Rejoinder to Justus Uitermark

A recent change in attitude of politicians and officials in Amsterdam towards artists who use squatted workspaces does not entail co-optation of squatters as providers of cultural services. The municipal Breeding Places Amsterdam (BPA) project is a continuation of the long-standing tendency to legalize squats, but now motivated in terms of the artists' function for the city. There are no indications that recent legalizations have an effect that is different from earlier legalizations. They did not cause the squatters' movement to shift from waging a housing struggle towards creative expression, nor did they affect the core business of the movement: squatting. Internal conflicts, the use of legal procedure instead of political arguments and highly differentiated outcomes for individual squatters are not specific to the recent era of squatting. Some squatters are now trying to play their cards in a way that is compatible with the hype of the creative city. This illustrates the resilience of the prevailing pattern of ‘flexible institionalization’. Flexibility and diversity may well be characteristics that have enabled the squatters' movement to survive under increasingly adverse conditions