Changing public space

is not always aware of all these rules. When vendors of homeless newspapers first appeared in
the Beurstraverse, they were swiftly removed because this was not allowed (Bergenhenegouwen
& Van Weesep, 2003). Another incident occurred when a radio station reported live from
the Beurstraverse. The reporters were summoned to leave while they were on the air. Many
questions concerning the regulations in force in the Beurstraverse arose from these incidents.
To avoid future confrontations, the main house rules were listed at the entrance (Figure 8.1). It
is conceivable that the level of security at the Beurstraverse would have been even higher if the
local government had not participated in the consortium. The government set several conditions
to protect the public character of the complex: the area had to remain accessible to the public at
all times; it had to complement rather than compete with the adjacent retail clusters in the city
centre; and it had to serve as a portal for the metro (Bergenhenegouwen & Van Weesep, 2003).
These conditions have kept the Beurstraverse accessible at night (except for the underground
part). It would most likely have been closed off completely if the area had entirely been in private
hands.
However, at the Statenplein and Van Heekplein, the only limitation on access is their
transformation from parking space into pedestrian areas. Large parts of these two squares and
the Loeffplein cannot be closed off. They are only governed by the regular local ordinance and
there are no surveillance cameras. Consequently, they could not be categorised as secured public
space (see Figure 7.5). The involvement of the private sector thus does not automatically lead
to restricted access. Ownership proves to be an important explanatory factor. As discussed in
Section 1.2, there are various scales from public to private space. Department stores and malls are
private property but can be freely visited during opening hours. Malls differ from department
stores; they appear more accessible because they also entail publicly accessible space between the
shops. However, this space is also private and can thus be subject to regulation and surveillance.
In contrast, shopping streets or city squares are mostly owned and managed by the local
government, and should be accessible to all. When classifying the four PPP squares, the whole
Beurstraverse can be typified as a mall, even though it is not indoors and rather looks like a
sunken public street. Technically, the Beurstraverse is a private domain that the public is allowed
to use. In that sense, it is not strange that the consortium has set up rules such no cycling. After
all, people also do not bring their bikes into a department store. The confusion regarding the
Beurstraverse arises because the shopping street is blended into its surroundings; it has no roof
or doors to indicate the transition from public to private space. The same applies to the shopping
centre Arena. It looks like a public place due to its close connection to the Loeffplein and its
outdoor character, but it actually is a privately owned area. The shopping centres Drievriendenhof
(Statenplein) and Klanderij (Van Heekplein) cause less confusion, because these are indoors. The
stricter regulation and partial closure only apply to these adjacent, privately owned malls in the
‘walls’ of the squares. The squares themselves are publicly owned and not subject to more control,
even though the private sector was involved in the redevelopment. As one of the informants
stated: “No, the Statenplein is a public space; in principle everything can happen there that the
local government gives permission for. The investors have no influence on that …” (Public-sector
representative III).
During the interviews, both public and private actors generally agreed that private-sector
involvement only leads to more control in privately owned places. Many found this reasonable;
174