Changing public space

In addition to a longer duration, private-sector involvement could also lead to more compromises
in redevelopment processes. The PPP squares do not support this possible effect either. When
asked to specifically name a compromise in the redeveloped public spaces, most of the informants
could not think of one. The few concessions that were described were mainly due to the public
sector itself. At the Statenplein, for example, the tower of the Nieuwe Blok was originally
designed with one extra floor to turn it into a landmark of the city (Figure 8.3). However, the
municipal council was afraid the building would become too high and blocked the plan. A
public-sector representative was convinced that more compromises in ’s-Hertogenbosch arose
from discussions with preservation organisations and local committees than from actions by the
private sector. Most informants agreed that negotiations between the public and private sector
actually improve the quality of the redevelopment project, because discussions lead to creative
solutions and a better acknowledgement of each other’s standpoints. One actor clarified:
Imagine we [investment company] would own the whole city centre of ’s-Hertogenbosch.
Then we would do a number of things differently, about which we reached a compromise
now. Then we would, for example, have created more advertising space for the
shopkeepers at the Loeffplein. So now and then you have to make a compromise, but
I think that by co-operating like in ’s-Hertogenbosch or at the Beurstraverse, the final
product is better than when everybody would have worked individually. (Private-sector
representative V)
A majority of the informants shared this feeling, which leads to the conclusion that the
involvement of the private sector in the redevelopment of public space neither leads to longer
processes nor to compromises.
8.4 Conclusions
More than ten years ago, Reijndorp and Nio concluded that the Dutch private sector restricted
its investments to semi-public spaces such as passages, arcades, and the immediate surroundings
of shops and offices. In addition, they claimed that public-private partnerships only lead to
private investment in public space when the redevelopment is part of a large-scale urban renewal
strategy (Reijndorp & Nio, 1996). The situation does not appear to have changed all that much.
The preceding sections have shown that the level and effects of private-sector involvement
differ among the four PPP research objects. The Beurstraverse is a unique retail project in the
Netherlands. Several of its characteristics were rather unknown at the end of the 1990s, such as
the large involvement of developer Multi, the ‘private’ role of the public sector, and the high level
of control in publicly accessible space. The result is deemed a success with many daily visitors who
evaluate the Beurstraverse very positively (Section 6.2.3). Nevertheless, there are few imitations
in other Dutch city centres; none of the projects in the other three case-study cities resembles
the Beurstraverse. It is true that the private sector has played a role in the redevelopment of the
Statenplein, Van Heekplein, and Loeffplein. However, it was limited to designing and developing
the buildings rather than financing or managing public space (Table 8.3). The direct financial
contribution in the development of the Beurstraverse has not been copied in the other PPP
squares, where the private sector only contributed by purchasing municipal land. Similarly, it did
not become involved in the management of these three public spaces after the redevelopment
was completed.
179