Changing public space

for the construction of the new Bijenkorf department store, but also the extension of the existing
V&D, and the Klanderij shopping centre. The outdated police station located at the Loeffplein
was demolished and the vacant site was sold to the private sector in order to create the shopping
centre Arena. In all three redevelopment projects, the transaction yield was reinvested in the
surrounding public space. However, the interviewed public-sector representatives emphasised
that this did not prove to be sufficient. Additional municipal budgets were necessary to
supplement the costs of redeveloping public space.
The informants have been asked if they thought private-sector involvement had increased the
available budget for the redevelopment of the four projects. The answers differed per project and
per group of actors (public versus private sector). With regard to the Beurstraverse, all actors
acknowledged the importance of the financial contribution of the private sector. This is not very
surprising, since the private sector did directly pay for the costs of the design and management
of public space through the consortium. The actors involved in the other three PPP projects were
not unanimous. Representatives of the public sector mostly disagreed, stating that the public
sector fully financed the project. With regard to the Van Heekplein, one of them commented:
We don’t regard the money received from the sale of the land as an increase in resources.
Obviously, it is part of the same plan exploitation, but you don’t call that an increase in
resources. There have not been specific contributions from the side of the developers.
(Public-sector representative II)
On the other hand, almost all representatives of the private sector claimed to have financially
contributed to the redevelopment. One of the private actors involved in the same project argued:
We have contributed via the price of the land. The local government always thinks that
they pay for it, but that’s by the grace of the land price. If you don’t have a viable project,
then the land price is zero. From that perspective, the private parties do contribute. The
land price increases because we develop a site, give it a function. The authorities have
always had the tendency to see that as their own money, but it is money raised from
the market. And then we can discuss: has enough money been raised? That’s a different
discussion, as we have indeed not directly paid for all the paving stones. (Private-sector
representative III)
The private sector is convinced that it made a financial contribution, while the public sector
disagrees. Apparently, the public and private sector have different interpretations of the indirect
financial contribution of the private sector via the sale of the land. While the general idea is that
public space of good quality increases the value of the surrounding property (Section 4.3.2), the
argument is now turned around by the private sector: buildings of good quality increase the value
of the adjacent public space. The investment of the private sector in buildings is thought to have
positive externalities for the surrounding public space. The private sector feels it boosts the value
of public space by buying municipal land, without really making a direct financial contribution to
the refurbishment of public space. The difference in definition is important to emphasise, because
it could hamper the communication between the public and private sector.
Overall, it can be concluded that the financial contribution by the private sector remains fairly
limited, as the direct contribution to the development of the Beurstraverse has not been copied
in the other three PPP projects. However, the private sector’s contribution to the redevelopment
budget should not be downplayed, despite the lack of direct equity investment in public space:
172