seen a much larger influx from an increasingly diverse group of countries, as evidenced by the fact that it has "the most large number of different nationalities in the world” (O&S 2014). Soja (1996) sees the increased ethnic diversity as a reflection of Amsterdam's reputation as a tolerant and liberal city, as it was seen in the past as a "safe haven" for refugees and Jews. This historical connection supports the current idea that there is no "official" way to differentiate between Dutch citizens (Soja 1996: 299), because different ethnicities have absorbed and contributed to what is today defined like Dutch culture. This places Amsterdam in contrast to a city like Los Angeles which is "built on the foundation of racism and radical segregation" (Soja 1996), creating a further difference between the two cities and demonstrating Amsterdam's greater success in integration of its immigrant populations in the urban environment. fabric. A contemporary example of Amsterdam's distinct openness to the 'other' (Soja 1996) is evident through the government's 'diversity policy' which aims to protect the culture of ethnic minorities and create opportunities within communities, for example, through the use of subsidies to leisure centers in selected communal areas to encourage integration (Uitermark 2005). Savini et al (2016) also associate the increasefrom ethnic diversity in Amsterdam to housing policies and neighborhood regenerations, as they respond to and reinforce these trends (Savini et al 2016). For example, local governments' control over land change allows them to directly describe which areas to invest in, thereby determining the socio-spatial mix of an area (Fainstein 2010). The large-scale urban renewal of the Bijlmermeer district in the suburbs of Amsterdam is a good example of this ethnic segregation and attempt at integration. In the 1970s it was an entry point for immigrants from around the world, with 130 different ethnicities, but it became a place to avoid due to the association with the immigrant "other" (Badaar 1999). . The diverse ethnic population was marginalized and isolated from Dutch society, showing spatial problems of inequality and segregation through the spaces of “difference” created (Badaar 1999). Thus, the city shows signs of the same uneven development that has plagued other metropolises around the world in Western Europe and the United States (Fainstein 2010), suggesting that this country has followed similar urbanization processes to those of other cities. For example, a trend of low-wage immigrants congregating in suburban public housing due to their inability to afford high downtown rents. To address these issues, a “mixed-use” urban regeneration program was introduced in the 1980s, creating “entertainment and shopping amenities” (Savini et al 2016) to encourage social diversity. Some now aim to turn the area into a "multicultural theme park" (Badaar 1999), perhaps rejecting the fact that multiculturalism has been declared "dead" in many countries (Uitermark 1997), highlighting another difference from Amsterdam . Furthermore, the story of the Bijlmermeer embodies a particularly Dutch approach to urban development: if a problem exists, a rational solution must be found (Fainstein 2010), but the overall success of urban renewal is still questioned by some residents. Although housing is a crucial point explored by Soja (1996) and Savini et al (2016), it is not the only factor contributing to the “specialness” or “difference” of Amsterdam. For example, tourism impacts have become increasingly predominant in the urban core. In 2015, the city was visited by approximately 17 million tourists (Boterman and Pinkster 2017). Most visitors are attracted by the easy access to sex and drugs, something they cannot experience in their own country. This echoes a city of “difference” through its permissiveness and liberal attitudes around these themes. Tourism also has a large implication on the housing structure in Amsterdam, as tourists leave their mark on the historic center, which is also home to 86,000 inhabitants (Boterman and Pinkster 2015) and encourages tourism-induced gentrification, much to the discontent of the inhabitants. However, neither Soja (1996) nor Savini et al (2016) have paid critical attention to this important influence on Amsterdam imaginaries. Boterman and Pinkster (2017) explore how tourism transforms the canal district into an “object of cultural consumption” (458) and thus creates socio-spatial impacts on its heritage. The increase in the number of hotels and tourist infrastructure encourages the idea of ​​a "theme park" metaphor and implies that Amsterdam will become another Venice, "a city of hotels". Therefore, Amsterdam can be seen as becoming more like other European cities through this expansion of tourism. Interestingly, Soja (1996) states that Amsterdam is “not (2016).