Changing public space

also because architect Geuze had just received the prestigious architecture price Prix de Rome
(Brummel, 1999). He did not propose to construct ‘walls’ to get an intimate atmosphere, but
advocated the emptiness of the square.
But again, it remained silent for another two years. The urban development department
published a new policy document on the city centre (Binnenstad Rotterdam), which again
emphasised the municipality’s desire to create a cultural cluster near the Schouwburgplein (dS+V
et al., 1993). The new cinema would reinforce this development. Nevertheless, alderman Linthorst
still had his doubts (Moscoviter, 1997). He preferred to reduce the size of the square in contrast
to Geuze’s plans that advocated emptiness. However, during meetings with residents and other
stakeholders he realised that a majority of people supported Geuze’s plan. After Linthorst signed
the agreement with cinema company Cannon (now named Pathé), Geuze was appointed to
design the Schouwburgplein in more detail. His post-modern design included a cinema at the
corner of the square (designed by architect Van Velsen), and a 35 centimetres elevated square floor
to create a city stage. The design was inspired by the city’s maritime past, visualised by four red
35-metre-high light poles shaped like hoisting cranes (Figure 6.2), along with robust 70-metrelong
wooden benches. This fits within the notion of urban entrepreneurialism, in which reference
making to the industrial and working-class heritage of an area is often applied in redevelopment
processes. Three rounds of budget cuts slowed down the construction process. In addition, the
garage’s roof partly collapsed during the construction activities. Moreover, the epoxy layer on
top of the roof appeared to be applied in the wrong season, and consequently the floor became
too slippery and needed to be removed (Brummel, 1999). The redeveloped Schouwburgplein was
finally opened in June 1997.
The result has received both acclaim and criticism. The square is praised in a number of
architectural publications (e.g., Veenendaal, 2003; Maier-Solgk & Greuter, 2004). They generally
applaud the variety of materials used in the surface, from planking for ballgames and a rubber
track for rollerblading to metal grids with fountains. Others describe the Schouwburgplein as an
urban desert, not adapted to human beings (Hulsman, 1997). The criticism focuses on the high
costs and use of certain materials (i.e., too much design, impractical, antisocial). According to
Moscoviter, the criticism can be explained by the multiple aims of the redevelopment: “That dual
application of functionality and aesthetics has become both the carrier of the plans, the challenge
of the Schouwburgplein as well as its undermining factor …” (Moscoviter, 1997: 13, translation
from Dutch by the author). The users of public spaces in Rotterdam expressed similar feelings of
discontent. Van Aalst and Ennen (2002) carried out a survey in five public spaces in Rotterdam:
the Westersingel, Museumpark, Schouwburgplein, Beurstraverse and Westblaak. Compared to
the other locations, the Schouwburgplein scored badly: 37 per cent of the respondents did not
regard the square as an intimate location, 40 per cent did not feel invited, and 36 per cent disliked
its design (Van Aalst & Ennen, 2002: 32). In addition, 43 per cent did not feel at home and 35 per
cent did not like spending time there. However, the research also indicated that more than half
of the respondents (65%) regarded the Schouwburgplein as a typical Rotterdam space.
6.2.3 Beurstraverse
The retail complex called the Beurstraverse (‘Exchange passage’) was opened in 1996. It was
intended to strengthen the city centre’s retail function by helping it compete with new shopping
centres at the city’s edge such as Zuidplein, Oosterhof, and Alexandrium (dS+V et al., 1993; Van
Aalst & Ennen, 2002). The problem was that there was no room in the city centre to expand
108