Changing public space

Blank (2007) does not expect that the involvement of the private sector in the redevelopment
of Dutch public space will increase in the near future. She argues that the private sector would
particularly be attracted to more dilapidated urban areas, where the difference between the
current and potential land value (the ‘rent gap’ – Smith, 1996) is most extensive. However, the
rent gap tends to be limited in the Netherlands. Consequently, the value increase of Dutch
redevelopment projects is never extremely high and therefore does not induce the private sector
to become highly involved in public-space redevelopment on a voluntary basis.
The relatively limited involvement of the private sector can also be ascribed to the behaviour
of the local government. The local authorities of Dordrecht, Enschede, and ’s-Hertogenbosch
have in fact co-operated in several public-private partnerships. ’s-Hertogenbosch was actually
one of the first Dutch cities in which the public sector participated as risk sharing actor along
with the private sector in the development of new office and residential areas such as the
Petlapark and the Paleiskwartier (Bruil et al., 2004; Section 6.5.1). It thus had the experience of
co-operating with the private sector, but chose to do so only limitedly at the Loeffplein because
it was able to redesign the public space through the transaction yield of the police-office site, and
did not require more involvement of the private sector. Another informant explained why the
local government prefers to engage the private sector in redevelopment projects at the city’s edge
(e.g., in new residential areas or business parks) rather than in the city centre:
There are a number of residential neighbourhoods in Enschede that are being
redeveloped. We have considerable debates with housing associations about who is
responsible for public space – also financially. That’s a financial necessity, because we
[the local government] cannot pull off the redevelopment on our own. Sometimes the
association finances half of the public space or manages it, but I believe that is justified
because public space there is to a large extent part of the residential environment. But
if you talk about a city centre where everybody comes to, not only residents but also
visitors, that’s pre-eminently public space. That should be for everybody, should literally
be publicly accessible. I find that a public responsibility. I would find it very undesirable
if municipal authorities would refrain from this responsibility. Then you soon get an
atmosphere of semi-public space, fences appear, and so on. (Public-sector representative
VII)
The notion of urban public space that is used by and accessible to all (in contrast to residential
areas that are only frequently used by residents) is prevalent and seems to oppose extensive
private-sector involvement in Dutch city centres. But there are more reasons why the example
set by the Beurstraverse has not been followed in the redevelopment of the other three PPP
squares. According to a private-sector representative, it is also related to the dismissive attitude
of the local government, which still holds on to its traditional role of director and refuses to mix
private involvement and public interests. He regretted this way of thinking, because a successful
redevelopment of public space does not only depend on urban planning by the municipality, but
also on market knowledge of shopping, walking routes, etcetera. A representative of the public
sector stated that most other Dutch cities are not capable of imitating the Beurstraverse, because
they lack the required professionalism and pro-business attitude:
If you are a local government and you have never done such a project, it will become
difficult. Because you do not only have troubles getting it through the municipal council,
but you also lack competent people to do the job. (Public-sector representative VIII)
180