At the end of the Middle Ages, Rotterdam was a relatively modest town. However, with the separation of the Northern Netherlands and the emergence of the Dutch Republic, urban development along the Maas River experienced a significant upsurge. Rotterdam benefited from the blockade of the Scheldt during the civil war in the Netherlands. As emerging Amsterdam joined the northern capitalism scene later, Rotterdam had the opportunity to develop into an intriguing port city, playing a significant role in expanding the global commercial network of the Dutch Republic. In 1400, Rotterdam housed a mere 2,500 inhabitants; by the early seventeenth century, this figure had surged to 20,000, and by the late eighteenth century, it exceeded 50,000. This rapid growth inevitably resulted in strains on the housing market. This paper aims to chart this process using spatial data, comparing it with similar phenomena in other cities of the Netherlands, such as Antwerp and Amsterdam, where such developments have already been extensively studied using taxation data based on property rental values, available across various periods.
While these sources have previously been utilized by other historians to delineate the spatial dimensions of inequality, they also carry inherent limitations. It is commonly assumed that they provide a reasonably accurate reflection of the income levels of property owners or tenants. However, these sources tend to underestimate the true extent of inequality within the urban landscape. This is because poorer households are compelled to allocate a more substantial portion of their income towards rental expenses compared to their wealthier counterparts. Poor families indeed required a minimum number of rooms, while there was a limit on the percentage that extremely wealthy families could spend on their accommodation in the city. Moreover, the precision of spatial data presents a challenge. During the early modern period, such data were only accessible at the street level, with the number of streets documented increasing over time. For instance, while tax registers from 1553 list a mere 16 streets, by 1665, this figure had soared to 82, and by 1731, there were records of 155 distinct streets. This escalation underscores the difficulty in accurately gauging urban spatial dynamics solely through historical records.
The examination of social inequality in Rotterdam during the early modern era holds significant interest for two primary reasons. Firstly, the remarkable growth of Rotterdam has been somewhat overshadowed in the historiography of the Dutch Republic, particularly in comparison to the well-documented developments in Amsterdam. Nonetheless, Rotterdam would eventually evolve into one of the world's foremost ports. Thus, this study seeks to address this scholarly gap. Secondly, the spatial patterns observed in Rotterdam diverge from conventional narratives. On a micro level, the Rotterdam pattern shows similarities with other cities in the early modern period, where the wealthy resided along the main roads, while the poor settled in their vicinity in the smaller alleys. However, we also observe a pattern on a macro level. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, affluent households in Rotterdam have been situated near the waterfront since the sixteenth century. This challenges long-standing notions of urban segregation patterns and warrants a reevaluation of existing frameworks.
For a considerable period, historians have predominantly relied upon Sjoberg's model, which posits a stratified urban structure with a small elite occupying central positions, while the less affluent reside on the outskirts. This is referred to as a center-periphery model. However, Lesger and van Leeuwen argue that Vance's model, delineating the transition to capitalist cities in the sixteenth century, offers contradictory results. According to Vance, capitalist dynamics drove spatial segregation processes during the early modern period, with property values primarily dictated by commercial desirability. This model provides a more apt framework for interpreting Rotterdam's urban evolution. Interesting commercial locations in the harbour and along major streets had the highest values.
Comparative analyses with the results for other port cities, such as sixteenth-century Antwerp and seventeenth-century Amsterdam, suggest that Rotterdam's urban dynamics may be less exceptional than previously assumed. In these cities as well, historical evidence suggests a similar phenomenon, with affluent households gravitating towards the old harbors. This was often considered in line with the models of Sjoberg and Vance, but we might need to stress the importance of living in harbour districts during the early modern period. This is remarkable because, in the nineteenth century, waterfront residences became less desirable, prompting the elite to seek housing away from the water's edge. However, during the early modern period, living by the water was considered a mark of privilege.
In conclusion, the study of Rotterdam's urban development during the early modern era offers valuable insights into broader historical trends and challenges conventional narratives of urban segregation. By employing spatial data and revisiting theoretical frameworks, historians can achieve a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics shaping urban landscapes throughout history.