Efforts to improve the neighbourhood: did Rotterdam succeed?

Municipalities regularly undertake urban regenerations hoping to improve the living environment. Rotterdam aims to achieve more and focuses on large-scale urban regeneration. However, the effects of urban regeneration on social sustainability remain debated. Case studies are conducted to identify what the influence of large-scale urban regeneration on social sustainability in Rotterdam is. Hoogvliet (large-scale urban regenerated) and Groot-IJsselmonde (only some small-scale interventions) are compared. Quantitative and qualitative methods are sequentially used to collect the data. The analysis showed that a window of opportunity allowed the large-scale urban regeneration to happen in Hoogvliet. The intervention resulted in, amongst other things, an increase in the socio-economic status. Contrary to the expectations, residents in a large-scale urban regenerated neighbourhood did not seem to value (three dimensions of) social sustainability higher than residents in a neighbourhood that has not been large-scale urban regenerated. Nevertheless, the differences in the mean scores between both neighbourhoods were not significant. An explanation for the difference in scores might be the neighbourhood design. In addition, large-scale urban regeneration was not a significant indicator for any of the investigated dimensions of social sustainability. Meanwhile, the results showed that the future situation is expected to be better by significantly more people in the neighbourhood that has not undergone large-scale regeneration. The influence of large-scale urban regeneration on social sustainability in Rotterdam seems to be minimal. The findings support the dichotomy that urban regeneration has positive and negative effects. More efforts than large-scale urban regeneration seem necessary to make people feel that their needs can be fulfilled in their neighbourhood, now and in the future. It seems to be about more feasible things that residents experience daily, such as the maintenance of the outdoor space and variety in shopping facilities. Therefore, two practical recommendations are made to guarantee social sustainability in the future. The results of this study do need to be nuanced. Other intervening and moderating variables might be in place and relevant to explain the influence of large-scale urban regeneration on social sustainability. The two neighbourhoods are comparable, but not identical. An ideal comparison is impossible. Besides, it is hard to anticipate what would have happened with Hoogvliet if the intervention did not take place. Finally, residents that do not expect the future to be better could expect the situation to remain the same, which is also socially sustainable because demands for now and future generations are fulfilled. One cannot conclude that the neighbourhoods are socially sustainable or not.