Abstract
Many cities in the western world have recovered from the urban crisis after the industrialization period and have become attractive places to live and work. It seems obvious to conclude that the preference for urban living has increased. But is this really the case? The (increased) preference for urban living may also be driven by demographic, socio-economic and socio-cultural changes in the population rather than by a structural change in residential preferences. In depth analysis of the stated residential preferences in Amsterdam in the period 2003–2017 indeed show that residential preferences are quite stable. The analysis does show a small decline in the preference for moving at all: slightly more households in Amsterdam prefer to stay put. This can mainly be explained by the growing owner-occupied sector. When households want to move, their preference for moving to the region is fairly stable. Only families with older children seem to have become more urban orientated. The education level is one of the key variables that explains the stated preference for moving to the region of Amsterdam: the higher educated more often prefer to stay. Their share in the population has increased and this does influence the residential preference at an aggregate level towards a more urban orientation.
Highlights
In scholarly accounts of the contemporary urbanization there is wide agreement that central cities are economically and demographically thriving
Undeniably many central cities across the western world were faced with an urban crisis in the deindustrialization period in the seventies and eighties, most urban regions, much of it
It is true that urban core areas of many cities are witnessing a fast demographic growth, which is caused by the increase of young and higher educated households, and by complex demographic dynamics of for instance older generations of middle classes aging in the city (Hochstenbach and Boterman 2017), middle class families staying in the city (Brun and Fagnani 1994; Karsten 2003; Lilius 2014) and international migration from both the Global North and Global South (Lees et al 2015)
Summary
In scholarly accounts of the contemporary urbanization there is wide agreement that central cities are economically and demographically thriving This is for instance reflected in the work of Glaeser (2011) who heralds the triumph of the city. While it is true that the intra-regional residential dynamics have clearly changed: inner-city areas attract more higher educated and affluent young households and suburban areas are diversifying socially and ethnically (Tzaninis 2016; Hamnett and Butler 2010). While some suburban areas within the region are increasingly absorbing less affluent groups (Hochstenbach and Musterd 2017) and some may even have started to downgrade, most Amsterdam suburbs experience growth and continue to house many middle class, predominantly family households (Tzaninis and Boterman 2018). Many non-native Dutch households have started to suburbanize adding to the complexity of the social geography of the Amsterdam region (De Groot 2004)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
