Changing public space

they argued that property owners are simply entitled to impose rules on access and behaviour
in private areas even if they are publicly accessible. The stricter regulation and surveillance at
the Beurstraverse, Drievriendenhof, Klanderij, and Arena are thus generally accepted. There was
also consensus that more control is not necessarily bad and does not restrict the accessibility per
se. According to a private actor, control discourages excesses such as vandalism, and therefore
prevents areas from being closed off: loss of control eventually leads to more rigorous measures
to limit access, such as (partial) closure. Although other actors did not express this argument,
most agreed that when stricter control has been put in place, this is a minor side effect of a major
improvement. As one of them commented:
If you ask an average person from Rotterdam what he thinks about the Beurstraverse,
he will say it is fantastic. I believe that you have to look very hard to find a single user
who feels controlled or restricted in his freedom of action in that area. (Public-sector
representative IV)
In addition, one of the informants emphasised that more control in one area is not bad as long as
there are other areas that are widely accessible:
As long as there are places where everybody is allowed to come and where everybody can
gaze at each other, entertain and even disturb each other, it is understandable that there
are also places that – because they fulfil particular functions – exclude certain elements.
(Designer II)
The involvement of the private sector thus restricts accessibility of space due to a mix of (partial)
closure, surveillance, and a stronger regulation of public space but mostly in enclosed malls that
are private property. Outside such areas, public spaces are still in public ownership. The private
sector’s participation in the redevelopment process has not made these areas less accessible.
8.3.3 Coherence
The third possible effect derived from the literature is that the involvement of the private sector
leads to more coherence between public space and the built environment. The four PPP squares
confirm this effect. Each was based on a comprehensive master plan that integrated buildings
and public space. T+T Design was responsible for most of these plans. The exception was the
Van Heekplein, which was redeveloped after a plan by West 8 but that also largely drew on
T+T’s earlier master plan. Separate architects and landscape architects were responsible for
designing the new buildings and public spaces, but their designs were frequently discussed in
meetings between the local government, developers, investors, and architects. At the Loeffplein,
coherence was effectuated because landscape architect Beth Galí, who was appointed to design
public space, was also given the opportunity to design the Stoa (Section 6.5.3). The result is a
square that is very well connected to one of its walls (Figure 8.2). In case of the Statenplein and
Van Heekplein, a supervisor was appointed to oversee if the design of the buildings and public
space were not conflicting and were carried out according to the master plan.
Almost unanimously, the interviewed informants agreed upon the private sector’s positive
influence on the coherence between buildings and public space. Because developers and investors
acknowledge that good public space increases the value of their property, they are not only
interested in the design of the buildings but also in the surrounding public space. One informant
explained:
175