The motivations behind Amsterdam’s densification policies

This post was written by Emma Thümmel.

Amsterdam is embarking on an ambitious plan to address its housing crisis by building 150 thousand new dwellings by 2050. Central to this plan is the densification of existing neighborhoods and areas around transport hubs. Policy narratives describe how the city aims for “growth within limits”, meaning achieving development within ecological boundaries and existing city limits. While this strategy aligns with a trend in planning, where densification is positioned as crucial for achieving sustainable urban development, this presents various social, environmental, and economic challenges. 

Densification in Amsterdam occurs within a fragmented, uncoordinated, and sometimes contradictory governance landscape. Institutional structures link local administrations and property industry actors in the residential property production process, creating a complex and chaotic landscape of regulations, stakeholders, and relationships. This complexity limits the municipalities’ ability to pursue a comprehensive densification approach, leading to conflicting ideas between stakeholders and case-by-case project negotiations. Here, the strong influence of market actors on the urban development process raises doubts about whether the policy ideals of creating an accessible and sustainable future city through densification can be reached. 

The crucial unspoken implication of densification is that it creates vast investment opportunities by enabling new modes of urban regeneration. Market actors can capitalize on these opportunities, which are legitimized by policy narratives equating density with sustainability. This raises the risk that densification primarily benefits market actors, with limited trickle-down effects for livability, environmental, and social benefits. Therefore, it is essential to critically scrutinize the motives behind densification projects. 

By analyzing Amsterdam’s masterplan, the Environmental Vision 2050, I identified key policy narratives underscoring densification. Some emphasize the importance of creating dense and green neighborhoods, while others focus on urban form, to establish a multi-nuclear city or purely to meet housing targets. Additional narratives prioritize dense and livable neighborhoods, while others target economic and social vitality. While these goals can complement each other, they also create conflicting ideals for the future of the city. Further, these policy narratives often minimize the complexities and challenges of a fragmented governance structure. 

Motivations behind densification in Amsterdam 

1. Addressing the housing crisis

A primary motivation for densification is to meet housing targets. However, simply adding new dwellings without addressing structural problems in housing financialization will not resolve the housing affordability crisis. Research indicates that increased property values often coincide with densification, complicating the relationship between dense cities and housing affordability. Ensuring investment in social and middle-income housing is crucial, but negotiating with market actors to invest in these sectors remains a challenge for municipalities in a fragmented governance context.

2. The promise of green growth

Amsterdam’s densification strategy crucially promotes the idea of green growth, aiming to reduce carbon emissions by minimizing resource use and travel distances. Furthermore, the policy emphasizes safeguarding urban nature through incorporating technologies such as green roofs and facades alongside densification processes. 

However, studies reveal a complex relationship between densification and green cities. Regarding emission reduction, one study found that while residents in dense cities reduce commuting emissions, this may be offset by residents increased air travel to escape dense environments. Looking to the feasibility of creating dense-yet-green neighborhoods, one study showed that densification in Amsterdam caused significant reduction of urban green space, whereas innovations such as green roofs are insufficient to mitigate this loss. 

3. Creating a multi-nuclear city

Another goal of densifying key neighborhoods is to reduce pressure on Amsterdam’s historical urban core by creating new urban centers. Focusing efforts on underdeveloped areas like Osdorp Centre and Buikslotermeerplein in Noord, the city seeks to add a “new urban quality” to these socio-economically vulnerable neighborhoods. While improved connections and amenities introduced by densification can benefit these areas, concerns surrounding gentrification and displacement arise. Furthermore, the targeting of vulnerable neighborhoods highlights a classed dimension of densification policy which must be critically examined, where poorer neighborhoods are more likely to experience upheaval through densification. 

4. Creating dense yet livable neighborhoods

The Environmental Vision 2050 emphasizes livability alongside densification, highlighting the creation of attractive, green public space and mixed-use neighborhoods. Although livability is highlighted as a goal, studies often link density to increased stress and reduced social interaction. Further, ensuring livability requires investment in public services, infrastructure, and green space, and is dependent on the ability of municipal actors to negotiate the creation of these aspects in investment processes for densification projects.

5. Economic and social vitality

A final notable motivator for densification is to boost Amsterdam’s economic profile by creating jobs and strengthening its role as a regional center. Policy narratives connect dense, busting areas with innovation and entrepreneurship. While studies concur that densification pushes are linked to innovation and entrepreneurship benefits, this focus on economic growth risks overshadowing other important considerations, such as environmental and social goals. Even more fundamentally, the narrative of economic growth forecloses alternative ideas surrounding whether Amsterdam needs to grow, and how growth aligns with sustainable futures.

Conclusion

The narratives underpinning Amsterdam’s push for densification suggest significant benefits of densifying, but they underemphasize that planning for densification inherently involves tradeoffs. Furthermore, densification policy operates within a fragmented governance landscape, where the influence of market interests can overshadow benefits for the broader city. Therefore, critical scrutiny of densification policies is necessary to ensure a balance is struck between diverse and at times contradictory aims. Only through careful planning and a nuanced understanding of density can Amsterdam achieve its vision of “growth within limits”, while ensuring that densification contributes to sustainable and equitable urban futures.