Urban spaces shaped by migration are subject of recurrent public and scientific interest. In recent times, urban and migration scholars have tried to shift the focus away from negative „context effects“ or the integrating „ethnic colony“ and instead picked up the notion of “arrival neighbourhoods”, a conception influenced by the book “Arrival City” by the journalist Doug Saunders which focuses on the access to resources such urban spaces offer. The interdisciplinary workshop critically discussed the potential of this conception for the analysis of urban spaces of migration and its value for a historical perspective on such neighbourhoods. The contributions addressed case studies in Northern European cities between the late 19th and the early 21st century.
Organiser DAVID TEMPLIN (Osnabrück) gave a short introduction of the “arrival neighbourhood” concept and its possibilities, especially regarding an interdisciplinary approach that was visible in the diverse academic backgrounds of the attendees. He then proposed three key questions for the workshop. First, the analytical benefits of the conception were addressed: How can “arrival” be understood, is this a new approach or only a renewed take on older thoughts about integration and segregation? The second question asked for the historicity and trajectories of arrival neighbourhoods. Until now, no comprehensive or comparative studies on the history of such neighbourhoods in European cities exist, only case studies address phenomena such as the Berlin Scheunenviertel or “Chinatowns” in port cities. Beginning to fill this gap should be one task of the workshop. The last key question centred around the importance of discursive constructions of urban spaces, with regard to historical images and perceptions as well as in a self-reflexive way, discussing the role of the historian writing about arrival neighbourhoods.
In her keynote, geographer HEIKE HANHÖRSTER (Dortmund) marked the importance of a clearer definition of the term „arrival“ and what is understood as an “arrival neighbourhood”. While she defined arrival as access to resources, she named a high proportion of people from abroad, a high proportion of foreigners and a high fluctuation of residents as key indicators for a classification of an arrival neighbourhood. Hanhörster distinguished three types of arrival neighbourhoods: established ones in inner city areas with a long tradition of migration, newly emerging arrival spaces, often in housing estates with many asylum seekers, and neighbourhoods of highly qualified immigrants. To compare variations in the structure of such neighbourhoods, she proposed three dimensions: contextual, compositional, and collective factors. The following discussion revolved around questions regarding the concept of „arrival“ and its relation to the concept of “integration”, the character of the neighbourhoods as dynamic or stable and typologies based on locations in the city or the social status of newcomers.
In the first session, GARBI SCHMIDT (Roskilde) spoke on a longue durée perspective on arrival in the neighbourhood of Nørrebro in Copenhagen. Using a diverse set of historical and ethnographic methods, she looked at the impact of migration on Nørrebro, which today is described as a „multicultural“ neighbourhood. She gave an overview of different groups of newcomers, from internal migrants from the countryside to newcomers from neighbouring Scandinavian countries and focused on the change of perception of people as migrants in public narratives over time. In a short comparison with the neighbouring quarter of Østebro, which also functioned as an arrival space but was not publicly discussed as one, she showed the importance of such narratives in defining a specific area. The presentation concluded with the notion that scholars should have an open eye for diversity in the neighbourhoods they are studying and not think of them as monolithic entities. In the following discussion, questions concerning the combination of methods and the classification of people as migrants were addressed.
DAVID TEMPLIN (Osnabrück) gave insights into his ongoing research project on arrival neighbourhoods in Hamburg during the two periods of 1890-1923 and 1960-1985. While he pointed to differences in the historical context regarding the urban structure and the migration processes in the two periods, he also stressed continuities with regard to the location of arrival spaces in the metropolitan area as well as the emergence and function of specific arrival infrastructures. Quarters in the inner city as well as peripheral ones in industrial areas served in both periods as urban arrival spaces. Asking for the causes of the emergence of arrival neighbourhoods, Templin stressed the importance of industries and job opportunities as well as the role of the housing market and dynamics of urban development. In the discussion, the question of why specific areas re-emerge as arrival neighbourhoods in different periods was further discussed.
Session 2 focused on specific groups of “foreign” migrants and the contestation of urban spaces associated with them in the first half of the 20th century. HANNAH EWENCE (Chester) talked about Jewish migration and the East End of London, focusing on the imagination and narrative production of an urban space by British social commentators. The East End has historically been viewed as a terra incognita and was the target of “othering” discourses, resulting in an image as a “Hebrew Colony“ and “ghetto” described as distinctly different from the rest of London. Ewence pointed to the contemporary view of the East End as an outpost of the “Far East“ in the „West“. She drew comparisons with colonial discourses and stressed the importance of class as a category in public discourses on stigmatised urban spaces. With a view at specific spaces inside the neighbourhood such as synagogues and sweatshops, she also painted a more complex picture of such discourses. The following discussion focused on the interconnection of spatial and racial identities and the class aspects of arrival.
MARINA CHERNYKH (Freiburg) examined the networks and public appearance of Russian emigrés in Berlin during the National Socialist regime from 1933 to 1945. While most Russians had left Berlin by the end of the 1920s, some stayed, especially in the neighbourhoods of Charlottenburg and Schöneberg. Around 40 Russian organisations still existed in the 1930s and organised concerts, literature events but also political activities. Although a good part of the political groups actively supported the Nazi regime on the ground of a shared anti-communism and antisemitism, all of them eventually became illegal. During the 1930s though, the public discourse about the “Russian Berlin” and cultural facets of Russian migration was dominated by fascination and interest; in the upper classes, it even became fashionable to attend Russian events. In the discussion, it became clear that most of the Russian migrants kept a perspective towards returning to Russia eventually and when it turned out that this was unlikely, many moved on to other countries.
Session 3 began with HÅKAN FORSELL (Stockholm/Berlin) who gave an insight into his comparative work on districts of two Scandinavian capitals, Grønland in Oslo, and Klara in Stockholm. He explained his “morphological” approach on both quarters and described them as similar in their location close to the central station as well as their historical role as arrival quarters, but very different in their trajectories during the mid- to late 20th century: While Grønland is still shaped by migration (as well as gentrification) today, Klara went through a process of urban renewal in the 1970s and was transformed into an inner-city business district. Forsell offered four main factors for an explanation of the diverging trajectories of the districts: the displacement of city centres; functions and reputations of the neighbourhoods; different approaches towards urban planning; and the post-war economies in Sweden and Norway. In the following discussion, Forsell explained his use of the term “quarter” as a concept primarily related to an urban space instead of “neighbourhood” which implies a socially constructed community.
The fourth and final session originally consisted of two talks on arrival spaces in peripheral areas, but Nihad El-Kayed (Berlin) unfortunately could not attend the workshop, so JENS GRÜNDLER (Münster) was the only contributor. He presented his study on housing and migration in rural Westphalia during the 1970s and 1980s, focussing on “Dammanns Hof” as a housing estate in the small town of Harsewinkel. Gründler described the different stages the estate went through, from its original use as housing for British troops located in the city, over accommodation of refugees and “guest workers” from Turkey, to the influx of German welfare recipients and repatriates from the Soviet Union (“Spätaussiedler“) at the end of the 1980s. By emphasising the role of discourses around reputation and the public fear of a “ghetto” in the town, Gründler pointed to similarities with arrival neighbourhoods in large cities. Arrival infrastructures also existed in small towns such as Harsewinkel but were less developed. In the discussion, Gründler and other participants questioned whether housing estates such as “Dammanns Hof” could be classified as an “arrival neighbourhood” while others argued for a broader approach and emphasised the heterogeneity of urban arrival spaces.
The workshop ended with a final comment by CHRISTIANE REINECKE (Leipzig) and a discussion of the main results. Reinecke emphasised the importance of the stories and narratives on arrival neighbourhoods scholars develop in their research, warning of a reproduction of “classic” stories of arrival. By reflecting on the creation of „problem areas“ in public discourse, Reinecke referred to a remark by Hanhörster in her keynote who had described Saunders‘ concept as a “counter-narrative” to a still dominant problem-focused view on migration to cities. She asked for migrants´ (social) mobility and infrastructures beyond specific quarters but also a connection of stories on urban spaces with stories of the people. In the discussion, it was therefore suggested also to look at people leaving these neighbourhoods and question if their moves can be viewed as part of an upward social mobility. To avoid a narrow view on migration as always being connected to economic hardships, future research should also consider areas populated by highly skilled or wealthy groups as spaces of arrival.
During two days of contributions and discussions, the participants exchanged a number of thoughts regarding the scholarly value of the arrival neighbourhood concept. Even if the concept was described as a bit “fuzzy”, leaving it as an open question where an arrival neighbourhood begins and where it ends, the contributions showed the productivity of its reflection with regard to historical cases. A broader perspective on the historical heterogeneity of urban arrival spaces was perceived as a strength, questioning previous assumptions and popular images as well as contributing to a reformulation of the concept. Nearly all contributions pointed to discourses surrounding arrival neighbourhoods. The interlinkage of narratives about urban arrival spaces and the emergence and transformation of such areas was a central recurring topic and should be considered in future research. Whether we can classify urban areas of migration without a pronounced arrival infrastructure as “arrival neighbourhoods” was subject of a controversial debate. Aspects which the workshop could only touch on were internal migration and possible differences regarding urban arrival based on the categorization of migrants as well as a broader geographical scope including cities outside of central Europe.
Conference overview:
David Templin (Osnabrück): Introduction
Keynote
Chair: Sebastian Haumann (Darmstadt)
Heike Hanhörster (Dortmund): The concept of „arrival neighbourhoods”. Emergence
and functions for urban integration and resource access
Session 1: Arrival neighbourhoods in a longer perspective
Chair: Antonie Schmiz (Berlin)
Garbi Schmidt (Roskilde): A longue durée perspective on arrival neighbourhoods. Lessons learned from the neighbourhood of Nørrebro in Copenhagen
David Templin (Osnabrück): Arrival neighbourhoods in Hamburg in two periods of migration: 1890-1923 and 1960-1985
Session 2: Contested spaces of „foreigners” in the first half of the 20th century
Chair: Jens Schneider (Osnabrück)
Hannah Ewence (Chester): „A foreign town“. Space and scale, immigrant Jews and London´s East End
Marina Chernykh (Freiburg): „Russian Berlin“ under the National Socialist regime 1933-1945. Public spaces – identities – conflict
Session 3: Arrival spaces in times of crisis, war and welfare policies
Chair: Marcel Berlinghoff (Osnabrück)
Håkan Forsell (Stockholm/Berlin): Arrival quarters in Oslo & Stockholm. The fate of „transit zones” in welfare state societies, 1920-1960
Session 4: Arrival spaces in peripheral areas since the 1970s
Chair: Sophie Hinger (Osnabrück)
Jens Gründler (Münster): Arrival neighbourhoods in rural areas during the 1970s and 1980s: A case study from Westphalia
Final Discussion
Chair: David Templin (Osnabrück)
Christiane Reinecke (Leipzig): Closing remarks