Changing public space

They were all refuted until V&D and developer Multi came with a new plan to redevelop the
square in 1993. From that moment onwards, it took ten years to discuss, design, and construct
the new Statenplein. The redevelopment of the Van Heekplein was also preceded by a number
of plans that were never brought to completion. However, after the final decision was made, the
actual time between the first plans (1997) and opening of the square (2003) was not that long.
The redevelopment of the Loeffplein was even shorter; the square was reopened in 1998 after
approximately six years of negotiations and construction. The redevelopment of the Beursplein
area took about ten years from the first proposals to the actual realisation. The PPP squares thus
show that the discussions about redevelopment can last for decades. However, once the actual
team of responsible actors is formed the process may take about six to ten years. It is debatable
whether this is a long period. As one of our informants argued:
What is long? It is always good to put it in perspective. There have been phases in our
history in which things went very fast; the post-war reconstruction period, and when the
rivers nearly flooded we raised all dikes in three years time. Then it was possible. But in
general, radical urban projects have been matters of decades, sometimes even centuries.
(Private-sector representative IV)
The question is also whether the duration of six to ten years can be blamed on the increased
involvement of the private sector. One informant affirmed that having more involved parties
implies a longer duration, but that this is unrelated to the actors being public or private. Some
even emphasised that the private sector is not delaying but enabling redevelopment, because it
takes the initiative or has the required knowledge and investments, without which redevelopment
would not be possible in the first place. Moreover, the private sector is better capable of obtaining
the required property of people who do not want to participate. The local government cannot
easily perform this task, as it essentially has to serve all of its inhabitants. Other informants
emphasised that it is rather the local government than the private sector that is responsible for
long processes. One proclaimed: “Nearly always, I’m not sure if it’s 100 per cent, but then at least
in 99.9 per cent of the cases the municipality causes the delays …” (Public-sector representative
V). This can be ascribed to regulation becoming more complicated. For example, the legislation
regarding the increase of fine particles due to redevelopment has led to a standstill of many
Dutch upgrading projects, including Achterom/Bagijnhof, the area south of the Statenplein
in Dordrecht (Section 6.3.1). Moreover, the internal procedures of local authorities are often
time-consuming, including for example permitting and the co-operation between different
departments. In addition, municipal authorities often involve local entrepreneurs and residents
in the decision-making process to legitimise their policies. In many Dutch cities, such as in
Groningen and Nijmegen, this has led to referendums in which the residents could vote for a
particular design for the central square of the city. These issues can all lengthen processes of
redevelopment:
The duration of processes is absolutely increasing, but it has a different cause [than
the involvement of the private sector]. In my view, it is related to the fact that the whole
society has become more complex. Everything involves more discussion and people
become more assertive. Everybody has a neighbour or uncle who is lawyer. They easily
write a letter and people utilise their rights in spatial planning procedures. The regulation
is much more complicated, fine particles problems did not exist two or three years ago.
Everything has become more complex. (Private-sector representative III)
177