INTRODUCTION
Amsterdam’s Red Light District (RLD) in Den Wallen has long been an iconic yet controversial part of the city’s landscape. Known mainly for its scenic canals, LED-lit windows and night life, the area attracts millions of tourists yearly. In recent years, however, heated debates have grown over the overtourism, crime and the increasing exploitation of sex workers. As a solution, the Mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, has proposed moving the Red Light District to a designated “Erotic Center” in Europaboulevard, outside the city center.
This proposal has not been popular with many of the stakeholders involved so far. With opposition from sex workers, local business owners and local residents, this proposed move has resulted in a fairly controversial discussion. While policymakers insist that this relocation will improve safety conditions within the industry and the city overall and improve livability for Den Wallen residents, locals argue that it could weaken safety precautions, disrupt livelihoods, and erase what is considered an integral part of Amsterdam’s cultural fabric.
Is this “Erotic Center” the end-all to Amsterdam’s problems? Or is it simply a misguided intervention that prioritises image over impact?
SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
Amsterdam is regarded as a “city of sin”, mainly due to its historic liberal views on controversial issues such as prostitution and drug use, and nowadays for these characteristics being a selling point for short drunken trips. Drunk and stoned visitors stumble along the streets, goggling into the lit up windows and around the sex-themed shops and other attractions. The bottom line being that Amsterdam officials and Den Wallen locals are tired of their city being characterised by this type of tourism.
The area faces several problems, for instance:
- Overcrowding and mass tourism: The district attracts millions of tourists yearly, leading to high noise pollution, rubbish on the streets and public intoxication.
- Organised crime and human trafficking: Despite its legalisation, there is still concerns that authorities are not able to effectively regulate sex work, and there are many cases of forced prostitution, exploitation and money laundering.
- Residents’ concerns: Long-term residents in the area have urged for stricter regulations, arguing that the current state of Den Wallen and its reputation is impacting their quality of life.
Thus, their proposed solution is to move the problem area to a purpose-built center that they believe will improve public safety, improve the liveability in the city center and improve the working (and safety) conditions of sex workers. The new location, Europaboulevard, was chosen for its close proximity to public transport, hotels and the A10 ring road.
THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT (AND THEIR CLASH WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS)
The municipal government, led by Femke Halsema, has framed the relocation of the district as a necessary strategy to combat the issues such as overtourism, crime and human trafficking and to create a regulated workspace for the industry. Oppositions, however, argue that these justifications put forward are selective as well as politically motivated, as they emphasise issues like overtourism and crime which are prevalent beyond the Red Light District. These counter arguments have raised the concern that the mayor’s agenda regarding the relocation is more to do with rebranding the city’s image than genuinely improving the working and living conditions.
But how much power does the municipality have? The Amsterdam City Government has the power to decide where in the city sex work is allowed, having complete control over the zoning and licensing regulations. There are, however, institutional constraints that have contributed to the delays. For example, the city must amend zoning laws to designate a new location for the proposed Erotic Center, which requires numerous public consultations and municipal council approval. These bureaucratic hoops to jump through highlight the limits of municipal power. Although Amsterdam City can propose a relocation, the process is contested and legally complex, making it extremely slow.
Additionally, whilst the local government has held consultations and information sessions, they have been said to be superficial. Various opposing stakeholders have criticised the planning process thus far as being top-down governance rather than as participatory as it has claimed to be. When speaking to a long-term resident in the neighbourhood of the proposed new location, who has taken a very active role in voicing her opinion against the relocation, having signed petitions and attended community meetings, she expressed: “Our overly stupid city government doesn’t seem to care and pushes it through regardless of any and all opposition”. It, therefore, has taken on the characteristics of a technocratic approach rather than a communicative process.
This has not helped change the general opinion that the true motive behind this move is the opportunity for tourism rebranding as Amsterdam attempts to move away from its reputation as a “city of sin”.
CONCLUSION
The relocation of Amsterdam’s Red Light District is a highly complex issue, as different stakeholder opinions collide. While the city frames it as a solution, the top-down decision making has been met with much resistance. Without adaptive governance and the meaningful inclusion of different stakeholder opinions, the city runs the risk of ultimately relocating the problems, rather than solving them. Thus, if the governance does not become more inclusive, relocating the Red Light District will be remembered not as a solution, but as a displacement of the very issue it aimed to fix.