Summary Since the implementation of the new European allocation rule on the 1st of January 2011 only the households with a lower income are covered within the primary target group of the housing associations. Each year at least 90% of all available social dwellings should be allocated to this income group. The group of tight housed large families in Amsterdam is since then divided in families with a lower income and families with a middle income. The large families with a lower income still have a housing problem, but they may get more suplly. Nowadays the tight housed large families with a middle income are dependent on the commercial rental and owner-occupied market in Amsterdam. Different studies did however show that these houses are not affordable for the middle income families. Despite the major change that has taken place, within the working field of the housing associations in Amsterdam because of the new European rule, the specific housing situation of the large families and their possibilities have not been investigated before. The housing situation asks for the answer of a number of questions that are answered in this study. The aim of this thesis This research is aimed at gaining more knowledge about the housing position of the tight-housed large families in Amsterdam. A deeper study has been conducted to understand the situation that has arisen and its significance for the success rate of these households who are searching for an appropriate dwelling. This can be seen as the other aim of this research. Other aims of this study are in general to explore which possibilities can improve the success rate and the housing situation of these families and then choose the most appropriate ones in the working field of the housing association Rochdale. The main objective is to make recommendations which measures, possibly in modified form, may be the most suitable for Rochdale to accommodate this target group. Research Question The main research question that this study will answer is as following: What are the consequences for the large middle income families in Amsterdam of the way the EU policy has been implemented by the Amsterdam housing associations and how can the possible negative effects and consequences in Amsterdam (through new policy strategies) within the EU frameworks be prevented or limited? To answer the main research three sub questions have been formulated, which made it possible to answer the main research question. - What is the problem in Amsterdam? - Which solutions are available? - Which solutions are the best and why? The three sub questions are answered in the following three parts. The first part starts with the housing situation before the implementation of the European allocation rule in 2011. This new allocation rule is then treated in relation to the working field of the housing corporations in Amsterdam. The section is concluded with an analysis of the current housing situation and the possibilities of these tight housed families. For this part of the study interviews with parties from the social housing sector in Amsterdam have taken place and a literature study with quantitative data mainly obtained from annual reports, notes and researches (eg Aedes, AFWC, WZS, O + S) has taken place. In the second part the possibilities, which may prevent or reduce the problem of tight housing for large middle income have been discussed. These possibilities have been derived from the literature, or were discussed or applied in practice. For this section a literature and field study have been conducted. In the case of the practical study interviews have taken place and 'participation /field research' by doing an internship at Rochdale, a housing association in Amsterdam. In the third part, the results, the possible measures from the previous section are analysed and assessed. Therefore from the possible measures that are applicable in the working field of Rochdale employable the most interesting ones are chosen. For this first selection various criteria are used in relation to the organizational and financial capabilities of Rochdale. The selected measures are then assessed to see which are within Rochdale best suited to serve the large middle-income families. For this purpose the measures are, after consultation, assessed on Effectivity, Efficiency and Support. The results are then used to draw conclusions and make recommendations. Results Sub-question 1: What is the problem in Amsterdam? Problem before 2011 In Amsterdam a housing problem of tight-housed large families existed for years. These large families are mainly low-income families, but the ones with a slightly higher income, the middle incomes, are also part of the problem. 83% of the group tight housed large families lives in a social rented dwelling and of this group 9% has a middle income, representing 880 families (O+S 2012). When we focus on the total number of large houses in Amsterdam it can be stated that numerically there should be no problem, however, there still exists a shortage of supply. The shortage, ie the mismatch, has partly to do with the fact that large houses are inhabited by small households, the distribution of the large houses does not match the dispersion of the large families (location problem) and the affordability of the large houses. The problem of tight-housed large families can mainly be found in Amsterdam-West district and particularly in the former districts Bos en Lommer, de Baarsjes and Geuzenveld-Slotermeer. In recent years the municipality of Amsterdam and other housing parties including the housing associations designated this target group as a focus group in their housing policy in the hope to dissolve their housing problem more effectively. This has not resulted in improvement of their situation, mainly due to the fact that the objectives are often not ambitious enough and even if they are they often have not been achieved. Responses in the form of more specific policy and reports that explicitly address the improvement of the housing of this group have also been little effective in preventing of limiting the already existing problem. Problem after 2011 In the general housing policy and in the policy targeted at large families all large families are included regardless of their income, but from 1 January 2011 the housing associations have to deal with a new European regulation that divides this focus group within their working field into a primary and a secondary group. Since the implementation of this allocation rule households with an income above 34.229 can not be offered social rented dwellings anymore. For tight-housed large families with a middle income this means that they now are no longer part of the primary target group and are no longer covered by the additional policies that are deployed to limit the problem of tight housing. The tight-housed large families with a middle income are now dependent on the commercial rented and owner-occupied market. Because of the tight housing market in Amsterdam and the related high prices these opportunities offer little chance in finding a suitable dwelling. To meet the demands of these families a suitable dwelling must be qualitative and affordable. With the income of a large middle-income family, it is not possible to find a suitable dwelling as the houses with four bedrooms (Dutch; 5 kamer woning) are usually offered are namely offered in the higher commercial rental and sales classes. In recent years the chances of success are also reduced because of the economic crisis and the related problems. The numbers of completed and planned housing projects decreased and it became difficult to obtain a mortgage. The fact that these large families do not have rehousing possibilities to move (up) results in a delay of the already limited flow on the tight housing market in Amsterdam. The tight-housed large families decide, how tight their housing and distressing situation might be, less often to move to another dwelling. This slow movement and housing situation that has been observed by the housing associations and WoningNet (Woningnet, 2012) might get worse and result in more social and societal problems. These problems can be segregation and various types of nuisance at different scales. Sub-question 2: What solutions are there? In the literature and in practice, including the working field of Rochdale, various measures and policies are discussed that can be deployed to increase the success rate of the middle income and also of the large families. These measures are mostly focused on smaller households with a middle income or focus on the housing of large families with the lower incomes. To increase the success rate of the large middle income families there are no specific measures available. An inventory of what measures may contribute to the better serving of the large middle-income families suggests that, in theory, the following measures can contribute and are therefore interesting. These are the measures that are selected from literature, practice or have been designed by the author. The measures are compared on the basis of criteria derived from the working field of Rochdale in order to determine which are the most interesting to be assessed on suitability. Six measures turned out to be interesting. After this selection some of the selected measures have been elaborated before they are assessed. It has also been decided to add the measure Flexible Rents to the assessment. The most interesting measures for the assessment ultimately revealed to be the following: - The use of the 10% to allocate large families with a middle income. 10% of the available social dwellings may be used for households with a income higher then 34.229. This space is partly used for urgent cases, for example elderly and handicapped . This remaining percentage within the 10% space can be used for allocating the tight housed middle income families - Flexible rents To use deregulated rents that are annually indexed on the basis of income of the households. The income of the households will therefore annually be checked and the rent for the following year will be determined in order to have rents that match better with their income and living situation. - 15/25 WWS points and 100% maximum reasonable (limited commercialization) Using the liberalization opportunities to increase the supply for this middle income group. Available dwellings can be added 15/25 WWS points in order to have more then 163 WWS points and therefore able to be deregulated. - Conversion to 4 bedrooms In contrast to 4 bedroom houses there are more 3 bedroom houses that get available. To increase the supply of large houses these large 3 bedroom houses should be converted so they will be suitable for the target group. Sub-question 3: What measures are most suitable and why? The assessment of the measures by means of the Effectivity, Efficiency and Support has shown that the measures have some potential to improve the housing situation of the large middle income families socially. The differences between the selected measures in suitability can be found in other assessment criteria. For example, this assessment showed that the differences can be found in size and delivery time of the supply that can be realised by the measures and also differences in the affordability for the target group. Also in the assessment criterion support there were many differences, which can be explained by the ‘financial’ criterion. Thus, as expected, the measures which require a high financial investment for the fast realization of a large supply were reviewed positive by the residents, and as not feasible by Rochdale. An attempt was made to find a measure that takes these various interests of the parties involved into account. Looking at all the assessment criteria that are used for the assessment it was finally concluded that for Rochdale, under the current circumstances and looking at the support from both parties, the measure '15 / 25WWS and 100% maximum reasonable ' is the most suitable. Interviews have shown that a previously used measure could theoretically improve the moving flow. This so called ‘from Large to Better’ measure means that a small household, under reasonable conditions moves, from a large dwelling to a smaller one. However, Rochdale has negative experiences with the implementation of this measure. But the interviews have shown that under more reasonable conditions more participants can be found. In that case the implementation of this measure may improve the moving flow and increase the supply of large houses. Discussion and recommendations During the first analysis in which a selection was made of the most interesting measures for further assessment it was revealed that in some cases it is possible to merge measures and thus to combine the positive characteristics of various measures. This combination possibility was a remarkable and interesting one, so it was decided to use this one also as an important criterion. It was also noted that small adjustments in both the measures and the constraints within which they must be used are able to make a measure more suitable. Therefore in general the recommendations made to Rochdale are to investigate internally the possibilities to adjust in the organisation to implement these adjusted measures for the benefit of the large middle income families. Both the most suitable and the other measures are partly dependent on the moving (up) flow that make the required large dwellings available. The assessment has showed that the possibility to combine the measures varies, with the measures '15 / 25WWS and 100% maximum reasonable' and 'Conversion to 4 bedrooms' as the most suitable. An ideal combination proved to be one in which these measures can be used with a measure to stimulate the moving flow. Interviews have shown that the measure "From Large to Better ', despite the negative experiences of Rochdale with this measure, may potentially be very suitable in the case it is used under adjusted conditions. This measure has been previously used by Rochdale where it primarily was used for exchange between two social rented dwellings. Combinations of the following measures are therefore considered as the most suitable in the main recommendation. - 15/25WWS and 100% maximum reasonable - Conversion to 4 bedrooms - Additional promotion of moving Combination of ‘15/25 WWS and maximum reasonable’ and ‘from Large to Better’ The large social rented dwellings that now become available are being liberalized by the use of the liberalization policy of Rochdale. The additional 15/25WWS points are used. This policy can also be used in combination with the measure ‘From Large to Better’ by which an exchange between a large house ‘to liberalize’ and a smaller ‘convert to social rent’ house can take place. The use of this combination measure on reasonable conditions for the current residents makes it possible to increase the supply of large houses. It has been found that Rochdale financially loses little or nothing since there is a financial compensation that can be created by liberalizing the large house. It should also be noted that by doing nothing it also wont be possible to create additional income as there is little moving flow and few houses can be liberalized. Combination of ‘15/25 WWS and maximum reasonable’ and ‘Conversion to 4 bedrooms) Also the use of a combination measure that includes the measure 'conversion to 4 bedrooms’ has the potential to increase the supply of large houses. Strong aspects of increasing the supply through the use of this measure are the size and distribution through the city of the potential supply, namely the 4 room houses. The large 4 room houses that become available after mutation may, if structurally possible, be adapted and offered to large middle-income families. It requires a combination of this measure with the '15 / 25WWS and 100% maximum reasonable 'measure in order to liberalize the dwelling and offer it to a large middle-income family. Main recommendation ; Combination of all three measures Within Rochdale a follow-up study should be conducted to gain insight in how much organizational and financial space there is for adjustments of the measures as discussed. One may start with a general assesment of the options to deploy the adjusted measures separately. The project ‘Form large to Better' must be evaluated again, especially with respect to the conditions that are related to participation in this project. In this exchange it should be made possible to have an exchange between a social rented dwelling and a commercial rented dwelling whereby the '15 / 25WWS and 100% maximum reasonable "measure is used. This project ‘Form Large to Better’ has the potential to better serve the large middle income families. This will be possible if the potential supply of large houses for this project is being sought in the 3 bedroom houses. Rochdale should therefore do a follow-up study to gain insight in the possibilities to use the ‘Form Large to Better)’ project and ‘15/25WWS and 100 maximum reasonable’ in order to get more large houses available and thereby the increase of this potential exchange supply by the use of the ‘Conversion to 5 rooms’ measure.