Changing public space

actors involved in the cases in more depth; it uses the interviews and focus group meetings to
elaborate on the private sector’s perceived preference for retail projects.
A second observation is the absence of events and sidewalk cafés on PPP squares. The
number of events organised on the Loeffplein, Statenplein, and Van Heekplein is fairly limited.
In the Beurstraverse no events are organised at all. There are also no sidewalk cafés at the PPP
squares. The Statenplein is the exception, but the size of its terraces is relatively modest compared
to its total size. Apparently, the private sector does not promote the outdoor consumption of food
and beverages. Bergenhenegouwen’s (2002) research on the Beurstraverse provides a possible
explanation for this finding. One of his informants stated:
Restaurants and cafés of course belong to shopping land. On the first floor you have a
coffee bar, in the C&A is a McDonalds (…). But we have consciously decided to not do
that down in the underpass, because – firstly – one did not desire that mix of shops and
restaurants. That has to do with branding. If you have restaurants, than there is fat and
liquids involved, that’s a completely different world. Secondly, it has been done to avoid
undesired activities at night …. (Bergenhenegouwen, 2002: 146, translation from Dutch
by the author)
The PPP squares thus show low ratings on the themed dimensions except for funshopping.
This does not automatically imply that they can be classified as secured public spaces. Figure 7.5
indicates that that in two out of four PPP squares there is some form of restraints on loitering;
the possibility of closure (Beurstraverse) or the absence of street furniture (Loeffplein). Other
than that, the PPP intensities on secured dimensions are relatively low. Camera surveillance is
not installed, only in the Beurstraverse. In general, the PPP squares are subject to the regular
local ordinance. Only in case of the Beurstraverse and inside the surrounding shopping centres
(i.e., the Drievriendenhof, Arena, and Klanderij) there is supplementary regulation and/or
private security. In short, the involvement of the private sector does not automatically lead to an
abundance of safety measures.
With respect to publicly realised squares, the categorisation as themed or secured public
space is dependent on their specific functions. As indicated in Table 5.3, all four public spaces
can be classified in another way: the Schouwburgplein as cultural square, the Grote Markt as
parking square, the Oude Markt as café square, and the Markt as retail square. Figure 7.5 shows
large differences in their profiles. Not surprisingly, the café square rates high on the dimension
‘sidewalk cafés’, and the retail square high on ‘funshopping’. It is also not astonishing that the
cultural square has a high rating with respect to ‘events’. Neither is it remarkable that the noncommercial
square shows low ratings on almost all six dimensions. After all, these dimensions
were set up on the basis of observed trends in commercial urban public spaces. If the Grote
Markt is left out of the analysis, squares redeveloped by the public sector can mostly be
categorised as themed public spaces.
To what extent can the ratings on dimensions of fear and fantasy of a particular public space
be attributed to either its function or the involved actors? This question is difficult to answer.
As discussed above, function does seem to contribute to a particular outcome of the diagrams
(e.g., a high intensity on the dimension ‘event’ in case of the cultural square). Moreover, the
retail squares generally rate higher on ‘funshopping’ than the non-retail squares. However, the
public and private sector jointly redeveloped the majority of these retail squares; private-sector
involvement might thus account for this dominant funshopping rather than their function as
retail square. Yet how do we explain the identical profiles of the Markt in ’s-Hertogenbosch (a
157