Changing public space

and maintenance, while the workload and decision-making power are shared more equally with
respect to the other tasks. Supervisors, including architects and consultancy agencies, assisted the
local authorities in directing the redevelopment process of the Statenplein and Van Heekplein
(see Section 8.2.4), but the local government remained the main responsible actor. One of the
informants used a metaphor to explain this division of labour:
It is very simple: directing the redevelopment concerns everything; the contracts,
arranging the land positions, price negotiations, technical implementation, and process
control. Arranging supervision is also part of it. You could compare it to making a movie:
it [the redevelopment of the Van Heekplein] was a production with the local government as
producer and some co-producers for the surrounding buildings, with the municipality as
only director. Very simple, like the movies. (Public-sector representative II)
Even in the PPP research objects, the local government is thus still the main director. Its
responsibility for public space does not seem to have changed much despite the involvement of
the private sector. This also applies to the task to maintain public space after the redevelopment
is completed. Except for the Beurstraverse, the local government arranges and finances the
maintenance on its own. With regard to the design and finance, the private sector appears to be
more involved (see Table 8.3).
As described in Section 4.3, each of the players is described as a single actor for sake of simplicity,
although in reality they may consist of several departments each with their own objectives,
procedures and resources (Seip, 1999). However, an exception is made regarding the role of
aldermen. During the interviews, it became clear that these specific public-sector representatives
can play an important role in urban redevelopment. The overview of developments at the
Schouwburgplein, for example, showed that the alderman of spatial planning Joop Linthorst
played a decisive role in reviving the deadlocked discussions regarding the square’s future
(Section 6.2.2). Linthorst committed himself to reactivate a number of public space projects.
According to one of the informants, this level of engagement is risky yet required:
I believe in the friendly dictatorship of a couple of people that stick out their necks, take
responsibility and say: “that is what we are going to make, and I will convince the people
that it is necessary.” That’s the task of an alderman of spatial planning. ’s-Hertogenbosch
was only able to redevelop its centre because of Hans Dona [alderman in the 1980s and
1990s]. Smink [alderman in the period 1992-2006 in Groningen] was a similar personality.
But you also have aldermen who twaddle and never get down to business. (Designer I)
The aldermen of spatial planning involved in the PPP squares appear to fall in the first category
rather than the second. Joop Linthorst (Rotterdam) and Hans Dona (’s-Hertogenbosch) have
already been mentioned. Cok Sas was responsible for the redevelopment of the city centre in
Dordrecht. Because he served twelve years as alderman of spatial planning, Sas was a permanent
actor in the redevelopment process. He was convinced that Dordrecht city’s centre needed a
thorough upgrading and committed him to the project. In a similar vein, alderman Eric Helder
of Enschede was engaged in the redevelopment of the Van Heekplein:
Alderman Helder really did it himself. He stood in front of the town council to explain
that the redevelopment costs were once again higher than expected. The advisors [project
coordinators Twijnstra Gudde and DHV, see Table 8.1] could not do that for him. Without
alderman Helder and some others too…, there are a couple of people that make sure
such a project continues. (Private-sector representative I)
164