Amsterdam enjoys a particular place in modern urban imaginaries. A recurring theme is that of the supposed "peculiarity", "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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There is no doubt that Amsterdam has been, since the 16th century, the geographical core of Dutch society, whether economic, political or cultural (Nijiman 1999) and therefore enjoys a particular place in urban imaginaries modern. A recurring theme is that of the supposed "peculiarity", "difference" or "otherness" of Amsterdam. Both Soja (1996) and Savini et al (2016) address these concepts through a critical urban analysis of Amsterdam's restructuring, but vary in their objectives and timing. This essay aims to illustrate these themes, using the readings as fundamental references but also drawing from broader literature to promote debate. Soja (1996) uses his 'viewpoint' (285) on Spuistraat and microgeographies to focus on unique developments within the city's Centrum. The main focus is on the clear imprint of the 1970s squatter movement and its central role in its renewal, combined with the city's clear commitment to libertarian socialist values ​​that are evident throughout the urban built environment (Soja 1996 ) and both fuel this thesis of a city of "difference". Amsterdam's unique attempts to preserve its golden centuries without clear efforts to express its successes are also explored as they provoke ideas of "urban peculiarities" (Soja 1996). Similarly, Savini et al (2016) provide a multidimensional overview of the most recent social, economic, political and spatial changes in the city (2016:103), but with particular reference to housing policies and the growing social and ethnic diversity of Amsterdam all within an urban context more informed discourse. The continuity of the Amsterdam policies of the mid-1990s is illustrated, while acknowledging some “peculiar” and “unexpected” discontinuities that were the result of experimental approaches. Furthermore, future city policies are discussed with a movement towards “organic planning”, neoliberalism, and Savini et al (2016) address the contemporary issue of the financial collapse and its effect on the Amsterdam property market. This ensures a precise and up-to-date understanding of the city and asks whether Soja's reading, published in 1996, has become dated in comparison as he was clearly incapable of addressing such current factors. Nonetheless, Soja (1996) still provides a valid and in-depth representation of Amsterdam in modern urban imaginaries. Amsterdam was at the center of the squatting world in 1980, boasting the largest and most militant squatter movement in Europe (Van der Steen and Andresen 2016). This historical connection to the occupier movement is crucial in exemplifying the city's “peculiarity” as it has imprinted itself more deeply on the built urban environment of Amsterdam than in any other city center in the world (Soja 1996). In Amsterdam, it emerged in the 1960s through a group called The Provos as a direct consequence of the large amount of inhabited buildings. The group managed to gain political power which stimulated further progress within the radical social movement and consequently played an important role in the field of housing and the urban fabric more generally (Uitermark, 2004:227). The Kabouters' most successful campaign was for the right to affordable housing and for prohibitionof the destruction of affordable housing in the city center (Soja 1996). Nepstad (1997:47) argues that the movement can be seen as an alternative housing strategy and that it allows for “cogitative liberalisation”. Therefore, it is these urban developments, fueled by radical social movements, that make Amsterdam's place in modern urban imaginaries “peculiar”. Furthermore, it highlights a powerful generation of young people who dominate the population of Amsterdam's inner city while claiming rights over the city since "in no other major city in the world today are there young heads of families who have such control of the inner city" ( Soja 1996). The dominant imprint of squatter movements in Amsterdam's urban core brings out the underlying political values ​​of the city which illustrate a further argument of “difference”. For example, the city's deep and enduring commitment to libertarian socialist values ​​(Soja 1996:285) which are probably expressed more openly in Amsterdam than in other European cities. This is evident through civic authorities publishing pamphlets on “How to be a Squatter” (Soja 1996), giving voice to this open tolerance. Nijiman (1999) argues that it is this status as an anti-establishment city that makes Amsterdam "special" (154). However, it is also argued that such radical movements are becoming less widespread 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 became illegal in Amsterdam in 2010. Thus, perhaps the distinctive power of the city within social movements is faltering; making a valid suggestion as to why the topic has been avoided in Savini et al's (2016) more contemporary interpretation of the city. However, both Savini et al (2016) and Soja (1996) recognize Amsterdam's increasing ethnic diversity, through shared reference to the city becoming a 'minority-majority city' with over half its population being non-Dutch origin (Aalbers and Duerloo 2003). Although globalization encourages international migration through improvements in transportation, Amsterdam has seen a much greater influx from an increasingly diverse group of countries, evident by the fact that it has the “largest number of diverse nationalities in the world” (O&S 2014). Soja (1996) sees the growing ethnic diversity as a reflection of Amsterdam's reputation as a tolerant and liberal city, as it was previously seen as a "safe haven" for refugees and Jews. This historical link supports the current idea that there is no “official” way to distinguish between Dutch citizens (Soja 1996:299) as different ethnicities have absorbed and contributed to what is now referred to as Dutch culture. This places Amsterdam in contrast to a city like Los Angeles which is "built on the foundations of racism and radical segregation" (Soja 1996), creating a further difference between the two cities and demonstrating Amsterdam's greater success in integrating its immigrant populations in the urban fabric. tissue. A contemporary example of Amsterdam's clear openness towards the 'other' (Soja 1996) is evident through the government's 'diversity policy' which aims to protect the culture of ethnic minorities and creates opportunities within communities, e.g. through the use of subsidies for leisure centers in selected communal areas to encourage integration (Uitermark 2005). Savini et al (2016) also link the increase in ethnic diversity in Amsterdam to housing policies and area regeneration as both respond to and reinforce these trends (Savini et al 2016). For example, local governments' control over land changes allows them to describe directlywhich areas to invest in, thus determining the socio-spatial mix of an area (Fainstein 2010). The large-scale urban renewal of the Bijlmermeer neighborhood on the outskirts 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 all over the world, with 130 different ethnicities, but it became a place to avoid through association with the immigrant “other” (Badaar 1999). The diverse ethnic population was marginalized and isolated from Dutch society, displaying spatial problems of inequality and segregation through the created spaces of “difference” (Badaar 1999). Thus, the city shows signs of the same uneven development that has plagued other metropolises in Western Europe and the United States (Fainstein 2010), suggesting that it has followed similar urbanization processes to other cities. For example, a trend of low-wage immigrants clustering among suburban social housing due to their inability to afford the high rent of the city center. To address these issues, a “mixed-use” urban regeneration scheme was introduced in the 1980s, creating “entertainment and shopping amenities” (Savini et al 2016) to encourage social diversity. There are now ambitions for the neighborhood to become a 'multicultural theme park' (Badaar 1999), perhaps rejecting the fact that multiculturalism has been declared 'dead' in many countries (Uitermark 1997), highlighting another Amsterdam difference. 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), however, the overall success of urban renewal is still questioned by some locals. Although housing is a crucial point explored by both Soja (1996) and Savini et al (2016), it is not the only factor that contributes to Amsterdam's 'peculiarity' or 'difference'. For example, the impacts of tourism have become increasingly prevalent in its urban core. In 2015, the city was visited by approximately 17 million tourists (Boterman and Pinkster 2017). Most visitors are attracted by the easy accessibility to sex and drugs that they cannot experience in their own country. This independently echoes a city of “difference” through the city's permissiveness and liberal attitudes surrounding such issues. Tourism is also having a large implication on Amsterdam's housing structure as tourists leave their mark on the Old Town, which is also home to 86,000 residents (Boterman and Pinkster 2015) and encourages tourism-driven gentrification, much to the discontent of locals . However, neither Soja (1996) nor Savini et al (2016) have paid critical attention to this important influence on Amsterdam imaginaries. Boterman and Pinkster (2017) instead explore how tourism is transforming the canal district into an “object of cultural consumption” (458) and thus creating socio-spatial impacts on its heritage. The increase in 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 increasingly similar to other European cities through this expansion of tourism. Interestingly, Soja (1996) states that Amsterdam "has not yet become a Disneyfied theme park for tourists", which reinforces the idea that his interpretation of the city is dated, clearly written before the impacts of global tourism became so crucial. Soja (1996) instead describes the development of Amsterdam's Centrum as a «particular urban genius» (286) and believes that its history and geography (2016).