Changing public space

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
In a similar vein, one informant emphasised the difficult judicial issues that needed to be solved to set up the consortium and arrange property rights: “In terms of legal arrangements, it [the Beursplein] was a daring exploit because it was so complicated and intricate …” (Public-sector representative IX). Private-sector involvement in urban development projects thus requires substantial knowledge and the willingness to co-operate on the part of both the public and the private sector. If this is lacking or when there is distrust or miscommunication among the actors (e.g., as a result of the different interpretations of the financial contribution of the private sector discussed in Section 8.3.1), the possibility of successful PPP redevelopment projects in Dutch public space remains limited. 181
Page 1 and 2:
Changing public space The recent re
Page 3 and 4:
Changing public space
Page 5 and 6:
Netherlands Geographical Studies 37
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Figures 9 Tables 11 Voorwo
Page 9 and 10:
7 Fear and fantasy in the cases 147
Page 11 and 12:
Figures 1.1 Outline of the thesis 2
Page 13 and 14:
Tables 2.1 Development of European
Page 15 and 16:
Voorwoord Al reizend ervaart men he
Page 17 and 18:
1 Changing role of public space in
Page 19 and 20:
23 per cent of the geographical pub
Page 21 and 22:
Mentzel (1993: 104):* the place whe
Page 23 and 24:
home country but also evaluate publ
Page 25 and 26:
1. How have the design and manageme
Page 27 and 28:
and agency as complementary forces
Page 29 and 30:
of public space, it could also make
Page 31 and 32:
2 Development and typology of Dutch
Page 33 and 34:
periods, the table illustrates the
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 2.1 The Vismarkt (fish marke
Page 37 and 38:
1985 on behest of the communist lea
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 2.2 Neude in Utrecht in 1989
Page 41 and 42:
(Prak, 2002; Meyer et al., 2006). B
Page 43 and 44:
ecause its situation has altered th
Page 45 and 46:
connection can also be less clear-c
Page 47 and 48:
can also explain why certain square
Page 49 and 50:
3 Current trends in the design and
Page 51 and 52:
Figure 3.1 Sign of CCTV in Barcelon
Page 53 and 54:
easy access (Lofland, 1998). This c
Page 55 and 56:
how entertainment has gone through
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 3.2 The Beestenmarkt in Delf
Page 59 and 60:
Dynamics in production structures
Page 61 and 62:
surveillance cameras, their operato
Page 63 and 64:
at redeveloped derelict sites that
Page 65 and 66:
4 Private-sector involvement in the
Page 67 and 68:
urban policy in the 1980s after an
Page 69 and 70:
(1989) defines as the transformatio
Page 71 and 72:
3. A shift from public sector to pr
Page 73 and 74:
through a blend of architectural de
Page 75 and 76:
4.3.1 Role and objectives of local
Page 77 and 78:
uildings and to emphasise that they
Page 79 and 80:
increase in the number of rules or
Page 81 and 82:
for the dispossessed, which Mitchel
Page 83 and 84:
process (i.e., longer duration, mor
Page 85 and 86:
5 Research design and methodology I
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 5.1 Cultural square: Museump
Page 89 and 90:
(Slager, 2007). There are also hybr
Page 91 and 92:
5.2.2 Inventory of Dutch city squar
Page 93 and 94:
Table 5.3 Research objects in the n
Page 95 and 96:
Appendix C consists of an interview
Page 97 and 98:
concepts have been specified in six
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 5.7 Permanent stage on the G
Page 101 and 102:
6 Urban policy and spatial structur
Page 103 and 104:
document to stimulate the diversifi
Page 105 and 106:
six museums in the area, which were
Page 107 and 108:
emphasises the need for well-connec
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 6.2 Schouwburgplein Central
Page 111 and 112:
Table 6.3 Timeline of developments
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 6.4 Beurstraverse Bijenkorf
Page 115 and 116:
Table 6.4 Policies and changes in p
Page 117 and 118:
The Spuiboulevard was the first pro
Page 119 and 120:
Table 6.5 Timeline of developments
Page 121 and 122:
is unclear when the real redevelopm
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 6.9 Statenplein Scheffersple
Page 125 and 126:
success to a strong project leader,
Page 127 and 128:
6.4.1 Policy and structure in Ensch
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 6.12 Oude Markt 7021 Stadsgr
Page 131 and 132: the market. However, the market ass
Page 133 and 134: etail stores. The Van Heekplein thu
Page 135 and 136: After all actors were involved and
Page 137 and 138: government realised it needed to pr
Page 139 and 140: compared to 36 per cent in 2000. Th
Page 141 and 142: this therefore also includes the Pe
Page 143 and 144: Figure 6.19 Loeffplein Bloemenkamp
Page 145 and 146: Loeffplein and the Stoa (Figure 6.1
Page 147 and 148: problems). In addition, it appointe
Page 149 and 150: 7 Fear and fantasy in the cases 7.1
Page 151 and 152: cafés. The members of the consorti
Page 153 and 154: esidential square located outside t
Page 155 and 156: also perceive it that way; they eva
Page 157 and 158: comprised of many stores with a ‘
Page 159 and 160: actors involved in the cases in mor
Page 161 and 162: confirms the work of several author
Page 163 and 164: 8 Private-sector involvement in the
Page 165 and 166: 8.2.1 Role and objectives of the lo
Page 167 and 168: Discussions during the focus group
Page 169 and 170: and investors hardly contribute to
Page 171 and 172: the architects responsible for the
Page 173 and 174: 2) a decrease in the free access of
Page 175 and 176: There is also a compulsive pressure
Page 177 and 178: they argued that property owners ar
Page 179 and 180: They were all refuted until V&D and
Page 181: In addition to a longer duration, p
Page 185 and 186: 9 Conclusions, reflections, and imp
Page 187 and 188: were laid out in the 1950s as parts
Page 189 and 190: ‘supply side’. This includes th
Page 191 and 192: Van Heekplein (i.e., Foruminvest, H
Page 193 and 194: edevelopment of the PPP squares was
Page 195 and 196: more restricted due to private-sect
Page 197 and 198: Glossary Chief Government Architect
Page 199 and 200: Appendix A Interviews and focus gro
Page 201 and 202: Table A.5 Case-study interviews on
Page 203 and 204: (1) (2) (3) City a Population b Nam
Page 205 and 206: 2. Object: changes in the design an
Page 207 and 208: Capacities: Role of investor Respon
Page 209 and 210: Table E.2 Main Dutch investors invo
Page 211 and 212: Samenvatting Veranderende openbare
Page 213 and 214: Beurstraverse. Het Van Heekplein in
Page 215 and 216: in hun eigendom, maar ook in de rui
Page 217 and 218: uimte leiden. Tenslotte kunnen de b
Page 219 and 220: References Aarts, M., ed. (1995), E
Page 221 and 222: Burgers, J. (2003), De historische
Page 223 and 224: Gemeente Enschede (1999), H.J. van
Page 225 and 226: Ibelings, H. (2004), Geprivatiseerd
Page 227 and 228: Mitchell, D. (2001), Postmodern geo
Page 229 and 230: Rishbeth, C. & N. Finney (2006), No
Page 231 and 232: Van de Wiel, J. (1996), De winkelfu
Page 233 and 234:
Curriculum vitae Rianne van Melik w
Page 235 and 236:
NEDERLANDSE GEOGRAFISCHE STUDIES /
show all

Changing public space

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?