Abstract

This paper presents the result of an explorative study of bridging social capital creation in third places in the context of the gentrifying neighborhood of Katendrecht, Rotterdam. The research analyzed the contextual implications of gentrification for third places, identified third places facilitating diverse encounters, and conducted an in-depth case study of one selected third place, a neighborhood bar called Café Norge. Using methodological triangulation, including interviews and participant observation, the study found that state-led gentrification has radically transformed Katendrecht’s social fabric and third places, resulting in segregated lifestyles and limited interaction between higher-income gentrifiers and working-class long-term residents. The neighborhood bar Café Norge, however, despite its limitations, emerged as a unique space where positive, diverse interactions might foster bridging cohesion between long-term and gentrifier residents. Moreover, individuals access intangible resources such as emotional support and information through bridging connections established in Norge. However, given the superficial nature of connections, access to tangible resources remains limited. The findings indicate the complexity of social interactions in transforming neighborhoods and add many nuances to the academic discourse. 

Introduction

Gentrification has been a popular policy instrument for achieving urban regeneration worldwide. One central element is introducing middle- and higher-income people in deprived neighborhoods to deconcentrate poverty. This social mixing has widely been justified with livability concerns, assuming it improves the living conditions in the neighborhood (Lees 2008). State-led social mixing in the Netherlands, popular since the 1990s, aims to foster bridging social capital by promoting interactions between disadvantaged and affluent residents (Kleinhans, Priemus, and Engbersen 2007). 

Advocates argue that physical proximity in mixed neighborhoods fosters heterogeneous interaction, addressing “network poverty” by enabling resource-poor individuals to access diverse, resource-rich networks (Chaskin and Joseph 2010; Halstead, Deller, and Leyden 2022). However, much research has proven limited everyday social interaction in mixed-income neighborhoods (Bolt and van Kempen 2013). There is sparse evidence that mixing policies improves the life chances of the lower-income group, and they have ambiguous effects on social capital (Lees 2008).

More recent research indicates that certain neighborhood settings allow for heterogeneous interactions, resulting in bridging capital (Nast and Blokland 2014; Peterson 2017). Many of these settings are related to the third place concept, coined by Oldenburg (1989) for a broad range of informal gathering spaces (Littman 2022). Third places can be the physical arena for bridging capital creation since their characteristics theoretically enable diverse interactions in a hierarchy-free and enjoyable manner (Yuen and Johnson 2017).  

However, there is a general lack of knowledge about social interaction dynamics in third places and their outcomes (Hickman 2012; Littman 2022), and more specifically on how exactly and by what mechanism social capital is created for low-income populations in these settings (Custers and Engbersen 2022). Moreover, Dutch social mixing strategies are closely linked with gentrification (Kleinhans, Priemus, and Engbersen 2007), whereas little is known about how gentrification shapes third places (Mullenbach and Baker 2018).

The case study neighborhood Katendrecht is located in Rotterdam, a highly diverse city with poverty concentration (Arkins and French 2024), especially in its South, where old-industrial neighborhoods face transformation challenges (Kleinhans 2019). Katendrecht’s built environment and population, including third places, have transformed radically in the recent decades through state-led gentrification, from being a red-light district with a high poverty rate to becoming “a hip and trendy destination for the middle class” (Doucet and Koenders 2018:3639). This raised the following research question: If and how do third places in Katendrecht influence the formation of bridging social capital within the context of state-led gentrification?

It was answered by first understanding the contextual implications of state-led gentrification for bridging capital formation in third places on the neighborhood scale. Then, the research scaled down to assess the diversity and interaction patterns in selected places. By focusing on one in-depth case, bridging capital formation was explored thoroughly. 

2.0. Theoretical framework

This section provides an overview of the academic discussion around the key concepts and their interlinkages.

2.1. Gentrification 

Gentrification is “the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of the central city into middle-class residential and/or commercial use” (Lees, Slater, and Wyly 2010:XV). The process of gentrification can be initiated generally by two drivers, the private market or the state, in the form of local or national government to “civilize” disadvantaged neighborhoods by introducing middle-class residents (Uitermark, Duyvendak, and Kleinhans 2007). The state seduces private developers and induces housing associations to invest in ownership-dominated, higher-quality housing. It also includes strong interventions in the housing stock, including the demolition of social rental housing (Kleinhans, Priemus, and Engbersen 2007). These measures and additional state-led flagship projects were applied in Katendrecht and resulted in a radical transformation of the housing stock (Stouten 2017) and a sharp rise in property values (Gemeente Rotterdam 2023). However, demolition was limited in Katendrecht, and new housing was mainly constructed on brownfields, which aligns with the Dutch ‘mild’ gentrification, preventing direct displacement (Doucet and Koenders 2018). 

Gentrification changes the population. New residents are active players; hippies function as pioneers for the following middle class, which differ from the original working-class population in their lifestyles and more progressive values resulting in these neighborhoods’ “embourgeoisement” (Ley 2001:8). Gentrification leads to social restructuring and increasingly polarized cities, spatially expressed in clusters based on class and ethnicity (Ley and Dobson 2008). Perception and acceptance of values, norms, and behaviors change, potentially leading to tensions between old and new residents caused by cultural and socio-economic differences (Goodchild and Cole 2001; Freeman 2006). Dekker and Bolt (2005) argue that the bigger the differences between long-term and gentrifiers, the more difficult it is to establish social bonds, which are necessary for bridging capital creation.  

Katendrecht’s population has almost doubled since 2008, becoming younger, increasingly Dutch in ethnic composition, and having higher income and education levels (Gemeente Rotterdam 2023). 

2.2. Bridging Social Capital 

Putnam (2001) defines social capital as “networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 2001:13). He distinguishes between bonding capital within a homogenous group and bridging capital spanning across heterogeneous groups, acknowledging that boundaries are fluid. Bridging social capital emerges from loose social connections between people of different backgrounds, often referred to as weak ties formed through their interaction (Granovetter 1973). Heterogeneity encompasses differences in socioeconomic background, ethnicity, gender, or age (Yuen and Johnson 2017). The benefits of bridging capital can be categorized as societal and individual (Putnam 2001). At the societal level, diverse social networks promote social cohesion across differences by fostering belonging, trust, mutual respect, and solidarity, resulting in community harmony and stability (Putnam 2001). Research in the Dutch context proved increased neighborhood cohesion, a feeling of belonging, and perceived safety (Kleinhans, Priemus, and Engbersen 2007; Van Eijk 2010). Halstead, Deller, and Leyden (2022) argue that bridging capital fosters a shared identity and common purpose. Other scholars found a positive correlation between bridging capital and civic engagement (Putnam 2001; Szreter and Woolcock 2004; Van Eijk 2010).

The second group of benefits relates to individuals accessing resources through reciprocal acts based on the expectation that individuals will reciprocate acts of cooperation, support, and kindness. When these relations are of a bridging nature – connecting individuals across different groups – they enable access to a broader array of tangible and intangible resources beyond the close-knit bonding networks (Putnam 2001). Commonly mentioned intangible resources are emotional support (Halstead, Deller, and Leyden 2022) and access to new information and contacts, which can lead to job or educational opportunities or political alliances, ultimately improving social mobility (Granovetter 1973). Szreter and Woolcock (2004) theorize bridging capital to enable broader access to public services and, thus, counteract social inequalities. Lin (1999) suggests that bridging ties enhances individuals’ problem-solving abilities by providing access to new information and ways of thinking. Poortinga (2012) explains these benefits with the ability of weak ties to promote novel information faster than strong ties, which may constrain the information flow due to rigid social norms. Additionally, bridging capital is associated with higher community resilience, as it enables quick access to useful information and fosters collective action and innovation (Szreter and Woolcock 2004).     

Weak ties are more frequent than strong ties and depend more on heterogenous face-to-face encounters (Putnam 2001). Repetitive, meaningful interactions around a shared interest are critical factors for bridging social capital creation, as emphasized by literature (Wise 2009; Peterson 2017). Commonalities such as ethnicity, birthplace, passions, or point of life facilitate its constitution (Wise 2009). Research also suggests bridging capital creation requires time (Atkinson and Kintrea 2000; Arısoy and Paker 2019). Audunson (2005) discusses third places as facilitators for bridging capital because they provide these face-to-face meeting spaces, enabling low-intense and positive interaction “across social, ethnic, generational, and value-based boundaries” (Audunson 2005:436).     

2.3. Third places 

Ray Oldenburg (1989) coined the term third place for “a great variety of public spaces that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of the home and work” (Oldenburg 1989:16). He defined third places as accessible for all with low economic barriers, providing a neutral and hierarchy-free space, and having a playful, positive atmosphere. Conversation is the main activity, enhanced by regular attendants providing familiar faces and welcoming newcomers. Through this, third places host diverse attendants and enable heterogeneous encounters not found in formal settings (Oldenburg 1989). Yuen and Johnson (2017) highlight two outstandingly important characteristics that enable diverse interaction: Inclusiveness in the sense of accessibility for all and that consumption is not the dominant activity. 

Research indicates third places’ importance for across-group encounters in diverse societies with beneficial outcomes for individuals and overall society, such as increased well-being and social cohesion (Purnell 2015; Littman 2022). Williams and Hipp (2019) explain how third places usually offer a common object that facilitates the interaction of strangers. Although Oldenburg (1989) considers the role of a host limited, some research on bridging capital creation in third places has demonstrated the importance of “organizers” for beneficial interaction (Peterson 2017; Custers and Engbersen 2022). These individuals may function as social brokers, individuals often linked to a specific place, connecting informally “socially disparate segments of a population” (Stovel and Shaw 2012:153). 

2.4. Synthesizing concepts 

Third places enable and facilitate diverse interactions, resulting in bridging capital (Audunson 2005). However, state-led gentrification contextually shapes them. By changing the demographic composition, gentrification influences the potential users of third places, frequently transforming them toward a higher-income clientele and endangering their diversity (Karsten, Kamphuis, and Remeijnse 2015; Martin 2022). 

In contrast, Ernst and Doucet’s (2014) findings from Amsterdam indicate that brown, working-class pubs function as safe havens for long-term residents, remaining mostly unchanged in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. Mainly long-term inhabitants frequent these pubs; nevertheless, some gentrifiers also attend, establishing bridging links between the two. However, the authors emphasize the potential temporality and highlight the risk of further commercial gentrification leading to the pubs’ disappearance.

3. Methodology

The explorative research is based on the revealing single case study Katendrecht, characterized by a three-step approach and the triangulation of various methods and data sources (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: The three-step case study design (Source: Yin, 2018)

The first step focused on comprehensively understanding Katendrecht’s transformation and its implications for heterogeneous social interaction in third places at the neighborhood scale. This was achieved by analyzing policy documents, case-specific literature, and municipal statistics (Yin 2018). Additionally, informal expert consultation provided insights into neighborhood interna and identified promising third places for bridging capital creation (Flick 2009).     

In the second step, the analysis scaled down to multiple embedded units – specifically, four selected third places – allowing for preliminary data collection (Yin 2018). This was realized through participant observation in the respective places and expert interviews. Eight purposively sampled experts, critical cases with outstanding knowledge (Flick 2009), were interviewed; almost all had a double role as current or former residents. This included five hosts of the preliminary explored places as well as a general expert on social interaction in the neighborhood to provide a neutral perspective. To mitigate biases in the selection, the experts were asked about all preliminary selected third places, where all highlighted Café Norge as a place of social mixing. 

This led to the selection of Café Norge as the in-depth analysis unit (Yin 2018), which was investigated profoundly for one month and is the focus of this publication. The bar was chosen because it hosts the most diverse attendants, serves primarily the local population, and has extensive opening hours, which matches the characteristics defined by Oldenburg (1989). 

To gain deeper insights, Café Norge’s owner and two barkeepers were additionally interviewed as experts, gaining their knowledge through yearlong experiences of interactions within the place. Furthermore, six resident interviewees were recruited among Norge’s attendants through purposive maximum variation sampling (Seidman 2006) by representing higher-income gentrifiers and low-income long-term residents to gain a comprehensive understanding. The interviews (Fig. 2) were complemented with extensive participant observations in Café Norge. 

During these observations, vast informal conversations with attendants added valuable data (Spradley 2016). I actively engaged with the researched subjects to gain a contextual understanding and unique insights into otherwise inaccessible fields (Verloo 2020), also triangulating the impressions gained in interviews. While remaining transparent about my role as a researcher, I minimized the disturbance to the “natural” interactions by staying in the background. Observations, including small talk (Kearns 2016), fostered trust with attendants and enhanced the researcher’s understanding of diversity and interaction patterns across different times and organized events. The participant observations captured a variety of days, times, regular daily operations, and diverse events at Café Norge (see Fig 3). 

The observations and interviewees’ purposive variety, as well as the triangulation of data sources, helped mitigate biases in data collection by ensuring diverse perspectives. Additionally, I regularly engaged in reflexive discussions with colleagues and participants to critically assess potential biases, including my own positionality and its influence on data interpretation.

4. Findings

This chapter provides the findings, briefly describing the contextual implications of gentrification on the neighborhood scale and then narrowing down to the in-depth study. 

4.1. Gentrification as a context of social interaction in third places 

The rapid neighborhood transformation caused a lack of social cohesion, where gentrifiers and long-term residents live in segregated worlds because of their big socio-economic and cultural differences: 

“These people are usually not very interested in each other. They didn’t grow up together, they have no history together. The only thing they do is they live here on this small peninsula. […] the worlds are very much apart” (Elisabeth, expert, personal interview). 

This challenges the bridging between gentrifiers and long-term residents, enhanced by the strong bonding of long-term residents. However, the latter are not a homogenous group; the interviewees highlighted two groups: elderly, ethnically Dutch, who refer to themselves as Kapeneze, and younger, ethnically diverse, who do not identify themselves with the primarily white Kapeneze but also form part of the working-class. The group of gentrifiers consists of remarkably many elderly and wealthy pensioners.

The population’s segmentation is spatially expressed since its social housing concentrates around the traditional community center, surrounded by newly constructed luxury apartments on the waterfront. The latter excludes lower-income and middle-class, and its gated character, including facilities, reduces social interaction on the streets. Interviewees indicate social tensions between the contrasting groups expressed in stereotypes, explaining them with little across-group interactions, resulting in a low prevalence of bridging connections. This coincides with the literature (Dekker and Bolt 2005) and contradicts policymakers’ contact rationale. 

The comprehensive exploration provided evidence that segregation extends to third places. These adapted towards higher-income clients, reducing dramatically accessible gathering opportunities, like the formerly widespread brown pubs. Deliplein, the neighborhood’s main square, is now only attended by gentrifiers and tourists. The preliminary exploration showed that the municipal-financed community center remained mostly unchanged but attracts almost exclusively elderly Kapeneze, allowing for no mixing with gentrifiers or the younger residents, who perceive the building and offers as unattractive and attendants as a closed group. Two non-commercial places, Verhalenhuis Belvédère, and Platform K, were founded in recent years to serve as inclusive gathering places. Both have limited success in attracting diverse attendants. One is constrained by limited resources, leading to limited activity; the other is perceived as a cultural place, mainly attracting highly educated elderly and many outsiders, not primarily serving the neighborhood. Instead, Café Norge, a commercial bar where consumption is costlier than in the other pre-selected places, hosts the most diverse clients, questioning recent literature (Yuen and Johnson 2017). These findings suggest that Oldenburg’s (1989) third-place concept clashes with the complex reality since being inclusive does not guarantee diversity. 

4.2. Café Norge – A diverse third place?

Founded by Norwegian sailors, Norge has served for over 70 years as a working-class bar. In September 2022, long-term resident Adewale became the owner at more favorable terms through a personal connection and realized his vision of a social business, a community place to enable connections between long-term residents and gentrifiers, explaining:

“Gentrification in the way they think, that if you put people with higher income, higher education, it will stimulate automatically the people with lower income, lower education. That is not like that. There has to be something in-between that will link those two together” (Adewale, owner & expert, personal interview).

The Café located at a corner offers a large bar, seats, and tables inside and outside, music, and a variety of snacks and drinks. Norge has extensive opening hours from 2 pm until late at night, seven days a week, with family-business character, the owner being present around the clock. It also hosts events, including neighborhood drinks, dance evenings, karaoke nights, pub quizzes, soccer matches, or events by other neighborhood organizations.

All interviewees perceive Norge as welcoming and low-barrier; multiple describe it as the last accessible brown pub. The atmosphere is perceived as friendly and positive. Barkeepers and residents of both groups believe that hierarchy and socio-economic background play no role. 

When asked about actual attendants, all interviewees, triangulated via observations (author’s own, June 1, 7, and 21) including small talk, described a high diversity regarding income, age, gender, and ethnic background. 

Many gentrifiers attend, attracted by Norge’s authenticity, as the owner explains. Some Kapeneze attend, though less than gentrifiers since it is an aging and shrinking group that mostly attends the community center. Those who attend feel welcome, unlike in other places, since Norge and one barkeeper, the previous bar owner, symbolize old times. Multiple interviewees see less conservative Kapeneze who are skeptical about the neighborhood transformation. With multiple informal small talks, this creates the impression of more liberal-progressive minds attending Norge. The third group consists of ethnically more diverse people in their 20s-30s, most born in Katendrecht. Many belong to the Antillean and Surinamese communities and expressed to identify with and feel welcomed by the black owner and the high diversity of attendants’ backgrounds. Experts and the owner underline this by stating that ethnicity does not play a role in the bar. 

Findings suggest that following Hickman (2012), the importance of Café Norge varies among attendants. Gentrifier interviewees visit one to three times a month, enjoying the diversity and getting outside of their bubble. In contrast, Kapeneze attend several times per week, viewing Norge as home, a symbol of old times, and a safe space, states the former long-year owner. One interviewee noted the absence of elderly Muslims, attributing it to the exclusionary effect of alcohol. Observations (author’s own, June 1, 7, and 21) revealed a slight male dominance in the bar; however, attendance varies with organized events: soccer events attracted more males, while a migrant advocacy event drew more women and children. Experts highlighted the risk of reducing diversity through activities that cater to specific identities or characteristics. 

Two residents observed that economically inactive individuals, such as pensioners, attend third places more often, while women with children attend less due to gendered roles and care duties.      

These dynamics influence diversity, suggesting that third places serve specific groups while excluding others from social interactions and their outcomes. 

This challenges Szreter and Woolcock’s (2004) assumptions about the universal benefits of bridging capital creation, especially regarding the lowest income, since the economic barrier is a more disputed factor in Café Norge. Most see it as inevitable and reasonable for a bar and not as a decision criterion. Others see an excluding effect for the lowest-income since attending cafés is generally costly, and poverty levels in Rotterdam are high. However, several interviewees and observations suggest that much interaction happens in Norge without or with little consumption, aligning with one gentrifier’s perception that Norge “feels more like a community place than a café” (Pieter, gentrifier, personal interview). Interviewees mentioned that they often pass by for small talk, supported by observations (author’s own, June 5, 9, and 21): Kids play around, use the washroom, and people use the outside area to hang out. When soccer games are shown, there are multiple people without consuming.      

The owner emphasizes his efforts to adapt to his client’s wishes regarding the menu and music to ensure a pleasant experience, supported by observation (author’s own, June, 9). The latter revealed a differentiated consumption pattern: Kapeneze consume coffee or the cheapest beer, while gentrifiers prefer higher-priced wines. The adaptation to gentrifiers’ demands might risk reaching the tipping point Doucet and Ernst (2014) described, where positive bridging interactions are threatened when gentrifiers start to dominate the place.     

Findings reveal that most attendants live nearby, indicating that Norge serves the local community. One regular explicitly highlighted the importance of comfort regarding the accessibility of third places, an aspect being only a side note in the literature. 

4.3. Social interactions at Café Norge and its facilitators  

The bar has distinct temporal patterns in atmosphere and usage; during the day, it is Café-like, with clients mostly sitting and conversing in a relaxed atmosphere. Norge is open until late at night, with music, party guests, and increasing alcohol consumption. Therefore, it serves different clients at different times, with the younger attending primarily in the late evening and for specific events such as watching soccer or Salsa dancing, while elderly gentrifiers tend to come during the day, which raises the question of temporal segregation since the two barely encounter despite attending the same place. 

Conversation is the main activity, and interaction is perceived as low-key and easy to join for outsiders. Barkeepers and guests mention that the large bar facilitates interaction since every attendant comes to the bar to order, where often a conversation with multiple persons occurs. Some see talking to other people as part of the nature of cafés and diversity in backgrounds as an incentive to exchange. Talks in Norge consist mostly of small talk like the weather, conversations about children, Katendrecht’s new developments, the old times, or where people come from. The owner and the barkeepers perceive a great relationship between gentrifiers and long-term residents in Norge, expressed in symbolic actions like giving a round of drinks. Despite an overall positive attitude between different groups in Norge, there is disagreement about the degree and profoundness of interaction. Most perceive superficial small talk, but a few interviewees representing different groups see deeper interactions and emphasize their bridging connections established in Norge. One barkeeper believes that Norge incentivizes positive interaction between both groups:

“The old and the new are coming. They will talk to each other, laugh with each other, and have conversations. So there was almost hate between the two groups or like the old group against the new group. I think that will disappear a little bit or will fade. So I think that’s the biggest thing that is going on here in the Café” (Lisa, barkeeper, personal interview). 

However, despite recognizing the diversity in guests, some expressed skepticism about the extent of heterogeneous interaction within Norge, even suggesting tensions and subtle negative feelings. One barkeeper feels that some gentrifiers look at the long-term residents “a little bit with a side eye”(Lisa, barkeeper, personal interview); one interviewee sees mutual prejudices, but, she perceives more hostility from low-income residents toward gentrifiers: 

“They’re very suspicious, who are you? Go away, we don’t need it. We are the Yuppies, we are the millionaires, and they have all sorts of negative thoughts about why we are here, and we are taking their place away”(Elisabeth, expert, personal interview). 

Multiple interviewees underlined the importance of events in facilitating heterogeneous interactions by attracting diverse attendants and providing a common interest to engage independent of the background. One person describes the atmosphere when the local soccer club plays: 

“There are the artists, the professor, the millionaire, and the people that were born here. Black, white, everybody […] and they clap each other on the shoulder” (Elisabeth, expert, personal interview). 

The common interest and activity match the literature (Peterson 2017), but the findings indicate nuances in the sense that for multiple interviewees, the activity should be in the background; for instance, having a drink can be sufficient, and a more profound interest develops through chatting. Multiple interviewees believe that alcohol lowers the barrier to interaction and makes people more talkative. However, since alcohol was mentioned as an excluding factor before, it has an ambivalent role. Contrasting Wise (2009), residents of all backgrounds perceive commonalities such as ethnicity, age, or gender as irrelevant for developing bridging connections. Experts highlighted the importance of repetitive encounters over time to form bridging capital, which coincides with a gentrifier seeing more bridging connections among his friends who have lived in Katendrecht for a few years.      

All interviewees believe certain persons facilitate heterogeneous interaction within Norge.

Regulars provide familiar faces, fostering a pleasant feeling of belonging and social safety even without verbal interaction. A gentrifier perceives 10-15 regulars of diverse backgrounds, some actively looking to engage with newcomers. One barkeeper added the nuance that being a familiar face does not necessarily equal being open since some of the elderly regulars are less talkative. Others highlight that willingness to socialize differs individually, regardless of class. Many interviewees proudly highlighted the outstanding social character of Rotterdam’s residents, particularly in Katendrecht, making connecting easier.     

All interviewees identify Norge’s owner as the key figure, having good relations with Katendrecht’s diverse groups like no one else. Growing up as a working-class child of migrants and now a business owner, he symbolizes identification for the younger, diverse residents. Elderly Kapeneze knew his parents and watched him grow up. Gentrifiers value his openness to socialize, humbleness, and hospitality. All perceive him as the active driver of across-group events in Norge. He sees his role in telling the neighborhood’s story and connecting people. This vital role of the host contrasts with Oldenburg’s (1989) third-place concept, which downplays the host’s relevance. However, experts emphasized the reliance on social brokers linking groups in Katendrecht for bridging capital creation, aligning with newer literature highlighting the importance of hosts as social brokers (Peterson 2017). 

Some skeptical voices appreciate pleasant chats with Norge’s owner but perceive limited intentional facilitation of connections. Observations (author’s own, May 27; June 2 and 5) revealed that the owner encourages conversations at the bar by involving those nearby; however, these interactions remain superficial, with no clear networking efforts.

Experts emphasized the importance of consistency, outreach, and proactive engagement for community building and stable bridging connections. Norge offers consistency but is not a social organization targeting proactive community work, and encounters rely more on coincidence. Moreover, experts point out the limited impact of bridging efforts compared to the massive influx of gentrifiers in Katendrecht.

4.4. Bridging capital creation within Norge  

Experts emphasize the blurry boundaries between the benefits of bridging capital and its facilitators. Trust and respect across differences arise from heterogeneous interactions and are considered bridging capital. Nevertheless, they also serve as foundations for further benefits, like individual access to resources.

All interviewees unanimously agreed on increased social cohesion as an outcome of bridging connections measured by increased trust, respect, and mutual tolerance between neighbors of different backgrounds, also expressed in strengthened empathy: 

“you say onbekeend maakt onbemind in Dutch, if you know each other, you feel more for each other” (Raul, expert, personal interview).

Social cohesion is further measured by asking about the sense of belonging and civic participation. All interviewees mentioned the outstanding importance of bridging for their sense of belonging and feeling of social safety, some describing Norge as a social anchor point. Matching Savage, Longhurst, and Bagnall’s (2010) concept of elective belonging, gentrifiers systematically attend third places and seek heterogeneous interaction to integrate and achieve a feeling of belonging, “it was mostly the idea of getting there, the Wijk, the Neighborhood. The social feeling that you belong to a bigger part or belong to a place” (Dimitros, gentrifier, personal interview).

Some interviewees see increased civic participation arising from bridging since it helps to find a common goal, like a clean and safe neighborhood. Many interviewees volunteered in some neighborhood organizations; two gentrifiers claimed to be the more proactive group. They highlighted the monthly neighborhood drinks at Café Norge for emerging civic action, underlined by one barkeeper’s statement: 

“Many people are saying, we want to do something for the neighborhood here. What can we do? What can we organize? How can we help? I think because they’re in this place, their eyes will be opened a bit, and they all think about what can we do” (Lisa, barkeeper, personal interview).

Asked about individual access to intangible resources through bridging connections, multiple interviewees highlighted emotional support. Bridging reduces loneliness, especially for the elderly, as mentioned multiple times. Norge’s owner states: 

“I have lots of people that are very lonely. And then they have a daily routine. They go to work, come back home, eat, and then come to the bar, have a drink, and chat. Then, the days are fulfilled, and they can go home, and they have conversations that they normally don’t have” (Hendrik, barkeeper, personal interview).

Gentrifier Emma, however, explicitly claimed to have received no emotional support through the bridging connections she made in Norge due to their superficiality.

Regarding tangible resources, access to information is agreed on, while access to concrete resources and goods such as job or education opportunities is more disputed; most interviewees see it as possible but unlikely since it requires more organization and repetitive encounters over time, which aligns with the literature (Peterson 2017; Wise 2009). However, interviewees provided some examples of concrete, tangible resources, such as gentrifiers assisting long-term residents with accessing social protection or municipal funds for neighborhood civic action. The mentioned examples indicate a pattern where the long-term residents profit from access to information, guidance, or assistance that can lead to concrete material benefits. Gentrifiers, meanwhile, learn from different life realities and gain information to strengthen their sense of belonging, such as information on places to go. 

The next chapter concludes with the key findings and highlights potential research gaps.

5. Conclusion
This study demonstrated how state-led gentrification created a segregated population with limited social interaction in Katendrecht, extending to third places. Providing a socially mixed setting, Café Norge stands out as a positive exception, facilitating diverse interactions and the formation of bridging capital. This consists mainly of increased bridging cohesion and individuals accessing intangible resources. As a bar, interactions are primarily casual and less structured, constraining the development of more tangible bridging capital that remains limited. 

The insights enrich the academic debates by adding critical nuances, particularly by examining third place and bridging capital dynamics within the context of gentrification, such as differences in the type of social capital accessed by gentrifiers versus long-term residents. However, this study also underscores the need for further research into:
• Temporal segregation patterns in third places.
• The diversity within long-term residents and gentrifiers and their specific third-place behaviors.
• How increased bridging cohesion and intangible benefits might translate into tangible benefits.

The findings hold significant implications in the context of public sociology. By highlighting the potential of third places like Café Norge to foster bridging social capital, this research underscores the importance of inclusive places in addressing inequality and social fragmentation. However, the study also reveals the limitations and fragility of such spaces, particularly in the face of gentrification-driven segregation.

This has implications for policymakers and community actors aiming to promote bridging social capital in diverse neighborhoods. Given their potential, policymakers should support inclusive third places, for instance, by subsidizing them when gentrification threatens them, through grants, reduced rents, or tax incentives. Other interventions could promote community ownership of these spaces to reduce the dependence on individual initiatives. Supporting structured and repetitive interactions may enhance reciprocal support and increase bridging capital creation; examples are workshops, cultural exchange events, or skill-sharing sessions that encourage across-group collaboration. Recognizing the critical role of individuals like Café Norge’s owner, policymakers should consider providing training and resources to social brokers who facilitate cross-group interactions. This could include networking opportunities, funding for community events, or platforms to share best practices. On a broader scale, municipal planning should prioritize mixed-use public spaces that attract diverse residents. This might include creating an attractive community center, as some interviewees demanded.

Implementing these recommendations would create an environment for third places to thrive as arenas for meaningful and beneficial interaction, counteracting social fragmentation caused by gentrification and promoting more equitable urban development.

As cities continue to evolve, this research calls for a renewed focus on the role of third places as arenas for meaningful and beneficial interaction, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions to ensure their accessibility and inclusivity. In doing so, this study illustrates how sociological insights can contribute to discussions on equitable urban development and ultimately, contribute to the public good.

Acknowledgments 

This paper was developed from my master’s thesis at the IHS, Erasmus University Rotterdam. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the residents of Katendrecht, who generously shared their stories and contributed to my understanding of the neighborhood. My thanks also go to the hosts of the third places I explored, whose openness and support greatly facilitated my research. I am especially grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Bahar Sakizlioglu, for her invaluable guidance, constructive feedback, and encouragement throughout this process, including her support in elaborating this publication. I am thankful for the support of my friends and family, whose encouragement has been a constant source of strength. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the Berkeley Journal of Sociology for the opportunity to publish this work and to the peer reviewers for their invaluable feedback.

References 

Arısoy, Alp, and Nurbin Paker. 2019. “Bridging and Bonding Social Capital in Gentrifying Neighborhoods: ‘Yeldeğirmeni District in Istanbul.'” A/Z: ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture 16(2):39–54. doi:10.5505/itujfa.2019.67944.

Arkins, Madeline C., and Bonnie E. French. 2024. “Demolition, Division and Displacement: Examining the Preservation of Whiteness in Rotterdam Municipal Housing Policy.” Critical Sociology 50(1):107–24. doi:10.1177/08969205231176837.

Atkinson, Rowland, and Keith Kintrea. 2000. “Owner-Occupation, Social Mix and Neighbourhood Impacts.” Policy & Politics 28(1):93–108. doi:10.1332/0305573002500857.

Audunson, Ragnar. 2005. “The Public Library as a Meeting-Place in a Multicultural and Digital Context: The Necessity of Low-Intensive Meeting-Places.” Journal of Documentation 61(3):429–441. doi:10.1108/00220410510598562.

Blokland, Talja, and Noordhoff, Frank. 2008. “The Weakness of Weak Ties: Social Capital to Get Ahead among the Urban Poor in Rotterdam and Amsterdam.” Pp. 105–126 in Networked Urbanism: Social Capital in the City. Routledge

Bolt, Gideon, and Ronald Van Kempen. 2013. “Introduction Special Issue: Mixing Neighbourhoods: Success or Failure?” Cities 35:391–396. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.006.

Casey, Dympna, and Kathy Murphy. 2009. “Issues in Using Methodological Triangulation in Research: Dympna Casey and Kathy Murphy Explore the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Triangulation.” Nurse Researcher 16(4):40–55. doi:10.7748/nr2009.07.16.4.40.c7160.

Chaskin, Robert J., and Mark L. Joseph. 2013. “‘Positive’ Gentrification, Social Control and the ‘Right to the City’ in Mixed-Income Communities: Uses and Expectations of Space and Place.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(2):480–502. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01158.x.

Custers, Gijs, and Godfried Engbersen. 2022. “Linking Social Capital and Organizational Ties: How Different Types of Neighborhood Organizations Broker Resources for the Urban Poor.” Journal of Urban Affairs 1–17. doi:10.1080/07352166.2022.2137032.

Dekker, Karien, and Gideon Bolt. 2005. “Social Cohesion in Post-War Estates in the Netherlands: Differences between Socioeconomic and Ethnic Groups.” Urban Studies 42(13):2447–2470. doi:10.1080/00420980500380360.

Doucet, Brian, and Daphne Koenders. 2018. “‘At Least It’s Not a Ghetto Anymore’: Experiencing Gentrification and ‘False Choice Urbanism’ in Rotterdam’s Afrikaanderwijk.” Urban Studies 55(16):3631–49. doi:10.1177/0042098018761853.

Ernst, Olaf, and Brian Doucet. 2014. “A Window on the (Changing) Neighbourhood: The Role of Pubs in the Contested Spaces of Gentrification.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 105(2):189–205. doi:10.1111/tesg.12071.

Flick, Uwe. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the ’Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Gemeente Rotterdam. 2023. “Onderzoek010.”

Gemeente Rotterdam. 2024. Wijkprofil Katendrecht.

Goodchild, Barry, and Ian Cole. 2001. “Social Balance and Mixed Neighbourhoods in Britain since 1979: A Review of Discourse and Practice in Social Housing.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19(1):103–121. doi:10.1068/d39j.

Goode, Amy, and Stephanie Anderson. 2015. “It’s Like Somebody Else’s Pub: Understanding Conflict in Third Place.” Advances in Consumer Research 43:346–361.

Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78:1360–1380.

Halstead, John M., Steven C. Deller, and Kevin M. Leyden. 2022. “Social Capital and Community Development: Where Do We Go from Here?” Community Development 53(1):92–108. doi:10.1080/15575330.2021.1943696.

Hickman, Paul. 2013. “‘Third Places’ and Social Interaction in Deprived Neighbourhoods in Great Britain.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 28(2):221–236. doi:10.1007/s10901-012-9306-5.

Karsten, Lia, Annabel Kamphuis, and Corien Remeijnse. 2015. “‘Time-Out’ with the Family: The Shaping of Family Leisure in the New Urban Consumption Spaces of Cafes, Bars and Restaurants.” Leisure Studies 34(2):166–181. doi:10.1080/02614367.2013.845241.

Kearns, Robin. 2016. “Placing Observation in the Research Toolkit.” Pp. 313–333 in Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, edited by I. Hay. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin K. Wyly, eds. 2010. The Gentrification Reader. London: Routledge.

Ley, David. 2001. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. Reprint ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oldenburg, Ray. 2023. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Berkshire ed. Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group LLC.

Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Short, John R. 1989. “Yuppies, Yuffies and the New Urban Order.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 14(2):173–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/622811.

Spradley, James P. 2016. The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Stouten, Paul. 2017. “Gentrification and Urban Design in the Urban Fabric of Rotterdam.” Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 11(1):92–103.

Stovel, Katherine, and Lynn Shaw. 2012. “Brokerage.” Annual Review of Sociology 38(1):139–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150054.

Szreter, Simon, and Michael Woolcock. 2004. “Health by Association? Social Capital, Social Theory, and the Political Economy of Public Health.” International Journal of Epidemiology 33(4):650–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013.

Uitermark, Justus, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Reinout Kleinhans. 2007. “Gentrification as a Governmental Strategy: Social Control and Social Cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 39(1):125–41. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39142.

Van Eijk, Gwen. 2010. Unequal Networks: Spatial Segregation, Relationships and Inequality in the City. Delft: Delft University Press.

Verloo, Nanke. 2020. “Urban Ethnography and Participant Observations: Studying the City from Within.” Pp. 37–55 in Seeing the City, edited by N. Verloo and L. Bertolini. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Williams, Sonja A., and John R. Hipp. 2019. “How Great and How Good?: Third Places, Neighbor Interaction, and Cohesion in the Neighborhood Context.” Social Science Research 77:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.10.008.

Wise, Amanda. 2009. “Everyday Multiculturalism: Transversal Crossings and Working-Class Cosmopolitans.” Pp. 21–45 in Everyday Multiculturalism, edited by A. Wise and S. Velayutham. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yin, Robert K. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Yuen, Frances, and Andrew J. Johnson. 2017. “Leisure Spaces, Community, and Third Places.” Leisure Sciences 39(3):295–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2016.1165638.

---